ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[dante2308]

Furthermore is seems like people have zero faith in the civil and mechanical engineering abilities of our nation and zero will to innovate or attempt anything new. Light rail is not a practical solution to traffic capacity issues in a developed sprawling auto-based city.

As it is, a comparative city like Dallas has 42 miles of light rail, no heavy rail and manages 58,000 riders in a metropolitan area of nearly 7 million. While I'm actually for light rail, it isn't a commuter solution, it is a tool for urbanization and one that only leverages gains during a period of massive gentrification and population growth in the core. MARTA heavy rail has dozens of stations waiting for TOD so there isn't a comparative benefit as the vast majority of commuters or more of the people depend on highway-based longer range commutes to areas dozens of miles away.

[cwkimbro]

I'm sorry, but for Atlanta this would just be a pipe-dream/gimmick. Also, the lack of understanding between transit planning and urban planning as a whole is just downright problematic.... especially when spend money on this magnitude (for any of the options we are talking about)

You talk about the bus-only lanes, but ignored the part of the comment where I said HOT lanes, which we are already starting to to build. Also, widening the highway to include a single bus only lanes, despite the lack of potential capacity for SOV under HOT use, would easily be cheaper then building the overhead bus on the freeway. Minneapolis has an interesting program where they expanded the shoulder by a few feet to make a hybrid emergency shoulder-bus only lane. Personally, I like the HOT lanes idea better myself.

If ground buses can operate at speeds averaging 45-50mph, then we are already better off investing our money to enhance that and add buses and multiple point to point routes.

There are still too many safety issues not being addressed as well.

There is also something funny about the height of the vehicle itself... 4.4 to 4.5m high and it provides a 2.2m clearance for cars underneath. A 7.2ft clearance would never fly with federal DOT requirements and there would be too many problems with people thinking they can fit under it...when they can't. Also.. this only leaves 7.2ft to build the floor and roof of the passenger compartment and have room for the people to stand and walk through. Once you did that it wouldn't offer much standing room for our population. I'm 6'1' and there are tons of people taller than me. If built here it would have to be taller.

It is still too slow.

Also, -most- rail expansions proposed in Atlanta follow rail corridors, which decrease the expenses of building overpasses and bridges greatly.

Land values matter!

Look at the belt line. Developers would not build Transit-Oriented-Development if people did not desire to be there. This is important for many reasons. Desire raises land values, which increases the tax-digest for the cities/counties. This in turns helps fund upkeep of the areas near the transit corridors. This is especially important when the best funding mechanisms we have these days for transit expansion are directly related to increasing land values (use of TADs and CIDs)

You do things to raise the quality of life... and it raises land values... which brings in more developers... which enhances tax-digests... and allows the area to maintain better quality of life, transit, schools, parks, etc...

Everything is interlinked in urban planning.

If you focus just on building something and ignore everything else, then we go back to the same problems we had before with sprawl, people moving out of the central city, crippling infrastructure in the central city, while there is new infrastructure build on the exurban fringe.


Now, if you are worried about direct cost-of-living values, like how much is rent and the cost of buying a home... Those costs are still kept under control, but usually through a increase in density. A building that holds 50 units instead of 10 on the same plot of land will make the tax-digest for that piece of land much more valuable. Other ideas, like the beltline is using, is setting aside 15% of funds to use to subsidizing in mixed-income developments.

That aside... there is usually a positive correlation between land-values and quality of life.

Also, if you wanted to play the... I only care about suburbanites card for regional only commuting. Commuter rail would be more efficient and effective. It would be cheaper and easier to implement on existing rail corridors and offer direct access to a wider amount of suburban/exurban communities in Atlanta. Not to mention it would do more to alleviate traffic off of arterial streets near freeways, since most rail corridors aren't directly along side our freeways. Gwinnett Co. is a great example. The rail corridors or several miles away from the freeway.

Don't get me wrong... I am happy to see people thinking outside the box, but there are just too many issues with this concept for the Atlanta region.

[dante2308]

HOT lanes are also not traffic solutions. I'm firmly against them. Also widening a shoulder is not a solution. When a car is on said shoulder (every half mile it seems) it becomes ineffective. I see no reason for people to have a way to buy their way out of traffic when each lane cost the exact same amount. It does not change the fact of capacity, it is only a disincentive to try to use the lane. That's a personal choice of course and has nothing to do with the overhead bus. It frankly doesn't matter right here if the lanes were HOV or HOT. Neither have to do with mass transit.

The height of the vehicle isn't determined and you can easily make the lanes sedan only. Indicate "sedan only" with flashing lights. Advertise fines, ticket people who disobey, and after all that, have the bus labeled and come to a stop should someone violate the sedan only rule.

The speed of the Chinese model is limited because it is solar powered and aims for zero emissions. It specifically states that a bus system averages 12 miles per hour. Furthermore there is no reason this cannot average a higher speed than a bus and provide a tangible benefit during a high traffic time.

As for land values, again, TODs don't even pay for transit. We use sales tax, so it is based on consumption, not property taxes. So if your land value were to skyrocket, that would only charge you a higher property tax amount, destroy your disposable income, and reduce your consumption, thereby reducing the amount you pay in the form of sales tax. Some people would be priced out of the area completely. Furthermore is would reduce the profit margin of stores in the area and reduce their income tax AND sales tax allocation. In addition to the higher operating costs and lower profit margin of anyone who dares to locate their business on high valued land. The property taxes would go to the state and city I suppose, but it doesn't help the economy to arbitrarily tax a person more and have them consume less.

TADs are a funny little thing. I'm sure lots of you would like more parks and such and great, get a bunch of developers together and make a nice area, but as I said, MARTA already has several transit-oriented areas that are undeveloped. Develop those, hell even build light rail in loops around the CBD. Nothing is stopping a person from building nice apartment units on lower valued land. In fact that's what Atlanta is, all of it is low value compared to other city analogues. Just zone what you want. I DO NOT support subsidized housing.

More importantly who cares? I'm talking about commuter and traffic issues. No one is stopping you from building a million light rail lines or a million parks surrounded by a million trendy apartments no one's job allows them to afford. Neither will solve the traffic issue on the highways. Atlanta's population will just go up as opposed to down and more people will be on the highways.

The commuter rail is fine, but the argument that it doesn't follow the highway means that it doesn't follow the major employment corridors as any company with a brain would locate in an area that has good access to the highway. Feeding the highway route with the street bus system is no issue at all so everyone can have access if that's what you're worried about. I've seen all the lines for commuter rail and estimates that each will divert as many as 8,000 people off the highway per day.

Not a solution.

Then there is the bigger area that NO ONE seems to be addressing. The area of addressing industrial, employment, and economical concerns. Questions like "how do we make Atlanta a better manufacturing hub?" or "how do we reduce operating costs for companies to attract employers?" are just ignored. In fact everything you suggested seems to do the exact opposite. The intra-metro and interstate transportation infrastructure needs to be obstruction free. It does not need to jammed from now to eternity while a marginal number of people jam some other form of transportation. It needs to be clear, it needs to have the reputation of being clear, and it needs to be addressed now.

It seems the only remaining issue you brought up was the height and getting DOT approval. Sedan only aside, those issues are far less than the issues surrounding rail and I have nothing against rail, but it IS NOT A SOLUTION. Especially if you want to create rail as an excuse to tipple the population density.

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Furthermore is seems like people have zero faith in the civil and mechanical engineering abilities of our nation and zero will to innovate or attempt anything new. Light rail is not a practical solution to traffic capacity issues in a developed sprawling auto-based city.

As it is, a comparative city like Dallas has 42 miles of light rail, no heavy rail and manages 58,000 riders in a metropolitan area of nearly 7 million. While I'm actually for light rail, it isn't a commuter solution, it is a tool for urbanization and one that only leverages gains during a period of massive gentrification and population growth in the core. MARTA heavy rail has dozens of stations waiting for TOD so there isn't a comparative benefit as the vast majority of commuters or more of the people depend on highway-based longer range commutes to areas dozens of miles away.

It's not the engineering I don't have faith in, it's the drivers. If we have this many accidents/fatalities each day with the highway as is, can you see how a "leg with wheels" barreling down the interstate in between two lanes of traffic will cause problems? Collosal waste of money.

[dante2308]

Treating the American people as stupid children will lead to our downfall. Do it too long and we will become stupid children.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

HOT lanes are also not traffic solutions. I'm firmly against them. Also widening a shoulder is not a solution. When a car is on said shoulder (every half mile it seems) it becomes ineffective. I see no reason for people to have a way to buy their way out of traffic when each lane cost the exact same amount. It does not change the fact of capacity, it is only a disincentive to try to use the lane. That's a personal choice of course and has nothing to do with the overhead bus. It frankly doesn't matter right here if the lanes were HOV or HOT. Neither have to do with mass transit.

The height of the vehicle isn't determined and you can easily make the lanes sedan only. Indicate "sedan only" with flashing lights. Advertise fines, ticket people who disobey, and after all that, have the bus labeled and come to a stop should someone violate the sedan only rule.

The speed of the Chinese model is limited because it is solar powered and aims for zero emissions. It specifically states that a bus system averages 12 miles per hour. Furthermore there is no reason this cannot average a higher speed than a bus and provide a tangible benefit during a high traffic time.

As for land values, again, TODs don't even pay for transit. We use sales tax, so it is based on consumption, not property taxes. So if your land value were to skyrocket, that would only charge you a higher property tax amount, destroy your disposable income, and reduce your consumption, thereby reducing the amount you pay in the form of sales tax. Some people would be priced out of the area completely. Furthermore is would reduce the profit margin of stores in the area and reduce their income tax AND sales tax allocation. In addition to the higher operating costs and lower profit margin of anyone who dares to locate their business on high valued land. The property taxes would go to the state and city I suppose, but it doesn't help the economy to arbitrarily tax a person more and have them consume less.

TADs are a funny little thing. I'm sure lots of you would like more parks and such and great, get a bunch of developers together and make a nice area, but as I said, MARTA already has several transit-oriented areas that are undeveloped. Develop those, hell even build light rail in loops around the CBD. Nothing is stopping a person from building nice apartment units on lower valued land. In fact that's what Atlanta is, all of it is low value compared to other city analogues. Just zone what you want. I DO NOT support subsidized housing.

More importantly who cares? I'm talking about commuter and traffic issues. No one is stopping you from building a million light rail lines or a million parks surrounded by a million trendy apartments no one's job allows them to afford. Neither will solve the traffic issue on the highways. Atlanta's population will just go up as opposed to down and more people will be on the highways.

The commuter rail is fine, but the argument that it doesn't follow the highway means that it doesn't follow the major employment corridors as any company with a brain would locate in an area that has good access to the highway. Feeding the highway route with the street bus system is no issue at all so everyone can have access if that's what you're worried about. I've seen all the lines for commuter rail and estimates that each will divert as many as 8,000 people off the highway per day.

Not a solution.

Then there is the bigger area that NO ONE seems to be addressing. The area of addressing industrial, employment, and economical concerns. Questions like "how do we make Atlanta a better manufacturing hub?" or "how do we reduce operating costs for companies to attract employers?" are just ignored. In fact everything you suggested seems to do the exact opposite. The intra-metro and interstate transportation infrastructure needs to be obstruction free. It does not need to jammed from now to eternity while a marginal number of people jam some other form of transportation. It needs to be clear, it needs to have the reputation of being clear, and it needs to be addressed now.

It seems the only remaining issue you brought up was the height and getting DOT approval. Sedan only aside, those issues are far less than the issues surrounding rail and I have nothing against rail, but it IS NOT A SOLUTION. Especially if you want to create rail as an excuse to tipple the population density.

See... I'm sorry, but your already starting to make holes in your original argument. First there is plenty of clearance with bridges and a 4.4m tall vehicle... and now there is a concession that we don't even know how tall the vehicle would need to be here. It would easily need to be taller than 4.4m/14.7ft for a city like Atlanta.

And Again... I can not state enough how much you are not tying together urban planning and transit planning.... not to mention economic realities.

You can't just develop cheap land to make it whatever you want. You must do something to foster demand for the area. The beltline adds parks, trails, and promises transit to do this. This makes people -want- to live there. Then, and only then, does it become feasible to build housing for more people that are willing to pay for it.

You are still ignoring the fact that a TAD works by collecting money from creating a change to -increase- property values. If you want to get into effects on sales tax... When Atlanta was a city of 400,000 people and 400,000 jobs it clearly would collect less in sales than a city with 500,000 people, 500,000 jobs and growing. You can expand this to be Fulton and Dekalb Counties or the whole 10-county ARC metro area, but transit by nature of what it does helps increase density, which leads to an increase of tax collections.

I live in the suburbs and even the town I live in has planned how to use a commuter rail station to increase density by creating a "town center" atmosphere with higher priced town houses and homes on smaller plots that want to take advantage of walking to the station. This change allows more people to be able to live in that area and increase property values, sales tax collections, and potential TAD tax collections to enhance the quality of life in the area.

Don't be so dismissive of TOD when they are apart of TADs like the beltline district. The beltline was designed to be fully funded by the TAD and federal subsidies within 25 years (not taking the recession into account... so it will end up needing to be readjusted a few years).

And I'm sorry you don't seem to understand HOT lanes. I thought as a man that likes to look at statistics of how many cars can pass a single point on a freeway at a given time would have an easier time understanding how they work.

Your highway stats. only hold up as long as traffic is moving. Once it hits that point of critical mass the number of cars passing a single point drastically falls, unless you create a scheme that allows some lanes to keep moving. Whether or not you like the methods, this is what a HOT lane does. It keeps one or two lanes moving, even if the others don't. So yea... HOT lanes do increase capacity of a freeway when it hits the critical mass point that causes congestion. Most importantly it gives a lane where buses can keep moving, which negates the whole reason for having an expensive raised bus on the freeway.

I think you need to spend some time studying how different ideas that are currently viable, proven options actually work and what there real pros and cons are before being so dismissive of them. Especially before supporting what is otherwise a really expensive, unproven alternative option.


With that said... I'm done arguing this point. You already have negated some of your original arguments and you have failed to adequately address (or even understand) a number of mine. I will leave it to third parties to read what you wrote and read what I wrote to form their own opinions.



Anyways... moving forward does anyone have anything more constructive to talk about maybe relating to Concept 3 ? (http://www.ncppp.org/publications/Tr...ct%20Sheet.pdf)

[dante2308]

Well that was disrespectful. I'd point out the many holes in almost everything you said, but you aren't willing to listen. I think you probably should have done some actual research before dismissing the straddling bus. If you wont hear it and you are going to make this personal, then I would rather have a more productive discourse with someone else.

But I'll repeat, there is a glaring hole in almost every sentence in your post if you aren't afraid to hear them.

[Pessimistic Observer]

lets just agree to disagree and we can reevaluate the straddling bus and light rail this time next year.

[dante2308]

Clearly. I have no intention to have another person agree or any predisposition to force myself to disagree, but rather my goal is to exchange information, ideas, and opinions.

It has become clear that rail system expansion plans are deliberately killed by the powers that be to the point that they are mere fantasy. The closer a system is to fruition, the more energy the opposition puts into killing it and every single time, they seem to win.

This has gone on for so long that proposals from several decades ago are still being fought for as if they were new ideas. As the environment is such that the same proposals don't have a better chance of passing with time, perhaps, at the very least, a new and better proposal should be considered in the future.

[delarosa]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Anyways... moving forward does anyone have anything more constructive to talk about maybe relating to Concept 3 ? (http://www.ncppp.org/publications/Tr...ct%20Sheet.pdf)

I'm still curious about the Marietta St. segment of the streetcar and am wondering if any local planners and/or insiders to the process have any insights to share.

I know it's embodied in Concept 3, at least in some form. From an intown development and local transit perspective, it seems like this (extending the soon to be loop up Marietta St->west side->Atlantic Station) would be a savvy choice for the next round of expansion. However, I am admittedly not a transportation engineer, so I am curious to hear any informed technical views on why, say, the Peachtree segment is the better choice. Not to say that it ought not be a strong driver, but it seems like the push for that segment is driven by a coalition of local businesses, BIDs and Peachtree-mania.

I'm also curious about the decision for where the hypothetical expansion will be made and the process. If the city owns the assets and MARTA will be responsible for operations, it's seems clear the ultimate decision will be made there, presumably under the aegis of it's planning arms and TPB, with recommendations and support coming from orgs like ARC and the local BIDs. Does anyone with first hand knowledge of the process willing to share: 1. is this generally accurate, 2. any more specifics on the process for prioritizing a hypothetical expansion and 3. has there to date been any public discussion or is there any realistic chance that such a downtown<->west side<->AS route would take precedence?

Thanks.

[(four 0 four)]

From the GDOT website about High Speed Rail between ATL and Chattanooga:

Public Information Meetings in November!
You are invited to attend a public information meeting to better understand the travel opportunities for the corridor, and provide your opinion on the potential high speed ground transportation alternatives to connect Atlanta to Chattanooga. With your help GDOT and its partners hope to create a long-term plan that will increase travel choices and access in this critical part of the southeast region. Please make an effort to attend one of the three meetings planned in November. We need your input.

Atlanta, GA
Tuesday, November 9
St. Mark United
Methodist Church
781 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Fellowship Hall
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
(presentation at 6:30PM)


The church is located on the east side of Peachtree between 4th and 5th Streets.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by delarosa

I'm still curious about the Marietta St. segment of the streetcar and am wondering if any local planners and/or insiders to the process have any insights to share.

I know it's embodied in Concept 3, at least in some form. From an intown development and local transit perspective, it seems like this (extending the soon to be loop up Marietta St->west side->Atlantic Station) would be a savvy choice for the next round of expansion. However, I am admittedly not a transportation engineer, so I am curious to hear any informed technical views on why, say, the Peachtree segment is the better choice. Not to say that it ought not be a strong driver, but it seems like the push for that segment is driven by a coalition of local businesses, BIDs and Peachtree-mania.

I'm also curious about the decision for where the hypothetical expansion will be made and the process. If the city owns the assets and MARTA will be responsible for operations, it's seems clear the ultimate decision will be made there, presumably under the aegis of it's planning arms and TPB, with recommendations and support coming from orgs like ARC and the local BIDs. Does anyone with first hand knowledge of the process willing to share: 1. is this generally accurate, 2. any more specifics on the process for prioritizing a hypothetical expansion and 3. has there to date been any public discussion or is there any realistic chance that such a downtown<->west side<->AS route would take precedence?

Thanks.

I haven't been able to find many publicly posted reports on routes like this. They are not as far as long as things like the Beltline and so far there is no one willing to put money down on the earlier environmental and planning assessments. That also means there is more room for the plans to change over time.

For starters... let me provide this link to a better Concept 3 map. (http://www.transitboard.org/files/concept3_stylized.pdf)

This shows the corridor being serviced by a LRT line (potential to be a LRT that becomes a streetcar for the final leg) from Cobb into downtown. In the Concept 3 plan there will also be tracks from Cobb to Arts Center station (passing Atlantic Station), so there is room to do a Arts Center-Downtown line on the same tracks.

The "Connect Atlanta" plan, which is the City proper's long-term vision for travel in the city does not show this as a streetcar route, but it does show several others. (http://web.atlantaga.gov/connectatlanta/index.html)
It also lists the plans for the LRT from Cobb on it's transit priority sheet (http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informati...20Rankings.pdf)

The Project description is as follows:
"High speed/frequent LRT service with limited stations. Option A. Light Rail Transit on new exclusive alignment in shared right-of-way from Cobb County to Ga Tech and the Coca Cola Head Quarters, approximately via Marietta Blvd. to Marietta Street to 8th Street to Tech Parkway to Luckie Street. Then the LRT shifts to mixed flow alignment from Luckie Street to MARTA's North Avenue Station, approximately 1/2 mile, via North Avenue. The Alignment continues in mixed flow alignment to City Hall East and the Beltline, approximately 1.5 miles, via Ponce De Leon Blvd. Six potential stations in the City of Atlanta (Bolton Road, Carrol Drive, Beltline, Howell Mill, Luckie Street, MARTA's North Avenue Station, Piedmont Road, Boulevard, City Hall East (Beltline).Option B (Stops at Moores Mill, Huff Road area, Piedmont Hospital & Lindbergh) Instead of following Marietta to the southeast into downtown, it will now take Chattahoochee Road and then curve to the north around Ellsworth Industrial Road, following Beltline rail to the Lindbergh MARTA station."

-Note: These two options are 2 of 4 that are actually drawn on the Concept 3 map. If this happens... will all 4 options happen? Just 1?

My personal outlook on plans like Concept 3 is that as a whole the whole thing is unlikely to happen and/or subject to change. (Keep in mind many of these routes haven't been studied as a whole) However, what is important is that it is a long-term 'vision' with input from everyone. The Cobb LRT will only happen if they ever decide to put money down on it, one way or another. The importance is we can plan multiple projects in multiple jurisdictions knowing that if we build 'A' it can also later intersect with 'B' and 'C' and that will impact how everything works together and impact what 'A' should be built as.

One idea for two projects that are likely to happen is the Beltline and the Auburn streetcar. In the Streetcar proposal for stimulus funds they made a point the mention that the tracks used will be able to be used interchangeably with intersecting projects in the future. (FYI... The Aurburn streetcar is actually purchasing older/used LRT trains that were used in San Jose).

While it is completely -unplanned- and such a change would mean extra investment, we could potentially have routes on the beltline turn onto the streetcar routes into downtown in the future. Concept 3 helps us have this foresight to have this option in the future.

Instead of just a LRT line from Emory to Lindbergh we could use tracks on multiple projects and have the train travel from Cumberland to Emory-Decatur. Again, this is unplanned, but knowing an initial 'vision' we have more options 50 years down the road.

Does anyone else have more info?

[cybele]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Clearly. I have no intention to have another person agree or any predisposition to force myself to disagree, but rather my goal is to exchange information, ideas, and opinions.

Well, I am glad you are back, you always have some good ideas and facts and figures and so forth.

[CT340]

Georgia wins federal rail grant


http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...#disqus_thread

Georgia landed a $4.1 million share of $2.4 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail projects announced Thursday by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Georgia’s grant, which will be shared with North Carolina and South Carolina, is planning money to help develop a high-speed rail line linking Atlanta with Charlotte, N.C.

The Atlanta-to-Charlotte segment would be part of a longer route extending north to Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded funds Thursday to 54 high-speed rail projects in 23 states. The Federal Railroad Administration received 132 applications from 32 states.

“Demand for high-speed rail dollars is intense, and it demonstrates just how important this historic initiative is,” LaHood said. “States understand that high-speed rail represents a unique opportunity to create jobs, revitalize our manufacturing base, spur economic development and provide people with an environmentally friendly transportation option.”

President Barack Obama first made his commitment to improving rail service clear last year when he set aside $8 billion from the federal economic stimulus program for high-speed rail projects.

Georgia’s share of the grants announced Thursday, a second round of awards, will be administered by the state Department of Transportation’s Intermodal Division.


Read more: Georgia wins federal rail grant | Atlanta Business Chronicle

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by cybele

Well, I am glad you are back, you always have some good ideas and facts and figures and so forth.

Thanks

Just because I feel like it I'm going to present a little tidbit on highway capacity.

The capacity of a highway is driven by the average speed of the vehicles and the spacing of the vehicles. Drivers are supposed to keep a 2 second spacing which roughly corresponds to a safe reaction time and the natural spacing inclination drivers feel safe with.

Speed is actually the smallest portion of that factor unless the average speed runs extremely low.

Calculation:

65 miles per hour ----> 0.136 seconds for the average length vehicle to pass
a point

30 miles per hour ----> 0.295 seconds

10 miles per hour ----> 0.886 seconds

So therefore, assuming 1.4 average occupancy and 2 second separation the highway capacity per hour per lane per given station is as follows:

65mph : 2360 people per hour

30mph (heavy congestion): 2196 people per hour

10mph (traffic stops most of the time, usually due to hyper merging, an accident, construction, or a combination): 1746 people per hour

What occurs usually is that traffic will hit a critical limit and people will naturally slow down and thus reduce the capacity. Then people will start shuffling lanes which will further slow down traffic and reduce capacity. Then as merging becomes difficult traffic feeding onto the highway can cause an intermittent full stop.

Keeping in mind that average speed is what is key, not intermittent stops, unless there is a dire issue, traffic will flow at average rates over 10 mph even during the roughest rush hour. Let's factor in the affect of one HOT lane and three normal lanes versus four normal lanes, then finally one HOV lane and three normal lanes.

The toll of the HOT lane is designed to discourage some to use the lane and thus keep it relatively clear. The capacity of a normal four lane highway (per direction) is 9440 assuming 65 mph average (the OTP speed limit).

An assumption that the HOT lane discourages only 25% of travelers in any given situation is reasonable and probably generous. The calculated average capacity of such a lane is 2.31 according to at least one source. Therefore at 65 miles per hour, such a system would have a per hour capacity of 10,000 people per hour. This of course assumes that the normal lane occupancy rate stays the same (error correction).This is clearly better than normal lanes alone.

An HOV lane system would have a capacity, using the same methodology, of 10,937.

Taken alone, this would indicate that adding a toll to an HOV lane would be counter intuitive to a goal of increasing transportation capacity and would actually lower the critical congestion point.

Now what happens at rush hour takes a bit of mathematical magic. The HOT lane would reach congestion when 3,893 people try to use it, the same point an HOV would, however 25% of people are discouraged to use it according to this model. So there are a few scenarios. To summarize, the HOT would only provide an advantage over the HOV if between 10,937 and 12,250 people try to use the highway system. Any more or any less and the HOV system would move more traffic or be generally no different. This is actually the best case scenario, because if the HOT discouraged more than 40% of people, the traffic capacity would be so severely lowered that the highway system would be worse than if there were no high occupancy lanes at all no matter what the traffic situation.

Note: Several assumptions are made here to simplify the calculations . Also the best case for HOT lanes, the scenario where the HOT is at full free-flowing 65 mph capacity and the other lanes are fully congested (10 mph case) would have a capacity of 9,131 versus 5,238 for four normal lanes and 8188 at for HOV (at 10 mph). Effectively the result, in the very best and unlikely case would be to cause congestion 1,000 cars earlier to allow the passage of 1000 more cars after congestion is created. Or a 9% decrease in highway capacity to raise it 11% after all the cars can't move, but only for cars that pay a toll. The rest would be stuck in traffic that may not have congested if the HOT was an HOV.

It is an interesting trade off, but I don't really see why someone would actually advocate HOT. Perhaps to raise money or to punish poor drivers or drivers in general.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by CT340

Georgia wins federal rail grant


http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...#disqus_thread

Georgia landed a $4.1 million share of $2.4 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail projects announced Thursday by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Georgia’s grant, which will be shared with North Carolina and South Carolina, is planning money to help develop a high-speed rail line linking Atlanta with Charlotte, N.C.

The Atlanta-to-Charlotte segment would be part of a longer route extending north to Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded funds Thursday to 54 high-speed rail projects in 23 states. The Federal Railroad Administration received 132 applications from 32 states.

“Demand for high-speed rail dollars is intense, and it demonstrates just how important this historic initiative is,” LaHood said. “States understand that high-speed rail represents a unique opportunity to create jobs, revitalize our manufacturing base, spur economic development and provide people with an environmentally friendly transportation option.”

President Barack Obama first made his commitment to improving rail service clear last year when he set aside $8 billion from the federal economic stimulus program for high-speed rail projects.

Georgia’s share of the grants announced Thursday, a second round of awards, will be administered by the state Department of Transportation’s Intermodal Division.


Read more: Georgia wins federal rail grant | Atlanta Business Chronicle

I assume that this $4.1 million will go towards a higher tiered feasibility study.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Thanks

Just because I feel like it I'm going to present a little tidbit on highway capacity.

The capacity of a highway is driven by the average speed of the vehicles and the spacing of the vehicles. Drivers are supposed to keep a 2 second spacing which roughly corresponds to a safe reaction time and the natural spacing inclination drivers feel safe with.

Speed is actually the smallest portion of that factor unless the average speed runs extremely low.

Calculation:

65 miles per hour ----> 0.136 seconds for the average length vehicle to pass
a point

30 miles per hour ----> 0.295 seconds

10 miles per hour ----> 0.886 seconds

So therefore, assuming 1.4 average occupancy and 2 second separation the highway capacity per hour per lane per given station is as follows:

65mph : 2360 people per hour

30mph (heavy congestion): 2196 people per hour

10mph (traffic stops most of the time, usually due to hyper merging, an accident, construction, or a combination): 1746 people per hour

What occurs usually is that traffic will hit a critical limit and people will naturally slow down and thus reduce the capacity. Then people will start shuffling lanes which will further slow down traffic and reduce capacity. Then as merging becomes difficult traffic feeding onto the highway can cause an intermittent full stop.

Keeping in mind that average speed is what is key, not intermittent stops, unless there is a dire issue, traffic will flow at average rates over 10 mph even during the roughest rush hour. Let's factor in the affect of one HOT lane and three normal lanes versus four normal lanes, then finally one HOV lane and three normal lanes.

The toll of the HOT lane is designed to discourage some to use the lane and thus keep it relatively clear. The capacity of a normal four lane highway (per direction) is 9440 assuming 65 mph average (the OTP speed limit).

An assumption that the HOT lane discourages only 25% of travelers in any given situation is reasonable and probably generous. The calculated average capacity of such a lane is 2.31 according to at least one source. Therefore at 65 miles per hour, such a system would have a per hour capacity of 10,000 people per hour. This of course assumes that the normal lane occupancy rate stays the same (error correction).This is clearly better than normal lanes alone.

An HOV lane system would have a capacity, using the same methodology, of 10,937.

Taken alone, this would indicate that adding a toll to an HOV lane would be counter intuitive to a goal of increasing transportation capacity and would actually lower the critical congestion point.

Now what happens at rush hour takes a bit of mathematical magic. The HOT lane would reach congestion when 3,893 people try to use it, the same point an HOV would, however 25% of people are discouraged to use it according to this model. So there are a few scenarios. To summarize, the HOT would only provide an advantage over the HOV if between 10,937 and 12,250 people try to use the highway system. Any more or any less and the HOV system would move more traffic or be generally no different. This is actually the best case scenario, because if the HOT discouraged more than 40% of people, the traffic capacity would be so severely lowered that the highway system would be worse than if there were no high occupancy lanes at all no matter what the traffic situation.

Note: Several assumptions are made here to simplify the calculations . Also the best case for HOT lanes, the scenario where the HOT is at full free-flowing 65 mph capacity and the other lanes are fully congested (10 mph case) would have a capacity of 9,131 versus 5,238 for four normal lanes and 8188 at for HOV (at 10 mph). Effectively the result, in the very best and unlikely case would be to cause congestion 1,000 cars earlier to allow the passage of 1000 more cars after congestion is created. Or a 9% decrease in highway capacity to raise it 11% after all the cars can't move, but only for cars that pay a toll. The rest would be stuck in traffic that may not have congested if the HOT was an HOV.

It is an interesting trade off, but I don't really see why someone would actually advocate HOT. Perhaps to raise money or to punish poor drivers or drivers in general.

You've provided a good start for looking at this, but the analysis assumes blanket assumptions and assumptions that stay constant instead of -variable- to the conditions that are present. Human behavior changes with conditions. You are also making a false assumption that the HOV lane capacity doesn't max out and get congested and if it doesn't that the HOV lane operates at peak capacity instead of under peak capacity.


Assume for a second that no one speeds...and the speed limit is 65mph. (just for the sake of simplifying the scenario and point... in practicality this assumption doesn't matter)

If three lanes are flowing at 65mph there is no incentive for anyone to use the lane unless...the price of the lane at that moment is $0.00 or they can use it for free via a hybrid system as a bus lane or a hyrbid as an HOV lane (+2 or +3, etc...). Some systems are hybrid HOV+2 and some are HOV+3 and a few don't allow HOV, but just transit. In the case of the I-85 N corridor it is HOV+3+transit. Previously the lane was HOV+2, but got congested and suffered the consequences of lowered capacity+slower transit. However, there are not enough HOV+3 cars to completely utilize the lane capacity effectively.


The early stages of congestion starts... In the three lanes traffic slows from 65 to 60. It's still really early, the price goes up but stays cheap. The price stays cheap enough that encourages cars to move to the HOT lane even just to go slightly faster than the general lanes, but expensive enough to prevent the HOT lane from being as congested as the general lane.

As conditions get worse in the general lanes, the price changes in the HOT lane to influence it to keep operating at peak capacity regardless of what the general lanes do. In other words the price goes up.

In other words ... you can't have a blanket assumption that the HOT lane discourages a fixed percentage of cars from using it.

--The lane itself is designed to have a variable pricing procedure to encourage/discourage the right amount of cars to keep the lane operating at peak capacity.--

The only conditions that would exists where you get a loss of capacity from the HOT lane is when the system is new and people need to sign up for a toll account, the system's variable price tolling strategy and computer system needs to be re-programmed to peoples behavior more efficiently, and/or the entry/exits need to implemented better. The first condition only exists as the HOT lane is started and the last two are conditions that can be engineered to make the system work effectively.

If you maintain HOV+2, the HOV+2 lane gets congested and capacity is lowered. HOV+3 will be used by too few cars. If you change it to HOV+3/HOT then capacity is maintained, which keeps cars moving and shortens congestion in the general purpose lanes.

Even if you widen the road to maintain HOV+2 without congestion, you can still sell excess capacity as a HOT lane that keeps capacity moving, but will pull more cars off the general lanes.


In the scenario with I-85N the only way conditions could get worse is under the following condition:
# of drivers that change from HOV+2 to SOV > Capacity increase from HOT service causing congested HOV+2 to be free flowing + increase transit ridership from quicker commuter bus.

But, there is an incentive that some (not all) HOV+2 riders will stay HOV+2, since they can use the HOT lane at half price (if split between the carpool). Another option I wish the I-85 North corridor would consider is offer a small discount for HOV+2 to influence 2-person carpools at staying 2-person carpools, but even as a carpool the lane can be managed/priced/behavior adjusted to maintain peak capacity.

The only scenario where HOV+2 (+3, etc..) can be better than the HOT lane is if there just happens to be the right number of HOV+2 at every given moment to keep the HOV+2 operating at peak capacity. However, this is extremely improbable as conditions change over time. Even if it operated at peak capacity at one point in time, 15 minutes later it could be below capacity or there won't be enough HOV+2 drivers to make full use of the space in the HOV+2 lane that a few SOV could use.

I know people are skeptical about the simple fact that it is a -toll-, but it is the only way for a system to manage a lane to operate at peak capacity (not above or lower) throughout the peak load time. This is because it is the only way to fluidly/variably influence human behavior at any given time.

Everyone has a price point at when they would get in the lane or get out.

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by dante2308

It is an interesting trade off, but I don't really see why someone would actually advocate HOT. Perhaps to raise money or to punish poor drivers or drivers in general.

When a HOV lane reaches capacity, the incentive to use it is gone. The purpose of an HOT lane is to control access to the lane and guarantee a minimum speed. It's the fairest way to ration the shortage of space. It's a smarter way to operate a lane that is over capacity, so I don't really see why anyone would be against it.

[Pessimistic Observer]

Originally Posted by RobMidtowner

When a HOV lane reaches capacity, the incentive to use it is gone. The purpose of an HOT lane is to control access to the lane and guarantee a minimum speed. It's the fairest way to ration the shortage of space. It's a smarter way to operate a lane that is over capacity, so I don't really see why anyone would be against it.

from what i understand the "biggest" problem with this system is the fact
that tolls are advertised as ways to pay for roads and in this case nothing
is being publicised about what this "toll" pays for
personally i could care less as long as it doesnt cost anything to register

[BlindFatSnake]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I just had to respond to this one. It's great! I just love this comment.



Socialist Eurotrash with their space age garbage can on wheels. This type of thing will never come to America.

Dante, if you like comparing apples to oranges (er, in this case planes to buses) then continue to drink the moonshine.

A double-decker plane encounters the same obstacles (in the air) as a regular plane... But, a garbage can on wheels creates so many hazards on the road the public would never embrace this flawed concept.

You, however, seem to be the only idiot working tirelessly to convince others that this bullshit will fly - even to the point of discounting deaths that could possibly occur due to this idiotic concept. WOW, did your mother teach you to have any compassion for living human beings? You sound like a drunken ass..