Get documents about "Contents of Feasibilty Study for Travel Agency Business - PDF
W
Description
Contents of Feasibilty Study for Travel Agency Business document sample
Document Sample
Inner Core Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
March 2005
Inner Core Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
Prepared For:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Prepared By:
URS Corporation
400 Northpark Town Center
1000 Abernathy Road N.E., Suite 9000
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
In association with:
Manuel Padron & Associates
PBS&J
Planners for Environmental Quality
Sycamore Consulting
DW & Associates
Table of Contents
1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE CORRIDOR ....................................................1-1
1.1 Study Approach ....................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Background......................................................................................1-1
1.1.2 Issues and Needs to be Addressed by the Study ............................1-7
1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria and Measures ....................................................1-8
1.2 Public Involvement Implementation Plan............................................1-9
1.2.1 Groups and All Levels of Study........................................................1-9
1.2.2 Public Acceptance .........................................................................1-11
2 DATA ANALYSIS.......................................................................................2-1
2.1 Data Collection ......................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Study Area Conditions .....................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Major Travel Patterns & 2030 Regional Mobility Plan (RTP)............2-2
2.1.3 Demographic Data ...........................................................................2-3
2.2 Definition of Alternatives......................................................................2-4
2.2.1 No-Build Alternative .........................................................................2-4
2.2.2 Baseline Alternative B: Beltline ........................................................2-5
2.2.3 Baseline Alternative C: C-Loop Alternative ......................................2-5
2.2.4 Alternative 1: BRT Hybrid (Beltline/C-Loop).....................................2-5
2.2.5 Alternative 2: BRT Hybrid (via south Beltline) ..................................2-6
2.2.6 Hybrid Alternative 3..........................................................................2-6
2.2.7 Hybrid Alternative 4..........................................................................2-7
2.3 Mobility Improvements .........................................................................2-8
2.3.1 Level of Service ...............................................................................2-8
2.3.2 Transit Usage.................................................................................2-13
2.3.3 Congestion.....................................................................................2-13
2.3.4 Mobility Measures ..........................................................................2-14
2.3.5 Mobility Assessment ......................................................................2-15
2.4 Environmental Effects ........................................................................2-18
2.4.1 Land Uses......................................................................................2-20
2.5 Equity Issues .......................................................................................2-22
2.5.1 Burdens and Benefits in Service ....................................................2-22
2.6 Cost ......................................................................................................2-23
2.1.1 Problems, Needs and Opportunities ..............................................2-23
2.1.2 Capital Cost ...................................................................................2-24
2.1.3 Operating and Maintenance...........................................................2-28
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report i
March 2005
2.7 Transit-Oriented Land Use .................................................................2-33
2.7.1 Vacant/Underutilized Land Near Stations ......................................2-35
2.7.2 Accessibility to Major Facilities: Cultural, Educational, etc. ............2-36
2.7.3 Ability to Promote Redevelopment Goals.......................................2-38
2.7.4 Enhancement of Urban Environment .............................................2-40
3 EVALUATION AND SUMMARY ................................................................3-1
3.1 Evaluation Measures ............................................................................3-2
3.1.1 Mobility and Accessibility .................................................................3-2
3.1.2 Land use and Redevelopment .........................................................3-4
3.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................3-6
3.1.4 Cost Effectiveness ...........................................................................3-8
3.2 Equity .....................................................................................................3-9
3.3 Strategies Leading to the Development of Transit in the Corridor ...3-9
3.3.1 Advancing Transit Projects Through FTA’s ‘New Starts’ Process..3-10
3.4 Conclusions.........................................................................................3-13
3.4.1 Concept 1.......................................................................................3-13
3.4.2 Concept 2.......................................................................................3-12
3.4.3 Concept 3.......................................................................................3-13
3.4.4 Concept 4.......................................................................................3-14
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report ii
March 2005
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Draft Statements of Need and Purpose ....................................... A-1
Table 1.2: Alternatives Evaluation Criteria ................................................... A-3
Table 1.3: Feasibility Study Evaluation Categories and Measures............. A-4
Table 1.4: Elected and Appointed Officials .................................................. A-5
Table 1.5: Local, Regional, State and Federal Agencies ............................. A-5
Table 1.6: Special Interest/Environmental Justice Organizations .............. A-6
Table 1.7: Organizations Serving Elderly and Disabled Populations......... A-6
Table 1.8: Schools and Universities.............................................................. A-7
Table 1.9: Religious Institutions .................................................................... A-7
Table 1.10:Community Groups ...................................................................... A-8
Table 1.11: Major Employers/Business Interests......................................... A-9
Table 1.12: Priority Connection Categories................................................ A-10
Table 2.1: Study Area Performance Measures ........................................... A-10
Table 2.2: Major Points of Interest Within the Inner Core Study Area...... A-11
Table 2.3: Marta Rail Stations within the Inner Core Study Area.............. A-12
Table 2.4: Primary Congested Streets ........................................................ A-13
Table 2.5: Mobility Performance Measures ................................................ A-13
Table 2.7: Combined Purpose and Need & Engineering Review Results A-15
Table 2.8: Range of Cost ($2004)................................................................. A-16
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Interactive Exercise Results/Percent Support .........................1-12
Figure 1.2 Beltline Concept............................................................................ B-1
Figure 1.3: C-Loop Concept ........................................................................... B-2
Figure 1.4: Inner Core Study Area ................................................................. B-3
Figure 1.5: Segment Zones ............................................................................ B-4
Figure 2.1: Quadrant Map............................................................................... B-5
Figure 2.2: Baseline Alternative B ................................................................. B-6
Figure 2.3: Baseline Alternative C ................................................................. B-7
Figure 2.4: Hybrid Alternative 1 ..................................................................... B-8
Figure 2.5: Hybrid Alternative 2 ..................................................................... B-9
Figure 2.6: Hybrid Alternative 3 ................................................................... B-10
Figure 2.7: Hybrid Alternative 4 ................................................................... B-11
Figure 2.8: 2000 Low-Income Households in the Study Area (Density)... B-12
Figure 2.9: Major Points of Interest Within the Inner Core Study Area .... B-13
Figure 2.10: Inner Core Concept Alignments and MARTA Public
Transportation Systems........................................................................ B-14
Figure 2.11: 2000 Congested Conditions.................................................... B-15
Figure 2.12: 2030 Congested Conditions.................................................... B-16
Figure 2.13: Segment Zones with Constraints Depicted ........................... B-17
Figure 2.14: Existing Conditions / Land Use and Development ............... B-18
Figure 2.15: Alternative B / Land Use and Development.......................... B-19
Figure 2.16: Alternative C / Land Use and Development........................... B-20
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report iii
March 2005
Figure 2.17: Alternative 1 / Land Use and Development ........................... B-21
Figure 2.18: Alternative 2 / Land Use and Development ........................... B-22
Figure 2.19: Alternative 3 / Land Use and Development ........................... B-23
Figure 2.20: Alternative 4 / Land Use and Development ........................... B-24
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report iv
March 2005
1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE CORRIDOR
1.1 Study Approach
1.1.1 Background
In April 2003 the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) initiated a
feasibility study to explore the operational potential of transit concepts proposed
within the inner core of the Metropolitan Atlanta area. The Inner-Core Concept is
a combination of two earlier MARTA recommended studies: the Beltline and the
C-Loop transit corridors proposed for connecting residential neighborhoods,
urban villages and activity centers.
The Beltline
The Beltline Concept, shown in Figure 1.2 (included in Appendix B-1), developed
out of a 1999 thesis prepared by Georgia Institute of Technology student Ryan
Gravel. The concept gained the attention and backing of Atlanta City
Councilwoman, Cathy Woolard, who requested support from MARTA to initiate a
formal study.
The initiators of the Beltline Concept envisioned a transit corridor that could be
built on existing railroad rights-of-way; feature different transit modes; and
encircle the downtown area to connect area neighborhoods and the following five
existing MARTA rail stations:
• Lindbergh,
• Inman Park,
• West End,
• Bankhead, and
• Ashby.
The Beltline would include a linear park/greenway with a walking path and
bikeway facility that would provide access to regional parks, such as Piedmont,
Park as well as the smaller neighborhood parks in the area.
The proposed facility would be approximately 22 miles long with 45 potential
access points along its length. The Beltline would increase accessibility and
mobility, encourage economic development and transit supportive land use, while
providing recreational and quality of life benefit.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 1-1
The C-Loop
The C-Loop originated from the efforts of Congressman John Lewis,
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who obtained funding from the USDOT for a
$2 million dollar feasibility study, and former Congresswoman Denise Majette
The C-Loop Concept, displayed in Figure 1.3 (Appendix B-3), proposed a transit
corridor that would connect Emory University and the Lindbergh MARTA station,
the west by the Atlanta University Center and south sides of the downtown area
and to south DeKalb County area, terminating near South DeKalb Mall. Similar
to the Beltline, the project was also thought to have the potential for offering a
host of benefits: increasing accessibility and mobility and encouraging economic
development and transit supportive land use.
The Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study
In response to public interest in the Beltline and C-loop concepts, MARTA
developed two project submittals requesting funding for the study of each
concept. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) programmed funding for a
study of both concepts in the FY03-05 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) for a total of $2.5 million. This study appropriately named the Atlanta Inner
Core Transit feasibility Study was initiated in April of 2003.
The study area established as the Inner-Core is a 29,115-acre area centrally
located in Atlanta. It includes the heart of historic Downtown Atlanta and
Midtown and the residential neighborhoods surrounding these districts.
Approximately 75 percent of the study area is located within the incorporated
limits of the City of Atlanta; the remainder falls within unincorporated DeKalb
County. The limits of the study area are illustrated in Figure 1.4 (Appendix B-3).
Within the study area, multiple corridors were identified based on existing
roadways and railroads that connect neighborhoods, activity centers, and points
of interest. These corridors, later described as segment zones, are the focus of
the study effort to develop alternatives for consideration.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study is to assess the type of
transit needs that exist within the inner core of Atlanta, and determine the most
appropriate transit investments to meet those needs, which include expanded
use of the existing transit system. It provides a means for refining the Beltline
and C-loop proposals and evaluating the concepts with consideration of a broad
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-2
March 2005
range of alternative transit technology modes and alignments. The final task of
the study is to provide a determination of the feasibility of defined transit options.
The Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study phased as follows:
Phase I: Stakeholder Identification and Issue Development
Phase II: Inner Core Study Inventory/Data Gathering
Phase III: Concept Plan/Define Study Alternatives
Phase IV: Feasibility Determination
Phase I: Stakeholder Identification and Issue Development
A principal aim of the study was to engage the community in a public discussion
of the concepts, the project need and purpose, and potential benefits and
impacts of implementation. Public involvement was an on-going element through
all phases of the feasibility study. Phase I activities included:
• Development of a process for community involvement and public agency
input (the Community and Agency Participation Plan);
• Establishment of Stakeholder Advisory (SAC) and Technical Advisory
Committees (TAC) to provide direction and guidance to the project team;
• Identification of community issues and interests through public outreach
activities;
• Clarification of project purpose and need and definition of project goals
and objectives; and
• Identification of study area resources and definition of plans and concepts.
Phase II: Inner Core Study Inventory/Data Gathering
An inventory of existing conditions was undertaken as an initial phase of the
feasibility study to establish a baseline for the analysis. This phase of the study
included investigation of the study area’s transportation system conditions,
demographic and community features, population and employment trends, major
activity centers and points of interest, and land use and development patterns.
Information such as trip making and travel trends, traffic operations, transit
service conditions, bike/pedestrian facilities conditions, railroad conditions, as
well as, planned/programmed improvements within the study area was compiled
for analysis. This information established a need for improvements and
permitted the identification of engineering constraints, and potential opportunities
or barriers to implementation.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-3
March 2005
Baseline and future volumes were identified for determining the Level of Service
under baseline (Year 2000) and future Year 2030 conditions. The latter
considered a future year condition with planned and programmed roadway
improvements in place. The volume to capacity ration (v/c) threshold of 0.9
(congested facilities) provided the basis for identifying transportation deficiencies
with in the study area.
Phase III: Concept Plan/Define Study Alternatives
Under Phase III of the Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study, the project team
developed a conceptual level plan to identify potential transit modes and
alignments for each of the transit alternatives. First, the relevant travel corridors
and connections to points of interest within the Inner Core were categorized into
eleven segment zones (see Figure 1.5 in Appendix B-4). A description of each of
the segment zones is provided in the following paragraphs.
Zone 1: Emory Corridor
Zone 1 includes the northeastern portion of the study area. Major destinations
within this zone include Emory University, Emory Hospital, Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Lindbergh Center MARTA Station. Major
travel corridors include portions of I-85, Briarcliff Road, Piedmont Road, and
Cheshire Bridge Road. An active CSX rail line and a small portion of the Norfolk
Southern (NS) rail line are located in this segment.
Zone 2: Decatur Belt Corridor
Zone 2 is one of the larger segment zones within the study area, encompassing
points of interest such as Piedmont Park, Atlanta Botanical Gardens, the Carter
Presidential Center, and Callanwolde Fine Arts Center. Major travel corridors
include Ponce De Leon Avenue, Piedmont Road, and Briarcliff Road. There is
an inactive NS line included in this segment zone, and both active and inactive
CSX lines. This portion of the Inner Core Study is currently owned by one of the
regions largest developers, Wayne Mason.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-4
March 2005
Zone 3: Glenwood Connector
Zone 3 occupies the smallest amount of land within the study corridor, this
segment zone includes Inman Park – Reynoldstown MARTA Station and is in
close proximity to the Martin Luther King, Jr. historic District. An inactive CSX rail
line, now owned by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), is located
in this segment zone. Additionally, this zone overlaps with Zone 2. The CSX
Intermodal Facility (Hulsey Yard) is also located in this zone.
Zone 4: I-20/South DeKalb Corridor
Zone 4 is the easternmost leg of the study area and includes the entire activity
center within this segment zone. Major travel corridors include I-20, Memorial
Drive, Moreland Avenue, and Candler Road. This zone overlaps small portions of
Zones 3 and 6.
Zone 5: R. D. Abernathy Corridor
Zone 5 is located south of the study area and is primarily accessible by I-20.
Grant Park, the Cyclorama, Turner Field and Zoo Atlanta are major attractions
within this segment zone. The western edge of the zone includes a portion of the
CSX and NS shared rail line and an active NS rail line.
Zone 6: Beltline South Corridor
Zone 6 includes the southernmost portion of the study area and major attractors
such as Turner Field and the West End MARTA Station. Major travel corridors
within this segment zone are I-75S and I-85S. This zone primarily includes an
active CSX rail line.
Zone 7: Beltline West Corridor
Zone 7 is located in the eastern portion of the study area, this segment zone
includes the Wrens Nest and Hammond House Galleries. Simpson Road and
Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive are major roadways utilized to access the area. An
inactive CSX rail line is located within this segment zone. Additionally, a portion
of the rail right-of-way is owned by GDOT.
Zone 8: Northside Drive Corridor
Zone 8 includes a large amount of land within the study area spanning from
Howell Mill Road to the West End area. Additionally, this zone encompasses a
large number of major attractions including Clark Atlanta University Center, the
Herndon Home, Georgia Dome, Phillips Arena, Georgia World Congress Center,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Contemporary Arts Center, and four
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-5
March 2005
MARTA Stations. This segment zone overlaps with zone 5, and includes a
portion of the CSX and NS shared rail line.
Zone 9: Inman Yard Connector
Zone 9 includes the Inman Yard Connector, a freight transfer facility, a shared
rail line between CSX and Norfolk Southern. Points of interest within this area
include the Atlanta Waterworks Facility and Kings Plow Center.
Zone 10: Northwest CSX Line
Zone 10 is located northwest of the study area. Points of interest within this zone
include Piedmont Hospital. Highly utilized roadways including Peachtree Street
and Howell Mill Road traverse the zone, and active CSX and NS lines are
included.
Zone 11: Northwest NS Line
Zone 11 includes the Woodruff Arts Center, High Museum of Art, Center for
Puppetry Arts, Breman Jewish Heritage Museum and the Arts Center MARTA
Station. Major travel corridors include Spring Street and Peachtree Street.
Active and inactive NS rail lines are located in this segment zone.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-6
March 2005
The project team identified potential engineering constraints and assessed
suitable travel modes by zone. Combinations of specific modes and alignments
were used to define build scenarios for the study.
In addition, the project team coordinated with the Stakeholder Advisory
Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and the public, to develop transit
alternatives creating a total of seven alternatives. Three baseline alternatives
include a no build alternative, as required by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) review process, the original Beltline Concept, and the original C-Loop
Concept. The methodology for defining scenarios is presented in detail in the
Definition of Alternatives/Concept Planning Technical Memorandum.
Phase IV: Feasibility Determination
To determine the engineering requirements and overall feasibility of each of the
seven transit alternatives, the project team initiated a conceptual assessment of
mobility improvements, land use development and redevelopment opportunities,
environmental effects, equity issues and costs.
1.1.2 Issues and Needs to be Addressed by the Study
Need and Purpose
A major requirement of the FTA, for transit projects seeking funding, is to firmly
establish needs that will be effectively addressed by the transit proposal1. One of
the key early steps of the planning process for the Inner Core Transit Feasibility
Study was to develop and document a well-conceived statement embodying the
study purpose and need. This statement would serve several purposes during
the length of the study:
• To articulate and justify the proposal for transportation investment and list
the associated impacts;
• To guide the conduct of the corridor-level analysis;
• To establish the problems which must be addressed in the study;
• To serve as the basis for the development of project goals, objectives, and
evaluation measures; and
• To provide the framework for determining which alternatives should be
considered as reasonable options1
1
FTA New Starts Fact Sheet Accessed on FTA website URL 12/23/04
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grant_programs/transportation_planning/major_investment/technical_guidance/10049_15064_ENG
_HTML.htm
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-7
March 2005
The project team prepared six preliminary statements of community needs for the
Inner Core area with input and guidance from the public, the SAC and TAC
(Refer to Table 1.1 in Appendix A-1).
The results of this inventory of existing conditions and the preliminary needs
statements were presented to the community in public involvement meetings to
solicit further input on needs and issues. The need and purpose statements
were refined, incorporating the solicited input, and used to develop evaluation
criteria for the feasibility study alternatives.
1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria and Measures
Planning and Project Development Process
As with all major transit projects, transit investment within the inner core will be
eligible for funds from FTA’s §5309 New Starts Program. If federal funding is
used, GTA is required to evaluate and rate the project based on Project
Justification and Financial Commitment. The criteria associated with Project
Justification should therefore provide general guidance to the development of the
evaluation criteria to determine a project’s feasibility, but allow for locally derived
measures to address established needs and goals. This guidance also leads to
proper evaluation of alternatives developed in the Alternatives Analysis phase of
project development.
In early stages of project development, particularly during feasibility, the
evaluation of possible transit solutions is conceptual in essence. As a result,
several measures used in feasibility determination are locally derived and
qualitative due to the unavailability of data. As the project advances into later
phases, and more information becomes available, the measures evolve
quantitatively, leading to improved decision-making on proposed alternatives.
Therefore, the goal of this study is to conceptually evaluate two formally identified
transit concepts, and others as advised by major stakeholders and the
community, as a solution to addressing the forecasted needs for the inner core of
the Atlanta region. Tables 1.2 in Appendix A-3 show the comparison of the FTA’s
New Starts criteria and how the Feasibility Study was initially set up. Table 1.3
(Appendix A-4) is a sample of some of New Starts criteria along with
descriptions. The measures that are not noted as “qualitative” were analyzed as
a range. Further descriptions and preliminary findings can be found in section II
of this report.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-8
March 2005
1.2 Public Involvement Implementation Plan
1.2.1 Groups and All Levels of Study
In October 2003, the Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study project team developed
a Community and Agency Participation Plan (CAPP) to serve as a guide for the
public involvement effort. The CAPP defined public outreach strategies, target
audiences, area stakeholders, communication mechanisms, phasing of activities,
and documentation protocols to guide the study. It also created a framework for
establishing an open planning process. The CAPP set forth a plan for informing
the public as to the nature and substance of the study and fostering participation
in the decision making process.
The CAPP called for the establishment
of a Stakeholder Advisory Committee
(SAC) with membership including
public officials, or their appointees,
business community leaders,
community interests, development
interests, environmental advocacy
groups, and institutional
representatives.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
The CAPP also recommended the formation of a project Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) composed of the region’s transportation planning partners,
including federal, state, regional, and local authorities, agencies, and
associations (see Tables 1-4 through 1-7, Appendix A-5 and A-6).
Other area stakeholders, not officially on the SAC or TAC, were invited to
contribute their input by attending one or more of the SAC and/or TAC meetings;
through participation in one or more of the following: stakeholder interviews
stakeholder working groups or through speakers bureau, or public meetings.
Elected and Appointed Officials identified in the CAPP for outreach are listed in
Table 1.4 (Appendix A-5).
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-9
March 2005
The CAPP also identified and invited key private entities, including the railroad
companies who own rail track right-of-way within the study area to participate
(see Table 1.5, Appendix A-5).
To address the goal of project equity, specific strategies were implemented
throughout the study process to involve traditionally underserved populations in
the decision-making process. Additionally, the project team made targeted
special efforts to encourage traditionally under-represented groups and
representatives from the environmental justice community to participate on the
SAC via speaker’s bureau meetings, public meetings, stakeholder interviews,
and stakeholder working groups (see Table 1.6 and 1.7, Appendix A-6 and A-7).
The project team also disseminated project information at key stages of the study
by means of a project website, study video, and mobile displays.
Other stakeholders identified and invited to participate in this project included
schools, community centers, community agencies and religious institutions within
the study area were also targeted for public outreach (see Table 1.8 through 1-10
included in Appendix A-7 and A-8).
To solicit the needs of employees and businesses, the CAPP identified the Major
Employers and business interests within influence of the project area (see Table
1.11, Appendix A-9).
Public Meetings, Round I
An initial round of public meetings were held December 2003/January 2004
immediately following the initial data gathering activities and the baseline
conditions analysis. A total of seven public meetings were held as the starting
point for obtaining public input on existing conditions and community needs.
Meetings were held at the following locations:
Date Location Public
Attendees
12/04/2003 7:00-9:00 PM Mozley Park Recreation Center – Atlanta 13
12/08/2003 7:00-9:00 PM Georgia Hill Facility – Atlanta 22
12/09/2003 7:00-9:00 PM Martin Luther King Comm. Center - Atlanta 16
12/11/2003 7:00-9:00 PM Ponce de Leon Public Library – Atlanta 62
12/16/2003 7:00-9:00 PM Peachtree Branch Public Library – Atlanta 38
01/08/2004 7:00-9:00 PM South DeKalb Mall-The Gallery - Decatur 7
01/22/2004 7:00-9:00 PM Emory University-Rollins School - Atlanta 66
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-10
March 2005
January Atlanta Inner Core Public Meeting Presentation
An open house format was used at public meetings throughout the study with an
initial period used to provide attendees an opportunity to view display
boards/graphics and to ask questions or provide input. The project team made a
formal slide show presentation, followed by a question and answer session and
informal discussion period followed.
At the first round of meetings, background on the Inner Core Transit Feasibility
Study was provided and the baseline conditions assessment results were
presented to describe the study area characteristics, including:
• Demographic and community features,
• Population and employment trends,
• Major activity centers and points of interest,
• Land use and patterns, and
• Transportation system conditions.
As part of the first round of public meetings, interactive exercises were also
conducted to solicit public input on six preliminary statements of community
need. To identify travel patterns and concentrated areas of activity, meeting
participants were invited in this initial exercise to indicate where they live, work,
and play within and beyond the limits of the study area by marking aerial maps.
In a second exercise, participants evaluated the need statements and prioritized
them. Following the meetings, the input was used to refine the preliminary
purpose and need statements presented at the meetings.
1.2.2 Public Acceptance
Public comments received during the meetings were generally very favorable.
Most of those who attended felt that the Beltline and C-Loop concepts were
worthy of further study and implementation. Public meeting participants also
shared the following:
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-11
March 2005
• Concern about securing funding and the construction timeframe;
• Support for coordinating transportation investments with land use policies;
• Concern about access to railroad rights of way;
• Desire for focused coordination with existing MARTA rail and bus service;
• Interest in how regional transit projects would tie into the Inner Core
project;
• Desire to learn more about Bus Rapid Transit and other transit
technologies; and
• Desire that projects provide positive impacts to communities.
Public support for the needs statements were computed based on the results of
the interactive exercise. The results, in terms of percentages of the participants
supporting each statement, are presented in Figure 1.1. According to the overall
results, 29 percent of the participants felt a pressing need for improved system
accessibility and connectivity. Twenty-one percent considered the need for
transit solutions that complement the emerging land use development and
redevelopment trends within the Inner Core. Eighteen percent of the participants
labeled solutions that address the congestion and efficiency concerns as an
important need, while 17 percent expressed the need to protect the
environmental and cultural resources of the inner core. Social equity and cost
effectiveness received consideration as a high need from nine and six percent of
the participants, respectively. An examination of the responses by meeting
reveals a difference in prioritized need. For example, the participants in the
Mozley Park area also feel that accommodating Land Use / Development /
Redevelopment trends is important, this community also see high need to ensure
social equity.
Figure 1.1: Interactive Exercise Results/Percent Support
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-12
March 2005
The Joint Stakeholder Advisory Committee And Technical Advisory
Committee Workshop
A joint SAC/TAC workshop was held on April 27, 2004 to define alternatives for
feasibility determination. The workshop included a formal presentation as well as
interactive exercises designed to gather feedback from the members of both
committees. Discussion topics included land use, alignment opportunities, and
transit technologies most appropriate to the Inner Core area. Workshop
facilitators divided the committee members and other members of the project
team into 4 working groups to start the workshop. Each group identified:
• Areas within the study area most likely to experience development and
redevelopment;
• Possible linkages between parks (existing and future), open space areas,
and greenway trails (a green infrastructure);
• The types of land uses that would be preferred within the inner core;
• Possible alignments and an associated transit technology; and
• Priority connections within the study area.
For the latter exercise, committee members identified high volume origin -
destination pairs with a variety of possible options (See Table 1.12, Appendix A-
10)
Workshop Results
The workshop participants recommended that transit investments be designed in
a context that will encourage redevelopment focused on mixed-use, residential,
and neighborhood-oriented commercial infill projects. Preserving the mature
nature of many of the in-town neighborhoods was also strongly recommended.
SAC and TAC members identified a broad range of alignments and technologies.
A number of them expressed their support for utilization of segments belonging
to both the Beltline and the C-Loop concepts, emphasizing east/west cross
connectivity with the existing MARTA system, major activity centers, and the
study area neighborhoods. Other more specific findings included:
• Significant support for the application of streetcar technology within the
Inner Core (Corridors recommended for streetcar included the Decatur
Belt Corridor, Beltline South, R.D. Abernathy, Northside Drive, Peachtree
Street, Edgewood/Auburn, and 10th Street);
• Support of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) technology (recommended BRT
corridors included I-20 East, Northside Drive, Decatur Belt, Beltline South,
Beltline West, Emory Corridor, and Memorial Drive); and
• Emphasis that transit investments provide connections to the many major
destinations within the study area.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-13
March 2005
More detailed output regarding the redevelopment and development areas, park
connections, land use themes, and preferred alignment and technology themes
identified by the working groups is documented in the Definition of
Alternatives/Concept Planning Technical Memorandum, June 2004.
Public Meetings, Round II
A second round of public meetings was conducted in May 2004. Meetings were
held at the following locations the indicated dates.
Date Location Public
Attendees
05/10/2004 6:30–8:30 PM First Presbyterian Church – Atlanta 23
05/13/2004 6:30–8:30 PM Atlanta City Hall – Atlanta 24
05/17/2004 6:30–8:30 PM MARTA Annex Building – Atlanta 22
05/18/2004 6:30–8:30 PM Maloof Auditorium - Decatur 33
These meetings were held for the purpose of soliciting public and stakeholder
input on alternatives. Participants drew alignment preferences on maps and
suggested transit technologies best suited to the study area. Participants also
identified desired land use changes and redevelopment areas.
Results from Round II
The major findings of the second round of meetings are summarized below.
• Overwhelming support for the entire Beltline concept;
• Identified important east-west cross-town connections via corridors, such
as North Avenue/Ponce de Leon, Ralph David Abernathy and
Edgewood/Auburn, as very important;
• Identified important north-south connections via the Northside Drive and
Moreland Avenue corridors;
• Streetcar and/or Light Rail as the preferred transit technologies for in-town
corridors, due to their scale and character; and
• Emphasis on transit supportive land-uses, redevelopment initiatives,
greenways, and park improvements.
Public Meetings, Round III
The project team hosted a third round of public meetings in September 2004 at
the following locations.
Date Location Public
Attendees
09/21/2004 6:00–8:00 PM Antioch Baptist Church – Atlanta 21
09/22/2004 4:00–6:00 PM Emory University – Atlanta 39
09/28/2004 6:00–8:00 PM North Avenue Presbyterian Church – Atlanta 61
09/30/2004 6:00–8:00 PM Maloof Auditorium - Decatur 33
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-14
March 2005
The meetings were held in a similar format as in previous rounds (open house
with displays and question and answer sessions). The presentation and
discussion focused on the six defined transit alternatives. The evaluation criteria,
the preliminary costs and the constraints associated with each of the alternatives
(concepts). Alternative 4 was reconfigured based on public input from the
second round of public meetings. This alternative substituted streetcar and
Automatic Guideway Transit (AGT) technologies in place of the Diesel Multiple
Unit (DMU) technology. This substitution does not rule out the consideration of
the DMU technology in later phases of the study, including the Alternatives
Analysis. The compliant usage benefits offered by DMU technology warrants
further consideration for use in the study area. The alternative uses the original
Beltline alignment and an east-west connection along North Avenue and Ponce
De Leon Avenue.
Results from Round III
The overall public response of material presented in the third round of meetings
was positive. Questions posed centered around issues/concerns raised at
previous meetings including:
• Acquisition of rail right-of-way
• Directions of streetcars
• Station locations
• How the proposed alternatives will effect the current MARTA system?
• How the region is going to institute 2 or 3 different technologies?
• How the region will be impacted by the project overall?
• An interest in maintaining the original intent of the Beltline Concept, which
would include greenspace, walking paths, bikeways, light rail and/or
streetcar lines.
Public Meetings, Round IV
The fourth and final round of meetings was conducted in February 2005, which
identified the alternatives that will advance to the Alternatives Analysis phase.
Also during this round of meetings, the findings of the Feasibility Study were
presented. The table below shows the dates, locations and number of
attendees, at each meeting.
Date Location Public
Attendees
02/15/2005 6:00–8:00 PM North Avenue Presbyterian Church – Atlanta 107
02/17/2005 6:00–8:00 PM Mall West End – Atlanta 21
02/21/2005 4:00–6:00 PM Emory University – Atlanta 78
02/24/2005 6:00–8:00 PM Gallery at South DeKalb - Decatur 22
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-15
March 2005
Speakers Bureau Activities
To maintain ongoing contact with the public, several organizations including
NPU’s, neighborhood and civic organizations, business groups and others were
targeted and engaged in a series of speakers’ bureau activities. Speakers'
bureaus expand the opportunities for community participation. Speaking to
community groups at a place of their choice and soliciting specific feedback
increases the number of participants in a study process. This outreach technique
proved to be very effective for the study process and the study team participated
in a total of thirty-three events reaching more than 1,200 persons.
Collateral Materials
Newsletters, fact sheets and visual presentations are essential public information
materials that provide educational and updated information to the public about
the MARTA Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study. The newsletter has become an
important education medium for the project. Four newsletters have been printed
and distributed within the study area. The first newsletter was introductory in
nature and contained a detailed overview of the project approach including
graphics containing the study area. The second newsletter summarized the
purpose and need analysis and also included up-to-date project information
allowing the reader to follow the technical steps of the study and to understand
how decisions are being made. The third newsletter highlighted the public input
received to date and identified the alternatives to be evaluated for feasibility. The
fourth and final newsletter identified the final alternatives that will advance to the
Alternatives Analysis phase and explained the next steps in the process. A
project video was developed to provide a visual understanding of how a system
might work and to show the possible modes that could operate on the Beltline
and C-Loop alignments.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 1-16
March 2005
2 DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 Data Collection
The data analysis chapter of the report outlines the data collection efforts in the
early phases of the Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study. For a more detailed
description of the current and future study area conditions, refer to the Baseline
Conditions Assessment Report, March 2004.
2.1.1 Study Area Conditions
Existing Conditions
Understanding the Atlanta region and Study Area trip making patterns is a critical
step prior to identifying possible transit alternatives in the study area. Overall trip
patterns in the Atlanta region are assumed to be a “many to many” relationship.
Several activity centers with high concentrations of employment located
throughout the region, particularly in the suburbs, and the inadequate balancing
of jobs and housing generates a high volume of suburb-to-suburb commuting.
While the suburban commuting pattern is considerable, travel demand to the
Inner Core study area is very significant.
Current population within the Inner Core area is mostly concentrated in the north
and northeast sections. The study area population of 225,000 makes up
approximately seven percent of the total population for the entire 13-county
region. The neighborhoods within the study area extend from Midtown/Piedmont
Park north to Buckhead and east to the Virginia-Highlands/ Emory area.
Current employment in the Inner Core study area is approximately 340,000.
These jobs are clustered around the central, northwest, and northeast portions of
the study area. The most concentrated areas of employment are in the
Downtown and Midtown business districts. Additionally, the Northside
Drive/Chattahochee Avenue Industrial districts and the Clifton Corridor also
represent major employment centers.
Mobility options within the Inner Core study area include the most diverse in the
region. In addition to travel by automobile, transit by bus or rail, bicycle and
walking are modes available to residents and employees living or working in the
area.
Currently there is an extensive feeder bus network in the study area, but the
emphasis on connecting to nearby stations does not correlate with the emerging
trip patterns and access needs. Thirty-eight percent of the study area’s major
destinations and sixty-two percent of the corresponding neighborhoods are NOT
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-1
March 2005
accessible (within a ¼ mile walking distance) via the existing bicycle and multi-
use path system.
Projected Conditions
Year 2030 projection for the population within the study area is estimated to
increase by 79 percent to approximately 400,000 persons. This projected growth
is mostly concentrated in the southeast, southwest and northwest quadrants of
the study area. Average household size is also projected to increase from 2.08
to 2.4 persons, suggesting that the average age in the study area will be
younger. Forty-one percent of the household growth is expected to occur in
Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead and the Lindbergh Center area. All other
projected data is dispersed throughout other Inner Core neighborhoods.
Approximately 17 percent of the regional employment growth is attributed to the
employment growth in the study area. The number of jobs is expected to
increase by 68 percent over the next 25 years to approximately 523,000. This
projected growth is concentrated along the central corridor of MARTA North Line
and in the northwest and northeast sections. Significant redevelopment is
already underway in the study area, particularly on vacant Brownfields in close
proximity to the Beltline and C-Loop concepts. Most of the Atlanta region’s
parks, historic sites, major universities, tourist destinations, and cultural
resources are located within the study area, but have limited access via transit.
2.1.2 Major Travel Patterns & 2030 Regional Mobility Plan (RTP)
According to travel demand forecasts, the study area accounts for:
• 11 percent of the regions’ total trip activity by 2030 (2.1 million trips);
• 69 percent of trips for the study area are non-work related;
• Over 35 percent of internal study area work trips will be made by transit;
• By 2030 the Inner Core study area will account for 61 percent of MARTA’s
system-wide bus passenger miles.
Currently travel congestion is
• 24 percent for the region;
• 58 percent for the study area;
• Projected to increase to 41 percent for the region; and
• Projected to increase to 67 percent for the study area (by 2030).
Increased congestion will cause an increase in hours of delay. In addition, Metro
Atlanta consistently ranks in the top 5 for pedestrian-related fatalities and
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-2
March 2005
accidents. Table 2.1 (Appendix A-10) provides a list of roadway performance
measures for the Inner Core Study area.
Planned Roadway System Operating Conditions
Several improvements to roads within the study area are listed in the TIP and
RTP. These projects fall into categories that include new roadway construction,
roadway widening, interchange improvements, intersection improvements, and
additional turn lanes. A large portion of the projects are related to roadway
operations. Programmed projects include turn lanes and medians on Piedmont
Road near the Lindbergh Center MARTA station, and intersection improvements
along Ponce De Leon Avenue, Northside Drive, Peachtree Street, and Memorial
Drive. These projects total an investment of 124 million dollars in the study area.
The overall RTP roadway investment in the study area totals 497 million dollars,
however congestion will increase as described in the previous section.
2.1.3 Demographic Data
The Inner Core includes a very diverse set of distinct communities with varying
historic, economic, and demographic characteristics. However, with 83 percent
of the study area falling within the incorporated limits of the City of Atlanta, the
study area is a good overall representation of the demographic makeup of the
impacted communities. The Minority population represents more than half of the
population of the study area, at 62 percent. The African-American population is
the most predominant racial group, mostly concentrated in the southeastern
quadrant of the study area. Heavy concentrations of the African-American
population are also located outside the City limits, within large block groups
located in Unincorporated DeKalb County. Other pockets of African-American
communities are established in the central and western portions within the City,
centered around the Five Points and Bankhead MARTA Stations, respectively.
In accordance with the regional trend, the northern portion of the study area is
predominantly white.
According to 2000 Census tract level data, the median household income for the
Inner Core is approximately $33,700. This is significantly lower than the regional
value of $51,948. Further, there is a wide degree of household income
disparities among the geographic sections of the Inner Core. The Northeast
quadrant, which includes the northeast portion of City of Atlanta and the Clifton
Corridor in DeKalb County, has the highest median household income of
approximately $60,430. The Southwest quadrant of the Inner Core exhibited the
lowest median household income of $19,500. This area features the highest
concentrations of low-income and predominately African American households in
the region. Additionally, most of households located south of the I-20 expressway
fall below the median household income of the study area. Refer to Figure 2.1 in
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-3
March 2005
Appendix B-5 for an illustration of the geographic quadrants within the Inner
Core.
The elderly population is determined to be persons of age 65 years or older.
Analysis using geographic information systems (GIS) show clusters of the elderly
population near the periphery of the study area, with the highest concentrations
near the northern border.
The predominant employment sector in the Inner Core is the service industry,
comprising approximately 42 percent of the total employment. The service
industry is mostly concentrated in the affluent, northern section of the study area.
The retail industry, making up 10 percent of total employment in the study area,
is also centered near the northern section. The southern portion, namely near or
below the I-20 expressway, has a heavy cluster of government employment.
Downtown Atlanta is known for providing the highest concentration of
governmental employment in the region. The government industry makes up 22
percent of the total employment within the Inner Core.
2.2 Definition of Alternatives
2.2.1 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative will be based on Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC)
2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). ARC staff, working in conjunction with
GRTA, MARTA, GDOT, and local governments, recently developed the 2030
RTP. The plan was analyzed to determine impacts on transit ridership,
congestion, and air quality, and underwent public review. The ARC Board
adopted the final RTP in December 2004.
The 2030 RTP includes HOV projects on most of the radial freeways including
the northern half of I-285. It also features several high-speed BRT projects
including:
• I-75/I-575 HOV/BRT from Midtown Atlanta to Town Center in Cobb
County;
• I-285 North from Cumberland to Doraville to I-20 East;
• I-20 East from downtown Atlanta to Turner Hill Road in DeKalb County;
and
• I-85 North from midtown Atlanta to the Mall of Georgia.
The plan also includes a ‘Hybrid’ Beltline /C-Loop transit alternative, developed
as a placeholder and used for comparative analysis of various transit projects,
pending the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative. The Hybrid project
included in the ARC 2030 test network is essentially the same as Alternative 1
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-4
March 2005
described in subsequent sections. For the No-Build Alternative, this ‘Hybrid’ will
be removed from the RTP network. The I-20 East BRT facility will also be
removed from the network for the No-Build Alternative.
The 2030 RTP network features local bus service that is consistent with
MARTA’s current service levels, reflecting the route modifications made effective
June 26th 2004, per the fiscal year 2005 Service Modification Plan. Each of the
subsequent alternatives will be based on the No-Build Alternative.
2.2.2 Baseline Alternative B: Beltline
This alternative will consist of the Beltline concept, as originally proposed by
Ryan Gravel and Cathy Woolard with some minor modifications, based on
analysis of some engineering constraints. The original Beltline proposal called
for a “transit greenway” to be developed on the ring of existing freight rail lines
that encircle the Inner Core area. The proposal includes 43 stations along the
22-mile line; five of these stations would be located where the line intersects the
existing MARTA rail lines.
Another important feature of the Beltline proposal is the potential for
redevelopment of industrial property along the freight lines to denser, mixed-
uses. The rail rights-of-way forming the Beltline concept feature segments with
various owners and a range of track conditions, from removed track to very
active usage. Many of the industrial uses have moved out or are considered
likely to do so. See Figure 2.2 included in Appendix B-6 for an illustration of the
alternative.
2.2.3 Baseline Alternative C: C-Loop Alternative
The C-Loop, shown in Figure 2.3 (Appendix B-7) is a concept derived from the
efforts of U.S. Congresspersons John Lewis and Cynthia McKinney. The intent of
the concept was to connect numerous activity centers and neighborhoods not
directly served by the MARTA rail system. The general alignment is a C-shaped
line connecting the Clifton Corridor, the Lindbergh Center area, Atlantic Station,
Georgia Institute of Technology, the Atlanta University Center, the West End
area, Turner Field, Grant Park, and South DeKalb Mall.
2.2.4 Alternative 1: BRT Hybrid (Beltline/C-Loop)
This alternative combines promising segments of both the Beltline and C-Loop
concepts, using the Lindbergh-Clifton Corridor segment and the Decatur Belt
portion of the Beltline in the northeast quadrant, and the C-Loop on the south and
west sides. This alternative would tie into the existing MARTA system at the Arts
Center Station. Specific physical features are described below by segment,
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-5
March 2005
followed by a summary of the operating plan and illustrative map shown as
Figure 2.4 in Appendix B-8.
Hybrid Alternative 1: Generally follows the original Beltline Concept along
Decatur Belt freight RIGHT-OF-WAY from Lindbergh Station – DeKalb Ave -
Inman Park Station – Glenwood Memorial Connector – I-20. The hybrid then
follows the original C-Loop Concept from South DeKalb Mall via I-20 to Cherokee
- Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard – Joseph E. Lowery Boulevard – Martin
Luther King, Jr. Drive – Northside Drive – by Atlantic Station (17th Street) to Arts
Center Station.
2.2.5 Alternative 2: BRT Hybrid (via south Beltline)
This alternative also combines promising segments of the Beltline and C-Loop
proposals. However, instead of using the C-Loop alignment in the southeast
quadrant, there would be two routes connecting the east-side and west-side
segments: one would use the southeast quadrant of the Beltline (blue line on
map), and the other would use Edgewood/Auburn and Marietta-Luckie Streets to
provide a link through downtown Atlanta (red line on map). This alternative also
uses different routings than Alternative 1 in the vicinity of Inman Park and Atlanta
University Center (AUC). (Figure 2.5, Appendix B-9)
Hybrid Alternative 2: Four separate routes with overlapping segments.
Route 1 generally follows the Beltline along Decatur Belt freight corridor from
Lindbergh Station – Ralph McGill Boulevard – (departs beltline) to Moreland –
Inman Park Station - (returns to Beltline) - Glenwood Memorial Connector – SE
Belt to Boulevard – S Belt –Lee Street – through the AUC –Northside Drive–
North Avenue - Ferst Drive – State Street – 17th St to Arts Center Station.
Route 2 generally follows the original Beltline Concept along the Decatur Belt
freight right-of-way from Lindbergh Station to Irwin Street. It then departs from
the beltline and follows along the Edgewood/Auburn Pair – Marietta Street –
Thurmond Street -Luckie Street– North Avenue – Ferst Drive – State Street –
17th Street to Arts Center Station.
Route 3 generally follows C-Loop link from the Clifton Corridor to Lindbergh
Station along the existing freight right-of-way.
Route 4 in the hybrid generally follows the original C-Loop Concept from South
DeKalb Mall via I-20 to Capitol Avenue – Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive – to Broad
Street near the Five Points Station.
2.2.6 Hybrid Alternative 3
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-6
March 2005
This alternative uses alignments that are very similar to Alternative 2, but with
some variation. A new segment would connect Arts Center Station to the east
side of the Beltline via Peachtree (which could be shared with the proposed
Peachtree Streetcar) and Tenth Street. The alignment would also differ slightly
from Alternative 2 in the vicinity of the Carter Presidential Center and Grant Park.
(Figure 2.6, Appendix B-10)
Hybrid Alternative 3: Three routes with overlapping segments and multiple
modes.
Route 1 generally follows the original Beltline Concept along Decatur Belt freight
corridor from Piedmont Park at Monroe to Irwin St. It then departs from the
Beltline and follows along the Edgewood/Auburn Pair – Marietta Street –
Thurmond Street -Luckie Street – North Avenue – Ferst Drive – State Street –
17th Street to Arts Center Station – Peachtree Street– 10th Street back to Monroe
Drive.
Route 2 generally follows the original Beltline Concept along Decatur Belt freight
corridor from Lindbergh Station – Ralph McGill Boulevard– (departs beltline) to
Moreland Avenue– Inman Park Station - (returns to Beltline) - Glenwood
Memorial Connector – SE Belt – S Belt –Lee Street – through AUC –Northside
Drive – North Avenue - Ferst Drive – State Street – 17th Street to Arts Center
Station.
Route 3 in the hybrid generally follows the original C-Loop Concept from South
DeKalb Mall via I-20 to Capitol Avenue– Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive – Broad
Street Five Points Station.
2.2.7 Hybrid Alternative 4
This alternative provides service from Emory to Lindbergh, and then around the
east and south portions of the Beltline, from Lindbergh to Ashby. Freight service
on the existing rail lines in the northwest quadrant is considered to be too heavy
to allow frequent all-day service to share the tracks. In addition, segment 4 would
be served by a busway along I-20, similar to several other alternatives. (Figure 2-
7, Appendix B-11)
Hybrid Alternative 4: Three routes with overlapping segments and multiple
modes.
Route 1 generally follows the original Beltline Concept along Decatur Belt freight
corridor from Lindbergh Station – Ralph McGill – (departs beltline) to Moreland
Avenue – Inman Park Station - (returns to Beltline) - Glenwood Memorial
Connector – SE Belt – S Belt –Lee Street – West End Station –SW Belt – Ashby
Station – NW Belt – Lindbergh Station.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-7
Route 2 generally follows the original Beltline Concept from Ashby Station - W
Belt - It then departs from the beltline and follows along Addie Street – Joseph E.
Lowery Boulevard – North Avenue/Ponce de Leon Avenue – North Ave Station -
North Ave/Ponce - (returns to Beltline) - Ralph McGill Boulevard – (departs
beltline) to Moreland Avenue – Inman Park Station. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)
technology was applied to the C-Loop link from Emory to Lindbergh Station along
the existing freight corridor.
Route 3 in the hybrid generally follows the original C-Loop Concept from South
DeKalb Mall via I-20 to Capitol Avenue – Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive – to Broad
Street near the MARTA Five Points Station.
2.3 Mobility Improvements
Mobility improvements provide greater freedom of movement of persons and
goods and increased opportunities for access to goods and services. Mobility
improvements can expand transportation choices, increase options for access to
work, shopping, schools, recreation and other destinations, and directly enhance
one’s quality of life.
Among the key findings of the Baseline Conditions Assessment is the need to
address current and future growth related issues within the Inner Core by
identifying appropriate transit investments to adequately address mobility
concerns and support emerging redevelopment within the study area.
The Baseline Conditions Assessment identified a need for faster, more
convenient, more reliable transit and improved bicycle/pedestrian connections in
the study area, including links among neighborhoods and links to major
destinations.
Additionally, existing and anticipated increases in traffic congestion uncovered in
the Baseline Assessment highlighted the need to improve the efficiency of transit
service, introduce transportation options and better utilize the capacity of the
MARTA rail system.
2.3.1 Level of Service
Transportation Disadvantaged/Transit Dependent Service
Low-income households are defined by the U.S. Census as living at or below the
national poverty level. Year 2000 Census data was used to identify low-income
populations within the Inner Core as a basis for assessing the presence of
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-8
transportation disadvantaged or transit dependent populations within the study
area. The quality of life for these population segments could be enhanced with
increased transit accessibility.
According to the Census data, the number of low-income households within the
study area total 23,209. Low-income households are distributed throughout the
Inner Core, and are observed to be most concentrated in the central and
southern portions of the study area (see Figure 2.8, Appendix B-12).
The existing rail stations and feeder bus system provide the transit access for the
communities within the Inner Core. The idea of ‘feeding’ passengers into the rail
system limits the connectivity of direct transit access between neighborhoods
and other points of interests. Increasing direct transit options within the Inner
Core will improve mobility for the residents in the southeast and southwest
quadrants particularly the transit dependent, currently limited to travel by
automobile or indirect transit service. Access to local amenities, educational and
recreational facilities via direct transit connections for these population segments
define a need for transit investment within the Inner Core.
The following neighborhoods are generally known to have high concentrations of
low-income households. Additionally, federally mandated public housing projects,
such as HOPE VI, have and will continue to alter the makeup of these
neighborhoods.
• Atlanta University
• Ashview Heights
• Summer Hill/Capital Homes
• Butler Street/Auburn Avenue
• Bedford Pine
• Old Fourth Ward
• Between Peachtree and Midtown (north of Ponce)
• Vine City
• Techwood
Atlanta University, Summerhill/Capitol Homes, Vine City and Techwood are all
part of the HOPE VI Project, designed to decrease the concentration of low-
income residents in public housing by developing mixed income communities.
Approximately 20-40 percent of these new housing projects feature federal low-
income housing tax credit (LIHTC) units and the remaining housing are market-
rate units in order to compensate for the affordable housing. Although, the
density has decreased for Techwood and Vine City, these neighborhoods have
traditionally housed many student populations (Georgia Tech and Atlanta
University students, respectively) who are generally considered to be low-
income. It is too early to make any conclusions regarding the changing
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-9
socioeconomic climate of Summerhill/Capitol Homes, but the proximity of these
neighborhoods to Georgia State University could allow for trends similar to the
Techwood and Vine City neighborhoods.
Butler Street/Auburn Avenue, Bedford Pine and Old Fourth Ward are
neighborhoods all in the process of gentrification. Density is steadily rising with
new development, bringing in middle and upper-income households into these
neighborhoods. With the exception of Bedford Pine, which still has a majority of
low-income households intact with the addition of higher income households, the
remaining neighborhoods have displaced much of the low-income households.
This will be a key concern when speaking of the gentrification (redevelopment)
spawned by transit investment in the Inner Core.
The highest concentration of low-income is within a census block group bordered
by James P. Brawley Drive, Lawshe and Walnut Streets, in the Atlanta University
Center area.
Service for Non-Transportation Disadvantaged/Non-Transit Dependent
Populations
The mobility improvements realized by the transit investment in the Inner Core
area will include increased transit accessibility and connectivity for those
households currently relying on or choosing the single occupancy vehicle. The
majority of transit-dependent people live in the southeast, southwest and
northwest portions of the study area. Though these areas are undergoing some
redevelopment, portions still remain low-income housing and accessibility to the
MARTA system is only by bus. Any of the Inner Core alignments would enable
the community to enhance the quality of life in these areas, by creating better
transit accessibility to all of Atlanta and south DeKalb.
The neighborhoods inside the Inner Core Study Area are listed on the next page.
Activity Centers/Points of Interest
The study area of the Inner Core features a significant percentage of the region’s
major activity centers and points of interest. Potential mobility improvements
resulting from a transit project in the Inner Core include providing better access
to these major activity centers and points of interests, (see Table 2-2 and Figure
2-9 included in Appendices A-11 and B-13 respectively), including Downtown
and Midtown Atlanta, the Clifton Corridor (Emory University Area), South
Buckhead, AUC, South DeKalb Mall, Georgia Institute of Technology, Grant
Park, Piedmont Park, Centennial Olympic Park/Georgia Aquarium, Turner Field,
Piedmont Hospital and the Atlanta Hospital Center.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-10
To the northwest To the northeast Adair Park
quadrant: quadrant: NPs – F Mechanicsville
NPU – B, C, D, E Cheshire-Piedmont Peoplestown
Broadview-Morosgo Martin Manor Pittsburgh
Garden Hills Morningside-Lenox Summerhill-Capitol
Lenox Road-Pine Hills Park Homes
Peachtree Heights Piedmont Heights Benteen-Custer
East Virginia-Highland Avenue
Peachtree Heights Boulevard Heights-
West To the southwest Woodland
Peachtree Hills quadrant: East Atlanta
Peachtree Park-Lenox NPUs – J, K, L, S, T Grant Park
Argonne Forest- Ashview Heights Ormewood Park
Wyngate/Haynes Atlanta University Capital View
Collier Hills Bankhead Capital View Manor
Colonial Homes- Cascade Road Sylvan Hills
Peachtree Donnelly-Beecher Chosewood Park
Wildwood-Springlake Eagan Homes Joyland
Blandtown English Avenue Lakewood Heights
Hills Park Grove Park South Atlanta
Underwood Hills Hunter Hills
Ardmore-Brookwood Knight Park Inner Core
Brookwood Hills Maddox Park NPU – M
Georgia Institute of Marietta Industrial Bedford-Pine
Technology Mozley Park Butler Street-Auburn
Home Park Oakland City Ave.
Loring Heights Vine City Central Business
Midtown Washington Park District
Peachtree Corridor West End Lightning
Sherwood Forest- West Lake Old Fourth Ward
Ansley Park Westview Techwood
To the southwest Unincorporated
quadrant: NPUs – N, DeKalb County
O, V, W, X, Y Biltmore Heights
Cabbagetown Briarvista / Sage Hill
Candler Park Druid Hills
Druid Hills Edgewood Forest
City of Atlanta Emory University
Inman Park Sheffield
Poncey-Highland Victoria Estates
Reynoldstown
Edgewood
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-11
Improved transit access to Cultural and Community Resources are possible by
adding or enhancing direct connections to parks, universities, and hospitals.
Parks
• Atlanta Memorial Park
• Maddox Park
• Freedom Park
• Grant Park
• Piedmont Park
Colleges/Universities
• Emory University
• Georgia State University
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Morehouse College
• Spelman College
• Clark Atlanta University
• Morris Brown College
• Interdenominational Theological Center
Hospitals
• Piedmont
• Grady Memorial
• Georgia Baptist
• Atlanta
• Crawford Long
• Emory University
• Egleston Children’s
• Emory Clinic
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report 2-12
March 2005
2.3.2 Transit Usage
MARTA Bus
MARTA, the principal transit provider within the Inner Core, serves the study area
with 34 bus routes and approximately 160 vehicles during the peak period. Every
weekday, buses operate a total of 3,100 bus trips, 2,085 revenue hours, and 21,500
revenue miles. Peak service frequencies range from 8 to 60 minutes, depending on
the route. Thirty-one of the bus routes have Saturday service with frequencies
ranging from 15 to 76 minutes. Twenty-four of the routes offer Sunday service with
headways ranging from 25 to 90 minutes.
Total weekday boardings average approximately 67,200. The 34 routes within the
Inner Core average 21 passengers per weekday trip and 3 passengers per revenue-
mile. Using weekday farebox recovery as a measure of productivity, the study area
routes currently collect fares that cover between 27 to 82 percent of operating costs,
with 52 percent as the average farebox recovery rate.
MARTA Rail System
MARTA’s rail system includes 47-route miles and 38 stations. Sixteen stations are
located within the Inner Core study area (see Table 2.3, Appendix A-12). Trains
operate from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 12:30 a.m., seven days a week. On
weekdays, trains run every 10 minutes until 9 p.m.; thereafter they operate at 15-
minute intervals.
Rail transit investment within the Inner Core has the potential for significantly
increasing ridership especially in the northwest quadrant near the Proctor Creek Line
(see Figure 2.10, Appendix B-14). The MARTA Referendum System included an
extension of this line the current Bankhead Station to the former Perry Homes
location. Study of a transit solution in the Inner Core would provide an opportunity to
revisit the need for possible fixed-guideway transit in this area to serve traditionally
underserved communities in the area.
Improving mobility for persons residing in southwest Atlanta, beyond the West End
station (e.g. in communities like Florida Heights, Westwood Terrace Cascade Road,
and Venetian Hills) can be achieved through convenient access provided by the
proposed concepts of the study. Improved access and connectivity can attract riders
to and from the Atlanta University Complex while providing access from these areas
to other regional social and employment centers via the MARTA system (e.g. Emory
University/Medical Center, Perimeter Center, etc.)
2.3.3 Congestion
The Baseline Conditions analysis provided an overview of existing and future
forecasted roadway conditions within the study area.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-13
Interstates identified within the Inner Core include I-75 and I-85 and I-20. I-75/I-85
Connector is severely congested during peak hours from the Brookwood
Interchange, through the downtown area to I-20, with congestion overflow along I-
20. Congestion along these interstates has the effect of decreasing mobility and
restricting access to the CBD and other regional employment destinations.
The following surface streets were identified, as part of the Baseline Conditions
Assessment, to be the most congested streets within the Inner Core study area
during the PM peak period.
Congestion along these surface streets has the effect of limiting access to freeways
and MARTA Rail stations and degrading the ability of MARTA bus transit to serve
the Inner Core study area. Figures 2-11 and 2-12 (Appendix B-15 and B-16,
respectively) present current/baseline (Year 2000) and future (year 2030) congested
facilities within the Inner Core.
Overall, expanding mode choice within the Inner Core will enable those who travel in
the study area by alternative means to the automobile. Additionally, by managing
the existing transportation system more efficiently (e.g. to more fully utilize the
capacity of the MARTA rail system) further reductions in traffic congestion are
possible.
2.3.4 Mobility Measures
To define alternatives for this study, the Project Team performed a conceptual
analysis addressing issues related to mobility and accessibility, equity, environment
and cost. The evaluation is documented in the Definition of Alternatives/Concept
Planning Technical Memorandum. To identify alternatives, segment zone
characteristics and constraints were analyzed to identify:
• Opportunities to better link neighborhoods;
• Potential connections to link existing and planned parks, recreational and
multi-use (bike/ped) trail/path facilities;
• Possible connections to MARTA rail; and
• Levels of service and locations and transit route opportunities on
uncongested facilities (e.g. streets running parallel to active freight lines); and
potential impacts on arterial traffic operations.
The analysis resulted in the identification a Baseline B - Beltline Alternative, Baseline
C - C-Loop Alternative, and four hybrid alternatives integrating elements from the
two base concepts. Furthermore, the project team developed two measures to
estimate mobility improvements resulting from the implementation of the proposed
alternatives. The measures are identified in Table 2.5 included in Appendix A-13.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-14
The information gathered for the baseline conditions analysis provided data for
evaluating the performance of the alternatives, and a basis of comparison for the
transit alternatives.
2.3.5 Mobility Assessment
The following includes a description of the baseline travel demand model, the
methodology used to code the alternatives, and the model results.
BASELINE Travel Demand Model
The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) travel demand model was used to evaluate
mobility for the MARTA Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study. This model reflected
the financially feasible transit and highway improvements in the ARC 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) update process through September 1, 2004.
Enhanced model structure
To better address study level scenarios and issues, several modifications were
made to the regional model. First, the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure was
changed. Zone splits aimed at refining how the model handled transit increased the
number of TAZs from 1749 to 1806. This 1806-zone model structure was consistent
with that used in February 2004 for the ARC transit prioritization exercise. Beyond
what was required through the zone splitting process, no changes were made to the
ARC 2030 socioeconomic data.
Baseline Transit Network
Some transit service was modified in the 2030 ARC RTP model to establish the
baseline for comparing against the Inner Core build alternatives. The ‘M 104 BELT’
transit line, which runs south from Lindbergh Station to Inman Park Station, was
removed. The ‘M65 C_Loop,’ which runs from Lindbergh Station to Decatur, was
also removed. Both of these financially feasible routes are part of each Inner Core
build alternative. Also, to be consistent with the I-20 East Corridor Study, the I-20
BRT routes were updated to reflect the operating concepts from the Project’s ‘BRT
4’ Alternative.
Baseline Highway Network
Review of the model showed that an inaccurate connection existed in the network
between Howell Mill and Northside Drive. Huff Street was continued east from
Howell Mill to Northside Drive, but does not exist, and is not programmed in the ARC
2030 RTP. This short section of Huff Street was removed from the network, and
transit service was routed via Bishop Street, a western extension of 17th Street from
Howell Mill to Northside Drive.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-15
No other capacity or alignment changes were made to the financially feasible
highway system. The same baseline highway network was used for all alternatives.
Build Alternatives
Each of the six build alternatives was coded in the ARC model based on the
operating plans developed by the Inner Core team. These operating plans are
included in Appendix C.
Inner Core Alternatives
As stated earlier, the Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study will evaluate two principal
mobility concepts, the Beltline and the C-Loop. During the public involvement and
project coordination phase, four hybrid alternatives, which combine elements of both
the C-Loop and the Beltline, were developed. These hybrids were also included in
the mobility assessment for the study.
Exclusive right-of-way provided by abandoned or underutilized railroad segments is
a key benefit to the Beltline alternative. To represent these unique corridors in the
ARC model, special transit-only facilities were coded using Facility Type 54. This
facility type is reserved for coding exclusive right-of-way for transit (i.e. BRT) service.
It allows user input of travel time and distance for each portion of the route.
Based on the operating plans, this transit-only coding was used for the portions of
the C-Loop and Beltline using railroad right-of-way, such as between Lindbergh and
Emory University and between Lindbergh and Inman Park Station. It was also used
to code portions of the alternatives where service would operate in special bus lanes
separate from street traffic. For example, this coding was used for portions of the C-
Loop and Beltline along Northside Drive.
At stations, transit-only links were coded to connect the new service to existing
routes. These transit-only links facilitate the automated creation of walk and transfer
links in the model stream.
I-20 BRT Service
Common to all the alternatives is BRT service along I-20 into downtown Atlanta from
the Mall at Stonecrest and South DeKalb Mall. These routes were updated to be
consistent with the I-20 East Corridor Study and reflect the operating concepts from
the BRT 4 Alternative which connects to the C-Loop/Beltline at Moreland Avenue.
Mixed Traffic
For on-street transit service, the ARC model calculates transit speed based on the
congested highway speed and the facility type. The ARC model allows the user to
simulate the effect of signal prioritization by increasing transit speed by 10 percent.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-16
Signal prioritization was assumed for all on-street portions of the Inner Core
alternatives.
Other Considerations
Where results from preliminary runs showed that automated creation of walk and
transfer links to some stations did not occur, minor adjustments to station location in
relation to model centroids were made. Special transit-only links were also added to
facilitate walk- and transfer-link creation.
Model Results
Compared to the baseline no-build scenario, the ARC 2030 travel demand model
shows that each of the Inner Core build alternatives would improve the mobility. Key
measures show increased regional transit ridership, better utilization of existing
heavy rail facilities, and transit travel time-savings for each alternative (Refer to
Table 2.6, Appendix A-14).
Within the model, future land use is a key predictor for how any alternative will
enhance Inner Core mobility. The build alternatives that provide the greatest
potential improvements to mobility are located where the 2030 ARC model forecasts
the most intense future land use. In other words, the model shows that those areas
in the Inner Core where the most growth and redevelopment are anticipated will
provide the best environment for new transit service.
The model results clearly show that the alternatives with the best access to activity
centers, including redevelopment areas, provide the best potential enhancement to
the Inner Core transit system. For example, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 connect up to
20 attractions currently beyond a ½-mile walking distance of existing MARTA
stations. These alternatives also provide access to several Inner Core areas slated
for redevelopment, which is discussed in more detail in section 2.7, Transit-Oriented
Land Use. Compared to the other build alternatives, the model shows that these
three would generate the most new transit trips, the most new trips on the existing
heavy rail system, and the greatest transit travel timesavings
With its east-west connection through the Inner Core along the North Avenue/Ponce
de Leon corridor, Alternative 4 has the potential to be a strong performer. However,
the ARC 2030 future land use forecast does not reflect potential redevelopment and
intensification of land use that may occur with implementation of new transit service
on the south and western sides of the Beltline alignment. Unless the future land use
forecast for these portions of the Beltline corridor is strengthened, the ARC 2030
model will continue to show that this hybrid Beltline alternative does not do as much
to enhance Inner Core mobility as Alternative 1, 2, or 3.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-17
Alternative C provides new access to activity centers in the built-up areas of the
Downtown and Uptown inner-city areas. However this shortest build alternative
does not serve the activity centers on the east side from I-85 south through the
Piedmont Park and Copenhill area to I-20, which has several major activity centers
and is a focal point for urban redevelopment. Since this alternative does not provide
access to a key Inner Core area with land use ripe for transit, it will continue to under
perform in terms of mobility enhancement.
The Beltline, Alternative B, has the potential to reshape Atlanta’s Inner Core by
linking 46 neighborhoods and three new MARTA stations. However, this potential is
not reflected in the ARC 2030 land use forecasts. Without an alternative future land
use scenario that shows growth and redevelopment along the whole alignment, the
ARC model will continue to forecast minimal mobility improvements for the Inner
Core.
Summary
In summary, the mobility analysis from the ARC 2030 model provides a clear
distinction between the Inner Core alternatives. The results show that the hybrid
alternatives with direct access to inner city activity centers and key redevelopment
areas provide the best potential enhancement to the Inner Core transit system. The
alternatives with alignments through areas where the forecast land use is not as
intense, such as portions of the Beltline, do not perform as well. Revised future land
use scenarios, through consultation with the ARC will be an option for the
Alternatives Analysis stage of the Inner Core project development process.
2.4 Environmental Effects
There are wide ranges of environmental effects that can occur when evaluating
multiple alignments that weave throughout neighborhoods within the core of an inner
city environment. This section demonstrates the various platforms of evaluation
measures and the qualitative and quantitative nature of them. Environmental criteria
evaluated impacts to the natural and built environments, and the communities and
individuals within the study area. Throughout the study, special attention was
directed towards assessing project benefits and impacts on neighborhoods,
residences, and businesses located along the alignments. Recommendations will
focus on avoiding disruptions to neighborhoods and will include design elements to
protect existing neighborhoods. The following qualitative measures were used to
evaluate potential impacts to the communities.
• Estimated community impacts/disruptions for all categories: residential,
business, community facilities, churches
• Estimated in-street operations or at-grade crossings
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-18
As mentioned in the Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures Technical
Memorandum, the Inner Core Study is unlike other studies performed in the Atlanta
region. The initial Beltline Concept was used for freight rail use for many years. Due
to the nature of the study area, these measures will not use simple counts of
facilities within a specified distance from the new alignments. There are many
established houses, businesses, and community facilities in close proximity to the
Belt Line. Therefore, an estimate was made within a 1000-foot buffer surrounding
the each alternative. An analysis was determined on how many community facilities,
churches, schools, and recreational facilities are located inside the buffer
boundaries.
To avoid the inaccuracies of counting every building within the 1000-foot buffer as
impacted, these measures will evaluate the number of structures that would
negatively be impacted by the development of the alignment. This includes houses
that would be impacted by access points to the new facility, and the structures that
would be taken where an alternative follows an alignment.
The railroad right-of way boundary was used to determine the immediate impact on
residential and business structures. The right-of-way boundary was derived from a
land use GIS file, provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The digital
land use file was layered on top of 2004 aerial photography (Aerials Express) and
then scanned visually for structures that may be negatively impacted.
Community Impacts (non-residential)
Baseline Alternative B is estimated to have 23 schools, libraries, churches, and
community facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment. Again,
these facilities are not impacted negatively, rather they benefit from the potential
transit operation nearby that could enhance the quality of life and opportunity for
growth.
Baseline Alternative C is estimated to have 54 schools, libraries, churches, and
community facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment.
Alternative 1 is estimated to have 62 schools, libraries, churches, and community
facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment. This alignment as
described in section is a hybrid of Baseline Alternative B and C. Therefore will have
a potential to cover more of the inner core environment.
Alternative 2 is estimated to have 55 schools, libraries, churches, and community
facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment. This alternative
also will have a potential to cover more of the inner core environment.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-19
Alternative 3 is estimated to have 56 schools, libraries, churches, and community
facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment. This alternative is
the same as Alternative 2, with variation connecting the alignment along 10th street.
Alternative 4 is estimated to have 49 schools, libraries, churches, and community
facilities located within the 1000-foot buffer around the alignment.
For the Operating Impacts measure on the Inner Core Feasibility Study, a field
survey, and an aerial overview scan was performed to identify at-grade, bridge and
tunnel crossings. An estimate was calculated for each alignment and summarized.
For in-street operations, an analysis was conducted to estimate the total miles that
each alignment would potentially run on the current Atlanta street network.
Baseline Alternative B is estimated to have 10 at-grade crossings and run
approximately 0.65 miles along the current street network.
Baseline Alternative C is estimated to have 1 at-grade crossing and run
approximately 20 miles along the current street network.
Alternative 1 is estimated to have 5 at-grade crossings and run approximately 9
miles along the current street network.
Alternative 2 is estimated to have 9 at-grade crossings and run approximately
16miles along the current street network.
Alternative 3 is estimated to have 9 at-grade crossings and run approximately 15
miles along the current street network.
Alternative 4 is estimated to have 7 at-grade crossings and run approximately 17
miles along the current street network.
2.4.1 Land Uses
As development and redevelopment occurs, there is a need to improve air quality,
reclaim Brownfields, preserve natural resources, enhance public and open spaces
and protect historical/cultural resources.
By 2030, more than 62,471 anticipated new households and 158,667 new
employees drive the demand for additional land resources. Currently 48 percent of
the total land area is designated as residential uses, and it is expected to increase to
62 percent by 2030.
Brownfields
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-20
A significant number of Brownfields are within the Study Area. Reusing Brownfields
could provide project advantages because of the central location and connection to
existing transportation systems of most Brownfields. Their reuse has two benefits:
Value. Redevelopment cleans up and reuses potentially dangerous land where it’s
most valuable—in close proximity to high concentrations of people, businesses, and
to existing, infrastructure. In sum, redevelopment turns a liability into an asset.
Growth with less traffic. Redevelopment that is central to people and businesses can
improve job-housing balance creating communities less reliant on automobile use
the reducing the time and distance for commute trips.
Cultural and Natural Resources
Various Federal laws and Executive Orders, notably Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966 are intended to preserve parks, wetlands, historic
structures, archeological sites, and other cultural resources. The number of
environmentally sensitive area (park, wetland, historic sites, and cemeteries) with
potential negative impacts is the measure used to evaluate the project alternatives.
Most of the Atlanta region’s parks, historic sites, major universities, tourist
destinations, and cultural resources are also located within the study area, and many
of these are underutilized or hard to access by transit.
The study area includes many community resources such as Atlanta Memorial Park
in the north, Maddox Park in the west, Freedom Park in the east, Grant Park in the
south, and Piedmont Park near the center of the study area. The study area
includes eight universities including Emory, Georgia State, Georgia Institute of
Technology and the Atlanta University Center member institutions (Morehouse,
Spelman, Clark Atlanta, Morris Brown, and the Interdenominational Theological
Center). The study area includes 8 hospitals including Piedmont, Grady Memorial,
Georgia Baptist, Atlanta, Crawford Long, Emory University, Egleston Children’s, and
the Emory Clinic. The study area includes 19 fire stations, 11 libraries, 12 police
stations, 16 post offices, and 74 schools.
Noise Impacts
Construction and operation of new transit facilities poses a potential noise problem
to the residents and businesses near an alignment. Noise sensitive land uses are
defined as single and multi-family residential, low-density commercial, institutional
uses (such as schools, churches), parks and cemeteries.
Air Quality
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-21
It is known throughout the region that the air quality is below EPA standards and will
continue to be a serious problem. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require
that each metropolitan area create regional long-range plans that include
transportation investments, which reduce overall emissions. Nitrous Oxide (Nox)
and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are common emissions from petroleum-
dependent vehicles and when combined in the presence of sunlight, produce
ground-level ozone, which is a significant public health concern.
2.5 Equity Issues
As mentioned previously, the U.S. Census defines the low-income population as
those households living at or below the national poverty level. Low-income
households are not included in the Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) data; therefore U.S.
Census block groups were used as the unit of analysis. Significant minority, low-
income and elderly communities that depend on MARTA as their primary means of
transportation lie within the study area. In year 2000, 21 percent of the households
in study are at or below the poverty level and 10 percent of the study area population
is at or above the age of 65. Additionally, 23 percent of households in the study
area do not have a vehicle and 57 percent of the population is minority. Any transit
solution derived from this process must equally distribute all project benefits and
burdens to avoid disproportionate impact to these identified population segments
and communities.
2.5.1 Burdens and Benefits in Service
In most cases, there would be little or no perceived impact by a new transit facility.
The impact would be perceived as positive if the new transit facility will provide
access to employment or other destinations, particularly for low-income households
with no prior access. Additional benefits of a new transit service include the
development of other amenities in addition to the transit facility (e.g. linear park,
bikeway, etc.) Negative impacts include displacements due to housing structures
located at the access points to the new facility, or where an alternative follows an
alignment that is separate from the existing alignment.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-22
2.6 Cost
2.1.1 Problems, Needs and Opportunities
A systematic multi-step approach was undertaken in order to identify and define
transit alternatives that will meet the needs of the study area. As stated in Chapter 1
of this report, the first step involved dividing the study area into smaller scaled
segment zones that could be studied individually. For a more detailed description of
segment zones, refer to Definition of Alternatives/Concept Planning Technical
Memorandum. The following steps involved identifying, from the universe of transit
technologies, those technologies that would be applicable within context to the study
area conditions.
After identifying applicable technologies, a planning-level purpose and need
assessment was performed to measure the degree to which each segment zone
supported the study area needs and to identify some of the critical problems and
engineering constraints of the segment zones.
Many of the segment zones within the study area include existing active CSX and
Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way. The new transit systems must be
strategically located in order to preserve current and future freight operations, by
either sharing the existing infrastructure or constructing the new infrastructure along
side of it. The four major engineering considerations made for each segment zones
include: Right-of-way (ROW), Physical Barriers, Utilities, and Capital Cost.
The ROW consideration assessed the width of the ROW in each segment, the
number of existing tracks in the ROW, availability of ROW for transit modes, and the
frequency of the freight operations and traffic volumes in the segment. The
engineering analysis also included identifying the number of physical barriers such
as existing structures, ravines, water features, other transportation corridors, and
railroad yards. Utilities consideration was a qualitative approach assessing the
probability of a transit mode encountering utilities in the segment. Capital cost
consideration involved a range of costs associated with construction of transit modes
in various segments.
The overall results of the engineering analysis indicated which segments met the
satisfactory requirements of the four criteria. Moreover, this analysis also
determined the compatibility of the proposed transit technologies within the context
of each segment. The most recurring problems and needs involved the limited
availability of right-of-way, which requires large investments of both time and money.
For example, the results of the analysis showed that LRT service in the Emory
Corridor Segment would have a large impact on the right-of-way and would require a
large investment. Emory Corridor is also home to physical barriers such as the
existing structure at Apax, and conflicts at several at-grade crossings. These
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-23
findings pose considerable challenges to the feasibility of an LRT application in this
segment. Applying LRT alternatives in and through the Inman Yard Connector
Segment will have challenges due to the limited availability of right-of-way under the
current conditions.
There is also a need to address some of the heavy freight corridors in the study
area, such as Northwest CSX Line and Inman Yard Connector. Sharing the tracks
with freight operators is not feasible during high frequency freight operations. The
application of an LRT alternative would require relocation of some of the existing
freight tracks or purchase of additional right-of-way. Utilities did not have as
significant impact in comparison to the other criterion. Conflicts with utilities would
be minimum for both AGT and BRT transit alternatives, with the relocation of some
power poles and drainage structure adjustments.
The BRT alternative scored the highest compatibility with the most number of
segments within the study area. This alternative also proved to be very cost
effective, in terms of the magnitude of capital costs. In the Glenwood Connector and
Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard Corridor segments, BRT would use existing
roadways with limited improvements at intersections and stops. However, as with
other transit technologies, right-of-way acquisition will pose a major problem for the
BRT alternative. The Clifton Corridor, Beltline South Corridor, Northwest CSX Line
and Northwest Norfolk Southern Line segments are all constrained by limited right-
of-way, and would result in high cost from either construction of new roadbed
adjacent to tracks, or additional width for existing roadbed.
Overall the analysis indicated that Decatur Belt segment showed the most
compatibility with the most number of transit technologies, due to its consistency
with the existing MARTA system, limited impact on the right-of-way, and good
connectivity with the rest of the system. Overall results indicated that the Inman Yard
Connector segment, as currently used would pose significant challenges with any
transit technology due to limited connectivity, limited right-of-way, and high freight
operation. Figure 2.13 in Appendix B-17 illustrates the segment zones with different
levels of constraints in the study area. Table 2.7 in Appendix A-15 depicts which
modal alternative is the optimal choice to meet the transit need of the study area.
2.1.2 Capital Cost
The capital cost is a comparative analysis based on similar construction through out
the country. Costs are based on 2004 dollars and would be higher as the year of
construction is established. Escalation of approximately 3% per year should be
applied to determine a more concise range for analysis.
To establish an understanding of the range of the capital cost for the various
alternatives, each alternative was put through a conceptual level design to identify
the impacts, constraints and opportunities for each segment. Some of the areas of
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-24
constraint were advanced to a more detailed design analysis to identify possible
design solutions and develop a more detailed cost. Design challenges, such as
crossing of MARTA heavy rail tracks and the freight rail, were further advanced to
establish feasible and acceptable designs.
Assumptions were made throughout the analysis for the various systems. In the
case of streetcar and the BRT systems, it was assumed that there was sufficient
right-of-way in the freight corridor to allow for the construction of two sets of tracks or
a 40’ wide roadway. A 40’ swath would be purchased from the freight and/or
adjacent properties and obstacles either removed or modified to accommodate the
construction of the transit way. It was assumed that street running operations shared
the lanes with general automobile traffic, minimizing impacts to existing traffic or
infrastructure. Other assumptions included, some adjustments to utilities, traffic
signals, station designs, and intersections.
In the case of the AGT, it was assumed that the entire system is on structure and all
the stations are elevated to minimize the impacts to the Right-of-way in the Clifton
Corridor.
The cost estimates were based on the following assumptions by alternative:
Beltline - Baseline B (Figure 2.2, Appendix B-6)
The Baseline B alternative would operate along the same corridor as the MARTA’s
North Line and the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway. This alignment is 22.7 miles in
length provides a circular route around downtown Atlanta and providing connections
to MARTA heavy rail stations.
Although, the Beltline Alignment will operate in the existing rail corridor, there are a
number of estimated track and civil/roadway improvements that may be needed.
The Beltline alignment would require 31,600 track feet for new imbedded track slab
installation and 207,633 track feet for ballast track or new roadway. Costs
associated with traffic signal work include six new (or replacement) signals and nine
signal modifications. Street widening for this alignment is estimated at 17,600 square
feet. In addition to signal and roadway widening, this alignment includes 500 linear
feet for structure improvements or modifications in areas around the Emory yards,
Hulsey Yard, and the northwest area around the Norfolk Southern right-of-way. This
alignment estimates approximately 123 acres for right-of-way allowance.
C-Loop Baseline C BRT (Figure 2.3, Appendix B-7)
The C-Loop Alignment connects several attractions and destinations. The alignment
is 15.3 miles in length and most of the alignment follows arterial streets.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-25
It is estimated that there would be approximately 16,845 linear feet for the BRT
alignment/full build-out roadway and 64,000 linear feet for minor adjustments to the
existing roadway reconstruction. In addition, this alignment would include 3,300
linear feet of new roadway 18 feet in width. This alignment includes 1,600 linear feet
of a BRT overpass structure 36 feet in width. There would be a need for three new
(or replacement) traffic signals and six signal modifications. This alignment
estimates about 33 acres for right-of-way allowance.
Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 1 (Figure 2.4, Appendix B-8)
This alignment is derived from a combination of portions of the Beltline and the C-
loop. The alignment is 19.5 miles in length and most of the alignment follows arterial
streets.
This alignment would require rebuild of existing roadway to BRT standards and
some minor adjustments to the existing street network. It is estimated that there
would be approximately 21,345 linear feet for the BRT alignment/full build-out
roadway and 53,500 linear feet for minor adjustments to the existing roadway
reconstruction. In addition, this alignment would include 38,500 linear feet of
rebuilding the existing roadway to BRT standards and 4,550 linear feet of new
roadway 18 feet in width. This alignment would include 1,600 linear feet of a BRT
overpass structure 36 feet in width. There would be a need for four new (or
replacement) traffic signals and seven signal modifications. This alignment
estimates about 47 acres for right-of-way allowance.
Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 2 (Figure 2.5, Appendix B-9)
The Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 2 consists of three routes: Route 1, Route 2
and Route 3. The combined length of all three routes is 31.9 miles in length. The
alignment mostly follows arterial streets.
The cost estimates include civil and roadway work consisting of paved alignment 36
feet in width for the BRT, rebuild of existing roadway to BRT standards and some
minor adjustments to the existing street network. It is estimated that there would be
approximately 16,845 linear feet of feet for the BRT alignment/full build-out roadway
and 88,004 linear feet for minor adjustments to the existing roadway reconstruction.
In addition, this alignment would include 63,500 linear feet of rebuilding the existing
roadway to BRT standards and 2,900 linear feet of new roadway 18 feet in width.
This alignment would include 1,680 linear feet of a BRT overpass structure 36 feet in
width. All three routes would include 10 new and seven complete replacements of
traffic signals. This alignment estimates about 7 acres for right-of-way allowance for
Route 3 only.
Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 3 (Figure 2.6, Appendix B-10)
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-26
The Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 3 consists of three routes: Automated
Guideway Transit (AGT), Streetcar Route 1 and Streetcar Route 2. The combined
length of all three routes is 31.7 miles in length. The alignment mostly follows
arterial streets. The transit mode for this alternative is AGT for one route and
Streetcar for the remaining two routes.
The Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 3 alignment includes both track work and an
AGT guideway. This alternative consists of 184,808 track feet for new track slab
installation and 88,146 track feet for ballasted track work. This alternative includes
23,545 linear feet of elevated AGT guideway 36 feet in width. It is estimated that
there is 80 linear feet associated with widening a bridge to accommodate streetcar.
Cost associated with traffic signal work includes nine new (or replacement) signals
and eight signal modifications. This alternative estimates about 71 acres for right-of-
way allowance for all three routes.
Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 4 (Figure 2.7, Appendix B-11)
The Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 4 consists of two routes: Streetcar and Diesel
Multiple Unit (DMU). The combined length of both routes is 30.5 miles in length.
The alignment mostly follows arterial streets. The transit modes for this alternative
are DMU and Streetcar.
The Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid Alternative 3 alignment includes both streetcar track and
a DMU alignment track. This alternative consists of 58,600 streetcar track feet for
new track slab installation and 215,633 track feet for ballasted track work. This
alternative includes 47,090 linear feet DMU trackway. This alternative includes 2615
linear feet for a double track streetcar bridge and 300 linear feet of widening an
existing bridge to accommodate streetcar technology. It was estimated that there is
17,600 square feet for street widening. Cost associated with traffic signal work
includes 11 new (or replacement) signals and 12 signal modifications. This
alternative estimates about 140 acres for right-of-way allowance for all three routes.
Other assumptions:
• Streetcar Vehicles would be modern similar to the SKODA vehicle use in the
Portland and Tacoma systems. There, vehicles operate similar to light rail but
are capable of negotiating tighter curves thus making them more appropriate
for in-street operations
• BRT vehicles would be similar to vehicles operated in European systems,
such as the Civis, Pheleas or the New Flyer BRT.
• Right-of-way is available for purchase from the railroads and all agreements
are in place. Right-of-way purchased for the construction of the project is only
for the width required to construct the system. Unused portions of the right-of-
way are assumed to be sold and thus the cost of purchase is recovered.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-27
• All existing structure are capable of withstanding vehicle loads and would not
require any structural modifications
• Only public utilities within the corridors are estimated. Private utilities are
considered to be the owners responsibly.
Table 2.8 in Appendix A-16 establishes a range of costs for the various cost
breakdowns analyzed. It is intended to show the low range and the high range for
each breakdown. The ranges are stand-alone and adding up the cost breakdowns
does not establish a cost for any particular alternative, nor does it establish a low
cost or a high cost option.
2.1.3 Operating and Maintenance
Operations
Operating plans were developed for each of the six build alternatives as part of this
exercise. Headways for the bus or rail service on the new lines range from 4 to 30
minutes during peak periods, and from 8 minutes to 60 minutes offpeak. Hours of
service on the new lines will generally be from 6 am to midnight.
Local bus service will be connected to the new stations. Many of the proposed
stations are located where existing local bus routes cross the alignment. In some
cases, minor rerouting would be required to enable transfer connections between
local bus routes and the proposed new lines.
The new transit lines will also connect to MARTA rail stations on each of the four
major MARTA lines (except Alternative C, which connects to three lines). All
alternatives will connect to MARTA’s Lindbergh Center and West End Stations.
Other MARTA stations served by one or more alternatives are Inman Park-
Reynoldstown, Ashby, Vine City, Arts Center, Midtown, North Avenue, and Five
Points.
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs have been estimated for each of the six
build alternatives. For the feasibility phase, the estimates were made using
incremental costs per vehicle-hour. The estimates of annual vehicle-hours were
based on the operating plans that were developed for each alternative.
The unit costs for the various modes that were considered were derived as follows:
• BRT: Vehicle-operating costs were based on a marginal cost per revenue-
hour derived from a resource build-up model that had been developed for
MARTA in a previous study, with inflation to current dollars. The costs for
maintaining and operating BRT stations and bus roadways were estimated
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-28
using cost factors that have been derived from experience in other cities,
including Pittsburgh, and/or scaled from LRT experience. These costs cover
maintenance, utilities, and off-board security.
• Streetcar: Unit costs were derived primarily from the Portland Streetcar
system, with adjustment for differences in bus costs between Portland and
Atlanta.
• AGT: Unit costs were based on the systems in Miami and Jacksonville.
• Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU): Costs were derived from a cost model that MPA
developed for Denver.
The resulting incremental operating costs for the build alternatives, relative to the no-
build alternative, range from $11 million to $24 million annually. Although the
alternatives are being analyzed based on 2030 conditions, including demographics
and ridership, all costs are expressed in current dollars.
The following are detailed descriptions of the alignments and the potential
operations of each.
Baseline Alternative B is the original Belt Line concept. The alignment and station
locations are generally similar to Ryan Gravel’s proposal. The line would be 23
miles long, with 43 stations, or an average station spacing of just over one-half mile.
This alternative also includes BRT service along the I-20 East corridor, as do all of
the alternatives.
The full loop would connect to the following MARTA stations: Lindbergh Center,
Inman Park-Reynoldstown, West End, and Ashby. Hours of service for the new line
will be from about 6 am to midnight.
Many of the proposed stations are located where major streets cross the line, and
many of these streets have bus service that would make transfer connections with
the new line. A few bus routes would need minor rerouting to connect with the new
transit line. No headway changes are proposed for the feeder routes. At most,
stations the feeder buses would make on-street stops.
Baseline Alternative C is the original C-Loop concept. The new facility would include
a combination of exclusive busway and arterial operation. Principal segments of the
plan include:
A busway along I-20 from South DeKalb Mall to Glenwood-Memorial
Connector (BRT service would continue east to South DeKalb Mall or
possibly, the Mall at Stonecrest, and would continue west in HOV lanes
from Glenwood-Memorial to downtown)
Arterial operation from Glenwood-Memorial to the MARTA West End
Station, using Cherokee, Georgia, and Abernathy
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-29
Arterial operation from West End to Pershing Point using Joseph E.
Lowery Boulevard, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Northside Drive, 17th
Street, and West Peachtree/Spring Streets.
Operation along Buford Highway Connector to Monroe Drive/Armour
Drive, then via surface streets to a short new facility (joining with the line
from the Clifton Corridor) to the MARTA Lindbergh Station.
A new facility along the CSX corridor from MARTA Lindbergh Station to
the Clifton Corridor.
In the arterial portions, vehicles are assumed to have signal priority, but not full pre-
emption, at all traffic signals. Connections with the MARTA heavy rail system would
occur at West End, Vine City, and Lindbergh Stations. Hours of service for the new
line will be from about 6 am to midnight. The new line would be 23 miles long, and
would have 32 stations (average station spacing of 0.8 miles).
Many of the proposed stations are located where major streets cross the line, and
many of these streets have bus service that would make transfer connections with
the new line. A few bus routes would need minor rerouting to connect with the new
transit line. No headway changes are proposed for the feeder routes. At most
stations the feeder buses would make on-street stops.
Alternative 1 is a hybrid alternative that includes some portions of both the Belt Line
and the C-Loop. It has a combination of exclusive guideway and arterial operation.
This is the alternative submitted to the ARC, as part of 2030 RTP Transit
Prioritization process, with minor changes. Principal segments of the plan include:
A new facility along the CSX corridor from Lindbergh Station to the Clifton
Corridor (4 miles and about 5 stations).
A circumferential line from Lindbergh Station to Inman Park/Reynoldstown
Station to West End Station to Arts Center Station. It would follow the Belt
Line alignment from Lindbergh to I-20 East. It would continue with arterial
operation using Cherokee, Georgia, Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard,
Joseph E. Lowery Boulevard, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Northside
Drive, and 17th Street (a total of 18 miles with 38 stations; average station
spacing would be slightly less than one-half mile).
A busway along I-20 from Glenwood-Memorial Connector to South
DeKalb Mall (6 miles with 5 stations). BRT service would continue east to
South DeKalb Mall and possibly, to the Mall Stonecrest, and west in HOV
lanes from Glenwood-Memorial to downtown.
The operation would include several different routes:
On I-20 East: express routes to downtown Atlanta.
A route from Lindbergh to the Clifton Corridor, with possible continuing
service to Decatur.
A route from Lindbergh to Arts Center, via Inman Park and West End.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-30
In the arterial portions, vehicles are assumed to have signal priority, but not full pre-
emption, at all traffic signals. The circumferential line would connect to the following
MARTA stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park-Reynoldstown, West End, Vine
City, and Arts Center. Hours of service for the new line will be from about 6 am to
midnight.
Many of the proposed stations are located where major streets cross the line, and
many of these streets have bus service that would make transfer connections with
the new line. A few bus routes would need minor rerouting to connect with the new
transit line. No headway changes are proposed for the feeder routes. At most
stations the feeder buses would make on-street stops.
Alternative 2 is also a hybrid alternative that includes some portions of both the Belt
Line and the C-Loop, with a combination of exclusive guideway and arterial
operation. It includes both an inner and outer loop route from Lindbergh to Arts
Center, with the inner route going through downtown, and the outer loop following
the southeast quadrant of the Belt Line. It also includes:
A new facility along the CSX corridor from Lindbergh Station to the Clifton
Corridor (4 miles and about 5 stations).
A busway along I-20 from Glenwood-Memorial Connector to South
DeKalb Mall (6 miles with 5 stations). BRT service would continue east to
South DeKalb Mall and possibly, to the Mall at Stonecrest, and west in
HOV lanes from Glenwood-Memorial to downtown.
The operating plan would include several different routes:
On I-20 East: express routes to downtown Atlanta, as in the other
alternatives, with a transfer station at I-20 and Glenwood-Memorial.
A route from Lindbergh to the Clifton Corridor, with possible continuing
service to Decatur.
Route 100 is the outer loop route from Lindbergh to Arts Center. It would
follow the Belt Line from Lindbergh to Copenhill (McGill), then operate on-
street via Freedom Parkway, Moreland Avenue, and Seaboard Avenue to
the Inman Park Station. It would continue via the southeast Belt Line to
West End Station. From West End route 100 would follow an in-street
alignment through the Atlanta University Center to Greensferry Street and
Northside Drive. The route proceeds north on Northside Drive to 16th
Street, then via 16th and 17th Streets near Atlantic Station to Arts Center.
This route is 18 miles long with 36 stations.
Route 102 is the inner loop route from Lindbergh to Arts Center. It would
follow the Belt Line from Lindbergh to Irwin Street. Route 102 then turns
west and uses Auburn and Edgewood Avenues to reach downtown,
travels on Marietta Street, to serve the proposed Aquarium, Coca Cola
Headquarters, and the Georgia Institute of Technology to Northside Drive,
where it picks up the same route as route 100 to Arts Center Station. Most
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-31
of Route 102 overlaps Route 100; the new segment through downtown is
6 miles long with 9 stations. The overall mileage for the two loop routes,
excluding overlap, is 24 miles with 45 stations, an average spacing of less
than one-half mile.
In the arterial portions, vehicles are assumed to have signal priority, but not full pre-
emption, at all traffic signals. Hours of service for the new line will be from about 6
am to midnight.
Many of the proposed stations are located where major streets cross the line, and
many of these streets have bus service that would make transfer connections with
the new line. A few bus routes would need minor rerouting to connect with the new
transit line. No headway changes are proposed for the feeder routes. At most
stations the feeder buses would make on-street stops.
Alternative 3 is a hybrid alternative that is identical to Alternative 2, except for an
additional segment in Midtown. The Clifton Corridor and I-20 segments are identical
to Alternative 2. The outer loop route would be the same as route 100 in Alternative
2.
The inner loop route would begin at Arts Center Station instead of Lindbergh. It
would run south on Peachtree Street, then east on Tenth Street to the Belt Line,
where it would follow the same alignment as route 102 in Alternative 2 back to Arts
Center Station. This route would be 12 miles in length with 20 stations. The total
length of the two loop routes, excluding overlap, is 23 miles, with 48 stations;
average station spacing is just under one-half mile.
Other operational characteristics of this alternative are the same as for Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 includes the Belt Line, with an alignment variation on the east side, plus
a cross-town link along the Ponce de Leon/North Avenue corridor. The alternative
also includes the I-20 BRT facility, and a Clifton Corridor-Lindbergh line, as in the
previous alternatives.
The circumferential route generally follows the Belt Line alignment, except near the
MARTA East Line. It would follow the Belt Line from Lindbergh to Copenhill (McGill),
continue on-street via Freedom Parkway, Moreland, and Seaboard Avenues to
MARTA Inman Park Station. It would return to Moreland and continue south to East
Atlanta, where it would turn west on Glenwood until it reaches the Belt Line. Service
would continue via the southeast Belt Line to the MARTA West End Station. From
West End, it would follow the Belt Line, with a short on-street segment north of the
MARTA Ashby Station, as in Alternative B, until it returns to the MARTA Lindbergh
Station. This route is 23.5 miles long with 43 stations.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-32
The cross-town route would connect the east and west sides of the Belt Line with a
route along the Ponce de Leon Avenue/North Avenue corridor. Operationally, the
new route would begin at Ashby Station. It would follow the Belt Line to the
Jefferson Station, immediately west of Joseph E. Lowery Boulevard. It would then
branch off to the east along an abandoned railroad line, which turns southeast until it
reaches North Avenue. The line would run east on North Avenue to the MARTA
North Avenue Station. It would switch over to Ponce de Leon and continue east to
the Belt Line, where it would turn south. Service would continue along the Belt Line
to the MARTA Inman Park Station. The new alignment portion is 3.5 miles long with
8 new stations. The overall mileage for the two routes, excluding overlap, is 27
miles with 51 stations, and an average spacing of less than one-half mile.
Other operational characteristics of this alternative are the same as for Alternatives 2
and 3.
2.7 Transit-Oriented Land Use
This section presents an overview of the evaluation for the Feasibility Study analysis
of the proposed six transit alternatives, using the Land Use and Redevelopment
performance measures. Figure D-1 illustrates the existing conditions in the study
area. The six transit alternatives and their relationship to some of the key land use
and redevelopment features are illustrated in Figures D-2 through D-7.
Land Use and Redevelopment is one of six needs that were identified in the Need
and Purpose Assessment, which states: “As new households form and employment
increases, there is a NEED to provide compatible transportation solutions that
reinforce the Inner Core as the regional center, serve existing neighborhoods, and
facilitate emerging trends for compact, mixed-use infill and redevelopment.”
To assess the performance of the six transit alternatives relative to the Land Use
and Redevelopment NEED, the following four performance measures were selected
for evaluating the proposed transit alternatives:
• Vacant/Underutilized Land Near Stations
• Accessibility to Major Cultural, Educational, and Recreational Facilities
• Ability to Promote Redevelopment Goals
• Enhancement of Urban Environment
The background material for this evaluation is documented in the Baseline
Conditions Assessment Report and the Definition of Alternatives/Concept Planning
Technical Memorandum.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-33
The proposed new Inner Core transit improvements will not work in isolation, but will
be part of a larger transit system. The intent is for the proposed new transit
investment is to complement the existing MARTA system and to have, seamless
connectivity with the MARTA rail stations. Since the total transit network will impact
land use and redevelopment, the evaluation of each alternative was conducted on
the combined total transit system, which includes, for each proposed transit
alternative, the following:
• Existing MARTA Heavy Rail System
• Proposed I-20 BRT System
• Proposed New Inner Core Transit System
The key transit system elements related to land use and redevelopment, are the
access points – the transit stations. Although the new transit system alignments
may have some impact on land use and redevelopment related to proximity,
including visual and noise impacts, the transit stations, being the access points to
the transit system, are key considerations when assessing impacts on land use and
development.
The greatest impact of transit stations is to the areas immediately adjacent to the
stations. The impact tends to decrease with increasing distance from the stations.
The generally accepted standard for the primary transit station influence area is a ½-
mile radius circle around the transit stations. The ½-mile radius represents,
approximately, a 10-minute walking distance from the stations, which is considered
to be the maximum comfortable distance that most people would be willing to walk to
transit stations. The influence area for other modes of transportation, including
biking, may extend well beyond the ½-mile radius limit. The evaluation of the
alternatives for this study is based on the land use and redevelopment impacts that
would occur within a ½-mile radius distance from the existing MARTA stations, the
proposed I-20 BRT stations, and the new Inner Core transit system stations, as
proposed in concept, for the six transit alternatives.
In order to complete the evaluation, a composite plan was prepared to illustrate the
key land use and redevelopment forces and issues. Then, the six transit alternatives
were superimposed on the composite Forces and Issues Base Plan (Figures A-2
through A-7). The Forces and Issues Base Plan for each of the six transit
alternatives identifies the following features:
• Existing MARTA HRT alignments and stations
• Proposed I-20 East BRT alignments and stations
• The proposed Inner Core transit system alignments and stations
• One-half mile radii (representing 10-minute walking distances) around all the
MARTA HRT, I-20 East BRT, and proposed Inner Core transit system
stations
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-34
• Underutilized or vacant parcels of land in the study area
• Tax Allocation District (TAD) boundaries
• Livable Center Initiative (LCI) boundaries
• Points of Interest
Following is a discussion of the four Land Use and Redevelopment performance
measures and an evaluation of each of the alternatives. The alternatives are
discussed in the following order: B, C, 1, 2, 3, and 4. The sequence in which they
are listed is not intended to indicate or imply any ranking or preference.
2.7.1 Vacant/Underutilized Land Near Stations
Quantitative: Acres of vacant or underutilized land within ½ mile of transit stations
This performance measure provides a quantitative evaluation of the proposed transit
alternatives that is based on the total approximate amount of undeveloped or
underutilized land, in acres, within a ½-mile distance of the existing MARTA,
proposed I-20 BRT, and the proposed new Inner Core transit system stations. The
classification of vacant or underutilized land is derived from established ARC
standards.
The intent of this performance measure is to provide a general comparison between
the alternatives of the amount of property that might be a candidate for
redevelopment. The actual availability and quality of the vacant or underutilized
parcels would need to be evaluated further in future project development phases.
The process for establishing vacant or underutilized land for each alternative
consisted of the following steps:
• Identification of all vacant or underutilized land, as per the ARC standards,
in the study area
• Determination of which vacant or underutilized parcels are within a ½-mile
of the transit stations – the transit station influence zone
• Calculation of the total amount of vacant or underutilized land within the
transit station influence zones
Most of the vacant or underutilized land is clustered along the beltline railroad
corridors and immediately south and west of the core area. The acreage of vacant
or underutilized land for the six transit alternatives ranges from approximately 3,890
acres to 5,240 acres.
Alternative B would provide access to 5,130 acres.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-35
Alternative C has the shortest network of transit routes and the fewest transit
stations, would provide access to 3,890 acres of vacant or underutilized land.
Alternative 1 would provide access to 4,560 acres of vacant or underutilized land.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide access to 5,040 acres of vacant or underutilized
land, each.
Alternative 4 would have the most extensive network of transit corridors and transit
stations, would provide access to 5,240 acres of vacant or underutilized land.
2.7.2 Accessibility to Major Facilities: Cultural, Educational, etc.
Qualitative: Proximity of stations to parks, stadiums, universities, museums, etc.
This performance measure provide a qualitative evaluation of how well each
alternative connects or links the points of interest, which consist of major attractions
and civic facilities, in the study area. Over 60 attractions and features of national,
regional, or local significance, ranging from art museums to public parks, were
identified.
Most of the 60 identified attractions, listed and identified on the figures, are clustered
in the Downtown and Midtown areas and are within a ½-mile walking distance of an
existing MARTA station. Approximately 26 of the 60 attractions are currently outside
the ½ mile radius coverage area, or a 10-minute walk from a MARTA station. They
include major institutions, such as:
• Georgia Institute of Technology,
• Spellman College,
• CDC,
• Morehouse College, and
• Emory University
Major parks and recreational facilities include:
• Turner Field,
• Piedmont Park, and
• Grant Park.
Additional attractions outside the current MARTA station coverage area include:
• Atlanta Botanical Gardens
• Atlanta Contemporary Art Center
• Atlantic Station
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-36
• Atlanta Waterworks
• Cyclorama
• Callanwolde Fine Arts Center
• The Carter Presidential Center
• Ferst Center for the Arts
• Fort McPherson
• Fernbank Museum of Natural History
• Fernbank Science Center Planetarium and Observatory
• Glenwood Green
• King Plow Arts Center
• Lakewood Amphitheater
• Michael C. Carlos Museum
• Wrens Nest
• Zoo Atlanta
None of the proposed transit alternatives would provide access to all the
attractions.
Alternative B would provide improved access to an additional 8 attractions
including: Atlanta Botanical Garden, Atlanta Waterworks, The Carter Presidential
Center, Glenwood Green, King Plow Arts Center, Piedmont Park, Wrens Nest,
and Zoo Atlanta.
Alternative C would provide improved access to an additional 17 attractions
including: Atlanta Contemporary Art Center, Atlantic Station, Atlanta Waterworks,
Cyclorama, CDC Museum, Emory University, Ferst Center for the Arts,
Glenwood Green, Georgia Institute of Technology, Grant Park, King Plow Arts
Center, Morehouse College, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Spellman College,
Turner Field, Wrens Nest, and Zoo Atlanta.
Alternative 1 would have similar coverage as Alternative C, except that it would
provide improved access to an additional 20 attractions. The 3 additional
attractions, over and above the ones listed under Alternative C, include: Atlanta
Botanical Gardens, The Carter Presidential Center, and Piedmont Park.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide improved access to an additional 17
attractions including: Atlanta Botanical Gardens, Atlanta Contemporary Art
Center, Atlantic Station, Atlanta Waterworks, CDC Museum, The Carter
Presidential Center, Emory University, Ferst Center for the Arts, Glenwood
Green, Georgia Institute of Technology, King Plow Arts Center, Morehouse
College, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Piedmont Park, Spellman College, Wrens
Nest, and Zoo Atlanta.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-37
Although Alternatives 2 and 3 have virtually the same coverage area, Alternative
3, due to its east-west link through Midtown, between the MARTA Arts Center
station and the Decatur Belt ROW, would have better connectivity and provide
more direct access to most of the attractions.
2.7.3 Ability to Promote Redevelopment Goals
Qualitative: Ability to support and complement community redevelopment
goals and objectives
This performance measure provides a qualitative evaluation of the performance
of each alternative relative to the promoting the community’s redevelopment
goals. One indicator of redevelopment potential is the amount of vacant or
underutilized land near stations, a measure discussed previously.
Another indicator of redevelopment intent is the establishment of Community
Improvement Districts (CID), Plans derived from the Regional Livable Center
Initiatives (LCI) program, Tax Allocation Districts (TAD), and other Renewal
Community (RC) Initiatives and ongoing redevelopment projects.
The two CIDs in the study area, Atlanta Downtown Improvement District and
Midtown Improvement District, are located in the core area, along the north-south
MARTA spine and are covered by existing MARTA stations.
The majority of the established six LCIs and four TADs are clustered inside the
Beltline to the east and west of the downtown core area. The three exceptions
are: the West End LCI, which is located in the southwest quadrant, near the West
End MARTA Station; the Upper Westside LCI, located in the northwest quadrant,
straddles the Beltline; and the Perry Bolton TAD, located in the northwest
quadrant, outside the Beltline.
Following the national trends of revitalization of the inner city cores, the migration
of the younger workers and empty nesters to inner city in-fill and recycled
housing, and the emergence of mixed-use centers, Atlanta’s Inner Core area is
undergoing a major change in land use and density of development.
The Definition of Alternatives/Concept Planning Technical Memorandum includes
an extensive discussion of these trends. Figure 6.1 identifies key areas for
potential redevelopment. The prime areas with development projects, or the
potential for future development, are the Downtown and Midtown core areas, a
band along the Norfolk Southern Beltline along the east side of the core area, the
area west of Atlantic Station, and the areas in the Clifton Corridor. Areas along
the Beltline, southwest of the core area, are considered ‘Sleeper Areas’ that have
not emerged yet as redevelopment areas, but do have great potential.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-38
An additional indicator of potential open space and redevelopment opportunities
is the recently completed study, The Beltline Emerald Necklace: Atlanta’s New
Public Realm, by the Trust for Public Land. The focus of this study is the Beltline
and the Executive Summary states that: “By tying together 46 neighborhoods
with each other and with three new MARTA stations, the 20-mile-long Beltline
Transit system will provide access to every major destination in Atlanta, including
the thirteen jewels that make up the 2,544-acre Emerald Necklace:
4 Expanded Park Jewels
• Enota Park (expanded from .3 acres to 10 acres)
• Maddox Park (expanded from 52 acres to 114 acres)
• Ardmore Park (expanded from 2 acres to 8 acres)
• Piedmont Park (expanded from 185 acres to 217 acres)
4 New Park Jewels
• 65-acre Peachtree Creek Park
• 2-acre Holtzclaw Park
• 63-acre North Avenue Park
• 204-acre Waterworks Park
5 Mixed-Use Jewels
• 87-acre Hulsey Yards (40 acres open space)
• 215-acre Boulevard Crossing (108 acres open space)
• 378-acre Murphy Crossing (189 acres open space)
• 49-acre Simpson Road (7 acres open space)
• 579-acre Bellwood Lake (434 acres open space)”
Alternative B, similar to the alignment and concept proposed by the Trust for
Public Land for the Beltline Transit system, would focus on and support primarily
the redevelopment of the Beltline corridor. The emphasis in this option is on the
vacant and underutilized industrial land along the railroad beltway. Due to its
peripheral location, this option would skirt the outside edges of most of the TAD
and LCI redevelopment districts.
Alternative C would promote the redevelopment of the built-up, inner-city core
area, close to the Downtown and Uptown urban cores. However, its potential to
support redevelopment would be limited, since it would only impact the southern
and western sides of the core area.
Alternative 1 would have the same alignment and impacts, along the southern
and western sides of the core area, as Alternative C. In addition, it would extend
along the eastern half of Beltline, from I-20 to the MARTA Lindbergh Station.
Due to the extensive coverage of this option, there would be increased impacts
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-39
to some of the inner-city neighborhoods, and industrial land along the railroad
beltway, east of the core area.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are a mixture of the Beltline concept of Alternative B, on the
south and east sides, and the inner-city concept of Alternative C, on the west
side. In addition, this option would include an east-west link along the Auburn
Avenue/Edgewood Avenue corridor. Compared to Alternative 1, these
alternatives would put much more emphasis on redevelopment of the Beltline,
especially along the southeast side, while providing some impact on the inner-
city neighborhoods along the west edge of the core area.
Alternative 4 is very similar to Alternative B, except it includes an east-west link,
along the North Avenue/Ponce de Leon Avenue corridor, and a slightly different
alignment in the Inman Park area, where it is located along Moreland Avenue.
This option also supports redevelopment of inner-city neighborhoods.
2.7.4 Enhancement of Urban Environment
Qualitative: Potential of the transit system to enhance the visual quality of the
urban environment
This performance measure qualitatively estimates the ability of the transit
alternatives to provide the greatest enhancement to the existing urban
environment. Transit projects, due to the possible upgrades to existing
infrastructure and the need to add new streetscape elements and features, have
the potential to improve the visual appearance and image of neighborhoods and
districts.
There are various approaches to developing a transit solution that support
redevelopment efforts, including development of former industrial corridors or
revitalizing existing communities. Locating the transit facility in the Beltline
corridor could transform the surrounding obsolescent industrial areas into new
developments and neighborhoods. Additionally, the congruency of this concept
with the greenway corridor as conceptualized in TPL’s Greenspace Feasiblility
Study, could provide linkage for all the open space trails and paths located
around the core area.
Locating the transit facility through existing inner-city neighborhoods could help
rejuvenate and assist in the redevelopment of these stressed areas.
Alternative B, focused exclusively on the railroad Beltline, would obviously
support the goal of redeveloping the obsolescent industrial areas along the
railroad corridors.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-40
Alternative C is located, almost exclusively, in inner-city residential
neighborhoods. This option would obviously support the redevelopment and
rejuvenation of aging and stressed urban areas.
Alternative 1 follows the development trends similar to Alternative C, supporting
the inner-city residential neighborhoods. Additionally, this alternative would
improve areas located near the Beltline railroad corridor on the east side of the
core area.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would impact a larger segment of the railroad Beltline
corridor along the east and south sides and less of the inner-city neighborhoods
along the west side.
Alternative 4 would have a similar impact as Alternative B, in that it would
primarily support redevelopment in the Beltline railroad corridors, except that it
would also provide opportunities for improvements along the North
Avenue/Ponce de Leon Avenue corridor.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 2-41
3 Evaluation and Summary
The Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study began in June 2003 with the purpose of
assessing the projected transit needs within the Inner Core of Atlanta, and to
determine the most appropriate transit investments to meet those needs. This
study featured the evaluation of two base concepts, and others as developed
through public outreach, to determine the level of support and the physical
feasibility of a major transit investment, possibly fixed-guideway, in the Inner
Core of the Atlanta area.
The feasibility study covered a 20-month period. Other alternatives above the two
base concepts, the Beltline and C-Loop, were identified through participation
from the study team, Technical Advisory Committee, Stakeholders Advisory
Committee, and public input. These four additional concepts included hybrids of
the two base concepts. The alternatives were evaluated based on qualitative
analysis in order to identify the best performing segments to advance into the
Alternatives Analysis phase.
At the completion of the feasibility evaluation, four of the six alternatives were
selected for advancement into the Alternatives Analysis phase of the project
development process. These concepts include the Beltline Concept, the C-Loop
Concept, the Hybrid Concept, and the concept featuring best performing
segments of the three alternatives (2-4) created during the feasibility study.
This section summarizes the results of the feasibility study leading to the
identification of the four concepts, and is organized into four sections –
Evaluation Measures, Equity, Strategies Leading to the Development of Transit
in the Corridor, and Conclusions. The Evaluation Measures section outlines the
benefits and constraints identified for each evaluation criteria. The Equity section
illustrates the communities and demographics that will receive benefits
associated with the transit investment. The Strategies Leading to the
Development of Transit in the Corridor discusses the initiatives in the study area
that could assist in the funding of the project. In the Conclusions section, next
steps of the study process are outlined.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-1
3.1 Evaluation Measures
The evaluation of alternatives included using criteria consistent with FTA
evaluation criteria for an Alternative Analysis. The criteria included evaluation
measures for mobility and accessibility, land use and redevelopment,
environmental effects, and cost effectiveness. Due to the conceptual nature of
the study, many of the measures used in this evaluation were qualitative.
Each alternative was evaluated based on identification of the relative merits,
benefits, and constraints per criterion. The following is a summary of the
evaluation results.
3.1.1 Mobility and Accessibility
The Baseline Conditions Assessment identified a need for faster, more
convenient, more reliable transit as well as bicycle/pedestrian connections in the
study area, including links among neighborhoods, and links to major destinations.
Additionally, existing and anticipated increases in traffic congestion uncovered in
the Baseline Assessment highlighted the need to improve the efficiency of transit
service, introduce transportation options and better utilize the capacity of the
MARTA rail system.
The study goal for mobility and accessibility was to improve transit connectivity of
neighborhoods in the study area to major destinations currently inaccessible by
the existing rail system. The performance measures identified for this criterion
include:
• New riders – year 2030 new riders on regional system
• Travel time savings – annual regional transit travel time savings
• Transit dependent service (low income) – to assess the accessibility for
transit dependent population this measure looks at year 2000 low-income
households within ½-mile of rail or BRT stations.
• Impact on existing transit facilities – this measure assessed the
connectivity of the proposed alternatives to the existing MARTA bus and
rail system.
Results of the mobility analysis reveal that each of the Inner Core build
alternatives would improve mobility. Key measures indicate increased regional
transit ridership, better utilization of existing heavy rail facilities, and transit travel
time-savings for each alternative.
Within the model, future land use is a key predictor for improving Inner Core
mobility. The build alternatives that providing the greatest potential mobility
improvements are located where the 2030 ARC model forecasts the most
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-2
intense future land use. Results show that those areas in the Inner Core where
the most growth and redevelopment are anticipated will provide the best
environment for new transit service. The mobility analysis from the ARC 2030
model provides a clear distinction between the Inner Core alternatives.
The analysis results show the hybrid alternatives with direct access to inner city
activity centers and key redevelopment areas provide the best potential
enhancement to the Inner Core transit system. The alternatives with alignments
through areas where the forecast land use is not as intense do not perform as
well.
New Riders
Using the ARC travel demand model, year 2030 new riders on the regional
system were calculated. Each alternative and operating plan was coded into the
existing approved model structure to ensure consistency. New riders are defined
as those additional patrons on a particular alternative in addition to the total
baseline transit patrons.
The number of new riders ranged between 14,000 and 43,000. This range is
consistent with the land use projections in the current RTP. Alternatives B, C,
and 4, attracted 14,000, 17,000, and 24,000 new riders over the baseline,
respectively. These alternatives support connectivity of existing neighborhoods,
redeveloping neighborhoods, and improving access to and within the urban core.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were designed to test the ability of a transit investment to
improve access to the major employment districts, and places of interest within
the Inner Core. These alternatives attracted 30,000, 40,000, and 42,000 new
daily riders. Results of this test revealed that alignments with direct access to
major employment districts and points of interest are successful increasing the
number of new daily riders.
Impact on Existing Transit Facilities
The impact to existing transit facilities subjectively measures the balance
between enhancing the existing system through connections to bus routes and
rail stations while impacting existing routes through re-routes and/or extensions.
To evaluate the impact/enhancement of existing MARTA facilities measure, three
criteria were considered. First, how many existing bus routes connected with the
alternative. Second, how many rail stations connected to the alternative. Third,
how many existing bus routes were to be re-routed or extended in order to
accommodate the alternative.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-3
Connection with rail stations was considered the most important aspect of an
alternative in this measure, due to the major activity center connections and low
perceived transfer time. Alternatives ranged from two (Alternative C) to five
(Alternatives 2,3,4). The number of existing bus routes connected to an
alternative is also a positive impact of the transit facility: Alternative B – 39,
Alternative C – 45, Alternative 1 – 36, Alternative 2 – 37, Alternative 3 – 41,
Alternative 4 – 43. However, the range of 36 to 45 was not distributed enough to
heavily weigh this criterion. Re-routes and extensions were considered as
negative, due to the costs and possible disruptions of service. Route
modifications ranged between 0 and 12. Alternatives C and 1 required zero route
modifications, Alternatives B and 2 required 8 route modifications, Alternative 3
required 7, and Alternative 4 required 12.
Travel Time Savings
This measure calculates the total annual travel time savings, in hours, when
comparing the baseline to each alternative. Results of the Travel Time Savings
analysis reveal that alternatives improved travel time savings over the baseline.
The range of improvements is between 1.1 and 2.7 million annual hours.
Alternative B and 4 both saved over 2 million annual hours. Alternative 3 saved
over 2.7 million hours annually over the baseline, while Alternative C saved about
1 million hours. The differences in the high scoring alternatives, such as
Alternative 1 (2.4 million), Alternative 2 (2.3 million), and Alternative 3 (2.7
million) can be partly attributed to the connectivity to existing transit services, the
high number of new riders, and the greater accessibility to major activity centers.
Transit Dependent Service (low income)
A significant portion of transit riders are those who cannot drive due the costs
associated with owning a vehicle. Therefore, it is important to determine the
number of low income households within a walking distance (1/2 mile) of a
proposed station. The number of households ranged from 6,144 to 10,465.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 each captured over 9,800 low income households within a
½ of all stations combined. Alternatives B, C, and 1, respectively captured over
6,100, 7,100, and 8,300 low income households.
3.1.2 Land use and Redevelopment
Land use and Redevelopment is one of the six needs that were identified in the
Need and Purpose Assessment, which states: “As new households form and
employment increases, there is a NEED to provide compatible transportation
solutions that reinforce the Inner Core as the regional center, serve existing
neighborhoods, and facilitate emerging trends for compact, mixed-use infill and
redevelopment.” The following four performance measures were selected for
evaluating the proposed transit alternatives:
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-4
• Vacant/underutilized Land Near Stations - acres of vacant or underutilized
land within 1/2 mile of rail or BRT stations
• Accessibility to Major Cultural, Educational, and Recreational Facilities -
Qualitative: proximity of stations to parks, stadiums, universities,
museums, etc.
• Ability to Promote Redevelopment Goals - Qualitative: ability to support
and complement community redevelopment goals and objectives
• Enhancement of Urban Environment - Qualitative: potential of the transit
system to enhance the visual quality of the urban environment
Results of the Land use and Redevelopment analysis reveal that each of the
Inner Core build alternatives would support the Land use and Redevelopment
needs.
Vacant/underutilized Land Near Stations
The intent of this performance measure is to provide a general comparison,
between alternatives, of the amount of property available for redevelopment.
The actual availability and quality of the vacant or underutilized parcels would be
evaluated further in later phases of the project development process. Most of the
vacant or underutilized land is clustered along the Beltline railroad corridors and
immediately south and west of the core area. The acreage of vacant or
underutilized land for the six transit alternatives ranges from approximately 3,900
to 5,200 acres. Alternatives B, 2, 3, and 4 all have over 5,000 acres of vacant or
underutilized land.
Accessibility to Major Cultural, Educational, and Recreational Facilities
This performance measure provides a qualitative evaluation of each alternative’s
ability to connect to points of interest, which consist of major attractions and civic
facilities, in the study area. Over 60 attractions and features of national, regional,
or local significance were identified. Approximately 26 of the 60 attractions are
currently outside the ½ mile radius coverage area, or a 10-minute walk from a
MARTA station. None of the proposed transit alternatives would provide access
to all the attractions. However, alternatives with alignments inside of the Inner
Core (Alternative C, Alternative 1 – Alternative 4) provided access to an
additional 17 to 20 attractions.
Ability to Promote Redevelopment Goals
This performance measure provides a qualitative evaluation of how well each
alternative helps to promote the community’s redevelopment goals. The prime
areas with development projects, or the potential for future development, are
Downtown and Midtown core areas, a band along the eastern portion of the
Beltline, the area west of Atlantic Station, and the areas in the Clifton Corridor.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-5
Areas along the Beltline, southwest of the core area, are considered “Sleeper
Areas” that have not emerged yet as redevelopment areas, but have great
potential.
Alternatives following the Beltline alignment would support primarily the
redevelopment of the Beltline corridor. The emphasis in this option would be on
the vacant and underutilized industrial land along the railroad beltway.
Alternatives on the C-Loop Alignment would promote the redevelopment of the
inner-city core area, close to the Downtown and Uptown urban areas. However,
its potential to support redevelopment would be limited, since it would only
impact the southern and western sides of the core area. Alternatives with a
combination of alignments will provide the best impact on redevelopment in the
study area, providing both investment opportunities along the Beltline industrial
land uses, and the inner-city communities.
Enhancement of Urban Environment
This performance measure qualitatively estimates the ability of the transit
alternatives to provide the greatest enhancement to the existing urban
environment. There are various approaches to developing a transit solution that
supports redevelopment efforts, including development of former industrial
corridors or revitalizing existing communities.
Locating the transit facility, in the Beltline corridor could transform the
surrounding obsolescent industrial areas into new developments and
neighborhoods. Additionally, the congruency of this concept with the greenway
corridor as conceptualized in TPL’s Greenspace Feasibility Study, could provide
a linkage to all the open space trails and paths located around the core area.
Locating the new transit facility through existing inner-city neighborhoods could
help to rejuvenate and assist in the redevelopment of these stressed areas.
Refer to Table 3.4 in Appendix A-18 for the results of both redevelopment
measures.
3.1.3 Environmental Effects
The environmental criteria evaluated impacts to the natural and built
environments, and the communities and individuals within the study area.
Throughout the study, special attention was directed towards assessing project
benefits and impacts on neighborhoods, residences, and businesses located
along the alignments. Recommendations will focus on avoiding disruptions to
neighborhoods and will include design elements to protect existing
neighborhoods. The following performance measures were used to evaluate the
alternatives environmental effects:
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-6
• Potential Community Impacts – Estimated community impacts /
disruptions for all structures (residential, business, community, churches)
within a 1,000 ft buffer.
• Operating Impacts – impact of alternative to the road network.
Potential Community Impacts
There are burdens and benefits associated with a transit investment. The positive
impact is improving access to transit stations, and promoting transit oriented
development. Assessing the feasibility of the transit investment, and the
community impacts, featured cataloguing the number, and type of structures
located within a 1,000 foot buffer of the alignments. This data will be used in the
next phase of analysis to determine the benefits and burdens associated with
each alternative.
The results of the qualitative analysis showed that a range of 23 to 62 structures
located within the 1,000 foot buffer. Alternatives primarily following the Beltline
alignment represent the lower range of structures, (Alternatives B – 23, and
Alternative 4 – 49) which is consistent with the existing land use surrounding the
alignment. The alternatives with alignments within the Inner Core represent the
higher range of structures (Alternative C – 52, Alternative 1 – 62, Alternative 2 -
55, Alternative 3 – 56).
Operating Impacts
The measure used to determine the operating impact on the environment was in-
street operations and at-grade crossings. The analysis included identifying the
total miles in-street operations, at-grade crossings, bridges, and tunnels. For
example, the results indicate that Alternative B has the most at-grade crossings
and the least total miles of in-street operations. This information is refined in later
phases of project development, particularly during the development of
alternatives and associated operating plans. In conceptual phase, the at-grade
crossings and in-street operations were evaluated together to give a qualitative
assessment.
In-street operations are not necessarily a burden. If the transit vehicles operate
the same or better than the existing vehicles on the surface streets, then there is
no perceived burden. Referring to the previous example, the Beltline will have
less in-street operations and a significant number of at-grade crossings resulting
in a mixed impact to surface street mobility. Refined alternatives and modeling in
later phases will allow for more precise impact assessment.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-7
3.1.4 Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness measures were developed to indicated how well each
alternative performs in terms of costs by estimating the incremental annualized
cost per new rider. This reflects the cost of attracting one new rider to use the
transit system by combining the capital and operating costs. The overall results
show that the range of costs is between three and 16 dollars per new riders. All
of these costs competitive with other MARTA projects currently in the Long
Range Transportation Plan, and in most respects represent more attractive
overall costs.
Capital Costs
Both capital and operating costs were assessed in the feasibility evaluation. In
the capital cost analysis the study team assessed four major engineering
considerations: Right-of-way, Physical Barriers, Utilities, and Capital Costs. The
overall results of the engineering analysis identified the segments meeting the
satisfactory requirements of the four criteria. Further, the analysis determined the
compatibility of the applied transit technologies within the context of each
segment. The most ensuing problems and needs involve the limited availability of
ROW, which requires large investments of both time and money. Additionally, the
cost associated with solutions allowing shared track operations, particularly in
active freight corridors, is a critical consideration.
Requirements for each alternative were assessed and a range of capital costs
was developed. The requirements include:
• Track feet for new imbedded track slab
• Track feet for ballast track/new roadway
• Traffic signal work
• Square footage for street widening
• Linear feet for structure improvements/modifications
• Acres for right-of-way allowance
Results of the capital costs analysis reveal that a range of costs can be used to
represent investments with in Inner Core. The range of costs is between $111
million and $833 million. These costs vary depending on alignment and
technology. Alternatives C, 1, and 2 were tested using Bus Rapid Transit
Technology, these alternatives costs ranged from $111 million, $178 million, and
$255 million. Alternative B was tested with Streetcar technology; its capital cost
estimate was $577 million. Alternatives 3 and 4 were tested with multiple
technologies, (Steetcar, AGT, and DMU). The capital cost range for these two
alternatives is $833 million and $786 million.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-8
Operating Costs
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated for each alternative in
the feasibility phase. The estimates were made using incremental costs per
vehicle-hour. The estimates of annual vehicle-hours were based on the operating
plans developed for the alternatives.
The resulting incremental operating costs for the build alternatives, relative to the
no-build alternatives, ranged from $11 million to $24 million annually, in 2004
dollars. The two original alternatives, Alternative B and Alternative C had
operating costs of $11.5 million and $10.8 million. The developed alternatives,
Alternative 1-4 range in costs from $15.8, $23.3, $24.3, and $19.4 million.
3.2 Equity
The City of Atlanta demographics are well reflected in the Inner Core transit
feasibility study as 83 percent of the Inner Core study area falls within the
incorporated limits of the City of Atlanta. Therefore the demographic make-up of
the Inner Core is consistent with those of the City of Atlanta. Over 62 percent of
the Inner Core population is minority, with a large percentage of the minority
population located within the southeastern quadrant of the study area. Minority
populations are also located within the western quadrant of the study area. The
northern quadrant primarily consists of the non-minority population.
The concepts evaluated increase transit access to the minority and non-minority
populations. For example, segments along the proposed Beltline corridor will
improve transit service for the minority populations, particularly in the southern
portion of the study area. Likewise, other segments evaluated, particularly to the
north and northeast, improve transit accessibility. This study results provides
benefits for minority and non-minority populations by connecting in-town
neighborhoods with fixed guideway transit, as well as offering improved service
to minority populations. As the project moves through the development process
with the development of alternatives, the estimated impact to each population
segment will be refined to determine the distinct impacts by alternative.
3.3 Strategies Leading to the Development of Transit in the
Corridor
Strategies leading to the development of transit in the study area begin with
funding. Funding scarcity at all levels of government precipitate the need for
fiscal constraint in transportation planning, particularly transit planning. Transit
funding availability at the Federal level is decreasing at a time where the demand
for transit as a solution to addressing urban transportation issues steadily rises.
At the regional level, the Atlanta Regional Commission recently approved the
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-9
2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which required financially constraining
the cost in project needs by approximately $24 Billion. Moreover, the
development of the 2030 RTP required the prioritization of over nine major transit
initiatives eligible for the New Starts Program of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). The scarcity of funding inherently requires major transit
projects to be cost effective at the national and local levels.
The traditional approaches to transit project funding include grants for transit
investments, specifically under FTA’s Section 5309 New Starts Program. New
Starts funding is a discretionary program, which is the federal government’s
primary financial resource for supporting major transit capital investments. While
a higher level of funding is anticipated in the next Federal surface transportation
authorization, the increasing nationwide demand for this funding has resulted in a
very competitive process.
Other funding considerations include federal funding, but introduce public-private
related opportunities where the local portions of grants are shared between
various public agencies and private sources. Other studies recently completed or
under way evaluating the feasibility of such initiatives include a Greenspace
Feasibility Study, conducted by the Trust for Public Land (TPL) and Tax
Allocation District (TAD) Feasibility Study, sponsored by the Atlanta Development
Authority (ADA).
TPL‘s ‘Emerald Necklace’ Concept proposes to tie together neighborhoods,
recreational facilities, and activity areas through a 23-mile string of parks, trails,
and a Beltline transit system. The study envisioned raising the necessary funds
for initial planning and acquisition from non-governmental organizations and
other private donors. ADA is completing a study of the feasibility of the
establishment of a Beltline TAD to promote public and private investment in
transportation choices, green-space, and mixed-use redevelopment. The study
foresees a Beltline transit route that is continuous, phased by segment over time,
and ties into existing MARTA stations. If a TAD were implemented for the Beltline
area, bonds would be issued to pay for improvements with tax revenues
generated from the improvements pledged to service the bonds. A determination
would have to be made as to how much TAD funding would be available for
transit improvements.
3.3.1 Advancing Transit Projects Through FTA’s ‘New Starts’ Process
Projects eligible for the New Starts program must undergo evaluation by the FTA
throughout the project development process. Projects are evaluated based on a
variety of criteria. Ratings of “highly recommended”, “recommended”, or “not
recommended” are assigned throughout the project development process as
information on costs, benefits, and impacts are refined. Based on these
evaluations, FTA makes decisions about moving projects forward. The following
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-10
sections describe the stages of FTA’s process of project development and the
associated evaluation criteria for project justification and the sponsor’s local
financial commitment.
Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and Final Design
The Alternatives Analysis (AA) evaluates the mode and alignment options
resulting in the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that is adopted
into the Long-range transportation plan.
Preliminary Engineering (PE) includes refinement of the LPA and completion of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in addition to other critical
factors such as finalizing management plans, demonstrating technical
capabilities to develop the project, and commitment of local funding sources.
Final Design includes preparation of final construction plans, detailed
specifications, construction cost estimates, and bid documents.
Project Justification
Criteria used to determine the merits of project alternatives include:
Mobility Improvements - Measured by travel time benefits per project passenger
mile, low-income households served, and employment near stations
Environmental Benefits - Measured by change in regional pollutant emissions,
change in regional energy consumption, and EPA Air Quality Designation
Cost Effectiveness - Measured as the cost per hour of travel time saved
Operating Efficiencies - Measured by system operating cost per passenger mile
Transit Supportive Land Use & Future Patterns - Measured by existing land use,
transit supportive plans and policies and performance, and impacts of policies
Other - Number of optional factors, including the projected economic impact of
project
Local Financing
Measures to determine the level of Local Financial Commitment include:
The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than Section 5309
New Starts, including federal formula and flexible funds, the local match required
by Federal law, and any additional capital funding.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-11
The stability and reliability of the proposed capital financing plan.
The ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operational and maintenance of the
entire transit system (including existing service) as planned, once the project is
built.
To assign project ratings to each proposed New Starts project, FTA considers
the individual ratings for each of the project justification and local financial
commitment measures. FTA combines this information into summary “finance”
and “project justification” ratings for each prospective New Starts project.
Individual measures and summary ratings are designated as “High”, “Medium-
High”, “Medium”, “Low-Medium”, or “Low”.
As project development for transit in the Inner Core advances, the proposed
solutions must address the established Purpose and Need to justify the
investment and demonstrate a cost effectiveness that allows for the project to
compete for very limited funding.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-12
3.4 Conclusions
The study team concluded that a transit investment in the Inner Core is feasible.
The six alternatives evaluated are all feasible and provide improvements that
support the purpose and need of the study. Through the evaluation process four
concepts were identified to transition into the next phase of the study process,
the Alternatives Analysis (AA). These concepts and their associated benefits,
challenges, considerations, and constraints; will be further evaluated in the AA.
The following describes the attributes of the advancing concepts.
3.4.1 Concept 1
Concept 1 reflects the original Beltline concept which utilizes primarily the
underutilized railroad alignment surrounding downtown and midtown Atlanta.
Benefits
• Supports redevelopment efforts
• Wide Community / Political Support
• Improves neighborhood connectivity
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-13
Considerations
• Access to rail right-of-way
• Additional MARTA rail stations
• GDOT Commuter Rail Program
• Active Freight Corridors
• Missing segments
3.4.2 Concept 2
Concept 2 reflects the original C-Loop concept, which improves transit access to
the Clifton Corridor, and South DeKalb Mall.
Benefits
• Supports renewal initiatives
• Improves transit access to Clifton Corridor / South DeKalb
• Improves transit connection to Major University Centers
Considerations
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-12
• Access to rail right-of-way
• GDOT Commuter Rail Program
• Active Freight Corridors
• Shared right-of-way
3.4.3 Concept 3
Concept 3 reflects the Beltline/C-Loop Hybrid concept. This concept combines
the benefits of improving transit access into DeKalb County – Clifton Corridor and
South DeKalb – and major points of interest.
Benefits
• Included in ARC’s RTP
• Combines benefits of Beltline and C-Loop Concepts
Considerations
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-13
• Access to rail right-of-way
• Additional MARTA rail stations
• GDOT Commuter Rail Program
• Active Freight Corridors
• Shared right-of-way
3.4.4 Concept 4
Concept 4 represents all feasible segments evaluated in the feasibility study. In
the next phase these segments will serve as the potential universe of
alternatives. One of the initial tasks will be to identify viable alternatives from the
segments and evaluate the alternatives using the FTA Alternatives Analysis
Evaluation Methodology.
Benefits Considerations
• Provides internal loop through • Access to rail right-of-way
downtown • Additional MARTA rail stations
• Provides access to Grant Park / • GDOT Commuter Rail Program
Zoo Atlanta • Active Freight Corridors
• Serves Moreland Ave. and Little • Missing segments
5 Points • Potential for Multiple
• Provides east-west connectivity Technologies
via Ponce De Leon/North • Avoids Hulsey Yard
Avenue
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-14
These concepts will serve as the foundations for the AA, and will be used to
develop the transit alternative for the basic screening analysis. Modifications will
be made to create viable, cost effective, regionally and nationally competitive
alternatives. The AA will be consistent with the feasibility study in that all
alternatives will be evaluated on their ability to support the study need and
purpose.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 3-2
APPENDIX A: Tables
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005
Table 1.1: Draft Statements of Need and Purpose
Accessibility /Connectivity/Safety
Need: There is a need for new and improved transit as well as bicycle/pedestrian connections
(safer, faster, more convenient, more reliable) in the study area. This includes links between
neighborhoods, and links to major destinations that are NOT on the existing rail system.
Examples include Emory/CDC, Atlanta University Center (AUC), S. DeKalb Mall, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Grant Park, Piedmont Park, Centennial Park/Aquarium, Turner Field, Piedmont
Hospital, Atlanta Hospital Center, and Atlantic Station.
Purpose: To address increasing travel demand: Due to existing and projected growth in
population and employment within the study area, the demand placed on the transportation
network will increase dramatically.
Congestion/Efficiency
Need: As roadway congestion and future travel demand increase, there is a need to improve the
efficiency of transit service, introduce transportation options and fully utilize the capacity of the
MARTA rail system.
Purpose: To increase mobility: Congestion on local streets is going to increase to affect
approximately 66% of all roads in the study area by 2030. Viable alternatives for the local bus
feeder systems must be found.
Cost Effectiveness
Need: As the demand for transportation solutions exceeds available funding, there is a need to
identify cost effective transportation alternatives alternative funding options.
Purpose: To be financially realistic and competitive: There are several transit projects in the
“pipeline” for federal funds. It is critical that the proposal for the Inner Core be financially realistic
and competitive.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-1
(Continued) Table 1.1: Draft Statements of Need and Purpose
Land Use/Development and Redevelopment
Need: As new households form and employment increases, there is a need to provide compatible
transportation solutions that reinforce the Inner Core as the regional center, serve existing
neighborhoods and facilitate emerging trends for compact mixed-use infill and redevelopment.
Purpose: To fulfill the needs of emerging transit supportive land use: Transit may effectively
mitigate traffic demands created by recent institutional expansions at places like Emory and
Brownfield reclamation projects such as Atlantic Station.
Environmental/Cultural Resources
Need: As development and redevelopment occur, there is a need to improve the overall quality of
life, including improving air quality, reclaiming Brownfields, preserving natural resources,
enhancing public and open spaces and protecting historical/cultural resources.
Purpose: To preserve and protect valuable resources: The Inner Core contains the bulk of the
region’s historic and cultural resources.
Social Equity
Need: As development and redevelopment occur, there is a need to maintain and promote
community/economic diversity, housing affordable, and the distribution of benefits and burdens
on an equitable basis.
Purpose: To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects: The construction of any new transit facility should not adversely affect the
neighborhoods in the Inner Core.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-2
Table 1.2: Alternatives Evaluation Criteria
New Starts Inner Core
Evaluation Criteria Categories Evaluation Criteria Categories
Mobility Improvements Mobility/Accessibility
Environmental Benefits Environmental Effects
Operating Efficiencies Operating and Maintenance
Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness
Transit Supportive Land Use and
Land Use & Redevelopment
Future Patterns
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-3
Table 1.3: Feasibility Study Evaluation Categories and Measures
Performance Measure Description/Source
MOBILITY & ACCESSIBILITY
Diversion from/enhancement of existing rail
Impact on existing transit facilities
and bus routes
Year 2000 low income households within
Transit dependent service (low income)
1/2 mile of rail or BRT stations
LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT
Acres of vacant or underutilized land within
Vacant/underutilized land near stations
1/2 mile of rail or BRT stations
Accessibility to major cultural, Proximity of stations to parks, stadiums,
educational, & recreational facilities universities, museums, etc.
Ability to support and complement
Ability to promote redevelopment goals community redevelopment goals and
objectives
Potential of the transit system to enhance
Enhancement of Urban Environment
the visual quality of the urban environment
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Estimated community impacts/ disruptions
for all categories (residential, business,
Potential community impacts
community facilities, churches) within a
1,000ft buffer
Operating impacts In-street operation; at-grade crossings, etc.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Operating & maintenance costs Conceptual incremental annual operating &
(millions $) maintenance costs (compared to baseline)
Conceptual capital costs for construction,
Capital cost (millions $)
equipment, etc.
Right-of-way availability, railroad
Difficulty of implementation
agreements, unusual structures, etc.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-4
Table 1.4: Elected and Appointed Officials
Government Officials
Atlanta City Council President Cathy Woolard
Atlanta City Council Transportation Chair H. Lamar Willis Atlanta City Council
City of Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin
DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones
DeKalb County Commission Chair
Fulton County Commission Chair
Georgia Congressional Districts 4, 5, 11,13
Georgia House Districts 34, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60
Georgia Senate Districts 6, 10, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43
Table 1.5: Local, Regional, State and Federal Agencies
Government Agencies
Atlanta Development Authority DeKalb County Public Works Department
Atlanta Housing Authority Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Atlanta Planning Advisory Board and NPU's Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
City of Atlanta Department of Parks and
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Recreation
City of Atlanta Planning Bureau Fulton County Jail
City of Atlanta Police Department Fulton County Public Works Department
City of Atlanta Urban Design Commission Fulton County Planning Department
City of Decatur Community Development Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
City of Decatur Police Department Georgia Passenger Rail Authority
DeKalb County Police Department Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)
Dekalb County Planning Department National Park Service
State Historic Preservation Office, Division of DNR
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-5
Table 1.6: Special Interest/Environmental Justice Organizations
Organizations
ARC Environmental Justice Planning Team Midtown Alliance & TMA
Asian American Service Agency Central Atlanta Progress & Downtown TMA
Atlanta Bicycle Campaign Citizens for Livable DeKalb
Atlanta Botanical Gardens Clean Air Campaign
Atlanta Development Neighborhood Partnership Clifton Corridor TMA
Atlanta History Center Cool Communities
Fernbank Museum of Natural History &
Atlanta Legal Aid Society
Planetarium
Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Fox Theatre
Buckhead Community Improvement District & TMA Freedom Park Conservancy
Callanwalde Fine Arts Center Georgia Conservancy
Carter Center Georgia Federation of Homeowners
Center for Environmental Justice Georgia Sierra Club
Georgians for Transportation Alternatives Georgians for Better Transportation
Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Oakland Cemetery
Habitat for Humanity PATH Foundation
Hands on Atlanta PEDS
Perimeter Community Improvement
High Museum of Art and Woodruff Arts Center
Districts (Fulton & DeKalb) & TMA
Martin Luther King Jr. Center Piedmont Park Conservancy
Metro Atlanta NAACP Wren's Nest
Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Equity Coalition Zoo Atlanta
Table 1.7: Organizations Serving Elderly and Disabled Populations
Organizations
ARC Committee for the Aging
Center for the Visually Impaired
Disability Connections
Disability Link
MARTA Elderly & Disabled Committee
Quality Living Services Center
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-6
Table 1.8: Schools and Universities
Institutions
Agnes Scott College
Atlanta Public Schools
Atlanta University Center Institutions
City of Decatur Schools
DeKalb County Schools
Emory University
Fulton County Schools
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Perimeter College
Georgia State University
Oglethorpe University
Table 1.9: Religious Institutions
Institutions
Antioch Urban Ministries
Atlanta Interfaith Broadcasters, Inc.
Atlanta Union Mission
Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
Christian Council of Metro Atlanta
Concerned Black Clergy
Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta
Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta
Lutheran Ministries of Georgia
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-7
Table 1.10:Community Groups
Groups
Adair Park Community Empowerment
Lindbergh Neighborhood Assoc.
Assoc.
Ansley Park Civic Assoc. Little Five Points Business Assoc.
Ardmore/28th Street Neighborhood Assoc. Loring Heights Civic Assoc.
Ashview Community Development Assoc.,
Marietta Artery Assoc.
Inc.
Mechanicsville Civic Assoc./Redevelopment
Atkins Park
Board
Mechanicsville South Homeowners,
Atlanta Downtown Neighborhood Assoc.
Businesses, and Churches, Inc.
Benjamin Enterprises CDC Midtown Neighbors Assoc.
Berkeley Park Neighborhood Assoc. Morningside-Lenox Park Assoc.
Bolton Hills Civic Assoc. Neighbors for a Better Community
Boulevard Heights Old Fourth Ward Redevelopment CDC
Ormewood Neighborhood Watch &
Brookwood Hills Community Club Civic Org.
Residential Development
Brookwood Neighbors Peachtree Battle Alliance, Inc.
Cabbagetown Neighborhood Improvement
Peachtree Heights East Civic Assoc.
Assoc.
Candler Park Neighborhood Org. Peachtree Hills Civic Assoc.
Capital View Neighborhood Assoc. Peeples Street Development
Capital View Manor Neighborhood Assoc. Peoplestown Revitalization Corporation
Capital View Neighborhood Assoc. Piedmont Heights Civic Assoc.
Cascade Neighborhood Assoc. Pittsburgh Civic League
Castleberry Hill Neighborhood Assoc. Ponce Coalition
Chosewood Park Civic Assoc. Ponce Corridor East
Chosewood Park Home Development Poncey-Highland Neighborhood Assoc.
City Wide Advisory Council on Public
Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League
Housing
Collier Hill Civic Assoc. Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation
Collier Hills North Neighborhood Assoc. Sherwood Forest Civic Assoc.
Community Resources of Atlanta South Atlanta Community Assoc.
South Atlantans for Neighborhood
Dixie Hills Community Civic Club
Development (SAND)
Druid Hills Civic Assoc. South Star CDC
East Atlanta Community Assoc. Springlake Civic Assoc.
SUMMECH Community Development
Edgewood Advisory Council
Corporation
Summerhill Neighborhood Development
Edgewood Heights Neighborhood Assoc.
Corporation
Sweet Auburn Business and Improvement
English Avenue CDC
Assoc.
English Avenue Neighborhood Assoc. Underwood Hills Neighborhood Assoc.
Fourth Ward Neighbors Vince City Civic Assoc.
Garden Hills Civic Assoc. Vine City Housing Ministry CDC
Grant Park Area Council Virginia-Highland Business Assoc.
Grant Park Neighborhood Assoc. Virginia-Highland Civic Assoc.
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-8
Groups
Hills Park Neighborhood Washington Park Community Club
Historic District Development Corporation Washington Park Improvement Assoc.
Home Park Community Improvement
West End Coalition
Assoc.
Hunter Hills Citizens on the Move West End Neighborhood Development, Inc.
Inman Park Neighborhood Assoc. Westside Community Advancement Assoc.
Joyland/Betmar Civic Assoc. Westview Community Org., Inc.
Kirkwood Neighbors Org., Inc. Wildwood Civic Assoc.
Table 1.11: Major Employers/Business Interests
Employers/Business Interests
Ansley Mall Harmon Brothers Charter, Inc.
Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Atlanta Gas & Light King Plow Arts Center
Atlanta Medical Center Mall At West End
Atlantic Station Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
BellSouth Corp. One Stop Capital Shop
Carter and Associates Piedmont Hospital
Chattahoochee Industrial District Portman Holdings
Civic Center/Sci-Trek Regional Business Coalition
Cousins Shepherd Center
DeKalb Convention and Visitors Bureau Selig Enterprises
DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce Southern Co./Georgia Power
Georgia Aquarium Study Area Business Associations (TBD)
Georgia Dome SunTrust Banks
Georgia World Congress Center The Coca Cola Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp. Turner Broadcasting
Grady Hospital Turner Field
Green Street Properties Underground Atlanta
Greyhound UPS
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-9
Table 1.12: Priority Connection Categories
Origins/Destinations
Inner Core Residential Neighborhoods Educational Institutions
Downtown Employment Centers Entertainment and Shopping Areas
Midtown Employment Centers Attractions (visitor or local)
Other Employment Centers
Table 2.1: Study Area Performance Measures
Percent
Roadway Performance Measures 2000 2030 Change
VMT 9,591,054 12,077,922 25.9
% VMT in Congested Conditions
VHT 27,178 37,936 39.5
Hours of Delay 99,002 359,319 262
Average Speed 23.4 17.7 -24.3
Average Work Trip Length 3,16 2.69 -17.4
Average Work Trip Travel Time 15.9 16.9 6.2
% Through Trips (Region) 61,829 107,654 74
Population 224,989 403,241 79
VMT per Capita 42.6 29.9 -29.8
VHT per Capita .12 .10 -16
Hours of Delay per Capita .44 .89 102
Total Employment Within 30 Minutes 57% 88% 54
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-10
Table 2.2: Major Points of Interest Within the Inner Core Study Area
Points of Interest
Alexander Memorial Coliseum Grant Park
APEX Museum Hammons House Galleries
Atlanta Botanical Gardens Herndon Home
Atlanta Civic Center Herndon Stadium
Atlanta Contemporary Art Center High Museum Of Art
Atlanta University Complex Margaret Mitchell House
Bobby Dodd Stadium Martin Luther King, Jr. Center
Breman Jewish Heritage Museum Michael C. Carlos Museum
Callanwolde Fine Arts Center Morehouse College
Carter Presidential Center Morris Brown College
CDC Museum Oakland Cemetery
Centennial Olympic Park Phillips Arena
Center for Puppetry Arts Piedmont Park
Clark Atlanta University Rhodes Center
CNN Center Rialto Center
Cyclorama Sci-Trek
Emory University State Capital
Ferst Center for the Arts Sweet Auburn Curb Market
Fox Theatre Turner Field
Fulton County Courthouse Underground Atlanta
Georgia Dome Woodruff Arts Center
Georgia Institute of Technology World of Coca-Cola
Georgia State University Wrens Nest
Georgia World Congress Center Zoo Atlanta
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-11
Table 2.3: Marta Rail Stations within the Inner Core Study Area
Inner Core Average
Stations Weekday
Ridership
Proctor Creek Line
Bankhead Station 1,589
Downtown Central Hub
Five Points Station 20,433
East Line
Georgia State 3,366
King Memorial 1,916
Inman Park 2,258
West Line
Georgia Dome 4,173
Vine City 1,831
Ashby 1,782
North Line
Peachtree Center 6,810
Civic Center 1,418
North Avenue 5,427
Midtown 3,028
Arts Center 5,958
Lindbergh 6,530
South Line
Garnett 1,767
West End 8,406
Study Area Total 76,692
Source: MARTA, August 2003
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-12
Table 2.4: Primary Congested Streets
◦ 14th St ◦ Monroe Ave
◦ Bankhead Highway ◦ Moreland Ave/Briarcliff
◦ Boulevard ◦ N. Highland Ave
◦ Capital Ave ◦ North Ave.
◦ Cascade Rd ◦ Northside Dr
◦ Collier Rd ◦ Peachtree St
◦ Courtland Ave ◦ Piedmont Ave
◦ Flat Shoals Ave ◦ Ponce De Leon Ave
◦ Howell Mill Rd ◦ Spring St
◦ LaVista Rd ◦ Virginia Ave
◦ Memorial Dr
Table 2.5: Mobility Performance Measures
Performance Measures Description
Impact on existing transit facilities Diversion from/enhancement of existing rail and
bus routes
Transit dependent service (low Year 2000 low income households within ½ mile
income) of rail or BRT stations
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 A-13
Table 2.6: ARC 2030 Inner Core Mobility Performance Measures
Performance Measures* Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt B Alt C
Regional Transit Trips 623,642 654,033 663,272 665,834 647,273 637,786 640,731
New Transit Trips vs Baseline NA 30,391 39,630 42,192 23,631 14,144 17,089
Regional Boardings 1,103,582 1,175,394 1,193,986 1,196,392 1,156,979 1,146,018 1,134,748
New Boardings vs Baseline NA 71,812 90,404 92,810 53,397 42,436 31,166
Boardings on New Facility NA 42,485 51,240 55,345 46,389 41,404 22,822
Heavy Rail Trips 486,395 506,800 516,641 512,592 493,024 488,236 493,040
Heavy rail trips vs Baseline NA 20,405 30,246 26,197 6,629 1,841 6,645
Annual Transit Travel Time
NA 2,368,843 2,319,333 2,731,242 2,082,877 2,035,831 1,057,542
Savings vs Baseline (hours)
Average Boardings/Trip 1.77 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.79 1.80 1.77
% new boardings on new facility NA 59% 57% 60% 87% 98% 73%
Emory line NA 11,017 10,085 10,189 462 NA **
Notes: *Performance measures are in daily measurements unless otherwise noted
** Part of longer line
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report A-14
March 2005
Table 2.7: Combined Purpose and Need & Engineering Review Results
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report A-15
March 2005
Table 2.8: Range of Cost ($2004)
Cost Breakdown Low High
Right-of-Way Preparation $69,607 $970,757
Right-of-Way $23,028,150 $112,296,857
Structures $5,239,500 $87,286,500
Trackway/Guideway $68,481,678 $143,220,672
System Electrification $30,522,156 $42,033,522
Stations/Platform $5,300,000 $49,400,000
Civil Roadway Improvements $15,498,080 $33,735,305
Utilities Allowance $3,369,000 $51,060,200
Maintenance Facility – Allowance $1,616,900 $22,969,019
Vehicles $34,320,000 $155,500,000
Rail Vehicles $72,000,000 $121,700,000
AGT Vehicles - $38,500,000
Bus $34,320,000 $69,960,000
Source: URS Corporation design team
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report A-16
March 2005
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005
Figure 1.2 Beltline Concept
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 B-1
Figure 1.3: C-Loop Concept
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-2
March 2005
Figure 1.4: Inner Core Study Area
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-3
March 2005
Figure 1.5: Segment Zones
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-4
March 2005
Figure 2.1: Quadrant Map
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-5
March 2005
Figure 2.2: Baseline Alternative B
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-6
March 2005
Figure 2.3: Baseline Alternative C
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-7
March 2005
Figure 2.4: Hybrid Alternative 1
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-8
March 2005
Figure 2.5: Hybrid Alternative 2
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-9
March 2005
Figure 2.6: Hybrid Alternative 3
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-10
March 2005
Figure 2.7: Hybrid Alternative 4
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-11
March 2005
Figure 2.8: 2000 Low-Income Households in the Study Area (Density)
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-12
March 2005
Figure 2.9: Major Points of Interest Within the Inner Core Study Area
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-13
March 2005
Figure 2.10: Inner Core Concept Alignments and MARTA Public Transportation Systems
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-14
March 2005
Figure 2.11: 2000 Congested Conditions
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-15
March 2005
Figure 2.12: 2030 Congested Conditions
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report B-16
March 2005
Figure 2.13: Segment Zones with Constraints Depicted
Feasibility Wrap-Up Report
March 2005 B-17
Related docs
Other docs by yas90845
