I-20 East Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report Contents Tables

The Adopted LPA 1 Table 1: Reasons for Selection of LPA 3 Refinements to the Recommended LPA 1 Table 2: Goals and Objectives 8 Proposed LPA Operations 4 Table 3: Tier 1Alternatives 8 Adoption of the LPA 4 Table 4: Tier 1 Screening Results 10 Project Description and Background 6 Table 5: Tier 2 Alternatives 11 FTA Project Development Process 6 Table 6: Cost and Performance Comparison of Tier 2 Alternatives 13 Purpose and Need 7 Table 7: Assumptions 13 Goals and Objectives 8 Table 8: Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix 14 Alternatives Evaluation Framework 8 Table 9: Public Involvement 15 Tier 1 Screening 8 Tier 2 Screening 11 Figures Stakeholder and Public Involvement 15 Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities to Implementing the LPA 16 Figure 1: Adopted LPA (HRT3) 1 Figure 2: Map of the Adopted LPA – HRT3 2 Figure 3: LPA Operation in MARTA System 4 Figure 4: System Integration Map 5 Figure 5: Study Area 6 Figure 6: Timeline of Previous Studies 6 Figure 7: FTA Project Development Process 7 Figure 8: The Alternatives Analysis Process 8 Figure 9: Tier 1 Alternatives 9 Figure 10: Transit Technologies Considered 11 Figure 11: Tier 2 Alternatives 12

1 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Following a two-tiered Detailed Corridor Analysis (DCA), which evaluated a Figure 1: Adopted LPA (HRT3) variety of transit alignments and modes, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Authority (MARTA) I-20 East Transit Initiative has selected and refined a Locally Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Preferred Alternative (LPA). After presenting the LPA, the document provides Existing MARTA Heavy Rail an overview of the study background, DCA evaluation process, and next steps. Proposed Clifton Corridor LRT I-75/85 Proposed Atlanta BeltLine I-285 Proposed Station FIVE POINTS AVONDALE The Adopted LPA INDIAN CREEK Optional Station I-20 COVINGTON HIGHWAY The LPA represents the HRT3 Alternative from the Tier 2 Screening with refinements, and consists of Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) components, as shown in Figure 1 below and Figure 2 on page 2. The LPA would extend the existing MARTA east-west heavy rail line 12 miles from the Indian Creek Station. The line would extend south parallel to I-285, then east NORTH along I-20 to the Mall at Stonecrest. BRT service would be implemented between downtown Atlanta and Wesley HRT3. However, due to their shared concerns about the nature of BRT service Chapel Road. BRT service would operate in general use lanes and HOV/HOT attached to this alternative, HRT3 was refined after its selection as the recom- lanes on I-20, and in the City of Atlanta, BRT service would utilize the Capital mended LPA. Avenue interstate ramps, Capital Avenue, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, and Broad Street for access to and from the Five Points Station, or preferably the In refining HRT3 as the recommended LPA, its BRT portion was designed to Multimodal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) if it is implemented. meet premium BRT standards as defined by Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FTA stipulates that bus service qualifies as BRT when it offers fixed The following station locations are recommended based on input from the pub- route service that either operates predominantly on fixed-guideways or offers lic and stakeholders, existing and future land uses, and projected ridership: high frequency (15 minute headways, 10 minute headways during peak hours) New Stations Served by HRT New Stations Served by BRT service separate from mixed traffic with transit stations, traffic signal priority or preemption, low-floor vehicles or level-platform boarding, and separate • Covington Highway • Turner Field (Optional) branding of service. Therefore, the following specific refinements were made • Wesley Chapel Road • Glenwood Park/Beltline to the LPA BRT service: • Panola Road • Glenwood Avenue • BRT service between downtown Atlanta and Wesley Chapel would • Lithonia Industrial Blvd/Evans • Gresham Road operate in general use lanes and High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occu- Mill Road pancy Toll (HOV/HOT) lanes on I-20 and surface streets as necessary • Candler Road to connect to downtown. • Mall at Stonecrest • Wesley Chapel Road • BRT service would be fixed-route, branded, high frequency, all-day Refinements to the Recommended LPA service utilizing transit stations rather than typical bus stops. • Transit-only interchanges would be constructed at Candler Road and Of the six alternatives considered in the Tier 2 Screening of the DCA, HRT3 Gresham Road for BRT access to stations at those locations. was selected as the LPA because it would most effectively address the stakeholder-identified needs of the corridor and goals and objectives of the project, • Arterial BRT enhancements such as TSP and queue jumper lanes would as shown in Table 1 on page 3. Corridor stakeholders, the City of Atlanta, be utilized to maximize the efficiency of surface street operations. the general public, and other interested parties expressed overall support for

1 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Figure 2: Map of the Adopted LPA – HRT3

2 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Table 1: Reasons for Selection of LPA

Project Goal Reason for Selection of LPA – HRT3 Increase Mobility and Fast Travel Times and High Ridership: HRT3 would provide significant 2030 travel time savings for commuters in the corridor. Accessibility Compared with automobile travel, HRT3 would save 34.5 minutes for commuters travelling between the Mall at Stonecrest and downtown Atlanta. Additionally, HRT3 is expected to attract 28,700 daily riders. Transit Access to Decatur and Proposed Clifton Corridor LRT Line: HRT3 was the only alternative that would provide a direct connection to both the City of Atlanta and the City of Decatur, the DeKalb County seat. HRT3 would also provide a connection to the proposed Clifton Corridor light rail line which would provide direct service to the employment center containing Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Provide Improved Service to Heavily Congested Areas of Corridor First: While all alternatives would need to be constructed in multiple phases due to Transit Service in the funding and construction limitations, HRT3 was the only alternative that would serve the congested areas east of I-285 in the first phase Corridor of implementation. This is important since the average travel time into downtown is 20-30 minutes longer for those commuters outside the I-285 Perimeter than for those inside the Perimeter. All other alternatives would likely not extend beyond the I-285 Perimeter under the first phase of construction. Thus, HRT3 would more quickly reach those areas of the corridor most affected by congestion and long travel times. Ease of Implementation: No major construction issues are associated with the implementation of HRT3. The other alternatives would all require very complicated and expensive bridges or extensive tunneling to avoid impacts to historic neighborhoods. Support Land Use Supportive of Economic Development: In addition to being consistent with existing and future land use plans, approximately 900 and Development acres of underutilized or vacant land are located within ½ mile of HRT3 stations. Therefore, this alternative would provide significant Goals opportunity for transit oriented development and redevelopment in the corridor. Promote Cost Low Cost: At $2.04B, the adopted LPA has the lowest total cost of all alternatives and is projected to cost over one billion dollars less Effective Transit than the most expensive alternative (HRT1). Furthermore, the LPA is $73.7M less expensive than the next lowest cost alternative (BRT1). Investments Utilizes Existing Infrastructure: HRT3 would utilize existing MARTA East-West line to provide a direct transit connection into downtown Atlanta. By utilizing the existing transit investment, HRT3 avoids the construction of an expensive and complicated connection into downtown Atlanta. Furthermore, HRT3 avoids the construction of 11+ miles of new transit line between downtown Atlanta and I-285, which could be viewed as a second, and redundant, transit line in the corridor. HRT3 would also allow for the use of existing MARTA rail maintenance facilities rather than the construction of new facilities in the corridor. Preserve Natural and Lowest Number of Displacements: With an expected 13 displacements, HRT3 has significantly fewer residential or commercial Built Environment displacements than all other alternatives. HRT1, LRT1, and BRT1, all are expected to incur 47 displacements and LRT2 and HRT2 are expected to incur 41 and 35 displacements respectively. With much of its alignment within GDOT right-of-way, HRT3 has the least property impacts of all alternatives. Achieve a High Strong Public Support: HRT3 received strong public support, especially from residents of the heavily congested portion of the corridor Level of Community east of I-285. In a rating of the six Tier 2 Alternatives, 30 percent of all survey respondents rated HRT3 as “most appropriate for the Support I-20 East Corridor,” as did 51 percent of those respondents who lived east of I-285 (or outside the Perimeter). Sources: Travel Demand Model, GIS data analysis, HDR Engineering

3 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Although these refinements altered the costs and ridership projections for HRT3, these changes were not substantial enough to alter HRT3’s performance Figure 3: LPA Operation in MARTA System in Tier 2 Screening. The refinements would raise capital costs associated with HRT3 to an estimated $1,929.6M and right-of-way costs to $110.4M for a total cost of $2,040.0M. Operations and Main- tenance costs were not affected by the refinements and remained at $18.0M annually. Proposed LPA Operations Currently, MARTA operates two east-west transit lines: the Blue Line, which operates between the Indian Creek Station to the east and the HE Holmes Station to the west; and the Green Line, which operates between the Edgewood/Candler Park Station to the east and the Bankhead Station to the west. As shown in Figure 3 on page 4, the extended Green Line would serve all new heavy rail stations listed above and then operate as an express service along the existing east line, serving only select stations in order to minimize travel times between the Mall at Stonecrest and the Five Points Station. Future connectivity to the proposed BeltLine and Clifton Corridor was a major consideration in the identification of the LPA. Figure 4 on page 5 presents a map showing how the I-20 East project would integrate with other existing and planned transit investments. Adoption of the LPA On April 9, 2012, the MARTA Board of Directors voted to adopt HRT3 as the LPA for the I-20 East Transit Initiative. The ARC is currently updating Plan 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the regional transportation demand model to include the adopted LPA as a transit mode in the I-20 East Corridor (AR-405, AR-406, AR-407).

4 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Figure 4: System Integration Map

5 Ab !! !! Snellville !!

y w H rd fo u !"d$ Iª B

Fulton DeKalb County Line FultonCounty Line ! Stone Mountain Fwy r Atlanta! DeKalb D y

e w Rd d H i t

s n !"c$ n e n ll h o o i t C v

r y m e o w r c H i n Clarkston N d la e or r Stone G uf C w Gwinnett B a w Gwinnett L Mountain D in Pine e n %&g( K e a tt E n ark Lake lb C ! N w P o !t d o r Decatur e C u S t e l on R s l r a t Rockbridge R o n g f d u d if d u t n l l t y i n n r ! c o a ing ! r a c d L p s t a n y Aä i e vond R i S r y e en DeKalb Government Complex n B e k D A a L od-C a ! !! K l i e R o ! - o L ! ! ! n ! !! k t ! n e l a s a r w s ! t i a a Agnes Scott College ! P ! in r P ge E ! o o n ! ! m a Ed ! Indian Creek GA Dome-GWCC-Arena P e ! Avondale e m ! d ! ! C M R !v In d Redan R a d i ! l

! ! ! g ! ! Estates R GSU n ! ! ! F n e e d p ! ! ! i n n

l a ! o i

! K e ! t S Edgewood Retail District h L r Belvedere Shopping Center S Atlanta Univ. Center ! ! s t

r o C R !! ! ! i ne ty

a k d M n ! Memorial Dr o c Georgia State H u u nta o

S i o Glenwood Park n L R Turner Field ith C ! ! on e ! East Atlanta Village Glenwood Rd ia l !! Rd a ! ! Pleasant Hill Rd d Zoo Atlanta/Grant Park ck

d South DeKalb Senior Center o r C ovi Lithonia Industrial Area R a ng ! t T e o v F n H u v w

e l W a y

l r A t

S n

u S

d h e

y M Lithonia L B o

c n ! r

D B a o ! w o o a l

l s H k n g o u R !

u e a P l g i J r d d Lou Walker Senior Center h l n o e l

n B o n l v v r R a d Rockdale c i t ! e M l

i r R l l s ! ainb d o e b e w Dr o Panola Rd Industrial Area s Rockbri o H p r t o o D South DeKalb Mall w r ! t R r d ! y e d S R # S Panola Rd ! d l M S E F Mall at Stonecrest ge e n E la a t p p Park-n-Ride R S a h f Evans Mill Rd d o h in a C g Constitution Rd ls e d Park-n-Ride y S P r R i e g k l R m a w s a d l Sigman Rd n y e o Rd W n Park-n-Ride ! a ! P Rd d Rockland Rd e R l Gree Conyers l River Rd l n St i il Añ v s M r Arabia Mountain State Park e s ! h n t a ! !"a$ n v a E Olde Town Conyers Hapeville P d Klondike Rd SW

i ! !"d$ d Gees Mill Rd n H Br o o DeKalb County Line ow l ne ns Mill y C Rd K ree Clayton County Line k Rd ! Henry County Line ! Rd Conley y Church in the Now Hw e Park-n-Ride idg r S Forest Park kb I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternativec Summarya Report to l M S e ain St %&l( m R Henry d Clayton Lake City Figure 5: Study Area ± Project Description and !! 0120.5 Miles Ab!"c$ Morrow !! Snellville !! Background ! ! y Points of Interest ! w H GRTA Park-n-Ride MARTA Station rd fo u !"d$ # Iª B Study Area Study Area MARTA Park-n-Ride MARTA Rail

Fulton DeKalb County Line MARTA, in close coordination with DeKalb County, the FultonCounty Line ! Stone Mountain Fwy r Atlanta! DeKalb City Boundary D Interstate y Proposed BeltLine e w Rd d H i t

s n !"c$ n e City of Atlanta, Georgia Department of Transportation n ll h o o i County Boundary t C v Major Road r Proposed Streetcar y m e o w r c H i n Clarkston N d la e or r Stone G uf C w Gwinnett (GDOT), and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), a w Gwinnett B L Mountain D in Pine e n %&g( K e a tt and in cooperation with the FTA, is undertaking the I-20 E ark C n Lake lb ! N w P o !t d o r Decatur e C u S t e l on R s l r a t Rockbridge R o n g f d u d if d u t n l l t y i n n r ! c o a ing East Transit Initiative. This initiative will identify and sum- r a d ! c L p s t a n y Aä i e vond R i S r y e en DeKalb Government Complex n B e k D A a L od-C a ! !! K l i e R o ! - o L ! ! ! n ! !! k t ! n e l a marize the potential transportation and environmental s a r w s ! t i a a Agnes Scott College ! P ! in r P ge E ! o o n ! ! m a Ed ! Indian Creek GA Dome-GWCC-Arena P e ! Avondale e m ! d ! ! C M R !v In d Redan R a d impacts associated with the implementation of new east- l i !

! ! ! g ! ! Estates R GSU n ! ! ! F n e e d p ! ! ! i n n

l a ! o i

! K e ! t S Edgewood Retail District h L r Belvedere Shopping Center S Atlanta Univ. Center ! ! s t

r o C R !! ! ! i ne ty

a k west transit service from Downtown Atlanta to the Mall d M n ! Memorial Dr o c Georgia State H u u nta o

S i o Glenwood Park n R Li C Turner Field ! ! tho East Atlanta Village Glen nia le at Stonecrest, in eastern DeKalb County. The initiative ! ! wood Rd R ! d a ! ! Pleasant Hill Rd d Zoo Atlanta/Grant Park ck

d o

r South DeKalb Senior Center C ovi Lithonia Industrial Area R a ng ! t T e o is organized in two study phases. The first phase, a v n F H u v w

e l W a y

l r A t

S n

u S

d h e

y M Lithonia L B o

c n ! r

D B a o ! w o o a l

l s H k n g o u R ! DCA, or update of the previously completed Alterna- u e a P l g i J r d d Lou Walker Senior Center h l n o e l

n B o n l v v r R a d Rockdale c i t ! e M l

i r R l l s ! ainb d o e b e w Dr o Panola Rd Industrial Area s Rockbri o H p r t tives Analysis (AA), will be followed by an environmental o o D South DeKalb Mall w r ! t R r d ! y e d S R # S Panola Rd ! d l M S E F Mall at Stonecrest ge e n E la a t p p Park-n-Ride R S a review process in accordance with the requirements of f Evans Mill Rd d h o h in a C g Constitution Rd ls e d Park-n-Ride y S P r R i e g k l R m a w s a d l Sigman Rd n y e the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). o Rd W n Park-n-Ride ! a ! P Rd d Rockland Rd e R l Gree Conyers l River Rd l n St i il Añ v s M r Arabia Mountain State Park e s ! h n Figure 5 t a ! !"a$ The I-20 East Corridor, shown in , extends more n v a E Olde Town Conyers Hapeville P d Klondike Rd SW

i than 20 miles from downtown Atlanta through southern ! !"d$ d Gees Mill Rd n H Br o o DeKalb County Line ow l ne ns Mill y C Rd K ree Clayton County Line k Rd DeKalb County and into the central portion of Rockdale ! Henry County Line ! Rd Conley y Church in the Now County. Over the past decade, multiple planning stud- Hw e Park-n-Ride idg r S Forest Park kb c a to l M S e ies have been undertaken to address the transportation ain St %&l( m R Henry d issues in the corridor (Figure 6). The results of these Clayton studies indicate that a high capacity transit service, op- Lake City ± erating predominately in an exclusive right-of-way, is 0120.5 Miles needed to accommodate the increasing transit demands !"c$ Morrow

! ! of this corridor. Figure 6: TimPointseline of Interest of Previous GRTA SPark-n-Ridetudies ! MARTA Station # MARTA Park-n-Ride Study Area Study I-20Area East Modified Locally Preferred MARTA Rail South DeKalb - Lindbergh Corridor City Boundary Major Investment Study (MARTA)ProposedAlternative BeltLine Report (MARTA) Interstate FTA Project Development Process Proposed Streetcar County Boundary Major Road A DCA/AA is a required element within the FTA’s project development process I-20 East Corridor Concept 3 (Figure 7). The DCA/AA examined a range of feasible alternatives and com- I-20 East Corridor Transit Initiative LPA Study (MARTA) (Transit Planning Board) Recommendation pared the potential costs, impacts, and benefits of each alternative relative to the demonstrated purpose and need for the improvement. The result of this 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 analysis was an LPA for advancement into environmental studies and preliminary engineering. I-20 East Managed Lanes I-20 East Corridor Corridor Study (Georgia Transit Initiative (MARTA) The second phase of the I-20 East Transit Initiative will be the preparation of Department of Transportation) environmental documents to satisfy NEPA, which requires the full consideration I-20 East Corridor Transit of environmental effects for any project that receives federal funding. To this Feasibility Study Envision6 Regional Transportation Plan (MARTA) (Atlanta Regional Commission)

6 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report end, the I-20 East Transit Initiative is preparing an Environmental Analysis (EA) Figure 7: FTA Project Development Process for the BRT component and an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the HRT component. Both the EA and the EIS are focused on the social, cultural, and physical impacts of potential federal investments, with the EIS documenting these issues in greater depth than the EA. The EIS is completed in two steps, a Draft EIS and a Final EIS that follows the review of the Draft EIS. The EA, if it is determined that no significant impacts will result from the project, results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Purpose and Need The purpose of the I-20 East Transit Initiative is to provide transit investments that enhance east-west mobility and improve accessibility to residential areas and employment centers within the corridor. The existing and future roadway congestion in the I-20 East Corridor will have an increasingly detrimental effect on automobile and bus transit travel in the corridor. The proposed transit investments are intended to improve travel times and travel reliability by providing a rapid transit service for commuters traveling to and from central Atlanta. Per FTA guidance, the Purpose and Need Statement was developed to clearly and concisely articulate the primary transportation challenges that exist in the I-20 East Corridor. Based on the evaluation of existing and projected condi- tions, in conjunction with stakeholder input, the major challenges in the I-20 East Corridor that need to be addressed are: • Traffic congestion causes delay and slow travel times • There is inadequate transit access to downtown and other employment centers • There are limited east-west travel options; I-20 is the only real choice • There are limited planned transportation projects in corridor to accommodate growth • There is insufficient transit service for a growing demand • Express bus service operates on congested roadways • Areas of the corridor are in need of revitalization • There are limited transportation options for traditionally underserved populations

7 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Goals and Objectives Figure 8: The Alternatives Analysis Process

Based on the identified challenges and needs within the corridor and stakehold- Identification of Alternatives – er input, goals and objectives were identified for the I-20 East Transit Initiative stakeholders identify a broad Identification of Alternatives to serve as a guide for the development and evaluation of transit alternatives range of alternatives for transit for this study (Table 2). service in the I-20 East Corridor

Alternatives Evaluation Framework Tier 1 Screening – utilizes a Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt limited number of Evaluation The methodology used to identify and evaluate the proposed transit alter- I-20 Criteria and Measures of Locally Preferred Alternative Report natives was a two-tiered process in which alternatives were evaluated using Effectiveness (MOEs) to increasingly detailed data and evaluation criteria (Figure 8). Tiereliminate, 1 Screening or screen out, alternatives that do not meet Tier 1 Screening Tier 1 Screening the projectThe goalsStakeholder and objectives Advisory Committee (SAC) was tasked with identifying transit alignments that would connect activity centers throughout the I-20 East Corridor with The focus of the Tier 1 Screening was the identification of the best performI-20 - central Atlanta and the existing MARTA heavy rail system. The focus of the Tier 1 ing alignment and connection alternatives, regardlessLocally of Preferredtransit Alternativetechnology, Report or Tier 2 Screeningalternatives – detailedwas the identification of the best performingAlt alignmentAlt Alt and connection mode. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was tasked with identifying screeningalternatives, that incorporates regardless a of transit technology, or mode. The process of identifying transit Project Goals and Objectives large numberalignments of Evaluation to be advanced into Tier 2 comprised of three primary decision points (Table transit alignments that would connect activity centers throughout the I-20 East ): Criteria 2and MOEs to identify Corridor withBased central on the identified Atlanta cha andllenges the and existing needs within MARTA the corridor heavy and stakeholderrail system. input, The process ofthe identifying following goals transit and objectives alignments were identififor advancemented for the I-20 East into Transit Tier Initiative. 2 was com- the Locally• Preferred Mainline Alignment Alternative Alternativ es: Identification of theTier best 2 Screening mainline, or corridor level, These goals and objectives presented in Table 1 serve as a guide for the development (LPA) recommendationtransit alignments. prised of threeand evaluation primary of transit segments, alternatives as presentedfor this study. in Table 3 and Figure 9. • Downtown Connectivity Alternatives: Identification of the best connections into TablTablee 2: 1: GProjectoal Goalss and and ObjectivesObjectives downtown Atlanta. MARTA Board of Directors to LPA Goals Objectives • Panola Road Area Alternatives: Identification of the best alignments in the Panola Adopt LPA Road area. Recommendation

Goal 1: Increase mobility and • Objective 1.1: Improve travel times for east-west travel accessibility • Objective 1.2: Improve transit accessibility within the corridor Table 2: Build Alternatives in the Tier 1 Screening • Objective 1.3: Improve connectivity with existing and planned transit Table 3: Tier 1Alternatives investments • Objective 1.4: Improve travel options within the corridor Alternative Type Alternative Name

Goal 2: Provide improved transit • Objective 2.1: Provide transit service with sufficient capacity to service within the corridor accommodate growing demand 1. Parallel I-20 Alignment • Objective 2.2: Provide travel time competitive transit service in the Mainline 2. Connection to Edgewood Station corridor Alternatives • Objective 2.3: Provide transit service for traditionally underserved 3. Heavy Rail Extension from Indian Creek populations Panola Road Area 1. Parallel I-20 Sub-Alignment Goal 3: Support regional and local • Objective 3.1: Promote economic development/revitalization Alternatives 2. Snapfinger Woods Drive Sub-Alignment land use and development goals • Objective 3.2: Support adopted local land use plans • Objective 3.3: Encourage transit supportive land use and development 1. Connection to King Memorial Station via Memorial Drive patterns 2. Connection to King Memorial Station and Downtown via Streetcar Goal 4: Promote cost effective transit • Objective 4.1: Provide transit service that can be implemented, 3. Connection to King Memorial Station via Hill Street investments operated, and maintained with available resources Downtown 4. Connection to Downtown via Streetcar Connectivity Preserve natural and built • Goal 5: Objective 5.1: Minimize impacts on environmental resources Alternatives 5. Connection to Garnett and Five Points Stations environment 6. Connection to Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal/Five Points Stations Goal 6: Achieve a high level of • Objective 6.1: Maintain compliance with stakeholder guidance 7. Connection to West End Station/Atlanta University Center/Ashby Station community support • Objective 6.2: Achieve a high level of public support 8. Connection to Midtown via Beltline Alignment

The Tier 1 Screening utilized a limited number of Evaluation Criteria and MOEs to evaluate 8 which alternatives best addressed the identified project goals. All three Mainline Alternatives were advanced to Tier 2 because they all performed well in the evaluation. The only Panola Road Area Alternative that advanced to Tier 2 was the Parallel I-20 alignment because it performed significantly better than the Snapfinger Woods Drive alignment. Based on the technical evaluation and input from the City of Atlanta, two Downtown Connectivity Alternatives were advanced into Tier 2. These were the Connection to Garnett and Five Points Stations and the Connection to Midtown via BeltLine Alignment.

RFP P5413 / Contract No. 200703566 6 December 2011

RFP P5413 / Contract No. 200703566 4 December 2011 Arts Center

14th St NW

E N d R f f i l c ! r !Midtown a i r B

E N Downtown Connectivity Alternatives d R f f li c

t r a

S i r g B

S Ponce de Leon Ave NE head A S Bank ve NW t Bankhead a t ! N e ! or North Avenue R th o

s u id ! North Ave ! t e D e r 1

F r e e d o m

N Civic Center E !!

10 Simpson St NW 8 te u Ro ate St Edgewood-Candler Park eKal D b Ave !! NE GA Dome-GWCC-Arena Freedom Pkwy ! Peachtree Center !!

t t S Inman Park-Reynoldstown Edgewood Retail District g n n o ! ri ! p m ! Vine City S Ashby d

e ! ! i ! ! ! P E ! N e Av Dome/GWCC/Philips/CNN lb Ka Martin Luther King Jr Dr ! G S U De Five Points 6 !! 2 4 Georgia State E King Memorial ! r St S ! Decatu ! 1 Garnett ! W T e r v ! S in 5 ! t it A y S !( d A r v e n o

S a y W l r

e Atlanta Univ. Center P r ! Memorial Dr o 3 M !( !"a$ SW t s S ter Pe G l e n w o o d P a r k / B e l t L i n e

T u rn e r F i e l d !( Glenwood Park L i l b u r n Mainline! Alignment Alternatives

W !( y Arts Center

S G l e n w o o d A v e n u e W

t y

W d r 14th St NW S Gle e nwood Ave SE o Brookhaven I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

t n

y ! S

r E n l N

P e l d a K East Atlanta Village R h f l f Ralph l F i Da e vid Ab Aligi nment Alternatives l l ern t a c ath i r y B B t ! lvd Midtown a h ! SW S i r h On Street Operation B W o igure ier lternatives a F 9: T 1 A Buckhead

W l Exclusive Right of Way s Lenox E A N Downtown Connectivity Alternatives d West End R f v C f li c

e l t r a N S i Downtown Connectivity Alternatives a r

! g B o S i n r i ! Zoo Atlanta/Grant Park t Parallel I-20 Alignment r H r h E m p

u S Turner Field ! si g Ponce de Leon Ave NE d o head A S ! e Bank ve NW h E t P a W n S Bankhead t t

S r k N H e o

ry P w d ! N y t R R ! or o North Avenue Downtown Connectivity Alternatives Map t o R ff h w s u cli id ! r North Ave ! t a e e i e r C D Connectivity Alternative 1 d B r l l 1

0 o R F r Connection to King Memorial Station via Beltline Alignment o d e e d 1 l wy E ountain F o e M d e m N n r M d o t c P S k

a y d g C

u N

v R r E Connectivity Alternative 2 e dy Civic Center e e R R 7 l ! d ! e d u Connection to King Memoriarl Station t o 2 Gwinnett County h and Downtown Via Streetcacr

B a Lindbergh Center Simpson 10 e St NW 8 te u B Ro P ate W S St y S !"d$ Connectivity Alternative 3 tone Mountain Fw Edgewood-Candler Park DeKalb A r v Lin o l D !! e N Legend Connection to King Memorial Station dbergh ria E W 3 Dr GA Dome-GWCC-Arena o F y NE u ! m reedom Pkw

S e Peachtree Center W l M !! S y d

v w Transit t A

t t e S Inman Park-Reynoldstown Edgewood Retail District

Connectivity Alternative 4 n S k g n o ! e ri ! v Vine City p m ! e P S Fulton County r A Ashby d

Connection to Downtown Via Streetcar e e n ! ! i 4 P Proposed BeltLine c ! ! ! E n ! N L o e Av a r e Dome/GWCC/Philips/CNN b al t K ! L Martin Luther King Jr G S U De i e Dr ! ! Existing MARTA Station l e Five Points d ! o Connectivity Alternative 5 s e ! 2 6 M

p C l a r k s t o n t nc a

Existing MARTA Rail o Connection to Garnett and Five Points Stations o i r 5 P n t D E 4

e S Georgia State King Memorial r t t SE

M ! r S ! Decatu ! 1 Garnett !

Connectivity Alternative 6 e W T Road Network R S S t o n e M o u n t a i n r v ! S in 5 ! t it A y i S !( d A d r v Connection to Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal / Five Points Station e n o

S a g 6 E y W l r

e Interstate e Atlanta Univ. Center P r ! Memorial Dr o A M v 3 Major Road e W

N S Connectivity Alternative 7 t vd !( W l W !"c$ S S Arts Center B St !"a$ s Connection to West End / Atlanta University Center / Ashby Station ter Local Road t G l e n w o o d P a r k / B e l t L i n e 7 t Pe g P i n e L a k e co T u rn e r F i e l d n i S !( Glenwood Park r !

W y p d !( e R S G l e n w o o d A v e n u e e g W 14th St NW Ro rid t

S ckb y

v W d Connectivity Alternative 8 r S Gle e nwood Ave SE Other Layers o t

A n

y ! S

r n l

P t e l

a U Connection to Inman Park SMitdatotwionn and Midtown via BeltLine Alignment K East Atlanta Village h 8 n l Ra l F lph Da e n vid Ab Aligi nment Alternatives l ern t a ath i i o y Blvd B t v h SW S e On Street Operation h

! r W s o Points of Interest it m y a

A W W l Exclusive Right of Way s ve S d West End A e v e i ! D e K a l b G o v e r n m e n t C o m p l e x ! Zoo Atlanta/Grant Park Parallel I-20 Alignment S E M East-West Streetcar P Decatur Avondale !Turner Field !

ry c P D Connectivity Alternative 1 o Bankhead once de Kensington 1 Connection to King Memorial Station via Beltline Alignment P L ! d n North Avenue eon r Source: ARC, GDOT, ESRI and JACOBS e N A a o Av W ve NE v Connectivity Alternative 2 d D e c a t u r e hea 7 l DeKu alb County u ank Indian Creek Connection to King Memorial Station B o 2 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles g and Downtown Via Streetcar See Downtown Connectivity B h Potential Station Location B B !( Connectivity Alternative 3 o Legend !"d$ A v o n d a l e E s t a t e s Connection to King Memorial Station This map is to be used for planning purposes only. l Civic Center W 3 u

v S W l d Alternatives Map y d E A g n e s S c o t t C o l l e g e S East Lake Transit t w Connectivity Alternative 4 e

S k S

e P Connection to Downtown Via Streetcar r E Proposed BeltLine e 4 c ! L n a r

! t i e ! Existing MARTA Station l

Edgewood-Candler Park o Connectivity Alternative 5 s

Simpson St NW G A D o m e - G W C C - A r e n a p t

Existing MARTA Rail o Connection to Garnett and Five Points Stations

r 5

t D

! e Peachtree Center C r o M ! Road Network R Connectivity Alternative 6 S v ! i id Connection to Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal / Five Points Station n g 6 E A t l a n t a g Interstate e %&g( A t v Ashby E d g e w o o d R e t a i l D i s t r i c t o Major Road e Vine City Dome/GWCC/Philips/CNN n S Connectivity Alternative 7 W d Inman! Park-Reynoldstown H Local Road !"c$ 7 Connection to West End / Atlanta University Center / Ashby Station

w R Five Points B e l v e d e r e S h o p p i n g C e n t e r y l G S U Other Layers Connectivity Alternative 8 rtin Luther King Jr Dr ! e Ma Un 8 Connection to Inman Park Station and Midtown via BeltLine Alignment iv p ! ersi ! Points of Interest ty Av SW Georgia State e a King Memorial M East-West Streetcar h c D Garnett o n C Source: ARC, GDOT, ESRI and JACOBS o u 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles g h k B !( Potential Station Location This map is to be used for planning purposes only. l c A t l a n t a U n i v. C e n t e r E vd S Memorial Dr E o

! R !!

S E a s t A t l a n t a V i l l a g e

t G l e n w o o d P a r k S ! ! Glenwood Ave SE West End r o ! Glenwood Rd y Z o o A t l a n t a / G r a n t P a r k r S o u t h D e K a l b S e n i o r C e n t e r P ! ! B Tu r n e r F i e l d o u ld e L i t h o n i a I n d u s t r i a l A r e a

e r C c v r a e n

A ! s d

d t l e

n D r

a r R l S d W e d d S r E R R t o n l S o d t l Oakland City M

s i ir R

e M S Ha l H

e cD e o L o u Wa l k e r S e n i o r C e n t e r p r L n a o e ug ! h h n B P a n o l a R o a d r lv L i t h o n i a C d !"a$ I n d u s t r i a l A r e a u S k E c T d R o R F ai R lat nb Sh S o u t h D e K a l b M a l l ow Dr ! m oa ! a l RockdaleCounty s

W R

h d S

s n W a

y p S r f in t w g G e

k S Lakewood-Ft. McPherson r d R P e

e v A R d e n d M a l l a t S t o n e c r e s t o l

L a o e t ew i k ! a p l L a

o h

p C o

Legend t y e d e l R s M e Transit a Mainline and Panola l Alignment Alternatives W o GRTA Park-n-Ride n " a P Road Area Alternatives F On Street Operation # MARTA Park-n-Ride lat Shoals d Pkwy R ! MARTA Station Exclusive Right of Way E a!s t P o i n t e l l i MARTA Rail v s d d r R Tunnel e R ll Proposed BeltLine h i a t l M

n o a s n Road Network n P a a Parallel I-20 Alignment P Interstate r v

D E Major Road A r a b i a M o u n t a i n S t a t e P a r k

Local Road o o Heav!y Rail Spur from Edgewood Station w Other Layers g B o o u Heavy Rail Extension From D ld ! Points of Interest ercre st R Indian Creek Station d City BounHdary a p e v i l l e Snapfinger Woods Dr C 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles B Sub-Alignment ro ro C oSourcel: ARlC, GeDOT, EgSRI aned JAC OBSP a r k w w n E n R s This map is to be used for planning purposes only. M East-West Streetcar d ill R F o r e s t P a r k d

G e o r g ia RockdaleCounty H i g Ge h 9 or w gi a a H y ig Clayton County 4 h 2 Henry County w ay 2 1 2 S ulli van Main St Rd I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

The Tier 1 Screening utilized a limited number of evaluation criteria and mea- Connection to Midtown via BeltLine Alignment. Despite rating well in the Tier 1 sures of effectiveness (MOEs) to evaluate which alternatives best addressed the Screening, the Connection to Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal/Five Points Sta- identified project goals and objectives. All three Mainline Alternatives were tion was not promoted to Tier 2 Screening. First, this alternative was virtually advanced to Tier 2 because they all performed well in the evaluation. The identical to the Connection to Garnett and Five Points Station alternative, but only Panola Road Area Alternative that advanced to Tier 2 was the Parallel was projected to incur longer travel times and attract fewer daily riders as well I-20 alignment because it performed significantly better than the Snapfinger as fewer new riders. Second, with the MMPT in its initial planning stages, there Woods Drive alignment. Based on the technical evaluation and input from the are far too many unknowns about the actual facility to pursue a connection at City of Atlanta, two Downtown Connectivity Alternatives were advanced into this time. The results of the Tier 1 Screening are presented in Table 4. Tier 2. These were the Connection to Garnett and Five Points Stations and the Table 4: Tier 1 Screening Results

Mainline Alternatives Panola Road Area Alternatives Downtown Connectivity Alternatives

2. Connection 7. Connection 6. Connection 8. Connection 1. Connection to King to West End 1. Connection 3. Heavy Rail 3. Connection 5. Connection to Multi-Modal to Inman Park 2. Connection 2. Snapfinger to King Memorial 4. Connection Station/ Directly to Extension 1. Parallel I-20 to King to Garnett and Passenger Station and Project Goal to Edgewood Woods Drive Memorial Station and to Downtown Atlanta Downtown from Indian Sub-Alignment Memorial Five Points Terminal/Five Midtown via Station Sub-Alignment Station via Downtown via via Streetcar University Atlanta Creek Station Stations Points Beltline Memorial drive Streetcar Center/Ashby Stations Alignment Alignment Station

Increase Mobility and Accessibility

Provide Improved Transit Service within the Corridor

Support Land Use and Development Goals

Promote Cost Effective Transit Investments

Preserve Natural and Built Environment

Achieve a High Level of Community Support

Advanced to Tier 2 YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES Screening

Legend Performed well Performed moderately well Performed poorly

10 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Tier 2 Screening Figure 10: Transit Technologies Considered The Tier 2 Alternatives represented the highest performing Tier 1 Alternatives. The purpose Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) operates on of the Tier 2 Screening was to identify the LPA utilizing a more robust list of evaluation cri- electric railway, and is characterized I-20 by high speeds, rapid acceleration of teria and MOEs. The result of the Tier 1 Screening was a setLocally of feasible Preferred transitAlternative alignments Report passenger rail cars, high platform load- that would connect activity centers along the I-20 East Corridor with central Atlanta and ing, and grade separated rights-of-way the existing MARTA heavy rail system. The Tier 2 Screening paired these alignments with from which all other vehicular and foot compatible transit technologies, or modes. As such, all Tier 2 Alternatives were evaluated traffic are excluded. Tier 2 Screening with all feasible transit technologies. Thus, if a given alignment was compatible with multiple transit Thetechnologies, Tier 2 Alternatives it was analyzedrepresent the with highest each performing technology. Tier 1The Alternatives. transit technologies The identified aspurpose suitable of for the this Tier project 2 Screening include is to HRT, identify light the rail LPA transit utilizing (LRT), a more and robustBRT, as list depicted of in Figure 10evaluation. Table 5 criteriapresents and descriptions MOEs. Since of the the Tier six 1 Tier alternatives 2 Alternatives represent that several resulted from alignment decisionFigure points throughout11 the corridor, the Tier 2 alternatives are the technologycomprised analysis of andcombinations of Tieron page 1 alternatives. 12 provides Additionally, a map theof theseTier 2 alternatives.alternatives are comprised of both alignment and transit mode. As such, all Tier 2 alternatives The Tier 2 Screeningwill be evaluated developed with all cost feasible estimates transit technologies.based on conceptual The transit engineering technologies and re- alistic operatingidentified plans; as suitablecompleted for this preliminary project include station heavy area rail planning;transit (HRT), performed light rail transit land use Light Rail Transit (LRT) consists analysis; assessed(LRT), and right-of-way bus rapid transit impacts (BRT). on All adjacent alignment properties; alternatives advancedconsidered to thisimpacts Tier 2 to of passenger rail cars pow- natural and Screeningcommunity were resources; evaluated completed with compatible a detailed transit technologies.ridership analysis; Thus, ifand a given calculated ered by overhead catenaries. FTA New Startsalignment performance was compatible criteria. with Key multiple findings transit from technologies, the Tier 2 it Screening was analyzed can with be found Operating individually or in in Table 6 oneach page technology. 13. Table Table 7 3on presents page 13descriptions presents of the the major six Tier assumptions 2 Alternatives considered and short trains, service is usually on Figure 5 provides a map of these alternatives. during alternative development and analysis. Table 8 on page 14 presents the evaluation fixed rails in exclusive right-of- matrix for the Tier 2 Alternatives. way. LRT and streetcar service can occasionally operate in shared traffic. Table 5: TableTier 3:2 Tier A l2tern Alternativesatives Alternative Description HRT1 • Heavy rail transit serving stations along I-20 between the Mall at Stonecrest and downtown Atlanta • Ties into the MARTA rail network just south of Garnett station • Serves all existing stations on the MARTA north-south line between the Garnett and Lindbergh Center stations LRT1 • Light rail transit serving stations along I-20 between the Mall at Stonecrest and downtown Atlanta • Provides connections to existing Garnett and Five Points Stations BRT1 • Bus rapid transit serving stations along I-20 between the Mall at Stonecrest and downtown Atlanta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) offers • BRT would operate in a dedicated busway adjacent to I-20 limited-stop service that relies • Provides connections to existing Garnett and Five Points Stations on technology to help speed up LRT2 • Light rail transit serving stations between the Mall at Stonecrest and Midtown Atlanta travel. BRT operates in shared • Operates next to I-20 to Glenwood Park within the City of Atlanta then follows BeltLine alignment to existing North Avenue station or exclusive right-of-way. This HRT2 • Heavy rail transit serving stations between the Mall at Stonecrest and downtown Atlanta service usually has dedicated • Operates next to I-20 to Glenwood Avenue then runs north in a tunnel to a connection with the existing stations, pre-boarding fare MARTA east-west rail line payment, and is separated • Would connect to the MARTA east-west rail line between Edgewood/Candler Park and East Lake from normal traffic. stations HRT3 • Heavy rail transit from Mall at Stonecrest to downtown Atlanta along I-20, I-285, and the existing MARTA east-west rail line • Would operate along I-20 and I-285 then connect to existing MARTA east-west rail line at Indian Creek Station • Would operate as an express service along existing MARTA east-west line, serving limited stations • Areas along I-20 inside the Perimeter would be served with BRT

Figure 5: Tier 2 Alternatives 11

RFP P5413 / Contract No. 200703566 7 December 2011 C

E l ountain Fwy I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report e e M N on Mc d t d S g Cu R r e d y e R R e d r d t Gwinnett County h c

P W Stone wy S L Figure 11: Tier 2 Alternatives Mountain F ind bergh D r NE

ve A n o e L e d Tier 2 Alternatives ce C l a r k s t o n Ma on P i n Tier 2 Alternatives E

St S t o n e M o u n t a i n Heavy Rail Transit (HRT1)

W Light Rail Transit (LRT1)

N Fulton d lv St B %&g( Arts Center tt P i n e L a k e g County o

i Sc Bus Rapid Transit (BRT1) r e Rd e Roc ridg Sp kb v A

t Midtown n Light Rail Transit (LRT2) o

e i De K a l b G o v e r n m e n t C o m p l e x !"c$!"d$ P Decatur Avondale Heavy Rail Transit (HRT2) Ponce de Leo Kensington ve NW North Avenue n Av ead A e NE D e c a t u r DeKalb County Bankh Indian Creek Heavy Rail Transit (HRT3) Civic Center A v o n d a l e E s t a t e s East Lake Ag n e s S c o t t C o l l e g e (HRT3) BRT Service G A D o m e - G W C C - A r e n a Edgewood-Candler Park Inside I-285 Perimeter C Peachtree Center ov in gt Vine City E d g e w o o d R e t a i l D i s t r i ct on H w Inman Park-Reynoldstown Be l v e d e r e S h o p p i n g C e n t e r y Five Points G S U Covington Hwy Station Moreland Ave Station Garnett King Memorial Georgia State Memorial Dr Glenwood Ave Station

G l en w o o d P a r k Glenwood Ave SE E a s t A t l a n t a V i l la g e Glenwood Rd Tu r n e r F i e l d S o u t h D eK a l b S en io r C e n t e r

t Z o o A t l a n t a / G r a n t P a r k

o L i t h o n i a I n d u s t r i al A r e a

e C

Turner Field Station Glenwoodv Park Station a

P B n

A o d d u le

n l r d a e R l r d e c d d

r Candler Road Station r R e R n s o d l t l

Mo t s i ir R M D S Ha d l v H

c l e D r B p r o L o u Wa l k e r S e n i o r C e n t e r l n S !"c$!"d$ o a a e u Panola Road ri g E t h h s n B r lv Industrial Area u L i t h o n i a C d S d k u E In c T !"a$ o d ia F n R R la t S Ra o h in h o t m a b Gresham Road Station ls ow i RockdaleCounty Legend a R Dr d S L h n s S o u t h D eK a l b M a ll a

e p

r f Transit ing G e r ! ve d R ! A R d MARTA Stadtion Wesley Chapel Road S tation oo l ew e Lak p MARTA Maintenance a ' h C Facility y e d %&g( l Panola Road Station R MARTA Rail s e a l W o Lithonia Industrial Station n

Proposed BeltLine a

P Mall at Stonecrest Station F lat Road Network Shoals d Pkwy R

e l Interstate l i v s d Major Road r R e ll h i t M n a s P n Other Layers a v E ! Points of Interest Ar a b i a Mo u n t a i n S t at e P a r k City Boundary B o u ld 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ercre Source: ARC, GDOT, ESRI and JACOBS st R E d This map is to be used for planning purposes only.

12 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Table 6: Cost and Performance Comparison of Tier 2 Alternatives

Alignment Length Cost 2030 Daily New 2030 Daily Travel Time from the Mall at Displacements (Miles) Boardings Riders Stonecrest to Five Points Station Capital/ROW & O&M (in minutes)

HRT1 19.2 $3,281M, $35.2M 41,900 12,300 35.7 47

LRT1 19.6 $2,700M, $10.4M 33,300 8,200 35.7 47

BRT1 19.6 $2,111M , $6 . 4M 2 7, 70 0 5,200 37. 2 47

HRT2 18.2 $2,729M, $23.8M 32,200 8,200 54.3 35

LRT2 20.3 $2,115M , $10 . 4M 18,400 5,300 38.6 41

HRT3 12.0 (HRT) 12.8 (BRT) $1,840M, $18.0M 28,700 6,400 39.9 13

Table 7: Assumptions Design • All new HRT stations would be smaller, simpler stations that will cost less than traditional MARTA HRT stations Assumptions • No surface street operation or at-grade rail crossings for LRT alternatives with exception of BeltLine alignment for LRT2. • Sufficient capacity at existing rail maintenance facilities to maintain HRT vehicles • Sufficient capacity at existing bus maintenance facilities to maintain BRT vehicles. Some additional equipment may be necessary • A new storage and maintenance facility in the I-20 corridor would be required for LRT alternatives Capital Cost • All cost estimates are reported in 2011 dollars Estimates • Storage and maintenance facilities were only deemed necessary for LRT alternatives. Assumed that HRT and BRT vehicles would be stored and maintained at existing MARTA facilities. Service • 10-minute peak and 20 minute off-peak headways Assumptions • Six train consists for HRT service • Four train consists for LRT service Forecasting • No HOV or managed lanes along I-20 east of I-285 in year 2030 Assumptions • GRTA express bus service would no longer serve the Panola Road park-and-ride lot. ROW Cost • 80’ Required ROW assumed for corridor. Estimates • Property costs based on current assessed value plus escalations factors • ROW requirements on publicly owned property assumed to have no cost

13 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

I‐20 East TransitTable 8:Initiative Tier 2 E Screenvaluation 2 Analysis Matrix Project Goal Project Objective HRT1 LRT1 BRT1 LRT2 HRT2 HRT3 Performance High

Improve East‐West Travel Times 2 21122 2 Moderate

Improve Transit Accessibility within the Corridor 2 22211 2 Increase Mobility and Accessibility Low Improve Connectivity with Existing and Planned 2 11112 2 Transit Investment

Improve Travel Options within the Corridor 2 22222

Provide Transit Service with Sufficient Capacity to 2 11111 Accommodate Growing Demand

Provide Improved Transit Service Provide Travel Time Competitive Transit Service in 0 22122 within the Corridor the Corridor

Provide Transit Service for TraditionallTraditionallyy Underserved 1 1 111121 1 1 2 Populations

Promote Economic Development and Revitalization 2 22211

Support Land Use and Support Adopted Local Land Use Plans Development Goals

Encourage Transit Supportive Land Use and Development Patterns

Promote Cost Effective Transit Provide Transit Service that Can be Implemented, 1 11112 Investments Operated, and Maintained with Available Resources

Preserve Natural and Built Minimize Impacts to Environmental Resources 0 00011 Environment

Maintain Compliance with Stakeholder Guidance 2 21122 Achieve a High Level of Community Support Achieve a High Level of Public Support 12 11 11 8 12 11

14 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Stakeholder and Public Involvement Table 9: Public Involvement Public and stakeholder Public Audience Purpose Frequency involvement are an Involvement invaluable facet of Technique the I-20 East Transit Initial Elected officials, To allow corridor 29 stakeholders in 22 Initiative. Public and Stakeholder business leaders, stakeholders to identify interviews early in the stakeholder input and Interviews neighborhood major transportation study feedback were critical groups, major challenges facing the to the identification of churches, I-20 East Corridor. corridor transportation individual needs, project goals citizens and objectives, the Stakeholder Interviews with To provide input on 4 SAC meetings at identification of transit Advisory elected officials, corridor needs, project major milestones alternatives, and the Committee business leaders, goals and objectives, throughout the study evaluation of these al- (SAC) neighborhood evaluation methods, ternatives. Table 9 presents an overview of public involvement techniques groups, major transit alternatives, and when they were utilized throughout the study. Further information can churches, station areas be found in Appendix C to the I-20 East LPA Report. individual citizens Early in the public involvement process, stakeholders identified several Technical Key federal, To provide technical 4 TAC meetings at major common themes, or characteristics, regarding new transit service, which Advisory state, and local input at key project milestones throughout they felt were essential to the success of a transit investment in the corridor. Committee agency staff milestones the study These common themes became the guiding principles for new transit service (TAC) in the I-20 East Corridor, against which all project alternatives were evaluated. These stakeholder-identified guiding principles are listed below. General The general To provide an 3 rounds of public Public public opportunity for the meetings at 3 locations Stakeholder-Identified Guiding Principles Meetings general public to give each, for a total of input and feedback at 9 public meetings • Transit should be a rapid service to downtown serving commuters key project milestones throughout the study with few stops Project The general To provide project 6,107 website hits and • Dedicated transitway for entire length of project. None, or very Webpage public updates 140 Facebook “likes” limited, operation on surface streets in mixed traffic and Facebook through April 2012. Page • System must have a direct connection to MARTA heavy rail system Online SAC members To allow SAC members 1700+ surveys taken at • There must be a way for riders to transfer to/from the BeltLine Surveys and the general and the public to key milestones public provide feedback on • It is important to limit the number of transfers to reduce travel times project alternatives • The most desirable connection to downtown would be at the Five- Project Stakeholders, To provide updates on 28 briefings in 2011 Points/MMPT since it would provide a connection to the north-south Briefings neighborhoods the findings of the study and east-west MARTA rail lines without additional transfers organizations, agencies

15 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report

Moving Forward: Challenges and Identification of Project Funding: The identification of possible funding sources is essential to the implementation of the I-20 East project. One Opportunities to Implementing the LPA possible funding source is the FTA New Starts program. The New Starts program is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting With adoption of the LPA by the MARTA Board, the I-20 East Transit Initiative major transit investments. This highly competitive program evaluates poten- has entered into the environmental studies phase of the project. The study will tial New Starts projects based on mobility improvements, cost effectiveness, complete an EA and a DEIS in order to satisfy the National Environmental Pol- transit supportive land uses and policies, local financial commitments, as icy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires the full consideration of environmental well as other criteria. MARTA is also looking at alternative funding mecha- effects for any project that receives federal funding. The following challenges nisms for project delivery and implementation. n and opportunities will face MARTA as the project moves forward through the project development process. Refinement of Station Locations: Although all station areas have been presented to the public, it is anticipated that refinement of the station location, size, access points, parking facilities, and layout will be required. This will likely involve outreach efforts to business owners, residents, jurisdictional staff, and elected officials. Continued Public Involvement: Public, stakeholder, and agency outreach must continue throughout the life of this project in order to educate the public, identify local issues, and build support. One key issue that arose during public engagement in the fall of 2011 was concern regarding BRT service inside the I-285 Perimeter. While there was overwhelming support for HRT3 from residents outside Perimeter, residents within the Perimeter voiced concern that they would not be served by rail transit. The specific routing and integration of the BRT portion of HRT3 will be continuously refined through future work. Refinement of Project Costs: It is anticipated that capital, right-of-way, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs will be adjusted as more detail regarding the transit alignments, operations, and station locations is prepared. Coordination with GDOT: Since much of the LPA alignment is proposed within or partially within GDOT right-of-way, close coordination is necessary. MARTA has engaged GDOT throughout the study process to ensure the protection of a transit corridor within GDOT right-of-way where possible. As a result of these coordination efforts, the GDOT Board recently adopted a resolution that guides cooperation between the two agencies with regard to implementation of transit initiatives in corridors designated for managed lane projects. The intent of the resolution is to foster thoughtful utilization of existing and planned assets for both highway and transit modes. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be developed to outline specific commitments for the I-20 East Cor- ridor.