I-85 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Gwinnett County 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30046

Prepared by:

August 2014

I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Overview of Study ...... 1 1.2 I-85 Corridor AA Process ...... 3 1.3 Report Organization ...... 3 2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ...... 5 2.1 History of I-85 Corridor ...... 5 2.1.1 Gwinnett County ...... 5 2.1.2 Chamblee and Doraville ...... 6 2.1.3 Duluth, Peachtree Corners, Norcross, and Suwanee ...... 6 2.2 Transportation System ...... 7 2.2.1 Railroads ...... 7 2.2.2 Transit Investments ...... 7 2.2.3 Highway System ...... 8 2.3 Review of Previous Studies ...... 9 2.3.1 Regional Initiatives ...... 9 2.3.2 Corridor-Level Studies ...... 10 2.3.3 Local Comprehensive Plans ...... 23 2.3.4 Livable Centers Initiative and Other Studies ...... 27 2.3.5 Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan ...... 28 3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC OVERVIEW ...... 30 3.1 Demographic Profile ...... 30 3.1.1 Population ...... 30 3.1.2 Race and Ethnicity ...... 31 3.1.3 Household Characteristics ...... 31 3.1.4 Age ...... 32 3.1.5 Education ...... 33 3.1.6 Occupation ...... 33 3.1.7 Income ...... 34 3.1.8 Housing ...... 36 3.2 Environmental Justice Populations ...... 37 3.2.1 Minority Populations ...... 37 3.2.2 Low-Income Populations ...... 42 3.2.3 Linguistically Isolated Households ...... 44 3.3 Traditionally Transit Dependent Populations ...... 48 3.3.1 Zero-Vehicle Households ...... 48 3.3.2 Elderly and Disabled Households ...... 50 3.4 Population and Employment Forecasts ...... 52

ii I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

3.4.1 Population Forecasts ...... 52 3.4.2 Employment Forecasts ...... 54 4.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS ...... 63 4.1 Policy Framework ...... 63 4.1.1 DeKalb County...... 64 4.1.2 Gwinnett County ...... 65 4.1.3 Atlanta Regional Commission ...... 67 4.2 Existing and Planned Land Uses ...... 68 4.2.1 Existing Land Use ...... 68 4.2.2 Planned Land Uses ...... 72 4.2.3 Comparison between Existing Land Use and Future Land Use ...... 74 4.3 Development Trends ...... 76 4.3.1 New Home Sales ...... 77 4.3.2 Major Development Activity and Potential Redevelopment Areas ...... 78 5.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...... 82 5.1 Travel Patterns ...... 82 5.1.1 Person Trips...... 82 5.1.2 Transit Trips ...... 85 5.2 Roadway Characteristics ...... 91 5.2.1 Roadway Capacity ...... 91 5.2.2 Roadway Conditions...... 97 6.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ...... 101 6.1 Current Public Transportation Services ...... 101 6.1.1 Gwinnett County Transit ...... 101 6.1.2 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority ...... 114 6.1.3 MARTA ...... 119 6.1.4 Freight Rail Facilities...... 125 6.2 Bike and Pedestrian Facilities...... 126 7.0 SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS ...... 131 7.1 Process Overview ...... 131 7.2 Options Considered ...... 132 7.2.1 Mode ...... 132 7.2.2 Alignment ...... 151 7.2.3 Station/Stop Location ...... 156 7.3 Propulsion ...... 160 8.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 164 8.1 No Action Alternative ...... 164 8.1.1 Overview ...... 164 8.1.2 Planned and Programmed Transit Improvements ...... 171 8.1.3 Relevant Programmed Transit Projects ...... 171 8.1.4 Transit Facilities ...... 176

iii I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

8.2 Bus Rapid Transit Build Alternative ...... 179 8.2.1 Overview ...... 179 8.2.2 Features ...... 180 8.2.3 Physical Characteristics ...... 180 8.2.4 Operating Characteristics ...... 194 8.3 Streetcar Build Alternative ...... 196 8.3.1 Overview ...... 196 8.3.2 Features ...... 197 8.3.3 Physical Characteristics ...... 197 8.3.4 Operating Characteristics ...... 204 9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 206 9.1 Introduction ...... 206 9.1.1 Evaluation Overview ...... 206 9.1.2 Screen 1 Considerations ...... 206 9.1.3 Evaluation Criteria ...... 206 9.2 Evaluation Measures and Results ...... 208 9.2.1 Access and Mobility ...... 208 9.2.2 Community and Economic Development Support of County Revitalization Efforts Criterion ...... 214 9.2.3 Safety, Reliability, and Comfort ...... 216 9.2.4 Regional Connections ...... 219 9.2.5 Community Goals ...... 220 9.2.6 Capital and Operating Costs ...... 223 10.0 IMPACT SCREENING ...... 226 10.1 Community Resources ...... 226 10.1.1 Parks ...... 227 10.1.2 Houses of Worship ...... 227 10.1.3 Schools ...... 232 10.1.4 Historic Sites ...... 232 10.1.5 Activity Centers ...... 232 10.2 Major Natural Systems Inventory ...... 238 10.2.1 Water Resources ...... 238 10.2.2 Topography ...... 240 10.2.3 Soils ...... 240 10.2.4 Federally and State-Protected Species ...... 243 10.3 Air Quality ...... 244 10.3.1 Ozone ...... 244 10.3.2 Particulate Matter (2.5) ...... 245 10.4 Impacts on Transit Service ...... 245 10.4.1 Summary of Transit Alternatives ...... 246 10.4.2 Ridership ...... 247

iv I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

10.4.3 General Assumptions ...... 249 10.4.4 Build Alternative Characteristics ...... 250 10.5 Cost Impacts ...... 251 10.5.1 Capital Costs...... 251 10.5.2 BRT Cost Assumptions ...... 257 10.5.3 Streetcar Costs Assumptions ...... 259 10.5.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 261 10.6 Summary of the Light Rail Transit Alternative ...... 262 10.6.1 Summary of the Prior LRT Alternative ...... 262 10.6.2 Ridership ...... 265 10.6.3 Capital Cost ...... 265 10.6.4 Operating and Maintenance Cost ...... 270 10.6.5 Summary Comparison ...... 271 11.0 CONCLUSION ...... 273

Figures

Figure E-1: I-85 Corridor ...... 3 Figure E-2: Build Alternative Alignment and Station Locations ...... 9 Figure 1-1: l-85 Corridor ...... 2 Figure 2-1: Concept 3 Transit Vision ...... 12 Figure 2-2: Buford Highway Multimodal Corridor Study Recommendations ...... 16 Figure 2-3: Preferred LRT Alternative Alignment and Station Locations ...... 22 Figure 2-4: Gwinnett CTP Aspirations Plan Network ...... 26 Figure 3-1: Median Household Income ...... 35 Figure 3-2: Housing Units by Tenure, Study Area 2010 ...... 36 Figure 3-3: Minority Populations ...... 39 Figure 3-4: Black Populations...... 40 Figure 3-5: Asian Populations ...... 41 Figure 3-6: Hispanic Population ...... 43 Figure 3-7: Distribution of Low Income Households ...... 45 Figure 3-8: Low Income Households ...... 46 Figure 3-9: Linguistically Isolated Households ...... 47 Figure 3-10: Zero-Vehicle Households ...... 49 Figure 3-11: Elderly Households ...... 51 Figure 3-12: Disabled Households ...... 53 Figure 3-13: Population Change between 2010 and 2040 ...... 54 Figure 3-14: Percent Growth in Population, 2010–2040 ...... 55 Figure 3-15: 2010 Population Density ...... 56 Figure 3-16: 2040 Population Density ...... 57 Figure 3-17: Employment Change between 2010 and 2040...... 58

v I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

Figure 3-18: Employment Change by Type (2010 and 2040) ...... 59 Figure 3-19: Percent Growth in Employment, 2010–2040 ...... 60 Figure 3-20: Employment Density for 2010 ...... 61 Figure 3-21: Employment Density for 2040 ...... 62 Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use by Type ...... 69 Figure 4-2: Figure Existing Land Use by Type ...... 71 Figure 4-3: Planned Land Use ...... 75 Figure 4-4: Future Land Use by Type ...... 76 Figure 4-5: Home Sales by Type ...... 77 Figure 4-6: Locations of DRIs ...... 80 Figure 5-1: Travel Pattern Districts ...... 83 Figure 5-2: HBW Trip Study Corridor Production Desire Lines ...... 86 Figure 5-3: HBW Trip Study Corridor Attraction Desire Lines ...... 87 Figure 5-4: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from North Corridor ...... 92 Figure 5-5: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from Central Corridor ...... 92 Figure 5-6: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from South Corridor ...... 93 Figure 5-7: Year 2010 Model Network Number of Lanes ...... 94 Figure 5-8: Year 2040 Model Network Number of Lanes ...... 95 Figure 5-9: Roadway Functional Classification ...... 96 Figure 5-10: A.M. Peak Period 2010 Model Estimated LOS ...... 98 Figure 5-11: A.M. Peak Period 2040 Model Estimated LOS ...... 99 Figure 6-1: GCT Local Routes ...... 106 Figure 6-2: GCT Express Routes ...... 111 Figure 6-3: GRTA Xpress Routes ...... 116 Figure 6-4: East Side Realignment ...... 120 Figure 6-5: West Side Realignment ...... 121 Figure 6-6: Railroad Line in the l-85 Corridor ...... 128 Figure 6-7: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...... 129 Figure 7-1: Build Alternative Alignment and Station Locations ...... 159 Figure 8-1: Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040 ...... 166 Figure 8-2: Transit Facilities in the l-85 Corridor ...... 177 Figure 8-3: Typical BRT Street Cross-Section ...... 182 Figure 8-4: Transit Signal Priority Example ...... 192 Figure 8-5: Typical Streetcar Vehicle ...... 201 Figure 8-6: Streetcar (TRAM) Vehicle Dimensions ...... 202 Figure 10-1: Major Activity Centers and Points of Interest ...... 228 Figure 10-2: Houses of Worship and Schools ...... 233 Figure 10-3: Water Resources ...... 239 Figure 10-4: Slope ...... 241 Figure 10-5: Soil Formations ...... 242

vi I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

Tables

Table E-1: Goals and Objectives ...... 5 Table E-2: Build Alternative Station Locations ...... 8 Table 2-1: I-85 Corridor Roadway Facilities ...... 8 Table 2-2: GCT TDP Short-Term Service Recommendations ...... 20 Table 2-3: GCT TDP Long-Term Service Recommendations ...... 21 Table 2-4: CTP Roadway Recommendations ...... 24 Table 3-1: Change in Population ...... 31 Table 3-2: Race and Ethnicity ...... 31 Table 3-3: Household Characteristics ...... 32 Table 3-4: Age Distribution ...... 32 Table 3-5: Education ...... 33 Table 3-6: Occupation ...... 34 Table 3-7: Age of Housing ...... 36 Table 3-8: Minority Population Comparisons ...... 38 Table 3-9: Black Population Comparisons ...... 38 Table 3-10: Asian Population Comparisons ...... 42 Table 3-11: Hispanic Population Comparisons ...... 42 Table 3-12: Low-Income Household Comparisons ...... 44 Table 3-13: Linguistically Isolated Households ...... 48 Table 3-14: Zero-Vehicle Households...... 50 Table 3-15: Elderly Population Comparisons ...... 50 Table 3-16: Disabled Population Comparisons ...... 52 Table 3-17: Employment Change by Type ...... 58 Table 4-1: Existing Land Use ...... 69 Table 4-2: Gwinnett County Future Land Use Consolidation ...... 73 Table 4-3: Future Land Use ...... 74 Table 4-4: History of Home Sales ...... 77 Table 4-5: Home Sales by Zip Code ...... 78 Table 4-6: Summary of DRIs ...... 79 Table 5-1: I-85 Corridor Productions/Attractions by Trip Purpose ...... 84 Table 5-2: I-85 Corridor HBW Productions ...... 85 Table 5-3: I-85 Corridor HBW Attractions ...... 85 Table 5-4: I-85 Corridor Transit Productions ...... 88 Table 5-5: I-85 Corridor Transit Attractions ...... 88 Table 5-6: I-85 Corridor Transit Trip Household Characteristics ...... 89 Table 5-7: I-85 Corridor Transit Transfers ...... 89 Table 5-8: I-85 Corridor Mode of Transit ...... 90 Table 5-9: I-85 Corridor Daily Transit Trips ...... 90 Table 5-10: I-85 Corridor Daily Mode Share ...... 91

vii I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

Table 5-11: I-85 Corridor Route Miles and Lane Miles ...... 93 Table 5-12: Major I-85 Corridor Roadway Conditions ...... 97 Table 5-13: I-85 Corridor District Highway Measures ...... 100 Table 6-1: GCT Current Fare Structure ...... 104 Table 6-2: GCT Local Transit Routes and Service ...... 105 Table 6-3: GCT Express Transit Routes and Service ...... 110 Table 6-4: GCT Route Characteristics (October 2010–September 2011) ...... 113 Table 6-5: Current GRTA Fares in the I-85 Corridor ...... 114 Table 6-6: GRTA Express Transit Routes and Service ...... 117 Table 6-7: GRTA Xpress Route Characteristics ...... 118 Table 6-8: MARTA Fare ...... 123 Table 6-9: MARTA Rail Station Characteristics ...... 124 Table 6-10: Norfolk-Southern At-Grade Crossings ...... 125 Table 6-11: RTP/TIP Bike and Pedestrian Facilities in I-85 Corridor ...... 130 Table 7-1: First Level Screening Matrix...... 148 Table 7-2: Characteristics of the Candidate Transit Modes ...... 149 Table 7-3: Mode Selection Summary Table ...... 150 Table 7-4: Comparison of Build Alignment by Mode ...... 156 Table 7-5: Build Alternative Alignment Station Locations ...... 158 Table 7-6: Initial Screening Results ...... 163 Table 8-1: Programmed Road Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040 ...... 167 Table 8-2: Long Range Road Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040 ...... 168 Table 8-3: Road Aspirations Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040 ...... 169 Table 8-4: Programmed Projects – Gwinnett County Transit ...... 171 Table 8-5: Relevant Programmed Projects – Regional Transit ...... 173 Table 8-6: Relevant Long-Range Projects – Regional Transit ...... 174 Table 8-7: Relevant Long-Range Projects – Major Transit Expansion ...... 174 Table 8-8: Relevant Unfunded Aspirations Plan Projects Major Transit Expansion ...... 175 Table 8-9: I-85 AA Corridor Park-and-Ride Lots ...... 178 Table 8-10: GCT Local Transit Routes and Service ...... 179 Table 8-12: Posted Speed Limits along Build Alternative Alignment ...... 195 Table 9-1: Assumed Vehicle Capacity ...... 211 Table 10-1: Parks and Recreational Facilities...... 229 Table 10-2: Houses of Worship ...... 231 Table 10-3: Schools ...... 234 Table 10-4: National Register-Listed Sites ...... 237 Table 10-5: Federally and/or State-Listed Species Known to Occur in Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties, Georgia ...... 243 Table 10-6: I-85 Daily Corridor Ridership (2040) ...... 249 Table 10-7: Summary of Capital Costs by Alternative ...... 254

viii I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA Alternatives Analysis ACS American Community Survey ADA Americans with Disability Act AJC Atlanta Journal Constitution ARC Atlanta Regional Commission BOC Board of Commissioners BRT Bus Rapid Transit CBD central business district CCTV Closed Circuit Television Camera CD collector/distributor CID Community Improvement District CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CRNRA Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan DRI Developments of Regional Impact EJ Environmental justice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRE finance, insurance, and real estate FTA Federal Transit Administration FY fiscal year GCT Gwinnett County Transit GDNR WRD Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation GIS Geographical Information System GRH Guaranteed Ride Home GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority GTAB Gwinnett Transit Advisory Board HBO home-based other HBW home-based work HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV high-occupancy lane HRT heavy rail transit

ix I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

I-85 Interstate Highway 85 ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LCI Livable Centers Initiative LOS level of service LPA Locally Preferred Alternative LRT light rail transit MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MVEB Motor Vehicle Emission Budget NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NHB nonhome based NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NOx Nitrogen Oxides NS Norfolk Southern NTD National Transit Database OFS Optical Fiber Solutions O&M operation and maintenance PIB Peachtree Industrial Boulevard PM particulate matter

PM2.5 fine particulate matter RTC Regional Transit Committee RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTR Regional Transportation Roundtable SR State Route TAZ traffic analysis zone TCC Traffic Control Center TCU Transportation, communication, and utilities TDM Transportation Demand Management TDP Transit Development Plan TIA Transportation Investment Act of 2010 TIP Transportation Improvement Program TPB Transit Planning Board ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VC ratio volume to capacity ratio

x I-85 Corridor AA Study Final Report

VHT vehicle hours traveled VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds Xpress express bus

xi I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY BACKGROUND

Gwinnett County, in collaboration with the Gwinnett Village and Gwinnett Place Community Improvement Districts (CIDs), undertook an alternatives analysis (AA) to study transit improvement alternatives along the lnterstate Highway 85 (l-85) corridor. The study considered a variety of transit alignment and transit technology options to improve mobility and accessibility along the corridor. The I-85 AA Study Corridor (l-85 Corridor) is predominantly within Gwinnett County, is one of the most populous counties in the Atlanta metro area and has been one of the nation’s fastest growing counties for a number of years.

The I-85 Corridor extends from State Route (SR) 20/SR 324 on the north , Lawrenceville Highway to the south, SR 124 to the east, and I-285 on the west. The I-85 AA Study Corridor falls within two counties, Gwinnett and the northern portion of DeKalb. It also encompasses all or part of the following municipalities: Chamblee, Doraville, and Dunwoody in DeKalb County; and Berkeley Lake, Buford, Duluth, Lilburn, Lawrenceville, Norcross, Sugar Hill, Suwanee, and Peachtree Corners in Gwinnett County. The corridor is approximately 24 miles long, 8 miles wide, and covers approximately 129,000 acres or 201 square miles. Figure E-1 provides a map of the I- 85 Corridor.

A variety of land uses are present in the l-85 Corridor, including residential, retail, office, commercial, and industrial. Major activity centers within the corridor include Gwinnett Village, Gwinnett Place, Technology Park/Peachtree Corners, Gwinnett Center (including The Arena, Convention Center and Performing Arts Center), Sugarloaf Mills, and Mall of Georgia.

The I-85 Corridor has a radial travel shed orientation extending from downtown Atlanta through the communities of midtown Atlanta, Brookhaven, Chamblee, Doraville, Norcross, and Duluth. This travel shed also extends to the communities of Lawrenceville, Suwanee, and Buford.

I-85 in Gwinnett County remains one of the most congested corridors in the Atlanta region despite recent transportation improvements. Growth in population and employment is the primary contributing factor to the increased travel demand and decreased mobility that has occurred in the study area. The population has grown by 16.9 percent or 72,800 persons in the I-85 Corridor between 2000 and 2010. Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) forecasts that population will continue to grow in this area,

ES-1 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary though at a slower pace than experienced in the past two decades; population is forecasted to increase by 44 percent or 213,285 by the year 2040.1

New mobility options are needed to improve connectivity between major activity centers in Gwinnett County, provide an alternative to automobile travel, and promote more livable communities. A premium transit solution could enhance connectivity both within Gwinnett County and throughout the region by interfacing with the Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) bus system, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail system, as well as other planned transit corridors to provide commuters with an integrated regional transit system within the study area. The I-85 Corridor study seeks to address the ways in which corridor improvements can foster economic growth by promoting redevelopment, opening new markets, and creating jobs.

The l-85 Corridor study is founded upon several planning efforts that have considered transit capacity increases within the proposed corridor to facilitate mobility and spur economic development efforts. In October 2007, the Gwinnett Village and Gwinnett Place CIDs, and MARTA conducted the Northeast I-85/Gwinnett County Transit Corridor Feasibility Study, exploring the feasibility of a MARTA heavy rail transit (HRT) northeast line extension connecting the Doraville Rail Station with Gwinnett Place. The plan concluded that a MARTA HRT extension would be prohibitively expensive at an estimated project cost ranging from $2.2 to $2.5 billion. In January 2010, the Gwinnett Village and Gwinnett Place CIDs completed a jointly sponsored feasibility study of light rail transit (LRT) as a viable alternative to HRT. It concluded that LRT might be more appropriate since it would significantly reduce the total project cost based upon the number of stations and alignment characteristics, while still providing a high-capacity, premium transit option for the corridor. The results from previous studies served as a starting point for this study.

1The socioeconomic, transit and financial related data used in this report is based on the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Plan 2040 adopted July 2011 and is consistent with data reported in the l-85 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report, December 2011.

ES-2 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

Figure E-1: I-85 Corridor

ES-3 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

STUDY PROCESS AND REPORT OVERVIEW

The l-85 Corridor technical work was organized as a three-step screening process, to narrow the field from a list of all potential alternatives to a subset that may be selected for further analysis by Gwinnett County in the future.

The three separate screens were:

1. An engineering and policy screen to quickly review a wide range of alternatives to determine their suitability within the known physical and policy constraints of the project corridor,

2. A goals and objectives screen to ensure that the small set of suitable alternatives resulting from the engineering and policy screen meet the goals and objectives of the project and

3. A costs and impacts screen to determine which alternative meets the project purpose and need most efficiently and with the fewest potential adverse impacts.

The first screen considered a broad range of alternatives, and then narrowed the field to arrive at a small set of alternatives that would be realistic and suitable for the l-85 Corridor. This step is outlined in Section 7.0 of this report.

The small set of alternatives, defined in detail in Section 8.0 of this report, included:

 No Action Alternative,

 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative, and

 Streetcar Alternative.

The second screen evaluated the smaller set of alternatives against the stated project goals and objectives. Proposed goals and objectives for the l-85 Corridor (see Table E-1) were developed based on:

 The needs and transportation problems identified through the public involvement process,

 Consultation with the Project Management Team and Project Advisory Committee, and

 Goals included in regional long-range transportation plans. As outlined in Section 9.0 of this report, each of the alternatives was evaluated against measures derived directly from the goals and objectives.

ES-4 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

Table E-1: Goals and Objectives

Goals Objectives

Mobility Increase mobility within the corridor. Community and Economic Contribute to and serve as a catalyst for economic Development development. Safety Provide for a safe environment for all modes of travel. Regional Connections Improve regional transportation connections. Complement community goals to create a pedestrian Community Goals friendly environment in the corridor.

The third screen evaluated the potential costs and impacts of the alternatives determine which alternative best met the project purpose and need most efficiently and with the fewest potential negative impacts (Section 10.0 of this report). Part of this process involved a qualitative assessment of the potential for the alternatives to be advanced given the limitations of federal, state and local funding sources.

Section 11.0 of this report summarizes the conclusions of the alternatives analysis, reviews the technical and policy recommendations, and outlines appropriate next steps for advancing the l-85 Corridor.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The goal of the initial screening was to briefly consider a wide range of possible improvements and select from them a short list of the most appropriate alternatives, given the known physical and policy considerations of the project corridor. Physical constraints include considerations such as roadway and right-of-way widths, features of the natural and built environment, and current travel patterns. Policy guidance from the committees included these elements:

 Transit should be surface running,

 The proposed transit system should operate in shared travel lanes,

 The proposed transit system should be compatible with the urban scale of the study area, and

This screening process yielded a small set of alternatives that were evaluated in greater detail. The three alternatives are summarized below:

ES-5 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

 The No Action Alternative includes transit and roadway projects within the study area that have committed funding.

 The BRT Alternative would introduce a new premium transit service, including modern 60-foot articulated BRT vehicles, significantly upgraded passenger facilities, and curb-to-curb roadway reconstruction to facilitate bus movement and to promote traffic and pedestrian safety along the corridor. The corridor would also include a signal priority system, which would give transit vehicles (either bus or rail) better timed, longer green phases at traffic signals. The service span for the BRT Alternative is 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.; 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays. The background bus system would be significantly modified to support the new BRT service.

 The Streetcar Alternative would similarly introduce a new premium transit service. Transit vehicles are assumed to be modern 67-foot trams, powered via an overhead electrical contact system. The alternative would include significantly upgraded passenger facilities and reconstruction of one lane along the alignment for installation of embedded track within existing streets. Service would be provided at 15-minute headways throughout the day. It would operate seven days a week. The background bus system would be significantly modified to support the new Streetcar service. An operations and maintenance facility located near the proposed alignment will need to be identified.

The proposed alignment for the BRT and Streetcar are the same and would traverse approximately 16.50 miles between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station. The proposed Build Alternative alignment would proceed south from the Gwinnett Arena on Sugarloaf Parkway towards Satellite Boulevard and turn southwest along Satellite Boulevard towards Gwinnett Place Mall and the Gwinnett Transit Center at Satellite Boulevard and Gwinnett Plantation Way.

The proposed alignment would continue southwest along Satellite Boulevard to its terminus at Beaver Ruin Road, where it would turn southwest on Beaver Ruin Road, then turn southeast on Indian Trail-Lilburn Road towards the existing I-85 Park and Ride lot at Indian Trail-Lilburn Road and Brookhollow Parkway. The proposed alignment would then proceed southwest along Brookhollow Parkway towards Jimmy Carter Boulevard.

The proposed alignment would cross Jimmy Carter Boulevard to serve the Optical Fiber Solutions (OFS) redevelopment site and Norcross Southern Industrial District. It would continue along Brookhollow Parkway and Best Friend Road, then turn northwest on

ES-6 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

Button Gwinnett Drive. At Buford Highway, it would turn southwest and proceed eastward along Buford Highway and New Peachtree Road towards the MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station.

Two additional highway lanes from where Brookhollow Parkway transitions to Best Friend Road to the Button Gwinnett Drive and Buford Highway intersection (2.35 miles) would need to be designed and constructed to accommodate the BRT and Streetcar alternatives.

In general, where frequent high-quality transit service is available, daily ridership increases. The BRT and Streetcar Alternatives show significant improvement – 87 percent and 149 percent increases, respectively – over the No Action Alternative. Route 10 A/B is considered equivalent to the No Action alternative, with an estimated 2040 daily ridership of 2,540. The estimated 2040 daily ridership for the BRT Build Alternative is 10,290 and for the Streetcar Build Alternative is 9,570.

Table E-2 lists the proposed station sites. Figure E-2 provides a map of the Build Alternative alignment and station locations.

Operating and maintenance costs for current or No Action bus service in the corridor total $5.1 million annually in 2014 dollars. The operating and maintenance costs for the BRT Alternative totaled $5.8 million and $8.0 million for the Streetcar Alternative. The Build Alternatives are more economical due to higher schedule speeds and somewhat fewer revenue hours of service needed despite more frequent service, with the Streetcar more expensive due to a higher cost per revenue hour of service.

Several features were consistent across all of the alternatives. Passenger station stops, for example, were assumed the same for all of the Build scenarios, including platforms, shelters, lighting, off-vehicle fare collection, and traffic signal modifications.

The Streetcar Alternative is significantly more expensive than the BRT Alternative because the combined costs of track construction, electrification, and more expensive streetcars outweigh the corresponding costs of street reconstruction and less expensive BRT vehicles. The BRT Alternative would cost approximately $149,227 million in 2018, and the Streetcar Alternative would cost approximately $611,345 million to construct in 2018. The alternatives include the costs for a bus or rail maintenance and storage facility and for a Transit Terminal/Park and Ride Facility at the Gwinnett Arena, consisting of a 500-space parking garage.

ES-7 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

Table E-2: Build Alternative Station Locations

Distance Between Station Access Road Intersection/Site Stations (miles) Gwinnett Arena Sugarloaf Parkway North Entrance To Arena NA

Duluth Highway Satellite Boulevard Duluth Highway 1.58

Gwinnett Transit Center Satellite Boulevard Gwinnett Plantation Way 2.80

West Liddell Satellite Boulevard West Liddell Road 1.40

Indian Trail Indian Trail Lilburn Road Indian Trail Park and Ride 2.79

Center Way Brookhollow Parkway Center Way 1.70

Jimmy Carter Brookhollow Parkway Jimmy Carter Boulevard 0.88

Best Friend Best Friend Road Nancy Hanks Drive 1.00

Button Gwinnett Button Gwinnett Drive Baker Drive NW 1.37

Johnson Buford Highway Johnson Drive 1.26

Doraville Rail Station Buford Highway Doraville Rail Station 1.72 Length of Build Alternative Alignment from the Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville 16.50 Rail Station (excluding 0.25 miles of tail track)

ES-8 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

Figure E-2: Build Alternative Alignment and Station Locations

ES-9 I-85 Corridor AA Study Executive Summary

CONCLUSION

Gwinnett County must consider the various users of its road facilities and balance the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit passengers, goods and services vehicle operators, and motorists. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing BRT or Streetcar projects in urban areas is deciding how to allocate scarce road space among the various modes and users. Unlike a heavy rail system such as MARTA’s HRT system, which must be completely separated from traffic conflicts due to its third rail power supply, BRT and Streetcar are more flexible and can share roadway space with cars and other modes. This flexibility often allows BRT and Streetcar projects to reduce capital costs, but this can come with its own price.

The ability to operate frequent, fast service in a separate, exclusive transit guideway is an important feature of a premium, high-capacity transit service such as BRT or Streetcar, particularly in corridors with higher transit demand and heavy traffic congestion. Some BRT or Streetcar projects are able to build new exclusive transit lanes in available road space such as medians, while in many cases the challenge in planning to build new lanes or convert existing travel lanes to transit use only proves too difficult and buses must share lanes with cars in traffic. When buses are caught in traffic, reliability suffers and speeds are reduced, which increases operating cost and lessens the appeal of the transit service to potential customers. This is one of the fundamental challenges of planning and operating transit in busy, congested metropolitan areas.

The l-85 Corridor Build Alternative alignment features a central median throughout most of its length, plus service roads and turn lanes along portions of the corridor. There are adjacent businesses and neighborhoods, and natural systems to consider. Will new BRT or Streetcar lanes fit within the right-of-way or can the right-of-way be expanded in a few places without too many impacts? Could reversible one-way only lanes, operating in the peak direction offer a cost effective solution? How will GCT buses operate in concert with the new premium service? How much will the alternatives cost? These are all questions that the next phase of the study will need to consider and attempt to resolve.

This study was the first step in establishing premium transit service in the l-85 Corridor, the results of which can be further refined and analyzed. Coordinating transit investment with other land use development initiatives to increase population and employment density could maximize the impact of a premium transit system in the l-85 Corridor, providing additional potential benefits.

ES-10 I-85 Corridor AA Study Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Study

Gwinnett County, in collaboration with the Gwinnett Village Community Improvement District (CID), Gwinnett Place CID, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), is undertaking the Interstate Highway 85 (I-85) Corridor Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study (l-85 Corridor) to analyze and evaluate mobility needs and patterns within the I-85 Corridor in the northeast Atlanta subregion. The study will consider a variety of alignment and transit technology options to improve regional and local mobility and accessibility.

The I-85 Corridor lies within State Route (SR) 20/SR 324 on the north, Lawrenceville Highway to the south, SR 124 to the east, and I-285 on the west. The I-85 AA Study Corridor falls within two counties, Gwinnett and the northern portion of DeKalb. It also encompasses all or part of the following municipalities: Chamblee, Doraville, and Dunwoody in DeKalb County; and Berkeley Lake, Buford, Duluth, Lilburn, Lawrenceville, Norcross, Sugar Hill, Suwanee, and Peachtree Corners in Gwinnett County. The corridor is approximately 24 miles long, 8 miles wide, and covers approximately 129,000 acres or 201 square miles. Figure E-1 provides a map of the I- 85 Corridor AA Study area.

The I-85 Corridor has been the subject of several studies in past years. The I-85 Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Feasibility Study was conducted in the 2009 and 2010 timeframe to evaluate the technical and financial viability of a light rail line in Gwinnett County. The project co-sponsors, Gwinnett Village CID and Gwinnett Place CID, initiated the project to explore the potential benefit of serving the I-85 Corridor with LRT. This AA study is being conducted partially because an October 2007 study that examined the feasibility of a heavy rail transit (HRT) extension of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA) northeast line (connecting the Doraville Rail Station with Gwinnett Place) resulted in a prohibitive project cost estimate ranging from $2.2 to $2.5 billion.

The Regional Transit Committee’s (RTC) predecessor, the Transit Planning Board (TPB) led a collaborative, multiyear effort to develop a long range transit vision for the Atlanta region called Concept 3. The vision was officially adopted in 2008 and serves as the transit element of the Aspirations Plan of the Regional Transportation Plan. Concept 3 also specified a high capacity rail network within this area that would connect from the proposed Norcross Station of MARTA to Gwinnett Arena and to the Perimeter Mall area.

1 I-85 Corridor AA Study Introduction

Figure 1-1: l-85 Corridor

2 I-85 Corridor AA Study Introduction

1.2 I-85 Corridor AA Process

The initial step of the AA process is the Project Definition; it involves analyzing the existing and future conditions of the study corridor analysis that will result in the preliminary purpose and need. During this step, the goals and objectives will also be defined.

During the Alternatives Development step, the preliminary alternatives will be developed. This step consists of the initial screening process, during which the initial set of alternatives will be narrowed down to a more manageable number for further study. This screening process will assess each of the initial set of alternatives against an evaluation framework that has been derived from the goals and objectives for the I-85 Corridor.

During the Evaluation step, the performance of each alternative will be assessed in both numerical and qualitative measures for parameters such as capital and operating costs, ridership, revenue and transportation benefits, social and environmental impacts, public input, and funding strategies.

There will be several ongoing public involvement and community outreach programs conducted throughout the study process, starting with the FTA initiation as well as follow-up, stakeholder engagement through interviews, and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings.

Once the project alternatives are evaluated and public and stakeholder outreach has been conducted, the next step in the process is the identification of a preferred alternative(s).

1.3 Report Organization

The remainder of the report is organized as follows:

Section 2.0: Background and Context – This section provides a historical background of the I-85 Corridor and a review of relevant previous studies.2

Section 3.0: Socioeconomic Overview – This section is an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the I-85 Corridor based on the latest data available. Some of the data is from the 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), and other data sets are from either 2000 or 2010 Census Bureau reporting.

2 The socioeconomic, transit and financial related data used in this report is based on the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Plan 2040 adopted July 2011 and is consistent with data reported in the l-85 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report, December 2011.

3 I-85 Corridor AA Study Introduction

Section 4.0: Land Use and Development – This section provides the land use and development context that the transportation system serves. Additionally, this section includes a review of the land use plans and policies specifically in relation to transit support to develop a policy framework.

Section 5.0: Transportation System – This section provides an analysis on the existing and future conditions of the transportation system. Included are a comprehensive inventory of roadways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and freight.

Section 6.0: This section summarizes the existing transit service with the I-85 Corridor. The I-85 Corridor is currently served by MARTA rail and bus in the DeKalb portion of the I-85 Corridor and Gwinnet County Transit in the Gwinnett portion of the I-85 Corridor.

Section 7.0: Screening and Selection Process – This section describes the process and the results of Screen 1, and then defines two transit modes and three alignment alternatives that will be advanced through Screens 2 and 3.

Section 8.0: Definition of Alternatives – This section describes the alternatives considered as part of the l-85 Corridor AA Study. The alternatives include No Action, Alternative, Bus Rapid Transit Alternative, and Streetcar Alternative. Each of these alternatives is described in detail, including alignment, street configuration, station stop location and concept design, vehicle technology, operating characteristics, passenger information systems, and Park-and-Ride facilities.

Section 9.0: Evaluation of Alternatives – An overview of the evaluation process is provided in this section along with the measures of effectiveness used to compare the study alternatives.

Section 10: Impact Screening –This section provides an inventory of the community resources and natural systems, including major activity centers, historic properties, rivers, and soil characteristics within the l-85 Corridor study area. It also addresses ridership projections for each alternative, capital cost to design and build each alternative, and the cost to operate and maintain each alternative.

Section 11: Conclusion – This section highlights the next steps local decision makers may want to consider in advancing the proposed transit improvements towards implementation.

4 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

The I-85 Corridor has experienced significant growth in the past three decades. Most of the area was a bedroom community until the 1980s. The area like the rest of the Atlanta region has been heavily impacted by major transportation improvements and land use decisions. The western portion of the I-85 Corridor is in DeKalb County and includes unincorporated DeKalb County and the cities of Doraville and Chamblee, and part of the city of Dunwoody. Most of the I-85 Corridor is in Gwinnett County and includes the incorporated areas of Peachtree Corners, Duluth, Norcross, Suwanee, and Berkeley Lake. The I-85 Corridor also includes parts of the incorporated areas of Sugar Hill, Buford, Lawrenceville, and Lilburn. For the purpose of this analysis, only the incorporated areas that are completely contained within the I-85 Corridor are discussed. Since only part of the cities of Buford, Dunwoody, Lilburn, Lawrenceville, and Sugar Hill are within the I-85 Corridor, the history of these cities is not included in the following discussion. The history of Berkeley Lake is also not included since the population is less than 2,000 according to the 2010 United States Census.

2.1 History of I-85 Corridor

The area was originally ceded from the Creek and Cherokee Indians. Gwinnett County was created on December 15, 1818, and named for Button Gwinnett, one of the three Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence. DeKalb County was created on January 8, 1821.

2.1.1 Gwinnett County

Gwinnett County's first major industry came in 1868 when the RH Allen Tannery was established possibly at the Elisha Winn house that Robert Allen appears to have been renting before setting up in Buford. Brother Bona soon followed with the Bona Allen Tannery, which later purchased the RH Allen Company after Robert's death. Both tanneries made leather goods, harnesses, whips, shoes, and became famous for handmade saddles. Gwinnett County moved into the modern era in 1950 when the U.S. Congress authorized the construction of Buford Dam to provide hydroelectric power, flood control, water supply, navigation, and recreational facilities.

The county constructed its major water and sewer main lines in the 1970s, which proved to be an essential step in preparing for the next decade. For three consecutive years, 1986 through 1988, Gwinnett ranked as the fastest growing county in the U.S. among counties with a population greater than 100,000. During that period, voters passed the 1986 bond issue and the 1985 and 1988 1 percent special purpose local option sales tax programs, mechanisms that provided funds for significant capital investments. The late 1980s witnessed a dramatic increase in the county's road

5 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context construction program, the development of a countywide parks and recreation program, construction of the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center, renovation of the historic courthouse, construction of new public libraries, and other capital improvements.

2.1.2 Chamblee and Doraville

Doraville was incorporated in 1871 while Chamblee was incorporated in 1908. Both areas growth was built on dairies, railroads, and the military. Chamblee was home to numerous dairies late 19th and early 20th century while Doraville was primarily agricultural. Both areas benefitted from being located near railroads. The General Motors plant was built in Doraville after World War II, which contributed to the significant growth for both areas. In the 1980s the area had started to change, with many large manufacturing sites downsized or closed. At the same time, refugees and immigrants, drawn to the employment potentials of metro Atlanta and the affordable housing found in Chamblee, began repopulating many neighborhoods along Buford Highway. The result is one of the largest Asian communities in the country. Many Latin American countries are also represented. In the 1990s, the Chamblee City Council developed new zoning that would address the special needs of such a growing diverse community. The International Village overlay was the first zoning action in metro Atlanta that allowed for mixed-use development and championed livable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

2.1.3 Duluth, Peachtree Corners, Norcross, and Suwanee

Duluth's roots as a community stretch back to the early 19th century, when it was primarily forest land occupied by Cherokee Indians. The town was renamed from Howell’s Crossing to Duluth in 1871 after Congress approved funding for a north-south railroad connecting it with the better known Duluth, Minnesota. Duluth grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s along with the rest of Gwinnett County. A major revitalization of the Duluth downtown area was undertaken in the early 21st century. Development along Sugarloaf Parkway has continued with construction of the Gwinnett Arena near the Gwinnett Convention Center. It is home to Gwinnett Place Mall, Gwinnett Civic and Cultural Center, the Arena at Gwinnett Center, Gwinnett Medical Center, Hudgens Center for the Arts, and Red Clay Theater.

Norcross, the county’s second oldest city, was built as a resort town around the first railroad stop on the Richmond-Danville Railroad, which was designed to open up northeast Georgia. Suwanee was incorporated in 1949, but remained a small agricultural-based community into the 1970s. Then with the growth of the highway system, including I-85, in the 1970s, more development occurred along I-85 and Lawrenceville Suwanee Road. Residents of Peachtree Corners voted in November

6 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

2011 to incorporate. Peachtree Corners was developed as a planned community by a land developer in the late 1970s.

2.2 Transportation System

As previously mentioned, the landscape of the I-85 Corridor has been transformed by construction of major transportation infrastructure investments, which are highlighted below.

2.2.1 Railroads

All of the municipalities and the counties themselves in the I-85 Corridor were developed as a result of railroads.

 Chamblee was located at the junction of what are now the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railroad and the Roswell Railroad.

 A railroad line, the Danville and Piedmont Air Line (now NS), was built through Gwinnett County in 1871. The railroad induced the founding of new cities: Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee, and Buford. A spur line was run from Suwanee to Lawrenceville in 1881, and another main line, the Georgia, Carolina, and Northern Railroad (now CSX), was built in 1891 through Lilburn, Lawrenceville, and Dacula.

2.2.2 Transit Investments

Several significant transit investments have occurred in the study corridor:

 In 1972, MARTA purchased the Atlanta Transit System and took control of the area’s primary bus transportation system. On June 30, 1979, MARTA’s first train, the East Line, began operating between Avondale and Georgia State Station. This also marked the start of MARTA’s combined bus and rail service.

 Chamblee MARTA Rail Station opened in 1987,

 Doraville MARTA Rail Station opened in 1992,

 Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) was formed in 2000 to provide local, express, and paratransit service, and

 Georgia Regional Transit Authority (GRTA) was formed in 2000 and provides express transit service outside of Fulton and DeKalb counties.

7 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

2.2.3 Highway System

Table 2-1 lists the roadway facilities in the I-85 Corridor that are designated as a State Route (SR) or are on the federal highway system.

Table 2-1: I-85 Corridor Roadway Facilities Name U.S. Route State Route I-85 I-85 SR 403 I-285 I-285 SR 407 Buford Highway US 23 SR 13 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard SR 141 Lawrenceville Highway US 29 SR 8 Peachtree Parkway SR 141 Duluth Highway SR 120 Beaver Ruin Road SR 378 University Parkway SR 316 Lawrenceville Suwanee Road SR 317 Jimmy Carter Boulevard SR 140 Buford Drive SR 20 Chamblee Tucker Road SR 907

The major travel corridors through the I-85 Corridor are I-85, US 23/SR 13 (Buford Highway), SR 141 (Peachtree Industrial Boulevard [PIB]), and US 29/SR 8 (Lawrenceville Highway). North-south travel by freeway is provided by I-285/SR 407 at the western end of the I-85 Corridor. Arterials that provide north-south travel through the I-85 Corridor are SR 140 (Jimmy Carter Boulevard), SR 120 (Duluth Highway), SR 20 (Buford Drive), Pleasant Hill Road, and SR 317 (Lawrenceville Suwanee Road). Major transportation improvements in the I-85 Corridor constructed in the past 30 years are listed below.

 Freeing the Freeways: included the widening of I-85 and the addition of the collection-distributor system and the Tom Moreland Interchange (I-85N and I-285),

 Addition of a high-occupancy lane (HOV) lane on I-85 that was later converted to a Managed Lane Facility,

 Conversion of SR 141/Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (PIB) to a limited access facility with collector and distributor lanes,

8 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

 Conversion of GA 365 to I-985,

 Construction of the following facilities:

o Ronald Reagan Parkway

o Sugarloaf Parkway

o SR 316/University Parkway

o Steve Reynolds and I-85 interchange

o Satellite Boulevard

 Widening and improvements:

o SR 140/Jimmy Carter Boulevard

o Pleasant Hill Road

o I-85 and SR 316 Interchange

o SR 20/Buford Drive

o Pleasant Hill Road and US 23/SR 13/Buford Highway Intersection

o SR 317/Lawrenceville Suwanee Road

o SR 324/Gravel Springs Road/Auburn Road

o Club Drive

2.3 Review of Previous Studies

2.3.1 Regional Initiatives

Concept 3 Transit Vision (2008)

In 2006, the Transit Planning Board (TPB) was established to create and maintain a seamless, regional transit system for the metro Atlanta region. The TPB functioned for two years as a partnership of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), MARTA, and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). During that time, TPB developed and advanced a comprehensive regional transit vision plan, which became known as Concept 3.

9 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

The Concept 3 transit vision was adopted by the TPB of Directors in August 2008. It was subsequently adopted by regional planning partners (i.e., MARTA, ARC, GRTA, and Georgia Department of Transportation [GDOT]). The plan is a multimodal plan that includes MARTA heavy rail extensions, light rail and streetcar lines, commuter rail, BRT, and an expanded network of express, local, and activity center circulator bus service.

Since completion of this study, the Regional Transit Committee (RTC) of the ARC has been working towards advancing Concept 3 projects. Figure 2-1 presents Concept 3 and its components across the region.

2.3.2 Corridor-Level Studies

Buford Highway Multimodal Corridor Study (2007)

The Buford Highway (US 23/SR 13) Multimodal Corridor Study was one of the first regional corridor planning studies completed by ARC as part of the Regional Multimodal Corridor Planning Program3. The corridor study focused on the 18.4-mile section of Buford Highway from Sidney Marcus Boulevard in Atlanta (Fulton County) to SR 120/Duluth Highway in Duluth (Gwinnett County). In the course of the study, the corridor team identified deficiencies within the study corridor, assessed benefits and costs of alternative strategies, and selected a preferred alternative program of policies and projects within the financial constraints for the Region. The following highway, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and pedestrian and bicycle improvements were identified.

Highway Improvements

 Extend PIB as a limited access facility from current terminus to Sugarloaf Parkway,

 Widen Button-Gwinnett Road from two to four lanes from Pleasantdale Road to Buford Highway,

 Widen Jimmy Carter Boulevard to six lanes between Buford Highway and PIB,

 Provide direct connection between Beaver Ruin Road and Hopkins Mill Road at I-85,

 Realign Beaver Ruin Road and Langford Road/Medlock Bridge Road at Buford Highway to facilitate cross-connection.

3 Gwinnett County has reviewed the study with interest but has not adopted all of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the 2007 Buford Highway Multimodal Corridor Study.

10 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

 Extend South Cemetery Street to Mitchell Road,

 Improve cross-corridor connection on Hopkins Mill Road, Old Norcross Road, Simpson Circle, and South Berkeley Lake Road between Beaver Ruin Road and PIB,

11 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Figure 2-1: Concept 3 Transit Vision

12 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

 Safety projects on Buford Highway at Jimmy Carter Boulevard:

o Evaluate all existing signage and markings and replace damaged and faded signs and markings, as needed,

o Refresh all pavement markings (longitudinal striping and symbols),

o Install new raised pavement markers,

o Reduce the width of the wide upstream section of the median on Buford Highway on the north side of the intersection. This will allow left turning traffic to queue back into the center two-way left turn lane instead of queuing into the southbound through lane, and

o Construct dual left turn lanes on both approaches of Buford Highway with protected only left turn phases.

 Safety Projects on Beaver Ruin Road:

o Remove the yield sign (R1-2) from the southwest quadrant,

o Evaluate all existing signage and markings and replace damaged and faded signs and markings, as needed,

o Install pedestrian heads and pushbuttons to accommodate east-west pedestrian travel crossing Buford Highway along the north side of the intersection,

o Refresh all pavement markings (longitudinal striping and symbols),

o Install new raised pavement markers, and

o Determine the installation date for the red-light-running system and track the before/after crash data.

ITS Improvements

 ITS Infrastructure – Programmed project that will expand ITS into Gwinnett County from the DeKalb County line to Sugarloaf Parkway. Specific ITS applications that should be considered for the corridor include:

 Fiber Optic Communications – Fill in existing gaps (Sidney Marcus Boulevard to North Druid Hills Road and Oakcliff Road to DeKalb/Gwinnett county line). An existing programmed project should provide coverage in Gwinnett County.

13 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

 Changeable Message Signs – Provide northbound and southbound signs near I- 285 that can display traveler information pertaining to I-285. An existing programmed project should provide signs in Gwinnett County that could display travel time information generated by vehicle detection devices.

 Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTVs) – Upgrade existing CCTVs and communication devices to the new Ethernet architecture. An existing programmed project should provide coverage in Gwinnett County.

 Vehicle Detection – Provide coverage in DeKalb County and the city of Atlanta. An existing programmed project should provide coverage in Gwinnett County.

 Signal Upgrades – Replace existing cabinet/controller assemblies and add intersection video detection at traffic signals in the corridor.

 Preemption/Priority Control – Add this feature at traffic signals along the corridor and outfit transit and emergency responder vehicles with emitters.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

 Increased pedestrian zone, buffers, and sidewalk widths are recommended for both sides of Buford Highway from Sidney Marcus Boulevard to Oakcliff Road, on the east side of Buford Highway from Oakcliff Road to Beaver Ruin Road, and from Pleasant Hill Road to SR 120.

 Sidewalks are recommended for the east side of Buford Highway from Beaver Ruin Road to Pleasant Hill Road. This sidewalk project is needed to fill a gap in the existing sidewalk network.

 Bicycle lanes are recommended within the cross-section from Sidney Marcus Boulevard to Shallowford Road.

 A multi-use trail is recommended adjacent to the existing railroad line paralleling the west side of Buford Highway from Oakcliff Road to SR 120. The multi-use trail would connect to the existing W.P. Jones and West Gwinnett trails.

 Bicycle lanes are recommended for New Peachtree Road from Shallowford Road to Oakcliff Road, which will connect to the multi-use trail and provide a continuous bicycle network within corridor.

 Bicycle lanes are recommended on cross-streets to connect the corridor and multi-use trail. Proposed cross-street connections include Shady Valley Drive, N. Cliff Valley Way, Briarwood Road, Drew Valley Road, Dresden Road, Chamblee- Dunwoody Road, McElroy Road, Langford Road, and South Berkeley Lake Road.

14 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Along with recommendations for roadway safety, operations, and capacity, bicycle and pedestrian, and ITS improvements, the study recommended specific transit improvements. Transit improvements were identified for implementation in the Long- Range timeframe from 2021–2030, and included the following, as shown on Figure 2-2.

 Conversion of outside lanes to a dedicated busway between Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Shallowford Road,

 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) queue jumper lanes and bus pull-outs at five locations between Oakcliff Road and Pleasant Hill Road, and

 Transit ITS (traffic signal preemption or priority control, traveler information) between Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.

15 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Figure 2-2: Buford Highway Multimodal Corridor Study Recommendations

16 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Northeast I-85/Gwinnett County Transit Corridor: A Discussion Paper (2007)

The Gwinnett Village CID, Gwinnett Place CID, and MARTA conducted this study on the feasibility of a HRT extension of MARTA northeast line that would connect the Doraville Rail Station with Gwinnett Place. At an estimated project cost ranging from $2.2 to $2.5 billion dollars, this MARTA HRT extension plan was considered prohibitively expensive.

Gwinnett County Transit 5-Year Transit Development Plan (2010)

The current Transit Development Plan (TDP) for Gwinnett County Transit (GCT), completed in 2010, calls for service improvements in three time frames: immediate, short-term (1 to 3 years), and long-term (3 to 5 years). The immediate recommendations reflect the adopted service reductions, which were implemented in November 2009 for the express service and in January 2010 for the local service. These are the most recent major service changes implemented by GCT.

The short-term recommendations for express route services include four new routes from the existing Park and Ride lots at I-85/Indian Trail and I-985/SR 20 to two new regional destinations: the Emory/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in central DeKalb County and the Central Perimeter business district in Sandy Springs and Dunwoody. Recommendations for local route services include:

 Increasing the Saturday frequency of Route 10 from the current 60 minutes to 30 minutes,

 Extending the weekday span of service of routes 20, 30, and 35,

 Reconfiguring Route 40 and adding Route 45, with Route 40 serving Georgia Gwinnett College on Collins Hill Road off SR 316, and Route 45 serving Lawrenceville at 30-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak frequencies and an extended weekday service span, and

 Technology improvements to the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service resulting in improved efficiencies.

The short-term recommendations are summarized in Table 2-2. In total, the short-term recommendations were estimated to add 10,540 revenue hours and 165,490 revenue miles at a cost of nearly $575,000.

The long-term recommendations for express route services include three new routes from the now existing Park and Ride lot at I-85/Hamilton Mill and a proposed Park and Ride lot on SR 316 at Cedars Road to the Emory/CDC and the Central Perimeter

17 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context business district. Recommendations for local route services include expanding service coverage for Routes 20 and 30 and reconfiguring service into three routes to include:

 A new Route 25,

 Reinstating or establishing Saturday service on routes 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45,

 Replacing the current ADA paratransit service in the Buford area (previously served by Route 50) with on-call zone-based service on weekdays and Saturday, and

 Improved ADA complementary paratransit service efficiencies due to the restoration of Saturday service and the Buford on-call service.

The long-term recommendations are summarized in Table 2-3. In total, the long-term recommendations were estimated to add 24,002 revenue hours and 307,330 revenue miles at a cost of just over $1.5 million.

I-85 Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study (2010)

The I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study was co-sponsored by Gwinnett Village CID and Gwinnett Place CID4. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the technical and financial viability of a light rail line in Gwinnett County. This two-phased study examined LRT for its viability as an alternative to HRT by reducing the total project cost significantly depending on the number of stations and alignment characteristics, while still providing a high-capacity, premium transit option for the corridor. Figure 2-3 shows the alignment and station locations for the preferred alignment.

Operating characteristics for the preferred alternative were as follows:

 Span of service:

o Weekdays: 4:00 AM to 1:30 AM, and

o Weekends and holidays: 4:00 AM to 1:00 AM.

 Frequencies:

o Weekdays: 10-minutes peak/15-minutes off-peak, and

o Weekends: holidays: 20 minutes all day.

4 Gwinnett County has reviewed the report with interest but has not formally adopted all of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the 2010 I-85 Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study.

18 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

 Train consist:

o Weekdays: 3-car trains in the peak/2-car trains in the off-peak, and

o Weekends: holidays: 2-car trains.

 Run time and distance:

o Run time: 31.32 minutes,

o Distance: 13.93 miles,

o Average speed: 26.5 mph, and

o Average station spacing: 1.5 miles.

 Operating requirements:

o Peak Light Rail Vehicles: 24,

o Annual revenue car-miles: 2,382,100,

o Annual revenue car-hours: 120,760, and

o Annual revenue train-hours: 46,160.

Estimated daily boardings for the preferred LRT line from Norcross to Gwinnett Arena were developed based on the TPB Concept 3 travel demand forecasts for Phase 1 of the study and then refined in Phase 2 analyses. The total daily boarding estimate from Phase 2 was 11,100 boardings across 9 proposed stations. This analysis assumed an extension of the MARTA line from Doraville eastward to a site in Norcross adjacent to Buford Highway.

The study also developed operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and capital cost estimates (in 2009 dollars) for the preferred alternative. Subsequently, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) updated the capital cost estimate in 2010. The resulting set of cost figures is summarized as follows:

 Total annual O&M costs: $25.6 million (2009 dollars)

 Total capital costs: $1,058,9 million (2010 dollars); $1,244.2 million (2018 dollars)

 Total capital costs per mile: $80.3 million

19 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Table 2-2: GCT TDP Short-Term Service Recommendations

Route Number Proposed Modification Description Service Changes New Service Characteristics EXPRESS ROUTE SERVICES New Indian Trail Park and Ride to Emory/CDC New route 4 AM; 4 PM trips New I-985 Park and Ride to Emory/CDC New route 3 AM; 3 PM trips New Indian Trail Park and Ride to Central Perimeter Area New route 3 AM; 3 PM trips New I-985 Park and Ride to Central Perimeter Area New route 3 AM; 3 PM trips LOCAL ROUTE SERVICES 10 Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Place to MARTA Doraville Station Increase Saturday frequency 30 min. frequency 20 Buford Highway/Singleton to Indian Trail Expand span of service 5:30 AM – 9:30 PM 30 Lilburn to Gwinnett Place to Buford Highway Expand span of service 6:00 AM – 10:00 PM 35 Technology Park/Peachtree Corners to Buford Highway Expand span of service 5:30 AM – 9:30 PM Extend to Georgia Gwinnett 30 min. peak & 60 min. off-peak Gwinnett Place to Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Medical Center College from Gwinnett Medical 40 frequencies; to Georgia Gwinnett College Center; eliminate service to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Lawrenceville 30 min. peak & 60 min. off-peak 45 Gwinnett Medical Center to Lawrenceville New route; split from Route 40 frequencies; 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Improved service efficiencies due to technology upgrades that Reduction of approximately Paratransit should increase productivity 1,000 annual revenue hours

20 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Table 2-3: GCT TDP Long-Term Service Recommendations

Route Number(s) Proposed Modification Description New Service Description EXPRESS ROUTE SERVICES New SR 316/Cedars Road Park and Ride to Emory/CDC New Hamilton Mill to Central Perimeter Area New SR 316/Cedars Road Park and Ride to Central Perimeter Area LOCAL ROUTE SERVICES 20, 25, 30 Expand service coverage for Routes 20 & 30; reconfigure into 3 routes including Route 25 20, 35 Provide Saturday service Saturday 6:30 AM – 8:30 PM 25, 30, 40, 45 Provide Saturday service Saturday 7:00 AM – 9:00 PM Flexible route service to the Buford area (replace existing paratransit service); connect to Weekdays 6:00 AM – 8:00 PM Buford On-Call Route 101 at I-985 Park and Ride Saturday 7:00 AM – 9:00 PM Improved service efficiencies due to restoration of Saturday service and implementation of Reduction of approximately Paratransit Buford On-Call service 1,500 annual revenue hours

21 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Figure 2-3: Preferred LRT Alternative Alignment and Station Locations

22 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

The study recommended that the I-85 Corridor LRT system be implemented in two phases in order to create a more fiscally manageable project. The first phase would extend to the Gwinnett Place Mall, while the second phase would complete the alignment by extending to Gwinnett Arena.

2.3.3 Local Comprehensive Plans

2030 Gwinnett Unified Plan – Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2008)

The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) was developed in concert with the Comprehensive-Land Use planning element of Gwinnett County’s 2030 Unified Plan. It examined alternative land use and transportation scenarios. The scenarios and the resulting recommendations considered a full range of intermodal transportation improvements and strategies that would enhance the mobility, accessibility, and safety performance of the county’s transportation system.

The CTP examined a range of transportation options, as well as a variety of supporting strategies aimed at improving system performance. With regard to transit, the CTP was developed with the concurrent efforts of the TPB and other planning partners in mind, to ensure the recommended actions in the CTP were consistent with regional policies and directions being taken by other agencies.

Transportation improvement alternatives for all modes were identified and analyzed. The major roadway improvements tested and included in the CTP within the I-85 Corridor are listed in Table 2-4.

The CTP did not identify any specific ITS improvement projects, because the Traffic Control Center (TCC) master plan provides a good strategy for expanding the current system. Refer to the TCC Master Plan for more information.

The CTP analyzed at-grade rail crossings and recommended that the first priorities for consideration be Suwanee Dam Road at NS and SR 120 at NS within the I-85 Corridor.

The CTP also identified needs for bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-use path facilities falling into three categories:

 Pedestrian linkages to existing bus services,

 Pedestrian/bicycle linkages to the existing network and fill in existing gaps, and

 Pedestrian/bicycle linkages between parks and neighborhoods.

A detailed list of the bicycle and pedestrian projects can be found in the CTP.

23 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Table 2-4: CTP Roadway Recommendations Project Description HIGH PRIORITY SR 20 Widen to 6 lanes from SR 124 to Hurricane Shoals Road Beaver Ruin Road Widen to 6 lanes from Reagan Parkway Extension (West Fork) to I-85 Peachtree Parkway Widen to 6 lanes from PIB to Fulton County SR 120 Widen to 6 lanes from Lawrenceville Suwanee Road to Langley Drive Beaver Ruin Ext Build 4 lanes from Buford Highway to PIB Oakbrook Parkway Ext Widen/build 4 lanes from Indian Brook Way to Hillcrest Road Build 4 lanes from Smithtown/Sawmills Roads to Horizon Drive/Old Satellite/Old Peachtree Conn Peachtree Road Hillcrest/Satellite Conn Build 4 lanes from Willow Trail Parkway to Beaver Ruin Road PIB CD* System & Grade Build 4 CD lanes from Peachtree Parkway to Sugarloaf Parkway separation PIB CD System & Grade Build 4 CD lanes and Toll mainline separation MEDIUM PRIORITY SR 124 Widen to 4 lanes from E o f Hamilton Mill Road to Spout Spring Road Thompson Mill Road Widen to 4 lanes from Buford Highway to N. Bogan Road Dacula Road/Harbins Road/New Widen to 4 lanes from Auburn Road to Loganville Highway Hope Road Abbotts Bridge Road Widen to 6 lanes from PIB to Medlock Bridge Road Ronald Reagan Parkway Build 4 lanes from Pleasant Hill Road to Beaver Ruin Road (Toll) Willow Trail Parkway Build 2 lanes from Hillcrest Road to Beaver Ruin Road Satellite Boulevard/Indian Train Build 4 lanes from Satellite Boulevard to Indian Trail Road Road Connection LOW PRIORITY SR 124 Widen to 4 lanes from SR 20 to E of Hamilton Mill Road Buford Highway SR 23 Widen to 4 lanes from Sugarloaf Parkway to SR 20 Hillcrest Road/Tech Drive Widen to 4 lanes from Willow Trail Parkway to Singleton Road Ronald Reagan Parkway/Club Build 2 lanes from Beaver Ruin Road to Langford Road Drive Conn I-85 North CD Lane Add 1 CD lane (NB only) from I-985 to SR 20 Collins Industrial Way/Hillcrest Build 2 lanes from Collins Industrial Way to Hillcrest Green Drive Green Drive Connection (Grade separation over SR 316) Build 2 CD lanes, make Satellite Boulevard limited access from Satellite Boulevard Super-arterial Pleasant Hill Road to SR 20 CD = collector/distributor

24 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Candidate transit improvements that were analyzed included:

 New express bus routes between the Mall of Georgia and Perimeter Center areas, between Dacula and downtown Atlanta, and between the Mall of Georgia and Windward Parkway areas,

 LRT from the MARTA Doraville Rail Station to Gwinnett Arena,

 Extension of the MARTA HRT line from Doraville to Gwinnett Arena,

 Commuter rail line along the CSX track through Gwinnett County, connecting downtown Atlanta with intermediate stations and terminating in Athens, and

 Commuter rail line along the NS track through Gwinnett County, connecting downtown Atlanta with intermediate stations and terminating in Gainesville.

Potential improvements were evaluated using the regional forecasting model, with two performance measures used for transit: (1) impact on the daily transit person trips in Gwinnett County and in the Atlanta region, and (2) total daily transit boardings. Each mode was tested at three different service frequency (headway) levels. The results strongly favored LRT and HRT over commuter rail and express bus service. The CTP also projected the percent of transit ridership traveling to/from Gwinnett County compared to within Gwinnett County. For all modes tested, the percent traveling to/from Gwinnett County was substantially greater than within the County. However, LRT showed a somewhat greater potential for ridership within Gwinnett County than the other modes, at 72 percent to/from the county and 28 percent within the county. This result is reasonable because the LRT is assumed to travel in areas with high employment density, while the other modes favor commute trips.

In the recommendations section of the CTP, the expansion of road capacity and improved traffic operations top the list of priority projects. However, all identified transit and other multimodal improvements (e.g., bicycle/pedestrian, ITS, etc.) were included in the CTP’s Aspirations Plan. The Aspirations Plan network is shown on Figure 2-4. Transit improvements included commuter rail lines, extended express bus routes from Gwinnett County to MARTA rail stations and downtown Atlanta, BRT, and the expansion of local bus service.

25 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

Figure 2-4: Gwinnett CTP Aspirations Plan Network

26 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

2.3.4 Livable Centers Initiative and Other Studies

Livable Centers Initiatives in the I-85 Study Corridor (2001–2010)

ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) has awarded planning grants on a competitive basis since 2000 to local governments and nonprofit organizations to prepare plans for the enhancement of existing centers and corridors consistent with regional development policies. Within the I-85 Corridor, LCIs have been completed for the following areas:

 City of Chamblee (2000 LCI, 2007 update),

 Norcross Town Center (2001 LCI, 2003 design guidelines, 2010 parking study),

 Downtown Duluth (2001 LCI and 2005 update),

 Gwinnett County (2002) – covered the Gwinnett Place and Sugarloaf Mills area,

 Suwanee Town Center (2002 LCI, 2003 supplemental study, 2007 update, 2009 update),

 Buford Town Center (2004),

 Downtown Lawrenceville (2005),

 Jimmy Carter Boulevard (2007),

 Indian Trail-Lilburn Corridor (2006),

 City of Doraville (2006),

 Norcross Activity Center (2008), and

 GM Redevelopment Plan (2010).

LCIs focus on connecting homes, shops and offices, enhancing streetscapes and sidewalks, emphasizing pedestrians, improving access to transit options, and expanding housing choices. The LCIs include suggested transportation, land use, revitalization, and pedestrian plans, as well as action plans.

The LCI Transportation Program provides implementation funds for transportation projects identified in the planning studies. To date, transportation funds have been used in the I-85 Corridor to implement pedestrian, streetscape, and roadway improvements.

27 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context

2.3.5 Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan

The Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan completed in 2008 was conducted by ARC. The plan addressed both rail and truck freight issues in the Atlanta region. The freight plan is relevant to this study because active CSX and NS rail lines run through the I-85 Corridor well as I-85, Buford Highway, and I-285 carrying major truck volumes.

As part of this effort, a survey was conducted to capture information from representatives of private sector freight interests including operators, carriers, shippers and logistics service providers within the Atlanta region that provides specific data on truck delivery and shipping patterns. The initial industry view was that several areas consistently impede freight flows. These issues are magnified during rush hour, but persist throughout the day. Specific bottlenecks identified by the drivers within our I-85 Corridor include the following:

 I-85 is a main north-south thoroughfare that many carriers use to get to points south and north of I-285. Many traffic issues occur during 6 A.M. and 9 A.M. and 3 P.M. and 6 P.M.,

 I-85 merging onto I-285 eastbound conflicts arise with truck merging. The primary concern is the length of acceleration/decelerations lanes (less than ½ a mile),

 Many freight facilities exist west of the I-85/I-285 interchange, primarily located in College Park and Fairburn,

 I-285 presents problems due to narrow lanes, and slighted stripping. Merging issues occur at PIB, Pleasantdale Road, Lavista Road, I-75, and I-20 interchanges, and

 Buford Highway extends northeast from the center of Atlanta and parallels I-85. The segment from McGinnis Ferry Road to SR 141 struggles to support truck volume.

Rail Market Segment

Approximately 70 percent of the freight tonnage traveling via rail in the region represents through traffic. This segment of rail traffic consumes significant capacity on the region’s rail system and represents some key markets for the private rail companies. Not only is the viability of the Class 1 rail service important for offering an alternative to trucked through movements, this traffic also requires no local truck trips for loading or off-loading. It is estimated that about 18 percent of the rail freight in the region transported via truck to/from a regional rail yard, reinforcing the need for efficient access to rail yards and seamless intermodal connections. The remaining rail freight comprises

28 I-85 Corridor AA Study Background and Context goods being shipped by those directly served by the railroads. Intra-regional rail flows, which most likely serve customers, are projected to be the fastest growing component of rail freight in the region between 2005 and 2030. However, this will continue to comprise a relatively small share of the total rail freight volume. The inbound and outbound flows, which typically require a truck movement, are projected to grow the most in terms of absolute volume, followed closely by through traffic.

Two of the study’s main recommendations have implications for the I-85 Corridor. The first focused on at-grade rail crossings. At-grade rail crossings not only affect freight and passenger mobility on and off the rail, they also create safety risks for the traveling public and harm the public attitude toward freight. As rail tonnage is projected to grow by 37 percent and high-speed intermodal trains by much more, the delays and safety concerns associated with at-grade crossings will only increase. There are over 1,600 at- grade rail crossings in the 20-county region, and there are 15 crossings in the 20-county area where the roadside vehicle volume exceeds 20,000 per day; the most significant locations for high traffic volumes and large numbers of crossing trains are in Gwinnett County. The other focused on the capacity of the rail system itself. The plan recommended that a long-term resolution is needed to handle the forecasted growth in freight by rail.

29 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC OVERVIEW

3.1 Demographic Profile

This section provides a demographic profile of the I-85 Corridor based on the latest census data available. The profile considers population, households, age, education, occupation, income, and housing factors that have the potential to influence ridership. Census data for 2010 was available for some variables; however, the 2005–2009 ACS was used for more detailed demographics if the 2010 Census data was not available or did not include the level of detail required for the I-85 Corridor.

ARC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Atlanta region. Its jurisdiction includes a 10-county regional commission, an 18-county MPO, and a 20- county air quality ozone non-attainment area. It provides a multi-jurisdictional framework for developing regional policies including land use, transportation, resource, safety and environmental issues. For the purpose of the following analyses, the I-85 Corridor was compared to the 20-county region and/or the state of Georgia. In addition to the city of Atlanta, ARC’s 20-county region comprises the following counties.

 Cherokee  Clayton  Cobb  DeKalb  Fayette  Fulton  Gwinnett  Henry  Rockdale  Barrow  Bartow  Carroll  Coweta  Forsyth  Hall  Newton  Paulding  Spalding  Walton  Douglas

3.1.1 Population

Population has grown significantly in the I-85 Corridor in the past decade. Table 3-1 indicates that the population grew more significantly in the first half of the decade than the second half. Population increased by 12 percent or 51,245 persons between 2000 and 2005 while population growth slowed in the second half of the decade. The population increased in the I-85 Corridor by 4.5 percent or 21,560 persons between 2005 and 2010.

Based on 2010 census estimates, the I-85 Corridor has a density of 3.75 per acre, which is double the 20-county region density of 1.27 per acre. Higher population densities are more supportive of higher capacity transit service such as BRT.

30 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-1: Change in Population 20-County Year I-85 Corridor Region 2000 431,570 4,263,255 2005 482,815 4,944,939 2010 504,375 5,473,846 % change between 2000 and 2005 12 16 % change between 2005 and 2010 5 11 Average Annual % Change 1.6 2.5 Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010, 2005 estimates.

3.1.2 Race and Ethnicity

Table 3-2 lists the racial and ethnic diversity of the I-85 Corridor based on the 2010 census. Based on the 2010 Census, slightly less than half of the residents within the I-85 Corridor are white; while almost one-fourth are Hispanic. The remaining third of the residents consist of 17 percent black, 12 percent Asian/Pacific, and 2 percent other minority populations. The I-85 Corridor is more racially and ethnically diverse than the 20-county region in which is 50 percent of the population is white, 32 percent black, 5 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent other.

Table 3-2: Race and Ethnicity 20-County I-85 Corridor Racial Diversity Region (%) (%) White 45 50 Black 17 32 Asian/Pacific 12 5 Hispanic 24 11 Other* 2 2 Total 100 100 Source: U.S. Census 2010. *Races other than those listed.

3.1.3 Household Characteristics

Table 3-3 lists the household characteristics for the I-85 Corridor. Household size is an important factor in determining travel patterns and travel mode; the larger the household size the higher the number of daily trips made. There are almost 300,000 households in the I-85 Corridor. The largest number of households consists of family households with 41 percent. The next largest types of households are single person (15 percent), married households with children (16 percent), and married households with no children

31 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

(14 percent). The average household size for the I-85 Corridor is 2.89, which is slightly higher than the 20-county region average of 2.84.

Table 3-3: Household Characteristics Number of Percent Household Type Households of Total Total Single Person Households 43,541 15 Total Family Households 119,666 41 Married Household with Children 47,373 16 Married Household with No Children 40,702 14 Single Parent Household with Children 18,447 6 Other Family Households 13,144 4 Nonfamily, Two or More Person Households 11,543 4 Total Households 174,750 100 Source: U.S. Census, 2005–2009 ACS.

3.1.4 Age

Table 3-4: Age Distribution lists the distribution of the population by age groups. Twenty-nine percent of the population is below the age of 18. Half of the population is between the ages of 18 and 49, while 20 percent of the population is over 50. According to the ARC On-Board Transit Survey conducted in 2009, 85.5 percent of transit passengers are between the ages of 18 and 54. The age group of 51 percent of the population within the I-85 Corridor ranges from 18–49, which makes it more amenable to riding transit. However, as the population ages toward retirement, many may lose the capacity to drive and will have limited alternatives for getting around. This trend creates the need to focus on accessibility and the special travel needs of the elderly, particularly to medical facilities, grocery stores and other shopping facilities.

Table 3-4: Age Distribution Number of Percent of Age Group Persons Total Under 5 48,949 10 5 to 17 97,685 19 18 to 21 23,551 5 22 to 29 62,418 12 30 to 39 89,300 18 40 to 49 81,244 16 50 to 64 69,823 14 65 and Up 31,405 6 All Age Groups 504,375 100 Source: U.S. Census, 2005–2009 ACS.

32 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

3.1.5 Education

Almost 80 percent of the population over 25 years old has a high school diploma or additional education (Table 3-5). Thirty-six percent of the population over 25 has a college degree or an advance degree, while 16 percent of the population does not have a high school diploma. The I-85 Corridor distribution of population by educational attainment is very similar to the 20-county region distribution.

Table 3-5: Education Percent of Educational Attainment Total Total Up to 9th Grade 33,154 11 Between 10th 12th Grade, No Degree 14,615 5 High School Diploma 69,362 22 Some College 57,083 18 Associate's Degree 23,404 7 Bachelor's Degree 79,489 25 Master's Degree 26,579 8 Professional Degree 6,768 2 Doctorate 3,877 1 Total Population >25 Years Old* 314,331 100 Source: U.S. Census, 2005-2009 ACS. *The population >25 years old represents approximately 62% of the population.

3.1.6 Occupation

The majority of I-85 Corridor residents are employed in the Service Producing professions (Table 3-6). Twenty-six percent of the residents are in sales and office occupations, 17 percent are in management, business, and financial occupations, and 19 percent are in professional and related occupations. Almost one-fifth, 18 percent of the residents, are employed in the Goods Producing profession with 13 percent of these residents employed in the construction industry, while the remaining 5 percent are employed in the manufacturing industry.

Those employed in Service Producing professions may see transit as a viable alternative for commuting provided transit travel times are competitive with automobile travel times.

33 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-6: Occupation Percent Industry Total of Total Goods Producing 47,099 18 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 373 0 Construction 34,490 13 Manufacturing 12,236 5 Service Producing 208,378 81 Sales and office occupations: 67,860 26 Transportation and warehousing & utilities 12,410 5 Management, business, and financial occupations: 44,692 17 Professional and related occupations: 49,546 19 Healthcare support occupations 2,946 1 Food preparation and serving related occupations 12,547 5 Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 10,824 4 Personal care and service occupations 7,553 3 Government 2,514 1 Public Administration 2,514 1 Total Employed Civilian Population* 257,991 100 Source: U.S. Census, 2005–2009 ACS. *Occupation of employed civilian 16 years and older.

3.1.7 Income

The median household income for the I-85 Corridor is $63,400 based on the 2005–2009 ACS data. This figure is 10 percent lower than the regional average of $70,057. Income is a major influence on transit behavior. According to the 2010 Regional Transit On- Board Survey, more than one-third (36 percent) of the transit riders had an annual household income less than $20,000. Federal guidelines define households in poverty as families with four family members and an annual income less than $22,350. The results of the transit survey also show that the 45 percent of the current transit passengers reported a household income between $20,000 and $60,000. Nineteen percent of the transit passengers reported an income greater than $60,000. These transit passengers would be classified as “choice” riders, riders who have the financial means to find an alternate mode such as the automobile to make their trip.

Figure 3-1 graphically displays the household median income by census block group. Most of the census block groups with lower incomes are concentrated along the I-85 and Buford Highway corridors in the western portion of the I-85 Corridor.

34 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-1: Median Household Income

35 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

3.1.8 Housing

Table 3-7 shows that the I-85 Corridor has approximately 194,000 housing units with 55 percent owner occupied, 35 percent renter occupied, and 10 percent vacant (Figure 3-2). The high rate of owner-occupied housing indicates a relatively stationary population. Most of the larger concentrations of owner-occupied housing is distributed between SR 120 and the eastern boundary and the areas bordering the I-85 Corridor boundaries such as Berkeley Lake, Lilburn, and unincorporated DeKalb County. Most of the renter-occupied housing is distributed along the I-85, Buford Highway, and PIB corridors. Since most of the housing units were built after 1970, there is limited potential for properties being designated as historic in the I-85 Corridor.

Table 3-7: Age of Housing Age as of Number of Percent of Year Built 2011 Units Total 2000 to 2010 0–11 37,937 20 1990 to 1999 12–21 56,830 29 1980 to 1989 22–31 53,929 28 1970 to 1979 32–41 25,096 13 1960 to 1969 42–51 13,109 7 1950 to 1959 52–71 4,922 3 1940 to 1949 62–71 1,189 1 1939 or Earlier 72+ 1,319 1 Total Housing Units 194,331 100 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

Housing Units by Tenure Figure 3-2: HousingStudy Units Area, by Tenure, 2010 Study Area 2010

10%

35% Vacant Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 55%

Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

36 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

3.2 Environmental Justice Populations

U.S. Executive Order 12898 defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people—regardless of race, ethnicity, income or education level—in transportation decision making. EJ programs promote the protection of human health and the environment, empowerment via public participation, and the dissemination of relevant information to inform and educate affected communities. The 2010 Census data was used to provide detailed information about the diverse populations within the I-85 Corridor. The purpose of this effort is to identify EJ populations within the I-85 Corridor. This will assist with the examination of potential transit improvements in the I-85 Corridor to ensure that they do not have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations within the I-85 Corridor. On the other hand, these are population groups that may also benefit from the implementation of new transit service.

The U.S. Census data contains a variety of demographic characteristics that provide a broad brush picture of the region. Identifying these characteristics and understanding their impact on travel patterns within a specific project area is crucial.

3.2.1 Minority Populations

Minority persons are defined as those people belonging to the following groups:

 Hispanic or Latino,

 American Indian or Alaskan Native alone (not Hispanic or Latino),

 Asian alone (not Hispanic or Latino),

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone (not Hispanic or Latino),

 Black or African American alone (not Hispanic or Latino),

 Some other race alone, or

 Two or more races.

All of the groups are defined by race except for Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic or Latino is defined as an ethnicity by the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Census. People of this minority group can belong to any racial group but are still considered minorities with respect to EJ.

Table 3-8 lists the percent minority for the I-85 Corridor, the 20-county region, and the state of Georgia. The I-85 Corridor has a minority population of 56 percent, which is

37 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

9 percent higher than the percentage for the 20-county region, and 14 percent higher than the state of Georgia. These estimates vary slightly from previous numbers because the source is the 2005–2009 ACS. Figure 3-3 displays the areas of the I-85 Corridor where the percent minority exceeds the regional average by census block group. The areas where minority populations are concentrated are primarily west of SR 120 between PIB and Lawrenceville Highway.

Table 3-8: Minority Population Comparisons 20-County State of I-85 Corridor Region Georgia Total Population 504,375 5,231,282 9,497,667 Minority Population 282,467 2,434,292 3,953,788 Percent Minority 56 47 42 Source: U.S. Census, 2005–2009 ACS.

The percent black population in the I-85 Corridor is less than the regional average as shown in Table 3-9. Figure 3-4 shows the census block groups that have higher than the regional percentage of black populations. Most of the areas where the black population exceeds the regional average are dispersed in pockets south of I-85. There is also a concentration in the Peachtree Corners area and the area between Buford Highway and Shallowford Road along I-285.

Table 3-9: Black Population Comparisons 20-County I-85 Corridor Region Total Population 504,375 5,231,282 Black Population 94,116 1,664,358 Percent Black 19 32 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

The percent Asian population in the I-85 Corridor is 10 percent more than the regional average as shown in Table 3-10. Figure 3-5 shows that the majority of the census block groups in the I-85 Corridor for Asian population exceed the regional average, which is not unexpected since the regional average is very small at 3 percent.

38 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-3: Minority Populations

39 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-4: Black Populations

40 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-5: Asian Populations

41 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-10: Asian Population Comparisons 20-County I-85 Corridor Region Total Population 504,375 5,231,282 Asian Population 65,578 139,951 Percent Asian 13 3 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

The percent Hispanic population in the I-85 Corridor is 20 percent more than the regional average as shown in Table 3-11. Figure 3-6 shows that the majority of the census block groups in the I-85 Corridor for Hispanic population exceed the regional average, which is not unexpected since the regional average is very small at 6 percent.

Table 3-11: Hispanic Population Comparisons 20-County I-85 Corridor Region Total Population 504,375 5,231,282 Hispanic Population 132,996 295,626 Percent Hispanic 26 6 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

3.2.2 Low-Income Populations

Like minority populations, low-income populations are protected from discrimination in the alternative selection process by EJ procedures. Low-income persons are defined as those whose median household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines in Census 2005–2009 ACS data. Table 3-12 shows that percent of low-income households in the I-85 Corridor is 11 percent. This is similar to the pattern found in the 20-county region, while the percent low income is 14 percent statewide. As previously mentioned, income is an important variable when estimating transit ridership. Low-income households frequently do not have a vehicle available for daily travel and rely upon transit as their primary mode of travel.

42 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-6: Hispanic Population

43 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-12: Low-Income Household Comparisons 20-County State of I-85 Corridor Region Georgia Total Households 174,750 1,835,812 3,417,298 Low-Income Households 20,095 191,065 484,132 Percent Low Income Households 11 10 14 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

Figure 3-7 shows the distribution of the low-income households by census block group. The majority of the low-income households are located to the east of SR 120. The largest concentrations by census block group (31 to 50 percent) are located adjacent to the I-85 and I-285 interchange, along I-85 by Beaver Ruin Road, in Lilburn and along Rockbridge Road. The next largest concentrations (21 to 30 percent) are located along Buford Highway with smaller pockets around Jimmy Carter Boulevard. Figure 3-8 shows the percent of census block groups that exceed the 10 percent regional threshold.

3.2.3 Linguistically Isolated Households

The need for accommodation of people who are unable to communicate in English was supported by legislation, or more accurately, interpretation of legislation, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Bilingual Education Act, and the Voting Rights Act. The legislation grew out of recognition that an individual’s inability to communicate in the common language can hamper access to employment, transportation, medical and social services, voting, and children’s participation in schooling. The December 14, 2005, guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation asks that an analysis be done of those who do not speak English well and do not speak English at all for those who speak Spanish, other Indo-European, Asian and Pacific Island, and Other languages.

“Linguistic isolation” is dependent on the English-speaking ability of all adults in a household. A household is linguistically isolated if all adults speak a language other than English, and none speaks English “very well.” Adult is defined as age 14 or older, which identifies household members of high school age and older. Thirteen percent of the households in the I-85 Corridor are classified as Linguistically Isolated (Table 3-13). This is almost 10 percent more than the Atlanta regional average. This is an important consideration when designing potential transit services and public outreach activities. Figure 3-9 shows that the largest concentrations of linguistically isolated households are located in the western portion of the I-85 Corridor along the I-85 and Buford Highway corridors.

44 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-7: Distribution of Low Income Households

45 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-8: Low Income Households

46 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-9: Linguistically Isolated Households

47 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-13: Linguistically Isolated Households 20-County State of Language Ability (English) I-85 Corridor Region Georgia Total Households 174,750 1,835,812 3,417,298 Linguistically Isolated Households 22,106 81,301 107,667 Percent 13 4 3 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

3.3 Traditionally Transit Dependent Populations

In addition to EJ populations, this section also identifies areas of concentrations of traditionally transit-dependent populations. These are defined as those who do not have access to a vehicle at their household or are unable to drive due to age or disability. One of the benefits of improved transit in the I-85 Corridor would be the resulting ability to better and more equitably serve the populations for whom transit is the only transportation option. This section discusses this population within the I-85 Corridor.

3.3.1 Zero-Vehicle Households

Vehicle ownership is an important factor in determining how a trip is made for work or shopping purposes. When implementing new transit service, the service should be designed to meet the needs of potential transit captive households. According to the 2010 Atlanta Regional On-Board Transit Survey, 41 percent of the current transit passengers do not have a vehicle available to make their daily trip. This shows that transit service improvements could provide increased mobility to these households.

Table 3-14 lists the households with zero vehicles by residents who own their homes versus those who rent. (The Census measures the number of vehicles available per housing unit; for the purpose of this analysis, the housing unit is called households.) Within the I-85 Corridor, 4 percent of the households are without a vehicle, which is lower than the 20-county regional and state average. Within the I-85 Corridor, the majority of households without a vehicle rent their residence. This trend is consistent with the patterns in the rest of the region and state.

Figure 3-10 shows that the largest concentration of households without vehicles by census block group are concentrated in the Chamblee and Norcross areas.

48 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-10: Zero-Vehicle Households

49 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-14: Zero-Vehicle Households

I-85 Corridor 20-County Region State of Georgia Households Total Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total Households 174,750 107,031 67,719 1,835,812 1,255,798 580,014 3,417,298 2,307,248 1,110,050 Households with No Vehicle 7,430 1,295 6,135 109,999 22,811 87,188 229,113 58,330 170,783 Percent 4 1 9 6 2 15 7 3 15 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

3.3.2 Elderly and Disabled Households

Elderly and disabled populations are not protected by EJ requirements; however, they are potential transit markets, and the implementation of transit service could improve their mobility and accessibility needs and patterns. Based on the 2010 Census, 6 percent of the I-85 Corridor population is over 65 as shown in Table 3-15. This is slightly less than the regional average of 8 percent and the state average of 10 percent. This indicates that the population in the I-85 Corridor is younger than the average for Georgia. However, as shown previously in Table 3-4, 30 percent of the population within the I-85 Corridor is over the age of 40. Currently only a very small percent (2 percent) of the regional transit trips are made by persons over 65, but 24 percent of the transit trips are made by persons between the ages of 45 and 64. As the population ages, there will be increased demand to provide transit service for these populations that cannot or do not want to drive. Figure 3-11 shows that the elderly populations are distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor. The largest concentration of elderly populations is located on the periphery of the I-85 Corridor.

Table 3-15: Elderly Population Comparisons 20-County State of I-85 Corridor Region Georgia Total Population 504,375 5,231,282 9,497,667 Population over 65 31,405 423,508 947,276 Percent 6 8 10 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

Table 3-16 lists the percent of disabled populations. These values are from the 2000 Census because 2010 estimates are not yet available. Although the numbers are dated, they do give a good indication of the potential transit needs for disabled populations. In 2000, 15 percent of the I-85 Corridor population over the age of 5 had a disability, which is slightly lower than the regional and state average.

.

50 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-11: Elderly Households

51 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Table 3-16: Disabled Population Comparisons 20-County State of I-85 Corridor Region Georgia Total Population 431,570 4,228,492 8,186,453 Population over the age of 5 395,474 3,870,141 7,402,293 Population with a disability 58,964 653,050 1,456,812 Percent of population over the age of 5 with a disability 15 17 20 Source: U.S. Census 2010, 2005–2009 ACS.

Figure 3-12 shows the distribution of disabled populations by census block group. The largest concentrations of disabled populations in DeKalb County are located around the Chamblee and Doraville MARTA rail stations. In Gwinnett County, the largest concentrations are between Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road between Buford Highway and I-85, in areas around Lilburn and Lawrenceville, and between Buford Highway and I-85 around the Mall of Georgia area. Access to alternative modes of transportation would therefore be beneficial to these areas.

3.4 Population and Employment Forecasts

Current and future population and employment forecasts have been collected for the I-85 Corridor and for the region to determine how future growth will impact travel patterns and the transportation system. The population and employment numbers are from ARC’s Plan 2040, which was just recently adopted. The forecasts have been disaggregated to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level. These data sets will be used in the application of the travel demand model to evaluate potential transit improvements in the I-85 Corridor.

3.4.1 Population Forecasts

As previously mentioned, population has grown by 16.9 percent or 72,800 persons in the I-85 Corridor between 2000 and 2010. Based on the ARC forecasts, the population will continue to grow in this area though at a slower pace than what the area has experienced in the past couple of decades. It is forecasted that population will increase by 44 percent or 213,285 by the year 2040. This rate of growth is slightly lower than what is forecasted for the 20-county region, which is 55 percent. This slower rate of growth is because portions of the I-85 Corridor have already been built out as shown by the higher population density. Figure 3-13 graphically shows the change in population for the I-85 Corridor and the 20-county region between 2010 and 2040. Figure 3-14 displays the percent growth in population by TAZ between 2010 and 2040.

52 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-12: Disabled Households

53 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-13: Population Change between 2010 and 2040

I-85 AA Study Corridor 20-County Region 800,000 9,000,000 8,035,046 696,836 700,000 8,000,000 55 percent increase 44 percent increase 7,000,000 600,000

6,000,000 483,551 500,000 5,171,685 5,000,000 400,000 4,000,000 300,000 3,000,000

200,000 2,000,000

100,000 1,000,000

0 0 2010 2040 2010 2040

Source: ARC Plan 2040.

The population density in the I-85 Corridor study area is forecasted to increase from 3.75 to 5.41 per acre, while the 20 county regional population density will increase from 1.27 to 1.96 per acre. Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16 show the population density for 2010 and 2040. In 2010, most of the densities in the I-85 Corridor are less than 5 persons per acre. The highest population density is along Satellite Boulevard near Pleasant Hill Road. Population density is forecasted to increase throughout the I-85 Corridor in 2040, with the highest densities of greater than 15 persons per acre occurring along the I-85 Corridor and Buford Highway.5 Various states (Maryland, Oregon, and Florida) and local TOD Guidelines recommend that population densities greater than 15 units per acre are supportive of higher capacity transit options such as BRT.6

3.4.2 Employment Forecasts

ARC forecasts that employment growth is forecasted to exceed population growth within the I-85 Corridor between 2010 and 2040. It is forecasted that employment will increase by 69 percent or 182,092 jobs by the year 2040 as shown on Figure 3-17. This rate of growth is similar to the 20-county region forecast of 68 percent.

5 Residential densities shown on the Future Land Use map represent the maximum desired densities permitted under future land use designations and do not represent inevitable future redevelopment. 6 Southern Maryland Transit Corridor Preservation Study, Land Use Analysis and Guidance Report, August 2010, page 22

54 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-14: Percent Growth in Population, 2010–2040

55 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-15: 2010 Population Density

56 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-16: 2040 Population Density

57 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-17: Employment Change between 2010 and 2040

I-85 AA Study Corridor 20-County Region 500,000 4,000,000 3,651,353 445,914 450,000 3,500,000 400,000 68 percent increase 66 percent increase 3,000,000 350,000 2,500,000 300,000 263,822 2,173,573 250,000 2,000,000

200,000 1,500,000 150,000 1,000,000 100,000 500,000 50,000

0 0 2010 2040 2010 2040

Source: ARC Plan 2040.

Table 3-17 shows the change in employment by type for the I-85 Corridor and the 20- county region. The growth of employment by type within the I-85 Corridor is consistent with the growth in the region with the exception of the construction and service categories. Employment growth in construction within the I-85 Corridor is not forecasted to increase as much as the region (55 percent versus 71 percent). Growth in the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) and service employment categories in the I-85 Corridor are forecasted to exceed regional growth rates.

Table 3-17: Employment Change by Type I-85 Corridor 20-County Region Employment Percent Percent Type 2010 2040 2010 2040 Change Change Construction 12,634 19,622 55 89,474 152,998 71 Manufacturing 21,793 27,586 27 151,564 189,255 25 TCU* 22,401 28,308 26 224,500 283,386 26 Wholesale 28,732 28,419 -1 128,596 127,212 -1 Retail 55,475 77,805 40 444,579 631,677 42 FIRE 17,723 52,304 195 129,227 340,812 164 Service 98,105 197,056 101 895,373 1,688,962 89 Government 6,959 14,814 113 110,260 237,051 115 Total 263,822 445,914 69 2,173,573 3,651,353 68 Source: ARC Plan 2040. *Transportation, communication, and utilities (TCU).

58 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-18 shows the growth in employment by type for the I-85 Corridor. Construction, manufacturing, transportation, communication and utilities (TCU), and wholesale are combined. FIRE, service, and government are also combined. The combined FIRE/service/government and the retail categories are the employment categories that are supportive of transit ridership.

Figure 3-18: Employment Change by Type (2010 and 2040) 2,500,000 20-County Region 300,000 I-85 AA Study Corridor

250,000 2,000,000

200,000 1,500,000

150,000

1,000,000 100,000

500,000 50,000

0 0 2010 2040 2010 2040

Const/Manuf/Whsl/TCU Retail FIRE/Service/Govt Const/Manuf/Whsl/TCU Retail FIRE/Service/Govt

Source: ARC Plan 2040.

Figure 3-19 shows the percent growth in employment between 2010 and 2040 by TAZ. There is a significant number of TAZs that are forecasted to increase in employment by more than 200 percent by 2040. Most of these areas are between Buford Highway and Lawrenceville Highway. Since the percent growth by TAZ can be misleading since the base growth can be very small, density maps were prepared. Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21 show the current and future employment densities by TAZ. The employment density in the I-85 Corridor will increase from 2.0 jobs per acre to 3.5, while the regional employment density will increase from 0.5 to 0.9 per acre. Higher employment densities are key to attracting transit ridership. The largest employment densities in 2010 are centered on existing activity nodes such as Gwinnett Place, Lawrenceville, Mall of Georgia, and along Jimmy Carter Boulevard in Peachtree Corners. In the future, employment densities intensify and expand in those areas and but also expand to other areas along the I-85, Buford Highway, and PIB corridors.

59 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-19: Percent Growth in Employment, 2010–2040

60 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-20: Employment Density for 2010

61 I-85 Corridor AA Study Socioeconomic Overview

Figure 3-21: Employment Density for 2040

62 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

4.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS

An understanding of an area’s land use and development characteristics is needed in order to determine the appropriate transit solutions required to serve it. This section examines the I-85 Corridor’s existing and planned land uses, as well as its land use planning policies. Recent real estate and development trends have also been examined to anticipate future development and the role it may play on future transportation needs.

Land use plans and policies have been studied specifically in relation to transit support. Since the purpose of this study is to determine the appropriateness of premium transit service, the land use in the I-85 Corridor has been examined for its support of these types of transit. When transit support is mentioned, it specifically refers to premium transit support.

4.1 Policy Framework

The western portion of the I-85 Corridor includes unincorporated DeKalb County, the cities of Doraville and Chamblee, and part of the city of Dunwoody. Most of the I-85 Corridor lies within Gwinnett County and includes the incorporated areas of Peachtree Corners, Duluth, Norcross, Suwanee, and Berkeley Lake. The I-85 Corridor also includes part of the incorporated areas of Sugar Hill, Buford, Lawrenceville, and Lilburn. Only the incorporated areas that are completely contained within the I-85 Corridor are discussed in this section. As such, since only part of the cities of Buford, Dunwoody, Lilburn, Lawrenceville, and Sugar Hill are within the I-85 Corridor, the land use policies for these cities are not included. In addition, Berkeley Lake is also not included because the population is less than 2,000.

Several of the jurisdictions within the I-85 Corridor currently feature elements of transit- supportive land uses and polices in their comprehensive plans that are discussed below. The major role the ARC has on TOD planning in the region is also discussed for its relevance.

When examining the policy framework of the jurisdictions, the following factors were studied to gauge transit support:

 Transit-supportive land uses (mixed-use and higher-density residential), and

 Support for and experience with TOD (defined as moderate to high density mixed-use development designed with a pedestrian focus within one-quarter mile of transit stops/stations).

63 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

4.1.1 DeKalb County

Only a small portion of the I-85 Corridor, 14 percent or 27 square miles, is contained in DeKalb County. Three municipalities, Chamblee, Doraville, and Dunwoody are contained within the DeKalb County portion; all with MARTA rail stations. The focus of the discussion is on Chamblee and Doraville since the majority of these municipalities lie within the I-85 Corridor.

Chamblee

The city of Chamblee encompasses 3,056 acres. Originally oriented as a manufacturing and industrial activity center, Chamblee has transitioned away from heavier manufacturing but pockets of light industrial activities remain. Residential land use makes up 41 percent of the total land area of the city. The Chamblee MARTA Rail Station, completed in 1984, is located in the city’s geographical center. It serves as a commuter rail station and a bus-to-rail transfer center. The Chamblee MARTA Rail Station’s use patterns have recently changed. While by definition it is still a commuter station, the majority of train riders arrive not by car but by bus. This decline of automobile arrivals was primarily due to the completion of newer stations in more remote suburban areas (Doraville and Dunwoody) with large auto parking capacity. Large surface parking lots were constructed on both sides of the station, which provide a barrier between the surrounding street and sidewalk network and the station building.

In the Chamblee Comprehensive Plan Update Community Agenda 2006 and Livable Center Initiative (LCI), it was discussed that the development of retail, office, and residential properties adjacent to the rail station potentially opens a large captive market of daily riders. A major goal of the community’s vision is to encourage transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development within a comfortable walking distance to the station. The LCI first conducted in 2002 help spurred development around the station.

Doraville

The city of Doraville is located adjacent to the city of Chamblee. The Doraville MARTA rail station is the end of line station for the Gold Line. This rail station is the primary transit connection for all of the suburbs northeast of Doraville. Feeder buses from Gwinnett County drop riders at this station, and many commuters drive to the Doraville MARTA Rail Station. BRT is planned for Buford Highway and for I-285, with both lines connecting to the Doraville MARTA Rail Station. Additionally, the MARTA station creates the opportunity for TOD in the vicinity of the station. One of the goals identified in the City of Doraville Livable Centers Initiative 2006 is to promote efficient land uses by promoting development densities to support mass transit options such as rail and bus rapid transit. In addition, it recommends that existing zone and land development

64 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development codes be revised to allow new land uses such as mixed use and TOD. Recommendations of the initiative include the following:

 Encourage TOD within walking distance of the MARTA rail station, especially convenience-oriented shops, residences, offices, and civic uses,

 Promote mixed use throughout the study area, and especially near the MARTA rail station, and

 Promote dense residential and employment uses within walking distance of the MARTA rail station.

DeKalb County

The county has adopted transit supportive polices and strategies in its most recent comprehensive plan update (The DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan 2005–2025). Some examples of these include policies encouraging the strengthening of “pedestrian linkages between residential areas and MARTA stations” and supporting the “expanded use and improvement of the current MARTA system including express bus service routes, additional Park and Ride lots, and cross-town links.” Some specific strategies that were identified include constructing new sidewalks in areas served by MARTA, working with MARTA to expand service hours and locations, and working with MARTA to increase ridership by linking station improvements with surrounding community improvements.

The comprehensive plan is also highly supportive of TOD. TOD has been identified as a land use strategy to be actively pursued and encouraged in appropriate locations. The plan encourages continuing coordination with MARTA to ensure future transit routes and stops are incorporated and reflected in the county’s future land use plans. DeKalb County has been a strong advocate for TOD, actively planning for this at transit stations within the county.

4.1.2 Gwinnett County

The majority of the I-85 Corridor is encompassed within Gwinnett County. Commercial and retail activities are concentrated along the major highway corridors of I-85, Buford Highway, PIB, SR 316, and US 29. Residential development is low density and distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor away from the major travel corridors. Gwinnett County’s 2030 Unified Plan identifies the following issues to be addressed to continue Gwinnett County’s growth and prosperity:

 Maintaining economic development and fiscal health,

65 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

 Fostering redevelopment,

 Maintaining mobility and accessibility, and

 Providing more housing choices.

The major mobility and accessibility policies identified in the Gwinnett County Unified Plan are listed below. Several of these polices encourage development activities that are supportive of premium transit.

 Enhance signal coordination and ITS,

 Manage access on arterials,

 Enhance incident management (Traffic Control Center),

 Establish a road connectivity requirement for new development,

 Create TOD at appropriate sites through proactive zoning,

 Establish a more extensive transit system, and

 Pursue strategic road widening and new alignments.

Gwinnett County has implemented several policy vehicles to address future development patterns. It has implemented overlay districts to encourage development within principal transportation corridors; central business districts (CBDs), activity centers, and town centers. To increase opportunities for mixed-used development, transit-oriented development, infill, and redevelopment, four CIDs in redeveloping areas were established.

Duluth

Based on the review of the city of Duluth’s Comprehensive Plan and the LCI, the following transit supportive recommendations were made:

 Buford Highway and Pleasant Hill Road. The grade-separation road improvement project at the intersection of Buford Highway and Pleasant Hill Road is viewed as an opportunity to redevelop private property at the four corners of the intersection at higher intensities that will serve Duluth’s economic development and redevelopment objectives. It is envisioned that development surrounding this intersection will be designed in compact, pedestrian-friendly, transit-supportive pattern.

66 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

 Buford Highway Corridor. The Buford Highway corridor in Duluth has been divided into two projects—“north” and “south.” The north corridor includes more recent development. The major southern gateway to the city is occupied mostly by commercial auto repair and related uses. The city’s intent is for this area to be revitalized with different nonauto-related commercial and residential activities. The city desires to revitalize the Buford Highway south corridor into a corridor that is transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly, with significant public presence through institutions and streetscape improvements.

In addition, property owners and businesses in a portion of this area have already joined forces to create the Gwinnett Place CID. CID members impose on themselves a “self- tax” to fund projects and provide services that benefit all the properties within the district boundaries; projects include transportation improvements, public safety initiatives, and infrastructure planning studies, among others.

Norcross

Based on the review of the city of Norcross’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the LCI for Norcross in 2008 and Gwinnett Place in 2001, the following recommendations were made that would support transit service.

 Zoning Overlay Districts should allow mixed uses and provide standards for mix- used development. The mixture of land uses should be coordinated with the design and implementation of transportation improvements,

 Mixed-used development should be implemented at the Buford Highway/Jimmy Carter Intersection, and

 Create design guidelines and incentives to encourage transit-oriented design in buildings and site planning and offer density bonuses for compatible development. Allow for density bonus for those that are a part of the Transportation Management Association.

In addition, property owners and businesses in a portion of this area have already joined forces to create the Gwinnett Village CID.

4.1.3 Atlanta Regional Commission

The ARC has had a strong role in encouraging TOD throughout the region, in particular through its LCI program. The LCI program utilizes federal transportation monies to fund planning studies designed to integrate land use and transportation planning in small areas. ARC’s LCI program has had the most significant impact on promoting TOD planning in the region, more so than any other program, organization, or municipality.

67 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

LCI studies have resulted in master plans for at least 11 MARTA rail station areas including the Chamblee and Doraville stations in addition to Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee, Gwinnett Place, and Lilburn. These studies have resulted in numerous jurisdictions changing land use policies to support TOD in these areas.

4.2 Existing and Planned Land Uses

This section presents an inventory of existing and future land uses within the I-85 Corridor. It describes the composition and geographic distribution of the existing land uses and future planned development. A description of key land use categories and their use are provided. The major analysis of land use has been focused on its relation to its level of transit support.

4.2.1 Existing Land Use

The existing land use was obtained from ARC’s LandPro2009 file. Year 2009 land use data is the latest available at the time the existing conditions were being assessed. LandPro is the ARC’s land use and land cover data set developed for regional planning. The file covers the entire 20-county region. The I-85 Corridor was extracted from this file. The ARC creates this data set through multiple data sources, which include aerial photography, parcel ownership web-resources, and national inventories of environmentally sensitive lands.

Figure 4-2 shows that the primary land use in the I-85 Corridor, 58 percent, is low- to medium-density residential. Commercial, park-recreation/conservation, and transportation communication utilities also comprise a significant portion of the I-85 Corridor. Industrial, public institution, vacant-underdeveloped, and under construction land uses account for small portions of land use in the I-85 Corridor. The distribution of land use by type is summarized in Table 4-1 and is shown geographically on Figure 4.1.

68 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use by Type

Under Vacant- Transport- construction undeveloped communication- 2% 2% Industrial Multifamily utilities 1% 7% residential Commercial 5% 12% Park- recreation- conservation 11%

Residential low- med density 58% Public- institutional 2%

Table 4-1: Existing Land Use Land Use Category Acres Percentage Residential low-med density 74,742 58 Commercial 15,464 12 Park-recreation-conservation 14,175 11 Transport-communication-utilities 9,021 7 Multifamily residential 6,443 5 Public-institutional 2,577 2 Vacant-undeveloped 2,577 2 Under construction 1,289 1 Industrial 1,289 1 Total 128,865 100 Source: ARC.

Both MARTA and GCT have services established in the southwest end of the I-85 Corridor near Doraville and Norcross areas. GRTA express buses currently serve the three major corridors in the I-85 Corridor, between Doraville and Berkeley Lake, along I- 85 and SR 316. All three services cut through the major commercial corridors. Other locations that have sufficient density to support transit services are Duluth and Lawrenceville. Currently, there are limited GCT services to Lawrenceville but not to Duluth.

69 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Low- to Medium-Density Residential

Low- to medium-density residential is the most prevalent land use in the I-85 Corridor, constituting 58 percent of the total. These areas consist of predominantly single-family homes. This represents a residential density of one-half to four dwellings per acre. Gwinnett County has been one of the fastest growing counties in Georgia during the last couple of decades. Over three quarters of the homes in the county were built after 1980. The larger size homes built during the last decade reduce the actual housing density and pose a challenge to developing effective transit service.

Commercial

Commercial land use totals 12 percent of the I-85 Corridor. This includes large shopping centers, office buildings, and strip commercial areas. These areas are found throughout the study area particularly along major travel corridors and within activity centers such as Gwinnett Place, Peachtree Corners, Norcross, and Doraville, where the majority of the retailers and office parks are concentrated. Currently, many of these locations are along the three major highways, I-85, Buford Highway, and PIB south of SR 120.

Multifamily Residential

Multifamily residential accounts for only 5 percent of total land use. This category includes townhomes, apartments, and condominiums. Multifamily residential development is found throughout the I-85 Corridor with a significant concentration around the major commercial areas. This land use is often found as a buffer between retail uses and single-family neighborhoods. A more recent trend has been that new developments include some multifamily type of housing. Along with commercial land use, most of the multifamily residential areas in the I-85 Corridor are concentrated south of SR 120.

Park-Recreation-Conservation

Park-recreation-conservation is the fourth most prevalent land use in the I-85 Corridor, comprising 11 percent of total land use. This land use type includes parks used for recreational activities and natural conservation areas. Golf courses and tracts of forested land and green space over 5 acres in size are also included in this category. This land use type is spread throughout the neighborhoods where lands are available. The majority of this land type is located northeast of SR 120 where developments are relatively few.

70 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Figure 4-2: Figure Existing Land Use by Type

71 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Public-Institutional

Public-institutional land use comprises 2 percent of the I-85 Corridor. This land use includes schools, universities, research facilities, government buildings, religious institutions, and cemeteries. Elementary, middle, and high schools are found throughout the I-85 Corridor. Major educational institutions include Mercer University and Georgia Perimeter College-North in DeKalb County and Gwinnett Tech in Gwinnett County. There are several hospitals in the I-85 Corridor; the major ones are Emory Dunwoody Medical Center, Gwinnett Medical Center, and Joan Glancy Memorial Hospital.

Industrial

Industrial land uses comprises only one percent of the I-85 Corridor. These uses are found primarily along the Buford Highway and I-85 corridors. This land use type mainly consists of large manufacturing and distribution facilities. Notably, there is a major petroleum fuel tank farm close to the I-285 and Buford Highway interchange.

Transportation-Communication-Utilities

TCU accounts for 7 percent of the I-85 Corridor. It includes TCU-associated land uses. This includes the right-of-way for interstate facilities, as well as MARTA rail stations and yards. It also includes water processing plants such as the DeKalb County water plant.

Under Construction

The under construction category includes areas in transition from one land use to another. It accounts for only 1 percent of the total I-85 Corridor. These are sites that show visible evidence of construction and are distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor. Many of them are concentrated north of SR 120 where undeveloped lands are relatively abundant.

Vacant-Undeveloped

The vacant-underdeveloped land use category represents urban open space that is free of buildings with no identified use. These areas are free of tree cover and are not designated as parkland. These areas only account for a very small percent of the total I-85 Corridor and are located north of SR 120.

4.2.2 Planned Land Uses

This section provides a general overview of planned future land uses. The existing land use data was obtained from the ARC LandPro2009 file while the future land use was obtained from the individual counties. However, the Gwinnett County data, obtained

72 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development from the 2030 Unified Plan, contained 9 land use categories while the DeKalb County data contained 25 categories. As such, for this analysis, the Gwinnett and DeKalb counties land use categories were consolidated to maintain consistency with the categories identified for the existing land uses. Table 4-2 shows how the 25 land use categories for DeKalb County were consolidated.

Table 4-2: Gwinnett County Future Land Use Consolidation Land Use Category Existing Trends Map Category Chattahoochee River Area Conservation/Recreation Conservation/Greenspace Area Conservation/Recreation Corridor Mixed-Use Mixed Use Corridor Village Mixed Use Doraville Town Center Mixed Use Highway Commercial Corridor Mixed Use Industrial Area Mixed Use Institutional Office International Village Mixed Use Light Industrial Area Mixed Use Mid City Mixed Use Mixed Housing Types Residential Mixed Use Redevelopment Opportunity Mixed-Use Redevelopment Neighborhood Center Residential Neighborhood Compatible Commercial Mixed-Use Neighborhood Preservation District Residential Office Park/Institutional Office Preferred Office Office Professional Employment Center Office R & D Corridors Office Regional Activity Center Mixed Use Regional Mixed-Use Mixed Use Suburban Suburban Tank Farm Industries Mixed Use Town Center Mixed Use

Figure 4-3 displays the future planned uses. Table 4-3 details the acreages and percentage of the I-85 Corridor of these future land use categories. Figure 4-4 summarizes the generalized future land uses I-85 Corridor. It is forecasted that the suburban land use type will account for 53 percent of the I-85 Corridor. This land use type is most comparable to low- to medium-density residential type of existing land use. This category represents a residential land use designation, which permits up to 8 units per acre. The FTA uses the population density within one-half mile of proposed transit

73 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development stations to rank the worthiness of projects to receive federal funding. From FTA’s perspective, 9 units per acre would score highly as premium transit-supportive residential density.

Table 4-3: Future Land Use Land Use Category Acres Percent Suburban 68,759 53.4 Mixed-Use 21,857 17.0 Office 16,083 12.5 Conservation/Recreation 12,434 9.6 Residential 9,410 7.3 Mixed-Use Redevelopment 321 0.2 Total 128,865 100.0 Source: Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties.

The future residential land use category is comparable with the existing multifamily residential type. This type contains residential categories that permit more than 12 dwelling units per acre. Since this type meets the FTA’s premium transit threshold, it is considered to be a transit-supportive future land use.

4.2.3 Comparison between Existing Land Use and Future Land Use

It is important to note that a direct visual comparison between the Existing and Future Land Use maps may be misleading due the different data sources used. Residential densities shown on the Future Land Use map represent the maximum desired densities permitted under future land use designations and do not represent inevitable future redevelopment. The mixed-use type in the future land use includes commercial, residential, and other types. Further detailed categories below this level were not provided in the data source.

74 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Figure 4-3: Planned Land Use

75 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Figure 4-4: Future Land Use by Type

Conservation/ Recreation 9.6% Mixed-Use Redevelopment 0.2% Mixed-Use 17.0%

Suburban 53.4% Office 12.5%

Residential 7.3%

Nontransit Supportive Future Land Uses

Nontransit supportive land uses comprise the bulk of the I-85 Corridor, 63 percent. The majority of these areas are low- to medium-density residential categories. While conservation/recreation areas do generate some degree of transit demand, unless they are large regional facilities they often do not draw significant transit riders, particularly in relation to their size.

Transit-Supportive Future Land Uses

Transit-supportive land uses areas are high-density residential and mixed-use categories, which include multifamily residences, offices, and retail. The office area type and mixed-use redevelopment (former GM plant in Doraville) are also included among transit supportive land uses as they generate significant travel demand in sufficient concentrations. The transit-supportive land uses are estimated to account for 33 percent of the I-85 Corridor. They can be found throughout the I-85 Corridor, but are particularly concentrated along Buford Highway and the I-85 corridor south of SR 120.

4.3 Development Trends

Development activity and trends is a key indicator of both long- and short-term economic and demographic changes, having a significant impact on future transit feasibility. The results of this research are presented within this section.

76 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

4.3.1 New Home Sales

New home sales are generally a direct indicator of economic condition and population growth. Home sales from zip codes that correspond to the I-85 Corridor were analyzed using the data from the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s (AJC) Atlanta Home Sales Report. The average annual number of new homes in the I-85 Corridor from 2004 to 2010 is 2,833, about 2 percent of the estimated 174,750 existing occupied housing units. In 2005 at the peak of recent real estate boom, 4,938 new homes were sold in the I-85 Corridor.

The housing sales data indicates that new homes represent on average one-third of total residential sales activity, peaking at 35 percent in 2005 and declining to 10 percent in 2010 as shown in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5.

Table 4-4: History of Home Sales

2004– 2004– 2010 2010 % 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Change New Units Sold 4,124 4,938 4,689 2,831 1,582 989 677 2,833 -83.6 Resale Units Sold 8,354 9,177 9,317 7,329 5,460 5,868 5,832 7,334 -30.2 Total Units Sold 12,478 14,115 14,006 10,160 7,042 6,857 6,509 10,167 -47.8 % New Homes 33 35 33 28 22 14 10 28 Source: AJC Atlanta Home Sales Report.

Figure 4-5: Home Sales by Type

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

New Units Sold Resale Units Sold Total Units Sold

77 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Table 4-5 lists the 2010 home sales by zip codes within the I-85 Corridor. It can be observed that the I-85 Corridor is relatively affluent with a median home sales price ($144,053), which is well above that of both Gwinnett and DeKalb a county ($135,000 and $98,500). This suggests the prevalence of upper-income choice transit riders and fewer low-income “captive” transit riders are purchasing new homes within the I-85 Corridor. A high percentage of choice riders suggest the need for premium transit services with faster travel times to attract this type of riders.

Table 4-5: Home Sales by Zip Code New Existing All New Home Zip Home Median Home Median Unit Median Sales as Sale Price Sale Price Sold Price % Total 30024 92 259,150 518 199,950 610 205,000 15 30043 64 185,250 876 130,000 940 135,000 7 30044 76 179,950 974 90,000 1,050 95,000 7 30045 73 170,000 650 119,000 723 122,535 10 30047 86 297,775 564 110,000 650 120,000 13 30071 21 175,000 243 80,000 264 88,950 8 30084 55 268,265 90 105,450 145 150,000 38 30092 23 220,000 250 199,000 273 214,000 8 30093 5 103,900 424 60,000 429 60,000 1 30096 15 208,000 505 125,000 520 126,955 3 30097 106 291,253 279 250,000 385 270,000 28 30338 0 - 18 165,000 18 165,000 0 30340 9 157,500 23 44,000 32 54,000 28 30341 48 138,700 223 205,000 271 172,000 18 30345 4 860,000 175 292,000 179 295,000 2 30360 0 131,575 20 131,575 20 131,575 0 30518* 24 296,638 18 254,000 42 274,950 57 30519* 24 331,450 20 272,125 44 320,000 55 Study Corridor Total 725 237,219 5,870 135,425 6,595 144,053 11 Gwinnett 1,256 205,000 8,762 125,000 10,018 135,000 13 DeKalb 560 207,500 7,760 89,000 8,320 98,500 7 Source: AJC Atlanta Home Sales Report. *Only 2008 data available.

4.3.2 Major Development Activity and Potential Redevelopment Areas

Several major development projects have been proposed in recent years in the I-85 Corridor. Since 2005, 19 Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) applications have been approved in the I-85 Corridor. Table 4-6 provides a summary of the most recent DRIs, which are shown geographically on Figure 4-6.

78 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Table 4-6: Summary of DRIs Industrial/ Retail Office Hotel Resident DRI ID Name Year Acre Type Warehouse Seatings (sq ft) (sq ft) Room Units (sq ft) Waste 1361 Arrow Waste 2007 2 Handling 1275 Atlanta Global Station 2007 42 Mixed Use 6,000 1707 Crossroads Community Church 2008 69 Institution 551,188 723,784 320 1,174 2,500 Gwinnett Minor League Baseball 1725 2008 44 Mixed Use 10,000 Stadium 2008 Gwinnett Stadium mixed Use 2008 74 Mixed Use 351,000 617,000 300 610 1532 Highland Park Gardens 2007 10 Mixed Use 30,000 450 1849 Lakes Parkway mixed-use center 2008 12 Mixed Use 59,685 648,000 155 333 1000 New Trend development 2006 165 Mixed Use 46,100 537 1111 OFS Brightwave redevelopment site 2006 171 Mixed Use 452,000 730,000 150,000 405 1,705 1062 Opus Gateway 2006 148 Mixed Use 520,000 580,000 700 1939 Perimeter Park South 2008 20 Mixed Use 13,500 40,000 636 1682 Pleasant Hill Village 2008 26 Mixed Use 466,300 240,000 150 822 1276 Satellite Business Center 2007 85 Mixed Use 106,758 27,252 644 Steve Reynolds high rise (Bella 1076 2006 5 Mixed Use 112,000 263 Verde) 1411 Sugar Hill Marketplace 2007 85 Mixed Use 600,000 283,872 80,000 1182 The Place at Gwinnett 2006 5 Mixed Use 43,100 121,000 312 1510 Villa More 2007 10 Mixed Use 105,000 57,000 300 324 Waste 1940 Waste Management recycling center 2008 118 43,500 Handling Brogdon Road mixed-use 82 2008 83 Mixed Use 600,000 82,000 148,800 development Source: ARC DRI review.

79 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

Figure 4-6: Locations of DRIs

80 I-85 Corridor AA Study Land Use and Development

A review of these projects indicates that developer have expressed the intent to build the following:

 8,510 new housing units,

 3,500,503 square feet of retail space,

 3,432,836 square feet of office space,

 1,630 hotel rooms, and

 18,500 seating capacity for convention centers, stadiums, and churches.

Some of the redevelopment projects include:

 Atlanta Global Station,

 OFS Site,

 Pleasant Hill Village,

 Satellite Business Center, and

 The Place at Gwinnett.

Redevelopment areas can be identified in places with declining commercial corridors that consist of unattractive, vacant, or underutilized strip-type shopping centers. These areas are in need of aesthetic or functional improvements to stop further economic decline. A major potential redevelopment area in the I-85 Corridor is the former GM plant in Doraville. The area is within I-285 between PIB and Buford Highway. It covers about 350 acres of land. The site is planned to be redeveloped as a mixed-use employment center with big-box retail, cafes, office space, and townhomes. Potentially this project could offer a vibrant town center, pedestrian bridges, transit service, and a recreational area.

Jacoby Development is planning a mixed-use development anchored by the largest film and television media complex at the OFS site near Jimmy Carter Boulevard and the l- 85. The master plan includes media production studios, emerging media and high tech office space, education and research facilities, multifamily and student housing, supportive retail and an on-site hotel.

81 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

5.1 Travel Patterns

In order to understand the travel conditions in the I-85 Corridor, it is important to identify major travel movements of trips to and from the I-85 Corridor for both existing and future conditions. The regional travel demand model was utilized to extract the I-85 Corridor trip travel patterns for this purpose. The 2040 data is based on the demographic and highway and transit improvements in PLAN 2040. To facilitate the display of these travel patterns from the regional model, the I-85 Corridor was further divided into three sections (north, central, and south). An illustration of the districts is provided on Figure 5-1. In some summaries these districts were further aggregated to represent the entire I-85 Corridor.

5.1.1 Person Trips

The 2010 and 2040 model estimated person trip productions and attractions by trip purpose were tabulated for each I-85 Corridor district. The results are provided in Table 5-1. These trips represent personal travel and do not include the movement of freight goods. The productions as summarized include all trips that begin in the I-85 Corridor regardless of trip end point while the attractions include all trips that end in the I-85 Corridor regardless of the starting point. As shown in the table, approximately 271,000 home-based work (HBW) trips are produced in the I-85 Corridor in the year 2010. In the year 2040, the number of HBW trips produced in the I-85 Corridor is estimated to increase by approximately 50 percent to 415,000. These trips represent commuter travel and are an important component of travel congestion due to being primarily made in the peak periods. The home-based other (HBO) and nonhome-based (NHB) trips produced in the I-85 Corridor make up the majority of trips at more than 80 percent; however, these trips are spread throughout the day.

From the attraction end, Table 5-1 shows that almost 900,000 more trips (50 percent increase) are destined to the I-85 Corridor in 2040 than in 2010. More than 200,000 of those trips are work trips. As indicated in the table, the travel activity in the three I-85 Corridor districts is spread relatively even with the South Corridor district generally having the highest number of trips.

82 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-1: Travel Pattern Districts

83 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Table 5-1: I-85 Corridor Productions/Attractions by Trip Purpose Productions Attractions Trip Year 2010 Year 2040 Year 2010 Year 2040 District Purpose % % % % Trips Trips Trips Trips Share Share Share Share HBW 271,000 17 415,000 18 399,000 22 621,000 23 Entire I-85 HBO 721,000 46 1,001,000 44 837,000 46 1,211,000 45 Corridor NHB 577,000 37 873,000 38 578,000 32 874,000 32 Total 1,569,000 100 2,289,000 100 1,814,000 100 2,706,000 100 HBW 91,000 17 147,000 18 94,000 16 155,000 18 North HBO 251,000 47 373,000 46 292,000 50 432,000 49 Corridor NHB 197,000 37 292,000 36 197,000 34 292,000 33 Total 539,000 100 812,000 100 583,000 100 879,000 100 HBW 77,000 16 126,000 18 122,000 21 190,000 23 Central HBO 201,000 43 294,000 42 257,000 45 368,000 44 Corridor NHB 190,000 41 276,000 40 190,000 33 277,000 33 Total 468,000 100 696,000 100 569,000 100 835,000 100 HBW 103,000 18 142,000 18 183,000 28 276,000 28 South HBO 269,000 48 334,000 43 288,000 44 411,000 41 Corridor NHB 190,000 34 305,000 39 191,000 29 305,000 31 Total 562,000 100 781,000 100 662,000 100 992,000 100 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

The following tables provide detail on where the major commuter flows to and from the I-85 Corridor are occurring. In Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, the three study corridor districts were aggregated and then the HBW person trips between this larger corridor district and the remaining districts were summarized. Along with the trips internal to the I-85 Corridor, the five largest production or attraction districts were included in the tables.

Table 5-2 shows the major attraction districts for I-85 Corridor residents making work trips. The largest district movement in 2010 and 2040 is residents who live and work in the I-85 Corridor. This movement also resulted in the largest percent increase between 2010 and 2040 indicating a growth of employment. I-85 Corridor residents working in North Fulton had the second highest percentage increase at 54 percent. The number of people that live in the I-85 Corridor and work in the city of Atlanta CBD/Midtown District remained fairly constant and even dropped slightly in 2040.

Table 5-3 shows the major production districts for people who work in the I-85 Corridor. Again, the largest district movement in 2010 and 2040 comes from residents who live and work in the I-85 Corridor. However, the largest percentage increase (111 percent) between 2010 and 2040 of people working in the I-85 Corridor comes from North Gwinnett. People living in South Gwinnett and working in the I-85 Corridor also showed a significant increase from 2010 at 80 percent.

84 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Table 5-2: I-85 Corridor HBW Productions Year Year % Attraction District 2010 2040 Increase Internal 134,000 249,000 86 South Gwinnett 11,000 14,000 27 North Fulton 24,000 37,000 54 CBD/Midtown 14,000 13,000 -7 Central Fulton 19,000 26,000 37 North DeKalb 29,000 36,000 24 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040. Table 5-3: I-85 Corridor HBW Attractions Year Year % Production District 2010 2040 Increase Internal 134,000 249,000 86 North Gwinnett 19,000 40,000 111 South Gwinnett 49,000 88,000 80 North Fulton 27,000 29,000 7 North DeKalb 31,000 37,000 19 South DeKalb 21,000 21,000 0 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 provide geographical illustrations of Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. These are desire line maps showing the movements between the I-85 Corridor and the major production and attraction districts. The tabular values are provided at the external district ends with the arrow heads depicting the direction of travel. The internal trip numbers are also provided and labeled within the I-85 Corridor.

5.1.2 Transit Trips

To understand the transit travel patterns, the 2010 Transit On-Board Survey conducted by the ARC was summarized similarly to the person trips for district to district movements. Table 5-4 provides the results from tabulating the transit customers beginning in the I-85 Corridor by work and nonwork trip purpose. As shown in the table, the majority (56 percent) of transit work trips made by I-85 Corridor residents are destined to the CBD/Midtown district. For nonwork transit trips beginning in the I-85 Corridor, the highest percentage district movement is internally at 29 percent. Non-work trips to the CBD/Midtown make up about 22 percent of the total nonwork transit trips.

85 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-2: HBW Trip Study Corridor Production Desire Lines

86 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-3: HBW Trip Study Corridor Attraction Desire Lines

87 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Table 5-4: I-85 Corridor Transit Productions Attraction Work Non-Work Total District Trips % Share Trips % Share Trips % Share Internal 1,200 11 1,600 29 2,800 17 CBD/Midtown 6,000 56 1,200 22 7,200 44 Central Fulton 1,300 12 500 9 1,800 11 North DeKalb 900 8 900 16 1,800 11 Other 1,400 13 1,300 24 2,700 17 Total 10,800 100 5,500 100 16,300 100 Source: ARC 2010 Transit On-Board Survey.

The transit trip attractions to the I-85 Corridor are provided in Table 5-5. These are spread out more evenly throughout the region. The four largest markets were internal to the I-85 Corridor, from South Fulton, North DeKalb, and South DeKalb. Of all the transit trips to the I-85 Corridor, 70 percent come from these four districts.

Table 5-5: I-85 Corridor Transit Attractions Production Work Non-Work Total District Trips % Share Trips % Share Trips % Share Internal 1,200 20 1,600 33 2,800 26 South Fulton 1,100 19 400 8 1,500 14 North DeKalb 900 15 1,000 20 1,900 18 South DeKalb 900 15 500 10 1,400 13 Other 1,800 31 1,400 29 3,200 30 Total 5,900 100 4,900 100 10,800 100 Source: ARC 2010 Transit On-Board Survey.

It is also important to understand the characteristics of transit customers in the I-85 Corridor. Table 5-6 provides the breakdown of transit trips beginning in the I-85 Corridor by household auto sufficiency with respect to workers and transit mode of access. The market segments are split by households with zero cars, cars less than workers and cars greater than or equal to workers. For the purposes of this report, drive access trips constitute people who parked at a formal Park and Ride lot or people that were dropped off at a transit stop or station. As shown in the Table 5-6, the majority (54 percent) of walk access trips originate from households with no car available. The zero car market is sometimes referred to as captive riders; these people rely on transit as a basic means of mobility. For drive access trips, the majority (72 percent) originate in households that have as many cars as workers. This market segment is commonly referred to as choice riders because they can choose between auto or transit modes. In order to attract these people to transit, there generally needs to be an incentive of transit use over auto use.

88 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

These incentives typically include competitive travel times between transit and auto, parking costs at the destination, and minimizing transfers.

Table 5-6: I-85 Corridor Transit Trip Household Characteristics Walk Drive Total Market Segment Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent Zero Car 3,700 54 600 6 4,300 27 Cars < Workers 1,700 25 2,000 22 3,700 23 Cars ≥ Workers 1,500 22 6,700 72 8,200 51 Total 6,900 100 9,300 100 16,200 100 Source: ARC 2010 Transit On-Board Survey.

Table 5-7 provides the breakdown of I-85 Corridor transit trips by mode of access and the number of transfers required to complete the trip. The percentage of people transferring for walk access trips is much higher than for drive access trips. Approximately 67 percent of walk access trips make at least one transfer, while only about 8 percent of drive access trips make a transfer.

Table 5-7: I-85 Corridor Transit Transfers Walk Access Drive Access Total Transfers Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent Zero 3,000 43 8,500 91 11,500 71 One 2,300 33 600 6 2,900 18 Two or More 1,600 23 200 2 1,800 11 Total 6,900 100 9,300 100 16,200 100 Source: ARC 2010 Transit On-Board Survey.

Table 5-8 is a summary of the transit survey data that shows how the ridership varies by transit mode for captive versus choice riders. If a survey trip boarded a MARTA train, that trip was classified as MARTA rail in the table even if the trip included another mode such as local bus. If the survey trip boarded express bus and local bus, then it was classified as express bus. Therefore, trips classified as local bus only include travel on local buses.

89 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Table 5-8: I-85 Corridor Mode of Transit Zero Car/Cars Cars ≥ Transit Mode < Workers Workers Local Bus 40% 11% Express Bus 4% 11% MARTA Rail 56% 78% Source: ARC 2010 Transit On-Board Survey.

As shown in the Table 5-8, the captive riders are more likely to use the local bus system than the choice riders. This is because the local bus system plays a primary role in the mobility of captive riders. However, the choice riders do not have to rely on the local bus system for basic mobility needs, they are primarily attracted to the MARTA rail system. It is likely that this is due to the reliable travel times provided by the rail system as well as the large employment centers that are serviced by rail.

Table 5-9 lists the 2010 and 2040 daily transit linked trips by purpose from the regional travel demand model. It is forecasted that the transit trips will double between 2010 and 2040 in the I-85 Corridor while the number of 20-county region transit trips will increase by 78 percent between 2010 and 2040. HBW trips account for more than half of the daily transit trips in both areas in both 2010 and 2040.

Table 5-9: I-85 Corridor Daily Transit Trips 2010 2040 Trip 20-County 20-County Purpose I-85 Corridor I-85 Corridor Region Region HBW 8,300 136,400 18,400 254,500 HBO 6,100 88,800 11,400 141,600 NHB 1,300 29,100 3,900 55,300 Total 15,700 254,300 33,700 451,400 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

Table 5-10 lists the 2010 and 2040 daily mode share from the regional travel demand model. It is forecasted that the daily mode share for transit will remain practically the same for 2010 and 2040 for both the I-85 Corridor and the 20-county region.

90 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Table 5-10: I-85 Corridor Daily Mode Share 2010 2040 Mode of 20-County 20-County Transportation I-85 Corridor I-85 Corridor Region Region Drive Alone 83% 82% 82% 81% Shared Ride 14% 13% 14% 13% Transit 3% 5% 4% 5% Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

5.1.3 Travel Times

The change in travel times is another important component in understanding the existing and future conditions of the transportation system. To summarize the highway and transit travel times, a TAZ central for each of the three I-85 Corridors was selected. Similarly, a TAZ was selected to represent several major regional activity centers: Airport, Perimeter, Cumberland, Buckhead, and Downtown. Using A.M. peak period conditions, the highway and transit travel times were summarized and placed in graphical format on Figure 5-4, through Figure 5-6. As shown in the graphs, there are significant increases in travel times to major activity centers from 2010 to 2040. For instance, the travel times to downtown increased by an average of approximately 30 percent. These increases in travel time reflect the rapid growth in travel demand with regard to the transportation infrastructure improvements. On Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5, it is apparent that the transit travel times are not very competitive with the highway travel times and are frequently nearly twice as long.

5.2 Roadway Characteristics

5.2.1 Roadway Capacity

The I-85 Corridor includes a number of arterials and a major interstate (I-85). Utilizing the regional travel demand model, the route miles and lane miles were summarized by facility to include:

 Interstate/Freeway – restricted access mainlines,

 Principal Arterials – major road primarily serving through trips with less emphasis of providing access to adjacent properties,

 Minor Arterials – major road serving through trips but also provides more access to adjacent properties, and

 Collector/Local – minor roads providing direct property access with the purpose of connecting travel to arterial facilities.

91 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-4: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from North Corridor

Travel Times from North Corridor

Airport

Perimeter

Cumberland

Activity Activity Center Buckhead

Downtown

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Travel Time (minutes)

Year 2040 Highway Times Year 2010 Highway Times

Note: The transit travel times are based on walk access to transit, which is why there is no transit included from the North Study Area. Figure 5-5: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from Central Corridor

Travel Times from Central Corridor

Airport

Perimeter

Cumberland

Activity CenterActivity Buckhead

Downtown

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Travel Time (minutes) Year 2040 Transit Times Year 2010 Transit Times Year 2040 Highway Times Year 2010 Highway Times

Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

92 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-6: A.M. Peak Period Travel Times from South Corridor

Travel Times from South Corridor

Airport

Perimeter

Cumberland

Activity CenterActivity Buckhead

Downtown

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Travel Time (minutes) Year 2040 Transit Times Year 2010 Transit Times Year 2040 Highway Times Year 2010 Highway Times

Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

Table 5-11 provides a summary of the travel demand model roadway network in the I-85 Corridor for both year 2010 and 2040. The increase in the interstate/freeway category is the result of managed lanes being added to I-85 and further extended. Meanwhile there is an increase of 6 route miles and 38 lanes miles on principal arterials.

Table 5-11: I-85 Corridor Route Miles and Lane Miles Route Miles Lane Miles Facility Type 2010 2040 2010 2040 Interstate/Freeway 79 92 462 504 Principal Arterial 115 121 465 503 Minor Arterial 157 158 481 484 Collector/Local 83 86 199 205 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model Networks, Plan 2040.

Maps showing the number of lanes by direction coded into the model network are provided on Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8. The map is color coded by direction meaning that a two-way facility with one lane in each direction is illustrated as one lane in the figures. A map of the functional classifications is provided on Figure 5-97.

7 Gwinnett County and some local municipalities maintain functional road classifications that differ from GDOT.

93 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-7: Year 2010 Model Network Number of Lanes

94 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-8: Year 2040 Model Network Number of Lanes

95 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-9: Roadway Functional Classification

96 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

5.2.2 Roadway Conditions

Utilizing the regional travel demand model, several measures of highway conditions were calculated and summarized in Table 5-12 for selected major I-85 Corridor roads. These measures include daily hours of delay, percent congested vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and average speed in the peak periods.

Delay as summarized in Table 5-12 represents any increase in travel time as a result of traffic compared to the free-flow conditions. For each highway link in the travel demand model network, the delay is computed and then multiplied by the number of vehicles traversing the link. The vehicle hours of delay is then summed for each major roadway selected. With the increased demand, the daily hours of delay increases significantly in the year 2040 as compared to 2010 for each of the major roads selected.

The percent congested VMT is a measure of how much travel occurs in congested conditions on the facility over the course of an average day. For this measure, a facility is considered congested when the level of service (LOS) is E or F. The LOS in the travel demand model is estimated based on the link volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio). As shown in Table 5-12, the percent of travel in congested conditions is also forecasted to increase substantially between 2010 and 2040 for all major roads selected. Maps of the A.M. peak period LOS for all modeled I-85 Corridor roads are provided on Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11.

Table 5-12: Major I-85 Corridor Roadway Conditions A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Percent Daily Vehicle Period Period Congested Roadway Hours of Delay Average Average VMT Speed Speed 2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040 I-85 38,700 142,800 24 54 37 22 33 16 Buford Highway 4,900 23,600 13 42 30 19 26 14 PIB 7,200 35,200 14 46 35 22 32 16 Jimmy Carter 5,900 17,200 21 43 25 16 20 11 Boulevard Beaver Ruin Road 1,000 6,200 4 31 32 20 30 15 Sugarloaf Parkway 2,000 7,800 10 24 30 19 28 15 Duluth Highway 2,700 10,900 10 33 25 17 22 13 Pleasant Hill Road 4,500 17,700 17 39 27 17 23 13 Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model, Plan 2040.

97 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-10: A.M. Peak Period 2010 Model Estimated LOS

98 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

Figure 5-11: A.M. Peak Period 2040 Model Estimated LOS

99 I-85 Corridor AA Study Transportation Systems

The final measure provided in the table is the average A.M. and P.M. peak period speed for each roadway. The average speed is computed by dividing the total roadway VMT by the total vehicle hours traveled for the specific period of the day. Each facility resulted in significantly lower average peak period speeds in 2040 than 2010.

Utilizing the same districts provided on Figure 5-1, several measures were calculated for the three I-85 Corridor districts and totaled for the entire I-85 Corridor. The measures, daily VMT, daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and daily hours of delay are listed in Table 5-13. The South Corridor district experiences the most VMT, VHT, and delay in both 2010 and 2040. VMT increases in the entire I-85 Corridor by approximately 5.6 million or 36 percent, while VHT is predicted to double between 2010 and 2040. The VHT growth is significantly outpacing the VMT growth meaning people are spending more time in their vehicles in the future due to congestion. This is further evidenced by the substantial increase in the daily hours of delay, which is nearly four times as much in 2040 than in 2010.

Table 5-13: I-85 Corridor District Highway Measures Daily Hours of Daily VMT Daily VHT District Delay 2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040 North Corridor 4,828,000 6,729,000 176,000 341,000 33,000 128,000 Central Corridor 3,924,000 5,438,000 143,000 283,000 27,000 110,000 South Corridor 6,818,000 9,042,000 239,000 483,000 63,000 234,000 Total Study 15,570,000 21,209,000 558,000 1,107,000 123,000 472,000 Corridor Source: ARC Regional Travel Demand Model.

100 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

6.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

6.1 Current Public Transportation Services

This section summarizes the existing transit service with the I-85 Corridor. The I-85 Corridor is currently served by MARTA rail and bus in the DeKalb portion of the I-85 Corridor and GCT in the Gwinnett portion of the I-85 Corridor.

Gwinnett County, the GRTA, RideSmart, and partner organizations provide public transportation services within the I-85 Corridor, including local and complementary ADA paratransit services, express service, and other commute options (e.g., Guaranteed Ride Home, vanpool, and carpool).

Gwinnett County currently operates five local routes, all of which operate in the I-85 Corridor. These routes currently operate Monday through Friday, with Route 10 also operating on Saturday. Gwinnett County operates complementary ADA-paratransit service in conjunction with the local bus service for persons with qualifying disabilities.

The express routes operated by Gwinnett County and GRTA in the I-85 Corridor have utilized the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along I-85 since their inception. A portion of the HOV lanes, from Chamblee-Tucker Road just south of I-285 to Old Peachtree Road in Gwinnett County, were converted to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The use of these high occupancy lanes enables the transit agencies to provide shorter and more consistent travel times than driving alone in the general purpose lanes.

The commute-oriented express routes operate from Park-and-Ride lots in Gwinnett County to regional employment destinations in Atlanta, while one reverse-commute express route provides service to key employment destinations in the county. All express routes provide regional transit connections to at least one MARTA rail station. The express routes operate almost exclusively during peak periods Monday through Friday.

6.1.1 Gwinnett County Transit

Gwinnett County provides express and local (including complementary ADA paratransit) bus service operating as GCT. According to the National Transit Database (NTD), in 2010 GCT carried more than 2.1 million unlinked passenger trips. This equates to approximately 8,100 unlinked passenger trips on an average weekday and 1,200 unlinked passenger trips on an average Saturday. Of the total 2.1 million passenger trips in 2010, approximately 17,000 were carried on GCT’s ADA paratransit service. In terms of service supplied, in 2010 GCT operated a total of nearly 135,000 revenue

101 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network hours, of which just over 120,000 were for fixed route operations and nearly 15,000 were for ADA paratransit operations.

GCT began express route operations in the I-85 Corridor between Park and Ride lots in Gwinnett County and downtown Atlanta, as well as reverse commute service, in late 2001. Local and complementary ADA paratransit services were in place by early 2003.

From the time of service start-up through early 2006, service changes were primarily focused on meeting the increasing demand for express service through the addition of trips and Route 10 service by improving the peak frequency, as well as minor alignment changes to local routes. Each express route continued to provide reverse commute service to major employment locations in Gwinnett County. Until 2005, each local route continued to operate at least every 30 minutes on weekdays and every 60 minutes on Saturdays with a consistent span of service on weekdays from approximately 6:30 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. and on Saturday from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. To provide for timed transfers between routes, all five local bus routes operated from the Gwinnett Transit Center. The only significant service reduction was to local Route 50, due to low ridership. By early 2006, frequencies on Route 50 had been reduced to every 90 minutes from approximately 7:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. Monday through Saturday. Also in 2006, GCT began operating two express (Xpress) bus routes for the GRTA that originate in Gwinnett County, as described in the section below on GRTA.

Since 2006, GCT has made a number of changes to maintain the most cost-effective operations, including fare increases and service cuts, in the face of increasing operating costs and declining state and local revenues. Major service cuts were made in August 2008, at the same time that fares were increased.

Then in June 2009, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners (BOC) took action on budget cuts to close significant budget deficits forecast for fiscal year (FY) 2010 through FY 2014. County staff developed recommendations aimed at trying to preserve core functions as much as possible while cutting costs in all departments over the next few years. A target reduction of $360,000 in 2010 was established for the Local Fund contribution to the transit operating budget. To meet this target, staff developed a set of proposed GCT route changes and service reductions. Reductions in service were made to routes, route segments, or time periods with fewest riders to lessen overall impact. After a public comment period, staff review and modifications, and recommendation by the Gwinnett Transit Advisory Board (GTAB), the service reductions were approved by the BOC.

This most recent major changes to the express routes were implemented in November 2009 and to the local routes in January 2010. Express route changes included cutting

102 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network trips to match ridership demand, using GCT’s new 57-passenger buses to provide more daily seats than the 37-seat buses previously used, and the elimination of most remaining reverse commute service.

Local route service reductions eliminated routes or route segments with low ridership and reduced service levels during low ridership time periods. Alignments were also modified to provide more direct service, better transfer opportunities between routes, and new service segments to strengthen ridership and increase farebox revenue potential. More specifically, Saturday service was eliminated on all local routes except Route 10, Route 50 was eliminated completely with Route 10 extended to cover the segment between Gwinnett Place Mall and Sugarloaf Mills Mall, spans of service and frequencies were reduced, and route alignments were modified significantly. Only three routes now meet at the Gwinnett Transit Centers (10, 30, and 40); Routes 10, 20, and 35 meet in Norcross at Buford Highway and N. Norcross Tucker Road. The end result is a local route system, which provides very limited evening and Saturday service, inconsistent spans of service and frequencies, and reduced opportunities for timed transfers between routes.

No reductions were made, however, to GCT’s ADA complementary paratransit service. There was no paratransit service changes made in 2010, except that the paratransit service area was expanded to complement fixed route segments that were added. The ADA complementary paratransit service area continues to be served Monday through Saturday.

In September 2011, GCT proposed another fare increase to provide funding to avoid additional major service cuts. Comments from the public were considered by the county before a recommendation was made by the GTAB and subsequently taken up at a GBOC meeting. The new fares structure was effective January 30, 2012. The new fares are shown in Table 6-1, and include GRTA routes (described in the next section) that are operated by GCT’s current contractor.

103 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Table 6-1: GCT Current Fare Structure Current Fare Type Fare Media Fares One-Way Cash $3.75 Zone 1 (Routes 102, 408, 410, 103A) 10-Ride Ticket Book $32.50 Monthly Pass $130.00 One-Way Cash $5.00 Zone 2 (Routes 101, 103, 412) 10-Ride Ticket Book $50.00 Monthly Pass $180.00 One-Way Cash $2.50 Regular Fare 10-Ride Ticket Book $22.50 Monthly Pass $80.00 One-Way Cash $1.25 Half Fare 10-Ride Ticket Book $12.50 Children Fare Free One-Way Cash $4.00 10-Ride Ticket Book $40.00 ADA Eligible Rider Personal Care Free Attendant Traveling Companion $4.00 Regular Local to Zone 1 Express One-way Cash $1.25 Regular Local to Zone 2 Express One-way Cash $2.50 Routes 103, 412 Half Fare Local to Zone 1 Express One-way Cash $2.50 Half Fare Local to Zone 2 Express One-way Cash $3.75 Routes 103, 412 ADA Paratransit to Zone 2 Express One-way Cash $1.00 Routes 101, 103, 412

The operations and maintenance (O&M) of the bus service, including the Xpress routes operated by GCT, is contracted out to a single private contractor, currently Veolia Transportation. Veolia is responsible for operations, maintenance, and customer service for the system.

GCT’s current services in the I-85 Corridor are described below.

GCT Local Route Operations

GCT operates five local bus routes Monday through Friday as shown on Figure 6-1. Only one of these, Route 10, currently also operates on Saturday. Weekday service generally begins between 5:30 and 6:30 A.M. and ends between 8:00 and 9:30 P.M. The exception to this is Route 10, which operates until 10:30 P.M. on weekdays and on Saturday.

104 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

With the exception of Route 10, average frequencies are 30 minutes in the peak periods, 50 or 60 minutes in the midday, and 60 or 75 minutes in the evening. Route 10 offers the most robust service, with frequencies of 15 minutes in the peak, 30 minutes in the midday and evening on weekdays, and 60 minutes on Saturday.

Transfers between routes can be made at a number of locations, most notably at the Gwinnett Transit Center near Gwinnett Place Mall, Sugarloaf Mills Mall, and at Buford Highway and N. Norcross-Tucker Road.

The local routes are operated primarily within Gwinnett County. Route 10 provides service to the MARTA system at the MARTA Doraville rail station, providing regional connections between the two service areas.

The individual routes are described below and summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: GCT Local Transit Routes and Service Average Frequency Route Days of Span of Route Name Mid- Number Service Service Peak Evening day 5:20 AM – Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Weekday 15 30 30 10:30 PM 10 Place to MARTA Doraville 6:10 AM – Station Saturday n/a 60 60 9:05 PM Buford Highway/Singleton to 6:09 AM – 20 Weekday 30 60 60 Indian Trail 8:09 PM Lilburn to Gwinnett Place to 6:25 AM – 30 Weekday 30 50 75 Buford Highway 8:40 PM Technology Park/Peachtree 5:40 AM – 35 Weekday 30 60 60 Corners to Buford Highway 8:08 PM Lawrenceville to Sugarloaf 5:31 AM – 40 Weekday 30 50 75 Mills to Gwinnett Place 9:30 PM

105 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-1: GCT Local Routes

106 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Route 10: Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Place to MARTA Doraville Rail Station

This route provides significantly more robust service and carries more ridership than the rest of GCT’s local routes. It is the only local route that connects to MARTA (at the Doraville Rail Station) and is also currently the only GCT route that operates on Saturdays.

This route currently operates on weekdays from 5:20 A.M. to 10:30 P.M., every 15 minutes in the peak periods, every 30 minutes in the midday, and every 60 minutes in the evening. On Saturday, it operates every 60 minutes from 6:10 A.M. to 9:05 P.M.

Route 10 operates between Sugarloaf Mills and the MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station via the Gwinnett Transit Center, and mirrors, to an extent, the alignment identified in the I- 85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study. From the transfer point at the GCT’s Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride, Route 10 generally follows Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Buford Highway, and New Peachtree Road to the Doraville Rail Station. The route operates in a small clockwise loop in the Sugarloaf Mills area, serving the Gwinnett Center only in the northbound direction.

Transfers to other routes can be made at the following locations in Gwinnett County:

 Sugarloaf Mills: Local Route 40, Express Routes 103 and 103A, and Xpress Routes 410 and 412,

 Gwinnett Transit Center: Local Routes 30 and 40, and

 Buford Highway and N. Norcross Tucker Road: Local Routes 20 and 35.

Route 20: Buford Highway/Singleton to Indian Trail

This route currently operates on weekdays from 6:09 A.M. to 8:09 P.M. every 30 minutes in the peak periods and every 60 minutes in the midday and evening. No Saturday service is provided at the present time.

Route 20 operates between Buford Highway at N. Norcross Tucker Road and Indian Trail-Lilburn Road at Tech Drive. From the transfer point at Buford Highway and N. Norcross Tucker, the route generally follows Norcross-Tucker Road to the south, Brookhollow Parkway to the east, crosses over I-85 on Center Way, and then follows Oak Brook Parkway, Live Oak Parkway, and McDonough Drive to the west. It then turns south on Graves Road and east on S. Norcross-Tucker and Singleton Road, ending in a small clockwise loop on Tech Drive, Indian Trail-Lilburn Road, and Singleton Road.

Transfers to other routes can be made at the following locations in Gwinnett County:

107 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

 Buford Highway and N. Norcross Tucker Road: Local Routes 10 and 35, and

 Indian Trail-Lilburn Road and Tech Drive: Local Route 30.

Route 30: Lilburn to Gwinnett Place to Buford Highway

This route currently operates on weekdays from 6:25 A.M. to 8:40 P.M. every 30 minutes in the peak periods, every 50 minutes in the midday, and 75 minutes in the evening. No Saturday service is provided at the present time.

Starting at the intersection of Buford Highway and S. Berkeley Lake Road near the GCT O&M facility, Route 30 follows Buford Highway to the northeast, N. Berkeley Lake Road and Pleasant Hill Road to the southeast, and Satellite Boulevard northeast to the Gwinnett Transit Center. From there, it continues northeast on Old Norcross Road crossing I-85, then travels southwest generally on Breckinridge Parkway, Pleasant Hill Drive, Club Drive, Steve Reynolds Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road crossing I-85 and Indian Trail-Lilburn Road to the Indian Trail Park and Ride lot. It continues to the southeast on Indian Trail-Lilburn Road to Burns Road, where it begins a large clockwise loop serving Lilburn along Burns Road, Pleasant Hill Road, Lawrenceville Highway, Rockbridge Road, Dickens Road, and Burns Road to complete the loop.

Transfers to other routes can be made at the following locations in Gwinnett County:

 Gwinnett Transit Center: Local Routes 10 and 40,

 Breckinridge Boulevard at Old Norcross Road: Express Route 103A,

 Indian Trail Park and Ride: Express Route 102, and

 Indian Trail-Lilburn Road and Tech Drive: Local Route 20.

Route 35: Technology Park/Peachtree Corners to Buford Highway

This route currently operates on weekdays from 5:40 A.M. to 8:08 P.M. every 30 minutes in the peak periods and every 60 minutes in the midday and evening. No Saturday service is provided at the present time.

Starting at the transfer point at the intersection of Buford Highway and N. Norcross- Tucker Road, Route 35 travels west on Buford Highway, Jimmy Carter Boulevard, and PIB and north on Peachtree Corners Circle. It continues east on Holcomb Bridge Road to Peachtree Parkway, where it begins a large clockwise loop serving the Peachtree Corners area generally along Peachtree Parkway, Technology Parkway, Spalding Drive, Medlock Bridge Road, Reps Miller Road, PIB, and Peachtree Parkway to

108 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network complete the loop. After returning to the Norcross transfer point, the route operates in a small clockwise loop through Norcross along S. Peachtree Street, S. Cemetery Street, and Buford Highway back to the transfer point.

Transfers to other routes can be made at the following locations in Gwinnett County:

 Buford Highway and N. Norcross Tucker Road: Local Routes 10 and 20.

Route 40: Lawrenceville to Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Place

Route 40 currently operates on weekdays from 5:31 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. every 30 minutes in the peak periods, every 50 minutes in the midday, and every 75 minutes in the evening. No Saturday service is provided at the present time.

Beginning at the Gwinnett Transit Center, Route 40 operates east on Satellite Boulevard and Old Norcross Road and northwest on Boggs Road, Breckinridge Boulevard, and North Brown Road to Sugarloaf Mills Mall. It generally travels counterclockwise along the Sugarloaf Mills Circle ring road and south on North Brown Road passing the Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride, then southeast on Duluth Highway, Atkinson Road, and Sugarloaf Parkway, and east on Old Norcross Road and Professional Drive. It continues east to the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center along Hurricane Shoals Road, Pike Street, Langley Street, Constitution Drive, and Nash Street. From there it continues southeast on Grayson Highway and west on Gwinnett Drive to Stone Mountain Street, where it begins a large clockwise loop along Stone Mountain Street, Five Forks Trickum Road, Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Parkway, Lawrenceville-Suwannee, Lawrenceville Highway, and Gwinnett Drive to complete the loop.

Transfers to other routes can be made at the following locations in Gwinnett County:

 Gwinnett Transit Center: Local Routes 10 and 30, and

 Sugarloaf Mills: Local Route 10, Express Routes 103 and 103A, and Xpress Routes 410 and 412.

GCT Paratransit Operations

GCT operates complementary paratransit service consistent with the requirements of the ADA. When initially implemented in 2003, service was provided during the same days and times as the local bus service in an area extending three quarter mile on each side of the local routes within Gwinnett County. Since that time, the service hours and areas have been maintained even when and where fixed route service has been eliminated. It has also been expanded to serve new route segments.

109 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

GCT Express Route Operations

In the I-85 Corridor, GCT currently operates three commute express routes and one reverse commute express route, as shown on Figure 6-2. The routes operate Monday through Friday in the peak periods. In the A.M. peak period, express bus service from the Park and Ride lots is operated to downtown Atlanta with a limited number of returning buses providing reverse-commute service to Gwinnett County employment destinations. The opposite service pattern occurs during the P.M. peak period. There is no midday express bus service.

Each GCT express route serving downtown operates in a common pattern serving major employment locations and local and state government buildings primarily along Peachtree Street, Forsyth Street, Mitchell Street, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. The routes provide connections to the Peachtree Center and Five Points MARTA Rail Stations. Select trips serve employment locations and MARTA rail stations in midtown Atlanta.

The individual routes are described below and summarized in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: GCT Express Transit Routes and Service Number of Trips Route A.M. Mid- P.M. Number Route Name Span of Service Peak day Peak 5:40 – 9:10 AM 101 I-985 Park and Ride to Downtown Atlanta 9 n/a 13 3:00 – 7:40 PM Indian Trail Park and Ride to Downtown 6:10 – 8:55 AM 102 4 n/a 5 Atlanta 3:38 – 7:28 PM Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to Downtown 5:30 – 9:15 AM 103 14 n/a 17 Atlanta 3:05 – 7:45 PM Reverse Commute from Downtown Atlanta 7:00 – 9:20 AM 103A 2 n/a 2 to Sugarloaf Mills 3:10 – 6:35 PM

110 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-2: GCT Express Routes

111 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Route 101: I-985 Park and Ride to Downtown Atlanta

This express route operates between the Park and Ride lot at the I-985 and SR 20 interchange in Buford and downtown Atlanta employment locations. There are 9 inbound trips in the morning and 13 outbound trips in the afternoon at 15- to 20-minute frequencies. All trips circulate through downtown Atlanta as described above. One trip in the morning and one in the afternoon extend into midtown Atlanta along W. Peachtree Street, North Avenue, and Peachtree Street, including stops at the Civic Center and North Avenue MARTA stations.

Route 102: Indian Trail Park and Ride to Downtown Atlanta

This express route operates between the Park and Ride lot at the I-85 and Indian Trail Road interchange in Norcross and downtown Atlanta employment locations. There are four inbound trips in the morning and five outbound trips in the afternoon at 30- to 60- minute frequencies. All trips circulate through downtown Atlanta as described above.

Route 103: Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to Downtown Atlanta

This express route operates between the Park and Ride lot at the I-85 and Sugarloaf Parkway interchange on North Brown Road in the Sugarloaf Mills Mall area and downtown Atlanta employment locations. There are 14 inbound trips in the morning and 17 outbound trips in the afternoon at 10 to 15 minute frequencies. All trips circulate through downtown Atlanta as described above.

Route 103A: Reverse Commute from Downtown Atlanta to Sugarloaf Mills

This reverse commute express route operates between downtown and midtown Atlanta and employment locations the Gwinnett Place and Sugarloaf Mills area. In the morning, two trips return outbound with stops at the Five Points, Peachtree Center, and Arts Center MARTA Rail Stations via Forsyth, Peachtree, and W. Peachtree streets. In Gwinnett County, these trips exit I-85 at Steve Reynolds Road in the Gwinnett Place area and travel north on Shackleford Road, Breckinridge Boulevard, and North Brown Road to Sugarloaf Mills Mall. In the afternoon, two trips return inbound traveling north on Shackleford Road, Breckinridge Boulevard, and North Brown Road to Sugarloaf Mills Mall and then south to midtown and downtown Atlanta on Peachtree Street, ending at the Five Points MARTA Rail Station.

112 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

GCT Route Characteristics

Table 6-4 presents average daily ridership, daily revenue hours, and riders per revenue hour for the GCT local and express routes. Ridership is for the 12-month period from October 2010 through September 2011.

With regard to local routes, Route 10 has the highest average daily riders per revenue hour over the 12-month period, at 31.7 on weekdays and 38.2 on Saturdays. As previously noted, it is the only local route that connects to MARTA (at the Doraville Rail Station) and extends to both Gwinnett Place Mall and Sugarloaf Mills Mall. Routes 20 and 35, both serving Norcross carried 25.0 and 23.5 riders per revenue hour, respectively. Routes 30 and 40 carried the lowest riders per revenue hour, at 13.0 and 11.9, respectively.

Table 6-4: GCT Route Characteristics (October 2010–September 2011)

Riders Average Daily Route Days of per Route Name Daily Revenue Number Week Revenue Ridership Hours Hour GCT LOCAL ROUTES Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Place Weekdays 2,845 89.6 31.7 10 to MARTA Doraville Station Saturday 1,110 29.1 38.2 Buford Highway/Singleton to 20 Weekdays 486 19.4 25.0 Indian Trail Lilburn to Gwinnett Place to 30 Weekdays 639 49.0 13.0 Buford Highway Technology Park/Peachtree 35 Weekdays 420 17.9 23.5 Corners to Buford Highway Lawrenceville to Sugarloaf Mills to 40 Weekdays 659.0 55.6 11.9 Gwinnett Place GCT EXPRESS ROUTES I-985 Park and Ride to Downtown 101 Weekdays 703 35.3 19.9 Atlanta Indian Trail Park and Ride to 102 Weekdays 277 10.6 2.6 Downtown Atlanta Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to 103* Weekdays 1,286 51.2 25.3 Downtown Atlanta *Includes Route Number 103A.

Looking at GCT express routes, Route 103, serving the Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride, had the highest average daily riders per revenue hour at 25.3, followed by Route 101, serving the I-985 Park and Ride, with 19.9 riders per revenue hour. Route 102, serving the closest Park and Ride to downtown Atlanta at I-85 and Indian Trail, had by far the lowest riders per revenue hour at 2.6.

113 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

6.1.2 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

The GRTA began its regional Xpress bus routes in Gwinnett County in 2006. There are now six Xpress routes in the I-85 Corridor, of which two are operated by GCT and four are operated by GRTA.

GRTA’s Xpress services in the Atlanta region have steadily grown since its first routes started in 2004, with expansions of service largely funded by federal grants. The current fares for GRTA operated routes in the I-85 Corridor are shown in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Current GRTA Fares in the I-85 Corridor Current Fare Type Fare Media Fares One-Way Cash $4.00 Round-Trip Cash $7.00 Blue Zone (Routes 411, 413, 416) 10-Ride $35.00 31-Day $125.00

The current express services in the I-85 Corridor are described below. The routes are shown on Figure 6-3 and summarized in Table 6-6.

Xpress Routes Operated by GCT

Route 410: Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to MARTA Lindbergh Rail Station

This express route operates between GRTA’s leased parking spaces along Sugarloaf Mills Circle northeast of the mall to MARTA’s Lindbergh Rail Station via Lindbergh Drive. There five inbound trips in the morning, three midday trips (two outbound and one inbound), and five outbound trips in the afternoon. Most peak period trips operate at 30- to 40-minute frequencies.

The peak period trips operate nonstop between Sugarloaf Mills and Lindbergh. The midday trips make an intermediate stop at the Indian Trail Park and Ride lot.

Route 412: Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to Midtown Atlanta

This express route operates between the Park and Ride lot at the I-85 and Sugarloaf Parkway interchange on North Brown Road in the Sugarloaf Mills Mall area and midtown Atlanta employment locations. There are 8 inbound trips in the morning and 10 outbound trips in the afternoon at 20- to 30-minute frequencies.

In Atlanta, the route exits I-75/85 at Williams Street, travels south on Williams Street, east on W. Peachtree Place, and north on W. Peachtree Street to the Buford Highway

114 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Connector and I-85. In addition to employment locations, this route provides connections to several MARTA rail stations along W. Peachtree Street, including Civic Center, North Avenue, and Arts Center.

115 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-3: GRTA Xpress Routes

116 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Table 6-6: GRTA Express Transit Routes and Service Number of Trips Route Span of A.M. Mid- P.M. Number Route Name Service Peak day Peak GRTA Xpress Routes (Operated by GCT) Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to MARTA 6:20 – 8:45 AM 410 5 3 5 Lindbergh Station 12:45 – 6:35 PM Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to Midtown 5:30 – 10:03 AM 412 8 n/a 10 Atlanta 3:10 – 7:50 PM GRTA Xpress Routes (Operated by GRTA) Southbound: Johns Creek to MARTA 7:25 – 8:30 AM 2 n/a 4 Doraville Station 3:55 – 6:30 PM 408 Northbound: MARTA Doraville Station to 6:35 – 9:40 AM 5 n/a 2 Johns Creek 4:55 – 6:15 PM Hamilton Mill/Mall of Georgia to Midtown 5:10 – 8:50 AM 411 6 n/a 6 Atlanta 3:30 – 7:20 PM 5:30 – 9:10 AM 413 Hamilton Mill to Downtown Atlanta 6 n/a 7 3:15 – 7:40 PM 5:20 – 9:00 AM 416 Dacula to Downtown Atlanta 6 n/a 6 3:25 – 7:20 PM

Xpress Routes Operated by GRTA

There are four Xpress routes operated in Gwinnett County by GRTA. Of these, routes 413 and 416 currently serve downtown Atlanta using the same pattern described above for the GCT express routes. GRTA contracts out the O&M of Route 408 to Veolia Transportation. Routes 411, 413, and 416 are contracted out to American Coach Lines.

Route 408: Doraville to Johns Creek

This express route operates in both directions between the Doraville MARTA Rail Station and Johns Creek, passing through portions of DeKalb, Gwinnett, and Fulton counties. The route primarily operates in the reverse commute direction (i.e., northbound in the A.M. and southbound in the P.M.). In the morning, there are five northbound trips and two southbound trips. In the afternoon, there are four southbound trips and two northbound trips. These trips operate approximately every 30 minutes.

Route 411: Hamilton Mill/Mall of Georgia to Midtown Atlanta

This express route serves two Park and Ride lots along I-85. The first is located in the Wal-Mart parking lot on Sardis Church Road in Buford, just north of the I-85 and Hamilton Mill Road exit. The route makes an intermediate stop at a Park and Ride located on Mall of Georgia Drive on the north side of the mall off Woodward Crossing Boulevard. Like the Route 412, this route service midtown Atlanta employment locations and MARTA stations, using the same route pattern. There are six inbound trips in the morning and six outbound trips in the afternoon, plus two reverse commute trips

117 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network between the Civic Center MARTA Rail Station and the Hamilton Mill Park and Ride in both the morning and afternoon. The route operates approximately every 30 minutes.

Route 413: Hamilton Mill to Downtown Atlanta

This express route operates between the Park and Ride lot at the I-85 and Hamilton Mill Road interchange in Buford and downtown Atlanta employment locations. There are six inbound trips in the morning and seven outbound trips in the afternoon at 30-minute frequencies.

Route 416: Dacula to Downtown Atlanta

This express route operates between a Park and Ride lot in Dacula at Hebron Baptist Church at the intersection of Hebron Church Road and Dacula Road and downtown Atlanta employment locations. It is the first express route in Gwinnett County to use SR 316 and I-85 to reach Atlanta. There are six inbound trips in the morning and seven outbound trips in the afternoon at 30-minute frequencies.

GRTA Route Characteristics

Table 6-7 represents average daily ridership, daily revenue hours, and riders per revenue hour for the GRTA Xpress routes operated by GCT and GRTA. Ridership for Routes 410, 412, and 408 is for October 2010 – September 2011 timeframe.

Table 6-7: GRTA Xpress Route Characteristics

Riders Average Daily Route Days of per Route Name Daily Revenue Number Week Revenue Ridership Hours Hour GRTA XPRESS ROUTES (OPERATED BY GCT) Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to 410 Weekdays 230 14.4 15.9 MARTA Lindbergh Station Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride to 412 Weekdays 527 28.9 18.2 Midtown Atlanta GRTA XPRESS ROUTES (OPERATED BY GRTA) Johns Creek to MARTA Doraville 408 Weekdays 195 28.9 6.7 Station Hamilton Mill/Mall of Georgia to 411 Weekdays 286 18.3 15.6 Midtown Atlanta 413 Hamilton Mill to Downtown Atlanta Weekdays 103 20.9 4.9 416 Dacula to Downtown Atlanta Weekdays 131 18.4 7.1 Notes: 1. Ridership figures for Route 410 and 412 cover the October 2010 – September 2011 period. 2. Ridership figures for Route 408 cover the November 2010 – October 2011 period. 3. Ridership figures for Routes 411, 413, and 416 are for October 2011 only, as ridership has been steadily increasing since current operations began in summer 2011.

118 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

It is important to note that Routes 413 and 416 are recent additions to Xpress service, and have been in operation only 3 and 5 months, respectively. Also, while Route 411 has been in operation from the Mall of Georgia Park and Ride since August 2010, it was extended to the Hamilton Mill Park and Ride in August 2011. Average daily ridership for these three routes has been steadily increasing. For this reason, the ridership and riders per revenue hour shown for these routes is for the month of October 2011 only.

The two routes serving the Sugarloaf Mills Park and Ride lot carried the highest average daily riders per revenue hour, at 15.9 and 18.2, respectively, from October 2010 through September 2011. Route 411, serving both the Hamilton Mill and Mall of Georgia Park and Ride lots are going to midtown Atlanta, carried an average of 15.6 riders per revenue hour in October. This is in contrast to Route 413 from the Hamilton Mill Park and Ride to downtown Atlanta, which only carried 4.9 riders per revenue hour.

GRTA Downtown Routing Plan

In March 2012, GRTA implemented a new downtown routing plan that affected both GCT and GRTA express routes in downtown Atlanta based on an agreement reached with the city of Atlanta in 2009. GCT Routes 101, 102, and 103 now use the eastside corridor and GRTA Routes 413 and 416 use the westside corridor. GRTA’s East Side Realignment and West Side Realignment in downtown Atlanta are shown on Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5, respectively.

6.1.3 MARTA

MARTA heavy rail service is currently provided primarily in Fulton and DeKalb counties with a short segment in Clayton County to serve the airport. Cities served by the system include Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Atlanta, East Point, College Park, Decatur, Chamblee, Avondale, and Doraville. The heavy-rail system consists of 48 miles of double track. Based on the Regional On-Board Survey the daily rail boardings are 207,700 (minus the transferring at Five Points Rail Station). MARTA uses a color code reference system for its rail lines, as follows:

 Red Line trains run north-south between Airport and North Springs Rail Stations,

 Gold Line trains run north-south between Airport and Doraville stations.

119 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-4: East Side Realignment

120 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-5: West Side Realignment

121 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

 Blue Line trains run east-west between Hamilton E. Holmes and Indian Creek stations, and

 Green Line trains run east-west between Bankhead and Edgewood/Candler Park stations.

MARTA current rail operations are listed below.

 Train Frequencies

o Weekdays: 6 A.M. to 7 P.M.: 15 minutes all lines,

o Weekdays: 7 P.M. to 1 A.M.: 20 minutes all lines, and

o Weekends: 20 minutes all lines.

 Train Service Hours

o Weekdays: 4:45 A.M. to 1 AM Weekends: 6:00 A.M. to 1 A.M.,

o After 7 P.M., Red line travels between Lindbergh and North Springs, and

o After 7 P.M., Green line travels between Bankhead and Vine City.

MARTA’s fare system is listed in Table 6-8. The current cash fare is $2.50 one way. MARTA also has a variety of fares for different types of users. Children under the size of 46 inches can ride free. Only a maximum of two children with one adult can ride free.

122 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Table 6-8: MARTA Fare Fare Price Cash Fare $2.50 Breeze Card $1.00 Single Trip $2.50 Round Trip $5.00 10 Trips $25.00 20 Trips $42.50 7-Day Pass $23.75 30-Day Pass $95.00 Multi-Day Visitor Pass $9.00–$19.00 1-Day Pass $ 9.00 2-Day Pass $14.00 3-Day Pass $16.00 4-Day Pass $19.00

Rail Operating Statistics

The National Transit Database (NTD) produces an annual report produced by the FTA that documents a variety of statistics for transit operators in the U.S. According to the 2007 NTD, the latest report year available, the MARTA heavy-rail fleet comprises 264 vehicles with 182 vehicles operating in maximum service. The heavy-rail peak-to-base ratio is 1.38 with 45 percent spares. Each rail car has a seated capacity of 68 persons, according to MARTA, and a total capacity of approximately 150 persons.

The rail system logged 24,565,900 vehicle revenue miles in 2009 with an average rail on-time performance of 89.7 percent and a fare box recovery ratio of 29.4 percent, according to the NTD. The cost per rail Revenue Vehicle Hour is $181.53 (2008 NTD)

There are a total of 38 stations along the MARTA rail system. Fourteen of these stations have free daily parking; 9 stations offer long-term and free daily parking; total rail station parking systemwide is 24,622; Chamblee and Doraville Rail Stations are in the I-85 Corridor. Rail station characteristics for the two stations are listed in Table 6-9. Doraville is the end of line for the Gold line with long-term parking for $8.00 a day. Doraville has eight bike racks while Chamblee has six. Both parking lots are heavily utilized; Doraville is 100 percent utilized, and Chamblee is 76 percent utilized.

123 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Table 6-9: MARTA Rail Station Characteristics Average Parking Parking Station Weekday Lot Connecting Bus Routes Spaces Boardings Utilization 19 Clairmont Road 33 Briarcliff Road/Lenox 47 I-85 Access/Briarwood Road Chamblee 3,956 1,070 100% 103 N. Shallowford/Peeler Road 126 Chamblee/Northlake 132 Tilly Mill Road 25 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard Doraville 5,424 1,713 76% 39 Buford Highway 104 Winters Chapel Road 124 Pleasantdale Road Source: MARTA.

Bus Operating Statistics

MARTA’s bus fleet consists of 621 vehicles available for maximum service with 522 buses operating in maximum service, resulting in a peak-to-base ratio of 1.50 with 19 percent spares. Each bus has a seated capacity of approximately 40 persons and a total capacity of 90 per persons. The cost per revenue vehicle hour is $88.49 according to 2009 NTD.

Regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program

The Regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program (GRH) is provided by the ARC’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Division, known as RideSmart. RideSmart assists individuals looking for commute options in the Atlanta region. In addition to providing information on transit services, RideSmart provides assistance with finding carpooling, vanpooling, school pooling, and bicycling partners, and a supporting GRH program.

RideSmart’s GRH program allows those using commute options five rides home or to their cars annually if an unexpected event occurs at work through partnerships with taxi companies and Enterprise. There are currently two vanpool providers in the Region: VPSI and Enterprise. According to the RideSmart website, there are currently nearly 30 vanpools operating from locations in Buford, Duluth, Lawrenceville, Lilburn, and Suwanee. With the opening of the HOT lanes on I-85, which require at least three persons per vehicle to use the lanes for free, RideSmart is experiencing a marked increase in the number of requests for carpool/vanpool ride matching.

124 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

6.1.4 Freight Rail Facilities

There are two Class I railroads, CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern (NS), passing through the I-85 Corridor. The NS rail line travels in a northeast-southwest direction, paralleling Buford Highway throughout the I-85 Corridor and supports local businesses in Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee, Sugar Hill, and Buford. CSX rail also passes through the southeastern edge of the I-85 Corridor serving Lilburn, Lawrenceville, and Dacula.

A major corridor for NS is from Greenville, South Carolina, through Atlanta to Birmingham, Alabama. These two corridors share double main track between Atlanta and Austell, and represent the heaviest freight density in the state. According to the 2009 GDOT Statewide Rail Plan, approximately 25–50 annual million of tons of freight are transported on this section of the NS line in the I-85 Corridor. There is also passenger service between Atlanta and Washington D.C. (Southern Crescent) with one train per day.

Neither of the railroads have major intermodal rail yards in Gwinnett County; however, both provide a significant level of intermodal service through rail sidings that connect to area businesses. The largest cluster of rail sidings is located in the Norcross area along the NS line. These sidings serve an extensive area of industrial and manufacturing facilities. Smaller sidings are located in the Duluth and Lawrenceville areas and serve a variety of industries. This information is from the Gwinnett CTP.

There are three major at-grade crossings identified along the NS line within the I-85 Corridor. The four highways are all four-lane crossing the rail track. These at-grade rail crossings not only impact travel safety for both freight trains and highway traffic, but also add substantial delay for the travelling public. The forecasted increase in freight transport and continuing increase in regional highway traffic demand will continue to pose concerns at those at-grade crossings. Table 6-10 shows the average trains per day at the three major crossings on the NS line as well as the adjacent average daily vehicular traffic.

Table 6-10: Norfolk-Southern At-Grade Crossings 2008 Vehicle Average Average Rail Crossing Annual Daily Vehicular Trains/Day Traffic Button-Gwinnett Drive 6 28,630 Lawrenceville Street 29 15,510 Suwanee Dam Road 29 26,580 Source: ARC Freight Mobility Plan 2009.

125 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

In addition, Gwinnett CTP identified the following for first priority for future grade separation:

 Suwanee Dam Road at NS,

 SR 120 at NS, and

 Harmony Grove Road at CSX.

There are no major at-grade crossings along the CSX line the I-85 Corridor. Figure 6-6 displays the railroad lines with the I-85 Corridor.

6.2 Bike and Pedestrian Facilities

Bike and Pedestrian data was obtained from Gwinnett County and ARC. DeKalb County data was not available. Figure 6-7 displays the locations of the facilities. Pedestrian facilities are usually clustered around the activities centers and neighborhoods. Although the I-85 Corridor has extensive pedestrian facilities, in many cases, the sidewalk facility is not continuous along a roadway corridor depending on the area and density of activities. Major pedestrian corridors are along Buford Highway south of the Beaver Ruin Road, Spalding Drive in Norcross area, Lawrenceville Suwanee Road between SR 316 and Buford Highway, Sugarloaf Parkway, and Duluth Highway east of I-85. Pleasant Hill Road south of Buford Highway, Beaver Ruin Road between Buford Highway and I-85, and Peachtree Parkway within Gwinnett Village. Pedestrian facilities are available in all major activity centers and provide pedestrian access to the local bus routes.

Bicycle facilities include facilities such as bike lanes, greenways, and multi-use paths. Approximately 30 miles of bicycle facilities are located within the I-85 Corridor. In addition to a 12.3-mile-long bike lane on Sugarloaf Parkway, there are bicycle facilities along segments of SR 141, Medlock Bridge Road, PIB, Satellite Boulevard, North Brown Road, North Berkeley Lake Road, and McGinnis Ferry Road. Over 30 miles of roadway have been identified as signed bicycle routes in GDOT’s State Bicycle Map; these signed routes are on Lawrenceville Suwanee Road and Old Peachtree Road. Gwinnett County has prepared an Open Space and Greenway Master Plan, which is a comprehensive document that includes a pedestrian component. The Gwinnett CTP has also identified three categories of need for bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-use facilities:

 Pedestrian linkages to existing bus services,

126 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

 Pedestrian/bicycle linkages to the existing pedestrian/bicycle network and/or the gaps in the existing networks, and

 Pedestrian/bicycle linkages between parks and neighborhoods.

Table 6-11: RTP/TIP Bike and Pedestrian Facilities in I-85 Corridor lists the bike and pedestrian improvements in ARC’s Plan 2040.

127 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-6: Railroad Line in the l-85 Corridor

128 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Figure 6-7: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

129 I-85 Corridor AA Study Public Transportation Network

Table 6-11: RTP/TIP Bike and Pedestrian Facilities in I-85 Corridor

ARC ID Description Limits Location Sponsor Western Gwinnett Bikeway: From Pleasant Hill Road Gwinnett GW-330 City of Duluth Phase 2 to Rogers Bridge Road County GW-AR- Downtown Norcross Pedestrian Gwinnett City of Norcross 246 Improvements County From US 23 (Buford GW-AR- SR 120 (West Lawrenceville Highway) to Duluth Gwinnett City of Duluth BP107 Street) Middle School and County Duluth High School DeKalb Sidewalk Program: DK-AR- DeKalb Phase 2C - Flat Shoals, DeKalb County BP067 County Henderson, and Salem Roads Northlake Area Pedestrian DeKalb DK-403 DeKalb County Improvements County Jimmy Carter Boulevard Gwinnett Gwinnett GW-327 At Singleton Road Pedestrian Improvements County County GW-AR- At SR 120 (Duluth Gwinnett US 23 (Buford Highway) City of Duluth BP108 Highway) County Downtown Lawrenceville Gwinnett City of GW-342 Pedestrian Improvements & County Lawrenceville One-Way Pair Conversion

130 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

7.0 SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS

During the study, an array of alternatives has been developed for transit improvements in the l-85 Corridor. This study also recognizes the results of several earlier studies, each focused on different aspects of the study corridor and different strategies for improving its transit amenities and physical characteristics. Many of the findings and recommendations of previous studies will appear here as alternatives for further analysis.

The AA process sets the groundwork for potential funding support of an I-85 AA Corridor initiative through the Federal New Starts or the Small Starts programs. Therefore, it must go back in a sense, and consider a full list of possible options for transit improvements in the l- 85 Corridor. The current effort has been opened to a broad range of inputs, from the general public, the business community, and neighborhood groups, as well as the transportation and planning staffs of Gwinnett County.

The evaluation of alternatives for the l-85 Corridor includes three screens:

1. An engineering and a guiding policy screen to quickly review a wide range of alternatives and to determine their suitability within the known physical and policy constraints of the project corridor,

2. A goals and objectives screen to ensure that the small set of suitable alternatives resulting from the engineering and policy screen meet the goals and objectives of the project, and

3. A costs and impacts screen to determine which alternative meets the project purpose and need most efficiently and with the fewest potential impacts.

This section describes the process and results of Screen 1, and then defines two transit modes and one alignment alternative that will be advanced through Screens 2 and 3.

7.1 Process Overview

The goal of the initial screening is to briefly consider a wide range of possible improvements and select from them a short list of the most appropriate alternatives, given the known physical and policy constraints of the project corridor. Physical constraints include considerations such as roadway and right-of-way widths, features of the natural and built environment, and current travel patterns. Guiding recommendations made by the Project Management Team (PMT) and Project Advisory Committee (PAC) helped shape potential alternatives for the study area included:

 The proposed transit system should be surface running,

 The proposed transit system should operate in shared travel lanes, and

131 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process  The proposed transit system should be compatible with urban scale of the study area.

This screening process yielded a small set of alternatives that are defined in greater detail later in this section and will be evaluated through the remainder of the study.

7.2 Options Considered

As noted in other sections of this report, many feasible transit improvements have been recommended for implementation within the l-85 Corridor. To simplify the task of describing and screening these alternatives, the features are categorized into four types:

 Mode,

 Alignment,

 Station Stop Location, and

 Propulsion.

A separate study will be completed for the identification of the best location for the vehicle storage and maintenance facility. The related site screening process would include but not be limited to property availability determinations, the cost of land, environmental review, and consideration of community acceptability.

Through the community briefings, extensive design dialogue sessions, and a review of previous planning efforts within the l-85 Corridor, numerous alternatives for each of these categories were collected, evaluated, and screened for each of the four categories as described below.

7.2.1 Mode

Definition of Transit Modes

The first step in the alternatives analysis process is to identify a wide-range of transit technologies or modes to be considered for the project. A mode is a system for carrying transit passengers that can be described by specific features that include vertical and horizontal right-of-way requirements, vehicle technology, and operational elements such as service frequency and stop spacing. Seven potential transit technologies had been identified for screening at the outset of this study: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), Streetcar, Commuter Rail (CR), Automated Guided Transit (AGT), Heavy Rail Transit (HRT), and Monorail. A brief description of these modes follows:

132 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a system of improvements to make bus service more attractive when compared to auto travel. The primary goals of BRT are to reduce transit travel time and increase service reliability. This application concept is a flexible one that encompasses physical, technological, operational and marketing improvements in response to congestion, operational needs, opportunities and market demand.

The implementation of BRT service within a transportation corridor can be an evolutionary process in which transit amenities and infrastructure improvements are phased in over time as conditions and demand warrant them, and as funding becomes available. For example, an urban corridor supporting a high volume of bus service and ridership may designate the outside lanes as bus lanes during peak periods to increase travel speeds. In addition, station area enhancements and vehicle aesthetics can be implemented to identify a distinguishable transit mode. Later, as the corridor develops over time, a transit signal priority (TSP) system and queue jumps at congested intersections can further improve the bus system throughout, resulting in additional ridership gains. As ridership increases, a full-time curb-separated right-of-way and improved streetscape treatments on the BRT system could be implemented throughout the travel corridor. BRT systems provide communities with an excellent opportunity to upgrade service to transit users and thereby increase transit use. They also offer an opportunity to invest in streetscape and facility improvements that beautify and enhance the corridor.

Developers and potential residential and commercial investors perceive these investments as a strong indication of the community’s commitment to an area. This perception of commitment can promote redevelopment opportunities and improved development in the corridor.

BRT systems provide greater operational flexibility when compared to a system with a fixed alignment such as LRT or HRT. For example, BRT systems usually allow buses to leave their dedicated alignment at the beginning and end of the trip to provide their own collector and distributor services, potentially offering more passengers a one seat ride. This is accomplished by providing connections to major intersecting roads, thereby reducing the inconvenience associated with transfers from one mode or one vehicle to another. This feature is well suited to the residential end of the trip where densities are too low to provide transfer stations within convenient walking distance, as well as distribution systems to established employment centers such as central business districts, where the construction and operation of any form of fixed guideway transit may be difficult. Other bus routes operating partially over a common section can benefit from operation in the bus lanes over part of their trip.

133 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process BRT service is presented according to levels of service implementation (initial, intermediate and full) as defined by the FTA. Each level of BRT service includes various technological, operational, and structural elements according to the specific implementation level. Initial BRT is a basic set of amenities for BRT service. Intermediate provides a more comprehensive application of transit infrastructure and technology. Full BRT is a developed system that applies the transit elements of initial and intermediate BRT service. Each level of BRT service benefits from upgraded marketing and the installation of service enhancements to provide passenger safety, comfort, and convenience, thereby upgrading a system’s image and increasing customer attractiveness.

Initial BRT Service

Initial BRT service prescribes minimal improvements to existing bus services that include an increase in service frequency, a decrease in transit travel time and the implementation of passenger amenities for the purposes of developing a distinct mode of transportation.

Initial BRT service is typically distinguishable from conventional bus service through vehicle aesthetic improvements and the installation of passenger station amenities. Vehicle improvements range from a color scheme different from existing conventional buses to purchasing new buses that are equipped to provide a more comfortable ride. Passenger stations are typically upgraded to include curbside concrete hard stands with covered seating areas, adequate lighting, highly visible signage and route information.

This type of BRT service shares a travel lane to operate in mixed traffic on urban or suburban streets with some level of preferential treatment. The type of preferential treatment for initial BRT service is achieved through a deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology such as signal prioritization. A TSP system improves transit travel times by allowing buses to advance, prioritize, or pre-empt traffic lights when approaching a signalized intersection. The components of the system involve a bus-mounted transponder that utilizes an electronic signal to correspond with an intersection’s traffic signalization system. A TSP system allows an approaching bus and traffic to pass through an intersection without interruption by a stop signal. This improvement minimizes transit travel delays, improves reliability and allows buses to maintain schedule adherence. The installation of an enhanced signalization network may even reduce the number of buses required to operate on a route to meet existing schedules, and thus reduce operating costs.

134 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Intermediate BRT Service

Intermediate BRT service utilizes a designated right-of-way that applies various types of infrastructure and technology to reduce dwell time and accelerate transit travel time within a transportation corridor. Intermediate BRT may utilize a designated lane during peak travel times, a fully dedicated lane or an HOV travel lane that may or may not be barrier separated from other vehicular traffic.

This type of BRT service includes advanced upgrades to transit vehicles, bus stop amenities, and creation of bus “stations” at key locations in a corridor. Various improvements along a BRT service corridor are applied to speed up passenger boarding and reduce overall travel time. This is achieved using transit vehicles that are designed with low-floors and multiple, wider doors for faster passenger boardings and alightings.

Signage and information system upgrades at bus stops typically utilize the deployment of ITS infrastructure such as passenger information systems to provide riders at bus stops with real-time route and schedule information. Improved fare collection systems include off-board fare collection and ticketing systems for this level of BRT. These types of service elements and information improvements increase passenger confidence in using the system, resulting in increased transit ridership. Intermediate BRT service also involves measures to improve pedestrian conditions through streetscape and landscaping improvements which facilitate connections to properties and land uses adjacent to stops.

Non-Barrier Separated Bus Lane

A basic type of transit priority improvement is the designation of a specific bus lane for bus-only traffic. This type of bus lane designation restricts traffic from the use of that lane by separating traffic lanes through pavement markings and signs. The restriction may be limited to the peak direction and to peak periods, or it may be in both directions and at all times of day.

The most common type of bus lane is the curbside bus lane, in which the right (outer) lane in each direction is designated for bus only use. Rarely, curbside bus lanes operate in the contra-flow direction. Curbside bus lanes allow bus stops to be easily accessible. Stopping buses do not block auto traffic, and auto traffic does not prevent buses from re-entering traffic after a stop. However, curbside bus lanes can rarely be separated from traffic lanes because access to driveways and deliveries must be maintained along the urban and suburban street front. Usually, curbside bus lanes allow taxis, bicyclists, and right-turning traffic to use the designated bus lane, which can cause delays to bus traffic. In addition, auto breakdowns and illegal parking can block the bus lane, and

135 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process violations of the bus lane are frequent, particularly under congested conditions. The Forbes-Fifth one way bus lanes between the Squirrel Hill area and downtown Pittsburgh, the downtown bus loop in Toledo, Ohio and the Madison Avenue bus lanes in New York City are examples of systems using curbside bus lanes in U.S. cities.

Non-barrier separated BRT bus lanes have also been developed in several cities in the right (outer) lanes of expressways that are designated as HOV lanes. These lanes also serve car pooling auto drivers in many cities. The restrictive use of HOV lanes and non separated bus lanes is violated by single-occupant drivers, breakdowns of vehicles and congestion from excessive numbers of high occupancy vehicles and buses. In addition, merging to and from median and inside-lane HOV facilities into the regular traffic stream can create delays for vehicles entering and exiting the expressway.

Another component of intermediate BRT is the installation of dedicated segments of right-of-way in urban and/or suburban settings that increase travel time and allow BRT to receive priority over auto traffic. These are installed as a non-barrier BRT bus lane. One example of this is a queue jumping lane, which can be installed at major intersections to allow buses to bypass congested traffic conditions. A queue jumper provides transit vehicles with a segment of exclusive right-of-way using a programmed traffic signal that turns green ahead of the other signals. This enables a bus to “jump” ahead of the rest of the traffic, providing transit vehicles with a speed and time advantage over the normal traffic flow. These bypass lanes can speed up bus service between 30 to 60 seconds at a typical signalized intersection. Bus stops at times are integrated into the design of queue jumps to create mini “stations” at major interchanges.

This type of facility also helps to speed buses on expressways where full HOV or bus lanes have not been implemented. For example, queue jump lanes for buses (and HOVs) have been implemented in conjunction with ramp metering systems, allowing buses to bypass the ramp metering before cars may enter the entrance ramp. Queue jumps also have been installed at exit ramps. Many toll roads also have special bus lanes allowing them to bypass toll queues.

Typically, construction costs for this type of facility can range from $200,000 to $500,000 per installation. Queue jumpers are particularly useful along major roadways where lower passenger volumes, a lack of financial resources, or available right-of-way prevent the installation of a continuous exclusive right-of-way for buses. Queue jumpers have been implemented in Charlotte, North Carolina, Montgomery County, Maryland and Santa Clara County, California.

136 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Barrier Separated Bus Lane

Intermediate BRT also includes barrier separated or limited – access roadways for buses. An example is an at-grade separated median bus lane that operates in the center of an arterial roadway, with two bus lanes or occasionally a single bi-directional lane. Median bus lanes do not potentially block curbside access or remove curbside parking. They are often barrier separated from auto traffic, which makes them less subject to delays from drivers violating the bus lane restrictions, breakdowns or other mishaps. Median bus lanes, however, must accommodate bus stops or stations in each direction. Offsetting the stations can minimize the space they consume, but fitting the bus lanes, stations, and vehicle travel lanes into the roadway section can be challenging and costly, particularly because it often requires reconstruction of the entire roadway and/or adjacent sidewalks.

In median bus lane applications, bus passengers must cross auto travel lanes to reach stations, requiring improvements to crosswalks and the implementation of fences and streetscape treatments to control pedestrian movements. Signage and signal systems must discourage motorists from accidentally entering the median bus lane during left turning movements from crossing streets.

Through-bus movements on the alignment may require a separate traffic signal phase to prevent left-turning motorists on the roadway adjacent to the alignment from crossing the path of oncoming buses. The Canal Street bus lane in New Orleans, the Market Street bus lane in San Francisco, the busway on Number 3 Road in Richmond, the Euclid Corridor project in Cleveland, and the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) busway on Independence Boulevard in Charlotte are examples of BRT systems employing median bus lanes in arterial corridors.

Intermediate BRT service that operates on a separated individual right-of-way may employ bus technology that steers or guides buses over portions of their routes. This is accomplished by use of wayside-located guidance curbs or optical guidance systems that utilize a camera to follow painted tracks on the road. This technology relieves the driver of the responsibility of steering the bus when in the guideway. Optically-guided technologies also provide precise docking at stops or whenever a vehicle may need to negotiate tight rights-of-way. However, optically guided technologies can be affected by rain and are subject to tampering by vandals.

A primary benefit of this technology is that it enables a bus to operate on a narrower guideway. On new installations, the required roadway width (approximately 9 to 10 feet) is about 20 percent less than conventional bus lane requirements (approximately 11 to 12 feet), and no shoulders are required. Buses can leave the track at stations and/or at other locations and operate on streets as regular vehicles.

137 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Fully Developed BRT

Fully developed BRT service consists of all the amenities and attributes of both initial and intermediate BRT. Full BRT service is defined as a fully separated bus facility, often running alongside or in the median of expressways, or in disused rail corridors. This type of BRT system allows unimpeded travel flow at the legal speed limit, and when combined with on-line stations and park-and-ride lots, it can carry volumes and produce travel speeds comparable with light rail transit at a fraction of the initial capital cost. Full BRT may also include travel lanes typically built in a highway or roadway right-of way, but the buses are physically separated from the other traffic lanes and intersections and may have exclusive flyover access ramps. The Shirley Highway in Washington D.C., the Seattle Bus Tunnel, the East and West Busways in Pittsburgh, several of the regional busways in Ottawa, and the priority lanes on major freeways in Houston, Texas are examples of this type of BRT facility.

Buses using this type of BRT facility normally collect passengers on local streets or at park-and-ride facilities and then enter the exclusive busway and operate much like a rail vehicle on a fixed guideway system. Busways permit the location of stations along the busway at major community origins and destinations. However, compared to HOV or managed lanes, which are generally considered highway facilities, busways are exclusively transit facilities and often must be financed exclusively using local, state and federal transit funding. On-line stations, particularly in the medians of expressways, may be less convenient for passengers. However, the characteristics of BRT allow passengers to board in their neighborhoods and alight near their destinations at off-line locations by buses that can then enter the bus lane for the express portion of the trip.

Streetcar

Streetcar technology is a form of light rail transit that uses rail cars that are generally smaller than light rail vehicles (LRVs) and running on in-street track at grade with other traffic. Modern streetcars are sleek, low-floor vehicles with wide doors and large windows such as those in use in Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington. Some streetcars designed with a retro historic feel are also popular and include vehicles such as the historic-styled streetcars in Tampa, Florida and New Orleans, Louisiana.

Most of these vehicles receive their power from an overhead electric wire. Streetcars can range from 30 to 70 feet long, and are about 8 feet wide and 10 to 11 feet in height (to accommodate overhead wire connections). Carrying capacity of a street car can range from 45 and 190 passengers, based on a combination of seated passengers and standees. Like BRT, a streetcar can typically operate in an 11-foot travel lane.

138 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Streetcar Operational Characteristics:

 Serves moderate to high passenger volume,

 Typically 1,440 to 5,760 per hour one-way,

 Low to medium speed – 30 to 35 mph (depending on distance between stops),

 May serve short to long distance trips,

 Stations spaced 2 to 3 blocks to 1 miles apart,

 Normally uses overhead power collection,

 May operate in traffic, with cross-traffic, or on exclusive right-of-way,

 Can negotiate steep grades and small radius curves,

 Stations may be elaborate or simple. May use low platforms,

 Vehicles may operate alone or in trains of up to two car consist,

 Few vehicle suppliers,

 Cannot operate jointly with freight trains or other railroad equipment,

 Moderate to capital cost, and

 Moderate O&M cost on a vehicle mile or passenger mile basis.

Light Rail Transit

Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a flexible transportation mode that can operate in a variety of physical settings. As the modern technological descendent of the streetcar, a distinctive feature of LRT is that vehicles draw power from an overhead wire. This is in contrast to heavy rail vehicles that are usually powered by a track-level third rail. This overhead power collection feature allows LRT systems to integrate with other at-grade transportation modes and pedestrian areas. LRT (like streetcars) can operate in mixed traffic on tracks embedded at-grade with street and pedestrian crossings, or on a fully- segregated guideway.

LRT Operational Characteristics:

 Serves moderate to high passenger volume,

 Typically 3,600 to 22,000 per hour one-way,

139 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process  Low to medium speed – 30 to 65 mph (depending on degree of separation of right-of-way and distance between stops),

 May serve short to long distance trips,

 Stations spaced various – 0.5 to 1 miles apart,

 Normally uses overhead power collection,

 May operate in traffic, with cross-traffic, or on exclusive right-of-way,

 Can negotiate steep grades and small radius curves,

 Stations may be elaborate or simple. May use low platforms, high platforms, or both,

 Vehicles may operate alone or in trains of up to four vehicles,

 Numerous vehicle suppliers,

 Cannot operate jointly with freight trains or other railroad equipment,

 Moderate to high capital cost (more than commuter rail/less than heavy rail), and

 Moderate O&M cost on a vehicle mile or passenger mile basis.

The most recent light rail systems in the U.S. operate vehicles that are 90 to 95 feet long and up to 9 feet 6 inches wide. Operator cabs at both ends of the vehicle (articulated and non-articulated) allow bi-directional operation. LRT systems can operate either as a single car or in multi-car trains. The capacity of a typical LRT vehicle ranges between 120 and 170 passengers with standees. A three-unit train can carry up to 510 passengers, and the single direction, hourly capacity of a line can be up to 16,000 persons per hour per direction (pphpd).

The maximum operating speed of modern LRT systems generally ranges from 55 to 65 miles per hour, making it suitable for medium distance trips in suburbs or between central business districts. However, average operating speeds can be reduced to 10 to 25 miles per hour if operating in mixed traffic with frequent stops.

Depending on the surrounding environment, LRT station design may incorporate high or low platforms. Generally, transit systems with on-street operations, where passengers can walk across tracks, use simple stations with low platforms, while systems with reserved right-of-way use high platforms.

140 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Entry into light rail vehicles (LRVs) has traditionally been provided in one of two ways: step entry or level boarding. Low-floor LRVs provide level boarding, which has become quite common, operating in Portland, OR and Hudson-Bergen County, NJ. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), all new rapid transit stations must provide access for the disabled to every car unit. This means that all LRT systems opened after January 1993 must provide level boarding.

Diesel light rail vehicles such as the Siemens “RegioSprinter” operate like light rail vehicles but are self-powered and thus do not require overhead catenary power. This reduces the initial capital cost of developing a light rail line but eliminates some of the noise reduction and pollution control benefits of electric light rail. Diesel light rail vehicles have been used successfully in Europe and are being considered for implementation in Santa Cruz, California, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and some other cities.

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail (CR) is generally used for longer distance regional rail trips. For conventional CR operations, single or bi-level passenger cars are pushed or pulled by diesel or electrically-powered locomotives. Typically these systems are operated by railroads under agreement with a transit agency on their own tracks or through a leased track usage agreement. A major advantage of commuter rail is its ability to use existing freight trackage in joint use with freight trains or Amtrak service. Generally, CR operates to provide peak period and peak direction service.

Due to federal regulations that require an automatic train control system for speeds in excess of 79 miles per hour, CR generally operates at this maximum speed. The slower acceleration and longer braking distances of CR when compared to the other rail technologies make it best suited to longer distance trips. CR vehicles can use high or low platform boarding. Individual cars can carry up to 160 seated passengers with a nominal standing load capacity of 300 passengers. Trains with 10 to 12 cars are not uncommon. Therefore, individual trains have a high capacity, but because headways are longer, the total line capacity is typically less than heavy rail (7,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour in a single direction).

Capital costs range from $7 million to $25 million per mile. The operating cost, primarily due to union labor costs, can be relatively high. Due to the high passenger capacity potential and the long distances traveled, the cost per passenger mile for commuter rail is in the middle range for rail transit alternatives. Representative examples of U.S. commuter rail systems include:

 CalTrans in San Francisco, California,

141 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process  Tri-Rail, Florida,

 MARC in Baltimore, Maryland, and

 Metra in Chicago, Illinois.

Commuter Rail Operational Characteristics:

 Serves moderate to high passenger volume,

 Non-powered passenger cars pulled by locomotives; or diesel multiple units (self propelled),

 Can use existing tracks jointly with other railroad equipment,

 Serves long distance trips,

 Typically 8,000 to 25,000 per hour one-way,

 High speed - up to 79 mph (without cab signals),

 Stations spaced 5 to 7 miles apart,

 Stations may be elaborate or simple, and use low platforms, high platforms or both,

 Can have long trains (usually 4 to 12 cars),

 Diesel locomotives have air and noise quality impacts, and are maintenance intensive,

 Relatively low capital cost (when using existing tracks), and

 Moderate to low O&M cost on a vehicle mile or on a passenger mile basis.

Diesel-Electric and Electric Locomotives

Diesel-electric locomotives are the most common railroad locomotive in use in North America. They are used for both freight and passenger service. Traction power for these systems is either diesel or electric. Electric locomotives operate from electric power drawn from an overhead contact system. When a diesel locomotive is used, the locomotive is capable of pushing or pulling from one to eight cars (push-pull operation).

Multiple Unit Cars (Diesel and Electric)

Diesel and electric multiple unit cars are self-propelled commuter rail cars that do not require a locomotive to push or pull them. Multiple unit cars can operate as single cars

142 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process or as trains of up to 10 cars. These cars are typically 85 feet in length and provide seating for 60 to 100 passengers. They are capable of speeds from 80 to 120 miles per hour.

Automated Guideway Transit (People Mover, Personal Rapid Transit, Group Rapid Transit)

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) refers to a broad range of fixed guideway technology in which the most prominent feature is automatic train operation. AGT technology includes a wide range of service levels – from proven "people mover" systems such as the downtown Miami Metromover and numerous airport circulators – to experimental systems such as the personal rapid transit (PRT) system planned for a suburban commercial area near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. Currently, the majority of AGT systems operate as local distribution systems in areas where many trips are concentrated over short distances. They typically are found at airports (e.g., Atlanta and Miami), zoos, amusement parks, and in major commercial centers or downtowns. However, AGT systems have been successfully used in urban line-haul applications in Vancouver, B.C. and Lille, France. AGT is increasingly being used in urban environments in line-haul applications.

The service characteristics of AGT vary considerably. Urban, medium capacity systems can reach speeds of 50 to 55 miles per hour. People movers are generally operated at 35 miles per hour. Airport and local circulators typically operate at speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. Passenger capacities are less than light or heavy rail systems. This lower passenger capacity is due to AGT’s tighter geometric tolerances and shorter station spacing. All AGT systems are proprietary and generally can be distinguished by their suspension devices or propulsion mechanisms. While some systems are suspended from an overhead “track” (somewhat similar to a cable car), most systems run on top of a track or multiple tracks. Vehicles can be rubber tired or steel wheeled. Power is supplied by a high voltage contact (third) rail located in the trackbed. AGT systems therefore require full grade separated rights-of-way from other traffic and pedestrians. The steel wheeled version requires conventional railroad-type steel rails to be affixed to the guideway, while the rubber-tired version have a concrete or steel running surface and a concrete and steel center or side rails for lateral guidance.

AGT vehicles range between 20 and 55 feet in length, operate singly or in combination with other vehicles, and can accommodate 150 or more passengers. AGT systems have capacities of between 5,000 and 15,000 passengers per hour. One advantage of people movers is the typically narrow envelope requirement allows the system to be used in tight rights-of-ways (including through the interior of buildings), and negotiate small radius curves and relatively steep grades.

143 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process Because most systems are fully automated (i.e., driverless), techniques must be employed to ensure that accidental intrusion or entry by pedestrians onto the right-of- way is prevented. These protection systems, in conjunction with the exclusive guideway and automated technology, can result in costs significantly higher than heavy rail on a per mile basis.

Typical sub-classifications of the AGT system technologies include people mover and personal rapid transit systems.

Automated Guideway Transit Operational Characteristics:

 Serves medium to high passenger volumes,

 Typically 5,000 to 15,000 per hour one-way,

 Medium speed - up to 55 mph,

 Serves short to medium length trips,

 Stations spaced 0.25 to 0.5 miles apart,

 Automated train system with control/supervision from central control center,

 Complex guidance / switching systems,

 Right-of-way must be grade separated,

 Cars may operate alone or as trains,

 Proprietary vehicle and guideway designs with turnkey procurement,

 Varying levels of maturity, depending on individual system manufacturer,

 Highest capital cost, and

 Highest O&M cost.

Monorail

Monorail is a fixed guideway transit mode in which a series of electrically propelled vehicles straddle atop or suspend from a single guideway beam, rail, or tube. If fully automated, they are similar in operation to AGT systems but are classified separately due to their unique guideway configuration.

The trains generally consist of permanently coupled cars having suspension, propulsion, and control equipment in common. Electric power is generally picked up by

144 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process carbon collectors on the bottom of the vehicle in contact with a bus bar mounted on the side of the guideway beam. They can be operated either manually with fail-safe anti- collision systems or in a totally automated mode. Operating and maintenance costs vary according to the level of automation and the required capacity, but can be comparable to conventional grade-separated systems.

The guideway for monorail systems is typically elevated since it must be totally grade separated from all other traffic. Emergency egress from vehicles on this elevated guideway has historically been a problem with monorail systems. Potential solutions have included the addition of emergency walkways to the guideway and on-board inflatable slides and emergency hatches to the vehicles to permit passenger movement from a disabled vehicle to adjacent vehicles and/or ground level.

The main disadvantage with monorail systems is their inability to switch tracks efficiently. Whole sections of the guideway support beam must be physically moved from one guideway to another during switching – a slow and maintenance intensive operation. Consequently, the applicability of monorail systems has usually been limited to simple loop and shuttle systems.

Depending on the size of the vehicles and operating speed, monorail systems are defined as either small capacity or large capacity.

Monorail Operational Characteristics:

 Serves medium to moderate passenger volumes,

 Electric powered, rubber-tired propulsion system,

 Typically 5,000 to 10,000 passengers per hour one-way,

 Medium speed- up to 45 mph,

 Serves short to medium length trips,

 Stations spaced 0.5 to 1 mile apart,

 Stations must have high-level platforms,

 Automated train control system with supervision from central control center,

 Complex guidance / switching systems,

 Right-of-way must be grade separated,

 Vehicles can be combined to form trains of up to 6 cars,

145 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process  Proprietary vehicle and guideway designs with turnkey procurement,

 Little experience in urban applications,

 High capital cost, and

 Very high O&M cost on a vehicle mile or passenger mile basis.

Heavy Rail

Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) systems are at the upper end of the urban transit spectrum in terms of speed, capacity and reliability. Also referred to as rapid rail, metro, or subway, HRT operates in an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. Power is collected from a third-rail located adjacent to and parallel with the running rail. No at grade crossings of the right-of-way are permitted. HRT is characterized by a high capacity to carry passengers, which can range up to 60,000 pphpd with a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour. Average trip length is from 5 to 15 miles. Individual cars are typically 75 feet in length and can carry up to 170 passengers in normal loading situations; full load capacity is about 300 passengers. HRT vehicles are normally operated in married pairs (one unit of two cars) and multiple-unit trains of 4 up to 10 units which are coupled or uncoupled to meet varying travel demand conditions.

HRT is best suited for service in high density corridors that connect low-density suburbs to the central city area of large metropolitan areas. Station spacing typically ranges from 1 to 2 miles. Examples of HRT systems in the U.S. include:

 Atlanta – MARTA,

 Miami – MDT,

 San Francisco – BART,

 Los Angeles – LACMTA, and

 Washington D.C. – WMATA.

The capital cost for HRT systems ranges from $95 to $140 million per mile. With the possible exception of higher capacity people mover systems and high speed rail, HRT is at the upper end of the cost range for rail urban transport systems. This is largely the result of the exclusive and grade-separated right-of-way infrastructure requirements. Operation and maintenance cost for HRT systems on a per-passenger or a passenger- mile basis may be lower than those for bus or LRT alternatives.

Heavy Rail Transit Operational Characteristics:

146 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process  Serves high passenger volume,

 Typically 42,000 to 60,000 per hour one-way,

 High speed - up to 70 mph,

 Serves medium to long trips,

 Stations spaced 1 to 2 miles apart,

 Requires exclusive right-of-way,

 Must use high platforms,

 Power collection from “third rail”,

 Numerous vehicle suppliers,

 Can have long trains (usually 4 to 10 cars),

 Moderate to low O&M cost on a vehicle mile or passenger mile basis, and

 Very high capital cost.

Modes Considered, but Eliminated from Evaluation

The first level of screening in the l-85 Corridor process is designed to screen out those modes that would not be feasible within the basic parameters and assumptions of the study, which are described by the criteria outlined below. If a mode does not meet each of these criteria, then it is considered to be infeasible and will be dropped from further evaluation. The criteria used in this first level screening exercise include:

 The proposed transit system should be surface running,

 The proposed transit system should operate in shared travel lanes, and

 The proposed transit system should be compatible with urban scale of the study area.

Surface running transit systems are defined as those systems that can operate at street level and do not require grade separation (underground or aerial structures). Such systems include BRT, Streetcars, and LRT.

AGT and Monorail systems require grade separation above or below the ground because their driverless technologies do not allow for operation in mixed traffic due to safety issues. CR trains must operate in a fixed guideway completely separated from

147 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process automobile traffic with signalized at-grade highway/railroad crossings or grade separated. HRT systems, with their high speeds, large turning radii, and third rail electrification, cannot operate in the same travel lanes as or be crossed at-grade by general automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.

Table 7-1 illustrates this screening criterion in terms of a horizontal dimension and a vertical dimension. The horizontal dimension considers whether the mode can fit in the available 11 foot right-of-way. The vertical dimension considers whether the mode can fit within the pedestrian scale environment desired by project management team. Table 7-2 summarizes the characteristics of the transit modes being considered.

Table 7-1: First Level Screening Matrix

Criteria BRT Streetcar LRT CR AGT Monorail HRT Surface-Running Yes Yes Yes No No No No Mixed Traffic Yes Yes Yes No No No No Running Compatibility with Urban Form Horizontal-fits within Yes Yes No No No No No 11-foot lane width Vertical-compatible Depends with community on the Yes Yes No No No No desire for pedestrian vehicle scale street frontage type

148 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Table 7-2: Characteristics of the Candidate Transit Modes

BRT LRT Streetcar CR AGT HRT Monorail

Characteristics

Vehicles straddle Vehicle Steel-wheel/rail, typically Steel-wheel/rail, Steel-wheel/rail, Rubber-tire, CNG and Steel-wheel/rail, atop or suspend Description, electric by overhead typically electric by diesel, electric by Rubber-tire, electric diesel electric from a guideway Power Source wire overhead wire overhead wire beam, electric Operating Shared and Exclusive Shared and Exclusive Shared and Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive Guideway Max. Station .50 – 1 .50 – 1 .50 – 1 5 - 7 .25 - .50 1 - 2 .50 - 1 Spacing (miles) Vehicle Passenger 60 - 100 120 -170 60 - 100 120 - 180 20 - 150 120 - 170 30 - 40 Capacity (1) Vehicle Cost .60 – 1.0 1.5 - 3.2 3 – 5 1.0 - 1.7 1.5 2.0 - 2.9 6.0 ($ millions) Capital Cost per 26 – 33 30 – 40 26 – 33 7 – 25 70 – 100 95 – 140 60 – 90 Mile ($ millions) (2) Average 50 – 65 Operating Speed 20 - 35 20 - 35 40 - 60 25 - 40 35 - 50 25 - 35 (In exclusive ROW) (mph) Albuquerque, Boston, Boston, San Francisco, New York, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Denver, Oakland, Miami, Existing Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Tampa, Little Rock, New York, Chicago, Jacksonville, Operations Dallas, Denver, Las Denver, San Diego, Salt Atlanta, Washington Las Vegas, Seattle Tucson, Dallas, Los South Florida, Examples Vegas, Los Angeles, Lake City, Dallas, New York, DC, Baltimore, Los Angeles Seattle, Salt Lake Orlando Houston, Vancouver Angeles Notes: 1) All capacities include standing passengers (at 4 passengers per square meter), except for commuter rail and monorail technologies. 2) Costs are indicative only, and include total system costs with the exception of vehicles or right-of-way.

149 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Modes Eliminated from Further Consideration First Screening Results

Based on the first screening analysis, five modes have been eliminated from further consideration: LRT, Monorail, CR, AGT, and HRT. Monorail, CR, AGT, and HRT cannot feasibly be run on surface streets. Although these modes are proven technologies for effectively transporting people in high-density areas, they cannot operate as all surface running transit systems. AGT and Monorail are fully automated driverless technologies and therefore cannot run in mixed traffic conditions for safety reasons. CR and HRT must also have exclusive grade separated right-of-way which is simply not feasible in densely populated city neighborhoods. The need for a surface running transit system is based on the narrow corridor rights-of-way, height restrictions, and limited resources available to construct an aerial or underground transit system. HRT would require an exclusive and grade separated right-of-way.

LRT meets several of the criteria including the ability to run in mixed traffic on surface streets. However, this mode was eliminated because it requires a 12-foot minimum right-of- way for a single track and the size of the vehicle is incompatible with pedestrian scale.

Modes Selected for Further Evaluation

The modes selected for further consideration are BRT and Streetcar. Table 7-3 summarizes the feasibility of each mode within the l-85 Corridor based on the three screening criteria outlined in the previous section.

Table 7-3: Mode Selection Summary Table

Feasible Within Mode Basis for Decision Existing ROW BRT Yes Fits existing ROW, compatible with pedestrian scale

Streetcar Yes Fits existing ROW, compatible with pedestrian scale

LRT No Does not fit within the 11-foot lane width, incompatible with pedestrian scale Not surface running, cannot operate in mixed traffic. Height restrictions and CR No visual impacts Not surface running, cannot operate in mixed traffic. Height restrictions and Monorail No visual impacts Not surface running, cannot operate in mixed traffic. Height restrictions and AGT No visual impacts Not surface running, cannot operate in mixed traffic. Height restrictions and HRT No visual impacts (aerial) or prohibitive construction costs (subway)

150 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

7.2.2 Alignment

Description of Initial Alignment Options

 Alignment Option 1: Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/Buford Highway)

The northern terminus of the Option 1 alignment would be near the northernmost entrance to the Gwinnett Arena off Sugarloaf Parkway. The proposed alignment would proceed south through Arena at Gwinnett Center towards Satellite Boulevard and turn southwest along Satellite Boulevard towards Gwinnett Place Mall and the Gwinnett Transit Center at Satellite Boulevard and Gwinnett Plantation Way.

The proposed alignment would continue southwest along Satellite Boulevard to its terminus at Beaver Ruin Road, where it would turn southwest on Beaver Ruin Road, then turn southeast on Indian Trail-Lilburn Road towards the existing I-85 Park and Ride lot at Indian Trail-Lilburn Road and Brookhollow Parkway. The proposed alignment would then proceed southwest along Brookhollow Parkway towards Jimmy Carter Boulevard.

The proposed alignment would cross Jimmy Carter Boulevard to serve the Optical Fiber Solutions (OFS) redevelopment site and Norcross Southern Industrial District. It would continue along Brookhollow Parkway and Best Friend Road, then turn northwest on Button Gwinnett Drive.

At Buford Highway, it would turn southwest and proceed along Buford Highway towards the MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station.

 Alignment Option 2: Gwinnett Arena to Marta’s Lindbergh Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/l-85/Lindberg Drive)

Similar to Alignment Option 1, Option 2 would maximize the use of the existing managed lanes on I-85 by accessing the I-85 after serving the OFS station. From the OFS station, the alignment would follow Jimmy Carter Boulevard south to I- 85, southwest in the I-85 managed lanes to the Lindbergh Drive exit, and west on Lindbergh Drive to the south bus loop at the Lindbergh Center MARTA Rail Station.

151 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

 Alignment Option 3: Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/I-85/l-285)

The northern terminus of the proposed Option 3 would be near the Gwinnett Arena off Sugarloaf Parkway. The proposed alignment would proceed southeast along Satellite Boulevard to I-85, southwest in the I-85 managed lanes to the I- 285 interchange, follow the I-285 on-ramp but exits at Buford Highway (without entering the I-285 mainline), turn southwest on Buford Highway, and then turns northwest on Central Avenue to the Doraville MARTA Rail Station.

 Alignment Option 4: Sugar Hill to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station

The northern terminus of the Option 4 would be near the City of Sugar Hill. The exact location is to be determined, but is assumed to be near Buford Highway and SR 20/Buford Drive. Alternate locations closer to downtown Sugar Hill may also be possible. The proposed alignment would proceed southwest along Buford Highway towards the Doraville MARTA Station. At Oakcliff Road, the alignment turns northwest along Oakcliff Road then southwest along New Peachtree Road to the Doraville MARTA Rail Station.

First Screening Results

Each alignment alternative was evaluated based on the need to connect activity centers, capital cost considerations, and policy decisions informed by recommendations of the PMC and PAC. These concerns led to the following general criteria for suitable alignment alternatives:

 New transit service must serve existing activity centers and special economic districts along l-85 Corridor,

 Transit must run on the existing streets,

 Transit system should not operate in exclusive lanes and that it should operate only in the outside (closest to the curb) travel lane as opposed to other options, such as a median running system, and

 Street frontage is expected to be at a pedestrian scale, and outside lane widths are set at approximately 12 feet at their most constrained point (with curb-to-curb distance generally not exceeding 26 feet along Button Gwinnett Drive to 62 feet at most points along Satellite Boulevard).

Three alignment options were dropped:

152 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

 Alignment Option 2: Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Lindbergh Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/l-85/Lindberg Drive) Alignment - This service option duplicates express routes operated by GCT and GRTA via the managed lanes along the l-85. The use of the managed lanes enables the transit providers to provide shorter and more consistent travel times than driving alone in the general purpose lanes.

 Alignment Option 3: Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/I-85/l-285) – This service option would not serve the local businesses and warehouse distribution centers along the busy Brookhollow Parkway, Best Friend Road, and Button Gwinnett Drive.

There has been an interest in economic development opportunities within the Norcross Southern Industrial District. Transit is often a powerful force for facilitating both density and economic development. Because access to fixed- guideway transit occurs at stations that facilitate pedestrian orientation, the benefits of transit are especially concentrated over the area that is accessible on foot (¼ to ½ mile from the station). Therefore, businesses that wish to take advantage of those benefits naturally cluster at these nodes at greater density than they might if they were oriented toward a roadway where access is more defined by visibility than by “walkability”. For a variety of reasons, the benefits of agglomeration and density are likely to be amplified at these transit-oriented nodes and corridors.

Some employers may benefit from transit intensive areas because they can take advantage of expanded access to the pooled workforce. This may include not only the transit-dependent, but also, increasingly, the “transit-dependent-by- choice.” This population, which includes a large number of young workers in knowledge-based sectors, prefers to live in more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly urban areas and to not drive as a lifestyle choice. According to the Department of Transportation, the share of automobile miles driven by young people between 21 to 30 years old has dropped from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 13.7 percent in

2009. Similarly, the percentage of young people aged 19 and under with a driver’s license has declined from 64 percent of the age group in 1995 to 46 percent in 2009.

By accessing a larger, higher quality labor pool, employers may be able to attract and retain higher quality workers. In addition, because these workers often choose to live in “walkable” places where informal social encounters are more

likely, access to transit may also facilitate knowledge spillovers. Each of these, in turn, is likely to augment productivity and profitability. A 2000 study by HLB

153 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

concluded that cities with stronger transit are generally more efficient and productive than those lacking transit, and that a 10 percent increase in transit presence (quantified as 50 vehicles) increases labor productivity by 0.4 percent annually.

In addition to these factors, whereby transit amplifies agglomeration benefits for certain types of businesses, transit also helps to make such densification and agglomeration possible. In many municipalities, the presence of transit serves as a rationale for permitting greater building height and intensity. In such municipalities, where high-employment densities are not permissible elsewhere, areas that are transit accessible are the only option for businesses that benefit from agglomeration. In these scenarios, even businesses that do not derive strong benefits from transit service are drawn to transit-oriented locations. In addition, in some areas, the potential for increasing density is limited by traffic congestion. This is a key factor in the decision to retrofit high capacity transit onto suburban employment centers, such as Tysons Corner, Virginia and the Warner Center in Los Angeles. Insofar as transit access provides additional transportation capacity without necessitating the provision of additional parking infrastructure, expanded roadway capacity, greater densities and levels of agglomeration are made possible. The natural inclinations of certain businesses to locate near transit or to take advantage of agglomeration benefits cannot be relied upon for the generation of new economic activity within a region. While broader macroeconomic trends are likely to have far greater influence on such economic growth, these inclinations may instead have a strong distributional effect on regional economic activity, determining where businesses and residents decide to locate within the region. However, the potential for either generative or distributional economic development is dependent on the provision of other amenities, including infrastructure, services, and supportive policies.

As with employers, residents decide where to live based on a vast array of factors, including home prices, amenities (both of the home and of the surrounding neighborhood), services, and a number of other highly idiosyncratic variables. However, ease of access to commonly visited destinations is often among the most important considerations in this decision. While work may represent only 18 percent of all trips, it is rare that a worker make trips to any other single destination as frequently. As such, for those that work (or may, in the future, work) in transit-accessible locations, its proximity to high quality transit may be an important factor in deciding where to live.

Effective and efficient transportation systems are vital to the prosperity of Gwinnett County and the regions because they link residents with employment,

154 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

public services, shopping and social networks, and businesses to labor, consumer, buyer, and supplier markets.

 Option 4: Sugar Hill to Doraville MARTA Rail Station - Even though there may be sufficient right-of-way along this alignment, it is too far from the key activity centers in southern portion of the l-85 Corridor. Also, there is a lack of residential and office development along the proposed alignment which results in projected ridership forecast levels being too low to warrant a significant investment in a high-capacity BRT or streetcar systems.

Generally, the greater the intensity of residential and office development, the greater the levels of transit ridership. The absolute minimum residential density required to support any form of regular, on-street bus service is about 5 to 8 units per acre, on average, for a transit corridor. For express bus service with exclusively pedestrian access (i.e., no park-and-ride facilities) minimum average densities for the corridor should be about 15 units per acre. However, ridership levels at such minimum densities tend to be relatively low and heavily concentrated during commute hours. As densities are increased, ridership increases. Notably, researchers have found that there are sharp increases (a tripling) in ridership as average residential densities approach 30 units per acre. In the downtown area, a minimum density of about 50 employees per acre is necessary to support regular transit service, and people do not switch from driving to transit until employment densities reach about 50 to 75 employees per acre.

Alignment Selected for Further Evaluation

Based on cost and ridership estimates, Alignment Option 1 (Build Alternative alignment) will be further analyzed. Table 7-4 shows the cost and ridership estimates for each of the alignment options.

155 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Table 7-4: Comparison of Build Alignment by Mode Length Total Daily Annual Corridor Capital of Ridership O&M Mode/Alignment Transit Travel Costs Corridor (Premium Costs Time ($000) (miles) Service) ($000) BRT Mode

Gwinnett Arena to Doraville MARTA Station (via 16.5 45 minutes 10,290 149,227 5.8 Satellite Blvd/Buford Hwy) Streetcar Mode Gwinnett Arena to Doraville MARTA 16.5 50 minutes 9,570 611,345 8.0 Station (via Satellite Blvd/Buford Hwy)

7.2.3 Station/Stop Location

Description of Initial Station Stop Location Options

A number of different station/stop location programs were identified for improved transit service within the l-85 Corridor. These included maintaining all existing stops and establishing a system of express and local stops, which would result in maintaining current stops for local service and designating specific stops for express service; and a program which would space stations 1/2 to 3 miles apart, focused on local and regional activity centers. The potential station/stops location programs are further described below.

 Option 1: Maintain All Existing Stops: Currently, most bus routes running along the alignments stop near every major street crossing or roughly every 1/8 to 1/2 mile. The advantage of such a system is that it reduces the distance passengers must walk in order to access transit services. The disadvantage is that stopping every block to load and unload passengers results in slower overall service, which inconveniences passengers using the service for longer distance trips and reduces transit’s appeal compared to the automobile.

 Option 2: Establish a System of Express and Local Station Stops: A system of express and local stops enables riders traveling long distances to make use of the more efficient express service, while those traveling shorter distances can continue to ride the local service. One concern, however, is that passengers who unknowingly board the express service might miss their stop and then would have to double back.

 Option 3: Space Station Stops Approximately One Mile or More Apart, Focused On Regional Activity Centers: This spacing is more typical of high

156 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

capacity, high quality transit service. The stops are located close enough to each other to provide acceptable pedestrian access near key corridor activity centers, while the spacing allows transit vehicles to attain higher average speeds and reduces cumulative dwell time at stops. By focusing station stop locations on local activity centers, access is provided to high volumes of passengers.

First Screening Results

Evaluation of potential station/stop location programs was based on the need to provide higher capacity, higher quality transit service than is currently available along the alignment options. By improving passenger information, increasing service frequencies, and giving signal priority to buses. With frequent stops, buses cannot sustain high speeds and they must exit and re-enter traffic frequently, causing delays for transit users and motorists.

These physical changes may lead to minor enhancements in travel time for buses, but they will likely slow automobile traffic and lead to additional queuing behind buses. Clearly, transit performance and along with it automobile travel would be improved by increasing the distance between stops.

For this reason, Station/Stop Option 1, to maintain service at all existing stops, has been eliminated from further analysis.

Station/Stop Option 2, a new system of express and local stops, would similarly provide little advantage over the existing service. First, the current system already provides local service, supported by routes that serve all stops along alignment options. Current bus service along major streets like Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road and Buford Highway and adjoining neighborhoods and activity centers is generally quite extensive. Second, with implementation of on street parking and pedestrian crossing improvements, it will be more difficult to accommodate multiple, overlapping bus routes in the narrower roadway. A station/stop-spacing alternative such as Station/Stop Option 2 would further complicate bus and general traffic movement along Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Brookhollow Parkway, and Buford Highway. This alternative will be evaluated in as much as it replicates baseline conditions, taking into account only those transit improvements already in place or planned for the corridor.

Station/Stop Option 3, with station stops one mile or more apart and focused on local activity centers, is considered most appropriate for implementation within the l-85 Corridor. This spacing allows for more efficient operations because transit vehicles spend a greater portion of overall travel time moving passengers and less time stopped to load and unload. The majority of stops in Station Option 3 are located at designated revitalization districts and activity centers, in order to support economic development initiatives and provide access to areas with concentrations of employment, residents, or recreation opportunities.

157 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Table 7-5 shows the Build Alternative alignment stop locations that will be evaluated. Unless otherwise noted, station stops at major intersections will be split far-side configuration, with eastbound stops located east of the crossing street, and westbound stops located west of the crossing street.

Table 7-5: Build Alternative Alignment Station Locations Distance Station Access Road Intersection/Site Between Stations (miles) Gwinnett Arena Sugarloaf Parkway North Entrance To Arena NA

Duluth Highway Satellite Boulevard Duluth Highway 1.58 Gwinnett Transit Satellite Boulevard Gwinnett Plantation Way 2.80 Center West Liddell Satellite Boulevard West Liddell Road 1.40

Indian Trail Indian Trail Lilburn Road Indian Trail Park and Ride 2.79

Center Way Brookhollow Parkway Center Way 1.70

Jimmy Carter Brookhollow Parkway Jimmy Carter Boulevard 0.88

Best Friend Best Friend Road Nancy Hanks Drive 1.00

Button Gwinnett Button Gwinnett Drive Baker Drive NW 1.37

Johnson Buford Highway Johnson Drive 1.26

Doraville Rail Station Buford Highway Doraville Rail Station 1.72 Length of Build Alternative Alignment from Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station 16.50 (excluding 0.25 miles of tail track).

Station Stops Selected for Further Evaluation

The Build Alternative alignment will be carried forward as part of the evaluation, and all station stops associated with the option will be carried forward. Figure 7-1 maps the Build Alternative alignment and station locations.

158 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Figure 7-1: Build Alternative Alignment and Station Locations

159 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

7.3 Propulsion

Description of Propulsion Technologies

Propulsion technologies may be defined in terms of the types of fuel or mechanisms to deliver energy to transit vehicles. Six potential technologies have been identified: diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), hybrid (diesel-electric or CNG-electric), overhead electric, embedded third rail (Innorail) electric, and fuel cell. A brief description of each technology follows.

Diesel Fuel

Diesel fuel is widely available. Local bus fleets most commonly use diesel engines. Concern about localized emissions from diesel engines can make the technology less desirable, especially in urbanized areas. Cleaner low-sulfur diesel fuel is used by transit providers to address these air quality concerns.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

According to the APTA Resource Guide, CNG fuels approximately 7.5% of the transit bus fleet nationwide with more than 70 agencies operating natural gas buses. In recent years, Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) has acquired 28 CNG-powered, which it uses in its local service. The CNG buses, along with GCT’s diesel buses, are stored at its Remington Park Court vehicle storage and maintenance yard.

Hybrid (Diesel-Electric and CNG-Electric)

Hybrid vehicles are generally driven by an electric motor, whose batteries are charged by an internal combustion often diesel engine. Because the diesel or CNG engine is employed only to recharge the electric batteries, engine size and emissions may be considerably less in hybrid vehicles relative to typical diesel vehicles. Hybrids typically have regenerative braking; they capture energy dissipated in slowing the vehicle down for later use in propulsion.

Diesel-electric hybrid technology is favored by many agencies because their existing maintenance infrastructures are equipped to handle diesel propulsion systems. CNG-electric hybrids are less common, but have been tested in U.S. cities such as Denver and Seattle.

Overhead Electric

Overhead electric power is widely used for both steel-wheeled and rubber-tired transit modes. Vehicles are driven by electric motors that draw electrical current by means of contacts (or pantographs) atop the vehicles that slide along contact wires suspended above

160 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process the street or guideway. Power substations along the transit route convey electricity from the power utility to the overhead contact system (OCS). This manner of delivering electricity to vehicles is safe and convenient for street-running operations because it positions the high voltage wires high above, away from pedestrians and automobiles. On the other hand, OCS hardware, including contact wires, supporting lines, and poles may be considered visually obtrusive. Vehicles propelled by electric motors are generally more powerful, less polluting and less noisy than their internal combustion counterparts.

Examples of systems using overhead electric power are the Baltimore MTA’s LRT system, San Francisco’s Muni trolleybus lines, and the Portland Streetcar system.

Third Rail Electric

An old technology that is currently seeing resurgence is an embedded third rail that allows safe pedestrian and vehicle contact. Third rail electric power is typically associated with heavy rail systems, where an exposed continuous metal rail delivers electrical current via contact on the outside of the vehicle. A new configuration Innorail being applied by Alstom in a streetcar system in Bordeaux, France, uses an embedded center contact rail that is engaged in segments as vehicles pass over them. Transmitters located adjacent to the contact skates tell the segments of rail to turn on and off so that only the portion of the third rail directly beneath the tram vehicle is electrified. Pedestrians and motorists traveling over the contact rail are thus kept safe from touching any live conductors.

The Bordeaux third rail approach has been well received because it removes the visual impact of overhead wires associated with typical streetcar installations. The contact system, designed by the Paris-based firm INNORAIL (a subsidiary of SPIE-Enertrans), in collaboration with Electricité de France, is not yet widely used. Operations on the first Bordeaux line began in early 2004 but have been complicated with insulation problems in connection with the new third rail system. Higher installation costs and potentially higher maintenance and life cycle costs area also a concern. Service on portions of two additional tram lines opened in spring 2004.

Fuel Cell Technology

Fuel cells produce electricity by directly mixing without combustion hydrogen stored as fuel and oxygen taken from the air. The electric current generated is then used, in different equipment configurations, to operate electric motors already typical in transit vehicle applications. The technology is attractive because it offers a non-polluting (its only byproducts are water and carbon dioxide) alternative to heavily imported petroleum-based fuels.

161 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Fuel cell-driven transit vehicles are still generally in development and testing. The Fuel Cell Bus Program at Georgetown University (GU), funded by grants from FTA, has produced two generations of increasingly efficient fuel cell-powered transit buses. According to the Program Overview, “The key objectives of GU's Advanced Vehicle program are to support the development of fuel cell technology and assist industry in the commercialization of fuel cells for transit applications.”

First Screening Results

The criteria by which propulsion types were initially evaluated are outlined below. If a propulsion type does not meet each of these criteria, then it is considered to be infeasible and will be dropped from further evaluation. The criteria used in this first level screening exercise include:

 Shared Travel Lanes: The transit system does not operate in exclusive lanes along major streets along Build Alternative alignment. This provision limits the propulsion technologies to those that would be safe in mixed traffic, including pedestrian crossing areas,

 Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure: Propulsion technologies that are currently in use for transit vehicles by GCT or MARTA are suitable for further consideration. Technologies for which adequate maintenance infrastructure and technical expertise may be obtained in the region would also be considered further, and

 Limited Environmental Impacts. Technologies that would inhibit attainment of regional air quality conformance would not be suitable for future implementation along Build Alternative alignment. It should be noted that ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel would not inhibit attainment of regional air quality goals.

Propulsion Types Selected for Further Evaluation

The initial list of alternatives (Table 7-6) considered represents a continuum of viable propulsion types for use along Build Alternative alignment. The initial screening process highlighted features including typical environmental effects, compatibility with existing technology, and compatibility with street running transit in mixed traffic that would render the alternatives suitable or unsuitable for implementation within the l-85 Corridor. Propulsion types that were found to be suitable for further study include clean diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG).

162 I-85 Corridor AA Study Screening and Selection Process

Table 7-6: Initial Screening Results

Criteria for General Suitability Shared Travel Suitable for Compatibility Limited Propulsion Type Lanes Further with Existing Environmental with Vehicular Study Infrastructure Impacts Traffic Clean Diesel Fuel Yes Yes Yes Yes

CNG Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hybrid (Diesel-electric) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Overhead Electric Yes Yes Yes Yes Embedded Third Rail Yes No Yes No Electric Fuel Cell Yes No Yes No

163 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

8.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives considered as part of the l-85 Corridor initiative. The alternatives include:

 No Action Alternative,

 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative, and

 Streetcar Alternative.

Each of these alternatives is described in detail, including alignment, street configuration, station stop location and concept design, vehicle technology, operating characteristics, passenger information systems, and Park-and-Ride facilities.

The initial screening of alternatives yielded a “short list” of alternatives to be analyzed for the major technical task of the l-85 Corridor. However, as a precursor to more detailed analysis, the characteristics of each of the alternatives must be clearly defined. The following subsections contain detailed definitions of the three alternatives - a No Action Alternative, and two Build Alternatives. To facilitate comparisons between alternatives, the descriptions follow parallel sequences. For each alternative, there is an overview, a list of key features, a summary of physical characteristics, and a description of operational characteristics.

8.1 No Action Alternative

8.1.1 Overview

The No Action Alternative serves as a starting point for developing project alternatives. Typically, the No Action Alternative consists of the existing highway and transit networks, plus committed improvements from the region’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and projects in the Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (RTP) that are likely to be built, and all reasonable service improvements in the designated study corridor short of major capital investment.

For the l-85 Corridor, the base year for comparison will be 2040, which is the most recent ARC forecast year. ARC Plan 2040, the RTP, was adopted by the ARC Board on July 27, 2011. The RTP is a required to have a minimum 20-year planning horizon and include all surface transportation modes. The RTP lists transportation projects that are priorities for the region. These projects fall into three funding categories: programmed, long range, and illustrative. Programmed projects are those that have funding established, are expected to be completed in the near term, and are listed in the TIP. Long-range projects are those that are not programmed for specific funding, but have been identified as a priority and are within

164 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives the funding resources projected to be available to the region within the RTP 20-year timeframe. Illustrative projects are those which have been identified as desirable but are beyond the current funding resources projected to be available to the region within the RTP timeframe. The RTP includes projects within the I-85 Corridor. Road projects for the I-85 Corridor as shown on Figure 8-1 are discussed in the following sections.

Table 8-1 lists the programmed road projects in the I-85 Corridor. There are 14 programmed road projects of which seven are capacity projects. The remaining projects included managed lanes on a section of I-85 and roadway operations and safety projects.

Table 8-2 lists the long-range road projects in the I-85 Corridor. There are 11 long- range road projects of which 9 are capacity projects. The two remaining projects are both managed lanes on additional sections of I-85.

Table 8-3 lists the aspirations road projects in the I-85 Corridor. There are 22 aspirations road projects of which 16 are capacity projects. The remaining 6 projects are for expansion of the managed lanes system on I-85.

In addition to projects that have a specific location, the RTP and TIP also account for programmatic transportation spending on categories such as maintenance at a regional level. Although these types of projects are not displayed on Figure 8-1 or listed in Table 8-1 through Table 8-3, they are still accounted for within the I-85 Corridor.

Probably the most significant road projects listed in the RTP and TIP within the I-85 Corridor entails the extension of the existing managed lane/high occupancy toll (HOT) lane system on I-85, in that the HOT lane system may compete with transit for at least some of the commuter market.

165 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-1: Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040

166 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-1: Programmed Road Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040

ARC ID Project Description Extent Location Project Type GW-290 SR 120 (Duluth Highway) At Singleton Creek Gwinnett County Roadway/Bridge Upgrade SR 120 (Abbotts Bridge From Parsons Road (Southern Intersection) to Fulton County Roadway/General Purpose FN-264 Road/Duluth Highway) PIB (North) Capacity Widening Metro Arterial Connector From SR 316 East of Lawrenceville to SR 20 (Alignment Bypassing city of Regional - Roadway/General Purpose GW-308B (Buford Drive/Mall of Georgia Parkway) near Lawrenceville) - Sugarloaf Northeast Capacity Intersection with SR 324 (Gravel Springs Road) Parkway Extension: Phase 2 Sugarloaf Parkway Extension: From SR 20 (Buford Highway/Mall of Georgia Roadway/General Purpose GW-308C Gwinnett County Phase 3 Parkway) to PIB Capacity Metro Arterial Connector - SR From Chattahoochee River to PIB in Gwinnett Regional - Roadway/General Purpose GW-020A1 20 (Cumming Highway/Nelson County - Excludes Chattahoochee River Bridge Northeast Capacity Brogdon Boulevard) From Intersection of West Lawrenceville Street Roadway/General Purpose GW-AR-242 Hospital Drive Connector Road and McClure Bridge Road to SR 120 (Abbotts Gwinnett County Capacity Bridge Road) Walther Boulevard Grade Roadway/General Purpose GW-379 At SR 316 Gwinnett County Separation Capacity GW-AR- At SR 20/124 (Buford Drive) and Collins Hill Regional - Roadway/Interchange SR 316 Grade Separation 204B Road Northeast Capacity AR-ML-400 I-85 North Managed Lanes From Brookwood Interchange to I-285 N Regional - Central Roadway/Managed Lanes US 23 (Buford Highway) From SR 140 (Jimmy Carter Boulevard) to SR Roadway/Operations & GW-357 Gwinnett County Medians 378 (Beaver Ruin Road) Safety Pleasant Hill Road Advanced From US 23 (Buford Highway) to Fulton county Roadway/Operations & GW-326 Gwinnett County Traffic Management System line Safety Downtown Lawrenceville Roadway/Operations & GW-342 Pedestrian Improvements & Gwinnett County Safety One-Way Pair Conversion I-85 North Diverging Diamond Regional - Roadway/Operations & GW-345A At Jimmy Carter Boulevard Interchange Northeast Safety I-85 North Diverging Diamond Regional - Roadway/Operations & GW-346A At Pleasant Hill Road Interchange Northeast Safety

167 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-2: Long Range Road Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040

ARC ID Project Description Extent Location Project Type SR 141 (Peachtree Roadway/General Purpose GW-374 Parkway/Medlock Bridge Road) From PIB to State Bridge Road Regional - Northeast Capacity Widening From SR 124 (Braselton Highway) to Roadway/General Purpose GW-364 SR 20 (Buford Drive) Widening Gwinnett County Hurricane Shoals Road Capacity SR 140 (Jimmy Carter From SR 13 (Buford Highway) to SR 141 Roadway/General Purpose GW-371 Gwinnett County Boulevard) Widening (PIB) Capacity Metro Arterial Connector - SR Roadway/General Purpose GW-020D From I-85 North to Rock Springs Road Regional - Northeast 20 (Buford Drive) Capacity US 23 (Buford Highway): From Old Peachtree Road to Sugarloaf Roadway/General Purpose GW-099A Gwinnett County Segment 1 Parkway Capacity From McClure Bridge Road to Roadway/General Purpose GW-271B Pleasant Hill Road Gwinnett County Chattahoochee River Capacity From Steve Reynolds Boulevard to West Liddell Road/Club Drive Satellite Boulevard (Includes I-85 Bridge) - Roadway/General Purpose GW-309 Gwinnett County Connector Design Phase Will Include Access Capacity Management Plan From Ashford Dunwoody Road to SR 141 Roadway/Interchange DK-401 I-285 North CD Lanes Regional - Perimeter (PIB) Capacity From US 23 (Buford Highway) to I-85 Roadway/Interchange DK-402 I-285 North CD Lanes Regional - Perimeter North Capacity I-285 North Managed Lanes AR-ML-200 From I-75 North to I-85 North Regional - Perimeter Roadway/Managed Lanes and CD Improvements AR-ML-410 I-85 North Managed Lanes From Old Peachtree Road to SR 211 Regional - Northeast Roadway/Managed Lanes

168 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-3: Road Aspirations Projects for the I-85 AA Corridor from ARC Plan 2040

ARC ID Project Description Extent Location Project Type From Johnson Ferry Road to I-285 Roadway/General Purpose ASP-DK-397 SR 141 (PIB) Widening DeKalb County Frontage Road Capacity Roadway/General Purpose ASP-FT-327 McGinnis Ferry Road Widening From Brookwood Road to PIB Forsyth County Capacity ASP-GW- Roadway/General Purpose I-85 North CD Lanes From I-985 to SR 20 Regional - Northeast 373 Capacity ASP-GW- SR 124 (Braselton Highway) From SR 20 (Buford Drive) to Hamilton Roadway/General Purpose Gwinnett County 361 Widening Mill Road Capacity ASP-GW- From Rock Springs Road to Old Roadway/General Purpose SR 20 (Buford Drive) Widening Gwinnett County 363 Peachtree Road Capacity ASP-GW- From Peachtree Parkway to Sugarloaf Roadway/General Purpose PIB Grade Separation Gwinnett County 376 Parkway Capacity ASP-GW- SR 378 (Beaver Ruin Road) From Ronald Reagan Parkway Extension Roadway/General Purpose Gwinnett County 372 Widening (near Plantation Road) to I-85 North Capacity ASP-GW- From Pleasant Hill Road to SR 20 Roadway/General Purpose Satellite Boulevard Widening Gwinnett County 377 (Nelson Brogdon Boulevard/Buford Drive) Capacity From I-285 North to SR 140 (Jimmy Roadway/General Purpose ASP-AR-950 I-85 North CD Lanes Regional - Northeast Carter Boulevard) Capacity Roadway/General Purpose ASP-AR-952 I-85 North CD Lanes From Old Peachtree Road to I-985 Regional - Northeast Capacity From SR 140 (Jimmy Carter Boulevard) Roadway/General Purpose ASP-AR-951 I-85 North CD Lanes Regional - Northeast to Pleasant Hill Road Capacity ASP-GW- US 29 (Winder Highway) From SR 124 (Scenic Highway) to SR Roadway/General Purpose Gwinnett County 369 Widening 316 Capacity ASP-GW- US 23 (Buford Highway) From Sugarloaf Parkway to SR 20 Roadway/General Purpose Gwinnett County 362 Widening (Nelson Brogdon Boulevard) Capacity From Current Terminus at Pleasant Hill ASP-GW- Ronald Reagan Parkway Road Westward to SR 378 (Beaver Ruin Roadway/General Purpose Gwinnett County 378 Extension Road) and Northward to Steve Reynolds Capacity Boulevard ASP-GW- Roadway/Interchange I-85 North At McGinnis Ferry Road Extension Regional - Northeast 358 Capacity ASP-GW- At SR 324 (Gravel Springs Road) in Roadway/Interchange 359 I-85 North Regional - Northeast Gwinnett County Capacity

ASP-AR-ML- I-285 East Managed Lanes From I-20 East to I-85 North Regional - Perimeter Roadway/Managed Lanes

169 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

ARC ID Project Description Extent Location Project Type 240 ASP-AR-ML- SR 316 Managed Lanes From I-85 to High Hope Road Regional - Northeast Roadway/Managed Lanes 440 ASP-AR-ML- I-85 North Managed Lanes From I-285 to I-985 Regional - Northeast Roadway/Managed Lanes 420 ASP-AR-ML- Managed Lane Interchange At I-85 North at I-985 Regional Roadway/Managed Lanes 014 Modifications ASP-AR-ML- Managed Lane Interchange At I-285 North at PIB Regional Roadway/Managed Lanes 022 Modifications Interchange Modifications to ASP-AR-ML- Support Tier 4 Managed Lane At Several Interchanges Regional Roadway/Managed Lanes 040 Network

170 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

8.1.2 Planned and Programmed Transit Improvements

ARC’s RTP (Plan 2040) places significant emphasis on investing in transit. Of the $60.9 billion in the constrained RTP, $26.3 billion (or 43 percent) is provided for transit. Most of that $26.3 billion is allocated to transit infrastructure modernization ($22.8 billion), with $3.5 billion allocated to transit expansion. Transit expansion is constrained due to limited funding from the Federal New Starts funding program. In 2014, the Plan 2040 was updated in response to the reauthorization of national transportation funding through MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century). The updated Plan placed greater emphasis on preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system versus expanding it.

8.1.3 Relevant Programmed Transit Projects

Relevant projects in the FY 2012–2017 TIP are described below. Table 8-4 shows Gwinnett County’s allocation of FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) funds and the associated project development phase. These funds are typically used to sustain existing transit services, rather than fund expansion projects.

Table 8-4: Programmed Projects – Gwinnett County Transit Project Estimated Sponsor Number Project Description Phase Year Cost ($) CST* 2012 8,015,795 CST 2013 8,176,110 CST 2014 8,250,000 AR-5307- FTA Section 5307/5340 Formula Funds Gwinnett CST 2015 8,250,000 GW Allocation for Gwinnett County CST 2016 8,250,000 CST 2017 8,250,000 Total 49,191,905 *CST = Construction.

Table 8-5 shows GRTA’s Section 5307 allocations, as well as additional state and federal funding for GRTA’s Xpress bus operations and bus purchases to support expansion of the Xpress program. It is assumed that some of these funds will be used to support Xpress bus operations in Gwinnett County. Also included in this table is the funding in the TIP for the preparation of alternatives analyses and Tier 1 environmental impact statements for select regional transit corridors, such as the Gwinnett County I-85 Corridor, as well as funding in the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) category for a regional transit system capital and preventive maintenance, with recipients to be determined.

171 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Relevant Long-Range Transit Projects

This section summarizes relevant transit projects in the RTP that are beyond the current TIP timeframe.

Table 8-6 shows the continuation of state funding for GRTA’s Xpress bus operations, regional allocations of Section 5307 funds, and regional allocations of Section 5309 funds for rail modernization through the year 2040. Also included in this table is continued funding in the CMAQ category for a regional transit system capital and preventive maintenance through 2030.

Table 8-7 shows the funding in the long-range for major transit expansion projects. Funding is identified in the 2018–2030 time period for protective right-of-way purchases along the I-285 North high capacity rail transit corridor from Cumberland to Perimeter Center and from Perimeter Center to Norcross.

Relevant Aspirations Plan Transit Projects

The 2008 adoption of Concept 3 marked a major milestone in regional transportation history. As previously discussed, Concept 3 was developed through a collaborative, multiyear effort led by the TPB, a predecessor to today's RTC. It is a long-term, multifaceted strategy for pursuing priority transit expansion projects. Concept 3 is included in its entirety as the transit element of the RTP, either in the financially constrained RTP or in the Aspirations Plan.

172 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-5: Relevant Programmed Projects – Regional Transit Project Estimated Sponsor Project Description Phase Year Number Cost ($) CST 2012 2,167,538 CST 2013 2,210,890 CST 2014 2,250,000 AR-5307- FTA Section 5307/5340 Formula Funds GRTA CST 2015 2,250,000 GRTA Allocation for GRTA CST 2016 2,250,000 CST 2017 2,250,000 Total 13,378,428 GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2012 CST 2012 6,000,000 Assistance GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2013 CST 2013 10,000,000 Assistance GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2014 CST 2014 12,000,000 Assistance GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2015 CST 2015 12,000,000 Assistance GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2016 CST 2016 12,000,000 Assistance GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-280-2017 CST 2017 12,000,000 Assistance GRTA Purchase of Clean Fuel Coaches/ CST 2012 14,000,000 GRTA AR-490 Buses for Xpress Service - Phase II CST 2013 15,000,000 GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating GRTA AR-651 CST 2012 15,618,000 Assistance Preparation of Alternatives Analyses and ARC AR-023 Tier I Environmental Impact Statements for PE** 2012 5,000,000 Selected Regional Transit Corridors Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD* AR-270-2013 CST 2013 25,000,000 Maintenance Program (CMAQ) Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD AR-270-2014 CST 2014 25,000,000 Maintenance Program (CMAQ) Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD AR-270-2015 CST 2015 25,000,000 Maintenance Program (CMAQ) Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD AR-270-2016 CST 2016 25,000,000 Maintenance Program (CMAQ) Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD AR-270-2017 CST 2017 25,000,000 Maintenance Program (CMAQ) Transit System Capital and Preventive TBD AR-271-2012 CST 2012 12,500,000 Maintenance Program (STP URBAN) *TBD = to be determined. **Preliminary Engineering.

173 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-6: Relevant Long-Range Projects – Regional Transit Project Estimated Sponsor Project Description Phase Year Number Cost ($) GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating 2018– GRTA AR-280-LR1 CST 156,000,000 Assistance – FY 2018–2030 2030 GRTA Xpress Bus System Operating 2031– GRTA AR-280-LR2 CST 120,000,000 Assistance – FY 2031–2040 2040 Transit System Capital and Preventive 2018– TBD AR-272-LR1 CST 175,000,000 Maintenance Program – FY 2018–2030 2030 FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds – 2018– TBD AR-5307-LR1 CST 956,173,371 Regional Lump Sum for FY 2018–2030 2030 FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds – 2031– TBD AR-5307-LR2 CST 697,581,064 Regional Lump Sum for FY 2031–2040 2040 FTA Section 5309 Rail Modernization 2018– TBD AR-5309-LR1 Funds – Regional Lump Sum for FY CST 586,570,735 2030 2018–2030 FTA Section 5309 Rail Modernization 2031– TBD AR-5309-LR2 Funds – Regional Lump Sum for FY CST 427,935,611 2040 2018–2030

Table 8-7: Relevant Long-Range Projects – Major Transit Expansion

Project Estimated Sponsor Project Description Phase Year Number Cost ($) I-285 North Corridor High Capacity Rail Service Protective Right of Way Acquisition 2018– TBD AR-409A ROW* 69,000,000 from Cumberland/Galleria Area to 2030 Perimeter Center I-285 North Corridor High Capacity Rail 2018– TBD AR-410A Service Protective Right of Way Acquisition ROW 69,000,000 2030 from Perimeter Center of Norcross *ROW = right of way.

Relevant transit projects in the unfunded Aspirations Plan are described below and shown in Table 8-8. The first four projects are for the segments of the northeast corridor high capacity rail service, the subject of the I-85 AA Corridor Study. These projects extend from the proposed MARTA rail station in Norcross to the Gwinnett Arena, and total $1,066 million. Also included in the Aspirations Plan is the MARTA heavy rail extension from Doraville to Norcross, at $387 million, for a total to extend/provide rail service from Doraville to the Gwinnett Center of $1,453 million.

Also included in the Aspirations Plan are two projects to provide high capacity rail service along the top end of I-285 between the MARTA Doraville Rail Station and the Cumberland/Galleria area, at a total of $1,140 million. In addition to the northeast high capacity rail service, this rail line would also connect to the north corridor high capacity rail line from Perimeter Center to the North Point Mall area and to the northwest corridor high capacity rail line between the Arts Center MARTA Rail Station and Canton in Cherokee County.

174 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Table 8-8: Relevant Unfunded Aspirations Plan Projects Major Transit Expansion Project Estimated Sponsor Project Description Phase Year Number Cost ($) ASP-AR- Northeast Corridor High Capacity Rail Service TBD ALL TBD 152,000,000 401 from Norcross to OFS Site Northeast Corridor High Capacity Rail Service ASP-AR- TBD from OFS Site to Indian Trail Park and Ride ALL TBD 209,000,000 402 Lot Northeast Corridor High Capacity Rail Service ASP-AR- TBD from Indian Trail Park and Ride Lot to ALL TBD 438,000,000 403 Gwinnett Place Mall Area Northeast Corridor High Capacity Rail Service ASP-AR- TBD from Gwinnett Place Mall Area to Gwinnett ALL TBD 267,000,000 404 Arena I-285 North Corridor High Capacity Rail ASP-AR- TBD Service from Cumberland/Galleria Area to ALL TBD 570,000,000 409B Perimeter Center I-285 North Corridor High Capacity Rail ASP-AR- TBD Service from Perimeter Center to Doraville ALL TBD 570,000,000 410B Marta Station ASP-AR- Northeast Corridor Heavy Rail Extension from TBD ALL TBD 387,000,000 427 Doraville Marta Rail Station to Norcross Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Service ASP-AR- TBD from Downtown Atlanta Multimodal Center to ALL TBD 656,000,000 437 Sugar Hill ASP-AR- Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Service TBD ALL TBD 656,000,000 438 Extension from Sugar Hill to Gainesville Innovation Crescent Commuter Rail Service ASP-AR- TBD from Downtown Atlanta Multimodal Center to ALL TBD 630,000,000 441 Lawrenceville ASP-AR- Innovation Crescent Commuter Rail Service TBD ALL TBD 625,000,000 442 from Lawrenceville to Athens ASP-AR- TBD Regional Express Bus Expansion - Phase 1 ALL TBD 73,600,000 497 ASP-AR- TBD Regional Express Bus Expansion - Phase 2 ALL TBD 46,000,000 498 ASP-AR- TBD Regional Express Bus Expansion - Phase 3 ALL TBD 79,500,000 499 ASP-AR- TBD Regional Express Bus Expansion - Phase 4 ALL TBD 14,600,000 500

Another element of the Aspirations Plan for transit is commuter rail lines. Of the commuter rail lines, one is located in the I-85 AA Corridor along the Norfolk Southern (NS) track from the proposed multimodal passenger terminal in downtown Atlanta to Sugar Hill in Gwinnett County and beyond to Gainesville in Hall County. Another commuter rail line would extend from the downtown multimodal passenger terminal along the CSX track to Lawrenceville in Gwinnett County and beyond to Athens. Finally, the transit element of the Aspirations Plan includes regional express bus service expansion in four phases.

175 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Stop Locations

Bus stops along Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Brookhollow Parkway, and Buford Highway are currently located at most intersections, approximately 1/8 to 1/2 mile apart. All stops are equipped with standard GCT route identification signs, as well as special GCT kiosks containing route map and schedule information.

Vehicles

As described above, GCT uses its fleet of 23 40-foot CNG buses in its local service and its fleet of 60 45-foot over the road coaches in its express service. Currently all GCT buses are stored at the Remington Park Court operating and maintenance (O&M) facility in Norcross.

Intelligent Transportation Systems

GCT provides detailed route and schedule information on the internet. Their vehicles are also furnished with radio communication systems and GPS units that allow real-time reporting and location tracking.

8.1.4 Transit Facilities

Transit facilities in the I-85 Corridor include Park-and-Ride lots, and a customer service facility. Their locations are illustrated on Figure 8-2. There are also two transit bus O&M facilities in the study corridor.

176 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-2: Transit Facilities in the l-85 Corridor

177 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Park and Ride Facilities

The GCT and GRTA express routes operate from seven Park-and-Ride facilities. Park- and-Ride lot locations, lot arrangements, transit route connections, and lot capacities are presented in Table 8-9.

Table 8-9: I-85 AA Corridor Park-and-Ride Lots Park & Ride Lot Routes Total Location Lot Arrangement Served Spaces Sugarloaf Mills I-85 @ Sugarloaf Parkway, west side of N. Owned by 103, 103A, 814 (GCT) Brown Road GDOT 10, 40 Sugarloaf Mills I-85 @ Sugarloaf Parkway, northwest corner Leased by 410, 412 750 (GRTA) of mall parking area GRTA I-85 @ Hamilton Mill Road, Wal-Mart Owned by Hamilton Mill 411, 413 911 Supercenter on Sardis Church Road GRTA Hebron Baptist Church in Dacula, Fence Road Leased by Hebron Church 416 400 @ Hebron Church Road GRTA I-85 @ Indian Trail-Lilburn Road northwest Owned by 102, 410, I-85 Indian Trail 493 quadrant GDOT 10, 30 I-985 @ SR 20 southwest quadrant via Owned by I-985 101 718 Satellite Boulevard & Horizon Parkway GDOT I-85 @ SR 20, north side of mall parking area, Leased by Mall of Georgia 411 750 via Woodward Crossing Boulevard GRTA

Maintenance and Customer Service Facilities

GCT’s current contractor, Veolia, operates out of its O&M facility off Buford Highway on Remington Park Court in Norcross. Buses are stored and maintained at the O&M facility. Veolia operates all of GCT’s express and local routes, as well as its ADA paratransit service. Additionally, Veolia operates Xpress Routes 410 and 412 for GCT, as well as Xpress Route 408 for GRTA, out of this facility. Veolia also has a GCT Customer Service Office on Mall Boulevard in Duluth near the Gwinnett Transit Center. The remainder of the GRTA Xpress routes (routes 411, 413, and 416) are operated out of American Coach Lines O&M facility off Buford Highway on Lively Road in Norcross.

Guideway Management

Current bus service operates in mixed traffic. Bus acceleration/dwell lanes at several locations along Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Brookhollow Parkway, and Buford Highway allow two lanes of vehicular traffic to pass stopped transit vehicles. At other stops along the route, buses stop in the outside lane to pick up and drop off passengers at the curb.

178 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Routes, Hours and Headways

The No Action Alternative assumes continuation of transit service in the l-85 Corridor. GCT operates five local bus routes Monday through Friday. Only one of these, Route 10, currently also operates on Saturday. Weekday service generally begins between 5:30 and 6:30 A.M. and ends between 8:00 and 9:30 P.M. The exception to this is Route 10, which operates until 10:30 P.M. on weekdays and on Saturday.

With the exception of Route 10, average frequencies are 30 minutes in the peak periods, 50 or 60 minutes in the midday, and 60 or 75 minutes in the evening. Route 10 offers the most robust service, with frequencies of 15 minutes in the peak and 30 minutes in the midday and evening on weekdays and 60 minutes on Saturday.

Transfers between routes can be made at a number of locations, most notably at the Gwinnett Transit Center near Gwinnett Place Mall, Sugarloaf Mills Mall, and at Buford Highway and N. Norcross-Tucker Road.

The local routes are operated primarily within Gwinnett County. Route 10 provides service to the MARTA system at the MARTA Doraville Rail Station, providing regional connections between the two service areas. The individual routes are described below and summarized in Table 8-10.

Table 8-10: GCT Local Transit Routes and Service

Average Frequency Route Days of Route Name Span of Service Number Service Mid- Peak Evening day Sugarloaf Mills to Gwinnett Weekday 5:20 AM – 10:30 PM 15 30 30 10 Place to MARTA Doraville Station Saturday 6:10 AM – 9:05 PM n/a 60 60 Buford Highway/Singleton to 20 Weekday 6:09 AM – 8:09 PM 30 60 60 Indian Trail Lilburn to Gwinnett Place to 30 Weekday 6:25 AM – 8:40 PM 30 50 75 Buford Highway Technology Park/Peachtree 35 Weekday 5:40 AM –8:08 PM 30 60 60 Corners to Buford Highway Lawrenceville to Sugarloaf 40 Weekday 5:31 AM – 9:30 PM 30 50 75 Mills to Gwinnett Place

8.2 Bus Rapid Transit Build Alternative

8.2.1 Overview

The initial screening of alternatives highlighted Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as one of the two most appropriate transit modes for Build Alternative alignment.

179 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

The Build Alternative, if implemented, would involve significant enhancements to the physical characteristics along the alignment. Buses and station stops would be replaced by significantly upgraded equipment and infrastructure, and curb-to-curb reconstructed segments of roadway would be provided to facilitate movement of buses, to promote traffic and pedestrian safety along the corridor, and to provide a rail-quality ride. The BRT Build Alternative would also involve changes to the GCT’s baseline operating conditions, particularly in terms of the background bus system.

8.2.2 Features

Key features of the BRT Build Alternative are listed below.

 Alignment: In the outside travel lane along Sugarloaf Parkway, Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Indian Trail-Lilburn Road, Brookhollow Parkway, Best Friend Road, Button Gwinnett Drive and Buford Highway to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station,

 Passenger station stops: Typical 75-foot low platform (14 inches high) with a 15- foot ramp at one end, with shelters and amenities,

 Street improvements: Curb-to-curb reconstruction to achieve rail-like ride quality for BRT passengers,

 Vehicle: 60-foot articulated diesel-electric hybrid bus with 4 doors and capacity of 46 seated passengers and 60 standees; rubber-tired for operation on paved way,

 Service span - 7 days per week; from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Headways – 10 minutes for A.M. and P.M. peak periods, 15 minutes throughout the rest of the service day, except 30 minute service from 8:30 to 11:30 P.M.,

 Baseline bus network reconfigured to feed new service along the alignment,

 Park and Ride facilities at the Gwinnett Arena off Sugarloaf Parkway, and

 Addition of two additional highway lanes from where Brookhollow Parkway transitions to Best Friend Road to Button Gwinnett Drive and Buford Highway.

8.2.3 Physical Characteristics

Alignment Option

 Build Alternative Alignment: Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station (via Satellite Boulevard/Buford Highway)

180 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

The northern terminus of the alignment would be near the northernmost entrance to the Gwinnett Arena off Sugarloaf Parkway. The proposed alignment would proceed south through Gwinnett Center towards Satellite Boulevard and turn southwest along Satellite Boulevard towards Gwinnett Place Mall and the Gwinnett Transit Center at Satellite Boulevard and Gwinnett Plantation Way.

The proposed alignment would continue southwest along Satellite Boulevard, operating in mixed traffic in the outside lanes, to its terminus at Beaver Ruin Road, where it would turn southwest on Beaver Ruin Road, then turn southeast on Indian Trail-Lilburn Road towards the existing I-85 Park and Ride lot at Indian Trail-Lilburn Road and Brookhollow Parkway. The proposed alignment would then proceed southwest along Brookhollow Parkway towards Jimmy Carter Boulevard.

The proposed alignment would cross Jimmy Carter Boulevard to serve the OFS redevelopment site and Norcross Industrial District. It would continue along Brookhollow Parkway and Best Friend Road, then turn northwest on Button Gwinnett Drive.

At Buford Highway, it would turn southwest and proceed along Buford Highway and New Peachtree Road towards the Doraville Rail Station.

Access Control

Build Alternative Alignment: from Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station is the alignment follows four lane roadways from Gwinnett Arena (Sugarloaf Parkway) to where Brookhollow Parkway transitions to Best Friend Road. The remainder of the alignment is a two lane roadway (Best Friend Road and Button Gwinnett Drive) until Buford Highway, which is a four-lane highway.

Typical Sections

For the BRT Alternative, BRT vehicles are planned to operate in mixed traffic flow in the outside through travel lanes. The two-lane sections of Button Gwinnett Road and Best Friend Road are proposed to be widened to four-lane roadways to facilitate BRT operations. Figure 8-3 illustrates the basic BRT configuration in mixed traffic flow.

181 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-3: Typical BRT Street Cross-Section

182 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Station Locations and Conceptual Design

Stations are key elements of BRT systems in several ways: First, as the gateway to the BRT network, the station influences the customer perception of the system. The station design and the amenities provided at the station simultaneously distinguish a BRT system from other transit services while providing a smooth transition between transit service types.

Second, BRT station placement affects how many stations are present along a route, impacting transit travel time. The more stations that are located along a BRT corridor, the more a BRT vehicle must stop and the longer the overall end-to-end travel time; therefore, station placement is a trade-off between the ability to serve more destinations and the ability to serve an entire corridor quickly. Station placement also depends on the means of access for passengers. Where passengers tend to arrive by foot, BRT stations should be more closely spaced than where passenger access is mainly through park-and-ride lots. Under the BRT Build Alternative, most station stops will be located approximately one mile or more apart. Locations were determined based on the desire to support development at current and planned activity centers, as well as the need for efficient transit operations. The stations would be branded with a logo and color scheme that is tied into signing and the transit vehicles.

Finally, station layout and curb design must be integrated with passenger vehicles for ease and speed of boarding. This concept, which forms the basis of the Build Alternative station stop platform design, assumes a platform 75 feet in length. A typical effective width of 14 feet behind the roadway curb will accommodate both transit passengers and pedestrians moving along the sidewalk.

Vehicles

The BRT vehicle used for this analysis is rubber-tired for operation on paved surfaces, 65 feet long, and articulated. It has four doors and a low floor, allowing for fast and easy boarding and wheelchair accessibility. It has 66 seats and may accommodate up to 34 standees, for a total of 100 passengers. The vehicle may use hybrid electric propulsion, or may be configured to run on diesel or compressed natural gas (CNG).

Similar BRT vehicles are being used in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Cleveland in the U.S. Figure 8-4 is a photograph and Figure 8-5 is a schematic illustration of a typical BRT vehicle.

183 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-4: Typical BRT Bus

184 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-5: BRT Vehicle Dimensions

185 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Queue Lanes

Delay at intersections from queuing vehicles impacts bus performance. The cumulative impact of intersection delay can significantly hinder bus on-time performance and operating speed. Queue jump lanes are a way to minimize the travel time delays through special priority lanes, often right-hand turn lanes that permit transit through movements. This allows transit vehicles to bypass long queues at congested points, including intersections and bridge approaches, and can provide an important competitive advantage in heavy congested corridor schedule reliability. Queue jump lanes reduce transit delays, improve travel speeds, and increase reliability. The ability to provide queue jump lanes could mean the difference between the ability to provide conventional local bus service or more premium BRT services. Figure 8-6 through Figure 8-10 below are examples of different queue jump configurations.

Queue jump lanes are typically installed at heavily congested intersections, with priority given to those intersections offering the greatest benefits to transit. They are often combined with TSP and can be integrated with an approach where the main stop bar for mixed traffic is offset from the intersection by several car lengths, giving transit a one to two car advantage to pull out from the intersection compared to the mixed-flow travel lanes.

Queue jump lanes can also be designed to facilitate bus turning movements (left or right). Queue jump lanes can be placed adjacent to the curb or the center median, or in an adjoining lane. The length of a queue jump lane can vary on the relative length of the peak period queue in adjacent lanes.

186 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-6: Queue Jump Configuration with Right-Turn Lane with Transit Exemption

Notes:

 Buses are allowed in the right-turn only lane, are exempt from making the turn, and permitted to make a straight-ahead movement across the intersection. Only buses are permitted to pull out ahead of the mixed-flow traffic.

 Bus flow may be disrupted by right-turning vehicles and loading/unloading vehicles at the curb. Signage is necessary to show that straight-ahead movements are prohibited for general traffic.

 Effectiveness is improved if the queue lane is integrated with transit signal priority.

187 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-7: Queue Jump Configuration with Adjacent to Right-Turn Lane (Chevron Lane)

Notes:

 A bus only lane prior to the intersection and adjacent to the right-turn only lane. Buses can bypass the queues in the through and right turn traffic lanes.

 Additional right hand turn lane is necessary, which may increase costs or require road widening. Signage is necessary to alert motorists that the lane is for buses only.

 The length of the queue jump approach exceeds the maximum observed length in the adjacent mixed traffic lanes.

 Only buses are allowed in the queue jump lane.

 Effectiveness is improved if the queue lane is integrated with transit signal priority.

188 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-8: Queue Jump Configuration with Advanced Stop Bar

Notes:

 A bus only lane is created at the curb, which ends at the main stop line. Adjacent mixed-flow lanes fall short of the intersection by several car lengths or more. This permits the bus to pull out ahead of the mixed-flow traffic.

 Allows buses to enter the intersection earlier than mixed traffic flows, allowing buses to merge more safely and effectively. The bus must cut across at least one lane, which may cause safety concerns. Right-turning vehicles may accidentally use the queue jump lane if signage is poor or confusing.

 Effectiveness is improved if the queue lane is integrated with transit signal priority.

189 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-9: Queue Jump Configuration with Transit Exemption

Notes:

 Similar to Figure 8-6, except the curbside lane is a bus-only lane with right turns permitted by other vehicles.

 Bus flow may be disrupted by right-turning vehicles and loading/unloading vehicles at the curb. Signage is necessary to show that general traffic is prohibited from using the lane.

 Effectiveness is improved if the queue lane is integrated with transit signal priority.

190 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

1. Figure 8-10: Queue Jump Configuration Integrated with Curbside Bus-Only Lane and “Porkchop” Island

Notes:

 Similar to Figure 8-7, except a “porkchop” island is used to segregate buses from turning traffic.

 Right turning vehicles are better segregated from the straight ahead bus movement. This is less confusing to drivers than other layouts. It also provides an island refuge for pedestrians. Bus flow may be disrupted by right-turning vehicles and vehicles parked at the curb to load/unload. Signage is necessary to show that straight-ahead movements are prohibited for general traffic.

 Effectiveness is improved if the queue lane is integrated with transit signal priority.

191 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology can help increase quality of service, improve operations, and provide passengers with timely and reliable information about BRT service. A key ITS application is Transit Signal Priority (TSP).

TSP is an operational strategy that facilitates the movement of transit vehicles (usually those in-service), buses, LRT, or streetcars, through traffic-signal controlled intersections. Objectives of TSP include improved schedule adherence and improved transit travel time efficiency while minimizing impacts to normal traffic operations.

TSP is made up of the four components listed below.

1. A detection system that lets the TSP system know where the vehicle requesting signal priority is located.

2. The detection system communicates with a priority request generator that alerts the traffic control system that the vehicle would like to receive priority.

3. There is software that processes the request and decides whether and how to grant priority based on the programmed priority control strategies.

4. Software that manages the system, collects data, and generates reports.

Figure 8-4: Transit Signal Priority Example

Typically, TSP is assumed to be feasible where the roadway level of service (LOS) is in the C or D range. LOS A or B represents more free-flow traffic conditions, where priority

192 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives would not give a BRT vehicle an extra advantage. LOS E or F represents failing traffic conditions, where congestion would be so great a BRT vehicle cannot effectively actuate priority calls. In those cases, TSP may provide minimal benefit to bus operations and increase overall delay to other vehicles.

The results of a TSP study completed in 2006 found a 12%-15% reduction in bus travel time during A.M. peak hours (7 A.M.-9 A.M.) and 4-11% reduction during P.M. peak hours (4 P.M.-6 P.M.) could be achieved by providing signal priority for buses. Average bus delay time was reduced in the range of 16%-20% and 5%-14% during A.M. and P.M. peak periods, respectively. The signal priority strategy caused increases of travel time for non-transit vehicles of about 6 seconds per vehicle during A.M. peak and 22 seconds in the P.M. peak periods. The average number of non-transit vehicle stops increased from 1.6 stops/vehicle to 1.7 stops/vehicle during A.M. peak hours and from 2.0 stops/vehicle to 2.4 stops/vehicle during P.M. peak period.8

Other ITS applications can aid passengers with travel decisions by providing timely and reliable information. Riders can learn of the next BRT vehicle to arrive or route delays over the internet, through real-time information displays at BRT stations, or through a user’s mobile phone. This study assumed the use of real-time passenger information at stations for the Build Alternatives.

BRT Park-and-Ride Facilities

A new Transit Terminal/Park-and-Ride facility could be designated at the Gwinnett Arena. Further analysis considering size requirements and configuration of facilities, potential impacts to existing land uses, potential environmental effects, and other factors will be undertaken once Gwinnett County decides to advance the selected alternative to the next phase of project development. For the purposes of cost estimating for this study, a 500- space parking garage was assumed.

Storage and Maintenance Facilities

The BRT Build Alternative will require a storage and maintenance facility for vehicles. The maintenance required can be divided into the following categories:

 Daily Maintenance: Interior and exterior cleaning,

 Inspections: Daily inspections of equipment and components to ensure state of good repair. The vehicle may require periodic inspections, depending on local statutes and codes,

8 Chen-Fu Liao and Gary A. Davis, “Bus Signal Priority Based on GPS and Wireless Communications Phase I – Simulation Study”, July 2006.

193 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

 Running Repairs: Reactive type of maintenance to attend to problems that can affect the in-service performance of the vehicle, e.g. broken glass, graffiti, and trouble lights affecting propulsion and braking. These maintenance items require quick action to repair and return to service,

 Component Change-out/Cyclical Maintenance: This category is two staged. Component change out can be required for either a repair or a cyclical maintenance item. When a major component fails it will need to be removed and replaced. When a major component has reached the end of its predictable service life, it will also need to be removed and replaced,

 Heavy Repair: Major accidents requiring extensive body repair, frame repair and repainting, and

 Overhauls: Time or mileage based cyclical maintenance that entails removing, rebuilding, or replacing all major components involved with the state of good repair of the subject vehicle.

A storage and maintenance facility will be located during the next phase of the study. The preferred site should be located in proximity to the alignment. The size of the facility would require a land parcel “footprint” of approximately 7 to 9 acres, inclusive of roadways and parking. The facility will include a perimeter security system, climate- controlled administration offices, electronically-controlled access, security monitoring systems throughout the building and grounds, handicap accessibility to all areas, specialized bus maintenance equipment, fluid dispensing and diesel fueling systems and tanks, bus washer with water reclamation system body repair, frame repair and repainting facility, and money handling systems. The site must have effective connectivity to the highway road network, and access to utilities including water, gas, electricity, sewer, and communications.

8.2.4 Operating Characteristics

Guideway Management

From end to end of the study corridor, BRT vehicles within run along the outside lanes of existing streets and would typically share lanes with vehicular traffic.

194 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Hours, Headways, Operating Speed

Proposed service hours would be:

 All days from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.

 Saturdays and Sundays: from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M., and

 Headways – 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M.; 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays.

Because the new service would run in shared lanes, operating speeds would be affected by posted speed limits and prevailing traffic conditions. As Table 8-11 indicates, the posted speed limit ranges from 40 to 45 mph along Alignment Option1.

Table 8-11: Posted Speed Limits along Build Alternative Alignment Street Speed Limits (MPH) Satellite Boulevard 45 Beaver Ruin Road 45 Brookhollow Parkway 45 Best Friend Road 40 Button Gwinnett Drive 40 Buford Highway 45

Feeder Service

Along the alignment, the street cross-section around the stations will be redesigned to include wider sidewalks and new transit station stops. Also, two additional highway lanes would be added from where Brookhollow Parkway transitions to Best Friend Road to the Button Gwinnett Drive and Buford Highway intersection. In general, where feeder bus routes cross or turn onto alignment, bus stops would be located on side streets off and as close as possible to the proposed BRT station stops. Bus routes that continue to run along Satellite Boulevard and Beaver Ruin Road would be allowed to stop at the proposed BRT station stop locations. The new transit station stops would be designed to accommodate the BRT vehicle. Stops for a typical feeder route or existing bus service routes would be positioned adjacent to the BRT station.

195 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Fare Policy/Pricing

The goal of the BRT fare system is to speed the boarding process. This can be achieved by forcing fare payment and validation to take place prior to boarding the vehicle. Ticket vending/validating machines can be provided on the BRT station platform for patrons to buy and validate their ticket prior to boarding and by using a proof of payment (POP) system to enforce fare payment.

POP fare collection improves transit operations by speeding up passenger loading and reducing delays resulting from serving stops, because it allows passengers who already have a POP to use all doors for boarding and alighting. The issue of passenger boarding and alighting times becomes increasingly important with larger vehicles. The reduction in delay achievable through POP also improves service reliability which, in turn, means that the BRT buses are better able to accommodate surge loading at individual stops.

There are costs associated with the operation of a POP fare system because of the requirement for the periodic presence of fare inspection and enforcements officers. Also, fare evasion may be higher on proof-of-payment systems than on the GCT’s current “pay-on-entry”. These two issues are, of course, related because increased enforcement can reduce fare evasion and vice versa. There needs to be a balance struck between the investment made in fare enforcement and the resulting fare evasion rate.

A significant weakness of the pay-on-entry system, however, is the requirement for all passengers boarding surface vehicles to enter through the front door and to do fare transactions directly with the operator. On busy routes, this time-consuming process results in slower and less-reliable service for passengers.

8.3 Streetcar Build Alternative

8.3.1 Overview

The initial screening of alternatives highlighted Streetcar as one of the two most appropriate transit modes for the l-85 Corridor. Like the BRT Build Alternative, the Streetcar Build Alternative, if implemented, would involve significant enhancements to the physical characteristics of Build Alternative alignment. Transit vehicles and station stops would be replaced by significantly upgraded equipment and infrastructure, and significant portions of roadway would be reconstructed to facilitate movement of transit vehicles and to promote traffic and pedestrian safety along the corridor. The Streetcar Build Alternative would also involve significant changes to the baseline operating conditions, particularly in terms of the background bus system.

196 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

8.3.2 Features

The streetcar system will consist of small rail cars that operate along in-street tracks, at grade level, and mixed with automobile traffic. The streetcar tracks will be located along the curbside travel lanes in some areas and along the centermost travel lanes, or possibly in a roadway median, in other areas. The streetcar system will use modern and sleek, low-floor vehicles with wide doors and large windows. The air-conditioned streetcar vehicles are typically about 8 feet wide and 66 feet long and can accommodate up to 156 seated and standing passengers. Each vehicle can be operated in either direction, eliminating the need for end-of-line turn around loops.

Key features of the Streetcar Build Alternative are listed below.

 Alignment: In the outside roadway travel lane or the median along Sugarloaf Parkway, Satellite Boulevard, Beaver Ruin Road, Indian Trail-Lilburn Road, Brookhollow Parkway, Best Friend Road, Button Gwinnett Drive and Buford Highway to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station,

 Passenger station stops: Typical 75-foot level boarding platform (14 inches high) with a 15-foot ramp at one end, with shelters and amenities,

 Street improvements: New concrete track slab installed in one lane of pavement in either direction along the alignment,

 Vehicle: 66-foot electric tram with 4 doors and capacity of 30 seated passengers and 126 standees (at 4 persons per square meter); steel-wheeled for operation on track,

 Service span - 7 days per week; from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Headways – 10 minutes for A.M. and P.M. peak periods, 15 minutes throughout the rest of the service day, except 30 minute service from 8:30 P.M.to 11:30 P.M.,

 Baseline bus network reconfigured to feed new service along the alignment Boulevard, and

 Park-and-Ride facility at the Gwinnett Arena.

8.3.3 Physical Characteristics

197 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Alignment

The proposed alignment begins near the northernmost entrance to the Gwinnett Arena off Sugarloaf Parkway. The proposed alignment would proceed south towards Satellite Boulevard and turn southwest along Satellite Boulevard, operating in mixed traffic in the inside lanes or median, to its terminus at Beaver Ruin Road, where it would turn southwest on Beaver Ruin Road, then turn southeast on Indian Trail-Lilburn Road to Brookhollow Parkway. The proposed alignment would then proceed southwest along Brookhollow Parkway towards Jimmy Carter Boulevard.

The proposed alignment would cross Jimmy Carter Boulevard to serve the OFS redevelopment site and industrial district. It would continue along Brookhollow Parkway and Best Friend Road, then turn northwest on Button Gwinnett Drive.

At Buford Highway, it would turn southwest and proceed along Buford Highway and New Peachtree Road to the Doraville MARTA Rail Station.

Access Control

The Build Alternative alignment will be primarily a four-lane roadway with transit operating in the curb or the inside travel lane from Gwinnett Arena (Sugarloaf Parkway) to where Brookhollow Parkway transitions to Best Friend Road. The remainder of the alignment is presently a two lane roadway (Best Friend Road and Button Gwinnett Drive) until Buford Highway, which is a four-lane highway. Best Friend Road and Button Gwinnett Drive would be reconstructed to accommodate a four-lane roadway for transit, with the streetcar sharing the outer lane.

Typical Sections

For the Streetcar Alternative, the street lanes in which the streetcar would operate would be fully reconstructed to accommodate embedded running rails. Typically, new poles would be installed along the route to support overhead power supply cables. In some cases, these cables could be attached to existing poles or buildings, but the need for this option appears unlikely in this corridor. Figure 8-12 illustrates the basic street car configuration in mixed traffic flow.

198 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-12: Typical Streetcar Street Cross-Section

199 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Station Stop Locations and Conceptual Design

Streetcar stops will be located about every one mile or more miles along the routes. They will include a passenger waiting area, a shelter, and system information regarding fares, routes, and schedules. The stations would be branded with a logo and color scheme that is tied into signing and the transit vehicles. The stops would be located on a special platform that is about 75-feet long and 14-inches high, which enables level boarding. A typical effective width of 14 feet behind the roadway curb will accommodate both transit passengers and pedestrians moving along the sidewalk. It is envisioned that transit station locations will be positioned on outside roadway curb locations where situated along streets.

Vehicles

The Streetcar vehicle used for this analysis is a typical modern tram. It is steel-wheeled for operation on track, about 66 feet long and double-articulated. It has four doors to facilitate fast and easy boarding, and a low floor in its center section to allow wheelchair access. It has 44 seats and may accommodate up to about 90 standees. Streetcars are typically propelled by an electric traction motor that draws power from an overhead wire. Modern Streetcars are currently in service in Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington and are planned for other U.S. applications. Figure 8-5 is a photograph and Figure 8-6 is a schematic illustration of a typical Streetcar vehicle.

200 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-5: Typical Streetcar Vehicle

201 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Figure 8-6: Streetcar (TRAM) Vehicle Dimensions

202 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives

Intelligent Transportation Systems

This alternative would use the same combination of ITS technology as the BRT Alternative. Under the Streetcar Build Alternative all vehicles will be furnished with radio communication systems and GPS units that allow real-time reporting and location tracking. Real-time arrival and departure information will be actively displayed at all stops along the proposed alignment. Also, a transit signal priority system will give transit vehicles better timed, longer green phases at traffic signals. Under the Build Alternative, priority signal treatment would not be limited to Satellite Boulevard, but would be applied at all intersections along the proposed alignments. Where the streetcars would be turning through intersections, it will be necessary to provide a separate traffic signal phase for these movements; modifications to existing traffic signal displays and traffic controllers would also be necessary.

Park-and-Ride Facilities

In addition to maintaining the existing Park and Ride facilities, a new, larger facility would be designated at Gwinnett Arena. The new parking facility with transit stations could be located, subject to agreements with the County, in the large existing parking near the northernmost entrance to Gwinnett Arena. For the Streetcar Alternative, the Gwinnett Center Park-and- Ride Facility could include daily parking spaces, short-term parking spaces, bays for connecting buses, and a curb-side pickup/drop-off area. Further analysis would consider size requirements and configuration of facilities, potential impacts to existing land uses, potential environmental effects, and other factors. For the purposes of cost estimating for this study, a 500-space parking garage was assumed.

Storage and Maintenance Facility

The Streetcar Build Alternative would require a storage and maintenance facility for vehicles. The maintenance required would be similar to that described under the BRT Alternative. In summary:

 Daily Maintenance: Interior and exterior cleaning,

 Inspections: Daily inspections of equipment and components to ensure state of good repair. The vehicle may require periodic inspections, depending on local statutes and codes,

 Running Repairs: Reactive type of maintenance to attend to problems that can affect the in-service performance of the vehicle, e.g. broken glass, graffiti, and trouble lights affecting propulsion and braking. These maintenance items require quick action to repair and return to service,

203 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives  Component Change-out/Cyclical Maintenance: This category is two staged. Component change out can be required for either a repair or a cyclical maintenance item. When a major component fails it will need to be removed and replaced. When a major component has reached the end of its predictable service life, it will also need to be removed and replaced,

 Heavy Repair: Major accidents requiring extensive body repair, frame repair and repainting, and

 Overhauls: Time or mileage based cyclical maintenance that entails removing, rebuilding, or replacing all major components involved with the state of good repair of the subject vehicle.

The location and selection of a specific storage and maintenance facility will be conducted later but it is assumed that the first four categories would be accommodated on-site at a location near the Build Alternative alignment. Heavy repairs and overhauls would involve transporting vehicles to a remote facility where those capabilities exist.

8.3.4 Operating Characteristics

Guideway Management

From end to end of the study corridor, BRT vehicles within run along the outside lanes of existing streets in mixed traffic and would typically share lanes with vehicular traffic.

Hours, Headways, Operating Speed

Proposed service hours in the corridor are:

 All days from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,

 Saturdays and Sundays: from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M., and

 Headways – 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M.; 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays.

Because the new service would run in shared lanes, operating speeds would be affected by posted speed limits and prevailing traffic conditions. As discussed previously, the speed limit ranges from 40 to 45 mph along Alignment Option1.

204 I-85 Corridor AA Study Definition of Alternatives Feeder Service

Along most of Build Alternative alignment the street cross-section will be redesigned to include wider sidewalks and new transit station stops. In general, where feeder bus routes cross or turn onto alignment, bus stops would be located on side streets off of alignment but as close as possible to the proposed Streetcar station stops (see Table 7-5 for a list of stations). The new transit station stops would be designed to accommodate the streetcar vehicle. Stops for a typical feeder route or existing bus service routes would be positioned adjacent to the streetcar station.

Fare Policy/Pricing

As for the existing GCT service, the Streetcar Build Alternative will make use of the Breeze Card payment system, allowing seamless transfers between regional transit services. However, in a significant improvement over the GCT system, the Streetcar Build Alternative would use a system that would speed boarding by eliminating the on-board payment transaction and making use of the multiple doors of Streetcar vehicles. Vending machines for tickets or Breeze Card passes would be located at all station stops, and passengers would validate tickets and swipe passes upon boarding vehicles. Fare pricing would be kept in line with GCT fares.

It should be understood that low-floor streetcars (as with light rail systems in general) are intended to be deployed together with a fare collection system that does not involve the vehicle operator, maximizing the benefits of multiple low-floor doorways, with an accompanying positive impact on dwell time. This commonly takes the form of a proof- of-payment system using off-vehicle fare collection with on-board validation. Some agencies provide ticket vending machines onboard the vehicle and a few European and Australian systems use a second employee on board the vehicle (a conductor) for fare collection.

The advantages of the proposed proof-of-payment system include lower labor costs for fare collection, simpler station design, easier access for mobility-impaired passengers, easier access for those carrying packages or in case of an emergency, and a more open feel for passengers. On buses, proof-of-payment saves drivers the time needed to collect fares, and makes it possible for all doors to be used for boarding. Validated tickets can double as transfers between lines. The disadvantages of such a system are the potent of fare evasion and reduced security on station platforms when no barrier is used.

205 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives 9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

9.1 Introduction

This section presents an overview of the evaluation process, and presents the measures of effectiveness used to compare the study alternatives. Detailed results of the technical analysis are presented in the Definition of Alternatives Section 7.0.

9.1.1 Evaluation Overview

The Goals and Objectives for the l-85 Corridor were developed based on the needs and transportation problems identified in previous studies. These goals and objectives provide a basis for the criteria and measures of effectiveness used in the evaluation of alternative transportation improvements. The results of this analysis will contribute to the data needed to recommend a preferred alternative.

The physical and operational characteristics for each alternative were defined in detail, in order to evaluate specific measures of effectiveness. In the next section (Impact Screening Section 10.0); the features of the Build Alternatives are reviewed, including potential effects on the natural and built environment, potential effects on transportation, and a discussion of estimated costs.

9.1.2 Screen 1 Considerations

The Screen 1 evaluation process yielded a set of three alternatives: No Action, Bus Rapid Transit, and Streetcar.

9.1.3 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation of Build Alternatives in Screen 2 is based on the evaluation criteria, from which the Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) were developed. The criteria provide a number of ways to assess the compatibility of the proposed alternatives with the goals and objectives of the project. A short description of each criterion is provided below:

Access and Mobility

 Corridor Transit Travel Time - Evaluates the change in travel time to activity centers along the corridor using rail or bus,

 Accessibility - Evaluates the ability of the proposed transit alternatives to serve population and employment centers,

 Ridership - Evaluates the ability of the alternatives to attract riders, and

206 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives  Traffic Conditions - Evaluates the effect of new service on traffic along the corridor.

Community and Economic Development

 Support of County Revitalization Efforts - Evaluates the integration of proposed improvements with the goals and objectives of economic revitalization initiatives within Gwinnett County.

Safety, Reliability and Comfort

 Accommodation of Transit, Auto, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Modes - Evaluates the extent to which proposed changes provide for the safety of people traveling by foot, bicycle, transit, or automobile,

 Transit Rider Visibility - Evaluates real and perceived passenger safety at station stops and upon entering and exiting vehicles, and

 Ride Quality and Technical Reliability - Evaluates the comfort of passengers on board the vehicle, the ease of entering and exiting the vehicle, and the average frequency of vehicle breakdowns.

Regional Connections

 Regional Transit Travel Time - Evaluates the effect of improvements on the time it takes to access specified regional activity centers from points along the corridor.

Community Goals

 Consistency with Adopted Local Plans - Evaluates the extent to which proposed improvements are consistent with Gwinnett County planning policies, and

 Aesthetics - Measures the extent of visual and noise impacts on the community.

Estimated Costs

 Capital and Operating Costs - Indicate the levels of capital and yearly investment needed to construct the proposed transit line, procure vehicles and equipment, operate the new services, and maintain the systems and infrastructure.

207 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives 9.2 Evaluation Measures and Results

The study goals and objectives lead to an evaluation framework by which the alternatives may be assessed and compared. The subsequent sections discuss the evaluation measures and results in greater detail.

9.2.1 Access and Mobility

Corridor Transit Travel Time Criterion

Measure1a: Transit Travel Time to Gwinnett Transit Center from Gwinnett Arena, and

Measure1b: Transit Travel Time to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station from Gwinnett Transit Center.

This quantitative measure estimates travel time on rail or bus transit during both morning and afternoon peak periods between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station.

Data Sources:

 Projected 2040 transit travel time between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station.

Approach:

 Calculate 2040 travel time between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station for each Alternative.

Results:

Transit travel time in the morning peak hour between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station should decrease from approximately 60 minutes in the No Action Alternative to 40 minutes (22.1 mph schedule speed) for the BRT Build Alternative and to 45 minutes (20.0 mph schedule speed) for the Streetcar Build Alternative. These decreases in travel time are due to the application of transit signal priority technology, reduction in the number of station stops, and the placement of most station stops at the far side of the intersection, enabling more benefit from signal priority.

Accessibility Criterion

Measure 1c: Future Employment near Station Stops (within ¼ mile and ½ mile for Build Alternatives, within ¼ mile for No Action Alternative)

208 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Quantitative measure of forecast number of jobs within ¼ mile and ½ mile of transit station stops.

Data Sources:

 ARC forecast data on employment by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for year 2040, and

 List and map of proposed station stops for each Alternative.

Approach:

 Identify and map station stops,

 Establish ¼ mile and ½ mile radii around station stops,

 Determine forecast number of jobs within ¼ mile of station stops for No Action Alternative and within ½ mile of station stops for Build Alternatives, and

 Where the entire TAZ falls within the ¼ or ½ mile radius, 100% of the projected employment will be counted. Where smaller portions of TAZs fall within the radius, employment density will be assumed uniform and the affected area of the TAZ will be rounded to the nearest one-quarter. In other words, 75%, 50%, 25% or 0% of that zone’s employment will be counted.

Results:

Because the station stops for the BRT Alternative and Streetcar Alternative are the same, the projected number of employees within ½ mile and ¼ mile of station stops in 2040 is the same for both alternatives. The BRT Alternative and Streetcar Alternative are projected to have more employees within ¼ mile of station stops than the No Action Alternative. This is due to the fact that the alignment for the Build Alternatives provides direct access to the office buildings along the alignment and greater service reliability and frequency.

This measure defines walking distance for the Build Alternatives as up to ½ mile, as opposed to the ¼ mile distance for the No Action Alternative. This is based on research and industry experience which indicates that riders are willing to walk longer distances to access premium service (O’Sullivan and Morrall, 1996). When the projected employment within ½ mile of Build Alternative station stops is compared to the projected employment within ¼ mile of No Action Alternative station stops, the number of employees within walking distance of Build Alternative station stops is significantly higher.

209 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Ridership Criterion

Measure 1e: Estimated Transit Ridership

Quantitative measure of the estimated number of corridor trips taken using transit, compared across alternatives.

Data Sources:

 Estimate of corridor transit trips for each alternative for the year 2040.

Approach:

 Compare the total number of daily transit trips within the study area for the No Action versus Build Alternatives

Results:

Of the many ways to compare estimated transit patronage within the corridor, one of the most useful is to compare the total number of transit trips within the study area for the No Action versus Build Alternatives. More detail regarding projected boardings at individual station stops and locations of peak passenger loads, is presented in the next section of this report.

In general, where frequent high-quality transit service is available, daily ridership increases. The BRT and Streetcar Alternatives show significant increases – 300 percent and 275 percent increases, respectively – over the No Action Alternative. Route 10 A/B is considered equivalent to the No Action alternative, with an estimated 2040 daily ridership of 2,540. The estimated 2040 daily ridership for the BRT Build Alternative is10, 290 and for the Streetcar Build Alternative it is 9,520.

Measure 1f: Transit Passenger Capacity

This quantitative measure estimates the number of transit riders that can be accommodated in the corridor with each Build Alternative, compared with the No Action Alternative.

Data Sources:

 Vehicle capacity specifications, and

 Operating plans for each alternative including the number of transit vehicles passing through the corridor per hour (frequency).

210 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Approach:

 Determine capacity of transit vehicles for each alternative,

 From the operations planning exercise, determine transit vehicle frequency for each Alternative,

 Multiply number of transit vehicles per hour (frequency) by the appropriate vehicle capacity for each alternative to obtain transit capacity, and

 Compare Build Alternatives against No Action Alternatives.

Results:

The comparison was done assuming transit vehicle frequencies in a typical peak hour along Satellite Boulevard and Gwinnett Plantation Way (Gwinnett Transit Center). This screen line location was chosen because this portion of the alignment has the most frequent bus service. The alternatives were compared for their maximum passenger capacity in the peak direction during a typical peak hour. Due to vehicle size, and the high frequency of service, the Streetcar Alternative shows the greatest passenger capacities.

BRT vehicles, Streetcars, and standard buses were assumed to be configured as shown in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1: Assumed Vehicle Capacity BRT Standard Bus Streetcar Vehicle Seated Passenger 40 66 30 Standees 20 34 126 Total Passengers 60 100 156

Measure 1g: Total Person Throughput

Quantitative measure of the number of person trips the corridor is expected to accommodate for each Build Alternative compared with the No Action Alternative.

Data Sources:

 Operating plans for each alternative including the number of transit vehicles passing through the corridor per hour (frequency),

 Any changes in roadway volume as a result of each Build Alternative, and

 Output from the regional travel demand model.

211 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Approach:

 Use estimates of passenger demand for each alternative,

 Estimate potential impacts to roadway volume for each Alternative, and

 Use average auto occupancy to determine impacts to person trip volume.

Results:

This measure compared the predicted magnitude of transit passenger demand plus automobile travelers in the peak direction during a typical peak hour. As expected, the total estimated through-put varies in proportion to the forecasted ridership. The number of automobile trips expected along the alignment also varies somewhat by Alternative, with the Build Alternatives attracting a marginally higher number of automobile trips. However, the largest differences between the No Action and Build Alternatives may be traced to the greater ridership that is attracted by the Build Alternatives. Total person through-put is expected to be greater for the Build Alternatives than for the No Action Alternative.

The comparison was done assuming a screen line location along Satellite Boulevard at Satellite Boulevard and Gwinnett Plantation Way. Average automobile occupancy was assumed to be 1.1 persons.

Traffic Conditions Criterion

Measure 1h: Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)

Quantitative measure of the estimated levels of service (LOS) for intersections along the corridor for each Build Alternative, compared with the No Action Alternative.

Data Sources:

 Details of transit service changes,

 Details of Build Alternative characteristics, and

 Output from the regional travel demand model.

Approach:

 Determine future intersection LOS for each Alternative.

Results:

212 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Intersection LOS indicates the amount of traffic delay an intersection experiences. Levels of service are identified with a single letter, A through F. Intersections operating at LOS A have very low delay and excellent operating conditions. Intersections operating at LOS F have very poor conditions that result in significant delays to motorists. LOS ratings are computed according to the Highway Capacity Manual. Delays in certain ranges are assigned the corresponding LOS ratings A through F.

Most intersections experience little change in delay between alternatives, particularly those that are outside the proposed transitway corridor. However, the BRT Alternative and Streetcar Alternative experience almost twice the number of intersections operating at LOS D as the No Action.

This increase primarily occurs at intersections where the transit vehicle is turning left, impacting all other vehicular movements across the intersection.

Measure 1i: Automobile Travel Time between Gwinnett Arena and MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station

This quantitative measure calculates travel time along the length of the Build Alternatives.

Data Sources:

 Details of transit service changes,

 Details of Build Alternative characteristics, and.

 Output from the regional travel demand model.

Approach

 Determine the estimated travel times for different traffic conditions and times of day, and

 Verify using new field tests or other collected travel time data.

Results:

Travel time along a corridor is a more intuitive measure of the level of congestion than delay measures. Since travel time is measured in minutes, roadway users can relate to the magnitude of changes in travel time between alternatives. This analysis shows very little change in automobile travel time among the alternatives.

213 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives 9.2.2 Community and Economic Development Support of County Revitalization Efforts Criterion

Measure 2a: Percentage of Community Improvement Districts (CID) within walking distance of station stops (½ mile for Build Alternatives, ¼ mile for No Action Alternative)

This is a quantitative measure of the percentage of Gwinnett County CIDs within ¼ mile of station stops for the No Action Alternative and within ½ mile of station stops for the Build Alternatives.

Data Sources:

 List and map of proposed station stops for each alternative, and

 List and map of Gwinnett CIDs.

Approach:

Determine percentage of Gwinnett County revitalization districts within ¼ mile of station stops for the No Action Alternative and within ½ mile of proposed station stops for the Build Alternatives.

Results:

Because the proposed station stops for both Build Alternatives are the same, the percentage of land in revitalization districts within walking distance of station stops is the same for the BRT Alternative and the Streetcar Alternative. Percentages are roughly the same for the No Build and Build Alternatives.

Measure 2b: Potential for alternatives to serve as catalyst for development qualitative measure of the likelihood that an alternative will make the corridor more attractive to developers.

Data Sources:

 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, Portland Streetcar Fact Sheet, September 2003. http://www.trimet.org/inside/publications/pdf/railfactsheetstreetcar.pdf.

 Federal Transit Administration, Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making, August 2004. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT.pdf.

 American Public Transportation Association, MBTA Opens First Leg of Silver Line BRT, http://www.apta.com/passenger_transport/thisweek/0729-2.cfm.

214 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives  Main Street Coalition, Independent Overview of the Economic Impact of Light Rail vs. Enhanced Bus - Main Street Corridor, Houston, Texas, August 1999.

 Dallas Area Rapid Transit, The Initial Impacts of the DART LRT System, Dallas, Texas, July 1998.

Approach:

Discuss highlights of relevant studies from peer cities and transit operators

Results:

The No Action Alternative has low potential to serve as a catalyst for development, the BRT Alternative has medium potential to serve as a catalyst for development, and the Streetcar Alternatives have high potential to serve as a catalyst for development.

These ratings are based on the experience of transit systems in the United States, and on surveys of the development community. In the United States there are more examples of fixed-rail systems such as light rail or streetcar lines spurring development than there are of BRT lines doing the same. Surveys of the development community also indicate that developers believe that investment along a streetcar line would yield a higher return than would investment along a BRT line. Both BRT and streetcar would have a greater development impact because of improved service and visibility. Rail systems are perceived to have a greater impact than BRT in part because of the higher visibility of rail and because rail is seen as a more permanent public investment. Because BRT is by definition a rubber tired bus, BRT vehicles can be diverted to other corridors. Streetcar vehicles, however, can only run in corridors where the investment in rails has been made.

Measure 2c: Probability of Private Sector Funding Support

This qualitative measures the likelihood that an alternative will be supported financially by business owners and others along the study corridor.

Data Sources:

 Initial reaction from individuals and agencies involved in the public outreach portion of the l-85 Corridor study.

Approach:

 List highlights of relevant studies from peer cities and transit operators.

Results:

215 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives The No Action Alternative and the BRT Alternative have low probability of private sector funding support. The Streetcar Alternatives have a higher probability of private sector funding support.

9.2.3 Safety, Reliability, and Comfort

Accommodation of Transit, Auto, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Modes Criterion

Measure 3a: Accident rates for transit vehicles in environments similar to the project alternatives,

Measure 3b: Accident rates for pedestrians in environments similar to the project alternatives,

Measure 3c: Accident rates for bicycles in environments similar to the project alternatives, and

Measure 3d: Accident rates for automobiles in environments similar to the project alternatives.

This is a qualitative measure of the safety of different modes.

Data Sources:

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Safety and Security Statistics Annual Report, website, http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Data/Samis.asp.

Approach:

 Using information from the above data source, assess comparative safety of the Build Alternatives and the No Action Alternative.

Results:

Analysis of accident rates for transit vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles was constrained by the available data. Available national transit safety data does not provide information on these accident rates separately. As a result, for this analysis two measures were used to determine the level to which the BRT Alternative and the Streetcar Alternatives would conflict with other demands for road space.

The number of collisions per ten million passenger miles measures incidents involving other vehicles, objects, or people. This number was used as a surrogate for the accident rates for transit vehicles in environments similar to the project alternatives. For BRT, there was 16.3

216 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives collisions per ten million passenger miles and for streetcar lines it was 5 collisions per ten million passenger miles.

The number of casualties per ten million passenger miles measures incidents in which people were hurt, but not as the result of collisions, derailments, or fires. This number was used as a surrogate for the accident rates for pedestrians in environments similar to the project alternatives. For BRT, there was 10.2 causalities per ten million passenger miles and for streetcar lines it was 8.5 causalities per ten million passenger miles.

No data was found which could serve as a surrogate for bicycle or automobile accident rates in environments similar to the project alternatives.

Transit Rider Visibility Criterion

Measure 3e: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Standards Incorporated into Station Stop Concepts

Qualitative measure of the extent to which CPTED standards have been incorporated into station stop design concepts.

Data Sources:

 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Improving Transit Security, Washington, DC: 1997.

 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Emergency Preparedness for Transit Terrorism, Washington, DC: 1997.

 CPTED standards.

 Drawings and description of No Action station stop concepts.

Approach:

 Compare drawings and description of station stop concepts with CPTED standards, and determine consistency of station stop concepts with standards.

Results:

CPTED standards aim to reduce opportunity for crime through the design of structures. For transit systems, this often means incorporating design elements that increase visibility to and from stops and station stops (riders can see what is going on around them, and passers-by can see riders) and maintaining cleanliness to improve the perception of safety. Strategies include better lighting, the use of transparent rather than opaque design and building

217 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives materials, and the use of graffiti-resistant materials. CPTED standards will be used for all station stops in the Build Alternatives.

Ride Quality and Technical Reliability Criterion

Measure 3f: Passenger Comfort and Ride Quality

Qualitative measure of the comfort level of passengers on board the transit vehicle, including the smoothness of the ride and noise levels inside the vehicle, and the ease of entering and exiting the vehicle.

Data Sources:

 Industry experience relating to the ride quality of different modes

Approach:

 Determine the difference, if any, in ride quality for the Build Alternatives and the No Action Alternative, based on relevant studies.

Typically, transit modes running on steel rails are judged superior in terms of ride quality. Embedded track is constructed to close tolerances, and vehicles are guided by the closely controlled wheel/rail interface.

Rubber-tired transit modes are typically operated along roadways designed for automobiles. Though the geometric standards are tightly controlled, construction tolerances tend to be less stringent. Maintenance does not by necessity bring the wheel/pavement interface back to an optimal level, as it does with steel-wheeled modes.

The disadvantage of BRT in terms of ride quality may be partially mitigated through reconstruction of the transit guideway. This analysis assumes such reconstruction and a “rail-like ride quality” as far as practicable. However, the quality of ride for the Streetcar Alternatives is still deemed superior.

Measure 3g: Average frequency of vehicle breakdowns by technology type

This is a quantitative measure of the frequency with which different technologies break down.

Data Sources:

 National Transit Database

218 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Approach:

 Determine the frequency of vehicle breakdowns for technologies proposed for use in the Build Alternatives and in the No Action Alternative, and  Rank alternatives based on frequency of vehicle breakdowns.

Results:

The National Transit Database does not distinguish between standard bus and BRT vehicles, or between light rail and streetcar vehicles. Therefore, data on the frequency of vehicle breakdowns for bus and light rail vehicles was used. Although BRT vehicles have a number of features which distinguish them from standard buses, the basic technology (including form of propulsion and running way) is the same, and therefore it can be assumed that the frequency of breakdowns would be similar. Light rail and streetcar vehicles also share fundamental features which make it safe to assume that breakdown rates would be similar.

Based on this data, buses break down far more frequently than do light rail vehicles (approximately five times as often). Therefore, the Streetcar Alternatives (4 breakdowns per million passenger miles) are rated higher than the BRT Alternative (21 breakdowns per million passenger miles).

9.2.4 Regional Connections

Regional Transit Travel Time Criterion

Measure 4a: Change in Transit Travel Time to Select Regional Activity Centers

Quantitative measure of the change in travel time on bus or rail transit between locations along the corridor and select regional activity centers.

Data Sources:

 Activity centers from the existing conditions report, and

 Projected 2040 transit travel time between TAZs on the corridor and regional activity centers.

Approach:

 For each Build Alternative, estimate transit travel time between corridor TAZs and the regional activity centers, and

 Establish change in transit travel time between corridor TAZs and regional activity centers based on comparison to the No Action Alternative.

219 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Results:

In general, transit travel times to regional activity centers from locations within the study area would be improved or unaffected by the Build Alternatives. As expected, travel to the activity centers located within the study area would be most affected by corridor transit improvements.

When the analysis of access to activity centers is extended to a regional level – not limited to trips originating within the study area the Build Alternative improvements have measureable effects on travel to each of the activity centers.

Measure 4b: Percentage of regional employment accessible by transit

Quantitative measure of the effect of each alternative on access to regional employment from the study corridor via transit

Data Sources:

 ARC data on 2040 transit travel times

Approach:

 Estimate percentage of 2040 regional employment accessible by transit from the study corridor in less than 60 minutes for each alternative.

Results:

This measure seeks to quantify the effects of the alternatives on regional transit connectivity. The Build Alternatives has a small but positive effect on the number of jobs that become accessible by a transit trip.

9.2.5 Community Goals

Consistency with Adopted Local Plans Criterion

Measure 5a: Gwinnett County and CID revitalization plans.

Qualitative measure of the extent to which the recommendations of various planning initiatives for the revitalization within Gwinnett County have been incorporated into proposed transit improvements.

Data Sources:

 Plans for physical alterations to the corridor for each of the Build Alternatives.

220 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Approach:

 Determine degree to which proposed physical alterations to the corridor are consistent with planning initiative recommendations.

Results:

The Build Alternative would help to 1) reduce automobile speeds along the alignment, 2) minimize pedestrian crossing distances, and 3) increase sidewalk space - are all accommodated within the alternatives. However, the investment required to accomplish the goals is included to varying degrees in the alternatives: not enough funding is programmed or included in the No Action Alternative to construct many of the recommended improvements. The BRT Alternative includes curb-to-curb street reconstruction around the stations. The Streetcar Alternative as defined includes less street reconstruction than the BRT Alternative, but would require more than the No Action.

Aesthetics Criterion

Measure 5b: Potential visual impacts

Qualitative measure of the extent to which the improvements associated with each alternative affects visual perception of the environment along the study corridor.

Data Sources:

 Input from the public involvement process, and

 Published visual preference surveys.

Approach:

 Present results of public involvement process and literature survey.

Results:

Both the Streetcar and BRT Alternatives have the potential to enhance, or detract from, the visual appeal and aesthetic experience of the overall streetscape. The potential variations of impacts created by the two alternatives are discussed below. The type of vehicle propulsion technology to be used for the new transit service would have varying visual and noise effects along the corridor. To accommodate a Streetcar Alternative powered by electricity, new poles would be installed to support overhead wires. The overhead wires and connecting poles and substations could have a visual impact along the alignment and in areas of economic development initiatives. It is not anticipated that implementing BRT service would create any visual impacts beyond the existing conditions.

221 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Measure 5c: Potential noise impacts

Qualitative measure of the extent to which the improvements associated with each alternative affect noise levels along the study corridor.

Data Sources:

 Published studies on the relative noise emissions of transit vehicles under each alternative, and

 FTA guidance on noise impact assessment.

Approach:

 Present results of the literature survey, and

 Conduct a simplified noise modeling exercise.

Results:

Similar to the potential visual impacts of two alternatives, the noise and vibration resulting from the construction and ongoing operation of the selected transit improvement may produce some short-term and/or long-term impacts on the community. Existing sources that contribute to the ambient background levels of noise and vibration include motor vehicles, buses, trucks and other ongoing construction activities located in the corridor. It is anticipated that both the construction and ongoing operation of the selected transit system, either BRT or Streetcar, will contribute to these existing noise levels. Two sources containing criteria relevant for detailed evaluation of noise impacts and related mitigation measures during future analysis include the following:

 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (DOT-95-16, April 1995). In accordance with FTA guidelines, vibration impacts would be assessed based on the level of new proposed vibration sources created by the proposed transit improvement.

 MARTA/GCT noise criteria for both vehicles and facilities.

The specific type of noise impact caused by operation of the transit system will largely depend on whether a BRT or a Streetcar Alternative is selected. BRT systems typically use rubber-tired vehicles, such as the current GCT buses operating along Satellite Boulevard, and would likely have overall noise effects similar to the existing transit service. Streetcar vehicles, powered by electricity, generally create less propulsion-related noise than do large buses using conventional engines, and could potentially provide a lower level of propulsion- related noise than under existing conditions and transit service. However, Streetcar vehicles

222 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives operating on steel wheels on tracks may have some potential for noise impacts that are different in character from existing transit service. It is expected that any potential noise- related effects would likely occur at or near service and maintenance yards. Depending on the propulsion methodology selected, a BRT Alternative could present the potential for increased bus noise along with increased emissions and exhaust if the vehicles are powered by CNG or diesel fuel, as opposed to the Streetcar Alternatives which are powered by electricity.

Streetcars have the potential to create ground-borne vibration associated with vehicle movements, which is usually the result of uneven interactions between the wheel and the rail surfaces. Utilization of dampening materials for the Streetcar Alternatives or devices under switches and crossovers could reduce potential vibration impacts. Noise levels from construction activities, although temporary, could create a nuisance to nearby community resources. Project construction activities could include street reconstruction, station stops and maintenance/storage facilities, and parking garages.

9.2.6 Capital and Operating Costs

Capital Costs Criterion

Measure 6a: Quantitative estimate of the scale of construction and related costs for each alternative. Includes systems, facilities, and vehicle procurement, and a reasonable allowance for right-of-way acquisition.

Data Sources:

 Atlanta Streetcar construction project,

 Ft. Lauderdale Wave Streetcar cost estimate,

 Las Vegas BRT project,

 Birmingham BRT project, and

 Other industry cost research.

Approach:

 Use representative costs from peer projects to develop estimates of project costs for each Build Alternative, and

 Costs for line and facilities construction and vehicle procurement were included in the analysis, along with project planning/design and design contingencies.

223 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives Results:

Several features were consistent across all of the alternatives. Passenger station stops, for example, were assumed to be the same both of the Build scenarios, including platforms, shelters, lighting, and off-vehicle fare collection. Traffic signal work and general requirements were also assumed to be similar. Other project cost estimates were tailored to specific features of the options.

The Streetcar Alternative is significantly more expensive than the BRT Alternative because the combined costs of track construction and street adjustments, electrification, and more expensive streetcars outweigh the corresponding costs of street reconstruction and less expensive BRT vehicles. The BRT Alternative would cost approximately $149,227 million in 2018, and the Streetcar Alternative would cost approximately $611.3 million to construct in 2018.

Operating/Maintenance Costs Criterion

Measure 6b: Annual operations and maintenance costs based on assumed service levels, operating plans, and fleet sizes.

Data Sources:

 GCT operating statistics,

 National Transit Database,

 Ft. Lauderdale Wave Streetcar cost estimate, and

 Portland, Oregon Streetcar.

Approach:

 Use representative costs from peer projects to develop accurate estimates of project costs for each Build Alternative, and

 The analysis considered the impacts on overall annual costs for several operational factors: peak vehicle requirements, revenue vehicle-miles, revenue vehicle-hours, number of passenger station stops, total route lengths, number and locations of maintenance facilities, and required administrative infrastructure.

Results:

The BRT Alternative would be less expensive to operate than the Streetcar Alternative, largely because BRT system operations are similar to GCT’s existing regional bus network. Operation of the Streetcar Alternative, on the other hand, assumes substantial new

224 I-85 Corridor AA Study Evaluation of Alternatives investment in personnel. In addition, a rail system typically assumes maintenance-of-way activities that would not be included in a bus or BRT operation. For this analysis it is assumed that the local jurisdictions would assume the costs of maintaining the guideway. However, additional roadway maintenance would be required in order to maintain a high “rail like” quality ride.

Operating and maintenance costs for current or No Action bus service in the corridor total $5.1 million annually in 2014 dollars. The operating and maintenance costs for the BRT Alternative totaled $5.8 million and $8.0 million for the Streetcar Alternative. The BRT Build Alternative is more economical due to higher operating speeds and somewhat fewer revenue hours of service needed despite its higher frequency, with the Streetcar more expensive due to a slighter lower schedule speed and higher cost per revenue hour of service.

225 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.0 IMPACT SCREENING

This section provides baseline information regarding the existing cultural and natural resources in the I-85 Corridor. This information is intended to facilitate the AA process by which potential alignments in the corridor are examined for fatal flaws before advancing through the analysis process. A more detailed examination of the potential impact to community, cultural, and environmental resources in the I-85 Corridor will be part of an environmental study should a preferred alignment(s) be advanced after the AA has concluded.

The geographic information system (GIS) data used for the following analyses/discussions were obtained from local and national sources, including the following:

 A combination of the ARC, DeKalb and Gwinnett counties GIS data were used to identify community resources and land uses,

 Existing land use for the I-85 Corridor was provided by ARC,

 Future land use GIS coverage files for Gwinnett and DeKalb counties were provided by the respective county; the Gwinnett County future land use represents the 2030 Unified Plan,

 The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was used to identify sites listed on the National Register that lie within the I-85 Corridor, and

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, Georgia GIS Clearinghouse Data Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division (GDNR WRD) Rare Species and Natural Community Data were used to identify environmental resources in the I-85 Corridor.

10.1 Community Resources

The I-85 Corridor is home to many community resources that serve local needs, as well as attracting visitors from the rest of the Atlanta region and outside the 20-county region. The I-85 Corridor has changed from being a suburban bedroom community in the 1980s to be a destination place. Figure 10-1 displays the community resources in the I-85 Corridor.

226 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.1.1 Parks

Table 10-1 lists the various parks in the I-85 Corridor. There are over 50 park and recreational facilities in the area covering over 10,200 acres. The largest park is the Chattahoochee National Recreational Area along the Chattahoochee River, which is at the northern boundary of the I-85 Corridor. This park accounts for 72 percent of all of the parkland in the I-85 Corridor. The Chattahoochee River is protected by the Metropolitan River Protection Act (Georgia Code 12-5-440 et seq.), which established a 2,000-foot corridor along both banks of the Chattahoochee and its impoundments for the 48 miles between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek. The act requires the ARC to adopt a plan to protect the Chattahoochee River Corridor and to review development proposals for consistency with the plan. About half of the rest of the parks are community parks that occupy less than 15 acres. The parks are distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor as shown on Figure 10-1.

Parklands can be a major determining factor in the formulation and selection of transit alignments. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act specifically prohibits acquiring or impacting parklands for transportation purposes unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives after all possible planning has been done. Section 4(f) protection applies to all public parklands. There are only a few park facilities between I-85 and Buford Highway that will need to be considered in developing the alignments.

 Beaver Ruin Park at I-85 and Beaver Ruin Road (proposed),

 Best Friend Park and Hudlow Tennis Center on Jimmy Carter Boulevard,

 Cemetery Field on Cemetery Street off Buford Highway,

 Pinckneyville Recreational Complex on Buford Highway,

 McDaniel Farm Park north of I-85, and

 Shortly Howell Park on Pleasant Hill Road.

10.1.2 Houses of Worship

Houses of worship are community assets and major destinations, but unlike parks, are not given specific protection during the development of potential transit improvements unless they have historical significance. Based on best available data, over 70 houses of worship have been identified in the Gwinnett portion of the I-85 Corridor (Table 10-2). Houses of worship were not available for the DeKalb County portion of the I-85 Corridor. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and will need to be revised with greater detail as potential alternatives are developed and screened.

227 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Figure 10-1: Major Activity Centers and Points of Interest

228 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-1: Parks and Recreational Facilities Name Type Acres DEKALB COUNTY City of Chamblee Huntley Hills Park Community Park 0.8 Peachtree Park Community Park 1.5 Shallowford Park Community Park 1.5 Village Park Community Park 1.2 Rogers Bridge Park Conservation 13.2 City of Doraville Autumn Park Community Park 7.6 Brook Park Community Park 7.8 English Oak Park Community Park 2.1 Flowers Park Community Park 7.0 Halpern Bernard Park Community Park 3.7 Honeysuckle Park Recreational Facility 19.8 City of Dunwoody Windwood Hollow Park County Park 14.9 Unincorporated DeKalb County Dresden Park Community Park 24.2 Kelley C. Cofer Park Community Park 19.6 Brook Run Park County Park 103.8 Henderson Park County Park 107.2 Tucker Recreation Center Recreational Facility 5.4 Henderson Mill School 9.1 GWINNETT COUNTY City of Berkeley Berkeley Lake Nature Preserve Forest 72.1 Berkeley Lake Children’s Park Forest 0.7 City of Duluth Church Street Park Community Park 1.8 Duluth Town Green – Taylor Park Community Park 3.9 Duluth greenspace Greenway 20.7 Scott Hudgens Park Municipal Park 49.2 W.P. Jones Park Municipal Park 20.6 Bunten Road Park Recreational Facility 43.3 City of Norcross Cemetery Fields Recreational Facility 10.0 Graves Park County Park 70.0 Thrasher Park Community Park 2.2 Betty Maudlin Park Community Park 0.3

229 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Name Type Acres Rossie Brundage Park Community Park 1.8 South Point Park Community Park 1.2 Lillian Webb Community Park Municipal Park 5.0 City of Sugar Hill E.E. Robinson Memorial Park Recreational Facility 24.9 City of Suwanee City Hall Park Community Park 3.0 Main Street Park Community Park 1.0 PlayTown Suwanee Community Park 2.7 Suwanee Creek Greenway Greenway 76.9 Suwanee Creek Park Forest 85.4 Suwanee Creek Unit Conservation 143.1 Suwanee Town Center Park Community Park 10.5 Martin Farm Park Municipal Park 12.2 Unincorporated Gwinnett County Abbots Bridge Unit - Chattahoochee River National Conservation 104.2 Recreation Area (CRNRA) Beaver Ruin Park (proposed) County 133.0 Best Friend Park County Park 42.9 Bowman's Island Unit CRNRA Regional Park 572.9 CRNRA Conservation 6767.2 Collins Hill Aquatic Center Recreational Facility 18.8 Collins Hill Park Recreational Facility 73.6 George Pierce Park County Park 304.7 Gwinnett County Historic Courthouse Historical Site 2.0 Jones Bridge Park County Park 30.4 Lucky Shoals Park Recreational Facility 69.6 McDaniel Farm Park Historical Site 133.2 McGinnis Ferry CRNRA Conservation 202.0 Medlock Bridge Unit CRNRA Forest 44.3 Peachtree Ridge Park County Park 154.6 Pinckneyville Community Center Recreational Facility 14.4 Pinckneyville Park Recreational Facility 58.1 Pinckneyville Soccer Complex Recreational Facility 35.0 Rhodes Jordan Park County Park 164.6 Rock Springs Park County Park 113.5 Settles Bridge CRNRA Conservation 240.4 Shorty Howell Park Regional Park 66.4 Singleton Road Activity Center Community Center 1.7 Source: ARC, Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties.

230 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-2: Houses of Worship Number Name of Church Number Name of Church 1 River of Life Church 37 Mount Tabor Church 2 Calvary Church 38 Atkinson Road Baptist Church 3 Pilgrimage Church 39 Peachtree Corners Church 4 Briarwood Church 40 Faith Church 5 Glover Church 41 Meadow Baptist Church 6 John Wesley United Church 42 Bible Methodist Church Woodland Hills Assembly of God 7 Saint James Church 43 Church 8 Burns Road Baptist Church 44 West Gwinnett Christian Church 9 Berkmar United Methodist Church 45 Berkeley Chapel 10 Amazing Grace Lutheran Church 46 McKendree Church 11 Campus Church 47 Open Arms Church 12 Oak Hill Baptist Church 48 Lebanon Church 13 Beaver Ruin Church 49 Collins Hill Church 14 Sweetwater Memorial Chapel 50 Trinity Church 15 Sweetwater Church 51 Grace Church 16 Shannondorah Church 52 Heritage Church 17 Victory World Church 53 Central Church 18 Saint Patricks Church 54 Old Peachtree Church 19 Believers Baptist Church 55 Hall Church 20 First United Church 56 Mount Sinai Church 21 Amazing Grace Baptist Church 57 Peachtree Road Baptist Church 22 Galilean Church 58 Northbrook Church 23 Winters Chapel 59 Hopewell Church 24 Monfort Road Baptist Church 60 Rolling Hills Church 25 Kingdom Hall of Jehovahs Witnesses 61 Rock Springs Church 26 First Baptist Church of Norcross 62 Old Ivy Church 27 Pleasant Hill Church 63 First United Methodist Church 28 New Hope Church 64 Shadowbrook Church 29 Mount Vernon Church (historical) 65 Gravel Springs Church 30 Gwinnett Place Church 66 Kingdom Hall 31 Shiloh Church 67 Old Suwanee Church 32 Biblical Ministries Worldwide 68 Level Creek Church 33 Mount Carmel Church 69 Liberty Church 34 Fairview Church 70 First Baptist Church of Sugar Hill 35 Christ The Lord Church 71 Lighthouse Church 36 Faith Baptist Church Source: Gwinnett County.

231 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Potential transit improvement could create better access to the transit system for worshippers heading to services. Table 10-2 displays the house of worship by number.

10.1.3 Schools

Schools are a major community resource that can be positively impacted by access to transit. At the same time, care should be taken in designing potential alignments to avoid creating undue impacts to these shared, public resources. Schools within the I-85 Corridor are shown on Figure 10-2, and the inventory is provided in Table 10-3. Most of the schools are located away from the major travel corridors of Buford Highway and I-85 and are located in residential areas distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor.

10.1.4 Historic Sites

A search was performed of the NRHP for structures, sites, or districts sited within the I-85 Corridor. Like parks, historic resources are protected from impacts due to transportation projects. Seven historic sites and one district were found within the I-85 Corridor. Most of the sites are located on the periphery of the I-85 Corridor. The historic district is located in downtown Norcross; it was added to the National Register in 1980 and consists of 194 buildings within 1,800 acres. Descriptions of these historic sites are provided in Table 10-4.

10.1.5 Activity Centers

ARC’s definitions of town centers and activity centers are described below.

 Town Center. A town center typically represents the historic center of a municipality. Areas are within a recognizable boundary that were historically the center of the community and had a mix of commercial and civic uses.

 Activity Center. An activity center is an area that includes a mixture of office, retail, service, and residential or civic uses that create a central focus for a larger area. Activity centers may or may not have a historical or political jurisdiction as the basis of their location. Large activity centers have significant amounts of office, retail, industrial or service employment. An activity center has generally recognizable boundaries.

 “Emerging” Regional Center or Corridor. Areas that are experiencing strong growth pressures and could develop as a mixed-use, multi-modal center or corridor. These emerging areas will develop as a regional draw, not just at a neighborhood scale.

232 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Figure 10-2: Houses of Worship and Schools

233 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-3: Schools Number School Name Address City County Type 1 Tucker High 5036 LaVista Road Tucker DeKalb High School, Public 2 Henderson Mill Elementary School 2408 Henderson Mill Road, NE Atlanta DeKalb Elementary School 3 Midvale Elementary School 3836 Midvale Road Tucker DeKalb Elementary School 4 Hawthorne Elementary School 2535 Caladium Drive, NE Atlanta DeKalb Elementary School 5 Henderson Middle School 2830 Henderson Mill Road Chamblee DeKalb Middle School 6 Livsey Elementary School 4137 Livsey Road Tucker DeKalb Elementary School 7 Dresden Elementary School 2449 Dresden Drive Chamblee DeKalb Elementary School 8 Evansdale Elementary School 2914 Evans Woods Drive Doraville DeKalb Elementary School 9 Nesbit Elementary School 6575 Cherokee Drive Tucker Gwinnett Elementary School 10 Mercer University 3001 Mercer University Drive Atlanta DeKalb Private 4-Year College 11 Occupational Ed Ctr - DeKalb Central 3075 Alton Road Chamblee DeKalb High School, Public 12 Northwoods Montessori School 3340 Chestnut Drive Doraville DeKalb Private School 13 Yeshiva High School 3130 Raymond Drive NE Atlanta DeKalb Private School 14 Shepherd's Training Academy 4120 Presidential Parkway Doraville DeKalb Private School 15 Pleasantdale Elementary School 3695 North Lake Drive Doraville DeKalb Elementary School 16 Sequoyah Middle School 3456 Aztec Drive Doraville DeKalb Middle School 17 Lilburn Elementary School 531 Lilburn School Road Lilburn Gwinnett Elementary School 18 Cary Reynolds Elementary School 3498 Pine Street Doraville DeKalb Elementary School 19 Chamblee High 3638 Chamblee-Dunwoody Road Chamblee DeKalb High School, Public 20 Rockbridge Elementary School 6066 Rockbridge School Road Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 21 Providence Christian Academy 4575 Lawrenceville Highway Lilburn Gwinnett Private School 22 Oakcliff Elementary School 3150 Willow Oak Way Doraville DeKalb Elementary School 23 Hopkins Elementary School 1315 Dickens Road Lilburn Gwinnett Elementary School 24 Berkmar High 405 Pleasant Hill Road NW Lilburn Gwinnett High School, Public 25 Huntley Hills Elementary School 2112 Seaman Circle Chamblee DeKalb Elementary School 26 Minor Elementary School 4129 Shady Drive Lilburn Gwinnett Elementary School 27 Hightower Elementary School 4236 Tilly Mill Road Doraville DeKalb Elementary School 28 Greater Atlanta Christian 1575 Indian Trail Road Norcross Gwinnett Private School 29 Meadowcreek Elementary School 5025 Georgia Belle Court Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 30 Meadowcreek High 4455 Steve Reynolds Boulevard Norcross Gwinnett High School, Public 31 Bethesda Elementary School 525 Bethesda School Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 32 Charter Peachford Woodside 2151 Peachford Road Atlanta DeKalb Private School 33 Sweetwater Middle School 3500 Cruse Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Middle School 34 Chesnut Elementary School 4576 North Peachtree Road Dunwoody DeKalb Elementary School

234 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Number School Name Address City County Type 35 Chamblee Middle School 4680 Chamblee Dunwoody Road Atlanta DeKalb Middle School 36 Peachtree Middle School 4664 North Peachtree Road Atlanta DeKalb Middle School 37 Beaver Ridge Elementary School 1978 Beaver Ruin Road Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 38 Summerour Middle School 585 Mitchell Road Norcross Gwinnett Middle School 39 Edward Buchannan Elementary School 600 Beaver Ruin Road Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 40 Kanoheda Elementary School 1025 Herrington Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 41 Georgia Perimeter College – North 2101 Womack Road Dunwoody DeKalb Public 2-Year College 42 Occupational Ed Ctr - DeKalb North 1995 Womack Road Dunwoody DeKalb High School, Public 43 Susan Stripling Elementary School 6155 Atlantic Boulevard Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 44 Norcross Elementary School 150 Hunt Street Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 45 Vanderlyn Elementary School 1877 Vanderlyn Drive Dunwoody DeKalb Elementary School 46 Kingsley Elementary School 2051 Brendon Drive Dunwoody DeKalb Elementary School 47 Benefield Elementary School 970 McElvaney Lane Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 48 Maxwell High School of Technology 990 McElvaney Lane NW Lawrenceville Gwinnett High School, Public Public Vocational 49 Gwinnett Tech 5150 Sugarloaf Parkway Lawrenceville Gwinnett Technical School 50 Phoenix High 501 West Pike St. Lawrenceville Gwinnett High School, Public 51 Peachtree Elementary School 5995 Crooked Creek Road Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 52 Norcross High 5300 Spalding Drive Norcross Gwinnett High School, Public 53 Wesleyan School 5405 Spalding Drive Norcross Gwinnett Private School 54 McKendree Elementary School 1600 Riverside Parkway Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 55 Berkeley Lake Elementary School 4300 Berkeley Lake Road Duluth Gwinnett Elementary School 56 Murray-Grast School 2399 Lawrenceville Highway Lawrenceville Gwinnett Private School 57 Pinckneyville Middle School 5440 West Jones Bridge Road Norcross Gwinnett Middle School 58 Jackson Elementary School 1970 Sever Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 59 Harris Elementary School 3123 Clairborne Drive Duluth Gwinnett Elementary School 60 Duluth Junior Academy 2959 Highway 120 Duluth Gwinnett Private School 61 M. H. Mason Elementary School 3030 Bunten Road Duluth Gwinnett Elementary School 62 Collins Hill Christian 1612 Collins Hill Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Private School 63 Simpson Elementary School 4525 East Jones Bridge Road Norcross Gwinnett Elementary School 64 Creekland Middle School 170 Russell Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Middle School Horizon Baptist Church & Christian 65 2172 Lawrenceville Suwanee Suwanee Gwinnett Private School School 66 Duluth Middle School 3057 Main Street Duluth Gwinnett Middle School 67 Duluth High 3737 Brock Road NW Duluth Gwinnett High School, Public 68 Taylor Elementary School 600 Taylor School Drive Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 69 Hull Middle School 1950 Old Peachtree Road Duluth Gwinnett Middle School

235 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Number School Name Address City County Type 70 Oak Meadow Montessori 2145 Collins Hill Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Private School 71 Chattahoochee Elementary School 2930 Albion Farm Road Duluth Gwinnett Elementary School 72 Collins Hill High 50 Taylor Road Suwanee Gwinnett High School, Public 73 Walnut Grove Elementary School 75 Taylor Road Suwanee Gwinnett Elementary School 74 Suwanee Elementary School 3875 Smithtown Road Suwanee Gwinnett Elementary School 75 Geneva Academy 1420 Rock Springs Road Buford Gwinnett Private School 76 Rock Springs Elementary School 888 Rock Springs Road Lawrenceville Gwinnett Elementary School 77 Redeemer Christian Academy 641 Eva Kennedy Road Suwanee Gwinnett Private School Old Suwanee Baptist Church and 78 4118 Old Suwanee Road Buford Gwinnett Private School Christian School 79 North Gwinnett High 20 Level Creek Road NE Suwanee Gwinnett High School, Public 80 Lanier Middle School 918 Buford Highway Buford Gwinnett Middle School 81 Riverside Elementary School 5445 Settles Bridge Road Suwanee Gwinnett Elementary School 82 Sugar Hill Elementary School 939 Level Creek Road Buford Gwinnett Elementary School 83 Sugar Hill Christian Academy 4600 Nelson Brogdon Boulevard Buford Gwinnett Private School 84 T. Carl Buice Center 1160 Level Creek Road Buford Gwinnett Elementary School

236 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-4: National Register-Listed Sites

Date Construction Added to Historic Site Location City Function Date Register North of Thomas Wynne House Lilburn on US Lilburn Single Dwelling 1826–1878 1977 29 East of Lawrenceville William Terrell Homeplace Lawrenceville Single Dwelling 1827 1982 Highway, off US 29 Courthouse Gwinnett County Courthouse Lawrenceville Commerce/Trade 1872–1905 1980 Square 293 N. Perry Clarence R. Ware House Lawrenceville Single Dwelling 1910 1982 Street Old Seminary Building Perry Street Lawrenceville Education 1854 1970 3595 S. Old The Superb Duluth Rail Related 1911–1923 1999 Peachtree St 3rd Street Mechanicsville School Norcross Education 1911–1939 1980 and Florida

1850–1899, Norcross Historic District Off US 23 Norcross Commerce/Trade 1980 1900–1924

Various town centers and major regional activity centers are located within the I-85 Corridor as shown on Figure 10-1. The following town centers have been identified in the I-85 Corridor.

 Chamblee,

 Doraville,

 Duluth,

 Suwanee, and

 Lawrenceville.

The following existing and potential emerging activity centers have been identified in the l-85 Corridor.

 Northlake,

 Peachtree Corridors/Technology Park,

 Gwinnett Village,

237 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

 Gwinnett Place,

 Gwinnett Center, and

 Mall of Georgia.

Special consideration should be given to improving transit access and service to these areas when designing potential transit alignments. Linking transit between major activity centers encourages transit ridership. Commercial density is a major factor in transit ridership.

10.2 Major Natural Systems Inventory

This section contains background information on the natural resources found within the I-85 Corridor. A general overview of the natural systems is performed so that possible future constraints on the development of potential transit alternatives including legally protected natural areas and topographical obstacles can be foreseen. These obstacles could include bodies of water, topographical features, or locations of threatened or endangered species habitat. This information is presented to assist with screening potential transit alternatives for fatal flaws. While the information provided below will provide a brief overview of the water resources, topographical/soils, and threatened or endangered species habitats found in the I-85 Corridor, a more in-depth environmental documentation will be needed in the later stages of project development.

10.2.1 Water Resources

There is a large network of water resources distributed over the entirety of the I-85 Corridor as shown on Figure 10-3. The network includes numerous creeks and streams, small lakes and ponds, as well as some wetland areas. A few examples include Beaver Ruin Creek, Suwanee Creek, Jackson Creek, Cardinal Lake, Freeman Lake, and Chadwick Lake. Much of the water resource network within the I-85 Corridor is surrounded by residential property, which includes numerous golf course communities. The area’s industrial and commercial property is located in the central part of the I-85 Corridor and is minimally impacted by the area’s water resources, with the exception of Vulcan Material’s Norcross quarry.

Floodplain areas follow the low lying creek and stream network and are widely dispersed throughout the I-85 Corridor. Wetland areas are also distributed throughout the I-85 Corridor, but most are concentrated south of the city of Suwanee near McGinnis Ferry Road and northeast of the city of Lilburn near Freeman

238 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Figure 10-3: Water Resources

239 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Lake and Norcross quarry. The Atlanta floods of 2009 were described by the U.S. Geological Survey as rarer than a 500-year flood. A 50-year flood has a 0.2 percent likelihood of occurring in a given year. While this type of flooding is atypical, it illustrates the complications that natural resources like creeks can pose to surrounding infrastructure. In addition, development within the floodplain is prohibited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in those areas where such development would increase upstream flood elevations by more than 1 foot.

Much of the residential properties and parks were developed around water resources within the I-85 Corridor. This indicates that water resources play an integral part in the day-to-day lives of those residing within the I-85 Corridor. While the area’s water resources provide aesthetic and recreational qualities for area residents, the close proximity to residential areas, including parks and golf courses, could lead to potential environmental impacts.

10.2.2 Topography

Topography within the I-85 Corridor can be described as mostly rolling hills with ridge lines and a few low lying areas. This type of topography is quite common for the region (lower Piedmont). Figure 10-4 shows that transportation infrastructure alignments within the I-85 Corridor have been influenced by the topography. This is a trend that is expected to continue when determining alignments for future infrastructure improvements.

The majority of the I-85 Corridor’s industrial property is located in the central strip of land north of I-85, south of SR 141/PIB, and southwest of SR 120/Buford Drive. This area is less hilly than other sections of the corridor, providing more suitable conditions for industrial development.

Residential and commercial property encompasses much of the remainder of the I-85 Corridor. These areas do have more severe topographical features but it is much easier to develop residential and commercial property in steeper terrain.

10.2.3 Soils

Soil types found within the I-85 Corridor are shown on Figure 10-5. Typical for this region, mostly sandy and clay loam soil types are found. These types of soils are well drained and are not hydric. Soils in this area are commonly red in color due to high levels of iron oxide. Metamorphic rocks are common to this area, but the area is best known for the intrusive igneous rock granite. Vulcan Materials operates their Norcross quarry in the I-85 Corridor and is noted as the largest granite quarry in the United States.

240 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Figure 10-4: Slope

241 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Figure 10-5: Soil Formations

242 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.2.4 Federally and State-Protected Species

The I-85 Corridor is located primarily within Gwinnett County but also includes an area within northern DeKalb County. The USFWS and GDNR WRD have identified several federally and/or state-listed species that are known to occur within these two counties that are listed in Table 10-5. These species include 14 plants, 2 fish, 2 crayfish, and 1 mussel.

Table 10-5: Federally and/or State-Listed Species Known to Occur in Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties, Georgia

Federal County of Common Name Scientific Name Status State Status Occurrence black-spored quillwort Isoetes melanospora Endangered Endangered Gwinnett and DeKalb pool sprite/snorkelwort Amphianthus pusillus Threatened Threatened Gwinnett and DeKalb dwarf sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Endangered DeKalb Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Candidate Threatened Gwinnett and DeKalb bluestripe shiner Cyprinella callitaenia Not Listed Rare Gwinnett and DeKalb Altamaha shiner Cyprinella xaenura Not Listed Threatened DeKalb Piedmont blue burrower Cambarus harti Not Listed Endangered DeKalb Chattahoochee crayfish Cambarus howardi Not Listed Threatened DeKalb delicate spike Elliptio arctata Not Listed Endangered DeKalb pink ladyslipper Cypripedium acaule Not Listed Unusual Gwinnett yellow ladyslipper Cypripedium parviflorum Not Listed Rare Gwinnett dwarf hatpins Eriocaulon koernickianum Not Listed Endangered Gwinnett and DeKalb goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis Not Listed Endangered Gwinnett bay star-vine Schisandra glabra Not Listed Threatened Gwinnett and DeKalb granite stonecrop Sedum pusillum Not Listed Threatened Gwinnett and DeKalb Ozark bunchflower Veratrum woodii Not Listed Rare Gwinnett and DeKalb barren strawberry Waldsteinia lobata Not Listed Rare Gwinnett and DeKalb Flatrock onion Allium speculae Not Listed Threatened DeKalb Indian olive Nestronia umbellula Not Listed Rare DeKalb

243 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Several of the federally and/or state-listed species known to occur within Gwinnett and DeKalb counties are plants, including species such as black-spored quillwort, pool sprite/snorkelwort, dwarf hatpins, granite stonecrop, and flatrock onion whose distribution is limited to granite rock outcroppings. These metamorphic rock outcroppings are likely to occur within the I-85 Corridor, especially in the vicinity of the Vulcan Materials Norcross quarry. The preferred habitat of other listed plant species in the I-85 Corridor includes roadway and utility right-of-ways, open and rocky woodlands, upland pine and mixed pine hardwood forests, rich and moist deciduous hardwood forests, stream terraces, and rocky slopes of mixed pine hardwood forest. With the exception of right-of-way areas, mature and undisturbed areas of preferred habitat for listed plant species are likely to be localized and associated with undeveloped land within the I-85 Corridor. The I-85 Corridor is dominated by an extensive network of residential, commercial, and industrial development. Undeveloped, mature forests and unique habitats should be considered during the development of alternatives.

The remaining federally and/or state-listed species known to occur within Gwinnett and DeKalb counties are aquatic species including minnows, crayfish, and a mussel. These species prefer high quality stream and river habitats with intact riparian forests. There are several large stream systems within the I-85 Corridor, both within the upper Chattahoochee and upper Ocmulgee watersheds. These streams have suffered significant degradation and sedimentation from the consistent growth and development in this portion of the state. Nonetheless, some of these areas may contain federally and/or state-listed species or suitable habitat and should also be considered during the development of alternatives.

The presence or absence of any federally and/or state-listed species, as well as the presence of suitable habitat, can only be verified by a field survey. More-detailed studies will need to be conducted as the development of alternatives continues.

10.3 Air Quality

10.3.1 Ozone

The I-85 Corridor is part of the 20-county region that has been designated as nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone standard. Ozone is not emitted directly by any source; it is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) combine in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. It adversely affects human health by irritating mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and airways, causing cough, chest pain, and sore throat. Air pollution control strategies are aimed at controlling NOx and VOC since they are precursors to ozone formation. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) were established for the 20-county region as part of the Atlanta Early

244 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Progress State Implementation Plan for the year 2008. These budgets are used in the conformity determination of transportation plans.

10.3.2 Particulate Matter (2.5)

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also designated the Atlanta 20 whole counties and 2 partial counties (Heard and Putnam) near the metropolitan Atlanta area as nonattainment under the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. The primary source of concern in air quality emissions analyses is direct motor vehicle PM emissions, both from the combustion process and from tire and brake wear, and a precursor to PM formation in the atmosphere, NOx. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the greatest health risks.

The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has two standards associated with it—an annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) averaged over the course of a year, and a daily standard of 35 ug/m3 measured over 24 hours.

Under the PM2.5 standard, there is no classification system to determine stringency of emission control measures or attainment year. PM2.5 nonattainment areas must attain as soon as possible, but no later than April 2010, with an additional 5 years provided if the state can demonstrate that it is warranted. Until a finalized plan with MVEB is in place, an interim emissions methodology is used to determine conformity of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

As a result of the 20-county region being designated as nonattainment, the RTP and TIP are analyzed for their potential impact on emissions. Federal law specifies that the RTP/TIP may not degrade the air. The emissions from the RTP/TIP are compared to the MVEBs (if available) or baseline emissions to determine if the plans are under these thresholds through a conformity determination process. All regionally significant projects have to be included in this analysis. Federal law prohibits any project from receiving any federal funds and the construction of any project that is not part of a conforming plan. The implementation of new transit improvements in the I-85 Corridor may result with decreased automobile travel in the area and a reduction in emissions. This could assist the region in obtaining clean air status.

10.4 Impacts on Transit Service

Each alternative evaluated under the l-85 Corridor has unique implications for the overall performance of the transit system both within and beyond the study corridor. The

245 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening discussion below adds important details to the definition of each alternative, and then presents the results of the ridership projection effort, including estimates of ridership and peak hour demand for transit service. Finally, this sub-section of the report discusses and compares the regional “user benefits” that would be achieved under each alternative.

10.4.1 Summary of Transit Alternatives

Each of the alternatives, including alignment, street configuration, and station stop location, is described in detail in Definition of Alternatives Section 7 of this report. Below is a brief summary of the alternatives and comparisons of their key features.

No Action

For the l-85 Corridor initiative, the base year used for comparison was 2040. Any transportation related improvements that have been committed to be in place by 2040, whether physical or operational, were assumed to be part of the No Action Alternative. The No Action also includes the set of service improvements planned for the GCT.

Build Alternative

The initial screening of alternatives highlighted BRT and Streetcar as the two most appropriate transit modes for the l-85 Corridor. The BRT Build Alternative would involve significant changes to the No Action operating conditions, particularly in terms of background bus service. The detailed alignment and operating plans for the BRT Build Alternative are described in the Definition of Alternatives Section 7.

Key transit related features of the BRT Build Alternative are:

 Weekday service (except holidays) from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,

 Saturdays and Sundays service: from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Headways – 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M.; 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays,

 Baseline bus network reconfigured to feed new service along the Build Alternative alignment, and

246 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

 Park and Ride facility at Gwinnett Arena.

The transit-related features of the Streetcar Build Alternative are identical to those of the BRT Build Alternative.

10.4.2 Ridership

The scope of this study did not include an intensive analysis of future ridership on transit alternatives in the I-85 Corridor. However, there is considerable useful information that has been compiled from existing GCT route ridership data, and several iterations of prior transit alternative ridership forecasting for the I-85 LRT alternative and the prior MARTA extensions to Norcross and Gwinnett Place Mall. In addition, recent transit alternative ridership forecasts for the I-75 Northwest Corridor provide insights into ridership potentials for rail- based and BRT options. Useful information from these prior projections includes effective ridership per service mile of the options as well as the relative ridership demand between modal alternatives within the same corridor.

For the purposes of this study, ridership estimates were developed for Build Alternatives for 2040. In developing these estimates, the following resources were considered and applied:

 Available ridership data for GCT transit routes were reviewed and tabulated, focusing on Route 10.  Prior forecasts from Phase 2 of the I-85 Corridor Light Rail Transit Study were reviewed and tabulated.  Prior forecasts for the I-75 corridor transit alternatives were summarized and compared for ridership per mile and ratios of forecast ridership between modal alternatives.  A survey of other transit ridership forecasts and from the technical forecasting literature was reviewed to obtain other similar pertinent information.  A growth rate for MARTA ridership was determined using 2014 current data and 2030 No Build forecast data from a prior I-85 MARTA extension study. The resulting compound growth rate was 1.5% per year.  All relevant data was compiled into a spreadsheet and used to develop ridership ratios and ridership per mile factors for different transit modal service options.  Ridership forecast data for 2030 by proposed station location from Phase 2 of the I- 85 Corridor Light Rail Transit Study were tabulated.  These forecasts were adjusted to 2040 using the calculated transit ridership growth factor of 1.5% per year.  These station level forecasts were related to the proposed station locations in the current study. Some stations were in identical or similar locations. The once- proposed MARTA Norcross station boarding forecasts were reassigned to the

247 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Doraville MARTA station site. Estimates of daily boardings for other new stations were developed by comparison of surrounding land uses in relation to other station locations.  Modal adjustment factors as previously developed were applied to the reassigned light rail boardings to develop station level boardings for both the BRT and Streetcar Build Alternatives.

To assist in developing vehicle requirements and perform operations planning and operations cost estimating, a group of factors were applied to the daily boarding forecasts to develop a peak hour/peak direction onboard part on estimate to drive the operations planning and costing. Those factors were:

 Peak hour factor: A factor of 15% was applied to estimate the peak hour boardings.  Directional split factor: A factor of 65% of patrons traveling in the peak direction in the peak hour was applied.  Frequency factor: A factor of 16.67% was applied to adjust for the planned 10- minute service frequency which yields 6 directional transit vehicles in the peak hour.  Accumulation factor: A factor representing the extent of rider accumulation (the segment of highest ridership) was applied. This factor was 60% for the segment immediately east of the MARTA Doraville Rail Station, based on ridership forecasting for the I-85 Corridor LRT alternative.  The combined factor from the above individual factors was 0.0975%, to be applied to the total daily ridership forecast for each Build Alternative.

Table10-6 summarizes the forecast daily ridership (2040) through the alignment for the various alternatives modeled. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Build Alternatives show a significant increase in corridor ridership. The BRT Alternative shows a 305 percent increase in ridership over the No Action Alternative, and the full build Streetcar Alternatives shows a 277 percent increase.

248 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-6: I-85 Daily Corridor Ridership (2040) Total Corridor Percentage Increase Alternative Ridership over No Build No Build Alternative 2,540 -- BRT Alternative 10,290 305% Streetcar Alternative 9,570 277%

Station Location & Daily BRT Streetcar Ridership Gwinnett Arena 330 310 Duluth Highway 580 540 Gwinnett Transit Center 1,740 1,610 West Liddell 910 850 Indian Trail 1820 1,690 Center Way 330 310 Jimmy Carter 580 540 Best Friend 410 380 Button Gwinnett 450 420 Johnson 410 380 Doraville Rail Station 2,730 2,540 Total 10,290 9,570

Each alternative advanced through the l-85 Corridor initiative screening process is composed of surface transit service running in mixed traffic within the existing and planned lane configurations along the study corridor. In order to better understand the potential for transit improvements, the characteristics of transit performance must be related to the overall characteristics of automobile traffic in the corridor.

10.4.3 General Assumptions

The traffic analysis of all alternatives relied on the following assumptions:

 Horizon Year. All alternatives were evaluated using a 2040 evaluation year.

 Travel Speeds The posted travel speeds along the Build Alternative alignment are 40-45 mph. The operating speed of the No Action Alternative is 16.5 mph, for the BRT Build Alternatives is 22.1 mph, and for the Streetcar Build Alternative is 20.0 mph.

 Use of Inside Lane Along most of the study corridor, transit vehicles would use the outside, or curb lanes. In this analysis, transit vehicle paths would be configured to use the left or inside lane only where necessary to maintain their routes, such as when making left turns at intersections.

 Transit Signal Priority It is assumed equipment will be installed that gives transit vehicles priority at signalized intersections. This system allows the traffic

249 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

signal controller to extend the green phase of traffic signals for transit vehicles, or if so configured to introduce the green phase earlier. To maximize the operational value of traffic signal priority, most transit station locations are set on the far side of the adjacent traffic signal.

10.4.4 Build Alternative Characteristics

Two general operational strategies are possible when converting a corridor from traditional bus service to BRT service. With streetcar service, bus routes parallel to the transitway corridor are usually discontinued, and passengers transfer to the streetcar as their routes approach the transitway. BRT vehicles are not required to use this same operational approach, since BRT vehicles may be able to operate as traditional buses outside the transitway as well.

In this study, it was assumed that BRT would operate using the streetcar model: passengers would transfer from traditional routes to BRT upon approach to the transitway corridor, except for routes that overlap the transitway for a short distance before diverging. This assumption permits more predictable bus operation in the transitway and allows the comparison of BRT and streetcar under identical operational strategies.

BRT vehicles have an additional point of flexibility over streetcars. When a streetcar must change lanes in mixed traffic, it must make the change at a single point, defined by the alignment of the track, and controlled by a traffic signal. When BRT vehicles operate in mixed flow, they could be permitted to change lanes freely, rather than being tied to a specific transitway route. This would reduce the amount of traffic signal priority that BRT vehicles would need. However, in this study, BRT vehicles were again assumed to use a streetcar model, tied to the transitway alignment and demanding the same signalization parameters as streetcar.

The following are traffic assumptions used in this study:

 In general, addition of the premium transit service does not cause major changes in the traffic operations at the intersections in the corridor. Notable exceptions include where the transitway either makes a turn, requiring more restrictive signal control, or where the transitway operates on the minor street approach, degrading major street operations.

 Intersections where traffic operations are significantly worsened by signal priority control can often be improved by reducing the level of priority afforded to transit vehicles. The tradeoff is that reducing priority tends to lengthen transit travel time.

250 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

No significant differences in automobile or transit travel times along the selected segment were observed when comparing the Build Alternatives against each other.

From a traffic operations perspective, there is no notable difference between the BRT and Streetcar Alternatives – an expected outcome because of the assumed identical operational strategies of the two transit vehicle types.

10.5 Cost Impacts

10.5.1 Capital Costs

Capital cost estimates were developed using the FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) worksheet tables which includes 10 general cost categories, each with two or more cost line items. Allocated cost contingencies were added to each individual cost line item; these contingencies were 20% except for utilities which was 30% and right-of-way which was 50%. A standard general unallocated contingency of 15% was added to all cost category subtotals. Each of the SCC elements are described below along with pertinent assumptions for both Build Alternatives:

 SCC Category 10 – Guideway and Track Elements: Includes all portions of the transit guideway and supporting structure if applicable, including costs associated with excavation, fill retaining walls and other elements related to the guideway.

o For the BRT option, these costs include signing and striping, minor street revisions to accommodate BRT movements and the like

o For the Streetcar option, these costs include the in-street slab and subgrade work needed, and an aerial structure over I-285.

 SCC Category 20 – Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal: These costs include work associated with transit stations, including platforms, finishes, equipment, and mechanical, electrical and safety systems.

o For the BRT and Streetcar options, these costs include basic station platforms with canopies, ticketing machines, furnishings, lighting, security and information systems, pedestrian access and lighting. A 500-space parking garage is also included at the Gwinnett Arena station.

 SCC Category 30 – Support Facilities (Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings: Includes all associated construction costs for all support facilities, such as storage and maintenance facilities and administration buildings.

251 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

o For the BRT and Streetcar options, this item includes a maintenance and storage facility sized for the proposed transit fleets.

 SCC Category 40 – Sitework and Special Conditions: Includes site civil elements associated with the project, including clearing and demolition, utilities relocation, and other miscellaneous project requirements.

o For the BRT and Streetcar options, this cost category includes an allowance for utility relocation for guideway installation, traffic signal adjustments, and construction of 4-lane roadways on Button Gwinnett and Best Friend Roads to accommodate in-street transit services.

 SCC Category 50 – Systems: Includes all systems related elements such as communications and security systems, transit signal priority equipment, traffic signal modifications, train control and signaling, and traction power supply substations and distribution.

o For the BRT option, this category includes adjustments to existing traffic signals, and fare collection equipment.

o For the Streetcar option, this category includes the above as well as train controls, traction power supply and OCS distribution, and fare collection equipment.

 SCC Category 60 – Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements: Includes the purchase or lease of real estate, relocation of businesses or households, and associated professional services.

o For the BRT and Streetcar options, this includes allowances for land to site maintenance and storage facility, and minor land acquisition near stations.

 SCC Category 70 – Vehicles: Includes the cost of the transit vehicles to be used on the project, both peak service requirement vehicles and spare vehicles (at 20% of the peak need).

o This includes for the BRT option 11 65-foot articulated bus vehicles and for the Streetcar option 12 three-section articulated street cars (Tucson streetcar model).

 SCC Category 80 – Professional Services: Includes all professional, technical and management services related to the design, construction and implementation of the project, such as preliminary and final engineering, project management, construction administration, liability insurance, legal/permits/fees, survey/testing/inspection, and start-up.

252 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

o For this project, a collective allowance of 34% was used, matching the total and individual percentages of total project construction cost (SCC 10 to 50) used for the GRTA update estimate for the I-85 Corridor light rail alternative.

 SCC Category 90 – Unallocated Contingency: Includes a standard unallocated contingency to account for undefined project items in early stages of project planning and design. This contingency is in addition to specific allocated contingencies for individual cost line items.

o An unallocated contingency factor of 15% was collectively applied to SCC Cost Categories 10 to 80.

 SCC Category 100 – Finance Charges: Includes finance charges expected to be paid by the project sponsor/grantee prior to the completion of the project.

o Given the unknown approach to financing the project costs, no finance changes are included in the project cost estimates.

Conceptual level cost estimates were prepared for each of the Build Alternatives, and summarized for project budget purposes. Unit costs used to develop the estimates were based upon recently completed transit systems and modified as required for the transit investments envisioned for l-85 Corridor. Source information was derived from recent comparable project cost estimates. The BRT and Streetcar cost estimates were escalated at the same rate as the light rail cost estimate update to 2018, as requested, at 2.5 percent per year based on recent construction cost trends. The FTA SCC spreadsheet includes an inflation worksheet that addresses this calculation step. The cost estimates used the same allocated and unallocated contingency factors, and professional service line item factors as were used for the referenced GRTA cost estimate update for the I-85 light rail transit alternative.

Unit costs for specific project components were drawn from data available to the consultant for project estimates for the Atlanta Streetcar, the Ft. Lauderdale Wave Streetcar, BRT project proposals in Las Vegas and Birmingham, and other industry cost research.

All cost estimates are in a summarized format derived from the SCC worksheets and suitable for conceptual project budget purposes. Table 10-7 provides a summary of capital costs. The estimated 2018 cost of the BRT Build Alternative is approximately $149,227 million ($9.0 million/mile), while for the Streetcar Build Alternative the estimate is $611.345 million ($37.1 million/mile).

253 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-7: Summary of Capital Costs by Alternative

254 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

BRT Alternative: Basic Assumptions

Description

 16.5 miles transitway between Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station,

 11 passenger station stops, and

 7 peak service BRT vehicles and 2 spare vehicles for a total 9 vehicle fleet.

Service

 All days from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,

 Saturdays and Sundays: from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M., and

 Headways – 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M.; 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays.

Features Included

 Street reconstruction from curb to curb along Build Alternative alignment,

 Station stops include ticket vending machines and real-time vehicle arrival information,

 Necessary utilities relocations,

 Traffic signal priority with traffic signal and controller modifications, and required equipment on transit vehicles,

 Streetscape improvements and landscaping near stations,

 Required traffic signing and pavement markings to reinforce transit operations,

 Property acquisition (generally minor takings near stations as needed),

 Widening of Button Gwinnet Road and Best Friend Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes), and

 Environmental mitigation.

255 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Streetcar Alternative: Basic Assumptions

Description

 16.75-miles between Gwinnett Arena to MARTA’s Doraville Rail Station (additional length for rail tail tracks at end stations),

 11 passenger station stops,

 7 peak service streetcar vehicles and 2 spare vehicles for a total 9 vehicle fleet, and

 Vehicle storage and maintenance will be identified in subsequent study.

Service

 All days from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M.,

 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,

 Saturdays and Sundays: from 5:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M., and

 Headways – 10 minutes weekday peak periods; 15 minutes the rest of the service day, except 30 minute headways from 8:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M.: 30 minute headways Saturdays and Sundays.

Features Included

 Two tracks along entire route, plus yard lead track and tail tracks at end stations,

 Reconstruction of vehicle lanes for installation of embedded rail track section,

 Basic catenary poles,

 Station stops include ticket vending machines and real-time vehicle arrival information,

 Necessary utilities relocations,

 Traffic signal priority with traffic signal and controller modifications, and required equipment on transit vehicles,

 Streetscape improvements and landscaping near stations,

 Required traffic signing and pavement markings to reinforce transit operations,

256 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

 Property acquisition (generally minor takings near stations as needed),

 Widening of Button Gwinnet Road and Best Friend Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, and

 Environmental mitigation.

10.5.2 BRT Cost Assumptions

Busway Facilities

Roadway construction work is expected to include street reconstruction involving one single lane in each direction. Pavement design for road adjustments and the road widening would be of typical asphalt concrete design, similar to that currently used along Satellite Boulevard.

Other guideway facilities costs include pavement saw cuts, geotextile fabric, and reconstruction of street pavement where necessary. Allowances for adjustment of signal controller and signal display hardware for the transit signal priority system measures are included as part of the project.

Utilities

A minimal allowance is included in this estimate for relocation of public and private utilities features that could be expected to be in conflict with the improvements described in the Build Alternatives. Public utilities may include storm drains, sanitary sewers, electric power, water, gas, etc. Private utilities may include communications conduit, television cable conduit, and others. For this estimate, it is assumed that those projects and other major relocations of public and private utilities due to changes in roadway cross-section and not directly resulting from improvements included in the Build Alternatives would be accomplished under other contracts.

Systems

BRT operations are assumed to use line-of-sight operating rules, where the operator is always in full control of the vehicle. As noted above, basic optical traffic signal priority equipment is assumed in both vehicles and wayside.

Communications equipment includes a simple GPS vehicle location system that provides “next bus” information via a variable message sign (VMS) system at passenger station stops. Radio equipment is installed on all vehicles and at a central dispatch center located within the storage/maintenance facility.

257 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Station Stops

Typical platforms are 75 feet long and 14 inches high, with a 15 foot long ramp at one end. Station platforms, to be constructed to the side of the curb lane of the street, would vary in width between 8 and 14 feet depending on station area conditions. Construction costs include signage, lighting, seating, and overhead weather canopy. The station design would be part of the service branding in terms of logos, colors and design aesthetic. Limited allowance is made for special finishes, custom pavers, and landscaping near the stations. Fare collection equipment is assumed to include full service, heavy duty ticket vending machines at all station stops.

Miscellaneous Items

An allowance for maintenance of traffic during construction includes temporary signage, electric sign boards, barrels, separation fencing, safety barricades, movable “Jersey barriers,” etc. and occasional use of traffic control officers. The estimate does not specifically include potential environmental mitigation items such as hazardous materials remediation (soil and/or water) or special noise-control measures.

Vehicles

BRT vehicles are made by various manufactures (see Weststart-CALSTART’s, Vehicle Catalog: A Compendium of Vehicles and Powertrain Systems for Bus Rapid Transit Service, 2006 Update).

Other Project Costs

Selected property acquisition costs are included in this estimate, including an allowance for additional street right-of-way station stops. Preliminary engineering, final design, construction phase professional services are included in the costs, with the assumption that the project will be a conventional design-bid-build project. Construction and project management are assumed to be by Gwinnett County. The cost estimate includes allowances for liability and accident insurance policy coverage, as well as for other insurance, legal services, permits, and review fees.

Contingencies

A general (unallocated) cost contingency factor of 15% was applied to all project costs given the early stage of the project and to account for market fluctuations and unforeseen features and occurrences related to construction. Construction items contain standard allocated contingency factors. These are rated at 20% for all items except for utilities (30%) and right-of-way (50%).

258 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.5.3 Streetcar Costs Assumptions

Guideway Facilities

Construction of standard embedded track includes sawcutting existing paving, removing existing pavement, placing 8 inches aggregate base and 15 inches reinforced concrete track slab with embedded rails. The estimate accounts for the relatively higher cost of constructing two separate track slabs instead of two tracks in a single slab. Seven universal crossovers are assumed along the Streetcar route. The crossovers would include appropriate control and power systems.

Other guideway facilities costs include pavement saw cuts, geotextile fabric, and reconstruction of street pavement where necessary. Relocation of street lights may be required to correct any interference with overhead catenary system wiring. Allowances for adjustment of signal controller and signal display hardware for the transit signal priority system measures are included as part of the project.

Utilities

A minimal allowance is included in this estimate for relocation of public and private utilities features that could be expected to be in conflict with the improvements described in the Build Alternatives. Public utilities may include storm drains, sanitary sewers, electric power, water, gas, etc. Private utilities may include communications conduit, television cable conduit, and others. For this estimate, it is assumed that those projects and other major relocations of public and private utilities due to changes in roadway cross-section and not directly resulting from improvements included in the Build Alternatives would be accomplished under other contracts.

Systems

An Overhead Contact System (OCS) to deliver electric power to the transit vehicles includes procurement and placement of a single-wire fixed termination OCS, including poles and foundations, catenary system, and feeder system. All wires are assumed to be supported by freestanding poles along each side of the street, and only in exceptional cases by attachments to existing buildings or structures. The estimate includes only simple poles; special architectural poles could involve significant additional costs. Substations are assumed to be small facilities (300 kW per unit) located at approximately ½-mile intervals. Systems include switching, protection, rectifier-transformers, feeder, grounding and bonding systems, batteries and chargers, local and/or remote controls, and equipment supervision. Estimates include minimal ductbank length for power feed to streetcar substations.

259 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Instead of a full signal system, streetcar operations are assumed to use line-of-sight operating rules, where the operator is always in full control of the vehicle. As noted above, basic optical traffic signal priority equipment is assumed in both vehicles and wayside. Communications equipment includes a simple GPS vehicle location system that provides “next bus” information via a variable message sign (VMS) system at passenger station stops. Radio equipment is installed on all vehicles and at a central dispatch center located within the storage/maintenance facility.

Station Stops

Typical platforms are 75 feet long and 14 inches high, with a 15 foot long ramp at one end platforms are 75 feet long and 14 inches high, with a 15-foot long ramp at one end. Station platforms, to be constructed to the side of the curb lane of the street, would vary in width between 8 and 14 feet depending on station area conditions. Construction costs include signage, lighting, seating, and overhead weather canopy. The station design would be part of the service branding in terms of logos, colors and design aesthetic. Limited allowance is made for special finishes, custom pavers, and landscaping nears the stations. Fare collection equipment is assumed to include full service, heavy duty ticket vending machines at all station stops.

Miscellaneous Items

An allowance for maintenance of traffic during construction includes temporary signage, electric sign boards, barrels, separation fencing, safety barricades, movable “Jersey barriers,” etc. and occasional use of traffic control officers. The estimate does not specifically include potential environmental mitigation items such as hazardous materials remediation (soil and/or water) or special noise-control measures.

Vehicles

Streetcar vehicles are assumed to be comparable to the United Streetcar 200 Model, as supplied for the Tucson’s Sun Link Streetcar that was completed in July 2014.

Other Project Costs

Selected property acquisition costs are included in this estimate, including an allowance for additional street right-of-way station stops. Preliminary engineering, final design, construction phase professional services are included in the costs, with the assumption that the project will be a conventional design-bid-build project. Construction and project management are assumed to be by Gwinnett County. The cost estimate includes allowances for liability and accident insurance policy coverage, as well as for other insurance, legal services, permits, and review fees.

260 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Contingencies

A general (unallocated) cost contingency factor of 15% was applied to all project costs given the early stage of the project and to account for market fluctuations and unforeseen features and occurrences related to construction. Construction items contain standard allocated contingency factors. These are rated at 20% for all items except for utilities (30%) and right-of-way (50%).

10.5.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating and maintenance costs for each of the alternatives were calculated based on experience from cost data for planned or operational systems across the U.S. that are similar to the proposed l-85 Corridor Build Alternatives. Operating costs for the BRT option rely on hourly transit system cost data for GCT and include allowance for fare inspection staff. The operating costs for the Streetcar option considered recently developed and approved cost estimates for the Ft. Lauderdale Wave Streetcar project and others, prorated to transit operating costs in the Atlanta region. The assumptions for operation of the alternatives are described in Section 7.0 and the impacts on transit service are detailed in Section 7.2.

BRT O&M Cost

The annual operating cost for this alternative in 2014 dollars is based on the proposed service plan for BRT operations. The GCT operations cost per revenue hour from the National Transit Database for 2013 reporting was first adjusted to 2014 using a 1.3 percent per year adjustment, yielding a rounded value of $125.00 per revenue hour. A further adjustment was made to the BRT operating cost to take into account several categories of activity not accounted for in present operating GCT costs, including proof of payment inspectors for fare payment, roving security for station locations, light maintenance of the stations and guideway, and technology support for the various systems components of the services. A labor allowance was made based on salary and benefits, and the number of staff and shifts. This labor cost was related to the proposed revenue hours of BRT service, and the incremental revenue hour of cost added to the base $125/hour operating cost, yielding an adjusted hourly operating cost of $162/hour. This value was applied to the calculated revenue hours of service and adjusted to an annual basis, for an estimated operating cost of $5.8 million per year.

Streetcar O&M Cost

The annual operating cost for this alternative in 2014 dollars is based on the proposed service plan for Streetcar operations. The operations cost per revenue hour from was determined from recent operations cost estimates for other projects, and in comparison

261 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening to the allied bus transit services. The GCT bus operational cost rate was adjusted by the streetcar differential, yielding a 2014 rounded value of $150.00 per revenue hour. As was done for the BRT operating cost, the Streetcar base operating cost was further adjusted for other categories of operations support not fully reflected. This allowance was related to the proposed revenue hours of Streetcar service, and the incremental revenue hour of cost added to the base $150/hour operating cost, yielding an adjusted hourly operating cost of $200/hour. This value was applied to the calculated revenue hours of service and adjusted to an annual basis, for an estimated operating cost of $8.0 million per year.

10.6 Summary of the Light Rail Transit Alternative

As noted previously, investigation of a light rail transit alternative in the I-85 Corridor was conducted in the 2008-2010 timeframe. Based on changing public priorities, specific alternative screening criteria provided by the current I-85 Corridor AA Study project committees, and availability of funding for large scale transit service corridor studies, the I-85 Corridor AA Study did not further investigate the LRT alternative. However, this study is providing a summary of that alternative as requested to provide a frame of reference to the Build Alternatives considered in this study.

The I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study was co-sponsored by Gwinnett Village CID and Gwinnett Place CID9. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the technical and financial viability of a light rail transit line in Gwinnett County. The LRT study assumed an extension of MARTA eastward approximately 1.5 miles to new terminus rail station along Buford Highway in Norcross. The two-phased study examined LRT for its feasibility as an alternative to HRT options to extend the MARTA line ending now at the Doraville Rail Station further east to Gwinnett Place Mall. The LRT option reduced the total project cost significantly depending on the number of stations and alignment characteristics, while still providing a high-capacity, premium transit option for the corridor. The study used a 2030 planning horizon year. Gwinnett County reviewed the study with interest but did not formally adopt its recommendations and findings.

10.6.1 Summary of the Prior LRT Alternative

0perating characteristics for the preferred LRT alternative were as follows:

 Span of service:

o Weekdays: 4:00 A.M. to 1:30 A.M., and

9 Gwinnett County has reviewed the report with interest but has not formally adopted all of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the 2010 I-85 Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study.

262 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

o Weekends and holidays: 4:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M.

 Frequencies:

o Weekdays: 10-minutes peak/15-minutes off-peak, and

o Weekends: holidays: 20 minutes all day.

 Train consist:

o Weekdays: 3-car trains in the peak/2-car trains in the off-peak, and

o Weekends: holidays: 2-car trains.

 Run time and distance:

o Run time: 31.32 minutes,

o Distance: 13.93 miles,

o Average speed: 26.5 mph, and

o Average station spacing: 1.74 miles.

 Operating requirements:

o Peak Light Rail Vehicles: 24,

o Annual revenue car-miles: 2,382,100,

o Annual revenue car-hours: 120,760, and

o Annual revenue train-hours: 46,160.

 Other planned features:

o Baseline bus network reconfigured to feed new service along the alignment,

o Park-and-Ride facility at Gwinnett Arena,

o Smaller commuter park-and-ride lots at selected alignment stations,

o Station at MARTA Rail Station and 8 additional transit stations,

263 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

o Alignment consisted of segments within street rights-of-way and also on independent paths, with no grade-separations at intersecting arterial streets except at the Indian Trail station, and

o A vehicle storage/maintenance facility along the alignment.

o Two tracks along entire route, plus yard lead track and tail tracks at end stations,

o Reconstruction of roadway lanes for installation of embedded rail track section,

o Basic catenary poles and power distribution system,

o Station stops include ticket vending machines and real-time vehicle arrival information,

o Necessary utilities relocations,

o Traffic signal adjustments priority with traffic signal display and controller modifications, and required equipment on transit vehicles,

o Streetscape improvements and landscaping near stations,

o Required traffic signing and pavement markings to reinforce transit operations, and

o Property acquisition (minor takings near stations as needed), maintenance facility, and independent alignment segments).

It is noted that the conceptual definition of this LRT alternative was modified slightly by GRTA in 2010 as part of regional transit planning. The LRT alignment was modified by extending it westward along Buford Highway and New Peachtree Road to end at the MARTA Doraville Rail Transit Station, rather than a new terminus station at the end of MARTA extension to Norcross. The FTA SCC cost estimate was updated to reflect the additional length and a bridge crossing of I-285. The base year for these costs was updated to 2010, and the projected year of opening was 2018.

It is further noted that for the purposes of this I-85 Corridor, the GRTA cost estimate for the LRT alternative was further modified to include the park-and-ride facility at the Gwinnett Arena.

264 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.6.2 Ridership

I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study used the regional travel demand model to estimate daily boardings for the preferred LRT line from Norcross to Gwinnett Arena. The study used the TPB Concept 3 travel demand forecasts for Phase 1 of the study and then refined them in Phase 2 analyses. The total daily boarding estimate from Phase 2 was 11,100 boardings across the 9 proposed stations, including the MARTA interface station. Table 10-8 summarizes 2030 daily boardings by station.

Table 10-8: I-85 LRT Alternative Ridership – Phase 2 (2030)

Station Location Daily Boardings Gwinnett Arena 400 Duluth Highway 700 Gwinnett Place 800 Pleasant Hill 1,300 Liddell Road 1,100 Indian Trail 2,200 Brook Hollow 400 Gwinnett Village 700 Norcross 3,300 TOTAL 11,100

The LRT ridership was adjusted for comparability to the BRT and Streetcar Build Alternatives by adjusting the forecasts to reflect a western terminus station at the MARTA Doraville Rail Station, a replacement rail station in the Norcross area, and two additional stations between Buford Highway and Jimmy Carter Boulevard. As discussed under ridership estimates for the Build Alternative, the LRT ridership was grown from 2030 to 2040 at a rate of 1.5%/year. These adjustments together yielded a hypothetical LRT ridership in 2040 of 14,680 daily boardings. This figure is compared to the Build Alternative ridership estimates in Table 10-9.

Table 10-9: Comparison of Ridership in 2040 2040 Daily Corridor Alternative Boardings LRT 14,680 BRT 10,290 Streetcar 9,570

10.6.3 Capital Cost

Capital cost estimates were originally developed for the LRT Alternative using the FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) worksheet tables which includes 10 general cost categories, each with two or more cost line items. This estimate was subsequently

265 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening updated by GRTA as part of regional transit planning to bring commonality to the estimation of major transit capital projects across the region in terms of unit costs and cost contingencies. In the GRTA cost update, the base year was 2010 and the horizon year for operations was 2018. An escalation factor of 2.5% per year was used for inflating costs from the base year. Allocated cost contingencies were added to each individual cost line item; these contingencies were 20% except for utilities which was 30% and right-of-way which was 50%. A standard general unallocated contingency of 15% was added to all cost category subtotals. Each of the significant project cost components of the LRT alternative are described below:

Guideway Facilities

Construction of standard embedded track includes sawcutting existing paving, removing existing pavement, placing aggregate base and reinforced concrete track slab with embedded rails. Universal crossovers are assumed along the route. The crossovers would include appropriate control and power systems.

Other guideway facilities costs include pavement saw cuts, geotextile fabric, and reconstruction of street pavement where necessary. Relocation of street lights may be required to correct any interference with overhead catenary system wiring. Allowances for adjustment of signal controller and signal display hardware for the transit signal priority system measures are included as part of the project.

On independent alignment segments, the estimates include allowances for cut and fill, subgrade aggregate, ballast and the track bed, ties and rail. Some areas may require retaining walls, and limited structures are anticipated, specifically an aerial station at Indian Trail.

Utilities

An allowance is included in the estimate for relocation of public and private utilities features that could be expected to be in conflict with the improvements. Public utilities may include storm drains, sanitary sewers, electric power, water, gas, etc. Private utilities may include communications conduit, television cable conduit, and others. For this estimate, it is assumed that those projects and other major relocations of public and private utilities due to changes in roadway cross-section and not directly resulting from improvements included in the Build Alternatives would be accomplished under other contracts.

266 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Systems

An Overhead Contact System (OCS) to deliver electric power to the transit vehicles includes procurement and placement of a single-wire fixed termination OCS, including poles and foundations, catenary system, and feeder system. All wires are assumed to be supported by freestanding poles along each side of the street, and only in exceptional cases by attachments to existing buildings or structures. The estimate includes standard poles. Substations are assumed to be small located at approximately 1-mile intervals. Systems include switching, protection, rectifier-transformers, feeder, grounding and bonding systems, batteries and chargers, local and/or remote controls, and equipment supervision. Estimates include minimal ductbank length for power feed to substations.

Instead of a full signal system, streetcar operations are assumed to use line-of-sight operating rules, where the operator is always in full control of the vehicle. As noted above, basic optical traffic signal priority equipment is assumed in both vehicles and wayside. Communications equipment includes a simple GPS vehicle location system that provides “next bus” information via a variable message sign (VMS) system at passenger station stops. Radio equipment is installed on all vehicles and at a central dispatch center located within the storage/maintenance facility.

Stations

The cost estimate includes transit stations sized for the peak period 3-car trains, approximately 200-250 feet in length depending upon the design vehicle. Station platforms, to be constructed to the side of the curb lane of the street, would vary in width between 10 and 16 feet depending on station area conditions. Construction costs include signage, lighting, seating, and overhead weather canopy. The station design would be part of the service branding in terms of logos, colors and design aesthetic. Limited allowance is made for special finishes, custom pavers, and landscaping nears the stations. Fare collection equipment is assumed to include full service, heavy duty ticket vending machines at all station stops.

Vehicles

The study identified the need for 24 light rail cars for maximum peak service requirements. The standard spare vehicle requirement is 20%, for 6 additional cars, bringing the total fleet need to 30 cars. The light rail car to be used had a seating capacity of 76 persons with a standing capacity of 57, for a total working capacity of 133 riders. The operations analysis determined the need for 3-car trains in peak periods and 1-car trains otherwise.

267 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Other Project Costs

Property acquisition costs are included in this estimate, including an allowance for additional right-of-way for station, for independent alignment segments, station area parking, and the maintenance facility. Preliminary engineering, final design, construction phase professional services are included in the costs, with the assumption that the project will be a conventional design-bid-build project. Construction and project management are assumed to be by Gwinnett County. The cost estimate includes allowances for liability and accident insurance policy coverage, as well as for other insurance, legal services, permits, and review fees.

Contingencies

Allocated cost contingencies were added to each individual cost line item; these contingencies were 20% except for utilities which was 30% and right-of-way which was 50%. A standard general unallocated contingency of 15% was applied to all project costs given the early stage of the project and to account for market fluctuations and unforeseen features and occurrences related to construction.

Capital Cost Summary

All cost estimates are in a summarized format derived from the SCC worksheets and suitable for conceptual project budget purposes. Table 10-10 provides a summary of updated capital costs for the LRT Alternative totaling $1,257.1 million. The updated cost includes $12.9 million for a 500-space parking garage at Gwinnett Arena.

268 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-10: Summary of LRT Alternative Capital Costs

Table 10-11 summarizes the capital costs for the LRT Alternatives and this study’s Build Alternatives. The estimates all presume revenue service in 2018 with design and construction activity spread out over the several years preceding 2018. It is seen that the BRT project is substantially less in cost that other options and that the cost of the streetcar is intermediate between the other two options.

Table 10-11: Comparison of Capital Costs (YOE)-

Estimated Project Corridor Alternative Cost (millions) LRT $1,257.1 BRT $149.2 Streetcar $611.3

269 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

10.6.4 Operating and Maintenance Cost

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed for the LRT alternative in 2009 as part of the study. A detailed analysis was performed of 9 peer system costs to develop an O&M cost estimate. The approach used was a “fully allocated” cost model structure in which expenses incurred for system operation and maintenance is driven by supply variables such as vehicle revenue miles, train revenue hours, and peak vehicles in service. NTD operating expense data as reported by object class and function was reviewed and cost drivers assigned to each. From this analysis, unit costs are then derived for each supply variable. Total O&M costs are calculated by multiplying the unit cost for each supply variable by the projected annual units of service relating to that supply variable. The projected annual units of service are taken from the proposed operating plan for the transit service. These costs were calculated for 2009, the year of analysis. The following summarizes this allocated cost structure for the preferred LRT alternative:

 Maintenance Facility/Storage Yard:

o Quantity: 1

o Unit Cost: $4,157,759

 Route Miles:

o Quantity: 27.9 (13.93 x 2)

o Unit Cost: $101,888

 Train Hours:

o Quantity: 46,160

o Unit Cost: $120.89

 Train Car Miles:

o Quantity: 2,382,100

o Unit Cost: $3.36

 Train Cars in Peak Service:

o Quantity: 24

270 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

o Unit Price: $131,048

These values when applied yielded an estimated O&M cost of $25,629,365 in 2009 dollars for the preferred LRT alternative.

Table 10-12 summarizes the capital costs for the LRT Alternatives and this study’s Build Alternatives. The estimates all presume revenue service in 2018 with design and construction activity spread out over the several years preceding 2018. It is seen that the BRT project is substantially less in cost that other options and that the cost of the streetcar is intermediate between the other two options. Table 10-12: Comparison of O&M Costs Estimated Project Corridor Alternative O&M Cost (millions) LRT $25.6 (2010) BRT $5.8 (2014) Streetcar $8.0 (2014)

10.6.5 Summary Comparison

Table 10-13 presents a comparison of key statistics for the LRT alternative in comparison to this study’s Build Alternatives. It is seen that the LRT attracts more daily riders with the fastest scheduled speed and at a considerably greater cost than for the other two alternatives.

271 I-85 Corridor AA Study Impact Screening

Table 10-13: Comparison of Alternatives Length Total Daily Annual Corridor Capital of Ridership O&M Mode/Alignment Transit Travel Costs Corridor (Premium Costs Time ($000) (miles) Service) in 2040 ($000) LRT Mode Gwinnett Arena to Doraville MARTA 1,257.1 25.6 15.5 40 minutes 14,290 Station (via Satellite (2018) (2010) Blvd/Buford Hwy) BRT Mode Gwinnett Arena to Doraville MARTA 149.2 5.8 16.5 45 minutes 10,290 Station (via Satellite (2018) (2014) Blvd/Buford Hwy) Streetcar Mode Gwinnett Arena to Doraville MARTA 611.3 8.0 16.5 50 minutes 9,570 Station (via Satellite (2018) (2014) Blvd/Buford Hwy)

272 I-85 Corridor AA Study Conclusion

11.0 CONCLUSION

Gwinnett County must consider the various users of its road facilities and balance the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit passengers, goods and services vehicle operators, and motorists. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing BRT or Streetcar projects in urban areas is deciding how to allocate scarce road space among the various modes and users. Unlike a heavy rail system such as MARTA’s HRT system, which must be completely separated from traffic conflicts due to its third rail power supply, BRT and Streetcar are more flexible and can share roadway space with cars and other modes. This flexibility often allows BRT and Streetcar projects to reduce capital costs, but this can come with its own price. The ability to operate frequent, fast service in a separate, exclusive transit guideway is an important feature of a premium, high capacity transit service such as BRT or Streetcar, particularly in corridors with higher transit demand and heavy traffic congestion. Some BRT or Streetcar projects are able to build new exclusive transit lanes in available road space such a median, while in many cases the challenge in planning to build new lanes or convert existing travel lanes to transit use proves too difficult and buses must share lanes with cars in traffic. When buses are caught in traffic, reliability suffers and speeds are reduced, which increases operating cost and lessens the appeal of the transit service to potential customers. This is one of the fundamental challenges of planning and operating transit in busy, congested metropolitan areas.

The l-85 Corridor Build Alternative alignment features the introduction of premium transit service, mostly along the curb lane of arterial streets throughout most its length. There are adjacent businesses and neighborhoods, and natural systems to consider. Can new BRT or Streetcar pathways be adjusted to improve operations and reduce traffic conflicts, with acceptable right-of-way takings without excessive cost or impacts? Could reversible one-way only lanes, operating in the peak direction offer a cost effective solution? How will GCT buses operate in concert with the new premium service? How much will the alternatives cost? These are all questions that the next phase of the study will need to consider in more detail and attempt to resolve.

The following tasks were initiated during the l-85 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study but will need further analysis and refinement:

 Ridership, including the overall system user benefit (cost effectiveness),

 Station locations and right-of-way impacts,

 Engineering and design constraints and/or opportunities,

 Traffic analysis and determination of consequences, and

273 I-85 Corridor AA Study Conclusion

 Transit and bicycle interface, including space requirements for separation.

This study was the first step in establishing a BRT or Streetcar system, which can be further refined and analyzed. The potential benefits of coordinating transit investment with other initiatives to increase population and employment density could maximize the impact of a premium transit system in the l-85 Corridor.

274