Appendix A Public Involvement Plan
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan Chattanooga Rail Transit Implementation Study Public Involvement Plan
Public Involvement Plan The public engagement process for the Chattanooga Rail Transit Implementation Study (CRTIS) will tap into the interest that exists in improving public transportation in the region. Utilizing proven techniques for reaching the public, an understanding of how passenger rail could provide a needed transportation alternative for many segments of the population will be developed based on broad public input. The economic development potential related to new public transit service will also be explored with stakeholders and the public.
Project Description The Chattanooga Department of Transportation (CDOT) was awarded U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration TIGER Funds and is supplementing those funds with local match funds. The purpose of the project is to explore the re-introduction of passenger rail service to Chattanooga, potentially returning to a 160-year tradition as a national railroad leader, and opening the door to a vibrant economic future for Chattanooga by providing a broader mix of transportation options.
Public Officials and Business Community Outreach Outreach will focus on the following:
A. Initial Local Elected Officials Briefings – These will include the City and County Mayors, City Council and County Commission. The briefings (Blythe, Bert, Justin and Tyler) will provide opportunities to uncover concerns and issues, and to get recommendations of key stakeholders who need to be involved in the process. B. Periodic Local Elected Official Briefings – These briefings will be held (Blythe, Bert, Justin and Tyler) immediately before or after public meetings and will provide opportunities for elected officials to be briefed on project status and findings and to provide input. C. State and Federal Congressional Delegation – these elected officials will be invited (Blythe, Bert, Justin and Tyler) to attend or send representation to all public meetings and events. They will also be sent a project update at the project midpoint and will be sent the final report.
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 1 D. Business Community Engagement – Meetings will be held to gauge interest and support, identify feasibility challenges and gain insight into the travel markets. 1) The Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (TVRM, Tim Andrews), CARTA, the City of Chattanooga, and Ron Harr will assist in the effort to identify a list of businesses along the corridor and set up stakeholder meetings to discuss the goals of the project, the potential alignments, and potential implementation phases. The number of meetings will be finalized based on input from the TVRM, CARTA, the City and Ron Harr. 2) The Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce holds regular meetings with businesses in various sub-markets within Hamilton County. The CRTIS team (Consultant Team, Ron Harr, Justin and Tyler) will provide information and collect input from businesses in these groups located along the study corridor. 3) The CRTIS consultant team will help identify business groups that need to be engaged and will review the engagement activities to help ensure that outreach is consistent throughout the business community. The CRTIS consultant team will be available to participate in business community meetings on dates that coincide with public meetings. The consultant team will develop a template for business community engagement. E. Fire, Police and Safety Administration – These organizations will be invited to public meetings and briefings (Justin and Tyler) to collect important insights on how potential alignments/routes could affect neighborhoods and safety response. They will receive a project update at project midpoint and will be sent a final copy of the study. F. Preparation of Outreach Materials – Appropriate printed and electronic materials will be prepared for each stakeholder meeting. Templates for presentations to the business community will also be prepared by the CRTIS consultant team for use by local project staff.
Public Meetings A number of public events will be held, to be coordinated where possible with other scheduled transportation-related meetings and events. In addition, a pre-kickoff event will coincide with another transportation meeting. Planned meetings are as follows: A. Pre-kickoff participation in the Multi-Modal Center Public Meeting of July 9, 2015 – CRTIS consultant team will prepare a project fact sheet and will be present at the meeting to distribute the fact sheet and answer questions. CRTIS consultant team will present slides outlining objectives and timeline. B. A project kick-off public meeting will be held to inform the public about CRTIS and collect initial input. 1) Target date of meeting – Mid-October 2015 2) In late September 2015 there are several public meetings for other projects that will be held in the Chattanooga area: the Multi-Modal Center final public meeting, CHRPA’s regional planning meeting, and a Regional Transportation Forum being planned by a group of transportation related agencies. The date of the kick-off meeting will not conflict with established dates for those meetings.
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 2
C. A second public meeting will be held to evaluate and refine alternatives. 1) Target Date of Meeting Mid-January 2016 D. Public workshops will be held to engage the public, stakeholders, businesses and neighborhood groups in visioning transit-ready development along the corridor. Three workshops will be held with the locations to be determined after initial public meeting in October. 1) Target date of workshops – Mid-January 2016, in conjunction with the timing of the second public meeting. E. A final public meeting will be held to gather public input on the transit alternatives identified by the CRTIS. 1) Target date of public meeting April 2016 F. Preparation of Meeting Materials – printed and electronic materials will be prepared for each public event in English and Spanish language versions. G. Meeting Notices will be distributed via several channels that may include: 1) Project web page 2) Social media 3) Emails to stakeholder list 4) Emails to individuals who sign up to receive information about CRTIS 5) Flyers posted in public buildings 6) Official notice in the newspaper of record 7) Public service announcements to all media outlets in Hamilton County
Digital Communications To allow the public to have continuous access to information about CRTIS and ongoing opportunities to provide input, digital communication will be utilized and updated regularly.
A. Project web page www.chattanooga.gov/rail will be maintained on the City of Chattanooga’s web site. 1) The web page will allow the public to sign up to receive information about CRTIS via email. 2) Meeting notices will be posted on the page. 3) Meeting materials will be linked to the page. B. Social Media will also be used to provide information about CRTIS. 1) Facebook and Twitter will be utilized with regular postings throughout the project. The CRTIS team will suggest postings, and review all official postings before they are posted to ensure that communications about CRTIS are consistent. 2) Hashtags will be used to help identify postings related to CRTIS. 3) The Facebook and Twitter accounts to be used will be determined by the City and CARTA. The desired method is to use existing, well-established accounts with many followers. The responsibility for posting to social media will primarily be the
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 3 responsibility of the City or CARTA staff who manage the social media accounts. The Consultant team will provide technical content and collaborate on the messaging as requested by the City staff.
Stakeholder Committee A. Identify stakeholders – The City of Chattanooga has compiled a preliminary list of stakeholders. CRTIS consultants will work with the City and CARTA to fully develop the list. The City will provide access to the City’s Smartsheet contact database to designated consultant team members to enable maintenance of the list. The stakeholder list will be updated throughout the duration of the study (Justin and Tyler). B. From the stakeholder list, in consultation with the City, a Stakeholder Committee will be identified. C. The consultant team will plan and facilitate regular meetings of the Stakeholder Committee D. Local planning and transportation agencies should be represented on the Stakeholder Committee, including but not limited to: 1) City of Chattanooga 2) Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority 3) Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization 4) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency 5) Hamilton County 6) Airport Authority 7) Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce 8) Downtown business organizations 9) Glass House Collective 10) Enterprise South business stakeholders 11) Rossville Blvd business organizations 12) Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum 13) Local Tourism Officials 14) Neighborhood Association leaders from surrounding corridor 15) Hamilton County Rail Authority 16) CSX 17) Norfolk Southern 18) Chattanooga Housing Authority 19) Chattanooga Enterprise CDC
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 4
Engagement of Right of Way and Property Owners near Potential Transit Stops A. The City of Chattanooga has committed to conduct door-to-door canvassing in areas where transit-ready development could occur. 1) The City would recruit volunteers and lead them in conducting the canvassing based upon the City’s past experience in other projects where canvassing is used. It is anticipated that staff from various City departments would be among the volunteer group. 2) The CRTIS consultant team will develop the questionnaire and participate in the canvassing using staff members who have experience with intercept interviews to focus on businesses in the canvassing area. 3) The CRTIS consultant team will tabulate the responses and incorporate the information into the study. B. A presentation and meeting focused on property owners may be held in first quarter 2016 prior to the final public meeting.
Environmental Justice Plan and Outreach to Traditionally Underserved Communities An array of outreach tools will be utilized to reach and engage segments of the population traditionally underserved by transportation and not frequently engaged in public planning.
A. Public events will be held in venues that are ADA compliant and served by public transit. B. Notices of public events will be posted in locations that serve low-income and low English literacy populations. C. Notice of public events will be distributed through the Chattanooga Neighborhood Services Department. D. Notices of public events and opportunities to provide input for the CRTIS will be distributed to places of worship and community centers. E. Outreach will be conducted in partnership with the City’s Neighborhood Services. F. Accommodations will be in place at each public event for persons with hearing and sight impairment and low English language literacy, a Spanish-speaking CRTIS team member will be present for public meetings and forums as well as any special outreach to the Hispanic community. G. Digital communications will be utilized in reaching traditionally underserved communities.
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 5
Coordination with FTA/FRA/TDOT/CARTA The CRTIS project team will conduct regular project update meetings with Federal and local agencies to ensure planning efforts are coordinated with ongoing and future planning efforts, and are consistent with guidance and requirements. Monthly teleconferences will be held prior to submission of the FTA monthly report.
Coordination with Norfolk Southern, CSX & Hamilton County Rail Authority The CRTIS project team will facilitate proactive outreach and engagement with railroads and conduct regular project update meetings to ensure consistency with railroad plans and requirements. Recognizing that collaboration with the active rail systems in the region is vital to implementation of a rail transit plan, the consultant team will engage Norfolk Southern and CSX planners early in the study and involve them in key stakeholder communications as well as public outreach events throughout the study.
Contacted Groups The following provides an overview of the groups, organizations, and officials contacted for the CRTIS.
Transportation Vision Committee: CARTA Chattanooga Department of Transportation Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Tennessee Department of Transportation City of Chattanooga Tennessee Valley Rail Museum
Neighborhood Associations: Alton Park Glenwood Avondale Highland Park/Oak Grove Bushtown/Churchville Orchard Knob Downtown Southside East Chattanooga St. Elmo East Lake/Clifton Hills Westside Eastdale/Ridgeside
Business Community Engagement: CHI Memorial Amazon McCallie School Hospital University of Erlanger Health BikeTours Tennessee System Volkswagen Chattanooga August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 6 Chattanooga Siskin Rehab Hospital Chattanooga Gas Metropolitan Airport BWSC Examiner.com SunTrust Bank Aquarium Southeast Rubber & Riverside Rock City Inc. Safety Development Mauldin & Jenkins, Mathis/Ewing Artech LLC Architect Elliott Davis First Bank S&ME Market Street & Herman Walldorf Times Free Press Auto Commercial News Channel 9 - Cohutta Banking Worth Construction Reporter Market Street Tire & WRCB-TV - VP Civil Smith LLC Auto Regions Bank Microsoft CHA Airport Boehm & Tevell Real Arcadis Cohutta Banking Co. Estate UNUM Widgets & Stone Chambliss Bahner & Signature Brokers Miller & Martin Stoppal S&ME Inc Dawes Hospitality EPB Kelly Cars
Local Elected Officials: Andy Berke - City Mayor Yusuf Hakeem - City Council District 9 Chuck Fleischmann - Congressman Moses Freeman - City Council District 8 Bob Corker - Senator Chip Anderson - City Council District 7 Gerald McCormick - Legislator - District 26 Carol Berz - City Council District 6 Todd Gardenhire - Legislator - District 10 Russell Gilbert - City Council District 5 Bo Watson - Legislator - District 11 Larry Grohn - City Council District 4 JoAnne Favors - Legislator - District 28 Ken Smith - City Council District 3 Mayor Coppinger - County Mayor Jerry Mitchell - City Council District 2 Arlene Hughes - County Mayor's Office Chip Henderson - City Council District 1
Foundations and Non-Profit Groups Glass House Collective Chattanooga Design Studio Trust for Public Land Grassroots midtown River City Company Read 20 green|spaces Bright Bridge Inc. Thrive 2055 Metro Ideas Project Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum ECAASJ Benwood Foundation TEC The Enterprise Center Lyndhurst Foundation Bike Walk Chattanooga
August 25, 2015 Public Involvement Plan - 7 CHATTANOOGA RAIL TRANSIT STUDY PUBLIC MEETING
October 22, 2015 5:30pm-7:30pm Chattanooga Choo Choo 1400 Market Street
A formal notice with agenda will be sent later. This is an advance notice to stakeholders.
For more information about the study visit chattanooga.gov/rail
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bert Kuyrkendall April 14, 2016 p. (423) 643-6176 Brent Derrick p. (423) 643-5967
Public Invited to Meeting to Continue Conversation
About Passenger Rail in Chattanooga
The third in a series of public meetings about a potential new rail transit system is scheduled for April 28. Everyone is encouraged to attend, whether you have attended an earlier meeting or this would be your first meeting.
The Chattanooga Rail Transit Implementation Study aims to explore the re-introduction of passenger rail service, potentially returning to a 160-year tradition as a national railroad leader, and opening the door to a vibrant economic future for Chattanooga by providing a broader mix of transportation options.
The public is encouraged to attend the upcoming public meeting to learn about the study, ask questions, and offer their input on Thursday, April 28 from 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm at the Imperial Ballroom of the Chattanooga Choo Choo, 1400 Market Street. Light refreshments will be provided and complimentary parking is available at Shuttle Park South.
Attendees will learn more about the various alternatives considered, including the preferred route alternative. The project team will also discuss the framework used for evaluating these alternate routes. Following this brief presentation, break out groups will offer further detail around topics, such as service levels, comparison of alternatives, station plans and engineering issues.
“Since our last meeting in January 2016, the project team has been evaluating route and technology alternatives,” said Bert Kuyrkendall, City of Chattanooga Department of Transportation Engineer. “We are taking an in-depth look at all the cost and benefit impacts on our great city.”
The Chattanooga Department of Transportation (CDOT) was awarded U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration TIGER Funds for the study which includes an evaluation of the alternatives, an inventory of benefits to the community, costs to build and operate the rail service, and an evaluation of the overall feasibility of the project.
For more information about the study, visit www.chattanooga.gov/rail
Engage with the project on social media: twitter.com #ReturnToRail, #PassengerRail. For SMS updates, text RAIL to 97779.
#### Appendix B Review of Plans
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan Review of Plans and Studies
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Review of Relevant Plans ...... 1 2.1 Mass Transit Alternatives (2009) ...... 1 2.2 2035 LRTP Complete Streets Section (2010) ...... 2 2.3 On-Board Transit Survey (2011) ...... 3 2.4 Chattanooga Housing Study (2013) ...... 4 2.5 Housing Affordability and Vacancy in the City of Chattanooga (2013) ...... 5 2.6 Travel Demand Model Peer Review and 2040 RTP Travel Demand Model Documentation (2013) ...... 6 2.7 The Chattanooga-Hamilton County 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2013) ...... 7 2.8 Participation Plan for Transportation Planning (2013) ...... 8 2.9 Downtown Chattanooga Housing, Retail, and Office Market Opportunities (2014) ..... 8 2.10 Chattanooga Complete Streets Policy City Ordinance (2014) ...... 9 2.11 Development of Form-Based Code (2015) ...... 10 2.12 Multimodal Transportation Center Study (2015) ...... 11 3.0 Summary of Findings ...... 12
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i Review of Plans and Studies
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Chattanooga was awarded a Transportation Improvements Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) round six grant to study the feasibility of implementing passenger rail service on existing, mostly underutilized, rail lines connecting downtown with neighborhoods and activity centers to the east, including the airport and Enterprise South.
In this early task of the study, the team conducted a review of relevant local plans and studies – both underway and completed – with an impact on the opportunities and constraints affecting this potential project.
A brief overview of the content and findings from each study is presented in the following format:
Summary
Findings
Relevance to passenger rail study
Questions relevant to passenger rail study
The report is organized chronologically, with the earliest study presented first.
The final section of the memorandum includes an overall summary of findings as they relate to the development of this feasibility study for passenger rail implementation in Chattanooga.
2.0 REVIEW OF RELEVANT PLANS
2.1 Mass Transit Alternatives (2009) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Summary: The study summarizes the following topics:
. Types of transit technologies (e.g., bus, streetcar, commuter rail, etc.);
. Transit in Chattanooga; and
. Recommendations for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and transit service. Findings: The following recommendations are proposed:
. Develop a set of criteria for when sidewalk construction is appropriate along with standards for construction
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1 Review of Plans and Studies
. Identify areas that need sidewalk reconstruction, especially in older neighborhoods;
. Install “Trampe1” bicycle lifts to assist bicyclists up hilly/mountainous terrain;
. Designate certain zones or corridors as “Bicycle Zones,” where bicycles are given priority;
. Create “Downtown Ride Free Zones” where there is no charge for transit use in the Central Business District, which may encourage employees’ use at lunch and maybe entice them to ride for their daily commute; and
. Engage in discussions with major employers about potential initiation of dedicated commuter bus or van routes between key employment locations and major residential areas.
Relevance to the rail implementation study:
. Can serve as a quick reference guide describing various transit technologies and transit oriented development; and
. Analysis of Chattanooga density compared to peer cities (Section 3). Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Do sidewalk construction standards exist for the region, especially for areas located around transit stations?
. Will bicycle access to the rail corridor be a major component of the study? If so, are there any geographical barriers we need to be aware of?
. As a reference for statistics and data, such as density or transit usage, are there certain peer cities that should be considered for transit planning purposes? (this study referenced Knoxville, Little Rock, and Lexington).
2.2 2035 LRTP Complete Streets Section (2010) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Summary: This portion of the LRTP includes:
. Overview of Complete Streets concept and reasons for implementation;
. Overview of how a Complete Streets policy relates to the performance-based goals of the LRTP; and
1 The Trampe bicycle lift (in use in Norway) uses a pedal attached to an underground cable. The cyclist inserts a “key card” then stands next to the Trampe with the right foot on the pedal, leg extended. The cyclist is propelled forward at four to six miles per hour up the hill.
2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Review of Plans and Studies
. Description of how Complete Streets was integrated throughout the plan. Findings: . Implement Complete Streets, where appropriate Relevance to passenger rail implementation study: . Provides guidance on how to measure the performance of Complete Streets;
. The chapter provides good narrative on the benefits of Complete Streets; and
. The Complete Streets concept was integrated throughout the 2035 LRTP – the rail implementation study may also want to reference the policy throughout the plan. Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Is the Complete Streets policy being successfully implemented? What challenges are being faced?
. Is it anticipated that on-street rail will be considered for any rail corridor segments? Are these streets targeted for Complete Streets improvements?
2.3 On-Board Transit Survey (2011) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Summary: This report summarizes an on-board survey conducted on CARTA buses in November 2010. The overall goals of the report included:
. Gather data for a multimodal transportation demand modeling system;
. Map the start and end points of CARTA rider trips;
. Analyze demographic and trip characteristics; and
. Allow public transit users to rate and provide feedback on service. Findings: The results from the survey described the typical CARTA rider as:
. 35 to 49 years old
. Female
. Household income less than $15,000
. African American . Accesses the bus via walking
. From a zero car household
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3 Review of Plans and Studies
. Has ridden CARTA for at least five years
General CARTA ridership transit characteristics are:
. 42 percent of trips are between home and work
. 84 percent of passengers had no car available;
. Transit trips peak earlier than auto trips (suggests first shift at a blue-collar or service sector job)
Service recommendations included:
. Research smart growth policies to integrate transit and land use planning;
. Study barriers and incentives of transit use by car owners and determine if downtown free zone could increase choice ridership;
. Research BRT technologies for select routes;
. Reevaluate fare structure;
. Increase operational efficiency by increasing frequencies on highest used routes and decreasing frequencies on underutilized routes;
. Identify potential markets for choice riders (e.g., routes with similar transit and auto travel times); and
. Improve user information (e.g., become Google transit partner, provide real-time data) Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Survey data provides information on transit user origins and destinations and desire lines where transit demand currently exists and can be evaluated as related to the potential rai corridor;
. The report states a need to attract choice riders – a rail option could increase this rider base. Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . How does this survey compare to past on-board surveys? Have the rider demographics and travel patterns changed over time?
. IS RPA or CARTA planning on conducting another on board survey soon?
. What is the availability of the on-board survey data for use in this study?
2.4 Chattanooga Housing Study (2013) By Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency.
4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Review of Plans and Studies
Summary: . This study evaluates the overall housing market and current plans/development policies across Chattanooga
. There are a significant number of vacant lots throughout the city (over 10,000 parcels) but not much is contiguous and in desirable areas that could be assembled;
. According the 2010 Census, 62% of all housing units in Chattanooga are single-family detached;
. The City of Chattanooga will need to revise development policies to promote more infill housing development that would include a greater variety of housing options Findings: The study provides recommendations with respect to housing market affordability for the housing taskforce. These strategies at the urban level include the following:
. Implement a targeted neighborhood revitalization strategy that engages public and private sectors to establish healthy market in critical neighborhoods.
. Develop an appropriate public review process for developing moderate density infill sites within established urban neighborhoods
. Formalize an urban land banking and redevelopment program that assembles distressed properties and incorporates financial incentives for their redevelopment Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . What is the current Downtown area vacancy ratio?
. What is ratio of people who have/will have housing cost burden in the rail study corridor
. How will the rail project affect housing and transportation affordability in the corridor? Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Do we have access to city parcel vacancy data? These map are presented by RPA in the report
2.5 Housing Affordability and Vacancy in the City of Chattanooga (2013) By Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA). Summary: This study evaluates housing costs (i.e. rent and own) with respect to income levels across Chattanooga. The study provides several maps prepared in ARCGIS using the ACS data.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5 Review of Plans and Studies
Findings: . Downtown Chattanooga has the highest housing values and costs. Over 70% of Downtown homeowners with a mortgage and 44% who don’t have a mortgage are housing burdened.
. Almost every extremely low income household (annual income less than $20,000) is housing burdened, regardless of whether they own or rent or where they live. Housing burden is defined as spending more than 30% of income on housing costs. Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Several of the maps created in this study can be used for the rail feasibility study
. It is critical to look into housing affordability in the light rail corridor Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . What is availability of the MLS data for housing costs analysis?
2.6 Travel Demand Model Peer Review and 2040 RTP Travel Demand Model Documentation (2013) By By FHWA (2011) and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency. Summary: . The FHWA peer review evaluated the RPA integrated land use and travel demand model.
. The peer review panel also included a series of recommendations based on their evaluation of the model and also answered any technical questions from the RPA.
. During the 2040 RTP, the travel demand model was updated.
. Included in the documentation of the RTP are the major enhancements to improve functionality, including refining the methodology and adding more capabilities. Findings: . The recommendations from the FHWA peer review are detailed and extensive.
. Recommendations include the methodology that should be used for developing specific aspects of the travel demand model, optimization techniques, and model integration.
. The updated travel demand model, as described in the RP, included a transit component, a time of day model, and updated its methodology.
New capabilities of the 2040 RTP include:
. Increased sensitivity to evaluating roadway geometric improvements . Ability to conduct transit alternative analyses
6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Review of Plans and Studies
. Local data for regional air pollution emissions analysis Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Ability to use the transit component of the model for the study
. Documents provide background on methodology and assumptions Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Have there been further updates to the model?
2.7 The Chattanooga-Hamilton County 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2013) By Cambridge Systematics et al. Summary: . The RTP discusses a passenger rail option as an alternative that could transform east side corridors, encourage high density redevelopments and positively impact congestion on highway corridors.
. The plan discusses that the passenger rail scenario can utilize existing abandoned rail tracks for parts of the transit project. Findings: . RTP surveys show that 70 percent of the respondents indicated that they do not use transit, but over half would be very likely to use transit if it were high-speed rail or passenger rail and almost half reported they would use transit if there were more routes, better frequency, and real-time scheduling.
. RTP recommends Convenient stops with pedestrian access along the corridor will encourage TODs Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Roadway congestion and performance in the rail corridor (How will transit affect traveling public in the study corridor).
. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT), Emissions, and other important parameters that are used in feasibility study are evaluated in the RTP “Big Transit Alternative”.
. Transit project cost parameters and estimates for feasibility study were included.
. Population age in the study corridor (likelihood to use transit) were addressed in mobility and health analyses. . Capacity for high density growth and infill development was examined.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7 Review of Plans and Studies
Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Which sub-areas and parcels have highest likelihood for high density infill developments and redevelopments?
2.8 Participation Plan for Transportation Planning (2013) By Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) Summary: This document discusses the MPO procedures for participation and involvement of stakeholders (i.e. citizens, local and state governments, federal agencies, etc.) in the transportation planning process. Findings: This plan sets out the procedures for the public participation process in transportation plans to ensure consistency and completeness. Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: It should be used as the basis for the public involvement processes that will be set forth in the feasibility study.
2.9 Downtown Chattanooga Housing, Retail, and Office Market Opportunities (2014) By RCLCO Advisors. Summary: This study used demographic, economic, and real estate data to analyze the current development trend in downtown Chattanooga. The study area includes the riverfront and parts of city center districts. The authors use surveys and other supplementary economic demographics and make specific recommendations for the gaps identified.
The objectives of this study are as follows:
. Assess residential, retail, and office development market in downtown Chattanooga.
. Identify the needs and existing barriers that hinder development in the downtown area.
. Analyze the impacts of economic and demographics rends in the city, particularly in the downtown area that can affect real estate activity.
8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Review of Plans and Studies
Findings: Based on their analysis the following gaps were identified:
. There is strong interest from home buyers/renters to purchase/rent houses in the downtown area.
. Estimates show that the University of Tennessee Chattanooga will attract new students that prefer on-campus housing that is currently lacking.
. The downtown area lacks major grocery stores and other major retailers since it has less growth potential.
. Downtown retail is supported by non-residents spending.
. High land values and improvement costs for infill sites and historic buildings result in narrow profit margins.
The following recommendations are proposed:
. The existing office supply will suffice until 2020.
. The downtown area needs to attract new residents by providing basic retail and community amenities for residential population.
. Focus on strengthening and revitalizing the current retail offerings and identifying key locations that are currently underperforming. Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Analysis of residential preferences in the study corridor (currently and in the future).
. Evaluation of retail and office potential in the limited parts of the study corridor.
. Impacts of mixed-use development on the residential and retail dynamics in the downtown area. Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Are any data/surveys/appraisals/etc. about residential and retail developments in the study corridor available for use in our study?
What is the current vacancy ratio (vacant land to total buildable) in the study area? For both residential and commercial.
2.10 Chattanooga Complete Streets Policy City Ordinance (2014) Summary:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9 Review of Plans and Studies
This city ordinance discusses the city policy for complete streets. The ordinance cites “Walking the Walk” by “CEOs for Cities” and indicates that complete streets improve walkability, which increases home values.
The ordinance focuses on multimodal transportation system accessibility for residents. Particularly, walking and biking are an integral component of the transit system. Findings: . The ordinance principles should be considered in engineering and design phases of the project.
. At the feasibly analysis level, the general complete streets performance criteria in terms of walkability and bike-ability should be incorporated into the project goals.
. Transit is a major issue considered in the ordinance, since there is great focus on affordability of transportation, walkability, and sustainability. Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Current walk-score ratings in the study corridor
. Consideration of the ordinance indicators in the feasibility study Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . Do you data/information about the sidewalk conditions and performance?
. Which corridors are major candidates for complete streets policy?
. How critical/relevant are the performance measures indicated in the ordinance for the city?
2.11 Development of Form-Based Code (2015) By Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Summary: . Develop a form-based code for five downtown neighborhoods: North Shore, Riverfront, City Center, M.L. King, and Southside.
. Desire for downtown to be urban, high quality, and walkable.
. Current zoning is out of date, making development difficult, time consuming, and costly. The study included: . Series of public charrettes.
. Market analysis.
. Mobility improvements (parking, sidewalks, transportation demand management, etc).
10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Review of Plans and Studies
Findings: . Study developed character area maps (similar to zoning/land use maps).
. Proposed new buildings and urban design character.
. Next step: draft of form-based code.
. List of key issues for each neighborhood included in the study. Relevance to the passenger rail implementation study: . Transit improvements could increase effectiveness of form based code – and vice-versa.
. Public opinions on mobility and development expressed in this project are also relevant to the rail study.
. Market analysis example is also relevant. Relevant questions related to passenger rail study:
. Could form-based codes extend outside of the study area?
. Will the presence of rail influence the zoning along a corridor/block?
2.12 Multimodal Transportation Center Study (2015) By Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Summary: The objectives of this study are as follows:
. Provide a new transportation center and gateway to serve multiple transportation modes in central Chattanooga.
. Improve the image and effectiveness of public transportation.
. Serve as catalyst for economic development. Findings: . The study is currently ongoing.
. Potential location(s) are being determined. Initial set of selection criteria is being developed.
. Relevant to the rail implementation study in that the Center is intended to serve any rail project(s) developed in Chattanooga, including local/commuter rail and intercity rail.
. Final recommendations could impact rail implementation study (study will be completed during 2015).
. The project reflects further support for alternative transportation in Chattanooga.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 11 Review of Plans and Studies
Relevant questions related to passenger rail study: . We need to understand community input and desires. We would like to share access to any survey results.
. What criteria and any weighting will be used in the site selection process?
. Are there frontrunners for multimodal transportation center location?
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Chattanooga region has a long history of thoughtful integrated transportation planning that provides a great foundation for this rail feasibility study. Plans have developed consistent criteria and standards for complete streets and multimodal facility planning and implementation, including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, as well as free downtown transit circulation via the electric shuttle. Surveys of CARTA transit users indicated low usage by “choice riders” who have another means of daily travel and that a rail alternative could serve as a catalyst to attract these choice riders to the system.
Housing and land use studies and community planning initiatives have indicated a great deal of potential for infill development in Chattanooga on vacant and underutilized parcels. Transit – particularly rail – can serve as a catalyst for focused-area infill development in moderate density transit-oriented nodes that may justify lower parking requirements and generate high taxes for the city in compact clusters. The Housing Affordability study pointed out the high level of cost burden on households within the study area, pointing to the need for cost-effective transportation options (which this project could address) and affordable housing, which should be possible in station areas given the number of vacant parcels.
The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan points to the need for a more balanced transportation system with more cost-effective alternatives for all users, and benefits to the built and natural environment. A passenger rail project was identified as a way to link neighborhoods with downtown and suburban employment opportunities, together with other transit investments serving other corridors and markets. Changing demographics and travel preferences of the Millennial generation will require new non-private automobile mobility choices in the future for Chattanooga. Health and environmental benefits can help to justify some of the public investment required for these alternatives, and they can contribute to much needed economic development for the City and region. A passenger rail service on existing underutilized rail right- of-way linking existing neighborhoods and activity centers with future employment and economic development clusters could be a significant contributor to a balanced and sustainable the mobility future for Chattanoogans.
12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Appendix C Rail Existing Conditions Assessment
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan Contents
1.0 Introduction...... 4
2.0 Railroad Right-of-Way ...... 5
3.0 Track ...... 6
4.0 Sidings ...... 7
5.0 Switching and Signaling ...... 8
6.0 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ...... 9
6.2 Horizontal Geometry ...... 9
6.2.1 TVRM Summary ...... 9
6.2.2 ECTB Summary ...... 9
6.2.1 Chattanooga Choo-Choo Summary ...... 9
6.3 Vertical Geometry ...... 9
6.3.1 TVRM Vertical Summary & Profile ...... 9
6.3.2 ECTB Vertical Summary & Profile ...... 10
6.3.3 Chattanooga Choo-Choo Summary ...... 10
7.0 Clearances ...... 10
7.1 ECTB Clearances ...... 10
7.2 TVRM Clearances ...... 10
8.0 Grade Separations and At-Grade Crossings...... 11
9.0 Power Supply ...... 16
10.0 Utilities...... 17
11.0 Conclusion ...... 17
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 2 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figures
Figure 1: Chattanooga Choo-Choo Track ...... 6
Figure 2: Chattanooga Choo-Choo Line Truncation ...... 7
Figure 3: TVRM Siding Section ...... 8
Figure 4: TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel Eastern Portal...... 11
Figure 5: TVRM Grade Separation over South Chickamauga Creek ...... 13
Figure 6: TVRM Grade Separation over CSX Railway ...... 14
Figure 7: TVRM Grade Separation over Tunnel Boulevard ...... 15
Figure 8: TVRM Grade Separation over Arno Street ...... 16
Tables
Table 1: Approximate Railroad Ownership Track Mileage ...... 5
Table 2: Approximate TVRM/ECTB Railroad ROW Estimates ...... 5
Table 3: Approximate TVRM/ECTB Siding Lengths ...... 7
Table 4: TVRM/ECTB Railroad Switches and Signals ...... 8
Table 5: TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel Dimensions ...... 10
Table 6: TVRM & ECTB Grade Separations and At-Grade Crossings ...... 11
Table 7: TVRM Grade Separation Elevation Detail...... 12
Appendices
Appendix A: Rail Ownership
Appendix B: Analysis Segments
Appendix C: TVRM Vertical Profile
Appendix D: ECTB Vertical Profile
Appendix E: TVRM Missionary Ridge National Register of Historic Places – Nomination Form
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 3 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a summary of existing conditions along the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (TVRM), the East Chattanooga Belt Railway (referred to as ECTB), and Chattanooga Choo-Choo railway lines. These lines were studied as part of a feasibility study of potential future transit service along existing freight rail lines in the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The termini for sections studied are as follows:
TVRM – from the eastern museum / storage facility (near the intersection of Cromwell Road and Jersey Pike) to the western museum facility / maintenance yard (near the intersection of North Chamberlain Avenue and Crutchfield Street).
ECTB – from the TVRM western museum facility / maintenance yard (near the intersection of North Chamberlain Avenue and Crutchfield Street) to the intersection of S. Holtzclaw Avenue and 13th Street. The underlying right-of-way for this segment of track is owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum has a lease to operate passenger and freight service on the line.
Chattanooga Choo-Choo – The loop track owned by the Chattanooga Choo-Choo and confined to its property.
With complications arising from combining passenger and freight service along active mainline freight lines (e.g. Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc.), an assumption was made that mainline freight corridors would not be candidates for re-use. Any utilization of these rights-of-way would be assumed to be on new parallel tracks. As a result, a detailed assessment of existing infrastructure was not performed for active mainline freight tracks. However, future coordination with freight operators along these existing corridors is recommended to keep them aware of our plans, to alert them to proposed changes in operating agreements, and to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Coordination with Norfolk Southern is particularly important as it relates to their underlying ownership of the ECTB line.
Based on this assumption, cursory information is provided for:
Track mileage for rail service providers within the Chattanooga metropolitan area (see section 2.0 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY or Appendix A) Grade separations and at-grade crossings along rail lines near Enterprise South and the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport (see Appendix B) This existing conditions assessment report considers more detailed information for the TVRM, ECTB, and Chattanooga Choo-Choo lines for the following topics:
Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW) Clearances Track Grade Separations and At-Grade Crossings Sidings Power Supply Switching and Signaling Utilities Horizontal and Vertical Geometry The information presented was developed using data from the City of Chattanooga Geographic Information System (GIS) Department, Hamilton County GIS Department, a field visit on August 11th, 2015, information provided by Tim Andrews (President of the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, East Chattanooga Belt Railway, Hiwassee River Railroad, and Tyner Terminal Railway), and other state and federal sources. This information was analyzed using ArcGIS to catalog existing features for future consideration in planning, environmental analysis, design and engineering. Relevant figures are attached as appendices to this report.
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 4 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
2.0 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Numerous rail freight companies operate in the Chattanooga metropolitan area. Additionally, the City of Chattanooga has a strong heritage in the railroad industry and has multiple historical passenger operators, used primarily for tourism. The Chattanooga Choo-Choo and TVRM are two such entities. In order to contemplate potential future rail passenger service in the Chattanooga metropolitan area, an approximation of track mileage was calculated (see Table 1). Appendix A demonstrates the extent of railroad track for the Chattanooga metropolitan area.
Table 1: Approximate Railroad Ownership Track Mileage
Owner Miles of Track Owned (Miles)*
Norfolk Southern Railway 296.4
CSX Transportation 103.5
Other/Unknown 40.3
Enterprise South 16.0 East Chattanooga Belt Railway (ECTB) leased from Norfolk 6.0 Southern Railway ** Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (TVRM) 4.7
Chattanooga and Chickamauga Railway 2.6
Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority 1.3
Chattanooga Choo-Choo 1.3
* Approximate mileage calculated using ArcGIS with data from the City of Chattanooga, coordination with the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum staff, historical documents, and discussions with Norfolk Southern. ** It should be noted that the ECTB is owned by Norfolk Southern Railway and TVRM has operating rights through a long term lease.
Parcel data provided by the City of Chattanooga GIS Department was used to estimate railroad ROW widths along the TVRM and ECTB track sections. The Chattanooga Choo-Choo’s loop right-of-way is confined to the property that the track lies upon. Table 2 demonstrates the approximate minimum and maximum ROW estimated using parcel data in relation to existing rail lines. Parcel data in relation to existing track work can be found in Appendix B.
Table 2: Approximate TVRM/ECTB Railroad ROW Estimates
Owner Minimum ROW Width (feet)* Maximum ROW Width (feet)*
TVRM 80 350
ECTB 50 160
*Approximate ROW widths calculated using ArcGIS with data from the City of Chattanooga.
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 5 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
3.0 TRACK
Railroad tracks on the TVRM and ECTB lines consist of standard gauge bolted rails on wood tie and ballast. The tracks appear to have received routine maintenance and are in good condition. The loop track1 for the no longer operational Chattanooga Choo-Choo line is approximately 3,800 feet in length and is a mix of wood tie and ballast and embedded tracks. The ballasted track is in a state of disrepair with many of the wood ties needing replacement (see Figure 1). The bolted rails appear to be out of tolerance for gauge and horizontal geometry. The embedded tracks appear in good shape; however, it should be noted that no stray current protection (rubber boot) is present. The line appears to have been truncated by construction of the parking deck at Market Street and 14th Street (see Figure 2).
Figure 1: Chattanooga Choo-Choo Track
1 Sourced from Google Earth Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 6 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 2: Chattanooga Choo-Choo Line Truncation
4.0 SIDINGS
The TVRM and ECTB lines both have siding locations adjacent to their main track at given points. These locations are primarily used for storage, but could be utilized for passing. The TVRM section analyzed has 2 sidings while the ECTB section has 3 sidings. The Chattanooga Choo-Choo did not have any sidings along its loop track. Siding lengths for the TVRM and ECTB lines are shown in Table 3 and are labeled in Sheets 2 through 5 of Appendix B.
Table 3: Approximate TVRM/ECTB Siding Lengths
Siding Siding Length (ft.)*
TVRM - Siding 1 800
TVRM - Siding 2 1,000
ECTB - Siding 1 500
ECTB - Siding 2 1,000
ECTB - Siding 3 420
*Approximate lengths calculated using ArcGIS with data from the City of Chattanooga.
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 7 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 3 demonstrates a typical siding section being used for storage along the TVRM.
Figure 3: TVRM Siding Section
5.0 SWITCHING AND SIGNALING
The sections analyzed have numerous switches and/or signals. The number of switches and signals (rail use only) for each section studied are provided below in Table 4. Additionally, Appendix B demonstrates locations of switches and signals along the studied sections.
Table 4: TVRM/ECTB Railroad Switches and Signals
Owner Number of Switches Number of Signals (Rail Use Only)
TVRM 15 0
ECTB 6 10
Chattanooga Choo-Choo 3 0
In addition to signals used by rail vehicles only, some signaling infrastructure is provided for roadway vehicular traffic at at-grade crossings along the TVRM and ECTB segments. No such signals were located along the Chattanooga Choo-Choo’s loop track. The TVRM and ECTB locations are noted below:
TVRM – One signal for vehicular traffic at the main entrance roads to the TVRM Visitor Center ECTB – Three signals for vehicular traffic at N. Chamberlain Avenue (full signal; not gates), McCallie Avenue (partial signal with mast and poll arms; no gate arms), and Bailey Avenue (partial signal with mast and poll arms; no gate arms) Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 8 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
6.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL GEOMETRY
This section summarizes horizontal and vertical geometry characteristics of the TVRM, ECTB, and Chattanooga Choo-Choo sections studied. Detailed mapping of horizontal geometry can be found in Appendix B. Profile views of the TVRM and ECTB sections can be found in Appendix C and D, respectively. It should be noted that existing track charts could not be identified to confirm specific horizontal and vertical geometry.
6.2 HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY
This section summarizes horizontal geometry for the TVRM, ECTB, and Chattanooga Choo-Choo lines. Overall, horizontal geometry can support transit vehicles of any type on the three lines studied.
6.2.1 TVRM SUMMARY
The majority of TVRM track is single tracked with sections of pocket track, sidings, and spurs into its western maintenance yard and eastern main museum complex / train storage facility. The railway traverses from the eastern main museum complex / train storage facility (in northeastern Chattanooga – near the intersection of Cromwell Road and Jersey Pike) in a westerly direction towards the TVRM’s western maintenance yard (near the intersection of North Chamberlain Avenue and Crutchfield Street).
6.2.2 ECTB SUMMARY
Like the TVRM section, the ECTB railway section studied is single tracked with sections of pocket track, sidings, and spurs leading into industrial sites that use the ECTB track infrequently throughout the year. From the western TVRM museum area and maintenance facility, the ECTB railway traverses in a southwesterly direction towards N. Holtzclaw Avenue, which it parallels until it terminated near the Chattanooga National Cemetery (near the intersection of S. Holtzclaw Avenue and 13th Street). There are several at-grade crossings which are discussed in further detail in the GRADE SEPARTATIONS AND AT- GRADE CROSSINGS section.
6.2.1 CHATTANOOGA CHOO-CHOO SUMMARY
The Chattanooga Choo-Choo section studied, which is also single tracked, is self-contained and limited to storage of historic railway cars and engines. The site has an approximately 3,800 foot loop track that is no longer operational. This loop track does have a switch which could provide access to other rail lines.
6.3 VERTICAL GEOMETRY
Vertical profiles for the TVRM section of track were estimated using ArcGIS and the National Elevation Dataset’s (NED) digital elevation models (DEM) from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It should be noted that the profiles represent the approximate track elevation, with the exception of grade separations (profiles at grade separations follow the topography instead of infrastructure).
6.3.1 TVRM VERTICAL SUMMARY & PROFILE
The TVRM track’s profile has a minimum track elevation of approximately 695 feet and a maximum track elevation of approximately 743 feet above sea level. There are four grade separations along this segment
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 9 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0 which are discussed in further detail in the GRADE SEPARTATIONS AND AT-GRADE CROSSINGS section. Additional information can be found in Appendix C.
6.3.2 ECTB VERTICAL SUMMARY & PROFILE
The ECTB track’s profile has a minimum track elevation of approximately 660 feet and a maximum track elevation of approximately 734 feet above sea level. There are no grade separations along this segment but numerous at-grade crossings are present (see the GRADE SEPARTATIONS AND AT-GRADE CROSSINGS section). Additional detail can be found in Appendix D.
6.3.3 CHATTANOOGA CHOO-CHOO SUMMARY
The Chattanooga Choo-Choo loop track is primarily flat with a minimum track elevation of approximately 669 feet and a maximum track elevation of approximately 678 feet above sea level. There are no grade separations or at-grade crossings along this section.
7.0 CLEARANCES
7.1 ECTB CLEARANCES
No major clearance issues were present along the ECTB railway section. However, it should be noted that there are overhead power lines crossing existing track. These power lines do not interfere with existing rail operations and appear to have more than required horizontal and vertical clearance.
7.2 TVRM CLEARANCES
The TVRM railway section has no major clearance issues with the exception of a historical tunnel under Missionary Ridge, which was constructed in 1858. Vertical clearance limitations may require additional treatments for any future potential transit service. Existing passenger services will be in in conflict with conventional overhead power systems if implemented in the future. Provisions for off wire operations through the Missionary Ridge tunnel could be needed depending on future potential vehicle type.
The Missionary Ridge tunnel along the TVRM is listed on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and was used during the Civil War in the Battle of Missionary Ridge. The dimensions of the tunnel based on its listing in the NRHP are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel Dimensions
Owner Number of Switches
Length 980 feet
Bore Measurements 12.5 feet (at its narrowest point) by 19 feet (at its lowest point, measured from roof to floor)
Volume 210,000 cubic feet
Interior Wall Materials Brick, Solid Rock, and Stone Masonry
Portal Shape Horseshoe
Portal Dimensions 14 feet wide (base) and 15.5 feet at widest point and 17 feet high
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 10 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 4 shows the eastern portal of the Missionary Ridge Tunnel along the TVRM railway. Additionally, the Missionary Ridge Tunnel’s NRHP Nomination Form is located in Appendix E.
Figure 4: TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel Eastern Portal
8.0 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND AT-GRADE CROSSINGS
The ECTB section has numerous at-grade crossings but no grade separations while the TVRM section has one at-grade crossing and four grade separations. The Chattanooga Choo-Choo loop track has no grade separations or at-grade crossings. Table 6 demonstrates the number of grade separations and at-grade crossings for the rail sections analyzed.
Table 6: TVRM & ECTB Grade Separations and At-Grade Crossings
Railroad Section Grade Separations At-Grade Crossings
TVRM 4 1
ECTB 0 21
Chattanooga Choo-Choo 0 0
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 11 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
The four grade separations along the TVRM section are detailed further in Table 7. The minimum elevation represents the elevation of the feature that the TVRM is passing over (e.g. roadway, railroad track, water) while the maximum represents the highest point of the grade separation (top of the TVRM bridge/track). Each bridge includes an open deck track system consisting of wood ties directly fixed to steel girders. The track structure has been recently maintained and is in good condition.
Table 7: TVRM Grade Separation Elevation Detail
Grade Separation Elevation Minimum (ft.)* Elevation Maximum (ft.)* Actual Clearance (if available)
Arno Street 722 736 10 feet, 2 inches
Tunnel Boulevard 690 720 N/A
Tunnel Boulevard 667 697 N/A
CSX Railway 638 698 N/A
*Approximate elevations calculated using ArcGIS with data from the USGS.
Figures 5 through 8 on the following pages demonstrate the grade separations along the TVRM section. Additionally, Appendix B exhibits locations of grade separations and at-grade crossings along the railways inventoried.
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 12 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 5: TVRM Grade Separation over South Chickamauga Creek
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 13 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 6: TVRM Grade Separation over CSX Railway
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 14 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 7: TVRM Grade Separation over Tunnel Boulevard
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 15 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
Figure 8: TVRM Grade Separation over Arno Street
9.0 POWER SUPPLY
All rail vehicles that operate along the TVRM and ECTB sections are self-propelled and no power is supplied. Power is supplied to the signal and gate systems along the ECTB and TVRM sections but not on the Chattanooga Choo-Choo’s line.
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 16 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
An Overhead Contact System (OCS) is utilized for the Chattanooga Choo-Choo line. The OCS system consists of a single trolley wire fixed termination configuration that at one time was able to accommodate a trolley pole. The OCS appears to no longer be operational. Several wire attachments were missing and the horizontal and vertical configuration is no longer within operational tolerance. No power source could readily be identified.
10.0 UTILITIES
There are no major utilities along the TVRM railway as it passes through mainly undeveloped forests on the east and west sides of Missionary Ridge and areas surrounding the South Chickamauga Creek. The ECTB section does have existing power lines that traverse over the track. Additionally, the ECTB interacted with roadway traffic signals for signal preemption at key intersections and crossings. Intersections where the ECTB has signal preemption signaling are listed below:
Holtzclaw Avenue and Bailey Avenue Holtzclaw Avenue and East 3rd Street Holtzclaw Avenue and Wilcox Boulevard
Other major utility information (water, gas, telecommunications, etc.) could not be obtained.
11.0 CONCLUSION
This report has summarized existing conditions for the TVRM, ECTB, and Chattanooga Choo-Choo railway sections. It has documented Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW), Track, Sidings, Switching and Signaling, Horizontal and Vertical Geometry, Clearances, Grade Separations and At-Grade Crossings, Power Supply, and Utilities along the studied sections. With complications arising from combining passenger and freight service along active mainline freight lines (e.g. Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc.), an assumption was made that mainline freight corridors would not be candidates for re-use. Any utilization of these rights-of-way would be assumed to be on new parallel tracks. As a result, a detailed assessment of existing infrastructure was not performed for active mainline freight tracks. However, future coordination with freight operators along these existing corridors is recommended to keep them aware of our plans, to alert them of proposed changes in operating agreements, and to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Coordination with Norfolk Southern is particularly important as it relates to their underlying ownership of the ECTB line.
After reviewing existing conditions, high-level challenges and opportunities are present within the study area, which are noted below. Challenges Use of the Missionary Ridge Tunnel Linking future rail service between downtown Chattanooga and the ECTB Linking future rail service between the TVRM and Enterprise South Modification of operating agreement between TVRM and NSR to allow increased passenger service on the ECTB line Opportunities Well maintained rail facilities along the TVRM and ECTB sections Ample ROW along the ECTB and TVRM rail corridors Existing grade separations over rivers, streams, roadways, and railways
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Existing Conditions Assessment 17 Revised July 28, 2016 │ Version 2.0
APPENDIX A
Rail Ownership
Legend Chattanooga Inset State Boundary County Boundary Interstate CSX Transportation Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Chattanooga Choo Choo Chattanooga and Chickamauga Railway ¤£27 Norfolk Southern Railway Other/Unknown Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum East Chattanooga Belt Railway Enterprise South
¦¨§124
Appendix A
¦¨§24 Rail Ownership ¤£27
¦¨§75
¦¨§75 0 2.5 5 10 Miles
¦¨§124 ¯
¦¨§24
¦¨§59 APPENDIX B
Analysis Segments
Legend k Siding !( At-grade Crossing Taft Highway *# Grade Separation R! Signal Dupont Parkway >! Switch Rail Within Study Area
Wilkes T. Thrasher Bridge Rail Outside of Study Area
Signal Mountain Boulevard Dupont Parkway Study Area 27 Parcels ¤£ Dupont Pky Parks and Open Space
Amnicola Highway Segments of Interest CSX ¤£127 Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Sheet 8 Enterprise South
Bonny Oaks Drive Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor !( Norfolk Southern Railway Campbell Street TVRM Sheet Sheet *#!( Old Lee Highway 4 *# !( >! >! 7 !( TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel k>! *#>!k>!*# >!>!>!>!!( Glass Street *# !( TVRM East - Museum/Stroage >!*# Sheet !(>! 5 TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage >! !( !( >! !(!( !( Sheet !(R *# 1 !(R! Sheet !(>>! Dodson Avenue 3 k k!(> ¤£27 *# Appendix B East M L King Boulevard !( R!!(!( McCallie Avenue!( Sheet R!( 6 West Main Street !(R 75 !(R!( ¨¦§ Analysis Segments >!>! R!( >! !(R Bailey Avenue Sheet >! k McCallie Avenue 2 Lee Highway !(>!!( East Main Street Broad Street
E 23rd St
Cummings Highway Dodds Avenue
South Market Street East 23rd Street ¤£11 0 1 2 East Brainerd Road Miles ¤£24 Westside Drive Brainerd Road
Tennessee Avenue Alton Park Boulevard 24 Rossville Boulevard ¨¦§ ¨¦§24 ¯ ¨¦§75
Ochs Highway St ElmoAvenue 41
Stonedge Point ¤£
Ringgold Road Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest CSX Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor 27 ¤£ Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
Downtown Chattanooga Appendix B b Analysis Segments ¤£27 Sheet 1
0 0.2 0.4 Miles McCallie Avenue
¤£11 Broad Street ¯
East M L King Boulevard Legend >!ECTB - Siding 2 b Point of Interest k!( k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal McCallie Avenue !( >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area !( Study Area !(R R! Parcels Parks and Open Space !( Segments of Interest East M L King Boulevard CSX Chattanooga Choo Choo R! !( ECTB R! !( Enterprise South R! Potential Future Track R!!( Inactive Rail Corridor !( Chattanooga Choo Choo ¤£11 Norfolk Southern Railway West Main Street b TVRM 27 >! ! ¤£ > R! Bailey Avenue TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel >! R!!( TVRM East - Museum/Stroage !( >! ECTB - Siding 3 k TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
West 20th Street Inactive Rail Corridor b Appendix B !( ¨¦§24 >! East 20th Street !( Analysis Segments
S Market Street Sheet 2
South Willow Street Washington Street ¤£41 ¤£27 E 23rd Street South Market Street 0 0.2 0.4 24 ¨¦§ East Main Street Miles Broad Street E 23rd St ¯
¤£11
East 23rd Street Legend b Point of Interest k Siding
Glass Street !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation *# R! Signal >! b>! >! Switch Rail Within Study Area !( >! >! Rail Outside of Study Area >! Study Area Parcels >! !( Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest CSX !( Chattanooga Choo Choo !( ECTB !( Enterprise South Potential Future Track R! R!!( Inactive Rail Corridor Norfolk Southern Railway !( TVRM ECTB - Siding 1 k>! TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel !(>! TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
Appendix B >!ECTB - Siding 2 k!( Analysis Segments
Sheet 3 !(
!( 0 0.2 0.4 R! Miles R!!( !( ¯ R! Dodson Avenue !( R! East 3rd Street East M L King Boulevard !( 11 ¤£ R! McCallie Avenue R!!( Bailey Avenue !( North Willow Street Bonny Oaks Drive Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Campbell Street Segments of Interest CSX Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South TVRM - Siding 1 Potential Future Track k TVRM - Siding 2 >! *# >! Inactive Rail Corridor k Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM
Glass Street TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM - Missionary Ridge Tunnel *# b TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage *# >! b>!
!( >! Appendix B >! >!
>! Analysis Segments !( Sheet 4
!( !( !( 0 0.2 0.4 Miles Dodson Avenue ¯ Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest !( *# CSX >! Chattanooga Choo Choo TVRM - Siding 1 >! ECTB k >! *# TVRM - Siding 2 >!>!>! >! k >! *# Enterprise South >!!( Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor
!( Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
!( Appendix B
Analysis Segments
Sheet 5
*# 0 0.2 0.4 ¯ Miles *# Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest *# CSX Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
Appendix B
Analysis Segments
¤£11 Sheet 6
0 0.2 0.4 ¯ Miles
Lee Highway
¨¦§75 Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest CSX !( Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM !( *# TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
!( Appendix B
Analysis Segments
Sheet 7
0 0.2 0.4 ¯ Miles
¤£11
Lee Highway Legend b Point of Interest k Siding !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area Rail Outside of Study Area Study Area Parcels Parks and Open Space Segments of Interest CSX Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South Potential Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor Norfolk Southern Railway TVRM TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Museum/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage
Appendix B
Analysis Segments
Sheet 8
0 0.2 0.4 Miles !( ¯
!( *# APPENDIX C
TVRM Vertical Profile
Legend b Point of Interest TVRM Profile - West of Missionary Ridge Tunnel k Sidings 745 Bonny Oaks Drive !( Missionary Ridge Tunnel At-grade Crossing West Portal *# Grade Separation 740 TVRM R! Signal Western Terminus 735 >! Switch Rail Within Study Area 730 Rail Outside of Study Area
Elevation (ft.) 725 Study Area Parcels 720 Parks and Open Space Campbell StreetArno St. 715 Analysis Segments 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 CSX Distance (ft.) Chattanooga Choo Choo ECTB Enterprise South >! Future Track >! k >! Inactive Rail Corridor *# >! >!>!>! k >! *# Norfolk Southern Railway >! !( TVRM
Glass Street TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM - Missionary Ridge Tunnel *# !( TVRM East - Maintenance/Stroage b TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage *# >! b>! Appendix C
!( TVRM Profile TVRM Profile - East of Missionary Ridge Tunnel
760 Missionary Ridge Tunnel East Portal 740 TVRM Eastern Terminus 720 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 700 Tunnel Blvd. 680 *#
Elevation (ft.) CSX Railway 660 ¯ 640 South Chickamauga Creek 620 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Distance (ft.) APPENDIX D
ECTB Vertical Profile
b
Glass Street *# Legend >! b>! b Point of Interest !( ! k Sidings >! >! !( At-grade Crossing *# Grade Separation >! !( R! Signal >! Switch Rail Within Study Area !( Rail Outside of Study Area !( !( Study Area Parcels R! R!!( Parks and Open Space !( Analysis Segments CSX >! Chattanooga Choo Choo >!k !( ECTB Enterprise South Future Track Inactive Rail Corridor >! Norfolk Southern Railway k!( TVRM TVRM Missionary Ridge Tunnel TVRM East - Maintenance/Stroage TVRM West - Maintenance/Storage !(
!( R!!(R Appendix D
!( ECTB Profile
Dodson Avenue !(R R! East 3rd Street !( R! R!!( !( 0 1,250 2,500 11 Feet ¤£ McCallie Avenue ECTB Profile R! R!!( 740 !( 730 >! 720 North Willow Street k 710 Bailey Avenue 700 ECTB 690 Western Terminus ECTB ¯
Elevation (ft) Elevation 680 Eastern Terminus 670 !( 660 >! McCallie Avenue 650 !( 0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000 10800 12600 14400 16200 18000 South Willow Street Distance (ft.) Brainerd Road
Dodds Avenue APPENDIX E
TVRM Missionary Ridge National Register of Historic Places – Nomination Form
Form No 10 300 REV. (9/77) (J (f ^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTPH OF THE I NTERIOR DATA SHEM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ______TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______[NAME
HISTORIC Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown & Charleston Railroad Tunnel
AND/OR COMMON Missionary Ridge Railroad Tunnel LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER
Below North Crest Road _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Chattanooga . VICINITY OF Third STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Tennessee 47 Hamilton 65 w CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE —DISTRICT —PUBLIC — OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE ^LMUSEUM —BUILDING(S) 2LPRIVATE .^UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK J?STRUCTURE —BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT _IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED -XYES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER:
The Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, Inc.
STREET & NUMBER2202 N. Chamberlain Avenue
CITY. TOWN STATE Chattanooga, VICINITY OF Tennessee LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC. Hamilton County Courthouse
STREET & NUMBER
CITY. TOWN STATE Chattanooga Tennessee REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TITLE Tennessee Historical and Architectural Survey DATE January 1977 —FEDERAL _XSTATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Tennessee Historical Commission CITY. TOWN STATE Nashville Tennessee DESCRIPTION
CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE
—EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED .XORIGINALSITE X.GOOD _RUINS FALTERED —MOVED DATE. _FAIR —UNEXPOSED
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Missionary Ridge Tunnel is located in eastern Chattanooga. It is 980 feet long and has a bore which measures 12.5 feet (at its narrowest point) by 19 feet (at its lowest point, measured from roof to floor). The total volume of the tunnel is 210,000 feet.
The interior of the tunnel was constructed using three types of material: brick, solid rock, and stone masonry. Starting at the western or Chattanooga end of the tunnel there is a 98-foot lined section, 56 feet of solid rock, another 49-foot lined section, 170 feet more solid rock, and finally, still another 611-foot lined section. The lined portions are, for the most part, composed of limestone masonry sides with brick arched overheads. The stone was obtained from local stone quarries. As originally constructed the tunnel was hewn out of the rock and remained unlined. The stone and brick sections were the result of needed repairs which were accomplished in the 1870s. The tunnel portals were constructed in the shape of a horseshoe. Both portals are 14 feet wide at the base and 15.5 feet at the widest point and 17 feet high.
Southern Railway inspected the tunnel in 1954 and noted the following structural problems 1. the west portal has separated from the lining, leaving a gap of 1.5 inches which extends from the north spring line to a point halfway between the crown and the south spring line; 2. there is a bulge in the lining, which measures three to four feet wide and projects one-half inch£; the bulge is located fifty feet east of the west portal and extends from the spring line to the corwn; water seeps through this defect. This condition appears to have stabilized; no further deterioration has been observed during the past twenty-four years. Except for the defects noted above and the fact that a few portal stones have fallen, the tunnel appears to be in good condition. Cl SIGNIFICANCE
PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
—PREHISTORIC _ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC —COMMUNITY PLANNING —LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE —RELIGION —1400-1499 —ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC —CONSERVATION —LAW —SCIENCE —1500-1599 _AGRICULTURE —ECONOMICS —LITERATURE —SCULPTURE —1600-1699 _ARCHITECTURE _EDUCATION .^MILITARY —SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN —1700-1799 _ART .^ENGINEERING —MUSIC _THEATER —.1800-1899 —COMMERCE —EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT —PHILOSOPHY ^TRANSPORTATION — 1900- —COMMUNICATIONS —INDUSTRY —POLITICS/GOVERNMENT —OTHER (SPECIFY) —INVENTION
SPECIFIC DATES 1856-1858 BUILDER/ARCHITECT
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE When it was constructed, the tunnel represented a long sought gateway between Chattanooga and points to the north, east and south. By 1855, the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad Company had trains running from Knoxville to Dalton, Georgia. As early as 1850, plans were made for a link from Chattanooga to the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad near Cleveland, Tennessee, but construction was not actually undertaken for six years.
The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown & Charleston Railroad Company began construction in 1856. TMs tunnel was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, constructed in Tennessee. The bore was cut by hand drilling holes into the rock face; these holes were filled with black powder and ignited.
The limestone came from local quarries and was set by hand. The tunnel portals were constructed in the shape of a horseshoe, and this is believed to be the only tunnel with a horseshoe portal in the state.
The tunnel was completed, and the Cleveland to Chattanooga opened in 1859. At this time the Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown & Charleston Railroad was taken over by the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad.
In 1861, during the battle of Chattanooga, General William T. Sherman found the tunnel a disconcerting factor in his assaults upon Confederate lines atop Missionary Ridge. Sherman's men either overlooked or disregarded the tunnel opening as they charged up the western slopes of the ridge. Confederates under General Pat Cleburne entered the tunnel from the east and emerged from the west portal of the tunnel after Sherman's men had already advanced further up the slope. The Confederates attacked the Federals from the rear and withdrew after a sharp engagement, retreating through the tunnel. Sherman blockaded the western opening preventing similar attacks.
In November 1869 the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad became part of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad. The East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia merged with the Richmond & Danville Railroad to form the Southern Railway, the nucleus of today's Southern Railway System, on July 1, 1894.
The tunnel saw the first installation of welded rail on the Southern Railway. Welded rail eliminates the joints between lengths of rail thus reducing track wear. As the size of freight cars increased throughout the 1940s the Southern gave serious considera tion to the enlargement of the tunnel. With the completion of Citico yard, however, the tunnel was abandoned in July 1954.
In 1961 the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (TVRM) was founded as a nonprofit educational corporation dedicated to the preservation, restoration and operation of locomotives and ElMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES The Chattanooga Times, July 1, 1954. Prince, Richard. Steam Locomotives and Boats of the Southern Railway System CL9651 Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum files
UGEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY _____
QUADRANGLE NAME East Chattanooga QUADRANGLE SCALE 1:24000 UTM REFERENCES Ajl.6| |6|6,0|6,O t Q| j 3, 8j8 f 1| 3. 8, Oj |6|6,0|2,6,0| |3,8|8.l|5i 0, OJ ZONE EASTING NORTHING , ZONE EASTIN6 .•:• NORTHING C| . | I I . I . , I .. ,, DJ , I I I . 1 . . I I . I , I , . I 1111., 11,1,1,, Fl i I I I I I . , I I , I I I . . I r.l , I I I i I . i I 1,1,1,, HI i 11 i"v'i; 111. i'. i. . i VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
The property nominated is centered in a rectangular area which measures 1200 feet by 75 feet.______LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
FORM PREPARED BY NAME/TITLE Timothy Andrews ORGANIZATION DATE Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum June 1977 STREET & NUMBER TELEPHONE Box 5263 615-622^5908 CITY OR TOWN STATE Chattanooga Tennessee
THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS:
NATIONAL__ STATE___ LOCAL _X_
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law89-665). I hereby nominate, this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service^
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE TITLE Executive- Director, Tennessee Historical Commission
KEEP EROF.THE NATIONAL REGISTER
CHIEF OF REGISTRATION
GPO 921-803 Form No. 10-300a (Rev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE
passenger equipment. From its inception, the TVRM looked for a site to locate a permanent museum. In 1971 the site at Chamberlain Avenue and the right-of-way through the tunnel was donated to the TVRM by the Southern Railway. After clearing the line the museum returned the tunnel to service carrying weekend passengers. (Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places V Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property______historic name Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, & Charleston Railroad Tunnel (Additional Documentation) other names/site number Missionary Ridge Railroad Tunnel; Chattanooga and Cleveland Railroad Tunnel____
2. Location street & number Below North Crest Road not for publication city or town Chattanooga N/AQ vicinity state Tennessee code TN county Hamilton code 065 zip code 37421
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ^ nomination O request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set for in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ^] meets n does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant n nationally /n statewide £3 locally. (See continuation shegt for additional comments.) >VvW^ ^~ ¥ ^TMM^ f//%/O / Signafrfre of certifying official/Title / / / Date'' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Historical Commission State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property D meets fj does not meet the National Register criteria. (Q See Continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau *\ /I 4. National Park Service Certification / AfiXH ^ I hereby certify that the property is: signature of the Keeper Date of Action Q entered in the National Register. n See continuation sheet D determined eligible for the National Register. n See continuation sheet n determined not eligible for the National Register. repnoved from the National Register. other, (explain:) Pocumentaiapa Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, & Charleston Railroad Tunnel Hamilton Co., TN Name of Property County and State
5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources in count.) apply)
private building(s) Contributing Noncontributing public-local district public-State site buildings public-Federal structure sites object 1 structures objects 1 0 Total Name of related multiple property listing Number of Contributing resources previously listed (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) in the National Register Chickamauga-Chattanooga Civil War-Related Sites, 1863-1947 1
6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) TRANSPORTATION/rail related RECREATION AND CULTURE/museum DEFENSE/battle site TRANSPORTATION/rail related
7. Description Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) N/A foundation N/A______walls N/A
roof N/A other Brick, rock, limestone masonry
Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) see continuation sheet Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel Hamilton Co., TN Name of Property______County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria Areas of Significance (Mark V in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property (Enter categories from instructions) for National Register listing.)
£3 A Property is associated with events that have made ______TRANSPORTATION a significant contribution to the broad patterns of MILITARY our history. ENGINEERING
G B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
[3 C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack Period of Significance individual distinction. Circa 1854-1859, 1863
G D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations Significant Dates (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.) 1863 Property is: N/A G A owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. Significant Person G B removed from its original location. (Complete if Criterion B is marked) N/A G C moved from its original location. Cultural Affiliation G D a cemetery. N/A
G E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
G F a commemorative property Architect/Builder G G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance N/A within the past 50 years. _ Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS): N/A Primary location of additional data: G preliminary determination of individual listing (36 [X] State Historic Preservation Office CFR 67) has been requested G Other State Agency E3 previously listed in the National Register (8/24/78) G Federal Agency G Previously determined eligible by the National G Local Government Register G University G designated a National Historic Landmark El Other G recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey Name of repository: Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Battlefield # ______G recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel Hamilton Co., TN Name of Property County and State
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property Approximately 2 acres
UTM References (from original nomination) (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.)
16 660600 3881380 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 16 660260 3881500 See continuation sheet
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) 11. Form Prepared By name/title Abbey Christman and Peggy Nickell organization Center for Historic Preservation date 11/15/99 street & number Box 80, Middle Tennessee State University_____ telephone (615) 898-2947 city or town Murfreesboro______state TN____ zip code 37132 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items.)
Property Owner______(Complete this item at the request of SHPO or FPO.) name Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum ______street & number 4119 Cromwell Road ______telephone (423)894-8028 city or town Chattanooga state TN zip code 37421__
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listing. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P. O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20303. (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 7 Page 1 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
VII. Narrative Description
The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel is located in eastern Chattanooga at the northern end of Missionary Ridge. It is also referred to as the Chattanooga and Cleveland Railroad Tunnel and the Missionary Ridge Railroad Tunnel. The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad was formed to link Chattanooga to the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad, which ran through Cleveland, Tennessee. Construction on the tunnel began in 1856 and was completed in 1859. However, this date is controversial. According to Steve Freer of the Tennessee Railroad Museum, the tunnel was actually built between 1854 and 1856. The capstone located on the top western end of the railroad tunnel was misdated about 30 years ago. In 1859 the tunnel's ownership was transferred to the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad. In 1869 this line merged with the East Tennessee and Virginia Railroad to become the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railroad. In 1894 the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad became part of the Southern Railway. Currently the section of track that runs through the tunnel is used by the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum.
The tunnel is cut through the northern end of Missionary Ridge. It is 980 feet long and its bore measures 12.5 feet (at its narrowest point) by 19 feet (at its lowest point, measured from roof to floor). The total volume of the tunnel is 210,000 feet. The tunnel portals were constructed in the shape of a horseshoe. Both portals are 17 feet high, 14 feet wide at the base, and 15.5 feet wide at the widest point.
The tunnel is composed of solid rock, brick, and masonry limestone from local quarries. The tunnel was originally hewn out of the rock and unlined. Brick and masonry stone lining was added to sections of the tunnel c. 1870 as the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railroad carried out needed repairs.
Starting at the western or Chattanooga end of the tunnel, there is a 98 foot lined section, 56 feet of solid rock, a 49 foot lined section, a 170 foot section of solid rock, and then a 611 foot lined section. The lined portions are mostly composed of limestone masonry sides with brick arched overheads. The stone was obtained from local quarries.
The Southern Railway inspected the tunnel in 1954 and noted the following structural problems: 1) The west portal has separated from the lining, leaving a gap of 1.5 inches which extends from the north spring line to a point halfway between the crown and the south spring line 2) There is a bulge in the lining, which measures three to four feet wide and projects one-half inch. The bulge is located fifty feet east of the west portal and extends from the spring line to the crown. Water seeps through this defect, but this condition appears to have stabilized. Except for these defects and the fact that a few portal stones have fallen, the tunnel appears to be in good condition.
In March 1960, it was proposed that the railroad tunnel now abandoned be used as bomb shelter. The railroad tunnel was denoted as being a "natural" location for a bomb shelter. 1 No other evidence has been found to verify if this proposal was accepted.
Chattanooga Times (Chattanooga), 14, March 1960. (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 8 Page 2 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
VIII. Narrative Statement of Significance
The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on August 24, 1978, for its local significance under criterion A and C for the engineering, military, and transportation history of Chattanooga and Hamilton County. This nomination contains additional documentation of the property's significance in the engineering history of Chattanooga and Hamilton County as well as its military significance during the American Civil War. In that conflict, Chattanooga's railroad network made the city strategically vital, with both sides vying for control of railroads. The tunnel not only was a significant component of the eastern railroad corridor, but also was a site of significant military action during the Battle of Missionary Ridge in November, 1863. The railroad tunnel is located on the site of a battle at the north end of Missionary Ridge, where Confederate forces under General Patrick Cleburne repulsed repeated attacks by Union forces under General William T. Sherman on November 25th. The original nomination stated that Cleburne's Confederates actually entered the tunnel and used it during the fighting for concealment and fighting, but a careful reading of the official records of the battle do not offer confirmation that the tunnel was used in this manner. However, Confederate artillery took up a position on top of the tunnel during the fighting and used this position to good advantage in its defense of the Confederate line. The tunnel meets the registration requirements for Transportation-related properties listed in the Chickamauga-Chattanooga Civil War-Related Sites, 1863-1947 Multiple Property Submission.
Engineering and transportation significance
African-American slaves, hired under contract for the project or owned outright by the railroad company, in tandem with white laborers, probably constructed the tunnel as early as circa 1854 -1856. The structure has been identified as one of the earliest, if not the earliest, railroad tunnel constructed in Tennessee.2 The laborers cut the bore by hand- drilling boles into the rock face. Then they filled these holes with black powder, ignited them and raced for safety. It was extremely dangerous and difficult work. The limestone they used in the construction came from local quarries and was set by hand. The tunnel portals were constructed in the shape of a horseshoe, and this is believed to be the only tunnel with a horseshoe portal in the state. When the tunnel was first constructed, the profession of engineering in the United States was still in its infancy, with the American Society of Civil Engineers having been founded just four years before in 1852. As a hard-rock tunnel of almost one thousand feet in length, the Missionary Ridge Tunnel was an engineering landmark when it opened to rail traffic and an important example of the use of slave labor in a southern industrial venture.
Once opened, the tunnel played a significant role in local transportation history by allowing Chattanooga to be tied to eastern railroad lines. The first railroad to arrive in Chattanooga came from the south, the State of Georgia's Western & Atlantic Railroad in 1850. It was followed by a railroad from the north, the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad in 1854 and a railroad from the west, the Memphis and Charleston in 1857. The East Tennessee & Georgia, organized in 1847 and completed in 1855, ran from Knoxville, Tennessee to Dalton, Georgia, where it connected with the Western & Atlantic. This was soon linked to the East Tennessee & Virginia Railroad, the first railroad to cross the Appalachian Mountains. The railroad, however, did not pass through Chattanooga due to the difficult terrain. Goods and passengers bound for Chattanooga had to travel south to Dalton, Georgia and then transfer to the Western & Atlantic Railroad, which took them north to Chattanooga. A shortcut was proposed between Chattanooga and Cleveland, Tennessee, on the East Tennessee & Georgia line. The Chattanooga, Harrison, and Cleveland Railroad was organized for this purpose in 1850 and was succeeded by the Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad. The first project was the construction of the line's railroad tunnel. Once the tunnel was completed, the construction of the rail
The South Tunnel (determined eligible on 11/24/00) was completed by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad in 1859. (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 8 Page 3 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
line, "complicated and impeded by the many ridges which stood in the way," began in 1856.3 It was completed in 1859 and taken over by the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad. Chattanooga finally had its eastern railroad link. Together, the four major lines into the city brought commerce and industrial development to Chattanooga and made it an important transportation hub.
Military significance
The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel is also significant for its association with the Civil War campaign at Chattanooga in 1863. Confederate and Union forces were engaged in a fierce contest for control of the strategically vital Chattanooga, which was considered the gateway to the Deep South. Union strategists considered the control of the city essential to successfully launching an invasion into the heart of the Confederacy.
Confederate General Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee defeated Union General William Rosecrans' Army of the Cumberland in the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863. Rosecrans' forces, however, were able to retreat to Chattanooga where they took up a defensive position. Bragg's Confederates then undertook a siege of the city, cutting off the major supply routes by rail, river, and road with their occupation of Missionary Ridge, Lookout Mountain, and Raccoon Mountain. In late October, the Union forces in Chattanooga, now under the command of Ulysses S. Grant, were able to reopen the Tennessee River to their supply boats and began to plan an assault on the Confederate positions. On November 24, 1863, a force under Union General Joseph Hooker successfully pushed the Confederates from Lookout Mountain and Union General William T. Sherman began his assault on the northern end of Missionary Ridge.
From his position, Sherman threatened the tracks of the Western & Atlantic which passed to the north of Missionary Ridge and the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad which passed through Missionary Ridge via the C, H, G, & C tunnel. It was essential for the Confederates to hold on to the East Tennessee & Georgia line because it was their only link to the Confederate forces under General James Longstreet campaigning against Union General Ambrose Burnside in East Tennessee. Sherman's force did not meet much resistance on the 24th, and they entrenched in the evening, hoping to move quickly along Missionary Ridge the next day, rolling up Bragg's army.
Sherman's force would face much greater resistance on the 25th. The Union force had mistakenly taken up a position on Billy Goat Hill, adjacent to the north end of Missionary Ridge rather than on the ridge itself. And during the night a Confederate force under the command of General Patrick Cleburne, which had been at Chickamauga Station awaiting transfer to East Tennessee, was recalled and sent to the north end of Missionary Ridge to protect the right flank of the Confederate army. Cleburne established a strong defensive position on Tunnel Hill, a 250-foot hill at the north end of Missionary Ridge, named for the Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel, which runs just south of it. Cleburne would use the ridge's rugged terrain of ravines and steep slopes to his advantage. His forces' location on the hill meant only a small number of Federals could advance on them at a time, and Cleburne skillfully rebuffed these attacks in one of the most skillful defenses carried out by a Confederate general during the battles for Chattanooga.
The Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel was an important feature during the battle for the northern end of Missionary Ridge. The railroad tunnel was referenced in Union General Grant's orders, which stated that after Sherman had crossed the Tennessee River near the mouth of the Chickamauga, he was "to secure the
3 James W. Livingood, A History of Hamilton County, Tennessee (Memphis: Memphis State University Press, 1981), 136. (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 8 Page 4 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
heights from the northern extremity to about the railroad tunnel."4 The tunnel was an important landmark during the battle that was repeatedly referenced in the official reports of both Confederate and Union officers. The tunnel also became a part of the battlefield. Cleburne placed some of his artillery atop the Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Tunnel. In the afternoon, as some of Cleburne's troops moved down the hill to try to dislodge the Union attackers, a fold in the hill led the Union soldiers to mistakenly believe that the Confederates had come out of the railroad tunnel. A Texas regiment charged down the hill, catching the flank of an Iowa regiment by surprise. Lieutenant Samuel Byers of the Fifth Iowa recounted the attack:
Some cried, "Look to the tunnel! They're coming through the tunnel." Sure enough, through a railway tunnel in the mountain the graycoats were coming by the hundreds. They were flanking us completely.
"Stop them!" cried our colonel to those of us at the right. "Push them back." It was but the work of a few moments for four companies to rise to their feet and run to the tunnel's mouth, firing as they ran. Too late! An enfilading fire was soon cutting them to pieces.5
Byers was captured during the Confederate attack.
The railroad embankments of the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad (outside the nominated boundaries) were held by Union Colonel John C. Loomis's brigade in the afternoon and used for the limited shelter they provided.
Cleburne eventually abandoned his positions at and around the railroad tunnel as he pulled his troops southward to protect the rear of the Army of Tennessee as it was pushed off Missionary Ridge. In their retreat, the Confederates did not damage or block the tunnel and for the remainder of the war, Union commanders used the tunnel to ferry soldiers and supplies from the east to their campaign in Georgia.
After the war, ownership of the tunnel changed twice. In 1869 the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad joined with the East Tennessee & Virginia Railroad to become the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad. In 1894 the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad became part of the Southern Railway Company, which operated the tunnel for the next sixty years.
The Southern Railway improved the track through the tunnel, but made no alterations in the tunnel itself, although it considered widening the tunnel in c. 1940. The Southern abandoned the tunnel in 1954 after the completion of the new Citico railroad yard meant that regular traffic would bypass the tunnel. In 1971, the Southern Railway donated the right- of-way through the tunnel to the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation, restoration, and operation of locomotives and passenger equipment. The museum's excursion trains currently use the line through the tunnel.
4 Report of Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, November 23-27, 1863, The Civil War CD-ROM (Carmel, IN: Guild Press of Indiana, Inc. 1996). 5 Peter Cozzens, The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga. (Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press, 1994), 236 (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 9 Page 5 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
IX. Major Bibliographic References
Abbazia, Patrick. The Chickamauga Campaign: December 1862- November 1863. New York: W. H. Smith Publishers, Inc., 1988.
Andrews, Timothy. "Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown & Charlestown Railroad Tunnel." National Register nomination, June 1977.
Bowers, John. Chickamauga and Chattanooga: The Battles That Doomed the Confederacy. New York: Harper Collins, 1994.
Casteel, Bill. "Ridge Rail Tunnel Added To The National Register," Chattanooga Times, 9 September 1978, Section C1.
Chattanooga Times. 18 September 1938, Section 6C
Chattanooga Times. "1850: Railroads Make Chattanooga Vital Junction," 4 July 1976, p.9.
Chattanooga Times. "Col. Whiteside Led Legislative Efforts. 28 January 1957.
Collins, J.B. "Railway Tunnel, War Goal of 60's, May Become Fall-Out Shelter Here," Chattanooga Times, 14 March 1960.
Coniglio, John. "Tunnel Visions," Chattanooga Times, 16 February 1999, Section D1.
Cozzens, Peter. The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga. Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press, 1994.
_____. This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga. Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press, 1992.
Glass, Patrice Hobbs, "Actions and Engagements in McLemore's Cove, September 1863," Draft Report, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Civil War Sites Assessment.
Hattaway, Herman. Shades of Blue and Gray: An Introductory Military History of the Civil War. Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 1997.
Livingood, James W. A History of Hamilton County, Tennessee. Memphis: Memphis State University, 1981.
McDonough, James Lee. Chattanooga: A Death Grip on the Confederacy. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984.
Pickenpaugh, Roger. Rescue By Rail: Troop Transfer and the Civil War in the West, 1863. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.
Schmucker, LL.D., Samuel M. The History of the Civil War in the United States: Its Cause, Origin, Progress and Conclusion. Chicago and St. Louis: Zeigler, McCurdy & Company, 1865. (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown, and Charleston Railroad Section number 9 Page 6 Tunnel (Additional Documentation), Hamilton County
Sword, Wiley. Mountains Touched with Fire. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.
Woodworth, Steven E. Six Armies in Tennessee: The Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum Train Activities Through 2016
Month Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total Trips March 14 0 0 8 8 12 20 62 April 21 0 0 8 8 10 30 77 May 25 5 13 8 8 8 26 93 June 20 20 20 25 25 20 27 157 July 25 20 20 20 20 25 34 164 August 20 6 8 12 10 10 28 94 September 20 5 8 10 10 10 27 90 October 27 0 8 8 8 14 42 107 November 20 0 0 0 0 8 16 44 December 02 2 2 266 20 Total Trips 23 192 58 79 101 99 123 256 908 Appendix D Economic Development – Current State
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1
1.0 Development Type and Value ...... 1-1 1.1 Value per Square Foot ...... 1-2 1.2 Impact of Property Type ...... 1-3 1.3 Impact of Location ...... 1-5 1.4 Conclusions of the Analysis of Property Values ...... 1-6
2.0 Labor Pool Location and Education ...... 2-7 2.1 Employment Locations vs. Workers’ Residences...... 2-7 2.2 Educational Attainment ...... 2-9
Appendix A. Calculations ...... 2-1 A.1 Value per Square Foot ...... 2-1 A.2 Value Compared to City Average ...... 2-1 A.3 Impact of Location ...... 2-1 A.4 Impact of Property Type ...... 2-1
Appendix B. Property Value and Its Components by Neighborhood ...... 2-1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 150058 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Average Value per Square Foot by Property Type ...... 1-2 Table 1.2 Property Value per Square Foot by Potential Development Area ...... 1-3 Table 1.3 Property Type Mix and Impact on Value by Development Area ...... 1-5 Table 1.4 Impact of Location on Value by Development Area ...... 1-6 Table 1.5 Property Value and its Components Along the Rail Corridor ...... 1-7 Table 2.1 Workers per Job ...... 2-8 Table 2.2 Workers to Job Ratio by Development Area ...... 2-9 Table 2.3 Ratio of Workers per Job by Level of Education ...... 2-9 Table 2.4 Property Value and Its Components by Neighborhood ...... 2-1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report will describe the current economic state along the rail corridor by focusing on two areas, real estate and employment. In this way both the current level of physical development is addressed along with the connectivity of employment centers to the labor pool.
Property values along the rail corridor and within the proposed development areas are lower than those of the rest of the City. This is due to a combination of the impact of location and the impact of low-value property types. With the exception of the Chattanooga Choo Choo Development Area, property values are lower than the City average regardless of property type for all of the development areas. Also, for three development areas, property values are driven down by a high proportion of low-value property types. The rail corridor provides an opportunity to target areas of underinvestment for development both through a move towards higher-value property types and an increase in property values generally.
One of the goals of the rail corridor program is to provide better connectivity between workers and their places of employment. Within the City of Chattanooga there are 0.41 workers for every job. This means that Chattanooga is a net importer of labor. Within the rail corridor this is more pronounced with a ratio of 0.16, which can be interpreted to mean that, while the corridor includes many centers of employment , there is a disproportionality low number of workers. As the level of education needed for a job increases, the net importation of workers increases because not as many of the workers can meet the job requirements. Not all potential development areas are net importers of labor. Some are quite residential in nature, while some are more commercial. The connectivity provided by the rail corridor will allow workers to move from residential areas to commercial areas more easily.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
1.0 DEVELOPMENT TYPE AND VALUE
By investigating the type and value of existing properties, a baseline is established. This can be used to identify areas that already have satisfactory and established levels of development and those for which there is still opportunity for further development. Generally speaking, low property values are indicative of an area for which there is opportunity. Two major components of property value are the type of property (residential, retail, industrial, etc.) and geographic location.
This report reviews the property values of the City of Chattanooga as a whole, the area within ½ mile of the proposed rail corridor, and the area within ½ mile of each potential development area. In order to measure property value for each geographic area of interest, data from the Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office was used to calculate the appraised value per square foot (using building appraised value and building square footage). This measure is further refined by calculating the difference between the property values and the average for the City of Chattanooga.
Property value can be broken into two component parts in order to measure the portion driven by property type and the portion driven by geographic location separately. In order to control for property type and thereby remove its influence from the index, the impact of property type is estimated. Additionally, the impact of geographic location has been estimated. This is the amount that property values differ from the city average across all property types. Further discussion of these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Property type is important because property values can vary significantly from one property type to another. The high-value property types are public institutions, residential, entertainment, and office space. Low-value property types include industrial properties, undeveloped land, and retail space.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
The impact of property type is displayed in the following table, which lists the average appraised value per square foot in the City of Chattanooga for each of the seven property types.
Table 1.1 Average Value per Square Foot by Property Type
Value Compared to All Property Type Value Per Square Foot* Property Types**
Public Institutions $65.80 +27% Residential $65.47 +27% Entertainment $60.97 +18% Office $60.82 +18% Retail $41.13 -20% Undeveloped Land $32.23 -38% Industrial $23.27 -55% All Property Types $51.73 +0% * (Building Appraised Value)/(Building Square Footage) **100% - (Property Type Value per Square Foot)/(Average Value per Square Foot) Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
1.1 Value per Square Foot
This section will discuss the property value per square foot and the value in each geographic area of interest compared to the City average. As reported in table 1.1, the average property value in the City of Chattanooga is $51.73 per square foot. Within a ½ mile radius of the proposed rail corridor, property values average $35.64 per square foot . This is 31% less than the average for the city. The lower property values indicate an underdevelopment around the rail corridor. Based on the average property value it is unclear whether the lower property values are due to lower-value development types or due to lower values across all property types, or a combination of the two.
Average property values have been calculated for each of the potential development areas, defined by a ½ mile radius. Of the development areas, only the Chattanooga Choo Choo Area has property values higher than the average for the city. Excluding the Chattanooga Choo Choo Area, the other development areas have property values averaging $28 per square foot, which is 45 percent below the city average. When compared to the $36 per square foot average within the rail corridor, only the Chattanooga Choo Choo and Holtzclaw to 3rd Street station areas are higher. The Rossville Boulevard and US Pipe Site station areas have particularly low property values, at about 1/3 of the average for the city.
The low property values within the development areas indicate that there is opportunity for redevelopment in these areas. Again, using only average property values it is impossible to tell if the property values are due to the type of development around the station areas or low values in general.
1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
In the case of the area around the Enterprise South Development Area, the Hamilton County Assessor’s Office does not report values for any property type except for the small amount of residential development (with an appraised value of $58 per square foot, 11 percent below the average for residential properties in Chattanooga). Therefore, this data is withheld from the following table.
The following table displays the property value for each development area.
Table 1.2 Property Value per Square Foot by Potential Development Area
Value Compared to City Geography Value per Square Foot* Average
City of Chattanooga $52 +0% Chattanooga Choo Choo Area $54 +4% Holtzclaw to 3rd Street Area $45 -14% Alton Park Area $35 -32% Glass Street Area $27 -48% Airport Area $26 -50% Rossville Blvd Area $19 -64% US Pip Site Area $17 -67% Enterprise South Area ** ** All Potential Development Areas $44 -15% * (Building Appraised Value)/(Building Square Footage) ** The Enterprise South Development Area only includes values for the 6,776 square feet of residential development reported by the Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office. All other properties in the area is assigned a value of $0. Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
1.2 Impact of Property Type
Because some property types tend to have a lower value per square foot than other property types, the property values in an area can be skewed one way or the other based on the mix of property types in that area. In order to isolate the impact of property type on value this impact can be estimated. As shown above (in table 1.1), public institutions, residential, entertainment, and office property types tend to have high values per square foot, while undeveloped land, retail, and industrial properties tend to have lower values.
Across the entire City of Chattanooga the average property has a value of about $52 per square foot. Within the rail corridor the average property has a value of $36 per square foot. As noted above, the property values around the rail corridor are 31 percent lower than the average property in Chattanooga. For the same properties in the rail corridor, the impact of property type decreases values by 21 percent. This is included in, and partially explains the 31 percent total drop
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation in property value. The negative impact of property type means that the properties built around the rail corridor have a mix that tends towards the lower-value property types. If the properties had the same mix as the rest of the city the impact of property type would be zero.
The impact of property type on property values for each potential development area has been estimated. For all of the development areas combined, the impact of property type decreases values by about 10 percent. This can be attributed to the higher proportion of low-value property types around the development areas. In the City overall, 37 percent of the building square footage is composed of low-value property types. Around the development areas low-value property types make up 46 percent of the square footage.
The mix of property types varies considerably from one development area to another. The Glass Street, Holtzclaw, and Chattanooga Choo Choo development areas have a higher proportion of high-value property types than average, with 77%, 78%, and 64% respectively. This results in positive impacts to property values of 14 percent for the Glass Street Area, 11 percent for the Holtzclaw Area, and 4 percent for the Chattanooga Choo Choo Area. The U.S. Pipe Site, Airport, and Rossville Blvd. development areas have a higher proportion of low-value property types than average, 86%, 77%, and 77% respectively. This results in negative impacts to property values of 41 percent for the U.S. Pipe Site, 39 percent for the Airport Area, and 36 percent for the Rossville Blvd. Area.
1-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
The following table displays the estimated impact of property value for each development area.
Table 1.3 Property Type Mix and Impact on Value by Development Area
Impact of Percent Low- Percent High- Property Type on Value Property Value Property Geography Property Values Types* Types**
City of Chattanooga +0% 37% 63% Glass Street Area +14% 23% 77% Holtzclaw to 3rd Street Area +11% 23% 78% Chattanooga Choo Choo Area +4% 36% 64% Alton Park Area +0% 44% 56% Rossville Blvd Area -36% 75% 25% Airport Area -39% 77% 20% US Pip Site Area -41% 86% 14% Enterprise South Area *** *** *** All Potential Development Areas -10% 46% 54% Note: Percentages are calculated based on building square footage * Low-Value Property Types: undeveloped land and industrial ** High-Value Property Types: public institutions, residential, entertainment, and office *** The Enterprise South Station Area only includes values for the 6,776 square feet of residential development reported by the Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office. All other development in the area is assigned a value of $0. Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
1.3 Impact of Location
After accounting for property type, property values are driven by location. The effect of location can be seen though a change in property values across all property types. Along the rail corridor each property type is, on average 13 percent below the city average for that type of property. So, it can be said that the impact of location is a drop in value of 13 percent.
For all potential development areas together, the impact of location is a decrease in value of 5 percent. This is heavily skewed by the high volume of square footage around the Chattanooga Choo Choo Development Area. For all other development areas, the impact of location is estimated to be a decrease in value of 36 percent.
Location has a negative impact on all of the proposed development areas, with the exception of the Chattanooga Choo Choo Area. This means that the high-value locations in the City of Chattanooga are outside of the proposed development areas. Location has a particularly strong impact on property values in the Glass Street, U.S. Pipe Site, and Rossville Blvd. development areas (-55%, -45%, and -43% respectively).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-5 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
The average impacts of location on property values within the proposed development areas are reported in the following table.
Table 1.4 Impact of Location on Value by Development Area
Impact of Location on Geography Property Values
Chattanooga Choo Choo Area +0% Airport Area -17% Holtzclaw to 3rd Street Area -22% Alton Park Area -32% Rossville Blvd. Area -43% U.S. Pipe Site Area -45% Glass Street Area -55% Enterprise South Area * All Potential Development Areas -5% * The Enterprise South Station Area only includes values for the 6,776 square feet of residential development reported by the Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office. All other development in the area is assigned a value of $0. Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
1.4 Conclusions of the Analysis of Property Values
Overall, property values along the rail corridor and within the proposed development areas are lower than those of the rest of the City. This is due to a combination of the impact of location and the impact of low-valued property types. With the exception of the Chattanooga Choo Choo Development Area, property values are lower than the City average regardless of property type for all of the development areas. Also, for three development areas, property values are driven down by a high proportion of low-value property types. The rail corridor provides an opportunity to target areas of underinvestment for development both through a move towards high-value property types and an increase in property values generally.
1-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
The following table reflects property values as well as the impacts of location and property type on value. Averages for the City of Chattanooga, the proposed rail corridor, and each potential development area are displayed. A similar table for the neighborhoods in the central region of Chattanooga is provided in Appendix B.
Table 1.5 Property Value and its Components Along the Rail Corridor
Value Impact of Impact of Value per Compared to Property Type Location on Geography Square Foot* City Average on Value Value
City of Chattanooga $52 +0% +0% +0% Rail Corridor $36 -31% -21% -13% All Potential Development Areas $44 -15% -10% -5% Areas Less Chatt. Choo Choo $28 -45% -15% -36% Chattanooga Choo Choo Area $54 +4% +4% +0% Holtzclaw to 3rd Area $45 -14% +11% -22% Alton Park Area $35 -32% +0% -32% Glass Street Area $27 -48% +14% -55% Airport Area $26 -50% -39% -17% Rossville Blvd. Area $19 -64% -36% -43% U.S. Pipe Site Area $17 -67% -41% -45% Enterprise South Area ** ** ** ** * (Building Appraised Value)/(Building Square Footage) ** The Enterprise South Development Area only includes values for the 6,776 square feet of residential development reported by the Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office. All other properties in the area is assigned a value of $0. Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
2.0 LABOR POOL LOCATION AND EDUCATION
This section is a discussion of the labor pool along the potential rail corridor. One of the goals of the rail corridor program is to provide connectivity between workers and their places of employment. Here, the location of workers’ residences relative to the locations of employment is discussed. Also, required education levels for the jobs in the rail corridor are compared to the education levels of the workers living there.
2.1 Employment Locations vs. Workers’ Residences
Chattanooga is a net importer of workers. This is common when a city is the largest employment center in the immediate region. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the City of Chattanooga there were 158,212 jobs in 2012. However, there were only 65,144 workers living in
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation the city. This means that 93,068 workers had to travel from outside the city limits to fill those jobs. This is a ratio of 0.41 workers in Chattanooga for every job.
Within the rail corridor, there were 54,122 jobs and only 8,857 workers. This means that 45,265 workers came from outside the rail corridor to fill the jobs within it. This is a ratio of 0.16 workers within the rail corridor for every job. This is a much higher rate of worker importation than that of the City of Chattanooga. This means that in general, the rail corridor includes many centers of employment but a disproportionately low number of workers.
If the geographic area is restricted to the potential development areas only, the number of jobs drops to 18,795. There were 2,887 workers living within the development areas, resulting in a ratio of 0.15 workers per job, which is roughly the same as within the rail corridor overall.
The following table displays the above information.
Table 2.1 Workers per Job
Workers per Geography Jobs* Workers** Job
City of Chattanooga 158,212 65,144 0.41 Rail Corridor 54,122 8,857 0.16 All Potential Development Areas 18,795 2,887 0.15 * Count of jobs at employment location ** Residential count of workers Source: US Census Bureau, 2012
Some of the proposed development areas are more residential, while others are more commercial in nature. This is reflected in the ratio of workers per job within each development area. Areas with a higher ratio are more residential in nature. Areas with a lower ratio are more commercial in nature. The connectivity provided by the rail corridor will allow workers to move from residential areas to commercial areas more easily.
Based on the ratio of workers to jobs, the Glass Street and Alton Park development areas are particularly residential in nature. The Enterprise South, U.S. Pipe Site, Chattanooga Choo Choo, and the Airport development areas are particularly commercial in nature.
2-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
The following table displays the ratio of workers per job by Potential Development Area.
Table 2.2 Workers to Job Ratio by Development Area
Geography Workers per Job
Glass Street Area 4.12 Alton Park Area 1.37 Rossville Blvd. Area 0.31 Holtzclaw to 3rd Street Area 0.22 Airport Area 0.07 Chattanooga Choo Choo Area 0.07 U.S. Pipe Site Area 0.03 Enterprise South Area 0.00 Source: US Census Bureau, 2012
2.2 Educational Attainment
Each level of educational attainment creates its own labor market. For example, jobs requiring a Bachelor’s degree may only be filled with workers that have at least a Bachelor’s degree. Therefor it is useful to split the analysis of workers per job by level of educational attainment.
As the level of educational attainment increases, the ratio of workers per job decreases. This means that as the level of education needed increases, the net importation of workers increases because not as many of the workers can meet the job requirements. For example, within the rail corridor there are 0.25 workers with less than a High School diploma for every job requiring no High School diploma. Conversely, there are 0.11 workers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher for every job requiring a Bachelor’s degree or above.
The following table displays the ratio of workers per job at different education levels for the City of Chattanooga, the rail corridor, and the development areas.
Table 2.3 Ratio of Workers per Job by Level of Education
Workers per Job Workers per Job Workers per Job with Less than a Workers per Job with Some with a High School with A High College or an Bachelor’s or Geography Diploma School Diploma Associate’s Above
City of Chattanooga 0.48 0.42 0.41 0.37 Rail Corridor 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.11 Potential Development Areas 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.10
Source: US Census Bureau, 2012
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
Appendix A. CALCULATIONS
A.1 Value per Square Foot
The Value per Square Foot is calculated for a geographic area by summing the building appraised values in the area and dividing this by the sum of the building square footage.
A.2 Value Compared to City Average
The Value Compared to City Average for a geographic area is calculated by stating with 100 percent and subtracting quotient resulting from dividing the Value per Square Foot for the area by the average for the city ($51.73).
A.3 Impact of Location
In order to calculate the Impact of Location, properties are broken up into seven general categories (residential, office, retail, industrial, public, entertainment, and undeveloped land). A value index is calculated for each category by dividing the geographic area’s average appraised value per square foot by the city average for that property type. An average of these indices, weighted by square footage is then calculated. This weighted average index is then subtracted from 100 percent.
A.4 Impact of Property Type
In order to compute the Impact of Property Type, the Value Compared to City Average and Impact of Location (calculated above) are both converted to ratios by adding 100 percent to each. Then the ratio of Value Compared to City Average is divided by the ratio of the Impact of Location. This produces an Impact of Property Type ratio which is subtracted from 100 percent.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1 Chattanooga Commuter Rail Implementation
Appendix B. PROPERTY VALUE AND ITS COMPONENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
Table 2.4 Property Value and Its Components by Neighborhood
Value Impact of Impact of Value per Compared to Property Type Location on Geography Square Foot City Average on Value Value
City of Chattanooga $52 +0% +0% +0% Hill City Neighborhood $76 +47% +5% +40% Downtown Neighborhood* $57 +11% +7% +4% Westside Neighborhood $51 -1% -19% +21% Glenwood Neighborhood $51 -1% +20% -18% Brainerd Neighborhood $48 -7% +21% -23% Eastdale/Ridgeside Neighborhood* $47 -10% +24% -27% St. Elmo Neighborhood $46 -11% +15% -23% Bushtown/Churchville Neighborhood* $38 -27% +1% -28% Orchard Knob Neighborhood* $34 -34% +10% -40% Southside Neighborhood* $31 -40% -19% -25% East Chattanooga Neighborhood* $28 -46% -37% -15% Alton Park Neighborhood* $27 -49% -31% -25% East Lake/Clifton Hills Neighborhood* $25 -51% -22% -38% Highland Park/oak Grove Neighborhood* $24 -54% -15% -46% Avondale Neighborhood* $23 -55% -18% -45% * Along the proposed rail corridor Source: Hamilton County Tax Assessor’s Office
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1 Appendix E Transit Technologies City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan INTRODUCTION
This technical summary is for the Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study and outlines transit vehicle technologies being considered for future application. Choosing an appropriate transit technology will be largely dependent upon mobility needs, alignment alternatives being considered, feasibility, and public opinion. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate numerous transit vehicle technologies that could address future needs. These transit vehicle technologies include:
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Modern Streetcar Commuter Rail Historic/Heritage Trolley Rapid Rail (often referred to as Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs)) Intercity Rail Bus
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The current study area being considered for future transit implementation can be partitioned into four subareas within the Chattanooga metropolitan area:
1. Downtown Chattanooga 2. Southern Chattanooga 3. Eastern Chattanooga and neighborhoods west of Missionary Ridge 4. Enterprise South and surrounding areas
The Tennessee Valley Rail Museum (TVRM) operates and maintains two rail lines within the study area, the TVRM railway and East Chattanooga Beltway (ECTB). These two rail lines are located mostly in the Eastern Chattanooga/Missionary Ridge Area and were identified in the Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study – Existing Conditions Assessment as viable rail corridors for future passenger service. Currently, the TVRM and ECTB rail corridors operate a variety of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant historic rail vehicles and provide freight access to adjacent industrial sites. Additionally, the Chatham Area Regional Transit Authority (CARTA), operates fixed route bus service, shuttle service, express service, and a historic funicular within the study area. Outside of the historic funicular service, CARTA does not operate any other form of rail transit.
In contemplating a future transit vehicle technology for the study area, compatibility with existing conditions need to be weighed against future needs and the desires of the community. These considerations help inform the decision of which transit technology(s) is suitable for future operation. However, consideration of existing federal jurisdiction should be evaluated and is discussed in the next section.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) COMPLIANCE
Dependent upon transit vehicle technology and location within the study area, either waivers from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) must be obtained or new guideways may need to be constructed parallel to existing rail lines. Currently the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (49 U.S.C. 20102)
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment 1 December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0 defines what a “railroad” is for major railroad carriers that meet operating revenue target classes outlined by the US Surface Transportation Board. This regulation defines a railroad as being “either commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and a commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979” and “high speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard to whether those systems use new technologies not associated with traditional railroads.” However, the CFR does state that a railroad is not “rapid transit operations in an urban area that are connected to the general railroad system of transportation.”
With this regulation, some of the vehicle technologies being considered would meet current FRA standards (i.e. commuter rail, rapid rail, intercity rail) but other “smaller” technologies would not (i.e. light rail, streetcar, or historic/heritage trolley). Any consideration of non-FRA compliant transit technologies would require either a waiver from the FRA or new infrastructure constructed parallel to existing track, either within existing right-of-way(s) or on new location.
If a transit vehicle technology selected for future implementation is not FRA compliant and wishes to operate under FRA jurisdiction, any waiver sought from FRA would need to meet current FRA safety regulations1. Federal guidance does not specifically detail what safety regulations need to be met for this condition, therefore communication with FRA is suggested prior to applying for a waiver1. This would allow FRA to examine any specific concerns over safety and operations early in the planning process1.
TRANSIT VEHICLE TECHNOLGY FACT SHEETS
The following pages provide factsheets which provide detail on the transit vehicle technologies being considered for future implementation.
1 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 130 2 Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT)
LRT DESCRIPTION
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) defines LRT as “An electric railway with a ‘light volume’ traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars”. Light rail is an intermediate rail transit between heavy rail and streetcars. In recent years, light rail vehicles and modern streetcars have become more interchangeable meaning vehicle manufactures have been producing vehicles that can operate at a variety of speeds and within different settings (urban, suburban, rural, off-street, on-street, etc.).
LRT CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length 82 to 95 feet per car
Minimum Turning Radius 82 to 150 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Approximately 190 people
Service Frequency 10 to 20 minutes during peak; 20 to 30 minutes during off-peak
Average Operating Speed 20 to 60 mph
Average Station Spacing ½ - 1 mile
Interoperability Shared and dedicated lanes; on-street and off street
Power Supply Electric motor powered by catenary wire or battery
Application Charlotte, Norfolk, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, and others Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment 3 December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
MODERN STREETCAR
MODERN STREETCAR DESCRIPTION
Streetcars are rail transit vehicles designed for local traffic movement and are typically powered by electricity from overhead catenary wire. They often serve dense urban areas but have the flexibility to operate in a variety of scenarios (similar to LRT). Streetcars most traditionally have operated in mixed traffic conditions but can operate on dedicated guideways. Technology is being developed to allow “off- wire” operations, in which portions of the guideway do not require overhead power supply.
MODERN STREETCAR CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length 60 to 82 feet
Minimum Turning Radius 60 to 82 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Approximately 120 passengers per car
Service Frequency 8 to 15 minutes during peak, 15 to 30 minutes during off peak
Average Operating Speed Typically between 6 to 12 mph, max operating speed achievable is 45 mph
Average Station Spacing Approximately ¼ mile
Interoperability Shared and dedicated lanes; on-street (typically) and off street
Power Supply Electric motor powered by overhead wire or battery
Application Atlanta, Portland, Seattle, Tucson, and Dallas
4 Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
COMMUTER RAIL
COMMUTER RAIL DESCRIPTION
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) defines commuter rail as “…long-haul rail passenger service operating between metropolitan and suburban areas, whether within or across the geographical boundaries of a state, usually characterized by reduced fare for multiple rides, and commutation tickets for regular, recurring riders.” Commuter Rail can operate along existing freight tracks with freight trains if cars meet FTA safety standards (i.e., are FRA compliant).
COMMUTER RAIL DESCRIPTION
Typical Vehicle Length 90 to 105 feet per passenger car, typically operate in 3 to 5 car train sets.
Minimum Turning Radius 140 to 460 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Varies; 100 - 230 passengers per car
Service Frequency 20 to 30 minutes
Average Operating Speed 30 to 79 mph
Average Station Spacing 2 to 5 miles
Interoperability Dedicated right-of-way; can utilize existing freight corridors
Power Supply Diesel engine
Application Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Northern Virginia, and Albuquerque
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment 5 December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
HISTORIC/HERITAGE TROLLEY
HISTORIC/HERITAGE TROLLEY DESCRIPTION
Historic/heritage trolley’s (also referred to as historic streetcars) are rail transit vehicles designed for local traffic movement and are powered by electricity from overhead catenary wire. Either replicas or refurbished vehicles are used (typically from the late 19th and early 20th century). These vehicles typically operate in dense urban areas with frequent stops, similar to the modern streetcar.
HISTORIC/HERITAGE TROLLEY CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length 40 to 70 feet per car
Minimum Turning Radius 40 to 50 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Approximately 40 to 60 passengers per car
Service Frequency 10 minutes during peak; 15 minutes during off- peak
Average Operating Speed 6 to 12 mph, max operating speed of 25 mph
Average Station Spacing Approximately 1/4 mile
Interoperability Shared and dedicated lanes; on-street (typically) and off street
Power Supply Electric motor powered by overhead wire or battery
Application New Orleans, Memphis, Tampa, Charlotte, Savannah, and Kenosha (WI)
6 Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
RAPID RAIL
RAPID RAIL DESCRIPTION
Sometimes called Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), these vehicles are similar to commuter rail but with lower capacity used for providing passenger service on medium distances. Rapid Rail vehicles are self- propelled, typically powered by diesel. Rapid Rail can operate as a single unit or multiple units based on demand. Limited options exist in U.S. for FRA-compliant vehicles, limited DMU applications in active freight corridors.
RAPID RAIL CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length 85 to 135 feet per car
Minimum Turning Radius > 250 feet for single car and > 300 feet for multi cars
Typical Vehicle Capacity Approximately 100 to 140 passengers per car
Service Frequency Varies; Typically 15 to 30 minutes
Average Operating Speed 25 to 40 mph
Average Station Spacing 2 to 5 miles apart
Interoperability Shared and dedicated lanes; on-street and off- street; can use existing freight corridors (limited)
Power Supply Typically diesel
Application Austin, Denton County (Texas), and Oceanside (CA)
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment 7 December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
INTERCITY RAIL
INTERCITY RAIL DESCRIPTION
Intercity rail is similar to commuter rail in terms of overall characteristics. Intercity rail typically connects more cities within regions, states, and other geographies than commuter rail, providing more continuous longer-haul service. Amtrak is the typical operator for this service.
INTERCITY RAIL CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length Varies
Minimum Turning Radius 140 to 460 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Varies; 100 - 230 passengers per car
Service Frequency Varies
Average Operating Speed 30 to 80 mph
Average Station Spacing 10 to 50 miles
Interoperability Dedicated right-of-way; can utilize existing freight corridors
Power Supply Typically Diesel
Application Throughout the United States
8 Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
BUS
BUS DESCRIPTION
Buses are typically single-decked transit vehicles designed to carry multiple passengers and operate in mixed traffic conditions. However, some buses may maybe double decked or articulated to provide additional passenger capacity. Buses can serve both short haul and long haul trips and are typically used by cities to provide greater transit coverage within a service area. When buses operate in a dedicated guideway with signal priority it is commonly referred to as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
BUS CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Vehicle Length 40 to 60 feet
Minimum Turning Radius 40 to 70 feet
Typical Vehicle Capacity Approximately 100 to 300 passengers per bus
Service Frequency 5 to 30 minutes
Average Operating Speed Varies; 15 to 20mph average speed in mixed traffic and up to the roadway speed limit on dedicated lanes
Average Station/Stop Spacing Ranges from every block to express service
Interoperability Shared and dedicated lanes; on roadways only.
Power Supply Varies; diesel, natural gas, electric, hybrid-electric,
Application Throughout the United States
Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment 9 December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
This document has summarized several transit vehicle technologies that are being considered for future implementation as part of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study. The fact sheets within this document serve as a means to provide general information about each transit vehicle technology being considered and to provide context for the differences between each technology. Next, these alternatives will be compared against potential alignment alternatives and vetted by the public. Based upon feedback from the public, elected officials, key stakeholders and through further technical study, an appropriate transit vehicle technology(s) will be advanced. This technology(s), and their associated alignment alternatives, will then be evaluated through an environmental planning and preliminary engineering/design review.
10 Chattanooga Rail Implementation Study │ Transit Vehicle Technology Assessment December 10, 2015│ Version 1.0
Appendix F Ridership Forecasting
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan
www.camsys.com
RIDERSHIP FORECASTING Chattanooga Rail Transit Study
Technical Memorandum
prepared for
City of Chattanooga
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
April 2016
RIdership Forecasting
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Review of Relevant Plans ...... 1 2.1 Mass Transit Alternatives (2009) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 2035 LRTP Complete Streets Section (2010) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 On-Board Transit Survey (2011) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Chattanooga Housing Study (2013) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5 Housing Affordability and Vacancy in the City of Chattanooga (2013) Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6 Travel Demand Model Peer Review and 2040 RTP Travel Demand Model Documentation (2013) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.7 The Chattanooga-Hamilton County 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2013) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.8 Participation Plan for Transportation Planning (2013) .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.9 Downtown Chattanooga Housing, Retail, and Office Market Opportunities (2014) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.10 Chattanooga Complete Streets Policy City Ordinance (2014) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.11 Development of Form-Based Code (2015) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.12 Multimodal Transportation Center Study (2015) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.0 Summary of Findings ...... 6
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i RIdership Forecasting
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Chattanooga was awarded a Transportation Improvements Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) round six grant to study the feasibility of implementing passenger rail service on existing rail lines connecting downtown with neighborhoods and activity centers to the east, including the airport and Enterprise South.
Part of the evaluation of alternatives included forecast passenger ridership on the project. Chattanooga has a regional travel demand forecasting model which was updated for the 2040 regional transportation plan (RTP) to include transit, however no rail transit mode exists in the region (or in the model) and the model has not been used extensively for transit project planning, and the level of corridor-specific validation was not confirmed at the time of the forecasting for this project. Therefore, Federal Transit Administration’s “Simplified Trips On Project” or STOPS model was used.
This memorandum summarizes the findings of this ridership modeling effort and summarizes analysis of the STOPS inputs and forecasts for the Chattanooga rail project. This memorandum is organized into three sections:
Overview of the STOPS model and important characteristics of the forecasts, including the principal markets that the proposed project is intended to serve;
describes the potential impacts of the proposed project on person miles of travel (PMT) in the study area;
provides a summary of the forecasts and possible adjustments to consider; and
2.0 FTA STOPS MODEL
STOPS Overview. The project team used the Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS) v1.50 to predict transit ridership of three alternatives. STOPS is fundamentally a conventional “4-step” model set that considers zone-to-zone travel markets stratified by household auto- ownership. It employs a traditional mode-choice model to predict zone-to-zone transit travel based on zone-to-zone travel characteristics of the transit and roadway networks, and then assigns the trips predicted to use fixed guideways facilities in the transit network.
An overview of STOPS model structure is presented in Figure 1Error! Reference source not found..
Similar to nearly all multi-modal travel forecasting models, STOPS has three parallel tracks: . Highway supply. The left column in the flow chart represents information about the highway system in the region. STOPS does not directly process information on highway attributes and instead relies on estimates of zone-to-zone highway travel times and
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1 Ridership Forecasting
distances obtained from regional travel forecasting model sets maintained by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). . Travel Demand. The central column represents the demand side of STOPS. STOPS uses Year 2000 Census Transportation Planning Product (CTPP) Journey To Work (JTW) data to estimate zone-to-zone demand for travel (i.e., travel flows), and uses it as an input to the models that determine the mode of travel. This data is adapted to represent current and future years by using MPO demographic forecasts to account for zone-specific growth in population and employment. A traditional nested logit mode choice model is used to determine the proportion of trips utilizing transit stratified by access mode and transit sub-mode.
Figure 1. STOPS Model Structure
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
. Transit supply. The right column represents information about the transit system. Like traditional models, transit network characteristics are used to build zone-to-zone level of service (skim) matrices and load transit trips to determine ridership by route and station. Unlike traditional forecasting models, STOPS does not use elaborate hand-coded networks. Instead, STOPS takes advantage of a recent advance in on-line schedule data—the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). This data format is a commonly-
2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. RIdership Forecasting
used format for organizing transit data so that on-line mapping programs can help customers find the optimal paths (times, routes, and
stop locations) for their trips. STOPS includes a program known as GTFPath that generates the shortest path between every combination of regional origin and destination. This path is used for estimating travel times (as an input to mode choice) and for assigning transit trips (an output of mode choice) to routes and stations.
To inform ridership projection, STOPS has been calibrated and validated against current ridership on 24 fixed-guideway systems in 15 metropolitan areas in the United States (Table 1). When it is applied in the Chattanooga metropolitan area, the model also made calibration using (1) the latest available total number of CARTA system-wide transit boardings from National Transit Database (NTD) and (2) the current route-level boardings at existing transit facilities from CARTA. Table 1. Fixed-Guideway Systems applied in STOPS Calibration Metropolitan Fixed-Guideway Metropolitan Fixed-Guideway Systems Area Systems Area Atlanta heavy rail Minneapolis light rail, commuter rail Charlotte light rail Nashville commuter rail Denver light rail Norfolk light rail Phoenix light rail Portland light rail, commuter rail, streetcar San Diego light rail, commuter rail San Jose light rail Salt Lake City light rail, commuter rail, Seattle light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit streetcar Kansas City bus rapid transit St. Louis light rail Houston light rail Source: FTA
3.0 PROJECT INPUT DATA
The project team applied the following steps to streamline the process of applying STOPS: . Implemented STOPS and complied input data. . Run STOPS for the current year and existing transit services and tested the local model calibration. . Coded GIS files and GTFS files of the three project alternatives in the build network and run STOPS for the current year with all three scenarios—existing, no-build, and build. . Applied future year population and employment data developed as part of the station area planning efforts, and run STOPS for the forecast year (2040).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3 Ridership Forecasting
Table 2 lists STOPS model’s inputs data and sources. Table 2. List of Input Data Input Files Source Year Station locations STOPSSTATIONS.shp CARTA 2014 stops.txt Transit agency schedule calendar.txt and supplemental data routes.txt CARTA Current (GTFS) trips.txt stop_times.txt frequencies.txt pnr.txt MPO auto time matrix STOPS_PATH_auto_skim.csv Chattanooga MPO 2010 Chattanooga MPO, 2000, Land use (population, MPO1561TAZPopEmp.shp and developed by 2010, employment) project team 2040 CTPP boundary files BG47_d00.shp, BG13_d00.shp FTA Website 2000 TN_ctpp1_t030_t046.dat, CTPP Part I FTA Website 2000 GA_ctpp1_t030_t046.dat TN_ctpp2_t001_t017.dat, CTPP Part II FTA Website 2000 GA_ctpp2_t001_t017.dat CTPP Part III MPO1561_ctpp3_sumlv944.da FTA Website 2000 Census Block data CensusBlocks_TN.shpt FTA Website 2000
System-wide and route-level Calibration data NTD, CARTA Current ridership Transit agency schedule Developed by Operation Hours, Headway, and supplemental data project team based and Schedule (GTFS) of project on project service Source:alternatives Cambridge Systematics, Inc. plan
4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. RIdership Forecasting
Table 3 shows the service plan elements that were developed for each project alternatives and coded into STOPS for base and future year ridership forecasts.
Table 3. Project Service Span and Headways Component Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Service Span 6 am - 11 pm Peak Headways Rail/Streetcar 30 15 10 Downtown shuttle 10 10 -- Suburban shuttle 30 30 20 Midday Headways Rail/Streetcar 120 30 15 Downtown shuttle 15 15 -- Suburban shuttle 60 60 60 Evening Headways Rail/Streetcar -- 30 15 Downtown shuttle 15 15 -- Suburban shuttle 60 60 60
3.1 Ridership Results
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5 Ridership Forecasting
Table 4 provides a summary of the 2040 daily ridership of three project alternatives on built network. The row “Rail” shows ridership in the rail transit segment of each alternative. Downtown shuttle summarized ridership in shuttle bus routes in downtown area of each alternative. Suburban shuttle include shuttle bus routes connecting the Chattanooga State College, the Airport, and Enterprise South Industrial Park.
6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. RIdership Forecasting
Table 4. Projected Future Ridership (2040) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Daily Unlinked Passenger Alternative 3 Infrastructure Economic Trips (2040) Mobility Reuse Development Rail 1,400 1,550 2,500 Downtown Shuttle 700 700 - Suburban Shuttle 50 150 50 Alternative Total 2,150 2,400 2,560 New System Trips 2,200 3,900 4,350
. Rail ridership: Alternative 3 is predicted to have the highest rail transit ridership – 2,500 daily riders using the commuter rail. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are expected to have 1,400 and 1,550 riders using their streetcars respectively. . Alternative total: The differences between total ridership of the three project alternatives are relatively small, with Alternative 3 having the highest ridership of 2,560 and Alternative 1 having the lowest of 2,150. . New system trips: Adding new transit service may increase ridership on the existing transit network. Alternative 3 is able to bring more new riders to the system than others. Compared to 2040 no-built transit network, adding Alternative 3 is predicted to bring 4,350 more daily unlinked passenger trips to the system, including 2,560 trips on the project routes and 1,790 new trips on other CARTA routes.
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Chattanooga passenger rail alternatives evaluated in this analysis do not generate a high level of ridership, even in the future year which anticipates a fairly high level of station area development along the alignments. Opening year ridership under existing land use assumptions is even lower.
However, the proposed alternatives generate what may be considered a reasonable level of ridership when compared with some smaller systems around the USA, and they do draw a reasonable number of new riders to the transit system. Furthermore, this project was not conceived as a transit mobility/capacity project, but rather to introduce new transportation options to a sub-area of the City that has seen a lack of investment – transportation and otherwise – in recent decades, and to make use of existing rail infrastructure (right-of-way and rail tracks) that may be considered an underutilized asset.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7 Appendix G Environmental Screening Analysis
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan Contents
Introduction ...... 2
Natural Environmental Features ...... 2
Streams ...... 2
Wetlands ...... 2
Floodplains ...... 3
Protected Species ...... 3
Human Environmental Features ...... 3
Environmental Justice ...... 3
Historic Features ...... 4
Parks and Open Space ...... 4
Noise and Vibration ...... 4
Public Involvement ...... 5
Probable Class of Action ...... 5
Figures
Figure 1: Natural Features
Figure 2: Minority Populations
Figure 3: Low-Income Populations
Figure 4: Community Features
1
INTRODUCTION
This document summarizes a variety of impacts that implementation of the Chattanooga Rail may have on environmental features. Multiple natural and human environmental features were evaluated as part of this environmental screening analysis. Three alternatives are being considered that cover a large geographic area from southwestern to eastern Chattanooga. Each alternative includes multiple forms of transit systems, such as rapid rail/commuter rail, electric shuttles, streetcars, and traditional local bus service. Interaction between the alternatives and the following environmental features were evaluated:
Natural Environmental Features Streams Wetlands Floodplains Protected Species
Human Environmental Features Environmental Justice Historic Features Parks and Recreational Areas Noise and Vibration Public Involvement
The sections below provide more detail related to these topics. The results of this analysis eventually led to a recommended probable Class of Action Determination (CoAD). This CoAD is subject to change dependent upon if an alternative (or alternatives) are advanced in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) phase and a determination based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
STREAMS
The proposed rail alignments cross multiple bodies of flowing water. Citico Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries, as well as the South Chickamauga Creek, are listed on Tennessee’s 2014 303(d) list of impaired streams (Figure 1). Several South Chickamauga Creek tributaries are also classified as High Quality Waters.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to streams will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
WETLANDS
According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the proposed rail alignments do not contain any wetlands in or along the studied corridors (Figure 1). Further environmental investigations will be needed to identify any additional wetland resources not identified in the NWI.
2
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to wetlands will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
FLOODPLAINS
The proposed rail alignments travel through multiple Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated floodplains. Various sections of the alignments east of Missionary Ridge are located on elevated track sections and therefore are not anticipated to impact any existing floodways or floodplains (Figure 1).
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to floodplains will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Nine federally listed threatened and endangered species are located in Hamilton County. Multiple other species in the county are classified as threatened and endangered on Tennessee’s state list. Species surveys will likely be required to determine if appropriate threatened and endangered species habitats exist along the preferred rail corridor.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential threatened and endangered species habitat impacts will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The preferred and alternative rail alignments cross through 19 census block groups. According to American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 5-year estimates, all of the census block groups in the vicinity of the proposed rail alignments exceed Hamilton County’s minority population percentage of 28% (Figure 2). All but two of the surrounding census block groups have minority populations of over 50%.
According to American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 5-year estimates, approximately three quarters of the census block groups along the proposed rail alignments exceed Hamilton County’s low- income population percentage of 16% or below (Figure 3). Five of the studied census block groups have low-income residents of over 50%.
Adverse effects to Environmental Justice populations will need to be determined in order to understand the totality of potential impacts.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to historically sensitive populations will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
3
HISTORIC FEATURES
The proposed rail alignments are adjacent to, or utilize, historic features listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Figure 4 highlights the NRHP Landmarks located along the project corridor alternatives.
The project corridor alignments run through the Market and Main Streets Historic District, adjacent to the Terminal Station. Chattanooga’s Terminal Station was built in the early 1900s by Southern Railway and was the origination point for approximately seventeen trains when it was in operation.
Two of the alignments travel along the southern and eastern edge of the Chattanooga National Cemetery. The cemetery is approximately 120 acres in size and contains over 32,000 burial sites. In 2010, an expansion project was started to increase the life of the cemetery to 2046 with the addition of over 5,000 graves. The Chattanooga Area Veterans Council has been actively working to add approximately 20 to 25 acres to the cemetery.
The alignments run adjacent to the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, which is home of the Mikado Locomotive No. 4501. The Mikado Locomotive No. 4501 was built in 1911 and is one of the few remaining steam engines in use.
Approximately 1,000 feet of the proposed rail alignments may utilize the Chattanooga, Harrison, Georgetown & Charleston Railroad Tunnel (aka, the Missionary Ridge Railroad Tunnel). Construction on the tunnel began in 1856, and it is one of the earliest tunnels constructed in Tennessee.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to historic properties and districts will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The proposed rail alignments run adjacent to a portion of Warner Park. The park contains multiple athletic features including tennis courts, softball fields, and baseball fields. An aquatics facility is also within Warner Park. The Chattanooga Zoo is a 13-acre zoological park located within Warner Park. Figure 4 shows the Parks and Open spaces located throughout the corridor.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to parks and open space will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
The proposed rail alignments travel adjacent to or through multiple noise sensitive areas including parks, cemeteries, churches, and residences. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, the main sources of Commuter Rail noise are diesel exhaust, cooling fans, wheel/rail interactions, and horns. Based on reference sound exposure levels and equations provided in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, noise-sensitive receptors approximately 50 feet from the track are predicted to experience noise levels from mid-50s to low 60 decibel range.
4
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential impacts to noise sensitive areas will be studied in greater detail during the environmental documentation phase.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Based on the location of the preferred rail alignment and the size of the overall project, it is anticipated that extensive public involvement efforts will be required to gain the input and opinions of the general public that may be affected by the project.
All of the studied alternatives are anticipated to have some level of impact on the environment. The three alignments alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts throughout the corridor. Potential public involvement efforts will be determined during the environmental documentation phase.
PROBABLE CLASS OF ACTION
Based on the completed screening of existing environmental conditions, it is believed that this project will require an Environmental Assessment (EA) as the necessary level of environmental documentation as it advances through the NEPA process.
A determination on whether or not the potential environmental effects are likely to be significant will solidify the necessary level of environmental documentation required for the proposed project. Coordination with FTA will be necessary to ensure the appropriate environmental document is prepared.
5
Figure 1: Natural Features
6
D E D D D AS R HL IV A A A AND Y TE R O O O RRA D E R CE L R R T L K Chattanooga Rail K R A W E D D DUPONT PARKWAY O V R E A S A R NORTH ACCESS ROAD E Y A O O R L C R R R O C N E Implementation Study I N K K I N A T L A C T U L O I R I N P H A T P U O N O M N M DR A Environmental Screening - M IV 27 H E WALK
£ R C P E ¤ E IVE IV IK E R O R P SE O Natural Features 127 D N ES L ¤£ O N OAD N D S N GS R W A E KIN O A IX Y O T D L H A L N R DAYTON BOULEVARD E O H AM R O U R T NIC O B H R E LA T H B L A IG E L H I
W W T L W A S L Y U H
L T A P N U R E PO
E K Legend I P Y AY E D HW E BONNY OAKS DRIVE S IG V A H Preferred Alignment Station I R R (! O E (! E HAMILTONAVENUE D R E J L E D Location ID I D E L SPEARSAVENUE S R R TYNER ROAD O E IV GLASS STREET H (! A Preferred Rail Alignment R E
O U PINEVILLE ROAD N N E V Other Studied Rail A N STA O ND Alignments S IF ER D G O A CITICO AVENUE PINEWOOD DRIVE P D TUNNEL BOULEVARD R Stream WHEELER AVENUENORTH CREST ROAD 75 O A A IR ¦¨§ D EAST 10TH STREET P O !!! R High Quality Stream D (! T
A R O OAK STREET AD RD RO O R DUNCAN AVENUE WFO !!! O A BAILEY AVENUE HALL 303(d) Stream D (! S D
N
E D
B (! KIRBY AVENUE A Wetland
N O I
R S
A ROGERS ROAD E
C C Body of Water D C N A O A O V GUNBARREL ROAD M E 1 R 9T 11 HICKORY VALLEY ROAD H S Floodway S ¤£ T N IGOU GAP ROAD I K OLD MISSION ROAD N D E 100-Yr Floodplain A J
EAST 28TH STREET O D
R A
CALHOUN AVENUE T GRAY RD SO O S U 500-Yr Floodplain T R E H T L R E R L C R I AC E H H
T S I
U
E R O G R U DAVIDSON ROAD
S Y R O D N D A A A E 24 A E M O DODDS AVENUE Y V O A R W 4TH AVENUE S R S T D H A § R ¦¨ B RAINE V G Y FULLER E R I D E I OA L
E D H E WORKMAN ROAD A L L
U S O S W E N S BENNETT ROAD R H A D R C E E A N R O
O V N 6TH AVENUE E F O I
A N A
R R E JULIAN ROAD D O B
T N
M O C
L S M
E L JOHN ROSS ROAD I
T
W S 0 1 2 E Miles
Figure 2: Minority Populations
7
D E D D D AS R HL IV A A A AND Y TE R O O O RRA D E R CE L R R T L K Chattanooga Rail K R A W E D D DUPONT PARKWAY O V R E A S A R NORTH ACCESS ROAD E Y A O O R L C R R R O C N E Implementation Study I N K K I N A T L A C T U L O I R I N P H A T P U O N O M N M DR A Environmental Screening - M IV 27 H E WALK
£ R C P E ¤ E IVE IV IK E R O R P SE O Minority Populations 127 D N ES L ¤£ O N OAD N D S N GS R W A E KIN O A IX Y O T D L H A L N R DAYTON BOULEVARD E O H AM R O U R T NIC O B H R E LA T H B L A IG E L H I
W W T L W A S L Y U H
L T A P N U R E PO
E K Legend I P Y 35% AY E D HW E BONNY OAKS DRIVE S IG V A H Preferred Alignment Station I R R 90% (! O E (! E HAMILTONAVENUE D R E J L E D Location ID I D E L SPEARSAVENUE S R 99% R TYNER ROAD O E IV 93% 30% H R (! 82% A Preferred Rail Alignment
O
PINEVILLE ROAD N 44% Other Studied Rail 100% 95% STA 29% E N Alignments D D 95% U IF A E N R O E G R PINEWOOD DRIVEA V TUNNEL BOULEVARD P A T R WHEELER AVENUE 75 O Census Block Group S A N I A E R D O § R ¦¨ EAST 10TH37% STREET P S O C Percentages D R D (! H O T
A T D
R R O AD 82% D RO O
O R R 37% 36% WFO 29 - 50% LO A N HAL D (! S D N 68%
E
BAILEY AVENUE D
B 51 - 70% (! A
N O I
R S 35%
A 56% ROGERS ROAD E 71 - 90% C C D C N A O A O V GUNBARREL ROAD M E 1 R 91 - 100% 9TH 11 HICKORY VALLEY ROAD 90% S ¤£ S T N IGOU GAP ROAD I K OLD MISSION ROAD N D E A J
EAST 28TH STREET O D
R A
CALHOUN AVENUE T GRAY RD SO O S U T R E H T L R E R L C R I AC E H H
T S I
U
E R O G R U DAVIDSON ROAD
S Y R O D N D A A A E 24 A E M O DODDS AVENUE Y V O A R W 4TH AVENUE S R S T D H A § R ¦¨ B RAINE V G Y FULLER E R I D E I OA L
E D H E WORKMAN ROAD A L L
U S O S W E N S BENNETT ROAD R H A D R C E E A N R O
O V N 6TH AVENUE E F O I
A N A
R R E JULIAN ROAD D O B
T N
M O C
L S M
E L JOHN ROSS ROAD I
T
W S 0 1 2 E Miles
Figure 3: Low-Income Populations
8
D E D D D AS R HL IV A A A AND Y TE R O O O RRA D E R CE L R R T L K Chattanooga Rail K R A W E D D DUPONT PARKWAY O V R E A S A R NORTH ACCESS ROAD E Y A O O R L C R R R O C N E Implementation Study I N K K I N A T L A C T U L O I R I N P H A T P U O N O M N M DR A Environmental Screening - M IV 27 H E WALK
£ R C P E ¤ E IVE IV IK E R O R P SE O Low-Income Populations 127 D N ES L ¤£ O N OAD N D S N GS R W A E KIN O A IX Y O T D L H A L N R DAYTON BOULEVARD E O H AM R O U R T NIC O B H R E LA T H B L A IG E L H I
W W T L W A S L Y U H
L T A P N U R E PO
E K Legend I P Y 24% AY E D HW E BONNY OAKS DRIVE S IG V A H Preferred Alignment Station I R R 16% (! O E (! E HAMILTONAVENUE D R E J L E D Location ID I D E L SPEARSAVENUE S R 84% R TYNER ROAD O E IV 15% H (! A Preferred Rail Alignment R E 34% 3% O U PINEVILLE ROAD N N 4% E V Other Studied Rail 59% A 27% N STA 24% O N Alignments 35% D D S IF A E D R O G O R PINEWOOD DRIVEA CITICO AVENUED TUNNEL BOULEVARD P T R WHEELER AVENUE 75 O Census Block Group S A I A E R § D R ¦¨ EAST 10TH53% STREET P O C Percentages R D (! H T
A T
R R O AD 58% D RO O
O R R 32% 38% WFO 0 - 25% LO A N HAL D (! S D N 37%
E
BAILEY AVENUE D
B 26 - 35% 34% (! A N O I
R S
A 32% ROGERS ROAD E 36 - 50% C C D C N A O A O V GUNBARREL ROAD M E 1 R 51 - 100% 9TH 11 HICKORY VALLEY ROAD 79% S ¤£ S T N IGOU GAP ROAD I K OLD MISSION ROAD N D E A J
EAST 28TH STREET O D
R A
CALHOUN AVENUE T GRAY RD SO O S U T R E H T L R E R L C R I AC E H H
T S I
U
E R O G R U DAVIDSON ROAD
S Y R O D N D A A A E 24 A E M O DODDS AVENUE Y V O A R W 4TH AVENUE S R S T D H A § R ¦¨ B RAINE V G Y FULLER E R I D E I OA L
E D H E WORKMAN ROAD A L L
U S O S W E N S BENNETT ROAD R H A D R C E E A N R O
O V N 6TH AVENUE E F O I
A N A
R R E JULIAN ROAD D O B
T N
M O C
L S M
E L JOHN ROSS ROAD I
T
W S 0 1 2 E Miles
Figure 4: Community Features
9
#
#
D E D # D D AS R HL IV A A A AND Y TE R O O O RRA D E R CE L R R T L K Chattanooga Rail K R A W E D D DUPONT PARKWAY O V R E A S A R NORTH ACCESS ROAD E Y A O O R L C R R R O C N E Implementation Study I N K K I N A T L A C T U L O I R I N P H A T P U O N O M N M DR A Environmental Screening - M IV 27 H E WALK
£ R C P E ¤ E IVE IV IK E R O R P SE O Community Features 127 D N ES L ¤£ O N OAD N D S N GS R W A E KIN O A IX Y O T D L H A L N R DAYTON BOULEVARD E O H AM R O U R T NIC O B H R E LA T H B L A IG E L H I
W W T L W A S L Y U H
L T A P N U R E PO
E K Legend # I P# Y # AY E D HW E BONNY OAKS DRIVE S IG V A H Preferred Alignment Station # I R R (! O # E (! E HAMILTONAVENUE D R E J L E D Location ID I D # E L SPEARSAVENUE S # R R # TYNER ROAD O E # IV GLASS STREET H # (!# A Preferred Rail Alignment R E
O U PINEVILLE ROAD N N E V Other Studied Rail ## A N S # TAN # O D Alignments S IF ER # # D # G ## O PINEWOOD DRIVEA # CITICO AVENUED TUNNEL BOULEVARD P #### R National Register of Historic # WHEELER AVENUE #### NORTH CREST ROAD A 75 O # ### # I A # R ¦¨§ D # EAST# #10TH STREET# P Places Landmark # # O # # R D ## (! # # T A R O OAK STREET AD Parks and Open Space # RD RO O R # DUNCAN AVENUE WFO O A BAILEY AVENUE HALL D # #(! # S D N # E # # D B (! KIRBY AVENUE A
N O I
R S
A ROGERS ROAD E
C C D C N A O A O V GUNBARREL ROAD M E 1# R 9TH 11 HICKORY VALLEY ROAD S ¤£ # S T N IGOU GAP ROAD I # OLD MISSION ROAD K # N # D E A J
# EAST 28TH STREET O D
R A
CALHOUN AVENUE T GRAY RD SO O S U # # T R E H # T L R E R L C R I AC E H H
T # S # I U
E R O G R U DAVIDSON ROAD
S Y R O D N D A A A E 24 A E M O DODDS AVENUE Y V O A R W 4TH AVENUE S R S T D H A § R ¦¨ B RAINE V G Y FULLER E R I D E I OA L
E D H E WORKMAN ROAD A L L
U S O S W E
# S N BENNETT ROAD R H A D R C E E A N R O
O V N 6TH AVENUE E F O I
A N A
R R E JULIAN ROAD D O B
T N
M O C
L S M
E L JOHN ROSS ROAD I
T
W S 0 1 2 E Miles Appendix H Shepherd Area Bus Recommendations
City of Chattanooga Rail Implementation Plan
MEETING NOTES
Date: May 18, 2016 Time: 10:00 AM Location: DRC Conference Room 3A Subject: Greater Shepherd Area Transit Planning Coordination
Attendees:
Bert Kuyrkendall, City Courtney Geary, RPA Lisa Maragnano, CARTA Peter Haliburton, CS Veronica Peebles, CARTA Sarah Windmiller, CS Melissa Taylor, RPA Agenda 1. Overview of studies 2. Other studies 3. Subarea needs, opportunities, constraints 4. Recommendations
Meeting Goals The following five studies have been completed and have made recommendations for this study area: i. MTCS For each of these studies, the following elements were addressed: ii. Enterprise South − Goals iii. Hamilton Place − Constraints iv. Hwy 153 − Recommendations v. Passenger Rail − Priorities The primary goal of the meeting was to identify consistencies and differences between the transit route recommendations from these five studies and to consolidate the findings/ recommendations in a manner that is most beneficial to the public transportation needs of the community as a whole, more specifically: − Identify priorities in destinations and routes − Enhance transit operations efficiency − Eliminate redundancy and overlap of routes where possible The group addressed the following aspects of the study area for each of the independent sub-area studies: − Activity centers − Travel desire lines − Magnitude of demand − Priorities − Timeframes Common Issues: The name “greater Shepherd area” is being used to describe the study area east of Missionary Ridge. i. Safe and continuous pedestrian access to bus stops is a challenge in many sub areas and impacting several routes. ii. There are many activity centers that require a high level of service – although they do not have very high levels of activity. Obvious transfer points exist at: Hamilton Place Mall and Eastgate Mall/Midtown area. Additional transfer points exist or are developing at: Airport, Bonny Oaks/Hwy 153; Bonny Oaks/I-75; Apison Pike/I-75 and Hwy 58/Hickory Valley Rd. iii. Long routes and slow travel times are a challenge to passengers and to CARTA. Shorter and express routes are necessary to improve mobility. iv. Route 4 service is hampered by slow travel along Brainerd Road and Lee Highway. Bus Rapid Transit concepts including queue jump lanes are being considered to improve travel speed. Special bus-only lanes (including turn-lanes) are being considered. v. Land use remains a consistent challenge in many areas and along routes – nodes of density/activity are separated. Land Use intensification is needed: this should start at the larger activity centers such as the malls with incentives for increased density and more mixed use developments. vi. Incremental service improvements are the most appropriate /likely solutions for most areas/corridors. Findings: i. A significant part of new growth in the region will continue to occur east of Missionary Ridge. This area will continue to be challenging to serve due to the low densities, dispersion of activity centers, and the indirect road connections between them. ii. Compared to the downtown, bringing bus routes together to allow transfers is more difficult due to the size and dispersion of the area. Ideally a few city blocks or short road corridor are used to provide such transfer opportunities. In this study area, the transfer “point” is more closely resembles a loop joining a number of existing activity centers. This “loop” will need to be efficiently connected to
- 2 - downtown as well as connect to multiple radial lines to adjacent communities (see diagram).
iii. In the future, the number of centers and level of activity within the study area will increase requiring additional connections and service (see diagram). Frequent service would be required to provide sufficient connection opportunities for work and non-work travel within this study area.
- 3 - iv. Additional land use density and intensity will be required to support the kind of service envisioned for this area – primarily to achieve a level of “infill” along the corridors between the transfer/activity centers identified. This may require incentives from the City and County. Recommendations: i. Based on the analysis and discussions conducted as part of this work, a network of express bus routes is recommended to connect downtown and activity centers / access points in the greater Shepherd area. They are shown in the graphic below – with “dummy” bus route numbers assigned starting with “101”. ii. In some cases these are new routes; in others they may operate as “limited stop” overlay routes – such as CARTA’s route 4. iii. Additional connections within and between this express route network – shown in blue below without numbers. North-south circulators would connect neighborhoods with the high-speed, high-frequency express network. Additional connector routes – such as the one shown that partially reflects Route 19 – will be needed to provide interim connections within the larger loop.
iv. City code should require transit related facilities and amenities as part of all significant new developments – to include sidewalks, direct pedestrian connections, bus shelters and in some cases pull-outs and safe pedestrian crossings. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) publishes an urban street design guide that could be required. v. Funding for Operations: identify any opportunities to flex FHWA funds for transit service, for restoring Red Bank service or similar.
- 4 -