Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Fact Sheet Spring 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Fact Sheet Spring 2018 What is the Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative? A transit expansion project connecting the Red/Gold and Blue MARTA rail lines to major employment, educational, healthcare, and shopping destinations, while providing transportation options along a congested corridor. Destinations: Type: Funding Source: Service Areas: • Lindbergh Center Station • Clairmont Road Retail • Light Rail • Local/Federal • City of Atlanta • Cheshire Bridge Road • Suburban Plaza Retail Transit (LRT) (Capital • DeKalb County • Centers for Disease • DeKalb Medical Center Investment Control and Prevention Grant) • City of Decatur • Your DeKalb Farmers Market • Emory University • Avondale Station ▶ How will the project benefit the Clifton Corridor? Increases Service Improves Access Provides Emergency Provides Alternate Reliability and Frequency and Connectivity Evacuation Option Transportation Options ▶ Cost & Ridership Phase 1 Full Build Ridership Only (MOS) (including Phase 1) $900M - $1.3B $1.8 - $2.1B 23,300 Contact Us On the Web Bryan Hobbs http://www.itsmarta.com/clifton-corridor-overview.aspx 404-848-5733 | [email protected] PLANNING Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Fact Sheet Spring 2018 ▶ Project Schedule We are Here 2012 2015 2018 2022 2026 Planning Environmental Engineering Construction Operation review (NEPA) This timeline is an estimate and is subject to change. ▶ Project Area Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Alternative 6 (Light Rail) LINDBERGH At grade, non-roadway alignment CENTER At grade, median roadway alignment At grade, lateral roadway alignment Aerial section . D R CHESHIRE F Cut and cover tunnel F I BRIDGE L C R Proposed stations - alt 6 A I R B Y. W D H R E SAGE HILL/ CDC/EMORY L X PHASE 2 IL O V N BRIARCLIFF E E CONFERENCE CENTER L ALIGNMENT C N E R W EMORY/CDC A CITY OF L ATLANTA EMORY- ANDREWS SUBURBAN DEKALB MEDICAL ROLLINS CIRCLE PLAZA CENTER N. DECATUR RD. N. D ECA TU PHASE 1 R R IRWIN D. TO NORTH NORTH DECATUR/ DECATUR/ . WAY CLAIRMONT ST H C CLAIRMONT R CL U AI H RM C O YOUR DEKALB N T R D FARMERS MARKET . FULTON COUNTY FULTON DEKALB COUNTY CITY OF SCOTT BLVD. DECATUR 0 ¼ ½ ¾ 1 N Miles EAST LAKE AVONDALE Contact Us On the Web Bryan Hobbs http://www.itsmarta.com/clifton-corridor-overview.aspx 404-848-5733 | [email protected].

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Wayside Noise of Elevated Rail Transit Structures: Analysis of Published Data and Supplementary Measurements
HE )8# 5 ORT NO. UMTA-MA-06-0099-80-6 . A3 7 no. DOT- TSC- UMTA- 3n-4i WAYSIDE NOISE OF ELEVATED RAIL TRANSIT STRUCTURES: ANALYSIS OF PUBLISHED DATA AND SUPPLEMENTARY MEASUREMENTS Eric E. Unger Larry E. Wittig TRJ < of A , DECEMBER 1980 INTERIM REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U,S, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESFARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA 02142 x . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. i Technical Report Documentation Page 1 . Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTA-MA- 0 6-0099-80-6 4.^Jitle and Subtitle 5. Report Date WAYSIDE NOISE OF ELEVATED RAIL TRANSIT December 1980 STRUCTURES: ANALYSIS OF PUBLISHED DATA 6. Performing Organization Code AND SUPPLEMENTARY MEASUREMENTS DTS-331 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author's) DOT-TSC-UMTA-80- 41 linger, Eric E.; Wittig, Larry E. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) UM049/R0701 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.* Moulton Street 11. Contract or Grant No. 50 DOT-TSC Cambridge MA 02238 -1531 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12 U.S. Department of Transportation Interim Report Urban Mass Transportation Administration July 1978-Oct.
[Show full text]
Lindbergh Center Station: a Commuter Commission Landpro 2009
LINDBERGH CENTER Page 1 of 4 STATION Station Area Profile Transit Oriented Development Land Use Within 1/2 Mile STATION LOCATION 2424 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Sources: MARTA GIS Analysis 2012 & Atlanta Regional Lindbergh Center Station: A Commuter Commission LandPro 2009. Town Center Station Residential Demographics 1/2 Mile The MARTA Transit Oriented Development Guidelines Population 7,640 classify Lindbergh Center station as a “Commuter Town Median Age 30.7 Center”. The “Guidelines” present a typology of stations Households 2,436 ranging from Urban Core stations, like Peachtree Center Avg. Household Size 3.14 STATION ESSENTIALS Station in downtown Atlanta, to Collector stations - i.e., end of the line auto commuter oriented stations such as Median Household Income $69,721 Daily Entries: 8,981 Indian Creek or North Springs. This classification system Per Capita Income $28,567 reflects both a station’s location and its primary func- Parking Capacity: 2,519 tion. Business Demographics 1 Mile Parking Businesses 1,135 The “Guidelines” talk about Commuter Town Center Utilization: 69% Employees 12,137 stations as having two functions – as “collector” stations %White Collar 67.8 Station Type: At-Grade serving a park-and ride function for those travelling else- %Blue Collar 10.5 Commuter where via the train, and as “town centers” serving as Station Typology Town Center %Unemployed 10.0 nodes of dense active mixed-use development, either Source: Site To Do Business on-line, 2011 Land Area +/- 47 acres historic or newly planned. The Guidelines go on to de- MARTA Research & Analysis 2010 scribe the challenge of planning a Town Center station which requires striking a balance between those two in Atlanta, of a successful, planned, trans- SPENDING POTENTIAL INDEX functions “… Lindbergh City Center has, over the dec- it oriented development.
[Show full text]
Piedmont Area Trans Study.Indd
piedmont area transportation study final report Several portions of the corridor, such as near the northern and southern activity centers, do have more consistent and attractive streetscape environments. However, other portions existing of the corridor have not received improvements during recent years. This creates a disconnected corridor and provides unattractive and difficult conditions for individuals wishing to walk between the areas with nicer aesthetics and well-kept conditions streetscapes. This discontinuity between areas is even more noticeable to motorists who drive along the corridor. Zoning Structure Portions of the corridor lie within Special Public Interest (SPI) districts which provide an additional layer of zoning. These areas are located on the east side of Piedmont Road north of Peachtree Road as well as on both sides of Above: Recently completed Phase I Peachtree Road Piedmont Road in the Lindbergh Center Complete Streets streetsape area. These overlay districts allow for Right: Lindbergh Center as common goals pertaining to aesthetics, a model of good streetscape attractiveness to all user groups, and unity of appearance in these locations as development occurs. Several areas that are prime for redevelopment are currently not within overlay districts (along the west side of Piedmont Road south and north of Peachtree Road), making them vulnerable to development that does not support the common goals of the corridor. “ … We have worked with the City of Atlanta very closely throughout this process so that our recom- mendations can be put directly into the plan they create for the entire city. That gives Buckhead a fast start on making vital transportation improvements.” 22 23 piedmont piedmont area area transportation transportation study final report study final report 3.0 Existing Conditions The current state of Piedmont Road is the result of decades of substantial use without requisite investment in maintenance and improvement to the transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway infrastructure along the corridor.
[Show full text]
MARTA Tunnel Construction in Decatur, Georgia
. 4 I lit. 18.5 . a37 no UOT- f SC- UM TM UMTA-MA-06-002 5-77-1 7 7 -2 4 T NO MARTA TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION IN DECATUR GEORGIA— A Case Study of Impacts Peter C. Wolff and Peter H. Scholnick Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge MA 02138 of TR4 A( JULY 1977 FINAL REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Technology Development and Deployment Office of Rail Technology Washi ngton DC 20591 . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1 . Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTA-MA-06-0025- 77-14 4. Title and Subti tie 5. Report Date July 1977 iJfYlTfl- MARTA TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION IN DECATUR GEORGIA— A Case Study of Impacts 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing, Organi zation Report No. 7. Authors) DOT-TSC-UMTA-77-24 AAI 77-18 Peter Co Wolff and Peter H. Scholnick 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Abt Associates Inc. UM704/R7706 55 Wheeler Street 11. Contract or Grant No.
[Show full text]
Soohueyyap Capstone.Pdf (6.846Mb)
School of City & Regional Planning COLLEGE OF DESIGN A Text-Mining and GIS Approach to Understanding Transit Customer Satisfaction Soo Huey Yap MS-GIST Capstone Project July 24, 2020 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Transit Performance Evaluation……………………………………………………………………………….. 3 1.2 Using Text-Mining and Sentiment Analysis to Measure Customer Satisfaction………… 5 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Study Site and Transit Authority……………………………………………………………………………….. 9 2.2 Description of Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 2.3 Text-Mining and Sentiment Analysis 2.3.1 Data Preparation……………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 2.3.2 Determining Most Frequent Words…………………………………………………………… 12 2.3.3 Sentiment Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………. 13 2.4 Open-Source Visualization and Mapping………………………………………………………………… 14 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Determining Most Frequent Words………………………………………………………………………… 16 3.2 Sentiment Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 3.3 Location-based Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 4. CHALLENGES AND FUTURE WORK……………………………………………………………………………………. 24 5. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 25 6. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 7. APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29 Appendix 1: Final Python Script for Frequent Words Analysis Appendix 2: Results from 1st Round Data Cleaning and Frequent Words Analysis Appendix 3: Python Script for Sentiment Analysis using the NLTK Vader Module Python Script for Sentiment Analysis using TextBlob Appendix 4:
[Show full text]
Decatur's Transportation Network, 2007
3 • Decatur’s Transportation Network, 2007 CHAPTER • 3 Decatur’s Transportation Network, 2007 othing speaks louder of a city’s transportation system than how its residents use it. A public survey conducted as part of the CTP revealed that sixty-seven N percent of commuters drive alone to get to work or school. Over 20 percent of commuters in Decatur either walk, bike or take transit. Even more interesting, 79 percent of residents reported having walked or ridden a bike to downtown Decatur. Additionally, the majority of residents feel that it is easy to get around the City. These results indicate a system that already provides a lot of choice for travelers. The following sections detail the extent of these choices, i.e. the facilities that make up the existing Decatur transportation network. The CTP uses this snapshot of how Decatur gets around in 2007 to recommend how the City can build upon its existing strengths to realize its vision of a healthy and well-connected community. Existing Street Network Streets are where it all comes together for travel in and through Decatur. The streets and their edges provide places for people to walk, bicycle and travel in buses and other vehicles. Compared with the MARTA rail system and off-road paths and greenways, the street system in Decatur accommodates the majority of travel and is detailed below. Roadway Classification in Decatur In 1974, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the manual Highway Functional Classification - Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. The manual was revised in 1989 and forms the basis of this roadway classification inventory.
[Show full text]
MARTA Jurisdictional Briefing City of Atlanta
MARTA Jurisdictional Briefing City of Atlanta October 10, 2018 Jeffrey A. Parker | General Manager/CEO PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • More MARTA Atlanta Program / Approved Plan • State of Service • Ongoing Coordination Issues • Q & A 2 MORE MARTA ATLANTA PROGRAM / APPROVED PLAN MORE MARTA ATLANTA PROGRAM • Unanimous Approval by MARTA Board of Directors • $2.7 billion in sales tax over 40 years • Additional public/private funding to be sought • Targeted Investments: 22 Miles - Light Rail Transit (LRT) 14 Miles - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 26 Miles - Arterial Rapid Transit (ART) 2 New Transit Centers Additional Fixed-Route Bus Service Upgrades to existing Rail Stations • Two Years of Comprehensive Planning and Outreach • Nine Guiding Principles • Opportunities for more transit 4 THE PEOPLE’S PRIORITIES Based on public feedback, MARTA and City leaders refined the program, with emphasis on: Atlanta BeltLine Southeast/Southwest Station Enhancements $570M $600M+ $200M Plan builds out 61% of City‐adopted Includes LRT on Campbellton & SW Includes better access, amenities Atlanta BeltLine Streetcar Plan BeltLine and BRT link to downtown and ADA enhancements Clifton Corridor Downtown/Streetcar Bus System $250M $553M $238M Plus additional $100M contingent Connects BeltLine with downtown Includes more frequent bus on securing other local funding destinations and existing Streetcar service and new circulator routes 5 APPROVED PROGRAM 6 MORE MARTA Program MORE MARTA IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE • MARTA has already responded to public feedback. Since 2017, the
[Show full text]
Dekalb County Transit Master Plan Final Report - August 2019
DeKalb County Transit Master Plan Final Report - August 2019 Prepared for Prepared by 1355 Peachtree St. NE Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30309 What is DeKalb County’s Transit Master Plan? The Transit Master Plan’s purpose is to address DeKalb County’s mobility challenges, help to enhance future development opportunities, and improve the quality of life within each of DeKalb County’s cities and unincorporated communities, both north and south. The plan identifies transit service enhancements for today and expansion opportunities for tomorrow to create a 30-year, cost-feasible vision for transit investments in DeKalb County Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Project Goals ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 State of DeKalb Transit ................................................................................................. 2-1 History of DeKalb Transit ................................................................................................... 2-1 DeKalb Transit Today .......................................................................................................... 2-2 Current Unmet Rider Needs ............................................................................................
[Show full text]
LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY STUDY Draft Report
LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY STUDY Draft Report Prepared for Prepared by In collaboration with Last Mile Connectivity Study | DRAFT REPORT February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 A. Defining Last Mile Connectivity ....................................................................................................................... 8 B. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Study Process/Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11 A. Prior Plans and Studies .....................................................................................................................................11 B. Project List ..........................................................................................................................................................11 C. Mapping Existing Facilities/Services and Previously Planned/Programmed Projects
[Show full text]
Served Proposed Station(S)
CURRENT PROPOSED ROUTE NAME JURISDICTION PROPOSED MODIFICATION STATION(S) STATION(S) SERVED SERVED Discontinue Service -N ew proposed Routes 21 and 99 would provide service along Jesse Hill Ave., Coca Cola Pl. and Piedmont Ave. segments. New proposed Route 99 would provide service along the Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. segment. New proposed Routes 32 and 51 would provide service on Marietta St. between Forsyth St. and Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd. New proposed Route 12 would provide service on the Howell Mill Rd segment between 10th St. and Marietta Chattahoochee Ave.. New proposed Route 37 would provide service on Chattahoochee Ave. between Hills Ave. and Marietta Blvd and Marietta Blvd City of Atlanta, 1 Boulevard/Centennial between Bolton Dr. and Coronet Way. New proposed Routes 37 and 60 would provide service on Coronet Way between Marietta Blvd and Bolton Rd Georgia State Fulton County Olympic Park segments. Service will no longer be provided on Edgewood Ave. between Piedmont Ave. and Marietta St.; Marietta St. between Edgewood Ave. and Forsyth St.; Marietta St. between Ivan Allen, Jr. Blvd and Howell Mill Rd; Howell Mill Rd between Marietta St. and 10th St.; Huff Rd, Ellsworth Industrial Blvd and Marietta Blvd; Chattahoochee Ave. between Ellsworth Industrial Blvd and Hill Ave.; Bolton Pl., Bolton Dr.; Coronet Way between Defoors Ferry Rd and Moores Mill Rd, and Moores Mill Rd between Bolton Rd and Coronet Way. Proposed modification includes Route 2 operate from Inman Park station via Moreland Ave. (currently served by Route 6-Emory) Freedom Parkway and North Avenue, North Avenue City of Atlanta, 2 Ponce De Leon Avenue Ralph McGill Blvd (currently served by Route 16-Noble), continuing via Blvd,and North Ave.
[Show full text]
I-20 East Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report Contents Tables The Adopted LPA 1 Table 1: Reasons for Selection of LPA 3 Refinements to the Recommended LPA 1 Table 2: Goals and Objectives 8 Proposed LPA Operations 4 Table 3: Tier 1Alternatives 8 Adoption of the LPA 4 Table 4: Tier 1 Screening Results 10 Project Description and Background 6 Table 5: Tier 2 Alternatives 11 FTA Project Development Process 6 Table 6: Cost and Performance Comparison of Tier 2 Alternatives 13 Purpose and Need 7 Table 7: Assumptions 13 Goals and Objectives 8 Table 8: Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix 14 Alternatives Evaluation Framework 8 Table 9: Public Involvement 15 Tier 1 Screening 8 Tier 2 Screening 11 Figures Stakeholder and Public Involvement 15 Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities to Implementing the LPA 16 Figure 1: Adopted LPA (HRT3) 1 Figure 2: Map of the Adopted LPA – HRT3 2 Figure 3: LPA Operation in MARTA System 4 Figure 4: System Integration Map 5 Figure 5: Study Area 6 Figure 6: Timeline of Previous Studies 6 Figure 7: FTA Project Development Process 7 Figure 8: The Alternatives Analysis Process 8 Figure 9: Tier 1 Alternatives 9 Figure 10: Transit Technologies Considered 11 Figure 11: Tier 2 Alternatives 12 1 I-20 East Locally Preferred Alternative Summary Report Following a two-tiered Detailed Corridor Analysis (DCA), which evaluated a FIGURE 1: ADOPTED LPA (HRT3) variety of transit alignments and modes, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Authority (MARTA) I-20 East Transit Initiative has selected and refined a Locally Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Preferred Alternative (LPA).
[Show full text]
Atlanta Region's Plan RTP (2020) PROJECT FACT SHEET AR-411
AR-411 Atlanta Region's Plan RTP (2020) PROJECT FACT SHEET Short Title CLIFTON CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT - PHASE 1 FROM LINDBERGH MARTA STATION TO EMORY UNIVERSITY GDOT Project No. N/A Federal ID No. N/A Status Long Range Service Type Transit / Rail Capital Sponsor MARTA Jurisdiction Regional - Central Analysis Level In the Region's Air Quality Conformity Analysis Existing Thru Lane N/A LCI Network Year 2040 Planned Thru Lane N/A Flex Corridor Length 6 miles Detailed Description and Justification This project will construct light rail service along the Clifton Corridor from the Lindbergh MARTA station to the Emory University/CDC campus along existing rail corridors. This includes provisions for both heavy rail and light rail service to meet the complex travel patterns and needs within the service corridor as identified within the Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative - Alternatives Analysis (AA). The project includes construction of 6, possibly 7, light rail stations and 4.24 miles of bi-directional trackage and auxiliary infrastructure, as well as the provision of feeder and circulator bus service. This provides high capacity transit mobility options for residents and commuters traveling between Lindbergh Center, the Emory University Main Campus and Clairmont Campus and the Centers for Disease Control Roybal Campus. Further, the project will provide long distance travelers approaching the Clifton Corridor from points along the Gold line or Red line with rail service into the Emory/CDC complex, which serves the travel demand patterns as
[Show full text]