DOCSLIB.ORG

Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority January 2007 Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative Prepared For: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Prepared By: Corporation 400 Northpark Town Center 1000 Abernathy Road N.E., Suite 9000 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 In association with: Connetics Transportation Group DW & Associates PBS&J Planners for Environmental Quality Sycamore Consulting Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Development Process..............................................................1-1 1.2 Study Area Description ........................................................................1-3 1.3 Report Organization .............................................................................1-3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS .......................................2-1 2.1 FTA Project Development Process ......................................................2-1 2.2 Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................2-2 2.3 Evaluation Process ..............................................................................2-5 3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .........3-1 3.1 TSM Alternative....................................................................................3-1 3.2 Build Alternatives .................................................................................3-5 4.0 EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR MOBILITY MEASURES ....................4-1 4.1 Travel Demand Forecast Methodology ................................................4-1 4.2 Assessment of Mobility and Accessibility Impacts................................4-3 4.3 Assessment of Accessibility .................................................................4-7 4.4 Summary of Mobility & Accessibility Evaluation ...................................4-9 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE MEASURES.............................................................5-1 5.1 Transit Supportive Land Use................................................................5-2 5.2 Development Incentives.......................................................................5-6 5.3 Environmental Impacts........................................................................5-18 5.4 Summary of Land Use, Redevelopment and Environmental Effects...5-37 6.0 EVALUATION OF COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS.................6-1 6.1 Capital Cost Methodology ....................................................................6-1 6.2 Capital Cost Estimates.........................................................................6-3 6.3 Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology ...................................6-5 6.4 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates........................................6-8 6.5 Assessment of Cost Effectiveness .......................................................6-9 6.6 Results of Cost and Cost Effectiveness Evaluation.............................6-12 Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative January2007 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.....................................................................7-1 7.1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee .........................................................7-1 7.2 Public Meetings....................................................................................7-2 7.3 Newsletters and Presentation Materials...............................................7-3 7.4 Media Advisories and Press Releases.................................................7-4 7.5 Other Outreach Activities .....................................................................7-4 8.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS RESULTS.............................................8-1 8.1 Detailed Screening Evaluation Results ................................................8-3 8.2 Public Outreach Approach and Input ..................................................8-15 8.3 Top Rated Alternatives Considered ....................................................8-16 8.4 Next Steps...........................................................................................8-17 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Beltline Study Area ..........................................................................1-4 Figure 2-1: FTA Project Development Process..................................................2-2 Figure 2-2: Summary of Development of Alternatives through Fatal Flaw Analysis ......................................................................................................2-9 Figure 3-1: TSM Alternative ...............................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2: Alternative B1 ................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-3: Alternative B2 ................................................................................3-13 Figure 3-4: Alternative B3 ................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-5: Alternative B4 ................................................................................3-17 Figure 5-1: Redevelopment Areas in Beltline Study Area ................................5-11 Figure 5-2: Religious Properties Location Map ................................................5-28 Figure 5-3: Cemeteries Location Map..............................................................5-29 Figure 5-4: Parks and Recreational Facilities Location Map ............................5-32 Figure 5-5: Historic Resource Location Map....................................................5-34 List of Tables Table 2-1: Alternative Alignments ......................................................................2-8 Table 2-2: Detailed Screening Criteria.............................................................2-15 Table 3-1: Bus Operating Statistics for Impacted Corridor Bus Routes ...........3-19 Table 3-2: BRT Operating Plan Statistics (Equilibrated) ..................................3-20 Table 3-3: Streetcar Operating Plan Statistics (Equilibrated)...........................3-21 Table 3-4: LRT Operating Plan Statistics (Equilibrated)...................................3-22 Table 4-1: Total Ridership..................................................................................4-4 Table 4-2: Total New Regional Riders ...............................................................4-5 Table 4-3: Impact on Existing Transit Facilities..................................................4-6 Table 4-4: Travel Time Savings .........................................................................4-7 Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative January2007 Table 4-5: Change in Transfers .........................................................................4-7 Table 4-6: Transit Dependent Service ...............................................................4-9 Table 4-7: Overall Rating of Mobility & Accessibility --Performance Matrix......4-10 Table 5-1: 2030 Total Population.......................................................................5-3 Table 5-2: 2030 Total Employment....................................................................5-3 Table 5-3: Accessibility to Major Facilities .........................................................5-6 Table 5-4: Areas with Economic and Zoning Development Incentives ............5-12 Table 5-5: Acres of Vacant /Underutilized Land...............................................5-13 Table 5-6: Enhancement of the Urban Environment........................................5-17 Table 5-7: Air Quality Impacts..........................................................................5-19 Table 5-8: Sources of Transit Noise.................................................................5-22 Table 5-9: Noise Sensitive Receptors between Stations .................................5-24 Table 5-10: Noise Sensitive Receptors by Alternative .....................................5-25 Table 5-11: Community Impacts/Disruptions ...................................................5-26 Table 5-12: Potential Impact to Wetlands ........................................................5-27 Table 5-13: Potential Impact to Religious Properties and Cemeteries.............5-30 Table 5-14: Impact to Parks and Recreational Facilities ..................................5-31 Table 5-15: Impact to Historic Resources ........................................................5-35 Table 5-16: Summary of Impacts to Cultural and Natural Resources ..............5-35 Table 5-17: Reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled.............................................5-36 Table 5-18: Operating Impacts ........................................................................5-37 Table 5-19: Overall Rating of Land Use and Redevelopment -- Performance Matrix........................................................................................................5-38 Table 5-20: Overall Rating of Environmental Effects --Performance Matrix.....5-39 Table 6-1: Total Capital Cost By Category.........................................................6-3 Table 6-2: Total Capital Cost By Line Segment .................................................6-4 Table 6-3: Total Capital Cost Rating..................................................................6-5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Re-Route Will Start at the Biginning of Revenue Service Untill B.C.C
    THIS RE-ROUTE WILL START AT THE BIGINNING OF REVENUE SERVICE UNTILL B.C.C. GIVES THE ALL CLEAR. REROUTE ADVISORY: Route #2 Ponce De Leon, #3 Auburn Ave, #6 Emory, #9 Boulevard/Tilson Road, #21 Memorial Drive, #26 Marietta Street, #36 Virginia Highland, #40 Downtown, #42 Pryor Road, #49 McDonough Blvd, #50 D.L. Hollowell Pkwy, #51 J.E. Boone, #55 Jonesboro Road, #94 Northside Drive, #102 Little Five Points, #107 Glenwood, #186 Rainbow Drive, #809 Monroe Drive, #813 Atlanta Student Movement, #816 North Highland Ave, #832 Grant Park, and #899 Old Fourth Ward. WHAT: 2020 Publix Atlanta Marathon & 5k WHERE: The Marathon will start at Marietta Street and Centennial Olympic Park Drive. The Route/Course will travel through various streets in the City of Atlanta and Dekalb County. WHEN: Sunday, March 1, 2020 TIMES: 7:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. or Until the All clear is given by B.C.C. Buses in and around the Marathon will be rerouted during the Marathon/5k. Bus routes intersecting with Race/Runners will be delayed. Atlanta Police will allow traffic to flow between gaps in the Race. Reroute as follows: OUTBOUND: Route #2 from North Avenue Station to East Lake Station (South Loop) Regular route Expect Delays crossing North Highland Avenue. INBOUND: Route #2 from East Lake Station to North Avenue Station Regular route Expect Delays crossing North Highland Avenue. Regular route Page 1 of 20 OUTBOUND: Route #3 from H.E. Holmes Station to West End Station Continue M.L.K. Jr. Drive Right – Joseph E. Lowery Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Program of High Capacity Transit Improvements City of Atlanta DRAFT
    Proposed Program of High Capacity Transit Improvements City of Atlanta DRAFT Estimated Capital Cost (Base Year in Estimated O&M Cost (Base Year in Millions) Millions) Project Description Total Miles Local Federal O&M Cost Over 20 Total Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Share Share Years Two (2) miles of heavy rail transit (HRT) from HE Holmes station to a I‐20 West Heavy Rail Transit 2 $250.0 $250.0 $500.0 $13.0 $312.0 new station at MLK Jr Dr and I‐285 Seven (7) miles of BRT from the Atlanta Metropolitan State College Northside Drive Bus Rapid Transit (south of I‐20) to a new regional bus system transfer point at I‐75 7 $40.0 N/A $40.0 $7.0 $168.0 north Clifton Light Rail Four (4) miles of grade separated light rail transit (LRT) service from 4 $600.0 $600.0 $1,200.0 $10.0 $240.0 Contingent Multi‐ Transit* Lindbergh station to a new station at Emory Rollins Jurisdicitional Projects I‐20 East Bus Rapid Three (3) miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) service from Five Points to 3 $28.0 $12.0 $40.0 $3.0 $72.0 Transit* Moreland Ave with two (2) new stops and one new station Atlanta BeltLine Twenty‐two (22) miles of bi‐directional at‐grade light rail transit (LRT) 22 $830 $830 $1,660 $44.0 $1,056.0 Central Loop service along the Atlanta BeltLine corridor Over three (3) miles of bi‐directional in‐street running light rail transit Irwin – AUC Line (LRT) service along Fair St/MLK Jr Dr/Luckie St/Auburn 3.4 $153 $153 $306.00 $7.0 $168.0 Ave/Edgewood Ave/Irwin St Over two (2) miles of in‐street bi‐directional running light rail transit Downtown – Capitol
    [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]
  • Inventory & Analysis
    Inventory & Analysis Overview The Plan’s recommendations will transform the Howard Property from a residential lot into a passive green neighborhood park. The plan provides for quiet, safe woodland setting with carefully renewed native plantings with an internal trail system that connects to the larger Beltline trail that connects to surrounding neighborhoods. Park Description and Context Upper Lawn in 2007 Comprising approximately five acres at 471 Collier Road, the Howard Property is a significant new passive park bounded by Tanyard Creek, Overbrook Drive and Collier Road. Acquired in 2006 to provide the “missing link” for the BeltLine Trail between Tanyard Creek Park and the City of Atlanta’s Bobby Jones Golf Course, the site offers passive opportunities at a neighborhood scale. Trail design by the PATH Foundation, under the auspices of Atlanta BeltLine inc. and the City of Atlanta’s Department of Parks Recreation & Cultural Affairs, was under way spring of 2008. With the assistance of the Trust for Public Land the land assemblage was completed in 2006. Residential structures on the site were demolished in 2007. This Master Plan is to identify and plan for various landscape works to further clean up the site and make it more useable and maintainable. Members of the community expressed a desire to undertake a master planning exercise to identify opportunities for amenities (seating, secondary pathways, plantings, etc.) and management zones (areas for naturalization, passive open lawn space, garden development, etc.) 5 Master Planning Process The Howard Property Master Plan was announced at the BeltLine Subarea Study Group Meeting of May 5, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • MARTA Jurisdictional Briefing City of Atlanta
    MARTA Jurisdictional Briefing City of Atlanta March 27, 2019 Jeffrey A. Parker | General Manager/CEO AGENDA More MARTA Atlanta Program Update Systemwide Station Improvements Program Transit Oriented Development Update State of Service 2 MORE MARTA ATLANTA PROGRAM UPDATE MORE MARTA PLAN (ADOPTED OCT. 4, 2018) 4 WHERE ARE WE GOING? CoA Board MARTA BOARD BOARD Members APPROVAL ADOPTED Briefing PLAN Draft Final WE ARE Plan Plan Financial HERE MARTA Workshop Board Work Session OCT 2018 NOV 2018 DEC 2018 JAN 2019 FEB 2019 MAR 2019 APR 2019 MAY 2019 JUN 2019 REQUIRED FEEDBACK AT MILESTONES: MAR 2019 MAY 2019 TAC OCT 2018 – FEB 2019 –APR 2019 – JUN 2019 JPLG SCENARIO PLANNING & EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SAC PLAN APPROVAL MARTA/COA Executive Leadership 5 DEFINING THE MORE MARTA ATLANTA PROGRAM 2-STEP PROCESS Step 1: Narrowed list of projects from 73 to 16 Priority Projects Board approval October 2018 MORE MARTA INPUT RECEIVED FROM: PUBLIC COMMITTEES Step 2: Create a phasing plan and financial strategy Implementation plan Refine cash flow model Board approval June 2019 6 MORE MARTA ATLANTA STATION ENHANCEMENTS PROGRAM $200M allocated for station enhancements Initially allocated funds to improve 16 stations Focus on transformational changes at 3 priority stations o Five Points o Bankhead o Vine City Remaining 13 stations to be funded by current penny sales tax 7 LA BRT EDUCATION TOUR: MAY 1-3 • Purpose Local elected officials and decision makers to learn and experience LA Metro’s BRT system Collaborate and gather lessons learned
    [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]
  • Citywide Conversation
    Citywide Conversation Transit Routing Options and MARTA Connectivity Assessments Atlanta BeltLine West Citywide Conversation October 30, 2014 10/30/2014 Atlanta BeltLine // © 2014 Page 1 Citywide Conversation • Open House • Welcome and Introductions • Today’s Agenda: . Schedule . Project Background . Screening Process and Results • Questions and Discussion • Adjourn 10/30/2014 Atlanta BeltLine // © 2014 Page 2 Community Engagement Schedule Summer and Fall 2014 We are here are We Study Group Study Group SAC Kickoff Citywide SAC/TAC Citywide Meetings Meetings Meeting Conversation Meetings Conversation Round #1 Round #2 Sept 22 & 25, Oct 6 & 9, Sept 9, 2014 Sept 15, 2014 Oct 14, 2014 2014 2014 Oct 30, 2014 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC): Advisory committee for Study Groups: Residents and business owners with an each project corridor representing business and property interest in the project within each geographical area. owners, adjacent neighborhoods, and community groups. Citywide Conversations: Citywide public meetings are Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Advisory committee forums to educate the public at large with upcoming plans, comprised of representatives with technical and/or policies, and studies. environmental expertise. 10/30/2014 Atlanta BeltLine // © 2014 Page 3 Milestone Schedule We are here are We Transit Routing Technical Studies Complete Draft Public/Agency Finding of No Project Options/MARTA and Evaluation Environmental Review and Significant Development Connectivity Assessment (EA) Public Hearing Impact (FONSI)
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood Improvement Association Manny's Volume Twenty-Eight • Issue Number Four • April 2019 Page 5 Neighbor
    Cabbagetown Neighborhood Improvement Association Manny's Volume Twenty-eight • Issue Number Four • April 2019 Page 5 Neighbor "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace.” ~ John Lennon Neighborhood Meeting The next neighborhood meeting will be held on Tuesday, Apr. 9th, 6:45p at Are Y'all Aboard? the Cabbagetown Community Center. By Sean Keenan, Curbed Atlanta AGENDA A collective of neighborhood organizations Lord Aeck Sargent urban designer Matt I. Welcome and announcements is raising tens of thousands of dollars to Cherry said the firm began working on II. Review & approval of March minutes enlist an architecture firm to help draft the project last week and plans to host III. Atlanta Police Department a redevelopment plan for Hulsey Yard, a pop-up studios to help inform the four IV. City of Atlanta – Valencia Hudson colossal chunk of intown railroad property neighborhoods’ vision for the site. V. Financial Report – that isn’t even for sale. He understands this approach to urban Saundra Reuppel, Treasurer Talk about community pro-activism. planning isn’t exactly traditional. VI. Committee Reports “Is it unorthodox? Yes. Is it something Atlanta • NPU – John Dirga, But to some, this initiative, spearheaded by needs? Undoubtedly,” Cherry said, noting that Cabbagetown Representative residents from Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown, starting a community-led conversation now • Historic Preservation and Land Use Old Fourth Ward, and Inman Park – the is better for neighborhoods than waiting for a Committee – Nicole Seekely, Chair neighborhoods lining the roughly 70-acre CSX major developer to conjure its own vision. 1. 195 Pearl Street - Type III CoA - Transportation property stretched along DeKalb Rear addition, side dormer, Avenue – is little more than a pipe dream.
    [Show full text]
  • National Conference on Mass. Transit Crime and Vandali.Sm Compendium of Proceedings
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. n co--~P7 National Conference on Mass. Transit Crime and Vandali.sm Compendium of Proceedings Conducted by T~he New York State Senate Committee on Transportation October 20-24, 1980 rtment SENATOR JOHN D. CAEMMERER, CHAIRMAN )ortation Honorable MacNeil Mitchell, Project Director i/lass )rtation ~tration ansportation ~t The National Conference on Mass Transit Crime and Vandalism and the publication of this Compendium of the Proceedings of the Conference were made possible by a grant from the United States Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Office of Transportation Management. Grateful acknowledgement is extended to Dr. Brian J. Cudahy and Mr. Marvin Futrell of that agency for their constructive services with respect to the funding of this grant. Gratitude is extended to the New York State Senate for assistance provided through the cooperation of the Honorable Warren M. Anderson, Senate Majority Leader; Dr. Roger C. Thompson, Secretary of the Senate; Dr. Stephen F. Sloan, Director of the Senate Research Service. Also our appreciation goes to Dr. Leonard M. Cutler, Senate Grants Officer and Liaison to the Steering Committee. Acknowledgement is made to the members of the Steering Committee and the Reso- lutions Committee, whose diligent efforts and assistance were most instrumental in making the Conference a success. Particular thanks and appreciation goes to Bert'J. Cunningham, Director of Public Affairs for the Senate Committee on Transportation, for his work in publicizing the Conference and preparing the photographic pages included in the Compendium. Special appreciation for the preparation of this document is extended to the Program Coordinators for the Conference, Carey S.
    [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]
  • Subarea 5 Master Plan Update March 2021
    ATLANTA BELTLINE SUBAREA 5 MASTER PLAN UPDATE MARCH 2021 CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Overview 2 1.2 Community Engagement 4 2. Context 13 2.1 What is the Atlanta BeltLine? 14 2.2 Subarea Overview 16 3. The Subarea Today 19 3.1 Progress To-Date 20 3.2 Land Use and Design/Zoning 24 3.3 Mobility 32 3.4 Parks and Greenspace 38 3.5 Community Facilities 38 3.6 Historic Preservation 39 3.7 Market Analysis 44 3.8 Plan Review 49 4. Community Engagement 53 4.1 Overall Process 54 4.2 Findings 55 5. The Subarea of the Future 59 5.1 Goals & Principles 60 5.2 Future Land Use Recommendations 62 5.3 Mobility Recommendations 74 5.4 Parks and Greenspace Recommendations 88 5.5 Zoning and Policy Recommendations 89 5.6 Historic Preservation Recommendations 92 5.7 Arts and Culture Recommendations 93 Image Credits Cover image of Historic Fourth Ward Park playground by Stantec. All other images, illustrations, and drawings by Stantec or Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. unless otherwise noted. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - iv Atlanta BeltLine Subarea 5 Master Plan — March 2021 SECTION HEADER TITLE - SECTION SUBHEADER INFORMATION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Report Title — Month, Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - OVERVIEW 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1.1 OVERVIEW Subarea 5 has seen more development activity Looking forward to the next ten years, this plan than any subarea along the Atlanta BeltLine update identifies a series of recommendations over the past decade. The previous subarea plan and strategic actions that build on prior growth to was adopted by City Council in 2009, the same ensure that future development is in keeping with year construction started on the first phase of the community’s collective vision of the future.
    [Show full text]
  • 11/17/2014 1 of 106 City of Atlanta Proposed 2015 Infrastructure Bond Public Feedback
    City of Atlanta Proposed 2015 Infrastructure Bond Public Feedback Date Proposed Project Area Comment 9/12/2014 10th and Monroe The intersection of 10th and Monroe should have the signals redone. It is the intersection between Piedmont Park and the Eastside Trail, it has a lot of pedestrian activity, and yet pedestrians have very low signal priority at this intersection. 9/12/2014 10th and Myrtle Street It would be great to get better pedestrian crossing visibility at the intersections 10th has with Argonne and Myrtle. These are heavily used by people going to the park and very dangerous. Something like what was just put in on Monroe near the new park entrance would be most welcome--at either spot! 9/12/2014 10th and Myrtle Street This project is essential. There is too much foot traffic in the area to have a dangerous pedestrian intersection like this. 10/13/2014 10th and Northside The intersection of 10th and Northside needs left turn arrows for traffic turning from 10th on to Northside in both directions. The lack of arrows really backs up traffic.10th has been resurfaced several times from Hemphill to State over the last decade, but the same issues re- occur in the same placed time and time again. Please ensure that whatever is done provides a more permanent fix to the problem. 9/12/2014 10th Street 10th Street is in a bad state. Resurfacing needs to take place from Howell Mill Rd. to the 85/75 connecter. The transitions at intersections need leveling as well. 9/12/2014 10th Street 10th Street offers a second way to access the howell mill corridor but the subsurface conditions are so poor that the road continually fails 9/18/2014 10th Street near Georgia Over near the Georgia Tech side 10th street badly needs resurfacing.
    [Show full text]