DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of Transportation Demand in Atlanta: How Much Will Atlanta’S Proposed MARTA Expansions Increase Ridership?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of Transportation Demand in Atlanta: How Much Will Atlanta’S Proposed MARTA Expansions Increase Ridership? An Analysis of Transportation Demand in Atlanta: How Much Will Atlanta’s Proposed MARTA Expansions Increase Ridership? By SAM TUCKER* Transportation in Atlanta is considered poor by national standards. I look at the MARTA light rail expansion proposals from the Atlanta City Government. I use survey data from the 2011 Atlanta Regional Commission’s Household Travel Survey to estimate travel demand. Since explicit coordinates are not given for each survey participant, I use Traffic Analysis Zones as proxies to estimate distances. A discrete choice multinomal logit model is then estimated by maximum likelihood estimation. Change in predicted ridership is then calculated by adding the proposed train stations to the choice set. Clifton and Campbellton are predicted to be the most successful lines, and then I examine the demographics of those who benefit the most from the MARTA expansion. Public transportation is an important duty of city governments, and it is becoming more important than ever with the environmental and traffic concerns of the 21st century. The need for improvements to public transportation could not be overstated in Atlanta. In 2017, Atlanta ranked in the top ten out of 1,360 cities worldwide for most time drivers spent in congestion, according to INRIX’s Global Traffic Scorecard. In addition, Atlanta ranked in the bottom ten of eligible American metropolitan areas in access to transit, according to a Brookings Institution report in 2011. Also, the Federal Transit Administration has found that MARTA’s passenger trips decreased by 2.6 percent in 2017 (Green, 2018). Attempting to remedy the dire state of public transportation in Atlanta, in 2016 the city approved a half-cent sales tax that will raise $2.5 billion over the next 40 years (Freemark, 2017). However, the list of all transportation improvements for eligible funding covers $10.3 billion in capital projects operations and maintenance. Many projects were considered initially. However, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as of May 2018 the list of light rail projects being considered has been narrowed to six: Campbellton Line (C), Clifton Corridor (D), Beltline-Loop Northeast (A), Beltline-Loop Southwest (B), Crosstown Downtown West Extension (F), and the Crosstown Downtown East Expansion (E).1 Some other projects are being considered, such as bus rapid transit and arterial rapid transit, but I will be focusing my analysis on the light rail expansion projects. The goal is to understand what drives demand for public transportation, and how much each of the expansions will increase MARTA ridership. To answer this question, I will use the multinomial logit framework laid out by McFadden, et al. (1977) and expanded upon by Train (2009) and apply it to the survey data from Atlanta Regional Commission (2011). The survey * This paper was submitted as a graduation requirement to the Department of Economics, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA (email: [email protected]). Thanks to Professor Josh Kinsler for advice and guidance. 1 A map of the proposed new lines can be accessed at https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/local-update- marta-plan-boosts-atlanta-beltline-cuts-funding-for-emory-line/ILPofMcJKbAw0e3KNBBIUI/ AUGUST 2019 THE UGA JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 2 data contains demographic information, information on home and work location, and transportation mode of choice for Atlanta commuters in 2011. This model will estimate parameters so that I can determine which factors are relevant for demand of transportation. Afterwards, I plot the coordinates for the proposed stations and add them to the choice set, to see which stations give the highest predicted increase in ridership. I find that the Clifton Corridor (A), and Campbellton Line (C) are predicted to be the most successful lines. I. Literature Review Billings (2011) looks at light rail transit (LRT) in Charlotte, North Carolina. He notes that economists seem to be puzzled by the popularity of LRT expansion in U.S. cities, due to their limited time savings over bus transit and their high costs. However, urban planners notice that LRT usually commands increased ridership over bus. Billings (2011) claims that increased utility of living near an LRT station should be capitalized in housing values. Previous literature has identified four ways through which rail transit affects housing values: 1) the direct distance between a residential property and a transit station; 2) the positive effect of transit stations on commercial development; 3) increased parking congestion near transit stations; and 4) greater opportunity for crime with improved access to neighborhoods with LRT stations. The author also notes that areas with LRT stations are usually targeted by cities for future investment to improve land use. Using a differences-in-differences estimator, he finds positive capitalization in neighborhoods with LRT, specifically, 4.0 percent for single-family properties, 11.3 percent for condominiums. However, no capitalization is found for commercial properties. This evidence suggests that LRT may be a better investment in economic development for certain neighborhoods rather than specifically as a transportation option. In conclusion, Billings (2011) estimates a neighborhood benefit of $97.2 million due to LRT expansion in Charlotte. However, costs for the new South Line were $450 million. He notes that the full benefits may not be captured in his estimates, because pollution and traffic congestion reduction as well as other unobserved factors are not captured in his estimates. Baum-Snow et al. (2005) notes that while 16 American cities have spent a combined $25 billion on rail transit expansion between 1970 and 2000, the number of Americans taking public transportation has decreased by half during that time period. However, ridership increased in areas within two kilometers of a new line and beyond ten kilometers of the city center. The issue is that since cities are becoming decentralized, a smaller fraction of the population now has access to the existing stations. Atlanta is one of the cities in the analysis, and while only five percent of people were taking public transit in 2000, the authors estimate that 11 percent would take public transit in Atlanta if the population were at its 1970 spatial distribution. Also, thirteen percent of commuters lived within two kilometers of a transit line in 2000, a two percent increase from 1990. Their model of transit use insists that those who live close to the center of the city will tend to walk or take a bus a short distance to the rail line and those who live further out will drive to the line. This is useful information, because I will define costs of transit options in my model assuming a cost of driving to the nearest station. The authors present several arguments that could justify large public investments in public transit. Since rail transit exhibits increasing returns, it may be optimal to subsidize transit up to the point where the average social cost of taking public transit is less than the average social cost of driving. Also, negative externalities caused by driving, such as congestion and pollution, could be mitigated by more people taking public transit. They estimate that a little over 19,000 people switched to public transit between VOL. 1 NO. 2 Tucker: Transportation Demand in Atlanta 3 1980-2000, with a daily savings of 31,100 hours and $624,000. In conclusion, they find that there are significant increases in ridership in areas greater than ten kilometers from the city center. Most of the effects close to the city center are found in bus riders switching to rail. While this does not increase share of the population taking public transit, it does have value in reducing commute times. II. Data To estimate demand I use data from the Atlanta Regional Commission’s 2011 Household Activity Travel Survey. Here is how the ARC describes the survey: The purpose of the survey was to update ARC’s travel demand model and get a better understanding of travel behavior in a 20 County Region. Households were randomly selected to participate in the survey. Those agreeing to participate were assigned a one-day travel period and asked to track of all trips during that period. Information was collected from 10,278 households. When weighted to reflect the population of the region, the households represent 25,810 persons, 93,713 trips and 21,270 vehicles. (ARC, 2011) The sample size for my analysis is 5,077 due to incomplete information in the survey. I do not believe that incompletes will bias work trip estimates, because most of the incompletes are either children under eighteen or senior citizens who are likely retired. What is important for my analysis is the location of each person’s house, their place of work, and their transportation mode of choice. Table 1 shows the demographics of my sample divided by transportation modes of choice. Table 1: Demographics by Mode of Transportation to Work Variable Train Bus Car % of Sample 1.65 1.2 97.15 % with Income over $75,000 46.4 37.7 61.1 % with Bachelors Degree or higher 61.9 45.9 54.4 Average Age 42.54 43.67 45.55 Average Household Size 2.35 2.72 2.95 % Owning Home 73. 68.8 88.9 % with Employer Provided Parking 37 57 93 % with Employer Subsidized Transit 51 37 11 Average Distance to Work (miles) 12.87 18.04 11.29 Average Distance to nearest Train Station from Home (miles) 4.62 11.54 14.28 Average Distance to nearest Train Station from Work (miles) 1.16 1.84 10.37 Average Distance to nearest Bus Station from Home (miles) 1.95 7.41 9.33 Average Distance to nearest Bus Station from Work (miles 0.48 0.59 6.41 Average Estimated Daily Cost of Travel $4.14 $4.52 $3.81 I limited modes of choice to bus, train, or car.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative
    Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Briefing to Emory Grove Neighborhood March 15, 2016 Neighborhood Concerns and Requests • Provide a general overview and background of the project • What are the different alignment alternatives in this area? • How would the Emory Grove district be impacted by the project? Slide 2 Project Background & Description Slide 3 Purpose and Need Improved transit access to growing employment and population Improved connectivity to MARTA rail Improved connectivity within Clifton Corridor Emergency evacuation Slide 4 Planning Process Alternatives Analysis (AA) 2009 Identified a preferred alternative Identified Design Options – Phase 1 2013 Addressed outstanding issues from the AA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Phase 2 2014 Starts the federal process for implementation Slide 5 LPA: LRT-1 Alignment Slide 6 LPA Evolution • Issues • Tunnel costs • Cost per rider high • Revised LPA • Alignment – refined to meet design criteria • Tunnel – longer tunnel required • Alternative Alignments Developed • To reduce costs, increase ridership, and improve cost-effectiveness • To be cost competitive for FTA funding • Revised LPA and At-Grade Alignment – Advance to EIS • At-grade alternative – reduces cost by approx. 40% • Not a significant difference in ridership between alternatives Slide 7 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Slide 8 What is Light Rail Transit? • Flexibility: Operates along roadways typically in exclusive lanes, or dedicated guideways at ground level, elevated, or underground. • Capacity: Up to 3-car trains possible, service every 5 to 15 minutes typically • Operations: Stops typically every ½-mile, but closer in downtown or activity centers • Stations/Stops: simple stations with center or Light Rail in a dedicated guideway (Charlotte) sidewalk-level platforms. Light rail operating with the roadway (Houston) • Power system: Electric power is generally via overhead wires, rather than by third rail.
    [Show full text]
  • VHB Place: Dekalb County Planning
    Agenda Date: February 6, 2019 VHB Prepared By: DeKalb County Planning and Transit & Land Use Sustainability Department Charrette/Stakeholder Place: (Multipurpose Room, 330 W. Meeting: Advisory Committee Ponce de Leon Avenue Decatur, Meeting #3 GA 30030) DeKalb County Transit Project No.: 63278.00 Project Name: Master Plan AGENDA ITEMS TIME 1. Registration and Open House 2:00 PM 2. Welcome………………………….………………………………….Commissioner Jeff Rader 2:15 PM 3. Background Presentations 2:20 PM • DeKalb County Transit Master Plan.……..Grady Smith & Laura Everitt, VHB • Principles of Transit Oriented Development………….……Curt Ostradka, VHB • DeKalb County Land Use & Development Baseline…………………………. Jonathan Gelber, Bleakly Advisory Group 4. Break 3:30 PM 5. Overview & Instructions for Break Out Session……………..Olen Daelhousen 3:40 PM 6. Facilitated Break Out Sessions 3:50 PM 7. Break 5:30 PM 8. Town Hall Group Reports……………………..Designated Group Spokesperson 5:45 PM 9. Wrap Up…………………….......…...................................................................Grady Smith 6:45 PM Transit and Land Use Charrette/ Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting #3 February 6, 2019 No Boundaries–Today’s Preparation, Tomorrow’s Achievement Meeting Objectives Charrette □ Welcome □ DeKalb County Transit Master Plan □ Transportation Conditions □ Transit Modes □ Principles of Transit Oriented Development □ Economic Development □ Breakout Exercise □ Town Hall □ Next Steps No Boundaries–Today’s Preparation, Tomorrow’s Achievement Welcome DeKalbTransitMasterPlan.com Opening Remarks Jeff
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit
    MARTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OCTOBER 4, 2018 TODAY’S AGENDA o Key driver of the program o Recommended plan o Project summaries o Next steps 2 KEY DRIVER: PUBLIC INPUT o Atlanta City Design o Atlanta’s Transportation Plan o Atlanta BeltLine Streetcar System Plan o City of Atlanta & More MARTA Atlanta Guiding Principles o 2016 City Council vote on $11.5B project list o November 2016 sales tax referendum o Ongoing Leadership Meetings with Mayor & City Council 3 RECOMMENDED PLAN 4 RECOMMENDED PLAN 5 KEY CHANGES TO THE PLAN o Accelerate Light Rail on Campbellton Road o Invest $350M in Clifton Corridor. Develop partnerships with key stakeholders to deliver the project o Increase investment in existing station enhancements. Augment with existing capital program o Invest $200M more in the Atlanta BeltLine and Streetcar network o Develop a P3 or innovative funding strategy to maximize investment in the BeltLine and Streetcar network 6 CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM ESTIMATES Transit Mode Capital Costs O&M Costs Total Costs Local Match LRT $1,909,600,000 $886,000,000 $2,795,600,000 $1,622,450,000 Reserve for BeltLine Programming - - - $200,000,000 BRT $337,800,000 $96,000,000 $433,800,000 $324,750,000 ART $64,200,000 $38,000,000 $102,200,000 $90,800,000 Frequent Local Bus $ - $340,000,000 $340,000,000 $238,000,000 General Amenities $25,000,000 $ - $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Transit Centers $7,000,000 $ - $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Station Enhancements $200,000,000 $ - $200,000,000 $200,000,000 Total $3,903,600,000* $2,708,000,000 *Federal funding and farebox recovery will
    [Show full text]
  • Atlanta Beltline Redevelopment Plan
    Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan PREPARED FOR The Atlanta Development Authority NOVEMBER 2005 EDAW Urban Collage Grice & Associates Huntley Partners Troutman Sanders LLP Gravel, Inc. Watercolors: Rebekah Adkins, Savannah College of Art and Design Acknowledgements The Honorable Mayor City of Atlanta The BeltLine Partnership Shirley C. Franklin, City of Atlanta Fulton County The BeltLine Tax Allocation District Lisa Borders, President, Feasibility Study Steering Commi�ee Atlanta City Council Atlanta Public Schools The Trust for Public Land Atlanta City Council Members: Atlanta Planning Advisory Board (APAB) The PATH Foundation Carla Smith (District 1) Neighborhood Planning Units (NPU) Friends of the BeltLine Debi Starnes (District 2) MARTA Ivory Young Jr. (District 3) Atlanta Regional Commission Cleta Winslow (District 4) BeltLine Transit Panel Natalyn Archibong (District 5) Anne Fauver (District 6) Howard Shook (District 7) Clair Muller (District 8) Felicia Moore (District 9) C. T. Martin (District 10) Jim Maddox (District 11) Joyce Sheperd (District 12) Ceasar Mitchell (Post 1) Mary Norwood (Post 2) H. Lamar Willis (Post 3) Contents 1.0 Summary 1 7.0 Types of Costs Covered by TAD Funding 2.0 Introduction 5 and Estimated TAD Bond Issuances 77 2.1 The BeltLine Concept 5 7.0.1 Workforce Housing 78 2.2 Growth and Development Context 5 7.0.2 Land Acquisition–Right-of-Way, 2.3 Historic Development 7 Greenspace 78 2.4 Feasibility Study Findings 8 7.0.3 Greenway Design and Construction 78 2.5 Cooperating Partners 9 7.0.4 Park Design and Construction
    [Show full text]
  • Clifton Corridor Light Rail
    Bagley St NE Bonview Ln NE Mt Royal Dr NE Innwood Rd NE Embassy Ct NE Woodbine Ter NE Shady Valley Pl Rosalind Dr NE Old Decatur Rd NE I-85 Buckhead Valley Ln Peachtree Ave NE Corporate Blvd NE Cliff Valley Way NE Burke Rd NE Lebaron Dr NE Plantation Dr NE Morris Landers Dr NE Elliott Cir NE Saxon Pl Beacon Hill Blvd NEEmory Ridge Dr NE The Cliff Clifton CorridorCrestline Ct NE Light Rail Audubon Dr NE Bonnavit Ct NE Norwich Cir NE Timothy Dr NE Lenox Rd NE N Fulton Dr NE Alderbrook Ct NE N Druid Hills Rd NE NE Way Ravenwood Alpine Rd NE Alternative 1 Existing Features West Rd NE Kodiak Dr NE Woodcliff Pl NE Delmont Dr NE Lookout Pl NE Pl Lookout Piedmont Rd NE Darlington Rd NE Darlington Cir NE At-grade Section W Roxboro Rd NE Gables Way Vale Close Childerlee Ln NE Fairoaks Ct MARTA Red/Gold Rail Lines Brentwood Dr NE Woodcliff Ct NE Elevated (Aerial) Section N Hills Dr NE Buford Hwy Rosecliff Dr Darlington Commons Ct St Claire Ln NE Piedmont Rd Miami Cir Judith Way NE Dunwoody Trl NE Dunwoody Pl NE Victor Rd NE W Druid Hills Dr Tully Rd NE Bristol Dr NE Timberland Rd NE Tunnel Section I-85 Ramp Mt Brian Rd NE MARTA Blue Rail Line Tully Cir NE Cir Tully Rumson Rd NE Brentwood Ter NE Pine Tree Dr NE Belle Isle Cir NE Proposed Alternative 1 Station Bridgeport Dr NE Arrowhead Trl NE Pine Heights Dr NE Woodcliff Dr NE Miami Cir NE Merrimac Ct NE Summit North Dr CliftonShady Valley Dr NE Corridor: Converse Dr NE Executive Park Dr NE Alderbrook Rd NE Railroad Corridors Clairmont Rd NE Briarcliff Rd NE NE Dr Hill Knob E Wesley Rd NE Lenox Hill
    [Show full text]
  • Q Clifton Corridor Alternatives Analysis
    4 Contact Us Clifton Corridor The study team would like to hear from you. If you have any comments, questions, or ideas regarding this study, or would like to be included on the study mailing list, please contact us at one of the addresses below. You can find additional study J J J Alternatives Analysis J J J J J materials at the project webpage. J J Newsletter J Fall 2009 J J J J J JJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JJ J J JJ J J J J J JJ itsmarta.com/Clifton-Corr.aspx J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J e JJ J J J J J J J J D n JJ J J i J J J J J JJ J J J e J J JJ L J K J J J J J J J J J J J J J a y JJ J J J J J t J J J l J J J b J J J J J J J J J J n J J J J J J J J J J J J C J J J u J J J J o J JJ Jason Morgan, Adele Clements Grady Smith o J J J J J J u J J JJJ JJ J J J JJ J J n J C J J JJ J J J J The MARTA-CCTMAt Where is the Clifton Corridor study area?J J J J J y b J J J J l J J J L J J J J J J a JJ i J J J J J n K J e MARTA Project Manager Director of Transportation Consultant Project Manager J J J e J J J J J J J D C h a m b l e e C h a m b l e e JJJ J J J J J J Partnership 2424 Piedmont Road NE Emory University 400 Colony Square The Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative involves investigatingJ the need for high- J JJ J JJJ J J J J J J J J J J JJ J J J JJ Atlanta GA 30324 1945 Starvine Way 1201 Peachtree St NE, Suite 1905 capacity transitS a n d y S pconnectionsr i n g s between MARTA’sJ J Lindbergh Center area in S a n d y S p r i n g s JJ J J J J J J JJJ J J J J Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit J J J J J J J J Chamblee J JJ J J J JJ J J J [email protected] Decatur, GA 30033 Atlanta GA 30361 J JJ J north-central Atlanta to Emory University andJ the City of Decatur in west- J J J JJJ JJJ J J J Authority (MARTA) and Clifton J J JJ J [email protected] [email protected] J central DeKalb County (see map below).
    [Show full text]
  • Clifton Corridor
    DRAFT Scoping Booklet Environmental Impact Statement December 2014 Prepared For: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Prepared By: AECOM Atlanta, GA December 2014 Cover Photo Credit: Sinan Sinharoy 2 Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 05 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 05 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 06 1.3 SCOPING PROCESS 06 11.4 NEPA REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES 07 PURPOSE AND NEED 11 2.1 OVERVIEW 11 2.2 PROJECT SPONSER AND FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY 11 2.3 CLIFTON CORRIDOR TRANSIT INITATIVE PURPOSE AND NEED 11 2.4 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 16 2.5 PLANNING CONTEXT FOR THE PROJECT 17 22.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 17 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 19 3.1 INTRODUCTION 19 3.2 MAPS 21 3 PROJECT FACTSHEET APPENDIX A 25 A DRAFT Scoping Booklet 3 4 Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Environmental Impact Statement 1 1: Introduction and Overview What is light rail transit (LRT)? In This Section LRT is a rail transit mode capable of operating in streets and in mixed traffic (similar to Atlanta 1.1 Project Description Streetcar), on elevated structures, or in tunnels. 1.2 Project Location Stations may be simple platforms at curbside 1.3 Project Background locations along city streets, underground, or elevated. 1.4 Scoping Process LRT typically operates with a single rail vehicle or in 1.5 NEPA Requirements and Procedures short trains of up to three vehicles. This Chapter provides an overview of the purpose of the Scoping process as well as a description of the key milestones during the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    [Show full text]