DOCSLIB.ORG

1. DEIS Style Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. DEIS Style Manual Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Project Development and NEPA Phase 1 Environmental Review and Alternative Refinement Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report (Updated 2013) Prepared for: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Prepared by: AECOM/JJG Joint Venture Atlanta, GA June 2013 General Planning Consultant Services RFP P5413 Contract No. 200703566 Page Left Intentionally Blank Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative New Starts/PD and NEPA Phase 1 Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report Update Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MAJOR FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE AND REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ........................................ 2-1 2.1 HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Historic Development Patterns ................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Historic Transportation Routes ................................................................... 2-4 2.2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES .......................................................................... 2-6 2.2.1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ................................................. 2-6 2.2.2 CORRIDOR-LEVEL TRANSIT STUDIES ................................................ 2-11 2.2.3 LOCAL PLANS & STUDIES ..................................................................... 2-15 2.2.4 LIVABLE CENTERS INITIATIVE (LCI) AND OTHER STUDIES ............. 2-20 3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS AND FORECASTS ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Population ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Households ................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.4 Age ............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.5 Education .................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.6 Occupation ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.7 Income ........................................................................................................ 3-4 3.1.8 Housing....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS ........................................................ 3-5 3.3 TRANSIT DEPENDENT POPULATIONS ................................................................. 3-8 3.4 ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ........................... 3-11 4.0 COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND NATURAL SYSTEMS ........................................................... 4-1 4.1 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ....................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Activity Centers and Major Points of Interest ............................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Historic Districts and Known Sites ............................................................. 4-8 4.2 MAJOR NATURAL SYSTEMS INVENTORY ......................................................... 4-12 4.2.1 Water Resources ...................................................................................... 4-12 4.2.2 Topography/Soils...................................................................................... 4-14 4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................... 4-14 4.3 AIR QUALITY STATUS ........................................................................................... 4-17 5.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................ 5-1 5.1 POLICY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 DeKalb County ........................................................................................... 5-1 RFP P5413 / Contract No. 200703566 i June 2013 Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative New Starts/PD and NEPA Phase 1 Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report Update 5.1.2 City of Atlanta ............................................................................................. 5-2 5.1.3 City of Decatur ............................................................................................ 5-3 5.1.4 MARTA ....................................................................................................... 5-4 5.1.5 Atlanta Regional Commission .................................................................... 5-5 5.2 EXISTING LAND USES ............................................................................................ 5-6 5.3 FUTURE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ............................................ 5-11 5.3.1 Future Land Use ....................................................................................... 5-11 5.3.2 Potential Redevelopment Areas ............................................................... 5-15 5.3.3 Major Development Activity ...................................................................... 5-16 6.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 TRAVEL PATTERNS ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................................................................ 6-5 6.2.1 Study Area Overview .................................................................................. 6-6 6.2.2 Levels of Service and Measures of Congestion ........................................ 6-8 6.2.3 Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements ............................... 6-12 6.2.4 Major Facilities Analysis ........................................................................... 6-15 6.3 TRANSIT NETWORK .............................................................................................. 6-18 6.3.1 MARTA Rail and Bus Service .................................................................. 6-18 6.3.2 Cliff Shuttle Service .................................................................................. 6-23 6.3.3 Planned and Programmed Transit Improvements ................................... 6-26 6.4 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ........................................................... 6-28 6.4.1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................ 6-28 6.4.2 Planned and Programmed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ......... 6-28 6.5 FREIGHT RAIL FACILITIES ................................................................................... 6-31 6.6 BRIDGE INVENTORY ............................................................................................. 6-33 6.7 PARKING INVENTORY .......................................................................................... 6-37 List of Tables Table 1.1: Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1-3 Table 2.1: Relevant Studies ................................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 3.1: Change in Population ........................................................................................................ 3-1 Table 3.2: Change in Racial Diversity................................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3.3: Household Characteristics ................................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3.4: Age Distribution.................................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3.5: Education Attainment ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3.6: Occupation by Industry ...................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3.7: Change in Median Household Income .............................................................................. 3-4 Table 3.8: Housing Units by Tenure ................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3.9: Environmental Justice Populations .................................................................................... 3-5 RFP P5413 / Contract No. 200703566 ii June 2013 Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative New Starts/PD and NEPA Phase 1 Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report Update Table 3.10: Transit Dependent Populations ....................................................................................... 3-8 Table 4.1: Public Parks ....................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4.2: Houses of Worship ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • W . Howard Avenue
    19 MONDAY THRU FRIDAY - DE LUNES A VIERNES l Times given for each bus trip from beginning to end of route. Read down for times at specific locations. Horarios para cada viaje de autobús desde el principio hasta el fin del trayecto. Lea los horarios para localidades específicas de arriba hacia a bajo. ño a 19 p s E n itsmarta.com / 404-848-5000 E 2104 Leave: - Salida: East Lake Station Decatur Station V. A. Hospital V. Arrive: - Llegada: Chamblee Station V. A. Hospital V. Clairmont Rd. & Rd. LaVista Clairmont Rd. & Hwy. Buford Leave: - Salida: Chamblee Station Clairmont Rd. & Hwy. Buford Clairmont Rd. & Rd. LaVista Decatur Station Arrive: - Llegada: East Lake Station 2021 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 24 WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE Accesible para silla de ruedas NORTHBOUND - DIRECCION NORTE SOUTHBOUND - DIRECCION SUR METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY Rail Stations Served: Clairmont Road/ Howard Avenue W. Chamblee Decatur East Lake Effective as of: 04- 5:45 5:53 6:02 6:09 6:20 6:27 5:50 5:57 6:06 6:13 6:24 6:31 6:15 6:23 6:34 6:41 6:52 6:59 6:20 6:28 6:38 6:45 6:56 7:03 6:45 6:53 7:04 7:14 7:27 7:34 6:50 6:58 7:08 7:15 7:29 7:36 7:15 7:24 7:39 7:49 8:02 8:09 7:20 7:28 7:39 7:46 8:00 8:07 7:45 7:54 8:09 8:19 8:30 8:37 + 7:50 7:59 8:10 8:17 8:31 8:38 8:15 8:24 8:39 8:49 9:00 9:07 + 8:20 8:29 8:40 8:47 9:01 9:07 8:45 8:54 9:09 9:18 9:29 9:36 + 8:50 8:59 9:10 9:15 9:29 9:35 9:15 9:24 9:36 9:45 9:56 10:03 + 9:25 9:34 9:44 9:49 10:03 10:09 9:45 9:54 10:06 10:15 10:26 10:33 + 10:05 10:14 10:24 10:29 10:43 10:49 10:25 10:34 10:46 10:55 11:06 11:13
    [Show full text]
  • The Granite Mansion: Georgia's Governor's Mansion 1924-1967
    The Granite Mansion: Georgia’s Governor’s Mansion 1924-1967 Documentation for the proposed Georgia Historical Marker to be installed on the north side of the road by the site of the former 205 The Prado, Ansley Park, Atlanta, Georgia June 2, 2016 Atlanta Preservation & Planning Services, LLC Georgia Historical Marker Documentation Page 1. Proposed marker text 3 2. History 4 3. Appendices 10 4. Bibliography 25 5. Supporting images 29 6. Atlanta map section and photos of proposed marker site 31 2 Proposed marker text: The Granite Governor’s Mansion The Granite Mansion served as Georgia’s third Executive Mansion from 1924-1967. Designed by architect A. Ten Eyck Brown, the house at 205 The Prado was built in 1910 from locally- quarried granite in the Italian Renaissance Revival style. It was first home to real estate developer Edwin P. Ansley, founder of Ansley Park, Atlanta’s first automobile suburb. Ellis Arnall, one of the state’s most progressive governors, resided there (1943-47). He was a disputant in the infamous “three governors controversy.” For forty-three years, the mansion was home to twelve governors, until poor maintenance made it nearly uninhabitable. A new governor’s mansion was constructed on West Paces Ferry Road. The granite mansion was razed in 1969, but its garage was converted to a residence. 3 Historical Documentation of the Granite Mansion Edwin P. Ansley Edwin Percival Ansley (see Appendix 1) was born in Augusta, GA, on March 30, 1866. In 1871, the family moved to the Atlanta area. Edwin studied law at the University of Georgia, and was an attorney in the Atlanta law firm Calhoun, King & Spalding.
    [Show full text]
  • REGIONAL RESOURCE PLAN Contents Executive Summary
    REGIONAL RESOURCE PLAN Contents Executive Summary ................................................................5 Summary of Resources ...........................................................6 Regionally Important Resources Map ................................12 Introduction ...........................................................................13 Areas of Conservation and Recreational Value .................21 Areas of Historic and Cultural Value ..................................48 Areas of Scenic and Agricultural Value ..............................79 Appendix Cover Photo: Sope Creek Ruins - Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area/ Credit: ARC Tables Table 1: Regionally Important Resources Value Matrix ..19 Table 2: Regionally Important Resources Vulnerability Matrix ......................................................................................20 Table 3: Guidance for Appropriate Development Practices for Areas of Conservation and Recreational Value ...........46 Table 4: General Policies and Protection Measures for Areas of Conservation and Recreational Value ................47 Table 5: National Register of Historic Places Districts Listed by County ....................................................................54 Table 6: National Register of Historic Places Individually Listed by County ....................................................................57 Table 7: Guidance for Appropriate Development Practices for Areas of Historic and Cultural Value ............................77 Table 8: General Policies
    [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]
  • Blueprint Midtown 3. ACTION PLAN Introduction
    Blueprint Midtown 3. ACTION PLAN Introduction This document identifies Midtown’s goals, implementation strategies and specific action items that will ensure a rich diversity of land uses, vibrant street-level activity, quality building design, multimodal transportation accessibility and mobility, and engaging public spaces. Blueprint Midtown 3.0 is the most recent evolution of Midtown Alliance’s community driven plan that builds on Midtown’s fundamental strengths and makes strategic improvements to move the District from great to exceptional. It identifies both high priority projects that will be advanced in the next 10 years, as well as longer-term projects and initiatives that may take decades to achieve but require exploration now. Since 1997, policies laid out in Blueprint Midtown have guided public and private investment to create a clean, safe, and vibrant urban environment. The original plan established a community vision for Midtown that largely remains the same: a livable, walkable district in the heart of Atlanta; a place where people, business and culture converge to create a live-work-play community with a distinctive personality and a premium quality of life. Blueprint Midtown 3.0 builds on recent successes, incorporates previously completed studies and corridor plans, draws inspiration from other places and refines site-specific recommendations to reflect the changes that have occurred in the community since the original unveiling of Blueprint Midtown. Extensive community input conducted in 2016 involving more than 6,000 Midtown employers, property owners, residents, workers, visitors, public-sector partners, and subject-matter experts validates the Blueprint Midtown vision for an authentic urban experience. The Action Plan lives with a family of Blueprint Midtown 3.0 documents which also includes: Overview: Moving Forward with Blueprint Midtown 3.0, Midtown Character Areas Concept Plans (coming soon), Appendices: Project Plans and 5-Year Work Plan (coming soon).
    [Show full text]
  • Atlanta Regional Commission Multimodal Corridor Planning Program
    B UFORD H IGHWAY M ULTIMODAL C ORRIDOR S TUDY F INAL R EPORT Atlanta Regional Commission Multimodal Corridor Planning Program March 13, 2007 B UFORD H IGHWAY M ULTIMODAL C ORRIDOR S TUDY F INAL R EPORT Prepared for: Atlanta Regional Commission Prepared by: URS Corporation 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 900 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 In Association With: Bleakly Advisory Group Dovetail Consulting, Inc. ECOS Environmental Design, Inc. Mary Means and Associates PBS&J Urban Collage, Inc. URS Project Number: 15280282 March 13, 2007 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Leadership Committee Agencies and Organizations Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Ms. Dania Aponte, Planning Manager** Ms. Laura Beall, Land Use Manager Mr. David Cassell, Planner Georgia Deparment of Transportation Mr. Jason Crane, Office of Planning Mr. Harry Graham, District Seven Traffic Operations Manager Ms. Quinn Hazelbaker, Office of Environment/Location, Transportation Environmental Planner Associate Mr. Neil Kantner, District One Planning and Programming Engineer Mr. Steve Kish, Office of Intermodal Programs, Transit Program Manager** Mr. Tony Sack, Office of Intermodal Programs, Transit Planner Mr. Marshall Troup, District Seven Planning and Programming Engineer Ms. Cindy VanDyke, Office of Planning, Assistant State Transportation Planning Administrator** Mr. Steve Walker, Office of Planning, Urban Planner Mr. Chris Woods, District Seven Planning and Programming Engineer Mr. Scott Zehngraff, Office of Traffic Safety and Design City of Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin Healther Alhadeff** City of Chamblee Mayor Eric Clarkson City of Doraville Mayor Ray Jenkins City of Duluth Mayor Shirley Lasseter City of Norcross Mayor Lillian Webb DeKalb County Mr. Vernon Jones, Chief Executive Officer* Patrick Ejike** Arthur Duncan** Gwinnett County Chairman Charles Bannister* Mr.
    [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]
  • The Transformation Alliance
    The TransFormation Alliance Strengthening Communities Through Transit The TransFormation Alliance is a diverse collaboration of organizations including, community advocates, policy experts, transit providers, and government agencies working toward a common goal to change how transit and community development investments shape the future, to offer all residents the opportunities for a high quality of life, linked by our region’s critically important transit system. Issues Driven People and Creative Placemaking Housing Choice and Transit Innovative Capital Equitable TOD Climate and Job Access Health Why It Matters Housing Cost Jobs Access 48% The percentage of income paid in 3.4% rent by City of Atlanta HH of jobs are accessible by a earning the lowest 20th 45 minute trip on transit. percentile. - Brookings Institute, 2016 Income Mobility 4% A child raised in the bottom fifth income bracket in Atlanta has just 4% chance of reaching the top fifth - Brookings Institute, 2016 MARTA links disparate communities The five highest median The five lowest median household incomes by MARTA household incomes by MARTA stop stop 1) Buckhead Station: 1) West End Station: $19,447 $104,518 2) Ashby Station: $21,895 2) Brookhaven-Oglethorpe 3) Oakland City Station: Station: $104,168 $23,000 3) East Lake Station: $97,037 4) Lakewood-Ft. McPherson 4) Lenox Station: $90, 766 Station: $25,236 5) Medical Center Station: 5) Bankhead Station: $26,168 $89,281 Station Area Typology Type A: • In/near major job centers • Improve job access Low Vulnerability + • Affluent
    [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]