Inner Core Transit Study Tracks Ahead

Over the past few months, the Atlanta Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study has evolved through various technical tasks and public outreach. A Baseline Conditions Report was assembled to analyze relevant data about the study area including demographics, transportation, land use, and community/redevelopment conditions. The baseline conditions results led to the development of a series of purpose and need statements for the Inner Core area. These need statements were refined by the public and stakeholders over the course of numerous meetings held earlier this year. Continuation of the feasibility process involves defining a set of transit alternatives that best respond to the stated needs, and then evaluating the feasibility of those alternatives. A major element in the evaluation process will be identification of potential engineering constraints and opportunities to implement transit
investments in the Beltline and C-Loop corridors. This newsletter highlights the initial set of alternatives that will undergo feasibility evaluation over the coming months.

What Transit Alternatives Will Be Evaluated for Feasibility?

Both the Beltline and C-Loop proposals as they were originally conceived will be evaluated in the upcoming feasibility determination. The Beltline and C-Loop will be referred to in the study as "baseline alternatives", and the feasibility evaluation will better clarify the merits and drawbacks of each concept. For comparison purposes, the Beltline Concept has been defined as Streetcar technology, and the C-Loop Concept defined as Bus Rapid Transit.

Additionally, the study process has defined various hybrid alternatives designed to respond to the purpose and need developed earlier in the study. The steps to defining these alternatives are described below:

• The first step divided the study area into a total of 11 geographic zones or segments. Each segment was defined based on right- of-way ownership, location, and connections to major destinations;
• The second step was to determine what transit technologies are most suitable for the study area conditions;
• The third and forth steps involved technical assessments for each segment based on its ability to satis9 study area needs along with early identification of possible engi- neering constraints; and
• Finally, the best performing segments and applicable transit technologies were combined into four hybrid alternatives. In addition to the baseline alternatives, the hybrid alternatives were submitted for review by the stakeholders and the public.

Alternatives for Feasibility Evaluation

*Streetcar/Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Similar to LRT including use of overhead catenaries for power. Streetcars typically operate along existing travel lanes and primarily serve shorter trips with more frequent stops. Streetcars exist in Portland, Tampa, and San Francisco.

*Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT combines the service characteristics of rail with the flexibility of buses. BRT systems are available in many major cities including Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and Boston.

*Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)
Lightweight diesel or electric/diesel hybrid rail cars. Intended for low-density corridors up to 30 miles in length. Technology recently received FRA operating certification for the U.S.

*Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)/Monorail
AGT includes fixed guideway technologies that operates without a vehicle operator. Monorail is electrically-powered and rubber-tired. AGT systems operate at many airports including Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Int'l Airport. Monorails exist in Seattle, Las Vegas, and Walt Disney World.

Public Input

Public and stakeholder input on the alternatives was solicited during a series of committee meetings and public meetings held during the months of May and June 2004. Participants were asked to draw alignment preferences on maps and suggest technologies they felt best suit the study area. Desired land use changes and redevelopment areas were also identified as part of the exercise. Major conclusions drawn from the exercise include, but are not limited to:

• Overwhelming support for the entire Beltline concept;
• East-west cross-town connections such as North Avenue/Ponce, Ralph David Abernathy and Edgewood/Auburn were deemed very important;
• North-South corridors were also considered very important connections including Northside Drive and Moreland;
• Transit technology preferences included Streetcar and/or Light Rail technology being considered for in-town corridors because of its appropriate scale and character; and
• Creation of transit supportive land uses, redevelopment initiatives, greenways, and park improvements were emphasized.

These suggestions were used to finalize the set of alternatives carried into the upcoming feasibility evaluation. The alternatives for feasibility evaluation are shown on the maps above.

Next Steps for the Inner Core Study

In coming months, the study team will evaluate the feasibility of the alternatives. The evaluation will involve assessing land use and environmental impacts, ridership and mobility analyses, and preliminary cost estimates. Initial results for the evaluation are slated to be presented to the public in September 2004. Final results of the feasibility evaluation are scheduled to be available by November 2004. These results will recommend the most feasible alternatives to be carried forward for a more detailed evaluation in the Alternatives Analysis phase. Following the appropriate MARTA Board action, the Alternatives Analysis phase could begin as early as January 2005, and concluded by June.

For Additional Information

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 email us.

Or write or fax us at:
MARTA - Atlanta Inner Core Transit Feasibility Study (Beltline/C-Loop)
c/o PEQ
4405 Mall Boulevard, Suite 420
Union City, GA 30291
(770) 306-7754 (fax)