Project Steering Committee Kick‐Off Meeting

March 18, 2013

Agenda

• Meeting Purpose• Study Background• PSC Roles• Project Summary – LPA Refinement• New Starts Project Development Process• Q&A / Next Steps

2

3

Atlanta Region Comprehensive Plan ‐Rapid Transit (1961)

Corridor History

4

• Completed in 2012• Evaluated alternatives & selected LPA • Adopted LPA

5

Alternatives Analysis

6

Clifton Corridor LPA

Recap: Purpose & Need Statement

7

The purpose of the Clifton Corridor Alternative Analysis (AA) was to identify a high‐capacity transit investment that provides reliable and competitive travel times to and from the Clifton Corridor by:• Increasing transit accessibility for all users• Improving mobility in the corridor • Integrating with other transit projects

Study Organization

8

Phase 1:  Environment Review & Alignment Refinement 

Phase 2:  Alignment Refinement & EIS

Environmental  Review,  Alignment Refinement & NEPA

• Horizontal alignment • Engineering reconnaissance• Station locations & design• Environmental impacts • PSC input

• NOI• Detailed engineering• Alignment & cost refinement • Environmental analyses & 

mitigation• Community outreach• Public hearings • Draft & Final EIS

Assess Impacts to:

• Historic & Archeology

• Geology & Subsurface Conditions

• Community & ROW

• Traffic

(Jan – June 2013) July 2013 to 2015 (TBD)

PSC Roles & Expectations

9

Phase 1: Phase 2:

• Confirm & Expand PSC membership• Identify potential SAC & TAC 

members• Provide input on technical findings

from Phase 1• Reconfirm/Refine Purpose & Need

• PSC to convene as SAC & TAC to better inform the EIS process & ensure a quality outcome

• SAC to ensure community goals & concerns are addressed

• TAC to guide the process & provide input on technical & policy issues 

SAC TACPSC

PSC & Community Input Framework

10

• Integrate analysis results with recommendations from TAC & SAC 

• Integrate analysis results with recommendations from community

• Balance technical feasibility & cost

Community Residents

Stakeholder Advisory 

Committee

Technical Advisory 

Committee

Analysis Results, Technical & Cost Factors

Refined LPA

Current LPA = Baseline

Issues & Considerations

11

• Alignment– At‐grade, underground, aerial– Station locations & configuration

• Traffic – Roadway sections, circulation, analysis, safety 

• Cost – Alignment options– Project evaluation – New Starts

• Community concerns • Other environmental issues 

12

LPA Refinement Trade‐offs

•At‐grade

 alignm

ent o

n Scott

•Signals, con

trol, &

 access

•Ae

rial structure   

•Traffic

 circulation

BeltLine Interface

Tunn

el  u

nder N Decatur/Scott

LPA Refinement

13

At‐grade vs. Grade‐separated

14

Exclusive - Median

Exclusive - SideMixed Traffic

Bridge

Elevated/Aerial

Tunnel vs. Aerial

15

Tunnel Portal

Tunnel Portal

Aerial / Retained

Aerial / Bridge

Traffic & Circulation

16

Intersection TurnMixed Traffic

Shared Turn LaneSafety / Z-crossing

Station Location & Configuration

17

Side Platform LRT

Side Platform LRT

Side Stop Streetcar

Median Platform BRT

Great Streets & Betterments

18

Platform LRT & Sidewalk

LRT & Fountain

LRT, streetscape & TOD

Vehicles

19

70% low-floor

Traditional & Modular Light Rail Vehicles

20

Traditional, 4 x 82’, high floor

Modular, 140’, low floor Modular, 95’, low floor

Modular, 130’, partial low floor

New Starts Process

21

New Starts Project Development Process

22

Alternatives Analysis

Preliminary Engineering

FinalDesign

Full Funding Grant 

Agreement

• Develop & review alternatives

• Select locally preferred alternative (LPA)

• Adopt LPA into fiscally constrained long range transportation plan

• Complete environmental review process

• Gain commitments of at least 50% of non‐New Starts funding

• Gain commitments of all non‐New Starts funding

• Complete sufficient engineering & design

Under SAFETEA‐LU (2005‐2012)

Complete environmental review process including developing & reviewing alternatives, selecting LPA, & adopting it into the fiscally constrained long range transportation plan

• Gain commitments of all non‐New Starts funding

• Complete sufficient engineering & design

Project Development Engineering

Full Funding Grant 

Agreement

Under  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21)

Construction

Construction

= FTA evaluation, rating, & approval

= FTA approvalLegend

OLD vs. NEW ‐ New Starts Process

23

Cost & OptionsMAP‐21 = Cost per Rider

24

Increase Riders

Lower Cost

Upcoming Activities ‐ Phase 1

• In the coming weeks, the project team will:• Develop horizontal alignment• Conduct engineering reconnaissance 

‐ tunnels, structures, utilities, right‐of‐way

• Verify station locations & configuration• Identify preliminary impacts to natural & cultural resources

• PSC Meetings planned in April & May

25

We Need Your Help!

26

Data Needs Major UtilityPlans

Recent Aerial Photo

CampusExpansion Plans

Construction Plans

Intersection Plans

Other

DeKalb County

Briarcliff/ Clifton

Medline LCI StudyBoundary

City of Atlanta

Emory University

Emory Hospital

Clifton/Haygood

DeKalb Medical

CDC

Jason Morgan, AICPMARTA Project Manager2424 Piedmont Rd, NEAtlanta, Georgia 30324clifton@itsmarta.com

Derek Crider, PEConsultant Project Manager

One Midtown Plaza1360 Peachtree Street, Ste 500

Atlanta, Georgia 30309derek.crider@aecom.com 

27

Project Management

Visit us at http://www.itsmarta.com/clifton‐corr.aspx & Find us on Facebook!