SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

**SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING**

Photos are for concept and position.

CLAYTON COUNTY HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT

UPDATE Stakeholder Advisory CommitteeClayton County Commission

Board RoomJanuary 19, 2017

Agenda

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. Project Schedule

III. Summary of Kick-Off Public and Agency Outreach

IV. Purpose and Need/Goals and Objectives

V. Potential Transit Corridors

VI. Evaluation Process and Screening Criteria

VII. Group Exercise

VIII. Next Steps

Clayton County High Capacity Transit Initiative

2

PROJECT SCHEDULE


3


Project Schedule

2016 2017 2018

Definition of Alternatives

Purpose and Need

Problem Statement

Goals and Objectives

Circulate Draft Environmental Document

Environmental Studies/ Technical Reports

Complete Final Environmental Document

Identification of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

Address Comments to Draft Environmental Document

Evaluation of Alternatives

SCOPING

Baseline Conditions

Public & Agency Coordination Plan

Project Management Plan

PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISH IN FEDERAL REGISTER

Prepare Request Package for Project Development

Public & Agency Coordination and Input

PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH KICK OFF

Act

ivit

ies

Ph

ase

4

EARLY SCOPING


Purpose of Early Scoping

5

• Optional step for community involvement during planning phase

• Encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to streamline process

• Input and comments considered in the formal environmental review process

• Refines the project definition, identifies stakeholders, potential issues and concerns

• Helps narrows the range of transit alternatives in a large study area

SUMMARY OF KICK-OFF PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH


6

• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

– October 25th - MARTA Bid Room

• Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)

– October 27th – Clayton County Board of Commissioners Office

• Public Meetings

– November 10th – Riverdale Town Center

– November 17th – Clayton State University


Kick Off Public and Agency Outreach Meetings

7

• Schedule for completion of the study

• Expected date of implementation of high capacity transit service

• Frequency and on-time performance of existing transit service

• Routing, transit mode, and end of line of the high capacity transit service

• Public infrastructure improvements, opportunities for input, and safety

• Bus stop amenities (i.e. benches, shelters, trash receptacles)


Key Themes from Public

8

PURPOSE AND NEED/ GOALS AND OBJECTIVES


9


Baseline Conditions Key Themes

• Continued population and employment growth

• Increased demand on transportation networks to access jobs

• Increased traffic congestion - Tara Blvd, SR85, SR54, SR138 & I-75

• Growing demand for transit for local and regional trips

• Transit supportive development is needed along major corridors

• Most development activity occurring in northern half of County

10


Transportation Problem Statements

• Mobility and connectivity in Clayton County will be limited by the following:

– Population and employment growth that increases travel demand

– Lack of transit service to potential transit oriented developments (TODs), redevelopment areas, and activity centers

– Increased traffic congestion and delay

– High number of traditional transit riders

– High commute travel demand

– Existing transit travel times are not competitive

11


Purpose and Need Statement

• The purpose of the Clayton High Capacity Transit Initiative Project is to:

– Provide high capacity transit investments that:

• Improve access to jobs

• Enhance mobility

• Accommodate increasing demand for transit

• Support land use and economic development plans

– Improve travel times and for commuters travelling to and from activity centers in the Atlanta Region and within Clayton County

12


Project Need

• Greater Access to Jobs and Education

• Additional Travel Options

• Regional Connections

• Growing Demand for Transit

• Support Land Use & Economic Development

13



• Goal 1: Mobility and Access– Improve travel times and connectivity

within Clayton County and to/from the Atlanta region

• Goal 2: Support Land Use Plans– Support transit supportive land uses

identified in local land use plans

– Support TOD initiatives

• Goal 3: Economic Development– Support economic development and

redevelopment areas

14



• Goal 4: Cost Effectiveness– Provide high capacity transit service that can be implemented with

existing funding sources

– Increase benefits to transportation system users

• Goal 5: Sustainability– Provide high capacity transit service that can be operated and maintained

with existing and future resources

– Minimize impacts to the natural and built environments as well as social and cultural resources

15

POTENTIAL TRANSIT CORRIDORS


16


Previous Studies/Analysis

17

• Clayton Extension Report (June 2014)

• Clayton County High Capacity Transit – Conceptual Planning Technical Memorandum (September 2014)

• Connect existing MARTA rail system to Lovejoy in Clayton County

• Six potential corridors evaluated for high capacity transit

• Norfolk Southern rail corridor involves continued coordination between MARTA and railroad company


Potential Transit Corridors

18

Westside Corridor

Riverdale Corridor

SR 85 Corridor

Tara Blvd Corridor

SR 54 Corridor

Norfolk Southern Corridor

Eastside Corridor


Potential Transit Technologies

19

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiT4I2Wv7bRAhXD6iYKHQ7GBP8QjRwIBw&url=http://511sd.com/sd511/transit/transithome.aspx&bvm=bv.143423383,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEBCkL0Nd4IGn3aSRQ_G1bQe6q5IA&ust=1484100448950420

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiE_8nmv7bRAhVPfiYKHUBWAwwQjRwIBw&url=http://capturelifethroughthelens.com/2015/06/07/king-memorial-marta-station/&bvm=bv.143423383,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEMCvX1NJLmeg-aEqNof5cLAl_liA&ust=1484100598177014


Potential Transit Technologies

20

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiW34r6ubbRAhWD0iYKHTl3CGoQjRwIBw&url=http://smrtmaryland.com/smrt/transit-mode-alternatives/bus-rapid-transit-brt&bvm=bv.143423383,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNHBONZfXrontqzEqhB3pi1FVIoiUQ&ust=1484099052146020

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1m_-Xu7bRAhWM7SYKHd5kBhcQjRwIBw&url=https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/31/dallas-area-rapid-transit-officials-cant-tell-whether-2-different-downtown-transit-projects-actually-competing-federal-funds-apparently/&bvm=bv.143423383,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNGed4JvTcH1nR28FAWzbLkbnO1IJw&ust=1484099337022671

EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREENING CRITERIA


21


Evaluation Process

• Fatal Flaw Analysis– Community input

– Purpose & need

– Constructability/connectivity

– Right-of-way impacts

– Technology assessment

• Screen 1– Quantitative & qualitative evaluation

criteria

• Screen 2– More in-depth analysis using additional

performance measures

22

Increasin

gly Detailed

Evaluatio

n M

etrics

Fatal Flaw Analysis

Screen 2

Screen 1 Up to 10Alternatives

Up to 3Alternatives

Locally Preferred Alternative

• Goal 1: Mobility and Access

– Trip Time Reduction

– Congestion Relief

– Serve Strongest Travel Patterns

– Increase Connectivity

– Total Daily Boardings

– New System Transit Trips

• Goal 2: Support Land Use Plans

– Transit-Supportive Land Use

– Transit-Oriented Development Potential


Screening Criteria

23

• Goal 3: Economic Development

– Development Potential

• Goal 4: Cost Effectiveness

– Operating and Maintenance Costs

– Capital Costs

– Transportation System User Benefits

• Goal 5: Sustainability

– Displacements

– Noise

– Cultural or Natural Resources

– Water Resources

GROUP EXERCISE


24


Rate the Potential Transit Corridors

25

• Provide your input to determine how each corridor addresses project needs:

– Connectivity to major destinations

– Serves traditional transit markets

– Serves commuter transit markets

– Provides access for pedestrians, and bicyclists

• Do you like ice cream?

1. Yes

2. No

26

Yes No

13%

87%


Group Exercise

WESTSIDE CORRIDORo MARTA College Park Station

– Roosevelt Hwy

– Riverdale Rd

– Hutcheson Pkwy

– Fayetteville Rd

– Bethsaida Rd

– Valley Hill Rd

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


27

• Is the Westside Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive

3. Somewhat supportive

4. Not supportive

28

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

13%

35%

22%

30%


Group Exercise - Westside Corridor

• Does the Westside Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

29

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

4%

11%

54%

32%



• Does the Westside Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

30

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

7%

14%

57%

21%



• Does the Westside Corridor provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient

3. Somewhat convenient

4. Not convenient

31

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

4%

50%

32%

14%



RIVERDALE CORRIDORo MARTA College Park Station

– Roosevelt Hwy

– Riverdale Rd

– Valley Hill Rd

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


32

• Is the Riverdale Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

33

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

11%15%

44%

30%


Group Exercise - Riverdale Corridor

• Does the Riverdale Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

34

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

7%

21%

45%

28%



• Does the Riverdale Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

35

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

10% 10%

48%

31%



• Does the Riverdale Corridor provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

36

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

0%

45%41%

14%



SR 85 CORRIDORo MARTA East Point Station

– Central Ave

– Old Dixie Rd

– Forest Pkwy

– GA 85

– GA 138

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


37

• Is the SR 85 Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

38

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

13%

27%

33%

27%


Group Exercise – SR 85 Corridor

• Does the SR 85 Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

39

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

19%

23%

31%

27%


Group Exercise - SR 85 Corridor

• Does the SR 85 Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

40

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

24%

4%

44%

28%



• Does the SR 85 Corridor have provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

41

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

0%

25%

68%

7%



TARA BLVD CORRIDORo MARTA East Point Station

– Central Ave

– Old Dixie Rd

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


42

• Is the Tara Blvd. Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

43

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

18%

4%

36%

43%


Group Exercise – Tara Blvd. Corridor

• Does the Tara Blvd. Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

44

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

11%

4%

32%

54%


Group Exercise - Tara Blvd. Corridor

• Does the Tara Blvd. Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

45

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

25%

4%11%

61%



• Does the Tara Blvd. Corridor provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

46

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

7%

37%

30%26%



SR 54 CORRIDORo MARTA East Point Station

– Central Ave

– Old Dixie Rd

– Forest Pkwy

– Jonesboro Rd

– Main St

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


47

• Is the SR 54 Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

48

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

59%

0%

11%

30%


Group Exercise – SR 54 Corridor

• Does the SR 54 Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

49

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

37%

4%7%

52%



• Does the SR 54 Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

50

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

41%

0%

22%

37%



• Does the SR 54 Corridor have provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

51

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

19%

11%

30%

41%



NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORRIDORo MARTA East Point Station

– Norfolk Southern Corridor Right of Way

o Lovejoy


52

• Is the Norfolk Southern Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

53

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

48%

0%

7%

44%


Group Exercise – Norfolk Southern Corridor

• Does the Norfolk Southern Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

54

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

28%

0%

8%

64%


Group Exercise - Norfolk Southern Corridor

• Does the Norfolk Southern Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

55

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

50%

0%

15%

35%



• Does the Norfolk Southern Corridor provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

56

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

18%

11%

43%

29%



EASTSIDE CORRIDORo MARTA East Point Station

– Central Ave

– Old Dixie Rd

– Forest Pkwy

– Moreland Ave

– Fielder Rd

– Main St

– Tara Blvd

o Lovejoy


57

• Is the Eastside Corridor supportive of connections to key activity centers, growth areas and/or economic development initiatives?

1. Very supportive

2. Supportive


4. Not supportive

58

Ver

y su

pportiv

e

Suppor

tive

Som

ewha

t sup

portive

Not s

uppor

tive

4%

44%

30%

22%


Group Exercise – Eastside Corridor

• Does the Eastside Corridor serve traditional transit markets (e.g. households without vehicles, non-drivers)

1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

59

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

0%

40%

32%28%


Group Exercise - Eastside Corridor

• Does the Eastside Corridor serve commuters?1. Serves well

2. Serves

3. Somewhat serves

4. Does not serve

60

Serv

es w

ell

Serv

es

Som

ewha

t ser

ves

Does

not s

erve

0%

42%38%

19%



• Does the Eastside Corridor provide convenient access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists?1. Very convenient

2. Convenient


4. Not convenient

61

Ver

y co

nven

ient

Conven

ient

Som

ewha

t conve

nient

Not c

onvenie

nt

0%

56%

30%

15%



Next Steps


62

Next Steps

• Conduct Early Scoping Public Meetings

– February 2, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. Forest Park Community Center

– February 9, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m.

Frank Bailey Senior Center

• Finalize Purpose and Need

• Evaluate Potential Transit Alternatives

• Determine a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

63


Fare Evasion Studies

64

Questions?

SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

Documents

Transcript of SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

**SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING** … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

Documents

Transcript of **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING** … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...

Transcript of SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE USING … · **SAVE PPT TEMPLATE ON YOUR COMPUTER...