1. Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative Project Steering Committee Webinar August 17, 2016

2. Webinar Housekeeping Slide 2  Over 100 invitees Community leaders, project stakeholders, federal/state/local agency representatives  Audio muted (except speaker) Type in comments/questions at any time in the webinar chat box Note slide number if you need us to refer back  Q&A at end of presentation We will answer questions in the order received  Webinar Recording We are recording the webinar We will send the recording to any that want it We will also provide responses to any questions we can’t get to today  Quick Polls Please respond to a few quick polls that will pop up when we change presenters

3. Project Activities & Status Slide 3

4. Background 2010-2012 2013-2014 2014 - Present Alternatives Analysis (AA) completed Locally preferred alignment (LPA) and light rail transit (LRT) adopted by MARTA Board in 2012 LPA alignment refined At-grade alternatives developed Existing conditions documented Environmental issues noted Ridership estimated Public scoping Dec 2014/Jan 2015 Additional alternatives developed Public and stakeholder outreach continued Alternatives evaluated DEIS alternatives recommended Slide 4

5. Adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) TUNNEL SECTIONS Slide 5

6. NEPA Scoping Purpose of Clifton Corridor Public Scoping Present proposed project alternatives to the public and state/federal agencies Receive public/stakeholder input and feedback on: o Alignment and station locations o Environmental and community concerns Scoping Activities: Public open houses, agency meetings – open comment period Scoping Summary Report Documents all Scoping activities Documents comments received Available on Clifton Corridor project website Feedback/Input Received Both Alternatives have tradeoffs – no clear best choice Community concerns Suggested modifications Slide 6

7. Community Outreach  Neighborhood Meetings with: - Clairemont Heights - Valley Brook Civic Association - Medlock Area (MANA) - Great Lakes - Emory Grove - Druid Hills Civic Association - Lindbergh-LaVista Community Coalition  Community Events/Outreach: - Decatur Book Festival - Lunch and Learn for MARTA Employees - Business Canvassing - Festive Fridays (Zonolite Road): 2015 & 2016 Slide 7

8. Scoping Alternatives Slide 8 Alternative 1 (LPA) Alternative 2 Design Option C

9. Alternative 1 Slide 9 Misses Core Area Clifton Rd. Traffic Impacts CSX/Tunnel Boring

10. Alternative 2 (and Option C) Slide 10 OPTION C

11. Why has the project changed from the adopted LPA? Slide 11

12. LPA Characteristics Alternatives must Increase: -Ridership -Performance Decrease: -Costs -Impacts Objectives High cost due to tunnels Traffic impacts along Clifton Does not serve Emory core Impacts Lullwater Decrease cost with at grade operation Improve/optimize traffic Improve access to Emory core Avoid/minimize cultural resources impacts Key Evaluation Criterion Cost per Rider Slide 12

13. Develop Alternatives Considering Roadways Tunnels Aerial CSX Roadways Tunnels Aerial CSX Light Rail (LRT) MARTA heavy rail (HRT) Automated metro (AMT ) Light Rail (LRT) MARTA heavy rail (HRT) Automated metro (AMT ) Alignment Location Modes Slide 13

14. Which modes have been considered? Light Rail (LRT) Heavy Rail (HRT) Automated Metro (AMT) Slide 14

15. Alignment: Dedicated Guideway High Capacity : Up to 8-car trains possible; service every 5 to 15 minutes typically Larger stations with high center or side platforms and mezzanines Station spacing: typically every ½ to 1 miles or greater. Power from third rail. Currently used on MARTA system Heavy Rail Transit MARTA train in station METRO train (Washington, DC) on elevated structure Slide 15

16. Slide 16 Alignment: Along roadways or dedicated guideways Moderate Capacity : Up to 3-car trains possible; service every 5 to 15 minutes typically Station/Stop Spacing: typically every ½-mile, but closer in downtown or activity centers Simple stations with sidewalk-level low platforms – at sidewalk or center of street Power from overhead wires, rather than third rail. Light Rail Vehicles : Same as the Atlanta Streetcar, but would use 2 or more cars per train. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Light Rail in a dedicated guideway (Charlotte) Light rail operating with the roadway (Houston)

17. Slide 17 Dedicated Guideway Moderate Capacity : 2 to 5-car trains possible Automated Operations : No drivers. Service range 2-15 min. with little operating cost difference Station/Stop Spacing: every ½ to 1 mile. Similar but smaller stations compared to heavy rail Power generated by third rail. Automated Metro Vehicles : Similar vehicle to Plane Train at Atlanta Airport or AMT systems in use in Vancouver, Canada and Copenhagen Automated Metro Transit Copenhagen rail vehicle on aerial guideway Vancouver Metro (vehicle in station)

18. Slide 18 Light Rail (LRT) – In Street Options San Francisco, CA Median Alignment: LRT in shared center lanes or a dedicated median Portland, OR Curb Alignment: LRT in outer (curb) lanes – can be dedicated or exclusive Baltimore, MD Lateral Alignment: LRT operates in both directions on one side of the road requires physical separation from vehicular traffic

19. Which Additional Alternatives were considered? Slide 19

20. Slide 20 Alternative 1 (LPA) - Baseline Alternative 2A: At-grade LRT – shifts alignment to Haygood Dr. Alternative 2: At-Grade LRT on Clifton, N. Decatur - Lowers costs Alternative 2C: Alt 2 with deep tunnel through Emory/CDC. Alternative 3: At-Grade LRT – Use CSX right of way CSX right of way sharing segment

21. Slide 21 Alternative 6: At-grade LRT with shallow tunnels. Alternative 4: Heavy Rail along CSX right of way at-grade, then tunnel CSX right of way sharing segment Alternative 5: Automated Metro – same alignment as Alt 4 Alternative 7: Grade Separated LRT with deep tunnel at CDC Emory + two shallow tunnels Aerial segment Tunnel Under Over Shallow Tunnel

22. Evaluation Measures and Ratings Operational measures Transit travel times, travel time reliability, regional connectivity, activity center accessibility Cost-effectiveness Capital costs, operating & maintenance costs, capacity utilization Community impacts Traffic impacts, property impacts, cultural resource impacts Construction impacts Impacts from tunnel boring, impacts from cut- and-cover tunneling CSX Right of Way Required/assumed sharing of CSX’s right of way Excellent Good Average Fair Poor Slide 22

23. Costs vs. Ridership: Alternatives 1-7 O&M Costs Capital Costs Average: 27,132 Average: $1.7 Bill. +50% -50% +25%-25% Ridership Lowest: 25,300 daily riders (-7%) Highest: 28,290 daily riders (+4%) Lowest: $865 Mill. (-47%) Highest: $2.5 Bill. (+47%) Average: $53.2 M/Year Lowest: $47.4 M/Year (-11%) Highest: $61.8 M/Year (+16%) Slide 23 NOTE: Cost effectiveness – Cost per rider is a key criterion for federal funding through FTA

24. Summary Matrix CategoryAlt 1 LRT Alt 2 LRT Alt 2A LRT Alt 2C LRT Alt 3 LRT Alt 4 HRT Alt 4i HRT Alt 5 AMT Alt 6 LRT Alt 7 LRT Alt 7 AMT Alt 7 HRT Operational Measures Cost Effectiveness Community Impact Construction Impacts CSX Right of Way Required/Ass umed TOTAL SCORE 374446454035363951525147 Excellent Good Average Fair Poor Alternatives that Require CSX Right of Way Sharing Slide 24

25. Which Alternatives are moving forward? Slide 25

26. Slide 26 At-grade with grade separation in strategic areas: o Avoid congestion o Maximize travel time reliability At-grade segments and shallow tunnels decrease capital cost Mitigates traffic in the most highly congested areas Seamless integration with Lindbergh/Avondale stations

27. Slide 27 Grade-separated throughout Match capacity to demand without traffic coordination Best achievable alignment o Fewest community and traffic impacts o Maximized transit Compatible with automated operation Seamless integration with Lindbergh/Avondale stations

28. Moving Forward & Recap Slide 28

29. Alternative Pros/Cons Slide 29 AlternativeAdvantages (Pros)Disadvantages (Cons) Alt 1 LPA (LRT) Good travel times/reliability Few property impacts Mixed community support High capital costs Traffic impacts dues to reduced lanes on Clifton Road Impacts from tunnel boring and staging areas Less accessible to Emory University main campus and Emory Hospital Alt 6 (LRT) Good travel times/reliability Lower capital costs Fewer traffic impacts Access at Emory Univ./Hospital core Potential physical impacts to historic resources High number of property impacts Roadway intersections Construction impacts Alt 7 (LRT) Better travel times/reliability No traffic impacts No physical impact to historic resources Fewer property impacts Compatible w/ multiple modes Access to Emory Univ./Hospital core High capital costs Some impacts from tunnel boring Visual impacts

30.  Ridership Modeling, Finalize EIS Alternatives August/September 2016  Environmental Analysis of both Alternatives Traffic, Ecology, Historic and Cultural Resources, Noise/Vibration, Property and Land Use Impacts, Energy, Air Quality, Economic Impacts, Cumulative and Indirect Impacts September 2016 to Early 2017  Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Documentation of impacts and findings by alternative (through mid 2017) Comment period Public hearing (mid/late 2017) – formal public input on DEIS findings*  Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) End 2017 Incorporate public/stakeholder feedback Recommendation and justification of preferred alternative What’s Next *Public Involvement Ongoing Slide 30

31.  CSX right-of-way Coordination ongoing with CSX regarding ROW sharing No agreement – therefore, CSX alternatives cannot now advance in DEIS Key Points Slide 31  DEIS / FEIS Reports detailed environmental analysis – technical reports on: Traffic/Transportation, Property, Land Use, Ecology, Historic and Cultural, Noise/Vibration, Energy, Air Quality, Economics, Cumulative and Indirect Impacts Documents/responds to neighborhood comments regarding impacts, opposition and mitigation FEIS – documents agreed final alternative – revised per community, stakeholders and agencies  At-grade on N. Decatur Defines lower cost baseline for comparison Establishes justification for a more costly alternative: one with tunnels & grade separation Allows clear identification of community and regional impacts of an at-grade alternative

32.  Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Projects nationwide compete for federal funding – typically 50% match awarded High cost project must show benefits – FTA criterion of cost/rider is key Costs vary significantly by alternative; ridership does not – need to minimize cost/rider Key Points (cont.) Slide 32  Funding MARTA is project sponsor – responsible for developing funding plan Project must have local funding match to receive federal funding – capital costs Must prove local funding available for long-term operations Other entities can participate in providing local match

33. Thanks for your time and support: Time for Q&A Slide 33 http://www.itsmarta.com/Clifton-Corr.aspx