1. Perimeter Circulator Project October 19, 2000 Steering Committee Meeting

2. TASK 1.0 GOALS & OBJECTIVES

3. Study Goals To better prepare the (DCID) to seek and obtain state and federal financial assistance toward project implementation To quantify the order of magnitude of first cost and annual cost toward a go/no-go decision

4. Project Goals 1.To encourage lessened use of single-occupancy motor vehicles 2. To provide an effective public system of local distribution for regional trip-makers 3. To enhance the economic development and tax base of Perimeter Center by increasing the density of land usage without incurring adverse impacts. 4. To assist the community in achieving air quality goals.

5. Project Goals Continued 5. To make the offices, retail establishments, medical facilities, hotels, and employment opportunities more accessible to all patrons and employees. 6. To offer local trip-makers an effective alternative to autos, shuttle buses and surface transit. 7. To help preserve greenbelts and park areas potentially threatened by need for added parking facilities. 8. To take advantage of opportunities for facilitating circulator placement and location in coordination with scheduled improvements to freeways.

6. Goal Suggested During the First Stakeholder Meeting To provide a public system that allows flexibility within the Perimeter Center area and allows future expansion beyond this area.

7. TASK 2.0 – BASES OF PROJECTIONS AND FORECASTS

10. Findings Perimeter area is the most dense employment concentration outside central Atlanta Dekalb County portion of the study area is currently much more intensely developed Fulton County portion of the study area shows largest potential for future growth Data sources reviewed are relatively consistent in growth estimates Office/Mixed use is largest component of future land usage Office/Mixed use allows mix of uses as influenced by market forces

11. TASK 3.0 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

12. Characteristics & Requirements State-of-the-art technology (Modern & Attractive) Electrically powered (To meet clean-air goal) Fast speed (Right-of-way permitting) Quick Loading and Off-Loading from either side Comfortable interior (air conditioned, blend of seating/standing capacity) Reliability Accessible conformance with Federal ADA ’90 & Safety conformance with NFPA 130

13. Light Rail Transit (LRT) (Siemens Five-Module “Combino”)

14. Light Rail Transit (LRT) (Siemens Five-Module “Combino”) Most Flexible mode for Placement Can operate at 55 mph; Make short radius turns; & climb grades up to 7% Simple & Fast Switching Capability using large, single running cars Manned Operations, but with automatic train protection Vehicles are generic & generally non-proprietary attracting bid competition (Least expensive of three modes under consideration) Capability of Operating at Grade where vehicles/pedestrians cross right- of-way (Could cause negative impact on other traffic movements)

15. Monorail (Bombardier/TGI M-VI Monorail)

16. Monorail ( Bombardier/TGI M-VI Monorail) Trains made up of small car modules running on rubber tires and straddling a concrete girder (“signature image” of Disney World) Fully elevated, can operate close to grade with isolated right-of-way Operates up to 40 mph; is limited to curves of 300 ft. radius or greater; and can climb grades up to 6.5% Manned operations, but with automatic train protection Switching by beam-replacement transfer table (Slower & less Reliable) Least Flexible of modes in terms of Placement Vehicles are proprietary and not competitively available (High cost mode due to uniqueness and geometric limitations

17. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) (Adtranz “Innovia” or CX-100)

18. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) ( Adtranz “Innovia” or CX-100) Trains of small cars, operating on rubber tires bearing on concrete guideway (steered and switched by follower on center guiderail) Operates up to 48 mph; make short radius turns; & climb grades to 8% Generally flexible in terms of Placement Operates fully grade separated (fully automated or remote controlled) Generally elevated (Can operate close to grade with isolated right of way) Vehicles are proprietary but comparable designs offered by other suppliers (Most costly of considered modes)

19. TASK 4.0 – PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

20. ROUTE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Marta Station locations - Walking distances High concentration employment - Divided into Zones Utilize future traffic improvement (Fly-Over bridge) Consider Marietta/Lawrenceville Study/Findings

21. ALIGNMENT ONE “Two Intersecting Loops Oriented North-South” Comprised of two dual-guideway loops which share a common guideway at their intersection This alignment can be implemented with any of the three technologies under evaluation Interfaces with four MARTA Stations in the study area Operations on both loops interface at Dunwoody MARTA Station Sub-alternates routes to be compared

22. ALIGNMENT TWO “Two Intersecting Loops Oriented East-West” Alternate was developed to differ from Alignment One where MARTA coverage Retains a common guideway between the two loops This alternate allows any of the three technologies to be utilized Interfaces with three MARTA Stations : Operations on both loops interface at Dunwoody MARTA Station Sub-alternates are indicated for comparison

23. ALIGNMENT THREE “Single Loop with Branches to Northern Developments” Contains southern loop as shown in Alternate Two with independent branch lines serving the northern developments Branch lines provide means for future growth or expansion Interfaces with two MARTA Stations Loop and branches converge at Dunwoody MARTA Station

24. ALIGNMENT FOUR “At-Grade Light Rail Radial System” Restricted to one technology - light rail transit LRT would coexist with surface traffic and would deliver patrons closer to their destination Penetrates centers of concentrated employment Interfaces with Dunwoody MARTA Station Would require street widening so as to not lessen street capacity Easily lends itself to phased construction Least cost system for a given mileage coverage

25. TASK 5.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

26. Social Environment Land Use Changes Community Cohesion Relocation Potential Environmental Justice Aesthetics Public Recreation Land

27. Cultural Environment Historic Sites Archeological Sites Cemeteries Natural Environment Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Endangered/Threatened Species

28. Physical Environment Noise Air Quality Construction Utilities Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

29. Perimeter Circulator Project Steering Committee Meeting