Questions for Marta
General Questions
1.
Why did the plans change from locating on the West of 400 to the East?
More specifically in 2005, in your executive summary, you wrote:
“The Northridge cluster did not advance because of the limited amount
of developable land. The area around Northridge Road and GA 400 is
already built out and would require considerable redevelopment effort
for TOD. Stakeholders felt strongly that the cluster areas with higher
percentages of undeveloped land and strong redevelopment potential
should be given higher standing in the process”
These considerations are even more valid now. What happened? Why
do you need a station at Northridge?
MARTA Response: Since 2005, land use, demographics and travel
patterns along the GA 400 corridor have changed and MARTA has
entered into a new Federal planning process. As part of this current
Federal planning process, MARTA has considered data from previous
studies as well as current information and input from stakeholders and
the community. All of this information assists in the decision making
process. We are still at the beginning of the Federal planning process
and no final determination has been made regarding potential station
locations or alignments. Although a station is currently proposed at
Northridge, the technical analysis and community input gathered during
this study will assist in making a final determination.
2.
Fulton Country School System and the city of Sandy Springs have both
formally declared positions against development on the west side of
400. Are you concerned that the city you are going through and the
neighborhood school systems are both against your plans?
MARTA Response: Positions taken by the Fulton County School System
and the City of Sandy Springs have been documented and included in
this study. These positions, and feedback from other stakeholders, will
be considered when decisions are made on how the proposed project
proceeds through the Federal planning process.
1 of 13
3.
Are there any studies that document lessons learned from prior
expansions? North Springs?
MARTA Response: Information from previous transportation/transit
planning studies as well as local and regional planning studies were
reviewed and considered in this process. Some examples of previous
work efforts considered in the corridor include:
The Atlanta Northside Strategy
North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan (ARC 2010)
Concept 3 Transit Vision, adopted in 2008 by the ARC
The North Line Transit-Oriented Development Study (MARTA
2006)
• The North Line Alternatives Analysis (MARTA 2003)
• The Three Corridors Feasibility Study (MARTA 1998)
•
•
•
•
Financial questions
4.
Other than the ARC Regional Transportation Plan, are there any
feasibility studies that justify Marta expanding beyond North Springs?
Were any of the ARC Plan assumptions validated?
MARTA Response: Yes, other studies have been conducted in the past
(see question 3). In 2003, MARTA initiated the North Line Alternatives
Analysis (AA) to evaluate and select an alternative for an extension of
the existing heavy rail line from its current terminus at North Springs.
Based on the ARC’s regional travel demand model the study area was
not transit supportive due to a combination of high incomes and low
household and employment densities. Subsequently, the decision was
made to redirect future planning activities and conduct a land use and
market analysis. The resulting North Line Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Study offered an opportunity to examine transit
expansion feasibility in the GA 400 corridor through the possible
implementation of new development patterns.
With recent changes in land use and travel patterns, as well as strong
population and employment growth, recent transit ridership
projections have increased when compared to previous studies. These
modeled ridership projections were determined using the latest ARC
Regional Transportation Plan’s travel demand model.
2 of 13
Even though potential stations, alignments and other considerations
may have been ruled out in previous studies, MARTA’s current long
range planning efforts in the GA 400 corridor must objectively consider
all reasonable alternatives, based on current and future conditions, to
meet the transportation needs in this corridor and avoid any indication
of a bias towards a particular alternative. This is one of the
requirements of the federal project development process that MARTA
must satisfy to ensure eligibility for federal funding.
5.
What were the proposed costs for those expansions, what were the
actual costs thru completion?
MARTA Response: Based on high level conceptual planning,
preliminary cost estimates along GA 400 for Heavy Rail Transit (HRT),
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail Transit (LRT) are:
HRT:
BRT:
LRT:
$1.60 Billion
$0.47 Billion
$1.80 Billion
Cost estimates will change as the proposed project moves through
detailed environmental review and preliminary engineering.
6.
Can we see a current, and or high level P&L from Marta's organization?
MARTA Response: For MARTA’s profit and loss statement (P&L), the
closest document the Authority has to that would be its annual budget.
The budgets for FY 2010 through 2014 are available on the MARTA
website at www.itsmarta.com. The FY 2015 was recently adopted by
the MARTA Board and will be available on the website sometime in the
fall. Attached on the next page are highlights from the recently adopted
FY15 budget.
3 of 13
4 of 13
7.
Are there any recent comps/evaluations that reveal how property
values are impacted by Rail Transit additions?
MARTA Response: The American Public Transportation Association
has performed two relevant and recent studies on this topic.
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/NewRealEstate
Mantra.pdf
5 of 13
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/
Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf
http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/TransitImpactonHsgCostsfinal
_-_Aug_10_20111.pdf
8.
Was Northridge included in the detailed analysis of the ROW
acquisition? Can you share the ROW acquisition analysis with us?
MARTA Response: Conceptual alignments have not gone through an
extensive Right-of-Way (ROW) assessment. This will occur later in the
Federal planning process as potential alignments undergo
environmental review. Additionally, MARTA has a resolution with GDOT
allocating up to 60 feet of ROW for transit in corridors where GDOT is
planning to implement Managed Lanes. GA 400 is a Managed Lane
project corridor and the conceptual alignments currently under
consideration are entirely within GDOT ROW.
9.
It appears that federal funds are being sought (FTA requirements)
under the New Starts (5309) grant program? How much $ is being
requested from the FTA grant? Is the project dependant on this grant to
succeed?
MARTA Response: MARTA is hoping to qualify for the New Starts
(5309) grant program. This program has a maximum match of 50% and
is highly competitive on a national level. Therefore, we are not certain
how much money from the grant program we will receive. MARTA is
also conducting a study to identify other funding sources and project
delivery methods.
10. Who is funding the project?
MARTA Response: Funding sources for the proposed project have not
yet been identified. However, it is unlikely that MARTA will be able to
fund any future expansion through the existing penny sales tax. As
previously stated, MARTA is conducting a study to identify other
funding sources and project delivery methods.
Process questions
6 of 13
11. Why are we ignoring all the costly, time-consuming efforts and
decisions made before the new commission took charge?
MARTA Response: As stated in the response to Question #4, MARTA’s
current long range planning effort in the GA 400 corridor takes into
account previous studies/efforts to objectively consider all reasonable
alternatives, based on current and future conditions, to meet the
transportation needs in this corridor and avoid any indication of a bias
towards a particular alternative.
12. What is the timeline for this project beyond Phase II?
MARTA Response: The tentative timeline for completing the project
beyond Early Scoping –Phase II is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative by the MARTA Board –
September 2014
Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) – November 2014
Complete EIS – December 2016
FTA Issues Record of Decision (ROD) – February 2017
Engineering – 3-5 years
Full Funding Grant Agreement
Construction – 2-3 years
Operation
13. How does DOT land fall into the equation? Get used by MARTA?
Specifically the 17 acres at Northridge Rd.?
MARTA Response: MARTA has a resolution with GDOT allocating as
much as 60 feet of ROW for transit on Managed Lane project corridors.
GA 400 is a Managed Lane project corridor. The 17 acres near the
Northridge Rd. interchange are being used by GDOT for bridge
replacement and interchange improvements.
14. What is the role of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), are they
currently engaged in the project? Is the project considered an Area
Plan (Section 50-8-98 of Georgia Code)?
MARTA Response: ARC is engaged in the project as a stakeholder and
is part of the GA 400 Transit Initiative’s Technical Advisory Committee
7 of 13
(TAC). The GA 400 Transit Initiative is currently not considered an Area
Plan per Section 50-8-98 of Georgia Code as this applies only to the
existing system. Below is a link to the MARTA system’s Area Plan
Review:
http://documents.atlantaregional.com/land%20use/Area_Plan_Review
_Maps-MARTA_Rail_Corridor.pdf
15. Can you describe the process for FTA/NEPA? Who / what is
conducting this process?
MARTA Response: The previous and current Federal planning
processes are illustrated below. The first illustrates the process we
have been following. The second illustrates the current process that
the project hopes to be “grandfathered” into.
MARTA is working with a consultant team led by Parsons Brinckerhoff
to guide us through the environmental review and project development
portions of the process.
16. March 2013 presentation, Have the Financial and Implementation
plans been started? Completed?
MARTA Response: As previously stated in Questions #9 and #10,
MARTA is currently conducting a study to identify other funding sources
8 of 13
and project delivery methods. A financial plan must be finalized before
the FTA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for a proposed project.
Analysis questions
17. Was there an analysis of the Pitts Rd vs Northridge Rd station? Why the
change? Can we see the analysis?
MARTA Response: During our Screen 2 evaluation, feedback from the
public determined that Pitts Rd. should be removed and Northridge Rd.
added to the list of potential station locations. This information is
available in the GA 400 Definition of Alternatives Report – Appendix.
http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/GA400_Definition_of_Alterna
tives_Appendix_Aug30_FINAL.pdf
18. Was there an analysis of the East vs West side station? Why the
change? Can we see the analysis?
MARTA Response: At this stage in the analysis, having evaluated
several alternatives on both sides of the GA 400 right-of way during the
screening process, three (3) conceptual alternatives have emerged as
the most viable from a community and technical standpoint. The
conceptual alternatives include bus rapid transit, light rail, and an
extension of the existing heavy rail service from the North Springs
station to the Windward Parkway area in an alignment along the east
side of the GA 400 corridor. A conceptual alignment on the east side has
been used for the purpose of performing a preliminary transit ridership
forecast and developing preliminary cost estimates. However, no
decisions on alignment, whether east or west side have been made at
this time. Further analysis will be conducted as part of a detailed
environmental analysis of potential alignment and station impacts. The
technical analysis and community input gathered during the study will
assist in making a final determination.
19. Where is the no-build alternative in the fatal flaw analysis?
MARTA Response: The Fatal Flaw Analysis does not contain a No-Build
Alternative as the purpose of the analysis is to identify Build
Alternatives to advance into Screen 1. The environmental review
process will include a No-Build Alternative that must be analyzed as a
9 of 13
viable alternative to the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) once it is
selected.
20. Re: pp19 Definition of Alternatives (May 2013) supportive land use is
misleading, scoring appears to be incorrect. Population per station vs
total. Same in Screen 2 pp32 table 3.1-9
MARTA Response: The May 2013 Definition of Alternatives report was
an interim document. The final document for the Definition of
Alternatives is from August 2013 and is located on the GA 400 project
website. In that document, Table 3.1-9 displays population total and
population density by station. Alternative GA 400-1 (Heavy Rail
Transit) had 5 potential stations, while alternative GA 400-1A (Bus
Rapid Transit or Light Rail Transit) had 6. The data and scoring are
correct.
The transit supportive land use is Table 3.2-6 did have an error. The
numbers in the table were transposed incorrectly. 198 is where 33
should be, and vice versa. MARTA has received a corrected version of
this document and will update the website. Below is the updated table.
21. The future land use and zoning analysis indicates 74 acres of mixed use
zoning within ½ mile of the Northridge station, where exactly was the
½ mile measure from? E or W side?
MARTA Response: At this stage in the project, potential station
locations were placed in the middle of the bridge spans crossing over
GA 400. This was done since no determination has been made over the
exact locations of any potential station in the corridor. An example of
10 of 13
this can be seen below where the blue dot represents the center of the
potential Northridge station area. The red dotted line corresponds to a
½ mile buffer area surrounding the blue dot.
22. Definition of Alternatives Technical Appendix – Aug 2013: The fatal
flaw analysis puts disproportionate weight on the criteria. Seems to be
a flaw in the flaw analysis? How can a ratio of 4:1 (e.g. construction
costs ratio) get the same qualitative valuation as a ratio of 1.1:1(vacant
land ratio)?
a.
Construction cost $200M/mi (1) vs $50M/mi (2)
b. Opportunity acres 92 (1) vs 111 (2)
11 of 13
c.
d.
Zoning 198 acres (2) vs 33 acres (1)
Vacant land 141 (1) vs 159 (2)
MARTA Response: The Fatal Flaw analysis occurred prior to the
Definition of Alternatives. The data above is from the Appendix - Screen
2 evaluation which analyzed alternatives GA400-1 (HRT) and GA 4001A (LRT or BRT). Additionally, the scoring methodology is outlined in
the Evaluation Process section of the Definition of Alternatives report.
While this evaluation process may have caused some disparity with
certain measures, it did provide a consistent framework that can be
applied across all goals and measures in Screen 1 and 2.
23. The ROW analysis and impact to utilities (2.7 pp8 Conceptual design
technical Analysis) is based on a 40ft ROW. The required ROW for
several options is > 40ft. When will a revised impact and cost be
completed?
MARTA Response: A more detailed assessment of right-of-way impacts
will be performed later in the process as part of the environmental
review process.
Specifics questions
24. Please describe the planned station type for Pitts / Northridge and
Holcomb Br.?
MARTA Response: Potential stations in the Pitts/Northridge Rd. and
Holcomb Bridge Rd. areas are community stations. This station type fits
in with surrounding existing and future development patterns. They
generally have less parking, more of a “walk-up” feel and more of a lowprofile presence.
25. What are some examples of walk-up stations currently in place?
MARTA Response: All stations within MARTA are walk-up accessible.
Some have a more regional context such as Airport or North Springs
station with increased parking and connectivity. Community stations
along the corridor are intended to be more “walkable” with less parking
and more interaction with transit supportive developments.
12 of 13
26. Is the Northridge station project impacted by Chattahoochee River
Corridor or National Park regulations?
MARTA Response: While a potential station in the Northridge area
would most likely have minimal impacts to the Chattahoochee River
National Park, the future to-be-determined alignment would have to
cross the river and the national park. The impacts of doing this will be
assessed and mitigation strategies will be developed later in the process
under the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
13 of 13