EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1

Background and purpose of the report

This report presents an evaluation of alternatives to the two first-priority commuter rail lines in the 1999 Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP), one from Athens to Atlanta and one from Macon to Atlanta. This review of alternatives was begun in Winter 2000 shortly after the creation of a Program Management Team (PMT) made up of two members each from the Boards of the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority, and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. This report helps to meet Federal alternatives analysis requirements that are a precondition for the use of Federal funds to implement service, and to answer questions raised by the PMT.

The GRPP includes new commuter rail service in the Atlanta area, as well as state-wide intercity rail service. The services are proposed to operate on the tracks of the private freight railroads, as is done between the growing suburbs and city centers of numerous U.S. cities including services started in the last fifteen years in Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, San Diego, Washington D.C., Seattle, Boston, Chicago, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Intercity service is planned to link the Atlanta region with Macon, Savannah, Albany, Augusta, Columbus, Jacksonville FL, Greenville SC, and several smaller Georgia cities. Figure ES - 1 on the next page shows the GRPP.

The Athens – Lawrenceville – Atlanta and Macon – Griffin – Atlanta commuter rail services have been incorporated into the formal transportation and air quality plans of the Atlanta area. Flexible Federal highway funds and TEA-21 earmarked funds have been programmed in both the Atlanta Transportation Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program for infrastructure construction and acquisition of rolling stock. The lines are also part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Atlanta Region’s air quality improvement plan, which assumes implementation to Dacula on the Athens line and to Griffin on the Macon line by 2003, and to the ends of the lines by 2004.

A total of $66.85 million are available in Federal TEA-21 funds for these two lines, as well as for the Atlanta Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal at Five Points in downtown Atlanta. This terminal would serve as the focus for the commuter and intercity rail system, a regional express bus network being developed, Amtrak and Greyhound service, and major urban re-development in the area. Currently $6.0 million are also available in state funds to perform the planning work and to partially match these funds. A further request of $42.4 million in State General Obligation Funds has been made for the FY 2002 budget by the PMT agencies to match the TEA-21 funds and programmed flexible Federal highway funds.

1.2

Development and analysis of the alternatives

Alternatives were developed to reflect the range of suggestions that were made in a series of nine public and agency meetings held throughout the two corridors in May 2000. Several hundred people attended the nine meetings, and numerous comments and suggestions were received.

The range of alternatives developed includes:

· express buses in HOV lanes and on existing roads
· commuter trains on existing freight rail lines,
· commuter trains on new alignments mixed in with existing freight lines

All of the alternatives in both corridors serve the heaviest travel flows – inbound towards the Atlanta core in the morning rush hour, and outbound in the afternoon rush hour. In the bus alternatives, enough buses were provided to handle the traffic predicted, up to a bus every six minutes from some stations, to one about every hour from the outlying stations. In the train alternatives enough trains were provided to handle the volume of riders with a maximum of eight double-deck cars. For all bus and rail alternatives, express buses would operate a mid-day and an evening round trip with multiple stops serving all stations.

Figure ES - 1 Georgia Rail Passenger Program Click here for Georgia Rail Passenger Map

1.2.1

Summary of Athens Alternatives

Seven alternatives were developed for the Athens corridor and are shown in Figure ES - 2. In the rail alternatives, six or seven trains would make all stops from Lawrenceville or Cedars Road near Dacula, depending on the alternative; two of the trains would begin in Athens. Up to a train every 20 minutes would run from Cedars Road near Dacula to Atlanta.

Figure ES - 2 Athens Corridor Alternatives Click here for Athens Alternatives map

Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit

Express buses along SR316 / I-85 in new and existing HOV lanes or on existing US 78. Buses provide service from the Athens Multi-Modal Transportation Center (MMTC) and non-stop service from seven park & ride stations to the MMPT.

Alternative 2: to MMPT on CSX via Inman Park Belt

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to the Emory Wye, then using the CSX Inman Park Belt and connecting tracks to reach the MMPT from the east. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, an Emory station on Clairmont Road, and the MMPT.

Alternative 3: to MMPT on CSX via Emory University

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to the Emory Wye, then using the CSX main freight line through Emory University and connecting tracks to reach the MMPT from the north. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, an Emory University station, and the MMPT.

Alternative 4: to Armour Station on CSX via Emory University

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to the Emory Wye, then using the CSX main freight line through Emory University and connecting tracks to reach a new terminal station, Armour, before the MMPT at the intersection with the MARTA north-south line. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, an Emory University station, and the Armour station.

Alternative 5: to MMPT on CSX, SR 316 Bogart to Lawrenceville, and Inman Park Belt

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to the median of SR316 near Bogart, then back to CSX at Lawrenceville to the Emory Wye, and then on the CSX Inman Park Belt and connecting tracks to reach the MMPT from the east. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, an Emory station on Clairmont Road, and the MMPT.

Alternative 6: to MMPT on CSX, SR316 from Bogart, and I-85

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to the median and edge of SR316 near Bogart to the junction with I-85, on structure to mid-town Atlanta, and into tunnel to the MMPT. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, and the MMPT.

Alternative 7: to MMPT on CSX, new alignment Bogart to Lilburn, and Inman Park Belt

Rail service on the existing CSX rail line from Athens to a new alignment south of SR316 near Bogart, then back to CSX at Reagan Parkway to the Emory Wye, then using the CSX Inman Park Belt and connecting tracks to reach the MMPT from the east. Trains would serve the MMTC, seven park & ride stations, an Emory station on Clairmont Road, and the MMPT.

1.2.2

Summary of Macon Alternatives

Seven alternatives were developed for the Macon corridor as shown in Figure ES - 3. In the rail alternatives, five trains would make all stops from Griffin, Locust Grove, or Jackson in towards Atlanta, depending on the alternative; two of these trains would start in Macon. Up to a train every 25 minutes would run from Griffin, Locust Grove or Jackson to Atlanta. All services would terminate at the MMPT.

Figure ES - 3 Macon Corridor Alternatives Click here for Macon Alternatives map

Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit

Express bus service along I-75 with new HOV lanes or the existing US 19/41. Buses provide non-stop or one-stop service from 13 park & ride stations to the MMPT.

Alternative 2: S-Line via Griffin

Rail service along the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line with less freight traffic, the S-line via Griffin. Trains would serve eight park & ride stations, East Point, and the MMPT.

Alternative 3: S-Line via Griffin with H-Line North of Macon

Rail service on the S-line, diverted to a new alignment from Bolingbroke to Arkwright, and then into Macon for a short distance on the heavier freight H-line. Trains would serve eight park & ride stations, East Point, and the MMPT.

Alternative 4: H-Line via Jackson

Rail service on the heavier freight H-line via Jackson. Trains would serve eight park & ride stations, a Constitution Road station, and the MMPT.

Alternative 5: H-Line to S-Line Through Luella

Rail service on the H-line MMPT to McDonough, then along a partially abandoned alignment through Luella to Griffin, then S-line to Macon. Trains would serve seven park & ride stations, a Constitution Road station, and the MMPT.

Alternative 6: H-Line, I-75, H-Line

Rail service on the H-line out of the MMPT to south of I-20, then I-75 right-of-way to Arkwright, and then on the H-line into Macon. Trains would serve seven park & ride stations, a Constitution Road station, and the MMPT.

Alternative 7: Higher Speed S-Line

Rail service on the existing S-line from the MMPT to Griffin, shifting to a new direct alignment with portions of the S-line to Arkwright, and then the H-line into Macon. Trains would serve eight park & ride stations, East Point, and the MMPT.

1.2.3

Alternatives Analysis Subjects and Methodology

The alternatives were reviewed for their performance in the year 2010 using the following measures:

Performance measures

· commuter (home-to-work) ridership
· capital cost to construct infrastructure and acquire vehicles
· operating cost, including railroad payments
· revenue from passengers
· annual operating assistance needed
· total annualized cost (amortized capital plus annual operating assistance)
· total annualized cost per boarding
· reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT)

Environmental measures

· potential low-income / minority access to the service
· potential business and residence takings
· potential impacts on parks, cemeteries, open space
· potential impacts on historic sites and districts
· frontage through residential areas
· potential impact on low-income / minority neighborhoods

Ridership and revenue was forecast using a commuter rail model originally developed in 1995 as part of the Georgia DOT Commuter Rail Plan. A number of significant modifications were made to the model:

· extension of the 50 county area covered to include Macon and surrounding counties
· updating for current forecasts of population, employment, and other socio-economic factors
· use of the currently planned 2010 transportation network.

Fares were set at levels comparable to those of other similar systems, which was lower than assumed in the 1999 GRPP. More frequent service was also assumed. As a result of these changes forecast ridership is approximately twice the 1999 GRPP forecast for the Athens corridor and almost three times higher for the Macon corridor.

Capital improvements and numbers of vehicles needed were based on the proposed levels of service, future freight rail traffic and automobile traffic levels, and recent experience in other start-ups of rail and bus service. Construction and installation unit prices were used from recent track and signal work, grade crossing upgrades, road and structure construction in the Southeast, and vehicle prices were obtained from recent acquisitions. Land prices were based on the type and use of land involved and generalized prices in these corridors. Contingency of 15% was added to all costs for unforeseen factors.

An operations plan was prepared using running times of trains and buses after improvements, and was used to develop the number of sets of trains or numbers of buses and the size of maintenance facilities. Parking was assumed to be provided at stations for each morning peak rider. Rail operating costs were based on an update of the operating cost model developed in 1995 as part of the Georgia DOT Commuter Rail Plan. Bus operating costs were based on MARTA and Cobb County transit experience.

Environmental impacts were estimated from review of pertinent maps and documents, discussions with agencies, and several field trips along each alignment.

A preliminary summary of the purpose and need for the project was also developed and is shown in Table ES - 1.

· To improve mobility and access to the Atlanta core

· To optimize the use of existing infrastructure and transportation corridors

· To provide cost-effective transportation support for regional and local plans for redevelopment, in-fill, and “smart growth.”

· To increase mobility for students, seniors, disabled persons, and other non-driver populations

· To support state, regional, and local transportation, air quality, and development plans

· (For Macon only) To lay the foundation for intercity rail passenger service south of Macon

1.3

Assessment of the Athens alternatives

Table ES - 2 shows each alternative ranked by the annualized cost per trip. It also shows the other major performance measures. The Bus Rapid Transit shows up as slightly more cost-effective than the best of the existing rail options. The rail alternatives with new alignment are significantly less cost-effective.

Table ES - 2: Athens Corridor Quantitative Screening Results

	Cost Effectiveness					Environment / Mobility
Alternative	Annualized Cost / Trip	Rank	Total Capital Cost	Annual O&M Cost	Annual Revenue	Annual Trips	Auto VMT Reduced
	($$)		($$ in millions)			(in millions)
1) Bus Rapid Transit	$10.20	1	$164.8	$ 8.9	$6.5	1.7	43.1
2) MMPT via Inman	$11.20	2	$315.7	$19.4	$11.3	3.2	73.5
4) Armour via Emory	$13.90	3	$326.7	$16.6	$8.8	2.6	57.2
3) MMPT via Emory	$15.90	4	$425.4	$17.9	$9.4	2.8	60.0
5) SR316 L’ville to Bogart (via Inman)	$21.90	5	$763.4	$17.3	11.3	3.2	73.7
7) New Alignment L’ville to Bogart (via Inman)	$28.10	6	$821.9	$17.2	9.0	2.7	57.2
6) I-85, SR316	$57.00	7	$1,584.1	$15.3	9.0	2.4	60.0

The table also shows the riders and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions of each alternative, with the bus option having the lowest effects and the rail options consistently higher benefit.

The two rail alternatives via the Inman Park Belt (#2 entirely on CSX line and #5 using 30 miles of SR316) were very close in their ridership and VMT reductions, at 3.2 million annual trips and over 73 million vehicle miles reduced. However, Alternative 5 with SR 316 had a cost / trip almost double that of Alternative 2, due primarily to its higher capital cost of $763.4 million instead of $315.7 million. Moreover, if Alternative 5 were operated via Emory rather than the Inman Park Belt, its cost per trip would then also be about double that of the similar alternatives that use the CSX the entire way (#’s 3 & 4).

The remaining four rail alternatives (#s 3, 4, 6, & 7) all generate around 2.7 million trips a year while reducing vehicle miles travelled by around 60 million a year. However, the cost/trip of doing so for the new alignments (#s 6 & 7) is between two to four times that of those on existing CSX line (#s 3 & 4). This is because of capital costs of $1,584.1 million (Alt 6) and $821.9 million (Alt. 7), compared to $425.6 million (Alt 3) and $326.9 million (Alt 4).

Comparing the remaining rail alternatives (#s 2, 3 & 4) with the bus alternative (#1), the rail cost per trip is 15% to 60% higher for the rail alternatives than for the bus alternative, but the ridership and VMT reductions are 70 to 90% greater.

A review of the other environmental impacts, which primarily relate to the alignments’ potential impact on adjacent uses and communities, shows that the alternatives overall do not have major differences in potential impact. These areas are shown below in Table ES - 3.

The only category that shows major difference is potential takings, where the new alignment (Alt 7) shows a large number of potential residential takings with over 60.

Table ES - 3: Athens Corridor Other Environmental Screening Results

Alternative	Minority Access / *Impact*	Historic, Parks, Open Space, Cemeteries	Frontage in residential areas	Businesses / *Residences*
1) Bus Rapid Transit	Medium / *Low*	Low	50-75 miles	<5 / <5
2) MMPT via Inman		Medium	75-100 miles	<5 / *<10*
4) Armour via Emory		Medium	75-100 miles	<5 / <5
3) MMPT via Emory		Medium	75-100 miles	<5 / <5
5) SR316 L’ville to Bogart (via Inman)		Medium	50-75 miles	10-15 / <5
7) New Alignment L’ville to Bogart (via Inman)		Low	50-75 miles	<5 / *>60*
6) I-85, SR316		Medium	50-75 miles	10-15 / *<10*

1.4

Assessment of the Macon alternatives

Table ES – 4 below shows each alternative ranked by the annualized cost per trip. The Bus Rapid Transit shows up as somewhat more cost-effective than the best of the existing rail options centered on the S-line. The S-line upgrades in turn are significantly more cost effective than the H-line alternatives, and especially so compared to the predominantly I-75 alignment.

The table also shows the riders and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions of each alternative, with the bus option having the lowest effects and the rail options having a range of higher benefit.

Table ES - 4: Macon Corridor Quantitative Screening Results

	Cost-Effectiveness						Environment / Mobility
Alternative	Annualized Cost / Trip	Rank	Total Capital Cost	Annual O&M Cost		Annual Revenue	Annual Trips	Auto VMT Reduced
	($$)		($$ in millions)				(in millions)
1) Bus Rapid Transit	$8.40	1	$112.3		$8.0	$5.0	1.5	21.1
2) S-line via Griffin