Multi -Modal Passenger Terminal Project Final Bus and Rail Complete

MULTI-MODAL P

ASSENG

ER

TERMINAL PROJECT

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: Bus and Rail Rail Operational Requirements

Prepared for: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Prepared by: AECOM/JJG Joint Venture Atlanta, GA November 2010 General Planning Consultant Services RFP P5413 Contract No. 200703566 Work Order No. 2010-01 Georgia Department of Transportation Project Identification No.: 770311

Page Intentionally Left Blank

This technical memorandum is based on publicly available information and is for informational purposes only. The document presentscurrent requirements ofpotential operators and futureneeds of an integrated MMPT facility that will include freight rail, passenger rail, bus operations, and vehicles for hire. The requirements for these transit modes are considered along with pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile access and circulation. Using previous studies and plans and information gathered through consultation with various stakeholders, this memorandum updates operational requirements for the various transportation modes envisioned at the MMPT and provides context for future planning and implementation activities. Since the current project is in the early planning stages, many project elements are undefined at this tim e. Consequently, operation al requirements for he t integration of potential transit modes at the MMPT are addressed in aconceptual manner. Detailed engineering and design of platforms and track configurations have not been conducted and will be required in subsequent phases of project implementation.

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements

0.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1

Overview The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), City of Atlanta, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADID) have initiated conceptual planning and design activities to advance the implementation of the of the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) in Downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The MMPT project aligns with the region’s vision to enhance the existing and future transportation by service; creatingplanned a transportation hub that provides connections to existing MARTAsystems heavy rail passenger rail operations; planned streetcar operations; intercity, local, and express bus operations; and new private development that would stimulate economic growth around the site. These planning and design activities will support the procurement of a Master Developer to oversee final design, construction, and management of MMPT. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the current requirements of potential operators and future needs of an integrated MMPT facility that will include freight rail, passenger rail, bus operations, and vehicles for hire. The requirements for these transit modes are considered along with pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile access and circulation. The MMPT study area, known as the “Gulch,” extends roughly from Peachtree Street on the east, Marietta Street on the north, Centennial Olympic Park Drive on the west, and Trinity Avenue and Peters Street on the south and includes the Five Points MARTA rail station. While these boundaries provide a framework for the development process, the ultimate MMPT location and layout will be an output of the Master Developer’s planning process. Using information gathered through consultation with various stakeholders, this memorandum updates operational requirements for the various transportation modes envisioned at the MMPT and provides context for future planning and implementation activities.

0.2

Background Planning for the proposed MMPT began in the early 1990s. The proposed project is included in several previous planning studies and reports. Current planning reports such as the Green Line Plan (Downtown Atlanta’s green space and development vision plan), Connect Atlanta (City of Atlanta’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan), Concept 3 (Atlanta region’s long-range transit plan), and the Georgia Interim State Rail Plan all support the development of the MMPT. In February 2002, the Georgia Rail Passenger Program led by GDOT adopted Concept 6 as the preferred design and requirements for the MMPT. Concept 6 set forth a plan to house commuter and intercity passenger rail, regional commuter and intercity buses, direct pedestrian connections to the Five Points and Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail stations, and additional roadways. Concept 6 also encouraged overbuild development. GDOT is preparing to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure a Master Developer to oversee the implementation of the MMPT. In January 2010, MARTA

Multi-ModalPassenger Terminal Project

0-2

November 2010


agreed to assist GDOT by leading a technical committee to update the requirements identified for the MMPT. The technical committee includes representation from GDOT, City of Atlanta, MARTA, ARC, GRTA, and ADID. The technical committee has led the effort to further refine the operational functionality of the MMPT and develop an implementation plan for transit facility improvements.

0.3 0.3.1

OperationalRequirementsand Recommendations Freight Rail Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Chessie Seaboard X Transportation (CSX) are the major freight operators in the MMPT study area. NS operates currently 26 operates 27 to per 42 trains per day on their tracks through the study area. CSX to 40 trains day within the study area. CSX separates their rail traffic into three segments: •

Western Leg - 15 to 20 trains per day

•

Spring Track (Southern Leg) - 6 to 10 trains per day

•

Eastern Leg - 5 to 10 trains per day

Figure 2-1 provides the location of each segment. CSX has trackage rights on NS rail lines to operate through the area. The National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared for the Association of American Railroads by Cambridge Systematics in September 2007 projected freight to increase by 85 percent in the horizon year 2035 1. This conservative projection could be accommodated by an increase in train volumes or train lengths. NS has requested a 100-foot horizontal clearance from the centerline of their current rail alignment to provide for future freight rail growth, not including passenger train operations and associated ROW. As implementation of the MMPT progresses, this clearance requirement will need to be negotiated with NS as failure to reduce or eliminate it will severely limit passenger rail operations within the proposed study area. Both railroads currently have roadway access to their respective tracks within the MMPT study area. They would like to maintain this access in the future to facilitate ongoing maintenance, inspection, and security operations. NS and CSX state that there are no bypass or alternative rail routes for freight operations within the study area. This increases the need for rail improvements along the Western Trunk, which is the section of railroad between Howell Junction on the north and the Spring Track on the south, also shown in Figure 2-1. The Western Trunk Freight Relief Options Memorandum published in 2009 suggests improvements such as grade separation and rerouting at Howell Junction to reduce freight trains along the Western Trunk to accommodate passenger rail service.

0.3.2

PassengerRail Passenger rail incorporates commuter and intercity rail, streetcar and regional light rail. Primary drivers for passenger rail station infrastructure needs are short- and long-term 1

It should be noted that this analysis occurred before the economic downturn in 2007.


0-3

November 2010


operations for both commuter and intercity rail. In this case, intercity refers to Amtrak and high speed rail (HSR). The proposed MMPT is planned as a hub and potential catalyst for future streetcar and regional light rail modes. While the operational requirements of these potential connections are addressed in a conceptual manner in this technical memorandum, detailed engineering and design of platforms and track configurations has not been conducted. Subsequent engineering and design efforts will need to consider future demand and the relative flexibility of integrating these modes into an urban context through the sharing of roadway rights-of-ways (ROWs). Several previous planning efforts have examined passenger rail options at the proposed MMPT. The Commuter Rail Plan Update published in 2007 provided ridership forecasts to support seven commuter rail lines with eight weekday trains assumed for each route. Potential passenger rail ridership is summarized in Table 0-1. Table 0-1: Summary of Passenger Rail Ridership

Current Ridership Route

NYC - New Orleans

Amtrak (2010)

112,364

Future Ridership (2030) Amtrak

High Speed Rail

Commuter Rail

N/A

Atlanta - Chattanooga

7,200 - 11,200

Atlanta – Griffin - Macon

1,700 – 2,200

Atlanta - Athens

3,000 – 3,700

Atlanta - Bremen

1,600 – 2,200

Atlanta - Canton

2,300 – 3,400

Atlanta - Madison

3,200 – 4,700

Atlanta- Senoia

1,200 – 1,700

Atlanta - Gainesville

1,200 – 2,500

Source: Amtrak, AECOM, Commuter Rail Plan Update 2007 The December 2008 Final Technical Report prepared by the Transit Planning Board also provided ridership forecasts to support five commuter rail lines as part of the Concept 3. The proposed rail lines included: • • • • •

Athens to Atlanta, all-day service Griffin to Atlanta, all-day service Senoia to Atlanta, peak-period service Bremen to Atlanta, peak-period service Gainesville to Atlanta, peak-period service

The Decatur Belt Abandonment Technical Review Committee Findings Report, March 2009, presented the summary of planned commuter rail routing to the MMPT shown in


0-4

November 2010


Table 0-2.


0-5

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 0-2: Summary of Potential Passenger Rail Volumes Through MMPT

Route

Current Daily Volume Amtrak

Future Daily Volume Amtrak

Commuter Rail

NYC - New Orleans

2

2

Chicago - Miami

-

2

Atlanta – Charlotte/NYP Atlanta – Columbia/Savannah Atlanta –

-

4 - 12

-

2-8

Macon/Jacksonville Atlanta – Birmingham

-

4-8 2-8

Atlanta - Chattanooga

-

2 -10

-

Atlanta - Griffin - Macon

-

-

12

Atlanta - Athens

-

-

12

Atlanta - Bremen

-

-

12

Atlanta - Canton

-

-

12

Atlanta - Madison

-

-

12

Atlanta- Senoia

-

-

12

Atlanta - Gainesville

-

-

12

Source: Decatur Belt Abandonment Technical Review Committee Findings Report 2009; Amtrak Strategic Partnerships While initially planned for peak hour operation, it is likely that commuter rail will grow to all-day service; therefore, track design must ensure efficient operations for through, as well as terminating service. Depending on future routing, some trains may stop at the station adjacent the MARTA Gold Line and continue through Atlanta, bypassing the MMPT. Alternatively, some trains could pass the Northeast station and stop at the MMPT or stop at both stations. The Amtrak Crescent route services New York, Atlanta, and New Orleans daily. Service expansion is envisioned within a 5- to 10-year timeframe. In this case, an extension of the Southeast HSR / Northeast Corridor service via Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte to Atlanta, Macon, and Jacksonville has been identified. In the long term, continued development of the aforementioned service would occur as well as potential new service between Atlanta and points west, northwest, and southeast. Amtrak anticipates this service to grow to approximately 8-10 trains per day by 2020 and 12-16 by 2025. High speed ground transportation (HSGT) between Atlanta and Chattanooga, which includes steel-wheeled and Maglev technologies, is currently in the planning phase; a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared under the lead of GDOT and TDOT to assess the potential environmental impacts within the planned corridor. It is envisioned that this service could operate between 4-8 trains per day and eventually extend as far north as Chicago and south to Jacksonville. Identified track needs for Amtrak, HSR, and commuter rail result in a 10-track MMPT. However, further operational analysis is required to determine effective track utilization


0-6

November 2010


and verify the number of tracks needed. The Master Developer will be required to undertake additional studies and negotiations in order to achieve an optimized design solution that is acceptable to all rail stakeholders as well as locations of other proposed intermodal passenger nodes, such as the Southern Crescent Transit Center and Northeast Multi-Modal Station. Section 3.6 displays snapshots of the passenger rail configurations, while Section 9.0 MMPT Alternatives provides a comprehensive discussion of the passenger rail configurations. There are locations in the MMPT study area where fully or partially enclosed freight rail rights-of-way are proposed in close proximity to fully or partially enclosed passenger rail operations. Passenger rail civil, structural and ventilation design considerations for normal, congested and emergency operations scenarios should be coordinated and integrated into the developments above and adjacent to the rail facilities.

0.3.3

Bus Operations Potential bus services for the proposed MMPT include: •

local bus services operated by MARTA;

•

commuter express bus services operated by MARTA;

•

“Xpress” services operated by GRTA;

•

Cobb Community Transit (CCT);

•

Gwinnett County Transit (GCT);

•

intercity bus services operated by Greyhound, Southeastern Stages; and possibly other intercity bus service operators in the future.

Approximately 14,300 boardings on an average weekday are currently estimated for the MMPT. Ridership estimates include data from the current Greyhound Atlanta Terminal operations and 25 percent of the entire GRTA Xpress service. None of the stakeholders interviewed have projections for 2015 and 2030 except for MARTA, which provides ridership data ten years out. Based on current ridership and stakeholder input, future intercity bus operations at the MMPT would require 23 bus bays. Express bus operations would require 11 bus bays. Based on the 15 current local MARTA bus routes that terminate or pass through the MMPT study area, 9 to 12 bus bays would be needed to accommodate current routes and future service growth. This also includes a bay for MARTA Mobility. In addition, a growth factor of 25 percent was anticipated for intercity and express bus services. Collectively, the number of bus bays required at the proposed MMPT facility is 30 deep sawtooth bus bays for the intercity services, 14 shallow sawtooth bus bays for the commuter express services, and 9 to 12 shallow sawtooth bus bays for local MARTA services. This allows for approximately 53 to 56 bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility.


0-7

November 2010


Table 0-3 provides a summary of current and future bus bay needs at the proposed MMPT.


0-8

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 0-3: Summary of Bus Bay Requirements Operator

Intercity Bus (Deep Sawtooth) Express Bus (Shallow Sawtooth) Local Bus (Shallow Sawtooth)* TOTAL

Current Needs

Sawtooth Ready Bus Bay Bus Bay 17 6 9 2 9 to 12 43 to 46 bays

Total 23 11 9 to 12

Future Needs (25% increase for Intercity and Express)** Sawtooth Ready Total Bus Bay Bus Bay 22 8 30 12 2 14 9 to 12 9 to 12 53 to 56 bays

*Four bus bays to allow for articulated buses and one reserved for MARTA Mobility ** Future needs correspond to build-out year 2030 Source: AECOM

The 30 intercity bus bays should allow for the possibility of double-decker buses utilizing the proposed MMPT facility in the future, and approximately four of the 9 to 12 shallow sawtooth bus bays that will be utilized by local MARTA services should accommodate 60-foot articulated buses. Comprehensive layouts of bus operations are included in Section 9.0. Bus facility civil, structural and ventilation design considerations for normal, congested and emergency operations scenarios must address diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses, as well as gasoline fueled vehicles where admitted. The fire-life safety elements, including the ventilation plant spaces and necessary intakes and discharges required to manage normal, congested and emergency operations scenarios, should be coordinated and integrated into the developments above and adjacent to the bus facilities.

0.3.4

Vehicles for Hire A well-marked, visible taxicab queue areabe should be with located the proposed MMPT facility. The taxicab queue should marked “Nocurbside Parking,at Taxicab Stand” and “Tow Away Zone” signage on the curb. The taxicab waiting and queuing area should be well lit and monitored with security cameras. There is also a potential need for dedicated curb area for shuttles and car sharing vehicles that is clearly marked. A bullpen for car rental agencies should also be considered to support the MMPT’s potential to serve as a minor car rental hub for central Atlanta. Space for at least 30 rental cars in a parking facility would appear to be an appropriate starting point. Table 0-4 provides a summary of current vehicles for hire requirements. The MMPT Alternatives in Section 9.0 depicts taxi/shuttle designated curb space and taxi/car rental queuing areas. Table 0-4: Summary of Potential Vehicles for Hire Requirements Stakeholder/Operator

Taxicab (Checker Cab) Car Rental (Enterprise)

Queuing / Curb Bullpen / LongParking Term Parking 10 to 15 15 to 20 n/a 30

Employee Parking

n/a 10

Shuttle (Atlanta Link) n/a n/a Car Sharing (Zipcar) 24 n/a n/a *This table only includes requirements from stakeholders that completed a survey and/or interviewed, additional responses may change potential requirements. Source: Listed Stakeholders


0-9

November 2010


0.4

FacilitySpatialRequirements Facility spatial requirements are based on information gathered from stakeholders, transit ridership projections and consultant experience designing comparable facilities. These estimates are not the result of a detailed engineering or market analysis. Table 0-5 provides a breakdown of the MMPT square footage requirements. Included are the gross building spaces, spaces required for loading and unloading of patrons, site circulation for transit operations and parking spaces. This does not include all site amenities such as landscape and retainage areas, central and distributed mechanical and electrical plant requirements, other retail that is not inclusive of requested stakeholder retail, and site improvements, such as additional roadway and track work. Section 9.0 MMPT Alternatives presents configurations of the main terminal integrated with each transit mode. Table 0-5: Building Program Summary (Including Platforms) Item

MMPT Management and Operations Passenger Rail Commuter Express and Local Bus Intercity Bus Vehicles for Hire Regional Light Rail and Streetcar Subtotal Parking Structure and Loading Area Total Building

Estimated Space Required (gross sf including growth factor) 15,200 291,500 121,300 78,600 34,700 41,800 583,100 47,000 630,100

Source: AECOM

0.5

TransitMode Integrationand Site Access Primary transfers from MMPT services will be to MARTA rail, other local and regional buses, and future light rail and streetcar services. Commuter rail passengers unwilling to walk to their ultimate destination will make the majority of transfers. Depending on the final platform configuration, arriving MMPT passengers may walk up to 2,100 feet from the ends of platforms to access the Five Points or Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail stations. Passengers may transfer to buses or future light rail and streetcar transit with either direct access or a short walk from platforms. Transfers between modes and general connections of the MMPT to its surroundings in downtown Atlanta are important factors in terminal location decisions. A walkshed analysis was performed on the three comprehensive MMPT Alternatives included in this technical memorandum. The three different alternatives considered have similar walkshed potential over and around the study area, although they are likely to appear differently to potential MMPT users in terms of convenience and utility. The historic preference for a Forsyth Street location adjacent to the Five Points MARTA rail station may conflict with the needs and preferences of the agencies providing intercity passenger rail service. In exploring a potential location of the MMPT closer to rail platforms further west, the implications for pedestrian movement and integration with the downtown fabric are examined. The primary station locations feature similar entrance locations to the main terminal facility. However, the location of any direct platform access greatly expands the pedestrian reach by allowing passengers to particular destinations, especially the CNN/Georgia Dome/Philips Arena complex north of the study area, to


0-10

November 2010


reach these locations directly without needing to pass through the main terminal facility. In brief, no one location avoids the competing challenges of rail operations, modal transfer potential, and downtown connectivity. Section 7.2 details intermodal transfers and Section 7.3 provides walkshed diagrams of the three alternatives.

0.6

PassengerDistribution The need to access the levels above the track level, both the lower and upper levels, in a safe and convenient manner will also likely guide the MMPT’s location. Track-level platforms do not need to be directly below a street-level terminal entrance, but they should be close to encourage seamless connection to and from the MMPT rail platforms. Although the track to upper-level connection must meet ADA requirements, it must also provide a reasonable sense of security, comfort, and proximity. A Forsyth Street location is presented in multiple plans and studies. Its adjacency to MARTA and its central location in downtown Atlanta are positive characteristics, but connections between this site and the location of rail operators would require a long distance and potentially complicated structures to allow walking between the two. This suggests that a western location such as along Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive should be considered. However, a western location does not reach the same number or types of destinations. A Forsyth Street location directly connects to the Five Points MARTA rail station and allows easier distribution to several points of interests such as the Atlanta business district, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA), Georgia Institute of Technology, and the Atlanta University Center. A further west location is proximate to Philips Arena and the Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC). Even with the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station connection, significant expansion of the street network and pedestrian facilities is likely required to reduce walking distances to comfortable levels for a western location closer to freight rail ROW.

0.7

ComprehensiveMMPT Alternatives Three comprehensive MMPT alternatives are proposed. Consideration for freight rail, passenger rail, bus operations, light rail and streetcar services, a terminal facility, overbuild, and access points are integrated in a three-level complex: a track level, lower level, and upper level. The MMPT alternatives presented are conceptual and not the result of detailed engineering and design. Future engineering and design efforts will require extensive coordination with the appropriate federal, state and local agencies, as well as potential MMPT operators and other stakeholders. MMPT Alternative A is a consolidated complex at the northwest corner of Spring Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive promoting short walking distances between transit modes. This alternative allows for the phased development of the Green Line Plan. The downside is the loss of a direct connection and the distance away from the Five Points MARTA rail station in comparison to Alternatives B and C. Figure 9-1 through Figure 9-3 provide diagrams of MMPT Alternative A. The main terminal for MMPT Alternative B is located north of the extension to Alabama Street with access points from Forsyth Street heading westward to Centennial Olympic Park Drive. The intercity bus operations and the express and local bus operations are separated. In Alternatives A and C these bus operations are stacked. Also, in Alternative B all the passenger rail platforms are parallel except for the Madison line platform option,


0-11

November 2010


to create an ease of patron movement. Figure 9-4 through Figure 9-6 provides diagrams of MMPT Alternative B. Similar to Alternative B, the main terminal for MMPT Alternative C is located north of the extension to Alabama Street with access points from Forsyth Street heading westward to Centennial Olympic Park Drive. However, MMPT Alternative C suggests a separation of the waiting areas with a main terminal connecting passenger rail and bus operations. The distance between the commuter rail and the local bus boarding area is the furthest in comparison to Alternatives A and B. Figure 9-7 through Figure 9-9 provides diagrams of MMPT Alternative C. Section 9.0 presents details on the three alternatives.

0.8

Next Steps

The operational requirements outlined in this technical memorandum will assist in the following next steps: •

•

Further clarify the current and future needs of stakeholders and potential operators through discussions with the MMPT Technical Committee Support the development of minimum standards, design criteria and concept drawings for the MMPT facility. This includes such items as, overbuild, platforms, bus bays, bus shelters, signage, pedestrian enhancements, street grid, tunnel and facilities ventilation, ventilation system plant, ventilation shaft and intake/discharge requirements, other fire-life safety elements, possible signalization to facilitate bus access and passenger transfers between modes.

•

Prepare order of magnitude cost projections for the MMPT

•

Develop a phased implementation plan for the MMPT

The majority of next steps should be conducted as part of the Phase 1 scope of work of the selected Master Developer using inputs from this technical memorandum.


0-12

November 2010




November 2010


Table of Contents 0.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 0-2 0.1

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................0-2

0.2

BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................0-2

0.3

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................0-3 0.3.1 Freight Rail .................................................................................................0-3 0.3.2 Passenger Rail ........................................................................................... 0-3

0.3.3 0.3.4

1.0

2.0

3.0

Bus Operations ...........................................................................................0-7 Vehicles for Hire ......................................................................................... 0-9

0.4

FACILITY SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................0-10

0.5

TRANSIT MODE INTEGRATION AND SITE ACCESS .........................................0-10

0.6

PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................0-11

0.7

COMPREHENSIVE MMPT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................0-11

0.8

NEXT STEPS...........................................................................................................0-12

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1

STUDY AREA AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 1-1

1.2

METHODOLOGY AND DATA .................................................................................. 1-3

FREIGHT RAIL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1

VEHICLE DESIGN .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2

VOLUME FOR 2015 AND 2030 ................................................................................ 2-1

2.3

TRACK REQUIREME NTS ........................................................................................2-2

2.4

IMPROVEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO TRACKS ........................................2-2

2.5

FIRE LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 2-3

2.6

SUMMARY OF FREIGHT RAIL NEEDS .................................................................. 2-5

PASSENGER RAIL REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................................3-2 3.1

VEHICLE DESIGN .................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2

RIDERSHIP AND PLATFORM CAPACITY .............................................................. 3-8

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3

Commuter Rail ........................................................................................... 3-3 Amtrak ........................................................................................................ 3-7 Streetcar and Regional Light Rail ..............................................................3-8 Commuter Rail ........................................................................................... 3-8 Amtrak ......................................................................................................3-11

TRACK REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................3-12 3.3.1 Commuter Rail .........................................................................................3-12

3.3.2 3.3.3

Amtrak and High Speed Ground Transportation .....................................3-12 Streetcar and Light Rail ............................................................................3-14


i

November 2010


4.0

3.4

IMPROVEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO TRACKS ......................................3-14

3.5

FIRE LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................3-17

3.6

DIAGRAMS OF PASSENGER RAIL TRACKS AND PL ATFORM AREA ............3-17

3.7

SUMMARY OF PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS .........................................................3-19

BUS REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1

4.2 4.3

VEHICLE DESIGN .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Local Bus Service ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Express Bus Service .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.3 Intercity Bus Service ...................................................................................4-2 RIDERSHIP AND BOARDING AREA CAPACITY ................................................... 4-2 BUS BAY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Intercity Bus Service ...................................................................................4-4 4.3.2 Local and Express Bus Service ................................................................. 4-4

4.3.3 4.3.4

5.0

4.4

STAGING, STORAGE, AND LAYOVER REQUIREMENTS ....................................4-7

4.5


4.6

DIAGRAMS OF BUS BAYS AND BOARDING AREA ............................................. 4-8

4.7

SUMMARY OF BUS NEEDS ..................................................................................4-14

VEHICLES FOR HIRE REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1

PATRON USAGE AND VEHICLE CAPACITY ......................................................... 5-1

5.2

DESIGNATED BULLPEN / QUEUING AREA / CURB AREA .................................5-1 5.2.1 Taxicab Services ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.2 Shuttle Services ......................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.3 5.2.4

Car Rental Agencies .................................................................................. 5-3 Car Sharing Services ................................................................................. 5-3

5.3


5.4

ACCESS POINTS ......................................................................................................5-4

5.5

SURVEY OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE FACILITIES AT OTHER NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION HUBS ......................................................................................5-5 5.5.1 Boston, Massachusetts – South Station ....................................................5-5

5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4

6.0

Dynamic Bus Berth Assignment ................................................................ 4-6 MMPT Bus Berth Comparison ................................................................... 4-6

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 30th S treet Station .......................................5-5 Washington, D.C. – Union Station .............................................................5-6 Los Angeles, California – Union Station ....................................................5-7

5.6 SUMMARY OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE NEED .........................................................5-7 FACILITY AND SUPPORT AREA REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 6-2 6.1

DESIGN PARAMETERS ...........................................................................................6-2


ii

November 2010


6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2

PUBLIC AMENITIES ................................................................................................. 6-3

6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.3

6.4

7.0

TRANSIT COMPONENT SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS............................................6-9 6.4.1 Passenger Rail ........................................................................................... 6-9

Commuter Express and Local Bus ..........................................................6-11 Intercity Bus ..............................................................................................6-12 Vehicles for Hire .......................................................................................6-15 Regional Light Rail and Streetcar ............................................................6-15

SUMMARY OF SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS .........................................................6-16

TRANSIT MODE INTEGRATION AND SITE ACCESS................................................................ 7-1 7.1

TRANSFERS BETWEEN TRANSIT MODES ..........................................................7-1

7.2

CIRCULATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN TRANSIT MODES .......................7-1

7.3

MMPT ACCESS FOR PE DESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, AND AUTOMOBILES .....7-14 7.3.1 Pedestrians...............................................................................................7-14 7.3.2 Bicyclists ...................................................................................................7-18

7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.4 8.0

Patron Areas: Waiting areas, Restrooms, and Support Spaces ...............6-3 Ticketing / Fare Collection Areas and Procedures ....................................6-4 Office / Meeting Space ............................................................................... 6-4 Retail Space ...............................................................................................6-5 Maintenance and Miscellaneous Support Areas .......................................6-5

6.2.6 Security .......................................................................................................6-6 PARKING NEEDS / TRUCK LOADING AREA ........................................................ 6-6 6.3.1 Patron and Employee Vehicle Parking ......................................................6-7 6.3.2 Service Vehicle Parking ............................................................................. 6-8 6.3.3 Bicycle Storage .......................................................................................... 6-8 6.3.4 Truck Loading Area Requirements ............................................................6-8 6.3.5 General Enclosed Vehicle Facility Requirements .....................................6-8

6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5 6.5

Terminal Spatial Requirements .................................................................6-2 Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Goals ...............................................6-2 Architectural and Fire Life Safety Integration ............................................6-3

Automobiles ..............................................................................................7-18 Fire Life Safety Considerations ................................................................7-19 Train-Tunnel Interaction Considerations .................................................7-19

TRANSIT MODE INTEGRATION AND S ITE ACCESS SUMMARY .....................7-19

PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1

DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGERS FROM TRACK LEVEL TO UPPER LEVELS .81

8.1.1 8.2

Open Access Platforms and Ingress / Egress Points ................................8-4

DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGERS FROM LOCATION WALKSHEDS TO OTHER POINTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................. 8-4 8.2.1 Distribution to Points of Interest Downtown ...............................................8-4


iii

November 2010


8.2.2 8.3 9.0

COMPREHENSIVE MMPT ALTERNATIVES............................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 MMPT Alternative A ................................................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 9.1.3 10.0

Distribution to Points of Interest Elsewhere in Atlanta...............................8-4

PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY ............................................................. 8-5

MMPT Alternative B ................................................................................... 9-7 MMPT Alternative C .................................................................................9-12

NEXT STEPS............... .................................................................................................................... 10-1

APPENDIX A: List of Stakeholders............................................. ............................................. A-1 APPENDIX B: GoverningCodes and Standards ................................................. ..................B-1 APPENDIX C: Definitionof Terms ...................................................... ..................................... C-1 APPENDIX D: NS Property and Track Owned.............................................. .......................... D-1 APPENDIX E: Facility Component Program................................................. ..........................E-1


iv

November 2010


List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

0-1: Summary of Bus Bay Requirements .................................................................................0-9 0-2: Summary of Potential Vehicles for Hire Requirements ....................................................0-9 0-3: Building Program Summary (Including Platforms) .........................................................0-10 2-1: Freight Rail Vehicle Dimensions .......................................................................................2-1 3-1: Summary of Intercity and Commuter Rail Design Requirements ....................................3-3 3-2: Commuter Rail Vehicle Dimensions .................................................................................3-6 3-3: Vehicle Capacity by Type and Train Consist ....................................................................3-7 3-4: Amtrak Vehicle Types and Dimensions ............................................................................3-7

Table 3-5: Streetcar and Light Rail Vehicle Dimensions and Characteristics ...................................3-8 Table 3-6: Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates for 2030 ................................................................3-11 Table 4-1: Existing Ridership at or near the MMPT Study Area ........................................................4-3 Table 4-2: Existing Commuter Express Routes in MMPT Study Area ..............................................4-5 Table 4-3: MMPT Bus Berth Comparison .......................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-4: Summary of Bus Bay Requirements ...............................................................................4-14 Table 5-1: Summary of Potential Vehicles for Hire Requirements ....................................................5-8 Table 6-1: Waiting Areas Program ..................................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2: Ticketing / Fare Collection Areas and Passenger Services Program ..............................6-4 Table 6-3: Office / Meeting Space Program ....................................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-4: Retail Space Program ....................................................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-5: Maintenance and Miscellaneous Support Areas Program ...............................................6-6 Table 6-6: Security Area Program ...................................................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-7: Estimated Space Needs for MMPT Parking .....................................................................6-7 Table 6-8: Estimated Space Needs for MMPT Bicycle Station..........................................................6-8 Table 6-9: SPI-1 Downtown Loading Table .......................................................................................6-8 Table 6-10: Passenger Rail Program Summary ..............................................................................6-11 Table 6-11: Commuter Express and Local Bus Program Summary................................................6-12 Table 6-12: Intercity Bus Program Summary ...................................................................................6-15 Table 6-13: Vehicles for Hire Program Summary ............................................................................6-15 Table 6-14: Regional Light Rail and Streetcar Program Summary .................................................6-16 Table 6-15: Building Program Summary (Including Platforms) .......................................................6-16 Table 6-16: Total Building Program Comparison .............................................................................6-17 Table 7-1: Alternative A Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers ..............................................7-2 Table 7-2: Alternative B Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers ..............................................7-6 Table 7-3: Alternative C Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers ............................................7-10 Table 8-1: Passenger Frequent Destination .......................................... ............................................8-3 Table 9-1: MMPT Alternatives Comparison ....................................................................................... 9-1 Table 1: Low-Level Platform Dimension Summary ...............................................................................4 Table Table Table Table

2: High-Level Platform Dimension Summary .............................................................................. 4 3: Amtrak Medium and Large Minimum Station Requirements .................................................. 6 4: Amtrak Platform Length Guidelines ........................................................................................ 7 5: Amtrak Platform Width Guidelines .......................................................................................... 8


v

November 2010


List of Figures Figure 1-1: Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Study Area ..................................................................1-2 Figure 2-1: Western Trunk .................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 3-1: Commuter Rail Vehicle Dimensions ................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-2: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Rail Configuration .......3-13 Figure 3-3: Potential Regional LRT and Streetcar Alignments ........................................................3-16 Figure 3-4: Passenger Rail Alternative A .........................................................................................3-18 Figure 3-5: Passenger Rail Alternative B .........................................................................................3-18 Figure 3-6: Passenger Rail Alternative C .........................................................................................3-19 Figure 4-1: Bus Layout Alternative A ................................................................................................4-10 Figure 4-2: Bus Layout Alternative B ................................................................................................4-11 Figure 4-3: Bus Layout Alternative C................................................................................................4-12 Figure 4-4: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Bus Layouts ................4-13 Figure 5-1: South Station Aerial View ..................................................... ...........................................5-5 Figure 5-2: 30th Street Station Aerial View ......................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-3: DC Union Station Aerial View ..........................................................................................5-7 Figure 5-4: LA Union Station Aerial View ........................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 6-1: Passenger Rail Adjacency Diagram ..............................................................................6-10 Figure 6-2: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Station W aiting Area .............................6-11 Figure 6-3: Intercity Bus Adjacency Diagram ...................................................................................6-13 Figure 7-1: Alternative A Walkshed ..................................................................................................7-15 Figure 7-2: Alternative B Walkshed ..................................................................................................7-16 Figure 7-3: Alternative C Walkshed..................................................................................................7-17 Figure 8-1: Walkshed Locations and Points of Interest .....................................................................8-2 Figure 9-1: MMPT Alternative A Track Level ......................................... ............................................9-4 Figure 9-2: MMPT Alternative A Lower Level ..................................................................................... 9-5 Figure 9-3: MMPT Alternative A Upper Level.....................................................................................9-6 Figure 9-4: MMPT Alternative B Track Level ......................................... ............................................9-9 Figure 9-5: MMPT Alternative B Lower Level...................................................................................9-10 Figure 9-6: MMPT Alternative B Upper Level...................................................................................9-11 Figure 9-7: MMPT Alternative C Track Level ...................................................................................9-13 Figure 9-8: MMPT Alternative C Lower Level ..................................................................................9-14 Figure 9-9: MMPT Alternative C Upper Level ..................................................................................9-15 Figure 1: Greyhound Bus Slip Layout and Turning Dimensions ......................................................... 10 Figure 2: Commuter / Express Bus Boarding Layout and Turning Guidelines ...................................12


vi

November 2010


List of Acronyms AREMA

LOS MARTA MMPT NFPA NS

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers Americans with Disabilities Act Atlanta Regional Commission Bus Rapid Transit Central Atlanta Progress Compressed Natural Gas Chessie Seaboard X Transportation Cobb Community Transit Environmental Protection Agency Full Time Equivalent Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Gwinnett County Transit Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport High Speed Ground Transportation High Speed Rail Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Level of Service Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal National Fire Protection Association Norfolk Southern Railways

OSHA PIDS P3 RFP SPI GWCC TOD TDOT USGBC

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Passenger Information Display System Public Private Partnership Request for Proposals Special Public Interest The Georgia World Congress Center Authority Transit Oriented Development Tennessee Department of Transportation United States Green Building Council

ASHRAE ADA ARC BRT CAP CNG CSX CCT EPA FTE GDOT GRTA GCT HJAIA HSGT HSR HVAC LEED


vii

November 2010


1.0

INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), City of Atlanta, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADID) have initiated conceptual planning and design activities to advance the implementation of the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) in Downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The MMPT project aligns with the region’s vision to enhance the existing and future transportation systems by creating a transportation hub that provides connections to existing MARTA heavy rail service; planned passenger rail operations; planned streetcar operations; intercity, local and express bus operations; and new private development that would stimulate economic growth around the site. These planning and design activities will support the procurement of a Master Developer to oversee final design, construction, and management of MMPT. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the current requirements of potential operators and future needs of an integrated MMPT facility that will include freight rail, passenger rail, bus operations, and vehicles for hire. The requirements for these transportation modes are considered along with pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile access and circulation. The MMPT study area, known as the “Gulch,” extends roughly from Peachtree Street on the east, Marietta Street on the north, Centennial Olympic Park Drive on the west, and Trinity Avenue and Peters Street on the south and includes the Five Points MARTA rail station. Figure 1-1 presents a map of the study area. While these boundaries provide a framework for the development process, the ultimate MMPT location and layout will be an output of the Master Developer’s planning process. Using information gathered through consultation with various stakeholders, this memorandum updates operational requirements for the various transportation modes envisioned at the MMPT and provides context for future planning and implementation activities.

1.1

Study Area and Background Most of the Gulch consists of parking lots and decks used by the downtown government and business districts, patrons of Philips Arena and the CNN Center, and fans of the Atlanta Falcons football team utilizing the Georgia Dome. The srcinal principal passenger rail terminal, called Terminal Station, was situated almost in the center of the study area. Currently the Richard B. Russell Federal building sits on the srcinal site. The purpose of the MMPT is to create a transportation hub in downtown Atlanta that accommodates existing and future intercity, express and local bus services while providing spaces for taxicab, shuttle, and car-sharing operations. In addition, the MMPT must also have the capacity to accommodate future commuter rail, high speed rail (HSR), light rail, and streetcar services. The Five Points MARTA rail station in the northeast corner of the study area is an important connection to the local heavy rail transit system. With connections to MARTA rail service, the MMPT can also serve and improve trips to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA). In the southwest corner, freight rail presently operates directly west of the vacant former Norfolk Southern (NS) headquarters (Southern Railways Buildings).


1-1

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 1-1: Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Study Area

Source: AECOM


1-2

November 2010


Construction of the MMPT is also an opportunity for redevelopment in the Gulch area. The proposed passenger terminal and associated development can provide a transition from the Georgia Dome/Centennial Olympic Park area to Underground Atlanta and the government district. Landscaping, sidewalk, and local street access improvements will enhance the experience of patrons, pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobile drivers within the study area. Planning for the proposed MMPT began in the early 1990s. The proposed project is included in several previous planning studies and reports. Current planning reports such as the Green Line Plan (Downtown Atlanta’s green space and development vision plan), Connect Atlanta (City of Atlanta’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan), Concept 3 (Atlanta region’s long-range transit plan), and the Georgia Interim State Rail Plan all support the development of the MMPT. In February 2002, the Georgia Rail Passenger Program led by GDOT adopted Concept 6 as the preferred design and requirements for the MMPT. Concept 6 set forth a plan to house commuter and intercity passenger rail, regional commuter and intercity buses, direct pedestrian connections to the Five Points and Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail stations, and additional roadways. Concept 6 also encouraged overbuild development. GDOT is preparing to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure a Master Developer to oversee the implementation of the MMPT. In January 2010, MARTA agreed to assist GDOT by leading a technical committee to update the requirements identified for the MMPT. The technical committee includes representation from GDOT, City of Atlanta, MARTA, ARC, GRTA, and ADID. The technical committee has led the effort to further refine the operational functionality of the MMPT and develop an implementation plan for the transit facility improvements.

1.2

Methodologyand Data

Many studies and reports focused on or referenced the MMPT by either providing detailed program requirements or conceptual plans. The following documents were considered for this technical analysis: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Southeast High Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Study Alternate MMPT Configuration Report (Georgia Rail Consultants, July 2009) Downtown Xpress Bus Circulation MOA (City of Atlanta, MARTA and GRTA, May 2009) Decatur Belt Abandonment Technical Review Committee Findings Report (Decatur Belt Advisory Committee, March 2009) Western Trunk Freight Relief Options Memorandum (Transit Implementation Board, February 2009) Transit Planning Board Final Concept 3 Technical Report (Transit Planning Board, January 2009) Georgia Interim State Rail Plan (Georgia Department of Transportation Intermodal Programs Division, 2009) Imagine Downtown Encore Update: Envisioning Central Atlanta’s Future (Central Atlanta Progress, 2009)


1-3

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements •

Five Points Area Bus Transfer Center Concept and Operating Plan Report (URS Corporation, March 2008)

•

The Green Line Plan (Central Atlanta Progress, January 2008)

•

Commuter Rail Plan Update (R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc., December 2007)

•

•

•

•

Georgia Rail Passenger Program: Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Concept Design Report (Georgia Rail Consultants, February 2002) Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Master Plan and Site Concept (Heery International, May 1994) Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Program of Requirements (Heery International, April 1994) Atlanta Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Feasibility Study (Atlanta Regional Commission, April 1992)

In addition to previous plans and studies, this technical memorandum is supplemented by information gathered from transportation operators through interviews and surveys. These transportation “stakeholders” are listed in Appendix A.


1-4

November 2010


2.0

FREIGHT RAIL REQUIREMENTS In addition to the parking decks and lots characterizing the MMPT study area, freight rail operations and property are defining elements. Any transportation investment or economic development within the MMPT study area will have to consider NS and CSX operations. The north-south orientation of freight rail movements drives the passenger rail alignment, which is an anchor in the proposed MMPT. Private development must plan around freight clearance requirements and right-of-way (ROW) limitations. As a result, NS and CSX will be major stakeholders in the development of the MMPT.

2.1

VehicleDesign

Most railroads require a minimum vertical clearance of 23 feet for any new construction. Currently the largest car using the national freight rail network is a double-stack container car that requires a minimum vertical clearance of 21 feet. This additional clearance allows for dynamic loading, future surfacing of track, and consideration for any new car technology that might increase car height. The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association (AREMA) standards require construction of a crash wall where pier or obstructions are present within 25 feet of a railroad centerline. Current freight rail vehicle dimensions are presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Freight Rail Vehicle Dimensions Standard Box Car

Operator

CSX

50 feet 60 feet 86 feet

Norfolk Southern (max dimensions shown)

50 feet 60 feet 86 feet

High Box Car

Height 10'-11" 10'-10"

Width 9'-6" 9'-4"

Length 50'-7" 60'-9"

Height 13'-0" 13'-0"

Width 9'-6" 9'-6"

Length 50'-6" 60'-9"

10'-11" 10'-12"

9'-7" 9'-6"

52'-6" 60'-9"

13'-2" 13'-2" 12'9"

9'-6" 9'-6" 9-'2"

50'-6" 60'-9" 86'-6"

Auto Box Car Height

Width

Length

13'-0"

9'-6"

86'-6"

13'-2" 12'9"

9'-2" 9-'2"

60'-9" 86'-6"

Source: Norfolk Southern and CSX

2.2

Volume for 2015 and 2030 NS and CSX provided current freight volumes for their respective ROWs. NS currently operates 27 to 42 trains per day on their tracks through the study area. CSX separated their rail traffic into three segments: •

Western Leg - 15 to 20 trains per day

•

Spring Track (Southern Leg) - 6 to 10 trains per day

•

Eastern Leg – 5 to 10 trains per day

CSX trains per day within the study area totaled 26 to 40 trains. Figure 2-1 provides the location of each segment. CSX has trackage rights on NS rail lines to operate through the area. These trackage rights agreements are proprietary information. The scheduled usage for these tracks is 7 days per week, 365 days per year. Train lengths vary by train and type of commodity being transported. The National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared for the Association of American Railroads by Cambridge Systematics in September 2007


2-1

November 2010


utilized data and information provided by the Class I railroads including NS and CSX. The study projects that freight rail growth over the next 30 years (2005 to 2035) will increase by 85 percent. This projected growth could take place in the form of train volumes or train lengths. Note that these projections were made prior to the recent economic downturn (2007-2009) and use a projection year of 2035, which is slightly beyond the MMPT’s proposed build-out year of 2030.

2.3

Track Requirements The train movements of both NS and CSX are all through movements with no customers or switching operations located within the study area. The tracks are cleared for doublestack container rail traffic. Both NS and CSX transport commodities classified as hazardous through the study area. Timetable speed is 30 miles per hour (mph) with the typical speed of approximately 25 mph. There are no current plans to electrify any tracks, but that option should not be ruled out or eliminated for future rail operations. Electrification would not require a height clearance greater than that for freight. A key design issue is whether all track in the terminal would be accessible by freight. Assuming that the Circle wye would have to accommodate freight service, structures over the track would require minimum vertical clearance for freight, which would meet electrification needs. Both NS and CSX state that there are no bypass or alternative rail routes for freight operations within the study area. Hence, there is a need for improvements of tracks leading to the MMPT study area to manage the addition of passenger rail within the same corridor. NS believes that sufficient ROW is owned and controlled by the railroad to provide for future capacity improvements to meet freight rail growth projections. Both railroads require roadway access to tracks and signals for maintenance, inspection, and security operations. Generally, current standard track centers are 15 feet. This dimension can increase significantly if operations are proposed that affect existing freight rail operations. Most high-level platforms for passenger rail require a horizontal clearance of 5 feet 6 inches. This horizontal clearance poses a restriction to freight rail operations. The railroads generally object to this clearance and any specialized track work that provides for this close a clearance.

2.4

Improvementsand Modifications to Tracks While both NS and CSX provided information and data indicating their current rail operations through the project area, neither railroad provided insight into any proposed improvements or modifications planned to their rail operations. Both railroads have announced and are planning significant corridor improvements on their rail network, but those announcements did not encompass the MMPT study area. However, there have been discussions amongst several transportation stakeholders in the Atlanta region on how to relieve freight traffic along the Western Trunk with the addition of passenger rail in the same corridor. The Western Trunk is defined as the section of railroad between Howell Junction to the north and the Spring Track to the south, as shown in Figure 2-1. The Western Trunk Freight Relief Options Memorandum


2-2

November 2010


published in 2009 explores improvements such as grade separation and rerouting at Howell Junction to reduce freight trains along the Western Trunk to accommodate passenger rail service. In addition, the tracks underneath Philips Arena, which were active when the facilities were built, are now out of service and will require reconstruction to increase freight and passenger rail capacity. Figure 2-1 indicates that the ROW is still in existence somewhat, but currently inactive. NS has indicated that their surplus property in the project area is currently available for sale. Appendix D and the Property Ownership and Estimated Value Technical Memorandum published in October 2010 provide details on property owned by NS. It is possible that a third-party developer could acquire this surplus railroad property project and pursue development that does not conform to the proposed usage for the MMPT. It is anticipated that once the entire development area is refined and approved, NS and CSX will be better positioned to determine specific impacts to their operations and to identify improvements that could potentially mitigate or avoid such impacts. NS currently requests a 100-foot horizontal clearance from the centerline of their existing rail alignment to provide for future freight rail growth. These requirements would preclude any passenger train operations and associated ROW and clearance requirements. A 100-foot clearance requirement from the existing freight rail tracks within the study area would severely hinder the inclusion of other transit modes and related facilities such as passenger rail operations. The Master Developer will need to negotiate these critical clearance requirements with both NS and CSX based on specific design proposals.

2.5

Fire Life Safety Requirements Generally, freight railroads do not have requirements for ventilation in tunnel sections due to the absence of any passengers; however, consideration must be given to protect tunnels and property from freight tunnel fires due to high design fire heat release rate for goods in freight train vehicles. The proximity of freight and passenger operations to each other and the adjacent development, particularly in partially or fully enclosed sections, will require evaluation of the normal, congested and emergency design scenarios. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 includes fire-life safety considerations where passenger operations are affected by freight operations. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Handbook 2007 – Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Applications, Chapter 13 covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Criteria for normal operations will need to be developed for emissions concentrations considering both Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Criteria for emergency operations, such as Design Fire Heat Release Rate, tenability limits and other fire-life safety related items will need to be developed. The development above and adjacent to freight track will need to coordinate any required ventilation plant and related intakes and discharges, as well as air intakes for the development. Beyond pollutant concentrations and EPA limits, odor will also have to be considered for the adjacent development’s intakes.


2-3

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 2-1: Western Trunk

Source: AECOM


2-4

November 2010


These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adverse exposures on a day-to-day basis, while being available at any instant to address fire-life safety requirements of an emergency nature. The Fire Protection approach will require coordination with the ventilation and smoke management approach. These requirements would need to be addressed by the Master Developer on a design specific level, particularly (but not limited to) where freight and passenger rail lines share ROW through station platforms or other enclosed areas. Adjacent and overbuild development structural and architectural design criteria will also need to address noise and vibration transmission.

2.6

Summaryof Freight Rail Needs

Information regarding current and future rail operations and potential requirements of both NS and CSX were based on information gathered through stakeholder surveys. However, without further detail regarding proposed passenger operations including the location of any required track, it will be difficult for either NS or CSX to provide any meaningful information or criteria for consideration. It is important to continue consultation with NS and CSX during the project development process and present the entire developmental concept to both freight rail operators for concurrence in order to maintain support for the project. The recommended course of action, in the context of the current development process, may be a series of interim agreements as criteria are established or operations identified that would allow for the construction of the MMPT.


2-5

November 2010


3.0

PASSENGER RAIL REQUIREMENTS Passenger rail facilities and design requirements for the MMPT are described in this section. Passenger rail incorporates commuter and intercity rail, streetcar and regional light rail. For facilities and station footprints described in this section of the report, unless specifically identified, intercity rail includes Amtrak and HSR. In 2009, the Decatur Belt Abandonment Technical Review Committee examined the potential for phasing access of Amtrak’s passenger rail service to the MMPT to expedite upgrades to Amtrak’s current service, which is limited at its current Peachtree Station. To evaluate the opportunity for Amtrak to move its existing station to an improved location for operations with MARTA access that could also serve some of its future needs as well as commuter rail, the Technical Review Committee assessed potential station sites at the Lenox, Brookhaven and Doraville MARTA stations. The Technical Review Committee concluded that a new intermodal station for existing Amtrak service and future service additions is feasible at all three existing MARTA stations along MARTA’s northeast line and that the same location could also have potential to serve some commuter rail services consistent with the adopted regional transit plan as shown in Concept 3. However, the purpose of this technical memorandum is to address options to accommodate commuter and intercity (conventional and high speed) trains at a downtown MMPT terminal. Options include accommodating Amtrak, even though future routing of Amtrak services may not operate at the proposed MMPT. High speed ground transportation (HSGT) between Atlanta and Chattanooga, which includes steel-wheeled and Maglev technologies, is currently in the planning phase; a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared under the lead of GDOT and the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) to assess the potential environmental impacts within the planned corridor. It is envisioned that this service will eventually extend as far north as Chicago and south to Jacksonville. As indicated in the Decatur Belt Abandonment Technical Review Committee Findings Report, Amtrak and HSGT service should considered in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of having all future passenger rail services converge at the MMPT. A more detailed cost/benefit analysis should be conducted once more data is available on ridership projections for other passenger rail systems. Future streetcar and regional light rail modes such as the Atlanta Streetcar along Peachtree Street and bus rapid transit (BRT) along the I-20 corridor are also envisioned to serve the MMPT. These typically would access the facility along roadway ROW, commingled either with traffic or in exclusive transit-only lanes. Streetcar and regional light rail are electrically powered, typically operating with a pantograph and an overhead wire as the power source. Regional light rail may also include electric, diesel, dual-mode vehicles. While these modes are envisioned as future links, they are not critical for the conceptual design of platforms and track configuration at the MMPT; however, operational requirements for access to, and intermodal connections at the MMPT are addressed. Table 3-1 provides intercity and commuter rail design attributes because of their significant affect on the footprint of the proposed MMPT development. A summary of elements such as the guideway type, operating speeds, power source, platform lengths, and examples of intercity and commuter rail technologies are presented.


3-2

November 2010


Each mode of passenger rail is discussed as it relates to vehicle design, ridership and platform capacity, and track requirements and improvements in the following sections. The passenger rail modes are grouped under each category to facilitate an overall understanding of passenger rail needs. Table 3-1: Summary of Intercity and Commuter Rail Design Requirements

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

/

●

●

●

●

●

●

< 110

●

●

●

●

●

110 250

● ●

●

●

●

250

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

/

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

1600

(

700

250 (3 6

1400 ( (

) (

●

500 )

1100

600

300

1000

) )

(

)

(

)

)

& (

)

Source: AECOM

3.1

VehicleDesign The MMPT will need to accommodate a wide variety of rail vehicle types. This section outlines design requirements for the vehicles providing commuter, intercity, streetcar, and light rail service.

3.1.1

Commuter Rail Several commuter rail vehicle types can be utilized. The vehicle types identified for service should meet ridership demand, and allow cost-efficient and attractive levels of


3-3

November 2010


service. The vehicles considered in the Georgia Commuter Rail Plan were standard locomotive-hauled passenger coaches of approximately 85 feet in length and 10 feet in width. Past MMPT station sketches included 300-foot platforms for commuter rail; that would accommodate three passenger cars (255 feet) and the locomotive. The majority of commuter rail systems in North America operate passenger coaches with a locomotive capable of push-pull operation. In cases where the locomotive pushes the train from the rear, an operator cab is provided in the lead passenger car. Diesel multiple units (DMU) - A DMU is a diesel-powered, self-propelled passenger railcar that can respond to local or remote commands. Only FRA compliant diesel multiple units (DMU) systems are permitted on freight rail corridors. This is due to the Federal Railway Administration setting higher coupling strength requirements than European regulators, effectively prohibiting the use of lighter weight European-style inter-city rail DMUs on U.S. main line railways. Several rail operators use DMUs meeting FRA requirements in Colorado, Florida, and Oregon. Emission from the diesel engines are required to comply with the 40 CFR 89 Tier 4 levels. EPA Tier 4 standards require that emissions of PM and NOx be further reduced by about 90%. Such emission reductions can be achieved through the use of control technologies similar to those required by the 2007-2010 standards for highway engines. When compared to locomotive-hauled vehicles: • •

Emissions for DMU service are directly related to train length; and For all train lengths, DMU’s have lower emission levels than locomotive-hauled equipment.

Alternative propulsion for commuter rail include self-propelled electric multiple units (EMU) as operated in Chicago (Metra Electric), New York, Connecticut (Metro North and Long Island), and New Jersey. New Jersey Transit and Metro North also operate commuter rail trains with electric and dual-mode (electric/diesel) locomotive-hauled coaches (Dual-Mode LHC). Dimensions of commuter rail vehicles currently in service are listed in


3-4

November 2010


Table 3-2 and illustrated in Figure 3-1. The dimensions and operating characteristics of these vehicles are not essentially different from commuter vehicles currently in operation. For example, the basic concept vehicle for FRA compliant DMU and EMU platforms from Siemens meet all applicable requirements of US Regulations for “Tier 1” passenger rail vehicles; vehicle dimensions are governed by Amtrak clearance limits (85 feet long, 10 feet wide). To increase passenger capacity per train while maintaining a maximum train consist, or the number of rail cars that form a unit, both bi-level and gallery cars are used. Bi-level passenger cars provide seating on two separate floors; each floor has a central aisle. Gallery cars include a single row of seats and an aisle on each side of the upper level, the lower level includes a single, central aisle. Gallery cars allow a conductor to check fares on both levels from the lower-level central aisle. Bi-level can provide the greatest increase in passenger capacity and therefore are the most common type of multi-level vehicle. The majority of gallery cars in North American operate in the Chicago region.


3-5

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 3-2: Commuter Rail Vehicle Dimensions Single-Level Passenger Car

Electric Multiple Units (EMU)

Multi-Level Passenger Car

Height Width Length Montreal - Deux Montagnes

Height Width Length Chicago - Metra Electric (Gallery)

14’-6”

15’-11”

10’-6”

85’-4”

10’-6”

Engine Height

Width

Length

85’-0” NA

Diesel Multiple Units (DMU)

Colorado - Railcar (proposed)

Colorado - Railcar (proposed)

14’-7”

19’-8”

Diesel Locomotive -hauled Coach

New Jersey - Comet V Car

Vancouver - Bombardier (Bi-level)

New Mexico – acceptance phase

12’-8”

15’-11”

(LHC) Electric/Diesel (Dual Mode) LHC

NA

15’-11” 10’-8.75” 70’-0” Connecticut - Metro North 14’-6” 10’-6” 69’-0”

10’-6”

10’-8”

85’-0”

85’-0”

10’-6”

9’-10”

89’-0”

85’-0”

Source: AECOM

Figure 3-1: Commuter Rail Vehicle Dimensions

Source: AECOM

Commuter rail vehicle passenger capacities vary. Table 3-3 displays seated capacity for single and bi-level vehicle types that would be appropriate for an Atlanta region commuter rail network. The following table assumes push-pull operation with diesel-


3-6

November 2010


electric locomotives, similar to those operated in the Seattle and Los Angeles regions and in New Mexico. Table 3-3: Vehicle Capacity by Type and Train Consist Capacity per Train Consist Vehicle Type (2x2 seating)

Single-level Bi-level

Capacity(Car/Cab)

96/90 151/141

2 car 186 292

3 car 282 443

4 car

378 594

5 car

474 745

Source: AECOM

3.1.2

Amtrak Dual-Mode LHC trains service the majority of the Amtrak network. However, the busiest and highest ridership intercity passenger rail corridor, the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, New York, and Boston, is electrified and electric locomotives propel the majority of trains. This includes the high speed Acela service that replaced the initial high speed Metroliner EMUs, which were inaugurated in the 1960s. While it is unlikely that electrification will be required for HSGT service through the Atlanta MMPT, design should not preclude electrification. High speed rail technologies are operational in other locations throughout the world, including France (TGV) Germany (ICE), Spain (Talgo), and Japan (Shinkansen). These high speed lines are completely grade-separated on exclusive rights-of-way. However, the Acela is commingled with freight. Amtrak passenger cars are typically 85 feet in length and approximately 10 feet 6 inches wide. Configurations include single and bi-level cars. The bi-level Superliner vehicles operate primarily on long distance trains within the western Amtrak network. Superliner vehicle height precludes its operation through many tunnels in the eastern section of the Amtrak network. Table 3-4 provides typical Amtrak vehicle dimensions. Table 3-4: Amtrak Vehicle Types and Dimensions Vehicle Type Amfleet II Coach Viewliner Sleeper Heritage Baggage P42 Passenger Locomotive Bi-level Coach F59 Passenger Locomotive Acela Coach Acela Power Car Source: Amtrak

Utilization Current Current Current Current Future Future HSR TBD HSR TBD

Length

85’4” 85’0” 85’0” 69’0” 85’0” 58’2” 87’5” 69’7”

Width 10’6” 10’6” 10’6” 10’0” 10’3” 10’8” 10’4” 10’5”

Height 12’8” 14’0” 13’7” 14’8” 16’2” 16’0” 13’10” 14’2”

Trains for intercity service vary between as few as four to fourteen passenger and auxiliary cars. Shorter trains of four to eight cars are more typical for busier corridors with several trains per day. Long distance trains often comprise ten or more cars; this is particularly true for western trains srcinating or terminating in Chicago and the Crescent Corridor between the northeast and New Orleans, which operates through Atlanta.


3-7

November 2010


3.1.3

Streetcar and Regional Light Rail Streetcar and light rail vehicles have been identified for the Atlanta BeltLine and the Atlanta Streetcar projects. These projects are elements of a broader surface rail network envisioned in the Connect Atlanta Plan and in Concept 3. Table 3-5 summarizes characteristics for typical streetcar and light rail vehicles. Table 3-5: Streetcar and Light Rail Vehicle Dimensions and Characteristics Characteristics Dimensions Gradient

Minimum curve Maximum speed Low floor share Seated passengers Standing passengers Total Passengers Source: AECOM

Minneapolis Light Rail Portland Streetcar Salt Lake Light Rail (new) 94’ x 8.75’ 66’ x 8.07’ 81.4’ x 8.7’ 5% 9% 7%

82’ 55 mph 70% 66 180 246

60’ 42 mph 50% 30 87 117

82’ 65 mph 68% 60 149 209

For MMPT station interface, it is prudent that design criteria not preclude either streetcar or light rail. In this case, light rail design criteria would prevail as these can accommodate operation by both modes.

3.2 3.2.1

Ridershipand PlatformCapacity Commuter Rail Ridership forecasts for a seven-line commuter rail system was estimated based on catchment areas around station site, work trip srcin, destination, and journey-to-work information from ARC, and an assumed capture rate of commuter rail for work trips. Ridership findings were published in the Commuter Rail Plan Update report developed by R.L. Banks and Associates in 2009. The capture rate was defined based on alignment, travel time, congestion, and access. The overarching concept was that the commuter rail line would have to provide a distinct advantage in terms of trip time and cost as compared to a personal vehicle. In addition, the analysis assumed three inbound and outbound peak period trips, one midday round trip, free transfer to MARTA rail and buses, free parking at stations, and a graduated distance-based fare structure. Ridership estimates were developed by line for 2030 and are displayed in


3-8

November 2010


Table 3-6. Eight weekday trains were assumed for each commuter rail route.


3-9

November 2010


Table 3-6 shows a range of 149 to 581 passengers per train. The larger value would require a four-car train, assuming bi-level cars, and a 500-foot platform. If single-level cars were used, a six-car train and a 600-foot platform would be required.


3-10

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 3-6: Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates for 2030 Distance [miles]

Line

Athens Bremen Canton Gainesville Macon Madison Senoia

73.6 52.0 43.0 53.0 103.9 68.0 38.0

Time [min]

105 85 74 77 130 87 54

2030 Boardings Low 3,000 1,600 2,300 1,200 1,700 3,200 1,200

High 3,700 2,200 3,400 2,500 2,200 4,700 1,700

Average Riders per Train Low

376 198 290 155 218 400 149

High

464 275 426 306 269 581 210

Source: Commuter Rail Plan Update 2007

The December 2008 Final Technical Report prepared by the Transit Planning Board (Concept 3) also provided ridership forecasts; five commuter rail lines were proposed as part of the Concept 3: • • • • •

Athens to Atlanta, all-day service Griffin to Atlanta, all-day service Senoia to Atlanta, peak-period service Bremen to Atlanta, peak-period service Gainesville to Atlanta, peak-period service

According to Concept 3, these proposed commuter rail lines provided medium- to highcapacity radial transit service to and from the Downtown and Midtown travel markets. Allday rail service was proposed on the Athens and Griffin lines because of higher demands (including reverse peak direction demands) within these corridors. The Griffin and Athens lines could be interlined to provide a one-seat (non-transfer) ride between the two corridors. The three peak-period lines could also be through-routed to the Southern Crescent Transportation Center to provide service to the Airport via a proposed Airport-Southern Crescent transit connection.

3.2.2

Amtrak Amtrak daily boardings and alightings for the Crescent train were 96,453 for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 2008 – September 2009). Of these passengers, approximately 1.6 percent, or 1,531 requested ADA accessible accommodation. This ridership is low when compared to facilities like the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City, which boards 200,000 passengers per day. Although the projected ridership for other planned passenger transportation systems is unknown, the increased intermodal connections provided at the MMPT will likely increase Amtrak ridership. Service expansion is envisioned within a five- to ten-year timeframe. In this case, an extension of the Southeast HSR / Northeast Corridor service via Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte to Atlanta, Macon, and Jacksonville has been identified. In the long term, continued development of the aforementioned service would occur as well as potential new service between Atlanta and points west, northwest, and southeast. Approximately 8 to 10 daily trains are anticipated by 2020 and 12 to 16 by 2025. These estimates were based on the State’s Commuter Rail Plan Update published in 2007.


3-11

November 2010


Amtrak Crescent service typically operates with ten cars and two engines. This would require a platform length of approximately 1,000 feet. Future HSGT trains, if comparable to Acela service in the Northeast Corridor, would comprise fixed train sets of semipermanent passenger cars with power cars at each end. Acela train consists include six passenger car and two power cars and are approximately 666 feet long, but 700 feet is the preferred length.

3.3

Track Requirements

3.3.1

Commuter Rail Georgia Passenger Program The report identified seven commuter rail routes radiating fromRail downtown Atlanta. These extended to Bremen, Canton, Gainesville, Athens, Madison, Macon, and Senoia. This study assumed six daily trips to a downtown Atlanta terminal and six trips from the terminal to each line for a total of 84 daily arrivals and departures.

In addition to commuter rail service, the report identified longer-distance service to Augusta, Columbus, Albany, and Jacksonville 2. Trains to the latter two destinations would operate via Macon. Three trips to and from Atlanta for each intercity route was assumed, resulting in a total of 30 daily arrivals and departures. A total of 114 trips to and from the downtown Atlanta terminal were identified for both commuter and intercity rail. Assuming that commuter rail trips arrive and depart during peak periods and that intercity trains operate during off-peak periods, 14 to 21 commuter rail trips would require at least two tracks, based on a turn time of five minutes, service frequency of 20 to 30 minutes, and either a 2- or 3-hour peak period. Two tracks would be required with either terminating or through service. Should turn time be consistently greater than 5, but less than 9 minutes, three tracks would be required. This indicates that a minimum four-track, two-platform configuration would be required for commuter rail service. Based on expected ridership and assuming bi-level commuter trains, 600foot platforms would accommodate the highest anticipated demand in 2030. This total must be jointly considered with that for Amtrak and HSGT and the track throat design to determine track requirements.

3.3.2

Amtrak and High Speed Ground Transportation Future expansion of Amtrak service and implementation of HSGT service may result in 12 daily trains by 2025. The future operating plan will define which trains will terminate, turn, or continue through the MMPT. Based on the recommendations of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Configuration Report (Southeast HSR Study), four to six tracks with center platforms would be required to accommodate future Amtrak and HSGT services. The Southeast HSR Study identified the need for four high speed rail tracks with two center platforms and two intercity rail tracks with a single center platform. In addition, four intercity stub-end tracks, with center platforms, were located behind the unoccupied former Norfolk Southern headquarters building. Figure 3-2 provides a diagram of the rail configuration from the Southeast HSR Study.

2

The Georgia Interim State Rail Plan also identified an intercity rail line from Valdosta to Atlanta.


3-12

November 2010


The ongoing Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Project Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement identifies potential alignments within downtown Atlanta. The alignments, currently proposed to be located in tunnel and oriented northsouth, includes a Downtown Atlanta Station in the vicinity of the existing Dome/GWCC/Phillips Arena/CNN Center MARTA Rail Station. The project identifies two potential high speed train technologies, which are capable of greater than 180 mph, Maglev and Steel-Wheeled. Due to the high speed associated with this HSGT service, it is envisioned that it will use an entirely exclusive guideway. Considering the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Project’s requirement for an exclusive guideway, and it being in a tunnel below the grade of existing rail lines and MMPT at this point, sharing platforms with the rail systems currently proposed for the MMPT is not possible. Thus, the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Project’s Downtown Atlanta Station would have to connect to the proposed MMPT via pedestrian connections. These connections would have to be made below grade in a tunnel, or at-grade using existing and new pedestrian facilities. Vertical circulation measures would be required. Figure 3-2: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Rail Configuration

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Configuration Report, July 2009


3-13

November 2010


3.3.3

Streetcar and Light Rail ROW for streetcar and light rail alignments should be defined for streets adjacent to the MMPT. While the Atlanta streetcar network concept and Concept 3 indicate operation into and through downtown Atlanta, specific alignments have not yet been defined. However, as preliminary MMPT sites include frontage along an extension of Alabama Street and Russell Plaza, these new streets should be configured with sufficient ROW to accommodate streetcar and light rail track and turn movements. Likely alignments that would pass the MMPT include an extension of the north-south alignment of the Atlanta Streetcar and a potential northwest-to-South DeKalb corridor. Conceptual streetcar/light rail alignments are displayed in Figure 3-3.

3.4

Improvementsand Modifications to Tracks Potential modifications at the MMPT include relocation of the Circle wye to allow implementation of commuter rail and Amtrak station, ladder and throat tracks. A primary consideration for commuter rail operations is that the MMPT would be a through station for many trips, rather than a terminal. In addition to the central MMPT, which would serve trips destined to downtown Atlanta, two additional proposed commuter rail stations would function as major regional multi-modal facilities. The Southern Crescent Transit Center could potentially be located immediately east of HJAIA and a new northeast facility could possibly be located adjacent to the MARTA rail line near Armour Drive. These proposed stations are in the preliminary planning phase and currently there is no guarantee of implementation. However, the north-south orientation of tracks is appropriate, as trips from the north could stop at the MMPT en route to a terminus at the proposed Southern Crescent Transit Center that would serve HJAIA. Alternatively, commuter rail trips from the south could continue north from the MMPT to a terminus at a potential Northeast Multi-Modal Station or could interline with one of the commuter rail lines to the north. While the north-south orientation is preferred, the ridership forecasts shown in


3-14

November 2010


Table 3-6 displays significant passenger demand from the Madison corridor. The Madison line would access the MMPT from the east, generally parallel to the MARTA east-west local heavy rail line. The Madison line would have to pass through the Hulsey Intermodal Facility, operated by CSX, but this line is only presented as a hypothetical or optional route for consideration in the conceptual stages of the MMPT. To operate through a north-south oriented MMPT, Madison line trains would have to turn south along the Circle wye to stop at a north-south platform. Section 3.6 provides three alternatives for the optional Madison line and the north-south orientation of track and platform configurations. For the platform alignment shown in the Southeast HSR Study and illustrated in Figure 3-2, a new track would be required from the Spring (southeast wye) connection to the platform area to allow Madison trains access to the platforms shown or to a new parallel platform.


3-15

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 3-3: Potential Regional LRT and Streetcar Alignments

Source: AECOM


3-16

November 2010


3.5

Fire Life Safety Requirements Passenger railroads have requirements for ventilation in tunnel sections and stations. The proximity of freight and passenger operations to each other and the adjacent development, particularly in partially or fully enclosed sections, will require evaluation of the normal, congested and emergency design scenarios. NFPA 130 includes fire-life safety considerations to be made where passenger operations are affected by freight operations. ASHRAE Handbook 2007 - HVAC Applications, Chapter 13 covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Amtrak EP4006 provides additional criteria for fire-life safety and normal operations design. Criteria for normal operations will need to be developed for emissions concentrations considering both OSHA and EPA regulations. Criteria for emergency operations, such as Design Fire Heat Release Rate, tenability limits and other fire-life safety related items will need to be developed for all of the rail transportation elements. The development above and adjacent to all tracks will need to coordinate any required ventilation plant and related intakes and discharges, as well as air intakes for the development. Beyond pollutant concentrations and EPA limits, odor will also have to be considered for the adjacent development’s intakes. These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adverse exposures on a day-to-day basis, while being available at any instant to address fire-life safety requirements of an emergency nature. The Fire Protection approach will require coordination with the ventilation and smoke management approach. These requirements would need to be addressed by the Master Developer on a design specific level. Adjacent and overbuild development structural and architectural design criteria will also need to address noise and vibration transmission.

3.6

Diagramsof PassengerRail Tracksand PlatformArea Based on the recommendations of previous plans and studies , three alternatives have been developed for track orientation at the MMPT. In general, tracks are oriented northsouth in the study area to accommodate the seven commuter rail routes as well as Amtrak and HSR. The alternatives allow for a combination of four to six commuter rail tracks and four to six intercity rail tracks. In this instance, intercity includes Amtrak and HSR. Another design option for each alternative includes, in addition to the north-south oriented tracks, an east-west platform and tracks option that would accommodate commuter rail from the Madison corridor. These alternatives do not reflect the requirement of the ongoing Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Project for entirely exclusive guideway. Potential integration for this requirement should be addressed through more detailed engineering and design. These requirements will need to be considered Snapshots of the alternatives are below in Figure 3-4 through Figure 3-6 and a comprehensive discussion of the passenger rail configurations is presented in Section 9.0 Comprehensive MMPT Alternatives.


3-17

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 3-4: Passenger Rail Alternative A

Source: AECOM

Figure 3-5: Passenger Rail Alternative B

Source: AECOM


3-18

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 3-6: Passenger Rail Alternative C

Source: AECOM

3.7

Summaryof PassengerRail Needs Primary drivers for passenger rail station infrastructure needs are short- and long-term operations plan for both commuter and intercity rail. In this case, intercity refers to Amtrak and HSGT. Identified track needs for Amtrak, HSGT, and commuter rail result in a 10-track MMPT with the option of an east-west platform and tracks. However, further analysis must be completed to determine effective utilization and the number of tracks necessary. The following are the minimum platform lengths for each passenger rail service: •

Commuter and Intercity Rail – 600 feet

•

Amtrak – 1000 feet (to accommodate the current Crescent corridor service)

•

High Speed Ground Transportation – 700 feet

•

Streetcar – 100 feet

•

Light Rail – 200 feet

The majority of service at the MMPT will be commuter rail from the envisioned seven lines. Correspondingly, ridership cars, is thewhich basis define for identification of vehicle type, currently conceived as bi-level commuter platform dimensions. While initially planned for peak hour operation, it is likely that commuter rail will grow to all-day service; therefore, track design should ensure efficient operations for through as well as terminating service. However, terminating trains do not need to remain at the proposed


3-19

November 2010


MMPT; trains could return to their starting point or travel to another location. A detailed long-term operating plan will clearly define track design and associated services. At this stage, track design should be flexible due to the limited site space. Furthermore, the joint commuter and intercity operating plan must be coordinated with freight operations as well as locations of other proposed intermodal passenger nodes, such as the Southern Crescent Transit Center and Northeast Multi-Modal Station. Similar to commuter rail, intercity rail frequencies and routes must be defined in order to determine the appropriate number, design, and orientation of tracks and platforms. Baggage handling and train servicing requirements must also be incorporated into the MMPT design. In addition, longer-term storage and servicing needs and facilities must be determined for intercity and commuter rail. Areas for maintenance facilities and service and storage tracks must be identified. Onsite maintenance at the proposed MMPT is not the intent due to the limited site space. Maintenance and storage requirements must be met off-site possibly at other proposed terminals such as the Southern Crescent Transit Center or at locations along commuter rail lines. Midday storage areas for commuter rail terminating at the MMPT should be located to immunize deadhead costs and impact to operations at the terminal throat, but must be sized to accommodate fleet storage needs. Similarly, for the maintenance facility, ultimate fleet size (current estimate of 154 cars and 51 locomotives based on the number of commuter trains potentially to access the proposed MMPT) and anticipated maintenance efforts will define the space requirements for a maintenance facility.


3-20

November 2010




November 2010


4.0

BUS REQUIREMENTS There are several bus services anticipated to utilize the proposed MMPT. These include local bus services operated by MARTA, commuter express bus services operated by MARTA, GRTA (i.e., the “Xpress” service), CCT, and GCT, and intercity bus services operated by Greyhound, Southeastern Stages, and possibly other intercity bus service operators in the future. While local MARTA bus routes will serve the MMPT as part of their role in providing public transit service throughout central Atlanta, the commuter express and intercity bus services will utilize the MMPT as their central Atlanta station. This will allow these services to interchange passengers with the MARTA rail system (via the MMPT’s connection with a MARTA rail station). This section discusses vehicle design, ridership and boarding area capacity, bus bay requirements and the staging, storage and layover needs for bus service at the proposed MMPT. Each of these categories is addressed with greater detail as it relates to the requirements of the different types of bus services. It should be noted that the information provided in this section of the report is based on available data and outreach to the project stakeholders.

4.1

VehicleDesign The MMPT will need to accommodate a wide variety of bus types. This section outlines design requirements for the vehicles providing local, express, and intercity bus service.

4.1.1

Local Bus Service The local MARTA services will most likely operate standard transit buses, which are 40 feet long (carrying capacity of approximately 40-seated passengers and about 20 to 25 standees). However, should MARTA decide to modify its local bus services, longer 60foot articulated buses (carrying capacity of approximately 60-seated passengers and about 40 standees) may at one point in the future also serve the MMPT, as well as shorter 30- or 35-foot buses (carrying capacity of approximately 33-seated passengers and about 20 standees). Should MARTA proceed with the development of the bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors proposed as part of Concept 3, then it is possible that some of these BRT services will utilize 60-foot articulated buses. Some buses utilized in BRT services have three doors (as opposed to the more traditional two doors) on the curb (i.e., right hand) side of the bus, to allow for a quicker boarding and alighting process and thus decrease the dwell time at bus stops (i.e., the amount of time spent loading and unloading passengers). In addition, modern low-floor buses will most likely form the basis of future MARTA bus procurements, regardless of the length of the bus. Low-floor buses allow for easier ingress and egress at bus stops and are easier for both senior citizens and the disabled to use, as there are no steps to negotiate.

4.1.2

Express Bus Service Currently, MARTA’s commuter express services are operated using standard transit buses, as described previously. The “Xpress” commuter service operated by GRTA


November 2010


utilizes intercity motor coaches, which are 45 feet long and seat approximately 57 passengers each. However, these motor coaches are also equipped with a bicycle rack on their front bumper, which effectively increases their length to almost 47 feet. Finally, both CCT and GCT also utilize 45-foot long intercity motor coaches on their commuter express routes, which seat approximately 57 passengers each.

4.1.3

Intercity Bus Service Both Greyhound and Southeastern Stages utilize 45-foot long intercity motor coaches on their routes serving the southeastern United States, including Atlanta. The seated capacity of these vehicles ranges from 47 to 55 passengers on each bus. Future intercity bus operations will likely utilize similar intercity motor coaches. In addition, it is possible that intercity bus operators would utilize double-decker buses in the future; as such vehicles are currently being utilized on intercity bus services in other parts of the nation. The primary issue when considering the variety of bus types serving the MMPT is that the needs of the local and commuter express services differ from the intercity service providers, especially in terms of the length of time spent loading and unloading passengers (i.e., the “dwell time”). These differences are primarily reflected in the requirements for the bus bays, and will be discussed subsequently.

4.2

Ridershipand BoardingArea Capacity Unfortunately, none of the stakeholders surveyed for the preparation of this report, except for MARTA, have prepared ridership projections for either 2015 or 2030. Should the projections become available at a later date, they will be incorporated into the analysis for the MMPT. However, various stakeholders have provided current ridership data; this data is summarized in Table 4-1. The ridership data provided in Table 4-1 is for the MMPT study area, or, in the case of the intercity bus operators, for the current Atlanta terminal. The sole exception is for the GRTA Xpress service, as the ridership data indicated boardings along the entire route system and not solely within the MMPT study area. Therefore, the GRTA Xpress service ridership was reduced by 75 percent, so that only 25 percent of GRTA Xpress service ridership was counted as representative of boardings within the MMPT study area. Twenty-five percent of the total GRTA Xpress service boardings are accounted for because about 50 percent of all GRTA boardings, assuming trip symmetry, would account for the entire Atlanta central business district and about half of those would account for the downtown or MMPT study area. Even though midtown Atlanta may have a slightly greater ability to attract trips, in the future this may be somewhat offset by the comfort of the proposed MMPT facility, the available intermodal connections, and its ability to function as the primary downtown commuter terminal. It should be noted that the ridership data presented in Table 4-1 does not account for boarding and alighting data on four of MARTA’s bus routes (i.e., Routes 1, 11, 17 and 216). Therefore, the ridership total might increase to account for these MARTA bus routes. Assuming that some on-street local MARTA activity is moved into the MMPT facility and that all express bus activity is also moved into the facility, a value near 14,000 boardings per day is likely within the correct order of magnitude.


November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 4-1: Existing Ridership at or near the MMPT Study Area Existing Average Ridership at/near MMPT Stakeholder/Operator

Greyhound Southeastern Stages Intercity Subtotal

Daily Boardings Intercity Operators 1,552 137 1,689

Daily Alightings

1,331 147 1,478

Local and Express Service Operators GRTA Xpress Service (25% of entire system) 1,105 no alighting data Cobb Community Transit 2,130 no alighting data

Gwinnett County Transit MARTA Local/Express Subtotal TOTAL Source: Listed Stakeholders

731 8,667 12,633 14,322

1,003 5,851 alighting data incomplete alighting data incomplete

As can be seen in Table 4-1, approximately 14,300 boardings would likely take place on an average weekday at the MMPT if the facility existed today. Alighting data is incomplete, as the various operators do not always document it. However, assuming some level of travel symmetry, the alighting and boarding counts are approximately 10 to 20 percent of each other. However, it should be noted that the nature of passengers is very different when comparing intercity bus travelers to riders of both local and express transit services. Intercity bus passengers will require more amenities, will be at the MMPT for a longer period, and will likely have luggage. These differences are described in detail in Section 6.0. Nonetheless, for this reason, Table 4-1 separates the existing ridership so that the intercity passengers can be seen separately. Intercity passengers would constitute approximately 1,700 boardings on an average day at the MMPT if the facility existed today; the remaining 12,600 approximate daily boardings would be local and express bus riders. These differences, and the differences in the passengers’ needs, will be considered when designing the proposed facility. Given the level of ridership data provided by the stakeholders, it would be premature to estimate what ridership would be in 2015 and in 2030. Although some overall growth assumptions could be made, the current ridership numbers nonetheless provide a “baseline” for the size requirements of both the intercity and local/express boarding areas at the proposed MMPT facility.

4.3

Bus Bay Requirements Stakeholders have provided information regarding their needs in terms of bus bay requirements for the proposed MMPT facility. In addition, prior reports and studies for the MMPT study area have also calculated the number of bus bays that would be required at the proposed facility. The number of bus bays depends, however, upon the type of vehicle being berthed, as the needs for intercity and local/express bus operators are different, and this is reflected in the type of bus bay that is most appropriate for each. The proposals for the number of bus berths made in this section of the report should be considered the number of bus berths needed in the final phase of the project’s development (i.e., in 2030). Furthermore, depending on the design selected and the bus


November 2010


operating plans that are implemented, the bus berths could be constructed in phases at the MMPT site as needed.

4.3.1

Intercity Bus Service Given the longer dwell times required by intercity buses at the Atlanta terminal, these vehicles can utilize deep sawtooth bus berths. These types of bus bays require that the bus reverse out of the berth upon departure, thus making them inappropriate for local or express bus services that have much shorter dwell times; however, by arranging intercity bus bays as deep sawtooth berths, less space is utilized. The intercity bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility should be able to handle the standard intercity motor coach, which is 45 feet long. However, provision should also be made so that there is sufficient overhead clearance at the location of the proposed MMPT facility serving intercity buses to handle double-decker buses, as some intercity carriers already utilize such buses in other parts of the nation. In terms of the number of required intercity bus bays, prior studies have provided numbers ranging from 20 to 34 intercity bus bays. The stakeholder input gathered as part of the current study indicated that Greyhound anticipates needing 20 bus bays (i.e., 15 bus bays for regular service and an additional 5 bus bays for “ready” buses, to accommodate extra sections or standby buses during holiday surge periods, etc.) at the MMPT. Although they did not explicitly indicate the number of required bus bays, it is estimated that Southeastern Stages would also need approximately three bus bays (i.e., two for regular service and an additional “ready” bus bay) in addition to Greyhound’s 20 bus bays. Thus far, this makes for 17 intercity bus bays as well as 6 set aside as “ready” bus bays for a total of 23 intercity bus bays at the MMPT. However, the number of intercity bus bays should also accommodate possible future growth in the intercity bus market, not only in terms of growth from existing carriers serving Atlanta (i.e., Greyhound and Southeastern Stages), but also from other carriers that may possibly serve Atlanta in the future (e.g., Mega Bus, Bolt Bus, etc.). In order to accommodate such future growth, an assumed increase of approximately 25 percent in the number of bus bays can be factored in, thus providing approximately 30 deep sawtooth intercity bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility (22 of which would be deep sawtooth berths for passenger use, with an additional 8 serving as “ready” bus bays). Note that the ready bus bays do not necessarily need to be “contact berths”; meaning, they do not need to be directly accessible by passengers and thus they do not need to be directly connected to the passenger circulation space. Rather, they can be provided as bus bays that are on-site but not directly connected to the same passenger circulation space as the 22 contact berths. The 30 intercity bus bays at the MMPT would therefore also allow enough flexibility to accommodate surge needs during holiday periods as well as allowing for some growth in the intercity bus travel market.

4.3.2

Local and Express Bus Service These public transportation services would require the use of shallow sawtooth bus berths, which are bus bays that allow buses to operate through them without requiring a reverse movement.


November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements 4.3.2.1

Commuter Express Bus Service

As previously mentioned, there are several commuter express service operators in the study area: MARTA’s express routes, the GRTA Xpress service, and commuter express routes operated by CCT, and GCT. These bus routes are listed in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Existing Commuter Express Routes in MMPT Study Area Stakeholder/Operator MARTA GRTA Xpress Cobb Community Transit

Gwinnett County Transit Source: Listed Stakeholders

Commuter Express Routes 186; 216 – Lithonia Express 400, 420, 422, 430, 440, 442, 450, 460, 475 and 490 10A, 10B, 47, 75, 100, 101, 470 and 480

101, 102, 103 and 418

It is estimated that, taken together, these 24 commuter express bus routes would today require approximately 11 shallow sawtooth bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility. The study team has estimated that MARTA requires one bus bay for the 216 Lithonia Express and one bus bay for Route 186, with an additional bus bay to allow for a “ready” bus or for other unanticipated needs, for a total of three bus bays. GRTA has anticipated that it will require a total of eight bus bays (i.e., seven for regular service and one for a standby “ready” bus) for its Xpress service as well as for both GCT and CCT commuter express services. This was determined by utilizing GRTA’s estimation that approximately 20 buses will utilize the MMPT during the peak quarter hour of operation, and that the maximum dwell time of any of the buses will be five minutes. Thus, 11 shallow sawtooth bus bays for the commuter express services were calculated. Note that it was also assumed that the commuter express services may need to operate “reverse commute” services from central Atlanta to the suburbs. In order to accommodate this possibility, it was assumed that commuter express buses would operate the same in both the morning and afternoon peak periods. They would drop-off and pick-up passengers at a bus bay, as opposed to dropping off passengers at a common drop-off area and requiring that the buses reposition themselves within the MMPT facility at a bus bay. However, in a manner similar to the intercity bus services, the number of commuter express bus bays should also accommodate possible future growth in the commuter market and not solely accommodate current service levels. In order to accommodate future growth, an assumed increase of approximately 25 percent in the number of bus bays can be factored in, thus providing approximately 14 shallow sawtooth commuter express bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility. 4.3.2.2

Local Bus Service

Several local MARTA bus routes operate to and through the study area; these 15 bus routes are the 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 16, 21, 42, 49, 55, 74, 97, 110, 113, and 155. Of these local MARTA bus routes, 11 terminate in downtown Atlanta near the proposed MMPT site and the remainder operate through the area. MARTA is currently in the process of reducing bus routes system wide, but the above bus routes were active during the collection and analysis of local bus study data. In addition, any bus routes eliminated, which may bus routes within MMPT area, also have the potential of being reinstated in include the future. The local MARTA bus routes will serve the proposed MMPT facility to provide for intermodal connections with the various other public transportation services serving the Multi-ModalPassenger Terminal Project

November 2010


facility, thus allowing passengers using those services to travel around downtown Atlanta. Depending upon future growth and use of the local MARTA bus routes in the area, the study team has estimated that MARTA’s local buses will require approximately 9 to 12 shallow sawtooth bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility, including one for MARTA Mobility vehicles. The exact number of required bus bays for MARTA’s local bus routes will depend upon several factors, including: •

•

•

the extent to which certain local bus routes or proposed BRT services will enter the proposed MMPT facility and utilize a shallow sawtooth bus bay, while others may serve the MMPT on-street; the growth factor (as yet undetermined) by which the number of MARTA local berths may need to be increased in the future, and; the extent to which some local MARTA routes will terminate, and take layover or recovery time at the proposed MMPT, thus increasing their dwell time, while others may simply operate through the MMPT facility (i.e., MARTA’s future operating plan).

In addition, at least three (or as many as four) of the bus bays serving the local MARTA bus routes should be designed to allow for the possible use of articulated buses in the future; these buses are 60 feet long and would present different design needs for the shallow sawtooth bus bays. In many transit systems, low floor 60-foot articulated buses are utilized on BRT services; therefore, their possible use needs to be considered in the design of the proposed MMPT facility.

4.3.3

Dynamic Bus Berth Assignment There is the possibility of utilizing dynamic bus berth assignments at the proposed MMPT facility. With this technology, bus berths are not assigned to any specific bus route. Instead, buses would occupy any available bus berth and a robust passenger information system would inform MMPT passengers of their bus berth’s location. Such a system may allow for a reduction in the number of required bus berths at the MMPT. However, there are also very significant drawbacks that need to be considered: •

•

•

•

4.3.4

the intercity and local or express bus services would still need to be segregated, due to their varying berth types (i.e., deep vs. shallow sawtooth), which are not interchangeable; operational and funding considerations (e.g., if private operators are asked to fund a portion of the proposed facility, they would less likely be willing to share); passengers would not know ahead of time which berth their bus route will utilize, thus making the routine of the commute a bit more difficult (depending on the ultimate layout of the facility), and; the facility ventilation and fire-life safety design would have to accommodate the most onerous requirement at each berth to allow for the desired flexibility.

MMPT Bus Berth Comparison Finally, Table 4-3 provides a comparison of the proposed MMPT to other existing and proposed transit facilities in the nation. Not all the transit facilities house intercity,


November 2010


commuter express and local bus operations, but the number of proposed bus berths for the MMPT are aligned with the bus berth capacity of the transit stations in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: MMPT Bus Berth Comparison Bus Operation Transit Facilities

Intercity

Commuter Express

Local

Existing Facilities

Number of Bus Berths

Jacksonville Rosa Parks Transit Center

0

0

18

Boston South Station

29

0

0

Chicago Greyhound Terminal

24 (Primarily Greyhound Only)

0

0

Proposed Facilities Denver Union Station San Francisco Transbay Transit Center Proposed Atlanta MMPT

4 (for circulator route only) Capacity for approximately 55 buses; split between 2 levels: “Ground Plaza” to have capacity for 25 local and commuter express buses “Bus Deck” to have 30 berths for intercity and commuter express buses (direct access to Bay Bridge) 0

18

30

14

9 to 12

Source: AECOM

4.4

Staging,Storage,and LayoverRequirements These three requirements reflect different needs of both intercity and local or express bus service operators. Staging – Staging occurs when buses pre-position themselves near the start of their first revenue trip so that they can depart from their starting location on time. Other than the “ready” bus berths that would be located on-site for some intercity and commuter express applications, none of the stakeholders interviewed as part of the study process indicated that they would utilize the proposed MMPT facility – or an area near it – for the staging of a significant number of buses. Storage – None of the stakeholders interviewed as part of the study process would store buses at or near the MMPT; all have maintenance and storage facilities located in other parts of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Layover – Layover occurs when a route utilizes the MMPT as a turn-around location, and the bus operator may utilize the recovery time to take a short break. This situation will likely occur primarily with the local MARTA routes that terminate at the MMPT, as well as with some of the commuter express bus routes that also utilize the facility as their downtown terminal.

As was described in Section 4.3, several of the bus bays within the proposed MMPT facility would be utilized for the layover of buses, or simply to store (on a short-term basis) “ready” buses, to accommodate extra sections during holiday surge periods, and for other unanticipated needs.


November 2010


4.5

Fire Life Safety Requirements Passenger bus facilities have requirements for ventilation and other fire-life safety considerations, but requirements are not well represented in Codes and Standards. NFPA 502 includes fire-life safety considerations for Road Tunnels. While that Standard excludes Bus Terminals from mandatory coverage, a prudent design will be informed by elements of that standard. Similarly, while NFPA 130 applies to rail elements a prudent design of a transportation facility will be informed by elements of that standard. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Handbook 2007 - HVAC Applications, Chapter 13 covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Criteria for normal operations will need to be developed for emissions concentrations considering both OSHA and EPA regulations. Criteria for emergency operations, such as Design Fire Heat Release Rate, tenability limits and other fire-life safety related items will need to be developed for all of the bus transportation and covered roadway elements. Additional emergency criteria, equipment and operating schemes will be required to address Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueled vehicles operating within the facility. This will include gas sensors to detect CNG in the bus spaces, and specific ventilation and other system responses to address incidents involving CNG. The development above and adjacent to the bus transportation and covered roadway elements will need to coordinate any required ventilation plant and related intakes and discharges, as well as air intakes for the development. Beyond pollutant concentrations and EPA limits, odor will also have to be considered for the adjacent development’s intakes. These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adversesafety exposures on a day-to-day basis, while beingThe available at any instant to address fire-life requirements of an emergency nature. Fire Protection approach will require coordination with the ventilation and smoke management approach. These requirements would need to be addressed by the Master Developer on a design specific level. Adjacent and overbuild development structural and architectural design criteria will also need to address noise and vibration transmission.

4.6

Diagramsof Bus Bays and BoardingArea The main access and egress points for the bus transit component will be determined by optimal bus operations in combination with the rail component. Intercity, Express and local bus operations can be located in different areas of the MMPT complex or stacked for more consolidated bus operations. Snapshots of the bus layout alternatives are below in Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-3 and a comprehensive discussion of bus operation configurations is presented in Section 9.0 MMPT Alternatives. The primary streets in downtown Atlanta that will be utilized to access the overall proposed MMPT King, facility’s Forsyth,Olympic Alabama, Marietta, Streets, well as Luther Jr. site and are Centennial Park Drives.and TheSpring analysis of theas impact of Martin the proposed MMPT facility on the capacity and ability of the downtown Atlanta street network to handle the additional bus traffic is examined more thoroughly in the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Project Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum dated October 2010. Current


November 2010


traffic operations and intersection levels of service in the MMPT study area in the morning and afternoon peak hours reflect no significant problems by the standards of a highly developed urban area. With this in mind, theexpected additional vehicle trips generated from bus transit operating from the MMPT are able to fit within existing intersection capacity. Depending on the configuration of MMPT facilities and streets, two major factors that may differ from existing conditions should be noted: •

•

Extension of Alabama Street . Alabama Street has been extended tohe t west of Forsyth Street to intersectwith Centennial Olympic Park Drive in each of the alternatives. In Alternative A, it also intersects with Spring Street (it is grade-separated from Spring Street in Alternatives B and C).Although Alabama Street operates as a bus-only facility today, its extension and the access to developable property that creates may prompt consideration of allowing regula r vehicle circulation to use itas well. If this happens, the intersection of Alabama and Forsyth Streets should be studied in more detail to determine likely traffic operations impacts. Location of Facility Entrances relative to intersections . Most of the drivewayentrances to MMPT facilities accommodating bus transportation are located away from street intersections. They are typically far enough away that large-vehicle turning movements, such as buses entering and exiting the MMPT facility, are not likely to create friction with regular traffic operating in the street intersection. However, in one place this occurs in close proximity to aplanned intersection. In Alternative A,all buses enter the MMPTfrom a driveway location immediately north of the intersection of Alabama Street and Spring Street. As this intersection does not currently exist, traffic operations cannot be compared to anexisting intersection capacity.However, Spring Streetis recommended to be converted to two-way operations in the Connect Atlanta Plan, and these turns may either affect oncoming (southbound) traffic, may create queuing in northbound traffic, or both. Due to the closespacing of this entrance tohe t future intersection, there is an opportunity to coordinate traffic signal control so that buses have special priority

southbound Spring Street traffic (if Spring Street is converted to two-way operations) is stopped to the north of the driveway, preventing any potential blockage to this entry/exit point for buses.


November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 4-1: Bus Layout Alternative A

Source: AECOM


November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 4-2: Bus Layout Alternative B

Source: AECOM


November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 4-3: Bus Layout Alternative C

Source: AECOM


November 2010


The Southeast HSR Study considered having the bus operations at Mitchell and Spring Streets in the southwest corner behind the former NS headquarters. Even though this alternative utilizes the vacant headquarters and is positioned adjacent to current freight rail operations, the drawback is the distance away from the current commuter express and local bus routes. The further north and east bus bays are located, the fewer modifications to current commuter express and local bus alignments are required. Figure 4-4 displays the two-level bus operations layout from the Southeast HSR Study. Figure 4-4: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Bus Layouts

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Study Alternative MMPT Configuration Report, July 2009


November 2010


4.7

Summaryof Bus Needs The most important criterion in terms of the needs of bus service at the proposed MMPT is the scale of the facility, especially concerning the number of bus bays that are anticipated and their characteristics. Collectively, the anticipated number of bus bays required at the proposed MMPT facility is 30 deep sawtooth bus bays for the intercity services, 14 shallow sawtooth bus bays for the commuter express services, and 9 to 12 shallow sawtooth bus bays for local MARTA services. This allows for approximately 53 to 56 bus bays at the proposed MMPT facility. The 30 intercity bus bays should allow for the possibility of double-decker buses utilizing the proposed MMPT facility in the future, and approximately 4 of the 9 to 12 shallow sawtooth bus bays that will be utilized by local MARTA services should allow for their use by 60-foot articulated buses. Table 4-4 provides a summary of current and future bus bay needs at the proposed MMPT. Table 4-4: Summary of Bus Bay Requirements Operator

Current Needs

Sawtooth Bus Bay

Ready Bus Bay

Total

Future Needs (25% increase for Intercity and Express)** Sawtooth Ready Total Bus Bay Bus Bay

Intercity Bus (Deep Sawtooth)

17

6

23

22

8

30

Express Bus (Shallow Sawtooth)

9

2

11

12

2

14

Local Bus (Shallow Sawtooth)*

9 to 12

n/a

9 to 12

9 to 12

n/a

9 to 12

TOTAL

43 to 46 bays

53 to 56 bays

*Four bus bays to allow for articulated buses and one reserved for MARTA Mobility ** Future needs correspond to build-out year 2030 Source: AECOM

Ultimately, the future provision for buses at the MMPT site will be a result of negotiations between relevant operators and the Master Developer. While providing a consolidated terminal location for all types of bus services and operational requirements (including short-term layovers) is a sound planning objective, it also takes valuable square footage away from the site’s developable area. In this context, there are a range of potential outcomes that should be explored by both the Master Developer and the various bus operators and authorities including but not limited to the following: •

Options for off-site layover of low frequency services;

•

Consolidation of operations (shared use of bays) to the greatest extent possible;

•

•

Proposal merit or potentially compensation / subsidy for the provision of various levels of bus capacity and service, and; Mediation of negotiations on behalf of 3 rd party bus operators.


November 2010




November 2010


5.0

VEHICLES FOR HIRE REQUIREMENTS Taxicabs, shuttles, car rental agencies, and car or ride sharing services (such as Atlanta Link) are transportation modes also being considered at the proposed MMPT. It is not the intent to have a “vehicles for hire” operation as large as HJAIA, but to allow a smaller scale operation to occur at the proposed MMPT.

5.1

Patron Usage and VehicleCapacity The City of Atlanta has approximately 1,600 taxicabs registered in operation. The proposed MMPT facility will be a major intermodal transit center, as well as a hub for intercity travel throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area. As such, taxicabs will gravitate towards this facility, as there will be demand for their services. Shuttle services linked to local hotels and tourist attractions may utilize the MMPT to pick up and drop off customers. For example, Checker Cab utilizes about 200 taxicabs throughout the entire City of Atlanta, with about 2,000 pick-ups per day. Checker Cab anticipates serving approximately 3,000 pick-ups per day throughout the entire City of Atlanta in the 20152030 time frame. Car rental agencies may have a small operation, while maintaining their major car rental hub at HJAIA. Most patrons will be commuters traveling to nearby work centers or tourists with final destinations in walking distance or accessed by local transit. There is also potential for car sharing services to use curb area or parking spaces at the proposed MMPT. Unfortunately, no comprehensive estimates of taxicab or vehicle for hire usage are currently available for the planning horizon year 2030 at the proposed MMPT facility. Should estimates become available at a later date, they will be incorporated into the analysis for the MMPT.

5.2

DesignatedBullpen / QueuingArea / Curb Area

5.2.1

Taxicab Services The regulatory agency for taxicabs in the City of Atlanta has indicated that a wellmarked, visible taxicab queue area would need to be placed curbside at the proposed MMPT facility. The taxicab queue should be marked with “No Parking, Taxicab Stand” and “Tow Away Zone” signage on the curb. Other important issues to consider regarding taxicabs at the proposed MMPT facility are as follows: •

There is currently a facility at HJAIA similar in terms of its intercity function to the proposed MMPT. The airport has 315 taxicab spaces in the queuing area and HJAIA is preparing for an additional 206 spaces (including shuttle vans) for the new Maynard Jackson International Terminal. Fifteen taxicabs are usually in the queue before being dispatched to pick up airport passengers from designated taxicab stands at the curbside of the terminal. A taxicab driver can wait between 3 to 5 hours in the taxicab waiting area. There is no intent at this time to provide as many taxicab spaces available at the HJAIA at the proposed MMPT. Planned stakeholder interviews with taxicab operators will continue; however, Checker Cab has indicated


5-1

November 2010


that a layover space for approximately 10 to 15 taxicabs would be necessary at the MMPT. In addition to this queuing area, Checker Cab indicated that it would be advantageous to provide approximately 15 parking spaces (or 20 parking spaces in the long term) for taxicabs in a parking area separate from the curb front queuing area. Future interviews with additional taxicab operators may clarify the potential space needed. •

The City of Atlanta’s taxicab industry functions as a closed system. In other words, only 1,600 taxicabs legally can operate within the City. This is also referred to as a “medallion system” where each taxicab company holds the rights to a certain number of taxicab licenses. These licenses can transfer between owners creating a trading value in the open market. Taxicab drivers lease the vehicles and licenses from taxicab companies. Therefore, any taxicabs that service the MMPT will come from the closed pool of taxicab operators.

•

•

Taxicabs outside of the City can drop off patrons in the City, but cannot pick up patrons within the City. Patrons must use a licensed City of Atlanta taxicab. Currently, there are no other major staging areas for taxicabs except at the HJAIA. Small taxicab stands are required at hotels if they provide taxicab services, and taxicab spaces are based on how many beds are within the hotel (i.e., one taxicab space per 100 beds). Taxicab drivers prefer to pick up at the airport because they are guaranteed a trip and higher price trips. Patrons are usually going a further distance than pick-ups within Midtown or Downtown Atlanta, but taxicab drivers servicing the MMPT can have guaranteed trips if a queuing system is implemented similar to HJAIA. Checker Cab thus far has indicated that they anticipate about 50 to 100 vehicles per day servicing the MMPT, with this growing to 60 to 120 vehicles per day by the 2030 time frame.

•

Only 20 percent of the taxicabs in the City have radios.

•

Taxicab Starters operate and contract with the airport to provide dispatch and

•

greeting services for patrons using the taxicabs at the airport. No data is kept regarding the number of taxicabs that wait at MARTA rail stations or hotels nor are there design criteria for taxicab stands and queuing areas.

Taxicab service in Atlanta is “demand driven”. Therefore, the taxicab stand at the proposed MMPT facility must be highly visible. The taxicab waiting and queuing area should be well lit and monitored with security cameras. It is proposed that the stand for taxicabs and shuttle vans be located along the “front door” curb front of the proposed MMPT facility. The curb length should be sufficient to accommodate these vehicles as well as private vehicles engaging in picking up or dropping off passengers. In addition, the taxicab queue area (or “bullpen”) should be located away from the curb front, in an area within line of sight and easily accessible to the curb front taxicab stand without needing to contend with other conflicting traffic.

5.2.2

Shuttle Services The ground transportation operations at HJAIA indicated that Atlanta Link, a shuttle operator currently providing services for airport patrons to Buckhead, downtown and midtown Atlanta hotels, may utilize the proposed MMPT. They currently have 20 vehicles in their fleet and pick-up and drop-off curb area for four shuttles have been included in the estimated space requirements in Section 6.0. Additional consultation with shuttle


5-2

November 2010


operators, such as Atlanta Link, is needed to clarify the potential curb area requirements for shuttles.

5.2.3

Car Rental Agencies During an interview with Enterprise Rent-a-Car, representatives provided the following information on potential operational requirements: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Office space requirements would range between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet. Parking spaces for a minimum of 15 to 30 rental cars and a maximum of 50 rental cars in an adjacent parking facility would be required. Approximately 10 employee parking spaces would also be desirable. These requirements are dependent upon demand and spatial constraints. Demand and spatial constraints may also dictate a 400 square feet office or kiosk. An annual growth rate of 5 to 10 percent growth rate is anticipated, but this growth rate has not been verified other than as a suggestion by Enterprise. Rent/return as well as one-way services can be included. They also provide car sharing services called “We Share”, van pool and truck hauling services. A dedicated phone line or shared phone line with the main MMPT facility may be required. Internal and external car cleaning operations would require 2 to 3 parking spaces (i.e., 200 to 400 square feet). Enterprise will not service cars on site such as oil changes or brake maintenance and they typically do not have fueling stations on site as well. Office space and parking area must be close enough for an employee to walk customers to their rental car. If customers have to be shuttled from the office to the car rental lot, operational costs become a factor. Parking spaces may be included in a larger parking area or deck as long as they have a consolidated and designated parking area for the rental cars.

The requirements expressed by Enterprise Rent-a-Car provide an initial indication of the spatial and operational needs of car rental agencies at the proposed MMPT. Additional consultation with other car rental agencies is needed to clarify potential bullpen area requirements for rental cars.

5.2.4

Car Sharing Services During an interview with Zipcar, representatives requested at least two parking spaces for their car sharing vehicles at the proposed MMPT. Zipcar’s completed survey along with other planned car sharing stakeholder interviews will clarify the potential needed curb area or parking spaces.


5-3

November 2010


5.3

Fire Life Safety Requirements If located beneath other development elements or otherwise enclosed, the vehicles for hire operation areas will have requirements for ventilation and other fire-life safety considerations. These elements may not be well represented in Codes and Standards. NFPA 502 includes fire-life safety considerations for Road Tunnels. While that Standard may not include such areas in the mandatory coverage, a prudent design will be informed by elements of that standard. ASHRAE Handbook 2007 - HVAC Applications, Chapter 13 covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Criteria for normal operations will need to be developed for emissions concentrations considering both OSHA and EPA regulations. Criteria for emergency operations, such as Design Fire Heat Release Rate, tenability limits and other fire-life safety related items will need to be developed for all covered roadway elements. The development above and adjacent to the covered roadway elements will need to coordinate any required ventilation plant and related intakes and discharges, as well as air intakes for the development. Beyond pollutant concentrations and EPA limits, odor will also have to be considered for the adjacent development’s intakes, even if the roadways are not covered. These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adverse exposures on a day-to-day basis, while being available at any instant to address fire-life safety requirements of an emergency nature. The Fire Protection approach will require coordination with the ventilation and smoke management approach. These requirements would need to be addressed by the Master Developer on a design specific level. Adjacent and overbuild development structural and architectural design criteria will also need to address noise and vibration transmission.

5.4

AccessPoints The primary streets in downtown Atlanta that will be utilized to access the proposed MMPT facility’s site are Forsyth, Marietta, and Spring Streets, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Centennial Olympic Park Drives. The analysis of the impact of the proposed MMPT facility on the capacity and ability of the downtown Atlanta street network to handle the additional traffic is examined more thoroughly in Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Project Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum dated October 2010. The MMPT Alternatives in Section 9.0 depicts taxi/shuttle designated curb space and taxi/car rental queuing areas.


5-4

November 2010


5.5

Survey of Vehiclesfor Hire Facilitiesat other National Transportation Hubs Below are high-level surveys of other transportation hubs that include vehicles for hire. These facilities are more comparable in capacity and operations intended for the proposed MMPT than an airport facility such as HJAIA.

5.5.1

Boston, Massachusetts– South Station Car Rentals

There are no car rental facilities located within the South Station complex. However, there are some car rental locations near South Station. Taxicabs

The taxicab stands are located along Atlantic Avenue, on the west side of the terminal complex. There is one taxicab stand closer to the railroad station headhouse, which appears to have a capacity of approximately 12 taxicabs. The taxicab stand closer to the bus terminal entrance appears to have a capacity of approximately six taxicabs. This makes for a total taxicab stand capacity of about 18 taxicabs. However, taxicabs appear to be able to drop off passengers along Summer Street (i.e., the east side of the terminal complex) as well. Figure 5-1: South Station Aerial View

The taxicab stands at South Station are along Atlantic Avenue, as seen in this aerial view.

5.5.2

th

Philadelphia,Pennsylvania – 30 Street Station Car Rentals

There are car rental facilities located within the 30th Street Station complex for Avis and Hertz. The rental cars are kept in the parking garage located beneath the station complex. However, the capacity of this garage and the number of rental cars kept there is unknown.


5-5

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Taxicabs

The taxicab stand is located along 29th Street, on the east side of the terminal complex, underneath the portico, thus providing protection from the weather. The taxicab stand appears to have a capacity of approximately 12 taxicabs. However, taxicabs appear to be able to drop off passengers anywhere near the station as well. th

Figure 5-2: 30 Street Station Aerial View

The taxicab stand is located underneath the th

portico on the 29 Street side of the station, as seen in this aerial view.

5.5.3

Washington,D.C. – Union Station Car Rentals

There are car rental facilities located within the Union Station complex for Alamo, Avis, Budget and Hertz. The rental cars are kept in the parking garage located immediately north of the terminal, over the terminal’s tracks. However, the capacity of this garage and the number of rental cars kept there is unknown. Taxicabs

The taxicab stand is located at the “front” of the station, along the Columbus Circle/Massachusetts Avenue NE side of the terminal complex. The taxicab stand is directly in front of the terminal and appears to have a capacity of approximately 12 to 13 taxicabs. However, the queue extends back along the ramp from the parking garage and appears to have a capacity of approximately 20 additional taxicabs up the ramp. Once passengers are dropped off, taxicabs may enter the ramp at the other (i.e., west) end of the terminal and join the queue to come back down the ramp and serve the taxicab stand at the front of the terminal.


5-6

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 5-3: DC Union Station Aerial View

The taxicab stand is located at the front of the terminal.

The queue extends back up the ramp, which wraps around the back of the terminal.

5.5.4

Los Angeles, California – Union Station Car Rentals

There are car rental facilities located within the Union Station complex for Budget and Hertz. There may be other car rental companies at Los Angeles Union Station, but the study team was unable to identify additional vendors. The rental cars are kept on site in the parking facility adjacent to the terminal/Gateway Plaza complex. However, the capacity of this garage and the number of rental cars kept there is unknown. Taxicabs

The taxicab stand is located at the “front” of the station, along the Alameda Street (i.e., west side of the terminal complex). The taxicab stand is directly in front of the terminal and appears to have a capacity of approximately 10 taxicabs. Figure 5-4: LA Union Station Aerial View

The taxicab stand is located along the Alameda Street side of the station, as seen in this aerial view.

5.6

Summaryof Vehiclesfor Hire Need A well-marked, visible taxicab queue area should be located curbside at the proposed MMPT facility. The taxicab queue should be marked with “No Parking, Taxicab Stand”


5-7

November 2010


and “Tow Away Zone” signage on the curb. The taxicab waiting and queuing area should be well lit and monitored with security cameras. There is also a potential need for dedicated curb area for shuttles and car sharing vehicles that is clearly marked. A bullpen for car rental agencies should also be considered to support the MMPT’s potential to serve as a minor car rental hub for central Atlanta. Space for at least 30 rental cars in a parking facility would appear to be an appropriate starting point. Table 5-1 provides a summary of current vehicles for hire requirements. Table 5-1: Summary of Potential Vehicles for Hire Requirements Stakeholder/Operator*

Queuing / Curb Bullpen / Long- Employee Parking Parking Term Parking Taxicab (Checker Cab) 10 to 15 15 to 20 n/a Car Rental (Enterprise) n/a 30 10 Shuttle (Atlanta Link) 4 n/a n/a Car Sharing (Zipcar) 2 n/a n/a *This table only includes requirements from stakeholders that completed a survey and/or interviewed, additional responses may change potential requirements. Source: Listed Stakeholders


5-8

November 2010




November 2010


6.0

FACILITY AND SUPPORT AREA REQUIREMENTS

6.1

Design Parameters

6.1.1

Terminal Spatial Requirements The proposed spatial program for the MMPT is based on consultation with stakeholders. It is intended to guide future facility planning as additional meetings and coordination will be necessary to address all stakeholder requirements. In some instances, previous MMPT studies were used as a basis to determine requirements. The estimation of net square footage was derived primarily from stakeholder surveys and consultant experience in the design of comparable facilities. These estimates are not the result of a detailed market analysis. An additional 25 percent was added to the estimated net square footage for future growth and 30 percent was added for internal circulation, electrical, mechanical, trash, columns, walls, and other structural elements. Although freight rail from both NS and CSX will not require facility space, movement of freight rail could affect passenger rail loading and unloading times. Appendix E shows detailed estimates for space requirements for facility and support areas. Estimated space requirements in this section have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Previous studies suggest that three levels could be accommodated at the MMPT: a track level, lower level, and upper level. The alternatives proposed in this report also support a three level complex. The main pedestrian entrance should be on the upper level. Ideally, retail should be accessible from the main terminal and directly from the street. Some of the retail should have a connection to the individual tenant waiting areas. The main terminal could be similar to a mall, possibly covered, but not an air-conditioned space. The main terminal should allow day-lighting and natural ventilation. Vertical circulation should encompass both emergency egress and convenience. Non-emergency stairs should be open and conveniently accessible to encourage use, thus reducing the number of elevator trips. Elevators and stairs should be grouped together where possible to serve both public and private spaces. On the lower levels, a similar design is proposed. These levels would accommodate service areas, loading areas, and support spaces. The diagrams in Section 9.0 MMPT Alternatives illustrate how the MMPT main terminal could be integrated with passenger rail, bus operations, vehicles for hire, light rail, streetcar, and surrounding overbuild.

6.1.2

Sustainabilityand Energy EfficiencyGoals Nationally and locally, there is increasing emphasis on sustainability and energy efficiency in the construction industry. Section 75-1 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlanta states that the “City shall integrate green and/or sustainable building principles and practices into the design, construction, and operations of all city facilities, and cityfunded projects to the fullest extent possible”. It also adds that the “City shall act as a leader for the private sector in the practice of green building”. As a result, the incorporation of sustainable principles will have a significant impact on MMPT conceptual designs. Several rating systems have been developed to provide guidance to owners, designers, and operators on how to incorporate “green” construction principles and technologies into public facility designs. These include the Leadership in Energy


6-2

November 2010


and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), Energy Star developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, and Living Building Challenge. The spatial requirements presented in this section do not take into account the additional space required to incorporate these guidelines. However, future MMPT planning and design efforts should incorporate these principles and guidelines. MMPT design should also consider methods to: •

•

Reduce cooling and heating loads;

•

Reduce wall and roof assembly U-values;

•

Reduce lighting costs and provide an adequate amount of glazing;

•

•

•

6.1.3

Ensure that the orientation of the facility reduces exposure to high solar heat gain;

Conserve water; Reduce building volume and consolidate retail services and support spaces, and; Provide community connectivity.

Architecturaland Fire Life Safety Integration The overall Architecture, Terminal Space Requirements, and the Sustainability and Efficiency Goals will need to be coordinated with the normal and emergency operation requirements for the various transportation elements and related public areas. This includes arrangements and space allowances for items such as smoke catchment volumes, draft curtains, and smoke management ducts, among other elements of the ventilation approach, as coordinated with the fire protection approach. MMPT design should also consider methods to: •

Minimize overall ventilation system capacity;

•

Minimize overall ventilation system complexity;

•

Integrate with other elements to reduce building volume;

•

•

Address acoustic issues, and; Maximize the air quality to support the overall transportation experience.

6.2

Public Amenities

6.2.1

Patron Areas: Waiting areas, Restrooms,and Support Spaces Terminal common areas include areas that can be shared and are not unique to individual tenant specific operations. The sizes of the spaces are based on estimated number of passengers at a peak period multiplied by a square footage allowance detailed in Appendix E. These areas also provide a means of connection from one mode of transportation to another and a link to the surrounding exterior areas such as parking. Throughout the various component programs, common spaces have been separated from tenant spaces. Table 6-1 provides estimated space requirements for waiting areas


6-3

November 2010


for each potential transportation service. The waiting areas are grouped by their modes but may be altered due to the following: •

Tenant operations;

•

Level of security;

•

Patron comfort, and;

•

Proximity to boarding area. Table 6-1: Waiting Areas Program

Item Passenger Rail Commuter Express and Local Bus Intercity Bus Vehicles for Hire Regional Light Rail and Streetcar MMPT Management Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 16,600 10,900 17,700 1,200 32,700 700 79,800

Source: AECOM

6.2.2

Ticketing / Fare Collection Areas and Procedures As technology and patron practices change, spatial requirements for fare collection must be updated to accommodate stakeholder requirements. Spatial requirements are based on current technologies and a square footage allowance multiplied by number of positions. Automated fare collection systems are currently in use by MARTA. The Breeze Card is a stored value smart card that allows passengers access to the MARTA transit system. The regional express bus systems: CCT in Cobb, GCT in Gwinnett, and GRTA utilize or will eventually utilize the Breeze Card, which will reduce the need of exiting stations through transfer gates. Table 6-2 provides estimated space requirements for ticketing, fare collection, and passenger services for each potential transportation service. Table 6-2: T icketing / Fare Collection Areas and Passenger Services Program


Estimated Ticketing Required (gross sf) 3,000 800 1,200 500 200 0 5,700

Estimated Services Required (gross sf) 3,000 700 0 300 200 0 4,200

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 6,000 1,500 1,200 800 400 0 9,900

Source: AECOM

6.2.3

Office / Meeting Space Office and meeting spaces were required primarily for the operational needs of the individual transportation services, spatial requirements are listed under Administrative/Operations within each component in Appendix E. Intercity bus and rail


6-4

November 2010


stakeholders expressed a desire to have additional office and meeting space to support broader operations. These spaces should be adjacent to MMPT transit operations if possible. Additional meeting space for special events was deemed beneficial, but not required. Table 6-3 provides estimated requirements for office and meeting space. Table 6-3: Office / Meeting Space Program


Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 16,700 600 4,900 1,400 600 14,500 38,700

Source: AECOM

6.2.4

Retail Space The incorporation of retail space is critical to the success of the MMPT as a catalyst for redevelopment in the Gulch area; however, retail must be easily accessible and visible by patrons of the MMPT and those who are not patrons of the MMPT. Coordination with local planning organizations and the private sector will be required to ensure that the MMPT is not simply a facility that acts as a transfer between transportation modes, but a destination that attracts other users. Stakeholder requests determined types of desired retail. Most of the retail requested included media stands, sundry vendors, cafeterias/restaurants with seating, and gift shops. A few stakeholders requested dry cleaning services. A detailed breakdown of retail square footage by type is provided in Appendix E. The sizes of the spaces detailed in Appendix E are based on similar facilities and are only a point in which to begin negotiations. A market analysis has not been conducted at this stage, but further analysis will be needed for the Master Developer to better determine retail for MMPT patrons and other users. Table 6-4 provides estimated stakeholder requests for retail space retail by type of passenger facility. Table 6-4: Retail Space Program


Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 18,600 8,000 6,900 300 0 0 33,800

Source: AECOM

6.2.5

Maintenanceand MiscellaneousSupport Areas Contractual relationships and leases will help determine the exact maintenance and cleaning needs of the facility. Support areas include additional spaces necessary for the operations of transportation services such as the baggage system make-up and storage


6-5

November 2010


areas. Spaces for electrical and mechanical rooms (including janitorial rooms) were added in the program as a percentage of each transportation service. Square footage allowances and quantities in Appendix E were based on stakeholder surveys and stationing program requirements. Table 6-5 provides estimated space requirements for maintenance and miscellaneous support areas. Table 6-5: Maintenance and Miscellaneous Support Areas Program

Item Passenger Rail Commuter Express and Local Bus Intercity Bus Vehicles for Hire MARTA Light Rail and Streetcar MMPT Management Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 7,700 0 6,700 1,000 400 0 15,800

Source: AECOM

6.2.6

Security Security needs will vary, but the overall security requirements for the MMPT must be coordinated with local and state police departments. Previous studies suggest the MMPT house a small police force; still, consideration must include crowd control for special events and times when multiple agency management is required. Security checkpoints should be located at the main entrance and at waiting areas. Service areas should be monitored and controlled. Baggage screening will be required at specific locations, which will result in additional staffing needs. Table 6-6 provides estimated space requirements for security areas. Table 6-6: Security Area Program

Item Passenger Rail Commuter Express and Local Bus Intercity Bus Vehicles for Hire Regional Light Rail and Streetcar

MMPT Management Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 1,500 200 200 0 0 Included within office space 1,900

Source: AECOM

6.3

Parking Needs / Truck LoadingArea The main objectives of parking are to provide efficient access, storage, circulation, and egress for vehicles while minimizing the amount of space used for parking. Most of the stakeholders did not request parking for patrons, while some required a small amount for employees. A portion of the study area lies within a Parking Limitation District found in the SPI-1 Zoning Ordinance. This section is located within the study area between Spring Street


6-6

November 2010


and Peachtree Street and from Trinity Avenue to Marietta Street. The ordinance requires a maximum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This requirement is slightly less than the maximum number of spaces for the remainder of the study area, which are 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Square feet per space, typically ranges from 250 to 400, depending upon the configuration, size of space required in the zoning code, site constraints, and level-ofservice (LOS). The square foot allowance used to develop the estimates in Table 6-7 is based on 350 square feet for each space and use the minimum number required from Stakeholder requests. Table 6-7 also presents a maximum number that was derived from the maximum allowed by the zoning code with a reduction by LEED rating system of 5 percent of full-time equivalents (FTE). Most of the parking needs, 72 spaces, were requested to serve employees while 12 were requested for Park-n-Ride and 10 for Kissn-Ride. Table 6-7: Estimated Space Needs for MMPT Parking

Parking for Facility Maximum Parking Allowed Minimum Parking Required

Service Vehicles Truck Loading Truck Loading Bicycle and Bike Station Total (using Minimum Parking Required)

Number of Spaces / Space Required (sf) 220 spaces / 350 sf each 94 spaces / 350 sf each 21 spaces (3 police officers and 18 maintenance vehicles) / 350 sf each 2 spaces / 735 sf each 3 spaces / 1155 sf each NA

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 77,000 32,900

7,400 1,500 3,500 1,700 47,000

Source: AECOM

Other strategies of green design include providing preferred parking for low-emitting vehicles and installing alternative-fuel refueling stations. Zipcar, a for-profit car sharing company, offers services for vehicle sharing per hour or day. Accommodating a car sharing service would require rental space at the MMPT, but would reduce the square footage required for a parking structure. Other considerations such as whether the parking structure should be an open or closed structure should be determined early in project design. These decisions directly affect life safety issues, fire separations, and ventilation (forced or natural). The SPI- 1 Zoning Ordinance states that parking structures should conceal the visibility of automobiles from any public ROW, street, plaza, and adjacent residential dwellings.

6.3.1

Patron and Employee Vehicle Parking For public parking, a higher acceptable LOS is emphasized by factors such as turning radii, ramp slopes, and flow capacity. Additionally, consideration should be given to patrons carrying baggage. The higher acceptable LOS for employee parking is emphasized by factors such as travel distances, entry, and exiting. Obviously, employees are more familiar with the facility and location of parking. The patron and employee vehicle parking is included under the maximum parking allowed in Table 6-7.


6-7

November 2010


6.3.2

Service Vehicle Parking Table 6-7 reflects stakeholder requirements for service vehicle parking. It is assumed that police and security would need some spaces while fire and rescue may require parking for emergencies and special events only. Additionally, operations at the MMPT would require adequate space for service and maintenance vehicles.

6.3.3

Bicycle Storage There are approximately 1,500 daily bike commuters to downtown Atlanta (based on surveys and traffic counts conducted by CAP). Secure short- and long-term bike spaces may be quite popular, especially combined with the proximity to transit services that the proposed MMPT will provide. Atlanta’s hot summers make showers a near-necessity for bike commuters traveling a distance of more than three to four miles. There may be interest in a shared bike program for mid-day errands and meetings. The MMPT should plan upfront for safe and accessible bike lanes, in street and separated related facilities when taking into consideration new street connections, key bicycle routes, and the limited ROW of existing streets. Estimated space and services in Table 6-8 are based on recommendations from the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition. Table 6-8: Estimated Space Needs for MMPT Bicycle Station

Bike Station Service/Facility Secure bicycle spaces (100 bicycles) Showers (6 to 8) Changing room (1 men and 1 women; 100 sf each) Bicycle repair shop/Self-service bicycle repair – stands and tools, some parts, etc. Bicycle rentals and/or shared bicycle program (40 bicycles) Maps and safety information Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 700 200 200 300 300 0 1,700

Source: Atlanta Bicycle Coalition

6.3.4

Truck Loading Area Requirements Table 6-9 outlines the truck loading space requirements set forth in the SPI-1 Zoning Ordinance for the downtown area. Table 6-9: SPI-1 Downtown Loading Table Floor Area (sf) 10,000 sf and under 10,001 sf - 40,000 sf 40,001 sf - 100,000 sf 100,001 sf - 250,000 sf 250,001 sf - 500,000 sf 500,001 sf and above

Loading Space 12’ x 35’ None 1 2 2 2 2

Loading Space 12’ x 55’ None None None 1 2 3

Source: City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development

6.3.5

General Enclosed Vehicle Facility Requirements If located beneath other development elements, any enclosed vehicle facility areas will have requirements for ventilation and other fire-life safety considerations.


6-8

November 2010


These elements may not be well represented in Codes and Standards. NFPA 502 includes fire-life safety considerations for Road Tunnels, and local Codes will likely address parking garage areas. Where areas are omitted from mandatory coverage, a prudent design will be informed by elements of that standard. ASHRAE Handbook 2007 - HVAC Applications, Chapter 13 covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Criteria for normal operations will need to be developed for emissions concentrations considering both OSHA and EPA regulations. Criteria for emergency operations, such as Design Fire Heat Release Rate, tenability limits and other fire-life safety related items will need to be developed for all enclosed vehicle facility elements. The development above and adjacent to enclosed vehicle facility elements will need to coordinate any required ventilation plant and related intakes and discharges, as well as air intakes for the development. Beyond pollutant concentrations and EPA limits, odor will also have to be considered for the adjacent development’s intakes, even if the enclosed vehicle facility areas are not covered. These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adverse exposures on a day-to-day basis, while being available at any instant to address fire-life safety requirements of an emergency nature. The Fire Protection approach will require coordination with the ventilation and smoke management approach. These requirements would need to be addressed by the Master Developer on a design specific level. Adjacent and overbuild development structural and architectural design criteria will also need to address noise and vibration transmission.

6.4

TransitComponentSpatialRequirements Transit components are grouped by passenger rail, express and local bus, intercity bus, vehicles for hire, and light-rail and streetcar. The type of travel, patron loads and operational needs determined the spatial requirements. Rail requires a greater amount of space because of vehicle lengths, increased patron loads and handling of luggage; whereas bus transit is more adaptable to site constraints. The square footage required for express and local bus is significant, in comparison to intercity bus, due to circulation patterns and the number of bus bays required. Vehicles for hire tend to be the most flexible transit component. Light rail and streetcar should be at street level to accommodate the desired transit alignments. The following sections provide further detail of each transit component.

6.4.1

PassengerRail Programmed spaces for passenger rail followed Amtrak guidelines and consultant experience in designs of passenger rail facilities. Since further analysis must be completed based on operating plans, HSR ridership was based on an increase of 1.33 percent. This was determined by the forecasted increase of bus ridership due to the introduction of HSR from the Southeast HSR Study. Figure 6-1 provides an illustration of space adjacency requirements for efficient use of programmed spaces for passenger rail operations. Ticketing areas act as an interface to patrons and provide baggage drop-off. Both baggage pick-up and ticketing areas need


6-9

November 2010


to be adjacent to baggage handling. Baggage handling requires direct access to the platform. Site conditions may require an additional waiting area; if not necessary, then the platform would require direct access to the waiting area. Amtrak did request baggage drop-off services within the main concourse. Figure 6-1: Passenger Rail Adjacency Diagram

Source: AECOM

6.4.1.1

Waiting, Ticketing, and Baggage

Waiting areas as shown in Figure 6-2 should provide patrons with views of the trains. Amtrak guidelines state “anxiety is substantially reduced when guests can see the trains and can understand when trains arrive and depart.” Figure 6-2 shows an enclosed waiting area overlooking the track with an elevated access to the covered, exterior platforms. The size of the waiting area was based on guidelines provided by Amtrak. Square footage allowances and peak period numbers can be found in Appendix E. Site conditions may warrant additional rail-side waiting areas. Waiting areas may be above the track level since access to the platforms should be above the tracks.


6-10

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 6-2: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Station Waiting Area

Source: Route 128 Intermodal Facility (27,000 sq ft.) in Westwood, Massachusetts that opened in 2000

Semi-manned ticketing counters and baggage areas were provided for services requiring longer trip times. For commuter transit, the use of self-service ticketing (unmanned vending machines) was programmed. The number of queuing areas required is dependent upon the number of semi-manned ticketing counters. Baggage handling and claim areas are critical for Amtrak’s operations. Baggage handling operations typically require a tunnel underneath the platforms, which was not included within the program due to unknown site conditions. Table 6-10 provides estimated space requirements for passenger rail services. Table 6-10: Passenger Rail Program Summary

Item Platform and Maintenance (not including parking) Track Area (adjacent to platforms only) Ticketing Administration and Operations Patron Areas Passenger Services Security Retail Meeting Miscellaneous and Support Areas Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 128,400 96,000 3,000 11,000 16,600 3,000 1,500 18,600 5,700 7,700 291,500

Source: AECOM

6.4.2

Commuter Express and Local Bus Facility requirements for commuter express and local bus components are shared due to the flexible nature of commuters and the short period required for loading and unloading. Typically, spatial requirements are not extensive and usually require a waiting area and support spaces, ticketing machines, and tenant preferred retail spaces. Commuter express and local bus square footage was derived from ridership numbers and stakeholder survey facility requests. Appendix E shows detailed quantities and square


6-11

November 2010


foot allowances. Table 6-11 provides estimated space requirements for commuter express and local bus services. Table 6-11: Commuter Express and Local Bus Program Summary

Item Boarding Area, Site Circulation and Maintenance (not including parking) Ticketing Administration and Operations Patron Areas Passenger Services Security Retail Meeting Miscellaneous Support Areas Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf)

100,100 800 600 10, 900 700 200 8,000 0 0 121,300

Source: AECOM

6.4.3

Intercity Bus Greyhound Lines, the main stakeholder for intercity bus, submitted a detailed spreadsheet of spatial requirements. A 25 percent increase in the intercity bus market is projected by 2030. This percentage was applied to the overall square footage to determine estimates for the intercity bus program. Figure 6-3 provides an illustration of space adjacency requirements for efficient use of programmed spaces for intercity bus operations.

6.4.3.1

Waiting, Retail and Ticketing

The waiting areas are adjacent to the loading and unloading area, providing direct access. Queuing space is located inside the terminal concourse. Retail such as restaurant and vending machines should preferably be located adjacent to tenant waiting areas, but also be accessible from MMPT common areas. The main requirement for Greyhound is the need to provide ticketing agents with a view of the waiting areas, restrooms, and front entrance as shown in Figure 6-3. If the ticketing area is combined with the GPX Baggage (a retail freight service provided by Greyhound) area, then direct access from ticketing to baggage handling would be required.


6-12

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 6-3: Intercity Bus Adjacency Diagram

Source: AECOM

6.4.3.2

Terminal Operations and District Office Space

The Greyhound patron is responsible for carrying personal baggage to the bus. The baggage area is primarily for GPX Baggage, lost and found, and luggage that have arrived at the destination prior to the passenger. It is critical that the baggage area is adjacent to the bus loading and unloading area. Baggage is included under Operations and Miscellaneous within Figure 6-3. Greyhound requires office and administrative areas for their district operations. These areas can be separated from terminal operations. However, a connection between district office space and terminal operations is desirable. Appendix E shows detailed square footage allowances with quantities.


6-13

November 2010


Table 6-12 provides estimated space requirements for intercity bus services.


6-14

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 6-12: Intercity Bus Program Summary

Item Boarding Area and Maintenance (not including parking) Site Circulation Allowance Ticketing Administration and Operations Patron Areas Passenger Services Security Retail

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 20,500 20,500 1,200 4,900 17,700 0 200 6,900

Meeting Miscellaneous Support Areas Total

0 6,700 78,600

Source: AECOM

6.4.4

Vehicles for Hire Vehicles for hire such as taxicabs, shuttles, and car sharing services will require space primarily for pick-up and drop-off of patrons. The design should provide a curbside, covered area for pick-up and drop-off spaces. Transportation facilities typically have space allocated for queuing, which during large events can be shared perhaps with parking. Their needs are 24 hours a day, seven days a week and they work independently. Due to their independence, sales occur within the vehicles and do not require ticketing spaces. Vehicles for hire will require very limited space at the MMPT. Vehicles for Hire also include rental car services, which require administrative and patron areas. Appendix E shows detailed square footage allowances and quantities. Table 6-13 provides estimated space requirements for vehicles for hire services.

Table 6-13: Vehicles for Hire Program Summary Item Pick-up/ Drop-off Area and Maintenance Ticketing Administration and Operations Patron Areas Passenger Services Security Retail Meeting Miscellaneous Support Areas Total

Estimated Space Required (gross sf) 30,000 500 1,400 1,200 300 0 300 0 1,000 34,700

Source: AECOM

6.4.5

Regional Light Rail and Streetcar There are plans to implement light rail and streetcar services that could connect to or Concept 3 Technical Report estimates serve the MMPT. The boardings Transit Planning an average of 64,300 for the Board’s four segments that will serve the MMPT. Since the nature of the passenger is similar to local and express bus travelers, alighting and boarding counts should be within 10 to 20 percent of each other. Taking 80 percent of the boardings, an estimated 51,440 passengers will utilize the MMPT daily. 15 percent


6-15

November 2010


provides the peak hour 2-way traffic of 7,716 and 65 percent of 2-way leaves a total of 5,015 passengers to be used for waiting area measurement. Waiting areas are only provided for seating as it is assumed that standing patrons would be accommodated at the boarding areas. Additional requirements for light rail and streetcar services would be ticketing machines, vending machines, some passenger services, office space for two employees, and an operator break area. Table 6-14 provides estimated space requirements for Regional Light Rail and Streetcar services. Detailed spatial requirements are listed in Appendix E. Table 6-14: Regional Light Rail and Streetcar Program Summary Estimated Space Required (gross sf)

Item Boarding Area, Track Area and Maintenance Ticketing Administration and Operations Patron Areas Passenger Services Security Retail Meeting Miscellaneous Support Areas Total

15,000 200 600 25,400 200 0 0 0 400 41,800

Source: AECOM

6.5

Summaryof SpatialRequirements The summary of spatial requirements provided in Table 6-15 focuses on the stated needs of stakeholders. Included are the gross building spaces, spaces required for loadingoperations and unloading of patrons (including vehicles), siteamenities circulation for as transit and parking spaces. This berthing does notof include all site such landscape and retainage areas, central and distributed mechanical and electrical plant requirements, other retail that is not inclusive of requested stakeholder retail, and site improvements, such as additional roadway and track work. Table 6-16 provides a comparison of the transit components with public amenities, boarding areas (including berthing of vehicles) and site circulation and parking needs. Table 6-15: Building Program Summary (Including Platforms)

Item

MMPT Management and Operations Passenger Rail Commuter Express and Local Bus Intercity Bus Vehicles for Hire Regional Light Rail and Streetcar SubtotalStructure and Loading Area Parking Total Building

Estimated Space Required (gross sf including growth factor) 15,200 291,500 121,300 78,600 34,700 41,800

583,100 47,000 630,100

Source: AECOM


6-16

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 6-16: Total Building Program Comparison Floor Area (sf)

Passenger Rail

Waiting Areas Ticketing and Passenger Services Office/ Meeting Retail

16,600

Commuter & Express Bus 10,900

6,000

Maintenance/ Miscellaneous Support Areas Security Area Boarding and Site Areas Sub-Total Parking Total Truck Loading and Bicycle Grand Total

Intercity Vehicles Bus for Hire

Regional MMPT Light Rail Management & Streetcar 25,400 700

Total

17,700

1,200

72,500

1,500

1,200

800

400

0

9,900

16,700

600

4,900

1,400

600

14,500

38,700

18,600

8,000

6,900

300

0

0

33,800

7,700

0

6,700

1,000

400

0

15,800

1,500

200

200

0

0

NA

1,900

224,400

100,100

41,000

30,000

15,000

0

410,500

291,500

121,300

78,600

34,700

41,800

15,200

583,100

18,200

3,500

14,000

3,500

0

1,100

40,300

309,700

124,800

92,600

38,200

41,800

16,300

623,400


6,700 630,100

6-17

November 2010


7.0

TRANSIT MODE INTEGRATION AND SITE ACCESS

7.1

Transfersbetween TransitModes Primary transfers from MMPT services will be to MARTA rail, local and regional buses, and to potential future light rail and streetcar services. Although detailed srcin and destination data are not available to determine circulation patterns, this study has assumed that most MMPT passengers will rely on a transfer to another transit mode to reach their ultimate destination. This assumption has been made on the basis of a halfmile distance as the generally acceptable maximum distance most people in the United States are willing walk toelevators destinations. Factoring in theassumed added time from waiting to cross streets and to traverse and escalators, this distance is effectively shortened, especially in light of commuting passengers with a need for convenient access to employment destinations. Using an actual walking reach of 2,000 feet as the basis for access potential, MMPT passengers have most immediate access to the United States federal government office buildings, Fulton County’s government center and courthouse, and the CNN Center. They do not have access within this same walking distance to the core business district of downtown Atlanta (at and around Peachtree Center) or the business district of Midtown Atlanta. As both of these business districts feature much greater concentrations of employment than the area within close walking reach of the MMPT, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of transfers will be commuter rail passengers who do not walk to their ultimate destination. Section 7.3 illustrates the actual walking reach along street infrastructure from each of the three station location alternatives discussed in this memorandum. Depending on the final platform configuration, arriving MMPT passengers may walk up to 2,100 feet from the ends of platforms to access the Five Points or Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail stations. Alternatively, passengers may transfer to buses or future light rail and streetcar services with either direct access or a short walk from platforms. Section 7.2 provides a detailed matrix of intermodal connections within the MMPT.

7.2

Circulationof Passengersbetween TransitModes The location of the main terminal building affects the design and location of pedestrian access links to the MARTA rail stations and other surface transit modes serving the MMPT. Each of the three MMPT terminal location alternatives have been considered with regard to the reach of pedestrian connectivity from likely station entrances as well as transfer connections to other travel modes, either served directly by the MMPT or within close proximity (such as MARTA rail and bus services).Table 7-1 through Table 7-3 provide additional detail on how these connections are made, emphasizing where vertical movements (i.e. changes of level through elevators, escalators or stairways) and lateral movements (i.e. the surface distance covered from one point to another). The intent of these comparisons is to provide more detailed information on pedestrian circulation, with attention to the actual walking distances required and the need for vertical circulation based on the alternative designs. The general location of the MMPT in downtown Atlanta presents a unique set of circumstances, in that track-level rail platforms are separated by as much as three conventional stories of height from the street viaducts above them. For this reason, three different levels of facility location have been assumed: an upper level that interfaces directly with the street, a lower level


7-1

November 2010


directly below this, and a track level where rail platforms are located (which is likely to be the actual ground level). A key component of connections to MARTA rail is the existing tunnel connection under Forsyth Street into the Five Points MARTA station. Each of the three alternatives has sought to utilize this connection, which is assumed to be at the track level of MMPT facilities. In general, the need for accommodating multiple transit modes and the implications of this on configuration of the MMPT suggest that passengers transferring between modes will need to make use of both vertical and lateral connections. In some cases there may be more than one way to reach a different part of the facility or to connect to supporting transit infrastructure (such as MARTA heavy rail). These both suggest that clear naming conventions and wayfinding will be necessary as the MMPT facility is constructed. The lateral distance between the optimal locations of rail platforms and the core activity center of downtown Atlanta, as well as the need to accommodate multiple travel modes and passenger functions, both underscore that each alternative has specific advantages and challenges. Table 7-1: Alternative A Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers

Alternative A

Travel Modes From

High Speed Rail

li a High Speed Rail R d e e p S h High Speed Rail g i H

High Speed Rail

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

1 (track level to upper level: street connections to Martin Luther King Drive or Mitchell Street)

Direct platform access from either Mitchell Street or Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

MARTA Bus

At least 1, but dependent on bus stop locations.

Dependent on bus stop locations. Some stops may be located close to direct street access, although up to 1,400 feet for Broad Street bus mall stops.

MARTA Rail (Five Points)

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access Five Points ped tunnel)

Approximately 2,100 feet

Street

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

2 (track to upper; upper to MARTA platforms)


Approximately 600 feet, though street crossings likely.

7-2

Pros

Cons

Close proximity via direct streetto-platform access to Federal Buildings

All movements can be enclosed in station or tunnel structures.

Distance is long and multiple elevator/escalator movements are needed.

HSR platforms physically closer to GWCC than to Five Points

Likely need to leave station complex to walk to MARTA; seamless connection may require fare collection in a tunnel and may preclude tunnel's use for general connection to Philips Arena and GWCC area

November 2010


Alternative A

Travel Modes From

k a rt

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

High Speed Rail

Intercity Rail

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access IC rail track)

High Speed Rail

Commuter Rail

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access commuter rail track)

Approximately 400 feet

High Speed Rail

Commuter Bus

1 (track to lower)


High Speed Rail

Intercity Bus

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access intercity bus staging area)


Intercity Rail

Street

1 (track level to upper level)

Intercity Rail

MARTA Bus



2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access Five Points ped tunnel.

m A /l i Intercity Rail a R y ti c r e t n I Intercity Rail

Intercity Rail

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

Commuter Rail

2 (track to upper, which involves reaching the street and walking on streets to MARTA station; upper level to descend to MARTA platforms). 2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access commuter rail track)


Approximately 150 feet if terminal access is not needed

Pros

Cons

Access is immediate and simply involves changing platforms if terminal access is not needed Access is immediate and simply involves changing platforms if terminal access is not needed

None, other than circulation on platform to reach vertical access point. Dependent on bus stop locations. Transfers to buses at Five Points may use street connections.


All movements can be enclosed in station or tunnel structures; no street-level circulation needed.




7-3

November 2010


Alternative A

Travel Modes From

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

Intercity Rail

Commuter Bus

1 (track to lower)


Intercity Rail

Intercity Bus

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access commuter rail track)


Street

1 (track level to upper level: street connections to Martin Luther King Drive)

Direct platform access from Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.


Approximately 400 feet for terminalstaging buses. Some stops may be located close to direct street access, although up to 1,400 feet for Broad Street bus mall stops.

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail

il a R r e t Commuter Rail u m m o C

MARTA Bus


2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to


access pedestrian tunnel to Five Points)

Pros

Close proximity via direct streetto-platform access to Federal Buildings Closer access to Five Points, new street connections (especially Alabama extension) can be used as 'bus mall' stops to increase proximity All movements can be enclosed in station or tunnel structures; no street-level circulation needed.

Commuter Rail

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

2 (track to upper, which involves reaching the street and walking on streets to MARTA station; upper level to descend to MARTA platforms).


All movements can be enclosed in station structures and a tunnel

Commuter Rail

Intercity Bus

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access intercity bus bays).


Intercity staging area close to Commuter Rail platforms


Cons

7-4

Use of potential pedestrian tunnel requires three vertical movements; this tunnel would likely need to include MARTA fare collection if providing direct platform access and could therefore not be used as a general connection to GWCC/Philips Arena.

November 2010


Alternative A

Travel Modes From

Commuter Bus

Commuter Bus Commuter Bus

s u B Commuter Bus r e t u m m o Commuter Bus C

Commuter Bus

Commuter Bus

To

Street

High Speed Rail Intercity Rail

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

1 (lower to upper)

Negligible: entrance points to station are adjacent to street

1 (lower to track)

Approximately 600 feet.

1 (lower to track)


Pros

Main terminal facility is directly above bus staging area

Connection is directly adjacent to ped tunnel around Constitution Building and under Forsyth Street.


1 (either lower to track to use Forsyth Street tunnel, or lower to street to use Alabama Extension to reach Five Points)

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

1 (lower to upper to access street, then walk along streets to Dome)

Approximately 1200 feet along streets.

1 (lower to track)

Negligible: modes are in the same location, only separated vertically

Intercity to commuter transfers can be accomplished simply by changing levels

May require none, 1 if connections are made to street

Some MARTA bus locations may be in the same staging area; buses at Broad Street Mall may be as far as 800-1,000 feet

Some MARTA buses using express staging area can allow immediate transfer

Intercity Bus

MARTA Bus

Approximately 500 feet.

Cons

This is far from the MARTA rail station and its design will likely require street connection, although Five Points is closer

Connection to buses terminating/staging at Five Points requires more lateral movement and may require

Source: AECOM


7-5

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 7-2: Alternative B Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers

Alternative B

Travel Modes From

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

Pros

Cons

High Speed Rail

Street

1 (track to upper) for directDirect platform access Close proximity via connections to Martin from Martin Luther King direct street-to-platform Luther King Drive or Jr. Drive or Mitchell access to Federal Mitchell Street Street. Buildings

High Speed Rail

MARTA Bus

Up to 1,400 feet for At least 1,but dependent Broad Street bus mall on bus stop locations. stops

High Speed Rail

MARTA Rail tracks; lower to track to (Five Points) access Five Points ped

Bus connections to routes terminating near Five Points may be far

2 (track to lower to cross rail Approximately 1,700 feet

tunnel) 1 (track to upper) for street

il a R d e e p S h ig H

High Speed Rail

MARTA Rail Approximately 1,400 feet access via MLK and along streets. (GWCC) Centennial Olympic Park On same platforms: not factoring in scheduling or need for ticketing in the main platform, this transfer is easy Tracks are located in the same general alignment and are easy to reach from passenger rail platform

High Speed Rail

Intercity Rail

None needed, assuming terminal access not Negligible: on same required for ticketing/fare platforms collection

High Speed Rail

Commuter Rail

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to Approximately 100-200 access commuter rail feet platforms)

High Speed Rail

Commuter Bus

1 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and Approximately 1,200 feet to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area)

Long connection and walk through multiple functional areas (car rental, taxi shuttle, etc.)

Intercity Bus

2 (shortest method is track to lower to cross tracks, access overbuild of intercityApproximately 200 feet bus staging area and use elevator access from there)

Requires multiple vertical movements to make transfer

High Speed Rail


7-6

November 2010


Alternative B

Travel Modes From

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

Pros

Cons

Intercity Rail

Street

1 (track to upper) for direct Close proximity via Direct platform access connections to Martin direct street-to-platform from Martin Luther King Luther King Drive or access to Federal Jr. Drive. Mitchell Street Buildings

Intercity Rail

MARTA Bus

Up to 1,400 feet for At least 1,but dependent Broad Street bus mall on bus stop locations. stops

k a rt Intercity Rail m A l/i a Intercity Rail R y ti c r Intercity Rail e t n I Intercity Rail

Intercity Rail

Bus connections to routes terminating near Five Points may be far

2 (track to lower to cross rail

MARTA Rail tracks; lower to track to (Five Points) access Five Points ped


tunnel) 1 (track to upper) for street Approximately 1,400 feet along streets. Centennial Olympic Park

MARTA Rail access via MLK and (GWCC)

Commuter Rail

Tracks are located in 2 (track to lower to cross rail the same general tracks; lower to track to Approximately 100-200 alignment and are easy access commuter rail feet to reach from platforms) passenger rail platform

Commuter Bus

1 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and Approximately 1,200 feet to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area

Intercity Bus

Tracks are in close 2 (track to lower to cross rail proximity, passage tracks; lower to track to Approximately 200 feet through terminal may access Intercity bus staging not be needed if area ticketing is separate


7-7


November 2010


Alternative B

Travel Modes From

Commuter Rail

To

Street

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

li a R r e t u m Commuter Rail m o

MARTA Bus

Cons

1 (track to upper) for direct Close proximity via Direct platform access No direct street access connections to Martin direct street-to-platform from Martin Luther King at north end of Luther King Drive or access to Federal Jr. Drive. platforms. Mitchell Street

Commuter Rail

Pros

At least 1,but dependent on busstop locations.2 vertical movements required for buses terminating in track-level bus facility of MMPT.

Buildings

Some stops may be located close to direct street access, although up to 1,400 feet for Broad Street bus mall stops

2 (track to lower to clear rail platforms and connect to

All movements can be

Distance is long and

MARTA Rail multiple main terminal; lower to Approximately 1,800 feetenclosed in station or elevator/escalator (Five Points) track to access Five Points tunnel structures.

movements are needed.

Ped Tunnel)

C

Commuter Rail

Commuter Rail

1 (track to upper) for street Approximately 1,400 feet along streets. Centennial Olympic Park

MARTA Rail access via MLK and (GWCC)

Intercity Bus

Connection is indirect and requires multiple turns along street, although Five Points station connection can also be made (and more directly)

Tracks are in close 2 (track to lower to cross rail proximity, passage tracks; lower to track to Approximately 300 feet through terminal may access Intercity bus staging not be needed if area ticketing is separate


7-8

November 2010


Alternative B

Travel Modes From

To

Vertical

Total Lateral

Movements

Movement

Pros

Cons

Commuter Bus

Street

Location is adjacent to Negligible: connection toboth Alabama and Alabama Street Forsyth Streets, 1 (lower or track to upper) extension can be made providing convenient vertically pedestrian access to multiple destinations

Commuter Bus

High Speed Rail

1 (lower to track after walking along Alabama Connection can be Street to express bus area Approximately 1,200 feetmade entirely below and accessing passenger street rail terminal)

Walk distances are long

Commuter Bus

IntercityRail

1 (lower to track after walking along Alabama Connection can be Street to express bus area Approximately 1,200 feetmade entirely below and accessing passenger street rail terminal)


0 or 1 (depends on theevel l Facilities located in where buses alight; if on Negligible: Facilities are close proximity and

Bus staging area may

s u B r e t Commuter Bus u m m o C Commuter Bus

MARTA Rail be difficult to work lower level, passengers areacross Forsyth Street existing tunnel under around Atlanta (Five Points) already aligned with Five from one another. Forsyth Street can be

Constitution building

Points pedestrian tunnel)

used

1 (lower or track to upper) to

Walk distance is long; Five Points connection street interface required

MARTA Rail use Alabama extension to Approximately 2,000 feetis much closer and canto access another walk to GWCC station (GWCC) be used instead underground transit plaza

facility

If no track level 0, potentially 1 (lower to Facilities are close andconnection, potentially 2 track to move from Intercity Approximately 400 feet can potentially be vertical movements if overbuild toIn ercity staging connected at track levelexpress buses alight on area track level

Commuter Bus

Intercity Bus

Commuter Bus

Potentially none for MARTA Commuter bus facility is routes terminating/staging relatively close to a Up to 400 feet for Broad wide range of MARTA MARTA Bus in MMPT facility; 1 for Street bus mall street-level connections that terminal stops for local are required bus routes

Source: AECOM


7-9

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 7-3: Alternative C Intermodal Transfers for MMPT Passengers

Alternative C

Travel Modes From

High Speed Rail

High Speed Rail

High Speed Rail

To

Street

Vertical Movements

Direct platform access from either Mitchell Street or Martin Luther King Jr.

Street)

Drive. Dependent on bus stop locations. Transfers to buses at Five Points may use street connections.



2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks and proceed through terminal; lower to track to access Five Points ped tunnel)

Pros




HSR platforms

S High Speed Rail p h g i H

High Speed Rail

MARTA Rail (GWCC)


Intercity Rail

None needed, assuming terminal access not required for ticketing/fare collection


Negligible: on same platforms

2 (track to lower to

High Speed Rail

Commuter Rail


cross to railtrack tracks; lower to access commuter rail platforms)

7-10

Cons

Movement

1 (track level to upper level: street connections to Martin Luther King Drive or Mitchell

MARTA Bus

li a R d e e

Total Lateral

Approximately 100-200 feet

physically closer to GWCC than to Five Points

Distance is long and multiple elevator/escalator movements are needed. Likely need to leave station complex to walk to MARTA; seamless connection require faremay collection in a tunnel and may preclude tunnel's use for general connection to Philips Arena and GWCC area

On same platforms: not factoring in scheduling or need for ticketing in the main platform, this transfer is easy Tracks are located in the same general alignment and are easy to reach from passenger rail platform

November 2010


Alternative C

Travel Modes From

High Speed Rail

High Speed Rail

Intercity Rail

k a rt

Intercity Rail

m A /l i a Intercity Rail R y ti c r e t n I Intercity Rail

To

Commuter Bus

Intercity Bus

Street

Vertical Movements 1 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area) 2 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area; then lower to track for Intercity bus connection) 1 (track level to upper level: street connections to Martin Luther King Drive or Mitchell Street)

MARTA Bus



2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks and proceed through terminal; lower to track to access Five Points ped tunnel)

MARTA Rail (GWCC)



7-11

Total Lateral

Pros

Cons

Movement Long connection and walk through multiple functional areas (car rental, taxi shuttle, etc.)


Longwalk connection and through multiple functional areas (car rental, taxi shuttle, etc.); multiple vertical movements


Direct platform access from either Mitchell Street or Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.


Dependent on bus stop locations. Transfers to buses at Five Points may use street connections.





HSR platforms physically closer to GWCC than to Five Points

Likely need to leave station complex to walk to MARTA; seamless connection may require fare collection in a tunnel and may preclude tunnel's use for general connection to Philips Arena and GWCC area

November 2010


Alternative C

Travel Modes From

Intercity Rail

Intercity Rail

Intercity Rail

To

Commuter Rail

Commuter Bus

Intercity Bus

Vertical Movements

2 (track to lower to cross rail tracks; lower to track to access commuter rail platforms) 1 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area) 2 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area; then lower to track for Intercity bus connection)

Commuter Rail

Street

1 (direct connections to Martin Luther King Drive)

Commuter Rail

MARTA Bus



2 (track to lower to clear tracks and move through terminal facilities; lower to track to access Forsyth Street tunnel to Five Points)

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

2 (track to upper, which involves reaching the street and walking on streets to MARTA station; upper level to descend to MARTA platforms). Could also be 2 (track to lower to clear commuter rail tracks and access passenger rail

il a R Commuter Rail r e t u m m o C Commuter Rail


7-12

Total Lateral

Pros

Cons

Movement

Approximately 100-200 feet

Tracks are located in the same general alignment and are easy to reach from passenger rail platform




Long connection and walk through multiple functional areas (car rental, taxi shuttle, etc.); multiple vertical movements

Direct platform access from Martin Luther King Drive. Approximately 1,700 feet

Close proximity via street access to GWCC facilties

Farther from federal government buildings and Five Points area


Walk distance is long and requires connections through multiple functional areas of the MMPT


Likely need to leave station complex to walk to MARTA; seamless connection may require fare collection in a tunnel and may preclude tunnel's use for general connection to Philips Arena and GWCC area.

November 2010


Alternative C

Travel Modes From

To

Vertical Movements

Total Lateral

Pros

Cons

Movement

terminal, then lower to track to access potential pedestrian tunnel directly to GWCC station).

Commuter Rail

Commuter Bus

s u B r Commuter Bus e t u m m o C Commuter Bus

Commuter Bus

Intercity Bus

Street

High Speed Rail

Intercity Rail



2 (track to lower to access passenger rail terminal and to walk along Alabama Street to express bus area; then lower to track for Intercity bus connection)

1 (lower to upper)

1 (lower to track after walking along Alabama Street to express bus area and accessing passenger rail terminal) 1 (lower to track after walking along Alabama Street to express bus area and accessing passenger rail terminal) 1 (lower to track to access Forsyth Street pedestrian tunnel into Five Points)

7-13

Long connection and walk through multiple functional areas (car rental, taxi shuttle, etc.); multiple vertical movements


Negligible: connection to Alabama Street extension can be made vertically

Location is adjacent to both Alabama and Forsyth Streets, providing convenient pedestrian access to multiple destinations


Connection can be made entirely below street



Connection can be made entirely below street


Connection can be made entirely below Approximately 200 feet

street and takes advantage of Forsyth Street tunnel

November 2010


Alternative C

Travel Modes From

Commuter Bus

Commuter Bus

Commuter Bus

To

Vertical Movements

Total Lateral

1 (lower to upper to access street, then walk along streets to GWCC station)

Approximately 1,700 feet along streets.

Intercity Bus

1 (lower to track)

Negligible: modes are in the same location, only separated vertically

MARTA Bus

Potentially none for MARTA routes terminating/staging in MMPT facility; 1 for street-level connections that are required

Up to 400 feet for Broad Street bus mall; no connection needed for MARTA local buses terminating in MMPT facility.

MARTA Rail (GWCC)

Pros

Cons

Movement This is far from the MARTA rail station and its design will likely require street connection, although Five Points is closer. Intercity to commuter transfers can be accomplished simply by changing levels Commuter bus facility is relatively close to a wide range of MARTA terminal stops for local bus routes

Source: AECOM

7.3 7.3.1

MMPT Accessfor Pedestrians,Bicyclists,and Automobiles Pedestrians Pedestrian access to the MMPT site relies on the existing sidewalk and pedestrian infrastructure of downtown Atlanta. The three alternatives presented here and in earlier sections of the technical memorandum utilized different expanded street networks, although each relies on the street-level connections made on sidewalks as critical to passenger access to different areas of downtown Atlanta. As discussed in previous sections of the technical memorandum, each of the three alternatives for MMPT location uses a combination of track-level, lower-level and upperlevel facilities to describe key points of pedestrian and passenger orientation. These walkshed discussions deal exclusively with connections to the upper level of MMPT facilities and consider pedestrian access along existing and proposed streets.

7.3.1.1

Alternative A Walkshed

The walkshed for Alternative A includes a street-level connection of Alabama Street west to intersect with Centennial Olympic Park Drive. It preserves the existing CNN/Philips Arena parking structure and as such requires that pedestrian connections circumvent this block. The advent of a direct platform-to-street connection from the commuter rail platforms in Alternative A does underscore the expansion of reach that this provides to


7-14

November 2010


passengers, allowing passengers on commuter rail platforms to access the Philips Arena, CNN Center and Georgia World Congress Center without first passing through the terminal facility. Figure 7-1 provides a walkshed diagram of Alternative A. Figure 7-1: Alternative A Walkshed

Source: AECOM

7.3.1.2

Alternative B Walkshed

By locating direct platform access at both Mitchell Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, this alternative greatly expands the walking reach of the MMPT to the west. This is useful for access to the Federal office complex along Martin Luther King, although it does not provide the same level of access to the Fairlie-Poplar district north of Marietta Street. Figure 7-2 provides a walkshed diagram of Alternative B.


7-15

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 7-2: Alternative B Walkshed

Source: AECOM

7.3.1.3

Alternative C Walkshed

Although this alternative does not provide direct platform access along Centennial Olympic Park Drive, it provides multiple access points for commuter and intercity rail by allowing direct access to Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Mitchell Street. It also uses a street grid that extends Russell Plaza northward from Alabama Street to Wall Street, allowing a direct pedestrian connection to the CNN Center at Marietta and Centennial Olympic Park. Figure 7-3 provides a walkshed diagram of Alternative C.


7-16

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 7-3: Alternative C Walkshed

Source: AECOM

7.3.1.4

Comparison of Walkshed Reach

As the previous figures illustrate, the three different alternatives considered have similar walkshed potential over and around the study area, although they are nonetheless likely to appear differently to potential MMPT users in terms of convenience and utility. The primary station locations feature similar entrance locations to the main terminal facility. However, the location of any direct platform access greatly expands the pedestrian reach by allowing passengers to particular destinations, especially the CNN/Georgia Dome/Philips Arena complex north of the study area, to reach these locations directly without needing to pass through the main terminal facility.


7-17

November 2010


7.3.2

Bicyclists Section 6.3.3 discusses the need for bicycle accommodations, noting approximately 1,500 commuters travel to downtown Atlanta by bicycle. All walkshed locations analyzed here are located on downtown streets and part of the downtown street network, thus providing broad access to cyclists. The City of Atlanta’s two major bicycle planning efforts of the last two decades, the 1995 Commuter On-Street Bicycle Plan and the Connect Atlanta Plan of 2008, have both identified Marietta Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive as designated bicycle corridors. Connect Atlanta assigned each a high priority as a ‘core connection’ providing a continuous route to other districts of the City.

7.3.3

Automobiles The potential MMPT’s central location in downtown Atlanta’s street network makes it easily accessible by automobiles, with multiple route alternatives in the event of exceptional or long-term street closures. The Forsyth Street location, a two-way street with access to and from I-20 south of downtown, has direct connections to the federal government office district and downtown Atlanta’s business district on Peachtree Street. In addition, it is within one block of the Marietta Street-Decatur Street corridor, a major Atlanta thoroughfare connecting to the City’s northwest and eastern neighborhoods. As is common in major city business districts, downtown Atlanta typically experiences its greatest levels of traffic congestion in the morning and afternoon periods that generally coincide with the beginning and end of normal business hours. Although this does not physically limit automobile access to the MMPT, it is likely that it will increase travel times to and from the station during these periods. Refer to the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Project Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum from October 2010 for a more detailed discussion of traffic volumes and conditions through downtown Atlanta. The City of Atlanta has typically designated Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Mitchell Street as one-way traffic flow. This does not physically limit automobile access to the MMPT at either of these locations; however, it does influence travel patterns and can potentially increase trip length and travel time. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive has typically been designated as one-way westbound. A station entry location along this street would require a motorist leaving the site and wishing to access the Georgia State Capitol to travel west, in the opposite direction of the desired destination. That motorist cannot turn northward on Centennial Olympic Park Drive due to southbound one-way traffic on that street. The motorist’s first opportunity for a northward turn is Northside Drive, approximately one mile west of the Capitol building. Although this is one example, it does illustrate the potential circulation, access, and connection challenges that terminal locations on one-way streets may present. Planning and development of the MMPT should consider one-way street patterns and should explore opportunities for different traffic flow configurations if more detailed study determines that one-way streets do not facilitate access and distribution needs of the MMPT. It should also reference the citywide Connect Atlanta Plan’s recommendations for two-way conversion of Mitchell Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Centennial Olympic Park Drive, and Spring Street. Development activity coordinated with the City of Atlanta may be able to help advance the implementation of those projects.


7-18

November 2010


7.3.4

Fire Life Safety Considerations Major transportation elements may require significant mechanical and electrical plant spaces to address normal, congested and emergency operating needs, in coordination with the fire protection approach. These are heavy-duty industrial-grade ventilation and control systems dealing with adverse exposures on a day-to-day basis, while being available at any instant to address fire-life safety requirements of an emergency nature. Adequate access and space for installation and on-going maintenance is critical to the availability of these critical systems. Where major transportation elements areand located with immediate short connections between them, the ventilation demands requirements for eachorshould be coordinated. Where proposed, any combinations of plant capability and capacity should be carefully reviewed with consideration of individual operating requirements and schedules, redundancy versus reliability, and flexibility of operation.

7.3.5

Train-TunnelInteractionConsiderations The configuration of tunnel and overbuild portals will need to be coordinated with the train speeds and tunnel blockage ratios. The resultant pressure transients due to train motion into and out of portals will have to meet passenger comfort criteria, as recommended in the Subway Environmental Design Handbook.

7.4

TransitMode Integrationand Site Access Summary Transfers between modes and general connections of the MMPT to its surroundings in downtown Atlanta are factorslocation in potential terminal location decisions. The rail historic preference for important a Forsyth Street adjacent to the Five Points MARTA station requires rail operations that conflict with the needs and preferences of the agencies providing intercity passenger rail service. In exploring the potential of the MMPT to be located closer to rail platforms further west, this section seeks to understand the following: •

implications of a western location for pedestrian movement;

•

connections to MARTA transit service; and

•

the general potential for the station to connect to the existing built and economic fabric of downtown Atlanta.

Each location offers a range of pedestrian-accessible connections and connects directly to the Five Points MARTA rail station, the hub of Atlanta’s local transit network through the existing Forsyth Street tunnel. Alternatives A and C can potentially create a similar direct connection to the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station. Although this reduces the effectiveness of the modal transfer by giving MMPT passengers limited access to bus routes and heavy rail lines and potentially requires reconstruction of this station to interface directly with its platforms. In brief, no one location avoids the competing challenges of rail operations, modal transfer potential, and downtown connectivity.


7-19

November 2010


The modal transfer matrix in Section 7.2 and the walkshed diagrams in Section 7.3 are intended to help the Master Developer understand the tradeoffs in different station locations. It will be important for stated requirements and guidelines to be in place to help guide proponents to a mutually agreeable outcome. Proponents should also be encouraged to propose “outside the box” solutions to the site’s transportation and intermodal needs such as grade separation of tracks, the development of new rail ROW alignments or other strategies should these prove feasible from a technical and cost perspective.


7-20

November 2010


8.0

PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION

8.1

Distributionof Passengersfrom Track Level to Upper Levels The critical factor in placement of escalators, elevators, stairs, or other means of vertical circulation between the track level and levels above, both the lower and upper levels, with access to the street. It is important that facility design ensure ADA compliant access. Although vertical circulation can be placed at several different locations along a rail platform, it should land in the footprint of the main terminal in order to connect to bus circulation and loading areas and to provide convenient pedestrian access to other parts of downtown Atlanta. a limited number locations, as illustrated in Figure 8-1, which shows the This threesuggests primary walkshed locationsofand their relationship to the surrounding streets, MARTA rail lines, and land use context of Downtown Atlanta. Platform connections to the upper terminal level should not create an environment of isolation or perceived discomfort or danger. Traditional multi-level station design connects platforms directly with a waiting area or central space of the station with direct vertical circulation. The ‘underground’ layer of downtown Atlanta created by the construction of its street viaducts beginning in the 1920s is largely blocked from natural light and visibility by the overhead street viaducts, buildings and other structures. As discussed in Section 6.1.1 Terminal Spatial Requirements, platforms will be located on this track level; every attempt should be made to integrate passenger arrival and departure from the actual platforms as closely as possible to a functional above ground terminal space that facilitates connection with the street network. Passengers accustomed to well-illuminated public buildings and spaces are likely to perceive long tunnels and pedestrian walkways connecting platforms to terminal spaces as inconvenient and perhaps even unsafe. Table 8-1 illustrates how passengers would connect to frequent destinations from each of the walkshed locations.


8-1

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 8-1: Walkshed Locations and Points of Interest

1a. Alternative A 1b. Alternative B 1c. Alternative C 2. Five Points MARTA Rail Station 3.Five Points Intersection 4.Sam Nunn Federal Center offices 5.Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Center offices 6.Richard B. Russell Federal Center offices 7.Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA Rail Station 8.Philips Arena 9.Georgia World Congress Center 10.Norfolk Southern Operations Building (Vacant and For Sale) 11.Garnett MARTA Rail Station 12.Fulton County Administration Center 13.Underground Atlanta 14.Georgia State MARTA Rail Station 15.Georgia State Capitol

Source: AECOM


8-2

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 8-1: Passenger Frequent Destination MMPT Location Alternatives Point of Interest Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

2. Five Points MARTA Rail Station

<0.1 mile walk via Alabama Street/through Forsyth Street Tunnel



3.Five Points Intersection

0.2 mile walk via Alabama and Peachtree Street

0.2 mile walk via Alabama and Peachtree Streets

0.2 mile walk via Alabama and Peachtree Streets

4.Sam Center Nunn officesFederal

0.1 mile walk via Forsyth Street



5.Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Center offices

0.2 mile walk via Spring Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive



6.Richard B. Russell Federal Center offices

0.2 mile walk via Spring Street



7.Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA Rail Station

<0.1 mile walk Centennial Olympic Park Drive

8.Philips Arena

<0.1 mile walk Centennial Olympic Park Drive

9.Georgia World Congress Center

0.1 mile walk Centennial Olympic Park Drive

0.3 mile walk via Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Centennial Olympic Park Drive 0.4 mile walk via extended Alabama Street and Centennial Olympic Park Drive 0.5 mile walk via Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Centennial Olympic Park Drive, and Philips Drive

0.3 mile walk via Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Centennial Olympic Park Drive 0.4 mile walk via extended Alabama Street and Centennial Olympic Park Drive 0.5 mile walk via Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Centennial Olympic Park Drive, and Philips Drive

10.Norfolk Southern Operations Building (Vacant and For Sale)




11.Garnett MARTA Rail Station




12.Fulton County Administration Center




13.Underground Atlanta

0.1 mile walk via Alabama Street



14.Georgia State MARTA Rail Station

0.7 mile walk via Spring Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Washington Street



15.Georgia State Capitol

0.7 mile walk via Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive



Source: AECOM


8-3

November 2010


8.1.1

Open Access Platforms and Ingress / Egress Points Another important consideration is the potential for location of open-platform access points, especially to the commuter rail platforms. This is likely to be driven by methods of ticketing and payment, but other commuter transit systems do allow direct access to platforms (sometimes through controlling fare gates) to increase pedestrian circulation capacity through multiple channels of ingress and egress and to minimize walking distances. Limitations of adding direct platform access points are that these are entry points that must be secured and that ticketing and fare collection infrastructure may need to be distributed through a wider range of access points. However, the minimized distances facilitated by allowing this pattern of circulation suggest a greater passenger convenience in connecting to downtown destinations. Diagrams in Section 9.0 of this technical memorandum depict access points.

8.2

Distributionof Passengersfrom LocationWalkshedsto other Points of Interest Because of the MMPT study area’s location adjacent to one of Atlanta’s three major business districts and a large concentration of visitor attractions around Centennial Olympic Park, this section considers two major themes: circulation to points of interest in downtown Atlanta, where walking is a viable mode choice; and circulation to other parts of metropolitan Atlanta involving longer travel distances.

8.2.1

Distributionto Points of Interest Downtown Section 7.3 discusses considerations for access to the MMPT by pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles. Downtown Atlanta’s relatively comprehensive street network and sidewalk coverage provides the immediate opportunity for circulation, although the reach and potential destinations from walking varies greatly based on the primary access points from the terminal to the surface street network. Refer to Section 7.3 for a more detailed analysis of walksheds and pedestrian reach along with potential complications to pedestrian circulation. One of the largest concentrations of employment immediately adjacent to the MMPT site is the complex of federal office buildings around the intersection of Forsyth Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Commuters using the MMPT to reach these destinations would likely walk; the distance from a Forsyth Street entrance to the MMPT to the Sam Nunn Federal Office Building is approximately 400 feet. To the north, downtown Atlanta’s financial and business district is located mostly along Peachtree Street north of the Five Points intersection. Figure 8-1 illustrates nearby points of interest and their connections to the three MMPT location walksheds considered.

8.2.2

Distributionto Points of Interest Elsewhere in Atlanta Through the MARTA rail and bus systems, passengers arriving in downtown Atlanta through the MMPT have access to a much greater geography without needing to transfer to automobile travel. MARTA currently provides service in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Through projects currently advancing as well as projects envisioned in the regional Concept 3 plan, service will expand accessibility. With the heavy rail system at the Five Points MARTA rail station and a substantial number of bus routes either terminating around it or serving it along their routes, the MMPT is well positioned to offer transfer opportunities to local transit. This allows service to the business and activity districts of


8-4

November 2010


Downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead; HJAIA; Georgia Institute of Technology and the Atlanta University Center; and the cities of East Point, College Park, and Decatur, along with many other cities and points of interest located near MARTA stations throughout the system. It is important that connections from the MMPT to MARTA be as seamless as possible and if probable allows direct connection from one facility to another. Location of the MMPT at a Forsyth Street location as identified in previous plans and studies allows passengers the shortest distance to a MARTA rail facility from the terminal building. Due to the heavy concentration of local bus routes around the Five Points plaza and along the Broad Street transit mall this connection could feasibly be accomplished simply by crossing Forsyth Street at the surface street level or accessing the existing pedestrian tunnel below Forsyth Street. From a commuter perspective, there is considerable advantage to the MMPT offering a direct connection to the Five Points MARTA rail station and plaza. This station offers access to both MARTA rail trunk lines directly from fare gates and thus allows a passenger to reach any MARTA rail station from a single boarding. Connection to the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station would require passengers to transfer at the Five Points MARTA rail station if they wish to access a station on the north-south trunk line or either of its northern branches (i.e. the Gold or Red lines). In peak hour commutes, this potentially adds 15 minutes of trip time. This is assuming seven-minute headways due to branch line doubling on the same track and a full headway wait at each of the two MARTA platforms accessed. HJAIA is located approximately seven miles south of Atlanta’s downtown business district and is served by MARTA’s Red and Gold line heavy rail transit service. Due to the airport’s role as the preeminent hub of Delta Airlines, HJAIA is a major srcin and destination airport for a large area beyond metropolitan Atlanta even though other commercial airports with less extensive service are located closer to passengers in other parts of the Southeast. Because of this, it is reasonable to expect that passengers from areas outside of MARTA’s service area may wish to use the MMPT to transfer to MARTA rail and access the airport, most likely through future commuter or intercity rail service. The construction of a new international terminal at HJAIA will move all international air service from the existing terminal, which is served by MARTA. Consequently, airport passengers using MARTA to access HJAIA will only have access to the domestic facility. The two terminals will not have a direct connection between secured areas, meaning that transfers between the two will rely on airport circulator service (whether through shuttles or through extension of the underground trans-concourse tramway system). Future transit serving the international terminal may also serve the

MMPT, although airport passengers using this new terminal will not be able to use existing MARTA rail service without some form of connecting transportation to access the international terminal. However, passengers using the international terminal could be served by future commuter/passenger rail services on the Atlanta-Griffin-Macon corridor at the proposed Southern Crescent terminal.

8.3

PassengerDistribution Summary The need access levels above the will track-level platforms, both the lower and upper levels, in atosafe and the convenient manner also likely guide the MMPT’s location. Track-level platforms do not need to be directly below a street-level terminal entrance, but they should be close as to encourage seamless connection to and from the MMPT rail platforms. Although the track to upper level connection must meet ADA


8-5

November 2010


requirements, it must also provide a reasonable sense of security, comfort, and proximity. A Forsyth Street location, which has been presented in multiple plans and studies offers a direct connection for passengers to MARTA and easy access to disperse into downtown Atlanta. Connections between this site and the location of rail operators would require a long distance and potentially complicated structures to allow walking between the two. This suggests a location further west such as along Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive should be considered, but it does not reach the same number or types of destinations. Even with the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station connection, the need for significant expansion of street network and pedestrian facilities is likely to ensure comfortable walking distances for a location further west closer to existing freight rail ROW.


8-6

November 2010




November 2010


9.0

COMPREHENSIVE MMPT ALTERNATIVES Based on the findings and recommendations outlined in previous sections, three comprehensive potential alternative layouts for the MMPT facility have been developed. These alternatives present potential facility layouts that incorporate passenger rail and bus operations as well as connections and circulation to existing local transit and future regional light rail and streetcar services. They are presented only as options and are not fully vetted layouts, as many design issues are not reflected in the diagrams. Furthermore, much coordination with the appropriate agencies and stakeholders would have to continue for a complete design. Table 9-1 identifies major items that are an overall comparison of the layouts. Connection to the Five Points MARTA rail station is the closest transit component to the proposed MMPT. Each layout provides overbuild areas. However, potential overbuild areas above rail tracks are separated out due to inherit coordination issues, additional structural elements and other considerations such as fire protection, ventilation, vibration and noise control. Two out of the three layouts require partial or complete demolition of the CNN parking structure. Further negotiations with stakeholders and a detailed design process for the proposed MMPT will determine the final configuration of the CNN parking structure. Typically, the more services are consolidated, the more operations are efficient. However, transit systems take a considerable amount of space for circulation, which often causes spaces to be spread over multiple parcels of land. Distances from the furthest points of one transit component to another shows the facility consolidation. All of the options will require the addition of roads and infrastructure work. Table 9-1: MMPT Alternatives Comparison

Item Connection to Five Points MARTA Station (in relation to the main terminal) Overbuild area amount

Alternative A

650 feet 498,000 s.f.

Potential Overbuild area above rail tracks Demolition (and replacement) of CNN Parking Structure Distances from furthest transit components (in relation to the main terminal) Area of Right-of-Way improvements Amount of Green Space

Alternative B

75 feet 833,900 s.f.

Alternative C

75 feet 904,200 s.f.

352,200 s.f.

413,500 s.f.

315,500 s.f.

0 s.f.

451,250 s.f.

1,065,000 s.f.

1,150 feet

1,450 feet

1,500 feet

96,600 s.f.

105,900 s.f.

170,600 s.f.

0 s.f.

167,000 s.f.

208,000 s.f.

Source: AECOM

9.1.1

MMPT AlternativeA MMPT Alternative A, shown in Figure 9-1 through Figure 9-3, is based on the passenger rail layout described in the Southeast HSR Study and illustrated in Figure 3-2. This alternative proposes a six track, three-platform footprint aligned parallel to the northsouth freight mainline. Platforms extend approximately 800 feet north from Mitchell Street. The westerly four tracks are intended for HSR and the easterly two for intercity rail. In addition, four intercity tracks with two platforms are located immediately west of the former NS headquarters building and Spring Street. This configuration may not allow tangent track longer than 1,000-feet, which corresponds to the current consist length for


9-1

November 2010


the Amtrak Crescent. This configuration would not accommodate longer trainsets and, therefore, may be a limitation for some Amtrak long-distance trains. Since high speed trainsets are typically shorter (approximately 664 feet for an Acela 8-car consist), an 800foot platform would be sufficient. However, MMPT Alternative A differs from the Southeast HSR Study because it includes north-south through commuter rail tracks adjacent to the west leg of the Circle wye. These tracks replace the stub end tracks shown for intercity rail in the Southeast HSR Study. Station platforms extend 800 feet north from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. In addition, a terminal is shown for commuter trains from the Madison line; two stub end tracks with a center platform are perpendicular to the north-south platform. Bus operations are located relatively close to the passenger rail operations and parallel to freight rail operations. This location may provide a more cohesive passenger terminal complex. Bus operations are directly north of the Richard B. Russell Federal building with access and egress from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Alabama Street. This setback loses direct connection to the Five Points MARTA rail station and requires construction of a subsequent underground tunnel to connect to Five Points. Intercity and commuter bus are stacked above one another, consolidating terminal and bus operations. The MMPT main terminal is clustered towards the western part of the Gulch area. Main entrances would be located on Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Spring, and Alabama Streets. This alternative allows for elements of the Green Line Plan and potentially the existing CNN parking structure to remain. The overbuild potential occurs to the north of passenger rail functions, close to Five Points MARTA rail station, and along Centennial Olympic Park Drive. This alternative benefits from its proximity to the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station. The walk distance from the end of the MMPT passenger rail platforms to the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station ranges 300 feet for MMPT Alternative A’s westerly platforms. However, MMPT Alternative A is furthest away from the Five Points MARTA rail station and shifts the walkshed from the main part of downtown. There is potential to connect to an existing pedestrian tunnel underneath Forsyth Street to access the Five Points MARTA rail station. Additionally, there is potential for a streetcar connection at street level from Spring Street. Pros:

1. This alternative presents the closest proximity of the commuter rail platforms to the local bus boarding area. 2. Multiple street entrances allows for separation of types of access and flexibility while bringing patrons into a centralized space. 3. All rail platforms (except the Madison Line) connect to the street level of Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Alabama Street. This keeps main access close to the terminal. 4. A consolidated terminal provides shorter distances for patrons to maneuver within the station, allows for more efficient services and easier to secure. 5. This alternative allows the phased development of the Green Line Plan and reconfiguration of CNN parking structure (not shown in diagram). 6. There is potential to preserve the historic GA Power Building.


9-2

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Cons:

1. Commuter rail only has connection to the Five Points MARTA rail station, which is a considerable distance. 2. Limited initial area for overbuild. 3. The main terminal building would have to span across a new street to create the continuous facility. 4. The boarding areas of the express and local buses would have to continue underneath the connection of Alabama Street and Andrew Young International Blvd. Generally, the design of the bus boarding areas should stay clear of the roadway ROW. can bezoning difficultsetback to gain requirements. approval for the building to project into the ROW and it wouldIt violate 5. Rail configuration is difficult to achieve due to a 100-foot buffer requirement from the centerline of the nearest freight rail track.


9-3

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-1: MMPT Alternative A Track Level

Source: AECOM


9-4

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-2: MMPT Alternative A Lower Level

Source: AECOM


9-5

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-3: MMPT Alternative A Upper Level

Source: AECOM


9-6

November 2010


9.1.2

MMPT AlternativeB MMPT Alternative B, shown in Figure 9-4 through Figure 9-6, requires that the west leg of the Circle wye be implemented for passenger rail. Amtrak, HSR, and commuter rail tracks would have a north-south orientation, but generally parallel to Spring Street. These tracks would be located in the same vicinity of tracks and platforms for the former Terminal Station. A 1,200- by 108-foot footprint is identified for four tracks and two platforms to be shared by Amtrak and HSR. These platforms extend approximately from Mitchell Street to Centennial Olympic Park Drive. Six commuter rail tracks and three platforms for north-south service would be located to the west of Amtrak and HSR tracks. The footprint for this area is approximately 600 by 162 feet. The commuter rail platforms extend, generally, from Mitchell Street north to the extension of Alabama Street. With this alternative, intercity rail would utilize Amtrak, HSR, and commuter rail tracks and platforms. One critical issue is how additional tracks would interface with Philips Arena. As discussed in Section 2.4 Freight Rail Improvements and Modifications to Tracks, rail tracks were once active underneath Philips Arena. However, further investigation will determine if the number of tracks depicted for passenger rail in Alternative B is feasible. Track design will have to take into consideration not only existing structures above the proposed station, but also underground elements that may dictate track location or required mitigation. Layouts are conceptual and intended to identify potential issues that will need to be addressed in the design process. The Madison line would utilize the Amtrak/HSR platform or a separate side platform could be provided. As described earlier, a design option is to terminate Madison trains at a two-track east-west oriented island platform that is generally perpendicular to the north-south platforms. MMPT Alternative B shows a consolidated main terminal along Alabama Street with connections to intercity bus and express bus on one end and passenger rail on the other. This separates the two uses, providing the main entrance from an extension of Alabama Street. Separating intercity and express/local bus operations can be advantageous by lessening the bus traffic in a concentrated area. The rail platforms are consolidated, providing shorter walking distances from one mode to the other. Potential overbuild areas occur at three locations: •

above intercity bus, on the western side of the Gulch area, south of the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station;

•

on the northern edge of the Gulch; and

•

above the commuter and express/local bus boarding area.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive access points are intended to provide a more direct connection to the federal offices along Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. The north platform end to Philips Arena/CNN Center access points are likely to be used to connect directly to the Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena/CNN Center MARTA rail station. Connection to the upper (street) level can potentially provide direct access to Philips Arena and CNN Center. However, the CNN parking structure would have to be partially demolished and rebuilt. The south platform end to the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and Mitchell Street access points are likely to be driven by ultimate platform configuration (namely, whether commuter rail occupies eastern platforms closer to downtown). HSR and intercity rail are less likely to be configured with open access points.


9-7

November 2010


Pros:

1. Separating the main pedestrian entrance (off the open green area) from the pickup/drop-off areas (off Alabama Street) helps evenly distribute patron circulation and integrates the Green Line Plan vision. 2. Overbuild areas surround the terminal and allows for phased growth from a central point. 3. The rail platforms are aligned with each other, providing ease of passenger movement and wayfinding. 4. This alternative provides a direct connection between express/local bus boarding areas and the Five Points MARTA rail station. 5. This alternative conforms to the existing City grid by extending Alabama Street and providing a new street connection between Alabama Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Cons:

1. The long distances between commuter rail, the Five Points MARTA rail station, and local buses. 2. Extension of Alabama Street does not connect directly to Andrew Young International Boulevard due to limited touchdown points above tracks and platform area. This also takes away from the open green area noted in the Green Line Plan. 3. Development opportunities above tracks and platform area would be difficult because of limited touchdown points, but not impossible. Structural considerations would have to be given and could be cost prohibitive.


9-8

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-4: MMPT Alternative B Track Level

Source: AECOM


9-9

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-5: MMPT Alternative B Lower Level

Source: AECOM


9-10

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-6: MMPT Alternative B Upper Level

Source: AECOM


9-11

November 2010


9.1.3

MMPT AlternativeC MMPT Alternative C, shown in Figure 9-7 through Figure 9-9, combines aspects of the passenger rail options in MMPT Alternatives A and B. In this case, Amtrak and HSR would be located along the east side of the study area as described in Alternative B. Commuter rail tracks would be aligned parallel to freight tracks along the west side of the study area as shown in Alternative A and in the Southeast HSR Study. Madison line trains would either stop at the north-south Amtrak/HSR platform, a north-south side platform specifically for that route or at the east-west platform described as a design option. The Five Points Area Bus Transfer Center Concept and Operating Plan report assumed that the proposed MMPT would utilize Spring and Forsyth Streets for access and egress to and from the bus bays. MMPT Alternative C presents an option that aligns with the Five Points Area Bus Transfer Center Concept and Operating Plan report by utilizing Spring Street and the cross streets between Forsyth and Spring Streets. MMPT Alternative C suggests a separation of the waiting areas with a main terminal connecting passenger rail and bus operations. Additionally, it creates a greater walking distance from commuter rail to local bus. This alternative shows the extension of Alabama Street, leading into Andrew Young International Boulevard as indicated in the Green Line Plan. The south platform end at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive access point provides an additional entry to the south. Bus operations at the Forsyth Street access point allows for a direct connection to the Five Points MARTA rail station at the street level. Pros:

1. Allows for a large open green space and provides the flexibility for integration of the Green Line Plan vision. 2. Bus functions are consolidated and adjacent to Five Points MARTA rail station.

3. Separated waiting areas allows for overbuild areas to connect and integrate the facility. Cons:

1. This alternative creates the furthest distance between commuter rail, the Five Points MARTA rail station, and local buses. 2. Rail configuration is difficult to achieve due to a 100-foot buffer requirement from the centerline of the nearest freight rail track. 3. Terminal is not consolidated: efficiency for service is reduced.


9-12

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-7: MMPT Alternative C Track Level

Source: AECOM


9-13

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-8: MMPT Alternative C Lower Level

Source: AECOM


9-14

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 9-9: MMPT Alternative C Upper Level

Source: AECOM


9-15

November 2010


10.0

NEXT STEPS The operational requirements outlined in this technical memorandum will assist in the following next steps: •

•

Further clarify the current and future needs of stakeholders and potential operators through discussions with the MMPT Technical Committee Support the development of minimum standards, design criteria and concept drawings for the MMPT facility. This includes such items as, overbuild, platforms, bus bays, bus shelters, signage, pedestrian enhancements, street grid, tunnel and facilities ventilation, ventilation system plant, ventilation shaft and intake/discharge requirements, other fire-life safety elements, possible signalization to facilitate bus access and passenger transfers between modes.

•

Prepare order of magnitude cost projections for the MMPT

•

Develop a phased implementation plan for the MMPT

The majority of next steps should be conducted as part of the Phase 1 scope of work of the selected Master Developer using inputs from this technical memorandum.


10-1

November 2010


APPENDICES


November 2010


Appendix A: List of Stakeholders


A-1

November 2010


Appendix A: List of Stakeholders The following is the list of stakeholders considered for transit operation and property ownership input: •

Norfolk Southern

•

CSX

•

Amtrak

•

Greyhound

•

•

•

Southeastern Stages Georgia Department of Transportation Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Rail and Bus

•

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

•

Cobb Community Transit

•

Gwinnett County Transit

•

Atlanta Development Authority

•

General Services Administration

•

•

•

•

Georgia World Congress Center Authority Georgia State University Atlanta Fulton County Recreation Authority State Properties Commission

•

Zipcar

•

City of Atlanta Police Division of Taxicabs and Vehicles for Hire

•

•

•

Atlanta Link Enterprise Checker Cab


A-2

November 2010


Appendix B: Governing Codes and Standards


B-1

November 2010


Appendix B: Governing Codes and Standards The following section provides standards used to develop area requirements for the functional and support spaces, and codes used to regulate transit operations and facilities. This section is not meant to be inclusive of all codes and standards that transit operations and facilities must adhere to within the study area, but as a reference point for the selected Master Developer.

Commuter Rail Station Requirements Commuter rail stations requirements should be defined based on vehicle types operated, passenger demand, and operating plan. For new commuter rail systems, a peer review of station infrastructure criteria be completed as an interim step for in development design criteria. Theplatforms followingbased describecan general criteria and considerations commuter railofand Amtrak station on information from New Jersey Transit and the Amtrak Station Manual3.

Platform Height Commuter rail platform height varies by operating condition. Where the track may be shared with freight, the operating railroads may require a clear zone or envelope for freight service. This window may preclude the use of high-level platforms or restrict the height of low-level platforms. This, in turn, may affect the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) level boarding requirements. In addition, the vehicle type is key in defining the platform design. While high-level boarding is the most efficient for high demand corridors and improves safety, capital costs are higher and an appropriate vehicle must be acquired. Many newer commuter rail operations utilize bi-level equipment with door on the lower level that requires a low- or mini highlevel platform. Should high-level platforms be present, an alternative vehicle must be used, as is the case with New Jersey Transit bi-levels. High-level platforms offer the advantages of decreased train dwell times, and greater accessibility for all passengers. While the advantages of low-level platforms include a compatibility with wideload freight service, lower initial cost, and compatibility with curved track, which is inappropriate for high-level platforms. In many cases where a low-level platform is envisioned, mini high-level platforms can also be implemented. Mini high-level platforms provide level boarding for riders with disabilities. Mini highlevel platforms may be appropriate for the MMPT for bi-level commuter rail cars. In cases where the platform is to be shared by commuter rail and Amtrak, high speed, or intercity rail further review and analysis must be undertaken to define how ADA guidelines can be met.

Platform Type Center, or island, platforms are envisioned for the MMPT. A side platform may be necessary to accommodate specific movements.

Platform Length Platform length is defined by the maximum train length envisioned for service. Amtrak long-distance trains are often in excess of 800 feet. A tangent platform of 1,000 to 1,500 feet may be desirable. 3

Amtrak Station Manual (Version 2.2) from the Station Program and Planning Standards and Guidelines 2008.


B-2

November 2010


Commuter rail platform length must be based on anticipated ridership and vehicle type. Economies can be achieved by utilization of bi-level equipment that accommodate more passengers per car and therefore require shorter platforms. If long-term growth and longer trains are anticipated sufficient space should be available to allow platform extension.

Platform Location Adjacency to tangent track, centrality to access points, and an ability to accommodate future expansion serve as guidelines for locating platforms. Platforms should be located along tangent track whenever possible. The gap between the vehicle door threshold and the platform is minimized along tangent track. This improves safety as the probability of an injury due to the gap is decreased. Additionally, the train crew cannot observe passenger boarding or alighting. Platforms should be located centrally to the primary access point. This improves distribution of passengers along the platform. For stations with multiple access point, the platform should be sited to ensure equal distribution of passenger access and egress points.

Platform Functionality Functional aspects of platforms include safety, accessibility, and sustainability. For safety, all platforms must have a 24-inch wide, ADA compliant, detectable warning (tactile) surface at the trackside platform edge. The tactile surface must extend the full length of the platform. Maintaining unobstructed clear widths on platforms promotes safety and accessibility. Platform clear widths should be established. A common minimum is 8.5 inches, measured from edge of platform. A greater clear distance may be necessary for stations with significant ridership and pedestrian flows. The clear area must be free of obstructions, including the following items: •

Canopy Columns

•

•

Kiosks

•

Trash Receptacles

•

Shelters

•

Bridge Plate Boxes

•

Windscreens

•

•

•

Benches

TVMs

Advertising

•

Telephones

Light Poles •

Guardrails

Platforms may be tapered at the ends if required by physical constraints. However, the minimum width must be provided at passenger access points.

Low-Level Platforms Key dimensions for low-level platforms are summarized in Table 1. Depending on the host railroad, freight clearances can be an issue with low-level platforms. Dimensions must be confirmed with the railroad and must meet ADA access requirements. For the MMPT, the southeast leg of the Circle wye within the study area may be of concern if commuter rail and freight share this track through the station area.


B-3

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Table 1: Low-Level Platform Dimension Summary Dimension

Measurement

Top of Rail to Platform Surface

8”

Track Centerline to Platform Edge (Tangent Track)

5’1”

Side Platform Width, without Shelter or Amenities

10’0”

Side Platform Width, with Shelter or Amenities

12’0”

Island Platform Width

26’0”

Platform Clear Width Minimum

8’5”

Track Centerline to First Obstruction (Clear Width)

14’0”

Source: New Jersey Transit

High-Level Platforms Key dimensions for high-level platforms are summarized in Table 2. High-level platforms must conform to current regulations of ADA. High-level platform stations require bridge plates to provide gap-free access for all passengers. High-level platforms should be located on tangent track. However, should a curved high-level platforms be unavoidable, the following guidelines should prevail: •

Curvature no greater than 1 degree per 40 feet •

Outer rail super-elevation of no more than 1 inch

The gap between the car door edge and the platform edge cannot exceed 13 inches at any door, at any location over the length of a platform. Table 2: High-Level Platform Dimension Summary Dimension

Measurement

Top of Rail to Platform Surface (Tangent Track)

4’3”

Track Centerline to Platform Edge (Tangent Track)

5’7”

Side Platform Width, without Shelter or Amenities

10’0”

Side Platform Width, with Shelter or Amenities

12’0”

Island Platform Width

26’0”

Platform Clear Width Minimum

8’5”

Track Centerline to First Obstruction (Clear Width)

14’0”

Source: New Jersey Transit

New Jersey Transit, for example, requires that the distance from centerline of tangent track to edge of platform be 5 feet 7 inches and notes that Amtrak may require a platform height of 4 feet above the top of rail at Northeast Corridor Line stations. For New Jersey Transit commuter rail line stations outside the Northeast Corridor, the platform height standard is 4 feet 3 inches. High-level platforms on lines with freight traffic require special consideration. The common clearance standard of 5 feet 7 inches from centerline of track to platform edge may not provide


B-4

November 2010


adequate clearance for all freight operations. Where wider clearances are required for freight movement, the following options exist: •

Retractable edges

•

Gauntlet track •

Mini high-level platforms

In evaluating these options, designers should consider the following factors: •

•

•

Line operating requirements Physical constraints Initial cost •

Maintenance cost

A retractable edge must be installed along the full length of the platform. The retractable edge comprises hinged panels along the platform edge. These can be manually lifted. When in their upright position, the minimum clearance required for freight movement is provided. For safety, the panels must lock in both the lowered and lifted positions. Gauntlet tracks are an alternative to retractable edges. For a gauntlet track to be practical, sufficient clearance must exist adjacent to the track, and the track geometry has to accommodate the switch points for the gauntlet track. Gauntlet tracks can be configured either to move the freight train away from the platform or to move the passenger train closer to the platform. The choice of the gauntlet track configuration should be based on right-of-way (ROW) ownership, the relative split between freight and passenger trains, and the ROW available.

Mini High-Level Platforms At low-level platform stations, mini high-level platforms provide access to those with disabilities. Mini high-level platforms may be installed at stations where these best meet vehicle door thresholds or in cases where implementation of a high-level platform is not feasible. Consideration of mini high-level platforms should be based on the following issues: •

•

Track curvature exceeds standards for high-level platform Type of rolling stock •

Frequency and dimensions of freight movements

Revised ADA guidelines require level boarding access for all doors. Therefore, it is unlikely that mini high-level platforms can be considered for new commuter rail operations.

Amtrak Station Requirements Passenger Facilities Amtrak categorizes stations into several Medium, Basic,as and Bus. Minimum requirements have been defined for eachgroups: station Large, category; these Small, are to serve guidelines for station development and ensure a level of consistency throughout the Amtrak network.


B-5

November 2010


The current Amtrak station in Atlanta registered 96,453 boardings and alightings for the Crescent, which operates daily between New York and New Orleans via Atlanta. This station is classified in the Medium category; this indicates that annual ridership is greater than 50,000 passengers and ticket revenue exceeds $500,000 annually. As Atlanta will likely be a key station for the extension of HSR from Washington DC, future station standards for the Large category should be considered. Table 3 displays the minimum requirements for a Medium and Large station. Table 3: Amtrak Medium and Large Minimum Station Requirements Classifications Small to

Projected Ridership Thresholds

Small Unstaffed Platform Under 4,000

Small Unstaffed Shelter 4,000 20,000

Medium with Caretaker (20,000 100,000)

Medium Staffed (100,000 400,000)

Large Staffed (Over 400,000)

Facility Type Platform

•

Platform canopy Sheltered waiting area providing windbreak/weather protection Station building with restroom(s) and other amenities in conditioned structure

●

●

●

●

○

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Access and wayfinding Auto pick-up / drop-off

○

○

●

●

Parking

○

○

●

●

•

○

○

●

Rental cars Bus access

○

○

○

○

Other transit access (bus, light/commuter rail)

○

○

○

○

Taxicab access

○

●

●

●

Bicycle racks

○

●

●

●

Station signage (Amtrak standards)

●

●

●

●

●

Highway signage

●

●

●

●

●

○

●

●

●

●

Ticket office

●

●

Passenger boarding assistance

●

●

Checked baggage handling

○

●

●

●

Customer service Ticketing and Baggage Quik-Trak/e-Ticketing

●

Caretaker / greeter staff Passenger information Passenger information display system (PIDS)


○

B-6

●

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Classifications

Projected Ridership Thresholds

Small Unstaffed Platform Under 4,000

Pay telephones

Small Unstaffed Shelter 4,000 20,000

Small to Medium with Caretaker (20,000 100,000)

•

○

Information counter

Medium Staffed (100,000 400,000)

Large Staffed (Over 400,000)

●

●

○

●

Customer service office

●

Security Emergency platform call box

●

●

●

○

●

Security facilities on site

●

●

Security on call / systems Local police surveillance / call box

○

○

Source: Amtrak Station Manual ● Generally required for classification○/ Optionally required for classification

Table 3 indicates the services and amenities that should be available at Amtrak stations. Those that are generally required are indicated with a black circle; those that are optional are indicated with an open circle.

Platforms Amtrak desires that station platforms accommodate the length of the train. This ensures that long trains will not be required to stop twice. For the MMPT, the platform length should accommodate the longest train operated. Table 4 provides platform lengths. Table 4: Amtrak Platform Length Guidelines

Service Type

Minimum Length Preferred Length Northeast Corridor All Locations (feet) (feet)

Minimum Length Off Corridor (feet)

Acela (HSR)

700

550

NA

Regional (intercity)

1,000

850

425

Corridor (commuter)

700

850

300

Long distance

1,200

850

500

Source: Amtrak Station Manual

Platform height presents a more critical issue for areas where commuter and long distance trains may operate. Key issues are ADA accessibility, access to all cars, and door height of the railcar.


B-7

November 2010


Amtrak station platform heights are generally 48 inches above top of rail for east coast stations and 8 inches above top of rail elsewhere. USDOT guidelines published in 2005 mandate that all new Amtrak and commuter rail stations have full-length level boarding platforms. Alternative boarding methods or devices are not permitted except where level boarding is infeasible4. To meet ADA requirements at low platforms, Amtrak utilizes a portable wheelchair lift. Moreover, at high-level platforms, a bridge plate is used to cover the gap between the platform edge and the car door threshold. High-level platforms are preferred at all HSR and Northeast Corridor stations and at all locations where activity levels exceed 50 passengers per train or 100,000 boardings and alightings. The Atlanta commuter rail vehicle is envisioned to be similar to those in Seattle, Los Angeles, and New Mexico. These vehicles require a lower platform height. However, a bi-level commuter railcar, similar to that used by New Jersey Transit may be used at high-level platforms that could be shared with Amtrak and HSR. Platform width must account for minimum clear distances for passenger circulation and must meet ADA requirements. The minimum distance from the edge of a platform to a column is 5 feet; the minimum clearance from the platform edge to a wall or other obstruction is 6 feet. Desirable and minimum platform widths are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Amtrak Platform Width Guidelines Platform Type

Preferred Width (feet)

Minimum Width (feet)

Live Loading

Island

24

20

Side – with baggage loadings

15

12

see below 250 psf

Side – passengers only

12

10

150 psf

Source: Amtrak Station Manual

Service platforms are located between passenger tracks at several stations. These platforms typically accommodate baggage handling as well as train servicing at station stops. Should baggage handling be necessary along a 12-foot passenger platform, equipment turnarounds are required at platform ends.

Streetcar and Light Rail Station Requirements For MMPT station interface, it is prudent that design criteria not preclude either streetcar or light rail. In this case, light rail design criteria would prevail as these can accommodate operation by both modes.

Stops/Platform Height Streetcar and light rail are envisioned to operate along roadways in downtown Atlanta. Correspondingly, stop locations may be at sidewalks or separate platforms within the roadway ROW. ADA access must be assured and level boarding with vehicle floors must be assured. The vehicle type, either high-floor or as typical for new system, low-floor, will determine stop design. For vehicles without low boarding, a lift device or stationary high-block must be available. For low-floor

4

Amtrak Station Manual (Version 2.2) from the Station Program and Planning Standards and Guidelines 2008.


B-8

November 2010


vehicles, boarding height of the sidewalk or platform must conform to the vehicle door threshold height; this may result in a sidewalk/curb height of up to 8 inches.

Platform Length Platform length is defined based on the maximum length of the vehicle or train. Streetcar service is characterized by operation of a single vehicle, whereas light rail service typically operates with up to four vehicles coupled into a train. In some cases, one or more routes may stop at the same location; the stop or platform length must accommodate the total number of vehicles as well as the longest vehicle. Modern streetcars vary between 50 and 130 feet in length; at least the same distance would be required for a stop. A light rail vehicle may be 80 to 100 feet in length. A four-car light rail train would therefore require a stop or platform of 320 to 400 feet.

Platform Location Guidelines for stop or platform location are the same as those described for commuter rail and include adjacency to tangent track, centrality to access points, and the ability to accommodate future expansion. Platforms should be located along tangent track whenever possible. The gap between the vehicle door threshold and the platform is minimized along tangent track. This improves safety as the probability of an injury due to the gap is decreased. Additionally, the operator cannot observe passenger boarding or alighting.

Intercity Bus Station Requirements Bus Boarding and Staging Areas Loading and unloading for intercity bus service occurs on the front right of the bus. Figure 1 shows a 45-degree deep sawtooth bus slip configuration utilized by Greyhound Lines. A deep sawtooth bus berth allows independent movement, but buses must reverse out of it. It is most appropriate for buses with long dwell times, such as intercity services. A curb may be used; however, it is preferred to have no curb. All pavement and curbs at the bus bays shall be concrete. The pavement on the bus boarding platform area shall be concrete or approved pavers. Bus boarding area shall have a continuous, cantilever supported from the building side (unless covered from floor level above) and provide full weather protection (sun and rain) over the passenger platform and the passenger access path to the bus door. The queuing area must have a 12-foot clearance from the front of the bus to the building. The canopy height shall be such as to maximize passenger protection from the weather and permit bus and emergency vehicle (fire truck) access beneath. Ready bus, or bus staging areas, shall also be provided to accommodate buses in the act of positioning itself near the first bus stop of a trip before the trip’s start time so that it can get to the stop easily and begin its trip “on time”. MMPT Alternatives in Section 9.0 provides an example of what this might look like. The staging areas are not intended for passenger boarding and can be separated from the bus slips. The ready bus area requires a 9-foot space for the bus and a 3-foot space between buses. Pavement in this area shall be concrete.

Bus Circulation Figure 1 shows the turning dimensions of the motor coach utilized by Greyhound Lines. Current bus coaches utilized must be confirmed prior to design of facility. Right turns require a greater turning radius of 51 feet and needs an allowance of 5 feet for out of spec steering alignment: a total of 56 feet. Left turns with the 5-foot allowance require 52 feet 6 inches. It is advisable to increase the


B-9

November 2010


outside dimension and decrease the interior dimensions (24 feet 9 inches for right turns and 23 feet 1 inch for left turns) for added driver comfort and safety. A 3-foot clearance from turning bus to nearest obstruction should be increased as much as is allowable. Figure 1: Greyhound Bus Slip Layout and Turning Dimensions

Source: Greyhound Lines

Bus circulation should be separated from any vehicular circulation, including employee parking. Bus movement ought to be one-way to provide safer staging. The site should be designed as to reduce pedestrian circulation at locations where bus circulation occurs and encourage pedestrians to utilize alternative routes.

Bus Station Design The boarding area for the buses should be secured; additionally, requirements of the downtown review board should be followed for visual screening of bus bays from public areas and ROW locations. All public spaces must be accessible by the physically handicapped.


B-10

November 2010


Exterior walls of the concourse waiting area shall have ample glazing to view the intercity buses to promote passenger comfort and provide a higher level of security. Materials shall be durable, approved by tenant, and strive to be a sustainable product. Elevators shall conform to all code requirements, but as a minimum shall be sized to fit an emergency rolling stretcher with attendants or passenger with bicycle. Stairs shall conform to all code requirements, and be constructed of a durable material with a suitable walking surface to minimize slippage and maintenance.

Commuter / Express Bus Station Requirements Bus Boarding and Staging Areas Commuter and Express Buses require a shallow bus berth to eliminate backing up of buses. A shallow bus berth allows independent movement and does not require reversal to exit. Figure 2 shows bus slip layouts for both a 40-foot commuter bus and an articulated bus. Platform center–tocenter dimension would remain consistent regardless of articulated bus slips or commuter bus slips. A center of platform to center of platform dimension of 80-foot 6 inches allows 40 feet of clearance for two-way circulation bus drives. The distance required for the bus berth for a commuter bus would be 83 feet 11 inches while an articulated bus requires 78 feet. Bus slips should be alternated as to allow ample space for bus boarding queuing. The platforms shall be concrete or approved pavers, curbs and bus slips should be concrete. Asphalt paving could be utilized for the bus drive; however, concrete is recommended due to less maintenance and more durability. Concrete must be used if the drive is located underneath the building.

Bus Circulation Figure 2 shows the turning dimensions of typical city type buses utilized for commuter, express, and local service. Current bus coaches utilized must be confirmed prior to design of facility and the site circulation should be flexible to accommodate all buses. Right turns for a 40-foot bus requires an outside turning radius of 46 feet 6 inches and an inside radius of 24 feet. It is advisable to increase the outside dimension and decrease the interior dimensions for added driver comfort and safety. A 3-foot clearance from turning bus to nearest obstruction should be increased as much as is allowable. However, “Xpress” commuter service, Cobb Community Transit (CCT), and Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) all utilize 45-foot intercity type of buses, which, indicates that all bus circulation within the commuter / express bus site should be designed to accommodate circulation for a 45-foot intercity type of bus. Bus circulation should be separated from any vehicular circulation, including employee parking. Bus movement should be two-way circulation, which allows for more efficiency of platform use and reduces the number of platforms. Articulated buses are longer in dimension, but rotate in the middle allowing an even tighter turning radius. The site should be designed as to dictate pedestrian circulation with defined pedestrian crossings at locations with maximum driver visibility and traffic calming devices should be used. Although access to platforms should be elevated, passengers will still walk across the bus drive to the other platforms and the design should accommodate ground pedestrian circulation.


B-11

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Figure 2: Commuter / Express Bus Boarding Layout and Turning Guidelines

Source: AECOM

Bus Station Design The boarding area for the buses should be secured; additionally, requirements of the downtown review board should be followed for visual screening of bus bays from public areas and ROW locations. All public spaces must be accessible by the physically handicapped. Most patrons waiting for commuter or local buses will wait on the platforms; however, some will prefer to be in an enclosed, interior space. The interior waiting areas should be in close proximity to the platforms and provide easy access to each platform area. Exterior walls of the concourse waiting area shall have ample glazing to view the buses, to promote passenger comfort, and provide a higher level of security. Materials shall be durable, approved by tenant, and strive to be a sustainable product. Elevators shall conform to all code requirements, but as a minimum shall be sized to fit an emergency rolling stretcher with attendants or a passenger with a bicycle. Stairs shall conform to all code requirements, be constructed of a durable material with a suitable walking surface to minimize slippage and maintenance.


B-12

November 2010


Codes and Standards Transit Service – MARTA, GRTA, CCT, and GCT may have service standards (or service guidelines) that they utilize to describe not only service conditions (e.g., frequency and span of service criteria) but also certain design standards for physical development (e.g., bus stop placement, etc.). Greyhound Intermodal Facility Standards – 2010 Greyhound supplied standards utilized to help determine the appropriate amount of space needed at bus terminal facilities such as the MMPT. In addition, Greyhound adheres to all Federal and State laws, including USDOT standards; as well as any applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards that will govern its driving and facility operations. Atlanta City Codes Chapter 162 – governs the taxicab industry in the City of Atlanta. NFPA 101 Life Safety Code – 2009 Edition, produced by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to serve as a standard, not a legal code (unless adopted by the authority having jurisdiction) for protection of occupants in facilities. This standard does not address general fire prevention or building construction features, but is meant to be coordinated with other building codes. NFPA 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems – 2010 Edition, produced by the NFPA to serve as a standard for life safety issues from fire and fire protection requirements for fixed guideway transit and passenger rail systems. The mandatory parts of this standard do not cover requirements for buses, conventional freight, or any other types of transit facilities, but offers useful guidance where these facilities are not well addressed by other codes and standards. NFPA 502, Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways – 2008 Edition, produced by the NFPA to serve as a standard for life safety issues from fire and fire protection requirements for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways, which

includes air rights structures. The mandatory parts of this standard do not cover requirements for bus terminals or other types of enclosed vehicular facilities, but offers useful guidance where these facilities are not well addressed by other codes and standards. ASHRAE Handbook 2007 – HVAC Applications – Chapter 13 of the handbook covers ventilation requirements for enclosed vehicular facilities. Enclosed facilities include road tunnels, rapid transit tunnels and stations, railroad tunnels, automotive repair facilities, bus garages, bus terminals, tollbooths and diesel locomotive facilities. The chapter also covers ventilation equipment. Subway Environmental Design Handbook (SEDH), U.S. Department of Commerce, Volume1: Principles and Application, 2nd Edition”, March 1976 - This reference provides guidance and reference for planning, design, construction, and operation of environmental control systems for underground rapid transit. The concepts are extendable to rail and other applications. Georgia State Minimum Standard Building Code – 2010 Edition, the State of Georgia uses the International Building Code with Georgia State Amendments as the legal building construction code. It covers issues such as life safety, accessibility, building types, features, and materials. Georgia State Minimum Standard – 2010 Edition, State of Georgia code. uses the International Fire Code with Georgia Fire StateCode Amendments as the the legal fire prevention It works in conjunction with the standard building code.


B-13

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Amtrak Station Program & Planning: Standards and Guidelines – Version 2.2, document produced by National Railroad Passenger Corporation to serve as general guidelines for station design. Amtrak Engineering Practices: Overbuild Of Amtrak Right-of-Way Design Policy – EP4006, document produced by National Railroad Passenger Corporation to serve as general guidelines for fire-life safety and ventilation criteria in the development of property resulting in a closed or partially enclosed overbuild structure over tracks and stations. Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, 2002-2005 and all supplements – City of Atlanta produced code that covers zoning issues. Applicable sections include but are not limited to Part II Chapter 75: Sustainable Development Design Standards; Part III, Part 16, Chapter 16-18A: SPI-1 Downtown Special Public Interest District Regulations. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – specifies standards and requirements for pedestrian access for people with disabilities, including detailed standards for pedestrian connections and passageways that involve a change in grade or elevation. They also set standards for elevators, escalators, and other means of mobility involving machinery. Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards - sets standards for facility accessibility by physically handicapped persons for Federal and federally-funded facilities. These standards are to be applied during the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities to the extent required by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended. LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction – 2009 Edition, produced by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), is a guide for the rating system and implementation of sustainable building practices.


B-14

November 2010


Appendix C: Definition of Terms


C-1

November 2010


Appendix C: Definition of Terms Appendix C includes a definition of terms commonly used in the discussion of bus and rail operations. Term

Low-level Platform

High-level Platform

Mini High-level Platform

Definition Generally, 8 inches to 18 inches from the top of rail to platform surface and are primarily used by some commuter rail and light rail lines. Wheelchairs can board low-floor vehicles directly from the platform, but high-floor vehicles require retractable lift or ramp. Generally, above 18 inches from the top of rail to platform surface and are primarily used by heavy rail, automated guideway, and some commuter rail

lines. Only high-floor vehicles can be used, but wheelchairs can board directly from platforms if vehicle floors are level with the platform. A section of a transit station platform that is the same height as the floors of the vehicles using the platform, the remainder of the platform will be lower. Such platforms are used where site constraints prevent construction of fulllength high platforms.

Pantograph

A device that collects electric current from overhead lines for electric trains or trams.

Bi-level Passenger Rail Vehicle

Passenger cars that provide seating on two separate floors; each floor has a central aisle.

Gallery Passenger Rail Vehicle

Passenger cars that include a single row of seats and an aisle on each side of the upper level; the lower level includes a single central aisle.

Dwell Time

Time spent by a bus loading and unloading passengers at a bus stop

Layover/Recovery Time

Time allotted at the end of a bus trip for the driver to have a break and prepare for the next trip.

Staging

The act of positioning a bus near the first bus stop of a trip before the trip’s start time so that it can get to the stop easily and begin its trip “on time”.

Storage

Storing a bus for an extended period of time (e.g., overnight) – typically accomplished at the bus maintenance location/driver reporting base.

Deep Sawtooth Bus Berth

Bus berths which allow independent movement but which buses must reverse out of; most appropriate for buses with long dwell times, such as intercity services.

Shallow Sawtooth Bus Berth

Bus berths which allow independent movement and which reverse moves are not required to exit.

Ready Bus (or “Spare” or “Strategic Bus”)

Buses which are kept available at certain key locations (such as a major terminal) to provide a back-up or “schedule protection” bus in case they are needed due to overcrowding, mechanical problems, etc.

Alternative-fuel refueling station

Station for the refueling of low-polluting, non-gasoline fuels such as electricity, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and methanol .

Day-lighting

The controlled admission of natural light into a space, used to reduce or eliminate electric lighting.

Displacement Ventilation System

System where air supply is introduced to the space at or near the floor level.

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

Regular building occupant who spends 40 hours per week in building.

Greywater (or Graywater)

Wastewater discharged from lavatories, bathtubs, showers, clothes washers, and laundry sinks and other untreated wastewater that has not come into contact with toilet waste.


C-2

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operational Requirements Term

Level-of-Service (LOS)

Definition Measure used to determine the effectiveness of elements of transportation infrastructure. An A through F scale; whereas, A is the best while F is the worst. LOS in parking structures are based on wayfinding, freedom to maneuver, and wait times.

Net Square Footage

Floor area within inside perimeter with deductions for hallways, stairs, closets, thicknesses of interior walls, columns, or other features.

Sustainable Design (or Green Design)

Practice of design principles that have little or no negative impact on the environment and society throughout its life cycle.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

A high density, mixed-use area that maximizes access to public transportation.

U-value (or U-factor)

A measure of thermal resistance of a material or assembly of materials. The higher the number, the better the building insulative properties.

Variable Air Volume Air Handling Unit

A system from a central plant that delivers constant supply air delivered to each zone.

Walkshed

An area accessible to a given point or destination by walking a specified distance or time along available street sidewalks, paths, passages and other available ROWs for pedestrians. The walkshed is not the same as the area created by a uniform radius from the point or destination of reference.


C-3

November 2010


Appendix D: NS Property and Track Owned


D-1

November 2010


Appendix D: NS Property and Track Owned


D-2

November 2010


Appendix E: Facility Component Program


E-1

November 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements APPENDIX E: COMPONENT PROGRAM PASSENGER RAIL A M T RA K ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Site Train

SUBTOTAL SQUARE FEET

HIG SH PEE RD AIL Tenant Area (square feet)

Common Area (square feet)

Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

134,640

Tenant Area (square feet)


Tenant

89,760

224,400

0

Platform (30'x800')

3

24000

72,000

2

24000

48,000

120,000

0

Vertical circulation

3

1680

5,040

2

1680

3,360

8,400

0

96,000

0

6

9600

57,600

10

350

3,500

Patron/ Park-n-Ride

0

350

ADA

1

550

Bicycle

0

16

Service

3

350

Drop-Off and Pick-up

0

Track area (adjacent to platform) Parking

5,100 Employee

0 550

240

9600

38,400

350

4,655

0

350

6,783

15 0

1,050 0

Maintenance

4

13

0

16

4

350

0

11,883

0

8,155

0

00

50

0

0

732 0 1,397

240

1,282

0

0

0

2,447

0

0

0

0

520

0

0

520

work area/office

0

0

0

Fueling

0

1080

0

0

1080

per bay

0

0

0

Storage/ Miscellaneous

0

712

0

712

varies upon specific needs

0

0

236,283

0

0 139,740

Facility Ticketing

0

0 96,543

453

0

602

1,0550

Manned Stations (ticket booth)

0

55

per position

0

0

55

per position

0

0

0

Semi-Manned Kiosks

2

90

per kiosk, information

180

3

90


239

419

0

Vending machines

3

15

per machine

45

4

15

per machine

60

105

0

Cash Room

1

48

per 2 positions

48

1

48

per 2 positions

64

112

0

Queuing

2

90

per counter

180

3

90

per counter

239

419

0

Administrative/ Operations Reception Office Facilities

3,300

3,059

6,359

0

1

100

per position

100

1

100

per position

133

233

0

10

120

per position

1,200

13

120

per position

1,596

2,796

0

0

196

conference/ training

0

0

196


0

0

0

200

min. 100 add 10 sf per employee per shift

2,000

13

100


1,330

3,330

0

Equipment/ Work areas

0

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

Record Storage/ Supplies

0

320

0

0

320

0

0

0

Secure Storage

0

35

0

0

35

0

0

0

Employee Lounge

Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal Project

E-2

verify with jurisdictional code

Subtotal

Subtotal

10

Meeting

Subtotal

0

0

Facility

TOTAL SITE

Subtotal

0

00

0

REMARKS

Common

no direct number, assumed

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements A M T RA K ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Patron Areas




168

2,251

Quantity

SquareFootAllowance


Tenant

2,993

391

5,244

41

20

per seat, peak ons

820

55

20

per seat, peak ons

1,091

0

1,911

Standing/Waiting

14

10

per seat, peak ons

140

19

10

per seat, peak ons

186

0

326

Loading/ Queuing

12

14

VIP Lounge Quiet Rooms

0

80

12

15

0

80

168

per person

16

14

0

0

80

180

16

15

0

0

80

223

per person

391

REMARKS

Common

Seating/Waiting

Showers

223


Subtotal

total daily ridership/ number of peak departure periods total daily ridership/ number of peak departure periods

0

0

0

0

239

0

419

0

0

0

Secure Baggage Storage

12

2

per locker

24

16

2

per locker

32

0

56

Smoking Rooms

55

6.6667

1/3 seating area

367

73

6.6667

1/3 seating area

488

0

854

0

0

10

0

0

0

640

21

40

per fixture

851

0

1,491


80

11

10

per fixture


Charging/Payphones/Wi-Fi Restrooms Electric Water Cooler

0

10

16

40

per fixture

8

10

per fixture

Passenger Services

286

0

186

380

106

666

0

Not requested but should provide

Subtotal

Lost and Found

1

100

per position

100

1

100

per position

133

233

0

Way Finding Signage/Kiosks

0

10

per kiosk

0

0

10

per kiosk

0

0

0

Checked Bag Service in Main Terminal

1

90

per position

90

1

90

per position

120

210

0

Guest Concierge Service

0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0

0

Guest Accompany Services

1

32

per position

32

1

32

per position

43

75

Departure/ Arrival Information

2

32

per board

64

3

32

per board

85

149

0

67

706

117

67

0

117

Verify with jurisdictional police department

0

0


47

82

0


93

2050

133

233

Security

327 Check at MainConcourse

1

50

Check at Platform

0

50

Holding Room

1

Restroom

2

56

Ready Room/ Office

1

100

Security Office

1

80

50

50

35 100 min. 10/employee over 5

1

50

0

0

50

35

1

112

3

35

100

1

100

1

80

80

Retail

379

0


106

2,676

0 no direct number, assumed Subtotal


0

1860

Verify with jurisdictional police department Verify with jurisdictional police department

3,559

0

6,235

Subtotal

Food Vendor/ Snack Stand

3

100

per stand

300

4

100

per stand

399

0

699

Vending Machines/ Video Games

0

15

per machine

0

0

15

per machine

0

0

0

Vending Storage

0

8

per machine

0

0

8

per machine

0

0

Sundry

8

40

per occupant

320

11

40

per occupant

426

0

746


Cafeteria/ Fast Food

1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

1

1404

kitchen area

1,867

0

3,271


8

24

per seat

192

11

24

per seat

255

0

447

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

Dining Area

0

24

per seat

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

0

Media Stand (newspapers, etc.)

2

50

per stand

100

3

50

per stand

133

0

233

Package/ Mail Service

0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

Branch Bank location

0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

ATM

2

10

per machine

20

3

10

per machine

27

0

Movie Theater

0

20

per occupant

0

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

Dry Cleaning

1

100

per occupant

100

1

100

per occupant

133

0

233

Child Care

0

35

per occupant

0

0

35

per occupant

0

0

0

Shops

2

120

gift shop

240

3

120

gift shop

319

0

559

Retail Storage

0

20

per shelf

0

0

20

per shelf

0

0

0

Travel Retail (suitcases, etc.)

0

40

per occupant

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0

Dining Area Sit-downRestaurants


E-3


0

47

12% of seating





October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements A M T RA K ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Miscellaneous Support Areas




1,932

80

Quantity

SquareFootAllowance



Tenant

Common

2,587

106

4,519

186

Storage Other

0

24

per rack

0

0

24

per rack

0

0

0

Baggage Room

0

12

per passenger

0

0

12

per passenger

0

0

0

Baggage Cart Staging Baggage Make-up Public Claim Area

0

40

per cart

0

0

40

0

0

0

96453

0.015

per annual passenger

1,447

128282

0.015

1,924

3,371

0

35

7

per detraining passenger

245

47

7


326

571

0

240

3

126.6


337

577

0

0

0

200

per room

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

0

0

0

0

130

0

0

0

1

80

01

86

Lockers/ Showers

2

120


Driver Dormitories

0

200

per room

Operator Break Area

0

300

Operator Office

0

130

Quiet Rooms

1

80

per position

80

Meeting

per cart per annual passenger

per position

106

0

0

0

0

REMARKS

Subtotal

Subtotal

Special Event Location

0

7

per occupant

0

0

7

per occupant

0

0

0

Beneficial but not required

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

Beneficial but not required

TOTAL NET S.F. FACILITY

6,466

5,057

7,231

6,725

13,697

11,782

Adjustment for Rail Market increase (25%)

1,616

1,264

1,808

1,681

3,424

2,946

2,425

1,896

2,712

2,522

5,136

4,418

10,507

8,217

11,751

10,929

22,258

19,146

Internal Circulation Space, Mechanical, Electrical, Loading, Trash, Columns, Walls and other Structural Members (30% of Net Area) TOTAL GROSS S.F. FACILITY


E-4

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements

G EOR CG OIM AM URTAEIL R ITEM Quantity

Square Foot Allowance

Site Train

MARTA RAIL Tenant Area (square feet)



Quantity

0

TOTAL SQUARE FEET



Tenant

0

224,400

Platform

0

24000

0

0

0

0

120,0000

Vertical circulation

0

1680

0

0

0

0

Track area (adjacent to platform)

0

9600

0

Employee

0

350

Patron/ Park-n-Ride

0

350

ADA

0

550

Bicycle

0

16

Service

0

350


0

0

Facility

0

520

0

0

520

0

Fueling

0

1080

0

0

1080

0

00


0

712

0

0

712

Parking

0

0

0

10

350

0

0

350

0

0

1

550

0

0

16

5

350

0

240

0

Maintenance

0

0

0

5,800

4

0

Facility Ticketing

960

3,500

550 0 1,750

240

960

0

0

5,800

450

360

960

0

Subtotal

Georgia Commuter Rail to use shared platforms

0

Included in shared platforms

96,000

0

Included in shared platforms

17,683

960

11,655

0

00

0

TOTAL SITE

8,400

RE M A RKS

Common

Subtotal

No information is available f rom Georgia Commuter Rail

0 1,832

0

0

0

4,197

0

0

960

0

0

0

0

0

0

242,083

960


MARTA Kiss n Ride quantity assumed Subtotal

1,8650

Subtotal


0

55

per position

0

0

55

per position

0

0

0

Amtrak agents can sell commuter rail tickets

Semi-Manned Kiosks

0

90


0

2

90


180

599

0

No specific number for MARTA given: assumed

per machine

450

01

5

per machine

0

555

0

Includes queuing for machines

0

0

48

0

112

0

0

2

90

per counter

180

599

0

30

15

Cash Room

0

48

Queuing

0

90

per counter

6,799

0

Reception

0

100

per position

0

0

100

per position

0

233

0

Office Facilities

0

120

per position

0

2

120

per position

240

3,036

0

Meeting

0

196


0

0

196


0

0

0

Employee Lounge

0

100

0

1

100

100

3,430

0

assumed for MARTA


0

100

0

1

100

100

100

0

assumed for MARTA


0

320

0

0

320

0

0

0

Storage

0

35

0

0

35

0

0

0

Vending machines

Administrative/ Operations

0


440

E-5

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements G EOR CG OIM AM URTAEIL R ITEM Square Foot Allowance

Quantity

Patron Areas



0

996


Quantity

Seating/Waiting

0

20

per seat, daily/ peak

0

59

20

Standing/Waiting

0

10


0

178

10

Loading/ Queuing

0

14

Showers

0

80

VIP Lounge

0

15

Quiet Rooms

0

0

0


0

2

per locker

0

60

Smoking Rooms

0

6.6667

1/3 seating area

0

59

Charging/Payphones/Wi-Fi

44

1.5

per phone

66

2

1.5

Restrooms

22

40

per fixture

880

2

40

5

10

per fixture

50

1

10

Electric Water Cooler

0

per person

80

Passenger Services

0

14

0

0

80

0

0

15

TOTAL SQUARE FEET



Tenant

0

3,566

391

9,806

1,180

0

3,091

1,780

0

2,106

1/4 of 10% transfers of peak hour 3/4 of 10% transfers of peak hour on platform

0

391

0

0

0

0

0

419

0

0

2

per locker

120

0

176

6.6667

1/3 seating area

393

0

1,248

per phone

3

0

69

per fixture

80

0

2,451


per fixture

10

0

246


220

1,886

0

80

0

3

100

per position

300

1

100

per position

100

633

0


0

10

per kiosk

0

2

10

per kiosk

20

20

0

Checked Bag Service in Main Terminal

0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

210

0


0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0

0


7

100

per position

700

1

100

per position

100

875


0

32

per board

0

0

32

per board

0

149

0

786

117

Security

0

50

0

50

Restroom

0

Holding Room

0

35

Ready Room/ Office

0

100

Security Office

0

80

0


0 0

0

50

0

0

50

0

0

0

0

35

0

0

100

1

80

0

Retail

80

0 00

0


0

0

0

82

0

0

205

0

0

233

0

0

11,416

0

100

per stand

0

1

100

per stand

100

0

799


0

15

per machine

0

3

15

per machine

45

0

45

Vending Storage

0

8

per machine

0

3

8

per machine

24

0

Sundry

0

40

per occupant

0

5

40

per occupant

200

0

946


0

1404

kitchen area

0

1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

0

4,675

24

per seat

0

8

24

per seat

192

0

639

0

1404

kitchen area

0

1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

0

1,404

0

24

per seat

0

8

24

per seat

192

0

192

50

per stand

0

1

50

per stand

50

0

283

100

per occupant

0

5

100

per occupant

500

0

500

per occupant

0

5

100

per occupant

500

0

500

per machine

0

2

10

per machine

20

0

per occupant

0

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

233

per occupant

0

10

35

per occupant

350

0

350

gift shop

0

0

120

0

0

559

per shelf

0

0

20

per shelf

0

0

0

per occupant

0

5

40

per occupant

200

0

200


0


0


0

100

ATM

0

10

Movie Theater

0

20

Dry Cleaning

0

100

Child Care

0

35

Shops

0

120

Retail Storage

0

20


0

40


E-6

gift shop

Utilized existing data; no new data provided

Subtotal

Enhanced monitoring location Subtotal

24

0

Dining Area

Subtotal


0

266 5,181


Dining Area


117 0

80

0

Sit-downRestaurants

Georgia Commuter Rail to use Amtrak platforms

0

Lost and Found

Check at Platform

Subtotal

Georgia Commuter Rail to use Amtrak Meeter/Greeter spaces for waiting Georgia Commuter Rail to use Amtrak Meeter/Greeter spaces for waiting

per person

1,000

Check at MainConcourse

RE M A RKS

Common

12% of seating

12% of seating

67

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements G EOR CG OIM AM URTAEIL R ITEM Square Foot Allowance

Quantity




0

0


Quantity

TOTAL SQUARE FEET



Tenant

Common

0

0

4,519

186

Storage Other

0

24

per rack

0

0

24

per rack

0

0

0

Baggage Room

0

12

per passenger

0

0

12

per passenger

0

0

0

Baggage Cart Staging

0

40

per cart

0

0

40

per cart

0

0

0

Baggage Make-up

0

0.015


0

0

0.015


0

3,371

0

Public Claim Area

0

7


0

0

7


0

571

0

Lockers/ Showers

0

80

per shower

0

0

80

per shower

0

577

0

Driver Dormitories

0

200

per room

0

0

200

per room

0

0

0

Operator Break Area

0

300

0

0

300

0

0

Operator Office

0

130

0

0

130

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

80

per position

0

Meeting

per position

00

0

0 0

3,500

0

3,500

0

7

per occupant

0

500

7

per occupant

3,500

0

3,500

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

Adjustment for Rail Market increase (25%)



1,450

996

1,100

12,247

16,247

25,025

363

249

275

3,062

4,062

6,256

544

374

413

4,593

6,093

9,385

2,356

1,619

1,788

19,902

26,401

40,666

E-7

Subtotal

186



RE M A RKS

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements APPENDIX E: COMPONENT PROGRAM COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS AND LOCAL BUS COMMUT ER EX PRESS BUS ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Site Bus Parking (includes site circulation) Loading/ Unloading Staging

Total Square Foot


L OCAL BUS Subtotal Common Area

Quantity SquareFootAllowance

53,900

Total Square Foot

Subtotal Common Area

Tenant

Common

46,200

100,100

0

14

2450

34,300

12

2450

29,400

63,700

0

0

518

0

0

518

0

0

0

Layover

0

518

Platform

14

1400

0 per slip

Parking

19,600 2,100

50

0

518

12

1400

0 per slip

1,600

Employee

63

2,100

Patron

0

350

ADA

1

550

Bicycle

0

16

Service

33

50

1,050


0 03

50

0

16,800 0

0

0

2,100

1,600

2,100

0 0

0

0

350

0

0

550

0

550

0

0

0

0

16

0

0

0

03

50

0

0

1,050

0

0

550

0

240

0

240

0

0

0

0

0

0

520

work area/office

0

0

520

work area/office

0

0

0

Bus Wash

0

1080

per bay

0

0

1080

per bay

0

0

0

Fueling/ Maintenance Bay

0

1080

per bay

0

0

1080

per bay

0

0

0


0

712


0

0

712


0

0

0

0

0

0

Kiosk

0

18

per kiosk,VRU

0

0

18

per kiosk

0

0

0

Pay Phone

0

18

per phone

0

0

18

per phone

0

0

0

102,200

1,600

0

Miscellaneous

TOTAL SITE


0

56,000

1,600

46,200

E-8

0

Subtotal

0

36,400

Facility

Maintenance

REMARKS

Subtotal


no direct number, assumed Subtotal

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements COMMUT ER EX PRESS BUS ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Facility Ticketing

Total Square Foot


350 Manned Stations (ticket booth)

0

32

per position per kiosk, information



0

0

32

per position

Total Square Foot


Tenant

Common

120

470

0

0

0

0

Subtotal

0

32

0

0

32

0

0

Unmanned Kiosks

2

10

per kiosk

20

0

10

per kiosk

0

20

0

no direct quantity, assumed

Vending machines

12

15

per machine

180

8

15

per machine

120

300

0

no direct quantity, assumed

Cash Room

0

48

0

0

48

0

0

0

Queuing

2

75

per kiosk

150

0

75

per kiosk

0

150

0

0

340

0

Reception

0

100

per position

0

0

100

per position

0

0

0

Office Facilities

2

120

per position

240

0

120

per position

0

240

0

Meeting

0

196


0

0

196


0

0

0

Break Room

0

200

0

0

200

0

0

0


1

100

100

0

100

0

100

0


0

320

0

0

320

0

0

0

Storage

0

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

105

20

2,100

90

20

Showers

0

80

0

0

VIP Lounge

0

0

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0


0

2

0

0

2

231

29.7

20

0

10

80

2

40

per fixture

10

1

10

per fixture

Semi-Manned Kiosks


340

Patron Areas Seating/Waiting

Smoking Rooms

per kiosk

0

REMARKS

2,441

34.65

per seat

per locker

6.6667 1/3 seating area


2

10

Restrooms

2

40

per fixture


1

10

per fixture

Passenger Services

2,088

0

4,529

1,800

0

3,900

80

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

0

198

0

429

0

0

20

0

per seat

per locker

6.6667 1/3 seating area

386

80

160


0

20


406

0

10

100

per position

100

0

100

per position

0

100

0


3

10

per kiosk

30

2

10

per kiosk

20

50

0


0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0

0


0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0


8

32

per board

256

0

32

per board

0

256

0

0

0

120

0

0

0

0

0


0

9

per person

Check at Platform

0

9

per person

Enhanced monitoring

0

0

Security Office

1

120


per 2 positions

120 0

0

0 0

9

per person

0

9

per person

0

0

0

120

0

120

E-9

per 2 positions

Subtotal

7.5 persons per bus slip

20

1

0

assumed at least one work area

0

Lost and Found

Security

Subtotal

0

Subtotal

0

0

0

0

0

0

120


assumed at least one security area

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements COMMUT ER EX PRESS BUS ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Total Square Foot

Retail




Total Square Foot

4,746


Tenant

Common

0

0

4,746


2

100

per stand

200

0

100

per stand

0

0

200


0

15

per machine

0

0

15

per machine

0

0

0

Vending Storage Sundry Cafeteria/ Fast Food Dining Area Sit-down Restaurants Dining Area

0

8

per machine

0

0

8

per machine

0

0

0

40

per occupant

1,360

0

40

per occupant

0

0

1,360


1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

1,404


12.6

24

per seat

302

0

24

per seat

0

0

302

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

0

0

50

per stand

0

0

50

per stand

0

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

ATM

0

10

per machine

0

0

10

per machine

0

0

Movie Theater

0

20

per occupant

0

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

10

100

per occupant

1,000

0

100

per occupant

0

0

1,000

Child Care

0

35

per occupant

0

0

35

per occupant

0

0

0

Shops

4

120

gift shop

480

0

120

gift shop

0

0

480

Retail Storage

0

20

per shelf

0

0

20

per shelf

0

0

0


0

40

per occupant

0 0

0

40

per occupant

0 0

0 0

0 0


0

7

per occupant

0

0

7

per occupant

0

0

0

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

Meeting


1,076

7,307

140

2,088

1,216

9,395

269

1,827

35

522

304

2,349

Internal Circulation Space, Mechanical, Electrical, Loading, Trash, Columns, Walls and other Structural Members (30% of Net Area)

404

2,740

53

783

456

3,523

1,749

11,875

228

3,393

1,976

15,268


E-10

12% of seating

0

Adjustment for Bus Market increase (25%)

TOTAL GROSS S.F. FACILITY

Subtotal


34


Dry Cleaning

REMARKS



Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements APPENDIX E: COMPONENT PROGRAM INTERCITY BUS GREYHOUND LINES ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Site Bus Parking


SOUTHEASTERN STAGES Common Area (square feet)


35,936


TOTAL SQUARE FEET Common Area (square feet)

Tenant

Common

5,044

40,980

0

20

743

14,860

2

743

1,486

16,346

0

Staging

6

518

3,108

2

518

1,036

4,144

0

Layover

0

518

0

0

518

0

0

Concourse

0

416

0

0

416

Loading/ Unloading

SiteCirculation

per slip 100%ofabove

Parking

17,968 7,000 7,000

Patron

9

350

ADA

35

Bicycle

0

16

0

0

Service- Taxi

3

350

1,050

0

350


52

1,200

12

50

40

0 20,490

0

7,000

8,540

0

350 includes GPX

0 2,522

7,050

20

Employee

0 per slip 100% of above

03 3,150

2

1,650

15

50

1,490

0

7,000

0

700

0

3,850

3% of seating

50

550

0

2,200


16

0

0

0

0

0

1,050

240

0

1,440

0

0

0

520

work area/office

0

0

520

40 work area/office

0

0

0

Bus Wash

0

1080

per bay

0

0

1080

per bay

0

0

0

Fueling/ Maintenance Bay

0

1080

per bay

0

0

1080

per bay

0

0

0


0

712


0

0

712


0

0

0

0

54

0

0

54

Kiosk

2

18

per kiosk,VRU

36

0

18

per kiosk

0

36

0

Pay Phone

1

18

per phone

18

0

18

per phone

0

18

0

TOTAL SITE

42,990

Facility Ticketing

7,050

5,044

48,034

8,540

56

762

0

per position

0

224

0

706

1,490

per position, includes GPX

224

03


32

1

32

per kiosk

32

64

0

per kiosk

0

0

10

per kiosk

0

0

0

per machine

0

0

15

per machine

0

0

0

96

1

24

per well

24

120

0

48

0

48

0

48

0

306

306

0


7

32

Semi-Manned Kiosks

1

32

Unmanned Kiosks

0

10

Vending machines

0

15

Checked Luggage

4

24

per well, includes GPX

Cash Room

1

48

2

34

9

per person, includes GPX

0

9

per person

1

100

per position

100

0

100

per position

0

100

0

10

145

per position

1,450

0

145

per position

0

1,450

0

Meeting

1

196


196

0

196


0

196

0

Break Room

1

200

200

0

200

0

200

0


2

100

200

0

100

0

200

0


2

320

640

0

320

0

640

0

Storage

2

100

200

0

100

0

200

0

Queuing Administrative/ Operations Reception Office Facilities


2,986

0 0

E-11

Subtotal

350

0

Miscellaneous

Subtotal

0

Facility

Maintenance

REMARKS

2,9860


Subtotal

Subtotal



Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements GREY HOUNDL INES ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance

Patron Areas Seating/Waiting

200

20

per seat, 10 seats per slip

Bus Loading/ Queuing

per door

SOUT HEAS T ERNST AGE S



2,800

6,633 4,000

56

20

per seat, daily/ peak per door

TOTAL SQUARE FEET



Tenant

Common

0

1,482

2,800

8,115

1,120

0

5,120

200

14

0

14

2,800

0

Showers

0

80

0

0

80

0

0

0

VIP Lounge

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0

80

0

0

0

60

2

per locker

120

16

2

per locker

32

0

152

1/3 seating area

1,333

0

6.6667

1/3 seating area

160

5

10


2,800


200

6.6667


16

10

Restrooms

25

40

per fixture

1,000

7

40

2

10

per fixture

20

0

10

Smoking Rooms

Electric Water Cooler Passenger Services

0

Subtotal

total daily ridership/ number of peak departure periods

0

0

0

1,333

50

0

210

per fixture

280

0

1,280

per fixture

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

REMARKS

30% of seating

8% of seating 12.5% of seating

Subtotal

Lost and Found

0

100

per position

0

0

100

per position

0

0

0


0

10

per kiosk

0

0

10

per kiosk

0

0

0


0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0

0


0

32

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0


0

32

per board

0

0

32

per board

0

0

0

0

18

129

0

0

9


18

0


0

no direct number, assumed; sf unknown

Security

9 Check at MainConcourse

1

9

per person

Check at Platform

1

9

per person

Enhanced monitoring

1

0

Security Office

1

120

9 9

per 2 positions

Retail

2,574 Food Vendor/ Snack Stand Vending Machines/ Video Games

0

100

per stand

14

15

per machine

129

9 0

9

per person

1

9

per person

0

1

0

120

0

120

9 0

per 2 positions

10

0

0

0

0

120

1,672

2,574

1,682

0

1

100

per stand

100

0

100

210

0

0

15

per machine

0

210

0

64

Vending Storage

8

8

per machine

0

0

8

per machine

0

64

Sundry

0

40

per occupant

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0


0

1404

kitchen area

0

1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

0

1,404

Dining Area

0

24

per seat

0

7

24

per seat

168

0

168

1

1404

kitchen area

1,404

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

1,404

0

24

24

per seat

576

0

0

24

per seat

0

576

0 0

Sit-down Restaurants Dining Area

0

50

per stand

0

0

50

per stand

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

ATM

1

10

per machine

10

0

10

per machine

0

0

10

Movie Theater

0

20

per occupant

0

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

Dry Cleaning

0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

Child Care

0

35

per occupant

0

0

35

per occupant

0

0

0

Shops

1

120

gift shop

120

0

0

120

gift shop

0

120

0

10

20

per shelf

200

0

0

20

per shelf

0

200

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0



E-12


0


Retail Storage

Subtotal

12% of seating

0

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements GREY HOUNDL INES ITEM Quantity

SquareFootAllowance


Meeting

SOUT HEAS T ERNST AGE S Common Area (square feet)



0


Tenant

Common

0

0

0


0

7

per occupant

0

0

7

per occupant

0

0

0

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

Storage Other

25

24

per rack, locked and COD

600

Baggage Racks

70



4,113

0 02

4

4,1130

0

600

0

24

per rack

1,680

0

24

per rack

0

1,680

0

25

40

per cart

1,000

0

40

per cart

0

1,000

0

1

63

GPX

63

0

63

GPX

0

63

0

VRU Room

1

80

80

0

80

0

80

0

Lockers/ Showers

0

80

per shower

0

0

80

per shower

0

0

0

Driver Dormitories

0

200

per room

0

0

200

per room

0

0

0

Operator Break Area

1

300

300

0

300

0

300

0

Operator Office

3

130

390

0

130

0

390

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0

80

0

0

Laundry Facilities

0

24

0

0

24

0

0

0

TOTAL NET S.F. FACILITY Adjustment for Intercity Bus Market increase (25%)



per machine

per position

per machine

0

13,188

6,772

65

3,154

13,253

9,926

3,297

1,693

16

789

3,313

2,482

4,946

2,540

24

1,183

4,970

3,722

21,431

11,005

106

5,125

21,536

16,130

E-13

Subtotal

Subtotal

per rack, locked and COD

Shipping Desk

per position

REMARKS

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements APPENDIX E: COMPONENT PROGRAM VEHICLES FOR HIRE, MMPT MANAGEMENT, REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL & STREETCAR V EHIC LE S FO R HIR E ( Ta x ic a bs, S hut t le s, R e nt a l C a r a nd C a r S ha ring ) ITEM Quantity


Site Vehicular



MMPT M ANAG E ME NT Quantity


29,725



Tenant

0

29,725

Loading/Unloading

21

525

11,025

03

50

0

11,025

0

Staging

20

350

7,000

0

350

0

7,000

0

Rental Car Storage

30

350

10,500

03

50

0

10,500

0

3

400

1,200

0

400

0

1,200

0

Car Wash Parking

3,500 10

350

Patron

0

350

ADA

0

Bicycle

0

Service

0


0

240

Employee

0

3,500

0 0

350

0

0

350

550

0

0

16

0

0

350

0

0

0

0

240

TOTAL SITE

33,225

Facility Ticketing

0

Subtotal

3,500

Subtotal

3,500

0

0

0

0

550

0

0

0

16

0

0

0

350

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33,225

0

0

285

0

0

0

0

285 Manned Stations (ticket booth)

3

55

per position

165

0

32

0

1650

Semi-Manned Kiosks Unmanned Vending

0 2

32 15

per kiosk, information per machine

0 30

0 0

32 15

0 0

0 30

0 0

Cash Room

0

48

per 2 positions

0

0

48

0

0

0

Queuing

3

30

per person

90

0

9


840

0

90

0

11,174

12,014

0

Reception

0

100

per position

0

4

175

700

700

0

Office Facilities

1

120

per position

120

15

363

5,445

5,565

0

Meeting

0

196

0

3

450

1,350

1,350

0

Employee Lounge/ Lockers

21

00

200

34

00

1,200

1,400

0


2

100

200

1

900

900

1,100

0


13

20

320

71

97

1,379

1,699

0

Holding Room

0

35

0

1

200

200

2000

Multi-ModalPassengerTerminalProject

E-14

REMARKS

Common

Subtotal

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements V EHIC LE S FO R HIR E ( Ta x ic a bs, S hut t le s, R e nt a l C a r a nd C a r S ha ring ) ITEM Square Foot Allowance

Quantity

Patron Areas

0

713



Common

0

500

0

1,213

0

0

400

0

0

per seat, daily/ peak per door

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

0

0

per locker

0

0

2

per locker

0

0

0

1/3 seating area

133

0

6.6667

1/3 seating area

0

0

133

0

0

10

0

0

0

per fixture

160

12

40

per fixture

480

0

640

per fixture

20

2

10

per fixture

20

0

40

0

172

0

100

0

100

per position

0

100

0

40

0

10

per kiosk

0

40

0

per position

32

0

32

per position

0

32

0

per position

0

0

32

per position

0

0

per board

0

0

32

per board

0

0

0

0

0

27

0

0

27

0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

Showers

0

80

VIP Lounge

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80


0

2

20

6.6667


0

10

Restrooms

4

40


2

10

Lost and Found

1

100

per position


4

10

per kiosk


1

32


0

32


0

32

Passenger Services

400 0

172

Security

02

Check at Platform

Tenant

14

per door

3


20


14


TOTAL SQUARE FEET


0

20

0

Smoking Rooms


0

20

Loading/ Queuing

Seating/Waiting


9

per person

Enhanced monitoring

0 1

9 0

per person

Security Office

0

120

per 2 positions


2

100

per stand


0

15

Vending Storage

0

Sundry

0


0

1404

Dining Area

0

Sit-down Restaurants

7 27

0

0 0

9

per person

0 0

9 0

0

0

120

per 2 positions

0

0

210

200

0

100

per stand

0

0

200

per machine

0

0

15

per machine

0

0

0

8

per machine

0

0

8

per machine

0

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0

kitchen area

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

Dining Area

0

24

per seat

0

0

24

per seat

0

0

0


0

50

per stand

0

0

50

per stand

0

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

ATM

1

10

per machine

10

0

10

per machine

0

0

10

Movie Theater

0

20

per occupant

0

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

Dry Cleaning

0

100

per occupant

0

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

Child Care

0

35

per occupant

0

0

35

per occupant

0

0

0

Shops

0

120

gift shop

0

0

120

gift shop

0

0

0

Retail Storage

0

20

per shelf

0

0

20

per shelf

0

0

0


0

40

per occupant

0

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0

Retail

210


E-15

Subtotal

0

0

0

Subtotal

0

per person

0

REMARKS

Subtotal

Subtotal

no direct number given, assumed

0

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements V EHIC LE S FO R HIR E ( Ta x ic a bs, S hut t le s, R e nt a l C a r a nd C a r S ha ring ) ITEM Square Foot Allowance

Quantity


Meeting





0


Tenant

Common

0

0

0


0

7

per occupant

0

0

7

per occupant

0

0

0

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

0

600

0

Storage Other

0

24

per rack

0

0

24

per rack

0

0

0

Baggage Room

0

12

per passenger

0

0

24

per passenger

0

0

0


0

40

per cart

0

0

40

per cart

0

0

0

Baggage Make-up

0

0.015

per passenger

0

0

63

per passenger

0

0

0

Public Claim Area

0

7

per passenger

0

0

80

per passenger

0

0

0

Lockers/ Showers

0

80

per shower

0

0

80

per shower

0

0

0

Driver Dormitories

0

200

per room

0

0

200

per room

0

0

0

Operator Break Area

2

300

600

0

300

0

600

0

Operator Office

0

130

0

0

130

0

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0

80

0

0

Laundry Facilities

0

24

0

0

24

0

0

0

13,071

1,450


600

TOTAL NET S.F. FACILITY Internal Circulation Space, Mechanical, Electrical, Loading, Trash, Columns, Walls and other Structural Members (30% of Net Area) TOTAL GROSS S.F. FACILITY


per position

per machine

1,897

950

per position

per machine

11,174

500

Subtotal

Subtotal

0

569

285

3,352

150

3,921

435

2,466

1,235

14,526

650

16,992

1,885

E-16

REMARKS

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements

REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL & STREETCAR ITEM Quantity


Site Vehicular


T O T ALS Q UAR EFEE T Common Area (square feet)

Tenant

Common

15,000

44,725

0

Boarding Area (200' long)

3

3000

9,000

20,025

0

Track Area (200' long)

3

2000

6,000

13,000

0

Layover

0

950

0

10,500

0

Wash

0

950

0

1,200

0

3,500

0

3,500

0

Parking

0

0

Employee

0

350

0

Patron

0

350

00

ADA

0

550

00

Bicycle

0

16

0

Service

0

350

00


0

240

00

TOTAL SITE

15,000

Facility Ticketing

0

0 0 0

48,225

0

124

409

0

55

per position

0

165

0

Semi-Manned Kiosks Unmanned Vending

2 0

32 15

per kiosk, information per machine

64 0

64 30

0 0

Cash Room

0

48

per 2 positions

0

0

0

Queuing

2

30

per person

60

150

0

440

12,454

0

Reception

0

100

per position

0

700

0

Office Facilities

2

120

per position

240

5,805

0

Meeting

0

196

0

1,350

0

Employee Lounge/ Lockers

11

00

100

1,500

0


11

00

100

1,200

0


0

320

0

1,699

0

Holding Room

0

35

0

200

0

E-17

Subtotal

0 0

0


Subtotal

0



RE MAR K S

Subtotal

Subtotal

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL & STREETCAR ITEM Quantity


Patron Areas

T O T ALS Q UAR EFEE T



Tenant

Common

0

RE MAR K S

25,180

0

26,393

Seating/ Waiting

1254

20


25,080

0

25,480

Standing/ Waiting

0

10

per person, daily/ peak

0

0

0

standing waiting area at boarding area

Loading/ Queuing

0

14

0

0

included in site area at boarding area

VIP Lounge

0

0

0

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0

0


0

2

per locker

0

Smoking Rooms

0

6.6667

1/3 seating area


1

10

Restrooms

2

40


0

per fixture

0

0

0

0

133

10

0

10

80

0

720

1

10

per fixture

0

50

142

314

0

Lost and Found

1

100

per position

100

200

0


1

10

per kiosk

10

50

0


0

32

per position

0

32

0


1

32

per position

32

32


0

32

per board

0

0

0

0

9

27

0

0

27

0

9 0

0 0

0

0

0

Passenger Services

Security

10

9 Check at MainConcourse Check at Platform

0

9

per person

Enhanced monitoring

1 0

9 0

Security Office

0

120

per 2 positions

0

0

210


0

100

per stand

0

0

200


2

15

per machine

0

0

0

Vending Storage

2

8

per machine

0

0

0

Sundry

0

40

per occupant

0

0

0


0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

Dining Area

0

24

per seat

0

0

0

Sit-down Restaurants

0

1404

kitchen area

0

0

0

Dining Area

0

24

per seat

0

0

0


0

50

per stand

0

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0


0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

ATM

0

10

per machine

0

0

10

Movie Theater

0

20

per occupant

0

0

0

Dry Cleaning

0

100

per occupant

0

0

0

Child Care

0

35

per occupant

0

0

0

Shops

0

120

gift shop

0

0

0

Retail Storage

0

20

per shelf

0

0

0


0

40

per occupant

0

0

0

Retail


E-18

exterior area

Subtotal

0

per person

9

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

0

October 2010

Draft Technical Memorandum Bus and Rail Operations Requirements REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL & STREETCAR ITEM Quantity



Meeting

T O T ALS Q UAR EFEE T Common Area (square feet)

Tenant

Common

0

0

0


0

7

per occupant

0

0

0

Conference Room

0

15

per occupant

0

0

0

300

900

0

Storage Other

0

24

per rack

0

0

0

Baggage Room

0

12

per passenger

0

0

0


0

40

per cart

0

0

0

Baggage Make-up

0

0.015

per passenger

0

0

0

Public Claim Area

0

7

per passenger

0

0

0

Lockers/ Showers

0

80

per shower

0

0

0

Driver Dormitories

0

200

per room

0

0

0

Operator Break Area

1

300

300

900

0

Operator Office

0

130

0

0

0

Quiet Rooms

0

80

0

0

Laundry Facilities

0

24

0

0

0

14,086

26,630


TOTAL NET S.F. FACILITY Internal Circulation Space, Mechanical, Electrical, Loading, Trash, Columns, Walls and other Structural Members (30% of Net Area) TOTAL GROSS S.F. FACILITY


per position

per machine

1,015

25,180

Subtotal

Subtotal

0

305

7,554

4,226

7,989

1,320

32,734

18,312

34,619

E-19

RE MAR K S

25% was not added for growth since Light Rail and Streetcar is a future transit option

October 2010

Multi -Modal Passenger Terminal Project Final Bus and Rail Complete

Recommend Documents