1 INTRODUCTION

The I-85 Corridor Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study was commened in September, 2008 to evaluate the technical and financial viability of a light rail line in Gwinnett County. The project co-sponsors, Gwinnett Village Community Improvement District and Gwinnett Place Community Improvement District, initiated the project to explore the potential benefit of serving the I-85 corridor with light rail transit (LRT). Figure 1 displays the extent of the corridor examined for the I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study.

Figure 1: I-85 LRT Study Corridor

As part of this study, conceptual LRT alignments and station locations were identified and analyzed. Capital and operating costs were estimated for each alternative along with a basic ridership forecast and environmental screening. The preferred alignment, which was developed alongside the project sponsors and in conjunction with a number of stakeholders, was evaluated to determine its relative strengths compared to other recently implemented LRT systems. Finally, a number of funding opportunities at both the federal and local levels were identified. The results of this analysis are summarized herein and presented in greater detail in the following sections of the final report.

2 ALTERNATIVES REFINEMENT

A technology assessment was conducted to evaluate the various transit technology options for the I-85 corridor. Heavy rail transit (HRT), light rail transit (LRT), and modern streetcar were evaluated as part of this analysis. Table 1 displays a comparison of each mode by operating variable. Heavy rail is the most capital-intensive transit mode, while modern streetcar is typically the least expensive mode to build. However, HRT provides the highest capacity and operating speeds. Light rail transit, which can be classified into two categories – high cost, exclusive right-of-way and moderate cost, shared right-of-way – provides a balance between HRT and streetcar, as it offers operating speeds and capacity that can compete with heavy rail at a fraction of the capital cost.

3 CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING

The conceptual engineering phase of the I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study involved identifying preliminary track alignments, station locations, and maintenance facility sites. Substantial data analysis and field assessments along with evaluation of existing land use and transportation plans provided the information necessary to develop conceptual LRT routes and station locations.

Six preliminary track alignment options were identified and screened based on the following
factors:

• Right-of-way availability
• Land use compatibility
• Future land use plans, both at the CID and County levels
• Topographic constraints
• Potential impacts to street traffic operations
• Availability of adjacent land for maintenance facility

Additionally, coordination meetings were held with other stakeholder agencies including MARTA and the Gwinnett County Department of Transportation in order to further vet and refine the alignment alternatives. Based on input from these agencies and CID staff, a preferred alternative was developed for further analysis. Table 2 provides a brief description of each alternative, while Figure 2 graphically displays each alignment alternative.

A total of nine station locations were identified for the Preferred Alternative, as displayed in
Figure 3, below. These preliminary station locations were determined based on the following
criteria:

• Topography
• Current land use
• Adjacent land uses
• Redevelopment potential
• Sufficient size to accommodate the station and ancillary facilities
• Roadway access
• Pedestrian access
• Environmental “fatal flaws”

The stations are classified into two categories: major and neighborhood. Major stations will
serve larger office and retail markets and tend to have more amenities and intermodal transfer
facilities, while neighborhood stations will be smaller and tend to serve smaller, more
pedestrian-oriented market areas. Major stations identified include Norcross, Gwinnett Village,
Indian Trail, Pleasant Hill, Gwinnett Place, and Gwinnett Arena. Neighborhood stations
identified include Mitchell Road, Liddell Road, and Duluth Highway.

Figure 3: Station Locations for Preferred Alternative

Fourteen preliminary sites, as displayed in Figure 4, were screened for suitability as a possible maintenance facility site for the LRT corridor. In consideration of the costs associated with nonrevenue train movements, the bulk of the sites identified were near either terminus of the alignment. Because most of the land within the corridor is built-out, it is likely that any potential maintenance facility site would have to be redeveloped. Thus, sites were identified and screened based on adjacent land use compatibility and parcel size. It was determined that six sites within the industrial area on the western end of the alignment should be advanced for further analysis and consideration.

Figure 4: Maintenance Facility Site Options

4 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The Technical Analysis phase of the I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study involved further examination of the alignment options identified in the Conceptual Engineering phase. High-level ridership estimates were developed based on existing Transit Planning Board (TPB) travel demand forecasts. LRT operating plans were created and used to develop operating and maintenance cost estimates. Capital costs were estimated based on the preliminary engineering drawings. Finally, a limited environmental analysis was conducted to identify any major environmental ‘fatal flaws’.

Estimated daily boardings for the LRT line from Norcross to Gwinnett Arena were developed based on the TPB Concept3 travel demand forecasts which included a line from Cumberland to Gwinnett Arena. This forecast was adapted to include only that ridership that would occur on the Gwinnett County portion of the TPB alignment. Ridership by station, as displayed in Table 3, was estimated based on low, medium, and high land use scenarios. It should be noted that the stations coded for the Concept3 model differ slightly from those stations identified in this study. Thus, these ridership estimations are for proxy use only, and will be further refined in Phase II of the I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study.

Operating plans for each alternative were developed based on ridership estimations and data provided in the conceptual engineering phase of the project. Operating requirements for each alternative are displayed in Table 4, below. Because the alternatives had only marginal differences in route miles and running time, the operating requirements are similar for each alignment with respect to car-miles, car-hours, train-hours, and peak trains.

4.3 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated based on the projected operating requirements for each alternative. A fully-allocated cost model was developed using data from nine peer LRT systems. The unit costs for each operating variable derived from these peer systems were applied to corresponding planned units of service for each alternative to estimate total annual O&M costs. Annual O&M costs (estimated in 2009 dollars) range from approximately $25.1 million to $25.6 million.

4.4 Capital Cost Estimates

Capital costs were estimated using the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Standard Cost Categories (SCC). Standard Cost Categories include all capital components of the LRT construction process. Unit costs for each SCC were developed and applied to the units required for construction of each LRT alternative. The total capital costs and capital cost per mile for each alternative are listed in Table 5, below.

4.5 Limited Environmental Assessment

A preliminary screening of the LRT corridor was performed in order to identify any areas of environmental concern. While this exercise does not fulfill or replace any local, state or federal requirements for environmental permitting, it provides a baseline indication as to the potential environmental hazards within the corridor. There were 37 documented sites found within 150’ of the preferred alignment, and 279 within the corridor as a whole. Remediation may be required depending on the severity of environmental risk posed at these sites.

5 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The preferred alternative was evaluated against five peer LRT systems that have been recently constructed or are currently being built. The proposed Gwinnett LRT system compares favorably with regard to capital and operating cost variables. However, the system’s ridership received lower ratings compared to the peer system average. Further ridership analysis to be performed during Phase II of this project will allow for greater certainty as to how the Gwinnett system’s projected ridership will compete with the peer systems. It is important that the Gwinnett LRT system is rated favorably with regard to these variables as each contributes to the funding formulas dictated by the FTA for New Starts funding.

7 FINAL REPORT

The I-85 Corridor Light Rail Feasibility Study Final Report is divided into four sections. Section 1, Refine Alternatives Final Report, includes the technology assessment report and documentation of the conceptual engineering process. Section 2, Technical Analysis Final Report, documents the technical studies performed for the project including ridership estimation, operating plan development, operating and maintenance cost estimation, capital cost estimation, and a limited environmental assessment. Section 3, Evaluation and Recommendations and Funding Opportunities, detail the evaluation methodology and results and funding opportunities for the proposed LRT project. Finally, Section 4 – Station Renderings, includes a number of conceptual renderings for the Gwinnett Village, Mitchell Road, and Gwinnett Place Stations.

In the months following preparation of the final report, Phase II of the I-85 Corridor LRT Feasibility Study will be conducted. Phase II will encompass detailed ridership forecasting using a travel demand model specifically coded for the proposed LRT corridor as well as a comprehensive travel market analysis. A third section will provide a detailed framework for advancing the project into the FTA New Starts project development process.

To download the full report in an Adobe PDF, CLICK HERE