Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

Appendices

Prepared by:

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684
Contents 

APPENDIX A – NOTICE OF INTENT ................................................................................................. A

APPENDIX B – CORRIDOR SCREENING PROCESS AND RESULTS ............................................ B 

APPENDIX C – RIDERSHIP FORECASTING REPORT .................................................................... C 

APPENDIX D – FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................... D

APPENDIX E – AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH .......................................... E 

E-1:   COORDINATION PLAN

E-2:   PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

E-3: AGENCY & STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN (ASIP) 

E-4:   PROJECT NEWSLETTERS

E-5:   SCOPING WORKBOOK

E-6:   SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

E-7:   TECHNICAL MEETING MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 2008)

E-8:   2010 PARTICIPATING AGENCY MEETINGS MINUTES

E-9:   2010 PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSES COMMENTS

E-10:  PARTICIPATING AGENCIES 

E-11: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 

E-12: NORFOLK SOUTHERN COORDINATION LETTER

 APPENDIX F – DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................... F
Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

Appendix A – Notice of Intent 

Prepared by:

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684
Appendix A – Notice of Intent 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS A-1 September 2016
Appendix A – Notice of Intent 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS A-2 September 2016
Appendix A – Notice of Intent 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS A-3 September 2016
Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA 

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT

Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & 

Results 

Prepared by: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-i September 2016

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose of Screening Results ................................................................................. 4

2.0 SCOPING ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Previous Studies Considered ...................................................................... 5

2.2 Scoping HSGT Segments and Corridors ................................................................ 6

2.2.1 Identification of Corridors ............................................................................ 9

2.2.2 Identification of Station Locations .............................................................. 14

3.0 SCREENING PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Measures of Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 15

3.2 Scoring and Rating ................................................................................................. 16

3.2.1 Travel Time ............................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Population Access ..................................................................................... 19

3.2.3 Employment Access .................................................................................. 20

4.0 SCREENING RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 23

4.1 Results Based upon MOE Analysis ...................................................................... 23

4.2 Corridors Not Advanced ........................................................................................ 23

4.2.1 Corridor Variations within Atlanta Not Advanced ....................................... 23

4.3 Corridors Advanced ............................................................................................... 25

4.4 Tier 1 EIS Next Steps .............................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX I TRAVEL TIME .................................................................................................................... B-I 

APPENDIX II POPULATION ACCESS MAPS ....................................................................................... B-II

APPENDIX III EMPLOYMENT ACCESS MAPS .................................................................................... B-III 

APPENDIX IV NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORRESPONDENCE ........................................................... B-IV 

APPENDIX V BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. B-V 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-ii September 2016

List of Tables 

Table 2-1: Corridors ............................................................................................................................ 9

Table 3-1: Screening Criteria and MOEs........................................................................................... 16

Table 3-2: Screening Criteria Scoring and Rating System ................................................................ 16

Table 3-3: Travel Time by Corridor ................................................................................................... 19

Table 3-4: Population Access by Corridor ......................................................................................... 20

Table 3-5: Employment Access by Corridor ...................................................................................... 22

Table 4-1: Screening Results – Summary of Corridor Performance ................................................. 24

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1: Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Project Area ....................................................................... 3

Figure 2-1: Segments .......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2-2: Corridors ......................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-1 September 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is preparing a Tier 1 Environmental 

impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Atlanta – Chattanooga High Speed Ground 

Transportation (HSGT) Project (Project). In accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), a Tier 1 EIS addresses the proposed development of new HSGT 

between Atlanta, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee. High-speed ground 

transportation is a mode of transportation that travels at greater speeds than traditional 

rail technology. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines HSGT as having the 

ability to travel at a speed of greater than 110 mph. For the purposes of this Project, 

HSGT is defined as having the ability to travel at speeds at or above 180 mph. The 

technology is most often used to move passengers rather than freight. HSGT is a selfguided intercity passenger transportation mode that is time-competitive with air and auto 

for trips of 100 to 500 miles. 

SAFETEA-LU requires the identification of Lead, Cooperating, and Participating 

Agencies in the development of an EIS. Under SAFETEA-LU, Lead Agencies must 

perform the functions that they have traditionally performed in preparing an EIS in accord 

with 23 CFR 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. FRA and FHWA are designated as the 

joint lead federal agencies for the HSGT Tier 1 EIS. According to the NOI, FRA and 

FHWA will jointly prepare a Tier 1 EIS in cooperation with GDOT and TDOT. 

This Tier 1 EIS is intended to ensure that all reasonable corridor Build Alternatives for the 

proposed action are evaluated, including a No-Build Alternative; that all substantial 

transportation, social, economic, and environmental impacts are assessed; and that 

public involvement and comments are solicited to assist the decision-making process. 

This Tier 1 EIS evaluates potential HSGT corridors, which includes station locations, and 

identifies the attributes of the HSGT technologies (Steel-Wheeled and Magnetic 

Levitation {Maglev}). This Tier 1 EIS is prepared at a conceptual level of engineering and 

environmental detail appropriate for this type of study. It provides the FRA, FHWA, 

GDOT, and TDOT with sufficient information to determine a general corridor, general 

station locations, and defines the general operating and capital requirements of an 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT system. A decision on technology will not be included in 

the Tier 1 Record of Decision. 

For the purpose of this Tier 1 EIS, a broad geographic Project area has been defined 

that is contained, wholly or in part, in the following counties: Hamilton County, 

Tennessee; and Fulton, Cobb, Cherokee, Floyd, Bartow, Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, 

Chattooga, Catoosa, Clayton, Douglas, Paulding, Polk, and Walker Counties, Georgia 

(See Figure 1-1 Atlanta – Chattanooga Project Area). 

1.1 Project Purpose and Need 

Transportation demand and travel growth, prompted by population growth and economic 

development, is outpacing existing and planned roadway capacity. Currently, the state 

and interstate highway systems within the Project area are operating at or near capacity, 

especially within and adjacent to the major metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Rome, Dalton, 

and Chattanooga. Although capacity improvements to the state and interstate highway 

systems within the Project area are underway or planned for the near future, they are 

interim measures that will not sufficiently address future capacity and mobility needs of 

the region. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-2 September 2016

The purpose of the Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Project is to enhance intercity 

passenger mobility and economic growth between the metropolitan areas and airports of 

Atlanta, Georgia and the Chattanooga, Tennessee by providing new, HSGT passenger 

service. The Project is also intended to provide faster and more reliable intercity travel in 

the corridor by providing an alternative to highway, intercity bus, and air travel in a 

manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective, while avoiding, minimizing, and 

mitigating impacts on the human and natural environment. 

The needs for the HSGT Project are summarized as follows: 

 Enhance regional transportation mobility and accessibility

o Population and employment growth

o Congested transportation corridor with increasing demand

o Limited transportation options

 Spur economic growth and regional vitality

 Provide safe, efficient, reliable transportation

 Enhance airport access and intermodal connections

 Improve air quality nonattainment areas and protect the environment
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-3 September 2016

Figure 1-1: Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Project Area 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-4 September 2016

1.2 Purpose of Screening Results 

The purpose of the process was to identify those corridors to advance in the Tier 1 DEIS 

for further evaluation as Build Alternatives. This was accomplished by assessing the 

relative merits of potential HSGT corridors. The purpose of this Atlanta – Chattanooga 

High Speed Ground Transportation Tier 1 EIS Screening Results is to document that 

screening process. 

The Tier 1 EIS screening includes the following basic steps: 

 Summary of the outcomes from the Scoping Process1

 Definition and description of corridors screened

 Development of corridor screening measures of effectiveness (MOEs2

)

 Application of screening MOEs to assess how well each corridor met the Project’s

transportation mobility needs outlined in the Purpose and Need Statement

 Documentation of results and findings within this Atlanta – Chattanooga High Speed

Ground Transportation Tier 1 EIS Screening Results

 Involvement of FRA, FHWA, GDOT, TDOT, participating agencies, stakeholders and

the public through the screening process

The result of screening was the recommendation of potential HSGT corridors to advance 

into additional, refined evaluations and environmental analysis of Build Alternatives in 

this Tier 1 EIS. 

1

 Project Scoping took place in fall 2007. Scoping was used to identify reasonable and feasible concepts to be 

evaluated in the EIS, to determine environmental impacts to be assessed, and to gain insight on how stakeholders 

would like to be involved throughout the study. 

2

 MOEs – Measures of effectiveness were used to provide a greater level of detail for comparison of the corridors. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-5 September 2016

2.0 SCOPING 

This section summarizes the results from previous studies and the Tier 1 EIS Scoping 

Process held in the fall of 2007. 

2.1 Background 

The potential HSGT corridors were developed from two primary sources: previous 

studies and the Scoping Process conducted at the start of the Tier 1 EIS process. These 

previous efforts, described in this section, helped determine the needs, objectives, 

resources, and constraints within the Project area. Tools and techniques implemented 

included a variety of meetings with different focus groups, open houses, fact sheets, 

newsletters, and staffed information booths at events within the Project area. A Project 

website was created to enable the public to keep up to date on the progress of the 

Project between meetings and events, and the website allowed people to give input on 

any aspect of the Project and review documents as they were posted. 

The Scoping Process included outreach to federal, state, and local agencies, 

stakeholders in the Project area, and the general public. Outreach to these groups 

included meetings to provide information on the Project and to receive input. The 

culmination of this outreach process was the holding of public meetings known as 

Scoping Meetings, where comments and suggestions were solicited regarding potential 

HSGT corridors and technologies to be evaluated as part of this Project. 

2.1.1 Previous Studies Considered 

The following previously completed studies provided relevant input on defining the 

Project area, initial concept, modes of technology, and potential HSGT corridors. 

In the 1997 Intercity Rail Plan, GDOT studied possible connections between Atlanta and 

Chattanooga. Following that, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) analyzed the 

Atlanta – Chattanooga area over a four-year period from 1999 to 2003, exploring mobility 

options and the opportunity for high-speed passenger service. In 2003, TDOT prepared a 

statewide rail plan, which recommended HSGT connectivity with neighboring states. The 

key initial documents included are as follows: 

Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study and Project Description 

The FRA initiated the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment 

Program in an effort to demonstrate the feasibility of Maglev technology in the United 

States. In a national competition, the FRA selected ARC to be one of seven entities in 

the United States to administer a study demonstrating the feasibility of Maglev 

technology. 

Completed in June 2000, the final report for the Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev 

Deployment Study and Project Description indicated that the Atlanta – Chattanooga 

Project met all applicable FRA criteria established for Maglev technology. Although the 

Atlanta – Chattanooga Project was not selected for full funding for an EIS and 

Preliminary Engineering, it was made eligible for additional funding for further study of 

the segment from the Town Center area of Cobb County, Georgia north to Chattanooga, 

entitled Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-6 September 2016

Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II 

In mid 2001, the ARC received funding for additional environmental and planning work. 

The additional work studied potential HSGT alignments and train technologies in detail 

between Town Center and the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport (CMA), using Maglev 

technology as the baseline. Other technologies studied were Accelerail 150 and New 

High Speed Rail. Both technologies were steel-wheeled trains capable of reaching 

speeds of at least 150 miles per hour and operating in dedicated right-of-way (ROW) or 

share tracks with other railroad uses. 

The potential HSGT alignments were assessed based on their capital costs and financial 

performance relative to ridership projections and cost recovery based on the capabilities 

of the various technologies. A preferred alignment, which generally follows I-75, was 

recommended due to several factors including optimal grades necessary to achieve top 

Maglev design speeds while maximizing potential ridership and revenue. Because 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA) would generate significant 

ridership, the study concluded that the route must offer service to HJAIA. 

Maglev technology was recommended as the “preferred technology” due to its ability to 

attract a higher number of passengers (because of theoretically faster travel times) and a 

greater ability to self-fund, including capital leases and potential for joint development. 

Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum 

The Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum summarized 

the findings of the Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II planning 

and environmental study and provided more detailed alignment maps and station plans 

as well as operating and cost comparisons between alignments. The final chapter of the 

addendum explores a timeline for Maglev implementation. The addendum document 

focused on the segment between HJAIA and Town Center. 

2.2 Scoping HSGT Segments and Corridors 

For the scoping process, a series of potential HSGT “segments” were developed that 

could be combined in various configurations to connect HJAIA and downtown Atlanta to 

CMA and downtown Chattanooga. These segments were generated from previous 

studies. Each segment3

 represents a potential connection that could be made between 

key destinations in Georgia and Tennessee. For instance, a segment connected Atlanta 

to Cartersville (two logical destinations), and the next segment connected Cartersville to 

Rome, followed by a Cartersville to Dalton/Chatsworth segment, and so on. Segments 

either connected to serve various activity centers along I-75 or extended to key 

destinations in rural areas. 

These segments were reviewed, analyzed, and developed into full-length corridors 

during the Scoping Process using input from the public and participating agencies as per 

the final federal rules of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 

450.210) and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). 

Each corridor identified in Section 2.2.1 includes segments and potential stations. 

3

 Within this context, “segments” are not to be construed as minimum operating segments, initial operating 

segments, or any form of train service operating independently of a corridor extending the entire distance between 

HJAIA and downtown Chattanooga. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-7 September 2016

This section describes the individual segments and resulting corridors developed during 

the Scoping Process. The individual segments identified during the Scoping Process are 

listed below, generally from south to north, and illustrated on Figure 2-1. 

 I-75 Segment(s): The I-75 segments generally follow the I-75 ROW. The segments

begin in the area to the east of HJAIA, known as the “Southern Crescent4

,” to the

Tennessee border.

 NS Segment: A connection in the Atlanta urban area which follows I-75 to an

existing Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad ROW and a portion of I-285 to just south of

the I-75/I-285 junction rather than continuing on I-75.

 HJAIA to I-285 Segment: A connection in the Atlanta urban area that starts at the

main terminal of HJAIA and continues along Camp Creek Parkway to I-285.

 I-285 Bypass Segment(s): Segments using I-285 to bypass I-75 in the Atlanta area.

 Rome Segment(s): Segments that provide options to connect to the city of Rome.

Options allow for connecting back to I-75 or bypassing the dense I-75 corridor in the

southwest section of the Project area by traveling through Rockmart and Douglas

County, Georgia. It follows parts of Camp Creek Parkway and utility corridors in rural

areas.

 Western Suburb Segment: A connection in the southern half of the Project area,

which travels from a point just north of Douglasville to Cartersville, Georgia.

 Rome to I-75 Segment: Provides a connection to Rome, Georgia from I-75 near

Cartersville.

 Eastern Segment: A connection in the northern half of the Project area that follows

an existing freight rail corridor. It leaves the I-75 corridor north of Cartersville and

generally follows the Chessie Seaboard Multiplier (CSX) railroad corridor to the CMA

vicinity in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

 Downtown Chattanooga Segment: A connection from CMA to downtown

Chattanooga following an existing freight railroad corridor.

4

 The “Southern Crescent” area is located on the east side of HJAIA, just east of I-75. The location is proposed as a 

regional transit terminal that could include various transit modes such as MARTA rail and bus, regional commuter 

rail, and other transit services. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-8 September 2016

Figure 2-1: Segments 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-9 September 2016

2.2.1 Identification of Corridors 

Combinations of the individual segments listed previously were combined to form a 

number of unique corridors extending from HJAIA to downtown Chattanooga. Segments 

were assembled based on logical connections between key destinations, paying special 

attention to minimizing the corridor length, utilizing available transportation ROW, and 

connecting population and employment centers within the Project area. Table 2-1 lists 

the full-length corridors generated from the scoping process. Figure 2-2 depicts the 

corridors. 

Table 2-1: Corridors 

Corridor 

Total 

Length 

(miles) 

Number 

of 

Stations 

Stations 

I-75 Terminal I-285 – HJAIA terminal to I-285 Bypass

via Camp Creek Parkway, to I-75 north to CMA and

downtown Chattanooga

129 8

 HJAIA Terminal

 Boulder Park

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75 Southern Crescent NS – Southern Crescent

through downtown Atlanta along I-75, west on NS to I285 Bypass, reconnect to I-75 north to CMA and

downtown Chattanooga

131 8

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75 Southern Crescent – Southern Crescent through

downtown Atlanta along I-75 north to CMA and

downtown Chattanooga

128 8

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

East Terminal I-285 – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 

Bypass via Camp Creek Parkway to I-75, traverse the 

Eastern Segment up to CMA and downtown 

Chattanooga 

144 8

 HJAIA Terminal

 Boulder Park

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

East Southern Crescent NS – Southern Crescent 

through downtown Atlanta along I-75, west on NS to 

the I-285 Bypass, reconnect to the I-75, traverse the 

Eastern Segment, north to CMA and downtown 

Chattanooga 

141 8

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton-Chatsworth

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

East Southern Crescent – Southern Crescent 

through downtown Atlanta along I-75, traverse the 

Eastern Segment up to CMA and downtown 

Chattanooga 

139 8

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Dalton-Chatsworth

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75/West – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 Bypass, traverse

the Rome Segment to the Western Suburb Segment,

connect to I-75 north to CMA and downtown

Chattanooga

141 6

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-10 September 2016

Table 2-1: Corridors (continued) 

Corridor 

Total 

Length 

(miles) 

Number 

of 

Stations 

Stations 

I-75/Rome Split – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 Bypass,

traverse the Rome Segment to the Western Suburb

Segment, west on the Rome to I-75 Segment, traverse

back east on Rome Segment to I-75 and north to CMA

and downtown Chattanooga

162 7

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Cartersville

 Rome

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285 – HJAIA Terminal to I-285

Bypass via Camp Creek Parkway to I-75, west on the

Rome to I-75 Segment, traverse back east on Rome

Segment to I-75, north to CMA and downtown

Chattanooga

150 9

 HJAIA Terminal

 Boulder Park

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Rome

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS – Southern

Crescent through downtown Atlanta along I-75, west

on NS to the I-285 Bypass, reconnect to I-75, west on

the Rome to I-75 Segment, traverse back east on

Rome Segment to I-75, north to CMA and downtown

Chattanooga

152 9

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Rome

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent – Southern Crescent

through downtown Atlanta along I-75, west on the

Rome connector, traverse back east to reconnect to I75 up to CMA and downtown Chattanooga

150 9

 Southern Crescent

 Downtown Atlanta

 Cumberland/Galleria

 Town Center

 Cartersville

 Rome

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

West – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 Bypass, traverse the 

Rome segment to I-75 up to CMA and downtown 

Chattanooga 

148 7

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Rockmart

 Rome

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

West Connector – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 Bypass, 

traverse the Rome segment, east on the Rome 

connector, connect to I-75 up to CMA and downtown 

Chattanooga 

174 8

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Rockmart

 Rome

 Cartersville

 Dalton

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

West/East – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 Bypass, traverse 

the Rome segment to the Western Suburb segment, 

connect to the Eastern segment up to CMA and 

downtown Chattanooga 

151 6

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Cartersville

 Dalton-Chatsworth

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga

West/East Connector – HJAIA Terminal to I-285 

Bypass, traverse the Rome segment, east on the 

Rome connector, connect to the Eastern segment up 

to CMA and downtown Chattanooga 

181 8

 HJAIA Terminal

 Douglas County

 Rockmart

 Rome

 Cartersville

 Dalton-Chatsworth

 CMA

 Downtown

Chattanooga
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-11 

Figure 2-2: Corridors 

I-75 Terminal I-285

I-75 Southern Crescent NS

I-75 Southern Crescent

East Terminal I-285 

East Southern Crescent NS 

East Southern Crescent 

I-75/West 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-12 

Figure 2-2: Corridors (cont.) 

I-75/Rome Split Corridor

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent

West Co
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-13 

Figure 2-2: Corridors (cont.) 

West Connector Corridor West/East Corridor West/East Conn
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-14 September 2016

2.2.2 Identification of Station Locations 

Potential station locations were identified along each corridor and placed in the vicinity of 

major points of interest, clusters of population and employment centers, and locations 

easily accessible by other modes of transit (such as an airport, city centers, or major 

interstate highways). Station location choices were also based upon the results of 

scoping and extensive coordination with local city and county officials. Station locations 

were preliminary and conceptual in nature at this point in the process. Station 

configurations and layouts will be refined to a greater level of precision during future 

analysis. Identifying conceptual and potential station locations during this Tier 1 EIS 

enables initial analysis of various impacts. Table 2-1 lists the potential station locations 

and Figure 2-2 provides a depiction for each corridor. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-15 September 2016

3.0 SCREENING PROCESS 

The screening process was the basis for evaluation of the corridors developed as a 

result of the Tier 1 EIS Scoping Process. It identified those corridors that should be 

further assessed in the Tier 1 EIS. The screening process was applied to the 15 corridors 

listed in Section 2.2.1 to identify the best performing corridors with respect to the 

transportation mobility element of the Project’s Purpose and Need Statement. It is 

imperative that a corridor effectively serve the transportation mobility elements of the 

Purpose and Need Statement. If a corridor did not serve this baseline need, it did not 

advance to become a Build Alternative evaluated in this Tier1 DEIS. 

Screening evaluated the corridors for consistency with the Project’s Purpose and Need 

Statement specifically as it relates to transportation mobility. Purpose and Need 

Statement objectives that fall under the improving regional mobility goal include: 

 Enhance Project area and intercity mobility

 Provide an alternative mode to auto travel and ease regional traffic congestion

 Provide a reduction in travel time within and between the major metropolitan areas of

Atlanta and Chattanooga

 Provide intercity travel capacity to supplement over-used interstate highways

 Meet future intercity travel demand that will be unmet by existing transportation

systems, and increase capacity for intercity mobility

 Maximize intermodal connections with local transit, major airports and highways

 Support population and employment growth through improved access to HSGT

service

The participating agencies reviewed and provided input on the screening methodology 

and criteria. Meetings held in September and October 2010 indicated their input 

supported the use of transportation mobility as the priority for corridor screening, and 

consideration of connectivity to existing transit services. 

3.1 Measures of Effectiveness 

Transportation mobility was a minimum performance factor in determining whether a 

corridor was reasonable, by providing desirable HSGT travel time and adequate service 

access to population and employment centers. The three MOEs used to evaluate each 

corridor’s transportation mobility included: (1) travel time, (2) population access, and (3) 

employment access. These MOEs were considered quantifiable and captured the 

overarching mobility needs of the Project for travel efficiency and accessibility to a 

significant portion of potential users. 

Corridors having faster travel times for trips between HJAIA and downtown Chattanooga 

scored higher. Corridors with a greater amount of population residing within 10 miles of 

each of its stations scored higher. Finally, corridors with a greater amount of employment 

located within five miles of its stations scored higher. Each of the screening MOEs are 

described in further detail, and applied, in Section 3.2. Those corridors scoring at or 

above a defined threshold score advanced for further analysis. 

The screening MOEs are identified in Table 3-1, which also links each MOE to specific 

Purpose and Need Statement objectives. A description of each MOE, the methodology 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-16 September 2016

used to assess the corridors, the data sources referenced, and the screening results are 

provided in the following subsections. 

Table 3-1: Screening Criteria and MOEs 

Measure of Effectiveness Unit of Measurement Geographic Range Relationship to Purpose 

and Need Statement 

Travel time Minutes Time to travel full corridor 

length (end to end) 

Enhance Project area and 

intercity mobility and 

accessibility 

Provide a reduction in travel 

time within and between the 

major metropolitan areas of 

Atlanta and Chattanooga 

Population access Number of persons 10-mile radius of proposed

station locations

Support population and 

employment growth through 

improved access to HSGT 

service 

Employment access Number of jobs 5-mile radius of proposed

station locations

Support population and 

employment growth through 

improved access to HSGT 

service 

3.2 Scoring and Rating 

The screening process utilized a simple, un-weighted five-point scoring system, with a 

score of “5.0” rating the best, and a score of “1.0” rating the poorest. Scoring was 

assigned based upon how a corridor performed relative to the Project need to enhance 

regional transportation mobility and accessibility. Each corridor was quantitatively 

measured using the three screening MOEs. A corridor that performed the best was 

given a score of “5.0” for the particular MOE, and all of the other corridors were scored 

relative to the best performing. Table 3-2 shows the scoring system. 

Table 3-2: Screening Criteria Scoring and Rating System 

Score Rating Performance Relative to the Best Performing 

Corridor * for Each MOE 

4.1 – 5.0 Best Between 100 and 91% of best performing corridor 

(including the best performing corridor) 

3.1 – 4.0 Very Good Between 90 and 81% of best performing corridor 

2.1 – 3.0 Good Between 80 and 71% of best performing corridor 

1.1 – 2.0 Fair Between 70 and 61% of best performing corridor 

0.0 – 1.0 Poor 60% or less of best performing corridor 

* There can be more than one best performing corridor

Using this screening approach enabled comparison between corridors and the selection

and advancement of the best performing corridors while eliminating those that

underperformed.
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-17 September 2016

Section 3.0 describes in further detail the screening process, the criteria used in the 

screening, and how the results of the screening were measured. 

Calculation of Scores 

Two methods were applied to arrive at the percentages used to measure the 

performance of a corridor relative to the highest score. The methods vary depending on 

whether the MOE was measuring a maximizing impact, in which the highest number was 

the best, or a minimizing impact in which the lowest score was the best. 

 When quantitatively analyzing MOEs in which the highest number was the best

performing option, the following method was used.

d / D = Performance percentage based on a percent increase 

D – being the largest number (the best performing corridor) 

d – being the lower number (corridor that is below the best performing) 

Based on the formula above, the lower number was divided by the largest number 

(best performing) to get the performance percentage for the lower performing 

corridor. 

The following is an example for finding the performance percentage when calculating 

the maximum positive effect of population access. 

Corridor A – accesses a population of 6,000 (best performing) 

Corridor B – accesses a population of 5,000 

In this case, Corridor A was the “best performing” because it positively affected the 

greatest population. So, Corridor B, and any other corridors must be compared to 

Corridor A. 

5,000 / 6,000 = .83 or 83% 

Following the above calculations, Corridor B only accessed 83 percent of the 

population compared with Corridor A. Based on Table 3-2, a rating of 83 percent 

meant that Corridor B scored a 3.3. 

 When analyzing MOEs in which the lowest number was the best performing corridor,

as in the fastest travel time, the following method was used.

1 – (D – d / d) = Performance percentage based on a percent decrease 

D – being the larger number (corridor that is over the best performing) 

d – being the lowest number (the best performing corridor) 

Based on the formula above, the difference between the lowest number (best 

performing) and the higher number was calculated first. Then the percentage of that 

difference based on the best performing number was determined, which was also 

known as the percent decrease. Finally, that percent decrease was subtracted from 

100 percent (1) to give the performance percentage. 

The following is an example of finding the performance percentage when calculating 

the negative effect of increased travel time. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-18 September 2016

Corridor A – has a travel time of 77 minutes (best performing) 

Corridor B – has a travel time of 83 minutes 

In this case, Corridor A is the “best performing” because it has the lowest travel time. 

So, Corridor B, and any additional corridor, must be compared to Corridor A. 

1 – [(83 – 77) / 77] = .92 or 92% 

Following the above calculations, Corridor B has a travel time of 6 minutes greater 

than Corridor A, therefore the percent decrease is eight percent. That percent 

decrease is subtracted from the best performing 100 percent to get a measurement 

of 92 percent for Corridor B when compared to Corridor A. Based on Table 3-2 in the 

example above, Corridor B would score a 4.2. 

3.2.1 Travel Time 

For travel time, the desire was to minimize the amount of time required to get from Point 

A to Point B. The MOE measured the time it takes to travel the length of the corridor from 

end to end. Travel times were estimated for each of the corridors based upon alignment 

geometry, the number of station stops, speed assumptions, and general train 

performance characteristics. A maximum speed of 180 mph was assumed for each 

corridor to ensure an equitable comparison of corridors. Differentiation between SteelWheeled and Maglev technologies’ travel times were not made within this MOE since 

technology selection was not the intent of the screening process. Assessing the time 

required to travel between HJAIA (southern Project terminus) and downtown 

Chattanooga (northern Project terminus) provided a means to determine the directness 

of each corridor. Corridors that used routes that were more direct and able to 

accommodate alignments with faster speeds scored the highest. 

Travel times were calculated from the airport station in Atlanta (either HJAIA or Southern 

Crescent) to downtown Chattanooga (see Appendix I). Travel time included all local 

stops, plus a dwell time at terminal stations of 1.5 minutes and 3 minutes at each 

intermediate station. The travel times indicated the time it takes to travel end to end for 

the corridor. The shorter the travel time for a corridor resulted in that corridor scoring 

higher than other corridors with longer travel times. As shown in Table 3-3, the end-toend travel times varied from a minimum of 77 minutes to a maximum of 130 minutes. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-19 September 2016

Table 3-3: Travel Time by Corridor 

Corridor (# of stations) 

Time to 

Travel 

Corridor 

End to End 

(minutes) 

Performance Relative to Best Performing (percent) 

Score Poor 

(0-60%) 

Fair 

(61-70%) 

Good 

(71-80%) 

Very Good 

(81-90%) 

Best 

(91-100%) 

I-75 Terminal I-285 (8) 83 92% 4.2 

I-75 Southern Crescent NS (8) 86 88% 3.9 

I-75 Southern Crescent (8) 84 91% 4.0 

East Terminal I-285 (8) 92 81% 3.1 

East Southern Crescent NS (8) 95 77% 2.7 

East Southern Crescent (8) 93 79% 2.9 

I-75/West (6) 77 100% 5.0

I-75/Rome Split (7) 90 83% 3.3 

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285 (9) 101 69% 2.0 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS (9) 104 65% 1.6 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent (9) 102 68% 2.0 

West (7) 81 95% 4.4

West Connector (8) 126 36% 1.0

West/East (6) 81 95% 4.4

West/East Connector (8) 130 31% 1.0

3.2.2 Population Access 

The population captured within a 10-mile radius of a proposed station location measured 

population access. A 10-mile radius was used at this level of screening as a conservative 

estimate of the approximate distance users are willing to travel to access HSGT service.5

Corridors that captured greater population concentrations received higher scores. The 

population served by all stations along a corridor provided the corridor population value. 

5

 The purpose for measuring population and employment access was to provide a high-level estimation of each 

corridor’s ability to provide access to population and employment concentrations. While proximity to population and 

employment centers was related to ridership, forecasting of ridership was measured separately. 

A 10-mile radius was identified as a conservative limit that a repeat user will be willing to travel to access the HSGT 

service from a home based origin trip. Many of the proposed station locations are in communities with moderate 

congestion. Therefore the travel time associated with a 10-mile trip was estimated to be no more than 20 minutes. 

The capture area methodology assumes any trips requiring longer than 20 minutes to access a station would be 

unattractive for a repeat user. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-20 September 2016

Population data was collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for the relevant counties in 

the Project area. TAZ data is typically available in those areas that are part of Regional 

Planning Councils (RPCs) and have Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), or 

areas that have developed travel demand models. The most recent TAZ data available 

was used for this analysis. The MPOs are inclusive of the following regions: Atlanta, 

Floyd, Whitfield, Dalton, and Chattanooga. Small portions of the Project area fell outside 

the purview of an MPO or RPC; in these areas Census Tract level U.S. Census data was 

utilized. These areas included portions of Murray, Walker, and Polk Counties. As shown 

in Table 3-4, the number of people within 10 miles of potential station locations ranged 

from a minimum of 1.26 million people to a maximum of 2.42 million people. Appendix II 

depicts each corridor’s station areas and provides population data, as well as source 

data. 

Table 3-4: Population Access by Corridor 

Corridor 

Population 

Within 10-

miles of All 

Stations 

(millions) 

Performance Relative to Best Performing (percent) 

Score Poor 

(0-60%) 

Fair 

(61-70%) 

Good 

(71-80%) 

Very Good 

(81-90%) 

Best 

(91-100%) 

I-75 Terminal I-285 2.13 88% 3.9 

I-75 Southern Crescent NS 2.34 96% 4.6

I-75 Southern Crescent 2.34 96% 4.6

East Terminal I-285 2.14 88% 3.9

East Southern Crescent NS 2.34 97% 4.6 

East Southern Crescent 2.34 97% 4.6

I-75/West 1.26 52% 1.0

I-75/Rome Split 1.36 56% 1.0

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285 2.22 92% 4.2

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS 2.42 100% 5.0 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent 2.43 100% 5.0

West 1.29 53% 1.0

West Connector 1.38 57% 1.0

West/East 1.27 52% 1.0

West/East Connector 1.39 57% 1.0

3.2.3 Employment Access 

Whereas population access captured the ability to provide transportation for home based 

trips, employment access addressed the ability to provide transportation to employment 

centers. The employment catchment MOE used a 5-mile radius around proposed station 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-21 September 2016

locations to evaluate the potential to serve job centers in the Project area. The 5-mile 

radius being applied to employment access was less than the 10-mile radius applied to 

population access due to passengers not having an automobile available at the 

employment destination trip end and, frequently, minimal access to local transit 

services.6

 Corridors that captured greater employment concentrations received higher 

scores. The employment served for all stations within a corridor determined the corridor 

employment value. 

Similar to population data, employment data was collected by TAZ for the relevant 

counties in the Project area. TAZ data is typically available in those areas that are part of 

RPCs and have MPO, or areas that have developed travel demand models. The most 

recent TAZ data available was used for this analysis. The MPOs are inclusive of the 

following regions: Atlanta, Floyd, Whitfield, Dalton, and Chattanooga. Small portions of 

the Project area fall outside the purview of an MPO or RPC; in these areas Census tract 

level U.S. Census data was utilized. These areas included portions of Murray, Walker, 

and Polk Counties. Similar to population access, the higher the number for population 

access means the more people having access to the corridor and the better the score. 

As shown in Table 3-5, the number of jobs within five miles of potential station locations 

ranged from a minimum of 403,000 to a maximum of 960,000. Appendix III depicts each 

corridor’s station areas and provides employment data, as well as source data. 

6

 The purpose for measuring population and employment access was to provide a high-level estimation of each 

corridor’s ability to provide access to population and employment concentrations. While proximity to population and 

employment centers was related to ridership, forecasting of ridership was measured separately. 

A 5-mile radius was applied to employment access due to the lack of access to personal vehicles at the destination 

trip end. At the destination stations, the mobility options will include, pedestrian facilities, transit, and for-hire vehicles. 

The methodology assumes that 5 miles is the maximum distance a user will be will to pay for car service, or use 

transit. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-22 September 2016

Table 3-5: Employment Access by Corridor 

Corridor 

Employment 

Within 5-miles 

of All Stations 

(thousands) 

Performance Relative to Best Performing (percent) 

Poor Score 

(0-60%) 

Fair 

(61-70%) 

Good 

(71-80%) 

Very Good 

(81-90%) 

Best 

(91-100%) 

I-75 Terminal I-285 714 73% 2.3 

I-75 Southern Crescent NS 960 98% 4.8

I-75 Southern Crescent 960 98% 4.8

East Terminal I-285 702 71% 2.1

East Southern Crescent NS 948 96% 4.6 

East Southern Crescent 948 96% 4.6

I-75/West 410 42% 1.0

I-75/Rome Split 435 44% 1.0

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285 738 75% 2.5 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS 983 100% 5.0 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent 983 100% 5.0

West 419 43% 1.0

West Connector 438 45% 1.0

West/East 403 41% 1.0

West/East Connector 422 43% 1.0
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-23 September 2016

4.0 SCREENING RESULTS 

4.1 Results Based upon MOE Analysis 

The results of screening indicated performance distinctions among the corridors. Table 

4-1 lists the scores for each corridor. A score of “3.1” and above was considered a “very

good” rating, and any corridor that scored below a “3.0,” shown in a shaded row, was

considered to underperform. With an average MOE score of over 3.5 out of a possible

five, seven corridors performed the best of the 15 corridors in relation to the

transportation mobility needs of the Project, including:

 I-75 Terminal I-285;

 I-75 Southern Crescent NS;

 I-75 Southern Crescent;

 East Southern Crescent NS;

 East Southern Crescent;

 I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS; and

 I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS.

The remaining corridors significantly underperformed, each having an average MOE 

score of 3.0 or lower. The low scores put the remaining eight corridors below a “very 

good” rating of “3.1”; therefore, they do not advance. 

4.2 Corridors Not Advanced 

Several corridors did not advance due to their poor performance relative to the mobility 

MOEs (travel time, and population and employment access), not meeting the Project’s 

Purpose and Need, and/or based on stakeholder feedback subsequent to the scoping 

and screening processes. The quantitative screening process indicated performance 

distinctions among the corridors with regard to the mobility MOEs. The I-75/West, I75/Rome Split, West, West Connector, West/East, and West/East Connector Corridors 

demonstrated the lowest performance with regard to the mobility MOEs and were not 

recommended for advancement for further Tier 1 EIS analysis. These corridors were 

deemed as not reasonable per CEQ requirements and were eliminated from further 

consideration. The more prudent and reasonable corridors advanced from screening 

provided greater mobility improvements. 

4.2.1 Corridor Variations within Atlanta Not Advanced 

Of the seven remaining corridors that performed best with regard to the mobility MOE’s, 

there were variations amongst them within Atlanta. Once inside Atlanta, the corridors 

followed either I-285, NS ROW, or I-75 to a terminus at HJAIA. 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-24 September 2016

Table 4-1: Screening Results – Summary of Corridor Performance 

Corridor 

Mobility MOE Scores Mobility MOEs 

Average Score Travel Time Population Employment 

I-75 Terminal I-285 4.2 3.9 2.3 3.5 

I-75 Southern Crescent NS 3.9 4.6 4.8 4.4

I-75 Southern Crescent 4.0 4.6 4.8 4.5

East Terminal I-285 3.1 3.9 2.1 3.0 

East Southern Crescent NS 2.7 4.6 4.6 4.0

East Southern Crescent 2.9 4.6 4.6 4.0

I-75/West 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 

I-75/Rome Split 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 

I-75/Rome Terminal I-285 2.0 4.2 2.5 2.9 

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS 1.6 5.0 5.0 3.9

I-75/Rome Southern Crescent 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.0

West 4.4 1.0 1.0 2.1 

West Connector 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

West/East 4.4 1.0 1.0 2.1 

West/East Connector 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

The I-75 Terminal I-285 corridor was eliminated because it did not satisfy two elements 

of the Project Purpose and Need: (1) maximize intermodal connections with local transit, 

major airports and highways, and (2) provide rapid, convenient, and reliable 

transportation between major population and employment centers, as well as to HJAIA. 

A corridor following I-285 would not provide access to the major activity center of 

downtown Atlanta, would not provide an optimal connection to the existing Metropolitan 

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) heavy rail transit system at the Five Points 

station, nor would it connect to the planned multi-modal passenger terminal (MMPT) in 

downtown Atlanta including the planned commuter rail and buses services serving the 

MMPT. 

The three corridors traveling along the NS railroad’s ROW near the Inman Yard were 

also eliminated due to written stakeholder/owner/operator opposition to using this 

corridor. Appendix IV provides documentation regarding NS’s opposition to HSGT using 

their infrastructure or being constructed within or near their properties. As a result, 

devising a corridor parallel to but outside of NS property would require excessive and 

unreasonable property acquisitions. 

Based on a lack of satisfying the Project’s Purpose and Need and primary stakeholder 

opposition, the corridor using I-285 and the three corridors following NS have 
Appendix B – Corridor Screening Process & Results 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS B-25 September 2016

unreasonable shortcomings associated with the path they follow within Atlanta. For these 

reasons, the following corridors were not advanced to further Tier 1 EIS analysis. 

I-285 Corridors

 I-75 Terminal I-285

NS Corridors 

 I-75 Southern Crescent NS

 East Southern Crescent NS

 I-75/Rome Southern Crescent NS

4.3 Corridors Advanced 

Each of the 15 corridors presented in Table 2-1 were evaluated relative to the need for 

transportation mobility, stakeholder input, and the Project’s Purpose and Need. As a 

result, three corridors were selected as the best performing corridors and are presented 

below. The three corridors that advanced from the screening process for further 

evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS included the: 

 I-75 Southern Crescent Corridor;

 East Southern Crescent Corridor; and

 I-75/Rome Southern Crescent Corridor.

These three corridors are deemed to be reasonable per CEQ requirements. These three 

corridors are presented in graphical detail in Appendix C of the Tier 1 DEIS. 

4.4 Tier 1 EIS Next Steps 

The recommended corridors emerging from this corridor screening process will be 

carried forward and further analyzed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS (DEIS). 

The No-Build Alternative will be developed and analyzed during the Tier 1 DEIS, and 

each of the “Build” Alternatives will be compared to the No-Build Alternative. The NoBuild Alternative includes all of the planned transportation improvements for the Project 

area that are listed in the regional and GDOT transportation plans, minus the Atlanta – 

Chattanooga HSGT Project. 
Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA 

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Prepared by: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002

PI: No. T001684
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-i September 2016

Table of Contents 

I. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 1

II. PREVIOUS RIDERSHIP MODELING ......................................................................................................... 1

III. OVERVIEW OF THE THREE MODELING SEGMENTS .......................................................................... 3

A. INTER-CITY MODEL SEGMENT ....................................................................................... 3

B. INTRA-ATLANTA MODEL SEGMENT .............................................................................. 4

i. Main Intra-ARC Model ................................................................................................................... 4

ii. Airport Access Model ..................................................................................................................... 4

C. AIRPORT CHOICE MODEL SEGMENT ............................................................................ 5

IV. TIER 1 DRAFT EIS CORRIDOR BUILD ALTERNATIVE SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS .................. 5

A. STATION-TO-STATION TRAVEL TIME ............................................................................ 5

B. STATION-TO-STATION TRAVEL DISTANCE .................................................................. 6

C. FARE STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................... 7

V. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

VI. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 11

List of Figures 

Figure 1: DEIS Build Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Tables 

Table 1 Station-to-Station Travel Time (in minutes) by Corridor ...................................................................................... 6

Table 2 Station-to-Station Travel Distance (in miles) by Corridor ..................................................................................... 7

Table 3 Inter-City Trip Table Growth Factors .................................................................................................................... 7

Table 4 Annual Air Passengers for Top 25 Destinations from Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport .................................. 8

Table 5 2040 Daily Segment Volumes, Total Boardings, and Total Revenue by Corridor ............................................. 9

Table 6 2040 Daily Station Boardings and Alightings by Corridor .................................................................................. 10
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS C-1 September 2016

I. OVERVIEW

This report discusses the methodology used to develop the travel demand forecasting model system 

for the Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Study Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the results of the forecasting analysis. This modeling 

effort has produced ridership demand data for the three Tier 1 Draft EIS Corridor Build Alternatives 

(henceforth referred to as corridors), using updated data and assumptions, including a new 2040 

forecast year, consistent with most of the MPO models1

 in the project study area and incorporating 

updated socioeconomic data from the 2010 US Census, a key data component of the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO) subarea models used to build the HSGT model. The corridors subject 

to this analysis include the I-75, I-75/Rome, and East corridors, as shown in Figure 1 below. 

II. RIDERSHIP MODELING METHODOLOGY

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) developed the initial Atlanta to Chattanooga 

HSGT travel demand forecasting model system beginning in 2007. The HSGT model system was 

developed to evaluate travel in four major geographic subareas, each of which currently has a MPOlevel demand forecasting model: 

 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) regional forecasting model, which covers a 20-county

area around Atlanta;

 Greater Dalton MPO model, which covers the Dalton urban area and Whitfield County;

 Rome-Floyd County MPO model, which covers Rome and Floyd County; and

 Chattanooga-Hamilton County North Georgia (CHCNGA) Regional Planning Agency model,

which is centered on the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee including all of Hamilton County,

Tennessee and extending into portions of northwest Georgia (Walker, Dade and Catoosa

Counties).

1 The Greater Dalton MPO model uses 2035 as the forecast year. 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS C-2 September 2016

Figure 1: DEIS Build Alternatives 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS C-3 September 2016

III. OVERVIEW OF THE THREE MODELING SEGMENTS

The HSGT modeling system is a diversion model that uses the number of automobile trips between 

each origin and destination pair from the MPO models and reallocates or diverts a percentage of the 

automobile trips to the new HSGT mode, based on existing modal characteristics within the travel 

corridor. The HSGT modeling system has three distinct model segments that apply different 

modeling approaches to estimate the diversion from auto trips to HSGT of from the following three 

travel markets: 

 Inter-City: trips from one of the corridor’s four major sub-areas to another sub-area

 Intra-Atlanta:

o Main Intra-ARC (inside the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) transportation

planning area): trips from one location to another in the ARC region, excluding trips

by air travelers to/from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA)

o Airport Access: trips by resident and non-resident air travelers in the ARC region

to/from HJAIA

 Airport Choice: trips made by air travelers to/from the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

(Lovell Field)

Data on the proposed station locations, estimated travel times, and proposed fare structure for each 

corridor, as well as updated data from the subarea models were used as inputs to the HSGT model. 

Each of the three model segments produced the number of trips diverted to HSGT, and the total 

diverted trips (from all three travel markets) are summarized by boardings and alightings at each 

proposed station, as well as corridor-level totals. In addition to ridership, fare revenue totals for each 

corridor were also calculated by the model system. The three model segments are described in detail 

in the following subsections. 

A. Inter-City Model Segment

As stated above, the Inter-City model calculates diversions of auto trips to HSGT made from one of 

the project area’s major sub-areas to another. The methodology applied to forecast inter-city 

automobile trip diversions to HSGT is based on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) ridership and 

revenue forecasting work developed for the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Office of 

Inspector General (OIG). It uses a two-mode (binary) diversion model that compares, for each intercity origin-destination pair and for different types of travelers, the attractiveness of travel via HSGT 

versus automobile.To prepare the Inter-City model inputs, data from the four different sub-area 

models were combined to develop a representation of the highway network and intercity travel 

patterns in the project area. The ARC 4-Step Model, the Rome-Floyd County MPO Model, and the 

CHCNGA Model had 2040 forecasts available, while the Greater Dalton MPO Model has a forecast 

year of 2035. To develop the Dalton 2040 trip table, first the modeling team used the Dalton baseline 

forecast of 2006 and the 2035 forecast to develop annual growth factors by zone pairs, and applied 

them to the 2035 table, in order to obtain a comparable 2040 trip table for use in the Inter-City model. 

All internal trips were then removed from each of the sub-area trip tables, along with external trips 

which did not impact the corridor (i.e. trips to the area southeast of Atlanta). The 2040 trip tables were 

used to develop growth factors by sub-area, which were then applied to update the 2030 trip table to 

reflect the revised 2040 forecasts. The 2030 trip table was synthesized by appropriately connecting 

the internal-external and external-external volumes in the 2030 highway trip tables of the four model 

systems, making reference to US Census 2000 journey-to-work travel patterns, and using 

engineering judgment to fine-tune county-level travel flows. By using the 2040 forecasts in this 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-4 September 2016

manner ensured that the trip table was consistent with the procedures previously used, while 

incorporating current socio-economic forecasts and updated assumptions. 

The 2040 sub-area networks were combined to create the Inter-City model network, This required a 

minor reconciliation between network coding conventions of the different model systems, and 

completion of the network in portions of the project area outside the four sub-areas. 

B. Intra-Atlanta Model Segment

The Intra-Atlanta model segment is split into two pieces: the main Intra-ARC model and the Airport 

Access model for trips to/from HJAIA. Each is described below. 

i. Main Intra-ARC Model

The Main Intra-ARC model forecasts HSGT trips internal to the 20-county ARC region built on the 

ARC four-step travel demand model. It includes a mode choice model that predicts, for each Atlanta 

region origin-destination pair and different trip types, the share of trips made by different modes. The 

ARC mode choice model has the ability to address a number of premium (express bus, 

BRT/streetcar, heavy/light rail and commuter rail) and standard (local bus, shuttle bus, arterial 

express bus and arterial BRT) transit modes, segmented by access mode (walk, park-and-ride, and 

kiss-and-ride). 

In this analysis, HSGT is represented in the ARC model as a premium transit mode similar to 

commuter rail, but having the appropriate travel time and headway attributes. A new transit sub-mode 

choice model was added to the ARC model to predict the split of trips between HSGT and other 

premium transit modes. This analysis used the current ARC PLAN 2040 forecast, which updated all 

of the Main Intra-ARC model inputs to what is currently in use in the corridor. 

ii. Airport Access Model

For this analysis, a separate modeling approach was applied to forecast diversions to HSGT of air 

passengers traveling to/from HJAIA. It was based on the current ARC air passenger model, a nested 

logit model that forecasts the transportation mode used for airport access. Logit models are behaviorbased models that have the ability to forecast individuals’ choice based on the characteristics of the 

alternatives and the decision makers themselves. The nested logit model specifically has the ability to 

group similar choices (modes, in this case) to account for similarities and competition between 

choices (grouping all transit options separately from auto, for example). The transit nest (the model 

group that includes all transit options) was modified to include the HSGT option. The model was 

applied to all zones included in the ARC model area. 

The Airport Access model used the forecast year (2040 for this analysis) volumes to/from HJAIA, by 

purpose and residence status, which are an output from the ARC four-step model. The Airport 

Access model was developed using the 2001 Atlanta Air Passenger Survey to obtain the shares of 

air travelers traveling to and from HJAIA, which is the most up-to-date data available and is what the 

ARC four-step model uses. 

The first step of the model is a spreadsheet application that estimates average daily air passengers 

to and from the airport and allocates them to the ground side locations, based on zonal 

socioeconomic data including household, income group, and employment, which were updated to 

match the ARC PLAN 2040 assumptions. The second step of airport access model is the mode 

choice model based on the current ARC air passenger model, which estimates the mode of 

transportation used to access the airport based on the non-airport location of air passengers, 

including high-speed rail (HSR) as an option. 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-5 September 2016

C. Airport Choice Model Segment

The airport choice model was developed to forecast diversions of Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport 

(CMA) air passengers to HSGT and HJAIA. Without an HSGT connection between CMA and HJAIA, 

passengers would take direct flights to/from CMA or connecting flights to/from CMA via airport hubs 

(HJAIA or other). With the proposed HSGT, such travelers would have the option of taking it to/from 

HJAIA and the connections there. The choice depends on the end-to-end service characteristics of 

the different travel options. An ordered logit model using actual route shares and volumes 

representing essentially all air trips in and out of Lovell CMA was used. The HSGT mode to/from 

HJAIA was then introduced where appropriate as an additional routing alternative. This model was 

applied to each relevant origin-destination airport pair to calculate the diversion to HSGT based on 

the anticipated service level between CMA and HJAIA. 

The Airport Choice model uses the HSGT alternative-specific schedule and air schedules as the 

inputs. The service characteristics of the three corridors to be tested and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) data, which include on-time performance and Airline Origin and Destination 

Survey (DB1B)2

 origin and destination data, were used. The on-time performance data from March 

27, 2012 was used for developing the air schedule inputs. 

IV. TIER 1 DRAFT EIS CORRIDOR BUILD ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

CHARACTERISTICS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS 

This section describes the service characteristics of the three corridors which are the inputs for the 

modeling system, including travel time, distance, and fares. All other service characteristics such as 

frequency were held constant across the three corridor analyses, for comparison purposes. 

A. Station-to-station Travel Time

The travel time assumptions are displayed in Table 1. 

2

 The Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B) is a 10% sample of airline tickets from reporting carriers collected by the 

Office of Airline Information of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Data include origin, destination and other itinerary 

details of passengers transported. This database is used to determine air traffic patterns, air carrier market shares and 

passenger flows. 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-6 September 2016

Table 1 Station-to-Station Travel Time (in minutes) by Corridor 

Station I-75 I-75 / Rome East 

Station

-toStation Cumulative 

Station

-toStation Cumulative 

StationtoStation 

Cumulative 

Hartsfield - Jackson 

Atlanta International 

Airport 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Downtown Atlanta 11 11 11 11 11 11 

Cumberland/Galleria 11 22 11 22 11 22

Town Center 9 31 9 31 9 31 

Cartersville 15 46 15 46 15 46

Rome NA* NA 14 60 NA NA

Dalton 17 63 17 77 NA NA

Dalton/Chatsworth NA NA NA NA 20 66

Chattanooga 

Metropolitan Airport 14 77 14 91 18 84

Downtown 

Chattanooga 11 88 11 102 11 95 

*NA – Not Applicable

B. Station-to-station Travel Distance

The station-to-station travel distance assumptions for the ridership modeling update are displayed in 

Table 2. 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-7 September 2016

Table 2 Station-to-Station Travel Distance (in miles) by Corridor 

Station I-75 I-75 / Rome East 

StationtoStation 

Cumulative 

StationtoStation 

Cumulative 

StationtoStation 

Cumulative 

Hartsfield - Jackson 

Atlanta International 

Airport 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Downtown Atlanta 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Cumberland / 

Galleria 10 19 10 19 10 19

Town Center 12 31 12 31 12 31 

Cartersville 19 50 19 50 19 50

Rome NA* NA 24 74 NA NA

Dalton 43 93 42 116 NA NA

Dalton/Chatsworth NA NA NA NA 48 98

Chattanooga 

Metropolitan Airport 25 118 25 141 30 128

Downtown 

Chattanooga 10 128 10 151 10 138 

*NA – Not Applicable

C. Fare Structure

The fare structure used in this analysis matched that used in the original 2007 analysis, inflated to 

2014 $. A distance-based fare of $0.85 per mile and a $14.22 boarding fee were assumed for intercity (including airport-to-airport) service. For intra-Atlanta and airport access service, a $14.22 HSGT 

fare was assumed, with a $6.82 supplement for trips to/from the airport. 

D. Trip Assumptions

The growth factors used by region for the Inter-City model are found in Table 3 below. The growth factors 

are based on the trips from each regional model, after excluding the intra-region trips. The Atlanta region 

experienced the greatest growth, while Dalton actually had a slight negative impact. 

Table 3 Inter-City Trip Table Growth Factors 

Region 2030 Daily Trips 2040 Daily Trips Growth Factor 

Atlanta 86,003 146,199 70.0%

Chattanooga 67,699 94,205 39.2%

Dalton 46,396 46,244 -0.3%

Floyd 40,978 55,391 35.2%

External 53,662 76,132 41.9%

Total 294,738 418,172 41.9%
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-8 September 2016

Table 4 details the annual passengers between the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport and the top 

twenty-five destinations, used in the airport choice segment of the model, along with the number of 

connection options available (not including HSGT). These annual trips were assumed by applying a 

growth rate of 69% between 2012 and 2040, which was obtained from FAA forecasts, to the DB1B 

data as described in the modeling methodology section above. 

Table 4 Annual Air Passengers for Top 25 Destinations from Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport 

Origin Destination 

 Annual Passengers 

(Both Directions) 

Connection 

Options 

CHA ORD 43,433 3 

CHA DFW 42,554 4 

CHA LGA 30,420 3 

CHA CLT 29,000 2 

CHA BOS 23,153 3 

CHA MCO 21,767 2 

CHA DCA 19,029 3 

CHA IAH 18,928 4 

CHA LAS 17,846 4 

CHA DEN 16,968 3 

CHA PHL 16,427 3 

CHA LAX 14,331 4 

CHA RDU 13,452 2 

CHA SFO 13,148 4 

CHA EWR 12,979 3 

CHA FLL 12,067 2 

CHA PHX 11,864 4 

CHA MSP 11,154 4 

CHA PIT 10,174 3 

CHA TPA 10,106 2 

CHA SAT 9,802 3 

CHA MCI 9,768 4 

CHA BWI 9,498 3 

CHA SAN 9,396 4 

CHA SEA 8,788 4 

V. RESULTS

The model system was run for all three corridors, and the ridership and revenue summaries are 

described in this section. Table 5 contains the segment volumes, total boardings and total revenue 

for each corridor. 

The I-75/Rome corridor has the greatest ridership and revenue projections, primarily due to the 

additional Rome station, which provides access to a larger population. The East corridor has the 

lowest forecasted ridership and revenue, which may be attributed to the Dalton/Chatsworth station 

not being in an area with a lower population density. 
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-9 September 2016

Table 5 2040 Daily Segment Volumes, Total Boardings, and Total Revenue by Corridor 

Station A Station B I-75 I-75 / Rome East 

Segment Volume 

Hartsfield-Jackson 

Atlanta International 

Airport 

Downtown Atlanta 2,650 2,679 2,692

Downtown Atlanta Cumberland / Galleria 5,648 5,886 5,002 

Cumberland / Galleria Town Center 6,422 6,922 4,934 

Town Center Cartersville 4,625 5,088 2,785

Cartersville Dalton 4,268 NA NA

Cartersville Dalton / Chatsworth NA* NA 1,973

Cartersville Rome NA 4,663 NA

Rome Dalton NA 3,682 NA

Dalton / Chatsworth Chattanooga 

Metropolitan Airport NA NA 1,977

Dalton Chattanooga 

Metropolitan Airport 3,344 3,383 NA

Chattanooga 

Metropolitan Airport 

Downtown 

Chattanooga 2,611 2,452 1,379

Total Daily Boardings 11,725 13,204 8,556 

Total Daily Revenue, in 2014$ $ 641,566 $ 773,728 $ 382,105 

*NA – Not Applicable
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-10 September 2016

Table 6 presents a more detailed look at the boardings and alightings at each station. 

Table 6 2040 Daily Station Boardings and Alightings by Corridor 

East I‐75 I‐75 / Rome

Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings

Northbound ‐ Hartsfield to Chattanooga  

Hartsfield ‐ Jackson

Atlanta International

Airport  

2,176 ‐ 2,157 ‐ 2,170 ‐

Downtown Atlanta   436 1,911 821 1,911 926 1,911

Cumberland/Galleria   333 50 805 50 935 50

Town Center   221 324 421 324 391 324

Cartersville   289 6 546 6 583 84

Rome   NA* NA NA NA 523 1,057

Dalton   NA NA 543 1,026 544 681

Dalton/Chatsworth   35 35 NA NA NA NA

Chattanooga

Metropolitan Airport   46 394 45 473 46 581

Downtown

Chattanooga   ‐  815 ‐ 1,550 ‐ 1,429

Southbound ‐ Chattanooga to Hartsfield

Downtown

Chattanooga   563 ‐ 1,061 ‐ 1,023 ‐

Chattanooga

Metropolitan Airport   287 41 346 40 436 41

Dalton/Chatsworth   25 25 NA NA NA NA

Dalton   NA NA 834 392 554 393

Rome   NA NA NA NA 928 481

Cartersville   1,292 197 1,292 395 1,292 367

Town Center   2,207 160 2,207 311 2,207 305

Cumberland/Galleria   580 230 580 599 580 731

Downtown Atlanta   66 3,853 66 4,154 66 4,260

Hartsfield ‐ Jackson

Atlanta International

Airport  

‐  516 ‐ 493 ‐ 508

Northbound Total   3,536 3,536 5,340 5,340 6,118 6,118

Southbound Total   5,020 5,020 6,385 6,385 7,085 7,085

Corridor Total   8,556 8,556 11,725 11,725 13,204 13,204

*NA – Not Applicable
Appendix C – Ridership Forecasting Report 

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study C-11 September 2016

VI. SUMMARY

Based on the updated HSGT modeling system, using a forecast year of 2040 and current 

socioeconomic assumptions, the I-75/Rome corridor produces the greatest ridership and revenue. 
Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA 

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT

Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Prepared by: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-i September 2016

Table of Contents 

FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANT PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 1

FEDERAL FINANCING AND LOAN PROGRAMS ...................................................................................... 2

STATE AND LOCAL CAPITAL MATCH FUNDING ..................................................................................... 3
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-1 September 2016

Federal Capital Grant Programs 

Historically, most states have relied on a variety of relatively small federal and state 

funding programs to enhance their state passenger rail systems. With the passage of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the federal funding picture has changed for passenger 

HSGT development. 

This section highlights the major features of new federal funding programs as well as 

other federal funding programs available for this project. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

In October of 2008, Congress passed the PRIIA. This legislation reauthorizes funding for 

Amtrak, but most importantly, provides a new statutory framework for a federal/state 

partnership to fund and develop U.S. high-speed and intercity passenger service using 

80/20 federal/state capital grants. The PRIIA legislation authorizes $3.4 billion in capital 

grants over five years to states, groups of states, interstate compacts, public agencies, 

and in some cases Amtrak. 

Congressional action is required each year to appropriate the amounts authorized. 

Section 301 of the Act provides grants for the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Capital 

Assistance. Section 501 provides capital grants for HSGT corridor development for 

federally designated corridors with planned speeds of 110 mph or greater. Section 302 

Congestion Grants are focused on relieving rail congestion bottlenecks. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

In February of 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) which appropriated $8 billion in 100 percent federal funding providing “capital 

assistance for high-speed corridors and intercity passenger service.” This program is 

based on the statutory framework provided by PRIIA and focuses funding on state 

sponsored projects. 

The ARRA also provided $1.5 billion in 100 percent flexible multi-modal funding under 

the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary 

Grant Program. Since its inception, Congress has dedicated more than $4.1 billion for six 

rounds to fund projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a region or a 

metropolitan area. The TIGER grant programs provide funding for both passenger and 

freight rail projects. 

The FRA High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

In developing guidance for ARRA grants as well as grants offered under subsequent 

PRIIA appropriations, a structure for the FRA’s High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) Program has evolved. The current structure is best reflected in the most recent 

notices of funding availability (NOFA) for FY 2011 appropriations issued in the Federal 

Register on March 16, 2011. 

FRA will develop final guidance and regulations for the HSIPR Program; however, these 

interim guidance documents will provide the basic framework for the PRIIA grant 

program as well as for future funding programs. Under the FY 2011 appropriation for 

these programs, $2.4 billion was provided of which approximately $2.3 billion was solely 

for the state of Florida and $38 million available for other states. FRA will not allocate 

funding between Service Development Programs and Individual Projects in advance. 
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-2 September 2016

Instead, FRA will make awards based on the outcomes of the application. Eligibility 

requirements for specific program and project types can be accessed via the March 16, 

2011 Federal Register1

. 

Federal Financing and Loan Programs 

FRA Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program provides direct 

federal loans and loan guarantees to finance development of railroad infrastructure. The 

program was established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 

(TEA-21) and amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Under this program, the FRA 

authorizes direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion. Up to $7 billion is reserved 

for projects benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers. 

The funding may be used to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment 

or facilities, including track, track components, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops. In 

addition, the funding can be used to refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes 

listed above as well as for developing or establishing new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

While the program has been used largely for freight rail projects, HSGT projects also are 

eligible. 

In the case of passenger projects, RRIF funding is only workable where investment 

grade revenue and operating cost forecasts show the project has the potential to provide 

a substantial revenue stream after a significant public investment is typically made in 

infrastructure and/or equipment. Typically, projects receiving RRIF credit assistance 

must obtain an investment grade rating from at least one nationally recognized credit 

rating agency. Direct loans can fund up to 100 percent of a railroad project, with 

repayment periods of up to 35 years and interest rates equal to the U.S. treasury rate. 

Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government-sponsored 

authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited 

option freight shippers that intend to construct a new rail connection. 

The RRIF program provides financing on favorable terms; however, the applicant must 

identify a viable revenue stream to make payments over the loan period. The FRA 

administers this program, and the USDOT Credit Council and the White House’s Office 

of Management and Budget oversee final award decisions. 

USDOT Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

The USDOT’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

administered by the FHWA, authorizes $10.6 billion in credit assistance on flexible terms 

in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. The TIFIA 

program was created in 1998 by TEA-21 and amended by SAFETEA-LU. 

TIFIA financial assistance is provided directly to public-private sponsors of surface 

transportation projects of national significance. The TIFIA credit program’s fundamental 

goal is to leverage federal funds by attracting substantial private and other non-federal 

investment in critical improvements to the nation’s surface transportation system. TIFIA 

1 http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02744
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-3 September 2016

can be used for both freight and passenger projects. A wide variety of intermodal and rail 

infrastructure projects including HSGT are eligible and can include equipment, facilities, 

track, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops. 

TIFIA credit assistance provides improved access to capital markets, flexible repayment 

terms, and potentially more favorable interest rates than can be found in private capital 

markets for similar instruments. The interest rate for TIFIA loans is the U.S. Treasury rate 

and the debt must be repaid within 35 years. TIFIA can support up to 33 percent of a 

project's cost and is restricted to projects costing at least $50 million. TIFIA can help 

advance qualified, large-scale projects that otherwise might be delayed or deferred 

because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues. 

Similar to the RRIF program above, TIFIA is not a funding source, but a method of 

financing projects through assisted borrowing. In the case of passenger projects, RRIF 

financing is only workable where investment grade revenue and operating cost forecasts 

show the project has the potential to provide a substantial revenue stream after a 

significant public investment is typically made in infrastructure and/or equipment. 

Projects receiving TIFIA credit assistance must obtain an investment grade rating from at 

least one nationally recognized credit rating agency. 

State and Local Capital Match Funding 

As discussed in the introduction, the major source of funding for HSGT development in 

the U.S. will continue to lie with the federal government. The PRIIA, as currently 

administered under the FRA HSIPR, provides the statutory framework for an 80/20 

federal/state funding partnership that will continue for the foreseeable future. The States 

of Georgia and Tennessee will be responsible for assembling the 20 percent state grant 

share for this type of major transportation infrastructure project. Local governments 

typically have a lesser role in providing capital funding for HSGT development, and 

primarily only with regard to station development. A summary of each program follows. 

State General Fund Appropriations 

The use of a General Fund Appropriation for an HSGT project offers the most flexibility in 

terms of the use of state tax revenues. The downside for an HSGT project, like other 

transportation infrastructure projects, is that the significant amount of funding typically 

required over multiple years is not easily obtained in a budgetary or political cycle given 

the many other recurring demands for state appropriations. 

Funding for transportation projects in Georgia relies heavily upon the State Highway 

Account, or more specifically, segregated revenues from the Motor Fuel Tax. This 

account provides approximately 96 percent of “total revenues from State sources in 

GDOT’s budget for FY2009” (ARC 2010)2

. However, state statutes do not allow for the 

Motor Fuel Tax to be used on any transportation projects other than roads and bridges, 

therefore, HSGT and transit projects in the State use General Fund Appropriations. 

Similar to Georgia, Tennessee has implemented a Motor and Diesel Fuel Tax to fund 

three entities within the state: Cities and Counties, State General Fund, and TDOT. 

Tennessee differs from Georgia in that the Motor and Diesel Fuel Tax as well as 

Registration Fees are used to fund a variety of transportation projects and basic 

operations. Second to federal funding, the Highway User Tax is the largest portion of 

2

 Atlanta Regional Commission. Bridging the Gap 2010: Investigating Solutions for Transportation Funding 

alternatives in the Atlanta Region. Atlanta, GA: 2010. 
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-4

TDOT’s annual budget and a majority of both sources fund highway projects. However, a 

portion of the department’s budget is set aside for mass transit, planning and research, 

and air, water, and rail programs for a total of approximately $289.8 million for FY 2010-

2011. 

State General Obligation and General Revenue Bonds 

Both Georgia and Tennessee have the ability to issue state bonds for transportation 

purposes. State bonding has many advantages as a source of state capital funding to 

match federal grant funds. Bonding allows a state to spread funding for large capital 

projects with continuing benefits over long time periods (typically up to 20 years). The 

resulting effect on the state budget is relatively small in any one year. 

General obligation (GO) bonds are backed with the legal pledge of all state revenues. On 

the other hand, state revenue bonds are backed by the pledge of revenues from a 

specific source such as a dedicated sales tax or in the case of an HSGT project, ticket 

revenues. Given the political and underwriting challenges in obtaining a dedicated and 

marketable revenue source, GO bonds have many advantages over revenue bonds. 

Georgia offers GO and general revenue (GR) bond programs that can be used for a 

variety of uses including the financing of transportation improvements. Currently, there 

are no transportation projects being funded through GO or GR bonds and no allocations 

have been made to GDOT. The majority of GO and GR bonds are currently funding 

public safety and education projects and programs. However, funding for transportation 

projects can be requested through these bond programs for future projects. 

Tennessee does not issue bonds for transportation projects under the current policy. 

Tennessee uses federal and state funds on a “pay-go” basis to fund its transportation 

program. The Tennessee Legislature authorizes bonds each year in an amount equal to 

multi-year project commitments. This allows contactors to enter into construction 

contracts, which are then funded from annual appropriations. No bonds are actually 

issued and the bond authorization is then canceled each year by the State Funding 

Board prior to the subsequent reauthorization. 

Freight Railroad Contributions 

An HSGT project in shared-use freight rail corridors may have the opportunity to obtain 

capital funding from the host railroad where the project provides freight benefits. An 

example might include adding a double track on a congested single-track main line. The 

capacity benefits to the freight railroad may exceed the capacity consumed by the 

additional passenger service. Another example is the replacement of jointed rail with 

more reliable and higher performance continuous welded rail, which can reduce 

maintenance costs and increase freight rail speeds. The negotiations involved with the 

freight railroad in such an arrangement are critical and typically involve the use of 

sophisticated capacity models and other kinds of operations analysis. While this HSGT 

project is not proposed to share tracks with other railroad service, this funding source is 

relevant considering this project may share existing railroad corridors. 

Local General Fund Appropriations 

Local municipalities have the option of using their general funds to help match federal 

funds or make improvements to HSGT stations and surrounding developments. This 

capital must be budgeted ahead of time and approval must be received from the county 

commissioners and/or councils. The use of local general fund appropriations for stations 

September 2016
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-5

and similar improvements has the same considerations as State General Fund 

Appropriations discussed above. 

Local Bonding 

As with the state bonds, local municipalities may issue bonds for transportation 

improvement projects such as HSGT. These bonds may be used as the local match for 

federal funds. The bonds, similar to the state bonds, will be repaid with future revenue or 

general tax money. The use of local GO bond funding for stations and similar 

improvements has the same considerations as state bonding discussed above. 

Other Local Funding Sources 

Along with general fund appropriations and bonding, local municipalities have other 

innovative techniques to fund transportation infrastructure construction, operation, and 

maintenance. The most popular technique used in Georgia is the Special Purpose Local 

Option Sales Tax (SPLOST). This relies upon an increase in taxes to be used for a 

variety of purposes, including transportation, at the municipalities’ discretion. Once the 

SPLOST gains voter approval, the municipality has the ability to raise sales taxes up to a 

maximum of two percent for five years. If more funding is needed after the five-year 

period, the SPLOST referendum may be put to vote again. Currently, the State of 

Georgia is working towards a regional Transportation SPLOST (TSPLOST) through 

House Bill 277, which would increase sales tax by one percent on a regional level for ten 

years throughout the state to solely fund transportation projects. 

Other innovative sources of funding that may be used by local jurisdictions for the Atlanta 

to Chattanooga HSGT are generalized as “Value Capture Taxes”. These taxes capture 

the increased value of adjacent property to a proposed project (e.g., transportation, real 

estate development, tourist attraction). There are five main taxation “tools” which include 

Land Value Taxes, Land Tax Increment Financing (TIF) (aka Tax Allocation Districts 

(TAD)), Community Improvement Districts (CID), Developer Impact Fees, and Air Rights. 

For the purposes of this project, the sources most likely to be utilized are TIF and CID 

funds. TIF is currently used in both Georgia and Tennessee to fund projects. One of the 

main goals of the program is to help develop blighted areas. CIDs are relatively new and 

are used in Georgia. They rely on revenues generated by a system in which businesses 

and agencies agree to increase their property taxes to fund community projects. Of the 

13 current CIDs in Georgia, three include portions of the three proposed HSGT 

alternatives. 

Joint Development 

The establishment of an HSGT station offers opportunities for additional on-site real 

estate development beyond just the station. Other development opportunities can include 

commercial, office, hotel, and housing developments. Where such opportunities exist, 

developer financing can be a significant source of funding for station improvements in 

addition to public sources. The developer may also take on all property management 

responsibilities for the station, which can be a burden for either state or local government 

officials. 

Public Private Partnerships 

Public Private Partnerships (P3s) are a relatively new venture in transportation projects. 

Private investors and public entities join together to allow for more private sector 

participation from both a delivery and financing standpoint. There are many types of P3 

structures, which vary in responsibility and risk. Some of the options include DesignSeptember 2016
Appendix D – Funding Sources 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS D-6

Build, Design-Build-Operate, Design-Build-Finance-Operate, Long Term Lease, LeaseDevelop-Operate, and Private Contract Fee Services. 

The P3s allow for more flexible funding by including the private sector into the project. 

Private equity contributions, bonds, private activity bonds, flexible match, bank loans, 

Section 129 loans, and TIFIA Credit are some examples of P3 financing techniques. 

Georgia currently has three P3 initiatives in the procurement phase, including the Atlanta 

Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal. No high-speed or intercity passenger HSGT programs 

have entered into P3 agreements. However, as can be seen in Table 1, HSGT is on the 

GDOT list of potential projects funded through the P3 program. 

The Tennessee P3 program varies from the Georgia program. The program currently 

does not have any enabling legislation tied to the program. There are only two pilot 

projects classified as P3, both of which are tolling projects (one highway and one bridge). 

There has been no consideration of HSGT to date. 

Table 1: Potential Georgia P3 Project Initiatives 

Project Description

High-Speed Rail National Network – 

Georgia Corridors 

High-speed intercity passenger service (HSGT) on the portions of 

Southeast and Southern national designated high-speed corridors. 

Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

Projects 

Development of intercity passenger service in strategic segments such as 

Atlanta to Macon. 

Atlanta Multimodal Passenger 

Terminal 

Development of a passenger facility to accommodate passenger rail 

services as well as bus service from local and regional providers. Transitoriented development could be part of the project with overbuild 

possibilities. 

Managed Lane System Plan Projects 

Projects as developed through the Managed Lane System Plan. These 

projects include, but are not limited to I-75/575 (NW Corridor), I-75 in 

Henry County, and SR 400 in Fulton and Forsyth Counties. 

Statewide Operations & Concessions 

for Welcome Centers & Rest Areas 

Statewide private sector participation with state owned welcome centers 

and rest areas. 

September 2016