NEPA Reevaluation February 2019 Package

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE

710 North 20th Street, Suite 203
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 254-2560
February 28, 2019
Federal Transit Administration, Region 4

230 Peachtree Street, Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30303-1512
Attention: Stan Mitchell

Environmental Protection Specialist
Reference: Birmingham Tiger 7 Bus Rapid Transit

Project No: 5822-2017-1-P1
FAIN: AL-2017-015-00
Recommendation to Recertify Project as Documented Categorical Exclusion
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Pursuant to your comments, please find enclosed the Environmental Re-Evaluation Consultation
form with updated attachments for the referenced project. As discussed previously, the City of
Birmingham proposes to make certain changes that will enhance the outcome of the Birmingham
Tiger 7 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project as originally approved by FTA. The proposed changes will
adhere to stipulations from the original approved Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) and,
due to all route improvement now remaining within the existing right of way, result in even less
environmental impact than anticipated in the previously approved plan. The changes to the
previously approved grant are described as follows:
Background
The BRT project is currently in the design phase pursuant to the approved grant. As various
areas of the design development advances, challenges and opportunities have been
identified that warrant changes to the base scope of the project. Proposed changes are
typically vetted against other options to the challenge and/or opportunity to determine
relative impacts to budgets, schedule, and environment.
Fair Park/CrossPlex Alternative Alignment
Under the approved grant a dedicated guideway is currently proposed to be constructed on
property owned by the City of Birmingham at a city sports complex known as CrossPlex. At
the time the project was undergoing development, the option to construct dedicated bus
lanes on US 11 was considered. Two factors discouraged further analysis: 1) the future
development on the CrossPlex adjacent to the route that had not started, and 2) the Alabama
Department of Transportation (ALDOT) was not amenable to taking away lanes from an
already busy section of existing roadway and the potential impacts from said development.
The City has since re-approached ALDOT and found that they were willing to reevaluate their
position and were open to the concept, pending a traffic impact analysis. An alternatives
analysis study was subsequently completed (Attachment A). The study scope included, but
was not limited to, traffic forecast, capacity analysis, alignment concept development, BRT
travel time impacts and turning movements, impacts to other transit, accessibility, and fit
analysis within the existing pavement (curb-to-curb). With mitigations that include signal
priority and timing changes, and minimal turn restrictions, the alignment was deemed
feasible, based on the following conclusions:
• Intersection level of service was maintained at acceptable levels.
• Estimated cost savings over the base layout on the CrossPlex primarily from road
resurfacing vs. new construction on the CrossPlex.
• An increase in the length of the exclusive busway: original length is 2,770 feet; the
new lengths are 3,700 feet outbound (increase of 930 feet) and 2,880 feet inbound
(increase of 110 feet).
• An improvement in the project schedule.
Lastly, the proposed alternative to the CrossPlex will be constructed within the existing
pavement with no widening of the roadway, just as with the construction of the ITP
(downtown) guideway. The previously approved CrossPlex guideway also has some
floodplain impact (deemed minimal), which will now be avoided entirely. Similarly, storm
water impacts due to construction and post constructions have also been reduced or
eliminated. The alternatives analysis report was reviewed and approved by ALDOT
(Attachment B).
Eliminate BRT Station ITP-6

BRT Station ITP-6 is located along 5th Avenue South between 8th and 10th Streets South,
adjacent to University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Express Lot 4. UAB Express Lot 4 is a
surface parking facility containing approximately 1,200 spaces. It is a permitted lot whose use
City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 2

is restricted to UAB medical hospital employees. Student parking is provided elsewhere on
the UAB campus. Express Lot 4, is in a remote area of the UAB campus away from residential,
academic, retail, and medical uses. It is served by the UAB Blazer Express Silver Route and has
operating hours of 5:20am-12am, Monday-Friday.
UAB has provided information about Express Lot 4 that shows that 100% of the expected
ridership generated by this facility should be assigned to the Blazer Express Silver Route,
UAB’s campus shuttle service. Express Lot 4 is a restricted surface parking lot that is permitted
for UAB Medical Center employees only. The Blazer Express is restricted to use by UAB
employees and students only.
Express Route 4 utilizes 100% of the available parking between 7 A.M. and 5 P.M. on a typical
weekday, with minimal turnover during this time-period. The lot has been oversold based on
expected demand for use, and on-street parking has been observed curbside along
westbound 5th Avenue immediately adjacent to the lot, westbound between 10th and 11th
Street, and along 10th Street immediately adjacent to the lot. Permit parking at this lot is
strictly enforced by UAB’s Parking and Transportation Services office using a variety of
techniques, including ticketing, boots, and towing.
UAB reports that the Blazer Express Silver Route operates at a frequency of 5-7 minutes
during the morning and evening peak hours, and 10-12 minutes during the off-peak travel
period. The A.M. peak travel period is identified as 5:25 A.M.-9 A.M.; the P.M. peak travel period
is identified as 2:30 P.M.-9 P.M. Weekday peak ridership hours for Express Lot 4 are between
6 A.M., and, 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. and 8 P.M. Daily boardings/alightings at Express Lot 4 ranges
between 1,200-1,400 during weekdays. These observed peaking characteristics in ridership
are consistent with the employee shift change hours for both hospital administration and
allied health professionals.
In addition to the background information above, it is recommended that ITP-6 BRT station’s
construction be deferred outside the BRT project (essentially eliminating it from the current
scope), due to the following:
• Stop Proximity. The BRT’s proposed alignment will not provide UAB employees utilizing
Express Route 4 proximate access to their work locations. The alignment and station
locations would have possible UAB riders walk up to two (2) blocks further to their work
locations whereas the Blazer Express provides front door access to most work locations
such as the Children’s Harbor, Spain Rehab, Women’s and Infants Center, UAB West
Pavilion, etc.

• Service Frequency. The BRT’s proposed service frequency cannot match the existing
Blazer Express service frequency. The BRT service plan proposes to operate the BRT
during peak travel hours at a headway of 10-minutes peak, 20-minutes in the off-peak,
and 30 minutes in the early morning and late evening hours over a 19-hour service day.
The Blazer Express operates at headways of 5-7 minutes during peak hours and 10-12
minutes during off peak hours over a 19-hour service day.
Change the ITP Segment Stations and Guideways from Curb Running to Median Running
The ITP segment of the project corridor, running through the heart of the City’s downtown,
is highly congested with above and below-ground utilities, and driveway entrances. The initial
post grant design work to finalize placement of the stations in this segment uncovered a
number of conflicts, including underground high-voltage electric lines and large high-pressure
water mains. Efforts to make location adjustments only ran into other utility and/or driveway
conflicts. Though some conflicts were anticipated and budgeted for, what is being discovered
is anticipated to exceed the budget with associated schedule delays. Among the available
options reviewed, median stations and guideways appear to be the most viable. As such, the
City undertook an evaluation that entails: assessment of traffic operations and physical
impacts; analysis and concept design of the median running stations; and analysis and
concept design of the roadway/lane configurations (Attachments C and D). Other “pros”
associated with this change, include, but are not limited to:
• Enhanced BRT definition (i.e., higher ITDP score),
• More likely to attract development/redevelopment in the corridor because

infrastructure permanence/investment level increases developer confidence,
• Potential reduced number of stations (albeit larger platforms and shelters),
• Potential reduced construction cost and number of amenities, and
• Reduced visual impacts to businesses (more appealing).
When comparing curb-running and median-running stations, there are pros and cons to
both designs. After considering the effects of both to the existing street and infrastructure,
the median-running stations provide a more favorable alternative to the curb-running
stations. The impact to the existing infrastructure, the need to relocate utilities,
obstructions to access points and businesses is mostly eliminated with the median-running
station design. At each median station location, the roadway will need to be widened.to
accommodate the median station platform plus two bus lanes and two traffic lanes. The
widening for the median bus stations in the ITP will range from a symmetrical 2 to 4 feet of widening
for ITP Stations 1 through 3 and ITP Station 5. ITP Station 4 will require 1.5 feet of widening on the

north side and 10 feet of widening on the south side. In all locations a minimum 5 foot width
sidewalk will be provided utilizing existing or required sidewalk. All work will be contained inside
present right-of-way. The widening area currently contains curb and gutter, sidewalk, tree grates,
parking meters and various utilities, and has been previously disturbed (see Attachment C). The
details of this widening were discussed in the last two public meetings in October 2018 and
the public meetings in February 2019. The median-running station design also provides a
more exclusive lane for buses compared to the curb-running design. Pedestrian crossings
from sidewalks to median platforms would be designed at signalized intersections and
crosswalks to maximize pedestrian safety.
At the request of FTA Region 4 the City of Birmingham undertook a detailed outreach to
affected businesses along the ITP route and has prepared a Public Outreach Summary
documenting these and other public meetings and associated with the overall project
(Attachment E).
Increase Amount of Dedicated Guideways
The current BRT scope calls for a combination of dedicated bus lanes or guideways and mixed-
use traffic lanes within the approximately 10-mile corridor. The original plan included 2.1
miles or 21% of guideways. The equivalent of 2.8 miles will be added in the West Segment on
6th Avenue South/Southwest, MLK Drive, Lomb Avenue, Bessemer Road, and Avenue West,
extending the total guideway to 4.9 miles or 49% of the corridor (reference Attachment F).
While the current grant is grandfathered regarding the percentage of dedicated guideways,
this increase in the length of dedicated guideways will bring the project more into
conformance with current FTA guidelines.
Procure 60-Foot Articulated Buses

The City is undergoing competitive procurement for 40-foot compressed natural gas (CNG)
buses. This does not qualify under any ALDOT schedule. The RFP was issued in January (as
reported at the last QPRM and included in the detail schedule). Negotiations with one vendor
were conducted, but the City has not received a final offer and has not made an award.
Since the time of the RFP release, the BRT alignment is undergoing changes, as described
above. One in particular, changing ITP stations from curb-running to median-running, will
require doors on either sides of the bus (non-standard), or, run contra-flow to traffic which
adds cost to construct a physical separation. As such, the City is evaluating 60-foot articulating
buses with doors on both sides that would facilitate traversing median stations in one
segment of the corridor to curb stations in others while maintaining normal flow. This also
avoids the cost of the physical separation for contra-flow and improves overall cost per
passenger mile (capital and operating).

The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) is also considering 60-foot
articulated vehicles on its high ridership routes and is fully aware of the operational
adjustments that may be required to operate these buses. In addition, the TIGER grant has
funds budgeted to make necessary changes to the VMSF, at the current facility or new
location, as required to accommodate maintenance. The current RFP includes other aspects
required such as training, spare parts, and specialty tools, which will remain a requirement
for the new buses.
To make the change, the City would immediately cancel the current procurement, and go
back to the vendors with a new request. This is the normal process that meets City and State
requirements. A teleconference was held on August 10, 2018, with Region 4 and PMOC
representatives. All were in concurrence with the City’s proposed plan.
We appreciate your consideration of this proposed change to the current grant scope. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at 241.223.2719 or
howard.richards@birminghamal.gov.
Sincerely,
Howard Richards, P.E.

Deputy Director/BRT Program Manager
C: Kevon Owens, Assistant to Mayor Randall Woodfin, City of Birmingham

Andre Bittas, Director of Capital Management Projects, City of Birmingham
Louis Montgomery, Regulatory Director, Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc.
Enclosures: Environmental Re-evaluation Consultation with attachments

ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EVALUATION CONSULTATION
Note: The purpose of this worksheet is to assist sponsoring agencies in gathering and organizing
materials for re-evaluations required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is
designed to provide FTA with information needed to do a re-evaluation. In lieu of the worksheet, the
sponsoring agency may submit the same information in a different format. Submission of the
worksheet by itself does not meet NEPA requirements. FTA must concur in writing with its
determination and/or the sponsoring agency's NEPA recommendation. Contact the FTA Region 4
Planner if you have any questions regarding this worksheet. We strongly encourage you to contact
us to discuss your project changes before you fill out this worksheet.
For Agency Use

Date Received:
Recommendation by Planner or Engineer: Reviewed By:
Accept Return for Revisions Date:
Not Eligible
Comments:
Concurrence by Regional Counsel: Reviewed By:

Accept Recommendation Return with Comments Date:
Comments:
Concurrence by Approving Official: Date:
Please answer the following questions, fill out the impact chart and attach project area and site
maps. Using a site map from the previously approved NEPA document, show project changes using a
different color. Include additional site maps to help reviewer understand project changes.
PROJECT TITLE
Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit “Connecting Our Neighborhoods to Opportunities”
LIST CURRENT, APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS (e.g. EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI, BA, RE-
EVALUATION, etc.) If Re-evaluation, briefly describe.
Title: Documented Categorical Exclusion Date: December 29, 2016
Type and Date of Last Federal Action CE, January 27, 2018
Title: Date: Type and Date of Last Federal Action
Title: Date: Type and Date of Last Federal Action
Re-evaluation worksheet
FTA Page 1 of 8
HAS THE MOST CURRENT AND OTHER PERTINENT APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS BEEN RE-READ TO COMPARE PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGES?
NO (STOP! The most current approved environmental document MUST be re-read prior to
completing a re-evaluation.)
YES NAME: Recommendation of Findings for the Proposed Tiger 7 Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) Project located in Birmingham, Jefferson, Alabama as a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE)
DATE: December 29, 2016
IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION?
REASON FOR RE-EVALUATION
Change the originally approved grant scope to allow for changes that eliminate the need for new road
construction, thus keeping the entire BRT route in the existing right of way, provide for more dedicated
Guideways to more closely conform to current FTA guidelines, and to take advantage of improved
transportation technologies.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CHANGES OR NEW INFORMATION
1. Fair Park/CrossPlex Alternative Alignment: Change location of the west BRT guideway
alignment from presently undeveloped property owned by the City (CrossPlex) to the existing
US11 highway right-of-way, generally located in the area known as Fair Park,
2. Eliminate BRT Station ITP-6
3. Change the ITP segment stations and guideway from curb running to median running,
4. Increase amount of dedicated guideways, and
5. Procure 60-foot articulated buses: Provide for the purchase of ten 60-foot articulating buses rather
than the originally intended fifteen 40-foot single body buses.
HAVE ANY NEW OR REVISED LAWS OR REGULATIONS BEEN ISSUED SINCE APPROVAL OF
THE LAST ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT AFFECTS THIS PROJECT? If yes, please explain.
NO
YES
WILL THE NEW INFORMATION HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A CHANGE IN THE
DETERMINATION OF IMPACTS FROM WHAT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR ANY OF THE AREAS LISTED BELOW? For each impact
category, please indicate whether there will be a change in impacts. For all categories with a change,
continue to the table at the end of this worksheet and provide detailed descriptions of the impacts as
initially disclosed, new impacts and a discussion of the changes. The change in impact may be beneficial
or adverse.
Transportation Yes No
Land Use and Economics Yes No
FTA Page 2 of 8
Acquisitions, Displacements, & Relocations Yes No
Neighborhoods & Populations (Social) Yes No
Visual Resources & Aesthetics Yes No
Air Quality Yes No
Noise & Vibration Yes No
Ecosystems (Vegetation & Wildlife) Yes No
Water Resources Yes No
Energy & Natural Resources Yes No
Geology & Soils Yes No
Hazardous Materials Yes No
Public Services Yes No
Utilities Yes No
Historic, Cultural & Archaeological Resources Yes No
Parklands & Recreation Yes No
Construction Yes No
Secondary and Cumulative Yes No
Will the changed conditions or new information result in revised documentation or determination
under the following federal regulations?
Endangered Species Act Yes No

Magnuson-Stevens Act Yes No
Farmland Preservation Act Yes No
Section 404-Clean Water Act Yes No
Floodplain Management Act Yes No
Hazardous Materials Yes No
Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Yes No
Uniform Relocation Act Yes No
Section 4(f) Lands Yes No
Section 6(f) Lands Yes No
Wild & Scenic Rivers Yes No
Coastal Barriers Yes No
Coastal Zone Yes No
FTA Page 3 of 8
Sole Source Aquifer Yes No
National Scenic Byways Yes No
Other Yes No
If you checked yes to any of these, describe how the changes impact compliance and any actions
needed to ensure compliance of the new project: N/A
Will these changes or new information likely result in substantial public controversy?
Yes No
Comments: Public Involvement meetings were held during the week of October1st and are documented
in Attachment E.
COMMENTS:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We anticipate no material environmental impacts and

recommend recertifying the project as DCE upon completion and documentation of required studies.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Attached are as follows:

A CrossPlex Guideway Alternative Route Evaluation
B CrossPlex Guideway Alternative Route Evaluation Conceptual Approval
C ITP Stations & Guideway Alignment Evaluation
D ITP Median Running Guideway Operations Analysis
E Public Outreach Summary
F Western Sector Guideway Additions
SUBMITTED BY:
By signing this, I certify that to the best of my knowledge this document is complete and accurate.
Name Howard Richards Date August 8, 2018
Title Deputy Director, Capital Projects

Management Office
Submit two paper copies of this form, attachments, and a transmittal letter recommending a NEPA finding
to the address below. Or you may submit one electronic version to the appropriate FTA Region 4 Planner.
When the document is approved, FTA may request additional copies.
Federal Transit Administration, Region 4 phone: (404) 865-5600

230 Peachtree Street, Suite 800 fax: (404) 865-5605
Atlanta, GA 30303-1512
FTA Page 4 of 8
Impact Category Impacts as Initially Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts
Transportation The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The change will eliminate considerable
the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to construction cost and approximately 3.5
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the acres of impervious area
undeveloped portion of the entire BRT route will be within the
Birmingham CrossPlex site. existing operational right-of-way
Land Use and The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The change will eliminate considerable
Economics the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to construction cost and approximately 3.5
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the acres of impervious area
Acquisitions, No change from approved grant anticipated

Displacements, &
Relocations
Neighborhoods & No change from approved grant

Populations (Social) anticipated
FTA Page 5 of 8
Visual Resources & No change from approved grant
Aesthetics anticipated
Air Quality The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The proposed change will result in less
the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to construction than in the approved grant and
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the less particulate air impact to air quality
Noise & Vibration The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The proposed change will result in less
the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to construction than in the approved grant and
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the less noise and vibration
Ecosystems No change from approved grant

(Vegetation & anticipated
Wildlife)
Water Resources No change from approved grant

anticipated
FTA Page 6 of 8
Energy & Natural No change from approved grant
Resources anticipated
Geology & Soils No change from approved grant anticipated
Hazardous Materials No change from approved grant anticipated
Public Services No change from approved grant anticipated
Utilities No change from approved grant anticipated
Historic, Cultural & No change from approved grant anticipated

Archaeological
Resources
Parklands & No change from approved grant anticipated

Recreation
FTA Page 7 of 8
Construction The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The proposed change will result in less
the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to construction than in the approved grant
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the
Secondary and No change from approved grant anticipated

Cumulative
Other
Floodplains The existing approved grant calls for The proposed change will utilize The proposed change will result in less
the construction of approximately existing roadway on Highway 11 to impact to floodplains than in the approved
3,168 feet of new roadway through an arrive at the same location so that the grant
Birmingham CrossPlex site that is in existing operational right-of-way
a floodplain.
FTA Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
CrossPlex Guideway
Alternative Route Evaluation
City of Birmingham Transit Program
TIGER 7 Bus Rapid Transit Project
Alternative Route Evaluation - Fair Park Area
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Prepared by:
April 27, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1
Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................... 4
Alternative Alignments ................................................................................................................ 4
Alternative Alignment Screening ................................................................................................. 6
Study Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 7
Additional Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................. 7
Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................ 7
No Build Traffic Forecasts ............................................................................................................ 11
Future No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................... 11
Alternative Alignment Concept .................................................................................................... 15
Build Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................................................. 17
Future Build Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. 17
Alternative Alignment Details ...................................................................................................... 21
Travel Time Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 21
Mass Transit ................................................................................................................................. 21
Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 29
ADA/Accessibility ......................................................................................................................... 29
Bicycle Facilities/Active Transportation ....................................................................................... 29
Impact to Parking ......................................................................................................................... 33
Typical Cross‐Sections .................................................................................................................. 33
Right‐of‐Way ................................................................................................................................ 33
Design Vehicle Considerations ..................................................................................................... 33
Transit Signal Priority ................................................................................................................... 36
Summary Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................... 36
Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 39

Skipper Consulting, Inc. Page i
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 2
2 Original BRT Alignment ...................................................................................... 3
3 Alternative BRT Alignments ............................................................................... 5
4 Study Intersections ............................................................................................ 8
5 Existing Traffic Counts ........................................................................................ 9
6 2021 No Build Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 12
7 2040 No Build Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 13
8 Alternative Alignment Concept ......................................................................... 16
9 2021 Build Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 18
10 2040 Build Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 19
11A‐E Alternative Alignment Details ............................................................................ 22‐26
12 MAX Routes and Stops ....................................................................................... 28
13 Sidewalks and Walkways ................................................................................... 30
14 ADA Ramp Requirements .................................................................................. 31
15 Bicycle/Active Transportation Facilities ............................................................. 32
16 Typical Cross‐Sections ........................................................................................ 34
17 Design Vehicle Considerations ........................................................................... 35

Table
1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 10
2 No Build Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................. 14
3 Future Build Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................ 20
4 Travel Time Studies ............................................................................................ 27
5 Future Intersection Levels of Service with TSP .................................................. 37
6 Intersection Level of Service Summary .............................................................. 38
7 Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................... 40

Skipper Consulting, Inc. Page ii
Introduction
This report documents a study performed to analyze the impacts of a proposed change of alignment of
the Birmingham TIGER 7 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project in the vicinity of Fair Park. The study area is
shown in Figure 1.

The original route for the BRT is through the property previously occupied by the Alabama State
Fairgrounds. The original route from the proposed Five Point West Transit Center turns right onto
Avenue W, then left onto a new exclusive busway through the old Fairgrounds property, intersects
Fairgrounds Road near the U.S. Post Office, and then turns right onto Lomb Avenue. This route is shown
in Figure 2.

From the intersection of Lomb Avenue/Fairgrounds Road to the Five Points West Transit Center, the
original BRT route is 3,950 feet long. Of this total length, 2,770 feet is exclusive BRT busway, and the
remainder of 1,180 feet is mixed‐flow traffic.

The only proposed BRT stop/station within the study area is the Five Points West Transit Center, which is
located on the west side of Avenue W south of 47th Street and north of the Birmingham Public Library
Five Points West Branch. The location of the Five Points West Transit Center is shown in Figure 2.

Purpose and Need
This study was commissioned by the City of Birmingham to perform a re‐evaluation of the alignment of
the proposed BRT in the vicinity of Fair Park. Information communicated by the City of Birmingham
indicates that property which was proposed for the BRT route through the old Alabama State
Fairgrounds is subject to lease agreements which would prohibit the construction of the exclusive fixed
busway through the property. Therefore, a study to determine the best alternative routing for the BRT
from the Five Points West Transit Center to Lomb Avenue was undertaken.

Skipper Consulting, Inc. Page 1
Previous Studies
Some information used in this report was obtained from two previous studies conducted for the TIGER 7
Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit project:

 Concept Design Report, City of Birmingham Transit Program – TIGER 7 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Project, dated April 3, 2017, prepared for the City of Birmingham and the Birmingham‐Jefferson
County Transit Authority by STRADA Professional Services and VHB.
 Capacity Analysis Report, Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit, Birmingham, Alabama (Jefferson
County), dated October 20,2016, prepared for STRADA Professional Services by Sain Associates
and Vision Engineering and Planning.

Alternative Alignments
Five (5) alternative alignments were developed to replace the original proposed alignment. These
alternative alignments are shown in Figure 3. The following is a brief description of each alternative
alignment:

 Alternate 1 (red) – utilizes Avenue W, Bessemer Road (US‐11) and Lomb Avenue around the
north side of the Fairgrounds/Crossplex property
 Alternate 2 (blue)‐ utilizes Avenue W, roadways inside the Crossplex, Bessemer Road (US‐11)
and Lomb Avenue
 Alternate 3 (green) – utilizes Fayette Avenue, an old road bed, roadways inside the Crossplex
property, and Avenue W
 Alternate 4 (cyan) – utilizes Fayette Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Avenue W around the south
side of the Fairgrounds/Crossplex property
 Alternate 5 (magenta) – utilizes roadways inside the Fairground/Crossplex property

Alternative Alignment Screening
A primary goal in development of an alternative alignment to replace the original alignment of the BRT
is to maintain exclusive busway. Due to the current width of paving of Fayette Avenue (37 feet),
Madison Avenue (22 feet) and roadways internal to the Crossplex property (24 feet in most cases),
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were eliminated from further consideration in favor of detailed analyses of
Alternatives 1 and 2

Reviewing the Alternatives 1 and 2, there exists the possibility of significant sections of exclusive busway
along both Avenue W and Bessemer Road (US‐11), and to a lesser extent on Lomb Avenue. The
following shows the estimated lengths of exclusive busway and mixed‐flow traffic for Alternatives 1 and
2 as compared to the original BRT alignment:

Total Length Exclusive Busway Mixed‐Flow Traffic
Original Alignment 3,950 feet 2,770 feet 1,180 feet

Westbound 3,700 feet Westbound 310 feet
Alternate 1 (red) 4,010 feet
Eastbound 2,880 feet Eastbound 1,130 feet

Westbound 2,160 feet Westbound 2,125 feet
Alternate 2 (blue) 4,285 feet
Eastbound 2,285 feet Eastbound 2,000 feet

Since Alternate 2 has less exclusive busway, and since the travel time on Alternate 2 is longer than
Alternate 1 (as shown in a later section of this report), Alternate 2 was removed from further
consideration in favor of detailed analyses of Alternate 1.

Study Intersections
In order to determine traffic impacts of implementation of Alternate 1 for the BRT alignment, peak hour
intersection capacity analyses were performed for intersections which would be impacted by changes
necessitated by the implementation of the proposed BRT alignment. The study intersections are shown
in Figure 4, and include:

1. Bessemer Road (US‐11) at Lomb Avenue
2. Bessemer Road (US‐11) at Avenue X/Crossplex Access
3. Bessemer Road (US‐11) at Ensley‐Five Points West Avenue/Avenue W
4. Avenue W at 5 Points West Shopping City Access/Crossplex Access
5. Avenue W at 47th Street
6. Avenue W at Bill Harris Arena Access/Birmingham Public Library Access

Additional Traffic Counts
Intersection turning movement traffic counts were performed at the study intersections from 7:00 to
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday to Thursday, March 21 to 22, 2018 by Traffic Data, LLC on
behalf of Skipper Consulting, Inc. AM and p.m. peak hours of traffic flow were calculated from the
counts. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 5.

Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection capacity analyses were performed for the study
intersections using the methodology outlines in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the
Transportation Research Board. Capacities are expressed as levels of service, and range from a level of
service “A” (highest quality of service) to a level of service “F” (jammed conditions). As a general rule,
operation at a level of service “C” or better is desirable, with a level of service “D” considered acceptable
during peak hours of traffic flow. The results of the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection
capacity analyses are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Existing Intersection Levels of Service

Existing LOS
Intersection Approach
AM PM
WB Lomb Ave D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) B A
Lomb Avenue SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A
Intersection B B
EB Avenue X E E
WB Crossplex E E
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at
NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A
Avenue X/Crossplex
SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A
Intersection A A
EB Ensley‐Five Points W Rd D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at WB Avenue W D D
Ensley‐Five Points West NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) C B
Avenue/Avenue W SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) D B
Intersection D C
EB Avenue W A A
WB Avenue W A A
Avenue W at 5 Points West
NB 5 Points West Shopping City C D
Shopping City/Crossplex
SB Crossplex C D
Intersection A A
EB Avenue W ‐‐ ‐‐
Avenue W at 47th Street WB Avenue W A A
th
Ensley NB 47 St Ensley B D
Intersection (1) (1)
EB Avenue W A A
WB Avenue W A A
Avenue W at Library
NB Library Access B C
Access/Crossplex
SB Crossplex A A
Intersection (1) (1)
(1) – overall intersection level of service is not defined for unsignalized intersections

No Build Traffic Forecasts
Using the traffic growth rate derived by Sain Associates/Vision Engineering and Planning in their October
20, 2016 report, traffic volumes were projected forward to the years 2021 (opening day BRT) and 2040.
The growth rates taken from the Sain Associates/Vision Engineering and Planning report for this section
of the BRT alignment were a 1.048 multiplier from 2016 to 2021 and a 1.225 multiplier from 2016 to
2040. However, since the traffic counts performed for this study were conducted in 2018, the following
multipliers were calculated: a 1.029 multiplier from 2018 to 2021 and a 1.206 multiplier from 2018 to
2040. The forecast 2021 and 2040 No Build (i.e., no BRT) traffic volumes are shown in Figures 6 and 7.

Future No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
Future a.m. and p.m. peak hour No Build 2021 and 2040 intersection capacity analyses were performed
for the study intersections. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
No Build Intersection Levels of Service

No Build 2021 LOS No Build 2040 LOS
AM PM AM PM
WB Lomb Ave D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) B A C B
Lomb Avenue SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A B
Intersection C B C B
EB Avenue X E E E E
WB Crossplex E E E E
NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A A
Avenue X/Crossplex
SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A A
Intersection A A A A
EB Ensley‐Five Points W Rd D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at WB Avenue W D D D D
Ensley‐Five Points West NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) C C C C
Avenue/Avenue W SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) D B D C
Intersection D C D D
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
Avenue W at 5 Points West NB 5 Points West Shopping
C D C D
Shopping City/Crossplex City
SB Crossplex C D C D
EB Avenue W ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
th
Avenue W at 47 Street WB Avenue W A A A B
Ensley NB 47th St Ensley C D C F
Intersection (1) (1) (1) (1)
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
Avenue W at Library
NB Library Access B C B C
Access/Crossplex
SB Crossplex A A A A

Alternative Alignment Concept
The conceptual plan for implementation of Alternate 1 of the realignment of the BRT route is shown in
Figure 8. In general, the concept provides for exclusive busway in the following locations:

 Westbound flow (Lomb Avenue to Five Points West Transit Center)
o Exclusive BRT lane for northbound left turns from Lomb Avenue to Bessemer Road (US‐
11)
o Exclusive BRT lane using the center lane on Bessemer Road (US‐11), up to the beginning
of the left turn lane for the left turn from Bessemer Road (US‐11) onto Avenue W
 This exclusive BRT lane would allow the BRT to use the left turn lane from
Bessemer Road (US‐11) southbound into the Crossplex as a through lane for
buses only. Special signing and signalization will be needed.
o Exclusive BRT lane using the southbound outside lane on Avenue W, from Bessemer
Road (US‐11) to the access drive to the Five Points West Transit Center
 Eastbound flow (Five Points West Transit Center to Lomb Avenue)
o Exclusive BRT lane using the northbound outside lane on Avenue W, from the access
drive to the Five Points West Transit Center to Bessemer Road (US‐11)
o Exclusive BRT lane using the outside lane on Bessemer Road (US‐11) from the Avenue X/
Crossplex access to Lomb Avenue

Other specific requirements which are needed to implement the proposed BRT realignment which are
also shown on Figure 8 include:

 Restriping the right turn lane on Lomb Avenue northbound at Bessemer Road as a shared
left/right combination lane
 Eliminating the left turn from Bessemer Road (US‐11) northbound onto Avenue X
 Restriping the outside through lane on Ensley‐Five Points West Avenue southbound at Bessemer
Road (US‐11) as an exclusive right turn lane
 Restriping the outside through lane on Avenue W northbound at Bessemer Road (US‐11) as an
exclusive right turn lane
 Restriping the outside through lane on Avenue W northbound at the access to Bill Harris Arena
as an exclusive right turn lane
Build Traffic Forecasts
According to the analysis performed by VHB in their April 3, 2017 report, the proposed BRT is estimated
to result in a 2% reduction on vehicle travel on roadways in the vicinity of the BRT. This reduction was
applied to 2021 and 2040 No Build traffic volumes to derive 2021 and 2040 Build traffic volumes. 2021
and 2040 Build traffic volumes are shown in Figures 9 and 10.

Future Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
Future a.m. and p.m. peak hour Build 2021 and 2040 intersection capacity analyses were performed for
the study intersections. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Future Build Intersection Levels of Service

Build 2021 Build 2040
AM PM AM PM
WB Lomb Ave D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) B B C B
Intersection B C C C
EB Avenue X E E E E
Avenue X/Crossplex
Ensley‐Five Points West NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) C C C D
Avenue/Avenue W SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) D C D D
Intersection D D D D
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
NB 5 Points West Shopping City C D C D
EB Avenue W ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Avenue W at 47th Street WB Avenue W A A A B
th
Ensley NB 47 St Ensley C E C F
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
Avenue W at Library
NB Library Access C C C C
Access/Crossplex
Yellow shaded cell represents significant impact as compared to No Build conditions

Alternative Alignment Details
Figures 11‐A through 11‐E present detailed conceptual drawings for the proposed alternate alignment.

Travel Time Impacts
In order to determine the impact due to the proposed alternate alignment on BRT travel times, a series
of travel time runs were performed on the route of Alternatives 1 and 2. The westbound route was run
from the intersection of Lomb Avenue at Fairgrounds Road to the entrance to the parking lot in front of
the Birmingham Public Library. The eastbound route was run from the entrance to the parking lot in
front of the Birmingham Public Library to the intersection of Lomb Avenue at Fairgrounds Road.

The travel time runs were performed 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
Six runs per direction were performed for each alternative. The results of the travel time runs are
documented in Table 4.

Mass Transit
The study area is served by five (5) MAX routes:

 Route 4 – Avenue I (runs on Avenue W)
 Route 5 – Ensley‐Wylam (runs on Bessemer Road)
 Route 45 – Bessemer (runs on Bessemer Road)
 Route 45 Express (runs on Bessemer Road)
 Route 95 West End Shuttle (runs on Avenue W)

There are twelve (12) MAX stops within the study area. Five (5) are located on Bessemer Road (US‐11),
six (6) are located on Avenue W, and one (1) is located in Five Points West Shopping City. The MAX
routes and stops within the study area are shown in Figure 12.

Table 4
Travel Time Studies
Birmingham BRT Route Re‐Evaluation
Original route travel time from VISSIM: 1:48
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Alternate Route 1 Alternate Route 1 Alternate Route 1
Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound
Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time
7:03 2:40 7:00 2:36 11:03 4:07 11:00 2:13 4:03 3:19 4:00 2:32
7:10 3:43 7:07 2:48 11:11 3:27 11:07 3:25 4:11 4:30 4:07 3:20
7:18 2:34 7:14 3:27 11:19 3:11 11:15 2:41 4;20 3:14 4:16 3:27
7:25 3:09 7:21 2:57 11:25 3:24 11:22 2:21 4:27 4:02 4:23 3:04
7:31 3:41 7:28 2:08 11:32 3:04 11:29 2:13 4:35 4:05 4:32 2:44
7:39 3:20 7:43 2:47 11:39 2:58 11:36 2:32 4:44 3:42 4:40 2:46
Average 3:11 Average 2:47 Average 3:21 Average 2:34 Average 3:49 Average 2:59

Alternate Route 2 Alternate Route 2 Alternate Route 2
Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound
Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time Start Time Run Time
7:48 3:04 7:44 3:19 11:49 3:20 11:46 3:00 4:59 3:52 4:55 2:52
7:55 3:54 7:52 3:01 11:59 2:56 11:53 2:52 5:06 3:55 5:03 2:46
8:03 3:53 8:00 2:41 12:07 3:55 12:03 3:06 5:16 4:05 5:11 4:00
8:11 4:04 8:08 2:52 12:17 4:07 12:12 3:05 5:24 4:33 5:20 3:22
8:19 4:18 8:16 2:50 12:25 4:04 12:22 2:55 5:32 4:43 5:29 2:29
8:27 4:14 8:24 2:27 12:33 4:59 12:30 2:38 5:40 3:37 5:37 2:41
Average 3:55 Average 2:52 Average 3:54 Average 2:56 Average 4:08 Average 3:02

Page 27
Pedestrian Facilities
The study area is served by a significant sidewalk and walkway network. This includes sidewalks along
several of the public roadways, a sidewalk network within the Crossplex property, and new 5 foot wide
asphalt surface mulit‐use path constructed along Avenue W and Bessemer Road (US‐11) within the
Crossplex property. Sidewalks are noticeable absent along a significant section of Bessemer Road (US‐
11) within the study area. Figure 13 is an inventory of sidewalks and walkways within the study area.

ADA/Accessibility
A review of ADA handicap ramps at public roadways intersections, specifically on Lomb Avenue,
Bessemer Road (US‐11), and Avenue W was performed to determine if the current handicap ramps
meet ADAAG requirements. ADA ramps were flagged as needed truncated dome mats added, or if the
required ramp was either missing or in need of reconstruction. The results of this review are shown in
Figure 14.

Bicycle Facilities/Active Transportation
There are no existing bicycle facilities or other similar active transportation facilities within the study
area. The current Active Transportation Plan for the Birmingham area does not show any proposed
bicycle or active transportation facilities within the study area – in fact, it does not show any facilities
whatsoever. The draft Active Transportation Plan for the Birmingham area (not adopted as of the date
of this report) shows a proposed bicycle facility along Avenue W within the study area. The plan does
not indicate the character of the proposed bicycle facility. The older Active Transportation Plan, known
as the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System shows a greenway along the abandoned railroad bed
which borders the southeast side of the study area. The report refers to this greenway as the Jones
Valley Rail Trail. The VHB Concept Design Report recommends an Active Transportation connection
between the Five Points West Transit Center and the proposed Jones Valley Rail Trail. A sidewalk already
exists along Avenue W from the Five Point West Transit Center and the location where the Jones Valley
Rail Trail would cross Avenue W. The locations of the proposed Avenue W bicycle facility and the Jones
Valley Rail Trail are shown in Figure 15.

Impacts to Parking
There is no parking on any roadway where the alternate alignment for the BRT is proposed.

Typical Cross‐Sections
Figure 16 depicts typical cross‐sections for sections where exclusive busways are proposed. The first
typical cross‐section depicts Bessemer Road (US‐11) between Lomb Avenue and Avenue X, where the
westbound exclusive busway is in the center lane. The second cross‐section depicts Avenue W between
47th Street and the 5 Points West Shopping City access.

Right‐of‐Way
The proposed alignment consists of work within the existing curb lines and is entirely within the existing
rights‐of‐way.

Design Vehicle Considerations
Two areas of concern were studied to ensure that the turning path of the BRT bus could be
accommodated geometrically. The first area is the left turn from Lomb Avenue northbound onto
Bessemer Road southbound. This movement would often be made in conjunction with two passenger
cars turning left also in the adjacent lanes. The drawing shown in Figure 17 shows that the BRT bus can
make the left turn without conflict with two adjacent passenger cars also making the left turn.

The second area of concern is the right turn from the BRT lane on Avenue W southbound into the
driveway serving the Five Points West Transit Center. The drawing shown in Figure 17 shows that the
BRT bus will not be able to make this turn. The movement will require either improvement to the curb
radius or removal of the landscaped median on the driveway.

Transit Signal Priority
Successful implementation of the proposed alternate alignment will benefit from Transit Signal Priority
(TSP) to improve service time for the BRT. The following situations will benefit from TSP:

 The left turn from Lomb Avenue northbound onto Bessemer Road (US‐11) southbound is a
minor movement at the traffic signal. TSP would allow this movement to be served sooner or
the green extended as needed. High priority is recommended for TSP implementation at this
intersection.
 The left turn lane from Bessemer Road (US‐11) southbound into the Crossplex needs to be given
priority in order to clear out left turning vehicles ahead of the BRT bus as soon as possible. High
priority is recommended for TSP implementation at this intersection.
 The left turn from Bessemer Road (US‐11) southbound onto Avenue W is a minor movement at
the traffic signal. TSP would allow this movement to be served sooner or the green extended as
needed. High priority is recommended for TSP implementation at this intersection.
 The access from the Five Points West Transit Center onto Avenue W would benefit from TSP to
allow a BRT bus to enter Avenue W quicker. High priority is recommended for TSP
implementation at this intersection.

The use of TSP would have some impact on intersection levels of service due to reallocation of green
time to favor movements used by the BRT. Table 5 shows the future 2021 and 2040 intersection levels
of service with TSP in place.

Summary Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 6 presents a summary of all intersection level of service analyses performed for this study.

Table 5
Future Intersection Levels of Service with TSP

Build 2021 w/TSP Build 2040 w/TSP
AM PM AM PM
WB Lomb Ave D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A B C B
EB Avenue X E E E E
Avenue X/Crossplex
Ensley‐Five Points West NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) C C C D
Avenue/Avenue W SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) D C D D
Intersection D D D D
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
NB 5 Points West Shopping City C D C D
EB Avenue W ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Avenue W at 47th Street WB Avenue W A A A B
th
Ensley NB 47 St Ensley C E C F
EB Avenue W A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A
Avenue W at Library
NB Library Access C C C C
Access/Crossplex
Yellow shaded cell represents significant impact as compared to no build conditions
TSP – transit signal priority

Table 6
Intersection Levels of Service Summary

Existing LOS No Build 2021 LOS No Build 2040 LOS Build 2021 LOS Build 2040 LOS Build 2021 w/TSP LOS Build 2040 w/TSP LOS
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
WB Lomb Ave D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) B A B A C B B B C B A B C B
Lomb Avenue SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A A A B A A A B A A A B
Intersection B B C B C B B C C C B C C C
EB Avenue X E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
WB Crossplex E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Avenue X/Crossplex
SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Intersection A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
EB Ensley‐Five Points W Rd D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Bessemer Road (US‐11) at WB Avenue W D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Ensley‐Five Points West NB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) C B C C C C C C C D C C C D
Avenue/Avenue W SB Bessemer Rd (US‐11) D B D B D C D C D D D C D D
Intersection D C D C D D D D D D D D D D
EB Avenue W A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
NB 5 Points West Shopping City C D C D C D C D C D C D C D
SB Crossplex C D C D C D C D C D C D C D
Intersection A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
EB Avenue W ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Avenue W at 47th Street WB Avenue W A A A A A B A A A B A A A B
th
Ensley NB 47 St Ensley B D C D C F C E C F C E C F
Intersection (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
EB Avenue W A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
WB Avenue W A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Avenue W at Library
NB Library Access B C B C B C C C C C C C C C
Access/Crossplex
SB Crossplex A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Intersection (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) A A A A A A A A
Yellow shaded cell represents significant impact as compared to no build conditions
TSP – transit signal priority

Cost Estimate
A cost estimate to construct the proposed alternate alignment of the BRT was prepared. The cost
estimate assumes that the Bus Only lane will be constructed by milling approximately 1” of asphalt in
the Bus Only lane and then overlaying the milled area with 1” of colored concrete paving. The cost
estimate is presented in Table 7. The total cost for the alternate alignment, including construction,
engineering and surveying is estimated at $1.259 million dollars. While the VHB Concept Design Report
does not have a cost breakdown for the original BRT by segment, the VHB report does state the
construction cost for exclusive 2 lane busway at $5.004 million dollars. With all the additives applied as
per the VHB report, the cost for the exclusive busway alone would be $8.344 million dollars. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed alternate alignment would result in a cost savings to the project of
$7.085 million dollars.

Table 7
Cost Estimate

Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Traffic Signals (new)
Avenue W/Transit Center each $225,000 1 $225,000
Traffic Signal Modifications
Bessemer Road/Lomb Avenue each $10,000 1 $10,000
Bessemer Road/Avenue X each $20,000 1 $20,000
Bessemer Road/Avenue W each $5,000 1 $5,000
Avenue W/5 Points West SC each $5,000 1 $5,000
Bessmer Road/Lomb Avenue each $15,000 1 $15,000
Bessemer Road/Avenue X each $15,000 1 $15,000
Bessemer Road/Avenue W each $15,000 1 $15,000
Avenue W/Transit Center each $15,000 1 $15,000
Bus Lane Mill/Pave
milling sq.yd. $3.05 9095 $27,740
concrete paving sq.yd. $14.40 9095 $130,968
Curb Radius Improvement ‐ Avenue W at Transit Center
Remove curb and gutter lin.ft. $12.50 50 $625
Install curb and gutter lin.ft. $25.00 50 $1,250
patch paving sq.yd. $18.00 18 $324
ADA ramp each $2,000 1 $2,000
ADA Improvements
curb ramp each $2,000 2 $4,000
truncated dome mat each $350 11 $3,850
Pavement Markings
removal lump sum $2,000 1 $2,000
crosswalk line, 6" white lin.ft. $5.00 240 $1,200
stop line, 2' white lin.ft. $20.00 110 $2,200
BUS, white thermoplastic each $110 26 $2,860
ONLY, white thermoplastic each $225 28 $6,300
left turn arrow, white each $165 1 $165
right turn arrow, white each $165 8 $1,320
combo arrow, white each $230 1 $230
dotted while line, 6" lin.ft. $2.50 200 $500
dotted yellow line, 6" lin.ft. $2.50 65 $163
traffic separator line, double 6" white line lin.ft. $5.00 6580 $32,900
Construction Line Item Total $545,594
traffic handling (7%) $38,192
landscaping (1%) $5,456
Construction fuel (1%) $5,456
erosion control (1%) $5,456
permits and legal fees (1%) $5,456
Insurance (1%) $5,456
engineering controls (1.5%) $8,184
utility adjustments (5%) $27,280
project development (4%) $21,824
mobilization (10%) $5,456
Construction subtotal $673,809
contingencies (25%) $168,452
construction engineering and inspection (15%) $126,339
Construction total $968,600
engineering (20%) $193,720
surveying (10%) $96,860
Grand Total $1,259,180

Page 40
Attachment B
CrossPlex Guideway
Alternative Route Evaluation
Conceptual Approval
Attachment C
ITP Stations & Guideway
Alignment Evaluation
City of Birmingham
ITP Stations & Guideway Alignment Evaluation
Background
The City of Birmingham, along with Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA), determined that
a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system would play an important role in the future transportation network for the
city. The City’s desire to increase mobility for its residents led them to apply for and receive funding under
the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) federal discretionary grant program.
A portion of this funding is allocated to BRT stations within the downtown segment of the system, also
referred to as the ITP segment, which begins at 18th Street N & 1st Avenue N and runs to 8th Street S & 6th
Avenue S.
The Wendel design team was engaged to develop a design for twelve initial downtown stations, two stations
provided at each ITP location. This design process included a site selection assessment for curb-running
station locations. ITP-1 through ITP-6 proposed locations were originally provided in the Bus Rapid Transit
Concept Design Report, prepared for the City of Birmingham and BJCTA. Now, with more detailed design
information, the feasibility of curb-running stations has been questioned due to the impact on the existing
site conditions, the required changes to traffic movements, and the overall safety and security along the
corridor.
Curb-Running Stations Assessment

The design team reviewed the project and site parameters and began assessing the feasibility of the
proposed curb-running station locations within the downtown study area. The first technical parameters
established were the minimum platform depth, length, and sidewalk width. Industry standards were used
to determine this criteria. To begin the assessment, the typical platform plan dimensions were overlaid onto
the existing survey data within the right of way at each station location. The design team then reviewed
each location for any physical and operational conflicts. This began with an evaluation of the existing right-
of-way. The minimum platform depth and length were identified as 12’ and 50’ respectively, and the
minimum pedestrian sidewalk width along the rear side of all stations was identified as 5’ in accordance
with the City of Birmingham design standards. Narrower right of way widths along the corridor, that would
not accommodate this 17’ requirement, would result in deeper, pass-through stations in order to
accommodate additional pedestrian traffic, rather than ones with separate sidewalks.
Another technical parameter for the BRT project is the construction of a raised platform to allow for level
boarding. Construction of curb-running stations would result in significant demolition of the existing
sidewalks in order to construct the new foundations, platforms, ramps, and associated structures. The
design team also assessed the impact that this amount of demolition and construction would have on
existing landscaping and utilities. Rather than being buried in the roadway bed, many of the underground
utilities throughout the downtown study area run underneath the sidewalks. As a result, the stations would
require the relocation of underground utilities, overhead power lines, and existing curbside landscaping at
nearly every proposed location. Together, all three items would result in a significant cost addition to the
project not previously anticipated or budgeted for. Even though curb-running stations do not typically
require roadway widening, their locations do affect existing conditions within the right of way.
The proposed curb running ITP station locations would also impact multiple building and parking entrances
along 5th Avenue South and 18th Street. Examples include stations that would be located directly in front of
page 1
City of Birmingham
business storefronts, directly in front of parking lot/garage entrances and exits, and in close proximity to
intersections or other areas of vehicular traffic movements. All of the preceding circumstances would create
situations in which pedestrian and vehicular safety concerns would become prevalent. In addition to safety
concerns, the locations would also require additional construction and associated costs in order to maintain
access to the impacted properties.
Many of the original Concept Design Report locations were eliminated by the design team because of
physical constraints or operational challenges for businesses/entrances that would have to occur in order
to construct the stations. To confirm the design team’s assumptions, the City worked concurrently with local
business and property owners to confirm the design team’s assumptions. Alternative locations were also
proposed for each ITP location that would not have fatal flaws, and that would produce fewer conflicts with
existing conditions, traffic movements, and safety. Ultimately, after looking at multiple options to relocate,
redesign, move, shift and or reduce station size, it was decided that the curb-running stations may not be
the best design option for the BRT’s ITP Segment.
Median Running Station Evaluation

Following the findings from the curb-running study, the design team began analyzing the feasibility of
median-running stations. Typical roadway plans and cross sections were developed at the station locations
and at the intermediate points between the stations. These prototypical plans were then overlaid onto the
existing survey data along the downtown corridor, at the proposed locations from the Concept Design
Report. Two different design options were considered for the median-running stations; a single platform
design and a double platform design.
The single platform design option (Figure 1) consists of a 16’ wide, double loaded raised platform, two
dedicated bus lanes, two 2’-0” wide raised curbs, two general drive lanes, and two dedicated bike lanes.
The roadway tapers back down to a typical section between each platform (Figure 2). This section consists
of two dedicated bus lanes, two 2’-0” wide raised curbs, two general drive lanes, and two dedicated bike
lanes. The design team was asked to design around the same, single door bus vehicle. Since passengers
would only board and alight on the right side of the vehicle, dedicated contraflow lanes are required. The
raised curbs are required for added safety along the entire downtown area of the corridor since the
contraflow dedicated bus lanes run in opposition to regular traffic. Because this design option would only
include a single platform, the ITP platforms were located strategically by the design team in order to
minimize potential traffic conflicts and safety issues, and to maintain consistent spacing from one station
to the next. The plan for the single platform design is shown in Figure 3.
page 2
City of Birmingham
Figure 1: Median-Running Single Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Cross Section at Platform
Figure 2: Median-Running Single Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Cross Section
Figure 3: Median-Running Single Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Plan
page 3
City of Birmingham
The double platform design includes a platform on either side of the intersection locations that were
given in the Concept Design Report (Figure 4). At each platform, the design consists of a 12’ wide,
single loaded raised platform, two dedicated bus lanes, one 2’ wide raised curb, two general drive
lanes, and two dedicated bike lanes (Figure 5). The typical roadway section between ITP locations
consists of two dedicated bus lanes, two general drive lanes, and two dedicated bike lanes (Figure 6).
Raised curbs and physical barriers are not required between bus and general drive lanes because the
design option does not introduce contraflow traffic lanes. By having twice as many platforms as the
single platform option, the design does lead to greater inconsistency in spacing between stations in
order to work with the existing site conditions.
Figure 4: Median-Running Double Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Plan
Figure 5: Median-Running Double Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Cross Section at Platform
page 4
City of Birmingham
Figure 6: Median-Running Double Platform Design Option, Typical Roadway Cross Section
Conclusion and Recommendation

When comparing curb-running and median-running stations, there are pros and cons to both designs.
After considering the effects of both to the existing street and infrastructure, the median-running
stations provide a more favorable alternative to the curb-running stations. The impact to the existing
infrastructure, the need to relocate utilities, obstructions to access points and businesses is mostly
eliminated with the median-running station design. The median-running station design also provides
a more exclusive lane for buses compared to the curb-running design. Pedestrian crossings from
sidewalks to median platforms would be designed at signalized intersections and crosswalks to
maximize pedestrian safety.
The median-running station options generally allow for physical separation of buses and passenger
vehicles, better fulfilling the BRT mission for faster bus speeds than in a curb-running station design
where turning vehicles could interfere with bus movements. Even though passenger vehicle turning
movements are restricted along a corridor with stations throughout the median, this is ultimately done
to allow for a more efficient BRT system and to enhance safety for the cars, buses, and pedestrians.
Median stations also allow for a more aesthetic corridor, giving greater visibility, priority, and identity
to the BRT system. Median stations define the BRT system as one that is completely separate from
the regular bus system and its shelters along the curbs.
The single median platform design option better accomplishes the project goals initially put forth by
the City of Birmingham. Contraflow dedicated bus lanes with raised concrete curbs allow for the
complete physical separation of cars and buses along the length of the downtown corridor. The design
also allows for roadway modifications to be of an overall lesser magnitude because of the shorter
length required for platform and tapered roadway transition areas. This difference in cost allows for
the savings to be put towards a custom station design and an enhanced BRT system identity that is
unique to Birmingham. Minimizing interruptions to the existing downtown BRT segment area and
maximizing safety are key contributors to a successful project and Bus Rapid Transit Operation.
page 5
ITP Station Curb Widening
Conceptual Lay out
ITP-1 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
LEGEND 02/22/2019
BUS STATION 5
/
5
7/8
J.V.SI
E
D
G
N
D
9
RAISED MEDIAN
CURB & GUTTER
TRAFFIC STRIPE - WHITE
TRAFFIC STRIPE - YELLOW
PRESENT ROW
POW ELL AVENUE S
318+00
319+00
320+00
321+00
322+00
323+00
324+00
325+00
326+00
PRES ROW
PRES ROW
18TH STREET S
M ORRI
PRES ROW PRES ROW
S AVENUE
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
ITP-2 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
LEGEND 02/22/2019
BUS STATION 5
/
7
/85
J.V.
DESI
D9
G
N
RAISED MEDIAN
CURB & GUTTER
PRESENT ROW
1ST AVENUE S
309+00
310+00
311+00
312+00
313+00
314+00
315+00
316+00
PRES ROW
18TH STREET S
2ND AVENUE S
PRES ROW
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
245+00
LEGEND ITP-3 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT

85
7/ N
5/
J.V.
DESIG
D9
02/22/2019
BUS STATION
RAISED MEDIAN
CURB & GUTTER
PRESENT ROW
246+00
302+00
303+00
304+00
305+00
306+00
307+00
4TH AVENUE S
247+00
PRES ROW PRES ROW
18TH STREET S
UE S
EET S
PRES ROW PRES ROW

300+00
301+00
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
I
TP-
4 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
BUS STATI
ON
02/
22/
2019
RAI
SED M EDI
AN
5/
D9
7/
J.V.SI
DE
8
5
G
N
CURB & GUTTER
TRAFFI
C STRI
PE -W HI
TE
TRAFFI
C STRI
PE -YELLOW
PRESENT ROW
17TH STREET S
16TH STREET S
238+00
239+00
240+00
241+00
242+00
243+00
PRES ROW
5THAVENUES
PRES ROW
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
I
TP-
5 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
LEGEND
02/
22/
2019
D9
/7
J.V.SI
/8
D
E
5
GN
BUS STATI
ON
RAI
SED M EDI
AN
CURB & GUTTER
TRAFFI
C STRI
PE -W HI
TE
TRAFFI
C STRI
PE -YELLOW
PRESENT ROW
13TH STREET S
14TH STREET S
224+00
225+00
226+00
227+00
228+00
229+00
230+00
231+00
PRES ROW PRES ROW
5THAVENUES
PRES ROW PRES ROW
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
Attachment D
ITP Median Running Guideway
Operations Analysis
MEMORANDUM
TO: Howard Richards, P.E., MBA, CPIM
FROM: Charles Cochran, P.E., PTOE

Becky White, PTP
DATE: October 22, 2018

10/22/18
SUBJECT: Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Median-Running Guideway Operations
City Project # PEP035GR 003771
Sain Project # 17-0220
Purpose & Methodology

This analysis and memorandum are part of a larger project that is evaluating traffic
movements and transportation facilities within the Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project
corridor. This memorandum summarizes our supplemental analysis of BRT operations related to
median-running BRT lanes. This includes an evaluation of the geometric, marking, signage, and
traffic operations modifications that would be necessary to accommodate median-running
BRT lanes on the Guideway corridor. For the purposes of this memorandum, the Guideway
corridor is defined as the roadway segment of 5th Avenue South between 8th Street South and
18th Street South and the segment of 18th Street between 5th Avenue South and 1st Avenue
North. The evaluation was based on cross-sections and conceptual drawings produced by
Wendel.
Initially, curbside BRT lanes were planned for the Guideway corridor, but those were deemed
infeasible because of utility conflicts and other issues at multiple BRT stations. After that option
was eliminated, the following three options for median-running BRT lanes were evaluated:
Median-running Option 1: Contraflow, Single Platform – This option requires buses to travel in a
contraflow pattern along the majority of the Guideway Corridor so that buses traveling in
opposite directions are able to use the same BRT station. The contraflow movement would be
necessary only if the BRT bus doors are on the right-hand side of the buses. See Figure 1.
Median-running Option 2: Normal Flow, Double Platform – This option allows buses to travel in
the normal direction of traffic, but it requires two separate stations at each bus stop location
Birmingham BRT – Median-Running BRT Lanes Analysis Page |2
(one for each direction of travel). The double platforms would be necessary only if the BRT bus
doors are on the right-hand side of the buses. See Figure 2.
Median-running Option 3: Normal Flow, Single Platform – This option allows buses to travel in
the normal direction of traffic. Buses traveling in opposite directions would be served by a
single platform. This option requires buses with doors on the right and left-hand side. This
option is not illustrated, but would have similar geometry to Option 1. The difference is that the
buses would be traveling in the normal direction.
Figure 1: Option 1 - Contraflow, Single Platform (Source: Wendel)
Figure 2: Option 2 - Double Platform (Source: Wendel)
During the evaluation of Option 2 by Wendel, it was determined that one of the bus stop
locations could not be constructed, so Option 2 was deemed infeasible. Options 1 and 3
were then further evaluated.
From a traffic safety perspective, Option 1, the contraflow, single-platform option, has more
safety risks than Option 3. The most concerning part of the contraflow median-running bus
operations is the potential for wrong-way entry into the bus lanes by non-bus traffic. Specifically,
vehicles turning left from the side streets onto the corridor could mistakenly turn early into the bus
lanes. That movement is more likely to happen at the intersections adjacent to the bus stations
because of the increased distance that a left-turning vehicle has to travel to complete a left-turn
movement. This increased distance is not consistent with driver expectation. The wrong-way
potential is not as great at intersections without the adjacent bus stations, but it is still a risk. If a
wrong-way movement were to occur, then the passenger vehicle traveling in the wrong
direction could potentially collide with a bus head-on because of the contraflow bus operations.
Additionally, the installation of contraflow bus lanes would be the first of its kind in the United
States, as there were no known BRT systems using contraflow operations at the time of this
memorandum.
Considering the safety risks associated with the contraflow operations involved with Option 1,
Option 3 was selected for further evaluation.
Turning Movement Prohibitions

Due to the roadway geometry of median-running bus lanes, left turn prohibitions are necessary to
provide safer and more efficient traffic operations. If storage lanes and left turn signal phases
were provided, then left turns for non-bus traffic along the Guideway corridor could be allowed.
However, the entire Guideway corridor has only one travel lane for non-bus traffic in each
direction, and there is inadequate roadway width to provide left turn storage lanes. Thus, it is
recommended that all non-bus traffic left turns from the Guideway corridor be prohibited.
At the signalized intersections along the Guideway corridor, turn prohibitions from the side street
are not required, but yellow skip striping should be installed to guide the left-turning vehicles into
the correct travel lane. Striping and signage modifications are also needed to help prevent non-
bus traffic entering the bus lanes. Those modifications are detailed in the Recommendations
section.
Driveways along the Guideway corridor should also have left turn prohibitions, as exiting cars
cannot cross the BRT lanes. The complete list of turn prohibitions is provided in the
Recommendations section.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a tool commonly used on BRT corridors to provide more reliable and
efficient bus service. There are several different types of TSP (see Figure 3):
 Phase Insertion – This type of TSP provides an exclusive phase when buses are detected
and request priority at an intersection. This should be provided at the transition points
along the Guideway corridor – where the BRT buses have to make a turn.
 Green Extension – When a signal is green for an approaching bus, Green Extension TSP
would extend the green time of the current signal phase. This should be provided at all of
the signalized intersections that don’t have an actuated transit phase.
 Early Green or Red Truncation – When a signal is red for an approaching bus, Early Green
TSP would reduce the green time of the preceding signal phase. This should be provided
at all of the signalized intersections that don’t have an actuated transit phase.
Figure 3: Transit Signal Priority Types (Source:NACTO)
Traffic Counts & Projections

Turning movement traffic counts were collected for this study by Traffic Data, LLC in January
2016, Southern Traffic Services, Inc. in May 2016, and Quality Counts, LLC in February 2018. These
counts were used to estimate future vehicle volumes after implementation of the BRT system.
The future volumes were projected by redistributing the prohibited left-turning traffic. It was
assumed that the redistributed traffic would be using the routes parallel to the Guideway corridor
and that they would crossover or turn left onto the Guideway corridor within one block of their
original left turn. The volumes that had to be redistributed across the study area are summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1: Turning Volumes to be Redistributed
Intersection Movement AM PM
WB Left 7 26
5th Ave S @ 12th St S
EB Left 64 56
WB Left 47 68
EB Left 7 3
WB Left 38 71
EB Left 39 18
WB Left 50 27
EB Left 4 11
WB Left 22 35
EB Left 139 12
5th Ave S @ 17th St S EB Left 65 24
SB Left 17 15
EB Left 30 20
4th Ave S @ 18th St S SB Left 79 54
3rd Ave S @ 18th St S NB Left 57 85
NB Left 10 5
2nd Ave S @ 18th St S
SB Left 21 17
NB Left 14 28
1st Ave S @ 18th St S
SB Left 12 14
NB Left 0 0
Morris Ave @ 18th St S
SB Left 4 2
NB Left 22 46
1st Ave N @ 18th St N
WB Left 40 25
The existing vehicle volumes are shown in Figure 4 and the estimated vehicle volumes after BRT
implementation are shown in Figure 5. The raw traffic data is available upon request.
Powe ll Ave S
OVERVIEW £
¤ 31
17 t h S t N
Match Line "A"
à á
P a y n e D r 41 st A ve N vd
ie l Bl 100 (60)
15 (20)
26 (24)
15 (20)
an J e f f e rson 79
T
S ke
Birmi
Birmingham
ngham
C h e rr y A v e â
D La Intern
International 474 (461)
¨
§
¦ 65 ational
114(140)
C o u nty E
à á
Airport 40 (25)
12 (14)
11 (23)
Airport
14 (22)
à á
â
N
1s t Av e N
24 t
Av e 27th Ave N
â
26 (64)
16th St N
k d
B la c k 32n ¨
§
¦ £
¤11 (
!
hS
20
e ¨
§
¦ 59
à á 12 (18)
â
C re
à á
â
1st Ave S
Co
1st Ave S (65) 68 à á
tN
os
(569) 604
(
!
â
(46) 22
(177) 110
(55) 31
aS
17th St N
140 (151)
à á
â
16 t
(102) 78 à á
18th St N
(24) 5
à á
t
2 n d St 3 (44)
hS
V i l e ek
k
ee (25) 19 â
(28) 14
(312) 142
(23) 16
Cr
0 (1)
4 (2)
Cr
â
0 (0)
25
l ag
e
tN
e
28
(15) 17
Av
ag
th
e
31
ll £
¤ 11
1 (6)
th
Vi
22
£
¤ 78
à á
â
h
e
M o r r i s Av
St
st
5t
nd
St
12th St S
(
!
St
N
Avenue W
N
17
St
167 (112)
Birmingham
â
N
à á
à á
Legend
th
à á
(9) 4
21 (17)
¨
§ £
¦ 20 (48)
15 (9)
20 St d
rR
¤ 78
(0) 0
(400) 184
(2) 1
ViewagBe i (0) 1â â
a 47 (29)
N
V il
l
k S £
¤ 31 t cl (13) 11
ge C r e e ve on 23 (25)
à á
â
5 la £ 11 A
T
S V il
N ¤ M 2nd Ave S
Cre e
k
ve A 4t h S S Guideway Intersection 2nd Ave S
e (
!
t
Av Rd Rd
1s
(
!
SW nd sl
e lo
à á
r o in s
Lomb Ave
â
e S H ig h la r li al (8) 10 à á
Av ve v
ok
ek Ca te High Priority Intersection
k
£
¤ 11 A
Mar tin Luth er King Jr Dr
a (
!
at
Cr
e
os 6t h
W
on (28) 14 â
(5) 10
(315) 150
(27) 30
y o M
B
Va
lle al eS (10) 16
sc Viewt AAv Proposed BRT Route
Tu ¨
§
¦65 s
21 Ca
1 8 th S t S
ha Rd
à á
167 (130)
38
T
S ba e
18th St S
e ke Available Turning Movements
à á
Av
â
32 (17)
Rd
o 40 (79)
l ey er
l or Rd h
rs
â
bo Va o 541 (779)
13th St S
14th St S
C
18th St S
Na nch O xm £
280
¤ XX - AM Peak Hour Volumes
r a 107 (64)
á
ve (XX) - PM Peak Hour Volumes 3r d Av e S
â
B
3rd Av e S Powe ll Ave S 3rd Ave S
yA in es
l le if f o k a d ek Match Line "A" (
!
V a 149 T
S o h
S re
View B
â
Br r
W C
à
G
15th St S
16th St S
17th St S
(85) 57
(269) 150
14th St S
13th St S
174 (150)
79 (54)
(
!
à
â
4t h Av e S
(
!
â
à á
(55) 55 á
12 t h S t S
(534) 1016
(286) 161
(111) 66
(61) 213
â
Lane School
475 (351)
260 (153)
310 (176)
69 (129)
86 (175)
10 (25)
82 (13)
à á
54 (116)
61 (15)
33 (41)
43 (24)
à á
à á
37 (121)
à á
21 (51)
à á
25 (48)
12 (48)
à á
56 (73)
62 (25)
17 (15)
39 (32) 13 (7)
54 (96)
66 (23)
7 (9)
0 (13)
9 (22)
176 (498) University of (

! 70 (74)
â
237 (457)
â â
221 (596) 301 (651)
âà á â
322 (587)
á
â
47 (68) Alabama at 166 (33) 422 (398)
â
7 (26) 38 (71) 50 (27)
à á à á
â
22 (35)
à á à á
65 (61)
â
à á
â
â àá
5th Ave S Birmingham 369 (522)
(
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
!
à á
à á
à á
â
â
(56) 64
à á
â
à
à á à á
à á
à á
â
à á (18) 39 à á
â
(3) 7 (11) 8 à á (12) 139 à á (24) 65 (20) 30
P:\2017\170220\SaGis\Data\Fig00ExistVolGWa.mxd
(174) 324 â (97) 303 (120) 339

â (289) 517
(3) 5
(169)104
(28) 0
(18) 14
(287)214
(30) 54
(388) 377
(39) 48
(348) 239
(67) 42
â (322) 389 (275) 231
(4) 9
(29) 24
(5) 17
â (42) 9
(32) 11 â â â
(41) 19
(8) 6
(30) 48
(30) 33
(9) 6 (2) 1 (12) 29 (18) 94 (34) 23 (37) 50
Figure 4: BRT Guideway - Existing Vehicle Volumes

I (
!
Bus Rapid Transit System
Birmingham, Alabama
Pow ell Ave S
OVERVIEW £
¤ 31
17 t h S t N
Match Line "A"
l P a y n e D r 41 s t A ve N
15 (20)
40 (24)
15 (20)
ie vd
an J e f f e rson 79
T
S Bl
Birmi
Birmingham
ngham
C he r r y A ve
D ke
á
Intern
International
¨
§
¦ 65
C o u nty La
ational
100 (60)
93 (109)
à á
Airport
11 (23)
E Airport
14 (22)
âà á
â
1s t Av e N 474 (461)
24 t
27th Ave N
â
26 (92)
16th S t N
16 t
ck
Bla k ¨
§
¦ £
¤11 (
!
hS
20
e ¨
§
¦ 59
á 12 (49)
âà á
C re
hS
1st Ave S
Co
à á
â
1st Av e S
tN
(65) 68 á
os
tN
(
!
(569) 604
128 (126)
â
aS
17th St N
(223) 132
(55) 31
142â
Village
18th St N
(102) 78 (24) 5 á
C re e k
t
2 n d St N
k ve (25) 19
39th St N
0 (1)
ee
hA â
S
Cr
(23) 16
18
á
t
e
e 12 3 (44) (15) 17
Av
ag
th
31
il l £
¤ 11
á
eN
âà á
£
¤ 78
â
à á (312)
St
V ve 1 (0)
h
Av Mo rris A
st
5t
h
8t
N
12th St S
(
!
St
Avenue W
Birmingham
â
á
Legend
(9) 4
88 (97)
¨
§ £
¦ 20
eN d 20 (48)
15 (9)
v (0) 1
rR
¤ 78
ViewagBe dA â
(320) 184
(2) 1
ai
â
3r cl (13) 11 47 (34)
eS
l
V i l e ek £
¤31 t
Av on 23 (25)
á
âà á
5 ge Cr 2nd Ave S
S
T V il la k 11 £ h M
eN ¤ 4t S Guideway Intersection 2nd Ave S
Cre e t Av e S (
!
Av Rd
1s
(
!
SW a nd lo
ro o n s
Lom b Ave al
eS l
136â
e i g h
Av Av
H v (8) 10 á
ki
k
£
¤ 11 ek a h te (
! High Priority Intersection
6t
at
on
e
Cr os (28) 14 â
(27) 30
S
W
y lo M
B
l le a SW ve (10) 16
Va
sc A ve Views tAA
Ca
Tu 6t h Proposed BRT Route
¨
§
¦ 21
â à á (287)
65
ha d
1 8 th S t S
ba R
à á
38
T
S e
ke
18th St S
Available Turning Movements
88 (115)
e Rd
Av
â
32 (17)
o
ey 40 (79)
l
l or Rd
r
rs
â
Va 565 (864)
he
bo o
13th St S
14th St S
18th St S
k
Na n c h xm ee XX - AM Peak Hour Volumes
Br
a O Cr C 107 (64)
á
ve (XX) - PM Peak Hour Volumes 3r d Av e S
â
3rd Av S e s Pow ell Ave S 3rd Ave S
yA n
ffi k
de
lle ha Match Line "A" (
!
Va
149
T
S oo £
280
¤
View B
B r ri
S
G
15th St S
16th St S
17th St S
(236) 140
14th St S
13th St S
157 (135)
(
!
âà á
4t h Av e S
(
!
â
(55) 55 á
12 t h S t S
(534) 1016
(201) 161
(111) 66
(61) 213
â
Lane School
513 (422)
132 (40)
307 (221)
310 (176)
69 (129)
93 (201)
10 (25)
54 (116)
61 (15)
37 (121)
33 (41)
43 (24)
47 (83)
12 (48)
62 (25)
à á
54 (96)
7 (9)
0 (13)
9 (22)
University of (
! 70 (74)
á
á
á
á
â
56 (73) 21 (51) 39 (32) â à á 13 (7) Alabama at 66 (23) 166 (166) 422 (398)
âà á â
âà á
â
237 (457)
â à á âà á á
65 (61)
â
174 (502) 243 (512) Birmingham
â
169 (472) 234 (525)
â àá
5th Ave S 139 (487)
(
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
!
(153) 280 (120) 305
P:\2017\170220\SaGis \Data\Fig00EstimatedVolGWa.mxd
(97) 264 â à á
â
â à á (233) 313 (278) 389

â
â
â à á (368) 377 (275) 231
â
âà á âà á âà á
â
(9) 6 (2) 1 (12) 29 (18) 94 (34) 23
â (37) 50
á
á
(3) 5
(172) 111
(28) 0
(39) 105
(283) 212
(67) 42
á
(4) 9
(83) 88
(5) 17
(17) 14
(305) 253
(30) 54
(42) 9
(43) 15
(41) 19
(8) 6
(66) 252
(30) 33
Figure 5: BRT Guideway - Estimated Vehicle Volumes after BRT Implementation
I (
!
Birmingham, Alabama
Capacity Analysis
Using the methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010), published by the
Transportation Research Board, Sain Associates, Inc. analyzed the existing and future traffic
conditions of the study intersections. According to this method of analysis, traffic capacities
are expressed as levels of service (LOS) ranging from “A” to “F”. Generally, LOS “C” is
considered desirable, while LOS “D” is considered acceptable during peak hours of traffic
flow.
AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis was performed for the existing and projected
conditions of the study corridor. Synchro 9 analysis software was used for the analysis. For the
future period, the signal timings were optimized due to the changes in volume and geometry.
Table 1 shows the existing and future LOS during both peak periods. For the sake of
comparison, Table 1 also shows LOS results for a curbside-running BRT scenario that was
previously analyzed.
Table 1: Levels-of-Service
Future with Future with
Existing Curbside Median
Intersection Approach Conditions BRT-Only BRT-Only
Lanes Lanes
AM PM AM PM AM PM
EB 1st Ave N A A A A A B
18th St N WB 1st Ave N A A A A A B
@ NB 18th St N B C D B C C
1st Ave N SB 18th St N C C C C C B
Intersection A B A B B B
EB Morris Ave A A A A A A
18th St S WB Morris Ave A A A A A A
@ NB 18th St S C C B B B B
Morris Ave SB 18th St S C B C B C C
Intersection C C B B C B
EB 1st Ave S A A A A A A
18th St S WB 1st Ave S A A A B A A
@ NB 18th St S B B C B B B
1st Ave S SB 18th St S C C D B D D
Intersection B B C B B B
EB 2nd Ave S A A A B A A
18th St S WB 2nd Ave S A A A B A A
@ NB 18th St S B E D B D C
2nd Ave S SB 18th St S D D B C B C
Intersection C D C B C C
WB 3rd Ave S A A A B A A
18th St S
NB 18th St S C D C C C C
@
SB 18th St S D B B C B D
3rd Ave S
Intersection B B B B B B
EB 4th Ave S A A B B A B
18th St S
NB 18th St S D C B B B C
@
SB 18th St S D B C B D C
4th Ave S
Intersection B B B B A B
Table 1: Levels-of-Service (cont’d)

Future with Future with
Existing
Curbside Median
Conditions
Intersection Approach BRT-Only BRT-Only
2016
Lanes Lanes
AM PM AM PM AM PM
EB 5th Ave S A A A A A A
18th St S WB 5th Ave S A A B A B B
@ NB 18th St S C C B C C C
5th Ave S SB 18th St S C D C D D D
Intersection B C B B B B
17th St S
WB 5th Ave S A A A B A A
@
SB 18th St S C C A C A A
5th Ave S
Intersection A A A B A A
16th St S WB 5th Ave S A A A A B A
@ NB 18th St S C C C C C D
5th Ave S SB 18th St S C C B D A D
Intersection A B A B B B
15th St S WB 5th Ave S A A A A A A
@ NB 18th St S C C B D B D
5th Ave S SB 18th St S D C C B D C
Intersection A A B B B B
EB 5th Ave S B A A A A A
14th St S WB 5th Ave S B A A A B A
@ NB 14th St S C C C D C D
5th Ave S SB 14th St S C C C D C D
Intersection C B B C B C
EB 5th Ave S A A B A B A
13th St S WB 5th Ave S B A A A B A
@ NB 13th St S C C C C C C
5th Ave S SB 13th St S D D C D C D
Intersection C B B B C B
EB 5th Ave S A A A A B B
12th St S WB 5th Ave S A A A A A A
@ NB 14th St S C C B C B C
5th Ave S SB 14th St S D D D D D D
Intersection B B B B B C
At the intersections where actuated transit phases are recommended, modifications were
made to the Synchro model. A standalone “dummy” phase was inserted to replicate the time
that an actuated transit phase would take away from the cycle length.
From the completed analysis, it was determined that all intersections along the Guideway
corridor are currently operating at an acceptable LOS and will continue to do so after the
implementation of the median-running BRT lanes. The changes in LOS can be attributed to the
reduction in travel lanes, the prohibition of left turns, and/or the signal timing optimization.
Birmingham BRT – Median-Running BRT Lanes Analysis P a g e | 10
The amount of traffic being redistributed to the roadways parallel to the Guideway Corridor is
relatively low, so a detailed capacity analysis was not performed there. However, the AADT
volumes (available on ALDOT’s traffic data website) on the parallel roadways were reviewed,
and there is sufficient capacity available to accommodate the projected redistributed traffic.
Recommendations
After the capacity analysis was performed and the median-running BRT lanes were deemed
feasible from a traffic operations perspective, Sain evaluated the modifications necessary to
implement the median-running BRT lanes as conceptually designed by Wendel. Based on our
evaluation, Sain Associates makes the following recommendations:
1. Implement TSP by using Phase Insertion and installing transit signal heads for the
following movements:
a. 6th Avenue South @ 8th Street South – eastbound left turn movement
b. 5th Avenue South @ 18th Street South – eastbound left turn and southbound right
turn movements
c. 1st Avenue North @ 18th Street South – northbound right turn and westbound left
turn movements
2. Implement TSP allowing Green Extension and Early Green/Red Truncation treatments at
the following intersections:
a. 5th Avenue South @ 12th Street South
b. 5th Avenue South @ 13th Street South
c. 5th Avenue South @ 14th Street South
d. 5th Avenue South @ 15th Street South
e. 5th Avenue South @ 16th Street South
f. 5th Avenue South @ 17th Street South
g. 4th Avenue South @ 18th Street South
h. 3rd Avenue South @ 18th Street South
i. 2nd Avenue South @ 18th Street South
j. 1st Avenue South @ 18th Street South
k. Morris Avenue @ 18th Street South
3. Install dedicated bicycle lanes on the following roadway segments:
a. 18th Street between 5th Avenue South and 1st Avenue North
b. 5th Avenue South between 8th Street South and 13th Street South
c. 5th Avenue South between 15th Street South and 16th Street South
Along the dedicated bicycle lanes, bicycle lane pavement markings should be
installed immediately after the intersections and then 200 feet downstream on the
roadway. The bicycle lane pavement marking is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings (Source: MUTCD)
4. Where dedicated bicycle lanes are used, install Bike Lane (R3-17) signs immediately
after each intersection. In advance of the beginning and end of the bicycle lanes,
supplement the Bike Lane signs with an AHEAD (R3-17aP) plaque or an ENDS (R3-17bP)
plaque. These signs and plaques are illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Bike Lane Sign and Plaques (Source: MUTCD)
5. To help prohibit parking in the dedicated bicycle lanes, install No Parking (R8-3) signs
underneath each Bike Lane (R3-17 sign), as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: No Parking Sign with Bike Lane Sign (Source: MUTCD)
6. Install shared lane pavement markings along the portions of the corridor where the
dedicated bicycles lanes are not provided (5th Avenue South between 13th and 15th
Street South and 5th Avenue South between 16th and 18th Street South). A shared lane
marking is illustrated in Figure 9. They should be installed in the center of the passenger
vehicle lanes.
Figure 9: Shared Lane Pavement Marking (Source: MUTCD)
7. Paint the bus lanes red, and install BUS ONLY pavement markings along the median-
running BRT lanes through the Guideway corridor immediately after each intersection.
The pavement marking letters should be 8 feet in length, per ALDOT’s standard
drawings. An example of red bus lanes and BUS ONLY pavement markings is shown in
Figure 10.
Figure 10: BUS ONLY Pavement Markings (Source: NACTO)
8. Install Bus Lane Ahead (R3-12f) signs in advance of the beginning of the BRT lanes, and
install Bus Lane Ends (R3-12g) signs in advance of the end of the BRT lanes. These signs
are shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Bus Lane Signs (Source: MUTCD)
9. Install Bicycle Warning (W11-1) signs with Share the Road (W16-1P) along the shared
lane sections of the Guideway corridor. These signs are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Bicycle Warning Sign and SHARE THE ROAD Plaque (Source: MUTCD)
10. Prohibit the following turning movements along the Guideway Corridor:
a. Eastbound and westbound left turns along 5th Avenue South between 8th Street
South and 18th Street South
b. Northbound and southbound left turns along 18th Street between 5th Avenue
South and 1st Avenue North
c. Westbound left turns from 1st Avenue North onto 18th Street North
d. Left turn from any driveway along the Guideway corridor (signage and
pavement markings at private driveways are the responsibility of the property
owner)
11. To help prohibit left turning movements, install shared through/right lane use markings
near the stop lines of the passenger vehicle lanes along the Guideway corridor where
left turns are prohibited. Where right turns are not allowed (due to one-way streets),
install a through arrow lane use pavement marking. At each signalized intersection,
install lane use pavement markings on the dedicated bus lanes just behind each stop
line.
12. To help prohibit left turning movements, install No Left Turn (R3-2) signs on the signal
mast arms or at the intersection corner for the listed approaches to the following
intersections:
a. 5th Avenue South @ 10th Street South – eastbound and westbound
b. 5th Avenue South @ 11th Street South – eastbound and westbound
c. 5th Avenue South @ 12th Street South – eastbound and westbound
d. 5th Avenue South @ 13th Street South – eastbound and westbound
e. 5th Avenue South @ 14th Street South – eastbound and westbound
f. 5th Avenue South @ 15th Street South – eastbound and westbound
g. 5th Avenue South @ 16th Street South – eastbound and westbound
h. 5th Avenue South @ 17th Street South – eastbound
i. 5th Avenue South @ 18th Street South – eastbound and southbound
j. 4th Avenue South @ 18th Street South – northbound and southbound
k. 3rd Avenue South @ 18th Street South – northbound and southbound
l. 2nd Avenue South @ 18th Street South – northbound and southbound
m. 1st Avenue South @ 18th Street South – northbound and southbound
n. Morris Avenue @ 18th Street South – northbound and southbound
o. 1st Avenue North @ 18th Street South – westbound and northbound
13. To further help prohibit left turning movements at signalized intersections, the
innermost signal head facing the prohibited traffic should be replaced with a three
section signal head with a green through arrow. See Figure 13.
Figure 13: Signal Head with Green Through Arrow
14. Install yellow left turn skip striping to help guide the side-street left-turning vehicles into
the correct travel lane at each signalized intersection where the left turns are not
prohibited.
The recommendations are illustrated in Figures 14 – 18.
Conclusion
The implementation of dedicated BRT lanes on the Guideway corridor will require
modifications to the roadway geometry, signage, pavement markings, traffic signal
equipment, and available turning movements for passenger vehicles. With the necessary
modifications detailed in this memorandum, construction of the median-running BRT lanes
along the Guideway corridor is feasible. While the BRT lanes will require turning movement
prohibitions for passenger vehicles, acceptable levels of service are still expected along the
corridor and on adjacent streets.
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
eS
Signal Mast 4th Av
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn
Dedicated Bike Lane (

! Concrete Pole
Bicycle Warning â
ï Pedestrian Signal
Bike Lane Marking
Share The Road
Shared Lane Marking
Bus Lane Begins Dedicated Bus Lane
Dedicated Bike Lane
Bus Lane Ends Rumble Strips
No Parking Grass Median

f
p
d
c
b
10th St S
5th Ave S
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
¨
§
¦65
11th St S
8t h S t S
Implement TSP using Phase Insertion for the eastbound Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
bus left turn. Install one (1) transit signal head. DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
P:\2017\170220\SaGis \Data\Fig14BRTStriping.mxd
IGN, and the GIS User Community
6th Av e S
Figure 14: Guideway Corridor Recommendations

I 0 50 100
Feet
1 in = 100 feet
200

Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
4th Av e S Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
Bicycle Warning â
Bike Lane Marking
Share The Road
Shared Lane Marking
Dedicated Bike Lane

f
p
d
c
b
5th Ave S
12th St S
ONLY
BUS
13th St S
14th St S
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
11th St S
Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Truncation

and Green Extension for the eastbound and
westbound bus through movements.
and Green Extension for the eastbound and
westbound bus through movements
movements.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,

DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
6th Ave S
I 0 50 100
Feet
1 in = 100 feet
200 Figure 15: Guideway Corridor Recommendations
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
Signal Mast
4th Av e S f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
â
Bicycle Warning
Bike Lane Marking
Share The Road
Shared Lane Marking
Dedicated Bike Lane

f
p
d
c
b
14t h S t S
15th St S
16th St S
17t h S t S
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
5th Ave S
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Truncation Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Truncation
and Green Extension for the eastbound and and Green Extension for the eastbound and
westbound bus through movements westbound bus through movements

I 0 50 100
Feet
1 in = 100 feet
200 Figure 16: Guideway Corridor Recommendations
Birmingham, Alabama
ONLY
Legend
BUS
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn
17th St S
! Concrete Pole
â
Bicycle Warning
BUS Bike Lane Marking
Share The Road
ONLY Shared Lane Marking
Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Truncation Dedicated Bike Lane
and Green Extension for the eastbound and Bus Lane Ends Rumble Strips
westbound bus through movements
f
p
d
c
b
4th Av e S
3rd Av e S
2nd Ave S
5th Ave S
ONLY
BUS
18th St S
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
Implement TSP using separate Phase

Insertions for the eastbound left and
southbound right bus movements.
Install two (2) transit signal heads. Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Truncation
and Green Extension for the northbound and
southtbound bus through movements


I
0 50 100 200
Feet Bus Rapid Transit System

1 in = 100 feet Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
â
Bicycle Warning
Bike Lane Marking
Share The Road
Shared Lane Marking
Dedicated Bike Lane

f
p
d
c
b
1st A ve N
and Green Extension for the northbound and
southtbound bus through movements
Morris Ave
1st Ave S
18th St S
£
¤ 11
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
18th St N
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
Implement TSP using separate Phase BUS

Insertions for the westbound left and
northbound right bus movements.
Install two (2) transit signal heads.
Powell Ave S


I
0 50 100 200

J
17t h St N
9t h S t N
10t h St N
8th St N
7t h St N
11th St N
12th St N
1s
16th St N
tC OP
13th St N
tN
OP
P
1st Ave N £
¤
11 1st Ave N £
¤
11 1 s t Av e N 1st Ave N
£ 1st Ave N
1st Ave N ¤
OP
OP
11
ON LY
BUS
14th St N
P
18th St N
19th St N
20th St N
17th St N
â
ì
í
OP
OP
M o r r i s Av e
P P
P
P o w e l l Av e S
OP
OP
1st Ave S 1 s t Av
OP
eS
OP
C O S E C H A U R B A N K IT C H E N
P
12th St S
1st Aly S
Golden Flake Dr
OP
OP
OP
OP
2nd Ave S 2nd Ave S
¨
§
¦
65 P
11t h St S
17th St S
³́
°̄ ³́
°̄ ³́
°̄
OP
3r d Av e S 3rd Ave S
â
14th St S
18th St S
19th St S
20th St S
13th St S
16th St S
â
10th St S
±
°̄
² ±
°̄
²
OP
4th Ave S
±
°̄
²
4th Ave S
P P P P P P P P
7th St S
12 t h S t S
15th St S
P OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP P
P
P
P
P
OP
5th Ave S
OP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
11th St S
8th St S
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP Legend
í
ì
OP
6th Ave S 6th Ave S No Through Movement Allowed

P
P
OP No Left Turns Allowed
8t h S t S
â
9th St S
No Turns Allowed
20th St S
O
P
6th Aly S
All Movements Allowed
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
BIRMINGHAM RAPID TRANSIT

Left Turn Restrictions
Figure 1: Alternative Routes for Northbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 2: Alternative Routes for Southbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 3: Alternative Routes for Eastbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 4: Alternative Routes for Westbound Hotel Traffic
STATION
Figure 1: Alternative Route for Entrance to Children's of Alabama
STATION
Figure 2: Alternative Route for Exiting Children's of Alabama to Access Parking Areas
Attachment E
Public Outreach Summary
Public Outreach Summary
1. Introduction
Throughout the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and grant application process, the City of Birmingham
has sought to keep the various stakeholders, including the public, affected businesses and institutions,
and government entities, informed of the project scope and considerations. This has been particularly
true of the present proposed changes to the approved paper grant. Specific public outreach has included
web-based information, public involvement meetings and focused outreach to businesses along the In-
town Transit Partnership (ITP) route. Public meetings were advertised on the radio, in television news
casts and in the newspaper.
2. Website Information
The City of Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit Project website (http://www.birmingham.gov/brt) provided
detailed information on the BRT Project, including purpose and need, project description, project
elements, project public meetings and engagement and means of submitting electronic comments.
(Exhibit 1). No website comments had been submitted at the time of preparation of this narrative.
Comments received via other public outreach efforts are summarized below.
3. Public Involvement Meetings
Public involvement meetings were initially held at the following locations and times:
• Birmingham CrossPlex at the western terminus of the BRT in Five Points West
Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:00 am and 6:00 pm
• Birmingham Intermodal Transfer facility downtown at the midpoint of the BRT
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:00 am and 6:00 pm
• Willow Wood Recreation Center at the eastern terminus of the BRT in Woodlawn
Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:00 am and 6:00 pm
City of Birmingham officials presented information on the proposed changes to the original approved
paper grant through a PowerPoint presentations and questions and answer opportunities. Comment
cards were also provided and attendees invited to present their thoughts on the proposed changes to the
BRT project. A copy of this presentation is included as Exhibit 2. Attendee sign-up sheets are included in
Exhibit 3.
Additional targeted outreach to major stakeholders was also conducted. Specifically:

• Meeting with University of Alabama at Birmingham officials on November 30, 2018
• Conference call with Hilton Hotel representatives on December 10, 2018
• Meeting with Children’s Hospital representatives on December 12, 2018.
• Meeting with the Birmingham ADA Advisory Steering Committee on January 11, 2019.
• Meeting with Children’s Hospital representatives was held on February 6, 2019
• A forum with the Birmingham Business Alliance was held on February 27, 2019. The objective is
to present details and other information about the project to the investors and the business
community, and address questions they may have.
• A follow-up meeting with Hilton Hotel representatives is being scheduled to discuss specific
questions regarding the station located adjacent to their property entrance.
Typical presentations materials related to these meetings are presented on Exhibit 4.
Although no comments were received via the web site public comments expressed during the
presentation were generally positive and supportive. The public showed excitement about Birmingham
moving towards a better public transportation system and feels it will be beneficial for many of
Birmingham’s citizens. The idea of a more reliable and timely bus system is exciting for Birmingham.
Written comments received are included as Exhibit 5. As part of these comments some participants are
concerned about an increased congestion in traffic as a result of dedicated bus lanes. Additionally, some
concern was made about how one is to get to their final destination once they get off of the bus. A number
of people stated they would like the buses to be handicap accessible and to run on Sundays. The public
expressed that they want the stations to be themed around historical aspects of Birmingham. They would
also like them to have proper lighting, be covered, have vending machines and/or water fountains, have
plenty of seating, and have TV monitors indicating bus arrival times.
A public Brand Reveal and Project Discussion meeting was held on January 14, 2019. Additional Public
Involvement Meetings presenting project design for Transit Centers, Stations, Guideways, Signalization
and Signage were held on the following dates:
• Monday, February 4, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, BJCTA Administrative Office, 1801 Morris Ave.
• Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, Birmingham CrossPlex, 2337 Bessemer Rd,
• Wednesday, February 6, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, Woodlawn High School, 5620 1st Ave. N
Presentation boards for these meetings are included in Exhibit 2. Attendee sign-up sheets are included in
Exhibit 3. Public comments were generally positive with the principle concerns being directed at the
operation of the current bus transit system and not applicable to the BRT proposal. Written comments
received are included as Exhibit 5.
4. ITP Outreach
At the request of the FTA additional targeted public outreach was undertaken for that part of the BRT
along the segment of the corridor designated as the ITP. Specifically, the BRT alignment and associated
stations along that segment had been moved from the lanes along either curb to dedicating the center
two lanes as BRT bus lanes only and placing the boarding and alighting stations in the street median. As a
result of this change, and in order to keep from interfering with rapid transit operations, traffic left turns
from 18th Street and 5th Avenue South onto side streets along this segment will be restricted, as will left
turn from certain side streets onto 18th Street and 5th Avenue South. This change will not involve any
impacts to the Rainbow Tunnel or any other historic resources.
As an initial outreach Property owners and institutions were notified by letter in mid-September 2018
(Exhibit 6). A City of Birmingham representative then walked the ITP route on September 24 and 25, 2018
to inform the individual tenants along the ITP route about the proposed BRT system changes. Information
pertaining to the proposed bus system was left with each tenant. Additionally, the tenants were informed
about the BRT public meetings.
Many of the businesses and institutions were unaware of the proposed route and appreciated the
information but did not have comments at the time. Several of the tenants stated they would attend the
meeting in order to get more information. Tenants associated with UAB and Children’s Hospital were very
concerned about the impacts to the UAB and Children’s Hospital emergency departments, including Care
Flight. Similarly, Watts Realty, a property management firm with commercial properties along 5th Avenue
South expressed access concerns. A couple of the restaurants located at the corner of 18th Street and 5th
Avenue South were concerned about losing the center lane on 18th Street. Moe’s Restaurant stated that
this lane is used for truck unloading and did not know what they would do if the route is implemented.
The restaurants also felt that the limitations in left turns would hinder their customers’ ability to access
their business. China Master Express expressed concern about access to Interstate 65. Written comments
are included as Exhibit 7.
Based on comments from affected parties in the ITP corridor the City reexamined traffic patterns and
found that reasonable access to the affected businesses and institutions could be maintained through use
of right turns onto side streets. These alternate traffic patterns are shown in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 1 – The City of Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit Project Website (http://www.birmingham.gov/brt)
Exhibit 2 – City of Birmingham Public Involvement Meeting Presentation
Exhibit 3 – Attendee Sign-up Sheets from Public Involvement Meetings
Exhibit 4 - Additional Targeted Outreach Materials
Exhibit 5 – Public Involvement Meeting Comments
Exhibit 6 – Written Notification Letters to ITP Corridor Property Owners
Exhibit 7– Written Comments from ITP Outreach
Exhibit 8 – Alternative Access Routes on ITP Corridor
Exhibit 1
The City of Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit Project Website
Exhibit 2
City of Birmingham Public Involvement Meeting Presentation
Exhibit 3
Attendee Sign-up Sheets from Public Involvement Meetings
Exhibit 4
Additional Targeted Outreach Materials
Exhibit 5
Public Involvement Meeting Comments
Exhibit 6
Written Notification Letters to ITP Corridor Property Owners
Exhibit 7
Written Comments from ITP Outreach
Exhibit 8
Alternative Access Routes on ITP Corridor
Exhibit 1
The City of Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit Project Website
The City of Birmingham, in partnership with the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
and Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) is in
development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that will provide a
high-capacity, efficient, and reliable public transit service.
Please join us at one of the Public Involvement Meeting where the

Project Team will provide project scope information and design
concepts for the project corridor. The schedule meeting times and
locations are as follows:
• Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:00am and 6:00pm,
Birmingham Crossplex
• Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:00am and 6:00pm,
Birmingham Intermodal Facility
• Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:00am and 6:00pm,
Willow Wood Recreation Center
For additional information, please visit the project site

at www.birminghamal.gov/brt, or contact us at:
City of Birmingham
Capital Projects Management Office
710 20th St N, Room 203 City Hall
Birmingham AL 35203-2227
Attention: Howard Richards, BRT Program Manager
Phone: 205) 254-2560
Email: capitalprojects@birminghalal.gov
If special assistance is needed, please contact us prior to

September 25, 2018.
Exhibit 2
City of Birmingham Public Involvement Meeting Presentation
October 2018 Meetings
City of Birmingham
“Connecting our neighborhoods to opportunities”
Bus Rapid Transit
B R
i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
 Bus Rapid Transit is a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers

fast, comfortable, and cost-effective services at metro-level capacities.
 Features include:
▪ Quality Stations
▪ Platform-Level Boarding
▪ Dedicated Lanes/ROW & Alignment
▪ Intersection Treatments
▪ Off-board Fare Collection
▪ High Capacity Vehicles
▪ Fast and Frequent Operations
▪ Prominent Brand or Identity
Capital Projects Management Office Birmingham Rapid Transit 2

B R
“Quality Stations” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
5
1. Main Canopy / Waiting
1 Area
3
4
2. Bus Bays (Station Feat.)
2
3. Bus Layover
4. Function as Transfer
Station Facility
5. Employee Parking
6. Driver’s Break Room
7. Passenger Info Displays
12 7 8. Ticketing & Validation
Station
10
6 9. Voice Annunciation
9
8
10. Vending Service
11. Contemporary Seating
11 12. Sympathetic Design

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
1. Station Name
2. Bench Designs
3. Level Boarding Platform
4
4. Translucent Roof
14
5. Integrated LED Lights
13
1 6. Bike Racks
15
10 7. Accessible Ramp
5 9
2 8. Waste Receptacle
6 8
11
9. Sign/Map Case
3
10. Service Cabinet*
12
11. Guide Rail
12. Bus Concrete Pad
7 13. Electronic Signage**
14. Public Wi-Fi**
15. Muted Colors
B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
“Dedicated Lanes/ROW & Alignment” i a
p
r i
m d
West Expansion i
T
n r
g a
h n
• Lomb Ave EB btw Fairgrounds Dr. & Princeton Pkwy W – 7,550’ s
a i
• Lomb Ave WB btw 12th St W & McMillan Ave SW – 5,050’ m t
• MLK Jr. Dr. NB btw 6th Ave SW & McMillan Ave SW – 3,090’
• 6th Ave S EB btw MLK Jr. Dr. & Delta St S – 5,055’
• 6th Ave S WB btw MLK Jr. Dr. & 8th St S – 7,700’
• Equivalent Total = 14,223 LF
Overall Guideway
• ITP = 7,891’/1.5 mls
• Fair Park = 3,290’/0.6 mls
• West Exp. = 14,223’/2.7 mls
Capital Projects Management Office • Total:
Birmingham = 25,404’/4.9 mls (48.6%)
Rapid Transit 6
B R
“Dedicated Lanes/ROW & Alignment” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
“Intersection Treatments” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
When approaching a traffic light,

the vehicle request a priority
TSP with Systems Integration

Conditions: Disable If:
• Bus in the City? No
• On Assigned Route? No The traffic light
The traffic light
• Door Closed? No confirms the priority
controller
• Request Already Sent? Yes and extends the
resumes normal • On or Ahead of Schedule? Yes green or truncates
operation Other Factors:
the red
• Current Ridership
• Time of Day
• Traffic Congestion
The vehicle cancels its priority request

once it has crossed the intersection

B R
“Off-board Fare Collection” i a
p
r i
5 m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
1 i
m t
3
4
1. Information Display
2. Ticket Station/Kiosk
3. Fare Validation/Scanner
4. Emergency Call Station
5. Blue Light Alarm
6. Electric Breaker Box
B R
“High Capacity Vehicles” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
 Contemporary Design
▪ Low Floor / Wide Doors
▪ Service Branding / Identity
▪ Vibrant / Distinct Colors
▪ Special Paint Graphics for “RAPID” Service
▪ Hidden Frame, Blacked-out Windows
▪ Roof Fairings & Front Cap
 Passenger Convenience
▪ In-vehicle Wi-Fi / Internet
▪ Power Outlets / USB Charging
▪ On-Board Bike Racks
▪ Next Stop / Arrival Announcement
▪ All-Door Boarding (Both Sides)
▪ Roomy / Comfortable Seats
▪ Full Color Destination Signage
 Safety & Technology
▪ Automatic Wheelchair Securement
▪ Traffic Signal Priority
▪ Surveillance Cameras
▪ GPS Vehicle Locator
▪ Infotainment Screens*
 Operations Management
▪ Intelligent Vehicle Initiatives

B R
“High Capacity Vehicles” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
“Prominent Brand or Identity” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
“Birmingham Rapid Transit” i a
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
 Corridor  Systems & Technology

▪ 10-mile Corridor ▪ Intersection Treatments (TSPP)
▪ 3 Segments ▪ Traffic Signalization Upgrades
▪ Exclusive Bus Lanes plus Mixed Flow ▪ Off-Board Ticketing & Validation
 Termini ▪ Passenger Information & Communication Systems
▪ East Community Transit Center (Woodlawn) ▪ Passenger Safety & Security
▪ West Community Transit Center (Five Point West)  Sustainability & Access
 Stations ▪ High Capacity CNG Vehicles
▪ East – 4 In-/Out-bound Curb Running (8) ▪ Stations Pedestrian Walkways Improvement
▪ ITP – 5 Double Loaded Median Running ▪ Bike Lanes/Accessibility
▪ West – 7 In-/Out-bound Curb Running (14) ▪ Complete Streets Elements
 Vehicles  Service
▪ Rapid Transit Vehicles ▪ System Identity/Branding
▪ Replacement Vehicles ▪ Short Headways
 Vehicle Maintenance & Storage Facility ▪ Extended Hours & Weekends
▪ Facility Upgrades ▪ Light Rail Service Emulation
▪ Integration with Other Public Transit

B R
“Scope Update”
Birmingham Rapid Transit Corridor i
r
m
a
p
i
d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
Woodlawn
East Segment
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Intermodal Station ✓ 10-Mile Corridor - 3 Segments

✓ 2 Termini (Community Transit Ctr.)
CrossPlex ✓ 16* Inline Stations - Curb/Median
West Segment ✓ VMSF Upgrades
ITP Segment
✓ 15 Minute Peak Headways
✓ Intermodal Connectivity
MLK Dr.
✓ 25 of 99 Neighborhoods
Five Points West
✓ 11 of 22 Communities
✓ 6 of 9 Districts

West Rapid Transit” ITP
“Birmingham East B R
a
i
1. Arlington West End – 6 1. Central City - 5 1. Crestwood North – 3/5 r
p
i
m d
2. Bush Hills - 8 2. Five Points South – 3/5 2. East Avondale – 3/5 i
T
3. Central Park – 7/8 3. Fountain Heights - 5 3. Forest Park – 3/5 n r
g a
4. Ensley Highlands - 8 4. Glen Iris – 3/6 4. Kingston - 4 h n
s
5. Fairview - 8 5. North Titusville - 6 5. North Avondale – 4/5 a i
m t
6. Germania Park - 7 6. Smithfield – 5/6 6. South Woodlawn - 4
7. Graymont – 5/6 7. Southside - 5 7. Woodlawn - 5
8. Oakwood Place – 6/7
9. Rising West-Princeton - 8
10. South Titusville - 6
11. Woodland Park – 6

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
 25 of 99 neighborhoods
 21% of City population are within ½-mile walking distance (~48k residents)
▪ 1/3 are low income (City is 26% - double national average)
▪ 71% are minorities (City 79%)
▪ 22% lack access to automobile (City 14%)
 Five largest employers
▪ UAB
▪ UAB Health Services
▪ Regions Financial Corp
▪ St Vincent Health System
▪ City of Birmingham
 Access to 125k jobs (compared to163k Citywide)
▪ 70k (54%) with 5 largest employers
 Connectivity thru Central Station (Intermodal)
 Opening day ridership forecast: 3,120 daily passenger trips

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
Safety Improvements – 10%
Environmental Sustainability – 1%
O&M Cost – 29%
Estimated Full Cost Forecast Public Benefits
Capital Cost – 71%

Economic Competitiveness – 52%
Quality of Life – 37%
Benefit to Cost: 1.8 to 2.4 times

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
+520’ Equivalent (19%)

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Planning Design Construction Startup Operations
▪ Feasibility ▪ Procurements ▪ Invitations to Bid ▪ Acceptance & Turnover ▪ ITP Segment Revenue Service
• Project Funding • Professional Services ▪ Vehicle Mfr. & Delivery ▪ Revenue Ops Readiness ▪ West Segment Revenue
• Environmental Review • BRT Rolling Stock ▪ Shelter Mfr. & Delivery Review (OP 54) Service
• Traffic Studies • BRT Shelters ▪ ITP Stations Construction • Owner Training ▪ East Segment Revenue
• Conceptual Design • TSPP System ▪ East CTC Construction • ITP Segment Readiness Service
▪ Inter-Agency Agreements Review
▪ Preliminary Engineering ▪ VMSF Renovations
• MOA • West Segment Readiness
• Stations ▪ West CTC Construction
• SCC Review
▪ Real Estate Acquisition • Roadway/Guideway ▪ East Stations & Roadway
Improvements Construction • East Segment Readiness
• Real Estate Appraisals • Terminals
Review
• Woodlawn Parcels • Maint. Facility ▪ West Transit Lanes
Construction ▪ Title VI & Facilities Analysis
• Five Points West Parcels ▪ Utility Coordination
▪ West Stations & Roadway ▪ Fare Equity Analysis
▪ BRT Branding ▪ Advance & Final Design
▪ Alternative Design Improvements Construction
▪ Construction Support
• CP Guideway Alignment ▪ Downtown Transit Lanes
Construction
• BRT Center Median
Program Management
Management & Coordination Communication & Outreach Performance Measurement & Reporting

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Public & Stakeholder Communications
NEPA 2Q16–27Jan17
TIGER Grant 2Q16–29Jun17
Real Estate Acquisition 2Q17–4Q19
Procurements 3Q17–3Q19
Design 4Q17–3Q19
Construction 2Q19–2Q21
Substantial Completion 4Q20
Testing & Pre-Revenue (3Q19–1Q21
Revenue Service 2Q20–3Q21
Performance Measurements (2018 – 2025)

B R
p
r i
m d
i
T
n r
g a
h n
a s
i
m t
$50.0 $9.0
$0.09 $8.25
$45.0 $8.0
$2.61
$40.0 $7.0
$1.75
$6.0 $5.71
$35.0 $5.49
$5.07
$5.0
$30.0 $4.19 $4.09
$4.0
$25.0 $3.35
$40.00 $3.0
$20.0 $2.23
$2.0 $1.56
$1.40
$15.0 $0.88
$1.0 $0.78 $0.82
$10.0 $0.10
$0.0
$5.0
$1.20
$0.0
New Starts TIGER Grant Bond Funds
CMAQ Grant Transportation

City of Birmingham
“Connecting our neighborhoods to opportunities”
Bus Rapid Transit
https://www.birminghamal.gov/brt
February 2019 Meetings
62
9.
63 23 62 62
0.
24
" ST
OP
62 62
8. 8.
B AR6 30
9. 9.
EN.3 0
09
D
7 3 5 2
+ 5 + 4 + 8 + 0
60 60 60
3 W
60 3 W 35 D L 334
+
60 3 W 36
O
3 W 37 DL 6 DL 6 EN 6 2
W
60 W 38 DL 6 28 28
.5 D 8 .2
D L 339
63
DL 6 29 .9 8 0
60 29 .3 4 3
19 EN 6 3 .7
AS 4 D 0 .0 5
T
PH 6 3 9
0 .5
H
9
0.
60
62
AT 35
62
T 63
M 2
P
62
H 7 .7
6
3 62 7.
+ 4 7. 62 DOCKLESS S
60
7.
19
AS 3
FUTURE
8.
PH 6 3
60
00
0 .3
11
4 SS 35
5
MH 6
51
27
.4
7. OPTION
1
PP 02 S
MOBILITY
60'-0" ARTICULATED BUS 60'-0" ARTICULATED BUS
+ +
24
" ST 60 3
OP 05
BA 6
R 27 .0
X
60 WA 304
60 X 6
W 0 30
AL 3 60
60
SS 352
MH 6 2 60
2
60
EP7 .160 87 60 288
PARKING3 0
S 60
SM 56
3
H 62
+
60 25 L K 6 60K 6 25 60 7
EP E 2 E
+
23 EN 0 EP 8 EN 2660 7 E2P8 .0 0
EP CO 260N D6 .9 PEC 28 EC028
+ +
3
+
/B D .92059
+
EC BR RK 60 2 D EC 6 2 2 5 4 3 60
60 6 KC 60 2 EC 6 2 6 .8 NC
60 60 60 CO 0 18 C 2 7 .1 28
60 60 60 60 21 OR 22 OR 63 3 EP 6 9
AS
19
2
60 05 60141 60144 13 19
7
19
8 EP 8 R/E 5 /E /E 27
1 0622
PH 6 2 60 6 6 03 3 14 14 7 PC PC C C .5 1 872.0
EP 0 0 4 2 3 OR OR O 9
9 .9
7 SS 351155 22 R
MMHH6 63
29 2
W +
.293.3 6 6
15"
X
1 W 0 34 0 03 6 X 6
AL 0E 23 X
W 0 35 W 0 35
K P 6 AL 9 AL 7
X 6 EN 60 0 29 K 62 K
EN
W 0 34 60 D 28 0 EN 7
61 03 1 6 D
55 X AL6K160 61 EP 1 27 D .3 0
W WWA 5E53N24229 .1 4
V
0
BRT RAISED PLATFORM WALK-THROUGH STATION

SW 6 L K 6 6D .1 0
SW
30 E2N929
.1 0 D.2 4.1 0 60
60 6 37
5
60 0 29 EP
S
03
EP 0 28 1
X60 6 27 60
2W 3
6
7 .1A .1 0 58
L3K 6 1 26 17 0
61 6 EN 27 "c
19 3
54 X W 60610505 D .2 3 m la9y 6 7
W W 3 21
+ 27
9 ALESW 43 9 h 6 2 sa 26 60
SW 6 C /L 7 .0 n .9 2 37
30 KP
.2 61 EN BR C 1662 60 60 1 2 17 0 0 EP 6
62
2 5 D K p6 3/L 2395 01 2760 "c 3
W 54 6633 PoCrc0 .3BR6 .7 3 0 62 62 62 9 29 lay 6 6 6 .8
6622
FO
V 62 6 2EP6 2 62 sa 26 1
W W WM
00.9.3 6h0 1 K3E0PC
W
9 .8 BL 166020 44 B .0
88
.5.549 8 .4 8 .4 7 .8
7 .5 7 .127 n .8 7
9 pDoG 0035 C LD C /L004 O2C 5 0 46
8 9 .1
/L G 6
GUY
3
FO
rcC 66 BR C600B60R3
.1
24 24 hO 3209
"S 661 "S 6 R .8.7 K OR01102K.0W
24 EWCA 63 7A
TO 0 3545 TO 610534
PSB 656 P 54 LL6 3209 L L
SBB 5 EN.4
U
.9 90 CO
M
BA 6 33 AR
R 00.2.3 D R
PP
EN 56
3
EN
M M U
D D
60
OUTLINE OF N
02 16 b ld
23 gc
EP 8
IN
po 4
rc IR or
N
16 h EBNP 60 0
PP
O
WIRE D
20 LE/E 5
4 DFGEC 0
PCNC
CANOPY ABOVE
EC CE
LE
COOOR
1 D
RRE
ND
IN
BC
EN 60
D /I 390
1"
NL 6
T
ET 27
LE
CO.1 7
S C
TH 60 3 R
60 RO 89
38 UG 6
BC H 26
RO
8
EN 6T0 .6 9
T
62
C
6 D /I 391
B TO
.9 3
NL 6
ET 27
CO.3 8
RI
R
SS
R
TH
W M
R
OA
T
63 M P IC RY C
63 0. K
8 BIKE
0. + 5
61
00
YL 9
RACKS
63 R 61
0 .8 TA 01
R R 61
25
5
O 29
61 W .6
01 7
W 0
L 63
0 .8 9
LANDSCAPED
EXISTING BUILDING TO EXISTING BUILDING TO
57TH STREET SOUTH

PLAZA/ COURTYARD
BE DEMOLISHED. ONLY BE DEMOLISHED. ONLY
(NOTE: PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FACADE TO REMAIN FACADE TO REMAIN 62
+ 7. +
60
60 60 360 3 38
38B 8 8 5
60 60
16 37 38 60 EP F L2C/E63 64
ARE MET THROUGH ASSIGNED

22 38 62 C 2 2
1 EP69 0 YL 61 7 .3 7 .3 7 .7
27 6 27 0 3 7
34
.3 2 .3 27
4 .6 3
ONLY PARKING ACROSS THE STREET AT

62
OH
ONLY
61 7 .8
0 9
ON 12
LY 6 3
0 .9 6
62
BIRMINGHAM DREAM CENTER) 7 .7

.6
4
+
EC
O
CO
R/G
P
RA
VL
E
62
LP
7 .4
0
YS
60
37
R BA
8
62
7
EXISTING
.4 3
S FE
R AN US
BUILDING
OUTLINE OF US T 40'-0" B
TO REMAIN EB
OUT
63 63 CANOPY ABOVE
FIXE
D R
2. 1 62
06 + .94
+
60
YL 67
98
32
W
60
L 63
98
6
1 .9
4
EP
+
AS
PH
PP 8.
15
.0
US
6
40'-0" B 60
BC 396
/E
P
60 60 C
39 39
+
EP F L8 67
62
62 2 62
OH
60 7 .9 7 .9 8 .5
60 6 39 5 7
ER BAY
6
40 0 4 YL 69
1 00 28
6 2E6P2 6 .1
8 .3 7 .8 27
LAYOV 0" BUS

5
2 8 .9 3
LY FOR 40
'- 8.
BUS
ON 56
PP R 60
TA 98
RR 61
U S
40'-0" B
O 32
W .0
2 BL
16
22 D
8 CO
BC60 9 R
7
EPEC 6
63
\B
RK
BC
2.
EC
PP
EP
W 6
M OH + 5 W
60
LE 80
9
N 63
FO OHP
D 2
.6 5
P
60 60 60
40 41 41
F L66E6P7 68
62
28 28 28
PP
.6 3 .1 9 .2 2
6 U
LP 3
60
56TH ST
41
9.
F L6 2 66
8 .92
68 .5
62 D O
BC 60 6 2 4
6623 EN 6 4109 .0 8
60
90.9.2 D /E0 461
2. +
68 25
96
96 F L C/E 6 29 .1 6
EP 7
60 EC P9 .1
96 5
YL 6 61
63
2 .9 06
98
G
8 UY 62
8. P
32
.5 8
OHP
GA 61
TE 6 3 EP 06
63 EN
3 .5 CO 65
GW
4 R 32
.9 2
60
94 60 EP
60
42
+6
60
41
+
60
42
YL 62
60 60 60
EE
412B 42 42
EP F X3C2EP4 5
L6 2 6C
TO
YL 60 B 93 1
EC 6 2 EP 69 28
O
8 .328W.3
EPC\B 7 61
32 06 9 .2 28 .6 7 E9R
PP
.9 RK 3
62
PP 3
28
8 0 .2 BO
63 4 X
1 .8
3 60 60 60
PP
B43C 42 42
P
EP F L0EC69 8
6 2 P2
8 .4 C8 .4
0 0
9.
60
.2
BC 6041
63
ENF L 46121
60 D /E 29 60
EP 456 C/E .2 3 60 41
PO P 40 3
65 +
8 62
4
6 C 8 .6
C A 0 48
X
1
NO 0
4.
60
PY6 41 45
.6 9 EP 5
6 PC
C A 0 47 331 60 60
EECP 2 0909 41 42
NO 9 E 4 0
PY6 41 CCO 66 3 6 2P6 2 6 2
73 +
.5 5 ORR 311 8 .88 .4 8 .3
C 61 .8.333 3 4 6
HN 06
L IN 60 1 9
04 P 66
EC
K 31
FE 6 .5.80
NC 34 7
E/E.7 3
P EC
/E
G
63
REET SO
3 .5
LP
1 EP
63
CO
63
R
4. +
60 fn
9650 d
cro
2.
194 60 ss
6 36 336
9 TPIEK 331800
3 .7.5362 5
6N0A 66 3
4 .9 0 1IL
00 344 .4
.4 64
46 90
UTH
EAST TRANSIT CENTER

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING
FEBRUARY 4TH TO 6TH, 2019
I
17 t h S t N
9t h S t N
10t h St N
7t h S t N
8th S t N
11th St N
12th St N
1s
t
C
tN OP
13th St N
OP
P
1s t Av e N £ 1s t Av e N £
¤ 1s t Av e N 1s t Av e N
¤
11
1s t Av e N 11
£
¤ 1s t Av e N
OP
11
OP
O N LY
BUS
16th St N
P
14th St N
18th St N
19th St N
20th St N
17th St N
â
ì
í
OP
OP
Mor ris Ave
P P
P
Pow ell Ave S
P
1s t Av e S
OP
1st Ave S
OP
OP
OP
P
12th St S
1st Aly S
Gold en Flake Dr
OP
OP
2nd Ave S
OP
OP
2nd Ave S
11t h St S
¨
§
¦
65
17th St S
³́
°̄ ³́
°̄ ³́
°̄
OP
3r d Av e S 3r d Av e S
â
14th St S
18th St S
19th St S
20th St S
16th St S
13th St S
â
10th St S
²
±
°̄ ²
±
°̄ ²
±
°̄
OP
4th Ave S 4t h Av e S
P P P P P P P P
7th S t S
12 t h S t S
15th St S
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP P
P
OP
P
OP
P
OP
OP
5th Ave S
OP
OP
OP
P
P
P
P
P
P
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
8th S t S
11th St S
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
OP
6t h Av e S 6th Ave S
Legend
P
í
OP
ì
No Through Movement Allowed
8t h S t S
No Left Turns Allowed
P
9th S t S
6th Aly S
â No Turns Allowed
O
S

Ave
P
7th
A llo w a b le T u r n M o v e m e n ts
Sourc e: Es ri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEy e, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
T
S
149
7t h Av e S

16TH STREET S
17TH STREET S
5/
D9
7/
J.V.SI
DE
85
GN
12TH STREET S
14TH STREET S
15TH STREET S
11TH STREET S
10TH STREET S
13TH STREET S
105+15
10
5+
00
5TH AVENUE S
SEE BELOW
Y
Y
Y
S
S
S
L
L
L
Y
U
S
U
N
L
N
S
L
B
B
B
U
N
O
U
O
N
B
B
Y
Y
O
O
S
S
L
L
U
U
N
N
B
B
O
O
O
O
B
B
N
N
U
U
L
L
S
S
O
Y
O
B
B
O
N
O
U
B
N
B
U
N
L
N
N
S
U
U
L
S
Y
L
L
L
Y
S
S
S
Y
Y
8TH STREET S
NAME TBA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

200+00
205+00
210+00
215+00
220+00
225+00
230+00
235+00
240+00
245+00
6TH AVENUE S
SEE ABOVE
17TH STREET S
BUS
ONLY
N
5/7/85 IG
J.V.
DES
D9
POW ELL AVENUE S
M ORRI
1ST AVENUE N
1ST AVENUE S
2ND AVENUE S
3RD AVENUE S
4TH AVENUE S
245+00
S AVENUE
ONLY
BUS
Y
Y
S
S
L
L
U
U
N
N
B
B
O
Y
O
O
S
S
L
L
U
U
N
N
B
B
O
O
18TH STREET S 247+53
O
O
B
B
N
N
U
U
L
L
S
S
Y
O
B
B
N
N
U
U
L
L
S
S
Y
Y
MEDICAL CENTER RAILROAD PARK INTERMODAL LEGEND:
PAVEMENT DEDICATED BUS LANE

300+00
305+00
310+00
315+00
320+00
325+00
326+28
BUS STATION SHARROW LANE MARKING
LANE SEPARATION CURB BIKE LANE
PRESENT RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPERTY LINE REQUIRED TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CURB & GUTTER
100 0 100
SCALE
HORIZ (FEET)
IN-TOWN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP (ITP)

LINE AND STATIONS
C B A
PYLON/ BUS
APPROACH PYLON/ BUS APPROACH INDICATOR
INDICATOR
METAL FASCIA
Roof
EL. +12' - 9"
STATION IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE
GUARDRAIL, POWDER DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE WASTE RECEPTACLE
COATED STEEL FRAME
WINDSCREEN, ALUMINUM LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. STATION IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE
WITH STAINLESS STEEL TVM (TICKET VENDING MACHINE) FRAMING SYSTEM W/
CABLES STEEL, REFERENCE STRUCTURAL, TYP. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
LIGHT/ART FEATURE, TYP. TEMPERED GLASS PANELS AND
BIKE RACK, TYP. BENCH, TYP. BENCH, BEYOND
PERFORATED ALUMINUM
PANELS, TYP.
Base
EL. +0' - 0"
CONCRETE PAD FOR BUS, BOTH SIDES

SYSTEM INFORMATION BOARD
A B C WASTE RECEPTACLE
24' - 0" 24' - 0" 15' - 0" RAMP UP TO PLATFORM
STRIKE ZONE
WINDSCREEN, TYP LIGHT/ART FEATURE

BENCH SEATING
1' - 8"
ADA CLEARANCE, TYP

TACTILE WARNING PAVERS
MARKING FOR BUS RUB RAIL 67' - 9" 42' - 0"
BENCH SEATING -1' - 2"
LENGTH OF PLATFORM AND RUB RAIL RUB RAIL EXTENSION, TYPICAL BOTH BUS APPROACHES
0"
0"
1' - 0"
-8"
2
6' - 4"
DN 1' - 0"
SLOPE
12' - 8"
16' - 0"
SHELTERED
6' - 4"
PASSENGER 1" :M1A2X"

WAITING
1 AREA
0"
STRIKE ZONE
-1' - 2"
1' - 8"
15' - 0" MARKING FOR BUS BIKE RACK, TYP

42' - 0" 11' - 0" TACTILE WARNING PAVERS EMERGENCY BLUE LIGHT POTENTIAL AREA FOR DOCKLESS
RUB RAIL UTILITY CABINET/ TICKET MOBILITY
RUB RAIL EXTENSION COLORED CONCRETE AT VENDING MACHINE ADA CLEARANCE
CIRCULATION TICKET VALIDATION
4' - 0" 69' - 0" 5' - 0"
DOWNTOWN BRT STATION DESIGN

J Not in field. Need to reinstall. N-1
Proposed
Sign Changes
9
(
!
A-1 G-1 H-1 I-1 J-1 S-1
¬
«
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
¬
«
(
!
I-1 J-1
9
9
9
9
9
N-1
9
9
(
! Z-3 (
!
B-3 B-1 K-1 L-1 M-1 N-4 N-2 T-1 ¬

«
E
9
9
9
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
Jefferson
¬
«
P ¬
«
4th P
Avenue UAB Hospital P¬
«
County Parking Deck
Children's
B-2 Parking
Hospital
5th Avenue
N-3 Parking
(
! (
!
Jefferson
¬
« Parking Deck ¬
«
P Public Deck
9
¬ P
9
«
County Parking
P
Parking
Z-1
¬
«P
¬
«
P UAB Hospital P¬
«
(
!
9
P-1 University ¬
«P ¬
«
P
9
Not in field. Need to reinstall. Children's of G
F (
!
Alabama ER Hospital ER 6th Avenue
UAB Women
P-2
(
!
G P-4
F Parking
¬
« ¬
«M-1
9
Deck
9
& Infant P
Parkinig ¬
« (
! L-1*
Z-2 U-1 U-2
9
¬ ¬
«P (
!
P-3 «
P
(
!
9
P-4
D
(
!
C-1 ¬
« P
U-3
9
Spain (
!
¬
«
P Rehab Center
(
!
9
Parking ¬
«
P
9
¬
«
P
9
Old Cooper Green
Parking Deck (
!
Q-1
X-1 ¬
«
P
9
D-1
(
!
9
(
!
Callahan Eye F
G VA Hospital ER
¬
«N-4
D-5 D-4
9 (
!
D-6 Hospital ER
F
G
V-1 V-2 ¬
«N-1
(
!
(
!
9
9
¬
«
E
9
9
9
(
!
D-2b
(
!
V-3
9
and 5th
(
!
(
!
D-2a

(
!
D
9
D-3
9
(
!
9
(
!
W-1 UAB Hospital P¬
«
(
!
9
¬
«
P-1 ¬
«
P-2
¬
«
P-4
9(
!
E-1
9

(
!
Q-2 Children's 5th E P

UAB Hospital E ¬
«
(
! ¬
«¬«
9
VA Hospital ER and 5th
F
G
¬
«
9
R-6
Legend
(
!
R-5
¬
«
Z-1 Z-2
9
(
!
(
!
9
Q-3 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
Callahan Eye 

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI,
G EmergencyRooms
F Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Hospital ER ¬
« ¬
«¬«
Children's 5th E
P
E-2 R-4 Community Children's 5th E
Wayfinding Sign
9
F-2 F
G UAB Hospital ¬
«
E
(
!
(
!
9
9 9 9 9 9
F-1
(
!
(
!
(
! Found
9
To Be Modified
R-2 R-3 ¬
«
Z-3 ¬
«Z-4
9!(
(
!
9
9!(
(
!
R-1 

(
! New Sign UAB Hospital UAB Hospital ¬
«
P Children's 5th E P¬
«¬«
(
! Missing in Field Highlands ER
F
G
(
! Relocate Sign *Note: L-1 was identified in Google Streetview, but was not found
during field verification. Add a new sign with referenced changes.
BRT Corridor
Medical District Wayfinding Sign Modifications

Woodlawn Transit Center
56th Street N
T
North Avondale Station

43rd Street N
N
e
enu
tAv
Sloss Furnace Station 1s
34th Street N
West Woodlawn Station
50th Street N
Future Station
20th Street N
N
e Avondale Station
enu
Intermodal Station tAv 1st Street N
1s
Morris Avenue
Rickwood-Rising Station
13th Street W
Princeton Station McWane Center Station

Princeton Parkway W Morris Avenue
18th Street S
Railroad Park Station
West End Station 2nd Avenue S
Medical Center Station
Cotton Avenue SW
5th Avenue S 4th Avenue S
Memorial Park Station

6th Street S
d Children's Hospital Station
a
o LombAv
R e nueSW 17th Street S
r
e
m
e S
ss e
B
e
enu
Av
h
MLK Jr. Drive 6t UAB Parkside Station
Avenue W 14th Street S
North Titusville Station SW
T nue
Villas at Titusville e
Av
h
t Future Station
6
9th Street S
CrossPlex Transit Center

47th Street Ensley
Titusville Station
1st Street S LEGEND:
T TRANSIT CENTER
Elmwood Station
INTERMODAL STATION
Goldwire Street SW
MEDIAN STATION
CURB STATION
FUTURE STATION
NOTE: STATION DESIGNATIONS SHOWN ARE

GENERALLY LOCATIONAL, AND ARE NOT
THE OFFICAL FINAL NAMES.
BIRMINGHAM XPRESS STATIONS
© 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 HERE

TSP EQUIPMENT TSP FUNCTIONS
Green Extension Red Truncation
Queue Jump Transit Only Signals
TSP USERS
Immediate Future BIRMINGHAM XPRESS ROUTE
49 Existing Signals
5 Proposed Signals
4 Signals with Queue Jump
3 Signals with Exclusive
Transit Phases
TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY

P
R
IN
C
E
T
O
N
P
K
W
0
Y
0
+
S
8
W
2
D
R
R
E
M
E
S
S
E
B
0
0
+
BORDER ST
5
2
16TH ST W
17TH ST W
15TH ST W
12TH ST W
13TH ST W
14TH ST W
10+00
15+00
20+00
25+00
30+00
35+00
40+00
45+00
50+00
55+00
60+00
LOMB AVE 65+00
70+00
0 75+00
0
+
0
2
LOMB AVE SW
FAYETTE AVE
0 RICKWOOD
0
+
5
1
1
1
0
T
T
H
H
S
S
T
T
S
S
W
PRINCETON
W
0
0
+
1
0
1
2
T
H
S
T
S
W
0
0
+
5
0
5+0
1
AV
EN
U
E
W
0
0+0
1
CROSSPLEX TRANSIT CENTER

LEGEND:
HIGH AMENITY BUS STATION N

MEDIUM AMENITY BUS STATION
0 100 200 DEDICATED BUS LANE
SIDEWALK
GRASSED MEDIAN
Feet
EXISTING PAVEMENT (RETAIN)
Scale: 1" = 100' PRESENT RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY LINE
REQUIRED TRAFFIC SIGNAL
REQUIRED DRIVEWAY CLOSURE/RELOCATION
00
5+
WEST LINE AND STATIONS
© 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO
GOLDWIRE ST SW
0
5+0
1
GOLDWIRE PL SW
10+00
SW
E
V
5+00
A
D
3R
115+00 120+00 125+00
110+00
105+00
3R
+00
100
D
A
V
E
SW
0+00
NORTH TITUSVILLE
0
0
+
5
9
WEST END
C
O
T
T
O
N
A
V
E
S
W
0
+0
90
T
U
S
C
A
L
O
O
S
A
A
V
E
S
W
00
85+
LEGEND:
80+00
HIGH AMENITY BUS STATION
SIDEWALK
N
GRASSED MEDIAN
Feet
PROPERTY LINE

ON
11
0+0
0
3RD AVE SW
MEMORIAL PARK
TITUSVILLE
G
O
LD
W
IR
E
70+00 73+47
ST
65+00
60+00
SW
55+00
50+00
45+00
40+00
35+00
30+00
25+00
20+00
10 15+00
+0
0
6TH AVE S
ELMWOOD
6TH AVE SW
S
ST
S
TA
ST
EL
D
A
SW
EG
AY
SW
M
SW
O
W
PL
AY
Y
AR
R
TE
S
W
CC
ST
R
N
TE
CE
M
R
N
TE
CE
N
CE
LEGEND:
HIGH AMENITY BUS STATION

N
SIDEWALK
GRASSED MEDIAN
Feet
PROPERTY LINE
11310
548.08 E
MYRTL 10011
MULTI- CREPE 547.23 10015
546.45
EC 10016
+
EP
546.48 11289
10017FL 547.34
11272
546.82 4"DYL END 547.94
BC-HC R EC
547.34
11294
T
10032547.12 547.16 10020 11275
GAS DIR 546.43
10019546.47 11276 547.48
EC PI 547.06
10010
548.03
10018 EP
FL546.57 11277FLBC
547.12
REBAR
11268
UGT BOX HCR EP 547.44
11267
11266 BC547.01
12390 547.11
FL
12363
545.95 EP
D 1/2"
0.00 11292
547.41
"REBAR 547.08 11269
IPF-1/2CAL 547.88
UGT 7"OAK
U N
11309
O
548.14 E
F
MYRTL
MULTI- CREPE 11293
7.27
546.86
E
11295GAS-TE
546.99
54
GAS-2
+
11265
10024 10023 547.41
546.86 546.69
10022 4"W
BUMP MAT
BUMP MAT 546.67
10021 546.67
FLEP
+
10209
547.27
BREAK 10030547.07
10029547.03 11270
547.57
EC 547.69
SIGN
HCR BUS STOP
10028546.62
10027546.61 11264
FL 547.54
EP END
4"W SOLID
REBAR
+
10025 11263
546.83 547.57
BUMP MAT
10026546.64 ASPH
" 4
2.7
BUMP MAT
/6
14
12391
546.96
12364 11271
FOUND 5
0.00 10031 547.55
IPF-1/2"REBAR
CAL 547.00
10038
11262
547.55 12"OAK
EC PI 546.67
10037546.57
10036 4"DYL END
HCR
FL 546.55
EP
11248
547.80
547.40
10033
FENCE-WIRE
+
10208 546.76
10034
546.74 R 546.47
10035
BC-HC
BREAK FL 546.52
EP
11249
10203
10199545.85 547.96
546.89 EC
G
INLET
10195
546.70
+
12230 11261
542.88
10196
10202 10207 INLET 547.40
546.82
545.96 546.75 11246
Y
10205 10204
10198 FL 18"RCPINLET BREAK 4"W 547.64
11247
10200 G 10192 547.62
547.01 545.92
546.71 546.73 546.66 LP1-UGE SIGN
X
G 10194 10191
ET546.10
BREAK INLET MH-DRAIN 546.6312236
BC-INL NO PRK
546.62
10188
543.86
FL 546.34
INLET
FL 18"RCP EP
10197
10201546.63 10193
545.95 546.60
E
G
INLET 10190ET
10219 BC-INL
10218546.60 FL 546.10 11250
COR546.6210189
EC 10217 546.37 547.69
BC-EC COR 546.30EP EC
FL
10216
10206 546.39
L
546.98 EP
BREAK
+
10186
546.62
10252 10187BAR 11251
547.16 STOP 546.63 11252 547.48
UGT 4"DYL END 547.06
11253
FLBC
S
10211 547.10
547.24 EP
EC
10039 11260
10040546.83 547.07
EP 546.86
10041 GAS-1
FL 546.90
HCR
N
10212
546.42
547.10
10213
EC 11245
10214547.12 547.38
BC 546.77 7"OAK
10215
FL 546.76
547.42
EP 10048
10049 547.12
E
10042 EP547.16
+
547.29 11254
FL
10050 547.42
10184 HCR 547.57
10047 4"W
546.46 10046 547.11
10181
EP 546.83 BC-HC R EP547.10
10045547.53
BC-INLET FL 11243 11244547.76
+
10185 BC-EC 547.75
546.42 10180 ECFENCE-WIRE
STOP BAR 546.92
INLET
T
10183 12237
12233
10220541.87 10182
546.40 543.79
12234
12235 546.83 546.80
EP FLET
541.88
541.91 18"RCP
MH
18"RCP
FLCL BC-INL 10043
FL 18"RCP
24"RCP 547.50
547.58
FL 10179 10044
546.75 HCR 547.74
INLET EC PI
12242547.80
E
EC 11255
547.53
12300547.89 10051
547.71 4"W SOLID
SIGN
IPF-Nail NO PRK 11242
546.41
547.53
E
12241 EC
AV
547.75
10118
+
EC 12238547.76 548.16 E 11256
547.58
HPOIN T
12239 MYRTL
10264
546.50 BC-HIG 547.26
12240 MULTI- CREPE ASPH
BREAK FL 547.24 10221
546.99
10052
547.89
EP 10116
4"DYL END UGE-C ONDUIT
R
10253 548.59 E
10254
547.35
547.10 CREPEMYRTL
MYRTLE UGT MULTI-
+
10222
10223546.41 11257
MULTI- CREPE EP 547.04
547.59
BC-EC 4"DYL
11241
T
11240 547.27
547.39
10263
T
10258545.36 BC546.87 11238
546.34 11239FL 547.21
G
INLET 546.95
EN
10265 7"OAK
546.34 10177 EP
10267
DOCKLESS
547.45
INGHAM
BREAK 546.64 10229 10224
10255
12231 BREAK 546.92 547.01 UGT BOX
10262
546.29
542.34 R
10260
10259 AIN 10257546.24 10228 HCR
S
546.32
545.36 545.46 BC-HC
546.59
MH-DR
FL 18"RCP INLET
G
G
INLET HCR
EBAR P 546.70 MOBILITY AREA M

5/8" R
10256 10120 10119
IR
+
10261546.24 547.69 E 548.35 E 11258
TPED
545.49 MYRTL 547.39
B
INLET
G MYRTL
MULTI- CREPE MULTI- CREPE 10117
548.37 E
11259
547.78
4"W
F
MYRTL GAS-1 PI
OH H
MULTI- CREPE
FOUND H CITY O TREET NORT
+
10251 10227
10266 12232547.15 546.70
MH537.83
U
546.25 CL 'vCULV ERT HCR
BREAK 11236 11237
FL 9.5'hX5 547.27 547.48
10420
10225
10226 547.16 GAS-1 GAS-1 DIR
546.41 546.77
R
BC-HC
T
G EP
10268 10115
546.19 548.44
T-PED 10275 10272
546.59 20"PIN-OAK 10056547.11
E
S
546.42
W EC COR 10055
35203
EP
547.01
47 547.45
10443 10273 10230 10054547.44
0
10419 546.47 E 546.45
10279 547.57 FL
MYRTL
710 2
10269 COR 546.11 STOP SIGN
TPED
545.84 MULTI- CREPE BC-EC
+
546.17
10270 BC-ECFL10278 10178
EC DIR T-PED 546.20 546.19 547.04
TP EP G
10271
546.42
L
EC COR
A
11235
10274 547.45
547.04 ,
10276546.34 10114 10053 END 11224
4"W SOLID
W
BC-EC COR 547.97 547.73 546.96
M
545.99
10277 20"PIN-OAK
GHA
10418 FL 545.99 EC 7"OAK
545.84
+
EC DIR EP 11234
547.45
10415
X
END 11218
10416 545.87 4"W DASH 547.33
BIRMIN
10417
BC DIR
545.38 12295
FL545.43 546.13 11233
547.50 FENCE-WIRE
EP 11219
10421 IPF-5/8"REBAR 10231 ASPH 547.60
545.89 10232
10233 547.27 EC
UGE-BOX BC546.85
546.81
COR
OH
EP COR-ECFL
10234
12296546.19 547.11
S EP-EC PI 11232
FOUND -CROS 547.47 11220
4"DYL 547.38
T
10431 EC
547.27
10422 545.90
10412 545.90 EC COR
545.21
EC
10413 545.03 10423 10432
10414 EP544.98 10424 545.97 545.84
FL545.45 10425BC545.45 BUMP MAT 10442
BC DIR
546.27
FL 10433 546.12
10441
545.51 545.77 BC
EP 545.64
10430BUMP MAT FL 11221
FOUND
10428 10440 11222 547.01
10427 545.95EC COR545.66 10435 545.67 10243 10244 546.56
BC
BC545.49
10429 545.76 EP 546.57 546.68 FL
11223
10426
FL 10242
CORBC-HC R
545.48 545.60 BUMP MAT HCR-EP
EP 547.06
10249 10245 546.71
EP COR-EC 10434
10436 10437 BC-HC R 546.72 546.74 EP
+
545.67
MAT R545.63 10438 546.06
BC 545.60 BUMP MAT P
10246 HCR-E 10238
11231
547.27
BUMPBC-HC
FL 10241 546.74 10239546.98 4"W
+
R547.24
CUT 546.97
10488 10439 10248
546.74
545.21 545.60 HCR 546.75 BUMP MAT EC COR
BC-HC
TOP EP BUMP MAT 10247
+
CROSS
10240546.79 10176
546.82
MAT 10235 546.27
BUMPHCR 546.78 G
COR
EP COR-EC
10487 10250
545.05 547.61 10236 10113
SWALE 547.00 548.26
LP1-OH E BC END 20"PIN-OAK
546.50
+
11225
546.97
10410
1040910411 4"W
545.29
545.30
547.55
FL545.76COR
BCCOR-EC
EP
11217
10237 10057546.91 546.75
547.03
FENCE-WIRE
BR
EC PI 10058
EP 11216
547.07
10404 546.86
10059547.26
WV
10136 545.31
OHP
FL EC
545.45 BC-HC R BC-EC
MAGNAIL
+
10175
546.50
G
+
10405 10280
10281
T
545.40 547.09
547.55 11227
BUMP MAT FLBC 547.11 11215
10406 12389
12366 DASH END 546.85
545.42 10362
10363 545.66
546.13 10060547.46 4"W
545.92
BUMP MAT 545.92
547.12
10361 of WALK EC
FL
EP 546.15 FACECAL EC
BC
RA
10408 11226
10403 545.40 10364 547.08
KEY
BUMP MAT 545.85 10484 10483 4"DYL END
10407
BC-HC R545.34 EP 10360 546.89
12388 12367
123870.00
545.40 546.15 WV 12365546.89
545.85 546.00
BUMP MAT BC FH 0.00 CALte
concre
FH
CAL
11214
11213 546.67
547.71
10359
IS
546.26 11212BC546.26 11190
546.28
BC END-EC FL546.42
EP FENCE-WIRE
+
10486 10400
10401 11229 11191
547.12
FH
545.60 546.68
PP
545.36 BCFL 545.27 ASPH EC
ED
10112
546.71
10402 547.74
545.29
PAD
10283 11196
20"PIN-OAK
+
EP 10282 547.14
547.23
FLBC 547.71 7"OAK
546.10
10358 10347
546.44
COR 546.79
EP COR-EC OHCOR 11228
TRANSFER
547.09 11192
C
10399 546.76
4"DYL EC
545.60
10397
BC 545.16
PL
COR
EP COR-EC
10398 11189
545.20 545.80
COR
+
EP COR-EC
11211 LP1-UGE
+
10173 546.71
GW
546.10 4"W
G
10329 11193
CENTER
10328546.88 11194 546.45
GAS AT 546.66
10394 COR547.52 BC546.02
545.32 EC
BC COR
EC 11195
FL546.14
10395 10336 EP
545.33 547.47
UGT COLUMN 11230
545.45
10357 10327
10330 546.94
546.58
C
COR 547.51
546.88 4"W
EP COR-EC BC COR
FO
10393 EC
546.99
545.32 10345
BUILDING
EC 547.43
S
GAS PUMP 10284
PUMP
10392 10344 547.26
10285
545.50
10391 10356 547.41 FL 547.78
10334
10333546.76 GAS PUMP BC
+
BC 545.00 546.36 10065546.66 11208
11620545.40 EP FL 547.39 10286 546.93 11184
EC
+
10365 BC 10346 547.75 545.31
RM
10064
MYRTLE 545.45 10348 10335 546.98 W
EP546.53 4"DYL
MULTI- CREPE 10396 EP 546.39 OHCOR 10063 HCR
545.09 OHCOR COLUMN
547.36 FL 546.93
10485 GAS 10111 BC-EC
OH
10366 10368 10355 10343 547.52 11197 11175
11621545.12 545.35 10367
545.46 545.76 547.38 10332
10331 546.53
GW EP BC-EP
545.67
546.67
KEY PAD 547.38
546.79 20"PIN-OAK 544.81
END
+
10369 EC-EP 11209 4"W
G BC-EP 545.76
BC
EC 546.99
11183 FENCE WIRE
BC END-EP 10174 ASPH 545.96 11171
11170544.72
545.99 HCR 544.38
10342 G BC 11168544.51
10444 547.40 10062 11185 11172544.72 FL11169544.56
W
546.67 GAS PUMP 547.05 544.88 STOP BAR
MONT. WELL 11173
EXISTING FUELING
10338
10339
547.37 EC HCR BC-HC R544.62 EP DIR
10370 546.53
COR 10172 FL
545.92 BC COR
EC 10337 12258 545.82 11182 11174544.82
COR 547.39 10326 542.41
ATE INLET 10061546.96 545.94
EP COR-EC COLUMN
10325
547.16
FL18"RCP
CL 2X2'GR
FL 547.65
LP1-UGE BC-HC R EP
AL
10375 11207
BC-EC COR 11179 11186
P
10374545.26 546.97 545.85 11187
544.95
10341 545.23
546.85
EP 545.59 10340547.43 4"DYL P COR
546.66 BVG-E
11180545.72 HCR
EP
10376 BC-EP COR
BC COR
546.32
545.27 10353 EC 11181FL
EP 546.46 11198 545.80
C
CANOPY
546.79
C
10373 EP
546.76
545.61 4"DYL 11164
K-
BC-EP 10352 544.80
546.38 10171
10390
FL 547.04 4"W DIR
545.26 10372 10349 G
4"DYL 545.69 546.74 10294
BC END-EP 11167
OHCOR
+
10354 547.59 10287 544.97
10445 546.62 BLDG COR 547.03
STOP BAR
TH
546.69 C G 11165 11163544.88
36"INTAKE 545.07
+
11200
546.85 4"W END 4"W DIR
12259
+
547.03
546.31 ASPH 11206 11176
10371 546.32 545.79
12258
545.76
COR 10321 18"DIRECTION 4"W BVG-EP
S
11162545.02
EP COR-EC 10322
546.99
+
547.58 11210 11177
546.57
10389 10320FL R 10293 546.76 545.60 STOP BAR
12245 545.07 BC-HC 547.78
RO
547.02
10323 4"W 11178
FL
CL MH535.41 FL 547.18 BLDG COR 545.69 11166
545.16
HCR
FL/OU T-8"DIP 11199 EP 4"W END
10716 28
10002
11977 546.81
547.28 547.12
547.17
10318 OL 4"DYL
10317
546.90 BLDG COR 'B 'CONTR
CP
GSA-CHECK
FL
10319 547.01
546.60
HCR
546.90 10292
10316 10291 547.63
546.61
FL 547.26
BLDG COR
547.61
UG
10377
545.02 10446 BC-HC R BLDG COR
EP 546.55 11161
18"INTAKE
+
10350 545.08
10378 546.57
545.01
10379 C 11205 STOP BAR
10380
EP 545.33 10324 546.60
545.35 10351 547.56
BC BC10381 546.58 4"DYL
545.43 FL HCR
546.30 S
BC END-EC 10449 10314
H
546.49 10313
546.80
12"INTAKE FL 547.27 10066
+
11201
+
BC 10134 10170 546.46 546.60
10290 10715547.51
+
10447 10315 547.55 546.50 10067
EP546.37 11204
10450 547.66 4"W
GA DS
546.61
546.51 546.60 546.59 10295
BLDG CORHEDGE 7"MAPLE G 10068
10482 10382
545.63 MONT.WELL 18"INTAKE EP COR-EC
COR 547.42 FL546.76 ASPH
ST
545.56 COR COR-EC
BC 10296 BC-EC
W-TEE EP10383
COR-EC
10384 547.01
545.69 10457
0
FL 545.70 10448 546.95 FL
10297
10388 EC COR 36"INTAKE
LANDSCAPED546.5
545.57 10387 546.46 546.91
WM 10386 545.81 12"INTAKE 10310
10311 EP COR 11159544.45 11160544.44
+
10385 EP545.82 10451 10312
546.61
546.66 11188
FLCOR 547.26 546.05 END
EXISTING
BC
FL546.26 546.30
COR EP COR-EC BC 10069547.02 4"W EP DIRFENCE WIRE
EP COR-EC
AT
EC
11203
LI
546.53
4"DYL
WM
10307
10308 547.26
IO
10309 BC
546.66
546.35
FL546.63
SHED PLAZA/COURTYARD
10481 EP 11158
10480 W 545.15 544.67
11122
T
545.12
COR-BC 10456 EC COR-EP 545.35
EC 546.86 20"TREE
18"INTAKE
N 546.20
10306
10305 547.36
OH
BC546.83
10304 10300
FL546.79 547.32
10299 11139
BC10298
546.84 10713 546.21
EP FL 546.81 547.61
10455 10301 EP HEDGE 4"DYL END
547.02 547.34 10133
+
10479 10302 11202
12"INTAKE
+
11549 BC 546.82 547.42 10288 10121 546.35
544.98 545.17
7"MAPLE
+
COR-BC FL
10303 546.84 548.14 4"W
EC G
4"DYL 10476 10460 10454
EP
546.80 20"PIN-OAK
10477 545.34 10459 546.48 547.09
541.44 10478 BC545.18 10458EP546.47 18"INTAKE
541.52
544.98 FL FL
RCP BC 546.90
+
546.80
FL-15"
CL MHRCP 545.18
COR 11140546.20
FL-15"
546.84
EP COR-EC 1047410475 10453 11148545.22 11121545.26
545.82 547.09 ASPH
12"INTAKE
546.86
10473 BC545.30 10714 EC SIGN
FL545.30
EP
547.60 1115711153
11154 BUS STOP
LP1-UGE 545.01
545.09
COR545.07
EC COR-EP
BCEND
BVG END-EC
11155
544.87
+
10463 FL
11156 11147
10462
546.86
10461 544.91 545.12
BC FL 546.43 EP
546.44 11138546.14 11146
BC-EC
EP 544.82
11149545.37
4"DYL END FL
11145544.89
546.13
EC
10073546.26
EP
10072EP
546.21 11120
10071546.60 545.48
FL
20"TREE
547.36
BC-EC
545.36
11150545.15
11454 11151
11453 544.53 544.69
BC-EC
S
11450
+
544.56 COR
11456
545.07 10452 10168 11152
546.34 12263 FL 544.74
EPCOR-EC
EP 11455 544.61 547.16 535.37
12248
BC COR-INLET C545.06
541.69 EP COR-EC
COR 10132
547.64 G 10070
546.82
11143
12264
C545.73 EP
546.34
10122 535.33
+
12249 BC-INLET 10077 FL-8"V
FL-15"RCP 541.94 7"MAPLE 548.11 EC 546.13 CL MH C
FL-8"V
11452544.51 FL-12"VC 10470 10464 20"PIN-OAK 10076
EP546.08 11136
11451
12250
WV
10075546.31
545.56
541.95
EP 545.07 10471 546.52 10465 546.62 545.78
FL
+
BC 546.14 10718
11348 4"DYL END
+
BC546.08
BC-INL ETC
FL-12"V 10472
FL546.12 10469
10466
FL 546.19 547.27 547.36 BC-HC R 11144
545.36
547.30
11458
11459545.15 EP 4"W ASPH
545.07 10468546.53 EP 4"W
1146111460545.07 COR BC 546.13 11347
545.07 EP COR
BC END-EC11457 FL 547.26
SIGN
EC 545.19 10467 4"W
NO PRK COR 546.14
EP 11141
EP COR-EC 545.86
10712 ASPH
547.64 10074546.46 10078
HEDGE 12262546.10 545.89
10711 12261 HCR 10079
EP545.88
547.44 18"DIRECTION
+
11464 11470545.56 FL
544.95
11465 EC
WV 545.04 4"W
+
W 11346
545.69
547.30
4"W-COR
+
11366
546.33
ASPH 10710 11137 11135
11367 10709 547.35
546.33
546.12 545.86 545.62
546.89
BC-EC 11116
11125
MONT.WELL FL
10708 4"DYL END 4"DYL 11115
11126
546.78 12261542.13 10082 BC-EC
BC-EC
11127
EP 546.46 11114
FL 544.50
R10080 FL
544.52
11462545.06 10169
FL 18"RCP BC-HC
10081 546.31 EP
10289 545.30 546.37 EP
COR 546.86 INLET
EP COR-EC 11349
10131
547.33 G 2X2'GRATE FLEP PI
546.75
547.24 7"MAPLE
LP2-UGE
+
10123 11142
46.91
547.38 545.69
FIXED ROUTE 5
TRANSFER BAYS WITH CANOPY
12254 20"PIN-OAK ASPH
544.93
545.65 49
546.71
12"VC/D IRECT ION122
10094
546.64
545.60
546.45
10093545.63
547.43
11469545.36 EP
FL
11134
+
4"W 11350 545.68
546.75
+
4"W 10135 4"DYL
546.91
MAGNAIL 11113
+
11128544.94
4"W 544.93
+
10719
546.71 4"W
11351 ASPH
546.89
546.71 10092546.37
4"W EP PI
+
10167
WI Y
+
+
11356 546.64 10089546.45 1008710091
546.43
11352 547.43 G 10088546.48
10084546.95 546.36
546.77 ASPH 10083546.93FL
EP PI
4"W FL BC EP
BC
10085
RE
546.93
10086
GU
10703 546.49
BC10090
547.09 10130 FL 546.46
546.98
11355 HEDGE
546.95 7"MAPLE EP 11133545.44
1135311354 4"W
+
547.33
546.89546.92 10704
547.19
4"W
4"W 4"W EC 11129
11111545.30
545.31
10161 4"DYL
4"DYL
11314 546.10
10162
10717 547.17 545.72
BC 10163
546.44 10705 545.82
SPACES 10706 547.13
POT FL
PRK-22 546.63
EP
BC-EC
FL
10707
546.88
546.57
+
EP 11112
11131545.41
546.27
+
11365 12268536.85
10110 545.40
547.33 545.14
545.41
12226 LVERT ASPH
546.47 ASPH CL MH
FL9.5'hX5'vCU
POT
11479
11478546.39
546.56
EP
EC
546.12 BUS ONLY 123680.00
+
11368 CAL
546.88 11130
11110
545.42
545.44
+
ASPH 11330
546.27 4"DYL
4"DYL
11329 4"W
546.40
546.37
12228 4"W 10160
545.21
546.34 545.70
10159
10129 545.28
BC 10158
OVERHANG 546.81 FL 545.37
10095
11468546.30 7"MAPLE EP 545.53
EP 10096
+
12227
11467 COR 11476547.05 10720 PI 545.57
BLDG
546.35
546.21 546.12 10097545.64
COR 11331 FL 10100544.99
COR-EC
COR 11477 COR 546.06 ASPH
BLDGEC WALL COR-EC
547.54
4"W COR BC-HC R 10099
EP
COR 10098 544.84
WALL COR-EC
547.23
FL544.91
10101
10157 BC-HC R 545.08
+
11328 10702 545.78 BC
546.37 547.10 10156
545.83
EP10155
11472
11475 547.07 4"W HEDGE FL 546.20
+
547.57 10701 11132545.21
11474 11473 BC
546.86
11564546.03 END
11471 547.55547.56
WALL
STEP
547.08
547.04
4"W 11109545.20
G WALL END
ECSTEP
COR
EC 10154
546.08
10153 10124 10103545.34
545.65
545.53
BC10152 10166 546.45 10102 4"W
545.71 SIGN 545.23
FL 545.69 10165
EP 10164
545.73 20"PIN-OAK NO PRK
EP HCR
FL 546.18
+
11364 BC
WV
547.23 10700
WV
ASPH 10699 547.01
545.72
546.54
OHP
BC-EC
10698
+
FL546.47 10503
546.90
10502
545.17
10501
545.53
545.10
+
EP BC
FL 10104
545.14
+
11547 545.17
546.86 EP
EC COR
PRK-15
11327
546.08 10105545.15
4"W
10143 EC COR
545.32
545.44
WV 10145
12269 545.33
10500
+
11332 10128 540.47 WV 10109
11482546.89 545.72 546.61 10499
545.31 C 544.47
11480
11481546.87 EP 10498 10144
+
FL-12"V
EP
547.19
COR 11344
546.90 4"W COR 7"MAPLE FL
545.31
545.72
544.87
INLET
10108
EP544.33
COR
END-EC
BCEP PRK-14
BC 2X2'GRATE 10107544.77
FL
10497 BC-EC
10496545.67
BC 10495
545.21
FL 545.28
WV
11334 EP
545.71
545.18
+
WV
11357
545.32 MONT.WELL 10147
546.93 546.76
544.94
ASPH
LP1-UGE
10146 10106
545.15 545.02
10151 WV EC
545.05
10150
+
10494 544.99
EP10149 10142
FL 545.40 544.89
545.21 BC WV
ASPH
BU
1224311494
545.21
10141
+
547.45
547.73 10721 544.60
L-COR
11493 LL 545.71 10696
EC-CO R-WAL
EC/WA542.90 ASPH 546.14 FH
+
L-COR 11369
EC-CO R-WAL
546.93 HEDGE
545.93
+
11345 11326
FH
ASPH 546.76 11370 545.39
11483547.05 PRK-14 546.47 4"W 10695 10148 10125
11484 546.21 545.77
547.23 MONT.WELL 544.82
EP EC G 20"PIN-OAK
S
12244547.48 BC-EC
11495
L-END 11333 10493 10137
542.90 545.05 544.78
EC-CO R-WAL PRK-9 EP
544.93
10492
10491
EC/WALL-END 10127
544.84
FLBC 545.26 GUY POLE
546.00
R
10694
10693 546.18 7"MAPLE
O
11485 10692 545.74 10592
FLCOR-EC
545.65
BC 10597
544.84
11491 547.71 544.81
EP10598545.22
+
LL
542.81 11363 EP COR
LAYBY SPACES
EC-WA
RS/WALL 545.93 FL
BC
EC-COR/STAI ASPH
O 9
11497543.09
NL
10593 10599 10637
FF-BASEMENT 10596
544.73 545.17
544.70 BC-INLET
EP
11496542.73 FL BC
544.74
11492 10638
542.81 'DEEP 10594
O
STAIRS GRATE-6"1.25 10654 544.64
544.82
544.56
10655 10595 INLET
544.12 EP10600
544.62
BC10656 545.10
Y
11490 FL 544.16 10490
FLBC
FL 3.0
547.74 544.55
RS/WALL EP LP1-UGE
544.57
EC-COR/STAI 11358
544.86
11486 LP2-UGE
11487 547.76
547.75
11489 WALL END-EC
COR 10665
547.69 WALL END-EC 544.52 10666
+
RS 10722 544.28
544.74 HCR
EC-COR/STAI HEDGE
+
11316 ASPH
544.82 10661
+
544.18
10658 10140
4"W-CORNER 10662
BC-HC R543.78 544.57
4
11488 FL
543.80 EC
547.60 10664
10691 544.44 HCR
EC-CO R 544.77
10690 10628
ED 5
EP 10689
544.72 HCR 10607
10608 544.43
545.15 10657 544.27
544.25 10139
FL
BC 543.63 10606 PLANTER 544.48
10697
544.35
EP
EP 544.23 EC
545.09 10663 EP 10601 10126
LP1-UGE 543.56 10605 FL 544.62
544.18
545.58
10660
10659
HCR 10646 BC 20"PIN-OAK
543.88
543.47 543.86
10647 10609 10602 FL544.54
BC-HCFLR EP10652
543.86 544.05
545.10
10667 544.28
10653 BC
10668543.82 FLBC 544.20 EP 10629
ET543.37 10604543.98 544.56
BC-INL10669 10651RAFFIC
10650 10603544.43 10591
SIGN-T
10679 FL 543.43 544.25
10649 544.07 EC-PLANTER
H
544.96 EP 10648 544.17 543.81 FL
BC
543.77BCFL LP1-UGE
546.61
BC
544.21
10644
7"MAPLE 543.82 10630
544.34
FL 544.54
EP
IS =
10625544.15 EC-PLANTER
+
11359
+
544.35 10645 ER
543.68 10626544.24
ASPH EP WALL-PLANT
11317
544.33
10676
543.81 WALL-EC
4"W INLET
+
11362 10677
543.68
545.10 543.49
ASPH INLET10670
543.12 10624543.92
544.58
11315 10678 10507
N L
10675 539.60EP 10623
+
544.37 10506 544.31
COR 10138
+
11509 11335 11318 10688 543.90 WALL 544.20
546.61 545.53 4"W-CORNER 544.21 10687 544.45
FL24"R CP,
10614
10615 WALL END-EC
544.31
COR 544.34
WALL-EC
FI E
543.99 INLET10674 543.61
544.05 G
11503
546.65 11507
EP
11508
546.67 4"W COR 4"W 10686 BC
FL
544.07 543.59 FL COR WALL END-EC 10504
11504 EP BC 10611
END-EC
543.73 10627544.44
10505 544.30
COR
EP 546.67 FL 547.12 11510 INLET
11505 BC-EC
FL 11511 546.67
10610543.55C EC WALL END-EC
544.31
COR
547.10
11512EP546.70 EP WALL END-EC
BC-EC FL547.16
BC-EC 10618 10631
11506 10612 543.98 544.36
547.14 EC PI PLANTER
+
543.56 10622544.30
LP1-UGE 10683 10673 10613 C
+
11325 543.64 10616
543.39
544.58 11319 10684544.17 10672 543.83 EC
4"W 544.14 BC 543.71 BC-INLET543.12 BC
FL
END-EC
COR
FL FL
544.30
4"W 10685 10671
543.78 10682 543.19
EP 10681 543.86 10617543.93 10508
544.19
EP 10509 544.55
BC 543.41
546.52
EC PI WALL
544.34
+
10680
FL
543.51 WALL-EC
10619544.09
11502 EP 10620
546.77 544.08
11501 WALL END-ECCOR
EP COR 546.80 WALL END-EC
543.51
11320
545.39
FL
11500 544.16
547.21
OR 4"W
11499547.75 BC-CO R/EC-C 10510
11515 10621 EC 544.47
R-WALL-COR 11514 546.58 544.05
EC-CO11543 11513 EP546.64
544.42
EC COR
+
545.85 FL547.07 11321
COR
+
11371 544.19
WALL COR-EC BC-EC 546.52 11324 4"W
544.11
544.52
ASPH 4"W
11498 10641
+
547.78 11545545.71 11516 11343 544.17
11544 11517
PING
L-END
545.94 546.58 545.39 PLANTER
EC-CO R-WAL COR GRATE
11518 546.60
FL547.05
EP 4"W
WALL END-EC BC-EC
MINGHA H
M LANDSCA
+
11323 10516
544.42
4"W 10590 544.37
LANTER
+
11322 11360 543.82 EC COR-P
544.36 544.11 10515
11546
545.95
11542545.82 11342
545.44 4"W ASPH LP1-UGE 544.42
EC-PLANTER
FFE STAIR S-WALL 11336 4"W 10514
10513
IR
546.43 544.43
544.45
COR
END-EC
4"W COR
545.77 B ER
11541 WALLWALL
END-EC
+
543.26
548.09 11361 10512
546.33
544.56 544.53
STAIR S-WALL
F
EC COR
R PLANT
ASPH
CITY O TREET NORT 544.53

10517
544.45
LANTER
10511 EC COR-P
11341 544.38
544.21
11540548.08 545.56 EC COR
O 5
4"W
STAIRS 11537
547.83
11538547.85
COR 11531547.37
WALL END-EC COR 10941
WALL END-EC
+
543.56 10643
CANOPY-2 11340
+
11535 545.77 10942 544.99
EP 543.26
O
547.14
+
11337 10940 G
0 S
4"W 10522
C-BREA K 546.33 10939543.49 10943
EP543.28 10521
544.99
544.48
03
4"W FL 543.93 10944543.74 EC COR 10520544.49 10518
BC FL 10578 WALL END-EC
544.68
10519 544.57
C
543.87
WALL END BLDG COR-E
546.49 10642
FL 5.9
WALL END
710 2 L 3523
11539 BC 544.54
547.88 EC COR
BLDG LINE
+
543.87 544.02
EC COR 11338 11339 10934544.21
544.55
546.24 546.15 10579543.55
10582
4"W 4"W 10933
EP 544.19 10587
10583 543.14
543.13
+
10932 543.08 COR 10576544.02
FL
END-EC
FL 544.65 EP 10586
FL 543.25
A
BC
544.40
BC EC
C
,
11536
+
547.84 11521 10523
11520
A
546.60
CANOPY-2
543.22
11519 546.67
10945 EC 544.40
GH
547.12
FL EP 10946
10947 543.19
+
BC-EC 543.15
543.49 10577543.87
.7
10929544.47 10953543.63 FL EP
4 546.62
10948
BC-EC COR 10585543.26
544
10930 543.29 EC COR
BIRMIN
10931
544.44 EC
EP 544.88 C C
+
10982 FLBC
ED 5
544.55 10580
10588
10581543.18
543.64
10584 543.22
EP
10983 10981544.41 543.12 COR
FL
546.21
544.61 10938 END-EC
BCEP
10984 10980
EP 544.25
FL 545.07 544.47 10524
BC 10979 EC 10949
11522
11523
11443 11524 546.66546.60 FL 544.96 543.28 EC 544.38
+
547.13
547.19 FL 11530546.67 10987 BC C 10525
45.67
EP
+
544.73 10952543.22
PRK SIGN BC-EC EP
10986
10951
10950 543.19 10589 G 544.58
PRK-3 544.69 10926544.93 10954543.73 543.66 543.55
10927 EP
10985
FL 545.18
10928 544.54
544.58 FL
COR LP1-UGE
11529 EC BC-EC
+
11434
5
546.59
546.62 COR
10925
FL
BC-EC 10526
BC
H
EP 544.67 546.68
4"W
4"W C BLDG LINE
546.17
11527 10988 10935
10936544.21
544.89
11526 546.60 10989 10937 544.17
IS =
+
11372 EP 544.38
11534547.23 11525 EP546.60 10990
544.86 10921 EC COR HEDGE 10489
544.06 4.27
546.21 10971
547.13
FL FL 545.32 10972 544.63
544.58 EC COR 543.94
C-BREA K BC-EC ASPH BC 10973 544.68
545.09
EP EP POT
FL 10924544.66
10977 COR
+
11392 545.20 BC-EC
10976 C
544.76
11391545.67 EC C 10922
10923
EP 545.72 544.52
544.98
FL 11393
11390 545.51 11010 FL COR
BC-EC 10970
546.23 EP
11394 545.31 544.37
N L 54
BC 11395 545.54 EC 6"OAK
FL546.06
+
11387 10975544.84
FI E
546.17 BC 10997
EP
11388 545.41 C
10991 10974545.27
546.32
11389546.20 545.48
10994 COR EC
+
FL 546.69 545.05 10978 10575544.06
11442547.18
BC
BC-EC
10996
10999FL 545.15 545.32 BC-EC COR 10527
11386 545.13 EC EC
PRK SIGN 546.33 C 546.30
11385
EP EP BLDG COR
+
11384546.35 10920544.86 10568544.27
FL 546.83 11011 10533
BC 545.42 544.25
11398
11397
11396 545.54 EC LP1-UGE EC
EC-PLANTER
10534
545.57
545.92
EP 10995 10908544.05 544.24
11403
COR 545.28 LANTER
BC-EC FL
545.63 C 10998 EC COR-P
11381
11382
11383
546.40 C 10992
545.57 10907HEDGE 10528
546.41 10993 545.61 EC 10904 544.15
546.88 10574543.97
+
EPFL 11404546.32 545.17 546.50
11440
11438
11439 546.61 BC BC-EC
FL
COR
10905
544.12
COR-EC
EC BLDG COR
546.64
547.12 EC BC 543.65 10909 EC 10531
FLEP
BC-EC FL 544.22 10532 LANTER
544.46
11427546.57 11402
545.73
10906
543.60 HC PRK
SIGN WALL END-P544.33
LANTER
11528
11435 11433 546.5711432546.55 11428
11426546.57 11399 10567544.19 WALL END-P
546.58 546.58 EP 546.60
11425 C
11400
545.63
10919 EP COR
EC COR
WEST TRANSIT CENTER

Exhibit 3
Attendee Sign-up Sheets from Public Involvement Meetings
Exhibit 4
Additional Targeted Outreach Materials
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT **
Public Involvement Meetings will be held for The Birmingham Xpress BRT Project on February 4th, 5th & 6th, 2019. All
concerned citizens and stakeholders are cordially invited to attend. Please join us at one of the following meeting times
and locations:
Monday, February 4, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, BJCTA Administrative Office, 1801 Morris Ave, 35202
Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, Birmingham CrossPlex, 2337 Bessemer Rd, 35208
Wednesday, February 6, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm, Woodlawn High School, 5620 1st Ave N, 35212
The Project is currently in design phase and construction is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2019. All aspects of
the project design will be on display at the meetings; some of which includes Transit Centers, Stations, Guideways,
Signalization, and Signage. The BRT Project Management and Consulting Team will be available to provide information
and address any questions or concerns.
We’re promoting transparency within your community by keeping YOU informed.
We look forward to seeing you there!
For more information, please contact the City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office at
capitalprojectsoffice@birminghamal.gov or (205) 254-2560 or visit www.birminghamal.gov/brt
If special assistance is needed, please contact us by January 25, 2019.
BRT PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT MEETING
All concerned citizens and stakeholders are invited
to the Birmingham Xpress BRT Project, Public
Involvement Meetings on February 4th to 6th, 2019.
All aspects of the project design will be on full display;
including, Stations, Roadways, Signalization, and
Signage. Meeting times and locations are as follows:
• Monday, February 4, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm,

BJCTA Administrative Office, 1801 Morris Ave,
35202
• Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 10:00am and 6:00pm,

Birmingham CrossPlex, 2337 Bessemer Rd,
35208
• Wednesday, February 6, 2019, 10:00am and

6:00pm, Woodlawn High School, 5620 1st Ave N,
35212
For more information, please contact the City of

Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office at
capitalprojectsoffice@birminghamal.gov or (205)
254-2560 or visit www.birminghamal.gov/brt.
Bham News: Jan. 20, 27, Feb. 3, 2019

A8986772-01
Exhibit 5
Public Involvement Meeting Comments
Exhibit 6
Written Notification Letters to ITP Corridor Property Owners
Map ID Parcel ID Property Address Owner Owner Address City State Zip
1 22 00 36 3 012 001.000 1731 1st Avenue North Y & V Historic Partners LTD 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 4000 Birmingham Alabama 35205
2 22 00 36 3 010 003.000 1801 1st Avenue North Robert L Crook Jr. 2421 2nd Avenue North, Unit # 2 Birmingham Alabama 35203
3 22 00 36 3 013 001.000 1735 Morris Avenue Birmingham Jefferson County Transit 3105 Reverend Abraham Woods Jr. Blvd. Birmingham Alabama 35203
4 22 00 36 3 009 002.000 1819 Morris Avenue City of Birmingham 710 20th Street South Birmingham Alabama 35203
5 22 00 36 3 014 001.000 1700 Powell Avenue City of Birmingham 710 20th Street South Birmingham Alabama 35023
6 22 00 36 3 008 001.000 1830 Powell Avenue South Alabama Power Company PO Box 2641 Birmingham Alabama 35291
7 22 00 36 3 007 001.000 1800 Frist Avenue South Alabama Power Company PO Box 2641 Birmingham Alabama 35291
8 22 00 36 3 016 001.000 1701 1st Avenue South Parkside Residences LLC 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 450 Birmingham Alabama 35209
9 22 00 36 3 016 004.000 1706 2nd Avenue South Vulcan Birmingham LLC 14435‐C Big Basin Way # 258 Saratoga California 95070
10 22 00 36 3 006 001.000 1801 1st Avenue South HRT of Alabama Inc. PO Box 76092 Southlake Texas 76092
11 22 00 36 3 006 002.000 1800 2nd Avenue South HRT of Alabama Inc. PO Box 76092 Southlake Texas 76092
12 22 00 36 3 017 001.000 250 18th Street South Sunbelt G2BA LLC PO Box 5566 Dothan Alabama 36302
13 22 00 36 3 005 002.000 201 18th Street South 201 18th Street South LLC 2115 1st Avenue North Birmingham Alabama 35203
14 22 00 36 3 005 003.000 1800 3rd Avenue South Housing Authority of Birmingham District 1301 25th Avenue North Birmingham Alabama 35204
15 22 00 36 3 018 001.000 300 18th Street South Wachovia Corporate Real Estate PO Box 2609 Carlsbad California 92018
16 22 00 36 3 018 009.000 216 18th Street South Wachovia Corporate Real Estate PO Box 2609 Carlsbad California 92018
17 22 00 36 3 004 002.000 301 18th Street South TS LLC PO Box 120897 Nashville Tennessee 37212
18 22 00 36 4 037 008.000 315 18th Street South University of Alabama at Birmingham 1530 3rd Avenue South AB330 Birmingham Alabama 35294
19 22 00 36 3 019 001.001 412 18th Street South Alabama Children's Hospital 1600 7th Avenue South Birmingham Alabama 35233
20 22 00 36 3 019 001.000 1724 5th Avenue South Alabama Children's Hospital 1600 7th Avenue South Birmingham Alabama 35233
27 29 00 01 2 002 001.000 1511 4th Avenue South Arlington Center LTD PO Box 11425 Birmingham Alabama 35202
28 29 00 01 2 003 001.000 514 16th Street South Alabama Children's Hospital 1600 7th Avenue South Birmingham Alabama 35233
29 29 00 01 2 003 004.000 1521 5th Avenue South University of Alabama at Birmingham 1530 3rd Avenue South AB330 Birmingham Alabama 35294
30 29 00 01 2 003 005.000 1501 15th Street North McDonalds Corporation (1‐0476) 121 Summit Parkway Homewood Alabama 35209
31 29 00 01 2 009 001.000 401 14th Street South Jefferson County Board of Health 1400 6th Avenue South Birmingham Alabama 35233
32 29 00 01 2 008 001.000 500 15th Street South Jefferson County Board of Health 1400 6th Avenue South Birmingham Alabama 35233
33 29 00 01 2 013 006.000 430 14th Street South H B Goodwin Jr. PO Box 41 Mulga Alabama 35118
34 29 00 01 2 013 005.000 1300 5th Avenue South Joyce Grossman Stein 3721 Wimbleton Drive Birmingham Alabama 35223
39 29 00 02 1 003 002.001 1104 5th Avenue South University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees 1720 2nd Avenue South AB 330 Birmingham Alabama 35294
41 29 00 02 1 009 001.000 400 10th Street South University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees 1720 2nd Avenue South AB 330 Birmingham Alabama 35294
42 29 00 02 1 010 001.000 506 10th Street South UAB Educational Foundation 1717 11th Avenue South Suite 103A Birmingham Alabama 35205
43 29 00 02 1 013 001.000 825 5th Avenue South EBSCO Industries Inc. 1720 2nd Avenue South AB 330 Birmingham Alabama 35294
45 29 00 02 1 014 001.000 508 8th Street South UAB Educational Foundation 1717 11th Avenue South Suite 103A Birmingham Alabama 35205
46 29 00 02 1 014 001.001 520 8th Street South Christine B Kime 301 Woodward Court Birmingham Alabama 35242
[Date]
Property owner name
Property owner address
Subject: Bus Rapid Transit In-town Transit Partnership
As you may be aware, the City of Birmingham is implementing new mass transit options to
include a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Phase 1 corridor which has been awarded a grant by
the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), extends from Woodlawn, through downtown
and UAB, to Five Points West. A portion of this corridor will pass along 18th Street to 5th Avenue
South then along 5th Avenue South to 8th Street South to connect with 6th Avenue South.
We are contacting you because you own property along this segment of the corridor and the FTA
approved service options for the BRT in this area, designated as the In-town Transit Partnership
(ITP), have changed in a way that may affect you or your tenants. Specifically, the BRT alignment
and associated stations along that segment have been moved from the lanes along either curb
to dedicating the center two lanes as BRT bus lanes only and placing the boarding and alighting
stations in the street median. As a result of this change, and in order to keep from interfering
with rapid transit operations, traffic left turns from 18th Street and 5th Avenue South onto side
streets along this segment will be restricted, as will left turns from certain side streets onto 18th
Street and 5th Avenue South.
Figures showing the affected streets and an opportunity to comment on these proposed changes
to the BRT plan are available on the City of Birmingham website at
https://www.birminghamal.gov/brt. In addition, the site gives information on upcoming public
involvement meetings on the overall project scope and alignment, to be held during the week of
October 1, 2018. We invite you to attend and share your views.
Sincerely,
City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office
Howard G. Richards, P.E., MBA, CPIM

September 14, 2018
Mr. Greg Parsons, PA Ms. Jane K. Lucas

Assistant VP, Planning Design & Construction Office of the President
University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Alabama at Birmingham
801 6th Avenue South AB 1070
Birmingham, Alabama 35233 1720 2nd Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35294
Subject: Bus Rapid Transit In-town Transit Partnership
Dear Mr. Parsons and Ms. Lucas:
As you may be aware, the City of Birmingham is implementing new mass transit options to include a Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) system. Phase 1 corridor which has been awarded a grant by the Federal Transportation
Administration (FTA), extends from Woodlawn, through downtown and UAB, to Five Points West. A portion of
this corridor will pass along 18th Street to 5th Avenue South then along 5th Avenue South to 8th Street South to
connect with 6th Avenue South.
We are contacting you because UAB has numerous properties and facilities along this this segment of the
corridor and the FTA approved service options for the BRT in this area, designated as the In-town Transit
Partnership (ITP), have changed in a way that may affect entities along this segment, including UAB. Specifically,
the BRT alignment and associated stations along that segment have been moved from the lanes along either
curb to dedicating the center two lanes as BRT bus lanes only and placing the boarding and alighting stations
in the street median. As a result of this change, and in order to keep from interfering with rapid transit
operations, traffic left turns from 18th Street and 5th Avenue South onto side streets along this segment will be
restricted, as will left turn from certain side streets onto 18th Street and 5th Avenue South.
Figures showing the affected streets are attached. I encourage you to provide me with any comments that UAB
might have regarding on these proposed changes to the BRT plan or use the comments feature on the City of
Birmingham website at https://www.birminghamal.gov/brt. In addition the site gives information on upcoming
public involvement meetings on the overall project scope and alignment to be held during the week of October
1, 2018. We invite you to attend and share your views.
Sincerely,
City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office
Howard G. Richards, P.E., MBA, CPIM

Exhibit 7
Written Comments from ITP Outreach
From: Emily Alvey
To: Emily Alvey
Subject: FW: BRT Route 5th Ave South
Date: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:39:39 AM

From: Chip Watts <chip@wattsrealty.com>
Sent: September 17, 2018 10:08 AM
To: capitalprojects@birminghamal.gov
Cc: Bill Watts <bwatts@wattsrealty.com>; David Watts <dwatts@wattsrealty.com>; Josh Carpenter
<Josh.Carpenter@birminghamal.gov>; James Fowler <James.Fowler@birminghamal.gov>
Subject: BRT Route 5th Ave South

To whom it concerns,

We received the letter from the City regarding the proposed BRT routes on 5th Avenue South and
how it will impact our property along the corridor.

Please be aware that we are formally opposed to the restriction of left turns on 5th Avenue South.
Access to property that we manage and our family owns will be greatly restricted and will essentially
stop the flow of traffic into our property from east-bound traffic on 5th Avenue South. By the City
restricting such access, it could be considered a taking of the property through eminent domain and
our ownership should be compensated as such. It will also ultimately reduce the value of our
property; thus, impacting the property taxes we provide to the City of Birmingham.

In addition, restriction of left hand turns also reduces access to the UAB remote parking lot as well as
Children’s Hospital public access parking deck and will reduce access to multiple restaurants and
other private businesses throughout the 5th Avenue corridor.

Based on the proposed route, the 6th Avenue South corridor will allow continued access down 6th
Avenue South without taking a meandering course to 18th Street South and impacting private
businesses. In fact, a quick review of the 6th Avenue corridor shows only three major ownership
entities - Jefferson County, UAB and Children’s Hospital - along the route from 6th Avenue South at
8th Street to 18th Street. All are institutional entity ownerships who pay reduced or no property
taxes for their properties along such corridor and very little private business ownership will be
impacted.

In addition, it just seems logical that the route would continue down 6th Avenue South. If the above
route is rejected, we would like to understand why and the logic behind such rejection.

If you must continue to utilize the 5th Avenue corridor, we recommend using a similar system that is
proposed for the west corridor – it reduces traffic to two lanes with a center turn lane and utilizes
the outside lanes for the BRT while still keeping a bike lane intact. Such a proposal will continue to
th
allow traffic flow and left turn access to all businesses and parking lots/decks along the 5 Avenue
Corridor.

While we do not oppose the BRT project, we do not understand why the 6th Avenue corridor is not
being utilized for the project. We look forward to your response to such suggestions and reasons
why the 5th Avenue corridor became the preferred route.

Sincerely,
Chip Watts, CCIM, CPM
President
***PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW PHYSICAL OFFICE ADDRESS***
Watts Realty Co., Inc., an AMO® firm

PO Box 11425
1527 3rd Avenue South, Suite 102
Birmingham, AL USA 35202-1425
+1-800-700-1267
+1-205-703-4277 (direct)
+1-205-966-1908 (cell)
+1-205-252-7777 (fax)
www.wattsrealty.com
Follow us on:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Electronic Mail (e-mail) contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is sent. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or
telephone.
WARNING: Watts Realty Co., Inc. is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving information and proposals and
negotiating the same on behalf of its clients/customers. Watts Realty Co., Inc. makes no representation or warranty, express, implied or
otherwise, that acceptance of any item or terms contained herein will guarantee acceptance of such by its client/customer in any formal,
binding document. No parties shall be bound to any terms, conditions or agreements whatsoever contained herein until the appropriate
parties execute a formal legally binding agreement.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Electronic Mail (e-mail) contains confidential and privileged
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is sent. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone.
WARNING: Watts Realty Co., Inc. is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving
information and proposals and negotiating the same on behalf of its clients/customers. Watts Realty
Co., Inc. makes no representation or warranty, express, implied or otherwise, that acceptance of any
item or terms contained herein will guarantee acceptance of such by its client/customer in any
formal, binding document. No parties shall be bound to any terms, conditions or agreements
whatsoever contained herein until the appropriate parties execute a formal legally binding
agreement.
Exhibit 8
Alternative Access Routes on ITP Corridor
J
17t h St N
9t h S t N
10t h St N
8th St N
7t h St N
11th St N
12th St N
1s
16th St N
tC OP
13th St N
tN
OP
P
1st Ave N £
¤
11 1st Ave N £
¤
11 1 s t Av e N 1st Ave N
£ 1st Ave N
1st Ave N ¤
OP
OP
11
ON LY
BUS
14th St N
P
18th St N
19th St N
20th St N
17th St N
â
ì
í
OP
OP
M o r r i s Av e
P P
P
P o w e l l Av e S
OP
OP
1st Ave S 1 s t Av
OP
eS
OP
P
12th St S
1st Aly S
Golden Flake Dr
OP
OP
OP
OP
2nd Ave S 2nd Ave S
¨
§
¦
65 P
11t h St S
17th St S
³́
°̄ ³́
°̄ ³́
°̄
OP
3r d Av e S 3rd Ave S
â
14th St S
18th St S
19th St S
20th St S
13th St S
16th St S
â
10th St S
±
°̄
² ±
°̄
²
OP
4th Ave S
±
°̄
²
4th Ave S
P P P P P P P P
7th St S
12 t h S t S
15th St S
P OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP P
P
P
P
P
OP
5th Ave S
OP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
11th St S
8th St S
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP Legend
í
ì
OP
6th Ave S 6th Ave S No Through Movement Allowed

P
P
OP No Left Turns Allowed
8t h S t S
â
9th St S
No Turns Allowed
20th St S
O
P
6th Aly S
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
BIRMINGHAM RAPID TRANSIT

Left Turn Restrictions
STATION
Figure 1: Alternative Route for Entrance to Children's of Alabama
STATION
Figure 2: Alternative Route for Exiting Children's of Alabama to Access Parking Areas
Figure 1: Alternative Routes for Northbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 2: Alternative Routes for Southbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 3: Alternative Routes for Eastbound Hotel Traffic
Figure 4: Alternative Routes for Westbound Hotel Traffic
Attachment F
Western Sector Guideway Additions
MEMORANDUM
TO: Howard Richards, P.E., MBA, CPIM
FROM: Charles Cochran, P.E., PTOE

Becky White, PTP
DATE: October 17, 2018

10/17/18
SUBJECT: Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Additional BRT Lane Feasibility
City Project # PEP035GR 003771
Sain Project # 18-0234
Purpose & Methodology

This analysis and memorandum are part of a larger project that is evaluating traffic
movements and transportation facilities within the Birmingham Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project
corridor. This memorandum summarizes our supplemental analysis of BRT operations related to
the western end of the proposed BRT route. This includes an evaluation of the geometric,
marking, signage, and traffic operations modifications that would be necessary to
accommodate BRT-only lanes along the corridor from the Crossplex to the intersection of 6th
Avenue South and 8th Street South. A previous study was submitted November 16, 2016 that
evaluated the feasibility of implementing bus-only lanes along the BRT corridor. Figure 1 shows
the overall corridor lane use and the sections of the western corridor that are under
consideration for bus-only lanes or mixed-use lanes.
Traffic Counts & Projections

Turning movement traffic counts were collected for the study intersections by Southern Traffic
Services, Inc. in May 2016 and Quality Counts, LLC in February 2018. The existing vehicle volumes
are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The raw traffic data is available upon request.
C h e r r y Ave
¨
¦
§59
24t
¨
¦
§
16t
20
Co
Vl a n
h S
£
¤ 31
g e ch
Br
h S
os
C
tN
re
y
tN
aS
ek
Hw
40th S t N
(
!
t
£ 78 N
¤
rt
vd
Ca
Bl
po
B G77
an Jr
rra
ir
F L S h u t t l e s worth Dr
kh on eN
A
gt Av
wa
ea
r
s
¨
¦
§ n st
se
d rri
65
e 1
yB
Hw A M
y d
ar
lvd
!!
((
2nd W
St ch
N ¨
¦
§ 20 Ri
£ ve £
¤
11
S
¤ 31
Vi
£
¤ 78
Blv
d A
ve
l la
th
39th S t N
y 12
A
ge
n le
h
Fi
Cr
31
5t
ee
y
!!
((
Hw
st
k
18
N
Av
e o rt
th
rp
St
ree
k
th eN r A
i
eC 11 Av £
¤78
!!(
N
St
se N
(
g
il la 8t
h es ve 3rd C t S
tA
V M
N
G77 1s
22
25
£
nd
¤78
th
(!
! (
St
St
N
N
24
¨
¦
§20 Avo ndale
Ca
S
th
£ 11 e Park
Birmingham ¤ Av
rra
St
17
d
3r S
wa
th
N
e
Arkad
A ve Av
yB
St
1st h
£
¤78 N 4t
lvd
ve
Birm ingham
N
Parker
So uthern
School d
A £
78
¤
e l phia
College W 3r
ve eS
Av
24
A N !
h e t
8t Av on
th
(
t m
air
Rd
1s Rd
Mc Le ndon High lan d Park
W
Cl
St
d
B u sh B Bl
v Park e
Golf C ourse
air
l vd B u sh cl
S
l ag eS
V i l e ek t
Av on
(
!
9t
r
C
£
¤11 rd M
h
T
S 5 3
eS
St
(
!
3rd Ave N
1st Ct N Av
N
ek h
4t
31st
e Cre
3r d A ve W £ V il la g N
Rd
¤
11
d A ve
ve
N
(
!
Bl
vd S
er
12
2 n 1 st A i ty ve Coun try
St S
em ¨
¦
§ 65
(
!
er
s A C lub Rd
th
ss ni v nd
Legend
SW U
St
e e la
20
F a y e t t e Ave
Av
k
B gh
ro o
Hi
S
n
th
L o m b Ave L o m b A v e SW tto
University of d
ns B
R
Co
S
le
Alab ama at
St
( ! k
(
ree
d
(
!
is
!
8t
Birm ingham
l
(
!
C
R
W at k i
ar Proposed Stations
S
y T
S149
l le
h
!!
(
W
o
( (
!
Va S £
¤ 31 C
ll
St
ve eS
va
(!
! (
A Av
S
te
sa h Corridor Segment
6t
on
l oo Birm ingham
M
ca Golf
!
(
s BRT-Only Lane
Tu
( !
! (
Cou rse
eS
(
! (
!
SW Av Rd
O
Av
e st o
ve
h 21 ll
Mixed-Use Lane
P:\2015\150200\SaGis \Data\OverallCorridorLaneUse2.mxd
t
17
6 !
rb
(! Ge orge
a
(
ro
th
Elmwood
ev
Wa rd
BRT-Only Lane (Under Consideration)
ok
Cemetery
St
Ca
nt
ve
ek
Park
18t
A
Mo
W
re
SW
Rd
149 Lan e Park
Ave T
S
ha
C
rs on de
h S
s
a Mixed-use Lane (Under Consideration)
ha
ba
P e
lle
S
tS
Rd
Va
Figure 1: Overall Corridor Lane Use Bus
0 1,200 2,400 4,800
I Feet
Rapid Transit System
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
5
T
S
3 r d Av e W
11
£
¤
!
( Guideway Intersection
Pr
d
in
High Priority Intersection R
er
ce
!
(
) m
to
53 se
n
Proposed BRT Route (7 ) e s
7 5 B
Pk
25 0 (2 Rickwood
â
wy
2
à á
Harris Available Turning Movements Field
à
â
SW
à á
28 (31)
Park á
152 (154)
331 (272)
5 (12)
6 (16)
10 (6)
70 (69)
52 (40)
à á
141 (46)
XX - AM Peak Hour Volumes 26 (60)
à á
â
!
( 207 (479)
7 (9)
à
17 91
4 (14)
â
(XX) - PM Peak Hour Volumes 215 (436)
1
46 (57)
(2 (51
SW
à á
â
â
3 â 4 (25) 325 (611)
8) 1)
Lom b Ave
à á
â
55 88 e
12th St
78 (32) Av
Fayet te Ave
à á
Lom b Ave SW
â
) !
(
á
80 ) 4
à á
!
(
on
â
(4 36 (9) 2 à á Lom
à á
b t
â
(14) 4 à á !
( Av e
Rd (2 ot
à á
(244) 487
â
En â (194) 137 à á SW
(47) 25
(43) 27
(44) 38
(240) 459 !
(
sl er (44) 25 â
(51) 23
(104) 89
(21) 24
(399) 503
C
ey ) em (26) 31 â
(61) 19
(85) 27
(53) 27
16 ) Baptist
(20) 89Medical
!
(
5 s
Po (3 80
4 (7 ) es Center -
in B
12 77 23
6t
Princeton
!
(
ts
á
2 8 (1
h
W
â
St
Av 1
(1 09 7) 8
SW
à
60 ) 3 3
e
(3 (11
á
â
) 3 08
d
à
R
60
46 6 1)
!
(
or
à
16 5 (6
(5 (28
ri
á
3
4) 6)
â à
ar
W
SW
(34 (93)
ve
4t h
St S W
7 Points
Five A
0) 53
8 ) 9 14Shopping
â Crossplex
s a
29
West
8 6 5
â
(1 7) Center on oo
(1 8) )
)3
á
47 0 (1 172
et W
6
al
86 (2)
0
á
8
â
c c
(5 (5
6t
in e S
!
(
us
2 (
2
à
21 0 (8
)
h
W
13
v T
P
4
3 3)
S
à
lS
â
r
ì
(3
ìá
9
P
ve
A
) 3 81 3 (3
71
3) 4)
SW
45 9 )
4
8 (9 ) A
á
13 (38
(6 (25
(4 5) e on
à
(7 Av 459 )
Mar t i n Lut her King Jr Dr

6t
2
t
â á
ot
â
h
sa 6 (7 (732
St
(0) 0 C
àí
Birmingham o )
à
)
SW
Overview o
11
§£¤
18th St SW
(63) 4
!
(
¨
¦ al
International 59
à
3
á
£
¤78 79
S
T Airport (548) s c 21
712 ( 47 (22
Tu (50 44) 71 i llo n
8 (7)
â
(27) 6 âà 12 6 (7 )
(2 )
7t
¨ Mc M SW
9 (10
§ 6
4th St SW
¦
à à
4
20
(10 ) 641
3
¨ L!
5)
§
¦
20
3 ( 40)
á
Av e
â
(o m
à
St
á
£
¤ 31 í 1) 7 â bA 67
SW
J e f f e rson
£
¤ 11
Woodward 1 )
â
¨
§
¦ 65 á v eS
Elmwood
(0) 1
à
á
Park !
(
W
(16 1
)1
C o u nty 78 Cemetery
(18 3
Birmingham
£
¤ á
â
(6 (2
)9
(47
(6 62 8
¨
§
¦ 73 6
98 2)
20
à
SW
)1 9
â
2 1( 9
)
) 1
78
16 23 7
£
¤ e!
(0 74 )
0
à
61 (1
SW Av
17
(1 3) ) 8
¨
§
¦ 11 (
)
£
á
20 ¤
6t
69
ve
31
£
¤ n
th
269
á
9 6
S
T 5
â
S
T o
h
£11 n
A
(1 (15 i ll
à
¤
S
St
to cM 7
0)
0
ve
tS
ot ) 1 15
7t
â rA
SW
C M Mu n e
h
0
W
g
Av e ger u n Ave
P:\2017\170220\SaGis\Data\Fig00ExistVolHP1a.mxd
(2 (7) 49
St
á
SW M e r
)1
SW
Mountain ng
6t
Pe a rs on Av e S
0 3 Mu
h
W
SW
149
S
T 38
S
T Brook (1
Pl
4th
£
¤ 280
SW
St
Figure 2: West Corridor - Existing Vehicle Volumes
I Bus Rapid Transit System

Birmingham, Alabama
S
SW Theta Ave S
Av
e
1 st
1s
Legend
e
Av
h
Ce 5t
tS
7t
ve S
St S
n n P o w e ll A
(6) 1)
h
tto
S
3r d S
t
ve
39 9 (78 5)
Omega St S
St
N
Co
A
á
W
4 th
2nd
3rd Pl S
te
34 7 (36
S
rP
â
8th
t SW
Guideway Intersection
28
(20 26)
!
( Iota Ave S
lN
St S
St
(2
à
6) 54
(4) 4
6th
Kappa Ave S
1s t Way S
à
1st Pl S
S
W
11
á
â
High Priority Intersection SW
3
St
!
( ve
nA !
( University of
á
llo
â
4th St SW
S
cM i
93 8 (10 )
M Kappa Ave S )
(32 2)
à Alabama at
16 1 (74 t h S
Proposed BRT Route
45 3 (99
10
à
(11 3)
!
(
á
0 Birmingham
SW eS 42 (5) (0) 8 â
9)
â
ve Av 84 7
à á
23
Ce
(62 2) 7
A t
6 tAvailable Turning Movements 1)
8
ge
r 1s 7
(48 5) 1
á
nt
â
à
un
)4
5th
!
( à
(
er
(16
e M (7 T
S 149
v á
â
1
rA S
Alpha St S
Pl
h
XX - AM Peak e
g eHour Volumes
tS
St
)4
Av
á
Beta St S
3r
!
(
â
S
SW
u n d
15 2)
Gamma St S
S
(XX) - PMMPeak Hour Volumes à
t
dS
2n
5 ( 7)
M c K in le
SW
5(
(30
y Ave S S 6
tS
6t
(4) 6
8th
W ve
Delta St S
Ce
h
dA â
)
78
Omega St S
nt
Pl
3r
St
2) 2) 7
4 t h S t SW
er
1
á
SW
SW 4 (
S
(
Pl
ve
Roosevelt Courtway SW
S
Coolidge Courtway SW
A
st ve 6) S
S
A 259
(98
Harding Courtway SW
1s
1
4 th A ve
9 vd
tS
)
38 (23 6 t h
Wilson Courtway SW
Bl
Taft Courtway SW
tS
eS
W Washington 12 si
ty Ct
S
W
er 8th
v
à
dA Elementary
iv
2n
Bolin St SW
2n
á Un
d
School
St
!
(
à
ir
C
16 5)
S
eS
1(
a
et
v
(20
hA ) 9 â
75
B
T
S 149
5t (52 36) 8) ) 16
E
S
)
W 8 2
á
eS 4 9 (8 ve
á
v (4 (6 A
dA 30 (25)
7th
9 th
â
W Beta Cir
2n
11
(48 ) 42
St
SW
(66 ) 31
B e ta P l S
à
ve
S
(77
S
)5
W
A eS Ct
à S
á
â
3rd Ct
Ce
Gran t Ln SW v
7
h
hA 1s 5t 9th
4t
nt
!
(
23 (56)
á
Delta St S
1s
à
â
tS
er
64 (40)
Omega St S
7)
tS
7)
14
(22
S
tS
St
à
3 ( 1 (84 ) ve
á
7
t i n Lut her King Jr Dr
tS
)5 A
W
)
33 (122 (26 642 â 7 th
Beta St S
â
Goldwire St SW
W
eS 34 3)
6th
20
(33 (24) eS
á
v
hA
à
5t (2) Av
St
(3) 1 à
¨
(13
á ¦
§
â
Goldw ire Cir SW 8 th
65
eS
Ce
1
S
Gamma St S
Av
5
)
nt e
(
44 7)
á
à 0 th
â
Elmwood eS
7 ( (25)
1 Birmingham
Av
r Wa y S
S
16
Overview
(39
t £
¤11
Cemetery
) 7 th International h C
à
5th
t
(51 66)
)
8 0
Airport 159
(4) 5
S
T79
1
4 6 (3
£
¤ 78
¨
§
¦
á
â 16th Ave S
St
9
75 (40) 6
0) ) 58
â
¨
S
6 16th Ave S §
¦ 20
á
18 3
( (42 ¨
§
¦
à á Mar
20
W
â à
£
¤ 31
eS
(37 ) 38
£
¤ 11
344 (525)
412 (224)
Av J e f f e rson
(38 ) 116
¨
§
¦65
)3
(1
h 7th Ave SW
209 (340) 6t
à 1 7 t h Av e S
4th St S
11 (3)
149 C o u nty
8
£ 78
5th Ct SW á ¤
8 (5) Birmingham
â á T
S
Cente r Pl SW
2nd St S
! §
¦
â à
( 20
150 (399)
Center Way SW
0 ( (58)
à
à á
â
78
32 (35)
£
¤
29
22
¨
§
¦
McCary St SW
11
1st Pl S
20 £
¤
)
!
( 17th Ct S 31
£
¤
7 269
S
T 5
George Ward
à á
)4
S
T
â
(11) 0
Idle wild Cir

à á (99 365 â
Center Way S
11
£
¤
Goldwire Way SW
(13) 1 Park
Goldwire Pl SW
â 6) 17
(4) 4
(420) 407
(185) 333
(74 (35)
Bolin St SW
(12) 0 8 th A
Center Pl S
P:\2017\170220\SaGis\Data\Fig00ExistVolHP1b.mxd
ve S
W
18th Ave S
Mountain
149
S
T 38
S
T Brook
£
¤280
Figure 3: West Corridor - Existing Vehicle Volumes
I Bus Rapid Transit System

Birmingham, Alabama
Birmingham BRT – Additional BRT Lane Analysis Page |5
Signal Warrant Analysis

Signal removal warrant analysis was performed for two intersections along the western BRT
route – 6th Avenue South at Center Street and Lomb Avenue at McMillon Avenue. These were
analyzed per the guidelines in FHWA-IP-80-12, User Guide for Removal of Not Needed Traffic
Signals, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The steps undertaken for
the analysis include traffic data collection, traffic volume analysis, and sight distance analysis.
Turning movement counts for these two intersections were collected for 16 consecutive hours,
between 6:00am to 10:00pm. Signal warrant analysis was performed using existing 2018 traffic
volumes and projected 2023 future volumes.
Volume Warrants
The collected 2018 traffic volumes were compared to the minimum thresholds of Warrant #1
(8-hour) and Warrant #2 (4-hour) as shown in the MUTCD. After the signal warrants were
performed using existing volumes, future volumes were evaluated by applying a 2% straight
line growth rate to project the volumes out 5 years (2023). These future volumes were then
compared to the minimum volume thresholds. After the analysis, it was determined that
neither Warrant #1 nor Warrant #2 were satisfied for either intersection. These volume warrant
spreadsheets are included at the end of this memorandum.
Sight Distance
At both intersections, the sight distance was measured to ensure compliance with the latest
version of AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Sight distance
was evaluated for two conditions – left turns from the minor road and right turns from the minor
road. These sight distances are based on the 35 mph speed limit on 6 th Avenue South and
Lomb Avenue in the areas near the studied intersections. Table 1 shows the minimum required
sight distances and the measured sight distances. The minimum sight distance requirements
were met for each of the intersections that were analyzed.
Table 1: Sight Distance

Sight Distance (ft)
Intersection Movement Minimum
Measured
Required
NB Left 390 500+
6th Ave S @ NB Right 335 500+
Center St S SB Left 390 500+
SB Right 335 500+
EB Left 390 400
Lomb Ave @ EB Right 335 410
McMillon Ave SW WB Left 390 410
WB Right 335 500+
After discussions with the City of Birmingham about the potential removal of both of these
traffic signals, it was determined that the traffic signal at the intersection of 6th Avenue
Southwest and Center Street South is needed so that pedestrians can safely cross 6th Avenue
Southwest. The library in the northwest quadrant of this intersection regularly hosts
neighborhood meetings, and pedestrians regularly use the crosswalks at the signal to get to
and from the library.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a tool commonly used on BRT corridors to provide more reliable and
efficient bus service. There are several different types of TSP (see Figure 4):
 Phase Insertion – This type of TSP provides an exclusive phase when buses are detected
and request priority at an intersection. This should be provided at the transition points
along the corridor – where the BRT buses have to make a turn or weaving movement.
 Green Extension – When a signal is green for an approaching bus, Green Extension TSP
would extend the green time of the current signal phase. This should be provided at all of
the signalized intersections that don’t have an actuated transit phase.
 Early Green or Red Truncation – When a signal is red for an approaching bus, Early Green
TSP would reduce the green time of the preceding signal phase. This should be provided
at all of the signalized intersections that don’t have an actuated transit phase.
Figure 4: Transit Signal Priority Types (Source:NACTO)

Capacity Analysis
Using the methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010), published by the
Transportation Research Board, Sain Associates, Inc. analyzed the existing and future traffic
conditions of the study intersections. According to this method of analysis, traffic capacities
are expressed as levels of service (LOS) ranging from “A” to “F”. Generally, LOS “C” is
considered desirable, while LOS “D” is considered acceptable during peak hours of traffic
flow.
Synchro 9 analysis software was used for the analysis. For the future period, the signal timings
were optimized due to the changes in volume and geometry. Table 2 shows the existing and
future LOS during both peak periods.
From the completed analysis, it was determined that the intersections along the western
corridor are currently operating at an acceptable LOS, except for the intersection of 6th
Avenue South and 1st Street South, where the side streets are experiencing LOS E. This can be
attributed to the current split phase operation. With several modifications, the intersections are
expected to operate at acceptable LOS after the implementation of the BRT system.
Table 2: Levels of Service

Existing With BRT
Intersection Approach Conditions Implementation
AM PM AM PM
EB Lomb Ave A A A A
Lomb Ave WB Lomb Ave A A A A
@ NB Fayette Ave C C D D
Fayette Ave SB Fayette Ave C B C C
Intersection A B B B
EB Lomb Ave A A A A
Lomb Ave WB Lomb Ave A A A A
@ NB 12th St W B C C C
12th St W SB 12th St W C C C C
Intersection A A B B
EB Lomb Ave C C C C
Lomb Ave
WB Lomb Ave C D C D
@
NB Princeton Pkwy W C D C D
Princeton
Parkway W SB Princeton Pkwy W C C D D
Intersection C C C D
EB Lomb Ave A B A B
Lomb Ave
WB Lomb Ave B B C B
@
NB Tuscaloosa Ave C D D D
Tuscaloosa
Ave SB Tuscaloosa Ave C C D C
Intersection B B B B
Table 2: Levels of Service (cont.)

Existing With BRT
Conditions Implementation
AM PM AM PM
EB Lomb Ave B B B C
Lomb Ave WB Lomb Ave B B B C
@ NB Cotton Ave C C D D
Cotton Ave SB Cotton Ave D D D D
EB Cemetary Drvwy B B B B
Lomb Ave
WB 6th Ave SW A B B C
@
NB MLK Dr A A A A
McMillon Ave
SW SB MLK Dr A A A A
Intersection* A B - -
EB Cemetary Drvwy C B C B
6th Ave SW WB 6th Ave SW B D B C
@ NB MLK Dr C C C D
MLK Dr SB MLK Dr B B B C
Intersection C C C C
EB 6th Ave SW A A A A
6th Ave SW
WB 6th Ave SW A A B A
@
NB Goldwire St SW C C D D
Goldwire St
SW SB Goldwire St SW C C C D
Intersection A A B A
EB 6th Ave SW A A B A
6th Ave SW WB 6th Ave SW A A A A
@ NB Center St S B C B C
Center St S SB Center St S C B C B
Intersection A A B A
EB 6th Ave SW B B C B
6th Ave S WB 6th Ave SW A B B C
@ NB 1st St S E E C C
1st St S SB 1st St S E E C C
Intersection** B C C C
EB 6th Ave SW B B A A
6th Ave S
WB 6th Ave SW A B A A
@
Delta St S NB Delta St S A A C C
Intersection B B A A
EB 6th Ave SW A A A A
6th Ave S WB 6th Ave SW A A A B
@ NB 1st St S B B B B
6th St S SB 1st St S D D D D
Intersection A A A B
EB 6th Ave S C C C B
6th Ave S WB 6th Ave S B B C B
@ NB 8th St S D C D C
8th St S SB 8th St S B C B C
Intersection C B C C
*The future LOS represent the conditions after the signal is removed. There are not overall LOS for unsignalized intersections.
**The future LOS include phasing changes on the side street from split phase to protected/permissive.
Recommendations
After the bus-only BRT lanes were deemed feasible from a traffic operations perspective, Sain
evaluated the modifications necessary to implement the BRT system along the western
corridor. Based on our evaluation, Sain Associates makes the following recommendations:
1. Implement curbside bus-only lanes for the following segments:
Westbound direction:
a. 6th Avenue South from 8th Street South to Goldwire Way Southwest.
b. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at 6th Avenue Southwest to Fayette Avenue on
Lomb Avenue
c. Avenue W from Bessemer Road to south of 47th Street Ensley
Eastbound direction:
a. Avenue W from south of 47th Ensley to Bessemer Road
b. Bessemer Road from Avenue X to Lomb Avenue
c. Lomb Avenue from Fairgrounds Drive to Princeton Parkway West
d. 6th Avenue South from Goldwire Way Southwest to 6th Street South
2. Implement median-running bus-only lanes for the following segments:
Westbound direction:
a. Lomb Avenue from Fairgrounds Drive to Bessemer Road
b. Bessemer Road from Lomb Avenue to Avenue W
3. Implement TSP by using Phase Insertion and installing transit signal heads for the
following movements:
c. Lomb Avenue @ Bessemer Road – westbound left turn movement
d. Lomb Avenue @ Fayette Avenue – westbound through movement
e. 6th Avenue South @ 6th Street South – eastbound through movement
f. 6th Avenue South @ 8th Street South – eastbound left turn movement
4. Implement TSP allowing Green Extension and Early Green/Red Truncation treatments at
the following intersections:
g. Avenue W @ Crossplex Entrance
h. Avenue W @ Bessemer Road
i. Avenue X/Crossplex Entrance @ Bessemer Road
j. Lomb Avenue @ Fayette Avenue (eastbound only)
k. Lomb Avenue @ 12th Street Southwest
l. Lomb Avenue @ Princeton Parkway West
m. Lomb Avenue @ Tuscaloosa Avenue Southwest
n. Lomb Avenue @ Cotton Avenue Southwest
o. 6th Avenue Southwest @ Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
p. 6th Avenue Southwest @ Goldwire Street Southwest
q. 6th Avenue Southwest @ Center Street South
r. 6th Avenue South @ 1st Street South
s. 6th Avenue South @ Delta Street South
t. 6th Avenue South @ 6th Street South (westbound only)
Birmingham BRT – Additional BRT Lane Analysis P a g e | 10
5. At the intersection of Lomb Avenue at McMillon Avenue Southwest:

a. Remove traffic signals and any associated hardware and convert the
intersection to two-way stop control on the side streets.
b. Install a Stop (R1-1) sign on northbound and southbound McMillon Avenue
Southwest approaches. Install red retroreflective strips along the sign posts.
c. Convert the McMillon Ave SW approaches into right-in/right out accesses for the
intersection by installing white channelization striping.
d. Install a Stop Ahead (W3-1) sign on McMillon Avenue northbound and
southbound approximately 100 feet in advance of the 6th Avenue South
intersection. Install yellow retroreflective strips along the sign posts.
e. Prior to removal, the traffic signals should be placed on “Flash” for a minimum of
30 days.
6. Paint the bus lanes red, and install BUS ONLY pavement markings along the bus-only
lanes through the western corridor immediately after each intersection. The pavement
marking letters should be 8 feet in length, per ALDOT’s standard drawings. An example
of BUS ONLY pavement markings and red bus lanes is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: BUS ONLY Pavement Markings (Source: NACTO)
7. Install Bus Lane Ahead (R3-12f) signs in advance of the beginning of the bus-only lanes,
and install Bus Lane Ends (R3-12g) signs in advance of the end of the bus-only lanes.
These signs are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Bus Lane Signs (Source: MUTCD)

8. At the intersection of Bessemer Road and Avenue X/Crossplex Entrance, prohibit the
eastbound left turns from Bessemer Road by installing a No Left Turn (R3-2) sign on the
signal mast arm and by installing a through pavement marking on the inside eastbound
through lane. Also replace the innermost signal head facing the eastbound traffic with
a three section signal head with a green through arrow. See Figure 7.
Figure 7: Signal Head with Green Through Arrow
9. On Lomb Avenue between Princeton Parkway West and Tuscaloosa Avenue

Southwest, perform access management improvements as depicted in Figure 15.
These access management improvements include:
a. Close the segment of 6th Place Southwest between Lomb Avenue and the CVS
driveway.
b. Prohibit left turns from Princeton Avenue Southwest to Lomb Avenue by installing
yellow channelization striping, installing a No Left Turn (R3-2) sign, and extending
the grass median.
c. Convert the segment of 7th Street Southwest from two-way to one-way
northbound by installing yellow channelization striping, installing a No Left Turn
(R3-2) sign, and extending the grass median.
10. At the intersection of 6th Avenue South and 1st Street South, restripe the northbound
and southbound approaches so that they have two approach lanes each – one left
turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane. The traffic signal operations for 1st
Street South should be converted from split-phase to protected/permissive left turn
operations.
The recommendations are illustrated in Figures 8 – 23 at the end of this memorandum.
Cost Estimate
After completion of the analysis for the bus lanes, a preliminary cost estimate was developed
for the section of the study from the west end of the project to the intersection at 6th Avenue
South and 8th Street South. This cost estimate is intended to cover only the striping, pavement
markings, and signage required to implement the bus lanes. The cost estimate breakdown is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Cost Estimate Breakdown

Item Quantity Unit SF Total SF Unit Price Cost
Pav ement MarkingsBUS ONLY Pav ement Marking 89 ea 45.31 4033
Through Arrow 2 ea 12.24 24
Turn Arrow 2 ea 16.46 33
Yield Line 2 ea 12.00 24
Total Pavement Markings 4114 $5.00 $20,570
Striping Solid White Line 6" 6 mi $3,500.00 $21,000

Dotted White Line 6" 4,183 lf $2.00 $8,366
Red Painted Bus Lane 6.3 mi $308,000.00 $1,940,400
Total Striping $1,969,766
Signage No Left Turn Sign 4 ea 4 16

Bus Lane Ahead 9 ea 8.75 79
Bus Lane Ends 7 ea 8.75 61
Total Signage SF 156 $19.00 $2,964
LF Total LF
Sign Posts 16 ea 14 224 $10.00 $2,240
Total Signage $5,204
Subtotal $1,996,000
10% Contingency $199,600
Total Cost for Pavement Markings, Striping, and Signage for the Western Corridor $2,195,600
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST PROVIDED IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENGINEER'S EXPERIENCES AND QUALIFICATION
AND REPRESENTS ENGINEER'S BEST JUDGMENT WITH THE INDUSTRY. ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT PROPOSALS, BIDS, OR ACTUAL COST WILL
NOT VARY FROM ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST.
Conclusion
The implementation of dedicated BRT lanes on the western BRT corridor will require
modifications to the roadway geometry, signage, pavement markings, traffic signal
equipment, and available turning movements for passenger vehicles. With the necessary
modifications detailed in this memorandum, implementation of the BRT system along the
western corridor is feasible.
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
h
f
d
c
b No Left Turn
Dedicated Bike Lane !

( Concrete Pole
Sharrow Bike Lane â

Bike Lane
Share The Road
ley
Shared Bike Lane
e e t Ens
Bus Lane Begins Main Road
Future Transit
4 7 th S tr
Center Location Dedicated Bus Lane
Bus Lane Ends Dedicated Bike Lane
Raised Median
f
d
c
b
p No Parking
Grass Median
B e s s em er Rd
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
BUS
Implement TSP using Early Green/Red
ONLY
Truncation and Green Extension for the
ONLY
Av e n
BUS
ue W northbound right and westbound left
movements.
£
¤ 11
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
E ns le y 5 P oin t s W Av e

northbound and southbound through
movements.
u ds
ro
ir G
Fa
Crossplex
e
at
St
a
am
ab
Al
B e s s em er Rd
P:\2017\170220\SaGis\Data\BRTStripingWest.mxd

Figure 8: Proposed Bus Lane Striping

I
0 50 100 200

En sley
31s t S 30th Stre et
St
tr e et En sley Legend
na
Et
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Aven ue Y
t
Share The Road
C
Shared Bike Lane
X
Dedicated Bus Lane
Aven ue X
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
War r
io r Rd
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
B ess em er Rd
£
¤
11
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
eastbound and westbound through
movements.

P:\2017\170220\SaGis \Data\BRTStripingWest.mxd

I 0 50 100
Feet
1 in = 100 feet
200 Figure 9: Proposed Bus Lane Striping
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
31st Street Ensley f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn
An nis ton Ave

31st Street Ensley
! Concrete Pole

Rd Bike Lane
Implem ent TSP using Phase Insertions er
for the westb ound left bus movem ents. s em Share The Road Shared Bike Lane
Install one (1) transit signal heads . es
B Bus Lane Begins Main Road
Cu llman Ave
Dedicated Bus Lane
d
rR
Raised Median
r io f
p
d
c
b No Parking
BUS
ar
W
Grass Median
ONLY
£
¤ 11
ONLY
BUS
Co
u rt
Y
Lom b Ave
Rd
BUS
ONLY
er
ONLY
BUS
s em
es
B
BUS
ONLY
Ala b a m a S ta te F a i r Gro u ds


0 50 100 200 Figure 10: Proposed Bus Lane Striping
I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
31st Str eet Ensley
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Share The Road Shared Bike Lane
1st Av e W Dedicated Bus Lane
Bo rder St
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
17th St W
16th St W
Faye t te Ave
ONLY
ONLY
Lom b Ave
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
BUS

eastbound through movement. For the
westbound bus through movement,
implement TSP using Phase Insertion.
Fairgro unds Ave


I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
12th St W
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
1st Ave W Share The Road Shared Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
13th St W
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
Lom b Aly
14th St W
15t h St W
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
Lom b Ave
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS


I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
1st Ave W Sharrow Bike Lane â

Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
12th St W
Median Ave SW
Washington
Raised
Washington Ave SW f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
Lom b Aly
10th Pl SW
westbound and eastbound through
movements.
ONLY
ONLY
Lom b Ave SW
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
12th S t
SW
11
e
Av
ht
nd
St
la
SW
SW
d
oo
W


I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
Fran klin Ave SW
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
e SW
gt o
hi n
Sharrow
Was
n Av
Bike Lane â
Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
8th S t
9t h S t S W Washington Ave SW Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b
SW
No Parking
Grass Median
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
L o m b Av e S W
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
10
th
W
St
S
SW
e SW
Av
y SW
e
a Av
am n
ab l to
kw
Al Fu
nP
eto
i nc
Pr
SW
DigitalGlobe, A
ve GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbust on DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,

ce
9t IGN, in
h P r and the GIS User Community
St
SW
I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
SW
es
Av
e
Legend
ar l
Ch
i nt Signal
Sa é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Implement TSP using Early Green/Red Signal Mast
Truncation and Green Extension for the f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn
t on westbound and eastbound through
Dedicated Bike Lane
Pk
movements. Concrete Pole
ce
wy SW
(
!
ONLY
P ri n
BUS
â
7t h
Install yellow channelization striping Sharrow Bike Lane
Bike Lane
St S
6t h
and a No Left Turn (R3-2) sign
SW
ve Share The Road
St
W
Lom to nA Shared Bike Lane
SW
b A in ce
ve S Pr Bus Lane Begins Main Road
W
Dedicated Bus Lane
Bus Lane Ends
ONLY
Dedicated Bike Lane
BUS
No Parking Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b
6t h
Grass Median
Pl
SW
ONLY
Lo
BUS
Extend grass median.
mb
SW
Av
eS
W
wy
Pk
nto
ce
Close section of 6th Place SW

in
by removing pavement and

Pr
installing sod.
Extend grass median to prohibit left
turns from Princeton Ave SW.
SW
Ave
et on
Pr in c
ONLY
BUS
7t h
St
movements.
SW
ONLY
6t h
BUS
St
W
Install yield line. eS
Av
SW
s a
o
alo
sc
Tu
ONLY
BUS
SW
7t h
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, ve
n A
St
t o
Co
t
SW

e SW
n Av
tto
Co
I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
movements.
westbound and
Truncation and
Implement TSP
Legend
W
ve S
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
1st A
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
McM ill on Av
Bo l i
â
ï
n St
SW Pedestrian Signal
Mu n
Sharrow Bike Lane
Bike Lane
g er A
4t h S
t SW Share The Road
SW
e SW
Shared Bike Lane
ve
n d Ln
la
Dedicated Bus Lane
n SW
Clev e
on L
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b
is
No Parking
L n SW
Ha r r
4t
h Grass Median
St
SW
r
Ar t h u
4th
BUS
S t SW
ONLY
SW
St
6th Mar
ti n L
u th e
ONLY
r Ki
BUS
ng Jr D
r
BUS
Mc
ONLY
Mi
Remove traffic signal.

llo
Prohibit left turns from

nA
McMillan Ave SW.

ve
SW
SW
ve
A
b
m
Lo
W
Pl S
6t h
SW
St
6t h
Co
tto
nA

ve

SW

movements.
BUS
ONLY Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
Co

t
to

nA
ve
SW

I
Feet
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Bo lin St SW Bus Lane Begins Main Road
2n d Ave S W
Dedicated Bus Lane
3r
dA
ve
SW
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
Garfield Ln SW
Ar thur Ln SW
Grant Ln SW
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
Ma rti n L uthe r King Jr Dr



I
Feet
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
h
f
d
c
b No Left Turn

( Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Goldwire Pl SW
ONLY Dedicated Bus Lane
BUS Bus Lane Ends Dedicated Bike Lane
Raised Median
f
d
c
b
p No Parking
5th Ct SW
Grass Median

westbound approach and southbound
left turn lane.
M a rt in L u t h e r King Jr Dr
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
6th Ave SW
BUS
ONLY
BUS
Goldwire Pl SW
Goldwire Way SW
Bolin St SW


I Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn
1st St SW
! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b No Parking
Grass Median
SW
5t h
Pl
Ct
ir e
SW
l dw
Go

movements.
SW
St
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
ir e
6th Av e SW
l dw
Go
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
SW
SW
W
y
St
Pl S
Wa
ry
te r
Ca
te r
n
Mc
n
Ce
Ce

7t h
Av
e SW
I 0 50 100 200 Figure 19: Proposed Bus Lane Striping

Feet
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ Signal !
¯
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole
â
Sharrow Bike Lane
Bike Lane
5th Ct S
Dedicated Bus5th
Lane
Ct S
No Parking Raised Median

f
p
d
c
b Grass Median

Truncation and Green Extension for the Implement TSP using Early Green/Red
westbound and eastbound through Truncation and Green Extension for the
movements. westbound and eastbound through
movements.
1st St S
ONLY
BUS
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
6th Av e SW 6th Av e S
Ce nter St
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
S
Restripe
Restripe northbound
northbound and
and southbound
southbound
approaches
approaches and
and convert
convert from
from split-
split-
phase
phase to
to protected/permissive
protected/permissive operations.
operations.
7th Ave S Center Way S

16
th
Av
eS CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,7th USGS, AeroGRID,
Ave S
Figure 20: Proposed Bus Lane Striping

I 0 50
Feet
100
1 in = 100 feet
200
Birmingham, Alabama
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
S
5th Ct S
tS
tS
St
aS
Bus Lane Ends
aS
Dedicated Bike Lane
a
mm
eg
lt
De
Om
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b
Ga
No Parking
Grass Median
tS
aS
t
Be
Green/Red
ion for the
movements.
rough
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
2nd St S
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
ONLY
BUS
6th Av e S
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
tS
tS
Be ta Pl S
aS
aS
eg
lt
De
Om
ta Cir
E Be
C ir
7th Ave S Be
ta CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
W

Feet
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
f
h
d
c
b No Left Turn

! Concrete Pole

S
Bike Lane
St
Share The Road

ta
Shared Bike Lane

Be

Dedicated Bus Lane
5th St S
6th St S
Bus Lane Ends
St
Dedicated Bike Lane
ha
p
Raised Median
f
p
d
c
b
Al
No Parking
Grass Median
Implement TSP using separate Phase

Insertions for the eastbound bus through
movement. Install one (1) transit signal
head. For the westbound bus through
movement, implement TSP using Early
Green/Red Truncation and Green Extension.
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
6th Av e S
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS



Feet
Legend
é
í
ì
ë
³ !
7th St S
¯
Signal
Signal Mast
h
f
d
c
b No Left Turn

( Concrete Pole

Bike Lane
Dedicated Bus Lane
Bus Lane Ends
10th St S
Dedicated Bike Lane
Raised Median
f
d
c
b
p No Parking
Grass Median
ONLY
BUS
5th Ave S
ONLY
ONLY
BUS
BUS
8th S t S
Implement TSP using Phase Insertion for the eastbound

bus left turn. Install one (1) transit signal head.
¨
§
¦65
ONLY
6th Av e S
BUS
ONLY
BUS

8t h S t S
9th St S


TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
City/Town: Birmingham, AL Analysis Performed By: JCB
County: Jefferson Date Analysis Performed: 4/30/2018
Division: Project Number if Applicable: 170220
Data Date: 2023 Projected Weather Conditions:
Major Route: Lomb Ave Appr. Lanes: 2 Critical Approach Speed (mph): 35
Minor Route: McMillon Ave SW Appr. Lanes: 1
Volume Level Criteria

1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ? Yes X No
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area or isolated community of <10,000 population? Yes X No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level 70% X 100%
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME

Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: X Yes X No
Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied, given
adequate trials of other remedial measures have been tried.
Adequate trial(s) of other remedial measures tried: X Yes X No

List Remedial Measures Tried (Required for 80% Combination of A & B)
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume & Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic

100% Satisfied: X Yes X No
(Used if neither Condition A or B is satisfied) 80% Satisfied: X Yes X No
Eight Highest Hours
(volumes in veh/hr) Minimum Requirements
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am
12 -
pm
am
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more

7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
11
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
500 350 600 420 1,273 1,066 902 1,008 1,209 1,356 1,457 1,521
W - 1A
100%
on Major Street
Highest Approach
150 105 200 140 94 65 37 46 54 76 60 62
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am
12 -
pm
am

7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
11
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
750 525 900 630 1,273 1,066 902 1,008 1,209 1,356 1,457 1,521
W - 1B
100%
on Major Street
Highest Approach
75 53 100 70 94 65 37 46 54 76 60 62
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am
12 -
pm
am

7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
11
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
400 280 480 336 1,273 1,066 902 1,008 1,209 1,356 1,457 1,521
W - 1A
on Major Street
80%
Highest Approach
120 84 160 112 94 65 37 46 54 76 60 62
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am
12 -
pm
am

7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
11
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
600 420 720 504 1,273 1,066 902 1,008 1,209 1,356 1,457 1,521
W - 1B
on Major Street
80%
Highest Approach
60 42 80 56 94 65 37 46 54 76 60 62
on Minor Street
Based on MUTCD 2009 NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
Page 1 of 7 itself require the installation of a traffic control signal rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Satisfied: Yes X No
If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then this warrant is satisfied.
Four Highest Hours
m
m
3-4p
4-5p
5-6p
7-8a
(Volumes in veh/hr)
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Street 1,273 1,356 1,457 1,521
Highest Minor Street Approach 94 76 60 62
FIGURE W-2: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level

500 100% Volume Level
HIGH VOLUMEN APPROACH [VPH]
115vph lower
400 threshold
80vph lower
MINOR ROUTE
threshold
300 Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
200 Minor
2+ Major & 1 Minor
100 1 Major & 2+ Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor

0
MAJOR ROUTE - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES [VPH]

* Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor route approach with two or more lanes and
80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor route approach with one lane.

(Community less-than 10,000 population or speeds greater-than 70 km/hr [40 mph] on Major Street)
400 70% Volumne
Level
80vph lower
threshold
300 60vph lower
MINOR ROUTE
threshold
Active Curve
200
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
2+ Major & 1
100 Minor
1 Major & 2+
Minor
1 Major & 1
0 Minor

Page 2 of 7 itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes X No

This signal warrant sahll be applied only in unsual cases, such as office Satisfied: Yes X No
complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-ocupancy vehicle
facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time period.
Signalization shall be considered if a point lies above the appropriate line or the Delay criteria is met.
Unusual case(s) justifying this Warrant: Peak Hour Data
Peak Major Minor
Hour Route Route

VOLUME APPROACH [VPH]
MINOR ROUTE - HIGHER
500 150vph lower

threshold
400 100vph lower
threshold
300 Active Curve
200 2+ Major & 2+

Minor
100 2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor


400 100vph lower

threshold
75vph lower
300 threshold
Active Curve
200
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
100
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor

3. Total Entering Volume (veh/hr)

1. Delay on Minor Approach (vehicle- Number of Approaches
CRITERIA
hours) 2. Volume on Minor Approach (veh/hr)

DELAY
3 X 4 or more
Approaches Lanes: 1 2 Approaches Lanes 1 2 No. of Approaches 3 4
Delay Criteria: 4.0 5.0 Volume Criteria 100 150 Volume Criteria 650 800
Delay: Volume : Volume :
Fullfilled? Yes X NO Fullfilled? Yes X NO Fullfilled? Yes X NO
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Satisfied: Yes X No

Fulfilled?
Pedestrian Signal Location Criteria
Yes No
The nearest traffic control device (signal or STOP sign) controlling traffic
on the major route is more than 90m (300 ft) away: Yes X No
X
If no above, will this proposed signal restrict the progrssive movement of traffic? X Yes No
Vehicle volumes in veh/hr and Pedestrian Four Greatest Hours Peak Hour
volumnes in ped/hr
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Route
Pedestrians crossing the Major Route
FIGURE W-4a: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Four-Hour Volumes

500
TOTAL OF ALL PEDS CROSSING MAJOR
100% Curve
ROUTE - PEDS PER HOUR (PPH)
400
70% Curve
300
107pph lower
threshold
200
75pph lower
threshold
100
100% Volume
Level
0
MAJOR ROUTE, TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)

* Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 100% Volume Level.
75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 70% Volume Level.
FIGURE W-4b: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Peak Hour Volume
700
100% Curve
ROUTE - PDES PER HOUR (PPH)
600
500 70% Curve
400
133pph lower
threshold
300
93pph lower
200 threshold

Based on MUTCD 2009 NOTE: The Satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Satisfied: Yes X No

This warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren crossing the major route is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary
through high school students. This warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria below are fulfilled after remedial measures
have been considered.
Any remedial measures implemented in or around the intersection to improve the safety of the students as noted in Section
4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing in the MUTCD:
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. Enter the number of schoolchildren crossing the major route along with Num. of Highest Crossing Hour
the hour this occurs. The hour can be any 60 minute interval (ex 2:15 Students Period
PM - 3:15 PM enter 2:15 - 3:15). Requires a minimum of 20 X
schoolchildren durning the any hour. -
2. For both the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) periods of operation, enter Period
the number of adequate gaps observed for each period and the number of Minutes Gaps
X
minutes each period lasted. Requires one period to operate with fewer AM
gaps than the number of minutes in the period. PM
3. Is the nearest traffic signal along the major route more than 90m (300 ft) from this
crossing? Yes X No
X
If the signal is within 90m (300 ft) of an existing signalize intersection, will it restrict
progressive movement of traffic?
X Yes No
WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Satisfied: Yes X No

Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates the installtion of traffic control signals at
intersections that would not otherwise be considered in order to maintain proper paltooning of vehicles. This warrant is
satisfied if the below criteria is satified as follows: criteria 1 is satisfied and either criteria 2 or 3 is satisfied.
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. The inclusion of this proposed signal, into the coordinated system, does not result in a signal spacing of
X
less than 305m (1,000 ft)?
a.
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, are the adjacent traffic
X
control signals so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehiclular platooning?
2.
b. On a two-way street, do adjacent traffic control signals not provide the necessary degree of
platooning and will the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals collectively provide a progressive X
operation?
WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Satisfied: Yes X No

This warrant is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider the
installation of a traffic control signal. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds
that criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met.
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has fialed to reduce the crash
frequency as shown below:
2. How many crashes within the past 12 months? For this criteria to be met, five or more
reported crashes, of types suseptible to correction by the installation of a traffic control signal, X
must have occurred.
3. If Warrant 1A or Warrant 1B are 80 percent satisfied of the current values or if Warrant 4, Met?
4-hour or peak, is met at the 80 percent values. Yes No
Warrant 1, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
Warrant 1, Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic (80 percent satisfied): X
X
Warrant 4, Four-Hour Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
Warrant 4, Peak Hour Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
WARRANT 8 - ROADWAY NETWORK Satisfied: Yes X No
This warrant is used to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant
is satisfied if one of the following 2 criteria is met and both routes meet at least on of the characteristics of a Major Route
below.
Met? Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No Yes No
1. Both of the a. Please enter the total existing, or immediately projected, entering Volume
criteria to the traffic volume during the peak hour of a typical weekday. Requires X
right are a minumum of 1,000 vehicles to be met.
X
required in b. Based on an engineering study, does the 5 year projected traffic volumes, for
order to be this location, meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3 during an average X
met. weekday? *
2. Enter the total existing, or
immediately projected, entering ← Hour
volume for each of any 5 hours of a
non-normal business day. (Saturday X
or Sunday). 1,000 vph for each
← Volume
hour required.
* Supporting data required for verification of the projected 5 year traffic Warrants.
A major route, as used in this signal warrant, shall have at least one of the following
Met? Fulfilled?
characteristics:
Characteristics of Major Routes Yes No Yes No
1. Is it a part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal Major Route X
roadway network for through traffic flow? * Minor Route X
2. Does it include rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing Major Route X
X
a city? * Minor Route X
3. Does it appear as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street Major Route X
plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study? * Minor Route X
* This is a minor route, but for the purposes of this Warrant, shall be considered as the other major route.
Note: Supporting data shall be required to verify the routes meet one of the characteristics of a major route.
Applicable
WARRANT 9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Yes No
The need for a traffic control signal may be considered if an intersection that is controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign has a rail
crossing within 140 feet of the stop/yield line and the highest Equivalent Minor Approach Traffic value lies above the curve
represented on the graph below.
Minor Route Adjustment Factors - Enter the following: Satisfied: Yes No
1. The number of occurrances of rail traffic/day:

Peak Hour Data
The percentage of "High-Occupancy Buses" crossing the track/day: Peak Major Minor
2.
(A high-occupancy bus is defined as a bus occupied by at least 20 people) Hour Route Route
3. The percentage of Tractor-trailer Trucks crossing the track/day:
Enter the distance value "D" from the STOP/YIELD bar to the track as shown below:
(One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing) (Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing)
FIGURE W-9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

(One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing)
350 D = 30 ft
300 Minor Approach

MINOR ROUTE CROSSING APPROACH -
Traffic
250 D = 30ft
EQUIVALENT VPH *
D = 50ft
200
D = 70ft
150
D = 90ft
100
D = 110ft
50
D = 130ft
MAJOR ROUTE: TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)

* VPH after applying the adjustment factors for Rail, Bus, and Tractor-Trailer traffic
25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Major Route: Lomb Ave Appr. Lanes: 2 Critical Approach Speed (mph): 35
Minor Route: McMillon Ave SW Appr. Lanes: 1
SATISFIED
Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes X No
80% Satisfied 100% Satisfied
1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume: Yes X No Yes X No
1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic: Yes X No Yes X No
Any Remedial Measures Tried and their Outcome.
Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes X No
Warrant #3: Peak Hour Yes X No

The Unusual Case(s) that Justifies the use of this Warrant.
Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume Yes X No
Warrant #5: School Crossing Yes X No

Any Remedial Measures Implemented to improve the Safety of the Students.
Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Yes X No
Warrant #7: Crash Experience Yes X No

Other Alternatives that have failed to reduce crashes.
Warrant #8: Roadway Network Yes X No
Warrant #9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Yes X No
CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:
Remarks:
Summary Page itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. rev. 05/2011
Major Route: 6th Ave S Appr. Lanes: 2 Critical Approach Speed (mph): 35
Minor Route: Center St S Appr. Lanes: 1
Volume Level Criteria

1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ? Yes X No
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area or isolated community of <10,000 population? Yes X No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level 70% X 100%
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME

Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: X Yes X No
Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied, given
adequate trials of other remedial measures have been tried.
Adequate trial(s) of other remedial measures tried: X Yes X No

List Remedial Measures Tried (Required for 80% Combination of A & B)
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume & Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic

100% Satisfied: X Yes X No
(Used if neither Condition A or B is satisfied) 80% Satisfied: X Yes X No
Eight Highest Hours
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am

-
12
1p
7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%
Both Approaches
500 350 600 420 1,063 899 725 726 891 1,027 1,206 1,401
W - 1A
100%
on Major Street
Highest Approach
150 105 200 140 73 50 38 51 56 82 64 68
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am

-
12
1p
7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%
Both Approaches
750 525 900 630 1,063 899 725 726 891 1,027 1,206 1,401
W - 1B
100%
on Major Street
Highest Approach
75 53 100 70 73 50 38 51 56 82 64 68
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am

-
12
1p
7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
400 280 480 336 1,063 899 725 726 891 1,027 1,206 1,401
W - 1A
on Major Street
80%
Highest Approach
120 84 160 112 73 50 38 51 56 82 64 68
on Minor Street
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
am
am

-
12
1p
7-8
8-9
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70%

Both Approaches
600 420 720 504 1,063 899 725 726 891 1,027 1,206 1,401
W - 1B
on Major Street
80%
Highest Approach
60 42 80 56 73 50 38 51 56 82 64 68
on Minor Street
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Satisfied: Yes X No
If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then this warrant is satisfied.
Four Highest Hours
m
m
3-4p
4-5p
5-6p
7-8a
(Volumes in veh/hr)
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Street 1,063 1,027 1,206 1,401
Highest Minor Street Approach 73 82 64 68

115vph lower
400 threshold
80vph lower
MINOR ROUTE
threshold
300 Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
200 Minor
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor

0


400 70% Volumne
Level
80vph lower
threshold
300 60vph lower
MINOR ROUTE
threshold
Active Curve
200
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
2+ Major & 1
100 Minor
1 Major & 2+
Minor
1 Major & 1
0 Minor

WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes X No

This signal warrant sahll be applied only in unsual cases, such as office Satisfied: Yes X No
complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-ocupancy vehicle
facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time period.
Signalization shall be considered if a point lies above the appropriate line or the Delay criteria is met.
Unusual case(s) justifying this Warrant: Peak Hour Data
Peak Major Minor
Hour Route Route

500 150vph lower

threshold
400 100vph lower
threshold
300 Active Curve
200 2+ Major & 2+

Minor
100 2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor


400 100vph lower

threshold
75vph lower
300 threshold
Active Curve
200
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
100
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor

3. Total Entering Volume (veh/hr)

1. Delay on Minor Approach (vehicle- Number of Approaches
CRITERIA
hours) 2. Volume on Minor Approach (veh/hr)

DELAY
3 X 4 or more
Approaches Lanes: 1 2 Approaches Lanes 1 2 No. of Approaches 3 4
Delay Criteria: 4.0 5.0 Volume Criteria 100 150 Volume Criteria 650 800
Delay: Volume : Volume :
Fullfilled? Yes X NO Fullfilled? Yes X NO Fullfilled? Yes X NO
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Satisfied: Yes X No

Fulfilled?
Pedestrian Signal Location Criteria
Yes No
The nearest traffic control device (signal or STOP sign) controlling traffic
on the major route is more than 90m (300 ft) away: Yes X No
X
If no above, will this proposed signal restrict the progrssive movement of traffic? X Yes No
Vehicle volumes in veh/hr and Pedestrian Four Greatest Hours Peak Hour
volumnes in ped/hr
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Route
Pedestrians crossing the Major Route
FIGURE W-4a: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Four-Hour Volumes

500
100% Curve
ROUTE - PEDS PER HOUR (PPH)
400
70% Curve
300
107pph lower
threshold
200
75pph lower
threshold
100
100% Volume
Level
0

FIGURE W-4b: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Peak Hour Volume
700
100% Curve
ROUTE - PDES PER HOUR (PPH)
600
500 70% Curve
400
133pph lower
threshold
300
93pph lower
200 threshold

Based on MUTCD 2009 NOTE: The Satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Satisfied: Yes X No

This warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren crossing the major route is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary
through high school students. This warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria below are fulfilled after remedial measures
have been considered.
Any remedial measures implemented in or around the intersection to improve the safety of the students as noted in Section
4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing in the MUTCD:
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. Enter the number of schoolchildren crossing the major route along with Num. of Highest Crossing Hour
the hour this occurs. The hour can be any 60 minute interval (ex 2:15 Students Period
PM - 3:15 PM enter 2:15 - 3:15). Requires a minimum of 20 X
schoolchildren durning the any hour. -
2. For both the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) periods of operation, enter Period
the number of adequate gaps observed for each period and the number of Minutes Gaps
X
minutes each period lasted. Requires one period to operate with fewer AM
gaps than the number of minutes in the period. PM
3. Is the nearest traffic signal along the major route more than 90m (300 ft) from this
crossing? Yes X No
X
If the signal is within 90m (300 ft) of an existing signalize intersection, will it restrict
progressive movement of traffic?
X Yes No
WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Satisfied: Yes X No

Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates the installtion of traffic control signals at
intersections that would not otherwise be considered in order to maintain proper paltooning of vehicles. This warrant is
satisfied if the below criteria is satified as follows: criteria 1 is satisfied and either criteria 2 or 3 is satisfied.
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. The inclusion of this proposed signal, into the coordinated system, does not result in a signal spacing of
X
less than 305m (1,000 ft)?
a.
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, are the adjacent traffic
X
control signals so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehiclular platooning?
2.
b. On a two-way street, do adjacent traffic control signals not provide the necessary degree of
platooning and will the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals collectively provide a progressive X
operation?
WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Satisfied: Yes X No

This warrant is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider the
installation of a traffic control signal. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds
that criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met.
Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No
1. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has fialed to reduce the crash
frequency as shown below:
2. How many crashes within the past 12 months? For this criteria to be met, five or more
reported crashes, of types suseptible to correction by the installation of a traffic control signal, X
must have occurred.
3. If Warrant 1A or Warrant 1B are 80 percent satisfied of the current values or if Warrant 4, Met?
4-hour or peak, is met at the 80 percent values. Yes No
Warrant 1, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
Warrant 1, Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic (80 percent satisfied): X
X
Warrant 4, Four-Hour Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
Warrant 4, Peak Hour Volume (80 percent satisfied): X
WARRANT 8 - ROADWAY NETWORK Satisfied: Yes X No
This warrant is used to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant
is satisfied if one of the following 2 criteria is met and both routes meet at least on of the characteristics of a Major Route
below.
Met? Fulfilled?
Criteria
Yes No Yes No
1. Both of the a. Please enter the total existing, or immediately projected, entering Volume
criteria to the traffic volume during the peak hour of a typical weekday. Requires X
right are a minumum of 1,000 vehicles to be met.
X
required in b. Based on an engineering study, does the 5 year projected traffic volumes, for
order to be this location, meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3 during an average X
met. weekday? *
2. Enter the total existing, or
immediately projected, entering ← Hour
volume for each of any 5 hours of a
non-normal business day. (Saturday X
or Sunday). 1,000 vph for each
← Volume
hour required.
* Supporting data required for verification of the projected 5 year traffic Warrants.
A major route, as used in this signal warrant, shall have at least one of the following
Met? Fulfilled?
characteristics:
Characteristics of Major Routes Yes No Yes No
1. Is it a part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal Major Route X
roadway network for through traffic flow? * Minor Route X
2. Does it include rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing Major Route X
X
a city? * Minor Route X
3. Does it appear as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street Major Route X
plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study? * Minor Route X
* This is a minor route, but for the purposes of this Warrant, shall be considered as the other major route.
Note: Supporting data shall be required to verify the routes meet one of the characteristics of a major route.
Applicable
WARRANT 9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Yes No
The need for a traffic control signal may be considered if an intersection that is controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign has a rail
crossing within 140 feet of the stop/yield line and the highest Equivalent Minor Approach Traffic value lies above the curve
represented on the graph below.
Minor Route Adjustment Factors - Enter the following: Satisfied: Yes No
1. The number of occurrances of rail traffic/day:

Peak Hour Data
The percentage of "High-Occupancy Buses" crossing the track/day: Peak Major Minor
2.
(A high-occupancy bus is defined as a bus occupied by at least 20 people) Hour Route Route
3. The percentage of Tractor-trailer Trucks crossing the track/day:
Enter the distance value "D" from the STOP/YIELD bar to the track as shown below:
(One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing) (Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing)
FIGURE W-9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

(One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing)
350 D = 30 ft
300 Minor Approach

MINOR ROUTE CROSSING APPROACH -
Traffic
250 D = 30ft
EQUIVALENT VPH *
D = 50ft
200
D = 70ft
150
D = 90ft
100
D = 110ft
50
D = 130ft
MAJOR ROUTE: TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)

* VPH after applying the adjustment factors for Rail, Bus, and Tractor-Trailer traffic
25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Major Route: 6th Ave S Appr. Lanes: 2 Critical Approach Speed (mph): 35
Minor Route: Center St S Appr. Lanes: 1
SATISFIED
Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes X No
80% Satisfied 100% Satisfied
1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume: Yes X No Yes X No
1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic: Yes X No Yes X No
Any Remedial Measures Tried and their Outcome.
Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes X No
Warrant #3: Peak Hour Yes X No

The Unusual Case(s) that Justifies the use of this Warrant.
Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume Yes X No
Warrant #5: School Crossing Yes X No

Any Remedial Measures Implemented to improve the Safety of the Students.
Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Yes X No
Warrant #7: Crash Experience Yes X No

Other Alternatives that have failed to reduce crashes.
Warrant #8: Roadway Network Yes X No
Warrant #9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Yes X No
CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:
Remarks:
Summary Page itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. rev. 05/2011

NEPA Reevaluation February 2019 Package

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

NEPA Reevaluation February 2019 Package

Uploaded by

Copyright:

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE

February 28, 2019

Federal Transit Administration, Region 4

Attention: Stan Mitchell

Reference: Birmingham Tiger 7 Bus Rapid Transit

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

• Intersection level of service was maintained at acceptable levels.

• An improvement in the project schedule.

Eliminate BRT Station ITP-6

City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 2

City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 3

• Enhanced BRT definition (i.e., higher ITDP score),

• More likely to attract development/redevelopment in the corridor because

• Potential reduced number of stations (albeit larger platforms and shelters),

• Potential reduced construction cost and number of amenities, and

• Reduced visual impacts to businesses (more appealing).

City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 4

Increase Amount of Dedicated Guideways

Procure 60-Foot Articulated Buses

City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 5

Howard Richards, P.E.

C: Kevon Owens, Assistant to Mayor Randall Woodfin, City of Birmingham

Enclosures: Environmental Re-evaluation Consultation with attachments

City of Birmingham, Capital Projects Management Office 6

For Agency Use

Concurrence by Regional Counsel: Reviewed By:

Concurrence by Approving Official: Date:

Title: Date: Type and Date of Last Federal Action

Title: Date: Type and Date of Last Federal Action

IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION?

REASON FOR RE-EVALUATION

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CHANGES OR NEW INFORMATION

Land Use and Economics Yes No

Neighborhoods & Populations (Social) Yes No

Visual Resources & Aesthetics Yes No

Air Quality Yes No

Noise & Vibration Yes No

Ecosystems (Vegetation & Wildlife) Yes No

Water Resources Yes No

Energy & Natural Resources Yes No

Geology & Soils Yes No

Hazardous Materials Yes No

Public Services Yes No

Historic, Cultural & Archaeological Resources Yes No

Parklands & Recreation Yes No

Secondary and Cumulative Yes No

Endangered Species Act Yes No

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We anticipate no material environmental impacts and

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Attached are as follows:

Title Deputy Director, Capital Projects

Federal Transit Administration, Region 4 phone: (404) 865-5600

Acquisitions, No change from approved grant anticipated

Neighborhoods & No change from approved grant

Ecosystems No change from approved grant

Water Resources No change from approved grant

Geology & Soils No change from approved grant anticipated

Hazardous Materials No change from approved grant anticipated

Public Services No change from approved grant anticipated

Utilities No change from approved grant anticipated

Historic, Cultural & No change from approved grant anticipated

Parklands & No change from approved grant anticipated

Secondary and No change from approved grant anticipated

April 27, 2018

AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

ITP Stations & Guideway Alignment Evaluation

Curb-Running Stations Assessment