 |         |  |
 | ||
| | |
| ||
The first part of this section is based on an information packet I put
together in mid 1995 for distribution to various government agencies, public
interest organizations, and journalists. I'm using it because (a) I already
have it, and (b), more importantly, this packet was submitted to the
ARC in
its entirety as part of my comments on the 1995 TIP
. Any additional information I've seen fit to add I've put in italics;
anything not in italics is part of the public record. Also, I've replaced
the names of people quoted or paraphrased with an anonymous tag phrase.
I've added a second section describing what's happened since then.
The drawing files are pretty huge, so I've listed the file sizes.
Section 1: Background Information
Item 1.1 is a newspaper article outlining a plan formulated by GDOT in the late 1980's to greatly expand about seventy miles of freeways on the north side of Atlanta by the addition of three-lane collector-distributor (CD) roads on each side of the existing eight and ten lane freeways. Note that GDOT officials quoted in the article make it clear that, contrary to the usual practice of constructing CD roads to avoid operational problems through a specific series of interchanges, this regional CD system is intended primarily as a means to increase capacity systemwide. Subsequent to reading this article I visited the offices of GDOT, spoke to an engineer who was working full-time on developing this plan, and viewed conceptual drawings of the project (mainly aerial photographs with the CD roads penciled in). This engineer told me that though the article gave the project's estimated cost as $1.2 billion, "you might as well say $2 billion".
In 1990 and 1991 the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA ) and amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted by Congress, which essentially removed the possibility of routine federal funding for a project of this nature and magnitude. The regional CD system project was then ostensibly abandoned by GDOT, though MARTA's East Line crossing of I-285 was actually built to accommodate the CD system.
Besides the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project, I have reason to believe that at least two other major interchange projects, one at GA 400 and Abernathy Road and one at I-285 and the East-West Connector, were also designed as part of this regional CD system. There are more now; two completed, two under construction, and five more in hibernation due to air quality nonconformity. Interestingly, the GA 400-Abernathy Road project design was rejected by ARC because it incorporated more lanes than provided for in ARC's air quality model; the 1995 TIP specifies that the project must include the eight-lane existing mainline and two-lane CD roads. There's a lot more to 400-Abernathy today, mainly because of the effective opposition of affected homeowners and the fact that the environmental documents hadn't been approved by EPA when grandfathering became an issue. That's a big part of why I'm telling you this now (link at end of page, too).
Item
1.2(32k) is a map showing the regional CD system area. I have marked
1994 average
daily traffic volumes per GDOT’s 1995 Traffic Map (no, different
map, current but no traffic volumes) .
Section 2: Items Distributed at the Project Public Hearing, April 14, 1994
Item 2.1 is the Need and Purpose Statement for the project. You will note that no mention is made of any need for or provision of additional through capacity on I-85 itself.
Item 2.2 (286k) is a cross-section drawing depicting an area between the mainline and the outer roadways reserved for future mainline widening. The environmental impact statement for the project includes a similar drawing, except that the references to future widening are absent and the area is shown as a grassed ditch as in....
Item
2.3 (63k) is a dimensioned drawing depicting conditions at a
typical overcrossing bridge.
From the dimensions provided I determined that the area reserved for
future widening was intended for four lanes, bridging the ultimate typical
cross-section to eighteen lanes. Immediately south of the project, these
lanes will combine with the eventual six lanes of GA 316 to feed the existing
ten-lane I-85.
At the public hearing I was told by GDOT representatives, in the presence of other members of the public, that this project was indeed designed as a part of the regional CD system as described in the 1990 newspaper article, and that design work was underway to extend the system as far as I-285. In addition, I was told that air quality modeling of the regional CD system had never been performed because negative results for such modeling were a foregone conclusion.
Item 2.4 is a project map, with number of initial lanes later marked by me from detailed plans I viewed at the offices of Moreland-Altobelli
Section 3: Traffic Diagram and Large Scale Plan
Item 3.1 (838k) is the design year 2015 peak hour traffic diagram for the project, submitted by GDOT to FHWA as part of the Project Concept Report. On this drawing you will find my notes explaining what these numbers mean. The handwritten notes are gone; text notes are in a separate file , not on the drawing yet. This is what shows the zero traffic two-lane ramp and the useless three-lane bridge, among other things. Print the notes before opening the diagram so you can understand what you're seeing.
The purpose of a diagram like this one is to illustrate how projected traffic volumes dictate the configuration of the various roadways and the number of lanes required. Highway engineers use a concept called level of service to relate number of vehicles per lane per hour to actual driving conditions. Levels are denoted as A (free flow) to F (stop and go), with E representing full capacity of 1850 to 2200 vehicles per hour moving at thirty to thirty-five MPH. Generally urban or suburban projects such as this one are designed for level of service C, 1100 to 1550 vehicles per hour moving at about fifty-five MPH. Please keep this in mind as you examine this diagram.
Item 3.2 is a portion of a large scale drawing of the project illustrating the temporary nature of the CD road terminals as designed.
Section 4: ARC's Response
This is a letter to ARC submitted as a formal comment on the 1995 Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It provides as overview of the issues raised by the information you have seen thus far. Also included is ARC's response, which does not address any of the issues I raised.
On August 16, 1994 I attended an ARC Open House intended to air public comments on the 1995 draft TIP. At this meeting I met Bob Radics, a planner with FHWA. After reviewing and discussing the information I had compiled he expressed disbelief that FHWA had approved the project and promised to have the Georgia FHWA staff reexamine it.
I also delivered a five minute speech generally similar in content to the accompanying letter.
Section 5: The November 10th Meeting
Bob Radics put me in contact with Marvin Woodward, a transportation manager with FHWA's Georgia office, to undertake a reexamination of the project. Mr. Woodward allowed me to review the project concept report and set up a meeting for November 10, 1994 between representatives of FHWA, GDOT, and ARC and myself to discuss the project. By my invitation Warren Williams of the Georgia Transportation Alliance (now Georgians for Transportation Alternatives) served as the moderator. Item 5.1 is a list of attendees at this meeting.
At the meeting, GDOT denounced all the information in my possession as invalid. They insisted that there was no provision to widen the I-85 mainline, and professed inability to understand how I had determined that the area reserved for mainline widening was four lanes wide. A GDOT engineer remarked that the grassed area in question was part of a "standard rural cross section" and was probably there to make drainage easier and cheaper.
GDOT also stated the traffic volumes on the diagram from the project concept report were incorrect, and blamed Moreland-Altobelli for this, while disclaiming any understanding of how or why these values were calculated as they were. They showed me a traffic diagram with a different project configuration lacking three bridges and three of the Boggs Road interchange ramps compared to the current version. GDOT volumes applied to the current configuration were released in mid April 1995 and comprise Section 6 of this package.
None of the participants were able to explain the zero-traffic ramp or the superfluous segment of CD roadway over Sugarloaf Parkway (see drawing, item 3.1 and its notes ). When I pointed out that the southbound CD roadway north of Sugarloaf Parkway was in effect an exit ramp three lanes wide and one-and-a-half miles long, an FHWA engineer said that this was required as a safety feature to keep cars from backing up onto the mainline. I am not making this up. In summary, GDOT and FHWA insisted that every detail of the design was dictated by prudent engineering practice, that any improvement to I-85 north or south of the project limits were irrelevant to the design of this project, and that therefore there is no need to address corridor-wide issues as dictated by ISTEA. My impression in the aftermath of the meeting is that all of the participants are acutely aware of the importance of avoiding the introduction of corridor-wide evaluation if the project is to be funded under current federal law, and that GDOT, FHWA and ARC are committed to ensuring that these issues are not raised.
Subsequent to the meeting Marvin Woodward allowed me to examine FHWA's files for the project in order to define a Freedom of Information Act request. The following information was provided:
Item 5.3 , a letter and drawing (97k) depicting the initial and ultimate project cross-sections, clearly showing four lanes of future mainline widening, and explaining the regulatory implications of the decision to adopt this cross-section. Since the information in this letter and drawing directly contradict GDOT’s assertions during the November 10 meeting, I personally delivered this letter to a planner at ARC and discussed it with her. As closely as I can remember, her reaction was, "Tom, I feel really sorry for you and for me, that they lied to us this way." However, from this she and ARC drew no conclusions about the validity of GDOT’s attempts to justify the project.
Item 5.4 is an FHWA internal memo discussing GDOT's desire to implement the CD system as a continuous three-lane roadway regardless of traffic volumes. Note that GDOT "has always proposed that the CD system be a continuous three-lane roadway."
Also note that the fifty vehicles per hour projected for the southbound CD roadway over Sugarloaf Parkway is apparently considered by GDOT and FHWA as warranting at least two lanes.
Item 5.5 is a plan and cross section of the bridge carrying I-85 over Sugarloaf Parkway. This bridge is to be let to contract in June of this year. It will be marked for seventeen lanes of traffic and will include space for four future lanes, for a total of twenty-one lanes. Its width (372'-9") will exceed the length of a regulation NFL football field including end zones. This bridge incorporates the superfluous segment of the southbound CD road identified on the traffic diagram, item 3. GDOT originally proposed to build the southbound CD bridge in a later phase, but now is building it in the first phase for use as a construction detour, claiming that this would be more "cost-effective". Personally, I don't see how building a useless bridge can ever be truly cost-effective!
Item 6: GDOT’s Latest Traffic Diagram
This is the design year 2019 traffic diagram for the project released by GDOT in mid April 1995. The volumes depicted are somewhat higher than those in the previous versions. Also there are some changes to the configuration of ramps which eliminate the most blatantly absurd features of the previous configuration without altering the inherently wasteful nature of the design (a better way to say this is that GDOT eliminated cheap, at-grade ramps in order to divert traffic onto the huge, expensive CD system. Even then, GDOT decided to eliminate one lane of initial paving from the entire length of each CD road.) . As with the previous traffic diagram (Item 3.1) I have made some explanatory notes on the drawings. An impressive map (925k) of the current configuration conflicts with the traffic diagram; it wasn't until late 1995, after several months of intensive and often rather comical redesign work, that GDOT decided exactly what they wanted to do.
Item 7: Scope Of Possible Redesign
I don't pretend to be a highway engineer or planner but since the purpose of this document is to advocate redesign of the project I consider myself somewhat obligated to suggest how this might be done. This drawing (738k) is a copy of GDOT’s 2019 traffic diagram on which I have marked configuration changes, resulting distribution of traffic and number of lanes per roadway.
Overview and Conclusions
1. The current design of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project represents
an investment of
approximately $20 million in roadways, bridges and rights-of-way which
will be seriously underutilized or outright useless unless additional hundreds
of millions of dollars are spent to implement this same general configuration
at least as far as I-285 to I-985. Given the fact that current or realistically
projected highway funding is entirely inadequate to implement this type
of project corridor-wide, the failure of GDOT and FHWA to examine
a more financially realistic alternative represents fiscal irresponsibility
of a high order.
2. The refusal of GDOT, ARC and FHWA to acknowledge the wasteful nature of this design is due to a systematic attempt to undermine the financial constraint requirements mandated by ISTEA.
3. Given the fact that the 2019 traffic volumes projected by GDOT indicate that 43% of the traffic on I-85 south of the project is bound to or from SR 316 rather than I-85, a configuration of say, twelve lanes on I-85 through the project area would be sufficient to accommodate twenty lanes on I-85 south of SR 316, in the event that something like that is eventually built. Conversely, the eighteen lanes of the of the current design would be sufficient to accommodate over thirty lanes on I-85 south of SR 316.
4. If I-85 outside the project area is ever widened to the extent necessary to justify the design of this project, it will certainly occur many years or even decades in the future. In contrast, if this project is appropriately redesigned, the $20 million or so saved can be spent almost immediately on projects that will be in place and delivering user benefits to the community for a like number of years.
5. The regional CD system, of which the current I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project is a part, is an initiative comparable in cost and impact to MARTA, the Freeing the Freeways program of the 1980’s, or the Outer Perimeter. All of these projects were or are well understood by the citizens of metro Atlanta, extensively studied by the appropriate agencies, and, except for the Outer Perimeter, predictably and adequate funded. It is fair to say that whatever decisions are eventually made regarding construction of the Outer Perimeter will be made in the light of full public awareness and the best regional planning data available. In contrast, beginning this summer, construction of the regional CD system will begin on the basis of no regional planning data whatsoever and near complete public ignorance of the issues involved.
6. GDOT has elected to circumvent the legally mandated planning requirements for a project of this nature because they sensibly assume that proper regional planning review of the regional CD system would show that the project is not feasible fiscally or environmentally and therefore is ineligible for federal funding under current federal law. GDOT thus far has accomplished this by misrepresenting or lying outright about key features of the project design. It is the responsibility of FHWA and ARC to ensure that federally funded projects are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, but for reasons which remain unclear neither agency has elected to do this.
7. Approximately two thirds of this project's cost is to be covered by Interstate Maintenance funding, with the remainder, including most of Sugarloaf Parkway, to be covered by National Highway System funding. Approval of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project as designed establishes some interesting precedents for use of Interstate Maintenance funding. This program was established in anticipation of the need for extensive reconstruction of older segments of the Interstate system. Because much of this work was completed during the 1980’s, it is the only category of federal highway funding that is not fully allocated for the foreseeable future in metro Atlanta. It may be used for safety and operational improvements, interchange additions and improvements and addition of high occupancy vehicle lanes, but not for addition of through general traffic lanes. Of course, this particular Interstate Maintenance project doubles the through general traffic laneage from eight to sixteen. Forgive me for being alarmist, but consider this: The day will come when sections of I-285 and I-75 within the regional CD system area will require replacement of original bridge decks constructed in the 1960’s. Much of I-75 and I-285 within this area has already been rather inexpensively modified to add a ninth and tenth mainline lane through use of substandard lane and shoulder widths. Following the precedents established on the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project GDOT and FHWA may elect to modify the mainline to ten full width lanes with full width shoulders and added HOV lanes. Three lane CD roads could be justified as construction detours. The end product would be the same eighteen lane cross section as depicted in item 5.3 (From FHWA's regulatory perspective, ten-lane I-285 and eighteen-lane I-85 are both ten lanes; CD roads and HOV lanes don't count). Since funding is insufficient to implement the entire system at once, and in accordance with GDOT's established policy of willfully circumventing review of the regional CD system as a coherent whole, segments would have to be constructed in such a way that much of the added capacity would be underutilized except as a means of more efficiently force-feeding an ever-changing collection of bottlenecks as individual segments are completed. Finally after a decade or more of piecemeal construction a true corridor wide, eighteen lane freeway system with emerge, replete with all the myriad impacts that prompted Congress to mandate regional planning review in the first place. All of this could happen without a conscious, informed decision by the public and its representatives to build such a system.
8. In ARC’s 1993 TIP, funding for the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project was listed as $45 million for a larger project extending from SR 316 to I-985. In 1994 it was listed as $16 million. In the current 1995 TIP funding is listed as $96 million, a sixfold increase in a single year. Moreover, while the 1995 TIP lists funding for the second and third phases of the project in 1999, GDOT has reported to the press that the second phase will begin construction in 1996 and the third phase in 1998. All of this suggests that cost considerations have been virtually ignored in the development of this project, and also that ARC's understanding of the realities of the project are bizarrely inadequate considering ARC’s federally mandated leading role in transportation planning in metro Atlanta.
Since mid 1995
The CD projects I have mentioned here and identified on the map (Item 1.2) came about as a result of a decision by GDOT about 1990 or so (about the time Wayne Shackelford was elected GDOT Commissioner by the State Transportation Board following the inauguration of Zell Miller as governor) that any projects involving construction or reconstruction of bridges over the freeways within the seventy miles of regional CD system corridors would include or provide for the CD system. After years of denial, Shackelford confirmed that indeed this was happening in a startling interview with Atlanta Journal-Constitution staff writer David Goldberg, published on the front page of the AJC, May 23, 1996 . Reactions to this article were quite interesting. From an FHWA engineer, "Tom, we were just as shocked as you were". From a GDOT planner, "I wish he (Shackelford) wouldn't say things like that". From ARC, "We didn't see that article".
The I-85- Sugarloaf Parkway Project, once the jewel in the crown of the regional CD system, was to be dwarfed by GDOT's proposals for the I-285- GA 400 interchange. Stretching seven miles along both I-285 and GA 400, it included, in some alternatives, both CD's and frontage roads (but no HOV lanes!) totaling over thirty lanes. Cost estimates ranged from $360 million to $489 million. The massive scale of this project, coupled with increased understanding by the press of the regional CD system and its ramifications, elicited widespread, energetic and sophisticated opposition from area neighborhoods. This opposition, in turn, attracted the attention of 11th District Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and forced FHWA to begin taking its job significantly more seriously. Importantly, the issue of whether a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the project area was required was not rejected out of hand as was the case on I-85- Sugarloaf; while an MIS was not explicitly required, it was agreed that the design development process should accomplish most of the aims of a real MIS.
Then, in mid 1996, the roof caved in. Recalibration of ARC's transportation model led to nonconformity with air quality standards, and the business-as-usual approach to regional planning began the months-long process of grinding to a halt. The proposed 1996 TIP, which by then included eight or nine regional CD system projects in addition to two already completed, was replaced by what might be called a 1995M (for modified) TIP under which only the Gwinnett and Abernathy-400 CD projects, the Mount Wilkenson Parkway and Windy Hill Reliever bridge projects in Cobb County, and design for 285-400 could move forward. Development also began on a new RTP, which was due anyway, and an interim TIP or ITIP covering exempt, grandfathered, and local projects.
Grandfathering, which was meant as a way to prevent undue disruption of projects that were already underway, instead turned into a bit of a free-for-all as GDOT, the Georgia office of FHWA, and ARC's pro-urban sprawl board majority scrambled to rubber stamp into the ITIP as many road projects as possible. The situation became so bad that EPA courageously intervened, and the matter went to the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House for resolution. It's not over yet, either. At this writing, a lawsuit by local and national environmental groups is being put together, and Randy Poynter, former chair of the ARC Board and now a candidate for lieutenant governor, has publicly broached the possibility of a lawsuit against EPA for overzealous enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
While most of the contested projects did indeed make it into the ITIP,
a precedent was apparently established for more appropriate review of road
projects in the future. I say apparently because to a large extent, the
rules are being made up as we go along. This is because when ISTEA and
its component regulations were written, nobody could have predicted that
the system could go off the rails to the degree that it has in Atlanta.
All this sets the stage for the possibility of major action to ensure
that things never get this bad again. That's why
I'm telling you this now.
Get Your Own Free Home PageParallel
interstates considered
$1 billion-plus venture more
practical than adding lanes, DOT says
By Matt Kempner, Daily News staff writer
Cover story, Gwinnett Daily Post, April 22, 1990
There's an old adage that says Atlanta will be a great town if they
ever finish building it. But in a city that never saw a road project
it didn't like, the biggest may be still to come.
The state is seriously considering a $1 billion-plus measure to unclog
area interstates - a venture that involves building a interconnected spiderweb
configuration of multilane expressways paralleling existing expressways.
The project is not the proposed Outer Loop. It is, instead, an
interstate that would straddle the northern and eastern portion of Interstate
285 with branches paralleling each side of Interstate 85 in Gwinnett, Interstate
75 in Cobb and Georgia Highway 400 in north Fulton.
Its completion would cost well over $1 billion, but state Department
of Transportation Commissioner Hal Rives is serious enough about the project
to say that public hearings to discuss the possibilities could be held
in six months.
"If we are going to grow the way we are predicted to grow, we are going
to have to do it," Rives said in a recent interview, "I don't know when
the gridlock point is, but it is not too far off."
Called a collector-distributor system, officials say it would be the
most expensive road-building project in Georgia history. That's a
crucial point, considering that no funds have been set aside for it.
"It's going to cost a whale of a lot of money," Rives said.
The State Legislature, which has been reluctant to allocate funds for a package of already proposed highways, including the Outer Loop, may be unwilling to spend much for yet another road in the Atlanta area.
"No one source will be able to provide it," Rives said, agreeing
that possible sources include a state gas tax, federal aid, contributions
from developers along he interstate and "anything else we can think of."
The most expensive project in state history was the $1.4 billion "Freeing
the Freeways" program that overhauled the Atlanta interstate system in
the 1970's, according to the DOT.
The Outer Loop is another costly project being pushed by DOT officials,
although it has been given little funding so far. That road would
be a second Atlanta beltway circling about 20 miles outside I-285 and cutting
across northern and eastern Gwinnett.
The DOT has been able to set aside some money to draft an early design
for the road and buy a smattering of right of way for it. According
to Rives, the Outer Loop needs to be built regardless of the collector-distributor
system and the timing of construction of the two roads is unrelated.
Over the past year DOT designers have quietly mapped a rough sketch
of the collector-distributor system on aerial photographs. As tentatively
drawn it would gobble up chunks of numerous building and dozens of parking
lots in the high-priced property bordering area interstates.
However, officials say some sections would fall within existing land
the state owns along the interstates.
"It's basically just a concept at the moment. We know there is
a need but we've not identified funding and we've not formalized plans
at this point" said Dewey Jones, the DOT's chief of planning and programming.
According to Jones, if the project is done it would be "at least five
years" before actual construction could begin.
DOT planners consider the collector-distributor system a more plausible
option than simply adding more lanes to the interstates.
"There comes a point in time when you take the existing facility and
widen if so much, it begins losing efficiency", said John Lively, the state's
urban design engineer. "With so many lanes of traffic it becomes
very difficult to handle storm drainage, and with as many lanes
it just gets mind-boggling to the driver."
Widening to more than five lanes in each direction can start to erode
a highway's effectiveness, Lively said.
Much of the northern section of I-285 is already four lanes in each
direction and work is expected to being this fall on adding fifth lanes,
he said. Portions of I -75 in Cobb already have up to eight lanes
going one way.
The DOT is considering the collector-distributor system to go north
from I-285 on I-85 as far as Georgia Highway 120. The route on I-75 might
run from the Perimeter to Interstate 575, while the stretch on Georgia
400 would being at I-285 and go to the Chattahoochee River
vicinity, according to Lively.
On I-285 the system might begin at the proposed Cobb East-West
connector, west of I-75. It would run eastward and eventually end
either at the I-85 interchange or farther south at Interstate 20, according
to DOT planners.
In some places the new collector-distributor lanes would be on the
same level as the existing interstate. In other sections it would
rise on bridges to go over buildings, roads or perhaps difficult terrain.
Officials are considering building three or four new lanes in each
direction with only a low median wall separating the additions from the
shoulder of existing interstate. There would be limited access and ramp
exits on the collector-distributor system just as there are on the interstate
now.
The new lanes would carry traffic in the same direction as the closest
interstate lanes. Traffic headed the opposite way would travel new
lanes on the opposite side of the existing freeway.
Ramps spaced at various points along the highway would allow traffic
to switch on or off the interstate and collector-distributor lanes.
The DOT also is considering constructing interchanges in new areas to help
ease the additional interstate traffic.
More than two years ago Gwinnett transportation planners and a
few developers considered a much abbreviated collector-distributor system
that would run along each side of I-85 from the Pleasant Hill Road area
to the I-85/ Interstate 985 split near Suwanee.
"The project would be so expensive I don't know that we could contribute
anything more than a token amount," Gwinnett Transportation Director George
Black said. A token amount would probably be "under $10 million,"
he said.
Just the portion form Georgia Highway 316 to Old Peachtree Road would
cost about $42 million, including purchase of necessary land according
to Black. The County Commission has not set aside any funding for
the roadway.
However, the road is far from dead in Gwinnett.
Last week the Gwinnett Planning Commission recommended that in order
to get a rezoning, the owner of a 121-acre property at Old Peachtree Road
and I-85 be required to reserve land for the collector-distributor system.
It would be the first time Gwinnett has mandated that
developers set aside space for the project.
But it's old hat in Fulton. In 1983 officials there started requiring
developers to donate land for a possible collector-distributor system on
Georgia 400.
"It's not a large amount of land, through, because most of that can
be accommodated within the existing right of way," said Nancy Leathers,
Fulton's deputy director of Planning and Economic Development.
"We were proposing it to DOT because we felt it was going to be necessary
to accommodate growth in the area," she said, referring to a meeting held
with the state in the early 1980s.
Much of the area that would border the new lanes is already developed
or expected to develop as something other than homes, Ms. Leathers said,
But some residential communities could be affected.
"We will have to be concerned about design and how that interrelates
to those neighborhoods," she said.
Alternatives, such as extended MARTA bus and rail service, won't be
sufficient to handle increased traffic loads expected in the future, according
to Rives.
"There's too many people coming from too many different places to work in this area," he said. "I don't think we could build enough miles of public transit."
The section of I-285 between I-85 and I-75 averages more than 220,000
trips a day. Within 20 years it is expected to carry nearly twice
that many, he said.
A collector-distributor system is not a new idea. A similar roadway
is proposed in Tampa, Fla., and other already exist in Texas, according
to state transportation officials.
Black, who used to live in Chicago, recalls that city's Dan Ryan Freeway,
which included a collector-distributor system.
"It's a huge freeway and its works really well," the transportation
director said. But he added that "even with all that capacity, it is saturated
during peak hours."
In addition, driver unfamiliar with the huge roadway are often intimidated
by it, he said. Maneuvers to exit the interstate often must being
two miles ahead to allow enough time to weave through the additional lanes.
"In the long run I think it will happen," said Gwinnett Planning and
Development Director Don McFarland. "the question is when."
"In 20 years we are going to need it from county line to county line,"
he said.
Get your own Free Home Page
The proposed project consists of the improvement of I-85 from Boggs
Road to
approximately 3,000 feet north of Old Peachtree Road through the construction
of
collector-distnbutor roads and ramp braids, the reconstruction of four
interchanges/bridges and the addition of related road improvments/relocations.
The
construction of the proposed Sugarloaf Parkway including an interchange
with
I-85 is also included in this project. Sugarloaf Parkway is a proposed
cross-county
facility that serves regional traffic to and from the cities of Lawrenceville
and
Duluth
The proposed improvement project of I-85, as defined above, and the
additional
interchange at Sugarloaf Parkway benefits the interstate and arterial
systems of the
area for several reasons.
1. The existing interchanges at SR 120 and Old Peachtree Road, improved
to
their maximum design, remain incapable of accommodating design year
traffic. The Sugarloaf interchange would provide the necessary capacity.
2. After all feasible improvements have been made to existing facilities
(i.e.
interchanges, connecting crossroads, parallel arterials), the systems
remains
inadequate without Sugarloaf interchange even though only 20% of the
demand generated by the adjacent developments will use the freeway.
3. The proposed Sugarloaf Parkway interchange would service traffic
demands
created by previously approved land use plans and would not adversely
affect
operation of the existing or planned improved interstate system. Service
levels
within the interchange study area are significantly better than those
along the
basic freeway segments beyound the study area.
This proposed overall project was developed as part of the Gwinnett
Transportation Plan. The transportation plan was developed to handle
the
transportation needs of the County through the year 2015. The project
is part of
the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Transportation Plan, and is listed
in its
Transportation Improvement Program (1992-1999) as Projects R73 and
R81.
Other transportation projects in the vicinity include (1) widening of
SR 120 from
Satellite Boulevard to US 23, (2) widening of SR 120 from Atkinson
Road to SR
316, (3) construction of Sugarloaf Parkway from Meadow Church Road
to
Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, (4) construction/reconstruction of
roads to create
Sugarloaf Parkway from SR 120 to SR 124, (5) construction of a four-lane
divided
Satellite Boulevard, north of Rockwell International, from Sugarloaf
Parkway to
Old Peachtree Road, (6) the widening and relocation of North Brown
Road east of
I-85, (7) widening of SR 317-Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road from I-85 to
SR 120
and (8) the widening of SR 316.
Get Your Own Free Home Page2363 Oakland Manor
Lawrenceville, GA 30244
September 6, 1994
J. Philip Boyd
ARC Transportation Planning Division
200 Northcreek, Suite 300,3715 Northside Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30327
Dear Mr. Boyd,
I am writing to express my concern with the 1995 draft TIP. In particular I am concerned about the TIP status of projects GW-R072, which include the widening of a segment of I-85, improvement of interchanges at I-85 and Boggs Road, SR 120 and Old Peachtree Road, and addition of a new interchange at I-85 and Sugarloaf Parkway. I will refer to these projects collectively as the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project. They are listed in the draft TIP for construction funding of approximately $19 million in 1995, $66 million in 1997, and $4 million in 1999. As a result of a conversation between myself and an official of FHWA at ARC’s August 16 public forum, the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project is currently under review by FHWA's area engineer. Though I expect FWHA to arrive at substantially the same conclusions I have, I feel compelled to present my concerns directly to ARC.
I ask that funding for the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project be deleted from the 1995 TIP until a more appropriate design for the project is put forward, for these reasons:
First and foremost, the project is designed as an integral part of a regional multiple roadway system proposed by GDOT in the 1980's. Unlike other major regional projects such as MARTA, the outer perimeter and commuter rail, this regional multiple system has never been analyzed by ARC and has no status, or even any reference to it, in the RTP or any TIP, including the 1995 draft. To commit significant federal funding to construction of a major new highway initiative without even the pretense of MPO review is the antithesis of good regional planning and would make a mockery of the planning process and ARC's role in it.
Features of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project which are intended solely to enhance its function as a part of the regional multiple roadway system add greatly to its cost. The basic cross section of the project as shown on the accompanying drawings contains eighteen lanes: the existing eight lane mainline, two three-lane outer roadways (erroneously called collector distributor roads by GDOT) plus specifically reserved space for four additional mainline lanes including HOV buffers and full width shoulders. Additionally, there are five bridges for ramp braiding which carry over 40% of the ramp traffic over or under the outer roadways and directly to or from the mainline. The end result is that design year traffic volumes on the outer roadways range from low (level of service B at worst) to zero with most of the capacity of the outer roadways reserved to accommodate future extension of the multiple roadway system. Also, the ramp braids allow ramp terminal intervals appropriate to mainline Interstate highway standards, not the shorter intervals normally associated with collector-distributor road design( I later found out that the design speed of the CD's is 60 mph compared to 70 mph on the mainline; the only thing that defines these roadways as CD's. I stand corrected). Altogether, the five ramp braid structures plus the added bridge length, grading, paving drainage, and right-of-way required for the excessive cross-section width probably add about 30%- say, $25 million to the project cost.
According to the traffic projections for the project it would be possible to design a much less expensive version of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project that would still operate at level of service C or better in the design year, even if the maximum feasible improvements are made to I-85 outside the project area. This should be accomplished by abandoning the three lane, full-Interstate standard multiple roadway configuration in favor of shorter, narrower collector-distributor roadways and greater use of mainline auxiliary lanes as appropriate for specific traffic volumes predicted in the project area. The money thus saved should then be used to advance other projects already in the TIP.
The cost of the project per the draft TIP is five times the cost cited in the 1994 TIP. That in itself should prompt review by ARC.
Though the project is designed as a multiple roadway facility, and though earlier TIPs have referred to this project as part of a larger collector-distributor road system from SR 316 to I-985, reconstruction of the interchange at Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road is now in progress to a design which accommodates exactly the same mainline clearances as the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project as designed, with no provision for exterior roadways. (That isn't the case, I found out later. The abutments of that bridge are designed as piers for future spans over the CD’s. See lettr, item 5.3)
I would like to make it clear that I support the general concept of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway Project, as long as the unnecessary and wasteful aspects of the multiple roadway configuration are excluded. I hope that an appropriate design will be prepared and approved quickly enough to avoid serious delays in project completion. Until such a design is approved, I will continue to oppose the project with the resources at my disposal.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Marney, Jr.
...and ARC's response
C. I-85 Sugarloaf Parkway (GW-R-072)
One comment raised concerns about the collector distributor system
along I-85 at Sugarloaf Parkway. Specifically, the comment questioned whether
the project concept was fully understood and accurately coded by ARC.
RESPONSE:
The project concept included in the
TIP includes construction of a collector-distributor (CD) road system on
each side of I-85 beginning south of Boggs Road and extending northeastward
to about 3000 feet north of Old Peachtree Road for a distance of 3.2 miles.
In addition, the project would add auxiliary lanes along mainline I-85
to accommodate several two-lane ramp connections and would improve mainline
I-85 to provide full standard shoulder widths according to the project
concept explained by GDOT earlier this year.
For input into ARC's transportation
model, the project was coded to reflect the existing eight lanes on I-85
plus six CD lanes for a total of 14 lanes of through moving traffic.
Months later, a planner with GDOT told me that the above comment
by ARC was the product of about an hour and a half of deliberation by ARC's
Transportation-Air Quality Committee.
Mr.
Wayne Shackelford
Commissioner, Department
of Transportation
No. 2 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Subject: Georgia Projects NH-IM-85-2(116) and NH-IM-85-2(126), Gwinnett County Typical Section
Dear Mr. Shackelford:
Your letter of February 22, 1993, furnished the typical sections for I-85 to be used from SR-316 north to I-985. At a meeting with Mr.Charles Lewis and others on February 5, 1993, we agreed to use the "Interim Typical Section" for the bridge design at SR-317. The "Ultimate Section using Regular HOV Lanes" matches the column spacings for the Interim Section. However, the HOV lanes, as well as the fifth lanes on I-85 have not been addressed through the planning process and no action has been taken by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC).
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 revised the Metropolitan Planning Process. The revisions include the development of a Congestion Management System (CMS) in Transportation Management Areas (TMA). The Atlanta area is a TMA and is required to have a CMS that provides for effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies. Atlanta is also a TMA in an ozone non-attainment area, which requires highway projects which significantly increase capacity for Single Occupancy Vehicles be part of an approved CMS.
Accordingly, we recommend that the proposal be submitted through the planning process and that an analysis of transportation system management strategies to make more efficient use of the existing transportation system be completed for the corridor. Prior to our approval, the proposal will need to be addressed through the planning process and is subject to approval action by the ARC and resolution of funding for the proposed fifth lanes. We note that the typical section is similar to the section we approved for use on I-85 inside I-285.
We realize you need to
allow the consultant that is designing I-85 north of SR-316 to proceed.
If it is within the consultant's contract we would recommend you have the
consultant address what other transportation management strategies that
may be appropriate for the corridor.
Sincerely,
Larry R. Dreihaup, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc:
File:NH-IM-85-2(116)
NH-IM-85-2(126)
Reader Files
bcc:
Charles Lewis
John Lively
Roland Hinners
Bob Radics
George Boulineau
Karla Snyder-Petty
FEdwards/aat 3-1-93/at
G:\WP\APRIL\EDWARDS\NHIM-85F.2ND
drawing
of both cross sections
More
lanes: State considers expanding northern freeways
By David Goldberg, staff writer
Cover story, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 23,1996
Georgia's transportation commissioner is quietly developing plans for
a far-reaching expansion of metropolitan Atlanta's freeways north of I-285.
Department of Transportation Commissioner Wayne Shackelford said he
hopes to build a system of limited access lanes parallel to I-75, I-85
and Georgia 400 that would stretch well into the northern suburbs. Shackelford
would also like to flank most of northern I-285 with three lanes or more.
Called a "collector-distributor system," the lanes are supposed to
remove traffic bound for local destinations from the main freeway lanes,
reducing merging and providing more room for both local and long-distance
traffic.
The scheme for an overall collector-distributor system is still in
the concept stage, though plans for a few individual limited access lanes
are already under way,. Shackelford mentioned the larger plan during
an interview about extending carpool lanes beyond I-285.
"The collector-distributor system has to get done before you can implement
those lanes," Shackelford said.
He said the department will fulfill its promise to the Federal Highway
Administration to extend express lanes northward up I-75 to I-575 and up
I-85 to I-985.
DOT officials meet today with neighboring homeowners and business leader
to discuss widening plans for I-285 from Riverside Drive to Chamblee Dunwoody
Road and Georgia 400 from the Glenridge Connector to Hammond Drive.
In addition, Fulton County and the DOT will hire engineering consultants
in July to design a $70 million segment on Georgia 400 from Hammond Drive
to Spalding Drive, said Fulton County traffic engineer Matt Moosbrugger.
Construction could begin after the Olympics on a $85
million, 3.2 mile section on I-85 on either side of the new Sugarloaf
Parkway.
All are designed to link up to an expanded system, acknowledged Joe
Palladi, DOT's state urban design engineer, as are interchange reconstructions
at the Windy Hill reliever at I-75 and at Ga. 400 and Northridge.
"I'm angry. I've been told explicitly there were no plans to extend
the collector-distributor system beyond the Sugarloaf project," said Tom
Marney, a Gwinnett homeowner who has been fighting the I-85 project. "This
is a very major public policy decision that is being made without any public
awareness".
Transportation planners at the Atlanta Regional Commission, which must
approve major projects in the metropolitan area, said they were aware of
the planned segments. But they said they had not been told of plans
for the larger expansion program.
Palladi stressed that the DOT has not identified funds for the system,
and he said air pollution and other environmental effects would have to
be studied.
Why am I telling you this now?
First, there are the events surrounding the GA 400-Abernathy Road CD project. Because this project invades the back yards of well organized and sophisticated homeowners, ARC and GDOT have been paying attention to this project for several years. In the 1995 TIP, ARC even went so far as to specify that the CD roads on the project were to be two lanes wide, not three, a restriction that GDOT ignored.
When the controversy over grandfathering arose, the environmental documents for the 400-Abernathy project had not been approved. Because the Georgia Division of FHWA had amply demonstrated its intent to rubber stamp whatever GDOT wanted, EPA stepped in to fill this gaping breach in the ISTEA-mandated regional planning system. While the Georgia Division of FHWA minimized their role to the point of irrelevance, which eventually led to their removal from the grandfathering process, EPA courageously expanded their role as far as it would go in order to correct FHWA's neglect.
Conceptually, though, the most important thing that EPA did was to recognize not just that the 400-Abernathy CD project was too big, but why it was too big: because it was designed to accommodate traffic brought by CD roads extending miles beyond the project limits, CD extensions that are not now and never will be in the Regional Transportation Plan. As a result, the design of the 400-Abernathy project is now subject to negotiations between affected homeowners, GDOT, FHWA, and EPA. Also, because of the CD system issues and the proposed extension of MARTA rail in the corridor, a Major Investment Study of the GA 400 corridor is to be undertaken. These are the same things that need to occur in regard to the I-85-Sugarloaf CD project.
Second, there are recent events in Gwinnett County. A major rezoning of 417 acres adjacent to I-85 at Old Peachtree Road, in the area of phase 3 of the I-85-Sugarloaf CD project, has elicited massive opposition from affected homeowners. The Hodges rezoning, as it's known, will allow construction of 5 million square feet of office space and four hotels costing about $1 billion. It was approved by Gwinnett's Board of Commissioners despite being found to be 'not in the best interest of the state' by the ARC. For hundreds of homeowners it's not GDOT asphalt that's invading their neighborhoods, but high-rise buildings and 80,000 car trips per day.
Does the CD system have a role in bringing about these radical changes in land use? You bet it does. While completion of the regional CD system is a far distant pipe dream, extension of the CD system north to the I-85/ I-985 split is much more plausible. This extension appeared in the 1993 TIP, and the new overpass at I-85 and Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road was built to accommodate the future CD's (the outer abutments are designed as future piers between the mainline and CD's). Extension of the CD system to Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road and south to Pleasant Hill Road by 2010 were included in the update of Gwinnett County's computerized traffic model in 1997.
The prospect of this CD system being extended to I-985 sets up a unique situation whereby, in ten years or so, when most of Gwinnett and metro Atlanta are gridlocked, the Hodges- Sugarloaf Farms area along I-85 will retain uncongested freeway access to the entire northeast quadrant of the state, and beyond if the Outer Loop is built (see map ). It's no wonder the Gwinnett CD system corridor is such a magnet for development- development that will degrade nearby neighborhoods, overwhelm the local infrastructure, and increase the auto dependency that are at the root of Atlanta's congestion and air quality problems.
The alternative is for Gwinnett homeowners, EPA, and other interested public and private entities to force FHWA and ARC to recognize the regional CD system for what it is, and either incorporate it into a conforming RTP (good luck!) or force GDOT to to stop designing and building it. Can it happen? I think so; that's why I created this website.
Can I help? I'll try. Email me
Get your own Free Home Page
You've probably gotten the idea that I don't think that building seventy miles of fourteen to twenty-plus lane freeways in Atlanta is a good idea. You're right. I don't. But that's not the point.
I've tried my best to become an expert on this, but when it gets right down to it, my opinion doesn't count any more or less than anybody else's. Atlantans are a pretty car-crazy bunch. Maybe they'd think the regional CD system is a great idea. They might even agree to pay additional taxes in order to build it. Various political figures, too, proclaim from time to time that traffic congestion, not excessive car travel, is the cause of air quality nonconformity in Atlanta. Surely adding such a huge amount of freeway capacity would ease congestion to some degree.
My point is that the regional CD system should be evaluated using the best methods available before a decision is made on whether to build it, and certainly before construction begins. The purpose of this website is to prove that GDOT, with the acquiescence or assistance of ARC and FHWA, instead has begun construction of this system without evaluating its feasibility or its potential impacts, positive or negative. Proponents of this system, it seems, should want appropriate evaluation, just as I do. Unless, of course, they don't really believe the CD system is a good idea, either.
What do you think?
Get your own Free Home PageI'm Tom Marney. I live outside of Lawrenceville in Gwinnett County, GA, and about five miles away from the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project area. I have a wife Amy, an eight year old daughter Caitlin, and a six year old son Matthew. I work as a field engineer for a construction company, essentially drawing out plans life-size in the field for tradespeople to build by. My parents, one brother, an uncle, two aunts, my parents-in-law and two brothers-in-law and their families also live in metro Atlanta, mostly in southern Gwinnett. Most of us are lifelong Atlantans, an increasing rarity around here.
I've been interested in planning and transportation issues since I was a little kid. After years of being on the sidelines, I became an activist on April 14, 1994 at about 4:15 pm when I attended the public hearing I describe on this site. Trying to stop bad road projects is difficult under the best circumstances and nearly impossible to do by oneself, so as time went on I made contacts with other activists, organizations, journalists, and government people. It was a sort of ever widening circle; I taught them and they taught me.
In mid 1995 I contacted the Joy Diemer of the Gwinnett Homeowners' Alliance. Some weeks later Joy called me back and invited me to a meeting with several homeowners' advocates with the objective of finding new board members for GHA. Gwinnett County had just unveiled a proposal to extend its perpetual 1% sales tax for roads. Unlike the previous sales taxes, the 1995 proposal largely abandoned any pretense of addressing existing traffic problems and focused instead on extending the infrastructure of sprawl to the far regions of the county. The seven or eight attendees at the meeting quickly agreed that defeat of this sales tax was crucial to any hope of preserving Gwinnett's quality of life, and formed a group called Homeowners 1st in order to accomplish this.
We worked very hard over the ensuing months, researching and publicizing enormous cost overruns in previous road programs, working with anti-road activists in specific corridors, holding public meetings, raising money and spending it on anti-sales tax publicity. We nurtured relations with the press, providing ready-made news for the initially indifferent but increasingly responsive Atlanta Journal- Constitution and provoking undisguised hostility from Gwinnett's local newspaper. The Gwinnett Board of Commissioners helped immensely, too. They denied any real problems with the 70% cost overruns for the previous sales tax, ignored the protests of neighborhoods threatened by destructive road projects, and approved the disastrous Satellite Partners rezoning to dump an additional 40,000 car trips per day at precisely the worst possible spot in the county. Two of the projects in the 1995 proposal provoked such massive opposition that they were withdrawn months before the vote. When the votes were counted, we had won, defeating a $600 million tax by 329 votes. Anyone who says a few people can't make a difference is wrong!
In the months following the sales tax defeat, we attempted to consolidate our gains and create a powerful, principled homeowners' movement in Gwinnett. Homeowners 1st merged with GHA to create Gwinnett Homeowners 1st. Powerful people in government and the development community listened to us, too, because we were deeply right and everybody knew it. The Board of Commissioners came back with another sales tax proposal, but this time it included parks, public safety facilities and a modest property tax cut. There was a citizen's committee to provide some public input and oversight in implementing the road program. I was elected to this committee as a homeowners' representative- after announcing that I opposed the tax!
Meanwhile, metro Atlanta failed to conform with air quality standards, triggering restrictions on roadbuilding and triggering debate about transportation and development options for the future. In Gwinnett, work began on the new Comprehensive Plan, and the homeowners' group on that citizens' committee became a sophisticated advocate of sustainable growth policies. Only weeks after the 1996 sales tax passed, Gwinnett approved rezoning for the Mall of Georgia, one of the largest in the nation, and the recipient of millions of road sales tax dollars. The Comp Plan Homeowners led the opposition to the mall, then were assigned by the Commission chairman the role of advocating within the comp plan process for the sweeping changes in land use cited by ARC's highly conditional (and political) finding that the mall project could conceivably not be "not in the interest of the state".
I was in on all of this, you've probably guessed. The most important thing I did was to file an Open Records Act request for the report from the update of Gwinnett's traffic model and take it to the press. This report demonstrated that car travel in Gwinnett was growing one-and-a-half times as fast as population, that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future, that as a result already severe traffic congestion in Gwinnett would double in ten years, and that no feasible amount of road construction would have much effect.
At this point in history, things seem pretty bleak. Irresponsible development
continues unabated. The ARC's planning process has been abused to the point
of near breakdown. Air quality conformity through 2020 still hasn't been
demonstrated, and at this rate may never be- they're gonna try for 2030
now! Our political leaders not only don't have the answers, they still
don't understand the questions. They don't really want to, either. Gwinnett
Homeowners 1st is in the process of disbanding due to lack of interest,
caused in part by our own mistakes.
So, why do I continue to do this? Two reasons. First, because to give
up on Gwinnett and Atlanta is to give up on America, and I'm not ready
to do that. Second, because when I walked out of that public hearing in
April 1994, I told the GDOT guys that "this road will not be built to this
design if I have to see to it personally". I would still like for this
to eventually turn out to have been an accurate statement.
Get your own Free Home PageArea
Map of the regional CD system
Undimensioned
cross section(286k) of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project
showing
ultimate extent of paving. From the public hearing, April 14, 1994.
Dimensioned
cross section(63k) of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project. From
the public
hearing, April 14, 1994. Same as the initial cross secion below.
1993
traffic diagram(838k) of the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project, from
the Project Concept
Report submitted to FHWA by GDOT. Also, text
notes explaining what you're looking
at. Print these first.
Initial
and ultimate cross sections(98k) of I-85 in Gwinnett County, SR
316 to I-985.
From FHWA's I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway project file under the Freedom of Information
Act (sorry about the poor quality of the xerox copy; that's what
FHWA sent me).
Also the accompanying letter.
Scope
of possible redesign(738k) of I-85-Sugarloaf. GDOT's 1995 traffic
diagram with
suggested changes and explanatory notes.
Megamap(925k)
of I-85-Sugarloaf, 1995. 3 1/2 miles, 1"=400', about four feet long.
Go fix
yourself a snack while this pig is downloading.
Get your own Free Home
PageAbbreviations, acronyms, and other things you need to know
GDOT: the Georgia Department of Transportation
FHWA: the Federal Highway Administration.
In this document that's generally the Georgia
office.
ARC: the Atlanta Regional Commission, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) for the
ten county metro Atlanta Region (as they call it). Under ISTEA, each MPO
is responsible
for developing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its near-term component,
the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
ISTEA (pronounce ice tea):
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
The federal law which governs the allocation of federal transportation
funding. Among the
things it did:
Established the current federal transportation funding categories
Required
states and metro areas, through their MPO's (see ARC above), to develop
and adopt RTP's and TIP's. Projects must be incorporated into the TIP in
order
to receive federal funding, and must be in the RTP to be in the TIP.
Required extensive public input and citizen involvement in the planning process
RTP and TIP: the Regional Transportation
Plan and its near-term component,
the Transportation Improvement Program. In theory, major projects should
be defined,
incorporated into the RTP, then progress incrementally in the TIP's through
design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction.
Both
the RTP and each TIP must be computer modeled to determine whether the
transportation system's contribution to air pollution will or won't interfere
with
attainment of air quality standards set by the Clean Air Act.
Also,
both the RTP and each TIP must be financially constrained, that is, feasible
to
implement with existing or reasonably anticipated revenues.
Moreland-Altobelli: The engineering firm that
designed the I-85-Sugarloaf Parkway
project, among other things. Founded by Tom Moreland, heroic former GDOT
commissioner, and Dan Altobelli, former head of the Georgia office of FHWA.
Moreland- Altobelli is a whole 'nother story that I won't get in to. Suffice
to say that they
have arguably blurred the line between the public roadbuilding and private
development
sectors to the point of invisibility.
MARTA: The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority, operators of a heavy rail and
bus system in Fulton and Dekalb counties
Get Your Own Free Web PageLinks
LUTRAQ:
the Land Use-Transportation-Air Quality Connection , by 1000 Friends
of Oregon, with funding from foundations, EPA, and FHWA (!). A comprehensive
land use, transportation, and demand management scenario for a large suburban
county near Portland. Just as relevant in any American city, and as close
as you'll
come to finding all the answers in one place.
Cyburbia , from the University
of Buffalo School of Architecture. Surely the mother of all
planning and transportation sites, with over 6500 links. Hope you're not
busy for, like,
the rest of your life.
Transact , a project of
the Surface Transportation Policy Project. News, info, and also many
good links. Alternative transportation oriented, but plenty of road info,
too. Get their
email newsletter- it's good.
Geocities road sites , use Take a Tour
in the Geoguide at the top of my homepage. First stop,
Andy Field's Highways Kickoff Page, the most complete set of links to road-related
websites.
Get your own Free Home
Page
