The project proposed in the Transportation Investment Act list is actually a combination of interchange, ramp and C/D improvements as contained in the revive285 build alternatives. The proposed ramp and C/D lanes are not a continuous C/D system from PIB to Ashford D.  The project name is misleading; however, it is consistent with revive285 's plan and the draft Plan 2040 project list. 

2010’s HB 277 or the Transportation Investment Act, establishes the possibility of a regional sales tax (TSPLOST) to fund a list of transportation projects within a specific region. The Act creates a regional roundtable in each of the state’s 12 regions that includes the county commission chair and one mayor from each of the counties. The Atlanta Regional Roundtable  consists of: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale.

The projects involved with revive285 alternatives involve numerous local governments. These individual governments recently submitted 437 projects to be considered for the list. These projects were gathered and refined by the Atlanta Regional Commission and have been sent to the GDOT Director of Planning for the potential unconstrained (no costs) list.  The Director will review and refine the list based on regionally adopted criteria. He will present the information to the Regional Transportation Roundtable Executive Committee which will then develop a constrained (with costs) list. Regional government will review this list and share it with the general public via public hearings. Following these hearings, if the Regional Transportation Roundtable approves the projects, it will go to GDOT and then to regional ballots. A final constrained project list should be available by early fall 2011.

For information on metro-Atlanta’s Transportation Investment Act process, visit: http://www.atlantaregionalroundtable.com.

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)  released its most recent long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in summer 2011 for dealing with the current and expected demands being placed on the region’s transportation system. You can review and comment on the ARC’s recommendations, how much the plan will cost, where the funding is allocated and how these recommendations will impact your travel @ www.atlantaregional.com.

Because revive285top end spans numerous counties and cities, and affects travelers throughout the region, it is important to address whether the chosen alternative will work well within the plans for the entire region. One of the four major goals of the revive285 project is to maintain and improve system linkages;  the ARC’s 2040 Plan will lend insight as to how the corridor project, a small piece in the regional puzzle, may link up with regional interstate, road, transit and highway plans.

Yes, the revive285 top end project was launched by GDOT and GRTA to develop solutions to the traffic challenges along the top end of I-285 from I-75 to I-85.  The Need and Purpose Statement for the project include: to better manage traffic and congestion, improve transportation options for the travelling public, maintain and improve system linkages, and provide safer travel conditions on the corridor.  The proposed operational improvements for all the alternatives under consideration seek to address the issues associated with entering and exiting the interstate at the interchanges. C-D systems (collector-distributor) are proposed as part of the operational improvements that will alleviate the weaving movements between Ashford Dunwoody Road and GA 400. Details of the operational improvements can be found through the interactive mapping tool.

All comments, phone calls and suggestions, etc. received by the project are recorded and documented. They are then shared with, reviewed by and responded to by the project team. All comments received are included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the official record.

The build alternatives under consideration reserve the right-of-way (ROW) for future transit in the corridor. It has not been determined at this time whether the technology implemented along the corridor will be Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).  Implementation of transit within the corridor will require regional coordination.  At this time, it has not been determined by the regional and state agencies involved whether to move forward with a regional BRT or LRT system.  However, the ROW preservation in the build alternatives will be able to accommodate for either BRT or LRT.

The goal of revive285 top end is to develop a comprehensive transportation concept for the top end of I-285 between I-75 and I-85. This concept will address long-term transportation solutions for the entire corridor.

To develop the alternatives, strategies were evaluated individually against the corridor’s needs and objectives; strategies with the best potential to meet the needs were advanced to the alternatives analysis phase.  None of the individual strategies alone were determined to have good potential to meet two or more of the identified needs.  In response, eight combinations of the strategies were advanced as “alternatives” for additional evaluation.  

The alternatives phase expanded analysis by increasing the level of detail used and comparing the eight alternatives against each other. These alternatives consisted of a combination of various strategies, including Operational Improvements, Managed Lanes, Express Bus, and BRT.  To comply with federal guidelines/regulations and establish a baseline against which to measure the effects of the build alternatives, the following additional alternatives also moved forward with detailed analysis: No-build Alternative and Transportation System Management/FTA New Starts Baseline.

In June 2010, the eight alternatives were narrowed down to four alternatives. These four will be advanced for additional consideration.

As of Fall 2011, the four alternatives are being reviewed and revised to comply with new potential environmental impacts.

For more on the process, walk through the phases of the project.

Concept designs have been developed, and estimates regarding the amount of right-of-way were determined as part of Phase 3 -- Impacts and Benefits Assessment.  Information regarding the concept designs and typical sections of each alternative can be found on the Narrowed Alternative Overview Sheets. Additional detail can be attained by utilizing the zooming features on the Alternative Interactive Map.That said, at this point NO alternative has been chosen, and NO rights-of-way have been pursued to date.

An Environmental Impact Statement is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for federal government agency actions ‘significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.’ A DEIS documents a full description of the affected environment, a reasonable range of alternatives, and an analysis of the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of each alternatives. Upon completion of the DEIS, there is a 45 day public review and comment period prior to preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

The evaluation of the full list of alternatives resulted in four alternatives for advancement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Information on each alternative moving forward can be found here.

The Strategy Screening Report concluded that if a system-wide transit change is made within the Regional Transportation Plan from a bus rapid transit (BRT) system to a regional light rail transit (LRT) system, the LRT strategy will have better potential to meet the project needs along this corridor than either the BRT or express bus system. The Atlanta Regional Commission is currently working through their Regional Transit Committee to further examine the potential benefits of LRT and consider the region’s ability to fund a network of LRT corridors. If this consideration results in a change to the Regional Transportation Plan away from BRT and toward LRT, revive285 top end must be ready to adapt to that change. The LRT alternatives are being included in the information provided to the public although the decision to include them in the alternatives analysis has not been finalized. Light rail alternatives have not been advanced for consideration as of June 2010.

First, a long list of potential strategies was identified using a variety of sources, including existing programs, plans, policies, federal requirements and public input. The full range of strategies/solutions identified for screening included managed lanes (such as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, bus rapid transit (BRT), truck-only lanes (TOL), etc.), interchange improvements, safety improvements, transit options, and general-purpose (GP) lanes.

These strategies were then subjected to a screening process to identify the solutions that best meet the Project Need and Purpose. This process began with developing objectives for the project based on the needs identified in the Project Need and Purpose as well as input received by the public and the Technical Advisory Committee. These objectives were then used to establish evaluation criteria. Using these criteria, the team was able to objectively and independently assess the value of individual strategies. Strategies that did not adequately meet the identified needs and objectives were not recommended to advance for detailed evaluation.

Finally, the strategies advanced for detailed evaluation were combined to fully address the identified project needs. Existing conditions information, previous studies, agency input, public input, and project team analyses were used to identify the most practical combination of strategies to develop the alternatives. Those combinations represented the original eight alternatives developed, which have since been reduced to four alternatives to be advanced for consideration.

For more on the process, walk through the phases of the project.

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is leading the program in association with the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). ARCADIS was selected to serve as the prime consultant for the project.

Go here to share your thoughts.

There are a number of ways to stay up-to-date. Public meetings are held periodically at locations throughout the corridor, and this website will provide up-to-date information at every phase of the project. The media are kept in the information loop, and you may receive updates by email or mail if you desire. You can also follow the project on Twitter (@revive285) and become a fan on Facebook (revive285 top end).

The changes to be made to I-285’s top end are not known at this time. revive285 top end will focus on developing a comprehensive plan to address the transportation needs of this corridor. In order to determine the changes, the project team must look at how the projects currently planned and programmed for this corridor will impact I-285. The goal is to guide the project efforts in a way that provides the most benefit and creates a solution for I-285’s top end that will be effective well into the future.

At this point, there is not a projected construction timeline. The analysis and development phase will last through 2011. However, there have been and will likely be some individual projects that will begin construction prior to final concept development.

As part of the development of preliminary concepts for each alternative, options for at-grade, below grade, and elevated alignment combinations were considered.  Double decking of I-285 was discussed early in the study process, and it was generally concluded that it is not cost effective in this location.

The northern arc concept and the idea of an outer perimeter are outside the scope of the revive285 top end project which is limited to the corridor between I-75 and I-85 on the top end of I-285 only. If you would like to comment on or suggest the northern arc or outer perimeter ideas as solutions, please contact the Georgia Department of Transportation directly at http://www.dot.ga.gov/misc/Pages/ContactUs.aspx.

The alternatives do include a transit expansion and connection along the corridor.  However, it has not been determined at this time the organizational entity that would operate and maintain a transit component at this time. Expanding MARTA along the I-285 would result in MARTA service in counties where MARTA is not currently able to provide service.   MARTA is funded primarily by a 1% sales tax levied in its service area (Fulton and DeKalb counties) and passenger revenue. MARTA is a public authority operated by a board of directors appointed by the city of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties. Neighboring counties (Cobb, Gwinnett, and Clayton) have chosen not to support MARTA service in their counties, and each is responsible for its own independent transit system.  MARTA expansion outside of its service area would require the neighboring counties outside of Fulton and DeKalb to support MARTA service and the 1% sales tax levied in its service area.

Programmed projects are those that have been previously designated to receive funds in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A TIP includes short-range transportation projects designed to be viable solutions for a minimum of three years.

Planned projects are those projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). An RTP includes long-range transportation projects and initiatives that are designed to be viable solutions for a minimum of 20 years. Planned projects are those that have been identified, but not yet programmed for funding.

The Roswell Road project will include the construction of additional width on the northbound side of the existing bridge, allowing for two northbound and southbound travel lanes and dedicated left turn lanes onto entrance ramps for I-285.  Additional information on this project can be found on the City of Sandy Springs’ website.

The Ashford Dunwoody interchange project will provide additional capacity by restriping, improving signal timing and turning conditions and reconstructing a ramp.  This new type of interchange, referred to as a diverging diamond interchange, requires drives to cross briefly to the other side of the road.  Left turning movements onto the intestate would be able to do so without crossing oncoming traffic.  Additional information can be found on the Perimeter Community Improvement District’s website.

Both interchanges involve local governments implementing an interim solution to ease traffic.  It is likely that revive285 top end will identify a long term solution for both interchanges.

GDOT was conducting the I-285 Strategic Implementation Plan (I-285 Planning Study). This study would provide an analysis of the entire I-285 loop and develop simulation tools to model the impact of potential transportation solutions. Unlike revive285 top end, this study does not advance projects through development and construction. However, the data and models developed as a part of this study have been integral to the efforts of revive285 top end.

Please click here to access the GDOT’s webpage and more detailed information of the I-285 Planning Study.

There have been previous efforts to identify and plan for improvement projects along the top end. Whenever past work can be integrated, it will be. However, there has not been a past project like revive285 top end that focuses on the entire stretch of this vital corridor from a comprehensive standpoint.

A managed lane restricts access based on occupancy, tolls, and/or vehicle classification. Examples of managed lanes include:

    * High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

    * High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes

    * Truck-Only Lanes (TOL)/Truck-Only Toll (TOT) Lanes

Managed lanes are used in conjunction with general-purpose lanes to improve traffic flow on the overall highway system. Managed lanes, HOT3, became operational on I-85 in October 2011.

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are designated for vehicles with two or more people, such as buses, vanpools and carpools. HOV lanes serve to alleviate congestion by encouraging fewer single-occupant vehicles on the highway. These lanes improve mobility, reduce congestion, save money and help to improve air quality. In metro Atlanta, HOV lanes are  operating on Interstates 75, 85 and 20. As of October 2011, on portions of 85, HOV is implemented as HOT3, which are toll lanes for 1-2 person vechicles and  free for carpools of 3+ people.

For more information, visit GDOT’s HOV Lanes webpage.

High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes allow single-occupant vehicles to pay a variably priced toll to use special lanes, often HOV lanes. HOT lanes typically rely on electronic tolling systems that use congestion-based pricing. Such tolling is variable, based on the time of day and amount of congestion. HOT lanes provide drivers the option of paying to drive in free-flowing traffic in times of heavy congestion.

HOT3 lanes became operational on portions of I-85 in October 2011.

Truck-Only Lanes (TOLs) are managed lanes intended for use by heavy trucks alone and are typically separated by barriers from general-purpose lanes. Such lanes primarily serve “through-trucks” that do not have local deliveries. This option improves safety and operations by physically separating heavy trucks from automobile traffic. At this time, Georgia does not operate any TOLs.

The analysis and the approval of the environmental document will continue through 2012. The Record of Decision (ROD) is anticipated in 2013. After receipt of the ROD, GDOT will need to undertake final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. This is based on the traditional procurement process and assumes the availability of funding.

A detailed project concept and corresponding cost have not yet been identified. A complete project cost estimate will be developed once the detailed corridor improvement concept has been identified. Project funding will most likely be provided by the US DOT, GDOT, and GRTA. Preliminary alternative costs developed for analysis are available for review here.

Multiple studies have been conducted thus far, including the I-285 Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis, the Northwest I-75/I-575 HOV/BRT Project, and the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan. Information on those studies can be found on GDOT’s website ( www.dot.state.ga.us).

The project team will conduct database research for known environmental features and field identification of other potential features. These may include potentially eligible historic properties, potential hazardous material locations, environmental justice communities as well as other features. Environmental specialists (i.e., historians, ecologists, and community planners) will conduct the field investigations for environmental features that may be impacted.

Find out more about enivornmental analysis here.

Find out more about 2011 historic property effects and revisions to the alternatives.

Noise impact assessments will be completed as part of the environmental process. Areas that will have an increase in noise that exceeds the threshold for impacts will be analyzed for barrier construction or other methods for decreasing noise impacts, such as landscaping/earth berms.

A resource may be determined eligible if it meets the minimum requirement of being 50 years old or older, is a recognized architectural style, is associated with a person or event of historical importance or may yield important information about history or prehistory, and still retains integrity according to the criteria established under the National Historic Preservation Act. Determinations are made by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Avoidance is the first step in reducing impacts to wetlands. There are wetlands in the 285 top end project corridor that could potentially be impacted.  Alternatives that avoid impacts are considered, and if feasible, selected. If no feasible avoidance alternative is available, impacts are minimized to the maximum extent possible. Minimization strategies include, but are not limited to the following: bridging large expanses of wetlands; installing retaining walls instead of encroaching within the wetland; and reducing median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths. Lastly, where possible, wetlands are crossed perpendicularly to minimize potential impacts. If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable and/or cannot be further minimized, mitigation in the form of wetland credit purchase or restoration (on-site or off-site) is completed to compensate for the unavoidable loss.

No alternative has been developed and/or selected at this time; therefore, it is not known whether the areas containing trees will be needed for improvements. If vegetation clearing is required for the improvements to the I-285 corridor, GDOT plans for early regeneration of disturbed areas during the construction phase. The GDOT may also look into ways to mitigate the loss of vegetation due to construction.

Currently, travel modeling and time saving analyses are being conducted to determine the amount of time a traveler may save under various improvement alternatives. This data can be found here.

Land use policy is determined by local jurisdictions and GDOT is not involved in land use policy. The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) does have review authority of large-scale new developments. GRTA reviews Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) for the impact on the region’s transportation network and identifies ways to reduce any negative impacts. In addition, GDOT and GRTA evaluate the impact of new transportation projects on the environment, in accordance with NEPA. Impacts on land use are included in the analysis.

Any decision to alter the state's gas tax is up to the state legislature. While GDOT will likely consult with law makers as requested, GDOT does not vote on this matter.

Improving connections to other corridors (i.e., GA 400, I-75, I-285 and I-85) both as they exist today and how they will function in the future is a key goal of revive285 top end. The revive285 top end corridor project represents only one of several planned system improvements in various stages of implementation (i.e., under construction, under design, or programmed). In this region, the State of Georgia and the Atlanta Regional Commission set priorities that determine the order for implementation of these improvements. For more information on planned/programmed improvements along connecting corridors, please visit the Planned and Programmed Projects page of this website or visit the Atlanta Regional Commission’s website to review the Regional Transportation Plan or call them at 404.463.3272.

GDOT is not presently pursuing a private development partner for this project. However, the opportunity to do such will continually be reevaluated as the project is further developed. If you would like more information on public-private partnerships (P3), please visit www.georgiap3.com.

Noise walls are structures designed and constructed along roadways to reduce the sound level from the nearby highway traffic. GDOT completes a detailed noise analysis any time a state highway is widened, realigned, and/or constructed to identify potential noise impacts and determine whether a noise wall is needed. Noise walls are recommended and funded if the following conditions are met:

* the predicted noise level that approaches (within one decibel) or exceeds the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) noise abatement criteria or there is a substantial increase in noise levels (10 dBA or more over existing levels)

* site conditions allow for the construction of a noise wall

* the expected level of noise reduction exceeds the cost for constructing the wall

The cost for noise walls is dependent on material type and existing site conditions. For more information on noise walls, please contact Keisha Jackson at (404) 699-6866.

An air quality impact assessment will be conducted as part of the environmental process in accordance with federal and state air quality goals. The levels of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM) as well as mobile source air toxics (MSAT) will be assessed.

The most recent information is available here. 
 

Yes. Only Alternative 1 (No changes at all to the corridor) would prevent inconvenience due to alternative implementation.  That said, some alternatives may be more disruptive to implement, while some might balance disruption with more timely relief achieved through other aspects of the alternative.   

No. All build alternatives under consideration will improve traffic flow. You can review the projected impact of managed lanes and the other alternatives on I-285 traffic here.  It is important to understand that the need and purpose statement for this project, as required by federal regulations,  specifically states that any alternative chosen must address the identified criteria: improve mobility options, create safer travel conditions, better manage and improve traffic congestion, and maintain or improve system linkages.  Simply put, no alternative will secure approval from the Federal Highway Administration if it doesn’t address these criteria.

No. Financial constraints are a reality for any transportation project, especially one of this magnitude.  The reality is managed lanes may be able to be implemented more quickly than other components of an alternative that includes them.  It gets down to the funding options that are available for different aspects of that solution.  While the project has not yet advanced to the point of determining exactly how any of the proposed solutions would be funded, managed lanes on I-285 may be able to be delivered through a public private partnership, or P3. In October 2011, the managed lanes on I-85 (a P3 project) opened, and a similar effort is underway on I-75 and I-575 right now.  Because tolled managed lanes provide an investment opportunity for private developers, there is the potential to utilize a P3 to fund construction and make it feasible to deliver this aspect of a solution sooner than other aspects.  But, that doesn’t mean that operational and safety improvements will be ignored, or go unimplemented.

At this point, full analysis of the narrowed alternatives is not yet completed.  A preferred alternative has not been selected.  Project funding has not yet been identified, and no construction schedules have been developed.  It is premature to draw conclusions about traffic flow in a 10 year timeframe without this information.  Review the projected impact of Alternative 4 on revive285 traffic flow now.

No. All of the alternatives under consideration are designed to improve traffic flow in GP lanes.  Each alternative achieves this in different ways.  The NEPA process helps GDOT and GRTA to identify the best solution at the best possible cost which adversely effects the social and physical environment the least. Review the projected impact of managed lanes on revive285 traffic now.

No. Financial constraints are a reality for any transportation project, especially one of this magnitude.  It is also a reality that the addition of new managed lanes may be able to move more quickly than other components of an alternative.  But the reason has nothing to do with prioritizing one aspect of a solution in lieu of another.  It gets down to the funding options that are available for different aspects of that solution. 

While the project has not yet advanced to the point of determining exactly how any of the proposed solutions would be funded, managed lanes on I-285 may well be able to be delivered through a public private partnership, or P3.  A similar effort is underway on I-75 and I-575 right now.  Because tolled managed lanes provide an investment opportunity for private developers, there is the potential to utilize a P3 to fund construction and make it feasible to deliver this aspect of a solution sooner than other aspects.  For more information about the Georgia DOT’s P3 program, visit their web site at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/p3/Pages/default.aspx.

P3 projects leverage limited transportation funds by partnering with the private sector. Private industry partners are able to bring innovative approaches to project implementation, both in terms of funding and project delivery methods. This means that projects that simply could not be constructed in today’s environment through traditional methods can now be delivered faster and with greater cost certainty. While the revive285 project has not yet advanced to the point of determining exactly how any of the proposed solutions will be funded, managed lanes on I-285 may well be able to be delivered through a public private partnership, or P3.  For more information about the Georgia DOT’s P3 program, visit their web site at: www.georgiap3.com

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is a group of leaders from neighborhoods and local organizations which have an interest in or may be affected by the revive285 project.  They are regularly invited to project debriefings and are tasked with representing their constituents and communicating what they have learned and discussed to them.  The CAC provides an open format for more detailed discussion on a regular basis.  CAC debriefings and meeting notes are available for review and archived online in the project library of the revive285 Web site. The CAC’s opinions and input are valued by the partner agencies, and the committee serves as an advisor to those responsible for making the final project decisions. That said, the CAC itself is not a decision-making body.

Many organizations have been invited to participate in CAC, including: East Cobb Civic Assoc., Sandy Springs Council of Neighborhoods, Ashford Alliance Comm. Assoc., Vinings HOA, Protect Cobb, Inc., Murphy Candler HOA, Main St. Alliance, Cobb County PEDS, Catholic Charities of Atlanta, NAACP-DeKalb Branch, Latin American Association, Asian-American Chamber of Commerce, NAACP-Atlanta Branch, Citizens for Progressive Transit, Dunwoody Homeowners Association, Georgians for Better Transportation, Ashford Alliance Community Association, Clean Air Campaign, Doraville Business Alliance, Inc., Atlanta Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Motor Trucking Association, Georgia Conservancy, Southern Environmental Law Center, and others.

One aspect of Alternatives 6A and 6B is “reserve future right-of-way” for transit.  This means that GDOT and/or GRTA would acquire the portion of land along the corridor which would be necessary for the construction of a future fixed guideway transit line and stations parallel to I-285.

In order to be approved for federal funding of projects, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a project go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.  NEPA provides the framework for environmental planning and decision-making by federal agencies. It includes input from the public as well as from other state and federal agencies so that all environmental issues, such as impacts to the natural, social, cultural and economic environments, are addressed and disclosed. In addition to evaluating environmental effects, the transportation needs of the public are taken into account in reaching a decision that is in the best interest of the public.

The revive285 top end project documents its NEPA process with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).   An EIS is a comprehensive report that details the process through which a transportation project was developed, including consideration of a range of alternatives, potential impacts, and compliance with applicable environmental laws.  Now that we have narrowed the alternatives down to four, we will begin drafting the draft EIS.

For additional information, review the NEPA Process Fact Sheet.