On Oct 30, 2011, Facebook removed the discussion application from its services. Revive285 has preserved the conversations there on this page. To engage directly with our Facebook community, visit our Facebook page.
Project engineers and environmental specialists have been assessing the environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the I-285 top end alternatives that were developed and are currently under consideration. As a result of this effort, many historic houses and historic districts, as well as parkland have been identified within the potential area of impact for the build alternatives under consideration. Because this project is being sponsored with state and federal funds, the historic resources, districts and parkland are considered Section 4(f) resources under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is required by law to protect these areas. As a result, design engineers are working on ways to reduce the footprints of the build alternatives affecting Section 4(f) properties including elevating the alignment, tunneling the alignment, or reducing the right-of-way or lane width. All of these avoidance and minimization changes to the alignment of the alternatives result in changes to the overall project cost. So in addition to assessing alternatives to avoid adverse impacts on Section 4(f) resources, the project team is also currently working to update project costs.
Revisions to the build alternatives will be complete in late fall of 2011. They will be posted here along with a detailed written description of the changes. The interactive mapping tool will also be updated to include the revised alignments.
+
Citizen FAQ: Why not expand MARTA to run parallel to the interstate?
A: 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.
+
Why is there a new land survey? Has the scope or footprint expanded?
In the conceptual/preliminary design phase, the exact footprint of alternatives is subject to slight changes as the project progresses. Therefore, an expanded study corridor is assessed to ensure that should an alignment shift be necessary in the future, any potential environmental resources have been captured and documented.
The hope is that a large enough study area was examined, and that when and if the alignment shift is needed, field personnel would not have to go back out and investigate an area. This does not mean that the project alternatives as they have been presented are getting larger at this time. The project team wanted to notify residents that field staff would be present in the corridor, and the purpose of their presence was to look for any cultural resources (e.g. archaeological sites such as civil war trenches) that may be within the project area.
The Georgia Department of Transportation has an environmental procedures manual that states a 100 foot buffer should be investigated beyond the proposed potential construction limits. Hence the reference to an expanded survey boundary.
+
What is the Transportation Investment Act and how does it affect revive285 projects?
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.
What portion of the revive285 project will be put on the Transportation Investment Act list?
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.
Currently, there are eight transportation solutions, or "Alternatives," on the table. Check out this link to see a map of the Alternatives and let us know what you think: http://gis.arcadis-us.com/revive285/
with this initiative, you are only placing a band-aid on an ongoing festering wound. Look at the big picture & develop an alternate route for traffic other than I-285. Even with all 8 transportation alternatives, it will make very little difference - the money should be spent on the alternate routes (Northern Arc & even a Southern Arc from macon I-16 West towards Alabama &/or Tennessee for all the Michigan/Florida traffic.
Let me also add that when there's an accident on I-285 West or I-75 North in the afternoon, traffic is backed up forever from Spaghetti Junction & GA400, and whether there's an accident or not, it's like this almost every afternoon...Go stand on the bridges at I-285 Riverside Drive or I-75 North Delk Rd at 5pm every day & you'll see what I mean...We need more East-West alternate routes to connect to the existing North-South routes...
There are many different projects planned for the region and this project seeks to work in tandem with them to achieve the best possible outcome for the entire area. However, the scope of the revive285 top end project iis limited just to the corridor.
RE accidents - Know that all of the alternatives include measures to improve accident response rates and resolution. More detail will be available on this as we look closer at the narrowed down alternatives.
Definitely alt 7 or 8. BRT is definitely NOT the way to go, we need real alternatives to the roadway. Rail based transit would be the only viable solution. (Plus, Cobb has been talking of studying a light rail system of its own down Cobb Parkway, so it could be connected to create one big light rail line from Town Center through Cumberland to Perimeter and then whatever development ends up at the former GM plant. Now that would be great!!)
What we really need is alternate routes, including Northern Arc & Southern Arc so everyone doesn't HAVE to go thru Atlanta...there will not be that many riders on the rail & buses to justify the 285 project...We need a big picture solution to the metro Atlanta traffic mess...Let's not waste money on this, and instead use this money to fund & build the Northern & Southern Arcs...
with this initiative, you are only placing a band-aid on an ongoing festering wound. Look at the big picture & develop an alternate route for traffic other than I-285. Even with all 8 transportation alternatives, it will make very little difference - the money should be spent on the alternate routes (Northern Arc & even a Southern Arc from Macon I-16 West towards Alabama &/or Tennessee for all the Michigan/Florida traffic.
GDOT/GRTA is advancing four solutions or “alternatives” to address I-285 top end corridor congestion. These were narrowed down from eight alternatives developed, and include features like: Express Bus, Operational Improvements, Managed Lanes, Future Transit Right of Way and General Purpose Lane Re-designation…More detail @ http://www.revive285.com/narrowedalternatives.html.
Please continue this discussion on the new thread for the Alternatives Advanced.
Well with all of the new ones, the only semi-good ones are 6a and b. Of them 6a is better, but both aren't as good because they do not include a form of transit not based on the roadway itself. This is why Atlanta has transportation problems...
Please increase / expand rail lines to remove more trucks off the road - one train can take 280 tractor-trailers off the road !!! Atlanta is a rail hub, but there are no alternate routes or expansion around Atlanta...Also, Fla-Mich traffic on I-75 needs a way around Atlanta without having to go thru it - 285 is great but is now old & outdated - we all need to see the big picture for Georgia...for I-75 FL-Mich traffic, The Southern Arc from Macon I-16 West out towards Alabama / Tenn - And - don't let the Northern Arc die !!! Probably the most needed alternate route around Atlanta, and in the country !!! There's no need to tape & band-aid 285, 75 or 85 any longer - traffic still awful...Let's see the big picture for Georgia !!!
Today's disaster on 285 shows that what we need is to extend Cotillion Drive as a two way road from Chamblee Dunwoody Road to Ashford Dunwoody Road to eliminate the 10 mile round trip alternative via Valley View Road!
The 285 Top End refuses to study, consider, or present this very simple alternative, because its too cheap and effective a solution, and DOT just wants to add more lanes to 285, which is all that will every be accomplished with the remaining alternatives.
There needs to be several alternate routes, including bringing back the Northern Loop from I-85 to I-59, and extending I-16 West of Macon to I-24 or I-59 & hook up the new Florida-Michigan route - a new superbypass of Atlanta....make it limited access for express travel - a must for Metro Atlanta...how would we pay for it ? Well, GA has about the lowest gas tax in the nation...if GA increased the gas tax 5 cents a gallon for a few years, they would have all the $$$ they needed...only an extra $1 per fill-up of an average car...too bad Barnes had a late start for the Northern Loop....Perdue Lame-duck killed it...now look what a mess we have now !!! The on-going 285 study is a joke, and way too-small scale...Everyone needs to see the big picture !!!
The project team, with public input, has recently advanced four solutions or “alternatives” to address corridor challenges. These were narrowed down from a larger group of eight alternatives that were developed. These alternatives include:
a) Alternative 1- No Build, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
b) Alternative 4 - Express Bus + Operational Improvements;
c) Alternative 6A - Express Bus + Managed Lanes + Operational Improvements + Future Transit Right of Way; and
d) Alternative 6B - Express Bus + Managed Lanes + Operational Improvements + Future Transit Right of Way + General Purpose Lane Re-designation
Additional analysis of the four alternatives advanced is currently under development.
Wow! A ton of I-285 Vents today in the Cobb County AJC made want to explain: Why is I-285 an “interstate” when it goes in a circle? First off, the designation “Interstate” is predominately one of financial implications – meaning the US government partially funds the building/maintenance of the roadway.* Interstates DO NOT have to actually travel literally between states. After all, if that were the case, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico would not have US funded roadways at all.
There are several classes of Interstate, and our beloved I-285 is what is called an Auxiliary Interstate Highway. Auxiliary Interstate Highways are circumferential, radial, or spur highways that principally serve urban areas. These types of Interstate Highways are given three-digit route numbers (I-285), which consist of a single digit prefixed to the two-digit number of a nearby primary Interstate Highway (I-85). Circumferential (I-285) and radial loop routes return to Interstate Highways, and are given an even first digit (2). Usually these types of “interstates” connect to literal interstates and help manage the traffic generated from the literal interstate artery, in I-285’s case, both I-75 and I-85.
* For MORE details on what makes an interstate an “interstate”. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has defined a set of standards that all new Interstates must meet unless a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is obtained.
