BlueFord 08/16/07 at 04:19 PM #1

My co-worker told me this morning that she saw 30 balloons tied to the side of I-285. I don't believe her, though. How would she have had time to count 30 balloons?

mimi 08/16/07 at 05:05 PM #2

Very funny.

Unregistered 11/20/09 at 04:34 PM #3

I totally saw a man with a fly fishing pole on his motorcycle the other day!

nedragon 03/05/07 at 08:31 PM #1

I saw a car parked in the middle of 285, with all its wheels gone and raised up on a jack. Cars had to go around it.

Bossman 11/15/06 at 08:21 PM #1

An overturned beer truck, hog truck, and chicken truck. (Not all at the same time, or I'd have stopped for dinner.)

YorkieMom 11/30/06 at 06:41 PM #2

Have actually seen a man on 285E right before 85 with his back to traffic 'relieving' himself....guess he thought no one could see him

Bossman 02/02/07 at 05:05 PM #3

I certainly know the feeling...

Forum Ninja 03/01/10 at 05:17 PM #1

I saw a plastic pickup truck bed liner along the left shoulder. I realize people have issues securing their loads, but this is ridiculous! How does the bed liner come out of the truck?

brohemx 11/19/09 at 06:04 PM #1

Sorry, I don't think folks are going to ride a bus. Who is going to ride the light rail either? It seems that most of these ppl are OTP and are riding around on 285 to get to 85 or 75. They are NOT going to get out of their cars to hop on a stupid light rail for a few stops!

Braineo 01/06/10 at 04:23 PM #2

That is correct. I don't understand why the bus and train thingy keeps coming up when over 100 years ago personal transportation was invented. The need for personal freedom must be regarded as extremely important in any final decision on what to do with I-285.

The whole key is point to point transportation such as using technology to help guide cars closer and faster (car trains) or using electric vehicles such as bicycles or scooters to allow people to go to where they are going and not to provide a non 100% transportation non-solution. If you had to take two buses and light rail - it probably takes 3x longer to get to where you needed to go. Who would even use that? Morons? Atlanta doesn't have the population density to support any such measures. And what do you do when you reach the train / bus station? Walk with no sidewalks the last few miles to where you really wanted to go... there is where the bike should be integrated to the solutions... so why not make bike commuting a reality? Modern electric bikes can go 30-60 miles each way in Atlanta. If only I had a safe place to store it and charge it while I was at work I would do it at least 50% of the time (as long as the weather cooperates). And that would require a lot less millions than all these alternatives presented.We need capacicty in our highways and we also need alternatives suchas cycling! Atlanta - let's get fit!

asheldon 11/12/09 at 12:51 AM #1

Light rail is the way to go in this corridor. It would displace the mostcars easing congestion. The top end light rail system must be connected to light rail being proposed in Gwinnett by filling in the missing piece between the Doraville station terminus as proposed in alternatives 7&8 and the study being done in Gwinnett where the light rail system being studied connects the Gwinnett Arena area and the MARTA heavy rail extension terminus at a proposed Norcross multi-modal station. Someone has to step up to study the missing light rail link between Norcross and Doraville to make the light rail system perform at its best. Similarly a light rail line should be placed in the I-75 corridor connecting the Town Center Mall area and the proposed I-285 corridor light rail line terminus in the Cumberland Mall area.

In conjunction with this we need to reduce the subsidy for trucking to get through freight off trucks and onto the much more energy efficient rails.

Between these two projects we would lessen congestion on the top end perimeter quite a bit although the proposed intersection improvements and managed lanes will make it work at its best pereformance. Everyone has experienced what a slow moving for safety reasons truck does to increase congestion, evening the playing field for rail shipping by removing subsidies to trucks can only be a benefit. The federal Railroad Authority has done research to show the subsidies and now we need leadership to remove the impediments to getting freight onto more energy efficient rail.

__________________

Transit Advocate

Through freight should be on rail the most energy efficient way one gallon of fuel moves a ton of freight 450 miles - Go21.org

 

scstanton 12/16/09 at 04:36 PM #2

I've got to disagree if you're stating that light rail will alleviate existing I-285 traffic. I live 3 miles from my nearest 285 on-ramp and if I've got to get in my car and drive to the transit station, I'm going to keep driving to my destination, especially if it's right along the corridor. I'd suggest that it's rare that both the origin and destination of most I-285 traffic is along the corridor; my experience is that these drivers either live in the corridor, work in the corridor, are only using it as transit between 75/400, 75/85, 400/85, or start/end elsewhere on I-285. In other words, when one or no travel endpoint is in the corridor, any public transit option would not help you. I agree that perhaps if coupled with I-85 or I-75 rail service it becomes somewhat more useful, but still unlikely.

 

asheldon 12/16/09 at 05:21 PM #3

My point was that the proposed light rail in this study be connected to light rail lines in the I-85 and I-75 corridors. I agree that it won't do much for traffic as proposed in the Revive285 study although it would connect to MARTA at two points. What I am getting at is that morning traffic patterns have traffic congestion heading south on I-85 and I-75 and then having traffic congestion heading towards the perimeter area. In these scenarios the congestion dissipates once you have gotten below 285 or past perimeter center. The reverse is true in the afternoons with traffic congestion leaving the perimeter center area headed towards I-85 and I-75 and then north on these interstates. By offering an alternative of riding on rail cars to driving in congested traffic some of the congestion itself would be alleviated for those not traveling on those routes where the light rail would offer an alternative. It is past time to build more and more roads as a solution in this area. Adding HOV lanes are about all we should be considering but no more SOV lanes.

__________________

Transit Advocate

Through freight should be on rail the most energy efficient way one gallon of fuel moves a ton of freight 450 miles - Go21.org

 

Unregistered 01/05/10 at 05:06 PM #4

Light Rail is not the answer for transit in this corridor. Heavy Rail - MARTA-style - is. Underground in its own guideway, fast. It should go across the top end first, then down the east side, and then the west side, and then the bottom end with an extension up the east side of the airport to connect in to the north/south line. Light rail doesn't go fast enough and has too many stops. Thirty or forty minutes from 85 or 75 to 400 will be unacceptable - but that's how long light rail with all of it's stops and low speeds will probably take.

Pay for it by raising the gas tax by at least 25 cents a gallon and index it to inflation after that, with no ability for the general assembly to change it unless it is to raise it even higher.

 

asheldon 02/27/10 at 02:29 AM #5

Heavy Rail is too expensive. That's why it isn't in the choice of options. Light rail could be sped up by having fewer stops or running as an express during rush hours at least when running from Gwinnett and Cobb stations on light rail lines connected to the proposed top end light rail line. There is plenty of auto traffic generated in Gwinnett and Cobb headed to the perimeter center area that could be relieved by express rail.

__________________

Transit Advocate

Through freight should be on rail the most energy efficient way one gallon of fuel moves a ton of freight 450 miles - Go21.org

congestion 08/02/10 at 02:49 PM #1

Has the concept of contraflow with reversible lanes every been considered with utilizing movable barrier vs new construction on this highway or others in Georgia? There is a possibility that significant congestion mitigation could be accomplished that would be easy, fast and significantly less expensive to do than new construction or adding new lanes. Check out Dallas, TX, San Diego, CA, San Juan, PR, Washington, DC, NY,NY, Philadelphia, PA, Honolulu, HI and other cities domestically and internationally that utilize movable barriers for traffic congestion mitigation. Why is Atlanta not utilizing Are other cities much different in congestion problems and available solutions? Have movable barriers been studied or researched

Scstanton 12/16/09 at 05:51 PM #1

Hopefully the planners have taken a stab at the types of traffic that use the 285 top corridor, but I'll throw the comment out there. Do we have any idea what the breakdown of traffic actually is during peak travel times? If so, has it been quantitatively measured? As a layman, I'd guess:

1. Long-haul truck traffic destined for 285 corridor

2. Long-haul truck traffic not destined for 285 corridor

3.Commuters and local trucks from West/Northwest Atlanta using 285E to or past 85

4. Commuters and local trucks from from East/Northeast Atlanta using 285W to or past 75

5. 285E to 400 thru commuters and local trucks, and vice versa

6. 285W to 400 thru commuters and local trucks, and vice versa

7. 285E/75 to 285 corridor commuters and local trucks

8. 285W/85 to 285 corridor commuters and local trucks

9. Commuters and local trucks traveling within 285 corridor

10. Out-of-state travelers

Based on some of the comments I've read, there's an implication that because traffic seems to be the worst around the Perimeter Mall area, that the majority lies with 7, 8, and 9. My personal experience lead me to believe though, that it's actually 400 that causes that traffic buildup and not Ashford-Dunwoody.

This leads me to my point - let's find a better way to connect 75, 400, and 85 so that the 285 top corridor is not the sole highway for this transit.

Has anyone considered how much I-285 top corridor traffic could be alleviated with new highway alternatives? Right now there's no convenient way to get from northwest Atlanta to northeast Atlanta without using I-285. A new limited-access arterial or interstate wouldalleviate this cross-town bottleneck that is our lovely 285 corridor.Creating an Intrastate connection from GA316 in Gwinnett, throughthe Roswell/Alpharetta area, through to north Cobb nearMarietta/Kennesaw is the kind of thing I envision. Long-haul truckscould use this to bypass the corridor altogether, and it would also help those who rely on GA92 to get around.

And if our only medium-term option is to rely on the corridor, my vote is an express-lane system (or collector/distributor) that provides dedicated access between 75/400/85, with maybe two interchanges with I-285.. say at Chamblee-Dunwoody and Roswell Rd.

Michelle 11/24/09 at 03:26 PM #1

Did you see the huge maps used to detail the Alternatives at the most recent PIOH? Wish you could take another look? You can - check out the Alternatives Interactive Mapping tool. Better than trying to download the gigantic pdf files of these huge maps, the tool lets you zoom in, walk the corridor and look at details for all the alternatives...at the click of a button!

Check it out: http://gis.arcadis-us.com/revive285/ or if you really do want to download the maps to print a section or something, the full map files are located currently on the home page.

elc 12/16/09 at 01:08 PM #1

Water seeks its own level. Similarly, no matter how many more traffic lanes are built, they will fill up and once more become congested.

Michelle 11/24/09 at 03:21 PM #1

What did you think of it? Did help to give you a general idea about what the Alternatives were about before you started looking deeper?

johnese 111/24/09 at 04:14 AM #1

Years ago, GDOT began lining many highways such as 285 with sound barriers made out of metal instead of the concrete panels used previously and in other cities. The metal was obviously cheaper, but also more prone to damage and wear, and likely less effective in reducing noise. In many areas along 285, metal sound barriers are starting to show signs of damage from accidents, debris, and fallen trees. Their yellow-beige paint is chipped and coated with soot. Given that 285 may be widened it was probably a wise idea to go with a cheaper sound barrier given that they may have to be moved or torn down. However, in the long run, after any widening, I hope GDOT considers using the more durable and attractive concrete barriers as a more effective solution.

johnese10 11/24/09 at 03:58 AM #1

Drive south on I-85 from Pleasant Hill Road to downtown Atlanta, and the scenery consists mostly of miles of office parks, parking lots, shopping centers, access roads, motels, gas stations, and random ugliness. Gone are most of the trees that used to conceal this sprawling mess. Few would consider the scenery or the area attractive. If we're not careful, the same could happen to top-end 285 if road-widening removes the protective layer of trees that hide much of the development that lines 285. For these reasons, a buffer of trees should be maintained where possible to not only maintain at least a little bit of the serene and beautiful, but reduce noise. New trees could be planted as well.

johnese10 11/24/09 at 02:01 AM #1

I was disappointed to see that elevated highways are being considered for managed lanes and buses. Elevated highways are considered by many to be urban eyesores that harken back to some of the worst urban planning of the 1940s/50s. They were torn down in cities like Boston and San Francisco partly because they ruined views, blocked sunlight, divided neighborhoods, and generated extra noise (not to mention extra expense). New ones are being constructed in places like Texas, partly due to lack of space, but anyone who has driven through San Antonio lately or Austin can only marvel at the gloomy and ugly concrete channels and column-walls they've created. Please consider more open and scenic alternatives.

DavidP 03/17/09 at 09:37 AM #1

Toll lanes and/or exchanges are NOT a viable solution. Visit any large city that has them (e.g.: Boston, NYC) during rush hours and try to count the hundreds (thousands?) of vehicles in long lines, spewing fumes and wasting fuel and time. The surrounding areas are ruined, as no one wants to live or work near them. Do we really want to do this to the Chattahoochee River basin and surrounding park lands? Light rail is the only environmentally and socially responsible solution to highway traffic congestion. Toll lanes, or even more non-toll lanes, are not the direction in which we should take our region. Lets not turn it into New Jersey.

scott 02/22/08 at 10:37 AM #1

I'm new to this issue, so I'm eager to hear counter arguments to this idea... Why not have a fast lane with fees that adjust to ensure the lane remains fast? This gives an option for people whose time is very costly (on that particular day), and also could funnel a lot of money towards the creation of other lanes or transportation options (light rail, buses, tax rebates for companies that implement work-at-home policies, 10 hours days, etc). I'd love to know of any studies done showing just how much money a scheme like this could raise. This taxes the people that actually use the service, rather than the system we have now where people who don't drive that much pay a lot for fedex trucks' roadways. Predictably, I'd also be in favor of tolls. What if that money could somehow be transfered to drivers in the "slow" lanes? Pay to go fast or GET paid to go slow?

Locksley 11/20/06 at 04:54 PM #1

My husband and I both have to travel the top end west bound in the morning and east bound in the evenings. It's gotten to the point where we don't even try to go 285 in the evenings. We travel backroads across the top end to get us to the chambleetucker area. In the morning if the top end is completely stopped due to a major accident or multiple accidents then we will take 85 South and cut over that way.  Seriously we want to leave this city because of this traffic.

aliveandwellinEmbryHills 12/11/06 at 12:49 AM #2

Y'all don't mention any back roads because the DOT will widen them and pave them over! Don't mention any short cuts either because they will become little Indy 500's if they haven't already.

nedragon 11/26/07 at 01:57 PM #1

I believe it'd make sense to extend the study area to S. Cobb Drive and Stone Mountain Fwy since both those are in the same markets as the interchanges and contribute quite a bit to traffic at 75/85 respectively. For instance, I believe if improvements end at W. Paces Ferry and don't extend at least to Atlanta Rd and S. Cobb in Smyrna/Vinings, then any interchange improvements to 75 will be negated by back-ups that these two highly congested access points create, considering that people in those areas are much more likely to travel North than South in most cases on 285.

beerman365 06/19/07 at 10:49 AM #1

I'm happy to see that there is some sort of effort to correct the many mistakes that were made when the 285 top end was first designed. In my opinion on-ramps that turn into exit only ramps are probably the biggest design issues the Atlanta interstate system has to offer. That and the total lack of capacity planning. However are we to suffer for the next 4 -5 years? Once construction begins for improvements traffic will be exponentially worse until the project is complete. But what do we do in the immediate future for relief until the issues are fixed? In my opinion the only thing we can do is to push companies into allowing more employees to telework. Atlanta's large Information Technology job industry lends itself to such a solution. Even if employees were allowed to telework 2 days a week that would reduce traffic quite a bit. However, companies need to be convinced that this is not only a good option for traffic and environment related issues but for their own financial reasons. Tax breaks could be issued for companies that allow a certain percentage of workers to telecommute. Individual employee salaries could be reduced in exchange for the benefit of working from home. Facility and utility expenses

dwelden 07/18/07 at 05:59 PM #2

There are many ways to provide for some early relief in addition to telecommuting. Staggered schedules, flextime and 4 days X 10 hours work weeks are but a few. Some firms are already doing some of these, but not enough. Effective programs can be established quickly and economically. And, we don't have to give tax breaks to those who comply. We need to give penalties to those who fail to comply. Establishing express lanes for through traffic, including trucks and express buses, could help a lot if they were enforced. Put them to the left where they won't have to deal with local traffic entering and exiting. Let them flow freely. People complain that trucks are unsafe. Trucks aren't unsafe if you stay out of their way. Let them roll. They'll be gone that much quicker. If necessary, we can prevent trucks from traveling thru the area at certain hours of the day. This is a dramatic move, but it might result in improvements for everyone, including the trucks. Local lanes on the right should be enforced for exiting traffic to avoid last minute cross-overs and cut-ins which cause serious chain braking. Establish clear marking and lane dividers and then patrol them vigorously, possibly use cameras to help. A tremendous amount of our congestion is at approaches to exits, not just because of the number of vehicles, but because of thoughtless, brainless and discourteous drivers.

Enforce "Keep right except to pass" laws. Enforce tailgating and illegal lane change laws. Cause our area to become notorious for its enforcement. We'd have fewer accidents and faster, smoother flow. None of the above requires highway modification or additional lanes. The results could be dramatic with a minimum of implementation cost and delay.

nedragon 03/05/07 at 08:38 PM #1

Please create a light rail (not heavy rail MARTA trains) connection between the Cobb Galleria and the N-S line near the North Springs station over the highway or taking advantage of some of the rightof- way. Top that off with a parking garage at the Galleria station, and I'd probably use that to get to work instead of the highway.

nedragon 03/05/07 at 08:30 PM #1

As I mentioned in another post, I think one of the biggest contributors to traffic are people having to cut across lanes in order to frantically make an exit. If there were turnaround ramps, which did nothing but directed traffic to the exact opposite direction, people could be less scared about missing an exit and could turn around later on. It could also allow some people to use this as an alternative when one side of an interchange is backed up, and the other is moving smoothly... They can go past the interchange, take the turn around ramp, and return back to it from the other direction. I've used other roads to turn around, either as a tactic, or because I missed an exit, and in both cases, I have to turn around on some side road and come back, adding to the traffic on another road. I assume I'm not the only one that has had to do this.

Locksley 11/20/06 at 04:49 PM #1

Traveling east bound on I-285 in the evenings is a complete disaster and I avoid it as much as possible by going back roads. I have to exit at Chamblee Tucker and am surprised that in the past 6 years I have not been in an accident from cars that cut across to exit on I-85 at that area. For on thing I think the merge of 285 onto I85 north needs to be improved so that the congestion isn't as bad on that ramp. Also when you enter the highway from Buford Hwy I believe it should split early on. One way for Chamblee Tucker, I-85 south and I-285 east and one way for I-85 north. Put a wall there so no one can cut across that area to enter on the 85 North ramp that is intended for Buford Hwy. It is complete craziness with cars cutting across and slamming on their brakes. It's pure insanity!

aliveandwellinEmbryHills 12/11/06 at 12:45 AM #2

I agree that the whole area is nuts. I live just inside 285 off Chamblee-Tucker Rd. We have people coming off 285 eastbound (from any number of directions I suppose) onto Chamblee-Tucker Rd. who either go straight through the light and get back on 285 eastbound OR turn right and line up in the lefthand turn lane (in front of McDonald's, sometimes cloggingTWO left lanes) to make a U-turn and go get on 285 eastbound.

Ever since they widened and "medianed" Chamblee-Tucker Rd. from 85 to 285 it's been a mess, 7 traffic lights within a mile and a half or so..........it's nuts.

Forum Ninja 11/21/06 at 11:43 AM #1

The movement from I-285 North to I-75 South is a complete disaster in the evening. The truck traffic merging onto I-75 North backs up onto the ramp and eventually the I-285 main line. This wouldn't be so bad, but traffic from US 41/Cobb Parkway to I-75 North is coming down the ramp at full speed, making it difficult to exit right and get to I-75 South without being rear ended. Solutions include removing access from US 41/Cobb Parkway or increasing capacity on the I-75 North ramp to improve traffic flow and equalize the speeds.

braineo 01/06/10 at 04:14 PM #1

Itr actually took me less time to bike 23 miles than to drive using 285 and PIB for 25 miles. And I actually enjoyed it much more.

nedragon 03/05/07 at 10:27 PM #1

I'm sorry, but I'm extremely disappointed with the PR baloney being spread about BRT (or glorified bus routes). I will not ride on BRT --only light rail. I'd also rather our HOV lanes not be choked up by busses.

I hope that Georgia and regional officials realize that BRT won't satisfy people enough for it to be a final solution. The only "final solution" is light rail along 285. I hope planners are considering the BRT as an interim solution and plan (meaning put aside the money and make sure the space is there) to later add a light rail line between 75 and 85 along the top perimeter by the time the busses are aging. Otherwise, why not get it right the first time?

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt008.htm

Tomb 04/04/07 at 02:12 PM #2

Interesting post, but it adds nothing to the discussion. The link can be ignored right away, as soon as you read, "...buses run as single vehicles, with one driver per bus (expensive) while railcars can be coupled in ... well, trains, with one driver for several cars (cheaper)." Anyone who seriously believes that trains are cheaper than buses... Then there's this: "I will not ride on BRT -- only light rail." Just shows that this individual is not really _that_ concerned with congestion, or doesn't really need mass transit. He/she just wants it as a convenience. If we're only considering mass transit as a convenience, then what's the point?

Mayhem 04/16/07 at 01:21 PM #3

Look at the statistics! People do not want to ride BRT! Why shouldn't we invest for the future instead of making a temporary solution? BRT should not be in the HOV lane. LRT is generally quicker than BRT. The ride is much smoother. If anything should be dismissed, it's your attitude. Keep thinking in the dark ages.

Captain_America 04/17/07 at 04:06 PM #4

We can all pretend to be righteous and say that we make transit choices because they serve the purpose. But the fact of the matter is that people (including me) would consider transit only if it is convinient in addition to serving the purpose.

Ehovdesven CAC Member(Murphy Candler HOA)07/16/07 at 04:52 PM #5

BRT or Bus Rapid Transit if done correctly can be as attractive as rail. Atlanta does NOT have BRT. buses driving in HOV lanes is not BRT. To be true BRT one has to construct dedicated lanes separated from general traffic and permanent drop off/pick up points (stations).

The study of the top of 285 that recommended I-285 BRT from the Doraville Station to Cumberland was very interesting and promising. It would have provided rail like service but also would have allowed buses at the end of the dedicated lane (such as doraville) to go to different points in the region - thus either go up 85 or down 285. since we can't build rail to all places BRT could be an attractive alternative, once the system is extended or ridership added then perhaps the right of way could be used to construct a Light Rail System.

Also, since BRT is concrete and rubber tired vehicles the tired old excuse that gas taxes can't be used for transit goes out the window. Express bus service in the HOV lanes is getting good ridership, but I agree it still gets stuck in traffic and doesn't offer the permanency of BRT or rail. It would be difficult to buy a house based on a bus stop, because the service is to easily changeable.

Dwelden CAC Member(Protect Cobb)07/18/07 at 05:28 PM #6

Can someone help me understand the differences between BRT and Express Bus? Why would some folks prefer one over the other? Are there differences in cost, reliability, speed, flexibility, road or station requirements, operating costs, maintenance requirements, staffing, etc? My objective is to compare them against light rail, and I'm presuming the MARTA trains are a reasonable example of light rail. Is that a correct presumption?

Thank you.

Forum Ninja 07/19/07 at 11:34 AM #7

Although definitions vary, the following apply to the revive285 top end study:

BRT runs in a dedicated lane. Express Bus travels in an HOV or other managed lane with mixed traffic. In general, BRT is more reliable regarding schedule adherence, as it doesn't share a lane with other traffic. Capital cost is also higher, as the cost is not spread across a broader user base and BRT often includes dedicated stations.

Mechanical reliability is the same for both BRT and Express Bus. Both BRT and Express Bus have the same maximum speed, however Express Bus may have a slower operational speed depending on the

level of service in the managed lane (e.g. if the HOV lane the Express Bus is running in is congested, the bus is stuck in traffic). In a value priced lane managed for uncongested travel, Express Bus could run

at the same speed as a BRT. For the most part, both strategies are equally flexible and can run on

local streets at either end of the BRT facility or managed lane. Mainline flexibility is a design consideration and depends on how many entry and exit points are provided on the BRT facility or managed lane. Road or station requirements would likely be the same for the purposes of revive285 top end, although generally Express Bus

tends to have lower cost and less elaborate stations.

If both systems provide the same service (equal number of buses, the same routes, and the same time between buses), operating and maintenance costs are approximately the same. Staffing requirements would also be the same in this case. MARTA trains are heavy rail, but a light rail along the top end would potentially be similar in operation (e.g. completely grade separated and operating around 55mph).

For more detailed information see the Strategy Fact Sheets.

Dwelden CAC Member(Protect Cobb)07/19/07 at 05:22 PM #8

Thank you. That was most helpful. Those Strategy Fact Sheets are great help in getting up to speed. The City of Denver reputedly has had good success with a combination of bus service and light rail. With a population of less

than 3mm people, they're not as big as metro Atlanta. However, they are spead out over a relatively large area, similar to us. I encourage a visit to their website: http://www.rtd-denver.com/ It contains a wealth of info, including their history of system development and budgets for recent years. I found their route maps and variety of travel options interesting. They also appear to have a graceful approach to phasing in system components over time. That is, they didn't attempt to bite off too much at a time. It never hurts to learn from the success of others.

Nedragon 11/13/07 at 09:48 PM #9

I don't think with MARTA trunks along 20 and 400 it makes sense to have anything heavier than LRT or BRT along the northern 285 corridor, however I don't think people should be so hasty to move towards BRT as opposed to LRT between the Perimeter Mall and Cumberland. I also don't believe, when talking about raised BRT lanes, that it's going to be all that much cheaper than LRT. We need to also look at the cost of one day having to replace the BRT line with LRT when it could have been built as LRT from the very beginning.

But the big question is WHICH WILL HAVE MORE RIDERS. I believe for the "image" of the area, BRT will be a step back, and thus BRT will have less ridership, unless they can do a LOT to disguise the fact that it's a bus (e.g. hiding the wheels behind guides that block them from view like on Montreal's subway).

The Strategy Fact Sheets mention nothing about safety ratings or maintenance upkeep.

Dwelden CAC Member(Protect Cobb)11/13/07 at 10:32 PM #10

Thanks, Nedragon. Your position only further supports the argument in favor of Express Bus as an interim solution. Express bus does not require commitment of dedicated lanes/real estate and will serve as a good, flexible interim solution during the time it takes for the region to resolve its' political problems and settle down into addressing our transit challenge honestly and competently.

I wish I could support your Light Rail position. It is definitely a nicer ride than a bus can provide. However, I refuse to support any long range action until a long range plan for the entire region has been developed sans political influence. Since this is not likely to occur anytime soon under the present regime, we need the effective interim solution that Express Bus can provide. Thank you for your input.

Pbergen 06/02/08 at 11:35 AM #11

Do we need a solution, yes, but adding a BRT from Cumberland Mall to Perimeter Mall? Does this really work? I live only a few miles from Cumberland, and I would be willing to take a type of mass transit from Cumberland mall to perimeter to catch MARTA...the only problem is that, MARTA doesn't go anywhere. my office is 3 miles from the nearest Marta station, I could wait for a bus, but then the time it would take for this whole trip to take place would be longer than waiting in traffic.

Now, I would be willing to take a bit more time to commute if I didn't have to change 4 times to get to my destination. Not to mention that all of this would cost more than my gas.

1. Drive to parking garage

2. get on bus

3. get on Marta

4. get on bus

We all know that this will not work unless it is easy, because at the heart of it is that most people will not do anything unless it is easy. I realize that this does not offer anything new to solve the issue, I just think we need to do more than just look at 285 to solve the issue. Realistically we need to overhaul the entire transportation system in Atlanta for any option to work. These are just band-aids that will prove to be a waste of money if we do not solve the root cause.

As Dwelden said, based on the current political climate, nothing will really happen and eventually Atlanta will stop growing because even though it is cheap to build, live, and work here, no one can get anywhere and we will all fail. So, back to my point, if we just add a band-aid to the current problem, it just delays the inevitable.

Sdb 10/29/08 at 04:17 PM #12

I strongly support LRT not BRT. If you look back at the initial transportation selection of BRT for the much anticipated Beltline project, only after public outrage (due to the fact that ridership would not reach its full potential with BRT) did the powers-that-be change their stance and support LRT for the Beltline. We need to have LRT for the top-end 285 "Beltline", as well. In order for the LRT line to be effective and successful, we need

three things. First of all, the design of the stations must be very pedestrian friendly (including scale and walkability...including bike racks, bike lines/bridges connecting the nearby neighborhoods, etc.). This is one of the drawbacks to most MARTA train stations is their sense of pedestrian scale is cold and uninviting. Also, easy walkable access to retail/restaurants would enhance these stations (not just through a large parking lot to the

mall or strip center). Land-use around the stations needs to strongly encourage this type of use and scale.

Secondly we need a design that will stand the test of time. The best examples are simple train station/stop architecture from the early 20th century (including brick and stone). Too often, bad contemporary designs (i.e. some MARTA stations, GA Dome) may look O.K. at first but age terribly.

Finally, and most importantly, this new LRT system needs to connect to more transit options. The Brain Train, which is proposed to run from Downtown Atlanta, through Emory, Tucker, Lawrenceville and onto Athens would be a great link for this LRT (possibly in Tucker).

It would increase ridership for both because it would increase the number of places you can go in a reasonable amount of time. Without this link a person in Cobb Galleria would take the 285-LRT to Sandy Springs then Marta to Downtown, then the Brain Train to Athens. A direct link from the Revive 285 LRT to the Brain Train in Tucker is beginning to the kind of grid transit system the region needs. One of the biggest complaints is the Marta does not go anywhere and this would begin to address that issue. This is forward thinking, and the kind of grand plan Atlanta needs to give people an option to get to work/play other than traveling on the interstates. The areas around the top-end 285 are dense and becoming denser in the near future. We cannot afford to think just 5-10 years down the road if we want this area to continue to prosper. We need LRT over BRT for this reason.

Tseng 11/17/08 at 06:21 PM #13

This is my first time reading about this stuff. i do not know much about the politics behind it all, or the costs, etc. My perspective comes as a frequent rider of public transportation. Im going to guess that those advocating the BRT, and especially the Express bus, don’t ride the bus. I do ride the bus. Its miserable. I dont mind marta that much. I like the idea of a light rail much better.

Asheldon 08/25/10 at 11:39 PM #14

I asked for an explanation via e-mail of why a fixed guide-way transit system was not part of the approved options and I don't mean some unknown 'future' as options 6A and 6b mention and got the following non-answer:

Thank you for your comments. Your feedback is appreciated. The build alternatives moving forward into the environmental document were chosen after much consideration was given to overall cost and benefits to the transportation system, and economic, social and environmental impacts, as well as public comment and the alternatives ability to address the project's Purpose and Need Statement. The alternatives that fell short of addressing the above criteria were eliminated from further evaluation. Alternatives 6A and 6B include environmental clearing and purchase of land for the addition of a fixedguide- way transit system in the future (Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail Transit). Express Bus service would be implemented in the existing lanes on I-285 until fixed-guide-way transit is implemented.

I responded with the following:

Express bus service is a misnomer if the buses are to travel in the existing I-285 lanes. Until the I-85 HOT lanes are expanded with direct connectivity into some sort of high occupancy vehicle lane (probably HOT) on I-285 then the buses would be stuck in the same traffic as exists today. And that makes getting people onto express buses extremely difficult. Don’t 6A and 6B include some sort of managed lane that would connect directly to the current HOV and soon to be HOT lanes on I-85? It’s interesting that the Regional Transit Committee’s studies recommend light rail in the I-285 corridor yet a project paid for by agencies that favor buses and more roads recommends more of the same. Does the EIS include assumption of building a fixed-guide-way transit system? If it doesn’t then how does it get funded assuming we have to follow Todd Long’s transportation project selection criteria for the 2012 T-SPLOST which requires a completed EIS by the end of 2012 for a transit project to be included in the list of projects to be funded by the T-SPLOST? The revive285 project would be the only one with an EIS completed by the end of 2012. As such it imperative that a fixed guide-way transit system in the I-285 corridor have a completed EIS by the end of next year. Could one of the CAC members give a little insight into what is going on behind closed doors that results in this decision to ignore including fixed guide-way transit in the solution during the main project phase. Thanks.

Transit Advocate

Through freight should be on rail the most energy efficient way one gallon of fuel moves a ton of freight 450 miles - Go21.org

SHonda 07/22/08 at 01:47 PM #1

I regularly drive I285 top end to and from work. I noticed yesterday that the traffic getting onto I285 from Chamblee Dunwoody and off of I285 and Peachtree Industrial Boulevard was very congested. There was no traffic backing up from I85 yesterday afternoon, but the right lane to exit onto PIB North was still very backed up. Once past the PIB North exit traffic was free flowing. Usually the issue is slow traffic that is backed up from I85.

The new ramp metering from Chamblee Dunwoody does not seem to help anything either. I am not convinced that it makes anything worse but it does not seem to help the matter. Weaving onto and off of I285 is an issue in that location.

I don't really have any suggestions - this is just a comment on observations.

Braineo 01/07/10 at 07:11 PM #2

I think that entrance from CD and exit to PIB is a mess. If only the lane would extend like 100 yards into the bridge towards the Northbound exit into PIB... that would solve a lot of problems with merging and not only that - how much would that be? A can of paint for $25? Oh I forgot - DOT paint is probably $3,000 / gallon and it would require like 20 people to put on.... How much would that save in a year's time? Probably more than $10,000,000+ of merge time!!!!

nedragon 11/26/07 at 10:06 PM #1

I think the most frustrating thing are people who drive by 40 cars waiting in line for the interchange just to cut in way ahead of where they should be. An example is on the 400 interchange (400 S to 285W). If it were one person that didn't know where they were going, it'd be acceptable, however it's a lot of people that seem to think they are special. There are some places in the metro where you can block the jerks off, such as idiots who try to pass on the shoulder (by blocking enough of the shoulder so they can't pass), but the 400 @ 285 interchange has no recourse except try not to let the one person in who decides to cut in right before you. They usually just skip you then and move onto someone further in front of you.

Of course, the 400 @ 285 interchange needs more lanes and flyovers with higher speed limits, but something should be done in the meantime. Maybe a jersey barrier could be set up to make it so that if you don't merge in early enough, you can't get in. Or maybe there should be police monitoring this and ticketing people who obstruct traffic to cut in or who cut across the solid lines. I saw an accident way up ahead a month or so ago caused by one of these cutters slamming on their brakes way up ahead of me because they ran out of room to cut in, and someone rear-ended them. It's sad they won't even get in trouble because they were rear-ended when they were the cause of the accident.

If some people are "too busy" to be bothered waiting in line like everyone else, perhaps we could have toll lane connections from 400 someday if there are ever going to be toll lanes on 285.

nedragon 03/05/07 at 08:35 PM #1

When construction is done, it is often done in ways that interfere with traffic or create road hazards -- either taking over more of the highway than is necessary, or not properly marked ahead of time with warning signs. I've nearly smashed barrels when on a ramp when there was no construction warning signs.

Also, what's with leaving barrels blocking a lane for a long period of time when no work is being done?

Georgia crews need to get better at working in congested areas without interfering so much with traffic flows. I've never seen anything like this when I lived in the Northeast.

Forum Ninja  03/12/07 at 02:52 PM #2

Then obviously you never drove in Pennsylvania. That state is permanently under construction!

nedragon 03/05/07 at 08:25 PM #1

I think the biggest slowdown is lane changes. I wish you could force people to stay in the same lane in some areas with solid lines :-)

Of course, it's only realistic if people aren't going to need to cross lanes to get from where they enter to where they exit. For instance, a full turnaround ramp that does nothing but take East-bound travelers and allow them to shoot back to West-bound would make them less anxious about cutting across a line of cars to make an exit because they would know they could turn around later on.

There's multiple times I've missed an exit because I couldn't get through the traffic, had to go on another road to turn around and head back the other direction, and if I had to do it, I'm sure there are others that had to. Everyone that either has to turnaround because they miss an exit, or push through lanes to make their exit is contributing to the traffic problem.

I've seen turnaround exits work in other places. They normally aren't ramps but underpasses, but I don't think there's an option for an underpass in this case.

Brandy 02/07/07 at 06:59 PM #1

It makes me crazy when people get caught up in what's happening on the other side of the wall. Having a stall or wreck in your lane is bad enough, but when there is no obstruction other than people's curiosity.....

Locksley 11/20/06 at 04:52 PM #1

The best mornings are when I see on television that there is an accident on 85 south and another one on 285 north because that means my drive on the top end heading west will be a breeze!

I hate that it is always just pure congestion. I hate that people can't seem to go around the curves of the highway without slamming on their brakes when in turn creates a back up.

I hate that cars stall - please keep up with your vehicle so it doesn't do that!

I hate the exit to peachtree dunwoody being so close to the 400 exit. Who thought of that?? It creates a crazy merging scenario that is just ridiculous.

Maximus 12/13/06 at 11:21 AM #2

Not sure if this is the correct place or not, but I wanted to make my comments. I live in Kennesaw and work in Norcross, so I travel the top of the perimeter each day and have for the past 6 years. Below are my comments:

1) DON'T waste the funds on HOV lanes. They are a waste of money and VALUABLE real estate that could be used to actually help move traffic. I know that these lanes were developed to encourage car pooling, but few people are taking advantage of them, at least legally. But they do provide law enforcement with yet another game of catching violators. What a waste of real estate! Accept the fact that car pooling is NOT going to be a choice for most and focus effortselsewhere.

2) Station-to-station barriered lanes might help, but beware of the following; a) limited access would create a nightmare when accidents happen on these lanes; b) entry and exit access would still tend to create bottlenecks unless these areas are designed appropriately.

3) TOL lanes might be an option; the major concern would be access. They would need to be limited access (ie barriered) and probably station-to-station. This would need to prevent the following VERY dangerous merging situations; a) trucks merging all the way across regular lanes to exit or b)cars having to merge thru TOL lanes to exit.

4) Intermediate lanes (lanes that run only between exits) really only serve to make matters worse. These would be effective ONLY if most people entering the one interchange were exiting the next. These lanes contribute to the backups at Ashford Dunwoody, 400 and especially Roswell road. The cars that run up these lanes and merge into traffic at the last moment tend to make matters much worse by contributing to the bottleneck.

5) Can anyone design the perfect interchange? It appears that some thought went into the design of the South Marietta Pkwy interchange on I-75. Traffic flows smoothly thru the exit portion of this interchange, however the entry portions (at least northbound) cause even worse bottlenecks.

6) Ultimate options to resolve the north perimeter problems (my opinion)... Though perhaps costly, the best long term solutions are one of or some type of combination of the following;

1) Dust off the old plans for the northern arc;

2) consider tunneling options, whether station-to-station, as interchange options or however these could best be used. With modern technology, tunneling might be cheaper than itused to be.More than ANYTHING, even if no other comment I've made here has made sense, the comment about NO MORE HOV lanes should be taken in!!!!! They will not work!!!

A final thought: I have a CB in my car, so I understand the complaints of the truckers. The main question I hear from truckers that are coming southbound on I75 is: If I want to return to I 75, which side of the perimeter is looking better? Perhaps a method of easing traffic on the section between 75 and 85 would be to improve the westside of 285 to make it the more desireable path for truckers trying to bypass Atlanta.

dontdestroymyneighborhood 12/10/06 at 05:39 PM #1

GDOT sent some very nice "consultants" to talk to people about "reviving" 285. The problem was they were very uninformed or very good liars, telling folks that plans previously announced by GDOT were "not true", because they weren't aware of them??? Over 450 people turned up to show their opposition to having their neighborhoods and health destroyed for the sake of commuters who choose not to live near their employment and the trucking industry.

While this meeting was a disorganized joke, we must continue to show GDOT that we are serious about protecting our beautiful "in-town" neighborhoods and wetlands.

aliveandwellinEmbryHills 12/11/06 at 12:37 AM #2

I'm so glad that you and so many others went to the meeting. I wasn't able to attend. I looked on the DOT website for minutes from the meeting but couldn't find. Can you tell me what was said, what are the plans??

Noribbonsofconcrete 12/12/06 at 08:50 AM #3

The expansion of 285 seeks to destroy Murphey Candler, a stable intown neighborhood, (just inside 285 between Ashford Dunwoody Road and Chamblee Dunwoody Road and surrounding areas). We are concerned about thenegative effect on Murphey Candler Park and thesurrounding communities. This park has been a wonderfulcommmunity resource for decades. If the expansion of 285destroys the neighborhoods that support Murphey CandlerPark and this recreational resource is lost, it will be atragedy. Also, the expansion of 285 just reduces moreintown neighborhoods and increases suburban sprawl,which will continue to increase traffic congestion. We needto move in to town and work on a public transportationsolution, rather than continuing to add more ribbons ofconcrete to an already overloaded roadways and movingmore and more people out to the burbs!

__________________

Kristin Boyer

I-285 Project Team Member 01/02/07 at 03:56 PM #4

The revive825top end acknowledges the concerns for Murphey Candler neighborhood raised by "noribbonsofconcrete on December 12th, 2006. The project team has received input from several citizens in attendance at the December 7th Public Information Open House potentially regarding this same issue.

It appears that many of the concerns raised are over operational improvement projects being studied as part of the ongoing I-285 Strategic Implementation Plan (the I-285 Planning Study), which is a planning study analyzing safety and traffic efficiency along the entire I-285 loop.

Unlike the revive285 top end, which is a separate step in the Georgia DOT Plan Development Process (PDP), the I-285 planning study does not include advancing projects through preliminary design and the environmental process. The revive285 top end process includes developing and analyzing detailed concepts for improvements along the top end of I-285 and advancing concept(s) for those projects currently planned/programmed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) through a process that includes evaluating the benefits and costs of various concepts and soliciting community input. As part of the process, the project team will gather and analyze data from previous and ongoing plans and studies, including the data and findings from the I-285 Strategic Implementation Plan study.

At this time, the Georgia DOT has not chosen to advance any of the preliminarily identified operational improvements that are part of the I-285 Strategic Implementation Plan including those along the corridor near the Murphey Candler Park area.

If you have any questions and/or concerns regarding the I-285 Strategic Implementation Plan, please contact the

Georgia DOT project manager Daryl Cranford at (404) 656-5360.

If you have any further questions and/or concerns regarding the revive285 top end, please contact the project team using the hotline at (770) 431-7445 and/or the project email at info@revive285.com.

For more information on the PDP, please visit  the revive285 top end website: www.revive285.com.