Georgia Plan "B" for transportation - independent analysis

[alex5793]

In the aftermath of the Statewide SPLOST mostly being voted down, I thought this analysis was interesting, mostly the portion regarding possible freight / truck bypass routes around Atlanta to help reduce congestion issues. 

My thoughts:

I think the bypasses seem to be too far away from the I-75 / I-85 / I-20 corridors to be fuilly effective.  Not to say they will not be used to avoid Atlanta rush hour traffic, but if they are 100-150 miles longer with traffic signals and more cross traffic, I dont think it will reduce the overall traffic in and out of the metro.

Obviously, as discussed in this forum, an I-16 extension to Columbus and Auburn, connecting with I-85, would be effective.

I've traveled across the Macon to LaGrange corridor.  This area is not mountainous, but lots of rolling terrain and a new location four lane highway across this area would be expensive.  I would think a better investment would be a tolled outer perimeter outside the Atlanta metro.

The southwest and west bypass is a good idea, but it does not resolve quite a bit of truck traffic that uses the top end of 285 to access I-20 and I-85 east from the north via I-75....there still is a need for a northern bypass of the city.


http://georgiapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GettingGAMoving.pdf

-Alex

[Tom958]

Gravedig! But I just got here. 

I've thought about this a lot since reading http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/programs/georgiafreight/logisticsplan/Documents/Plan/GAFreightLogistics-FinalReport-Task5.pdf -- thanks to whoever posted the link. 

I've thought for a long time that it would've been a lot better if Georgia had taken a more Virginia-like approach to its rural arterials: More bypasses, most of them freeways (not necessarily full Interstate standard-- Georgia doesn't have Virginia funding!), even of very small towns, and less indiscriminate four laning of nearly-deserted rural highways. That and a much greater reluctance to fully reconstruct slightly substandard old roadways during dualization. Anyone who's driven US 27 south of Columbus or US 19 between Albany and Thomaston will see what I mean. Georgia seemed headed that way in the late '50's-early '60's with the bypasses of Athens, Monroe, Bainbridge, Griffin and (sort of) Rome, but then things changed.

Imagine if the bypasses of Rome, Cedartown, Bremen and Carrollton were freeways, plus the new location GA 53 between Rome and Calhoun. Throw in a western bypass of Newnan, four lane between all the bypasses (OK, extend the Carrollton bypass north to US 27, too) and we've got a mostly signal free route from Chattanooga to Columbus. Next, give the same treatment to the GA 16 corridor from Newnan to I-75 near GA 36, and there's our Atlanta bypass toward Macon and Savannah. Do something similar to Corridor Z (GA 520) and eventually GA 133 from Valdosta to Albany, and beyond-Atlanta I-75 traffic doesn't need to go anywhere near I-75 north of Macon.

It's fun to think about, anyway. Too late now, though. But not too late to add US 280 and GA 32 to the GRIP system. 

EDIT: Oh, wow! I can post!

[NE2]

But not too late to add US 280 and GA 32 to the GRIP system. 

??? http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20012002/SB/40

[Tom958]

But not too late to add US 280 and GA 32 to the GRIP system. 

??? http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20012002/SB/40

Yeah. We're doubling down on doin' it wrong.

[NE2]

I still don't get what you're trying to say.

[Tom958]

I still don't get what you're trying to say.

I mean that Georgia has spent a lot of money on GRIP highways, too many of which carried (and still carry) 3000 vpd or less. Many of the widenings, especially the most recent ones, use a totally uniform cross section of four lanes and a 44 foot median regardless of specific conditions, expensively regrading roadways that really should suffice for low volumes of one-way traffic. Furthermore, not enough attention has been paid to creating and preserving travel time reductions through greater use of bypasses and full control of access. After all of this, much of the original GRIP system hasn't been completed, including corridors which are specifically cited in the abovementioned report.

So, instead of doing a rethink, Georgia tacks on another few hundred miles of four lane widenings across the trackless wastes of rural Georgia. In the report, the US 280 project alone would cost $996m and yield a benefit/cost ratio of 0.07 under the high-growth scenario and 0.01 under moderate growth. On what planet is that a good idea? Not this one.

It annoys me as a taxpayer, as a citizen, and as a roadgeek.

[NE2]

What I don't get is how this sentence makes any sense:

But not too late to add US 280 and GA 32 to the GRIP system. 

[Tom958]

It's a variation on, "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

[lordsutch]

I think the Macon-Augusta GRIP corridor will eventually work, it's just missing the one part that's necessary to make it be worth using (the southern bypass of Milledgeville).  Although that two-lane section through Wrens is a joke too, and something really needs to be done to actually connect it to the Augusta leg in the middle (dumping traffic on surface streets in downtown Macon doesn't count, and there's nothing in GDOT's fancy plans for the I-75/16 rebuild that fixes that) - really GDOT should just bite the bullet and four-lane GA 49 to the Bibb county line and connect it to the the proposed SE Macon loop (Sardis Church & Sgoda Road) to improve access to Robins and keep the traffic out of town.

There has also already been some discussion of the GA 74/109 corridor as part of the Connect Central Georgia study, which may or may not be viable.

As far as the full reconstruction thing goes, I'm pretty sure FHWA cracked down on the states only modernizing half the roadway in the 90s; it's one of the reasons MDOT's Four Lane program came in way over the cost estimates, because MDOT planned on only building the new carriageways and FHWA told them they had to start doing both.

[Tom958]

There has also already been some discussion of the GA 74/109 corridor as part of the Connect Central Georgia study, which may or may not be viable.

I have a hard time believing that a Macon-LaGrange highway would be as good an idea as that study suggests it'd be.

As far as the full reconstruction thing goes, I'm pretty sure FHWA cracked down on the states only modernizing half the roadway in the 90s; it's one of the reasons MDOT's Four Lane program came in way over the cost estimates, because MDOT planned on only building the new carriageways and FHWA told them they had to start doing both.

It's true that if full reconstruction is needed,doing it as part of a dualization is the way to go. But if FHWA insists on full reconstruction of the existing roadway as part of an already-marginal widening project, it might be better not to do the project at all.

[J N Winkler]

So, instead of doing a rethink, Georgia tacks on another few hundred miles of four lane widenings across the trackless wastes of rural Georgia. In the report, the US 280 project alone would cost $996m and yield a benefit/cost ratio of 0.07 under the high-growth scenario and 0.01 under moderate growth. On what planet is that a good idea? Not this one.

Are you sure these aren't actually annualized rates of return?  If they are, then 7% under the high-growth scenario makes a lot of sense, since it is higher than the long-term rate on Treasury securities (currently 2.7%).  Even the 1% rate under the moderate-growth scenario is not necessarily a deal-killer, since what you then need to know is whether the rate of return rises above the long-term interest rate in one of the next few years following.  (Highway investments tend to have backloaded returns, which is one reason first-year rate of return is sometimes used to determine which of several possible highway investments is the most urgent.)

I'd also register partial agreement with some of the strictures on Georgia rural highway development vis-a-vis Virginia.  Yes, Virginia has been progressive in developing rural four-lane divided arterials, but not in protecting them from stoplight infestation.  I refuse to fault Georgia DOT for choosing to revise the geometry of the existing carriageway--instead, I fault Virginia DOT for adopting the opposite course and leaving one carriageway as-is.  I think both states have done a poor job of preserving the arterial function of their rural four-lane freeway-feeder systems, but for different reasons (Georgia has allowed them to become subdivision accesses; Virginia has put in stoplights).  North Carolina is another example that can be thrown into the mix--NCDOT has been picking up the pieces of Governor Hunt's four-laning program (90% of North Carolinians within 10 miles of a four-lane state highway, I think the mantra was) by upgrading some corridors, notably US 70, to the full freeways that should have been built in lieu of initial widening to four-lane divided with little to no access control.

[cpzilliacus]

Yes, Virginia has been progressive in developing rural four-lane divided arterials, but not in protecting them from stoplight infestation.  I refuse to fault Georgia DOT for choosing to revise the geometry of the existing carriageway--instead, I fault Virginia DOT for adopting the opposite course and leaving one carriageway as-is.  I think both states have done a poor job of preserving the arterial function of their rural four-lane freeway-feeder systems, but for different reasons (Georgia has allowed them to become subdivision accesses; Virginia has put in stoplights).

Maryland is also guilty of the above. 

One of the worst examples of dualization I have ever seen while keeping the old substandard two lane road is Md. 4 (Southern Maryland Boulevard) in Calvert County.

Md. 140 (variously Taneytown Pike, College View Avenue and Baltimore Boulevard) in Carroll County probably takes the cake when it comes to a bypass highway that gets sprawled away into another signal- and congestion-ridden arterial.

But the staff at the Maryland State Highway Administration have gotten better in recent years, with the SHA being increasingly tough about not permitting new access points to busy highways, even of there is strong political pressure applied.  About 15 years ago, a large church (mega-church-size congregation) bought a vacant parcel of land facing the (unbuilt at the time) interchange of U.S. 29 (functional class urban expressway) and Md. 200 (functional class freeway), figuring they would apply political muscle to force SHA to give them access to their land (there was access from other roads, but that was from the "back" of the lot).

SHA, to their great credit, refused to budge (even though the leadership of church went to many elected officials asking for help, and got several letters written on their behalf), and the church never got their access off of U.S. 29 (I think the church  thought they were going to be able to get their own traffic signal and a private driveway from SHA - it would have been smack in the  middle of the interchange that stands there today).  Of course, the church probably thought that U.S. 29, with its numerous at-grade intersections in Montgomery County, was an arterial, and did not understand the difference between a principal arterial highway and an expressway.

Sometimes, bureaucrats do the taxpayers a favor by being rigid and uncooperative.

[Tom958]

Are you sure these aren't actually annualized rates of return?  If they are, then 7% under the high-growth scenario makes a lot of sense, since it is higher than the long-term rate on Treasury securities (currently 2.7%).  Even the 1% rate under the moderate-growth scenario is not necessarily a deal-killer, since what you then need to know is whether the rate of return rises above the long-term interest rate in one of the next few years following.  (Highway investments tend to have backloaded returns, which is one reason first-year rate of return is sometimes used to determine which of several possible highway investments is the most urgent.)

Yes, I'm pretty sure. The analysis methodology is explained in the report ("The opportunity cost is valued at 2.9 percent for
this Plan"), and the idea that a project like that could generate that much of a ROI is absurd on the face of it. Besides, the US 280 project has by far the lowest B/C ratio of those in the tables-- the "Macon-Lagrange-US27 4-laning" has B/C's of 2.94 and (gasp) 15.27. I really don't think that it'd produce an annualized rate of return of 1,527%. Do you? 

I'd also register partial agreement with some of the strictures on Georgia rural highway development vis-a-vis Virginia.  Yes, Virginia has been progressive in developing rural four-lane divided arterials, but not in protecting them from stoplight infestation.  I refuse to fault Georgia DOT for choosing to revise the geometry of the existing carriageway--instead, I fault Virginia DOT for adopting the opposite course and leaving one carriageway as-is.

Yeah, in some cases Virginia has gone too far in the other direction, particularly considering that some of the freeway bypasses were initially opened as super 2's. They'd have done better to build the second roadway, then close the old one until they had the money to reconstruct it to a decent standard, especially when the warrant for more capacity was marginal.

I think both states have done a poor job of preserving the arterial function of their rural four-lane freeway-feeder systems, but for different reasons (Georgia has allowed them to become subdivision accesses; Virginia has put in stoplights).

Yeah, that, too. But that gets into a bigger question of how (or whether it's possible in the US) to preserve high-type functioning of rural arterials in the face of (the S word). I might start a thread about it if there isn't one already.

Still, that gets back to my original point: IMO, a few freeway sections built back when it was relatively easy and cheap would've made Georgia's rural arterial network a lot more useful than it is now.

North Carolina is another example that can be thrown into the mix--NCDOT has been picking up the pieces of Governor Hunt's four-laning program (90% of North Carolinians within 10 miles of a four-lane state highway, I think the mantra was) by upgrading some corridors, notably US 70, to the full freeways that should have been built in lieu of initial widening to four-lane divided with little to no access control.

And Georgia apparently has no intention of even trying to start to pick up the pieces. Quite the contrary, actually. 

[agentsteel53]

Yeah, that, too. But that gets into a bigger question of how (or whether it's possible in the US) to preserve high-type functioning of rural arterials in the face of (the S word). I might start a thread about it if there isn't one already.

I've always thought that Texas had the right idea with its frontage-road system. 

[J N Winkler]

Yes, I'm pretty sure. The analysis methodology is explained in the report ("The opportunity cost is valued at 2.9 percent for this Plan"), and the idea that a project like that could generate that much of a ROI is absurd on the face of it. Besides, the US 280 project has by far the lowest B/C ratio of those in the tables-- the "Macon-Lagrange-US27 4-laning" has B/C's of 2.94 and (gasp) 15.27. I really don't think that it'd produce an annualized rate of return of 1,527%. Do you? 

Thanks for the clarification--I queried the basis for the figures because it seemed strange to me that the report should even mention, let alone quote figures for, a proposed investment whose likely return is comparable to taking the money out in dollar bills and setting fire to it.

It sounds like 2.9% is used in this report as a proxy for the long-term interest rate.

Yeah, in some cases Virginia has gone too far in the other direction, particularly considering that some of the freeway bypasses were initially opened as super 2's. They'd have done better to build the second roadway, then close the old one until they had the money to reconstruct it to a decent standard, especially when the warrant for more capacity was marginal.

In Kansas this was done in the 1990's with a relocation of US 50 between Newton and Emporia, which maintained the basic two-lane cross-section but added intermittent passing lanes in each direction and full hard shoulders.  Another option that could probably be pursued with profit in Georgia is to build a 2+1 cross section (two lanes and a passing lane that alternates from one side of the road to the other) for corridors which are marginal for widening to four-lane divided.  In Sweden, where this cross-section has been used extensively, the "sweet spot" is considered to lie between 8,000 and 12,000 VPD.

(It has to be noted that the choice of warrant for "breaking" from a two-lane to a four-lane divided cross-section is essentially arbitrary.  This is partly because it involves comparing the incomparable, at least from a level-of-service perspective.  LOS on a four-lane divided road corresponds broadly to speed versus flow, especially when there is little traffic entering or exiting at side roads.  LOS on a two-lane road is, however, defined almost entirely by proportion of travel time spent following at least one other vehicle, and this does not relate to delay in any simple way.  One could establish a letter-grade LOS threshold for widening from two-lane to a wider cross-section, but I feel this applies a scientific veneer to what is essentially a value judgment as to "acceptable" operation, and tends to serve a consumer expectation that no two-lane road should be too "annoying" to drive.)

Yeah, that, too. But that gets into a bigger question of how (or whether it's possible in the US) to preserve high-type functioning of rural arterials in the face of (the S word). I might start a thread about it if there isn't one already.

In Kansas we have managed it, for the most part; there are some exceptions such as a length of US 54 just west of Wichita where signals are going in as interim improvements because suburbanization has resulted in increased side-road traffic but funding is not yet available to build the interchanges that are planned.  But we have some advantages Georgia does not.  We have low population, low density, and fairly low population growth.  We also do not have an alpha world city like Atlanta within our borders.  We have a marginal fuel tax which, though moderate compared to most other US states, is far higher than Georgia's and is augmented by sales tax increments and heavy use of bonding authority.

There is a sort of consensus view, floated several times in this community, that freeways can be built relatively free of congestion in major metropolitan areas by pegging provision at an uniform level, say so many lane-miles of freeway per square mile of urban land developed to a given population density, no freeway being more than a set distance from a given piece of occupied land (which tends to imply a grid structure to the freeway network, as opposed to the conventional rim-and-spoke structure).

Setting aside the fact that few American cities of any size, and none of the largest cities, have managed to attain this type of uniform provision, I don't think this assumption is actually true.  There is some persuasive simulation-based research which suggests that traffic demand in a metropolitan area, measured as lane-miles of freeway required to accommodate commuter-type trips from one side of the metro area to the other, grows at a faster rate than population or built-up area.  The implication of this research--assuming it fits real-world conditions reasonably well--is that "congestion finds its level" in a metro area even when freeway lane-mile provision is quite high, and the inhabitants arbitrage congestion against economic opportunity by spending most of their time in a "traffic basin" which is a comparatively small part of the total metro area.

These considerations, however, do not bear heavily away from Atlanta and its outskirts.  In mostly rural areas, given restrained population growth and adequate funding, I believe it is possible to maintain arterial function through access control and by phasing in interchanges as needed to avoid signals.

[jwolfer]

At least GA built bypasses.  Here inf Florida the major US highways were just plowed right thru downtowns. ( Ie US 301 through Starke or US 19/98 through Crystal River.  But any bypasses built in in 1960 would probably be choked with traffic lights, Lowes, Publix, Home Depot and Walmart.  Any bypass should be freeway or freeway upgradable, have the ROW available for overpasses and limited access

[NE2]

Here inf Florida the major US highways were just plowed right thru downtowns. ( Ie US 301 through Starke or US 19/98 through Crystal River.

Or became sprawl-choked corridors (US 441 Orlando, US 92 Lakeland).

[alex5793]

I mean that Georgia has spent a lot of money on GRIP highways, too many of which carried (and still carry) 3000 vpd or less. Many of the widenings, especially the most recent ones, use a totally uniform cross section of four lanes and a 44 foot median regardless of specific conditions, expensively regrading roadways that really should suffice for low volumes of one-way traffic. Furthermore, not enough attention has been paid to creating and preserving travel time reductions through greater use of bypasses and full control of access. After all of this, much of the original GRIP system hasn't been completed, including corridors which are specifically cited in the abovementioned report.

So, instead of doing a rethink, Georgia tacks on another few hundred miles of four lane widenings across the trackless wastes of rural Georgia. In the report, the US 280 project alone would cost $996m and yield a benefit/cost ratio of 0.07 under the high-growth scenario and 0.01 under moderate growth. On what planet is that a good idea? Not this one.

It annoys me as a taxpayer, as a citizen, and as a roadgeek.

I totally agree.  Atlanta metro and some of the other main corridors in the state were ignored, while 4-laning in the middle of nowhere was not only occurring but the program was expanding in scope.  I reviewed a project on US 441 near the FL line that they wanted to 4-lane and the ADT was less than 1000 in some spots.  A lot of the problem is in the funding mechanism....each congressional district shares equally in the road program; regardless of the needs of the district for capital improvements.