Atlanta

[Georgia Guardrail]

I hate it when they try to cut corners and just restripe a road to "widen" it.  It's cheap and dangerous.

Conversely, repaving and restriping makes much more sense as part of road diet projects, which I think are especially effective for improving those crumbling, poorly designed four-lane access roads in central Atlanta with faded medians.  It makes them easier to navigate and friendlier for pedestrians. 

[architect77]

Responding to the previous post, my response be that there is always an ongoing tradeoff between safety and capacity, especially where freeways are concerned, notwithstanding the cost considerations.   I don't like 11' lanes on freeways either, especially on I-285, but sometimes it is the only way to squeeze lanes into some of these corridors, and if you take the width from the shoulders, that causes its own safety issues.

I attended the open house for the East side I-285 Express Lane project in 2021 or 2022. They may have revised the plans but I remember seeing Express Lanes proposed to on the grouwnd, barrier separated with all of the general purpose lanes rebuilt to a slightly different alignment. That's where I remember seeing a couple of 11' wide lanes.

If they are totally rebuilding the I-285 roadway, I would imagine that no left merges will remain like at US78. I know that existing right of way has its limits, and I know that they don't want to acquire much new right-of-way. With all of that I can see an 11' lane might be unavoidable in certain spots, but I just feel that building a roadway to serve the next 50-75 years should be as ideal as it can be. I realize that the overpasses along I-85 barely accommodated a 5th lane being added in the 90s.

I think we all ride on freeway 11' lanes more than we realize, but I can't emphasize enough how I-85 through Gwinnett with its original 5 wide lanes was so pleasant until they painted the center HOV, then HOT, then Express Lane into existence. Today the middle lanes are not enjoyable or comfortable when traveling at high speeds.

[ChiMilNet]

Responding to the previous post, my response be that there is always an ongoing tradeoff between safety and capacity, especially where freeways are concerned, notwithstanding the cost considerations.   I don't like 11' lanes on freeways either, especially on I-285, but sometimes it is the only way to squeeze lanes into some of these corridors, and if you take the width from the shoulders, that causes its own safety issues.

I think we all ride on freeway 11' lanes more than we realize, but I can't emphasize enough how I-85 through Gwinnett with its original 5 wide lanes was so pleasant until they painted the center HOV, then HOT, then Express Lane into existence. Today the middle lanes are not enjoyable or comfortable when traveling at high speeds.

Not to mention that too many people ride in that I-85 express lane going 5-10 below the speed limit as a result, which is just very annoying. I have had to exit the lane and then quickly re-enter (where legally allowed, of course) to go around a few such drivers. Having a wider lane would likely help with this, but I don't see them making any changes in the foreseeable future, especially with much higher priorities.

[Tomahawkin]

IMO, this won't happen for anything in the next 20 years but those express lanes on 85 in Gwinnett should have been elevated with 2 in each direction when they were built, but as Usual GDOT half Assed it much like they do with 80 percent of their traffic calming solutions! And I bleeping hate the crammed shoulders!

[architect77]

IMO, this won't happen for anything in the next 20 years but those express lanes on 85 in Gwinnett should have been elevated with 2 in each direction when they were built, but as Usual GDOT half Assed it much like they do with 80 percent of their traffic calming solutions! And I bleeping hate the crammed shoulders!

It was merely a conversion of an underutilized HOV lane that was tolled and was a first test of Express Lanes in the metro. I predict that I-85 will get more Express lanes that will be separate and likely elevated because that corridor is one of the most heavily traveled and growth continues to Commerce and Gwinnett is still growing.

I don't like how the tolling starts over beyond the 316 interchange. I predict more Express Lanes that way in the future.

[Georgia]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

[ElishaGOtis]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

Could. Not. Agree. More...

From TN Choice Lanes Thread:

Temporary fixes can be useful, especially if something larger is on the books. However, as is mentioned in its name, they MUST be temporary. Simple conversions from HOV to HOT/ETL probably work best to give the DOT experience operating lanes on one or two corridors when they're first constructed, like I-85 (GA's first HOT/ETL system). However, once that time has passed, they must be improved. IMHO I-85's lanes should have been converted to at least 2-2 elevated / barrier separated instead of having the corridor extended... this likely would have been a lot more efficient on a traffic standpoint.

Also, to your point, maybe the high tolls now fund future projects that could result in lower tolls? Still, it looks like the time has passed for their effectiveness as a simple conversion on I-85. 

heheheha 

[Georgia Guardrail]

What's interesting with the proposed east toll lanes is that I thought they were initially supposed to go under 278, Redan Rd, and Redwing Cir which each had their respective overpasses over I 285 replaced for that reason.  But now I guess the express lanes will go over those streets anyway?  And they are going to have to rebuild the Redan Road bridge for a new Express lanes interchange there as well.

Don't get me wrong I like the new bridge aesthetics but I kind of find it ironic too if that is the case.

[Tomahawkin]

They need to gut the 78 interchange!some of those Bridges in that mile vicinity are dating back to the 60s! A FFS Get rid of those bleeping left handed merges! GDOT IS SO BLEEPING STUPID!!! A Lot of truck traffic comes from, US 78 in Stone Mountain! and Thank you/F You GDOT for letting 285 flood Monday Morning during that monsoon!!! It shut 285 in both directions at 645AM During that Monsoon!

[architect77]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

I predict that after 285 and 400 projects are finished they will add some elevated shoulder Express Lanes in Gwinnett.

Regarding the tolls being reduced in price, isn't is obvious when they rise to $20 in the afternoon that the price is merely the result of too many wanting to enter the lanes which would slow them to not be able to keep flowing 45 mph?

The price will likely reach record highs in the future as growth continues outward on I-85. People willing to pay anything for a faster ride home.

[Tom958]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

I predict that after 285 and 400 projects are finished they will add some elevated shoulder Express Lanes in Gwinnett.

As I've pointed out at every opportunity, the study limits for the top end 285 corridor should extend to 85 at Jimmy Carter or so.

Regarding the tolls being reduced in price, isn't is obvious when they rise to $20 in the afternoon that the price is merely the result of too many wanting to enter the lanes which would slow them to not be able to keep flowing 45 mph?

The idea that collecting tolls could serve any purpose other than raising money is completely beyond most people's ability to comprehend. What's worse, most believe that "the money" will be siphoned off by corrupt entities, depriving the motoring public of toll-free, congestion-free facilities that, but for said corruption, could be built with the wave of a magic wand.

[ElishaGOtis]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

I predict that after 285 and 400 projects are finished they will add some elevated shoulder Express Lanes in Gwinnett.

As I've pointed out at every opportunity, the study limits for the top end 285 corridor should extend to 85 at Jimmy Carter or so.

Regarding the tolls being reduced in price, isn't is obvious when they rise to $20 in the afternoon that the price is merely the result of too many wanting to enter the lanes which would slow them to not be able to keep flowing 45 mph?

The idea that collecting tolls could serve any purpose other than raising money is completely beyond most people's ability to comprehend. What's worse, most believe that "the money" will be siphoned off by corrupt entities, depriving the motoring public of toll-free, congestion-free facilities that, but for said corruption, could be built with the wave of a magic wand.

BRT never seems to be advertised as much as well... Atlanta will literally be getting a brand-new quarter-orbital BRT line connecting 2 Marta lines near their termini, similar to the DART Silver Line. At least the El Monte Busway is literally named "busway" lol 

[architect77]

yea, those 85 lanes were a proof of concept, which should have been obvious but hey, it is GDOT.

I predict that after 285 and 400 projects are finished they will add some elevated shoulder Express Lanes in Gwinnett.

As I've pointed out at every opportunity, the study limits for the top end 285 corridor should extend to 85 at Jimmy Carter or so.

Regarding the tolls being reduced in price, isn't is obvious when they rise to $20 in the afternoon that the price is merely the result of too many wanting to enter the lanes which would slow them to not be able to keep flowing 45 mph?

The idea that collecting tolls could serve any purpose other than raising money is completely beyond most people's ability to comprehend. What's worse, most believe that "the money" will be siphoned off by corrupt entities, depriving the motoring public of toll-free, congestion-free facilities that, but for said corruption, could be built with the wave of a magic wand.

I agree and people still complain about the GA400 50 cent toll as corrupt govt. greed when that was such a bargain and they also accuse the state of leaving tolls long after the construction debt was paid off, when the truth is that the tolls remained for one additional year to pay for the Capt. Herb Emery flyover to I-85 North which wasn't built in the beginning. I remember local news showing how few cars were using the new flyover a month after it opened like it was a waste of money. People love to complain about anything and everything without learning any details first.

[Tomahawkin]

I totally agree with the Previous post!

OT, I forgot where I saw it, but it was on a Henry County social media post. There are Preliminary plans to built 2 more express lanes on IH 75 through there. This should have been done from the start! Because it will cost more money to reconstruct the existing 1-way interchanges as well as add more interchanges. IMO the Toll lanes should be extended south to Forsyth due to that growing area and the Traffic en route to Florida...

[Finrod]

Here's a video on the visualization of the I-285 Westside Express Lanes...

Here's what I don't get about these express lanes.  They've been rebuilding the bridges over I-285 south of I-75 in Cobb for the last 20 years or so, and all of the rebuilds have extra space underneath for potential local lanes, if they wanted to make the existing lanes into express lanes and new local lanes on the outside.  For example, here's 285 North just before the Atlanta Road overpass:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8424363,-84.4874289,3a,60y,27.55h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWK1y-2JaonBwUJpB_zaJlA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0%26panoid%3DWK1y-2JaonBwUJpB_zaJlA%26yaw%3D27.55176387821041!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

From what I saw of these proposed express lanes, they don't use any of these.  So I hope they don't put the posts for these new elevated lanes in places where it would make it impossible to build those local lanes.

[Tom958]

Here's what I don't get about these express lanes.  They've been rebuilding the bridges over I-285 south of I-75 in Cobb for the last 20 years or so, and all of the rebuilds have extra space underneath for potential local lanes, if they wanted to make the existing lanes into express lanes and new local lanes on the outside...

From what I saw of these proposed express lanes, they don't use any of these.  So I hope they don't put the posts for these new elevated lanes in places where it would make it impossible to build those local lanes.

 It's because in the late eighties, GDOT decided to build Toronto 401-style collector-distributor roads along seventy miles of freeways across the north side of Atlanta. Because they knew there was no way they could get the whole system into the RTP under the Clean Air Act, they tried to build them on the down-low by incorporating space for these CD' in (almost) any project involving building or replacing bridges over the freeways in these corridors. I personally figured out what they were doing and waged what the GDOT spokesman called "a one-man war with a two-man mouth" against it. After denying it for three or four straight years, the DOT Commissioner at the time one day, out of the clear blue sky, fessed up in a little-noticed front page news article.

Eventually, GDOT realized that there was no way they'd ever get their regional CD system, though they did stupidly and expensively provide for CDs at  285 and Memorial Drive in 2010 or so, while I wasn't paying attention. https://maps.app.goo.gl/qZsGehTBpcbvQ2mF7

This belongs in some Hall of Fame of government waste, and the Federal Highway Administration signed off on every last cent of it.   

[Rothman]

Here's what I don't get about these express lanes.  They've been rebuilding the bridges over I-285 south of I-75 in Cobb for the last 20 years or so, and all of the rebuilds have extra space underneath for potential local lanes, if they wanted to make the existing lanes into express lanes and new local lanes on the outside...

From what I saw of these proposed express lanes, they don't use any of these.  So I hope they don't put the posts for these new elevated lanes in places where it would make it impossible to build those local lanes.

 It's because in the late eighties, GDOT decided to build Toronto 401-style collector-distributor roads along seventy miles of freeways across the north side of Atlanta. Because they knew there was no way they could get the whole system into the RTP under the Clean Air Act, they tried to build them on the down-low by incorporating space for these CD' in (almost) any project involving building or replacing bridges over the freeways in these corridors. I personally figured out what they were doing and waged what the GDOT spokesman called "a one-man war with a two-man mouth" against it. After denying it for three or four straight years, the DOT Commissioner at the time one day, out of the clear blue sky, fessed up in a little-noticed front page news article.

Eventually, GDOT realized that there was no way they'd ever get their regional CD system, though they did stupidly and expensively provide for CDs at 285 and Memorial Drive in 2010 or so, while I wasn't paying attention.

This belongs in some Hall of Fame of government waste, and the Federal Highway Administration signed off on every last cent of it.   

Your links are broken.

Also, "little noticed front-page news article" is quite an interesting term...

[Tom958]

Also, "little noticed front-page news article" is quite an interesting term...

Indeed it is. Despite my efforts, the general public was unaware of what GDOT was trying to do. However, the city's newspaper of record was, because I'd explained it to them in exhaustive detail. That's why the story was on the front page, though not in a prominent position.

Link fixed, kind of.

[Rothman]

Also, "little noticed front-page news article" is quite an interesting term...

Indeed it is. Despite my efforts, the general public was unaware of what GDOT was trying to do. However, the city's newspaper of record was, because I'd explained it to them in exhaustive detail. That's why the story was on the front page, though not in a prominent position.

Link fixed, kind of.

And GDOT continues to plan for widening or C/D systems after this article?  The article was in the 1980s?

[Dirt Roads]

Here's what I don't get about these express lanes.  They've been rebuilding the bridges over I-285 south of I-75 in Cobb for the last 20 years or so, and all of the rebuilds have extra space underneath for potential local lanes, if they wanted to make the existing lanes into express lanes and new local lanes on the outside...

From what I saw of these proposed express lanes, they don't use any of these.  So I hope they don't put the posts for these new elevated lanes in places where it would make it impossible to build those local lanes.

It's because in the late eighties, GDOT decided to build Toronto 401-style collector-distributor roads along seventy miles of freeways across the north side of Atlanta. Because they knew there was no way they could get the whole system into the RTP under the Clean Air Act, they tried to build them on the down-low by incorporating space for these CD' in (almost) any project involving building or replacing bridges over the freeways in these corridors. I personally figured out what they were doing and waged what the GDOT spokesman called "a one-man war with a two-man mouth" against it. After denying it for three or four straight years, the DOT Commissioner at the time one day, out of the clear blue sky, fessed up in a little-noticed front page news article.

Eventually, GDOT realized that there was no way they'd ever get their regional CD system, though they did stupidly and expensively provide for CDs at 285 and Memorial Drive in 2010 or so, while I wasn't paying attention.

This belongs in some Hall of Fame of government waste, and the Federal Highway Administration signed off on every last cent of it. 

Link is corrected in the quotation above.

Also, "little noticed front-page news article" is quite an interesting term...

Indeed it is. Despite my efforts, the general public was unaware of what GDOT was trying to do. However, the city's newspaper of record was, because I'd explained it to them in exhaustive detail. That's why the story was on the front page, though not in a prominent position.

All of this is related to a question about HOV/HOT lanes that I've had for some time now.  Back in the day when I was working with various transit agencies on proposed rail transit systems, we had to prepare Alternative Analyses that included the widening of parallel highways (to achieve whatever the intended design capacity; don't go there).  In most cases, the folks preparing such an Alternative Analysis were working under the assumption that the FHWA would not fund the widening of a freeway only to add so-called "one passenger cars" (ergo, the driver) during rush hour due to the Clean Air Act (technically, they used whatever was the local average say about 1.1 persons per vehicle plus the fully loaded transit buses).  Thus either HOV or HOT lanes would be assumed in that particular alternative.  (I do not portend to understand the full logic behind any of this).

Anywhoosit, in all of the time that I've come at this issue from a Roadgeek point-of-view, I haven't been able to confirm any of those requirements from the FHWA (or any particular state DOT, for that matter).  In fact, this is the first time that I've seen any hint of this impact of the Clean Air Act in writing.

It has always been my impression that the FHWA (and other Federal agencies) puts a lot of pressure on state DOTs to implement HOV/HOT (and the down-the-road financial benefit of HOT kind-of-swings the pendulum that way awfully hard).  By the way, there are some other surprises in the highway capacity analyses, whereas an well-designed HOT that is well-designed can achieve a higher VPHPD in the peak hour than a free add-on lane that gets jammed up at 25MPH.

[architect77]

Here's what I don't get about these express lanes.  They've been rebuilding the bridges over I-285 south of I-75 in Cobb for the last 20 years or so, and all of the rebuilds have extra space underneath for potential local lanes, if they wanted to make the existing lanes into express lanes and new local lanes on the outside...

From what I saw of these proposed express lanes, they don't use any of these.  So I hope they don't put the posts for these new elevated lanes in places where it would make it impossible to build those local lanes.

It's because in the late eighties, GDOT decided to build Toronto 401-style collector-distributor roads along seventy miles of freeways across the north side of Atlanta. Because they knew there was no way they could get the whole system into the RTP under the Clean Air Act, they tried to build them on the down-low by incorporating space for these CD' in (almost) any project involving building or replacing bridges over the freeways in these corridors. I personally figured out what they were doing and waged what the GDOT spokesman called "a one-man war with a two-man mouth" against it. After denying it for three or four straight years, the DOT Commissioner at the time one day, out of the clear blue sky, fessed up in a little-noticed front page news article.

Eventually, GDOT realized that there was no way they'd ever get their regional CD system, though they did stupidly and expensively provide for CDs at 285 and Memorial Drive in 2010 or so, while I wasn't paying attention.

This belongs in some Hall of Fame of government waste, and the Federal Highway Administration signed off on every last cent of it. 

Link is corrected in the quotation above.

Also, "little noticed front-page news article" is quite an interesting term...

Indeed it is. Despite my efforts, the general public was unaware of what GDOT was trying to do. However, the city's newspaper of record was, because I'd explained it to them in exhaustive detail. That's why the story was on the front page, though not in a prominent position.

All of this is related to a question about HOV/HOT lanes that I've had for some time now.  Back in the day when I was working with various transit agencies on proposed rail transit systems, we had to prepare Alternative Analyses that included the widening of parallel highways (to achieve whatever the intended design capacity; don't go there).  In most cases, the folks preparing such an Alternative Analysis were working under the assumption that the FHWA would not fund the widening of a freeway only to add so-called "one passenger cars" (ergo, the driver) during rush hour due to the Clean Air Act (technically, they used whatever was the local average say about 1.1 persons per vehicle plus the fully loaded transit buses).  Thus either HOV or HOT lanes would be assumed in that particular alternative.  (I do not portend to understand the full logic behind any of this).

Anywhoosit, in all of the time that I've come at this issue from a Roadgeek point-of-view, I haven't been able to confirm any of those requirements from the FHWA (or any particular state DOT, for that matter).  In fact, this is the first time that I've seen any hint of this impact of the Clean Air Act in writing.

It has always been my impression that the FHWA (and other Federal agencies) puts a lot of pressure on state DOTs to implement HOV/HOT (and the down-the-road financial benefit of HOT kind-of-swings the pendulum that way awfully hard).  By the way, there are some other surprises in the highway capacity analyses, whereas an well-designed HOT that is well-designed can achieve a higher VPHPD in the peak hour than a free add-on lane that gets jammed up at 25MPH.

That's the genius of the Express Lane mechanism which can be tuned via price to have the maximum number of vehicles using the lanes to maintain 45mph or faster. They can control how many use the lanes with pricing, but at the same time the price is the function of how many people are desperately wanting to get home faster and how many are willing to pay.Surge pricing.

With cars advancing to SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) and visible smog in Atlanta and LA a mere fraction of the levels 25 years ago, does the Clean Air Act still restrict what states can build as far as additional general purpose lanes?

Because where as Atlanta supposedly couldn't expand it freeway footprint other states with similar ozone pollution like NC built hundreds of miles of new highways over the last 25 years. Many NC counties had the same emission requirements that Atlanta did, but today the visible smog almost never occurs in Atlanta anymore. In the 90s the downtown buildings would be shrouded in a white fog a few days per year. SMOG-LANTA! was the AJC's front cover one July.

[Dirt Roads]

With cars advancing to SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) and visible smog in Atlanta and LA a mere fraction of the levels 25 years ago, does the Clean Air Act still restrict what states can build as far as additional general purpose lanes?

That's part of what I've been unable to determine.  But some counties (including mine) have been removed from the EPA listing that requires emissions testing (and our population has doubled since being removed from the list).  So you are indeed correct to presume that improvements may/should have changed things.

It is also my understanding that the methodology for Environmental Assessment Reports (assuming this is the same for the FHWA as it was for the FTA) starts out with a scenario that a single additional lane during rush hour operating at say 60MPH and Level A might not meet the Clean Air Act, thereby requiring a reduction in throughput.  But if the state DOT constructed HOV lanes alongside the existing lanes (like I-66 in Fairfax and Prince Bill counties in Northern Virginia), then later in time it would be likely that an HOV lane operating at say 30MPH and Level C or worse *could* result in conditions whereby a future Environmental Assessment Report would not find that opening all lanes to the general public at all times would be in violation of the Clean Air Act.  But I've not seen any evidence that such a transition has ever been considered.  (Back to my original caveat: I'm not at all knowledgeable in this area).

[Rothman]

Federal regulation certainly still requires a whole lot of environmental analysis/justification for general purpose lanes, based upon whichever federal law.

[Henry]

It's because in the late eighties, GDOT decided to build Toronto 401-style collector-distributor roads along seventy miles of freeways across the north side of Atlanta. Because they knew there was no way they could get the whole system into the RTP under the Clean Air Act, they tried to build them on the down-low by incorporating space for these CD' in (almost) any project involving building or replacing bridges over the freeways in these corridors. I personally figured out what they were doing and waged what the GDOT spokesman called "a one-man war with a two-man mouth" against it. After denying it for three or four straight years, the DOT Commissioner at the time one day, out of the clear blue sky, fessed up in a little-noticed front page news article.

Eventually, GDOT realized that there was no way they'd ever get their regional CD system, though they did stupidly and expensively provide for CDs at  285 and Memorial Drive in 2010 or so, while I wasn't paying attention. https://maps.app.goo.gl/qZsGehTBpcbvQ2mF7

This belongs in some Hall of Fame of government waste, and the Federal Highway Administration signed off on every last cent of it.   

This happened around the same time that the freeways in town were also being worked on, so talk about biting off more than they could chew at the time. With the Downtown Connector getting expanded to 16 lanes, there was no way they could've pulled all of that off anyway.

[Tom958]

This happened around the same time that the freeways in town were also being worked on, so talk about biting off more than they could chew at the time. With the Downtown Connector getting expanded to 16 lanes, there was no way they could've pulled all of that off anyway.

No, it didn't. That first newspaper article came out in 1989, the same year that the Downtown Connector finally opened, completing the Freeing the Freeways program. GDOT thought they could do it for a little over $2 billion, compared to IIRC $1.6 billion for Freeing the Freeways, which would've been doable fiscally. The problem was that $2 billion wasn't a realistic estimate. That and air quality.