Georgia

[hotdogPi]

what Dallas did with IH 630

Build it in an adjacent state?

[Tom958]

CheeseWhiz! This project will not be done til 2023...

Yes, but: I first heard that the delay was until March, which had me pretty incensed. By the time they notified the public, it was up to June, which makes me feel better about it because...

Right now, 285 has five lanes in each direction as it passes under the bridges at Ashford Dunwoody and Roswell Roads. When the project is finished, there will be a single two-lane ramp in each direction to carry traffic to and from 400 and Roswell Road eastbound and westbound to Peachtree Dunwoody. There will also be combined single onramps doing almost the same thing in reverse. So, there will be twelve lanes passing under the Ashford Dunwoody and Roswell Road bridges: a four-lane mainline and a two-lane ramp in each direction instead of today's single five-lane roadways.

I'm assuming that waiting until June will allow these ramps to be nearly completed before the mainline bridge replacements start. Narrowing four lanes to three isn't great, but it's better than narrowing five lanes to three.

I should point out that there's no continuous CD road running through the interchange in either direction, let alone both. On the contrary, only the westbound connection from 400 to Roswell Road even is a CD. The others are braided ramps. However, at this point the extended offramps to Ashford Dunwoody and Roswell Road are both already open, and they both start before and end after the mainline bridge replacement zone, diverting still more traffic away from the critical area. In fact, the westbound mainline beyond the CD is already down to four lanes. 

So, the project will take longer, but the distress it inflicts will be less severe. I'm down with that, I guess.

[Georgia]

Plus June wont have any school traffic, which while not an impact on the actual interstates themselves; should relieve some of the stress on the connecting side streets.

[architect77]

This past weekend I got some pictures of all the activity on GA 316, which is looking good.

Taken of the newly completed interchange with GA 81:

Exit 5???

Are they basing mileage on the distance in the counties instead of the entire route?  If so, that so stupid.

I wonder why there is no arrow on the sign!

My first thought also. Then more wasted money on a $50,000 gantry for a single sign because some weirdo at GDOT banned using cantilevered sign supports which cost less, look better, and are less blemishing on the landscape.

And then they can't ever install them visually level, they lean down to one side.

And then those shoulder signs aren't on concrete footings so they'll be damaged by the wind or an automobile within a few months.

It's cheaper in the long run to spend on a high quality install than will last for 20 years.

[Dirt Roads]

This past weekend I got some pictures of all the activity on GA 316, which is looking good.

Taken of the newly completed interchange with GA 81:

And then they can't ever install them visually level, they lean down to one side.

Having installed many railroad signal cantilevers (and even more cantilevered flashing light signals at grade crossings), I also fail to understand the use of sign bridges in these cases.  In most cases (both cantilevers and sign bridges), they will get the elevation of the foundations correct but one or both of the foundations will sink shortly after installation.  There's a goodly amount of subgrade work that needs to be done to permanently stabilize the foundations.  At CSX, we didn't have access to the equipment to do the necessary subgrade work so we started digging huge deep holes, took 48" corregated pipes and filled them with concrete in stages to get the same result.

All that being said, there's a fair amount of play on the base height of the footers.  There's a tendency to mount the tower plates almost directly on the concrete foundation, but they are actually designed to come with various types of shims to adjust the base elevation (to make them visually level).  We were required to visually inspect the cantilevers many times and make adjustments as needed.  (You've got to do this before the bolts start to corrode).  Perfectly level and visually level are not always the same.

[architect77]

This past weekend I got some pictures of all the activity on GA 316, which is looking good.

Taken of the newly completed interchange with GA 81:

And then they can't ever install them visually level, they lean down to one side.

Having installed many railroad signal cantilevers (and even more cantilevered flashing light signals at grade crossings), I also fail to understand the use of sign bridges in these cases.  In most cases (both cantilevers and sign bridges), they will get the elevation of the foundations correct but one or both of the foundations will sink shortly after installation.  There's a goodly amount of subgrade work that needs to be done to permanently stabilize the foundations.  At CSX, we didn't have access to the equipment to do the necessary subgrade work so we started digging huge deep holes, took 48" corregated pipes and filled them with concrete in stages to get the same result.

All that being said, there's a fair amount of play on the base height of the footers.  There's a tendency to mount the tower plates almost directly on the concrete foundation, but they are actually designed to come with various types of shims to adjust the base elevation (to make them visually level).  We were required to visually inspect the cantilevers many times and make adjustments as needed.  (You've got to do this before the bolts start to corrode).  Perfectly level and visually level are not always the same.

Most of the gantries in metro Atlanta on older freeways and recently overhauled one lean down to the right shoulder. That goes along with your rationale, except they are all so uniformly similar in their lean that no natural subduction could act the same. I think they do try to stabilize these structures well, though they do not build concrete footings for most of the shoulder signs, and the wind and earth movement leave them looking bad in a few months.

I get what you're saying, but all other states seem to always succeed in erecting level assemblies.

I notice that if they're attalhed to an overpass, they'll mount them parallel to the slop of the overpass, not for the intended audience in the lanes below.

I think they purposely make them lean but it's not doing the state any favors or commanding much respect.

[Gnutella]

Work continues on the reconstruction and widening of I-85 north(east) of Atlanta from Braselton to Jefferson. Most of the work is being done at the two ends of the construction zone. At the north end near Jefferson, they've installed beams over the Oconee River on the new bridge piers. At the south end near Braselton, they've installed a two-mile segment of rebar for the median barrier, and the subbase for the new inner lanes and inner shoulders.

[Georgia]

I drove the new alignment of SR 92 in Dougalsville yesterday and it was decent; still some work going on near Bankhead/the railroad overpass.  If I hadnt been that way a million times, i would not have known where the old alignment was located and the north end of the project ties into the south end of the widening project that runs into Paulding County.  I cant imagine how much nicer it is operationally for tractor-trailers. 

[Mapmikey]

Here is a nifty 1921 Guide to the entirety of the Georgia State Highway system.  Done in the style of the Automobile Blue Books, except instead of just a handful of major travel routes, this book does all 55 of Georgia's state routes in 1921.  Wish other states had this...

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070321461&view=1up&seq=1&skin=2021

[Tom958]

A 1937 bridge collapsed into the Yellow River during demolition a couple of days ago, killing one worker and badly injuring two others. I'm posting this link to one of GDOT's Facebook pages because the photos are the best I've seen. It appears that the girders of the end spans cantilevered out beyond the bents, with the main span over the river resting on beam seats at the ends of the girders of the side spans. Perhaps there were limits on the length of members that could be transported to the jobsite by rail.

The bridge carried the south frontage road for I-20, but originally carried GA 12, the highway from Atlanta to Augusta that eventually became US 278. I photographed it a few years ago and posted the pics in a closed Facebook group for Georgia highways, but I can't find them now.

[architect77]

Here is a nifty 1921 Guide to the entirety of the Georgia State Highway system.  Done in the style of the Automobile Blue Books, except instead of just a handful of major travel routes, this book does all 55 of Georgia's state routes in 1921.  Wish other states had this...

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070321461&view=1up&seq=1&skin=2021

Here is a nifty 1921 Guide to the entirety of the Georgia State Highway system.  Done in the style of the Automobile Blue Books, except instead of just a handful of major travel routes, this book does all 55 of Georgia's state routes in 1921.  Wish other states had this...

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070321461&view=1up&seq=1&skin=2021

I searched and found NC highway maps from about this time and then every few years up to the present. What's funny is how the shape of North Carolina varies in the early hand drawn maps

https://web.lib.unc.edu/nc-maps/highway.php

[Alex]

Was checking on the status of the Jimmy DeLoach Parkway Extension (SR 17CO) at Booking, and noticed that the completion date was moved back from 10/31/21 to 05/31/22
http://www.dot.ga.gov/applications/geopi/Pages/Dashboard.aspx?ProjectId=522790-

[Tom958]

A minor but interesting change: The ramp from westbound US 78 to westbound GA 236 has been realigned to intersect the ramp from eastbound 78 at about a sixty-degree angle, roughly along the treeline at the edge of the power line easement you see in this satellite view. Doing this eliminated the former free-flow ramp terminal and the resultant weaving section- - westbound traffic now has a stop sign and a no left turn.

The reason they did this is that afternoon peak traffic is very heavy headed eastward from 78, then turning right onto Lilburn-Stone Mountain Road and toward Five Forks-Trickum Road, making the former weaving section pretty hairy. That problem is gone now, with the former weaving lane converted into a generous right turn lane. However, the eastbound ramp backs up far beyond the relocated ramp terminal at rush hour. With only a stop sign there, westbound drivers won't be able to enter the road unless eastbound drivers give them a break. We'll see how that works out, I guess. I suspect that they'll end up putting a traffic light there, perhaps flashing except at rush hour.

[Tomahawkin]

That 78 West ramp was in dire need for over 10 years. I used to work in that area. Both of the intersections at 236 and Five Forks Trickum need more turn lanes to accommodate rush hour and school traffic

[Tom958]

That 78 West ramp was in dire need for over 10 years. I used to work in that area. Both of the intersections at 236 and Five Forks Trickum need more turn lanes to accommodate rush hour and school traffic

More like thirty years.

Really, by any reasonable planning standard, Five Forks-Trickum should've been four-laned from that interchange eastward, eventually all the way to Lawrenceville. That would've required pretty much obliterating that whole area to build an adequate interchange. It was on the books in the early nineties, but the 1992 repeal of Gwinnett's impact fee ordinance before it was ever enforced coupled with the nineties' spike in construction costs torpedoed that before it ever got started.

[VTGoose]

The Southeast shouldn't be developed like that because to enjoy the abundant land and tree canopy we should be interwoven into the landscape. Trees and tree cover are our best weapon to fight warming of the planet.

Tell that to South Carolina, which was working hard to clear-cut all the trees in the median of I-95 (last time I was through there, 2 years ago). The explanation was that if someone crashed into the median, hitting a tree would not be A Good Thing. It would seem that the better plan would be cable guardrails like other states have installed/are installing and keep the trees for the benefit they provide.

[architect77]

The Southeast shouldn't be developed like that because to enjoy the abundant land and tree canopy we should be interwoven into the landscape. Trees and tree cover are our best weapon to fight warming of the planet.

Well the types of trees start to change in SC, some of them probably are prickly shrub types.

I too miss the occasional separation of each direction of roadway with a cluster of natural forest like in Virginia.

NC doesn't have hardly any of these "islands" left.

Tell that to South Carolina, which was working hard to clear-cut all the trees in the median of I-95 (last time I was through there, 2 years ago). The explanation was that if someone crashed into the median, hitting a tree would not be A Good Thing. It would seem that the better plan would be cable guardrails like other states have installed/are installing and keep the trees for the benefit they provide.

Well the types of trees start to change in SC, some of them probably are prickly shrub types.

I too miss the occasional separation of each direction of roadway with a cluster of natural forest like in Virginia.

NC doesn't have hardly any of these "islands" left.

[ran4sh]

The Southeast shouldn't be developed like that because to enjoy the abundant land and tree canopy we should be interwoven into the landscape. Trees and tree cover are our best weapon to fight warming of the planet.

Tell that to South Carolina, which was working hard to clear-cut all the trees in the median of I-95 (last time I was through there, 2 years ago). The explanation was that if someone crashed into the median, hitting a tree would not be A Good Thing. It would seem that the better plan would be cable guardrails like other states have installed/are installing and keep the trees for the benefit they provide.

There's plenty of cable guardrail in SC, I'm sure they have considered it.

[Georgia]

The Southeast shouldn't be developed like that because to enjoy the abundant land and tree canopy we should be interwoven into the landscape. Trees and tree cover are our best weapon to fight warming of the planet.

Tell that to South Carolina, which was working hard to clear-cut all the trees in the median of I-95 (last time I was through there, 2 years ago). The explanation was that if someone crashed into the median, hitting a tree would not be A Good Thing. It would seem that the better plan would be cable guardrails like other states have installed/are installing and keep the trees for the benefit they provide.

I believe there is new clear zone guidance/requirements.  GDOT is also taking down trees on 75 NW of Atlanta on the shoulders mostly

[Tom958]

Crossposted to The good, the bad, and the ugly

These appeared within the last couple of weeks as the new interchange at GA 316 and Harbins Road replaced the former traffic signal there. Apologies for the poor quality, but we were facing directly into the sun and it took every bit of photo-editing power my Galaxy S10 could muster to make them this clear. It also dramatizes the fact that there are visibility issues in addition to the comprehension issues I'm about to discuss.

This sign is at the beginning of an auxiliary lane added to develop the capacity of the two-lane, two-destination offramp ahead. There's an MUTCD-compliant way to sign this condition-- as it happens, it was used a few miles up the road a couple of years ago. Nobody really likes it, though, and GDOT usually does something else, such as this or even this.

Here, though, GDOT decided to go with an MUTCD-defiant unisign, a concept that, as I understand it, proved inferior to APL's in whatever testing was done, which is why APLs are in the MUTCD and unisigns like this aren't. The divider line, rather than being placed directly above the center arrow to indicate an option lane, is located to the left of said arrow, indicating, incorrectly, that two lanes go to the offramp and only one continues on the mainline. Really, it would've been more accurate to use a conventional (MUTCD-defiant) sign like this with an arrowless pullthrough. I guess that they did it this way because they really, really wanted to inform drivers that the offramp splits later on, causing the Sugarloaf Parkway text to displace the dividing line from its proper location. Ironically and infuriatingly, the Sugarloaf Parkway branch of the offramp is closed, with Sugarloaf traffic using a temporary offramp in the vicinity of the bridge we see in the distance. 



Next comes an APL at the exit divergence. Again, the Sugarloaf Parkway text displaces the divider line to the left of its correct location. Note to designers: The dividing line on an APL ALWAYS goes in the crotch of the split arrow. Here, IMO, they would've done better to omit it altogether. Or, better, they could've gone with

Sugarloaf Pkwy
Harbins Road

and not had a problem.

Also, as I mentioned before, the Sugarloaf Parkway branch of the offramp isn't open, and drivers bound there need to stay on the mainline until the vicinity of the bridge. They should've blacked out the curved part of the split arrow, not the straight part. WTF were they thinking?

But, wait: there's more: There's no reason to encourage drivers to use both lanes of the ramp because the ramp enters a tortuous one-lane detour shortly after the not-yet-operational split. Wow.



One more thing, and this is design rather than signage: They really shouldn't have combined Sugarloaf and Harbins onto a single offramp. As you can see, it needlessly complicates signage and operations. Besides, they're separate exits in the other direction anyway.

[Tomahawkin]

I'm amazed that they didn't just widen 316 through there at the same time of doing that construction. Passing lanes are badly needed there during rush hour, IMO

[Tom958]

I'm amazed that they didn't just widen 316 through there at the same time of doing that construction. Passing lanes are badly needed there during rush hour, IMO

None of the projects for adding interchanges to 316 added mainline lanes. Eliminating the traffic signals adds at least as much capacity as another lane would.

I didn't mention it, but the 316 shield pointing from southbound Harbins onto the westbound 316 onramp is a Mississippi-style ellipse, not a Georgia shield. Oops.

[MarcusDoT]

Hello!

I've recently come back to the AARoad Forums and wanted to get familiar with the Georgia board.

Just wanted to speak on projects around Savannah considering I'm closer to that area than the Atlanta area. 

[Georgia]

i am not sure but i have heard they may be one decent sized project  going on in the Savannah area heh

[adventurernumber1]

Hello!

I've recently come back to the AARoad Forums and wanted to get familiar with the Georgia board.

Just wanted to speak on projects around Savannah considering I'm closer to that area than the Atlanta area. 

Welcome back! 

I haven't been in the area in a few years (though may be headed that way sometime this year), but have they started work yet on the I-16/I-95 interchange project yet (if it is still on as planned)?

That'll be an interesting project, and there's plenty more interesting stuff going on already in the Savannah area such as the southwestern extension of Jimmy Deloach Parkway.

I'm also curious to see the progress on the I-75/I-16 interchange project (which has been ongoing for a few years) next time I'm headed down.