atlanta north-south tunnel feasibility study · atlanta north-south tunnel feasibility study ......
Post on 12-May-2018
233 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Atlanta North-South Tunnel
Feasibility Study
Phase 1 – Initial Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
Prepared for:
Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of Innovative Program Delivery
One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree NW
Atlanta, Georgia
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation
-1-
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
The Atlanta Region has experienced significant growth in recent decades. Total
population in the Atlanta Metro area was approximately 2.6 million in 1980, 3.3 million in
1990, and 4.5 million by the year 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Transportation infrastructure investment has not kept pace with this rapid growth,
resulting in increased congestion on the region’s roadways, and increased travel times
throughout the region.
One particular corridor that has experienced significant growth in c
75/I-85 Downtown Connector, which provides north
Atlanta core. Opportunities for increasing capacity along this corridor are limited, due in
part to its close proximity to dense urban land uses. In addition,
not access controlled, and do not offer adequate capacity to attract a significant number
of vehicles away from the Downtown Connector. Few options exist for improving
existing facilities to a level that could stem the tide of risi
of large-scale infrastructure investment, future growth in the region will only exacerbate
existing north-south mobility problems in Atlanta.
One potential solution to increased north
provide an alternative, limited
Downtown Connector. The Atlanta North
“Tunnel”), as defined in this
would provide a connection between th
675/I-285.
The idea of providing a north
proposed decades ago. Originally envisioned as a surface roadway, intense
development along this alignment over time has rendered such an alternative
infeasible. The Georgia Department of Transportation has initiated this study to
examine the feasibility of a north
congestion in Atlanta’s urban core
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the overall feasibility of the Atlanta North
South Tunnel. This was accomplished through an evaluation of
revenue potential, and project
operation and maintenance costs, etc.)
Tunnel is viable as a stand
as a solicited public-private
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Atlanta Region has experienced significant growth in recent decades. Total
population in the Atlanta Metro area was approximately 2.6 million in 1980, 3.3 million in
1990, and 4.5 million by the year 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
rtation infrastructure investment has not kept pace with this rapid growth,
resulting in increased congestion on the region’s roadways, and increased travel times
One particular corridor that has experienced significant growth in congestion is the I
85 Downtown Connector, which provides north-south movement through the
Atlanta core. Opportunities for increasing capacity along this corridor are limited, due in
part to its close proximity to dense urban land uses. In addition, parallel facilities are
not access controlled, and do not offer adequate capacity to attract a significant number
of vehicles away from the Downtown Connector. Few options exist for improving
existing facilities to a level that could stem the tide of rising congestion. In the absence
scale infrastructure investment, future growth in the region will only exacerbate
south mobility problems in Atlanta.
One potential solution to increased north-south congestion levels in Atlanta would b
provide an alternative, limited-access facility to act as a parallel reliever to the
Downtown Connector. The Atlanta North-South Tunnel (also referred to as the
“Tunnel”), as defined in this feasibility study, would serve as such a link. This facili
would provide a connection between the existing interchanges at SR 400
The idea of providing a north-south connection between these interchanges was first
proposed decades ago. Originally envisioned as a surface roadway, intense
development along this alignment over time has rendered such an alternative
infeasible. The Georgia Department of Transportation has initiated this study to
examine the feasibility of a north-south tunnel to provide needed mobility and relieve
tion in Atlanta’s urban core.
The purpose of this study was to determine the overall feasibility of the Atlanta North
South Tunnel. This was accomplished through an evaluation of travel demand
and project costs (including construction costs, Right
operation and maintenance costs, etc.). The objective of this analysis was
Tunnel is viable as a stand-alone, toll-financed project that could potentially be procured
private partnership (P3). Additionally, social and environmental
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
The Atlanta Region has experienced significant growth in recent decades. Total
population in the Atlanta Metro area was approximately 2.6 million in 1980, 3.3 million in
1990, and 4.5 million by the year 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
rtation infrastructure investment has not kept pace with this rapid growth,
resulting in increased congestion on the region’s roadways, and increased travel times
ongestion is the I-
south movement through the
Atlanta core. Opportunities for increasing capacity along this corridor are limited, due in
parallel facilities are
not access controlled, and do not offer adequate capacity to attract a significant number
of vehicles away from the Downtown Connector. Few options exist for improving
ng congestion. In the absence
scale infrastructure investment, future growth in the region will only exacerbate
south congestion levels in Atlanta would be to
access facility to act as a parallel reliever to the
South Tunnel (also referred to as the
study, would serve as such a link. This facility
400/I-85 and I-
south connection between these interchanges was first
proposed decades ago. Originally envisioned as a surface roadway, intense land
development along this alignment over time has rendered such an alternative
infeasible. The Georgia Department of Transportation has initiated this study to
south tunnel to provide needed mobility and relieve
The purpose of this study was to determine the overall feasibility of the Atlanta North-
travel demand,
ight-of-Way costs,
. The objective of this analysis was to see if the
financed project that could potentially be procured
). Additionally, social and environmental
-2-
costs and benefits have been
evaluate whether or not public funding should be used to close the potential funding
gap, should a funding gap exist
Key study outcomes include a
revenue, detailed cost estimates, financial assessment, and a high
project constructability. Taken together, these elements provide a comprehensive
picture of the challenges and opportunities associated with development of the Atlanta
North-South Tunnel. This report also provides a roadmap for next steps if GDOT
decides to proceed further with Tunnel development.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Phased Approach
A phased approach wa
baseline criteria were established for basic costing and scheduling. In Phase 1B
base assumptions were refined, including improvement to intersection
configuration and alignment, and improvement to overal
These reductions in construction time and construction costs were then taken
into account in the application of the financial model. This report details only
those activities in Phases 1A and 1B.
If GDOT elects to move forward i
activities identified for Phase 2. These would include aerial mapping and
subsurface investigation
investigation of financing methods and the establishment of
the project.
1.3.2 Tunnel Demand and Revenue
In Phase 1A HNTB
understand the market for
its revenue generating potential. The travel de
divided into two stages:
In Stage 1, HNTB
assuming no tolls on the facility. HNTB
from a series of design variables under th
generated a set of “base case” design parameters to be used in the subsequent
revenue analysis.
In Stage 2, HNTB sought t
potential of the facility. The “base case” design paramete
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
have been considered in overall cost-benefit analyses to help
evaluate whether or not public funding should be used to close the potential funding
gap, should a funding gap exist.
Key study outcomes include a preliminary-level estimate of tunnel demand and
revenue, detailed cost estimates, financial assessment, and a high-level analysis of
project constructability. Taken together, these elements provide a comprehensive
the challenges and opportunities associated with development of the Atlanta
South Tunnel. This report also provides a roadmap for next steps if GDOT
decides to proceed further with Tunnel development.
Methodology
Phased Approach
A phased approach was used in the execution of this study. In Phase 1A
baseline criteria were established for basic costing and scheduling. In Phase 1B
base assumptions were refined, including improvement to intersection
configuration and alignment, and improvement to overall construction scheduling.
These reductions in construction time and construction costs were then taken
into account in the application of the financial model. This report details only
those activities in Phases 1A and 1B.
If GDOT elects to move forward in the study process, there are a number of
activities identified for Phase 2. These would include aerial mapping and
subsurface investigations, along with refined revenue and cost estimates, and
investigation of financing methods and the establishment of a legal framework for
Tunnel Demand and Revenue
In Phase 1A HNTB conducted a travel demand and revenue analysis to
understand the market for the proposed Atlanta North-South Tunnel,
generating potential. The travel demand and revenue
divided into two stages:
HNTB sought to understand the “pure demand” for the Tunnel,
assuming no tolls on the facility. HNTB analyzed the impact to travel demand
from a series of design variables under this “toll free” assumption. This analysis
generated a set of “base case” design parameters to be used in the subsequent
revenue analysis.
In Stage 2, HNTB sought to determine the maximum revenue generating
potential of the facility. The “base case” design parameters were applied while
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
benefit analyses to help
evaluate whether or not public funding should be used to close the potential funding
unnel demand and
level analysis of
project constructability. Taken together, these elements provide a comprehensive
the challenges and opportunities associated with development of the Atlanta
South Tunnel. This report also provides a roadmap for next steps if GDOT
s used in the execution of this study. In Phase 1A
baseline criteria were established for basic costing and scheduling. In Phase 1B
base assumptions were refined, including improvement to intersection
l construction scheduling.
These reductions in construction time and construction costs were then taken
into account in the application of the financial model. This report details only
n the study process, there are a number of
activities identified for Phase 2. These would include aerial mapping and
, along with refined revenue and cost estimates, and
a legal framework for
conducted a travel demand and revenue analysis to
South Tunnel, along with
mand and revenue analysis was
the “pure demand” for the Tunnel,
analyzed the impact to travel demand
free” assumption. This analysis
generated a set of “base case” design parameters to be used in the subsequent
generating
rs were applied while
-3-
the toll rates were varied to determine the set of toll rates for which maximum
revenue generation occurs. These same toll rates were later applied to
alternative design parameters to assess the impact these new parameters would
have on revenue.
In addition to the analysis of the Tunnel itself, HNTB also studied alternatives
with the potential to improve
4-mile spur connecting the northern terminal of the Tunnel directly to I
of the Brookwood interchange with I
application of variable toll rates along SR 400 ins
toll facility connecting the northern and southern ends of I
would provide supplemental income for the Tunnel and potentially improve the
project’s financial feasibility.
The primary tool used by
the Tunnel was the
(ARC) regional travel demand model
2030 Envision 6 model almost exclusively; ARC’s Year 2020
was used occasionally for comparison purposes and to help develop gross
revenue streams. These revenue streams were generated for various
design and operational alternatives, and were then used as input in a financial
model that helped determine the extent to which the facility would be self
financing.
1.3.3 Cost
The other key component in the financial feasibility assessment was the
estimation of costs. Preparing a reliable cost estimate for the construction of a
tunnel is a complex
cost of the project is tied to specific job characteristics. Underground
construction costs are heavily influenced by subsurface conditions, labor market
and construction means and methods. Tho
tunnel construction to the other. The HNTB team developed the Atlanta North
South Tunnel cost estimates using a “bottom
the ground conditions based on available documents, and also assessed
production rates based on previous underground construction in Atlanta. Those
data gathered for the project coupled with a conceptual design for the facility
enabled the team to prepare the basis for a bottom
Several different cost elements wer
Construction costs, engineering costs, and operations and maintenance cos
were calculated for various t
accounted for based on estimates for the construction timeframe. C
were also applied to various cost elements, including tunnel construction,
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
the toll rates were varied to determine the set of toll rates for which maximum
revenue generation occurs. These same toll rates were later applied to
alternative design parameters to assess the impact these new parameters would
on revenue.
In addition to the analysis of the Tunnel itself, HNTB also studied alternatives
with the potential to improve overall tunnel feasibility. The first alternative was a
mile spur connecting the northern terminal of the Tunnel directly to I
of the Brookwood interchange with I-85. Another alternative involved the
application of variable toll rates along SR 400 inside I-285, creating a continuous
toll facility connecting the northern and southern ends of I-285. Both alternatives
would provide supplemental income for the Tunnel and potentially improve the
project’s financial feasibility.
used by HNTB to evaluate demand and revenue potential for
the most recent version of the Atlanta Regional Commission’s
(ARC) regional travel demand model. The demand analysis utilized the Year
6 model almost exclusively; ARC’s Year 2020 Envision
was used occasionally for comparison purposes and to help develop gross
revenue streams. These revenue streams were generated for various
design and operational alternatives, and were then used as input in a financial
elped determine the extent to which the facility would be self
Cost
other key component in the financial feasibility assessment was the
estimation of costs. Preparing a reliable cost estimate for the construction of a
tunnel is a complex process. For underground construction in general, the final
cost of the project is tied to specific job characteristics. Underground
construction costs are heavily influenced by subsurface conditions, labor market
and construction means and methods. Those factors vary widely from one
tunnel construction to the other. The HNTB team developed the Atlanta North
South Tunnel cost estimates using a “bottom-up” approach. The team assessed
the ground conditions based on available documents, and also assessed
roduction rates based on previous underground construction in Atlanta. Those
data gathered for the project coupled with a conceptual design for the facility
enabled the team to prepare the basis for a bottom-up estimate.
Several different cost elements were estimated as part of this study.
Construction costs, engineering costs, and operations and maintenance cos
were calculated for various tunnel alternatives. In addition, inflation was
accounted for based on estimates for the construction timeframe. C
were also applied to various cost elements, including tunnel construction,
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
the toll rates were varied to determine the set of toll rates for which maximum
revenue generation occurs. These same toll rates were later applied to
alternative design parameters to assess the impact these new parameters would
In addition to the analysis of the Tunnel itself, HNTB also studied alternatives
unnel feasibility. The first alternative was a
mile spur connecting the northern terminal of the Tunnel directly to I-75, north
85. Another alternative involved the
285, creating a continuous
285. Both alternatives
would provide supplemental income for the Tunnel and potentially improve the
valuate demand and revenue potential for
Atlanta Regional Commission’s
. The demand analysis utilized the Year
Envision 6 model
was used occasionally for comparison purposes and to help develop gross
revenue streams. These revenue streams were generated for various tunnel
design and operational alternatives, and were then used as input in a financial
elped determine the extent to which the facility would be self-
other key component in the financial feasibility assessment was the
estimation of costs. Preparing a reliable cost estimate for the construction of a
process. For underground construction in general, the final
cost of the project is tied to specific job characteristics. Underground
construction costs are heavily influenced by subsurface conditions, labor market
se factors vary widely from one
tunnel construction to the other. The HNTB team developed the Atlanta North-
up” approach. The team assessed
the ground conditions based on available documents, and also assessed
roduction rates based on previous underground construction in Atlanta. Those
data gathered for the project coupled with a conceptual design for the facility
e estimated as part of this study.
Construction costs, engineering costs, and operations and maintenance costs
unnel alternatives. In addition, inflation was
accounted for based on estimates for the construction timeframe. Contingencies
were also applied to various cost elements, including tunnel construction,
-4-
elevated structures,
costs.
1.3.4 Other Key Considerations
Revenue and costs were the key determinants of overall financial
the Atlanta North-
and cost estimates, including facility location and design details. Factors that
influenced the financial feasibility determination are outlined in this section
are described in more detail in the body of the report.
The preferred alignment and
as part of this study. These both had direct impacts on project cost and
environmental assessment. Objectives as
development included minimizing the length and cost of the route, along with
limiting social and environmental impacts. Typical cross
established for the Tunnel, including the
structures, and emergency egress structures. These cross
facilitate the Tunnel cost estimates, as well as the constructability and
environmental assessments.
Other key elements that were examined as part of this study inc
facilities and subsurface conditions. As a complex project, the Atlanta North
South Tunnel requires a number of supporting systems in order to function
properly. Care was taken in this study to document details relevant to these
systems, and to account for all related industry standards regarding their
development, in order to calculate a more accurate cost estimate. Specific
systems included in this study are ventilation, fire/life/safety, tunnel management
systems, control systems, lighting
In addition to these supporting systems, HNTB also performed a desk study to
investigate the geology and geotechnical conditions along the proposed
alignment. Information from this desk study served as anoth
determining project constructability and in estimating project costs.
1.4 Results and
1.4.1 Tunnel Demand and Revenue
HNTB studied a number of project alternatives as part of the demand analysis for
the Atlanta North-
were examined, as were truck restrictions and truck eligibility. HNTB also
investigated the impacts of various posted speed limits and number of lanes on
overall tunnel demand.
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
elevated structures, Right-of-Way costs, and engineering and management
Other Key Considerations
Revenue and costs were the key determinants of overall financial
-South Tunnel. A number of factors drove the tunnel revenue
and cost estimates, including facility location and design details. Factors that
influenced the financial feasibility determination are outlined in this section
are described in more detail in the body of the report.
The preferred alignment and a preliminary profile of the Tunnel were determined
as part of this study. These both had direct impacts on project cost and
environmental assessment. Objectives associated with the alignment and profile
development included minimizing the length and cost of the route, along with
limiting social and environmental impacts. Typical cross-sections were also
established for the Tunnel, including the tunnel mainline, ramps, approach
structures, and emergency egress structures. These cross-sections also helped
facilitate the Tunnel cost estimates, as well as the constructability and
environmental assessments.
Other key elements that were examined as part of this study include system
facilities and subsurface conditions. As a complex project, the Atlanta North
South Tunnel requires a number of supporting systems in order to function
properly. Care was taken in this study to document details relevant to these
to account for all related industry standards regarding their
development, in order to calculate a more accurate cost estimate. Specific
systems included in this study are ventilation, fire/life/safety, tunnel management
systems, control systems, lighting and power design, and architectural finishes.
In addition to these supporting systems, HNTB also performed a desk study to
investigate the geology and geotechnical conditions along the proposed
alignment. Information from this desk study served as another key element in
determining project constructability and in estimating project costs.
Results and Findings
Tunnel Demand and Revenue
HNTB studied a number of project alternatives as part of the demand analysis for
-South Tunnel. Various access points and access locations
were examined, as were truck restrictions and truck eligibility. HNTB also
investigated the impacts of various posted speed limits and number of lanes on
overall tunnel demand.
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
ay costs, and engineering and management
Revenue and costs were the key determinants of overall financial feasibility for
unnel revenue
and cost estimates, including facility location and design details. Factors that
influenced the financial feasibility determination are outlined in this section and
profile of the Tunnel were determined
as part of this study. These both had direct impacts on project cost and
sociated with the alignment and profile
development included minimizing the length and cost of the route, along with
sections were also
ps, approach
sections also helped
facilitate the Tunnel cost estimates, as well as the constructability and
lude system
facilities and subsurface conditions. As a complex project, the Atlanta North-
South Tunnel requires a number of supporting systems in order to function
properly. Care was taken in this study to document details relevant to these
to account for all related industry standards regarding their
development, in order to calculate a more accurate cost estimate. Specific
systems included in this study are ventilation, fire/life/safety, tunnel management
and power design, and architectural finishes.
In addition to these supporting systems, HNTB also performed a desk study to
investigate the geology and geotechnical conditions along the proposed
er key element in
determining project constructability and in estimating project costs.
HNTB studied a number of project alternatives as part of the demand analysis for
access points and access locations
were examined, as were truck restrictions and truck eligibility. HNTB also
investigated the impacts of various posted speed limits and number of lanes on
-5-
Efforts from this demand analysis resulte
assumptions that were used in subsequent tolling analysis. It was found that a
pipeline configuration (i.e. no intermediate
85 and I-675/I-285 interchanges) generated strong demand, while t
of intermediate access increased utilization
configuration was carried forward as a base case assumption. The analysis of
number of lanes showed diminishing returns in providing additional capacity.
For this reason, a base case assumption of 2 lanes in each direction was used,
while a 3-lane alternative was also tested for comparison purposes. Allowing
trucks in the Tunnel would create design and operational challenges. However,
demand analysis showed m
assumption of prohibiting trucks from the Tunnel. Finally, HNTB determined that
model free-flow speeds were an appropriate base case assumption, resulting in a
Tunnel design that would accommodate 55 mph post
In summary, the base case assumptions used for tolling analysis included:
• Pipeline configuration
• 2 lanes in each direction
• Trucks prohibited
• Model free-flow speeds (Posted speed
Following the demand analysis, HNTB conducted a
the base case assumptions for the Atlanta North
rates for the base year 2030 were determined to be
per mile (off-peak) and $0.13
maximum annual revenue
Alternative sets of tunnel design parameters
travel demand model (using the optimal toll rates established for the base case
parameters) to provide a quick evaluation of
potential. It was determined that the
intermediate access at I
3 lanes in each directi
the tunnel directly to I
Conversely, the additional
400 inside of I-285
(a revenue increase of 80% to 90%) as
implementation costs
Gross revenue streams
$1.4B, $3.0B and $5.4B
The revenue streams
respectively, if the 6.5 mile portion of
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
Efforts from this demand analysis resulted in a set of base case design
assumptions that were used in subsequent tolling analysis. It was found that a
pipeline configuration (i.e. no intermediate access points between the
285 interchanges) generated strong demand, while t
of intermediate access increased utilization only slightly. Therefore a pipeline
configuration was carried forward as a base case assumption. The analysis of
number of lanes showed diminishing returns in providing additional capacity.
this reason, a base case assumption of 2 lanes in each direction was used,
lane alternative was also tested for comparison purposes. Allowing
trucks in the Tunnel would create design and operational challenges. However,
demand analysis showed minimal truck volumes, resulting in a base case
assumption of prohibiting trucks from the Tunnel. Finally, HNTB determined that
flow speeds were an appropriate base case assumption, resulting in a
Tunnel design that would accommodate 55 mph posted speeds.
In summary, the base case assumptions used for tolling analysis included:
Pipeline configuration;
2 lanes in each direction;
Trucks prohibited;
flow speeds (Posted speed = 55 - 65 mph).
Following the demand analysis, HNTB conducted a toll-sensitivity analysis using
the base case assumptions for the Atlanta North-South Tunnel. Optimal tolling
rates for the base year 2030 were determined to be $0.50 per mile
peak) and $0.13 per mile (nighttime). The optimal rates
maximum annual revenue of $38.7 million for the base year 2030 (2008 dollars)
Alternative sets of tunnel design parameters were analyzed with the refined
travel demand model (using the optimal toll rates established for the base case
to provide a quick evaluation of their annual revenue generating
potential. It was determined that the additional revenue generated by
intermediate access at I-20, increasing capacity from 2 lanes in each direction
in each direction, or including an I-75 spur (to connect the north end of
the tunnel directly to I-75) did not justify the associated additional costs
additional revenue generated by tolling the 6.5 mile portion of SR
285 (at the same per mile toll rates as the Tunnel)
(a revenue increase of 80% to 90%) as compared to the associated
implementation costs, which would be minimal.
evenue streams for 30, 50 and 75-year periods were estimated to be
$1.4B, $3.0B and $5.4B (in $2008), respectively, if the Tunnel alone is tolled
The revenue streams were estimated to increase to $2.7B, $5.6B and $10.0B
the 6.5 mile portion of SR 400 inside of I-285 is tolled as well.
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
d in a set of base case design
assumptions that were used in subsequent tolling analysis. It was found that a
access points between the SR 400/I-
285 interchanges) generated strong demand, while the provision
only slightly. Therefore a pipeline
configuration was carried forward as a base case assumption. The analysis of
number of lanes showed diminishing returns in providing additional capacity.
this reason, a base case assumption of 2 lanes in each direction was used,
lane alternative was also tested for comparison purposes. Allowing
trucks in the Tunnel would create design and operational challenges. However,
inimal truck volumes, resulting in a base case
assumption of prohibiting trucks from the Tunnel. Finally, HNTB determined that
flow speeds were an appropriate base case assumption, resulting in a
In summary, the base case assumptions used for tolling analysis included:
sensitivity analysis using
South Tunnel. Optimal tolling
per mile (peak), $0.25
rates generated
for the base year 2030 (2008 dollars).
were analyzed with the refined
travel demand model (using the optimal toll rates established for the base case
annual revenue generating
generated by adding
in each direction to
75 spur (to connect the north end of
additional costs.
ling the 6.5 mile portion of SR
) was significant
associated
periods were estimated to be
, if the Tunnel alone is tolled.
increase to $2.7B, $5.6B and $10.0B,
is tolled as well.
-6-
These revenue streams
determine project financeability
year period from 2023 to 2097, under base case design assumptions.
Opening year for the Tunnel was estimated to be 2023. The env
permitting process was projected to take 5 years, and the construction time
frame was estimated to be 6 years.
with the construction period, based on the delivery approach employed.
Table 1. Revenue stream for base case set of tunnel design assumptions.
Year Annual Revenue
(2008 dollars)
2023 $32,597,000
2024 $33,467,000
2025 $34,336,000
2026 $35,205,000
2027 $36,075,000
2028 $36,944,000
2029 $37,813,000
2030 $38,683,000
2031 $39,957,000
2032 $41,232,000
2033 $42,506,000
2034 $43,780,000
2035 $45,055,000
2036 $46,329,000
2037 $47,604,000
2038 $48,878,000
2039 $50,153,000
2040 $51,427,000
2041 $52,702,000
2042 $53,976,000
2043 $55,250,000
2044 $56,525,000
2045 $57,799,000
2046 $59,074,000
2047 $60,348,000
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
revenue streams were then used as inputs in a financial model to
determine project financeability. Table 1 shows the revenue stream for the 75
year period from 2023 to 2097, under base case design assumptions.
Opening year for the Tunnel was estimated to be 2023. The environmental
permitting process was projected to take 5 years, and the construction time
frame was estimated to be 6 years. Design activities would potentially overlap
with the construction period, based on the delivery approach employed.
Revenue stream for base case set of tunnel design assumptions.
Year Annual Revenue
(2008 dollars) Year
Annual Revenue
(2008 dollars)
2048 $61,623,000 2073 $87,600,000
2049 $62,897,000 2074 $88,139,000
2050 $64,172,000 2075 $88,678,000
2051 $65,446,000 2076 $89,217,000
2052 $66,720,000 2077 $89,756,000
2053 $67,995,000 2078 $90,295,000
2054 $69,269,000 2079 $90,834,000
2055 $70,544,000 2080 $91,373,000
2056 $71,818,000 2081 $91,912,000
2057 $73,093,000 2082 $92,451,000
2058 $74,367,000 2083 $92,990,000
2059 $75,642,000 2084 $93,529,000
2060 $76,916,000 2085 $94,068,000
2061 $78,190,000 2086 $94,607,000
2062 $79,465,000 2087 $95,146,000
2063 $80,739,000 2088 $95,685,000
2064 $82,014,000 2089 $96,224,000
2065 $83,288,000 2090 $96,763,000
2066 $83,827,000 2091 $97,295,000
2067 $84,366,000 2092 $97,831,000
2068 $84,905,000 2093 $98,369,000
2069 $85,444,000 2094 $98,910,000
2070 $85,983,000 2095 $99,454,000
2071 $86,522,000 2096 $100,001,000
2072 $87,061,000 2097 $100,551,000
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
were then used as inputs in a financial model to
Table 1 shows the revenue stream for the 75-
year period from 2023 to 2097, under base case design assumptions.
ironmental
permitting process was projected to take 5 years, and the construction time
Design activities would potentially overlap
with the construction period, based on the delivery approach employed.
Revenue stream for base case set of tunnel design assumptions.
Annual Revenue
(2008 dollars)
$87,600,000
$88,139,000
$88,678,000
$89,217,000
$89,756,000
$90,295,000
$90,834,000
$91,373,000
$91,912,000
$92,451,000
$92,990,000
$93,529,000
$94,068,000
$94,607,000
$95,146,000
$95,685,000
$96,224,000
$96,763,000
$97,295,000
$97,831,000
$98,369,000
$98,910,000
$99,454,000
$100,001,000
$100,551,000
-7-
1.4.2 Cost and Financeability
HNTB estimated constr
• Alternate 1A: Twin tunnel, two lanes each direction with no intermediate
access (Phase 1A was the original cost estimate and Phase 1B was a
revised estimate resulting from a value engineer
• Alternate 1B: Twin tunnel, two lanes each direction with I
• Alternate 2A: Twin tunnel, three lanes each direction with no intermediate
access;
• Alternate 2B: Twin tunnel, three lanes each direction with I
• Alternate 3A: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with no
intermediate access
• Alternate 3B: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with I
interchange.
Table 2 highlights cost details associated with alternates 1A and 1B. Costs for
alternates 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B were also developed as part of this study.
However, these were removed from further consideration because the increased
costs were not offset
Table 2. Project cost estimate for different alternatives (cost is
Alternates
Base Construction
ROW
Estimated E&C
Contingency ($)
Design and Permits (years)
Const. Duration
Total Escalated
Project Cost
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
Cost and Financeability
estimated construction costs for the following tunnel alternatives:
Alternate 1A: Twin tunnel, two lanes each direction with no intermediate
access (Phase 1A was the original cost estimate and Phase 1B was a
revised estimate resulting from a value engineering exercise)
Alternate 1B: Twin tunnel, two lanes each direction with I-20 interchange
Alternate 2A: Twin tunnel, three lanes each direction with no intermediate
Alternate 2B: Twin tunnel, three lanes each direction with I-20 interchange
Alternate 3A: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with no
intermediate access;
Alternate 3B: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with I
highlights cost details associated with alternates 1A and 1B. Costs for
alternates 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B were also developed as part of this study.
However, these were removed from further consideration because the increased
costs were not offset by increases in benefits or revenue.
Project cost estimate for different alternatives (cost is in $1000) in 2009 Dollars.
1A
(Phase 1B) 1A
(Phase 1A) 1B
$1,725,882 $2,455,190 $2,955,446
$75,000 $142,616 $193,936
Estimated E&C $374,176 $519,561 $629,876
Contingency ($) $364,849 $623,473 $755,852
Permits (years) 5 years 5 years 6 years
Const. Duration 6 years 8 years 9 years
$3,172,681 $4,860,199 $6,152,610
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
unnel alternatives:
Alternate 1A: Twin tunnel, two lanes each direction with no intermediate
access (Phase 1A was the original cost estimate and Phase 1B was a
ing exercise);
20 interchange;
Alternate 2A: Twin tunnel, three lanes each direction with no intermediate
20 interchange;
Alternate 3A: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with no
Alternate 3B: One stacked tunnel, two lanes each direction with I-20
highlights cost details associated with alternates 1A and 1B. Costs for
alternates 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B were also developed as part of this study.
However, these were removed from further consideration because the increased
2009 Dollars.
-8-
Capital cost estimates were combined with operations and maintenance cost
estimates and included as inputs in the financial model. For Alternate 1A,
assuming a $3.2B cost and gross revenue estimates as described previously,
output from the financial model indicates a necessary public subsidy of
approximately $2.4B. GDOT’s total annual budget in recent years has averaged
less than $2.0B. Therefore, securing the needed gap funding poses a significant
challenge.
1.4.3 Constructability
While project financing poses challenges for implementation, the Atlanta North
South Tunnel does appear to be feasible from a constructability standpoint. The
proposed tunnel alignment provides connection between the northern terminus at
the SR 400/I-85 interchange an
interchange, following an alignment west and parallel to Moreland Avenue. This
alignment is approximately 11 miles long, with a combination of 6 miles of tunnel
and 5 miles of at-grade construction. Lane widths
with inside and outside shoulder widths of 2
clearance of the Tunnel is 14
HNTB has determined that the mainline tunnels could be constructed with a
tunnel boring machine (TBM). Use of a TBM wou
excavation along the proposed project alignment, which consists of hard,
massive, abrasive metamorphic rock with granitic intrusions. Approaches to the
Tunnel on both the northern and southern ends will consist of U
(trenches), followed by twin cut
tunnels.
Based on the review conducted in Phase 1B of the study, it was determined that
much of the mechanical and electrical systems equipment could be located in
near-surface, underground structures. Intermediate ventilation plant buildings
will also be required along the project length, but with smaller footprints than
originally projected.
ventilation to jet fans.
indicated that a footprint of approximately 160 f
Revised estimates from Phase 1B indicate that this could be reduced to 50 f
by 105 feet.
One of the most fortuitous fi
constraints exist along the proposed alignment
of a tunnel. While an Environmental Impact Statement will likely be required in
order to move forward with design and construction, preliminary analysis
suggests that there are no insurmountable challenges related to environmental
clearance.
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
Capital cost estimates were combined with operations and maintenance cost
estimates and included as inputs in the financial model. For Alternate 1A,
assuming a $3.2B cost and gross revenue estimates as described previously,
financial model indicates a necessary public subsidy of
approximately $2.4B. GDOT’s total annual budget in recent years has averaged
less than $2.0B. Therefore, securing the needed gap funding poses a significant
Constructability
financing poses challenges for implementation, the Atlanta North
South Tunnel does appear to be feasible from a constructability standpoint. The
proposed tunnel alignment provides connection between the northern terminus at
85 interchange and the southern terminus at the I-675/I
interchange, following an alignment west and parallel to Moreland Avenue. This
alignment is approximately 11 miles long, with a combination of 6 miles of tunnel
grade construction. Lane widths are proposed to be 12
with inside and outside shoulder widths of 2 feet. The proposed vertical
clearance of the Tunnel is 14 feet.
HNTB has determined that the mainline tunnels could be constructed with a
tunnel boring machine (TBM). Use of a TBM would be appropriate for the
excavation along the proposed project alignment, which consists of hard,
massive, abrasive metamorphic rock with granitic intrusions. Approaches to the
Tunnel on both the northern and southern ends will consist of U-S
ches), followed by twin cut-and-cover boxes, and followed by twin starter
Based on the review conducted in Phase 1B of the study, it was determined that
much of the mechanical and electrical systems equipment could be located in
derground structures. Intermediate ventilation plant buildings
be required along the project length, but with smaller footprints than
projected. This is due primarily to a shift in design from standard
ventilation to jet fans. Phase 1A estimates for the ventilation plant buildings
indicated that a footprint of approximately 160 feet by 130 feet would be required.
Revised estimates from Phase 1B indicate that this could be reduced to 50 f
One of the most fortuitous findings in this analysis was that no physical
exist along the proposed alignment that would preclude construction
. While an Environmental Impact Statement will likely be required in
order to move forward with design and construction, preliminary analysis
suggests that there are no insurmountable challenges related to environmental
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
Capital cost estimates were combined with operations and maintenance cost
estimates and included as inputs in the financial model. For Alternate 1A,
assuming a $3.2B cost and gross revenue estimates as described previously,
financial model indicates a necessary public subsidy of
approximately $2.4B. GDOT’s total annual budget in recent years has averaged
less than $2.0B. Therefore, securing the needed gap funding poses a significant
financing poses challenges for implementation, the Atlanta North-
South Tunnel does appear to be feasible from a constructability standpoint. The
proposed tunnel alignment provides connection between the northern terminus at
675/I-285
interchange, following an alignment west and parallel to Moreland Avenue. This
alignment is approximately 11 miles long, with a combination of 6 miles of tunnel
are proposed to be 12 feet
The proposed vertical
HNTB has determined that the mainline tunnels could be constructed with a
ld be appropriate for the
excavation along the proposed project alignment, which consists of hard,
massive, abrasive metamorphic rock with granitic intrusions. Approaches to the
Sections
cover boxes, and followed by twin starter
Based on the review conducted in Phase 1B of the study, it was determined that
much of the mechanical and electrical systems equipment could be located in
derground structures. Intermediate ventilation plant buildings
be required along the project length, but with smaller footprints than
This is due primarily to a shift in design from standard
1A estimates for the ventilation plant buildings
t would be required.
Revised estimates from Phase 1B indicate that this could be reduced to 50 feet
physical
that would preclude construction
. While an Environmental Impact Statement will likely be required in
order to move forward with design and construction, preliminary analysis
suggests that there are no insurmountable challenges related to environmental
-9-
The Atlanta North
public education and outreach with GDOT, other government agencies, project
stakeholders, neighborhood groups and the general public throughout project
development. Concerns related this project w
order to avoid hurdles later in the development phases.
1.5 Benefits
The Atlanta North-South Tunnel is projected to generate approximately $2.2 Billion
($2008) in gross revenue over 30 years from 2023 to 2052. This
short of fully financing the project, but does provide support for the issuance of toll
backed debt to pay for a portion of capital
maintenance. The benefits of the Tunnel
generating potential. Indeed, an investment of this size has local and even regional
transportation impacts which are described in more detail in this
several of these benefits, including the reduction in vehicl
savings in time and fuel. Consideration was also given to improvement in travel time
index on major roadways and to emission reductions. Finally, regional economic
benefits and projected job creation were also calculated as part of
Tunnel-related benefits.
The Tunnel draws vehicles that would otherwise use alternate routes. This frees up
capacity on these facilities and reduces the delay that users experience. The Tunnel
has a significant impact on the Downtown Co
by 30% in year 2030. It also attracts vehicles from I
daily vehicle delay on the West Wall of I
In 2030, nearly 20 million vehicle h
to the addition of the Tunnel. This amounts to 2.5% of the regional total. Over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097, the Tunnel provides cumulative delay savings of
over 2.8 Billion hours.
The Tunnel’s impact on vehicle delay can also be translated into dollar savings, based
on the value of time of transportation system users, and fuel savings, based on fuel burn
rates as a result of congested conditions. The time savings realized on the Downtow
Connector alone are over $110 million just in year 2030. Regional savings in 2030 are
nearly one-third of a billion dollars. Cumulative savings for the entire region over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097 are nearly $50 Billion. Fuel savings fo
the Downtown Connector reach almost 4.5 million gallons in year 2030. Over 13 million
gallons are saved region wide in 2030, and the cumulative regional savings over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097 is nearly 2 billion gallons.
The fuel savings described above has a positive impact on air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. Every gallon of gas that is saved reduces air pollutants, including carbon
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
The Atlanta North-South Tunnel is an unprecedented undertaking that will require
public education and outreach with GDOT, other government agencies, project
stakeholders, neighborhood groups and the general public throughout project
development. Concerns related this project will need to be addressed early in
order to avoid hurdles later in the development phases.
South Tunnel is projected to generate approximately $2.2 Billion
in gross revenue over 30 years from 2023 to 2052. This level of revenue falls
short of fully financing the project, but does provide support for the issuance of toll
backed debt to pay for a portion of capital expenditures and ongoing operations and
he benefits of the Tunnel, however, are not limited to its revenue
generating potential. Indeed, an investment of this size has local and even regional
transportation impacts which are described in more detail in this report.
several of these benefits, including the reduction in vehicle delay and subsequent
savings in time and fuel. Consideration was also given to improvement in travel time
index on major roadways and to emission reductions. Finally, regional economic
benefits and projected job creation were also calculated as part of the analysis of
The Tunnel draws vehicles that would otherwise use alternate routes. This frees up
capacity on these facilities and reduces the delay that users experience. The Tunnel
has a significant impact on the Downtown Connector, effectively reducing vehicle delay
by 30% in year 2030. It also attracts vehicles from I-285, resulting in a 7% reduction in
daily vehicle delay on the West Wall of I-285 and a 9% reduction on the East Wall.
In 2030, nearly 20 million vehicle hours of delay are eliminated in the Atlanta region due
to the addition of the Tunnel. This amounts to 2.5% of the regional total. Over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097, the Tunnel provides cumulative delay savings of
unnel’s impact on vehicle delay can also be translated into dollar savings, based
on the value of time of transportation system users, and fuel savings, based on fuel burn
rates as a result of congested conditions. The time savings realized on the Downtow
Connector alone are over $110 million just in year 2030. Regional savings in 2030 are
third of a billion dollars. Cumulative savings for the entire region over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097 are nearly $50 Billion. Fuel savings fo
the Downtown Connector reach almost 4.5 million gallons in year 2030. Over 13 million
gallons are saved region wide in 2030, and the cumulative regional savings over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097 is nearly 2 billion gallons.
fuel savings described above has a positive impact on air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. Every gallon of gas that is saved reduces air pollutants, including carbon
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
h Tunnel is an unprecedented undertaking that will require
public education and outreach with GDOT, other government agencies, project
stakeholders, neighborhood groups and the general public throughout project
ill need to be addressed early in
South Tunnel is projected to generate approximately $2.2 Billion
level of revenue falls
short of fully financing the project, but does provide support for the issuance of toll-
expenditures and ongoing operations and
mited to its revenue
generating potential. Indeed, an investment of this size has local and even regional
HNTB examined
e delay and subsequent
savings in time and fuel. Consideration was also given to improvement in travel time
index on major roadways and to emission reductions. Finally, regional economic
the analysis of
The Tunnel draws vehicles that would otherwise use alternate routes. This frees up
capacity on these facilities and reduces the delay that users experience. The Tunnel
nnector, effectively reducing vehicle delay
285, resulting in a 7% reduction in
285 and a 9% reduction on the East Wall.
ours of delay are eliminated in the Atlanta region due
to the addition of the Tunnel. This amounts to 2.5% of the regional total. Over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097, the Tunnel provides cumulative delay savings of
unnel’s impact on vehicle delay can also be translated into dollar savings, based
on the value of time of transportation system users, and fuel savings, based on fuel burn
rates as a result of congested conditions. The time savings realized on the Downtown
Connector alone are over $110 million just in year 2030. Regional savings in 2030 are
third of a billion dollars. Cumulative savings for the entire region over the 75
year period between 2023 and 2097 are nearly $50 Billion. Fuel savings for travelers on
the Downtown Connector reach almost 4.5 million gallons in year 2030. Over 13 million
gallons are saved region wide in 2030, and the cumulative regional savings over the 75
fuel savings described above has a positive impact on air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. Every gallon of gas that is saved reduces air pollutants, including carbon
-10-
monoxide (CO), various oxides of nitrogen (NO
(VOC) that would otherwise have formed in the atmosphere. Gas savings also reduces
the amount of carbon dioxide (CO
Environmental Protection Agency, HNTB calculated the benefits to air quality and
emissions as a result of the Tunnel. 190,000 metric tons of CO, 17,000 metric tons of
NOx, and 25,000 metric tons of VOC are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030 in the
20-county Atlanta region as a result of the Tunnel. In addition, nearly 115,000 metric
tons of CO2 are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030. This is equivalent to a CO
reduction resulting from 8% of the metro Atlanta workforce telecommuting one day a
week for the entire year.
HNTB also calculated the travel time index on the Downtown Connector,
without the Tunnel. These results are presented in
ratio of peak period travel time along a corridor to off
A value of 1 indicates that it takes the same amount of time to travel a corridor in the
peak and off-peak times. A value of 2
corridor in the peak period than it does in the off
decreases these values by 18% and 23% to 4.52 and 3.65, for the Southbound and
Northbound directions.
Table 3. Travel Time Index on the Downtown Connector
(Peak Travel Time/Off-Peak Travel Time)
Without Tunnel
With Tunnel
Accumulated benefits over the life
terms, and in terms of job creation. Using the same assumption for value of time that
was used previously, the Tunnel is projected to generate $25 billion in economic benefit
to the Atlanta region over
creation assumptions from the
of financial investment, the Tunnel will be directly responsible for the creation of 14,000
jobs. Using assumptions for direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with the
$3.2 billion Tunnel project, nearly 60,000 jobs could be created.
South Tunnel would generate significant
These benefits come in the form of time and fuel savings, and in environmental
preservation. Using GDOT’s
Tunnel was calculated to be
considered. If region-wid
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
monoxide (CO), various oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and volatile organic compounds
) that would otherwise have formed in the atmosphere. Gas savings also reduces
the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Using assumptions from the
Environmental Protection Agency, HNTB calculated the benefits to air quality and
a result of the Tunnel. 190,000 metric tons of CO, 17,000 metric tons of
NOx, and 25,000 metric tons of VOC are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030 in the
county Atlanta region as a result of the Tunnel. In addition, nearly 115,000 metric
are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030. This is equivalent to a CO
reduction resulting from 8% of the metro Atlanta workforce telecommuting one day a
HNTB also calculated the travel time index on the Downtown Connector,
without the Tunnel. These results are presented in Table 3. The travel time index is the
ratio of peak period travel time along a corridor to off-peak travel time along that corridor.
A value of 1 indicates that it takes the same amount of time to travel a corridor in the
peak times. A value of 2 indicates that it takes twice as long to travel a
corridor in the peak period than it does in the off-peak, etc. The addition of the Tunnel
decreases these values by 18% and 23% to 4.52 and 3.65, for the Southbound and
Time Index on the Downtown Connector
Peak Southbound (PM Peak Direction)
Northbound (AM Peak Direction)
5.49 4.72
4.52 3.65
Accumulated benefits over the life of the project were also generated in both financial
terms, and in terms of job creation. Using the same assumption for value of time that
was used previously, the Tunnel is projected to generate $25 billion in economic benefit
to the Atlanta region over 75 years. Estimates for job creation vary widely. Using job
creation assumptions from the U.S Department of Labor, along with the projected level
of financial investment, the Tunnel will be directly responsible for the creation of 14,000
mptions for direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with the
$3.2 billion Tunnel project, nearly 60,000 jobs could be created. The Atlanta North
generate significant transportation benefits for the Atlanta region.
ts come in the form of time and fuel savings, and in environmental
preservation. Using GDOT’s Benefit Cost Analysis Worksheet, the B/C ratio of the
was calculated to be 2.22, if only benefits to the Downtown Connector are
wide delay benefits are taken into account, the ratio is 6.67.
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
), and volatile organic compounds
) that would otherwise have formed in the atmosphere. Gas savings also reduces
) in the atmosphere. Using assumptions from the
Environmental Protection Agency, HNTB calculated the benefits to air quality and
a result of the Tunnel. 190,000 metric tons of CO, 17,000 metric tons of
NOx, and 25,000 metric tons of VOC are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030 in the
county Atlanta region as a result of the Tunnel. In addition, nearly 115,000 metric
are kept out of the atmosphere in year 2030. This is equivalent to a CO2
reduction resulting from 8% of the metro Atlanta workforce telecommuting one day a
HNTB also calculated the travel time index on the Downtown Connector, both with and
. The travel time index is the
peak travel time along that corridor.
A value of 1 indicates that it takes the same amount of time to travel a corridor in the
indicates that it takes twice as long to travel a
peak, etc. The addition of the Tunnel
decreases these values by 18% and 23% to 4.52 and 3.65, for the Southbound and
Northbound (AM Peak Direction)
of the project were also generated in both financial
terms, and in terms of job creation. Using the same assumption for value of time that
was used previously, the Tunnel is projected to generate $25 billion in economic benefit
75 years. Estimates for job creation vary widely. Using job
U.S Department of Labor, along with the projected level
of financial investment, the Tunnel will be directly responsible for the creation of 14,000
mptions for direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with the
Atlanta North-
the Atlanta region.
ts come in the form of time and fuel savings, and in environmental
B/C ratio of the
, if only benefits to the Downtown Connector are
e delay benefits are taken into account, the ratio is 6.67.
-11-
1.6 Next steps
This study serves as an initial screen of the feasibility of constructing the Atlanta North
South Tunnel. The study concentrated on the technical aspects of project
implementation, with particular focus on revenue
constructability. Throughout the study,
implementation to provide the most financially feasible project possible.
GDOT must now make the go/no
implementation based on the project’s merits, associated investment costs, and funding
landscape. If the Department does decide to move forward, a number of key steps will
be required. Some of these steps are ou
included in the body of the report.
One key next step for GDOT is public outreach. In order to achieve widespread buy
for this project, GDOT should perform one
planning partners in the Atlanta region. These one
platform for general discussion surrounding the Atlanta North
briefing of the work conducted to date, and provide a venue for solicited feedback from
state and local officials.
Conversations with representatives from the following agencies would prime the pump
for subsequent efforts in project development. GDOT should arrange meetings with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Georgia State Road and To
(SRTA), Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), Atlanta Regional
Commission (ARC), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Transit
Implementation Board (TIB), Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce (MACOC), the City of
Atlanta, Fulton County, DeKalb County and key neighborhood groups. Feedback should
also be solicited from the Georgia Governor’s Office and local and state elected officials.
Following one-on-one meetings with representatives
committee should be established, which would be comprised of regional transportation
leaders from the agencies listed above, and from others in the community. This
committee will be a forum for communicating regional issues and concerns related to the
Tunnel, and for identifying opportunities that may have yet to be explored. The
committee would also provide recommendation for
over the life of environmental documentation and design activities, if the project is
advanced.
Stakeholder outreach and acceptance is critical if GDOT determines to move
with the Atlanta North-South Tunnel. If it is decided that the project will be advanced, a
number of additional efforts would need to be initiated. GDOT should retain an
environmental consultant in order to proceed with required environmental documentation
in accordance with NEPA guidelines. GDOT must also create a project number and
dedicate money for Right
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
Next steps
This study serves as an initial screen of the feasibility of constructing the Atlanta North
South Tunnel. The study concentrated on the technical aspects of project
h particular focus on revenue generating potential, costs, and
constructability. Throughout the study, efforts were made to optimize tunnel
implementation to provide the most financially feasible project possible.
GDOT must now make the go/no-go decision regarding whether to proceed with
implementation based on the project’s merits, associated investment costs, and funding
landscape. If the Department does decide to move forward, a number of key steps will
be required. Some of these steps are outlined below and additional discussion is
included in the body of the report.
One key next step for GDOT is public outreach. In order to achieve widespread buy
for this project, GDOT should perform one-on-one outreach with key stakeholders and
partners in the Atlanta region. These one-on-one meetings would serve as a
platform for general discussion surrounding the Atlanta North-South Tunnel, allow for a
briefing of the work conducted to date, and provide a venue for solicited feedback from
Conversations with representatives from the following agencies would prime the pump
for subsequent efforts in project development. GDOT should arrange meetings with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority
(SRTA), Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), Atlanta Regional
Commission (ARC), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Transit
Implementation Board (TIB), Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce (MACOC), the City of
lanta, Fulton County, DeKalb County and key neighborhood groups. Feedback should
also be solicited from the Georgia Governor’s Office and local and state elected officials.
one meetings with representatives from these agencies
committee should be established, which would be comprised of regional transportation
leaders from the agencies listed above, and from others in the community. This
committee will be a forum for communicating regional issues and concerns related to the
Tunnel, and for identifying opportunities that may have yet to be explored. The
provide recommendation for the project development process
over the life of environmental documentation and design activities, if the project is
Stakeholder outreach and acceptance is critical if GDOT determines to move
South Tunnel. If it is decided that the project will be advanced, a
number of additional efforts would need to be initiated. GDOT should retain an
environmental consultant in order to proceed with required environmental documentation
in accordance with NEPA guidelines. GDOT must also create a project number and
Right-of-Way acquisition and Preliminary Engineering (PE)
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
This study serves as an initial screen of the feasibility of constructing the Atlanta North-
South Tunnel. The study concentrated on the technical aspects of project
generating potential, costs, and
unnel
implementation to provide the most financially feasible project possible.
n regarding whether to proceed with tunnel
implementation based on the project’s merits, associated investment costs, and funding
landscape. If the Department does decide to move forward, a number of key steps will
tlined below and additional discussion is
One key next step for GDOT is public outreach. In order to achieve widespread buy-in
one outreach with key stakeholders and
one meetings would serve as a
South Tunnel, allow for a
briefing of the work conducted to date, and provide a venue for solicited feedback from
Conversations with representatives from the following agencies would prime the pump
for subsequent efforts in project development. GDOT should arrange meetings with the
llway Authority
(SRTA), Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), Atlanta Regional
Commission (ARC), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Transit
Implementation Board (TIB), Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce (MACOC), the City of
lanta, Fulton County, DeKalb County and key neighborhood groups. Feedback should
also be solicited from the Georgia Governor’s Office and local and state elected officials.
from these agencies, a stakeholder
committee should be established, which would be comprised of regional transportation
leaders from the agencies listed above, and from others in the community. This
committee will be a forum for communicating regional issues and concerns related to the
Tunnel, and for identifying opportunities that may have yet to be explored. The
the project development process
over the life of environmental documentation and design activities, if the project is
Stakeholder outreach and acceptance is critical if GDOT determines to move forward
South Tunnel. If it is decided that the project will be advanced, a
number of additional efforts would need to be initiated. GDOT should retain an
environmental consultant in order to proceed with required environmental documentation
in accordance with NEPA guidelines. GDOT must also create a project number and
acquisition and Preliminary Engineering (PE) activities.
-12-
One of the most important next steps related to the implementation of the Atlanta North
South Tunnel is working with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to incorporate the
Tunnel project in the next update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Incl
in the RTP is required to secure federal funds for projects in metropolitan areas. In light
of GDOT’s projected near term funding constraints, and the financial gap calculated as
part of this feasibility study, it is likely that federal dollars will
public subsidy requirements of this project. It is therefore essential that the
North-South Tunnel be included in the ARC’s next RTP.
Preliminary design and permitting is projected to take approximately 5 years of the 11
year project implementation period, with 6 years of construction to follow. GDOT has
never prepared environmental documentation for a project of this type and magnitude,
and there will be challenges associated with successfully securing the appropriate
environmental permits.
Finally, construction of the Atlanta North
number of ways. Roadway tunneling at this scale would be unique for Georgia, and
GDOT must carefully consider
GDOT must decide whether to develop the Atlanta North
procure a pre-development agreement while the project is scoped and optimized. It is
critical to establish a preferred delivery method early in the pro
leverage limited resources.
gather private sector input regarding PDA and competitive hard bid procurement
strategies, and perhaps issue a request for information in order
decision on how to move forward.
Atlanta North-South Tunnel Feasibility Report
One of the most important next steps related to the implementation of the Atlanta North
South Tunnel is working with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to incorporate the
Tunnel project in the next update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Incl
in the RTP is required to secure federal funds for projects in metropolitan areas. In light
of GDOT’s projected near term funding constraints, and the financial gap calculated as
part of this feasibility study, it is likely that federal dollars will be required to meet the
public subsidy requirements of this project. It is therefore essential that the
South Tunnel be included in the ARC’s next RTP.
Preliminary design and permitting is projected to take approximately 5 years of the 11
ar project implementation period, with 6 years of construction to follow. GDOT has
never prepared environmental documentation for a project of this type and magnitude,
and there will be challenges associated with successfully securing the appropriate
Finally, construction of the Atlanta North-South Tunnel would be ground-
number of ways. Roadway tunneling at this scale would be unique for Georgia, and
GDOT must carefully consider alternative arrangements for construction. Specifically,
GDOT must decide whether to develop the Atlanta North-South Tunnel internally or to
development agreement while the project is scoped and optimized. It is
critical to establish a preferred delivery method early in the process in order to efficiently
leverage limited resources. It is recommended that GDOT stage an industry forum to
gather private sector input regarding PDA and competitive hard bid procurement
strategies, and perhaps issue a request for information in order to assist in making a
decision on how to move forward.
South Tunnel Feasibility Report August 2010
One of the most important next steps related to the implementation of the Atlanta North-
South Tunnel is working with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to incorporate the
Tunnel project in the next update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Inclusion
in the RTP is required to secure federal funds for projects in metropolitan areas. In light
of GDOT’s projected near term funding constraints, and the financial gap calculated as
be required to meet the
public subsidy requirements of this project. It is therefore essential that the Atlanta
Preliminary design and permitting is projected to take approximately 5 years of the 11
ar project implementation period, with 6 years of construction to follow. GDOT has
never prepared environmental documentation for a project of this type and magnitude,
and there will be challenges associated with successfully securing the appropriate
-breaking in a
number of ways. Roadway tunneling at this scale would be unique for Georgia, and
ion. Specifically,
South Tunnel internally or to
development agreement while the project is scoped and optimized. It is
cess in order to efficiently
It is recommended that GDOT stage an industry forum to
gather private sector input regarding PDA and competitive hard bid procurement
to assist in making a
top related