CE 441 Regional Transport System Report

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: CE 441 Regional Transport System Report

based on the work we have done through the course, now is the continuos report related to the subject, the report format is:

reference:
https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=239097
https://www.permits.performance.gov/projects/atlanta-chattanooga-high-speed-ground-transportation
https://cms8.fra.dot.gov/environment/completed-environmental-reviews/atlanta-chattanooga-high-speed-ground-transportation

Mohammed AlGhannam CE-457
#Midterm Report

Environmental Impact Statement Report for Atlanta-Chattanooga High-Speed Ground Transportation Project:
Purpose of EIS
The EIS was conducted to examine the implication of the conceptualized project on the regional transport system. It also aimed at evaluating and establishing the modal and technology alternatives available for the provision of high-speed ground transportation. It also focused on developing and evaluating alternatives to the proposed location. It was to determine the logical segments that were to be carried forward for use in the detailed evaluation of the following environmental document for Tier II.
Major Impacts
The potential impacts both positive and negative were analyzed based on the focus of transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, socioeconomics and environmental justice, cultural resources, parkland, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges, biological resources, and water resources. The preferred corridor alternative was the I-75 corridor. The positive impacts of this corridor were;
1. The corridor would have the shortest time of the end to end travel which is approximated at 88 minutes thus reducing the current and future possibility of traffic congestion.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: CE 441 Regional Transport System Report

2. The transportation needs of a higher population projected around the project study area and growth of employment would be addressed by the construction of HSGT in the I-75 corridor. It would increase the transportation options, that is, increment in intermodal and airport connection thus addressing economic growth limitations through the provision of a faster and more reliable ground transportation system as an alternative to air travel, highway, and intercity bus.
3. The accessibility and mobility of the project study area would be improved based on its situation relative to the existing transportation corridors, ridership forecasts, traffic data, and the possibility of easing demand of the highway system.
4. It would minimize the use of land areas and land cover that are not classified currently as an existing transportation corridor. It will, therefore, provide the opportunity to utilize the largest area classified as right-of-way.
5. There will be an improvement in the quality air because it would discourage the increase in quantity and growth rate of emissions from mobile sources, that result from vehicles traveling miles on the highway network of the project study area.
Besides the positive Impacts, there were negative impacts which included;
1. The potential for noise and vibrations, but alternative I-75 emerged the best compared to the other alternatives.
2. It would potentially and equally to other corridors affect the wildlife refuges and parklands.
3. The historic sites would be affected equally to the Rome corridor but less than the East corridor alternative.
4. It would affect the wetlands, streams, and floodplains more than other alternatives.
5. It would also affect the habitats of threatened and endangered species.

Alternatives
There were 15 alternatives at the beginning of the assessment in Tier 1 but four proceeded to the rigorous stage. The first was a no-build alternative which failed because of the benefits that would be avoided it adopted. Then there was the most preferred corridor which was the I-75 corridor. The other two, East Corridor and Rome Corridor, had significant benefits but were less feasible compared to the I-75 corridor.