Georgia Department of Transportation

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA 

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

Appendix E – Agency Coordination & 

Public Outreach

Prepared by: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E 

Table of Contents 

1.0 COORDINATION PLAN

2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

3.0 AGENCY & STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN (ASIP) 

4.0 PROJECT NEWSLETTERS

5.0 SCOPING WORKBOOK

6.0 SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

7.0 TECHNICAL MEETING MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 2008)

8.0 2010 PARTICIPATING AGENCY MEETINGS MINUTES

9.0 2010 PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSES COMMENTS

10.0 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES 

11.0 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 

12.0 NORFOLK SOUTHERN COORDINATION LETTER

September 2016
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E 

1.0 COORDINATION PLAN 

September 2016
Georgia Department of Transportation

Atlanta – Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

REVISED COORDINATION PLAN

Version (3.0): September 2016

Prepared for:

Georgia Department of Transportation

One Georgia Center, 600 West Peachtree Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30308

Prepared by:

AECOM

1360 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500

Atlanta, GA 30309

PTSCO - 0023-00-002

PI No.: T001684
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study i February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Table of Contents

I PURPOSE OF THE COORDINATION PLAN .................................................................................... 1

II PROJECT HISTORY AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 1

III ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................... 5

A. Lead Federal Agencies ............................................................................................... 5

B. Lead State Agencies ................................................................................................... 6

C. Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................ 6

D. Participating Agencies and Tribal Governments .................................................... 6

E. Additional Stakeholder Coordination ..................................................................... 11

IV PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................................11

V COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING ADMINISTRATION .....................................................13

VI PROJECT MILESTONES, REVIEW PERIODS, AND EXPECTATIONS ......................................14

APPENDIX A: LISTS OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ............ A-1

List of Tables

Table 1: Agency Scoping Meetings - Locations, Dates, and Attendance ........................................... 12

Table 2: Management Hierarchy ......................................................................................................... 14

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Study Area .................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2: Corridor Segments.................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3: Project Schedule ................................................................................................................... 16
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study ii February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 1 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

I PURPOSE OF THE COORDINATION PLAN

In compliance with the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), a Coordination Plan is required for all projects for

which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Coordination Plan is intended to make reviews

more efficient and to streamline the project decision-making process. The plan’s purpose

is to coordinate agency and public participation and comment on the environmental

review process for the project. This Coordination Plan also documents coordination that

has taken place to date and describes how future coordination on the Tier 1 EIS will

occur.

This Coordination Plan has been developed for the Tier 1 EIS for the AtlantaChattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Study. This plan will be

submitted to appropriate agencies for comment, and acceptance. Further coordination

with cooperating and participating federal and state agencies will be required for the Tier

2 NEPA analysis, final design, and construction phases of development. This

Coordination Plan will be updated periodically as project development progresses. The

Coordination Plan is organized into the following sections:

x Purpose of the Coordination Plan;

x Project History and Overview;

x Roles and Responsibilities (Designation of Joint Lead Agencies as well as

Participating Agencies and Tribal Governments);

x Public Participation;

x Collaborative Problem-Solving Administration; and

x Project Milestones, Review Periods, and Expectations (Schedule).

II PROJECT HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

On August 22, 2007 a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register to advise

the public that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) will jointly prepare a Tier 1 EIS with the Georgia Department of

Transportation (GDOT), with assistance from the Tennessee Department of

Transportation (TDOT) to evaluate the environmental and related impacts of constructing

and operating HSGT service between Atlanta and Chattanooga. The study area is

presented in Figure 1. The study area extents include the area between Downtown

Chattanooga and Lovell Field Airport in Hamilton County, Tennessee to the north, and

the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport area in Fulton County and Clayton

County, Georgia to the south.

The concept of HSGT service between Atlanta, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee

has been a subject of study for over ten years. The GDOT initially studied this study area

as part of an Intercity Rail Plan in 1997. The Atlanta-Chattanooga study area was first

considered for high-speed rail service as part of the federal Magnetic Levitation (Maglev)

Deployment Program funded by the FRA to demonstrate Maglev technology in the

United States. Georgia was among several states that participated in the program. The

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), in association with the GDOT and the Georgia

Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), analyzed the Atlanta-Chattanooga study area

from 1999 to 2003. The purpose of this process was to fully explore mobility options and
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 2 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

determine the feasibility for a high-speed passenger service. TDOT prepared a statewide

rail plan in 2003, which recommended high-speed rail connectivity with neighboring

states.

The Tier 1 EIS will incorporate and build upon previous studies in the AtlantaChattanooga study area of Maglev and steel wheel HSGT concepts prepared by ARC

and other planning partners. These studies include:

x Georgia Intercity Rail Plan Final Report (GDOT, March 1997);

x Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Environmental Assessment (ARC,

February 2000);

x Concept Design Report for the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal (GDOT, February

2002);

x Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II EIS, (ARC, March 2002);

x Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum, (ARC, March

2002);

x High Speed Trains Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta (TDOT, November 2003);

x ARC Envision6 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) – (ARC, September 2007); and

x Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia TransPlan 2030, Long Range

Transportation Plan (LRTP) – (Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning

Agency, June 2005, amended March 2009).

The Tier 1 EIS will:

x Define the purpose and need;

x Screen corridor-level alternatives for reasonableness;

x Perform refined screening and evaluation to identify reasonable alignment, station,

and technology alternatives to be carried forward into the Tier 2 NEPA process; and

x Estimate potential ridership.

The Tier 1 EIS will be prepared at a conceptual level of detail appropriate for a

programmatic analysis and will provide the FRA, FHWA, TDOT, and GDOT with

sufficient information to select the general alignment and general station locations, and to

potentially identify a preferred HSGT technology.

In this Tier 1 EIS, alternative corridors will be evaluated at a broad scale of analysis.

Proposed alternatives developed as a result of the Tier 1 EIS scoping process, a process

detailed in the Scoping Summary Report (February 2008) for this study, include a NoBuild Alternative, which is used as a baseline for comparison of all alternatives, and the

following HSGT corridors (presented by segments in Figure 2):

x An HSGT corridor that roughly parallels Interstate 75;

x One or more HSGT corridors that utilize a portion of an existing CSX Transportation

rail line; and

x An HSGT corridor that roughly parallels U.S. Route 411.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 3 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Figure 1: Map of Study Area
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 4 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Figure 2: Corridor Segments
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 5 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

III ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following agency roles and responsibilities reflect the general understanding among

the parties of the project’s Coordination Plan. Revisions to this plan can include updates

to agency roles and responsibilities as appropriate.

A. Lead Federal Agencies

Lead agencies bear essential responsibility for preparing the EIS in accordance with

federal statutes and regulations, and provide oversight and involvement in managing the

environmental review and issue resolution processes. Lead agencies must:

x Identify and involve participating agencies;

x Prepare a coordination plan;

x Provide involvement opportunities for the public, and participating agencies and tribal

governments, in defining purpose and need as well as determining the range of

alternatives; and

x Collaborate with participating agencies and tribal governments in determining

methodologies and the level of detail for the Tier 1 assessment and evaluation of

alternatives.

FRA and FHWA are designated as the joint lead federal agencies for the HSGT Tier 1

EIS and are responsible for compliance with the following:

x NEPA;

x NEPA-related federal environmental statutes and regulations;

x FHWA’s environmental regulations contained in 23 CFR 771 (Environmental Impact

and Related Procedures);

x FRA’s environmental regulations contained in FR Vol. 64, No. 101 (Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts); and

x Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 and related regulations contained in 23 CFR 774

(Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites).

FHWA’s environmental regulations, 23 CFR 771 and 23 CFR 774, will serve as the

baseline regulation for purposes of ensuring procedural compliance with NEPA and

Section 4(f), respectively. Each agency’s environmental requirements and technical

and financial evaluation criteria will be applied as appropriate to ensure that each

agency’s statutory responsibilities and concerns are addressed in the environmental

document.

FRA and FHWA will be responsible for coordinating the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT) review of the Tier 1 EIS. FRA and FHWA will also

coordinate the project with other non-USDOT federal agencies with jurisdiction by

law or special expertise.

FRA and FHWA will review environmental documents as required and outlined in the

2008 Stewardship Agreement between FHWA and GDOT.

FRA will provide specific guidance on:
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 6 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

x Analysis of rail alternatives;

x Rail planning and operations;

x Rail ridership forecasting funding;

x Mobility evaluation related to FRA requirements; and

x FRA NEPA Procedures.

FHWA will review HSGT study documentation and processes for consistency with 23

CFR 771, 23 CFR 774, and SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 guidelines.1

B. Lead State Agencies

GDOT will be a joint lead statewide agency for the HSGT Tier 1 EIS. GDOT will be

responsible for the coordination and oversight of appropriate and necessary technical

analyses and for the coordination of environmental document preparation, including, but

not limited to, agency and public involvement, notifications and coordination with affected

agencies, tribal governments, and the public.

GDOT will identify the preferred alternative(s) for more detailed definition, assessment,

and evaluation in the Tier 2 NEPA process.

TDOT will be a joint lead statewide agency for the HSGT Tier 1 EIS. TDOT will assist

GDOT with the technical coordination for the project, and will assist in the review and

coordination of all technical analyses and environmental documents, and public

involvement activities related to the Tier 1 EIS.

C. Cooperating Agencies

FRA and FHWA have determined that Cooperating Agencies would not be designated

until this project is at the Tier 2 NEPA stage.

D. Participating Agencies and Tribal Governments

Federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments that may have an interest in

the environmental process for this project were invited by lead agencies to participate in

the NEPA process. These include, at minimum, public transportation providers,

metropolitan planning organizations, local and county governments, Native American

tribes, regional planning agencies, and federal and state environmental resource

agencies. Appendix A provides the set of participating agencies for the Tier 1 EIS. GDOT

provided a request for agencies to participate in the Tier I NEPA process for the AtlantaChattanooga HSGT study in March 2008.

Roles and responsibilities for participating agencies include:

x Participating in the scoping process, so that agencies whose interest in the project

arises from initial scoping activities are invited to participate and still have an

opportunity for involvement;

1

 The Georgia Division of FHWA will take primary responsibility for the joint federal agency activities. The FHWA

Georgia Division will coordinate the review of the draft and final Tier 1 EIS documents with the FHWA Tennessee

Division.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 7 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

x Participating in the NEPA process starting at the earliest possible time, particularly

with regard to the development of the purpose and need statement, range of

alternatives, methodologies, and the level of detail for the analysis of alternatives;

x Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project's

potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or

prevent an agency from granting permits or other necessary project approvals; and

x Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues.

To ensure that the concerns of each participating agency are considered in the

environmental document, each party to this Coordination Plan will designate an

individual, as well as an alternate, to represent that agency on all matters relating to this

study. That individual will be the primary contact for transfer of project related

information, and will be responsible for providing timely input into the preparation,

coordination, and review of the environmental document. Each participating agency will

be responsible for notifying the lead agencies of changes in points of contact.

Study deliverables will be forwarded as soon as possible to the appropriate individual(s)

to allow for review and comment as set forth in the project schedule included with this

plan.

An entity’s acceptance of designation as a participating agency is not an indication of

project support, and does not provide the agency with increased oversight or approval

authority beyond statutory limits, if applicable.

Federal Resource Agencies

In addition to FRA and FHWA, other federal agencies may hold regulatory responsibility

for the protection of resources, and are responsible for participation in the NEPA process

in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and individual implementing

regulations and policies. Federal agency roles in the NEPA process for this study

include:

x Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – Federal agency responsible for

consultation to avoid or minimize impacts to regulatory floodways. FEMA reviews the

Tier 1 EIS documentation for the discussion of avoidance or minimization actions for

Tier 1 EIS alternatives, and the identification of alternative avoidance or minimization

actions to be explored in the Tier 2 NEPA stage for compliance with National Flood

Insurance Program standards;

x Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) – Federally owned corporation responsible for

stewardship and provision of flood control, navigation, electricity generation, land

management, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley. Authorization

from TVA is required under Section 26(a) of the TVA Act for impacts to waters within

the Tennessee River watershed. Early coordination during the Tier 1 NEPA process

is necessary for the preparation of TVA permits during the subsequent Tier 2 NEPA

process;

x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Federal agency responsible for

administering permits in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(regulated discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.) and Section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (protection of capacity within

navigable waters of the U.S.). While Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits will not

be requested during the Tier 1 EIS process, such permits and the Practical

Alternatives Review process are likely to be necessary as part of the Tier 2 NEPA
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 8 February 2008 (Revised September 2016

process. Coordination will proceed as documented in the local NEPA/404(b)(1)

Coordination Procedures between GDOT, FHWA Georgia Division, and the USACE;

x U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) –

Federal agency responsible for protection of prime, statewide-important, and unique

farmland from significant conversion, in accordance with the Farmland Protection

Policy Act. Coordination with NRCS to identify average farm sizes by county within

the study area will occur during the Tier 1 EIS process. Further coordination and the

farmland impact rating procedures will be a function of the Tier 2 NEPA process;

x U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) – Federal agency with

jurisdiction over National Forest lands potentially requiring transfers;

x U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Federal agency

responsible for coordination to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to federally listed

protected species in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

USFWS is the federal agency with jurisdiction for compliance with the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Additionally, USFWS consultation

includes the review of projects posing potentially unavoidable longitudinal stream

encroachments or channel straightening impacts of 50 or more feet to intermittent

and perennial streams, in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

USFWS coordination will include reviews of technical ecology documentation

estimating overall potential jurisdictional impacts;

x U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) – Federal agency

responsible for coordination to avoid or minimize impacts to official units of the

National Park System.

x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -– Federal agency responsible for

protecting public health and the environment by improving air, land and water quality.

Coordination with EPA is required under Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA, Section 309 of

the Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to avoid or minimize

impacts to air, land and water quality.

Tribal Governments

Native American tribes are federally recognized self-governing entities exercising

inherent sovereign powers over their territories. Federal lead agencies are responsible

for coordination and consultation with tribal officials consistent with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and federal Executive Order 13175

(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). The invitation of

potentially affected tribal governments to participate in the EIS process is specified in

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.2, 40 CFR 1501.7).

Section 101(d) (2) of the National Historic Preservation Act allows tribal governments to

assume the functions of State Historic Preservation Offices with respect to tribal land.

Tribal government representatives will review alternative projects occurring on, or

affecting historic properties on, their tribal lands. Tribal governments will also advise of

other historic properties that are of related religious or cultural significance.

GDOT has established Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with a number of the nonresident tribes that have historical or cultural links with the state of Georgia. Such

memoranda address the project planning, identification of religious or cultural properties,

assessment and resolution of adverse effects, and the treatment of Native American

burials in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 9 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

State Resource Agencies

In addition to GDOT and TDOT, other state agencies may hold statutory responsibility for

the protection of resources. State agency roles in the NEPA process for this study

include:

x Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Environmental Protection Division), and

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation – In accordance with

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, these state agencies are responsible for issuing

Water Quality Certifications for projects requiring an individual permit under Section

404 of the Clean Water Act. Early coordination during the Tier 1 EIS will contribute

toward the preparation of such certifications, if applicable, during the Tier 2 NEPA

phase;

x Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Historic Preservation Division), and

Tennessee Historical Commission – State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)

responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The SHPOs

contribute data identifying resources on or eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places, and other historic structures and archaeological sites. The agencies

also may establish agreements for assessment and coordination activities in

advance of the Tier 2 NEPA process.

Municipal and Regional Agencies

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), regional planning agencies (and city or

county planning agencies, where appropriate), and regional transportation agencies

within the study area provide the latest planning assumptions, including land use

assumptions, population and employment forecasts, and transportation modeling data.

Such data will be the common foundation for the Tier 1 EIS socioeconomic, mobility, and

land use analyses.

MPOs are established by the Governor and local officials for regional transportation

planning in urbanized areas. The USDOT designates urbanized areas with populations

of 50,000 or more. MPOs adopt long-range regional transportation plans meeting federal

air quality standards and establish short-term programs of transportation projects. MPOs

within the study area include:

x Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) – MPO for Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Douglas,

Fulton, and Paulding Counties and a portion of Bartow County in the Atlanta

urbanized area;

x Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (CHCRPA), Transportation

Planning Organization (TPO) – MPO for Hamilton County, Tennessee and portions

of Catoosa County and Walker County, Georgia in the Chattanooga urbanized area;

x Floyd-Rome Urban Transportation Study (FRUTS) – MPO for the Rome urbanized

area within Floyd County; and

x Greater Dalton MPO – MPO for the Dalton urbanized area within Whitfield County.

Designated under state laws, regional commissions within the study area develop,

promote, and assist with the establishment of coordinated and comprehensive plans,

offering technical assistance to state, federal, and local agencies in balancing quality

growth and development with the conservation of resources. Regional planning agencies

within the study area include:
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 10 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

x ARC – representing Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Douglas and Fulton Counties within

the study area;

x Appalachian Regional Commission – federal-state partnership supporting

sustainable community and economic development for 13 states in the Appalachian

region, including Georgia and Tennessee;

x CHCRPA – representing Hamilton County within the study area; and

x Northwest Georgia Regional Commission – representing Bartow, Catoosa,

Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Murray, Paulding, Polk, Walker, and Whitfield Counties

within the study area.

Municipal governments within the study area (including city and county government

agencies) may also be consulted during the EIS development process to provide or

validate land use planning, right-of-way, or socioeconomic information. County

governments within the study area include:

x Bartow County, Georgia;

x Catoosa County, Georgia;

x Clayton County, Georgia;

x Cobb County, Georgia;

x Douglas County, Georgia;

x Floyd County, Georgia;

x Fulton County, Georgia;

x Gordon County, Georgia;

x Hamilton County, Tennessee;

x Murray County, Georgia;

x Paulding County, Georgia;

x Polk County, Georgia; and

x Whitfield County, Georgia.

Regional and local transportation agencies within the study area include, but are not

limited to:

x City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation;

x Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority;

x Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority;

x Cobb Community Transit;

x Georgia Regional Transportation Authority; and

x Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 11 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

E. Additional Stakeholder Coordination

State Transportation Board - HSGT Intermodal Sub-Committee

This sub-committee includes members of the Georgia State Transportation Board and

study area stakeholders. The sub-committee provides input to GDOT project

management staff at key points in the development of the HSGT study.

IV PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was developed in accordance with Section 6002 of

SAFETEA-LU, which stipulates opportunity be provided for involvement by the public and

agencies. The PIP, based on GDOT’s Public Involvement Policy and Guidelines, was

developed to guide the public involvement process for the Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT

Study. It is intended to ensure ongoing public involvement using a variety of tools and

techniques to invite and encourage the public to learn about and become involved in the

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study. The PIP describes a comprehensive program that

engages the many diverse stakeholders at key points in the Tier I EIS development

process.

Key objectives of the public involvement efforts are:

x To provide a structure and forum for interested and affected parties to provide input

and comment on major issues, problems, and alternatives in the AtlantaChattanooga HSGT study area;

x To educate agency representatives, stakeholders, and members of the public and

media about issues, opportunities, goals, and alternatives under consideration

affecting the Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT study area;

x To create general awareness of the study among highway, airport, and transit users,

the business communities, residents, and local government officials;

x To clarify the decision-making process; and

x To engage all key stakeholders in the study process and results, and build

consensus on future activities.

The PIP outlines the following tools, techniques, and activities to maximize participation

in the study:

x Meetings

o Agency Scoping Meetings

o Public Scoping Meetings

o Public Information Open Houses

o Stakeholder Meetings

o Charrettes

o Public Hearing Open Houses

x Public Information Materials

o Website

o Fact Sheets

o Newsletters
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 12 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

x Drop-in Opportunities

o Displays at Highly Visible Locations

o Staffed Booths

o Speakers Bureau

x Other Public Involvement Activities

o Outreach Meetings

o Database

o Media Outreach

Stakeholders and the public are engaged on an ongoing basis during the AtlantaChattanooga HSGT Study to provide timely and current feedback and to ensure that the

EIS process is consistent with federal policy regarding public participation. To date, there

has been one major decision point in the process where significant involvement from

participating agencies, stakeholders, and the public was solicited. This decision point

came during the September 2007 scoping process when GDOT conducted a number of

agency and public scoping meetings.

The scoping process for the Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT study area was conducted in

accordance with 23 CFR 771.123 and 40 CFR 1501.7 to solicit participation from

agencies, counties, municipalities, and the public as part of the NEPA process. The

scoping process was used to identify the range of alternatives to be studied, the potential

impacts to the human and natural environments, and the key issues and concerns to be

addressed during the EIS.

Two agency scoping meetings and three public scoping open houses were held for the

project. Details of the scoping meetings are outlined in the table below.

Table 1: Scoping Meetings - Locations, Dates, and Attendance

Target

Audience Location Date/Time

Agency GDOT Office of Environment/Location

3993 Aviation Circle, Atlanta, Georgia

September 18, 2007,

10:30 am - 12:00 pm

Agency Chattanooga Hamilton County Bicentennial Library.

1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee

September 20, 2007,

10:30 am - 12:00 pm

Public McEachern High School, 2400 New Macland Road,

Powder Springs, Georgia

September 18,2007,

5:00 – 7:30 pm

Public Rome Civic Center, 400 Civic Center Drive,

Rome , Georgia

September 19,2007,

5:00 – 7:30 pm

Public Chattanooga Hamilton County Bicentennial Library,

1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee

September 20,2007,

5:00 – 7:30 pm

The scoping meetings were announced in a Notice of Intent (NOI) that appeared in the

Federal Register on August 22, 2007. The NOI also announced the public comment

period from August 22, 2007 through October 4, 2007. The public scoping meetings were

also advertised in local newspapers such as the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the

Chattanooga Times-Free Press. Other means of advertising included direct mailings to

federal and state environmental regulatory and review agencies and local government
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 13 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

officials, which also initiated the Early Coordination Process. All public meetings

locations were compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Each agency scoping meeting opened with GDOT providing an overview of the project,

followed by a presentation outlining the scope of the project. After the presentation,

agency representatives could ask questions, provide input, or specify analysis that

should be considered as part of the EIS process. A total of 17 people representing

various agencies attended the agency scoping meetings.

Each of the formal public scoping meetings followed the same format. At each meeting

location, attendees signed-in upon arrival and each received a Scoping Information

Package. Each meeting location included an “open house” area with a series of 30

information boards displayed. GDOT staff and the consultant team were available to

answer questions. The information boards illustrated the corridors and alignments under

consideration and provided an overview of the EIS process. A total of 75 people attended

the public scoping meetings.

The information gathered during the scoping process will contribute to the assessment of

HSGT study alternatives best meeting the project purpose and need while minimizing

impacts to the social, cultural, and natural environments. Input gathered also assisted in

identification of specific environmental impacts to be assessed and in shaping future

study efforts to involve stakeholders and the public. A project website has been

established at http://www.atl-chatt.org to provide updated study information throughout

the EIS process. The project website will be updated at key project milestones:

Alternatives Screening, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental

Impact Statement. A study newsletter was also produced in Spring 2008 and distributed

to stakeholders and the public. Newsletter publications will coincide with the release of

the Alternatives Screening Report and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to

share information on these study documents and encourage public input.

The following provides a comprehensive list of methods that will be used during the Tier

1 EIS process to encourage participation and input:

x Two Participating/Resource Agency Meetings

x Two rounds of three Stakeholder Meetings;

x Three Public Information Meetings (Alternatives Screening)/Public Hearings (DEIS);

x Small Group Meetings;

x Two Newsletters; and

x Website Updates.

The project schedule shown in Figure 3 indicates anticipated timeframes.

V COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING

ADMINISTRATION

The following decision making approach will be taken among the lead agencies and the

study team as required.

If an impasse has been reached between the lead agencies and the direct project

management team cannot make a decision within a two-week period of the issue being

identified, each party agrees to involve relevant agency management as detailed below.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 14 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Final decisions of any continuing issues will be a matter for determination by the GDOT

Commissioner, the TDOT Commissioner, the FHWA Georgia Division Administrator, and

the FRA Associate Administrator or their respective designees.

If a decision is stalled, the management hierarchy for these organizations is shown in

Table 2 below. When the representatives at the lowest level for each party have reached

an impasse and have agreed to elevate the decision, a meeting will be held within a oneweek period. At that time, representatives from both levels will meet to discuss the issues

related to the impasse and attempt resolution.

If an agreement cannot be reached within a week, the issue will be elevated to the next

level and a meeting will be held within a one-week period. At that time, representatives

from all three levels will meet to discuss the issues related to the impasse and attempt

resolution.

If an agreement cannot be reached within a week, the issue will be elevated to the

highest organizational level and a meeting date will be established within a one-week

period. At that time, all parties at all levels will meet to resolve the issue. The parties

hereto agree that any resolution to an impasse secured through the decision-making

process set forth in this section will be communicated in writing to all parties.

Table 2: Management Hierarchy

Level FHWA FRA GDOT TDOT

1 Environmental Team

Leader

Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager

2 Director of Program

Development

Director, Planning and

Environment Division

Intermodal Division

Director

Asst. Chief of

Environment and

Planning

3 Assistant Division

Administrator

Associate Administrator for

Railroad Development

Chief Engineer Chief of Environment

and Planning

4 Division Administrator Administrator Commissioner Commissioner

VI PROJECT MILESTONES, REVIEW PERIODS, AND

EXPECTATIONS

SAFETEA-LU establishes milestones at which project efforts must be reviewed by the

joint lead agencies, participating agencies, and the public prior to moving forward in the

Tier 1 EIS process. These milestones include:

A. Project Need and Purpose (by public, participating agencies and tribal governments

during scoping)

B. Identification of the Range of Alternatives (by public, participating agencies and tribal

governments during scoping)

C. Methodologies for Alternative Evaluation (by participating agencies and tribal

governments during scoping and alternatives screening stages)
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 15 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

D. Tier 1 Draft EIS (by lead agencies, prior to Notice of Availability)

E. Identification of Preferred Alternative (by lead agencies)

F. Tier 1 Final EIS (by lead agencies, prior to Notice of Availability)

G. Tier 1 Record of Decision (by lead federal agencies and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency only)

These activities are identified in the overall anticipated project schedule, as shown in

Figure 3. The schedule includes anticipated timeframes for document reviews by

participating agencies.

Pre-DEIS Document Reviews

Documents received to date by the participating agencies include the Purpose and Need

statement and the initial Coordination Plan. Additional documents to be provided for

review, prior to the DEIS, will include:

x Revised Coordination Plan

x Screening and Evaluation Criteria Technical Memorandum

x Alternatives Screening Report

x DEIS Resource Technical Memoranda (for review by appropriate resource agencies)

Participating agencies are strongly encouraged to participate to the maximum extent

throughout the Tier 1 EIS development process. At each of the project milestones A

through C, documentation of the particular item would be submitted to all participating

agencies for review and comment. Agencies should comment within 30 calendar days

unless a written request for an extension of the review periods has been requested by

the participating agency from the lead agencies. Failure of an agency to respond with

either comments or a request for a review extension within 30 calendar days shall be

considered concurrence with the documentation.

DEIS and FEIS Reviews

The Tier 1 Draft EIS shall be made available to the public and transmitted to participating

agencies and tribal governments for comment. Beginning with the public notice of

availability on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, a 60-day period shall be provided for the return of

comments from the public, participating agencies, and tribal governments. The Tier 1

Draft EIS shall also be available at the Tier 1 Draft EIS public hearing and for a minimum

of 30 days in advance of the public hearing. A minimum 30-day review period for the

public, participating agencies, and tribal governments will follow the notice of availability

for the Tier 1 Final EIS.

A separate Public Involvement Plan (PIP) has been developed, which provides for a

variety of public participation opportunities during the EIS including Public Information

Open Houses, stakeholder meetings, and Public Hearing Open Houses. Project Fact

Sheets, newsletters and a website will also provide information to keep the public

informed about the project. The lead agencies would review and consider all comments

received. The Final EIS shall discuss substantive comments received on the Draft EIS

and responses thereto and summarize public involvement.
Revised Coordination Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 16 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Figure 3: Project Schedule
Revised Coordination Plan – Appendix A

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study A-1 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Appendix A – Lists of Participating Agencies and Tribal Governments

Participating Agencies – Accepted Agencies

Federal Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation

Service

U.S. Department of the Interior – National Park Service

U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Administration

(Region IV)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV)

State Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Georgia DNR – Environmental Protection Division

Georgia DNR – Wildlife Resources Division

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation –

Tennessee Historical Commission

Municipal/Regional Appalachian Regional Commission

Atlanta Regional Commission

Bartow County Board of Commissioners

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority

Cherokee County Board of Commissioners

City of Adairsville

City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation

City of Cartersville

City of Chattanooga

City of Dalton

City of Ringgold

City of Rome

Clayton County Department of Transportation and Development

Cobb County Department of Transportation (for Cobb County Board of

Commissioners)

Floyd County Board of Commissioners

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (former Coosa Valley

Regional Development Center and North Georgia Regional

Development Center)

Whitfield County Board of Commissioners
Revised Coordination Plan – Appendix A

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study A-2 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Participating Agencies – Other Invited Agencies

Federal Federal Emergency Management Administration – Mitigation Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (North Area Section – Regulatory Branch)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Regional Office of

Community Planning and Development

U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service (Southeast

Region)

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

State Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Historic Preservation Division

(Georgia SHPO)

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Municipal/Regional Catoosa County

Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments/Southeast Tennessee

Development District

Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority

City of Aragon

City of Atlanta

City of Calhoun

City of Cohutta

City of College Park

City of East Point

City of Emerson

City of Fairmount

City of Hapeville

City of Kennesaw

City of Marietta

City of Plainville

City of Ranger

City of Resaca

City of Rockmart

Clayton County Board of Commissioners

Douglas County Board of Commissioners

Fulton County Board of Commissioners

Gordon County Board of Commissioners

Hamilton County Board of Commissioners

Murray County Board of Commissioners

Paulding County Board of Commissioners

Polk County Board of Commissioners
Revised Coordination Plan – Appendix A

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study A-3 February 2008 (Revised September 2016)

Tribal Governments

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

Cherokee Nation

Chickasaw Nation

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Eastern Shawnee of Oklahoma

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Muscogee (Creek) National Council

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Shawnee Tribe

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

United Keetoowah Band
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Georgia Department of

Transportation

Tier I Environmental Impact Study

High-Speed Ground Transportation Study

Atlanta to Chattanooga Corridor

Project PTSC0-0023-00-002

PI #T001684

Public Involvement Plan

Prepared for:

Georgia Department of Transportation

Office of Environment/Location

3993 Aviation Circle

Atlanta, Georgia 30336

Prepared by:

Earth Tech, Inc.

1455 Old Alabama Road, Suite 170

Roswell, GA 30076

June 2007
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 2 of 9

Table of Contents

1.1 Description of the Study................................................................................. 3

1.2 Public Involvement Overview ........................................................................ 3

1.3 Public Involvement Principles ....................................................................... 3

1.4 Public Involvement Goals .............................................................................. 4

1.5 Public Involvement Activities ........................................................................ 4

1.6 Meetings .......................................................................................................... 4

1.6.1 Agency Scoping Meetings: ........................................................................ 4

1.6.2 Public Scoping Meetings: ........................................................................... 5

1.6.3 Public Information Open Houses: .............................................................. 5

1.6.4 Stakeholder Meetings: ............................................................................... 5

1.6.5 Charrettes: ................................................................................................. 5

1.6.6 Public Hearing Open Houses: .................................................................... 6

1.7 Public Information Materials .......................................................................... 6

1.7.1 Website: ..................................................................................................... 6

1.7.2 Fact Sheets: ............................................................................................... 6

1.7.3 Newsletters: ............................................................................................... 7

1.8 Drop-in Opportunities ..................................................................................... 7

1.8.1 Displays at High-Visibility Locations:.......................................................... 7

1.8.2 Staffed Booths: .......................................................................................... 7

1.8.3 Speakers Bureau: ...................................................................................... 7

1.9 Other Public Involvement Activities .............................................................. 8

1.9.1 Outreach Meetings:.................................................................................... 8

1.9.2 Database: .................................................................................................. 8

1.10 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 8

1.11 Documenting the Process, Feedback and Public Participation Impact ..... 9

1.12 Media ................................................................................................................ 9

1.13 Study Schedule ............................................................................................... 9
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 3 of 9

Public Involvement Plan

1.1 Description of the Study

The proposed project involves planning for the deployment of a High-Speed Ground

Transportation (HSGT) system in the 110-mile corridor between Hartsfield-Jackson International

Airport in Atlanta, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, that can provide competitive travel

times with other travel modes. Preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for the

deployment of a full 110-mile project is the subject of the Scope of Services, which includes

completion of a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the corridor. Should

implementation funding become available in the future, a completed Tier I EIS, with a Record of

Decision (ROD) could allow for advancement of selected shorter sections in the Atlanta–

Chattanooga corridor, as well as potentially advanced acquisition within the selected corridor.

This Atlanta-Chattanooga High-Speed Ground Transportation Study will include analyses of

HSGT alternatives, including magnetic levitation (maglev) and steel wheel technology. The Tier

I EIS will be prepared under the direction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the co-lead federal agencies, and the Georgia

Department of Transportation (GDOT) as the state lead agency.

The Tier I EIS will incorporate and build upon previous studies of maglev and steel wheel HSGT

concepts prepared by the Atlanta Regional Commission. The Tier I EIS will define the purpose

and need, identify logical termini, analyze reasonable alternatives, estimate potential ridership,

and identify possible implementation phasing. The Tier I EIS will be prepared at a conceptual

level of detail appropriate for a programmatic analysis and will provide the FRA, FHWA and

GDOT with sufficient information to select the HSGT technology, general corridor location,

general station locations, and potential identification of an initial operating segment. The study

is expected to be complete at the end of 2009.

1.2 Public Involvement Overview

A study of this nature, scope and size requires the design and implementation of a public

involvement program characterized by three general goals: a) a comprehensive program that

maximizes participation of the many diverse stakeholders at key points in the planning process;

b) creation of effective dialogue on project issues and alternatives, which assists in the

development of solutions; and c) a proactive approach to addressing public concerns. A study of

this magnitude requires careful and consistent coordination, as well as flexibility to provide

responsiveness in the face of new events or changing perceptions. The GDOT Public

Involvement Policy (attached) will be closely followed at all times.

Assisting GDOT in this program is a team of consultants lead by Earth Tech, which will organize

and manage subconsultants and ensure that public input is incorporated into the study as

appropriate. Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates (HSH) is responsible for developing the Public

Involvement Plan and will oversee its implementation in association with Earth Tech. HSH will

be assisted primarily by Malvada Consulting and Dovetail Consulting. Technical support and

manpower assistance will be provided by Earth Tech and Moreland Altobelli on an as needed

basis.

1.3 Public Involvement Principles

Public involvement is not a stand-alone discreet task. It is integrated into the technical work

through a transparent process with a continuous feedback loop so that the public can see how

their input has been incorporated into the technical work. This ensures that at the end of the

project, while everyone may not be in agreement with the final recommendations, they have had
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 4 of 9

an opportunity to provide input at all major milestones. Specific public involvement principles

are stated below:

x Create an environment in which decisions are based on an objective, transparent, and

inclusive planning process that actively seeks input from a variety of stakeholders.

x The public and stakeholders will provide valuable information to the overall decisionmaking process. GDOT will consider all public information and technical input and will

ultimately make decisions about alternatives, the preferred alternative, station locations,

and next steps for corridor planning.

x Ensure open and clear communications.

x Facilitate two-way education.

x Meet and exceed state and federal public involvement requirements.

1.4 Public Involvement Goals

The specific Public Involvement goals for this project are as follows:

x To provide a structure and forum for interested and affected parties to provide input and

comment on major issues, problems, and alternatives along the Atlanta-Chattanooga

HSGT corridor.

x To educate agency representatives, stakeholders, and members of the public and media

about issues, opportunities, goals, and alternatives affecting the Atlanta-Chattanooga

HSGT corridor.

x To create general awareness of the study among highway, airport, and transit users, the

business communities, residents, and local government officials.

x To clarify the decision-making process.

x To engage all key stakeholders in the study process and results, and build consensus on

future activities.

1.5 Public Involvement Activities

People receive information and provide feedback in many different ways. This study will provide

a variety of tools, techniques, and activities to maximize participation in the study.

x Meetings

x Public Information Materials

x Drop-in Opportunities

x Other Public Involvement Activities

1.6 Meetings

There will be several formal and informal meetings held throughout the life of this study. These

are summarized in the following paragraphs.

1.6.1 Agency Scoping Meetings:

To kick off the study, two (2) formal agency scoping meetings will be held for the project,

one in Atlanta and one in Chattanooga. While not necessarily a citizen-oriented

meeting, these Agency Scoping meetings will provide valuable information to federal,
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 5 of 9

state and local governmental officials, who in turn, can provide information to the public,

staff and policy makers within their respective jurisdictions. The Agency Scoping meeting

will be held in accordance with Titles VI and VIII of the US Civil Rights Act and the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

1.6.2 Public Scoping Meetings:

In addition, three (3) public scoping meetings will be held, one in Atlanta, one in the

middle of the project study area, and another in Chattanooga. The scoping meeting will

have a presentation outlining the project’s history, the tiered environmental process and

its differences to the traditional environmental impact statement, and will discuss

evaluation techniques within the context of tiering. In addition, there will be generalized

information about the study process, the project’s purpose and need, evaluation

techniques, and other corridor information. Comments from the attending public will be

invited and documented. The Public Scoping meeting will be held in accordance with

Titles VI and VIII of the US Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1.6.3 Public Information Open Houses:

To encourage two-way exchange of information, two rounds of three drop-in style open

house meetings will be held in the Atlanta and Chattanooga metropolitan areas and a

third meeting mid-way along the corridor at key milestones: The meetings will occur

following the above mentioned Scoping sessions and during the development of the

DEIS. Open Houses will be widely advertised in all appropriate media, on the GDOT

Website, and through partner agencies and organizations such as MPOs, cities and

towns, and state agencies. Unlike a public hearing, open houses are informal and

provide opportunities for participants to ask questions in a friendly and nonconfrontational manner. Maps and graphics will be on display with study team members

available to answer questions and record comments. Handouts and comment sheets will

be distributed to all participants. The public information open houses will be held in

accordance with Titles VI and VIII of the US Civil Rights Act and the Americans with

Disabilities Act.

1.6.4 Stakeholder Meetings:

Meetings will be held with local officials, community and civic leaders, elected officials,

and others to find out about their issues, concerns and ideas for the corridor. These

meetings will give people a chance to communicate specific issues and concerns in

addition to learning about the study as a whole. Earth Tech will identify stakeholders in

consultation with GDOT.

1.6.5 Charrettes:

A charrette is a meeting set up to address challenges or specific issues with a specified

time limit and scope. Charrettes to resolve issues around the possible locations of

stations in municipalities will be held to resolve issues of location and urban design, and

to identify other possible concerns that should be addressed in subsequent Tier II

documents. Up to four charrettes will be held.
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 6 of 9

1.6.6 Public Hearing Open Houses:

These public hearing open houses will be opportunities to learn about the study and

provide testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), as required by

law. The hearings will be widely advertised in all appropriate media; on the GDOT

Website, through partner agencies and organizations such as MPOs, cities, towns, and

state agencies. The first part of the hearing will be an open houses format to provide the

public with opportunities to ask questions of staff. Maps and graphics will be on display

with study team members available to answer questions. Following a presentation of the

DEIS findings, participants will be given a chance to testify for the public record. The

public hearing open houses will be held in accordance with Titles VI and VIII of the US

Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1.7 Public Information Materials

Providing stakeholders and the public with clear and easy-to-understand information about the

study in general and specific elements of the study is critical to keeping them engaged over the

course of the three-year study. Meetings are only one way to communicate with people and will

be supplemented with public information that not only educates and informs, but also provides a

way to give feedback.

1.7.1 Website:

A Web page for the study will be set up as a link from the GDOT Website. Information will

be updated periodically and will be in downloadable formats. The goal of the Web page is to

enable the public to keep up to date on the progress of the study in between meetings and

events. Information that will be available will include:

x Public Involvement Plan

x Project schedule

x Meeting calendar

x Corridor photos and plans

x Documents including GDOT approved technical memoranda, Scoping report, and

final documents

x Fact sheets and newsletters

x Handouts from meetings, workshops, scoping sessions, charrettes, etc.

x Meeting summaries

In addition, a link to an e-mail box will allow people to give feedback on any aspect of the

study and on review documents as they are posted. Comments received in the e-mail

box will be responded to in a maximum of 72 business hours by GDOT. The team will

keep a complete record of all e-mail and responses.

1.7.2 Fact Sheets:

Fact Sheets will be prepared to answer the most frequently asked questions about the

study. Up to 10 Fact Sheets will be prepared over the course of the study. Possible

topics include a discussion of mode options, noise impacts, need and purpose,

environmental impacts, and service options. Fact Sheets will be concise and easy-to-
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 7 of 9

read, two-sided sheets with color. Fact Sheets will be posted on the Web page and a

small quantity printed for distribution at public meetings and other events in the study

area.

1.7.3 Newsletters:

Newsletters are an excellent way to provide information about the study in a clear and

concise way. The team will prepare three newsletters that will be timed with key aspects

of the study: kickoff, during the alternatives analysis, and at the end of the study when

the DEIS is available. Newsletters will be distributed by e-mail and to a mailing list of key

stakeholders, citizens who specifically request a newsletter, and citizens who provide

address information at a public information open house. The newsletters will also be

posted on the Website in a downloadable format.

1.8 Drop-in Opportunities

Less formal than public meetings, open houses, and hearings that frequently interest a relatively

small group of people, special events and non-traditional meeting locations can capture the

attention of a larger, more representative group who might not make a special effort to go to a

meeting.

1.8.1 Displays at High-Visibility Locations:

Two displays describing the goals of the study and the alternatives under investigation

will be prepared with the ability to be located at high-visibility locations such as the

airports in Atlanta and Chattanooga, MARTA stations, etc. The displays will provide

contact information and direct viewers to other sources for additional information. The

displays will be bi-lingual and will be designed to be understandable without being

staffed.

1.8.2 Staffed Booths:

The Consultant will set up and staff booths at special events within the project study area

to informally distribute information about the project. Possible events include county fairs,

street festivals, etc. Fact Sheets will be made available, as well other summary

information that can be easily updated, reproduced, and distributed throughout the

duration of the study. Up to 12 special events booths will be staffed throughout the

course of the study. All questions and comments received from the public will be

recorded and logged.

1.8.3 Speakers Bureau:

Speakers Bureaus are groups of trained representatives who can knowledgeably speak

about the study to groups and organizations. For this study, the team will train staff for

the Speakers Bureau. These people will be available to make presentations, upon

request, to local and regional civic and community organizations. General handouts

about the study will be prepared as a “leave behind.” The handout will provide a

description of the study, schedule, and contact information, including the Web page

address.
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 8 of 9

1.9 Other Public Involvement Activities

1.9.1 Outreach Meetings:

To encourage participation from people and groups who do not typically participate in

studies like this and may not be able to attend the Public Information Open Houses,

other venues will be identified that would be appropriate alternatives. These could

include minority churches, senior centers, and other community resources.

Environmental justice communities along the corridor will be included in this outreach.

Letters will be sent to church pastors, business groups, and other community leaders

introducing the study. Follow-up telephone calls will be made to encourage their

membership to attend the upcoming event.

1.9.2 Database:

Organizing all of the activities listed above requires identifying interested and affected

persons and groups and knowing a variety of ways to be in contact with them on a

regular or periodic basis. A comprehensive database for the study will be created and

maintained and will include names and addresses, organizations and affiliations,

telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and fax numbers. The database will also provide

information on areas of interest or concern, how people got involved in the study, what

events or meetings they participated in, and more.

Categories of stakeholders will include:

x Residents

x Abutters

x Property owners

x Elected officials

x Agency representatives

x Neighborhood organizations

x Business groups

x Interest groups

The database will be one of the primary ways of organizing stakeholders. At key points

in the study, the team will telephone key stakeholders to inform them of upcoming

milestones, call their attention to review documents on the Website, and check in with

them before decisions are made.

1.10 Environmental Justice

Special attention will be paid to ensure that all populations in the study area, including those that

are historically under-represented in the transportation decision-making process, have a role in

the study. The goal of the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994)

and the Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice (DOT Order

5610.2) dated April 15, 1997, is to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially

affected communities in the transportation decision-making process, and this study will meet

and exceed that goal. The goal will be achieved through outreach activities such as meeting
TIER I EIS HSGT ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA CORRIDOR

Page 9 of 9

with local community leaders, church leaders, special mailings and targeted advertising, as

required.

1.11 Documenting the Process, Feedback and Public Participation Impact

Documenting all public involvement activities, attendance, materials presented, and handouts is

a critical component of this plan. A log of activities by date will be maintained and posted on the

Website.

A comprehensive database of comments, issues, questions, and corrections will be maintained

and updated as needed. The goal of this database is to ensure that issues are addressed in the

process and those asking questions get an answer in a timely fashion.

A brief update on the status of the study will be written and posted on the Website at key

milestones. Unlike the newsletter, which will provide more details on the status of the study, this

update will answer the question, “What’s changed?” and will include where applicable issues

are raised by the public and others and how they have been addressed.

1.12 Media

Project updates and announcements will be disseminated to the local media via regular media

outlets. All media contact will be coordinated through GDOT, and all materials disseminated will

require GDOT approval prior to distribution.

1.13 Study Schedule

The Project Baseline Schedule provides a general sense of the study tasks and their

approximate timeframes. The dates shown for completion of specific tasks may shift during the

study.
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

3.0 AGENCY & STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN 

(ASIP) 
Georgia Department of Transportation 

ATLAN TA-CH AT T ANOOGA 

HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan 

2014 UPDATE 

Prepared by: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

September 2016

PTSCO - 0023-00-002

PI: No. T001684
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study i September 2016

Table of Contents 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2

A. PURPOSE OF THE AGENCY AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN (ASIP) .... 2

B. PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 3

Study Area Description ....................................................................................................... 3

Project Background ............................................................................................................. 3

Corridor Screening Process and Tier 1 EIS Build Alternatives ........................................... 4

Prior Coordination with Agencies, Stakeholders, and the Public ........................................ 6

III. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................... 6

A. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LEAD AGENCIES AND PARTICIPATING

AGENCIES ......................................................................................................................... 6

Federal Lead Agencies ....................................................................................................... 6

State Lead Agencies ........................................................................................................... 7

Participating Agencies ........................................................................................................ 8

B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR COOPERATING AGENCIES, TRIBAL

GOVERNMENTS, RESOURCE AGENCIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ................. 8

Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 8

Cooperating Agencies ......................................................................................................... 8

FRA, in consultation with FHWA, has determined that cooperating agencies would not be 

designated until Tier 2 NEPA analyses are performed for this project. .............. 8

Tribal Governments............................................................................................................. 9

Federal Resource Agencies ................................................................................................ 9

State Resource Agencies ................................................................................................. 10

Municipal and Regional Agencies ..................................................................................... 11

C. ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION (HSGT INTERMODAL SUBCOMMITTEE) ................................................................................................................... 13

HSGT Intermodal Sub-Committee .................................................................................... 13

D. COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING ADMINISTRATION ...................................... 13

E. PROJECT MILESTONES, REVIEW PERIODS & EXPECTATIONS .............................. 14

F. MILESTONES TO PROJECT COMPLETION ................................................................. 16

IV. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ 16

A. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT OVERVIEW ........................................ 16

B. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................... 17

Outreach Database ........................................................................................................... 17

C. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH ..................................................................... 18
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study ii September 2016

List of Figures 

Figure 1 – Project Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2 – Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 3 – Affected Native-American Tribes ................................................................................................................... 23

List of Tables 

Table 1 – Management Hierarchy ................................................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX – Distribution Lists
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 1 September 2016

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document provides an outline for the Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan (ASIP) for the 

Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), (the proposed project). The ASIP is the 2014 Update of the Public Involvement Plan 

(PIP), completed June 2007, and the Coordination Plan, completed February 2008 and revised 

through July 2010. This document will carry these previous documents forward for the completion of 

the proposed project when the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issues a Record of Decision 

(ROD). 

The Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 EIS process was initiated in August 2007 by FRA and FHWA, 

in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Tennessee Department 

of Transportation (TDOT). An administrative Draft EIS was prepared in December 2010, with 

subsequent revisions in August 2011 and February 2012. The FRA is re-obligating its initial grant to 

allow GDOT to complete the Tier 1 EIS under a new Grant/Cooperative agreement (March 2013). 

This ASIP combines and updates the original PIP and Coordination Plan, but includes revisions to 

address the terms under the new agreement. The ASIP will also conform to requirements from the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which is the nation’s surface transportation 

authorization legislation, and it includes updated agency/stakeholder lists, contact information, and a 

summary of previous coordination activities during the environmental review process. 

The tasks to be performed by GDOT under the new agreement include the following: 

1. Complete a revised administrative draft EIS for FRA and submit for review and approval;

2. Complete a draft EIS incorporating FRA and FHWA1

’s comments and after securing FRA’s

approval publish the draft EIS for agency and public comment;

3. Hold appropriate public meetings on the draft EIS;

4. Develop an administrative draft Final EIS (including responses to all substantive comments

received on the draft EIS) and submit for FRA review and approval;

5. Complete and publish a final EIS incorporating FRA’s comments (after securing FRA’s

approval);

6. Develop a draft Record of Decision (ROD) for FRA’s review and approval; and

7. Conduct appropriate public outreach activities during the term of this cooperative agreement

informing the public of the environmental review process.

1

 Following GDOT’s receipt of FHWA’s comments, FHWA’s role was changed to a Participating agency as of July 31, 2014. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 2 September 2016

II. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of the Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan (ASIP)

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) prepared this ASIP for the Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Atlanta – Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation 

(HSGT) project. 

The Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 EIS process began in August 2007, and GDOT completed an 

administrative Tier 1 Draft EIS in December 2010, with subsequent revisions in August 2011 and 

February 2012. The ASIP updates and combines the previously completed Public Involvement Plan 

(PIP), completed June 2007, and the Coordination Plan, completed February 2008 and revised July 

2010. The PIP created a framework for interested and affected parties to provide input on the 

proposed project; to educate and engage stakeholders and the public about the environmental 

review process, issues, goals, and alternatives; and to create general awareness of the study. The 

Coordination Plan facilitates agency coordination and participation and their review and comment 

process during the environmental review process for the proposed project. This document will carry 

these previous documents forward for the completion of the project when the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) issues a Record of Decision (ROD). 

FRA is re-obligating its initial grant to allow GDOT to complete the Tier 1 EIS under a new 

Grant/Cooperative agreement (March 2013). This ASIP will combine and update the original PIP and 

Coordination Plan, and include revisions to address the terms under the new agreement. 

The ASIP is considered a “living document” until a Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by FRA, the 

Federal agency leading the development of the Tier 1 EIS. As the project development progresses, 

GDOT may update the ASIP periodically, especially in response to reviews from participating 

agencies. The ASIP includes the following information: 

 Project History and Overview;

 Stakeholder Involvement Overview;

 Stakeholder Involvement Activities;

 Other Public Involvement Activities;

 Environmental Justice Outreach;

 Agency Involvement Plan;

 Agency Roles and Responsibilities;

 Additional Stakeholder Coordination (HSGT Intermodal Sub-committee);

 Collaborative Problem-Solving Administration;

 Project Milestones, Review Periods and Expectations; and

 Milestones to Project Completion.
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 3 September 2016

The project sponsors will move forward with the agency and stakeholder involvement program 

outlined in this document. GDOT will hold at least three public meetings within the study area; it 

previously created a project website. In tandem with the project website, fact sheets and newsletters 

will be distributed to resource agencies, stakeholders and the general public. A stakeholder listing is 

provided in Appendix A of this document. A 45 to 60-day public review period will be held wherein 

agencies and the public can review and submit comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

The ASIP is prepared in accordance with Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and amended by Section 1305 of 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).Section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU 

created Section 139 of Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) that mandates, among other 

requirements, that the lead agency must establish a plan for coordinating public and agency 

participation in and comment on the environmental review process for a Federally-funded project. As 

part of the ASIP, and after consulting with participating agencies and stakeholders, the lead agencies 

may establish a schedule for completion of the environmental review process for the proposed 

project. 

This ASIP outlines the public and agency involvement program and identifies key contacts between 

Federal and State agencies, public officials, local communities, affected Native American Tribes, and 

other key stakeholder groups and the public. The ASIP also identifies key contacts with civic and 

business groups, relevant interest groups, present and potential riders/users, and private service 

providers/shippers. The ASIP identifies how involvement activities will be linked to key milestones in 

the planning/engineering and environmental analytic process, including public meetings on the Tier 1 

Draft EIS. This process includes Tribal coordination to fulfill FRA's responsibilities under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

B. Project Overview

Study Area Description 

The project sponsors defined a broad geographic area for study comprised exclusively or in part, of 

the following counties: Clayton, Fulton, Cobb, Cherokee, Floyd, Bartow, Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, 

Chattooga, Catoosa, Douglas, Paulding, Polk, and Walker counties of Georgia; and Hamilton 

County, in Tennessee. See Figure 1 below for a depiction of the project study area. 

Project Background 

The concept of HSGT service between Atlanta and Chattanooga has been a subject of study for over 

a decade. Initially, GDOT studied this corridor as part of a 1997 Intercity Rail Plan. The Atlanta to 

Chattanooga corridor was first considered for high speed rail service as part of the Federal Magnetic 

Levitation (Maglev) Deployment Program funded by the FRA to demonstrate Maglev technology 

capabilities in the United States. Georgia was among several states that participated in the program. 

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) in cooperation with GDOT and the Georgia Regional 

Transportation Authority (GRTA), analyzed the 110-mile corridor between Atlanta and Chattanooga 

over a four-year period, from 1999 to 2003. The purpose of this analysis was to explore mobility 

options to determine the feasibility for a high speed passenger service. TDOT prepared a statewide 

rail plan in 2003, which recommended high speed rail connectivity with neighboring states. 

The overall goal of the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT project is to enhance intercity passenger 

mobility in northwest Georgia, and part of Tennessee, by expanding passenger transportation 

capacity, increasing overall personal and business mobility and providing an alternative to highway 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 4 September 2016

and air travel in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective while avoiding, minimizing, and/or 

mitigating effects on the human and natural environments. 

Currently, the state and interstate highway systems within the corridor are operating at or near 

capacity, especially within and adjacent to the Atlanta, Rome, Dalton and Chattanooga areas. 

Although capacity improvements to the state and interstate roadway system along the corridor are 

either currently underway or planned for the near future, they will not address all of the future capacity 

or mobility needs for the region. The increased traffic volumes and accident rates in the study corridor 

further emphasize the need for alternative transportation. Social and economic demands will continue 

to call for a provision of alternative transportation choices for those individuals, who cannot or choose 

not to drive, as well as those travelers and commuters looking for alternatives to congested 

highways. 

Corridor Screening Process and Tier 1 EIS Build Alternatives 

During the screening process, 15 unique corridors from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport (HJAIA) to downtown Chattanooga were identified. From these 15 corridors, 3 corridors 

advanced to become Build Alternatives for analysis in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The three corridors that 

advanced as Build Alternatives are: 

 I-75 Southern Crescent;

 East Southern Crescent; and

 I-75/Rome Southern Crescent.

The Tier 1 Draft EIS will evaluate four alternatives: a No-Build Alternative and the three Build 

Alternatives. The No-Build Alternative represents the project area’s transportation system as it was 

forecast to be in the year 2030 with implementation of programs or projects that were already 

identified in local, regional, and state transportation plans and had identified funds for implementation 

by 2030. The No-Build Alternative assumes that an HSGT system would not be built between Atlanta 

and Chattanooga and is the basis for comparison of the alternatives under consideration in the Tier 1 

EIS. Transportation options between Atlanta and Chattanooga consists of automobile travel, primarily 

along Interstate 75 (I-75), Interstate 285 (I-285), US Route 411 (US 411), US Route 41 (US 41), and 

Interstate 24 (I-24), existing local, regional, and intercity rail and bus services, and air travel between 

HJAIA Lovell Field Airport in Chattanooga. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 5 September 2016

Figure 1 – Project Study Area 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 6 September 2016

Prior Coordination with Agencies, Stakeholders, and the Public 

The Scoping Process for the Tier 1 Draft EIS began in 2007, during which GDOT established a 

comprehensive program for agency coordination as well as stakeholder and public outreach that 

allowed for dialogue on issues and alternatives that assisted in the development of solutions. Two 

Agency Scoping Meetings were conducted during the scoping process, which began in August 2007 

and ended in October 2007. The meetings were held in Atlanta and Chattanooga, and included 

comments pertaining to the capacity of existing freight corridors, potential effects on water and 

biological resources, the number and location of stations, and the potential location of the proposed 

service. Additionally, Lead Agency coordination meetings between Federal and state lead agencies 

continue to take place on a regular basis during the development of the Tier 1 Draft EIS. More 

information about the Agency Scoping Meetings can be found in the Coordination Plan. 

The stakeholder and public outreach program also includes a framework for stakeholder meetings, 

which occurred from January to June of 2008. These 19 meetings occurred in various locations along 

the potential alignment, and included the participation of more than 60 local government 

representatives. The stakeholder meetings included comments pertaining to county zoning 

ordinances, land development activities, and conflicts between areas designated for industrial-related 

economic development. More information about the 2008 stakeholder meetings can be found in the 

PIP and the Tier 1 Draft EIS document. 

Specifically related to the general public, there were two types of meetings designed to solicit public 

involvement. These meetings included the 2007 Public Scoping Meetings, which were held to 

develop the Purpose and Need, and the 2010 Public Information Open House (PIOH) meetings, 

which reviewed the screening and alternative development process and results. 

III. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT PLAN

A. Roles and Responsibilities for Lead Agencies and Participating

Agencies

The following agency roles and responsibilities reflect the general understanding among the parties 

of the proposed project’s ASIP. Future revisions to the ASIP may include updates to agency roles 

and responsibilities as appropriate. 

Federal Lead Agencies 

Federal lead agencies have an important responsibility for preparing the Tier 1 EIS in accordance 

with Federal statutes and regulations. Federal lead agencies provide oversight and involvement in 

managing the environmental review process and issue resolution processes. Federal lead agencies 

must: 

 Identify and involve participating agencies2

;

 Prepare a coordination plan;

2

 Per FRA, in conjunction with FHWA, cooperating agencies will not be identified for this Tier 1 EIS. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 7 September 2016

 Provide involvement opportunities for the public, and participating agencies and tribal

governments, in defining purpose and need as well as determining the range of alternatives;

and

 Collaborate with participating agencies and tribal governments in determining methodologies

and the level of detail for the Tier 1 EIS assessment and evaluation of alternatives.

FRA has been designated as the Federal lead agency for the Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 EIS 

and is responsible for compliance with the following: 

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

 NEPA-related Federal environmental statutes and regulations;

 FRA’s environmental regulations as published in 64 Federal Register 28545; and

 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 and related regulations contained in 23 CFR 774 (Parks,

Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites).

FRA’s environmental guidance will serve as the baseline for purposes of ensuring procedural 

compliance with NEPA and Section 4(f), respectively. FHWA’s environmental regulations, 23 CFR 

771 and 23 CFR 774, will serve as guidance for areas not covered by FRA’s regulations. Each 

agency’s environmental requirements and technical and financial evaluation criteria will be applied as 

appropriate to ensure that each agency’s statutory responsibilities and concerns are addressed in the 

environmental document. 

As the Federal lead agency, FRA may provide specific guidance for GDOT on: 

 Analysis of HSGT alternatives;

 HSGT planning and operations;

 Ridership demand and revenue forecasting;

 Capital and operating funding;

 Mobility evaluation related to FRA requirements; and

 FRA NEPA procedures.

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, as amended by MAP-21 and 23 CFR Part 771, specify that Federal 

lead agencies must provide participating and cooperating agencies and the public the opportunity for 

involvement in the development of the need and purpose statement and the identification of the 

range of alternatives to be considered. As the Federal lead agency for this project, FRA will review 

HSGT study documentation and processes for consistency with SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, as 

amended by MAP-21, 23 CFR Part 771 and 23 CFR Part 774. 

State Lead Agencies 

GDOT will be a state joint-lead agency with TDOT for the HSGT Tier 1 EIS. GDOT will be 

responsible for the coordination and oversight of appropriate and necessary technical analyses and 

for the coordination of environmental document preparation, including, but not limited to, agency and 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 8 September 2016

public involvement, notifications and coordination with affected agencies, tribal governments, and the 

public. 

GDOT will recommend the preferred alternative(s) for more detailed definition, assessment, and 

evaluation in the Tier 2 NEPA process. 

TDOT will be a state joint-lead agency for the HSGT Tier 1 EIS. TDOT will assist GDOT with the 

technical coordination for the proposed project, and will assist in the review and coordination of all 

technical analyses and environmental documents, and public involvement activities related to the Tier 

1 EIS. 

Participating Agencies 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will serve as a participating agency in the development 

of the Tier 1 EIS. FHWA is the Federal agency responsible for consultation for the development of 

the range of alternatives, methodologies, and the level of detail for the analysis of the alternatives for 

the Tier 1 EIS. FHWA reviews the Tier 1 EIS documentation for the Tier 1 EIS range of alternatives 

and the identification of avoidance or minimization actions to be explored in the Tier 2 NEPA stage 

for site-specific impacts that may result from these alternatives. 

B. Roles and Responsibilities for Cooperating Agencies, Tribal

Governments, Resource Agencies, and Local Governments

The current lists of contact information for all local, state, and Federal participating agencies and tribal 

governments that are involved have been updated and may be found in Appendix A of this 

document. GDOT will send a newsletter to all listed agencies involved to provide a project update 

and to inform them of the intent and process for carrying the Tier 1 EIS forward to completion. 

Roles and Responsibilities 

To ensure that the concerns of each participating agency are considered in the environmental 

document, each party to this Plan will designate an individual, as well as an alternate, to represent 

that agency on all matters relating to this study. That individual will be the primary contact for transfer 

of project related information, and will be responsible for providing timely input into the preparation, 

coordination, and review of the environmental document. Each participating agency will be 

responsible for notifying the lead agencies of changes in points of contact. 

Study deliverables will be forwarded as soon as possible to the appropriate individual(s) to allow for 

review and comment as set forth in the project schedule included with this plan. 

An entity’s acceptance of designation as a participating agency is not an indication of project support, 

and does not provide the agency with increased oversight or approval authority beyond statutory 

limits, if applicable. 

Cooperating Agencies

FRA, in consultation with FHWA, has determined that cooperating agencies would not be designated 

until Tier 2 NEPA analyses are performed for this project. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 9 September 2016

Tribal Governments 

Native American tribes are federally recognized self-governing entities exercising inherent sovereign 

powers over their territories. Federal lead agencies are responsible for coordination and consultation 

with tribal officials consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and 

Federal Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). The 

invitation of potentially affected tribal governments to participate in the EIS process is specified in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of 

NEPA (40 CFR 1501.2, 40 CFR 1501.7). 

Section 101(d) (2) of the National Historic Preservation Act allows tribal governments to assume the 

functions of State Historic Preservation Offices with respect to tribal land. Tribal government 

representatives will review projects occurring on, or affecting historic properties on, their tribal lands. 

Tribal governments will also advise of other historic properties that are of related religious or cultural 

significance. 

GDOT established Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with a number of the non-resident tribes 

that have historical or cultural links with the state of Georgia. Such memoranda address the project 

planning, identification of religious or cultural properties, assessment and resolution of adverse 

effects, and the treatment of Native American burials in compliance with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Federal Resource Agencies 

In addition to FRA and FHWA, other Federal agencies may hold regulatory responsibility for the 

protection of resources and are responsible for participation in the NEPA process in accordance with 

CEQ and individual implementing regulations and policies. Federal resource agency roles in the 

NEPA process for this study include: 

 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – Federal agency responsible for

consultation to avoid or minimize impacts to regulatory floodways. FEMA reviews the Tier 1

EIS documentation for the discussion of avoidance or minimization actions for Tier 1 EIS

alternatives and the identification of alternative avoidance or minimization actions to be

explored in the Tier 2 NEPA stage for compliance with National Flood Insurance Program

standards;

 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) – Federally owned corporation responsible for stewardship

and provision of flood control, navigation, electricity generation, land management, and

economic development in the Tennessee Valley. Authorization from TVA is required under

Section 26(a) of the TVA Act for impacts to waters within the Tennessee River watershed.

Early coordination during the Tier 1 NEPA process is necessary for the preparation of TVA

permits during the subsequent Tier 2 NEPA process;

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Federal agency responsible for administering

permits in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (regulated discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors

Appropriation Act (protection of capacity within navigable waters of the U.S.). While Section

404 and/or Section 10 permits will not be requested during the Tier 1 EIS process, such

permits and the Practicable Alternatives Review process are likely to be necessary as part of

the Tier 2 NEPA process. Coordination will proceed as documented in the Local
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 10 September 2016

NEPA/404(b)(1) Coordination Procedures between GDOT, FHWA Georgia Division, and the 

USACE; 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) – Federal

agency responsible for protection of prime, statewide-important, and unique farmland from

significant conversion, in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Coordination

with NRCS to identify average farm sizes by county within the study area will occur during the

Tier 1 EIS process. Further coordination and the farmland impact rating procedures will be a

function of the Tier 2 NEPA process;

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) – Federal agency with jurisdiction

over National Forest lands potentially requiring transfers;

 Department of Housing and Urban Development (USHUD) - Federal agency responsible for

implementation of programs and projects in accordance with the Uniform Relocation

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act). The Uniform Act

provides important protections and assistance for people affected by the acquisition,

rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for Federal or federally funded projects. HUD

works closely with FHWA, the designated Federal Lead Agency for the Uniform Act.

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Federal agency

responsible for coordination to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to Federally-listed

protected species in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USFWS is

the federal agency with jurisdiction for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the

Bald Eagle Protection Act. Additionally, USFWS consultation includes the review of projects

posing potentially unavoidable longitudinal stream encroachments or channel straightening

impacts of 50 or more feet to intermittent and perennial streams, in accordance with the Fish

and Wildlife Coordination Act. USFWS coordination will include reviews of technical ecology

documentation estimating overall potential jurisdictional impacts;

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) – Federal agency

responsible for coordination to avoid or minimize impacts to official units of the NPS; and

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -– Federal agency responsible for

protecting public health and the environment by improving air, land and water quality.

Coordination with EPA is required under Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA, Section 309 of the

Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to avoid or minimize impacts to

air, land and water quality.

State Resource Agencies 

In addition to GDOT and TDOT, other state agencies may hold statutory responsibility for the 

protection of resources. State resource agency roles in the NEPA process for this study include: 

 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Environmental Protection Division,

and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation – In accordance with Section

401 of the Clean Water Act, these state agencies are responsible for issuing Water Quality

Certifications for projects requiring an individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. Early coordination during the Tier 1 EIS will contribute toward the preparation of such

certifications, if applicable, during the Tier 2 NEPA phase;
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 11 September 2016

 GADNR Historic Preservation Division, and Tennessee Historical Commission – both State

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 106

of the NHPA. The SHPOs contribute data identifying resources on or eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places, and other historic structures and archaeological sites. The

agencies also may establish agreements for assessment and coordination activities in

advance of the Tier 2 NEPA process; and

 GADNR Wildlife Resources Division is responsible for, conserving, enhancing, and promoting

Georgia’s wildlife resources, including game and nongame animals, fish and protected plants.

The Division is comprised of three sections – Game Management, Fisheries Management,

and Nongame Conservation.

Municipal and Regional Agencies 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), regional planning agencies (and city or county 

planning agencies, where appropriate), and regional transportation agencies within the study area 

provide the latest planning assumptions, including land use assumptions, population and 

employment forecasts, and transportation modeling data. Such data will be the common foundation 

for the Tier 1 EIS socioeconomic, mobility and land use analyses. 

MPOs are established by the Governor and local officials for regional transportation planning in 

urbanized areas. The USDOT designates urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. 

MPOs adopt long-range regional transportation plans meeting Federal air quality standards and 

establish short-term programs of transportation projects. The pertinent MPOs, and their respective 

counties that fall within the study area, include: 

 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) – MPO for Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Douglas, Fulton,

and Paulding Counties;

 Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (CHCRPA), Transportation

Planning Organization (TPO) – MPO for Hamilton County, Tennessee and portions of

Catoosa County and Walker County, Georgia in the Chattanooga urbanized area;

 Cartersville-Bartow MPO – Formed in 2013; an intergovernmental transportation planning

body for Bartow County, Georgia;

 Floyd-Rome Urban Transportation Study (FRUTS) – MPO for the Rome urbanized area

within Floyd County; and

 Greater Dalton MPO – MPO for the Dalton urbanized area within Whitfield County.

Designated under state laws, regional commissions within the study area develop, promote, and 

assist with the establishment of coordinated and comprehensive plans, offering technical assistance 

to state, Federal, and local agencies in balancing quality growth and development with the 

conservation of resources. Regional planning agencies within the study area include: 

 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) – representing Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Douglas and

Fulton Counties within the study area;

 Appalachian Regional Commission (also known as the ARC) – Federal-state partnership

supporting sustainable community and economic development for 13 states in the
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 12 September 2016

Appalachian region, including Georgia and Tennessee. To avoid confusion with the Atlanta 

Regional Commission, the “ARC” acronym will not be used to make reference to the 

Appalachian Regional Commission and will only be used to refer to the Atlanta Regional 

Commission; 

 CHCRPA – representing Hamilton County within the study area; and

 Northwest Georgia Regional Commission – representing Bartow, Catoosa, Chattooga, Floyd,

Gordon, Murray, Paulding, Polk, Walker, and Whitfield Counties within the study area.

Municipal governments within the study area (including city and county government agencies) may 

also be consulted during the Tier 1 EIS development process to provide or validate land use 

planning, right-of-way, or socioeconomic information. County governments within the study area 

include: 

 Bartow County, Georgia;

 Catoosa County, Georgia;

 Clayton County, Georgia;

 Cobb County, Georgia;

 Douglas County, Georgia;

 Floyd County, Georgia;

 Fulton County, Georgia;

 Gordon County, Georgia;

 Hamilton County, Tennessee;

 Murray County, Georgia;

 Paulding County, Georgia;

 Polk County, Georgia; and

 Whitfield County, Georgia.

Several regional and local transportation agencies are located within the study area. These include, 

but are not limited to: 

 Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA);

 Cobb Community Transit;

 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA); and

 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA).
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 13 September 2016

C. Additional Stakeholder Coordination (HSGT Intermodal Subcommittee)

HSGT Intermodal Sub-Committee 

This sub-committee includes members of the Georgia State Transportation Board and study area 

stakeholders3

. The sub-committee provides input to GDOT project management staff at key points in 

the development of the HSGT study. 

D. Collaborative Problem-Solving Administration

The lead agency and the study team will use the following decision-making approach, as required. If 

an impasse occurs between the lead agency and the direct project management team cannot make 

a decision within a two-week period of the issue being identified, each party agrees to involve 

relevant agency management as outlined in Table 1. Final decisions of any continuing issues will be 

a matter for determination by the GDOT Commissioner, the TDOT Commissioner, and the FRA 

Associate Administrator or their respective designees. 

If a decision is stalled, the management hierarchy for these organizations is shown in Table 1 below. 

When the representatives at the lowest level for each party have reached an impasse and have 

agreed to elevate the decision, a meeting will be held within a one-week period. At that time, 

representatives from both levels will meet to discuss the issues related to the impasse and attempt 

resolution. 

If an agreement cannot be reached within a week, the issue will be elevated to the next level and a 

meeting will be held within a one-week period. At that time, representatives from all three levels will 

meet to discuss the issues related to the impasse and attempt resolution. 

If an agreement cannot be reached within a week, the issue will be elevated to the highest 

organizational level and a meeting date will be established within a one-week period. At that time, all 

parties at all levels will meet to resolve the issue. The parties hereto agree that any resolution to an 

impasse secured through the decision-making process set forth in this section will be communicated 

in writing to all parties. 

3

 Stakeholders generally include County Commissioners, City Council members, and planning managers/staff of jurisdictions within

the project study area. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 14 September 2016

Table 1 – Management Hierarchy 

Level FRA GDOT TDOT

1 Environmental Protection 

Specialist 

Project Manager Project Manager 

2 Division Office of Program 

Delivery 

Intermodal Division 

Director 

Assistant Chief of 

Environment and 

Planning 

3 Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Development 

Chief Engineer Chief of Environment 

and Planning 

4 Administrator Commissioner Commissioner 

E. Project Milestones, Review Periods & Expectations

As stated in the Introduction, SAFETEA-LU 6002 established the milestones at which proposed 

project efforts must be reviewed by the joint lead agencies, participating agencies, and the public 

prior to moving forward in the Tier 1 EIS process. These milestones include: 

 Project Need and Purpose (by public, participating agencies and tribal governments during

scoping);

 Identification of the Range of Alternatives (by public, participating agencies and tribal

governments during scoping);

 Methodologies to be used and level of detail required in the analysis of each alternative

(by participating agencies and tribal governments during scoping and alternatives screening

stages);

 Tier 1 Draft EIS (by lead agency, prior to Notice of Availability);

 Identification of Preferred Alternative (by lead agency);

 Tier 1 Final EIS (by lead agency, prior to Notice of Availability); and

 Tier 1 ROD (by Federal lead agency and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency only).

Section 1319(b) of MAP-21 directs the lead agencies, to the maximum extent possible, to 

expeditiously develop a single document that consists of a Final EIS and ROD in order to streamline 

the environmental review process. Traditionally, Final EIS and ROD documents are issued as 

separate documents with a minimum 30-day period between the Final EIS and the ROD. The current 

project schedule, as seen below, does not reflect this new guidance. Further coordination between 

the project sponsors and lead agencies will determine the proper course of action. 

The activities shown above are identified in the overall anticipated project schedule. The project 

schedule includes anticipated timeframes for document reviews by participating agencies. See 

Figure 2: Project Schedule. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 15 

Figure 2 – Project Schedule 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 16 September 2016

F. Milestones to Project Completion

The project milestones include all work required to complete the Tier 1 EIS, supporting technical 

reports and studies, and ROD. This work includes: 

 A revised administrative Tier 1 Draft EIS for FRA review and approval;

 A Revised Administrative Tier 1 Draft EIS that includes responses to all substantive

comments received on the Tier 1 Draft EIS;

 An Agency Summit, which includes an invitation for local, state, and Federal agencies to

identify any outstanding issues prior to the formal review period;

 Tier 1 Draft EIS Notice of Availability (NOA), which notifies agencies and the public of the

public meetings and public/agency review period;

 Public meetings and minimum 45 to 60-day comment period;

 An Administrative Tier 1 Final EIS, which will be prepared based on agency and public review

comments, as well as those received at public meetings;

 Tier 1 Final EIS and NOA, based on comments from FRA review; and

 Record of Decision (ROD), prepared for FRA.

IV. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN

A. Public and Stakeholder Involvement Overview

Public involvement is integrated into the environmental review process through a transparent 

process. During the environmental review process, stakeholders who may be affected by the 

proposed project can see how their input has been taken into account and incorporated into the 

technical work. This ensures that at the end of the project, stakeholders in the project have had an 

opportunity to provide input at all major milestones. The public involvement process enables the 

project sponsors to: 

 Create an environment in which decisions are based on an objective, transparent, and

inclusive planning process that actively seeks input from a variety of stakeholders;

 Consider all public information and technical input, which aids the planning process and

decision-making;

 Ensure open and clear communications;

 Facilitate two-way education; and

 Meet and exceed state and Federal public involvement requirements.
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 17 September 2016

The specific public involvement goals for this project are: 

 Provide a structure and forum for interested and affected parties to provide input and

comment on major issues, problems, and alternatives along the proposed AtlantaChattanooga HSGT corridor;

 Educate agency representatives, stakeholders, and members of the public and media about

issues, opportunities, goals, and alternatives affecting the proposed Atlanta-Chattanooga

HSGT corridor;

 Create general awareness of the study among highway, airport, and transit users, the

business communities, residents, and local government officials;

 Clarify the decision-making process; and

 Engage all key stakeholders in the study process and results, and build consensus on future

activities.

B. Public and Stakeholder Involvement Activities

Public Meetings 

Public meetings will be held once FRA has approved the Tier 1 Draft EIS and released if for public 

and agency review. The public meetings will be held in three locations in the proposed project study 

area, providing opportunities at the south (Atlanta Region) and north termini (Chattanooga Region) of 

the study area, and at least one location in between Atlanta and Chattanooga such as Cartersville, 

Georgia. 

Public Information Materials 

The previously-created project website will be maintained through the completion of the Tier 1 Final 

EIS and ROD. This site will include project documents, project newsletters and announcements 

(including locations/dates) of public meetings. The website is accessible via the following link: 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/travelingingeorgia/rail/Pages/Atl-Chatt.aspx. 

Fact Sheets and Newsletters 

The project sponsors will prepare project fact sheets and newsletters to answer the most frequently 

asked questions about the study. Possible topics include a discussion of mode options, noise 

impacts, need and purpose, environmental impacts, and service options. Fact sheets will be concise 

and easy-to-read, two-sided sheets with color. Both fact sheets and newsletters will be posted on the 

Web page and a small quantity printed for distribution at public meetings and other events in the 

study area. 

Outreach Database 

The outreach database, which includes a list of stakeholder contact information, will be updated for 

the ASIP and maintained through the completion of the Tier 1 EIS. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 18 September 2016

C. Environmental Justice Outreach

In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income Populations), there will be particular emphasis on involving 

underserved populations, including minority, low-income, transit-dependent, and non-English 

speaking communities. Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to achieve 

environmental justice as part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated 

social and economic effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

Outreach: A key aspect of an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis is to ensure the involvement of 

affected communities/populations in our transportation decision-making processes. Early and 

continuous public involvement is critical to identifying needs and developing solutions to our 

transportation problems. The efforts to engage minority and low-income populations/communities 

must be genuine in order to develop trusting relationships with these communities. They need to 

know that their input is valued and given serious consideration in project decisions. EJ communities 

of concern within the proposed project study area may be targeted for additional public engagement 

before a ROD is issued. Special outreach will be conducted for minority and low-income populations 

in these communities. The project team will identify the languages spoken by the communities in the 

project study area and will provide language services for greater participation from these 

communities. For instance, it is already known that Spanish-language publicizing of meetings and 

public meetings, availability of Spanish-language versions of presentation materials, and availability 

of Spanish interpreters at public meetings will be needed. 

Maintaining some consistency among those involved through the life of a project, and engaging the 

public frequently, helps to build trust in the project sponsors. Additional measures such as inviting 

local elected officials and other known community leaders and communicating project updates with 

these individuals will be maintained throughout the environmental review process. 

Accessibility: Public meetings and public meetings will take place in Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA)-accessible locations to ensure disabled persons may attend. Public meetings will also take 

place in transit-accessible locations when possible, so that transit-dependent persons are able to 

attend. 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 19 September 2016

Appendix A – Distribution Lists 

Stakeholders

Prefix First 

Name 

Last Name Title Organization Phone 

# 

Email

County and City 

Mr. Steve Taylor County Commissioner Bartow County 770-387-

5030

taylors@bartowga.or

g 

Mr. Keith Greene Chairman Catoosa County 706-965-

2500

keith.greene@catoo

sa.com 

Mr L.B. "Buzz" Ahrens, Jr. Commission Chairman Cherokee County 678-493-

6000

lbahrens@cherokee

ga.com 

Mr. Brian Bulthuis City Manager City of Acworth 770-974-

3112

bbulthuis@acworth.o

rg 

Ms. Duriya Farooqui Chief Operating 

Officer, Office of the 

COO 

City of Atlanta 404.330.6

004 

dfarooqui@atlantaga

.gov 

Mr. Eddie Peterson City Administrator City of Calhoun 706-629-

0151

fepeterson@calnetga.net 

Mr. Sam Grove City Manager City of Cartersville 770-387-

5616

sgrove@cityofcarter

sville.org 

Mr. Ty Ross City Administrator City of Dalton 706-278-

9500

tross@cityofdaltonga.gov 

Ms. Freida Wheeler City Manager City of East Ridge 423-867-

7711

fwheeler@eastridget

n.org

Mr. Al Pallone Mayor City of Emerson 770-382-

9819

apallone@emersonc

ityhall.com 

Mr. Dan Wright City Manager City of Ringgold 706-935-

3061

danwright@catt.com

Ms. Carol Berz Councilwoman City of 

Chattanooga 

423-757-

5198

berz_c@mail.chatta

nooga.gov 

Mr. Mark Matthews Mayor City of Kennesaw 770-424-

8274

mmathews@kennes

aw-ga.gov 

Mr. Jeffrey Turner Chairman Clayton County 

Board of 

Commissioners 

770-477-

3208

beverly.mcmichen@

claytoncountaga.gov

Mr. Tim Lee Chairman Cobb County 770-528-

1000

tlee@cobbcounty.or

g 

Mr. Tom Wortham Chairman Douglas County 770-920-

7269

tworthan@co.dougla

s.ga.us

Mr John Eaves Chairman Fulton County 404-730-

8200

john.eaves@fultonco

untyga.gov 

Mr Gary Burkhalter County Manager Floyd County 706-291-

5110

burkhalterg@floydco

untyga.org 

Mr. Becky Hood Chair-Person Gordon County 706-629-

379

bhood@gordoncount

y.org

Mr. Jim Coppinger Mayor Hamilton County 423-209-

6100

countymayor@mail.

hamiltontn.gov 

Mr. Larry L Henry Chairman Hamilton County 423-209-

7200

district7@mail.hamilt

ontn.gov 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 20 September 2016

Prefix First 

Name 

Last Name Title Organization Phone 

# 

Email

Mr. James Welch Chairman Murray County 706-695-

2413

Mr. David Austin Chairman Paulding County 770-443-

7550

commissioners@pau

lding.gov 

Ms. Bebe Haskell Commissioner Walker County 706-638-

1437

commissioner@walk

erga.us 

Mr. Mike Babb Chairman Whitfield County 706-275-

7500

mbabb@whitfieldcou

ntyga.com 

Ms. Ceasar Mitchell City Council President City of Atlanta 404- 330-

6030

ccmitchell@atlantag

a.gov

Mr. Kwanza Hall City Council Member City of Atlanta 404-330-

6038

khall@atlantaga.gov

Business 

Organizations 

Mr. Mason Zimmerman Chairman Town Center CID 770-980-

0808

hmzimmerman@pop

eandland.com 

Mr. Tad Leithead Chairman Cumberland CID 770.859.2

347 

rplummer@cumberla

ndcid.org 

Mr. Don Cope President & CEO Dalton Utilities 706-278-

1313

dcope@dutil.com 

Mr. Paul Bowers President & CEO Georgia Power 

Mr. Kevin Green President & CEO Midtown Alliance 404-892-

0050

kevin@midtownATL.

com 

Mr A.J. Robinson President Central Atlanta 

Progress 

404-658-

1877

aj@atlantadowntown

.com 

Prefix First 

Name

Last Name Title Organization Phone 

#

Email

Ms. Bari Love Senior Vice President 

of Communications 

and Marketing 

Metro Atlanta 

Chamber of 

Commerce 

404-586-

8466

blove@macoc.com 

Planning 

Organizations 

Ms. Susan Paredes GDMPO Coordinator Greater Dalton 

MPO 

706-876-

2559

sparedes@whitfieldc

ountyga.com 

Mr. Lamont Kiser Director Cartersville-Bartow 

Metropolitan 

Planning 

Organization 

770-607-

6253

kiserl@bartowga.org

Mr John Bridger Secretary to 

Commission 

ChattanoogaHamilton County 

Regional Planning 

Agency 

423-757-

5216

bennett_b@mail.cha

ttanooga.gov 

Mr. Mike Babb Executive Director Northwest Georgia 

Regional 

Commission 

706-295-

6485

Mr. James Thompson Program Manager Appalachian 

Regional 

Commission 

404-679-

1584

james.thompson@d

ca.ga.gov 

Mr. Walter 

"Sonny" 

Deriso Chairman of the Board 

of Directors 

GRTA 404-463-

3000

comments@grta.org

Mr Douglas Hooker Director Atlanta Regional 

Commission 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 21 September 2016

Prefix First 

Name 

Last Name Title Organization Phone 

# 

Email

Transportation 

Agencies 

Mr. Jeff Lewis State Transportation 

Board Member, 

Congressional District 

11 

GDOT 770-382-

4411

jeflewis@dot.ga.gov 

Mr. Roger Williams State Transportation 

Board Member, 

Congressional District 

14 

GDOT 706-618-

6029

rogwilliams@dot.ga.

gov 

Ms. Stacey Key State Transportation 

Board Member, 

Congressional District 

5 

GDOT 404-310-

5040

skey@dot.ga.gov 

Mr. John Schroer DOT Commissioner TDOT 615-741-

2848

Mr. Steve Vogel President Georgia 

Association of 

Railroad 

Passengers 

president@garprail.o

rg 

Mr. Gordon Kenna Chief Executive 

Officer 

Georgians for 

Passenger Rail 

gkenna@georgiarail.

org 

Ms. Jannine Miller Executive Director GRTA 404-463-

3000

jmiller@grta.org 

Mr. Tom Nissalke Director of 

Environmental and 

Technical Services, 

City of AtlantaDepartment of 

Aviation 

Hartsfield Jackson 

Atlanta 

International 

Airport 

404-530-

5500

tom.nissalke@atlant

a-airport.com

Mr. Terry Hart President & CEO Chattanooga 

Airport 

423-855-

2201

thart@Chattairport.c

om 

Mr. Robert Ashe III Board Member MARTA 404-881-

4169

ashe@bmelaw.com 

Mr. Rodney Barry Division Administrator FHWA-GA 404-562-

3630

Rodney.barry@dot.g

ov 

State Senators 

Mr. Judson Hill Senator Marietta 404-656-

0150

judson.hill@senate.g

a.gov

Mr. Steve Thompson Senator Marietta 404-656-

0083

steve.thompson@se

nate.ga.gov 

Mr. Jeff Mullis Senator Chickamauga 404-656-

0057

jeff.mullis@senate.g

a.gov

Mr. Hunter Hill Senator Atlanta 404-463-

2518

hunter.hill@senate.g

a.gov

Ms. Nan Orrock Senator Atlanta 404-463-

8054

nan.orrock@senate.

ga.gov 

Mr. Charlie Bethel Senator Dalton 404-651-

7738

charlie.bethel@sena

te.ga.gov 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 22 September 2016

Prefix First 

Name 

Last Name Title Organization Phone 

# 

Email

US Senators & 

Representatives 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander US Senaor State of 

Tennessee 

423-752-

5337

The Honorable Bob Corker US Senator State of 

Tennessee 

423-756-

2757

The Honorable Phil Gingrey Congressman 11th 

District 

US House of 

Representatives 

770-429-

1776

gingrey.ga@mail.ho

use.gov 

The Honorable Johnny Isakson US Senator State of Georgia 770-661-

0999

The Honorable John Lewis Congressman 5th 

District 

US House of 

Representatives 

404-659-

0116

The Honorable Rob Woodall Congressman 7th 

District 

US House of 

Representatives 

770-232-

3005

The Honorable Tom Price Congressman 6th 

District 

US House of 

Representatives 

770-998-

0049

The Honorable Chuck Fleischmann Congressman District 

3 

US House of 

Representatives 

423-756-

2342

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss US Senator State of Georgia 770-763-

9090
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 23 September 2016

Tribes 

Figure 3 illustrates the Native American tribes within the project study area. 

Figure 3 – Affected Native-American Tribes 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 24 For reference purposes, Federally-recognized tribes are listed below: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

 571 State Park Road, 56  Livingston, TX 77351  Web: www.alabama-coushatta.com/ Oscola Clayton Sylestine, Principal Chief  Carlos Bullock, Tribal Council Chairman  Bryant Celestine, THPO  936.563.1181  936.563.1183 fax 

celestine.bryant@actribe.org

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 2025 S. Gordon Cooper Drive Shawnee, OK 74801 405.275.4030 405.878.4711 fax Web: www.astribe.com

 Edwina Butler-Wolfe, Governor  Mr. Joseph H. Blanchard, THPO 

joseph.blanchard@astribe.com

405.275.4030 ext. 203 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 25 

Cherokee Nation PO Box 948 Tahlequah, OK 74465 Physical address: 17675 S. Muskogee Web: www.cherokee.orgMr. Bill John Baker, Principal Chief Mr. S. Joe Crittenden, Deputy Chief RICHARD Allen, THPO Richard-Allen@cherokee.org 

 918.453.5466 

Chickasaw Nation PO Box 1548 Ada, OK 74281-1548 Web: www.chickasaw.net

Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor Mr. Jefferson Keel, Lt. Governor Ms. LaDonna Brown, Historic Preservation Officer 580.272.5593 580.272.5327 fax 

ladonna.brown@chickasaw.net

***2020 Arlington, Suite 4 (for packages) 

 Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Phone (337) 584-1545  Fax (337) 584-2998 

www.coushattatribela.org

 Kevin Sickey, Chairman  Mr. Michael Tarpley, Deputy THPO 

kokua.aina57@gmail.com

 PO BOX 10 

 Elton, LA 70532  337.584.1560  C: 318.709.8488 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 26 

 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

 P.O. Box 455  Cherokee, NC 28719  Web: http://www.cherokee-nc.com/

 Michell Hicks, Principal Chief  828.497.2771  Mr. Russell Townsend, THPO 

RussellT@nc-cherokee.com

 828.554.6851 

Mr. Tyler Howe, Tribal Hist. Pres. Specialist tylehowe@nc-cherokee.com 554.6852 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 350 (127 West Oneida Street Seneca) Seneca, MO 64865 918-666-2435 http://estoo-nsn.gov/Ms. Glenna J. Walace, Chief Robin Dushane, Cultural Preservation Director 918.666.2435 ex. 247 Cell 918.533.4104 rdushane@estoo.net

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 

PO Box 14 Jena, LA 71342 Web: http://www.jenachoctaw.org/B. Sheryl Smith, ChiefDana Masters, THPOdanammasters@aol.com318.992.1205
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 27 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

PO Box 332 Wetumka, OK 74883 

405.452.3262 405.452.3413 fax Web: http://www.kialegeetribaltown.net/

Mekko Jeremiah Hobia, Town King Mary Givens, THPO 

maryj.givens61@yahoo.com

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of FloridaTamiami Station P.O. Box 440021 Miami, FL 33144 http://www.miccosukeeresort.comBilly Cypress, Chairman

Mr. Fred Dayhoff NAGPRA/106 Coordinator Real Estate Services Mile Marker 70 US 41 at Admin. Bldg. Miami, FL 33194 239.695.4360 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 28 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians P.O. Box 6257/ 101 Industrial Road Choctaw, MS 39350 601.656.5251 601.650.7333 fax Web: www.choctaw.orgPhyliss J. Anderson, Chief Mr. Ken Carleton, THPO kcarleton@choctaw.org

Muscogee (Creek) Nation P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447 Web: www.muscogeenationnsn.govMr. George Tiger, Principal Chief gtiger@muscogeenation-nsn.gov

 office: 918.732.7731  Emman Spain, Deputy THPO 

espain@muscogeenation-nsn.gov

**1008 East Eufaula (for packages) 
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 29 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 5811 Jack Springs Road Atmore, Alabama 36502 Web: www.poarchcreekindiansnsn.gov/xhtml/index.htmBuford Rolin, Chairman Mr. Robert Thrower, THPO rthrower@pci-nsn.gov 251.368.9136, ext. 2052 251.253.5620 iphone  251.368.4502 fax 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

12555 NS 3540 Seminole, OK 74868 

405.257.7200 405.257.7209 fax Web: www.seminolenation.com

Mr. Leonard M. Harjo, Principal Chief principalchief@seminolenation.com

Natalie Harjo, THPO harjo.n@sno-nsn.gov405.303.2683
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 30 Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic Preservation Office 30290 Josie Billie Highway PMB 1004 Clewiston, FL 33440 Web: www.seminoletribe.comMitchell Cypress, ChairmanDr. Paul N. Blackhouse, THPO 863.983.6549 x12244 863.902.1117 fax 863.228.3793 cell Bradley Mueller Compliance Review Supervisor (863) 983-6549 ext. 12245bradleymueller@semtribe.comShawnee Tribe Ron Sparkman, Chief Ben Barnes, Second Chief Shawnee Tribe 29 S. Highway 69A Miami, OK 74354 (918) 542-2441ben.barnes@gmail.com
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT Study 31 

 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

PO Box 188 

Okemah, OK 74859 918.560.6198 918.560.6195 fax Mr. Vernon Yarholar, Town King vyarholar@tttown.orgMr. Bill Fife, Tribal Administrator bfife@tttown.orgMr. Charles Coleman, THPO/NAGPRA chascoleman75@yahoo.com Cell: 405.220.2185 

United Keetoowah Band PO Box 746 Tahlequah, OK 74465 918.456.6533 Web: www.unitedkeetoowahband.orgMr. Georgia Wickliffe, Chief Mr. Charles Locust, Assisant Chief Ms. Lisa Larue-Baker, THPO 918.431.9998 Cell 918.822.1952 918.458.6889 fax UKBTHPO-ARUE@YAHOO.COM
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

4.0 PROJECT NEWSLETTERS
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study Spring 2008 

Georgia Department of

Transportation

Mike Thomas

Director of Planning, Data, and

Intermodal Development

(404) 656-0610

mike.thomas@dot.state.ga.us

Glenn Bowman, P.E.

State Environmental/Location Engineer

(404) 699-4401

glenn.bowman@dot.state.ga.us

Susan Knudson

Project Manager

(404) 699-4407

susan.knudson@dot.state.ga.us

Earth Tech Consulting Inc.

David Gorden, P.E.

david.gorden@earthtech.com

PROJECT TEAM

Project Schedule

The study is expected to take two years to complete. A series of scoping meetings in September 2007 provided initial input on key issues

and concerns. Alternatives will be prepared and reviewed by the public in the spring 2008, and the preferred alternative will be identified

in fall 2009.

Scoping Meetings in September 2007

HSGT in the 

Chattanooga News!

Atlanta residents reviewed alignment options.

Chattanooga residents reviewed and

commented on station location and

alignment options at the Public

Scoping meeting.

The Public Scoping meeting in Rome

provided residents with an overview

of the HSGT project goals

and options.
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study Spring 2008 

What is this

Study About?

This study, a Tier I EIS, will investigate and assess

transportation, environmental, and planning issues

for the HSGT alternatives developed for the study.

The alternatives will include two technologies, eight

alignments along 110 miles, a variety of station

locations, alternative operating plans, and phased

implementation. The study will estimate ridership, capital and operating costs, revenue projections, and economic impacts.

Agencies and the public are encouraged to participate in the study through meetings, public information materials such as this newsletter,

public information open houses, and public hearings.

Potential Alignments and Stations

Initial conceptual alignments begin at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and end in Downtown Chattanooga. Two types of

mainline alignments were developed: alignments that serve various city centers along the I-75 corridor or alignments through rural areas. 

I-75 Median Alignment: The shortest route in the most densely developed corridor. Stays within the I-75 median for most of its length

to minimize right-of-way impacts.

Stations: Hartsfield Airport (Southern Crescent Transportation Center), Downtown Atlanta, Galleria Station, Town Center Station,

Cartersville, Dalton, Lovell Field Airport Station, and Downtown Chattanooga.

■ Providing an alternative to driving in the corridor

could result in potential energy savings from

reduced vehicle travel. HSGT offers an alternative mode that could reduce congestion and

increase regional mobility and intermodal connectivity. By diverting travelers from cars, HSGT

would not only help reduce roadway congestion

in the corridor, but would also connect to existing and planned transit systems within the corridor, including MARTA, Cobb Transit and the

Chattanooga transit systems.

■ HSGT would help meet the transportation

needs of transit-dependent populations, including low-income, elderly, youth, persons with disabilities, and car-free residents and workers.

Alternatives to driving would support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives

by promoting intermodal connectivity, improved

mobility, and economic activity.

■ HSGT in this corridor would provide a southeast

US link to a future system of high-speed train

service. There is a need to advance HSGT as a

network and to comprehensively plan and design

the ultimate regional and national system.

Continued

GDOT HSGT Study
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study Spring 2008 

What is this

Study About?

This study, a Tier I EIS, will investigate and assess

transportation, environmental, and planning issues

for the HSGT alternatives developed for the study.

The alternatives will include two technologies, eight

alignments along 110 miles, a variety of station

locations, alternative operating plans, and phased

implementation. The study will estimate ridership, capital and operating costs, revenue projections, and economic impacts.

Agencies and the public are encouraged to participate in the study through meetings, public information materials such as this newsletter,

public information open houses, and public hearings.

Potential Alignments and Stations

Initial conceptual alignments begin at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and end in Downtown Chattanooga. Two types of

mainline alignments were developed: alignments that serve various city centers along the I-75 corridor or alignments through rural areas. 

I-75 Median Alignment: The shortest route in the most densely developed corridor. Stays within the I-75 median for most of its length

to minimize right-of-way impacts. 

Stations: Hartsfield Airport (Southern Crescent Transportation Center), Downtown Atlanta, Galleria Station, Town Center Station,

Cartersville, Dalton, Lovell Field Airport Station, and Downtown Chattanooga.

■ Providing an alternative to driving in the corridor

could result in potential energy savings from

reduced vehicle travel. HSGT offers an alternative mode that could reduce congestion and

increase regional mobility and intermodal connectivity. By diverting travelers from cars, HSGT

would not only help reduce roadway congestion

in the corridor, but would also connect to existing and planned transit systems within the corridor, including MARTA, Cobb Transit and the

Chattanooga transit systems. 

■ HSGT would help meet the transportation

needs of transit-dependent populations, including low-income, elderly, youth, persons with disabilities, and car-free residents and workers.

Alternatives to driving would support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives

by promoting intermodal connectivity, improved

mobility, and economic activity. 

■ HSGT in this corridor would provide a southeast

US link to a future system of high-speed train

service. There is a need to advance HSGT as a

network and to comprehensively plan and design

the ultimate regional and national system.

Continued

GDOT HSGT Study
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study Spring 2008 

Georgia Department of

Transportation

Mike Thomas

Director of Planning, Data, and

Intermodal Development

(404) 656-0610

mike.thomas@dot.state.ga.us

Glenn Bowman, P.E.

State Environmental/Location Engineer

(404) 699-4401

glenn.bowman@dot.state.ga.us

Susan Knudson

Project Manager

(404) 699-4407

susan.knudson@dot.state.ga.us

Earth Tech Consulting Inc.

David Gorden, P.E.

david.gorden@earthtech.com

PROJECT TEAM

Project Schedule

The study is expected to take two years to complete. A series of scoping meetings in September 2007 provided initial input on key issues

and concerns. Alternatives will be prepared and reviewed by the public in the spring 2008, and the preferred alternative will be identified

in fall 2009.

Scoping Meetings in September 2007

HSGT in the 

Chattanooga News!

Atlanta residents reviewed alignment options.

Chattanooga residents reviewed and

commented on station location and

alignment options at the Public

Scoping meeting.

The Public Scoping meeting in Rome

provided residents with an overview

of the HSGT project goals

and options.
Scoping Meetings Update

One of the first steps in preparing an EIS is Scoping where the public, stakeholders, 

and government agencies provide input on the following:

• The study’s purpose and need (see page 2);

• Suggested alignment alternatives for further study;

• The technical evaluations to be undertaken to determine how environmental impacts will be assessed;

• How the alternatives will be selected for further study; and

• The opportunities for public involvement.

Georgia on the Georgia on theMove

Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study

Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study Fall 2010

Project Overview

The introduction of high speed ground 

transportation (HSGT) along the 110-mile 

corridor between Atlanta and Chattanooga is intended to provide a high capacity 

alternative to roadway and air travelers. 

The study involves the development of a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to ensure that alternatives for the 

proposed action are evaluated, including 

a no-build alternative; that transportation, social, economic, and environmental 

impacts are assessed; and that public involvement and comments are solicited to 

assist the decision-making process. 

The Tier 1 EIS will evaluate potential HSGT 

alternatives, which include general station 

locations, and storage and maintenance 

facilities. The Tier 1 EIS will build upon previous Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT studies. 

The Tier 1 EIS will be at a conceptual level 

of engineering and environmental detail. 

It will provide the FRA, FHWA, GDOT, and 

TDOT with sufficient information to determine a general alignment, general station 

locations, and define the requirements to 

build and operate an Atlanta – Chattanooga HSGT system. 

In This Newsle

Introduction..............................................................1

Scoping Meetings Update................................................1 

Project Overview..............................................................1

Project Purpose and Need................................................2 

Tier 1 EIS Process.............................................................2

Project Schedule..............................................................2

Alternatives Evaluated in the Scoping Process..............3-4

Alternatives to be Advanced in Tier 1 DEIS...................3

Alignment Alternative Maps............................................4

High Speed Ground Transportation Technologies.............5

Project Team....................................................................5

Public Information Meetings...........................................6

www.atl-chatt.org www.atl-chatt.org

Visit Our 

Web Site!

Introduction

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), is continuing a study of high speed ground transportation (HSGT) between Atlanta and 

Chattanooga. This is the second in a series of newsletters to inform stakeholders and the public 

about this study as it progresses. In this newsletter you will find information about the four alternative alignments that are proposed for further study in a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), and the process by which those alignments were selected.

Agency Scoping meetings were held with federal, state, and local agencies in Atlanta 

and Chattanooga in September 2007. Public Scoping open houses were also held in 

Powder Springs, Rome, and Chattanooga. Both sets of Scoping meetings provided 

an overview of the study and opportunities for input. The study team received numerous comments, questions, and suggestions during these meetings, and throughout the formal 30-day comment period.

After the close of the comment period, GDOT evaluated all the input received from 

agencies and the public regarding the purpose and need, methodology for the study, 

station locations, alignments, technology, and environmentally sensitive issues and 

made changes to the study as a result. These changes included the addition of new 

concept alignments to be considered as part of the analysis and enhancements to 

future public and agency coordination efforts.
Project Schedule

2

Georgia on the Move Fall 2010 

Project Purpose and Need

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a Purpose and Need 

Statement is one of the most important parts of an EIS. They explain, “It establishes why the agency is proposing to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ 

money while at the same time causing significant environmental impacts. [It] 

explains to the public and decisionmakers that the expenditure of funds is 

necessary and worthwhile... and should justify why impacts are acceptable 

based on the project’s importance.”

Based on analysis of previous studies and through feedback from the public 

and agencies during the Scoping Process, the study team finalized the Purpose and Need Statement for the project.

The purpose of the Atlanta – Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) project is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in northwest 

Georgia and part of Tennessee, by expanding passenger transportation capacity, increasing mobility, and providing an alternative to highway and 

air travel that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective while avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating impacts on neighborhoods and the environment.

The needs for the HSGT project are summarized as follows:

• Address travel demand and population growth

• Provide high capacity versus highway capacity

• Enhance airport access

• Maintain or improve air quality

• Address safety deficiencies in the study area

• Support economic development

• Reduce energy consumption

• Enhance intermodal connections

• Address social demands of various population groups

• Support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives

• Provide a link in the southeast U.S. region HSGT system

Tier 1 EIS Process

The remaining steps in the Tier 1 EIS process include 

the environmental impact evaluation, preparation of a 

Tier  1 Draft EIS (DEIS), presentation of findings to the 

public and agencies, preparation of the Tier 1 Final EIS 

(FEIS), and finally release of a Record of Decision (ROD) 

by FRA and FHWA.

2010 2011

August September October November December January

Project Coordination

Public Involvement

Screening Methodology and 

Criteria Technical Memorandum

Screening Report

DEIS Documentation

Approval by FHWA/FRA and

Submittal to Participating Agencies

FHWA/FRA Sign-O on 

Technical Memorandum

Submittal to

FHWA/FRA

Presentation to

FHWA/FRA

FHWA/FRA Sign-O

on Screening Report

Presentation to Participating Agencies

Presentation to Participating Agencies

Submittal to GDOT of 

Administrative Draft

Public and Stakeholder Outreach

Development of DEIS Chapters
Legend

Georgia on the Move 

3

Prior to the Scoping Process, the study team developed a series of potential 

HSGT “segments” that could be combined in various configurations to 

connect Downtown Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport (HJAIA) to Downtown Chattanooga. Each segment represents 

a potential connection that could be made between key destinations 

in Georgia and Tennessee. The segments are shown in the map below. 

These segments were reviewed, analyzed and developed into full-length 

alignments during the Scoping Process. 

Map of Alternatives Evaluated in the Scoping Process

Downtown Chattanooga Segment

The Scoping Process also gave the public and agencies an 

opportunity to review and comment on the method by 

which the long list of alternatives would be reduced. This 

process is called “screening” where suggested alternatives 

are evaluated against a series of agreed upon criteria. This 

study utilized a two-step screening process to eliminate 

certain suggested alternatives, and identify those that 

warrant further consideration in the Tier 1 EIS. The twostep approach to screening consisted of the following:

• Step 1: An initial corridor screen to advance the

best performing corridor(s) based on transportation

mobility and consistency with the project’s Purpose

and Need Statement, and

• Step 2: A second screen of alignment(s) within the

remaining corridor(s) that provided a more detailed

assessment relative to ridership, mobility, environmental, and financial/economic criteria.

Based on the results of the screening process the alignments discussed had the best overall performance.

Four Alignment Alternatives to be 

Advanced in the Draft Tier 1 EIS

Four alignment alternatives, all generally following I-75, 

are proposed to advance in the Tier 1 DEIS analysis. South 

of the I-285/I-75 split, two alignments follow the Norfolk 

Southern (NS) railroad corridor and two continue along 

I-75 to Downtown Atlanta.

The four alignment alternatives (shown on the next page) 

are as follows:

• I-75 Median Southern Crescent NS

• I-75 Non-Median Southern Crescent NS

• I-75 Median Southern Crescent

• I-75 Non-Median Southern Crescent

These alignments are being presented to the public and 

stakeholders through this newsletter and at public information meetings to be held in November 2010 (see page 

6). It is important that the public understand how these 

selections were made and have an opportunity to review 

and comment.

I-75 Segment

Rome Segment

Rome to I-75 Segment

I-75 Segment

Rome Segment

Rome Segment

I-75 Segment

I-75 Segment

NS Segment

I-285 Bypass Segment

HJAIA to I-285

I-285 Bypass Segment

Eastern Segment

Rockmart

Western Suburb Segment

Cartersville

Town Center

I-75 Segment

Douglas County

Rome

Dalton Dalton/Chatsworth

Downtown Lovell Field Airport

Chattanooga

Downtown 

Boulder Atlanta

Park

Cumberland/Galleria

HJAIA 

Terminal

Southern 

Crescent

0 2.5 5 10Miles

Alignment Alternatives Evaluated in the Scoping Process

I-287/I-75 Split
4

I-75 Median and Non-Median

Southern Crescent Norfolk

Southern (NS) Alignment

The two I-75 Southern Crescent NS Alignments begin on the east side of HJAIA at 

the proposed Southern Crescent station 

immediately adjacent to I-75, and follow I-75 to a point south of the proposed 

Downtown Atlanta station. Using the existing NS rail corridor northwest to I-285 

into Cobb County, the alignment continues along I-285 to the propose Cumberland/Galleria station. Heading north, the 

alignment occupies the right-of-way of 

I-75 north of the I-285/I-75 junction utilizing the interstate’s median (Median

Alignment), or the broader I-75 corridor

area (Non-Median Alignment), to continue to the Town Center, Cartersville,

Dalton, and Lovell Field (Chattanooga

Metropolitan Airport) stations, and terminating at the Downtown Chattanooga

station.

I-75 Median and Non-Median

Southern Crescent Alignment

Like the previous alignments, the two I-75 

Southern Crescent Alignments begin on 

the east side of HJAIA at the proposed 

Southern Crescent station immediately 

adjacent to I-75, and follow I-75 to a point 

south of the proposed Downtown Atlanta 

station. The alignment continues northeast to I-75 turning northwest into the 

median of I-75 to the proposed Cumberland/Galleria station. Heading north, the 

alignment occupies the right-of-way of 

I-75 and utilizes the interstate’s median

(Median Alignment), or the broader I-75

corridor area (Non-Median Alignment) to

continue to the Town Center, Cartersville,

Dalton, and Lovell Field stations, and terminating at the Downtown Chattanooga

station.

Alignment Alternative Map

Atlanta In-Town Inset

Legend

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

I-75 Corridor (Same for all 4 alternatives)

I-75 Southern Crescent NS

I-75 Southern Crescent

Potential Stations

Study Area

Cities
Fall 2010

5

Steel-Wheeled

• Steel-wheel vehicles on steel rail.

• Electric-powered locomotives receive energy from overhead wires.

• Operates on a grade-separated right-of-way, which eliminates

potential points of conflict with pedestrians or other non-rail

vehicles.

• Technically capable of operating in a shared use environment with

freight and passenger trains.

• Station spacing can be as short as 30 miles, but averages 50-75

miles.

• Average operating speed of 180 mph, but capable of 220 mph

average speed. Operating speeds in excess of 320 mph are possible.

• Currently utilized throughout Europe and Asia.

• Appropriate for intercity use, and can provide a travel time

competitive with automobile travel within the Atlanta-Chattanooga

corridor.

Maglev (Magnetic Levitation)

• Uses “attractive” or “repulsive” electromagnetic forces to lift and

propel a train along a guideway, with power supplied to the magnets

through the track.

• Allows vehicles to hover or float a small distance above the

guideway, eliminating friction and rolling resistance.

• Operates on a grade-separated right-of-way, which eliminates

potential points of conflict with pedestrians or other non-rail

vehicles.

• Systems in operation are designed for maximum operating speeds of

310 mph. A Japanese Maglev train has reached speeds of 360 mph.

• No Maglev intercity systems are currently in service, but a

commercial track in China and a test track in Germany are in

operation.

• Appropriate for intercity use, and can provide a travel time

competitive with automobile and air travel within the AtlantaChattanooga corridor.

Spanish Steel-Wheeled

German Maglev

Japanese Maglev

High Speed Ground Transportation Technologies

Project Team

Erik Steavens

Director of Intermodal 

Programs

T: 404-347-0573

esteavens@dot.ga.gov

Glen Bowman, P.E.

State Environmental 

Administrator

T: 404-631-1101

gbowman@dot.ga.gov

Alan Ware

Project Manager

T: 404-631-1226

alware@dot.ga.gov

Sheldon Fialkoff

Consultant Project Manager

T: 404-946-9536

shelly.fialkoff@aecom.com

Georgia DOT AECOM

Canadian Steel-Wheeled Japanese Steel-Wheeled
High Speed Ground Transportation Public Information Meetings

Fall 2010 Move Georgia on the 

6

Chattanooga, TN

Thursday, November 4

Regional Planning Agency

1250 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

First Floor, Room 1A

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

(presentation at 6:30 p.m.)

Dalton, GA

Monday, November 8

Dalton State College

650 College Drive

Dalton, GA 30720

James Brown Center, Room 105

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

(presentation at 6:30 p.m.)

Atlanta, GA

Tuesday, November 9

St. Mark United Methodist Church

781 Peachtree Street NE

Atlanta, GA 30308

Fellowship Hall

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

(presentation at 6:30 p.m.)

You are invited to attend a public information meeting to better understand the travel opportunities for the corridor, and provide 

your opinion on potential high speed rail alternatives to connect Atlanta to Chattanooga. With your help GDOT and its partners 

hope to create a long-term plan that will increase travel choices and access in this critical part of the southeast region. Please attend 

one of the three meetings planned in November.

Contact Us

Georgia Department of 

Transportation

One Georgia Center

600 West Peachtree Street NW

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

P: (404) 631-1990

F: (404) 631-1844

HSGT@dot.ga.gov

www.atl-chatt.org

Can’t attend a meeting? 

Submit your comments online at www.atl-chatt.org/CommentForwardAdd.do
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

5.0 SCOPING WORKBOOK 
Scoping Meeting

W O R K B O O K

January 21, 2008

Introduction

Background

On The Inside...

Project Description ...................................................... 2

Project Purpose & Need.............................................. 3

Long Distance Ground Transportation Technologies .. 4

Existing Conditions...................................................... 5

Potential Alignments.................................................... 6

Project Schedule ......................................................... 9

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is 

preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation 

(HSGT) corridor, with the assistance of the Tennessee 

Department of Transportation (TDOT). The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) are the federal co-lead agencies. The FRA and FHWA 

are operating administrations within the United States Department 

of Transportation (USDOT). The study, to be completed by 2009, 

involves the planning and environmental analysis of a potential 

High Speed Ground Transportation system in the 110-mile 

corridor between Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(HJAIA) in Atlanta, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The concept of High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) 

service between Atlanta, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee 

has been a subject of study for approximately ten years. Initially, 

the Georgia Department of Transportation studied this corridor 

as part of a 1997 Intercity Rail Plan. The Atlanta to Chattanooga 

Corridor was first considered for high-speed rail service as part of 

the federal Maglev Deployment Program funded by the Federal 

Railroad Administration to demonstrate Maglev technology in the 

United States. Georgia was among several states that participated 

in the program. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), in 

association with GDOT and the Georgia Regional Transportation 

Authority (GRTA), analyzed the 110-mile Atlanta to Chattanooga 

corridor over a four-year period from 1999 to 2003, exploring 

mobility options and the opportunity for high-speed passenger 

service. TDOT prepared a statewide rail plan in 2003, which 

recommended high-speed rail connectivity with neighboring 

states

Tier I Environmental Impact Statement

Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation Study
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Project Description

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) requires that the potential environmental impacts 

of an action be assessed for every federal action that could 

“significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” 

The law applies to any project where there is major federal 

involvement, including federal financial assistance, the 

issuance of a permit, or a requirement for federal approval. 

An environmental impact statement is required when it is 

apparent from the beginning of the project, or through 

subsequent analysis, that the proposed project is likely to 

have a significant impact on the human environment.

The Tier I Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation 

corridor will:

Address appropriate environmental and related 

planning and impact analyses of the High Speed 

Ground Transportation alternatives to be identified in 

the study, including maglev and steel wheel technology, 

in compliance with applicable requirements of both 

state and federal law, including, but not limited to the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

Analyze reasonable location and technology 

alternatives, estimate potential ridership, identify 

general station locations, and identify possible 

implementation phasing. 

Analyze potential feasibility to include projected 

ridership revenue, operations and maintenance costs, 

capital costs and economic impact.

Preparation of this Tier I Environmental Impact 

Statement is designed to ensure that all viable alternatives 

for the project are evaluated, including a No-Build 

Alternative; that all substantial transportation, social, 

economic, and environmental impacts are assessed; and 

that public involvement and comments are solicited to assist the 

decision-making process. The evaluation of alternatives helps to 

ensure that the environmental impacts, benefits, costs, and tradeoffs among alternatives are in compliance with federal and state 

requirements.

The Tier I Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared at 

a conceptual level of detail appropriate for a programmatic analysis 

and will provide the FRA, FHWA and GDOT with sufficient 

•

•

•

information to select the High Speed Ground Transportation 

technology, general corridor location, general station locations, 

and potential identification of an initial operating segment. The 

study is expected to be completed at the end of 2009.

Corridor Study Map
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Project Purpose and Need

currently funded or programmed, ultimate capacity improvements 

are needed to accommodate future travel demand. This need is 

further emphasized by increased traffic volumes, congestion, and 

accident rates in the study corridor. Social and economic demands 

will continue to call for provision of alternative transportation 

choices for those individuals who cannot or choose not to drive, 

as well as those travelers looking for alternatives to congested 

highways. 

The project addresses the following needs in the corridor.

Existing and future transportation demand and travel growth

Provision of total throughput versus just highway capacity

Enhancement of airport access

Maintenance or improvement of regional air quality

Safety deficiencies in corridor

Promotion of economic development 

Reduction of energy consumption

Enhancement of intermodal connections and relationships

Social demands of various population groups

Support of comprehensive land use planning and smart 

growth initiatives

Provision of a critical link in a future Southeast US Region 

High Speed Ground Transportation System

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The growth in both population and employment in the Atlanta 

to Chattanooga corridor is projected to continue, resulting 

in increased travel demand for both goods and people. The 

transportation infrastructure that will serve this demand, including 

highways, transit and aviation, are all projected to be at or above 

capacity, despite proposed improvement programmed to expand 

these facilities. 

The purpose of the Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground 

Transportation system is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in 

northwest Georgia and part of Tennessee by expanding passenger 

transportation capacity, increasing mobility and providing an 

alternative to highway and air travel in a manner that is safe, 

reliable, and cost-effective while avoiding, minimizing and/or 

mitigating impacts on neighborhoods and the environment. 

In addition, Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed Ground 

Transportation system is intended to address the following 

objectives:

The project addresses concerns of increasing vehicular 

congestion on the I-75 and parallel highway facilities within 

and between Atlanta and Chattanooga. 

The project supports other modes of transportation, especially 

modes such as transit. 

The project provides rapid, convenient and reliable 

transportation, which extends the existing highway and aviation 

infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness.

The project assists in improving regional air quality. 

The project promotes regional economic development and 

joint development opportunities at station areas.

The project addresses Federal and congressional 

transportation initiatives.

Transportation demand and travel growth, as prompted by 

social changes, population growth and economic development, is 

outpacing existing and planned roadway capacity. Currently, the 

state and interstate highway system within the corridor is operating 

at or near capacity, especially within and adjacent to the major 

metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Rome, Dalton and Chattanooga. 

Although capacity improvements to the state and interstate system 

along the corridor are either currently underway or planned for 

the near future, they are considered interim, that is, they will not 

address all of the future capacity or mobility needs. Although not 

•

•

•

•

•

•
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Long Distance Ground Transportation Technologies

MAGNETIC LEVITATION

(MAGLEV)

•Potential Speeds over 300 mph

•Average Operating Speed 185 mph

•Station Spacing 30+ miles

•Grade Separated Right-of-Way

•Electric Power to Magnets from Track

•Magnetic Force Lifts and Propels on Guideway

VERY HIGH SPEED RAIL

(VHS)

•Potential Speeds near 220 mph

•Average Operating Speed 155 mph

•Station Spacing 30+ miles

•Grade Separated Right-of-Way

•Electric Power from Overhead Wires to Vehicle

•Steel Wheel on Steel Rail

INTERCITY RAIL

(AMTRAK)

•Potential Speeds 79 to 110 mph

•Average Operating Speed 69 mph

•Station Spacing 30+ miles

•Shared Right-of-Way with Freight Rail Traffic

•Diesel Powered Locomotive

•Steel Wheel on Steel Rail

COMMUTER RAIL

•Potential Speeds 79 to 110 mph

•Average Operating Speed 59 mph

•Station Spacing 7 to 10 miles

•Shared Right-of-Way with Freight Rail Traffic

•Diesel Powered Locomotive

•Steel Wheel on Steel Rail
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Existing Conditions

The study corridor runs from Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport in the Atlanta metropolitan area, to 

Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is approximately 110 miles in length. 

The study area consists of hilly topography dissected by numerous 

rivers and streams. This area is heavily urbanized, primarily within 

and around the City of Atlanta and the City of Chattanooga, but 

also includes suburban and rural areas within the corridor. The 

study area is contained wholly or in part in the following counties: 

Hamilton County, Tennessee; and Fulton, Cobb, Cherokee, 

Floyd, Bartow, Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, Chattooga, Paulding, 

Polk, Catoosa, Douglas, Clayton and Walker Counties, Georgia.

Population and Income. According to data from the U.S. 

Census, the population in the study corridor has grown from 

2,608,619 in 1990 to 3,752,037 in 2006, which is a 43.83% increase 

over the 16-year period. The project corridor average income of 

$41,547 falls in-between the Georgia ($42,433) and Tennessee 

($36,360) average income. The percentage of households living 

below the poverty level in the project corridor is 10.73%, which is 

slightly above Georgia at 9.90% and Tennessee at 10.30%. 

Visitors. The Atlanta and Chattanooga areas combined have 

over 23 million visitors to their cities each year. According to 

the Atlanta Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 20 million visitors 

come to the Atlanta area annually. The Chattanooga area draws 

3.3 million visitors each year.

Major Highway Network. Three major highways connect 

the metropolitan Atlanta area with the northwest Georgia 

and Chattanooga metropolitan areas. These three routes are 

Interstate 75, US 41 and US 27. Interstate 75 is one of the most 

heavily traveled interstates in Georgia as well as in the entire 

nation. Traffic volumes north of Atlanta on I-75 for 2005 ranged 

from the low to mid 100,000s in Bartow County to mid 80,000s 

near the Tennessee border. According to the Georgia Interstate 

System Plan, completed in 2004, most of I-75 north of Atlanta is 

projected to exceed available capacity. By 2035, volumes on I-75 

will continue to exceed capacity, even assuming that the additional 

lanes have been implemented. 

Portions of US 41 are four lanes from Atlanta to Chattanooga, 

with two lanes in more rural sections. North of Atlanta, the daily 

traffic volumes in 2005 ranged from a low of 5,000 to a high of 

40,000. While not as heavily traveled as I-75, US 41 is also expected 

to equal or exceed capacity within the next 20 years, despite several 

proposed multi-lane improvements. Traffic volumes along the 

US 27 corridor range from a low of approximately 5,000 AADT 

to a high of around 40,000 AADT in Rome in 2005. The future 

(2025) Level of Service (LOS) for the corridor is approaching or 

exceeding capacity.

Presently, there are 83 roadway improvements or expansions 

planned or currently in progress along the 110-mile corridor. 

Many of these improvements are along I-75. However, even with 

these improvements, many of these facilities are projected to 

operate at or above capacity. In addition, analysis of accident data 

on I-75 shows a trend for increasing numbers of accidents and 

injuries over time as this facility grows more congested.

Aviation. HJAIA bears the distinction of being the world’s 

busiest passenger airport with five runways, 29,550 public parking 

spaces, 76.3 million domestic passengers and eight million 

international passengers in 2006. Lovell Field currently serves 

ten major airports via six different airlines. Atlanta’s HJAIA is 

Lovell Field’s number one connecting hub, accounting for 28% of 

Chattanooga’s local outbound travel. A total of 503,468 passengers 

enplaned and deplaned in Chattanooga in 2006. Lovell Field has 

a current parking capacity of 1,226.

Railroads. There are two main railroad lines (W&A, and NS 

“H” Line) connecting Atlanta and Chattanooga. A third line (NS 

C-Line) connects Rome and Chattanooga and the northern portion

of a fourth line (TAG Line) originally connected Chattanooga,

Tennessee, and Gadsden, Alabama.

Transit. The major transit systems operating along or near the 

corridor include, but are not limited to, MARTA, CCT, GRTA, 

C-Tran, RTD, and CARTA. MARTA operates 464 buses,

812 rail cars and 98 demand response vehicles for 142,385,899

trips annually. CCT operates 54 buses and 12 demand response

vehicles offering an estimated 3,854,413 annual trips to its riders.

GRTA operates 58 buses, 55 vanpools and four demand response

vehicles offering 2,231,859 trips for its passengers annually. CTran operates 24 buses and five routes within the limits of Clayton

County, Georgia. RTD operates 24 buses, and four demand

response vehicles providing 830,502 annual trips to its riders.

CARTA operates 49 buses, 12 demand response vehicles, and two

sky-rail trains providing 2,529,157 annual trips to its passengers.

In addition to these systems, Greyhound operates bus service

between Atlanta and Chattanooga, with eight daily departures

from Atlanta Monday through Saturday and six departures on

Sundays.

Air Quality. The following counties and or cities located within 

the study corridor are considered non-attainment areas for air 

quality:

Clayton County•City of Atlanta•Fulton County•City of Rome•

Cobb County•City of Chattanooga•Cherokee County•Bartow 

County•Floyd County•Catoosa County•Hamilton County 
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Potential Alignments

The initial conceptual alignments that have been developed for the study begin at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport in Atlanta and end in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, after stopping at Lovell Field Airport on the outskirts of Chattanooga. 

Several alignments have been developed along a variety of corridors to serve the purpose and need of the project. The alignments 

can either serve the various city centers along the I-75 corridor or pass through the more rural areas at potentially higher speed or a 

combination of each. 

The potential corridors and the major

reason behind their development along

this approximately 125-mile long route

are:

I-75 Median Alignment – The

shortest route in the highest

developed corridor which stays

within the median of I-75 for most

of its length to minimize the rightof-way impact.

I-75 Corridor Alignment – Leaves

the median after the dense urban

Atlanta area to obtain a potentially

higher travel speed.

Rome Alignment – Serves Rome

with a potentially higher speed

alignment, by-passing the densely

developed I-75 corridor and activity

centers in the southern section.

Eastern Alignment – A potentially

higher speed alignment in the

northern half of the corridor, which

utilizes an existing rail corridor.

Western Suburban Alignment – A

potentially higher-speed alignment

in the southern half of the corridor.

I-285 By-Pass – A potentially lower

cost, higher speed alignment in the

Atlanta urban area.

I-285 to I-75 Connector – A lower

cost, less impact alignment in the

Atlanta urban area.

Rome to I-75 Connector – Serves

Rome from the I-75 Alignment.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Potential Alignments (continued)

Southern Corridor

This corridor extends from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport to south of the Cobb/Cherokee and Polk/

Floyd county lines. 

I-75 Median Alignment was developed to serve the most

densely developed corridor and has these significant features:

Four stations; Hartsfield Airport (Southern Crescent 

Transportation Center), Downtown Atlanta (Five Points 

area), Galleria Station, and Town Center Station

Aerial structure in the median of I-75 from the HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport to one mile south of 

I-20

Tunnel through downtown Atlanta with a deep underground

station near Forsyth and Alabama Streets with the tunnel

ending north of Bankhead highway

Aerial structure in Howell Mill Road and back into the I-75

median

Aerial Station in the median of I-75 near the Galleria with

patron access from either side of the highway

At-grade section in the median from north of I-575 junction

to the Town Center Station with patron access from above

and either side of the highway

I-75 Corridor Alignment is similar to the I-75 median

alignment from the airport to approximately two miles north of 

the I-75 / I-285 junction where it weaves in and out of the median 

on aerial structure to obtain higher speeds.

Aerial structure from Delk Road to Town Center Station

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Requires right-of-way outside of and adjacent to the I-75 

corridor

Aerial Station at Town Center spanning I-75

I-285 By-Pass starts out at the existing Hartsfield-Jackson

Terminal and MARTA station and continues on Camp Creek 

Parkway to I-285.

At-grade along the west shoulder of I-285

Grade-separated alignment with the local highway 

interchanges 

An Intermodal Station with MARTA near Martin Luther 

King Jr. Highway

A Galleria Station on the west side of I-75

I-285 to I-75 Connector attempts to alleviate the aerial

structure along Howell Mill Road with a mostly at-grade section 

along the railroad corridor to I-285 and back to I-75.

Rome Alignment provides a potentially higher speed route 

from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to 

I-75. The alignment by-passes downtown Atlanta and the highly 

developed I-75 corridor and activity centers north of Atlanta. The 

line follows Camp Creek Parkway to I-285 and utility corridors 

through the rural areas.

Central Corridor

This corridor extends from the Southern Corridor to 

approximately Calhoun along the I-75 corridor.

I-75 Median Alignment stays in the median of I-75 in an

at-grade configuration. At some narrow sections, the highway 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Central Corridor Map 

Southern Corridor Map 
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Potential Alignments (continued)

would be shifted slightly to either side to create sufficient space 

in the median. It has one station in the median of I-75 near 

Cartersville.

I-75 Corridor Alignment weaves in and out of the highway

corridor to obtain higher speeds. 

It crosses Lake Altoona with a high-speed curve passing 

through some residential areas

It requires new right-of-way outside I-75

It is a mix of at-grade, aerial structure and tunnel sections

It has one station on the east side of I-75 near Cartersville

Rome Alignment passes through rural areas with a high-speed 

alignment and serves Rome with a station. It is at-grade and rejoins the I-75 alignment near Calhoun.

Rome to I-75 Connector provides a connection from the I-75 

alignment to Rome. It is at-grade with short sections of aerial and 

tunnel sections.

Eastern Alignment departs from the I-75 corridor north of 

Cartersville and generally follows the CSX corridor with a higher 

speed alignment. The alignment is generally at-grade with short 

sections of aerial structure. 

Northern Corridor

This corridor extends from Calhoun to downtown 

Chattanooga. 

I-75 Median Alignment stays in the median of I-75 in an atgrade configuration. 

•

•

•

•

At some narrow sections, the highway is envisioned to be 

shifted slightly to either side to create sufficient space in the 

median.

The alignment passes to the west of the I-75 corridor south 

of the Dalton area to avoid the developed area with a mix of 

aerial and at-grade configuration. 

Dalton has a Station in the median with access from either 

side. 

It diverts from the I-75 median south of the I-24 corridor 

passing through residential and commercial areas to the 

Lovell Field Airport Station along Airport Road. 

I-75 Corridor Alignment weaves in and out of the highway

corridor to obtain higher speeds.

The alignment is typically on the side of the highway corridor 

in aerial structure with significant at grade sections and some 

tunnels.

A Dalton Station is proposed on the east side of I-75. 

It diverts from the I-75 median south of the I-24 corridor 

passing through residential and commercial areas to the 

Lovell Field Airport Station along Airport Road. 

Eastern Alignment continues in the CSX corridor in an atgrade configuration with some aerial structure sections. 

The alignment diverts from the CSX corridor south of 

Chatsworth through the rural areas. 

A Dalton-Chatsworth Station is proposed near Chatsworth 

Road. 

North of the Dalton-Chatsworth Station, the alignment is 

mostly at-grade with some significant tunnels and aerial 

structure sections. 

The alignment section ends at the Lovell Field Airport Station 

along Airport Road.

Downtown Chattanooga Connector continues from the 

Lovell Field Airport Station to downtown Chattanooga following 

an existing railroad corridor in an at-grade configuration. A station 

is proposed near the railroad corridor and downtown. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Northern Corridor Map 
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study



Project Schedule 

The project is a 30-month study, which is structured in three 

phases, as follows:

Phase 1 

This phase includes initial data collection activities, including 

stakeholder coordination; development of preliminary conceptual 

alternatives; initial environmental baseline activities in the corridor; 

and preparation of the travel demand model. During this phase, 

the general location and technology alternatives that will be carried 

forward for additional study in the Tier I Environmental Impact 

Statement will be identified.

Phase 2 

The second phase is initiated by formal project Scoping as 

well as the completion of a draft purpose and need statement. 

Environmental analysis of the study alternatives will be initiated, 

including an assessment of community, social and land use 

impacts. The economic impact analysis of the study alternatives 

will take place, as well as completion of ridership forecasts. Cost 

estimates for construction, operation and maintenance will be 

developed. A maximum of three alternatives will be produced 

for the final analysis. Public involvement activities will continue 

throughout this phase.

Phase 3 

This phase is comprised of the preparation, review, and 

distribution of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statements. The preferred alternative will be recommended to 

the project sponsors. Public hearings will be held and public 

comments addressed. The Record of Decision will be prepared 

based on the study results, public comment and policy input from 

the sponsoring agencies.

It should be noted that the project has an extensive Public 

Information Program to exchange information, analysis and 

opinions regarding high-speed ground transportation in the 

corridor. The Scoping meetings being held September 18th 

through the 20th are the public’s first exposure to this study. 

Subsequent formal public involvement activities will include 

public information open houses, stakeholder meetings, charettes, 

and public hearings/open houses. In addition, public information 

materials will include the GDOT web materials, fact sheets, 

newsletters and displays. Finally, other public involvement 

activities will include outreach meetings, a speaker’s bureau and 

project booths at major events. Interested parties are invited to 

contact the persons listed at the end of this package for additional 

information. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga High Speed 

Ground Transportation Study

10

Contact Information

This scoping session is the first of many opportunities to participate in the Tier I EIS study of alternatives for high-speed ground 

transportation between Atlanta and Chattanooga. Public meetings will be held during the alternatives phase and after the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement is published to get input to help guide the next phases of the study. 

Project Team:

Georgia Department of Transportation

Mike Thomas

Director of Planning, Data & Intermodal Development

No. 2 Capitol Square

Atlanta, GA 30334

(404) 656-0610

mike.thomas@dot.state.ga.us

Glenn Bowman, P.E.

State Environmental/Location Engineer

3993 Aviation Circle

Atlanta, GA 30336

(404) 699-4401

glenn.bowman@dot.state.ga.us

Christa Wilkinson

Project Manager

Office of Environment/Location (OEL)

3993 Aviation Circle

Atlanta, GA 30336

(404) 699-4437

christa.wilkinson@dot.state.ga.us

Earth Tech Consulting, Inc. — Prime Consultant

David Gorden, P.E.

david.gorden@earthtech.com

Eddie McFalls

eddie.mcfalls@earthtech.com

Subconsultants

Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc.

Charles River Associates 

Commonwealth Research Associates

Dovetail Consulting

Economic Development Research Group

HNTB, Inc.

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates

JJ&G, Inc.

Kennedy Engineering & Associates

Malvada Consulting

PB Americas 

Planning Innovations
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

6.0 SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 
Georgia Department of 

Transportation 

Tier I Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground 

Transportation (HSGT) Study 

PTSCO- 0023-00-002 

PI: No. T001684 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for: 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

Office of Environment/Location 

3993 Aviation Circle 

Atlanta, Georgia 30336 

Prepared by: 

Earth Tech, Inc. 

1455 Old Alabama Road, Suite 170 

Roswell, GA 30076 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page ii

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Background / History...............................................................................4

1.2 Key Initial Document Summaries........................................................................4

1.2.1 Georgia Intercity Rail Plan Final Report ....................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Environmental Assessment (EA) 5

1.2.3 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II EIS ................................. 6

1.2.4 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum ..................... 7

1.2.5 Concept Design Report for the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal ................................ 7

1.2.6 High Speed Trains Nashville-Chattanooga -Atlanta...................................................... 8

1.2.7 Chattanooga, Hamilton County / North Georgia Trans Plan 2030 LRTP ..................... 8

1.2.8 ARC Envision 6 Needs Assessment Report .................................................................. 9

2. Existing Conditions............................................................................ 11

2.1 Population and Income........................................................................................11

2.2 Visitors..................................................................................................................11

2.3 Major Highway Network ....................................................................................11

2.4 Aviation.................................................................................................................15

2.5 Railroads...............................................................................................................15

2.6 Transit...................................................................................................................15

2.7 Air Quality............................................................................................................16

3. Project Need and Purpose................................................................. 17

3.1 Existing and Future Transportation Demand and Travel Growth.................17

3.2 Provision of Person Trip Capacity versus Highway Capacity.........................18

3.3 Enhance Airport Access......................................................................................18

3.4 Maintain or Improve Regional Air Quality.......................................................18

3.5 Address Safety Deficiencies in Corridor............................................................19

3.6 Promote Economic Development........................................................................19

3.7 Reduce Energy Consumption .............................................................................22

3.8 Enhance Intermodal Connections/Relationships..............................................22

3.9 Address Social Demands of Various Population Groups.................................22

3.10 Support Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Smart Growth Initiatives23

3.11 Provide Link in Southeast US Region HSGT system .....................................23

4. Conceptual HSGT Alternatives........................................................ 24

4.1 No-Build Alternative............................................................................................24

4.2 Build Alternative(s)..............................................................................................24

4.2.1 Southern Corridor ........................................................................................................ 24

4.2.2 Central Corridor........................................................................................................... 27

4.2.3 Northern Corridor ........................................................................................................ 28

4.3 Technology Alternatives......................................................................................30

4.3.1 Diesel Multiple Units (DMU)...................................................................................... 30

4.3.2 Commuter Rail............................................................................................................. 31
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page iii

4.3.3 Intercity Rail ................................................................................................................ 31

4.3.4 “Low” High Speed Intercity Rail................................................................................. 32

4.3.5 Very High Speed Rail (VHS) ...................................................................................... 32

4.3.6. Maglev ........................................................................................................................ 32

5. Scoping Process .................................................................................. 34

5.1 Stakeholder Participation ...................................................................................34

5.1.1 Public and Agency Open House/Meeting Format ....................................................... 34

5.2 Mailings.................................................................................................................35

5.2.1 Federal and State Agencies.......................................................................................... 35

5.2.2 Regional Government Planning Organizations ........................................................... 36

5.2.3 Native American Tribes and Associated Agencies...................................................... 36

5.2.4 Counties ....................................................................................................................... 36

5.2.5 Municipalities .............................................................................................................. 37

5.2.6 Chambers of Commerce .............................................................................................. 37

5.2.7 United States Congress ................................................................................................ 37

6. Scoping Meeting Results ................................................................... 38

6.1 Scope Changes......................................................................................................40

6.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................40

6.2.1 Evaluation Methodology.............................................................................................. 40

6.2.2 Methodology for Narrowing Alternatives ................................................................... 41

Figures 

Figure 1: Tier I EIS Planning and Project Development Process............................................ 3 

Figure 2 Map of Study Area ...................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 3 Levels of Service North ............................................................................................... 20 

Figure 4 Levels of Service South................................................................................................ 21 

Figure 5. Conceptual Alignments and Station Location Map ............................................... 25 

Figure 6. Southern Corridor Map............................................................................................ 26 

Figure 7. Central Corridor Map............................................................................................... 28 

Figure 8. Northern Corridor Map............................................................................................ 29 

Tables 

Table 1 Corridor Population County Growth.......................................................................... 13 

Table 2 Corridor Overall Population Growth ......................................................................... 14
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 1

1. Introduction

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that the potential 

environmental impacts of an action be assessed for every federal action that could “significantly 

affect the quality of the human environment.” The law applies to any project where there is 

federal action, including federal financial assistance, the issuance of a permit, or a requirement 

for federal approval. Following the enactment of NEPA, regulations issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) noted that Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) shall “provide 

full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers 

and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or 

enhance the quality of the human environment” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 

1500-1508). An EIS is required when it is apparent from the beginning of the project, or through 

subsequent analysis, that the proposed project is likely to have a major effect on the human 

environment. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is preparing a Tier 1 EIS for the Atlanta to 

Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) corridor with the assistance of the 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and with the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the federal co-lead agencies. The 

FRA and FHWA are operating administrations within the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT). FRA has oversight responsibility for the safety of railroad operations 

nationwide. The FHWA administers the highway transportation programs of the USDOT in 

accordance with the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S. Code (USC) §104 and USC 

§101 et. seq.). As such, it also coordinates the development of highway programs with other

modes of transportation. At this time, cooperating federal agencies include, but are not limited to

the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), FRA and FHWA, who have determined

that an EIS is appropriate to satisfy the NEPA requirements.

Preparation of the Tier I EIS, together with its eventual circulation and review and comment, is 

designed to ensure that all viable alternatives for the project are evaluated, including a “No-Build 

Alternative.” Additionally, all substantial transportation, social, economic, and environmental 

impacts are assessed; and public involvement and comments are solicited to assist the decisionmaking process. The evaluation of alternatives helps to ensure that the environmental impacts, 

benefits, costs, and trade-offs among alternatives are in compliance with federal and state 

requirements and addressed according to FRA and FHWA procedures and CEQ NEPA 

regulations. 

When preparing an EIS, Scoping is one of the first steps of the process. The Scoping Phase is 

used to identify reasonable and feasible concepts to be evaluated in the EIS, to determine 

environmental impacts to be assessed, and to gain insight on how stakeholders would like to be 

involved throughout the study. Scoping includes outreach to both the agencies and the public to 

identify possible issues at the outset of the project and also typically coincides with the agency 

Early Coordination process. The FHWA and FRA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) on August 

22, 2007, to prepare a Tier I EIS. A copy of the NOI is included in Appendix A. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 2

A copy of the legal advertisement published prior to the scoping meetings is included in 

Appendix B. Three comments were received regarding the NOI, two from the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), dated October 4, 2007 and September 25, 2007; and one from the 

City of Atlanta Department of Aviation dated October 3, 2007. Copies of the comments are 

included in Appendix C. The USFWS (Tennessee Office) comment noted the various federally 

endangered or threatened species that are known to occur in the region including the snail darter 

and the large-flowered skullcap, and requested that these species be considered as the project is 

being planned. The comment from the Department of Aviation noted plans to expand the 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA) terminal to the west and requested to 

meet with the project team to ensure that they are aware of these specific plans and other 

proposed improvements to the airport. 

The Tier I EIS will be prepared at a level of detail appropriate for a programmatic analysis with 

the main goal being determination of a preferred HSGT technology, a general corridor location, 

general station locations, potential environmental impacts of the preferred alternative, and 

identification of a phased implementation plan. A Tier II EIS would be required prior to 

advancing the project to the design and construction phases. 

The 30-day scoping comment period formally closed October 4, 2007. This date marks the 

completion of the scoping process. This Scoping Summary Report formalizes this step in the 

EIS process. The remaining steps in the EIS process include Alternatives Analysis and 

environmental impact evaluation, preparation of a Draft EIS (DEIS), presentation of findings to 

the public and agencies, preparation of the Final EIS (FEIS) summarizing comments on the 

DEIS, and finally FRA and FHWA would issue a decision on the FEIS as part of a Record of 

Decision (ROD). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this Planning and Project 

Development Process.

This scoping summary report also provides a brief project background, and a review of 

transportation networks and HSGT-related studies, economic data and federal air quality 

requirements for the Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor. These baseline data combined with an 

explanation of the HSGT project need and purpose, and the HSGT conceptual alternatives serve 

to inform and prepare stakeholders for participation in the scoping process. The last two sections 

of the report detail the stakeholder outreach and participation activities, and the results of these 

processes. 
Atlanta to Cha

Scoping Sum

February 2008 Page 3

Figure 1: Tier I EIS Planning and Project Development Process 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 4

1.1 Project Background / History 

The concept of HSGT service between Atlanta, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee has been a

subject of study for approximately ten years. Initially, the GDOT studied this corridor as part of a 

1997 Intercity Rail Plan. The Atlanta to Chattanooga Corridor was first considered for highspeed rail service as part of the federal Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Deployment Program 

funded by the FRA to demonstrate Maglev technology in the United States. Georgia was among 

several states that participated in the program. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), in 

association with GDOT and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), analyzed 

the 110- mile Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor over a four-year period, from 1999 to 2003. The 

purpose of this process was to explore mobility options and determine the feasibility for a highspeed passenger service. TDOT prepared a statewide rail plan in 2003, which recommended 

high-speed rail connectivity with neighboring states. 

A search for existing studies related to the I-75 corridor between Atlanta and Chattanooga 

revealed nearly one hundred studies, maps and documents related to transportation and land use. 

Of those studies, eight were determined to be highly relevant background information for the 

Atlanta to Chattanooga study. The documents that are listed below, as well as the various 

Federal state and regional studies, and city and county comprehensive plans, will be utilized for 

existing and future conditions analysis throughout this study. The key initial documents include: 

• Georgia Intercity Rail Plan Final Report, March 1997

• Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Environmental Assessment, February

2000

• Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II EIS, March 2002

• Concept Design Report for the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal, February 2002

• Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum, March 2002

• High Speed Trains Nashville – Chattanooga – Atlanta, November 2003

• Chattanooga Hamilton County/North Georgia Trans Plan 2030, Long Range

Transportation Study (LRTP) – June 2005

• ARC Envision 6/Mobility 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), May 2006

1.2 Key Initial Document Summaries 

The following provides a brief summary of these key studies. 

1.2.1 Georgia Intercity Rail Plan Final Report 

This study was commissioned by the GDOT in June of 1994 to assess the potential for serving 

longer distance rail passenger trips using existing rail lines. The study focused on “intercity” rail 

passenger trips, defined as those greater than 60 miles long in Georgia and adjacent states. 

Intercity travel characteristics were determined from over 17,000 traveler surveys at key 

locations for Amtrak, air, auto and bus locations. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 5

After identifying potential core and extended rail networks, the study goes on to assess each 

line’s potential for carrying high-speed trains, their ridership and revenue potential, as well as 

benefits and costs to the regional economy. The Atlanta to Chattanooga rail line was identified 

early in the study as a possible intercity corridor for an extended network, but was eliminated 

from further analysis because it did not meet the thresholds. 

Conclusions and recommendations from this study emphasize the need for high-speed service 

(such as the 180 mph typical of high-speed rail) in order to attract large numbers of auto users. 

1.2.2 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Environmental Assessment 

(EA) 

An EA of Maglev high-speed passenger service was initiated in the 110-mile Atlanta to 

Chattanooga corridor in August of 1999. FRA initiated the Maglev Transportation Technology 

Deployment Program in an effort to demonstrate the feasibility of Maglev technology in the 

United States. The study was administered by the ARC who was selected in a national 

competition by the FRA to be one of seven areas in the United States to demonstrate the 

feasibility of maglev technology. 

Alignments Studied

The study examined potential alignments for high-speed passenger service in the corridor for 

engineering, environmental, and economic feasibility as well as local support for particular 

connections and destinations. The seven alignment segments studied include: 

Segment A: Begins at the proposed Atlanta Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) and 

extends northward to the Cartersville area, along I-75. 

Segment B: Continues from Cartersville to Lovell Field Airport in Chattanooga, generally 

following I-75. 

Segment C: Begins at the west end of the HJAIA paralleling the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 

Transit Authority (MARTA) rail line, then west to Camp Creek Parkway and north to I-285, then 

joins the Segment A and B routes at I-75. 

Segment D: Begins at the proposed Southern Crescent Transportation Service on the east side of 

HJAIA, then heads south and west to follow I-285 along the perimeter of the airport to Camp 

Creek Parkway where it extends northward joining Segment B. 

Segment E: An alternative to Alignment B, departing from the I-75 corridor in Cartersville and 

follows the CSX Railroad corridor north. Near Chatsworth, the alignment turns northward 

toward I-75, then connects to and follows Segment B to Lovell Field in Chattanooga. 

Segment F: An alternative to the southern portion of Segment A, beginning at the Southern 

Crescent Transportation Service Center and heading north along I-75. Just north of University 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 6

Avenue, this alignment heads northwest, following the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line to the 

vicinity of the proposed MMPT. 

Segment G: Segment G represents a shift of the downtown portions of segments A and F 

westward to follow a segment of Northside Drive in the area of World Congress Center, Phillips 

Arena and the Georgia Dome. 

EA Preferred Alignment

Discussion of choosing the preferred alignment mentions a preference to serve downtown 

Atlanta instead of following I-285. Segments A, B, E, F and G met this criterion. The preferred 

alignment follows Segment F from the east side of the HJAIA and heads north until it reaches 

Interstate 20, where the recommended alignment transitions to Segment G. At the north end of 

Segment G, the recommended alignment follows Segment A, northward to Town Center (the 

terminus of the project in the EA Alignment). If the project were constructed, the Maglev 

System would continue northward on Segment A, and then follow Segment B to Chattanooga.

Station Locations

Four potential station locations were identified for Maglev trains at HJAIA, Vine City, Galleria, 

and Town Center. The EA document did not explore station locations north of Town Center. 

1.2.3 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II EIS 

The ARC received funding for the additional environmental and planning work and began the 

study in mid 2001. The additional work studied alternative alignments and train technologies in 

greater detail between Town Center and Lovell Field in Chattanooga, using Maglev technology 

as the baseline. Other technologies studied were Accelerail 90, 110, 125 and 150, and New 

High-Speed Rail (HSR). This study did not examine environmental impacts by alignment and 

did not screen environmental impacts for the preferred alignment. 

Alignments Studied

Five alignments were reviewed and recommended for further study. Options included the I-75 

alignment (the June 2002 Project Description alignment), the CSX Railroad alignment, two 

western alignment options (Alignment WA and WB) which connect to Rome, Georgia and an 

eastern alignment (Alignment EA) through Chatsworth, Georgia. These alignments were 

assessed based on their capital costs and financial performance relative to ridership projections 

and cost recovery abilities relative to the capabilities of the various technologies. 

Preferred Alignment 

A preferred alignment, which generally follows the I-75 highway alignment (the Project 

Description alignment) was selected due to several factors, including optimal grades necessary to 

achieve top Maglev design speeds, while maximizing potential ridership and revenue. Because 

significant ridership would relate to HJAIA, the study concluded that a corridor route must offer 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 7

direct service to Hartsfield Airport. Use of existing railroad corridors in the study area was not 

recommended. 

Station Locations

More detailed station-area plans were developed in this study at four locations: Town Center, 

Cartersville/Cassville, Dalton/Carbondale, and Lovell Field. It appears that a station at Ringgold 

was discussed, but not explored in any detail. 

The Preferred Technology

Maglev technology was selected as the “Preferred Technology” due to its ability to attract a higher 

number of passengers (because of theoretical faster travel times) and a greater ability to self-fund, 

including capital leases and potential for joint development. However, it was surmised that the 

relatively close performance of new HSR technology compared with Maglev warranted further 

consideration, especially if it allowed a connection with a larger regional network of train service. 

Accelerail 150 was also identified as an alternate technology. 

A major finding that led to a narrowing of the alternatives was that travel times on the train between 

Town Center and Chattanooga could not exceed 65 minutes without losing riders to an alternate 

travel mode. That study concluded that significantly higher capital cost of Maglev was offset by the 

higher ridership and revenue forecasts for the faster technology. However, detailed investment level 

capital costs, operations and maintenance costs and patronage forecasting were not completed for 

this study. 

Travel time comparisons between Atlanta and Chattanooga airports by technology and by 

alignment varied from a low of 29.2 minutes for Maglev on the I-75 alignment to a high of 113.1 

minutes with New HSR on one of the western alignments, the WA alignment. All technologies 

performed well with higher speeds on the I-75 alignment compared with other alignments 

1.2.4 Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study Phase II Addendum 

This document summarizes the findings of the Phase II planning and environmental study and 

provided detailed alignment maps and station plans as well as operating and cost comparisons 

between alternatives. A possible timeline for Maglev implementation was also presented as part 

of this study. 

1.2.5 Concept Design Report for the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal 

An oversight committee comprised of board members for the GDOT, the Georgia Regional 

Transportation Authority (GRTA), and the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA), formed 

the state’s Rail Passenger Program Management Team (PMT). The PMT members adopted 

Concept 6 of the MMPT project as the official Concept Design of the MMPT project. 

Five component parts of the MMPT include: 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 8

1. A main terminal for trains of both the Georgia Rail Passenger Program and Amtrak with a

regional Commuter Bus Terminal A-North, consisting of 10 stalls above the tracks and

train terminal concourse.

2. Commuter Regional Bus Terminal B-South consisting of 10 stalls on top of the MMPT

parking deck providing 700 parking spaces.

3. An Intercity Bus Terminal on top of the Replacement Parking Deck, (replaces the existing

1850 space CNN deck to accommodate the new commuter rail track layout).

4. Direct pedestrian connections to MARTA’s Five Points Station fare gate level, MARTA’s

Philips Arena Station plaza level, and between the Regional Bus Terminal B and the Main

Train Terminal.

5. Two additional roadways – Alabama Street Extension (between Forsyth Street and

Centennial Olympic Park Drive) and the new North-South Street (between Martin Luther

King (MLK) Drive and Alabama Street extension) to accommodate increased bus and other

vehicular traffic in the immediate MMPT area.

The net square feet programmed for the MMPT is 1,118,168 for two buildings and site structures 

(train and bus platforms, new roadways, etc.) including the two parking decks. Order-ofmagnitude cost estimate for the full-build design is $309 million. A potential “Phase I” 

operational segment to accommodate the first two commuter rail lines could be built for about 

$25 million dollars. The MMPT is planned for the years 2010 to 2025 with a phased 

construction during that period.

1.2.6 High Speed Trains Nashville-Chattanooga -Atlanta 

In December 2000, TDOT developed the Rail Plan for Tennessee. The Intercity Passenger Rail 

component of the Rail Plan was completed in early 2003. A key conclusion of that study was the 

recommendation that the Federally designated high-speed rail corridor from Atlanta to 

Chattanooga be extended to include Nashville, with an eventual connection to Louisville, 

Kentucky. 

Technology alternatives for high-speed ground transportation were not explored in this study. An 

assumption of steel wheel technology was used as the basis for travel time estimates, ridership 

forecasts and public benefits. A goal for the project was to meet the FRA’s criteria of sustained 

running speeds of 90 miles per hour or greater in the corridor. Alternatives were not evaluated 

for the Chattanooga to Atlanta segment because this portion was covered in the earlier Maglev 

study. 

1.2.7 Chattanooga, Hamilton County / North Georgia Trans Plan 2030 LRTP 

The Chattanooga Urban Area’s transportation planning boundary includes the municipalities of 

Chattanooga, Collegedale, East Ridge, Lookout Mountain, Red Bank, Ridgeside, Signal 

Mountain, Soddy-Daisy and Walden and unincorporated Hamilton County in Tennessee. It also 

includes the north Georgia counties of Dade, Walker and Catoosa Counties. The cities of 

Rossville, Fort Oglethorpe, Lookout Mountain, Chickamauga, and Ringgold fall within this 

north Georgia boundary. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 9

Adopted in June of 2005, the Chattanooga Hamilton County North Georgia “TransPlan 2030”, 

includes 380 roadway, pedestrian and bicycle projects totaling $1.316 billion. Additional safety, 

bridge, Intelligent Transportation System and transit projects and planning studies total $543 

million. The Atlanta to Chattanooga Maglev passenger rail project is mentioned as a possibility 

in this plan; however no specific funding is identified for this effort. Rail safety funding of $1.2 

million per year is set aside to improve about 20 crossings per year. Public Transportation 5307, 

5309 and 5311 monies continue to be funded at historic levels for existing public transit needs. 

New road construction projects receive the bulk of funding at $1.347 billion for the Tennessee 

and Georgia portions combined. 

1.2.8 ARC Envision 6 Needs Assessment Report 

The RTP is a long-range plan which includes a balanced mix of projects, such as bridges, bicycle 

paths, sidewalks, transit services, new and upgraded roadways, safety improvements, 

transportation demand management initiatives and emission reduction strategies. The Envision 6 

Transportation Plan covers the years through 2030 and is slated for adoption by the ARC Board 

in 2007. 

The corridors portion of the Needs Assessment Report focuses on eleven freeway corridors 

within the Atlanta region, representing 20 of the top 25 congested facility segments identified in 

the “2004 Congestion Management System”. Mobility 2030 is the planning process developed 

by the ARC to focus on specific investment strategies for these transportation corridors in the 

creation of the RTP. 

In 2005, the I-75 north corridor had the second highest total population and employment of all 

corridors. It also featured the highest densities of all radial interstate corridors in the region. The 

I-75 corridor is projected to experience a 41% increase in households and a 25% increase in

employment between 2005 and 2030. The I-75 north corridor has the second highest daily truck

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of all corridors as well as the second highest percent of daily truck

VMT (23.2%). I-75 north between South Marietta Parkway and I-285 has the highest truck

volumes of any freeway segment in the region. By the year 2030, over 100,000 daily trucks are

expected.

The planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the corridor is expected to more than double 

daily corridor transit ridership from 15,000 in 2005 to 37,000 in 2030. New transit service and 

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the corridor increase home based work trip transit 

mode share from 4% to 6% and HOV mode share from 13% to 15%. In 2005, 49% of I-75 lane 

miles outside of I-285 experience more than 4 hours of daily congestion. In 2030, the number of 

lane miles with greater than 4 hours of congestion increases to 68%. 

After the extension of the HOV system and the BRT corridor are complete, I-75 will be 

effectively built-out. An additional 24 projects are identified in the 2030 Aspirations Plan that is 

not funded within “Mobility 2030”. Six of these projects are related to improvements to 

US41/Cobb Parkway from Bartow County to the Cumberland/Galleria area. These projects 

include 16 miles of widening and some grade separation at major intersections, improvements 

along US41 will act to draw some traffic away from I-75 north and serve as an alternate route in 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 10

the event of major delays. Other projects within the “Aspirations Plan” include improvements 

along arterials accessing I-75 north, such as Barrett Parkway and Bells Ferry Road; and transit, 

including the potential for rail transit in the corridor and transit along the Marietta Boulevard 

corridor from Cumberland/Galleria to the Cumberland business district. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 11

2. Existing Conditions

The study corridor generally parallels Interstate 75 from HJAIA in the Atlanta metropolitan area, 

to Chattanooga, Tennessee. The study area consists of rolling topography dissected by numerous 

rivers and streams. This area is heavily urbanized, primarily within and around the City of 

Atlanta and the City of Chattanooga, but also includes suburban and rural areas within the 

corridor. The study area is contained partially or entirely in the following counties: Hamilton 

County, Tennessee; and Clayton, Fulton, Cobb, Cherokee, Floyd, Bartow, Douglas, Paulding, 

Polk, Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, Chattooga, Walker, and Catoosa Counties, Georgia. A map of 

the study area is provided as Figure 2. 

2.1 Population and Income 

According to data from the U.S. Census, the population in the project corridor has increased 

from 2,766,800 in 1990 to 4,603,08 in 2006. It is projected that the project corridor population 

will reach 5,222,153 between the years 2015 to 2030. That increase translates into an 88.87% 

growth from the year 1990. The project corridor’s average income of $41,875 falls in-between 

the Georgia ($42,433) and Tennessee ($36,360) average incomes. The percentage of households 

living below the poverty level in the project corridor is 13.48%, which is above Georgia at 

9.90% and Tennessee at 10.30%. Population data is provided as Tables 1 and 2.

2.2 Visitors

The Atlanta and Chattanooga areas combined have over 23 million visitors to their cities each 

year. According to the Atlanta Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 20 million visitors come to the 

Atlanta area annually. The Chattanooga area draws 3.3 million visitors each year. 

2.3 Major Highway Network 

Three major highways connect the metropolitan Atlanta area with the northwest Georgia and 

Chattanooga metropolitan areas. These three routes are Interstate 75, US 41 and US 27. 

Interstate 75 is one of the most heavily traveled interstates in Georgia as well as in the entire 

nation. Traffic volumes north of Atlanta on I-75 for 2005 ranged from the low to mid 100,000s 

in Bartow County to the mid 80,000s near the Tennessee border. According to the Georgia 

Interstate System Plan, completed in 2004, most of I-75 north of Atlanta is projected to exceed 

available capacity. By 2035, volumes on I-75 will continue to exceed capacity, even assuming 

that the additional lanes have been implemented.
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 12

Figure 2 Map of Study Area 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 13

Table 1: Corridor Population Growth by County 

County 1990 

Census 

2000 

Census 

Estimated 

2006 

Population 

2025/2030 

Projected 

Population 

(See Note) 

Population 

Change 

Since 1990 

Percentage 

Population 

Change 

Bartow 55,915 76,019 91,266 134,409 (2) 78,494 140.38% 

Catoosa 42,464 53,282 62,016 101,319 (1) 58,855 138.59% 

Chattooga 22,242 25,470 26,442 34,114 (1) 11,872 53.37% 

Cherokee 90,204 141,903 195,327 213,951 (2) 123,747 137.18% 

Clayton 181,436 236,517 271,240 299,916 (2) 118,480 65.30% 

Cobb 447,745 607,751 679,325 763,889 (2) 316,144 70.60% 

Douglas 71,120 92,174 119,557 218,551 (2) 147,431 207.29% 

Fulton 648,776 816,006 960,009 1,145,902 (2) 497,126 76.62% 

Floyd 81,251 90,565 95,322 157,090 (1) 75,839 93.33% 

Gordon 35,067 44,104 51,419 85,435 (1) 50,368 143.63% 

Hamilton 211,000 307,896 312,905 352,285 (1) 151,334 66.95% 

Murray 26,147 36,506 41,398 83,246 (2) 57,099 218.37% 

Paulding 41,611 81,678 121,530 221,839 (2) 180,228 433.12% 

Polk 33,815 38,127 41,091 72,735 (1) 38,920 115.09%

Walker 41,398 61,053 64,606 89,032 (1) 47,634 115.06% 

Whitfield 72,462 83,525 92,999 126,185 (2) 53,723 74.13% 

County 

Total 

2,104,643 2,794,576 3,226,452 4,099,898 1,993,017 94.80% 

Georgia 

Total 

6,478,149 8,186,453 9,363,941 12,017,838 

(2) 

5,539,689 85.51% 

TN Total 4,877,185 5,689,283 6,038,803 7,380,634 (2) 2,503,449 51.32% 

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and American Community Survey 2006 Update; 

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Council; 

North Georgia Regional Development Center; Catoosa Regional Development Authority; 

Atlanta Regional Commission 

Note: Projection Years: (1) 2025; (2) 2030 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 14

Table 2: Corridor Overall Population Growth by City 

Presently, there are 83 roadway improvements or expansions planned or currently in progress 

along the 110-mile corridor. Many of these improvements are along I-75. However, even with 

these improvements, many of these facilities are projected to operate at or above capacity. In 

addition, analysis of accident data on I-75 shows a trend for increasing numbers of accidents and 

injuries over time as this facility grows more congested 

Portions of US 41 are four lanes from Atlanta to Chattanooga, with two lanes in more rural 

sections. North of Atlanta, the daily traffic volumes in 2005 ranged from a low of 5,000 to a 

high of 40,000. While not as heavily traveled as I-75, US 41 is also expected to equal or exceed 

capacity within the next 20 years, despite several proposed multi-lane improvements. 

Traffic volumes along the US 27 corridor range from a low of approximately 5,000 Average 

Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) to a high of around 40,000 AADT in Rome in 2005. The future 

(2025) Level of Service (LOS) for the corridor is approaching or exceeding capacity. 

Census Census Estimate Projection * Actual Change * % Change *

City

1990 2000 7/1/2006 Year* 1990 to 

Projection Year

1990 to 

Projection Year

Atlanta, GA 394,017 416,474 486,411 602,783 (3) 208,766 52.98%

Chattanooga,TN 152,466 155,554 155,190 175,755 (2) 23,289 15.27%

Cartersville, GA 12,035 15,925 17,407 44,121 (3) 32,086 266.60%

Dalton, GA 21,761 27,912 33,045 117,400 (2) 95,639 439.49%

Douglasville, GA 11,635 20,065 28,870 28,870 17,235 148.13%

Kennesaw, GA 8,936 21,675 30,936 48,487 (2) 39,551 442.60%

Rome, GA 30,326 34,980 36,142 36,000 (1) 5,674 18.71%

Smryna, GA 30,981 40,999 48,632 69,039 (2) 38,058 122.84%

City Total 662,157 733,584 836,633 1,122,255 460,098 69.48%

County Total 2,104,643 2,794,576 3,226,452 4,099,898 1,993,017 94.80%

Study Corridor Total 2,766,800 3,528,160 4,063,085 5,222,153 2,455,353 88.87%

Georgia Total: 6,478,149 8,186,453 9,363,941 (3) 12,017, 838 5,539,689 85.51%

Tennessee Total: 4,877,185 5,689,283 6,038,803 (3) 7,380,634 2,503,449 51.32%

Cartersville Comprehensive Plan update

Dalton Comprehensive Plan

Atlanta Regional Commission

ProjectionYear 1 = 2015, 2 = 2025, 3 = 2030

Sources: 2000 US Census and American Community Survey 2006 Update

Chattanooga Hamilton County RPC

North Georgia Regional Development Center
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 15

2.4 Aviation 

HJAIA bears the distinction of being the world’s busiest passenger airport with five runways, 

29,550 public parking spaces, 76.3 million domestic passengers and eight million international 

passengers in 2006. Lovell Field currently serves ten major airports via six different airlines. 

Atlanta’s Hartsfield is Lovell Field’s number one connecting hub, accounting for 28% of 

Chattanooga’s local outbound travel. A total of 503,468 passengers enplaned and deplaned in 

Chattanooga in 2006. Lovell Field has a current parking capacity of 1,226. 

2.5 Railroads 

There are three main railroad lines (W&A, CSX and NS “H” Line) connecting Atlanta and 

Chattanooga. A third line (NS C-Line) connects Rome and Chattanooga and the northern 

portion of a fourth line (TAG Line) originally connected Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Gadsden, 

Alabama. 

2.6 Transit 

The major transit systems operating along or near the corridor include, but are not limited to, 

MARTA, Cobb County Transit (CCT), GRTA, C-Tran (Clayton County), Rome Transit 

Department (RTD), and Chattanooga Area Rapid Transit Authority (CARTA). MARTA 

operates 464 buses, 812 rail cars and 98 demand response vehicles for 142,385,899 trips 

annually. CCT operates 54 buses and 12 demand response vehicles offering an estimated 

3,854,413 trips to its riders annually. 

GRTA operates 58 buses, 55 vanpools and four demand response vehicles offering 2,231,859 

trips for its passengers annually. C-Tran operates 24 buses and five routes within Clayton 

County, Georgia. RTD operates 24 buses, and four demand response vehicles providing 830,502 

trips to its riders annually. CARTA operates 49 buses, 12 demand response vehicles, and two 

sky-rail trains providing 2,529,157 trips to its passengers annually. 

In addition to these more urban transit systems, Greyhound operates bus service between Atlanta 

and Chattanooga, with eight daily departures from Atlanta Monday through Saturday and six 

departures on Sundays. The most recent passenger data, which was collected from October 1, 

2006 to September 30, 2007, reports over 149,805 passengers and 3,639 buses have traveled 

between Atlanta and Chattanooga. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 16

2.7 Air Quality 

Ten counties in the project study area have been designated as nonattainment areas for not 

meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Douglas, Fulton and Paulding Counties are all part of the 

Atlanta Nonattainment Area for ozone and PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of 2.5 microns or less). Floyd County constitutes the Rome Nonattainment Area for 

PM2.5. Catoosa and Hamilton Counties are part of the Chattanooga Nonattainment Area for 

PM2.5 and are part of the Chattanooga Early Action Compact (EAC) area for ozone. This EAC 

requires the development of a comprehensive air quality plan to implement control strategies to 

achieve and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EAC areas must meet all terms and milestones 

in their EACs to defer the effective date of a nonattainment designation. To date all EAC 

milestones have been met and as long as this continues, the nonattainment designation for this 

EAC will be deferred until April 15, 2008. 

Until October 16, 2007 a portion of Murray County was a nonattainment area for ozone. The 

designated portion included the portion of the county included in the Chattahoochee National 

Forest. This 8-hour nonattainment area was re-designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as a maintenance area on October 16th. EPA also approved a revision to the 

Georgia State Implementation Plan including the 8-hour maintenance plan for the Murray 

County area on this date. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 17

3. Project Need and Purpose

The growth in both population, employment and tourism in the Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor 

is projected to increase significantly resulting in increased travel demand for both goods and 

people. The transportation infrastructure that will serve this demand, including highways, transit 

and aviation are all projected to be at or above capacity, despite proposed improvements 

programmed to expand these facilities. 

The overall purpose of the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT system is to enhance intercity 

passenger mobility in northwest Georgia, and part of Tennessee, by expanding passenger 

transportation capacity, increasing overall personal and business mobility and providing an 

alternative to highway and air travel in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective while 

avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating effects on affected neighborhoods and the environment.

Currently, the state and interstate highway systems within the corridor are operating at or near 

capacity, especially within and adjacent to Atlanta, Rome, Dalton and Chattanooga areas. 

Although capacity improvements to the state and interstate roadway system along the corridor 

are either currently underway or planned for the near future, they will not address all of the 

future capacity or mobility needs for the region. The increased traffic volumes and accident rates 

in the study corridor further emphasize the need for alternative transportation. Social and 

economic demands will continue to call for a provision of alternative transportation choices for 

those individuals, who cannot or choose not to drive, as well as those travelers and commuters 

looking for alternatives to congested highways. 

The following paragraphs outline the deficiencies and transportation issues that define the need 

for the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT. 

3.1 Existing and Future Transportation Demand and Travel Growth 

There is a need to provide mobility options to address existing and future transportation demand 

and travel growth in the corridor. The corresponding increase in the number of automobiles will 

far exceed the states’ ability to provide enough safe, efficient, and environmentally acceptable 

solutions with the existing highway and airport infrastructure. 

The Atlanta area is the ninth-largest metropolitan area in the United States and consists of up to 

28 counties in Georgia. According to the US Census 2006 population estimates, the 28-county 

Atlanta metropolitan area is currently the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States 

based on numerical gains. The Georgia job market is one of the ten strongest in the nation. The 

Atlanta area is the economic engine for the State of Georgia, representing two thirds of the 

state’s economy. 

Chattanooga is the fourth largest city in Tennessee and the county seat of Hamilton County. The 

City of Chattanooga is located at the crossroads of three states: Alabama, Georgia, and 

Tennessee. Chattanooga is home to several Fortune 500 companies, such as Blue Cross/Blue 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 18

Shield of Tennessee, Brach & Brock Confections, Chattem Inc., Dixie Yarns, The Krystal 

Company, McKee Banking Company, North American Royalties, Olan Mills and the 

headquarters for the Division of Power of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which is the 

largest utility in the United States. The US Census 2006 population estimates show that 

Chattanooga/Hamilton County is the fifth fastest growing county the State. 

Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic density (or a measure of congestion). The 

transportation LOS system uses the letters A through F, with A being best and F being worst to 

measure congestion on roadways. The peak hour volume (PHV) is the volume of traffic that 

uses the approach, lane, or lane group in question during the hour of the day that observes the 

highest traffic volumes for that intersection. See Figures 3 and 4, which identify LOS and PHV 

for I-75. The majority of the corridor operates, or will operate, at LOS E or F. 

3.2 Provision of Person Trip Capacity versus Highway Capacity 

A HSGT system cannot meet all of the future capacity needs of the major travel corridors within 

the study area and will not eliminate congestion, but will relieve some of the traffic problems, 

and may delay the need for future improvements, freeing funds for other network capacity 

improvements. In addition, HSGT service would provide mobility options to the traveling public. 

Interstate 75 is one of the most heavily traveled interstates in the entire nation, typically second 

only to the I-95 corridor. Most of I-75 north of Atlanta is projected to exceed available capacity. 

Projects are currently planned to widen I-75. However, by 2030, volumes on I-75 will continue 

to exceed capacity. US Highway 41 is also expected to equal or exceed capacity within the next 

20 years, despite several proposed multi-lane improvements. The US 27 corridor is also 

approaching or exceeding capacity. 

3.3 Enhance Airport Access 

HJAIA is consistently ranked as one of the world’s busiest airports. About 250,000 passengers 

use HJAIA on an average day. As roads to HJAIA approach capacity, and the vehicular access 

from the north becomes congested and unreliable, a HSGT system, in conjunction with MARTA 

and other available transit modes, would provide an additional non-vehicular mode of airport 

access. 

The six flights per day between HJAIA and Chattanooga’s Airport, Lovell Field, account for 

28% of its traffic. Lovell Field captures only 55% of the region’s perspective enplanements. 

Since 80% of local passengers flying in and out of HJAIA live north of Interstate 20, Lovell 

Field may become a more desirable option for those in northwestern Georgia and far North 

Atlanta due to improved access provided by HSGT. 

3.4 Maintain or Improve Regional Air Quality 

There is a need to maintain or improve regional air quality. The CAA of 1970 and the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 require regional long-range transportation plans to support the achievement 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 19

and maintenance of air quality standards. These areas must demonstrate that proposed 

transportation improvements do not negatively impact the quality of the air. 

The use of new technologies being considered for the HSGT and other approaches aimed at 

reducing the demand for trips in single occupancy vehicles, must be an integral part of all 

transportation plans and programs to ensure that these areas conform to federal air quality 

standards. Multi-purpose transportation corridors, such as high-speed rail lines in medians and 

designated lanes for high occupancy vehicles and local travel, are transportation strategies that 

can achieve a reduction in pollution levels. 

3.5 Address Safety Deficiencies in Corridor 

Safety is a paramount consideration in providing transportation capacity. Recent statistics 

indicate that passenger rail travel is one of the safest modes of transportation, while motor 

vehicle fatalities account for more than 90 percent of all transportation-related fatalities. 

Analysis of accident data on I-75 shows increasing numbers of accidents and injuries over time, 

as the study corridor becomes more congested. 

In order to minimize the possibility of train-vehicular or pedestrian collisions and maximize 

safety, this HSGT project will incorporate grade-separated crossings and barrier intrusion 

systems. The HSGT system may contribute to a reduction in the accident rate as automobile and 

some truck trips (freight) are diverted from parallel highway facilities to the HSGT facility. 

Thus, accident rates are anticipated to decrease as a result of fewer vehicles on the roadway and a 

reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled by the public. 

3.6 Promote Economic Development 

There is a need to promote economic development in the region within and between Atlanta and 

Chattanooga. The existing transportation system is one of the critical factors hindering economic 

development in the corridor. For years, the area has been hampered by an inadequate system of 

regional freeways that do not meet the demand of all users. Although there is potential for 

economic development at existing activity areas, efficient transportation access to these sites is 

not always present. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 20

Figure 3 Levels of Service North 

LOS calculated by Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc- Staff 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 21

Figure 4 Levels of Service South 

LOS calculated by Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc- Staff 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 22

Construction and eventual operation of the HSGT system will create jobs and associated 

economic development. With the proper placement of HSGT stations, there could be an impetus 

to redevelop any nearby undeveloped and underdeveloped sites, which creates employment 

opportunities. In addition, the development of an alternative transportation system in the region 

could help revitalize local industries, which in turn will create new employment opportunities 

and job markets. 

3.7 Reduce Energy Consumption 

Transportation energy consumption is expected to grow by 30 percent within the next 15 years. 

Americans consume disproportionate shares of the world’s energy, perhaps as much as 34 

percent. Nearly half of the oil Americans use is imported from other countries, creating a heavy 

dependence on foreign oil. Traffic congestion resulted in a total annual average cost of $69.5 

billion, 3.5 billion hours of delay, and 5.6 billion additional gallons of fuel. 

There is a need to reduce energy consumption, both nationally and locally. Transportation 

accounts for approximately two-thirds of all oil consumed in this country. Implementation of a 

HSGT system could result in potential energy savings from reduced vehicle travel, and 

consequently, could reduce some of the demand for oil. As compared to other potential modal 

improvements within the corridor, HSGT has the potential to utilize less energy per passenger. 

3.8 Enhance Intermodal Connections/Relationships 

HSGT offers an alternative transportation mode that could reduce congestion and increase 

regional mobility and intermodal connectivity. By diverting travelers from single-occupant 

automobile trips, HSGT would not only help reduce roadway congestion in the corridor, but 

connect to existing and planned transit systems within the corridor, including, but not limited to 

MARTA, CCT and CARTA. These connections will provide relief for local and sub-regional 

highway facilities, and provide additional access, through non-automotive means, to the 

corridor’s airports. 

The provision of HSGT service will create momentum for the development of a multi-modal, 

intermodal transportation system by assisting in servicing longer distant trips, by non-automotive 

means, that local transit cannot serve. 

3.9 Address Social Demands of Various Population Groups 

Senior citizens and those with disabilities depend on access to user-friendly transportation 

facilities and services for mobility between major urban centers and visitor attractions. Bus 

service is provided sporadically along the corridor, which offers senior citizens and the disabled 

no alternative transportation means other than vehicle travel. 

Business travelers lose productive working hours and tourists lose valuable recreation time 

because of delays on congested roadways and in congested airports. In order to ensure efficient 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 23

and cost effective travel for business and tourist travelers, more than one mode of transportation 

is desirable. 

3.10 Support Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Smart Growth Initiatives 

The opportunities of intermodal connectivity, improved mobility, and economic activity offered 

by a HSGT system support local land use planning goals and smart growth initiatives. 

Integrating land use choices with transportation choices is the best approach to addressing the 

corridor’s challenges and to promoting healthy, sustainable regional economic development and 

quality communities. Communities across the country are attempting to provide a range of 

mobility options to increase travel by non-automotive means, which would result in higher 

quality and increased development at activity centers, and encourage compact urban growth and 

transit-oriented development. The HSGT would connect major regional activity centers and 

encourage compact urban growth. 

A HSGT system provides for more effective linkages to important regional activity centers and 

major business development areas, provides for worker access to jobs, business access to 

markets, and resident access to services. In addition, the fixed-guideway element of HSGT has 

the potential to influence and support denser development patterns. This occurs directly by 

presenting joint development opportunities and indirectly by enhancing land values around 

transit centers and fixed-guideway stations. 

3.11 Provide Link in Southeast US Region HSGT system

TDOT is currently evaluating the Nashville to Chattanooga corridor, and has studied in the past 

the Louisville to Nashville corridor for HSGT. The existing Norfolk Southern freight right-ofway to operate new high-speed passenger train service between Macon and Atlanta, Greenville, 

Spartanburg and Charlotte, North Carolina, with continuing service into Virginia and the 

Washington-New York-Boston Northeast Corridor is also being evaluated. Other nearby HSGT 

corridors that have been analyzed include, but are not limited to, Charlotte to Washington DC, 

Atlanta to Savannah, Savannah to Jacksonville, and Jacksonville to Miami. 

With high-speed rail corridors in the planning stages to the east, west, and south of AtlantaChattanooga corridor, this corridor is a major piece in a future hub system of high-speed train 

service from Atlanta throughout the Southeast. There is a need to advance HSGT as a network. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 24

4. Conceptual HSGT Alternatives

The alternatives to be evaluated in the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT project would include 

implementing the current transportation plans for the corridor, and would also evaluate 

alternatives that would construct a new very HSGT project. The alternatives presented during 

scoping included the No-Build Alternative and various Build Alternatives, which are described 

in more detail in the following section. This discussion is broken into two distinct categories, 

alignment and technology. A graphic depicting the conceptual alignments and the station 

locations is provided as Figure 5. 

4.1 No-Build Alternative 

For the purposes of this project the Baseline Alternative or the No Action as per CEQ will be the 

same as the No-Build Alternative. This alternative includes the existing network highway and 

transit system projects. In addition, projects programmed in the adopted plans, which also 

includes low-cost, operationally oriented transit improvements are assumed in the No Build 

Alternative. 

4.2 Build Alternative(s)

Several alignments have been developed along a variety of corridors to serve the purpose and 

need of the project. All conceptual alignments that have been developed begin at the HJAIA and 

end in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, after stopping at Lovell Field Airport on the outskirts 

of Chattanooga. Potential project alignments for the build alternative will be evaluated and 

narrowed down through the Alternatives Analysis process. Because of the size of the corridor 

and the multiple connection points that could be made the corridor has been divided into three 

sections, South, Central, and North. The alternatives presented during the scoping process are 

described below by segment within each corridor section. 

4.2.1 Southern Corridor 

This corridor extends from the Atlanta Airport to south of the Cobb/Cherokee and Polk/Floyd 

county lines. A map of the Southern corridor is provided as Figure 6. 

I-75 MEDIAN ALIGNMENT - This alignment was developed to serve the most densely

developed portion of the corridor and can briefly be described with the following defining

features:

• Four stations; Hartsfield Airport (Southern Crescent Transportation Center), Downtown

Atlanta (Five Points area) Galleria Station, and Town Center Station

• Aerial structure in the median of I-75 from the Hartsfield Airport to one mile south of I-20

• Tunnel through downtown Atlanta with a deep underground station near Forsyth and

Alabama Streets with the tunnel ending north of Bankhead highway
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 25

Figure 5. Conceptual Alignments and Station Location Map 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 26

Figure 6. Southern Corridor Map 

• Aerial structure in Howell Mill Road and back into the I-75 median

• Aerial Station in the median of I-75 near the Galleria with patron access from either side of

the highway

• At-grade section in the median from north of I-575 junction to the Town Center Station with

patron access from above and either side of the highway

I-75 CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT - This alignment is similar to the I-75 median alignment from

the Atlanta Airport to approximately two miles north of the I-75 / I-285 junction where it begins

to weave in and out of the median on aerial structure in order to allow for higher speeds. Other

differences include the following:

• Aerial structure from Delk Road to Town Center Station

• Requires right-of-way outside of and adjacent to the I-75 corridor

• Aerial Station at Town center spanning the I-75 highway

I-285 BY-PASS - This segment starts out at the existing Hartsfield Terminal and MARTA

station and continues on Camp Creek Parkway to I-285, and includes the following features:
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 27

• At-grade along the west shoulder of I-285

• Grade-separated alignment with the local highway interchanges

• An Intermodal Station with MARTA near MLK Highway

• A Galleria Station on the west side of I-75

I-285 TO I-75 CONNECTOR - This segment attempts to alleviate the aerial structure along

Howell Mill Road with a mostly at-grade section along the railroad corridor to I-285 and back to

I-75.

ROME ALIGNMENT – This segment provides a potentially higher speed route from the Atlanta 

Airport to I-75. The alignment bypasses downtown Atlanta and the highly developed I-75 

corridor north of Atlanta. The alignment follows Camp Creek Parkway to I-285 and utility 

corridors through rural areas. 

4.2.2 Central Corridor 

This corridor extends from the Southern Corridor past Calhoun along the I-75 corridor. A map of 

the Central Corridor is provided as Figure 7. 

I-75 MEDIAN ALIGNMENT- This alignment stays in the median of I-75 in a mostly at-grade

configuration. This alignment would require that some narrow sections of the existing median

be widened by shifting the mainline of I-75 to the outside. This segment proposes one station in

the median of I-75 near Cartersville.

I-75 CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT- This alignment is similar to the I-75 median alignment, but

proposes to weave in and out of the highway corridor to obtain higher speeds. Other features are

noted as follows:

• It crosses Lake Alatoona with a high-speed curve passing through some residential areas

• It requires new right-of-way outside the I-75 highway

• It is a mix of at-grade, aerial structure and tunnel sections

• It has one station on the east side of I-75 near Cartersville

ROME ALIGNMENT - This alignment passes through rural areas with a high-speed alignment 

and serves Rome with a station. It is mostly at-grade and re-joins the I-75 alignment south of 

Calhoun. 

ROME TO I-75 CONNECTOR - This segment provides a connection from the I-75 alignment to 

Rome. It is mostly at-grade with short sections of aerial and tunnel sections. 

EASTERN ALIGNMENT - This alignment departs from the I-75 corridor north of Cartersville 

and generally follows the CSX corridor with a higher speed alignment. The alignment is 

generally at-grade with short sections of aerial structure. Please see Figure 7, which illustrates 

all of the alignment segments in the Central Corridor. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 28

Figure 7. Central Corridor Map 

4.2.3 Northern Corridor 

This corridor extends from Gordon County to downtown Chattanooga. A map of the Northern 

Corridor is provided as Figure8. 

I-75 MEDIAN ALIGNMENT - This alignment mainly follows the median of I-75 and generally

utilizes an at-grade configuration. Other features of this alignment include the following:

• This alignment would require that some narrow sections of the existing median be widened

by shifting the mainline of I-75 to the outside.

• The alignment passes to the west of the I-75 corridor south of the Dalton area to avoid the

more developed area, which would be accomplished with a mix of aerial and at-grade

configurations.

 The Station is proposed to be located in the median with access from either side.

• It diverts from the I-75 median south of the I-24 corridor passing through residential and

commercial areas to the Lovell Field Airport Station along Airport Road.
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 29

Figure 8. Northern Corridor Map 

I-75 CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT - This alignment is similar to the I-75 median alignment, but

proposes to weave in and out of the highway corridor to obtain higher speeds. Other features are

noted as follows:

• The alignment is usually on the side of the highway corridor mostly aerial structure with long

at grade sections and some tunnels.

• A Dalton Station is proposed on the east side of I-75.

• It diverts from the I-75 median south of the I-24 corridor passing through residential and

commercial areas to the Lovell Field Airport Station along Airport Road.

EASTERN ALIGNMENT - This alignment continues in the CSX corridor in a mostly at-grade 

configuration, but would include some aerial structure sections. 

• The alignment diverts from the CSX corridor south of Chatsworth through the rural areas.

• A Dalton Chatsworth Station is proposed near Chatsworth Road.
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 30

• North of the Station, the alignment is mostly at-grade with some significant tunnels and

aerial structure sections.

• The alignment section ends at the Lovell Field Airport Station along Airport Road.

DOWNTOWN CHATTANOOGA CONNECTOR - This segment continues from the Airport 

Station to downtown Chattanooga following the railroad corridor in a mostly at-grade 

configuration. This segment includes a station located downtown near the railroad corridor. 

4.3 Technology Alternatives 

As described above the growth in both population and employment in the Atlanta to Chattanooga 

corridor is projected to continue resulting in increased travel demand for both goods and people. 

The transportation infrastructure that will serve this demand, including highways, transit and 

aviation are all projected to be at or above capacity within the next 20+ years, despite proposed 

improvements programmed to expand these facilities. 

As indicated in the Draft Project Purpose and Need Statement in Section 3, the purpose of an 

Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT system is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in northwest 

Georgia, and part of Tennessee, by expanding passenger transportation capacity, increasing 

mobility and providing an alternative to highway and air travel in a manner that is safe, reliable, 

and cost-effective while avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating impacts on neighborhoods and 

the environment.

Intercity passenger mobility has the potential to be provided by several modes. Based on past 

studies in this corridor it has been determined that HSGT is an excellent alternative mode when 

compared to highway (personal automobile, intercity bus) and air travel. HSGT can be provided 

by several different transportation technology options, ranging from diesel multiple units and 

commuter rail to Maglev. The various technology options and their applicability to this study are 

briefly discussed below. 

4.3.1 Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) 

DMU refers to a steel wheel on steel rail transit vehicle that is self-propelled, with the capacity to 

pull non-powered cars. Typically, these are European-style vehicles, which are utilized for 

regional and sub-regional passenger service, and are intended for low density, non-electrified 

lines up to 30 to 35 miles in length. Heavy duty DMU’s have been in service in Europe for 

several decades, and were utilized in the past in this country for intracity rail and intercity rail. 

However, in this country, these cars were discontinued in the late 1940’s, early 1950’s, 

coinciding with the demise of intraurbans and trolleys. Recently, there has been renewed interest 

in DMU’s, typically in cities that have old railroad spur lines, abandoned main lines or 

underutilized short lines that appear attractive for commuter rail. Some cities that have major 

rail lines, have found that DMU’s have the potential to be a less costly alternative to Light Rail 

Transit or traditional push-pull commuter rail (see below). The issue until recently has been the 

crash strength of the DMU vehicles. The DMU’s produced to date have been non-FRA 

compliant, and thus could not operate on the same track with freight or AMTRAK trains. 

However, recently advances in technology have allowed the development of FRA-compliant 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 31

vehicles. DMU technology has a maximum speed of approximately 70 miles per hour (mph), 

with an average operating speed of approximately 35 mph and is appropriate for regional and 

sub-regional intercity travel from suburb to urban core, but not for higher speed interstate, 

intercity travel. DMUs will not be evaluated in this study. 

4.3.2 Commuter Rail 

Commuter rail typically serves medium to high passenger volumes over medium to longer 

distances. The technology is steel wheel on steel rail. Commuter rail most often shares right-ofway with freight rail traffic. The traction power is provided by a diesel-powered locomotive, 

which pushes or pulls one or several passenger coach cars. Although the potential speed of this 

technology is 79 to 110 mph, because the general station spacing is approximately seven to 10 

miles, the average operating speed is well under 59 mph. Typically, the distance between stops 

is greater than other forms of fixed guideway transit (heavy rail, light rail), and the number of 

stops at the destination (the urban core) is limited. Commuter rail is currently utilized 

throughout the United States as a regional transportation alternative to the automobile or intercity 

and express bus to access the urban core from outlying suburban communities. Recent 

commuter rail projects cover distances ranging from 31 miles in Nashville to 75 miles in South 

Florida and in Seattle. The State of Georgia is currently planning for commuter rail from Atlanta 

to locations such as Athens (72 miles, 11 stops), Gainesville (53 miles, 11 stops), Canton (43 

miles, 8 stops), Bremen (52 miles, 6 stops), Senoia (38 miles, 7 stops), Madison (68 miles, 9 

stops) and Lovejoy (26 miles, 7 stops) with an extension to Macon (103 miles, 13 stops). As 

with the DMU, this technology is appropriate for regional and sub-regional intercity travel from 

outlying areas to the urban core, but is not ideal for higher speed interstate intercity travel. 

Commuter rail will not be evaluated in this study. 

4.3.3 Intercity Rail 

Intercity Rail is provided in this country by AMTRAK, which serves medium to higher 

passenger volumes over long distances. This technology utilizes diesel-powered locomotives 

that are steel wheel on steel rail, with coach, first class, sleeper, dining and club cars. As with 

commuter rail technology, intercity rail as provided by AMTRAK shares the right-of-way with 

freight rail traffic. With commuter rail, this sharing of the track is not overly problematic, as 

commuter rail schedules are typically peak hour oriented and freight service can be scheduled 

around passenger service. With intercity rail, this is not the case. Intercity rail runs on daily 

scheduled service, and often crosses several state lines as well as railroad territories. Thus, 

because of freight service on the same track, intercity rail is often several hours off schedule. 

The average station spacing for intercity rail is typically 30 miles or more. While the potential 

speeds are limited to the class of the railroad, approximately 79 to 110 mph, the average 

operating speeds are 69 mph and below in order to comply with municipal speed restrictions, 

avoid conflict with freight traffic, and be compatible with unprotected corridors with multiple 

grade crossings and vehicular points of conflict, and alignment characteristics of the track. 

While this technology is appropriate for intercity travel, the slow average operating speeds, the 

shared track utilization, the multiple grade crossings and corresponding safety issues, and the 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 32

inability to provide a travel time competitive with automobile travel within the corridor, 

eliminates the consideration of this technology in this study. 

4.3.4 “Low” High Speed Intercity Rail 

“Low” High Speed Intercity Rail is provided in this country by AMTRAK, which serves the 

Northeast corridor between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.. This 

technology utilizes both diesel and electric powered locomotives that are steel wheel on steel 

rail, with coach, first class, and club cars. Unlike commuter rail and intercity rail technology, 

high-speed intercity rail as provided by AMTRAK, when it operates at high speeds, is on 

exclusive track in a sealed corridor. The average station spacing for high-speed intercity rail is 

typically 75 miles or more. While the potential speeds are limited to the class of the railroad, 

approximately 79 to 110 mph, the potential speeds on the Northeast corridor can be as high as 

150 mph, with the average operating speeds of 90 mph While this technology is appropriate for 

intercity travel, previous studies conducted in the Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor documented 

the inability of this “low” high-speed technology to provide a travel time competitive with 

automobile travel within the corridor. Pending a reaffirmation of the previous study’s conclusion 

through patronage forecasting, it is anticipated that this technology would be eliminated from 

consideration in this study. 

4.3.5 Very High Speed Rail (VHS) 

VHS Rail serves higher passenger volumes over long distances. This technology utilizes 

electric-powered locomotives that receive energy from overhead wires to the vehicle. The 

vehicles themselves are steel wheel on steel rail, with coach, first class, sleeper, dining and club 

cars. Unlike commuter and intercity rail, this technology is on totally grade separated right of 

way, which eliminates potential points of conflict with pedestrians or other non rail vehicles. In 

addition, there is no shared use of the track with freight, so higher speeds and passenger 

schedules can be met. The station spacing can be as low as 30 miles, and average 50 to 75 miles 

in order to take advantage of the speed of the technology. Speeds of this technology are 

approximately 220 mph, although recent advances allow this technology to travel at speeds in 

excess of 320 mph. While the average operating speed of this technology is approximately 180 

mph, there are several lines operating in Europe at average speeds of 200 mph Although this 

technology does not currently operate in the U.S., it is utilized throughout Europe and Asia 

including the TGV in France, the ICE in Germany, and the Shinkansen in Japan. This 

technology is well suited for intercity travel, and previous studies conducted in the Atlanta to 

Chattanooga corridor documented the ability of this high-speed technology to provide a travel 

time competitive with automobile travel within the corridor. The application of VHS technology 

within the corridor will be evaluated. 

4.3.6. Maglev 

Maglev serves higher passenger volumes over long distances. This technology utilizes either 

attractive or repulsive magnetic forces to lift and propel the train along a guideway. Maglev 

allows the vehicles to hover or float a small distance above the guideway, thereby eliminating 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 33

friction and rolling resistance. The power is supplied to the magnets through the track. Maglev 

uses a unique guideway and could also operate in a shared right-of-way similar to VHS systems. 

Like VHS, this technology is on totally grade separated right of way, which eliminates potential 

points of conflict with pedestrians or other non rail vehicles, and higher speeds and passenger 

schedules can be met. The station spacing can be as low as 30 miles, and average 50 to 75 miles 

in order to take advantage of the speed of the technology. Current systems under development 

are designed for maximum operating speeds above that of VHS technology, 310 mph and 

beyond. A Japanese maglev train has reached speeds of 360 mph While there are currently no 

Maglev systems in intercity revenue service, the German Transrapid system is currently in 

commercial operation in China on a track over 20 miles long between downtown Shanghai and 

the airport. In addition, the 25 mile closed loop test track in Elmsland, Germany had been in 

operation for over 20 years. This system has also been certified for use in Germany for a 

Hamburg-Berlin line, and a 23-mile line running from Munich Airport to the city center is 

approved for construction. This technology is appropriate for intercity travel, and previous 

studies conducted in the Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor documented the ability of this highspeed technology to provide a travel time competitive with automobile travel within the corridor. 

This technology will be considered in this study. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 34

5. Scoping Process

The scoping process for the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT corridor is being conducted in 

accordance with 23 CFR 771.123 and 40 CFR 1501.7 to solicit participation from agencies, 

counties, municipalities, and the public under the NEPA process. The scoping process is used to 

identify the range of alternatives to be studied, the potential impacts to the human and natural 

environments, and the key issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS. This section of the 

report documents the scoping efforts conducted for the Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study and 

the results of those efforts. 

The scoping open houses were announced using newspaper advertisements and news releases. 

The advertisement appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on September 2 and September 

16. In addition, a report by the Associated Press was published and aired by most area media

outlets. There were relevant individual news stories on the scoping open houses in at least three

northwest Georgia newspapers: the Rome-News Tribune, The Daily Tribune-News of

Cartersville, and the Chattanooga Times-Free Press. Some of these stories and reports were

generated by pre-event news releases and others were coverage of the open houses themselves

and the public’s input.

5.1 Stakeholder Participation 

Two agency scoping meetings and three public scoping open houses were held for the project. 

The agency scoping meetings were held in Atlanta and Chattanooga on September 18th and 

September 20th, respectively. The September 18th meeting was held at 10:00 A.M. at the GDOT 

Office of Environment/Location, in Atlanta. The September 20th meeting was held at 10:00 

A.M. at the Hamilton County Public Library in Chattanooga.

The scoping meetings were announced in a Notice of Intent (NOI) that appeared in the Federal 

Register on August 22, 2007. A copy of the NOI and the legal advertisement is included as 

Appendix A and Appendix B. Other means of advertising included direct mailings to federal and 

state environmental regulatory and review agencies and local government officials, which also 

initiated the Early Coordination Process. Public Scoping open houses were held between 5:00 

P.M and 7:30 P.M in Powder Springs, Rome, and Chattanooga on September 18th, 19th, and

20th, respectively. The invitations to stakeholders to participate in the scoping process are

summarized in the following sections.

5.1.1 Public and Agency Open House/Meeting Format 

Public 

A series of three open houses for public input were held along the project corridor. A series of 

thirty exhibit graphic boards were displayed to help explain the project. There were individuals 

from the consultants available to answer questions of the attendees. A Scoping Booklet handout 

was given out to each of the attendees. A total of 75 people attended the three public 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 35

information open houses. Copies of the Public Meeting Summaries are provided as Appendix D

and a copy of the Scoping Booklet is provided as Appendix H. 

Agency

There were two meetings for agency input held in the corridor. The meetings started with 

GDOT giving an overview of the project, after which the various consultants gave a presentation 

explaining the scope of the project. After the presentation, there was a question and answer 

portion, where the agencies could ask questions, provide their input, or specify analysis that 

should be considered as part of the EIS process. A total of 17 people representing various 

agencies attended. Copies of the Agency Meeting Minutes are provided as Appendix E. 

5.2 Mailings 

State and federal environmental regulatory and review agencies, Native American tribal 

councils, municipalities, counties, floodplain administrators, and other government organizations 

and officials were notified of the scoping meetings and scoping process through a mailing. 

Copies of example letters and mailing lists are included in Appendix F and G. Federal and state 

agencies, regional government planning organizations, Native American tribes and associated 

agencies, counties and municipalities, and members of Congress contacted are listed below. 

5.2.1 Federal and State Agencies 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Center for Disease Control - National Center for Environmental Health 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey - Environmental Affairs Program 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region IV 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) 

Division of Floodplain Management 

Environmental Protection Division 

Georgia Natural Heritage Program 

Historic Preservation Division - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

Georgia Forestry Commission 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 36

Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development – Community Development 

Division 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Tennessee Historical Commission – State Archaeologist and SHPO 

5.2.2 Regional Government Planning Organizations 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) 

Chattanooga - Hamilton County Regional Planning Council 

Coosa Valley Regional Development Center (RDC_ 

North Georgia RDC 

5.2.3 Native American Tribes and Associated Agencies 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of the Creek 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

The Chickasaw Nation 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Kialegee Tribal Town of the Creek Nation 

Loyal Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

Yuchi Tribe of Oklahoma 

Advisory Council on Tennessee Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Eastern Agency 

Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs 

Tennessee Native American Convention 

5.2.4 Counties

Bartow County Gordon County 

Catoosa County Gwinnett County 

Chattooga County Hamilton County 

Cherokee County Murray County 

Clayton County Polk County 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 37

Cobb County Paulding County 

Douglas County Walker County 

Floyd County Whitfield 

5.2.5 Municipalities 

Acworth Jonesboro 

Atlanta Kennesaw 

Austell Lafayette 

Ball Ground Lawrenceville 

Canton Marietta 

Cartersville Nelson 

Cave Spring Powder Springs 

Chattanooga Rex 

College Park Ringgold 

Dalton Riverdale 

East Point Sandy Springs 

Fairmont Smyrna 

Forest Park Varnell 

Fort Oglethorpe Waleska 

Hapeville Woodstock 

Holly Springs 

5.2.6 Chambers of Commerce

Atlanta Chamber of Commerce 

Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce 

5.2.7 United States Congress 

Senator Saxby Chambliss 

Senator Johnny Isakson 

Representative Phil Gingrey 

Representative John Lewis 

Representative John Linder 

Representative Tom Price 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 38

6. Scoping Meeting Results

Public Meetings

Three public meeting were held on September the 18th, 19th and 20th between 5:30 to 7: 00 PM. 

The following is a brief synopsis of the results of each of the open houses: 

Powder Springs Public Scoping Public Information Open House, September 19, 2007- 

A total of 13 people attended . From those attending, 10 comment forms, no letters and 2 verbal 

statements were received. An additional letter from the City of Atlanta’s Department of 

Aviation was received during the ten-day comment period following the open house, totaling 

thirteen comments. They are summarized as follows: 

No. Opposed No. In Support Uncommitted Conditional 

1 4 1 4

Rome Scoping Public Information Open House, September 19, 2007- 

A total of 14 people attended. From those attending, 3 comment forms, no letters and 2 verbal 

statements were received. No additional comments were received during the ten-day comment 

period following the open house, for a total of 5 comments. They are summarized as follows: 

No. Opposed No. In Support Uncommitted Conditional 

0 3 0 2

Chattanooga Scoping Public Information Open House, September 20, 2007- 

A total of 49 people attended. From those attending, 24 comment forms, no letters and 1 verbal 

statement were received. No additional comments were received during the ten-day comment 

period following the open house, for a total of 25 comments. They are summarized as follows: 

No. Opposed No. In Support Uncommitted Conditional 

0 20 3 2

Copies of the Public Meeting Summaries are provided as Appendix D.
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 39

Government Agency Meeting

The Atlanta government agency meeting was attended by a total of 17 participants representing 

the following agencies and organizations; ARC, Chattanooga Enterprise Zone, Coosa Valley 

RDC, USACE Savannah District, US EPA Region IV, FHWA, GDNR-Historic Preservation 

Division, GDOT Planning Data and Intermodal Development and GDOT Office of 

Environment/Location 

The topics that were raised at the Atlanta Agency meeting are as follows: 

• Greyhound bus travel times and stops along the project corridor

• Concerns about available capacity along the CSX and Norfolk Southern rail lines

• Clarification on the freight component of the HSGT system

• Concerns over HSR using existing freight lines

• Concerns whether the project would meet the standards of the Etowah Conservation

Habitat Plan

• Request to review the methodology and the level of detail proposed in the Tier I EIS

• Concerns over whether any reservoirs were located in the vicinity of the proposed

corridor

• If the project would comply with Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users regarding new obligations for a

public comment process

• If other corridors were being considered other than rail corridors

• If the number and locations of stations limits potential speed

• If origin destination data would be incorporated into ridership projections

• Were there any preliminary cost figures and what those figures were

• How wide typical support columns would be in elevated sections

• Whether monorail systems had or would be considered

• How the project would be integrated with the Bus Rapid Transit Plans along I-75

• Where VHS or Maglev has been implemented in the US

• How high the elevated sections would have to be above ground

• If another alternative could be considered that served Cartersville instead of Rome

• If quickest route between Atlanta and Chattanooga is desired, then the Rome Alignment

makes sense

• If a reduction in landings is expected at HJAIA was anticipated as result of the project

• Comparison of the energy usage of VHS and Maglev

• Was HSGT included in any municipality/county transportation plans?

• The projects effect on the State Implementation Plan

• The width of the anticipated or recommended corridor

The topics raised at the Chattanooga Agency meeting are as follows: 

• The proposed station locations were questioned and it was thought that Dalton should

have a station closer to town rather than the Chatsworth/Dalton station shown
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 40

• Additional GIS data was available and should be used as appropriate

Copies of the minutes from the agency meetings are provided as Appendix E.

6.1 Scope Changes

One of the changes that came out of the scoping process is the inclusion of a Western Suburb 

Alignment, which would be located in the Southern Corridor. This Alignment has a potentially 

higher speed alignment from the Atlanta Airport to I-75. The alignment bypasses downtown 

Atlanta and the highly developed I-75 corridor north of Atlanta. The line follows Camp Creek 

Parkway and utility corridors through rural areas joining the I-75 corridor near Lake Altoona 

south of Cartersville. This alignment was added to the list of potential alternatives for 

consideration and analysis as part of the Tier I EIS along with the other alternatives identified in 

Section 4.2 of this report. 

6.2 Next Steps 

The purpose of the Scoping Phase for the Tier I EIS is to identify potential project alternatives 

that will be screened to determine if they are reasonable and feasible. The alternatives that are 

determined to best meet the project purpose and need while minimizing impacts to the social, 

cultural, and natural environments would then be evaluated further and in greater detail in the 

EIS. Another desired outcome of the scoping process is to identify the specific environmental 

impacts to be assessed, and to identify how the public would like to be involved throughout the 

study. After the close of the scoping period, GDOT evaluated the comments and input received 

from the agencies and the public regarding the project purpose and need, methodology to 

complete the study, station locations, alignments, technology, and sensitive ecological issues and 

made applicable changes to the study, which includes the ongoing development of an Agency 

Coordination Plan, and the addition of a new concept alignment to be considered as part of the 

analysis.. 

6.2.1 Evaluation Methodology 

Based on a review of existing conditions, previous transportation studies, local land use and 

transportation plans, and input from the public, this study identified a wide range of potential 

alternatives for the implementation of a HSGT solution for the Atlanta to Chattanooga corridor. 

This “universe of alternatives” included both possible alignments (broken down into segments) 

and a range of transportation technologies. Potential alignment segments, station locations and 

different technologies would be evaluated further through a modeling process that compares 

factors including travel time, patronage, and operation and maintenance costs to name a few of 

the evaluation criteria. The various conceptual alternatives alignments would also undergo an 

environmental screening to identify potential environmental impacts associated with each 

alignment. Ongoing public involvement and stakeholder coordination would also be an 

important feature of the alternatives screening and development process. 
Atlanta to Chattanooga HSGT Study 

Scoping Summary Report - FINAL 

February 2008 Page 41

6.2.2 Methodology for Narrowing Alternatives 

In developing a methodology for the screening of alternatives for the project, the following general 

approach would be followed: 

1. Prepare a Universe of Alternatives – A series of conceptual alternatives that represents

all feasible connections between Atlanta and Chattanooga has been developed, on which

the initial screening would be completed.

2. Develop Measures of Effectiveness – Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) are used to

compare the differences between the various alternatives and determine the extent that

each meets the project purpose and need.

3. Complete Preliminary Screening- Alternatives would be evaluated based on the

MOEs.

4. Identify Environmental Areas of Concern – Each of the alternative alignments would

be evaluated to identify potential areas of environmental concern.

5. Narrow Alternatives – Those alternative that perform the best when compared against

the MOEs, and are determined to have the least impact to areas of environmental concern

would be advanced for further evaluation until a preferred alternative is defined. The

preferred alternative will identify the corridor and the technology.

6. Keep Stakeholders Involved – Continued public outreach on this project will be an

important part of the alternatives development and decision making process as they are

narrowed. An upcoming round of public outreach is currently being planned to begin

meeting with affected municipalities in the corridor to begin discussions regarding

potential alignment and station locations. Outreach to environmental justice populations

is also planned in the early phases of the Public Involvement Plan.
Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

7.0 TECHNICAL MEETING MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 2008) 








































Appendix E – Agency Coordination & Public Outreach 

Atlanta-Chattanooga HSGT Tier 1 DEIS E September 2016

8.0 2010 PARTICIPATING AGENCY MEETINGS MINUTES 
Atlanta-Chattanooga Corridor

High Speed Ground Transportation Project

Participating Agency Meeting

October 19, 2010 10:00 AM – 12:00 Noon

Georgia Department of Transportation

600 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia

Attendees: (*Participated via phone)

Georgia Department of Transportation

Glenn Bowman, Office of Environmental Services

Gail D’Avino, Office of Environmental Services

Lillian Jackson, Government & Community Relations Manager

Lisa Safstrom, Scenic Byways Coordinator

Bryan Holloway

Lead Agencies

Katy Allen, Federal Highway Administration

Catherine Dobbs-Kauffman*, Federal Railroad Administration

Participating Agencies

Kelly Laycock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jamie Higgins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV

Pete Patavina *, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services – Athens, GA

Mary Dills, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Regulatory Division, Piedmont Branch

Paul Burkhalter*, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Paul Archambault*, Southeast TN Development District

Gary Sexton*, Southeast TN Development District

Bob McCord*, Atlanta Regional Commission

Kenneth Parr*, T ennessee Valley Authority

Kenneth Wester*, Appalachian Regional Commission

John Crocker, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)

Luz Borrerro*, City of Atlanta

Richard Osborne, City of Cartersville

Randy Mannino, City of Cartersville

Jackson Myers, City of College Park

Tommy Parker*, Murray County Commissioners Office

Mike Jolley*, Dalton Utilities

Robert Todd*, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Joe Ferguson, The Enterprise Center

Roussan Francois, Fulton County

Delmos Stone, Rome Floyd County Planning Department

Sue Hiller, Rome Floyd County Planning Department

Crew Heimer, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)

Matt Denton*, Polk County
Consultant Team

Sheldon Fialkoff, AECOM

Harry Boxler, AECOM

Samantha Castro, AECOM

Todd Hill, Moreland Altobelli

L.N. Manchi, Moreland Altobelli

Brian Smart, Moreland Altobelli

Chris Brady, Commonwealth Research

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Glenn Bowman, State Environmental Administrator for the Georgia Department of

Transportation (GDOT) welcomed participants and initiated introduction of meeting participants

both on the phone and present. He then outlined the following meeting agenda:

1. Review of Participating Agency comments on the Screening Criteria and Methodology

Report and the September 23, 2010 meeting

2. Presentation of results of the Screening Process

3. Next steps

II. REVIEW OF PARTICPATING AGENCY COMMENTS

Sheldon Fialkoff, Consultant Team Project Manager, confirmed that all participants had received

a copy of the presentation either in hard copy form at the meeting, or emailed out ahead of time

to those joining by phone.

There were approximately 25 comments received from the Participating Agencies that could be

grouped into five general categories. The five categories and the response to the comments are

summarized as follows:

1. Links to Local Transit

Comment: There should be some acknowledgment in the Screening Report as to the

linkages to local transit.

Response: While links to local transit it would not be a discriminator among the

alternatives at this level, it is important and will be evaluated in subsequent analyses. In

recognition of its importance, a discussion of linkages to local transit will be included in a

section of the Screening Report, although it will not become a measure of effectiveness

(MOE) at this time.

2. Forest Habitats

Comment: There was concern that forest habitats were not included as an evaluation

criteria or MOE.

Response: Forest habitats are evaluated by examining the amount of built environment

within the ROW and by utilizing the parkland MOE. The parkland MOE includes forest

habitats. In combination, the two MOEs give a view of the potential use of forest habitat.

Forest habitats would also be examined in greater detail in the DEIS assessment.

3. Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities

Comment: Why not acknowledge EJ communities in the Screening Process?

Response: We felt we could not do justice at this level of screening to the positives and

negatives on the impact to EJ communities. It will be part of the DEIS. It will also be

acknowledged in the Screening Report, but not as an MOE.
4. Farmland – will be considered in the DEIS, and not as an MOE in the Screening Report.

5. Scoring system – the Screening Report uses a five-point system rather than a four-point

system to show greater differentiation between alternatives.

The full list of comments will be documented in a Disposition of Comments Report, and

circulated to everyone after it has been reviewed by GDOT, FHWA, and FRA.

III. SCREENING RESULTS PRESENTATION

Sheldon Fialkoff went on to provide an overview of the project and the screening methodology,

criteria, and results. It was noted that these are preliminary results, since this is all subject to

review. Below is an outline of the presentation.

x Alignments/Corridors

x Screening Process and Results

x Alignments Advancing in DEIS

x Next Steps

IV. NEXT STEPS

A similar slideshow will be presented to stakeholder groups starting the week of October 25th

through November 8th, 2010. All comments from Participating Agencies and stakeholders will be

documented and addressed. The Screening Report is currently under review by GDOT, FHWA

and FRA. Once these agencies complete their review, the document will be distributed to

Participating Agencies and the study will proceed into the development of an administrative draft

of the DEIS.

V. QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION

The following resulted from the Q&A session held after the presentation of the screening results.

Q1: (Mary Dills, USACE Savannah) – You talk about use of the median on I-75. How does that

work with the current proposal for high-occupancy travel (HOT) lanes?

A1: (Sheldon Fialkoff) – We will be addressing that as part of the DEIS. We will look at whether

the system should be elevated or the road widened if it is at-grade. This would appear in the

potential impacts section of the DEIS.

(Glenn Bowman): It is important to note that these are separate and independent projects. The

HOT project is pretty far along so it may eventually influence more decisions as it moves ahead.

We are not setting the exact alignment in this Tier 1, but instead using a buffer of approximately

1,000 feet.

Q2: (Pete Patavina, USFWS) – How did you weigh alignments within corridors? All of the

criteria appear to be weighed equally. It does not seem like the environmental criteria capture

the benefits of the project completely. For instance, in terms of air quality being directly

proportional to ridership. Shouldn’t ridership have a higher weighting? There does not seem to

be a good measure yet of how the HGST would be relieving pressures on the interstate system

in that corridor. Maybe more alignments should be carried into the DEIS. The benefits to the

environment (i.e. air quality) of high ridership should be taken more heavily into account. We

want to make sure that the most efficient alignments make it into the DEIS stage.
A2: (Todd Hill) – We tried not to weight anything at this level since we do not have detailed

engineering for the alignments under consideration. At this broader level of study, there is not

enough detail to assess those types of impacts. This will be looked at further in the DEIS.

(Glenn Bowman) – The screening process attempts to look at the alignments resulting from the

Scoping Process objectively to determine which alignments best meet the Purpose and Need of

the project. All of the criteria are Purpose and Need based, and assessed on a pass/fail basis.

(Sheldon Fialkoff) – Ridership was considered, and several alignments were eliminated

because of low ridership numbers. If you look at the majority of the alignments that were

eliminated, it was actually due to environmental considerations. Environmental considerations

eliminated almost half of the alignments. The screening criteria remained unweighted so that

alignments could be assessed equally across the board. At this point, if an alignment is not

doing well in one criterion, it is unlikely that it will do better as it moves further in the analysis.

We will look at air quality at a Tier 1 level.

(Glenn Bowman) – We are looking for the Participating Agencies to challenge the numbers that

they do not feel comfortable with to make sure we have applied the criteria correctly. It is not

just about what we are moving forward with, but what we are not moving forward with.

Q3: (Bryan Hollaway, GDOT) – Under the MOEs of the Environmental Criteria why does the I75 corridor get a “1” when it is an existing corridor that has already been developed?

A3: (Sheldon Fialkoff) – It is not just the right-of-ways that are being considered, but a 500-foot

buffer to either side of the highway centerline. This allows us to identify any potential resources

that might be affected if widening or another use outside of the existing right-of-way is

necessary.

(Todd Hill) – The data has only been taken at a GIS level at this point. Field surveys have not

yet been completed. They will be completed as part of the DEIS. You have to remember that

part of the reason that I-75 is where it is has to do with the fact that there was development

present prior to the interstate system, which is why there is a higher number of impacts along

the I-75 corridor than some of the more rural corridors.

(Glenn Bowman) – At the same time, it is a better-studied corridor, with more GIS data

available.

Q4: (Kelly Laycock, EPA) – Under the Environmental Criteria MOEs are the stream indicators

just calculated as the number of crossings? Is there a way to get an indication of linear feet at

the GIS level?

A4: (Todd Hill) – When we get to the more detailed analysis level and have a better feel for the

alignment, we will have to do more in depth assessments.

(Sheldon Fialkoff) – We calculated the number of crossings for streams, and the area for lakes.

This was as specific as we could get at this level without further engineering. We feel they

represented the potential effects well enough for this level. The engineering will deal with how

we cross the stream or lake, or how we work around it.
Q5: (Pete Patavina, USFWS) – Are the ridership numbers encouraging versus the capital and

operational costs?

A5: (Sheldon Fialkoff) – It is a little premature to be looking at that. There is no one barometer to

determine cost of rail. The ridership is around 10-11,000 riders annually and the capital cost is

estimated to be in the multiple billions.

VI. CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURN

Comments on the results of the Screening Report are requested by November 18, 2010 to Alan

Ware. The next steps include stakeholder meetings and three public meetings to present the

surviving alignments in Chattanooga, Dalton, and Atlanta in the first two weeks of November to

present essentially the same information as this meeting. The exact dates are as follows:

Chattanooga, TN

Thursday, November 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (presentation at 6:30 PM)

Regional Planning Agency, First Floor, Room 1A, 1250 Market Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402

Dalton, GA

Monday, November 8, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (presentation at 6:30 PM)

Dalton State College. James Brown Center, Room 105, 650 College Drive, Dalton, GA 30720

Atlanta, GA

Tuesday, November 9, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (presentation at 6:30 PM)

St. Mark United, Fellowship Hall, Methodist Church, 781 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA

30308

Assuming no major delays as a result of public and stakeholder review or coordination with the

lead federal agencies review of the DEIS, we are hoping the Participating Agencies will get back

together sometime next spring to go over the details of the draft.