P1253814595vVtTm - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 30
About This Presentation
Title:

P1253814595vVtTm

Description:

DMJM-Harris AECOM GeoStats. Cobb County Comprehensive ... Part I Transportation elements of ... service (commuter / trolley / light rail) HOV ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:39
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: daywilburn
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: P1253814595vVtTm


1
Cobb County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(CTP)
August 2006 Public Information Meetings
DMJM-Harris AECOM GeoStats
2
Study Overview What is the CTP?
  • Two part study
  • Part I Transportation elements of comprehensive
    plans
  • Part II Enhanced Countywide multimodal
    recommendations
  • Ground-breaking effort bringing together six
    (6) municipalities and Cobb County unincorporated
    area
  • Tailored to opportunities and challenges within
    countywide vision

3
CTP versus SPLOST
  • Cobb County 2005 SPLOST was approved in January
    2006 for six years
  • SPLOST projects identified for referendum vote
  • CTP will identify additional improvements
    prioritize projects based on level of need and
    community input
  • Recommended projects grouped into short, mid and
    long-range periods through 2030
  • Provide input to the ARC transportation plans and
    programs for funding

4
Study Schedule
Key Milestones
AUGUST 2006
5
Where we are
6
  • Public Outreach

7
Outreach Activities
  • Project Website Launched
  • www.cobbdot.org/ctp
  • Produced and distributed fact sheet, press
    releases, and articles for newsletters
  • Briefings and Speakers Bureau Activities (County
    Commission, Cities, District 4 Town Hall Meeting)
  • Stakeholder Interviews completed 51
  • Stakeholder Coordinating Committee organized
    and two meetings held
  • Public Meetings eight (8), covering all cities
    and countywide average attendance 24 lively
    discussions

8
Major Themes of Public Dialogue
  • Growth
  • Impact from increased densities
  • Live-work-shop-play development
  • Housing to meet the needs of a diverse population
  • Plan for quality growth managed and supported by
    essential services
  • Pace the rate of growth to align with
    infrastructure improvements
  • Community Preservation
  • Preserve what makes Cobb attractive (small town
    character)
  • Preserve historic districts, including downtown
    areas
  • More pedestrian-friendly central business
    districts
  • Preserve quality schools

9
Major Themes of Public Dialogue
  • Traffic, Interstates and Roads
  • Need congestion management
  • Improve traffic operations
  • Traffic signal timing
  • Enforcement
  • Concern with through traffic
  • Improve connectivity and accessibility
  • More parking needed for areas such as downtown
    Marietta
  • List of needed project improvements

10
Major Themes of Public Dialogue
  • Transit
  • Need more transportation choices
  • Rail transit service (commuter / trolley / light
    rail)
  • HOV/BRT
  • Circulator systems in downtown areas
  • Park and Ride Lots
  • Carpools / Vanpools
  • CCT service is limited
  • GRTA Express buses
  • Transit must be safe, efficient, easy to use and
    frequent

11
Major Themes of Public Dialogue
  • Bike Paths/Pedestrian Trails/Parks
  • Build bike and pedestrian facilities in
    conjunction with proposed rail facilities
  • Need more park space both active and passive
  • Connectivity
  • Emphasize efficient and safe connectivity to
    activity centers
  • Connectivity should be planned not an
    after-thought

12
Major Themes of Public Dialogue
  • Where should more money be spent? On a scale of
    1-10, the stakeholder interviewees responded as
    follows
  • Streets and Highways 8.2
  • Public Transit 7.5
  • Pedestrian Facilities 7.3
  • Bicycle Facilities 6.1

13
Random Public Opinion Survey
  • UGA Survey Research Center conducting survey
  • Survey instrument / questionnaire approved by
    County Management Team
  • 1,000 random phone interviews conducted of Cobb
    County residents. Over-sampled City residents
  • Results are being crosstabulated by
  • Cities
  • Demographics of respondents (age, income, etc)
  • Commuting patterns
  • Results are being tabulated and reviewed

14
  • Draft Countywide Vision

Cobb Countys transportation system will be
environmentally compatible, financially sound,
safe and an efficient and functional network
providing multimodal service to all areas of the
county.  Founded on partnerships between public,
private and nonprofit organizations, Cobb
Countys transportation network will be
integrated with local and regional land use and
transportation plans, and supportive of a variety
of uses including significant greenspace and
live-work-play communities.
Stakeholders Committee Meeting, June 14, 2006
15
Draft CTP Goals
  • System Performance and Safety To improve the
    overall performance and safety of the
    transportation system
  • Multi-modal System To develop a multi-modal
    system in which each mode is optimized providing
    the citizens of Cobb County with attractive and
    realistic travel alternatives

16
Draft CTP Goals
  • Land Use Connectivity To develop a
    transportation system that is appropriate to the
    land uses it serves
  • Financial Management To ensure that adequate
    financial resources are available to maintain
    properly the transportation system and to grow
    and adapt the system in keeping with changes in
    land uses

17
  • Technical Activities and Deliverables

18
Scenario Development
  • Consider alternative socioeconomic projections
    from regional, local and other sources
  • Identify future transportation needs generated by
    proposed community plans
  • Identify areas where future land use plans or
    planned transportation improvements may be better
    coordinated

19
Development of Increased Population Growth
Scenario
  • Input received from local jurisdictions
  • Unincorporated Cobb County Forecasts reflect
    future land use plan
  • City of Marietta Specific Traffic Analysis Zones
    (TAZs) adjusted, none to lose population or
    employment as projected in ARC model.
  • City of Kennesaw Forecasts reflect rate of
    growth from Comprehensive Plan and specific
    adjustments to ARC employment projections for
    individual TAZs
  • Cities of Acworth, Austell, Powder Springs, and
    Smyrna Provided specific adjustments to ARC
    projections for individual TAZs
  • Review of development trends/future land use
    indicated slightly less employment growth to 2030

20
Travel Demand Model Assumptions
2000 Base Year 2030 Mobility Increased Population Growth Scenario
Population ( change) 601,319 738,106 (22.7) 1,045,493 (73.9)
Employment ( change) 313,800 495,670 (58) 471,214 (50.2)
preliminary analysis
21
Scenario Performance
Performance Measure 2030 Mobility Increased Population Growth Scenario
Congested Speed 22.6 mph 21.2 mph
Travel Time Index 1.57 1.65
Commute Time 43.7 43.0
preliminary analysis
22
Scenario Performance
Performance Measures 2030 Mobility Increased Population Growth Scenario
Commute Distance (SOV) 14.3 miles 13.3 miles
Commute Distance (HOV) 17.3 miles 16.4 miles
Transit Mode Share 1.6 1.7
preliminary analysis
23
Roadway Service Level Northwest
Level of Service (LOS) 2005 (Miles) 2030 Mobility (Miles) Increased Population Growth Scenario (Miles)
LOS F 2.9 (2) 16.5 (8.5) 18.2 (9.5)
LOS E 8.7 (5.3) 18.3 (9.5) 29.1 (15)
LOS D 17.1(10.4) 35.6 (19) 29.2 (15)
LOS A-C 136 (82.3) 119.2(63) 116.7(60.5)
preliminary analysis
24
Roadway Service Level Countywide
Level of Service (LOS) 2005 (Miles) 2030 Mobility (Miles) Increased Population Growth Scenario (Miles)
LOS F 17.7 (2) 54.3 (7) 71.5 (9)
LOS E 55.9 (8) 88.6 (11) 102.7 (13)
LOS D 104.4 (14) 140.2 (17) 131.0 (16)
LOS A-C 549.5 (76) 536.4 (65) 514.1 (62)
preliminary analysis
25
Bicycle/Pedestrian AnalysisCountywide
  • Bicycle Suitability Factors
  • Traffic Volume
  • Travel Speeds
  • Functional Classification
  • Outside Lane and Shoulder Width
  • Percent Truck Traffic
  • Roadway Miles by Suitability Score
  • Very difficult conditions for bicycling 49.9
    miles
  • Difficult conditions for bicycling 121.3 miles
  • Medium conditions for bicycling 1,848.5 miles
  • Best conditions for bicycling 546.6 miles
  • Summary
  • 171 miles (6.7) of roadway in Cobb County with
    difficult to very difficult bicycling conditions
  • 2,395 miles (93.3) of Cobb County roadway offers
    medium to best bicycling conditions
  • 655 miles of sidewalk needed within ¼ mile of
    activity centers
  • 462 miles of existing sidewalk and 113 planned
    (97-SPLOST and 16 RTP)

26
Bicycle/Pedestrian Analysis Northwest
  • Roadway Miles by Suitability Score
  • Very difficult conditions for bicycling 15
    miles
  • Difficult conditions for bicycling 37 miles
  • Medium conditions for bicycling 343 miles
  • Best conditions for bicycling 84 miles
  • Bicycling Summary
  • 52 miles (11) of roadway in planning area with
    difficult bicycling conditions
  • 427 miles (89) of roadway in planning area
    offers medium to best bicycling conditions
  • Pedestrian
  • 54 miles of sidewalk needed within ¼ mile of
    activity centers

27
Safety Needs Northwest
  • High Crash Locations (2001-04)
  • Cobb Place Blvd _at_ Barrett Parkway (465)
  • Barrett Parkway _at_ Bells Ferry Road (132)
  • Town Center Drive _at_ George Busbee Parkway (127)
  • Chastain Road _at_ Bells Ferry Road (96)
  • Shallowford Road _at_ Bells Ferry Road (87)
  • Cobb Parkway _at_ Cobb International Blvd (87)
  • Interstate 75 _at_ N. Marietta Parkway (54)
  • Cobb Parkway _at_ Dobbs Drive (48)
  • Frey Road _at_ Shiloh Road (46)
  • White Circle _at_ Old US Highway 41 (43)

28
  • DCA Comprehensive Plan Transportation Elements

29
Community Assessments for Jurisdictional
Comprehensive Plans
  • Transportation Elements developed by CTP team
    utilizing
  • Transportation Inventory reports
  • Input from local jurisdictions
  • Transportation Elements incorporated into overall
    Assessments will be submitted to ARC by
    mid-August

30
Topics for Breakout Session
  • What do you mean by land use character changes in
    certain corridors? How will this impact use of
    alternate modes in the future?
  • What needs or issues have we missed or left out ?
  • How did you hear about this meeting? How can we
    continue to improve our outreach activities?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com