LCI Transportation Project Implementation Progress Report Update and LCI Implementation Task Force R

1
LCI Transportation Project ImplementationProgres
s Report Updateand LCI Implementation Task Force
Recommendations

• LCI Quarterly Meeting
• June 20, 2007

2
Purpose of Review

• Respond to Mayors discussion at the GMA
  Convention in 2006
• Re-evaluate the Plan Development Process (PDP)
  for LCI projects
• Develop the LCI Element of the 2006 Breaking
  Ground Report
• Continue communication between projects sponsors,
  GDOT, Moreland Altobelli (MA), and ARC

3
Tasks Completed - 2006

• June 2006 ARC researched LCI transportation
  implementation process to respond to concerns
  expressed with LCI during GMA convention.
• July 2006 Completed study and produced the LCI
  Element of the 2006 Breaking Ground Report
  including a progress report and summary of
  implementation issues.
• September 2006 Presented results of LCI Breaking
  Ground Report to MAMA.
• November 2006 Held meeting between MAMA and GDOT
  Commissioner to review issues identified in LCI
  Breaking Ground Report.

4
Tasks Completed - 2007

• January 2007 LUCC Subcommittee on Context
  Sensitive Design Created
• February, April May 2007 LCI Implementation
  Task Force met including LCI project sponsors,
  consultants, and GDOT staff to discuss issues and
  opportunities.
• May 2007 Updated LCI Transportation Project
  Progress Report
• June 2007 Announced LCI transportation projects
  with new requirements for concept studies.

5
LCI Project Status Summary

• September 2006
• 12 projects have been authorized for CST
• 23 projects are considered advancing
• 5 projects have been dropped or merged into other
  LCI projects
• 39 projects are considered to be of concern
• May 2007
• 25 projects have been authorized for CST
• TOTAL 79 Projects

6
LCI Report Findings

• Occasional oversights delays by all players
• Most significant project delays occurred at the
  front end of PDP in concept development (12-36
  months)
• Lack of concept when project funded has led to
  feasibility issues and cost overruns
• Many LCI projects need design variances,
  requiring additional data collection
• Most documents are taking 2-3 submittals to GDOT
  to gain final approval
• Issues with standards not being fulfilled by
  sponsor, new comments from GDOT, and standards
  changing between submittals
• Most review timeframes at GDOT average 45 days
• Review timeframes at GDOT for environmental and
  ROW documents have increased over the past 12
  months

7
LCI/GDOT Task Force Findings

• The same Plan Development Process is required of
  a small pedestrian project or large roadway
  widening project.
• CE process should take approximately 6 months,
  but is currently taking closer to 9-12 months
• GDOT funds 2 ½ people at SHPO, and therefore has
  some expectations on the pace of reviews. GDOT
  staff reviewing LCI projects complete reviews for
  entire state of GA.

8
Task Force Findings

• Design Variances
• Are required for existing and proposed conditions
  that will not meet GDOT design standards. Legal
  issues of liability must be considered.
• Type of road, ownership, and source of funds can
  impact the degree to which alternative designs
  can be used. Accident and traffic data will be
  considered. Should consider funding some tasks
  locally.
• If sponsors follow GDOT Pedestrian Streetscape
  Guide criteria, project will not require design
  variances.

9
Improvements Completed

• Host annual LCI Transportation Workshop on PDP.
  Several on-line resources also available.
• Pre-Qualification Process and Concept Study Phase
  for new LCI transportation projects. Increased
  coordination with GRTA and GDOT during project
  selection.
• Releasing monthly progress report from MA to
  project sponsors.
• Update LCI element of the Breaking Ground Report
  regularly
• Project sponsors, MA ARC can follow up with
  GDOT on reviews over 30 days.

10
Short-Term Recommendations

• Update estimated timeline by task for
  implementing LCI projects under the PDP.
• Use TE program workshops as example for future
  LCI workshops.
• Complete cost analysis of ARC consultant vs.
  hiring additional staff.
• Coordinate with OEL, EPA FHWA on potential for
  environmental master plans in LCI areas.
• Increase level of QA/QC by MA before documents go
  to GDOT.

11
Long-Term Recommendations

• Consider other program management and staffing
  options to assist with LCI implementation.
• Explore other funding mechanisms for LCI areas.
• Consider putting triggers in place to track
  review timeframes.
• Involve GMA in exploring legal issues of
  liability related to project design.
• Continue to meet with project sponsors,
  consultants, GDOT GRTA on process.

12
CSD LUCC Subcommittee

• Goals of Subcommittee
• Develop a report on the current state of
  activities progress towards implementing CSD in
  the Atlanta region.
• Investigate new strategies to engage GDOT and
  local governments to focus on cost effective CSD
  for all transportation improvements.
• Review process for design variances and
  exceptions.
• Survey underway in June to obtain feedback on
  implementation progress.
• Draft report anticipated in July 2007.

13
Questions or Comments?

• LCI Transportation Program Manager
• Julie Kovach, AICP
• ARC Land Use Division
• jkovach_at_atlantaregional.com
• 404.463.3307