DEKALB 2050 UNIFIED PLAN

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

⬚ figure

NOVEMBER 2022

(blank page)

⬚ figure

November 14, 2022

To Members of the DeKalb County Community:

Often as planners, we ask ourselves the question: does transportation investment pave the way for new growth and development, or does new development spur the need for additional transportation infrastructure? While the connection between land use and transportation is often apparent; in reality, the answer to the question above is that both can come first or second. However, as planners, we must be open to a "balanced" approach. This document seeks to identify the land use growth pattern and align timely transportation improvements along with the identified growth pattern.

Recently, DeKalb County—in partnership with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)—saw an opportunity to better coordinate and align its comprehensive transportation plan (CTP) with its comprehensive land use plan to create a more holistic and coordinated plan for the County’s future. I am excited to present to you the DeKalb County 2050 Unified Plan, which includes three documents:

• The Unified Plan Executive Summary
• The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
• The Comprehensive Transportation Plan

The comprehensive land use plan includes the traditional elements such as a revised future land use map with refined character areas (particularly activity centers and residential areas) as well as a Community Work Program. Other policy elements in the plan include: (1) recommendations on housing and economic development, and (2) guidance on sustainability, retail, broadband, transit-oriented development, health and wellness, and arts and culture.

The transportation element of the plan includes the traditional components of ARC’s CTP program including a funding and financial strategy for transportation investments. Also included are the following key elements: (1) a financially feasible list of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects for the first ten years of the plan, (2) policy recommendations that supplement projects, and (3) a short-range action plan to assist the County with moving forward to implementation.

Please note that while this plan discusses transportation, it does not go into detail on the preferred alignment and form of “transit”. At this time, there are several unknowns that need to be discussed and consensus built before the future of transit (light/heavy) can be adopted. Therefore, this document references the County’s Transit Master Plan, which serves as the guide for specific recommendations and open policy questions related to future funding, projects, and timing.

All effective planning processes must include a robust stakeholder and community engagement effort. This is particularly true for a countywide effort that looks 30 years into the future. Our goal has been to provide a variety of opportunities for engagement: (1) virtual public meetings throughout the pandemic, (2) participation at County outdoor festivals or park events to safely meet people where they are, (3) focus groups with a variety of stakeholders, and gatherings with the County’s diverse, multicultural, and English-learning communities.

In total, more than 80 meetings occurred from the start of the plan in Spring 2021 through its conclusion at the end of 2022. We appreciate the time invested by members of the community and our governing bodies to provide guidance and direction to the planning team. We look forward to the coming years and advancing the recommendations contained within the plan toward implementation.

Sincerely,

⬚ figure

Andrew Baker, AICP Director – DeKalb County Planning & Sustainability

⬚ figure

DEKALB

2050 UNIFIED PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 02 Priorities and Engagement........................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER 03 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Summary...................................15

CHAPTER 04 Project Development and Evaluation ................................................................. 21

CHAPTER 05 Transportation Funding and Financial Framework.......................................... 25

CHAPTER 06 Surface Transportation Policy Recommendations...........................................31

CHAPTER 07 Transit Recommendations........................................................................................ 61

CHAPTER 08 Priority Projects for Unincorporated DeKalb County......................................... 71

CHAPTER 09 Priority Projects for DeKalb Cities ......................................................................... 91

CHAPTER 10 Five-Year Action Plan and Performance Monitoring......................................131

ACRONYM LIST

• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
• Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
• Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)
• Atlanta Transit Link Authority (ATL)
• ATL's Regional Transit Plan (ARTP)
• Arterial Rapid Transit (ART)
• Asset Management System (AMS)
• Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM)
• Automated Vehicles (AV)
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant
• Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
• Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
• Capital Improvement Grants (CIGs)
• Central Atlanta Progress (CAP)
• Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)
• Committee of the Whole (COW)
• Community Improvement District (CID)
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
• Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
• Connected Vehicle (CV)
• CSX Transportation (CSXT)
• DeKalb County Transit Master Plan (DTMP)
• DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK)
• Electric Vehicle (EV)
• Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report (ECNA)
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
• Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Flashing-Yellow Arrow (FYA)
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
• Georgia Commute Options (GCO)
• Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
• Geographic Information System (GIS)
• Heavy Rail Transit (HRT)
• Infrastructure For Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant
• Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
• Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
• Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
• Light Rail Transit (LRT)
• Lithonia Industrial Boulevard (LIB)
• Livable Centers Initiative (LCI)
• Local Maintenance Improvement Grants (LMIG)
• Metro South Community Improvement District (MSCID)
• Mid-America Freight Coalition (MAFC)
• National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC)
• National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI)
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
• Norfolk Southern (NS)
• Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs)
• Perimeter CIDs (PCIDs)
• Planning, Economic Development, and Community Services (PECS) Committee
• Public Works and Infrastructure (PWI)
• Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
• Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
• Roadside Units (RSUs)
• Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
• Safety, Mobility, Automated, Real-time Traffic Management (SMART)
• Signal Operations Program (SigOps)
• Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST)
• Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
• State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA)
• Tax Allocation Districts (TAD)
• Traffic Control Center (TCC)
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
• Traffic Responsive (TR)
• Transit Investment Corridors (TIC)
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
• Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
• Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant
• Transportation Management Associations (TMA)
• Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO)
• Travel Demand Model (TDM)
• Truck Parking Information Management Systems (TPIMS)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION

⬚ figure

The DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan combines two of the County’s long-range strategic documents into one:

• An update to the County’s 2014 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) that identifies priority transportation projects and policy recommendations

• A Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) that establishes the framework for future growth and development

The DeKalb County CTP analyzes transportation priorities and needs to help facilitate County growth over the next 30 years, identifies key transportation projects in the short-term and long-term, and recommends key transportation policies that can be created to facilitate implementation. In combination with the CLUP, the CTP will help establish the framework for smart growth strategies in DeKalb County across many different contexts. As shown below, the CTP includes many types of roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, and transit elements as well as freight movements, smart corridors, and funding options.

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Located in the center of the Atlanta Region, DeKalb County is the fourth largest county in Georgia and is a dynamic home to more than 764,000 residents and more than 287,000 jobs. It is bordered by Fulton County to the north and west, Gwinnett County to the northeast, Rockdale County to the east, and Clayton and Henry Counties to the south. The City of Atlanta itself is split between Fulton and DeKalb Counties, with approximately ten percent of the city located on the DeKalb side. With this in mind, DeKalb is a long-established population and employment center for the Atlanta Region, home to thirteen incorporated cities alongside fourteen major employment centers, including the areas around Decatur, Emory University, North Druid Hills, Northlake, and Perimeter Center. It includes many high-density areas within and adjacent to the I-285 Perimeter, less dense suburban areas in Central and South DeKalb, and low-density rural and environmental preservation areas dotted mostly along its eastern flank. DeKalb’s population has grown steadily by about 1 percent each year, while its jobs have grown by about 1.3 percent each year since 2010. These growth trends are anticipated to continue in the same direction, though at gradually slower rates, over the next thirty years.

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

⬚ figure

01 – INTRODUCTION

SCHEDULE

The CTP was developed over a period of eighteen months and includes four major phases:

Vision, Goals, Needs, and Opportunities: This phase established a baseline of understanding where the County’s transportation network is today and where it is envisioned to be over the next 30 years.

Transportation Nexus: The next phase chronicled all of the feedback and findings received in the previous phase to inform a dynamic system of qualitative and quantitative themes. The themes were designed to evaluate how future projects should be prioritized and to discover how they interlink with each other.

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Legend:

= Online Survey ..... Community Events ///// Public Meetings |||||||||| Focus Groups

Recommendations:

With the Transportation Nexus established, this phase identified, evaluated, and prioritized a wide range of transportation investments, policies, and actions that will help the County achieve its future short-term and long-term transportation vision.

Documentation, Review, and Adoption:

The last phase documented the recommendations, feedback, and findings into the final CTP document for public digest and subsequent County adoption.

In every phase, extensive stakeholder and community engagement played a vital role in the visioning, development, and compilation of the CTP. A range of engagement exercises and venues were involved to ensure that broad and diverse swaths of the County were reached and engaged throughout the process, including dedicated public open houses, community event outreach, online surveys, and focus groups.

PLAN ORGANIZATION

The DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan is structured with ten chapters that document the technical methodology, results, and concurrent engagement efforts that went into the Plan. Below is a summary of what is included in each chapter.

CHAPTER 2: PRIORITIES AND ENGAGEMENT

Chapter 2 describes the eleven transportation priorities that guide the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan and documents the robust stakeholder and public engagement efforts conducted throughout its development.

CHAPTER 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Chapter 3 provides a summary of key themes and takeaways that were uncovered in the March 2022 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment (ECNA) Report and development of the Transportation Nexus.

CHAPTER 4: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

Chapter 4 discusses how the universe of projects was developed and the evaluation process used to assess each project for prioritization.

CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

Chapter 5 recaps the funding mechanisms available at the local, state, and federal level to potentially leverage delivering the prioritized transportation projects.

CHAPTER 6: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6 documents the proposed strategic policy recommendations of the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan and explains how targeted policies can help advance DeKalb County's transportation priorities.

CHAPTER 7: TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 7 focuses on the 2019 DeKalb County Transit Master Plan recommendations and provides recommended next steps to advance that plan.

CHAPTER 8: PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

Chapter 8 lists the County’s priority projects within the unincorporated areas (i.e., areas outside of city boundaries) based on project evaluation results and stakeholder and staff input.

CHAPTER 9: PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

Chapter 9 similarly chronicles priority projects of the 13 DeKalb cities based on project evaluation results and stakeholder and staff input.

CHAPTER 10: FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Chapter 10 details a short-term action plan and approach to initiate the long-term 30-year Unified Plan.

APPENDIX

The Appendix includes additional information regarding technology recommendations.

CHAPTER 02

PRIORITIES AND ENGAGEMENT

CHAPTER 02: PRIORITIES AND ENGAGEMENT

⬚ figure

The 11 transportation priorities (developed from the previous CTP and Transit Master Plan and vetted through key stakeholder input and public engagement efforts) impacted the direction of the Unified Plan at all stages of development. From identifying areas of analysis for the Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment (ECNA) Report to determining metrics for project evaluation and making final decisions regarding policy direction.

TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES

1) Provide Transportation Options through Connectivity across Modes

Improve travel for all users by increasing connections across roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.

2) Enable Healthy Communities and Improve Quality of Life

Leverage transportation infrastructure to encourage an active lifestyle and overall improved quality of life.

3) Improve Safety

Provide for safe travel by all users across all modes of travel.

4) Improve Maintenance

Ensure the long-term care for existing infrastructure, including paving roads and repairing bridges and signal systems.

5) Promote Equity

Prioritize improvements that increase transportation access to all parts of the County, especially in communities where a lack of transportation options create substantial barriers.

6) Increase Funding for Improvements

Pursue new local revenue sources that will allow the County to implement additional transportation projects.

7) Increase Access to Jobs and Education

Prioritize transportation investments that allow workers and students to have easier access to these key destinations.

8) Encourage Economic Development

Leverage transportation projects that help to encourage revitalization and new development throughout the County.

9) Respect and Improve DeKalb County’s Character

Implement transportation projects that improve mobility while taking into consideration local character and context.

10) Practice Fiscal Responsibility in Transportation Investments

Prioritize transportation projects that can be implemented in a reasonable timeframe and provide a strong return on investment.

11) Better Accommodate Movement of Goods

Implement transportation projects that improve freight in the County either by truck or by rail.

⬚ figure

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

*Includes Board of Commissioners Committees

Standing Committees/Leadership

DeKalb County Commissioners, various committees of the Commissioners, and city leaders provided the Unified Plan team with valuable insights into the issues and opportunities that are important to their communities. The team conducted multiple rounds of meetings with the Commissioners for input on draft project recommendations as well as policy direction for both transportation and land use topics.

Transportation and Land Use Committees

The DeKalb Unified Plan created two committees of key stakeholders. The Land Use Committee was primarily relevant for the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Committee included 82 stakeholders vital to the success of the CTP. In addition to appointees from each of the Commissioners, the Transportation Committee included leaders, planners, and decision-makers from the state, region, County, and cities. The stakeholders in the Transportation Committee helped guide the planning process by actively engaging with the plan at the envisioning and draft recommendation stages. The combined knowledge that this Committee offered helped ensure that the Unified Plan meets DeKalb County’s needs and priorities.

Stakeholder Groups

To supplement the Committees, smaller groups of stakeholders were organized to advise the plan in key policy areas. Stakeholder groups helped the project team better understand the specific interests of different groups and communities in DeKalb County, including the higher education and medical community and representatives from civic and business associations.

⬚ figure

Focus Groups

Focus groups allowed the project team to meet with a small group of community members to talk about a specific topic area in more detail. Each focus group obtained feedback from a unique group representing different interests in the DeKalb County community. Focus groups were held for various policy areas as well as several multicultural and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) groups in DeKalb County.

Multicultural/BIPOC Focus Groups include:

• NAACP
• Black leaders
• Korean
• Burmese
• Bhutanese
• Hispanic/Latino
• African diaspora (by language)
  • Tigrigna
  • Dinka
  • Amharic
  • Somali
  • Kiswahili

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Public outreach is a key component in developing any successful transportation plan. The DeKalb County Unified Plan conducted two rounds of diverse public outreach efforts that included both online and in-person components. Engagement efforts were developed to be consistent across formats—public meetings and community intercepts asked some of the same questions as the online survey to gather the same types of information from different groups. The goal of these outreach efforts was to gather public input from across the County through direct engagement and the input of community proxies. Providing such a wide array of opportunities for public participation ensures that the Unified Plan reflects the values and priorities of DeKalb County as accurately as possible.

⬚ figure

13 community intercepts

to meet residents where they are at community events

12 public meetings:

6 virtual meetings 5 community charettes by district 1 super district commissioner town hall with over 100 attendees

2 rounds of online survey with 1,515 participants

⬚ figure

Stakeholder Group Meetings

Eight virtual meetings were held with the five stakeholder groups between July 2021 and April 2022, as explained in the previous section.

Focus Group Meetings

Nineteen virtual meetings were held with the focus groups between July 2021 and January 2022, as explained in the previous section.

Commissioner Meetings

Twenty-six total meetings were held with DeKalb County Commissioners between April 2021 and April 2022. These meetings included one-on-one meetings with each Commissioner and their staff as well as committee meetings like the Committee of the Whole (COW), Public Works and Infrastructure (PWI) Committee, and Planning, Economic Development, and Community Services (PECS) Committee. The purpose of the first round of Commissioner meetings was to review the existing conditions, needs assessment, round one engagement efforts, and early project considerations. The purpose of the second round of Commissioner meetings was to discuss draft recommendations for projects and some policies.

Community Council Meetings

Two community council meetings were held in August 2021 and April 2022. These meetings primarily discussed land use.

Public Meetings

The 12 total public meetings hosted by the project team provided the greatest depth of information regarding the plan and offered the public the opportunity to provide feedback. The first round of public meetings included three virtual public meetings in May 2021 to discuss project overview, schedule, engagement efforts, existing conditions, and needs assessment. Attendees were also given the opportunity to provide input on transportation priorities, needs, and opportunities. Five community charettes (generally divided by district) were also held to discuss existing conditions and allow communities to provide input on issues and opportunities in their area. The second round of public meetings included three virtual public meetings in May 2022 and a Super District Commissioner town hall in June 2022 to discuss draft recommendations for projects and some policies. Every meeting gave DeKalb County residents the chance to meet the project team and provide input throughout the planning process. The feedback from the public meetings helped to guide the project team in identifying vision, priorities, and recommendations.

⬚ figure

Community Intercepts

In an effort to meet people where they are, 13 total community intercepts were held across two rounds. The intercepts were pop-up events at festivals, parks, MARTA stations, and other events intended to gather public input on transportation issues, opportunities, and priorities. The first round of intercepts included seven events between May and June 2021 where participants were asked to identify transportation issues, opportunities, and priorities. The second round of intercepts included six events in May 2022 where participants were asked to identify priority policy areas and projects and provide input on some draft plans.

02 – PRIORITIES AND ENGAGEMENT

⬚ figure

Community Presentations

Whenever possible, the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan team spoke with the community to spread the word about the plan. These presentations took place between August 2021 and April 2022 at events including police precinct community meetings, pastor leadership meetings, and community groups meetings. Community presentations generally provided an overview of the Plan and informed attendees of opportunities for public engagement.

Online Survey

Two JotForm online surveys were conducted in tandem with both rounds of public engagement. The first round of the survey allowed respondents to provide input on the needs and vision of the project. The second round of the survey allowed respondents to provide input on specific project and policy recommendations. The second round of the survey also included an interactive map that allowed respondents to “like” and leave comments on specific projects. The first and second rounds of the survey and the interactive map generated a total of 1,515 participants. The online survey provided people with an easy way to engage with the Plan from the comfort of their home or office, ensuring that public engagement efforts reached as many users of the DeKalb County transportation system as possible.

Project Website

For the duration of the Plan, the project website (dekalb2050unifiedplan.com) was maintained as a repository of relevant information. The website advertised upcoming engagement opportunities and shared links to the online surveys and interactive maps. It also hosted valuable information, including project documents, schedule, recordings of previous public meetings, and contact information.

Social Media

The DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan leveraged DeKalb County’s social media presence on Facebook and Twitter to advertise the plan’s major events. Updates were posted on both platforms using the #ItsInDeKalb and #UnifiedDeKalb hashtags.

CHAPTER 03

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

CHAPTER 03: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment (ECNA) Report analyzes and assesses the many interworking characteristics of DeKalb County, including demographics, economic development, land use patterns, environmental features, and transportation infrastructure to create an in-depth understanding of the County’s transportation needs and opportunities. In addition to the review of some 60 previous plans and programs documented in the Report, some key themes uncovered in the Report are highlighted here.

PEOPLE

Understanding the people that make up DeKalb County is integral to a well-rounded CTP and includes both general population and specific demographic measures. Notable demographic measures documented, include Seniors, Race/Ethnicity, Limited English Proficiency, Persons with Disabilities, Zero-Vehicle Households, and Level of Educational Attainment. These measures are especially important in informing equitable transportation decisions as well as guiding targeted community outreach approaches. DeKalb’s diverse majority-minority population, robust population growth, and medium- to high-density present unique opportunities and challenges for its transportation future.

PLACES

A central tenant of the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan is that existing and future land use patterns across the County directly impact the need for transportation investments, and vice versa. How and when communities in DeKalb County have developed informs a deeper understanding of the overall character of each community and its need for transportation improvements. In addition, proximity to a range of public amenities (e.g., parks, grocery stores, and schools) directly correlates to residents’ quality-of-life. While DeKalb is highly developed, certain pockets, particularly in the south and east, have limited access to some of these amenities.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SAFETY

Understanding historical crash data across the County plays a pivotal role in identifying transportation improvements that both mitigate areas with high crash rates and alleviate traffic congestion often caused by those crashes. While the highest crash densities in the county tended to occur on I-285 and other high-volume freeways, many hot spots were common on the County’s arterials, including Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Buford Highway, Covington Highway, and North Druid Hills Road. Intersections with high crash rates were found at Henrico Road at West Side Place in South DeKalb and a heavy concentration of intersections along Peachtree Road and Peachtree Boulevard in the City of Chamblee.

TRANSIT AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure incentivize greater use of alternative modes of transportation as opposed to driving, alleviates traffic congestion on the County’s roads, and contributes to a greater quality-of-life. The lack of sidewalks within a mile of activity centers and lack of bicycle facilities within two miles of activity centers were found to significantly limit their use as alternatives to driving. Crashes involving bicycles and pedestrians most often occur in higher-density areas of the County, near bus stops, and at MARTA rail stations. Enhanced transportation investments must be leveraged to improve these alternative modes.

CONGESTION

Capacity-based traffic congestion often limits a person’s mobility in DeKalb County whether they choose to drive or take transit. The ARC Travel Demand Model and other sources were used to identify corridors and intersections with high rates of congestion and delay. This congestion is almost always expected to increase along DeKalb’s roadways as traffic volumes grow over the next 30 years. Making strategic transportation investments is necessary on this front to combat traffic congestion, mitigate bottlenecks, and rethink the movement of people and goods to achieve efficiencies for both.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

TRANSPORTATION NEXUS

The central goal of the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan is to combine the transportation and land use visions for the County into a single unified, actionable plan. Transportation and land use elements have direct and intrinsically interlinked relationships with each other.

The Transportation Nexus (center of page) explores those interlinked relationships in detail. A product of substantial public and community engagement, the Transportation Nexus was developed to convey the top line issues that the project team gathered in parallel through the engagement and technical analysis processes, mapping them to better understand the themes and connections between them.

Based on these efforts, the project team uncovered a total of seven top line issues pertinent to DeKalb’s transportation and land use future:

Housing: Providing enough quality affordable housing and a variety of housing options to meet demands and needs of DeKalb County resident to slow down rises in housing prices

Activity Centers: Establishing and maintaining dynamic activity centers throughout the County tailored to residents’ needs and promoting higher population and/or jobs densities in these areas

Economic Development: Promoting and incentivizing new population and job opportunities and celebrating the County’s diversity as an asset

Freight/Industrial: Focusing on the County’s well-established freight and industrial sector and continuing to encourage further development opportunities for jobs and skillsets it can generate

Roadway/Vehicular: Investing in improvements to the County’s vast roadway network to mitigate congestion, contribute to efficiencies in the movement of both people and goods, achieve a state-of-good-repair, and enhance safety and mobility

Transit: Leveraging, expanding, and enhancing the County’s existing transit network in strategic ways to increase regional mobility, connect residents to jobs, and provide an equitable balance of transportation options

Active Transportation: Enhancing and expanding the County’s vast sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure to enhance quality-of-life, increase local connectivity, and promote the well-being of all County residents

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Clustered around these top line issues are a series of word clouds that were uncovered as themes around each top line issue. These themes are rarely in isolation; rather, they are almost always shared elements. As illustrated, these themes often transcend multiple top line issues identified, shedding light on the underlying relationships that connect them. These relationships are represented by connecting arrows and as shown in the legend can be either complimentary connections or in some cases potentially conflicting connections.

On a higher level, four overarching guiding principles of Equity, Funding Availability, and Agency and Inter-Agency Coordination tended to transcend every issue, theme, and stakeholder conversation. They are shown prominently around the periphery of the Transportation Nexus. Balancing all of these guiding principles helps to anchor the decision-making of all transportation and land use investments as projects are evaluated and prioritized.

(blank page)

CHAPTER 04

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

CHAPTER 04: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

⬚ figure

INTRODUCTION

After hearing from the community and evaluating the County’s existing conditions and needs, the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan team identified a Universe of Projects to assist with the development of a recommended project list. The Universe of Projects contains numerous projects for the County to consider that address transportation needs. If funding were unlimited, the County could theoretically implement the entire Universe of Projects; however, just like in a household budget, there is always a gap between needs and the funding available to implement the projects. Performance-based planning is essential to identifying the most impactful projects.

The Plan included a technical process to identify high-scoring projects based on evaluation metrics that focused on project performance. The project evaluation was not limited to technical analysis, public input also played an important role. The data-driven baseline process allowed for the highest performing projects to rise to the top for conversations with communities and elected leaders.

This chapter describes the creation of the Universe of Projects, the development of evaluation criteria, and the evaluation of the projects.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The Unified Plan team developed the Universe of Projects in a layered approach using four different sources consisting of previous plans done by others, technical analysis, public input, and input from agencies, stakeholders, and elected leaders. Each of these sources played an important role in ensuring the Unified Plan had a comprehensive list of projects before beginning evaluation.

More than 40 planning studies were reviewed to develop the Universe of Projects, including the ARC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan, city transportation plans, and small area studies (e.g., Livable Centers Initiatives [LCI] and CID plans). Regionally significant projects from these resources were included in the Universe of Projects, shown below:

Universe of Projects

• DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan
• ARC RTP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• City of Atlanta 2022 Infrastructure Program
• City of Atlanta Transportation Plan
• Cycle Atlanta Phase 2.0 Study
• Avondale Estates Downtown Master Plan Update
• Belvedere Master Active Living Plan
• Briarcliff Road-Clairmont Road Small Area Plan

Continued

• Brookhaven 2020 CTP Update
• Buford Highway Corridor LCI
• Buford Highway Master Plan
• Chamblee Doraville CID
• Chamblee Mobility Multimodal Transportation Plan
• Clarkston City Plan
• Covington Highway Corridor Master Active Living Plan
• City of Decatur CTP Update
• Decatur 360 Comprehensive Plan
• DeKalb Greenways Plan (2000)
• DeKalb County Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST)/Renewal
• DeKalb SPLOST Trails
• Doraville Comprehensive Plan
• Doraville Mobility Plan
• Doraville Peachtree Creek Greenway Study
• Dunwoody CTP Update
• Dunwoody Last Mile Connectivity Study
• Gresham Road Study Area, Master Active Living Plan
• GDOT Statewide TIP (STIP)
• GDOT Strategic Statewide Transportation Plan
• Hammond Drive Corridor Study
• Indian Creek MARTA Master Active Living Plan
• Kensington LCI Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan
• Medline LCI Plan
• Metro South CID Freight Cluster Plan
• North Druid Hills LCI Plan
• One Chamblee Comprehensive Plan Update
• Panola Road-Salem Road Master Active Living Plan
• Stone Mountain LCI Plan
• Stone Mountain Village Forward Master Plan
• Stonecrest Transportation Master Plan
• Tucker-Northlake LCI
• Tucker Strategic Transportation Master Plan
• Tucker Summit CID Freight Cluster Plan
• Tucker PATH Trail Master Plan and Implementation Strategy
• Winters Chapel Road Area Study

The results of various analyses done in the ECNA were used to identify additional surface transportation projects that were not mentioned in previous plans. Results from analyses, including historical traffic volumes, bottleneck congestion data, historical crash rates, and Level-of-Service were used to identify roadway operational and capacity projects. Similarly, results from analyses including gaps in the existing active transportation network and level of traffic stress were used to identify multimodal projects.

After compiling previous projects done by others and supplementing with projects from the technical analysis, the project team reviewed project ideas gathered from public engagement efforts, including the Social Pinpoint web platform, community intercepts, and charrettes. In Social Pinpoint, responders were able to place points throughout the County, specify a desired project type (i.e., Bicycle, Pedestrian, Safety, Traffic, or Transit), and like or dislike previously made comments. In some instances, the results of the public's feedback helped validate an idea that was already present in the Universe of Projects and in other instances the feedback helped identify a new project.

Agency and stakeholder input were essential for developing and refining the Universe of Projects. In previous months, the Unified Plan team conducted the following efforts in coordination with agency staff, elected leaders, and stakeholders:

• Held a technical workshop with DeKalb County staff to vet new projects created from technical analyses and input from the public.
• Gathered additional ideas for projects during individual meetings with each of the five County Commissioners and two County Super District Commissioners.
• Met with the 13 incorporated municipalities and various agencies (e.g., CIDs, ARC, and GDOT) in the County for priority projects.

PROJECT EVALUATION

The project evaluation criteria developed for the Universe of Projects builds on the transportation priorities identified at the onset of the Unified Plan to ensure that the project prioritization reflects the goals of the community. Projects were coded in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment and categorized as multiuse trails, small-scale roadway, or large-scale roadway projects. Note that sidewalk and bridge projects were not evaluated as these are included under set-aside funding mechanisms. Additionally, transit projects were not evaluated as the County is considering transit improvements separately. The evaluation criteria are shown in the table below.

Projects scoring highly in the evaluation process were prioritized for conversations with staff and elected leaders and for possible inclusion in higher tiers.

CHAPTER 05

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

⬚ figure

FUNDING SOURCES

The Unified Plan considers multiple funding sources, including local, state, and federal levels. The image on the following page depicts the different types of funding sources considered during the planning process.

Local Sources

Local sources of funds must be generated within DeKalb County. If marked with an asterisk (*), they are currently in use by the County.

• Countywide Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST)*: The current countywide SPLOST was voted in by residents in November 2017 and began collections in April 2018. The first SPLOST is slated to run for six years and generate nearly $650 million in revenue for transportation, public safety, and other DeKalb departments. The SPLOST also includes city allocations. The current SPLOST projection for transportation in unincorporated DeKalb is approximately $240 million. If the Board of Commissioners call and approve another referendum, DeKalb residents will have an opportunity to vote on a continuation of the current SPLOST in November 2023.
• General Fund*: The Board of Commissioners and CEO can use general fund monies for the purposes of transportation. Today, the County uses general funds to pay for routine maintenance, bridge repair, and other related activities.
• MARTA Tax*: DeKalb County residents currently pay a 1% sales tax to MARTA for the system maintenance of the MARTA rail and bus system. Some of the current penny is going toward new transit hubs, local bus expansion, and paratransit expansion in south and east DeKalb.
• House Bill (HB) 170/Transportation SPLOST: A new House bill allows the County to call a referendum to levy a new SPLOST of up to 1% for up to five years (in 0.05% increments) for the purpose of surface transportation improvements and small-scale capital transit investments.
• House Bill (HB) 930/Transit SPLOST: A new House bill allows the County to call a referendum to levy a new SPLOST of up to 1% for up to 30 years (in 0.05% increments) for the purpose of long-term capital, operations, and maintenance of transit systems. This longer timeframe allows local governments to be more competitive for federal transit funding due to a sustained, reliable source of income.
• Other local sources: DeKalb County could consider other funding opportunities, including tax allocation districts and other value capture mechanisms, property tax increases, bond referenda, etc.

Federal/State Sources (Formula + Discretionary)

Federal and state funds have two basic forms—formula funds and discretionary funds. Formula funds are allocated to the state and region based on population size, whereas discretionary funds are awarded through competitive federal grant applications and are not guaranteed to the state or region. Federal funds for all transportation projects now fall under the new transportation bill, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Under the IIJA/BIL, funding for transportation infrastructure has increased substantially and can be seen in both formula and discretionary funding programs.

• Formula funds (administered by ARC and GDOT): Formula funds for surface transportation projects allocated to the Atlanta region are administered to local governments through the ARC’s Regional Transportation Planning process (also includes GDOT). Local funds generated within DeKalb can be used as match funds for federal dollars awarded by ARC or other state funds from GDOT for pavement management, bridges, etc.

• Formula funds (administered by MARTA and the Atlanta Transit Link Authority [ATL]): Formula funds for transit are distributed by the FTA to designated recipients. In the Atlanta Region, the designated recipient for Section 5307, 5337, and 5339 funds is the ATL. The ATL is responsible for outlining the program of projects that detail specific projects that funds will be applied towards.

• Discretionary/competitive grant programs: Several competitive grant programs exist through both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Examples include the following: USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program (formerly known as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development [BUILD] and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery [TIGER]), USDOT Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program, FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Grant Program, and FTA Low or No Emissions Bus Grant Program.

⬚ figure

05 – TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ASSUMPTIONS

Planning for transportation and mobility includes more than just building new projects. It also includes having resources to maintain infrastructure (e.g., paving roads, repairing bridges and signal systems, etc.), preparing for future technology, and establishing support systems to oversee the implementation of future capital projects. In order to properly prepare for these financial needs, it is critical to develop a strong financial framework.

The DeKalb framework is based around the assumption of constraining expenditures based on local funding with a check to help ensure reasonable state and federal funding matches. Additional local funding sources could be considered; however, the primary source assumed in the development of this financial framework is a renewal of the countywide SPLOST program. While recent returns have been coming in above projections, the plan assumes a more conservative baseline of the early projections of approximately $106 million per year with a 1% per year growth in the tax base.

The cities in DeKalb are allocated a percentage of collected SPLOST revenues based on population and can use the funding to support a variety of needs beyond transportation. The City allocations total approximately 39% of the annual revenues under the current SPLOST program. Additionally, the percent of remaining unincorporated DeKalb County funding assumed to fund transportation needs remains the same as the current program, resulting in a total of 38% of total annual revenues.

If actual revenues exceed projections or the allocation to transportation exceeds current proportions, the Unified Plan team recommends the funds be allocated to two specific categories described later in the chapter.

• Countywide SPLOST continues
• Conservative tax revenue assumptions
• City allocation of SPLOST remains the same
• Transportation allocation of SPLOST remains the same
• Existing MARTA penny continues to be used primarily for state of good repair

SPLOST Fund Allocation

⬚ figure

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OVERVIEW (UNINCORPORATED DEKALB)

The table below displays the overall financial framework for unincorporated DeKalb County. The timeframe is broken into three tiers: Tier 1 represents the first 6 years (short-range), Tier 2 represents the next 6 years (mid-range), and Tier 3 represents the final 15 years (long-range). Rows are broken into two major groups, set-aside funding categories and a project funding category. Total anticipated applicable revenues from the SPLOST are shown in the last row.

Set-aside funding categories include programmatic funds instead of individual projects. These funds provide an allocation of money for a larger program (such as repaving)—the Unified Plan does not recommend specific roads for paving; however, it does allocate the funding needed to conduct the work. There are several key elements to note regarding the funding categories, including:

• The largest category, and the overall greatest need to this day in DeKalb County, is asset management and maintaining a state of good repair. This programmatic fund includes resurfacing, capital bridge investments (beyond maintenance), and a pavement asset management system and pavement management plan. As a percentage of total funding, asset management captures just over half of the total budget in the first tier and decreases over time as road condition improves and state of equilibrium is reached.
• The second largest set-aside category is for pedestrian improvements, including sidewalks and crossings. Specific projects are not being identified as a part of this plan. For example, a sidewalk inventory and condition assessment is planned for DeKalb County, which can better inform the locations of greatest need and priority for pedestrian investments.
• Additional categories in the set-aside categories include project/program management (an assumed 5% of the program for oversight), funding for Commission District identified projects ($1 million per district per 6-year period), technology and smart corridor investments (more information provided in the policy chapter), and a small discretionary fund for directed planning and support efforts.

If revenues from the SPLOST (or the transportation allocation) are higher than estimates below, the Unified Plan team recommends that additional funds are first allocated to asset management and then to pedestrian improvements.

The project category located at the bottom of the table includes funding for specific projects. An overview by project type follows, and more information on the individual projects can be found in Chapter 8.

05 – TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

PROJECT FUNDING BY TYPE

Three overarching categories of projects are included in the list: multiuse trails, small-scale roadway projects, and large-scale roadway projects. Multiuse trail projects may include off-road trails that run along their own right-of-way, streams, or utility easements as well as side paths running along the side of a road. Small scale roadway improvements include intersection projects and safety projects anticipated to cost less than $4 million. Large scale roadway projects may include a combination of several project types, such as capacity or widening projects, operational projects with a series of intersection or access management elements, or multimodal projects that include roadway and trail projects.

The allocation of funds across the different project types and different tiers are shown in the chart below. Tier 3 has a substantially larger funding assumption due to its longer timeframe (15 years compared with 6 years) and smaller allocation to asset management in later years.

⬚ figure

CHAPTER 06

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 06: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Asset management includes all the activities of an organization that balance the cost, risk, and performance of assets to deliver service to customers. Managing assets is an organizational strategy that focuses on data-driven and fact-based decisions. In asset management, the focus is on the asset life cycle and can include planning and design, operating and maintaining, and rehabilitating.

Asset management is one of the most critical, yet often overlooked parts of a transportation system particularly when not enough funds are available to adequately maintain the system. Relative to transportation infrastructure, assets to manage can include roadways and assets within the right-of-way (e.g., signals, crosswalks, striping, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and curb ramps), bridges, and bike and pedestrian right-of-way or trails. In DeKalb County, with many established assets, the focus can be on maintaining an accurate inventory of assets and rehabilitating these assets in cost-effective ways. This may include repaving and reconstructing roadways, repairing and replacing bridges (including those with structural or functional issues), maintaining trails and paths for bicycles and pedestrians, and keeping signal systems operational and up to date. For a well-developed county like DeKalb County, asset management should be a substantial portion of the financial portfolio in order to properly maintain assets in a safe and functional way for community use. Implementing asset management can be achieved through a stepwise process over time that may add both steps to the management process as well as more assets to the program. The goal is to move from awareness of an asset management need and into competence in executing a program. Ultimately, proactively managing assets will save money in the long-term by applying the right maintenance and rehabilitation at the right time in the asset's life cycle.

Roadways

DeKalb County has nearly 2,300 miles of roadway. Addition and deletion of roads from the DeKalb County system can be managed through tracking inventory data using a database or software tool. The inventory of roads should be inspected on a routine basis to determine the current condition score, which can be used to determine both the timing of and level of resurfacing or reconstruction needed. At the conclusion of the 2014 CTP, DeKalb County had approximately $175 million of paving backlog without a clear funding stream in sight. With the establishment of the SPLOST program in 2017, the County had substantial revenues to reduce this backlog and reach a better overall road condition. The current SPLOST program allocates $151 million over six years specifically for resurfacing.

Continued focus on asset management, and particularly rehabilitation of the road network, will be of critical importance

to DeKalb County moving forward. The Unified Plan includes the following recommended activities for road resurfacing:

• Use a consistent roadway rating system based on the standardized ASTM (formerly known as the American Standardized Testing and Materials) system.
• Implement a software system to comprehensively manage the pavement and overall program.
• Use automated data collection methods in addition to visual inspection to provide more consistent and systematic evaluation.

The County should invest resources (approximately an average of $200,000 per year) to complete a full inventory of the system every three years, including the addition or removal of roadways in the system and updating the network for any construction or maintenance that has been conducted. As a part of developing a proactive pavement management plan, conduct “what-if” budget scenarios that show the impact of spending on the road network condition and the implications of different investment levels and philosophies on management. Ultimately, creating a three-year plan that includes both maintenance and reconstruction work for the County to manage closely until the time when an acceptable overall roadway condition is reached (and beyond) into routine management.

Bridges

Bridge maintenance is critical for ensuring the safety of the traveling public. Routine inspections by GDOT allow organizations to prioritize where and when the investments need to be made. Approximately eight bridges were flagged as fair or worse considering structural components and nine additional non-GDOT bridges have weight limit restrictions. Some of these bridges already have funding identified for repair, while others will need to be upgraded or monitored over the coming years.

Funding within the asset management set-aside is included for bridge repair. However, large and critical bridge failures can come quickly and require more funding than originally allocated and including contingencies for these types of situations can be valuable.

Signal Systems

DeKalb County operates and maintains 47% of traffic signals across both unincorporated DeKalb County roadways and in the cities of Avondale Estates, Clarkston, Decatur, Doraville, Pine Lake, Lithonia, Stonecrest, and Stone Mountain. More than 100 miles of fiber are used to connect DeKalb County traffic signals to GDOT-coordinated relays. DeKalb County’s annual expenditure for the operations and maintenance of ITS and traffic signals is approximately $0.75 million to $1 million.

As a part of the overall technology recommendations, it will be important for DeKalb County to first ensure that the basic programs, software systems, and infrastructure are well inventoried and maintained before advanced technology (I.e., Safety, Mobility, Automated, Real-time Traffic Management [SMART] corridors) can be implemented and leveraged to its greatest extent. In Tiers 1 and 2, set asides for technology should be prioritized for upgrading and maintaining software and infrastructure, and then future investments in Tiers 2 and 3 can focus more on advanced technology elements. A more detailed list of project recommendations for technology is included in the appendix.

Funding Assumptions

The Unified Plan recommends the following investment levels for asset management (specifically roadway resurfacing and bridge repair) over the life of the plan:

• Tier 1 (6 years): $127,500,000
• Tier 2 (6 years): $107,000,000
• Tier 3 (15 years): $206,000,000

The amounts noted above are exclusively local funds through the SPLOST program and are in addition to state funding received through GDOT and Local Maintenance Improvement Grants (LMIG). The first tier assumes the largest annual investment due to the need to reach a state of good condition. In future tiers, fewer dollars are allocated to asset management, consistent with more of a maintenance level of investment. These amounts include not only the funds for repaving but also for the purchase and use of an asset management software system and the creation of a pavement

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

management plan on a rotating three-year cycle. Also included in this amount is funding for capital bridge repair beyond traditional routine bridge maintenance. Funding for signal maintenance is included in the technology budgets discussed later in this chapter.

Recognizing that more funding in Tier 1 would be beneficial to reach a state of good condition sooner, the Unified Plan team recommends that surplus revenues from the SPLOST above and beyond the original projections from this plan should be allocated to asset management first to continue to reduce the County's resurfacing backlog. Beyond that, additional revenues could be reallocated to sidewalks and crossings as well as other areas of focus.

DEKALB COUNTY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Functional classification systems categorize roadways based on character and operational features. While the individual categories can vary between classification systems, they generally include arterials, collectors, and local roads. The key factors that determine a roadway's functional classification are mobility and access. Roads with higher mobility allow traffic to travel quicker over longer distances, while roads with better access offer vehicles with greater ability to enter and exit adjacent land uses through driveways and connecting roadways. Roadways cannot typically offer both high mobility and high access—there is always a trade-off. For example, arterials operate at higher speeds, offering high mobility but poor access to adjacent land uses. Conversely, local roads have low speeds and reduced mobility but offer greater access to adjacent destinations with more driveways and intersections.

The FHWA states that it is important to develop access standards that achieve a balance between property access and functional integrity of the road system in areas of varied land uses. Designating roadway facility hierarchy through functional classification promotes multimodal access. Proper functional classification designations ensure adequate property access, functional integrity of the roadway system, and non-vehicular travel.

Agencies define roadway classification for roads under their jurisdiction to apply more consistent design standards and policies. DeKalb’s roadway functional classification helps determine planning design elements that will influence many elements of access management, including right-of-way dedication, active transportation, number of access points, driveway spacing, emergency vehicle access, deceleration lane specifications, and interparcel access. DeKalb County Code of Ordinances, Section 14-200 defines access management specifications based on functional classification and land use characteristics. These access management specifications are applicable unless a more restrictive standard is required by GDOT.

Furthermore, functional classification drives design decisions for DeKalb County’s traffic calming program. The traffic calming program leverages the County’s functional classifications to determine eligibility. In this case, only local roads can currently participate in the program. DeKalb also determines sidewalk improvement eligibility using functional classification, as the County provides funding for sidewalks on non-local roads.

Because functional classification has such important and varied implications, the Unified Plan team coordinated with DeKalb County’s cities and neighboring jurisdictions to confirm functional classifications are consistent across borders. Within DeKalb, this coordination also meant that the recommended functional classifications met the needs of cities.

The CTP includes recommendations that the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances be reviewed for any mentions of functional classification and be updated according to the recommended functional classification map. This includes updating land use and development policies that are dependent upon functional classification and roadways to use the same roadway categories that are used in the recommended map. The CTP also includes recommendations that are consistent in functional classification, particularly across municipal boundaries, be assessed on a recurring basis.

DeKalb County Recommended Functional Classification

⬚ figure

Traffic Calming

The FHWA states that the primary purpose of traffic calming is to support the livability and vitality of residential and commercial areas through improvements in non-motorist safety, mobility, and comfort. These goals can be achieved by reducing vehicular speeds or volumes along roadways. Traffic calming measures include non-physical (e.g., enforcement and education for speeding) and physical treatments. Physical treatments calm traffic through horizontal deflection, vertical deflection, street width reduction, and traffic rerouting or restrictions.

DeKalb County developed a Traffic Calming Program (adopted in 1995 and revised in 2001) to address concerns from citizens for speeding along residential street. The full Residential Traffic Calming Code is found in Chapter 17, Article 3, Division 3 of the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances.

The following is a summary of the current criteria, evaluation, and implementation process for traffic calming treatments in DeKalb County.

• A street must be classified as local residential on the County’s Thoroughfare Plan and have a posted speed limit of 30 mph or less to be eligible for the Traffic Calming Program.
• The citizen (i.e., the initiator) makes a request to the County.
• The initiator is granted a 45-day initial interest petition period to gather signature representing 20% support from property owners or renters on the street.
• County staff conducts a traffic study to evaluate that the speed and volume of the location. The 85th percentile speed (i.e., the speed at which 85 percent are traveling at or below) must be 11 mph greater than the posted speed limit or the volume of vehicles must be greater than anticipated when compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Rates.
• County staff develops conceptual plans and refines recommendations in coordination with the initiator.
• A public hearing is conducted and the County’s Board of Commissioners (BOC) votes starting the 90-day final petition process.
• The initiator must obtain signatures from property owners of the parcels within the identified affected area totaling a 65% approval within the 90-day petition process period. This step is done to identify property owners who will pay the special tax district for maintenance of the traffic calming treatments ($25 per parcel per year).
• The County’s BOC votes to approve the implementation.
• The traffic calming project is sent to DeKalb’s Roads and Drainage for implementation.
• Traffic calming treatments may be removed through a petition procedure outlined in County Code Section 17-129.

The following are some examples of traffic calming treatments considered by DeKalb for the Traffic Calming Program.

DeKalb is currently evaluating expanding the Traffic Calming Program to include treatments and measures for roadways with functional classifications other than local residential. The County should continue to collaborate with local emergency services agencies and other stakeholders to ensure that the identified physical treatments are effective and adequate for all vehicle types.

Transportation Safety

The findings of the ECNA analyses indicate that, like nationwide and state trends, crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries in DeKalb increased between 2015 and 2019. Transportation safety should continue to be a central focus for DeKalb through developing policies that support the national movement and GDOT’s focus of moving towards zero deaths and serious injuries for all road users. DeKalb County and its neighboring agencies should strive to align regional efforts with the emphasis areas presented in the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2022-2024 SHSP), published by the governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) in 2021. The 2022-2024 SHSP identified the following emphasis areas to be the top contributing factors to fatal and serious injury crashes in Georgia:

• Pedestrian safety
• Motorcycle safety
• Older drivers (55+ years)
• Impaired driving
• Occupant protection (seatbelt)
• Distracted driving
• Young adult drivers
• Bicycle safety
• Intersection safety and roadway departure

While some crashes can be mitigated through roadway and intersection improvements, many crashes result from driver behavior and cannot be solved through engineering. Therefore, the 2022-2024 SHSP highlights the “4 Safety Es”: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services.

The following is a summary of policy recommendations that can help DeKalb County continue to improve safety for all road users:

• Monitor locations after implementing Tier 1 projects (i.e., years 1-6 of the Unified Plan) to assess the impact of improvements on historical crash trends before and after implementation. Please note, projects were identified, developed, and prioritized building upon the findings of the ECNA report which considered 5 years of crash data.
• Establish and regularly monitor transportation safety performance measures and goals for crashes occurring in the County like those summarized in the 2022-2024 SHSP to better understand how progress is being made.
• Collaborate with GDOT’s District 7 Safety Office and other agencies to obtain historical crash data and better understand high-risk roadway segment and intersection locations in the County.
• Participate in regional trainings such as GDOT’s “See & Be Seen” and “Drive Alert /Arrive Alive.”
• Participate in national trainings such as National Walking Summit and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP).
• Work with the County’s police department to focus on enforcement for distracted driving (i.e., texting while driving), failure to yield for pedestrians in crosswalk, speeding, and compliance with School Zones.
• Conduct a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in collaboration with GDOT and ARC.

FREIGHT

The efficient movement of goods through the freight network is vital to the economic health of DeKalb County. DeKalb County’s local economy includes several industries (i.e., manufacturing, logistics, and distribution) that rely on freight movements to deliver or distribute material goods to and from the County. In addition to industry, the growth in e-commerce catalyzed during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance of everyday families on freight deliveries. It is important for the DeKalb Unified Plan to account for transportation needs derived from freight demands and understand its effects on the larger transportation network.

⬚ figure

Source: Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan Update (2016)

Truck Routes

Freight trucking plays a significant role in driving industries that contribute to DeKalb County’s economy. The ARC’s Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan Update (2016) identified the I-85/Peachtree Industrial Boulevard/Jimmy Carter Boulevard area in DeKalb County as one of Metro Atlanta’s major freight activity clusters. Since the County is home to a lot of freight activity, it is especially important that its roadway network can accommodate large volumes of heavy vehicle traffic, where appropriate.

Chapter 17 of the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances designates truck routes where heavy vehicles can legally operate for the purpose of the general travel throughout the County. GDOT specifies that all state routes must be truck routes. Beyond state routes, the Unified Plan includes other roadways that should be designated as truck routes to effectively facilitate the movement of goods throughout the County. The truck route network also includes sanitation routes used by the DeKalb Sanitation Division. The DeKalb County Code of Ordinances also states that trucks may use roadways not designated as truck routes to make specific deliveries, within reason. I-285 is used by trucks traveling through metro Atlanta as truck traffic is not allowed along I-75 and I-85 unless they are making specific deliveries.

Continuous travel across jurisdictional boundaries is an important characteristic for operators to efficiently move goods throughout metro Atlanta. This goes beyond intra-county travel among unincorporated areas and incorporated cities as it includes roadways that cross jurisdictional boundaries between DeKalb County and adjacent communities. The Unified Plan team coordinated with adjacent communities to ensure truck route continuity and prevent costly miscommunications in the future. Many municipalities within DeKalb have adopted the County’s truck route network within their own jurisdictions and some municipalities maintain their own lists building upon the County’s (i.e., Atlanta, Avondale, Brookhaven, Doraville, Dunwoody, and Stonecrest). Some municipalities restrict truck travel along certain roadways based on specified truck sizes and weight classes. For example, Chamblee specifies truck restrictions along certain roads for trucks larger than 30 feet or 18 tons. The following figure illustrates the recommended truck routes network, transfer stations, and the Seminole Landfill. Transfer stations are used by the County’s commercial customers to process solid wasted material, and residents may use the Seminole Landfill to dispose of yard trimmings and solid waste.

The Unified Plan includes the following proposed modifications be made to the County’s code of ordinances for truck route restrictions as identified in coordination with adjacent communities:

• Pleasantdale Road from I–85 to Gwinnett County line: Designate as a DeKalb Truck Route to be consistent with Doraville

and Gwinnett County designation

• Klondike Road from Rockdale County line to Covington Highway: Remove truck route designation to be consistent with Stonecrest designation

Roadway projects that are along designated truck routes should consider the safe accommodation of heavy vehicles in their designs. The ARC’s Strategic Regional Thoroughfare Plan identifies important considerations for the design of truck-friendly roadways, including lane and shoulder widths, speed limits, turning radii at intersections, bridge conditions, signal timing, and more. On roadways where heavy vehicles operate alongside bicycle and pedestrian traffic, design considerations must be even more carefully considered. Elements such as on-street parking, designated bicycle lanes, and green space buffer can protect pedestrians by providing auxiliary space in which heavy vehicles can turn with sufficient clearance. The ARC is beginning an update to the regional freight plan that will include further guidance for design standards within different contextual settings. Findings from the new plan can inform future roadway and multimodal designs within DeKalb County.

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

⬚ figure

Truck Parking

The demand for truck freight activity continues to increase nationwide, far outpacing the supply of available public and parking facilities. The FHWA states that commercial truck drivers need access to safe, secure, and accessible truck parking. A lack of adequate truck parking can result in drowsy truck drivers continuing to drive or choosing to park in unsafe locations (e.g., shoulder of the road, exit ramps, or vacant lots). DeKalb County and partner agencies also should ensure that designated parking facilities are located in areas buffered from residential. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) establishes national hours-of-service regulations for truck activity, including driving limits (i.e., 11 hours of driving are allowed after 10 consecutive hours of rest) and 30-minute breaks after eight cumulative hours of driving. Regulations like these ensure that truck drivers stay alert but require the presence of strategic parking facilities along truck traffic corridors.

The ARC conducted the Atlanta Regional Truck Parking Assessment Study (2018) comprising the 20-county Metro Atlanta region and key adjacent counties. The study concluded that there is not enough designated truck parking in DeKalb County despite the County being a hub for freight activity in the region. The study identified 10 truck traffic corridors impacting the region of which five traverse DeKalb County (i.e., I-20, I-85, I-285 North/East, I-285 South, and I-675).

• As of 2018, DeKalb had zero publicly controlled truck parking facilities (out of 189 available spaces in the region) and three privately controlled truck parking facilities comprising of 114 truck parking spaces (out of 3,561 available spaces in the region)
• According to the study, DeKalb will need more than 900 truck parking spaces along the ARC's truck traffic corridors by 2045
• The ARC identified five illegal truck parking locations in DeKalb County in 2017 and illegal truck parking incidents were observed daily
• The ARC identified three candidate truck parking locations in DeKalb, including two vacant lot/building and a Walmart Superstore
• As of 2022, several new truck parking facilities are proposed in DeKalb (specifically in the south/Metro South CID [MSCID] area)

Truck parking facilities in DeKalb should be developed with design considerations that consider parking supply, location and quality of life, safety, and technology. The following is a summary of strategies and policy recommendations based on findings from ARC's Atlanta Regional Truck Parking Assessment Study (2018) and industry best practices. DeKalb should consider these strategies and policy recommendations for existing and planned designated truck parking facilities.

Parking Supply

• Conduct an inventory to validate the truck parking supply identified in the ARC's Atlanta Regional Truck Parking Assessment Study (2018)
• Increase truck parking supply by considering the following:
  • Evaluate existing truck stops, public facilities, and private lots for opportunities to redesign and expand available truck parking spaces
  • Evaluate vacant industrial spaces and brownfield sites for new truck parking facilities. The Mid-America Freight Coalition (MAFC) provides screening guidelines in An Evaluation of Vacant Urban Land for Truck Parking (2017)
• Coordinate with shippers and receivers to allow onsite parking
• Use park-and-ride lots during non-peak and overnight periods
• Establish partnership agreements with commercial shopping centers
• Coordinate with existing manufacturing, logistics, and distribution centers in DeKalb to identify where additional truck parking locations within the County may be needed

Location and Quality of Life

• Locate truck parking facilities away from residential areas and consider residential buffers of at least 500 feet
• Locate truck parking facilities near commercial/retail opportunities where truck drivers have access to food and other needs
• Ensure truck parking facilities are equipped with vending machines, restrooms, and showers
• Ensure that truck parking facilities are equipped with electric hookups to allow trucks to use the facilities without idling. This measure will improve air quality and reduce noise generated

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

by parked trucks. Previous studies suggest the use of electric hookups at all spaces decreases noise by up to 30% compared to a site where trucks idle

• Ensure adequate noise abatement amenities. Concrete barrier walls are the most effective sight and noise abatement measure. An 8-foot concrete wall can reduce noise from a site by up to 10 decibels
• Ensure there is adequate water retention for site runoff

Safety

• Identify locations where trucks are parking illegally and work with partner agencies to enforce policies
• Consider features that address safety for truck patrons and neighboring properties such as adequate lighting, fencing, gated entry, and security cameras
• Ensure truck parking facilities have space for fire department access

Technology

• Partner with other agencies and parking facility property owners to implement and use mobile applications for truck drivers to find available parking (e.g., Trucker Path, myPilot, and Truck Smart)
• Promote the implementation of Truck Parking Information Management Systems (TPIMS) which convey real-time information to truck drivers about available parking
• Provide Wi-Fi for truck parking patrons
• Ensure that future electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in DeKalb considers designated truck parking facilities as part of stakeholder activities related to regional efforts and the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI)

Rail Freight

Rail freight is equally influential to DeKalb's transportation system. Two Class I (i.e., defined by an operating revenue of $250 million or more) railroads operate in Metro Atlanta and traverse DeKalb County—CSX Transportation (CSXT) and Norfolk Southern (NS). The ARC's Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan Update (2016) states that more than 25% of the freight tonnage in Metro Atlanta occurs by rail. Furthermore, global market trends such as the Panama Canal expansion will result in increased freight flows from the port of Savannah to Metro Atlanta on truck and rail.

DeKalb County has over 120 at-grade railroad crossings which can add to roadway delay and introduce conflict points between rail vehicles and other roadway users. The County should periodically (e.g., annually) evaluate rail crossings to identify locations that may pose a high risk and would benefit from capital improvements. A comprehensive safety evaluation of rail crossings should include the following information:

• Historical Train Incidents Data: Incident data summarizing crashes between train vehicles and motorists or pedestrians is available from the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Office of Safety Analysis webpage.
• Crossing Inventory Characteristics: Inventory information summarizing average daily train crossings, maximum timetable train speed, and type of existing warning devices is available from the FRA's Office of Safety Analysis webpage.
• Existing Traffic Characteristics: Annual average daily traffic (AADT), posted speed limit, and other existing conditions information is available from County and GDOT resources.

The FRA and the FHWA developed the Rail Crossing Handbook, Third Edition (2019) which provides guidance and best practices for engineering treatments to improve rail crossing safety and mobility. The following is a summary of engineering treatments DeKalb may consider for future improvements at and near rail crossings:

Passive Crossing Treatments include warning and regulatory traffic control devices such as pavement markings and signage. Implementing clear signage and pavement markings at rail crossing locations can have a positive impact (i.e., reduction) in the number of vehicles stopping on the tracks or their influence area.

Special emphasis pavement markings and signage that go beyond the typical installations can be further effective for congested areas where queuing on the tracks is of concern due to limited available storage downstream of the crossing. Dynamic envelope zone pavement marking is an example of special emphasis passive crossing treatment. White connecting Xs visually highlight to motorists the influence area they should avoid. The Florida DOT (FDOT) observed that vehicles stopping on or too close to rail crossings was reduced by 15% with the installation of dynamic envelope pavement markings based on a study conducted from 2014 to 2017.

⬚ figure

Source: FDOT, Operation STRIDE (2020)

Active Crossing Treatments inform users of the approach or presence of rail traffic. These include flashing lights (i.e., both mast-mounted or cantilevered), bells, and automated gates. Four-quadrant gate systems consist of flashing lights and gates which extend across all lanes of travel of the roadway. Four-quadrant gates further inhibit drivers from crossing after the gates have lowered.

Rail Preemption should be enabled for traffic signals near rail crossings (i.e., within 200 feet). Rail preemption consists of a sequence in the traffic signal phasing and timing to allow traffic to clear from the track area prior to the arrival of a train.

The County should investigate using a tool like Texas DOT’s (TxDOT) Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal Pre-Emption at Highway Rail Grade Crossings (Form 2304). Tools such as this can aid traffic signal maintaining agencies to optimize and refine rail preemption parameters.

Queue Management Strategies include traffic signal equipment and systems beyond rail preemption to help keep vehicle queues from extending over the tracks. Chapter 2 of the Rail Crossing Handbook, Third Edition (2019) provides guidance for evaluating which queue management strategies are most applicable for rail crossing locations.

Clear Storage Distance and Minimum Track Clearance Distance are measurements for rail crossings that are used to evaluate suitable queue management strategies.

⬚ figure

Source: FRA

Pre-Signals are used where the clear storage distance is not enough to store one or more vehicles. They control traffic approaching a grade crossing concurrently with the traffic signal beyond the tracks. Pre-Signals should be considered where the Clear Storage Distance is 50-75 feet to 200-250 feet.

⬚ figure

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Queue-Cutter Signals operate independent of nearby traffic signals. They prevent vehicles queuing across tracks at crossings and are activated by the detection of a queue getting too close to the crossing. These signals are located just upstream of a rail crossing where traffic often queues across the crossing due to a downstream condition. Queue-Cutter Signals should be considered where the Clear Storage Distance is 450-500 feet.

⬚ figure

Source: FRA

Crossing Closure should be considered where a rail crossing is redundant with nearby locations. Rail crossing locations may be eligible for elimination grant opportunities.

Grade Separation should be considered where posted highway speeds exceed 55 mph, traffic levels exceed 30,000 AADT, or where train activity is significantly great (i.e., 30 or more trains per day, high train speeds).

DeKalb should investigate if crossing or grade separation are suitable strategies for key rail crossing locations in the County using FRA’s GradeDec.net rail crossing investment online application.

Airport

DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK) is in the City of Chamblee and is generally bounded by Chamblee Tucker Road to the north, Dresden Drive to the south, US 23/Buford Highway NE to the east, and Clairmont Road to the west. PDK is classified as a general aviation reliever airport for Metro Atlanta. On average, PDK services 230,000 operations-takeoffs and landings per year and is considered the second-busiest airport in Georgia, second to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The airport supports over 760 aviation-related jobs and is home to four aviation service companies, seven flight schools, and two helicopter operations.

DeKalb should continue to coordinate with PDK and partner agencies (i.e., Chamblee) on transportation projects that improve multimodal access to the airport as identified in previous plans, such as One Chamblee Comprehensive Plan, Chamblee Mobility Plan, and DeKalb Peachtree Airport’s Airport Master Plan Update.

• Buford Highway Multimodal Improvements
• Chamblee-Tucker Multiuse Path
• Dresden Drive Streetscape
• Hardee Avenue Multimodal Improvements
• Peachtree Boulevard Access Management

DeKalb County can improve freight operations by focusing on the following key aspects of freight travel in coordination with partner agencies and organizations (e.g., adjacent jurisdictions and CIDs):

• Continue to refine designated truck routes within the County coordinating across jurisdictional boundaries
• Facilitate the creation of truck parking in appropriate locations within DeKalb County
• Implement small-scale operational projects that improve safety and mobility for freight travel
• Improve at-grade crossings with freight rail to increase safety and vehicular operations

ACCESS MANAGEMENT

As discussed earlier, a tension exists between providing mobility and providing access along a roadway. A traditional approach to dealing with issues of congestion is often to widen the roadway to increase its capacity. While this may add incremental value by reducing congestion, it also results in other negatives such as property impacts, more challenging environments for walking, cycling, and transit service, and more impervious surfaces and aesthetic impacts. In more developed communities, like much of DeKalb County, widening may not even be feasible.

An alternative approach to reducing congestion is access management. Access management preserves existing roadway corridors while improving access to nearby destinations, allowing corridors to maintain mobility without physically expanding. When done successfully, access management can improve safety and efficiency while decreasing commute times, fuel consumption and emissions, and cut-through traffic in residential areas.

There are three main strategies for successful access management:

• Minimizing the number of conflict points where vehicles are likely to be making opposing movements
• Maximizing the distance between conflict points
• Providing inter-parcel connectivity

Various techniques can be employed to accomplish these strategies. This section of the CTP will provide a brief overview of those techniques as well as final recommendations for access management in the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances.

The strategic placement and design of driveways along roadways can help to control access, reduce vehicular conflict points, and avoid traffic spillback onto the roadway. When driveways are placed close together or located across from each other, they can create driver confusion and cause potential turning movements to overlap. Concentrating turning movements to a few well-spaced, defined driveways reduce conflict points and allow drivers to better predict the movements of other vehicles. Additionally, designing driveways to have longer transition sections between the roadway and

⬚ figure

onsite intersections improves mobility and gives drivers more time to make decisions, reducing the likelihood that the driveway will cause traffic to spill out onto the roadway. Reducing the number of driveways also creates predictability for pedestrians so they can be alert to the locations of potential conflict.

Implementing medians and improving traffic signal coordination can improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and lower crash rates. Medians, especially raised or depressed medians, primarily yield benefits through the management of left-turn and U-turn movements along a corridor. Depending on the volume of turning movements, median openings can allow left turns along both the major and minor streets as well as U-turns from the major street, or they can only allow turning movements from the major street. Creating a series of appropriately spaced medians creates a hierarchy of decision points that allows for smoother traffic movements. Improving traffic signal coordination can yield similar benefits to medians. Providing adequate spacing between traffic signals and optimizing their timing can improve travel times and safety via the synchronization of signals along a corridor.

Some land use policies can also aid in successful access management. Land development regulations and zoning policies along a corridor have an impact on the mobility and safety of the roadway,

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

so they should be designed to encourage or require the interconnectivity of parcels and local roadways. Numerous roadways within DeKalb County are designated as major arterials while also having many closely spaced driveways to commercial properties: North Druid Hills Road, Clairmont Road, and Scott Boulevard, to name a few. Promoting inter-parcel access and local road connectivity (at a minimum for new developments) relieves pressure on major roadways also tasked with facilitating cross-county travel.

The CTP recommends that the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances be reviewed for existing access management requirements. Moving these requirements into one access management ordinance will consolidate access management requirements, reducing overlapping and confusing requirements. If any specific areas (i.e., overlay areas) have specific access management requirements, their relevant zoning section should have a standard access management subsection. Existing access management policies should be reviewed and updated based on the strategies and techniques laid out in this section as well as GDOT access management standards and FHWA access management guidance. Additionally, existing access management requirements that are informed by functional classifications should be updated to match the functional classification map provided in this plan.

⬚ figure

Source: FHWA

TECHNOLOGY

ITS leverage advanced technology and communications to monitor and manage the movement of people and goods across a transportation system. ITS infrastructure provides real-time data and information related to system performance to enable an agency to quickly respond to issues. Deployment of ITS technologies is one of many strategies that should be part of a successful Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) program. When compared with traditional roadway infrastructure projects, ITS can be an extremely cost-effective solution to enhance safety and mobility. Implementing ITS technologies and strategies could provide DeKalb County with a range of benefits, including enhanced traffic flow, reduced congestion, and more efficient and sustainable use of County resources.

The majority of the County’s existing ITS capabilities are located on state routes managed by GDOT as part of their statewide traffic signal operations (SigOps) program. Signalized intersections along state routes fall within GDOT District 7 and management is split between the SigOps Central Metro and SigOps Eastern Metro regions. GDOT traffic signals typically run time-of-day operational plans with traffic responsive (TR) plans implemented along Memorial Drive and several other corridors currently under consideration. TR operations are designed to implement preprogrammed traffic signal timing plans based on real-time traffic conditions. Many of the state routes maintained by GDOT are equipped with fiber optic communications and have closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera coverage.

DeKalb County manages almost 400 traffic signals located in incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. These traffic signals are located outside of the jurisdiction of the cities of Atlanta, Brookhaven, Chamblee, and Dunwoody. All County managed traffic signals run time-of-day operations. DeKalb County has a small fiber optic communications network that connects several corridors to the County’s Traffic Control Center (TCC) and the GDOT communications network. The TCC performs some limited active traffic management activities for connected traffic signals, but a majority of the County’s traffic signals do not have the required technology or network communications needed to support remote management using GDOT’s MaxView software.

There are a limited number of connected vehicle (CV) deployments in the County. GDOT has deployed roadside units (RSUs) at several traffic signals within the County and has a multi-year plan to deploy RSUs at all GDOT managed signals. Additionally, GDOT and the County have deployed transit signal priority (TSP) along several corridors, including Memorial Drive and Candler Road. Many of the DeKalb County managed traffic signals do not currently have the infrastructure (technology or communications) required to support more advanced technologies. Upgrading County traffic signal controllers and installing a robust communications network will allow the County to take advantage of more advanced transportation technologies to improve operations throughout the transportation system.

⬚ figure

To better manage the County’s transportation network and leverage the benefits of ITS technologies, the CTP includes a number of project recommendations, each of which has been assigned to one of four project categories: Programmatic, Infrastructure, Operations, and Advanced Functionality. Programmatic projects are those projects that are more institutional in nature and should be implemented first as they will provide the County with the framework on which all future CTP projects will be implemented. Once Programmatic project elements are implemented, the County will need to build out the transportation system through a series of infrastructure projects focused on traffic signal technology, ITS, and communications. Once the required technology and communications are in place, the County can begin to implement Operational projects designed to improve safety and mobility across the transportation system. The last project category, Advanced Functionality, should be implemented only after the other projects are successfully implemented. The following sections

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

provide a brief overview of each project category and outline some of the projects included in each. The appendix has a full list of all transportation technology project recommendations included in the CTP.

Programmatic

Programmatic projects are those projects that are focused on the development of strategies, processes, and procedures to be implemented by the County prior to beginning any large scale ITS or technology deployment projects. These projects will provide the foundation on which a robust transportation system and traffic management program will be built and will be integral to the success of future infrastructure, operations, and advanced functionality projects. With a strong Programmatic framework in place, the County could implement future projects in a strategic and consistent manner and is able to maximize the benefits obtained from each project.

Near-term Programmatic projects identified in the CTP include the development of active asset management plans for all ITS and traffic signal equipment, a transportation data management plan, and an operations and maintenance plan. Master plans for the deployment of traffic signal infrastructure, ITS assets, and a communications network were also included as near-term projects as they could be vital to the successful deployment of these assets. In the mid-term, the County can work to implement each of the various plans developed and could consider procurement, deployment, and integration of asset management system (AMS) software to effectively manage County assets. Long-term Programmatic projects will focus on reviewing and updating each of the plans developed and the automation of AMS processes and procedures.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure projects are those projects focused on buildout of the transportation system, specifically from a technology and communications standpoint. Deployment of advanced traffic signal controller and ITS assets will be a significant component of these projects. When fully deployed, the Infrastructure projects will provide the foundational and technological capabilities required to better manage the transportation system, including the ability to remotely monitor and manage field assets, and operational strategies required for effective traffic management. Infrastructure projects should also allow the County to implement the Operational and Advanced Functionality projects outlined in the CTP.

Near-term Infrastructure projects include upgrades to and/or replacement of existing end-of-life, malfunctioning, or non-functioning traffic signal and ITS infrastructure, including traffic signal cabinets, controllers, and vehicle detection. Buildout of a fiber-optic communications network and deployment of ITS technology could be part of both near-and mid-term projects. The County could focus on buildout of critical, high-volume corridors first and gradually expand to less critical, lower volume corridors. Where fiber-optic communications to remote traffic signals is not practical or cost effective, cellular communications can be utilized. Long-term infrastructure projects consist of reevaluating existing traffic signal, ITS technology, and communications network infrastructure to determine its suitability for future use, identification of upgrades and/or additional improvement projects, and an evaluation of potential impacts of more advanced technologies including CV, automated vehicles (AV), and SMART corridors.

Operations

Operations projects are those projects that are primarily focused on implementing operational improvements designed to improve safety and mobility throughout the County transportation system. These projects should focus on implementing strategies that are possible because of the technology and communications infrastructure deployed as part of the Infrastructure projects identified in the CTP. Operational projects also could include the deployment of or upgrades to central software systems that could allow the County to remotely manage ITS assets deployed in the field.

Near-term Operations projects included in the CTP (to be completed by the County) include modifications to existing traffic signal timing plans to improve safety, including implementing flashing-yellow arrow (FYA) and protected left turn phasing, where none is currently present. Operational projects also include corridor retiming to improve vehicle progression. Another near-term project that could extend to mid-term projects is further integration of traffic signals into GDOT's MaxView ATMS software and open-source Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) and SigOps

Metrics software. Integration of traffic signals into these software applications will allow the County to remotely manage traffic signals and analyze operations at the individual intersection, corridor, and systemwide level. TR operational plans could also be implemented on higher volume corridors as part of mid-term projects. Long-term Operational projects could focus on improvements in response to changing traffic patterns that occur over the near- and mid-term.

Advanced Functionality

Advanced Functionality projects included in the CTP are those projects that either cannot or should not be initiated until other foundational elements of the transportation system have been implemented. Advanced Functionality projects include projects that incorporate complex operational strategies that may require additional software or technology as well as significant inter-agency coordination to implement. The benefits that can be achieved through these projects can be significant, but they are often difficult to realize without proper planning and coordination.

The CTP does not identify any near-term Advanced Functionality projects as these projects could require buildout of traffic signal and ITS infrastructure and the County communications network before they can be implemented. Mid-term and long-term projects include deployment of more advanced traffic management strategies, including adaptive traffic signal operations, vehicle preemption (i.e., emergency vehicles and rail), TSP, and enhanced work zone management. Advanced Functionality projects also include County deployment of CV and AV projects as these technologies rapidly progresses and are deployed more broadly in the coming years.

A major component of the mid-term and long-term advanced functionality projects could be developing and implementing SMART corridors in the County. While there is no single definition for a SMART corridor, the term generally refers to a corridor that leverages technology and communications to integrate multiple systems and real-time data to enhance safety and improve mobility along the corridor. SMART corridors generally have higher traffic volumes, significant multimodal activity, are located near activity centers or major businesses, and provide opportunities to address equity in the community.

The CTP project team performed a technical analysis of DeKalb County's roadway network to determine which roadway corridors would be good candidates for future SMART corridor projects. The base unit for the technical analysis was the ARC's travel demand model line segments. Segments were assigned scores based on seven equally weighted criteria:

1. Volume: Daily bi-directional traffic volumes were calculated for all travel demand model line segments.
2. Safety: Segment crash rates calculated in the ECNA report were spatially related to each travel demand model line segment.
3. Transit: The transit score was comprised of two components. The first component was determined by using existing bus ridership, and the second component depended on a segment’s proximity to future transit stops based on the MARTA full-penny scenario.
4. Multimodality: The multimodality score was comprised of two components. The first component was determined based on a segment’s proximity to existing multiuse paths/trails, and the second component was based on the existing bike lane network.
5. Employment/Activity Centers: The ECNA report identified areas in DeKalb County considered to be either employment centers or activity centers.
6. Equity: Segments were evaluated for equity based on total population, minority population, low-income population, and zero-vehicle population.
7. Existing infrastructure: Segments were evaluated for existing infrastructure based on signal density and the presence of an existing fiber network and CCTVs.

The technical analysis identified ten corridors with the highest composite scores as potential candidates for a SMART corridor. The project team worked with County staff and analyzed other ongoing or planned future projects within the County to identify two final SMART corridor project candidates. The actual limits of each SMART corridor project can be determined as part of future discussions with the County staff and a more detailed analysis of existing corridor conditions.

• SMART Corridor #1 – Memorial Drive
• SMART Corridor #2 – Candler Road

⬚ figure

COMPLETE STREETS

Complete Streets are streets designed to be and feel safe for all users of the transportation system, regardless of mode, age, or ability. Design solutions are expected to be collaborative and take into consideration the access of all users, the context of local built and natural environments, and the appearance of the roadway corridor. While DeKalb County has been pursuing the expansion of its bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks over the past several years, the CTP has included an updated Complete Streets Policy to formalize these efforts.

The CTP recommends that DeKalb County to continue using the most current complete streets guidelines and design best practices. Existing design manuals, guidance, and publications from organizations such as the FHWA, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), GDOT, ARC, and ITE should be used whenever possible. It is the continued intent of DeKalb County to pursue a complete streets policy that is aligned with USDOT and GDOT complete streets policies. The following bullets are the polices:

• USDOT Policy Statement: “The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide—including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life—transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.”
• GDOT Policy Statement: “It is the policy of GDOT to routinely incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit (user and transit vehicle) accommodations into transportation infrastructure projects as a means for improving mobility, access, and safety for the traveling public. Accordingly, GDOT coordinates with local governments and regional planning agencies to ensure that bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs are addressed beginning with system planning and continuing through design, construction, and maintenance and operations.”

DeKalb County should also consider guidance published by the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC). The components established by the NCSC include:

• Establishes commitment and vision: How and why does the community want to complete its streets? This specifies a clear statement of intent to create a complete, connected network and consider the needs of all users.
• Prioritizes diverse users: It prioritizes serving the most vulnerable users and the most underinvested and underserved communities, improving equity.
• Applies to all projects and phases: Instead of a limited set of projects, it applies to all new, retrofit/reconstruction, maintenance, and ongoing projects.
• Allows only clear exceptions: Any exceptions must be specific, with a clear procedure that requires high-level approval and public notice prior to exceptions being granted.
• Mandates coordination: Requires private developers to comply and interagency coordination between government departments and partner agencies.
• Adopts excellent design guidance: Directs agencies to use the latest and best design criteria and guidelines and sets a time frame for implementing this guidance.
• Requires proactive land use planning: Considers every project’s greater context as well as the surrounding community’s current and expected land use and transportation needs.
• Measures progress: Establishes specific performance measures that match the goals of the broader vision, measurably improve disparities, and are regularly reported to the public.
• Sets criteria for choosing projects: Creates or updates the criteria for choosing transportation projects so that Complete Streets projects are prioritized.
• Creates a plan for implementation: A formal commitment to the Complete Streets approach is only the beginning. It must include specific steps for implementing the policy in ways that will make a measurable impact on what gets built and where.

While the County should consider the safety and mobility of all road users across all modes on every County-maintained roadway, certain types of urban

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

thoroughfares should be given especially intense consideration. The ITE/CNU manual, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, defines different types of urban thoroughfares and their relation to functional classifications. Of the identified thoroughfare types, boulevards, avenues, and streets should receive the highest level of context sensitive considerations for complete street design.

The DeKalb County CTP team recommends that County incorporate Complete Streets principles into appropriate plans, projects, and programs and specify how the County can continue to support complete streets application on streets owned by DeKalb County. The County, at a minimum, should recommend that all roadway projects, including new construction and renovation, consider and document decisions regarding installation of facilities that safely accommodate for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit users. For roadways that are not directly owned by the County, DeKalb County should coordinate with partner agencies and departments. DeKalb County should also work to develop a community engagement plan in the project selection, design, and implementation process that includes and prioritizes vulnerable communities. There are certain roadway corridors that can serve as exceptions from the complete streets policy. Where exceptions might exist, the County should work to document the decision-making processes regarding the corridors. Exceptions may exist for:

• Corridors that legally prohibit specific users (such as freeways that prohibit bicyclists and pedestrians).
• Corridors that have a documented absence of current and future need for multimodal facilities
• Corridors that have a cost of providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use.
• Roadways not owned or operated by DeKalb County. On these roadways, the County should encourage the appropriate agencies to design and construct projects in accordance with the Complete Streets policy.

To further the value of the CTP's Complete Streets recommendation, the County should consider revising the Code of Ordinances to include improved design guidance and proactive land use planning that is context sensitive.

Adapted from tables 4.2 and 4.3 of Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS

The ability of individuals to travel the County includes more than just those driving their vehicles. It also includes users of the transit system as well as those walking and riding bicycles. In a county as developed and diverse as DeKalb, providing meaningful connection for all user groups is tremendously important, however also challenging. The plan includes two different types of bicycle and pedestrian recommendations in this policy chapter. The first references a policy priority network for on-road facilities; the second includes a shortlist of possible recommended steps the County can take to make incremental progress in advancing safety and mobility for those walking and biking.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Roadway Network

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Roadway Network is meant to identify facilities that are good candidates for bicycle and pedestrian travel within the unincorporated part of DeKalb County – particularly focused on roadway facilities and areas within the adjacent public right-of-way. Not included on this map are completely off-road trail projects that run along stream buffers, utility easements, within parks, etc. Because DeKalb County is preparing a countywide trail master plan, decisions around the priority trail policy network will be determined through that planning process.

The creation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Network included consideration for the following items:

• The 2014 Priority Bicycle Network (Priority 1 and Priority 2 levels)
• Existing on-road and side paths traveling along DeKalb County roadways
• The location of proposed projects that will advance bicycle infrastructure including multimodal roadway projects and new on-road or side path recommendations
• Connectivity to existing and proposed off-road trail projects (though not directly included in the priority network itself)

As future transportation projects are proposed along the corridors and new developments/redevelopments having a front along the corridors are built, the priority map should be considered a tool for facilitation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure investment.

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

⬚ figure

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (sometimes referred to as Travel Demand Management) is a transportation industry term referring to a body of actions that seek to manage the demand for travel by drive-alone private car, rather than catering for that demand or managing the road system. In simple terms, TDM provides people with a variety of mobility options (other than driving alone) to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and gain environmental, conservation, and sustainability benefits—generally without large infrastructure investments. Measures are directed at increasing vehicle occupancy, shifting travel mode or time of travel, or reducing the need for travel. Much of the time, the focus is to reduce vehicular demand during peak morning and afternoon commute periods, but TDM measures have benefits that extend to off-peak and special event travel times as well.

⬚ figure

Source: FHWA

Benefits of Transportation Demand Management

The benefits of reducing travel demand and dependence on the automobile are extensive, not only to an organization but also for the larger community. The benefits of TDM fall into five major categories: Transportation System Benefits, Social Benefits, Environmental Benefits, Health and Safety Benefits, and Economic and Financial Benefits. These categories are better defined below:

Transportation System Benefits ▶Reduced traffic congestion resulting in time savings ▶Enhanced overall access, convenience, and mobility equity

Social Benefits ▶Improved quality of life in communities with transportation options (walkable and bikeable) ▶Allows for social interactions and community connectedness ▶Reduced fragmentation and safety issues caused by wide, high-speed roads ▶Enables aging population to retain independence in the community

Environmental Benefits ▶Reduced dependence on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions ▶Reduced congestion and energy consumption ▶Improved air and water quality (reduced emissions and fluid leaks) ▶Reduced heat dome effect (reduced need for paved surfaces)

Health and Safety Benefits ▶Improved health through active transportation (biking and walking) ▶Improved air quality ▶Reduced stress levels

Economic and Financial Benefits ▶Reduced car ownership, maintenance, and parking costs ▶Reduced need for expensive regional vehicular infrastructure yielding lower return on investment than transit ▶Reduced cost of healthcare (over the long-term) ▶Attracts individuals that value a multimodal environment (representing much of today's work force)

Existing Transportation Demand Management Programs

Georgia Commute Options

The largest TDM program in the metro Atlanta region is Georgia Commute Options (GCO). Managed by the ARC, GCO helps commuters and employers find better ways to get around, reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. GCO helps employer partners develop and implement commuter programs and worksites around metro-Atlanta and surrounding areas. It's Telework and Flexwork Programs help employers reduce costs, provide better planning options, and identify tax savings—all while improving air quality and helping employees save time and money. GCO provides the following services for employers:

• Program Consultation: working one-on-one to develop a commute options plan that meets the needs of the organization and its employees
• Reporting Program Results: capturing and reporting information specific to the company, including direct financial savings to employees, vehicle miles of travel reduced, and tons of air pollution reduced
• Onsite Events: presentation and/or tabling events about commute options, assistance, and resources available to employees
• Telework/Flexwork Consulting: expert consulting to start or expand telework, compressed work week, or flexible work hours program
• Pre-tax Benefits to Lower Commute Expenses: a program through the IRS that reduces employee commute costs up to 1/3 for vanpool, transit, and bicycling as well as saves employers on payroll taxes
• Employee Commute Survey: a 2-minute survey, customized to the workforce, used to determine how employees are getting to work today and their level of interest in alternatives and services offered
• Employer Recognition: public relations exposure in local media and annual awards program spotlighting the organization's positive impact on commute options
• Employer Education Series: webinars featuring subject matter experts with guidance on specific commute options topics
• Case Studies: summaries showing how similar employers have implemented successful commute options programs and the results achieved
• Relocation Commute Planning: special assistance when an employer moves, providing employees with information about the best commute options available to get them to their new worksite

GCO provides the following services for commuters:

• Employee Financial Incentives: monetary incentives to motivate commuters to switch from driving alone to carpool, vanpool, telework, transit, bike/walk options
• Telework/Flexwork Consulting: expert consulting to start or expand telework, compressed work week, or flexible work hours program
• Commuter Ridematching and Guaranteed Ride Home: assistance finding carpool or vanpool partners who live and work near each other as well as up to five free rides home each year for registered employees to use when unexpected events cause them to leave work earlier or later

Existing Transportation Management Associations

Transportation Management Associations (TMA) are organizations that provide TDM programming and help to manage transportation within a specific geographic area. TMA's typically are organized through CIDs. Existing Transportation Management Associations in the metro Atlanta region include Perimeter Connects, Midtown Transportation, Central Atlanta Progress (CAP), Clifton Corridor Transportation Management Association, and Livable Buckhead. Information regarding the TMAs in DeKalb County include:

• Perimeter Connects is a program of the Perimeter CIDs (PCIDs) that supports the vitality of the Central Perimeter area by offering free consulting services to employers and commercial properties to implement transportation solutions for improving access and mobility and reducing congestion. Perimeter Connects provides information and resources for commuters and employers in the Central Perimeter area, including a guide

to navigating projects and construction in Perimeter for a better commute. www.perimeterconnects.com

• The Clifton Corridor Transportation Management Association engages GCO and enables employers within the Clifton Corridor to work cooperatively among themselves and with other governmental agencies, transportation providers, and other interested persons and entities to address common transportation concerns and provide and share transportation services in order to reduce traffic congestion in and improve accessibility to and within the Clifton Corridor. www.cctma.org

Recommended TDM Strategies

Traditional TDM strategies include programs and subsidies that seek to manage the demand for travel by drive-alone private car and provide greater mobility options with environmental, conservation, and sustainability benefits. Oftentimes, TDM strategies are facilitated through a local community organization or CID in partnership with GCO.

Organizations in DeKalb County with the opportunity to implement TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, the following local municipalities: DeKalb County Government, Cities of Decatur, Doraville, Chamblee, and Brookhaven, and the CIDs. Each organization should look at various TDM strategies and identify the ones that would best meet the goals of a TDM program. Many of these strategies may be implemented by leveraging a partnership with GCO or by learning about best practices from existing TMAs. The goal of the DeKalb Unified Plan is to highlight potential County-led program/policies.

TDM Strategies for DeKalb County

As a developed, central County that is well served by transit and multimodal networks, DeKalb County has the opportunity to leverage TDM. This is not true for the entire expanse of the County, therefore, many of these recommendations are for DeKalb County to consider as internal policy and/or for the DeKalb Unified Plan defined activity centers, specifically the regional centers and town centers.

POSITIONS

• Transportation Coordinator: Create a position for an onsite professional transportation coordinator to provide personalized trip planning and commuter assistance. This new position at the County would serve as the liaison between TMAs, municipalities, and large employers as well as the internal advocate for DeKalb County policies and external expert on TDM policies.

PROGRAMS

• Rideshare Matching with Carpool: Work with major employers to start carpooling programs and grow them based on interest. Start with providing information about carpooling and expand to providing incentives (e.g., better parking spots, rewards, etc.).
• E-bike Fleet: Consider adding E-bikes to service/County vehicle fleet to encourage short mid-day trips to be taken via a more sustainable mode. E-bikes can also reduce operational and capital costs.
• Events (Gaming Theory): Incentivize participation through rewards programs that promote alternative transportation including competitive events such as step challenges and bike month.

POLICIES

• New TMAs: Create new TMAs within the DeKalb Unified Plan regional centers.
• Site Design/Multimodal Supportive Zoning: Encourage large commercial developments, both new and existing, to encourage internal trips through methods other than driving alone, for example:
  • Onsite services/amenities: Services and/or amenities are provided onsite or within convenient walking distance (e.g., childcare, gym facilities, dining/food service, grocery, post office, etc.).
  • Alternative Mode Options Visibility: Site design that focuses on visibility and convenience of active travel modes by showcasing options in easily accessible and high-volume areas.

06 – SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

• Passenger Loading Areas: Site design that focuses on visibility and convenience of on-demand ride hail services (i.e., Lyft or Uber).
• Bicycle Storage, Lockers, Changing Facilities, and Showers: Conveniently located, covered, and secured facilities.
• Parking Study: Complete a parking study for the DeKalb County Government facilities to identify opportunities to improve parking strategies and encourage a reduction of driving alone, such as consideration of a County employee shuttle from Kensington Station. Consider parking studies for DeKalb Unified Plan activity centers, starting with regional centers.
• E-bike Rebates: Consider providing E-bike rebates to encourage bike trips to replace shorter length single occupancy vehicle trips.
• Living Allowances: Provide housing vouchers for those who choose to live within transit accessible/walking/biking distance.
• First-mile/Last-mile Connectivity: Partner with MARTA to create a micromobility policy to encourage bike share and scooter share companies to operate within a buffer around existing MARTA rail stations and regional centers.

Conclusion

Policy recommendations are an important element of any transportation planning document because they provide an opportunity to improve transportation systems beyond the sole construction of infrastructure projects. Policy changes, in combination with the infrastructure projects, provide an opportunity to shape the way the County grows and serves its traveling public.

To implement the policy recommendations included in this chapter, it will require additional attention and work beyond this document to further refine the specifics of some of the topic areas. While not every policy may be advanced by County leadership and staff, the advancement of even some of the policies can help to change and advance the mobility for all users of the DeKalb County transportation system.

CHAPTER 07

TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 07: TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2019, DeKalb County completed and adopted a comprehensive long-range transit plan, known as the DeKalb County Transit Master Plan (DTMP). The DTMP provides a 30-year vision for future transit investments within DeKalb County and its municipalities. The plan’s recommendations include major new transit investments, as well as enhancements to existing transit services. The DTMP’s goals were to enhance countywide mobility and access, promote economic development, and improve residents’ overall quality-of-life.

The DTMP was developed through a transparent and collaborative partnership between the ARC, MARTA, DeKalb County Government, the 12 municipalities within the County, and agency partners (GDOT and the ATL). The DTMP was developed through a 13-month planning process, beginning in July 2018 and concluding in August 2019. Since the County has recently completed and adopted a comprehensive long-range transit master plan, the approach of the 2050 Unified Plan was to incorporate the recommendations of the DTMP and serve as a vehicle to further the goals of the plan.

⬚ figure

OVERVIEW OF THE

TRANSIT MASTER PLAN

The DTMP featured a comprehensive technical planning process and robust community engagement process. At key project milestones, public and stakeholder feedback was solicited to help ensure the plan was guided by the community's input and vision. Early plan milestones included developing a future transit vision and goals, conducting an inventory of existing transit service, and identifying unmet rider needs as well as economic development visioning and concentrated public and stakeholder meetings. Later milestones included planning charrettes and interactive public workshops as well as defining transit investment scenarios and identifying financial constraints. The final phase of the plan was spent refining four potential transit scenarios for consideration and their financial constraints.

The transit scenarios primarily focused on major new transit expansion projects. Recommended improvements to the existing transit system were identified in a separate process, which was focused on the unmet needs of riders. These needs were mapped in an accompanying figure entitled 'Current Unmet Rider Needs' and include areas where local bus, paratransit, and on-demand service expansion is desired. Improvements to high-ridership local bus routes, bus-to-rail transfers, and first-mile/last-mile connections were also identified. The need for mobility hub facilities that would accommodate bus-to-bus transfers and additional multimodal connections also were included. Improvements to existing services are largely assumed to be funded through DeKalb County's current MARTA sales tax and several projects have already advanced since the plan's adoption.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN

The DTMP concluded by advancing five major recommendations for the County's consideration moving forward. These recommendations are summarized below:

• Recommendation 1: Advance Four Transit Scenarios for Further Consideration and Additional Public Input and Education. It is recommended that four potential transit scenarios are advanced forward for additional public and stakeholder input and education. These scenarios include the Existing MARTA Penny Scenario, Half-Penny Scenario, Full-Penny Scenario, and Previously Adopted Scenario. The public and stakeholder education and input process should be designed to increase the public's understanding of the travel benefits and the costs and impacts of the scenarios. The four scenarios are described in detail in the following section.

• Recommendation 2: More Public/Stakeholder and Input on Project Delivery and Innovative Financing Opportunities. Additional public and stakeholder education is recommended on funding opportunities outside of the HB 930¹ sales tax option. This includes public-private-partnerships, value capture financing, and federal CIGs for transit.

• Recommendation 3: Collaborate with MARTA on Current Unmet Needs. Increased coordination between DeKalb County and MARTA is recommended to help ensure that transit investments address current unmet needs and are delivered using funds from the existing MARTA sales tax. These needs include paratransit expansion in south and east DeKalb, mobility hubs, bus-to-rail transfer improvements, last-mile/first-mile connectivity projects, expanded local bus coverage, community circulators, and mobility on-demand services.

07 – TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

• Recommendation 4: Collaborate with MARTA and Agency Partners on the Advancement of Expansion Projects Consistent with DTMP. DeKalb County should continue to coordinate with agency partners like MARTA, GDOT, and the ATL as well as other agencies to advance the definition (i.e., planning and design concept) of key projects included in the DTMP scenarios. This includes coordination with GDOT on the I-285 managed lanes project to accommodate bus rapid transit (BRT) design solutions. Coordination with GDOT is also recommended to re-evaluate I-20 East high-capacity transit to Stonecrest and the I-285 Top End Express Lanes. Finally, coordination with MARTA is recommended on high-capacity transit projects along Clifton Corridor, Buford Highway, and Candler Road as well as an arterial rapid transit (ART) network.

• Recommendation 5: Align Land Use, Development Codes, and Transit Efforts. In order to be more competitive in receiving FTA grants for major transit investments, it is recommended that DeKalb County and the 13 cities within the County undertake efforts to better align land use and development policies to support transit investments. This includes encouraging transit supportive land use which promotes transit usage, walkability, and compact development forms at station areas and transit corridors. It is recommended that land use plans in the County direct growth into the high-capacity transit corridors identified in the DTMP.

FOUR TRANSIT SCENARIOS

The four transit scenarios advanced in DTMP were developed based upon different funding assumptions. These include the Existing MARTA Penny Scenario, Half-Penny Scenario, Full-Penny Scenario, and Previously Adopted Scenario, described below.

Existing MARTA Penny Scenario

The Existing MARTA Penny Scenario assumes a continuation of the one-penny MARTA sales tax with no additional funding. The revenue in this scenario will support the maintenance and sustaining capital and operations of the existing system without new transit services. This scenario assumes existing revenues will be available to fund current unmet rider needs. Examples of this include MARTA station upgrades and the South DeKalb and Stonecrest Mobility Hubs.

⬚ figure

Half-Penny Scenario

The Half-Penny Scenario presumes the extension of the one-penny MARTA tax and includes an additional half-penny sales tax under the provisions of HB 930. Funding assumes the maintenance and operations of the existing system and a transit system expansion of 15 projects. The projects include 1 light rail transit (LRT), 5 BRT, and 9 ART projects for a total of 139 project miles. This scenario leverages investments in managed lanes for BRT on I-285 and I-20 East.

⬚ figure

07 – TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Full-Penny Scenario

The Full-Penny Scenario presumes the extension of the one-penny MARTA tax and an additional one-penny sales tax under the provisions of HB 930. Funding assumes the maintenance and operations of the existing system and a transit system expansion of 16 projects. The projects include 4 LRT, 4 BRT, and 8 ART projects for a total of 180 project miles. This scenario also leverages investments in managed lanes for BRT on I-285 and I-20 East.

⬚ figure

The Previously Adopted Scenario

The previously adopted scenario assumes the continuation of the existing one-penny MARTA sales tax to support maintenance and sustaining capital and operations of the existing system. It also assumes an unidentified funding source that can generate more revenue than an additional one-penny sales tax under HB 930 to fund a transit system of three projects. This includes 1 heavy rail transit (HRT), 1 LRT, and 1 BRT project and 37 project miles. This scenario features the MARTA Board plans for the I-20 East and Clifton Corridors adopted in 2012.

⬚ figure

THE UNIFIED PLAN’S APPROACH TO TRANSIT

The Unified Plan’s approach to transit planning has been to advance the recommendations of the DTMP and to continue facilitating important conversations related to transit needs and potential investments within the County. This Unified Plan’s transit planning activities can be summarized in the following key areas:

⬚ figure

Update baseline transit data from the DTMP.

The recommendations of the DTMP were based upon an inventory of existing transit conditions in 2017 and 2018. The Unified Plan updated the DTMP’s baseline transit data with more recent data available from 2019. Given the significant and temporary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on transit usage, 2019 data was selected to establish a new baseline (as opposed to 2020 data). Data has been updated related to bus and rail ridership, on-time-performance, transit safety, and demographic transit propensity. An updated baseline is provided in the Unified Plan’s ECNA Report. This report also includes an inventory of recent developments to transit planning efforts since 2019.

⬚ figure

Continue public and stakeholder engagement.

The Unified Plan featured a robust community engagement process, which provided numerous opportunities to facilitate a dialog on transit and collect public and stakeholder input on transit needs. This included a multitude of public meetings, targeted stakeholder meetings, focus groups, community events, online surveys, and in-person intercept surveys. These engagement activities involved educating the community on the recommendations of the DTMP and provided an opportunity to solicit feedback. Public and stakeholder meetings included facilitated break-out group discussions on transit and interactive polling exercises. The feedback collected generally confirmed the continued need for projects identified in the DTMP and indicated a general willingness to support additional funding streams for transit.

⬚ figure

Provide additional stakeholder and community education.

Another important activity of the Unified Plan was to provide additional education to stakeholders, community leaders, and the public on potential transit options and solutions. Educational efforts focused on providing information on transit mode options and potential funding mechanisms the County may choose to pursue. Education was provided to the DeKalb County PWI Committee related to the differences between transit modes recommended in the DTMP, both in terms of costs and operating characteristics. Education was also provided to DeKalb County leadership related to the process of pursuing a transit TSPLOST to fund major transit investments, should the County decide to pursue this option.

⬚ figure

Align the DTMP’s recommendations with the Unified Plan’s Future Land Use Plan.

A key recommendation of the DTMP was to better align land use and development policies to support transit investments. This included the recommendation for land use plans to direct growth into high-capacity transit corridors identified within the DTMP and promote transit-oriented development (TOD). The Unified Plan’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan has proactively coordinated the recommendations of both plans in the following ways:

• The Future Land Use Plan has established a set of Guiding Principles, which are overarching themes to provide guidance and direction for development. Several of these principles align directly with the DTMP recommendations and include:
  • TOD: Promote and provide incentives for TOD near existing rail stations. Identify locations for additional development near planned premium transit stations.
  • Activity Centers, Nodes, and Corridors: In order to support continued growth and development within the County while protecting existing single-family areas, new and more intense development will be focused within activity centers, nodes, and corridors.

07 – TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS

• Multimodal Development: Reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting new development and redevelopment at or near activity centers, developing quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and providing better transit access.

• Development Intensity: Focus new and higher density development in existing developed areas, particularly in locations with existing services, facilities, and infrastructure with capacity to support additional development.

• The Character Area Map, which serves as a future land use guide, takes the approach of directing higher-density and transit-supportive development into areas with an Activity Center designation. Activity Center locations are consistent with the planned high-capacity transit corridors and station areas identified in the DTMP.

• The Character Area Map also includes a Commercial Redevelopment Corridor designation, which coincides with several planned high-capacity transit corridors in the DTMP (Candler Road and Covington Highway are two examples). Within these corridors there is the potential for transit investments to catalyze the redevelopment of declining or underutilized commercial areas with transit-supportive multi-family and mixed-use development. The economic development goals of both plans dovetail and support each other in these corridors.

• A special Policy Spotlight is included in the land use plan promoting TOD at potential high-capacity transit stations in the DTMP. This Policy Spotlight includes maps of proposed transit corridors and station areas for each of the four transit scenarios. Recommendations include developing station-area plans and implementing strategies to promote TOD at potential station locations.

⬚ figure

Character Area Map

PUBLIC INPUT ON TRANSIT

Through the Unified Plan’s community engagement efforts, the public was polled on their support and priorities for transit. Input was collected via an online survey and through community intercept surveys. Polling included the public’s support for an additional transit sales tax and desired funding level. Feedback was also collected on transit investment strategies and priority corridors for improved transit service. The polling results are shown below and indicate that more than half of respondents were supportive of an additional sales tax for transit with diversity seen in the desired level of tax increment. A slight preference was seen for a geographically dispersed investment strategy over a targeted corridor approach. All potential transit corridors received some support as priorities with Buford Highway standing out as the top priority and LaVista Road as the lowest amongst the group.

Transit Investments

⬚ figure

46% Make large investments in a few priority corridors

54% Spread investments geographically throughout the County

Transit Sales Tax

⬚ figure

58% Yes

25% No

17% Unsure

Would you support a transit sales tax?

⬚ figure

49% Full Penny

30% Half Penny

15% Quarter Penny

6% Three-Quarter Penny

What is the maximum tax you would consider for funding transit projects?

Transit Investment Corridors

Which transportation corridors should be prioritized for major transit investments?

⬚ figure

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

To advance the DTMP’s efforts after the Unified Plan has concluded, a series of recommended next steps have been identified and are summarized below.

Update the DTMP current with project definitions.

The planning environment is never static and significant changes have occurred to transit planning efforts since the DTMP was adopted in 2019. Several projects identified in the DTMP have been advancing through the planning process, these include the Top-End BRT, South DeKalb Transit Hub, Stonecrest Transit Hub, and Candler Road ART. The preferred transit mode for projects along Buford Highway, the Clifton Corridor, and I-20 East have changed or have the potential to change. The DTMP should be updated to reflect the current status of project definitions, modes, and costs. Updated project information will be required should the County decide to move forward with implementation.

Continue education on transit funding options.

There is the need for additional education involving the public, stakeholders, and decision-makers to explore all transit financing options available. This includes federal, state, local, and private sources. A special focus should be placed on value capture strategies that include, but are not limited to, tax allocation districts (TAD), ground lease revenue from TOD and joint development opportunities, CID contributions, Special Service Districts, millage rates, and other strategies that optimize the benefits for both the public and private sectors.

Reach consensus on a transit infrastructure and service investment strategy.

County leaders should consider reaching a consensus on a funding approach and level to invest in additional transit infrastructure. This may include a full-penny or half-penny sales tax revenue under authorities provided to DeKalb County in HB 930 (Ga. Code § 50-39-1 through § 50-39-61) in combination with value-capture strategies. Consensus should also be reached on a community outreach and education program and a strategy to develop a project list, costs, benefits, performance, priorities, and funding plan.

Consider and prepare for a successful TSPLOST referendum.

Should the County decide to pursue a transit TSPLOST (HB 930), it is important to consider the necessary steps and approximate timeline of 15 months to help ensure a successful referendum.

The recommended key steps with timelines include:

• Update project definitions, costs, and tax revenue estimates in the DTMP to reflect recent changes. 4 months
• Confirm the updated projects are included within the ATL’s Regional Transit Plan (ARTP). 2 months
• Convene public outreach and community conversations for input on project list, priorities, and funding. Issue notice of meeting with cities and hold meeting 60 days before issuance of the call for referendum. 3 months
• Board of Commissioners adopt Resolution of Intent to Call Referendum. 1 month
• Submit referendum project list to the ATL. 1 month
• Receive the ATL approval of referendum project list. 2 months
• Board of Commissioners adopt Resolution to place Transit SPLOST on Ballot (formalize project list, anticipated costs, and intent for referendum) and public advertising of referendum (continue public and stakeholder education on overall benefits of transit and project list). 2 months
• Election day (include referendum on ballot in the next countywide election and receive majority ‘yes’ vote).

CHAPTER 08

PRIORITY PROJECTS

FOR UNINCORPORATED

DEKALB COUNTY

CHAPTER 08: PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

Chapter 4 outlined the development and evaluation of a Universe of Projects for consideration throughout the County. Chapter 5 outlined the financial framework encompassing revenue streams and assumptions for transportation funding through the year 2050. Chapter 8 includes the final list of prioritized projects over the three tiers of the plan.

Three categories of project types are included—each consists of different subtypes that are reflected in the map legends on the following pages:

• Multiuse Trails include any off-road trail projects running in their own right-of-way or along utility easements. They also include sidepaths running alongside of a roadway.
• Small Scale Roadway Improvements include all roadway projects with a cost of less than $4 million. They include intersection operational or safety improvements, signal technology projects, or small scale freight projects.
• Large Scale Roadway Improvements include all roadway projects costing greater than $4 million. These may include large intersection improvements as well as multimodal projects, corridor operational improvements, capacity/widening projects, new connections, or interchange improvements.

TIER 1: SHORT-RANGE (YEARS 1-6)

The CTP considers short-range projects as projects that are planned to be implemented in the first six years following the adoption of the plan and the beginning of a new SPLOST program. Projects in Tier 1 were included from the results of CTP analyses, DeKalb SPLOST Planning, Covington Highway Corridor Master Active Living Plan, Metro South CID, PATH Foundation, ARC RTP, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

A total of $71 million is assumed for DeKalb County’s contribution toward implementation of these projects, with additional funds for new sidewalk and crossing investments ($24 million) and technology investments ($6 million). Project funding per year is lowest in Tier 1 due to the substantial investment in asset management (specifically resurfacing) needed to continue the work of the current SPLOST and improve the overall road conditions in the County.

Levels of investment across project types are similar with Multiuse Trails having the largest funding amount and Large Scale Roadway Improvements having the smallest. Many of the larger roadway projects include early concept and preliminary engineering work as a part of Tier 1 with funding for right-of-way and construction phases happening in later tiers.

Tier 1 Continued

08 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

Tier 1 Continued

TIER 1: SHORT-RANGE (YEARS 1-6)

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection
• Design Only

TIER 2: MID-RANGE (YEARS 7-12)

The CTP considers mid-range projects as those that are planned to be implemented in the second six years of the plan (consistent with a second iteration of a countywide SPLOST). Projects in Tier 2 were included from the results of CTP analyses, DeKalb SPLOST Planning, Belvedere Master Active Living Plan, Covington Highway Corridor Master Active Living Plan, Metro South CID, PATH Foundation, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

A total of $103 million is assumed for DeKalb County’s contribution toward implementation of these projects, with additional funds for new sidewalk and crossing investments ($24 million) and technology investments ($9 million). Project funding per year increases over Tier 1 due to a small assumption in growth of the sales tax base as well as a reduced need to fund asset management. This allows more funding to go to the development of new projects.

In Tier 2, Large Scale Roadway Improvements have substantially more funding than in Tier 1, this is a result of Tier 1 designs advancing to construction in Tier 2 for multiple projects. Some of the Large Scale Roadway projects also include trails (specifically multimodal projects), helping to advance the larger bicycle/pedestrian network while also making vehicular improvements.

08 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

08 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

TIER 2: MID-RANGE (YEARS 7-12)

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection
• Design Only

TIER 3: LONG-RANGE (YEARS 13-27)

The CTP considers projects as long-range as those that are planned to be implemented in the final 15 years of the plan. Projects in Tier 3 were included from the results of CTP analyses, DeKalb SPLOST Planning, Belvedere Master Active Living Plan, Kensington LCI TOD, Medline LCI, Metro South CID, North Druid Hills LCI, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public. A total of $366 million is assumed for DeKalb County's contribution toward implementation of these projects, with additional funds for new sidewalk and crossing investments ($75 million) and technology investments ($30 million). Since this tier is much larger than the previous two, it includes far more funding in most categories, specifically Large Scale Roadway Improvements and Multiuse Trails. The focus of investment in the last tier is on larger scale investments in operational improvements and alternative modes (whether through multimodal roadway projects or independent trail projects). Many of the vehicular-focused projects improve mobility east-to-west, particularly in the central and eastern parts of the County.

Tier 3 Active Transportation Continued

TIER 3: LONG-RANGE (YEARS 13-27)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection
• Design Only

Tier 3 Roadway

08 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

Tier 3 Roadway Continued

Tier 3 Roadway Continued

08 — PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TIER 3: LONG-RANGE (YEARS 13-27)

ROADWAY

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection
• Design Only

PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

CHAPTER 09

PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

CHAPTER 09: PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

The CTP team reviewed major projects located within DeKalb’s cities. Projects identified in this section were identified as priorities by one or more of DeKalb’s municipalities, either through conversations with city staff and elected officials or through previous transportation plans.

It is important to note that a number of projects are priorities for multiple cities and for unincorporated DeKalb County. Because of this, some projects in this section are included in multiple cities and/or are also included in the list of projects for unincorporated DeKalb.

⬚ figure

ATLANTA

Projects in the City of Atlanta were included from the Atlanta Transportation Plan, Cycle Atlanta Phase 2.0 Study, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan, and DeKalb SPLOST Planning. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

AVONDALE ESTATES

Projects in the City of Avondale Estates were included from the Avondale Estates Downtown Master Plan, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

⬚ figure

BROOKHAVEN

Projects in the City of Brookhaven were included from the Brookhaven 2020 CTP Update, Chamblee Mobility Multimodal Transportation Plan, Dunwoody CTP Update, North Druid Hills LCI, One Chamblee Comprehensive Plan Update, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan, and DeKalb Greenways Plan. The project team also created projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

(blank page)

CHAMBLEE

Projects in the City of Chamblee were included from the One Chamblee Comprehensive Plan Update, Chamblee Mobility Multimodal Transportation Plan, North Fork Peachtree Creek Greenway Comprehensive Study, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also created projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

CLARKSTON

Projects in the City of Clarkston were included from the Tucker-Northlake LCI Study, Clarkston City Plan, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

⬚ figure

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

DECATUR

Projects in the City of Decatur were included from the City of Decatur Community Transportation Plan Update, Medline LCI, Belvedere Master Active Living Plan, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

(blank page)

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

DORAVILLE

Projects in the City of Doraville were included from the Doraville Mobility Plan, Doraville Peachtree Creek Greenway Study, Buford Highway Master Plan, One Chamblee Comprehensive Plan Update, Chamblee Doraville CID, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

DUNWOODY

Projects in the City of Dunwoody were included from the Dunwoody CTP Update and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection

LITHONIA

Projects in the City of Lithonia were included from the DeKalb County 2014 Transportation. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

PINE LAKE

A projects list was not identified for the City of Pine Lake since nearby projects do not traverse into the City. The operational-corridor projects (R_422a and R_422b) are proposed along Rockbridge Road.

STONE MOUNTAIN

Projects in the City of Stone Mountain were included from the Stone Mountain Village Forward Master Plan and DeKalb Greenways Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection

⬚ figure

STONECREST

Projects in the City of Stonecrest were included from the Stonecrest Transportation Master Plan, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan, and DeKalb Greenways Plan. The project team also identified projects through conversations with stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

TUCKER

Projects in the City of Tucker were included from the Tucker Strategic Transportation Master Plan, 2020 Tucker-Northlake LCI, Tucker Summit CID-Freight Cluster Plan, ARC Regional Transportation Plan, and DeKalb County 2014 Transportation Plan. The project team also identified projects in coordination with City staff, stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public.

09 – PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR DEKALB CITIES

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

⬚ figure

PROJECT TYPES

• Freight and Rail Crossing
• Interchange - New or Improvements
• Capacity - Widening
• ITS Improvements
• Multimodal
• New Connection
• On-Road/Off-Road Trail Projects
• Operational - Corridor
• Operational - Intersection

(blank page)

CHAPTER 10

FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING

FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING

INTRODUCTION

The overall CTP includes a multitude of recommendations over the nearly 30-year horizon. While all of the recommendations are important, it is most critical to think about the near-term action items that need to be undertaken to move the plan forward. The Five-Year Action Plan provides a framework for establishing metrics the County may use to track progress against implementation of projects and policy items. It focuses on general topic areas, surface transportation projects (particularly those in Tier 1), transit next steps, and multiple policy-level recommendations.

FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN

| Surface Transportation Project Recommendations | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Category | Action Item | Local Champion | Coordinate With | | Unincorporated DeKalb County Tier 1 Project List | Advance select Tier 1 projects with current SPLOST funding, where possible, to begin engineering with current program revenues. Advance remaining Tier 1 projects from engineering through construction, as applicable, if successful adoption of a SPLOST renewal takes place. | DeKalb County | ARC, GDOT | | Unincorporated DeKalb Tier 2 and 3 Project List | If select Tier 1 projects are advanced during the current SPLOST, identify priority projects within Tier 2 to be pulled forward for Tier 1 funding. As new SPLOST funding and state/federal match funding becomes available, consider advancing relevant Tier 2 project design work. | DeKalb County | ARC, GDOT | | Grant Opportunities | Consider new federal discretionary grant programs and determine if any projects might qualify and be competitive. Prepare relevant information and monitor for Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs). | DeKalb County | ARC, GDOT, Cities (as relevant) | | DeKalb Cities Project List | Facilitate periodic meetings with city staff to review progress of the high priority city projects and ensure coordination and collaboration between the County and its cities. | DeKalb County | Cities |

| Transit Recommendations | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Category | Action Item | Local Champion | Coordinate With | | Staffing | Identify a transit lead within the County for internal planning efforts, public education and input, and coordination with MARTA. | DeKalb County | MARTA, Cities | | Plan Update | Update the DTMP with updated project definitions, costs, tax revenue estimates, and federal match opportunities, etc. to ensure a well developed baseline for renewed conversations. | DeKalb County | | | Public Education | Continue education on transit funding options, both local and federal. | DeKalb County | Cities, ATL | | Investment Strategy | Reach consensus on a transit infrastructure and service investment strategy, including local funding options like sales tax and value capture. | DeKalb County | Cities | | Referendum Opportunity | Consider and prepare for a successful Transit SPLOST referendum. | DeKalb County | Cities, ATL |

10 – FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING

| Policy Recommendations | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Category | Action Item | Local Champion | Coordinate With | | Asset Management: Pavement | Adopt a consistent roadway rating system based on the standardized ASTM, implement a software system to manage the pavement and overall program, and use automated data collection methods in addition to visual inspection. Conduct pavement inventory on a rotating three-year cycle. Develop a proactive pavement management plan. | DeKalb County | GDOT, Cities | | Asset Management: Bridges | Set aside sufficient funding for unanticipated larger scale bridge projects. Repair/rehabilitate and monitor bridges of concern. | DeKalb County | GDOT, Cities | | Asset Management: Signal Systems | Formalize a signal maintenance program that establishes standards and best practices for traffic signal equipment, communications, and central software. | DeKalb County | GDOT, Cities | | Functional Classification | Adopt the recommended functional classifications (accomplished with the adoption of the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan). Review the County Code of Ordinances to ensure that any sections of the code that are reliant upon functional classification are consistent with the 2050 Unified Plan. | DeKalb County | | | Freight | Adopt the recommended truck route network into the Code of Ordinances. Coordinate with ARC and adjacent counties and cities to ensure that any updates made to their truck route networks are consistent with DeKalb County's. Identify criteria for truck parking facilities. Perform recurring evaluation of rail crossing locations and identify high-risk locations. | DeKalb County | ARC, GDOT, Adjacent Communities | | Access Management | Reviews and consolidates access management requirements in the DeKalb County Code of Ordinances. Update the code based on recommendations from the DeKalb 2050 Unified Plan, GDOT standards, and FHWA guidance. Additionally, update the access management requirements according to updated functional classifications. | DeKalb County | |

Policy Recommendations Continued

PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

Along with the Five-Year Action Plan, DeKalb County should work to monitor progress of the plan over time. This will allow the County to identify places where additional focus should be placed and will provide a baseline status for the beginning of the next CTP update.

Coordination

• Coordination among County departments will be key. This includes Planning and Sustainability, Public Works—Transportation, Public Works—Roads and Drainage, and Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Affairs. Additional groups include the DeKalb SPLOST team and Decide DeKalb. This coordination will allow for both project and policy implementation to proceed while including key department leadership in regular communication. A standing meeting of representatives from these departments is recommended.
• Regular coordination with outside agencies is also beneficial, includes MARTA, ARC, the ATL, and GDOT as well as the cities and CIDs. Coordination among these groups and the County can allow for better projects, more meaningful public education and input, and clear communication to constituents.
• Timely updates to the Board of Commissioners and CEO’s office can ensure that elected leadership (as well as the public) can remain knowledgeable of the transportation planning and implementation work taking place throughout the County.

Implementation

• The Five-Year Action Plan will need a point person for monitoring to ensure that pieces are moving forward over the coming years. It is recommended that a schedule be developed for key aspects of the Action Plan with milestone check-ins.
• Ideally, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects from the CTP will represent a majority of the projects in an upcoming SPLOST renewal. Tracking of those projects associated with a local funding mechanism should take place (likely through the SPLOST program).
• The County should identify leads for policy project implementation and set up milestones working toward implementation.
• A new opportunity of value to the County is to identify possible funding matches through the IIJA/BIL federal discretionary grant programs. Identify mechanisms to deliver grant applications, including staff leads, consultant support (if needed), approval processes through elected leadership, and local match dollars.

Monitoring (implementation and performance)

• DeKalb County has an opportunity to show the impact of project implementation to County leadership, members of the public, and regional/state/federal agencies. In order to do that, the County should develop performance metrics for project evaluation (e.g., operational, safety, multimodal, etc.).
• For each capital investment, the County should conduct studies before and after project implementation to further understand the impacts of the project and compare against early projected improvements.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

UNINCORPORATED DEKALB COUNTY TIERED PROJECTS - DETAILED INFORMATION

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX