Columbus Consolidated Government
Referrals From Mayor and Council-12/20/2005
Subject J. R. Allen Parkway
Description Have the staff to get back together with the State and really look
over those traffic concerns that were recently addressed and determine if there
are some ways to improve some of these areas. Also, look at putting in some
adequate lighting of that interchange and determine whether or not the State
will contribute to that cost. (Request of Councilor Davis)
Received From
Assigned To Ron Hamlett, Rick Jones, Donna Newman, David Arrington
Please enter a date mm/dd/yy before any comments are added.
Response Please see response below from Mike England, Traffic Operations
Engineer for DOT.
Ron; to answer your questions, " we ask the DOT if the Dept recommends/plans
any other improvements beyond those defined by the Traffic Impact Study which
require permitting thru the DOT"
We agree with the methodology the consultant used to determine the origin and
distribution of the anticipated traffic volumes this development will
attract/produce. We agree with the physical improvements the consultant
identified as being necessary to sustain an acceptable operating level of
service at the intersections identified within the study. As described in the
consultant recommendations, the physical improvements will satisfy that
theoretical operating level necessary for the existing traffic, and the added
traffic the development will attract. So at this point, I cannot add to the
already identified physical improvements. The impact study was well documented
and thought out. Those improvements identified in the study that come in
direct contact with the State Route system of roads will undergo review and
permitting and approval by our District offices, from physical improvements,
pavement design, to signing, striping and signal equipment and the required
communications, as well as video we may want to see added to the signal plans.
I have a set of plans but have not completed my review and want to know your
thoughts and requirements as the signalized locations will be operated and
maintained by you.
As far as projects in the area, I've checked our files and have a resurfacing
project on the Manchester Expressway/US 27; widening and bridge reconstruction
on the SR 22 spur, which has been let; resurfacing on SR 22 from Gateway to
Uptoia Lane that has not been let, I don't have a firm date on that yet; a
reconstruction project on Miller Road from Warm Spring Rd to the 22 spur, but
that project is shown as being in the long range phase of the work program.
"And will the DOT be providing any funding?" The Department will not
participate in any required improvements related to this or other development
projects. The Department will review and approve all plans for improvements
and or access that are in direct contact with the State right-of-way,
development related or performed by local government agencies.
" About the only revisions included a recommendation to signalize both ramps of
Manchester Expy on Miller Rd". Additional development requirements included as
part of your planning and zoning processes that connect to State Routes,
limited access roadways or the interstate, require review and approval by our
district offices. When you have either conceptual plans or plans you've
reviewed for this additional requirement, send me a copy for review as these
signal proposals as well as others proposed for the JR Allen Parkway as new
signals will have to undergo permit review, approval and revision.
On a related note, I still haven't heard from the downtown bridge department on
the information I sent to them about the JR Allen bridge, I will contact them
and ask of their status in reviewing the proposals. I hope I've been able to
answer your questions, if I've overlooked anything, as always, let me know and
I'll respond.
Thank you
Mike England
District Traffic Engineer
Thomaston - District 3
715 Andrews Drive
Attachments
No attachments for this document.