DOCSLIB.ORG

Validating Change of Sign and Pavement Conditions And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Validating Change of Sign and Pavement Conditions And GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 17-32 Final Report VALIDATING CHANGE OF SIGN AND PAVEMENT CONDITIONS AND EVALUATING SIGN RETROREFLECTIVITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ON GEORGIA’S INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS USING 3D SENSING TECHNOLOGY Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW | Atlanta, GA 30308 1.Report No.: 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: FHWA-GA-20-1732 No.: N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle: 5. Report Date: November 2019 Validating Change of Sign and Pavement Conditions and Evaluating Sign Retroreflectivity Condition Assessment 6. Performing Organization Code: on Georgia’s Interstate Highways Using 3D Sensing N/A Technology 7. Author(s): Yichang (James) Tsai, Ph.D.; 8. Performing Organ. Report No.: 17-32 Zhaohua Wang, Ph.D. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No.: Georgia Institute of Technology 790 Atlantic Drive 11. Contract or Grant No.: PI# A180701 Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Georgia Department of Transportation Final; December 2017 – November 2019 Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code: Atlanta, GA, 30308 15. Supplementary Notes: 16. Abstract: Traffic signs are important for roadway safety and provide critical guidance to road users with traffic regulations, road hazard warnings, destination information, and other geographic information. Pavement surface distress data is critical for monitoring the statewide pavement conditions, identifying maintenance activities, and optimally allocating pavement funds. In 2015, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) implemented a comprehensive sign inventory and asphalt pavement condition assessment on Georgia’s interstate highways through a research project (RP 15-11). To track the existence and condition change of signs, a new procedure was developed by utilizing the existing sign inventory and condition data. Meanwhile, a sign retro-reflectivity condition assessment method using mobile LiDAR was explored, and a case study was developed to demonstrate the use of the proposed method. The asphalt pavement condition of interstate highways was updated using newly collected 3D pavement laser data. In addition, the condition data of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) and international roughness index (IRI) on interstate highways were collected for this project using the 3D pavement laser data. 17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement: No Interstate; Sign Inventory; PACES; Image; Mobile LiDAR; 3D Laser Restriction 19. Security Classification (of this report): 20. Security classification (of 21. Number 22. Price: Unclassified this page): Unclassified of Pages: 141 Free Contract Research GDOT Research Project No. 17-32 Final Report VALIDATING CHANGE OF SIGN AND PAVEMENT CONDITIONS AND EVALUATING SIGN RETROREFLECTIVITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ON GEORGIA’S INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS USING 3D SENSING TECHNOLOGY By Yichang (James) Tsai, Ph.D., P.E. Zhaohua Wang, Ph.D., P.E. Georgia Institute of Technology Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration November 2019 The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or of the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH NEED ································ 1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ···································································· 3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ··································································· 4 CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SENSING DATA COLLECTION 5 GEORGIA TECH SENSING VEHICLE (GTSV) ··········································· 5 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN GEORGIA ······································ 9 CHAPTER 3. SIGN INVENTORY BASED ON PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED DATA 11 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC SIGNS ······································· 11 PROCEDURE TO CREATE UPDATED SIGN INVENTORY USING PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED DATA ······················································ 16 RESULTS ······················································································· 17 ii COMPARISON OF 2015 AND 2017 SIGN INVENTORY ····························· 27 SUMMARY ····················································································· 30 CHAPTER 4. SIGN RETRO-REFLECTIVITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT USING MOBILE LIDAR 33 INTRODUCTION ·············································································· 34 CURRENT PRACTICES TO MEET THE MINIMUM RETRO-REFLECTIVITY REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNS ··········································· 35 A COST-EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ASSESS SIGN RETRO-RETROFLECTIVITY CONDITION ···················································································· 40 DEVELOPMENT OF SIGN RETRO-REFLECTIVITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT USING MOBILE LIDAR ····································································· 42 VALIDATION OF SIGN RETRO-REFLECTIVITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT 49 CASE STUDY ·················································································· 55 SIGN RETO-INTENSITY CHANGE ANALYSIS (2015 – 2018) ······················ 58 SUMMARY ····················································································· 61 CHAPTER 5. ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION 65 DISTRESSES DEFINED IN PACES ······················································· 65 STREAMLINED PROCEDURE ····························································· 67 RESULTS ······················································································· 72 COMPARISON WITH 2015 PAVEMENT CONDITION DATA ······················ 75 iii SUMMARY ····················································································· 78 CHAPTER 6. PCC PAVEMENT (JPCP) CONDITION EVALUATION 79 OVERVIEW OF JPCP AND RATING SYSTEM ········································· 79 STREAMLINED PROCEDURE USING 3D PAVEMENT DATA ···················· 81 RESULTS ······················································································· 87 COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL CPACES RATING ····························· 90 CHAPTER 7. SMOOTHNESS EVALUATION USING 3D PAVEMENT DATA 93 METHOD FOR IRI MEASUREMENT USING 3D LASER DATA ··················· 93 FIELD VALIDATION WITH GDOT’S PROFILER ····································· 94 COMPARISON WITH PATHWAY DATA ·············································· 100 PROCESSED RESULTS FOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ···························· 101 SUMMARY ···················································································· 102 CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104 CONCLUSIONS ·············································································· 104 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ··································· 109 REFERENCES 113 iv v LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Detailed statistics of traffic signs MUTCD categories ······················· 18 Table 3-2. Detailed statistics of traffic signs in poor conditions on each interstate highway. ···························································································· 20 Table 3-3. Detailed statistics of overhead traffic signs on each interstate highway. 22 Table 3-4. Detailed numbers of traffic signs in each working district. ················ 25 Table 3-5. Detailed statistics of traffic signs in poor conditions in each working district. ····························································································· 26 Table 3-6. Detailed statistics of overhead traffic signs in each working district. ···· 27 Table 3-7. Comparison of the number of signs in different sign classification between 2015 and 2018 sign inventory. ······················································ 28 Table 3-8. Comaprison of the number of signs in different poor condition categories between 2015 and 2018 sign inventory. ······················································ 29 Table 4-1. Strength and weaknesses of assessment methods. ···························· 39 Table 4-2. An example of sign retro-reflectivity condition classification using yellow prismatic sheeting signs with MR = 0.76. ··················································· 48 Table 4-3. Number of signs tested with different colors and methods. ················ 52 vi Table 4-4. Comaprison of nighttime visual assessment result and the retro- reflectivity condition. ············································································ 53 Table 5-1. Asphalt pavement distresses defined in COPACES. ························ 66 Table 6-1. JPCPACES Survey Distresses. ··················································· 80 Table 6-2. Comparison between GT-2018 JPCPACES rating and GDOT historical rating. ······························································································· 91 Table 7-1. IRI from GDOT profiler and GTSV. ··········································· 99 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Photo. Mobile imaging sub-system on GTSV. ································ 6 Figure 2-2. Photo. Illustration of the collected sensing data using
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Livable Buckhead, Inc
    RESOLUTION of Livable Buckhead, Inc. WHEREAS, the State of Georgia and Georgia Department of Transportation are investing approximately $1.05 billion in two projects to improve the Interstate 285 and Georgia 400 interchange and collector and distributor road system serving the interchange and surrounding area (collectively the "Project"); Whereas, Governor Nathan Deal has stated the Project "is a crucial economic engine, providing valuable access to jobs, supporting business growth, and expanding Georgia’s role as a major logistics hub for global commerce. When built, the reconstructed interchange will serve to preserve our quality of life by increasing mobility in the corridor. ." WHEREAS, the Georgia Department of Transportation has adopted its Complete Streets Policy, which states in part "[t]he Complete Streets Program is designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. This program makes it easy for the public to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. It also allows buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations."; WHEREAS, construction of the Project will directly impact access to the Buckhead Community; WHEREAS, the PATH Foundation has recommended the Project accommodate the future construction of a multi-use path which would connect to future expansion of the PATH Foundation network in the Perimeter Area and beyond; WHEREAS,
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Cherokee County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
    Cherokee County Comprehensive Transportation Plan WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2016 Final Report Cherokee County Comprehensive Transportation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Context .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Study Area ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Overview of Plan Development Process .................................................... 1-2 2 DEMOGRAPHICS – HISTORICAL & FORECAST ..................................................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Population Growth ................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1 Historical Population Growth Comparison ............................................ 2-3 2.1.2 Post-Recession Growth .................................................................. 2-3 2.1.3 Summary of Historical Population Growth ............................................ 2-4 2.2 Current Demographic Statistics .............................................................. 2-4 2.2.1 Population Density and Distribution ................................................... 2-4 2.2.2 Age ......................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.3 Average Household Size ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prestressed Concrete Girders Achieve Record Lengths Tacoma, Washington
    THE CONCRETE BRIDGE MAGAZINE FALL 2019 www.aspirebridge.org WSDOT inspects 223-ft-long, 247-kip lightweight concrete girder Prestressed Concrete Girders Achieve Record Lengths Tacoma, Washington BRIDGES OF THE FOOTHILLS PARKWAY Great Smoky Mountains National Park DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE Anderson, Indiana MARC BASNIGHT BRIDGE Dare County, North Carolina COURTLAND STREET BRIDGE Atlanta, Georgia Permit No. 567 No. Permit Lebanon Junction, KY Junction, Lebanon Postage Paid Postage Presorted Standard Presorted OVER NEW I-35W BRIDGE I-91 BRATTLEBORO BRIDGE MINNESOTA 40 VERMONT YEARS PENOBSCOT NARROWS BRIDGE & OBSERVATORY HONOLULU RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT MAINE HAWAII 4TH STREET BRIDGE COLORADO AIRTRAIN JFK 410 NEW YORK SARAH MILDRED LONG BRIDGE MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE AWARDS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES I-280 VETERANS’ GLASS CITY SKYWAY VICTORY BRIDGE OHIO NEW JERSEY DAUPHIN ISLAND BRIDGE ALABAMA FOUR BEARS BRIDGE Creating Bridges As Art® NORTH DAKOTA www.figgbridge.com | 1 800 358 3444 NEW WINONA BRIDGE MINNESOTA VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE TEXAS US 191 COLORADO RIVER BRIDGE I-76 ALLEGHENY RIVER BRIDGE UTAH PENNSYLVANIA I-275 SUNSHINE SKYWAY BRIDGE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY VIADUCT FLORIDA NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR. BRIDGE NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY ARCHES SOUTH NORFOLK JORDAN BRIDGE DELAWARE TENNESSEE VIRGINIA CONTENTS Features “A Shot in the Arm” 6 Armeni Consulting Services helps many clients address 10 estimating and scheduling challenges as the array of delivery and construction methods grows. Bridges of the Foothills Parkway 10 Dwight D. Eisenhower Veterans Memorial Bridge 14 Marc Basnight Bridge 18 Courtland Street Bridge 24 Departments Photo: Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH Highland AVENUE
    NORTH hIGhLAND AVENUE study December, 1999 North Highland Avenue Transportation and Parking Study Prepared by the City of Atlanta Department of Planning, Development and Neighborhood Conservation Bureau of Planning In conjunction with the North Highland Avenue Transportation and Parking Task Force December 1999 North Highland Avenue Transportation and Parking Task Force Members Mike Brown Morningside-Lenox Park Civic Association Warren Bruno Virginia Highlands Business Association Winnie Curry Virginia Highlands Civic Association Peter Hand Virginia Highlands Business Association Stuart Meddin Virginia Highlands Business Association Ruthie Penn-David Virginia Highlands Civic Association Martha Porter-Hall Morningside-Lenox Park Civic Association Jeff Raider Virginia Highlands Civic Association Scott Riley Virginia Highlands Business Association Bill Russell Virginia Highlands Civic Association Amy Waterman Virginia Highlands Civic Association Cathy Woolard City Council – District 6 Julia Emmons City Council Post 2 – At Large CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VISION STATEMENT Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1:1 Purpose 1:1 Action 1:1 Location 1:3 History 1:3 The Future 1:5 Chapter 2 TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES 2:1 Introduction 2:1 Motorized Traffic 2:2 Public Transportation 2:6 Bicycles 2:10 Chapter 3 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES 3:1 Sidewalks and Crosswalks 3:1 Public Areas and Gateways 3:5 Chapter 4 PARKING OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES 4:1 On Street Parking 4:1 Off Street Parking 4:4 Chapter 5 VIRGINIA AVENUE OPPORTUNITIES
    [Show full text]
  • School Road Safety Audit Rothschild Middle School and Lonnie Jackson Academy
    School Road Safety Audit Rothschild Middle School and Lonnie Jackson Academy Buena Vista Road Hunt Avenue Fieldwork: March 7, 2018 Muscogee County Columbus, GA Report Finalized: July 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Safe Routes to Schools Overview ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 What is a School Road Safety Audit? ................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Process .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Area Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 School Enrollment ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Walking and Bicycling Distances ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission
    Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Assessment Draft – Public Review Phase February 2006 Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commissioners Theresa T. Watkins, Chariman Joni Woolf, Vice-Chairman James B. Patton Lonnie Miley Damon D. King Administrative Staff Vernon B. Ryle, III, Executive Director James P. Thomas, Director of Urban Planning Jean G. Brown, Zoning Director Dennis B. Brill, GIS/Graphics Director D. Elaine Smith, Human Resources Officer Kathryn B. Sanders, Finance Officer R. Barry Bissonette, Public Information Officers Macon-Bibb County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Prepared By: Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission 682 Cherry Street Suite 1000 Macon, Georgia 478-751-7460 www.mbpz.org February 2006 “The opinion, findings, and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation, State of Georgia, or the Federal Highway Administration. Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………Introduction-1 Chapter 1- General Population Overview .................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 - Economic Development ............................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 - Housing......................................................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4 - Natural and Cultural Resources................................................................. 4-1 Chapter 5 - Community Facilities and Services...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Market Feasibility Analysis
    Market Feasibility Analysis Tenley Commons 600 Lamar Road Macon, Bibb County, Georgia 31210 Prepared For Mr. Denis Blackburne Woda Cooper Companies, Inc. Tenley Commons Limited Partnership (Owner) 127 Abercorn Street, Suite 402 Savannah, Georgia 31401 Effective Date May 15, 2019 Job Reference Number 19-320 JW 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Phone: (614) 833-9300 Bowennational.com Table Of Contents A. Executive Summary B. Project Description C. Site Description and Evaluation D. Primary Market Area Delineation E. Community Demographic Data F. Economic Trends G. Project-Specific Demand Analysis H. Rental Housing Analysis (Supply) I. Absorption & Stabilization Rates J. Interviews K. Conclusions & Recommendations L. Signed Statement M. Market Study Representation N. Qualifications Addendum A – Field Survey of Conventional Rentals Addendum B – Comparable Property Profiles Addendum C – Market Analyst Certification Checklist Addendum D – Methodologies, Disclaimers & Sources Addendum E – Achievable Market Rent Analysis TOC-1 Section A – Executive Summary This report evaluates the market feasibility of the Tenley Commons rental community to be constructed utilizing financing from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program in Macon, Georgia. Based on the findings contained in this report, we believe a market will exist for the subject development, as long as it is constructed and operated as proposed in this report: 1. Project Description: Tenley Commons involves the new construction of 70 apartments on an approximate 11.7-acre site at 600 Lamar Road in Macon. The project will offer 12 one-, 34 two- and 24 three-bedroom garden-style units in three (3) three-story, walk-up residential buildings together with a free-standing, 1,800 square-foot community building.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Region Summary
    2014 Congestion & Mobility Report Chapter 2 BAY REGION SUMMARY Performance Measures Definitions ......................... 4 Regional User Delay Cost Per Mile ........................... 6 Regional Congestion Hours ......................................... 7 Ranked UDC by Location ............................................... 9 Mobility Measures: I-69 Corridor ...........................10 Mobility Measures: I-75 Corridor ............................19 Mobility Measures: I-475 Corridor ........................ 33 Mobility Measures: I-675 Corridor ........................ 40 Mobility Measures: US-10 Corridor ...................... 46 Mobility Measures: US-23 Corridor ...................... 52 Mobility Measures: US-127 Corridor ................... 58 > CONGESTION & MOBILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Chapter 2 Performance Measures Definitions Delay No Delay Delay POSTED SPEED 60 MPH* ACTUAL SPEED Total delay > Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall below 60 mph and the posted speed limit for freeways posted at 70 mph. ThisPOSTED is to SP takeEED out the delay caused Delay No Delay Delay by the lower average speeds from commercial vehicles.Recurring POSTED SPEED 60 MPH Recurring Total delay per mile > Delay per mile is calculated by taking the total60 delay MPH and dividing it by the length of the freeway. This was performed for each route in each county. AVERAGE SPEED Non-recurring Non-recurring/recurring delay > Non-recurring delay is calculated ACTUALby taking SPEED the difference
    [Show full text]
  • Gwinnett 85 Logistics Center Master Plan
    GWINNETT 85 LOGISTICS CENTER MASTER PLAN T I-85 and Gravel Springs Rd | Buford, GA Up to 958,896 Square Feet For Lease Gwinnett 85 Logistics Center is a Class A business park in Atlanta’s highly sought after I-85 northeast industrial corridor. As one of the metro’s last premier infill locations, the project offers tenants unparalleled access to Metro Atlanta’s 5.9 million-person population base. GWINNETT 85 LOGISTICS CENTER | MASTER PLAN PROPERTY OVERVIEW I-85 AND GRAVEL SPRINGS RD | BUFORD, GA N BUFORD 985 updated site plan forthcoming GWINNETT 85 ALPHARETTA LOGISTICS CENTER 575 19 29 316 Gwinnett NORCROSS GWINETT County Airport 75 285 29 19 78 285 75 78 124 78 20 78 285 ATLANTA SOUTH FULTON 20 285 Hartsfield Jackson 75 Int’l Airport 20 285 675 N Up to 958,856 SF on 90 acres New I-85 interchange allows for immediate access to park Premier infill location Office build-to-suit Build-to-suit opportunities Set to deliver Q2 2022 Development Leasing TONY BLAKE SCOTT PLOMGREN SEAN BOSWELL 770 407 4759 (o) 404 877 9293 (o) 404 877 9268 (o) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GWINNETT 85 LOGISTICS CENTER | MASTER PLAN AREA INFORMATION I-85 AND GRAVEL SPRINGS RD | BUFORD, GA BUFORD 13 15 12 14 9 8 11 7 GWINNETT 85 LOGISTICS CENTER 6 10 SUWANEE 3 SR 324 / GRAVEL SPRING RD INTERCHANGE ON I-85 COMING 5 SUMMER 2021 1 4 2 N BUSINESSES 8. AmerisourceBergen DRIVE TIMES 1. Best Buy 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Pooler Vision
    DRAFT 07.30.21 City of Pooler Comprehensive Plan Adoption Dates Adopted by October 31st, 2021 Adopted by October 31st, 2021 DRAFT ADVANCING TOGETHER. REDEFINING TOMORROW. DRAFT DRAFT IV POOLER 2040 (Page Intentionally Left Blank) DRAFT POOLER 2040 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ntroduction Pooler 2040 is the culmination of collaboration over this City of Pooler's Mayor & Council Members past year and would not have been possible without the time, knowledge and energy of those persons listed and to Rebecca Benton—Mayor the hundreds of community members who came to events, participated in virtual public meetings, attended steering Shannon Black—Council Member committees, answered our survey and provided their Aaron Higgins—Council Member invaluable input. Tom Hutcherson—Council Member The Chatham County—Savannah Metropolitan Planning Stevie Wall—Council Member Commission (MPC) would like to thank the city of Pooler John Wilcher—Council Member City Council for engaging our organization in this important Karen Williams—Council Member project. The continued support and participation of these community leaders is vital. Our sincere appreciation is Pooler Staff expressed to these individuals. The MPC was pleased to have the opportunity to assist and support the community in Robert Byrd, Jr.—City Manager developing the city of Pooler’s Comprehensive Plan update. Matt Saxon—Assistant City Manager Phillip Claxton—Planning Director Kimberly Classen—Zoning Administrator Steven E. Scheer—City Attorney DRAFT VI POOLER 2040 Technical Assistance Stakeholder Committee Chatham—Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission Staff Rebecca Benton—Mayor Shannon Black—Council Member Melanie Wilson—Executive Director MPC Aaron Higgins—Council Member Pamela Everett—Assistant Executive Director Tom Hutcherson—Council Member Jackie Jackson—Director of Advance Planning Stevie Wall—Council Member Lara Hall—Director of SAGIS John Wilcher—Council Member Marcus Lotson—Director of Development Services Karen Williams—Council Member Leah G.
    [Show full text]
  • Low-Flow Profiles of the Upper Chattahoochee River and Tributaries in Georgia
    LOW-FLOW PROFILES OF THE UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES IN GEORGIA By R.F. Carter, E.H. Hopkins, and H.A. Perlman U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Invesgations Report 89-4056 Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DIVISION Doraville, Georgia 1989 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports 6481 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard Federal Center, Building 810 Suite B Box 25425 Doraville, Georgia 30360 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract -- - -- 1 Introduction --- - 2 Purpose and scope ------ -- ------- .- 2 Availability of low-flow data ------- ------- 3 Revision of published low-flow data ------- --- --- 3 Method of analysis -- - 4 Low-flow profiles -- --- 8 Accuracy of low-flow profiles -- - --- 8 Use of low-flow profiles --- - 9 Selected references -- - ----- .- -_._ 10 Supplemental data tabular and graphical low-flow profiles --- ----- n Tabular and graphical low-flow profiles --- -- - 12 List of tables and graphs ------ 13 Alphabetical index -- 190 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Subdivisions CR1 through CR7 of the Chattahoochee River basin, Georgia -- ------- 5 2. Subdivisions CR8 through CR19 of the Chattahoochee River basin, Georgia -- - --- 6 3. Subdivisions CR20 through CR28 of the Chattahoochee River basin, Georgia --- -- - ---- 7 111 CONVERSION FACTORS Factors for converting inch-pound units published herein to metric (International System) units are as follows: Tilltiply inch-pound unit To obtain metric unit Length mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square mile 2.590 square kilometer (mi 2 ) (km2 ) Flow cubic foot per second 28.32 liter per second (ft3/s) U/s) 28.32 cubic decimeter per second (dm3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) iv LOW-FLOW PROFILES OF THE UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES IN GEORGIA By R.F.
    [Show full text]