Clicky

Johns Creek Traffic Volumes: Not As Advertised

February 13, 2017
13 Comments

The City of Johns Creek has created a myth about our traffic volumes.  Either that or the GDOT Web Server, which stores thousands of data points for traffic across the state and which is used for traffic planning is entirely worthless and wrong.

Johns Creek Traffic Volumes: Not As Advertised

The City of Johns Creek tells us we have an ever-growing body of traffic from Forsyth County.  I have challenged that idea over the last two years only to be summarily dismissed by City Officials.

Once again here is the most updated data from GDOT which clearly shows no major increases on 141 over the last decade EXCEPT for two locations.

The first location, with the largest increase is in Forsyth County, south of 400.

Were the majority of that growth actually traveling through Johns Creek, then the data just south of Laurel Springs Parkway on 141 would also reflect strong growth in volume.  It does  not, and is actually down over the last eight years.

The other location to show an increase is on 141 North of Abbotts Bridge.  Frankly, this should be expected.  This location in Johns Creek has had the biggest increase in high density housing within the city.

And yet, that has not translated into higher volumes at any of the locations where traffic volumes have been measured south of Abbotts Bridge.

Let’s be honest.  One cannot have declining volumes at so many locations and still make the claims that the COJC is making.

And we should not be planning to widen 141 to six lanes in each direction without a better understanding of the data.

If the GDOT data is wrong, it needs to be proven.  If it is not, we need to put the brakes on decisions being made without solid data behind it.

Clearly, higher density housing leads to many more trips where the housing is located. But let’s not make the wrong assumptions, and change the face of Johns Creek permanently pursuing the wrong solutions.

We need to resolve the right problem.  As I have contended for the past two years, that problem is the traffic lights.  Isn’t it time we solved the right problem?

Year Daily Volume Year Daily Volume
141 between HBR and Spalding 2000 54400 2014 50000 Down
141 South of River 2005 49890 2015 47000 Down
141 South of Old Alabama 2007 51750 2015 47800 Down
141 North of Wilson Road 2006 42440 2014 40500 Down
141 North of Abbotts Bridge 2006 36260 2014 42200 Up
141 South of Laurel Springs PKY 2006 34070 2014 32800 Down
141 South of Majors Road 2005 22730 2015 40200 Up

 

Source & More at http://ejmoosa.com/

More JCP traffic posts

SHARE

13 comments on “Johns Creek Traffic Volumes: Not As Advertised”

  1. I know it is expensive but let's look 10 to 20 years out. If we build an overpass at 141 / State Bridge and possibly 141 and Abbotts Bridge and maybe even at MGF this should open up the bottlenecks and allow the route to remain four lanes. If Peachtree Corners also grade separates their key bottlenecks this will add to the efficiency of 141. The same way we are looking back to 2006 asking why three thru lanes were not implemented back then at key intersections, we don't want to find ourselves in 2035 wondering why overpasses were not built in 2020.

  2. So we have had no real growth in volumes over the last ten years. What is the catalyst for the growth over the next ten years that warrants destroying the appearance of JC?

    Fixing the intersections to maximize throughput is the best bang for the buck. But that does not mean three lane highways must be built.

      1. Whoever the next Mayor is, they need to make their first office the corners of the most dysfunctional intersections and their second office the Traffic Center.during rush hour-daily.

        It's just that important.

        Thanks Suzi!

  3. The consultants and contractors do a good job of selling JC's staff, elected officials, and other surrounding governments on the merits of creating new projects. New projects create bigger fees versus working with GADOT and surrounding governments on the time consuming and lower fee task of properly sequencing traffic lights. The lifeblood of consultants, contractors, and engineers is to find ways to create projects to keep folks billable and off of overhead, and the bigger the trough the better for these folks...

  4. Three lanes will also encourage more vehicles from 400 and PIB to come on over and clog up our road 141. The council has recently blocked a couple of high density apartment complexes... I hope they continue to keep us residents first and keep denying any high density housing anywhere near the 141 corridor.

    1. High density complexes HAVE been approved recently.

      The council approved the apartment complex on bell rd in June 2016.

      They also approved a large senior living apartment facility on 141 & nursing home on 141/Findley rd.

  5. I would vote for Ernest Moosa, Ed Thompson and/or John Bradberry if any of these gentlemen ran for office. Thank you for your tireless efforts to preserve our city.

  6. Karen,

    Chris Coughlin is proven to ready for the job. The City Council is still working on the items he raised during his short stint on the council in 2015.

    I will be voting to send him back and have him continue what he started.

    I hope you do the same.

  7. Karen,
    Thank you for the words of support. I, too, am supporting Chris Coughlin in his campaign to fill the vacant City Council seat. He will represent our residents well, and his dedication to fiscal conservatism will seek to place sensible restraints on the endless well of consultants who have been advising the city to pursue road widening projects and ever higher density in self-serving recommendations that would provide them with more ongoing work at the expense of taxpayers, and degradation of the quality of life in Johns Creek.

  8. Karen, If every voter in Johns Creek was as engaged as your have been, I think we would pretty much have the problems of this city licked. I am also supporting Chris since he is the only candidate that I know has been supportive of the initiatives to preserve
    Johns Creek.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *