j~. / 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
" Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Atlanta, Georgia 
Prepared by: URS Consultants, Inc. 
August 1998 
 
 , 
 
J 
 
,~" 
 
-_ __ __ - ...-.'- . ._-- .. 
 
._ -_. ._. 
 
.. _._._------_ _. _ --_..~_. - 
 
_ ..- - ---,- 
 
_-_. ,_ __ _._ __ - _.-_ _--- '-~. 
 
. 
 
..-_ -- .. ..... 
 
.._- .. .. -._._--~ ._---------_._--.- 
 
- 
 
URS CONSUlbTANTS9 BNC" 
124 MARRiOTT DRIVE SUITE 201 
T.ALL.AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 (904) 942-6007 
FAX: (904) 942-4101 
August 31, 1998 
 
30ST::;i', 
3UF~AtO Cl..E'~!;::'_.t..ND 
COLUMBUS 
DENV'~R 
NE\~'l YORV, NEIN C'RL~F,NS PARft.MLiS :\J,J SAf'~ FRANCiSCO SE.!:JT'_E 
 
Ms. Toni Dunagan State Transportation Planning Administrator Georgia Department of Transportation No.2 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30334 
RE: Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study URS Job No. 1340049.00 
Dear Ms. Dunagan, 
URS Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit the Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study final report. This document details our data collection and analysis effort, public involvement, and recommendations to the Department, Coffee County, and the City of Douglas. 
It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff in the Office of Planning. We also appreciate the help and guidance provided by Department Staff in the District Four Office and the Douglas Area Office. Please feel free to call us if you need any additional information or if we can be of arty further assistance. 
Very truly yours, URS CONSULTANTS, INC. 
<~~ 
David R. Rae, P.E. Director of Traffic Studies 
DRRlsmklI340049.00 
 
I' 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
 
1 
 
1.1 Study Area Description 
 
1 
 
1.2 Existing Transportation Systems 
 
4 
 
1.1.1 Highway 
 
4 
 
1.1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian 
 
4 
 
1.1.3 Aviation 
 
4 
 
1.1.4 Rail 
 
' 
 
4 
 
2. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 2.1 Railroad Grade Separation Study 2.2 SR 32 Evaluation 2.3 Thoroughfare Evaluation 2.4 SR 31IUS 441 Evaluation 2.5 City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan 
 
~ 
 
5 
 
5 
 
6 
 
7 
 
8 
 
9 
 
3. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND 3.1 Population and Economic Trends 3.2 Committed Improvements 3.3 Forecasting Methodology 
 
; 
 
10 
 
10 
 
II 
 
12 
 
4. STATE IDGHWAY INVENTORy 
 
13 
 
4.1 SR 31IUS 441 
 
13 
 
4.1.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
13 
 
4.1.2 Road~ay Safety 
 
14 
 
4.1.3 Future Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 
 
4.2 SR 32 
 
17 
 
4.2.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
 
4.2.2 Roadway Safety 
 
17 
 
4.2.3 Future Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
 
4.3 SR 135 
 
: .. 20 
 
4.3.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
20 
 
4.3.2 Roadway Safety 
 
20 
 
4.3.3 Future Conditions 
 
21 
 
4.4 SR 158 
 
24 
 
4.4.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
24 , 
 
4.4.2 Roadway Safety 
 
24 
 
4.4.3 Future Conditions 
 
24 
 
4.5 SR 206 
 
27 
 
4.5.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
27 
 
4.5.2 Roadway Safety 
 
27 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
 ;;:0 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 
 
4.5.3 Future Conditions 
 
27 
 
4.6 SR 268 
 
30 
 
4.6.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
30 
 
4.6.2 Roadway Safety 
 
30 
 
4.6.3 Future Conditions 
 
30 
 
4.7 SR 206 Connector 
 
' 
 
33 
 
4.7.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
33 
 
4.7.2 Roadway Safety 
 
33 
 
4.7.3 Future Conditions 
 
33 
 
4.8 SR 107 
 
'.......................................... 33 
 
4.8.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
33 
 
4.8.2 Roadway Safety 
 
33 
 
4.8.3 Future Conditions 
 
33 
 
4.9 SR 90 
 
' 
 
34 
 
4.9.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
34 
 
4.9.2 Roadway Safety 
 
34 
 
4.9.3 Future Conditions 
 
34 
 
4.10 SR 64 
 
34 
 
4.10.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
34 
 
4.10.2 Roadway Safety .. '.' 
 
34 
 
4.10.3 Future Conditions 
 
34 
 
5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 
 
37 
 
5.1 Kickoff Meeting 
 
37 
 
5.2 Local Staff Coordination 
 
37 
 
5.3 Local Officials Workshop 
 
37 
 
5.4 Data Collection and Analysis Public Meeting 
 
38 
 
5.5 Recommendations Public Meeting 
 
38 
 
6. PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA 
 
39 
 
7. RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
7.1 Roadway 
 
'.' 
 
7.1.1 Local Roadway System 
 
7.1.2 State Highway System 
 
7.1.3 Railroad Crossings 
 
. 7.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian 
 
7.3 Public Transit 
 
7.4 Aviation 
 
41 
 
41 
 
41 
 
43 
 
: 
 
46 
 
47 
 
48 
 
49 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
ii 
 
 ~. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 
it 
 
8. OTHER ISSUES 
 
51 
 
8.1 Savannah Access 
 
51 
 
8.2 1-75 Access 
 
52 
 
8.3 Outer Loop 
 
52 ' 
 
8.4 Inner Loop 
 
'.' 
 
53 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 2.1 City of Douglas Short-Tenn Work Program 
 
9 
 
Table 3.1 GDOT Six-Year Construction Work Program for Coffee County 
 
11 
 
Table 4.1 SR 31IUS 441 Traffic Characteristics 
 
16 
 
Table 4.2 SR 32 Traffic Characteristics 
 
; 
 
19 
 
Table 4.3 SR 135 Traffic Characteristics 
 
23 
 
Table 4.4 SR 158 Traffic Characteristics 
 
26 
 
Table 4.5 SR 206 Traffic Characteristics 
 
29 
 
Table 4.6 SR 268 Traffic Characteristics 
 
32 
 
Table 4.7 SR 206 Connector Traffic Characteristics 
 
36 
 
Table 4.8 SR 107 Traffic Characteristics 
 
36 
 
Table 4.9 SR 90 Traffic Characteristics 
 
36 
 
Table 4.10 SR 64 Traffic Characteristics 
 
' 
 
36 
 
Table 7.1 Potential Traffic Operations Improvements 
 
45 
 
Table 7.2 Programmed Improvements and Study Recommendations Summary 
 
49 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 1.1 Study Area (Coffee County) 
 
2 
 
Figure 1.2 City of Douglas 
 
3 
 
Figure 1.3 Major Highways Serving Douglas and Coffee County 
 
4 
 
Figure 3.1 Population Data and Projections 
 
'. 10 
 
Figure 4.1 SR 31IUS 441 at northern Douglas City Limit 
 
13 
 
Figure 4.2 SR 31IUS 441 southbound in Downtown Douglas 
 
13 
 
Figure 4.3 SR 31IUS 441 Corridor 
 
15 
 
Figure 4.4 SR 32 Corridor 
 
18 
 
Figure 4.5 SR 135 Corridor 
 
22 
 
Figure 4.6 SR 158 Corridor 
 
25 
 
Figure 4.7 SR 206 Corridor 
 
28 
 
Figure 4.8 SR 268 Corridor 
 
31 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transporlation Study 
 
iii 
 
 0;' 
LIST OF FIGURES (ConI.) 
 
Figure 4.9 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 FigUre 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 8.1 
 
SR 206 Conn., SR 107, SR 90, SR 64 Gordon Street at the Abandoned Railroa4 Recommended Turn Lane Extension on SR 135 Location of Proposed Railroad Crossing Historic Railroad Depot Abandoned Norfolk Southern Railroad Common Trucking Routes to Savannah 
 
APPENDICES 
Appendix 1 Facility & Traffic Characteristics Appendix 2 Accident Analysis Appendix 3 Public Meeting Minutes Appendix 4 Traffic Calming Literature 
 
35 42 45 46 47 47 51 
) 
 
iv 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
 Ii 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Upon the request of local officials, the Georgia Department of Transportation has commissioned a Multimodal Transportation Study for Coffee County and Douglas, Georgia. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current transportation system and identify improvements among potential projects to accommodate futur.e growth and correct present deficiencies in the roadway network. 
1.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 
Coffee County is located within the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain region of southeastern Georgia. Douglas, the seat of Coffee County, is situated in the center of the County and is 120 miles northwest of Jacksonville, Florida; 92 miles west of Brunswick, Georgia; and 120 miles southwest of Savannah, Georgia. Coffee County is bordered by Atkinson County on the south; Berrien, Irwin, and Ben Hill Counties on the west; Telfair and Jeff Davis Counties on the north; and Bacon and Ware Counties on the east. About 60 percent of Coffee County's land is forested while most of the remainder is either under cultivation or in the urban area of Douglas. Other towns in Coffee County are Nicholls, West Green, Broxton, and Ambrose. Each of these towns are between seven and ten miles from Douglas (Figure 1.1). 
Coffee County is home to both industry and commerce. Some of. the major employers include a Wal-Mart Distribution Center, which ships merchandise to five states; Fleetwood Homes, which has multiple plants in Coffee County; Coats and Clark, a textile manufacturer; Sunbelt Growers; Golden Poultry; Elixir Industries; PCC Airfoils; and Douglas Air Compressors. Many of these industries are located in industrial parks that are clustered primarily on the southwest side of Douglas. Coffee County also has a strong poultry industry and there are literally hundreds of commercial chicken barns scattered throughout the county. Most of the chickens are eventually processed at the Douglas Golden Poultry Company plant. 
Douglas is home to South Georgia College, a two-year college that is a unit of the Georgia University System. A map of Dou.glas is shown in Figure 1.2. Also located in Douglas is the Coffee Regional Medical Center (CRMC). CRMC will open a new 88 bed 170,000 square foot facility in the near future. The hospital provides the region with numerous services including a 24hour emergency room and ambulances; maternity and surgical capabilities; physical therapy and radiology facilities; and a rural health clinic. For recreation, General Coffee State Park with over. 1,500 acres of property is located six miles.east of Douglas. The Park provides lodging and camp sites, picnic facilities, an archery range, and annually hosts numerous festivals and events. 
1 Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
 ..~ 
 
 1i 
 
 1 
 
1.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 
 
, <l' 
 
1.2.1 Highway 
 
Coffee County is served by many highways on the state system which include SR 31, 32, 135, 158,206,268, 107, 90, and 64. SR 31lUS441 is part of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) which was initiated in the 1980s by the governor and legislature. This program 
represents a major effort to widen two-lane roads and '~ attract economic development by improving the 
.~ transportation network. . Highways on the GRIP system carry higher priority for the funding of improvements. As such, SR 31lUS 441 was widened to a five-lane section from US 82 in Atkinson County, better known as Corridor Z, north through Douglas. US 82 is also a major GRIP facility and travels eastwest between Brunswick and Columbus. This highway is only 15 miles south of Douglas (Figure 1.3). Interstate-75 is 49 miles west of Douglas via SR 32 and 1-16 is 74 miles north via US 441. 
 
Figure 1.3: Major highways serving Douglas and Coffee County. 
1.2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian 
The Wiregrass Route on the State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan travels along SR 206 from the northwest andjoins SR 32 through Douglas. The route continues along SR 32 through Nicholls and into Bacon County. 
1.2.3 Aviation 
Aviation is served by the Douglas Municipal Airport. Facilities include a 5,000 foot paved and lighted runway, aircraft fueling, maintenance, hangars, and tie-downs. 
1.2.4 Rail Coffee County is served by the CSX Railroad through its east-west line that bisects the 
County and travels through Ambrose, Douglas, and Nicholls. This line primarily serves freight movement. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
4 
 
 J! , I' I 
2. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 
The following sections contain summaries of relevant studies that were completed in the past for Coffee County and the City of Douglas. 
2.1 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION STUDY (June 1996) 
The Plan Development Bureau evaluated the construction of a grade separation structure over existing railroad facilities which bisect Douglas, Georgia. In 1983,53 manufacturing plants were located in Coffee County, contributing to an active rail line though the city of Douglas. At the time of the report, the Seaboard Coast Rail Line Railroad was, by far, the most active rail line, with 18 through trains and 3 switching movements occurring in a 24-hour period. The Central of Georgia Railroad also operates a line which traverses the City of Douglas. 
The study concluded that a grade separation structure would have to be located in the Central Business District (CBD) so that it is accessible to the majority of intercity traffic. It should also be easily accessible to emergency vehicles en-route to areas unreachable due to bisecting train movements. The major route through town is a pair of one-way streets, Peterson -Avenue (southbound) and Madison Avenue (northbound), neither of which is adequate for the separation structure due to right-of-way restriction and commercial development. 
The flat railroad grade crossing in Douglas requires that an overpass be constructed, requiring approximately 500 feet on each side of the center line of the tracks. Also, an active spur track on Cherry Street impacts the selection of a grade separation si~e, and the report recommended that the spur track be considered for relocation. Finally, the one-way street system in downtown Douglas presents access problems at many potentiallocationsi 
The report concluded that, although there is no good location for a grade separation over the Seaboard Coast Rail Line Railroad, the best possible location would extend from a northern terminus at Gaskin Street to a southern terminus at Cherry Street. The southern terminus at Cherry Street provides access to both one-way streets, Peterson and Madison. The proposed project would be approximately 0.7 miles long at an estimated cost of $1.5 million. In addition to the grade separation site, the report recommended the concurrent relocation or abandonment of the Cherry Street spur track. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
5 
 
 "I.f I i' 
,I 
I 
j 
2.2 SR 32 EVALUATION (August 1986) 
 
The Plan Development Bureau, in response to a request by local officials of Coffee County, 
 
evaluated the four-Ianing of a segment of SR 32, the principal east-west route through Coffee 
 
County and the City of Douglas. At the time of the report, SR 32 was a two-lane facility, with the 
 
exception of a short three-lane (center left turn-lane) section in front of the hospital. The segment 
 
under evaluation extended eastward from the overpass at the Seaboard System Railroad west of the 
 
! 
 
City of Douglas to College Street in downtown Douglas. 
 
I, 
This segment ofSR 32, with adjoining properties being 70 percent residential and 30 percent commercial, carried 7,000 vehicles per day inside the 'city and 5,000 vehicles per day in rural areas, according to 1985 traffic counts. The segment operated at Level of S~rvice "C" at the time of the report, and was expected to reach capacity by 1995. In addition, the off-set intersection of Shirley Avenue and Chester Avenue with SR 32 causes traffic delays. Design of major improvements to SR 32 in Douglas must take into consideration existing right-of-way, as well as the close set-back of residential and commercial establishments. . 
 
The report recommended that SR 32 be improved to a five-lane (center left turn-lane) section from CR 100 east to Shirley Avenue in Douglas by 1992, at an estimated cost of $6.6 million. Five lanes were recommended due to the high volume of turning movements into homes and businesses along this 4.4 mile segment. By 1991, it was recommended that the intersection of Chester Avenue with SR 32 be relocated to eliminate the existing off-set with Shirley Avenue, at an estimated cost of$1.1 million. Also, it was recommended that SR 32 be four-Ianed from Shirley Avenue east to College Avenue. This should have been implemented by 1990 at a cost of$1.0 million to minimize displacement of established housing along the 0.4 mile segment. , 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transporlation Study 
 
6 
 
 !' 
I 
2.3 THOROUGHFARE EVALUATION (April 1989) 
A 1989 Thoroughfare Evaluation looked at traffic congestion in the City of Douglas and Coffee Cmmty due to increasing economic growth. The south and west sides of the city, along SR 206, contain the greatest commercial build-up, a majority of which generates truck traffic. The significant traffic problems in the area are related to accidents involving turning vehicles and truck traffic. Developments such as the Wal-Mart regional distribution center, the Southwest Industrial Park, and a planned government-civic complex in downtown Douglas will also impact traffic circulation. 
Short range (1989-1994) recommendations for improving traffic circulation involved the programmed widening of SR 32 between SR 206 and Shirley Avenue and between Coweta Avenue and SR 135 to five-lane urban sections with one-way pairing between Shirley Avenue and Coweta Avenue using Ashley Street. Other suggested additional lane capacity projects included SR 206 from the railroad to SR 135, SR 32 from SR 206 to CR 559, SR 135 between US 441 and Gaskin Avenue, SR 135, and the SR 135 Connector between SR 32 and the SR 206 Connector. A fmal short-range recommendation involved the construction of a railroad-highway separation for the north-south traffic at Gaskin Avenue. 
Long range (1995-2005) recommendations included the widening of SR 206 to a five-lane urban section between SR 32 and US 441. Also, it was recommended that SR 32 be widened to a multi-lane roadway from CR 559 at Upton west to the railroad separation. 
Recommended improvements to city streets included the extension of Gaskin Avenue on new alignment from McNeal Drive north to the SR 206 Connector and the widening of McNeal Drive to a 36 foot, three-lane section with curbs on the south side. It was also recommended that Bryan Street be widened to a 36 foot, three-lane section between College and Gaskin Avenues. Gaskin Avenue should be widened between Pine Street and SR 135 from 20 to 24 feet. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
7 
 
 J 
 
2.4 SR 31/US 441 EVALUATION (January 1991) 
 
'.- 
 
This study sought to evaluate the planned widening of SR 31IUS 441 in Broxton to a five- 
 
lane section as part of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP). The use of one-way 
 
road pairs was compared as an alternative to five-lane widening. SR 31IUS 441, the major north- 
 
south route through Broxton, had an accident rate of 275 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
 
(MVMT), while the state average was 197 accidents per 100 MVMT for the year 1989. 
 
,The widening of SR 31IUS 441 through the City of Broxton to five-lanes would severely affect existing development. A pharmacy and bank at the intersection of SR 268 would have had to be displaced, along with a home located at Leggett Street. The required 90 feet of right-of-way for a five-lane urban section would have adversely affected businesses along SR 31IUS 441. On- 
street parking at SR 268 would have been displaced. Also, considerable fill and construction 
easements would have been required. Total cost for this project was estimated at $1,620,000. 
The study concluded that the development o~ one-way paired roads through the City of Broxton would have resulted in fewer adverse impacts. The proposed route involved SR 31IUS 441 as the southbound leg, and Railroad Avenue as the northbound leg. The existing pavement on SR 31IUS 441 was wide enough to accommodate one-way traffic and left tum lanes where needed. Realignment, widening, right-of-way acquisition, and intersection improvements on Railroad Avenue could be achieved without damage to businesses. It was also recommended that Railroad Avenue and that portion of Byrd Street between Railroad Avenue and SR 268 be added to the State Highway System. Total cost for this project was estimated at $1,041,000. 
 
8 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
 2.5 CITY OF DOUGLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1990) 
The City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990 as a plan for the city's development and growth. This document does not defme a minimwn Level of Service (LOS) standard for the city. A Five-Year Short Term Work Program for Fiscal Year 1996 through 2000 . was adopted by the City Commission in July of 1996. It identified the following projects as priorities (Table 2.1). 
 
Table 2.1 City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan Five-Year Short-Term Work Proaram (FY '96-'00) 
 
Program 
 
Year Responsibility 
 
Overpass on SR 206 East 
 
2000 DOT/CD 
 
Norfolk-Southern Rail Line Abandonment 
 
North/South Parkway 
 
2000 DOT/CD 
 
Landscape Walking/Bike Trail 
 
2000 CS 
 
Curbing with Sidewalks 
 
McDonald Avenue (curbina) 
 
1998 Street Dept 
 
Sidewalks 
 
Shirley Ave. from Baker Hwy. to Ward St. 
 
1998 Street Dept 
 
Golf Club Road 
 
1997 Street Dept 
 
Gaskin Ave. North 
 
1999 Street Dept 
 
Gordon Street (perimeter to Chester) 
 
1999 Street Dept 
 
Gaskin Avenue (perimeter to WalMart) 
 
2000 Street Dept 
 
East Perimeter Rd. (Gaskin to US 441) 
 
2000 Street Dept 
 
Pave alley behind the Gallerv from Brvan St. to Columbia 
 
1997 CD/Street Dept 
 
Improve Parking Lot at NW corner. of Madison and Bryan 
 
1997 CD/CS 
 
SR 32 One-Way Pair 
 
1996 DOT/CD 
 
New N/S thoroughfare from SR 206 to High School 
 
1998 City/County/DOT 
 
Improve Gordon Street between College and Peterson 
 
1999 Street/CD/DOT 
 
5-lane Perimeter West 
 
2000 DOT 
 
Remove Bradford Pear Trees in downtown parking 
 
1997 CS 
 
Widen Gaskin Ave. south of Pine Street to SR 135 
 
1998 City/County/DOT 
 
Traffic Improvements from Gaskin to 441 on Perimeter Road 
 
1996 DOT 
 
Traffic Improvements by Ben HilVlrwin Tech 
 
1997 City/County/DOT 
 
City-wide street sianage improvements 
 
1996 Street Dept 
 
Improve City entrances (441 by airport) 
 
1998 CS/CD 
 
Widenina of US 441 from FL to NC 
CD - City of Douglas Community Development CS  City of Douglas Community Services 
 
2000 DOT 
DOT - Georgia Department of Transportation 
DNR - Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
 
Funding Sources 
DOT 
DOT/City Citv/DNR 
City 
City City City City City City City City DOT DOT/City DOT/City DOT City City DOT Not Listed City City DOT 
 
. Douglas-Coffee County Muftimodal Transportation Study 
 
9 
 
 I 
3. FUTURE TRA"SPORTATION DEMAND 
I 
I 
To project future transportation demand, it is necessary to understand an area's population 
I 
and economic trends and consider ~programmed improvement projects. The following sections discuss these topics. Assumptions ~d forecasting methodology are also presented. 
.I 
 
3.1 POPULATION AND ECONOMIC TRENDS 
I 
I 
According to data publishe~ by the Cooperative Extension Service of the University of 
I 
Georgia, the population in Coffee County has grown from 19,739 in 1930 to 29,592 in 1990. The I 
county's annually compounded gro~ rate from 1930 to 1990 was 0.68 percent, however, a more 
 
rapid population growth of 
 
i Coffee County iOPU,atlOn 
 
45,000 
 
40,000 
 
35,000 
 
30,000 
ic: 26,000 
i. 20,000 
l- 16,000 
 
-~ :J-' I 
 
10,000 
 
6,000 
o 
1930 
 
I 
1960 
 
I 
 
1/ 
 
I 
 
A' 
 
,, I 
 
i 
I 
 
~ 
 
J.,.. ~ 
 
, 
 
~I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
I 
 
I 
! 
 
, 
 
!I 
 
! 
I 
 
I 
i 
 
I II 
 
1970 i 
 
1990,. 
 
2010 
 
. 1.31 percent, exhibited from 1970-1990, was used for projections through the year 2020 (Figure 3.1), resulting in a population of almost 44,000 residents. 
Between 1985 and 1996, Coffee County's average annual unemployment rate of 
 
L..- 
 
y_ea-+t 
 
--J 7.4 percent, was higher than 
 
Figure 3.1: Coffee County historic populftion data andfuture population 
 
projection 
 
i 
 
I 
 
the average rate of 5.5 percent for the State of Georgia, the 
average rate of 6.7 percent for 
 
non-metro counties, and the avera~e rate of 5 percent for metro counties. The Coffee County 
 
unemployment rate dropped to 5.3 JXtcent in 1997. Coffee County's per capita income was $14,061 
 
in 1990. It grew by an annually c6mpounded rate of 5.71 percent to $18,564 in 1995. Coffee 
 
I 
County's per capita income growth; bettered that of all other categories for the State of Georgia 
 
I 
 
(metro counties: 4.31 percent, nonlmetro counties: 5.04 percent, and Statewide: 4.57 percent). 
 
, 
 
I 
 
Growth in retail sales in Coffee Cou4ty also outpaced the State average. Between 1985 and 1995, 
 
Coffee County's retail sales grew bylan annually compounded rate of 8.10 percent compared with 
6.73 percent for the State of Georgi~. . II 
I 
 
In summary, population in Coffee County has demonstrated a healthy and steady growth trend between 1970 and 1990. The ~i conomy also appears to b. e strong, with personal incom.e and 
I 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
10 
 
I 
 
 ,. 
,I 
 
I 
I 
retail sales growing at higher rateJ than most of the State. Overall, the indicators point to the 
prospect of continued population arid economic growth. 
 
These indicators are helPfuil detennining the need for future transportation infrastructure. 
A rule of thumb suggests that traffic ~olumes grow at twice the population growth rate. Therefore, 
 
it would be prudent to plan for fuJe traffic volumes that are increasing at 2.5 to 3.0 percent each 
 
year. With a steadily increasing popblation base and economy, it is critically important to evaluate 
 
transportation infrastructure to ensJe that it will provide for the efficient movement of goods and 
 
people. . 
 
I 
 
I 
I 3.2 COMMITTED IMPRO~EMENTS 
 
In evaluating transportation infrastructure, forecasting demand, and determining needs, it 
is necessary to consider roadway ~provementprojects that are already planned. Table 3.1 lists 
 
projects programmed by the Depaitment in their six-year Construction Work Program. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Project No. 
STP-OOOE (92) STP-105-1 (26) STP-1700 (3) 
 
I 
 
Table 3.1 
 
GOOT Six-Year ConstructionWork Program I for Coffee County 
 
1 
 
I 
 
Description 
 
I 
Restore RR Depot ~ Ashley-Slater House for museum and welcome center , 
Install turn lanes o~, SR 158 at CR 553/McDonald Roa.d in Douglas 
 
I 
Five-Ianing of SR 2p6 from west SR 32 to SR 31 in Douglas 
 
Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 
 
STP-036-1 (13) ED8-441 (35) 
 
I 
I Four-Ianing of SR 32 from west city limits of Douglas to SR 206 east including a 
one-way pair 
I 
Widening SR 31/U~ 441 from Broxton's southern city limits to the northern city limits, including a qne-way pair with Railroad Avenue through town 
 
1999 2000 
 
EDS-441 (27) 
 
Four-Ianing SR 31~US 441 from Broxton's northern city limits to SR 107 
 
2000 
 
BRN-023-2 (10) EDS-441 (26) 
 
Bridge Replacemeh, t on SR 311US 441 at Mill Creek 
I 
Four-Ianing of SR p1/US 441 from CR 416 north to the Broxton southern city limits 
 
I 
STP-036-1 (19) Four-Ianing of SR p2 from CR 296 east to western city limits of Douglas 
 
i 
STP-079-1 (42) Five-Ianing of SR 206/Perimeter Road from SR 31/US 441 to SR 32 including a 
 
. 
 
railroad separatiorl over the CSX rail line I 
 
. 
 
SR 31/US 441 widenIng proJect has been delayed.' For the purpose of thIS study, a construction year of 2003 was assumed. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
2000 2000 2000 
LR 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
11 
 
I 
 
 " 
 
,. 
 
3.3 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY 
 
For this study, future traffic lolumes were forecasted from historic traffic records that were 
I 
collected and cataloged between 1991 and 1997 by the Department. A linear regression analysis was employed to project traffic voIlumes to the Year 2020 while cross checking the results with 
population and economic growth r~tes and known development patterns. 
 
j 
In larger urban areas, there 1IS often an urban transportation demand model available to aid 
I 
in the forecasting of future traffic vblumes. Such a model accounts for socioeconomic projections 
I 
developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). In Coffee County, however, no such 
 
model or socioeconomic projectioru! exist. In these circumstances it is common practice to forecast 
I 
traffic based upon historic trends. !However, if future development shifts to another area of town 
 
or if the population begins to deJline, the traffic forecasts will not reflect the impacts of these 
 
changes. It is, therefore, necessa& to update projections every five years to adjust for shifts in 
 
trends. 
 
iI 
 
I 
I 
 
12 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study I 
 
 I 
4. STATE HIGHWAY INVENTORY 
 
- 
 
4.1 SR 31/US 441 
I 
 
SR 31IUS 441 is a. principal!,arterial that bisects Douglas and Coffee County in the north- 
 
south direction. This facility is included in the Govemor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP). 
SR 31IUS 441 enters Coffee Coun~ on the south from Atkinson County with a five-lane section. 
 
I 
I 
. "!;:'~t;::{~~~~ 
 
It continues into Douglas to a point north of SR 135IPerimeter South. where it splits into a one-way pair (Madison Avenue in the northbound direction 
 
and Peterson Avenue in the southbound direction) 
 
with two lanes in each direction and on-street 
 
parallel parking. North of McNeal Drive, the one- 
 
way pair ends and continues to the north as a five- 
 
lane section to CR 416, just north of the high 
 
school (Figure 4.1). SR 31IUS 441 travels toward 
 
Figure 4.1: SR 31/US 441 at northern Dottg/as 
 
a~L~u 
 
I 
 
i 
 
Broxton as a two-lane highway with a third passing lane that alternates between the travel directions toward Telfair County. 
 
4.1.1 Existing Traffic Charact,ristics 
 
! 
 
. 
 
SR 31IUS 441 carries an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) ofless than 10,000 vehicles 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
north of the Atkinson County Line. Ttaffic volumes increase to over 18,000 vehicles per day (vpd) 
 
south of SR 135IPerimeter South. !This facility's busiest section is between SR 135 and SR 
 
158/Baker Highway where traffic vqlumes are as high as 27,000 vpd. North of SR 158 through 
 
downtown Douglas (Figure 4.2), Jolumes gradually decline reaching 10,000 vpd at SR 206 
I 
ConnectorlIndustrial Road. Tra~fic through 
Broxton averages 5,700 vpd with le~s than 3,000 I 
vpd traveling between Broxton an~ the Telfair 
 
County Line. 
 
: 
 
I 
 
Under current traffic conditioru!I, the facility operates at an acceptable Level of Ser:vice ("C" or 
 
better) throughout Coffee County. Some minor I 
delays can be experienced in the! downtown 
 
Douglas area during the peak hour~, especially 
 
i 
 
Figure 4.2: SR 31IUS 441 southbound in 
 
during the high school dismissal an~ on Friday Downtown Doug/as. 
 
i 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
13 
 
I 
 
 r.- 
 
afternoons. However, traffic operati'onal characteristics are still generally favorable. A map of the I 
SR 31/,US 441 corridor is provided iiII Figure 4.3. Table 4.1 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. More complete tables displaying information for all State Highways within Coffee County 
 
can be found in Appendix 1. ' I ' 
 
' 
 
I 
 
4. 1.2 R~adway Safety 
 
I 
 
Roadway safety is determined by examining accident records for roadway segments and I 
intersections. The number of acci4ents occurring during a year for a particular roadway segment 
 
is then converted to a unit value (a'ccidents per million vehicle miles traveled). Once calculated, I 
 
these values can be compared to statewide averages for similar facilities. Another indicator of safety 
 
, 
 
t 
 
is the safety ratio. The safety ratio is used to determine if a segment of highway contains an 
I 
 
abnormal number of accidents. The rate-quality control method uses accident rates as a criteria for 
 
identifying high accident locations!and applies a statistical test to determine whether the accident 
 
rate is abnormal compared to a predetermined accident rate for segments or locations with similar 
 
characteristics. The safety ratio isl calculated by dividing the actual accident rate by the critical 
 
accident rate. The critical accident rate takes into consideration the AADT, segment length, the I 
statewide average accident rate for the category of roadway, and a value of statistical significance. I 
A safety ratio greater than or equal!to one indicates a high accident location. 
 
I 
The complete accident analysis is provided in Appendix 2. Based on the safety ratios I 
calculated for SR 31/US 441, there aPpears to be a safety problem between SR 158/Baker Highway 
I 
and SR 32. To a lesser extent, safety ratios are also high between SR 32 and Walker Street. In I 
examining accident records and perfQrming a cursory site visit, no major contributing factors appear 
I 
to be causing these accidents. It is a recommendation of this study that GOOT Traffic Operations I 
Engineers make a detailed study of this segment to determine if any improvements can be made to 
i reduce the number of accidents. 
 
I 
4.1.3 Future Conditions 
I 
By the Year 2020, SR 31!tJS 441 is projected to carry daily traffic volumes of 16,000 I 
between Atkinson Co'unty and Dquglas. Traffic volumes as high as 42,000 vpd are expected 
 
between the SR 135/Perimeter South and SR 158/Baker Highway. North ofSR 158, traffic volumes 
 
I 
 
I 
 
' 
 
will be reduced to around 30,000 vpd to Walker Street. North of this point, volumes will continue 
 
to drop to less then 23,000 vpd nearlthe Douglas urban boundary. Between Douglas and Broxton, 
 
I 
 
' 
 
traffic volumes of 9,100 vpd are expected, with volumes as low as 4,400 vpd north to the County 
 
I 
 
Line. By the Year 2012, SR 31IUS 441 is expected to operate below the acceptable level of service 
 
between SR 135/Perimeter South ahd SR 158/Baker Highway. 
 
I 
 
' 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
14 
 
I. 
 
 Table 4.1 SR 31/US 441 Traffic Characteristics 
 
1997 
 
2020 
 
Area Number 
 
Number 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name Type of Lanes MDT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
County Line 
 
Osborne Mill Rd. Rural 
 
4 
 
9,309 
 
43,000 
 
0.22 
 
4 
 
20,800 43,000 
 
0.48 
 
Osborne Mill Rd. SR 135 
 
Urban 
 
4 
 
18,303 47,800 
 
0.38 
 
4 
 
36,240 47,800 
 
0.76 
 
SR135 ;;li,:;:;,t'~~~, SR,31s~~4)1'i&Uroan}[ r.~!;,~i~4!,~~1$!;fi: "Af;~i~.19;153 ~~~~~35;835 iY!.~O:53 ~m~4~ ~36;960 ~(35;835 )~1:.03 
 
SR31s;A"i")~~~ PlneLStreet~~g?}\~ Urban'!!: ~f.2:~~: z~:~2i;~ :i;~Jii23;091 ~~{ii~35;835 o~;O;64 ~l-2~~ ~';\2~~t ~37,800 ~35,835 ~~1.05 
 
Pine Streeh~~~~:;ii9; College ParKDr/i~ Urban;'; Hii2~1ii;2'rli 1:;"~'i23,091 ~11?;:&i35,835::WkiW.O:64 '1i2"~ %~j2~~37,800 :~it35,835 ~wj1.05 
 
if.'" College Park,Or:;r/ SR~.158,h;:l:1:~Wl::)l.:X;'~: Urban1', ;,;}j;2f~'.m,2:W.!.:;,\'ftj,i27,063 J~ti~:!;J;35,835 .$'.-Q:;76 ~2::,~ i%:i.~~ 
 
;~t1;904i:iit35j835 ,~"'1;17 
 
,-- -- -- - - -----~SR~.:.!.1~58~=====:gB~lry~ca~n~-S~1.::'=====I;U~rb~a!!:n~'~2~p2~t=~19~i~49~O~-=~3~5~;8~3~5+'==og:-;~54~-1=2~-=--+..:..'~2-4_~2~9,~80~0~-_3~5~-,8~3~5~-_~0.:g8~3 
 
Bryan S1. 
 
SR 32 
 
Urban 2 2 
 
18,942 
 
35,835 
 
0.53 2 
 
2 
 
30,000 35,835 
 
0.84 
 
SR 32 
 
Walker S1. 
 
Urban 2 2 
 
16,342 
 
35,835 
 
0.46 2 
 
2 
 
28,800 35,835 
 
0.80 
 
Walker S1. 
 
SR 315 
 
Urban 2 2 
 
12,500 35,835 
 
0.35 2 
 
2 
 
23,800 35,835 
 
0.66 
 
SR 315 
 
SR 206 Conn. Urban 
 
4 
 
11,000 35,835 
 
0.31 
 
4 
 
23,100' 35.835 
 
0.64 
 
SR 206 Conn. CR 416 
 
Urban 
 
4 
 
9,238 
 
47,800 
 
0.19 
 
4 
 
22,400 47,800 
 
0.47 
 
CR416 
 
U.A.B. 
 
Urban 
 
2 
 
6,417 
 
17,700 
 
0.36 
 
2 
 
14,100 47,800 
 
0.29 
 
U.A.B. 
 
SR 268 
 
Rural 
 
2 
 
5,686 
 
13,780 
 
0.41 
 
2 
 
9,100 43,000 
 
0.21 
 
SR 268 
 
SR 107 
 
Rural 
 
2 
 
2,798 
 
10,600 
 
0.26 
 
2 
 
4,400 43,000 
 
0.10 
 
AADT 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic , 
 
MSV 
 
Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "C" 
 
vic 
 
Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
 
U.A.B. 
 
Urban Area Boundary 
 
I,'_~;\;;":"d1~~~f~1 Highlights present or future capacity deficiencies. 
 
* Split laneage indicates one-way pair between Madison and Pet~rson Avenues. 
 
 4.2 SR 32 
SR 32 enters Coffee CountyJ from the west as a two-lane rural minor arterial. Once inside the urban boundary of Douglas, itlbecomes an urban principal arterial as Ward Street. After it passes through Douglas, SR 32 continues to the east into Nicholls and eventually continues into 
Baco~ County, once again as a rur~l minor arterial. A map ofthe SR 32 corridor is provided in 
Figure 4.4. 
.J 
4.2.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
I 
SR 32 carries an AADT of 3,500 vehicles east of the Irwin County Line. Traffic volumes continue to build approaching Douklas and reach 9,500 vpdjust west of SR 206/Perimeter West. 
Volumes through Downtown Dough~s .are between 7,000 and 8,000 vpd. They peak just west of SR 
135 with volumes of 9,300 vpd. On2e east of town, traffic volumes decline with 4,300 vpd through Nicholls to the Bacon County L4e. Under current traffic conditions, SR 32 operates at an acceptable level of service ("C" or Better) throughout Coffee County. Table 4.2 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
4.2.2 Roadway Safety 
The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
4.2.3 Future Conditions 
In the Year 2020, SR 32 will carry an AADT of 5,900 vehicles east of the Irwin County Line. Traffic volumes entering the douglas urban area are projected to exceed 14,000 vpd. Traffic on the one-way pair through do+town Douglas will range between 9,700 and 11,700 vpd. Volumes just west ofSR 135 are projected to peak at 18,500 and then decline just east of Douglas. 
I 
Traffic volwries through Nicholls and into Bacon County will be 5,100 vpd. With the widening of SR 32 including a one-way pair thrbugh downtown Douglas, scheduled for FY 1999, the facility will continue to operate at an aefeptable level of service. Without the completion of the improvement project, SR 32 through downtown Douglas will operate at an unacceptable level of service by the Year 2000. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
17 
 
'1 
i 
I 
 
 Table 4.2 SR 32 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Begin Name County Line CR296 Urban Boundary SR206 SR 916 (Temp.) SR 31 SR916-Cfemp:} SR 135 U.A.B. Liberty Street 
 
Area 
 
End Name Type 
 
CR296 
 
Rural 
 
Urban Boundary Rural 
 
SR206 
 
Urban 
 
SR 916 (Temp.) * Urban 
 
SR 31 
 
Urban 
 
SR 916 (Temp.) Urban 
 
SR 135 
 
Urban 
 
U.A.B. 
 
Urban 
 
Liberty Street 
 
Rural 
 
County Line 
 
Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2" 2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 3,472 6,056 9,479 8,100 7,253 7,806 9;253 5,454 4,657 4,259 
 
MSV 8,200 10,600 
14,000 14,000 
8,000 8,000 14;000 17,700 10,600 8,200 
 
vIc 0.42 0.57 0.68 0.58 0.91 0.98 0:66 0.31 0.44 0.52 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 4 
4 4 
2 ** I 2 
2 I2 
4 2 2 2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 5,900 7,200 
14,700 14,200 
9,700 11,700 18;500 11,800 
8,000 5,100 
 
MSV 8,200 
44,200 47,800 30,600 21,120 21,120 30;600 17,700 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 0.72 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.62 
 
AADT 
MSV 
vIc 
U.A.B. 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "C" Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. Urban Area Boundary 
 
* TemporarySR 916 will be re-designated as SR 32 once construction of one-way pair is completed. ** Split laneage indicates one-way pair between Ward and Ashley Streets (with programmed project completed). 
 
 4.3 SR 135 
SR 135 enters Coffee County from the southwest as a two-lane rural major collector. At SR 206 in Douglas, SR 135 makes a ri~t turn and becomes Perimeter Road which is currently a two- 
I 
lane urban principal arterial. It continues eastward and briefly adds turn lanes from SR 31IUS 441 until just past the Wal-Mart supefenter, where it once again narrows to a two-lane road. The roadway continues to the east, curveF to the north, and then proceeds to the northeast after crossing SR 32. After passing the SR 135 Connector, SR 135 becomes a four-lane divided facility for 
I 
approximately two miles to the SR 206 Connector. At this point, it returns to a two-lane rural major 
collector and travels toward leffDa~s County. A map of the SR 135 corridor is provided in Figure 
4.5. 
The SR 135 Connector iS a roadway segment approximately one block in length that I 
connects SR 135/US 221 with SR 32. Due to the short length of this link, it is not analyzed as are the other State Roads for this studt. 
4.3.1 Existing Traffic charalteristics 
I 
SR 135 carries anAADT of 3,400 vehicles north of the Atkinson County line. Once inside 
I 
the Douglas Urban Boundary, tratpc volumes increase to over 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) up to its junction with SR 206/Perimeter IWest. This facility's busiest section is between SR 206 and SR 31IUS 441 where traffic volumes exceed 17,000 vpd. Traffic volumes drop below 13,000 vpd east ofSR 31/US 441 and continue to dbcline to j'ust over 7,000 vpd at the SR 135 Connector. Between the SR 135 Connector and the SR i06 Connector, traffic volumes increase to 11,400 vpd. Northeast of Douglas toward the leffDavis cbunty Line, traffic levelsdecline to less than 3,300 vpd. SR 135 
currently operates below the accep~ble level of service between SR 206 and SR 311U'S 441. Tabie 4.3 displays existing and future tr~ffic and laneage. 
4.3.2 Ro'adway Safety 
Based on the accident analysis of SR 135, there appears to be a high number of accidents between SR 3I IUS 441 and McDohald Road, indicated by a safety ratio of 1041. However, the crash . data used in the analysis is from! 1996, which was the' most recent complete year that data was available. Since that time, there have been some improvements made to SR 135 that are expected to improve safety along this segmeht. The improvements include the addition of turn lanes into the 
Wal-Mart SuperCenter. With the~e improvements, a decrease in accident occurrences is expected 
to occur. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
20 
 
I 
 
i 
 
I 
 
I 
 
 4.3.3 Future Conditions 
In the Year 2020, SR 135 is projected to carry traffic volumes between 6,900 and 8,900 vpd between the southern County Line bd SR 206. Traffic levels will increase to volumes as high as 28,300 vpd along the Perimeter RoJd. Once north of Douglas, volumes will fall to between 7,000 and 9,500 vpd to Jeff Davis CounJ. Assuming the roadway is widened to a four-lane section (or five-lane) between SR 31lUS 441 land the SR 135 Connector, the entire corridor will operate at acceptable levels of service. The DI epartment has committed to ma.king this improvement. It will be discussed in more detail in Section 7: Recommendations. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
21 
 
I 
 
 .- I 
 
Table 4.3 SR 135 Traffic Characteristics 
 
1997 
 
2020 
 
, 
 
Area Number 
 
Number 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name Type of Lanes AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vic 
 
of Lanes 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vic 
 
County Line 
 
U.A.B. 
 
Rural 
 
2 
 
3,367 
 
8,200 
 
0.41 
 
2 
 
6,900 8,200 
 
0.84 
 
U.A.B. 
 
SR206 
 
Urban 
 
2 
 
6,169 
 
17,700 
 
0.35 
 
2 
 
8,900 17,700 
 
0.50 
 
SR 206~~j,!~~f~\0; SRf311~~W!P~ Urbant- :~'~~;>~!t.&.2~I*%d.~.: ~mr11,097, ~~t4;00O ~l1t:22; 
 
4 
 
27,700 30,600 
 
0.91 
 
SR 31 
 
McDonald Rd. Urban 
 
2 
 
12,827 
 
14,000 
 
0.92 
 
4 
 
21,200 30,600 
 
0.69 
 
McDonald Rd. SR 158 
 
Urban 
 
2 
 
10,721 
 
14,000 
 
0.77 
 
4 
 
28,300 30,600 
 
0.92 
 
SR 158 
 
SR 135 Conn. Urban 
 
2 
 
7,282 
 
14,000 . 0.52 
 
4 
 
21,200 30,600 
 
0.69 
 
SR 135 Conn. SR 20.6 C.onn. .Urban 
 
4 
 
--1.1,407. -30,600 
 
0;37- 
 
4 
 
26;000 30;600 
 
0:85 
 
SR 206 Conn. U.A.B. 
 
Urban 
 
2 
 
5,676 
 
14,000 
 
0.41 
 
2 
 
11,900 14,000 
 
0.85 
 
U.A.B. 
 
CR 198 
 
Rural 
 
2 
 
4,529 
 
10,600 
 
0.43 
 
2 
 
9.500 10,600 
 
0.90 
 
CR 198 
 
County Line 
 
Rural 
 
2 
 
3,268 
 
8,200 
 
0.40 
 
2 
 
7.000 8,200 
 
0.85 
 
AADT 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic 
 
MSV 
 
Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "G" . 
 
vic 
 
Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
 
IU.A.B. 
 
Urban Area Boundary 
 
";~;:~r~,ri;;!c!1.r~j~"'}'0t:;:;1 Highlights present or future capacity deficiencies. . 
 
 4.4 SR 158 
SR 158 enters Coffee County from the west as a two-lane rural major collector and travels eastward and becomes an Urban minbr arterial when it enters the City Limits of Douglas. At SR 206/ 
Perimeter West, SR 158 become~ a four-lane undivided section which continues to SR 135/ Perimeter East. After this point, it r~tums to a two-lane section. Once past the eastern Douglas City Limit, the roadway becomes a rur~l major collector and then proceeds through Nicholls until it 
enters Ware County. A map of theISR 158 corridor is provided in Figure 4.6. 
 
4.4.1 Existing Traffic characleristics 
 
t 
 
. 
 
SR 158/Baker Highway enters Coffee County from the west with an AADT of only 1,690 
 
vehicles. Volumes increase as it probeeds toward Douglas reaching 5,000 vpd once inside the urban 
I 
boundary. As SR 158 crosses SR 206/Perimeter West, volumes jump to almost 11,000 vpd. 
Volumes remain high through Do~glas and drop back to 5,400 vpd after SR 135/Perimeter East. 
 
Once outside of the Douglas urban bbundary, volumes drop to only 2,500 Vpd as it approaches Ware 
I 
County. Under current traffic conditions, SR 158 operates at an acceptable level of service ("C" or 
 
better) throughout Coffee County. Table 4.4 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
 
4.4.2 Roadway Safety As expected, the highest concentration of accidents along SR 158 occurs within Douglas. 
I 
However, the accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
 
4.4.3 Future Conditions 
By the Year 2020, SR 158/Baker Highway will experience traffic volumes between 3,200 vpd and 9,600 vpd west of Douglas'. Traffic volumes as high as 22,000 vpd will occur within the City ofDouglas. East of Douglas, Jut inside the urban boundary, traffic volumes are projected to 
be 7,700 vpd, with volumes taperin~ to 4,100 vpd through Nicholls and into Ware County. 
1~8 At these traffic levels, SR is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the 
Year 2020. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
24 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
 Table 4.4 SR 158 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Begin Name County Line UAB. SR206 SR 31 McDonald Rd. SR 135 U.A.B. 
 
End Name UAB. SR206 SR 31 McDonald Rd. SR 135 UAB. County Line 
 
Area Type Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 1,631 5,000 
10,951 8,935 5,364 3,887 2,494 
 
MSV 
8,200 17,700 30,600 30,600 30,600 17,700 - 10,600- 
 
vic 
0.20 0.2a 0.36 0.29 0.18 0.22 
 0.24 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 3,200 9,600 
21,900 16,100 10,700 
7,700 4,100 
 
MSV 
8,200 17,700 30,600 30,600 30,600 17,700 10;600 
 
vic 
0.39 0.54 0.72 0.53 0.35 0.44 
0~39 
 
AADT MSV vIc U.A.B. 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic 
Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "e" 
Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
Urban Area Boundary 
 
 4.5 .5R 206 
 
SR 206 enters Coffee Count); from Irwin County in the northwest as a two-lane rural major 
 
collector. It travels southeast and[ becomes an urban principal arterial after crossing SR 32 in 
 
Douglas, where it is locally referred tr as Perimeter Road. The roadway continues to the south until 
 
it ends at SR 135. At this point, SR 135 picks up the designation as Perimeter Road. A map of the 
 
SR 206 corridor is provided in FigJre 4.7. 
 
. 
 
I 
 
4.5.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
SR 206 enters Coffee counJ from the northwest with an AADT of less than 2,000 vehicles. 
 
.Once inside the urban boundary of Dbuglas, volumes increase to almost 6,700 vpd. Traffic volumes 
 
continue to build and reach their hibest levels just south of SR 32 at 15,600 vpd. Under current 
 
traffic conditions, SR 206 operates tJlow the acceptable level of service between SR 32 and SR 135. 
This section is included in a widenin~ project that will correct the deficiency in 1999 and bring the 
 
facility to a five-lane section~ 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Tabl 4.5 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
 
4.5.2 Roadway Safety 
 
I 
 
Accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
 
4.5.3 Future Conditions 
 
.. 
 
By the Year 2020, traffic is expected to operate acceptably between the northwestern County 
 
Line and the SR 206 Connector in Dduglas with traffic volumes reaching a maximum of 9,200 vpd. 
 
However, volumes are expected to ekceed roadway capacity, resulting in an unacceptable level of 
service on SR 206 between the SR ~06 Connector and Walker Street by the Year 2009 and also I between Walker Street and SR 32 by the Year 2007. Volumes are expected to exceed roadway 
ks capacity between SR 32 and SR 135, well, with over 36,000 vpd in the year 2015. This capacity 
 
problem is expected to occur evenl with the five-larring of this section that is programmed for 
 
construction in 1999. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal TranspoIrtation Study 
 
27 
 
I 
 
I 
 
,I 
 
i 
 
 ., 
 
 
Begin Name 
 
Table 4.5 SR 206 Traffic Characteristics 
 
End Name 
 
Area . Number Type of Lanes 
 
- 1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
2020 
 
Number 
 
vic 
 
of LanesAADT 
 
MSV 
 
vic 
 
----AADT 
 
Annual-Average-Daily-T-raffic--------------------------------- 
 
MSV 
 
Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "c" 
 
vIc 
 
Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
 
i>'dp;:J.!i~~f~~~s&! Highlights present or future capacity deficiencies. 
 
* Traffic volumes will exceed capacity along this section in spite of the widening project that is programmed for FY 1999. 
 
 .. 
4.6 SR 268 
SIt 268 is a two-lane rural major collector that begins at SR 32 just south of Ambrose, Georgia. From SR 32, it extends to the north through Ambrose and continues to the northeast through Broxton and into leffDavis County where it ends at SR 107. A map of the SR 268 corridor is provided in Figure 4.8. 
4.6.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics SR 268 begins at SR 32 with an AADT of 1,600 vehicles. Traffic volwnes remain consistent 
at 1,700 vpd between SR 31IUS 441 and the County Line. SR 268 operates at an acceptable level of service over its entire length. Table 4.6 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
4.6.2 Roadway Safety The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
4.6.3 Future Conditions Traffic volumes along SR 268 are expected to be moderate, with around 2,000 vpd in the 
Year 2020. At these traffic levels, SR 268 will operate at an acceptable level of service. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transporlation Study 
 
30 
 
 .. 
 
Begin Name SR 32 SR 31 
 
End Name SR 31 County Line 
 
Table 4.6 SR 268 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Area Type Rural Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 1,315 1,725 
 
MSV 10,600 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.12 0.21 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 2,000 2,100 
 
MSV 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 
0.19 0.26 
 
AADT MSV 
vic 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS "C" Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
 
 4.7 SR 206 CONNECTOR 
The SR 206 Connector is an east-west roadway that connects SR 206 (Perimeter Road West) with SR 135IUS 221 (perimeter Road East) in Douglas. It is a two-lane urban minor arterial along its entire length. A map of this and following state roads is provided in Figure 4.9. 
 
4.7.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
SR 
 
206 
 
ConnectorlIn, dustrial 
 
DrivelBens 
 
Road 
 
carries . 
 
an 
 
AADT 
 
of 
 
4,000 
 
veh.icles 
 
and 
 
operates at an acceptable level of service over its entire length. Table 4.7 displays existing and 
 
future traffic and laneage. 
 
4.7.2 Roadway Safety The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
 
4.7.3 Future Conditions 
Traffic on the SR 206 Connector is expected to operate acceptably with a projected 10,600 vpd in the Year 2020. 
 
4.8 SR 107 
SR 107 is a two-lane rural major collector located in northern Coffee County. The roadway begins at SR 31IUS 441 and travels east into Jeff Davis County where it ends at SR 1351US 221. 
 
4.8.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics 
 
SR 107 carries an AADT of only 350 vehicles and operates at an acceptable level of service 
 
I 
 
' 
 
. 
 
over its entire length. Table 4.8 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
 
4.8.2 Roadway Safety The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
 
4.8.3 Future Conditions 
Historic traffic data indicates that there is almost no growth in traffic volumes on this roadway. No more than 500 vpd are projected in the Year 2020, which results in an excellent level of service. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
33 
 
 4.9 SR 90 
SR 90 travels through the' southwestern comer of Coffee County between SR 84 at Willacoochee, in Atkinson County and US 129 at Ocilla, in Irwin County. SR 90 is designated as a two-lane rural major collector through Coffee County. 
4.9.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics SR 90 carries an AADT of 520 vehicles and operates at an acceptable level of service over 
its entire length. Table 4.9 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
4.9.2 Roadway Safety The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
4.9.3 Future Conditions Traffic on SR 90 is expected to operate acceptably with a projected 1,200 vpd in the Year 
2020. 
 
4.10 SR 64 
SR 64 is a two-lane rural major collector located in southeastern Coffee County. The roadway travels between Pearson, in Atkinson County and SR 158. 
4.10.1 Existing Traffic Characteristics SR 64 carries an AADT of less than 500 vehicles and operates at an acceptable level of 
service over its entire length in Coffee County. Table 4.10 displays existing and future traffic and laneage. 
4.10.2 Roadway Safety The accident analysis indicates no safety problems along this corridor. 
4.10.3 Future Conditions Traffic on SR 64 is expected to operate acceptably With a projected 1,000 vpd in the Year 
2020. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Muitimodal Transportation Study 
 
34 
 
 Begin Name 
 
End Name 
 
SR206 
 
SR 135 
 
Table 4.7 SR 206 Connector Traffic Characteristics 
 
Area Type Urban 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
4,018 
 
14,000 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.29 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
10,600 14,000 
 
vIc 
0.76 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name 
 
SR 31 
 
County Line 
 
Table 4.8 SR 107 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
350 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.04 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
500 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.06 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name 
 
County Line 
 
County Line 
 
Table 4.9 SR 90 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
520 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.06 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
1,200 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.15 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name 
 
County Line 
 
SR 158 
 
Table 4.10 SR 64 Traffic Characteristics 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
494 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.06 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
1,000 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.12 
 
 I 
 
" 
 
S. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 
 
I 
The purpose of the public mvolvement process for this study was to encourage citizens, 
business and industry representatives:, and local officials to participate in the study to help develop 
strategies that address the County's long tenn transportation needs. Complete summaries of the 
meetings can be found in Appendix 3. 
 
5.1 KICK OFF MEETING : 
, 
 
The Kick off meeting was hel,d in the Jury Selection Room of the Coffee County Courthouse 
 
36 on April 7, 1998. , 
 
Approximately 
 
, 
 
people attended including representatives from the City of 
 
Douglas, Coffee County, Chamb~r of Commerce & Industrial Authority, and the Georgia 
 
Department of Transportation (GDbT). The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the study 
 
team and to infonn the attendees of the study purpose and schedule. The presentation focused on 
 
the study area, the purpose and scope of the study, the study methodology, and dates of future 
 
meetings. A questionnaire was distributed to the attendees to gather their ideas as to the 
i 
transportation needs in Coffee COUI1ty. 
 
I 
~~ Notification of the meeting accomplished through the use of a mailing. The original 
 
mailing list was compiled by the GDOT project manager with the help of local officials. It was 
noted at this meeting that prior to e~ery meeting, a mailing would be sent out to everyone on the I 
current list, as well as everyone tha~ attended any of the meetings or contacted the study team. 
,I 
I 
I 
5.2 LOCAL STAFF COORDINATION 
I, 
 
From April 22 to April 24,: 1998 ten meetings were held at various locations with 10cll1 
I 
officials from Coffee County, the 9ity of Douglas, the City of Nicholls, the City of Broxton, the 
 
Coffee County School Board, South Georgia College, the Manufacturers Council, the Airport 
I 
Commission, the Coffee Regional Medical Center, the Sheriffs Department, and the Douglas Fire 
I 
Chief. The purpose of these meetings was to gather data and input from these groups regarding their I 
plans and transportation needs. Nurh, erous ideas were offered for consideration in the study and a 
great amount of infonnation was offered by the groups. 
I 
I 
i 
5.3 LOCAL OFFICIALS WORKSHOP 
 
I 
A meeting was held in the Jt4"Y Selection Room of the Coffee County Courthouse on May 
 
19, 1998. The purpose of this meetmg was to brieflocal officials on the progress of the study and 
 
to facilitate discussion on the 'topic ~of transportation in Coffee County. A prese~tation was also 
 
, 
 
I 
 
I 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation StUdy 
 
37 
 
 I 
I 
I 
made by the GDOT District 4 rep~esentatives to explain roadway projects that are already in 
 
progress, or planned in Coffee Codnty. Those in attendance included representatives from the 
 
Coffee County, City of Douglas, City;ofNicholls, City of Broxton, State Legislative Officials, and 
 
theGDOT. 
I 
I 
5.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING I i A public meeting was held in the Jury Selection Room of the Coffee County Courthouse on 
 
June 1, 1998. Approximately 28 pe6ple attended including local officials, the general public, and ! 
the GDOT. The purpose of this meetjng was to cover the results from the traffic data collection and 
 
analysis phase of the study. In this phase, the roadway network was analyzed to detennine areas 
 
I 
with capacity deficiencies and safetY problems. Also covered was a synopsis of ideas offered by 
 
I. 
 
local officials and industry representatives at the coordination meetings held in April. The study 
 
. 
 
I 
 
team and GDOT representatives were available for comment and discussion after the meeting. 
 
I 
i 
 
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONSipUBLIC MEETING 
 
I 
A public meeting was held in :the Jury Selection Room of the Coffee County Courthouse on 
July 20, 1998. Approximately 50 pe~ple attended including local officials, the general public, and 
 
representatives from the GDOT. The purpose of this meeting was to announce the recommendations of the study and to receive input fro~ the public. The study team and GDOT representatives were 
 
available for comment and discussi<?n after the meeting. 
 
! 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
38 
 
 6. PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA '. 
To identify potential projects from which to develop recommendations, the study team engaged in an extensive process that involved three main elements. The first step involved a detailed review of all work and previous studies relating to Coffee County. The purpose of the review was to docwnent needs that have already been identified in these plans and to determine what the current local priorities are with respect to transportation improvement projects. Included in this review was the City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan and various past studies conducted by the GDOT. This effort is documented in Section 2. 
The next step was to examine traffic data for the study area and project what traffic levels might be in the future (see Section 4). With this information, the study team identified current and future areas within the road network that will experience deficiencies. Identifying where these deficiencies are, or will occur, is critical to promoting a dialogue with local officials and citizens in an effort to develop solutions. The third step, and perhaps the most important one, was the public involvement process (see Section 5). The study team met with local officials and conducted public meetings to hear the needs and concerns of the residents. With ideas that were developed from these three steps, a long list of potential improvements and roadway projects was compiled. Projects that evolved from the process were evaluated based on the following hierarchy: 
1. Safety. 
Safety improvements are always the most important. The primary goal of the Department is to provide for a safe travel environment. Safety projects are budgeted first. 
2. Maintenance 
It is always Wise and cost effective to maintain existing facilities. The Department's second priority is to keep existing facilities functioning at accepted standards levels. Maintaining facilities is less expensive than replacing or rebuilding them. 
3. Capacity Improvements 
~fter safety and maintenance projects are budgeted, the Department looks for areas with capacity deficiencies. These are roadways that are congested and can be remedied by adding , lanes or removing bottlenecks. Other options for capacity improvement can include oneway pairs, reversible lanes, etc. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Muftimodal Transportation Study 
 
39 
 
 4. Enhancements or Economic Development 
EnhancementS and projects that are intended to produce growth and economic development are considered last. The goal of enhancement projects is to improve our surroundings with aesthetic landscaping, omamental.lighting, or improved bicycle and pedestrian features. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transporlation Study 
 
40 
 
 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
7.1 ROADWAY 
Recommendations for the roadway network have been categorized by local roadway system, state highway system, and railroad crossings. A summary of programmed improvements and study recommendations can be found in Table 7.2 at the end of this section. 
 
7.1.1 Local Roadway System 
In public meetings held for this study, some citizens complained that there are four-way stops in place at locations that may not warrant them. It was even suggested that some of these signs were installed at the request of a single vocal homeowner concerned about traffic speeds and safety. In general, traffic flow on local collectors should be encouraged while excessive speed is discouraged. The over-use of four-way stops on roadways inhibits efficient vehicular flow, increases the work load on local law enforcement, creates a false sense of security for drivers, and hurts the response time of emergency vehicles. The study team recommends that the City of Douglas evaluate every existing four-way stop location to determine if it is warranted. The removal or addition of any traffic control device, however, should be evaluated in accordance with the Manual ofUniform Traffic Control Devices and sound engineering judgement should be exercised. If the control is determined to be unnecessary, then the stop signs along the major movement should be removed. It should be the general policy of the City of Douglas to install traffic control devices only where absolutely necessary and appropriate. The study team also recommends that the City consider employing traffic calming measures as an alternative method of reducing speeds. Literature on commonly used traffic calming devices is provided in Appendix 4 and is 1997 Institute of Transportation Engineers, used by permission. 
 
The study team also recommends that the City of Douglas create logical connections and take advantage of the grid system and existing roadways. One example of an opportunity for. improving the use of an existing facility is Gordon Street. 
 
Gordon Street 
With the exception of Walker Street, there are no other local roads traveling east-west that extend through the entire City of Douglas. Gordon Street is unique in that it begins at SR 206 West and ends at SR 32 only 2000 feet from the eastern city limit (at SR 135IUS 221). However, Gordon Street is interrupted in two locations, at the abandoned Norfolk-Southern Railroad (Figure 7.1) line and between Dewey Avenue and McDonald Avenue on the north edge of Eastside Park. If these 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
41 
 
 two connections were made to complete Gordon 
 
Street, it would provide continuous local access 
 
through the City of Douglas. If additional capacity 
 
in the east-west direction is ever needed, Gordon 
 
Street would be the logical choice to serve as an 
 
Urban Collector providing the necessary capacity. 
 
, This facility would also provide a key connection 
 
for emergency services. If the connection of 
 
Figure 7.1: Gordon Street at the abandoned RR right-of-way. 
 
Gordon Street across the abandoned rail bed is to be constructed, options should also be explored to provide grade-separation for the proposed multi- 
 
use trail. This should not be a difficult feature to accommodate due to the elevation difference 
 
between the rail line and the adjacent Gordon Street termini. 
 
CR 268 Extension 
CR 268ffrojan Way serves as the back entrance to the high school/park/fairgrounds area and dead-ends into the SR 206 Connector; A project is planned by the City of Douglas to extend the roadway to the south, and terminate it at SR 206 West: This will create a route for traffic from the high school which will improve access to the west side of town and offer noticeable relief to traffic during the peak: school times. Impacts to the Twenty Mile Creek wetland will have to be documented and design of the roadway should include features to allow drainage to continue to flow through the basin. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
42 
 
 7.1.2 State Highway System 
SR 311US 441 
According to the traffic projections summarized in Appendix 1, by 2012, traffic volumes will exceed roadway capacity from SR 135IPerimeter South to SR 158. This section of SR 31IUS 441 has excess pavement width that currently provides for on-street parking on both sides of the road in both directions. To provide for the needed roadway capacity, it is recommended that this section of roadway be re-striped for three-lanes in each direction. Existing on-street parking lanes are not heavily utilized along this section because there are no small merchants, only larger businesses with their own parking lots. This section of SR 31IUS 441 is well south of the storefront area of downtown Douglas. 
The widening of SR 31IUS 441 from Douglas to the Telfair County line is indicated in the City ofDouglas Comprehensive Plan for the Year 2000. This project was originally programmed for that year; but has more recently been delayed. It is now estimated that construction in the Year 2003 is more likely. 
SR 135/US 221/Perimeter East ,. 
According to traffic projections, by 2004, traffic volume~ will exceed roadway' capacity from SR 31IUS 441 to tile SR 135 Connector. The Department has already committed to the four-Ianing of this section along With the construction ofa grade-separated crossing over the CSX rail line. This project is included in the Work Program as a long-range item. It is recommended th~t the project be programmed for construction by the year 2004. 
The construction of a rail overpass on the SR 135lPerimeter East (mistakenly referred to as SR 206 East) is identified in the City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan for the Year 2000. It is recommended that future revisions of the Comprehensive Plan indicate this project for construction in the Year 2004. 
SR 206/Perimeter West 
The four-laning of this roadway from SR 32 to SR 31IUS 441 is programmed for construction in 1999. This project was indicated as a local priority in the City of Douglas Comprehensive Plan. However, by 2015 volumes are expected to once again exceed capacity along this segment in spite of the widening project. It is recommend that traffic volumes be monitored and projections be updated in the future to determine the need for its six-Ianing. An alternative to the widening is the construction of a new loop road from SR 32 to SR 31IUS 441 approximately 1.5 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
43 
 
 miles outside of the existing perimeter (this concept is discussed in more detail in Section 8: Other Issues). Advance right-of-way acquisition for a six-lane section should also be explored as part of the four-lane widening project from SR 32 to SR 31/US 441 which is programmed for 1999. 
By 2007, traffic volumes will exceed capacity on the section from Walker Street to SR 32, and, by 2009, from the SR 206 Connector to Walker Street. It is recommended that these sections be widened to a four-lane section in the years indicated The total cost of widening from the SR 206 Connector to SR 32 (2.13 miles) is $2.9 million. 
SR 158/Baker Highllfay 
From projections that are based on historic traffic trends, there will be no need for additional capacity on this roadway before the Year 2020. However, there is substantial residential development occurring along the corridor and a new school is also being constructed near across from Simmons Road. In order to accommodate the high a.m. peak hour volumes associated with the traffic from the private school near the intersection of SR 158 and SR 206, the presence of reportedly high numbers of commuters, and traffic to be generated by the new school, it is recommended that SR 158 be widened to a four-lane section from SR 206 to Simmons Road. This project, with a length of approximately 1.2 miles, is estimated to cost $1.4 million. This project should be programmed as soon as is possible, due to the approaching construction of the new school. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
44 
 
 Traffic Operations Improvements 
 
., 
 
There are a number of minor improvements that were suggested for the State Highway 
 
System. Because this study is a long range planning study to determine greater needs from the big 
 
picture perspective, specific traffic operational improvements have not been evaluated in detail. 
 
There were a number of potential traffic operational 
 
improvements that were suggested by local officials, 
 
. ... 
 
emergency services providers, and residents. It is a 
 
recommendation of this study that the GDOT Traffic 
 
Operations evaluate the need and feasibility of the 
 
improvements and that they be implemented only 
 
where appropriate and warranted. 
 
Figure 7.2 shows an example of such a need 
 
Figure 7.2: Tum lane on westbound SR 135IPerimeter South that is recommended/or 
extending to SR 31IUS 441. 
 
at the intersection of SR135lPerimeter South at SR 31IUS 411 facing west. This right turn lane serves the shopping center parking lot and the Burger King 
 
on the comer, but is mistaken by many drivers to be a turn lane to northbound SR 31IUS 441. Some 
 
drivers even end up in the restaurant's drive-through before they realize what has happened. Others 
 
are faced with trying to get back into traffic to make their intended right turn. Of course, before any 
 
improvements are made, an evaluation should be performed by Traffic Operations to identify 
 
potential negative consequences. Table 7.1 lists the improvements that warrant evaluation. 
 
Table 7.1 Potentl'aITrfafIieO'Derations mDrovements 
 
Roadway 
 
ImDrovement 
 
Location 
 
SR206 
 
Sienal 
 
Georee DrivelWal-Mart Distribution Center Entrance 
 
SR 135 
 
Turn Lane 
 
Westbound SR 135 to northbound SR 31/US 441 
 
, 
 
Sienal 
 
Gaskin Avenue 
 
Emeraencv Sianal 
 
Emeraencv oreemotive sianal at Fire Statien on Perimeter 
 
SR32 
 
Emereencv Sienal 
 
Emeraencv oreemotive sienal at new CRMC ambulance entrance 
 
Passino Lanes 
 
Aoorooriate locations alona entire corridor 
 
Turn Lanes 
 
Nichols: at Libertv Street 
 
Turn Lanes 
 
Turn lanes/intersection imorovements at Bushnell 
 
Bridae Widenina 
 
Otter Creek and 17-Mile River for oversize loads 
 
SR 158 
 
Passine Lanes 
 
AooroDriate locations to southeast 
 
SR31 
 
Intersection 
 
Appropriate improvements at McNeal Drive for truck turns 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation StUdy 
 
45 
 
 7.1.3 Railroad Crossings 
There has been discussion and interest in providing grade separated crossings for vehicles J 
to cross over the active east-west CSX rail line that bisects Douglas. Many local officials believe that a structure should be built in the downtown area along a north-south route and on the SR 135/ Perimeter East. A study by the Department was conducted in June of 1986. It concluded that there are no attractive sites for such a structure due to the disruption that it will cause, however, it did 
recommend that one be built between Cherry Street 'd and Gaskin Avenue, on a 90 degree bend. More 
. recently, with the abandonment of the NorfolkSouthern rail line that runs north-south through Douglas, local officials now feel that this may provide a location for the structure (see Figure 7.3). Many would also like a grade separation to be built on SR 135/Perimeter East along with the four-laning ) of that roadway. 
 
Figure 7.3: Location ofproposed railroad grade separated crossing. 
 
Grade separated railroad crossings are built primarily to remove delays on major roads due to 
 
passing trains. They are also helpful to emergency services by providing access across the tracks, 
 
which could become unpassable in the event of a long, slow, or stopped train. The drawback of 
 
such structures is the high cost and severe disruption to the local street system'that they. cause. If 
 
a crossing were built along the abandoned rail bed, the structure would block Cherry Street on the 
 
south and may block Bryan Street on the north. 
 
During meetings with local emergency service providers early in the study, it was made clear that a grade separated railroad crossing on SR 135/Perimeter East would provide the access necessary for a quick response to all areas on the east side of town. Because the four-Ianing and construction of the grade-separation on SR 135 is already committed by the Department, it is not a recommendation of this study that such a structure be built in downtown Douglas. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
46 
 
 7.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN 
 
'. 
 
Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 
 
The Wiregrass Bike Route on the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan travels through 
 
Coffee County. The Route travels SR 206 from the 
 
northwest comer of the county and intersects with 
 
SR 32 in Douglas. Itfollows SR 32 into Downtown 
 
Douglas and crosses' the abandoned Norfolk- 
 
Southern rail line. The City of Douglas has plans to" ": 
evaluate the feasibility o~lo.cating a multi-use.trail f~::'::'.,.~~, 
 
along the abandoned rad lme (see next section). 
 
.a 
 
_. 
 
. 
 
Also located at thiS mtersection IS the hlstonc 
 
railroad depot which is planned for renovation with 
 
{?';'Y'l':;'i~ ' . , 
. : ~~~l~: ;\!,;:.~~:"'~:c.'.~;:~~:~::,< 
~);:~'~i,ii~l;}~i:;-;:::\,;r 
"\~:.;~:~~r~n \~'~"" ..~.:.!.~.i' '>. :.: 
 
Federal funding (Figure 7.4). The route continues Figure 7.4: Historic Railroad Depot, soon to be 
 
eastward along SR 32 through Douglas, past General renovated, on the Wiregrass Bike Route. 
 
'-.. Coffee State Park, and through Nicholls. 
 
Because of this route, it is recommended that design accommodations be made for cyclists in conjunction with any widening or resurfacing work. For example, the addition of paved shoulders should allow cyclists to be separated from the traffic flow and the exclusion of rumble strips on the pavement edge will allow cyclists to use the shoulder without great discomfort. 
 
Local Facilities 
 
The Department has awarded the City of Douglas Department of Community Development 
 
$40,000 in Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) funds, to be matched with $10,000 of local 
 
funds, to conduct a planning study for the conversion of the abandoned Norfolk-Southern rail bed to a multi-use trail (Figure 7.5). In the application, 
 
. the city explains that the trail through Douglas will 
 
provide opportunities for nearby recreation and 
 
opportunities for non-vehicular transportation. The 
 
trail would serve as an important transportation link 
 
from South Georgia College on the south through the 
 
Douglas Downtown Historic District to Municipal 
 
Park and Coffee High School on the north. The 
 
study will include looking at the 4.4 mile route in 
 
zr'tgure 7..5: Abanu-Ioned nI\.oT r.J1o: lk-Southern Ra't/road order to develop the best approach or master plan for 
 
right-of-way 
 
implementation. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
47 
 
 One major issue on the rail right-of-way is the fact that it travels through South Georgia College and bisects the campus. The College is in the process of developing its master plan and would like the additional area for new facilities, to correct existing drainage problems that the elevated rail bed causes, and to provide room for running utilities. The college is also interested in restoring the continuity of the campus. 
It is recommended that South Georgia College be given control of the rail right-of-way through their campus with the condition that it provide a route for the trail to traverse the campus. We also recommend that the South Georgia College master planning effort be coordinated with the City's trail study. The engineeringllandscape architecture fInn that is performing the study for the city should have the ability to review the College's planned alignment, to aid in design issues, and offer oversight on behalf of the City. With the coordination of efforts and the incorporation of a public involvement process, a plan can be developed that will maximize the aesthetic and practical elements of the trail. 
The study could also address a suggestion made by a prominent Douglas resident which is to integrate the multi-use trail with a park that could be located on an existing parcel along the corridor. This pm:cel, thought to be owned by Norfolk-Southern, includes Shop Pond. 
7.3 Public Transit 
At public meetings held for this study, representatives from the Georgia Department of Labor and the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services voiced a need for public transportation in Coffee County. They were interested in Coffee County developing a rural public transit system under Title 49 U.S.c. 5311. The .Section 5311 program offers local areas an opportunity to provide transit services for the public to access local markets, employers, schools, and health care. Transportation services can be contracted to other agencies with social service programs and, at the same time, be demand responsive to individuals with transportation needs. 
Under Section 5311, the Department acts as a conduit for Federal funds and fmancial programming. The Department also responds to the Federal Transit Administration and to the State Legislature for program administration. Local county governments are eligible recipients of the . Section 5311 program and the operations of public transportation services. A city government may apply if no county program is available or programmed. The public agency may elect to operate the system through a third party operator. It is a recommendation of this study that a local task force be formed to study the issue of public transit and to determine the feasibility of developing a Section 5311 Program. This task force should be composed of interested agency representatives along with 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation StUdy 
 
48 
 
 representatives from the City of Douglas and Coffee County, in addition to the GDOT District Four Transit Representative Jan Dunn. 
 
7.4 Aviation 
There are a variety of improverpents recommended by the Georgia Statewide Aviation System Plan and programmed by the City of Douglas. These improvements include bringing the airport into standards conformance as a Level III airport (a Business Airport of Regional Impact). By achieving this designation, the City is hoping to attract an commercial air carrier to the airport. The main improvement to the airport is the purchase of additional property on the south end of Runway 4/22 for a clear zone to accommodate a 1000 foot runway lengthening~ In conjunction with the runway lengthening, the taxiway will also be relocated and extended. The relocation entails increasing the off-set distance from the runway an additional 200 feet. Other improvements include the following: 
 
~ 
 
Install a precision Instrument Landing System (ILS) 
 
~ 
 
Upgrade runway lighting to High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL) 
 
~ 
 
Install a Remote Communications Outlet 
 
~ 
 
Install a Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) 
 
~ 
 
Develop a Precision GPS approach 
 
~ 
 
Install a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator 
 
Lights (MALSR) 
 
Construct an access road for emergency vehicles 
 
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) voiced some concerns about a specific aspect of the airport's plans. They do not approve of direct access from the fire station on SR 135/Perimeter South to the runway because of the possibility of private vehicles being able to drive onto the runway. The FAA recommends that the Air Operations Area (ADA) be fenced. The study team recommends that the fence be constructed, along with the emergency driveway. Passage along the driveway between the fire station and the runway will be controlled at the fence line with an electric gate that can be controlled from the station. This solution would prevent trespassing, greatly reduce the likelihood of incursions, and ensure adequate emergency services to the ADA. 
 
It is also a recommendation of the study that the Airport Commission, in coordination with the Douglas Fire Chief and CRMC Director of Emergency Medical Services establish emergency procedures and a precautionary readiness protocol to ensure an appropriate state of readiness in the event of a known malfunctioning or disabled approaching aircraft and an appropriate response to an accident. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
49 
 
 ., 
 
Table 7.2- 
 
Programmed Improvements and Study 
 
Recommendations Summary 
 
Future Roadway Projects 
 
Year of 
 
and Study Recommendations 
 
Need 
 
Status 
 
Short:Term:(O:to:5years)~IF03i::~f(~~f'R~'t'jI~~~~~.~~~&~1~'%i~~'f;tm;i:"X;;!je,"ic~';:,;,(;;,::.'~;;,/,:.;,:~ir:i;;,k?~.'::J::ii;(~'c,\~;~~;: 
 
State 
 
SR 206: 5-laning from west SR 32 to SR 31 in Douglas 
 
nfa Programmed 
 
SR 32: 4-laning from CR 296 east to westem city limits of Douglas 
 
nfa Programmed 
 
SR 32: 4-laning from west city limits of Douglas to SR 206 east including one-way pair 
 
nla Programmed 
 
SR 31IUS 441: 4-laning from CR 416 to Broxton southem city limits 
 
nfa Programmed 
 
SR 31IUS 441: 4-laning through Broxton including a one-way pair 
 
nfa Programmed 
 
SR 31IUS 441: 4-laning from Broxton's northem city limits to SR 107 
 
nla Programmed 
 
SR 31IUS 441: Bridge Replacement at Mill Creek 
 
nla Programmed 
 
SR 15818aker Highway: 4-laning from Simmons Road to SR 206 
 
2000* Non-committed 
 
Local CR 268 Extension: From 206 Connector to SR 206 Gordon Street Connection: Across abandoned rail right-of-way 
 
nfa City Contract nla City Contract 
 
Medium;Tenn(6 to10v.arsl'Q4-'08 :{'Jrf,~',\;~i';.-,~~~}\,~W~"~~~I~,ll;~rir.($laffii:J;"'i.~~<:{;~~i$fj~!t'i~!,~~?'-W~h!t~~\F!3?(!~~}i'tiifJ)'~;%I:: 
 
State 
 
SR 135IUS 221 (Perimeter East): SR 31IUS 441 to SR 32 
 
2004 Committed 
 
SR 206: 4-lanlng from Walker Street to SR 32 
 
2007 Non-committed 
 
SR 206: 4-laning from SR 206 Connector to Walker Street 
 
2009 Non-committed 
 
Long Range (11:to 20 years) '08-'18 ',<., " ' ;:b2i;~,"";:d,!iii',,,,,'.. ,\i);~i'~J}j~i%;,'i;'ii>:> ,:'~:~,.. State SR 206: 6-1aning from SR 32 to SR 31IUS 441 
 
';-;.1.:' '.' ' .', 
 
.: :.,,' " :"-",::; l" ,;,';: ,','.;, 'PI:' 2015 Non-committed 
 
SR 32 at Bushnell: Evaluate the need for tum lanes and intersection improvements SR 32 at Otter Creek and 17 Mile River: Evaluate the need for bridge widening to accommodate oversized loads SR 32 West Evaluate the need for and appropriate locations for passing lanes SR 32 East: Evaluate the need for and appropriate locations for passing lanes SR 158 East: Evaluate the need for and appropriate locations for passing lanes SR 206: Evaluate the need for a traffic signal at George DrivelWal-Mart Dist. entrance SR 135/Perimeter South: Evaluate the need for a traffic signal at Gaskin Avenue SR 135/Perimeter South at Fire Station: Evaluate the need for emergency actuated signal 
SR 135/Perimeter South at SR 31IUS441: Evaluate the need for we to NB right tum lane extension 
SR 32 at CRMC entrance: Evaluate the need for EMS actuated signal 
 This project is needed in conjunction with the new school planned on SR 158. 
Other Transportation Modes 
Recommend a task force be formed to determine the feasibility of developing a rural public transit system. It wo'uld be composed of local representatives, the GDOT transit representative Jan Dunn, and other interested agencies such as the Dept of Labor and Dept. of Family and Children Services. 
Recommend the installation of security fencing and an emergency access driveway, 
Recommend establishing emergency procedures with local emergency services, 
BicYcle and Pedestrian "" .. 
The Department has awarded the City of Douglas funding to study the conversion of the abandoned rail corridor into a multi-use trail. Recommend coordination with the South Georgia College master planning process and extensive public involvement. 
Wiregrass Route on the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan travel SR 206 and SR 32 through Coffee County. Recommend that appropriate design accomodations are made for cyclists in future resurfacing or widening projects, 
 
 [ 8. OTHER ISSUES 
 
.... 
 
-- 
 
During the study process, many concerns were voiced and ideas offered that could not be evaluated in this study due to the regional nature of the issues or the need for more detailed data collection. Some of these have been included in this section because of their importance and need for further study. 
 
8.1 ACCESS TO SAVANNAH 
During meetings with the Coffee County Industrial Authority, representatives from the WalMart Distribution Center said that their truckers have difficulty accessing Savannah. They explained that routes used by their truckers are comprised of small rural highways. Figure 8.1 shows two routes that are commonly used by truckers from Douglas. Wal-Mart representatives voiced the need 
 
Figure 8.1: Two routes used by trucks originating in Coffee County to access Savannah, Georgia. 
for enhanced corridors that would better serve truck traffic between Douglas and Savannah. This need may warrant further evaluation because of the importance of providing efficient access for freight movement to the deep water port in Savannah. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Mu/timodal Transportation Study 
 
51 
 
 8.2 1-75 ACCESS 
Another concern that was echoed by many industry representatives was the need for direct four-lane access to 1-75. Many of these representatives feel that SR 32 should be four-Ianed through its entire length between Douglas and 1-75. It was also brought up that Fitzgerald and Ocilla have asked the Department for direct four-lane access to 1-75. One alternative discussed that would include all three cities is a project that would four-lane SR 32 from Douglas to Ocilla, SR l1IUS 221 from Ocilla to Fitzgerald, and SR 107 to 1-75 at Ashburn. This project will require further consideration and should be evaluated against State Highways on the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) that are in need of widening. GRIP corridors are considered to have the highest priority for intrastate travel. 
8.3 OUTER LOOP 
The idea behind the Outer Loop is to upgrade to state standards the county roads that connect US 82 in Atkinson County with Nichols, West Green, Broxton, Ambrose, and back to US 82 to the west. The purpose of these improvements is to allow through truck traffic to use these routes so as to permit them to avoid entering Douglas to join up with a desired State Road, as is currently required. 
Traffic counts along the corridor are rather low. They commonly range from 1,600 vpd to less than 500 vpd. The study team observed relatively good pavement conditions. From a cursory cost/benefit analysis, there does not appear to be a great amount ofjustification to improve the entire length of the corridor. The cost would be great, and it would serve a relatively small number of vehicles. In order to make an accurate determination as to the actual level of demand, an" origin/destination (DID) survey would have to be performed along each major corridor that crosses the Outer Loop. With this information, demand estimates can be developed to refme the cost/benefit analysis. Further study may be warranted for the evaluation of specific sections that accommodate known truck movement. 
Before committing any funds for the improvement of the Outer Loop, it is recommended that a study be conducted to analyze the need for each segment. It may be discovered that certain segments are justified, while others may require time for land use and traffic patterns to change before they can be justified. 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study 
 
52 
 
 8.4 INNER LOOP 
As described in Section 7.1.2, the inner loop is seen by many as a necessary means to help relieve congestion along SR 206/Perimeter West. This concept is especially popular with the industries in Douglas and would create a new loop from SR 32 on the west swinging south of Douglas and terminating at SR 31IUS 441 approximately 1.5 miles outside of the existing perimeter. Some believe that the Loop should extend 180 degrees from SR 32 West to SR 32 East, while others feel that it should be a full 360 degree loop around Douglas that utilizes the SR 206 Connector on the north. 
 
Due to the projected capacity deficiencies on SR 206/Perimeter Road West from SR 32 to SR 31IUS 441 by the year 2015, this project does present ajustifiable alte~ative to the six-Ianing of SR 206. There are, however, a number of details that would have to be decided upon before this project is recommended. 
 
What sections are needed; a quarter loop on the southwest comer only, a half loop on the 
 
south, or a full perimeter? 
 
~ 
 
Would this roadway be part of the state system or a would it be considered a local project. 
 
~ 
 
What is the necessary laneage? 
 
~ 
 
If it is a State Road, what designation will it carry and will it affect the designation of SR 
 
206? 
 
~ 
 
Are there continuity requirements for it to be a State Road or can it be a quarter loop 
 
terminating at SR 31IUS 441? 
 
Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transporlation Study 
 
53 
 
 'I 
 
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 
 
SR311US441 
 
Begin MP 0.00 4.46 5.93 6.88 7.40 7.94 9.43 11.43 16.20 
 
End MP Bellin Name 4.45 County Line 5.92 Osborne Mill Rd. 6.87 SR 135 7.39 SR 158 7.93 SR32 9.42 Walker Street 11.42 SR 206 Conn. 16.19 UAB. 26.80 SR268 
 
End Name Osborne Mill Rd. SR 135 SR 158 SR32 Walker Street SR 206 Conn. U.A.B. SR 268 SR 107 
 
1995 
 
1996 
 
Area 1997 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
Per State Avg. 
 
safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 9309 
 
2 
 
0 
 
3 
 
20 
 
148 
 
0.13 
 
0.10 
 
1 
 
Urban 18303 
 
16 
 
0 
 
13 
 
133 
 
596 
 
0.22 
 
0.16 
 
0 
 
Urban 23091 
 
81 
 
0 
 
72 
 
909 
 
596 
 
1.52 
 
1.06 
 
1 
 
Urban 19490 
 
94 
 
0 
 
75 
 
2067 
 
596 
 
3.47 
 
2.13 
 
0 
 
Urban 16342 
 
42 
 
0 
 
41 
 
1297 
 
596 
 
2.18 
 
1.30 
 
1 
 
Urban 13037 
 
37 
 
0 
 
35 
 
497 
 
596 
 
0.83 
 
0.57 
 
0 
 
Urban 6417 
 
5 
 
0 
 
5 
 
107 
 
596 
 
0.18 
 
0.11 
 
0 
 
Rural 5686 
 
2 
 
0 
 
4 
 
40 
 
148 
 
0.27 
 
0.20 
 
1 
 
Rural 2798 
 
6 
 
4 
 
6 
 
55 
 
148 
 
0.37 
 
0.28 
 
0 
 
Corridor Total 
 
285 
 
4 
 
254 :::~~~:::j:;:~:~~r~~:~:~::~~~:~:~:::::~:~~~~:~~~~~::~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~:j:~~~~~:::~:::~~:~~~~:~}~::::::~~: 
 
4 
 
SR32 
 
Begin MP 0.00 8.53 10.83 12.34 13.70 14.64 17.34 26.64 
 
End MP Bellin Name 8.52 County Line 10.82 CR 100 12.33 U.A.B. 13.69 SR206 14.63 SR31 17.33 SR 135 26.63 UAB. 29.90 Liberty Street 
 
End Name CR 100 U.A.B. SR206 SR 31 SR 135 UAB. Libertv Street County Line 
 
1995 
 
1996 
 
Area 1997 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
Per State Avg. 
 
safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 3472 
 
6 
 
0 
 
13 
 
120 
 
224 
 
0.54 
 
0.41 
 
0 
 
Urban 6056 
 
7 
 
0 
 
11 
 
217 
 
706 
 
0.31 
 
0.20 
 
0 
 
Urban 9479 
 
9 
 
0 
 
13 
 
250 
 
706 
 
0.35 
 
0.24 
 
0 
 
Urban 8027 
 
19 
 
0 
 
24 
 
607 
 
706 
 
0.86 
 
0.55 
 
0 
 
Urban 8663 
 
20 
 
0 
 
31 
 
1054 
 
706 
 
1.49 
 
0.91 
 
0 
 
Urban 5454 
 
7 
 
0 
 
9 
 
168 
 
706 
 
0.24 
 
0.16 
 
0 
 
Rural 4657 
 
11 
 
0 
 
16 
 
101 
 
224 
 
0.45 
 
0.36 
 
1 
 
Rural 4259 
 
3 
 
0 
 
5 
 
99 
 
224 
 
0.44 
 
0.31 
 
0 
 
Corridor Total 
 
82 
 
0 
 
122 j~~~~~:I~~~:~:~:~~:~~~:~:~~:~~~~:~;::j~:~:~:~~:~~~:j:~:~:j~:~:~~~:j~:~:~~:t~~:~:~:~:~~:~:~:~:::~~~:::~:~t~~:I 
 
1 
 
SR 135 
 
Begin MP 0.00 4.50 7.75 8.24 9.15 9.70 10.80 13.18 13.68 20.29 
 
End MP Begin Name 4.50 County Line  7.75 U.A.B. 8.24 SR206 9.15 SR31 9.70 McDonald Rd. 10.80 SR 158 13.18 SR 135 Conn. 13.68 SR 206 Conn. 20.29 UAB. 24.30 CR 198 
 
End Name UAB. SR 206 SR 31 McDonald Rd. SR 158 SR 135 Conn. SR 206 Conn. UAB. CR 198 County Line 
 
1995 
 
1996 
 
Area 1997 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
Per State Avg. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio 
 
safety 
 
No. 
 
ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 3367 
 
5 
 
0 
 
5 
 
90 
 
224 
 
0.40 
 
0.29 
 
0 
 
Urban 6169 
 
17 
 
0 
 
7 
 
96 
 
528 
 
0.18 
 
0.12 
 
0 
 
Urban 17097 
 
9 
 
0 
 
14 
 
458 
 
528 
 
0.87 
 
0.50 
 
0 
 
Urban 12827 
 
30 
 
0 
 
31 
 
728 
 
285 
 
2.55 
 
1.41 
 
0 
 
Urban 10721 
 
12 
 
1 
 
10 
 
465 
 
285 
 
1.63 
 
0.79 
 
0 
 
Urban 7282 
 
17 
 
0 
 
10 
 
342 
 
285 
 
1.20 
 
0.62 
 
0 
 
Urban 11407 
 
32 
 
0 
 
31 
 
313 
 
285 
 
1.10 
 
0.70 
 
0 
 
Urban 5676 
 
2 
 
0 
 
3 
 
290 
 
285 
 
1.02 
 
0.43 
 
0 
 
Rural 4529 
 
7 
 
0 
 
6 
 
55 
 
121 
 
0.45 
 
0.33 
 
0 
 
Rural 3268 
 
2 
 
0 
 
3 
 
63 
 
121 
 
0.52 
 
0.34 
 
0 
 
Corridor Total 
 
133 
 
1 
 
120 ~~~::~~~:~:;:::~:~:~:~:~~~~~~:~~~:~:~:~:~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~:~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~::.~~~~~~~~~~:~:: 
 
0 
 
r 
 
SR 158 
 
Begin MP 0.00 15.76 17.51 18.88 19.30 20.23 20.90 
 
End MP Begin Name 15.76 County Line 17.51 U.A.B. 18.88 SR206 19.30 SR31 20.23 McDonald Rd. 20.90 SR 135 35.19 UAB. 
 
End Name UAB. SR 206 SR31 McDonald Rd. SR 135 U.A.B. County Line 
 
1995 
 
1996 
 
Area 1997 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
Per State Avg. 
 
safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100MVM 
 
Ratio 
 
ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 1631 
 
6 
 
0 
 
17 
 
181 
 
201 
 
0.90 
 
0.68 
 
0 
 
Urban 5000 
 
9 
 
0 
 
9 
 
282 
 
461 
 
0.61 
 
0.35 
 
0 
 
Urban 10951 
 
45 
 
0 
 
38 
 
694 
 
461 
 
1.51 
 
0.95 
 
0 
 
Urban 8935 
 
11 
 
0 
 
13 
 
949 
 
461 
 
2.06 
 
1.00 
 
0 
 
Urban 5364 
 
9 
 
0 
 
5 
 
275 
 
461 
 
0.60 
 
0.31 
 
0 
 
Urban 3887 
 
0 
 
0 
 
2 
 
210 
 
461 
 
0.46 
 
0.21 
 
0 
 
Rural 2494 
 
13 
 
0 
 
13 
 
100 
 
224 
 
0.45 
 
0.35 
 
0 
 
Corridor Total 
 
93 
 
0 
 
97 :~~~~~1~:~:j~~:~~:~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~1~~~~:~:~~:~:~~~:~:~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~:~~~~~:~~~~~~~ 
 
0 
 
 ACCIDENT ANALYSiS (Cant.) 
~. 
 
SR206 
 
Begin MP 0.00 4.82 11.19 12.15 13.32 
 
End MP BeainName 4.82 County Line 11.19 SR268 12.15 SR 206 Conn. 13.32 CR583 16.12 SR32 
 
End Name SR268 SR 206 Conn. CR583 SR32 SR31 
 
Area Twe Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban 
 
1995 
 
1996 
 
1997 . No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
Per State Avg. 
 
AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio 
 
1835 
 
3 
 
0 
 
3 
 
93 
 
201 
 
0.46 
 
2828 
 
4 
 
0 
 
6 
 
91 
 
201 
 
0.45 
 
6651 
 
4 
 
0 
 
2 
 
86 
 
201 
 
0.43 
 
8229 
 
7 
 
0 
 
6 
 
171 
 
528 
 
0.32 
 
15623 
 
17 
 
0 
 
25 
 
157 
 
706 
 
0.22 
 
safety 
 
No. 
 
ratio Fatalities 
 
0.30 
 
1 
 
0.33 
 
0 
 
0.27 
 
0 
 
0.19 
 
0 
 
0.17 
 
0 
 
SR268 
 
Begin End MP MP Beain Name 0.00 14.00 SR32 
 
End Name County Line 
 
Area 1997 
 
1995 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
I 1996 
Per State Avg'l 
 
I safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 1208 
 
5 
 
0 
 
6 
 
971 
 
2011 0.481 0.27 
 
o 
 
Corridor Total 
 
5 
 
0 
 
o 
 
SR 206 Connector 
 
Begin End MP MP Beain Name 0.00 4.40 SR206 
 
End Name SR 135 
 
Area 1997 
 
1995 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
I 1996 
Per State AV9.' 
 
I safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
Urban 4018 
 
6 
 
0 
 
3 
 
461 
 
5281 0.091 0.06 
 
o 
 
Corridor Total 
 
6 
 
0 
 
o 
 
SR 107 
 
Begin End MP MP Bellin Name 0.00 7.80 SR31 
 
End Name County Line 
 
Area 1997 
 
1995 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
1996 
 
No. 
 
Per I State AV9.' 
 
I safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 1100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 
 
350 
 
2 
 
0 
 
3 
 
3011 
 
2011 1.501 0.86 
 
Corridor Total 
 
2 
 
0 
 
SR90 
 
Begin End MP MP Begin Name 
0.00 3.80 County Line 
 
End Name County Line 
 
Area 1997 
 
1995 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
1996 
 
No. 
 
per, State Avg'l 
 
I safety 
 
No. 
 
Type AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM 
 
Ratio 
 
ratio Fatalities 
 
Rural 
 
520 
 
1 
 
o 
 
o 
 
01 
 
2011 0.001 0.00 
 
o 
 
Corridor Total 
 
1 
 
o 
 
o 
 
SR64 
 
Begin End MP MP Beain Name 0.00 3.50 County Line 
 
End Name SR 158 
 
Area Type 
Rural 
 
1997 
 
1995 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
No. 
 
I 1996 
Per State Avg'l 
 
I safety 
 
No. 
 
AADT Accidents Fatalities Accidents 100 MVM 100 MVM Ratio ratio Fatalities 
 
494 
 
2 
 
0 
 
1 
 
1581 
 
2011 0.791 0.07 
 
0 
 
 .. 
April.7, 1998: Kickoff Meeting u 
The kickoff meeting for the Douglas/Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study was held in the Coffee County Courthouse Jury Assembly Room between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. on April 7, 1998. The meeting began with George Boulineau, GDOT Director of Planning and Programming introducing his staff and the consultant. He discussed ISTEA re-authorization and explained that it will likely increase transportation funding for the State of Georgia from $500 million to well over $900 million. Mr. Boulineau asked that everyone in the room introduce themselves for the benefit of the project team. He then re-introduced Georgia Senator Van Streat and Georgia Representative Chuck Sims and asked if they would like to make any comments. 
 
Senator Streat thanked the Department for conducting this study. He mentioned that Coffee 
 
.County last year received two million dollars of the State's airport budget. He also voiced some 
 
concerns about a railroad grade crossing problem in Nicholls. With the newly enacted moratorium 
 
on highway building in Atlanta, he is expecting there to be additional funds available for highway 
 
projects in rural Georgia communities. 
 
::. " 
 
Representative Sims took the floor and, after giving his pleasantries, emphasized that there are numerous unpaved roads in Coffee County that need to be paved. He also discussed the US 441 improvement project that will expand the facility to a 4-lane section through Georgia; 
 
Mr. Boulineau then introduced David Rae of lIRS Consultants, Inc. and gave him the floor for his presentation. David I s presentation covered the purpose and goals of the study, the scope of work, and schedule. After concluding his presentation, David asked the attendees to please fill out the questionnaire on the back page of the handout and to turn it in at the end of the meeting. He then opened the floor for further questions. 
 
Senator Streat said that the study team will have to see some of the problem areas in Coffee County to believe them. One big issue is the school bus traffic and the disruption that has resulted from the consolidated high school. Senator Streat said that these buses are causing great back-ups 
on certain State Routes. He also commented that if the study. team i.s to have all the data collection 
and observation completed for a meeting on May 21, the team will be "living up here." David responded that the Department would set up as many meetings as is necessary to include all of the interested groups and agencies. Once we decide on a few days to be in Coffee County, Saralyn Stafford will help schedule the meetings arid field visits. 
 
Mayor Max Lockwood of Douglas asked how broad the scope of the study is with regard 
 
 to types of improvements that would be considered (specific intersection improvements vs. major improvements). He expressed interest in4-lane access to 1-75, 4-laning of the perimeter road, and various intersection improvements. David responded that we will be considering the full range of improvements from small to large and will group them by short, medium, and long term. 
Representative Sims voiced another concern of his which is the use of rural roads by heavy trucks. He explained that rural roadways, designed only for light ~se, are now being used as farm to market routes by heavy trucks hauling crops. As a result, the pavement surface of many of these routes is breaking up. Another gentleman added that the roads are not wide enough to handle certain types of equipment. He believes that many of these roadways should be brought up to state standards for pavement design and paved shoulders be added. 
Mayor Streat (Nicholls) took the floor and asked that something be done about the Nicholls truck route. He said that the pavement surface is in very poor condition. He also added that there are plans to build a new 750 bed prison in Nicholls and that it should be considered in the study. 
Mayor Lockwood (Douglas) asked that the study team realize and appreciate, that Douglas and Coffee county is a cut above most rural communities. He suggested that DRS arid the GDOT take the necessary time in this study to understand what is going on and make carefully considered recommendations that will have a positive impact on the community. George Boulineau said that the schedule of this project could be extended beyond the three months shown, if necessary, to ensure that all the local concerns are addressed. 
David then adjourned the meeting. 
 
 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 
 
 
 
It appears that the participants of the kick-off meeting have a common concern about railroad 
 
crossings, the amount of traffic on the existing perimeter road and the need for an additional loop 
 
road that will allow traffic to bypass Douglas without using US 441. Most of the comments focused 
 
on roadway improvements. There were isolated comments on the airport, a potential bike path on 
 
the abandoned railroad, future transit service, and rail service within the County. 
 
Questions: 
 
1. In your opinion, what are the main transportation related problems in Coffee County? 
 
2. What improvements should the State, County or City make to correct the problems you have 
 
described above? 
 
3. 
 
What future transportation related p~oblems do you anticipate in Coffee County? 
 
Describe solutions you may have to correct these problems. 
 
Comments: 
 
Anthony Kirkland, City of Douglas 
 
1. Old roads are in bad shape. Need for an overpass in the center of the city. 
 
2. Need to re-pave old roads. New roads need to be put in to keep up with growth. 
 
3. Growth in traffic in the city. Solution - update roads that need repair and add new roads with 
 
an overpass. 
 
' ...... , 
 
Wendell Bryant, City of Douglas Planning Commission 
 
1. The traffic and accidents have resulted in traffic signals along the Perimeter Road which 
 
defeats its purpose. The main north/south routes must contend with grade crossings with 
 
CSX Railroad. 
 
2. Consider an outer Perimeter Rd. to accommodate the non-local traffic. Consider an overpass 
 
as close to downtown as possible. Four-lane 158 east to Corridor 2. Four-lane Georgia 32 
 
West to 1-75. 
 
3. Increased traffic, based on economic growth - past and present. 
 
Wayne Tanner 1. Railroad track. Back log cars. 2. Overpass. Tum lanes. 3. Bypass overloaded with trucks - another bypass. 
 
 I ," 
 
,\ 
 
Nonnan Fletcher, Airport Commission & Chamber of Commerce 
 
1. Morning traffic. 
 
2. Four-lane 32/441 bypass. Railroad overpass (east). Open Gaskin Ave. and College Ave. 
 
to bypass - no left turns downtown. 
 
3. Outer bypass. 
 
Jackie Wilson, Assistant City Manager 1. Traffic backups in the city of Douglas. East overpass in Douglas. Extension of Airport 
runway and taxiways. Outer Perimeter Rd. in Coffee Co. outside city of Douglas. US 441 should be four-laned through Georgia, including Coffee County. 2. Georgia DOT should build a railroad overpass on the Georgia 135 East Perimeter Rd. 3. Traffic Problem Solutions - DOT Assistance. 
 
Bob Salay 1. Four-lane roads in and out of Douglas to give better access for trucking. Congestion on 
bypass. 2. Four-lane at least one route in and out of Douglas, either 441 or 31. Four-lane the 
existing bypass. 3. Outer perimeter road. 
 
W. Danny Lewis, City Manager 1. Not enough North-South routes in Douglas. Perimeter Rd. needs to have one number 
(now 206,206 Connector, 135, etc.). Four-lane US 441 to Athens. 2. Give more money from Atlanta to the "other Georgia" (State funds). Pave old Norfolk 
Southern Railroad through Douglas from 441 North to 135 South (State funds). Bicycle path. 3. Outer Perimeter Rd. in county from Nicholls to W. Green to Broxton to Ambrose to Corridor 2 in Nicholls needs to become a state route. 
 
General Comment: Garland Thompson Blvd. needs to be resurfaced. Redevelopment ofFann to Market Roads. Look at the number of semi-trucks per day in each industry. Improved safety. Overpass on 206/135 on east side of Douglas. 
 
 Representative Chuck Sims 1. The funding formula of DOT. Too many dirt roads. Too little emphasis on rural 
, transportation problems by the State DOT. 2. Redo the formula for greater percent of money to go to rural areas. Four-lane 441 from 
Rabon Gap to Fargo. Get a mass transit bus line for the city of Douglas. 3. Increase in population may cause a need to improve existing roads and pave dirt roads. 
Created at least two overpasses over CSX. Establish rail line from Waycross to Atlanta. Four-lane outer perimeter and two-lane second outer perimeter. 
Derward Buchan 1. Need 4-lane highway access through Douglas and Coffee County (connected to 
Interstate Highway System). Four-lane highways such as US 441, US 221, SR 32 and SR 206 perimeter around City of Douglas. [Railroad] overpass needed on perimeter highway on east side of Douglas. 2. Rush toward an early of completion of the items listed above plus other project on the DOT drawing board and in the planning stage. 3. Four-lane access transportation is a must if Douglas and Coffee County is to continue as a thriving, progressive, and economically developed community. 
Paul Taylor, City of Nicholls 1. We had lot of rain that washed all of the county dirt roads, real bad. 2. Haul dirt build up from the dirt roads; have good drainage so water could drain out. 3. Coffee County has a lot of big trucks passing through. The county is growing very 
fast. If we could get the roads paved in the following order, this would take care of a lot of the problems: school bus routes.themail routes, roads going to the churches and cemeterys, the rese of the streets in Coffee County. 
Earl Brice, County Commissioner, Industrial Authority 1. Need for an Outer Perimeter Road. Four lane US 441 & Hwy 32 through the County. 
Traffic congestion on Perimeter Road and through town on US 441 one way pairs at certain times of the day. Traffic being held up by trains. Need some County Roads to become State Roads for truck traffic use. 2. Build an overpass for access over train tracks. Continue to widen, add turn lanes to existing Perimeter. Get east & west one-way streets done. Develop another north/south corridor through town. 3. Coffee County jobs and population are expected to continue growing through the next ten years. This means more and better roads and transportation corridors to move people safely and efficiently throughout the county. 
 
 I  
 
LIST OF ATTENDEES 
 
I 
 
i 
 
I 
 
I NAME 
 
I Title/Representing II 
 
NAME 
 
I I Title/Representing 
 
I' 
 
I 
 
Earl Brice 
 
Wendell Bryant 
 
Douglas 
 
Derward Buchan 
 
Gene Chambers Airport Commissioner 
 
Elisha Harrell 
 
Douglas Commissioner George Heck 
 
CRMC 
 
Frank Jackson 
 
Danny Lewis 
 
Douglas City Manager 
 
Max Lockwood Douglas Mayor 
 
Bob Moore 
 
Douglas Commissioner 
 
Robert Peel 
 
Statewide Engineering . Johnny Lee Roper Douglas Commissioner 
 
Bob Salay 
 
Spectrum Distribution Chuck Sims 
 
Georgia Representative 
 
Vickers Smith 
 
Saralyn Stafford COC/IA 
 
Don Stokes 
 
Coffee County Roads Van Streat 
 
Georgia Senator 
 
Dewayne Streat Nicholls Mayor 
 
Glynn Tanner 
 
Paul Taylor 
 
Nicholls Councilman Jack Williams 
 
Jackie Wilson 
 
Asst. City Mgr. Douglas 
 
Dr & Mrs. George South GA College Wingblade 
 
Anthony Kirkland City of Douglas 
 
Annie Lott 
 
CRMC 
 
Wayne Lamu (?) Retired 
 
DOT/Consultant Staff 
 
George Boulineau DOT Atlanta 
 
Carl Spinks 
 
DOT Atlanta 
 
Ulysses Mitchell DOT Atlanta 
 
Joe Sheffield 
 
DOT Atlanta 
 
Jerry Bruce 
 
DOT Douglas 
 
Shelly Anderson DOT Tifton 
 
David Rae 
 
URS Tallahassee 
 
Steven Kelly 
 
URS Tallahassee 
 
Andrew Velasquez 
 
URS Tallahassee 
 
 April 22-24, 1998: Meetings local officials in Coffee County 
David Rae and Steve Kelly attended eleven meetings over three days with various public officials and staff members from Coffee County and the municipalities within. The purpose of these meetings was to gather data and input from these groups as to their plans and needs for the Douglas/Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study. The schedule was as follows: 
Wednesday, April 22, 1998 
8:00 a.m. - City of Douglas / DDA, Douglas City Hall (lunch provided) 1:00 p.m. - Coffee County School System, School Board Office 2:30 p.m. - South Georgia College, Wanda Lloyd's Office 4:30 p.m. - Manufacturers Council/Industrial Authority - Airport Conference Room 
Thursday, April 23, 1998 
8:00 a.m. - Coffee County Commissioners / Road Department, Coffee County Courthouse Noon - City of Nicholls, Nicholls City Hall (lunch provided) 2:30 p.m. - City of Broxton, Broxton City Hall 4:50 p.m. - City of Ambrose, Ambrose City Hall [canceled] 
Friday, April 24, 1998 (all meetings held in Airport Conference Room) 
. 8:00 a.m. - City of Douglas Planning Commission 10:00 a.m. - Douglas Municipal Airport Commission 11 :00 a.m. - Coffee Regional Medical Center (CRMC) / Coffee County EMS / Sheriffs Dept. 
 
 to 
CITY OF DOUGLAS STAFF Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:00 a.m. 
 
Attending: 
 
Commissioner Bob Moore, Mayor Max Lockwood, Assistant City Manager Jackie Wilson, City Manager Danny Lewis, Amy Herndon, and JoAnn Lewis Director of Parks & Recreation 
 
JoAnn Lewis brought up the issue of the abandoned Central Georgia Rail Road ROW. She said that it is 3 'l'2 miles in length within the city limits and is very interested in it as a bike/pedestrian trail and park on behalf of the City of Douglas Parks & Recreation Department. She would like for the trail to begin on the north end at the Fairgrounds/High School and extend through South Georgia College. She would like to see the trail taken all the way to Willacoochee, southwest of Douglas. One issue affecting the proposed trail's northern terminus is Fleetwood Manufactured Home's (Northside Industrial Park) request for that ROW to expand their operation. If this were to happen, a trail would have to he routed to the east around the industrial park and along US 441 and curve back to the west to the High School. 
 
Other officials thought that it would be better to build a road within the ROW along with a trail. Jackie Wilson explained that the College is opposed to a road being built that would bisect the campus. The City, therefore, has developed a number of alternatives to align a road around the campus. The City officials all felt that there was a critical need for a perimeter to perimeter road to be build on the rail ROW to relieve congestion on PetersonlMadison Avenues. The City also wants the new road to have a grade separated rail crossing over the east/west running CSX rail line. 
 
With that, the issue of the needed railroad grade-separated crossing was brought up. It was explained that there are approximately 44 trains per day that take around two to three minutes to 
a clear the intersection. Many feel that there is need for a grade-separation on the East Perimeter like 
the one on the West Perimeter. This structure would also cross over Spooner Road and some feel that it may impact the businesses located on that intersection. As mentioned above, it is also thought that a structure is needed downtown, and possibly associated with a new road being build on the abandoned rail ROW. It is thought that this will improve emergency response when trains are passing through town. 
 
Another issue discussed was the increase in demand for SR 158 west of town. Apparently, much of the recent residential development has been developing along this corridor. One such development is Bay Meadows, a lakefront development that will eventually contain 500 units. Also, there is a planned elementary school on the south side ofSR 158IBaker Highway just outside the city limit which will generate further traffic. It is expected to be completed by August 1999 at the 
 
 earliest. It is reported that traffic backs up on this two-lane highway during the morning peak hour 
 
.. 
 
at the perimeter. It is the opinion of the attendees that SR 158 needs to be four-Ianed from the 
 
perimeter out to the Bay Meadows entrance. 
 
Other smaller issues and informational items discussed are as follows: 
 
Issues about Gaskin Ave which runs into the cemetery. Apparently trucks sometimes enter the cemetery accidently and have trouble turning around. There are also issues about security in the cemetary. 
Gordon road punch through across the abandoned rail line is approved, but there is some opposition from adjacent residents. This project will affect proposals for the rail ROW. 
Gaskin Avenue rail road crossing needs to be fixed (smoothed out) by CSx. 
Some would like to see a new entrance constructed to the High School that will bring school .bound traffic directly to the front of the school from US 441. There are currently two other access points; one of which aligns to the back of the school, while the other well north of the school. They thinks that it will "show" the school better. 
There are 800-1000 truck trips/day into or out of the Wal-Mart Distribution Center. Many think that there needs to be a traffic signal at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center entrance (which aligns with George Drive). Some trucks bound for the Distribution Center from SR 135/Willacoochee Highway cut through Richey Lane to Kellogg Drive for a straight shot into the facility also avoiding traffic at the perimeter. 
Need signal Gaskin Road at the perimeter 
Need connection fromSimrnons Drive all the way around to SR 135, possibly through Richey Lane. 
McNeil Dr. (north side of town) needs to be widened to 3-lane section [already in comprehensive plan] 
Unnecessary four-way stop at College/Gordon intersection 
See ifit is possible to extend Columbia Ave south to GA 158 (Baker Hwy). 
 
 .. CITY OF DOUGLAS FIRE CHIEF JIMMY PORTER 
 Ii 
He thinks that at many locations stop bars are located too close to the intersection and people exceed them, as well. This makes it difficult for fire trucks and tractor trailers to make left turns. 
 
~ 
 
US 441 South at SR 206 
 
~ 
 
US 221 at SR 32 (east side). 
 
~ 
 
Wheeler at 206 SB left 
 
Contrary to what others think, Jimmy doesn't think they need a light at Gaskin at the Perimeter. Jimmy also inquired as to the signals on the US 441 pair. He does not think there is very good progression like there used to be. 
 
DOUGLAS CITY COMMISSION 
 
Attending: 
 
Commissioner Charles Moore, Commissioner Elisha Harrell, Road Foreman Jimmy Royal, Commissioner Don Brooks, and Assistant City Manager Jackie Wilson 
 
This session began with lunch being served. After lunch, Jimmy Royal was asked to identify problem areas that he was aware of. He mentioned that there are drainage problems on McDonald Road in the City. He thinks that curb and gutter should be installed to alleviate the ponding that occurs at some locations during rain. 
 
On the subject of the airport, Jackie said that the FAA will send funding for the runway lengthening once the City purchases the additional property on south end of field. This will probably happen next year. Jackie also wanted to know if the rail road bed extends north of the perimeter. Nobody knew the answer to that question. She also asked if we knew the status of some TEA funding that the City applied for. We did not know, and do not even know what project the funding was applied for. 
 
Other areas of concern and general comments: 
 
~ 
 
Chester Avenue at Walker Street: had a fatality recently and at least one crash per week 
 
~ 
 
Gaskin needs signal at the S. Perimeter, as traffic backs up on Gaskin. There are also 
 
numerous accidents. 
 
' 
 
~ 
 
Wal-Mart Distribution wants a signal at its entrance 
 
~ 
 
Another side track into Wal-Mart Distribution was approved. Will there be more shunting 
 
activity and disruptions because of it? 
 
 COFFEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Wednesday, April 22, 1998 1:00 p.m. 
 
Attending: L.J. Harrell, Leo Brooks 
 
School Ambrose Broxton Eastside Nicholls Satilla West Green Westside ECMS WCMS Coffee High Total 
 
Grade Level K-5 
PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 
K-5 PK-5 
6-8 6-8 9-12 PK-12 
 
Coffee County School System Sch 00 inlvetn orv 
No. Students No. Teachers 
 
393 
 
29 
 
432 
 
31 
 
660 
 
49 
 
321 
 
23 
 
1023 
 
65 
 
406 
 
36 
 
762 
 
54 
 
645 
 
49 
 
947 
 
69 
 
1888 
 
118 
 
7477 
 
523 
 
No: Staff 14 23 27 18 39 16 38 22 28 53 
278 
 
No. Buses 9 6 5 5 14 7 12 12 19 
26 
-- 
lIS 
 
There is a planned elementary school on SR I58/Baker Highway 1.0 mile west of SR 206 at Simmons Road. The school will be able to handle 800 students. 
 
Other issues brought up. 
 
~ 
 
High School would like to have a new entrance. 
 
~ 
 
"Back Door" to the High School needs paving (in the works?) 
 
~ 
 
Would like four-Ianing ofSR 158 up to new school 
 
~ 
 
Anderson Road (unpaved) re-aligned and paved between SR 158 and SR 135 
 
 SOUTH GEORGIA COLLEGE Wednesday, April 22, 1998 2:30 p.m. 
 
Attending: Wanda Lloyd, Vice President for Business Affairs; George Wingblade, Director of Physical Plant, Public Safety, & Environmental Health 
 
General Information: 
 
~ 
 
1200 students: 1000 commuters, 200 dorm residents 
 
~ 
 
All students live within 30 miles of campus. 
 
~ 
 
140 staff members 
 
George said that students exiting campus at the main entrance can clear Peterson Avenue (signalized) but have difficulty making a left turn at Madison Avenue (unsignalized). 
 
As discussed previously with the City of Douglas staff, the abandoned Norfolk Southern ROW runs north-south through town and through the College Campus. The rails and ties are removed with only the crushed rock bed left. Wanda and George explained that they are opposed to the City's proposal to build a road on the ROW that would bisect the campus. They would prefer to take control of the ROW through campus, remove the rock, and use the extra space to construct a number of new facilities (contained in the Master Plan). At the very least, by removing the rail bed, they could solve some nagging drainage problems caused by it, for it acts as a dam of sorts. They would also be able to run utilities across it without having to go overhead. 
 
When asked what they thought about the idea of creating a bike/pedestrian trail on the ROW, 
 
they said that the College was not particularly interested in that proposal either. They were worried 
 
about 
 
security . 
 
issues, 
 
including 
 
the 
 
burden 
 
of 
 
having 
 
t.o 
 
provide 
 
security 
 
and 
 
lighting 
 
to 
 
trail 
 
users. 
 
Another security issue is the potential that the trail may bring undesirable outsiders onto campus and 
 
would provide them with an easy escape route after committing a crime. They appeared much less 
 
bothered by the trail proposal than the road idea. 
 
 I~ 
 
MANUFACTURERS COUNCIL :AND 
 
COFFEE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY 
 
Wednesday, April 22, 1998 
 
4:30 p.m. 
 
Attending: . 
 
Don Brooks, IA; Lucious Summerlin, IA; Arnold Parsons, GA Dept. of Labor; Oscar Streat, IA; Derward Buchan; Gene Chambers, Marcraft, Inc.; Luke Morgan, IA; Sonny Cooper,. Fleetwood; Bob Salay, Spectrum Distribution; Ed Jackson, Northeastern Plastics; Ronnie Moffitt, Wal-Mart Distribution; Mike McGeehan, Wal-Mart Transportation; Nora Merritt and Bonita S. Ortiz, Coffee County Department of Family and Services; Mary Ann H. Nye, Coffee County Employment Services; Saralyn Stafford, IA; Ray Moon, Elixir Industries; Steve Harris, Marine Manufacturing 
 
Derward Buchan asked ifthere needs to be a by-pass around Douglas for US 441 since it is being considered as a major route through the entire state. He also said that the perimeter needs to be made better, more continuous, on the north side of town. There was also much discussion of the need for another grade-separated crossing over the CSX rail line. Someone made the point that there will be increased rail usage, as is evidenced by the recent track work between Douglas and Nicholls. 
 
There is also general concern that, even with the five-Ianing of the Perimeter oil the west side, there will be continually increasing levels of congestion, hindering their efforts to move product into and out of their facilities. They discussed the possibility of building a new partial-perimeter road for the southwest quadrant. This road would begin at US 441 south of the airport and curve around to SR 135 and then around the SW Industrial Park to SR 158. Some even inquired about the possibility of building a complete outer loop bypass around Douglas. They all agreed that the available roadway capacity must be available for all of their operations to continue to grow. 
 
The representatives from the Coffee County Department of Family andServices (DFCS) said that the biggest problem in finding jobs for the unemployed people in their programs is that they cannot get to those jobs. They wanted to know if there is a possibility of creating transit service in Coffee County to alleviate this problem. Unified Transportation System was mentioned. What does this mean. It was also mentioned that the unemployment rate is at 5.3% in Coffee County. 
 
Many Wal-Mart Distribution truckers use a back cut-through from SR 158 to give them a straight shot into the entrance (using Qeorge Drive). Many think that a signal is needed at the entrance. Also, many would like to see a connection build from Richey Drive to Simmons Drive to enable a similar cut through from SR 135. It would also connect the two industrial parks on the west side. Other comments were as follows: 
 
 ... 
Need more lanes on SR 32 between Douglas and Albany Enhanced corridor to 1-75 and to 1-95 (port access to Port in Savannah) Wal-Mart Distribution serves 5 states and trucks go in all directions: about lOOO/day SR 158 northeast bound at the Perimeter is busy in the morning peak hour Can't transport 53 foot trailers legally on SR 32 East according to the GDOT Need to extend Gaskin Avenue further to the south NB SR 135 left turn onto Perimeter road is very difficult--needs improvement 
 
COFFEE COUNTY COMMISSION Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:00 a.m. 
Attending: Glynn Turner, Vickers Smith, Earl Brice 
Glynn brought up a concept that was discussed years ago that would provide a direct route from Jacksonville to 1-75 at Macon that would pass through Douglas. We were not aware of any such proposal. They all feel that there is congestion on US 441 through town and on the Perimeter but defer decisions witHin the city limit to the City of Douglas. 
 
All three of the Commissioners in attendance were all in favor of the Outer Perimeter idea. 
 
Under this concept, the State would take over the chain of County roads that begin at US 82 in 
 
Willacoochee and connect to Ambrose, Broxton, West Green, Nicholls, and connect back to US 82 
 
at Axson in Atkinson County. The State would make the necessary improvements to the cross 
 
section, alignment, and pavement design to bring it up to State standards for trucking traffic. They 
 
claim that a variety of trucks carrying logs, feed, chickens, and crops already travel these roads and 
 
are causing the surface, ill-designed for the loads, to tear up prematurely. They said that it would 
 
relieve a huge maintenance burden from the county so that they can focus on improving other roads 
 
that need paving. 
 
: ... 
 
One other project that they think is warranted is the widening of SR 158IBaker Highway due to development along that corridor and the planned elementary school. 
 
 .. 
CITY OF NICHOLLS Thursday, April 23, 1998. 
12:00 noon 
Attending: Councilman Gordon Waters, Councilman Paul Taylor, Councilman Mark Rowe, Councilwoman Nina Lott, Mayor Dewayne Streat, Walter Mitchell 
The meeting began with lunch. After eating, we were informed of two facilities that are either planned or urider construction. 
The first is the 750 bed State Prison on North Liberty Street in which construction is well under way. North Liberty Street has 10 foot lanes is on 50 feet of ROW.. Construction traffic generated by the prison has noticeably damaged the pavement surface, especially the edges. The City of Nicholls would like to see the lane widths widened, paved shoulders added, and a resurfacing undertaken. This facility is classified as a rural minor collector north of SR 32 and as a rural major collector south of SR 32. The improvements to the section north of SR 32 could not be funded with STP monies because of its classification, but would have to compete for LARP funds. 
The second facility that is planned for the town is the South Georgia Youth Pavilion, which is touted to be the largest arena south of Macon. It will be located on the southeast corner of South Liberty Street and Thompson Street. This arena will be used for horse and cattle shows and industrial exhibitions. 
The City has also asked that turn lanes be added onto SR 32 (Van Streat, Sr. Highway) at Liberty Street from both approaching directions. There exists 100 feet of ROW on:S.R 32 except in the vicinity of the Liberty Street intersection, where it narrows to 75 feet. 
CITY OF BROXTON Thursday, April 23, 1998 
2:30 p.m. 
Attending: Mayor Bobby Reynolds and Lucious Summerlin 
The only project that the City of Broxton is interested in is that which creates a one-way pair through town with US 441 and Railroad Avenue. This project will help accommodate the eventual four-Ianing of US 441 through this area. Mayor Reynolds informed us that the GDOT has already surveyed the corridor and have drawn up preliminary designs. We later found out that this project is programmed for ROW acquisition this year with construction in the Year 2000 TEDS 441(35) 
 
 .. project 421905]. 
 
CITY OF DOUGLAS PLANNING COMMISSION Friday, April 24, 1998 8:00 a.m. 
Attending: Wendell Bryant, Thomas Richey, Jeffrey Harper, Joseph Murray, Thomas Sheppard 
The issue of the abandoned railroad ROW was brought up. Some thought that the funds could be better spent on other projects. Others were worried about potential safety problems on the trail. 
 
Other comments and issues: 
 
~ 
 
Improve Woodrow Stone up to dirt road around west side (see highlighting on map) 
 
~ 
 
SR 158IBaker Highway needs to be widened to handle traffic from new elementary 
 
school and Bay Meadows 
 
Need elevated roadway crossing over the CSX rail line on the East Perimeter and one in 
 
DowntoWn 
 
~ 
 
EB Walker at US 221 needs a right-tum lane 
 
~ 
 
SR 158 East needs passing lanes because there is a lot of truck traffic going to US 82- 
 
(Wal-Mart's route to Jacksonville) 
 
Planning Commission is concerned that the county is not requiring develope~s to pave the 
 
streets in their subdivisions 
 
~ 
 
Bad intersection Fitzgerald Hwy at Broxton Hwy. 
 
~ 
 
Passing lanes are needed on SR 32 East (maybe past State Park) 
 
 DOUGLAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT COMMISSION Friday, April 24, 1998 10:00 a.m. 
 
Attending: Gene Chambers, Norman Fletcher, Tony James, Tim Wildes, Ken Lanier, Bob Harless 
 
There are a variety of improvements that are recommended by the Georgia Statewide 
 
Aviation System Plan and programmed by the City of Douglas. These improvements are to bring 
 
the airport into standards conformance for a Level III airport (a Business Airport of Regional 
 
Impact): 
 
 
 
Purchase additional property on south end of Runway 4/22 for clear zone and to 
 
accommodate runway lengthening 
 
 
 
Lengthen by 1000 feet Runway 4/22 on the south side 
 
 
 
Relocate and extend to full length the parallel taxiway (off-set from runway additional 
 
200') 
 
 
 
Install precision Instrument Landing System (lLS) 
 
 
 
Upgrade runway lighting to High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL) 
 
 
 
Install Remote Communications Outlet 
 
 
 
Install Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) 
 
 
 
Develop a Precision GPS approach 
 
 
 
Install a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runw.ay Alignment Indicator 
 
Lights (MALSR) 
 
 
 
Install fencing to secure the Airport Operations Area (AOA) 
 
 
 
Construct access road for emergency vehicles while addressing FAA security concerns 
 
The only thing that the commission asks is that we help expedite the .plans that are currently made. Also, no one knows if there is any need for resurfacing the runway for heavier aircraft. 
 
FAA's Concerns: 
 
 
 
They don't approve of direct access from EMS to the runway because of the possibility of 
 
private vehicles being able to drive onto the runway. A fenced ADA with an electric 
 
gate to prevent trespassing and reduce the likelihood of incursions would probably be 
 
satisfactory to the FAA. 
 
 
 
They don't like the idea of private aprons with access to the runway, including the GBI 
 
Heliport on airport property. Would rather see the Heliport on the other side of the 
 
property line. 
 
Other Comments: 
 
 
 
Why not prohibit left tUrns off of US 441 through downtown 
 
 
 
The signal at Perimeter & Willacoochee Highway was installed 1 year ago 
 
 
 
SR 158 to the State Park needs to be paved 
 
 
 
US 441 needs to be re-striped to Dublin 
 
 
 
Needs striping plan Walker Street at Golf Club Road (sea of pavement) 
 
 COFFEE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AND EMS Friday, April 24, 1998 11:00 a.m. 
Attending: Annie Lott; John Hunt, Director of EMS Annie and John informed us that the Hospital is moving into new building in June and the 
old building will be demolished to provide parking. Annie said that she would send us a site plan for the hospital. With the new building, ambulances will use SR 32. John asked if it is possible to install warning signs near the ambulance entrance or even signal equipment at that location that can be tripped with a transponder. He said that he can purchase the equipment that is installed in the ambulances. 
They did discuss a couple locations with traffic problems. One of these is the Perimeter westbound to US 441 North. At this location, what appears to be the right turn lane actually goes into Burger King. The actual right tum lane begins just after this point. Drivers are continually tricked into the Burger King drive-through. Annie brought up the use of multiple stop signs on the same pole, specifically Walker Street at Chester Avenue. She wondered ifit is necessary. Apparently cars commonly carry too much speed on Walker. 
John made the point that Rail Road crossings are a big problem--the smoother the better. Apparently, patients can be thrown around in the back of an ambulance over some of the rougher crossings. On the subject of rail road crossings, John wants a grade separation on the east Perimeter, not so much in middle of town. He said that one on the east Perimeter would solve all of his access problems caused by train disruption. 
. ~"; -: 
I 
I 
 
 John Hunt's list of transportation needs: 
 
Primary transportation needs: 
 
~ 
 
SR 135 South at Ben Carver: water flows across highway when raining 
 
~ 
 
Hwy 441 North at Leroy Sapp Road: water accumulates on road when raining 
 
~ 
 
Shirley Ave (Railroad Crossing) 
 
~ 
 
Gordan St. from Chester to 206 (narrow with potholes) 
 
~ 
 
Westside Dr. from Ward to Gordan (rough with potholes) 
 
~ 
 
Osbon Mills Rd (narrow with potholes) 
 
~ 
 
Hansell Sears Rd (needs paving) 
 
~ 
 
George Deen Rd (narrow wit~ potholes) 
 
~ 
 
Oat Butter Rd (washes out easily and is boggy) 
 
Other Areas of Concern 
 
~ 
 
Bowens Mill Rd & Pope Dr 
 
~ 
 
SR32 E. & US 221 N. 
 
~ 
 
441 S & Webster Way 
 
~ 
 
Jackson St. & N. Peterson 
 
~ 
 
SR 135 & S. Gaskin 
 
~ 
 
Wilcox Rd. (Broxton) 
 
~ 
 
Sinkhole Rd. 
 
~ 
 
Popular & Spring Oak 
 
~ 
 
Brooks Rd (Broxton) 
 
~ 
 
SR 353 @ Wal-Mart Entrance (addressed) 
 
~ 
 
E. Walker & US 221' 
 
~ 
 
221 N. & Crossroad 
 
~ 
 
Bowens Mill Rd. & Spooner Rd. 
 
~ 
 
Ambrose Crossing 
 
~ 
 
Old Coffee Rd (Ambrose) 
 
~ 
 
SR 206 & SR 206 W. Connector 
 
~ 
 
Shell Bell Rd (Nicholls) 
 
~ 
 
Mosley Rd (Broxton) 
 
 May 13, 1998: Local Officials Workshop 
2. 
A meeting was held in the Coffee County Courthouse on Wednesday, May 13, 1998 to discuss the Douglas/Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study. The meeting was called by Senator Van Streat and was attended by approximately 30 people, all invited by the Senator. These were made up of local officials, GDOT Tifton representatives, industry representatives, the college, law enforcement, and the citizenry. 
The Senator and Representative Chuck Sims gave the introduction and then introduced Jerry Bruce from the GDOT District 4 office in Tifton. Jerry provided a handout and gave a presentation explaining what projects were currently programmed by the Department in Coffee County. After Jerry was finished, David Rae was introduced. David gave a presentation that contained a summary of the input and ideas collected in the meetings held recently with local officials. 
Senator Streat made the point that many of the items in David's presentation, as voiced by local officials, are already in the work program. He encouraged the people to think long term and to think big. He said that the Department is spending a large amount of money on this study and will probably not conduct another one any time soon. He emphasized that everyone should try to imagine what the transportation system needs to be in twenty years to accommodate the groWth that is occurrmg. 
Senator Streat also brought up the topic of the "outer-loop." He said that with the new legislation that passed in Atlanta, local roads can be improved to state standards and be made available to truck traffic. This is somewhat different than what we thought was being proposed originally. We thought that the proponents wanted the State to take over the Coffee County roads that make up the outer-loop. It turns out that they may only be looking for State aid to help improve them. The County would still like to give them up and use their funds to maintain other roads. 
 
 May 21, 1998: Data Collection & Analysis 
 
, 
 
Public Meeting 
 
A public meeting was held for the Douglas/Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study in the Coffee County Courthouse Jury Assembly Room betwe,en 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. on May 21, 1998. The meeting was advertised in the Douglas Enterprise on May 19-20 and more than one hundred invitations were mailed out. 
 
The meeting began with an introduction from Carl Spinks, GDOT Assistant Administrator, Statewide Planning. Carl then introduced David Rae of DRS Consultants who thanked everyone , for coming and introduced Steve Kelly. Steve gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the study purpose, schedule, and scope. He then covered growth trends in the county in the categories of population, economy, and traffic. Steve then summarized transportation issues brought out in the coordination meetings held with local officials and industry. Lastly, he presented a summary of the accident analysis, present and future traffic conditions, and identified present and future roadway needs. Steve then opened the meeting for questions. 
 
Guy Moorman asked about a project that will connect the west perimeter road to the 206 Connector (Industrial Drive). He and his wife are concerned about its impact on a wetland. He explained that the centerline of the new road runs directly over a beaver dam. He would like for the road to be realigned to begin at an existing road that is only 0.2 miles northwest of the proposed alignment. He also believes that the project may also cause a flooding problem. City, County and GDOT staff were not sure of the status of the 'project and David Rae stated that we would research the project and get back to the Moormans with a status report. 
 
Someone asked what drives the Department's priorities. David answered that safety improvements always come first, then improvements to maintain the existing roadway system. and finally improvements to provide new capacity. 
 
The issue of the abandoned Norfolk-Southern ROW was raised and someone asked who it was that wanted a road to be built on that property. , David explained that the City of Douglas was exploring that option. Commissioner Don Brooks then offered some history on this issue. He said that the City was trying to come up with a location for an elevated crossing of the CSX railroad in downtown. The City saw the abandoned railroad as a good loc'ation to build such a structure. They then decided to see about building a road the full length of the corridor through town. Commissioner Brooks also added that the City has never proposed just a road, but rather a combination of road and bike trail on the abandoned right-of-way. David asked Dr. Jackson if 
 
 he would like to present the position of the College on the use of the rail Hne. Dr. Ed Jackson, President of South Georgia College, explained that the college is unalterably opposed to using the ROW as a road. He said that they would be willing to discuss the bike trail idea but are not particularly in favor of it, either. They have plans to use the ROW for new buildings and the dev.elopment of College. 
 
A representative from the Coffee County DFCS inquired as to the status of transit for Coffee County and asked if it was not a priority of ours. David answered that it is being considered in the study. 
 
An attendee brought up the Gordon Street connection issue. He said that he is against the project and ~at it will make Gordon Street dangerous for kids and pedestrians by increasing traffic levels. 
 
The meeting was adjourned. 
 
'j 
 
 LIST OF ATTENDEES 
 
I NAME 
Earl Brice, Jr. 
 
I Title/Representing 
Douglas City Commission 
 
II 
 
NAME 
 
The Honorable Johnny Lee Roper 
 
I I Title/Representing 
Douglas City Commission 
 
Derward Buchan 
 
Wendell Sears 
 
Deborah Porter 
 
Mandy Smith 
 
Douglas Enterprise 
 
Greg Evans 
 
Statewide Engineering Saralyn Stafford 
 
Chamber of Commerce 
 
Ed Jackson 
 
South Georgia College The Honorable Chuck Sims 
 
Georgia State Representative 
 
Frank Jackson 
 
Don Stokes 
 
Coffee Road Foreman 
 
Danny Lewis 
 
Douglas City Manager Oscar Street 
 
Industrial Authority 
 
Joanne Lewis 
 
Director of Community April Thomason Services, Douglas 
 
Coffee County DFCS 
 
Annie Lott 
 
CRMC 
 
Jackie Wilson 
 
Dir. Community Dev. 
 
Mr. & Mrs Guy Moorman 
 
George Wingblade South Georgia College 
 
Bonita Ortiz 
 
Coffee County DFCS Mary Ann Nye 
 
Coffee County DFCS 
 
Staff 
 
Carl Spinks 
 
GDOT Atlanta 
 
David Rae 
 
URS Tallahassee 
 
Stan Hames 
 
GDOT Atlanta 
 
Steve Kelly 
 
URS Tallahassee 
 
Ulysses Mitchell GDOT Atlanta 
 
 duly 7, 1998: Recommendations. Public Meeting 
A public meeting was held for the Douglas-Coffee County Multimodal Transportation Study in the Coffee County Courthouse Jury Assembly Room between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. on July 7, 1998. The meeting was advertised in the Douglas Enterprise on June JO and July 1, and in the Coffee County News & Shopper on June 30 and July 3. One hundred and twenty five invitation letters were also mailed out. 
, i. 
The meeting began with an introduction from Representative Chuck Sims who introduced Toni Dunagan, State Transportation Planning Administrator. Toni introduced her staff and then David Rae of URS Consultants who gave the presentation. In the presentation David covered the study purpose, schedule, scope of services, already programmed improvement projects, and identified future roadway needs and study recommendations. David then opened the floor to questions. 
Someone asked about the rerouting of city streets, in particular College Avenue and Gordon Street. David responded that the City has plans to reconnect Gordon Street across the abandoned rail bed which includes some State funding participation. 
Someone asked if additional right-of-way would be required to 4-lane SR 32.. David Crim answered that there is sufficient R/W width to handle a 4-lane section. 
Someone asked if there is a deadline for notifying Norfolk-Southern as to the intentions of the city with regard to the abandoned rail bed. Jackie Wilson responded that Norfolk-Southern wanted an answer by July 24. 
The issue of the CR 268 extension came up. Someone asked if there will be any public hearings. David Rae answered that this project will require environmental permitting, which may jeopardize the project (applause). 
Someone asked if we considered the need to 4-lane Liberty Street in Nichols to the new prison. David Rae answered that we are recommending that the need for tum lanes be evaluated by the District and that the need for paved shoulders along that section of Liberty Street be looked into by the county. 
Lucious Summ~rlin asked if the one-way pair project in Broxton is really going to happen. 
 
 David Rae answered that it is in the work program for 2000. [David Grim later checked into the project. It turns out that the 4-laning oj US 441, including the one-way pair in Broxton is not ready Jor 2000 due to environmental concerns and incomplete right-oj-way purchases. He said that it will be several years late.] 
Someone reported that Goldkist Foods will soon be doubling its output, which will increase the amount of truck traffic accessing the plant. He asked if a tum lane could be built to accommodate the right tum off of McNeil Drive onto northbound US 441. Danny Lewis suggested that the road may warrant a 3-lane section. David Rae stated that McNeil Drive is a city road and this type of improvement would be addressed by the City. 
, 
Curtis Farrar asked if the City could purchase Shop Pond from Norfolk-Southern so that a waterfront park could be incorporated into the multi-use trail. Someone answered that it has already been sold. 
The issue of the CR 268 extension again came up. Mr. Guy Moorman offered some background and explained that the idea for this project came about in 1976-77 when growth was forecast to occur on the north side of town. He believes that the project is no longer warranted, since this area of town has not developed as expected and growth has clearly shifted to the southwest side of town. Commissioner Roper stated that if we were looking for a back door to the high school, a better way would be along a dirt road that connects the school with SR 206. 
Danny Lewis voiced his disappointment that we recommended an inner loop 1.5 miles outside the existing perimeter but not an outer loop. He thinks that the outer loop would benefit truckers greatly. Especially the section from Nichols to West Green. 
Someone asked for more explanation on Rural Public Transit under U.S.C. 5311. A long discussion resulted. It appeared that transit had the interest of many in attendance, including Rep. Sims and Mayor Lockwood. 
Representative Sims stood up and thanked the Department for providing the community with this study and led a round of applause. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
 LIST OF ATTENDEES 
 
., 
 
I NAME 
 
I II TitielRepresenting 
 
NAME 
 
I I TitlelRepresenting , 
 
Earl Brice 
 
County Commission 
 
Chuck Sims 
 
Georgia Representative 
 
Derward Buchan 
 
Mandy Smith 
 
Douglas Enterprise 
 
Gene Chambers 
 
Airport Commission 
 
Saralyn Stafford 
 
COC-IA 
 
Jim Cottingham 
 
City Commission 
 
Lucious Summerlin IA 
 
Elisha Harrell 
 
City Commission 
 
Jack Williams 
 
Ed Jackson 
 
Pres., South Ga. College Jackie Wilson 
 
City Dir. Comm. Dev. 
 
Danny Lewis 
 
City Manager 
 
George Wingblade South Ga. College 
 
Max Lockwood 
 
Mayor of Douglas 
 
Shirley Fales 
 
Bob Moore 
 
City Commission , 
 
Frances Negent 
 
Charles Moore 
 
City Commission 
 
,Madge Mardis 
 
Guy & Mrs. Moorman 
 
Paul Mardis 
 
Mary Ann Nye 
 
DFCS 
 
Billy Kirkland 
 
Bonita Ortiz 
 
DFCS 
 
Shelton Anderson 
 
Bob Porter 
 
Airport Commission 
 
Deborah Adams Merritt 
 
Deborah Porter 
 
Phill Tann 
 
Johnny Lee Roper City Commission 
 
Eda Kenny 
 
" 
 
Larry Royal 
 
City Street Director 
 
Linda? 
 
Wendell Sears 
 
Carl Bishop 
 
Staff 
 
Toni Dunagan 
 
GDOT Atlanta 
 
David Rae 
 
DRS Tallahassee 
 
Stan Hames 
 
GDOT Atlanta 
 
Steve Kelly 
 
DRS Tallahassee 
 
Ulysses Mitchell 
 
GDOT Atlanta 
 
Andrew Velasquez DRS Tallahassee 
 
David Crim 
 
GDOT District IV 
 
John Maliff 
 
DRS Tallahassee 
 
Joe Sheffield 
 
GDaT District IV 
 
Kenny Vickers 
 
GDaT District IV 
 
Jerry Bruce 
 
GDaT Douglas 
 
 . ite: 
 
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 
525 School St., S.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20024-2797 USA 
 
DATE: 
 
August 18, 1998 
 
TO: FAX: 
 
Steven M. Kelly Transportation Engineer DRS Consultants, Inc. 124 Marriott Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 
850-942-4101 
 
'JffI 
(}.; 
 
FROM: 
 
Jane A. Wetz, Administrative Assistant, Communicatio"ns Department 
 
SUBJECT: Permission to Photocopy 
 
The Institute of Transportation Engineers does grant permission to you to photocopy the following material for you to include in an appendix for the benefit of City officials in Douglas, Georgia: 
 
"U.S. Experience with Traffic Calming", Reid Ewing and. Charles Kooshran, 
 
ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 28-33. 
 
. 
 
Please acknowledge our copyright by publishing, " 1997 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Used by permission." 
 
Please know that this is a one-time, one-use agreement, and any other use of the aforementioned material, or any other resource of the Institute, must be requested in writing, and approved by the Institute in writing. 
 
If the City of Douglas should want to include any of this information in publications or brochures or any other published information, someone must contact us for permission to reprint because this is copyrighted material. 
 
Thank you for your interest in ITE publications. Should you have other requests or need more information please call us at 202/554-8050. 
 
 I 
I 
u.s. Experience with Traffic Calming 
 
COMPARED WITH 
 
TRAFFIC CALMING HAS BEEN 
 
called rhe "most significanr new idea in 
 
JURISDICTIONS OUTSIDE 
 
cicy planning in rhe lasr 30 years." I It 
 
cerrainly is among rhem. Traffic calming 
 
THE STATE, MANY 
 
is parr of a sea of change in the way 
 
transportation systems are viewed. 
 
FLORIDA JURISDICTIONS. 
 
Transporrarion planning is becoming 
 
more multimodal and more sensitive to 
 
RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON TWO 
 
rhe social cOStS of automobile use. 2 Our 
 
once single-minded pursuit of speed and 
 
Figure 1. Center Island Narrowing (Orlando) 
 
OR THREE TRAFFIC 
 
capacicy is being tempered by other concerns} Traffic calming fits neatly into dures followed by jurisdicrions for con- 
 
CALMING MEASURES. 
 
rhis new "less is more" world of ours. 
 
siderarion of and acrion on neighbor- 
 
Hired to develop a traffic calming hood traffic calming requesrs; and other 
 
plan for the town of Belleair, Florida, rhorny issues of implemenrarion. 
 
USA (in association wirh Hall Planning 
 
An abbreviared summary of our find- 
 
& Engineering of Tallahassee, Florida, ings follows. 
 
USA), our firsr rask was to learn more 
 
1. What traffic calming measures 
 
. about rhe srare-of-rhe-pracrice. The are used in your jurisdiction...? 
 
scarrered published repom, mosdy 
 
(a) Florida jurisdicrions use a limired 
 
anecdoral, were insufficienr to answer array of traffic calming measures (Table 
 
all quesrions, and assuage all concerns, I). Individual communiries rypically 
 
of a local governmenr abour to invesr in have two or rhree favorires upon which 
 
traffic calming. This prompred us ro they rely exclusively. Fe. Lauderdale, 
 
conducr rhe firsr (to our knowledge) in- Florida, USA and Sarasora, Florida, 
 
deprh survey of U.S. traffic calming USA are exceptions, testing several new 
 
programs, seven in our home srare of measures as parr of recenr area-wide traf- 
 
Florida and 11 ourside. 
 
fic calming plans. 
 
A wrinen quesrionnaire was mailed 
 
(b) The jurisdicrions outside Florida, 
 
our, and answers were recorded in most of which are acknowledged leaders 
 
lengrhy, free-wheeling telephone inrer- in traffic calming, have experimented 
 
views. Sire visirs were also conducted ro wirh more measures (Table 2). But wirh 
 
see and photograph traffic calming mea- the exception of Seartle, Washingron, 
 
sures around rhe state of Florida. A. rep- USA, rhey toO are nor raking advanrage 
 
resenrative sample of photos appears of rhe full range' of oprions from conri- 
 
rhroughour (his arricle. 
 
nenral Europe, Britain and Ausrralia. 
 
Our survey covered: rypes of rraffic 
 
(c) Speed cOnttols are much more 
 
calming measures used and reasons widely used (han volume controls. Vol- 
 
- 
BY REID EWING AND CHARLES KOOSHIAN 
 
for selecring rhese 'parricular measures; before-and-afrer 
 
ume conrrols divert through-traffic rarher (han simply slowing i( down. Those inrerviewed worry, rightly, about 
 
studies of traffic speed, volume and acci- impacts on parallel srree(s. 
 
denrs; concerns of police, fire, public 
 
Cd) Insofar as certain measures slow 
 
works and citizens, and how rheir con- (raffic without causing much diversion, 
 
cerns have been addressed; liabiliry, law- rhey are preferred in cases where residen- 
 
suirs and damage claims associared wirh tial meers will experience rhe spillover. 
 
traffic calming measures; geometric This is one of the advantages of (raffic 
 
design and spacing of measures; proce- circles and long speed humps, for exam- 
 
28 
 
lYE JOURNAL I AUGUST 1997 
 
 . 
 
pie, over srreet closures and standard 
 
for large subareas of the city, Poreland, 
 
. speed humps. 
 
Oregon, USA has setded on the individ- 
 
(e) Many jurisdictions install traffic 
 
ual neighborhood as the optimal scale 
 
calming measures on a trial basis. ar the end of which a decision is m~de to 
 
for planning purposes. 
 
install them permanently or remove 
 
2. Do you have any Qefore-and- 
 
them. If they install temporary mea- 
 
after studies...? 
 
sures, such as construction barricades to 
 
(a) Studies of traffic calming impacts 
 
simulate a rraffic circle or plastic planters ro simulate a street closure, they run the 
 
. Figure 2. Chicane (Alachua) 
 
on speeds and volumes were furnished by Boulder, Colorado, USA, Ft. Laud- 
 
risk of public opposition solely due to 
 
erdale, Florida, USA,. Naples, Florida, 
 
aesthetics. The relatively few measures 
 
(g) The need for areawide traffic USA, Orlando, Florida, USA, Phoenix, 
 
ever removed, according ro our surveys, calming is clear from several examples. Arizona, USA, Portland, Oregon, USA, 
 
suggest the wisdom of installing perma- In Gainesville, Florida, USA all-way Sarasota, Florida, USA, Seattle, Wash- 
 
nent measures. 
 
srop signs were installed on one neigh- . ington, USA and Tampa, Florida, USA. 
 
(f) Landscaping and other edge treat- borhood street. They created a problem Additional studies have been promised 
 
ments complement engineering measures of cut-through traffic on another street by Arlington County, Virginia, USA, 
 
in two respects. First, they soften the appearance of speed humps and enhance 
 
as drivers sought to avoid the Stops. The cur-thro~gh problem was solved only by 
 
the appearance of more aesthetic mea- treating the other street to create a 
 
sures such as chicanes and traffic circles. circuitous route through the 
 
Second, landscaping and other edge treat- neighborhood. 
 
ments can make engineering measures 
 
(h) The national experience suggests 
 
more effective (and safer) by highlighting that traffic calming should be planned 
 
the presence of the measures. Any vertical on :m areawide basis but not over such a 
 
element-trees, shrubs, pbnters, bol- wide area that it becomes difficult to 
 
lards, signage-dtaws attention to traffic achieve consensus on a plan. Having 
 
calming measures. 
 
prepared plans for individual streets and 
 
Figure 3. Choker (Sarasota) 
 
.Table 1. Traffic Calming Mea~ures in Florida' 
 
SPEED CONTROL MEASURES . Standard Speed Humps 
Long Humps/Speed' Tables Tcaffic Circles Chicanes Nubs Chokers Raised Junctions 
 
-'I"'~-. -- IiE1!JII1D-EmIlDII , 
 
. 
 
., ,";., 
 
-, 
 
" 
 
,,",' 
 
.. 
 
". 
 
 
 
-0 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
0 
 
 
'0 
 
 
  
 
 
0 
 
 
 
 
0 
 
VOLUME CONTROL 
 
MEASURES 
Street Closures 
 FuJI Diverters 
.Semi-Diverrers 
AE;:-:-~-~-W-:-:-I-C---f-------f-----'=--------------~!' --r-.---I~ CALMING 
 
I 
 
.! 
! 
I 
 
! 
I 
 I 
 
  
 
I 
,! 
 
0 0 
 
 
0 
 
i _ _--I'-- 
 
----' 
 
----.--:--.. 
 
,'- 
 
 
 
I 
 
 , 
 
 measures in place 
 
o measures proposed 
 
IT( JOURNAL / AUGUST 1997 
 
29 
 
 . -, .i I 
 
Figure 4. Full Diverter (Ft. la~derdale) 
Bellevue, Washingron, USA, Berkeley, California, USA, Gainesville, Florida, USA, Gwinnett Coumy, Georgia, USA, Howard Couney, Maryland, USA, Lee Couney and Tallahassee, Florida, USA. In our final report, we will make an attempr ro summarize rhe mass of dara from such srudies. . 
(b) 'The imporrance of spacing berween measures is apparem. Where measures are spaced far aparr (600 ro 1,000 feer (fr) aparr], speeding occurs in-berween. Where measures are closely spaced (200 ro 300 fr apart), drivers have no rime ro speed up. 
(c) On sire visits, we came across a few craffic calming measures that were so clearly underdesigned that they compelled lirr!e or no redu~rion in speed. 
 
For spl:ed control, rhere must be a sharp change in horizomal or vertical alignmene. Even a dramatic narrowing may not bring speeds down appreciably. 
(d) We requesred data on accidem rates hefore and afrer insrallarion of traffic calming measures. One respondent commented rhat ro her knowledge, before-and-after srudies nearly always focus on speeds and volumes. She seems ro be righe. Only rhree surveyed jurisdicrions have analyzed accidem rares. 
(e) The value of accidem srudies was recognized by anorher respondem, who nored rhat Searrle's success in implemenring rraffic calming measures may be due ro irs public emphasis on craffic safeey. Ir is hard ro go head-ro-head wirh rhe fire chief when he is rhreatening 
Figure S. Jog (Tampa) 
 
Figure 6. Mini-Traffic Circle (Naples) 
longer emergency response times and you, the engineer or planner, can only offer a nicer screet environmene. Ir is easier when you are arguing one safety impact versus another. 
3. Have you had 'problems implemenring... ? 
(a) The response of emergency services ro rraffic calming measures has varied from place ro place. In many places, police and fire have nor reacted at all. In others, police have supporred traffic calming measures but fire and ambulance services have opposed rhem. In a few places, such as S3rasora 3nd Seanle, police and fire have opposed tr3ffic calming me3sures initially but, 3fter some experience, have come ro support 
 
Table 2. Traffic Calming Measures Outside Florida 
 
SPEEDCONTROL l"--"-~"T,"--- 
 
MEASURES 
 
Scandard Speed Humps 
 
~ Humps/Speed Tables 
 
0 
 
Traffic Circles 
 
 
 
 
 
I 
 
 
 
0 
 
 
 
I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I 
 
 
 
 
 
---=-~-:-~--:-~ca-s-nes-------+-----=.::---I----:----IC----:----l-i---:---_.~--._-- 
 
Chokers 
 
II 
 
I 
 
Raised Juncrions 
 
I 
 
VOLUME CONTROL! 
 
II 
 
I 
II. 
 
M~URES 
 
! 
 
S r r e e - t - . C - - l o - s - u - r e s - - - - - - - ; . i - - - - - . - - - - i - - - . - - - i - - - - - - - . - . - - - ! ' - - - - - - . - - .- - - - 1 - - - - - . - - - - 
 
Full Dlverrcrs 
 
~emi-Diverre~ 
 
l 
 
Restrictive One-Way Streers! 
 
AREAWIDE TRAFFIC 
 
I 
 
CALMING 
 
.i 
 
 ~  
 
j I 
L_ 
 
 
.__. __L-----___L 
 
1 
._'-- 
 
L-----1-------j .  
 
I I 
 
i 
 
--,-,--_ _ 
 
 
i 
 
I.'. 
 
_ 
 
 measures in place 
 
o measures proposed 
 
30 
 
lYE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1997 
 
 ... 
 
rhe mosr vocal crirics of rraffic calming. 
 
Three racrics have been used ro assuage 
 
fire deparrmenr concerns. One is ro keep 
 
rraffic calming measures off emergency 
 
response roures. [n one locality. enough 
 
conrroversy has arisen co prompr a 
 
morarorium on new rraffic calming 
 
along srreers rhar may. evenrually, be 
 
classiried as emergency response roures. 
 
Two deparrmenrs-rraffic and fire-are 
 
Figure 9. Raised Junction (West Palm Beach) 
 
working rogether ro ser Iimirs on rhe 
 
rhem. From rhe srandpoinr of emer- number and type of rraffic calming mea- menrs. Many jurisdicrions design rraffic 
 
gency services. srreer closures and speed sures allowed on such routes. Anorher circles with mounrable ourer curbs or 
 
humps seem ro be rhe mosr problemaric racric is ro conducr formal response rime aprons, and some use removable bollards 
 
measures. 
 
srudies, as in Boulder, Portland and on srreet closures or diverrers. Several are 
 
(b) The police ofren supporr rraffic Sarasora. Delays are usually measured in shifting ro longer humps. speed rabies or 
 
calming measures for rheir porenrial ro seconds rarher rhan minutes. The rhird offset humps to accommodate fire 
 
conrrol speeding and reduce accidenrs. ractic is ro design rraffic calming mea- equIpment. 
 
Engineering measures are self-enforcing, sures around rhe needs of fire de parr- 
 
(d) Even doing everything possible 
 
which rakes some of rhe pressure off rhe 
 
ro assuage rhem, fire chiefs. may scill 
 
police ro enforce rraffic laws. In four 
 
oppose rraffic calming measures. One 
 
surveyed jurisdicrions. rhe police also 
 
fire chief is fond of saying. "One minute 
 
supporr certain measures. rhose restrict- 
 
is a long time when you're nor brearh- 
 
ing access. for rheir potemial ro reduce 
 
ing." In such cases, the traffic engineer. 
 
crime. Srreet closures are a srandard 
 
or planner musr make his or her case 
 
straregy .in rhe field of crime preven- 
 
based on quality of life, rraffic safety 
 
rion rhrough environmenral design 
 
and rhe rariry of such emergencies 
 
(CPTED). 
 
(compared ro rhe consranr problems of 
 
(c) Fire chiefs (represenring rlre and 
 
speeding rraffic). Wirh cirizen supporr, 
 
emergency medical services) .rend ro be 
 
Figure 8. Raised Crasswalk (Palmetta) 
 
some of rhose inrerviewed have pre- 
 
. .Table 2-A. Traffic Calming Measures Outside Florida 
----,-- 
 
. ,,: ': ....... '," 
 
  
 
  
 
    
 
 
o 
o 
 
 
 
VOLUME CONTROL 
MEASURES 
 
i 
 
I 
 
Street Closures 
 
-11-- 
 
~1 
 
 
 
I. 
 
 
 
 
 
Full Diverters 
 
I 
 
I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Semi- Diverters 
 
I 
 
 
 
I  I. 
 
 
 
Restrictive One-Way Streets 
 
AREAWIDE TRAFFIC CALMING 
 
 
 
 mcasures in place 
 
o mcasures proposeJ 
 
lYE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1997 
 
31 
 
 Figure 10. Semi-Diverter (Gainesville) 
vailed over sriff opposirion from fire deparrments. 
(e) With few exceprions, public works and wasre management departments have been neutral about traffic calming. Ofren housed wirhin rhe same deparrments as rraffic engineering, collegialiry prevails. In Boulder, problems of snow removal have caused rhe public works department ro oppose srandard speed humps. In Phoenix, trash collecrion was complicated by a semi-diverter; rhe problem was solved by having residents place rheir trash cans across rhe srreer. 
4. Have any liabiliry issues...? (a) The issue of government liabiliry always surfaces in discussions of rraffic calming. "Whar if we close a srreer and a fire rages on?" "Whar if we insrall speed humps and a mororcyclisr goes flying?" The answer seems ro be, "You have lirrle or no exposure, provided your rraffic calming measures are well-designed, well-signed, well-lighred, and welldocumen red. n. (b) Traffic calming programs srruc,rured as populariry contesrs, relying ~xclusively on neighborhood signature or bailor requirements ro decide whar co build, are inviring legal challenges. Those following a rarional planning process are inoculating rhemselves. A 
Figure 11. Speed Table (Tallahassee) 
 
rarional process documents rhe exisrence and narure of rraffic problems via speed and volume measurements; proposes traffic calming measures rhar are capable of solving documenred problems; insralls measures on a remporary basis subjecr co performance evaluarions; and finally, rakes speed and volume measurements co see if measures have performed as expected before making rhem "permanen r. n 
(e) The majoriry of surveyed jurisdicrions have had no legal problems at all, and rhe remainder have mosely experienced rhrears rarher rhan acrions. The legal rhrears have more ofren arisen from access limirarions rhan safery concerns. And rhe legal maneuvering has more ofren involved ciry arrorneys, concerned abour porential liabiliry, rhan privare arcorneys, claiming actual damages. In rhis and earlier research, no case was uncovered in which a courr found a rraffic calming measure unsafe or a local government negligent for installing such a measure. 
(d) Six respondents have had claims againsr rhem in rhe wake of rraffic accidents. A claim was filed againsr Sarasora when a mocorcyclisr was injured on a speed hump sri II under consrruction. While unsigned and unstriped, rhe hump was marked by a consrrucrion barricade, and rhe claim was ulrimarely dropped. A claim was filed againsr Howard Counry when a Corverre owner borcomed our on a raised juncrion; rhe claim, only $300, was denied by rhe counry's risk management department. A claim was filed againsr Poreland, and in rhis case a payment was made, when a contracror pulled warning signs roo soon on a rraffic circle rhar was srill under construcrion. Boulder was sued when a driver breached signage, flags, bumper blocks and reflecrive pavemenr markers ar a remporary traffic circle; rhe driver, whose windshield was smashed by a sign, ulrimately dropped rhe suit wirhour compensarion. Fr. Lauderdale has paid claims for minor damage caused by vehicles striking rhe curbs on chokers along one particular, high-volume streer. Seatrle has been the objecr of 
threars (ofren for /ailure co calm rraffic) 
and a number of damage claims follow- 
 
ing accidenrs. Payours are infrequent, rypically for $200 or less and are mosr often prompred by inadequate signage. 
(e) In rwo or rhree jurisdicrions, opponents of traffic calming have challenged rhe legaliry of measures on rhe groun.d rhar rhey do nor appear in the 
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices nor in orher narional manuals. 
Berkeley, whose rraffic calming program dates back rhe furthesr (co a 1974 rraffic management plan), was sued in rhe early years for insralling diverrers. The marrer was seteled when rhe California legislarure declared them legal traffic control devices. Over rime, as insrallarions have become commonplace, arguments over rhe legaliry of traffic calming measures have become academic. 
Figure 12. Textured Pavement (Orlanda) 
5. How have neighborhood residents reacted...? 
(a) Mosr places surveyed report rhar traffic calming is a big winner polirically. While a few cirizens always complain abour rraffic calming measures, rhey are far outnumbered by supporrers. The supporters are from rhe traffic-calmed neighborhoods and are intense in rheir support. The opponenrs are usually from orher pans of cown and are lukewarm in rheir opposirion. 
(b) As an example of rraffic calming's 
polirical appeal, Fe. Lauderdale gave each of 10 ciry neighborhoods $100,000 for physical improvemenrs of rheir choice. To rhe surprise of ciry staff, neighborhoods spent rheir funds almosr entirely on traffic calming, and Fe. Lauderdale ended up with more rraffic calming measures rhan anywhere else in Florida. 
(e) Public suppOrt for traffic calming is also evidenced by rhe relarively few cases in which measures have been 
 
32 
 
ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1997 
 
 ... 
.1 
 
removed. In most jurisdictions; the need 
 
co remove measures has been limited co a 
 
few isolated cases. Gainesvi.lle reporrs 
 
thac 95 percenr of all measures inscalled 
 
on a cemporary basis become perIna- 
 
nenr. Of Seatele's 600-plus craffic circles, 
 
only cwo have been taken our aC che 
 
requesc of neighbors. Of Poreland's 300- 
 
plus speed humps, cwo have been 
 
removed due co improper conscruction, 
 
bur boch were replaced ac che same loca- 
 
cions. In 12 years of accive program- 
 
ming, Bellevue has had co remove only 
 
one inscallation due co neighborhood 
 
0pposlClon. 
 
. 
 
(d) One reason why so few measures 
 
are removed is the show of' neighbor- 
 
hood suppOrt usually required co install 
 
measures in the first place. This pre- 
 
screening seems to eliminate later prob- 
 
lems. Before Phoenix adopced a 70 per- 
 
cent approval requirement in 1993, 
 
craffic calming measures had co be taken 
 
out occasionally. Since then, there have 
 
been no such cases. Bellevue's phased 
 
program, which stans with education and enforcemenr and escalates only if they fail, virtually guaranrees neighborhood backing when the time comes for engineering measures.  
References 
1. Sucher, D. City Comforts-How to Build an Urban Villagt. Seattle, WA: City Comforts Press,1995:127. 
2. Ewing, R. Transportation and Land Us~ Innovations. Chicago: American Planning Association (in cooperation with the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Institute of Transportation Engineers), 1997. 
3. Ewing, R. "Beyond Speed-The Next Generation of Transportation Performance Measures." In D. Porter (ed.), Paformanu Standards for Crowth Manag~ment. Chicago: American Planning Association. 1996:31-40. 
 
REID EWING is an Associat~ Proftssor 
in th~ Collegt 0/Engi- 
n~~ring and D~sign at Florida Inurnational University, Miami. H~ holds a masur's degre~ in engin~rring and city planningfrom Harvard University and a Ph.D. in transportation systems and urban planningfrom th~ Massachusetts Institute o/Technology. His Best 
Development Practices, publishd by the Ameri- 
can Planning Association. has mor~ on traffic calming. He is an Associau M=brr o/IT. 
CHARLES KOOSHIAN is a Craduau Assistant in tht Mastrr's o/Environmental and Urban Systems program at Florida Inurnational University. H~ has a B.A. from th~ Univmity o/California, Berkeley. 
 
Fiber Optic Transmission Systems for Video and Data 
 
Fiber Options offers the ability to transmit multiple video and digital signals, free of electrical or electro-magnetic interference, over extended distances (>50 km). 
 
Fiber Options' transmitters and receivers flawlessly perform the critical electrical-to-light conversion, achieving clear signal communication over a single fiber optic cable. 
 
 Video Multiplexing (up to 64 channels)  Point-to-Point Video  Telecommunications (E1. T1)  Data Multiplexing (up to 12 channels)  RS 232  RS 485  Audio 
 
Series HD4200 12 Channel Data Multiplexer 
O-fiberOptionl 
... light years ahead 
 
USA: UK: 
 
Fiber Options. Inc., 80 ONilie Drive, Bohemia. New York 11716-2533' 516-567-8320 or 1-800-342-3748  FAX 516-567-8322 Fiber Options (Europe) Ltd .. Oakwellindustrial Park. Oakwell Way, Birstali. West Yorkshire W17 9LU 44 1924359990 FAX 44 1924359991 E-mail us at: info@fiberoptions. com or Visit our Web site at http://www.fiberoptions.com 
 
ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1997 
 
33 
 
 SR 31/US 441: 
_ .Principal Arterial On National Highway System 
 
Begin MP 
 
End 
 
Area 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name Type 
 
4.45 County Line 
 
Osborne Mill Rd. Rural 
 
5.92 Osborne Mill Rd. SR 135 
 
o 
FACILITY & TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 
 
1997 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
0.22 
 
Number of Lanes NB SB 
4 4 
 
2000 AADT MSV 
 
2010 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes AADT 
 
MSV 
 
NB SB 
 
4 
 
4 
 
2020 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
NB SB 
 
0.37 
 
4 
 
20.800 
 
4 
 
6.88 
 
7.23 R 158 
 
Brian St. 
 
Urban 412 116 
 
7.23 
 
7.40 Brian St. 
 
SR32 
 
Urban 414 118 
 
7.40 
 
7.93 SR32 
 
Walker St. 
 
Urban 416 121 
 
7.93 
 
8.61 Walker St. 
 
SR 31s 
 
Urban 421 125 
 
8.61 
 
9.42 SR 31s 
 
SR 206 Conn. Urban 
 
127* 
 
4 
 
9.42 
 
9.96 SR 206 Conn. CR416 
 
Urban 
 
128 
 
4 
 
9.96 
 
10.32 CR416 
 
UAB. 
 
Urban 
 
129 
 
-2 
 
10.32 
 
16.19 U.A.B. 
 
SR268 
 
Rural 
 
132 
 
2 
 
16.19 
 
26.80 SR268 
 
SR 107 
 
Rural 
 
141 
 
2 
 
26.80 
 
29.20 SR 107 
 
Coun Line 
 
Rural 
 
145 
 
2 
 
* Some manual adjustments made. 
 
,,9: 
SR32: 
 
21,4 0 35,835 
 
21,200 35,835 
 
18.500 35,835 
 
14,400 35.835 
 
4 
 
12,500 35,835 
 
4 
 
4 
 
10,600 47,800 
 
4 
 
2 
 
7,800 17,700 
 
4 
 
2 
 
6,100 13,780 
 
4 
 
2 
 
3,000 10,600 
 
4 
 
2 
 
3,600 10,600 
 
4 
 
3 ,835 
 
0.71 
 
35,835 
 
0.71 
 
35,835 
 
0.66 
 
35,835 
 
0.53 
 
35,835 
 
0.50 
 
4 
 
47,800 
 
0.35 
 
4 
 
47,800 
 
0.23 
 
4 
 
43,000 
 
0.18 
 
4 
 
43,000 
 
0.09 
 
4 
 
43,000 
 
0.10 
 
4 
 
It.~J!~: 
29,800 30,000 28,800 23.800 23,100 22,400 14,100 
9,100 4,400 5,300 
 
35,835 35,835 35,835 35,835 35,835 47,800 47,800 43,000 43,000 43,000 
 
'i' 
 
Rural Minor Arterial 
 
Urban Principal Arterial 
 
1997 
 
Begin 
 
End 
 
Area Count 
 
Number 
 
MP 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name Type Station of Lanes AADT 
 
0.00 
 
8.41 County Line 
 
CR296 
 
Rural 
 
247 
 
2 
 
3,472 
 
8.41 
 
10.82 CR296 
 
UAB. 
 
Rural 
 
252 
 
2 
 
6,056 
 
10.83 
 
12.33 UAB. 
 
SR206 
 
Urban 
 
254 
 
2 
 
9,479 
 
12.33 
 
13.03 SR206 
 
SR 916 (Temp.) * Urban 
 
256 
 
2 
 
8,100 
 
13.03 
 
13.69 SR 916 (Temp.) SR31 
 
Urban 
 
261 
 
2 
 
7,253 
 
13.69 
 
14.06 SR31 
 
SR 916 (Temp.) Urban 
 
263 
 
2 
 
7,806 
 
14.06 
 
14.63 SR 916 (Temp.) SR 135 
 
Urban 
 
267 
 
2 
 
9,253 
 
14.63 
 
17.33 SR 135 
 
UAB. 
 
Urban 
 
491 
 
2 
 
5,454 
 
17.33 
 
26.63 UAB. 
 
Liberty Street Rural 
 
274 
 
2 
 
4,657 
 
* 
 
26.63 Temporary SR 
 
916 
 
Will 
 
be 
 
29.90 Liberty redeSignated 
 
Street as SR 
 
32 
 
County Line once construction 
 
of 
 
Rural the one-way 
 
2p7a8i.r 
 
.IS 
 
2 completed . 
 
4,259 
 
** Split laneage indicates one-way pair between Ward and Ashley Streets (with programmed project completed). 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
8,200 
 
0.42 
 
10,600 
 
0.57 
 
14,000 
 
0.68 
 
14,000 
 
0.58 
 
8,000 
 
0.91 
 
8,000 
 
0.98 
 
14,000 
 
0.66 
 
17,700 -' 0.31 
 
10,600 
 
0.44 
 
8,200 
 
0.52 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 2 4 2 **1 2 
2 I2 
4 2 2 2 
 
2000 
 
AADT 3,700 5,800 9,600 9,200 7,600 8,500 10,400 6,500 5,000 4,300 
 
MSV 8,200 
10,600 14,000 30,600 21,120 21,120 30,600 17,700 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 
0.45 0.55 0.69 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.47 0.52 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 4 4 4 
2 I2 
2 I2 
4 2 2 2 
 
2010 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
4,800 
 
8,200 
 
6,500 44,200 
 
12,100 47,800 
 
11,700 30,600 
 
8,600 21,120 
 
10,100 21,120 
 
14,400 , 30,600 
 
9,100 ,i 17,700 
 
6,500 10,600 
 
4,700i 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.59 0.15 0.25 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.47 0.51 0.61 0.57 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 4 4 4 
2 I2 
2 I2 
4 2 2 2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 5,900 7,200 14,700 14,200 9,700 
11,700 18,500 11,800 8,000 5,100 
 
MSV 8,200 
44,200 47,800 30,600 21,120 21,120 30,600 17,700 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 
0.72 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.62 
 
MP 
 
Mile Post 
 
AADT MSV 
 
Annual Average Daily Traffic 
Maximum Service Volume, capacity of the roadway at LOS 'e' 
 
vic 
 
Ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. Values greater than 1.0 indicate a capacity problem. 
 
,.~ Highlights present or future capacity deficiencies. 
 
 .'i. 
 
SR 135: 
 
Minor Arterial On National Highway System north of SR 31 
 
1997 
 
Begin 
 
End 
 
Area Count 
 
Number 
 
MP 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
End Name Type Station of Lanes AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
0.00 
 
4.50 County Line 
 
U.A.B. 
 
Rural 
 
152 
 
2 
 
3,367 
 
8,200 
 
0.41 
 
4.50 
 
7.75 U.A.B. 
 
SR206 
 
Urban 
 
156 
 
2 
 
6,169 17,700 
 
0.35 
 
- 
~ 
 
~~~""2lt 
 
1R~06~~. 
 
&~~.~~ 
 
"",.- 
:.._~.- 
 
~~ ~g~ ~~: ~J~iQQO ~;a:2~ 
 
8.24 
 
9.15 SR31 
 
McDonald Rd. Urban 
 
456 
 
2 
 
12,827 14,000 
 
0.92 
 
9.15 
 
9.70 McDonald Rd. SR 158 
 
Urban 
 
454 
 
2 
 
10,721 
 
14,000 
 
0.77 
 
9.70 
 
10.80 SR 158 
 
SR 135 Conn. Urban 
 
458 
 
2 
 
7,282 14,000 
 
0.52 
 
10.80 
 
13.18 SR 135 Conn. SR 206 Conn. Urban 
 
163 
 
4 
 
11,407 30,600 
 
0.37 
 
13.18 
 
13.68 SR 206 Conn. U.A.B. 
 
Urban 
 
167 
 
2 
 
5,676 14,000 
 
0.41 
 
13.68 
 
20.29 U.A.B. 
 
CR 198 
 
Rural 
 
169 
 
2 
 
4,529 10,600 
 
0.43 
 
20.29 
 
24.30 CR198 
 
County Line 
 
Rural 
 
172 
 
2 
 
3,268 
 
8,200 
 
0.40 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 
 
2000 
 
AADT 4,200 6,800 16,700 12,600 13,100 12,600 13,900 6,400 5,100 3,600 
 
MSV 8,200 17,700 
30,600 14,000 14,000 14,000 30,600 14,000 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 
0.51 0.38 0.55 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.44 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 
 
2010 
 
AADT 5,600 7,900 
22,200 16,900 20,700 16,900 20,000 9,100 
7,300 5,300 
 
MSV 8,200 17,700 
30,600 30,600 30,600 30,600 30,600 14,000 10,600 
8,200 
 
vIc 
0.68 0.45 0.73 0.55 0.68 0.55 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.65 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
6,900 8,200 
 
0.- 
 
8,900 17,700 
 
0 
 
27,700 30,600 
 
0.: 
 
21,200 30,600 
 
0.1 
 
28,300 30,600 
 
o.~ 
 
21,200 30,600 
 
0.1 
 
26,000 30,600 
 
0.; 
 
11,900 14,000 
 
O.-' 
 
9,500 10,600 
 
0: 
 
7,000 8,200 
 
o.' 
 
SR 158: 
 
Major Collector from western county line to eastern U.A.B. Minor Arterial from eastern U.A.B. to eastern county line 
 
Begin' MP 0.00 15.76 17.51 18.88 19.30 20.23 20.90 
 
End 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
15.76 County Line 
 
17.51 U.A.B. 
 
18.88 SR206 
 
19.30 SR31 
 
20.23 McDonald Rd. 
 
20.90 SR 135 
 
35.19 U.A.B. 
 
End Name U.A.B. SR206 SR31 McDonald Rd. SR 135 U.A.B. Countyline 
 
Area Type Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural 
 
Count Station 
207 209 216 218 223 225 227 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
1997 
 
AADT 1,631 5,000 
10,951 8,935 5,364 3,887 2,494 
 
MSV 8,200 
17,700 30,600 30,600 30,600 17,700 10,600 
 
vIc 
0.20 0.28 0.36 0.29 0.18 0.22 0.24 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
2000 
 
AADT 1,800 5,500 
12,600 10,100 6,300 4,600 2,900 
 
MSV 8,200 17,700 
30,600 30,600 30,600 17,700 10,600 
 
vIc 
0.22 0.31 0.41 0.33 0.21 0.26 0.27 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
2010 
 
AADT 2,500 7,600 
17,200 13,100 8,500 6,100 3,500 
 
MSV 8,200 17,700 
30,600 30,600 30,600 17,700 10,600 
 
vIc 
0.30 0.43 0.56 0.43 0.28 0.34 0.33 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 
 
2020 
 
AADT 
 
MSV 
 
vIc 
 
3,200 8,200 
 
0.: 
 
9,600 17,700 
 
0- 
 
21,900 30,600 
 
O. 
 
16,100 30,600 
 
0.: 
 
10,700 30,600 
 
0.. 
 
7,700 17,700 
 
0. 
 
4,100 10,600 
 
0.. 
 
SR206: 
 
Major Collector from western county line to western U.A.B. Minor Arterial from western U.A.B. to SR 32 Principal Arterial from SR 32 to SR 135 
 
Begin MP 
 
End 
 
\ 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
4.82 County Line 
 
11.19 SR268 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
1997 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
2000 
MSV 8,200 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
2010 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 2 
 
2020 
 
SR268: 
 
Major Collector 
 
Begin MP 
 
End 
MP 
 
.,. . .. 
 
_. ~- 
 
-_. -" 
 
.,' 
 
',;}:(:J(:J'-- 
 
9~50' 'SR32 
 
9.50 
 
14.00 SR 31 
 
. SR 31 County Line 
 
Area 
_.~y, ...... 
Rural Rural 
 
Count 
 
Number 
 
~tatlon " r-on:anes 
 
187 
 
2 
 
192 
 
2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 1,315 1,725 
 
MSV 10,600 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.12 0.21 
 
- 
of Lanes 2 2 
 
2000 
 
AADT 1,300 1,800 
 
MSV 10,600 8,200 
 
.' 
 
. 
 
vIc 
0.12 0.22 
 
Num6er of Lanes 
2 2 
 
2010 
 
AADT 1,700 1,900 
 
MSV 10,600 8,200 
 
.. ' 
 
' 
 
' 
 
' 
 
" 
 
- ' 
 
- 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes AADT 
 
MSV 
 
0.16 
 
2 
 
2,000 10,600 
 
0.23 
 
2 
 
2,100 8,200 
 
I 
vIc 
O. 0.: 
 
 SR 206 Connector: Minor Arterial 
 
Begin MP 0.00 
 
End 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
4.40 SR206 
 
End Name SR 135 
 
Area Type Urban 
 
Count Station 
471 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
4,018 14,000 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.29 
 
2 
 
2000 
MDT MSV 5,100 14,000 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.36 
 
2 
 
2010 
MDT MSV 7,800 14,000 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.56 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
10,600 14,000 
 
vIc 
0.76 
 
SR 107: 
 
Major Collector 
 
Begin MP 0.00 
 
End 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
- 7.80 SR31 
 
End Name County Line 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Count Station 
301 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
350 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.04 
 
2 
 
2000 
MDT MSV 400 8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.05 
 
2 
 
2010 
 
MDT MSV 
 
400 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.05 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
500 8,200 
 
vIc 
0.06 
 
SR90: 
 
Major Collector 
 
Begin MP 0.00 
 
End 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
3.80 County Line 
 
End Name County Line 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Count Station 
196 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
520 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.06 
 
2 
 
2000 
MDT MSV 600 8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.07 
 
2 
 
2010 
 
MDT MSV 
 
900 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.11 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
1,200 8,200 
 
vIc 
O.H 
 
SR64: 
 
Major Collector 
 
Begin MP 0.00 
 
End 
 
MP 
 
Begin Name 
 
3.50 County Line 
 
End Name SR 158 
 
Area Type Rural 
 
Count Station 
316 
 
Number of Lanes 
2 
 
1997 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
494 
 
8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.06 
 
2 
 
2000 
MDT MSV 600 8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc of Lanes 
 
0.07 
 
2 
 
2010 
 
I 
MDT 800 
 
MSV 8,200 
 
Number 
 
vIc 
 
of Lanes 
 
0.10 
 
2 
 
2020 
 
MDT 
 
MSV 
 
v 
 
1,000 8,200 
 
 -~/ 
 
,-/ 
( 
 
)- 
 
i 
 
Figure 4.5 SR 135 Corridor 
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation - Office of Information Services 
'.. .', 
 
  , 
-, 
 
Figure 4.7 SR 206 Corridor 
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation - Office of Information Services 
 
URS 
CONSULTANTS, INC. 
giselo-gialco"eelmod.ap' 
 
 '\l 
.. 
; 
 
III . 
~; 
.~ 
 
CD Cf) 
 
oc: 
 
I ;' 
 
16 
..EE... -: 
 
c: 
 
'0 
uCD ' 
0IE ; ~~.' 
 
aLco "'cC 
 L- 
~a 
Q)() 
L::-Jco 
L0L->N <a:0: (j) 
 
 --,;c 
 
WARE COUNTY 
Figure 4.9 SR 206 Conn., SR 107, SR 90, SR 64 
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation -Office of Information Services . :'-"'. -'." 
----------- - - - - 
 
URS 
CONSULTANTS, INC. 
, . gjs61georgialcoffeelmoctepr 
 
 -o 
Q) 
u 
~ 50 
~ 
18::.'< 
ceron 
-~ 
o 
C 
Q) 
E 
1:: 
~ 
oQ) 
ro "" 
'0o~> . "." 
Q) 
(j 
~ 
o::J " 
(f) 
 
 : ,: 
 
Figure 4.4 SR 32 Corridor 
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation - Office of Information Services 
 
URS 
CONSULTANTS, INC. 
 
II