Jackson-Butts County transportation analysis study / prepared for Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Planning ; prepared by Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc

'f '""
GA-
T1l)D.P~
M\
\9Cfi :J3

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS

'---,

..' FINAL REPORT
OCTOBER 15, 1999
Submitted to:
Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning No.2 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30034-1002
Submitted by:
Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. 4000 DeKalb Technology Parkway Building 300, Suite 370 Atlanta, Georgia 30340 (770) 455-9375 .( .
"

, "~

-':

Jackson - Butts County Transportation Analysis Study

"

. ::'. ..~
~i.'

,Final Report

.....:
Prepared for:
Georgia Department of Transportation , Office of Planning , No.2 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 3003~1002
Prepared by:
Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. 4000 DeKalb Technology Parkway
Building 300, Suite 370 , Atlanta, Georgia 30340

r

. TABLE OF CONTENTS

.1:.

Section

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i

-L INTRODUCTION

1

Study Purpose

1

Study Area Description

2

Planned and Programmed Improvements

2

Study Process

3

II. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ON EXISTING NETWORK

5

Arterial Roadway Network Operating Conditions

5

Selected Intersection Operating Conditions

11

State Road Accident Analysis

17

Truck Traffic

21

Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

24

ill. LAND USE, DEMOGRAPIDC AND COUNTY RESOURCES

26

Land Use

26

...,.

Population and Employment Cultural and Community Resources

26 28

IV. RECOl\1MENDED SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 30

Study Area Short Range Transportation Deficiencies

30

Project No. 1 - Southern Truck Bypass

30

Project No.2 - Halls Bridge Road Improvements

33

Short Range Improvement Traffic and LOS Effects

33

v. RECOl\1MENDED MIDDLE RANGE TRANS. PROJECTS

37

Study Area Middle Range Transportation Deficiencies

37

Project No. 3 - Alabama Boulevard Improvements

37

Project No.4 - Western Truck Bypass

40

Project Length

33

VI. RECOl\1MENDED LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 42

Study Area Long Range Transportation Improvements

42

Project No: 5 - SR.16 Transportation Improvements

42

Project No.6 - SR 87 Connector

44

Middle Range and Long Range Improvement Traffic and LOS Effects

44

.. ,
"

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Figure 1 - Study Area Location

II

Figure 2 - Recommended Study Area Transportation Improvements

IV

Figure 3 - 1999 Base Network Roadway Level of Service

7

Figure 4 - 2005 Base Network Roadway Level of Service

8

Figure 5 - 2025 Base Network Roadway Level of Service

9

Figure 6 - 1999 Study Area Intersection Turning Movement Volumes

13

Figure 7 - 2005 Study Area Intersection Turning Movement Volumes

14

Figure 8 - 2025 Study Area Intersection Turning Movement Volumes

IS

Figure 9 - Critical Accident Segments and Intersections

18

Figure 10 - 1999 Key Truck Routes and Daily Truck Volumes

22

Figure 11 - Butts County Population Statistics

27

Figure 12 - Cultural and Community Resources

29

Figure 13 - Short Range Recommended Improvements

32

Figure 14 - Short Range Improvement 2005 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 35

Figure 15 - Middle Range Recommended Improvements

39

Figure 16 - Long Range Recommended Improvements

43

Figure 17 - Middle & Long Range Improvement 2025 Turning Movement Volumes 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Base Roadway Network Segment Operations Level of Service

10

Table 2 - Base Roadway Network Intersection Operations Level of Service

16

Table 3 - Accident History of Critical Study Area Roadway Segments

19

Table 4 - Accident History of Critical Study Area Intersections

20

Table 5 - 2005 Modified Roadway Network Intersection Operations LOS

34

Table 6 - Short Range Improvement - Roadway Segment Operations LOS

36

Table 7 - 2005 ModifiedRoadway Network Intersection Operations LOS

45

Table 8 - Long & Middle Range Improvement - Roadway Segment Operations LOS 47

APPENDICIES ARE PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT
Appendix A - Existing Intersection Turning Movement Worksheets Appendix B - HCS Analysis Summary Worksheets Appendix C - Truck Volume Reports Appendix D - Road Improvements Cost Estimate Worksheets

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) has initiated this transportation needs analysis

study for the area surrounding the city of Jackson, Georgia in Butts County (See Figure 1): This

study, on which this report is based, has three primary objectives: (1) evaluate existing and future

transportation needs ofthe area; (2) identify deficient areas ofthe existing transportation system; and

(3) recommend improvements to mitigate these deficiencies. This study was prepared in accordance

witha number of guidelines set by Georgia DOT's Division of Planning, which include:

Collect and analyze (using Highway Capacity Software, HCS) existing and future traffic

conditions of significant roadway segments and intersections within the study area,

Collect and evaluate existing and future truck traffic on the state routes (SR 16, 36 and 42) within

the study area,

Analyze

historical

accident

records

n~...l U.1J.u

growth of the significant roadways- and.. -..'.' .

intersections within the study area,

Study existing and future county land use patterns and population and employment demographics,

Recommend and evaluate transportation improvements to respond to existing or future

deficiencies, .and

Prepare design traffic, estimate construction costs and conduct environmental inventories for each

recommended transportation improvement.

The primary transportation issue for Jackson and Butts County is providing a workable bypass to reduce the high amounts oftruck traffic (and other through traffic) that currently is forced to traverse the downtown area. Butts County's 2000 population is projected to be 19,769 and there are six counties adjacent to Butts, which have a combined projected 2000 population of 273,949. These . population totals will likely result in sizeableinter-county traffic through Butts County, with the east west and northeast - west routes having the heaviest volumes.

A secondary transportation issue is intra-county travel within Butts County. Even though Butts population is small by comparison, it is just one county outside the fast growing Atlanta SMSA Area and only three counties outside downtown Atlanta. It will be important to provide new or improved

-------------~------""--------------.., BUTTS COUNTY---~~~~~~

..11\. 1V.A:\.. A\ "",!lAWAtTOBEUJ ASSOCIATES,L'iC.

I

.1

........

NOT TO SCALE
f ICURE

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

STUDY AREA LOCATION

1

ANALYSIS STUDY

-----..1--------------...1---1

linkages between the county's primary residential areas ofthe Lake Jackson area, the city ofJackson and SR 16 corridor westof Jackson to the primary commercial areas of Jackson, the 1-75 corridor and Atlanta.
The purpose of this study is to assist Georgia DOT in identifying and prioritizing transportation improvement projects as part ofits State Transportation Improvement Program. The recommended transportation improvements are grouped in projects with Short Range, Middle Range and Long Range implementation schedules. Elements of each project are given in this' report and are grouped together based on a common need and purpose each project is to meet.
To summarize, six (6) transportation improvement projects are recommended in this study. Due to the population characteristics of Butts County, all projects recommended are. roadway projects.. These projects, however, will better distribute traffic in Butts County, which will enhance and improve overall conditions for all modes of transportation (See Figure 2). These projects and their recommended time frame for implementation are:
Project 1 - Southern Truck Bypass (Short Range - Present to 2005), Project 2 - Halls Bridge Road Improvements (Short Range';' Present to 2005),
Project 3 - Alabama Boulevard Improvements (Middle Range - 2005 to 2020), Project 4 - West Truck Bypass (Middle Range - 2020 to 2025), Project 5 - SR 16 Intersection Improvements (Long Range - 2020 to 2025), and . Project 6 - SR 87 Connector (Long Range - 2020 to 2025).
III

LEGEND

-

NEW LOCATION

- - - UPGRADE I WIDENING

o INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

A PROJECT END POINTS

a
.n....

ttoo to

";' ....-,

- . . . \ ~~,,,,

' >. ",\--'-, .

',\ '. 'v-\'>:/

<. . .

'-.-.'.,

.""--+" -I

1l\V. .J..fil\\.M.OARESLSAONCDIAAmLT,OINBCE.L

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTA TlON NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

FIOlllE

RECOMMENDED STUDY AREA

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

2

I. INTRODUCTION

shown on the location map in Figure 1. This' plan was conducted under contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation to assist them in planning and .programming future transportation projects for this area of Georgia.

Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide an overview ofJackson - Butts County's existing and future transportation needs:' This -is accomplished by first evaluating existing and future transportation . conditions and identifying deficient areas. In addition, characteristics of the area's land use and demographics are also reviewed to determine potential shifts in historical traffic growth. Second, transportation improvements that will effectively mitigate deficiencies are evaluated based on their environmental impacts, cost to implement and ability to improve level of service. Third, transportation improvements, that are feasible based on both a technical evaluation and input oflocal residents, are recommended.

,~''''''-''.

A transportation plan is important for adequate mobility of a community because it ensures that future development and other construction activities 'are compatible with necessary future transportation improvements. Without a plan, development may occur in locations that would be better used for transportation corridors, which may cause' either transportation Improvements to not be built, implemented in a less than ideal location, or. acquisition of property at substantial cost to the community. Another important aspect of a transportation plan is that projects can be prioritized based on its technical and political feasibility, which give transportation and other governmerital officials worthwhile information in their transportation investment decisions.

1

Study Area Description The city of Jackson is located roughly eight miles east of!-75, halfway between Macon and Atlanta, Georgia. It is the county seat of Butts County, which has a land.areaofjust over 200 square miles and a 1990 population of 15,326. Despite its relatively low population, Butts County likely has a bright development future due to its close proximity to the burgeoning Atlanta area, easy access to 1-75 and the recreational amenities of Lake Jackson and Indian Springs State Park.

As with many piedmont counties in Georgia, the economy ofButts County has diversified over the

years from one that was based primarily on textiles and other mill related industries to today's

economy, which is based on service and governmental industries. Butts County's future economy

will likely be based on its close proximity to Atlanta. Indeed, downtown Jackson is located just 45

from downtown Atlanta and 38 milesfrom Atlanta International Airport which "',i1".,, .. _........... _......... V1J.1U OJ.J.\.V""

.""'\.&

&.

H:::rtc::hPln - ...... ""'

_ ........ ~,a._~__~

---~---- ..._------ -- - -

r- ,-

, l'S

the world's busiest airport in terms of passengers. This proximity to Atlanta, along with Macon and

Griffin, has resulted in 54.8% ofthe county residents commuting outside the county for employment

in 1995. This percentage ofresidents commuting outside the county has been growing at a consistent



2.5% per year since 1980,. mirroring other nearby counties.

Planned and Programmed Improvements Currently, state funded transportation improvements are being made at the 1-75 interchanges at SR 16 and SR 36. These' projects are being made in response to increasing truck traffic at these interchanges due to existing and proposed truck service plazas near them. Another project currently being undertaken is the resurfacing of SR 16 and SR 42 between Jackson and 1-75.

According to Georgia DOT's six year and long range work program, a number of roadway improvements projects are planned or programmed by Georgia DOT for Butts County~ .The most important of these is the South Truck Bypass, which was added to the long range transportation improvement program by Georgia DOT on April, 1999. The description of this project is "development of a project concept for a bypass roadway around Jackson". It is identified as Project No. STP-3003 (1) and P.I. No. 343440, is seven miles long and runs on the south side of Jackson from the intersections of SR 16 @ Bert Road and SR 16 @ Bibb Station Road. The project's
2

estimated costs are $500,000 for engineering and $9,116,000 for construction (no amount was given for right-of-way). Money for this project has not yet been allocated, due to continuing discussions to its best alignment. The alignment presented in this report, however; is an alignment favored by all
if
or nearly all public officials in the county, including the Butts County Board of County Commissioners, Butts County Department ofIndustrial Development and the City ofJackson Mayors office.

In addition to the bypass project, five other roadway improvement projects are either in the planning, design or construction phases according to the Georgia DOT 6-year construction work program. Two of the projects are railroad crossing improvement projects, one. is a roadway upgrade project, one is a bridge upgrade project and the other is a historic preservation / transportation enhancement project.

Study Process

The process undertaken to develop this transportation needs assessment study for Jackson - Butts

:;

County includes four main tasks:

Data Collection; including traffic counts, existing roadway network characteristics and land use



/ demographic information,

Analysis of Existing and Future Traffic Conditions,

Development and technical evaluation of feasible transportation improvements, and

Preparation and prioritization of Draft and Final Plans and Report.

Data Collection involved compiling and reviewing all available and applicable data and documentation related to transportation in the study area. Some of the data collected include: average annual daily traffic volumes (AADT), turning movement counts at selected intersections, an inventory of intersection laneage and traffic control devices, typical sections of the study area roadways, general and truck traffic circulation patterns, right-of-way availability, historic traffic accident and growth information, and existing and future land use and demographic profiles. Analysis of existing and future traffic conditions consisted of an in-depth review ofthe data collected
3

in the first task to determine transportation system deficiencies. Based on' these deficiencies, transportation improvements were developed and evaluated. The projects developed were based on an initial windshield survey, in addition to consultations with local officials. Projects that were considered feasible were evaluated further by reviewing its implementation costs, design traffic and likely environmental iinpacts. This study was conducted with constant coordination with local officials through three (3) meetings with local officials, including the Butts County Board of County Commissioners, Butts County Planning and Zoning Department, Butts County Industrial Development Department and Butts County Manager's Office. Recommended projects were then presented to the local residents through a public workshop, which was attended by at least 44 people. Input from these meetings and forums was used to finalize the plan and a draft and final report hasbeen submitted to Georgia Department of Transportation.
4

II. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ON EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
)::::~:::~::;::::::::~:::6=:~::~::=:::lIIIIIfIII
areas are or will be working deficiently, and thus have the
:::~:::ti::al:::;~:::e:: ::sei~:r::e7:~::::: _ highest priority for improvement. Also, existing network .w .........;;:"..........w ....w:.:.:.:.:.,,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;,...:.:
network.

Arterial Roadway Network Operating Conditions

...... The fOGUS of this study is all-ButtsCounty ~rtf':ri~! roadways that lead into or run outside.Jackson.va-s, .. .;.~;;;;;'.

Arterials are defined as roadways that provide the highest degree of mobility and the lowest degree

of land access. Although, arterial roadways are important for land access -- which is obvious for

anyone who has driven along a heavily commercialized roadway - its primary function is for regional

~

mobility.

With the exception ofI-75, all arterial roadways in Butts County have a typical section which is either two-lane divided or two-lane undivided (with passing lanes in some locations). For lesser populated areas, like Butts County, two-lane roadways can work quite effectively and efficiently. One advantage ofhaving low to medium volume two-lane roadways is that it provides safer to egress and ingress, which often reduces the number of signals needed along a segment. Another advantage of these roadways is that it often times is safer for pedestrians to cross than wider roadways, which is important for areas such as downtown Jackson. These advantages, however, diminish when their daily traffic volumes exceed their intended capacity.

Arterial roadways were evaluated using a descriptive measure called Level of Service (LOS) which evaluates a roadway's operational characteristics based on its Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), typical section, signal group, and area type. Level of Service (LOS) was determined according to the

5

methodology of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Update (HCM), 3rd Edition, which is the industry standard for the evaluation of traffic operations. In order to project future AADT, it was necessary to develop appropriate expansion factors for the roadway segments under analysis. Annual compounded growth "rates were determined through review of historical Georgia DOT .traffic counts from the years 1985 to 1998. These factors were applied to the existing (1998) Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes to determine future (2005 and 2025) AADT volumes. Table 1 provides the existing and future AADT volumes and corresponding LOS for roadway segments analyzed under the Base (non-improved) roadway network. Figures 3, 4 and 5 graphically show this information for the existing(1998) and two future scenarios (2005 and 2025).
6

=.....-:;...;,.-.--_....::.:.._------------------------------------.

.o :::.
lD . lD
lD

14.867

LEGEND

~ LosAoRB
(GOOD TRAFFIC FLOW)
~ LosCoRD
(INTERMEDlAlE TRAFFIC FLOW)

-

LosEoRF

(POOR TRAFFIC FLOW)

11\VIAI\:\..M.OARESLSAONCDIAAMLT,IONBC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

1999

BASE NElWORK ROADWAY

3

LEVEL OF SERVICE

.
./ ::T
'"<"
./ LO
LowO
.<>.
.r-/o o c
lJ1 cr . ;;, OJ Ul rn Cl. <0 ::J
a
n r'"
LO LO LO

16.214

LEGEND

- - LosAoRB (GOOD TRAFFIC FLOW)
~ LOSCORD
(INTERMEDlAlE TRAFFIC FLOW)

-

LosEoRF

(POOR TRAFAC FLOW)

1~VJ.I\fMiORAESLSAO!C~lAAMLT,IONBCE.LL

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

... NOT TO SCAlE ,
2005

BASENEnNORKROADWAY

4

LEVEL OF SERVICE

to..------------------------------------------,

--='<-"---to
to
~
b.
-ro-o-
_ U rol cr
""(J)
ro

21.071

LEGEND

-

LosAoRB

(GOOD TRAFFIC FLOW)

~ LOSCORD
(INTERMEDIAlE TRAFFIC FLOW)

-

LosEoRF

(POOR TRAFFIC FLOW)

~
to to to

11\VAJI:\\.M.OARESLSAONCDIAAmLT,IONBC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

2025

... NOT TO SCALE '

BASE NElWORK ROADWAY

5

LEVEL OF SERVICE

Table 1 Base Roadway Network Existing and Future Roadway Segment Operations Level of Service

Illlil=j~~

:~::::l~l=

I I SR 16 west ofSR 42 N 2 I SR 16 between SR 42 Nand SR 36 E 3 SR 16 between SR 36 E and SR 42 S 4 SR 16 east of SR 42 S 5 SR 16 east of Halls Brid e Road 6 SR 36 south of Brownlee Road 7 I SR 36 south of SR 16/42 R I ~R 11'\ north of SR 16/42

2-L Undiv / A

5,591

B

13,434

C

2-L Div / C I 14,637 I E I 16,133 I F I 21,305 I F

2-L Div / B I 14,867 I C I 16,274 I D. I 21,071 I F

2-L Undiv / A I 5,965. I B I 7,692 I B I 15,909' I D

2-L Undiv / A I 3,359 I B I 3,855 I B I 5,887 1 B

2-L Undiv / A I 3,549 I B I 4,577 I B 19,465 1 B

2-L Undiv / B I 8,355 I

B

I 12,044 I C

I 20,606.1

F

l} I ~R 11'\ south of Bethel Road

10 I SR 42 north of SR 16

II I ~R .1? south ofSR 16

12 I SR 42 north ofSR87 ~ SR 42 south of SR 87 1.1 T-7'ic;outhofSRI6

.,
2-L Undiv / A I 2,101 I A I 2,397 I A I 3,492 I B

15 1-75 north of SR 16

16 Bethel Road west of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A I 2,307 I A I 2,975 I A I 6,153 1 B

17 Bethel Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A I 1,653 I A I 2,175 I A I 4,766 I B

18 Stark Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A I 1,902 I A I 2,641 I A I 6,745 1 B

19 Brownlee Road south of SR 36

2-LUndiv/A I 900 I

A

I 1,192 I A

I 2,653 I

A

20 Halls Bridge Road north of SR 16

2-L Undiv / A I 909 I

A

I 1.271 I A

I 3.308 I

B

K Footnote: Roadway Description gives number of lanes, median treatment and signal group

10

As the existing LOS figure shows, nearly all arterial roadway segments in the study area work well

at LOS A or B. These LOS categories represent free to stable flow conditions with minimal or no

delay for drivers. The segments of East and West Third Street (SR 16/36/42) through Jackson,



however, are experiencing poor operating conditions. The segment of East Third Street between

Mulberry Street and Covington Street 'currently operates. at LOS E, which represents capacity

operating conditions. Capacity operating conditions means that current traffic volumes on the

roadway segment exceeds what was intended for it. The segment of East Third Street east of

Covington Street operates at LOS C, which represents inte~ediate traffic conditions. Without future

roadway improvements, traffic increases from growth and development will likely degrade operating

level of service on this segment to poor conditions in the near future. The only other roadway

segments operating poorly are on 1-75, which although does have an influence on traffic in Jackson,

is outside the limits for this study.

Under 2005 traffic conditions, existing operations will degrade on two roadway segments -- 1-75 south of SR 16 and on Mulberry Street (SR 36) south of East Third Street. These results lead emphasis to a bypass for Third Street traffic through downtown on the southern side of Jackson instead of on the northern side.

A degrading of traffic operations is seen under future-design (2025) conditions, which show much worse operations than under the existing or interim-future (2005) scenarios. This demonstrates that a number of roadway improvements will be needed by 2025. The segments downtown that in the 1999and 2005 analysis years were approaching capacity are now at or exceeding capacity conditions. Segments of ~oadways linking Jackson to 1-75 (SR 16 west and SR 42 north) are beginning to approach capacity conditions: Because the time limit ofthis study is 2025 and LOS C conditions are considered acceptable, these conditions alone do not justify major improvements. They may point to the need for minor improvements, however.

Selected Intersection Operating Conditions Peak hour turning movement counts were collected at five intersections identified as requiring attention by early data collection and review activities. These counts were collected by Moreland
11

Altobelli Associates, Inc. (MAAI) personnel duringthe month of May, 1999. Traffic conditions for

both the morning peak period (7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon peak period (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) were

collected at the intersections under review. The five intersections counted are:





SR 16 West @ SR 42 North



Third Street (SR 16) @ Oak Street



Third Street (SR 16) @ Mulberry Street (SR 36 South)



East Third Street @ Covington Street (SR 36 North)



SR 16 East @ SR 42 South

Figure 6 shows the location ofthese intersections and their existing turning movement volume. The

intersection turning movement count summary sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Future turning movement volumes were determined by averaging the compounded growth rates of the roadway segments approaching the intersections. Consistent growth rates were used for the east-west approach pair andnorth-south approach pair. This results in compounded growth rates for the .. selected intersections that range from 1.4% to 3.3% on the east and west approaches and from 2.5% to 5.4% on the north and south approaches. These rates were applied to the existing turning movement volumes to determine future (2005 and 2025) volumes: Figure 7 illustrates the future 2005 turning movement volumes and Figure 8 illustrates future - 2025 turning movement volumes.

As with the arterial roadway segment analysis, study area intersections were evaluated according to the procedures outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Update (HCM), 3rd Edition. This procedure also describes operations using the measure Level of Service (LOS), which bases its evaluation on the intersection's turning movement (hourly) volume, lane configuration and traffic control operations. In. order to facilitate this analysis, a computerized procedure referred to as Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used (Appendix B includes the HCS analysis summary . sheets). Table 2 provides the existing and future AADT volumes and corresponding LOS for roadway segments analyzed under theBase (non-improved) roadway network.

.'

12

..1 :

to
--:zE-e-r-

~

I

-ll-D D--
w
0 J>.
-l-D--
lD lD 0-
.. to ;;;J
0,n..,.

WESLEY DRIVE

In

'""_C'U~'D'>'U-0'"I

~~,j ~~'~"'~~

Jll

-.oc,
11'4

J>.

12(81J
1315(<~)~-,"..

'-t-f- ".CU..D'>.'._~.'..'.~...-...

lD lD

~~~

lD

0 ~

J>.

~

I

W
"

... ~.-..N.~.=.-=
~~~
J.~

~S4(26) . . 67(44) "-4S(SO)

OAK ST

, t f J 11193l
412(32) . . . 17(3S)-,..

171\7"\''-"

U>

OAK ST

MULBURRY ST (SR 36)

...
~~o; _A
.bm;::
ill

@~g
~
1\..10(4)
~43(SIJ
,,-17131J

MULBURRY ST

,tf 39 (2SlJ
7S(46)'"
... 7OCI02)-'" ~=

Ol~N



=~~

COLLEGE ST

....
oo~~ A:::
-U>N
~ ~ III

.1\...~4l(IS260))
,.. 4(49)

COVINGTON ST

LEGEND
-A.Iot. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (...)- P.Iot. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC

J1\ 1\

MORElAND ALTOBELL

1V.k\. ASSOCIAm,lNe.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTA TlON NEEDS

ANALYSIS STUDY
iI

NOT TO SCALE

FIGlIlE

1999 STUDY AREA INTERSECTION

TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

6

u::>

--:z-c>-r:-

CD CD W C>
A

~ -rC-o>--
cC..>n

CJ.

u::>



::::>
CJ.

u::> ,

::::>

n0.....

.A
CD CD CD
C>
"A"
-""C>

..

WESLEY DRIVE

....
ON Ul~'"
'll::~

1141\49>>::! 157153>""

'tf ...,N-O"Ul'a..>.. a;~= .-...CeD .~...

OAK ST MULBURRY ST (SR 36)

~74136> . . 92(60) "'62(69)

....
~~
J~~~-

"--14 09> "';:59(70) "'23143>

OAK ST MULBURRY ST

COLLEGE ST

11l7l~ 112(103)" 82 (721""

'\.1761148> '-77 169>
1901184>

COUNGTON ST

.illQ!Q.
-A.M.PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1.. )- P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC

(I)
::0
NOT TO SCALE

If\. 1V.k\. 1\

MORELAND ALTOBELL

ASSOCIATES, INC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATlON NEEDS

.

ANALYSIS STUDY

2005 STUDY AREA INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

FIOlIlE
7

~
--~ z-cr--clw.-O-o-
0 .l>.
,~ -r0-o-ro U1 Cl. to :::J
" Cl. to :::J 0 n ~ .l>. ccoo co 0 ~ .l>. ~ W U1
,-

WESLEY DRIVE

lD'"~~ ~ J~

22S~3(l~~))):~t

' t f"........'."...o'.'"'-"' =~;:;, ~~e

OAK ST MULBURRY ST (SR 36)

_"A,.'."~ ..
c.nO"':::
NO"'=
}l~

,"',--221617327C1VC9l~02)))

247(36SI J 90 (1261 . . . 47 Cl371~

,tf
...\D~;D
-~"~'-

'" N ""N ~Cf'"\ _"'- ",.oN
ill

1551 3=31969(2001
67 Cl221

,tf ,....,. ~1n53(4I~d=t ~~cn

Q;U1:i
!!!0~

OAK ST MULBURRY ST

COLLEGE ST

COUNGTON ST

11\V.J..fk\\M.OARSESlOACNIDATAELST,OINBCE.L

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

FIGUlE

2025 STUDY AREA INTERSECTION

TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES .

8

, ,.

Table 2
Base Roadway Network Existing and Futiire Ihtei~ection Operations Le~el of Service

Intersection

" .. ,

AMI

:.,:

,.,':':; : "

")\:i:::-.i:;:: 1:'.;PMi' . ;.....

SR 16 (West) @ SR 42

AM

Base

".: '199~t. .. " ..... .. 2005 :.:::'

AID

AIF

.,2025
CIF

PM

AID

AIF

BIF

SR 16/42 @Oak Street

AM

B

B

F

PM

B

B

F

SR 16/42 @ Mulberry Street

AM

B

B

F

(SR 36 South)

PM

B

B

F

SR 16/42 @ Covington Street AM

B

C

F

(SR 36 North)

PM

B

C

F

SR 16 (East) @ SR 42.

AM . AlC

AlC

PM

AID

AID

BIE
I
BIF

Footnote: Single letter indicates signalized mtersection analysis - overall intersection LOS reported

Split letter indicates unsignalized intersection analysis - major street left / minor street left LOS reported

Currently, all intersections under analysis operate with acceptable conditions, including the minor street left turn approaches at the two unsignalized intersections. Although, for smaller urban areas, LOS D is generally considered unacceptable, for unsignalized approaches it is acceptable as long as the major street approach works well and there are no adverse safety concerns present at the intersection. These results may be unexpected considering the poor arterial level of service for Third Street (SR 16) presented above. This contradictory situation is likely caused by the limited capacity of Third Street east and west of downtown acting to limit the amount traffic approaching the intersections downtown.

Generally acceptable operations are also apparent under future-interim (2005) conditions, although, the side-street approaches of SR 42 @ SR 16 West, may indicate this intersection requires signalization. Also, the LOS C reported at the intersection of East Third Street (SR 16 / 42) @ Covington Street (SR 36 North) may indicate future improvements will soon be necessary.

!

16

The acceptable operations reported under existing (1999) and future-interim (2005) conditions deteriorate to failing operations under future-design (2025) traffic" conditions. Where minor, spot intersection improvements could likely correct any operational deficiencies under the two previous scenarios.major transportation improvements are likely necessary to address the anticipated future traffic demands.
State Road Accident Analysis In addition to facilitating traffic demand, transportation improvement project planning and design should also include safety considerations. Improvements to mitigate traffic problems and safety related projects can range from isolated, spot improvements at individual locations to major corridorwide improvements for segments with consistently high accident rates along its length.
A thorough review ofhistorical accident information was conducted for the state routes within Butts County. Accident record summaries were obtained for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, the latest years which such information was available in complete form. Information such as the number, type, time and severityofaccidents were reviewed to determine if a significant safety problem occurred and if there was any improvement that could be made to correct the problem.
An accident review was done for all state roads in the study area. Table 3 gives the number of accidents in the most critical segments, which are defined as segments with at least 10 accidents in one of the years analyzed. As Figure 9 shows, all critical accident segments in the study area are downtown on SR 16 and SR 36. Accident rate (measured in accidents per hundred 'million vehicle miles of travel) is the method" Georgia DOT uses to evaluate safety problems along roadway" segments. According to Georgia DOT records, the average statewide accident rate for national " highway system principal arterial facilities in urban areas for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 is 605. Study area roadway segments whose average accident rate exceeds this statewide rate by at least 1.5 times are: West Third Street (SR 16/42) from SR 42 to Mulberry Street (SR 36) and
Mulberry Street (SR 36) from Brownlee Road to SR 16/42
17

CRITICAL ACCIDENT SEGMEHT'StI .
..

~

,.",)....(,.,

l 2~I.OX1

)( II)
I,,.., ~ 6312.2)( I N

45/1.2)(1

LEGEND

. lUTAL NO. IF / ACCIDHTS IN
YEARS '95.' 96.'97

RELATlClfSHIP TO STATEWIDE AVERAGE
ACCIDENT RAlE8

aunCAL IIIIlDItolY IElIlDfI'I ME CIIEI "1111 M:C11IEfI' !tA'IIilI ElIIML 10 CR IIlCl&IIIIII ITA'lEVlDE AVERME
_ M:CIIIEfI' HAlE ~ III M:CID./ Jlll.LICIIt VEHICLE MIlD 'lRAWLD PER....:NT

CRITICAL ACCIDEHI' ItfTERSECTlDHSIt

:r
~.

33/0.1X . I

12/0.2)(

111/0.3X

I

29/0.1X

r11V\ J1\ , ..I..

f tMORELAND ALTOSEL. ASSOCIATES,INC. ,

e..n,.

en

LEGEND

"'i

lUTAL. NO. IF /

RELATIClfSHIP TO

ACCIDHTS IN . STATEWIDE AVERAGE

eeennn

YEARS '95.'96.'97

ACCIDENT RATEe

ru

CRITICAL M:C11IEfI' IIITERIECT1C11t ME GIlES IIIlH FnE

.......

_ MCRlC.D.IE.I.II'I!ItIA1l1EMY!AIIlII8ED' III M' .:CICIIREJI'InI PER IdLLICIIt

u.
C>

VElllCUI EIIIDU.. IJIIEJIIUn'ICIIt

c

CJl

'0

JACKSON-BUTTS COUN.' TY. TRANSPORTATlON NEEDS
ANALYS.IS S".,T- U......DY.

,.... NOT TO SCALE 1.12, rlC.1lE I:u;;

/..,".

o

I~' CRITICAL ACCIDENT LOCATIONS 9 ~>-

I

E/"



I Ql

A review of the types of accidents occurring on the West Third Street segment shows that 42% are eastbound rear-end and 31% are angle-type accidents (the next highest categories are less than 15%). On Mulberry Street, 53% of the accidents are at angle and 28% are northbound rear-end. The eastbound and northbound rear-end collisions are likely a result of cars encountering either congestion or a reduction in the speed limit through downtown. The angle-type accidents are likely caused by the high number ofcurb cuts along both these segment (both segments traverse commercial sections of Jackson). Aside from the unfeasible improvements of providing frontage roads along and/or widening SR 16 through downtown Jackson, the most beneficial improvement for these safety problems is to provide an alternative route that will reduce the heavy volume on SR 16 including truck movements.
Table 3 Accident History of Critical Study Area Roadway Segments

.fllifllr"lfltlllllifl

- Segment 1 West Third Street (SR 16 / 42) from SR 42 to Mulberrv Street (SR 36)

1995

12

774

661

1.2 x

1996

24

1322

596

2.2 x

1996

27

1770

558

3.2 x

Average

21

1289

605

2.2 x

- Segment 2 East Third St (SR 16 / 42) from Mulberry St (SR 36) to Covington Street (SR 36)

1995

11

774

661

1.2 x

1996

10

582

596

1.0 x

1997

6

422

558

0,8 x

Average

9

593

605

1.0 x

- Segment 3 East Third Street (SR 16 / 42) from Covington Street (SR 36) to SR 42

1995

18

918

661

1.4 x

1996

11

553

596

0.9 x

1997

16

758

558

1.4 x

Average

15

743

605

1,2 x

- Segment 4 Mulberry Street (SR 36) from Brownlee Road to SR 16 / 42

1995 1996 1997 Average

14

1155

661

7

585

596

11

942

558

10

866

605

- Segment 5 Covington Street (SR 36) from SR 16 / 42 to Stark Road

1.7 x
1.0 x 1.7 x 1.5 x

1995

5

330

661

1996

11

681

596

1997

17

1123

558

,:hJP>'nop

ts

07,

fin,

"Footnote: Measured In ACCIdents per Hundred Million Vehicle MIles of Travel

0.5 x 1.3 x 2.0 x
1?y

19

,:

An accident review was also conducted for the critical intersections in the study area. Table 4 gives the number of accidents at the most critical intersections, which are defined as intersections of state roads with more than 5 accidents in one ofthe years analyzed'.. Accident rate (measured in accidents per million vehicle miles entering the intersection) is the method Georgia DOT uses to evaluate safety problems at intersections. According to Georgia DOT records, the average statewide accident rate for intersections ofstate roads in urban areas for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 is 3.l3.for signalized and 0.59 for unsignalized intersections.

Unlike the roadway segment accident records, no intersections of state roads have exceeded the statewide average for the three years analyzed. This is likely due to the slow speeds oftraffic through downtown, where the most critical intersections are located.

Table 4

Accident History of Critical Study Area Intersections
_ i l l - -Ifr'l ::::::lAifiaMij::rmi:::::,:: :"::",'::,:!'!":!!',!.:!:,"!::!:.:.':;:.:::!::::::::!.:::....:::.:.:..:!!:!,':!..::
- Intersection 1 West Third Street (SR 16) at SR 42 North

1995

2

1996

3

0.08

0.66

O. 1 x

O. 11

0.63

0.2 x

1996

6

0.25

0.49

0.5 x

A verage

4

O. 15

O. 59

O. 3 x

- Intersection 3 Third St (SR 16 / 42) at Mulberry St (SR 36 South)

1995

6

1996

11

O. 15

3 37

O. 1 x

0.24

3.35

O. 1 x

1997

16

0.4 1

2.68

0.2 x

Average

11

O. 27

3. 13

O. 1 x

Intersection 4 - East Third Street (SR 16 / 42) at Covington Street (SR 36 North)

1995

10

1996

15

b. 22

3.37

O. 1 x

0.30

3 35

O. 1 x

1997

4

0.09

2.68

0,0 x

Average

10

O. 20

3.13

O. 1 x

- Intersection 5 East Third Street (SR 16) at SR 42

1995

6

1996

3

1997

3

.d. io rruro

d

0.22

0.66

O. 3 x

O. 11

0.63

0.2 x

O. 10

0.49

O. 2 x

n 14

n ,0

n?v

Footnote: Measured in ACCIdents per Million Vehicles Entering the intersection on the Mainline

20

Truck Traffic Truck traffic through downtown Jackson is a major issue for the community's residents and . businesses. Truck related employment (Manufacturing, TCPU and Wholesale)account for 23.2% of Butts County employment or 1,255 jobs in 1995. Nearly all this type of employment is centered in Jackson (especially the east and south sides), which has no bypass or truck route to adequately accommodate commercial traffic. Also, Butts County is surrounded by counties with high manufacturing, logging and other truck related employment. Truck traffic from these surrounding counties, e.g. Newton, Jasper and Putnam, use Butts County roadways to access 1-75 and 1-85 south and other points west and south of Jackson.

The major freight corridors through the study area are SR 16 east to / from SR 16 west, SR 36 south to / from SR 16 east and SR 36 south to / from SR 36 north. SR 42 is not as significant a truck corridor because it parallels 1-75 for most ofits length, which is more convenient for non-local freight movement than SR 42. Current truck counts on these corridors were provided by Georgia DOT and are shown on Figure 10. The truck volume printouts are provided in Appendix C. Third Street with 1,385 daily trucks is by far the busiest truck segment in the study area. The combined truck volumes on SR 16, 36 and 42 outside Jackson is 1,451 trucks. Comparing this volume to the 1,385 truck volume in downtown Jackson, shows that a majority of the truck traffic on these routes run through downtown.

This heavy truck traffic has a significant impact on the quality of life for residents and businesses in Jackson. A review of truck traffic circulation patterns was conducted to identify locations of significant impact. The most critical location is the intersection of Mulberry Street (SR 36) @ Third Street (SR 16 / 42). This intersection is located on the southeast corner of historic courthouse square, which has a vibrant business district surrounding it. To increase safety for the high pedestrian traffic in this area, this intersection was designed with low curb-turning radii on its corners, which makes truck turns difficult because of their wide turning paths. This truck turning
21

I
::r::i:i:i:i:Ii::i!!:i!I!":'

TRUCKS TURNING AT THE NULBUIRNRTYERSETSEmCTEIO. N3RODF ST
o

K/ y~, J.(/i'/r).
N{

\ .~~; ........
\~/,.I"

LEGEND

UJ

PRIMARY THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE

...J

U

-SECONDARY THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE l/)

~ . . . . . . . . TERTIARY THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE

201 -ONE-WAY DAllY TRUCK ROUTE

loz-

-0~.";:C:' 1(~~.1 Y" ". f " r:
....... ':;t ,,{

r'< ~

~'0~!lU81L. ~Q!L~. I'D Ii'll:;'

<;n 4' ,.. .

'O\:.. Y

:"",,:.~~IJ'-) !} .,c-,~:;;

. . ...'

'.C::)j
I'll

))

1"OIl!)

,I\.t0 .;s-:z

-.-.

I \\~ "-.....-... ..--

<,

.....

-. "-...

\':,-

/

r/r.<,j>'

I )~~

I~

(A'>

.\ 4'\1I' i'/,\
'1 ~!)
../,.'.
;'

."
...,,1,

~b

<fi'
-;:.

';,..

1$9<

\\\100 \ ~~,

_.=-"'.'~];.-'~.' =-~~- ~/'''' rio ,..'ie".7 "'."c'. :....

/

. _ Co

-

lL

,
.~~ \1\\['\)

\.~ "

. / / /I"'\'<

!
I
I
)
__

. . .6; 25- ; ""=~ -...' {~~.~--.-..-.9.~.4'"'.---.. ....."'" -. ~.=.iA-;--.-,. ~~ .'.,'

."."',;&= .-
/][

It' I

.

,I'

201*

.

\. ~bJ.,,.kr

I

/~\) " ....)A/

\

(

II:

\.

:; '". \ ,

'

\i

\\\~\
\.,. '\ I?" \\

\\' ~-.0.,-.

BYPASS

\': .:., ,li, ' :~J '>( ~~ \tI;;',

--,

-~ "'".-",

x'

~ , ,- , ' " '"

~ \l/:",-:/

" l l (' ' '
., :I[L~:; . . , , ' - c . / -:-,-c,

\
\)
/
,'(.\-./

.
<1'-\.'\

-,~, ,~',~v'' ~T <,<.\ -_ \

00. / '
:

,,-/



,{sf.::~ 1(-)\s:./) "'-.._..'(;

.>/

SR 16

ALTERNATE TRAVEL TIMES

~.7MILES
9.0 MIN 20 MPH

(~5 MPH) SR 16

\

\\

.

)

7.0 MILES 9,0 MIN 45 MPH

j: \tlwv\Qq-304\r<~i l"t'l~ucl' rlnn . dgn n~, 12. on"." 14: M. ~)

I0

:;:

~

Czl

wCJ)
:E

(J) :::l

W ...J

> I- 0
O>::O :l ~
0~:>::'a:::::::::l ~ la-::
n:: >-
I- ...J

>w-

<i:
Cl

:::.::::

~CJ)
<:@ :0::::<>l.:U0>U<::::::>
(1)01-
t~CJ)
O::j::l:~>~~~ <:O-J
Oa..~ U)CJ)<:: ~<:q::
~~
:::1 <ju
1""='2..5,;
:2f::
~~
~

problem"causes excessive delay, through signal phase failures, when a truck unable to make a right

tum must wait for vehicles in its turning path to clear before moving. This is a critical problem for

northbound Mulberry Street turning right onto East Third Street, to continue on the SR 36 routing

"

"

through Jackson. MAAI analyzed this situation and determined to correct this problem would require

the intersection stop bars be placed back 15 feet from (heir current position and the curb radii on the

intersection comers be increased from 15 feet to 25 feet. The city of Jackson opposes these

measures, because they would be detrimental to pedestrian traffic in the area.

Another issue for truck traffic in the study area is the single rail line that runs through Jackson. This single track line (through Jackson) is owned by Norfolk-Southern and runs between Atlanta and Macon. According to a train dispatcher at Norfolk-Southern, there are currently 30 trains per day running on this line through Jackson, which run at all times ofthe day. Some ofthe train runs.extend a length of 10,000 feet with 122 cars. At an average speed of 50 mph through Jackson, this results in a 3.0 minute, delay for vehicles on cross roads, which adds to a total daily delay of an hour and a half for 30 train crossings.

Due to an expected increase in freight and commuter traffic on railroads and the fact that this line is only one of two lines that run between Atlanta and Macon, Norfolk-Southern expects the existing daily train traffic on this line to increase by 15 trains to a total of 45 trains per day in ten years. This increased train traffic is" likely to make a current bad roadway crossing problem even worse in the future, with the hour and one half delay currently experienced by drivers expected to increase to two hours and 15 minutes in ten years. Considering the increased truck traffic expected through Jackson in the future, this should be viewed as potentially critical problem.

As these issues indicate, there is an important need to provide a bypass truck route around the city of Jackson. Based on historical increases of general traffic and the county's historical employment growth rate, it is estimated that the current truck volume of 1,385 through downtown will increase to 1,488 trucks in 2005 and 1,889 trucks in 2025. Approximately 10% ofthe truck volume through downtown occurs during the peak truck volume hour (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.), which would result in 149
23

~~ --~---~~-----~~--- - - - -

truck trips in 2005 and 189 trucks in 2025. These are unacceptable truck volumes for a 2-Lane,

roadway in an urban area. Since SR 16 will likely never be widened and' one-way operation is not

acceptable for the city, SR 16 will likely have the same cross-section and operation in the future.

,

'

Therefore, the only feasible alternative 'is the, construction of a truck bypass.

Public Involvement and Agency Coordination To better gauge localconditions and needs, a number of meetings with local officials and a forum with residents were held. Meetings such as these are an important element of any planning study since transportation projects can cause significant impacts to a community's environment, economic development and quality oflife.
.. ,:;~"- we '1'T" rneetm gs were hellddwr.thiOCa1l,O.f.,fi.CH. U1:!, .m'(:1,l.1.1"m' g t1h. eCr"ounty r~o!!mll"ss!On-cha'mnan anu.vJan'ous members, city ofJackson mayor, county manager, county industrial development officer and county community development officer. An initial meeting was held with the local officials and Georgia DOT personnel on Wednesday, August4, 1999. This meeting was meant to present the study to them, review the study process and provide additional existing conditions information. The second meeting with the local officialswas held on Monday, August 23, 1999 and included presenting them our initial recommendations and for them to provide us their preferred routing for the Southern Truck Bypass project.

A public involvement meeting and workshop was held on Thursday, August 7, 1999 at the Butts County Courthouse in Jackson. The meeting was held'between 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. and was attended by at least 44 people. The workshop was held in an informal format that incorporated eleven large exhibit boards which presented the 'existing and future conditions analysis conducted and the transportation improvements recommended. This format allowed members of the public to review the exhibit boards and give comments or ask questions to Georgia DOT and MAAI personnel who staffed the boards.

24

In order to collect public opinion of the study process and improvements recommended, comment forms were provided at the workshop. Comments were also given verbally to Georgia DOT and MAAl personnel at the meeting. The issue most discussed at the meeting was the Southern Truck Bypass, with nearly all members ofthe public voicing an opinion on the project. This project has been under study by local officials for over five years and has been an issue of sizeable debate. Reviewing the written comments, 71% (10 out of 14) of the respondents support the implementation of a truck bypass on the south 'side of Jackson. 29% (4 out of 14) do not think it is at all necessary. Of the respondents supporting the South Truck Bypass, 64% (7 out 'of 11) wanted the alignment of the Southern Truck Bypass to be located farther out from the centerline shown on later on Short Range Improvement Recommendations (Figure 13). 36% (4 out of 11) supported the proposed alignment and none of the respondents supported an alignment closer to Jackson. Other issues that were mentioned and the percentage of respondents mentioning it were.. ~~"'. ,.,'~:: Truck traffic in downtown Jackson - 2 out of 17,
Opposition to truck traffic on Halls Bridge Road and Old Bethel Road - 2 out of 17,
Improved traffic safety in downtown Jackson - lout of n,
Traffic congestion in downtown Jackson - lout of 17.
> 25

ID. LAND USE, DEMOGRAPIDC AND COUNTY RESOURCES This section provides an overview of the county's land use features, population and employment information and cultural and fommunity resource locations.
Land Use Currently, most ofthe land in Butts County is devoted for agricultural or rural residential (one house per three acres or more) purposes. Medium density residential is located along the county's arterial roadways outside Jackson. High density residential is located in or near the city of Jackson, in the center of the county, in or south of Jenkinsberg and along Lake Jackson and its tributaries.
locations near Lake Jackson. Industrial land uses are centered mainly on the east and northeast sides of Jackson.
Future land use patterns will closely resemble the current conditions with large areas still open, agricultural or rural residential. Increased high and medium density residential will take place outside the city ofJackson, Lake Jackson and along SR 16 and SR 42 between Jackson and 1-75. Increased commercial, retail and industrial development will likely take place near Lake Jackson, the city of Jackson and along SR 16 west of Jackson.
Population and Employment Census data were obtained for the three census tracts in Butts County to determine commuting characteristics. Figure 11 shows these census tracts and gives information concerning them. Butts County's 1990 population of 15,326 is expected to increase to 19,769 in 2000, which is a 2.6% annual growth rate. According to projections from the U.S. Census Bureau, long range forecasts for Butts County has its 2025 population at 32,968 However, based on the experience of other north Georgia counties, which have seen their actual population growth far exceeding the projected rate, it is MAAI's opinion that Butts County's population will be greater than this in 2025. The fastest
26

CENSUS TRACT

BLOCK

1990

I 2000 2005 2020

GROUP POPULATION ESTIM ESTIM ESTIM

1501

1

2

3
4
P:)ACT TOTAL

1556

480

1722

376

I /'

4134

5713 6720 10936

1502

1

1704

2
3 4 5
TRACT TOTAL

1632 839 951 1547
6673

8013 8823 11702

1503

1

2
TRACT TOTAL

1703 2816 4519

COUNTY TOTAL

15326

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
LEGEND

CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY - _. BLOCK GROUP

5946 19769

6823 22369

g: \hwy\99304\page11.dgn Oct. 14, 1999 08: 38: 26

.;

-: '0

/1,_.

I
I

:~

I~ -wI ...

-r-
T"""

J\ u<

VI

e
l-

eIz-
II

C/)

o

i=

z~ ~<:

:a::>
()

I-
zC/)

a C/)

1=
c:::o>

i::=i
:::>

a.

aa.

1501-2

-: .. I., .r.-

1

."l-

i / : ...

r~

'T

\
,'.

~~
:;::ll.J ~~>
Oc;;.Q
<,,,.:0l~I~-
S~~ ~--C/)
Cl?a::~
:;::0 .....
o~o.@..~~
~~

1501-3

:zqg
1:=;;!~-

.~

"
l

'\~~, .

/

'

.I

~~~



growing census tract is 1501 (east county), secorid is 1503 (west county) followed by 1502



(Jackson). As mentioned earlier, 54.8%' of the county's working residents commute outside the

county .

According to data given by the Mcintosh Trail Regional Development Center, Butts County's 1995 employment was 5,388 jobs. Of these jobs, 46.1% ofthem are filled by non-county residents. One of Butts County's largest employers is the Georgia Diagnostic Prison, located at the interchange of SR 36 and 1-75. Prison-related employment explains why 'state and local government employment (22.9% of county employment) is the highest .employment category in Butts County. Service employment with 22.7%, Retail with 17.8% and Manufacturing with 16.0% ofthe total employment are also important employment categories in the county.

Cultural and Community Resources Cultural and community resources are locations in which high trip generation can take place. Therefore, identifying their location is an essential element in determining underlying travel patterns in an area. Examples ofcultural and community resources are schools, hospitals, parks, libraries and shopping centers. Figure 12 shows the locations of these resources in Butts County .


28


10
./ ::T ::E
-<
./ lD lD W C> .L:o.
- -.n./
t'"-C
.....
c-,
.~
' a. 10
=>
0.n....
.L:o.
U;
lD lD
C>
!='?
LJ1 ~ C> C>

ACTIVITY CENTERS .
[HJ HOSPITAL
,la. INDUSTRIAL PARK OR AREA PARK
l SCHOOL
1 SCHOOL PROPOSED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
* SHOPPING CENTERJ RETAIL AREAS

..
t

1\ JI\ MOREL<\ND ALTOBELL
IVA\.. ASSOOAITS,INC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYS/S STUDY

NOT TO SCALE
FlflIIlE
12 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES

." .,

,. "

.!.

IV. RECOMMENDED SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
This section presents the recommended short range transportation .: improvement projects to address the transportation facility deficiencies identified in Section II and to provide effective intra-county lirikages between the cultural and community resources discussed in Section ill.

Study Area Short Range Transportation Deficiencies

The previous chapter outlined the deficiencies of the study area

transportation system. This section presents roadway improvements

recommend to correct the short range deficiencies. Local officials have ~=========

given their support to these projects and they willbe effective inrelieving the short range deficiencies.

The short range deficiencies these projects respond to are:

Unacceptable LOS conditions on Third Street through downtown Jackson,

Critical accident problems on West Third Street, west ofJackson square; and on Mulburry Street,

south of Jackson square,

Heavy truck traffic through downtown Jackson, which causes unacceptable delays at downtown

,

intersections not designed for truck movements, and

Increasing train traffic through Jackson will cause undue delay for vehicles at roadway crossings.

Project No.1 - Southern Truck Bypass The most important project for improving the current and near future (up to 2005) traffic deficiencies, is the Southern Truck Bypass. The routing alignment ofthis proposed project closely resembles the bypass concept Georgia DOT has included into its long range transportation improvement program (Project No. STP-3003 (1), P.I. No. 343440). Although, the project is considered a long range project by the Georgia DOT, the county is interested in advancing this project as a short range project.

The alignment proposed by local officials is slightly different than the alignment proposed by Georgia DOT to minimize right-of-way costs and to avoid areas of environmentalconcern. Also, the project's
30

western limit runs just west ofBert Road to tie eventually into Walter Moore Road and the eastern limit has been extended to tie into Halls Bridge Road. The project's alignment and concept features have been further refined based on comments oflocal officials and residents and is shown on Figure 13.
This project is proposed to be two-lanes undivided on a 4 lane right of way (in order it can be
a widened in the future) and have 65 mph design speed. The project alone will provide a bypass
opportunity for SR 16 and SR 42 truck traffic, improving LOS and safety conditions through downtown. Coupled with the proposed improvements on Halls Bridge Road improvements (Project No.2), a convenient bypass for SR 36 truck traffic will also be provided, which will provide a convenient bypass for nearly every truck movement through Jackson.
One key component of the proposed project is the half cloverleafinterchange at its intersection with SR 16 (east). The overpass of the bypass will bridge over both SR 16 and the Norfolk Southern rail line, located just south of SR 16. All other intersections will be at-grade with signalslikely needed at SR 42 (south), SR 36 (south) and SR 16 (west). Traffic volumes alone will not warrant these signals (in the short term), however, these signals may still be warranted with the high number of trucks and the high speeds of traffic on the roadway.
Preliminary cost estimates and environmental assessments have been prepared for this recommended project. The preliminary cost estimate of the project is $17,511,000 with the interchange at SR 16 (east of Jackson) and $14,698,000 without the interchange (See Appendix D for cost breakdown). Despite the cost difference, MAAI strongly recommends the project include the interchange and overpass because of the increasing truck traffic and train traffic through Jackson. Potential areas of environmental concern are along the Norris Creek tributaries between Buttrill Road and SR 16 (west), and the Aboothlacoosta Creek and tributaries between SR 36 and Watkins Park and Pool Road. Noise impacts may be experienced in the area surrounding the new interchange at SR 16 (east). Based on visits of the area by members of the MAAI environmental department, we believe the proposed project should cause no other significant environmental impacts,including noise impacts or impacts to historic structures.
31

no.-..

to to to

~-.I

.-' ~/---

:-

J

.l>. LU

"" j

, , ~

t.

.....-' .

;
~,'
,. I
\

y/ ~
.-'---------~~-~ ;.

_"7""-:::". ~. __.

,-' . _.,.- -,-'.

, : "',.

r-,

: ....

-,\ ')-'
)~:"<-i,.

"--.. -.\-:-~ \. ,~.

1\ Jl\MORELANDALTOBEL
1V.A:\. ASSOClAm, INC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTAnON NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

FICllIE

SHORT RANGE

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

13

Project No.2 - Halls Bridge Road Improvements The other short range project proposed is one that includes vertical and horizontal geometric (primarily. vertical) improvements and pavement improvements to Halls Bridge Road in order to upgrade it to be suitable for truck traffic with a 2-lane undivided cross section and 65 mile per hour design speed. The limits of this project are from Y2mile eastofSR 16 to SR 36, neat Lake Jackson. An alternate additional item to the overall improvement project is a roadway connection between Halls Bridge Road arid Winding Way. This additional item is not included in the overall improvement project, however, because it does not respond to any transportation deficiencies of the study area.

The main purpose of this project is to provide a convenient bypass for SR 36 traffic through downtown, which currently accounts for 30 to 35% of the truck traffic in downtown Jackson. SR 36!!'"~ffic: is a-1::<.' the major contributor for the signal phase failures.atvarieuedowntown intersections because of the problem of trucks turning at low turning radii intersections. Without these improvements, there is no effective way for SR 36 traffic to bypass downtown except for the potential of constructing a truck bypass on the north side of Jackson (which is included as a long range project). The improvements to Halls Bridge Road is a much more cost feasible improvement in the short term.

The preliminary cost estimate of this project is $2,130,000 (See Appendix D for cost breakdown).

The

only

potential

environmental .

impacts

we

foresee

are

noise,

impacts

to

homeowners

along

Halls

Bridge Road caused by increased traffic. With the proposed improvements, we project there will be

a near doubling in daily traffic along Halls Bridge Road

Short Range Improvement Traffic and LOS Effects The main purposes ofthe short range improvement projects are to correct the failing LOS segments in and reduce truck traffic through downtown Jackson. Project No. 1 alone (without Project No.2) is anticipated to divert up to 30% ofthe non-truck traffic volumes on SR 16, SR 42 and SR 36. This is because the Southern TI1Jck Bypass and Halls Bridge Road combination provides a convenient bypass for non-truck traffic on the major arteries traversing Jackson.
33

Without truck-related improvements on Halls Bridge Road, however, SR 36 will only be minimally relieved of its truck traffic through Jackson. It is anticipated Project No.1 will relieve 90% of the truck volumes on SR 16 and 50% of the truck volumes SR 42 but have little influence on SR 36. With Project No.2, however, it is anticipated 90% of the truck traffic on SR 36 will be diverted to the bypass. The volume redistribution caused by the short range projects are provided in Figure 14, the resulting intersection LOS is shown on Table 5 and resulting segment LOS is given in Table 6.
Table 5 2005 Modified Roadway Network Intersection Operations Level of Service

SR 16 (West) @ SR 42

AM

AIF

AlE

PM

AIF

NO

SR 16/42 @ Oak Street

AM

B

B

PM

B

B

SR 16/42 @ Mulberry Street

AM

B

B

(SR 36 South)

PM

B

B

SR 16/42 @ Covington Street AM

C

C

1----1--------1---------11

(SR 36 North)

PM

C

B

SR 16 (East) @ SR 42

AM

NC

NB

PM

AIF

NC

Footnote: Single letter indicates signalized intersection analysis - overall intersection LOS reported

Split letter indicates unsignalized intersection analysis - major street left / minor street left LOS reported

34

....,
./
r

)
t.C
Wa
,,,b.' "uJ
Q. ~
1..O.,

-IVI V .." ....0
=~
J~ ~

WESLEY DRIVE

n0
r-r

'tf 13 (~):t
I CI ) 152151J - , .

I...V ."-'..-..

.... " ' l X l

UliV=
l-X~l:",:":"

-ct.-Co,

a
,.."
n)

OAK ST MULBURRY ST (SR 36)

-C...D".'.."~.'-N
XllMN-

'-74(36) ;=92(60)
6216~)

861128)J
32(44)~
16(48)-,.

,tf
....",',-,, ::'N" =
0-.~... - '"

IV

cn~;j)

"-c':..:.;.._..
'K "\tf 9375 ((~~)>:t
- 67128>-,.

'-13 Cl8) ;=62(74)
11 (40)
"",',0..,..,-

ANN

.-."~l7l-'"

OAK ST MULBURRY ST

COLLEGE ST

I..V......
""c":":;"a";
_IV'"
~.....,,-

'-132C11lJ "76(68)
143(138)

COVINGTON ST

LEGEND
-A.M. PEAK' HOUR TRAFFIC (.~.)- P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC

11\ . 1V.fi If\ MORELANDALTOBELLI ASSOCIATES, INC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTA TlON NEEDS
ANAL YSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

2005 MODIFIED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

FIIlURE
14

.'

"

i It



Table 6 Short Range Improvement - Roadway Segment Operations Level of Service

1_ _===if~.I=:

1 SR 16 west of SR 42 N

2-L Undiv I A 7,098

B

5,123

B

5,123

B

2 SR 16 between SR 42 Nand SR 36 E

2-LDiv ic

16,133

F

10,584

B

10,584

B

3 SR 16 between SR 36 E and SR 42 S

2-L Div IB

16,274

D

12,225

C

12,225

C

4 SR 16 east of SR 42 S

2-L Undiv I A 7,692

B

5,587

B

5,587

B

5 SR 16 east of Halls Bridge Road

2-L Undiv I A 3,855

B

3,855

B

3,855

B

6 SR 36 south of Brownlee Road

2-L Undiv I A 4,577

B

2,894

A

2,894

A

7 SR 36 south ofSR 16 I 42

2-L Undiv IB 12,044

C

10,611

B

9,282

B

8 SR 36 north of SR 16 I 42

2-L Undiv IB 9,535

B

8,835

B

7,506

B

9 SR 36 south of Bethel Road

2-L Undiv I A 4,686

B

4,086

B

3,749

B

10 SR 42 north of SR 16

2-L Undiv I A 6,822

B

6,822

B

6,822

B

11 SR 42 south of SR 16

2-L Undivl A 5,467

B

4,023

B

4,023

B

12 SR 42 north of SR 87

2-L Undiv I A 6,893

B

6,893

B

6,893

B

13 SR 42 south of SR 87

2-L Undiv I A 2,397

A

2,397

A

2,397

A

14 1-75 south of SR 16

6-L Freew I A 66,496

F

66,496

F

66,496

F

15 1-75 north ofSR 16

6-L Freew I A 103,610

F

103,610

F

103,610

F

16 Bethel Road west of SR 36

2-L Undiv I A 2,975

A

2,975

A

2,975

A

17 Bethel Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv I A 2,175

A

2,175

A

2,175

A

18 Stark Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv I A 2,641

A

2,641

A

2,249

A

19 Brownlee Road south of SR 36

2-L Undiv I A 1,192

A

2,178

A

2,178

A

20 Halls Bridze Road north of SR 16

2-L Undiv I A 1271

A

2271

A

360O

B

21 S. Bvnass from SR 16 W to SR 36 S

2-L Undiv I A

--

--

1895

A

2 195

A

22 S. Bypass from SR 36 S to Brownlee Rd 2-L Undiv I A

--

--

3,578

B

4,707

B

23 S. Bypass from Brownlee Rd to US 23 S 2-L Undiv I A

--

--

6,449

B

7,778

B

24 S. Bypass from US 23 S to SR 16 E

2-L Undiv I A

--

--

2,905

A

4,23'+

A

25 S. Bypass from SR 16 E to Halls Br. Rd 2-L Undiv I A

--

--

1.700

A

3.029

A

'" Footnote: Roadway Description gives number of lanes, median treatment and signal group

36

v. RECOMMENDED MIDDLE RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
This section presents the recommended middle range transportation improvement projects that address transportation facility deficiencies occurring between the short term and longterm horizon years of2005 and 2025.

Study Area Middle Range Transportation Deflciencies The most immediate improvements required for the study area transportation system were to correct poor operating and safety ~~~~~~~~~ conditions on Third Street and to reduce the high numbers of truck traffic through Jackson. The short range improvements, if fully implemented, should correct these problems.

The middle range transportation improvements, on the other hand, are to correct deficiencies that are

somewhat present today but are not as imminent as the short range deficiencies. Instead of being

recommended in the interim, these middle range projects are recommended between 2005 and 2020,

because ofthe likelytime and cost needed t? implement the short range projects. The transportation



deficiencies the middle range projects are intended to handle are:

Worsening traffic congestion from increased commercial and industrial development on Jackson' s

east side,

Increased traffic demands on SR 16 and SR 42 between Jackson and I-75, due to residential and

retail growth along these corridors, and

Failing LOS at the intersection SR 16 @ SR 42 (west)

Project No.3 - Alabama Boulevard Improvements The cultural and community resources map, presented in Chapter Three, shows that the primary commercial and industrial area of Butts County is the area immediately east of downtown. Most indications show this to continue to be the case in the future, with continued growth in both these sectors. The increased vehicle and truck traffic from this growth will require roadway improvements in the future.
37

The intersection ofSR 16 @ SR 42 (west) is a poorly designed Y-intersection that is flanked by retail

activity on all comers and the busy Norfolk Southern Railway. Alabama Boulevard is minor two-lane



roadway that runs north from this intersection, but that curves to the east as it approaches SR 16 to

intersect with it east ofthe railroad. Along Alabama Boulevard is a growing and thriving warehouse

and industrial area that attracts a great deal of truck traffic. Also, Butts County is continuing to

expand its regional park, which is located off Alabama Boulevard.

The traffic movements that cause the greatest congestion is one where SR 42 northbound and SR 16 eastbound traffic attempts to connect with Alabama Boulevard. Not only does this movement disrupt traffic operations, but also causes a critical safety hazard when traffic queues on the Norfolk Southern crossing. Providing improvements that better connects Alabama Boulevard to SR 16 and SR 42 and improves safety for traffic crossing the railroad are very important.

The most ideal improvement would be to relocate SR 42 away from its present alignment to intersect with SR 16 away from the railroad crossing, so as to better connect with the Alabama Boulevard corridor and decrease its potential interference with train traffic on the railroad. Unfortunately, the possible routes to do this are either built up, cause unacceptable historical impacts or both. Therefore, the most cost and environmentally feasible improvement is to channelize SR 42 perpendicular into SR 16 and extend Alabama Boulevard southward to intersect opposite with the relocated SR 42. We recommend signalization of this intersection with tum signals, as shown on Figure 15, which shows a conceptual sketch ofthis improvement. We also recommend stop bars and forward signal indication on the approaches to the railroad along with preemption timing to ensure no queuing of vehicles results on the tracks.

The other improvement we recommend as part of this project is extending Alabama Boulevard northward to into SR 36, north of Stark Road. This would provide a new north-south corridor on the east side of Jackson, which would relieve traffic on the congested segment of Third Street _ . between Covington Street (SR 36) and SR 42. The roadway should provide a 45 mile per hour design speed and have a 2-lane divided (with a two-way left tum lane) cross section.
38

_._',\.(l~ . ;

:...;

, "..,...-/~~~--,.---j.--------

\.<

/ ..-J., \

/
~,,-I ./' i I
\

-'-- ../

,..

. '\. ..'

1\ Jl\MORELANDALTOBEL IVA:\. ASSOCIAm,INc.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATlON NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE

FICllIlE

MIDDLE RANGE

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

15

",

1

l '"

".' ... 1 . I ~ II

Another suggestion that is part ofthis overall improvement project is the potential of moving the SR 36 designation to the new Alabama Boulevard corridor and the creation of a historical district on Convington Street between Third Street and the railroad. With only local traffic remaining on this roadway, urban design improvements could be implemented that coordinate with the beautiful, historical Victorian homes on either side Covington Street. This historic district could be a real asset to both the city of Jackson and Butts County and would likely be eligible for transportation enhancement funding for urban design improvement projects.

Preliminary cost estimates for this project are $2,678,000, With a cost breakdown provided in Appendix D. Because this area is in a built-up commercial area and the only property being taken is the grocery store located between SR 42 and the railroad tracks, no environmental impacts are anticipated. In fact, with the historical district designation ofthe Covington Street, this project may be viewed as an environmentally-friendly project.

Project No.4 - Western Truck Bypass Initial commuter-related development in suburban counties normally occurs near the interstate highway.. This is true of many of Atlanta's northern suburban areas whose initial commuter-related development occurred near 1-75, 1-575, 1-85 and Georgia 400. Considering the fact that Butts County is the same distance from downtown Atlanta as the booming bedroom communities of Cartersville, Canton and Cumming, it should be expected that in the future, Butts County will also attract commuter-related residential development. It seems likely, based on the example of other counties, this development will occur mainly on SR 16 between Jackson and 1-75.

Increased population and other development on the west side ofJackson will increase travel demand between it and areas north and east ofJackson; such as Lake Jackson, 1-20, and Newton and Jasper Counties. The Western Truck Bypass improvement, which is presented in Figure 15, will also greatly improve the convenience for SR 42 trucks to bypass Jackson, which is anticipated to increase the truck traffic diversion on SR 42 from 50% to 90%. Finally, this is the final segment required for a complete loop around Jackson, using Bethel Road, Four Points Road, Halls Bridge Road and the Southern Truck Bypass.
40

The Western Truck Bypass is proposed to begin at the western terminus of the Southern Truck Bypass and run along the alignment of Walter Moore Road, where just south of SR 42 it will run along new location to the intersection of SR 42 @ Bethel Road. This intersection will have to be relocated slightly southwest of its current location to minimize conflicts with the Norfolk Southern railroad and Wolf Creek Road. Continuing with the design of the Southern Truck Bypass, the Western Truck Bypass is proposed to be two-lanes undivided on a 4 lane right of way (allowing it to be widened in the future) and have a 65 mph design speed. The estimated cost ofthe project is $5,167,000 and the cost breakdown is provided in Appendix D. Because the roadway will run along an existing roadway, there should be minimal environmental impacts. There does not appear to be any historical properties along Walter Moore Road and it appears no property acquisition will be required .
....
41

VI. RECOMMENDED LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
This section presents the recommended .long range transportation _ improvement projects to address the transportation facility deficiencies
identified in Section IT and to provide effective intra-county linkages between the cultural and community resources discussed in Section III.
Study Area Long Range Transportation Deficiencies Long range projects are ones which should be implemented between 2020 and 2025. Due to their long terril horizon, these projects, of all the projects listed in this study, will require further examination in the future as to effectiveness at resolving transportation deficiencies (See Figure 16). The transportation deficiencies the long range projects are intended to handle are: Failing LOS at all analyzed intersections in Jackson, Worsening LOS conditions on Third Street through downtown Jackson, and Worsening LOS conditions on SR 42 between Southern Truck Bypass and SR 87.
Project No.5 - SR 16 Intersection Improvements
'..r
Four ofthe five intersections studied in this report will operate with failing level ofservice under 2025 .traffic conditions, even with the implementation of the short- and middle-range projects. The improvements proposed at these intersections are minor, including tum lane additions and .signalization, due to the overriding concern oflocal officials to not provide improvements that will sacrifice the vibrant nature of the downtown business district.
The improvements recommended at the intersection ofSR 16 @ SR 42 (north) are signalization and the addition of left tum lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. The improvements recommended at the intersection SR 16 @ Oak Street are additional left tum lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. The improvements recommended at the intersection of SR 16 @ - .. Mulburry Street (SR 36 south) are additional left tum lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. The improvements recommended at the intersection of SR 16 @ Covington Street (SR
42

~
/'
! ,
)
lD lLl
, ')
,-, -',,,,;
"c."
u:>
Ii
--;
)
uJ lD
,-,
....
U1

.>_.../~--_ <,
....................' -- _~7--

/ ....

.. ~, -.....

c,

"

\.

~-----

w'

'-,

~'-~

", -

_.

-7';
/ \/ /'
R

I

\..

r rr-r- /

.

'v~'\/r\ I

\..

'.'7--'-

, ..../

"

-S~. ._._-\

-"

-i..

-,

,"

~ I~IORELAND ALTOBELU

~

ASSOCIATES, INC.

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LONG RANGE
16
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

36 north) is an additional left and right tum lane on the northbound approach. The other intersection

studied under this report -- the intersection of SR 16 @ SR 42 (south) - will work with acceptable



conditions with the implementation of the Alabama Boulevard improvements described under the

middle-range improvement project recommendations.

The preliminary cost estimates for the intersection improvements on SR 16 is $540,000. We anticipate no environmental impacts will be caused by these improvements.

Project No.6 - SR 87 Connector The other long range project proposed is a new 1.6 mile roadway that would run from the Southern Truck Bypass, near its intersection with Watkins Park and Pool Road, to the intersection of SR 87 @ SR 42. This project will relieve the worsening traffic conditions expected on the segment of SR 42 between SR 87 and Southern Truck Bypass. This project will also greatly improve access for visitors of Indian Springs State Park, which is experiencing ever growing attendance. It will also greatly increase the convenience of SR 42 through traffic attempting to bypass Jackson.

The preliminary cost estimate of this project is $2,851,000 (See Appendix D for cost breakdown). The only potential environmental impacts we foresee are potential wetlands impacts near tributaries of Town Branch Creek.

Middle Range and Long Range Improvement Traffic and LOS Effects The main purposes of the middle range improvement projects is to resolve the unacceptable and unsafe conditions on SR 16 near the Norfolk Southern railroad crossing and worsening traffic operations expected on SR 16 and SR 42 west of Jackson. The purpose of the long range improvemerit projects is to correct the failing LOS at the SR 16 intersections studied in this report and the worsening LOS on SR 42 south of Jackson.

Project No.3 is anticipated to divert 75% of the Covington Street traffic and 15% of the traffic on East Third Street onto Alabama Boulevard. Project No.4 is anticipated to increase the diversion of
44
#

through truck traffic on SR 42 from 50% to 90%. It is also anticipated to relieve traffic on West
Third Street and provide improved mobility for west Jackson residents traveling north or east of
Jackson. Project No. 5 will not divert any traffic but will greatly improve operations at the intersections in downtown Jackson. Project No.6 is anticipated to divert 30% of the traffic on SR 42 between the Southern Truck Bypass and SR 87. The volume redistribution caused by the middle. and long range projects are provided in Figure 17, the resulting intersection LOS is shown on Table 7 and resulting segment LOS is given in Table 8.
Table 7 2025 Modified Roadway Network Intersection Operations Level of Service

SR 16 (West)@ SR 42

AM

CIF

C

PM

BIF

C

SR 16/42@ Oak Street

AM

F

C



PM

F

C

SR 16/42 @ Mulberry Street AM

F

C

(SR 36 South)

PM

F

C

SR 16/42 @ Covington Street t - -AM- - - + - - -F- - - - + - - - - -B- - - - n

(SR 36 North)

PM

F

C

SR 16 (East) @ SR 42

AM

BIE

C

PM

BIF

c

Footnote: Single letter indicates signalized intersection analysis - overall intersection LOS reported

Split letter indicates unsignalized intersection analysis - major street left / minor street left LOS reported

45
.,

,IF!
--, )
l.D W C>
b;.
)
,)
) ..J
C. ~
10
':) I. '.:
,
f'
,na...
-..,.l.D
l.D
LTI
f~\,

1.:,

I
!
I

WESLEY DRIVE

_-.I..~."..'..".
_a>_ ~.
J~

222~31<nIl.:.:,:.e.

' t f"C..D.'..........''.."".
~UiN
",UlUl -~::

OAK 5T MULBURRY 5T (5R 36)

"....'~ ....
_Ul
",a>:::
i.t

r'-.f271&670t0lJ2~1:

247136510-" 90 11261'" 47 <1371"'"
"O'U ..........l''""
_::i;_
""c.nN-
~e~
J.~
101 <651j 2197361 ~~I1""'"

,tf CD..."C'-D 0 ~ _a~ >_ ~
;:3711775(221101 6301S)
,tf-"",'.......... UI ~~ -~ !::O !!-

COLLEGE 5T

....
CD~
~-~U."..'.'ic:"-::

' - 79 <671 '-13811231
86 <831

OAK 5T MULBURRY 5T COVINGTON 5T

ALABAMA BLVD

(/)
::0

.,/11V\ 1-1f\MiOARESLSOACNlDATAELST;OINBCE.LL

JACKSON-BUTTS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ANALYSIS STUDY

NOT TO 5CALE

2025 MODIFIED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

FIGURE
17

"'11 (",

."'" r :,

.. "~.~ \~

Table 8 Long and Middle Range Improvements - Roadway Segment Operations Level of Service

.1======tII

SR 16 west of SR 42 N

2-L Undiv / A 9,807

B

8,503

B

8,503

B

2

SR 16 between SR 42 Nand SR 36 E

2-L Div / C 114,618 I C 1 14,618 I C 114,618 I C

3

SR 16 between SR 36 E and SR 42 S

2-L Div / B 1 15,884 l E I 14,730 I D 1 14,730 I D

4

SR 16 east of SR 42 S

2-L Undiv / A I 12,186 I C 1 12,186 I C 1 12,186 I C

5

SR 16 east of Halls Bridge Road

2-L Undiv / A I 5,887 I B I 5,887 I B I 5,887 I B

6

SR 36 south of Brownlee Road

2-L Undiv / A 1 7,923 I B I 7,923 I B I 7,923 I B

7

SR 36 south of SR 16 /42

2-L Undiv / B 1 16,617 I D I 16,617 I D I 16,617 I D

8

SR 36 north of SR 16 / 42

2-L Undiv / B I 15,527 I D I 3,826 I B I 3,826 I B

9

SR 36 south of Bethel Road

2-L Undiv / A 1 7,175 I B I 7,175 I B I 7,175 I B

10 SR 42 north of SR 16

2-L Undiv / A I 11,178 I B I 8,942 I B I 8,942 I B

11 SR 42 south of SR 16

2-L Undiv / A I 6,399 I B I 6,399 I B I 6,399 I B

12 SR 42 north of SR 87

2-L Undiv / A I 13,196 I C I 13,196 I C I 10,557 I B

13 SR 42 south of SR 87

2-L Undiv / A 1 3,492 I B I 3,492 I B I 3,492 I B

14 1-75 southofSR 16

6-L Freew / A 1 102,757 I F I 102,757 I F I 102,757 I F

15 1-75 northofSR 16

6-L Freew / A 1 296,500 I F I 296,500 I F I 296;500 I F

16 Bethel Road west of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A 1 6,153 I B I 6,453 I B I 6,453 I B

17 Bethel Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A 1 4,766 I B I 4,766 I B I 4,766 I B

18 .Stark Road east of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A 1 5,723 I B I 5,723 I B I 5,723 I B

19 Brownlee Road south of SR 36

2-L Undiv / A I 3,422 I B I 3,422 I B I 3,422 I B

20 Halls Bridge Road north of SR 16

2-L Undiv / A I 7.124 I B I 7.124 I B I 7.124 I B

21 S. Bvnass from SR 16 W to SR 36 S

2-L Undiv / A I 4.123 I B I 4.454 I B I 4.454 I B

22 S. Bypass from SR 36 S to Brownlee Rd 2-L Undiv / A I 7,685 I B I 8,016 I B I 8,016 I B

23 S. Bypass from Brownlee Rd to US 23 S 2-L Undiv / A 1 10,503 I C 1 10,653 I C I 10,653 I C

24 S. Bypass from US 23 S to SR 16 E

2-L Undiv / A I 7,339 I B I 7,670 I B I 7,670 I B

25 S. Bvoass from SR 16 E to Halls Br. Rd 2-L Undiv / A 1 5.435 I B 1 5.766 I B I 5.766 I B

26 W. Bypass from US 23 S to SR 16 E

2-L Undiv / A 1 -- I -- I 2,806 I A I 2,806 I A

27 SR 87 Conn. from S. Bypass to SR 87 2-L Undiv / A I -- I -- I -- I A I 2,396 I A

it Footnote: Roadway Description gives number of lanes, median treatment and signal group

47

/