Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report T ABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 Phase One Report Summary ................................................................................................. 1-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 1-1 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................. 1-2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 1-6 2 Definition of the Study Area and Area of Influence ........................................................ 2-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 2-1 Overview of the Approach / Methodology .................................................................... 2-3 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 2-6 3 Demographic, Economic, and Natural Resources Profile ................................................ 3-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 3-1 Research Overview ............................................................................................................ 3-1 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................. 3-8 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 3-10 4 Evaluation of the Regional Economy .................................................................................... 4-1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Findings................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 4-30 5 Identification and Interviews of Major Users .................................................................... 5-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 5-1 Overview of the Approach / Methodology .................................................................... 5-1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................... 5-11 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 5-33 6 Commodity Flow Analysis...................................................................................................... 6-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 6-1 Overview of the Approach / Methodology .................................................................... 6-1 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................. 6-6 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 6-56 7 Existing Transportation System Performance ..................................................................... 7-1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 7-1 Overview of the Approach / Methodology .................................................................... 7-1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................... 7-17 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 7-25 Technical Appendices A. Demographic and Economic Profiles B. Commodity Flow Profiles C. Georgia Heritage Program Conservation Status List June 2001 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 1 Phase I Report Summary Background and Purpose The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) a National Corridor Planning and Development Program grant in May 1999. The purpose of the grant is to fund an evaluation of a strategic freight corridor, designated High Priority Corridor Six, through central Georgia to more expediently connect the ports of Columbus and Savannah. GDOT broadened the study to include a thorough evaluation of transportation, commodity movement and economic development in the forty-five county study area in south central Georgia. Anchored by Columbus in the west, Savannah/Brunswick in the east and Macon/Warner Robins in the center, central Georgia's study area encompasses forty-five rural and urban counties representing characteristics typical of the state. A mix of urban and rural counties, central Georgia is strategically situated to grow into a stronger and more influential economic engine driving the state's economy south of Atlanta. The purposes of the evaluation are (1) to assess the study area's existing transportation infrastructure by focusing on its capability to transport goods and conduct trade in the future, (2) to define infrastructure and technology that fosters freight movement, and (3) to negate adverse environmental and social consequences of potential improvements. The Phase 1 report represents a compilation of all activities associated with the corridor evaluation elements of the scope of work. The intent of the Phase 1 report is to provide a baseline assessment of the economies and infrastructure of central Georgia. This work will act as the foundation for all subsequent activities that will identify short and long-term transportation infrastructure needs and potential solutions within the defined study area. The study team has paid particular attention to understanding the interrelated nature of transportation infrastructure and the economic status of central Georgia, along with each county within the study area. This section provides a summary of key Phase 1 findings and next steps. The subsequent sections provide a detailed summary of all work activities that include: Definition of the study area Collection and presentation of demographic, economic and natural resources profile Collection and analysis of data to generate appropriate baseline of economic conditions. Identification and interviews with major shippers and carriers in the Central Georgia Corridor. Using a variety of economic development system tools/programs, development of a commodity flow analysis June 2001 1-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Military research Infrastructure inventory and performance evaluation Summary, conclusion and next steps leading to implementation Summary of Key Findings 1. Status of Corridor The Corridor features a diverse, stagnant population characterized by low income, high poverty and high unemployment. The Georgia Rural Development Council (GRDC) and Power Alley Initiative in 2000 both concluded that coordinated and customized investment strategy in Central Georgia is necessary to maximize return on investment. The studies revealed that one of the twelve keys to sustained community growth that would maximize investment return is transportation infrastructure improvement. The other eleven factors are presented to remind policy makers and other users that transportation improvements alone will not bring desired results. Strong and active leadership is essential, as well as other non-transportation infrastructure, for success. The study area contains 45 counties, 24 (53%) of which are classified as developing or existing/emerging growth centers, which GRDC says represent the greatest potential to stimulate growth in rural Georgia. Efforts to stimulate counties that have fallen far behind may not be as fruitful as trying to build upon recent sustained success. Not only does GRDC encourage investment in the Corridor, but the Power Alley Initiative, prepared by the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute, recommended heavy investment in the study area to create a "corridor of essential infrastructure" between Columbus and Savannah. The Power Alley Initiative recommended specific projects in the Corridor including: -widen US 280 to four lanes -improve quality of the Georgia Southwestern Rail Line -install natural gas pipeline -install fiber optic cable. The GRDC found that all rural counties are not condemned to lag behind metropolitan counties. The Corridor's Laurens and Sumter Counties were specifically cited as successful rural counties as a result of their strong local leadership and other human capital assets. 2. Evaluation of Regional Economy This section describes the current status of the Corridor's economy, identifies industry clusters and estimates dependence of industries on freight transportation infrastructure. June 2001 1-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The population in the Corridor grew less than the state or the nation between 1980 and 1990. Between 1991 and 2000 the Corridor population mirrored the United States as a whole but fell behind the rest of Georgia, the fastest growing state east of the Rocky Mountain region. The Corridor's fastest growing counties are along the east coast-Effingham, Bryan and Long. Four of the eight Georgia counties that lost population are in the Corridor. The Corridor's employment rate outpaced the nation between 1990 and 2000. Private nonfarm employment grew significantly more than the U.S. during that decade. The largest job generating industries were services, durable goods manufacturing, and construction. A detailed employment statistical breakdown is provided in this chapter. Despite the growth in jobs, Corridor unemployment rates were higher than national and state averages. The MSAs, Columbus, Savannah and Macon, managed lower unemployment rates than the Corridor as a whole, but were still higher than national and statewide averages. At $21,823, the Corridor's per capita income is significantly lower than the national, $27,203, and statewide averages, $25,839. A detailed statistical breakdown of per capita income is provided. 3. Industry Clusters Location Quotients and Shift-Share analysis help identify industry clusters in the Corridor that use and are dependent upon freight transportation. Location Quotients (LQ) measure the concentration of particular industries in a region relative to the nation. The Corridor's industry mix generally mirrors the national averages except for high concentrations of government and non-durable manufacturing (textile products, food, apparel, tobacco) and low concentrations in mining, wholesale trade, and finance, insurance and real estate. Statistical information on industries in the Corridor as they compare to the state and nation is provided. Of 172 industry sectors analyzed, the top three are manufacturing industries (led by tobacco product manufacturing). The next two are weaving, finishing, yarn and thread; and pulp, paper and paperboard. Number four is federal military. Because the Corridor encompasses bases in Columbus, Savannah and Warner-Robins, it is considered a major national defense center. Shift Share Analysis measures the shift (movement) of the Corridor's economy into faster or slower growth sectors. It also measures the Corridor's share of growth in industrial sectors. Nationwide trends show that services, construction, transportation, retail and agriculture industries are growing and manufacturing, mining, finance, farm June 2001 1-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report employment and government are weakening at the national level. Within the Corridor, shift share analysis shows movement in the opposite direction; services, retail, and agriculture-forestry-fishing are growing faster than national trends. The presented methodology highlights industries that, because of local factors, are exceeding national performance. It attempts to identify growth at a specific industry level to gain understanding of which industries enjoy a competitive advantage so that investment can be strategically targeted as recommended by the GRDC. The industries with a competitive advantage in the Corridor are production of transportation equipment, agriculture, forestry and fishing, electric equipment, fabricated metals, stone, clay, glass and concrete, tobacco manufacturing, machine and computers, printing, and primary metals manufacturing Using LQ and Shift share analysis, the industry clusters that are judged key in the Corridor include tobacco manufacturing, federal military, transportation equipment, stone, clay, etc., and food. 4. Freight Transportation Demand A methodology is offered to compute key industries' freight transportation demand. The agriculture, forestry, food and tobacco industry boasts the highest demand. Only agriculture is among the top ten employers in central Georgia. Other industries with high freight transportation demands are government and military, transportation and aerospace equipment, apparel textiles and floor coverings, basic materials, and wood and paper products. 5. Growth Rates How is the economy expected to change in the next twenty-five years? Employment is expected to increase 50% in agriculture, forestry and fishing employment, 33% in services, 10% in government and 5% in construction. Per capita income and population are forecast to lag behind the national average over the next 25 years. In order to offer conclusions about the demand for freight movement we must fully comprehend the Corridor's economic structure, commodity flow patterns and transportation system performance. Once the Corridor's features are modeled alternatives can be tested using the baseline internal, external, import and through demand. 6. Major Users of the Corridor The major users of the Corridor are identified from a comprehensive list of various sources. Users are listed and mapped by industry. The 76 shippers/receivers and carriers interviewed are mapped to show the geographic distribution represented. June 2001 1-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Interviewees list transportation problems and potential solutions as well as their thoughts on the climate in their business. The interviewees generally agreed that business attraction efforts are essential to the economic health of central Georgia. 7. Commodity Flow Analysis The economic vitality of central Georgia region may be lagging but the Corridor accommodates considerable freight traffic. Inbound and outbound domestic tonnage in the Corridor totaled 122 million, worth $319 billion in 1998, with trucks accounting for 77% of the tonnage, rail 22% and water 1%. The Corridor accounted for 7.5 million loaded truck moves and 550,000 loaded rail car moves. Through tonnage totaled an additional 133 million. The chapter includes specific data by destination and origin states, tonnage by commodity type, and a profile of each county's tonnage and modal share. International commodity flow is exclusively handled by the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick. Columbus processes only domestic flow, merely 175,000 tons of domestic commodities. Savannah ranks 39th in the nation in total tonnage, 7th in container traffic, and 4th among U.S. Atlantic ports in international tonnage. Brunswick ranks 112th in the country in total port tonnage. 8. Existing system performance The existing highway system description includes an analysis of traffic volume, levels of service, truck volumes, and accident rates/safety needs. The rail network in the Corridor comprises 1360 miles of track. Chatham County (Savannah) features an extraordinary amount of intermodal operations (container traffic). The aviation system including commercial and general aviation airports in Central Georgia is mapped within the report. Georgia's most active ports, Savannah, Brunswick and Columbus, are all within the study area. A combination of GRDC's economic vitality index and an accessibility index is analyzed to categorize counties and ultimately form a basis for a targeted and coordinated investment strategy. Dublin, Thomaston, and Vidalia/Lyons would benefit significantly from investments to improve access. Generally the Corridor's infrastructure needs are capacity improvements in metro areas, safety improvements Corridor wide, and specific, localized operational improvements throughout the Corridor. June 2001 1-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Conclusions Demographically, the central Georgia Corridor is in crisis. Below national and state averages for population and economic growth, per capita income, unemployment and poverty, the Corridor struggles under a desperate necessity for augmented economic development. Study after study recommends immediate action to engage the depressed, rural counties in Central Georgia. An analysis of the performance of the existing system reveals that the Corridor claims a strong intermodal transportation system utilized at a high percentage by not only trucks but also railroads and ports to move 122 million tons of cargo per year valued at $319 billion. To encourage additional growth some projects were identified that may have a positive effect on the economic vitality of industries dependent on freight transportation infrastructure in the Corridor counties. The methodology and the analytical results identified and listed Corridor industry clusters that have distinct and measurable competitive advantages. With the assistance of the detailed data collection (including source data from interviews with shippers and carriers) and thorough analysis of commodity flows and transportation infrastructure, this report can offer a baseline from which an infrastructure investment strategy that meets the criteria established by the Georgia Rural Development Council may be developed. June 2001 1-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 2 Definition of the Study Area and Area of Influence Background and Purpose In May 1999, GDOT was awarded a National Corridor Development Program (NCDP) grant from the U.S Department of Transportation (USDOT) to study the federally designated High Priority Corridor Six (HPC6), a strategic freight corridor connecting the barge river Port of Columbus and the Port of Savannah. As stated in Section 1118 of TEA-21, the NCPD is a federal discretionary grant program that provides "allocations to states and metropolitan planning organizations for coordinated planning, design and construction of corridors of national significance, economic growth and international or interregional trade". Although many international trade agreements opened the world's markets to American goods, these same agreements also opened American markets to a flood of foreign products. While some economic sectors have increased sales, others particularly labor-intensive markets have found it difficult to compete. Regardless of the technical nature of the industry, without an adequate transportation network to import materials, distribute products and provide access to a broad labor market, industrial expansion, especially in rural areas, will not occur. The assessment of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) highlights the benefits of providing adequate transportation infrastructure to foster economic competitiveness1. This GDOT sponsored study highlighted the positive impact that transportation infrastructure investments can have, particularly on rural economies. HPC 6 traverses central Georgia, connecting the deepwater port of Savannah with the river barge terminal port in Columbus (Figure 2.1). Approximately one-half of the corridor follows I16, a major component of the interstate highway system in Georgia. The corridor follows the alignment of roadways on the state system: U.S. 80, SR 96 and SR 358 connecting to the inland barge facility of Columbus. The Port Columbus specializes in transporting liquid bulk cargo throughout the central U.S. via the Gulf and tri-rivers waterway. HPC 6 continues west from Columbus along US 80, eventually connecting with Interstate 20 in Meridian, Mississippi. Improving the HPC 6 corridor will provide a direct connection from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. 1 Douglas C. Bachtel, Mick Ragsdale and Kelly Eamon Dowd. An Analysis of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) for the Georgia Department of Transportation. University of Georgia, Department of Housing and Consumer Economics. June 2001 2-1 Figure 2.1 - HPC 6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The primary purpose of the study is to provide a detailed assessment of how well transportation infrastructure is supporting the existing and future need to move goods and support the economies of central Georgia. To fully engage in addressing central Georgia transportation needs, GDOT added U.S. 280 to the study so that both major east-west routes in central Georgia were included in the study. Information developed during the study will be used to identify potential transportation infrastructure and technology that will support the economy of central Georgia, allow GDOT to address the transportation work program and to compete for the NCPD discretionary federal grant program. The study team developed four specific project objectives in conjunction with GDOT staff, following initial discussions with key project stakeholders2: Focus on the economic competitiveness of central Georgia; 2 The study team conducted project kickoff meetings in October 2000 involving nearly 100 project stakeholders. The study team also conducted limited one-on-one meetings with specific stakeholders. June 2001 2-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Ensure that the transportation system can accommodate continued and future growth; Define transportation system infrastructure and technological improvements that foster freight movement; and Address environmental and social consequences of additional freight movement. As a direct result of the objectives, linking transportation infrastructure needs with the overall economic health and stability of a substantial portion of central Georgia became a very important component of the study. The importance of this linkage was driven home during the project kickoff meetings and all subsequent discussions with project stakeholders. Corridor studies can be often carried out by simply analyzing the physical and operational deficiencies of the transportation facilities. While this study must ultimately address those issues, understanding the interrelated nature of transportation infrastructure and regional economies is critical to successfully addressing the project objectives. As a practical matter, study area definition is critical to assembling data and information at the precise geographic level to conduct the study successfully. The HPC6 and US 280 study area and associated data must be defined in a much broader sense than a traditional corridor study and at a sufficient detail to: Understand how the economies of central Georgia rely on transportation infrastructure; Define current transportation system performance; Develop forecasts of future levels of demand; Identify existing and future transportation system deficiencies; and Develop full intermodal solutions to address the deficiencies. Overview of the Approach / Methodology Approximately one-half of the HPC 6 follows I-16, a major component of the interstate highway system in Georgia. The corridor follows the alignment of roadways on the state system: U.S. 80, SR 96 and SR 358 connecting to the inland barge facility of Columbus. The Port of Columbus specializes in transporting liquid bulk cargo throughout the central U.S. via the Gulf and tri-rivers waterway. HPC 6 continues west along US 80, eventually connecting with Interstate 20 in Meridian Mississippi. Several key facilities are located along the HPC 6 corridor in Georgia. The Port of Savannah is a major economic engine for the state, employing over 18,000 people statewide. The port handles iron, steel, clay, linerboard, woodpulp, machinery and foodstuffs. Exports account for approximately 56 percent of the total port tonnage, providing competitive transportation costs for the state's kaolin clay and forest products. The Savannah port provides major service for a wide variety of international markets, including the east coast of South America, Mediterranean countries, the Far East, the Persian Gulf and North Europe. Along with Savannah, the HPC 6 corridor also connects Warner Robins and Columbus. With the exception of the Atlanta metropolitan area, Warner Robins represents the fastest growing June 2001 2-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report area in Georgia. Taken together, these three metropolitan areas represent significant employment centers in central Georgia. Central Georgia also includes several important military installations requiring access to national and international deployment routes. These facilities include US Army bases at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Air Field, Robins Air Force Base and a Marine logistics base in Albany, Georgia. These facilities require sufficient transportation infrastructure to guarantee delivery of goods and services to the installations. Fort Benning, Fort Stewart and the Marine logistics base also rely on transportation infrastructure to move and deploy troops and equipment, both nationally and internationally. Access to the Port of Savannah is critical for these facilities. Both HPC 6 and U.S. 280 are located in central and south Georgia. Together, the two corridors traverse over forty counties and provide east-west access across south central Georgia. However, central Georgia has traditionally lagged behind the rest of the state in terms of economic development. The "Two Georgias" controversy that emerged in the mid-1980s brought about a state-led initiative to address the significant economic and social gap between the rapidly growing Atlanta metropolitan area and the economic stagnation of rural Georgia. While the gap still exists, the challenges facing rural Georgia have changed. In 1998, Georgia created the Rural Development Council to develop the first comprehensive assessment of economic conditions for the entire state. The focus of the Rural Development Council is to help improve the quality of life and economic health of the rural portions of Georgia. As part of the Council's first report3, counties within Georgia were organized into five economic categories. The five general categories, reflected in the Economic Vitality Index, allow policymakers to better understand the dynamics of economic conditions in rural Georgia (Figure 2.2). The data developed as part of this study provides an excellent starting point to understand the condition of the local economies in central Georgia along with defining the potential development strategies to improve the overall economic health and quality of life. The study is particularly important in capturing the role of transportation infrastructure in supporting the economic health of central Georgia. 3 Georgia Rural Development Council, The State of Rural Georgia, "Surviving, not thriving", Report to the Technical Advisory Committee, Adopted by the State Rural Development Council, January 20, 2000. June 2001 2-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 2.2 Economic Vitality Index In conjunction with GDOT staff, the study team developed an initial assessment of the study area using several different data sources, including preliminary economic and goods movement data, economic studies and system operational data to define the initial study area4,5,6. The study team defined a 42 county study area that incorporated all major urban centers, military installations and other economic generators that could be directly affected by transportation infrastructure issues along the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors. County geography was used because it represents the most practical unit of geography for data acquisition and can be organized into other logical geographical units. 4 Cambridge Systematics, Georgia Statewide Plan and Process, Task 4 Economic Evaluation. Prepared for the Georgia Department of Transportation. November 2000. 5 Georgia Department of Transportation, Road Characteristics File 6 Georgia Rural Development Council, The State of Rural Georgia, "Surviving, not thriving", Report to the Technical Advisory Committee, Adopted by the State Rural Development Council, January 20, 2000. June 2001 2-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report To assess the thoroughness of the study area, the study team presented the initial definition during the project kickoff meetings. As a result of comments received during those meetings, the study area was expanded to include The Port of Brunswick and the associated counties along Interstate 95, including Long, McIntosh and Glynn Counties (Figure 2.3). The Port of Brunswick attracts a significant amount of business from the auto industry to import and export vehicles. The port is also a significant contributor to freight traffic and goods movement along the HPC 6 corridor. Understanding how both major Atlantic coast ports in Georgia rely on the transportation system will prove to be invaluable to the study. Figure 2.3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Conclusions As a result of the project kickoff meeting and a detailed review by GDOT staff and the study team, the study area for both the US 280 and HPC 6 study was defined and will serve throughout the entire project as the geographic base to gather detailed data and make infrastructure recommendations. Economic data will be organized and assessed for each June 2001 2-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report county in the study area, with regional, statewide and national statistics used as points of comparison. The commodity data will be organized in the following fashion: Within 45-County Study Area Moves from one study area county to another (counted at both their origin and their destination in the county frame of reference, but only once in the study area frame of reference); Rest of Georgia Moves between study area counties and any other county in Georgia; Other Corridor States (AL, MS) Moves between study area counties and the other two states where the HPC 6 Corridor is designated; West of Corridor (LA, TX, AK, OK, NM, AZ, CA) Moves between study area counties and the states directly west of the HPC 6 Corridor; Other Southeast States (FL, SC, NC, TN) Moves between study area counties and these states; and All Other States Moves between study area counties and all other states. Transportation infrastructure assessment will include all facilities within the study area and will focus only on the study area. Any potential deficiencies identified outside the study area will be summarized and included in a report or technical documentation. Environmental and cultural data will be organized for each county within the study area. June 2001 2-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 3 Demographic, Economic, and Natural Resources Profile Background and Purpose The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) a National Corridor Planning and Development Program grant in May 1999. The purpose of the grant is to fund an evaluation of a strategic freight corridor, designated High Priority Corridor Six, through Central Georgia to more expediently connect the ports of Columbus and Savannah. GDOT broadened the study to include a thorough evaluation of transportation, commodity movement and economic development in the fortyfive county study area in south central Georgia. The purposes of the evaluation are (1) to assess the study area's existing transportation infrastructure by focusing on its capability to transport goods and conduct trade in the future, (2) to define infrastructure and technology that fosters freight movement, and (3) to negate adverse environmental and social consequences of potential improvements. Research Overview Anchored by Columbus in the west, Savannah/Brunswick in the east and Macon/Warner Robins in the center, Central Georgia's study area encompasses forty-five rural and urban counties representing characteristics typical of the state. A mix of urban and rural counties, Central Georgia is strategically situated to grow into a stronger and more influential economic engine driving the state's economy south of Atlanta. Population The study area's population is stagnant in comparison to statewide statistics. In 1990 the population of Central Georgia's counties totaled 1,291,700, 43% of which (556,165) resided in rural counties. After a ten-year 12.2% population increase (40% less than the statewide 20.2% increase), the study area's population grew to 1,449,573 in 2000, 45% (650,589) in rural counties (Figure 3.1). Five (11%) of the study area's forty-five counties grew in population above the state average (20.2%) in the past decade. Forty (89%) grew less than the state average. June 2001 3-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 3.1 Change in Population 1999-2000 Source: U.S. Census and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Other demographics ! The study area's population is diverse when compared statewide. Seven (16%) of the study area's forty-five counties have a percentage of minority population below the state average (31.4% of population). Thirty-eight (84%) have a greater minority population than the state average. ! The study area's per capita income falls well short of the statewide average. Four (9%) reveal a per capita income greater than the state average ($23,882) while forty-one (91%) counties' per capita income is less than the state average (Figure 3.2). June 2001 3-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 3.2 Per Capita Income 1998 ! The study area's population is more impoverished in comparison to statewide figures. Seven (16%) of the counties' poverty rates are below the state average (15.6%) but the other thirty-eight (84%) have a higher percentage of population under the poverty level than the state average. ! The study area's unemployment rates are consistently higher than the rest of the state. Nine counties, 20% of the study area, enjoyed unemployment rates less than the state average (4.2%) while thirty-six (80%) suffer higher than average unemployment rates (Figure 3.3). June 2001 3-3 Figure 3.3 Unemployment 1999 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Rural Development Council and Power Alley Initiative Despite some increase in population, the thirty-eight rural counties in the study area are not realizing the economic growth that Georgia has experienced over the past decade. Two recent studies addressed economic vitality issues in Georgia, the Rural Development Council's final report and the Power Alley Initiative. Rural Development Council In August 1999 Governor Roy Barnes created the Rural Development Council to evaluate opportunities for rural Georgia to strengthen its economic position and realize its share of benefit from the booming Georgia economy. As part of its work the Rural Development Council, chaired by Lt. Governor Mark Taylor, created a Technical Advisory Committee to take a "fresh look" at rural Georgia's lethargy and offer advice to inject prosperity into rural Georgia. Chaired and staffed by professionals in the state's Department of Community Affairs, the committee consisted of staff representatives from GDOT, RDC's, GMA, ACCG, Georgia's University System, utility companies, and Georgia's Economic Developers Association. The Rural Development Council's findings follow. June 2001 3-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report # The rural/urban controversy in the mid-eighties identified two Georgias. # A decade and a half later the Council discovered five Georgias: rapidly developing, developing, existing and emerging growth centers, lagging rural, and declining. # Not all rural counties are declining or lagging. Rural county success stories are recounted, specifically Rabun, Pickens, Putnam, Laurens, Sumter, and Appling. Two of the five reported successful counties, Laurens and Sumter, are in the High Priority Corridor Six study area. Regrettably, twenty-one of the forty-five counties are either lagging or declining. # The Council also listed the major components of growth in successful Georgia counties. ! Active, informed leadership ! Trained workforce ! Transportation infrastructure ! Technology and innovation ! Telecommunications ! Targeted/coordinated investment ! Private sector engagement ! Support of existing industry ! Support of entrepreneurship ! Quality education ! Quality health care ! Regionalism/cooperation The Council recommends that the state move toward "OneGeorgia" characterized by coordinated, strategic practices that benefit the entire state. To accomplish the goal of ensuring maximum statewide benefits from a growth economy, several specific recommendations were offered by the Council. State fiscal policy should be launched to coordinate an investment strategy among all state agencies and development partners, private and public. State, regional and local development policy should be sufficiently flexible to anticipate and react to changes in the regulatory climate and the expanding global marketplace. The investment strategy should: ! Emphasize actions that are coordinated and long term ! Generate maximum and measured returns ! Partner with local and regional leadership ! Leverage private sector coinvestment ! Establish regional objectives and empower regional entities ! Pursue growth components referenced previously ! Customize investment based on the communities' readiness ! Excel in the New Economy (information technology) June 2001 3-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report ! Coordinate with state, local, and regional agencies ! Target unique challenges in each community and enhance its distinctive assets To ensure targeted and coordinated investment, the Council established an Economic Vitality Index that classifies Georgia's counties as rapidly developing, developing, existing and emerging growth centers, lagging rural, and declining rural (Figure 3.4). The Index uses seven key indicators to assess economic vitality compared with other Georgia counties: per capita income, unemployment, bank deposits per 1,000 population, labor force participation, average manufacturing weekly wages, annual growth in total population, and percentage of population below the poverty line. The Index also identifies centers of economic activity that, if properly stimulated, could serve as a catalyst for regional growth. Rapidly developing Eight counties statewide are characterized by heavy development, high per capita incomes, low unemployment, and lower than average drop out rates. Developing Forty-two Georgia counties are experiencing growing development and poverty rates that are under the state average. Existing and emerging growth centers Fifty-eight counties are performing near the statewide average of economic indicators. They are experiencing marginal to moderate gains in industrial and commercial development and represent the greatest potential to improve growth variables in rural Georgia. Lagging rural Forty-three "distressed" Georgia counties are performing at or below statewide economic indicator averages. They have no industrial or commercial center as well as higher than average poverty rates. Declining rural Eight counties statewide suffer high poverty rates, substantially lower per capita incomes, much higher unemployment rates, and higher percentages of children and senior citizens. June 2001 3-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 3.4 Economic Vitality Index Power Alley Initiative In December 2000 the Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia prepared "an assessment of the economic development potential of state infrastructure investment in South Georgia" for the Georgia General Assembly. The Power Alley Initiative studied forty-three central Georgia counties, thirty-four common to the study area. The counties incorporated by the Initiative that are not part of the High Priority Corridor Six study area included Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, Quitman, Randolph, Turner, Wayne, and Worth. The Initiative did not include ten counties in the High Priority Corridor Six study area, Bibb, Crawford, Glynn, Houston, Johnson, McIntosh, Peach, Twiggs, Upson, and Wilkinson. The original purpose of the Power Alley Initiative was to study the economic impacts of a proposed natural gas pipeline from Columbus to Savannah. It was expanded to include the economic impact of infrastructure investment in highways, railroads, fiber optic cable, and natural gas. Similar to the High Priority Corridor Six project, the Initiative's forty-three county target area is also characterized by economic stagnation in stark contrast to the strong statewide economy. The Institute of Government found that the area relies upon a declining agricultural industry and fails to attract investment in the growing service economy. June 2001 3-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The proposed Power Alley Initiative recommends substantial investment in transportation, telecommunications, and the generation and distribution of electricity creating a "corridor of essential infrastructure" between Columbus and Savannah. The Power Alley Initiative also envisions significant private sector investment subsequent to initial public sector investments. For example, if the public sector invests in roads, the private sector may take advantage of available right of way and follow with a strong investment in fiber optic cable essential for future development and further investment. Similar to the Rural Development Council's findings, the Power Alley Initiative recognizes that constructing public infrastructure alone does not consistently stimulate growth. Investments in human capital accompanying infrastructure investments are crucial. The Initiative reinforces the Council's human components of growth: active/informed leadership, trained workforce and quality education. The Initiative's specific infrastructure recommendations and the Institute's estimated costs follow. Widen US 280 to four lanes ($28 million) Enhance quality of Georgia Southwestern Rail Line ($26 million) Install new natural gas pipeline ($225 million) Install new fiber optic cable ($15 million) Summary of Key Findings An economic vitality picture of the High Priority Corridor Six study area can be quickly visualized by classifying the counties into the Rural Development Council's five categories. Of the study area's forty-five counties, none are cataloged as rapidly developing. Eight (18%) are developing counties: Harris, Muscogee, Houston, Laurens, Bryan, Effingham, Bulloch, and Glynn. Sixteen counties (36%) are existing/emerging growth centers: Lee, Sumter, Schley, Webster, Upson, Crawford, Bibb, Peach, Bleckley, Pulaski, Montgomery, Toombs, Evans, Candler, Chatham, and Crisp. Eighteen (40%) are lagging: Terrell, Stewart, Chattahoochee, Marion, Talbot, Taylor, Macon, Dooly, Twiggs, Wilkinson, Wilcox, Dodge, Telfair, Tatnall, Liberty, Long, Emanuel, and McIntosh. Three (7%) are classified as declining rural: Johnson, Truetlen, and Wheeler. June 2001 3-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report According to the Rural Development Council, not all rural economies are condemned to lag or decline. In fact six counties are specifically cited in the Council's final report as successful rural counties, two, Laurens and Sumter, in the study area. Laurens County is acknowledged as economically successful because: Its per capita income rose 171% between 1980 and 1997 ($7,012 to $18,985) Its unemployment rate dropped from 8.8% in 1980 to 7.3% in 1998 Its labor force participation increased from 58.7% in 1980 to 72.9% in 1998 Its annual population grew by 0.9% from 1980 to 1998 Sumter County is recognized because: Its per capita income rose 181% between 1980 and 1997 ($6,721 to $18,858) Its unemployment rate dropped from 8.4% in 1980 to 7.7% in 1998 Its annual population grew 0.3% from 1980 to 1998 These communities are acclaimed because they epitomize how locals can successfully overcome challenges and resist prevalent rural decline. Key development components and strong investment strategies allowed Laurens and Sumter to flourish while neighboring rural communities in Central Georgia lagged and declined. A common thread between Laurens and Sumter is the strength of their human capital. Specifically Laurens succeeds due to effective local leadership that propelled the community beyond plant closures related to NAFTA into a New Economy prosperity. Sumter flourishes because of successful downtown revitalization and historic preservation initiatives driven by strong local leadership. Overall the forty-five county study area currently fails to meet its economic potential, does not contribute positively to the state and national economy, and suffers from a malaise prompted by a bleak future. However, with the proper mix of human capital investments, as suggested by the Rural Development Council, and strategic public infrastructure installations resembling those recommended in the Power Alley Initiative and the High Priority Corridor Six project, the demographics of the Central Georgia region could match and eventually exceed the statewide economy. County Economic and Demographic Profiles Attached are documents profiling each of the forty-five counties along the Central Georgia Corridor. The Demographic Profile is a concise one-page charted summary of each county's population estimates, growth, birth rates, death rates, net migration, racial composition, and senior population. A county map, a corridor map showing the location of the profiled county, and some narrative is also included to offer concise, valuable and up-to-date demographic information designed to capture the past demographic performance and anticipate the future of the profiled county. June 2001 3-9 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The Economic Profile is a one-page summary of the profiled county's pertinent economic information. It includes county and statewide economic vitality indicators such as per capita income, average weekly wages, average annual unemployment rate, poverty rate, labor force, and deposits in financial institutions. Within the same page is a corridor map, county map, narrative, and charts comparing the county's wages and unemployment to statewide figures. A pie chart showing the county's employment distribution is also included to provide concise, valuable and current economic information necessary to evaluate the economic development potential of the corridor's forty-five counties. Natural Resources In order to properly evaluate and plan improvements to meet the needs of the counties along the corridor and to meet state and national expectations regarding the transport of freight through central Georgia, efforts are required to identify natural and historic resources in the corridor. According to the Georgia Natural Heritage Program1 website, "The Georgia Natural Heritage Program Database System (GNHPDS) is provided as a public service and contains information on the location of rare animals, plants and natural communities in Georgia to the precision of one quarter of a USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map (quarter quad)." The data collected by the GNHP comes from a variety of sources and should not be considered a final statement on the species or area under consideration. A listing of these protected species is included in within the appendices. Conclusions A review of demographic and economic vitality data available on the Central Georgia Corridor suggests that the economic development that should accompany studied improvement of High Priority Corridor 6 and U.S. 280 is desperately needed. With only isolated exceptions the fortyfive counties within the corridor lag well behind expectations and performance of the northern half of the state. Data collected in the Corridor and scrutinized by concerned academics, practitioners and policy makers consistently points to a need to stimulate quality development and assist the counties in efforts to meet their economic vitality potential. A sustained effort to plan and implement social and physical infrastructure in the Corridor is necessary. Costs estimated by the Carl Vinson Institute in its Power Alley Initiative are too low. The $28 million estimated to widen U.S. 280 might only be enough to widen the bridges. The $26 million to enhance the Georgia Southwestern Rail Line is also too low but a strategic and coordinated effort by all involved parties to invest in appropriate, cost effective infrastructure is necessary to reach the full potential of the Central Georgia Corridor. 1 Georgia Natural Heritage Program. October 24, 2000. The Georgia Natural Heritage Program Database System Element Occurrences by Quarter 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle and County. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle. June 2001 3-10 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report June 2001 3-11 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 4 Evaluation of the Regional Economy Purpose This section presents a baseline economic profile of the study area economy. This profile helps us to understand the types of industries that generate freight movement within the study area, the degree to which the study area economy is dependent on efficient freight movement, and the extent to which growth in the study area economy will create additional pressures on the freight transportation system within the corridor. Methodology The primary source of data for this analysis comes from a regional economic model created by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The REMI model provides detailed industry-level data on several key variables, including employment, per capita income, population, and production (sales). The team obtained data for the period 1990-2025 for the aggregated 45county study area. The data was analyzed in a variety of ways including the calculation of location quotients and "shift share" analysis -- to highlight key trends, identify important industry clusters, and derive growth rates for the movement of specific commodity types. Other data sources were used to supplement the REMI data, including data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and a socioeconomic forecast from Woods & Poole . The findings of this economic evaluation are presented in four subsections, which address the following issues: What are the key demographic issues in terms of population, income, unemployment and employment underlying the corridor economy? What are the major industries in the study area? Are they growing or declining? Which industries are represented in higher concentrations (or "clusters") than others? What industries are most dependent on efficient freight movement? and How will changes in population and industry employment affect the demand for freight movement in the future? June 2001 4-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Findings Demograpic Drivers Population One of the most telling economic indicators is population. Strong population growth is often indicative of strong economic growth, as people move to (and remain in) areas where jobs and economic opportunities are readily available. Looking at U.S. Census Bureau data for the period 1990 to 2000, we see that the study area is extremely diverse in terms of the population characteristics of its 45 counties. It includes more heavily-populated counties like Chatham, Muscogee, Bibb, Houston and Glynn which taken together represent half the study area population -- along with less-populated counties like Stewart, Schley and Webster. Table 4-1 Population of Study Area Counties, Year 2000 Population Share Chatham 232,048 16.0% Telfair Muscogee 186,291 12.9% Bleckley Bibb 153,887 10.6% Dooly Houston 110,765 7.6% Terrell Glynn 67,568 4.7% McIntosh Liberty 61,610 4.3% Twiggs Bulloch 55,983 3.9% Evans Laurens 44,874 3.1% Long Effingham 37,535 2.6% Wilkinson Sumter 33,200 2.3% Pulaski Upson 27,597 1.9% Candler Toombs 26,067 1.8% Taylor Lee 24,757 1.7% Wilcox Harris 23,695 1.6% Johnson Peach 23,668 1.6% Montgomery Bryan 23,417 1.6% Marion Tattnall 22,305 1.5% Treutlen Crisp 21,996 1.5% Talbot Emanuel 21,837 1.5% Wheeler Dodge 19,171 1.3% Stewart Chattahoochee 14,882 1.0% Schley Macon 14,074 1.0% Webster Crawford 12,495 0.9% TOTAL Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Population 11,794 11,666 11,525 10,970 10,847 10,590 10,495 10,304 10,220 9,588 9,577 8,815 8,577 8,560 8,270 7,144 6,854 6,498 6,179 5,252 3,766 2,390 1,449,603 Share 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 100.0% June 2001 4-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Overall, the study area population grew by 157,896 between 1990 and 2000, which corresponds to an increase of 12.2%, or to a compound annual growth rate of 1.2%. If we rank the study area counties by population growth, we see that Houston, Chatham, Bulloch and Effingham counties made the highest overall gains in population, while several moderately-sized counties Long, Lee, Bryan, Effingham, Crawford, Harris and Bulloch made the greatest gains on a percentage basis. Table 4-2 Percentage Change in Population of Study Area Counties, 1990 to 2000 County Long Lee Bryan Effingham Crawford Harris Bulloch Marion Wheeler Tattnall McIntosh Houston Candler Wilcox Evans Pulaski Liberty Dooly Montgomery Taylor Treutlen Laurens Bleckley 1990 6,202 16,250 15,438 25,687 8,991 17,788 43,125 5,590 4,903 17,722 8,634 89,208 7,744 7,008 8,724 8,108 52,745 9,901 7,163 7,642 5,994 39,988 10,430 Numeric Percent 2000 Change Change 10,304 4,102 66.1 24,757 8,507 52.4 23,417 7,979 51.7 37,535 11,848 46.1 12,495 3,504 39.0 23,695 5,907 33.2 55,983 12,858 29.8 7,144 1,554 27.8 6,179 1,276 26.0 22,305 4,583 25.9 10,847 2,213 25.6 110,765 21,557 24.2 9,577 1,833 23.7 8,577 1,569 22.4 10,495 1,771 20.3 9,588 1,480 18.3 61,610 8,865 16.8 11,525 1,624 16.4 8,270 1,107 15.5 8,815 1,173 15.3 6,854 860 14.3 44,874 4,886 12.2 11,666 1,236 11.9 County 1990 Numeric Percent 2000 Change Change Peach 21,189 23,668 2,479 11.7 Crisp 20,011 21,996 1,985 9.9 Sumter 30,228 33,200 2,972 9.8 Dodge 17,607 19,171 1,564 8.9 Toombs 24,072 26,067 1,995 8.3 Glynn 62,496 67,568 5,072 8.1 Twiggs 9,806 10,590 784 8.0 Macon 13,114 14,074 960 7.3 Telfair 11,000 11,794 794 7.2 Chatham 216,935 232,048 15,113 7.0 Emanuel 20,546 21,837 1,291 6.3 Webster 2,263 2,390 127 5.6 Schley 3,588 3,766 178 5.0 Upson 26,300 27,597 1,297 4.9 Muscogee 179,278 186,291 7,013 3.9 Terrell 10,653 10,970 317 3.0 Johnson 8,329 8,560 231 2.8 Bibb 149,967 153,887 3,920 2.6 Wilkinson 10,228 10,220 -8 -0.1 Talbot 6,524 6,498 -26 -0.4 Stewart 5,654 5,252 -402 -7.1 Chattahoochee 16,934 14,882 -2,052 -12.1 TOTAL 1,2,91,707 1,449,603 157,896 12.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Several of the fastest growing counties in the Corridor are along the Atlantic Coast: Effingham, Bryan, and Long. These are generally clustered around the existing economic activity in Chatham County. Others tend to be clustered along or near the I-75 corridor. Exceptions include Harris County and Lee County on the western end of the Corridor. The implication is for increasing freight activity to be concentrated in these high-growth counties. The geographic distribution of population growth patterns is illustrated in Figure 4-1 on the following page. June 2001 4-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 4-1 Study Area Population Growth by County If we compare the study area to the state of Georgia as a whole, we see that four of the eight counties in Georgia with population loss between 1990 and 2000 are in the Corridor. Those counties are Talbot, Stewart, and Chattahoochee on the western end of the study area, and Wilkinson County in the north center. Chattahoochee, with a 12.1 percent decrease in population, led the state in percent population loss. Figure 4-2 on the following page shows Georgia population growth by county. Within the state, high-growth areas include Northern Georgia, especially metropolitan counties surrounding Atlanta, and several counties in Southeastern Georgia along the Atlantic coast and within the Corridor. Of the 10 fastest growing Georgia counties, eight are located in the greater Atlanta area. Four study area counties fall within Georgia's 20 fastest growing counties: Long (66.1%); Lee (52.4 percent); Bryan (51.7 percent); and Effingham (46.1 percent). June 2001 4-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 4-2 Georgia Population Growth Rates by County Source: U.S. Census and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. If we compare the study area growth rate with the growth rates for both the state of Georgia as a whole and the U.S. as a whole, we see that: From 1980 to 1990, the population growth rate of the Corridor study area was less than both the state of Georgia and the nation as a whole. In the last decade, however, the study area population increased at the same rate as the U.S. as a whole. However, the state's population continued to grow at nearly twice the rate of the corridor, due largely to rapid growth in the Atlanta region. June 2001 4-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 4-3 Population Growth in Study Area, Georgia and US (Percentage Change) 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% Corridor Georgia US 18.7% 7.1% 9.8% 20.5% 8.2% 8.3% 0.0% 1980-1990 Source: REMI, Woods & Poole, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990-1998 The REMI forecast suggests that the study area population will grow from 1998 to 2025, but at a rate less than that of the rest of the nation. The forecast shows Corridor population will grow at a slower rate than the national average between 1998 and 2025. The Corridor will add more than 150,000 people (11.2 percent) while the nation's population will expand by more than 65 million (24.3 percent.) This indicates that, absent successful efforts to retain and attract business activity within the study area, it may experience a weakening economy relative to other regions in the nation. It should also be noted that this forecast may be conservative, as the Bureau of the Census estimates place the study area population at 1,449,603 in year 2000 well above the REMI figure for year 1998. Table 4-3 Population Forecast, Study Area and United States, 1998 to 2025 1998 Study Area 1,401,581 United States 270,251,000 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2025 1,559,188 335,985,000 Growth 11.2% 24.3% Annual Rate 0.4% 0.8% June 2001 4-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Per Capita Income Another important indicator of regional economic well-being is per capita personal income. For the study area, per capita personal income in 1998 was $21,823. This is over $4,000 less than the Georgia average and over $5,000 less than the U.S. average. Although the study area income grew at slightly faster rate (in percentage terms) than the national average between 1990 and 1998, the study area actually fell further behind in dollar terms. Table 4-4 Per Capita Personal Income, 1990 to 1998 1990 1994 1998 Growth Study Area $15,431 $18,327 $21,823 41.4% Georgia $17,738 $21,170 $25,839 45.7% United States $19,584 $22,581 $27,203 38.9% Source: REMI, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Annual Rate 4.4% 4.8% 4.2% Figure 4-4 Comparison of Study Area, Georgia and U.S. Per Capita Personal Income, 1990-1998 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 C orrid or G eorg ia US $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,0 0 0 $0 1990 1994 1998 Source: REMI, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis June 2001 4-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-5 Per Capita Personal Income Forecast, 1998 to 2025, Current Year Dollars1 1998 Georgia Central Corridor $21,823 United States $27,203 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2025 $56,318 $71,516 Growth 158.1% 162.9% Annual Rate 3.6% 3.6% By the year 2025, per capita income in the study area is forecast to be two and one-half times greater than in 1998. This growth rate closely tracks with the national average. However, the income disparity between the study area and the nation as a whole will almost triple, increasing from $5380 to $15,198. Clearly, income growth that simply matches the national average will not overcome this disadvantage the corridor must exceed that rate, or risk falling further behind. Unemployment Unemployment within the study area is higher than the surrounding region and nation. Specifically, the 1998 unemployment rate in the study area counties is 6.18% -- more than 1.5 percentage points higher than the national average and nearly 2.0 percentage points higher than the state of Georgia. Figure 4-5 on the following page shows that within the study area, unemployment rates tend to be lower in the more urbanized Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or MSAs.2 The three MSAs -Columbus, Macon and Savannah -- each had unemployment rates close to the national average, and between 1.0 and 1.65 percentage points lower than the study area as a whole. Of the three MSAs in the Corridor, Savannah has the lowest unemployment rate. 1Values in nominal dollars (or current-year dollars) are the actual dollar values for the representative year. This is in contrast to real or constant dollars that are defined for a particular year, say 2000, which put dollar values from various years into an inflation-adjusted base year. 2Metro areas are defined as those counties that lie within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as specified by the U.S. Census. The Census uses multiple criteria to define metropolitan areas; the primary criteria is that the center of the area includes a city of 50,000 population or greater. June 2001 4-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 4-5 Unemployment Rates, 1998 7.0 6.0 6.18 Metropolitan Areas in Corridor 5.0 5.19 4.74 4.51 4.5 4.0 4.21 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 United States Georgia Columbus, GA-AL MSA Macon, GA MSA Source: REMI, Woods & Poole, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Savannah, GA MSA Corridor Employment Employment growth is generally considered in two broad categories: Total Employment and Private Non-Farm Employment. "Total Employment" counts all jobs including farm (agricultural) and government (federal, state, and local) employment, while private employment growth focuses on the business sector. Table 4-6 Total Employment in the Study Area and United States, 1990 to 1998 1990 1994 Study Area 670,522 713,999 United States 139,426,900 145,571,600 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 783,364 160,198,700 Growth Annual Rate 16.8% 2.0% 14.9% 1.8% June 2001 4-9 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report As shown in Table 4-6 above and Figure 4-6 below, total employment growth in the study area has actually outpaced the national average between 1990 and 1998. Growth was greater between 1994 and 1998 than the earlier part of the 1990s in the Corridor and the United States, which is consistent with the recession in the early 1990s and the subsequent economic expansion. In the early 1990s, the Corridor's growth rate outpaced the national growth rate. Corridor employment grew at roughly the same rate as the nation during the period from 1994 to 1998. Overall, this is encouraging news. Figure 4-6 Total Employment Growth, 1990 to 1998 12% Corridor US 10% 9.7% 10.0% 8% 6.5% 6% 4.4% 4% 2% 0% 1990-1994 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1994-1998 June 2001 4-10 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report As shown in Table 4-7 and Figure 4-7, private non-farm employment in the Corridor grew at a faster pace than total employment and outpaced U.S. growth rates during both periods (see Figure 2). Private non-farm employment in the Corridor during the recessionary years of the early 1990's 1.5 times faster than the United States. Moreover, during the boom years of the later 1990s, the Corridor's private employment continued to outpace very strong U.S. employment growth. This is encouraging for the region because it implies an active private sector, rather than a reliance on government job creation. Table 4-7 Total Private Non-Farm Employment, 1990 to 1998 1990 1994 Study Area 493,307 530,548 United States 115,077,900 120,885,600 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 Growth Annual Rate 597,422 21.1% 2.4% 135,123,700 17.4% 2.0% Figure 4-7 Private Non-Farm Employment Growth, 1990 to 1998 14% 12% 10% C o rrid o r US 1 2 .6 % 1 1 .8 % 8% 7 .5 % 6% 5 .0 % 4% 2% 0% 1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 4 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1 9 9 4 -1 9 9 8 Table 4-8 presents the REMI forecast for total employment to 2025 in the Corridor and the United States. While the forecast anticipates that the study area will add 80,000 new jobs, it also suggests that employment growth in the study area will fall behind the overall national rate between 1998 and 2025. The forecasted growth rate for study area employment (0.3%) also lags the forecasted growth rate for study area employment (0.4%). June 2001 4-11 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-8 Total Employment Growth Forecast, 1998 to 2025 1998 Study Area 783,364 United States 160,198,700 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2025 852,464 194,577,400 Growth 8.8% 21.5% Annual Rate 0.3% 0.7% The difference in study area and national growth rates is largely due to the "industry mix" within the study area that is, the study area is characterized by higher concentrations of the types of industries that REMI forecasts lower growth rates for, and lower concentrations of faster-growing industries. The challenge for the study area is to maximize its growth potential by supporting its existing industries and by attracting new high-growth industries, in part through the provision of cost-effective transportation and communications infrastructure. Profile of Major Industries Employment, Output and Industry Clusters Employment Table 4-9 presents a summary of study area employment for 1998. The greatest share of employment (25.9%) was in services, followed by government (21.6%) and retail (17.6%). Table 4-9 Study Area Employment by Sector, 1998 Services Government Retail Trade Non-Durable Manufacturing Durable Manufacturing Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Construction Transportation & Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Farm Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries, and Other Mining TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 203,095 168,875 138,014 54,031 49,740 44,050 40,902 30,656 24,154 17,067 10,502 2,278 783,364 Share 25.9% 21.6% 17.6% 6.9% 6.3% 5.6% 5.2% 3.9% 3.1% 2.2% 1.3% 0.3% 100.0% June 2001 4-12 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-10 Study Area Employment, Durable and Non-Durable Manufacturing, 1998 Food Textiles Paper Lumber Transportation equipment excluding motor vehicles Machinery & computers Apparel Electrical Equipment Printing Stone, clay, glass, concrete Fabricated metals Motor Vehicles Chemicals Tobacco manufacturing Primary metals Rubber Furniture Miscellaneous manufacturing Instruments Petroleum products Leather TOTAL MANUFACTURING Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 14,287 10,246 8,956 8,737 8,469 6,305 6,107 5,760 5,496 5,219 4,450 3,956 3,504 2,962 2,516 2,114 1,956 1,918 452 358 1 103,771 Share 13.8% 9.9% 8.6% 8.4% 8.2% 6.1% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% 4.3% 3.8% 3.4% 2.9% 2.4% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0% Durable and non-durable manufacturing represent 13.2% of the study area employment, and the majority of its freight movement in terms of tonnage. Among manufacturing categories, the leading employers in the study area are food, textiles, paper, lumber and transportation equipment. The overall picture is of a highly diversified economy anchored by but not dependent on services, government and retail trade. The freight-moving sectors of the study area economy non-durable manufacturing, durable manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, farm, agricultural/forest/fisheries services, and mining account for a substantial share of the study area economy. Table 4-11 on the following page summarizes employment gains and losses in the study area between 1990 and 1998. The largest gain (60,497 employees) has been in services, and the next largest (26,050) in retail. Other sectors added a smaller number of employees, with the exception of mining (which has declined by 17.5% overall) and non-durable manufacturing (which has declined by 12.8% overall). On a percentage basis, the fastest growth was achieved by Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries services (growth of 64.4% overall). The freight-dependent industries in the study area generally grew at a moderate rate, with the notable exception of non-durable manufacturing. June 2001 4-13 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-11 Study Area Employment Growth, 1990 to 1998 Services Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Government Durable Manufacturing Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries, and Other Transportation & Public Utilities Construction Wholesale Trade Farm Mining Non-Durable Manufacturing TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990 142,598 111,964 35,507 160,513 41,668 6,387 27,719 39,129 23,611 16,702 2,762 61,962 670,522 1998 203,095 138,014 44,050 168,875 49,740 10,502 30,656 40,902 24,154 17,067 2,278 54,031 783,364 Gain/Loss 60,497 26,050 8,543 8,362 8,072 4,115 2,937 1,773 543 365 -484 -7,931 112,842 Growth Annual Rate 42.4% 4.5% 23.3% 2.6% 24.1% 2.7% 5.2% 0.6% 19.4% 2.2% 64.4% 6.4% 10.6% 1.3% 4.5% 0.6% 2.3% 0.3% 2.2% 0.3% -17.5% -2.4% -12.8% -1.7% 16.8% 2.0% Table 4-12 Study Area Durable and Non-Durable Employment Growth, 1990 to 1998 Fabricated metals Transportation equipment excluding motor vehicles Electrical Equipment Machinery & computers Stone, clay, glass, concrete Food Printing Motor Vehicles Lumber Tobacco manufacturing Furniture Primary metals Rubber Chemicals Petroleum products Miscellaneous manufacturing Instruments Leather Paper Textiles Apparel TOTAL MANUFACTURING Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990 3,027 7,096 4,474 5,161 4,222 13,492 4,768 3,239 8,088 2,413 1,524 2,103 1,840 3,446 350 1,933 802 476 9,540 12,741 12,895 103,630 1998 4,450 8,469 5,760 6,305 5,219 14,287 5,496 3,956 8,737 2,962 1,956 2,516 2,114 3,504 358 1,918 452 1 8,956 10,246 6,107 103,771 Gain/Loss 1,423 1,373 1,286 1,144 997 795 728 717 649 549 432 413 274 58 8 -15 -350 -475 -584 -2,495 -6,788 141 Growth 47.0% 19.3% 28.7% 22.2% 23.6% 5.9% 15.3% 22.1% 8.0% 22.8% 28.3% 19.6% 14.9% 1.7% 2.3% -0.8% -43.6% -99.8% -6.1% -19.6% -52.6% 0.1% Annual Rate 4.9% 2.2% 3.2% 2.5% 2.7% 0.7% 1.8% 2.5% 1.0% 2.6% 3.2% 2.3% 1.8% 0.2% 0.3% -0.1% -6.9% -53.7% -0.8% -2.7% -8.9% 0.0% June 2001 4-14 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Looking more closely at the manufacturing sectors, we see that the highest employment gains between 1990 and 1998 were made in fabricated metals, transportation equipment, electrical equipment, machinery and computers, and stone/clay/glass/concrete. Moderate gains were seen in food, printing, lumber, motor vehicles, tobacco, furniture, primary metals and rubber. Substantial losses were seen in: apparel (which lost 6,788 employees, or 52.6%); textiles (which lost 2,495 employees, or 19.6%); paper (which lost 584 employees, or 6.1%); and leather (which lost 475 employees, its entire workforce). The significant declines in apparel and textiles are largely responsible for the overall decline within the non-durable manufacturing sector. The REMI growth forecasts for the period 1998-2025 suggest that the year 2025 economy will continue to be anchored by services, government and retail trade, but there will continue to be a diverse range of freight-generating industries as well. The overall forecast is for a modest increase of 69,100 jobs in the study area (an increase of 8.8% overall). Gains are forecast primarily in the service industries and in government. A number of freight-dependent industries are expected to grow as well, including agricultural/forest/fisheries services and construction. However, most freight-dependent industries are actually forecast to lose employment. The loss is forecast to be greatest in non-durable manufacturing, farm employment, wholesale trade, and mining. Table 4-13 Study Area Employment Forecast, 1998 to 2025 Services Government Retail Trade Durable Manufacturing Non-Durable Manufacturing Construction Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Transportation & Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries, and Other Farm Mining TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 203,095 168,875 138,014 49,740 54,031 40,902 44,050 30,656 24,154 10,502 17,067 2,278 783,364 2025 270,584 185,477 139,336 48,526 44,890 43,024 41,966 30,424 19,195 15,660 11,810 1,573 852,464 Gain/Loss 67,489 16,602 1,322 -1,214 -9,141 2,122 -2,084 -232 -4,959 5,158 -5,257 -705 69,100 Growth Annual Rate 33.2% 1.1% 9.8% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% -2.4% -0.1% -16.9% -0.7% 5.2% 0.2% -4.7% -0.2% -0.8% 0.0% -20.5% -0.8% 49.1% 1.5% -30.8% -1.4% -30.9% -1.4% 8.8% 0.3% June 2001 4-15 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Within the durable and non-durable manufacturing sectors, the year 2025 forecast suggests that food, transportation equipment, lumber, paper and textiles will continue to lead in terms of job creation; these are the same top five as in 1998, with transportation equipment moving up to second position and textiles dropping from second to fifth position. Overall, manufacturing employment in the study area is forecast to decline by 10,355 jobs (a 10.0% loss) between 1998 and 2025. Some industries including transportation equipment, fabricated metals, food, furniture, lumber and printing are expected to add jobs during this period, but most manufacturing industries are forecast to lose jobs. The most significant declines are forecast for apparel (loss of 3,895 jobs), textiles (loss of 3,312 jobs), electrical equipment (loss of 1,820 jobs), tobacco (loss of 1,699 jobs) and paper (loss of 1,212 jobs). Table 4-14 Study Area Durable and Non-Durable Employment Forecast, 1998 to 2025 Food Transportation equipment excluding motor vehicles Lumber Paper Textiles Machinery & computers Printing Fabricated metals Stone, clay, glass, concrete Electrical Equipment Motor Vehicles Chemicals Furniture Apparel Rubber Primary metals Miscellaneous manufacturing Tobacco manufacturing Instruments Petroleum products Leather TOTAL MANUFACTURING Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998 14,287 8,469 8,737 8,956 10,246 6,305 5,496 4,450 5,219 5,760 3,956 3,504 1,956 6,107 2,114 2,516 1,918 2,962 452 358 1 103,771 2025 15,154 9,629 8,996 7,744 6,934 6,100 5,621 5,233 4,495 3,940 3,740 3,474 2,532 2,212 2,173 1,785 1,668 1,263 408 315 0 93,416 Gain/Loss 867 1,160 259 -1,212 -3,312 -205 125 783 -724 -1,820 -216 -30 576 -3,895 59 -731 -250 -1,699 -44 -43 -1 -10,355 Growth 6.1% 13.7% 3.0% -13.5% -32.3% -3.3% 2.3% 17.6% -13.9% -31.6% -5.5% -0.9% 29.4% -63.8% 2.8% -29.1% -13.0% -57.4% -9.7% -12.0% -100.0% -10.0% Annual Rate 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% -0.5% -1.4% -0.1% 0.1% 0.6% -0.6% -1.4% -0.2% 0.0% 1.0% -3.7% 0.1% -1.3% -0.5% -3.1% -0.4% -0.5% -100.0% -0.4% Output From an employment perspective, the overall employment picture is one of a diversified economy, growing at a relatively slow rate, and consolidating its freight-related employment away from historic industries in apparent decline (farm, mining, apparel and textile, etc.). As a means of testing these findings, we can examine another measure of economic vitality output. Output is defined as the total value of goods and services produced. June 2001 4-16 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-15 Study Area Output Forecast, 1998 to 2025 (in billions of fixed 1992 dollars) 1998 Non-Durable Manufacturing $ 14.9 Durable Manufacturing $ 10.6 Services $ 9.2 Transportation & Public Utilities $ 4.3 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $ 5.6 Retail Trade $ 5.2 Wholesale Trade $ 2.4 Construction $ 3.5 Mining $ 0.6 Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries $ 0.2 TOTAL $ 56.5 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2025 $ 20.6 $ 19.4 $ 14.4 $ 8.1 $ 7.8 $ 7.6 $ 4.2 $ 4.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 86.7 Gain/Loss $ 5.7 $ 8.8 $ 5.3 $ 3.8 $ 2.2 $ 2.3 $ 1.8 $ 0.5 $ (0.2) $ 0.1 $ 30.2 Growth 38.2% 82.5% 57.4% 89.5% 38.9% 44.5% 72.9% 14.7% -38.5% 52.7% 53.5% Annual Rate 1.2% 2.3% 1.7% 2.4% 1.2% 1.4% 2.0% 0.5% -1.8% 1.6% 1.6% The output data presents a brighter picture than the employment data in many respects. For one thing, the total growth in output measured in constant 1992 dollars increases by 1.6% annually between 1998 and 2025, compared with an increase of only 0.3% in employment. The higher output reflects increasing productivity per employee. The data confirms that the employment decline in mining represents a real decline, as output is also forecast to drop in that sector; output forecasts for the farm sector, which is also forecast to lose substantial employment, are not available. But perhaps the most interesting finding is that certain industries in apparent decline based on the employment data particularly durable manufacturing, non-durable manufacturing and wholesale trade, all of which are forecast to lose jobs will actually increase their output substantially over the next 25 years. In fact, the two largest increases in output are associated with durable and non-durable manufacturing. This means that these industries will actually increase their need for, and dependence on, transportation and communications infrastructure within the study area. Table 4-16 on the following page provides additional details on durable and non-durable manufacturing. The highest growth in terms of dollars is associated with transportation equipment, tobacco manufacturing, paper, motor vehicles, food, primary metals and chemicals. Even textiles, which is forecast to reduce its workforce by 32%, actually increases its output by 31%. In fact, the only manufacturing industries forecasted to suffer declining output are apparel and petroleum products. The overall message is that the corridor's diversified manufacturing sectors, despite undergoing significant shifts in workforce structure, will for the most part continue to increase their output. June 2001 4-17 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-16 Study Area Durable and Non-Durable Output Forecast, 1998 to 2025 (in billions of fixed 1992 dollars) 1998 Transportation equipment excluding motor vehicles $ 2.6 Tobacco manufacturing $ 4.5 Food $ 4.0 Paper $ 2.0 Motor vehicles $ 1.6 Machinery & computers $ 1.9 Textiles $ 1.6 Chemicals $ 1.2 Lumber $ 1.1 Primary metals $ 0.6 Electric equipment $ 1.0 Stone, clay, glass, concrete $ 0.7 Fabricated metals $ 0.6 Rubber $ 0.3 Printing $ 0.4 Furniture $ 0.2 Apparel $ 0.5 Miscellaneous manufacturing $ 0.2 Instruments $ 0.1 Petroleum products $ 0.4 TOTAL $ 25.5 Source: REMI and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2025 $ 7.2 $ 6.1 $ 5.3 $ 3.5 $ 3.1 $ 2.2 $ 2.1 $ 2.0 $ 1.6 $ 1.5 $ 1.1 $ 1.0 $ 0.9 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.4 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 40.0 Gain/Loss $ 4.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.3 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.3 $ 0.5 $ 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 0.9 $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ (0.2) $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ (0.2) $ 14.4 Growth 179.8% 35.3% 32.1% 78.0% 90.8% 16.5% 30.9% 72.5% 41.7% 149.3% 6.8% 34.1% 59.3% 111.7% 18.3% 49.4% -44.9% 70.1% 156.5% -60.5% 56.6% Annual Rate 3.9% 1.1% 1.0% 2.2% 2.4% 0.6% 1.0% 2.0% 1.3% 3.4% 0.2% 1.1% 1.7% 2.8% 0.6% 1.5% -2.2% 2.0% 3.5% -3.4% 1.7% The overall message is that the corridor's diversified economy and particularly its durable and non-durable manufacturing sectors will, despite undergoing significant shifts in workforce structure, for the most part continue to increase their output, requiring increased levels of service from the study area's transportation and communications infrastructure. Industry Clusters To more clearly identify the industries that use the freight transportation system in the study area those that either depend on it today, or whose growth and vitality depends on future improvements this section presents a more detailed industry-level analysis. Specifically, this section identifies several important industry "clusters" by using two major forms of regional economic analysis: location quotients and shift-share analysis. This analysis defines a "cluster" as a group of interrelated industries that are characterized by a common supplier and/or buyer relationships and similar competitive requirements. Examples of clusters in the United States include the Silicon Valley high-technology cluster in Northern California and the automotive industry in Michigan. The first form of analysis, Location Quotients (LQ), measures the concentration of a particular industry in a region relative to the United States. Mathematically, a location quotient is derived in three steps. First, looking at the study area, we calculate the relative share of total employment within each sector. Second, looking at the U.S. as a whole, we make the same determination. Third, we divide the study area share for a given industry by the national share June 2001 4-18 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report for that industry; a resulting figure greater than one means that the study area has a higher share of that industry than the nation as a whole, while a figure less than one means the study area has a loser share. In cases where the location quotient is greater than one, and especially in cases where the quotient is significantly greater than one, the location quotient may be indicative of an industrial cluster. Location quotients can also be interpreted to indicate goods and services that are "imported" to or "exported" from the study area. For example, if a location quotient is less than one for a specific industry sector, then the region is likely a net importer because it does not produce a sufficient self-supply of these goods. Table 4-17 below presents location quotients for major industry categories for both 1990 and 1998. For year 1998, the region's industrial mix generally follows the national average, with the exceptions of high location quotients in government, non-durable manufacturing (textile mill products, food and kindred products, apparel, and tobacco products etc.) and farming, and low concentrations in mining, wholesale trade, and finance/insurance/real estate. Table 4-17 Location Quotients for Study Area, Major Industries, 1990 and 1998 Industry 1990 1998 1998 Tends to Be Government (including military) 1.57 1.57 Export Non-durable manufacturing 1.57 1.40 Export Farming 1.10 1.12 Export Retail Trade 1.02 1.06 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Services 0.91 1.05 Construction 1.12 0.95 Durable goods 0.75 0.87 Import Services 0.77 0.83 Import Transportation and public utilities 0.88 0.82 Import Finance, insurance, and real estate 0.69 0.74 Import Wholesale trade 0.73 0.67 Import Mining 0.55 0.54 Source: REMI 45-County Georgia Model and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Import June 2001 4-19 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report To further define specific industry clusters, location quotients were calculated from detailed industry-level data for 172 industry groups. Of these, the top three are manufacturing industries. Tobacco product manufacturing is the most concentrated industry sector in comparison to the U.S., with a location quotient more than 14. The next two strongest industry clusters are weaving, finishing, yarn, and thread mills; and pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. The fourth highest LQ is federal military; with military bases in Columbus, Warner Robbins, and Savannah, the Corridor is a major national defense center. Interestingly, the analysis picks up employment at the ports of Savannah, Brunswick and Columbus water transportation has a location quotient of 3.55. Table 4-18 Top 25 Industry Location Quotients Industry Tobacco products Weaving, finishing, yarn, and thread mills Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Federal Military Carpets and rugs Logging Water transportation Greeting cards Household appliances Farm and garden machinery and equipment Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels Bakery products Stone, clay, and misc. mineral products 1998 LQ 14.81 5.48 5.42 4.59 4.55 3.82 3.55 3.29 3.09 2.97 2.95 2.77 2.59 Industry Electric lighting and wiring equipment Aerospace Miscellaneous food and kindred products Meat products Sawmills and planing mills Federal Civilian Hydraulic cement Converted paper products except containers Sugar and confectionery products Iron and steel foundries Engines and turbines Wood buildings and mobile homes 1998 LQ 2.56 2.45 2.39 2.36 2.10 2.06 1.95 1.81 1.75 1.74 1.68 1.63 Source: REMI 45-County Georgia Model and Cambridge Systematics. The use of location quotients helps define the types of industries that require freight transportation infrastructure within the study area. The other type of analysis used to determine and understand industrial trends and clusters in the Corridor is shift-share analysis. Simply stated, shift-share analysis measures the degree to which corridor industries are growing (or declining) as a response to national or local factors, and whether the study area economy is "shifting" towards a mix of faster-growing or slower-growing industries. Shiftshare analysis looks at employment in terms of four specific components: Total is the actual number of jobs created in a given industrial sector between 1990 and 1998 in the study area. It is the sum of the other three components (national share, industry mix and local factors). National Share is a theoretical figure indicating how many jobs would have been created in a study area industry if it had grown at the national average for all industries. June 2001 4-20 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Industry Mix is a theoretical figure that, when combined with the national share, indicates how many jobs would have been created in a study area industry if it had grown at the national average for that particular industry. This is a benchmark for determining if a particular industry is growing faster or slower than the overall economy at the national level. A positive number for any industry means that it is growing faster than the national average; a negative number means it is growing slower. A region that has more industries with positive numbers than negative numbers has a positive "industry mix," in that it contains more industries growing at better than average rates. Local Factors is the difference between the actual total jobs created and the theoretical share of these jobs attributable to national share and industry mix. It measures whether a particular study area industry grew faster or slower than the national average for that particular industry, presumably based on specific local competitive advantages or disadvantages. A positive local factor indicates that a region has added jobs on top of those it could be expected to add based on national growth in that industry. Table 4-19 Aggregate-Level Shift-Share Analysis, Study Area Job Creation 1990 to 1998 Industry Manufacturing: Durable Goods Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods Mining Construction Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Services Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Services Farm Employment Government and Government Enterprises TOTAL National Share 6,208 9,231 411 5,829 4,130 5,290 16,680 3,518 21,244 952 2,488 23,913 99,894 Industry Mix -5,507 - -11,664 --910 2,461 + 511 + -261 1,832 + -1,265 19,970 ++ 1,640 + -2,626 -18,218 -- -14,037 Source: REMI 45-County Georgia Model and Cambridge Systematics. Legend: ++ (very positive), + (positive), - (negative), -- (very negative) Local Factors 7,371 + -5,498 - 15 + -6,571 -1,704 3,514 + 7,538 + -1,710 19,282 ++ 1,523 + 503 + 2,667 + 26,984 Total 8,072 -7,931 -484 1,719 2,937 8,543 26,050 543 60,496 4,115 365 8,362 112,841 We can make the following general interpretations of these findings: If the study area had grown at the national average for all industries between 1990 and 1998 (the National Share), it would have added only 99,894 jobs. The fact that it added 112,842 June 2001 4-21 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report jobs means that it grew at a faster rate than the national average (consistent with the findings presented in Table 4-6 previously). If the study area had grown at the national average for the specific industries represented in the study area (National Share plus Industry Mix), it would have added only 85,857 jobs. The fact that it added 112,842 jobs means that it outperformed the nation in these industries by a total of 26,984 jobs which represents the study area's Local Factor. The negative industry mix means that the study area is characterized by a larger-thanaverage share of slower-growing industries particularly government, non-durable manufacturing , durable manufacturing, farming and mining. The fact that the study area managed to create a higher than expected share of jobs within these industries is attributable to local competitive advantages in terms of labor, land and transportation and other business costs, and other factors. The study area outperformed the nation (high positive Local Factor) in services, retail trade, durable goods manufacturing and government. It failed to outperform the nation (low negative Local Factor) in construction, non-durable goods, wholesale and transportation. Interestingly, despite the study area's losses in farming and mining, it actually outperformed the nation over the period 1990-1998 (slightly positive Local Factor). Industries that are faster growing at the national level (positive industry mix) but slower growing in the corridor (negative local mix) can be though of as healthy industries that are not being fully captured by the corridor economy, and that represent key opportunities for future economic development. These include construction and transportation. Industry Need for Freight Transportation Infrastructure and Services The preceding analyses identified several key industries in the Corridor. The following discussion analyzes the transportation demand from these most important industry groups in Central Georgia as a means of creating a bridge between regional economic activity and transportation activity. This discussion is useful in policy analysis because it identifies the transportation demands of industry clusters. This discussion draws from the Transportation Satellite Accounts3 (TSAs) published by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics to provide estimates of transportation demand by industry group. While the TSAs provide insight into transportation demand by industry, they are based on national aggregate statistics. Therefore, 3 Transportation Satellite Account data provide estimates, by industry, of the transportation demand per dollar of output. This means, for example, that a transportation-intensive industry (like agriculture) spends a higher portion of each output dollar on transportation costs than does a less transportation- intensive industry. June 2001 4-22 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report this analysis assumes that industry transportation demand at the national level is roughly equal to industry transportation demand in Central Georgia. Agriculture, Forestry, Food, and Tobacco Products. From the shift-share and locationquotient analyses, food products, farming, and tobacco appear as likely industry clusters. The production of poultry and other meat products is a growing industry in the Corridor. Tobacco manufacturing, especially in the Macon industry, is another industrial cluster. Farming and agriculture services are another strong industry in the Corridor, with products ranging from onions in the eastern portion of the Corridor to peanuts and melons in the region around Cordele. The sector of agriculture, forestry and fishing services has grown rapidly during the analysis period to become a strong industry cluster. From other analysis, and interviews, we also know the forestry industry is also important in this region. Despite their importance as clusters, only one of these industries is among the top 10 employers in the Corridor, farming, employing more than 24,000. For these industries, the TSAs indicate mixed transportation demand. The TSAs indicate that the food products industry has a slightly lower transportation demand per dollar than the average industry. For agriculture, however, the transportation demand is approximately twice the national average. The modal split between these industries is evenly distributed among trucking, rail, and water. Forestry has high transportation demand; nearly three times the national average. Forestry typically is a heavy user of own-account (in house) transportation, which in the Corridor is principally by truck. Government and Military. The state and local government sector (93,559 employees 1998) and the federal military sectors (47,070 employees in 1998) are not only highly concentrated in Central Georgia but are among the largest employment sectors. The federal civilian sector is also a major employer in the Corridor. Much of the state and local employment may be because of the many administrative units of the Corridor's 45 counties. As mentioned previously, there are numerous federal military bases in the Corridor, resulting in high numbers of federal military employment. Much of the federal civilian employment is related to support functions for the military, especially in areas surrounding bases such as Warner Robins. The TSAs do not have a separate category for federal military and federal civilian sectors. Nonetheless, the TSAs estimate federal government transportation demand at more than twice the national average, with the majority of trips split evenly between three modes: motor freight, water, and air transportation. In this region, railroad transportation is less important for federal industries. State and local government enterprises (excluding passenger transit operations) are less transportation intensive, with demand nearly half the national average. Transportation and Aerospace Equipment. From the location quotient and shift share analysis, transportation equipment emerges as an important Corridor industry. Similarly (although not so apparent in the LQ and shift share analysis), aerospace is a major employer in the Corridor. For transportation equipment, including truck and bus bodies, the TSAs indicated transportation demand slightly less than national average. For aerospace, the June 2001 4-23 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report TSAs estimate demand at roughly one-half the national average. These industries have similar modal splits, relying most heavily upon own-account transportation with some motor carrier reliance. Apparel Textiles and Floor Coverings. While these industries do not appear in the LQ/shift-share composite table, they are historically important industries in the Corridor and continue to be major employers. Weaving, finishing, yarn and thread mills, for example, employ nearly 9,000 in the Corridor; apparel manufacturing employs nearly 5,000. There are several carpet and floor covering manufacturers in the Corridor, but nowhere near the concentration of northern Georgia (Dalton region). The transportation demand of these industries varies. Weaving mills and apparel manufacturers have less than average transportation demand; the carpet and floor covering is just under the national average. Each of these industries is most reliant upon motor freight carriers to meet their transportation needs. Basic Materials. This sector, including stone, clay, and glass; and primary metals employs a relatively small proportion of the Corridor. However, these industries tend to be transportation intensive. Kaolin clay, for example, employs relatively few people in the Corridor, but the number of trucks generated has an important impact on the region's roads. The TSAs indicate that transportation demand by the stone, clay, and glass industry is well above the national average, mostly demanding motor freight trucking carriers. The primary metals sector has transportation demand slightly greater than the national average. All basic materials industries use rail in higher proportions than most industries. Wood and Paper Products. With corporations such as Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific with sizable operations in the Corridor, this cluster is also important to mention in relation to transportation. Paper and pulp mills employed nearly 6,000 in 1998 in the Corridor. According to the TSAs, transportation demand for paper and wood product industries is slightly greater than the national average. It should be noted that the logging industry (mentioned above in `forestry') is very transportation intensive and demands nearly three times the national average of transportation services. How Changes in the Study Area Economy Will Affect Freight Movement Once the underlying economic structure of the corridor is defined and understood in terms of its implications for freight movement, the key question is: how will the economy change, and how will freight movement be impacted as a result? This section develops commodity-specific economic growth rates that can be applied to base year freight activity in the corridor as a means of developing future forecasts. June 2001 4-24 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report There are several assumptions that were used to calculate the growth rates. First, the forecast period is 1998 (last history year of data) to 2025, based on the REMI forecast. Each growth factor was derived from annual growth rates of 168 industrial sectors; the REMI model was utilized to calculate growth rates because of the specific detail of the 168-level forecast. All economic forecast indicators were calculated using fixed 1992 dollars, to control for inflationary effects. These growth rates, because they are based on a county-aggregated regional forecast, also assume that growth rates by industry are the same for each county. To project future commodity flows for the Central Georgia Corridor, four types of economic demand growth rates were extracted from the REMI forecast model for the region: 1. Internal demand; 2. Export demand; 3. Import demand; and 4. Pass-through demand. Growth rates for each of the four types of demand will be used as multipliers to forecast one of four corresponding commodity flows. The following table shows the four types of demand and the corresponding type of commodity flow (O-D pairs). Table 4-20 Relationship Between Growth Rates and Commodity Flows Demand Type Growth Rate Internal Demand Export Demand Import Demand Pass-Through Demand Commodity Flow Type (O-D Pairs) Flows with origin and destination points within the region. Flows with origin within the region and destination outside the region (outbound from study area). Flows with origin outside the region and destination within the region (inbound to study area). Flows with origin outside the region and destination outside the region that pass through the region. Before presenting the growth rates that will be used to forecast commodity flows, it is important to present the methodology used to calculate the growth factors from the demand data extracted from the REMI forecast. The following paragraphs outline the methodology for extracting and calculating the growth rates for each of the commodity flow categories. June 2001 4-25 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Internal Demand: Growth Factors for O-D Pairs within Region. The growth rate for internal demand is represented by growth in the REMI variable "Self Supply." Self Supply is defined by REMI as the amount of local demand supplied locally. Self Supply is derived by multiplying the REMI variable "Regional Purchase Coefficient" by the forecast growth in regional demand for goods and services. The "Regional Purchase Coefficient" (RPC) is the proportion of the regional demand for a good or service that is fulfilled by regional production as opposed to being fulfilled by imports from other regions. Thus, the growth in "Internal Demand" is a logical proxy to forecast growth in origin-destination pairs within the region because it predicts growth in demand for goods and services within the region met by providers within the region. Export Demand: Growth Factors for Origins within Region to Destinations outside Region. The growth rate for export demand is represented by growth in the REMI variable "Exports to U.S. & Rest of World." This variable simply represents the value of exports shipped from the Corridor region to destinations in the United States and abroad (rest of world). Thus, the growth in "Exports to U.S. & Rest of World" is a logical multiplier to forecast growth in origin-destination pairs with origins in the region and destinations outside the region. Import Demand: Growth Factors for Origins outside Region to Destination within Region. The growth rate for import demand is represented by "Import Demand," a variable created for this commodity flow forecast from variables in the REMI forecast for Central Georgia. This variable is a measure of the demand for goods and services in the region that is not met by goods and services supplied locally. Import Demand is calculated using input-output coefficients from the REMI Input-Output Matrix and the REMI variable "Regional Purchase Coefficients," a variable explained in a preceding paragraph on internal demand. This analysis uses input-output coefficients because they explain the portion of intermediate inputs by commodity used by an industry thereby showing the interrelatedness of the region's economy. Specifically, an input-output coefficient is the dollar cost of input (from each of 168 industries) an industry purchases in order to produce $1.00 of output. For example, for every $1.00 of output from the paper industry, that industry purchases $0.20 in inputs from the logging industry, $.30 from the chemical industry, etc. Thus, the growth rate of Import Demand (subtracting self supply determined using the RPCs) will be used as a multiplier to forecast origin-destination pairs with origins outside the region to destinations within the region. Pass-Through Demand: Growth Factors for Through Trips. The growth rate for passthrough demand is represented by the growth in the REMI variable "U.S. Output." This variable is a measure of the value of all output (sales) in the United States by industry. The growth of U.S. output generally parallels the growth of commodity flows. Thus, the growth rate of U.S. output is a reasonable proxy for growth in origin-destination pairs with origins and destinations outside the region. June 2001 4-26 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 4-21 Annual Percentage Growth Factors by Commodity Commodity Logging Sawmills and planning mills Millwork, plywood, and structural members Wood containers and misc. wood products Wood buildings and mobile homes Household furniture Partitions and fixtures Office and misc. furniture and fixtures Glass and glass products Hydraulic cement Stone, clay, and misc. mineral products Concrete, gypsum, & plaster products Blast furnaces and basic steel products Iron and steel foundries Primary non-ferrous smelting & refining All other primary metals Non-ferrous rolling and drawing Non-ferrous foundries Metal cans and shipping containers Cutlery, hand tools, and hardware Plumbing and non-electric heating equipment Fabricated structural metal products Screw machine products, bolts, rivets, etc. Metal forgings and stampings Metal coating, engraving, and allied services Ordnance and ammunition Miscellaneous fabricated metal products Engines and turbines Farm and garden machinery and equipment Construction and related machinery Metalworking machinery and equipment Special industry machinery O-D Pairs Within Outbound from Inbound to Study Study Area Study Area Area 1.1% 1.6% 1.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.9% 0.5% 1.4% 1.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% 2.0% 1.3% 3.0% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 2.3% 1.1% 2.1% 0.5% -0.5% -0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 1.5% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 2.4% 2.9% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 2.2% 2.3% no data 1.7% 3.0% 3.5% 2.6% 2.6% 3.2% 1.7% 2.7% no data 2.1% 0.5% no data 0.4% 1.4% 1.7% 1.5% 0.3% no data 0.4% 1.5% 1.7% 0.4% 2.4% 2.7% 1.3% 2.2% 2.3% 1.3% 4.1% 3.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.1% 1.2% 2.1% 2.6% 1.5% 0.3% 2.7% 0.3% 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% 1.8% 3.3% 2.1% 2.7% 3.3% 2.6% 3.3% 4.0% 2.8% Through 1.4% 0.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.4% 1.8% 3.0% 2.9% 2.0% -0.4% 1.5% 0.8% 2.7% 3.0% 2.8% 3.2% 3.1% 2.7% 0.7% 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 2.7% 2.3% 4.1% 1.9% 2.7% 2.6% 2.9% 3.1% 3.1% 3.8% June 2001 4-27 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Commodity General industrial machinery and equipment Computer and office equipment Refrigeration and service industry machinery Industrial machinery, nec Electric distribution equipment Electrical industrial apparatus Household appliances Electric lighting and wiring equipment Household audio and video equipment Communications equipment Electronic components and accessories Miscellaneous electrical equipment Motor vehicles and equipment Aerospace Ship and boat building and repairing Railroad equipment Miscellaneous transportation equipment Search and navigation equipment Measuring and controlling devices Medical equipment, instruments and supplies Ophthalmic goods Photographic equipment and supplies Watches, clocks, and parts Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware Toys and sporting goods Manufactured products, nec Meat products Dairy products Preserved fruits and vegetables Grain mill products and fats and oils Bakery products Sugar and confectionery products Beverages Miscellaneous food and kindred products Tobacco products O-D Pairs Within Outbound from Inbound to Study Study Area Study Area Area 3.0% 3.4% 2.4% 8.0% 8.0% 7.1% 2.0% 2.5% 1.6% 2.6% no data 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 2.1% 3.5% 3.6% 1.6% 1.0% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 1.8% 0.7% 2.3% 2.7% 4.1% 4.8% 5.1% 3.3% 6.6% no data 2.9% 0.3% 2.1% 1.4% 1.8% 2.3% 1.5% 2.4% 3.2% 3.2% 0.9% 1.8% 1.1% 3.0% no data 2.6% 2.4% 3.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.7% 1.6% 2.9% 4.0% 1.9% 2.7% 3.5% 1.9% 0.2% no data 1.7% 2.0% 2.7% 2.0% -100.0% no data 1.0% -1.1% no data 0.7% -2.0% -0.6% 1.6% 1.8% 2.1% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 1.4% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% -0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.8% Through 3.2% 7.5% 2.4% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 1.5% 1.8% 2.6% 4.8% 6.3% 2.1% 2.1% 3.1% 1.3% 3.1% 2.7% 2.4% 3.7% 3.3% 2.4% 2.4% 1.0% -0.2% -0.2% 2.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% June 2001 4-28 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Commodity Weaving, finishing, yarn, and thread mills Knitting mills Carpets and rugs Miscellaneous textile goods Apparel Miscellaneous fabricated textile products Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Paperboard containers and boxes Converted paper products except containers Newspapers Periodicals Books Miscellaneous publishing Commercial printing and business forms Greeting cards Blankbooks and bookbinding Industrial chemicals Plastics materials and synthetics Drugs Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods Paints and allied products Agricultural chemicals Miscellaneous chemical products Petroleum refining Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products Tires and inner tubes Rubber products and plastic hose and footwear Miscellaneous plastics products, nec Footwear, except rubber and plastic Luggage, handbags, and leather products, nec Metal mining Coal mining Crude petroleum, natural gas and gas liquids Oil and gas field services Non-metallic minerals, except fuels O-D Pairs Within Outbound from Inbound to Study Study Area Study Area Area 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% -2.5% no data 0.9% 1.8% 2.1% 1.4% 1.1% 2.0% 1.2% -3.2% -1.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.6% 1.4% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 2.1% 0.6% 1.1% 1.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.6% -0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 0.1% 1.3% 1.8% 1.1% 1.9% 2.0% 0.4% 1.5% 1.6% -0.1% 1.1% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.9% 2.4% 2.9% 1.7% 1.1% 1.6% 0.8% 0.2% 1.6% 0.2% 1.2% 1.7% 1.1% 1.5% 2.1% 2.5% 2.1% 2.7% 1.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 2.1% 2.9% 1.6% 2.9% 3.0% 1.5% -100.0% no data 0.7% -3.7% no data 1.1% 3.2% 2.7% no data 1.1% no data 1.3% -0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 1.5% 1.1% Through 0.7% -0.3% 2.0% 1.8% -1.5% 1.3% 1.7% 2.1% 1.5% 0.5% 1.3% 1.5% 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 0.6% 1.8% 2.7% 1.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.9% 2.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 2.8% 3.0% -0.4% -3.6% 3.0% 1.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.4% June 2001 4-29 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Commodity Construction Railroad transportation Trucking and warehousing Wholesale trade Agricultural services Forestry, fishing, hunting, & trapping MEDIAN ANNUAL GROWTH RATES O-D Pairs Within Outbound from Inbound to Study Study Area Study Area Area 0.7% 0.8% no data 1.8% 2.2% 1.4% 2.5% 2.8% 2.0% 2.6% 2.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 0.4% -0.6% no data 0.7% 1.3% 2.0% 1.2% Through 0.7% 2.0% 2.7% 2.8% 1.4% 0.3% 1.8% Conclusions The demand for freight movement within the study area is governed by the underlying economic structure of the study area number of employees, types and locations of industries, overall population, etc. and its relationship to the economy as a whole. Conversely, the ability to develop and support freight-generating industries within the study is dependent on the ability of the freight transportation system to support them. To understand this dynamic as fully as possible, we need to look at the region's underlying economic structure, the region's commodity flow patterns, and the region's transportation system performance in combination. Key trends and issues can be summarized as follows: The study area is home to a population of 1,449,603 (year 2000). Between 1990 and 2000, population grew at 1.2% annually; this rate is forecast to slow to 0.4% annually between 1998 and 2025. Per capita income in the study area lags behind the state of Georgia and the nation as a whole. Although per capita income actually grew slightly faster than the U.S. average between 1990 and 1998, it is forecast to grow at the national rate between 1998 and 2025 so that this existing disparity in study area per capita income is forecast to continue. The 1998 unemployment rate in the study area counties is 6.18% -- more than 1.5 percentage points higher than the national average and nearly 2.0 percentage points higher than the state of Georgia. Unemployment rates are lowest in the Savannah, Macon and Columbus areas. The study area employment in 1998 was 783,364. During the period 1990 to 1998, employment grew at 2.0% annually, which is slightly faster than the national average; however, this rate is forecast to drop to 0.3% annually between 1998 and 2025, which is less June 2001 4-30 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report than the national average. This underscores the need for positive actions including transportation and communication investments to encourage job retention and job growth. In 1998, over 65% of study area employment was in service industries, government and retail trade. Among industries with a high demand for freight movement, manufacturing represented 13.2%, construction 5.2%, transportation 3.9%, wholesale trade 3.1%, farming 2.2%, agricultural/forestry/fishing 1.3%, and mining just 0.3%. Among the various classes of manufacturing, the highest employment was in food, textiles, paper, lumber and transportation equipment. The 2025 economy will continue to be anchored by services, government and retail trade, but there will continue to be a diverse range of freight-generating industries as well. The overall forecast is for a modest increase of 69,100 jobs in the study area (an increase of 8.8% overall). Gains are forecast primarily in the service industries and in government. A number of freight-dependent industries are expected to grow as well, including agricultural/forest/fisheries services and construction. However, most freight-dependent industries are actually forecast to lose employment. The loss is forecast to be greatest in non-durable manufacturing, farm employment, wholesale trade, and mining. Within the durable and non-durable manufacturing sectors, the forecast suggests that food, transportation equipment, lumber, paper and textiles will continue to lead in terms of job creation. But overall manufacturing employment in the study area is forecast to decline by 10,355 jobs (a 10.0% loss) between 1998 and 2025. The most significant declines are forecast for apparel (loss of 3,895 jobs), textiles (loss of 3,312 jobs), electrical equipment (loss of 1,820 jobs), tobacco (loss of 1,699 jobs) and paper (loss of 1,212 jobs). The output data points to more growth than the employment data would suggest. Total growth in output measured in constant 1992 dollars increases by 1.6% annually between 1998 and 2025, compared with an increase of only 0.3% in employment. The higher output reflects increasing productivity per employee. Certain industries in apparent decline based on the employment data particularly durable manufacturing, non-durable manufacturing and wholesale trade will actually increase their output substantially over the next 25 years. The overall message is that the corridor's diversified manufacturing sectors, despite undergoing significant shifts in workforce structure, will for the most part continue to increase their output; and these industries will actually increase their need for, and dependence on, transportation and communications infrastructure within the study area. The study area is characterized by a larger-than-average share of slower-growing industries particularly government, non-durable manufacturing , durable manufacturing, farming and mining. Despite this, the study area managed to create a higher than expected share of jobs within these industries between 1990 and 1998, which is attributable to local competitive advantages in terms of labor, land and transportation and other business costs, and other factors. The challenge is to expand on these advantages to optimize growth through the 1998-2025 period. June 2001 4-31 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The movement of specific commodity types into, out of, within and through the study area will grow in response to economic pressures. The median growth rates for all commodity types range from 1.2% to 2.0% annually. This is faster than employment growth, and consistent with rates for output growth. These factors can be directly applied to the year 1998 commodity flow data to develop a year 2025 forecast. The economic data presented in this section has a critical relationship with freight movement data in the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors. We know that the region's economic structure and transportation system have, in combination, produced a certain set of commodity flows (in terms of specific commodity types and origin-destination patterns). If we understand that economic structure and how it affects specific commodity types, then we can apply future economic forecasts to generate estimates of future commodity flows over the transportation network. We are then in a position to test alternative improvements in the transportation network to remedy forecasted deficiencies, or to create economic advantages for certain types of commodity movements to be encouraged as a matter of policy. The economic data presented in this section will ultimately serve as a baseline for an economic impact model to quantify the benefits associated with potential improvements to the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors. June 2001 4-32 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 5 Identification and Interviews of Major Users Background and Purpose This portion of the High Priority Corridor Six Report presents the methodology and findings of Subtask 1.2: Identification of the Major Users of the Corridor. In this study, we define "major users" as those industries that use the freight transportation system in the 45-county study area, including shippers, receivers, and carriers. This first section defines the purpose of identifying the major Corridor users. Subsequent sections outline the methodology used and the findings of the analysis. This study identifies major users in order to answer a range of questions about the region's transportation infrastructure. The primary questions driving this inquiry are: What are the issues, regarding infrastructure and regulation, affecting the movement of goods in the study area? What are the specific needs of those industries involved in the movement of commodities? and What are the recommendations of those industries with respect to the Corridor? In order to answer these questions, the study team gathered data on potential users of the Corridor and selected a sample of these users to interview. The purpose of gathering this information is to: Map and identify the location of users of the Corridor's transportation infrastructure to understand the spatial distribution of certain types of industries; and Compile a geographically representative list of shippers, receivers, and carriers for targeted interviews to answer the questions posed above. The purpose of interviews with shippers/receivers and carriers is to fully understand freight operations in the study area and to guide the team in identifying the daily problems encountered by users of the Corridor. Those problems include poor roads, critical intersections, and impediments to access to the Corridor. The following section presents the methodology used to collect major user data used for mapping and business identification and the rationale for selecting specific businesses for interviews. Overview of the Approach / Methodology Identification of Shippers and Carriers In order to identify the potential users of the Corridor and generate a list of potential interviewees, the study team utilized five primary sources for business names and industry information. This section explains how each data source was used in the selection of major users and explains the methodology of the interview process. Sources used to identify major users are: Info USA (American Business Information [ABI]); June 2001 5-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Transearch commodity flow data (described in detail in Section __ [the commodity flow section]); Transportation Technical Services (TTS) Shipper, Carrier, and Private Fleet Directories; Georgia Department of Labor's Area Labor Profiles; and Georgia DOT's Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study. Info USA. The primary source for business names and information for this study is the Info USA data. With nearly 12 million businesses in their database, Info USA is one of the most comprehensive sets of current business data available. The criteria for selecting specific businesses within the 45-county study area are based on past freight commodity flow studies by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and are meant to capture the businesses from Info USA that represented the top shipping, receiving, and carrying industries in the Corridor. Specifically, using either major industry group classifications, or specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to reflect commodity flows, we selected all businesses in the Corridor meeting the following criteria: Major Industry Groups Industry Mining Manufacturing Wholesale Distribution Employees 10 employees 20 employees 10 employees Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Industry Fishing Forestry Livestock Crops Various Transportation USPS Air Carrier Freight Packing and Crating SIC 08 09 02 01 42 43 45.13 47.31 47.83 Employees 10 employees 10 employees 10 employees 10 employees Any Size Any Size Any Size Any Size Any Size Using the preceding set of criteria, Info USA generated a database of nearly 3,000 business names within the 45-county study area. Thus, our selection includes industries that typically send, receive, or carry large quantities of commodities. Businesses selected are typically related to manufacturing, transportation, and warehousing activities in the Corridor. With this set of nearly 3,000 businesses, the study team identified and mapped the location of each major user in June 2001 5-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report the Corridor. The findings section presents maps and narrative related to the identification of these major users. From this large list, the study team also identified a targeted set of businesses as potential survey participants. The following paragraphs outline the process of selecting businesses for interviews. Shipper and Carrier Interviews To filter the large Info USA list into a reasonable number of potential survey participants, the study team used the other four data sources listed above: Transearch commodity flow data; Transportation Technical Services (TTS) Shipper, Carrier, and Private Fleet Directories; Georgia Department of Labor's Area Labor Profiles; and GDOT's Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study. The following paragraphs explain how each of these data sets were used to further refine the interview list and then outline other considerations in the interview selection methodology. Transearch commodity flow data The Transearch commodity flow data, compiled by Reebie Associates, was the first filter used to determine potential interviewees. Transearch commodity flow data (described in Section 6) was used to ensure that industries representing a significant freight movement on a county-bycounty basis were represented. Transportation Technical Services (TTS) Shipper, Carrier, and Private Fleet Directories TTS directories provided additional names of motor carriers, shippers, and private fleets located within the study area not already identified by Info USA. Study team members searched each of the three TTS directories (The Directory of Shippers, The Private Fleet Directory, and National Motor Carrier Directory) for each county in the study area to identify major users listed in Info USA. Georgia Department of Labor's Area Labor Profiles The study team also relied on lists of top employers by county from the Georgia Department of Labor's Area Labor Profiles to identify large businesses from each county not otherwise appearing in the Info USA data. GDOT's Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study Additional information on shippers and receivers in the Savannah area was obtained from this study. Other Considerations for Interviews To obtain even geographic representation across the study area, the team included a minimum of two firms in each county. The remaining interviews were comprised of firms located in the larger, more populated areas within the corridor (i.e., Savannah, Columbus, and Macon). Motor carriers were chosen to give broad geographic coverage of the area. An attempt was made to ensure representation by both local and national firms providing both local and national service, by both truckload and less-than-load carriers, by both line-haul and local service providers. The team included specialty carriers of haulers of lumber, kaolin (and kaolin industry-related commodities), liquid bulk, frozen and refrigerated foods, and general June 2001 5-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report commodities including "big box" retail, textile, steel, paint, furniture, and a wide variety of other goods. The process resulted in slightly more than 250 candidates, providing relatively even coverage in terms of the study area geography and industrial makeup. The shippers/receivers represented a significantly larger number than the motor carriers and were divided into two groups (Phase One and Phase Two). The Phase One group included two firms from each county as an initial sample. The Phase Two shippers/receivers represented a fallback group for substitution in cases where interviews were not available from Phase One shippers/receivers. In order to prescreen area industries, a letter created by Georgia DOT specifying details of the study was generated and mailed to the 250 shippers/receivers and motor carriers. Tables 5-1, 52, and 5-3 show the list of letter recipients. Next, the team contacted the Phase One shippers to verify receipt of the letter, confirm that they were significant users of the corridor, obtain consent to an interview (in person or via telephone), and identify an appropriate contact to interview. June 2001 5-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 5-1 Phase One Shippers/Receivers Interview List Company City Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co. - Traffic Department YKK USA, Inc. Lithonia Lighting Company Sanders Logging Company Connections Hobart Corp. Anvil International Briggs and Stratton Wal-Mart Distribution Center Hendrix Farm Wallace Computer Svc. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Savannah Sugar Refinery Intermet Machining Dickey's Peach Farm Office LA T Sportswear Homestead Homes International Paper Company Gilman Paper Company Reynolds Metals Company Georgia Pacific Corp. Tyson Foods International Paper Company Fort James Corp. Adrian Homes Crider's Poultry Inc. Claxton Poultry Farms Newmark International Inc. Georgia Pacific Corp. Rich-Sea Pak Corp. Cagle's Inc. Foster Lumber Company Frito-Lay Company Northrop Grumman Apparelcraft Inc. Crowntex Inc. Mohawk Industries Victor-Forstmann and Company Oak Hill Farm Dairy Southwestern Machine and Tool Gift Wrap Company Interstate Paper Corporation GHM Rock and Sand Co. Inc. Smiley Enterprises Inc. Macon Macon Cochran Cochran Pembroke Richmond Hill Statesboro Statesboro Statesboro Metter Metter Port Wentworth Port Wentworth Fort Benning Musella Roberta Cordele Cordele Eastman Eastman Vienna Vienna Meldrim Rincon Adrian Stillmore Claxton Claxton Brunswick Brunswick Pine Mountain Shiloh Kathleen Perry Wrightsville Wrightsville Dublin Dublin Leesburg Leesburg Midway Riceboro Ludowici Ludowici County Bibb Bibb Bleckley Bleckley Bryan Bryan Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler Chatham Chatham Chattahoochee Crawford Crawford Crisp Crisp Dodge Dodge Dooly Dooly Effingham Effingham Emanuel Emanuel Evans Evans Glynn Glynn Harris Harris Houston Houston Johnson Johnson Laurens Laurens Lee Lee Liberty Liberty Long Long June 2001 5-5 Agri-Link Foods Weyerhaeuser Company Baby's Dream Furniture Inc. Tyson Foods Inc. Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Montezuma Oglethorpe Buena Vista Buena Vista Macon Macon Marion Marion June 2001 5-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 5-1 Phase One Shippers/Receivers Interview List (continued) Company Smith and Son's Seafood Sea Garden Seafoods Inc. Bestline Sash and Door Cedar Crossing Manufacturing Pratt and Whitney Swift Denim Group Pyrotechnic Specialties Blue Bird Body Company Central Georgia Co-Op Pillowtex Cooper Lighting King's Custom Builders B&S Wood Svc. Flex-Tec Inc. Cooper Lighting Textron Automotive Co. Martin Marietta Aggregates Pro-Tech Fire Protection Inc. Claxton Poultry Farms Ithaca Industries Butler Sand Company M F & H Textiles Inc. Amercord Inc. Frigidaire Home Products Dawson Manufacturing Company Tyson Foods Inc. Georgia HI-TECH Fabricators, Inc. Vidalia Onion Factory GFF Inc. Piggly Wiggly Dry Branch Kaolin Quad Graphics Inc. Thomaston Mills Inc. Earth Products - Webster Co. Facility Prestec Inc. Tolleson Lumber Company Merritt Pecan Company McPherson Manufacturing Company Gilder Timber Inc. Quality Pallets Ithaca Industries Inc. Englehard Corp. City Darien Meridian Ailey Uvalda Columbus Columbus Byron Fort Valley Hawkinsville Hawkinsville Ellaville Ellaville Lumpkin Omaha Americus Americus Junction City Talbotton Glennville Glennville Butler Butler Lumber City McRae Dawson Dawson Vidalia Vidalia Soperton Soperton Dry Branch The Rock Thomaston Peachtree City Preston Preston Weston Alamo Glenwood Pitts Rochelle Gordon County McIntosh McIntosh Montgomery Montgomery Muscogee Muscogee Peach Peach Pulaski Pulaski Schley Schley Stewart Stewart Sumter Sumter Talbot Talbot Tattnall Tattnall Taylor Taylor Telfair Telfair Terrell Terrell Toombs Toombs Treutlen Treutlen Twiggs Upson Upson Webster Webster Webster Webster Wheeler Wheeler Wilcox Wilcox Wilkinson June 2001 5-7 Sheperd Brothers Timber Co. Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Irwinton Wilkinson June 2001 5-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 5-2 Phase Two Shippers/Receivers Interview List Company City County Armstrong World Industries Inc. Boeing Aerospace Cagle's Inc. Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. Keebler Co. Lucas Aerospace Paragon Trade Brands Riverwood International Jac-Arts Inc. Sommers Co. William Sheppart Lumber Company Nash Finch Co. Risher Rosemount Petroleum Smith-Healy Farms Inc. Supply Sales Co. Metter Manufacturing Co. Pepsi-Cola Co. Pineland Telephone Co-Op Inc. Stone Savannah River Colonial Oil Group Inc. Great Dane Trailers Inc. International Paper Co. Kemira Pigments Inc. Pitney Bowes Union Camp American Service Contractors Cordev Inc. Cusseta Laundry Inc. Atlanta Sand & Supply Co. Drexel Chemical Co. Marvair Co. Pace America of Georgia Inc. Standard Candy Co. Neff Sportswear Mid GA Processing Co. Sun Manufacturing Doncasters Ithaca Industries Inc. Keller Ladders Inc. Royonier International Georgia Pacific Corp. Milliken and Company Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Cochran Richmond Hill Brooklet Statesboro Statesboro Statesboro Statesboro Metter Metter Metter Port Wentworth Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Roberta Cordele Cordele Eastman Eastman Unadilla Vienna Vienna Rincon Swainsboro Swainsboro Swainsboro Hagan Pine Mountain Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bleckley Bryan Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler Candler Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Crawford Crisp Crisp Dodge Dodge Dooly Dooly Dooly Effingham Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Evans Harris June 2001 5-9 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Anchor Glass Container Corp. Electro-Mech Scoreboard Co. Unique Finishing Rockwell Automation Southeast Paper Mfg. Co. Gilman Building Products Warner Robins Wrightsville Wrightsville Dublin Dublin Dudley Houston Johnso n Johnson Laurens Laurens Laurens Table 5-2 Phase Two Shippers/Receivers Interview List (continued) Company City County Rentz Cabinet Co. Albany Elevator Svc. Oak Hill Farm Office Chemtall Inc. Advanced Drainage Systems Inc. Agri-Link Foods Southern Wood Suppliers Inc. Oakcrest Lumber Inc. Brewton-Parker College Morris Farms Peace Distributor Beaulieu America Columbus Div. Bill Heard Cadillac Chevrolet Cosmyl Inc. Dolly Madison Fieldcrest Cannon GNB Technologies Keebler-Sunshine Polychrome Corp. Vulcan Materials Co. Lane Packing Co. Southern Orchard Supply Inc. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. Strange Farms TCI Inc. Redman Homes Inc. Tog Shop Plains Products Inc. Unimin Corp. Duramatic Products Co. Mascot Pecan Co. Watson Brothers Trucking Taylor Orchards Lumber City Egg Marketers Rentz Leesburg Leesburg Riceboro Montezuma Montezuma Oglethorpe Buena Vista Mt. Vernon Uvalda Uvalda Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Fortson Fort Valley Fort Valley Hawkinsville Ellaville Ellaville Richland Americus Plains Junction City Glennville Glennville Butler Reynolds Lumber City Laurens Lee Lee Liberty Macon Macon Macon Marion Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Peach Peach Pulaski Schley Schley Stewart Sumter Sumter Talbot Tattnall Tattnall Taylor Taylor Telfair June 2001 5-10 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Malcolm Powell Logging Company Lumber City Telfair Southland Housing System McRae Telfair Wilkins Industries Inc. McRae Telfair Cinderella Foods Dawson Terrell Robin Builders Inc. Lyons Toombs Truax Veneer Co. Lyons Toombs Vidalia Onion Farms and Sales Lyons Toombs Runners Diversified Inc. Vidalia Toombs Stanley Farms Vidalia Toombs Tumi Luggage Inc. Vidalia Toombs Ailey Mfg. Co. Treutlen Imerys Pigment & Additives Dry Branch Twiggs Federal Paper Board Co. Inc. Thomaston Upson Keadle Lumber Enterprises Inc. Thomaston Upson Table 5-2 Phase Two Shippers/Receivers Interview List (continued) Company City County Wes Tek Inc. Carey Locke Logging Co. Martin Resources Inc. Wood Tech Mfg. & Supply Co. Springhill Services Inc. Shop Thomaston Rochelle Rochelle McIntyre Upson Wheeler Wilcox Wilcox Wilkinson June 2001 5-11 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report June 2001 Table 5-3 Carriers Interview List Company ABF Freight System Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corporate Express Delivery Sys. Old Dominion Freight Line Ryder Integrated Logistics Inc. United Parcel Service Watkins Motor Lines Yellow Freight System Inc. Lumber Transport Inc. Bomark Transport Inc. MCO Transport Inc. Pier 1 Imports Warehouse American Port Svc. Coastal Transport Co. McKenzie Tank Lines Inc. ABF Freight System Inc. American Port Svc. Cocke Brothers Transportation Con-way Southern Express East Coast Terminal Old Dominion Freight Line Savannah Foods Southeastern Freight Lines Southern Intermodal Watkins Motor Lines Yellow Freight System Inc. Colonial Terminals Inc. Claxton Cold Storage Inc. Condor Carriers Inc. United Transportation Williams Trucking Svc. CSX Transportation A.C. White Transfer and Storage Eagle Distribution Systems Burnham Service Corp. Con-way Southern Express Eastern Service Corp ESC Logistics Southeastern Freight Lines Watkins Motor Lines Yellow Freight System Inc. Con-way Southern Express De Boer Inc. Watson Motor Freight Atlantic Inland Carriers J & M Tank Lines Cargo Connections City Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Cochran Garden City Garden City Garden City Port Wentworth Port Wentworth Port Wentworth Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Claxton Perry Wrightsville Wrightsville Hinesville Walthourville Marshallville Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Byron Byron Byron Americus Americus Lyons County Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bleckley Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Evans Houston Johnson Johnson Liberty Liberty Macon Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Peach Peach Peach Sumter Sumter Toombs 5-12 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Old Dominion Freight Line Ben Kennedy Trucking Springhill Services Inc. Shop Vidalia Preston McIntyre Toombs Webster Wilkinson The team also developed shipper and carrier interview guides. The guides included questions regarding general operations of the firms including what was produced, what was moved, how much, and how frequently to learn about the firms' logistics operations. Then a series of questions regarding transportation in the corridor area and in Georgia were indicated. The questions were quite specific, asking the interviewees to identify poor roads, dangerous intersections, congestion, bottlenecks, and other transportation impediments. Lastly, the interviewees were solicited for their specific recommendations for improvements in the corridor area. Shippers and receivers were interviewed on-site based on availability, with telephone interviews for those that could not be interviewed in person, by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Day Wilburn. Interview results are summarized below. All firm-identifying data have been stripped from the interviews to ensure confidentiality. Summary of Key Findings Identification of Shippers and Carriers The team aggregated the Info USA records into several industry categories using the primary SIC code of each business record. Once aggregated by SIC, we created a cross tabulation of the data to compute the number of businesses by category for each county. Table 5-4 shows the results of that cross tabulation. Several of the industry categories created correspond to the transportation-related industry clusters identified in the economic analysis section of the Task 1 report. This does not mean the maps show the county-by-county concentration of businesses of all the industry clusters identified; the Info USA data are limited to transportation-related industries, and the clusters are not exclusively transportation industries. For example, the business maps do not show the "federal military" cluster because that data was not available from Info USA. However, most of the clusters, including food, tobacco, and transportation equipment, are represented in the business maps. June 2001 5-13 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 5-4 Business Categories by County FSTTTTCAOMrreoteoihgarctax.hen,teaonenilessrls,nm.Ft..er,dosSE,yaMtCo,rPqaaodeyrA,unLntirprueiuT,pfT.oper.aorma,acCrsftbblefuRaealirrccyui,,cnboPgbGaleprasesr FSTTTTCAOMrreoteoihgarctax.hen,teaonenilessrls,nm.Ft..er,dosSE,yaMtCo,rPqaaodeyrA,unLntirprueiuT,pfT.oper.aorma,acCrsftbblefuRaealirrccyui,,cnboPgbGaleprasesr County Bibb Bleckley Bryan Bulloch Candler Chatham Chattahoochee Crawford Crisp Dodge Dooly Effingham Emanuel Evans Glynn Harris Houston Johnson Laurens Lee Liberty Long Macon 12 31 17 16 0 210 1 210 7 672 2 120 22 56 17 22 0 000 0 000 9 546 1 240 0 021 1 152 4 130 5 131 5 12 6 4 0 320 2 924 1 111 7 362 2 620 0 436 0 000 12 1 6 2 6 32 5 106 189 414 0 1 0 7 2 13 0 0 0 18 8 30 2 10 0 38 22 94 2 1 0 2 6 16 1 41 13 315 238 725 01 020 3 10052 8 4 8 0 18 20 74 2 2 1 12 9 33 2 5 0 11 6 27 0 1 0 15 2 27 1 14 0 14 18 55 0 5 0 9 6 30 1 11 0 47 48 134 1 0 0 9 4 19 0 17 1 42 25 102 4 1 0 5 2 16 8 9 3 28 32 98 0 3 0 9 5 27 0 2 0 31 10 56 01012 4 0 0 0 5 4 30 Source: Info USA and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis. County Marion McIntosh Montgomery Muscogee Peach Pulaski Schley Stewart Sumter Talbot Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Toombs Treutlen Twiggs Upson Webster Wheeler Wilcox Wilkinson 10 10 40 14 35 41 30 10 00 23 02 70 12 31 23 40 00 02 21 00 00 00 03 10 02 00 00 00 22 3 7 13 30 14 03 10 13 50 08 60 01 9 4 1 12 00 00 10 21 00 10 20 11 02 30 2 1 5 11 00 10 10 00 14 76 00 01 20 00 31 10 30 01 010 5 1 9 5 16 0 5 7 20 7 85 134 328 2 14 14 43 0 4 3 15 0 5 2 21 0 7 3 17 3 23 27 84 0 7 4 13 0 5 8 24 0 13 5 22 0 12 6 26 0 7 4 21 1 18 37 79 011 3 021 6 0 11 6 38 021 4 0 9 0 11 022 9 0 10 8 25 To accurately depict the relative concentrations of businesses within Corridor counties, this data was mapped using a dot density routine where each point on the map represents one business. Dot density maps are useful in communicating the density and quantity of businesses located within defined geographic areas, in this case county boundaries. One limitation of dot density mapping that should be kept in mind while looking at the maps is that, in small counties, the concentration of businesses may be exaggerated. For example, on a map showing the density of transportation carriers (trucking companies, railroads, etc.), it may seem like a smaller county has a greater density of firms when, in reality, it has approximately the same number of firms as a large county. Another point of caution is that dot density maps randomly distribute points within specified geographic areas. This means that the following maps may show clusters of points within counties. However, these points do not represent true location within counties, only relative concentration of businesses within counties. Thus, it is the number of points within each county that is important, not the specific point location within each county. The following paragraphs describe the spatial patterns and findings of the 11 Info USA business maps and present, where relevant, additional methodological information specific to the individual maps. June 2001 5-14 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 1: Manufacturing, Transportation, and Warehousing Businesses by County This map shows the relative concentration, by county, of all transportation-related business listings obtained from Info USA. As might be expected, the Corridor's three most populous counties Muscogee (Columbus), Bibb (Macon), and Chatham (Savannah) show the greatest concentrations of transportation-related businesses. Other notable concentrations are Glynn County (Brunswick), the Houston/Peach County area (Warner Robins, Byron, and Fort Valley), the Sumter/Crisp County area (Americus and Cordele), and Toombs County (Vidalia and Lyons). The least concentrated areas include Marion County (southeast of Columbus) and the Long/McIntosh County area between Savannah and Brunswick. June 2001 5-15 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 2: Largest Firms (100+ employees) by County Similar to Map 1, this map shows the distribution of all transportation-related businesses in the Corridor except that it is filtered to display only businesses with at least 100 employees. Thus, this map illustrates the spatial distribution of large firms within the corridor. According to Map 2, large firms are again located in the counties with the highest population, Chatham (70 large firms), Bibb (55), and Muscogee (42). There is a concentration of large firms in the Sumter/Crisp County area (Americus and Cordele) and also in the Toombs County (Vidalia and Lyons) area. There are fewer large businesses in the area south of Macon (Peach and Houston Counties) than in Map 1. However, there is a concentration of large firms in Upson County (Thomaston) that is not as readily apparent in Map 1. Finally, there is a general distribution of larger firms in three largest counties along I 16 (Laurens, Emanuel, and Bulloch). The U.S. 280 portion of the Corridor includes concentrations of transportation-related firms with 100 or more employees in Toombs, Evans, Sumter, and Crisp Counties. June 2001 5-16 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 3: Agriculture, Food, and Tobacco Manufacturing Businesses by County This map shows county-by-county concentration of businesses with SIC codes for agriculture, food, and tobacco manufacturing and 10 or more employees. It includes businesses with primary SIC codes indicating agricultural production (crops and livestock); agricultural services; fishing, hunting, and trapping; food and kindred products; and tobacco products. The map shows the greatest concentration of these types of businesses in the three largest population centers, Chatham County (22 businesses), and Muscogee and Bibb Counties (12 each). Macon County (Montezuma and Oglethorpe) is a predominantly rural center for these industries, with 12 businesses. Crisp County (Cordele) also has a relatively high concentration, with nine businesses. Bulloch, Laurens, and Tattnall Counties each have seven such businesses. June 2001 5-17 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 4: Mining, Stone, Clay, and Glass Manufacturing Businesses by County The businesses represented on this map have SIC codes indicating mining and handling of nonmetallic minerals; manufacturing and handling of stone, clay, and glass; and construction industries. Map 4 again shows the greatest concentrations of these types of businesses in the three largest counties (Bibb [31], Chatham [56], and Muscogee [35]). Other notable concentrations are in Glynn County (Brunswick) with 12 and Houston with six businesses. Bulloch and Lee Counties each have six such businesses; Crisp has four and Liberty (south of Savannah) has four. The several of the points in Wilkinson, Twiggs, and other counties on the north side of the Corridor are kaolin clay mining/manufacturing operations. June 2001 5-18 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 5: Forestry, Lumber, and Paper Products Manufacturing Businesses by County This map includes businesses with SIC codes indicating forestry operations; lumber and wood products manufacturing; and paper and allied products manufacturing. Unlike the previous maps, Map 5 indicates these industries are only prevalent in two of the three large population centers in the Corridor. Both Bibb and Chatham Counties have high concentrations of these businesses, with 17 each. Muscogee has only three such businesses. Other high concentrations include Sumter and Bulloch Counties, with nine and seven respectively, and a set of four counties (Glynn, Laurens, Macon, and Stewart) with six each. This is Stewart County's highest business concentration of all categories, with the exception of "transportation carriers." June 2001 5-19 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 6: Chemical, Petroleum, and Plastics Manufacturing Businesses by County This map shows concentrations of businesses with SIC codes indicating manufacturing of chemical and allied products; petroleum and coal products; and rubber and miscellaneous plastics. Here, the Savannah (22 businesses) and Macon areas (16 businesses) lead the way. The Columbus area, typically comparable to the Savannah and Macon areas in other industry groups, has a lower concentration (seven businesses) of chemical and related industries. Other strong counties include Crisp (Cordele) and Liberty (south of Savannah) with six businesses each. Beyond these counties, small concentrations exist in Upson County (Thomaston), the counties south of the city of Macon (Peach and Houston) and the Brunswick area (Glynn County). Nearly 50 percent of the Corridor counties do not have such businesses. June 2001 5-20 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 7: Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Businesses by County This map includes businesses with SIC codes indicating manufacturing of textile mill products, apparel, and other textile products. The Columbus area (Muscogee County) has the highest concentration of textile/apparel manufacturing businesses within the Corridor (13 businesses). Other concentrations include Laurens County (Dublin and vicinity) with eight businesses and Upson County (Thomaston) with seven textile/apparel manufacturing businesses. Other businesses are located in Bibb (six), Toombs (five), Crisp (four), and Johnson (four). Textile and apparel manufacturing are largely absent in the Atlantic coast counties, including Chatham (Savannah), Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, and McIntosh. June 2001 5-21 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 8: Transportation Equipment Manufacturing Businesses by County This map shows concentrations of transportation equipment manufacturing businesses in the three largest population centers, Chatham (13 businesses), Bibb (seven businesses), and Muscogee (five businesses) Counties. Most counties (35 of 45) do not have any businesses in this category. Other locations of transportation equipment manufacturers include Sumter and Laurens Counties, with three firms each. Peach County has two businesses in this category; Houston, Toombs, Dodge, and McIntosh each have one. June 2001 5-22 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 9: All Other Manufacturing Businesses by County This map includes all businesses with SIC codes indicating manufacturing of all other products not included in any of the other maps. These products include the two-digit SIC categories of furniture and fixtures; printing and publishing; primary metal industries; fabricated metal products; industrial machinery and equipment; instruments and related products; and miscellaneous manufacturing industries. The map shows the greatest concentrations of other manufacturing businesses again in the largest population centers, Columbus, Macon, and Savannah. Additional concentrations include Houston County (Warner Robins), Emanuel County (Swainsboro), Glynn County (Brunswick), and the Sumter/Crisp (Americus and Cordele) area. June 2001 5-23 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 10: Secondary Traffic: Wholesale and Retail Trade Businesses by County This map shows county-by-county concentration of businesses with SIC codes wholesale and retail trade businesses by county. It includes businesses with primary SIC codes indicating wholesale trade of durable and non-durable goods. The map also includes businesses with SIC codes indicating retail trade of: building materials and gardening supplies; general merchandise; food; automobiles and automobile parts; apparel and accessories; furniture and home furnishings; eating and drinking establishments; and miscellaneous retail. Because wholesale/retail trade businesses are more related to consumer demand than the other industry groups, the distribution of wholesale/retail businesses, more than any of the other maps, correlates with population. Thus, Chatham, Bibb, and Muscogee Counties have the highest concentrations followed by Glynn, Toombs, Laurens, Sumter, and Houston Counties. June 2001 5-24 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Map 11: Transportation Carriers by County This map shows the location of transportation carriers in the Corridor. Specifically, this map shows businesses with SIC codes indicating the following activities: railroad transportation; local and interurban passenger transportation; trucking and warehousing; mail delivery; water transportation; pipelines (except natural gas); and transportation services. Map 11 shows a relatively even distribution of transportation carriers throughout the Corridor. All counties, with the exception of Long, Marion, and Treutlen Counties, have at least two transportation carrier businesses. As expected, the highest concentrations of carriers are located in the three largest cities, Savannah, Columbus, and Macon. Bulloch, Glynn, Houston, and Liberty all have more than 30 carriers. Outside these concentrations, the map shows smaller concentrations in Peach County, the Sumter/Crisp County area (Americus and Cordele), and the Toombs/Evans County region (Vidalia, Lyons, and Claxton). June 2001 5-25 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Summary of Business Mapping Overall, transportation-related businesses in the Corridor are most highly concentrated in the most populous counties: Chatham, Bibb, and Muscogee. Other concentrations are typically located in the Toombs (Vidalia/Lyons) area, the Sumter/Crisp (Americus/Cordele) area, the Glynn County (Brunswick) area, and the Peach/Houston (Warner Robins) area south of Macon. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, there are industry variations in distribution. For example, transportation equipment manufacturing is almost exclusively in the largest counties, and textile manufacturing is almost completely absent in the Savannah area. Overall, Columbus, Macon, and Savannah and areas close to major interstates have more transportation-related and dependent industries than do isolated and rural areas of the corridor. Shipper and Carrier Interviews Approximately 250 shippers/receivers and motor carriers were contacted by letter and asked to participate either in person or by phone in the interview process. The 250 potential interviewees were then prescreened, with 51 being determined as not using the corridor, 9 no longer in business, 114 declined or not able to be contacted further (did not return repeated messages), and 42 shippers/receivers and 34 motor carriers interviewed. The 76 who were interviewed represent 125 facilities and terminals within the state of Georgia, including 84 within the corridor. Initially, an attempt was made to speak with two shippers/receivers in each county and, as a result of this effort, excellent geographic coverage was achieved. Figure 5-1 indicates the locations of the firms interviewed. The study team also contacted the Ports of Savannah, Brunswick, and Columbus, and railroads (NS, CSX, and Georgia Central) within the study area. The interviews produced useful information on: Key routes used and routes avoided; Critical intersections, congestion, and bottlenecks; Recommended improvements; Freight flow data; Accident and safety concerns; and Other business and industrial transportation-related concerns and opinions. The major findings and issues are summarized on the following pages. June 2001 5-26 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 5-1 Central Georgia Corridor Interview Location Map Regional Strengths The following items were cited most frequently in response to the question, "What are the strengths of the region's infrastructure?" The condition and reach of Georgia's interstate and state highway system, especially I 16; The ongoing effort to upgrade many rural roads to four lanes; A responsive DOT, positive action by Chambers of Commerce to actively attract new business to the area, value of existing bypasses, and good safety enforcement; and Limited transportation-related impediments to doing business in Georgia. National motor carriers headquartered outside Georgia were the least likely to find fault with the local transportation system and infrastructure. Locally based motor carriers and the larger shippers/receivers were more vocal about transportation deficiencies. The local firms in the smaller towns and less economically vital areas were quicker to praise Chambers of Commerce June 2001 5-27 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report and the state for the effort being made to attract business. One exception was Columbus local industries and motor carriers were concerned with Columbus' desire to attract "tech business" to the area, at the perceived expense of manufacturing. Major Problems Identified The worst transportation infrastructure problems identified include 26 intersections cited for various safety problems, of which the intersection of I-16/I-75 in Macon was cited most frequently. Congestion was cited along U.S. 280, in the Port of Savannah, and along U.S. 80/SR 96 Dublin to Columbus. Eleven roads were cited as "problematic," with U.S. 80/SR 96 being mentioned marginally more frequently than U.S. 280 (the top two). Seven bridges were named as too narrow or having bad geometry (although four of them fell outside the study area), and three instances of poor signage were cited. A total of 26 intersections were identified as problematic: I-16/I-75: poor geometry; SR 307 and Louisville Road: a limited turning radius causes trucks to stop traffic to turn; SR 57/SR 18 West: a blind curve and no warning lights coming from the west; SR 19/SR 36: poor signage and inadequate turning room; SR 49/SR 26: poor signage and difficult turning angles; U.S. 280/SR 520/SR 27 at Richland: the traffic light is not heeded, difficult geometry from the north, poor signage, and excessive vehicle speed; SR 117/SR 46 and SR 199: difficult geometry; U.S. 319/U.S. 441: high traffic volumes and difficult geometry; U.S. 441/U.S. 280: a yield rather than a stop, no easement into traffic, and a blind curve followed by a narrow bridge; Alfred Street/U.S. 80: lighting problems at the top of the exit from I 16 to the exit to Chatham Parkway; SR 307 at Louisville Road: need more than a caution light at the intersection; SR 257/I 16: needs lights instead of stop signs; Butler Bypass and SR 137: a too short yellow cycle; SR 82/SR 27 at Cuthbert: an overlapping green and short yellow; SR 21/I 95: highly congested because of trailers occupying the middle of the lane when making a left turn east or west off SR 21; Hudson Bridge Road on I 75: trucks can overturn; SR 307 and Commerce Drive: high accident area; SR 247/SR 96: high fatality, high accident, congested, and includes an at-grade crossing; Four intersections were merely referred to as "critical" or bad with no further explanation, including Abercorn and I 516, Statesboro Bypass and SR 24, U.S. 341/SR 128, and the five-way intersection of the Fort Valley Bypass. Major highway segments cited as problematic included: Various segments of U.S. 280 were identified as having problematic congestion; The area surrounding the Port of Savannah; Most Dublin main roads; June 2001 5-28 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report SR 36 from Thomaston to The Rock because of industrial development and poor road condition; U.S. 80/SR 96 Columbus to Macon; The intersection of I-16 and I-75; SR 257, cited as "needing lights"; SR 196 between SR 17 and SR 84; The roads that run between Eufaula and I-75, Jesup and Waycross, and Atlanta and Lawrenceville; Flatrock Road in Columbus; and I-516 in Savannah. Respondents cited the following bridges as problematic in the study area: U.S. 441 north of U.S. 280 at McRae, SR 153 between Preston and Friendship, SR 19 north of Glenwood, SR 27 near Sanford, U.S. 280 east of Dumas, and U.S. 280 identified only as "in Wilcox County" and not able to be mapped by the team. Just outside the study area, a problem bridge lies on SR 36 at Barnesville. The bridges are all generally cited as too narrow with poor geometry and bad sight. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 illustrate the locations of the various problem areas cited. June 2001 5-29 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 5-2 Central Georgia Corridor Problem Identification Map June 2001 5-30 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 5-3 Central Georgia Corridor Problem Identification Map: Detail of Savannah Area US 80 Recommended Improvements In response to requests for recommendations for improvement, businesses interviewed most frequently suggested: In general, continued and aggressive four-laning of the rural highway network; Improvements along U.S. 280, including four-laning the length of it, bypassing towns along it, and building wider shoulders and bridges along its length; More bypasses on roads other than U.S. 280 including bypassing the I 16/I 75 interchange at Macon on SR 96; Localized improvements to various roads (widening, shoulders, etc,); Access from East Georgia to West Florida; and Access to Columbus/Alabama from the east and Augusta from the west. A broad range of recommendations were offered, from specific re-engineering projects (notably the intersection of I-16 and I-75, which was the single most frequently mentioned item among all June 2001 5-31 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report the interviews) to regulatory changes regarding trailer length and weight, to bringing in competitive rail service. Respondents also suggested another bridge crossing the Oconee at Dublin, call boxes on the highways, (more) designated truck routes, fuel subsidies, lengthening some left-turn lanes for easier truck access and egress, a new ocean terminal, a "super ring" around Atlanta, and more truck parking and rest areas. The desire to have two-lane roads widened to four lanes seems uniform among corridor interviewees. No less than 15 recommendations were made for four-laning, with nine of them referring to U.S. 280, two for "everything," one for SR 1, one for U.S. 441, and two for local access roads. Interviewees also suggested bypasses along U.S. 80, including at Roberta, on U.S. 441, at McRae, at Vidalia, and at "every town on U.S. 280." When interviewees were queried regarding the impact of bypasses on local industry, motor carriers uniformly stated that their drivers did not use services in towns where stops were not programmed. Suggested improvements include the roads between Americus and Eufaula, and between Americus and Peachtree, widening the shoulders and bridges of U.S. 280, and widening SR 196, U.S. 319, U.S. 441, and SR 1. New direct routes were suggested between Columbus/Macon and Jacksonville, Florida, between Macon and South Carolina, and to Birmingham. Also mentioned were the Fall Line Freeway, the Georgetown Flyover, and the Truman Parkway Bypass. Business Climate In addition to transportation infrastructure issues, a variety of general problems and regulatory issues were raised, primarily by the motor carriers. The most frequently cited were: Driver shortage, lack of training, lax CDL requirements, and other driver labor force issues; The ability for longer trailers or doubles to run on Georgia roads; Rising fuel costs; Lack of rest stops; Growing congestion because of new development; Workforce education and availability; and Concerns that infrastructure may not be sufficient to accommodate future development. Motor carriers spoke on the need for increased driver training, even suggesting that the state might consider a subsidized internship program that helps offset the cost of allowing new drivers to ride with seasoned drivers for a longer interval before striking out on their own. Weight and length issues were mentioned as the biggest regulatory problems. Concerns included scale variation and lack of calibration both among and within states, which allow drivers to "get so far and then be fined or turned back." One carrier mentioned feeling "...lots of confusion on intermodal container act...it shifts responsibility for weight [infractions] to the to be able to pull doubles on Georgia roads was mentioned more than once. There is a fear that, as technology improves and equipment and trailers become longer, they will not be accommodated in the Georgia transportation infrastructure. Weight issues were of particular concern to the kaolin and logging industries. June 2001 5-32 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Hours of service (HOS) requirements were also cited as a concern. The feeling that tightening the hours of service regulations in the current climate of driver shortages would be disastrous to the trucking industry. ITS solutions were suggested as a means to enhance safety and productivity in lieu of further HOS restrictions. Industry Perspectives Kaolin The kaolin producers reported transportation problems with the railways, while the kaolin motor carriers voiced concerns on weight restrictions. Many of the kaolin producers interviewed said that railroad equipment leases were a major concern. They explained that during the CSX merger, at a time when rail service was fairly uncertain, they had been forced to lease large numbers of cars to guarantee service. Now that rail service is operating more smoothly, cars that were custom-built for the industry (and cannot be used for other commodities) are in disuse, at considerable cost to kaolin producers. An issue resulting from the rail merger is that rail is now single provider and, as freight traffic increases, there is some congestion evident in traffic to the Port of Savannah. Kaolin producers also said that backhaul opportunities are infrequent in the industry kaolin cars cannot be used to carry any other commodity, causing trains to deadhead back to the mines/plants. Shippers/receivers and motor carriers alike mentioned the difficulties encountered in scale calibration variability and non-uniform weight limits between states. Those interviewed said that only a small percentage of this commodity moves by truck. The kaolin industry tends to be located in areas lacking in economic vitality and there is some concern that industrial development/redevelopment could price kaolin off its land. Lumber and Paper The team interviewed loggers, timber brokers, paper haulers, fluff processors, business form manufacturers, publishers, coated board, and paper manufacturers. The industry is geographically represented through the entire corridor, from Savannah to Columbus. The shippers/receivers were vocal on regulatory, social, political, and infrastructure topics. The lumber and paper producers perceive themselves as having to police their carriers aggressively to minimize weight infractions, and some feel that other industries (such as kaolin) are not subject to the same level of enforcement. There is a concentrated effort within the industry to increase safety, ranging from requiring all carriers to operate with full running lights at all times to firing drivers who overload. Those interviewed see overloading as a safety issue within the lumber/paper industry, primarily because of poor road conditions. Overall, the motor carriers' comments were generally limited to infrastructure concerns; only occasionally did they mention regulatory or non-infrastructure issues. Food The team interviewed poultry, farm, and snack foods shippers/receivers and dedicated carriers. Local producers were more vocal than national ones, and identified deficiencies relating to the road network, Port of Savannah operations, enforcement, and the decline of agriculture in general. There is little east-west movement in fruits and vegetables but there are significant east-west movements of poultry and processed foods. Georgia is an important poultry June 2001 5-33 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report producer; the largest poultry producer in the nation has four sites in Georgia, three in the corridor. The biggest problem faced by food producers and movers is access by rural producers to markets. Liquid/Chemical Shippers/receivers in these industries were, with few exceptions, satisfied with the condition of the Georgia transportation network and did not have complaints regarding regulatory issues, social concerns, or politics. Motor carriers, however, had concerns ranging from infrastructure shortcomings to regulations regarding trailer lengths and weights, hours of service, the lack of qualified drivers, and safety issues stemming from the driver shortage. Liquid bulk carriers perceive themselves as facing stiffer regulation than that facing other commodities but, conversely, they characterize their relationships with the DOT as "open, communicative, and two-way." Ports The team interviewed senior managers from the Port of Savannah, who provided insight into issues related to Georgia Port Authority operations in Savannah, Garden City, Brunswick, and Columbus/Bainbridge. They were highly supportive of the High Priority Corridor Six/U.S. 280 project in general in terms of its ability to provide faster, more efficient, more cost-effective connections between the Port's facilities and its inland users and customers. An enhanced eastwest connection between Savannah and Columbus was seen positively. The Port identified a number of key issues at each of its facilities: At Savannah and Garden City, the primary issue is massive growth in the Port's container business. The number of containers handled at the Garden City Container Terminal is expected to double over the next 10 years. A substantial share of this new traffic will be handled on double-stack rail cars at the Port's 150-acre Mason Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, currently under construction. Improvements to the Norfolk Southern and CSX lead tracks into this facility will be needed, and increased rail traffic will generate increased pressure on mainline choke points such as Central Junction (an at-grade crossing of the NS and CSX mainlines in Savannah). Increased rail traffic will also impact the many highway/rail at-grade crossings in Savannah, Port Wentworth, and Garden City, and grade crossing elimination projects may need to be considered. Outside of Chatham County, the major problem seems to be intermodal transfer capacity in the Atlanta region. But despite the growth in rail share, the majority of the Port's container traffic will continue to be handled by truck, and truck traffic increases will be substantial. The Port believes that the local highway system is generally well-suited to serve the marine terminals, but is concerned that continued development of vacant lands adjoining the terminal access routes principally SR 307 will reduce the highway capacity available for port traffic. They noted that the Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study had evaluated a limited-access highway connection between I-95, I-16, I516, and the Port, and suggested that this might be one response to increased pressure on the highway network. At Brunswick, continued growth in automobile and bulk cargo handling is expected. The major transportation problem has been a single highway/rail at-grade crossing, which is June 2001 5-34 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report being eliminated. Enhanced connections between Brunswick and Columbus, as well as Alabama and Mississippi, are viewed positively. At Columbus and Bainbridge, the issue is not landside access but rather the availability of sufficient water. Both facilities are located on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system, and water levels in the ACF have been inadequate to allow barges to reach these facilities except during limited operating windows. This is because of a combination of factors repeated drought years, holdbacks of water for uses located upstream, and failure to perform maintenance dredging because of concerns about disposal of the spoils and the Port sees no indication that these issues will be resolved in the near future. Marine traffic through these facilities is therefore seen as limited, and without substantial impact on High Priority Corridor Six and U.S. 280. Conclusions Those who were contacted and interviewed seemed quite candid in their opinions. Their opinions and recommendations varied regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the freight transportation network within Georgia generally and within the study area specifically. The interview sample produced a fairly comprehensive set of "problem areas" and recommended strategies to be assessed as part of the overall study effort. Quality of life and larger societal issues particularly workforce education were raised frequently in the context of business vitality and development. Local industry sees young people leave central Georgia at an alarming rate, and attracting industry to areas where the "best and brightest" continue to pull up stakes is difficult. A further factor is the perceived decline in certain historically important industries, such as agriculture, textiles, and kaolin. The sentiment abounds that "something is needed to replace that industry, but what?" Big box warehousing has stepped in to fill some of central Georgia's requirement for jobs, but still, the study area includes three of Georgia's poorest seven counties. Attracting industry is definitely viewed as one solution. It is already perceived that central Georgia has some of the best incentives available to business for relocation, and that continuing to encourage business to locate within the corridor area is vital to the economic health of central Georgia. Transportation system improvements to the U.S. 280 Corridor and High Priority Corridor Six are viewed as central to accomplishing this goal. June 2001 5-35 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 6 Commodity Flow Analysis Background and Purpose The High Priority Corridor Six/U.S. 280 project is centrally concerned with increasing the speed, efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of freight movement for shippers, receivers, and carriers operating in the study area. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to understand what types of commodities are being moved; by what modes (truck, rail, air, and water) they are being moved; and where they are being moved. With this information, it is possible to create a baseline picture that allows the team to understand current conditions, assess the performance of the current freight transportation network, and forecast future levels of demand. This section provides an overview and summary of commodity flows into, out of, within, and through the study area and its 45 counties. The data is presented at three levels: 1) a study area overview, 2) an assessment of each county, and 3) a depiction of network-level commodity flows. Detailed information on each of the 45 counties is presented separately in Appendix X6- Overview of the Approach / Methodology This analysis utilizes a commodity flow database known as Transearch. The Transearch database was developed by Reebie Associates, which updates it annually. Transearch provides national-level information on the movements of specific commodities between specific origins and destinations using different modes of transportation. Information on airborne, waterborne, and rail movements is extracted from federal databases, while information on trucking activity is generated by Reebie Associates using proprietary methods. For purposes of this study, the team obtained the following data for analysis year 1998 (the most recent available at the time of the analysis): Domestic tons moved by rail, truck, air, and water that originated in (inbound); were destined for (outbound); or were moved within (internal) any of the 45 study area counties. International waterborne tonnage through the Ports of Savannah, Brunswick, Columbus, and Bainbridge is not included in this database; however, movements between U.S. inland/coastal destinations and these ports (which are domestic movements) are captured in the database. Domestic tons moved by truck that pass through any of the 45 study area counties as part of movements between origins and destinations outside the study area. All origins and destinations both within and outside the study area were obtained at the county level, where available. In other cases, the team obtained data at Business Economic Area (BEA) level. A BEA is an aggregation of counties within a region. This data was further aggregated to generate state-level summaries for presentation purposes. The commodity flow database itself consists of four Microsoft Access 97 files of between 500 records and 1,000,000 records in length. The database files are: June 2001 6-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Destination (Inbound) Treats each study area county as a destination, and captures commodities moving into that county from any other county or business economic area in the United States; Origin (Outbound) Treats each study area county as an origin, and captures commodities moving out of that county to any other county or business economic area in the United States; Intra (Internal) Looks at internal movements within each county (moves where the origin and destination are both within that county); and Through Looks at commodities that pass through a study area county, but do not originate and terminate in the study area. For example, moves from New York to Chatham County would be recorded as inbound tonnage for Chatham County; moves from Chatham County to Miami would be recorded as outbound tonnage for Chatham County; moves from New York to Miami on I 95 passing through Chatham County would be recorded as through tonnage for Chatham County; and moves that begin and end in Chatham County would be recorded as internal moves for Chatham County. Figure 6-1 below illustrates these different types of moves. The circle represents a county within the study area, while the box represents the entire study area. Figure 6-1 Standard Definition of Inbound, Outbound and Through Moves County Frame of Reference Inbound to Study Area County Through Study Area County Internal Within Study Area County Through Study Area County Outbound From Study Area County One of the challenges of commodity flow analysis both to the reader and the analyst is the "frame of reference" problem. Simply stated, the numbers are different if we look at the individual counties within a study area than they are if we look at the study area as a whole, because the definitions of inbound, outbound, internal, and through moves are different. Typically, the commodity flow analysis will use the county level as its frame of reference, as illustrated in Figure 6-1, unless otherwise stated. But, in some cases, we can gain additional perspective by shifting our frame of reference to the study area as a whole, and asking how much tonnage is moving into, out of, within or through June 2001 6-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report the study area as a whole, rather than its individual counties. From this alternative viewpoint, the "internal" category captures all moves that are entirely within and between the study area counties. For example, inbound moves to Chatham County that originate in Columbus, which would normally be "inbound" to Chatham County and "outbound" to Columbus, would now be "internal" and the tonnage would be counted only once (instead of twice). This is illustrated in Figure 6-2 below. Figure 6-2 Alternate Definition of Inbound, Outbound and Through Moves Study Area Frame of Reference Inbound to Study Area (moves inbound to all counties) Through Study Area (through any county in Study Area) Internal (moves within and between Study Area counties) Outbound From Study Area (moves outbound from all Counties) Through Study Area (through any county in Study Area) The database provides tonnage data by commodity type. Commodity types are defined according to their Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC). There are different levels of STCC corresponding to different levels of detail. The four-digit level makes very fine distinctions among specific commodity types, while the two-digit level aggregates similar commodity types into larger functional classes. For example, STCC 3273 (Ready-Mix Concrete) and STCC 3271 (Concrete Products) are both included in STCC 32 (Clay, Concrete, Glass, and Stone). The team obtained commodity detail at the four-digit level and aggregated it to the twodigit level, where appropriate. The relationships between the major two-level and four-level STCC codes are presented in Table 6-1 on the following page. June 2001 6-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-1: Standard Transportation Commodity Codes STCC 2 Name 1 Farm products 10 Metallic ores 11 Coal 14 Nonmetallic minerals 19 Ordnance or accessories 20 Food or kindred products 21 Tobacco products 22 Textile mill products 23 Apparel or related products 24 Lumber or wood products 25 Furniture or fixtures 26 Pulp, paper, or allied products 27 Printed matter 28 Chemicals or allied products 29 Petroleum or coal products 30 Rubber or misc. plastics 31 Leather or leather products 32 Clay, concrete, glass, or stone 33 Primary metal products 34 Fabricated metal products 35 Machinery 36 Electrical equipment 37 Transportation equipment 38 Instrum, photo equip, optical eq 39 Misc. manufacturing products 40 Waste or scrap materials 41 Misc. freight shipments 42 Shipping containers 43 Mail or contract traffic 45 Shipper association traffic Commodities Included at the STCC 4 Level Grains, field crops, fruits, and vegetables Bauxite, aluminum ores Bituminous coal Broken stone, gravel, sand, mineral fertilizers Guns, ammunition Meat products, poultry, dairy products, flour and sugar, liquors, soft drinks, edible oils Cigarettes Cotton fabrics, carpets, yarns Clothing Primary forest materials, lumber, plywood, veneers, millwork, and cabinetwork Furniture Pulp and pulp mill products, paper, fiber, wallpaper, paper containers, and boxes Newspapers, periodicals, greeting cards Potassium and sodium compounds, Refining products, liquefied gases, asphalt Tires, miscellaneous plastic products Leather products Portland cement, clay brick or tile, concrete products, readymix wet cement, gypsum, processed nonmetallic minerals, kaolin clay Petroleum coke, primary iron and steel products, copper, aluminum and lead products, wire Heating equipment, sheet metal products, valves, pipe fittings Engines, farm machinery, construction equipment, lawn and garden equipment, machine tools Transformers, motors and generators, batteries, cooking equipment, lighting fixtures Car bodies, truck bodies, bus bodies, aircraft, railcars, vehicle parts and accessories Photographic equipment or supplies Furs, matches, toys, games Metal scrap or tailings, paper waste or scrap Miscellaneous freight shipments Empty shipping containers Mail Shipper association traffic June 2001 6-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 46 Misc. mixed shipments 50 Secondary traffic Freight all kinds, including loaded shipping containers not elsewhere classified Warehouse and distribution traffic for a wide variety of commodity types; intermodal drayage The Transearch database was also post-processed to include additional data: Truck tonnages were converted to vehicle equivalents using Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) data for Georgia. The VIUS data provided a range of average weights for trucks carrying different types of commodities over different distances. This information was linked to the database files with a set of lookup tables, so that each record in the database specifying a commodity type and travel distance was matched with the appropriate factor for converting from tons to truck equivalents. Rail tonnage was converted to railcar equivalents using a fixed factor for tons per railcar. Tonnages were converted to value equivalents based on average value-per-ton factors developed from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey by Reebie Associates. Origin-destination flow maps were generated for the Phase I Report. Origin-destination matrices were generated from the post-processed data. Separately, Reebie Associates developed a method for assigning the origin-destination data (which describes county-tocounty flows) to specific highways in the nation's transportation network. The assignments are based on least-time paths as determined by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The various files and data were aggregated and sorted into meaningful groups for purposes of presentation. The underlying detail is preserved in the database, but for clarity of presentation particularly to the non-technical analyst the information is far more useful in an aggregate form. A variety of aggregation methods were tested before settling on the forms presented in this Appendi6- Graphs of key information were generated for "at a glance" analysis of individual counties. In evaluating the truck data, the user should be aware that the Transearch database can underrepresent certain types of moves such as moves between farms and local warehouses, moves between mines and local distribution/processing centers, and local or short-haul distribution by smaller vehicles. Also, trucks that are moving empty are not reported in the data, because they carry no tonnage. As a result, the number of trucks actually moving over a highway network will be greater than the number of trucks associated with the Transearch tonnage, and should be determined from vehicle counts. Finally, because the study area includes major marine cargo terminals (at Savannah, Brunswick, and Columbus/Bainbridge), data on international commodity flows through these facilities was obtained from the draft Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan Update, and related to the Transearch data on domestic flows to and from these ports. June 2001 6-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Summary of Key Findings Profile of the Overall Study Area Tonnage and Value The total of all domestic tonnage moving into and out of each of the study area counties is summarized in Table 6-2 below. Looking at domestic tonnage inbound to and outbound from the 45 study area counties, a total of 122,000,000 tons was handled in 1998. Tonnage inbound to these counties was slightly higher than tonnage outbound. As shown in Figure 6-3, trucks handled more than 75 percent of the tonnage, while rail handled just more than 22 percent. In comparison to many parts of the country, this rail share could be considered quite robust. Water handled a little more than one percent of tonnage (remember that this is domestic tonnage only and does not include international shipments through marine cargo facilities). Air cargo activity is quite low within the study area, representing less than 0.1 percent of total tonnage. Table 6-2 Summary of Inbound and Outbound Domestic Tons by Mode Inbound to counties Outbound from counties Total Rail Truck 15,012,465 46,513,478 12,172,984 46,945,034 Air 650 2,735 Water 1,328,525 411,472 Total 62,855,118 59,532,226 27,185,449 93,458,513 3,385 1,739,997 122,387,344 Figure 6-3 Distribution of Inbound and Outbound Domestic Tons by Mode Air 0% Water 1% Rail 22% June 2001 Truck 77% 6-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report In total, the goods inbound to and outbound from these 45 counties were worth an estimated $319 billion dollars as presented in Table 6-3. Inbound value was slightly higher than outbound value, and trucks carried by far the largest amount of cargo by value. Table 6-3 Summary of Inbound and Outbound Domestic Value by Mode Rail Truck Air Water Total Rail Truck Air Water Total Inbound to county $7,578,913,363 $165,447,106,19 $119,470,050 $2,858,072,903 $176,003,562,51 6 1 Outbound from County $6,585,688,447 $135,795,657,95 $510,334,926 $739,890,468 $143,631,571,79 0 1 Total $14,164,601,81 $301,242,764,14 $629,804,976 $3,597,963,371 $319,635,134,30 0 6 2 More than 7.5 million loaded truck moves into and out of the study area counties were associated with this level of activity, along with almost 550,000 loaded railcar moves as shown in Figure 6-4 below. This does not include the movement of non-loaded trucks and railcars, nor does it include through movements or internal movements. Figure 6-4 Summary of Inbound and Outbound Truck and Railcar Loads 4,006,525 3,594,883 300,249 243,460 Trucks Trucks Railcars Railcars Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Besides freight moving into and out of the study area counties, we also see freight circulating internally within each of these counties, as well as freight passing through these counties between origins and destinations that are outside of the study area. Almost all of the internal circulation activity is by truck, with the exception of Chatham County (which has significant internal water and rail tonnage) and Glynn County (which has significant internal rail tonnage). The relationship between through truck and through rail activity could not be quantified because June 2001 6-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report of confidentiality issues associated with the use of through rail data. We can, however, make direct comparisons of inbound, outbound, internal, and through truck tonnages. These are summarized in Figure 6-5 below. Figure 6-5 Inbound, Outbound, Internal, and Through Truck Tonnage 132,931,368 41,858,820 42,290,376 5,369,822 Inbound Outbound Internal Through Through trucks are by far the most dominant truck moves and are higher than all other categories combined. Almost 133,000,000 through tons are entirely external to the study area moving from an outside origin to an outside destination. This does not include an additional 94,000,000 tons that are inbound or outbound from the study area, and which may pass through one or more study area counties on their routes. Most of the through tonnage actually passes through more than one study-area county, and for purposes of this analysis, we have counted each through trip only once, regardless of how many counties it passes through. (If we did count the through truck tonnage each time it went through a different county, the through truck tonnage for all study area counties would be more than 550,000,000 million tons). Comparing the two frames of reference our normal "sum of counties" approach and the "study area as a whole" approach we also see that: In the "sum of study area counties" frame of reference, the amount of internal truck tonnage (representing the tonnage circulating within each of the study area counties) is quite limited (715,163 tons). To some extent, this is an artifact of the database itself, which is most reliable at the county-to-county and state-to-state level, and less reliable at the internal county level because of sample size limitations. The internal category is much higher in the "study area as a whole" frame of reference because it includes not only truck tonnage moving within study area counties (715,163 tons), but also truck tonnage moving between study area counties (4,654,659 tons). The inbound and outbound truck tonnages add to 93,458,512 tons in the "sum of counties" frame of reference, but are lower (84,149,196 tons) in the "study area frame of reference" because tonnage moving between the study area counties is excluded. Even so, the inbound and outbound tonnage associated with origins or destinations outside the study area (84,149,196 tons) is far greater than the tonnage associated with moves June 2001 6-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report within or between the study area counties (5,369,822 tons) which indicates that origins and destinations outside the study area itself are responsible for about 94 percent of the total truck tonnage moving into, out of, or within the study area. Origins and Destinations Remaining with our two frames of reference, we can provide additional detail on from where inbound tons are coming and to where outbound tons are going. The major categories are: Within 45-County Study Area Moves from one study area county to another (counted at both their origin and their destination in the county frame of reference, but only once in the study area frame of reference); Rest of Georgia Moves between study area counties and any other county in Georgia; Other Corridor States (AL, MS) Moves between study area counties and the other two states where the HPC 6 Corridor is designated; West of Corridor (LA, TX, AK, OK, NM, AZ, CA) Moves between study area counties and the states directly west of the HPC 6 Corridor; Other Southeast States (FL, SC, NC, TN) Moves between study area counties and these states; and All Other States Moves between study area counties and all other states. Figure 6-6 Distribution of Inbound and Outbound Domestic Tonnage Sum of Study Area Counties Study Area as a Whole All Other States 12.8% Within 45County Study Area 11.2% All Other States 13.6% Within 45- County Study Area 5.9% Other Southeast States: FL, SC, NC, TN 17.0% West of Corridor: LA, TX, AK, OK, NM, AZ, CA 5.7% Other Corridor States: AL, MS 4.6% Rest of Georgia 48.6% Other Southeast States: FL, SC, NC, TN 18.0% West of Corridor: LA, TX, AK, OK, NM, AZ, CA 6.0% Other Corridor States: AL, MS 4.9% Rest of Georgia 51.5% Looking at both these distributions, we see that by far the largest share of tonnage (about 50 percent) is between the study area and other Georgia counties outside the study area. Between six percent and 11 percent of the tonnage depending on how it is counted remain entirely within the study area. Around 10 percent of the tonnage is flowing between the study area counties and other states on the HPC alignment (Alabama, Mississippi, and states due west that could be reached on the alignment). Most of the remaining tonnage (17 to 18 percent) is to and June 2001 6-9 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report from the southeast U.S., and the remainder (13 to 14 percent) is to and from the rest of the United States. Within this distribution of overall inbound and outbound tonnage, there are interesting differences between rail and truck activity. Rail tonnage is actually more concentrated within the 45-county study area and less focused on the rest of Georgia; it also reaches a higher share of "all other states" (principally in the northeast and midwest). Conversely, truck tonnage is more focused on Georgia and adjoining states. Table 6-4 Geographic Distribution of Rail and Truck Tonnage Rail Truck Inbound + Outbound Tons Share Inbound + Outbound Tons Within 45-County Study Area 4,419,323 16.3% 9,309,316 Rest of Georgia 8,833,496 32.5% 50,643,166 Other Corridor States (AL, MS) 1,081,254 4.0% 4,570,817 West of Corridor 1,384,774 5.1% 4,558,090 Other Southeast States 4,900,838 18.0% 15,322,989 All Other States 6,565,763 24.2% 9,054,135 Total 27,185,449 100.0% 93,458,513 Share 10.0% 54.2% 4.9% 4.9% 16.4% 9.7% 100.0% These figures indicate that the study area is not dominated by a simple "corridor" type of move from one point to another. Rather, it is a complex set of flows with different purposes. While the HPC 6 and U.S. 280 corridors do not have to accommodate all the tonnage moved within the study area, they must accommodate the following functions: Providing connectivity within the study area and within the state of Georgia; Providing connectivity with the states due west along the HPC 6 alignment; Providing connectivity between study area counties and the rest of the United States; Accommodating internal movements within each of the study area counties; and Accommodating through movements. The underlying commodity flow data is summarized in Tables 6-5 through 6-6 and illustrated in Figures 6-7 through 6-10 below. June 2001 6-10 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report State GA FL AL SC LA TN NC TX KY MS IL OH IN VA NY MO MN PA AR NM CA DC WI MI WV WY IA OK ID AZ ME MD WA KS MA OR NE VT SD NV CO UT MT NJ DE ND CT RI NH Total Table 6-5 Inbound Domestic Commodity Flows by Origin State Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total 7,8 54,708 31,466,625 399 775,777 3,204,309 1 442,769 2,213,906 674,745 1,667,939 485,822 1,195,271 678,987 943,211 334,758 1,259,810 223 192,967 718,123 1,113,798 208,702 155,872 905,564 448,172 317,634 1 63,935 464,754 1 344,692 178,557 - 309,801 181,301 2 151,266 172,399 6 107,024 212,734 10 256,900 20,015 65,704 163,955 1 76,888 130,572 42,431 144,171 11,978 173,319 70,920 71,353 2 74,300 88,501 69,736 46,315 19,970 81,928 89,309 6,736 37,160 45,716 15,666 39,158 2,328 29,898 30,379 2 22,120 3,983 21,110 25,388 7,146 14,341 880 12,669 2,848 8,131 2,736 7,435 7,364 6,235 3,600 2,494 5,596 890 4,057 3,862 362 2,834 3,576 2,452 2,339 233 26 291,037 8,688 7,506 426,091 534,900 2,806 2,500 9,107 40,101 4,812 977 39,321,732 4,271,124 2,665,364 2,350,190 2,107,184 1,622,1 98 1,594,792 1,445,990 1,322,500 1,064,242 765,807 528,690 523,249 493,604 332,778 319,768 276,915 229,660 207,460 186,602 185,297 182,376 162,801 116,051 101,898 96,045 82,876 54,824 32,226 30,381 26,103 25,921 25,388 21,487 13,549 10,979 10,171 7,364 6,235 6,094 5,596 4,947 4,224 3,812 3,576 2,452 2,339 233 26 15,012,465 46,513,478 650 1,328,525 62,855,118 Percentage 62.6% 6.8% 4.2% 3.7% 3.4% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% June 2001 6-11 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report State GA FL NC TN SC AL NY WI OH TX LA OK PA ME DC IL VA KY MS MI MO CA MN IN AR MA IA OR WV WA MD NE CO AZ KS CT NJ UT VT ID MT DE NV SD ND NM RI NH WY Total Table 6-6 Outbound Domestic Commodity Flows by Destination State Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total Percentage 5,398,112 1,084,555 770,501 332,563 248,951 390,589 252,251 437,258 372,894 331,590 223,794 298,120 403,299 135,656 126,384 190,488 144,603 92,024 162,201 161,260 74,474 184,806 56,689 112,756 67,554 14,520 43,685 2,640 15,538 5,330 3,192 6,052 21,360 1,320 3,956 2,018 28,485,857 3,267,219 2,364,121 1,330,924 1,285,457 1,185,515 1,072,760 754,971 755,997 742,097 500,010 741,868 438,223 317,492 574,571 530,446 291,879 254,134 265,832 176,530 162,798 247,027 131,106 225,500 123,548 142,569 118,077 61,266 72,750 45,015 47,356 43,696 39,684 24,361 29,855 6,830 23,123 13,484 8,571 9,388 8,474 7,063 6,812 3,237 3,493 2,305 700 667 378 1,895 812 10 1 13 2 1 1 16,212 195,688 101,469 6,553 1,361 67,459 1,632 9,996 11,102 33,885,864 4,367,986 3,331,122 1,663,487 1,635,877 1,576,104 1,331,575 1,192,229 1,128,891 1,075,048 791,263 741,868 737,976 720,791 710,227 656,843 492,363 398,737 368,958 338,733 324,058 321,502 315,912 282,189 236,304 210,124 132,597 104,952 75,390 60,553 52,686 43,696 42,876 30,413 29,855 28,190 24,443 13,484 12,527 9,388 8,474 7,063 6,812 5,255 3,493 2,305 700 667 378 56.9% 7.3% 5.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1 % 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12,172,984 46,945,034 2,735 411,472 59,532,226 100.0% June 2001 6-12 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-7 Origin States for Inbound Tonnage (Truck) to Study Area Counties June 2001 6-13 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-8 Destination States for Outbound Tonnage (Truck) from Study Area Counties June 2001 6-14 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-9 Origin States for Inbound Tonnage (Rail) to Study Area Counties June 2001 6-15 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-10 Destination States for Outbound Tonnage (Rail) from Study Area Counties The state of Georgia (including the study area itself) is by far the most significant generator of tons moving inbound to and outbound from the study area counties. Looking in more detail at June 2001 6-16 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report these within-state flows, we see that 24 percent of the within-state tonnage is to and from Fulton County and more than 40 percent of the within-state tonnage is to and from the greater Atlanta region. The Atlanta area generates more tonnage into and out of the study area than any other region or state, for that matter in the country. Table 6-7 Origins and Destinations for Study Area Tonnage Within State of Georgia County Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total Percentage Fulton Gwinnett Chatham Dekalb Cobb Richmond Bibb Washington Dougherty Clayton Hall Wilkinson Muscogee All Other 392,054 261,813 1,744,484 150,012 595,353 543,155 1,275,102 295,367 70,493 103,920 730,698 85,955 7,004,413 17,201,513 4,287,098 2,289,317 3,362,899 2,606,057 1,954,429 1,545,888 283,253 1,084,407 1,278,760 1,217,488 390,957 958,568 21,491,848 2,294 17,595,861 24.0% 4,548,911 6.2% 4,033,802 5.5% 3,512,911 4.8% 2,606,057 3.6% 2,549,782 3.5% 2,089,043 2.9% 1,558,356 2.1% 1,379,774 1.9% 1,349,253 1.8% 1,321,408 1.8% 1,121,655 1.5% 1,044,523 1.4% 28,496,261 38.9% Total Georgia Tonnage 13,252,820 59,952,482 2,294 73,207,596 100.0% Commodity Types Figure 6-11 below is a bar chart showing the distribution of inbound and outbound tons by commodity class at a fairly aggregated (two-digit STCC) level. The graph provides a quick visual ranking of the most important commodity classes. Inbound and outbound tons are graphed separately to highlight the directionality (or lack thereof) of particular commodity classes. June 2001 6-17 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - Figure 6-11 Inbound and Outbound Domestic Tonnage by Commodity Type Inbound Outbound SECONDARY TRAFFIC CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PRODUCTS PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PRODUCTS NONMETALLIC MINERALS PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS ALL OTHER We see that secondary traffic principally associated with warehousing and distribution of a wide variety of commodity types is the leading class of tonnage. Clay, concrete, glass, and stone which includes kaolin clay, wet cement, and other heavy materials is the second leading class. Lumber, food, and chemicals round out the top five classes. Overall, the picture is one of highly diversified types of commodity movements. Looking at commodities moving inbound to study area counties, secondary traffic is clearly dominant. Looking at the outbound commodities, however, we see that Clay, concrete, glass, and stone is the leading type. Generally, we can interpret this to mean that the study area counties are exporting more raw materials and manufactured products, and importing more warehoused products and consumer goods. Tables 6-8 through 6-11 on the following pages provide additional detail on these commodity types and highlight the differences between truck-oriented commodities (such as secondary traffic and food) and rail-oriented commodities (such as kaolin, wood pulp, and coal). June 2001 6-18 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-8 Inbound Domestic Commodity Types, Two-Digit STCC Level STCC 2 Commodity Type Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total 50 Secondary traffic 20,393,345 32 Clay, concrete, glass, or stone 3,542,332 6,403,031 1 24 Lumber or wood products 1,991,613 5,951,960 28 Chemicals or allied products 1,316,939 2,932,946 34 20 Food or kindred products 535,658 3,793,663 29 Petroleum or coal products 414,985 2,830,628 26 Pulp, paper, or allied products 1,350,938 1,760,790 5 14 Nonmetallic minerals 2,610,755 11 Coal 1,085,369 92,912 40 Waste or scrap materials 479,134 33 Primary metal products 36,861 641,669 2 1 Farm products 446,273 147,961 46 Misc. mixed shipments 515,214 240 22 Textile mill products 437,284 37 Transportation equipment 84,166 336,070 23 10 Metallic ores 362,718 35 Machinery 72,611 126,657 35 34 Fabricated metal products 175,921 1 30 Rubber or misc. plastics 171,454 42 Shipping containers 106,948 27 Printed matter 82,968 13 36 Electrical equipment 508 82,331 16 25 Furniture or fixtures 51,392 41 Misc. freight shipments 42,332 39 Misc. manufacturing products 40,634 23 Apparel or related products 800 22,874 9 21 Tobacco products 17,780 38 Instrum, photo equip, optical eq 16,790 19 Ordnance or accessories 8,640 45 Shipper association traffic 7,670 31 Leather or leather products 2,417 43 Mail or contract traffic 271 194,003 748,409 553 384,224 1,337 20,393,345 9,945,364 7,943,573 4,443,922 4,329,321 3,994,022 3,111,733 2,611,308 1,178,282 863,358 678,533 594,234 515,454 437,284 420,259 362,718 199,304 175,922 171,454 106,948 82,981 82,854 51,392 43,670 40,634 23,683 17,780 16,790 8,640 7,670 2,417 271 Total 15,012,465 46,513,478 650 1,328,525 62,855,118 June 2001 6-19 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report June 2001 6-20 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-9 Inbound Domestic Commodity Types, Detail on Top Five Classes STCC Commodity Type Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total 50 Secondary traffic 20,393,345 20,393,345 5010 Warehouse and distribution center 18,759,119 18,759,119 5020 Rail intermodal drayage 1,569,845 1,569,845 5030 Air freight drayage 64,382 64,382 Other 0 0 32 Clay, concrete, glass, or stone 3,542,332 6,403,031 1 9,945,364 3295 Nonmetal minerals, processed 3,368,215 1,036,936 4,405,151 3273 Ready-mix concrete, wet 4,303,700 4,303,700 3271 Concrete products 717,720 717,720 3241 Portland cement 91,560 92,832 184,393 3275 Gypsum products 45,418 137,817 183,235 3251 Clay brick or tile 46,723 46,723 3296 Mineral wool 9,685 26,090 35,775 3274 Lime or lime plaster 27,454 327 27,781 Other 40,886 1 40,887 24 Lumber or wood products 1,991,613 5,951,960 7,943,573 2411 Primary forest materials 1,926,407 4,390,927 6,317,334 2429 Misc. sawmill or planing mill 648,432 648,432 2421 Lumber or dimension stock 20,690 477,694 498,384 2432 Plywood or veneer 38,778 246,237 285,015 2433 Prefab wood buildings 67,146 67,146 2491 Treated wood products 3,013 45,972 48,985 2431 Millwork or cabinetwork 26,955 26,955 2499 Misc. wood products 2,724 22,654 25,378 Other 25,943 25,943 28 Chemicals or allied products 1,316,939 2,932,946 34 194,003 4,443,922 2812 Potassium or sodium compound 518,129 1,115,558 8 27,504 1,661,199 2818 Misc. industrial organic chemicals 256,412 267,487 5 29,366 553,270 2879 Misc. agricultural chemicals 401,749 2 401,751 2821 Plastic mater or synth fibers 79,791 295,255 2 104 375,153 2861 Gum or wood chemicals 187,704 87,598 596 275,897 2819 Misc. indus inorganic chemicals 179,661 47,035 10 30,341 257,047 2899 Chemical preparations, nec 30,898 180,672 2 28,535 240,107 2815 Cyclic intermediates or dyes 8,178 104,496 2 46,779 159,454 Other 56,166 433,097 3 30,777 520,044 20 Food or kindred products 535,658 3,793,663 4,329,321 2086 Soft drinks or mineral water 733,251 733,251 2092 Soybean oil or by-products 120,676 470,689 591,365 2061 Sugar mill prod or by-prod 222,146 251,839 473,985 2091 Cottonseed oil or by-prod 25,880 368,692 394,572 2082 Malt liquors 310,606 310,606 2042 Prepared or canned feed 16,600 229,896 246,496 2041 Flour or other grain mill products 4,184 174,756 178,940 2046 Wet corn milling or milo 43,730 127,959 171,689 Other 102,442 1,125,974 1,228,416 June 2001 6-21 Total All other Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 7,625,923 7,038,533 615 1,134,523 15,799,593 15,012,465 46,513,478 650 1,328,525 62,855,118 June 2001 6-22 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-10 Outbound Domestic Commodity Types, Two-Digit STCC Level STCC 2 Commodity Type Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total 32 Clay, concrete, glass or stone 3,742,182 9,174,047 50 Secondary traffic 11,044,620 24 Lumber or wood products 1,409,111 7,894,882 20 Food or kindred products 350,777 5,333,496 28 Chemicals or allied products 1,194,367 3,464,393 26 Pulp, paper or allied products 1,637,238 1,308,169 29 Petroleum or coal products 163,370 2,396,297 14 Nonmetallic minerals 1,986,351 33 Primary metal products 54,924 1,130,207 22 Textile mill products 1,074,552 34 Fabricated metal products 646,608 1 Farm products 159,369 476,275 10 Metallic ores 589,987 37 Transportation equipment 51,570 523,691 30 Rubber or misc. plastics 2,210 491,479 35 Machinery 24,515 413,849 36 Electrical equipment 427,053 46 Misc. mixed shipments 420,456 40 Waste or scrap materials 257,442 21 Tobacco products 230,487 11 Coal 218,108 39 Misc. manufacturing products 189,680 25 Furniture or fixtures 175,953 23 Apparel or related products 139,735 27 Printed matter 123,486 42 Shipping containers 55,150 31 Leather or leather products 51,840 41 Misc. freight shipments 40,312 38 Instrum, photo equip, optical eq 16,125 19 Ordnance or accessories 15,473 45 Shipper association traffic 10,196 47 Small packaged freight shipments 7,982 43 Mail or contract traffic 4 419 20 11 9 316 6 421 282 18 12 18 18 91 1,090 304,413 421 98,697 7,940 12,916,234 11,044,620 9,303,993 5,684,273 4,659,179 2,945,407 2,864,080 1,986,773 1,185,151 1,074,563 646,617 635,644 589,987 575,577 493,695 438,786 427,335 420,474 356,139 230,487 218,108 189,692 175,953 139,754 123,504 55,150 51,840 48,253 16,217 15,473 10,196 7,982 1,090 June 2001 6-23 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Total 12,172,984 46,945,034 2,735 411,472 59,532,226 June 2001 6-24 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-11 Outbound Domestic Commodity Types, Detail on Top Five Classes STCC Commodity Type Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Total 32 Clay, concrete, glass, or stone 3,742,182 9,174,047 4 3295 Nonmetal minerals, processed 3,328,212 2,745,930 4 3273 Ready-mix concrete, wet 3,779,222 3241 Portland cement 307,684 758,780 3271 Concrete products 834,842 3275 Gypsum products 410,193 3251 Clay brick or tile 103,592 204,213 3281 Cut stone or stone products 165,585 3253 Ceramic floor or wall tile 82,592 Other 2,694 192,690 50 Secondary traffic 11,044,620 5010 Warehouse and distribution center 9,480,706 5020 Rail intermodal drayage 1,537,154 5030 Air freight drayage 26,761 Other - 24 Lumber or wood products 1,409,111 7,894,882 2411 Primary forest materials 1,062,392 5,100,867 2421 Lumber or dimension stock 168,650 626,568 2429 Misc. sawmill or planing mill 620,424 2432 Plywood or veneer 23,631 514,124 2491 Treated wood products 75,952 292,851 2433 Prefab wood buildings 323,463 2499 Misc. wood products 78,486 152,768 2498 Wood prod, nec 36,915 Other 226,903 20 Food or kindred products 350,777 5,333,496 2086 Soft drinks or mineral water 821,863 2062 Sugar, refined, cane, or beet 244,598 404,427 2082 Malt liquors 594,623 2017 Processed poultry or eggs 321,220 2016 Dressed poultry, frozen 4,708 307,818 2092 Soybean oil or by-products 3,742 306,745 2015 Dressed poultry, fresh 308,815 2093 Nut or veg oils or by-products 70,185 174,118 Other 27,544 2,093,868 28 Chemicals or allied products 1,194,367 3,464,393 419 2812 Potassium or sodium compound 122,522 1,198,538 2818 Misc. industrial organic chemicals 195,502 610,538 2819 Misc. industrial inorganic chemicals 634,352 79,628 2879 Misc. agricultural chemicals 4,956 388,079 2871 Fertilizers 12,217 249,554 2813 Industrial gases 4,040 221,344 2821 Plastic mater or synth fibers 30,766 169,704 2861 Gum or wood chemicals 95,518 97,780 12,916,234 6,074,147 3,779,222 1,066,464 834,842 410,193 307,805 165,585 82,592 195,384 11,044,620 9,480,706 1,537,154 26,761 9,303,993 6,163,259 795,218 620,424 537,756 368,803 323,463 231,254 36,915 226,903 5,684,273 821,863 649,025 594,623 321,220 312,526 310,487 308,815 244,303 2,121,412 4,659,179 1,321,060 806,040 713,980 393,035 261,770 225,384 200,470 193,298 June 2001 6-25 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Total Other All other 94,494 5,476,546 12,172,984 449,228 10,033,596 46,945,034 419 2,312 2,735 411,472 411,472 544,141 15,923,926 59,532,226 Profiles of Individual Counties Within the Study Area Among the 45 study area counties, there is broad variation in overall freight activity, origin and destination patterns, and commodities moved. Individual reports on each of the 45 study area counties are contained in Appendix XX, and some of their key attributes are described below. Tonnage and Modal Share The counties within the study area are widely divergent in terms of their types and levels of freight activity. By a wide margin, the leading county in terms of inbound and outbound tonnage is Chatham County, which is home to a number of major industries, as well as the Port of Savannah, and accounts for 33 percent of the study area's inbound and outbound tonnage. Other leading counties for freight tonnage include Bibb, Muscogee, Glynn (home to the Port of Brunswick), Wilkinson, and Houston Counties; this is consistent with the business locations and economic profile data presented in Section 5. Other counties with more than two million tons include Twiggs, Crisp, Laurens, Sumter, and Liberty; together, the 11 counties with more than two million tons represent 83 percent of the total inbound and outbound tonnage in the study area. The most significant impact of this is that trip origins and destinations are not evenly distributed throughout the study area, but tend to be heavily clustered in areas of more intense economic activity, separated by areas of lesser activity. This, in turn, implies several levels of functionality for the HPC 6 and U.S. 280 corridors: Serving established clusters of intense freight movement and economic activity, including Georgia's international seaports; Serving smaller but economically important clusters that currently exist outside of major activity areas; and Serving economically emergent (or potentially emergent) areas by accommodating future development of freight-generating land uses. Most of the study area counties show a balance between inbound and outbound tonnage, although some are characterized by imbalances. For example, Glynn County tonnage is 71 percent inbound (much of it for export through the Port of Brunswick). Tattnall County, on the other hand, is 86 percent outbound (principally secondary traffic and metal products). In terms of modal share, most of the study area counties are dominated by trucks. Some counties including Emmanuel, Toombs, Tatnall, and Harris show 100 percent of their tonnage by truck. But there are many counties that also move a substantial share of their traffic by rail, including Talbot (87 percent), Crawford (78 percent), Effingham (53 percent), and Macon (50 percent). Not surprisingly, the only counties to show significant domestic waterborne tonnage are Chatham (four percent) and Glynn (two percent); international waterborne tonnage through June 2001 6-26 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick is discussed later in this section of the report. Air cargo tonnage is not significant in any of the study area counties, although air cargo service can be an important attribute of a region's attractiveness to specific types of businesses. Table 6-12 Inbound and Outbound Tonnage by County County Total Tonnage Tons Inbound Outbound Share Inbound Outbound Chatham 40,347,837 21,539,345 18,808,492 53% 47% Bibb 17,904,983 7,273,151 10,631,832 41% 59% Muscogee 10,155,944 5,250,818 4,905,126 52% 48% Glynn 9,294,888 6,570,653 2,724,235 71% 29% Wilkinson 5,822,737 3,305,359 2,517,378 57% 43% Houston 3,916,469 2,071,673 1,844,796 53% 47% Twiggs 3,060,652 1,640,453 1,420,198 54% 46% Crisp 3,010,120 1,861,793 1,148,327 62% 38% Laurens 2,631,814 970,048 1,661,767 37% 63% Sumter 2,580,836 1,228,386 1,352,450 48% 52% Liberty 2,483,392 1,740,682 742,710 70% 30% Bulloch 1,943,918 1,014,389 929,529 52% 48% Macon 1,877,273 1,078,926 798,347 57% 43% Effingham 1,790,958 1,409,359 381,598 79% 21% Emanuel 1,735,176 718,090 1,017,086 41% 59% Toombs 1,315,489 397,275 918,214 30% 70% Tattnall 1,273,219 183,241 1,089,978 14% 86% Evans 1,262,566 446,307 816,259 35% 65% Harris 1,194,226 588,269 605,957 49% 51% Talbot 1,111,010 138,748 972,261 12% 88% Peach 994,214 450,471 543,742 45% 55% Dodge 885,828 324,683 561,146 37% 63% Dooly 799,094 189,616 609,478 24% 76% Stewart 754,845 194,138 560,708 26% 74% Upson 660,902 415,955 244,948 63% 37% Terrell 398,928 179,588 219,340 45% 55% Telfair 361,506 191,311 170,195 53% 47% Candler 337,409 71,254 266,155 21% 79% Bleckley 303,856 220,765 83,091 73% 27% Taylor 254,389 78,256 176,133 31% 69% Crawford 245,604 49,370 196,234 20% 80% McIntosh 190,073 134,638 55,436 71% 29% Marion 188,418 141,658 46,760 75% 25% Bryan 182,548 117,304 65,244 64% 36% Chattahoochee 170,063 92,715 77,348 55% 45% Wilcox 166,675 73,154 93,522 44% 56% Schley 163,240 126,230 37,010 77% 23% Lee 132,707 106,296 26,411 80% 20% Pulaski 132,673 80,241 52,432 60% 40% Wheeler 108,657 28,873 79,784 27% 73% June 2001 6-27 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Johnson 94,462 63,386 31,076 67% 33% Treutlen 42,861 29,919 12,943 70% 30% Webster 38,148 7,381 30,767 19% 81% Montgomery 36,416 34,512 1,904 95% 5% Long 30,322 26,440 3,882 87% 13% Total 122,387,344 62,855,118 59,532,226 51% 49% June 2001 6-28 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Name Chatham County Bibb County Muscogee County Glynn County Wilkinson County Houston County Twiggs County Crisp County Laurens County Sumter County Liberty County Bulloch County Macon County Effingham County Emanuel County Toombs County Tattnall County Evans County Harris County Talbot County Peach County Dodge County Dooly County Stewart County Upson County Terrell County Telfair County Candler County Bleckley County Taylor County Crawford County McIntosh County Marion County Bryan County Chattahoochee County Wilcox County Schley County Lee County Pulaski County Wheeler County Johnson County Treutlen County Webster County Montgomery County Long County Table 6-13 Inbound and Outbound Modal Share by County Total Tonnage Rail Tons Truck Tons Air Tons Water Tons Rail Share Truck Share 40,347,837 11,403,436 27,376,191 2,885 1,565,326 28% 68% 17,904,983 2,442,398 15,462,538 47 - 14% 86% 10,155,944 969,607 9,185,916 420 - 10% 90% 9,294,888 2,722,669 6,397,513 34 174,671 29% 69% 5,822,737 2,188,282 3,634,455 - - 38% 62% 3,916,469 662,148 3,254,321 - - 17% 83% 3,060,652 331,774 2,728,878 - - 11% 89% 3,010,120 212,924 2,797,196 - - 7% 93% 2,631,814 291,666 2,340,148 - - 11% 89% 2,580,836 870,713 1,710,123 - - 34% 66% 2,483,392 580,853 1,902,539 - - 23% 77% 1,943,918 137,426 1,806,492 - - 7% 93% 1,877,273 938,073 939,200 - - 50% 50% 1,790,958 957,976 832,981 - - 53% 47% 1,735,176 7,906 1,727,270 - - 0% 100% 1,315,489 - 1,315,489 - - 0% 100% 1,273,219 - 1,273,219 - - 0% 100% 1,262,566 54,094 1,208,472 - - 4% 96% 1,194,226 - 1,194,226 - - 0% 100% 1,111,010 966,673 144,336 - - 87% 13% 994,214 21,205 973,008 - - 2% 98% 885,828 416,694 469,134 - - 47% 53% 799,094 152,714 646,380 - - 19% 81% 754,845 - 754,845 - - 0% 100% 660,902 123,012 537,890 - - 19% 81% 398,928 103,790 295,138 - - 26% 74% 361,506 27,401 334,105 - - 8% 92% 337,409 73,560 263,849 - - 22% 78% 303,856 8,042 295,814 - - 3% 97% 254,389 165,903 88,486 - - 65% 35% 245,604 190,739 54,865 - - 78% 22% 190,073 - 190,073 - - 0% 100% 188,418 - 188,418 - - 0% 100% 182,548 - 182,548 - - 0% 100% 170,063 71,500 98,563 - - 42% 58% 166,675 35,690 130,985 - - 21% 79% 163,240 7,136 156,104 - - 4% 96% 132,707 22,488 110,219 - - 17% 83% 132,673 - 132,673 - - 0% 100% 108,657 - 108,657 - - 0% 100% 94,462 8,313 86,149 - - 9% 91% 42,861 - 42,861 - - 0% 100% 38,148 18,642 19,5 06 - - 49% 51% 36,416 - 36,416 - - 0% 100% 30,322 - 30,322 - - 0% 100% June 2001 6-29 Totals Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 122,387,344 27,185,449 93,458,513 3,385 1,739,997 Figure 6-12 Origin Counties for Outbound Tonnage (Truck) 22.2% 76.4% June 2001 6-30 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-13 Destination Counties for Inbound Tonnage (Truck) June 2001 6-31 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-14 Origin Counties for Outbound Tonnage (Rail) June 2001 6-32 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-15 Destination Counties for Inbound Tonnage (Rail) June 2001 6-33 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-14 Summary of Inbound and Outbound Truck and Railcar Loads County Total Tons Trucks In Out Railcars In Out Chatham Bibb Muscogee Glynn Wilkinson Houston Twiggs Crisp Laurens Sumter Liberty Bulloch Macon Effingham Emanuel Toombs Tattnall Evans Harris Talbot Peach Dodge Dooly Stewart Upson Terrell Telfair Candler Bleckley Taylor Crawford McIntosh Marion Bryan Chattahoochee Wilcox Schley Lee Pulaski Wheeler Johnson Treutlen Webster 40,347,837 17,904,983 10,155,944 9,294,888 5,822,737 3,916,469 3,060,652 3,010,120 2,631,814 2,580,836 2,483,392 1,943,918 1,877,273 1,790,958 1,735,176 1,315,489 1,273,219 1,262,566 1,194,226 1,111,010 994,214 885,828 799,094 754,845 660,902 398,928 361,506 337,409 303,856 254,389 245,604 190,073 188,418 182,548 170,063 166,675 163,240 132,707 132,673 108,657 94,462 42,861 38,148 640,117 763,131 321,391 259,908 496,145 167,682 192,264 219,764 69,469 73,099 100,921 58,646 61,051 40,764 66,215 31,884 11,001 35,464 96,235 32,979 36,800 24,406 7,860 16,886 47,826 13,224 14,571 4,033 16,737 5,802 3,795 9,156 14,712 6,203 5,494 4,157 14,622 5,601 5,725 1,560 3,780 1,798 383 923,261 902,343 327,512 119,790 23,710 172,174 130,756 57,224 156,751 49,358 30,027 59,661 20,069 15,846 54,117 113,928 112,087 40,390 44,630 447 30,329 9,272 95,763 30,198 12,570 6,929 9,322 10,663 5,430 756 539 3,651 2,398 5,781 467 4,097 1,639 395 2,605 4,175 1,247 736 1,510 166,046 18,547 8,461 43,998 1,870 5,836 818 2,308 791 6,954 9,080 2,381 10,230 18,012 158 304 601 1,665 1,030 276 208 64 161 76 374 62,023 30,301 10,931 10,455 41,896 7,406 5,818 1,950 5,042 10,461 2,537 367 8,531 1,148 1,082 19,333 120 7,733 1,389 1,430 1,800 340 1,407 3,242 3,815 1,430 340 143 450 166 373 June 2001 6-34 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Montgomery Long Total 36,416 30,322 122,387,344 1,901 1,363 4,006,525 101 226 3,594,883 300,249 243,460 Table 6-15 Inbound, Outbound, Internal, and Through Truck Tons County Inbound Outbound Internal Through Total, All Types Bibb Chatham Houston Crisp Peach Dooly Crawford Glynn Harris Liberty Effingham Bryan McIntosh Muscogee Twiggs Laurens Bleckley Wilkinson Emanuel Stewart Chattahoochee Treutlen Telfair Toombs Dodge Bulloch Terrell Montgomery Candler Tattnall Lee Webster Sumter Long Wheeler Evans Wilcox Macon 6,345,740 12,045,721 1,779,849 1,746,380 435,253 106,362 49,370 4,232,979 588,269 1,286,698 508,777 117,304 134,638 4,827,716 1,599,563 930,505 212,723 3,211,881 710,184 194,138 92,715 29,919 180,918 397,275 294,627 895,318 165,810 34,512 68,042 183,241 106,296 7,381 880,698 26,440 28,873 446,307 54,466 567,406 9,116,798 15,330,470 1,474,472 1,050,817 537,755 540,018 5,495 2,164,534 605,957 615,841 324,204 65,244 55,436 4,358,200 1,129,314 1,409,643 83,091 422,574 1,017,086 560,708 5,848 12,943 153,187 918,214 174,508 911,174 129,328 1,904 195,807 1,089,978 3,923 12,125 829,425 3,882 79,784 762,165 76,520 371,795 137,994 453,196 9,449 1,533 509 165 7,834 1,824 3,063 520 73,890 9,530 4,482 50 235 2,752 249 4 1,161 199 1,521 7 23 283 3,003 838 763 52,856,097 27,519,119 46,758,486 46,770,348 46,847,335 46,769,162 46,820,461 25,806,876 30,325,366 27,118,669 27,528,365 27,520,247 25,602,007 7,337,640 8,448,854 4,244,625 6,143,942 2,751,859 3,674,039 4,639,953 4,760,259 4,349,735 3,646,541 2,605,780 3,328,749 1,692,688 2,427,206 2,642,168 2,368,862 1,248,487 2,381,494 2,268,867 115,467 1,516,662 1,324,510 6,540 1,057,640 247,592 68,456,629 55,348,506 50,022,256 49,569,078 47,820,852 47,415,707 46,875,326 32,212,223 31,521,416 29,024,271 28,361,866 27,702,795 25,792,081 16,597,446 11,187,261 6,589,255 6,439,806 6,386,549 5,404,061 5,395,048 4,858,822 4,392,597 3,980,650 3,922,430 3,798,083 3,500,701 2,722,351 2,678,584 2,632,734 2,521,989 2,491,713 2,288,373 1,828,593 1,546,984 1,433,167 1,215,850 1,188,626 1,187,556 Through Share 77% 50% 93% 94% 98% 99% 100% 80% 96% 93% 97% 99% 99% 44% 76% 64% 95% 43% 68% 86% 98% 99% 92% 66% 88% 48% 89% 99% 90% 50% 96% 99% 6% 98% 92% 1% 89% 21% June 2001 6-35 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Upson Talbot Marion Pulaski Schley Taylor Johnson 364,467 138,748 141,658 80,241 126,230 74,456 63,386 173,424 5,588 46,760 52,432 29,874 14,030 22,763 31 59,668 597,590 10% 253,690 398,026 64% 199,093 387,511 51% 219,340 352,013 62% 1 183,542 339,647 54% 55 219,119 307,660 71% 140,335 226,484 62% Total 46,513,478 46,945,034 715,163 554,747,484 648,921,166 85% Looking at truck and railcar load equivalents, we see that the major freight handling counties Chatham, Bibb, Muscogee, Glynn, Wilkinson, and Houston are also the leaders in terms of truckloads handled. Bibb County handles more than 1.6 million truck loads annually. Chatham County is the leader by a wide margin in terms of railcar loads handled (almost 250,000); Bibb, Glynn, and Wilkinson also handle significant numbers of railcar loads. These figures do not include movements by empty trucks or empty railcars, so the total numbers of truck trips and railcar trips into and out of these counties are actually higher. If we examine the truck tonnage in more detail, we find that 85 percent of the tonnage moving into, out of, within, or through the study area counties (more than 550,000,000 tons, if we count the tonnage each time it passes through a study area county) is associated with through trips. This includes through trips that begin and end outside the study area, as well as through trips that begin or end in a different county within the study area. The only counties not experiencing high levels of through trips are Sumter, Evans, Macon, and Upson. The clear message is that most of the truck capacity in a specific county is devoted not to meeting the access needs of that specific county, but to meeting the access needs of other study area counties as part of an overall freight network. This underscores the need for a corridor-level, regional network approach to freight movement within central Georgia. Origins and Destinations The study area counties exhibit a wide range of characteristics with respect to their origin and destination patterns some counties ship and receive almost entirely within the state of Georgia, while others have southeastern U.S. focus, while still others are more oriented to the entire U.S. market. Shares of trade within the 45-county study area range from lows of one percent (Talbot) and two percent (Webster) to highs of 19 percent (Wilkinson) and 18 percent (Macon). However, most counties fall within a range of seven to 14 percent, indicating relatively consistent levels of within-study area tonnage flows (on a percentage basis) among the different counties. Shares of trade to and from the rest of Georgia range from lows of 30 percent (Webster) and 32 percent (Macon) to highs of 96 percent (Crawford) and 87 percent (Taylor). The higher tonnage counties tend to fall in the 40 to 60 percent range, while there is more variation in the lower tonnage counties. Shares of trade outside of the state of Georgia range from lows of one percent (Crawford) and seven percent (Taylor) to highs of 57 percent (Effingham), 50 percent (Macon), 49 percent (Chatham and Glynn), and 47 percent (Bibb). In general, the highest June 2001 6-36 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report tonnage counties had the highest share of traffic outside of the state of Georgia; in the case of Chatham and Glynn, a significant share can be attributed to port-related activity. June 2001 6-37 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-16 Distribution of Inbound and Outbound Tonnage by County County Total Tonnage Study Area Share of Tonnage To/From: Other Mississippi, Other Other Georgia Alabama West Southeast Chatham 40,347,837 10% 41% 4% Bibb 17,904,983 12% 41% 6% Muscogee 10,155,944 10% 60% 5% Glynn 9,294,888 11% 40% 10% Wilkinson 5,822,737 19% 49% 3% Houston 3,916,469 14% 61% 3% Twiggs 3,060,652 16% 64% 4% Crisp 3,010,120 10% 60% 5% Laurens 2,631,814 12% 59% 2% Sumter 2,580,836 18% 42% 6% Liberty 2,483,392 10% 59% 2% Bulloch 1,943,918 9% 56% 3% Macon 1,877,273 18% 32% 3% Effingham 1,790,958 5% 38% 1% Emanuel 1,735,176 12% 67% 3% Toombs 1,315,489 14% 62% 2% Tattnall 1,273,219 13% 58% 2% Evans 1,262,566 10% 62% 2% Harris 1,194,226 10% 67% 7% Talbot 1,111,010 1% 68% 1% Peach 994,214 9% 58% 3% Dodge 885,828 7% 76% 1% Dooly 799,094 15% 57% 2% Stewart 754,845 8% 53% 16% Upson 660,902 12% 58% 4% Terrell 398,928 6% 52% 2% Telfair 361,506 7% 60% 5% Candler 337,409 7% 59% 21% Bleckley 303,856 11% 72% 2% Taylor 254,389 6% 87% 0% Crawford 245,604 3% 96% 0% McIntosh 190,073 11% 60% 2% Marion 188,418 9% 73% 5% Bryan 182,548 12% 74% 1% Chattahoochee 170,063 8% 84% 1% Wilcox 166,675 6% 67% 1% Schley 163,240 13% 68% 5% Lee 132,707 10% 70% 0% Pulaski 132,673 9% 77% 1% Wheeler 108,657 9% 75% 1% Johnson 94,462 14% 73% 2% Treutlen 42,861 9% 80% 0% 9% 24% 5% 14% 4% 12% 8% 20% 3% 10% 2% 10% 2% 8% 3% 16% 3% 17% 3% 11% 5% 15% 4% 19% 7% 11% 1% 11% 2% 13% 2% 13% 2% 17% 2% 18% 2% 9% 1% 27% 7% 16% 3% 10% 5% 13% 0% 20% 4% 10% 10% 16% 2% 14% 1% 9% 1% 13% 1% 2% 0% 1% 5% 15% 2% 8% 2% 9% 2% 4% 0% 10% 3% 8% 1% 3% 1% 10% 0% 13% 5% 4% 0% 10% Rest of U.S. 12% 22% 9% 11% 16% 10% 6% 6% 7% 20% 9% 9% 29% 44% 3% 7% 8% 6% 5% 2% 7% 3% 8% 3% 12% 14% 12% 3% 1% 4% 0% 7% 3% 2% 1% 16% 3% 16% 2% 2% 2% 1% June 2001 6-38 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Webster Montgomery Long 38,148 2% 30% 3% 36,416 13% 79% 2% 30,322 15% 75% 0% Total 122,387,344 11% 49% 5% 1% 35% 29% 0% 4% 2% 3% 7% 0% 6% 17% 13% June 2001 6-39 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Commodity Types Eight two-digit commodity classes account for 90 percent of the inbound tonnage and 86 percent of the outbound tonnage of the study area. These classes are: STCC 14 Non-Metallic Minerals, STCC 20 Food or Kindred Products, STCC 24 Lumber or Wood Products, STCC 26 Pulp, Paper or Allied Products, STCC 28 Chemicals and Allied Products, STCC 29 Petroleum or Coal Products, STCC 32 Clay, Stone, Concrete, Glass, and STCC 50 Secondary Traffic. As with origins and destinations, the study area counties exhibit differences with respect to the types of commodities they handle, and the degree to which they specialize in certain commodities. Tables 6-17 and 6-18 on the following pages indicate the relative shares of each county's tonnage that are associated with these commodity classes. The leading percentage class for each county is highlighted in bold face. June 2001 6-40 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report County Chatham Bibb Glynn Muscogee Wilkinson Houston Crisp Liberty Twiggs Effingham Sumter Macon Bulloch Laurens Emanuel Harris Peach Evans Upson Toombs Dodge Bleckley Stewart Telfair Dooly Tattnall Terrell Marion Talbot McIntosh Schley Bryan Lee Chattahoochee Pulaski Taylor Wilcox Candler Johnson Crawford Montgomery Treutlen Wheeler Long Table 6-17 Inbound Tonnage, Commodity Types by County 14 NonMetallic Minerals 20 Food 24 Lumber, Wood 26 Pulp, Paper STCC 28 Chemicals 29 Petroleum, Coal 32 Stone, Clay, Glass, Concrete 7% 7% 10% 8% 8% 2% 13% 16% 3% 9% 8% 5% 23% 12% 13% 1% 12% 13% 4% 6% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 7% 12% 1% 4% 0% 2% 6% 0% 5% 12% 3% 20% 1% 8% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 8% 1% 7% 0% 3% 1% 2% 14% 0% 10% 0% 15% 7% 1% 4% 9% 6% 22% 2% 2% 0% 5% 26% 2% 5% 0% 4% 19% 0% 2% 0% 15% 9% 2% 0% 0% 3% 22% 1% 10% 0% 14% 11% 5% 0% 0% 6% 16% 12% 5% 0% 6% 17% 1% 1% 0% 6% 13% 10% 3% 0% 2% 12% 1% 4% 0% 0% 20% 1% 0% 0% 4% 12% 0% 0% 0% 7% 11% 0% 45% 0% 6% 26% 1% 1% 0% 6% 12% 1% 4% 0% 3% 9% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 1% 0% 3% 12% 1% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 4% 0% 7% 33% 1% 1% 0% 9% 30% 1% 0% 0% 10% 24% 1% 0% 0% 4% 25% 2% 1% 0% 3% 13% 0% 9% 0% 12% 17% 0% 17% 0% 3% 24% 2% 0% 0% 5% 22% 0% 0% 0% 8% 27% 0% 1% 0% 6% 24% 0% 0% 0% 4% 20% 0% 0% 0% 3% 37% 0% 0% 0% 5% 22% 0% 0% 9% 22% 4% 14% 5% 8% 6% 18% 0% 1% 5% 22% 1% 4% 5% 10% 1% 6% 26% 9% 3% 16% 1% 4% 7% 17% 5% 17% 5% 10% 3% 13% 7% 18% 4% 20% 8% 21% 7% 21% 6% 17% 5% 38% 3% 7% 6% 19% 5% 13% 12% 29% 7% 19% 3% 10% 4% 10% 6% 19% 2% 7% 15% 35% 18% 40% 17% 35% 13% 30% 9% 23% 9% 23% 10% 36% 13% 33% 17% 43% 18% 47% 16% 43% 11% 36% 24% 47% 50 Secondary Traffic 19% 28% 19% 30% 94% 40% 79% 38% 92% 18% 32% 31% 22% 32% 57% 54% 33% 45% 26% 36% 42% 35% 68% 49% 15% 21% 42% 72% 78% 55% 79% 4% 1% 11% 23% 21% 23% 17% 16% 3% 2% 14% 8% 2% All Other 12% 11% 6% 10% 1% 8% 2% 2% 1% 28% 20% 35% 12% 8% 2% 3% 7% 1% 6% 10% 3% 3% 1% 9% 3% 4% 9% 1% 0% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 23% 1% 7% 10% 1% 4% 2% 4% 1% June 2001 6-41 Webster Total Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 0% 2% 13% 0% 0% 4% 7% 13% 5% 7% 17% 62% 5% 0% 6% 16% 32% 10% June 2001 6-42 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report County Chatham Bibb Muscogee Glynn Wilkinson Houston Lauren s Twiggs Sumter Crisp Tattnall Emanuel Talbot Bulloch Toombs Evans Macon Liberty Dooly Harris Dodge Stewart Peach Effingham Candler Upson Terrell Crawford Taylor Telfair Wilcox Bleckley Wheeler Chattahoochee Bryan McIntosh Pulaski Marion Schley Johnson Webster Lee Treutlen Long 14 NonMetallic Minerals 0% 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 97% 92% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table 6-18 Outbound Tonnage, Commodity Types by County 20 Food 24 Lumber, Wood 26 Pulp, Paper STCC 28 Chemicals 29 Petroleum, Coal 32 Stone, Clay, Glass, Concrete 50 Secondary Traffic 10% 5% 5% 14% 13% 7% 10% 7% 7% 3% 20% 3% 1% 4% 0% 12% 6% 14% 22% 4% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 1% 0% 4% 29% 13% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 1% 5% 0% 3% 71% 0% 9% 0% 2% 3% 0% 1% 0% 10% 84% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 10% 51% 1% 1% 0% 2% 21% 1% 0% 0% 49% 26% 0% 0% 0% 32% 19% 45% 0% 0% 0% 63% 14% 13% 0% 2% 19% 0% 0% 0% 72% 25% 0% 0% 0% 10% 75% 12% 1% 0% 0% 97% 1% 0% 0% 0% 39% 0% 27% 0% 0% 69% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 35% 17% 0% 0% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 38% 0% 0% 0% 1% 73% 0% 9% 0% 8% 55% 0% 1% 0% 0% 93% 2% 0% 0% 0% 92% 2% 0% 0% 0% 32% 5% 0% 0% 33% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 23% 3% 0% 34% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 2% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 9% 0% 2% 61% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% 0% 0% 11% 24% 41% 18% 17% 27% 23% 2% 88% 0% 52% 31% 9% 33% 64% 33% 0% 1% 5% 1% 0% 48% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 13% 55% 21% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 77% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 10% 4% 64% 2% 0% 5% 15% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% 6% 6% 1% 0% 11% 0% 3% 0% 0% 19% 6% 0% 13% 17% 7% 0% 6% 0% 2% 0% 9% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 26% 0% 10% All Other 18% 6% 18% 13% 1% 5% 13% 0% 51% 12% 47% 4% 0% 34% 9% 2% 2% 8% 2% 1% 1% 2% 29% 16% 32% 39% 32% 1% 2% 19% 10% 25% 3% 6% 38% 46% 9% 4% 36% 67% 37% 96% 41% 0% June 2001 6-43 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Montgomery Total 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 10% 16% 5% 8% 5% 0% 7% 73% 22% 19% 14% Relationship of Domestic and International Commodity Flows Georgia's ports and waterways both publicly and privately owned and operated are a vital component of its statewide transportation system and its link to international markets. Taken together, more than 20 million tons of commodities were moved through nearly 40 public and private terminals in the state of Georgia in calendar year 1998. The presence of these facilities the Port of Savannah in Chatham County, the Port of Brunswick in Glynn County, and the Port of Columbus in Muscogee County places unique demands on the landside transportation system, because import and export goods (international cargo moves) must be moved to and from these ports by truck and rail (as domestic cargo moves). Port of Savannah, Chatham County The Port of Savannah is one of the premier port complexes in the United States. It is comprised of public and private terminals arrayed along the Savannah River, and handles a diverse range of containerized and non-containerized cargoes. In 1998, the Port of Savannah ranked seventh among U.S. Atlantic Coast ports in terms of container traffic (730,611 TEUs); fourth among U.S. Atlantic Coast ports in terms of international tonnage (14,574,907 short tons); and 39th among all U.S. ports in terms of total tonnage (17,710,606 short tons). Over the past decade, the Port of Savannah has been one of the fastest-growing ports in the country. Data for fiscal year 2000 show that the Georgia Ports Authority facilities at Garden City and Ocean Terminal handled 9,581,181 tons and 845,408 TEUs. Data for fiscal year 2001 shows that the container total has risen to 1,020,000 TEUs. The port district includes major facilities located on the Savannah River within the cities of Savannah, Garden City, and Port Wentworth. Most of the terminals are located upriver (west and north) from Savannah's historic downtown waterfront; although several are located downriver. The Savannah River provides access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The Port of Savannah primarily handles deep-draft ocean-going vessels. Containerized cargoes are handled at Georgia Ports Authority's (GPA's) Containerport at Garden City and non-containerized cargoes are handled at GPA's Ocean Terminal in Savannah and at numerous private terminals along the Savannah River. The port district also includes several small commercial fishing and vessel mooring and repair facilities on the Wilmington River, but these do not handle substantial volumes of cargo. The Port of Savannah includes two public terminals owned and operated by GPA. GPA's Containerport in Garden City comprises 1,120 acres and more than 7,600 contiguous linear feet of vessel berthing, making it one of the largest container terminals in the United States. The Containerport also includes some handling of liquid bulk, roll-on and roll-off, and noncontainerized general cargoes. GPA's Ocean Terminal in Savannah comprises 208 acres and more than 6,600 linear feet of vessel berthing, and handles a variety of non-containerized general cargoes. The Port of Savannah also includes 20 privately owned terminals engaged in cargo June 2001 6-44 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report handling. Some of these terminals are primarily designed for the movement of waterborne commodities for multiple customers, while others are essentially manufacturing facilities that have the capability of shipping and receiving their own materials and products by vessel as an alternative to truck and rail. Table 6-19 Port of Savannah Waterborne Commodity Flows, CY 1998 Commodity Short Tons Containers (TEUs) Foreign Imports Sand, gravel, rock, stone Petroleum products Iron and steel products Chemicals Lime, cement, glass 8,279,000 928,000 812,000 799,000 787,000 701,000 Foreign Exports Sulfur, clay, salt Paper products Pulp, waste paper Chemicals Forest products 6,296,000 2,642,000 886,000 677,000 509,000 335,000 Total 14,575,000 734,866 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1998; and Georgia Ports Authority. According to the Transearch database, domestic commodity flows inbound to and outbound from Chatham County total 40,347,837 tons for 1998. Truck and rail flows inbound and outbound total 38,779,627 tons (27,376,191 for truck; 11,403,436 for rail). If we make the simplifying assumption that each ton of international cargo moved "over the wharf" at the Port of Savannah corresponds to an equivalent ton of domestic cargo moved to or from Chatham County by truck or rail, then we find that international cargo generates around 38 percent (14,575,000 tons divided by 38,779,627 tons) of the domestic tonnage moved into and out of Chatham County. In practice, the situation is far more complicated international goods can be handled and processed multiple times (using multiple modes) before entering or leaving Chatham County, and some international goods originate or terminate in Chatham County and never show up as inbound or outbound domestic flows but this is a reasonable order-ofmagnitude approximation of international trade as a generator of truck and rail traffic in Chatham County. Port of Brunswick, Glynn County June 2001 6-45 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The Port of Brunswick is located at Brunswick in the southeastern corner of Georgia, just inland from the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (see Figure 6-3). The Brunswick River is the main link between the ocean and the multiple waterways serving the Port's various terminals. The Port of Brunswick handles deep-draft ocean-going vessels, along with shallow draft barges and commercial fishing vessels. It does not handle any containerized cargoes, but does handle nearly every other type of cargo (break bulk, roll-on and roll-off, liquid bulk, and dry bulk). The Port includes three terminals owned by the Georgia Ports Authority (two of which are operated by GPA), along with numerous privately owned terminals. In 1998, the Port of Brunswick was 112th on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's list of the top 150 U.S. tonnage ports, ranking it as a complex of both statewide and national significance. The Port of Brunswick includes three GPA terminals. The Colonel's Island Terminal comprises 345 acres and more than 2,000 feet of berthing area, and primarily handles automobiles (as rollon and roll-off cargo) and grains and other agricultural products (as dry bulk). The Mayor's Point Terminal comprises 22 acres and 1,750 feet of berthing area, and primarily handles forest products (as break bulk). Marine Port Terminals, Inc. comprises 145 acres and more than 2,400 feet of berthing area. It handles a mix of forest products, gypsum, and petroleum products, and is the only one of the three not operated by GPA itself. The Port of Brunswick also includes five privately owned terminals (this excludes a number of small docks that receive seafood). These are principally manufacturing facilities that have the capability of shipping and receiving their own materials and products by vessel as an alternative to truck and rail. Table 6-20 Port of Brunswick Waterborne Commodity Flows, CY 1998 Commodity Short Tons Autos (Units) Foreign Imports Sand, gravel, rock, stone Nonmetallic minerals Vehicles and parts 1,380,000 589,000 332,000 167,000 Foreign Exports Pulp, waste paper Paper products Processed grain, animal feed 957,000 543,000 161,000 107,000 Total 2,337,000 163,064 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1998; and Georgia Ports Authority. According to the Transearch database, domestic commodity flows inbound to and outbound from Glynn County total 9,294,888 tons for 1998. Truck and rail flows inbound and outbound June 2001 6-46 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report total 9,120,182 tons (6,397,513 for truck; 2,722,669 for rail). If we make the same simplifying assumption as we did for Chatham County, then we find that international cargo generates around 26 percent (2,337,000 tons divided by 9,120,182 tons) of the domestic tonnage moved into and out of Glynn County. Port of Columbus, Muscogee County The Port of Columbus is a barge port on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River inland waterway system, which links the interior of Georgia with the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. It handles liquid and dry bulk commodities moved on shallowdraft barges. The Port includes a public terminal operated by the Georgia Ports Authority, along with a privately owned terminal. Two other privately owned terminals are also located on the Chattahoochee River at Cedar Springs, downstream from Columbus near Bainbridge. The GPA facilities handled around 65,000 tons in 1998, all of it domestic; the Transearch database indicates that the entire county handled 174,671 tons of domestic waterborne cargo in 1998. International cargo, therefore, plays no part in generating domestic truck and rail moves into and out of Muscogee County. Commodity Flows and the Transportation Network Thus far, the commodity data has been used to develop detailed characterizations of the study area as a whole and its component counties. To understand how these commodity movements relate to the national transportation system, and more specifically how they impact the HPC 6 and US 280 alignments, we need to look more closely at rail and truck flows and the physical pathways they follow. Rail Volumes and Flows Rail volumes are made up of commodities moving into and out of the study area counties, commodities moving within the study area counties, and commodities moving through the study area counties. For inbound tonnage, the leading origin is the state of Georgia itself, followed by the states of Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky; for outbound tonnage, the leading destination is also the state of Georgia itself, followed by the states of Florida and North Carolina. Rail is generally increasingly economic (compared to truck) as distances increase, and we see that the study area has significant rail tonnage originating and terminating in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana), Northeast (Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio) and Southwest (Texas, Louisiana). These state-to-state flows have actually been built up from county-to-county and county-tobusiness economic area "trip tables" indicating the tons moved from each origin to each destination. There are interesting differences between the inbound and outbound patterns, and between the rail intermodal (container, trailer on flatcar, and "piggyback" services) and the rail carload (all other boxcar, flatcar, hopper car, tank car, etc.) patterns. Partial summaries of the larger trip tables are presented in Tables 6-21 through 6-24 on the following page. June 2001 6-47 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-21 Inbound Rail Intermodal Tonnage by Origin and Destination Rail Intermodal From: Total Tons To Chatham Co. New Orleans, LA -MS 114,856 114,856 Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 73,818 73,818 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 64,456 64,456 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA 59,806 59,806 Fulton County, GA 55,540 55,540 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 36,968 36,968 Jefferson County, GA 35,848 35,848 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 30,152 30,152 Louisville, KY-IN 26,340 26,340 Washington County, GA 23,480 23,480 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 21,678 21,678 Nashville, TN-KY 20,444 20,444 Huntsville, AL-TN 18,516 18,516 Jacksonville, FL-GA 17,334 17,334 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 13,658 13,658 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK 11,414 11,414 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 10,438 10,438 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 10,154 10,154 Mobile, AL 9,700 9,700 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 9,464 9,464 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 9,362 9,362 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 9,268 9,268 Birmingham, AL 7,886 7,886 New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 7,650 7,650 Orlando, FL 5,326 5,326 St. Louis, MO-IL 4,940 4,940 Twiggs County, GA 4,432 4,432 Kansas City, MO-KS 3,066 3,066 Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY-IL 3,000 3,000 Peoria-Pekin, IL 2,314 2,314 Bibb County, GA 1,940 1,940 Wausau, WI 1,880 Lexington, KY-TN-VA-WV 1,704 1,704 Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC-VA 1,200 1,200 Cleveland-Akron, OH-PA 940 940 Sacramento-Yolo, CA 900 900 Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 890 890 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH-RI-VT 880 880 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 800 800 Columbus, OH 600 600 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 466 466 To Houston Co. 1,880 June 2001 6-48 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-NC TOTAL Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 200 733,708 200 731,828 1,880 June 2001 6-49 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-22 Outbound Rail Intermodal Tonnage by Origin and Destination Rail Intermodal To: New Orleans, LA-MS Total Tons From Bibb Co. 69,286 From From Chatham Houston Co. Co. 69,286 From Twiggs Co. Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 62,120 62,120 Fulton County, GA 50,326 50,326 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 49,864 46,416 3,448 Jacksonville, FL-GA 49,134 49,134 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 48,048 48,048 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 46,048 46,048 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 42,394 42,394 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 35,140 32,400 2,740 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 16,522 16,522 Kansas City, MO-KS 15,796 15,796 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 14,976 14,976 Mobile, AL 14,504 14,504 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA 14,316 14,316 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 12,354 12,354 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 12,044 12,044 Nashville, TN-KY 11,364 11,364 Louisville, KY-IN 7,996 7,996 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK 7,496 7,496 Columbus, OH 7,162 7,162 Huntsville, AL-TN 6,902 6,902 Chatham County, GA 6,372 1,940 4,432 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 4,936 4,936 Orlando, FL 4,640 4,640 Birmingham, AL 4,054 4,054 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH-RI-VT 3,110 3,110 Knoxville, TN 2,304 2,304 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 1,678 1,678 Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY-IL 1,392 1,392 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 1,200 1,200 New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 1,200 1,200 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 880 880 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ-NM 790 790 St. Louis, MO-IL 200 200 TOTAL 626,548 1,940 613,988 2,740 7,880 June 2001 6-50 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Rail Carload From: Washington Co., GA Table 6-23 Inbound Rail Carload Tonnage by Origin and Destination Total Tons 1,236,022 To Bibb Co. 4,702 To Chatham Co. 1,227,220 To Effingham Co. To Glynn Co. 1,700 Warren County, GA 1,169,164 3,858 732,369 226,722 Lexington, KY-TN-VA-WV 1,044,594 191,252 293,268 327,815 Wilkinson County, GA 730,698 730,698 Jefferson County, GA 712,487 70,491 550,454 Monroe County, GA 546,077 61,406 117,881 366,790 Jones County, GA 491,945 13,727 355,766 115,864 Bibb County, GA 358,746 279,320 76,372 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 282,020 3,842 278,178 Richmond County, GA 275,107 15,218 130,702 77,507 Sumter County, GA 257,177 7,200 249,977 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 234,390 6,192 57,266 19,916 Minneapolis -St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 225,410 225,410 Macon County, GA 213,084 11,256 180,228 21,600 Knoxville, TN 204,148 40,775 119,258 Glynn County, GA 202,155 123,268 4,540 Mobile, AL 188,507 88,394 Chatham County, GA 176,333 3,850 102,294 Nashville, TN-KY 161,726 23,496 Baton Rouge, LA -MS 160,926 3,980 87,734 Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY-IL 158,505 9,502 59,280 Newberry County, SC 156,000 156,000 Indianapolis, IN-IL 155,615 Lowndes County, GA 143,512 9,876 40,166 74,054 McCormick County, SC 135,000 135,000 Morgan County, GA 125,124 125,124 Wilmington, NC-SC 122,146 122,146 Champaign-Urbana, IL 121,359 6,800 11,526 Jacksonville, FL-GA 118,025 11,145 102,530 4,350 New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 113,014 93,898 8,030 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA -NC 110,025 22,402 75,585 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 108,769 49,115 9,850 Twiggs County, GA 105,876 105,876 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-NC 105,726 61,176 Charlton County, GA 102,000 102,000 All Other 3,527,345 279,916 1,356,377 100,117 836,734 TOTAL 14,278,757 927,372 7,570,480 900,582 2,199,897 To Other 2,400 206,215 232,259 91,542 6,588 3,054 51,680 151,015 44,114 74,347 100,113 70,189 138,230 69,212 89,723 155,615 19,416 103,033 11,086 12,038 49,804 44,550 954,200 2,680,425 June 2001 6-51 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-24 Outbound Rail Carload Tonnage by Origin and Destination Rail Carload To: Total Tons From From From From Bibb Chatham Co. Talbot Wilkinson Co. Co. Co. Chatham County, GA 1,561,779 279,320 730,698 Jacksonville, FL-GA 479,458 2,240 249,355 117,014 Greenville, NC 374,159 333,967 Wayne County, GA 357,896 19,312 Richmond County, GA 320,246 187,834 113,316 Camden County, GA 304,778 22,928 Dougherty County, GA 292,529 3,838 Fulton County, GA 279,328 45,618 186,120 Gwinnett County, GA 261,813 15,484 Glynn County, GA 246,858 76,372 100,782 Decatur County, GA 232,740 48,313 65,424 Portland, ME 215,318 112,390 18,728 80,328 Wausau, WI 200,214 94,944 3,974 85,474 Orlando, FL 193,907 21,390 20,084 118,558 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 191,410 57,888 27,988 99,134 Bangor, ME 187,981 40,339 147,642 Bibb County, GA 182,469 3,850 Coffee County, GA 177,578 3,116 174,462 Birmingham, AL 175,958 53,446 11,032 2,246 Duluth-Superior, MN-WI 173,828 114,716 3,774 23,772 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK 160,570 11,550 7,740 104,944 Brantley County, GA 137,523 137,523 New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 131,510 64,130 17,540 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 131,134 2,880 92,224 DeKalb County, GA 127,286 6,634 28,358 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 120,680 3,818 21,180 69,722 Monroe, LA 114,870 83,036 4,320 27,514 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 111,339 5,168 73,863 Ware County, GA 111,290 111,290 Green Bay, WI-MI 109,898 42,842 8,470 42,566 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 108,988 36,560 19,080 11,788 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 107,512 13,336 86,246 Hall County, GA 103,920 2,000 91,430 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 99,632 26,692 15,560 Columbus, OH 99,002 51,708 Huntsville, AL-TN 96,562 73,228 21,094 All Other 3,264,472 365,633 960,349 67,734 334,742 TOTAL 11,546,436 1,513,086 2,487,140 966,673 2,094,804 From Other 551,761 110,849 40,192 338,584 19,096 281,850 288,691 47,589 246,329 69,704 119,003 3,872 15,822 33,875 6,400 178,619 109,234 31,566 36,336 49,840 36,030 92,294 25,960 32,308 16,020 41,560 7,930 10,490 57,381 47,294 2,240 1,536,013 4,484,733 June 2001 6-52 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Looking at intermodal rail tonnage, we see that Chatham County is the only county handling significant volumes. Its major trading partners include: New Orleans, Memphis, Atlanta, Charleston, Jacksonville, Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago and Cincinnati. This traffic is largely linked to the import and export of intermodal shipping containers through the Port of Savannah. Total intermodal rail tonnage to/from Chatham County is 1,345,716 tons, which is the equivalent of about 192,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) or 113,000 containers. We see a very different story for rail carload tonnage. On the inbound side, we see that Chatham County receives over half the rail carload tonnage inbound to study area counties. Eight of the top ten rail carload origin regions are counties within Georgia; the other two are Lexington, KY and Miami, FL. By far the largest single rail move is from Washington County, GA to Chatham County (1,227,220 tons, of which 1,054,500 tons are kaolin clay). The second largest move is from Warren County, GA to Chatham County (732,369 tons) and the third largest move is from Wilkinson County, GA to Chatham County (730,698 tons). Glynn County, which receives shipments for export through the Port of Brunswick, ranks second in inbound rail carload tonnage; Bibb County ranks third; and Effingham County ranks fourth. Together, these four counties account for 81% of rail carload tonnage inbound to the study area. The rail carload tonnage outbound from the study area is more evenly distributed among the study area counties. Chatham County is still the leading county, but is not nearly as dominant, accounting for 22% of outbound rail carload flows. Wilkinson, Bibb and Talbot counties round out the top four, which together represent 61% of total rail carload tonnage outbound. Nine of the top ten rail carload destinations are within Georgia, the largest of which is Chatham County itself. Using these trip tables, we can map the inbound and outbound commodity flows. However, this information does not include the effect of through tonnage. Therefore, the team has obtained national-level rail network flows developed by Reebie Associates for the U.S. Department of Transportation's "Multimodal Freight Analysis Framework" project. The national-level flows include all movements between U.S. origins and destinations, and provide network-level approximations of total rail tonnage flows within the study area. Figure 6-16 on the following page shows the pattern of rail carload tonnage flows in the southeastern United States. Within the state of Georgia, the dominant pattern is the concentration of rail activity in Atlanta -- the highest-density rail carload tonnage link in the state is between Atlanta and Macon, and the Atlanta-Birmingham, Atlanta-Montgomery, Atlanta-New Orleans, Atlanta-Nashville, Atlanta-Charlotte, Atlanta-Columbia and Atlanta-Jacksonville (via Waycross and Valdosta) lines are also heavily used. Another important pattern, although less dominant, is north-south traffic along the eastern seaboard between the Carolinas, Savannah and Brunswick, and Florida. June 2001 6-53 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-16 Regional Carload Tonnage (Rail) Figure 6-17 shows rail carload tonnage in the study area in greater detail. The coastal rail line south of Savannah carries the highest carload tonnage (18.8 to 21 million tons, depending on the segment). Other high carload tonnage tracks include the Savannah to Columbia, South Carolina line (17.1 million tons within the study area); the Macon to Atlanta line (16.8 million tons within the study area and increasing in tonnage north to Atlanta); the Atlanta to Jacksonville line cutting through the western portion of the study area from Talbot County to Cordele (over 14.7 million tons); and the western segments of the Macon to Savannah line (via Millen, Georgia, with over 10 million tons within the study area). Other important carload tonnage segments include the Macon to Cordele line (over 6 million tons); the Macon to Albany line (via Fort Valley and Americus, with over 2 million tons); the Columbus to Cordele line (over 2 million tons); and the Macon to Jessup line (via McRae, with nearly 3 million tons). The rail segments paralleling the HPC 6 and US 280 corridor alignments are not heavily used east of I-75 (where the preferred service appears to be via Macon and Millen), but are more heavily used west of I-75. June 2001 6-54 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-17 Study Area Carload Tonnage (Rail) Rail intermodal flows are substantially less than rail carload flows on a tonnage basis, and show a somewhat different distribution pattern in that they tend to be more concentrated at major seaports and urban centers than rail carload flows. As illustrated in Figure 6-18, we still see the heavy concentration of activity in the Atlanta region (particularly on the Atlanta-Jacksonville route) and along the eastern seaboard (with flows in and out of the Port of Savannah and other Atlantic coast intermodal marine terminals). June 2001 6-55 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-18 Regional Intermodal Tonnage (Rail) At the study area level, Figure 6-19 shows that intermodal flows follow a similar pattern as carload tonnage flows. For example, lines between Savannah and Jacksonville, Macon and Atlanta, and Atlanta and Cordele carry the heaviest intermodal tonnage. The figure shows little, if any, intermodal flows over track between Columbus and Macon, Macon and Vidalia, Cordele and Vidalia, and Vidalia and Savannah. (When reading the maps, it is important to keep in mind that labels indicating "0.0" million tons do not necessarily indicate that a particular segment has no tonnage; the labels only indicate a segment carries less than 100,000 tons). Intermodal movements along the lines paralleling the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors are minimal. June 2001 6-56 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-19 Study Area Intermodal Tonnage (Rail) Truck Flows and Volumes As with rail, in order to determine how the study area truck flows impact the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors, we need to examine the general origin/destination patterns, develop county-level origin-destination matrices, and map the origin-destination information against the national truck network. For inbound tonnage, the leading origin is the state of Georgia itself, followed by the states of Florida and Alabama. For outbound tonnage, the leading destination is also the state of Georgia itself, followed by the states of Florida and North Carolina. On the inbound side, most of the tonnage originates in the southeast and southwest, with decreasing volumes to more distant states. On the outbound side, there is more traffic to distant states in the northeast and midwest. The major origin-destination pairs and associated tonnages for these truck moves are indicated in Tables 6-25 and 6-26 below. (The complete origin-destination tables contain over 63,000 cells, so these are substantially abridged for presentation purposes.) June 2001 6-57 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-25 Inbound Truck Tonnage by Origin and Destination Truck From: Fulton County, GA Total Tons 8,761,641 To Bibb To Chatham Co. County 1,097,311 1,545,209 To Glynn To Mus-cogee County Co. 540,121 927,521 Gwinnett County, GA 3,007,117 328,757 520,063 185,027 263,964 DeKalb County, GA 1,535,757 188,228 305,770 88,300 178,518 Richmond County, GA 1,336,451 154,205 268,262 81,540 137,805 Chatham County, GA 1,313,427 227,485 101,075 180,438 Jacksonville, FL-GA 1,209,487 31,693 926,076 25,080 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 961,098 89,446 427,330 62,411 Bibb County, GA 959,204 318,889 121,563 97,557 Cobb County, GA 905,406 118,540 210,202 46,312 120,869 Clayton County, GA 795,406 89,612 143,497 48,294 78,829 Hall County, GA 764,479 101,014 175,464 39,614 100,517 Dougherty County, GA 723,980 110,784 108,093 104,435 59,988 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 612,275 64,006 366,239 33,190 Mobile, AL 580,023 46,706 273,894 40,279 Clarke County, GA 577,038 72,364 112,891 33,132 74,480 Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 495,525 115,373 147,580 164,479 Muscogee County, GA 464,710 72,813 103,274 30,160 Tupelo, MS-AL-TN 443,435 215,269 189,252 7,618 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-NC 425,038 37,853 210,277 34,304 Elbert County, GA 420,584 55,458 86,672 20,299 67,846 Whitfield County, GA 398,624 83,629 73,341 27,291 52,729 New Orleans, LA -MS 392,842 5,195 310,207 40,118 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 385,186 85,822 202,648 21,373 Wilmington, NC-SC 374,465 45,026 146,261 30,391 Birmingham, AL 361,567 38,107 143,795 37,911 Baton Rouge, LA -MS 347,448 78,881 242,309 5,610 Floyd County, GA 339,082 45,141 73,909 18,890 48,985 Jackson County, GA 338,649 46,954 72,397 16,713 58,569 Columbia, SC 324,711 31,614 149,406 28,301 Barrow County, GA 322,665 38,608 61,100 18,872 38,291 Jackson, MS-AL-LA 319,582 79,155 148,720 28,851 Orlando, FL 317,718 46,016 90,096 35,218 Colquitt County, GA 312,238 58,386 58,963 19,002 34,388 Putnam County, GA 290,982 46,347 112,610 26,016 24,030 Cleveland-Akron, OH-PA 273,559 107,117 120,901 10,285 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 264,240 28,962 147,894 19,770 All Other 14,857,839 2,263,862 3,452,229 2,666,323 1,657,203 TOTAL 46,513,478 6,345,740 12,045,721 4,232,979 4,827,716 To Other 4,651,478 1,709,305 774,941 694,638 804,430 226,638 381,911 421,195 409,483 435,175 347,870 340,680 148,841 219,144 284,171 68,093 258,463 31,296 142,603 190,309 161,634 37,322 75,343 152,787 141,755 20,648 152,156 144,016 115,391 165,794 62,856 146,388 141,500 81,980 35,255 67,614 4,818,224 19,061,322 June 2001 6-58 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table 6-26 Outbound Truck Tonnage by Origin and Destination Truck To: Fulton County, GA Total Tons 8,439,872 From Bibb From Chat-ham From Glynn From Mus- County County County cogee County 1,098,285 2,153,913 472,737 834,659 DeKalb County, GA 1,827,141 297,955 551,559 80,172 198,868 Cobb County, GA 1,700,651 272,036 564,871 66,310 177,836 Gwinnett County, GA 1,279,982 206,068 386,018 54,212 133,202 Jacksonville, FL-GA 1,109,069 53,911 733,590 35,701 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,072,212 141,807 407,230 94,659 Chatham County, GA 975,890 318,889 40,543 103,274 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 807,309 231,243 228,921 54,345 New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NYNJ-CT-PA-MA-VT Carroll County, GA 775,053 643,748 106,158 69,555 509,515 144,776 11,952 43,656 75,809 Wilmington, NC-SC 633,703 205,597 312,759 9,955 Richmond County, GA 617,978 122,663 204,000 24,785 76,170 Birmingham, AL 591,231 92,944 112,562 70,028 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-NC 590,041 60,293 194,725 77,920 Bibb County, GA 586,684 227,485 80,190 72,813 Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 586,265 98,616 241,705 47,522 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WVPA Muscogee County, GA 574,506 493,859 290,509 97,557 129,260 180,438 23,307 41,697 Clayton County, GA 483,354 81,972 154,828 17,641 51,692 Hall County, GA 453,009 82,161 158,958 14,553 52,630 Oklahoma City, OK 444,169 72,071 153,647 53,420 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 435,474 21,792 356,580 8,779 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 400,403 92,169 194,140 21,977 Orlando, FL 398,035 101,979 100,393 33,704 Lowndes County, GA 392,384 77,861 132,278 8,523 48,947 Wausau, WI 365,219 360,435 3,266 808 Whitfield County, GA 361,712 61,134 114,503 14,654 53,131 Dougherty County, GA 360,427 64,030 124,956 10,546 42,170 Wilkinson County, GA 352,580 65,465 131,107 520 44,663 Greenville, NC 346,186 140,716 84,977 7,164 Glynn County, GA 344,157 121,562 101,075 30,160 Chattanooga, TN-GA 333,863 14,809 205,487 21,473 Clarke County, GA 317,635 59,003 95,021 11,437 38,342 Floyd County, GA 315,568 56,575 104,015 8,873 38,992 Bangor, ME 306,409 305,582 376 272 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, PA-NJDE-MD All Other 305,027 16,924,233 62,991 3,510,402 139,012 5,692,525 1,223,580 20,335 1,641,428 TOTAL 46,945,034 9,116,798 15,330,470 2,164,534 4,358,200 From Other 3,880,277 698,588 619,598 500,482 285,867 428,517 513,183 292,799 115,723 341,656 105,393 190,359 315,697 257,104 206,196 198,422 113,040 192,557 177,220 144,706 165,031 48,323 92,117 161,958 124,775 709 118,290 118,724 110,825 113,329 91,360 92,094 113,832 107,112 179 82,688 4,856,298 15,975,032 June 2001 6-59 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Trucking patterns involve substantially more origin-destination pairs than rail patterns. One would expect that the inbound and outbound truck tonnage would be more evenly distributed among the study area counties than the rail tonnage, and this turns out to be the case. The top four counties for inbound tonnage (Chatham, Bibb, Muscogee, and Glynn) account for 59% of the inbound tonnage, and the top four counties for outbound tonnage (the same) account for 66% of outbound tonnage. Interestingly, however, when we look at the origins and destinations outside the study area, we actually see more geographic clustering with trucks than with rail Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Cobb County and DeKalb County are clearly dominant. For inbound moves, the leading origin-destination pairs are Fulton to Chatham, Fulton to Bibb and Fulton to Muscogee; for outbound moves, the leading pairs are Chatham to Fulton, Bibb to Fulton and Muscogee to Fulton. National-level truck flows were also developed by Reebie Associates and mapped as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation's "Multimodal Freight Analysis Framework" project. As with rail, these maps include all national flows, not just flows inbound to and outbound from the study area. The national flows depicted on Figure 6-20 on the following page indicate not surprisingly -- that the largest truck flows within the state of Georgia are correlated with the interstate highway system, and that they center on Atlanta. The heaviest tonnage segments in Georgia are Atlanta-Macon-Orlando, Atlanta-Birmingham, Atlanta-Charlotte and AtlantaNashville. Just below these segments in terms of volume are I-95 through Savannah and Brunswick and I-16 from Savannah to Macon. June 2001 6-60 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-20 Regional Truck Tonnage Figure 6-21 on the following page shows more specifically which roads and highways in Central Georgia carry the greatest tonnage. The highest tonnage segments include: I-475 west of Macon (with 61.4 million tons); I-75 south of Macon (58.6 million tons); I-95 north and south of Savannah (32.9 to 35 million tons); I-16 from Macon to Savannah (24.6 to 31.7 million tons); I-185 north of Columbus (over 12.6 million tons); and U.S. 280 south of Columbus (8 million tons). Further detail of the corridor routes (I-16, S.R. 96, U.S. 80, and U.S. 280) is provided in the following figure, 6-22. It is important to note here, as with the railroad maps, labels indicating "0.0" million tons do not necessarily indicate that a particular segment has no tonnage; the labels only indicate a segment carries less than 100,000 tons (0.1 million tons). June 2001 6-61 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-21 Study Area Truck Tonnage June 2001 6-62 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 6-22 Corridor Routes Truck Tonnage June 2001 6-63 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Conclusions The commodity flow data presented in this section has been used to develop an overall profile of freight movement within the study area as a whole, within the individual counties comprising the study area, and within the highway and rail transportation network serving the study area. Key findings include: Looking at domestic tonnage inbound to and outbound from the 45 study area counties, a total of 122,000,000 tons was handled in 1998. Tonnage inbound to these counties was slightly higher than tonnage outbound. Trucks handled more than 75 percent of the tonnage, while rail handled just more than 22 percent. Water handled a little more than one percent of domestic tonnage (not including international shipments through the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick). Air cargo activity is quite low within the study area, representing less than 0.1 percent of total tonnage. More than 7.5 million loaded truck moves into and out of the study area counties were associated with this level of activity, along with almost 550,000 loaded railcar moves. Through trucks are by far the most dominant truck moves and are higher than all other categories combined. Almost 133,000,000 through tons are entirely external to the study area. This does not include an additional 94,000,000 tons that are inbound or outbound from the study area, and which may pass through one or more study area counties on their routes. By far the largest share of tonnage (about 50 percent) is between the study area and other Georgia counties outside the study area, and the Atlanta area generates more tonnage into and out of the study area than any other part of the country. Eleven percent of the tonnage remains entirely within the study area. Around ten percent of the tonnage is flowing between the study area counties and other states on the HPC alignment (Alabama, Mississippi, and states due west that could be reached on the alignment). Most of the remaining tonnage (17 to 18 percent) is to and from the southeast U.S., and the remainder (13 to 14 percent) is to and from the rest of the United States. These figures indicate that the study area is not dominated by a simple "corridor" type of move from one point to another. Rather, it is a complex set of flows with different purposes: 1. Providing connectivity within the study area and within the state of Georgia; 2. Providing connectivity with the states due west along the HPC 6 alignment; 3. Providing connectivity between study area counties and the rest of the U.S.; 4. Accommodating internal movements within each of the study area counties; and 5. Accommodating through movements. We see that secondary traffic principally associated with warehousing and distribution of a wide variety of commodity types is the leading class of tonnage. Clay, concrete, glass, and stone which includes kaolin clay, wet cement, and other heavy materials is the second leading class. Lumber, food, and chemicals round out the top five classes. Overall, the picture is one of highly diversified types of commodity movements. Looking at commodities moving inbound to study area counties, secondary traffic is clearly dominant. Looking at the outbound commodities, however, we see that Clay, concrete, glass, and stone is the leading type. Generally, we can interpret this to mean that the study area counties are exporting more raw materials and manufactured products, and importing more warehoused products and consumer goods. June 2001 6-64 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The counties within the study area are widely divergent in terms of their types and levels of freight activity. By a wide margin, the leading county in terms of inbound and outbound tonnage is Chatham County, which is home to a number of major industries, as well as the Port of Savannah, and accounts for 33 percent of the study area's inbound and outbound tonnage. Other leading counties for freight tonnage include Bibb, Muscogee, Glynn (home to the Port of Brunswick), Wilkinson, and Houston Counties. Other counties with more than two million tons include Twiggs, Crisp, Laurens, Sumter, and Liberty; together, the 11 counties with more than two million tons represent 83 percent of the total inbound and outbound tonnage in the study area. The most significant impact of this is that trip origins and destinations are not evenly distributed throughout the study area, but tend to be heavily clustered in areas of more intense economic activity, separated by areas of lesser activity. This, in turn, implies several levels of functionality for the HPC 6 and U.S. 280 corridors: 1. Serving established clusters of intense freight movement and economic activity, including Georgia's international seaports; 2. Serving smaller but economically important clusters that currently exist outside of major activity areas; and 3. Serving economically emergent (or potentially emergent) areas by accommodating future development of freight-generating land uses. In terms of modal share, most of the study area counties are dominated by trucks. Some counties including Emmanuel, Toombs, Tatnall, and Harris show 100 percent of their tonnage by truck. But there are many counties that also move a substantial share of their traffic by rail, including Talbot (87 percent), Crawford (78 percent), Effingham (53 percent), and Macon (50 percent). Georgia's ports and waterways both publicly and privately owned and operated are a vital component of its statewide transportation system and its link to international markets. Taken together, more than 20 million tons of commodities were moved through nearly 40 public and private terminals in the state of Georgia in calendar year 1998. The presence of these facilities the Port of Savannah in Chatham County, the Port of Brunswick in Glynn County, and the Port of Columbus in Muscogee County places unique demands on the landside transportation system, because import and export goods (international cargo moves) must be moved to and from these ports by truck and rail (as domestic cargo moves). For inbound and outbound rail intermodal tonnage, we see that Chatham County is the only county handling significant volumes. This traffic is largely linked to the import and export of intermodal shipping containers through the Port of Savannah. Looking at the national-level flows, rail intermodal flows are substantially less than rail carload flows on a tonnage basis, and tend to be more concentrated at major seaports and urban centers. The dominant patterns are in the Atlanta region (particularly on the Atlanta-Jacksonville route) and along the eastern seaboard (with flows in and out of the Port of Savannah and other Atlantic coast intermodal marine terminals). Within the study area level, the lines between Savannah and Jacksonville, Macon and Atlanta, and Atlanta and Cordele carry the heaviest intermodal tonnage; there are little, if any, intermodal rail flows between Columbus and Macon, Macon and Vidalia, Cordele and Vidalia, and Vidalia and Savannah. Intermodal movements along the lines paralleling the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors are minimal. June 2001 6-65 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report For inbound and outbound rail carload tonnage, Chatham County handles most of the inbound tonnage, but the outbound tonnage is more evenly distributed among other study area counties. Other significant rail counties include Glynn, Bibb, Effingham, Wilkinson and Talbott. Looking at the national-level flows, the dominant pattern is the concentration of rail activity in Atlanta. Within the study area, the coastal rail line through Savannah carries the highest carload tonnage; other high carload tonnage tracks include the Savannah to Columbia, South Carolina line , the Macon to Atlanta line, the Atlanta to Jacksonville line, and the western segments of the Macon to Savannah line (via Millen, Georgia. Other important carload tonnage segments include the Macon to Cordele line, the Macon to Albany line, the Columbus to Cordele line, and the Macon to Jessup line (via McRae, with nearly 3 million tons). The rail segments paralleling the HPC 6 and US 280 corridor alignments are not heavily used east of I-75 (where the preferred service appears to be via Macon and Millen), but are more heavily used west of I-75. Inbound and outbound truck tonnage is more evenly distributed among would be more evenly distributed among the study area counties than the rail tonnage. The top four counties for inbound tonnage (Chatham, Bibb, Muscogee, and Glynn) account for 59% of the inbound tonnage, and the top four counties for outbound tonnage (the same) account for 66% of outbound tonnage. Interestingly, however, when we look at the origins and destinations outside the study area, we actually see more clustering around the Atlanta region. Looking at national-level truck flows, we see that the heaviest flows are correlated with the interstate highway system, and that they center on Atlanta. Within the study area, the heaviest segments are I-475 west of Macon, I-75 south of Macon, I-95 north and south of Savannah, I-16 from Macon to Savannah, I-185 north of Columbus and U.S. 280 south of Columbus. In subsequent phases of the study effort, this extensive base of data will allow the team to: Forecast future county-to-county flows by commodity type and mode; Forecast future volumes over the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors; Determine the extent to which different types of improvements to the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors would affect existing routing patterns (by diverting traffic to or from alternative routes); Determine the extent to which rail improvements might generate increases in rail share (in lieu of truck traffic); and Develop measures of system volumes and congestion to allow for evaluation of alternative improvement strategies. June 2001 6-66 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 7 Existing Transportation System Performance Background and Purpose One of the primary purposes of the Central Georgia Corridor Study is the identification of existing and anticipated future transportation infrastructure needs. Phase I addresses existing conditions, while Phase II will evaluate expected future conditions. Once existing needs are identified, short-term investment strategies and transportation projects are developed, prioritizing projects within the Georgia DOT work program can be initiated. Conducting an inventory of existing transportation system components, such as highway and rail networks is the first step in the process of gaining a comprehensive understanding of system performance. System components can then be evaluated using well-structured performance measures that provide an objective analytical approach to identifying deficiencies and system infrastructure needs. For this study, system performance will be combined with information from interviews, and the analysis of other transport data to develop a comprehensive description of the study area's needs. To develop transportation system investment strategies and projects for the study area, it is also essential to understand the important role transportation investments play in economic development. Transportation system investments combined with a variety of other social and economic factors are ultimately intended to improve the quality of life. Reducing congestion, improving safety, and maintaining infrastructure are central transportation investment goals. Encouraging and sustaining healthy economic conditions is also a key role in defining transportation investments particularly in rural areas. Areas in the study may not be encountering significant congestion or safety needs, but may gain significant economic benefits from transportation investments. There are areas in the study area that may require a greater emphasis on social and economic programs to help with economic sustainability. The intent of this section is to provide a technical assessment of transportation system performance along with an assessment of the availability of transportation infrastructure within the study area. While transportation infrastructure plays an important role in the economic health of a region, there are several factors beyond infrastructure that can influence economic growth. A critical element of this section simultaneously addresses both the existing economic vitality and the availability of the existing transportation system that serves each county. The intent is to match economic vitality with existing transportation infrastructure to identify any potential gaps. Overview of the Approach / Methodology This section provides a summary of transportation system components and provides a summary of the performance of each component. An assessment of appropriate investment strategies at the county level is also provided, in the context of county economic conditions and existing regional transportation accessibility. Superimposing county economic conditions with a measure transportation accessibility provides a framework to group counties into investment strategy June 2001 7-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report categories. It also remains consistent with other State initiatives, including the Georgia Rural Development Council work on organizing economic development strategies for all Georgia counties. Transportation System Components Highway Network The major interstate highways serving the study area are I-95 along the coast, I-75 in the central region, and I-16 traveling between Macon and Savannah. Connecting interstates in the study area include I-185 serving Columbus, I-475 near Macon, and I-516 in Savannah. The study area is served by numerous US highways. Figure 7-1 Central Georgia Corridor Highway Network - Major Highways Sou rc e: National Transportation Atlas and Day Wilburn A ssoc iates, Inc. ,.-85 ,.-18 5 "!9 6 Colum bus .-,475 Mac o n .-,16 ,.-75 /(2 8 0 Alba ny HPC S ix C orridor US 280 Corridor Interstates Highways Study Area C ounties Georgia Counties ,.-5 16 Sa va nn ah ,.-95 N Brun s wic k W E S June 2001 7-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) is a planned system of multi-lane highways throughout the State of Georgia (Figure 7-2). Much of the GRIP system is complete or under construction. US highways in the study area that are on the GRIP system include US27, US19, US441, US84, and US1. The State Legislature also recently added US280 to the GRIP system. Portions of US341, US301, and State Route (SR) 21 are also on the GRIP system. Figure 7-2 (Source: GDOT) Figure 7-3, provides a visual representation of Georgia DOT traffic count data. The highest traffic volumes in the study area are primarily in and near metropolitan areas. Significant traffic volumes also occur in portions of the small urban areas such as Statesboro, Hinesville, Swainsboro, Vidalia, Dublin, Americus, and Thomaston. With the exception of interstate highways and access routes to/from metropolitan core cities, there are few clear patterns of major corridor flows in the study area. June 2001 7-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-3 Central Georgia Corridor Highway Network - Traffic Volumes Sou rc e: GDOT Road Characteristics and Day Wilburn As soc iates, Inc. HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corridor Daily Traffic Volume Less than 6500 6500 - 16800 16800 - 32200 Over 32200 Study Area Counties N W E S To estimate levels of congestion in the corridor, traffic handling capacity of the highway system must be quantified. Data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) provide a standardized process for developing system capacities on a regional or statewide basis. Through the HPMS program, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires states to collect and report detailed statistics on a large number of specified roadway segments. The data is used to compare the overall system performance of highway networks throughout the US. Using HPMS data for study area roadways, average capacities per lane were calculated by roadway functional class. The calculated capacities were applied to each highway segment to estimate a level-of-service by simply dividing each road segment's traffic count by the estimated capacity for that segment (volume/capacity). Figure 7-4 identifies congested areas and is consistent with the traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 7-5. The congestion problems logically follow the same pattern, occurring primarily in metropolitan and small urban areas. Few clear areas of congestion currently occur in the study area. Phase II of the project will examine future transportation demands that could indicate additional facilities that may experience congestion if no additional transportation improvements are implemented. June 2001 7-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-4 Central Georgia Corridor Highway Network - Level-of-Service Sou rc e: GDOT Road Characteristics and Day Wilburn As soc iates, Inc. HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corridor Level-of-Service Significant Congestion Minor Congestion Uncongested Study Area Counties N W E S Since trucks have a significant impact on roadway capacity, maintenance and safety, it is important to identify corridors with high truck volumes. Georgia DOT maintains estimates of the percentage of trucks using various types of roadways. Generally, these estimates place the highest percentage of trucks on interstate highways. Since rural interstates have lower overall traffic volumes than urban interstates, they typically have higher truck percentages. This is also true for non-interstate highways, where rural highways carry a higher percentage of the trucks than urban highways. When the truck percentages are applied to traffic counts, the estimated number of trucks closely follows the observed overall traffic volume. The highest truck volumes occur on interstate highways, in metropolitan areas, and in small urban areas. This is generally consistent with the results obtained in the commodity flow analysis documented in Section 6 of this report. Phase II of the study will include an examination of the impact of trucks on highway maintenance. June 2001 7-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-5 Central Georgia Corridor Highway Network - Truck Volumes Sou rc e: GDOT Road Characteristics and Day Wilburn As soc iates, Inc. HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corridor Truck Volumes Less than 2000 2000 - 5000 Over 5000 Study Area Counties N W E S Safety is another measure of overall highway system performance and is particularly relevant when addressing truck travel. Accident rates per million vehicle miles traveled were calculated as measure of highway safety using Department of Public Safety (DPS) accident data for 19951997. The rates are compared to statewide averages for similar roadways to identify road segments with an unusually high number of accidents. Segments exceeding the statewide average for similar facilities occur throughout the study area, with a slight disproportionate share occurring in rural counties. If traffic volumes are low, a small number of accidents can produce high accident rates. In fact, a single accident in a three-year analysis period can produce an accident rate exceeding the statewide average if traffic volumes are very low. To identify segments with unusually high accident rates, more stringent requirements should be applied. For this assessment, segments having an unusually high number of accidents were limited to locations where the average number of accidents over a three-year period is equal to or exceeds one, and the accident rate is equal to or exceeds twice the statewide average. Using these criteria, few high accident locations exist in rural areas, except in locations near intersections with other significant highways. The most significant high accident locations are in metropolitan June 2001 7-6 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report or small urban areas. Accidents involving large commercial vehicles occur primarily on interstate highways and in metropolitan areas. Commercial vehicle accidents, excluding those on interstate highways, are more dispersed, occurring throughout the study area. There were 84 accidents occurring at railroad crossings from 1995 to 1997, eight involved fatalities. Although most railroad crossing accidents occurred in metropolitan areas, most of the fatalities occurred in rural areas. The Georgia DOT's Construction Work Program (CWP) provides a statewide list of transportation projects over a six-year period. The CWP also includes long-range projects that lack sufficient funding to be included in the six-year program, but will be considered for funding when sources are identified. Currently the CWP (as of February 2001) includes a strong focus on completing the GRIP system within the study area. Significant portions of US27, US19, SR96, US341, US441, US1, and US84 are programmed for construction within the next six-years. I-95 is also programmed for widening within the next six-years. Widening a portion of US280 west of I-75 is included as a long-range project (beyond six-years). To develop a general picture of the infrastructure and safety needs in the study corridor, a simple set of criteria were used. Road segments with a volume equal to or exceeding 70% of the estimated capacity, with accident rates twice the statewide average or higher1, or with a truck percentage of 20% or higher were identified. The list of identified road segments was reduced to include only locations where no projects that addressed the potential need were included in the current CWP. Figure 7-6 displays the resulting segments. 1 Excluding locations where the average number of accidents per year is less than one. June 2001 7-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-6 Central Georgia Corridor Highway Network - Identified Needs Without Projects in the CWP Sou rc e: GDOT Road Characteristics and Day Wilburn As soc iates, Inc. HP C S ix C or r id o r US 2 8 0 C or r id o r Ide n ti fie d N ee d s (w /o P ro j ec ts) V /C & A c ci d en ts V /C R a tio Tr uc ks & A cc id e n ts A cci d e nts Tr uc ks Hi gh w a ys S tud y A re a C o un ti e s G e o rg ia C o u n tie s N W E S In general, the primary existing infrastructure needs2 are in metropolitan and small urban areas. Congestion problems are almost entirely limited to metropolitan areas. The highest truck volumes are generally on interstate highways, with rural highways generally carrying a larger percentage of trucks than urban highways. These general observations and specific identified needs will be used to develop "fast-track" projects and later to guide alternatives analysis. 2 Excluding economic development as a criterion for defining "need." June 2001 7-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Transportation System Components Rail Network The study area is served by a relatively extensive rail network, consisting of approximately 1360 miles of track. There are two major railroad companies serving the study area, Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad. These carriers operate approximately 700 miles of railroad in the study area. Table 7-1 displays the estimated major carrier mileage within each of the study area counties. Figure 7-7 highlights the rail network. The map also illustrates County Bibb Bleckley Bryan Table 7-1 Miles of Major Carrier Rail 55.6 15.2 15.6 short-line railroad lines that serve the study Bulloch 0.0 area. One notable corridor related to this Candler 0.0 study is the rail line that parallels the US280 corridor. This rail line is owned by the State of Chatham Chattahoochee Crawford 64.2 0.0 4.3 Georgia. Crisp 32.6 Dodge 28.6 The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) is Dooly 38.7 constructing a major new intermodal rail Effingham 51.3 facility in Chatham County, the Mason Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF). Emanuel Evans Glynn 0.0 0.0 42.4 According to the GPA, the facility will span Harris 21.0 "over 150 acres, and at final build-out will Houston 30.4 include 40,000 feet of lead track and 80 acres Johnson 10.1 for container storage and marshaling." Laurens 11.6 Lee 21.1 Mason Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (Source: Georgia Ports Authority) Liberty Long Macon 26.2 13.2 45.9 Marion 0.0 McIntosh 0.0 Montgomery 0.0 Muscogee 35.7 Peach 25.0 Pulaski 0.0 Schley 0.0 Stewart 0.0 Sumter 21.6 Talbot 40.6 Tattnall 0.0 Taylor 40.0 Telfair 20.6 Terrell 0.0 Toombs 0.0 Treutlen 0.0 Twiggs 22.1 Upson 10.9 Webster 0.0 Wheeler 0.0 Wilcox 6.1 Wilkinson 32.8 June 2001 7-9 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-7 Central Georgia Corridor Railroad Network Sou rc e: National Transportation Atlas and Day Wilburn A ssoc iates, Inc. HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corridor Major Carrier Railroads Norfolk Southern CSX Other Railroads Study Area Counties N W E S The primary rail traffic is almost exclusively on major rail carrier lines, specifically on lines along the coast, from Savannah to Atlanta, and from Florida to Atlanta. Detailed rail statistics are documented in the commodity flow chapter. June 2001 7-10 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Transportation System Components Airports There are four commercial airports within the study area, Savannah International, Middle Georgia Regional (Macon-Warner Robins), Columbus Metropolitan, and Brunswick-Glynco Jetport. Southwest Georgia Regional in Albany also serves several counties in the study area. Savannah International handles a large majority of air passengers using airports in the study area (777,217 in 1999). The market area for Hartsfield Atlanta International extends well into the study area. Since the Columbus and Macon-Warner Robins areas are well within Hartsfield's domain, the Columbus Regional (94,120 in 1999) and Middle Georgia Regional (30,493 in 1999) airports handle relatively few passengers. Figure 7-8 e e Central GeorgeiaeeeCeoerridoree e ee e Aireports ee e ee e e e e ee Sou rce: GDOT and Day Wilburn Associates, Inc. ee e e HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corridor Airp o rt s e e Comm ercial Airport eeeee ee Regional Business Airport e Other Airports /F acilities ee e e ee e ee ee e e ee e ee e Study Area Counties e ee e e ee ee e ee e e e e ee ee e e e eee e e e e e e e ee e e ee ee e e ee ee ee e e e ee e e e ee e N e eW E e S Within the State of Georgia over 99% of air cargo is handled by Hartsfield Atlanta, Savannah International, and Southwest Georgia Regional airports. Express packaging services such as UPS and Federal Express use these airports as distribution hubs that serve the entire study area. Air cargo's share of the overall cargo shipped within the study area is less than one-percent. General aviation airports serve an important role in attracting new businesses, particularly those equipped to serve corporate jets using high level weather, navigational, and approach equipment. The Georgia Statewide Aviation System Plan (GSASP) classifies general aviation June 2001 7-11 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report airports into categories according to the sophistication of the airport's equipment and physical characteristics such as runway length. The three classifications used in the GSASP are: Level III Business Airport of Regional Impact Level II Business Airport of Local Impact Level I Minimum Standard Utility Airports: Level III airports are generally capable of handling corporate aircraft using precision guidance equipment. Level II airports are generally capable of handling corporate aircraft using nonprecision guidance equipment. Level I airports generally serve non-corporate general aviation aircraft. Upon full implementation of the GSASP, every area in the state will be within a 45minute drive of a Business Airport of Regional Impact and within 30-minutes of a Business Airport of Local Impact. June 2001 7-12 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Transportation System Components Ports The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) operates port facilities in Savannah, Brunswick, Columbus, and Bainbridge. Each facility is within the study area, except Bainbridge. The facilities in Savannah and Brunswick are large deepwater ports and Columbus is strictly a river barge facility. Figure 7-9 rrrr Central Georgia Corridor rrrrr Ports and Major Freight Terminals Sou rc e: National Transportation Atlas and Day Wilburn A ssoc iates, Inc. HP C Six Corridor US 280 Corr idor rr Major Ports r Major F reight T erminals Study Area Counties r rrrrr r r r rr N W E S The Port of Savannah is one of the leading ports in the United States, consisting of GPA's Garden City Terminal and Ocean Terminal, and numerous privately owned facilities along the Savannah River. At over 1000 acres, GPA's largest facility is the Garden City Terminal handles many types of cargo, but primarily specializes in containerized cargo. When open, the Mason ICTF will serve the Garden City Terminal. GPA's Ocean Terminal is over 200 acres and handles noncontainerized cargo. Private terminals in the Port of Savannah handle a significant amounts of cargo, with some serving multiple customers and others serving individual manufacturers. The Port of Brunswick, is also an important seaport, specializing in the transport of automobiles and other non-containerized cargo. GPA has three facilities in the Port of Brunswick. Colonel's Island Terminal is nearly 350 acres and primarily handles automobiles and agricultural products. GPA's other Brunswick facilities, Mayor's Point Terminal and Marine Port Terminal, consist of June 2001 7-13 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report over 150 acres and handle non-containerized cargo. The Port of Brunswick also consists of several privately operated terminals that principally serve individual manufacturers. Port facilities in Columbus handle far less cargo than Savannah and Brunswick. Terminal facilities in Columbus are served by barges and operate as an alternative to transport by truck or rail. June 2001 7-14 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report The Transportation System's Role in Economic Development The Georgia Rural Development Council's (GRDC) recommendations for infrastructure investment strategies differ for areas with varying economic conditions. Recommendations call for key infrastructure investment, the provision of more transportation options, and preservation of intrinsic qualities in areas with growing economies. In areas with stable economies, the GRDC recommendations attempt to broaden the sphere of economic influence with key infrastructure investments and workforce investments. In areas with lagging or declining economies, the recommendations focus on better connection to the "regional growth engines." To be consistent with the recommendations of the GRDC, this study relies on the Council's Economic Vitality Index (EVI), and identifies areas that serve as "regional growth engines." Growth engines are categorized as central cities of counties with an EVI other than lagging or declining, a population of at least 20,000, and an employment of at least 10,000. The following areas meet the criteria: Metropolitan Areas: Brunswick Columbus Macon-Warner Robins-Perry Savannah Small Urban Areas: Americus Dublin Statesboro Thomaston Vidalia-Lyons Although Albany is just outside the study area, it also serves as a growth engine. Cordele nearly qualifies, only lacking a county employment of at least 10,000 (9,395). To determine how transportation infrastructure is currently influencing economic growth, a transportation "accessibility index" was developed gauge the impact that transportation infrastructure could have on county economic status. The accessibility index represents an unweighted numeric value that captures the amount of transportation infrastructure accessible to each county. The following factors were used to develop the index. Proximity to an interstate highway Proximity to a commercial airport Proximity to a business airport of regional impact (GSASP Level III) Proximity to major freight terminals (ports and intermodal rail facilities) Miles of multilane highways Miles of major rail carrier railroads June 2001 7-15 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Each county received a score for each factor according to its percentile ranking compared to other counties in the study area. Scores were assigned according to the following percentiles: Percentile Range 90+% 70-89% 50-69% 40-49% <40% Score 4 3 2 1 0 The average of the scores for each factor determined each county's assigned transportation accessibility index according to the following ranges: Average Score 3.5 or higher 2.5-3.5 1.5-2.5 0.5-1.5 <0.5 Accessibility Index Excellent Good Average Low Poor By overlaying the transportation accessibility index and the economic vitality index, a comparison between access to transportation infrastructure and the economic status of each county can be made. The following section summarizes the bivariate assessment of transportation access and economic vitality. June 2001 7-16 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Summary of Key Findings Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the study area population is categorized as "Growing" counties, 42% as "Existing and Emerging Growth Centers," 18% as "Lagging" counties, and less than 2% as "Declining" counties. A major of the study area's population resides in counties with relatively stagnant or poor economic conditions. Transportation infrastructure investment is one of the mechanisms needed to improve economic conditions. However, over 75% of the study area population resides in counties with good or excellent regional transportation access. Therefore, to encourage improved economic conditions it is important to direct transportation investments toward areas that need improved regional accessibility. It is important to direct transportation investments, particularly given limited funding resources, to areas that have existing transportation deficiencies or are most likely to benefit economically. Each of the metropolitan area growth areas (Brunswick, Columbus, Macon-Warner RobinsPerry, and Savannah) has excellent regional transportation access. Transportation infrastructure investment is primarily needed in these areas to address capacity, efficiency, and safety. Specific rural portions in the study area would benefit economically from improvements in regional accessibility. Certain safety and operational improvements also exist in rural areas. Of the small urban area growth areas (Americus, Dublin, Statesboro, Thomaston, Vidalia-Lyons), Americus and Statesboro also have good transportation access. Dublin, Thomaston, and VidaliaLyons have average regional transportation access, and would likely benefit most from transportation infrastructure investments. The remainder of this section summarizes county specific findings grouped by EVI categories. June 2001 7-17 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-10 Central Georgia Corridor Economic Vitality vs. Transportation Access Growing Counties Sou rc e: D ay Wilburn A ssocia te s, I nc . HPC Six Co rrid or US 28 0 Co rrid or Cou nty Acce ssib ility & Ec on omi c V it alit y Gro wing w ith Exce ll en t Acce ss Gro wing w ith G oo d Acce ss Gro wing w ith Ave rag e Acce ss Stu dy Are a Co un ti es Ge org ia C ou ntie s N W E S Growing Counties There are eight counties in the study area classified in the "Growing" category (Harris, Muscogee, Houston, Laurens, Bulloch, Effingham, Bryan, and Glynn). With exception of Laurens and Bulloch, the counties represent metropolitan core or metropolitan suburban counties with good or excellent transportation access. Metropolitan core counties such as Muscogee, Houston, and Glynn primarily need specific highway capacity improvements. Suburban metropolitan counties such as Harris, Bryan, and Effingham primarily need transportation improvements to better connect them to their respective metropolitan core counties and operational improvements to help keep pace with new residential development. Laurens County has good transportation access given the proximity to I-16 along with the business airport. Laurens is not currently served well by multilane highways, major rail carriers, a passenger airport, or a major freight terminal. Completion of US 441 widening projects that are currently under construction will improve the county's accessibility. Overall, Bulloch County has excellent transportation access. The only regional weakness is lack of service by major rail carriers. Georgia Southern University (GSU) is located in Bulloch County June 2001 7-18 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report and is the study area's only regional university. GSU has been a catalyst for economic development in the county. GSU has the potential to be a significant resource for improving the economic conditions in counties that are relatively close. June 2001 7-19 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-11 Central Georgia Corridor Economic Vitality vs. Transportation Access Existing and Emerging Growth Centers Sou rc e: D ay Wilburn A ssocia te s, I nc . HPC Six Corridor US 280 Corr idor County Accessibility & Economic Vitality Existing or Emerging wit h Excellent Access Existing or Emerging wit h Good Access Existing or Emerging wit h Average Access Existing or Emerging wit h Low Access St udy Area Counties Georgia Counties N W E S Existing and Emerging Growth Centers There are sixteen counties within the study area classified as "Existing and Emerging Growth Centers" (Upson, Crawford, Bibb, Peach, Schley, Webster, Sumter, Lee, Crisp, Pulaski, Bleckley, Montgomery, Toombs, Candler, Evans, and Chatham). Bibb and Chatham Counties represent metropolitan core counties with excellent regional transportation access. The metropolitan core counties primarily need specific highway capacity improvements. Chatham County has specific port related needs that are essential to the longterm competitiveness of Georgia ports. Four counties have good regional transportation access (Lee, Sumter, Crisp, and Peach). Lee County is dealing with suburban growth. Lee County has good radial access and connectivity to Dougherty County, but lacks good cross-county access. Crisp County's only regional accessibility weak point is airport access. Sumter County primarily lacks multilane highways, with connectivity to I-75 being a particular need. Peach County lacks major rail service. June 2001 7-20 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Nine counties have average regional transportation access (Webster, Schley, Upson, Crawford, Pulaski, Bleckley, Toombs, Candler, and Evans). Webster County has good access to I-185 via US280, poor access to I-75 and lacks major rail service. Schley County has poor interstate access, lacks multilane highways and major rail service. Upson County primarily lacks good access to interstate highways. Crawford and Pulaski Counties lack multilane highways and major rail service. Bleckley County primarily lacks multilane highways. Toombs County lacks connectivity to I-16, multilane highways, major rail service, and passenger airport access. Candler County lacks multilane highways, major rail service, and passenger airport access. Evans County lacks major rail service and airport access. Montgomery County has poor regional transportation access. Montgomery County lacks multilane highways, major rail service, passenger airport access, and freight terminal access. June 2001 7-21 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-12 Central Georgia Corridor Economic Vitality vs. Transportation Access La gging Counties Sou rc e: D ay W ilbu rn A ssociates, I nc . HPC Si x Co rrid or US 28 0 Co rrid or Cou nt y Acce ssib il it y & Ec on omic V ital ity Lag ging w ith Goo d Acce ss Lag ging w ith Ave rag e Acce ss Lag ging w ith Lo w Acce ss Stu dy Are a Co un ties Ge org ia C ou nt ie s N W E S Lagging Counties There are eighteen counties within the study area classified as "Lagging" (Stewart, Chattahoochee, Marion, Talbot, Taylor, Macon, Terrell, Dooly, Wilcox, Dodge, Telfair, Twiggs, Wilkinson, Emanuel, Tattnall, Long, McIntosh, and Liberty). Six counties have good regional transportation access (Chattahoochee, Macon, Twiggs, Long, McIntosh, and Liberty). Chattahoochee County lacks major rail service. Macon County lacks multilane highways, with connectivity to I-75 being a particular issue. Twiggs County lacks multilane highway access. Long County lacks multilane access to interstates, but has good regional transportation access. McIntosh County lacks multilane highways and major rail service. Liberty County lacks access to a business airport. Nine counties have average regional transportation access (Stewart, Marion, Talbot, Taylor, Terrell, Dooly, Wilkinson, Dodge, and Tattnall). Stewart County has good access to I-185 via US280, but lacks major rail service and access to a business airport. Marion County lacks multilane highways, major rail service, and access to a business airport. Talbot and Taylor Counties lack good access to interstate highways, multilane highways, and access to a business June 2001 7-22 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report airport. Terrell County is not close to an interstate and lacks major rail service. Dooly and Wilkinson Counties primarily lack multilane highways. Dodge County lacks multilane highway access to interstates and is not close to a major freight terminal. Tattnall County primarily lacks multilane highways and major rail service. Three counties have poor regional transportation access (Wilcox, Telfair, and Emanuel). Wilcox County lacks multilane access to interstates, multilane highways, major rail service, passenger airport access, and freight terminal access. Telfair County lacks access to interstates, multilane highways, passenger airport access, and freight terminal access. Emanuel County lacks multilane highways, major rail service, and access to airports. June 2001 7-23 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Figure 7-13 Central Georgia Corridor Economic Vitality vs. Transportation Access Declining Counties Sou rc e: D ay W ilbu rn A ssociates, I nc . HPC Six Co rrid or US 28 0 Co rrid or Cou nty Acce ssib il ity & Ec on om ic V itality Dec lin in g wi th Avera ge A ccess Dec lin in g wi th Poo r A ccess Stu dy Are a Co un ti es Ge org ia C ou ntie s N W E S Declining Counties There are three counties within the study area classified as "Declining" (Wheeler, Treutlen, and Johnson). Treutlen and Johnson Counties have average regional transportation access. Truetlen County has good access to I-16 but lacks multilane highways, major rail service, and access to a passenger airport. Johnson County primarily lacks multilane highways, major rail service, and access to a passenger airport. Wheeler County has low regional transportation access. Wheeler County is relatively close to I16 and a business airport, but is otherwise lacking in each measure of regional transportation access. These counties need improved transportation connections to nearby "growth engines" such as Dublin and Vidalia. Initially, rural transit service to/from Dublin and Vidalia should be considered. These counties would also benefit from providing Vidalia improved access to/from I-16. June 2001 7-24 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Conclusions This Phase I report documents a baseline assessment of existing transportation system activity and performance. Subsequent phases of the project will include assessments of future anticipated transportation system performance and the development of comprehensive strategies for meeting the study area's needs. Findings of this transportation system performance evaluation are based on objective performance measures for congestion, safety, and accessibility. Existing congestion problems are almost exclusively within metropolitan counties, with limited congestion occurring in small urban areas. Road segments with accident rates that are well above the statewide average exist throughout the study area, with concentrations in metropolitan areas and at significant rural intersections. An examination of economic conditions compared to measures of regional accessibility showed that improvements in regional accessibility are needed in most study area counties, particularly in rural counties. Table 9-2 contains a summary of the findings of the transportation system performance evaluation. Potential improvement options are also provide. These options corroborate with Georgia Rural Development Council initiatives to support economic engines and increase accessibility to/from economic engines. Potential improvements listed in table 9-2 are regional in nature. Localized analysis would reveal many additional needs, particularly in metropolitan areas. Improvements in landside access to ports in Savannah & Brunswick are essential to the economic vitality of the State of Georgia. Savannah in particular has significant landside access issues. State Routes 21 and 307 are key facilities for accessing Savannah's ports. SR 21 also functions as a major commuter route between Effingham County and Savannah. It is important that congestion in the corridor be addressed to insure efficient movement of freight. SR 307 serves as a significant link between Savannah's ports and I-16. The corridor includes several problematic at-grade rail crossings. Two key highway/rail grade separation projects in Savannah warrant particular emphasis. These grade separations, one on SR 25 and the other on SR 307, will allow the Macon Intermodal Container Facility to be fully integrated into the Garden City Terminal. A similar highway/rail grade-separation project exists in Brunswick on US17. An additional study related activity includes the preparation of a list of potential short-term projects using data and supporting information collected during phase I. High priority ("fasttrack") projects will be selected and funding procedures initiated. June 2001 7-25 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report County Bryan Bulloch Effingham Glynn Harris Houston Laurens Muscogee Bibb Bleckley Candler Chatham Crawford Crisp Evans Lee Montgomery Peach Pulaski Schley Sumter Toombs Upson Webster Chattahooche e Dodge Dooly Emanuel Liberty Long Macon Marion McIntosh Stewart Talbot Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Twiggs Wilcox Wilkinson Johnson Table 7-2 Transportation System Performance Summary Transportatio Primary Regional Transportation n Accessibility Need(s) Study Related * Improvement plans & options Good Good Growing Counties Access to/from Savannah & I-95 congestion I-95 & US17 (Chatham County) widening Access to/from GSU US301, SR25, and SR67 widening Good Access to/from Savannah & I-16 SR119 operational improvements & US80 widening Excellent Good I-95 congestion & port landside access Multilane highways I-95 widening & highway/rail separation on US17 US27 and SR85 widening Excellent SR96 Operational Improvements Accelerate SR96 improvements Average Excellent Multilane highways Urban congestion US441 widening US280 operational improvements or widening Existing and Emerging Growth Centers Excellent I-16/I-75 operational improvements & urban congestion I-16/I-75 CD system project Average Average Multilane highways Multilane highways US23 widening Improved connections to Statesboro & Vidalia Excellent Port landside access & urban congestion Multiple highway/railroad grade separations, SR21 upgrade Average Multilane highways Upgrades to US80 from/to Bibb County (safety improvements) Good I-75 Capacity & US280 Safety I-75 and US280 widening Average Multilane highways US301 widening Good Connectivity to Albany SR91 widening Low Access to I-16, multilane highways US280 widening and operational improvements to US221 Good Safety improvement to SR96 SR96 widening Average Average Multilane highways Multilane highways US341 widening US19 widening Good Multilane highways US280 and US19 widening Average Average Multilane highways & I-16 access Interstate access US280 and US1 widening; SR297 operational improvements SR36 operational improvements Average Interstate access US280 widening Lagging Good Connectivity to Columbus Rural transit service Average Average Low Good Good Good Average Good Good Average Average Average Low Average Good Low Average Average Interstate access Access to/from Americus I-16 access and multilane highways I-95 congestion & connectivity to Savannah Access to interstates I-75 access and multilane highways Access to/from Columbus and Americus I-95 congestion & multilane highways Access to/from Columbus Multilane highways Multilane highways Multilane highways Multilane highways Access to/from Albany Multilane highways Multilane highways Multilane highways Declining Access to/from Dublin US341 and US23 widening SR27 operational improvements US1 widening I-95 and SR196 widening US301 and US84 widening SR49, SR224, and SR 26 operational improvements Rural transit service I-95 widening Rural transit service and US27 widening SR96 widening US280 widening US19 and SR96 widening US441 and US280 widening Rural transit service US23 and SR96 widening US280 widening US441 widening Rural transit & US341 operation improvements June 2001 7-26 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Treutlen Average Access to/from Dublin & Vidalia Rural transit & SR29 improvements to/from I-16 & Vidalia Wheeler Low Access to/from Vidalia Rural transit & US280 widening * Omits major rail access and airport access. Rail service is a business decision by the railroads and can only be improved through negotiations with them. The Georgia State Aviation System Plan provides reasonable assumptions regarding likely airports upgrades. June 2001 7-27 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Appendix A Demographic and Economic Profiles Introduction This Appendix presents demographic and economic profiles of each of the 45 study area counties. The demographic profiles provide characteristics of each county's population as compared to the State of Georgia, including %change in population, components of population change, racial breakdowns, and age. The economic profiles provide data used to develop the Economic Vitality Index used by the Georgia Rural Development Council. June 2001 A-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Appendix B Commodity Flow Profiles Introduction This Appendix presents commodity flow data for each of the 45 study area counties, plus a summary total for all 45 counties. This data is intended to supplement the commodity flow data presented in the Phase I Report by offering a much greater level of detail and analysis for each study area county. The source of this data is a commodity flow database known as Transearch. The Transearch database was developed by Reebie Associates, who updates it annually. Transearch provides national-level information on the movements of specific commodities between specific origins and destinations, using different modes of transportation. Information on airborne, waterborne, and rail movements is extracted from federal databases, while information on trucking activity is generated by Reebie Associates using proprietary methods. For purposes of this study, the team obtained the following data for analysis year 1998 (the most recent available at the time of the analysis): Domestic tons moved by rail, truck, air, and water that originated in (inbound), were destined for (outbound), or were moved within (internal) any of the 45 study area counties. International waterborne tonnage through the Ports of Savannah, Brunswick, Columbus, and Bainbridge is not included in this database; however, movements between U.S. inland/coastal destinations and these ports (which are domestic movements) are captured in the database. Domestic tons moved by truck that pass through any of the 45 study area counties as part of movements between origins and destinations outside the study area. The database provides tonnage data by commodity type. Commodity types are defined according their STCC (Standard Transportation Commodity Code). There are different levels of STCC, corresponding to different levels of detail. The four-digit level makes very fine distinctions among specific commodity types, while the two-digit level aggregates similar commodity types into larger functional classes. For example, STCC 3273 (Ready-Mix Concrete) and STCC 3271 (Concrete Products) are both included in STCC 32 (Clay, Concrete, Glass, and Stone). The team obtained commodity detail at the four-digit level, and aggregated it to the two-digit level where appropriate. June 2001 B-1 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Table B-1 Standard Transportation Commodity Codes STCC 2 Name Commodities Included at the STCC 4 Level 1 FARM PRODUCTS Grains, field crops, fruits and vegetables 10 METALLIC ORES 11 COAL Bauxite, aluminum ores Bituminous coal 14 NONMETALLIC MINERALS Broken stone, gravel, sand, mineral fertilizers 19 ORDNANCE OR ACCESSORIES 20 FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS 21 TOBACCO PRODUCTS Guns, ammunition Meat products, poultry, dairy products, flour and sugar, liquors, soft drinks, edible oils Cigarettes 22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS Cotton fabrics, carpets, yarns 23 APPAREL OR RELATED PRODUCTS 24 LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS 25 FURNITURE OR FIXTURES Clothing Primary forest materials, lumber, plywood, veneers, millwork and cabinetwork Furniture 26 PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PRODUCTS Pulp and pulp mill products, paper, fiber, wallpaper, paper containers and boxes 27 PRINTED MATTER Newspapers, periodicals, greeting cards 28 CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PRODUCTS Potassium and sodium compounds, 29 PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS Refining products, liquefied gases, asphalt 30 RUBBER OR MISC. PLASTICS Tires, miscellaneous plastic products 31 LEATHER OR LEATHER PRODUCTS Leather products 32 CLAY, CONCRETE, GLASS, OR STONE Portland cement, clay brick or tile, concrete products, ready-mix wet cement, gypsum, processed nonmetallic minerals, kaolin clay 33 PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS Petroleum coke, primary iron and steel products, copper, aluminum and lead products, wire 34 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS Heating equipment, sheet metal products, valves, pipe fittings 35 MACHINERY Engines, farm machinery, construction equipment, lawn and garden equipment, machine tools 36 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Transformers, motors and generators, batteries, cooking equipment, lighting fixtures 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT Car bodies, truck bodies, bus bodies, aircraft, railcars, vehicle parts and accessories 38 INSTRUM, PHOTO EQUIP, OPTICAL EQ Photographic equipment or supplies 39 MISC. MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS Furs, matches, toys, games 40 WASTE OR SCRAP MATERIALS Metal scrap or tailings, paper waste or scrap 41 MISC. FREIGHT SHIPMENTS 42 SHIPPING CONTAINERS Miscellaneous freight shipments Empty shipping containers 43 MAIL OR CONTRACT TRAFFIC Mail June 2001 B-2 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 45 SHIPPER ASSOCIATION TRAFFIC 46 MISC. MIXED SHIPMENTS 50 SECONDARY TRAFFIC Shipper association traffic Freight all kinds, including loaded shipping containers not elsewhere classified Warehouse and Distribution traffic for a wide variety of commodity types; intermodal drayage June 2001 B-3 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report All origins and destinations both within and outside the study area were obtained at the county level where available. In other cases, the team obtained data at BEA (Business Economic Area) level. A BEA is an aggregation of counties within a region. This data was further aggregated to generate state-level summaries for presentation purposes. The commodity flow database itself consists of four Microsoft Access 97 files of between 500 records and 1,000,000 records in length. The database files are: Destination (Inbound) treats each study area county as a destination, and captures commodities moving into that county from any other county or business economic area in the United States; Origin (Outbound) treats each study area county as an origin, and captures commodities moving out of that county to any other county or business economic area in the United States; Intra (Internal) looks at internal movements within each county (moves where the origin and destination are both within that county); and Through looks at commodities that pass through a study area county while moving between origins and destinations outside the study area. For example: moves from New York to Chatham County would be recorded as inbound tonnage for Chatham County; moves from Chatham County to Miami would be recorded as outbound tonnage for Chatham County; moves from New York to Miami on I-95 passing through Chatham County would be recorded as through tonnage for Chatham County; and moves that begin and end in Chatham County would be recorded as internal moves for Chatham County. This database was post-processed to include additional data to support this study: Truck tonnages were converted to vehicle equivalents using VIUS (Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey) data for Georgia. The VIUS data provided a range of average weights for trucks carrying different types of commodities over different distances. This information was linked to the database files with a set of lookup tables, so that each record in the database specifying a commodity type and travel distance was matched with the appropriate factor for converting from tons to truck equivalents. Rail tonnage was converted to railcar equivalents using a fixed factor for tons per railcar. Tonnages were converted to value equivalents based on average value-per-ton factors developed from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey by Reebie Associates. Origin-destination flow maps were generated for the Phase I Report. Origin-destination matrices were generated from the post-processed data. Separately, Reebie Associates developed a method for assigning the origin-destination data (which describes county-tocounty flows) to specific highways in the nation's transportation network. The assignments are based on least-time paths as determined by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The various files and data were aggregated and sorted into meaningful groups for purposes of presentation. The underlying detail is preserved in the database, but for clarity of presentation particularly to the non-technical analyst the information is far more useful in an aggregate June 2001 B-4 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report form. A variety of aggregation methods were tested before settling on the forms presented in this Appendix. Graphs of key information were generated for "at a glance" analysis of individual counties. In evaluating the truck data, the user should be aware that the Transearch database can underrepresent certain types of moves such as moves between farms and local warehouses, moves between mines and local distribution/processing centers, and local or short-haul distribution by smaller vehicles. Also, trucks that are moving empty are not reported in the data, because they carry no tonnage. As a result, the number of trucks actually moving over a highway network will be greater than the number of trucks associated with the Transearch tonnage, and should be determined from vehicle counts. Description of Reports This appendix contains a one-page summary profile of the 45-county study area and each of its counties. The following information is presented. Summary of Inbound and Outbound Tons by Mode In the "Total of 45 Study Area Counties" report, "Inbound to Study Area" means inbound to any of the 45 study area counties from any other county or business economic area, including other counties in the study area. "Outbound from Study Area" means outbound from any of the study area counties to any other county or business economic area, including other counties in the study area. In the County reports, "Inbound to County" means inbound to that specific county from any other county or business economic area, including other counties in the study area. "Outbound from County" means outbound from that specific county to any other county or business economic area, including other counties in the study area. Summary of Inbound and Outbound Value by Mode This table presents the value equivalents for the tonnage information. Generally, trucks and air carry higher value commodities, and the value associated with truck and air tonnage is higher than the value associated with rail and water tonnage. Depending on the mix of modes and commodities, we may see that a county has more tonnage inbound but more value outbound, or vice-versa. Inbound and Outbound Tons by Mode This is a pie chart showing how the total of inbound and outbound tonnage is distributed between the four modes (rail, truck, water, and air). It excludes internal tons (tonnage entirely within a county), which usually represents local distribution by truck and tends to be a very small number in comparison to inbound and outbound tonnage. In most counties, trucks are dominant, but rail is significant in several counties. Air cargo, which is high-value and lightweight, shows up as a small percentage of total tons. Water tonnage also shows up as a small number, because this figure represents only domestic moves via the inland and coastal U.S. waterways. June 2001 B-5 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Truck Tons Including Through Moves This is a bar chart presenting the truck tonnages in more detail. It compares the inbound and outbound truck tonnages with the internal tons and through tonnages. In the County-level reports, the through tonnage is the tonnage that passes through any part of the county between origins and destinations outside the study area. The vast majority of this tonnage is associated with movements along I 75 and I 95. In the "Total of 45 Study Area Counties," the through tonnage is calculated differently. It is not the sum of what is passing through every county, because this would double-count the tonnage that moves through more than one county. Rather, it represents tons that move through any of the 45 counties, counted just one time. Inbound and Outbound Vehicle Equivalents This is a bar chart representing the vehicle equivalents for truck and rail tonnage inbound to and outbound from the study area. These represent load-carrying trips by trucks and railcars, and do not include non-load-carrying trips. Depending on the mix of modes and commodities, we may see that a county has more truck tonnage inbound but more truck equivalents outbound, or vice-versa. Inbound versus Outbound Value This is a pie chart showing the distribution of total inbound versus outbound value. Inbound and Outbound Tons by Commodity Class This is a bar chart showing the distribution of inbound and outbound tons by commodity class at a fairly aggregated (two-digit STCC) level. The graph provides a quick visual ranking of the most important commodity classes. Inbound and outbound tons are graphed separately to highlight the directionality (or lack thereof) of particular commodity classes. Distribution of Inbound and Outbound Tons This is a pie chart showing from where inbound tons are coming and to where outbound tons are going. The major categories are: Within 45-County Study Area moves from one study area county to another; Rest of Georgia moves between study area counties and any other county in Georgia; Other Corridor States (AL, MS) moves between study area counties and the other two states where the HPC 6 Corridor is designated; West of Corridor (LA, TX, AK, OK, NM, AZ, CA) moves between study area counties and the states directly west of the HPC 6 Corridor; Other Southeast States (FL, SC, NC, TN) moves between study area counties and these states; and All Other States moves between study area counties and all other states. June 2001 B-6 June 2001 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Report # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Table B-2 List of Commodity Flow Reports FIPS Code Name 13021 13023 13029 13031 13043 13051 13053 13079 13081 13091 13093 13103 13107 13109 13127 13145 13153 13167 13175 13177 13179 13183 13191 13193 13197 13209 13215 13225 13235 13249 13259 13261 13263 13267 13269 13271 13273 13279 13283 13289 13293 13307 13309 13315 Total of 45 Study Area Counties Bibb County, Georgia Bleckley County, Georgia Bryan County, Georgia Bulloch County, Georgia Candler County, Georgia Chatham County, Georgia Chattahoochee County, Georgia Crawford County, Georgia Crisp County, Georgia Dodge County, Georgia Dooly County, Georgia Effingham County, Georgia Emanuel County, Georgia Evans County, Georgia Glynn County, Georgia Harris County, Georgia Houston County, Georgia Johnson County, Georgia Laurens County, Georgia Lee County, Georgia Liberty County, Georgia Long County, Georgia McIntosh County, Georgia Macon County, Georgia Marion County, Georgia Montgomery County, Georgia Muscogee County, Georgia Peach County, Georgia Pulaski County, Georgia Schley County, Georgia Stewart County, Georgia Sumter County, Georgia Talbot County, Georgia Tattnall County, Georgia Taylor County, Georgia Telfair County, Georgia Terrell County, Georgia Toombs County, Georgia Treutlen County, Georgia Twiggs County, Georgia Upson County, Georgia Webster County, Georgia Wheeler County, Georgia Wilcox County, Georgia B-7 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report 46 13319 Wilkinson County, Georgia June 2001 B-8 Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase I Report Appendix C Georgia Heritage Program Conservation Status List Introduction This appendix presents a summary of the Georgia Heritage Program Conservation Status List which compiles recent estimates of protected, threatened, and endangered species within the State. The list is maintained by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and is available via the Internet at http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/wild/. The report in this appendix provides a table listing the species within the study area, grouped by US Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangles. Index maps of USGS quadrangles are provided to assist in finding desired quadrangles. Georgia DNR has requested that the following disclaimer appear anytime the Georgia Heritage Program Conservation Status List is displayed: DISCLAIMER FOR GEORGIA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ELEMENT OCCURRENCE DATA Please keep in mind the limitations of our database. The data collected by the Georgia Natural Heritage Program comes from a variety of sources, including museum and herbarium records, literature, and reports from individuals and organizations, as well as field surveys by our staff biologists. In most cases the information is not the result of a recent on-site survey by our staff. Many areas of Georgia have never been surveyed thoroughly. Therefore, the Georgia Natural Heritage Program can only occasionally provide definitive information on the presence or absence of rare species in a given area. Our files are updated constantly as new information is received. Thus, information provided by our program represents the existing data in our files on the date indicated on this Web page and should not be considered a final statement on the species or area under consideration. June 2001 C-1