, 
Section 
1 
 
2 
.. 
~ 
3 
 
4 
 
5 
 
~ 
 
n 
 
!'..- 
,,-r~.; 
 
6 
 
Table of Contents 
Title 
Executive Summary 
Highway/Street System Traffic Counts and Analysis Travel Demand Model Highway Bridge Inventory Public Comments Future Travel Demand Forecast Future System Assessment Recommended Improvement Program 
Rail System RaillRoad Crossing and TrackInventory RaillRoad Crossing Accident Summary Existing Train Traffic Public Comments . Identification of Alternatives Economic Feasibility Analysis Recommended Improvement Program 
Aviation System Existing and Future Operations Public Comments Recommended Improvement Program 
BicyclelPedestrian System Existing Conditions Public Comments Recommendations 
Transit System Existing Conditions Public Comments Recommendations 
Public Involvement Public Outreach Advisory Panel First Public Information Meeting Second Public Information Meeting 
 
Page 
I-I 
1-13 1-32 1-32 1-34 1-36 1-50 
2-1 2-1 2-2 2-12 2-13 2-24 2-32 
3-1 3-5 3-5 
4-1 4-13 4-14 
5-1 5-4 5-4 
6-1 6-2 6-2 6-3 
 
 WaycrosslWare County 
 
Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
..' 
 
Executive Summary 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The Georgia Department of Transportation contracted with PBS&J to conduct a multi-modal transportation study for the City of Waycross and Ware County. The transportation study evaluated the existing transportation systems in the area and has identified deficiencies in both the present year and projected future year (The Year 2025). 
 
This multi-modal study has taken into consideration highway, railroad, airport, and transit transportation issues as well as bicycle and pedestrian travel. Public involvement has also been an important element throughout this project and there have been several opportunities provided for public participation. This study has resulted in a plan that allows all modes of transportation to compliment each other and provide the citizens of Waycross and Ware County with an efficient transportation system. 
 
Waycross developed over ISO years ago around the highway and railroad industry. The city lies 
 
at the crossroads of several major highways (U.S. 82/ State Route 520, U.S. l/State Route 4, and 
 
U.S. 84/State Route 38) and several of CSX Transportation's mainline routes (Jacksonville to 
 
'r- 
 
Atlanta, Waycross to Savannah, and Waycross to Brunswick). The name "Waycross" says it all, "Where all ways cross." 
 
NEED AND PURPOSE 
 
1. To evaluate the existing transportation systems in Waycross and Ware County and identify deficiencies in both the present and future years. 
 
2. To assess the effects of CSX Transportation's proposed track relocations on the transportation facilities in Waycross and evaluate road and highway projects identified in a report by HDR Inc., prepared for CSX Transportation titled: "Ware County and the City of Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999". 
 
3. To propose existing and future transportation system improvements in the City of Waycross 
 
and Ware County that address two main scenarios, one with the proposed relocation of selected 
 
 
 
CSX Transportation's tracks and one without. 
 
"'I'~' 
'I"' . 
 
4. To recommend implementation of improvements, consider financing scenarios and cost benefit evaluations that address the roles of the local government, CSX Transportation and the 
 
Georgia Department of Transportation.. 
 
 " 
 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Filial Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page ii 
 
PUBLIC OUTREACH 
 
Enabling all citizens to participate in the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study was the goal 'of the public involvement process. It is paramount for any transportation plan to have the overwhelming support and approval of the local citizens in order for it to be successful. In order to involve as many citizens in the study process as possible, extraordinary efforts were made by the Department and city/county officials to invite citizens to the public meetings held for this study. The outreach effort included several strategies. 
 The preparation and distribution offlyers to citizens in Waycross/Ware County, 
 
 The variable message sign at the stadium in Waycross and the sign at the Ware County High School were used to announce the public information meetings, 
 
 Flyers were posted on the "community" bulletin board at CSXT in Waycross, 
 
 Announcements about the public meetings were made at some ofthe area black churches and flyers were distributed at these churches in an effort to persuade people to attend the public meetings, 
 
 Several advertisements were placed in the Waycross Journal-Herald and in the Blackshear 
 
 
 
Times (Pierce County) that invited citizens to attend the public meetings, 
 
 In an effort to draw even more citizens to the public meetings, a separate public meeting in Blackshear, Pierce County, was held on September 14, 2000 at the Courthouse Annex. 
 
 Letters were sent out to all the citizens who attended the first public meeting urging them to attend the second public meeting. 
In addition to the outstanding attendance and participation of citizens at the public information meetings, the study also received good press. 
 
 Articles appeared in the Waycross Journal-Herald before and after both public information meetings, 
 
 The Blackshear Times ran an article before and after the second public information meeting, 
 
 The public meetings were advertised on the government television channel and at a number oflocal government meetings that were televised by the local government channel, 
 
"'J 
 
' A camera person was present at both ofthe public meetings filming the proceedings. Film clips from the public meetings were later aired on the government access channel. 
 
,.. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Executive Summary 
 
. ,~., ... ;,~ A,J  
 
March 2001 Page iii 
 
STUDY PROCESS 
 
In order to evaluate all forms of transportation in Waycross/Ware County, five separate modes of transportation were identified in the study: Highway/Street System, Rail System, Aviation System, Bicycle/Pedestrian System, and Transit System. For each of these transportation systems, existing conditions were analyzed first. Existing travel demand and existing infrastructure were determined and deficiencies with the existing transportation systems were identified. Public comments were taken at the first Public Involvement Meeting to further discern how the public perceives the current operation of each transportation system component. 
 
During the existing conditions analysis, a computer travel demand model was developed to analyze the existing travel patterns on the highway/street system in Waycross/Ware County. This travel demand model requires socioeconomic data such as number of households, number of employees and school enrollment to estimate travel demand. The model generates trips from the socioeconomic data and then assigns these trips to the existing roadway system in Waycross/Ware County. The travel demand model was also used to estimate future traffic based on future predictions of households, employment and school enrollment in Waycross/Ware County. The travel demand model was utilized when assessing the railroad system as well, since the model can predict the level of traffic at rail/road crossings in the future. 
 
Once the existing conditions analysis was completed and the public's comments were received, 
 
 
 
future travel demand was estimated for the transportation systems. The travel demand model 
 
was used to estimate future travel for highways and streets while future travel demand for the 
 
other transportation system components was estimated using other available data. Future travel 
 
demand was next loaded onto the existing transportation systems and analysis was completed to 
 
determine what improvements were needed in order to accommodate future travel demand. 
 
From this analysis, the study produced a Recommended Improvement Program that includes all 
 
transportation systems in Waycross/Ware County. The Program consists of specific 
 
improvement projects as well as general recommendations and options. The improvements 
 
listed in the Program were presented to the public at a second set of public information meetings 
 
and comments were taken concerning the proposed projects and recommendations. Based on the 
 
approval expressed by the public at the second set of public information meetings, this study 
 
recommends the improvements listed in the Recommended Improvement Program. 
 
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
 
Highway/Street System 
Based on the alternatives analysis completed using the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model and also from listening to comments made by citizens of Waycross and Ware County, improvements were selected to become the highway/street system component in the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program. The highway/street plan consists of three major roadway improvement projects, eleven corridor operational improvement projects 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page iv 
 
and ten intersection improvement projects. The approximate length and total cost of each highway/street project is provided with the description of the proposed improvement. The total costs shown for these projects include estimated construction costs, right-of-way costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
The highway/street plan's roadway improvements are presented on Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. The approximate construction cost for the East Bypass is $9.3 million while the total construction cost for the ABC Avenue improvement is approximately $2.8 million. The highway/street plan's corridor operational improvements are presented on Figure 2 and listed in Table 2. Corridor operational improvements involve segments of roadway where improvements such as adding new signals, optimizing current signals and extending or adding new tum lanes are necessary to provide adequate capacity along a corridor. Most of the corridor operational improvements will have an estimated construction cost of $110,000. The highway/street plan's intersection improvements are presented on Figure 3 and listed in Table 3. The typical construction cost for an intersection improvement is approximately $280,000. Intersection improvement costs are more than corridor operational improvement costs, on average, because an intersection improvement may include up to four approaches that need improvements as opposed to a corridor operational improvement which may only include one or two approaches. 
 
Not included in the highway/street plan but still recommended as a "long-range" project (beyond 
 
the year 2025) is the South Bypass. The South Bypass is shown on Figure 4 and described in 
 
Table 4. The South Bypass was not included as part of the highway/street plan since its benefit 
 
to Waycross/Ware County is minimal compared to its substantial cost of approximately $16.4 
 
million. Also, the Waycross/Ware County model estimated that in 2025, the South Bypass will 
 
only have approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. This low level of projected traffic discourages 
 
....... 
 
any further study of a South Bypass at this time. However, if significant changes in the number 
 
of estimated future households and/or employment occur on the south side of Waycross/Ware 
 
County, the South Bypass may become a viable improvement. For the purposes of this plan, it is 
 
recommended that the preliminary engineering for the South Bypass be included in the later part 
 
of the program. 
 
Rail System 
 
Based on the rail operational analysis, the economic feasibility analysis, and the public 
 
involvement process, improvements were selected to become the rail system component in the 
 
Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program. This study recommends that the 
 
rail plan should be composed of the improvements identified in the Ware County and the City of 
 
Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999. 
 
The rail plan is defined as the rerouting the CSXT railroad mainline and double tracking the 
 
mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross. A detailed list of the improvements 
 
 
 
included in the rail plan is shown on Exhibit "A" and in Table 5. 
 
 The operational improvements relating to rerouting the CSXT railroad mainline and double tracking the mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross will dramatically reduce delay at crossings and will increase train speeds through Waycross. 
 
 c -. 
 
 
 
" 
--/:~------..,--- 
j i 
; 
,/ 
 
  
 
f 
 
Table 1 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Roadway Improvements 
 
10* Type of Improvement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Roadway Improvement 
 
East Bypass: New four-lane roadway between US 84 in Pierce County and US 1/23 in Ware County. Northern terminus on US 84 in Pierce Co. approximately 0.5 mile from county line. Intersection with US 82 in Ware Co. within 1.5 miles of county line. Extend south to US 1/23. 
 
2 
 
Roadway Improvement Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street. (From a substandard two 
 
lane roadway to a paved standard two-lane section.) 
 
Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road (Jamestown) to Wacona Avenue. 
 
3 
 
Roadway Improvement (The upgrade will be from a substandard two-lane roadway to a paved statndard two-lane 
 
section. The extension will consist of a two-lane extension.) 11---.......- - - - - - - 
Total 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
.4.2 
1.6 
1.9 
 
Approximate Cost *** 
$9,326,500 
$1,406,700 ** $1,368,700 ** 
$12, I01,900 
 
NOTES:  The 10 number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
 
 The ABC Avenue improvement costs are included in the Rail System component of the Recommended Improvement Program and are shown here for informational purposes . 
** Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
 - 
I 
! --f-- 
 
 Table 2 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Corridor Operational Improvements 
 
ID* 
 
Type ofImprovement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Central Avenue between Loblolly Lane and Stilla Drive 
 
2 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US I Bus. Between Wilkerson Street and US 82 
 
3 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 82 (Reynolds Street) between Havana Avenue and US I Business 
 
4 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 84 between Knight Avenue and Dewey Street 
 
5 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 84 between Riverside Drive and Community Drive 
 
6 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Albany Avenue between George Street and H Street 
 
7 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Carswell Avenue between Nichols Street and McDonald Street 
 
8 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Blackshear Avenue between US 1 Bus. And Cherokee Street 
 
9 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Community Drive between Tebeau Street and Alice Street 
 
10 Corridor Operational Improvement Lee Avenue between Knight Avenue and Carswell Avenue 
 
11 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Tebeau Street between Carswell Avenue and Isabella Street 
 
Total 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
0.2 0.5 0.7 
OJ 
1.2 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 
 
Approximate Cost ** $110,900 $115,300 $118,200 $112,400 $211,900 $188,800 $109,500 $123,600 $113,800 $109,500 $109,500 $1,423,400 
 
NOTES: *,The ID number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
** Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
  
 
') 
 
ri- 
i, -- - ' "-.J r--~ 
.... _ .. j~ 
I 
I 
I 
 
 ., (I 
 
Table 3 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Intersection Improvements 
 
ID* 
 
Type of Improvement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Intersection Improvement US 84 at Proposed Bypass 
 
2 
 
Intersection Improvement Riverside DrivelAva Street at US 84 
 
3 
 
Intersection Improvement Dewey Street at US 84 
 
4 
 
Intersection Improvement Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue at US 84 
 
5 
 
Intersection Improvement Morningside Drive at US 84 
 
6 
 
Intersection Improvement Dewey Street at Knight Avenue 
 
7 
 
Intersection Improvement Harrison Street at Knight Avenue 
 
8 
 
Intersection Improvement Harrison Street at US 1 Bus. 
 
9 
 
Intersection Improvement City Boulevard at US 82 
 
10 
 
Intersection Improvement Linden Drive at Sunnyside Drive 
 
Total 
 
Approximate Cost ** 
$280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $2,800,000 
 
NOTES: * The ID number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
** Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
 ., 
'I 
Figure 4 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Long-Range Improvements (Beyond 2025) 
 
 .. 
 
) 
 
.' 
 
Table 4 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Long-Range Improvements (Beyond 2025) 
 
ID 
 
Type of Improvement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
 
Approximate Cost * 
 
South Bypass: New four-lane roadway as extension of East Bypass proposed in the 25- 
 
Roadway Improvement year plan. Ties in to East Bypass at US 1/23 and terminates at US 84 approximately 
 
7.4 
 
0.75 miles south of Rice Yard in southern Waycross. 
 
$16,432,500 ** 
 
2 Intersection Improvements As needed to accommodate South Bypass 
Total 
 
n/a 
 
$280,000 
 
$16,712,500 
 
NOTES: * Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
** Preliminary engineering costs ($1,184,000) for South Bypass is recommended for the Long Range Program. 
 
 1 
 
.. 
 
1 
 
il 
 
\1 
 
1 
 
Table 5 
 
,1':1 
: 
 
Waycross/Ware- County 
 
1 
 
1 
 
" :- 
 
Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
':1 
 
Rail Plan - Proposed Tasks and Costs 
 
1 
 
1 
 
1. us Route 1 Business/CSXT Grade Separation - new highway overpass. ($4,515,000) 
 
1 
 
11 
2. ABC Avenue upgrade and extension, Lee Street (south Waycross) extension and new at-grade crossing. ($2,684,500) 
 
\1 
1 
3. Intersection and Traffic Signal Upgrades ($374,700) at 
1 
-Albany Avenue/Garlington Avenue intersection and at 
 
- Georgia Pkwy.lGarlington Avenue. 
 
1 
 
1 
4. Closure of 11 at-grade crossings in downtown Waycross due to removal of mainline track. ($282,700) 
1 
5. Closure of 14 at-grade crossings where track will remain but roadway access will be closed. ($135,800) 
1 
 
6. Upgrade 10 at-grade crossings to accommodate new second main track, railroad alignment, 
 
1 
 
and grade changes. ($1,264,000) 
1 
 
7. Construct 5.5 miles of new second main track from South Waycross to north of Wacona Avenue. ($.6,622,900) 
 
1 
 
8. - 17. Railroad system improvements, right-of-way and construction tasks, .design and planning tasks. ($6,127,700) 
 
Total Cost for Project = $22,007,300 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page xv 
 
 The economic feasibility analysis showed that the rail plan will also provide a net present value benefit ofover'$155 million (see Figure 5) over the next 20 years. 
 
 The rail plan, which has a projected construction cost of approximately $22.0 million, provides an overall benefit-cost ratio of 7.1*. 
 
 If only the benefits to Waycross and Ware County are taken into consideration ($66.1 
million), the rail plan will provide a benefit-cost ratio of3.0*. 
 
csxr  If only the benefits to 
 
are taken into consideration ($49.9 million), the rail plan will 
 
lJ!jovide a benefit-cost ratio of2.3* . 
 
it< A benefit-cost ratio over the minimum 2.0 is commonly used as the minimum threshold to be considered a viable improvement. 
A detailed enumeration of the benefits for the citizens of Waycross/Ware County, the citizens of Georgia, and for CSXT is shown on Figure 6. While the benefits to CSXT will be primarily due to increased efficiency and capacity on the rail system, the benefits to the citizens and businesses of Waycross/Ware County will range from increased safety at rail/road crossings to increased production for businesses in Georgia. One of the significant benefits of the rail plan is the modal shift of truck freight to rail freight due to the improvements to the rail corridor. The reasoning behind this is that when the rail system becomes more efficient and reliable, industry will then respond by transporting freight by rail instead of by truck. The following is a brief description of some of the benefits that will be realized by the citizens and businesses in Waycross, Ware County and other areas of Georgia along the rail corridor due to the implementation of the project to reroute the CSXT railroad mainline and double track the mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross. 
 
 Safety Benefits: Due to the removal of trucks off the roadways, citizens of Georgia will benefit due to a decrease in the number ofaccidents and associated costs caused by trucks. 
 
 Travel Time Savings: A benefit in travel time savings will occur due to the reduction in congestion on the roadways caused by the elimination of trucks from the highways located adjacent to the rail corridor. 
 
 Environmental Benefits: A benefit will be realized by the citizens of Georgia due to the reduction ofthe number oftrucks, and their emissions, on roadways in the corridor. 
 
 Vehicle, Operating Cost Savings: A savings in operating costs to businesses will be experienced due to the elimination oftrucks along the rail corridor. 
 
 Production Improvement: A benefit to local companies in the rail corridor will occur due to lower inventory costs and lower shipping costs caused by the more efficient and reliable rail 
system provided in the rail plan. 
,. 
 
: ..... - 
 
 .' '. 
Figure 5 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Rail Project - Percentages of Benefits 
Total Benefits: $155.5 million 
WaycrosslWare 'County 
 
 " 
Figure 6 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Rail Plan - Benefits Summary (Present Worth Over 20 Years) 
 
Savings in Labor Cost 
= $2,067,000 
Revenues from Alleviation of Capacity Constraints = $6,979,000 
Savings Due to Decrease in Delay 1I-----a.1 
= $22,210,000 
Revenues from Modal Shift = $18,672,000 
 
Safety Benefits 11-_ _-" = $2,763,000 
Travel Time Savings 11----.1 = $53,222,000 
Environmental Benefits II-----i~ = $4,488,000 
 
Vehicle Operating Cost 
 
Savings 
 
II-----l~ 
 
= $4,924,000 
 
Network Benefits II----.J = $531,000 
Increase in Property Value (reduction in noise) 
= $205,000 
 
Safety Benefits = $1,142,000 
Travel Time Savings II-----l~ = $2,218,000 
Environmental Benefits = $948,000 
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings = $25,562,000 
Production Improvement = $5,975,000 
Savings in Crossing Maintenance = $3,600,000 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page xviii 
 
The project to reroute the CSXT railroad mainline and double track the mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross also addresses many of the needs that the citizens of Waycross and Ware County have expressed publicly. The recommended rail plan includes improvements that citizens have asked for such as providing Jamestown citizens access to Waycross when trains block their crossings, providing an additional grade-separation in Waycross, and taking the trains out of downtown Waycross. Overall, the recommended rail plan is a viable plan for citizens of Waycross and Ware County as well as CSXT. 
 
A viation System 
This study's recommended list of projects to be included in the aviation component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program is based on the.recommendations provided in the Georgia DOT Statewide Aviation System Plari (1995) and the current Georgia DOT five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 
The Waycross-Ware County Airport has been designated as a Level III, General Aviation facility. The Level III classification is the highest level of general aviation airport and is recognized as having a significant regional aviation service impact. As such, there are minimum requirements for airside and landside facilities associated with the airport. The recommended airside facilities consist of a 5500'xlOO' runway, a full parallel taxiway, 6,720 square yards of apron, Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), Localizer, Glide Slope, and a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR). Other requirements include an AWOS-3, NDB, Remote Communications Outlet (RCO), rotating beacon, and a lighted" windcone/segmented circle. Recommended landside facilities consist of a 2,000 square foot terminal building, 1,225 square yards of automobile parking (35 spaces), 4 conventional storage hangars, and 17 T-hangars. 
Of the improvements recommended, the Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) is currently under construction. The Runway 18 'extension, in addition to land acquisition, lighting and navigation equipment associated with the extension, is under contract to be built within the next year. The Georgia DOT five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Waycross-Ware County Airport lists other projects scheduled to be built by 2005. Table 6 shows the current status and projected costs of the projects programmed in the CIP for the Waycross-Ware County Airport. Figure 7 shows the location of significant improvements such as the runway lengthening and the runway overlays. Also included in Table 6 are those projects recommended for Level III upgrade by Georgia DOT, but not currently programmed for construction. 
 
Bicycle/Pedestrian System 
Instead of recommending specific projects to be included in the bicycle/pedestrian component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program, this study proposes several opportunities and options. These opportunities are presented in the form of new corridors for bicycle/pedestrian facilities as well as general policies and options that can be used by 
 
  
 
Table 6 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Recommended Airport Improvement Projects and Costs 
 
Facility 
AIRSIDE Runways 
Overlay Runway 18/36 
- Overlay Runway 5/23 
Extension Runway 36 Lighting Land Acquisition Taxiways Overlay 18/36 New Lighting Partial Parallel Taxiway Connecting Taxiway 
- 
New Apron 
Overlay 
NAVAIDSlVisual Aids/Weather Aids 
LANDSIDE Auto Parking 
-- 
Conventional Storage Hangers T-Hangers PlanningiEnvir. 
Total 
* 1994 dollars, otherwise current dollars 
 
Description 
 
Projected Cost 
 
Status 
 
5230'xI50' 
 
$ 
 
5035'xl00' 
 
$ 
 
-- 
 
770'x150' 
 
$ 
 
MIRL 
 
$ 
 
80 Acres 
 
$ 
 
-- 200'x35' 
 
$ 
 
-- 6000'x35' 
 
$ 
 
MITL 
 
$ 
 
RW5toRW36 
 
$ 
 
RW 13 to Parallel TW/R W 
 
$ 
 
To T-Hangar 
 
$ 
 
--26,400 S.Y. 
 
$ 
 
---RCO 
 
$ 
 
PAPI 
 
$ 
 
32 Sp.l1120 S.Y. 
 
$ 
 
1 
 
$ 
 
15 
 
$ 
 
Master PlaniEA 
 
$ 
 
$ 
 
1,202,900 * 906,300 * 197,100 * 15,000 * 
170,000 
 
CIP, FY 2001 Not in CIP CIP, FY 200 I (under contract) CIP, FY 2001 (under contract) CIP, FY 2001 
 
10,000 * 
750,000 
70,000 * 
120,000 
240,000 
60,000 
 
Not in CIP CIP, FY 2005 CIP, FY 2001 (under contract) CIP, FY 2001 CIP, FY 2003 CIP, FY 2004 
 
340,000 
 
CIP, FY 2002 
 
30,000 * (under construction) 40,000 * (under contract) 
 
33,600 * Not in CIP 240,000 * Not in CIP 300,000 * Not in CIP 200,000 * Not in CIP 
4,924,900 
 
 J 
.FIRE TOWER 
 
STATE pmSON 
 
o 
 
7&0 
 
1500 
 
I 
 
! 
 
SCAlE IN FEET 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page xxi 
 
Waycross/Ware County to initiate a stable bicycle/pedestrian program: These recommendations are based on the results of the existing conditions analysis as well as input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County. 
 
Currently in Waycross/Ware County, the Georgia Department of Transportation has already planned two of the fourteen Statewide Bicycle Routes to converge in Ware County: the Southern Crossing Route (#10) and the Wiregrass Route (#20). Traveling west to east, the Southern Crossing enters Ware County on SR 122 and follows SR 122 to US 82 (west of Waycross). This route exits Ware County on US 82. The Wiregrass Route enters Ware County on CR 466 and follows CR 466 to SR 158.. This route ends at the intersection of SR 158 and US 82 (the Southern Crossing Route). See Figure 8 for a detailed map of the Wiregrass Route and.Southern Crossing Route in Waycross/Ware County. The type of bicycle facility selected to be used along the Southern Crossing Route and Wiregrass Route is yet to be determined. Typically, bicycle shoulders will be used in the rural areas and bike lanes will be used on urban sections within the . city limits of Waycross. The state bike routes will form a network of on-street bicycle facilities that will eventually connect communities throughout the state. These on-street bicycle facilities will range from wide curb lanes and bicycle shoulders to bike lanes. The Georgia Department of Transportation is expecting to let a contract to sign the Southern Crossing Route in late 2000. 
 
An important issue to the citizens of Waycross/Ware County is the safety of pedestrians at intersection crossings. The stadium and schools along Knight Avenue/Memorial Drive are prime destinations for pedestrians in Waycross/Ware County. These destinations are currently not easily accessed by pedestrians or bicyclists and require improvements at the intersection crossings to make them safer. One proposed alternative for the crossing near the Memorial Stadium -is a grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing. It should be noted that this particular suggested improvement was the only improvement that was strongly supported by the public. However, improvements to the intersection's signal timing, intersection striping and geometric design (e.g. providing safe refuge for pedestrians) are also alternatives that may improve the crossing. For this reason, it is recommended that a detailed study be commissioned to examine specific improvements; which need to occur in this area. Schools in other sections of Waycross and Ware County are also destinations that need to be easily accessible by Type C (e.g. children) bicyclists and pedestrians. All school crossings should be designed and maintained to allow safe access for children walking or riding a bicycle to school. 
 
In addition to the statewide bicycle routes that will pass through Waycross and Ware County, there are several promising opportunities available, all of which are shown on Figure 8 and listed in Table 7. The facilities proposed in this study were planned in such a way as to eventually form a network of bicycle and pedestrian corridors throughout Waycross/Ware County. This connectivity will provide users many opportunities and alternatives when traveling to locations such as schools, parks or even to work in and around Waycross. 
 
Several corridors in Waycross and Ware County will lend themselves well to shared use paths (for bicyclists and pedestrians only) or "greenways." Shared use paths can be utilized by all types of users: from Type A or experienced bicyclists to Type C or children/recreational bicyclists. One such opportunity available to Waycross and Ware County is a shared use path along the Satilla River. The .Satilla River "Greenway" would run easterly along the Satilla River 
 
 Figure 8 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Bicycle/Pedestrian Opportunities 
 
Legend: 
 
_ 
 
Existing Okefenokee Bike Path GOOT Soutbem Crossing Route (#10) 
 
_ GDOT Wiregrass Route (#20) 
 
!II. II m Proposed Satilla River Greenway 
 
 Proposed US 84 Bike Lanes !'!"1!: '>.'I Proposed Okefenokee Greenway 
 
0" m '9 Proposed SR 177 Bike & Shared Lanes 
 
 II Proposed Kettle Creek Greenway 
 
 Proposed Waycross Express Rail Trail 
....... ,; " :~ ",. Proposed Jamestown Road Wide Sidewalk Dresden St, Hampton Ave, Park Ave, 
and Cherokee St Signed Shared Lanes 
 
 Proposed Academic Greenway and 
 
Victory DrlWadley Rd Wide Sidewalks 
 
.. 
 
 D  ABC A venue SidewalkIBike Path 
SatilIa Regional Medical Center 
 Pedestrian Improvement Study  Memorial Stadium Crossing Study 
 
 Table 7 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Opportunties 
 
Opportunity Type 
 
Facility 
 
Description 
 
Study 
Study Wide Sidewalk Wide Sidewalk Shared Use Path 
Shared Use Path 
Bike Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Wide Sidewalk Wide Sidewalk Shared Use Path Shared Use Path Bike Lane Shared Use Path Sidewalk/Bike Lane 
 
Satilla Regional Medical Center Pedestrian 
 
Improvement Study 
 
Memorial Stadium Crossing Study 
 
Victory Drive 
 
. From Carswell Ave. to Wadley Rd. 
 
Wadley Road 
 
From Victory Dr. to Kettle Creek 
 
Academic Greenway 
 
From Victory Dr. to Kettle Creek 
 
Waycross Express Rail Trail 
 
From Albany Ave. to State. St. (Along Abandoned Rail Corridor) 
 
SR 177 
 
From US 1/23 to US 82 
 
SR 177 
 
US 1/23 to Okefenokee Swamp Park 
 
Dresden Street 
 
From Jamestown Rd. to Hampton Ave. 
 
Hampton Avenue 
 
From Dresden St. to Park Ave. 
 
Park Avenue 
 
From Hampton Ave. to Cherokee St. 
 
Cherokee Street 
 
From Park Ave. to Kettle Creek 
 
Jamestown Road (Phase 1) 
 
From State St. to Dresden St. 
 
Jamestown Road (Phase 2) 
 
From Dresden St. to Blalock Ave. 
 
Okefenokee Greenway 
 
From US 84 to SR 177 (Along Utility Easement) 
 
Kettle Creek Greenway 
 
From Wabley Rd. to Satilla River 
 
US 84 
 
From Satilla River to Smith Rd. 
 
Satilla River Greeway 
 
From SR 158 to Brantley County Line 
 
ABC Avenue (upgraded and extended) From Clough St. to Ternest Rd. 
 
Total 
 
Linear Feet 
N/A 
N/A 9,900 11,220 14,520 
7,920 
26,400 23,760 
660 3,300 
660 3,300 3,960 11,880 42,240 22,770 29,040 110,880 18,480 340,890 
 
Total Cost 
N/A 
N/A $990,000 $1,122,000 $2,904,000 
$1,584,000 
$1,320,000 $24,000 $1,000 $3,000 $1,000 $3,000 $396,000 
$1,188,000 $8,448,000 $4,554,000 $1,452,000 $22,176,000 $1,848,000 $48,014,000 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Executive Summary 
 
March 2001 Page xxiv 
 
from the planned GA DOT Wiregrass Route in northern Ware County on State Route 158 and extend beyond U.S. 84 (to the east). Another natural corridor suitable for a shared use path is along Kettle Creek. The Kettle Creek Greenway would start at the proposed Satilla River Greenway on the east and finish at Wadley Road, west of Ware County High School. South of Waycross, a potential location for a shared use path lies along a transmission line corridor that stretches from the south end of Rice Yard to north of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. Starting at US 84 south of Rice Yard, the proposed "Okefenokee Greenway" would follow the transmission line corridor all the way to SR 177, north of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. 
 
The multi-use path for the Okefenokee Greenway will have to be engineered to suit existing conditions along each corridor. Because of the nature of the terrain in Ware County, elevated boardwalks may need to be considered to limit potential impacts to wetlands that may fall within the corridors. Efforts should be made to avoid all possible envirorunental impacts that this type of facility could cause to existing vegetation, wildlife and topography. As usual, guidelines for railing construction, path width, signage, etc. should follow those illustrated in AASHTOs "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities." 
 
With pending changes in the configuration of the rail lines in the downtown Waycross area, there may also be opportunities to utilize the abandoned railroad corridor as a new off-street bicycle and pedestrian path. The abandoned rail line "greenway" would follow the abandoned track corridor from the intersection of Isabella Street and US 84 to State Street. Then, from the intersection of State. Street and Dresden Street and going west, this corridor would consist of shared lanes and tie into the proposed Kettle Creek Greenway at Cherokee Street. 
 
Any of the State Routes and U.S. Routes are possible candidates for Type A (e.g. experienced bicyclists) facilities. One such roadway is US 84 which provides a direct route through the center of Waycross and also ties into many other planned and proposed bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Bike lanes are proposed along US 84 starting south of Rice Yard, where the proposed Okefenokee Greenway starts, and extend north to the Satilla River, tying into the proposed Satilla River Greenway. SR 177 south of Waycross also provides a viable corridor for a bike lane from US 1/23 to US 82 and then a shared lane from US II23 to the Okefenokee Swamp Park. This would provide a connection between the planned Georgia DOT Southern Crossing Route and the proposed Okefenokee Greenway, completing the bike/pedestrian network on the southern edge of Waycross. 
 
Wide sidewalks are proposed along Jamestown Road (US 1 Bus.) between State Street in downtown Waycross and Blalock Avenue in Jamestown. This will serve as a pedestrian connection to the Jamestown area. The upcoming improvements to ABC Avenue also provide an excellent opportunity for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. While roadway improvements are being engineered, it is recommended that sidewalks and bike lanes are included along this corridor. Special provisions should be made at Kettle Creek crossing to ensure bridge approaches and railings are safe for cyclists. If land is available, the bike lanes and sidewalks can be replaced by a separate, parallel facility such as a shared use path. This type of facility may incorporate a separate bike/pedestrian bridge across Kettle Creek. Vehicular crossings of this type of facility would also have to be minimized. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Executive Summary 
 
.., . ,....: .... 
 
March 2001 Page xxv 
 
The final proposed corridor opportunity is located near Ware County High School. In order to provide safe travel for students/faculty who walk to school, 8'-10' wide sidewalks are proposed along Victory Drive and Wadley Road. These wide sidewalks will also tie into the proposed Kettle Creek Greenway, the proposed US 84 bike lanes, and the planned Georgia DOT Southern Crossing Route. 
 
It was discovered through the public meetings that the area directly surrounding the Satilla Memorial Hospital on Tebeau Street in downtown Waycross is in need of pedestrian improvements. Due to the Hospital's recent expansions, pedestrians are forced to walk in unsafe conditions between the parking areas and the hospital. For this reason, it is recommended that a detailed study be commissioned to examine specific improvements, which need to occur in this area. 
 
To summarize the steps required for the city of Waycross and Ware County to develop a bicycle/pedestrian "master plan," a "toolbox" of bicycle/pedestrian guidelines are presented on the following pages. These guidelines are meant to be a starting point to develop a bicycle/pedestrian program that incorporates some of the basic improvements proposed by this study and address the issues that face the citizens of Waycross/Ware County. 
 
Transit System 
Instead of proposing specific capital investments and/or plans to be included in the transit component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program, this study proposes several transit policy recommendations. These recommendations are presented in the form of options that can be used by Waycross/Ware County to initiate a successful and practical transit program. These recommendations are based on the results of the existing conditions analysis as well as the input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County. 
PBS&J analyzed current socioeconomic data to determine if a public transit system would be feasible in Waycross/Ware County. Typically, citizens who live in low-income households will be the prime users of a transit service (e.g. Dial-A-Ride program) because they can not afford to buy and maintain an automobile. Therefore, the general location of households in Waycross with incomes less than $15,000 per year were identified in order to see if there were clusters of households with low incomes. As seen on the Figure 9, clusters of low-income households were identified in areas north, south and southwest of downtown Waycross. The existence of several clusters of low-income households indicates that a transit system would be a viable option for residents living in these areas. A limited fixed route van/bus system or a demand-response van system (Dial-A-Ride program) similar to Pierce County's system may be feasible. 
Another approach for Waycross and Ware County to initiate a rural public transportation program would be through purchase-of-service-contract agreements with local businesses. Purchase-of-service-contracts is an option provided in the Section 5311 rural transportation program where private companies pay a county a certain amount per passenger to transport their employees between home and work. Waycross and Ware County currently have businesses that could sponsor purchase-of-service-contracts and there may also be future opportunities for 
 
 Page xxvi 
 
WAYCROSS/WARE COUNTY 
 
. 
 
. 
 
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 
 
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GUIDELINES 
 
~ Describe Plan to and Gain Acceptance from the Community 
~ Assign Responsibility for Bike/Pedestrian Projects to One County or City Employee 
~ Seek Steady Source of Dedicated Funds for Bike/Pedestrian Projects 
~ Provide Adequate Funding for Repairs/Maintenance of Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 
~ Overlay Districts Can Require Sidewalks be Built by Private Developers 
~ Be Flexible in Implementing Plan to Take Advantage of Road Improvements 
~ Identify Key Parcels for Strategic Bike/Pedestrian Links 
~ Encourage Safety Education For Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorists 
~ Transportation Projects Should Consider Treatments to Enhance Bike/Pedestrian Facilities' Connectivity 
GVb . Coordinate Strategies with Local, County, State, and Federal Agencies 
~ Provide Incentives Such as Credits Toward Impact Fees to Developers Who Provide Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 
 
 Page xxvii 
 
WAYCROSS/WARE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GUIDELINES 
 
&0 Upgrade Bike/Pedestrian Crossing at Stadium, 
 
&0 
 
Use Signed Bike Routes on Rural Highways to Connect Destinations 
 
&0 Develop Shared Use Path Along Satilla River 
- ., 
~ Consider Bike Lanes In City of Waycross 
 
&0 Make Existing Facilities Safer With: 
Streetlights Signalized Pedestrian Crossings (Mid-Block) Boldly Painted Cross Walks (GDOT Standard) Signals that Respond to Users 
 
~ 
 
&0 Connect Gaps in Existing Sidewalk Network 
 
&0 
 
Connect Laura S. Walker State Park to Existing Bike Lane Network 
 
&0 Connect Schools to Residential.Areas 
-~ 
~ Connect Residential Areas to Parks/Recreation Areas 
-~ 
~ Provide Sidewalks Along Business Corridors 
 
&0 Retrofit Existing Walks if They are Not Already 
Handicapped Accessible 
 
-~ 
G?0 
 
Use Abandoned Rail Road Corridors as Easements for 
 
Shared Use Paths 
 
 Figure 9 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Public Transit Potential 
LEGEND: 
Potential Origin/Destination of Transit Trips based on Density of Homes with Less than $15,000 Annual Household Income 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Executive Summary 
 
.. ' ..' . 
 
March 2001 Page xxix 
 
purchase-of-service-contracts if other major employers move to WaycrosslWare County. Purchase-of-service-contracts has shown to be a feasible way of maintaining and assisting a rural transportation program in other counties in GA District 5 and may also be an option for Waycross/Ware County in the future. 
 
Phasing ofRecommended Improvement Plan 
The final consideration in the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study was to provide a schedule for the implementation of the Recommended Improvement Program. An implementation schedule for all the projects that are included in the Recommended Improvement Program is shown in Table 8. The total cost for each project and the range (short, intermediate and long) in which each project is scheduled to be completed is also shown in Table 8. All projects have been assigned an expected time of completion for the preliminary engineering, . right-of-way acquisition and construction phases (where applicable). Based on a simple analysis of the methodology for allocating funds in Georgia, it is expected that projects that are eligible for federal and state funds in the Recommended Improvement Program should have adequate federal and state funds available over the next 25 years. 
 
 t 
':'.. ' 
 
Project Name SR 4IUS 1 SR 4IUS 1 Business SR 38IUS 84 SR 38/US 84 SR4 US 82/84 Connector 
Perimeter Route 
Southern Perimeter 
Central Avenue Conidor US 1 Bus. Conidor US 82 Conidor US 84 Knight to Dewey Conidor US 84 Riverside to Community Conidor Albany Avenue Corridor Carswell Avenue Conidor Blackshear Avenua Corridor Community Drive Corridor Lae Avenue Conidor Tebeau Street Corridor US 84 at Proposed Bypass Riverside Drive/Ava Street at US 84 Dawey Straet at US 84 Albany AvenuelKnight Avenue at US 84 Morningside Drive at US 84 Dewey Street at Knight Avenua Hanison Street at Knight Avenue Harrison Street at US 1 Bus, City Boulevard et US 82 Linden Drive at Sunnyside Drive ABC Avenua ABC AvenueExtension Garlington SUAlbany Avenue Intersection US 82 (Corridor Z)/Garlington SI. Intersection 
 
Table 8 
 
Waycross/Ware County Recommened Improvement Program 
 
2000 - 2025 Short,Intermedilate and Loru Range Program 
 
Description Widen to 4-Lanes With Median from Waycross Bypass at CR 152 to Bacon County Line Widen to 4Lanes With Median from north of Blackshear Avenue to CR 144/Airport Road Widen to 4-Lanes With Median from Greasv Brach Creek to CR 79 Widen to 4-Lanes With Median from CR 79 to Existino 5-Lane section at SR 4 Provide Tum Lanes from Lucy Moore Road to Havanna Avenue Provide a Connector Roadway from Conidor Z to US 84/Francis Street 
 
Tolal 
Cn~1 
$ $ $ $ $ $ 
 
Short Ranlc 
 
2006-2005 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Con_' 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V V 
 
IntcrmcJIllic RlIngc 
 
2011621115 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Comt 
 
East Bypass: New rour-tane roadway between US 84 in Pierce County and US 1/23 in Ware County. Northem terminus on US 84 in Pierce Co. approximately 0.5 mile from county line. 
 
$ 9,326,500 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
Intersection with US 82 in Ware Co. within 1.5 miles of county line. Extend south to US 1/23. 
 
South Bypass Preliminary Engineering: New four-lane roadway as extension of East Bypass 
 
proposed in the 25-year plan. Ties in to East Bypass at US 1/23 and terminates at US 84 
 
$ 1,184,000 
 
approximately 0.75 miles south of Rice Yard in southern Waycross. 
 
Central Avenue between Loblolly Lane and Stilla Drive 
 
$ 
 
110,900 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
US 1 Bus. Between Witkerson Street and US 82 
 
$ 
 
115,300 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
US 82 {Reynolds Street} between Havana Avenue and US 1 Business 
 
$ 
 
118,200 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
US 84 between Knight Avenue and Dewey Street US 84 between Riverside Drive and Community Drive 
 
$ 
 
112,400 
 
s 
 
211,900 
 
Albany Avenue between George Street and H Street 
 
$ 
 
188,800 
 
Carswell Avenue between Nichols Street and McDonald Street 
 
$ 
 
109,500 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
Blackshear Avenue between US 1 Bus. And Cherokee Street 
 
$ 
 
123,600 
 
Community Drive between Tabeau Straet and Alice Street 
 
$ 
 
113,800 
 
Lee Avenua between Knight Avenue and Carswell Avenue 
 
$ 
 
109,500 
 
Tebeau Street between Carswell Avenue and Isabella Street Intersection Improvement IntersectIon Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement 
 
$ 
 
109,500 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
$ 
 
280,000 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Temest Road (Jamestown) to Wacona Avenue Intersection and Signal Improvements Signalization andIntersection Improvements 
Highway Improvements Subtotal 
 
$ 1,406,700 
 
V 
 
V 
 
s 1,368,700 
 
V 
 
V 
 
$ 
 
221,000 
 
$ 
 
221,000 
 
$ 17 951300 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
Long Range 
 
1016-2112.5 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Conti 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
V 
 
 " 
 
Project Name Plant Avenue (US 84)nsabella Street Allee Street Pendelton Street Tebeau Street Albany Avenue McDonald Street Oak Street Johnson Avenue McDonald Street (near Brunswick Ave.) Nicholls Street L Street Carswell Avenue RR Bridge 
 
Table 8 
 
Waycross/Ware County Recommened Improvement Program 
 
- 2000 2025 Short_, Intermedilate and Lons Range Prozram 
 
Description 
 
Total 
Co~t 
 
Short Rance 
 
2000-2003 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
ClInsl 
 
Intermediate.' Rnnge 
 
2006201~ 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Const 
 
Rail Line & Crossing Removed Rail Line & Crossing Removed Rail Line & Crossing Removed Rail Line & Crossing Removed Rail Line & Crossing Removed 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
Rail Line & Crossing Removed 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
Rail Line & Crossing Removed Rail Line & Crossing Removed Reil Line & Crossing Removed 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
Rail Line & Crossing Removed 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
Rail Line & Crossing Removed 
 
$ 
 
25,700 
 
V- 
 
Removal of RR Bridge Over Carswell Avenue 
 
$ 
 
150,200 
 
V- 
 
Rail Removal Subtotal 
 
$ 
 
432900 
 
long RanKe 
 
20162025 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Cnn~1 
 
 (, 
 
Table 8 
 
Waycross/Ware County Recommened Improvement Program 
 
Prnject Name US 1 Bus. sweat Streel Brunei Street Elizabelh Street 
 
- 2000 2025 Short" Intermedilate and Lons 
 
HighwayOverpass at Railroad Crossing Removal Crossing Removal Crossing Removal 
 
Description 
 
TOlal 
 
Cod 
 
s 5,445,000 
 
s 
 
9,700 
 
s 
 
9,700 
 
s 
 
9,700 
 
Range Program 
 
Shllrt Ruge 20l1fl:wns 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Cond 
 
V- 
 
Inte rmedlate Rl'hll:e 
 
2111J6-2nl~ 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
ClIn,d 
 
V- 
 
V 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
lAnK R~ngc: 2(J16-102S 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
Con~t 
 
Mary Street (PedestrianCrossingProvided) Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
99,600 
 
V- 
 
Isabella Street 
 
Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
RooseveltStreet (PedestrianCrossingProvided) Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
99,600 
 
V- 
 
Azalea Avenue 
 
Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
Dresden Sireet 
 
Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
US 1 Bus. (GoldKislSpur) 
 
Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
Hebard Avenue Cherokee Avenue 
 
Crossing Removal Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
PrivateCrossing North of CherokeeAvenue PrivateCrossing Nonh of HuckabyLane Jamestown) HoneysuckleLane (Jamestown) 
 
Crossing Removal Crossing Removal Crossing Removal 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
-- 
 
S 
 
9,700 
 
V- 
 
Gilmore Street 
 
- 
 
NichOllS Street (US 84) 
 
CarswellAvenue 
 
Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Prolection and SUrface) Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Prolection and Surface) Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Protection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
Genoa Avenue 
 
UpgradeCrossing (Crossing Prolection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
BlacksnearAvenue 
 
UpgradeCrossing (Crossing Protection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
I 
 
Waring Streel 
 
Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Protection and SUrface) 
 
S 
 
126.400 
 
V- 
 
I, 
I 
 
WaconaAvenue 
 
Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Proteclion and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
B/alock Avenuein Jamestown 
 
UpgradeCrossing (Crossing Protection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
Atwater Road in Jamestown 
 
Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Prolection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
Temest Road in Jamestown 
 
Upgrade Crossing (Crossing Protection and Surface) 
 
S 
 
126,400 
 
V- 
 
Albany Ave.lGartingtonAve. 
 
RRlhwy. At-grade crossing replacement 
 
S 
 
24,700 
 
V- 
 
Perham Street 
 
Upgrade Perham SI as a connector roadwayfrom ElizabethSI. to Roosevelt SI 
 
$ 
 
137,600 V- 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
Lee Street ConslructionMonitoringfor HighwayFaciirties 
 
Extend Lee Streel across rail Irack and construct at-grade crossing 
City related roadwayconstrucuon Highway/RaotConflict Improvements 
 
$ 
 
93,100 V- 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
60,000 
 
V- 
 
$ 7340000 
 
Add DoubleTrack 
 
Consnuct5.5 miles of new second main track on CSX's Fitzgeraldand Jesup Subdivisionsfrom 
 
S. Waycross 10north of Wacona Ave. Including: 
 
- grading and drainage for raitwayfacilities 
 
 grading and drainage for raitwayfacilities 
 
 rehabilitate3.7 miles of existing track 
 
- Installationof 2 railroad at-grade crossing diamonds  build one 100' bridge on second main track (single track PCT) 
 
$ 7,017,900 V- 
 
V- 
 
V- 
 
 realign 0.7 miles of track 
 
 provide alternate rail access to Dixie Concrete 
 
- relocate GA B/ockiGoldkistSpur to west of US Route 1 
 
- retire 4 turnouts 
 
 retire 1.5 miles of existing track 
 
RR Signal System 
 
Modifyrailroad signal system including installationof two (2) new inlMockings 
 
$ 3,675,000 
 
V- 
 
Railroad Flagging 
 
For roadway andtrackrelatedconstruction 
 
$ 
 
135,100 
 
V- 
 
Constructlon Monitoring 
 
Railroad Facjlities Ral road Modifications 
 
$ 
 
189,000 
 
V- 
 
$ 11017000 
 
 " 
 
Table 8 
 
Project Nmne Overtay Runway 18/36 Ovsrtay Runway 5/23 Extension Runway36 Lighting. Land Acquisition Overtay Taxiway 18138 New Taxiway Taxiway Lighting Partial Parallel Taxiway Connecting Taxiway New Taxiway Ovenay Apron Apron - NAVAIDSNisual AidslWeather Aids Landside Auto Parking Conventional Storage Hangers T.Hangers Planning/Env;r, 
Salilla Reaional Medical Center Memorial Stadium victorv Drtve Wide Sidewalk Wadlev Road Wide Sidewalk Academic Greenwav Shared Use Path Waycross Exoress Rail Trail Shared Use Path SR 177 Bike Lane SR 177 Sianed Shared Lane Dresden Street Siqned Shared Lane Hampton Avenue Sioned Shared Lane Park Avenue Sianed Shared Lane Cherokee Street Sioned Shared Lane Jamestown Road Wide Sidewalk IPhase Il Jamestown Road Wide Sidewalk (Phase III Okefenokee Greenway Shared Use Path Kettle Creek Greenway Shared Use Path US 84 Bike Lane Sal/lla RjverGreenwav Shared Use Path ABC Avenue SidewalklBike Lane 
 
Waycross/Ware County Recommened Improvement Program 
 
- 2000 2025 Short,Intermedilate and Lons Range P.rogram 
 
Description' 
 
TOUtl G,~l 
 
Shott Rang.: 
 
zonO-ZOQS 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
CI.nSl 
 
Intermediate Rlln::c 
 
20lJ(,21115 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
C,'nd 
 
5230'x150' 5035'x100' 770'x150' 
 
$ 1,202,900 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
906,300 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
197,100 
 
V- 
 
MIRL 80 Acres 200'x35' 
 
$ 
 
15.000 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
170,000 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
10,000 
 
V- 
 
6000'X35' MITL RW510 RW36 RW 1310 Parallel TW/RW To T-Hangar 26,400 S.Y. 
 
$ 
 
750,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
70,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
120,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
240,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
60,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
340,000 
 
V- 
 
RCO, PAPI 32 Sp.l1120 S.Y. 1 15 Master Plan/EA 
 
$ 
 
70,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
33,600 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
240,000 
 
V- 
 
$ 
 
300,000 
 
V- 
 
s 
 
200,000 
 
V- 
 
Airoort SUbtotal Pedestrian Improvement Studv 
 
$ 4924900 
s 
 
Pedestrian Crossina StudY 
 
$ 
 
From Carswell Ave. 10Wadle v Rd. - 9 900 
 
s 
 
990000 
 
V- 
 
From Victorv Dr. to Kettle Creek - 11 220' 
 
s 1122000 
 
V- 
 
From victorv Dr. to KetUeCreek 14520' 
 
$ 2904000 
 
V- 
 
From Albanv Ave. to Slate. SI. (Alana Abandoned Rail Corridor) - 7 920 
 
s 1 584000 
 
V- 
 
From US 1/23 to US 82 - 26 400' 
 
s 1320,000 
 
V- 
 
US 1/23 to Okefenokee Swamp Park - 23760' 
 
$ 
 
24000 
 
V- 
 
From Jamestown Rd. to Hamoton Ave. 660' 
 
$ 
 
1000 
 
V- 
 
From Dresden SI. to Park Ave, - 3 300' 
 
$ 
 
3000 
 
V- 
 
From Hampton Ave. to Cherokee SI. 660' 
 
$ 
 
1000 
 
V- 
 
From Park Ave. to Kettle Creek - 3 300 
 
$ 
 
3000 
 
V- 
 
From Slate SI. to Dresden SI. 3 960' 
 
$ 
 
396,000 
 
V- 
 
From Dresden SI. to Blalock Ave. - 11 880' 
 
$ 1 188000 
 
From US 84 to SR 177 (Alana Ulilitv Eesemenll .42,240' 
 
$ 8448000 
 
V- 
 
From Wabley Rd. to Satilla River - 22 770' 
 
$ 4554 000 
 
V- 
 
From Sal/lla River to Smith Rd. - 29,040' 
 
$ 1452000 
 
From SR 158 to Brantley County Line - 110880' 
 
$ 22176000 
 
From Clouah 51. 10Temest Ave. 18,480' 
 
$ 1848,000 
 
V- 
 
Pedestrian and Blcvcle Imorovements 
 
S 48014000 
 
Total 
 
S 89680100 
 
Lung RlI.nr,e 
 
2111(,.2025 
 
-- 
 
PE 
 
ROW 
 
ClIn.l 
 
.- 
VVV- 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Section 1: Highway/Street System 
TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSIS 
Count Locations 
PBS&J took traffic counts at many locations in WaycrosslWare County in order to supplement the traffic counts that are taken by the Georgia Department of Transportation each year (i.e. coverage counts). Three types of counts were taken: twenty-four (24) hour vehicle classification counts, twenty-four (24) hour directional counts, and peak hour (A.M. and P.M.) turning movement counts. 
The twenty-four hour vehicle classification counts are used to determine the percent trucks that travel on major routes in Waycross throughout the day. The twenty-four hour directional counts are used to determine the total flow of traffic (all vehicle types) throughout the day. Finally, the peak hour turning movements are used to determine the type and magnitude of turning movements at major intersections during the morning and afternoon peak hours. 
Figure 1.1 shows the locations of the twenty-four hour vehicle classification and directional counts while Figure 1.2 shows the locations of the peak hour turning movement counts. Figures 1.3 through 1.8 show the intersection configurations of the intersections counted and also shows the location of any railline(s) in the vicinity of the intersections. 
, 
Count Data 
The results of the peak hour turning movement counts are shown on Figures 1.3 through 1.8. The results of the twenty-four hour vehicle classification counts are shown in the Final Report Technical Appendix. The twenty-four hour vehicle classification counts show that a majority of the truck traffic is using Corridor Z (east-west travel) and US 84 (north-south travel) to pass through Waycross. The results of the twenty-four hour directional counts are also shown in the Final Report Technical Appendix. Most of the sites that were counted have a daily traffic volume less than 1,000. 
 
 i' 
 
Figure 1.1 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
24-Hour Count Locations 
 
24-Hour Vehicle Classification Counts 1. US 1 (Bus) south of Jamestown 2. US 1/23/82 (Corridor Z) west of Anita St. 3. US 84 south of New Mexico Ave. 4. US 1/23 east of Hatcher Point Rd. 5. US 82 east of Hatcher Point Rd. 
 
24-Hour Bi-directional Counts at Railroad Crossings 1. Temest Rd. (Jamestown) 2. Blalock Ave. (Jamestown) 3. Cherokee Ave. 4. Dresden St. 5. Genoa Ave. 6. Johnson Ave. 7. Alice St. 8. Roosevelt Ave. 9. Isabella St. 10. Mary St. 11. Elizabeth St. 12. Sweat St. 
Legend: 
 
24-Hour Bi-directional Count 24-Hour Vehicle Classification Count 
 
GDOT 24-Hour Coverage Count 
 
-I 
N 
 
 ,. 
,. 
Figure 1.2 WaycrossfWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Locations 
Legend: 
tA"~IDIntersection 
-I 
Y.I 
 
 Page ]-4 
 
Not to Scale 
 
~\,:> 
 
c:: 
 
;- 
 
~ 00 
r-~ 
 
rfJ 
 
~~ 
 
00-. N_ I~ n 
 
00 
~ 
 
dJn US 1 Bus. 
 
--'-i-:-l. 
jl;'" 
:.:.s.. 
 
 i ---------- 
 
><- 
(l) 
-.:-- 
 
--------~ 
 
(182) 86 ciJ I 
 
(358) 294 "U 
 
I I 
 
I 
 
~~ 
 
~t-n .0.0. 
 
I 
 
tn ~ ... 
In~~ 
 
I 
 
~ooo 
otnn~ r -.-.. 
 
I I 
 
dJDQ::, .f'. ~ Alban Ave. 
 
~ _ M ~ 00 
~~ 
 
Legend: 
fA\ Intersection 
~ID 
100 Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Counts 
(100) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
 
 
 
, 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
_0_ I 
 
~;::;~ 
 
I 
 
;:;-~~ 
 
I 
 
~ ~~ 
 
I 
 
dJ D Q::, .fl. ~ 
 
Carswell Ave. 
 
 
~ 101 (132) : 
:::l154 (180)  
(f' 26 (23)  
 
Knight Ave. 
 
 
 
--------~ 
(90) 49 ciJ 
(208) 133 c::> 
(10) 4 "U 
 
US I Bus. 
 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study 
Intersection Configuration Downtown Business District 
 
 PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.3 
 
 Page J-5 
 
Not to Scale 
 
 
US 1 Bus. 
 
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 
~l. ~ 
 
~ 57 (77) 
. =:> 177 (405) 
ff 21 (46) 
 
US 1 Bus. 
 
-~--------------------- 
 
-------------------~ 
 
(33) 41 c!J 
 
 
 
(360)329 q 
(58) 53 "U 
 
Legend: 
~ ~IDIntersection 
JOO Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Counts 
. (100) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
............ -. 
 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study Intersection Configuration 
US 1 Business at Tebeau Street 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.4 
 
 Page 1-6 
Not to Scale 
 
 
US 84 
---------------------+, 
(25) 13 c!J 
(569)203 q 
. (44) 23 'l> 
 
~ 163 (123) 
::>465 (397) 
if' 233 (271) 
... 
r 
 
US 84 
 
I  
 
  
CSX Savannah Rail Line 
Frequency a/Trains: Less than J per hour Average Time Each Train 
Blocks Crossing: 4 Minutes 
 
Legend: 
(A\ Intersection 
\!Y ID 
100 Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Counts 
(100) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
 
WaycrossfWare County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study Intersection Configuration US 84 at Pinehurst Drivel 
Morningside Drive 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.5 
 
 Page 1-7 
Not to Scale 
II 
 
Albany St. 
 
~ 
~o~ 
I_"') 1~ " 'N ) 0 
~I"')~ 
t- on 'C 
dJUlS 
 
(12) 12 c!) (155) 143 q 
(86) 41 'l> 
 
 
~ II (30) 
(::J 105 (157) 
(f 18 (16) 
 
Albany St. 
 
Legend: 
tA:~ID Intersection 
 
.. 
 
100 Year 2000 AM Peak 
 
Hour Counts 
 
(l00) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study Intersection Configuration 
Garlington Street at Albany Street 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.6 
 
 Page 1-8 
 
. 
 
Not to Scale 
 
 
 
\ \ \ \ 
\ \ \ \ . \\ 
\ \ \ \ \ 
\ \ \ \ \ 
\ \ \ 
 
~ I3 (45) 
, ::J133(114) 
(f 18 (10) 
 
Blackshear Ave . 
 
.! 
Legend: 
~ ~ID Intersection 
100 Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Counts 
(100) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
 
"l 
(60) 37 c!J 
(155) 91 q 
(86) 80 "'U 
 
, 
\ \ \ 
\ \ \ \ 
\ \ 
\ \ \ \ \ 
\ \ \ 
\ \ \ \ \ 
\ 
 
eui!(f 
 
"' 
\Q 
 
.~ ... ~ ~ 
 
"3'O~ 
 
~-cl; 
 
C 
(/) 
..-- 
 
 
 
 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study Intersection Configuration 
US 1 Business at Blackshear Ave. 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.7 
 
 Page 1-9 
<.j ". 
Not to Scale 
 
 
 
US 82 
... 
--------------------,,-- 
 
~ 1 (1) 
 
..e::l395 (290) 8 (7) 
 
US 82 
 
-~--------------------- 
 
(8) 6 c!J 
(239) 165 q 
(177) 131 "U 
 
 
 
Legend: 
@ Intersection ID 
100 Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Counts 
~ 
(100) Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Counts 
 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal 
Transportation Study 
Intersection Configuration US IIVS 23 at US 82 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.8 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study FInal R~port Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-10 
 
CORSIM Model 
 
 
 
In order to evaluate the peak hour (A.M. and P.M.) turning movement counts, a computer model 
 
called CORSIM was used. CORSIM is a model that simulates traffic for an entire hour using 
 
geometric data (e.g. number of lanes, length of tum bays, etc.), traffic control data (e.g. stop 
 
signs, traffic signals, etc.) and traffic data (e.g. automobiles and trucks per hour). The CORSIM 
 
model keeps track of the operating characteristics of every vehicle that passes through an 
 
intersection. Once an intersection is modeled by CORSIM, the quality of travel through the 
 
intersection can be determined. CORSIM can also be used to test a proposed improvement at an 
 
intersection to see if it will work before it is actually constructed. 
 
Intersection Level ofService 
 
The CORSIM model was used to determine the level of service of the intersections where peak hour (A.M. and P.M.) turning movements were taken. Level of service is simply a description of how well an intersection operates. A letter grade (A through F) is used to describe the intersection's operations: 'A' representing very good and 'F' representing "gridlock." In general, a level of service oftA' or 'B' indicates that an intersection is operating well a majority of the time and requires no improvements. A level of service of 'C' or 'D' indicates that an intersection is approaching its capacity and will likely require some type of improvement in the near future. A level of service of 'E' or 'F' means that the intersection is at capacity or has exceeded its capacity and needs to be improved (e.g. add lanes, add a traffic signal) immediately. For a more detailed description of level of service, see Figure 1.9. 
 
The level of service analysis completed for eight major intersections in Waycross is summarized in Table 1.1. It should be rioted that these levels of service do not reflect the delay caused by train crossings, where applicable. As Table 1.1 shows, all the intersections analyzed are currently operating at level of service C or better. The intersections that are currently operating at a level of service of C are located at the intersection of US 84 (Plant Avenue) and Carswell Avenue/US 1 Bus. in downtown Waycross and at the intersection of US 1 Bus. and US 82, just east of downtown Waycross. 
 
Impact of Train Crossing Delay at Intersections 
 
In order to determine the impact of train crossings on intersections in the peak hours of operation, the CORSIM model was used. In CORSIM, a temporary "event" such as a train' crossing can be simulated to occur at specific times within the peak hour. PBS&J simulated such events at six intersections that are currently impacted by train crossings. 
 
 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at US J Bus. (State Street), 
 
. 
 
 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue, 
 
 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US J Bus., 
 
 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Morningside Drive, 
 
 Albany Avenue at Garlington Street, 
 
 US 1 Bus. at Blackshear Avenue. 
 
 Page 1-11 . 
 
... 
 
LEVEL 
 
OF 
 
SERVICE 
 
DESCRIPTION 
 
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 
MAXIMUM DELAY 
(In Seconds) 
 
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 
MAXIMUM DELAY 
(In Seconds) 
 
A 
 
LITTLE OR NO DELA Y. At signalized intersections, no vehicle must wait longer than one signal in order to travel through the 
 
10.0 
 
intersection. 
 
10.0 
 
B C D 
 
SHORT DELAYS. At signalized intersections, a vehicle might have to wait through more than one signal indication to pass through the intersection on a rare occasion. 
AVERAGE DELAYS. At signalized intersections, a vehicle would be required to wait through more than one signal indication to pass through the intersection on an intermittent basis, and occasionally backups could occur behind left turning vehicles. 
LONG DELAYS. At signalized intersections, delays may become extensive with some vehicles requiring two or more signal indications to pass through the intersection. However, sufficient signal cycles with lower demand are available to permit the periodic clearance of the intersection. 
 
20.0 35.0 55.0 
 
15.0 25.0 35.0 
 
E 
 
VERY LONG DELA YS. At signalized intersections, very long queues and high levels of congestion are prevalent which 
 
result in lengthy delays. 
 
80.0 
 
50.0 
 
.. 
 
F 
 
EXCESSIVE LONG DELAYS. The capacity of the roadway or intersection has been exceeded resulting in extremely high 
 
>80.0 
 
>50.0 
 
levels of congestion. 
 
LEVEL OF SERVICE D 
 
LEVEL OF SERVICE E 
 
NOTE: Level of Service Definitions and Criteria are based on HCM, 1997 Update 
 
LEVEL OF SERVICE F 
 
WaycrossfWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Level of Service Definitions and Criteria for At-Grade Intersections 
 
FIGURE 1.9 
 
 " 
 
Table 1.1 Existing Conditions Peak Hour 
Intersection Level of Service 
 
Intersection US 84 (Plant Avenue) at US 1 Bus (State Street) US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US 1 Bus US 1 Bus (State Street) at Tebeau Street US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Morningside Drive Albany Avenue at Garlington Street (2) US 1 BU$ at Blackshear Avenue US 1 Bus at US 82 
 
Level of Service (1) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 
 
B 
 
B 
 
B 
 
B 
 
C 
 
C 
 
B 
 
B 
 
B 
 
B 
 
A 
 
A 
 
B 
 
B 
 
C 
 
C 
 
NOTES: 
(I) These levels of service do not reflect the delay caused by train crossings during the peak hours, (2) Unsignalized 
.., 
:.l 
--~ I N 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-13 
 
It should be noted that the intersection of US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US I Bus. is impacted by two separate rail lines (Savannah Rail Line and the Atlanta/Jacksonville Rail Line). At each of these intersections train crossings lasting five, ten, fifteen and twenty minutes were simulated in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The results of this analysis are shown on Figures 1.10 through 1.16.. These figures only provide the analyst with a "profile" of how train blockages of any duration impact each intersection: these figures do not imply that trains actually block crossings for exactly five, ten, fifteen or twenty minutes. However Figures 1.10 through 1.16 were used to determine how train blockages impacted the level of service of intersections. 
In order to do this, average train lengths, speeds, and frequencies were used to determine approximately how long trains blocked crossings in the peak hours. This information is shown on Figures 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 for intersections with rail lines adjacent to them. Next, the estimated durations of train crossings/blockages were plotted on Figures 1.10 through 1.16 and the resulting delay to motorists during the peak hours was determined. For most crossings, it was estimated that only one train would pass through a crossing in the peak hour. However, for the crossings near the intersections of Albany Avenue at Garlington Street and US I Bus. at Blackshear Avenue, .it was probable that two trains would pass through the crossings near these intersections in the peak hour. For this reason, Figures 1.15 and 1.16 show estimated levels of service if one or two trains pass through the crossings adjacent to these intersections in the peak hour. Table 1.2 summarizes the impact of trains on intersection level of service. As seen on Table 1.2, all the intersections adjacent to a rail line operate at level of service D or worse in the PM peak hour when trains block crossings. The impact of trains on intersection level of service is also significant in the AM peak hour, but not as severe as in the PM peak hour. 
 
TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL 
 
. Development and Calibration 
In an effort to analyze all the major roads in Waycross/Ware County, PBS&J updated the Waycross/Ware County Travel Demand Model. The previous version of the model was done in 1987.' In order to update the model to the year 2000, PBS&J updated the roadway network to reflect roadway improvements completed since 1987 and the Waycross/Ware County Planning Commission provided the updated 2000 socioeconomic data. Socioeconomic data used for this model include number of households, population, number of vehicles, school enrollment and employment. 
The Waycross/Ware County travel demand model incorporates a three-step process to estimate current travel patterns: Trip Generation, Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment. Trip generation simply estimates the total number of trips that will be made in the Waycross/Ware County area. Trip distribution decides where trips will start and where trips will end and, finally, trip assignment determines the actual roads that are used by travelers to go from one location to another. 
 
 Figure 1.10 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Savannah Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at US 1 Business (State Street) 
300.0 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 
 
275.0 - j - - ----------.-----------------------------------p~ 
 
250;0 -l----------------------- - - - , - - - - - ----~------H_-- 
 
225.0 - j - - - I  
 
 
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 
 
200.0 - l - - - - - - - 
 
--.ol-:1 
~ 
 
175.0 -l--------_._-------.-----------._.------------------/---if- - - - - - 
 
- -- 
 
- 
 
150.0 + - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
C/.) 
 
l-< 
 
1:(]) 
 
125.0 - l - - - - - - - - - 
 
~ 
 
100.0 - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , ? - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i 
 
75.0 ------------------------------- - - - - - +----------------L-e-v-e-l--o-f-S--e-r-v-ic-e--F-------- 
 
50.0 -l------------~"--l---- 
 
25.0 - l - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ / _ 
 
0.0 + - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - L - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - j 
 
o 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
 . 
 
,. 
 
t' 
 
Figure 1.11 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Savannah Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue 
325.0 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 
 
300.0 
 
275.0 250.0 
 
 
 
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 - - - - - - 
 
/ 
 
225.0 
 
-_._-._-~-_._------_._-_. 
 
- / - - - - - - - _. 
 
200.0 
 
175.0 
 
-/--- -F------------ 
 
150.0 
 
125.0 . . , - - - - - - - - - 
 
100.0 . . , - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . , ; ' - - - - - - - - F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j 
Level of Service F 
75.0 ..,-------------:7"--f---~--------------- 
Level of Service E 
50.0 
 
25.0 ili2::::::~=-----""'~::::Y..---T-------------- 
 
0.6 4 - - - - - - - - - . - - - - l - - - - - - , - - - . - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - j 
 
o 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
 Figure 1.12 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Savannah Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US 1 Business 
250.0 
 
~ ;..., 
 
225.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - _ .__.-... .. ~~_ --_.~..~_..._-_.-- 
 
:;j 
 
..0c: 
;..., 0) 
0.. 
..c: 
 
200.0 - - - - - 
 
 
 
AM Peak Hour ------PM Peak Hour 
 
0) 
;> 
 
175.0 
 
....o...... 
 
_ -----_._---- - ..~ 
 
0) 
 
CIl 
 
.. 
 
-_ .. _~._-_. 
 
/ ".1. 
 
/ 
7 
 
.-'-" 150.0 ~ 
0 
 
o.;.-> 
0) 
 
125.0 
 
;C...I,l 
 
0) 
 
.;.-> 
 
~ 100.0 
 
.._._-._-'_._---------- 
... 
 
.. 
7 ._.. 
/ 
 
"1""a"" 
 
_________ lo~Y~!_~(~~!yj~~_~ ______________ ~ ____ ~-------- ____________________ 
 
; 
..r.o.. 0) 
0 
 
75.0 ________ }":~y~! _~~ _e!:'}9~_?_______________/ 
 
_________________________~~ 
 
0) 50.0 rOoJ) 
;..., 
0) 
<;> 25.0 
 
.. -------- LOS C 
 
... 
 
--='i 
 
~f' LOS I. 
 
C 
 
.... 
 
.> - 
 
0.0 
 
I 
 
o 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
--I 
0'1 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
  
Figure 1.13 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Atlanta/lax Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US 1 Business 
150.0 , - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 
 
125.0 -1-----1 
 
 
 
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 
 
.__. _ 
 
100.0 - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . y C - - - _ _ / _ 
 
..o.~... 
~ 
 
-------L--e-v-e-l-o--f-S--e-rv--ic-e--F---------------------------"- 
 
U 
(J) 
 
75.0 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . , . . . e : - . - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - j 
 
-V;...l. (J) 
~ 
t::: 
~ 
 
Level of Service E 
50.0 +----------------,,,..e.----r----~~-------.---__t 
 
-~ 
c(J) 
 
r:; 
 
(J) 
~ 
 
25.0 a=:::::~======--.---- 
 
;.... 
 
(J) 
 
;>- 
 
<t: 
 
0.0 - j - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - f - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - j 
 
o 
 
5 
 
15 
 
20 
 
--, 
-l 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
 ,J 
 
Figure 1.14 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Savannah Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Morningside Drive 
275.0 
 
~ ;.... 250.0 
 
~ 
 
0 
 
~ ;.... 
 
225.0 
 
(1) 
 
 AM Peak Hour 
 
0., 
 
 PM Peak Hour 
 
~. (1) 
 
200.0 -l----=:=====:==-====~------------------__;>"""__-----__l 
 
--oC (1) 
 
. 175.0 
 
o: 
 
'-" 
 
s::::: 
 
..0.... 150.0 
 
-u+-' 
 
(1) 
 
r;:.r..J. . 125.0 
 
(1) 
 
-+-' 
 
s::::: 
 
~ 
~ 
 
100.0 
 
-~ (1) 
 
75.0 
 
Q 
 
(1) 
 
50.0 
 
b1) 
 
c;.:.:.:.l 
 
(1) 
<:> 
 
25.0 
 
0.0 
 
0 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
--I 
00 
 
 Figure 1.15 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Atlanta Rail Line) - Year 2000 Albany Avenue at Garlington Street 
225.0 - . - - - - - - , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 
 
200.0 
 
-----_._._----------------- 
 
175.0"--1 
 
 
 
AM Peak Hour _.~ PM Peak Hour 
 
.__ 
 
150.0 -t-----------.-~-----~----------/_ 
 
-t-------l t 125.0 
 
With 2 Trains 
 
----\ 100.0 .,------------------..----;~--------___j 
 
LOSF 
 
75.0 -r------r=======,---------;;~r:_=_-...=_:=_=--------_____j 
 
50.0 
 
25.0 +--~------11l1lr__:7"=--------_7_-----------__l 
 
0.0 - t - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - j 
 
o 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
 Figure 1.16 
Potential Delay Experienced By Motorists Due to Trains (Atlanta Rail Line) - Year 2000 US 1 Business at Blackshear Avenue 
225.0 . . . , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 
 
200.0 
 
175.0 
 
 
 
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 
 
_ 
 
150.0 - t - - - - - . _ - - - - - 
 
With 2 Trains 125.0 -1-- _ _ _ _ _--j 
 
100.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A 
 
-----------------------.------------------ -- I -- ---------L--e-v-e-l-o--f-S-e-r-v-i-c-e--F- 
75.0 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : , ; - - - - . . . 1 . . : : - - - - - - - - - 
 
With 1 Train ------------ 50.0 i-L-~-------1----_r:..-.-__:7.-. --.-<-1:II -!L-r-O---S--E--r --_----- L--e-v---e--l--o--f--S---e--r-v--i._ -c-e_-_E--j 
 
I 
 
I 
 
25.0 - 1 - - - - 
 
I 
 
0.0 - + - - - - - - - - r - - - I - - - - - - - , - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - . , - - - - - - - - - - i 
 
o 
 
5 
 
10 
 
15 
 
20 
 
Potential Length of Train Crossings (min) 
 
 .; . 
 
Table 1.2 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service with Train Crossing Delay 
 
Intersection US 84 (Plant Avenue) at US 1 Bus (State Street) US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Carswell Avenue/US 1 Bus US 84 (Plant Avenue) at Morningside Drive Albany Avenue at Garlington Street (2) US 1 Bus at Blackshear Avenue 
 
Level of Service (1) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 
 
C 
 
E 
 
D 
 
F 
 
D 
 
E 
 
C 
 
D 
 
F 
 
F 
 
E 
 
F 
 
NOTES: 
(I) These levels of service reflect the potential delay caused by train crossings during the peak hours. (2) Unsignalized 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-22 
 
Currently, the number of households in the Waycross/Ware County model study area is approximately 11,720 and the population is approximately 29,300. There are approximately 10,000 students and 16,700 employees in the study area as well. This data is summarized on Figure 1.17.. In order to manage the socioeconomic data, the Waycross/Ware Courity study area was divided up into small groups called traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The Waycross/Ware County model has a total of 75 traffic analysis zones. All the socioeconomic data were divided into the traffic analysis zones and trips were generated and distributed using the zones. Traffic analysis zones usually have major roads for boundaries and typically include similar types of socioeconomic data (e.g. mostly employment or mostly households). A map of the traffic analysis zones used in the Waycross/Ware County model is shown on Figure 1.18. See the Final Report Technical Appendix for a complete listing of the 2000 socioeconomic data summarized by traffic analysis zones. 
 
PBS&J calibrated the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model using a procedure called screenline analysis. Screenline analysis is a method where several network-wide lines are drawn across roads in the model. A screenline usually runs east-to-west or north-to-south and is designed to capture trips travelling from one end of the area to the other. Therefore, we are "screening" trips as they .travel throughout the roadway network. See Figure 1.19 for the screenlines used in the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model screenline analysis. For roads that are crossed by screenlines, PBS&J compared the volume assigned by the model to the volume counted by an actual traffic count taken at that same spot. If the difference between the two volumes is within a desirable deviation, then the model is assumed to be correctly estimating travel patterns for that particular road. The goal of the screenline analysis is to get the assigned volumes to match the actual traffic counts, within the maximum desired deviation, for all screenlines. 
 
Table 1.3 shows the results of the screenline analysis for the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model. As seen on Table 1.3, all the screenlines are within the maximum desirable deviation of the actual traffic counts. If all the screenlines are added up, it can be seen that the model as a whole is estimating traffic volumes just +8% over the actual traffic counts. Based on this successful screenline analysis, PBS&J considers the 2000 Waycross/Ware County travel demand model to be calibrated. See Figures 1.20 and 1.21 for the base year daily volumes estimated by the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model. 
 
Existing Conditions Analysis 
PBS&J used the calibrated Waycross/Ware County travel demand model to determine systemwide performance measures. Table 1.4 shows vehicle hours of travel (VHT), vehicle hours of delay (VHD) and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) that were derived from the 2000 model. Approximately 90% of all roads in Waycross/Ware County are currently operating at level of service (LOS) C or better. Approximately 8% of all roads operate at level of service D and the remaining 2% of the roads in the network operate at level of service E or F. Figure 1.22 shows the current level of service for roads in the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model. As seen on Figure 1.22, small portions of US 1 Bus, US 84 (Plant Avenue) and City Boulevard 
 
 Figure 1.17 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
2000' Socioeconomic Data 
35,000 
 
30,000 - ----- 
 
25,000 
 
20,000 - - 
 
15,000 10,000 5,000 
oI 
 
11,72 1 
" ".," " " " " 
" 
" 
 
" " " 
 
" 
 
--,- 
 
" 
 
" : 
" ".:' 
 
: 
 
:" 
 
, 
 
Households 
 
29-,26.5__________, 
 
:" " 
 
": 
 
" 
 
-:" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
: 
 
".:' " 
 
: ".;' 
 
" 
 
" 
 
-:" " " " ",," " 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" \:'" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
.. 
 
" "'-' 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
: 
 
" 
 
" 
 
",:' " 
 
" 
 
:" 
 
" 
 
: ".," " 
 
" 
 
".:' 
 
" 
: 
 
"'.:' " 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
: 
 
" 
 
".,'": 
 
" 
 
" 
 
".," 
 
" 
 
" 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
:" 
 
27,743 
""""" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
""" 
 
"" 
 
",:' 
 
" 
 
" 
 
:::>..... " 
" " 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" " 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
10,015 
 
"" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
, 
 
.:-: -: " " " " " " " 
 
- - - - - - " ".:' 
 
'0.:' 
: 
 
" 
 
".:" " 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" " "" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
: : : : : :" 
 
Population 
 
Vehicles 
 
School Enrollment 
 
16,698 
" " "" "" " 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
 
" 
:::::: 
 
Employment 
 
 Figure 1.19 Waycross/Ware County Travel Demand Model 
Screenlines 
 
 Table 1.3 W aycross/Ware County Travel Demand Model 
Screenline Analysis 
 
Screenline 
 
Number 
 
Screenline Description 
 
1 
 
Railroad Lines (Pearson & Brunswick) , E-to- W 
 
2 
 
SR 38 Conn to US 82, E-to- W 
 
3 
 
Tebeau St to US 1/23/82, N-to-S 
 
4 
 
US 84 to US 1 Bus, N-to-S 
 
5 
 
Albany Ave to US 84, E-to-W 
 
6 
 
Railroad Line (Savannah), N-to-S 
 
7 
 
Wacona Dr to US 84, N-to-S 
 
Total Network 
 
Model Assigned 24-Hour Volume 
72,520 62,600 58,460 35,560 50,380 60,500 59,580 399,600 
 
24-Hour Traffic Count 61,415 53,372 67,640 36,752 43,896 50,597 56,844 370,516 
 
Percent Deviation 
from Count 18.1% 17.3% -13.6% -3.2% 14.8% 19.6% 4.8% 7.8% 
 
Maximum Desirable Deviation 
27.6% 29.2% 26.6% 33.8% 31.5% 29.8% 28.5% 13.6% 
 
-I 
N 0\ 
 
 Figure 1.20 - WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 2000 Daily Volumes - Base Year Network 
 
 Legend:  Travel Demand 
Model External Station 
r 
 
 'I 
 
Table 1.4 Waycross/Ware County Travel Demand Model Total Vehicle Delay and Miles Traveled for 2000 
 
Arterials Collectors 2000 TOTAL 
 
VHT 14,999 6,041 21,040 
 
VHD 819.9 249.9 1,069.8 
 
TOTAL VMT 
551,577 
 
LOS C or better VMT % of total 
VMT 
496,588 90.0% 
 
VMTbyLOS 
 
LOSD % of total 
VMT VMT 
 
LOSE VMT % of total 
VMT 
 
44,332 8.0% 10,592 1.9% 
 
179,631 163,188 90.8% 14,478 8.1% !,965 1.1% 
 
731,208 659,776 90.2% 58,810 8.0% 
 
12,557 1.7% 
 
LOSF % of total 
VMT VMT 
 
65 
 
<1% 
 
0 
 
0.0% 
 
65 
 
<1% 
 
NOTES: VHT: Vehicle Hours of Travel VHD: Vehicle Hours of Delay VMT: Vehicle Miles of Travel LOS: Level of Service 
 
  
t  
Figure 1.22 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 2000 Level of Service Deficiericies :. Base Year Network 
 
Key: 
 
LOSD LOSE LOSF 
 
 Page 1-31 
 
Table 1.5 
,Waycross/WareCounty Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
2000 Level of Service Deficiencies (LOS D, E or F) Base Year Network 
 
ID Road Name 
I City Blvd. 2 Plant Ave. / US 84 3 US 1 Bus. 4 City Blvd. 5 Ava St. 6 Central Ave. 7 Plant Ave. / US 84 8 Plant Ave. / US 84 9 Corridor Z / US 82 10 Corridor Z / US 82 II City Blvd. 12 Morningside Dr. 13 US I Bus. 14' Central Ave. 15 Albany Ave. 16 Sunnyside Dr. 17 Carswell Ave. 
 
From 
Knight Ave. Riverside Dr. Waring St. Mt. Pleasant Dr. Plant Ave. / US 84 Loblolly Ln. Butler St. Pierce Co. Line Crawford St. Lee Ave. Shawnee Dr. Plant Ave. / US 84 Wacona Dr. City Blvd. L St. Linden Dr. Nichols St. 
 
To 
Reynolds St. / US 82 Butler St. Blackshear Ave. Knight Ave. Screven Ave. Russton Dr. Albany Ave. Morningside Dr. Nichols St. Morton Ave. Mt. Pleasant Rd. Rainbow Dr. Waring St. Loblolly Ln. H St. Blackshear Ave. McDonaldSt. 
 
LOS 
F E E E E E D D D D D D D D D D D 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street S y s t e m ,... 
 
March 2001 Page 1-32 
 
currently operate at level of service E or F. Table 1.5 lists the level of service deficiencies for the base year network. 
 
HIGHWAY BRIDGE INVENTORY 
 
As part of the highway existing conditions analysis, PBS&J compiled data on the highway bridges in Ware County. There are a total of 107 bridges in Ware County according to the Georgia Department of Transportation. In order to assess the existing quality or sufficiency of these bridges, a sufficiency rating is given to each bridge structure by the Georgia Department of Transportation. Table 1.6 shows the 30 highway bridges (out of a total of 107 highway bridges in Ware County) with the lowest bridge sufficiency ratings in Ware County. By calculating four separate factors, a numeric value is obtained which is indicative of the sufficiency of a bridge to remain in service. The computation includes selected items on the Bridge Inventory Data Listing (BIDL). Using a mathematical equation (a methodology adopted by AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) a value between 0 and 100 is obtained. The equation and the computations are based on bridge conditions in three major areas: the structural adequacy and safety of the bridge; the serviceability/functional obsolescence and essentiality of the bridge for public use; and special conditions. A sufficiency rating of zero represents an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge and a rating of 100 represents an entirely sufficient bridge. 
 
The sufficiency rating is also used by the Georgia Department of Transportation to program 
 
 
 
bridges for replacement or rehabilitation. If a project number is listed for a bridge, this indicates 
 
that a bridge replacement or improvement project has already been scheduled by the Department 
 
for construction or maintenance. However, the department has in place, plans to replace all 
 
bridges that have a sufficiency rating less than 50. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
As a vital part of the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study, input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County was used to supplement the existing conditions analysis as well as help to identify future improvements or recommendations. On February 24, 2000, a public information meeting was held at the Ware County High School where comments from citizens were.taken. After the meeting, additional comments were received through regular mail and e-mail. 
 
Overall, the public reaction to the existing highway/street system was very strong. Comments about the highway/street system ranged from a desire for a bypass around Waycross to the need to pave dirt roads in Waycross. Some ofthe comments expressed by citizens of Waycross/Ware County are included in the following list. 
 
~ Build a bypass outside ofthe Waycross city limits, 
 
 
 
~ Don't build a bypass but, instead, improve existing roads, 
 
~ Reduce Pierce Countytraffic that uses Plant Avenue (US 84) and Morningside Drive, 
 
 .' 
 
Table 1.6 
 
Ware County Bridge Inventory* 
 
Rank Rating 
 
Bridge J.D. # 
 
Road Name 
 
(~~t~~if"]~i!fr'~~f.~f:~~~~karil 
 
.: ".  .::3~'i;h,A'8;~iO'*;';;:~"\.WF;,,2~9~9~~~5lmlm~lO;O":~",'.;;:,f.L,,J~c,.;'~iO~ltd~~MaJnaoir~M!~dl 
 
.... ,-29.9.;;5.024.;};;'::Corbltt Roa 
 
~I 
 
;;lQi 
 
~lJI 
 
'175 
 
..;.!:}:'1;:J6. 
 
;~t7:1~ 
 
~!~rt~~g.,:;.c. 
 
18 50.1 
 
299-0036-0 
 
Bickley Highway 
 
Hog Creek 
 
19 50.3 
 
299-5074-0 
 
Wadley Road 
 
Kettle Creek 
 
20 50.5 
 
299-0002-0 
 
U.S. 1 Business/SR 4 Bu Kettle Creek 
 
NH - 002-1 (46) 
 
21 55.0 
 
299-0004-0 
 
U.S. 1 / SR 4 
 
Satilla River 
 
EDS - 545 (33) 
 
22 55.2 
 
299-0003-0 
 
U.S. 1 / SR 4 
 
Cox Creek 
 
EDS - 545 (33) 
 
23 55.4 
 
299-0005-0 
 
U.S. 1 / SR 4 
 
Satilla River Overfl. 
 
EDS - 545 (33) 
 
24 57.0 
 
299-0062-0 
 
Cherokee Street 
 
Kettle Creek 
 
25 58.5 
 
299-0018-0 
 
Albany Avenue 
 
Kettle Creek 
 
26 59.3 
 
299-0010-0 
 
U.S. 84 
 
Big Alligator Creek 
 
BHN-007-3 (28) 
 
27 59.3 
 
299-0009-0 
 
U.S. 84 
 
Little Alligator Creek 
 
BHN-007-3 (28) 
 
28 59.9 
 
299-0039-0 
 
. Telmore - Dixie U Rd. 
 
Hog Creek 
 
29 62.4 
 
299-0008-0 
 
U.S. 84 
 
Camp Creek Branch 
 
BHN-007-3 (28) 
 
30 62.4 
 
299-5084-0 
 
City Blvd. 
 
Satilla River Trib. 
 
-I 
 
NOTES: 
 
- Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings less than 50 are planned to be replaced by the Department. 
 
\H \H 
 
* This table does not include all 107 highway bridges in Ware County, but only the 30 bridges with the lowest sufficiency ratings. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1- Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-34 
 
~ Eliminate truck traffic in Waycross by building a bypass, ~ Widen US 84 south ofWaycross, ~ Widen US 1 north of Waycross, ~ Realign US 1 Business in Waycross to use the potentially abandoned railroad tracks in 
downtown Waycross, ~ Improve intersections along Plant Avenue (US 84), State Street(US 1 Bus.) and CorridorZ, ~ Improve the intersection ofPlant Avenue (US 84) and State Street (US 1 Bus.), ~ Pave dirt roads in Waycross. 
 
For a more detailed list of comments made by the public at the first public meeting concerning the highway/street system, s,ee the Final Report Technical Appendix., 
 
Based on the current transportation deficiencies in WaycrosslWare: County and the comments made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24, 2000, improvements for each component of the transportation system were proposed and analyzed. After the proposed improvements were analyzed, a second set of public meetings was held in Waycross at the Ware County High School and in Blackshear (Pierce County) at the Courthouse Annex on September 14, 2000. The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that were identified and analyzed for the area. 
 
Citizens made many comments concerning the improvements to the highway/street system that were presented at the second public meeting. Overall, they were supportive of the proposed improvements and were eager to have the transportation plan move forward. For a more detailed list of comments made by citizens at the second public meeting concerning the highway/street system, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST 
For the purpose of planning projects that will enable Waycross and Ware County to have highways and streets that can accommodate traffic for the foreseeable future, the year 2025 was chosen as the planning year. The Waycross/Ware County travel demand model was used to forecast the future 2025 travel demand for highways and streets. A vital part of the model was the estimate of future socioeconomic data that was supplied by the Waycross/Ware County Planning Commission. Figure 1.23 shows the totals for each socioeconomic category and also shows a comparison between the 2000 and 2025 socioeconomic data. As seen on Figure 1.23, total households are expected to grow by 11%, population is expected to' grow by 4%, school enrollment is expected to grow by 11 % and employment is expected to grow by 20%. The Final Report Technical Appendix has a completed listing of the 2025 socioeconomic data summarized by traffic analysis zone. 
Daily traffic on the highways at the edge of the model (also referred to as external station), was another input into the Waycross/Ware County transportation model. Based on historical counts taken on the highways at the edge of the model, the estimated average growth in daily traffic at the "external stations" was approximately 79% from 2000 to 2025. 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 1.23 
 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
Growth in Socioeconomic Data - 2000 to 2025 
 
35,000 -- 
+4% 
30,5 16 
30,000 - ---------------,_:.2= 926-5. 
 
+4% 
- 28,990 ---, - 
27,743 
 
] If,m" 2000 0 2025 
 
25,000 - 
 
--- 
 
20,000 15,000 10,000 
 
+ 11% 
13,032 11,72 1 
 
+ 11% 
11,162 10,0 15 
 
+20% 
19,958 
 
16,698 
 
-- 
 
r-- 
 
5,000 -t-- 
 
r---- 
 
o 
 
I 
 
I 
 
J 
 
Households 
 
Population 
 
Vehicles 
 
School Enrollment 
 
r 
Employment 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-36 
 
Another essential part of the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model was the addition to 
 
. 
 
the highway/street network of the expected, or committed, projects that will be constructed in the 
 
next few years. Figure 1.24 shows the location of the road widening projects in Waycross/Ware 
 
County that are in the Georgia Department of Transportation's 6-Year Construction Work 
 
Program (CWP). These projects involve widening "existing two-lane roads to four-lane roads 
 
with medians. 
 
 SR 4/US 1 from Waycross Bypass at CR 152 to Bacon County Line,  SR 4/US 1 Business from north ofBlackshear Avenue to CR 144/Airport Road,  SR 38/U8 84 from Greasy Brach Creek to CR 79,  SR 38/U8 84 from CR 79 to Existing S-Lane section at 8R 4. 
 
When these committed projects were added to the existing (year 2000) network, the result was labeled "the existing-plus-committed network." 
 
Based on the estimated future socioeconomic data and the addition of the committed projects to the Waycross/Ware County model, a traffic assignment of future daily volumes was made on the existing-plus-committed network. See Figures 1.25 and 1.26 for the future projected 2025 daily volumes on the existing-plus-committed network. 
 
FUTURE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT 
 
2025 Existing-Plus-Committed Network 
Based on the assignment of 2025 daily traffic, measures of effectiveness were calculated for the existing-plus-committed network. See Table 1.7 for a summary of the vehicle hours traveled (VHT), vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and level of service by vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the existing-plus-committed network. Table 1.7 shows that there will be a significant increase in VHT, VHD and VMT between 2000 and 2025. Table 1.7 also shows that VMT at level of service D, E and F will also grow substantially. By 2025, approximately 29% of all the roads traveled in Waycross/Ware County will operate at a deficient level of service (level of service D or worse). 
The Waycross/Ware County model was also used to locate (see Figure 1.27) the roadways that will be deficient in the 2025 existing-plus-committed network. Table 1.8 lists all the deficient roadway segments that are depicted in Figure 1.27. The most notable deficiencies will be on US " 84 (Plant Avenue), City Boulevard, Central Avenue, Knight Avenue, Dewey Street, and Morningside Drive. 
 
 " 
 
 Figure 1.25 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 2025 Daily Volumes - Existing-Plus-Committed Network 
~ 
'"'~ 
~ 
-I 
(-.l QQ 
 
 ..  
 
.,. 
Figure 1.26 
i 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
2025 Daily Volumes 
Legend:  Travel Demand . 
Model External Station 
 
 ,.  
 
~. 
 
Figure 1.7 Waycross/Ware County Travel Demand Model 
Total Vehicle Delay and Miles Traveled 
 
Proposed Improvement 2000 Base Network 
 
VMT by LOS 
 
LOS C or better 
 
LOSD 
 
LOSE 
 
LOSF 
 
TOTAL 
 
% of total 
 
% of total 
 
% of total 
 
% of total . 
 
VHT VHD VMT VMT VMT VMT VMT VMT VMT VMT VMT 
 
21,040 1,069.8 731,208 659,776 90.2% 58,810 8.0% 12,557 1.7% 
 
65 
 
<1% 
 
2025 Existing + Committed 
 
32,041 4,350.0 1,030,755 733,996 71.2% 139,765 13.6% 58,249 5.7% 98,746 9.6% 
 
  
 
,. 
 
Figure 1.27 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 2025 Level of Service Deficiencies - Existing-Plus-Committed Network 
 
Key: 
 
LOSD LOSE LOSF 
 
 Page 1-42 
Table 1.8 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
2025 Level of Service Deficiencies (LOS D, E or F) Existing-Plus-Committed Network 
 
ID Road Name 
 
From 
 
I Plant Ave. / US 84 2 Plant Ave. / US 84 3 City Blvd. 4 Central Ave. 5 Knight Ave. 6 Dewey S1. 7 Plant Ave. / US 84 
 
Pierce Co. Line Dewey St. M1. Pleasant Rd. City Blvd. Harrison S1. Franklin S1. Morningside Dr. 
 
8 US 1 /23 9 Corridor Z / US 82 10 Plant Ave. / US 84 II US I Bus.. 12 Corridor Z / US 82 
 
City Blvd. Sammuel St. Knight Ave. US 82 Wilkerson S1. 
 
13 Harrison S1. 
 
US I Bus. 
 
14 Morningside Dr. 
 
Plant Ave. / US 84 
 
15 City Blvd. 
 
Shawnee Dr. 
 
16 Ava S1. 
 
Plant Ave. 
 
17 Sunnyside Dr. 18 City Blvd. 
 
. Linden Dr. Euclid Ave. 
 
19 Dewey S1. 
 
Knight Ave. 
 
20 US 1/23 
 
Osburne Rd. 
 
21 Corridor Z / US 82 
 
US 1/23 
 
22 US I /23 
 
City Blvd. 
 
23 Plant Ave. / US 84 
 
Riverside Dr. 
 
24 US 82 (Reynolds S1.) 
 
Memorial Dr. 
 
25 Morningside Dr. / Coral Rd. Rainbow Dr. 
 
26 Albany Ave. 
 
L S1. 
 
27 Albany Ave. 
 
George St. 
 
28 City Blvd. 
 
Baltimore Ave. 
 
To 
Morningside Dr. Riverside Dr. / Ava S1. US 82 Pierce Co. Line Dewey S1. Plant Ave. / US 84 Community Dr. Havanna Ave. Lee Ave. Dewey S1. Wilkerson S1. Blackwell S1. Knight Ave. Rainbow Dr. M1. Pleasant Rd. Screven Ave. Blackshear Ave. Baltimore Ave. Franklin S1. Havanna Ave .. George S1. Reynolds S1. / US 82 Community Dr. City Blvd. City Blvd. H S1. Garlington St. Shawnee Dr. 
 
LOS 
F F F F F F E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 D 
 
 Page 1-43 
Table 1.8 
Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
2025 Level of Service Deficiencies (LOS D, E or F) Existing-Plus-Committed Network 
 
ID Road Name 
29 Carswell Ave. 30 Blackshear Ave. 31 Division St. 32 . Linden Dr. 33 Knight Ave. 34 Loblolly Ln. 35 . Riverside Dr. 36 Harrison St. 37 Knight Ave. 38 Blackshear Ave. 39 Tebeau St. 
 
From 
Nichols St. US 1 Bus. US 82 Sunnyside Dr. Loblolly Ln. Orion Dr. Alice St: Satilla Blvd. Church St. Strickland St. Carswell Ave. 
 
To 
McDonald St. Lesher St. Knight Ave. Community Dr. Division St. Knight Ave. Plant Ave. / US 84 Knight Ave. Lee Ave. Cherokee St. Isabella St. 
 
LOS 
D D D D D D D D. D D D 
 
 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
,.' , 
 
March 2001 Page 1-44 
 
Alternatives Analysis 
 
In order to address the deficiencies that are expected to occur by 2025 with the existing-pluscommitted network, several alternatives were proposed. All of the proposed alternatives consisted primarily of major road widening projects or completely new roadways. 'However, it was clear that not all of the deficiencies identified in the existing-plus-committed network will require additional continuous through-lanes (e.g. road widening) or completely new roads in order to be remedied. Some deficiencies will require the addition of tum-lanes and/or new traffic signals along a roadway corridor and other deficiencies will require that individual intersections be improved (e.g. add a traffic signal and/or add new tum-lanes on all approaches). Two such projects are listed in the Georgia Department of Transportation's 6-Year Construction Work Program (CWP) for Waycross/Ware County. These improvements, shown on Figure 1.28, are listed below. 
 
 SR 4 - Add Turn-Lanes from Lucy Moore Road to Havanna Avenue, 
 US 82184 Connector (ramp) from Corridor Z to US 841Francis Street (intersection improvement). 
 
Additional corridor operational improvements (e.g. new tum-lanes, new traffic signals, traffic signal optimization) and intersection improvements will be required with any alternative that is proposed. The final proposed corridor operational improvements and intersection improvements will be presented later in the Recommended Improvement Program. 
 
As a result of the existing-plus-committed deficiency analysis and the public involvement process, three alternatives were proposed. 
 
Alternative 1 (see Figure 1.29): ~ Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road to Wacona Avenue, ~ Upgrade ABC Avenuefrom Wacona Avenue to Clough Street. 
 
Alternative 2 (see Figure 1.30): 
~ Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road to Wacona Avenue, ~ Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street, ~ Realign US 1 Business along abandoned railroad tracks to Carswell Avenue, ~ Bypass Alternative: Improve Morningside Drive, Coral Road, and City Boulevard to a four- 
lane roadway between US 84 (Plant Avenue) and US 82. 
 
Alternative 3 (see Figure 1.31): 
~ Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road to Wacona Avenue, ~ Upgrade ABC Avenuefrom Wacona Avenue to Clough Street, ~ Bypass Alternative Corridor: New four-lane roadway starting in Pierce County at (lS 84 and 
ending at US 1123 in Ware County. This corridor accommodates an "Inner Perimeter" and 
an "Outer Perimeter" option. 
 
 Figure 1.28 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Turn-Lane Improvement Projects in GnOT Construction Work Program 
US 82/84 Connector (ramp) from Corridor Z to US 84/Francis Street 
-.I 
IJl 
 
 ,. Figure 1.29 - WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Alternative 1 - .Roadway Improvements 
Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from 
Temest Road to Wacona Avenue 
 
 ", 
 
. 
 
Figure 1.30 - WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Alternative 2 - Roadway Improvements Jamestown insert 
 
Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from 
Ternest Road to Wacona Avenue 
 
Bypass Alternative:  
Improving Morningside Drive, Coral Road, and City Boulevard 
to a four-lane roadway between US 84 (Plant Ave) 
and US 82 
-, 
~ 
-.J 
 
  
 
,f' 
 
Figure 1.31 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
. Alternative 3- Roadway Improvements 
 
C~'SIi",>\~ 
 
" 
r----"-..L........;.....c::::::::c~ 
 
""" 
....; __ 
 
Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona.Avenue to Clough Street 
 
-.I.. 
,00 
 
 Figure 1.32 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Alternative 3a - Roadway Improvements 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-50 
 
Alternative 3a (see Figure 1.32): ~ Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road to Wacona Avenue, ~ Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street, ~ Bypass Alternative Corridor: New four-lane roadway starting in Pierce County at US 84 and 
ending at US 1/23 in Ware County. This corridor accommodates an "Inner Perimeter" and 
an "Outer Perimeter" option. ~ South Bypass Corridor: New four-lane roadway to tie in with proposed "east" bypass at US 
1/23 and ending at US 84. This corridor also accommodates an "Inner Perimeter" and an 
"Outer Perimeter" option. 
 
The improvement of ABC Avenue was considered an essential part of any proposed alternative since it will provide the citizens of Jamestown a much-needed way to access Waycross when trains block access to Jamestown Road. The Waycross/Ware County travel demand model was used to evaluate and compare the other improvements listed in these alternatives with each other as well as with the existing-plus-committed network and Table 1.9 summarizes the results. Table 1.9 shows that the City Boulevard/Morningside Drive bypass/perimeter, proposed in Alternative 2, will provide only modest relief to Waycross when compared to the existing-pluscommitted network. When the US 1 Business realignment improvement, also proposed in Alternative 2, is compared to the existing-plus-committed network, Table 1.9 shows that it will in fact cause more problems than if nothing was done: the US 1 Business realignment improvement will increase the VHD and will increase the VMT operating at level of service 0 or worse. 
 
Table 1.9 next shows that if a bypass is built on the eastern edge of Waycross (with the inner or outer option), as proposed in Alternative 3, VHD will decrease and the total VMT at an acceptable level will increase. The inner-perimeter option, however, will be better than the outer-perimeter option because it will reduce the VMT at level of service F the most and will also attract more vehicles onto the perimeter route. 
 
 Finally, Table 1.9 shows that if a southern bypass is built (in addition to a perimeter road on the outside edge of Waycross), as proposed in Alternative 3a, VHD will decrease even further and the total VMT at an acceptable level will also increase. However, these increases are minor in comparison to the magnitude of the improvement (approximately 7 miles of new four-lane roadway). 
 
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
Based on the alternatives analysis completed using the Waycross/Ware County travel demand model and also from listening to comments made by citizens of Waycross and Ware County, improvements were selected to become the highway/street system component in the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program. The highway/street plan consists of three major roadway improvement projects, eleven corridor operational improvement projects and ten intersection improvement projects. The approximate length and total cost of each highway/street project is provided with the description of the proposed improvement. The total 
 
 ::-'.- 
 
Figure 1.9 WaycrosslWare County Travel Demand Model 
Total Vehicle Delay and Miles Traveled 
 
Proposed Improvement 2000 Base Network 
 
VHT 
 
TOTAL VHD VMT 
 
LOS C or better 
 
% of total 
 
VMT 
 
VMT 
 
VMT by LOS 
 
LOSD 
 
LOS E 
 
% of total 
 
% of total 
 
VMT 
 
VMT VMT VI\1T 
 
LOS F % of total 
VMT VMT 
 
21,040 1,069.8 731,208 659,776 90.2% 58,810 8.0% 12,557 1.7% 
 
65 
 
<1% 
 
2025 Existing + Committed 
 
32,041 4,350.0 1,030,755 733,996 71.2% 139,765 13.6% 58,249 5.7% '98,746 9.6% 
 
2025 E+C with City Blvd./Morningside 31,710 4,200.4 1,032,647 748,531 
Dr. Perimeter 
 
72.5% 
 
133,022 12.9% 39,305 
 
3.8% 
 
111,789 10.8% 
 
2025 E+C with US 1 Business Realignment 
 
32,053 4,427.7 1,030,143 717,921 69.7% 151,084 14.7% 50,665 4.9% 110,472 10.7% 
 
2025 E+C with Outer(East) Perimeter 30,348 2,768.5 1,030,566 798,482 77.5% 131,009 12.7% 13,735 1.3% 87,339 8.5% 
 
2025 E+C with Inner (East) Perimeter 
30,129 2,843.8 1,029,673 816,795 79.3% 109,725 10.7% 53,250 
with South Bypass 
 
5.2% 
 
49,901 
 
4.8% 
 
~ 
 
2025 E+C with Outer (East) Perimeter 
30,188 2,637.6 1,031,378 809,286 78.5% 126,254 12.2% 12,318 
with South Bypass 
 
1.2% 
 
83,520 
 
8.1% 
 
~ l1Q 
t'l> 
I 
--Ul 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 1 - Highway/Street System 
 
March 2001 Page 1-52 
 
costs shown for these projects include estimated construction costs, right-of-way costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
The highway/street plan's roadway improvements are presented on Figure 1.33 and listed in Table 1.10. The approximate total cost for the East Bypass is $9.3 million while the total cost for the ABC Avenue improvement is approximately $2.8 million. The highway/street plan's corridor operational improvements are presented on Figure 1.34 and listed in Table 1.11. Corridor operational improvements involve segments of roadway where improvements such as adding new signals, optimizing current signals and extending or adding, new tum lanes are necessary to provide adequate capacity along a corridor. Most of the corridor operational improvements will have an estimated cost of approximately $110,000. The highway/street plan's intersection improvements are presented on Figure 1.35 and listed in Table 1.12. The typical construction cost for an intersection improvement is approximately $280,000. Intersection improvement costs are more than corridor operational improvement costs, on average, because an intersection improvement may include up to four approaches that need improvements as opposed to a corridor operational improvement which may only include one or two approaches. Typical intersection improvements that could be applied at the locations identified in the highway/street system plan are shown on Figures 1.36 and 1.37. 
 
Not included in the highway/street plan but still recommended as a "long-range" project (beyond the year 2025) is the South Bypass. The South Bypass is shown on Figure 1.38 and described in Table 1.13. The South Bypass was not included as part of the highway/street plan since its benefit to Waycross/Ware County is minimal compared to its substantial cost of approximately $16.4 million. Also, the Waycross/Ware County model estimated that in 2025, the South Bypass will only have approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. This low level of projected traffic discourages any further study of a South Bypass at this time. However, if significant changes in the number of estimated future households and/or employment occur on the south side of Waycross, the South Bypass may become a viable improvement. For the purposes of this plan, it is recommended that the preliminary engineering for the South Bypass be included in the later part ofthe program. 
 
The Waycross/Ware County travel demand model was used to assign daily trips onto the highway/street plan network. The daily volumes for the highway/street plan are shown on Figures 1.39 and 1.40. As seen on Figure 1.39, the proposed East Bypass will attract a high of 19,420 vehicles per day and will divert a substantial portion of daily traffic off 'of Morningside Drive and City Boulevard. 
 
 Figure 1.33 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Roadway Improvements. 
2. Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street 
Jamestowf'\t1nfm:....-t---.. 
 
3. Upgrade and extend 
 
ABC Avenue from 
 
Temest Road to Wacona 
 
H-+-'-+I 
 
Avenue 
 
-I 
 
Ul 
 
l,;.l 
 
 Table 1.10 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Roadway Improvements 
 
ID* Type of Improvement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Roadway Improvement 
 
East Bypass: New four-lane roadway between US 84 in Pierce County and US 1/23 in Ware County. Northern terminus on US 84 in Pierce Co. approximately 0.5 mile from county line. Intersection with US 82 in Ware Co. within 1.5 miles of county line. Extend south to US l/23. 
 
2 
 
Roadway Improvement Upgrade ABC Avenue from Wacona Avenue to Clough Street. (From a substandard two 
 
lane roadway to a paved standard two-lane section.) 
 
Upgrade and extend ABC Avenue from Ternest Road (Jamestown) to Wacona Avenue. 
 
3 
 
Roadway Improvement (The upgrade will be from a substandard two-lane roadway to a paved statndard two-lane 
 
section. The extension will consist of a two-lane extension.) I t - - -..... --------~ 
Total 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
4.2 
1.6 
1.9 
 
Approximate Cost *** $9,326,500 
$1,406,700 ** $1,368,700 ** 
$12,101,900 
 
ssass. 
 The 10 number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
 
 The ABC Avenue improvement costs are included in the Rail System component of the Recommended Improvement Program and are shown here for informational purposes . 
 
 Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
-...I 
Ur 
 
 Figure 1.34 - WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Highway/Street Plan - Corridor Operational Improvements 
9. Community Dr./Linden Dr. between Tebeau St. and Sunnyside Dr. 
II. Tebeau St. between Carswell Ave. and Isabella St. 
 
 Table 1.11 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Corridor Operational Improvements 
 
ID* 
 
Type ofImprovement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Central Avenue between Loblolly Lane and Stilla Drive 
 
2 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US I Bus. Between Wilkerson Street and US 82 
 
3 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 82 (Reynolds Street) between Havana Avenue and US I Business 
 
4 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 84 between Knight Avenue and Dewey Street 
 
5 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement US 84 between Riverside Drive and Community Drive 
 
6 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Albany Avenue between George Street and H Street 
 
7 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Carswell Avenue between Nichols Street and McDonald Street 
 
8 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Blackshear Avenue between US 1 Bus. And Cherokee Street 
 
9 
 
Corridor Operational Improvement Community Drive between Tebeau Street and Alice Street 
 
10 Corridor Operational Improvement Lee Avenue between Knight Avenue and Carswell Avenue 1I Corridor Operational Improvement Tebeau Street between Carswell Avenue and Isabella Street 
Total 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.2 I.I 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 
 
Approximate Cost ** $110,900 $115,300 $118,200 $112,400 $211,900 $188,800 $109,500 $123,600 $113,800 $109,500 $109,500 $1,423,400 
 
NOTES:  The ID number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
 Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
-I 
(/I 
0'1 
 
 Figure 1.35 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Highway/Street Plan - Intersection Improvements 
1. US 84 at Proposed Bypass 
----,.--1 4. Albany Ave./Knight 1f":::."lI~'X Ave. at US 84 
 
 Table 1.12 Waycross/Ware County Multl-ModalTransportarion Study 
Highway/Street Plan - Intersection Improvements 
 
ID * 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
 
Type ofImprovement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement 
Total 
 
Location ofImprovement US 84 at Proposed Bypass Riverside DrivelAva Street at US 84 Dewey Street at US 84 Albany Avenue/Knight Avenue at US 84 Morningside Drive at US 84 Dewey Street at Knight Avenue Harrison Street at Knight Avenue Harrison Street at US 1 Bus. City Boulevard at US 82 Linden Drive at Sunnyside Drive 
 
Approximate Cost ** 
$280,000 . $280,000 
$280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 $2,800,000 
 
NOTES: 
* The ID number assigned to each improvement coincides with the level of priority of the improvement. Higher priority projects are based on higher level of service deficiencies as identified in the travel demand model. 
 
** Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 
-I 
tit QO 
 
 Page I-59 
 
.. 
 
BEFORE 
 
Intersection Improvement: Signalize an 
 
AFTER 
 
Unsignalized Intersection 
 
e ... Ma"or Street 
 
.. Major Street 
 
i ------- 
 
Ma"or Street 
 
BEFORE 
 
Intersection Improvement: Add Left-Tum Lane(s) to 
the Major Street and Minor Street at a Signalized or Unsignalized Intersection 
 
... 
ill ------- 
 
Major Street 
 
AFTER 
..... 
<I) 
..<....I..).. 
VJ 
o..... 
t:: 
: 
r 
 
WaycrosslWare County 
Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
Typical Intersection Improvements 
 
PBS) 
 
FIGURE 1.36 
 
 Page 1-60 
 
BEFORE 
 
Intersection improvement: Add Left-Turn Lane(s) and/or 
Right- Turn Lane(s) to the Major Street ana Minor Street 
at a Signalized Intersection 
 
AFTER 
 
... Major Street 
 
.'Ii- '-------- 
 
--------~ 
+ 
 
Major Street 
-- i 
 
-- 
r 
 
BEFORE 
 
Intersection Improvement: Add Additional Left-Tum Lane(s) in 
 
AFTER 
 
1m 
 
Order to Provide Double Left-Tum 
 
:1 
 
~ Lanes on the Major Street and Single 
 
IIII !i,\..If,. 
 
i.fb] Left- Turn Lanes on the Minor Street 
 
Ci 
 
at a Signalized Intersection' 
 
l:: 
 
I :- 
Major Street 4ft..;! 
 
~ 
 
- 
 
-r 
 
Major Street 
 
- 
 
- 
 
r 
 
Waycross/Ware County 
Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Typical Intersection 1mprovements 
FIGURE 1.37 
 
 , 
Figure 1.38 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study . Long-Range Improvements (Beyond 2025) 
I 
--0\ 
 
 Table 1.13 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Long-Range Improvements (Beyond 2025) 
 
ID 
 
Type oflmprovement 
 
Location of Improvement 
 
Approximate Length (miles) 
 
Approximate Cost * 
 
South Bypass: New four-lane roadway as extension of East Bypass proposed in the 25- 
 
Roadway Improvement year plan. Ties in to East Bypass at US 1/23 and terminates at US 84 approximately 
 
7.4 
 
0.75 miles south of Rice Yard in southern Waycross. 
 
$16,432,500 ** 
 
2 Intersection Improvements As needed to accommodate South Bypass 
Total 
 
nfa 
 
$280,000 
 
$16,712,500 
 
NOTES: 
 Approximate Costs include estimated construction costs, right-of-way (ROW) costs and preliminary engineering costs. 
 Preliminary engineering costs ($1,184,000) for South Bypass is recommended for the Long Range Program. 
 
 ., 
Figure 1.39 - Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 2025 Daily Volumes - Highway/Street Plan Network 
-I 
0\ V. 
 
 ;; . 
Legend:  Travel Demand 
Model External Station 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Section 2: Rail System 
 
RAIL/ROAD CROSSING AND TRACK INVENTORY 
 
Ware County currently has 136 rail/road grade crossings, all operated by CSXT. A detailed listing of all the rail/road grade crossings and pertinent data concerning each crossing such as road name, railroad milepost, tracks to cross, and type of warning device can be found in the Final Report Technical Appendix. Most rail/road grade crossings have crossbucks as the warning device, with gates being the second most prevalent warning type while the remainder of the rail/road grade crossings in Waycross/Ware County have flashing lights. 
 
Summary ofRail/Road Crossings in Waycross/Ware County 
 
Type of Crossing Warning Device Crossbucks Only Unknown (Probably Crossbucks Only) Gates Flashing Lights Total Crossings 
 
Number 
80 18 21 17 
136 
 
In the state of Georgia, CSXT has a total of 1,781 miles of track with approximately 83 miles, or 5%, of this track located in Ware County. 
 
Length of CSXT Track in Ware County 
 
CSXT Rail Line in Ware County Atlanta to Jacksonville Through Line Waycross to Savannah Line Waycross to Brunswick Line Waycross to Thomaston Line Waycross to Pearson Line Total Track 
 
Length of Track (miles) 
41.5 2.5 4.4 13.6 20.8 82.8 
 
RAIL/ROAD CROSSING ACCIDENT SUMMARY 
Accident data was compiled for the rail/road grade crossings using the latest information available from the Georgia Department of Transportation. The number of accidents, injuries and fatalities over the six-year period starting in 1994 and ending in 1999 is summarized below. 
 
 WaycrossfWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-2 
 
Summary ofRaillRoad Accident Data (1994-1999) 
 
 
 
Year 
 
Number of Accidents 
 
Number of Injuries 
 
Number of Fatalities 
 
1994 
 
5 
 
1 
 
1 
 
1995 
 
I 
 
0 
 
0 
 
1996 
 
2 
 
2 
 
0 
 
1997 
 
1 
 
0 
 
0 
 
1998 
 
3 
 
2 
 
0 
 
1999 
 
2 
 
2 
 
0 
 
Total 
 
14 
 
7 
 
1 
 
As seen is this table, 1994 had the highest number of accidents of any year with five, including one injury and one fatality. Since 1994, there have been nine more accidents with no fatalities. Between 1994 and 1999, the average number of accidents per year is just over two. 
 
EXISTING TRAIN TRAFFIC 
 
Based on information provided by CSXT, PBS&J has assembled an average day's train traffic on the existing rail system in Waycross. The existing railroad system in Waycross is depicted on Figure 2.1. The existing raiVroad grade separations in Waycross are shown on Figure 2.2. Train traffic in Waycross is divided into four categories: trains travelling through Waycross, trains terminating in Waycross, trains originating in Waycross and, finally, local trains. Local trains are defined as shorter trains that terminate or originate in Waycross and travel short distances to specific sites (e.g. manufacturing plants). The average length of a train car is approximately fifty (50) feet. The average train length and the origin/destination of each type of train are given in the tables below. 
 
Through Trains. 
(Travel North to South Fitzgerald and Jesup Subdivisions) 
Average Train Length = 5,309 feet 
 
Bulk Interrnodal Auto Totals 
 
Northbound 6 6 1 13 
 
Southbound 5 3 2 10 
 
Trains that Terminate in Waycross A verage Train Length = 6,709 feet 
Fitzgerald Sub (from the North - Atlanta, Birmingham, Manchester, Fitzgerald) Jesup Sub from South/Jacksonville (Jacksonville, Baldwin, Fernandina Beach) Jesup Sub from East/Savannah Thomasville Sub Brunswick Sub Totals 
 
Trains 6 8 4 4 1 
23 
 
 Page 2-3 
 
Figure 2.1 
 
 
 
CSXT Existing Railroad 
 
System in Waycross 
 
/ 
 
{ 
 
, 
 
I, 
 
-rI ,-1 
 
+: -------J--..LI -fL-,~-+__}__I_r+V+++l-1~LI'\ 
 
I 
I 
 
I I 
 
iJ 
 
I 
 
-----' 
 
r' I 
I~' 
I 
 
-, 
 
I 
 
/1\ 
 
/ 
 
, 
 
I - + - - - - - - 1 I I 
 
 Page 2-4 
Figure 2.2 Existing RaillRoad Grade Separations in Waycross 
Legend: 
D - RaillRoad Grade 
Separation 
 
. 
 
/ 
 
I 
It=hf L 
 
- 
 
,- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
J 
 
. 
 
d)1---' 
 
I 
 
I 
 
i 
 
.I 
 
US 82/Corridor Z 
 
I 
i 
I 
 
Ii 
 
[ 
 
>~,~>:y/ ~Rice D~' , ~~i;~~~$jY ~~ \~ f 
 
,, .- 
 
L "I 
 
.: 
 
/ 
/ 
 
(/~-~I //~,/'1 
 
. 
 
Hames Ave. 
 
<, 
 
Yard 
 
I~, 
 
/ 
 
/1 i, 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-5 
 
Trains that Originate in Waycross 
Average Train Length = 6,709 feet 
Fitzgerald Sub (to the North - Atlanta, Birmingham, Manchester, Fitzgerald) Jesup Sub from South/Jacksonville (to Jacksonville, Baldwin, Fernandina Beach) Jesup Sub to the East/Savannah Thomasville Sub Brunswick Sub Totals 
 
Trains 3 7 4 4 1 19 
 
Local Trains Average Train Length = 2,229 feet 
Totals 
Summary 
Totals For January 14,2000 
Type Through Terminate in Waycross Originate in Waycross Locals Totals 
 
Trains 4 3 7 
Number of Trains 23 23 19 7 72 
 
As seen in the summary table, there are an average numbe'r of 72 trains using the rail system in Waycross daily. Figures 2.3 through 2.6 show the paths of the four types of trains as they travel through Waycross daily. Figure 2.7 summarizes the total number of trains (two-way), as well as their average length and speed, that use each segment of the Waycross railroad system. As seen on Figure 2.7, a significant number of trains, ranging from U trains to 35 trains, pass through downtown Waycross or just west of downtown. It is important to note that the current average speeds of trains traveling through Waycross range from 6 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour. These .extremely low speeds are caused by the tight radius turns that the trains must negotiate when traveling through downtown Waycross. 
The average number of hours per day that trains block rail/road crossings was also estimated. These blockages are shown on Figure 2.8. As seen on Figure 2.8 the worst blockage occurs on the rail line parallel to Albany Avenue in downtown Waycross. On average, this rail line blocks adjacent streets 3.9 hours a day, approximately 16% of the day. Other significant blockages occur on the rail line between US I Business and Albany Avenue (3.5 hours/day) and on the rail line parallel to US 84 in downtown Waycross (3.7 hours/day). 
 
 --------;--- - - ------------,.----Page 2-6 
Figure 2.3 CSXT Existing Daily Train 
Traffic in Waycross 
 
- Through Trains 
 
\. 
\ .: 
I, 
 
 Page 2-7 
Figure 2.4 . CSXT Existing Daily Train 
Traffic in Waycross 
 
- Trains that Terminate in Waycross 
 
 
 
. ,/ 
 
/ 
 
, 
 
 Page 2-8 
Figure 2.5 CSXT Existing Daily Train 
Traffic in Waycross 
 
- Trains that Originate in Waycross 
t 
"." 
. '- 
.....\". .",.' 
 
 Page 2-9 
Figure 2.6 CSXT Existing Daily Train 
Traffic in Waycross 
~.Local Trains that Originate/Terminate 
in Waycross 
I 
 
 Page 2-10 
 
Figure 2.7 
 
.~. 
 
CSXT Existing Daily 
 
Train Traffic in Waycross 
 
- Total Trains 
 
__ --,-... .-.. i r,- ',,,I... 
J." j 
~ .. 
 
/--, 
i 1-1 
'--~I--L ,_=:ntral Waycross-.......-t---,..~+".y 
I 
 
.---J I 
 
Ii! 
 
\ 
I 
i 
 
! 
 
i li ki / ' .:[/ 
 
r 
 
------'I- 
,Averages 
 
, 
 
- 
 
,":.<':,-'-Ii :..)',,/-,':'~// 
 
6,710 ft/train .<>/ 
 
10 mph 
'~ 
 
I--H-I-H~-'-i-i I 
 
I 
II 
 
J. 
 
~RiceYard 
 
"'-..r---'--------, 
Averages 
 
5,595 ft/train 
 
r, ~I 
 
/~ 
 
24 mph 
 
/ / 
 
'~ 
 
I I' 
 
 ---1.0 Existing Conditions 
US 1 Business Overpass 3.5 
 
Page 2-11 
Figure 2.8 Existing Daily Train 
Blockage Time 
(HourslDay) 
 
Central Waycross I I 
~ _L 
I Existing Conditions 
 
---1.8 
 
Existing 
 
I 
 
/ 
 
Conditions 
 
-0.1 
Existing Conditions 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-12 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
As a vital part of the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study, input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County was used to supplement the existing conditions analysis as well as help to identify future improvements or recommendations. On February 24, 2000, a public information meeting was held at the Ware County High School where comments from citizens were taken. After the meeting, additional comments were received through regular mail and e-mail. 
Overall, the public reaction to the existing rail system was very strong. Comments about the rail system ranged from a desire to eliminate the isolation of Jamestown from Waycross during train crossings to the support for the proposed rail relocation in Waycross. Some of the comments expressed by citizens of Waycross/Ware County are included in the following list. 
~ Do something to help Jamestown citizens when trains cut offtheir access to Waycross, ~ Improve and extend ABC Avenue south over Kettle Creek, ~ Suggest that the rail line be double-tracked north ofWaycross instead ofin Waycross, ~ Concerned that the proposed US 1 Business grade-separation will adversely impact adjacent 
businesses, ~ Want more rail/road grade-separations in Waycross, ~ There is support for the proposed rail relocation in Waycross. 
For a more detailed list of comments made by the public concerning the rail system, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
Based on the current transportation deficiencies in Waycross/Ware County and the comments. made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24, 2000, improvements for each component of the transportation system were proposed and analyzed. After the proposed improvements were analyzed, a second set of public meetings was held in Waycross at the Ware County High School and in Blackshear (Pierce County) at the Courthouse Annex on September 14, 2000. The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that were identified and analyzed for the area. 
Citizens made many comments concerning the improvements to the rail system that were presented at the second public meeting. Overall, they were supportive of the proposed improvements and were eager to have the transportation plan move forward. For a more detailed list of comments made by citizens at the second public meeting concerning the rail system, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES 
 
March 2001. Page 2-13 
 
Description ofAlternatives 
For this study, two rail system alternatives were analyzed. The first alternative is called the NoBuild Alternative and can also be referred to as the "Do-Nothing" alternative. The No-Build Alternative is simply the existing rail system with no improvements. The other alternative that was analyzed consists of the rail improvements described in the report Ware County and the City of Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999. This executive summary was the final result of a process involving CSXT, the City of Waycross and Ware County. The improvements described in this executive summary were presented to the citizens of Waycross and Ware County and were intended to help address many of their concerns about the existing rail system (e.g. provide Jamestown citizens access to Waycross when trains block crossings, build more grade-separations in Waycross, and take the trains out of downtown Waycross). The Ware County and the City of Waycross Transportation Improvement Project, which will now be referred to simply as the "Project," included many improvements such as modifications to existing rail/road crossings, improvements to roadways and intersections, and improvements to the existing railroad tracks in Waycross. However, the major components of the Project are the proposed grade-separation at US 1 Business, the elimination of railroad track in downtown Waycross, double tracking the existing rail line through Waycross, and the improvement and extension of ABC Avenue from Jamestown to Waycross. The Project is depicted on Exhibit "A" which is taken from the Ware County and the City oj Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999. The general tasks and associated costs of the Project are listed in Table 2.1. The projected total cost for the Project, as seen on Table 2.1, is approximately $22.0 million. Detailed lists of the rail/road crossing improvements, road and intersection improvements, and railroad track improvements are shown on Tables 2.2 through 2.4, respectively. The source for the location, type and cost of each improvement in the Project was Exhibit "B" of the Ware County and the City oj Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999. To reference Exhibit "B," refer to the Final Report Technical Appendix. An adjustment was made to the cost of the project as shown in Exhibit "B" in order to reflect a 5% growth in construction costs related to railroad projects. 
 
Operational Analysis ofAlternatives 
To analyze the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative, the sections of railroad track that will be impacted by the Project Alternative were divided in to subareas. The subareas, depicted on Figure 2.9, were defined with the intent to group together at-grade crossings with similar train volumes and train speeds. The advantage of having subareas will become more apparent when train blockage information and the economic feasibility analysis are presented later. In order to start the comparison of the No-Build Alternative with the Project Alternative, an inventory, as seen in Table 2.5, of the base grade crossing data for all the crossings in the Project was constructed. Information found in Table 2.5 includes the current grade crossing devices and proposed grade crossing device under the Project. Base year average daily traffic at 
 
 II 
 
'. 
 
Table 2.1 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Rail Project - Proposed Tasks and Costs 
1. us Route 1.Business/CSXT Grade Separation - new highway overpass. ($4,515,000) 
2. ABC Avenue upgrade and extension, Lee Street (south Waycross) extension and new at-grade crossing. ($2,684,500) 
3. Intersection and Traffic Signal Upgrades ($374,700) at - Albany Avenue/Garlington Avenue intersection and at - Georgia Pkwy.lGarlington Avenue. 
4. Closure of 11 at-grade crossings in downtown Waycross due to removal of mainline track. ($282,700) 
5. Closure of 14 at-grade crossings where track will remain but roadway access will be closed. ($135,800) 
6. Upgrade 10 at-grade crossings to accommodate new second main track, railroad alignment, and grade changes. ($1,264,000) 
7. Construct 5.5 miles of new second main track from South Waycross to north of Wacona Avenue. ($6,622,900) 
8. - 17. Railroad system improvements, right-of-way and construction tasks, design and planning tasks. ($6,127,700) 
Total Cost for Project = $22,007,300 
 
 Table 2.2 Detailed List of the Rail Project Rail/Road Crossing Improvements 
 
Page 2-16 
 
Task Road at Crossing 
 
Proposed Improvement to Rail/Road Crossing 
 
I US I Bus. 
 
At-grade crossing to be improved to a highway overpass 
 
4 Plant Avenue (US 84)/Isabella Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Alice Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Pendelton Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Tebeau Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Albany Avenue 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 McDonald Street 
 
Rail, line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Oak Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Johnson Avenue 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 McDonald Street (near Brunswick Ave.) 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 Nicholls Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
4 L Street 
 
Rail line and crossing to be removed 
 
5 Sweat Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Brunei Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Elizabeth Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Mary Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed (pedestrian crossing only) 
 
5 Isabella Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Roosevelt Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed (pedestrian crossing only) 
 
5 Azalea Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Dresden Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 US I Bus. (GoldKist Spur) 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Hebard Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Cherokee Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Private Crossing n. of Cherokee Ave. 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Private Crossing n. of Huckaby Ln. (Jamestown) At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
5 Honeysuckle Lane (Jamestown) 
 
At-grade crossing to be closed 
 
6 Gilmore Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Nicholls Street (US 84) 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Carswell Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Genoa Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Blackshear Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Waring Street 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Wacona Avenue 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Blalock Avenue in Jamestown 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Atwater Road in Jamestown 
 
At-grade crossing to be upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
6 Ternest Road in Jamestown 
 
At-grade crossing to be 'upgraded (protection and crossing surface) 
 
 '. 
 
.: 
 
Table 2.3 Detailed List of the Rail Project Road/Intersection Improvements 
 
Task 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 
 
Road/Intersection 
 
Proposed Improvement to Road or Intersection 
 
ABC Avenue 
 
Upgrading and extension between Ternest Rd. and Blalock St. (in Jamestown) 
 
ABC Avenue 
 
Upgrading and extension between Blalock St. (Jamestown) and Wacona Ave. 
 
ABC Avenue 
 
Upgrading between Wacona Ave and Abner St. 
 
ABC Avenue 
 
Upgrading between Abner St. and Clough St. 
 
Perham Street 
 
Upgrade Perham St. as a connector roadway from Elizabeth St. to Roosevelt St. 
 
Lee Street 
 
Extend Lee Street across rail track and construct at-grade crossing 
 
Garlington St./Albany Ave. Intersection 
 
Intersection and signal improvements 
 
US 82 (Corridor Z)/Garlington St. Intersection Signalization and intersection improvements 
 
Table 2.4 Detailed List of the Rail Project Railroad Track Improvements 
 
Task 7 7 7 7 7 
 
Proposed Improvements to Railroad Track Construct 5.5 miles of new second main track on CSX's Fitzgerald and Jesup Subdivisions from S. Waycross to 1100ih of Wacona Ave. Install two railroad at-grade crossing diamonds adjacent to Rice Yard Rehabilitate 3.7 miles of existing track Retire 1.5 miles of existing track located in downtown Waycross Relocate GA Block/Goldgist Spur to west of US 1 Bus. 
 
"'1:l 
II) (JQ 
tl> 
-N I 
-:J 
 
  
North Waycross 
 
Page 2-18 
Figure 2.9" Location of Rail System Subareas 
 
f 
 
,---j----.--:~~~~.tf---., ( L--__---,--.==-_--' 
 
"'V 
 
'xL-Y77":~~7'7"";<-::;---;--;--' 
 
Central Waycross 
,-_~-_----1-------L--,-,-ri-li-.-----'- 
 
r 
 
//, 
 
."-. ~. 
 
/ 
 
.----,---'j 
 
~I--+-----J 
) /l 
\ 
 
 .. 
 
Table 2.5 Rail/Road Grade Crossing Existing Data for Crossings Impacted by the 
Rail Project Improvements 
 
Subarea 
, 
Jamestown 
North Waycross 
US I Business Overpass GoldKist Spur Garlington/Albany Crossing 
Central Waycross NichollsSt. Crossing BruneI/Gilmore Crossing Lee Street Extension 
Albany/Brunswick Parallel Line 
Dixie ConcreteSpur 
 
10# Road At Crossing 638155H Blalock Avenue 638156 P AtwaterRoad 638157W Private CrossingN. of Huckaby Ln 6381580 Honeysuckle Lane 638159 K Temest Road 637620 B Hebard Avenue 637615 E Waring Street 637617 T Cherokee Avenue 637618 A Private CrossinaN. of CherokeeAve. 638154B Wacona Avenue 637624 D GenoaAvenue 637623 W Azalea Avenue 637622 P Dresden Street 637621 H US I Bus. 637619, G Blackshear Avenue 637900 D US I Bus. (GoldKist Sour) 637690 R Garlington Street 636830 M AlbanvAvenue 637705 D Elizabeth Street 637706 K Marv Street 637704 W Isabella Street 637707 S CarswellAvenue 637708 Y Roosevelt Street 637700 U US 84 (Nicholls Street) 637583 B Gilmore Street 637582 U Brunei Street 637584 H SweatStreet 
nla Lee Street 637698 V Plant Avenue (US 84)/Isabella Street 637694 T Alice Street 637695 A Pendelton Street 637693 L Tebeau Street 637692 E McDonald Street (near Brunswick Ave.) 637691 X Nicholls Street 637739 X L Street 637709 I' Albany Avenue 637710 A McDonald Street 637710 A Oak Street 637711 G Johnson Avenue 
 
Current GCX Type 
G & 1'1. Lts. X-Bucks X-Bucks XBucks XBucks 
G&FI.LIS. G&F1.LIS. 
XBucks XBucks G& 1'1. LIS. G& 1'1. LIS. XBucks G & 1'1 Lts. G& 1'1. Lts. G& 1'1. LIS. G& 1'1. Lts. G&F1. LIS. G& FI. Lts. X-Bucks XBucks G&F1. Lts. G&F1. Lts. G& FI. Lts. 
1'1. us. 
X-Bucks XBucks X-Bucks 
Close X-Bucks XBucks G & FI. LIS. G& FI. LIS. G&F1.LIS. G&F1.Lts. X-Bucks X-Bucks X-Bucks XBucks XBucks 
 
Proposed GCX Type 
 
8a'l:C 
AADT 
 
G& 1'1. LIS. 
 
700 
 
G & 1'1. Lts. 
 
100 
 
Close 
 
100 
 
Close 
 
100 
 
G&F1.LIS. 
 
40 
 
Close 
 
350 
 
G&F1.LIS. 
 
3420 
 
Close 
 
660 
 
Close 
 
100 
 
G& 1'1. LIS. 
 
1130 
 
G&F1. LIS. 
 
2260 
 
Close 
 
350 
 
Close 
 
740 
 
Overpass G& FI.LIS. 
 
9410 4080 
 
Close 
 
9410 
 
G& 1'1. LIS. G& FI.Lts. 
 
2680 4590 
 
Close 
 
390 
 
Close 
 
490 
 
Close 
 
350 
 
G& F1.LIS. 
 
8670 
 
Close 
 
490 
 
G&F1.LIS. 
 
l380 
 
G& 1'1. LIS. 
 
960 
 
Close 
 
2360 
 
Close 
 
lOO 
 
G& FI LIS. 
 
0 
 
Close & Remove 11490 
 
Close & Remove 1020 
 
Close & Remove 1200 
 
Close & Remove 7140 
 
Close & Remove 1850 
 
Close & Remove 
 
2690 
 
Close & Remove 1200 
 
Close & Remove 
 
I3R40 
 
Close & Remove 22tO 
 
Close& Remove Close & Remove 
 
2800 1820 
 
Number of Tracks I I I I I I I \ I \ I I I I I 1 2 2 I I I I I 3 3 3 3 3 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 
 
Average Number of Trains per Day 
34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0.2 34 34 II II \1 II II II 41 41 4\ 41 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
 
Average Length of Train (feet) 5,500 5500 5,500 5,500 
-- 5,500 
5500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5500 5500 5,500 5,500 2,230 5,500 5,500 5,895 5,895 5,895 5895 5,895 5,895 5,595 5,595 5595 5,595 5310 5310 5,310 5,310 5,3'10 5,310 5,310 2,230 2,230 2230 2,230 
 
Average Train Speed [mph} 
34 34 34 34 34 10 10 10 10 \0 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 24 24 24 24 
6 6 6 6 6 6 6. 6 6 6 6 
 
Blocked Time (hrs/d.y) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 \.8 1.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
 
Accidents 1994.1999 PDO Inj. Fat Total 
 
1 
 
I 
 
1 
 
1 
 
1 
 
I 
 
1 
 
2 
 
2 
 
"":l 
~ ~ 
-~ 
N 
I 
'>0 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-20 
 
each grade crossing is included as well as average number of trains, average trainspeed and total accidents between trains and vehicles in the last six years.. 
 
Future daily train traffic was also estimated for both alternatives. Figures 2.10 and 2.11 shown year 2000 and year 2025 daily train traffic by track segment for the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative, respectively. Also shown on Figures 2.10 and 2.11 are the average lengths of trains and average train speeds by track segment for the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative. In both alternatives, CSXT estimated that between 2000 and 2025, there will be an increase of eight trains that go through Waycross without stopping. CSXT also estimated that between 2000 and 2025, there will be an increase of twelve trains that originate or terminate in Waycross. Therefore, between 2000 and 2025, train traffic in Waycross will increase by twenty trains. This will bring the total number of trains traveling in and through Waycross per day from 72 in 2000 to 92 by 2025. In addition to this projected growth, CSXT also estimated that if the Project is implemented, CSXT would be able to add one more though train to the Waycross rail system between 2000 and 2025. Therefore, If the Project is implemented, train traffic will grow from 72 trains per day in 2000 to a total of93 trains per day by 2025. 
 
Operationally, there is a significant difference between the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative. As seen in Figures 2.10 and 2.11, there will be a substantial increase in average train speed through Waycross if the Project is implemented. There are three major reasons that there would be an increase in average speeds through Waycross with the Project Alternative. First, the section of track located in downtown Waycross with an average speed of six miles per hour will be eliminated in the Project Alternative. Second, the proposed installation of a crossing diamond north of Rice Yard in the Project Alternative will allow trains to travel through Waycross without having to pass through downtown. Third, the tight curves in the track near the intersection of Albany Avenue and Garlington Avenue will be improved in the Project Alternative. These improvements will allow the average trains speeds to climb to approximately twenty miles per hour instead of six and ten miles an hour as experienced in the No-Build Alternative. 
 
Based on the number of trains per day, average train lengths, and average train speeds, the daily train blockage time was computed for No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative for the major subareas. The results of the analysis are shown on Figure 2.12. As seen on figure 2.12, the worst train blockage will be in the Albany/Brunswick subarea. If the No-Build Alternative is implemented, at-grade crossings in this subarea will experience over five hours of blockage every day. This means that at-grade crossings in this subarea will be blocked over 20% of the day. However, if the Project Alternative is implemented, blockage for crossings in this subarea will be zero since the track will be removed. Daily train blockage time will also go down substantially for the North Waycross subarea and for US 1 Business overpass subarea. The daily train blockage time, however, will increase for the Central Waycross subarea with the Project Alternative simply due to the fact that this subarea will have more train traffic in the Project Alternative than in the No-Build Alternative. 
 
 Page 2-21 
 
Figure 2.1'0 
 
2000 and 2025 CSXT Daily Train 
 
"~--. 
 
Traffic in Waycross 
 
- No-Build or "Do-Nothing" Case 
 
Legend: 2000 (2025) 
Averages 5,815 ft/train 
,----j----+--l 
19 mph 
 
-__.-----,l - - - 
 
Averages 
 
6,710 ft/train 
 
10 mph 
 
::~~~~~~ " 
' 
 
\ 
 
/ 
 
' 
/ 
 
.' 
\. 
 
' 
 
>,c A~"/o,',/'v..,./ 
 
/t::: 
]=/.// Rice Yard 
 
%}<",~ 
 
.~~ 
 
i~ 
 
Wi 
 
~-' 
i 
 
.i 
.i 
 
I! 
 
 <, 
<. 
Averages 5,500 ftltrain 
34 mph 
 
Page 2-22 
Figure 2.11 
2000 and 2025 CSXT Daily Train Traffic in Waycross - With Rail Plan 
Legend: 2000 (2025) 
 
Averages 6,710 ft/train 
10mph 
 
Averages 
f---J.--+--_ I 5,595 ft/train 24 mph 
/ 
/ 
 
 l--:;:n enl oNO Impfovemenl 
 
o1.4 
-r-, 
ZOZINo Improvement 
 
o1.4 
Z02$Wi... 
Impro"menls 
 
Page 2-23 
Figure 2.12 Daily Train Blockage Time 
By Subarea 
(Hours/Day) 
 
North Waycross 4.8 
.. f8 ~ 
uct:::jj~H-~-l_ 
 
2021  No 
 
ZOU  With 
 
Improwment Irnprowments 
 
'-----r,- Central Waycross 
 
I n~5 I 
 
1.2 
 
~ 
 
I ~nenl. zo~:.~ No 
 
.NO 
 
2025  With 
 
IL......_. _ _-..J ~owment 
 
ImpfOYl!l~nl 
 
Improvements 
 
_~_~ 
 
 WaycrossfWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 2 - Rail System 
 
.' .,.. r , 
 
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 
 
March 2001 Page 2-24 
 
The No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative were subjected to an economic feasibility analysis to determine if implementing the Project would be economically viable compared with doing nothing. PBS&J based the methodology and structure of this analysis on the economic analysis completed by HLB Decision Economics for CSXT in 1999. HLB, previous to this study, had completed an economic feasibility analysis for a version of Project. Since HLB's analysis, the improvements included in the Project have changed and a new as well as independent analysis was required. PBS&J reviewed HLB's analysis and made revisions and additions where necessary. The analysis described in this section represents an up-to-date and detailed analysis of the Project Alternative's economic feasibility as compared to the No-Build Alternative . 
 
.In order to determine the specific benefits or lack of benefits associated with the Project Alternative in comparison to the No-Build Alternative, all the citizens or organizations that may benefit or be adversely impacted by the Project had to be identified. Based on the type of improvements in the Project, it was determined that there are three distinct groups that will impacted by the Project: CSXT, the citizens of Waycross and Ware County.rand finally, the citizens and businesses of Georgia that are located outside of Ware County. 
 
Next, the methodology for determining the economic impact on CSXT, Waycross/Ware County and Georgia was developed. Due to the difference in the nature of the impacts to each group, three separate methods of economic impact analysis were applied. To determine the potential economic benefits to CSXT, data supplied by CSXT itself was processed using simple equations. In order to assess the potential economic benefits to citizens of Waycross and Ware County, a computer program called GradeDec 2000, maintained by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), was utilized. Finally, in order to determine the potential economic benefits for the citizens and businesses of Georgia, algorithms from a computer program called RailDec 2.0, developed under contract with the FRA, was used. The specific type of economic benefits to be realized by each group is summarized in Table 2.6. Benefits in this analysis were expressed as a net present value of the benefits expected to occur over the next twenty years (between 2005 and 2025). The following paragraphs describe the detailed analysis that was employed to estimate the economic benefits of the Project. 
 
Benefits to CSXT 
The potential economic benefits that CSXT may receive from the Project Alternative will include a reduction in operating costs and an increase in revenues. The net present value of the benefits to CSXT over the next 20 years will be approximately $49.93 million. The data used in this analysis is based on CSXT's Proposed Capital Budget 1999 to 2001. 
Savings in Labor Cost: CSXT estimates that they will save approximately $73,000 per year in over time costs. Also, CSXT estimates that due to the Project, CSXT will save approximately $100,000 per year in relief crews and taxis. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of this benefit is $2,067,000. 
 
 .. 
" 
 
Table 2.6 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study . Rail PrQject - Benefits 
, : . :" , :.',q ,':w~l~:Mil~(~~I.,,:;iito~i, 
 
+ Savings in 
Labor Cost 
+ Savings from 
Alleviation of Capacity Constraints 
+ Savings Due to 
Decrease in Delay 
+ Revenues from 
Modal Shift 
 
+ Safety Benefits, + Travel Time Savings 
 
+ Safety Benefits 
+ Travel Time 
Savings 
 
+ Environmental Benefits . + Environmental 
 
+ Vehicle Operating Cost Savings 
+ Network Benefits 
+ Increase in Property Value (reduction in noise) 
 
Benefits 
+ Vehicle Operating 
Cost Savings 
+ Production 
Improvement 
+ Savings in Crossing 
Maintenance 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 2 - Rail System 
 
.. . ... I. 
 
March 2001 Page 2-26 
 
Savings from Alleviation of Capacity Restraints: CSXT also estimates that the improvements included in the Project will allow the Jacksonville Service Line to install super ID (interdivisional) runs between Manchester and Jacksonville. This will save CSXT approximately $584,000 per year (50 miles per crew start). Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of this benefit is $6,979,000. 
 
Savings Due to Decrease in Delay: CSXT expects that the improvements included in the Project will save about 45 minutes in delay between Jacksonville and Fitzgerald (due to speed smoothing in the region.) Given a minimum of twelve trains per day, assuming $826 of operating revenues per hour of delay (Source: "Railroad Facts 1995 Edition, " Association ofAmerican Railroads, Washington DC, 1995) and also assuming 250 work-days per year, the benefit will be approximately $1,858,500 per year. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of this benefit is $22,210,000. 
 
Revenues from Modal Shift: The increase in overall system speed and reliability will lead to a demand increase from both existing markets and modal shifts. This benefit assumes that due to the improvements in the CSXT rail system in Waycross, CSXT will be able to add one more train through Waycross. Using conservative assumptions such as $0.025 revenues per ton-mile (Source: HLB Decision Economics), one new train (with fifty cars that have a capacity of fifty tons of cargo each),' a one-way trip distance of 100 miles (approximate distance between Fitzgerald and Jacksonville), and 250 work-days per year, the estimated annual benefit is approximately $1,562,500. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5:5% discount rate, the net present value of this benefit is $18,672,000. 
 
Benefits to WaycrosslWare County 
The potential economic benefits that citizens of Waycross and Ware County may receive from the Project Alternative include safety benefits, travel time savings, environmental benefits, vehicle operating cost savings, network benefits and increases in property values. The net present value of these benefits to the citizens of Waycross and Ware County over the next 20 years will be approximately $66.13 million. 
In order to calculate the economic benefits of the Project Alternative, compared to the No-Build Alternative, a computer program called GradeDec 2000 was utilized. GradeDec 2000 is a program maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and designed for state and local decision-makers to prioritize highway-rail grade crossing investments. The program uses current benefit-cost methodologies employed by United States Department of Transportation agencies. GradeDec 2000 requires input for each rail/road crossing such as track mile-post, type of crossing, distance to major highways, average annual daily traffic (AADT) on adjacent roadways, and traffic growth in the area. The model also requires rail corridor characteristics such as length of corridor, number of crossings, number of trains per day, and rate of growth in train traffic. The model then estimates benefits by comparing the base case (No-Build Alternative) with the build alternative (Project Alternative). For a summary of the benefits to Waycross/Ware County by subarea please see Table 2.7. The Final Report Technical Appendix contains the detailed model output of GradeDec 2000. 
 
 Page 2-27 
 
Table 2.7 
 
 
 
Summary of Benefits to City of Waycross and Ware County 
 
Due to Rail Project Improvements 
 
Subarea Jamestown 
 
lD# Road at Crossing 638155 H Blalock Avenue 638156 P Atwater Road 638157 W Private Crossing N. of Huckaby Ln. 638158 D Honeysuckle Lane 638159 K Ternest Road 
 
Current GCX Proposed GCX 
 
Type 
 
Type 
 
G&FI.LIs. G&FI.LIs. 
 
X-Bucks 
 
G& FI. Lis. 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
X-Bucks 
 
G & FI. Lis. 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
North Waycross 
 
637620 B Hebard Avenue 637615 E Waring Street 637617 T Cherokee Avenue 637618 A Private Crossing N. of Cherokee Ave. 638154 B \Vacona Avenue 
 
G & Fl. Lts, 
 
Close 
 
G & Fl. Lts, G& FI. Lts. 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
G& Fl. Lis. G & Fl. Lts. 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
US 1 Business Overpass GoldKist Spu r 
 
637624 D Genoa Avenue 637623 W Azalea Avenue 637622 P Dresden Street 637621 H US I Bus. 637619 G Blackshear Avenue 
637900 D US I Bus. (GoldKist Spur) 
 
G& Fl. Lts. G & Fl. Lis. 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
G & Fl. Lis. 
 
Close 
 
G & FI. Lis. 
 
Overpass 
 
G & FI. Lis. G & FI. Lts. 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
G & FI. Lis. 
 
Close 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
Garlington/Albany Crossing 
 
637690 R Garlington Street 
1636830 M IAlbany Avenue 
 
G & FI. Lis. G& FI. Lts. 
 
I G & Fl. Lts. 
 
G& Fl. Lis. 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
Central Waycross Nicholls St. Crossing 
 
637705 D Elizabeth Street 637706 K Mary Street 637704 W Isabella Street 637707 S Carswell Avenue 637,708 Y Roosevelt Street 
637700 U US 84 (Nicholls Street) 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
G & Fl. Lis. 
 
Close 
 
G& FI. Lis. G & Fl. Lts. 
 
G & FI. Lis. 
 
Close 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
I FI. Lis. I G& FI. Lts, 
Subarea Benefits 
 
Brunei/Gilmore Crossing 
 
637583 B Gilmore Street 
I 637582 U [Brune! Street 
 
X-Bucks 
 
G& FI. Lis. 
 
I X-Bucks I 
 
Close 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
Lee Street Extension 
 
637584 H Sweat Street 
I nta Lee Street 
 
X-Bucks 
 
Close 
 
I Close I G& FI.LIs. 
 
Subarea Benefits 
 
AlbanylBrunswick Parallel Line 
 
637698 V Plant Avenue (US 84)/lsabella Street 637694 T Alice Street 637695 A Pendelton Street 637693 L Tebeau Street 637692 E McDonald Street (near Brunswick Ave.) 637691 X Nicholls Street 637739 X L Street 
 
X-Bucks Close & Remove X-Bucks Close & Remove G & Fl. Lis. Close & Remove G & FI. Lis. Close & Remove G & FI. Lis. Close & Remove G & Fl. Lis. Close & Remove X-Bucks Close & Remove 
Subarea Benefits 
 
637709 F Albany Avenue 
 
X-Bucks Close & Remove 
 
Dixie Concrete Spur 
 
637710 A McDonald Street 
637710 A Oak Street 637711 G Johnson Avenue 
 
X-Bucks Close & Remove 
X-Bucks Close & Remove X-Bucks Close & Remove 
Subarea Benefits 
 
TOTAL SUBAREA BENEFITS ($ '000) 
 
TOTAL INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE BENEFITS ($ '000) 
 
TOTAL WAYCROSS/WARE COUNTY BENEFITS ($ '000) 
 
 
($'000) 
42 103 247 247 67 
706 
373 1,618 877 204 481 
3,553 
1,185 468 753 8,469 2,328 
13,204 
31 
31 
2,942 1,596 
4,538 
166 196 118 -277 156 
359 
863 
863 
-570 924 
354 
97 
97 
19,141 1,570 1,767 11,109 2,734 3,941 1,858 
42,121 
51 17 19 15 
102 65,928 
205 66,133 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-28 
 
General Assumptions Used in the GradeDec 2000 Analysis 
 
 
Assumption 
 
Value 
 
Cost of Fatal Accident, thousands $ 
 
3,000 
 
Cost of Injury Accident, thousands $ 
 
500 
 
Cost of Property Damage Only Accident, thousands $ 
 
50 
 
Value of Time for Auto Travel, $/hr 
 
10 
 
Value of Time for Truck Travel, $/hr 
 
25 
 
Cost of HC Emissions, thousands $/ton 
 
3 
 
Cost of NOx Emissions, thousands $/ton 
 
6 
 
Cost of CO Emissions, thousands $/ton 
 
4 
 
Discount Rate 
 
5.5% 
 
Safety Benefits: The citizens of Waycross and Ware County will receive safety benefits due the upgrade of individual crossings. For example, if a crossing is upgraded from an at-grade crossing to a grade-separated crossing, motorists will see a significant decrease in accidents since all conflicts between vehicles and trains are eliminated. In order to compute safety costs, GradeDec 2000 requires input at each crossing such as train traffic, vehicular traffic and crossing type (e.g. crossbucks only, gates, flashing lights, etc.). GradeDec 2000 uses this input to estimate the safety cost value based on historical safety data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The difference in safety costs between the No-Build Alternative and the Project . Alternative represents the safety benefit. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the safety benefits is $2,763,000. 
Travel Time Savings: Travel time savings will occur at crossings due to changes in either vehicular traffic, caused by crossing closures, or changes in train traffic, caused by the removal of track. In either case, motorists will have a net increase or decrease in the amount of time they have to wait at crossings. The value of time for auto travel and truck travel are multiplied by delay at the crossing to calculate travel time costs. The difference in travel time costs between the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative represents the travel time savings. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the travel time savings is $53,222,000. 
Environmental Benefits: The environmental benefits to Waycross/Ware County reflect the reduction in/emissions due to the decrease in vehicular delay and the smoothing of vehicular speeds caused by the elimination of crossings and the realignment of track. The environmental analysis also takes into consideration the emissions of trains, which vary depending on train traffic and average train speed. Emission factors for vehicles and trains are multiplied by vehicular delay and train travel time, respectively, to get the environmental costs. The difference in environmental costs between the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative represents the environmental benefit. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the environmental benefits is $4,488,000. 
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings: Motorists will receive savings in vehicle operating costs due to a reduction in fuel and oil consumption as well as tire replacement and vehicle depreciation. These reductions are directly related to lower delay and time spent. at crossings. Vehicle 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Fin~'1 Report 
Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-29 
 
operating cost factors are multiplied by delay at crossings in order to calculate vehicle operating costs. The difference in vehicle operating costs between the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative represents the vehicle operating cost savings. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the vehicle operating cost savings is $4,924,000. 
 
Network Benefits: Network benefits are estimated as the reduction in vehicle operating costs and travel time delay for motorists traveling on. major roads due to fewer vehicular back-ups at nearby crossings. If a crossing at a local road causes vehicles to form queues that back-up into a major road, disrupting travel on the road "network," then a network cost will be incurred. The shorter the delay at crossings, the less likely "network" costs will occur. The difference in network costs between the No-Build Alternative and the Project Alternative represents the network benefits. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the network benefits is $531,000. 
 
Increase in Property Value: It was assumed that the property value of homes in Waycross, located near railroad tracks, would increase if train noise were reduced. Due to the relocation of track included in the Project Alternative, some households will see a reduction in train noise. However, due to the Project Alternative, other households will see an increase in train noise since the number of trains traveling near their homes will increase'. In order to quantify the net benefit of the Project Alternative, it was assumed that the net increase in property value of all the homes in the Project Alternative's study area would be +0.5% over 20 years. This assumption took into consideration that some households would experience an increase in train noise and some would experience a reduction in train noise, but that overall, there would be a slight decrease in train noise in the study area. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the increase in property value is $205,000. 
 
Benefits to Georgia 
The potential economic benefits that citizens and businesses in Georgia (outside of Ware County) may receive from the Project Alternative include safety benefits, travel time savings, environmental benefits, vehicle operating cost savings, production improvements and savings in crossing maintenance. The net present value of these benefits to Georgia over the next 20 years will be approximately $39.44 million. 
In order to calculate the economic benefits of the Project Alternative, compared to the No-Build Alternative, algorithms from a computer program called RailDec 2.0 were utilized. RailDec 2.0 is in the same computer program "family" as GradeDec 2000 and is a program that was developed under contract with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). However, unlike GradeDec 2000, which was designed to analyze and prioritize highway-rail grade crossing investments, RailDec 2.0 was developed to analyze and prioritize rail corridor investments. The RailDec 2.0 model is used to study rail corridors, as opposed to individual crossings, and quantifies the benefits to the citizens and businesses located adjacent to the rail corridor that is being improved. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-30 
 
The primary input required by the RailDec 2.0 program algorithms is the modal shift of truck freight to rail freight due to the improvements to the rail corridor. The reasoning behind this is that when the rail system becomes more efficient and reliable, industry will then respond by transporting freight by rail instead of by truck. Therefore, most of the benefits that Georgia will receive will be directly attributable to removing trucks off the roadway system parallel to the rail corridor. The length of the rail corridor used in this analysis is defined as the section of the Fitzgerald to Jacksonville rail subdivision that is located in Georgia. This distance is approximately 100 miles. For the RailDec 2.0 analysis, it was assumed that due to the increased efficiency and reliability of the CSXT rail system in this corridor, one new train per day, containing fifty cars with individual capacities of fifty tons of freight each, will be added to the 100-mile rail corridor (a one-way trip). One train, with an assumed capacity of 2,500 tons of freight, is equivalent to 138 trucks (approximately 18 tons of freight per truck). 
 
General Assumptions Used in the RailDec 2.0 Analysis 
 
Assumption 
CSXT Corridor Length (one-way), miles Freight Capacity of One Train Car, tons Number of Freight Cars per Train Freight Capacity of One Truck, tons Discount Rate 
 
Value 
100 50 50 18 5.5% 
 
Therefore, assuming 138 trucks per day will be eliminated from roadways and assuming 250 work-days per year, the total number of truck vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) eliminated from the 100-mile corridor will be approximately 3.45 million per year. The 138 trucks per day and the 3.45 million truck-VMT eliminated from the roadways per year were used as the basis for the safety benefits, travel time savings, environmental benefits and vehicle operating cost savings. A description of the methodology used to calculate each benefit is described in the following paragraphs. 
 
Safety Benefits: Due to the removal of trucks off the roadways, citizens of Georgia will benefit due to a decrease in the number of accidents and associated costs caused by trucks. The accident cost model component of RailDec 2.0 is based on accident rate tables developed for FHWA. Accident rates, in the form of fatalities, injuries and property-damage-only accidents, when combined with their associated costs are turned into a safety cost factor. The safety cost savings due to the Project Alternative are calculated using the decrease in truck-VMT and the safety cost factor. The safety cost factor used in this analysis is $0.0277 per miles of travel. This factor is estimated by the U.S. DOT (1991) for a typical four-lane road with partial access control and an average annual daily traffic (AADT) of between 0 and 6,000. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the safety benefits is $1,142,000. 
 
Travel Time Savings: A benefit in travel time saving will occur due to the reduction in congestion on the roadways caused by the elimination of 138 trucks over the 100-mile corridor. The method used to calculate this benefit first determined the savings in delay for the 138 trucks, as if they themselves would benefit from being taken off the roadways. Then this travel time savings would be used "by proxy" or "in place of' the travel time savings that all the other 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-31 
 
vehicles will experience when the 138 trucks are removed. This method is very conservative but provides a systematic approach to calculate travel time savings. 
 
It is assumed that each truck will save ten minutes a day over the 100 miles of roadway. For 138 trucks, this comes out to 23 hours a day of travel time savings. A rate of $32.28 per hour of operation for a 5-axle combination truck (Source: Based on data in "Highway Economic Requirements System Technical Report," Jack Faucett Associates, July, 1991) was used to calculate the economic value of the travel time savings. Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the travel time savings is $2,218,000. 
Environmental Benefits: A benefit will be realized by the citizens of Georgia due to the reduction of the number of trucks, and their emissions, on roadways in the corridor. The environmental cost savings are calculated based on the truck-VMT reduction and the improvement in aven~ge speeds. The environmental cost is based on three pollutants: HC, CO and NOx. These three pollutants are combined in the emission factor that is then applied to the reduction in truck-VMT. However, there also is an increase in emissions by the one train that is added to the corridor. Therefore, the net environmental benefit is the result of the reduction in truck emissions and the increase in train emissions. The average emission factor for trucks ($0.0235 per truck-VMT) was based on an average speed of forty miles an hour for heavy trucks. (Source: Based on relationships and data from "Vehicle Operating Costs, Fuel Consumption, and Pavement Type and Condition Factors ", Texas Research and Development Foundation, Austin, Texas, FHWA, June, 1982). The emission factor for the additional train was $0.071 per train-mile (Source: HLB Decision Economics). Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the environmental benefits is $948,000. 
 
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings: A savings in operating costs will be experienced due to the elimination of l38 trucks along the 100-mile rail corridor. The major components associated with operating a vehicle include fuel consumption, oil consumption, maintenance and repairs, tire wear, as well as administrative costs (e.g. insurance, license, registration, etc.). To estimate the vehicle operating cost savings, the truck-VMT reduction was multiplied by a cost factor derived from estimates from the "Technical Memorandum for National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 7-12" Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M. University System, College Station, Texas, January, 1990. The vehicle operating cost factor used in this analysis was $0.62 per vehicle-mile-traveled (VMT). Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value of the vehicle operating cost savings is $25,562,000. 
 
Production Improvement: A benefit to local companies in the 100-mile corridor will occur due to lower inventory costs and lower shipping costs caused by the more efficient and reliable rail system provided in the Project Alternative. .It is estimated that total logistical costs for businesses in the Fitzgerald-Jacksonville corridor is over $10 million per year (Source: HLB Decision Economics). A conservative estimate of a 5% improvement in production will lead to an approximate savings of $500,000 per year in logistics and production costs. The estimate used for the production improvement is supported by estimates from NCHRP project # 2-17-4 (Measuring the relationship between Freight Transportation Services and Industry Productivity). 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 2 - Rail System 
 
March 2001 Page 2-32 
 
Over a twenty-year period and using a 5.5% discount rate, the net present value ofthe production 
 
. 
 
improvement benefits is $5,975,000. 
 
Savings in Crossing Maintenance: The savings in crossing maintenance assumes that for each of the 24 crossings that will be closed in the Project Alternative, the Georgia Department of Transportation will save a one-time amount of $150,000 per crossing in maintenance costs. The total savings in crossing maintenance equals $3,600,000. 
 
Total Benefit 
 
The economic benefits that CSXT, Waycross/Ware County and Georgia may experience if the Project Alternative is implemented are summarized on Figure 2.13. The total benefit and the percentage, or share, of the total benefit for each group are presented on Figure 2.14. Of the total $155.5 million benefit, Waycross/Ware County has the largest percentage with 43%, followed by CSXT with 32% and then Georgia with 25%. 
 
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
Based on the rail operational analysis, the economic feasibility analysis, and the public involvement process, improvements were selected to become the rail system component in the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program. This study recommends that the rail plan should be composed of the improvements identified in the Ware County and the City of Waycross, Georgia: Transportation Improvement Project, Executive Summary, March, 1999. The rail plan is defined as the rerouting the CSXT railroad mainline and double tracking the mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross. A detailed list of the improvements included in the rail plan is shown on Exhibit "A" and in Tables 2.1 through 2.4. 
The operational improvements that the rail plan will make to the rail system in Waycross/Ware County will dramatically reduce delay at crossings and will increase train speeds through Waycross. The economic feasibility analysis showed that the rail plan will provide a net present value benefit of over $155 million over the next 20 years. The rail plan, which has a projected construction cost of approximately $22.0 million, provides an overall benefit-cost ratio of 7.1, well over the minimum of 2.0 which is commonly used as the minimum threshold to be considered a viable improvement. If just the benefits to Waycross and Ware County ($66.1 million) are taken into consideration, the rail plan will still provide .a benefit-cost ratio of 3.0. . Likewise, if just the benefits to CSXT ($49.9 million) are taken into consideration, the rail plan will provide a benefit-cost ratio of2.3. 
The project to reroute the CSXT railroad mainline and double track the mainline tracks on an existing alignment through Waycross also addresses many of the needs that the citizens of Waycross and Ware County have expressed publicly. The recommended rail plan includes improvements that citizens have asked for such as providing Jamestown citizens access to Waycross when trains block their crossings, providing an additional grade-separation in Waycross, and taking the trains out of downtown Waycross. Overall, the recommended rail plan is a viable plan for citizens of Waycross and Ware County as well as CSXT. 
 
 ::.. ~. 
Figure 2.13 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Rail Project - Benefits Summary (Present Worth Over 20 Years) 
 
Savings in Labor Cost = $2,067,000 
Revenues from Alleviation of Capacity Constraints = $6,979,000 
Savings Due to Decrease in Delay 11---'1 
= $22,210,000 
Revenues from Modal Shift 
= $18,672,000 
 
Safety Benefits 11----., = $2,763,000 
Travel Time Savings 11---.1 = $53,222,000 
Environmental Benefits II----i~ == $4,488,000 
 
Vehicle Operating Cost 
 
Savings 
 
11----1~ 
 
= $4,924,000 
 
Network Benefits II----.l = $531,000 
 
Increase in Property Value (reduction in noise) 
= $205,000 
 
Safety Benefits = $1,142,000 
Travel Time Savings 
= $2,218,000 
Environmental Benefits = $948,000 
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings = $25,562,000 
Production Improvement = $5,975,000 
Savings in Crossing Maintenance = $3,600,000 
 
 '. Figure 2.14 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Rail Project - Percentages of Benefits 
Total Benefits: $155.5 million 
Waycross/Ware County 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Section 3: Aviation System 
EXISTING AND FUTURE OPERATIONS 
Airport Description 
The Waycross-Ware County Airport is located three miles northwest of the city of Waycross. Access to the airport is from Harris Road (Airport Road) off US 1 Business from the north and from Keen Drive off US 82 from the south. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the location and layout of the airport, respectively. The airport has three paved runways designated 18/36, 5/23, and 13/31. Runway 18/36 is 5230'xI50' and is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) and Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI). Runway 5/23 is 5035'xlOO' and Runway 13/31 is 4060'xl00'. Approach aids include an Instrument Landing System (lLS), NonDirectional Beacon (NDB), Area Navigation (RNAV), and VHF Omnirange Station (VOR-A). Additional aids include a rotating beacon and a lighted windcone/segmented circle. Fixed-base operator services include 100LL, JET A, JET A1 and MOGAS fuels. Landside facilities consist of a 5,000 square foot terminal, automobile parking, three conventional storage hangars, two Thangars, and 26,400 square yards of apron. 
Aircraft and Operations 
Based on the Georgia Statewide Aviation System Plan (1995), the number of based aircraft at the Waycross-Ware County Airport is forecasted to increase minimally between 1997 and 2012. Based aircraft are expected to increase from 32 in 1997 to a total of 35 in 2012. Of the 35 aircraft projected, 33 are single engine and 2 multi-engine. Aircraft operations (i.e. - takeoffs and/or landings) are expected to increase from 15,900 in 1997 to 17,400 in 2012. Of the 17,400 operations projected, 10,807 or 62 percent are to be local operations with the remaining 6,593 or 38 percent representing itinerant operations. The forecasted data is presented in Table 3.1. It is important to note that no public air service is provided at the Waycross-Ware County Airport and no public air service is planned in the near future. 
Economic Impact 
As part of the Statewide Aviation System Plan, the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted an economic impact assessment of the Waycross-Ware County Airport. The airport provides important general aviation air service to area residents and businesses in the Southeast 
 
 , 
Figure 3.1 
Waycross - Ware County Airport Location 
Corridor Z 
 
 '. 
 
'. 
 
) 
 FIRE TOWER 
 
STATE PRISON 
 
a 
I 
 
7,50 
 
15Oi) 
! 
 
SCA\.E IN FEET 
 
 Page 3-4 
 
Table 3.1 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Activity Forecasts (1) 
 
Based Aircraft Single Engine , Multi-Engine Jet Rotorcraft Other Total 
 
1997 
30 2 0 0 0 
32 
 
2002 
31 2 0 0 0 
33 
 
2012 
33 2 0 0 0 
35 
 
Operations Local Itinerant Total 
 
1997 
9,876 6,024 
15,900 
 
2002 
10,186 6,214 
16,400 
 
Note: (1) Source: Georgia Statewide Aviation System Plan, GOOT (1995) 
 
2012 
10,807 6,593 
17,400 
 
... 
'." 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 3 - Aviation System 
 
March 2001 Page 3-5 
 
Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC). The services provided at the airport include 
 
. 
 
aviation fuel sales, aircraft maintenance and repair, avionics repair, and aircraft storage. 
 
Additionally, visitors arriving via the airport contribute significantly to the airport's economic 
 
value. The aircraft services and visiting passengers result in local expenditures, which create 
 
jobs throughout the local community and generate tax revenues for local government. In total, 
 
the airport in 1992 was estimated to create $461,000 in local annual economic activity, $148,000 
 
in annual wages, and approximately 6 local jobs. The economic impact is expected to increase 
 
as the number of based aircraft and total operations increase in the future. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
As a vital part of the.Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study, input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County was used to supplement the existing conditions analysis as well as help to identify future improvements or recommendations. On February 24, 2000, a public information meeting was held at the Ware County High School where comments from. citizens were, taken. After the meeting, additional comments were received through regular mail and e-mail. Overall, there was very little public reaction to the Waycross-Ware County Airport. The one comment that was received, however, was a vote of support for runway lengthening. 
Based on the current transportation deficiencies in Waycross/Ware County and the comments made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24, 2000, improvements for each component of the transportation 'system were proposed and analyzed. After the proposed improvements were analyzed, a second set of public meetings was held in Waycross at the Ware County High School and in Blackshear (Pierce County) at the Courthouse Annex on September 14, 2000. The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that were identified and analyzed for the area. Overall, there was very little public reaction to the Waycross-Ware County Airport proposed improvements. However, the proposed improvements for the aviation component of the Recommended Improvement Program were presented and no negative comments were made regarding the improvements. 
 
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
This study's recommended list of projects to be included in the aviation component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program is based on the recommendations provided in the Georgia DOT Statewide Aviation System Plan (1995) and the current Georgia DOT five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 
 
Airport Development Needs 
The Waycross-Ware County Airport has been designated as a Level III, General Aviation facility. The Level III classification is the highest level of general aviation airport and is recognized as having a significant regional aviation service impact. As such, there are minimum 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 3 - Aviation System 
 
March 2001 Page 3-6 
 
requirements for airside and landside facilities associated with the airport. The recommended airside facilities consist ofa 5500'xl00' runway, a full parallel taxiway, 6,720 square yards of apron, Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), Localizer, Glide Slope, and a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR). Other requirements include an AWOS-3, NDB, Remote Communications Outlet (RCO), rotating beacon, and a lighted windcone/segmented circle. Recommended landside facilities consist of a 2,000 square foot terminal building, 1,225 square yards of automobile parking (35 spaces), 4 conventional storage hangars, and 17 T-hangars. Table 3.2 presents the existing facilities of the Waycross-Ware County Airport in comparison to the recommended facilities for a Level III classification. 
 
Airport Improvements and Projected Costs 
Of the improvements recommended, the Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) is currently under construction. The Runway 18 extension, in addition to land acquisition, lighting and navigation equipment associated with the extension, is under contract to be built within the next year. The Georgia DOT five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Waycross-Ware County Airport lists other projects programmed to be built by 2005. Table 3.3 shows the current status and projected costs of the projects programmed in the CIP for the Waycross-Ware County Airport.. Figure 3.2 shows the location of significant improvements such as the runway lengthening and the runway overlays. Also included in Table 3.3 are those projects recommended for Level III upgrade by Georgia DOT, but not currently programmed for construction. 
 
. ... 
 
 Page 3-7 
 
Table 3.2 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Recommended Improvements (1) 
 
Facility 
Airside 
Runways 
 
Existing 5230'x150' 
 
Recommended 5550'x150' 
 
5035'xlOO' 
 
5035'xlOO' 
 
4060'xlOO' 
 
4060'xlOO' 
 
Taxiways 
 
Full Parallel 
 
Full Parallel 
 
Apron NA VA I D S N i s u a l Aids/Weather Aids 
 
26,400 S.Y. Rot. Beacon, NDB, VASI, REILS, VOR, Localizer, Glide Slope, MALSR, AWOS-3, Lt.W.Cone/Seg. Circle 
 
6,720 S.Y. Rot. Beacon, NOB, VASI, REILS, VOR, Localizer, Glide Slope, MALSR, AWOS-3, Lt.W.Cone/Seg. Circle, PAPI, RCa 
 
Lighting 
 
Land Acquisition 
 
.. 
 
Landside 
 
Terminal 
 
Auto Parking 
 
MIRL/MITL - 
5,000 S.F. 3 Sp./l05 S.Y. 
 
MIRL/MITL Add 80 Acres 
2,000 S.F. 35 Sp./1225 S.Y. 
 
Conventional Storage 
 
3 
 
4 
 
Hangars 
 
T-Hangars 
 
2 
 
17 
 
Land Acquisition 
 
- 
 
- 
 
~ 
(1) Source: Georgia Statewide Aviation System Plan, GOOT (1995) 
 
 .,- 
0, .::: 
 
'. 
 
i: 
 
Table 3.3 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Recommended Improvement Projects and Costs 
 
Facility 
 
AIRSIDE 
 
Runways 
 
Overlay Runway 18/36 
 
Overlay Runway 5/23 
 
Extension Runway 36 
 
Lighting 
 
Land Acquisition 
 
Taxiways 
 
Overlay 18/36 
 
New 
 
.. 
 
Lighting 
 
Partial Parallel Taxiway 
 
Connecting Taxiway 
 
New Apron 
 
Overlay 
 
NAVAIDSNisual Aids/Weather Aids 
 
LANDSIDE Auto Parking r' Conventional Storage Hangers T-Hangers Planning/Envir. 
Total 
 
Description 
 
5230'x150' 5035'x100' 
- 
----nO'x150' 
-_ _.. -M--IRL 80 Acres 
 
--~_. _.2_0._0'-x-3-5-'--, 
 
- 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
6000'x35' 
--_._------- 
 
"--'- ---M--I-T--L-_. 
 
-- RW 5 to RW 36 
 
RW 13 to Parallel TW/R W 
 
--' 
 
To T-Hangar 
 
-- __.?~"400 S.Y. 
RCO 
--- 
PAPI 
 
32 Sp./1120 S.Y. 1 -- .. 15 Master Plan/EA 
 
* 1994 dollars, otherwise current dollars 
 
Projected Cost 
 
Status 
 
$ 
 
1,202,900 * CIP, FY 2001 
 
$ 
 
906,300 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
197,100 * CIP, FY 200 I (under contract) 
 
$ 
 
15,000 * CIP, FY 2001 (under contract) 
 
$ 
 
170,000 
 
CIP, FY 2001 
 
$ 
.. 
 
10,000 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
750,000 
 
CIP, FY 2005 
 
, 
 
$ 
 
70,000 * CIP, FY 2001 (under contract) 
 
$ 
 
120,000 
 
CIP, FY 2001 
 
$ 
 
240,000 
 
CIP, FY 2003 
 
$ 
 
60,000 
 
CIP, FY 2004 
 
$ 
 
340,000 
 
CIP, FY 2002 
 
$ 
 
30,000 * (under construction) 
 
$ 
 
40,000 * (under contract) 
 
$ 
 
33,600 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
240,000 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
300,000 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
200,000 * Not in CIP 
 
$ 
 
4,924,900 
 
-- 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Section 4: Bicycle/Pedestrian System 
 
EXISTING CONDITIONS 
 
Review ofExisting Plans 
 
Two of the fourteen Statewide Bicycle Routes are located in Ware County: the Southern Crossing Route (#10) and the Wiregrass Route (#20). See Figure 4.1 for a view of the statewide bicycle route network. Traveling west to east, the Southern Crossing enters Ware County on SR 122 and follows SR 122 to US 82 (west of Waycross). This route exits Ware County on US 82. The Wiregrass Route enters Ware County on CR 466 and follows CR 466 to SR 158. This route ends at the intersection of SR 158 and US 82 (the Southern Crossing Route). See Figure 4.2 for a detailed map of the Wiregrass Route and Southern Crossing Route in Waycross/Ware County. 
 
The type of bicycle facility selected to be used along the Southern Crossing Route and Wiregrass 
 
Route is yet to be determined. Typically, bicycle shoulders will be used in the rural areas and 
 
'.' 
 
bike lanes will be used on urban sections within the city limits of Waycross. The state bike routes will form a network of on-street bicycle facilities that will eventually connect 
 
communities throughout the state. These on-street bicycle facilities will range from wide curb 
 
lanes and bicycle shoulders to bike lanes. The Georgia Department of Transportation is 
 
expecting to let a contract to sign the Southern Crossing Route in late 2000. 
 
Review ofCurrent AASHTO and GDOT Standards 
In the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), AASHTO recognizes three types of bicycle users, Type A, B, and C. Below is a brief explanation of each type: 
Type A Cyclist: Type A cyclists represent confident adult cyclists who are especially skilled in his/her bicycle driving ability. Type A cyclists will compete with cars for space on the road and prefer to reach their destination with as few obstacles as possible. They will ride on roads, wide curb lanes or bike lanes. Type A cyclists commute to work or ride long distances for recreation. Sections A, B, C, D and F show typical sections appropriate for type A cyclists. 
Type B Cyclist: Type B riders are adults who demonstrate. competent bicycle driving. Type B cyclists prefer not to mix with automobile traffic; however, they understand the rules of the road and can mix with auto traffic if traffic speed and volume are low. Type B riders prefer to ride on designated facilities like bike lanes and shared use paths or on residential streets and quiet roads, 
 
 r 
\ fJ~!>(. 
\r: 
\,' 
r 
\ \ 
r--:"",,~ 
 
\\ ... 
 
\ 
\ 
: !IAR.uSOH 
\ 
\ .., 
 
\ CARROL 
 
\. \ \t.. /" 
 
\ 
 
\. i,---.. 
 
'> 
 
'...' 
 
'l 
4 
 
\, 
 
w' 
 
Page 4-2 
Figure 4.1 
+ 
Georgia Department of Transportation's Statewide Bicycle. 
Route Network 
Legend: 
o Cities 
Statewide Route 
+ 
 
 ,! 
 
-. 
 
/ Figure 4.2 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Bicycle/Pedestrian Opportunities 
 
Legend: 
 
- ExistingOkefenokee Bike Path - GOOTSouthernCrossingRoute (#10) - GDOT Wiregrass Route (#20) a " "" Proposed SatillaRiver Greenway    Proposed US 84 Bike Lanes '" " ". ProposedOkefenokee Greenway    Proposed SR 177Bike & SharedLanes    ProposedKettle Creek Greenway    Proposed Waycross ExpressRail Trail 
~ '" "" Proposed Jamestown Road Wide Sidewalk " " "" Dresden St, Hampton Ave, Park Ave, 
andCherokee St Signed Shared Lanes 
   Proposed Academic Greenway and'. 
Victory DrlWadleyRd Wide Sidewalks 
   ABC A venue Sidewa1klBike Path 
 SatillaRegionalMedical Center , PedestrianImprovement Study 
 Memorial Stadium CrossingStudy 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 4 - BicyclelPedestrian System 
 
March 2001 Page 4-4 
 
which do not have much traffic. Sections A, B; E and F show typical sections preferred by type B cyclists. 
 
Type C Cyclist: Type C bicyclists are children. Children may be skilled riders; however, they do not know traffic laws and should therefore not be expected to ride on roads where automotive traffic is a consideration. Residential streets with low traffic volume and speed are acceptable routes. Off-road, shared use paths are ideal for children. Their destinations tend to be parks, schools, libraries and residential neighborhoods. Section E shows a typical section appropriate for type C cyclists. 
 
Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) generally recognizes AASHTO guidelines as minimum requirements (it is important to note that standards set forth by AASHTO are meant to be guidelines only). Georgia DOT generally requires sidewalks to be a minimum of five feet wide. Wider sidewalks may be appropriate near schools or where pedestrian traffic is anticipated to be higher than normal. 
 
Bike Shoulders 
 
Bike shoulders are often used to accommodate bicycle traffic (see Section A) in rural sections 
 
(roads without curb & gutter). These are not typically signed specifically for bicycle use. A 
 
minimum of four (4) feet of paved shoulder width is recommended by AASHTO. 
 
. 
 
Bike Lanes 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Bike lanes are used in urban sections (roads with curb & gutter). They are adjacent to the travel 
 
lanes, and are a minimum of four (4) feet wide (see Section B). Bike lanes are designated 
 
bicycle facilities and should be marked and signed as such. Five (5) foot widths are 
 
recommended in Waycross and Ware County. 
 
Wide Curb Lanes Wide curb lanes are adequate to accommodate bicycle traffic in many situations including restrictive urban areas (see Section C). A fourteen (14) foot wide travel lane is desirable to give both motorists and cyclists maneuvering room. Often, a motorist can pass a cyclist without having to change lanes. On steep hills, sharp bends, or other areas where more room may be desirable, a fifteen (15) foot wide travel lane is recommended. 
 
Shared. Lanes Shared lanes are used on roadways that have been identified by signing as preferred bicycle routes (see Section D). There is expected to be some advantage to a signed route over a nonsigned route. Responsible agencies should take action to ensure that signed routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained as such. 
 
Shared Use Paths Shared use paths are off-road facilities that typically have an exclusive right-of-way. These facilities tend to follow abandoned railroad right-of-ways, utility easements, stream beds, etc. Conflicts with motorists should be expected at every driveway and at all intersections. Shared use paths are generally required to be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide (see Section E). In rare instances, where use is expected to be minimal and maintenance equipment will use alternate 
 
 I 
I 
 
J --- 
)J~-- _~n--I 
 
50 
 
I 
 
\:, 
 
'"". 
 
I 
 
I 
 
," 
 
I 
 
I 
I 
 
<'u\ 
J 
 
I\ 
 
I 
 
\\ 
)x. 
~. 
 
4' 
 
I 
 
4' 
 
-r~Vru- 
kNe. 
 
Ff:;..VEP 'SHc()~ 
 
Page 4-5 
 
Preliminary Concept 
Section A: Bike Shoulder 
Description: 4' Additional WIdth 
Used to Add Paved-Shoulder to Existing Road 
 
10' s: 0' 
 
/0 
 
" 2.(1 
 
 " ,', . . ' " - - - - " ' 
. "t 
 
Page ~ 
 
LA, 
 
X 
 
) 
 
f 
."----~., ...."rP , 
 
.. ~ ., 
 
5' 
 
5' 
 
1!:j1Ce:. -n<..AVE.L. 
 
~e;. 
 
~NE.. 
 
II'" UUrrEI2. f).N 
 
o: c.uP-J>:, 
Z'17lft'\TIf\jt:l ST12-IP 
 
r$lAvE;.t. 
LANe.. 
 
BI~ l.l>NE. 
 
IB~ UVlT~ PAN 
o:c.u125 
 
Z'Pl-NT/r-l& SfF!IP 
 
1Z..0./,J. 
 
Preliminary Concept 
 
, 
 
, 
 
'Section B: Bike Lane 
 
Description: 4' Bike Lane 
Used in Urban Areas; 
 
10 
 
5 
 
0' 
 
/0 ' 
 
zo" 
 
 ~.,, 
 
I 
 
.. 
 
.Jc- 
 
I 
 
., 
 
I 
 
. 
 
:; 
 
I 
 
-," 
 
,, 
 
I 
 
I' 
 
I 
 
...... 
 
.~ 
", 
 
I 
 
,I 
 
.',.1 
 
,~ 
 
I 
 
1 
 
.. .- 
 
I' 
 
I 
.r 
 
.. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
.. ' 
oz.' 5' 
~ ~ ~ 
 
14' 
 
~=p"w ~ '1>4''' 
 
1'~ 
..-Ie.. 
 
(/C-Ve5 
 
2.'~ s."flZ.,P 
 
.d 
 
' Page 4-7 
 
" 
I 
 
I 
 
" 
 
I, 
I 
 
II 
II 
II II 
 
\ ~ 
: -;. 
~ 
 
I 
 
'' 
 
I 
 
I Y.. 
I 
 
I 
 
J 
 
I 
 
iJI 
 
i/ 
 
. .. ";l'!r-~' 
 
I .~ :;;';;:;' 
 
I 
 
I 
 
" 
)( 
 
II 
 
II 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
II 
 
I, 
 
I 
 
:1 
 
II 
 
II 
 
!I 
 
". 
: '(, '"1. 
e-. .. -r 
 
I 
 
II 
 
.-?, 
 
:" 
 
PL~.O 
ME.Q\AN 
 
,t' 
 
-r~VE.'l-.6oNE.. 
 
rtz-"'Vcc: 
uwe. 
 
/8'U,(/{1E.tz. pAJJ' o-: vvtz.5 / 
 
14' 
-rfZ.l>....e<- PA.....,P 
"""""""" J-,<>AIE. 
!b.'.."..".,.ne.e 
tJ"?V~ 
1!~'1 
 
Preliminary Concept 
 
Section C:Wide Curb. Lane 
 
Description: 2' Additional Full Depth Pavement 
 
Used in Areas With Constricted R,O.W.s 
 
, 
 
, 
 
 . . . - ._~ 
 
-' 
 
,I 
 
I 
I 
 
I 
I 
I I 
I I 
I I 
I 
 
Page 4-8 . 
 
PrelimiIiaryConcept 
Section D: Shared Lane. 
Description: Add Signs to Existing Road 
Used in RuralAreas 
 
10" s" 0> 
 
10 > 
 
ZO'. 
 
 fif~~J 
 
. 
.J 
 
C" 
r\ . ..; 
~ . 
 
Page 4-9 
 
z:I t1AX" SLof'E.. 
Preliminary Concept . Section. E:M:lllti-Use Path 
Description: 10' Wide (min.) Path 
Used for Off-Road Situations (Utility R:O-".Y.sand RR Tracks) 
 
10' s : 0 
 
zd 
 
 , ., 
 
I 
 
I 
 
 
 
I 
 
I; 
 
, 
 
I 
I~ 
I,: ~I.i'; I/-1." 
I,;,' 
I 
I 
 
Z' {;:tf?A9'=> SHovL-Or:=..e.- 
1'HI~.~ 
'f;>\~~~ 
j\ 
~~ 
 
~/S11Nb ~~ . 
T~YE, ~ 1U.vt;L. uNt:- 
 
!ti' WHctt:. ~~ 
 
. -cl'."'A';'e.o;~r-to01'4 
 
~HoU ~t)e.1L. 
 
. 
 
t.. ~VH&,-e. S11ZJP 
 
Page 4-10 . 
 
Preliminary Concept. 
Section F: State Route Network Bike Shoulder 
Description: 4' Wide Paved Shoulder and Rumble Strip (Optional) 
Used to Improve Existing Road in Areas With Rural Section 
 
10' S' 0' 
 
-/0 
 
zo 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 4 - Bicycle/Pedestrian S y s t e m _..,.. ., 
 
March 2001 Page 4-11 
 
routes, eight (8) feet is an acceptable width. The widths can be much greater, depending on anticipated use and location. Twelve (12) feet is the recommended width for the paths proposed in Waycross County and the City of Waycross. 
 
Wide Shoulders Wide shoulders (see Section F) can be used on high speed, high volume rural sections (roadways without curb & gutter). The wide shoulder progresses from the travel lane with a six inch white stripe, one (1) foot of smooth shoulder, two (2) feet of rumble strip, and four (4) feet of smooth paved shoulder. This type of facility is recommended along state routes, especially in rural areas. 
 
Existing Policy and/or Regulatory Opportunities and Constraints There are no known bike/pedestrian policies or regulations in Waycross or Ware County. 
 
Existing Bicycle Facilities 
 
A bicycle facility was recently completed between Waycross and the Okeefenokee National 
 
Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. As shown on Figure 4.2, the bicycle facility starts in 
 
downtown Waycross and follows Knight Avenue, Aycock Road and US 1. This route is a 
 
combination of bike lanes, wide shoulders, and a shared roadway (no special bike lanes or bike 
 
shoulders have been constructed). Along Knight Avenue the route employs bike lanes and along 
 
.. 
 
US 1 the route employs bike shoulders. Along Aycock Road, cyclists share the travel lane with the motorists. In most places, the bicycle shoulder on US 1 is at least four-feet wide. In some 
 
places, however, the shoulder narrows to less than four-feet, probably as a result of the 
 
construction methods and materials.used. 
 
The portion of the route that consists of bike lanes along Knight Avenue has received criticism from citizens of Waycross and Ware County. Inexperienced and non-bicycling adults who could become Type B cyclists think that the bike lane is too narrow and too close to the road. Parking has become a conflict along this route, as cars tend to use the bike lane as a parking lane during the lunch peak time. This issue should be resolved by enforcing no parking zones in the bike lane. 
 
The designated shared facility along Aycock Road has also received criticism from citizens for the surface of the road. The surface is rough asphalt and is not ideal for bicycle traffic. However, the route offers an efficient way to link downtown to the National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. This deficiency could be remedied during road resurfacing improvements. Any resurfacing projects should consider using a finer textured aggregate material. 
 
Inventory and Categorization ofExisting Facilities 
The existing bike facility mentioned above is a combination of Sections A, B, and D. There are no known S~ction C or E facilities in the City of Waycross or Ware County. Residential streets 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 4 - BicyclelPedestrian System 
 
.' ..,', ". , ,~ . ; '.'" 
 
March 2001 Page 4-12 
 
provide some space for recreational cycling and walking. These are limited and make moderate connections to destinations such as schools, parks, etc. 
 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accident History 
 
Available accident data (1993-1998) provided by Georgia DOT was analyzed for bicyclists and pedestrians in Ware County. Based on this data, the average number of bicycle accidents per year in Ware County between 1993 and 1998 was seventeen while the average number of bicycle injuries per year was twelve. There was one bicyclist fatality between 1993 and 1998. The accident data also shows that the average number of pedestrian accidents per year in Ware County between 1993 and 1998 was ten while the average number of pedestrian injuries per year was eleven. There were three pedestrian fatalities between 1993 and 1998. The following tables summarize accident data involving bicyclists and pedestrians. 
 
Bicycle Accidents on State Routes 
 
Bicycle Accidents on Non-State Routes 
 
Year 
 
Accidents 
 
Injuries 
 
Fatalities 
 
Accidents 
 
Injuries 
 
Fatalities 
 
1993 
 
8 
 
5 
 
0 
 
17 
 
II 
 
0 
 
1994 1 
 
2 
 
I 
 
0 
 
13 
 
12 
 
'0 
 
1995 
 
5 
 
4 
 
0 
 
II 
 
7 
 
0 
 
]996 
 
8 
 
7 
 
0 
 
8 
 
9 
 
0 
 
1997 
 
4 
 
3 
 
0 
 
14 
 
7 
 
I 
 
I 998:L 
 
3 
 
2 
 
0 
 
6 
 
4 
 
0 
 
Total 
 
30 
 
22 
 
0 
 
69 
 
50 
 
1 
 
Notes: 
 
.. 
 
I For ]994, Injury and Fatality Accident records are complete but Total Accident records are only 53% complete. 2 For] 998, Fatality Accident records are complete but Injury and Total Accident records are only 62% complete. 
 
Between 1993 and 1998, SR 4 had the most bicycle accidents (12) on state routes, while County Route (CR) 592 had the most bicycle accidents (6) on non-state routes. There were four intersections on state routes that had reoccurring bicycle accidents between 1993 and 1998: SR 520 at City Street (CS) 70805 (2 accidents), SR 520 at CS 67305 (2), SR 4 at CR 392 (2), and SR 4 at CS 70805 (2). There were three intersections on non-state routes that had reoccurring bicycle accidents between 1993 and 1998: CR 479 at CR 592 (3 accidents), CR 368 at CR 369 (2), and CS 52705 at CS 56605 (2). The one fatality involving a bicyclist in 1997 occurred on CS 90305. 
 
Pedestrian Accidents on State Routes 
 
Pedestrian Accidents on Non-State Routes 
 
Year 
 
Accidents 
 
Injuries 
 
Fatalities 
 
Accidents 
 
Injuries 
 
Fatalities 
 
1993 
 
4 
 
5 
 
I 
 
3 
 
4 
 
0 
 
]9941 
 
4 
 
4 
 
0 
 
6 
 
6 
 
0 
 
1995 
 
3 
 
3 
 
0 
 
13 
 
13 
 
0 
 
1996 
 
3 
 
3 
 
0 
 
5 
 
6 
 
0 
 
1997 
 
7 
 
6 
 
I 
 
8 
 
9 
 
0 
 
]998< 
 
3 
 
2 
 
I 
 
3 
 
3 
 
0 
 
Total 
 
24 
 
23 
 
3 
 
38 
 
41 
 
0 
 
Notes: 
 
I For 1994, Injury and Fatality Accident records are complete but Total Accident records are only 53% complete. 2 For 1998, Fatality Accident records are complete but Injury and Total Accident records are only 62% complete. 
 
 ,' 
 
'. 
 
~. 
 
. :)., .' 
 
WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 4 - Bicycle/Pedestrian System 
 
March 2001 Page 4-13 
 
Between 1993 and 1998, SR 520 had the most pedestrian accidents (10) on state routes, while seven non-state routes had a high of two pedestrian accidents. Only one intersection on a state route had more than one pedestrian accident between 1993 and 1998 and that was the intersection of SR 4 and CR 391, which had two accidents. There were no intersections on nonstate routes that had multiple pedestrian accidents between 1993 and 1998. The pedestrian fatalities occurred at three separate intersections: SR 4 at CS 51105 (1993), SR 4 near CR 391 (1997), and SR 4 at CR 391 (1998). 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
As a vital part of the WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study, input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County was used to supplement the existing conditions analysis . as well as help to identify future improvements or recommendations. On February 24, 2000, a public information meeting was held at the Ware County High School where comments from citizens were taken. After the meeting, additional comments were received through regular mail and e-mail. 
 
Overall, the public reaction to bicycle/pedestrian facilities was mild. Many felt that there was a need for better facilities, primarily at intersection crossings, and several expressed a desire for recreational facilities. Most citizens said pedestrians heavily out-number bicyclists in Waycross/Ware County. Some said that the current bicycle route to the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wlderness Area was an unsafe and poorly maintained bicycle route. Citizens, however, said that they would like to see bicycle paths to schools and parks in WaycrosslWare County. Citizens also recommended that bicycle/pedestrian paths be built along the Satilla River and the potentially abandoned rail line in downtown Waycross. The citizens of Waycross/Ware County made it clear, however, that their most important bicycle/pedestrian need in the near future was for safer crossings at congested intersections, such as the crossing near the stadium on Knight Avenue. For a more detailed list of comments made by the public .concerning bicycle/pedestrian facilities, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
Based on the current transportation deficiencies in Waycross/Ware County and the comments made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24',2000, improvements for each component of the transportation system were proposed and analyzed. After the proposed improvements were analyzed, a second set of public meetings was held in Waycross at the Ware County High School and in Blackshear (Pierce County) at the Courthouse Annex on September 14, 2000. The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that were identified and analyzed for the area. 
 
Citizens made many comments concerning the proposed projects for the bicycle/pedestrian 
 
system that were presented at the second public meeting. Overall, citizens in the area were in 
 
favor of new bicycle/pedestrian paths or "greenways" and also in favor of safer crossings near 
 
the middle school and at individual intersections in Waycross, especially near the hospital. For a 
 
( 
 
. 
 
( 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report 
 
Section 4 ~ Bicycle/Pedestrian System 
 
. .. , . 
 
March 2001 Page 4-14 
 
more detailed list of comments made by citizens at the second public meeting concerning the bicycle/pedestrian system, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Instead of recommending specific projects to be included in the bicycle/pedestrian component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program, this study proposes several opportunities and options. These opportunities are presented in the form of new corridors for bicycle/pedestrian facilities as well as general policies and options that can be used by Waycross/Ware County to initiate a stable bicycle/pedestrian program. These :recommendations are based on the results of the existing conditions analysis as well as input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County. 
 
Intersection Crossing Improvements 
The stadium and schools along Knight Avenue/Memorial Drive are prime destinations for pedestrians in Waycross/Ware County. These destinations are currently not easily accessed by pedestrians or 'bicyclists and require improvements at the intersection crossings to make them safer. One proposed alternative for the crossing near the Memorial Stadium is a grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing. It should be noted that this particular suggested improvement was the only improvement that was strongly supported by the public. However, improvements to the intersection's signal timing, intersection striping and geometric design (e.g. providing safe refuge for pedestrians) are also alternatives that may improve the crossing. For this reason, it is recommended that a detailed study be commissioned to examine specific improvements, which need to occur in this area. Schools in other sections of Waycross and Ware County are also destinations that need to be easily accessible by Type C (e.g. children) bicyclists and pedestrians. All school crossings should be designed and maintained to allow safe access for children walking or riding a bicycle to school. 
 
Opportunities On and Along Other Facilities 
In addition to the statewide bicycle routes that will pass through Waycross and Ware County, there are several promising opportunities available, all of which are shown on Figure 4.2 and listed in Table 4.1. The facilities proposed in this study were planned in such a way as to eventually form a network of bicycle and pedestrian corridors throughout Waycross/Ware County. This connectivity will provide users many opportunities and alternatives when traveling to locations such as schools, parks or even to work in and around Waycross. 
Several corridors in Waycross and Ware County will lend themselves well to shared use paths (for bicyclists and pedestrians only) or "greenways." Shared use paths (see Section E) can be utilized by all types of users: from Type A or experienced bicyclists to Type C or children/recreational bicyclists. One such opportunity available to Waycross and Ware County is a shared use path along the Satilla River. The Satilla River "Greenway" would run easterly 
 
 , 
 
Table 4.1 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Opportunties 
 
Opportunity Type 
 
Facility 
 
Description 
 
Study 
Study Wide Sidewalk . Wide Sidewalk Shared Use Path 
Shared Use Path 
Bike Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Signed Shared Lane Wide Sidewalk Wide Sidewalk Shared Use Path Shared Use Path 
 
Satilla Regional Medical Center Pedestrian 
 
Improvement Study 
 
Memorial Stadium Crossing Study 
 
Victory Drive 
 
From Carswell Ave. to Wadley Rd. 
 
Wadley Road 
 
From Victory Dr. to Kettle Creek 
 
Academic Greenway 
 
From Victory Dr. to Kettle Creek 
 
Waycross Express Rail Trail 
 
From Albany Ave. to State. St. (Along Abandoned Rail Corridor) 
 
SR 177 
 
From US 1/23 to US 82 
 
SR 177 
 
US 1/23 to Okefenokee Swamp Park 
 
Dresden Street 
 
From Jamestown Rd. to Hampton Ave. 
 
Hampton Avenue 
 
From Dresden St. to Park Ave. 
 
Park Avenue 
 
From Hampton Ave. to Cherokee St. 
 
Cherokee Street 
 
From Park Ave. to Kettle Creek 
 
Jamestown Road (Phase I) 
 
From State St. to Dresden St. 
 
Jamestown Road (Phase 2) 
 
From Dresden St. to Blalock Ave. 
 
Okefenokee Greenway 
 
From US 84 to SR 177 (Along Utility Easement) 
 
Kettle Creek Greenway 
 
From Wabley Rd. to Satilla River 
 
Bike Lane Shared Use Path Sidewalk/Bike Lane 
 
US 84 Satilla River Greeway ABC Avenue (upgraded and extended) 
 
From Satilla River to Smith Rd. From SR 158 to Brantley County Line From Clough St. to Ternest Rd. 
 
Total 
 
Linear Feet Total Cost 
 
N/A 
 
N/A 
 
N/A 9,900 11,220 14,520 
 
N/A $990,000 $1,122,000 $2,904,000 
 
7,920 
 
$1,584,000 
 
26,400 23,760 
660 3,300 
660 3,300 3,960 11,880 42,240 22,770 29,040 110,880 18,480 . 340,890 
 
$1,320,000 $24,000 $1,000 $3,000 $1,000 $3,000 $396,000 
$1,188,000 $8,448,000 $4,554,000 $1,452,000 $22; 176,000 $1,848,000 $48,014,000 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 4 - BicyclefPedestrian System 
 
March 2001 Page 4-16 
 
along the SatillaRiver from the planned GA DOT Wiregrass Route in northern Ware County on State Route 158 and extend beyond U.S. 84 (to the east). Another natural corridor suitable for a shared use path is along Kettle Creek. The Kettle Creek Greenway would start at the proposed Satilla River Greenway on the east and finish at Wadley Road, west of Ware County High School. South of Waycross, a potential location for a shared use path lies along a transmission line corridor that stretches from the south end of Rice Yard to north of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. Starting at US 84 south of Rice Yard, the proposed "Okefenokee Greenway" would follow the transmission line corridor all the way to SR 177, north of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. 
 
The preferred section for this multi-use path is Section E. This section will have to be engineered to suit existing conditions along each corridor. Because of the nature of the terrain in Ware County, elevated boardwalks may need to be considered to limit potential impacts to wetlands .that may fall within the corridors. Efforts should be made to avoid all possible environmental impacts that this type of facility could cause to existing vegetation, wildlife and topography. As usual, guidelines for railing construction, path width, signage, etc. should follow those illustrated in AASHTOs "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities." 
 
With pending changes in the configuration of the rail lines in the downtown Waycross area, there may also be opportunities to utilize the abandoned railroad corridor as a new off-street bicycle and pedestrian path. The abandoned rail line "greenway" would follow the abandoned track corridor from the intersection of Isabella Street and US 84 to State Street. Then, from the intersection of State Street and Dresden Street and going west, this corridor would consist of shared lanes (see Section D) and tie into the proposed Kettle Creek Greenway at Cherokee Street. 
 
, Any of the State Routes and U.S. Routes are possible candidates for Type A (e.g. experienced bicyclists) facilities. One such roadway is US 84 which provides a direct route through the center of Waycross and also ties into many other planned and proposed bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Bike lanes (see Section B) are proposed along US 84 starting south of Rice Yard, where the proposed Okefenokee Greenway starts, and extend north to the Satilla River, tying into the proposed Satilla River Greenway. SR 177 south of Waycross also provides a viable corridor for a bike lane (see Section B) from US 1/23 to US 82 and then a shared lane (see Section D) from US 1/23 to the Okefenokee Swamp Park. This would provide a connection between the planned Georgia DOT Southern Crossing Route and the proposed Okefenokee Greenway, completing the bike/pedestrian network on the southern edge of Waycross. 
 
Wide sidewalks are proposed along Jamestown Road (US 1 Bus.) between State Street in downtown Waycross and Blalock Avenue in Jamestown. This will serve as a pedestrian connection to the Jamestown area. The upcoming improvements to ABC Avenue also provide an excellent opportunity for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. While roadway improvements are being engineered, it is recommended that sidewalks and bike lanes are included along this corridor. Special provisions should be made at Kettle Creek crossing to ensure bridge approaches and railings are safe for cyclists. If land is available, the bike lanes and sidewalks can be replaced by a separate, parallel facility such as a shared use path (Section E).' This type of facility may 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 4 - BicyclelPedestrian System 
 
March 2001 Page 4-17 
 
incorporate a separate bike/pedestrian bridge across Kettle Creek. Vehicular crossings of this 
 
type of facility would also have to be minimized. 
 
. 
 
The final proposed corridor opportunity is located near Ware County High School. In order to provide safe travel for students/faculty who walk to school, 8'-10' wide sidewalks are proposed along Victory Drive and Wadley Road. These wide sidewalks will also tie into the proposed Kettle Creek Greenway, the proposed US 84 bike lanes, and the planned Georgia DOT Southern Crossing Route. 
 
It was discovered through the public meetings that the area directly surrounding the Satilla Memorial Hospital on Tebeau Street in downtown Waycross is in need of pedestrian improvements. Due to the Hospital's recent expansions, pedestrians are forced to walk in unsafe conditions between the parking areas and the hospital. For this reason, it is recommended that a detailed study be commissioned to examine specific improvements, which need to occur in this area. 
 
BicyclelPedestrian Policies and Options 
To summarize the steps required for the city of Waycross and Ware County to develop a bicycle/pedestrian "master plan," a "toolbox" of bicycle/pedestrian guidelines are presented on the following pages. These guidelines are meant to be a starting point to develop a bicycle/pedestrian program that incorporates some of the basic improvements proposed by this study and address the issues that face the citizens of Waycross/Ware County. 
 
 Page 4-18 
WAYCROSSIWARE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 
. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GUIDELINES 
~ Describe Plan to and Gain Acceptance from the Community .~ Assign Responsibility for Bike/Pedestrian Projects to One 
County or City Employee 
~ Seek Steady Source of Dedicated Funds for Bike/Pedestrian Projects 
~ Provide Adequate Funding for Repairs/Maintenance of Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 
~ Overlay Districts Can Require Sidewalks be Built by Private Developers 
;0 
- , Be Flexible in Implementing Plan to Take Advantage of 0Y0 Road Improvements ~ Identify Key Parcels for Strategic Bike/Pedestrian Links ~ Encourage Safety Education For Pedestrians, Bicyclists, 
and Motorists 
~ Transportation Projects Should Consider Treatments to Enhance Bike/Pedestrian Facilities' Connectivity 
~ Coordinate Strategies with Local, County, State; and Federal Agencies 
~ Provide Incentives Such as Credits Toward Impact Fees to Developers Who Provide Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 
 
 Page 4-19, 
WAYCROSSIWARE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GUIDELINES 
 
Upgrade Bike/Pedestrian Crossing at Stadium 
 
Use Signed Bike Routes on Rural Highways to Connect Destinations 
 
Develop Shared' Use Path Along Satilla River 
 
Consider Bike Lanes In City of Waycross 
 
(jib Make Existing Facilities Safer With: 
 
Streetlights 
 
Signalized Pedestrian Crossings (Mid-Block) 
 
.. 
 
Boldly Painted Cross Walks (GDOT Standard) 
 
Signals that Respond to Users 
 
Connect Gaps in Existing Sidewalk Network 
 
Connect Laura S. Walker State Park to Existing Bike Lane Network 
 
Connect Schools to Residential Areas 
 
Connect Residential Areas to Parks/Recreation Areas 
 
Provide, Sidewalks Along Business Corridors 
 
Retrofit Existing Walks if They are Not Already Handicapped Accessible 
 
UseAbandoned Rail Road Corridors as Easements for Shared Use Paths 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
Section 5: Transit System 
EXISTING CONDITIONS 
Waycross/Ware County Transit 
Currently, there is no public transit service available to the citizens of Waycross/Ware County. However, citizens of Waycross/Ware County who have Medicare/Medicaid benefits may receive transportation to and from the hospital, doctor's offices or other medical facilities through private services. Also, citizens of Waycross and Ware County who require transportation have access to taxi services based in Waycross (Earl's Cab and Waycross Cab Service). 
Transit in Surrounding Region 
In order to look at what is currently being done in other areas close to Waycross/Ware County concerning public transit, PBS&J obtained information concerning the public transit programs in adjacent counties in GA District 5. Six counties in GA District 5 currently have a rural transportation program. These counties are Bryan, Long, Montgomery, Pierce, Telfair and Wheeler. These six counties have a public transit system that utilizes the Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation program funds sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) administers the Section 5311 program for rural areas in Georgia. See Figure 5.1 for the location of counties in GA District 5 and the rest of Georgia that currently have rural public transportation programs. 
Section 5311 program is often referred to as the Paratransit program. Paratransit is a transportation service that falls somewhere between the private automobile and fixed bus (or rail) route transportation service. Examples are Dial-A-Ride programs, Car Pool programs, Van Pool programs and other similar programs. Section 5311 is a non-urbanized area formula grant program for communities with a population of less than 50,000. No restrictions regarding age or physical disability are placed on those who may want to use the service offered. This grant offers federal assistance to local sponsors wishing to provide rural transportation service by reimbursing up to 80 percent of the sponsoring agency's capital expenses and up to 50 percent of the net operating and administrative expenses. In addition to FTA's reimbursement, GDOT will pay for an additional 10 percent of the capital costs. Therefore, local sponsors in Georgia are responsible for paying the final 10 percent of the capital costs and 50 percent of the net operating and administrative costs. However, coordination with other federally assisted transportation 
 
 .. 
\ 
\ 
~..~ .... '. 
'> 
of s Ii", P. R , 
~ 
\. 
")I.(US:OClC 
? 
&.~ 
 
Page 5-2 
 
+ 
 
Figure 5.1 
 
Georgia Rural Public 
 
Transportation 
 
Programs 
 
(Section 5311) 
 
Legend: 
CD DOT Districts 
Counties with Rural Transportation Programs 
 
( 
 
[ 
 
I 
 
( 
 
.\ 
 
Wit L [R 
 
\, 
 
+ 
 
, 
 
'1 ![),u'NOU! 
 
'0, 
\ ;" 
 
'OCAWP, 
 
GRAOY 
 
TIiOWAS 
 
..'\...._ .._ .._.!_.._ .._ .._ .._ ...l.._ .._. 
 
+ 
:d:r'~a:ik::JzoJ:~l~~~,C::,}:'~id 
alnolO'OO" "'al,uda Ilti~oripol2JOOllO"". 
 
 Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 5 - Transit System 
 
March 2001 Page 5-3 
 
services is encouraged and income received through purchase-of-service-contracts may be used as the local match. 
 
Purchase-of-service-contracts is an option provided in the Section 5311 rural transportation program where private companies pay a county a certain amount per passenger to transport their employees between home and work. This is beneficial to participating private companies because they do not have to pay for vans, drivers, insurance and maintenance costs: All the private companies must do is pay an amount per employee to have them transported to work and back. On the other hand, this agreement is beneficial to the participating county because it ensures that the van fleet (purchased for the rural transportation program) is being utilized by citizens in the county and, also, because the income generated from the purchase-of-servicecontracts is used to help pay the county's portion (50%) of their operating costs. In some counties in GA District 5, the entire rural transportation program is composed of purchase-ofservice-contracts while in other counties there is a balance between purchase-of-service-contracts and Dial-A-Ride programs. 
 
Counties in District 5 with Rural Transportation Programs 
 
County Bryan Long Montgomery Pierce Telfair Wheeler 
 
Age of Transit Program .14 15 19 9 20 20 
 
Number of Vehicles In Fleet 4 3 3 5 '2 
2 
 
Average Capacity per Vehicle 
12 12 12 12 II 13 
 
Most counties in GA District 5 have vans that are equipped with lifts available to assist citizens with wheelchairs. The average age of the rural transportation programs in GA District 5 is sixteen years and the average fleet size is three vans with an average capacity of twelve passengers. 
 
1999 Average Values for the County Programs in GA District 5 
 
Passenger Trips 13,982 
 
Vehicle Miles 71,765 
 
Net Operating Cost 
$53,720 
 
Operating Cost per Vehicle 
$17,906 
 
The average net operating costs for rural transportation programs in GA District 5 for 1999 was approximately $53,700, or $17,900 per vehicle. Based on the rural transportation formula grant program requirements, each county was responsible for paying 50% of this total. For more information about the rural public transportation programs in counties near Ware County, the Rural Public Transportation Program Coordinator for the Georgia Department of Transportation (located in the Jesup office) can be contacted. 
Local information concerning the cost of rural public transportation services to each customer (excluding purchase-of-service-contracts) was available from the Pierce County program. Based 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 5 - Transit System 
 
March 2001 Page 5-4 
 
on the Pierce County rural public transportation program, the cost of the service to a typical customer is $4.00 for a one-way trip less than 10 miles and $8.00 for a round trip. For a one-way trip between 11-25 miles, the cost is $6.00 (a roundtrip would be $12.00). Also, there are discounts available for senior citizens (1/2 price for a non-medical trip). 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
As a vital part of the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study, input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County was used to supplement the existing conditions analysis as well as help to identify future improvements or recommendations. On February 24, 2000, a public information meeting was held at the Ware County High School where comments from citizens were taken. After the meeting, additional comments were received through regular mail and e-mail. 
Overall, there was mild interest expressed by the public for transit in Waycross and Ware County. Citizens showed some interest in having a transit system, perhaps similar to Pierce County's system. Some said that there was also a need for transit service to assist elderly people. For a more detailed list of comments made by the public concerning transit, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
Based on the current transportation deficiencies in Waycross/Ware County and the comments made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24, 2000, improvements for each component of the transportation system were proposed and analyzed. After the proposed improvements were analyzed, a second set of public meetings was held in Waycross at the Ware County High School and in Blackshear (Pierce County) at the Courthouse Annex on September 14, 2000. The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that were identified and analyzed for the area. 
Citizens made few comments concerning the recommendations for a transit system that were presented at the second public meeting. One citizen of Waycross stated that many people in Waycross do not have adequate and economical transportation to work and other destinations and that public transportation would be a wonderful investment. For a more detailed list of comments made by citizens at the second public meeting concerning the transit system, see the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Instead of proposing specific capital investments and/or plans to be included in the transit component of the Waycross/Ware County Recommended Improvement Program, this study proposes several transit recommendations. These recommendations are presented in the form of potential options that can be used by Waycross/Ware County to initiate a successful and practical transit program. These recommendations are based on the results of the existing conditions analysis as well as the input from the citizens of Waycross and Ware County. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study FInal Report 
 
Section 5 - Transit System 
 
." ,", 
 
.~ .. ', '" '" 
 
.. 
 
March 2001 Page 5-5 
 
., 
 
Potential Public Transit Service 
 
PBS&J analyzed current socioeconomic data to determine if a public transit system would be feasible in Waycross/Ware County. Typically, citizens who live in low-income households will be the prime users of a transit service (e.g. Dial-A-Ride program) because they can not afford to buy and maintain an automobile. Therefore, the general location of households in Waycross with incomes less than $15,000 per year were identified in order to see if there were clusters of . households with low incomes. As seen on the Figure 5.2, clusters of low-income households were identified in areas north, south and southwest of downtown Waycross. The existence of several clusters of low-income households indicates that a transit system may be a viable option for residents living in these areas. A limited fixed route van/bus system or a demand-response van system (Dial-A-Ride program) similar to Pierce County's system may be feasible. 
 
Purchase-of-Service-Contracts 
Another approach for Waycross and Ware County. to initiate a rural public transportation program would be through purchase-of-service-contract 'agreements with local businesses. Waycross and Ware County currently have businesses that could sponsor purchase-of-servicecontracts and there may also be future opportunities for purchase-of-service-contracts if other major employers move to Waycross/Ware County. The purchase-of-service-contract option has shown to be a viable way of maintaining and assisting rural transportation programs in other counties in GA District 5 and may also be an option for Waycross/Ware County in the future. 
 
 -, 
Figure 5.2 - Waycross / Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Public Transit Potential 
LEGEND: 
Potential Origin/Destination of Transit Trips based on Density of Homes with Less than $15,000 Annual Household Income 
 
 WaycrosslWare County 
 
-. 
 
Multi-Modal Transportation Study 
 
Section 6: Public Involvement 
 
Vital to the success of the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study is the participation and involvement of the citizens of Waycross and Ware County in the study itself. In order to ensure that citizens do participate in the study and get involved in the process, several key actions were taken. The first action taken in the public involvement process was to form an Advisory Panel that was made up of city and county officials. This Advisory Panel helped guide the study and made known the general concerns and desires of the citizens of Waycross and Ware County. Next, two public involvement meetings were incorporated into the schedule of the study, the first meeting at the beginning of the study and the second meeting near the end of the study. The purpose of the first public involvement meeting was to receive input from the public as to what is important to them and what problems they wanted to see remedied. The purpose of the second public meeting was to present the recommended improvement program to the citizens and get their feedback on the proposed improvements. There was also a concerted effort made by the Department and city/county officials to invite all the citizens of Waycross and Ware County to the public meetings. Many types of creative outreach tools were employed to motivate citizens to attend the public meetings and provide input throughout the study. 
J 
PUBLIC OUTREACH 
Enabling all citizens to participate in the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study was the goal of the public involvement process. It is paramount for any transportation plan to have the overwhelming support and approval of the local citizens in order for it to be successful. In order to involve as many citizens in the study process as possible, extraordinary efforts were made by the Department and city/county officials to invite citizens to the public meetings held for this study.' 
The outreach effort included preparation and distribution of flyers to citizens in Waycross/Ware County, the use of the variable message sign at the stadium in Waycross and the sign at the Ware County High School to announce the meetings, as well as the posting of flyers on the "community" bulletin board at CSXT in Waycross. Announcements about the public meetings were made at some of the area black churches and flyers were distributed at these churches in an effort to persuade people to attend the public meetings. Also, several advertisements were placed in the Waycross Journal-Herald and in the Blackshear Times (Pierce County) that invited citizens to attend the public meetings. In an effort to draw even more citizens to the public meetings, a separate public meeting in Blackshear, Pierce County, was held on September 14, 2000 at the Courthouse Annex. Letters were also sent out to all the citizens who attended the first public meeting urging them to attend the second public meeting. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 6 - Public Involvement 
 
March 2001 Page 6-2 
 
In addition to the outstanding attendance and participation of citizens at the public meetings, the study also received good press. Articles appeared in the Waycross Journal-Herald before and after both public meetings and at the second public meeting, the Blackshear Times ran an article before and after the meeting, as well. The public meetings were advertised on the government television channel and at a number of local government meetings that were televised by the local government channel. A camera person was present at both of the public meetings filming the proceedings. Film clips from the public meetings were later aired on the government access channel. 
 
ADVISORY PANEL 
To assist the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) in the development of the Waycross/Ware County Multi-Modal Transportation Study and to insure local government coordination and public involvement, an Advisory Panel was created. The Advisory Panel was made up of public individuals and officials in the study area. The members included: 
Mr. Clay Thomas (City Commissioner, Chairman of the Advisory Panel) Mr. Roger Strickland (Commissioner and Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners) Mr. Ralph Tyson, County Commissioner) Ms. Janice Parks (City Commissioner) Mr. John Fluker (Mayor, City of Waycross) Mr. Al Hassler (CSX Transportation, Inc.) 
The Advisory Panel has met throughout the study process on a semi-monthly and an "as needed" basis. In total, there were seven advisory panel meetings starting in October of 1999 and ending in October of 2000. As the name implies, the panel has acted in an advisory role to the multimodal transportation study. Members of the panel have reviewed the study results from each phase of the study and have made comments and recommendations to the Department. 
 
FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 
The first public meeting was held on Thursday, February 24, 2000 at the Ware County High School cafeteria in the Ware County High School. Two meetings were held that day in order to allow people with rigid schedules to attend at least one of the meetings. However, both meetings had the same format and content. The first meeting was held from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and the second meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. 
 
Purpose ofthe Meeting 
.. 
The primary purpose of this meeting was to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Waycross 
and Ware County to supply important input into the study process. This meeting was intended to make available a forum for the area citizens to: 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 6 - Public Involvement 
 
March 2001 Page 6-3 
 
 Help the study team identify those transportation issues/problems that are ofthe most 
concern so that they can be addressed as part ofthis study. 
 
 Identify/suggest potential alternative improvements to the transportation system that 
 
 
 
will be evaluated as part ofthe study. 
 
Meeting Format 
The format of the meeting was designed to provide attendees the opportunity to have significant input to the study. The meeting began with a general presentation by the study team of the current transportation system and its components. Important features of each component of the system were highlighted. This general presentation was followed by detailed group discussions at one of three tables located around the room. The tables were numbered 1, 2 and 3. At each table, the discussion concentrated on a particular component of the transportation system: 
Table 1 - Streets, Highways, Bridges and Transit. Table 2 - Railroads. Table 3 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. 
At each table, a member of the study team led the discussions. The groups discussed the issues/problems associated with that particular component of the transportation system. The groups rotated between tables at 20 to 25 minute intervals. After each group had visited all of the tables, the entire group was brought back together for a brief summary. Study team members summarized the discussions of all three groups for each component of the transportation system. 
 
Meeting Results 
Based on the public response during the meetings and comments made after the meeting, the first public information meeting was considered a major success. A total of 90 citizens attended both meetings and made over 200 comments regarding the transportation system. Several major' topics were brought up at the meetings: a perimeter route/bypass around Waycross; Pierce County traffic using Morningside Drive; congestion on several of the intersections in Waycross; the need for improvements at several rail/road crossings; pedestrians having 'problems crossing streets at congested intersections; and interest in recreational bicycle/pedestrian paths. A complete listing of all the comments made at the first public meeting as well as comments sent by regular mail and e-mail can be found in the Final Report Technical Appendix. 
 
SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 
The second set of public information meetings was held on September 14, 2000. On this day, two separate meetings took place: the first meeting was held at the Pierce County Courthouse Annex in Blackshear (5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and the second meeting was held at the Ware . County High School cafeteria in the Ware County High School (7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.). The 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 6 - Public Involvement 
 
March 2001 . Page 6-4 
 
additional meeting was sponsored 10 Pierce County since potential improvements will also impact citizens of Pierce County. . 
 
Purpose ofthe Meeting 
The primary purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the citrzens of Waycross, Ware County and Pierce County to comment on the proposed transportation projects that have been identified and analyzed for the area. These recommendations are based on the analysis of the current transportation deficiencies in Waycross/Ware County and the comments made by citizens at the first public meeting held on February 24, 2000. This meeting was intended to make available a forum for the area citizens to: 
 
 Review the proposed improvements and recommendations for all modes oftransportation in Waycross and Ware County, 
 Assess the need andpriority ofthe proposed improvements and recommendations. 
 
Meeting Format 
The format of these meetings was similar to the format of the first public meeting held back on February 24, 2000 in the Ware County High School cafeteria in the Ware County High School. It was designed to provide attendees the opportunity to have significant input to the study. The meetings began with brief comments from Georgia DOT and local officials followed by a general presentation by the PBS&J study team. The initial presentations were followed by detailed group discussions at each of the three stations, or tables, located around the room. Each table discussion focused on a particular component of the transportation system: 
Table 1 - Streets, Highways, Bridges, Airport and Transit. Table 2 - Railroads. Table 3 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. 
At each table, a member of the study team led the discussion of the proposed improvements and recommendations associated with that particular component of the transportation system. During the discussion, participants had an opportunity to discuss their issues, concerns, and opinions concerning the proposed recommendations. 
 
Meeting Results 
Attendance at the second set of public meetings substantially eclipsed the attendance at the first public meeting held back on February 24, 2000. A total of 23 citizens attended the meeting held in Pierce County and 121 citizens attended the meeting held in Waycross/Ware County. The total attendance for the two meetings was 144, much more than the total of 90 citizens who attended the public meeting held on February 24, 2000. This is equal to a 60% increase in attendance from the first public meeting to the second public meeting. Of the 144 citizens who attended the public meetings, 122 (85%) did not attend the previous public meeting in February. 
 
 WaycrosslWare County Multi-Modal Transportation Study Final Report Section 6 - Public Involvement 
 
March 2001 Page 6-5 
 
Therefore, about 85% of the people at the September 14th meetings were persuaded to come due the encouragement of local residents, advertisements (TV and newspaper), and newspaper articles. 
 
As the attendance at the two meetings would indicate, most of the comments came from citizens of Waycross/Ware County. However, the residents of Pierce County were extremely vocal concerning the proposed improvements that were presented. Pierce County residents were most interested in the proposed East Bypass and stated that the bypass was greatly needed. The residents of Waycross/Ware County were equally as vocal about the proposed East Bypass but also made their opinions known about the other components of the transportation system. A complete listing of all the comments made at the second set of public meetings as well as comments sent by regular mail and e-mail can be found in the Final Report Technical Appendix . 
 
. 
 
 SEE THE JAMSTO!ilN [N~ERTllj 
 
II ff 'II ! 
 
azo_ Ii Ii - ~r Ii f 
 
IuI ,Jr' 
 
I' " Ii If I I '\' , J / ,i . , ~>:: J I .1 'c, ..,._.__ '--_J ... .J _.-"" , .! 
 
';'::::;:~~:::':_7::::::'::::::::::J:~r:- \ '. 
 
:;~~;;::~~~;.;:::::~::::::::::::;;;;:~:::::.J::.:::~~;.,.. 
 
II 
 
__.. ::~ 
 
~ 
 
......:: . <.. -,:.. 
 
:i 
 
LOloncl 
 
------ 
-.-... 
lI22D 
0-- 
 
ROADWAI' UCPaOVUllNTB IlXI8'I'DIO Tl\ACE TO 1UlKA.DI PaOflOIIlO TftACl CIIANOIlS 
 
*lTno 
 
BXIS1'INO TRACE TO IB UtIAIILITAIIO 
TftACl TO lIS U'I1I\IO AND UMOnO CPOIIlIIIIUI PVroU IOOIIYAY 0llUJIl0a) 
UISTINO IIIOlIYAI' CIl.089INO TO . . UPGaAIlIID BXISTINO HIOII1FAY CllOElNO TO U QAlIIID C'I'RACIt TO UMAINJ BXISTINO lOOIIWAI' CllCl8SlNO TO U IILDCDlAftD 
BDn1NO IIlOII1I'"'1' CIl.OlISINO TO . . QAlIIID AND 
1fID'ht UDUCIlO TO AlLOW PIIlIlI'I'tUANs ONLY. 
CUT R*w em WlU. ODTAIN 
 
TllnPNlIllTA rs TIll CO'INIOlI ~ .ITK EXHIBIT lIlIo&TtIl ~ 
rm. PTlllKYInIlUOSR_ A.~ IIll Io&G~ 
V2cm 2/16/?l 2/12/" 2/3/t9 1/51" 
 
BXIllTINO OVU'ASll 
 
ftAIUlOAD IIIUII'OST 
 
EXHIBIT A 
WARE COUNTY 
AND 
CITY OF WAYCROSS 
TRANSPORT ATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 
WAYCROS5, GEORGIA FEBRUARY ~ 1999 
 
 " 
 
/"'---'\:, 
 
".--f' 
 
\ 
 
I 
I r-r--r-r-rt-" 
 
\, \. 
 
! 
 
! 
 
.....~. , - ..- ~_.~ 
 
<J,,.----..-r,. -~-.~-!- 
\ 
 
Waycross - Ware County Transportation Study 
 
Figure 1.18 Pnge 1-24 
Traffic Analysis Zones 
 
LEGEND 
 
I " County Boundary 
NGDOTRoads 
oW,',] Waycross City Limits Ware County 
 
~Traffic I 
 
Analysis Zones 
 
N 
A 
 
o 
 
I.!' Mila 
 
i 
 
i 
 
Soara(sj: Road 'eatur.. are diKiliud from ;OOT 
CoDaly maps; MUDiripai bouod.ria .rr. from the US C~DJUS Bau.u l1(a:RI~iD~nta 
 
\ 
 
... I~- -~__ 
 
", 
\.\ 
\ 
________ ii 
1 
 
/ 
/ 
,--- .. ".-.' 
 
.( 
.' ..,/" 
I 
 
 _./ 
'.: 
........ , ......);;i'_ . ::';:;.;;':;;~;;.;.:::;;.'.;;;".;':':~:.:::~ 
.ir.i,J 
I' 
 
L 
L 
 
SOUTH GEORGIA PARKWAY/ GARL INGTON ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT 
,; 
i: ij 
,i I , \ \~ 
------\---~ - 
 
Leln.! 
 
IlOADWAT~ 
'1lDn'DIG ftAClt 1'0 UMADI 
~nota~ 
IlDnDIG ftAClt TO  IlllAllUTAD 
 
-_ _ _1lII aD_PaD .. 
 
------- 
 
nota 1'0  UftaD AIID aMllIWD 
 
IPCIIIIIU JIV'rWa . . . .AT . . . . 
 
lIZIITD'G _ _AT ~ 1'0 
 
.. 
 
IIDm)IO 
 
T c - . o 1'0  ~ 
 
CftAa 1'0 ...... 
IIDm)IO "-AT c - . o '10  IUJIDIA.IZIITO'O _ _.T c - . o 1'0  ~ . . 
 
WlImI IDOaD 1'0 ~ ~ GIIU. 
aI:T  -. an wa.L ~... 
 
IXIft'DIG ovsu.uI 
 
~ --.-. ..-._ ..-..- .-.. It2VW ~ .......,.".,. INW 
 
"; 
 
0-- 
 
~MILDOII'