Central Georgia Corridor Study HPC 6 and US 280...keeping business moving in Georgia: phase II report [June 2002]

CENTRAL GEORGIA CORRIDOR STUDY
HPC6 and US 280
...keeping business moving in Georgia
Phase II Report
for the Georgia Department of Transportation
Prepared for
Georgia Department of Transportation
Prepared by
June 2002
"The contents in this publication reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation."

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 2
3
4 5
6

Title

Page

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1-1 Study Area Background and Purpose .................................................................1-1 Summary of Key Findings ....................................................................................1-4

Traffic Projections .......................................................................................................2-1 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................2-1 Truck Freight Flows ...............................................................................................2-1 Rail Freight Flows.................................................................................................2-21 Potential Changes in Freight Mode Choice ......................................................2-33 Roadway Network Planning Tool .....................................................................2-38 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................2-38

Implications for GDOT Maintenance Program .....................................................3-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3-1 Background .............................................................................................................3-1 Current Highway Maintenance Activities..........................................................3-3 Recommended Additional Maintenance and Construction Activities........3-9 Promising New Technologies...........................................................3-11 Summary ................................................................................................................3-13

Programmed Improvements ......................................................................................4-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 4-1 Programmed Roadway Projects in the Study Area ..........................................4-7 Truck Weigh Stations in the CWP......................................................................4-22 Rest Area Projects in the CWP............................................................................4-22 Summary................................................................................................................ 4-22

System Deficiencies and Potential Solutions.........................................................5-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 5-1 Organizing Principles ............................................................................................5-1 Methods for Determining Transportation System Deficiencies ......................5-4 Geographic Information Systems Maps..............................................................5-5 Infrastructure Standards......................................................................................5-46 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Issues...............................................5-52 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................5-58

Public Involvement .....................................................................................................6-1 Background and Purpose.............................................................................................6-1 Overview of the Approach/Methodology................................................................6-1 Summary of Key Findings ...........................................................................................6-5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 6-5

June 2002

i

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

7

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................7-1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................7-1

Phase 2 Summary..........................................................................................................7-1

Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 7-6

June 2002

ii

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Technical Appendices

A Interviews with Current and Former Maintenance and Operations Engineers

B

Design and Construction of Concrete Intersections Tech Notes

C Construction Work Program

D Pavement & Roadway Deficiencies - Freeways

E

Pavement & Roadway Deficiencies - 4 Lane Divided GRIP Roads

F

Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Connecting Roads

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads

Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Mainline

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Mainline

G At Grade Railroad Crossings on Mainline and Connecting Roads

H Pavement & Roadway Deficiencies - Two or Three Lane Portion of HPC 6 Mainline (not

currently on GRIP)

I

Two or Three Lane Connecting with Capacity Deficiencies

J

Literature Review for Promising New Technologies

K US 280 Travel Time Study

L

Stakeholder Meeting Comments

June 2002

iii

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

FIGURES

Title

Page

Figure 1.1 High Priority Corridor Six ...........................................................................................1-2 Figure 1.2 Central Georgia Corridor project map.......................................................................1-3 Figure 2.1 HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: Corridor View .........................................2-5 Figure 2.2 HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: West View ...............................................2-6 Figure 2.3 HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: Central View ...........................................2-7 Figure 2.4 HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: East View .................................................2-8 Figure 2.5 HPC 5 Current Non-Freight AADT .........................................................................2-10 Figure 2.6-A Current Volume to Capacity for the Corridor .......................................................2-12 Figure 2.6-B HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: Corridor View .........................................2-13 Figure 2.7 HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: West View................................................2-14 Figure 2.8 HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: Central View ...........................................2-15 Figure 2.9 HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: East View .................................................2-16 Figure 2.10 HPC 6 Future Non-Freight AADT ...........................................................................2-19 Figure 2.11 Future Volume to Capacity for the Corridor ..........................................................2-20 Figure 2.12 Current versus Future V/C .......................................................................................2-21 Figure 2.13 Current Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area.................................2-23 Figure 2.14 Current Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows in the Study Area...........................2-25 Figure 2.15-A Future Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area, Low Forecast .........2-27 Figure 2.15-B Future Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area, High Forecast ........2-28 Figure 2.16-A Future Study Area Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows, Low Forecast ..............2-29 Figure 2.16-B Future Study Area Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows, High Forecast .............2-30 Figure 2.17 Current Daily Long-Haul Truck Flows (Vehicles >250 Miles) to/from Chatham
County ..........................................................................................................................2-35 Figure 2.18 Current Daily Long-Haul Truck Flows (Vehicles >250 Miles) to/from Chatham
County as a Percentage of Total Daily Truck Flows to/from All Study Area Counties........................................................................................................................ 2-36 Figure 4-1 Rural Development Council Economic Vitality Index ............................................4-2 Figure 4-2 HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Road System ........................................................4-6 Figure 4-3 Construction Work Program .......................................................................................4-9 Figure 4-4 Governor's Road Improvement Program................................................................4-10 Figure 4-5 Percentages of Programmed Projects by Project Type, 45-County Study Area.4-12 Figure 4-6 Programmed Bridges along the HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads..........4-20 Figure 5-1-A Columbus Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data................................5-6 Figure 5-1-B Columbus Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data ...............................5-7 Figure 5-1-C Columbus Area Construction Work Program ..........................................................5-8 Figure 5-1-D Columbus Detail Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data..............................5-9 Figure 5-2-A Americus Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data ...............................5-14 Figure 5-2-B Americus Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data...............................5-15 Figure 5-2-C Americus Area Construction Work Plan................................................................5-16 Figure 5-3-A Macon Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data ....................................5-19 Figure 5-3-B Macon Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data....................................5-20 Figure 5-3-C Macon Area Construction Work Plan ......................................................................5-21 Figure 5-3-D Macon Detail Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data ..................................5-22

June 2002

iv

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Figure 5-3-E Figure 5-4-A Figure 5-4-B Figure 5-4-C Figure 5-5-A Figure 5-5-B Figure 5-5-C Figure 5-6-A Figure 5-6-B Figure 5-6-C Figure 5-6-D Figure 5-7 Figure 5-8 Figure 5-9 Figure 5-10 Figure 5-9 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2

Warner Robins Detail Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data ...................5-23 Dublin Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data....................................5-28 Dublin Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data ...................................5-29 Dublin Area Construction Work Program ..............................................................5-30 Vidalia Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data ...................................5-32 Vidalia Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data ...................................5-33 Vidalia Area Construction Work Plan Data............................................................5-34 Savannah Area Transportation Deficiencies: Technical Data...............................5-37 Savannah Area Transportation Deficiencies: Interview Data ..............................5-38 Savannah Area Construction Work Plan.................................................................5-39 Savannah Detail Deficiencies: Technical Data ........................................................5-40 Six-Lane Freeways with Deficient Shoulders .........................................................5-47 Whitetopping locations on HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads ..................5-49 At-Grade Railroad Crossings on HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads ........5-52 Corridor-wide Deficiencies: Technical Data ...........................................................5-59 Corridor-wide Deficiencies: Interview Data ...........................................................5-60 Stakeholder Regions .....................................................................................................6-3 Photographs of Stakeholder Meetings.......................................................................6-4

June 2002

v

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Title
Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5
Table 2.6 Table 2.7
Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4 Table 5-5
Table 5-6

TABLES
Page
Average VIUS Payload Factors by Distance Class...................................................2-3 VIUS Commodities with Corresponding Two-Digit STCC Names ......................2-4 Default Combination Truck Percentage of AADT ...................................................2-9 Level of Service based on Volume-to-Capacity Measurement.............................2-11 Growth in Inbound, Outbound, Internal, and Through Truck Tonnage (1998-2025) ...................................................................................................2-17 Rail's Leading Commodities versus Other Modes.................................................2-24 Growth in Inbound, Outbound, Internal Rail, Tonnage (1998-2025), REMI Forecast ......................................................................................................................... 2-26 2025 Rail Forecasts with Port Adjustment...............................................................2-32 Waterborne Commodities and Mode Shares (Excluding Air and Pipeline) ......2-34 Long-Haul Truck Tonnage by County (Vehicle Moves >250 Miles) ...................2-37 Mileage and Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled on Georgia Roadways .......................3-6 Total Road Miles Maintained by the State Compared to City and County..........3-6 Project Type and Number of Programmed Projects within the Study Area ........4-8 Projects under Construction on US 27/SR 1 ...........................................................4-11 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 27/SR 1..............................................4-13 Projects in Right of Way Acquisition on US 27/SR 1.............................................4-13 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 19/SR 3 .............................................4-14 Projects under construction or Ready to Let on SR 22/SR 96...............................4-15 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on SR 22/SR 96 ............................................4-15 Projects in Right of Way Activities on SR 22/SR 96...............................................4-15 Projects under construction or Ready to Let on US 441 ........................................4-16 Projects in Right of Way Activities on US 441 ........................................................4-17 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 441 ......................................................4-17 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 1/SR 17..............................................4-18 Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Upson Counties.............................................5-10 Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Crisp, Dooly, Lee, Schley, Sumter, Terrell, Webster Counties ..........................................................................................5-17 Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski, Twiggs Counties ..............................................................................5-24 Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bleckley, Dodge, Johnson, Laurens, Wilcox, Wilkins Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Treutlen, Wheeler .................................5-35 Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Glynn, Effingham, Liberty, Long, McIntosh ...........................................................5-41

June 2002

vi

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
1 Executive Summary
Study Area Background and Purpose
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) a National Corridor Planning and Development Program grant in May 1999. The purpose of the grant is to fund an evaluation of a strategic freight corridor, designated High Priority Corridor Six (Figure 1-1), through central Georgia to more expediently connect the ports of Columbus and Savannah. The GDOT broadened the study to include a thorough evaluation of transportation, commodity movement, and economic development in the fortyfive county study area in south central Georgia (Figure 1-2).
Anchored by Columbus in the west, Savannah/Brunswick in the east, and Macon/Warner Robins in the center, central Georgia's study area encompasses forty-five rural and urban counties representing characteristics typical of the state. A mix of urban and rural counties, central Georgia is strategically situated to grow into a stronger and more influential economic engine driving the state's economy south of Atlanta.
The purposes of the study are (1) to assess the area's existing transportation infrastructure by focusing on its capability to transport goods and conduct trade in the future, (2) to define infrastructure and technology that fosters freight movement, and (3) to negate adverse environmental and social consequences of potential improvements.
The Phase 1 report included a compilation of all activities associated with the corridor evaluation elements of the scope of work. The intent of the Phase I report was to provide a baseline assessment of the economies and infrastructure of central Georgia. Phase 1 work is the foundation for activities in Phase 2 that begin to identify short and long-term transportation infrastructure needs and potential solutions within the defined study area.
The Phase 2 report represents the intermodal transportation system evaluation and is intended to define base and future traffic conditions, thereby identifying the associated needs along the corridor. The commodity flow and economic profile data developed in Tasks 1.6 and 1.7 have been used to construct baseline traffic estimates. Demographic data collected and mapped in Task 1.8 was used to establish "background" (or non-freight) traffic in areas where travel demand forecasts do not exist. Travel demand model data supplement the traffic forecasts where it exists along the corridor.

June 2002

1-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 1-1: High Priority Corridor Six

The Phase 2 report contains the following sets of information:
Projections of freight movement, indicating tonnage, mode, and number of vehicles within the corridor and its area of influence.
A GIS-based system that links the databases documenting freight and non-freight traffic levels, volume to capacity ratios, deficiencies in the transportation system now and projected deficiencies in the future, and currently proposed projects.
Identification of the potential set of system improvements that address the deficiencies identified.
Evaluation of the impact of additional freight traffic on the existing GDOT maintenance program and some possible ways of addressing such impacts.
Documentation of stakeholder workshops.

June 2002

1-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 1-2: Central Georgia Corridor project map

June 2002

1-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Summary of Key Findings
The outcome of Phase 2 includes defining physical and operational constraints to freight movement and any constraint in the overall reliability of the transportation system, and investigation of possible solutions to any deficiencies found. This information will then be used to develop recommendations in Phase 3 of the study.
It is important to point out that deficiencies defined in Phase 2 do not necessarily equate to transportation projects in phase 3. Because of the magnitude and geographic extent of the study, each technical assessment has been performed in a very systematic way using data and information from large statewide and national data sources. The information has been augmented with a substantial number of personal interviews to capture potential transportation deficiencies -- particularly as they relate to freight and goods movement. The deficiency assessment has undergone a detailed review by GDOT staff and the project stakeholders to ensure that all system deficiencies are captured and clearly characterized. However, projects may not result, in Phase 3, if the deficiency is found to be unrelated to freight movement. Also, if a deficiency has already been recognized by GDOT, and is in the six year work plan, it will not be studied further as a part of the Central Georgia Corridor Study. The goal of the study is to improve commodity flow by identifying deficiencies in the movement of goods and propose solutions to currently undetected deficiencies
In analyzing the deficiencies data, three major organizing principles for the material became obvious. Transportation deficiencies may be related to: (1) reliability of the system, including cost and speed of freight delivery; (2) economic stability and growth in the study corridor; and (3) system safety and maintenance. Lists of transportation deficiencies were developed along these guidelines.
Many of the system deficiencies included in this document address the overall safety and efficiency of the transportation system either as a result of traffic congestion or safety issues. In many cases they directly relate to the overall economic stability and growth of central Georgia. Most of the transportation system issues are localized in nature and are not systemic to the entire study area.
Consistent with Phase 1 findings, many of the congestion and safety deficiencies focus on the major towns, cities, and the areas around the Port of Savannah. Specifically, roadway segments approaching or at capacity are primarily in and around Columbus, Macon, and Savannah areas. High traffic segments also exist generally on I-95 and on sections of State and U.S. highways throughout the corridor, especially at or near key junctions such as Americus and Dublin.
The forecast of truck volumes shows a continuation of this trend. The I-95 and I-75 corridors are projected to be at capacity as well as U.S. 19 through Americus. Areas around Columbus, Savannah and Macon/Warner Robins are also congested. The pattern of congestion is consistent between the current year and the forecast year of 2025.

June 2002

1-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Other deficiencies discovered during the course of Phase 2 can be characterized as recommended "best practices" for future construction or rehabilitation of existing intersections, roadways, or bridges that are critical to efficient and safe freight movement. These best practices could include shoulder widening, including the inside shoulders of interstates; bridge replacements; intersection resurfacing; railroad crossing grade separations; and whitetopping.
Many of the deficiencies identified in this study phase are already being addressed by the Construction Work Program (CWP) and Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) projects. Projects in the three-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are included in these groupings.
There are some deficiencies however, that are not addressed in the foreseeable future by any current program. As the Central Georgia Corridor Study continues into Phase 3 the focus will narrow to these projects that will make a measurable difference in the ability of the region to compete in terms of freight flow and trade.

June 2002

1-5

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

2 Traffic Projections
Background and Purpose
The primary goal of Phase 2 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study is to determine physical and operational constraints to freight movement and any constraints in the overall reliability of the transportation system. Toward this end, information on the baseline and future traffic conditions through the Corridor is necessary to identify needs.
The commodity flow and economic profile data developed in Phase 1 have been used to construct baseline traffic estimates for the highway and rail systems. Demographic data were used to establish "background" (non-freight) highway traffic in areas where traffic demand forecasts do not exist. Highway travel demand model data were used to supplement existing traffic forecasts in the Corridor. Ultimately, this information was used to develop current and forecast freight flows for the study area.
Finally, to facilitate the use of these traffic projections in the Phase III alternatives analyses, a methodology for assessing potential changes in mode share (truck vs. rail vs. water) was defined, and a Roadway Network Planning Tool was created to quantitatively test highway network impacts of alternatives.
Truck Freight Flows
Overview of Methodology
Existing Transearch database truck tonnages that were developed in the commodity flow analysis of Phase 1 were first converted to vehicle equivalents (i.e., truck trips) using Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) data for Georgia. The VIUS data provides a range of average weights for trucks carrying different commodity types over five distance classes. This information was joined to the Transearch database files with a set of look-up tables. Ultimately, each record in the Transearch database specifying a commodity type and travel distance was matched with the appropriate factor for converting from tons to truck equivalents. Once the annual tonnage for each record was appended with a corresponding annual vehicle equivalent, the annual truck trip table was converted into a daily truck trip table. The annual trips were divided by 300 days to calculate the daily truck trips. The Highway Capacity Manual indicates that the truck traffic generation rate is approximately equal from Monday to Friday, but drops to about 44 percent of the average weekday levels during the weekends. Adding five days and two days, at 44 percent each, yields 5.88 days per week or 306 days per year of trucking. This was further refined by deducting six days for federal holidays on which little activity is expected ( New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas) resulting in an adjustment factor of 300 truck days per year.

June 2002

2-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Current Freight Flows
The factors used to convert the annual tonnage to truck volumes are developed from the national VIUS database, which contains 105,545 records of which 1,953 contain Georgia registrations. The VIUS database includes payloads by product and distance class including estimates of the percentage loaded and unloaded trucks which make it possible to compute average payloads (in pounds) for all records contained in the Transearch commodity flow database. Average payloads were calculated by the five distance classes listed below:
Local (less than 50-mile trips); Short (50- to 100-mile trips); Medium short (100- to 200-mile trips); Medium long (200- to 500-mile trips); and Long (greater than 500-mile trips).
The payloads were calculated by distance class because of the relationship between average payload, truck size, and distance. In other words, the shorter distance trips are closely associated with single-unit trucks carrying smaller average payloads. In contrast, the longer distance trips are dominated by combination tractor-trailer trucks that carry larger average payloads.

June 2002

2-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.1: Average VIUS Payload Factors by Distance Class

VIUS

Corresponding STCC2

Commodity

Commodity

BLDGMA CHEM FABMTL FARMPD FURN GLASS LUMBER

32 (Clay, Concrete, Glass or Stone) 28 (Chemicals or Allied Products) 34 (Fabricated Metal Products) 1 (Farm Products), 21 (Tobacco Products) 25 (Furniture or Fixtures) 32 (Clay, Concrete, Glass or Stone) 24 (Lumber or Wood Products)

LVANML MACHINE
MINPRO
MSCMFG MXDCAR
OTHPROD PAPER
PETROL PRFOOD PRIMTL TEQUIP TEXTIL

1 (Farm Products) 35 (Machinery), 36 (Electrical Equipment), 38 (Instrum, Photo Equip, Optical Eq) 10 (Metallic Ores), 11 (Coal), 14 (Nonmetallic Minerals), 32 (Clay, Concrete, Glass or Stone) 39 (Misc. Manufacturing Products) 30 (Rubber or Misc Plastics), 40 (Waste or Scrap Materials), 50 (Secondary Traffic) 41 (Misc. Freight Shipments 26 (Pulp, Paper, or Allied Products), 27 (Printed Material) 29 (Petroleum or Coal Products) 9 (Fresh Fish or Marine Products) 33 (Primary Metal Products) 37 (Transportation Equipment) 22 (Textile Mill Products), 23 (Apparel)

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of VIUS data.

Avg. Payloads by Distance Class (miles)

< 50 50-100 100-200 200-500
25,544 31,327 40,713 49,463 14,728 30,867 39,240 45,245 15,771 32,022 42,748 16,328 19,012 30,522 42,754 43,065
5,113 24,153 33,270 22,224 25,062 11,147 36,135 60,450 20,700 37,029 44,780 54,169 22,049 18,152 9,760 4,328 15,162 15,710 21,127 20,858

> 500
44,744 40,547 38,956 41,662 32,265 27,179 52,185 26,685 34,543

43,509 43,064 42,138 60,364 50,800

33,334 42,680 43,304 44,794 40,990 29,252 15,998 41,856 44,835 37,376

2,130 4,271 47,820 44,411 41,002 27,399 29,681 39,723 43,467 38,969

20,367 14,853 11,509
7,455 21,724

34,798 18,790 15,004
9,258 35,923

54,648 44,574 38,998 21,916 36,601

50,598 39,055 27,272 29,321 44,850

33,602 43,185 46,112 40,878 42,021

The product classes employed in the VIUS have a close correspondence to the Transearch commodity classes established at the two-digit Standard Transportation Classification Code (STCC) level, with the exception of VIUS categories such as "no load" (i.e., empty backhaul trips), buses, and service trucks. Those product classes that had no close fit with the two-digit STCC commodity groups were simply excluded. In all other cases, the two-digit STCC code served as a look-up table in joining the VIUS information to the Transearch commodity flow information, which was presented at the more detailed four-digit STCC level. For instance, the VIUS product category "Farm Products" corresponds to the four-digit STCC 122 (deciduous fruits), STCC 131 (bulbs, roots, or tubers), and STCC 139 (miscellaneous fresh vegetables) among other groups in the commodity flow database.

June 2002

2-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.2: VIUS Commodities with Corresponding Two-Digit STCC Names

VIUS Commodity
Farm Products Live Animals Processed Foods Mineral Products Mineral Products Mineral Products Processed Foods Farm Products Textiles Textiles Lumber Building Materials Furniture Paper Paper Chemicals Petroleum Mixed Carload Textiles Glass Building Materials Mineral Products Primary Metal Products Fabricated Metals Machinery Machinery Transportation Equipment Machinery Misc. Manufactured Mixed Carload Other Products Other Products Other Products Mixed Carload Other Products
Source: VIUS data.

STCC2
1 1 9 10 11 14 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 46 50 50

STCC2 Name
FARM PRODUCTS FARM PRODUCTS FRESH FISH OR MARINE PRODUCTS METALLIC ORES COAL NONMETALLIC MINERALS FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS TOBACCO PRODUCTS TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS APPAREL OR RELATED PRODUCTS LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS FURNITURE OR FIXTURES PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PRODUCTS PRINTED MATTER CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PRODUCTS PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS RUBBER OR MISC PLASTICS LEATHER OR LEATHER PRODUCTS CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS MACHINERY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT INSTRUM, PHOTO EQUIP, OPTICAL EQ MISC MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS WASTE OR SCRAP MATERIALS MISC FREIGHT SHIPMENTS MAIL OR CONTRACT TRAFFIC MISC MIXED SHIPMENTS SECONDARY TRAFFIC SECONDARY TRAFFIC

June 2002

2-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Once the VIUS and commodity flow information was linked, the derived 1998 freight flows were subsequently mapped on the study area network, shown in Figure 2.1. At the upper bound, approximately 12,300 daily truck trips flow through I-75, I-16, and I-95, whereas traffic elsewhere in the Corridor is considerably lighter. Figures 2.2-2.4 denote the number of total daily truck trips along major routes in the study area.
Figure 2.1: HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: Corridor View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.

June 2002

2-5

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.2: HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: West View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.

June 2002

2-6

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.3: HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: Central View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.

June 2002

2-7

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.4: HPC 6 Current Total Daily Truck Trips: East View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.
Current Non-Freight Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
The non-freight traffic AADT data for each section of highway in the Central Georgia Corridor were developed from existing GDOT information, specifically the 1998 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data file. An ArcView shape file containing all HPMS data fields for roadway sections in Georgia was obtained from GDOT. The highway records for all roadway sections in the 45 counties in the Central Georgia Corridor were extracted from this shape file. A correspondence field for the Transearch highway network used in the Central Georgia Corridor and the roadway segments in the HPMS shape file was developed to allow the transfer of HPMS data to the Transearch highway network. This correspondence was developed by overlaying the Transearch and HPMS shape files and identifying the segments that share the same geographic location. This effort was necessary because no common data identifier field existed that could be used to link (join) the two shape files.

June 2002

2-8

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Once the HPMS data was linked to the Transearch network, the traffic volume information in HPMS for universe and sample sections was transferred to the Transearch highway network. "Universe" records include all highway segments in Georgia and include basic highway inventory information. Traffic information for universe records includes base-year (1998) AADTs for all vehicles. "Sample" sections are an approximate 20 percent sample of roads for which more complete information is inventoried. This sample is chosen to allow statistically valid analysis to be developed at the statewide level. Traffic information for sample sections includes, in addition to base-year AADT, forecast-year AADT, average and peak-hour percentages of combination trucks, average and peak-hour percentages of single-unit trucks, percentage of daily traffic in the peak hour, and, for two-way roads, percentage of peak-hour traffic in the peak direction.
Combination trucks are trucks consisting of a power unit (a.k.a. cab or tractor) connected to one or more trailers. Single-unit trucks are large trucks on a single frame with two or more axles and six or more tires. No traffic count information exists that provides information based on the contents of the truck or classifies its use as freight or non-freight purposes. While freight can be carried in both single-unit and combination trucks, and combination trucks can be used for non-freight purposes, in the HPC 6 study an assumption is made that, on average, the number of freight trucks on a highway section is approximately equal to the number of combination trucks and that the number of non-freight vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks and local delivery vehicles) is equal to the number of single-unit trucks and all other vehicles. For the long-haul freight trucks that are the focus of this study, combination trucks are the primary means of transportation.
For each sample section, the non-freight AADT is thus defined as being equal to the 1998 Total AADT times (100% COMBO TRUCK %) as transferred from the HPMS file. For universe sections it is necessary to develop an estimate of combination trucks. For this study, a table of the average percentage of combination trucks by functional classification was developed from the sample section data for the HPC 6 roads and is shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Default Combination Truck Percentage of AADT

Functional Class 1 Rural Interstates

Combination Truck Percent Average 21

2 Rural Other Principal Arterials

12

6 Rural Minor Arterials

5

7 Rural Major Collectors

4

11 Urban Interstates

7

12 Urban Other Freeways

2

14 Urban Other Arterials

3

16 Urban Collectors

2

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS and Transearch data.

June 2002

2-9

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
These percentages were applied to all of the universe sections based on the functional classification of that section. The non-freight truck AADT for the universe sections on the Transearch highway network was then calculated as equal to the 1998 Total AADT times (100% COMBO TRUCK %). In this manner, non-freight AADT was calculated directly from 1998 HPMS data for the sample sections and from 1998 AADT and default percentages, based on functional classification, for the universe sections.
The map below shows current non-freight AADT on the highway system in the Corridor. The highest non-freight traffic is on the Interstates including I-95, I-75, and to a lesser degree I-16 and I-185. Other concentrations of non-freight traffic generally occur on highway segments within and around the three metropolitan areas in the Corridor: Savannah, Macon-Warner Robins, and Columbus. Non-freight AADT is also higher near regional activity centers such as Dublin, Vidalia, Americus, and Soperton, for example.
Figure 2.5: HPC 6 Current Non-Freight AADT

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS and Transearch data.

June 2002

2-10

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Current Level of Service

In order to assess the current and future Level of Service (LOS) for both freight and non-freight traffic on the highway system, volume-to-capacity (V/C) was calculated using the total traffic (freight and non-freight) on the system. Below, a map of the current V/C for the Corridor shows the extent of roadway segments near or at capacity. A similar map showing future V/C is presented in a following section on Future Level of Service.

The V/C ratio as a performance measure of traffic compares the demand or on a roadway with the roadway capacity. A V/C ratio of 0.7, for example, indicates that a traffic facility is operating at 70 percent of its capacity. While the calculation of the LOS on a transportation facility can differ depending on its function, with different standards based on delays at intersections and speed on expressway, it is useful in the HPC 6 project to use a single LOS or congestion criteria based on V/C ratios. These V/C ratios generally compare favorably with the establishment of LOS for all transportation facilities. For example, the LOS ranges used by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are illustrated in the following table.

Table 2.4: Level of Service based on Volume-to-Capacity Measurement

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 0.0 to 0.2 0.3 to 0.4 0.5 to 0.7 0.7 to 0.8 0.8 to 0.95 0.95+

Level of Service A B C D E F

Congested No No No Yes Yes Yes

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Arizona Department of Transportation.

This is acceptable for the general planning level of analysis being conducted for the Central Georgia Corridor but is not meant to replace detailed traffic engineering analysis of individual sections. The V/C ratio used in this analysis is also a comparison of the daily volumes with the daily capacities as computed from GDOT's HPMS peak hourly capacities and the percentages of volume in the peak hour. Localized congested periods may exist that are not sensitive to this analysis.

The national standard for acceptable congestion is generally recognized as sections with a LOS of D or greater. This would correspond with a V/C ratio of greater than 0.7. Corridors in urban areas may be expected to tolerate greater levels of congestion and an argument for acceptable congested conditions in these areas as being those with V/C ratio greater than 0.85 to 0.9 might be made. In general however, most of the deficient sections identified in the HPC 6 analysis would be congested by either standard.

June 2002

2-11

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
The following map shows current V/C for the Corridor. Figure 2.6 A.: Current Volume-to-Capacity for the Corridor

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS and Transearch data.

The current V/C map shows roadway segments approaching or at capacity primarily in and around the three metropolitan areas in the Corridor (Columbus, Macon, and Savannah, left to right). High traffic segments also exist generally on I-95 and on sections of State and U.S. highways throughout the Corridor, especially at or near key junctions such as Americus and Dublin, for example.

Future Freight Flow

Four sets of growth factors developed through Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) modeling procedures were used to convert the 1998 freight flows into the 2025 freight flows. The growth factor categories correspond with: (1) origin-destination pairs within the 45-county region ("internal-internal"); (2) origins within the region to destinations outside the region

June 2002

2-12

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
("internal-external"); (3) origins outside the region to destinations within the region ("externalinternal"); and (4) origin-destination pairs completely outside the region but that represent overhead traffic ("external-external").
Once growth percentages for internal-internal, internal-external, external-internal, and externalexternal REMI commodities were calculated for the period 1998 through 2025, these percentiles were then applied to corresponding two-digit STCC commodities in the Transearch commodity flow database. In this manner, all records in that database were grown by the appropriate factors, culminating in the 2025 freight forecast.
The results were again mapped on the study area network. The freight patterns projected in 2025 are very similar in comparison with the 1998 flows; in other words, the most heavily represented roads in terms of truck trips remain I-75, I-16, and I-95 in 2025. However, the upper bound is nearly twice as many daily trips, at about 20,000. Figures 2.6A-2.9 show projected total daily truck trips for 2025.
Figure 2.6 B.: HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: Corridor View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch, VIUS, and REMI data.

June 2002

2-13

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.7: HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: West View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch, VIUS, and REMI data.

June 2002

2-14

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.8: HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: Central View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch, VIUS, and REMI data.

June 2002

2-15

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.9: HPC 6 Future Total Daily Truck Trips: East View

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch, VIUS, and REMI data.
From 1998 to 2025, the growth in tonnage of all commodities moved by truck is expected to average about 2.2 percent annually, from approximately 214 million to 340 million annual truck tons. This growth rate encompasses all truck moves on the Corridor, including internal moves and through moves. The growth rates for particular two-digit commodity classes, as shown in Table 2.5, may be higher or lower than the overall average growth rate.

June 2002

2-16

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.5: Growth in Inbound, Outbound, Internal, and Through Truck Tonnage (1998- 2025)

STCC 2 Commodity
50 SECONDARY TRAFFIC 24 LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS 28 CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PRODUCTS 20 FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS 32 CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE 26 PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PRODUCTS 33 PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS 29 PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS
1 FARM PRODUCTS 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 35 MACHINERY 30 RUBBER OR MISC PLASTICS 34 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 36 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS 25 FURNITURE OR FIXTURES 27 PRINTED MATTER 39 MISC MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS 23 APPAREL OR RELATED PRODUCTS 11 COAL 38 INSTRUM, PHOTO EQUIP, OPTICAL EQ 21 TOBACCO PRODUCTS 31 LEATHER OR LEATHER PRODUCTS

1998 Annual Tonnage
54,272,368 32,424,007 24,014,152 25,599,336 22,803,853 11,789,661
5,643,412 8,762,864 6,297,830 4,594,714 1,739,643 2,831,464 3,102,568 1,723,702 3,326,224
993,515 1,097,727
686,387 1,081,574
417,028 244,287 370,141 152,929

2025 Annual Tonnage
102,381,636 41,216,617 39,038,705 31,509,423 31,298,603 17,919,234 11,711,534 11,354,470 9,119,983 8,534,921 7,619,932 5,804,084 5,415,708 5,380,697 4,257,646 1,844,445 1,537,808 1,006,711 968,336 586,443 541,315 484,032 140,631

Total Truck Tonnage:

213,969,383 339,672,915

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch, VIUS, and REMI data.

Absolute Growth 1998-2025
48,109,268 8,792,611
15,024,553 5,910,087 8,494,749 6,129,573 6,068,122 2,591,606 2,822,153 3,940,207 5,880,290 2,972,620 2,313,140 3,656,995 931,423 850,930 440,082 320,325 -113,238 169,415 297,028 113,891 -12,298
125,703,532

Annual %
Growth
3.28% 1.00% 2.32% 0.86% 1.38% 1.93% 3.98% 1.10% 1.66% 3.18% 12.52% 3.89% 2.76% 7.86% 1.04% 3.17% 1.48% 1.73% -0.39% 1.50% 4.50% 1.14% -0.30%
2.18%

Future Non-Freight AADT

The forecasts of non-freight AADTs for the Central Georgia Corridor are produced by a similar estimation methodology that is being developed for the statewide transportation plan update. Consistent with GDOT current practices, the statewide plan procedure modifies traffic count data using changes in demographic forecasts. For the statewide plan, a multiple regressionbased model was developed that relates changes in population, employment, and other socioeconomic factors to changes in traffic. In the statewide plan, a growth rate of 1.9 percent per year was established based on the statewide population and employment growth. The statewide plan also examined the growth forecast by Georgia's non-Atlanta Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) travel demand models. It was determined that, on average, these models forecast a growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) of 1.9 percent per year.

For the Central Georgia Corridor, regressions of historical VMT on rural and urban roadways were prepared against rural and urban population and employment. These regression

June 2002

2-17

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
equations were then applied to the study area population and employment projections. Using these equations a growth rate of 1.9 percent per year was found for both urban and rural sections.
The GDOT 1998 HPMS submittal also contains forecasts of AADT for sample sections in the year 2017. These forecasts of AADT were examined and it was determined that the HPMS forecasts are consistent with a growth rate of 1.86 percent per year.
Travel demand models exist for the five MPOs in the Central Georgia Corridor: Brunswick Area Transportation Study (BATS); Columbus-Muscogee Co. Consolidated Government; Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission; Macon Metropolitan Planning Organization, and City of Warner Robins Community Development Department. The outputs of these travel demand models were provided by GDOT. The total growth in VMT forecast by these five models is consistent with a growth of 1.91 percent per year.
Given the consistency of growth forecasts produced by these various methods, the forecasts of 2025 non-freight AADT on the sections of the HPC 6 highway network were produced by growing the 1998 non-freight AADT at a rate of 1.9 percent per year, or 66.2 percent from 1998 to 2025.
Figure 2.10 shows future non-freight AADT based on a 2025 forecast for HPMS data on the Corridor highway network. The future non-freight AADT shows a similar pattern of higher AADT segments on the Interstate highways, in and around the metropolitan areas, and at regional activity centers. The future non-freight AADT map generally shows traffic increases on segments that currently carry high levels of non-freight traffic.

June 2002

2-18

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.10: HPC 6 Future Non-Freight AADT

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS, Transearch, REMI, and MPO data.
Future Level of Service
Future LOS is expressed below in the future V/C map of the Corridor. Like the current volume-to-capacity map, the future map shows a concentration of roadway segments approaching or at capacity around the metropolitan areas in the Corridor. However, the future map shows 0.7 or higher V/C segments on all segments of the primary north-south Interstates, I-75 and I-95. The map also shows additional segments of 0.7 V/C or higher on State and U.S. highways near key junctions in the Corridor (Statesboro and Thomaston, for example) and on highways connecting regional activity centers (SR-377 and U.S. 19 between Americus and Albany, for example).

June 2002

2-19

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.11: Future Volume-to-Capacity for the Corridor

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS, Transearch, REMI, and MPO data.

June 2002

2-20

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.12: Current versus Future V/C

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of GDOT HPMS, Transearch, REMI, and MPO data.
The final map shows current and future volume-to-capacity to further illustrate changes in LOS in the Corridor. Again, highway segments of I-95 and I-75 and around key junctions and activity centers show the greatest change in level of service.
Rail Freight Flows
Current Freight Flows by Rail
The Phase 1 report for this study determined that, for domestic tonnage moving inbound and outbound from the 45 counties within the study area, 76 percent was moved by truck, 22 percent by rail, one percent by water, and a negligible amount by air (these figures do not include pipeline). Rail traffic in the study area is accommodated by four systems: the Norfolk Southern, the CSX, the Georgia Central Railroad, and the Heart of Georgia (which is owned by

June 2002

2-21

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
GDOT). Rail handles two very different submarkets intermodal and bulk which need to be addressed separately.
Intermodal Rail
The intermodal market (double-stack, container-on-flatcar, trailer-on-flatcar, and piggyback trailer) accounts for over 1,360,000 tons into and out of the study area counties (including county-to-county moves). This market is focused in Chatham County. The intermodal rail terminals in Savannah handle over 1,345,000 tons of intermodal rail freight, which represents 99 percent of the total for the entire study area. This reflects three factors:
The tremendous importance of the Port of Savannah as a generator of landside intermodal rail traffic.
The fact that intermodal rail market tends to be long haul in nature, so that trips to/from Savannah will begin or end outside the study area. Intermodal rail is increasingly competitive with trucking at longer distances, starting at around 250 to 400 miles.
Other than Savannah, the study area's intermodal demand and intermodal facilities are more limited. Intermodal terminals require expensive equipment and storage yards, and need a "critical mass" of traffic to support the investment in their development and operation.
Major origins and destinations for Savannah's intermodal rail traffic include New Orleans, Memphis, Atlanta, Charleston, Jacksonville, Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cincinnati. Intermodal traffic into and out of Savannah is clearly in the north-south direction; intermodal traffic in the east-west direction through the study area, or between Savannah and other study area counties, is extremely low (see Figure 2.13 below). A factor relating to this may include the presence of a low bridge in Americus through which intermodal freight cannot pass The study area also accommodates "overhead" intermodal rail traffic (through traffic that does not originate or terminate in the study area). The overhead moves are also predominantly in the north-south direction through Savannah along the eastern seaboard, and to/from Jacksonville through Cordele (see Figure 2.13 below). Except for intermodal traffic originating or terminating in Savannah, all the traffic shown on Figure 2.13 is through traffic.

June 2002

2-22

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.13: Current Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area

Bulk Rail
By far, the largest share of rail tonnage moved into and out of the study area is in noncontainerized form dry bulk (kaolin, stone, wood chips, etc.) in hopper cars, liquid bulk (chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) in tank cars, and other commodities on flatcars and in boxcars. According to the Transearch database, this market accounts for 25,825,193 tons into and out of the study area. Compared to intermodal rail (with 1,360,256 tons), bulk commodities represent a much larger market for rail. Table 2.6 below summarizes the commodities using rail to move into and out of study area counties, and the predominance of heavy bulk commodities concrete/clay/glass/stone, non-metallic minerals (principally kaolin), lumber and wood, pulp and paper, and chemicals is clearly evident.

June 2002

2-23

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.6: Rail's Leading Commodities versus Other Modes

STCC 2

Commodity Type

32 CLAY, CONC, GLASS OR STONE

Rail Tons Truck Tons Air

Tons

7,284,514 15,577,078

5

Water Tons
-

Total
22,861,598

14 NON-METALLIC MINERALS

4,597,107

-

-

974 4,598,081

24 LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS

3,400,724 13,846,842

-

- 17,247,566

26 PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PROD

2,988,176 3,068,959

5

- 6,057,140

28 CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PROD

2,511,306 6,397,339 453 194,003 9,103,101

11 COAL

1,085,369 311,020

-

- 1,396,389

10 METALLIC ORES

952,705

-

-

- 952,705

46 MISC MIXED SHIPMENTS

935,670

- 258

- 935,928

20 FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS

886,435 9,127,159

-

- 10,013,594

40 WASTE OR SCRAP MATERIALS

736,576

-

- 482,921 1,219,497

1 FARM PRODUCTS

605,642 624,236

-

- 1,229,878

29 PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS

578,355 5,226,925

- 1,052,822 6,858,102

ALL OTHER

622,869 39,278,954 2,664 9,278 39,913,765

TOTAL

27,185,449 93,458,513 3,385 1,739,997 122,387,344

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch data.

Aside from commodity mix and tonnage, the other important difference between intermodal and bulk rail is the nature of the origin-destination patterns. While intermodal is heavily focused on long-haul moves into and out of Savannah, bulk rail serves many study area counties and is used for shorter distance moves as well as longer distance moves. While almost none of the intermodal tonnage moving into or out of study area counties has an origin or destination within the study area, about 17% of the bulk tonnage moving into or out of study area counties has an origin or destination elsewhere in the study area, and over half (51%) has an origin or destination within the state of Georgia.
Bulk rail therefore plays a critical role in efficiently distributing freight within the study area and the state of Georgia. Much of the bulk rail tonnage is moving to and from industrial users and port facilities at Savannah and Brunswick. Taken together, Chatham County and Glynn County receive more than half of the study area's inbound bulk rail tonnage; of the 10 leading sources for this tonnage, eight are within the state of Georgia (Washington, Warren, Wilkinson, Jefferson, Monroe, Jones, Bibb, and Richmond counties). Chatham, Wilkinson, Bibb, and Talbot counties collectively ship more than half of study area's outbound bulk rail tonnage; of the 10 leading destinations for this tonnage, eight are within the state of Georgia (Chatham, Wayne, Richmond, Camden, Dougherty, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Glynn counties). Major flows (including overhead traffic) are shown in Figure 2.14 below.

June 2002

2-24

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.14: Current Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows in the Study Area

Future Freight Flows by Rail
Rail freight forecasts were generated using a methodology similar to the highway freight forecasts. Three sets of growth factors developed through Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) modeling procedures were used to convert the 1998 freight flows into the 2025 freight flows. The growth factor categories correspond with: (1) origin-destination pairs within the 45county region ("internal-internal"); (2) origins within the region to destinations outside the region ("internal-external"); and (3) origins outside the region to destinations within the region ("external-internal"). Once growth percentages for internal-internal, internal-external and external-internal REMI commodities were calculated for the period 1998 through 2025, these percentiles were then applied to corresponding two-digit STCC commodities in the Transearch commodity flow database, as summarized in Table 2.7 below.

June 2002

2-25

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.7: Growth in Inbound, Outbound, and Internal Rail Tonnage (1998-2025), REMI Forecast

STCC 2 Commodity
32 CLAY, CONCRETE,GLASS OR STONE 14 NONMETALLIC MINERALS 26 PULP, PAPER OR ALLIED PRODUCTS 24 LUMBER OR WOOD PRODUCTS 28 CHEMICALS OR ALLIED PRODUCTS 10 METALLIC ORES 11 COAL 46 MISC MIXED SHIPMENTS 40 WASTE OR SCRAP MATERIALS 20 FOOD OR KINDRED PRODUCTS
1 FARM PRODUCTS 29 PETROLEUM OR COAL PRODUCTS 35 MACHINERY 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 42 SHIPPING CONTAINERS 33 PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS 41 MISC FREIGHT SHIPMENTS 19 ORDNANCE OR ACCESSORIES 45 SHIPPER ASSOCIATION TRAFFIC 47 SMALL PACKAGED FREIGHT SHIPMENTS 30 RUBBER OR MISC PLASTICS 36 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 23 APPAREL OR RELATED PRODUCTS
Total Rail Tonnage:

1998

2025 Absolute Annual

Annual Rail Annual Rail Growth

%

Tonnage Tonnage 1998-2025 Growth

7,296,620 9,626,636 2,330,016 1.18%

4,597,107 6,344,702 1,747,595 1.41%

3,066,950 4,471,571 1,404,621 1.70%

3,541,926 4,442,514 900,588 0.94%

2,546,571 3,875,359 1,328,788 1.93%

952,705 1,997,659 1,044,954 4.06%

1,085,369 1,514,198 428,829 1.46%

936,786 1,464,025 527,239 2.08%

736,576 1,143,059 406,483 2.04%

896,511 1,133,108 236,597 0.98%

605,642

835,955 230,313 1.41%

578,355

746,375 168,019 1.08%

97,126

483,752 386,626 14.74%

135,736

254,547 118,812 3.24%

162,098

251,351

89,253 2.04%

91,786

184,294

92,509 3.73%

82,645

130,291

47,646 2.14%

24,113

32,464

8,351 1.28%

17,866

28,164

10,298 2.13%

7,982

12,966

4,984 2.31%

2,210

4,757

2,547 4.27%

508

1,044

536 3.91%

800

992

192 0.89%

27,463,987 38,979,783 11,515,796 1.55%

The resulting REMI compound annual growth rates (approximately 2.0% for intermodal flows, approximately 1.5% for non-intermodal flows) were applied to the 1998 tonnages to generate a set of forecast 2025 flow rates. However, this methodology did not account for different growth rates associated with external zone-to-external zone rail traffic, which represents most of the rail movement through the study area, so the team obtained the year 2020 USDOT Freight Analysis Framework Rail Flows Forecast (a joint product of Reebie Associates and DRI/WEFA), which does include detailed external-to-external forecasts. The 2020 forecast flows were then factored into the study timeframe of 2025.

Each forecast has unique strengths and applications. The REMI-based forecast is fairly conservative, and provides good commodity-level detail for all moves except external to

June 2002

2-26

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
external, and it represents the "low" forecast case. The DRI/WEFA-based forecast is more aggressive in its growth rates within the study area and provides better treatment of through traffic, and it represents our "high" forecast case.
Figure 2.15 A.: Future Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area, Low Forecast

June 2002

2-27

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.15 B: Future Rail Intermodal Tonnage Flows in the Study Area, High Forecast

June 2002

2-28

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.16 A: Future Study Area Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows, Low Forecast

June 2002

2-29

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 2.16 B: Future Rail Carload (Bulk) Tonnage Flows in the Study Area, High Forecast

June 2002

2-30

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

These forecast flows are based on underlying economic assumptions, and may not fully reflect the effects of specific railroad services, operating practices, or business/marketing strategies. Failure to address rail system deficiencies or provide services could mean that the levels of forecast demand cannot be met. Rail system deficiencies have been identified in Chapter 5, and include:

At-grade crossings of rail lines in the Savannah area. The major example is Central Junction where Norfolk Southern crosses the double track CSX north-south mainline. A second example is Alabama Junction about a mile south of Central Junction where the Georgia Central crosses the same CSX main line. These crossings restrict access to the Port of Savannah from the west, though Norfolk Southern has an alternate route through Port Wentworth that is grade separated from CSX.
At-grade rail/highway crossings in Savannah, particularly adjacent to the Georgia Ports Authority's Garden City terminal. NS and CSX trains switching this facility block several major streets during their operations.
Access to the Garden City Terminal by Georgia Central. The Georgia Central has no direct connection to the Garden City Terminal, but instead must use CSX tracks to reach the port. This is presently not a significant hindrance to Georgia Central operations, but development of an inland port near Cordele will almost certainly require an independent connection.

These deficiencies, along with suggested remedies and order of magnitude costs, were addressed in detail in the Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study, 1998, by Georgia DOT.

Conversely, provision of additional rail improvements or services could mean that additional demand beyond the forecast levels can be attracted. In the case of the study area, the potential effects of the Port of Savannah and the state's railroads must be considered.
Port-Related Effects on Forecast Rail Volumes

Intermodal rail capacity in Savannah has recently been significantly upgraded with the opening of the Mason Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) at the Port of Savannah. At 150 acres, the Mason ICTF is the largest on-dock intermodal rail terminal on the Atlantic Coast. The ICTF allows for expedited overnight service to Atlanta, and for three-day service to other major U.S. rail hubs (Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Louisville, Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans). At the same time, container traffic through the Georgia Ports Authority complex in Garden City is expected to grow by approximately 350 percent through the year 2025, according to the Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan Update, and will generate greater demand for intermodal rail services to connect inland shippers (beyond 250 miles or so) with the Port. Actual intermodal rail volumes are expected to exceed the underlying economic forecasts. The Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan Update calculated that this effect would add another 4,765,000 tons of intermodal traffic to the year 2025 baseline forecast (midpoint estimate). The Port's non-intermodal facilities are expected to grow at rates consistent with the baseline bulk rail forecasts, so no adjustments are needed.

June 2002

2-31

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 2.8: 2025 Rail Forecasts with Port Adjustment

Intermodal Container Tonnage Equivalent TEUs (7 tons per TEU)

1998
1,360,256 194,322

2025

Baseline Port Adjustment

2,321,803

4,765,000

331,686

680,714

Total 7,086,803 1,012,400

Bulk Tonnage Total Tonnage

26,103,731 36,657,980 27,463,987 38,979,783

0 36,657,980 4,765,000 43,744,783

Currently, the Mason ICTF is serving three NS trains per week, with plans to increase service to seven NS trains per week. At this point, the number and routing of NS and CSX trains for year 2025 cannot be reliably predicted. Current distribution patterns suggest that for Savannah origin and destination intermodal traffic, about 40% is routed north and west toward Atlanta, about 30% is routed south, and about 30% is routed north, but future patterns may differ.

Shortline Railroads

For many industrial shippers -- particularly industries that ship high-weight materials such as kaolin or paper -- rail is a more cost-effective transportation option than truck. Such shippers are negatively affected when rail transportation is not available; conversely, such industries can be positively affected when rail transportation is made available. The availability of rail service to both high and low-volume shippers may be a critical component of a state's overall economic development strategy.

Over the past several decades, the nation's rail system has actually lost mileage, as the major Class I railroads have "disinvested" by curtailing service on their lower-profit lines to focus their service and investment on higher-profit lines. This has meant, in many cases, the loss of rail service for rail-dependent shippers. Many states have developed programs to purchase and preserve shortline rail and right-of-way in an effort to support these shippers.

Within the study area, the Georgia Department of Transportation has purchased major sections of the Heart of Georgia (which runs from Omaha, GA through Americus and Cordele to Vidalia, paralleling US 280), the Georgia Southwestern Railroad (between Columbus and Cusseta, and between Cuthbert and Bainbridge) and the Ogeechee Railway (between Vidalia and Midville). Combined with the Georgia Central Railway (between Vidalia and Savannah), this provides an east-west shortline railroad corridor through the heart of the study area. This shortline corridor supplements the Class I routes, which generally run through the study area in a north-south direction.

June 2002

2-32

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Traffic on this east-west corridor is forecast to grow at rate consistent with overall rail growth, based on increased volumes from current customers and/or attraction of new customers. For example, a new service to an Alabama customer is under discussion. Under the high forecast, shortline volumes are projected to more than double. In addition, there are two scenarios under which these forecast volumes might be exceeded:
Major improvements to shortline services, possibly including improvements to travel speeds, allowable weights, signalization, service frequency, price, or marketing (to reach and educate potential customers about the availability of rail). Such improvements could also address an existing conflict condition where the Georgia Central line has to cross a Class I line to access the Savannah waterfront.
Development of an "inland port" served by shortlines. An inland port is a complex that links major transportation assets (rail mainlines, rail branch lines, major highways), major transportation users (warehousing and value-added industries), and an international seaport (via an efficient, cost-effective rail or truck corridor). There are two reasons for developing an inland port: to relieve congestion at marine terminals, or to generate economic activity at the site of the inland port. To date, the only major inland ports developed in the US are at Front Royal, VA (where NS crosses I-81) and in Columbus, OH (where the "Columbus Inland Port" has service partnership agreements with the Port of New York and New Jersey). The idea of developing an inland port complex near Cordele (where the Heart of Georgia crosses I-75, and through which the NS and CSX pass) has been raised, and while its feasibility has not been determined, it represents a potential opportunity for further exploration by the state and/or the railroads.
Potential Changes in Freight Mode Choice
The highway and rail network forecasts presented above suggest that, for the most part, these mode shares will remain constant into the future. Conditions under which these mode shares might change and the potential impact of any such changes on the highway and rail network forecasts need to be considered. Initially, the study team had planned to develop a quantitative shipper choice model, but after completion of the Phase 1 data collection effort, it was determined to approach this issue more broadly by developing and testing a range of feasible "what if" network scenarios using the Network Analysis Tool developed specifically for this project.
Truck to Water/Rail to Water
Waterborne domestic freight movement in the study area counties is associated with two systems: coastwise domestic movements to/from the deep-draft ports of Savannah and Brunswick; and inland domestic movements to/from the shallow-draft ports of Columbus and Bainbridge.

June 2002

2-33

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Leading domestic waterborne commodities include petroleum, waste and scrap, chemicals, and little else. These movements are almost exclusively coastwise, as there is little traffic through the ports of Columbus and Bainbridge. The coastwise domestic shipping system therefore functions as an alternative to trucking along I-95 or rail along the eastern seaboard systems of the Norfolk Southern and the CSX. Coastwise domestic shipping does not offer an alternative for east-west moves or inland moves within the study area.

The commodities that have chosen water instead of truck or rail have largely done so because it is very inexpensive in comparison to the other modes, with the tradeoff that water movement also tends to be slower and less reliable (in terms of delivery time) than other modes. The commodities that use water also use truck and rail. However, water is not the dominant mode of transport for any of these commodities.

Table 2.9: Waterborne Commodities and Mode Shares (Excluding Air and Pipeline)

STCC2 Commodity Type 29 Petroleum or Coal

Water Tons 1,052,822

Water Share
15%

Truck Tons 5,226,925

Truck Share
76%

40 Waste or Scrap

482,921

40%

0

0%

28 Chemicals All Other

194,003 10,251

2% 6,397,339 70% 0% 81,834,248 78%

TOTAL

1,739,997

1% 93,458,512 76%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch data.

Rail Tons 578,355 736,576 2,511,306 23,359,212
27,185,449

Rail Share
8% 60% 28% 22%
22%

TOTAL
6,858,102 1,219,497 9,102,648 105,203,711 122,383,958

Domestic waterborne shipping is expected to become somewhat more efficient over time, but in general no dramatic increases in capacity or performance are expected relative to trucking or rail. At the national level, public transportation planners are hopeful that domestic waterborne shipping might handle an increasing share of intermodal container movements along the eastern seaboard in order to relieve congestion along I-95, but given strong competition from trucking and rail, the marketability of such waterborne services remains highly uncertain. Therefore, any significant gain or loss in waterborne mode share with respect to trucking or rail is unlikely; and given the very low tonnages associated with domestic waterborne transport, it would take a substantial change in waterborne mode share to have any measurable impact on truck or rail markets.

June 2002

2-34

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Truck to Rail
Because rail accommodates 22 percent study area tonnage and competes directly with trucks, the potential for rail-to-truck diversion needs to be considered.
Improvements at the Port of Savannah
With the new Mason ICTF, rail service to and from Savannah immediately becomes a more attractive option for long-haul domestic intermodal shippers who might otherwise use trucks. On this basis, we might expect that intermodal rail into and out of Savannah could gain increased market share from long-haul trucking. Long-haul truck trips into and out of Chatham County some of which may be divertible to rail are mapped in Figure 2.17.
Figure 2.17: Current Daily Long-Haul Truck Flows (Vehicles >250 Miles) to/from Chatham County
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.

June 2002

2-35

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
If we compare Figure 2.17 with a map of all daily truck flows, we see that long-haul trucking into and out of Savannah accounts for very high percentages of total truck traffic on the I-16 and SR 96 corridors, and on SR 21 and I-516 in Chatham County, but accounts for low percentages of total truck traffic on I-95, I-75, and other routes.
Figure 2.18: Current Daily Long-Haul Truck Flows (Vehicles >250 Miles) to/from Chatham County as a Percentage of Total Daily Truck Flows to/from All Study Area Counties

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch and VIUS data.
In Phase 3 of this project, we will test a variety of diversion scenarios based on distance, commodity, and origin-destination pair factors. As a simplified illustration of how the analyses will be performed, we can begin with an assumption that up to 10 percent of long-haul truck trips could be divertible to rail based on input from Norfolk Southern and CSX. The impact of diverting 10 percent of the Chatham County long-haul truck trips to rail would be most significant on I-16 and SR 96. For example, on I-16 where Chatham County long-haul trucks represent 50 percent of the truck traffic diverting 10 percent to rail could produce a five percent improvement in I-16 truck volumes (a reduction of around 225 trucks per day). Alternatively, on I-95 where Chatham County long-haul trucks represent just four percent of the truck traffic diverting 10 percent to rail would produce an improvement of just 0.4 percent.

June 2002

2-36

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Overall, of the more than 93 million truck tons moving into and out of the study area counties, nearly 39 million tons are long-haul trips more than 250 miles. A little more than 18 million of these tons are to/from Chatham County. The other study area counties were examined to see if the remaining 21 million tons "clustered" into large units which might if diverted to intermodal rail support new or enhanced intermodal rail service.
Table 2.10: Long-Haul Truck Tonnage by County (Vehicle Moves >250 Miles)

County

Tonnage

Chatham County, GA

18,116,682

Bibb County, GA

6,248,278

Glynn County, GA

4,899,212

Muscogee County, GA

2,457,911

All Other (none over 750,000 tons)

7,276,708

TOTAL

38,998,791

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis of Transearch data.

Clearly, Chatham County is the biggest generator of long-haul truck traffic and provides the largest market base for intermodal rail activity. However, there are significant concentrations of long-haul truck activity in Macon (Bibb County), Brunswick (Glynn County), and Columbus (Muscogee County). Several of these areas already have intermodal rail transfer facilities in place and might receive some benefit from increased intermodal rail activity.
Improvements to Shortline Railroads

Within the study area, bulk appears to be a largely a stabilized market certain commodities have selected (or not selected) rail as their preferred mode in given corridors and where the competitive balance between modes remains unchanged, these established modal preferences are expected to continue. One potential change in this competitive balance, as noted earlier, is related to the effect of shortline railroad improvements that would substantially increase the attractiveness of rail in the US 280 corridor and allow for rail volumes in excess of forecasts. Most of the existing freight through the US 280 corridor is bulk, and existing rail traffic over the Heart of Georgia is entirely bulk (5000 annual carloads of grain, chemicals, feed, fertilizer, lumber, pulp and scrap metal), so we would anticipate that any diversion from truck to rail would primarily affect bulk commodities. However, the "inland port" concept is a potential generator of container traffic as well. While conclusive determinations of feasibility and demand associated with such shortline improvements would need to be customer-specific and are therefore beyond the scope of this study, we can test the network effects of potential diversion from truck to shortline rail using the same methodology outlined for domestic intermodal truck-to-rail diversion.

June 2002

2-37

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Roadway Network Planning Tool

The mode choice scenarios to be developed in Phase 3 will be tested using the Roadway Network Planning Tool. The Roadway Network Planning Tool is a program based on ArcView Network Analyst and can re-route truck trips in response to new roads, such as bypasses, faster speeds (such as those caused by upgrading a road by adding medians or access control), or adding more lanes. The Tool can find the new shortest paths resulting in new truck assignments for 1998 and 2025 truck trips. The new routings are based on paths selected by minimizing the total distance, free flow time, or congested travel time on the paths between an origin and a destination. The Tool does not change the routing of non-freight traffic, but that traffic is used to calculate congested times. The best approximation to the Transearch predefined paths is achieved by selecting paths minimizing distance. This is consistent with paths selected by truckers who are trying to minimize total costs that in turn are based on distance. The Tool might also be used to show the truck flows based on minimizing free flow and congested times. The Tool is ready to test alternatives for the Central Georgia Corridor project during Phase 3 and will be provided to GDOT at the end of the project.

Conclusions

This chapter has presented current highway and rail volumes and future highway and rail forecasts. These traffic projections will guide the future phase of this project the development of recommendations for capacity and operational improvements.

The baseline for the daily freight corridor traffic was established by linking the 1998 Transearch commodity flow information (annual tonnages organized by two-digit STCC2 commodity level with average truck payload factors derived from the Georgia subset of the national VIUS database), which provides estimates of truck load by commodity and distance class. Once annual truck equivalents were derived, they were converted into daily truck equivalents. In turn, the 2025 projection required the 1998 daily truck equivalent data to be grown according to growth factors developed through the REMI modeling process, which is an input-output type of modeling procedure based on predefined REMI product classes.

The non-freight traffic AADT for each section of the highway was developed from existing GDOT information, specifically the 1998 HPMS data file. The forecast of the 2025 non-freight AADT employed a 1.9 percent growth rate, in accordance with the estimation methodology that is being used for the statewide transportation plan.

Current and future freight and non-freight AADT were used to calculate V/C ratios and were subsequently mapped on the Corridor highway network. Those maps show current concentrations of high V/C primarily in and around the three metropolitan areas in the Corridor and future level of service deterioration on all segments of I-75 and I-95 and some segments of routes near smaller activity centers.

June 2002

2-38

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Rail forecasts were developed using the REMI data and DRI/WEFA/Transearch projections. Key adjustments to these forecasts relating to port activity and shortline railroads were presented.
A methodology for addressing potential changes in mode choice among truck, rail, and waterborne freight was developed. Potential changes in freight mode choice will be further tested as "what if" scenarios with the aid of the Roadway Network Planning Tool developed for this project. The Roadway Network Planning Tool was developed to run in ArcView GIS to reroute truck trips in response to changes in the highway system. These changes include new roads, bypasses, faster speeds, widening, and other changes to design and capacity. In Phase 3, the tool will allow for the testing of alternatives and GDOT improvements in the Corridor to determine how these changes and alternatives affect freight movement.

June 2002

2-39

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
3 Implications for GDOT Maintenance Program
Introduction
The Central Georgia Corridor Study is a study of freight movements. Freight movements, especially the movement of large trucks, can damage roadways and their abutments because of truck weight and turning movements. This chapter will assess the implications of current and future freight on the GDOT infrastructure program and will report on the study team's investigation into innovative technologies.
The percentage of truck traffic in the study area is increasing dramatically. Truck percentage around the Port of Savannah has historically been seven to eight percent, but is now 15 percent. Projected future trends suggest continued growth of truck traffic through 2025. Due to the current high truck volumes and projected growth, the study team examined new techniques and technologies that provide information on making the Central Georgia Corridor efficient and desirable for freight movement.
In order to determine implications of additional freight on the GDOT maintenance program, three key tasks were carried out. First interviews with knowledgeable GDOT officials were conducted. Secondly, maintenance, design, and construction standards were researched and evaluated. Finally, maintenance deficiencies were identified along the HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads.
Background
The National Corridor Planning and Development Program (NCPD) provides funding for the planning, design, construction, and related activities of projects that improve specific corridors identified by Congress. Some of these projects are freeways that require limited improvements, while others are two or four lane highways requiring coordinated upgrading. Others are proposed highways in various stages of development.
The Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI) funds projects that improve transportation in the vicinity of borders with Canada and Mexico. NCPD and CBI projects are collectively called the Corridors and Borders Program (CORBOR).
A common thread that runs through the host of approved CORBOR grants are improvements in mobility and safety. One important aspect of previously approved grant applications was multi-state coordination. Another important aspect of successful proposals was support from multiple agencies. Some projects with strong support include private sector financial contributions for the construction of grade separations and other port related access improvements.

June 2002

3-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

The most commonly cited practical benefits of CORBOR funded projects are increased mobility and safety. Improved ability to support the movement of vehicles of all types, but particularly trucks, is a fundamental consideration in these corridor projects. Measures of increased mobility can be projected in terms of an increased number of vehicles per hour able to travel a certain distance.
Increased safety resulting from grade separations at railroad crossings, increased capacity for motor carrier safety inspections, and the diversion of traffic from undivided two-lane highways to freeways is common in many of the selected CORBOR projects. Other projects improve safety on access ramps or at highway intersections and interchanges.
Significant benefits are expected to emerge from applications that rely on new technology. ITS America has noted the intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements and benefits included in CORBOR projects. About one fifth of the projects include such ITS elements as: variable message signs, web-based traveler information services, automatic equipment identification, electronic data interchange for commercial vehicle manifests, electronic toll collection, and transponder-based vehicle pre-clearance.
Many electronic technologies are used successfully in the transportation industry. Among these technologies are transponders, Internet communications for scheduling drivers and cargo, and information systems for expediting intermodal operations. If these technologies can be economically and reliably used in the CORBOR projects, it should be easier to achieve other projected benefits, such as increased capacity, better use of equipment and facilities, optimizing the intermodal connections, economic savings, social benefits, and safety.
ITS technologies are good candidates for the NCPD program. Technologies allowing shippers and freight haulers to operate their fleets more efficiently and, therefore, more cost-effectively will help them compete. In addition to ITS, two other technologies are examined here. The Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's (AASHTO) new pavement design procedure using decades of historical performance data from real world test sites. The second technology is known as whitetopping, where Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) overlays are used on heavily traveled intersections as an effective way to reduce maintenance needs.
Georgia has the best-maintained highways in the nation. Improving upon that prestigious position is only possible by assuring that more of the state's highways possess the high quality of the best of our highways. Truckers want expedited routes that eliminate bottlenecks and minimize delays. The Central Georgia Corridor must provide significantly better travel times than competing routes to attract more trucks to this designated freight corridor.
Identifying and eliminating freight movement delays is an important aspect of this study. Major bottlenecks along freight corridors occur at rail crossings and in small and medium sized cities. Some of the most successful ports have undertaken mammoth capital improvement programs to provide rail/roadway grade separations. The development of bypasses and grade separations can help to further eliminate freight movement delay.

June 2002

3-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Current Highway Maintenance Activities
In addition to the General Office in Atlanta, the GDOT is comprised of seven districts throughout the state that are responsible for operating and maintaining the transportation system at the local level. During the research phase of this study, each District Maintenance Engineer within the Central Georgia Corridor was interviewed. Documentation from each interview may be found in Appendix A.
Information gathered from District Maintenance Engineers included normal maintenance activities, anticipated activities necessary to accommodate heavy truck movement, and planned projects along HPC 6 and US 280 for improving the flow of heavy truck traffic. Areas known to be in need of improvement that are not currently listed in the GDOT Construction Work Program (CWP) were also identified. Knowledge of new technologies to improve freight corridors was discussed, as was the possibility of using PCC, commonly used on interstate highways. Finally, the District Maintenance Engineers provided important information about current pavement design and roadway design standards on freight corridors.
Highway maintenance protects the roadway infrastructure and improves public safety on the highway system. The goal of maintenance is to retain the highway system in a condition as near as possible to the condition of its initial construction or subsequent improvement. Routine maintenance includes activities such as guardrail repair, pavement repair, drainage work including catch basin cleaning, bridge operations and repair, traffic signal and illumination repair, pavement marking replacement, sign repair, and mowing. Emergency maintenance includes traffic control, bridge and roadway inspection, clean up and repair related to flooding, accidents, and hazardous materials spill. Maintenance also includes snow and ice control activities when necessary.
The development of a fiscal year Resurfacing Program in Georgia begins in the spring prior to that fiscal year with an on-site Pavement Condition Evaluation System (PACES), which is performed in one-mile increments on every state route in Georgia. Roads with a PACES rating of 70 or less are further evaluated to determine if they are good candidates for preservation actions. The rating is used in conjunction with other criteria to develop a prioritized listing of state routes that require resurfacing and rehabilitation. The list is then used to establish which locations are to be resurfaced. The objective of the resurfacing work performed is to extend the service life of an existing pavement by three to five years through the use of lower cost surface treatments, such as chip seal and slurry seal type applications. The placement of such treatments will rehabilitate existing pavements by sealing the pavement surface and will also provide a smoother riding surface. Surface treatments do not add additional strength to a pavement, but their application enables more miles of roads to be resurfaced and rehabilitated with the funding available.
Over the last couple of years the GDOT has been instrumental in implementing new asphalt mixes that will extend pavement life to 12 years. These new mixes, such as Stone Matrix

June 2002

3-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Asphalt (SMA) and Superpave, have been used on several routes around the state and, in 1998, the GDOT began using these mixes for all paving.
The GDOT now has COPACES, a computerized pavement condition survey, and GPAM, the Georgia Pavement Management System, developed with Georgia Tech. GPAM utilizes COPACES data and, based on the distresses, determines the type of pavement system needed. GPAM uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to consider different soil types and uses the most sophisticated system for optimization.
There are other maintenance activities that are routinely done for roadway surfaces, shoulders, drainage areas, and markings. Each GDOT district office is responsible for these activities within their jurisdictions.
Roadway Surfaces
Types of roadway surfaces are aggregate (stone), flexible (asphalt), and rigid (concrete). Flexible pavements require sand, chip, slurry, and asphalt overlay sealing for maintenance and pothole repair. Rigid pavements require patching, joint and crack sealing, grouting, jacking, under-sealing, grinding, grooving, and milling for maintenance.
The GDOT uses the AASHTO 1972 Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures for flexible pavement design. Dynamic loads at bridge ends cause a great impact on the pavement. The GDOT strives to maintain smooth bridge ends, but many are not. The proposed structural number is 90% (10% under) the required structural number. Every ten years, the GDOT adds 1 inches of asphalt to roadways. For the rehabilitation of existing pavement, the GDOT Pavement Evaluation Engineer takes core samples to determine the asphalt overlay required. The Pavement Engineer evaluates whether the roadway requires full depth reconstruction or milling and overlay.
For rigid pavement, the GDOT is trying to limit the flexural stress in the concrete. New concrete has an allowable flexural stress of 600 psi, so the GDOT uses 450 psi as a target. Failure occurs when there is loss of support with fine particulate material (fines) pumped out through the joints. The GDOT now dowels all joints, which helps prevent pumping of fines.
The typical rigid pavement design for an interstate is 12 inches of PCC over five inches of asphalt or econocrete (lean concrete mixture), and then 12 inches of graded aggregate base course. Graded aggregate gives a working surface for construction equipment. Econocrete eliminates the possibility of fine particles being pumped out.

June 2002

3-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Roadway Shoulders
Roadway shoulders maintain lateral pavement support and provide breakdown or emergency lanes for vehicles. The slope and surface of shoulders require maintenance similar to that of roadway surfaces.
Drainage
To prevent water damage, roadways require crowns, ditches, and cutoffs. Maintenance activities include ditch cleaning, vegetation control, ditch repair, and erosion control.
Markings
Roadway markings include lines, symbols, words, and delineation patterns that regulate traffic and provide information. Raised reflective pavement markers capture light from oncoming headlights and reflect this light back to drivers for guidance at night and in poor visibility weather conditions. Markers are sealed into place with epoxy. When installed, the markers protrude approximately to inches from the level surface. White and yellow reflective markers are generally used to amplify painted lines. Red reflective markers are used as wrong way indicators. Blue reflective markers are used to mark utility locations for a limited time period.
Maintenance
The U.S. spends $25 billion per year on pavement maintenance, of which $15 billion is for the 90 percent of roadways that are paved with asphalt.1 The state spends approximately $2 million per year on joint sealing on state routes. The cost break down is 50 percent labor, 25 percent equipment, and 25 percent material cost. The GDOT spends approximately $6,700 per centerline mile on maintenance yearly and this does not include resurfacing cost.
Georgia has a safe and efficient network of interstates, highways, county roads, and city streets; which together form a public road system that carries travelers throughout the state.2 As of 1999, Georgia had a total of 112,565 miles of public roadways. Table 3-1 shows the roadway mileage in different areas of the state and provides mileage and daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) for each type of roadway. Table 3-2 shows the total roadway mileage maintained by the State compared to the mileage maintained by local governments.

1 Advanced Highway Maintenance and Construction Technology Research Roadmap for Roadways website. http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/general/splan2.htm. 2 Georgia Department of Transportation Fact Book 2000.

June 2002

3-5

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 3-1 Mileage and Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled on Georgia Roadways

Rural Areas

Mileage

State Highway System

14,187

Interstates

810

County Roads

66,654

City Street

3,863

Small Urban Areas

State Highway System

999

Interstates

79

County Roads

2,749

City Street

3,865

Urban Areas

State Highway System

1,533

Interstates

355

County Roads

11,698

City Street

5,773

TOTAL

112,565

Source: GDOT 2000 Fact Book

DVMT 51,301,199 27,848,181 28,587,728 1,901,076
11,494,707 3,582,973 5,024,325 5,407,735
35,615,923 40,287,276 37,281,100 15,066,936 263,399,159

Table 3-2 Total Road Miles Maintained by the State Compared to City and County

Source of Maintenance

Mileage

GDOT

17,963

City and County

94,602

Source: GDOT 2000 Fact Book

DVMT 129,842,983 93,268,900

These tables reveal the enormous responsibility the state has in maintaining its roadways. The roads on the State Highway System carry 58% of the daily VMT in the State of Georgia. Funding for resurfacing projects must be increased so existing pavement life can be extended, avoiding the more expensive costs of reconstruction or major rehabilitation. Likewise, strong assistance through funding of city and county resurfacing projects is needed.

June 2002

3-6

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
As previously noted in this chapter, freight travel will be increasing in the Central Georgia Corridor in the future. Allowable truck weight may also increase. Because the wear and tear on interstates and highways will be substantial, vigilance in maintenance and use of best practices will be needed.
During this study, maintenance and design best practices were developed for analyzing roadways along the HPC 6 mainline and connecting road system. These best practices for high truck freight areas can be utilized in two ways: as a guide for future construction and to determine where the existing transportation system might be improved.
Wide outside shoulders 10 ft minimum, 12 ft desirable Full depth shoulders Portland cement concrete (PCC) or whitetopping for non-interstate mainline Concrete pavement or whitetopping on interchange ramps and intersections Increased use of grade separations and interchanges on high freight routes Increase safety at interchanges Replace bridges with a sufficiency rating of 60 or below Design bridges for HS-20 loads or greater Smooth bridge ends to decrease dynamic loads on pavement Replace or discontinue building steel or continuous steel bridge structures Bridges with a vertical clearance of at least 17' HPC 6 mainline grade separations at all railroad grade crossings.
The improvements below highlight the additional current maintenance activities performed by GDOT.
Gradual Side Slopes
Gentle front slopes along the roadway create less risk of vehicles over-turning if they leave the road and help drivers regain control.
Forgiving Devices
Roadway features such as signs and utility poles which breakaway on impact; barrier walls or guardrails that redirect vehicles away from hazards; and crash cushions, which absorb energy and lessen the severity of crashes.
Signing, Pavement Marking, and Delineation
Traffic signs, pavement markings, and reflective devices improve driver perception of important roadway features and alert them to changes in roadway geometry or other conditions.

June 2002

3-7

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Pavement Improvements
Resurfacing, rehabilitating, or reconstructing the roadway surface provides greater smoothness.
Increased Surface Friction
Greater surface friction provides drivers with increased traction for maneuvering and stopping.
Preventive Maintenance
Maintenance can eliminate drop-offs between the road pavement and shoulder or adjacent lane that can cause drivers to lose control when attempting to return the vehicle to the road surface.
Stabilizing Shoulders
Improvements in the stability of the material covering roadway shoulders help drivers control their vehicles and return to the roadway.
Adding or Widening Shoulders
Shoulders provide drivers with additional room to maneuver, storage when a breakdown occurs, and are part of a forgiving roadside that reduces the frequency of run-off-the-road type of accidents.
Edge Treatment
Constructing the roadway slab with a concrete shoulder is a way to enhance edge of pavement design. Truck wheels usually track within two to three feet of the edge of pavement. Durability can be increased by providing additional strength or thickness along the edge of pavement on a roadway.3
Widen Lanes
Wider lanes provide a larger road surface on which to maneuver in an emergency without leaving the road surface. They also provide a feeling of security for drivers in the vicinity of large freight trucks.
Lane Channelization
Separate lanes for left or right-turning traffic avoid impediments to traffic flow that can lead to rear end crashes.

3 Effects of Heavy-Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance. NCHRP Report 353. Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C. 1993.

June 2002

3-8

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Pedestrian/Cyclist Facilities
A variety of techniques can be used to separate pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicle traffic to improve safety.
Widening Bridges
Twelve-foot lanes are preferable. Additions of shoulders can further enhance safety.
Bridge Treatments
The addition of features such as crash cushions or guardrails as transitions to the bridge ends improves the safety around bridge structures.
Signing and Pavement Markings for Bridges
Signs and pavement markings alert drivers approaching narrow bridges and allow them to position their vehicles most safely when crossing bridges.
Recommended Additional Maintenance and Construction Activities
The improvements recommended below for the Central Georgia Corridor could further improve the attractiveness and competitiveness of the region for freight movement.
Evaluate Truck-Only Facilities
Truck only facilities such as truck lanes or separate roads for trucks in the area surrounding the Port of Savannah could address the high volume of trucks and improve safety. This type of improvement would eliminate a heavy through truck movement in Downtown Savannah on Bay Street (17% trucks) and improve capacity within the Central Business District (CBD).
Upgrade Rural Highways
This study identifies deficiencies along rural highways and arterial roads. The added freight movement projected for the Central Georgia Corridor requires that the roadways accommodate the size, weight, speed, and volume of trucks anticipated in the future. Specifically, State Route 96 is an integral part of the HPC 6 mainline, but to move freight efficiently along this roadway major improvements would be required, such as bypassing Ft. Valley and widening SR 96 between I-75 and SR 247.
Construct Grade Separations at Key Intersections and Railroads
This study has identified needed railroad/roadway grade separation projects along the Central Georgia Corridor. Removing delays caused by railroads and busy intersections will provide a more efficient and safe freight corridor.

June 2002

3-9

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Whitetopping
Most interstate highways in Georgia are paved with Portland Cement Concrete while the majority of the other highways have asphaltic concrete pavement. Within the last few years, concrete overlays on existing asphalt pavements have been used on roadways surrounding the Port of Savannah. Concrete overlaid on asphalt pavement is commonly referred to as whitetopping. Variations of whitetopping include:
Conventional whitetopping a concrete overlay, usually of a thickness of four inches or more, placed directly on top of
asphalt pavement. Concrete inlay a concrete overlay placed in a trench milled out of a thick asphalt
pavement. Ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW) a concrete overly, usually less than four inches thick
placed on an asphalt surface that is prepared to enhance the bond between concrete and asphalt.4
Whitetopping an existing asphalt pavement provides many benefits including superior service, long life, low maintenance, low life-cycle cost, improved safety, and environmental benefits.5
Whitetopping is traditionally used to repair the rutting of asphalt pavement caused by trucks stopping and starting. The flexibility of asphalt allows forces exerted by trucks to produce rutting on the roadway. The adjacent aerial photo shows an intersection that was reconstructed with PCC. The GDOT District 5 has several key intersections that carry a large volume of heavy trucks to and from the Port of Savannah. District 5 maintenance crews rehabilitated these asphalt intersections approximately every four months due to the extreme rutting, shoving, and cracking caused by heavy trucks. Four years ago District 5 whitetopped these key intersections and to date they have not deteriorated or needed maintenance attention. Whitetopped intersections have a service life much longer than typical asphalt intersections. Generally, whitetopped intersections will have a service life of 8-12 years, depending on the truck volumes, the sub-base design, and the thickness of the PCC. The asphalt overlays exhibit a
4 Whitetopping State of Practice. Engineering Bulletin, American Concrete Pavement Association. 5 Ibid.

June 2002

3-10

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

more rapid loss of serviceability in comparison to concrete whitetopping and whitetopping key intersections is a proven way to reduce maintenance.
Promising New Technologies
Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
In 1984, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) identified pavement maintenance as one of six priority areas for research and development. Understanding why some pavements perform better than others is a key to building and maintaining a cost-effective highway system. In 1987, the LTPP program, a comprehensive 20-year study of in-service pavements, began a series of rigorous long-term field experiments monitoring more than 2,400 asphalt and PCC pavement test sections across the U.S. and Canada.
The goal of the LTPP program will address how and why pavements perform as they do. LTPP's analysis program takes the raw data collected from the program's more than 2,400 pavement test sections and converts it into useable information. The program addresses a broad array of topics including field validation of pavement design procedures, studies of variability in traffic and materials data, and investigation of the development of pavement roughness. Some analyses have led to the development of products, such as Rigid Pavement Design software. All analyses, however, provide valuable insight and direction to guide future LTPP data collection and analysis efforts.
Since 1999, the Strategic Plan for Long Term Pavement Performance Data Analysis has guided the national level analysis of the LTPP data. The plan sets forth seven strategic objectives supporting the goal "to develop knowledge, relationships and models to facilitate improved pavement design and reliable performance predictions." Each strategic objective is, in turn, supported by several more focused "product objectives".6
As part of the LTPP program, the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures is widely used in the design of new and rehabilitated highway pavements. However, the current Design Guide, published in 1993, is widely recognized as being inadequate for the design challenges currently faced by State DOT's.7 In fact, the GDOT uses the 1972 interim Design Guide in designing new and rehabilitated pavements throughout the state. Because the 1993 Design Guide does not provide the best design guidelines, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is in the midst of writing a new pavement design guide entitled, Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.
The benefits of this new guide, as stated in the LTPP and the 2002 Pavement Design Guide brochure will provide tools to enable the designer to:

6 LTPP Analysis website. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/ltpp/analysis.htm 7 LTPP and the 2002 Pavement Design Guide Brochure. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.

June 2002

3-11

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Evaluate the effects of variation in materials, traffic loading conditions, and design features.
Consider both long-term and short-term changes in material properties Provide more accurate performance predictions so that the frequency of premature
failures is reduced, resulting in an estimated average savings in pavement rehabilitation of $1.14 billion per year nationally during the next 50 years Improve the ability to evaluate premature failures and factors contributing to exceptionally good performance Provide greater adaptability than the current Design Guide.8
Previous versions of the Design Guide were derived from the limitations of AASHTO's Road Test. The research that has gone into the 2002 Design Guide will assist in addressing many limitations to the AASHTO Road Test.9
The LTPP data has sections with very high traffic loadings. Some of the test sections represented in the LTPP database have been in service for 30 years or more. The LTPP database has performance data on rehabilitated pavements. The LTPP sections cover all climatic conditions in the United States. The LTPP sections cover a wide range of subgrade materials. The LTPP sections have a variety of base materials. The LTPP sections represent the wear from vehicle fleet of the 1980's and 1990's. The LTPP has some sections with drainage systems. The LTPP data supports distress specific performance models.
The limitations to the 1993 Design Guide are well documented. The GDOT recognized these limitations when choosing not to adopt the 1993 Design Guide. When the 2002 Design Guide is released, it is recommended that the GDOT conduct an evaluation to determine if its adoption over the 1972 Interim Design Guide would be beneficial in maintaining the roadways in Georgia.
Adequately designed substructure for the vehicular traffic and truck percentages is needed or whitetopping will structurally fail in the same manner as asphalt pavement. At least three to four inches of asphalt should be provided under the whitetopping or UTM. Ultra-thin whitetopping will not last as long as traditional whitetopping, but the service life is still approximately eight to ten years depending on the traffic volumes and truck percentages.

8 LTPP and the 2002 Pavement Design Guide Brochure. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration. 9 Ibid.

June 2002

3-12

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Full Depth Concrete
The adjacent picture demonstrates how asphalt surfaces rut at high volume intersections. In 1994, the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) began replacing selected asphalt pavement with full depth PCC pavement at key intersections. Information on the design and construction of these concrete intersections are provided in Appendix B of this report. The WSDOT studied the use of PCC for urban intersections. Statewide, fifteen PCC intersections have been constructed on state highways, and more will be built in the future. The study noted that PCC intersections eliminate the significant rutting problems that sometimes occur with asphalt roadways. This report includes lessons learned about PCC intersection construction costs, life cycle costs, traffic control/staging, design and construction considerations, and quality control issues.
The WSDOT reported an advantage of using PCC was its 40-year design life with minimal or no rehabilitation required. The construction user costs and disruption to traffic that are necessary with future asphalt overlays during its 40-year design life are eliminated when PCC is used. The major disadvantage with PCC intersections is the initial construction cost. However, a life cycle cost analysis, performed by the WSDOT revealed that the PCC intersection construction competes with and can be less expensive than rebuilding with asphalt. The initial PCC intersection costs ranged from $455,500 to $982,200, where the initial asphalt intersection costs ranged from $349,800 to $728,600. 10
Summary
Considering the implications of additional freight in the Central Georgia Corridor, the GDOT maintenance program must continue to evaluate and implement roadway maintenance technologies. The GDOT currently performs roadway maintenance activities to improve capacity and mobility. In addition to current maintenance activities, the GDOT could evaluate truck only facilities, upgrade rural highways, and construct grade separations at key intersections and railroad crossings. The use of new pavement technologies such as PCC, whitetopping, and full depth concrete can positively impact future maintenance needs by prolonging the life of the roadway network.

10 PCCP Intersections Design and Construction in Washington State. Report No. WA-RD-503.1. May 2001.

June 2002

3-13

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
4 Programmed Improvements
Introduction
Phase 1 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study was focused on developing a snapshot of and evaluating the socioeconomic and transportation infrastructure across the entire forty-five county study area. This work ultimately is focused on understanding potential transportation system gaps that directly affect the movement of freight and goods throughout the study area.
Throughout the entire study area, GDOT, counties, and towns have developed solutions to many of these potential transportation system gaps. Over 1,200 transportation projects have been identified and included in the GDOT Construction Work Program (CWP). The purpose of this section is to recognize those projects and begin to match potential transportation system deficiencies with elements in the CWP. In Phase 3 the study team will develop a prioritization plan and review several innovative funding sources for transportation improvements.
The study team is also specifically focusing on the HPC 6 corridor and a supporting system of roads. In Georgia, the specific High Priority Corridor 6 mainline roadway follows US 80 from the Alabama state line in Columbus, then along SR 22 and SR 96 to I-16, and along I-16 to Savannah.
To support (and remain consistent with) the Georgia Rural Development Council`s (GRDC's) economic development initiatives the study team identified a system of roadways that support the corridor and other state economic development initiatives. Specifically this addresses access to and from existing and emerging growth centers; access to and from all key military installations; and defines a logical and comprehensive "support" system for the HPC 6 corridor itself.
The following sections summarize and characterize the types of programmed projects within the study area and along the HPC 6 corridor. The projects are pulled directly from the GDOT CWP. The study team has summarized these and included specific detail in Appendix C of this report.
HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads Definition
In the Phase 1 Study Report, a network of "connecting roads" was defined using information from the Georgia Rural Development Council. The study team evaluated the economies of the 45 counties in the study area, each county being in one of four categories of the GRDC's Economic Vitality Index.

June 2002

4-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 4-1 Rural Development Council Economic Vitality Index

State routes connecting to cities and counties in the top two categories, "developing" or "existing & emerging growth center", were identified as a high priority and were designated as connecting roads for the purposes of this study. These are located in:
Columbus Macon Warner Robins Perry Dublin Vidalia and Lyons Swainsboro Statesboro Savannah Americus Cordele Claxton
Criteria for selecting state routes in these areas were: North-south state routes connecting directly to either the HPC 6 mainline or the US 280 mainline. Roads with extremely low volumes, less than 2,000 vehicles per day, with no evident congestion or safety issues were not included. Roadway traverses through a "developing" or "exiting & emerging growth center".

June 2002

4-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

The connecting roads to each regional economic center include:
Columbus: 1. I-185 from SR 18 in Harris County to US 280 in Muscogee County 2. SR 219 from SR 103 in Harris County to US 27/SR 1 in Muscogee County 3. US 27/SR 1 from SR 116 in Harris County to US 280/SR 520 in Muscogee County 4. US 280/SR 520 from US 27/SR in Muscogee County to Richland, Stewart County 5. US 27 Alt/SR 85 from SR 208 in Harris County to SR 219 in Muscogee County 6. SR 22 Spur from I-185 to US 80/SR 22
Butler: 1. US 19/SR 3 from SR 96 in Taylor County to SR 74 in Thomaston, Upson County
Reynolds: 1. SR 128 from SR 96 in Taylor County to US 341/SR 7 in Crawford County
Fort Valley: 1. SR 49C from SR 96 to SR 49 2. US 341/SR 7 from SR 49C in Peach County to SR 42 in Crawford County 3. US 341/SR 7 from SR 96 in Peach County to I-75 in Houston County
Macon: 1. I-75 from SR 96 to I-16 1. I-475from SR 74 to I-75 2. US 129/SR 247 to SR 247spur 3. I-16 from I-75 to SR 96
Warner Robins: 1. SR 247 from SR 96 to the northern Robins AFB gate
Perry: 1. I-75 from SR 96 to SR 127 2. SR 247/SR 247 Sp from SR 96 to US 341 3. SR 7 Sp/SR 224 from I-75 US 341/SR 7 to US 341/SR 11 4. US 41/SR 11 from SR 11C to SR 247C 5. US 341/SR 11 from SR 247 Sp to SR 26 in Pulaski County
Cochran: 1. US 129 Alt./SR 87 from SR 96 to SR 26 2. SR 26 from US 341/SR 27 in Pulaski County to US 80/SR 19 in Laurens County
Dublin: 1. US 441/US 319/SR 31 from SR 117 to SR 19 2. SR 19 from I-16 to US 441/SR 31 3. US 441/SR 29 from US 80/SR 19 to SR 338 4. SR 257 from SR 338 to US 441/US 319/SR 31 5. SR 19 from US 80 to south of I-16

June 2002

4-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
6. US 319/SR 31 from US 80/SR 26 to Johnson County line 7. SR 338 from I-16 to US 80/SR 19 8. US 80/SR 19 from SR 26 (West of Dublin) to US 319/SR 31 (East of Dublin)
Vidalia and Lyons: 1. US 1/SR 4 from I-16 to Appling County line 2. SR 297 from US 280 to I-16 3. SR 15 from US 280/SR 30 to I-16 4. SR 135 from US 221 to US 280 5. SR 130 from SR 135 to US 280 6. SR 15/SR 29 from US 1 to US 280 7. SR 178 from SR 147 to US 1
Americus: 1 US 19/SR 3 from US 82/SR 520 to Schley/Taylor County Line 2. SR 195 from US 19/SR 3 in Leesburg to US 280/SR 30 in Leslie 3. SR 195 from US 19/SR 3 in Desoto to SR 49 4. SR 49 (NE) from Terrell/Sumter County line to Sumter/Macon County line 5. SR 377 from SR 195 to US 280/SR 30
Cordele: 1. I-75 from Dooly County line to Turner County line 2. US 41 from Dooly County line to Turner County line 3. SR 300 from Worth County line to SR 300 Connector 4. SR 300 Connector from SR 300 to US 280/SR 30 5. SR 90 from US 280/SR 30 to Wilcox County line
Swainsboro: 1. US 1/SR 17 from I-16 to US 80/SR 26
Metter: 1. SR 23 from I-16 to Emanuel County line 2. SR 23 from Tattnall County line to I-16 3. SR 129 from Tattnall County line to I-16
Statesboro: 1. US 25 from I-16 to Jenkins County line 2. SR 67 Bypass 3. US 301/SR 73 from US 25 to Screven County line 4. SR 24 from US 80/SR 26 to Screven County line 5. US 301Bypass/SR 73 Bypass 6. SR 67 from US 280/SR 30 in Bryan County to US 25
Claxton: 1. US 301/SR 73 from US 280/SR 30 to I-16 2. SR 129 from Tattnal/Candler County line through Claxton terminating at a county road.

June 2002

4-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Savannah: 1. I-16/SR 404 Sp from I-95 to SR 25 Alt (Bay Street), 2. SR 307 (Dean Forest Road) from I-16 to SR 25, 3. Chatham Parkway from I-16 to US 80/SR 26 then US 80 from Chatham Parkway to SR 25, 4. I-516 from SR 25 to intersection with Abercorn Street, 5. SR 21 from I-95 to SR 404 Sp, 6. SR 25 from SR 21 to South Carolina state line (Houlihan Bridge), 7. SR 21 Sp (Brampton Road) from SR 21 to Port of Savannah Gate 2,and 8. SR 25 Alt (Bay Street) from SR 404 Sp to East Port Terminal on President Street 9. SR 119 from I-16 to SR 21 in Effingham County 10. SR 21 SR 119 in Effingham County to I-95 in Chatham County 11. US 84/SR 38/SR 196 from I-95 to SR 119 in Liberty County 12. SR 119 from SR 196 in Liberty County to US 280/SR 30 in Bryan County
US 280: 1. US 280/SR 27 from Plains (Sumter County) to Lumpkin 2. US 280/SR 30 through Vidalia and Lyons, beginning on the west of Vidalia at SR 15/SR 29 and ending one mile east of US 1
There are several military bases located in the Central Georgia Corridor and this study considers special transportation needs for these facilities. Military bases in the study area include:
Fort Benning (Columbus) I-185 from US 80 to US 280 Robins Air Force Base (Warner Robins) SR 247 from SR 96 to north gate Fort Stewart (Bryan and Liberty Counties) I-95 from I-16 to SR 196 Hunter Army Air Field (Savannah) I-516 from I-16 to intersection with Abercorn Street
These bases are major employers and are extremely important to the local economies. Military bases have special logistical needs for mobilizing in the event of a war, stocking supplies, and intermodal connections to ports, rail lines, and airports. In addition, security is a major issue around these bases. Figure 4-2 below shows a map of the HPC 6 mainline and connecting road system.

June 2002

4-5

Figure 4-2 HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Road System

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

June 2002

4-6

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Programmed Roadway Projects in the Study Area
Regardless of the funding source, the GDOT Construction Work Program (CWP) identifies projects throughout the state for a six-year period. There are 541 projects identified in the CWP within the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Table 4-1 summarizes the project type and number of programmed projects with the study area. Obviously not all of these projects have been considered in this freight study.
Figure 4-3 shows all projects in the study area that are listed in the CWP as of the date Phase 2 was initiated. Figure 4-4 shows the extent of the Governor's Road Improvement Program.
Figure 4-5 shows the major programmed project types as a percentage by project type. Of the programmed projects in the study area, widening or bridge projects account for approximately 53 percent, while transit projects comprise 18 percent. There are seven GRIP routes that traverse through the study area and, over the next six to ten years, the GRIP system will be completed.
GRIP Projects Programmed in the Corridor
The Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) began in 1989 with the mission to develop a network of four lane highways throughout the state and thus facilitate economic development. The completed GRIP system will provide 2,627 miles of four lane highways to 92 percent of towns with populations higher than 2,000, provide 113 miles of improved truck access, and place 75 percent of the state's population within two miles of a four-lane highway. The system will also provide direct connections between major cities not previously connected by a four-lane highway. The GRIP system will decrease vehicle travel time, stimulate economic development, improve safety, and save energy.
The GRIP typical section depends on the location of the roadway. In urban areas, the typical section includes four 12-foot travel lanes separated by a 20-foot raised median. In rural areas, the typical section includes four 12-foot travel lanes separated by a 44-foot depressed grass median and 2-foot paved inside shoulders and 4-6 foot paved outside shoulders. Portions of seven GRIP corridors traverse through the Central Georgia Corridor Study area.
US 27 (SR 1) US 19 (SR 3) Fall Line Freeway (SR 22/SR 96) US 441 (SR 31) US 1/SR 17 South Georgia Parkway (SR 520) Corridor Z Savannah River Parkway

June 2002

4-7

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 4-1 Project Type and Number of Programmed Projects within the Study Area

Project Type ATMS/ITS Barriers Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Bridge Painting Bridges DMCA/Dike Work Historic Preservation Interchanges Intersection Improvements Landscaping Lighting Minor Widen & Resurfacing Miscellaneous Improvements Passing Lanes Rail Projects Railroad Crossing Rest Area Resurfacing & Maintenance Rights-Of-Way Roadway Projects Sidewalks Signals Transit Projects Turn Lanes Water Pollution Mitigation Widenings Wildlife mortality mitigation TOTAL Source: 2002 Georgia Department of Transportation

Number 8 2 4 5
162 4 2 13 18 1 1 6 8 19 7 4 3 17 2 22 1 2 99 5 1
124 1
541

June 2002

4-8

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

US 27/SR 1

The US 27/SR 1 GRIP corridor traverses the entire western length of the state beginning at the Florida State Line and continuing north through Bainbridge, Lumpkin, Columbus, Carrollton, and Rome, and terminating at the Tennessee State Line. Within the Central Georgia Corridor study area, the US 27/ SR 1 corridor traverses through Stewart, Chattahoochee, and Muscogee Counties. For the entire corridor, approximately 232 miles or 66 percent is open to traffic or under construction.

Within the Central Georgia Corridor study area, the 2.8 mile Lumpkin Bypass (EDS-27(144) is complete and open to traffic. The remaining uncompleted project, EDS-27(147), below Cusseta (SR 520/US 280) is an 8.8 mile section north of Louvale to SR 520. Construction is expected to be completed by April 2003 along this section of the corridor. The next 8.2 mile section of the corridor from the Lumpkin Bypass, including the Louvale Bypass, EDS-27(145) is complete and open to traffic. The corridor between Cusseta and I-85 in Troup County is open to traffic via SR 520/US 280 and I-185.

Environmental studies have begun on the section between I-85 and US 27/SR 1 north of LaGrange at CR 673 under project EDS-27(114) and NH-IM-85-1(160). There is a series of three projects EDS-27(122), HPP-EDS-27(123), and EDS-27(124) between CR 673 and the Roopville Bypass for which the environmental work is complete and the right of way is being acquired. Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 below reveal the status for projects along this corridor.

Table 4-2 Projects under construction on US 27/ SR 1
Projects Under Construction
In Chattahoochee County from County Road 43 north to US 280, the South Georgia Parkway, at Cusseta. Along SR 2 from the Chit-Chat Bypass to US 27 in the City of Oglethorpe in Walker County.

Scheduled Completion date for Construction
March 2003
September 2001

June 2002

4-11

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 4-5 Percentages of Programmed Projects by Project Type, 45-County Study Area

Wildlife mortality mitigation 0.18%
Widenings 22.92%
Water Pollution Mitigation 0.18%
Turn Lanes 0.92%
Dmca/Dike Work 0.74%

ATMS/ITS 1.48%

Barriers 0.37%

Bicycle/Ped. Facility 0.74%
Bridge Painting 0.92%

Bridges 29.94%

Minor Widen & Resurfacing 1.11%

Signals 0.37%
Sidewalks 0.18%
Roadway Project 4.07%
Lighting 0.18%
Landscaping 0.18%
Intersection Improvements 3.33%

Transit Projects 18.30%

Interchanges 2.40% Historic Preservation 0.37%

Rights-Of-Way 0.37%

Miscellaneous Improvements
1.48%
Passing Lanes 3.51%
Rail Projects 1.29%
Railroad Crossings 0.74%
Rest Areas 0.55%
Resurfacing & Maintenance 3.14%

Source: 2002, Georgia Department of Transportation CWP

June 2002

4-12

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 4-3

Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 27/ SR 1

Preliminary Engineering Environmental Phase

Scheduled Completion date for Environmental

I-185 Interchange and the I-185 connector from

I-185 to SR 1/US 27 south of Beech Creek in

December 31, 2001

Troup County.

Design Phase

Scheduled Completion date for Design

I-185 Interchange and the I-185 connector from I-185 to SR 1/US 27 south of Beech Creek in Troup County.

October 1, 2000

Proposed Let Date
July 2004
Proposed Let Date
July 2004

Table 4-4

Projects in Right of Way Acquisition on US 27/ SR 1

Scheduled

Right of Way Activities

Completion date

for Right of Way

SR 1/US 27 from Luscious Queen Road to the Lumpkin Bypass in Stewart County.

May 2002

SR 1/US 27 from north of Lagrange in Troup County to SR 54 near the Heard County line.

October 2002

SR 1/US 27 from SR 54 in Troup County north along

SR 1 with a bypass east of Franklin to Patterson Road May 2002

north of Franklin in Heard County.

Proposed Let Date
July 2002 Dec 2002
July 2002

US 19/SR 3

This corridor traverses through Georgia from the Florida State Line near Thomasville and extends north to Albany and then to US 41 in Griffin in Spalding County. Within the Central Georgia Corridor study area, the US 19/ SR 3 corridor traverses through Sumter, Schley, Taylor and Upson Counties. The entire corridor is approximately 194 miles in length. Approximately 140 miles or 72 percent is open to traffic or under construction. Approximately 54 miles or 28 percent of the corridor is not currently under construction or open to traffic. Most of the 54mile unimproved segment is in the study area.

Two projects, EDS-19(50) and EDS-19(51), between the Leesburg Bypass and US 280 south of Americus are currently being designed. The US 19/SR 3 corridor through Americus is complete and open to traffic. Four projects between Angelica Creek, north of Americus, and the Fall Line Freeway, south of Butler, are currently being designed. The four design projects designated for this segment of the corridor are HPP-EDS-19(55) Sumter, EDS-19(64) Schley, EDS-19(63) Schley and, EDS-19(65) Taylor. The corridor is complete and open to traffic between the Butler Bypass

June 2002

4-13

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

(Fall Line Freeway) and US 41 near Griffin in Spalding County. Table 4-5 shows the phase schedule for projects along US 19/SR 3.

Table 4-5 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 19/SR 3

Preliminary Engineering Environmental Phase
From the Leesburg Bypass north to Americus in Sumter County.
Design Phase
From Smithville north 5.5 miles to Bear Branch Road. From Bear Branch Road north to US 280 at Americus. From Angelica Creek just north of Americus to SR 271 in Schley County. From SR 271 in Schley County to SR 240 north of Ellaville including a bypass of Ellaville. From SR 240 north for 7.3 miles to Cooper Road in Taylor County. From Cooper Road to the Butler Bypass.

Scheduled Completion date for Environmental December 31, 2001 Scheduled Completion
date for Design No Report
No Report
January 2002
No Report
No Report No Report

Proposed Let Date
FY 2003 Proposed Let Date
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2004 FY 2005

Fall Line Freeway (SR 22/SR 96)
This corridor traverses the entire width of the state from the Alabama State Line at Columbus through Macon and then to Augusta terminating at the South Carolina State Line. Within the HPC 6 study area, this corridor traverses through Muscogee, Talbot, Taylor, Crawford, Peach, Bibb, and Wilkinson Counties. Part of this section from Columbus to Fort Valley runs common with HPC 6 along US 80 and SR 96.
The section from Columbus east to SR 96 at Geneva, Talbot County, located along US 80/SR 22, is open to traffic. The next section is located along SR 96; from SR 240 in Geneva eastward to about one-half mile east of Junction City, is open to traffic. Construction is underway between Junction City and Parks Road near the City of Butler in Taylor County and is expected to open to traffic in September 2002. State Route 96 is open to traffic between Parks Road and the Butler Bypass. Right of way is being acquired from the Butler Bypass eastward through the City of Reynolds to the Crawford County line. The section over Beechwood Swamp and the Flint River is open to traffic. From the Flint River to the Fort Valley Bypass (SR 49C) in Peach County, a project is in the right of way acquisition phase. Acquisition along this section is scheduled to be completed in April 2002, and construction is scheduled for FY 2003.

June 2002

4-14

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Project FLF-540(30), adds two additional lanes to the 4.9 mile long Fort Valley Bypass (SR 49C). A review of the US 341 intersection is underway to determine if a more efficient design may be crafted. The next 23.8 miles of the corridor along SR 49, are complete and open to traffic between SR 49C in Fort Valley and I-75 in Byron. HPC 6 continues eastward from Fort Valley on SR 96 while the Fall Line Freeway runs common with SR 49 to Byron and then turn north along I-75.

Tables 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8 provide a summary of the projects along HPC 6, which are common with the Fall Line Freeway.

Table 4-6 Projects under construction or Ready to Let on SR 22/SR 96

Projects Under Construction
SR 96 from Junction City to CR 48 near the City of Butler in Taylor County.

Scheduled Completion Date for Construction
September 2002

Projects Ready to Let SR 49C--Ft. Valley Bypass in Peach County from SR 96 to SR 49 (a letting depends on funding availability).

Proposed Let Date October 2002

Table 4-7 Projects in Preliminary Engineering on SR 22/SR 96

Preliminary Engineering Design Phase SR 96 in Taylor County from the Butler Bypass to the Crawford County line--final plans. SR 96 in Crawford County from east of the Flint River to the Ft. Valley Bypass (SR 49C)--final plans.

Scheduled Completion date for Design

Proposed Let Date

February 2002

FY 2003

August 2002

FY 2003

Table 4-8 Projects in Right of Way Activities on SR 22/SR 96

Right of Way Activities
From the Butler Bypass to the Crawford County line. From east of the Flint River to the Ft. Valley Bypass SR (49C).

Scheduled Completion date for
Right of Way
December 2001

Proposed Let Date FY 2003

June 2002

FY 2003

June 2002

4-15

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

US 441 (SR 31)

The US 441 corridor travels the length of the state from the Florida State Line to North Carolina. The corridor is a major north/south transportation artery in the eastern part of the state. Within the Central Georgia Corridor study area, the US 441/ SR 31 corridor passes through Telfair, Wheeler, Laurens, and Wilkinson Counties. For the entire corridor there are approximately 131 miles or 35 percent open to traffic. The entire corridor is approximately 371 miles in length and is the longest of the GRIP corridors.

The design concepts for projects EDS-441(37)(36) between SR 107 in Coffee County and CR 240 in Telfair County and between CR 240 and the South McRae Bypass are complete and environmental studies are currently underway. The alignment and environmental studies for the South EDS-441(12) and North EDS-441(13) McRae Bypasses to US 441/US 280/SR 30 intersections in Wheeler County are complete and the design work is underway. The environmental work for the projects from the North McRae Bypass to the I-16 interchange is nearly complete. Roadway design will begin in the near future for the section between the North McRae Bypass and SR 46 under project EDS-441(18).

The I-16 interchange with U.S. 441 is complete. North of I-16 the corridor is also complete to the intersection with Fire Tower Road. At this point, the corridor turns west and north on new location bypassing the City of Dublin. An alignment for the Dublin Bypass, EDS-441(5), has been established, environmental work has been completed and right of way plans are being prepared. Right of way is being acquired for project EDS-441(39), between the Dublin Bypass near CR 471 and SR 112. Project EDS-441(38) between SR 112 and SR 96 in Wilkinson County is ready to let. A roadway and a bridge project are currently under construction, between SR 96 and the Irwinton Bypass, project (EDS-441(52).

Tables 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11 provide a summary of the activities along the US 441 corridor in the Central Georgia Corridor study area.

Table 4-9

Projects under Construction or Ready to Let on US 441

Projects Under Construction

Scheduled Construction Completion

From the south terminus of the Irwinton Bypass north

to the south end of the Milledgeville Bypass (three

March 2002

projects).

In Wilkinson County from SR 96 to the south terminus of the Irwinton Bypass and a bridge project.

August 2001

Projects Ready To Let

Proposed Let Date

In Wilkinson County from SR 112 to SR 96 including the bridges.

January 2002

June 2002

4-16

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Table 4-10 Projects in Right of Way Activities on US 441
Right of Way Activities
In Laurens and Wilkinson Counties from the north terminus of the Dublin Bypass north to SR 112.

Scheduled Completion date for Right of Way

Proposed Let Date

September 2002 December 2002

Table 4-11

Projects in Preliminary Engineering on SR 22/SR 96

Preliminary Engineering Design Phase

Percent Complete

Scheduled Completion date for
Design

In Coffee and Telfair Counties, the

replacement of bridges at Mill, Big

85%

Nov. 2001

Horse, & Big Horse Overflow Creeks.

Dublin Bypass in Laurens County.

50%

Dec. 2001

Environmental Phase

Percent Complete

Scheduled Completion date for
Environmental

From north of the City of Douglas in

Coffee County northward to the South McRae Bypass in Telfair

30%

December 2002

County (five projects).

The South and North Bypasses of McRae in Telfair County.

100%

October 2001

Beginning at the North Bypass of

McRae and continuing north through Wheeler and into Laurens County to

50%

March 2002

I-16 (3 projects).

Proposed Let Date
May 2002 April 2003
Proposed Let Date
FY 2008
FY 2004
FY 2005

US 1/SR 17

This corridor travels the state from the Florida State Line at Folkston northbound to US 441 in Habersham County. Within the Central Georgia Corridor study area, this corridor traverses through Toombs and Emanuel Counties. The entire corridor is approximately 331 miles in length; construction of approximately 115 miles or 37 percent has been completed.

There are seven projects between Plant Hatch Road in Toombs County, north through Lyons to I-16 in Emanuel County. Environmental studies have begun on all seven projects. The early concept studies recommended the corridor improvements be made by widening US 1 from the southern city limits of Lyons north to Washington Street. Washington Street would become the southbound street and State Street/US 1 would become the northbound street of a one-way

June 2002

4-17

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

pair. The one-way pair would terminate in the vicinity of McBride Avenue and the route would continue along US 1 to the northern city limits.
Right of way acquisition is underway between I-16 and the Swainsboro Bypass under project EDS-545(44) and is expected to be completed by September 2002. The north and south sections of the Swainsboro Bypass are currently under construction within projects EDS-545(7) and EDS545(8). These projects are scheduled to be completed and open to traffic by December 2002.
The north and south bypasses west of Swainsboro are currently under construction and the scheduled completion date is December 2002. Table 4-12 reveals the status for projects along this corridor.

Table 4-12

Projects in Preliminary Engineering on US 1/SR 17

Preliminary Engineering

Scheduled Completion date

Environmental Phase

for Design

Beginning in Appling County and

extending north through Toombs

County including the widening through March 2002

Lyons and into Emanuel County to I-16

(9 projects).

From the north terminus of the

Swainsboro Bypass to the existing four lanes at Wadley in Jefferson Co. (2

September 2002

projects).

Design Phase

Scheduled Completion date for Right of Way

From the Appling/ Bacon County line north to SR 56 in Toombs County (4 projects). From SR 56 in Toombs County north through the City of Lyons in Toombs County. From the north city limits of Lyons to I16 (3 projects). From I-16 north to the Swainsboro Bypass at SR 297. From north terminus of the Swainsboro Bypass to the Wadley Bypass (2 projects).

No Report
No Report No Report July 2001 No Report

Proposed Let Date FY 2004 & 2005
FY 2007 Proposed Let Date FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2006

June 2002

4-18

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
South Georgia Parkway SR 520 Corridor Z
The South Georgia Parkway was completed in 1989 and consisted primarily of widening existing two-lane roads to either four-lane divided or four-lanes with a middle left-turn lane. However, part of the highway that bypasses downtown Albany is interstate quality.
The South Georgia Parkway, or commonly called Corridor Z, begins at the Alabama state line (US 280) in Columbus, following US 27/280/SR1 from there to Cusseta (12 miles SE of Columbus), where US 280/SR 520 splits toward Richland, in eastern Stewart County. East of Richland, US 280 and SR 520 part, and Corridor Z proceeds south of the Central Georgia Corridor.
Bridges Programmed for Upgrade or Replacement
Many of the bridges on HPC 6 mainline and connecting routes are programmed for upgrade or replacement. The CWP provides a listing of all bridge projects in the study area to be funded in the six years.

June 2002

4-19

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 4-6 Programmed Bridges along the HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads

Figure 4-6 above shows the bridges that are programmed in the CWP on the mainline and connecting roads. The GDOT has identified 12 bridges on the HPC 6 mainline and 19 bridges on the connecting roads to be replaced or upgraded. Appendix C provides the details of each bridge project in the CWP by county.
Railroad Grade Crossings Programmed for Upgrades
There are 50 railroad grade crossing projects identified in the CWP in the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Railroad crossing improvements are selected at crossings with high ranking accident potential and at selected crossings along rail line corridors. The GDOT's Traffic Operations Office selects, prioritizes, and develops all improvements to railroad crossings in the state. The majority of programmed projects in the CWP consist of the installation of active warning devices such as gates, lights, and bells. However, there are a few special projects that upgrade circuits, lenses, signs, and pavement markings.

June 2002

4-20

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

The GDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided the railroad inventory data. The data was analyzed to identify deficient railroad crossings along the HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads. Appendix C provides the details of each railroad crossing project in the CWP by county.
ITS Projects in the Construction Work Program (CWP)
Intelligent Transportation System projects in the Construction Work Program in the Central Georgia Corridor study area consist of Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) in Columbus, Macon, and Savannah and weather monitoring systems in Glynn County along the coast.
The ATMS being designed by the GDOT for the City of Savannah includes the development of a concept plan, design of fiber optic trunk lines, communications links, location of field devices, and other related infrastructure features. The scope includes preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for 20 miles of fiber optic cable backbone, branch lines to devices that will either be fiber optic cable or twisted pair copper cable, three variable message signs (VMS), a Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) site, and six video surveillance cameras.
The consultant team developing Savannah's ATMS will integrate the Atlanta ATMS control software and tailor it for use by the Savannah Traffic Engineering Department. The project team will also provide a design for a traffic control center, plans for upgrading traffic signals at 13 intersections, signal timing plans for 52 intersections in four major corridors, and construction supervision and inspection. 1
The GDOT has similar plans to open an ATMS system for the Cities of Columbus and Macon. The City of Warner Robbins would also benefit by having a small ATMS system installed.
In Columbus/Muscogee County, two ATMS projects are programmed for FY 2002: Slow Scan/VMS/Radar Regional Traffic Control Center (TCC)
Six ATMS projects are programmed in Macon/Bibb County, consisting of installing variable message signs on interstate highways and maintenance for each year 2002-2005.
In Savannah/Chatham County, five projects are programmed: Regional Traffic Control Center (TCC) in 2005 Slow Scan/VMS/Radar in 2007 I-16 and I-516 Communication and Surveillance in Long Range Weather Monitoring Station no year designated

1 http://www.dot.state.ga.us/homeoffs/dttsdrr.www/savannah.html

June 2002

4-21

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
In Glynn County, two projects are programmed: an I-95 fog detection system in 2001 and a weather monitoring system no year designated. Appendix C provides the details of each ITS project in the CWP by county.
Truck Weigh Station Projects in the CWP
Two pairs of truck weigh stations are being renovated and upgraded: a pair on I-16 in Bryan County, and a pair on I-95 in McIntosh County.
Let to construction in FY 1999, the Bryan County weigh station buildings were renovated. The static scales and weigh-in-motion scales were replaced and automatic vehicle identification equipment and management software was added, capable of electronic screening for the Port of Savannah.
Let to construction in FY 2000, both McIntosh County weigh station buildings were replaced. The static scales and weigh-in-motion scales were replaced and automatic vehicle identification equipment and management software capable of electronic screening for the Port of Savannah was added. Appendix C provides the details for each truck weigh station project in the CWP by county.
Rest Area Projects in the CWP
Reconstruction of the I-95 Southbound Welcome Center in Chatham County is programmed for FY 2006.
Summary
There are 541 projects identified in the GDOT's CWP within the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Approximately 50 percent of the programmed projects in the study area are either road widening or bridge projects. Resurfacing and maintenance projects comprise ten percent and railroad crossing upgrades provide five percent for programmed projects. There are seven GRIP routes that traverse through the study area and over the next six to ten years the GRIP system will be completed. Implementation of the GRIP system will upgrade numerous mainline and connecting roads in the Central Georgia Corridor. During the next six years, the GDOT will improve 50 Railroad grade crossings in the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Intelligent Transportation Systems will apply state of the art technology to existing transportation systems. Implementation of the ATMS projects in Columbus, Macon, and Savannah and weather monitoring systems in Glynn County will allow trucks to operate more efficiently providing a competitive advantage to the State of Georgia. Projects identified in the CWP address crucial transportation needs and many of these projects will eliminate deficiencies throughout the Central Georgia Corridor.

June 2002

4-22

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

5

System Deficiencies and Potential Solutions

Introduction
Phase 1 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study included the collection and analysis of data from many sources. Transportation system inventory and associated data have been organized into a GIS-based system that links databases documenting freight and non-freight traffic volumes, capacity of roadways, volume to capacity ratios (v/c), accident data, stakeholder interview data, the results of interviews with stakeholders (perceived deficiencies), commodity flow data, historic resource and wetland data, freight carriers, major shippers, and land use. The current and forecasted data is expressed in the Phase 2 Report for the years 1998 and 2025.
The Phase 1 data, the manipulation of this data, and the resultant GIS themes and queries were used to conduct an initial screening of deficient system elements and to complete a detailed assessment of all capacity, operational, and safety deficiencies. The definition of deficiency in the context of this report entails "physical and operational constraints to freight movement and any constraint in the overall reliability of the transportation system". This includes intermodal freight movement deficiencies such as connectivity to and between roads, ports, airports, and rail facilities.
The Central Georgia Corridor Study began during Phase 1 in a broad, systematic way, reviewing data for the identified forty-five county area. While aspects of the study continue to include all counties, the focus of Phase 2 has been narrowed in some areas to the High Priority Corridor Six (HPC6) and specific areas of U.S. 280.
The identification of transportation deficiencies is not synonymous with identifying transportation solutions. Phase 3 of the study will provide transportation solutions to enhance freight movement and trade. In this chapter, however, there are the beginnings of ideas relating to possible solutions to deficiencies.
Organizing Principles
In analyzing the data, three major organizing principles for the material became obvious. Transportation deficiencies may be related to: (1) reliability of the system, including cost and speed of freight delivery; (2) Economic stability and growth in the study corridor; and (3) system safety and maintenance. These three principles for the purpose of discussing transportation deficiencies are addressed more fully on the following pages.

June 2002

5-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Relationship of the Transportation System to Cost and Speed of Freight Delivery including Reliability of the System
Cost and speed of freight delivery are affected by many things, among them proximity to fourlane roadways or interstates, intermodal connection efficiency, congestion, and bottlenecks on road and railways. In addition, efficiency of the haulers, shippers and receivers, fuel prices, and the cost of labor can affect the cost of freight delivery.
Manufacturers who create goods that are not location dependent choose rural counties if the transportation infrastructure is sufficient and a relatively inexpensive, skilled labor force is available in the area. Manufacturers and businesses that are location dependent, such as agriculture, forest products, and mining have the same requirements, without which competitors may prevail with lower market prices.
The transportation system that serves these location and non-location dependent businesses has a direct relationship to the cost and speed of freight delivery. Congestion, inadequate road and rail bridges, bottlenecks, narrow, winding roads and bridges, and poorly designed and operated intermodal freight connections can slow the delivery of freight to markets, decrease the competitiveness of Georgia products and thus slow trade with other states and countries.
The overall reliability of the transportation system is important to trade and is of special importance to our country in times of national emergency. Georgia is home to ten military bases, four of which are located in the project corridor, that are connected to each other and the rest of the country via the Strategic Highway Network, or STRAHNET. In addition, the connection between the bases and the Georgia ports, especially the Port of Savannah are critical in times of overseas deployment. As a part of this study the STRAHNET connections have also been reviewed and analyzed with respect to overall reliability.
Relationship of the Transportation System to Economic Stability and Growth
In 1998 the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) contracted with Dr. Douglas Bachtel of the University of Georgia to provide an analysis of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) as it relates to the economy of selected Georgia Counties. The report can be found on the GDOT Office of Planning web site. As a part of Dr. Bachtel's work, he provided a substantial discussion of studies that have demonstrated the link between the quality of the transportation system and economic stability and growth. The report contains numerous citations of the correlation between growth, economic stability, and the transportation system.
However, transportation alone is not responsible for economic development. Many other factors play an important role, such as increased educational and vocational training and job readiness skills. Equally important is the cooperation between state and local governmental officials and the private sector. However without an effective and efficient transportation

June 2002

5-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
system, economic development will not occur. Businesses cannot afford to locate where they cannot either ship or receive their goods efficiently.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has opened more of the world's markets to American goods and the two treaties have also unlocked American markets to more foreign-made products. The Central Georgia Corridor is positioned to direct goods westward more efficiently from Central Georgia, and the Port of Savannah, than any other facility.
The following quote from Dr. Bachtel's GDOT GRIP report correlates with the work of the Georgia Rural Development Council (GRDC) discussed in the Phase 1 report:
The importance of highways and economic development also has been linked to the growth center concept, which has played a major part in the regional development strategies of many countries, including the United States. The rationale for a growth center strategy rests heavily on the observation that the distribution of economic activity often provides firms with collective benefits that they would not receive in isolated locations. These take the form of external economies of agglomeration, as distinguished from the internal economies that a firm may generate from the expansion of its own organization (Kuklinski, 1972). It has been argued that lagging regions can be most efficiently developed by concentrating public and private investment in a few growth centers, and the "increased effects" from induced-growth centers will eventually bring greater prosperity to the surrounding hinterland areas (Hansen, 1972 and Munnell, 1990).
The Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) was initiated in 1989 by state legislation. GRIP is a network of developmental four-lane highways and roads. The goal set for the program is to place 98 percent of the state within 20 miles of a four-lane road.
In 2001, with two-thirds of the approximately 150 road projects in the GRIP complete or under construction, the Governor initiated his Transportation Choices Initiative (GTCI). A portion of this plan would greatly accelerate completion of the GRIP program, which otherwise would have taken another 20 years to complete. In completing this system sooner, the economic impact will be felt sooner. Dr. Bachtel's work was quoted as crediting GRIP with "the creation of 15,000 jobs and an economic impact of $300 million".
In addition, stakeholders from across Central Georgia and the Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, have related anecdotes concerning the questions asked by industries and businesses searching for new locations. Usually one of the first two questions asked is if there is a four-lane road in the community that connects to an interstate highway. Economic growth cannot be expected in an area without a well-connected transportation system.

June 2002

5-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Relationship of the Transportation System to System Safety and Maintenance
Safety and maintenance cover a host of subjects and are integral to the GDOT mission: the commitment to a "safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system". Safety and maintenance also relate to freight movement and trade in that the provision of an "adequate" transportation system is required for all the reasons given in the sections above. An inadequate transportation system includes poor pavement, narrow road and bridge width, poor sight distance, frequent bottlenecks, frequent at-grade railroad crossings, poor connectivity, and weight restricted bridges or trestles.
Safety deficiencies cause lower speeds, causing increased freight delivery time and increased costs. Safety deficiencies also result in accidents and concomitant increases in insurance costs, which lead to increases in the cost of shipping and therefore goods. Cost increases on a largescale decrease the competitiveness of the region.
Maintenance issues affecting freight movement require constant attention to pavement, shoulders, bridges, rails, and trestles any part of the transportation infrastructure. Large trucks carry many tons in weight. By identifying the major freight carrying routes in Phase 1, attention can be given to maintenance problems primarily on these routes.
Methods for Determining Transportation System Deficiencies
There were several methods used to determine current and future transportation system deficiencies. These are described below.
1. Congestion/Capacity Analysis Using Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data for study area roadways, average capacities per lane were calculated by roadway functional class. The calculated capacities were applied to each highway segment to estimate a level-of-service by dividing each road segment's traffic count by the estimated capacity for that segment (volume/capacity or v/c ratio). This methodology resulted in the definition of congested areas, those areas with a v/c ratio > 0.7, for the existing and future transportation system as explained Chapter 2 of this document.
2. Accident Data The Georgia Department of Transportation database was utilized as a source for high accident locations in the Central Georgia Corridor. The 1998 data, the most recent available, is useful in determining possible bottlenecks to freight movement. In order to be considered a freight bottleneck area for the purposes of this study, the roadway segment must carry at least the study area average percentage of truck volumes; have a v/c ratio greater than 0.7; and have a number of accidents greater than twice the statewide average. The resulting data has been further discussed with GDOT district personnel to determine if each bottleneck still exists or has been corrected during the intervening years.

June 2002

5-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

3. Travel Time Data Along U.S. 280 a travel time study was undertaken as a means of identifying transportation system deficiencies (Appendix J). Given the rural nature of this corridor and the abundance of smaller towns, this methodology was found to be an ideal supplement to other methods.
4. Interview Data Interviews were held with shippers, receivers, and carriers during Phase 1 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study. Other stakeholders, among them the Port of Savannah, metropolitan planning organizations, regional development centers, and chambers of commerce also provided information on areas with congestion, accidents, heavy truck traffic, and bottlenecks. These "perceived deficiencies" are considered valid and have been mapped for comparison to other methods of determining deficiencies.
5. Economic Development Support System The Georgia Rural Development Council work described in detail in the Phase 1 report identified certain cities in the Central Georgia Corridor as economic engines. The recommendation made by the GRDC was to expend transportation dollars improving transportation facilities from counties with a lagging or declining economy into these cities as a means of economic development. The transportation deficiencies maps indicate facilities that, with improvement, would support economic development in the way the GRDC proposed.
6. Best Practices Existing corridor conditions were compared to best practices to determine transportation deficiencies. Best practices were examined in the areas of roadway shoulders, bridges, intersection treatments, roadway materials, and railroad/roadway intersections. Locations not currently utilizing best practices, but could benefit from use of a best practice, were identified as deficient.
7. Field Observations Along the SR 96 corridor, between Columbus and I-16, a formal travel time study was not undertaken. However, field observation data was noted and confirmed the existing deficiencies as depicted by the current volume to capacity ratio.
Geographic Information Systems Maps
Transportation deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor are mapped by "region" for convenience (Figures 5-1 through 5-6 and Tables 5-1 through 5-6). The selected six regions are based on proximity of counties to one another and to logical stakeholder involvement venues. Each transportation deficiency map contains several counties and is followed by an alphabetical listing by county of transportation deficiencies. The map and the county list are united by a code number so that each deficiency and the source of the information can be located both on the list and on the map.

June 2002

5-5

Hamilton Columbus

Thomaston

Talbotton

Butler

Cusseta

Buena Vista

Lumpkin

Hamilton Columbus Cusseta

Thomaston

Talbotton

Butler

Buena Vista

Lumpkin

Thomaston

Hamilton

Talbotton

Columbus

Butler

Cusseta

Buena Vista

Lumpkin

Table 5-1

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Upson Counties

LOCATION

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

MAP COUNTY CODE

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

189 Chattahoochee 143 Harris 318 Harris 319 Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris n/a Harris
56 Muscogee 57 Muscogee 58 Muscogee 59 Muscogee 60 Muscogee 61 Muscogee 62 Muscogee 63 Muscogee 64 Muscogee 65 Muscogee 66 Muscogee 67 Muscogee 165 Muscogee 166 Muscogee 167 Muscogee 168 Muscogee 169 Muscogee 170 Muscogee 171 Muscogee 172 Muscogee 173 Muscogee 174 Muscogee 175 Muscogee 176 Muscogee 177 Muscogee 178 Muscogee 200 Muscogee 224 Muscogee 298 Muscogee 299 Muscogee 300 Muscogee 300 Muscogee 331 Muscogee 332 Muscogee 333 Muscogee 375 Muscogee 376 Muscogee 377 Muscogee

U280 I185 U27 S219 S1 S219 S315 S411 S411 S411 S411 S411 S85 S85 S85
Lbuena Lflatr I185 I185 S22SP S19 S22SP U27A LStMar U27 U80 U280 L13-ST Lbuena Lflatr I185 I185 S22SP S411 U27A LStMar U27 U27 U80 U80 U280 U280 U80 S22SP S219 I185 I185 U27 S22SP S219 I185 I185 I185

US 280 through Chattahoochee County - Poor Road Conditions Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-185 btwn South County Line and S315 From Muscogee County Line to SR 116 From Muscogee Counnty Line to SR 103 SR 1 (US 27), 3 MILES SOUTH PINE MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN OAK CREEK, 1.5 MILES SOUTH WHITESVILLE I-185 (SR 411 EXIT 10), 9 MILES S.W. HAMILTON STANDING BOY CREEK, 10 MILES S.W. HAMILTON MULBERRY CREEK, 7 MILES S.W. HAMILTON S-2651 L. BLUE SPRINGS R, 8 MILES W.S.W. HAMILTON S-2651 L. BLUE SPRINGS R, 8.5 MILES W.S.W. HAMILTON SR 116, 5 MILES SOUTH WHITESVILLE OSSAHATCHIE CREEK, 3.5 MI S OF WAVERLY HALL MULBERRY CREEK, 1.5 MI N OF WAVERLY HALL SOUTHERN RAILROAD, SHILOH - NORTHWEST CORNER
Over .7 V/C 1998 - Buena Vista Rd. Columbus Over .7 V/C 1998 - Flatrock Rd south of US 80 Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-185 btwn. SR 85 and SR 22 Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-185 btwn. US 280 and Buena Vista Rd. Columbus Over .7 V/C 1998 - Macon Rd. NE of Columbus Over .7 V/C 1998 - River Rd. N of Downtown Columbus Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 22SP Wynnton Rd. btwn 13th St. and I-185 Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR85 (Manchester or US 27A) east of US 27 Over .7 V/C 1998 - St. Mary's Rd. btwn. Buena Vista Rd. and I-185 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 27 NE of Downtown Columbus Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 btwn AL/GA State Line and I-185 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US280 SE of Columbus Over .7 V/C 2025 - 13th Street Columbus west of Wynnton Rd. Over .7 V/C 2025 - Buena Vista Rd. Columbus Over .7 V/C 2025 - Flatrock Rd south of US 80 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-185 btwn. US 27 and US 280 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-185 btwn. US 80 and North County Line Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 22SP Wynnton Rd. btwn 13th St. and I-185 Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 411 South of I-185 Columbus Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR85 (Manchester or US 27A) east of US 27 Over .7 V/C 2025 - St. Mary's Rd. btwn. Buena Vista Rd. and I-185 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 27 from US 280 to North County Line Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 27 NE of Downtown Columbus Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn I-185 and US 27 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn SR85 and East County Line Over .7 V/C 2025 - US280 SE of Columbus US 280 SE of Columbus - Poor Road Conditions US 80 - Congestion btwn SR85 and East County Line SR 22 Spur from I-185 east for 2 miles SR 219 from US 80 to US 27 I-185 from SR 85 to SR 1 I-185 from SR 85 toSR 22 SPUR From Moon Rd. to the Harris County Line SR 22 Spur from I-185 to US 80/SR22 From Bradley Park Dr. in Columbus to Harris County Line I185 @ mpt 0.02 at intersection of I185 & U27 I185 @ mpt 0.20 North of the intersection of U27 & I185 I185 @ mpt 1.39 in between U27 & Old Cusseta

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders whitetopping whitetopping Shoulder

Table 5-1

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Upson Counties

LOCATION

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

MAP COUNTY CODE

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

379 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 1.73 iat intersection of I185 & Old Cusseta

X

X

380 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 2.65 South of the intersection of I185 & Saint Mary's Rd

X

X

381 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 2.98 North of the intersection of I185 & Saint Mary's Road

X

X

382 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 3.95 Intersection of I185 & Buena Vista Road

X

X

383 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 5.64 at intersection of I185 and Macon Rd.

X

X

384 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 5.65 at intersection of I185 and Macon Rd.

X

X

385 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 6.98 South of the intersection of U27A & I185

X

X

386 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 7.10 South of the intersection of U27A & I185

X

X

387 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 7.23 South of the intersection of U27A & I185

X

X

419 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 5.31 just North of LBuena and I185 intersection

X

X

420 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 5.61 just North of LBuena and I185 intersection

X

X

421 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 4.06 just North of LBuena and I185 intersection

X

X

422 Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 4.45 just South of the I185 and SR22SP intersection

X

X

423 Muscogee

I185

n/a Muscogee

I185

I185 @ mpt 4.49 just South of the I185 and SR22SP intersection I-185 and US 80

X

X

X

n/a Muscogee

I185

I-185 and US 27

X

n/a Muscogee

I185

I-185 and US 27A

X

n/a Muscogee

I185

I-185 and SR 22SP

X

n/a Muscogee

I185

I-185 and US 280

X

n/a Muscogee

U80

US 27A and US 80

X

n/a Muscogee

S22

BULL CREEK, 6 MILES EAST COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S22

I-185(SR411)-2 I-185 RMP, N. COLUMBUS BY-PASS EXIT 7(411)

X

n/a Muscogee

S22

I-185(SR411)-2 I-185 RMP, N. COLUMBUS - EXIT 4

X

n/a Muscogee

S22

SR 22 (US 80), OVER SR 22 @ 4.41E- NORTH COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

U80

SR 219 and US 80

X

n/a Muscogee

S1

I-185 (SR 411), N.W. COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S1

SR 1 (US 27), W. COLUMBUS UAB

X

n/a Muscogee

S1

SR 22- 2 SR 22 RAMPS, NORTH COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S219

ROARING BRANCH, N.N.W. COLUMBUS CITY LIMITS

X

n/a Muscogee

S219

HEIFERHORN CREEK, 14 MI NW OF DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S219

STANDING BOY CREEK, 10 MI N OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

CS 14006 CUSSETA RD- R.R, 6.9 MI SE OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8000 OLD CUSSETA ROAD, 6.8 MI SE OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

BULL CREEK TRIB., 3.8 MI SE OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

BULL CREEK, 3.5 MI NE OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8034 MORRIS RD-NOR-SOU, CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8026 EDGEWOOD ROAD, NORTH CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

CS 2202 COLLEGE DRIVE, CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

SR 85(US 27 ALT)(EXIT 7), SR 85- CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

LINDSEY CREEK TRIB., 3.8 MI NE OF COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8049 ARMOUR ROAD EXIT8, CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8050 AIRPORT THRUWAY, NORTH CENTRAL COLUMBUS EXIT8

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR., NORTHWEST COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR., .5 MI N OF SR 1- NORTH WEST COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8060 WHITTLESEY ROAD, NORTHWEST COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

HEIFERHORN CREEK, NORTH COLUMBUS.

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

M-8049 ARMOUR ROAD EXIT8, NORTH CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

I-185 (SR 411), CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

SR 22 SPUR (EXIT 6), MACON RD.- CENTRAL COLUMBUS

X

n/a Muscogee

S411

I-185 from US 27 to US 27A

X

n/a Muscogee

S520

M-8000 CUSTER ROAD, SE COLUMBUS CTY LIMITS

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

whitetopping Bridge
Full Depth Pavement Full Depth Pavement
Bridge Bridge
Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Weigh Stations

Table 5-1

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Upson Counties

LOCATION

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

MAP COUNTY CODE
n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee n/a Muscogee
202 Stewart
249 Stewart
254 Stewart
261 Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart n/a Stewart
205 Talbot
206 Talbot
226 Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot n/a Talbot
208 Taylor
208 Taylor
227 Taylor
244 Taylor
245 Taylor
301 Taylor
426 Taylor
69 Upson
185 Upson
185 Upson
215 Upson
216 Upson
228 Upson
247 Upson
255 Upson
256 Upson n/a Upson

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

S520 S520 S520 S520 S85 S85
S85 S85 U27 U280 U280 S27 US27 U 280 U 280 U 280 U 280 U280 S1 S27
S96 U80 U80 S22 S22 S22 S128 S128 S128
S96 S96 U80 U80 S137 U19 U19 128 U19 n U19 n U19 S36 U80 U80 S36 SR 36 Delray Road U19

I-185 (SR 411), S.E. COLUMBUS BULL CREEK, S. COLUMBUS UAB M-8007- CHATT. RIVER- RR, ALA-GA STATE LINE- WEST COLUMBUS SR 520 (US 27), COLUMBUS - SOUTHSIDE NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR., 2.7 MI NE OF JCT SR 1- EAST COLUMBUS M-8056 MILLER ROAD, 3.7 MI NE OF JCT SR 1- N.E COLUMBUS
SR 85 from SR 219 and US 27 SR 85 from US 27 and I-185 US 27 from the Stewart County Line to just north of US 80 US 280 through Stewart County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 and SR 520 and SR 27 - Bad Intersection SR A1327 near Sanford - Bad Bridge US 27 US 280 at East Broad Street in Richland US 280 at Bishop Johnson Road US 280 at Seminole Road US 280 at Ponders Street Drive US 280 at Georgia SW HANNAHATCHEE CREEK, 7 MILES N. LUMPKIN CSX RAILROAD, IN NE RICHLAND
SR 96 East County Line to US 80 - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Talbot County - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Talbot County - Congestion SOUTH FORK UPATOI CREEK, 1 MI N OF GENEVA POTTERS CREEK, 10.1 MI E OF TALBOTTON SR 22 (US 80), IN TALBOTTON CITY LIMITS PATSILIGA CREEK OVERFLOW, .5 MI N OF REYNOLDS PATSILIGA CREEK, .7 MI N OF REYNOLDS FLINT RIVER, 8 MI N OF REYNOLDS
A Pair of Truck Weigh Stations SR 96 through Taylor County - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Taylor County - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Taylor County - Congestion SR 137 and Bulter Bypass - Bad Intersection US 19 and Butler Bypass - Bad Intersection US 19 at Southern Railway SR 128 at Southern Railway Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 19 south of Thomaston Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 19 south of Thomaston Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 19 north of Thomaston SR 36 - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Upson County - Poor Road Conditions US 80 through Upson County - Congestion US 19 and SR 36 in Thomaston - Bad Intersection SR 36 from Thomaston to Barnesville Delray Road in Upson County US 19 from just north of Taylor County line to Thomaston

INTERVIEW
X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
X X X X X X X X X

CONGESTION/ CAPACITY

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

SAFETY
X X X X
X X X
X X X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge whitetopping Bridge Bridge

X

1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge
X X

Ellaville

Preston

Americus

Dawson

Leesburg

Vienna Cordele

Ellaville

Preston

Americus

Dawson

Leesburg

Vienna Cordele

Ellaville

Preston

Americus

Dawson

Leesburg

Vienna Cordele

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
38 Crisp 129 Crisp 130 Crisp 130 Crisp 131 Crisp 191 Crisp 221 Crisp 370 Crisp 371 Crisp 372 Crisp 373 Crisp 374 Crisp n/a Crisp 133 Dooly 155 Lee 156 Lee 157 Lee 195 Lee 196 Lee 262 Lee 181 Sumter 182 Sumter 183 Sumter 203 Sumter 204 Sumter 204 Sumter 204 Sumter 204 Sumter 225 Sumter 225 Sumter 225 Sumter 264 Sumter 265 Sumter 266 Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter n/a Sumter 210 Terrell 211 Terrell 212 Terrell 263 Terrell 283 Terrell 217 Webster 250 Webster 253 Webster 271 Webster 284 Webster

Table 5-2

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor:Crisp, Dooly, Lee, Schley, Sumter, Terrell, Webster Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

I75 I75 U41 S7W U280 U280 U280 I75 I75 I75 I75 I75 U280 I75 S118 S377 U19 S32 S32 US 19 S377 U280 e U280 w S49 U280 U280 e U280 w U280 U280 e U280 w U280 SR 49 SR 27 US 280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 S27 S27
S32 S49 U82 SR 32 SR 520 U280 S153 U280 US 280 SR 41

Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-75 through Crisp County Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 through Crisp County Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 7 Cordele Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 7 Cordele Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 280 Cordele US 280 through Crisp County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 West County Line to I-75 - Congestion I75 @ mpt 9.29 Intersection of I75 & GA300 I75 @ mpt 11.05 South of the intersection of U280 & I75 I75 @ mpt 11.19 North of the intersection of U280 & I75 I75 @ mpt 11.21 North of the intersection of U280 & I75 I75 @ mpt 11.26 North of the intersection of U280 & I75 US 280 from Joe Wright Drive to Midway Road in Cordele Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 in Dooly County Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 118 btwn. SR 377 and Smithville Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 377 btwn. North County Line and SR 118 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 19 btwn. Smithville and Leesburg SR 32 btwn. US 19 and SR 91 - Poor Road Conditions SR 32 East County Line to US19 - Poor Road Conditions US 19 from Smithville to Leesburg Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 377 S of Americus Over .7 V/C 2025 - US280 EB btwn US19 & SR377 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US280 WB btwn SR 377 &SR49 in Americus SR 49 Poor Road Conditions US 280 through Sumter County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 through Sumter County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 through Sumter County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 through Sumter County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 Americus to E county line congestion US 280 Americus to E county line congestion US 280 Americus to E county line congestion County line to county line County line to county line County line to County line US 280 between US 19 south and US 19 split US 280 between US 19 and SR 49 north US 280 at SR 49 South US 280 through Plains (around peanut processing plants) US 280 at SR 45 in Plains US 280 at Hospital Street NORFOLK R/R, IN W AMERICUS FLINT RIVER- CR 301, 13.6 MILES EAST AMERICUS
SR 32 Dawson to East County Line - Poor Road Conditions SR 49 btwn SR 45 and Sumter County Line - Poor Road Conditions US 82 Dawson to Randolph County Line - Poor Road Conditions SR 32 to I75 SR 520 just north of SR 32 US 280 through Webster County - Poor Road Conditions SR 153 - Bad Bridge US 280 East of Dumas - Bad Bridge US 280 SR 41 and US 280

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge X

X X
X X

Knoxville

Macon

Fort Valley

Perry

Jeffersonville

Oglethorpe

Hawkinsville

Macon
Knoxville Fort Valley Perry

Jeffersonville

Oglethorpe

Hawkinsville

Macon

Knoxville Fort Valley
Oglethorpe

Jeffersonville Perry
Hawkinsville

LOCATION MAP COUNTY CODE
1 Bibb 2 Bibb 3 Bibb 4 Bibb 5 Bibb 6 Bibb 7 Bibb 8 Bibb 9 Bibb 10 Bibb 11 Bibb 12 Bibb 13 Bibb 14 Bibb 15 Bibb 16 Bibb 17 Bibb 70 Bibb 71 Bibb 72 Bibb 73 Bibb 74 Bibb 75 Bibb 76 Bibb 77 Bibb 78 Bibb 79 Bibb 80 Bibb 81 Bibb 82 Bibb 83 Bibb 84 Bibb 85 Bibb 86 Bibb 87 Bibb 88 Bibb 89 Bibb 90 Bibb 90 Bibb 91 Bibb 92 Bibb 93 Bibb 93 Bibb 186 Bibb 220 Bibb 242 Bibb 258 Bibb 339 Bibb 340 Bibb 342 Bibb 343 Bibb 344 Bibb 346 Bibb

Table 5-3

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor:Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski, Twiggs Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

LHoust I16 I475 I75 I75 I75 S49 S74 U129 U23 U41 U41 U41 U41 S19 w U80 U80 LBASS LHARTL LHoust I16 I475 I75 I75 I75 LMt_Pl S49 S74 S758 U129 U129 U23 U41 U41 U41 U41 U41 S19 w U41BR U80 U80 U80 U80 U80 U80 I16 SR 49 I75 I75 I75 I75 I75 I75

Over .7 V/C 1998 - Houston Rd. btwn. South County Line and US 41 Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-16 Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-475 through Bibb County Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-75 btwn. US 41 and I-16 Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-75 NW of Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-75 south of I-475 Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 49 North of Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 74 btwn. I-475 and Heath Rd. Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 129 North of Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 23 NW of Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 41 btwn. Houston Rd. and US 129 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 41 btwn. SR 247 and Bass Rd. West of Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 41 btwn. US 129 and I-75 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 41 South of US 129 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 41/SR 19 btwn. SR 247 and Downtown Macon Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 btwn. US 129 and I-16 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 NE of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - Bass Rd. btwn. SR 74 and I-75 Over .7 V/C 2025 - Hartley Bridge Rd. btwn. I-75 and Houston Rd. Over .7 V/C 2025 - Houston Rd. btwn. South County Line and US 41 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-16 Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-475 through Bibb County Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 btwn. US 41 and I-16 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 NW of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 south of I-475 Over .7 V/C 2025 - Mt. Pleasant Church Rd. West of I-75 Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 49 North of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 74 btwn. I-475 and Heath Rd. Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 758 (Eisenhower East of US 129) Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 129 btwn. US 41 and US 80 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 129 North of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 23 NW of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 btwn. Houston Rd. and US 129 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 btwn. I-75 and SR 247 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 btwn. SR 247 and Bass Rd. West of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 btwn. US 129 and I-75 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 South of US 129 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41/SR 19 btwn. SR 247 and Downtown Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41/SR 19 btwn. SR 247 and Downtown Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn. I-75 and US 129 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn. US 129 and I-16 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 NE of Macon Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 NE of Macon US 80 East of I-475 - Poor Road Conditions US 80 East of I-475 - Congestion I-16 and I-75 - Bad Intersection SR 49 from Houston County line to 247 I75 @ mpt 3.4 near Hartley Bridge Rd. I75 @ mpt 10.72 near Mercer University Drive I75 at mpt 13.24 near I16 I75 @ mpt 14.97 near the intersection of I75 & SR 247 I75 @ mtp 15.2 near intersection of I75 and SR247 I75 @ mpt 17.28 between Arkwright and Red Oak

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
347 Bibb 348 Bibb 349 Bibb 350 Bibb 351 Bibb 352 Bibb 392 Bibb 393 Bibb 394 Bibb 395 Bibb 396 Bibb n/a Bibb 190 Crawford 190 Crawford 246 Crawford 288 Crawford n/a Crawford n/a Crawford n/a Crawford n/a Crawford n/a Crawford
45 Houston 46 Houston 47 Houston 48 Houston 49 Houston 144 Houston 145 Houston 146 Houston 147 Houston 148 Houston 149 Houston 150 Houston 151 Houston 194 Houston 243 Houston 259 Houston 260 Houston 275 Houston 277 Houston 279 Houston 293 Houston 294 Houston 320 Houston 321 Houston 322 Houston 323 Houston 334 Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston

Table 5-3

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor:Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski, Twiggs Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

I16

I16 @ mpt 1.16 near the intersection of US41 & I16

I475

I475 @ mpt .73 near the intersection of I75 & I475

I475

I475 @ mpt 3.78 at Chambers Rd.

I475

I475 @ mpt 3.99 @ US80

I475

I475 @ mpt 5.7 near S74

U41

US41 at the intersection of US41 and Liberty Church

I75

I75 @ mpt 9.91 just South of the I75 and US80 intersection

I75

I75 @ mpt 10.08 just North of the I75 and US80 intersection

I75

I75 @ mpt 10.47 just North of the I75 and US80 intersection

I16

I16 @ mpt .43 near the I16 &!75 intersection

I16

I16 @ mpt .44 near the I16 &!75 intersection

n/a

All major roads E of I-75 (incl. I-75) in Bibb County - Congestion

U80

US 80 through Crawford County - Poor Road Conditions

S96

SR 96 through Crawford County - Poor Road Conditions

U341 S96 S22

US 341 and SR 128 - Bad Intersection SR 96 at NS Railroad BAILEY BRANCH, 8 MI W OF ROBERTA

S22

ULCOHATCHEE CREEK, 6 MI W OF ROBERTA

S22

ECHECONNEE CREEK, 10 MI NE OF ROBERTA

S7

CR 117, 9 MI N OF ROBERTA

S96

MACOMIS CREEK, 10 MI S OF ROBERTA

Lhoust S127 S247C

Over .7 V/C 1998 - Houston Lakes Blvd. SR 96 to US 41 Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 127 Perry Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 247 C btwn. US 41 to US 129

S96 U129 Lhoust I75

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 96 btwn. Houston Lakes and US 129 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 129 btwn SR 247C and SR 96 Over .7 V/C 2025 - Houston Lakes Blvd. SR 96 to US 41 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 through Houston County

S127 S247C S96 U129 U41 U41 S96

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 127 Perry Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 247 C btwn. US 41 to US 129 Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 96 btwn. Houston Lakes and US 129 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 129 btwn SR 247C and SR 96 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 btwn. Perry and I-75 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 41 Perry SR 96 through Houston County - Poor Road Conditions

U129 SR 96 SR 247 US 341

US 129 and SR 96 - Bad Intersection SR 96 SR 247 US 341 crossing the main CSX line in Houston

Houston Lake RHoaoduston Lake Rd at SR 49

SR 96

SR 96 at South Houston Lake Road

S96

SR 96 at Southern Railway

S824

SR 824 from I-75 to just west of the Pulaski County Line

U129 U341 U41 S824

US 129 from SR 127 to Lrusse US 341 from Pulaski County line to SR 112 US 41 from SR 866 to SR 247C SR 824 from I-75 to 2 miles east of I-75

U341 n/a S96

US 341 from Peach County Line to I-75 All major roads N of SR 96 (incl. SR 96) in Houston County - Congestion OCMULGEE RIVER, 3.3 MILES EAST BONAIRE

S96

SR 96 from Peach County Line to SR 247

S96

SR 96 from SR 247 to Twiggs County Line

S96

SR 96 from Peach County Line to SR 247

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1998 Shoulders whitetopping whitetopping Bridge Bridge Bridge

X X
1998 Shoulders 1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge whitetopping Bridge Bridge Bridge
Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston n/a Houston
198 Macon
248 Macon
68 Peach
179 Peach
180 Peach
201 Peach
257 Peach
274 Peach
276 Peach
334 Peach
388 Peach
389 Peach
390 Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach n/a Peach
270 Pulaski
335 Pulaski
336 Pulaski
214 Twiggs
278 Twiggs
302 Twiggs
302 Twiggs
338 Twiggs n/a Twiggs n/a Twiggs n/a Twiggs n/a Twiggs

Table 5-3

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor:Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski, Twiggs Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

S11 S11 S247 S401 S401 S7
S26 S49 I75 I75 S247C S96 SR 96 SR 96 Bluebird U341 I75 I75 I75 S49C I75 I75 S401 S96 S96 S96
Hwy 247 U129 U129A S96 SR 96 S96 S96 U23 I16 S404 S96 S96

SOUTHERN RAILROAD, 6.9 MI SE OF PERRY SR 11 (US 341), 7 MI SE OF PERRY BIG INDIAN CREEK, 9 MILES SOUTHEAST PERRY SR 7 (US 41), 4 MILES SOUTHWEST ELKO SR 7 (US 341), PERRY - NW SECTION BIG INDIAN CREEK, PERRY - CENTER SECTION
SR 26 - Poor Road Conditions btwn Montezuma and East County Line SR 49 and SR 26 - Bad Intersection Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-75 North County Line to SR 49 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-75 through Peach County Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 247C I-75 to East County Line SR 96 through Peach County - Poor Road Conditions SR 96 in Peach to Fort Valley US 41 at SR 96 Bluebird at 341, 96, and 49 US 341from Houston County Line to Fort Valley I75 @ mpt 9.1 at intersection of I75 & SR49 I75 @ mpt 9.12 at intersection of I75 & SR49 I75 @ mpt 9.22 at intersection of I75 & SR49 SR 49C at Southern Railway I-75 and SR 96 I-75 and US 341 I-75, 2 MI NE OF BYRON SR 96 From Fort Valley to I-75 SR 96 from I-75 to Houston County Line SR 96 From Fort Valley to I-75
Hwy 247 from US 341 to SR 96 From SR 247SP to SR 26 From Bleckley County Line to Sr 257 SR 96 East County Line to I-16 - Poor Road Conditions SR 96 at I-16 SR 96 at Norfolk Southern SR 96 at Wilmington Terminal Railroad Inc. From SR 96 to Bleckley County Line I-16 and SR 96 CR 71, 3.6 MI N OF BULLARD I-16 (SR 404), 4.5 MI S OF JEFFERSONVILL SR 96 From Houston County Line to I-16

INTERVIEW
X X X X X X
X X X

TECHNICAL
X X X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
X X X X X X

CONGESTION/ CAPACITY
X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SAFETY
X X X X
X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge

Shoulder

Bridge

Bridge

Bridge

Bridge

X X
Bridge
Bridge
at-grade railroad crossing
X Bridge Bridge
1998 at-grade railroad crossing 1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge

Irwinton
Cochran Eastman
Abbeville

Wrightsville Dublin

Irwinton
Cochran Eastman
Abbeville

Wrightsville Dublin

Irwinton
Cochran Eastman
Abbeville

Wrightsville Dublin

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
303 Bleckley 304 Bleckley n/a Bleckley
132 Dodge 192 Dodge n/a Dodge
50 Laurens 51 Laurens 152 Laurens 153 Laurens 154 Laurens 222 Laurens 239 Laurens 240 Laurens 280 Laurens 281 Laurens 295 Laurens 295 Laurens 296 Laurens 296 Laurens 324 Laurens 325 Laurens 326 Laurens 327 Laurens 328 Laurens 329 Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens n/a Laurens
219 Wilcox n/a Wilcox 241 Wilkinson

Table 5-4

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bleckley, Dodge, Johnson, Laurens, Wilcox, Wilkinson Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

U129A U23 S26
U23 U280 U280 S257 U80 S257 U319 U80 U80 U319 S257 US 441 US 80 U80 U80 U319 U319 U319 U319 U80 U441 S19 S257 I16 I16 S19 S26 S26 S26 S26 S31
U280 U280 U441

From Pulaski County Line to Cochran From Twiggs County Line to SR 26 GUM SWAMP CREEK, 6.2 MI NE OF COCHRAN
Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 23 SE of Eastman US 280 through Dodge County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 has a speed limit of 25 MPH through town of Rhine Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 257 SW of Dublin Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 Dublin Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 257 SW of Dublin Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 319/US 441 South of Dublin Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 Dublin US 80 Dublin - Congestion SR 117 and US 441 South of Dublin - Bad Intersection I-16 and SR 257SW of Dublin - Bad Intersection Industrial Blvd at US 441 Industrial Blvd at US 80 US 80 from SR 257 west 2 miles US 80 from US 441 to 2 miles east of US 441 US 319 from I-16 to just south of US 80 US 319 from I-16 to 2 1/2 miles south of I-16 US 319 from SR 117 to I-16 US 319 from US 80/SR 26 to Johnson County Line SR 19/US 80 From SR 338 to US 441 US 441 from US 80 to SR 338 (GRIP) SR 19 from I-16 to US 80 SR 257 from I-16 to US 80 I-16 and SR 257 I-16 and US 319 I-16 (SR 404), 3.8 MI S OF DUBLIN I-16 (SR 404), 2.1 MI SE OF MONTROSE OCONEE RIVER, NE DUBLIN CITY LIMITS OCONEE RIVER OVERFLOW, EAST DUBLIN INDIAN BRANCH, 5.2 MI SE OF BREWTON I-16 (SR 404), 4 MI S OF DUBLIN
US 280 through Wilcox County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 at-grade railroad crossing east of Rochelle US 441 and SR 57 - Bad Intersection in Irwinton

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1998 at-grade railroad crossing

1998 Shoulders

Bridge

Bridge

X X
1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders whitetopping whitetopping whitetopping whitetopping whitetopping whitetopping Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

Swainsboro Soperton

Metter

Alamo McRae

Mt. Vernon

Lyons

Reidsville

Claxton

McRae

Swainsboro Soperton

Metter

Alamo

Mt. Vernon

Lyons

Reidsville

Claxton

Swainsboro Soperton

Metter

Alamo McRae

Mt. Vernon

Lyons

Claxton Reidsville

Table 5-5

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Truetlen, Wheeler Counties

LOCATION

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

MAP COUNTY CODE
311 Candler n/a Candler n/a Candler n/a Candler n/a Candler n/a Candler 39 Emanuel 135 Emanuel 136 Emanuel 291 Emanuel 315 Emanuel 316 Emanuel n/a Emanuel n/a Emanuel n/a Emanuel n/a Emanuel 193 Evans 292 Evans 317 Evans n/a Evans n/a Evans n/a Evans 199 Montgomery 223 Montgomery 272 Montgomery 330 Montgomery 207 Tattnall n/a Tattnall 209 Telfair 267 Telfair 268 Telfair 269 Telfair n/a Telfair n/a Telfair 184 Toombs 213 Toombs 273 Toombs 285 Toombs 337 Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs n/a Toombs

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

S23 I16 S129 S23 S404 S404 U1 U1 U80 U1 U1 U1 I16 S404 S404 S297 U280 U25 U25 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 US 280 S15 U280 U280 U280 US 280 US 341 US 441 U280 U280 U280 U280 US 280 US 1 U1 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280 U280

SR 23 fro I-16 to Tattnall County Line I-16 and SR 23 I-16 (SR 404), 1.6 MI S OF METTER I-16 (SR 404), 1.6 MI S OF METTER SR 57, 6.2 MI SW OF METTER CR 49, 7.5 MI SE OF METTER Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 1 Swainsboro Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 1 Swainsboro Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 Swainsboro US 1 at Southern Railway US 1 from I-16 to US 80 US 1 from I-16 to Toombs County Line I-16 and US 1 SR 4 (US 1), 2.8 MI N OF OAK PARK SR 4 (US 1), 3 MI N OF OAK PARK I-16 (SR 404), 6 MI NW OF OAK PARK US 280 through Evans County - Poor Road Conditions US 25 from Bulloch County Line to 8 miles south Bulloch County Line to Claxton US 280 at-grade railroad crossing in Bellville US 280 at SR 22 US280 from US 25 to Dean Road US 280 through Montgomery County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 SR 15 to East County Line - Congestion US 280 in Montgomery SR 15 from Treutlen County Line to Vidalia US 280 through Tattnall County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 from Griffin Road to SR 56 in Reidsville US 280 through Telfair County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 I 16 at US 341 US 441 from McRae to Dublin US 280 at Sugar Creek US 280 from US 441 to US 341 and through Downtown McRae Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 280 West of Vidalia US 280 through Toombs County - Poor Road Conditions US 280 in Toombs Intersection of US 1 SR 130 US 1 Emanuel County Line to US 280 US 280 from Brinson St. to Harris Ind. Blvd. In Vadalia US 280 at Darden Street US 280 at Moseley Street US 280 at Green Street US 280 at Truman Street US 280 at Queen Street US 280 at Leslie Street US 280 at Smith Street US 280 at Slayton Street US 280 at Broadfoor Blvd. US 280 at Main St./Rigsbee Drive US 280 at Maple Drive US 280 at McNatt Street US 280 from Bank Avenue to 2000 feet east of US 1/SR 4 in Lyons

INTERVIEW
X
X X X X X X X X
X X X

TECHNICAL
X X X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X

CONGESTION/ CAPACITY X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SAFETY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge Whitetopping Bridge Bridge

1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge
1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge
X X whitetopping

X

X

X

X

X
X X
Bridge
X X X X X X X X X X X X

Table 5-5

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Truetlen, Wheeler Counties

LOCATION

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

MAP COUNTY CODE

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

237 Treutlen

S199

SR 199 and SR 46 South of Lothair - Bad Intersection

X

n/a Treutlen

S15

SR 15 from I-16 to Montgomery Couty Line

n/a Treutlen

S404

CR 166, 3.3 MI NE OF SOPERTON

n/a Treutlen

S404

SR 56 (US 221), 6.8 MI NE OF SOPERTON

n/a Treutlen

S15

I-16 (SR 404), 3 MI N OF SOPERTON

n/a Treutlen

S29

I-16 (SR 404), 6 MI NW OF SOPERTON

n/a Treutlen

S29

SR 29, 2.8 MI NW OF SOPERTON

218 Wheeler

U280

US 280 through Wheeler County - Poor Road Conditions

X

238 Wheeler

U280

US 441 and US 280 - Bad Intersection

X

251 Wheeler

U319

US 441 north of US 280 - Bad Bridge

X

252 Wheeler

S19

SR 19 north of Glenwood - Bad Bridge

X

n/a Wheeler

U280

US 280 through downtown Alamo

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bridge

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Statesboro Pembroke Hinesville
Ludowici

Springfield Savannah

Darien Brunswick

Statesboro Pembroke
Hinesville Ludowici

Springfield Savannah

Darien Brunswick

Statesboro

Springfield Pembroke

Hinesville Ludowici

Savannah

Darien Brunswick

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
18 Bryan 94 Bryan 95 Bryan 96 Bryan 187 Bryan 353 Bryan 397 Bryan 398 Bryan 401 Bryan 402 Bryan 403 Bryan 404 Bryan 405 Bryan 406 Bryan 407 Bryan 408 Bryan 409 Bryan n/a Bryan n/a Bryan 97 Bulloch 98 Bulloch 99 Bulloch 100 Bulloch 236 Bulloch 291 Bulloch 305 Bulloch 306 Bulloch 307 Bulloch 308 Bulloch 309 Bulloch 310 Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch n/a Bulloch 19 Chatham 20 Chatham 21 Chatham 22 Chatham

Table 5-6

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

I95 I16 I95 U17 U280 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 S67 S30 S67 U301BY U301 U25 S24 U301 U25 U25 S67 U301BY S24 U25BY I16 I16 S67 S67 S73 U25 U25 U25 U301BY S119 S119 S24 S24 S24 S24 S404 S67 S73 LBAYLDeRen I16 I516

Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-95 South County Line to US 17 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-16 East County Line to US 280 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 through Bryan County Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 17 North of I-95 US 280 West County Line to I-16 - Poor Road Conditions I95 @ mpt 4.84 at the intersection of I95 & U17 I95 @ mpt 7.32 near the intersection of US17 & I95 I95 @ mpt 7.63 near the intersection of US17 & I95 I95 @ mpt 9.41 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 9.42 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 9.61 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 9.75 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 9.80 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 9.87 near the intersection of I95 and SR144 I95 @ mpt 10.82 between SR144 and the Bryan/Chatham County Line I95 @ mpt 10.89 between SR144 and the Bryan/Chatham County Line I95 @ mpt 11.44 between SR144 and the Bryan/Chatham County Line SR 67 at Wilmington Terminal Railroad Inc. I-16 (SR 404), 1.5 MI SW OF JCT SR 26 Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 67 Statesboro Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 301 Bypass of Statesboro Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 301 North of Statesboro Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 301/US 25 Statesboro Statesboro Bypass and SR 24 - Bad Intersection US 301 at NS Railroad I-16 to Evans County Line US 25 from Jenkins County Line to US 80 SR 67 from I-16 to US 301 Bypass US 301 Bypass from US 25 to SR 67 SR 24 from US 80/SR 26 to Screven County Line SR 25 Bypass I-16 and US 25 I-16 and SR 67 SR 67 at NS Railroad SR 67 from US 301 Bypass to US 25 SR 73 at NS Railroad US 25 at NS Railroad US 25 from Evans County Line to I-16 US 25 from I-16 to SR 67 US 301 Bypass from SR 67 to US 25 I-16 (SR 404), 13.3 MI SE OF BROOKLET OGEECHEE RIVER, 13.7 MI SE OF BROOKLET FLOYD BRANCH, 5 MI E OF STATESBORO SPRING CREEK, 8 MI E OF STATESBORO OGEECHEE RIVER, 13.7 MI SE OF BROOKLET MILL CREEK, 4.2 MI E OF STATESBORO FAS 733 DAISY ROAD, 9 MI SW OF BROOKLET I-16 (SR 404), 9 MI SW OF BROOKLET I-16 (SR 404), 3.8 MI SE OF REGISTER Over .7 V/C 1998 - Bay Street Savannah Over .7 V/C 1998 - De Renne Avenue Savannah Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-16 West of I-95 to Savannah Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-516

INTERVIEW X
X

TECHNICAL
X X X X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CONGESTION/ CAPACITY X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SAFETY
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Bridge Bridge
1998 at-grade railroad crossing 1998 at-grade railroad crossing Bridge
Bridge
Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge
Bridge

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
23 Chatham 24 Chatham 25 Chatham 26 Chatham 27 Chatham 28 Chatham 29 Chatham 30 Chatham 31 Chatham 32 Chatham 33 Chatham 34 Chatham 35 Chatham 36 Chatham 37 Chatham 101 Chatham 102 Chatham 103 Chatham 104 Chatham 105 Chatham 106 Chatham 107 Chatham 108 Chatham 109 Chatham 110 Chatham 111 Chatham 112 Chatham 113 Chatham 114 Chatham 115 Chatham 116 Chatham 117 Chatham 118 Chatham 119 Chatham 120 Chatham 121 Chatham 122 Chatham 123 Chatham 124 Chatham 125 Chatham 126 Chatham 127 Chatham 128 Chatham 188 Chatham 229 Chatham 230 Chatham 231 Chatham 232 Chatham 233 Chatham 235 Chatham 286 Chatham 286 Chatham 286 Chatham

Table 5-6

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

I95

Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-95 through Chatham County

X

X

S204SP

Over .7 V/C 1998 - Montgomery Rd.

X

X

Lmontg

Over .7 V/C 1998 - Montgomery St. Savannah

X

X

Lpresi

Over .7 V/C 1998 - President Street

X

X

Lskida

Over .7 V/C 1998 - Skidaway Rd.

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 204 (Abercorn)

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 204 btwn. US 17 and Veterans Parkway

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 204 btwn. Veterans Parkway and Montgomery Rd.

X

X

S21

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 21 btwn. I-95 and I-516

X

X

S25

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 25 North of SR 21

X

X

S307

Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 307 North of US 80

X

X

U17

Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 17 from I-16 to S.C.

X

X

U17

Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 17 South County Line to I-516

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 btwn. I-95 and SR 307

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 80 East of Skidaway

X

X

Lander

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Anderson St. Savannah

X

X

LBAY-

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Bay Street Savannah

X

X

LBROAD Over .7 V/C 2025 - Broad St. Savannah

X

X

LDeRen

Over .7 V/C 2025 - De Renne Avenue Savannah

X

X

I16

Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-16 West of I-95 to Savannah

X

X

I516

Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-516

X

X

I95

Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 through Chatham County

X

X

S204SP

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Montgomery Rd.

X

X

Lmontg

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Montgomery St. Savannah

X

X

Lpresi

Over .7 V/C 2025 - President Street

X

X

Lskida

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Skidaway Rd.

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 204 (Abercorn)

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 204 btwn. US 17 and Veterans Parkway

X

X

S204

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 204 btwn. Veterans Parkway and Montgomery Rd.

X

X

S21

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 21 btwn. I-95 and I-516

X

X

S21

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 21 North of I-95

X

X

S25

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 25 North of SR 21

X

X

S30

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 30 West of I-95

X

X

S307

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 307 btwn. I-16 and US 80

X

X

S307

Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 307 North of US 80

X

X

Ltruma

Over .7 V/C 2025 - Truman Parkway

X

X

U17

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 17 from I-16 to S.C.

X

X

U17

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 17 South County Line to I-516

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn. Abercorn and Truman Pkwy.

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 btwn. I-95 and SR 307

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 East of I-516

X

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 East of Skidaway

X

U80

Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 80 West County Line to I-95

X

X

I516

I-516 Poor Road Conditions

X

X

S307

SR 307 and Commerce - Bad Intersection

X

X

S307

US 80 and SR 307 - Bad Intersection

X

X

S204

I-516 and Abercorn - Bad Intersection

X

X

U80

Alfred Street and US 80 - Bad Intersection

X

X

I16

Chatham Parkway and I-16 - Bad Intersection

X

X

S21

SR 21 and I-95 - Bad Intersection

X

X

I516

I-516 from SR 21 to the SW Bypass (Veterans Pkwy.)

X

X

S21

SR 21 from US 80 to SR 307

X

X

S21

SR 21 between SR 307 and Effingham County Line

X

X

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders 1998 Shoulders

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
286 Chatham 287 Chatham 312 Chatham 354 Chatham 355 Chatham 356 Chatham 357 Chatham 358 Chatham 359 Chatham 360 Chatham 365 Chatham 366 Chatham 368 Chatham 369 Chatham 410 Chatham 411 Chatham 413 Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham n/a Chatham 134 Effingham 282 Effingham

Table 5-6

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

S21 I95 S25 I95 I16 I16 I16 I16 I16 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 I95 U17 I16 I16 I16 I516 I95 I-95 S21 S21 S25 U17 U80 U80 S21 S21 S25 S26 S26 S26 S26 S30 S307 S404 S404 S404 S404 S405 S405 S405 S405 S405 S405 S405 S405 I16 US 80

SR 21 from SR 204 to I-516 I-95 between US 80 and SR 21 SR 25 from SR 21 to South Carolina State Line I95 @ mpt 7.24 at the intersection of I95 & U17 I16 @ mpt 10.09 Near the intersection of I16 & SR307 I16 @ mpt 10.24 near the intersection of I16 & SR307 I16 @ mpt 10.25 near the intersection of I16 & SR307 I16 @ mpt 12.34 West of the intersection of I16 & I516 I16 @ mpt 12.56 West of the intersection of I16 & I516 I95 @ mpt 15.19 SW of Meinhard Rd I95 @ mpt 16.42 SW of intersection of I95 & SR21 I95 @ mpt 16.69 near intersection of I95 & SR21 I95 @ mpt 17.0 @ intersection of SR 21 & I95 I95 @ mpt 17.69 near intersection of SR21 & I95 I95 @ mpt 7.71 near the intersection of I95 & I16 I95 @ mpt 7.42 near the intersection of I95 & I16 I95 @ mpt 9.94 near the intersection of I95 & U80 US 17 from SR 25C to South Carolina State Line I-16 and I-95 I-16 and I-516 I-16 and SR 307 I-516 and SR 25C I-95 and US 80 I-95 and SR 21 SR 21 and SR 204 SR 21 and SR 307 SR 25 and SR 307 US 17 and SR 25C US 80 and SR 21 US 80 from Effingham County to SR 25C SR 21, PORT WENTWORTH - W SECT. SR 21, N SECTION OF GARDEN CITY SAVANNAH RIVER, 1 MI NE OF PORT WENTWORT CSX RAILROAD (641173J), W SECTION OF SAVANNAH RAILROAD REMOVED, IN W SECTION OF SAVANNAH CSX RAILROAD (641183P), IN GARDEN CITY LAZERATTO CREEK, 10 MI SE OF SAVANNAH CSX RAILROAD, 1.5 MI W INT I-95 & SR 21 I-16 (SR 404), 5 MI W OF SAVANNAH CR 674- CSX RAILROAD, 2 MI W OF SAVANNAH CR 654 TREMONT AVE- CSX, .25 MI W OF SAVANNAH M-4079 GWINNETT STREET, W CITY LIMITS OF SAVANNAH M-4052- CS 1506 W BROAD, IN CITY LIMITS SAVANNAH SR 204, 9 MI SW OF SAVANNAH I-16 (SR 404), 7 MI W OF SAVANNAH CSX RAILROAD, 10 MI NE OF SAVANNAH SR 26 (US 80), 10.5 MI NW OF SAVANNAH AUGUSTINE CREEK, 1.6 MI S OF JCT SR 21 CSX RAILROAD, 1.4 MI S OF JCT SR 21 CSX RAILROAD, 1.3 MI S OF JCT SR 21 SR 21, INT I-95 & SR 21 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-16 through Effingham County Bridge over Ogeechee River at US 80

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC

ADDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

INFORMATION

1998 Shoulders

1998 Shoulders

Bridge
Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge
Full Depth PCC Pavement Full Depth PCC Pavement Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge whitetopping whitetopping Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge whitetopping whitetopping
X

LOCATION
MAP COUNTY CODE
289 Effingham 289 Effingham 289 Effingham 313 Effingham 314 Effingham 414 Effingham 415 Effingham 416 Effingham 417 Effingham 418 Effingham n/a Effingham n/a Effingham
40 Glynn 41 Glynn 42 Glynn 43 Glynn 44 Glynn 137 Glynn 138 Glynn 139 Glynn 139 Glynn 140 Glynn 141 Glynn 142 Glynn 424 Glynn 425 Glynn 52 Liberty 53 Liberty 54 Liberty 158 Liberty 159 Liberty 160 Liberty 161 Liberty 162 Liberty 163 Liberty 197 Liberty 234 Liberty 297 Liberty n/a Liberty n/a Liberty 55 McIntosh 164 McIntosh

Table 5-6

Deficiencies in the Central Georgia Corridor: Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh Counties

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

ISSUE CATEGORY

LOCATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION

INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL

ECONOMIC CONGESTION/

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

SAFETY

S21 S21 S119 U80 S119 S21 S21 S21 S21 S21 S21 S26 I95 S303 C582 U17 U25 Laltam I95 S303 S303 C582 U17 U25 I95 I95 I95 U17 U84 I95 I95 S119 S119 U17 U84 S196 S196 U84 S119 S38 I95 I95

SR 21 at CSX Railroad SR 21 from Chatham County to just south of SR 119 SR 119 at Southern Railway US 80 from Chatham County Line to Bryan County Line SR 119 from SR 17 to SR 21 SR21 @ mpt 11.84 near the intersection of SR21 & SR119 SR21 @ mpt 12.01 near the intersection of SR21 & SR119 SR21 @ mpt 12.06 near the intersection of SR21 & SR119 SR21 @ mpt 12.36 near the intersection of SR21 & SR119 SR21 @ mpt 9.74 near the intersection of SR21 & SR119 SR 21, .5 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD OGEECHEE RIVER OVERFLOW, 9 MI S OF GUYTON Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-95 btwn. SR 99 and North County Line Over .7 V/C 1998 - SR 303 Brunswick Over .7 V/C 1998 - Torras Causeway Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 17 Near Brunswick Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 25 NW of Brunswick Over .7 V/C 2025 - Altahana Avenue Brunswick Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 through Glynn County Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 303 Brunswick Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 303 Brunswick Over .7 V/C 2025 - Torras Causeway Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 17 Near Brunswick Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 25 NW of Brunswick I95 @ mpt 5.33 between SR303 &US25 I95 @ mpt 5.50 between SR303 &US25 Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-95 North ofUS 84 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 17 btwn. South County Line and I-95 Over .7 V/C 1998 - US 84 btwn. Hinesville and McIntosh Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 North of US 17 Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 North ofUS 84 Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 119 North of Hinesville Over .7 V/C 2025 - SR 199 West of Hinesville Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 17 btwn. South County Line and I-95 Over .7 V/C 2025 - US 84 btwn. Hinesville and McIntosh SR 196 McIntosh to US 17 - Poor Road Conditions SR 196 and US 84 McIntosh - Bad Intersection US 84 from I-95 to SR 144 RUSSELL SWAMP, 3.5 MI WEST OF RICEBORO I-95 (SR 405), 2 MI SE OF MIDWAY Over .7 V/C 1998 - I-95 through McIntosh County Over .7 V/C 2025 - I-95 through McIntosh County

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ECONOMIC

ADDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

INFORMATION

1998 at-grade railroad crossing

1998 at-grade railroad crossing

1998 Shoulders

Bridge whitetopping

1998 Shoulders whitetopping

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Infrastructure Standards
Two databases were queried in ArcView in reviewing the existing system for deficiencies, based on best practices identified in Chapter 3: The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and the Road Characteristics Database (RC file).
The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway transportation system database. The database includes detailed data for a sample of the arterial and collector functional systems and certain summary information for urbanized areas, small urban areas, and rural areas. The HPMS replaced numerous uncoordinated annual State data reports as well as biennial special studies conducted by each State. A major purpose of the HPMS is to provide data that reflects the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's highways.1
The RC file is an inventory of roadway characteristics for state and federally designated roads in Georgia. The roadway network is segmented by mile markers and includes, but is not limited to, geographic location, geometric characteristics, operation characteristic, maintenance responsibilities, and historical traffic count information.
Deficiencies were analyzed for three roadway types: freeways, four-lane divided GRIP Roads, and two-lane roadways not on the GRIP System. Each deficiency was identified in ArcView using the following pavement best practices:
Wide outside shoulders for freeways 10 ft. minimum, 12 ft. desirable Full depth shoulders Portland cement concrete (PCC) or whitetopping for mainline Concrete pavement or whitetopping on interchange ramps and intersections in areas of
high truck traffic
Pavement Deficiencies
Pavement deficiencies for this project were analyzed with regard to pavement thickness, pavement type, shoulder width, number of lanes, and traffic volume data. Freeway sections for HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads were identified for deficiencies based upon the best practices established for this study. Appendix I provides inside and outside shoulder width deficiencies that vary for two or three through lane sections.

1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmspage.htm

June 2002

5-46

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 5-7 Six-Lane Freeways with Deficient Shoulders

Inside shoulders on six-lane freeways would ideally be wider than the shoulders on four-lane freeways. Figure 5-7 indicates six-lane freeways in the study area with inside shoulders out of the range of the study's best practices and therefore deficient:

I-185 in Columbus I-75 in Macon I-95 in Savannah I-16 in Savannah U.S. 80 in Columbus

Upgrading the shoulder standards will not be possible on every section of freeway identified. Upgrading the shoulders on the six-lane section of I-185 in Columbus will be difficult due the right of way constraints along the corridor. However, as improvements are identified along the freeway system, upgrading the inside shoulder to ten feet is recommended to provide and adequate and safe space for vehicles to pull off the freeway.

June 2002

5-47

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Full Depth Pavement for Shoulders
The majority of the connecting roads on HPC 6 do not provide full depth shoulders. Routes carrying high traffic volumes would benefit from having full depth shoulder pavement, but the majority of the roadways on HPC 6 do not.
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
Of the 1,250-centerline miles of interstate in Georgia, there are approximately 500 miles of PCC pavement. Large portions of the interstates on HPC 6 provide PCC pavement. There are a few minor sections that are composed of asphalt pavement. Ten miles of PCC pavement is provided on portions of I-185 near Columbus in Muscogee County. All of I-475 near Macon in Bibb County is constructed with PCC pavement. I-75 and I-16 on the HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads are constructed with PCC pavement.
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement on the Mainline
Portland cement concrete pavement can withstand higher volumes of traffic and this type of pavement surface would be beneficial on the HPC 6 mainline roadways (SR 96 and high volume connecting roads). The average surface life for concrete is 25 to 40 years, approximately 1 to 2 times greater than the service life of asphalt pavements.2 Currently, PCC is the pavement type used on the interstates (I-185, I-75, I-16, I-516, and I-95) in the study area.
Constructing the HPC 6 mainline on SR 96 between Fort Valley and I-16 with PCC pavement would provide a surface that would withstand the projected truck volumes for approximately 25 to 40 years. Providing PCC pavement on the entire mainline section of HPC 6 will allow trucks to operate better, faster, and cheaper with less down time for roadway repairs, providing a competitive advantage to the State of Georgia.
Whitetopping Key Intersections and Interchanges
Conventional whitetopping provides four inches or more of concrete overlay placed directly on top of existing asphalt pavement. At some intersections, ultra-thin whitetopping (UTM) could be used as well. UTM is a concrete overly, usually less than four inches thick placed on an asphalt surface that is prepared to enhance the bond between concrete and asphalt.3
Figure 4-8 shows interchange and intersection locations that would benefit from whitetopping. Twenty-eight locations were identified for whitetopping based on the amount of daily truck traffic. The majority of these locations are in Columbus and Savannah. A detailed list describing each whitetopping location is located in Appendices D, E, and, I.

2 Pavement Costs and Quality. Robert G. Packard, Concrete International, August 1994 3 Whitetopping State of Practice. Engineering Bulletin, American Concrete Pavement Association.

June 2002

5-48

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 5-8 Whitetopping locations on HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads

The benefits of whitetopping include superior service, long life, low maintenance, and improved safety. Whitetopping is traditionally used to repair the rutting, shoving, and tearing of asphalt pavement caused by trucks.

Bridge Best Practices There are several identified best practices to be utilized in building, repairing, and maintaining bridges. Some best practices are:
Replace bridges with a sufficiency rating of 50 or below. Bridges with a sufficiency rating of 60 or below are also likely candidates for replacement.
All bridges designed for at least HS-20 loads. No steel or continuous steel bridges. Adequate horizontal and vertical clearance for bridges. Smooth bridge ends to decrease dynamic loads on pavement.

June 2002

5-49

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Bridge Deficiencies
Each bridge on the HPC 6 mainline and on connecting roads was evaluated by analyzing the GDOT Bridge Management Inventory System (BMIS) database. The BMIS database provides data on various bridge characteristics. These characteristics can then be evaluated against AASHTO standards and the best practices created for this study to determine deficient bridges.
Additional truck volumes projected along HPC 6 will affect the bridges on the HPC 6 mainline and the connecting road system. The critical data used to evaluate bridge deficiencies were calculated load factor (H or HS loads), sufficiency rating, bridge structure type, and verticalclearance. If a bridge did not meet one of the bridge standards or best practices, it is identified as deficient. There are four critical areas that can trigger a bridge to be identified as deficient: a sufficiency rating of 60 or below, a load rating of less than HS-20, a bridge constructed with steel or continuous steel, and/or inadequate horizontal and vertical clearance. Using these principles, a total of 153 bridges, 34 bridges on the mainline and 119 on the connecting roads, were identified as deficient. Appendix F contains a complete list of all the deficient bridges on the mainline and connecting roads.
Railroad/Roadway Best Practices
Grade separation at all grade rail crossings along the HPC 6 mainline is important for the efficiency of freight movement by rail and by truck and for safety reasons. At grade rail crossings are a bottleneck for roadway vehicles and eliminating these crossings will provide for the efficient movement of truck borne freight. In addition, rail borne freight is slowed tremendously by at-grade intersections. This study identified two railroad crossing best practices:
Mainline grade separations at all railroad grade crossings. On connecting roads, use of pre-cast concrete panels at all railroad grade crossings
Railroad Deficiencies
Railroad crossing deficiencies were identified by using the railroad crossing inventory data provided by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and GDOT. Two measures were developed and used to evaluate each railroad crossing on the mainline and connecting roads. The first measure examined the safety of each railroad crossing and noted any needed safety improvements. Grade separations of vehicles and trains would provide the greatest level of safety. However, because of cost and adjacent properties, this is not always a viable option. Other safety options include the provision of adequate warning devices at each at-grade rail crossing, such as gates, lights, and bells. The second measure included smoothness of the rail crossing. Using prefabricated concrete panels is a GDOT standard, which provides a durable and smooth surface requiring less maintenance.

June 2002

5-50

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
The majority of the 50-programmed projects in the GDOT CWP consist of the installation of active warning devices such as gates, lights, and bells. A complete list of railroad crossing projects identified in the CWP is the Appendix C and railroad crossing deficiencies are located in Appendix G of this report.
Non-Programmed Deficient Railroad Crossings
A majority of the rail crossings along the HPC 6 mainline are grade separated. However, there are five at-grade rail crossings on the HPC 6 mainline between Columbus and Savannah. Four of the five at grade railroad crossings are located on SR 96 in Crawford, Houston, and Twiggs Counties and the remaining crossing is located on SR 49 Connector in Peach County. Grade separating all rail crossings located along the HPC 6 mainline would provide the most efficient freight corridor. Grade separations would improve the flow of goods and improve safety. Appendix G contains a list of at-grade railroad crossing identified on the mainline and connecting roads.
There are a total of 15 at-grade railroad crossings on the HPC 6 connecting roads. Providing grade separations on the connecting roads would be beneficial in improving the flow of goods but, from a cost standpoint, constructing them is not feasible. Improving safety on the connecting roads is feasible by providing, at minimum, gates, lights, and bells. Figure 5-9 shows at-grade railroad crossings on the HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads.
Pre-cast Concrete Panels
Road surface characteristics perform an important role in determining railroad-crossing improvements along this freight corridor. All at-grade crossings on the connecting roads should provide pre-cast concrete panels to provide a smoother ride. Due to the projected truck traffic on the connecting roads, the current asphalt or wood ties would require more maintenance attention than the pre-cast concrete panels.
Four Lane Divided GRIP Roads
There are seven GRIP routes located on the HPC 6 mainline and connecting roads. A table provided in Appendix I highlights potential bottleneck intersections and key intersections that would benefit from whitetopping. This table also identifies railroad crossings where grade separation would be beneficial. The table shows GRIP sections where full depth shoulders are recommended.

June 2002

5-51

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Figure 5-9 At-Grade Railroad Crossings on HPC 6 Mainline and Connecting Roads

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Issues

Intelligent Transportation Systems can best be described as a `concept' - a concept that includes the idea of utilizing technology and applying it in the field of transportation. This can include communications, sensors, information processing, controls, and other technology-based strategies to facilitate the movement of people, goods, and information to save time, lives and money. ITS can play a positive role in the enhancement of freight movement within and through central Georgia. These enhancements can ultimately lead to increased economic activity for the region. ITS technology deployments across the United States have demonstrated their ability to improve passenger and freight mobility, contribute greatly to the reduction of congestion and improve air quality, and allow for the rapid communication of life-saving emergency related information. Georgia DOT is committed to utilizing ITS strategies and has

June 2002

5-52

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

developed a 20 year ITS Strategic Plan as well as an ITS for Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) Business Plan. Both of these plans have outlined Georgia DOT's intention to utilize advanced technology to improve Georgia's transportation system and increase the safety of its citizens.

Corridor ITS Deficiencies/Opportunities

There are several areas along the Georgia freight corridor that can benefit from the deployment of ITS strategies. During the course of this study, three primary opportunities continue to surface with respect to ITS deficiencies. Potential ITS solutions can improve safety, increase information flows, and enhance freight flows in central Georgia.

Safety

ITS safety enhancement opportunities along the corridor surfaced in numerous locations. Rural highways in central Georgia support freight movements from many industries. In addition to accommodating central Georgia based industries; these same highways are used by through freight traffic. The logging industry in the central Georgia region relies heavily on trucking and quite often those trucks are required to enter the highway from temporary access points with limited sight visibility and/or without any acceleration lanes. The only `protection' these loaded trucks have before entering a two lane highway is a small portable flag at roadside. Quite often these flags are difficult to read or are dirty. These flags are placed at the roadside and remain day and night. This can create a safety hazard for all involved. Local traffic becomes accustomed to viewing these flags at all hours including those hours when there is no logging truck activity. This can lead to decreased effectiveness of any caution/warning properties of the flag.

Georgia, like many other states, must deal with sections of highway that are prone to fog conditions. Fog conditions combined with high speed truck traffic and numerous local roads and residential driveways entering directly onto the highway can lead to what are often times fatal crashes. There are fog warning signs throughout the corridor but they are always present in good weather and bad and can tend to become `invisible' when they are needed most. ITS technologies exist

June 2002

5-53

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

today that can help reduce the safety risks associated with low visibility fog conditions.

Cold weather combined with precipitation can lead to icy roadways and can create horrific vehicular crashes when they involve heavy vehicles traveling at highway speeds. Many of central Georgia's highway bridges have "icy bridge" warning signs posted. These static warning signs are posted permanently. This means the same warning sign is present on days when the temperature is approaching 100 degrees and on days when the temperature is less than 30 degrees Fahrenheit. Much like the fog warning signs, the "icy bridge" warning signs can tend to become `invisible' when they are needed most. This is especially critical for bridges that are on a curve. ITS technologies exist today that can help reduce the safety risks associated with icy roadway conditions.

Stakeholder meetings conducted as part of this study identified at least one truck rollover zone. It is not uncommon for trucks to enter highway interchange ramps and underestimate the appropriate speed conditions for the type of load the truck is carrying. Due to the excessive superelevation in some ramps, trucks traveling too slowly can tip over due to a high center of gravity. In other cases trucks rollover because the degree of curvature is greater than average and truck drivers unfamiliar with the interchange enter at too high a rate of speed. ITS technologies exist today that can significantly reduce the number of truck rollover crashes.

June 2002

An obvious safety opportunity

was observed in the City of

Vidalia on US 280. Truck

traffic must pass underneath a

railroad bridge near the city

square. The clearance for this

bridge is 13'-7". Many trucks

have a standard height of 13'-

6". If trucks are equipped with

top mounted communications

systems, they can easily exceed

this height.

Accidents

resulting from exceeding

5-54

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

maximum clearance heights can produce safety hazards in three different ways. First, the truck can be damaged (this can be compounded if the truck is transporting hazardous cargo), second, any damage caused by a truck-bridge collision may cause traffic jams, and third, the truck can damage the railroad bridge reducing the structural integrity of the bridge.

Information Communication

Freight movement within and through the central Georgia corridor can be improved by supplying the right information, to the right people, at the right time. During the course of this study, several information communication deficiencies/opportunities became apparent.

The Port of Savannah is faced with some very serious but common challenges. Like most intermodal ports, the Port of Savannah has local rail access. While dockside rail can help reduce truck congestion entering and exiting the port area, it also creates tremendous congestion and delays. The Port of Savannah is experiencing unprecedented growth and has just recently surpassed the 1,000,000 TEU annual container movement benchmark. Approximately 3,100 trucks travel in and out of the Port of Savannah each day. The rail/truck ratio is approximately 15 percent rail and 85 percent truck. Approximately 70 percent of the truck traffic accessing the port is local and the remaining 30 percent are long distance carriers. According to the Georgia Ports Authority, the Port of Savannah will experience a 10 to 12 percent increase annually. This growth, while good for the local and state economy, greatly taxes the local transportation system. With the total number of truck movements increasing, delays in the port area are not limited to trucks - local passenger traffic is experiencing delays as well. As is the case with most ports across the United States, real estate near the port is at a premium and increasing the size of the terminal or increasing the roadway capacity is no longer a viable option in many cases. Given these constraints, the Port of Savannah has to develop a `freight smart' infrastructure to accommodate this growth.

With respect to port freight movement delays, all of the terminals in Savannah are impacted by rail movements. These delays are experienced within the terminals (rail traffic traversing within the terminals) and also at key locations surrounding the terminals causing trucks to be `trapped' at rail crossings on feeder roads between the terminals and the major highways. In some cases, these

June 2002

5-55

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

railroad crossings occur adjacent to signalized intersections creating hazardous conditions where a truck may be stopped on the railroad tracks at the same time the traffic signal has turned red.
The Fire Department in Garden City, GA is adjacent to Port of Savannah property. The location of this emergency facility is between two sets of railroad tracks serving the port. Any ITS solutions targeted toward freight movements at the Port of Savannah will also benefit the Garden City Fire Department. ITS technologies exist today that can significantly reduce the delays associated with railroad crossings in the vicinity of port operations.
In addition to the rail crossing challenges at the Port of Savannah, the Port Authority of Georgia has identified deficiencies in the area of signage. Many of the existing directional signs are inadequate and unclear. Non-local truck drivers delivering or picking up freight at the port have difficulty locating the port facilities. There are typically multiple terminals within a port and rarely does roadway signage provide directional information to specific terminals. It isn't unusual for a port to have terminals spread across a large municipal area. ITS technologies exist today that can significantly improve the dissemination of directional information to drivers serving the port.
During discussions with central Georgia corridor stakeholders, several high accident zones were identified. Not all of these accident `zones' apply exclusively to truck traffic but the presence of trucks can increase the severity of crashes. The reasons for these zones vary. In one case the presence of a shopping center, a fast food restaurant, and a high school co-located around an intersection serve as a recipe for danger and congestion when combined with high volumes of truck traffic moving along that section of highway. Still other cases were noted where roadway geometry contributes to the establishment of accident zones. Another zone exists where heavy truck traffic (in this case a rural truck stop) enters and exits the highway mixing with 55 MPH automobile traffic. ITS technologies exist today that can communicate the existence of these zones allowing the truck drivers to be on `high alert' when they are in the area.

June 2002

5-56

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Another information communication opportunity identified during the course of this study is advance knowledge of incidents or construction work along the freight corridor. Freight carriers entering the state in Columbus headed east or freight trips generating in Savannah or Brunswick headed west could be notified of potential delays along the corridor and given the opportunity to re-route when appropriate. The trucking industry values this type of information and acknowledges that this type of information contributes to the efficiency of JustIn-Time (JIT) delivery operations. Not all freight movements are as time critical as JIT operations but those markets that do depend on the timely delivery of goods rely on any advance information that may affect freight travel time. There are various ITS strategies that can deliver time critical information to the central Georgia corridor freight community.
Freight Flow Enhancements
Several opportunities exist in the central Georgia region to facilitate freight flows through the deployment of ITS technologies. Because much of the region is rural in nature, the major freight routes/highways travel through the hearts of cities and townships. In addition, many truck trip generation sites are co-located on rural roads with school bus stops and must share the same roadways/highways with local automobile traffic (work trips, shopping, etc.). Properties along the freight corridor experiencing large amounts of truck egress and ingress activity warrant special warning mechanisms to alert automobiles of the potentially drastic speed differentials.
Another freight flow enhancement directly benefiting trucking companies, as well as the involved state agencies, is expedited permit processing. It is not uncommon for freight trips generating or ending at Georgia ports and manufacturing plants to obtain special permits from state agencies. Trucks that are oversize or overweight require these permits to operate on Georgia roadways. This permit application and issuance process may take several days. Often times these permits require special time constraints (freight transport must occur during daylight hours) and may require escorts and detailed bridge analysis along the proposed route.
Each of these freight traffic challenges are candidates for various ITS strategies.

June 2002

5-57

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Conclusions
Hundreds of transportation deficiencies were found during the course of this study. Further categorization of these deficiencies and of potential solutions will be accomplished over the months of work during Phase 3 as the study team directs its attention to focus on specific project solutions.
Many of the deficiencies discovered during the course of Phase 2 fall into a category of recommended best practices for future construction or rehabilitation of existing intersections, roadways or bridges. These might be shoulder widening, including the inside shoulders of interstates; bridge replacements; intersection resurfacing; railroad crossing grade separations; and whitetopping.
Other deficiencies might be categorized as projects already in the pipeline for early completion, such as GRIP projects. Also, projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program could be included in this grouping.
There are some deficiencies however, that are not addressed in the foreseeable future by any current program. As the Central Georgia Corridor Study continues into Phase 3 the focus will narrow to these projects that are in need of champions and will make a measurable difference in the ability of the region to compete in terms of freight flow and trade.

June 2002

5-58

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

6 Public Involvement

Background and Purpose
The public involvement component of this study called for organizing stakeholder groups, meeting with local and regional governmental agencies and conducting general public information meetings at specific points throughout the study. Each group met with has been and will continue to be used to assist GDOT in identifying deficiencies and eventually in reviewing the final set of recommended strategies.
Key stakeholders were identified during Tasks 1.2 and 1.3 of the study. Project stakeholders were defined by identifying groups, citizens and establishments that will be directly impacted by the preferred strategies. This group includes shippers, receivers, and freight carriers across all freight modes. The stakeholder group also includes local governmental officials, chambers of commerce, and development authorities.
The consultant team has held two rounds of stakeholder meetings in the corridor, near the end of Phases 1 and 2. The intent of the meetings has been to learn from the citizens of the corridor of deficiencies in the movement of freight. The third meeting, near the end of Phase 3, will be to demonstrate to the stakeholders how their information was used and the program that resulted from their information and technical studies. The study team has worked with GDOT staff throughout the process to identify participants, locations and format of these meetings.
Newsletters summarizing the project status were distributed at the end of Phase 1 and another will be distributed to reflect the results of Phase 2. In addition to mailing out newsletters, they are also contained on the GDOT Office of Planning website.

Overview of the Approach / Methodology

In May 2002 six stakeholder meetings were held for the project. Phase 2 of the study examined transportation system deficiencies within the corridor and the stakeholders were utilized to review and comment on these deficiencies. The stakeholder group consists of 1890 members with professional backgrounds in government, industry, transportation, economic development, planning and engineering, public safety, trade, special interest, and tourism. The stakeholder group functions as an advisory group to the study team.

Stakeholder Meetings

The six stakeholder meetings were held in Americus, Columbus, Dublin, Macon, Savannah, and Vidalia. Over 200 stakeholders were invited to each meeting. Stakeholders received newsletter #2 to inform them of the progress of the project and they received a personal invitation to attend a stakeholder meeting in their area. The meeting locations were selected based on

June 2002

6-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
geographic dispersion of the stakeholders and proximity to regional growth engines. The Corridor encompasses 45 counties and with almost 1900 stakeholders the study team attempted to find locations relatively accessible to each of them. Figure 6-1 shows the six regions that were each covered by one of the meetings.
Meeting attendance was low, although good for a study focused on freight movement in this region. Minimum attendance at each meeting: 13 stakeholders in Americus, 18 in Columbus, 16 in Dublin, 22 in Macon, 15 in Savannah, and 22 in Vidalia.
The study team presented findings of Phase 2 and stakeholders were then divided into small groups with between four and eight persons each. At least one study team member was with each group. The stakeholders were asked to examine and discuss the deficiency maps and tables presented in Chapter 5 of this document. The GDOT Construction Work Program Maps were also available for stakeholders to use in reviewing programmed projects in the study area. The stakeholders reviewed the maps for accuracy in content. Each comment was recorded and is in the process of being addressed in Phase 3. The comments from each meeting can be found in Appendix I.
Stakeholders received the 2002-2003 State Map of Georgia, a handout of the PowerPoint presentation, and the Central Georgia Corridor Study overview document.
The purpose of the meeting was to review potential system deficiencies and identify gaps as well as understand how existing transportation work programs could address potential system deficiencies. Through the break out groups and the discussions afterward, the goals of the meetings were achieved.

June 2002

6-2

Figure 6-1: Stakeholder Regions

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

June 2002

6-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Figure 6:2 a-f: Photographs of Stakeholder Meetings

Columbus

Macon

Macon Dublin

Dublin Vidalia

June 2002

6-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Summary of Key Findings Stakeholders were helpful in identifying additional deficiencies but also challenged some "perceived" deficiencies. As an example, US 280 south of Columbus is categorized as "perceived poor road conditions." Stakeholders indicated that this was not in fact correct, and that the road was in good condition, although certain intersections were in need of improvement for a variety of reasons. Stakeholders also indicated additional areas of "perceived congestion" that did not meet the study team's criteria for congestion as indicated in Chapter 2. There are areas that grow so fast that in comparison to a few years ago they do seem congested. It would appear that this may be the case in more than a few areas. However, the study team will evaluate each instance of perceived congestion. Safety was a prime concern at all of the six meetings. Unsafe intersections and roadway conditions were pointed out by stakeholders. Intersections at the same grade as railroad tracks were specifically mentioned in many urban and urbanizing areas. Interstate interchanges with safety and/or operational needs were indicated as were improvements for military transport within the corridor. ITS solutions were suggested for several types of traffic problems. Congestion in small downtown areas was particularly noted by stakeholders. In some cases stakeholders suggested bypassing the towns and in some instances they asked that ITS solutions be considered. Signage deficiencies were noted as were suggested locations for turn lanes, and acceleration and deceleration lanes. Finally, economic development roadways were mentioned and their completion is universally and eagerly anticipated. Some stakeholders realized that with economic development would come additional traffic problems but believe the GRIP system will handle such problems. Stakeholder comments can be found in Appendix I. Suggestions are being evaluated and responses will be provided to meeting attendees. In addition, the study team will take these comments into consideration as Phase 3 proceeds. Conclusions As with most planning studies, it is difficult to excite citizens to meet on transportation studies, much less a freight transportation study. Attendance was low at stakeholder meetings but a representative group was present at each meeting and those present appeared to be knowledgeable of their entire region. As indicated previously, comments will be taken into consideration as Phase 3 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study proceeds.

June 2002

6-5

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

7 Summary and Conclusions
Introduction
The evaluation of the intermodal freight transportation system in the 45-county Central Georgia Corridor has been reported in this document. In simplified terms regarding the process thus far, the study team defined base year (1998) and future year (2025) traffic conditions and identified associated needs, or deficiencies, along the HPC 6 and US 280 corridors. The research accomplished in Phase 1 was used in Phase 2 of the project, just as the results of Phase 2 will be used in conducting Phase 3 Recommendations.
Commodity flow and economic profile data developed in Phase 1, Tasks 1.6 and 1.7 were used to construct baseline traffic estimates. Demographic data collected and mapped in Phase 1, Task 1.8 was used to establish "background" (or non-freight) traffic in areas where travel demand forecasts do not exist. Travel demand model data was used to supplement any existing traffic forecasts along the corridor.
Largely because of the magnitude and geographic extent of the study, each technical assessment has been performed in a very systematic way using data and information from large statewide and national data sources. That information has been augmented with a substantial number of personal interviews, both in Phase 1 and in Phase 2. The deficiency assessment has undergone critical reviews by the GDOT Steering Committee and project stakeholders to ensure that all system deficiencies have been captured and clearly characterized.
Phase 2 Summary
Current and forecast freight flows were developed for the study area. Chapter 2 presented current highway and rail volumes and future highway and rail forecasts. These traffic projections will guide the next phase of this study the development of recommendations for capacity and operational improvements.
The baseline for the daily freight corridor traffic was established by linking 1998 Transearch commodity flow information with average truck payload factors. Once annual truck equivalents were derived, they were converted into daily truck equivalents. In turn, the 2025 projection required the 1998 daily truck equivalent data to be extrapolated according to growth factors developed through REMI modeling.
The non-freight traffic AADT for each section of highway was developed from existing GDOT information, specifically the 1998 HPMS data file. The forecast of the 2025 non-freight AADT employed a 1.9 percent growth rate, in accordance with the estimation methodology that was used for the statewide transportation plan.

June 2002

7-1

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Current and future freight and non-freight AADT were used to calculate volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and were subsequently mapped on the Central Georgia Corridor highway network. Concentrations of high V/C primarily in and around the three major metropolitan areas in the Corridor and future level of service deterioration on all segments of I-75 and I-95 resulted, along with some segments of routes near smaller activity centers.
Rail forecasts were developed using REMI data and DRI/WEFA/Transearch projections. Key adjustments to these forecasts related to port activity and shortline railroads have been presented.
In addition, a methodology for addressing potential changes in mode choice among truck, rail, and waterborne freight was developed. Changes in freight mode choice will be further tested as "what if" scenarios with the aid of the Roadway Network Planning Tool developed for this project. The Roadway Network Planning Tool was developed to run in ArcView GIS to reroute truck trips in response to changes in the highway system. These changes may include new roads, bypasses, faster speeds, ITS technologies, lane widening, railroad track or bridge improvements, and other design and capacity changes. In Phase 3, the tool will allow for the testing of alternatives in the Corridor to determine how these changes and alternatives affect freight movement.
Many of the system deficiencies included in this document address the overall efficiency of the transportation system as a result of traffic congestion and/or safety issues. In some cases the deficiencies relate directly to the overall economic stability and growth of central Georgia. However, the study team found that most of the transportation issues are localized in nature and are not systemic to the entire study area. Consistent with Phase 1 findings, many of the congestion and safety deficiencies focus on the interstate highways, major towns, cities, and the areas around the Port of Savannah.
Implications of additional freight in the Central Georgia Corridor will have bearing on the GDOT maintenance program, as delineated in Chapter 3. Current roadway maintenance technologies may not be sufficient, and, indeed, already show the use of inappropriate pavement types, i.e. asphaltic concrete, in areas of extremely high freight movement. Whitetopping of intersections and even entire roadbeds would reduce the need for frequent repairs to rutted roadways.
The GDOT currently performs roadway maintenance activities to improve capacity and mobility. In addition to current maintenance activities, the GDOT could evaluate truck only facilities, upgrade rural highways, and construct grade separations at key intersections and railroad crossings. The use of new pavement technologies such as PCC, whitetopping, and full depth concrete can positively impact future maintenance needs by prolonging the life of the roadway network.
There are 541 projects identified in the GDOT's CWP within the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Approximately 50 percent of the programmed projects in the study area are either road

June 2002

7-2

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

widening or bridge projects. Resurfacing and maintenance projects comprise ten percent and railroad crossing upgrades provide five percent for programmed projects. There are seven GRIP routes in the study area and over the next six to ten years the GRIP system will be completed. Implementation of the GRIP system will upgrade numerous mainline and connecting roads in the Central Georgia Corridor. During the next six years, the GDOT will improve 50 Railroad grade crossings in the Central Georgia Corridor study area. Intelligent Transportation Systems will apply state of the art technology to existing transportation systems. Implementation of the ATMS projects in Columbus, Macon, and Savannah and weather monitoring systems in Glynn County will allow trucks to operate more efficiently providing a competitive advantage to the State of Georgia. Projects identified in the CWP address crucial transportation needs and many of these projects will eliminate deficiencies throughout the Central Georgia Corridor.
The cost and speed of freight delivery are affected by many things, among them proximity to four-lane roadways or interstates, intermodal connection efficiency, congestion, and bottlenecks on road and railways. In addition, efficiency of the haulers, shippers and receivers, fuel prices, and the cost of labor can affect the cost of freight delivery.
Manufacturers who create goods that are not location dependent choose rural counties if the transportation infrastructure is sufficient and a relatively inexpensive, skilled labor force is available in the area. Manufacturers and businesses that are location dependent, such as agriculture, forest products, and mining have the same requirements, without which competitors may prevail with lower market prices.
The transportation system that serves these location- and non location-dependent businesses has a direct relationship to the cost and speed of freight delivery. Congestion, inadequate road and rail bridges, bottlenecks, narrow, winding roads and bridges, and poorly designed and operated intermodal freight connections can slow the delivery of freight to markets, decrease the competitiveness of Georgia products and thus slow our trade with other states and countries.
The overall reliability of the transportation system is important to trade and is of special importance to our country in times of national emergency. Georgia is home to ten military bases, four of which are located in the project corridor, that are connected to each other and the rest of the country via the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET). In addition, the connection between the bases and the Georgia ports, especially the Port of Savannah are critical in times of overseas deployment. As a part of this study the STRAHNET connections have also been reviewed and analyzed with respect to overall reliability.
The transportation system of a region is related to its overall growth and economic stability. In 1998 the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) contracted with Dr. Douglas Bachtel of the University of Georgia to provide an analysis of the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) as it relates to the economy of selected Georgia Counties. The report can be found on the GDOT Office of Planning web site. As a part of Dr. Bachtel's work, he provided a

June 2002

7-3

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
substantial discussion of studies that have demonstrated the link between the quality of the transportation system and economic stability and growth. The report contains numerous citations of the correlation between growth, economic stability, and the transportation system.
However, transportation alone is not responsible for economic development. Many other factors play an important role, such as increased educational and vocational training and job readiness skills. Equally important is the cooperation between state and local governmental officials and the private sector. However without an effective and efficient transportation system, economic development will not occur. Businesses cannot afford to locate where they cannot either ship or receive their goods efficiently.
The Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP), initiated in 1989 by state legislation, is a network of developmental four-lane highways and roads. The State's goal for the program is to place 98 percent of the state within 20 miles of a four-lane road.
In 2001, with two-thirds of the approximately 150 road projects in the GRIP complete or under construction, the Governor initiated his Transportation Choices Initiative (GTCI). A portion of this plan would greatly accelerate completion of the GRIP program, which otherwise would have taken another 20 years to complete. In completing this system sooner, the economic impact will be felt sooner. Dr. Bachtel's work was quoted as crediting GRIP with "the creation of 15,000 jobs and an economic impact of $300 million".
In addition, stakeholders from across Central Georgia and the Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, have related anecdotes concerning the questions asked by industries and businesses searching for new locations. One of the first two questions asked is if there is a fourlane road in the community that connects to an interstate highway. Economic growth cannot be expected in an area without a well-connected transportation system.
A transportation system that is not safe and maintained would be contrary to the GDOT mission: the commitment to a "safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system". An inadequate transportation system includes poor pavement, narrow road and bridge width, poor sight distance, frequent bottlenecks and accidents, frequent at-grade railroad crossings, poor connectivity, and weight restricted bridges or trestles.
Safety deficiencies cause lower speeds, causing increased freight delivery time and increased costs. Safety deficiencies also result in accidents and concomitant increases in insurance costs, which lead to increases in the cost of shipping and therefore goods. Large-scale cost increases decrease the competitiveness of the region.
Maintenance issues affecting freight movement require constant attention to pavement, shoulders, bridges, rails, and trestles to any part of the transportation infrastructure. Large trucks carry many tons in weight. By identifying the major freight carrying routes in Phase 1, attention was given in Phase 2 to maintenance problems on these routes.

June 2002

7-4

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

In terms of roadway capacity analysis, the study team used Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data for study area roadways. Average capacities per lane were calculated by roadway functional class. The calculated capacities were applied to each highway segment to estimate a level-of-service by dividing each road segment's traffic count by the estimated capacity for that segment (volume/capacity or v/c ratio). This methodology resulted in the definition of congested areas, those areas with a v/c ratio > 0.7, for the existing and future transportation system as explained Chapter 2 of this document.
Accident data was also reviewed and assisted in defining bottleneck and safety deficiencies. The Georgia Department of Transportation database was utilized as a source for high accident locations in the Central Georgia Corridor. The 1998 data, the most recent available, is useful in determining possible bottlenecks to freight movement. In order to be considered a freight bottleneck area for the purposes of this study, the roadway segment must carry at least the study area average percentage of truck volumes; have a v/c ratio greater than 0.7; and have a number of accidents greater than twice the statewide average. The resulting data has been further discussed with GDOT district personnel to determine if each bottleneck still exists or has been corrected during the intervening years.
Along U.S. 280 a travel time study was undertaken as a means of identifying transportation system deficiencies (Appendix J). Given the rural nature of this corridor and the abundance of smaller towns, this methodology was found to be an ideal supplement to other methods.
Interviews were held with shippers, receivers, and carriers during Phase 1 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study. Other stakeholders, among them the Port of Savannah, metropolitan planning organizations, regional development centers, and chambers of commerce also provided information on areas with congestion, accidents, heavy truck traffic, and bottlenecks. These "perceived deficiencies" have been mapped for comparison with other methods of determining deficiencies.
The Georgia Rural Development Council work described in detail in the Phase 1 report identified certain cities in the Central Georgia Corridor as economic engines. The recommendation made by the GRDC was to expend transportation dollars improving transportation facilities from counties with a lagging or declining economy into these cities as a means of economic development. The transportation deficiencies maps indicate facilities that, with improvement, could support economic development in the way the GRDC proposed.
Existing corridor conditions were compared to best practices to determine transportation deficiencies. Best practices were examined in the areas of roadway shoulders, bridges, intersection treatments, roadway materials, and railroad/ roadway intersections. Locations not currently utilizing best practices, but which could benefit from use of a best practice, were identified as deficient.
Along the SR 96 corridor, between Columbus and I-16, field observation data was noted and confirmed the existing deficiencies as depicted by the current volume to capacity ratio.

June 2002

7-5

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report

Conclusions
Hundreds of transportation deficiencies, as defined in this study, were found. Deficiencies in signing, marking, safety, capacity and condition were noted on the series of maps in Chapter 5. Further categorization of these deficiencies and of potential solutions will be accomplished over the months of work during Phase 3, as the study team directs its attention toward specific project solutions.
Many of the deficiencies discovered during the course of Phase 2 fall into a category of recommended best practices for future construction or rehabilitation of existing intersections, roadways or bridges. These might be shoulder widening, including the inside shoulders of interstates; bridge replacements; intersection resurfacing; railroad crossing grade separations; and whitetopping.
Other deficiencies might be categorized as projects already in the pipeline for early completion, such as GRIP projects. Also, projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program could be included in this grouping.
There are some deficiencies however, that are not addressed in the foreseeable future by any current program. As the Central Georgia Corridor Study continues into Phase 3 the focus will narrow to these projects that are in need of champions and will make a measurable difference in the ability of the region to compete in terms of freight flow and trade.
Six stakeholder meetings were held in May 2002. Stakeholders indicated additional areas of "perceived congestion" that did not meet the study team's criteria for congestion as indicated in Chapter 2. There may be areas which grow so fast that in comparison to a few years ago they do seem congested. It would appear that this may be the case in more than a few areas. However, the study team will evaluate each instance of perceived congestion.
Safety was a prime concern at all of the stakeholder meetings. Unsafe intersections and roadway conditions were pointed out by stakeholders. Intersections at the same grade as railroad tracks were specifically mentioned in many urban and urbanizing areas. Interstate interchanges with safety and/or operational needs were indicated as were improvements for military transport within the corridor.
ITS solutions were suggested for several types of traffic problems. Congestion in small downtown areas was particularly noted by stakeholders. In some cases stakeholders suggested bypassing the towns and in some instances they asked that ITS solutions be considered. Signage deficiencies were noted as were suggested locations for turn lanes, and acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Economic development roadways were also mentioned in stakeholder meetings and the completion of those roadways is universally and eagerly anticipated. Some stakeholders

June 2002

7-6

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
realized that with economic development would come additional traffic problems but believe the GRIP system will handle such problems.
As with most planning studies, it is difficult to excite citizens to meet on transportation studies, much less a freight transportation study. Attendance was low at stakeholder meetings but a representative group was present at each meeting and those present appeared to be knowledgeable of their entire region. As indicated previously, comments will be taken into consideration as Phase 3 of the Central Georgia Corridor Study proceeds.
The Phase 2 Central Georgia Corridor Study found transportation deficiencies and discussed some solutions. In Phase 3 these deficiencies will be compared to improvement programs currently in place. Deficiencies with no identified project will be evaluated and prioritized. Projects will be developed to mitigate or remove each deficiency. Such projects may include roadway improvements, ITS solutions or rail improvements. These projects will be tested and alternatives will be developed as needed. The Phase 3 report will delineate a prioritized package of projects for GDOT to consider for implementation and will discuss possible funding alternatives. A selected number of projects will include a benefit-cost analysis, sketch design and environmental field review.

June 2002

7-7

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix A Interviews with Current and Former
Maintenance and Operations Engineers
June 2002

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Phillip Allen, Former Head of Georgia DOT Office of Permits & Enforcement, Current State Traffic Safety & Design Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

January 4, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Interview with Phillip Allen, Former Head of Georgia DOT Office of Permits and Enforcement, to Discuss Dealing with Trucks

Phillip Allen David Low

GDOT G&O

phillip.allen@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview GDOT engineers to identify any activities they think will be needed for this high volume freight corridor.

2. Phillip said that every state should have the means to check compliance to see if you need to bring them in to check their status. When they are not compliant, which one is the deal breaker? CVISN has to have an element to check for compliance. They need an algorithm to decide whether you need to bring the truck in for inspection.

3. The transponder deal is backwards. Some companies voluntarily have transponders in their trucks and put information on them. Less than three percent of trucks have one. Trucks that have problems with compliance should be required to have a transponder.

4. An infrared system called IRIS is being considered in Georgia, Kentucky and North Carolina tested with equipment in a van. Georgia DOT is considering whether to build that equipment into weigh stations. GATI is looking into that for Georgia DOT. It seems likely that this will take place.

5. David asked whether fog detection equipment should be used in rural South Georgia. Phillip said coastal Georgia has a fog issue. Weigh stations are a convenient location to bring data back from.

Interview with Phillip Allen Page 2
6. Some states have virtual weigh stations using weigh-in-motion (WIM) scales on the mainline lanes. The faster the vehicle the less accurate the WIM. Outside of Tampa the truck traffic is overwhelming. It is easy to check if a truck is over height with a photoelectric beam. Research suggests using low powered lasers mounted over lanes and pointed downward to tell exactly what went underneath it. They can check for height, width, length, axle weight and gross vehicle weight. Phillip would like Georgia DOT to have several here in metro Atlanta. He would like Georgia DOT to have a virtual weigh station in Columbus. He said to look at the continuous count stations with a percentage of trucks in the Columbus area.
7. Phillip said to plan and design the HP6 mainline to provide truckers with a route that is better, faster and cheaper.
8. Consider truck lanes. Are any needed in the Savannah area?
9. David asked Phillip if he thought a pair of truck weigh stations will be needed on the HP6 mainline between Columbus and I-75. Phillip does not expect that there are going to be that many trucks on the HP6 mainline. Once we know the existing and expected increase in truck traffic, look at something less than a full truck weigh station because of the investment. Trucks are a little more captive on the freeway than they will be along HP6.
10. Phillip is more concerned about the safety aspect of drivers coming out of Mexico. Some inspection facilities would be in order, with safe entry and exit lanes, more like a climbing lane. He sketched a lane parallel to the mainline built of Portland Cement Concrete, separated with a crosshatched painted island. The exit lane has about a 600 foot taper and is up on about a two to three percent upgrade, the middle area for inspection is long and flat, and the entry back onto the mainline is about a two to three percent downgrade with about a 600 foot taper. He said Georgia DOT has a detail of this somewhere. He said some of these should be built along HP6 between Columbus and I-16. Then later determine if you need a pair of weigh stations. In the interim provide a very small shack type of building. They may want infrastructure and a computer.
11. The cost of operating a weigh station in terms of manpower is not that much of a help to you. The purpose of the weigh station is compliance.
12. Phillip and Georgia DOT want some small facilities where they can check trucks. He would like to see at least two in each direction between Columbus and I-16. Enforcement would also run mobile teams on parallel routes.
13. He would not go for any state operated rest areas along this particular corridor.
14. He suggested using Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) for communicating with drivers. He said to blanket Columbus, Fort Valley, Macon, Dublin and Savannah, the I-16/SR 96 interchange (because of options), and the US 280 corridor as well. It could give information on weather, travel time, and how to get permits if not

Interview with Phillip Allen Page 3
in compliance (in Columbus and Savannah) even if it's just a phone number to call. We need to provide one stop shopping for truck permits, tags, etc. Do this by CVISN again. Use HAR for this.
15. Talk with Ed Crowell, Director of the Georgia Motor Trucking Association at 404-876-4313. Also Guy Young talk with him first.
16. Phillip's other suggestions for the HP6 mainline route were to keep school buses off the route, increase the speed limit and/or the design speed (to make this a more attractive route to truckers), and as much as possible make this a convenient, separate route for trucks with grade separations.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Dale Brantley, District 2 Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES:
DISCUSSION:

January 10, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Dale Brantley, District 2 Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities

Dale Brantley David Griffith Jeff Carroll

GDOT GDOT G&O

dale.brantley@dot.state.ga.us david.griffith@dot.state.ga.us jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. What are your normal maintenance activities in your district?
Dale Brantley discussed how they inventory all state routes and identify deficiencies on the roadways. The district maintenance personnel resurfaces roadways, patches roadways, repairs shoulders and drainage structures routinely during the year. They calculate a Paces rating along the state route system in the district. This rating number ranges between 100 and 0 and it provides us with a priority list of the most pressing needs on the system in the district. A Paces rating below 70 places that section of roadway on a priority list for immediate attention. Traffic volume, truck percent and urban/rural characteristics are taken into account when numerous sections fall below a 70 rating. The higher volume roads with heavier truck traffic in urban areas will take priority. Funding for the repairing the state route system is usually from a lump sum allocation using federal and state monies.
2. What activities do you think will be required for heavy truck movement anticipated with HPC 6?
Dale mentioned that portions of the concrete slabs along I-16 need to be resealed, shoulder joints need to be sealed, broken concrete slabs need to be repaired and guardrails need to be installed or repaired. Dale noted that overnight truck parking is a problem in the district that needs to be addressed along I-16 between Macon and Savannah. Currently, there are 2 rest areas in District 2 and there no weigh stations and this poses a problem for truckers needing an area to stop for their required rest. Truckers use the ramps on the interchanges along I-16 to park overnight and this has led to the deterioration to the ramp shoulders. The district has a major problem keeping the ramp shoulders maintained. When the district repairs the shoulders, they usually try and widen the shoulder to increase sight distance on the ramp but this has led to increased overnight truck parking. The trucks also knock down the signs on the ramps, which require district maintenance personnel to re-sign the area numerous times throughout the year.

Interview with Dale Brantley Page 2
Dale said that the Department signs the ramps for no parking, and it is an ordinance, but there is little local enforcement because there are not enough adequate truck rest areas along I-16 and truckers are required to rest a certain number of hours a day.
3. Are there any specific projects planned along the designated HPC6 and US 280 routes and connecting roads to improve the flow of heavy truck traffic?
David Griffith said there are numerous projects in the Construction Work Program (CWP) identified for improvements along the HPC 6 mainline and connecting road system.
SR 257/I-16 interchange SR 257 passing lanes SR 257 widening project toward Dublin SR 199/SR 29 interchange with I-16 will be upgraded SR 257/SR 338/ SR 19 interchange with I-16, interchange work US 1- GRIP corridor US 280 3-laning project through the Milan city limits only. ITS message boards and call boxes along I-16 The interchange work will consist of repairing shoulders, paving and improved channelization to
provide more efficient travel.
4. Are there any specific area along the HPC 6 and the US 280 corridor which need improvement and is not in the Department's program?
Dale mentioned that I-16 is a hurricane evacuation route and to better accommodate traffic evacuating from the coast some bridges need guardrails on the trailing edge to increase safety. Dale noted that most of the funding would come from safety funds but the Federal Government has set aside some funding to upgrade hurricane evacuation routes for this purpose. Dale said that the I-16 pavement is nearing the end of its life expectancy. If truck traffic increases along I-16 this will further reduce the life expectancy of the pavement and resurfacing and replacing concrete slabs will occur sooner. David said most of the needs along the HPC 6 study area are addressed in the CWP.
5. Do you know of any new technologies that would help the Department deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HPC6?
Maintenance technologies:
Dale said that they are using Superpave mixes more. Superpave is a harder mix to work with and it is not the best to overlay on concrete. But Buddy Gratton would rather have us do a total concrete slab replacement instead of overlaying Superpave on concrete. Dale noted that all of the new technologies come through the research lab in Atlanta. They have several test areas along I16 in our district on roadway sealants, paving, and reflectivity technologies.
Other technologies:
David mentioned that there are several ITS projects along the interstate that will add cameras, and message boards. But they were not aware of any other new technologies that would assist with heavy truck traffic along HPC 6.

Interview with Dale Brantley Page 3
6. Since most interstates have Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, should we use PCC pavement for the HPC 6 mainline?
Dale said that any pavement rehabilitation on I-16 will remain PCC. Dale mentioned that overlaying asphalt on concrete cause 2 problems. Thermal expansion of concrete occurs under the asphalt and the concrete cannot be sealed and then even pavement occurs due to thermal expansion. Dale noted that all interchange ramps are PCC and will to be maintained concrete. The secondary routes are asphalt, due to cost these routes will probably remain asphalt facilities and life expectancy for these secondary roads will depend on the traffic volume and the percentage of trucks. Asphalt will last on average 5-10 years where PCC will last 30 years depending on traffic volume and truck percent.
7. In your opinion, what type of pavement design should we use for a roadway that carries heavy truck volumes?
Dale noted that concrete would be the best to use but our asphalt typical sections are not too bad in our district. All key intersections that carry high traffic volumes and especially high truck volumes need to be "whitetopped". Currently, District 2 is not whitetopping any intersections. District 5 has done "whitetopping" for several years and it has been very successful. Whitetopping requires milling out the asphalt and replacing it with concrete. This prevents rutting at key intersections where trucks are stopping and starting with heavy loads. You need to have about 4-5" of asphalt existing over the concrete for whitetopping to withstand the heavy truck volumes. Dale said that they will to start whitetopping some key intersection in the district soon.
8. In your opinion, what design standard should be used on a roadway which carries a large volume of trucks?
Wider inside & outside shoulders? Yes More heavy duty pavement? Yes. Larger clear zone? Yes.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Barry Brown, Principal Structural Engineer for Browder + LeGuizamon

DATE:

January 7, 2002

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

Interview with Barry Brown, Principal Structural Engineer for Browder + LeGuizamon to Discuss Freight Related Bridge Deficiencies

PARTICIPANTS: Barry Brown Browder + LeGuizamon

David Low

G&O

404-851-9580 ext 249 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. David introduced the High Priority Corridor Six project and its objective to prepare for heavier freight movements. He asked how we could identify bridges with structural deficiencies that may need to be upgraded or replaced to carry more trucks.

2. Barry described the load limits in detail. For HS-20 loads, the two rear axle loads are 32,000 pounds/axle spaced 14 feet apart. The front axle load is 8,000 pounds.

3. For HS-25 loads, the two rear axle loads are 25% more: 40,000 pounds/axle spaced 14 feet apart. The front axle load is 10,000 pounds. So far, Georgia has not used HS-25. Buddy Gratton in Maintenance or Paul Liles in Bridge Design are good sources of information. Generally speaking, if a bridge has been designed for HS20 loads, it is going to be adequate.

4. Dave asked Barry to differentiate between H and HS loads. Barry said that H-15 and H-20 loads are two axles, like moving van (single unit truck). HS loads are trucks with three axles. An HS-15 load has 6,000 pounds on the front axle (15/20 of the HS-20 load).

5. For steel bridges, fatigue is going to be a factor. The Bar 7 program does a rating on the bridge.

6. If the bridge was designed for H-15 loads, generally Georgia DOT will widen it and say it is likely replaced.

7. To complicate it further, if the sufficiency rating is 50 or below, the bridge is going to be replaced anyway. The closer to 50 it is, the more likely it is going to be replaced. Barry said, in his opinion, if the sufficiency rating is down around 60, it is a probable candidate for replacement.

Interview with Barry Brown Page 2
8. There is a person at GDOT whose job it is to route heavy vehicles through the state, and Barry thinks they have a catalog of all the HS-20 bridges. Call Brian Summers or Buddy Gratton to find out who this person is. It used to be Joe Peroski, but he retired.
9. Barry has a feeling most of I-16 is HS-20 with sufficiency ratings of 70 or above. Some of the side roads with bridges over I-16 are steel bridges.
10. Structural steel continuous bridges have one continuous beam covering three or four spans. When one span is loaded in compression, the other spans are in tension. Any continuous steel bridges are candidates for possible replacement where there are more trucks than in the original design.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Allan Childers, Retired Georgia DOT Director of Operations and State Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT:
ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

January 24, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Allan Childers, retired GDOT Director of Operations and State Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities. Currently Mr. Childers is a consultant to the American Concrete Pavement Association.

Allan Childers Jeff Carroll

ACPA G&O

fchilder@bellsouth.net jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. What activities do you think will be required for heavy truck movement anticipated with HPC 6?
Asphalt generally lasts between 8 and 10 years depending on traffic volumes and truck percentages. Asphalt will rut in areas of high truck volumes and provides a rough surface and it can reduce safety along a roadway. For 2 lane roadways that are currently asphalt, if that facility will be improved the Department should evaluate constructing the additional two lanes of concrete.
2. Do you know of any new technologies that would help the Department deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HPC6?
Pavement technologies:
Ultra thin whitetopping (UTW) has been used very successfully on roads that carry high traffic and truck volumes. If there is not enough structural base under the UTW it will not last very long. The key is a good base, if the base is not structurally designed for the traffic and truck volumes, full depth concrete should be evaluated in determining the pavement design for roadways with high truck traffic. AT least 3-4 inches of asphalt under the concrete would be needed depending on the pavement design. A 4 inch UTW will eliminate rutting in high truck traffic areas.

Interview with Allan Childers Page 2
Roller compacted concrete pavement has been out for a few years and it is a great product to use on shoulders, truck weigh stations, rest areas. This product could be used when constructing full depth shoulders. It is not designed for speeds and thus is not used on roadways. Using RCC has been very successful in industrial parks.
Long Term Pavement Program:
Two-thirds of the State DOT's will have to adopt the 2002 Design Guide to put it into use. At the earliest it won't be adopted for about 3 to 5 years.
3. In your opinion, what type of pavement design should we use for a roadway that carries heavy truck volumes?
A crushed stone base between 6-12 feet depending on traffic, soils and location. If there is a large percent of trucks use 4 inches of econocrete or asphalt base and then a 10-12' concrete slab.
4. In your opinion, what design standard should be used on a roadway which carries a large volume of trucks?
Wider inside & outside shoulders?
Rollaer Compacted Concrete could be sued on full depth shoulders; it would cost less than PCC and can withstand large truck volumes.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Rick Deavers, State Research Engineer

DATE: PROJECT:
SUBJECT: ATTENDEES:
DISCUSSION:

January 10, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Rick Deavers, State Research Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Research

Rick Deavers David Low

GDOT G&O

rick.deavers@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview the GDOT maintenance engineers, pavement engineer and research engineer to identify current activities, inquire about new technologies and any activities they think will be needed for this high volume freight corridor.

2. Rick said it might be appropriate to have a lesser standard on the connecting roads than on the mainline. He suggested talking with Jim Kennerly about standards for connecting roads. He said to talk with Mike Cown. Consider passing lanes for two lane connecting roads.

3. Rick is a big advocate of semi-permanent truck weigh stations with pits for axle scales depending on the volumes projected.

4. Rick said the design of paved shoulders is for cars. Georgia DOT may need to be beef up the structural capacity of paved shoulders and consider wider shoulders.

5. Twin trailers cause special problems. Talk with Traffic Operations.

Interview with Rick Deavers Page 2
6. Regarding new maintenance technologies, Rick said in the design process, there are features you can incorporate that might have to be addressed otherwise. Maintenance features should be incorporated into the design process to make maintenance easier. There are at least 20 committee reports on this. Buddy Gratton would know which TRB subcommittees have addressed this. It's 3 to 4 years old. Do a search on building maintenance features into the design process. Talk with the feds. That is usually the fastest way to find out. Call the TRB sub chairman or FHWA for Ongoing Research. There is a TRIS on Ongoing Research in that area.
7. Georgia DOT is doing a truck routing permit program. James Sigh at Georgia Tech will take the truck routing program and computerize it. If you have super loads, over 150,000 pounds, the bridges have to be looked at (Bill Duvall in the bridge maintenance office does this). You will get the occasional super load. There is a brand new research project that will start in February making it infinitely easier for trucks to travel. Bill DuVall is the head of the research project.
8. Rick mentioned several other notable items including COPACES, the computerized pavement condition survey. He said don't let trucks use the new super single high-pressure tires. They will tear up our roads.
9. He said all trucks carrying hazardous materials should have transponders so we can track them.
10. At airports, are trucks getting off the mainline and picking up loads?
11. New bridge design criteria are coming out: LRDF. It is supposed to be mandated by the Feds by 2003. New bridges may have to use the new bridge design process.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with John Durand, Chief Structural Engineer for Parsons Brinckerhoff

DATE:

January 4, 2002

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

Interview with John Durand, Chief Structural Engineer for Parsons Brinckerhoff to Discuss Freight Related Bridge Deficiencies

PARTICIPANTS: John Durand David Low

Parsons Brinckerhoff G&O

404-364-5236 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. David introduced the High Priority Corridor Six project and its objective to prepare for heavier freight movements. He asked how we could identify bridges with structural deficiencies that may need to be upgraded or replaced to carry more trucks.

2. John described how the GDOT Maintenance Division does an inventory of bridges. Their inventories include an evaluation of all components of the bridge including the maximum load limit. Beyond that they do a structural analysis. Sometimes they specify the load limits for each structure (and/or speed). Sometimes they do this also for special permitted loads. Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. One has to consider the maximum load bridges are designed for. All bridges today in Georgia and for some time have been designed to carry HS-20 loads. The older ones were designed for HS-15 or h-15 loads. The older ones are usually fine, but may have some damage occurring to them. One can look at the GDOT website for bridges posted with load limitations.

4. Bridges on the HP6 mainline and connecting roads are not expected to experience increased loads, but increased frequency instead. This affects fatigue life, which only affects steel bridges. Generally fatigue is not a problem with concrete beam bridges. This is addressed in Chapter 10 of the AASHTO bridge specifications. Theoretically shortening the bridge life warrants heightened inspection of these bridges, and correcting problems at the time they are discovered. Engineers try to design steel bridges for a certain number of cycles of fatigue. This is a best guesstimate. Georgia DOT inspects for this every two years with an in depth examination looking for fatigue stress cracks.

5. With concrete beams, if you had loads that exceeded the maximum, it would be a problem, but that is not the case. A concrete bridge may get some deck deterioration due to an increased amount of traffic.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Bill DuVall and Brian Summers, State Bridge Inspection Engineer and State Bridge Engineer

DATE:

January 8, 2002

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

To acquire bridge inventory information on the HPC 6 Project and help create a methodology to identifying candidates for bridge improvements.

PARTICIPANTS:

Bill DuVall Brian Summers Nik Kharva

GDOT GDOT G&O

404-635-8189 Brian.Summers@dot.state.ga.us 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. Mr. DuVall was able to provide information on how GDOT inventories bridge information by categorizing bridge date using a bridge ID number. With the bridge ID number pertinent bridge information can be searched. A bridge ID number can be found using the following information (county, mile posting, route name and crossing route/landmark information). With the bridge ID number, various information for identification and parameters are identified. These identification information are explained using the NBIS coding guide (This guide is will be useful to anyone who receives Structural Inventory and Appraisal (SIA) information from Bridge Maintenance.). This guide can be found at (http://www.dot.state.ga.us/homeoffs/bridge_info.www/index.htm).

2. Sufficiency rating is a variable that can be used to help determine a methodology to identify candidates for bridge improvements but should not be used as a sole determining factor.

3. Other factors are important in determining bridge improvements such as shoulder width.

4. Question: If a bridge had a load rating of H15/HS15 and the bridge is widen and a higher load rating is applied, is there a way to identify these bridges.

Answer: If an existing bridge with a lower load rating is widened and a higher load rating is applied. The existing lower rating will be noted on the bridge inventory and not the higher rating. To find out that this has taken place, looking up the project plans will allow you to determine this information.

5. Mr. DuVall and Mr. Summers helped identify the various parameters that we noted as an identifier for bridge improvements. Comments were made on certain parameters that G-and-O noted that were not pertinent and advised on not querying. Both of them agreed to provide us with a database file on Access

Interview with Bill DuVall and Brian Summers Page 2
2000 of all relevant bridge inventory information requested of all the state routes in the study counties. A list of the counties and the routes was provided to them for querying. It was beneficial for GDOT and Gand-O to get "all" routes in the county area since the connector have not been validated at the time of this meeting. Having the information of all the state routes will allow G-and-O to be flexible with querying. The list of county and routes are listed below:
Below are the counties of interest in finding the bridge inventory:
1. Muscogee 2. Talbot 3. Taylor 4. Crawford 5. Peach 6. Houston 7. Twiggs 8. Bleckley 9. Laurens 10. Treutlen 11. Emanuel 12. Candler 13. Bulloch 14. Bryan 15. Effingham 16. Chatham 17. Sumster 18. Crisp 19. Bibb 20. Tombs 21. Stewart 22. Harris 23. Upson 24. Pulaski 25. Montgomery 26. Liberty 27. Webster 28. Evans 29. Chattahoochee
______________________________________________________________________________________
Below are the routes of interest in finding the bridge inventory information:
1. SR 22 2. US 80 3. SR 96 4. I-16 5. SR 219 6. I-185

Interview with Bill DuVall and Brian Summers Page 3
7. SR 411 8. SR 1 9. SR 27 10. SR 85 11. US 280 12. SR 520 13. SR 3 14. US 19 15. SR 128 16. US 341 17. SR 7 18. SR 49C 19. I-75 20. SR 401 21. SR 11 22. I-475 23. I-16 24. US 129 25. SR 247 26. SR 87 27. SR 26 28. US 80 29. SR 19 30. SR 844 31. US 319 32. US 441 33. SR 31 34. US 319 35. SR 29 36. SR 279 37. US 280 38. US 1 39. SR 121 40. SR 23 41. SR 129 42. US 25 43. US 301 44. SR 24 45. SR 67 46. SR 73 47. SR 30 48. SR 119 49. SR 21 50. SR 26 51. SR 307 52. I-95 53. SR 405 54. US 84 55. SR 38

Interview with Bill DuVall and Brian Summers Page 4
56. SR 196 57. SR 38C 58. I-516 59. SR 25C 60. SR 204 61. SR 404 62. US 17 63. SR 27 64. SR 15

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Buddy Gratton, State Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

December 27, 2001

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Buddy Gratton, State Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities

Buddy Gratton David Low

GDOT G&O

buddy.gratton@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview the GDOT maintenance engineers to identify current maintenance activities, inquire about new maintenance technologies and any activities they think will be needed for this high volume freight corridor.

2. Buddy said the military just did a study of base to base movements from Columbus to Savannah. Dana Robbins from FHWA was one of the main contacts. Talk with Heather Alhadeff at 404-562-3637. GDOT Bridge Maintenance's Bill Duvall went on this inspection team. There were no issues with the bridges.

3. David asked about Georgia DOT's normal maintenance activities. Buddy said the GDOT Maintenance Office does a pavement evaluation every year for every mile of roadway on the state system. They do an inventory and from that evaluation they prepare project priorities. Bridge maintenance follows BMIS (Bridge Maintenance Information System) procedures. They look at pipes and culverts below bridges. These are asset inspections, logging deficiencies. They inspect edge drop-offs, signs, guardrail, etc. All of these modules are linked through the Highway performance monitoring System (HPMS). He can pull up deficiencies to see if they have been corrected.

4. David asked what activities he thinks will be required for the heavy truck movements anticipated with HP6. Buddy said it would be no different than for an interstate or a major divided highway.

Buddy Gratton Interview Page 2
5. David asked about specific projects planned along HP6 and US 280 and connecting roads to improvement the flow of heavy truck traffic. Buddy said other than the Construction Work Program (CWP), only a few projects come to mind. There is a striping project (on I-16?). They just did a concrete rehabilitation project on I-16 about three years ago so it's in good shape. They built some crossovers for hurricane evacuation near Dublin. One near Savannah will be let soon.
6. David asked if he knew of any new technologies that would help them deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HP6. Buddy said nothing more than we would do on a normal interstate job.
7. They talked about bridge sufficiency ratings. Buddy explained that 0-50 qualifies for replacement. 50-80 is functionally obsolete narrow bridges that qualify for bridge rehabilitation money (BH). Above 80 is adequate. Bill Duvall is in charge of bridge inspection and works for Brian Summers.
8. For railroad grade crossings, Buddy said he would highly encourage the installation of precast concrete panels. They just made a decision and worked out a deal with Norfolk Southern, split funding them working through a force account agreement. Norfolk Southern does the construction and Georgia DOT reimburses them for 50% of the cost. Buddy said we may need to be providing grade separations over railroads.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Chad Hartley, District 5 Assistant Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

January 10, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Chad Hartley, District 5 Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities

Chad Hartley Jeff Carroll

GDOT G&O

chad.hartley@dot.state.ga.us jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. What are your normal maintenance activities in your district?
We evaluate all the entire state route system for deficiencies. District personnel evaluate the roadways with the Paces program. We also do a concrete survey which includes interchanges and ramps. We do bridge inspection on all state routes and county roads in the district. As far as our maintenance activities: Drainage structures, Shoulder building, replace concrete slabs, sign repair and installation. We have 6 area offices that handle routine maintenance. The district has 3 special outfits: bridge, asphalt and sign shops. We also mow on the state route system.
2. What activities do you think will be required for heavy truck movement anticipated with HPC 6?
Whitetopping at key intersections will be needed to reduce continual maintenance. The shoulder pavement should be 4 feet wide. We will need to widen and resurface some roadways and we should use a Superpave with a strong GAB. We should use tape instead of thermal plastic stripping on the roadway and all roadways need raised pavement markers (RPM). Currently there are a few bridges that have 10 foot lanes and they need to be brought up to state standards, 12' lanes. One of the main reasons there are 10' lanes in the district is because culverts need to be extended and without this extension we cannot widen to roadway. The secondary roads should also have 4 foot shoulders. Shoulder ramp work is definitely need, trucks are deteriorating the ramps along I-16 interchanges because there is not enough truck parking along the corridor. There are no rest areas along I-16 in the district but they may be one planned for the median around Statesboro. There are 2 truck weigh stations on I-16 in the district and DOT enforcement sets up mobile units along some interchanges in the district.

Interview with Chad Hartley Page 2
3. Are there any specific projects planned along the designated HPC6 and US 280 routes and connecting roads to improve the flow of heavy truck traffic?
Refer to the Department's Construction Work Program (CWP).
4. Are there any specific area along the HPC 6 and the US 280 corridor which need improvement and is not in the Department's program?
Culvert expansion and bridge widening projects are needed along the US 280 corridor. Guardrails are needed on roadways with 10 foot lanes, culvert expansion will be needed to widen these roadways to state standards. Four foot paved shoulders along numerous high volume roadways will be needed.
5. Do you know of any new technologies that would help the Department deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HPC6? Maintenance technologies:
Superpave has real good __________ but it is too coarse and water comes up through it. Whitetopping cuts down on maintenance on high volume and heavy truck traffic intersections. Whitetopping is also good to use in swampy areas in the district because the subgrade gets "bouncy" and this deteriorates the road more rapidly. Whitetopping prevents the roadway from cracking, rutting and tearing and whitetopping requires less maintenance attention.
Other technologies:
I-95 has fog detection and maybe some areas of I-16 that could benefit from fog detection. Pavement surface detection devices would be a good technology to use on the interstates and this information could be relayed onto message boards to provide motorist the latest road conditions.
6. Since most interstates have Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, should we use PCC pavement for the HPC 6 mainline?
If the Department could afford PCC it would be the best material to use. However, a GAB and a Superpave mix will last between 5-7 years on a roadway that carries large truck traffic.
7. In your opinion, what type of pavement design should we use for a roadway that carries heavy truck volumes?
If cost is not an option PCC should be used. But a good G.A.B. Superpave mix will be adequate along a high volume roadway. The GAB should be lime rock or granite.
8. In your opinion, what design standard should be used on a roadway which carries a large volume of trucks?
Wider inside & outside shoulders? Yes, Paved shoulders always reduce required maintenance. More heavy duty pavement? Yes. Larger clear zone? Yes.

Interview with Chad Hartley Page 3
9. Are the roads being torn up in and around the Savannah Port area? Why?
Yes, the roadway pavement in and around the port area historically deteriorates very rapidly. The turning radius at key intersections in the port area is not adequate enough to provide turning movements for trucks accessing the port facility. There were several key intersections in the port area being repaired every 4 months. However, 4 years ago the district whitetopped these key intersections and since this improvement no maintenance activities have been needed. Whitetopping has been very successful in maintaining the roadways in the port area and we will be using this technology at other intersections in the district requiring ongoing maintenance attention. Whitetopping can be done within 24 hours. There are noise restrictions at night in the City of Savannah and this requires us to do some of the maintenance work during normal business hours. There are numerous old brick crossings in Savannah and we cannot remove these historic bricks. Amazingly, the bricks hold up well under conditions of high traffic volumes.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Tommy Hicks, District 4 Assistant Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

January 4, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Tommy Hicks, District 4 Assistant Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities

Thomas Howell Jeff Carroll

GDOT G&O

thomas.howell@dot.state.ga.us jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. What are your normal maintenance activities in your district? Repair potholes, repair edge ruts, repair any base failures, repair any accident damage (guardrail, sighs, etc.).
2. What activities do you think will be required for heavy truck movement anticipated with HPC 6? Tommy said no additional activities for US 280 will be required.
3. Are there any specific projects planned along the designated HPC6 and US 280 routes and connecting roads to improve the flow of heavy truck traffic? There are none that I am aware of on US 280.
4. Are there any specific area along the HPC 6 and the US 280 corridor which need improvement and is not in the Department's program? On US 280, 16th Avenue in the Cordele needs to be improved.

Interview with Tommy Hicks Page 2
5. Do you know of any new technologies that would help the Department deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HPC6? Maintenance technologies:
Whitetopping: Concrete overlay of intersections at traffic lights. This would stop the pushing and0corrugation of pavement at the intersection.
Other technologies:
Not aware of any
6. Since most interstates have Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, should we use PCC pavement for the HPC 6 mainline?
Not necessarily, asphalt will perform as well; there is more maintenance and resurfacing with asphalt. PCC would be preferred but usually it is cost prohibitive.
7. In your opinion, what type of pavement design should we use for a roadway that carries heavy truck volumes?
7" base asphalt or 8" GAB with 3" asphalt base then 2" binder asphalt and then 1 1/2 "asphalt surface mix.
8. In your opinion, what design standard should be used on a roadway which carries a large volume of trucks?
Wider inside & outside shoulders? Yes, Paved shoulders always reduce required maintenance. More heavy duty pavement? Yes. Larger clear zone? Yes.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Thomas Howell, District 3 Maintenance Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

December 31, 2001

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Thomas Howell, District 3 Maintenance Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Maintenance Activities

Thomas Howell Jeff Carroll

GDOT G&O

thomas.howell@dot.state.ga.us jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. What are your normal maintenance activities in your district?
Thomas discussed how his personnel every year perform a test of the entire state route system in the district. This test provides a Paces rating and this rating decides what routes will be resurfaced. Anything below a 70 on the paces rating results in the route being placed on a list for resurfacing. After the route is on the list, the Department will analyze the traffic and truck percentages to prioritize resurfacing. Thomas noted that the information is inputted into the HMMS database, which is maintained by the Department's maintenance office. Thomas said that constructing shoulders on a route could be considered a maintenance project depending on the funding source.
2. What activities do you think will be required for heavy truck movement anticipated with HPC 6?
Thomas said the roads will have to be maintained more often due to the increased amount of truck traffic projected. Currently, the Department resurfaces, on average, every 10 years but with added truck traffic the average will be less than every 10 years. There are some state routes in the district that require resurfacing every 6 years because of the high volume of truck traffic. Funding is a major issue on resurfacing. Currently about 75 percent is Federal and the remaining 25 percent is state. The Department tries to use federal funding for all 4-lane roadways. STAA/NHS roadways are prioritized the same as non-truck routes, everything is based from the paces rating. If cost were not a question then it would be wise to construct heavy truck corridors with PCC and not asphalt. But since funding is an issue we can increase the asphalt and rock base. Right now the interstates have 4-6 inches more graded aggregate base (GAB) and 4-6 inches more asphalt than the GRIP system roadways. The typical GRIP roadway will have 8-10 inches of GAB and 6-7 inches of asphalt.

Interview with Thomas Howell Page 2
3. Are there any specific projects planned along the designated HPC6 and US 280 routes and connecting roads to improve the flow of heavy truck traffic?
SR 96 east of I-75 to I-16 is in the program.
4. Are there any specific area along the HPC 6 and the US 280 corridor which need improvement and is not in the Department's program?
SR 96 from Fort Valley to I-75 is not in the program.
5. Do you know of any new technologies that would help the Department deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HPC6? Maintenance technologies:
The district uses micro seals and slurry seals in sealing cracks along the state route system and this prolongs the life of the roadway.
Other technologies:
Thomas was not aware of any other new technologies. Fog is not a problem in the district and no detection devices would be needed.
6. Since most interstates have Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, should we use PCC pavement for the HPC 6 mainline?
Thomas said it would be a great if we could do that but we have to look at the cost. PCC is probably twice as expensive but in return you can increase the life cycle of the roadway dramatically. Asphalt usually last about 10 years, PCC lasts between 30 and 50 years. The asphalt that is used on the interstates is open graded friction coarse or a European type of mix (water runs through/off surface). Both are a inch thick overlay. Thomas said to receive more information on these types of mixes, contact the Maintenance office in Atlanta. Thomas noted the state route system is a super pave mix.
7. In your opinion, what type of pavement design should we use for a roadway that carries heavy truck volumes?
The first option should be PCC but we are limited with our funding. Second would be 12 inches of GAB and 12 inches of asphalt capped off with an opened graded mix. There is a pavement design committee that makes the decision on what type of surface will be used for all roadway projects.
8. In your opinion, what design standard should be used on a roadway which carries a large volume of trucks?
Wider inside & outside shoulders? Yes More heavy duty pavement? Yes. Larger clear zone? Yes.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Jerry Morris, Georgia DOT Road Design Squad Leader in Charge of Designing Truck Weigh Stations

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

December 27, 2001

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Jerry Morris, Georgia DOT Squad Leader in Charge of Designing Truck Weigh Stations, to Discuss Potential Truck Weigh Stations

Jerry Morris David Low

GDOT G&O

jerry.morris@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview the GDOT engineers to identify any activities they think will be needed for this high volume freight corridor. David asked if Jerry thought that a pair of truck weigh stations would be needed along the HP6 mainline between Columbus and I-75.

2. Jerry gave David a map showing the locations of truck weigh stations and rest areas around the state. Jerry said that he thought a pair of truck weigh stations would be needed on the HP6 mainline between Columbus and I-75. Jerry said that a pair of truck weigh stations cost $11-12 million in 2001 dollars. A good site for a truck weigh station provides a relatively easy merge for trucks onto the adjacent road where the road is level or on a downgrade for about mile. Each site requires 35 to 40 acres. Access to a local water and sewer system is preferred. Jerry said Georgia DOT is not currently putting any rest areas on the GRIP system. They are all on the interstate system.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Robert Moses, Project Engineer for Parsons Brinckerhoff

DATE:

December 28, 2001

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

Interview with Robert Moses, Project Engineer for Parsons Brinckerhoff to Discuss the State of the Practice in Truck Weigh Stations

PARTICIPANTS: Robert Moses David Low

Parsons Brinckerhoff G&O

404-364-2674 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. David introduced the High Priority Corridor Six project and its objective to prepare for heavier freight movements. Robert has designed several truck weigh stations for Georgia DOT and knows the state of the practice locating truck weigh stations.

2. Robert said that the use automatic vehicle identification (AVI) along the freeway at truck weigh stations has changed from what was installed under the Advantage I-75 program. The truck weigh station no longer writes information, such as weight, to the truck transponder. Now, if a truck has a transponder, it has a chance of being called in to be weighed. In the past, trucks with a transponder that had been weighed upstream recently might not have to exit to be weighed again. UPS and Everett Express use transponders on their trucks. Truck weigh stations now use a random number generator, and trucks with transponders have a one in five chance of being routed into the truck weigh station to be weighed.

3. The Port could check credentials on the transponder.

4. Trucking firms didn't like firms writing information onto their transponder.

5. We next talked about the subject of truck rest areas. There is a general shortage of truck parking spaces. Drivers are only allowed to drive for a given number of hours before taking a break to rest or sleep. In rest areas, it would be useful to provide a system (such as in some parking decks) to let truck drivers know if there are any available spaces, and if not they would not have to exit but could continue to the next rest area.

6. At truck weigh stations, the current practice is to place overhead message signs one mile upstream of the exit ramp. Over height detectors are placed on the exit ramps.

Interview with Robert Moses Page 2
7. The State of Georgia Bureau of Motor Vehicles was recently assigned responsibility for operating truck weigh stations and rest areas. Previously Georgia DOT had this responsibility through their Office of Permits and Enforcement. Dave asked Robert what he thought about putting truck weigh stations on GRIP corridors. He said they patrol the GRIP corridors already. There are higher fines for being overweight on roads that are not interstates.
8. They are putting a weather monitoring station at the Franklin County truck weigh station. It has a pavement sensor to detect ice on the roadway.
9. Dave asked Robert what should be done in the HP6 corridor to prepare for the increased truck traffic. Robert said: truck parking management and enforcement, and facilitating overnight truck parking. Currently too many trucks are parking on the roadway shoulder.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with J.T. Rabun, State Pavement Engineer

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: DISCUSSION:

January 10, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with J.T. Rabun, State Pavement Engineer to Discuss Georgia DOT Pavement Design

J.T. Rabun David Low

GDOT G&O

jt.rabun@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview the GDOT pavement engineer to identify current activities, inquire about new technologies and any activities they think will be needed for this high volume freight corridor.

2. J.T. said the pavement management branch was established within the Office of Materials and Research in September 2001 and J.T. began September 1.

3. In the Office of Maintenance, the Assistant Area Engineer does a yearly inventory of every mile of the state road system to identify stresses. More experienced maintenance personnel also review this to see if they agree with the conclusions. As soon as the asphalt pavement starts cracking, Georgia DOT overlays it, typically with 1 inches of surface mix. They use the IRI measure of roughness. These days, Georgia DOT is resurfacing roads with much smoother roughness than they were 30 years ago. J.T. has some charts that illustrate this.

4. For flexible pavement design, Georgia DOT is still using the AASHTO 1972 Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. There is a big impact from dynamic loads at bridge ends. They try to get them smooth, but a lot aren't. J.T. went through the pavement design procedures using a structural number. The proposed structural number is 90% (10% under) the required structural number. In ten years, they will add 1 inches of asphalt, because it isn't needed during the first ten years. This is the procedure Georgia DOT uses for new flexible pavement. For the rehabilitation of existing pavement, the Pavement Evaluation Engineer takes cores

Interview with J.T. Rabun Page 2
and determines the overlay required. They consider whether full depth reconstruction is necessary or milling and overlay.
5. For rigid pavement, they are trying to limit the flexural stress in the concrete. New concrete has an allowable flexural stress of 600 psi, so Georgia DOT uses 450 psi as a target. The difference is their safety factor. Failure occurs when there is loss of support with fines (fine material) pumped out through the joints. Georgia DOT now dowels all of their joints, which helps prevent pumping.
6. The typical rigid pavement design for an interstate is 12 inches of PCC over 5 inches of asphalt or econocrete (lean concrete mixture), and then 12 inches of graded aggregate base course. Graded aggregate gives a working surface for construction equipment. Econocrete eliminates the possibility of fines being pumped out.
7. J.T. talked about the activities he thinks will be required for the heavy truck movements anticipated on HP6. They inventory the pavement structure and look at the structural capacity for this type of traffic. They may try to upgrade the pavement sections throughout the HP6 corridor.
8. A faulting study was done on all Georgia DOT pavements back in the 1970's for the through lane pavement and shoulder pavement on I-16. They also got the plans. This data has a gap from milepost 11.5 (Bibb/Twiggs Counties) to milepost 32 (Bleckley County). Shoulders may have to be reconstructed on I-16 to provide full depth pavement. Buddy Gratton has asked J.T. to get full depth shoulders on everything as much as possible. Full depth shoulders are much more advantageous from a maintenance standpoint.
9. To retrofit the I-16 shoulders, J.T. said Georgia DOT would probably go back in with asphalt, probably 3 inches over 6 or 8 inches of GAB. J.T. would have to talk with Buddy Gratton and see what his preference would be. The Office of Maintenance may have already done it.
10. If the volume of trucks on a segment of interstate is significantly heavier than the typical interstate, and if they are using flexible pavement, they may use more of a heavy-duty design to prevent rutting. The bituminous design people who work for Mike Cown can address this.
11. J.T. is looking at things Georgia DOT can do to improve their pavement design process. Are we getting the best design for our money? They spend $1 Billion annually for pavement. J.T. pulled out the 1993 AASHTO pavement design guide. Georgia DOT did not the 1993 design guide because the test procedures for soil were not valid. It updated the rigid pavement design to give credit for dowels and tied shoulders. The greatest distress is created in the outside wheel path. To address it, they give edge support to the edge of pavement and either provide a wider lane or use tied shoulders. J.T. prefers to provide a wider lane (provide a slab 14 feet wide and stripe it for 12 feet), because this design places trucks traveling 3 feet from the edge of pavement instead of 1 feet and thereby reduces edge stress. He referred to construction detail S-1.
12. Now there will be a 2002 design guide using a mechanistic design (LTPP), using material properties instead of road test results. There are limitations to the old procedures. There is great variability in soils. J.T. would like to look at the probabilistic approach.

Interview with J.T. Rabun Page 3
13. FHWA has not pushed Georgia DOT to make a design change (from the AASHTO 1972 Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures). Georgia has the smoothest roads in the nation, and we have the lowest gas tax. Why make a change?
14. Georgia DOT now has COPACES, a computerized pavement condition survey, and GPAM, the Georgia Pavement Management System, developed with Georgia Tech. GPAM puts in COPACES data and based on the distresses, determines the type of pavement system needed. It uses GIS to consider different soil types, and uses the most sophisticated system for optimization. They have been doing this for almost 30 years.
15. J.T. said increasing truck tandem axle weights will decrease the service life of our pavements. 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle has an ESAL (equivalent 18K single axle load) of 1. In 1996, the Georgia legislature passed laws allowing tandem axle loads to go from 37,340 to 40,680 pounds, and that did not allow the gross vehicle weight to increase. The gross vehicle weight is capped at 80,000 pounds. Georgia is currently debating whether to allow tandem axle loads to increase to 44,000 or 46,000 pounds. J.T. provided two charts showing the relationships between tandem axle loads for asphalt pavement and either damage factors or service life. If Georgia allows an increase in the tandem axle load this year, J.T. thinks there will be a request to increase the gross vehicle weight from 80,000 to 104,000 pounds next year. He said he thinks it is a federal law that limits gross vehicle weight to 80,000 pounds.
16. When asked if he knew of any new technologies that would help them deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HP6, J.T. said one of the biggest things would be the mechanistic design (LTPP) to limit stresses and strains in the pavements. It is not an AASHTO design guide yet. It will require large amounts of input, contrasted with the current procedures from the 1972 Interim Design Guide, which only require a small amount of input. J.T. said we will not use it unless there is a significant benefit to it.
17. When asked if rigid pavement would make sense for a heavy truck route like HP6, J.T. said yes. He said that may end up being only my opinion. Leadership for the lab for a long time was pro asphalt. Perpetual pavement is a buzzword with FHWA. In California, instead of a 20-year pavement design life, they are looking at a 50-year design life. Asphalt pavements have to be overlaid about every 10 or 12 years. A lot of the interstate system was designed 30 years ago, is carrying much heavier volume than it was designed for, and is still in good condition. There is a place for concrete pavement and it is in high volume, high truck traffic corridors. J.T. said he doesn't know if everyone in Georgia DOT would agree with that. The HP6 corridor is a prime candidate for concrete pavement. With concrete pavement, the philosophy is: get in, get out, and stay out. J.T. said if you were building this (HP6) brand new, you would build it with concrete. It becomes a more difficult, more involved decision since it is underway, however upgrading it to concrete would be easier to do today than in the future.
18. I-285 on the east side from I-20 north to Spaghetti Junction was designed for five to six million ESALs, but has already carried 55 million ESALs. There have been no pavement failures, and there are no plans to replace the pavement.

Interview with J.T. Rabun Page 4
19. J.T. said the best way to retrofit the pavement on the parts of HP6 that have already been designed is with additional asphalt. As far as he knows, all of the Fall Line Freeway is asphalt. Look at what is there, anticipate the number of additional trucks and add asphalt as needed. Depending on the design, they may need to consider the life cycle cost to compare reconstruction with concrete vs. overlaying with asphalt. Concrete should be considered for those sections that have not been let yet, but it is hard to get those people to reconsider anything. He will try to find the minutes of the pavement design committee for the Fall Line Freeway. The plans for I-16 are all on file in the Plan File Room.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Jim Salvador and Tim Smith, Railroad Engineers

DATE:

January 3, 2002

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

To acquire railroad inventory information on the HPC 6 Project and help create a methodology to identifying candidates for railroad crossing upgrades.

PARTICIPANTS:

Jim Salvador Tim Smith Nik Kharva

GDOT GDOT G&O

404-635-8121 404-635-8121 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. Mr. Salvador provided valuable information that GDOT acquires regarding railroad crossing inventory information. I had mentioned to him that it was difficult to identify what exact railroad crossing ID number corresponds to the railroad crossing on county maps. He provided me copies of county maps where railroad crossing ID numbers were identified. These maps were available for most of the counties in our study area but not all. These railroad ID numbers can be placed on the Federal Railroad Administration website to find railroad crossing parameters. (http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/Crossing/Default.asp)

2. It was noted by Mr. Salvador that the inventory data provided by the website may not be up to date. Certain information regarding railroad crossing inventory is not current or known to GDOT and an ongoing effort is made to update this information.

3. Asked Mr. Smith what are the parameters in the FRA inventory sheets and to make sure my assumption of the definitions are accurate. After talking to him pertinent inventory data was decided for collection and are listed below.

4. Pertinent information regarding Railroad Crossing:



Crossing Number



Railroad Name



County



Highway Type & Number



Street or Road Name



Crossing Type and Protection



Nearest City

Interview with Jim Salvador and Tim Smith Page 2



Railroad Milepost



Typical Number of Daily Train Movements



Train Activated Devices (Gates, Flashing Lights and/or Bells)



Crossing Surface



Nearest Intersecting Highway



Estimated Percent Trucks

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with David Studstill, Georgia DOT Director of Operations

DATE: PROJECT:
SUBJECT: ATTENDEES:
DISCUSSION:

January 4, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Interview with David Studstill, Georgia DOT Director of Operations

David Studstill David Low

GDOT G&O

david.studstill@dot.state.ga.us
dwlow@g-and-o.com

1. David Low explained that the Office of Planning is doing a corridor study for High Priority Corridor 6, and that Day Wilburn Associates is leading a consulting team to perform the corridor study. He explained the location of the corridor and the study area in Georgia. He said that G&O has been asked to interview GDOT engineers to identify any activities they think will be needed for heavy truck movement anticipated with HP6.

2. David Studstill said that almost all of the GRIP system was designed for 65 mph but some was designed for 55 mph in the early 90's coming out of Columbus. Bypass as many small towns as possible. We discussed a bypass for Cordele. He was lukewarm on rest areas run by the state. They are more of a liability than an asset. Grade separate crossings on the mainline.
3. David S. said that bottlenecks are at SR 49 and the Ft. Valley Bypass, and US 11 and SR 96. Improve the Dean Forest Road corridor with grade separations and try to go to more controlled access.
4. David L. asked if he knew of any new technologies that would help GDOT deal with heavy truck traffic anticipated with HP6. David S. said CVISN (commercial vehicles information system network) and Advantage I-75, a one stop shop where a truck gets weighed in one state and you are set up to continue through any other state until you stop.
5. David S. said that all of the enforcement folks have gone over to DMVS. DMVS is strapped for cash. The driver's license bureau is such a priority right now; enforcement hasn't had a chance to get into this yet. It is disappointing that they have put a lot of resources into things like this.

Interview with David Studstill Page 2
6. David S. said these kinds of improvements are really design functions, not maintenance.
7. David S. said GDOT allows two trailer trucks, though there are still some routes that don't.

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Mike Weiner, City of Savannah Traffic Engineer

DATE:

December 20, 2001

PROJECT:

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

SUBJECT:

Interview with Mike Weiner, City of Savannah Traffic Engineer to Discuss Freight Related Infrastructure Issues in Savannah Area

PARTICIPANTS: Mike Weiner David Low

City of Savannah G&O

912-651-6600 770-956-8510 ext 252

DISCUSSION:

1. David introduced the High Priority Corridor Six project and its objective to prepare for heavier freight movements. He asked about areas that would need to be upgraded to prepare for heavier truck movements.

2. Mike said that Dean Forest Road provides the most direct truck connection to the Port. He suggested that G&O talk with Mark Wilkes at the MPO who would know the right person to talk with at the Port about their activities. He said Georgia DOT is upgrading the Houlihan Bridge.

3. One of the major problems are accidents at the Dean Forest Road/I-16 interchange due to undesirable spacing of the entrance and exit ramps along Dean Forest Road. He said their had been some nasty accidents. It is current a diamond interchange, but may need to be modified to provide a directional ramp.

4. The Port has already engaged Georgia DOT for overpasses at the railroad south of SR 21 on Dean Forest Road at the CSX line. The Georgia DOT District Preconstruction Engineer in Jesup, Tony Collins (912-4275715), is handling this.
5. Because of security associated with September 11th, there are large delays at the main Port gate at the intersection of Dean Forest Road and SR 25/US 17.

6. There is another Port facility called the East Port Terminal along President Street. There is a problem with getting trucks through downtown. They use Bay Street now, which carries about 25,000 vehicles per day, with about 12% trucks. HNTB is doing a regional transportation study and recommending a four-lane tunnel under Gwinnett Street.

7. Asked about maintenance problems, Mike said there are major problems on River Street at all of the ramps. They are made of cobblestones, which are a big maintenance problem. They are trying to restrict hours of

Interview with Mike Weiner Page 2
operation and restrict heavy trucks. Mike suggested G&O talk with Perry Banks, head of the City of Savannah's Street Department (912-651-6571).

GENERAL CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES

Interview with Randy Weitman, Facilities Engineer, Port of Savannah

DATE: PROJECT: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES:
DISCUSSION:

January 25, 2002

High Priority Corridor Six Study G&O Project No. 0089

Interview with Randy Weitman, Facilities Engineer, Georgia Port Authority Port of Savannah to Discuss Port Activities and Future Plans

Randy Weitman Toni Dunagan Jeff Carroll

GPA DWA G&O

rweitman@gaports.com tdunagan@daywilburn.com jcarroll@g-and-o.com

1. The Port of Savannah is one of three ports in Georgia that operate for a profit. The State of Georgia sells bonds for development at the port. The Port of Savannah has a good relationship with GDOT and with the Savannah Chatham County Planning Commission.
2. The Ocean Terminal handles break bulk cargo and the bottom has fallen out of this market. Container shippers are marketing break bulk customers and selling space to them in containers that would have been returning to another port empty.
3. The southeast region of the US is the hottest area for containerized cargo. The Port of Savannah recently surpassed the 1 million TEU's in June and they will probably do about 1.1-1.2 TEU's this year alone. The port is projecting a 10-12 percent increase in containerized freight.
4. The Port recently opened the 150 acre ICTF along SR 307 and SR 25. Before this facility, it took about three days to get the containerized freight to Atlanta. With the new facility the containerized freight can reach Atlanta in one day and Chicago in three days. Norfolk Southern has access to this facility and CSX may gain access in the future.
5. Home Depot has a 1.4 million square foot distribution center located near the port facility. Other distribution centers serving the port are: Pier One, Dollar Tree, Wal-Mart, and K-Mart.
6. There will be new spec warehouse building adjacent and north of the existing port. 7. Approximately 3,100 trucks travel in and out of the Port of Savannah a day. The volume of trucks
per day accessing the port continues to grow and is expected to grow because of the projected growth in containerized freight. 8. The I-95 interchange needs to be signalized because of the heavy traffic moving through this interchange. 9. The Jimmy Deloach Parkway will be extended to SR 25 and this will provide better connectivity between the port facilities, distribution centers and airport.

Interview with Randy Weitman Page 2
10. The rail/truck ratio is approximately 15 percent rail and 85 percent truck. Approximately 70 percent of the truck traffic accessing the port is local and the remaining 30 percent is long distance carriers. Local drivers pick up containers and deliver them to the distribution centers; from there another truck will take the container to its final destination.
11. The distribution centers are fueling the growth for the Port of Savannah right now. If Wal-Mart says they want the goods shipped to Savannah the supplier will deliver the goods there without question.
12. GPA is currently designing 2 grade separation in the port area and GDOT will be funding the construction. The first one will construct an overpass on SR 25/US 17 to travel over a new 48 foot wide roadway to be built by GPA. The overpass will eliminate interference of heavy intermodal traffic generated by the James D. Mason Intermodal Terminal Container Transfer Facility Construction is scheduled for FY 2002 this improvement. The second will construct an overpass on SR 307 to travel over the existing Norfolk Southern Foundation, to be built by GPA. The project will eliminate interference between rail and vehicle traffic. This is a high priority and PE and R/W is scheduled to be completed in 2002 and construction is scheduled for 2004.
13. None of the project from the Chatham County Intermodal Freight Study have been implemented to date. The Port is in need of some improvements identified in that study to facilitate traffic more efficiently in and out of the port.
14. The Port has two gates that trucks can enter and exit. Gate 3 exits the port onto Brampton Road and during certain times of the day Norfolk Southern blocks the access from Brampton Road to SR 21 when they perform track switching. When this entry/exit access is blocked, the trucks will turn around and use Gate 1 and this causes some traffic problems in the port facility along with congestion on SR 21 and Brampton Road/SR 21 Spur.
15. One of the major problems is that I-516 does not extend to I-95. The Intermodal Study identified this as a viable project and this would be very beneficial accessing the port.
16. The port has replaced asphalt with concrete in several high traffic areas within the port facility. But given the cost of concrete we could overlay asphalt twice and still not meet the initial cost of replacing it with concrete.
17. The Port will add approximately 85 acres to the port facility in 2008, they will not be renewing a lease and this will provide them more space. The Port owns land north of their current facility but there are environmental issues related to expanding to this area. There has been discussion on moving some port activities across the river to Hutchinson. The Governor gave $1 million to the port to examine if expanding to Hutchinson Island would be feasible. CSX has an abandoned rail line that accesses Hutchinson Island that could be rehabilitated. The Houlihan bridge needs to be upgraded if expansion occur north of the port or across the river on Hutchinson Island. The Port has grown as much as possible and they are looking at internal modifications for expansion.

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix B Design and Construction of
Concrete Intersections "Tech Notes"
June 2002

SEPTEMBER 2001

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

"TECH NOTES"

"TECH NOTES" is an effort by the FOSSC Materials Laboratory to share design and construction technology gained from projects done throughout WSDOT. This issue is from the Pavements Branch discussing concrete intersections.
Design and Construction of Concrete Intersections

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) began replacing selected flexible pavement intersections with Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) in 1994. These asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) intersections were severely rutted and distressed from loads, slow moving vehicles, and warm temperatures.

that are necessary with future ACP inlays during its design life are reduced when PCCP is used. The major disadvantage with PCCP intersections is the higher initial construction cost. However, a life cycle cost analysis of PCCP reconstruction versus ACP reconstruction and future inlays shows that PCCP intersection reconstruction competes with, and can be less expensive than,

Distressed pavement on SR 395 in Kennewick, Washington.
Though WSDOT has considerable experience with cement concrete pavements, a unique feature was the replacement of existing ACP at intersections on urban arterials. Seventeen intersections have been reconstructed with PCCP as of September 2001.
Both PCCP and ACP have 40-year design lives, however, the PCCP requires very minimal, if any future rehabilitation. The construction user costs and disruption to traffic

Concrete intersection on SR 2 in Spokane, Washington.
rebuilding with ACP over a 40-year period.
Several municipalities in the State of Washington including the City of Kennewick, City of Seattle, City of Spokane, and Spokane County, have successful completed PCCP intersection projects. The PCCP intersection projects for the City of Kennewick, City of Spokane and Spokane County were selected primarily to eliminate chronic rutting problems. PCCP intersections within the City of Seattle

were a result of its PCCP construction program on many arterials.
The main reasons for not considering PCCP reconstruction prior to 1994 was related to constructibility and concerns about accommodating high traffic flows through urban intersections. Rehabilitating urban intersections with ACP requires rotomilling and inlaying with ACP to remove wheel rutting. This work can typically be done at night, in a short period, and with a minor inconvenience to the public, but must be performed every eight to ten years or earlier. On the other hand, rehabilitating intersections with PCCP usually involves disruption of the intersection, and can include complete closure of the intersection or alternating lane closures.
Placement of formwork prior to a PCCP intersection pour.
The concern within WSDOT was that the inconvenience to the users was too great to construct urban intersections with PCCP. However, since 1994, WSDOT has shown that PCCP intersections are constructible and the early concerns have been overcome. WSDOT has built PCCP intersections with an average daily traffic approaching 37,000 on the major leg of the intersection.
A comparison of initial PCCP intersection costs ranged from $455,500 to $982,200 for PCCP and $349,800 to $728,600 for ACP.

The range in the PCCP or ACP reconstruction costs resulted primarily from the size and
Placement of concrete using a Whiteman Screed at an urban intersection.
variability in unit bid prices for each intersection. Typically, intersection sizes ranged from 4,100 to 6,700 square yards. With the smaller intersections, the unit bid costs typically increased, which drives the costs for reconstruction up. On average, initial construction costs for full depth PCCP reconstruction at urban intersections were 25 to 30 percent more than full depth ACP reconstruction.
The cost per square yard for the initial PCCP construction ranged from $66 to $148 per square yard, whereas ACP intersection costs ranged from $51 to $109 per square yard. The PCCP reconstruction costs were less when the intersections were reconstructed as part of a larger asphalt resurfacing project.
The 40-year annualized costs for intersections show that full depth PCCP intersection reconstruction is typically less than full depth ACP reconstruction when future ACP inlays are accounted for. A study of six of the intersections reconstructed with concrete showed that five of the six cost from 6 to 14 percent less than ACP reconstruction (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

In comparison the 40-year annualized cost for reconstructed PCCP intersections compared to ACP inlays at four-, six- and eight-year cycles show that the ACP inlay will always be less than the PCCP reconstruction (see Table 2).
However, the state or local agency must decide whether ACP inlays meet the expectations of the public. The public view of an agency rehabilitating the same section of roadway at four, six- or eight-year cycles does not reflect well on the agency.

Table 1. Annualized costs (40-years) for PCCP reconstruction versus ACP reconstruction with inlays at 8-year cycles.

SR Intersection PCCP Rebuild

ACP Rebuild with Inlays at 8year Cycles

27 Sprague

33,000

90 Broadway 27,600

2 Francis

72,100

291 Maple/Ash 32,900

27 Broadway 43,200

395 19th

30,100

34,800 51,500 80,500 35,500 38,500 34,300

Cumulative Cost (x 1000)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 0

8

16

24

32

Year

PCCP Construction ACP Construction

Figure 1. Cumulative costs (present worth) for initial PCCP construction and initial ACP construction with inlays at 8-year cycles over a 40-year period.

Table 2. Annualized costs (40-years) for PCCP reconstruction verses ACP inlays at 8-year cycles.

SR Intersection PCCP Rebuild

ACP Inlays at 8-year Cycles

27 Sprague

33,000

90 Broadway 27,600

2 Francis

72,100

291 Maple/Ash 32,900

27 Broadway 43,200

395 19th

30,100

12,300 14,900 24,500 15,200 14,500 14,400

Traffic control and construction staging is a primary issue associated with the construction of PCCP intersections. While some delay to the traveling public is unavoidable, the delay has proved to be tolerable even with limited or complete closures. An important design element is to obtain input from any party that will be affected by the intersection reconstruction. These parties include, but are not limited to, local governments, fire and police agencies, business owners, and private citizens. An important element to contract administration has been the wide publicity by WSDOT Public Information to local governments, businesses, and to the media, including newspapers and radio.
The Customer Focus Highway Construction Workshop, held in Seattle in January 1999, noted that the traveling public is a lot more tolerant during construction when people are kept informed. With widespread publicity, WSDOT has noticed decreased traffic volumes during intersection reconstructions. The reduction represents people who have found alternative routes or have adjusted their schedules to avoid the construction project.
Staging options for PCCP intersection construction include complete closures, partial closures, construction under traffic, complete closures during limited time periods, and any combination of the above.

WSDOT has used complete closures, partial closures with detours, construction under traffic and a combination of construction under traffic and complete closures.
The ideal construction situation is to completely close the roadway. Complete closures allow the contractor to remove and replace more roadway in a continuous and safe operation. Interaction with traffic is avoided and complicated work zone lane configurations are eliminated. Complete closures also restrict access to businesses that are adjacent to the intersection and are therefore unpopular. However, closing a major urban arterial is often not an option, particularly when detours are not available.
The South Central Region used complete closures on SR 395 in Kennewick, where the Clearwater Avenue, West Kennewick Avenue, and the Yelm Street intersections were reconstructed. One intersection per weekend was reconstructed during September and
Construction under traffic at an urban intersection.
October 2000. The contract specified closing each intersection by 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening and opening to traffic by 6:00 a.m. the next Monday morning. Local traffic was detoured to adjacent streets, while state highway traffic was detoured over nearby Interstate Highways.

Concrete intersections constructed in Kennewick, Washington.
Before the weekend closures, the approach and leave legs to the intersections were reconstructed under traffic. During the weekend closures, the contractor removed and replaced the roadway within the intersection square (radius return to radius return) and a portion of each approach or leave legs of the adjoining city streets. PCCP placement and curing proceeded well, with the roadway opened well ahead of the 6:00 a.m. Monday morning target. Following the closures, WSDOT received very favorable comments from both businesses and residents.
Full documentation of the Kennewick area accelerated reconstructions including a video and construction report will be available through the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation.
Design and construction considerations, PCCP intersection construction costs, life cycle costs, traffic management, and quality control issues are detailed in WSDOT's May 2001 publication WA-RD 503.1 "PCCP Intersections Design and Construction in Washington State." This report can be obtained from the WSDOT Research Office or from the contact provided below.
For more information contact: Name: Jeff Uhlmeyer Phone: (360) 709-5485 E-mail: uhlmeyj@wsdot.wa.gov

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix C Construction Work Program
June 2002

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

0001472 LUM-0001-00(472)

311005- NH-IM-16-1(131)

311460- IM-NH-75-1(192)CT 1

331870- BRMLB-3268(1)

333055- STP-066-1(36)

351110- STP-3201(9)

323020- NH-00TS(61)

350960- STP-3207(4)

333152- BRST-037-1(26)

311950- NH-IM-475-1(247)

323025- NH-00TS(62)

311465- IM-NH-75-1(192)CT 2

0000566 STP-0000-00(566)

323030- NH-3230-00(300)

371800- NH-3718-00(000)

322005- BHF-037-1(19)

323045- BRN-034-3(38)

333150- BRST-005-3(28)

351135- BRMLB-3213(5)

0002225 STP-0002-00(225)

310980- NH-16-1(91)

311910- NH-75-1(246)

363630- FLF-540(17)

362695- FLF-540(16)

311000- NH-IM-16-1(92)

351130- STP-3213(3)

322000- STP-037-1(18)

311560- IM-NH-75-1(214)

371801- NH-3718-00(010)

351095- BRMLB-3223(6)

0000835 STP-0000-00(835)

350595- PRP-8530-26(021)

312090- NH-IM-75-2(211)

342080- STP-3223(2)

350520- STP-3213(1)

351080- STP-3223(5)

351090- STP-3223(4)

351105- BHMLB-3201(11)

311410- NH-16-1(104)

351100- STP-3201(8)

351120- STP-3201(10)

351140- STP-3213(4)

371430- STP-00MS(128)

245336- BRST-0941(9)

222360- MLP-87(43)

COUNTY All Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bibb Bleckley Bleckley

DESCRIPTION LUMP SUM MAINTENANCE FOR ANY AREA FY 2007 I-16 IN MACON- BRIDGE AT MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE RECONSTRUCT HARTLEY BRIDGE RD/CR 740 BRIDGE & APP OVER I-75 CR 742/TUCKER ROAD @ ROCKY CREEK 1 MI W OF MACON CTY LMTS SR 87/MACON FM JOE TAMPLIN EXT TO & ALONG WEAVER RD TO W.ELK LOG CABIN DR FM EISENHOWER PKWY TO MERCER UNIV DR/ SR 74 ATMS MAINTENANCE IN MACON FOR 2003 SR 74 FM W OF I-475 W/TRN LNES TO E OF LOG CABIN DR/SR 74 SP SR 87/US 23 @ BEAVERDAM CREEK JUST NORTH OF I-75 I-475/ZEBULON RD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION {INCL LIGHTING} ATMS MAINTENANCE IN MACON FOR 2004 I-75/I-475 INTERCHANGE @ HARTLEY BRIDGE RD. SARDIS CHURCH RD/CR 717 FROM I-75 TO SR 247/HAWKINSVILLE RD ATMS: MAINTENANCE IN MACON FOR 2005 COMMUTER RAIL GRIFFIN TO MACON/BIBB - HOUSTON CO. - PHASE 4 SR 87/RIVERSIDE DR/MACON @ SABBATH CREEK SR 247/US 129 SBL @ NOR-SOU RAILROAD S OF MACON CTY LIMIT SR 19/US 23 NBL & SBL @ WALNUT CREEK EAST EDGE OF MACON CR 723/FOREST HILL ROAD @ SABBATH CREEK NORTH OF SR 19 SECOND ST/CR 302 @ NOR-SOU RAILROAD IN MACON I-16 @ SR 540 INCL I-16 ML BR @ SAL RR| 1 STREAM & 1 RIVER I-75 NEW INTERCHANGE AT SARDIS CHURCH RD SR 540/EISENHOWER PKWY EXT FM LOWER BOUNDARY ST E TO I-16 SR 540/EISENHOWER PKWY FM I-16 N TO SR 19/US 80/EMERY HWY I-16/MACON FM SR 11 EAST TO SR 87 INCL BRIDGES & CD /EXC MLK CR 723/FOREST HILL RD FM WIMBISH RD TO NORTHSIDE DR/CR 79 SR 87/RIVERSIDE DR/MACON FM HALL RD TO NORTHSIDE DR I-75 @ HARDEMAN AVE- FORSYTH ST & GEORGIA AVE & HARDEMAN AVE COMMUTER RAIL GRIFFIN TO MACON/BIBB - HOUSTON CO. - PHASE 5 CR 727/JEFFERSONVILLE RD. @ WALNUT CREEK IN NE MACON JEFFERSONVILLE RD AT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD SOUTH DOWNTOWN CONN FM TELFAIR ST TO MLK JR BLVD IN MACON I-75 FM PIERCE AVE/SR 247/US 41 TO ARKWRIGHT ROAD JEFFERSON'LE FM WALNUT CK-RECREATION & MILLER'LD TO BRISTOL FOREST HILL RD IN MACON FROM FORSYTH ROAD TO WIMBISH ROAD JEFFERSONVILLE RD FM RECREATION RD TO FALL LINE FWY/US 80 JEFFERSONVILLE RD FM EMERY HWY/SR 19 TO WALNUT CREEK BRIDGE CR 88/LOG CABIN DRIVE @ ROCKY CREEK WEST OF SR 74 I-16/I-75 FM I-75 @ HARDEMAN AVE TO I-16 @ SPRING ST CR 88/LOG CABIN DR FM SR 74/MERCER UNIV DR TO HOLLINGSWORTH BLOOMFIELD RD/LOG CABIN DR FM ROCKY CK RD TO SR 22/EISENHOWE NW PKWY-NEW LOC FM LOG CABIN TO NAPIER@PARK ST THEN TO SR 19 WESTERN LP FM FULTON MILL RD ALONG CR 742 TO I-75 SR 126 @ GUM SWAMP CREEK 5.8 MI E OF COCHRAN SR 87 FM NORTH OF SR 257 NW TO THE COCHRAN BYPASS

PROGDATE RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

1 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

COUNTY

DESCRIPTION

511190- IM-16-1(110)

Bryan

I-16 WIDEN 10 BRIDGES @ MP 138.3| 145.9| 146.6| 146.8| 147.2

532370- STP-0630(10)

Bryan

SR 144 EB FM TIMBER TRAIL/ML 11.5 TO CR 154/ML 16

542380- BRST-0577(23)

Bulloch

SR 46 @ LOTTS CREEK 1.8 MI E OF REGISTER

0001076 STP-0001-00(076)

Bulloch

SR 26/US 80 AT AKINS POND RD/CR 9 NORTH OF STATESBORO

0003091 BR-0003-00(091)

Bulloch

CR 153/CYPRESS LAKE RD @ WATERINGHOLE BRANCH SW/STATESBORO

0003092 BR-0003-00(092)

Bulloch

CR 577/FAS 733 @ LOWER BLACK CREEK 6 MI S OF BROOKLET

522640- STP-068-1(36)LP

Bulloch

E. STATESBORO BYP/SR 1018 FROM SR 73/US 25 TO SR 73/US 301

521800- NH-068-2(20)

Bulloch

SR 73/US 301 FM PACKING HOUSE RD TO NORTH OF CR 445 & BRIDGE

542401- BRST-0729(13)

Candler

SR 129 @ CANOOCHEE RIVER & OVERFLOW 4 MI S OF METTER

542400- BRST-0577(24)

Candler

SR 46 @ FIFTEEN MILE CREEK 2.8 MI E OF METTER

0002734 BR-0002-00(734)

Candler

CR 196 @ WOLFE CREEK 6 MI SOUTH OF METTER

0002841 BR-0002-00(841)

Candler

CR 223/ PORTAL HIGHWAY @ LITTLE STOCKING HEAD CREEK

0002842 BR-0002-00(842)

Candler

CR 223/ PORTAL HIGHWAY @ BIG BRANCH 8 MI NORTH OF METTER

0002843 BR-0002-00(843)

Candler

CR 223/ PORTAL HIGHWAY @ LOTTS CREEK 9 MI NORTH OF METTER

0000691 NHS-0000-00(691)

Candler

I-16 CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW REST AREA IN MEDIAN AT MP 97

0000345 HPP-0000-00(345)

Chatham

SR 307 CONSTRUCT OVERPASS OVER NEW PORTS AUTHORITY RAIL LINE

521867- BHF-009-2(81)

Chatham

SR 25/US 17/OCEAN HWY @ OGEECHEE RIVER OVERFLOW

533205- BRST-219-1(1)

Chatham

CR 302/MONTGOMERY CROSS RD @ CASEY CANAL 1 MI E OF SR 204

532570- STP-111-1(22)

Chatham

ABERCORN ST @ TIBET AVE

521865- STP-009-2(79)

Chatham

SR 25/US 17 FM OGEECHEE RVR OFLW TO S/SR 204(& NEW BR)

0001075 NHS-0001-00(075)

Chatham

HARRY S.TRUMAN PKY/PH 3 CT 3 - INTERCHANGE LIGHTING

T000698 HAR-T000-00(698)

Chatham

HAR 27-4/Legal Fees - Condemnation by SC

522790- STP-218-1(1)

Chatham

JIMMY DELOACH PARKWAY EXTENSION FM I-16 TO US 80

522490- HPP-STP-064-1(41) Chatham

SR 26/US80 FM W OF BULL RIVER TO E OF LAZARETTO CRK

522490- HPP-STP-064-1(41) Chatham

SR 26/US80 FM W OF BULL RIVER TO E OF LAZARETTO CRK

562165- MLP-307(8)

Chatham

SR 307/DEAN FOREST ROAD FM R.B. MILLER RD TO SR 21

522170- STP-005-5(28)

Chatham

SR 17&26/US 80 FM SR 17 TO CHERRY ST IN BLOOMINGDALE/CHATHAM

523230- NH-00TS(57)

Chatham

ATMS: SAVANNAH/CHATHAM COUNTY/GDOT REGIONAL TCC

511180- IM-16-1(109)

Chatham

I-16 AT MP 165.1- 164.0- 163.2- 162.3- AND I-516 INTERCHANGE

533160- BRST-064-1(49)

Chatham

SR 25/OCEAN HIGHWAY @ NS RAILROAD 5 MI N OF SAVANNAH

0000690 IM-0000-00(690)

Chatham

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE I-95 SOUTH BOUND WELCOME CENTER

521855- STP-064-1(40)SPUR Chatham

SR 26 FM 4-LN E/LYNES PKWY TO VICTORY DR/CS 188

550580- STP-4004(5)

Chatham

WHITE/COFFEE BLUFF RDS FM N OF LITTLE OGEECHEE RVR TO WILLOW

523215- NH-00TS(54)

Chatham

ATMS: I-95 COMM/SURV FM SR 204 TO US 80/SR 26

533200- BRST-111-1(32)

Chatham

SR 204/ABERCORN EXTENSION @ HARMON CANAL W OF WHITE BLUFF

571060- STP-00MS(44)

Chatham

SKIDAWAY RD FM FERGUSON AVE TO S OF VICTORY DR IN SAVANNAH

523235- NH-00TS(58)

Chatham

ATMS: SAVANNAH SLO SCAN/CMS/RADAR

522920- NH-009-2(93)

Chatham

SR 404 SPUR/US 17 OVER BACK RIVER 1 MILE N OF SAVANNAH

550550- STP-00MS(4)

Chatham

SR 204 SPUR/DIAMOND CSWY FM FERGUSON AVE TO MCWHORTER DR

550560- STP-00MS(5)

Chatham

WHITFIELD AVE/SR 204SP FM OLD WHITFIELD TO FERGUSON AVE/SAV

0001368 BR-0001-00(368)

Chattahoochee CR 58 @ NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD 4.6 MI E OF CUSSETA

363130- FLF-540(11)

Crawford

SR 96 FM E OF FLINT RIV TO FT VALLEY BP/SR 49C & BRIDG/PEACH

410260- HPP-NH-75-1(156)CT 1 Crisp

I-75 FM SR 300 TO DOOLY COUNTY LINE

432080- STP-30-2(43)

Crisp

SR 30/US 280/16TH AVE AT 15TH ST IN CORDELE

450550- STP-1300(4)

Crisp

24th AVENUE/SR 987 GRADE SEPARATION AT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR

PROGDATE RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

0003385 NHS-0003-00(385)

0002229 BR-0002-00(229)

422470- STP-30-2(29)

221960- GIP-341(31)

262061- EDS-441(18)

262061- EDS-441(18)

0002224 BR-0002-00(224)

0002227 BR-0002-00(227)

245355- BRST-0573(17)

0002226 BR-0002-00(226)

222410- MLP-87(45)

231930- STP-030-3(23)

221975- STP-066-1(29)SPUR

333190- BRST-081-1(21)

0002228 BR-0002-00(228)

311665- IM-NH-75-1(227)

571450- BRZLB-103(2)

522170- STP-005-5(28)

533145- BRST-005-5(47)

511190- IM-16-1(110)

0001824 STP-0001-00(824)

231970- BHF-062-1(22)

222490- EDS-545(44)

522130- EDS-545(14)

522130- EDS-545(14)

221900- EDS-545(17)

221910- EDS-545(18)

231960- BHF-038-2(40)

232325- BRST-005-4(25)

0000768 NHS-0000-00(768)

222510- EDS-545(50)

222500- EDS-545(48)

222630- NH-038-1(40)

522105- MLP-30(81)

533140- BRST-007-4(58)

562120- MLP-520(32)

523190- NH-007-4(56)

511092- NH-IM-95-1(154)

0001223 BR-0001-00(223)

511100- NH-IM-95-1(117)

511090- NH-IM-95-1(118)

0001585 NHS-0001-00(585)

550495- STP-5504-00(950)

343030- STP-744(6)

343040- STP-158-1(14)

COUNTY Crisp Crisp Crisp Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge Dooly Dooly Dooly Effingham Effingham Effingham Effingham Effingham Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Emanuel Evans Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Harris Harris

DESCRIPTION I-75 STREAM MITIGATION IN TIFT; TURNER & CRISP COUNTIES CR 71/AMBOY ROAD @ LIME CREEK 2 MI E OF ARABI SR 30/US 280 FM E OF FLINT RVR TO SR 300 CONN W OF CORDELE SR 27 FM CHAUNCEY E CL TO HELENA WEST CL/TELFAIR CO-22196X SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS CR 52/FAIR HAVEN CH ROAD @ CROOKED CREEK 2.4 MI N OF RHINE CR 239 (OLD CR 346)/ JAYBIRD SPRINGS RD @ GUM SWAMP CREEK SR 87/EASTMAN-RHINE HWY @ SUGAR CREEK 1.8 MI S OF EASTMAN CR 275/NEW BETHEL CH ROAD @ JOINER CREEK 9 MI NE OF CHAUNCEY SR 87/US 23 FM CR 332/EASTMAN TO SR 257/FRAZIER (EXCEPTION) SR 30/US 280 FM WEST TO EAST CITY LIMITS OF MILAN NW EASTMAN BYP/SR 841 FM US 341/SR 27 NE TO US 23/SR 87 SR 27 @ PENNAHATCHEE CREEK WEST OF VIENNA CR 104/PLEASANT VALLEY RD @ LITTLE PENNAHATCHEE CRK I-75 WIDEN BRIDGE & RAMPS @ SR 27 CR 183/LOG LANDING ROAD @ EBENEZER CREEK 4 MI N OF RINCON SR 17&26/US 80 FM SR 17 TO CHERRY ST IN BLOOMINGDALE/CHATHAM SR 26/US 80 @ OGEECHEE RIVER OVERFLOW 9 MI S OF GUYTON I-16 WIDEN 10 BRIDGES @ MP 138.3| 145.9| 146.6| 146.8| 147.2 RINCON TRUCK BYPASS FM SR 21 NEAR CHATHAM TO SR 275/SR 21 SR 57 OVER SARDIS CREEK 9.7 MILES NW OF SWAINSBORO SR 4/US 1 FM N. OF I-16 NORTH TO SR 297 @ SWAINSBORO BYPASS SR 4/US 1 FM LYONS CL TO SOUTH CL/OAK PARK IN EMANUEL CO SR 4/US 1 FM LYONS CL TO SOUTH CL/OAK PARK IN EMANUEL CO SR 4/US 1 FM SOUTH TO NORTH CTY LMTS IN OAK PARK/NEW LOC SR 4/US 1 FROM NCL OAK PARK TO I-16 SR 56 (3) BRIDGES OVER OGEECHEE RVR & OVFL NE OF SUMMERTOWN SR 26/US 80 @ E FORK YAM GRANDY CK 2.2 MI SW OF SWAINSBORO I-16 SAFETY UPGRADES @ SR 15; SR 56 | SR 297 & SR 4/ EMANUEL SR 4/US 1 FM N SWAINSBORO BP TO CR 104| RELOC @ DELW'D SR 4/US 1 FM CR 104 TO US 1/SR 4 BUS NEAR WADLEY & JEFFERSON SR 4/US 1 FM PROPOSED BYPASS N TO INJUNCTION RD IN SWAINSBOR SR 30/CLAXTON FM WEST CTY LMTS TO EAST CTY LMTS SR 520/JEKYLL ISLAND ROAD @ CEDAR CREEK 1.5 MI SE OF SR 25 SR 520 OVER LATHAM RIVER AT TWO LOCATIONS ON JEKYLL CAUSEWAY SR 520/SR 25 FLYOVER BRIDGE AT COLONEL'S ISLAND @ RR(PORTS) I-95 @S BRUNSWICK-TURTLE RV,GIBSON CK,SR 303/HILLERY SLOUGH CR 78 @ BURNETT CREEK 3 MI NW OF BRUNSWICK I-95 FM US 341 TO ALTAMAHA RIVER @ MCINTOSH CO;EXC SR 99 INT I-95 FM US 17/SR 520 SOUTH OF BRUNSWICK TO RR/CR 586 I-95 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION AT SR 99/GRANTS FERRY ROAD MLK BLVD FM 4TH AVE TO GLOUCESTOR ST SR 219 AT HOPEWELL CHURCH ROAD/CR 388 IN WHITESVILLE SR 219 AT MCCRARY RD/CR 124 AND LICK SKILLET ROAD/CR 389

PROGDATE RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

3 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

343372- BRST-0746(6)

343371- BRST-0746(7)

343370- BRST-0746(8)

333155- BRST-011-1(55)

0003084 BR-0003-00(084)

0003085 BR-F003-00(085)

0003086 BR-0003-00(086)

0003090 BR-0003-00(090)

370850- BRZLB-145(8)

0003088 BR-0003-00(088)

331660- BR-3316-00(600)

333156- BRST-158-1(17)

322820- STP-011-1(49)

371730- HPP-3717-00(300)

371730- HPP-3717-00(300)

322965- BRN-034-3(36)

331830- STP-0668(7)

0001360 BR-0001-00(360)

371800- NH-3718-00(000)

331865- BHS-0675(9)

331860- STP-0675(8)

371740- HPP-3717-00(400)

371740- HPP-3717-00(400)

371801- NH-3718-00(010)

342930- STP-5105(1)

232285- BRST-062-1(26)

232000- STP-045-1(25)

232000- STP-045-1(25)

232270- BRST-005-4(24)

210950- IM-00MS(329)

262040- EDS-441(5)

0000542 MLP-0000-00(542)

231430- EDS-441(39)

262061- EDS-441(18)

262061- EDS-441(18)

245397- BRST-1570(9)

245396- BRST-1570(10)

245395- BRST-1570(11)

262064- EDS-441(19)

262027- EDS-441(20)

245398- BRST-2763(5)

210940- IM-00MS(328)

0000833 STP-0000-00(833)

232000- STP-045-1(25)

432090- BRST-031-1(41)

COUNTY Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Johnson Johnson Johnson Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Laurens Lee

DESCRIPTION SR 116 @ BETHLEHEM CRK AND BETHEL CRK 6 MILES NE OF HAMILTON SR 116 @ PALMETTO CREEK 1.4 MI E OF SR 1 SR 116 @ LITTLE PALMETTO CREEK HAMILTON - NE SECTION SR 1/US 27 @ MOUNTAIN CREEK 1.6 MI N OF SR 190 CR 140/WHITESVILLE ROAD @ STANDING BOY CREEK TRIB. NORTH CR 140/WHITESVILLE ROAD @ STANDING BOY CREEK TRIB. SOUTH CR 140/WHITESVILLE ROAD @ STANDING BOY CREEK SO OF SR 315 CR 219/BROWN CREEK RD @ BROWN CREEK 5 MI NW OF WAVERLY HALL CR 20/MONUMENT RD @ HOUSE CREEK .2 MI NW OF WHITESVILLE CR 393/HILL SCHOOL ROAD @ BARNES CREEK 2.4 MI SW HAMILTON CR 387 @ PALMETTO CREEK 4 MI. SOUTH OF PINE MOUNTAIN SR 103 @ FLAT SHOALS CREEK 11.2 MI W OF SR 116 SR 1/US 27 PASSING LANE N OF HAMILTON - SB MP 15.10-13.61 DAVIS DR; GREEN ST & N HOUSTON RD IN WARNER ROBINS DAVIS DR; GREEN ST & N HOUSTON RD IN WARNER ROBINS SR 247/US 129 NBL @ ECHECONNEE CREEK HOUSTON-BIBB CO LINE HOUSTON LAKE RD FM SR 127 @ CR 279 TO SR 96/& INTER @ CR 188 SR 247 CONN. @ BAY GALL CREEK IN WARNER ROBINS COMMUTER RAIL GRIFFIN TO MACON/BIBB - HOUSTON CO. - PHASE 4 SR 127 AT MOSSY CREEK SR 127 FM NORTH PERRY PARKWAY TO BEAR BRANCH ROAD CORDER RD FM WATSON BLVD TO RUSSELL PKWY IN WARNER ROBINS CORDER RD FM WATSON BLVD TO RUSSELL PKWY IN WARNER ROBINS COMMUTER RAIL GRIFFIN TO MACON/BIBB - HOUSTON CO. - PHASE 5 ELBERTA RD FM HOUSTON RD TO CARL VINSON PKWY - WARNER ROBINS SR 57 @ LITTLE OHOOPEE RIVER .5 MI E OF KITE SR 31/US 319 NB MP 31.0-32.4; SB 38.8-3.4 /JOHNSON SR 31/US 319 NB MP 31.0-32.4; SB 38.8-3.4 /JOHNSON SR 26/US 80 @ PUGHES CREEK 2.8 MI SE OF BREWTON I-16 SAFETY UPGRADES @ SR 199 IN LAURENS & SR 29 IN TREUTLEN DUBLIN BYP FM US 441 @.5 MI N OF FIRE TOWER RD NW TO US 441 SR 257 FROM I-16 TO INDUSTRIAL BLVD SR 29/US 441 FROM CR 471/LAURENS TO SR 112/WILKINSON SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS SR 19 @ LITTLE FLAT CREEK 12.5 MI SE OF DUBLIN SR 19 @ BIG FLAT CREEK 13 MI SE OF DUBLIN SR 19 @ WHITEWATER CREEK 13.2 MI SE OF DUBLIN SR 31/US 441 FROM SR 46 NORTH TO CR 272 SR 31/US 441 FM CR 272 NORTH TO JUST SOUTH OF I-16 SR 199 @ PUGHES CREEK 6.9 MI SE OF EAST DUBLIN I-16 SAFETY UPGRADES @ SR 338;SR 257 & SR 19 NEW OCONEE RVR X'ING FM COUNTRY CLUB TO BLACKSHEAR TO FERRY SR 31/US 319 NB MP 31.0-32.4; SB 38.8-3.4 /JOHNSON SR 32 @ MUCKALEE CREEK APP 2.5 MI E OF LEESBURG

PROGDATE RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

4 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

462395- EDS-19(44)

432091- BRST-031-1(39)

432092- BRST-031-1(42)

431730- STP-083-1(53)

521190- BRF-026-3(35)

0000455 NHS-0000-00(455)

541940- STP-2610(1)

520781- STP-026-3(51)

550600- STP-2610(2)

343350- BRST-2025(5)

343351- BRST-1802(5)

322285- BRF-153-1(24)

343340- BRST-1802(4)

333070- STP-00MS(384)

333070- STP-00MS(384)

333070- STP-00MS(384)

333070- STP-00MS(384)

343010- BRS-0639(4)

343355- BRST-0649(1)

343356- BRST-0649(3)

511110- NH-IM-95-1(120)

511112- NH-IM-95-1(150)

511120- NH-IM-95-1(121)

542421- BRST-0612(11)

542420- BRST-0612(10)

542070- STP-2387(4)

532330- BRSLB-1901(1)

570760- BRZLB-209(1)

571455- BRZLB-209(2)

522520- STP-070-1(11)

550610- STP-5005(4)

542410- BRST-0599(9)

0001366 BR-0001-00(366)

0000343 STP-0000-00(343)

351020- STP-8050(1)

323000- NH-00TS(47)

323005- NH-00TS(48)

350780- STP-8043(4)

350780- STP-8043(4)

350790- STP-8038(7)

351190- STP-8042(9)

350796- STP-8042(5)

0001362 BR-0001-00(362)

350785- STP-8043(5)

350785- STP-8043(5)

COUNTY Lee Lee Lee Lee Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Marion Marion Marion Mcintosh Mcintosh Mcintosh Mcintosh Mcintosh Mcintosh Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

DESCRIPTION SR 3/US 19 FM NORTH OF CR 151 NW TO SUMTER CL @ SMITHVILLE SR 32 AT FLINT RIVER OVERFLOW 0.45 MILE FM WORTH CO LINE SR 32 @ FLINT RIVER AND OVERFLOW AT THE LEE/WORTH COUNTY LN. SR 91/PHILEMA RD FM CR 5/GRAVES SPGS RD NE TO SR 32 SR 196/@ BAKER SWAMP SLOUGH SR 38/US 84 AT SR 196 FRANK COCHRAN DR EXT FM SR 196 @ CS 823 TO US 84 SR 196 FM US84/SR 38 TO SR 25/US 17 SW OF I-95 FRANK COCHRAN DRIVE FM SR 119 TO HERO ROAD SR 329 @ HOGCRAWL CREEK NEAR DOOLY CO LINE SR 240 @ BUCK CREEK APP 5 MI S OF IDEAL GA. SR 90 @ CSX RR SOUTH OF IDEAL NEAR CR 57 SR 240 @ BUCK CREEK APP 5 MI S OF IDEAL SR 128 @ SR 90 & SR 127; SR 26 @ SR 49 & SR 224 & SIGNING SR 128 @ SR 90 & SR 127; SR 26 @ SR 49 & SR 224 & SIGNING SR 128 @ SR 90 & SR 127; SR 26 @ SR 49 & SR 224 & SIGNING SR 128 @ SR 90 & SR 127; SR 26 @ SR 49 & SR 224 & SIGNING SR 355 OVER JUNIPER CREEK AT TALBOT COUNTY LINE SR 137 @ OOCHEE CREEK 2.5 MI E OF JCT SR 41 SR 137 @ BUCK & GIN CREEKS .7 MI W OF JCT SR 240 I-95 FM ALTAMAHA RIVER @ GLYNN CL TO 1-MILE NORTH OF SR 251 I-95 OVER CHAMPNEYS RVR- BUTLER RVR- DARIEN CK- CATHEAD CK I-95 FM 1-MILE NORTH OF SR 251 TO SR 57 -- PHASE 1 SR 57 @ JACKIE CAMP SWAMP 3 MI W OF JCT I-95 SR 57 @ YOUNGS SWAMP .12 MI W OF JCT I-95 SR 251 FM MCINTOSH IND PK(MP 11) TO US 17/SR 25(INCL BRS) CR 169/THOMPSON POND ROAD @ TIGER CREEK 4 MI SE OF TARRYTOWN CR 12 @ TIGER CREEK 3 MI SE OF TARRYTOWN CR 1 @ TIGER CREEK 1 MI E OF TARRYTOWN SR 15 BTWN HIGGSTON & TARRYTOWN/ NB MP 5.0-6.4;SB 8.7-9.7 SR 292/VIDALIA FM MORN'SIDE - LOWERY WITH RIGHT ON WILSON SR 56 @ MILLIGAN CREEK IN CITY LIMITS OF UVALDA SR 30/US 280 @ OCONEE RIVER AT WHEELER/MONTGOMERY CO LINE RIVER RD/SR 219 AT 54TH STREET/CS 1425 IN COLUMBUS CS 1425/54TH STREET FROM CHUMAR DR TO VETERANS PARKWAY ATMS: COLUMBUS SLO SCAN/CMS/RADAR ATMS: COLUMBUS/MUSCOGEE COUNTY/GDOT REGIONAL TCC FOREST RD FM MACON{+MACON IMPROV} TO WOODRUFF FA/FLOYD RD FOREST RD FM MACON{+MACON IMPROV} TO WOODRUFF FA/FLOYD RD ST MARYS RD/CS 2108/COLUMBUS FM BUENA VISTA TO ROBIN RD BUENA VISTA ROAD FM I-185 TO DOGWOOD DRIVE BUENA VISTA RD/COLUMBUS FM BROWN AVE SE TO ILLGES RD GENTIAN BLVD/CS 1781 @ LINDSEY CREEK JUST EAST OF I-185 FOREST RD/SR 983 FM WOODRUFF FARM/FLOYD RD TO SCHATULGA FOREST RD/SR 983 FM WOODRUFF FARM/FLOYD RD TO SCHATULGA

PROGDATE RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

5 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

351010- STP-8060(2)

350855- BHMLB-8042(7)

332780- STP-215-1(2)

350850- STP-8042(6)

351200- STP-8058(3)

311630- IM-185-1(326)

311445- NH-IM-185-1(317)

350890- STP-8000(8)

363820- FLF-540(30)

363130- FLF-540(11)

363765- PRP-178-1(225)CT 2

343250- STP-1508(3)

322180- GIP-341(33)

333080- BRST-138-1(12)

343000- BRS-0679(7)

322420- HPPN-EDS-19(55)

343345- BRST-1169(6)

322730- EDS-19(64)

322720- EDS-19(63)

343415- BRST-2692(12)

422245- EDS-27(173)

422245- EDS-27(173)

333160- BRST-030-1(25)

322420- HPPN-EDS-19(55)

322310- BRN-006-3(11)

333195- BRST-081-1(20)

343410- BRST-2088(5)

333196- BRST-081-1(19)

322193- BHN-006-2(47)

322190- EDS-19(51)

322195- EDS-19(50)

333085- BRST-029-1(46)

343230- STP-0646(1)

322760- STP-030-2(31)

322770- STP-030-2(28)

322775- STP-030-2(30)

343405- BRST-2060(1)

343110- BHSLB-0656(2)

332900- STP-157-1(8)

332900- STP-157-1(8)

332900- STP-157-1(8)

333210- BRST-157-1(9)

0000929 STP-0000-00(929)

571180- BRZLB-267(7)

533180- BRST-147-1(3)

COUNTY Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Peach Peach Peach Peach Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Schley Schley Schley Schley Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Sumter Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Tattnall Tattnall

DESCRIPTION CS 1618/WHITTLESEY ROAD FROM WHITESVILLE RD TO VETERANS PKWY CS 2228/SCHATULGA ROAD @ BULL CREEK EAST OF COLUMBUS ST MARY'S RD FM FARR ROAD TO NORTHSTAR DRIVE SCHATULGA RD/EASTERN CONN. RD FM BUENA VISTA RD TO MACON RD MILLER RD/CS 1660 FM WARM SPRINGS RD TO MACON RD/SR 22 SPUR I-185 INTERCHANGE AT SR 1/SR 520 I-185/COLUMBUS FM SR 520 TO ST MARYS ROAD CUSSETA/OLD CUSSETA RD/CR 62 FM FT BENNING DR TO STAUNTON DR SR 49C/FT VALLEY BYP FM BEVERLY RD NE TO SR 49 - ADD 2 LANES SR 96 FM E OF FLINT RIV TO FT VALLEY BP/SR 49C & BRIDG/PEACH RICHARD RUSSELL PKWY FM LAKE VIEW/CR 91 TO HOUSERS MILL/CR83 CR 182/WHITE ROAD -REALIGN TO PROVIDE INTERSECTION W/SR 42 SR 27/US 341 FM SR 230/HAWKINSVILLE E TO DODGE CO LINE SR 257 @ TEN MILE CREEK 3.5 MI NW OF FINLEYSON SR 230 @ BIG CREEK 5.6 MILES WEST OF HAWKINSVILLE SR 3/US 19 FM ANGELICA CK/SUMTER TO SR 271/SCHLEY SR 153 @ LITTLE MUCKALEE CREEK 3.0 MI E OF JCT SR 45 SR 3/US 19 FROM SR 271 TO SR 240 SR 3/US 19 FM SR 240/SCHLEY TO CR 201/COOPER RD/TAYLOR SR 39 @ TALIPAHOGA CREEK APP 2 MI S OF OMAHA SR 1/US 27 FR CR 116/RANDOLPH TO LUMPKIN BYPASS/ STEWART SR 1/US 27 FR CR 116/RANDOLPH TO LUMPKIN BYPASS/ STEWART SR 27 @ BLADEN CREEK 11 MI SW OF LUMPKIN SR 3/US 19 FM ANGELICA CK/SUMTER TO SR 271/SCHLEY SR 3/US 19 @ BEAR BRANCH S/SR 27 SR 27 @ LIME CREEK 6.7 MI E OF JCT SR 30 SR 195 @ LIME CREEK 5 MI N OF JCT SR 30 SR 30 @ MUCKALEE CREEK 0.5 MI WEST OF AMERICUS SR 3/US 19 @ CSX RR SOUTH OF US 280 SR 3/US 19 FM CR 42 TO 0.3 MI N/US 280 (INCL NEW RR BR) SR 3/US 19 FM LEE CO LINE TO CR 42/SUMTER (INCL BRIDGES) SR 49 @ SWEETWATER CREEK 1 MI S OF ANDERSONVILLE SR 308/BONDS TRAIL RD REALIGNMENT FROM CR 32 TO CR 140 SR 30/US 280 FROM FELDER ST TO SE OF LAMAR RD/CR 311 SR 30/US 280 FM LAMAR RD/CR 311 TO SR 195 IN DESOTO SR 30/US 280 FM SR 195 IN DESOTO TO E OF FLINT RVR SR 240 @ BLACK CREEK 2.6 MI S OF GENEVA CR 172/POBIDDY ROAD@ FLINT RIVER N OF JCT SR 22/UPSON/TALBOT SR 36 PASSING LANES - 1 SITE IN UPSON & 3 IN TALBOT SR 36 PASSING LANES - 1 SITE IN UPSON & 3 IN TALBOT SR 36 PASSING LANES - 1 SITE IN UPSON & 3 IN TALBOT SR 36 @ FLINT RIVER 9.6 MI E OF WOODLAND SR 36 PASSING LANES-WB MP 20.4-22.75 & EB MP .05-1.79 UPSON MIDWAY RD/CR 79 @ CEDAR CREEK 2 MI NORTH OF COLLINS SR 144 @ BEARD'S CREEK 2 MI E OF GLENNVILLE

PROGDATE RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

6 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

533120- STP-BRF-146-1(2)

0001364 BR-0001-00(364)

532640- STP-30-4(21)

343365- BRST-0649(4)

343367- BRST-0649(2)

333205- BRST-154-1(12)

343366- BRST-0649(5)

322710- EDS-19(65)

322720- EDS-19(63)

221960- GIP-341(31)

521570- BRN-023-2(7)

542395- BRST-0573(16)

531100- EDS-441(12)

561470- EDS-441(13)

0002425 BR-0002-00(425)

522530- EDS-441(36)

522540- EDS-441(37)

522540- EDS-441(37)

0000454 BR-0000-00(454)

0000452 BR-0000-00(452)

0000453 BR-0000-00(453)

431410- STP-029-1(32)

522320- STP-030-3(18)

550610- STP-5005(4)

542416- BRST-2762(8)

542415- BRST-0599(8)

0001365 BR-0001-00(365)

522130- EDS-545(14)

522130- EDS-545(14)

0001216 BR-0001-00(216)

522225- BHN-038-1(37)

522220- EDS-545(23)

522180- EDS-545(24)

522185- BHN-038-1(36)

522200- EDS-545(26)

522190- EDS-545(25)

210950- IM-00MS(329)

231700- STP-070-1(12)

531250- BRS-577(13)

245360- BRST-0577(25)

0000768 NHS-0000-00(768)

342980- STP-1833(12)

342980- STP-1833(12)

322922- BRN-006-4(32)

343110- BHSLB-0656(2)

COUNTY Tattnall Tattnall Tattnall Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Telfair Terrell Terrell Terrell Terrell Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Toombs Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen Twiggs Twiggs Upson Upson

DESCRIPTION SR 144 AT WATERMELON CREEK 3 MI W OF GLENNVILLE SR 56/NAIL BRIDGE @ OHOOPEE RIVER 2 MILES W OF REIDSVILLE SR 30/US 280 FM SR 56 TO ENTRANCE OF GORDONIA STATE PARK SR 137 @ CEDAR CREEK 13.3 MI SW OF BUTLER SR 137 @ WHITEWATER CREEK 5 MI SW OF BUTLER SR 128 @ FLINT RIVER 8 MI N OF REYNOLDS SR 137 @ WHITEWATER CREEK TRIB. 7 MI SW OF BUTLER SR 3/US 19 FM CR 201/COOPER RD TO BUTLER BYPASS & NEW LOC SR 3/US 19 FM SR 240/SCHLEY TO CR 201/COOPER RD/TAYLOR SR 27 FM CHAUNCEY E CL TO HELENA WEST CL/TELFAIR CO-22196X SR 31/US 441 @ ALLIGATOR| BIG HORSE OFLOW| BIG HORSE CKS SR 117 @ BIG HORSE CREEK 9.2 MI E OF JACKSONVILLE S MCRAE BYP FM SR 31/US 441 NE TO SR 27/US 341 @ N.MCRAE BYP N MCRAE BYP FM US 341/S BYP TO US 441/WHEELER/INCL SIGNALS SR 31/US 319 /441 @ TURNPIKE CREEK 5.3 MI S OF MCRAE SR 31/US 441 FR CR 240 TO S. MCRAE BYPASS SR 31/US 441 FM SR 107/COFFEE TO CR 240 IN TELFAIR SR 31/US 441 FM SR 107/COFFEE TO CR 240 IN TELFAIR CR 11/BELLFLOWER ROAD @ HEROD CREEK 3.5 MI SW OF DAWSON CR 164/SASSER-HEROD ROAD @ BRANTLEY CREEK WEST OF SASSER CR 164/SASSER-HEROD ROAD @ CHICKASAWHATCHEE CREEK SR 49 FM SR 45 FOR APPROX. 3 MILES TO CORRECT HORIZ ALIGN. SR 30 FM W OF SUNSET DR TO BROADFOOT ST & 1-WAY PAIR/VIDALIA SR 292/VIDALIA FM MORN'SIDE - LOWERY WITH RIGHT ON WILSON SR 147 @ COBB CREEK 17 MI S OF LYONS SR 56 @ ROCKY CREEK 13 MI SE OF LYONS SR 4/US 1 @ SWIFT CREEK JUST N OF LYONS CTY LIMIT SR 4/US 1 FM LYONS CL TO SOUTH CL/OAK PARK IN EMANUEL CO SR 4/US 1 FM LYONS CL TO SOUTH CL/OAK PARK IN EMANUEL CO SR 4/US 1@ ALTAMAHA RIVER; OVERFLOW AND WILLIAMS CREEK SR 4/US 1 @ COBB CREEK SR 4/US 1 FM NORTH OF WILLIAMS CK TO SR 56 SR 4/US 1 FM SR 56 TO SR 29 /INCL. CLVT @ BRANCH OF OPEN CRK SR 4/US 1 @ ROCKY CRK & LITTLE ROCKY CRKS S/LYONS SR 4 LYONS FM S CTY LMTS TO N CTY LMTS/INCL 1-WY PAIR&CLVT SR 4/US 1 FM SR 29 TO S CL/LYONS [INCL CLVT @ ROCKY CUT CRK] I-16 SAFETY UPGRADES @ SR 199 IN LAURENS & SR 29 IN TREUTLEN SR 29 NB MP 4.95-6.05| SB MP 7.0-8.1 SR 46 AT OCONEE RIVER AT WHEELER/TREUTLEN COUNTY LINE SR 46 @ OCONEE RIVER OVERFLOW 7.6 MI SW OF SOPERTON I-16 SAFETY UPGRADES @ SR 15; SR 56 | SR 297 & SR 4/ EMANUEL SR 18 PASS LNS FM JEFFERSONVILLE/TWIGGS TO GORDON/WILKINSON SR 18 PASS LNS FM JEFFERSONVILLE/TWIGGS TO GORDON/WILKINSON SR 3/US 19 @ POTATO CREEK IN THOMASTON CR 172/POBIDDY ROAD@ FLINT RIVER N OF JCT SR 22/UPSON/TALBOT

PROGDATE RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

7 of 8

Appendix C - Construction Work Program

P

PROJECT

322920- NH-006-4(31)

322550- STP-156-1(11)

0000929 STP-0000-00(929)

0000929 STP-0000-00(929)

332800- STP-00MS(283)

333165- BRST-030-1(26)

343360- BRST-0532(13)

343361- BRST-0532(12)

343362- BRST-1169(8)

343364- BRST-1518(11)

542100- BRS-1570(5)

561470- EDS-441(13)

531250- BRS-577(13)

0001220 BR-0001-00(220)

262061- EDS-441(18)

262061- EDS-441(18)

533150- BRST-030-3(27)

0001366 BR-0001-00(366)

432070- STP-BRF-030-2(41)

432075- STP-BRF-030-2(42)

231430- EDS-441(39)

221870- HPPN-FLF-540(19)

342980- STP-1833(12)

342980- STP-1833(12)

262470- FLF-540(22)

0000346 EDS-0000-00(346)

222220- BHF-062-1(21)

COUNTY Upson Upson Upson Upson Upson Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wheeler Wilcox Wilcox Wilkinson Wilkinson Wilkinson Wilkinson Wilkinson Wilkinson Wilkinson

DESCRIPTION SR 3/US 19 AT CR 73/EAST AND WEST COUNTY ROAD IN THOMASTON SR 74 FM HOLSTUN DR TO TRICE ROAD IN THOMASTON SR 36 PASSING LANES-WB MP 20.4-22.75 & EB MP .05-1.79 UPSON SR 36 PASSING LANES-WB MP 20.4-22.75 & EB MP .05-1.79 UPSON SR 18/74/109 AT FIVE LOCATIONS/UPSON & MERIWETHER SR 27/US 280 @ LANAHASSEE CREEK 2.2 MI E OF PRESTON SR 41 @ BEAR CREEK 1.8 MI N OF WESTON SR 41 @ KINCHAFOONEE CREEK IN SW PRESTON SR 153 @ LANAHASSEE CREEK 3.5 MI NE OF PRESTON SR 45 @ KINCHAFOONEE CREEK AND OVERFLOW W. OF SUMTER CO LINE SR 19 @ OCHWALKEE CREEK 1 MI N OF GLENWOOD N MCRAE BYP FM US 341/S BYP TO US 441/WHEELER/INCL SIGNALS SR 46 AT OCONEE RIVER AT WHEELER/TREUTLEN COUNTY LINE SR 31/US 319/US 441 @ CSX RAILROAD (635193G) NEAR MCRAE SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS SR 31/US 441 FM N/CR 132 THRU DODGE TO SR 46/LAURENS SR 30/US 280 @ OCHWALKEE CREEK 1 MI E OF GLENWOOD SR 30/US 280 @ OCONEE RIVER AT WHEELER/MONTGOMERY CO LINE SR 30/US 280 @ ALAPAHA RIVER TRIB. 0.8 MI E OF SEVILLE SR 30/US 280 @ ALAPAHA RIVER TRIB. 1.3 MI E OF SEVILLE SR 29/US 441 FROM CR 471/LAURENS TO SR 112/WILKINSON FALL LINE FWY/NORTH GORDON BYPASS FM SR 57 TO SR 243 @ LAKE SR 18 PASS LNS FM JEFFERSONVILLE/TWIGGS TO GORDON/WILKINSON SR 18 PASS LNS FM JEFFERSONVILLE/TWIGGS TO GORDON/WILKINSON FALL LINE FWY ON NEW LOC FM SR 243 @ MORNINGSIDE TO US 441 FALL LINE FWY ON NEW LOC FM US 441/WILKINSON CO TO SR 24 SR 57 OVER THE OCONEE RIVER AT WASHINGTON COUNTY LINE

PROGDATE RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2008

LONG RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2006

LONG RANGE

2007

LONG RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2003

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2004

SHORT RANGE

2005

SHORT RANGE

8 of 8

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix D Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies - Freeways
June 2002

Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies - Freeways

Area Roadway/ Location
I-185 from SR 219 in Harris County to US 280 in Muscogee Columbus County

SubSection Full Section

Paved Outside

Paved Inside

Shoulders

No. of Shoulders (Adeq.

(Adeq.

Lanes Shoulder Width -

Shoulder

Each min 4ft-2 lanes, min Width? - min 10

Direction 10ft-3 or more lanes)

ft)

Type of Pavement for Inside and
Outside Shoulders

Inter. Ramps Needing White-topping

3

No

at SR22(HPC6), at

US80/SR85, at

SR22SP(Macon Rd), at

No

Bit. Concrete (High) US280, at US27Atl

Small Sections south

of I-16 and at the

Macon I-75 from SR 96 to I-16 intersection of US129 3

No

Inside Shoulder - Bit.

Concrete and Outside

No

Shoulder - PPC

at I-75

I-475from SR 74 to I-75 Full Section

2

Yes

Small section south

of I-75 and small

section at the

I-16 from I-75 to SR 96 Bibb/Twiggs Co line

3

Yes

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

None

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

None

I-75 from SR 96 to SR

Perry 127

Full Section

3

Yes

small section at the

I-16 from SR 96 to

Bryan/Effingham Co

I-16 Chatham County Line line

3

No

I -16 from SR 96 to I-16 Chatham County Line Full Section
N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available

2

Yes

Yes

Bit. Concrete (High) at US341

Concrete or Bit. Surf.

Treatment (low) or

PPC and Outside

No

Shoulder - PPC

None

441/SR21 near Dublin, at

Inside Shoulder Bit. US1 in Emanuel Co., at SR

Concrete and Outside 23 near Metter, US 301/US

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

25 and SR 67 near

Area Roadway/ Location

Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies - Freeways

SubSection

Paved Outside

Paved Inside

Shoulders

No. of Shoulders (Adeq.

(Adeq.

Lanes Shoulder Width -

Shoulder

Each min 4ft-2 lanes, min Width? - min 10

Direction 10ft-3 or more lanes)

ft)

Type of Pavement for Inside and
Outside Shoulders

Inter. Ramps Needing White-topping

I-16/SR 404 Sp from I- Small section

95 to SR 25 Alt (Bay between I-516 and

Savannah Street)

SR204

3

Yes

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

at 1-16, at I-95

I-16/SR 404 Sp from I-

95 to SR 25 Alt (Bay

Street)

Full Section

2

Yes

just east of

I-516 from SR 25 to

Springfield Canal

intersection with

and east of Abercom

Abercorn Street

St

3

No

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

No

Shoulder - PPC

at SR25 Alt

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

No

Shoulder - PPC

at SR25

I-516 from SR 25 to intersection with Abercorn Street

Full Section

2

Yes

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

DeReene at Abercorn

I-16 from Chatham Co

line to I-516 in

Savannah

Full Section

2

Yes

from SR 25 to I-16

and from

Chatham/Liberty

I-95 from SR 25 to SR 38 County line to SR 38

2

Yes

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside at I-96, at SR 307, at I-516,

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

at SR 25

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

No

Shoulder - PPC

at SR 21, at I-16, at US80

From I-16 to

Chatham/Liberty

I-95 from SR 25 to SR 38 County line

3

Yes

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available

Inside Shoulder- Bit.

Concrete and Outside

Yes

Shoulder - PPC

at I-16

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix E Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies Four Lane
Divided GRIP Roads
June 2002

Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies - Four Lane Divided GRIP Roads
Railroad Grade Crossings

GRIP Corridor

From

US80/SR22 from

Alabama State

Fall Line Line near

Freeway Columbus, GA

To
SR 96, to Butler Bypass

Potential Key Intersections

Bottleneck Needing White

Intersections

topping

Need Grade Seperation?

None

None

N/A

Need Precast Concrete Panels?

Shoulder Need Full Depth Pavement?

N/A

Not Recommended, Open to Traffic

Fall Line Freeway
Fall Line Freeway US 441

SR 96, to Butler Bypass

SR128 in Taylor County

SR49C Bypass in

SR128 in Taylor Fort Valley, Peach

County

County

SR 338 north of

Dublin in Laurens Downtown Dublin

County

in Laurens Co

SR96 at US19 in SR96 at US19 Taylor County
Downtown Fort Valley - US341 SR96 at at SR49 at SR96 US341/SR7 SR19 at US441 SR19 at US441

Yes, at SR128 and SR96 (RR Crossing on SR128) 2 RR crossings, 1) near Crawford/Peach County line on SR96, 2) on SR49C on Bypass, just west of US341/SR49C intersection (west of Fort Valley)
N/A

Yes
Both Yes N/A

Not Recommended, Open to Traffic
Not Recommended, project is ready to let
Yes

US 441

Downtown Dublin

in Laurens Co

I-16

None

None

N/A

N/A

Yes

US 441 US 1/ SR 17

I-16 Swainsboro in Emanuel County

SR 117, south of I-16 None

I-16

None

None None

N/A N/A

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies - Four Lane Divided GRIP Roads
Railroad Grade Crossings

GRIP Corridor

From

US 1/ SR 17 I-16

To
Lyons in Toombs County

Savannah River Jenkins/Bulloch

Parkway Co line

I-16

Potential Bottleneck Intersections
None
SR67 Bypass at US25 (southwest section)

Key Intersections

Needing White Need Grade

topping

Seperation?

downtown

Swainsboro in

None

Emanual Co

SR67 Bypass at

US25 (south-west

and north-west

section)

N/A

Need Precast Concrete Panels?

Shoulder Need Full Depth Pavement?

Yes N/A

Yes
Not Recommended, Open to Traffic

North of

SR21 at SR119

Savannah River Springfield in

I-95 in Chathem in Effingham

Parkway Effingham County County

Co

I-95 in Liberty Hinesville in Liberty

US84

County

County

None

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available

None None

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Not Recommended, Open to Traffic
N/A

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix F
Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Connecting Roads Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Mainline Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Mainline
June 2002

Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler Chattahoochee Harris

Bridge Serial Route Number Number
031-0024-0 SR00067 031-0025-0 SR00067 031-0029-0 SR00067 043-0014-0 SR00129 043-0015-0 SR00129 053-0002-0 SR00001 145-0004-0 SR00001

Intersecting With

Location

WOODCOCK BRANCH

10.2 MI S OF STATESBORO

ZETTEROWER 9.1 MI S OF

BRANCH

STATESBORO

LITTLE LOTTS CREEK CANOOCHEE RIVER

IN CITY LIMIT STATESBORO
4 MI S OF METTER

CANOOCHEE RIVER O/F

4 MI S OF METTER

HICHITEE CREEK

2.4 MI S OF CUSSETA

MULBERRY CREEK

3 MILES S. HAMILTON

Suff Rating
28.3 7.0 90.5 44.5 44.5 16.2 34.5

Harris

145-0005-0

SR00001

MOUNTAIN CREEK

2.1 MILES SOUTH PINE MOUNTAIN 21.4

Houston

ECHECONNEE NORTH -

153-0037-0 SR00247 CREEK

WARNER ROBINS 34.6

Houston Laurens

153-0039-0 175-0002-0

SR00247 SR00019

BAY GALL

WARNER ROBINS -

CREEK

CENTER

35.5

WHITEWATER 13.2 MI SE OF

CREEK

RENTZ

47.8

Laurens Laurens Laurens Liberty

175-0003-0 SR00019 FLAT CREEK 10 MI E OF RENTZ 48.2

FLAT CREEK 7.5 MI S OF

175-0004-0 SR00019 TRIB.

DUBLIN

48.2

2.8 MI SE OF

175-0020-0 SR00026 PUGHES CREEK BREWTON

39.5

4 MI SE OF

179-0030-0 SR00196 BAKER SWAMP FLEMINGTON

46.5

Muscogee Stewart Sumter Webster

215-0026-0 259-0008-0 261-0010-0 307-0005-0

SR00085 SR00027 SR00027 SR00027

NORTH CENTRAL

LINDSEY CREEK COLUMBUS

53.0

11 MI SW OF

BLADEN CREEK LUMPKIN

47.5

6 MILES EAST OF

LIME CREEK AMERICUS

37.4

LANAHASSEE 2.2 MI E OF

CREEK

PRESTON

7.0

Structure Material*

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside Through Lane

(less (less Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

than 20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

4

18

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

4

18

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

1

N/A N/A

3

3

30

N/A

N/A

4

15

25

2

2

22

N/A

N/A

4

15

25

2

2

22

N/A

N/A

4

18

25

6

6

24

N/A

N/A

4

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

3

15

25

2

2

25

N/A

N/A

3

20

25

8

8

24

N/A

N/A

1

N/A N/A

2

2

60

N/A

N/A

3

15

25

6

6

25

N/A

N/A

3

15

25

6

6

25

N/A

N/A

3

15

25

6

6

25

N/A

N/A

1

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

1

20

25

3

3

22

N/A

N/A

1

N/A N/A

5

11

36

N/A

N/A

4

15

25

6

6

24

N/A

N/A

4

15

25

2

2

23

N/A

N/A

1

15

25

3

3

28

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

*Structure Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete* 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous* 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Bleckley Bryan Bryan Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham Chatham

Bridge Serial Number 023-0001-0 029-0013-0 029-0014-0 031-0002-0 031-0003-0 031-0005-0 031-0022-0 031-0036-0 031-0037-0 031-0047-0 031-0050-0 031-0106-0 043-0004-0 043-0016-0

Route Number SR00026 SR00030 SR00030 SR00024 SR00024 SR00024 SR00067 SR00073 SR00073 SR00119 SR00119 SR00024 SR00023 SR00129

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

GUM SWAMP 6.2 MI NE OF

n

CREEK

COCHRAN

1.5 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

JCT SR 26

1.5 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

JCT SR 26

FLOYD

5 MI E OF

n

BRANCH

STATESBORO

8 MI E OF

n

SPRING CREEK STATESBORO

OGEECHEE

15 MI E OF

n

RIVER

STATESBORO

9 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

BROOKLET

3.8 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

REGISTER

3.8 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

REGISTER

13.3 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

BROOKLET

OGEECHEE

13.7 MI SE OF

n

RIVER

BROOKLET

4.2 MI E OF

n

MILL CREEK STATESBORO

1.6 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

METTER

1.6 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

METTER

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

85.3

4

20

25

2

2

22

N/A

N/A

81.0

4

20

25

3

5

22

16

09

81.0

4

20

25

5

2

22

16

11

82.7

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

21

N/A

N/A

88.0

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

19

N/A

N/A

63.6

4

20

23

2

2

20

N/A

N/A

98.2

4

20

25

12

10

23

16

10

97.5

4

20

25

4

11

23

16

11

97.5

4

20

25

4

11

23

17

07

100.0

4

20

25

10

10

24

16

09

76.8

4

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

98.3

3

20

25

1

1

22

N/A

N/A

88.2

4

20

25

8

8

24

17

00

99.3

4

20

25

2

2

22

16

11

CSX RAILROAD W SECTION OF

051-0047-0 SR00026

n

(641173J)

SAVANNAH

76.6

3

20

25

10

10

36

N/A

N/A

RAILROAD

IN W SECTION

051-0049-0 SR00026

n

REMOVED

OF SAVANNAH 75.5

3

20

25

10

10

24

N/A

N/A

1 MI NE OF

SAVANNAH PORT

051-0054-0 SR00025

n

RIVER

WENTWORT

62.7

4

20

25

8

8

24

15

01

CSX RAILROAD IN GARDEN

051-0060-0 SR00026

n

(641183P)

CITY

90.4

3

20

25

10

10

60

N/A

N/A

LAZERATTO 10 MI SE OF

051-0066-0 SR00026

n

CREEK

SAVANNAH

52.0

4

20

25

8

8

26

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

08

16

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

01

17

05

18

01

16

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

01

17

01

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

15

01

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham
Chatham Chatham Crawford
Effingham

Bridge Serial Number 051-0069-0 051-0079-0 051-0105-0 051-0109-0 051-0111-0 051-0112-0 051-0113-0 051-0114-0 051-0119-0 051-0120-0 051-0121-0 051-0122-0 051-0123-0 051-0124-0

Route Number SR00030 SR00307 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

1.5 MI W INT I-

n

CSX RAILROAD 95 & SR 21

5 MI W OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SAVANNAH

9 MI SW OF

n

SR 204

SAVANNAH

7 MI W OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SAVANNAH

10 MI NE OF

n

CSX RAILROAD SAVANNAH

10 MI NE OF

n

CSX RAILROAD SAVANNAH

10.5 MI NW OF

n

SR 26 (US 80) SAVANNAH

10.5 MI NW OF

n

SR 26 (US 80) SAVANNAH

AUGUSTINE 1.6 MI S OF JCT

n

CREEK

SR 21

AUGUSTINE 1.6 MI S OF JCT

n

CREEK

SR 21

1.4 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.4 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.3 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.3 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

Suff Rating
98.1 94.1 81.0 83.0 94.6 94.6 98.0 98.0 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

3

20

25

8

8

24

4

20

25

3

3

24

3

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

07

16

03

17

09

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

16

04

17

04

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

051-0125-0 SR00405

n

SR 21

INT I-95 & SR 21 95.2

4

20

25

12

12

36

17

02

051-0126-0 SR00405

n

SR 21

INT I-95 & SR 21 91.6

4

20

25

12

12

36

16

11

PORT

WENTWORTH -

051-0153-0 SR00021

n

SR 21

W SECT.

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

3

10

27

16

00

N SECTION OF

051-0154-0 SR00021

n

SR 21

GARDEN CITY N/A

4

N/A

N/A

3

3

85

19

03

9 MI N OF

079-0006-0 SR00007

n

CR 117

ROBERTA

63.7

3

20

25

8

8

36

23

11

OGEECHEE

RIVER

9 MI S OF

103-0019-0 SR00026

n

OVERFLOW GUYTON

57.2

1

20

25

3

3

22

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

04

17

06

17

03

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

05

17

02

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

03

17

02

16

00

19

06

99

99

N/A

N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Effingham Emanuel
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Houston

Bridge Serial Number 103-0035-0 107-0060-0
145-0008-0
145-0009-0
145-0010-0
145-0028-0 145-0031-0 145-0038-0 145-0039-0 145-0041-0 145-0042-0 145-0043-0
145-0044-0

Route Number SR00021 SR00297
SR00085
SR00085
SR00085
SR00219 SR00315 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411
SR00411

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

.5 MI N OF

n

SR 21

SPRINGFIELD

6 MI NW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

OAK PARK

3.5 MI S OF

OSSAHATCHIE WAVERLY

n

CREEK

HALL

1.5 MI N OF

MULBERRY

WAVERLY

n

CREEK

HALL

SHILOH -

SOUTHERN

NORTHWEST

n

RAILROAD

CORNER

1.5 MILES

MOUNTAIN SOUTH

n

OAK CREEK WHITESVILLE

I-185 (SR 411 9 MILES S.W.

n

EXIT 10)

HAMILTON

STANDING BOY 10 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

STANDING BOY 10 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

MULBERRY

7 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

MULBERRY

7 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

S-2651 L. BLUE 8 MILES W.S.W.

n

SPRINGS R

HAMILTON

8.5 MILES

S-2651 L. BLUE W.S.W.

n

SPRINGS R

HAMILTON

Suff Rating N/A
98.4
50.9
50.4
79.3
66.0 99.8 88.8 88.8 87.9 87.9 83.3
83.3

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

3

N/A

N/A

6

6

22

4

20

25

2

2

24

4

20

25

2

2

24

1

N/A

N/A

2

2

24

3

20

25

6

6

22

3

20

25

5

5

20

4

20

25

12

12

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

13

10

18

00

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 18
N/A N/A N/A N/A
16

N/A 02
N/A N/A N/A N/A
05

17

11

145-0045-0 SR00411

n

SR 116

5 MILES SOUTH

WHITESVILLE

97.0

4

20

25

4

10

24

18

00

145-0046-0 SR00411 145-0063-0 SR00001 153-0007-0 SR00007

5 MILES SOUTH

n

SR 116

WHITESVILLE

97.0

4

20

25

4

3 MILES SOUTH

PINE

n

SR 1 (US 27)

MOUNTAIN

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

PERRY -

BIG INDIAN CENTER

n

CREEK

SECTION

75.0

1

18

25

2

10

24

22

11

2

25

15

03

2

74

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

99

99

17

01

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 16
N/A N/A N/A N/A
99

N/A 09
N/A N/A N/A N/A
99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

N/A

N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston Houston Houston Laurens Laurens Laurens
Laurens Laurens Laurens Liberty Liberty Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number 153-0010-0
153-0034-0
153-0041-0
153-0042-0 153-0052-0 153-0079-0 175-0008-0 175-0016-0 175-0017-0

Route Number SR00011
SR00247
SR00401
SR00401 SR00401 SR00011 SR00019 SR00026 SR00026

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

SOUTHERN

6.9 MI SE OF

n

RAILROAD

PERRY

9 MILES

BIG INDIAN SOUTHEAST

n

CREEK

PERRY

4 MILES

SOUTHWEST

n

SR 7 (US 41)

ELKO

4 MILES

SOUTHWEST

n

SR 7 (US 41)

EKLO

PERRY - NW

n

SR 7 (US 341) SECTION

7 MI SE OF

n

SR 11 (US 341) PERRY

3.8 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

DUBLIN

2.1 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

MONTROSE

NE DUBLIN

n

OCONEE RIVER CITY LIMITS

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

93.8

3

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

60.0

1

20

25

3

3

24

N/A

N/A

65.0

3

20

25

11

11

36

16

02

86.5

3

20

25

11

11

36

16

04

90.9

4

20

25

12

12

36

16

00

N/A

5

N/A

N/A

8

8

24

19

08

78.0

3

20

25

6

6

25

16

07

97.7

4

20

25

6

6

24

16

07

82.0

4

20

25

3

3

53

N/A

N/A

OCONEE RIVER

175-0018-0 SR00026

n

OVERFLOW EAST DUBLIN

77.0

3

20

25

3

3

53

N/A

N/A

INDIAN

5.2 MI SE OF

175-0022-0 SR00026

n

BRANCH

BREWTON

55.3

1

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

4 MI S OF

175-0031-0 SR00031

n

I-16 (SR 404)

DUBLIN

99.7

4

20

25

10

10

72

17

01

2 MI SE OF

179-0021-0 SR00038

n

I-95 (SR 405)

MIDWAY

98.0

4

20

25

10

10

24

16

10

RUSSELL

3.5 MI WEST OF

179-0050-0 SR00119

n

SWAMP

RICEBORO

47.1

1

17

25

3

3

20

N/A

N/A

M-8000 CUSTER SE COLUMBUS

215-0001-0 SR00520

n

ROAD

CTY LIMITS

56.4

1

N/A

N/A

15

8

24

13

08

215-0003-0 215-0004-0 215-0005-0 215-0006-0

SR00520 SR00520 SR00520 SR00520

n

I-185 (SR 411) S.E. COLUMBUS 76.4

3

20

25

2

SE COLUMBUS

n

I-185 (SR 411) CITY LIMITS

77.4

3

20

25

8

S. COLUMBUS

n

BULL CREEK UAB

93.1

4

20

25

9

S. COLUMBUS

n

BULL CREEK UAB

93.1

4

20

25

2

11

36

16

09

11

22

18

07

9

46

N/A

N/A

2

46

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99

99

99 15 99 16 16 N/A

99 09 99 04 11 N/A

N/A N/A
17 16 N/A 13 16 18 N/A N/A

N/A N/A
06 11 N/A 09 11 11 N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee
Muscogee
Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number

Route Number

Programmed by GDOT/GRIP for
Improvement

Intersecting With

Location

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

215-0008-0 SR00001

n

I-185 (SR 411) NW COLUMBUS 91.0

4

20

25

2

2

98

16

09

215-0009-0 SR00520

ALA-GA STATE

M-8007- CHATT. LINE- WEST

n

RIVER- RR

COLUMBUS

67.8

3

20

25

2

8

24

15

01

215-0028-0 SR00085

215-0029-0 SR00085

215-0030-0 SR00085

215-0031-0 SR00085

215-0037-0 SR00219

215-0038-0 215-0039-0

SR00219 SR00219

215-0050-0 SR00411

215-0051-0 SR00411

2.7 MI NE OF

NORFOLK

JCT SR 1- EAST

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

76.5

3

20

25

4

NORFOLK

2.7 MI NE OF

SOUTHERN

JCT SR 1- EAST

n

R/R.

COLUMBUS

76.5

3

20

25

4

3.7 MI NE OF

M-8056 MILLER JCT SR 1- N.E

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

67.0

3

20

25

2

3.7 MI NE OF

M-8056 MILLER JCT SR 1- N.E.

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

67.0

3

20

25

8

N.N.W.

ROARING

COLUMBUS

n

BRANCH

CITY LIMITS

99.0

3

20

25

6

14 MI NW OF

HEIFERHORN DOWNTOWN

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS

68.2

1

19

25

8

STANDING BOY 10 MI N OF

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS

66.5

1

17

25

2

CS 14006

CUSSETA RD- 6.9 MI SE OF

n

R.R

COLUMBUS

61.0

4

20

25

4

CS 14006

CUSSETA RD- 6.9 MI SE OF

n

R.R

COLUMBUS

62.1

4

20

25

4

12

24

N/A

N/A

12

24

N/A

N/A

8

24

18

04

2

24

15

09

6

62

N/A

N/A

8

24

N/A

N/A

2

24

N/A

N/A

10

24

21

10

10

24

23

10

215-0052-0 SR00411

M-8000 OLD 6.8 MI SE OF

n

CUSSETA ROAD COLUMBUS

73.9

3

20

25

4

10

24

16

05

M-8000 OLD 6.8 MI SE OF

215-0053-0 SR00411

n

CUSSETA ROAD COLUMBUS

73.9

3

20

25

10

4

24

18

00

BULL CREEK 3.8 MI SE OF

215-0054-0 SR00411

n

TRIB.

COLUMBUS

59.0

1

N/A

N/A

4

10

24

N/A

N/A

3.5 MI NE OF

215-0055-0 SR00411

n

BULL CREEK COLUMBUS

86.5

3

20

25

4

10

36

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

17

05

17

09

N/A N/A
99 99 N/A N/A N/A 99 99 99 99 N/A N/A

N/A N/A
99 99 N/A N/A N/A 99 99 99 99 N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee
Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number

Route Number

Programmed by GDOT/GRIP for
Improvement

Intersecting With

Location

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

215-0057-0 SR00411

215-0063-0 SR00411

215-0065-0 SR00411

215-0067-0 215-0069-0

SR00411 SR00411

215-0070-0 SR00411

215-0072-0 SR00411

M-8034 MORRIS CENTRAL

n

RD-NOR-SOU COLUMBUS

91.8

4

20

25

4

M-8026

NORTH

EDGEWOOD CENTRAL

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

92.4

3

20

25

7

CS 2202

COLLEGE

CENTRAL

n

DRIVE

COLUMBUS

92.4

3

20

25

7

SR 85-

SR 85(US 27

CENTRAL

n

ALT)(EXIT 7) COLUMBUS

96.0

3

20

25

4

LINDSEY

3.8 MI NE OF

n

CREEK TRIB. COLUMBUS

66.5

1

N/A

N/A

7

M-8049

ARMOUR

CENTRAL

n

ROAD EXIT8 COLUMBUS

93.2

3

20

25

7

NORTH

M-8050

CENTRAL

AIRPORT

COLUMBUS

n

THRUWAY

EXIT8

92.6

3

20

25

6

10

35

26

09

10

36

16

07

10

36

15

01

10

35

15

10

10

48

N/A

N/A

10

35

15

09

10

36

16

10

NORFOLK

NORTHWEST

215-0074-0 SR00411

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

90.9

4

20

25

10

14

38

N/A

N/A

.5 MI N OF SR 1-

NORFOLK

NORTH WEST

215-0075-0 SR00411

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

96.1

4

20

25

10

14

38

N/A

N/A

M-8060

WHITTLESEY NORTHWEST

215-0076-0 SR00411

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

93.1

3

20

25

10

10

62

16

08

M-8060

WHITTLESEY NORTHWEST

215-0077-0 SR00411

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

93.1

3

20

25

10

10

62

22

09

HEIFERHORN NORTH

215-0081-0 SR00411

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS.

52.5

1

N/A

N/A

10

14

24

N/A

N/A

M-8049

NORTH

ARMOUR

CENTRAL

215-0084-0 SR00411

n

ROAD EXIT8 COLUMBUS

91.3

3

20

25

5

6

36

17

10

CENTRAL

215-0112-0 SR00411

n

I-185 (SR 411) COLUMBUS

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

4

10

36

17

08

COLUMBUS -

215-0113-0 SR00520

n

SR 520 (US 27) SOUTHSIDE

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

46

16

03

W. COLUMBUS

215-0114-0 SR00001

n

SR 1 (US 27)

UAB

N/A

1

N/A

N/A

0

0

24

13

07

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

99

99

16

11

99

99

15 N/A

10 N/A

16

05

17
N/A
N/A
99
99 N/A
17 20 16 13

10
N/A
N/A
99
99 N/A
11 02 06 07

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee
Muscogee Peach Stewart Stewart Sumter
Sumter
Talbot Talbot Talbot Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen

Bridge Serial Number 215-0149-0
215-0161-0 225-0019-0 259-0006-0 259-0015-0 261-0007-0

Route Number SR00001
SR00411 SR00401 SR00001 SR00027 SR00027

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

SR 22- 2 SR 22 NORTH

n

RAMPS

COLUMBUS

MACON RD.-

SR 22 SPUR

CENTRAL

n

(EXIT 6)

COLUMBUS

2 MI NE OF

n

I-75

BYRON

HANNAHATCH 7 MILES N.

n

EE CREEK

LUMPKIN

IN NE

n

CSX RAILROAD RICHLAND

IN W

n

NORFOLK R/R AMERICUS

Suff Rating
93.5

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

4

20

25

2

2

64

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

19

08

98.0

3

20

25

7

10

36

17

08

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

10

10

36

16

05

85.3

3

20

25

8

8

24

N/A

N/A

65.6

3

20

25

6

6

22

N/A

N/A

69.8

4

20

25

2

2

40

N/A

N/A

261-0011-0 SR00027

269-0018-0 269-0019-0 269-0020-0 283-0001-0 283-0006-0 283-5034-0

SR00128 SR00128 SR00128 SR00015 SR00029 SR00029

FLINT RIVER- 13.6 MILES EAST

n

CR 301

AMERICUS

72.9

4

20

25

2

PATSILIGA

CREEK

.5 MI N OF

n

OVERFLOW REYNOLDS

56.3

1

20

25

6

PATSILIGA

.7 MI N OF

n

CREEK

REYNOLDS

56.3

1

20

25

6

8 MI N OF

n

FLINT RIVER REYNOLDS

20.4

4

15

25

7

3 MI N OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SOPERTON

96.1

4

20

25

2

6 MI NW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SOPERTON

83.0

4

20

25

2

2.8 MI NW OF

n

SR 29

SOPERTON

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

23

10

06

6

24

N/A

N/A

6

24

N/A

N/A

7

24

N/A

N/A

2

24

17

04

2

24

17

02

2

24

17

01

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

19

08

16 16 N/A N/A N/A

10 11 N/A N/A N/A

99

99

N/A N/A N/A
16 16 99

N/A N/A N/A
06 10 99

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Bleckley Bryan Bryan Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham Chatham

Bridge Serial Number 023-0001-0 029-0013-0 029-0014-0 031-0002-0 031-0003-0 031-0005-0 031-0022-0 031-0036-0 031-0037-0 031-0047-0 031-0050-0 031-0106-0 043-0004-0 043-0016-0

Route Number SR00026 SR00030 SR00030 SR00024 SR00024 SR00024 SR00067 SR00073 SR00073 SR00119 SR00119 SR00024 SR00023 SR00129

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

GUM SWAMP 6.2 MI NE OF

n

CREEK

COCHRAN

1.5 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

JCT SR 26

1.5 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

JCT SR 26

FLOYD

5 MI E OF

n

BRANCH

STATESBORO

8 MI E OF

n

SPRING CREEK STATESBORO

OGEECHEE

15 MI E OF

n

RIVER

STATESBORO

9 MI SW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

BROOKLET

3.8 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

REGISTER

3.8 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

REGISTER

13.3 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

BROOKLET

OGEECHEE

13.7 MI SE OF

n

RIVER

BROOKLET

4.2 MI E OF

n

MILL CREEK STATESBORO

1.6 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

METTER

1.6 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

METTER

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

85.3

4

20

25

2

2

22

N/A

N/A

81.0

4

20

25

3

5

22

16

09

81.0

4

20

25

5

2

22

16

11

82.7

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

21

N/A

N/A

88.0

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

19

N/A

N/A

63.6

4

20

23

2

2

20

N/A

N/A

98.2

4

20

25

12

10

23

16

10

97.5

4

20

25

4

11

23

16

11

97.5

4

20

25

4

11

23

17

07

100.0

4

20

25

10

10

24

16

09

76.8

4

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

98.3

3

20

25

1

1

22

N/A

N/A

88.2

4

20

25

8

8

24

17

00

99.3

4

20

25

2

2

22

16

11

CSX RAILROAD W SECTION OF

051-0047-0 SR00026

n

(641173J)

SAVANNAH

76.6

3

20

25

10

10

36

N/A

N/A

RAILROAD

IN W SECTION

051-0049-0 SR00026

n

REMOVED

OF SAVANNAH 75.5

3

20

25

10

10

24

N/A

N/A

1 MI NE OF

SAVANNAH PORT

051-0054-0 SR00025

n

RIVER

WENTWORT

62.7

4

20

25

8

8

24

15

01

CSX RAILROAD IN GARDEN

051-0060-0 SR00026

n

(641183P)

CITY

90.4

3

20

25

10

10

60

N/A

N/A

LAZERATTO 10 MI SE OF

051-0066-0 SR00026

n

CREEK

SAVANNAH

52.0

4

20

25

8

8

26

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

08

16

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

01

17

05

18

01

16

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

01

17

01

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

15

01

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham
Chatham Chatham Crawford
Effingham

Bridge Serial Number 051-0069-0 051-0079-0 051-0105-0 051-0109-0 051-0111-0 051-0112-0 051-0113-0 051-0114-0 051-0119-0 051-0120-0 051-0121-0 051-0122-0 051-0123-0 051-0124-0

Route Number SR00030 SR00307 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405 SR00405

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

1.5 MI W INT I-

n

CSX RAILROAD 95 & SR 21

5 MI W OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SAVANNAH

9 MI SW OF

n

SR 204

SAVANNAH

7 MI W OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SAVANNAH

10 MI NE OF

n

CSX RAILROAD SAVANNAH

10 MI NE OF

n

CSX RAILROAD SAVANNAH

10.5 MI NW OF

n

SR 26 (US 80) SAVANNAH

10.5 MI NW OF

n

SR 26 (US 80) SAVANNAH

AUGUSTINE 1.6 MI S OF JCT

n

CREEK

SR 21

AUGUSTINE 1.6 MI S OF JCT

n

CREEK

SR 21

1.4 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.4 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.3 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

1.3 MI S OF JCT

n

CSX RAILROAD SR 21

Suff Rating
98.1 94.1 81.0 83.0 94.6 94.6 98.0 98.0 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

3

20

25

8

8

24

4

20

25

3

3

24

3

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

4

20

25

10

12

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

3

20

25

10

10

36

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

07

16

03

17

09

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

16

04

17

04

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

051-0125-0 SR00405

n

SR 21

INT I-95 & SR 21 95.2

4

20

25

12

12

36

17

02

051-0126-0 SR00405

n

SR 21

INT I-95 & SR 21 91.6

4

20

25

12

12

36

16

11

PORT

WENTWORTH -

051-0153-0 SR00021

n

SR 21

W SECT.

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

3

10

27

16

00

N SECTION OF

051-0154-0 SR00021

n

SR 21

GARDEN CITY N/A

4

N/A

N/A

3

3

85

19

03

9 MI N OF

079-0006-0 SR00007

n

CR 117

ROBERTA

63.7

3

20

25

8

8

36

23

11

OGEECHEE

RIVER

9 MI S OF

103-0019-0 SR00026

n

OVERFLOW GUYTON

57.2

1

20

25

3

3

22

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

16

04

17

06

17

03

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

05

17

02

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

03

17

02

16

00

19

06

99

99

N/A

N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Effingham Emanuel
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Houston

Bridge Serial Number 103-0035-0 107-0060-0
145-0008-0
145-0009-0
145-0010-0
145-0028-0 145-0031-0 145-0038-0 145-0039-0 145-0041-0 145-0042-0 145-0043-0
145-0044-0

Route Number SR00021 SR00297
SR00085
SR00085
SR00085
SR00219 SR00315 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411 SR00411
SR00411

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

.5 MI N OF

n

SR 21

SPRINGFIELD

6 MI NW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

OAK PARK

3.5 MI S OF

OSSAHATCHIE WAVERLY

n

CREEK

HALL

1.5 MI N OF

MULBERRY

WAVERLY

n

CREEK

HALL

SHILOH -

SOUTHERN

NORTHWEST

n

RAILROAD

CORNER

1.5 MILES

MOUNTAIN SOUTH

n

OAK CREEK WHITESVILLE

I-185 (SR 411 9 MILES S.W.

n

EXIT 10)

HAMILTON

STANDING BOY 10 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

STANDING BOY 10 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

MULBERRY

7 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

MULBERRY

7 MILES S.W.

n

CREEK

HAMILTON

S-2651 L. BLUE 8 MILES W.S.W.

n

SPRINGS R

HAMILTON

8.5 MILES

S-2651 L. BLUE W.S.W.

n

SPRINGS R

HAMILTON

Suff Rating N/A
98.4
50.9
50.4
79.3
66.0 99.8 88.8 88.8 87.9 87.9 83.3
83.3

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

3

N/A

N/A

6

6

22

4

20

25

2

2

24

4

20

25

2

2

24

1

N/A

N/A

2

2

24

3

20

25

6

6

22

3

20

25

5

5

20

4

20

25

12

12

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

13

10

18

00

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 18
N/A N/A N/A N/A
16

N/A 02
N/A N/A N/A N/A
05

17

11

145-0045-0 SR00411

n

SR 116

5 MILES SOUTH

WHITESVILLE

97.0

4

20

25

4

10

24

18

00

145-0046-0 SR00411 145-0063-0 SR00001 153-0007-0 SR00007

5 MILES SOUTH

n

SR 116

WHITESVILLE

97.0

4

20

25

4

3 MILES SOUTH

PINE

n

SR 1 (US 27)

MOUNTAIN

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

PERRY -

BIG INDIAN CENTER

n

CREEK

SECTION

75.0

1

18

25

2

10

24

22

11

2

25

15

03

2

74

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

99

99

17

01

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 16
N/A N/A N/A N/A
99

N/A 09
N/A N/A N/A N/A
99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

N/A

N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston Houston Houston Laurens Laurens Laurens
Laurens Laurens Laurens Liberty Liberty Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number 153-0010-0
153-0034-0
153-0041-0
153-0042-0 153-0052-0 153-0079-0 175-0008-0 175-0016-0 175-0017-0

Route Number SR00011
SR00247
SR00401
SR00401 SR00401 SR00011 SR00019 SR00026 SR00026

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

SOUTHERN

6.9 MI SE OF

n

RAILROAD

PERRY

9 MILES

BIG INDIAN SOUTHEAST

n

CREEK

PERRY

4 MILES

SOUTHWEST

n

SR 7 (US 41)

ELKO

4 MILES

SOUTHWEST

n

SR 7 (US 41)

EKLO

PERRY - NW

n

SR 7 (US 341) SECTION

7 MI SE OF

n

SR 11 (US 341) PERRY

3.8 MI S OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

DUBLIN

2.1 MI SE OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

MONTROSE

NE DUBLIN

n

OCONEE RIVER CITY LIMITS

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

93.8

3

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

60.0

1

20

25

3

3

24

N/A

N/A

65.0

3

20

25

11

11

36

16

02

86.5

3

20

25

11

11

36

16

04

90.9

4

20

25

12

12

36

16

00

N/A

5

N/A

N/A

8

8

24

19

08

78.0

3

20

25

6

6

25

16

07

97.7

4

20

25

6

6

24

16

07

82.0

4

20

25

3

3

53

N/A

N/A

OCONEE RIVER

175-0018-0 SR00026

n

OVERFLOW EAST DUBLIN

77.0

3

20

25

3

3

53

N/A

N/A

INDIAN

5.2 MI SE OF

175-0022-0 SR00026

n

BRANCH

BREWTON

55.3

1

20

25

2

2

24

N/A

N/A

4 MI S OF

175-0031-0 SR00031

n

I-16 (SR 404)

DUBLIN

99.7

4

20

25

10

10

72

17

01

2 MI SE OF

179-0021-0 SR00038

n

I-95 (SR 405)

MIDWAY

98.0

4

20

25

10

10

24

16

10

RUSSELL

3.5 MI WEST OF

179-0050-0 SR00119

n

SWAMP

RICEBORO

47.1

1

17

25

3

3

20

N/A

N/A

M-8000 CUSTER SE COLUMBUS

215-0001-0 SR00520

n

ROAD

CTY LIMITS

56.4

1

N/A

N/A

15

8

24

13

08

215-0003-0 215-0004-0 215-0005-0 215-0006-0

SR00520 SR00520 SR00520 SR00520

n

I-185 (SR 411) S.E. COLUMBUS 76.4

3

20

25

2

SE COLUMBUS

n

I-185 (SR 411) CITY LIMITS

77.4

3

20

25

8

S. COLUMBUS

n

BULL CREEK UAB

93.1

4

20

25

9

S. COLUMBUS

n

BULL CREEK UAB

93.1

4

20

25

2

11

36

16

09

11

22

18

07

9

46

N/A

N/A

2

46

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99

99

99 15 99 16 16 N/A

99 09 99 04 11 N/A

N/A N/A
17 16 N/A 13 16 18 N/A N/A

N/A N/A
06 11 N/A 09 11 11 N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee
Muscogee
Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number

Route Number

Programmed by GDOT/GRIP for
Improvement

Intersecting With

Location

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

215-0008-0 SR00001

n

I-185 (SR 411) NW COLUMBUS 91.0

4

20

25

2

2

98

16

09

215-0009-0 SR00520

ALA-GA STATE

M-8007- CHATT. LINE- WEST

n

RIVER- RR

COLUMBUS

67.8

3

20

25

2

8

24

15

01

215-0028-0 SR00085

215-0029-0 SR00085

215-0030-0 SR00085

215-0031-0 SR00085

215-0037-0 SR00219

215-0038-0 215-0039-0

SR00219 SR00219

215-0050-0 SR00411

215-0051-0 SR00411

2.7 MI NE OF

NORFOLK

JCT SR 1- EAST

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

76.5

3

20

25

4

NORFOLK

2.7 MI NE OF

SOUTHERN

JCT SR 1- EAST

n

R/R.

COLUMBUS

76.5

3

20

25

4

3.7 MI NE OF

M-8056 MILLER JCT SR 1- N.E

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

67.0

3

20

25

2

3.7 MI NE OF

M-8056 MILLER JCT SR 1- N.E.

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

67.0

3

20

25

8

N.N.W.

ROARING

COLUMBUS

n

BRANCH

CITY LIMITS

99.0

3

20

25

6

14 MI NW OF

HEIFERHORN DOWNTOWN

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS

68.2

1

19

25

8

STANDING BOY 10 MI N OF

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS

66.5

1

17

25

2

CS 14006

CUSSETA RD- 6.9 MI SE OF

n

R.R

COLUMBUS

61.0

4

20

25

4

CS 14006

CUSSETA RD- 6.9 MI SE OF

n

R.R

COLUMBUS

62.1

4

20

25

4

12

24

N/A

N/A

12

24

N/A

N/A

8

24

18

04

2

24

15

09

6

62

N/A

N/A

8

24

N/A

N/A

2

24

N/A

N/A

10

24

21

10

10

24

23

10

215-0052-0 SR00411

M-8000 OLD 6.8 MI SE OF

n

CUSSETA ROAD COLUMBUS

73.9

3

20

25

4

10

24

16

05

M-8000 OLD 6.8 MI SE OF

215-0053-0 SR00411

n

CUSSETA ROAD COLUMBUS

73.9

3

20

25

10

4

24

18

00

BULL CREEK 3.8 MI SE OF

215-0054-0 SR00411

n

TRIB.

COLUMBUS

59.0

1

N/A

N/A

4

10

24

N/A

N/A

3.5 MI NE OF

215-0055-0 SR00411

n

BULL CREEK COLUMBUS

86.5

3

20

25

4

10

36

N/A

N/A

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

17

05

17

09

N/A N/A
99 99 N/A N/A N/A 99 99 99 99 N/A N/A

N/A N/A
99 99 N/A N/A N/A 99 99 99 99 N/A N/A

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee
Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee

Bridge Serial Number

Route Number

Programmed by GDOT/GRIP for
Improvement

Intersecting With

Location

Suff Rating

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

215-0057-0 SR00411

215-0063-0 SR00411

215-0065-0 SR00411

215-0067-0 215-0069-0

SR00411 SR00411

215-0070-0 SR00411

215-0072-0 SR00411

M-8034 MORRIS CENTRAL

n

RD-NOR-SOU COLUMBUS

91.8

4

20

25

4

M-8026

NORTH

EDGEWOOD CENTRAL

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

92.4

3

20

25

7

CS 2202

COLLEGE

CENTRAL

n

DRIVE

COLUMBUS

92.4

3

20

25

7

SR 85-

SR 85(US 27

CENTRAL

n

ALT)(EXIT 7) COLUMBUS

96.0

3

20

25

4

LINDSEY

3.8 MI NE OF

n

CREEK TRIB. COLUMBUS

66.5

1

N/A

N/A

7

M-8049

ARMOUR

CENTRAL

n

ROAD EXIT8 COLUMBUS

93.2

3

20

25

7

NORTH

M-8050

CENTRAL

AIRPORT

COLUMBUS

n

THRUWAY

EXIT8

92.6

3

20

25

6

10

35

26

09

10

36

16

07

10

36

15

01

10

35

15

10

10

48

N/A

N/A

10

35

15

09

10

36

16

10

NORFOLK

NORTHWEST

215-0074-0 SR00411

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

90.9

4

20

25

10

14

38

N/A

N/A

.5 MI N OF SR 1-

NORFOLK

NORTH WEST

215-0075-0 SR00411

n

SOUTHERN RR. COLUMBUS

96.1

4

20

25

10

14

38

N/A

N/A

M-8060

WHITTLESEY NORTHWEST

215-0076-0 SR00411

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

93.1

3

20

25

10

10

62

16

08

M-8060

WHITTLESEY NORTHWEST

215-0077-0 SR00411

n

ROAD

COLUMBUS

93.1

3

20

25

10

10

62

22

09

HEIFERHORN NORTH

215-0081-0 SR00411

n

CREEK

COLUMBUS.

52.5

1

N/A

N/A

10

14

24

N/A

N/A

M-8049

NORTH

ARMOUR

CENTRAL

215-0084-0 SR00411

n

ROAD EXIT8 COLUMBUS

91.3

3

20

25

5

6

36

17

10

CENTRAL

215-0112-0 SR00411

n

I-185 (SR 411) COLUMBUS

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

4

10

36

17

08

COLUMBUS -

215-0113-0 SR00520

n

SR 520 (US 27) SOUTHSIDE

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

46

16

03

W. COLUMBUS

215-0114-0 SR00001

n

SR 1 (US 27)

UAB

N/A

1

N/A

N/A

0

0

24

13

07

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

99

99

16

11

99

99

15 N/A

10 N/A

16

05

17
N/A
N/A
99
99 N/A
17 20 16 13

10
N/A
N/A
99
99 N/A
11 02 06 07

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Connecting Roads
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee
Muscogee Peach Stewart Stewart Sumter
Sumter
Talbot Talbot Talbot Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen

Bridge Serial Number 215-0149-0
215-0161-0 225-0019-0 259-0006-0 259-0015-0 261-0007-0

Route Number SR00001
SR00411 SR00401 SR00001 SR00027 SR00027

Programmed by

GDOT/GRIP for Intersecting

Improvement

With

Location

SR 22- 2 SR 22 NORTH

n

RAMPS

COLUMBUS

MACON RD.-

SR 22 SPUR

CENTRAL

n

(EXIT 6)

COLUMBUS

2 MI NE OF

n

I-75

BYRON

HANNAHATCH 7 MILES N.

n

EE CREEK

LUMPKIN

IN NE

n

CSX RAILROAD RICHLAND

IN W

n

NORFOLK R/R AMERICUS

Suff Rating
93.5

Structure Material*

Through

H Load HS Load Inside

Outside

Lane

(less than (less

Shoulder Shoulder Pavement

20) than 20) Width (feet) Width (feet) Width (feet)

4

20

25

2

2

64

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

19

08

98.0

3

20

25

7

10

36

17

08

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

10

10

36

16

05

85.3

3

20

25

8

8

24

N/A

N/A

65.6

3

20

25

6

6

22

N/A

N/A

69.8

4

20

25

2

2

40

N/A

N/A

261-0011-0 SR00027

269-0018-0 269-0019-0 269-0020-0 283-0001-0 283-0006-0 283-5034-0

SR00128 SR00128 SR00128 SR00015 SR00029 SR00029

FLINT RIVER- 13.6 MILES EAST

n

CR 301

AMERICUS

72.9

4

20

25

2

PATSILIGA

CREEK

.5 MI N OF

n

OVERFLOW REYNOLDS

56.3

1

20

25

6

PATSILIGA

.7 MI N OF

n

CREEK

REYNOLDS

56.3

1

20

25

6

8 MI N OF

n

FLINT RIVER REYNOLDS

20.4

4

15

25

7

3 MI N OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SOPERTON

96.1

4

20

25

2

6 MI NW OF

n

I-16 (SR 404)

SOPERTON

83.0

4

20

25

2

2.8 MI NW OF

n

SR 29

SOPERTON

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

2

2

23

10

06

6

24

N/A

N/A

6

24

N/A

N/A

7

24

N/A

N/A

2

24

17

04

2

24

17

02

2

24

17

01

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

19

08

16 16 N/A N/A N/A

10 11 N/A N/A N/A

99

99

N/A N/A N/A
16 16 99

N/A N/A N/A
06 10 99

*Structural Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Programmed Bridges on HPC 6 Mainline
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

Bridge Serial Number
031-0061-0
031-0062-0
051-0059-0
051-0092-0
051-0093-0
051-0095-0
051-0096-0 175-0079-0 175-0080-0
215-0016-0 283-0035-0 283-0036-0

Route Number
SR00404
SR00404
SR00404
SR00404
SR00404
SR00404
SR00404 SR00404 SR00404
SR00022 SR00404 SR00404

Intersecting With FAS 733 DAISY ROAD FAS 733 DAISY ROAD
BACK RIVER
SR 421 (I-516)
SR 421 (I-516)
M-4079 STILES AVE.
M-4079 STILES AVE. OCONEE RIVER OCONEE RIVER
BULL CREEK CR 102- CSX RR (641025P) CR 102- CSX RR (641025P)

Location
9 MI SW OF BROOKLET 9 MI SW OF BROOKLET 1 MI N OF SAVANNAH IN SAVANNAH CITY LIMITS IN SAVANNAH CITY LIMITS IN SAVANNAH CITY LIMITS IN SAVANNAH CITY LIMITS
5 MI S OF DUBLIN
5 MI S OF DUBLIN
6 MILES EAST COLUMBUS 7 MI NW OF SOPERTON 7 MI NW OF SOPERTON

Suff Rating
85 90
42
77 77 78 78 75 75
74 77 79

Structure Material*
3
3
1 4
4
4
4 4 4
3 3 3

H Load (less than 20)

HS Load (less
than 20)

Inside Shoulder Width (feet)

Outside Shoulder Width (feet)

Through Lane Pavement
Width (feet)

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

20

25

4

10

24

16

06

20

25

4

10

24

17

00

20

25

10

10

24

N/A

N/A

20

25

3

10

24

16

09

20

25

4

10

24

16

05

20

25

4

10

46

16

03

20

25

4

10

24

17

00

20

25

4

10

24

N/A

N/A

20

25

4

10

24

N/A

N/A

20

25

8

8

24

N/A

N/A

20

25

4

10

24

19

10

20

25

4

10

24

22

04

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

00

00

99

99

N/A

N/A

16

06

17

08

99

99

99 N/A N/A

99 N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

99

99

99

99

*Structure Material 1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete* 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous* 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Mainline
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Bulloch Bulloch Candler Candler

Bridge Serial Number
031-0061-0 031-0062-0 043-0017-0 043-0018-0

Route Number
SR00404 SR00404 SR00404 SR00404

Intersecting With FAS 733 DAISY ROAD FAS 733 DAISY ROAD
SR 57
SR 57

Location
9 MI SW OF BROOKLET 9 MI SW OF BROOKLET 6.2 MI SW OF METTER 6.2 MI SW OF METTER

Suff Rating
85 90 96 96

Candler

043-0028-0 SR00404 CR 49

7.5 MI SE OF METTER

76

Candler

043-0029-0 SR00404 CR 49

7.5 MI SE OF METTER

76

CR 674- CSX

2 MI W OF

Chatham

051-0087-0 SR00404 RAILROAD

SAVANNAH

82

CR 654 TREMONT .25 MI W OF

Chatham

051-0089-0 SR00404 AVE- CSX

SAVANNAH

94

CR 654 TREMONT .25 MI W OF

Chatham

051-0090-0 SR00404 AVE- CSX

SAVANNAH

94

M-4079 GWINNETT W CITY LIMITS OF

Chatham

051-0097-0 SR00404 STREET

SAVANNAH

92

M-4079 GWINNETT W CITY LIMITS OF

Chatham

051-0098-0 SR00404 STREET

SAVANNAH

93

M-4052- CS 1506 W IN CITY LIMITS

Chatham

051-0101-0 SR00404 BROAD

SAVANNAH

75

Crawford

079-0014-0

SR00096 MACOMIS CREEK 10 MI S OF ROBERTA

40

Crawford

079-0007-0

SR00022 BAILEY BRANCH 8 MI W OF ROBERTA

51

ULCOHATCHEE

Crawford

079-0008-0

SR00022 CREEK

6 MI W OF ROBERTA

53

ECHECONNEE

10 MI NE OF

Crawford

079-0011-0

SR00022 CREEK

ROBERTA

40

2.8 MI N OF OAK

Emanuel

107-0069-0 SR00404 SR 4 (US 1)

PARK

97

Emanuel

107-0070-0 SR00404 SR 4 (US 1)

3 MI N OF OAK PARK

97

3.3 MILES EAST

Houston

153-0028-0 SR00096 OCMULGEE RIVER BONAIRE

65

6 MILES EAST

Muscogee 215-0016-0 SR00022 BULL CREEK

COLUMBUS

74

I-185(SR411)-2 I-185 N. COLUMBUS BY-

Muscogee 215-0134-0 SR00022 RMP

PASS EXIT 7(411)

99

I-185(SR411)-2 I-185

Muscogee 215-0135-0 SR00022 RMP

NORTH COLUMBUS

98

*Structure Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete* 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous* 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Structure Material*

HS Load Inside H Load (less (less Shoulder
than 20) than 20) Width (feet)

Outside Shoulder Width (feet)

Through Lane
Pavement Width (feet)

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

36

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

10

4

37

3

20

25

3

4

15

25

7

1

N/A

N/A

8

3

24

7

24

8

24

1

20

25

2

2

24

1

20

25

2

8

36

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

9

9

24

3

20

25

8

8

24

4

20

25

10

10

36

4

20

25

10

10

36

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

16

06

17

00

16

05

17

02

16

05

16

05

24

01

24

06

25

11

17

03

16

07

16 N/A N/A

08 N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

08

16

02

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

18

09

17

07

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

00

00

99

99

16

08

17

02

16

05

16

05

99

99

99

99

99

99

16

08

16

07

99 N/A N/A

99 N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

08

16

03

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

18

11

17

10

Non-Programmed Bridge Deficiencies on HPC 6 Mainline
Critical Deficiencies are Shaded

County Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Talbot Talbot Talbot Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen Treutlen Twiggs Twiggs

Bridge Serial Number 215-0146-0 215-0147-0 215-0148-0 263-0003-0 263-0008-0 263-0030-0 283-0041-0 283-0042-0 283-0047-0 283-0048-0 289-0019-0 289-0023-0

Route Number SR00022 SR00022 SR00022 SR00022 SR00022 SR00022 SR00404 SR00404 SR00404 SR00404 SR00096 SR00404

Intersecting With I-185(SR411)-2 I-185 RMP I-185(SR411)-2 I-185 RMP
SR 22 (US 80) SOUTH FORK UPATOI CREEK
POTTERS CREEK
SR 22 (US 80)
CR 166
CR 166
SR 56 (US 221)
SR 56 (US 221)
I-16 (SR 404)
CR 71

Location
NORTH COLUMBUS N. COLUMBUS EXIT 4 OVER SR 22 @ 4.41ENORTH COLUMBUS
1 MI N OF GENEVA 10.1 MI E OF TALBOTTON IN TALBOTTON CITY LIMITS 3.3 MI NE OF SOPERTON 3.3 MI NE OF SOPERTON 6.8 MI NE OF SOPERTON 6.8 MI NE OF SOPERTON 4.5 MI S OF JEFFERSONVILL 3.6 MI N OF BULLARD

Suff Rating
98 98 N/A 57 49 N/A 97 76 76 77 92 96

Structure Material*

HS Load Inside H Load (less (less Shoulder
than 20) than 20) Width (feet)

Outside Shoulder Width (feet)

Through Lane
Pavement Width (feet)

4

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

4

4

N/A

N/A

4

1

20

25

7

10

24

10

24

7

23

1

20

25

2

2

22

3

N/A

N/A

3

6

22

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

3

20

25

4

10

24

4

20

25

7

7

22

3

20

25

4

10

24

Vertical Clearance

Feet

Inches

21

00

22 17 N/A

04 11 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

16

09

16

09

16

08

16

07

17

03

22

03

Vertical Clearance

Opposite Direction

Feet

Inches

21

03

99

99

99 N/A

99 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

17

00

99

99

*Structure Material
1 = Concrete 2 = Concrete continuous 3 = Steel 4 = Steel continuous 5 = Prestressed concrete* 6 = Prestressed concrete continuous* 7 = Timber 8 = Masonry 9 = Aluminum, Wrought Iron, or Cast Iron

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix G At Grade Railroad Crossings on Mainline and Connecting Roads
June 2002

At Grade Railroad Crossings on Mainline and Connecting Roads

HPC 6 Mainline

RailRoad ID County Number

Railroad

Crossing Route Street or Road Name Nearest City

Crawford 734047Y Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) SR96

Reynolds

Peach

Southern Railway Company 49C (Fort Valley

(nsx)

Bypass)

Fort Valley

No. of Daily Trains
2

Concrete Panels?
No

Nearby Intersecting Hwy.
Less than 75 feet

No

Houston Twiggs

729204E 729405V

Southern Railway Company SR96 (nsx) Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) SR96

Bonaire Cochran

3

Yes Less than 75 feet

2

75 to 150 feet

Twiggs

636084G Wilmington Terminal

SR96, I-16

N. Church St

Jeffersonville

0

Railroad Incorporated

Less than 75 feet

HPC 6 Connecting Roads

County Taylor

RailRoad ID Number

Railroad

734026F Southern Railway Company (nsx)

Crossing Route Street or Road Name Nearest City

US 19, SR3

Poplar St

Butler

Taylor

734038A Southern Railway Company SR128 (nsx)

Winston St

Reynolds

Emanuel

732672C Southern Railway Company US 1, SR 4 (nsx)

S. Main St

Swainsboro

Bulloch

620202J Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) CR 232

Statesboro

Bulloch

620197P Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) SR 67

Fair Rd

Statesboro

Bulloch

620198W Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) GA 67?/ SR73 Brannen St&Main St Statesboro

Bulloch Bulloch

620165J 620164C

Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) US 80, SR 26, US 25
Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) US 301, SR73

Statesboro Statesboro

Bryan
Effingham Effingham
Stewart

635942H
635128B 620046A
643923Y

Wilmington Terminal Railroad Incorporated CSX Transportation Southern Railway Company (nsx) Georgia Southwestern Railroad Division

SR 67, SR 119

SR 21 SR 119

Columbia Ave Madison St

US 280, SR 520, Richland By-Pass SR 55

Pembroke
Rincon Springfield
Richland

No. of Daily Trains
2
3
0
2 2 2 2
2 2 0 2 0

Concrete Panels?

Nearby Intersecting Hwy.
Less than 75 feet

No

Less than 75 feet

75 to 150 feet

75 to 150 feet Less than 75 feet Less than 75 feet 75 to 150 feet 75 to 150 feet 75 to 150 feet

75 to 150 feet Less than 75 feet

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix H Pavement and Roadway Deficiencies
Two and Three Lane Portion of HPC 6 Mainline
(not currently on GRIP System)
June 2002

Two and Three Lane Portion of HPC 6 Mainline not Currently on the GRIP System

Roadway

Location

Need Widening to Four

Lane Divided Roadway Need PCC Pavement with Potential Bottleneck

or Freeway?

Full Depth Shoulders?

Intersections

SR 96 From Fort Valley Bypass to I-75

Roadway

1) Downtown

intersection in Fort

Valley at US341 and

SR49, 2) Intersection

of SR96 at I-75, 3)

Intersection of SR96

Yes

at US41

SR 96 SR 96

I-75 to US 219 /SR247 US219/SR247 to I-16

Freeway Roadway

1) Intersection of

SR96 at Houston

Lake Road, 2)

Intersection of SR96

Yes

at Moody Road

Yes

N/A

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix I Two or Three Lane Connecting
with Capacity Deficiencies
June 2002

Area Columbus

Two or Three Lane Connecting Roads with Capacity Deficiencies

Roadway/Location
SR 219 from SR 103 in Harris County to Bradley Park Drive/Green Island Drive US 27/SR 1 from SR 116 in Harris County to Moon Road in Muscogee County

Max. 1998 Max. 2025 AADT AADT

7400

12700

9700

30115

US 27 Alt/SR 85 from SR 208 in Harris County to Ellerslie in Harris County

7200

11600

Prog. in the CWP
PL
O
W

1998 2025 Needs Needs
PL 4-Lns
PL 4-Lns
PL 4-Lns

Max. Percent Trucks
2
15
15

Adeq.

Shlder

Potential

Key Inter.

Width?

Bottleneck needing White-

(min 6ft.) Intersections

topping

SR219 and

US80/SR85/US27

No Alt

None

US27/SR1 and

US80/SR85/US27

Yes Alt

None

US27/SR1 and

US80/SR85/US27 US27 Atl/SR 85

Yes Alt

and US1/SR27

Reynolds Fort Valley

SR 22 Spur from I-185 to US 80/SR 22
SR 128 from SR 96 in Taylor County to US 341/SR 7 in Crawford County

6900 12300

8300 N/A

W

PL

PL

5

No

4-Lns N/A

15

Yes None Yes None

None None

US 341/SR 7 from SR 49C in Peach

County to SR 42 in Crawford County

4800

5800

PL & O PL

PL

15

US 341/SR 7 from SR 96 in Peach

County to I-75 in Houston County

8400

13000

W

4-Lns 4-Lns

15

Warner Robins

Perry

US 129/SR 247 to SR 247spur

4600

12000

No

PL 4-Lns

15

No None

None

US341 and

No US341 and SR96 SR96

SR96 at US No 129/SR 247

SR96 at US 129/SR 247

US 41/SR 11 from SR 11C to SR 247C

5700

7200

No

PL

PL

15

Yes None

None

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available PL - Passing Lanes 4-Lns - Four Through Lanes W - Widening O - Other Improvements

Area Cochran

Two or Three Lane Connecting Roads with Capacity Deficiencies

Max. 1998 Max. 2025

Roadway/Location

AADT AADT

US 341/SR 11 from SR 247 Sp to SR 26

in Pulaski County

7600

11400

Prog. in the CWP
W

1998 2025 Needs Needs
PL 4-Lns

Max. Percent Trucks
10

Adeq. Shlder Width? (min 6ft.)

Potential Bottleneck Intersections

Yes None

Key Inter. needing White-
topping
None

Dublin

US 129 Alt./SR 87 from SR 96 to SR 26 SR 26 from US 341/SR 27 in Pulaski County to US 80/SR 19 in Laurens County

6500 6700

US 441/US 319/SR 31 from SR 117 to SR 19 SR 19 from I-16 to US 441/SR 31 US 441/SR 29 from US 80/SR 19 to SR 338

14200 N/A
14300

11600
9700
15400 6300 11400

W

PL 4-Lns

15

No

PL

PL

15

W

4-Lns 4-Lns

10

W

N/A 4-Lns

7

O

4-Lns 4-Lns

15

Yes None

None

Yes None

None

US 441 and

Yes US 441 and US80 US80

Yes None

None

No None

None

SR 257 from SR 338 to US 441/US 319/SR 31 SR 19 from I-16 to Laurens/Wheeler Co line US 319/SR 31 from US 80/SR 26 to Johnson County line SR 338 from I-16 to US 80/SR 19 US 80/SR 19 from SR 26 (West of Dublin) to US 319/SR 31 (East of Dublin) Vidalia and Lyons
N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available
PL - Passing Lanes
4-Lns - Four Through Lanes
W - Widening
O - Other Improvements

7800
2800
8800 2400

13800
3100
7000 3800

N/A

19500

O

PL 4-Lns

10

O

None PL

22

PL

PL

PL

15

No

None PL

10

No

N/A 4-Lns

7

US319/SR31 and US319/SR31

Yes US80/SR26

and US80/SR26

No None

None

Yes None Yes None

None None

Yes None

None

Area Swainsboro

Two or Three Lane Connecting Roads with Capacity Deficiencies

Roadway/Location
US 1/SR 4 from I-16 to US 280 SR 297 from US 280 to I-16 SR 15 from US 280/SR 30 to I-16

Max. 1998 Max. 2025

AADT AADT

5200

8000

6700

3400

4600

8300

Prog. in the CWP
W No PL

1998 2025

Needs Needs

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

Max. Percent Trucks
10 10 15

Adeq.

Shlder

Potential

Width?

Bottleneck

(min 6ft.) Intersections

Yes None

Yes None

No None

Key Inter. needing White-
topping
None None None

US 1/SR 17 from I-16 to US 80/SR 26

8900

26400

W

PL 4-Lns

10

Metter

Yes None

None

SR 23 from I-16 to Emauel County line 9400

15100

No

PL 4-Lns

15

Yes None

None

Statesboro

SR 23 from Tattnall County line to I-16 SR 129 from Tattnall County line to I16

3700 2500

5700 2100

No

PL

PL

15

O

None None

10

SR 67 Bypass

11300 18600

W

4-Lns 4-Lns

10

Yes None

None

Yes None

None

US25(north-

west quadrant)

and SR 67

Bypass,

US25(south-

SR67 Bypass and west quadrant)

US25(south-west and SR 67

Yes quadrant)

Bypass

US 301/SR 73 from US 25 to Screven County line

12200

10900

W

4-Lns 4-Lns

10

US301/SR73 and

US25(downtown US301/SR73

Yes Statesboro)

and US25

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available PL - Passing Lanes 4-Lns - Four Through Lanes W - Widening O - Other Improvements

Area

Two or Three Lane Connecting Roads with Capacity Deficiencies

Roadway/Location SR 24 from US 80/SR 26 to Screven County line
US 301 Bypass/SR 73 Bypass

Max. 1998 Max. 2025 AADT AADT

Prog. in the CWP

1998 2025 Needs Needs

Max. Percent Trucks

Adeq. Shlder Width? (min 6ft.)

Potential Bottleneck Intersections

Key Inter. needing White-
topping

6100

9900

O

PL

PL

10

10800 16200

No

4-Lns 4-Lns

2

No None

None

US301

Bypass(south-east

quadrant) and US301/SR73

Yes SR67

and US25

Savannah

SR 67 from US 280/SR 30 in Bryan County to US 25
SR21 from SR119 in Springfield in Effingham County to Downtown Savannah SR 25 from SR 21 to South Carolina state line (Houlihan Bridge)

15300 11000

W

4-Lns 4-Lns

15

15800 31600

No

4-Lns 4-Lns

15

9100

9700

W & O

PL

PL

5

SR26/US80 from Bryan Co to downtown Savannah

9700

27500

W & O

PL 4-Lns

15

SR404SP in Downtown Savannah
CR781 N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available PL - Passing Lanes 4-Lns - Four Through Lanes W - Widening O - Other Improvements

15700 13100

25900 N/A

O

4-Lns 4-Lns

10

No

4-Lns N/A

2

SR67 and

US301 Bypass

US25(downtown and SR67, SR67

Yes Statesboro)

and US25

Yes None

None

Yes SR 25 and SR 21 None

US26/US80 and SR26/US80 and

CR781,

SR307,

US26/US80 and SR26/US80 and

Yes SR21

SR21

SR404SP and

SR404SP and

US25 Alt.

US25 Alt. (before (before Eugene

Eugene Talmadge Talmadge

Yes Mem. Bridge

Mem. Bridge

CR271 and

Yes US26/US80

None

Area

Two or Three Lane Connecting Roads with Capacity Deficiencies

Max. 1998 Max. 2025

Roadway/Location

AADT AADT

SR119 in Liberty County from I-16 to I-

95

8800

14000

Prog. in the CWP
No

1998 2025 Needs Needs
PL 4-Lns

Max. Percent Trucks
15

Adeq. Shlder Width? (min 6ft.)

Potential Bottleneck Intersections

Yes None

Key Inter. needing White-
topping
None

N/A - Not Applicable or Data Not Available PL - Passing Lanes 4-Lns - Four Through Lanes W - Widening O - Other Improvements

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix J Literature Review
June 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Literature Review
Landside Access to U.S. Ports, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 238. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1993.
This publication examines impediments to landside access to ports and evaluates and recommends appropriate strategies to reduce these problems. The report examined physical access, land use, environmental, institutional, and regulatory issue impediments. The report suggests that intermodal connections could be threatened by increased bottlenecks in the landside transportation system serving the ports. The report identifies that most bottlenecks occur at a ports back door, where congested roads or inadequate rail linkages to marine terminals cause delays.
Maritime Transportation Strategic Planning. Transportation Research Circular, Number 392. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington D.C., 1992.
The marine transportation industry being shaped for the 21st century is composed of shipping lines that have rationalized services with traditional competitors, and these lines have struck partnerships with, or fully integrated rail and truck services in order to provide through transport services. Additionally, thirdparty logistics specialists are an evolving segment of the industry that assemble integrated transport services. Innovation in the industry is aimed at seamless intermodal transport at the lowest cost and responsive to strict timelines. To facilitate a strategic assessment of the maritime industry in this era of rapid transition, and an assessment of its relationship with promotional and regulatory counterparts, a group of 46 attendees representing most facets of the marine and intermodal industry participated in a 3-day workshop conducted by TRB.
The workshop was intended to provide input for the Maritime Administration (MARAD) as that agency considers its research mission for the 1990s and beyond. The report contains both prepared presentations and informal comments from the invited participants. The report identifies strategic trends and issues that are both external and internal to the marine industry and also identifies crucial linkages between a nation's economic competitiveness and its maritime transport efficiency.
Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future. Transportation Research Circular, Number 459. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington D.C., 1996.
This Circular contains the papers presented at the third national conference on the Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future. The papers describe the state-of-the-practice in management issues and technology issues as perceived by leaders in North American and European terminal planning. The papers are organized according to the following topics: Global Economics and Forecasting for Tomorrow's Terminal; The Terminal's Operating Environment; Landside and Shoreside Partnerships; Intermodal Terminal Design; European Perspectives; Terminal Planning and Operations in Transition, Part A and Part B; Information Technologies; and New Directions.
Freight Transportation: Planning, motor Carrier Size and Weight Issues, International Trade, and Hazardous Materials Transport. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Transportation Research Record, No. 1613. National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1998.
April 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
New Trucks for Greater Productivity and Less Road Wear: An Evaluation of the Turner Proposal. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 227. National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1990.
This report, prepared by the Transportation Research Board Committee for the Study of Relationships Between Vehicle Configurations and Highway Design, evaluates the approach to regulation of the size and weight of trucks using U.S. roads known as the Turner Proposal. This approach had its origin in a proposal put forth in a 1984 address to AASHTO by former Federal Highway Administrator Francis C. Turner. The approach evaluated by the committee differs in an important respect from Turner's original concept: in the committee's approach, use of the new trucks would be voluntary; that is, truck operators would be offered the choice of continuing with existing equipment and weight rules or adopting the new trucks with the new weight regulations. The committee designed a package of changes in size and weight limits, safety restrictions, and procedures regarding bridge deficiencies, routing, and enforcement that would be a practical regulatory scheme for implementing the Turner concept. The committee recommends that every state, with careful assessment of the risks and uncertainties, consider this proposal as a supplement to current size and weight regulations. If Turner trucks were adopted in all states according to the recommended rules, they would reduce the cost of shipping freight and would not degrade safety. The total cost of maintaining the road system would be reduced, although pavement wear savings would be partially offset by higher bridge costs.
Effects of heavy-vehicle characteristics on pavement response and performance. NCHRP Report 353, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press. Washington DC, 1993
The high wheel loads of heavy trucks are a major source of pavement damage by causing fatigue, which leads to cracking, and by permanent deformation, which produces rutting. Among heavy trucks, all do not cause equal damage because of differences in wheel loads, number and location of axles, types of suspensions and tires, and other factors. Further, the damage is specific to pavement properties, operating conditions, and environmental factors. The mechanics of truck-pavement interaction were studied to identify relationships between truck properties and damage (fatigue and rutting). Computer models of trucks were used to generate wheel load histories characteristic of the different trucks and operating conditions. Influence functions, obtained from rigid and flexible pavement structural models, were used to predict responses along the pavement resulting from the truck motions. The pavement responses were evaluated to estimate overall pavement damage caused by each truck. The study assessed the significance of truck, tire, pavement, and environmental factors as determinants of pavement damage. Maximum axle load and pavement thickness have the primary influences on fatigue damage. Truck properties, such as number and location of axles, suspension type, and tire type, are important but less significant. High temperatures in flexible pavements and temperature gradients in rigid pavements adversely affect the damage caused by truck wheel loads with a fairly strong interaction. The report discusses and quantifies the influence of these variables.
PCCP Intersections Design and Construction in Washington State. Washington State Transportation Center. Report No. WA-RD-503.1. May 2001.
This report summarizes information related to the use of Portland cement concrete (PCC) for urban intersection construction in Washington State. In 1994, Washington State DOT began using Portland cement concrete to reconstruct urban intersections. The report documents fifteen intersections within the state that have been reconstructed using PCC. The report mentions that constructing high traffic intersections with PCC eliminates the significant rutting problems that sometimes occur with asphalt roadways. The report includes lessons learned about PCC intersection construction costs, life-cycle costs, traffic control and staging, design, and construction considerations, and quality control issues.
April 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix K U.S. 280 Travel Time Study
June 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
US 280 Travel Time Runs
The identification and elimination of bottlenecks is very important to expediting the flow of goods along a high volume freight corridor. As a form of system evaluation, travel time runs were conducted for congested areas of the US 280 corridor.
One Time Drive Through of US 280 Corridor The entire US 280 corridor, from Richland in Stewart County to the US 280/I-16 interchange in Bryan County, was driven one time noting stops and areas where driving speeds are less than 40 miles per hour. This overview addresses, in a general way, any areas not covered in the detailed travel time runs. These "congested" areas include:
Plains around peanut and grain processing plants west side: SR 45 east side: Hospital Street
Americus the travel time study area around Muckalee Creek east side: SR 27
Cordele the travel time study area railroad grade crossing just west of US 41 intersection west side: Joe Wright Drive east side: SR 90
Rochelle railroad grade crossing east of city
Rhine Posted speed limit drops to 25 mph
McRae the travel time study area west side: Sugar Creek
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
east side: Andrews Street (just past Buddy's Sports Place)
Alamo cars parked along US 280 through downtown area
Vidalia the travel time study area west side: Darby Drive east side: Commerce Way
Lyons the travel time study area west side: Walnut Street east side: East Grady Avenue
Reidsville the travel time study area west side: SR 56 east side: Alexander Avenue
Bellville railroad grade crossing just west of the intersection with SR 292
Claxton the travel time study area west side: El Cheapo Gas Station east side: SR 129
Travel Time Study Detailed travel time studies were conducted along sections of the US 280 corridor where congestion is known to occur or where speeds are expected to consistently drop below 40 miles per hour (mph). Seven areas were identified with low driving speeds. These areas hold the greatest potential for future delays if not identified and corrected. Sections of US 280 through each South Georgia city studied are listed below along with the length of the study route for each section.
Americus approximately 9 miles
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Cordele approximately 4 miles McRae approximately 3 miles Vidalia approximately 4 miles Lyons approximately 2 miles Reidsville approximately 2 miles Claxton approximately 1 mile
Methodology Travel time varies inversely with travel speed. Travel time studies, sometimes called speed and delay studies, measure vehicular speeds and usually delay during the course of a travel run. Travel runs are made over a fixed distant, and vehicle speed and delay are measured along the route. Travel time and delay characteristics are good indicators of the level of service that is being provided and can be used as a relative measure of efficiency of flow.
Using the "floating car" technique, the study vehicles "float" with traffic. The term "floating" refers to an attempt to pass as many vehicles as pass the test car. In this study, six travel time runs were made in each direction to identify areas where congestion and stops consistently occur. The more travel runs completed, the more reliable the results. By viewing a composite graph of speed versus distance, overlaying all six runs in each direction one on top of another, one can easily identify areas where congestion consistently occurs and can see the number of times speeds dropped in each area.
Time of Day Travel times were performed for each location during one of the peak periods: AM, Noon or PM. The chief of police or their equivalent was contacted in each city to identify the time of day when traffic is heavy. In general, traffic is heaviest during the following time periods, and runs were conducted during one of these times.
AM Peak 6:00 to 8:30 AM Noon Peak 11:00 AM to 1:30 PM PM Peak 4:00 to 6:30 PM
These studies were a planning tool to generally identify areas of congestion and were not intended to provide the level of detail nor the cost of travel time studies used in signal system timing before and after studies.
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Hardware and Software Two vehicles were used for the travel runs. A speed sensor connected to the transmission of each vehicle was linked with a Jamar TDC-8 count board. This electronic count board collected speed and delay data while the vehicle was in motion. Back in the office, the data was imported into the Jamar PC Travel software, which develops speed versus distance graphs.
The following narrative describes studies in each city, where congestion occurred and potential improvements that could be considered in the future. A detailed summary for each run in each travel area is listed in the Appendix of the report.
Americus
The travel time runs conducted in Americus were during in the PM peak. US 280 flows east-west through downtown. East and west of downtown, US 280 consists of two and four lane sections, respectively. US 280 follows a one-way pair through downtown between the intersections of US 19 South/SR3 and SR 49 (North). The one-way pair consists of two to four lane sections. Although the one-way pair provides more capacity than a single road, traffic was very congested, and truck volume was heavy. Curb parking and signals at almost every intersection in downtown contributed to frequent stops and delays.
Analysis The travel time runs took place along a nine-mile section on US 280. The route started on the west side of town at Claude Harvey Road and ended on the east side of town at the intersection of Lamar Street. Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays on US 280 between the intersection of SR 49 (South) and SR49 (North). Frequent stops and significant delays consistently occurred along the one-way pair from US 19 to SR 49. Average speeds in this section range from 20 to 30 mph. A contributing factor to the heavy traffic in downtown is the number of major routes feeding into the City: US 19, SR 377 and SR 49.
Potential Improvements 1. Consider an east-west bypass south of downtown from the US 19 (South) intersection to US 280 just west of the bridge over Murphy's Mill Creek.
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
2. SR 49 relocation, to new location on the south side, from the US 19 (South) intersection to the US 280 one-way pair intersections with SR 49 (North).
3. Two complete circumferential loops around Americus would improve connectivity and allowing some traffic to avoid the congestion in downtown (see sketch). an inner loop, within one mile of the downtown an outer loop, within three miles of downtown
Cordele
Travel time runs were conducted in Cordele during the PM peak. US 280 flows east-west through town. East and west of town, US 280 carries two lanes, but in the central area of the town, from US 41/SR 7 to Albany Road, the roadway widens to a four-lane section. The railroad just west of US 41/SR 7 carries many trains per day. During this study in the PM peak period, three trains crossed US 280. The I-75 interchange ramps had long queues, perhaps because neither ramp terminal was signalized.
Analysis The travel time route consisted of approximately four miles on US 280, beginning on the west side of town at Albany Road and ending on the east side of town at the intersection of Midway Road. Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays near US 41/SR 7 and Pecan Road. Delays were most noticeable when trains were crossing near the intersection of US 41/SR 7. Stopand-go traffic was experienced between US 41 and I-75. At the I-75 interchange, queues on filled the ramps to capacity. If traffic continues to increase, raps queues will spill back onto the I-75 mainline. Along US 280, progression was not too bad.
Potential Improvements 1. Upgrading the signal system and better signal system timing could reduce delays on US 280 from Joe Wright Drive to Midway Road. These are low cost improvements, and the affect would be immediate.
2. Choose either alternate 2a or 2b. a. Provide a bypass around the south side of town beginning at Coney Road. The bypass would generally follow the alignment of
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Crossroad Store Road from US 280 to SR 300, although at times the bypass may go on new alignment probably west of Crossroad Store Road. The alignment of the bypass would follow SR 300 from Crossroad Store Road to I-75 and continue on new location to US 280 just east of the Cape Road intersection (see sketch with dash line representing the bypass on new location and solid line representing the bypass on existing road). b. As an alternate to 2a, grade-separate the railroad crossing near US 41 intersection with a bridge over the railroad and over US 41.
3. Upgrade the I-75 interchange by providing longer ramps for longer queues. Consider signalizing the ramp terminals. Provide longer left turn storage lanes on US 280. Consider separating the ramps further away from I-75.
McRae
Travel time runs were conducted in McRae in the AM peak period. US 280 flows east-west through town. Most of this section of US 280 has two lanes except for a short half-mile section just east of US 441/ SR 31. Heavy school bus traffic was observed during the AM peak.
Analysis The travel route covers approximately three miles starting on the west side of town at a middle school located just west of US441/SR 31 (South). It ends on the east side of town at the intersection of US 441/SR 31 (South). Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays at the intersection of US 341 and Willow Creek Road due to signals. Traffic was "stop-and-go" through the oneway pair at US 341 in the heart of downtown. Signal system timing was not well coordinated. Traffic slowed at the railroad crossings just east of the one-way pair. US 280 is a side street controlled by a stop sign where it intersects with US 441. This is followed by an immediate yield in the median. There is only enough storage in the median opening for about two cars and is potentially a safety problem. Overall, delays were relatively minor throughout the system.
Potential Improvements The proposed bypass around McRae should address problems experienced on US 280.
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Vidalia
Travel time runs were conducted in Vidalia during the Noon peak period. US 280 flows east-west through town. US 280 is a five-lane section from Slayton Street to the east of town. West of Slayton Street it is two lanes with no turning lanes. There is a lot of development from Slayton Street to SR 130, which contributed to the congestion during the travel time runs. In the downtown area, shoulders are narrow and frequent driveways contributes to stop-and-go conditions.
Analysis The travel route covers approximately four miles on US 280. The route started on the west side of town at the intersection of Sunset Drive and ended on the east side at Harris Industrial Boulevard. Delays occurred during both the eastbound and westbound travel runs between the intersection of SR 130 and Broadfoot Road. Stops and long delays occurred on US 280 near the intersections of SR 130, Church Street/McIntosh Road and Broadfoot Road. Average speeds in this section ranged from 15 mph to 25 mph in both directions.
Potential Improvements Three alternates should be considered to facilitate the east-west flow of traffic on US 280.
1. a bypass around north side of town has previously been conceived (see dashed line on map),
2. a complete 360 degree loop around Vidalia, or 3. a one-way pair from east of Broadfoot to west of SR 130 using First Street
eastbound and Main Street westbound. Note that a one-way pair has been discussed for several years but has not been implemented. Also note that the one-way pair through Americus continues to experience considerable delays.
The railroad bisects Vidalia. A study to determine the best locations for two or three new grade separations should be conducted. This would help to knit the community together.
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Lyons
Travel time runs were conducted in Lyons in the PM peak. US 280 flows eastwest through town along two lanes. The only traffic signal experiencing a minor delay is US 1, which is located in the center of town.
Analysis The travel route consisted of approximately a two-mile section on US 280 starting on the west side of town at the intersection of Bank Avenue and ends on the east side of town at the intersection of Wilson Avenue. Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays on US 280 near the US 1/SR 4 intersection. Average speeds in this section dropped to less than 20 mph in both directions.
No improvements are necessary at this time.
Reidsville
Travel time runs were conducted in Reidsville in the PM peak. From the west, US 280 flows southeast into downtown Reidsville and then northeast out of town toward Claxton. This section of US 280 carries two lanes.
Analysis The travel route consisted of approximately a two-mile section on US 280. The route started on the west side of town at the intersection of SR 56 and ended on the east side at Griffin Road. Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays on US 280 near the intersection of SR 23. Delays were relatively minor throughout the system.
No improvements are necessary at this time.
Claxton
Travel time runs were conducted in Claxton in the PM peak period. US 280 flows east-west through town on two lanes.
Analysis The travel route consisted of a one-mile section on US 280. The study began on the west side of town at Dean Road and ended on the east side at North River
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase II Report
Street. Both the eastbound and westbound travel runs experienced delays on US 280 near the intersections of SR 129 and US 25/ US 301/ SR73. Average speeds in this section ranged from 15 mph to 20 mph in both directions. Although stops and delays were relatively minor, they occurred consistently at these locations. No improvements are necessary at this time. Speed vs. Distance Profiles A travel time (speed versus distance) profiles in the Appendix provide an overall view of the travel time runs and plots them for a visual analysis. These plots are provided for each area in each direction. The heavy weighted line indicates the average of all six runs in that particular direction. Additional summary material is provided in the Appendix.
March 2002

Central Georgia Corridor Study Phase 2 Report
Appendix L Stakeholder Meeting Comments
June 2002

Americus
Leslie Bypass would like to see road come through town. US 280 through Webster County does not need to be classified as "poor road
condition". Downtown Americus congestion. US 280/US 19 intersection study intersection configuration/ number of lanes
cars back up westbound on US 280 at US 19 Americus needs an eastern by-pass from US19 South to SR49 north of Americus.
Southern by-pass around Americus (SE by-pass) is needed. Technical data future congestion may occur on SR 377 and SR 195 into Leesburg
reevaluate route from SR 118/SR 377 to Leesburg. SR 49 South from Americus to Dawson road surface is fine sharp and dangerous
curve on road. Downtown Vienna @ SR 27 and SR 41 on city square hard for trucks to make
turns causes congestion with cars backing up. Cordele has too many at grade railroad crossings US280/41/SR90
2nd/17th/15th/14th-12th/18th-20th/22nd/24th NS CSX/HOG Railroads: Midway/Greer/Pecan/1st St./2nd-3rd St./6th-8th St./11th-12th St./15th St./Fish Hatchery Rd./Burnett Blvd. I-75 Dooly Co. SR300 SR257 and Midway Rd. intersection is unsafe How will US280 (GRIP) enter Cordele US280 and 15th St. needs traffic signal lots of traffic and school buses. Turn lanes from side streets onto US280 are needed. There may be ITS solutions in downtown Americus US 280 3 miles east of Plains - culvert is inadequate. SR 26 should be reviewed for volume to capacity analysis SR 30 intersection with SR 153 poor sight distance many accidents several fatalities. School age student population along east and west outer limits of Americus. US 82 in Randolph County should be reviewed (outside of study area) American Protein may be a traffic generator west of Americus. SR 377 south of Americus no congestion. Study should include more of the economically lagging counties south of the present study areas. (I.e. Randolph Co.) SR 308 curve radii should be increased. 3 miles from SR 19 (already in CWP) SR 27 Americus to Vienna over Flint River is inadequate.

Columbus
Macon Road US 80/SR 96 area does not seem congested currently by being 4laned.
US 280 data indicates poor road condition Columbus to Cusseta does not seem to be in poor condition (in wet conditions may be unsafe).
SR 26 New high school to be built in 2006 five miles east of US 280 will create additional congestion this is a freight shortcut and military cut through.
Map Code # 249 this is not a bad intersection there is a signal there SR 27/SR 520 intersection
Speed limit is 55 mph Columbus to Richland south of Ft. Benning why is it 55 mph? Could it be higher?
South of Talbotton along SR 96 onto SR41/US80 and on through Talbotton and through Upson congestion/loggers/narrow lanes/lots of trucks.
JR Allen Pkwy at the ramp at River Road, at night when it is dark, it is hard to see confusing interchange safety hazard (exit #2)
Rail line along US 280 providing access thru Richland to Jacksonville, FL is now closed.
Safety along US 280 is of concern. Overpass near Cusseta big hill blocks sight distance. US27 @ US280 two hills and sun problems. Realign RR or eliminate RR crossing in Cusseta to improve E-W travel Upson County needs a bypass around Thomaston. East bypass of I-185 east of Ft. Benning. SR41 Talbotton to Manchester in Talbot County - passing lanes/widening SR26 carrying east/west trucks to coast. Montezuma Vienna. SR315 and US27 and RR crossing . SR 208 intersection with SR 85 has poor turning radii and possible truck generation
in the area of Waverly Hall in Harris County. Perceived deficiency and congestion for 2025 along SR 190 in Harris County (high
growth areas). MPO in Columbus will conduct a study in 2003 of the "spider web" where Buena
Vista, St. Mary's and other streets intersect west of I-185. Intersections of SR 27 and US 280, and of SR 26 and US 280, in Chattahoochee
County, are unsafe/poorly marked.

Dublin
US 441 and SR 57 new signal no longer needed US 280 in Dodge Co. poor road condition. US 23 southeast of Eastman heavy congestion - new 4 lane helps. More attention to bridges statewide is needed. New US 280 location in Wilcox County is a concern. Vienna through Hawkinsville and Cochran to Dublin (off I-75) heavy container
trucks SR 26 off I-16 heavy container trucks Truck route around Cochran east/west is needed - would like to have a truck
bypass study. SR 26 and SR 87 bypass intersection appears to be dangerous. SR46 and US441 intersection - widening of US441 may cure problem SR 441 bypass around to the southeast not on constructional map. (construction
plans complete, therefore is not listed in CWP). US 280 expansion and the impact on downtown McRae May be best served with a
bypass north of McRae and Helena. General configuration of US280 using bypass of the downtowns. 3 developmental highways focus on downtown McRae/Helena/Telfair Co.
coordinated - need a bypass close to the downtown area to help development to grow outward.

Macon
Evaluate US 129 as whole double check the technical data (traffic counts and est.) from south of Macon to North of Warner Robins.
SR 96 east of I-75 @ US41 and Houston lake Rd. signalizations. I-16 @ SR96 interchange poor sight distance on ramps w/SR 96 - high accidents. I-475 pavement. CR 71 (Pooler Rd.) Twiggs Co. poor pavement condition. I-75 @ I-475 (south of Macon) speed up interchange reconstruction. Emery Hwy. @ Emery Rd. potential signal needed - lots of freight traffic poor
pavement. US 80 lots of timber trucks congestion poor pavement condition. US 80 truck turning radii improvements needed. I-16 and I-75 interchange reconstruction speed up project.
16 and I-75 interchange improvements needed. I-75 @ Arkwright Rd. needs ramps extended/reconstructed. I-475 construction complete. US 41 project improvements complete. Gray Highway and a cross county connector. MLK Blvd. heavy truck traffic logging trucks heavy congestion. Truck traffic on SR 49 moving to OKM East Industrial Park (Milledgeville) SW to
OKM East Industrial Park SR 49 to Gray Highway to I-16 SR 74 poor road condition in question. Warner Warner Robins Air Force Base SR 247 Safety and capacity issue. US41 through Vineville historic preservation and capacity issues highly congested. TMC operation signal control VMS and other ITS operations. Way finding signage improvements. SR 96 from US/29/SR 87 to I-16 and on to Jeffersonville need passing lanes sharp
curves. US 441/SR 96 bad intersection Wilkinson Co. turning radius is bad. SR 96/I-16 prime industrial location will need to be improved in the future. Need an east/west corridor north of SR 96 possibly near or along SR 74 to connect
to I-85 via SR 100 Military Freight movement from Ft. Benning to Ft. Stewart. SR 28, SR 96, I-16 are
impacted by these "Military Freight" movements. SR 96 from US 41 to I-75 should be indicated as a deficiency. Map Code #146 - SR 127 through Perry should not be considered as a project.
Freight traffic through Perry should not be encouraged.

Savannah
Map Code #354 1-16 instead of I-95 as location Derenne Avenue Abercorn to Truman Pkwy. is all congested. US 80 from SR 21 to Dean Forest Rd.
Congestion is increasing and will be congested by 2025 potential safety issues: signals/turn lanes/acceleration and deceleration lanes needed I-95 and SR 204W congestion in Chatham County to Bryan County Line will need improvement before 2025. Industrial growth in Pooler due to proximity to port. Map Code #412 not on table Map Code #231 Change I-516 to SR 21 & Abercorn it changes to SR 21 before intersecting with Abercorn. Bay Street from MLK to President has been identified as congested need to add that is also has safety problems. Water taxis to islands in case of emergency should be explored. Dean Forest Road - US 80 to the Port (south of SR21) 3RR crossings all need to be grade separated. SR37 in Liberty/Long County about 9 miles south of Hinesville development needs to be studied future congestion likely. Savannah - Truck Traffic dumps into downtown as I-16 ends. Truck traffic should be directed around downtown as it is headed to President Street/Tybee Island.
Short-term solution: Route from I-16 to I-516W to Bay Street. Long-term solution: Reconstruction of Derenne Ave. (SR21) from I-516 to Truman Parkway. All truck thru-traffic should be directed on this route. (Major Investment Study is underway) Garden City in fill development study needs to be conducted. Pembroke concerned about US280 expansion need to look at bypass and impact on downtown parking along US280 very important to downtown business. SR119/US280 intersection design issues, turning issues, high accident rates SR67/SR119 intersection is needed. Alignment change of SR119 north of US 280 is needed. US280 east of downtown (black creek) roadway configuration needs to be examined. SR204 upgrade needed to access I-95 from the west-east (hurricane evacuation route also) Industrial park at US280/I-16 may be expanding I-16 at SR307 interchange needs to be examined SR119 closure Ft. Steward permit process in place SR144 bypassing Ft. Stewart to the south is being studied. Effingham County Springfield SR119 roadway configuration with trucks. Bypass of truck traffic around Springfield is needed. Effingham County Rincon needs a bypass on SR21 to move freight traffic.

Vidalia Notes
SR 199 out of Montgomery Co. toward Dublin needs to be widened. SR 297 needs access onto US280. SR 15 South from US280 to US1 new location by-pass of downtown is a possibility Industrial Growth Corridor is located along US 280. SR16 N to SR16 S Could be
used as a truck route to bypass downtown. US 280 Corridor needs access; not a high speed throughway. Make SR 292 one way pairs in Lyons. SR 204 from current end of US 280 in Lanier to I-95 is a second major evacuation
route. SR 199 Provides north/south access to/from I-16 to US 280. SR 19 should be continued through entire study area to provide access from
Brunswick to I-16. Signal coordination on US 280 when one-ways are complete. Rail line path US 280 conversion to green way/fiber optic/etc. Access issues along US 280 make sure access is being provided. SR130 "short cut" around intersection of US 1 and US 280. Map Code #285 should
be listed also as a bad intersection due to safety issues along SR 130. SR 297 needs access to US 280. SR 292/US 280/SR 297 intersection improvement
needed. Intersection US 280 and US 221 intersection design is bad - trucks can't turn. Intersection of US 280 and US 441 should be evaluated due to high accident rates. US 280 bridge over Ochwaukee Creek is too narrow. There have been many
accidents. US280 in McRae at the Norfolk Southern Rail Line. A grade separation should be
evaluated and the water problem should be examined. SR121 widen to alleviate traffic on other routes encourage economic development
(connect I-16 to US280). US 57 from Swainsboro to Reidsville is a major connector between US 280 and I-16
for economic development . Hurricane evacuation routes need to be studied. SR121 @ I-16 upgrade interchange. Upgrade I-16 @ Pulaski-Excelsior Rd. interchange. Provides access to campground
and Statesboro. Improve connections between Ft. Gordon and Ft. Stewart through Metter. Add rest area to map near SR57. An interchange is desired at SR 129 and I-16. On SR 341 south of US 80, there is a prison, school, and recreation center. Turn lanes
and decel lanes need to be considered.