SR 316 Corridor Study [2002]

State Route 316 Corridor Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
1
1.1 1.2 1.3
2
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6
3
3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3
3.2 3.3
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.5
4
4.1 4.2 4.3

Title
Table of Contents ...................................................... i List of Tables .............................................................ii List of Figures ...........................................................iii
Introduction.......................................................... 1-1
Background.......................................................................... 1-1 Study Purpose .....................................................................1-1 Study Methodology ..............................................................1-1
Data Collection..................................................... 2-1
Traffic Volumes ....................................................................2-1 Safety................................................................................... 2-3 Origin-Destination Survey ....................................................2-4 Demographics and Land-Use ..............................................2-5
Base Year (2000)...........................................................2-5 Future Year (2025).........................................................2-5 Travel Model .................................................................... ...2-6 Base Year (2000)...........................................................2-6 Future Year (2025).........................................................2-6 Current Transportation Plans...............................................2-9
Existing Conditions ............................................. 3-1
Demographics...................................................................... 3-1 Population ...................................................................... 3-1 Total Employment ...........................................................3-2 Environmental Justice.....................................................3-3
Roadway Characteristics .....................................................3-5 Safety................................................................................... 3-7
Intersections ...................................................................3-7 Segments........................................................................ 3-7 Fatal Accident Locations.................................................3-9 Accident Rate Analysis .................................................3-10 Level-of-Service ................................................................. 3-11 Travel Patterns ..................................................................3-13
Future Conditions................................................ 4-1
Demographic Change .......................................................... 4-1 Traffic Projections ................................................................ 4-3 Traffic Patterns.......................................................... 4-3

Chapter

Title

5
5.1 5.2 5.3

Preliminary Assessment of Strategies ..................5-1
Strategy Identification .............................................................. 5-1 Strategy Assessment ............................................................... 5-3 Strategy Selection.................................................................... 5-5

6

Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................6-1

6.1 6.1.1

Alternative Definitions .............................................................. 6-1 Alternative 1: 4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes

6.1.2

With Barrier Separated HOV Lanes) ................................ 6-1 Alternative 2: 4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes

With Non-Barrier Separated HOV Lanes)......................... 6-1

6.2

Benefit-Cost Analysis............................................................... 6-4

6.3

Evaluation ................................................................................ 6-6

7

Implementation .......................................................7-1

7.1

Short-Range Plan Recommendations...................................... 7-1

7.1.1

Short-Range Projects.......................................................... 7-1

7.1.2

Previously Planned Short-Range Projects .......................... 7-2

7.2

Long Range Plan Recommendations ...................................... 7-3

7.3

Project Costs ........................................................................... 7-3

7.4

Funding Alternatives ................................................................ 7-4

7.4.1

Traditional Federal Funds ................................................... 7-4

7.4.2

State Resources ................................................................. 7-4

7.4.3

Local Resources ................................................................. 7-5

7.4.4

Toll Financing ..................................................................... 7-5

7.5

Coordination ............................................................................ 7-6

7.6

Recommended SR 316 Improvement Program ....................... 7-6

8
8.1

Public Involvement .................................................8-1
Outreach Activities ................................................................... 8-1

APPENDIX

Public Comment Summaries

i

State Route 316 Corridor Study
LIST OF TABLES

Table No.
2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5
3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7
4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6
5-1 5-2 5-3

Title
Turning Movement Count Locations ............................................................... 2-1 Vehicle Classification Count Locations ........................................................... 2-1 O-D Survey Sample Size ................................................................................ 2-4 Year 2000 Population and Total Employment for Study Area......................... 2-5 Currently Planned Improvements ................................................................... 2-9
County Population by Race ............................................................................ 3-3 Environmental Justice Threshold Comparison................................................ 3-3 Gwinnett County Intersections/Interchanges .................................................. 3-5 Barrow County Intersections/Interchanges ..................................................... 3-5 Oconee County Intersections/Interchanges .................................................... 3-6 Number of Accidents by County and Severity................................................. 3-7 Levels of Service Definitions......................................................................... 3-11
Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Population Gwinnett County ....................... 4-2 Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Employment Gwinnett County..................... 4-2 Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Population Barrow County .......................... 4-2 Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Employment Barrow County ....................... 4-2 Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Population Oconee County ......................... 4-2 Year 2000-2025 Allocations of Employment Oconee County ...................... 4-2
Initial Treatment of Cross Streets in Freeway Design..................................... 5-2 Preliminary Screening Assessment Summary ................................................ 5-3 Estimated Accident Reduction Assuming Basic Freeway Design................... 5-3

Table No.
6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8
7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8

Title
Alternative 1 - Exclusive HOV Access Locations.............................................6-1 Daily Person Hours of Travel (2000 and 2025) ...............................................6-4 Estimated Annual Average Accidents By Severity Type (Base Year 2000) ....6-5 Estimated Project Cost - Alternative 1.............................................................6-5 Estimated Project Cost - Alternative 2.............................................................6-5 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Gwinnett County ............................................6-6 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Barrow County ...............................................6-7 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Oconee County ..............................................6-7
Recommended Traffic Control Improvements .................................................7-1 Recommended Geometric Intersection Improvements ...................................7-2 Flashing Light Intersection Improvements .......................................................7-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Barrier Separated HOV ............................7-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Non-Barrier Separated HOV ....................7-3 Recommended SR 316 Access Locations ......................................................7-4 Local Government SPLOST Initiatives ............................................................7-5 List of Alternative Routes.................................................................................7-5

ii

State Route 316 Corridor Study
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title

1-1 1-2
2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12
3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18

Study Area Map .............................................................................................. 1-2 Study Methodology Diagram........................................................................... 1-1
Daily Traffic Bandwith ..................................................................................... 2-2 Total Accidents by County .............................................................................. 2-3 Fatal Accidents By Month-Of-Year................................................................. 2-3 Total Accidents by Month-Of-Year .................................................................. 2-3 Fatal Accidents by Month-Of-Year .................................................................. 2-3 Total Accidents by Day-Of-Week ................................................................... .2-3 Survey Station Locations ................................................................................ 2-4 Study Area Population and Total Employment (2000 and 2025) .................... 2-5 Traffic Analysis Zones and Highway Network Coverage ................................ 2-7 Socioeconomic Growth and Travel Demand Relationship .............................. 2-6 Travel Model Data (2000 and 2025) ............................................................... 2-8 Planned Transportation Improvements ......................................................... 2-10
Gwinnett County Population Trends ............................................................... 3-1 Barrow County Population Trends .................................................................. 3-1 Oconee County Population Trends ................................................................. 3-1 Athens-Clarke County Population Trends ....................................................... 3-1 Gwinnett County Total Employment Trends.................................................... 3-2 Barrow County Total Employment Trends ...................................................... 3-2 Oconee County Total Employment Trends ..................................................... 3-2 Athens-Clarke County Total Employment Trends ........................................... 3-2 Environmental Justice Areas of Concern ........................................................ 3-4 Existing Roadway Cross Section .................................................................... 3-6 Accident Frequency by Intersection and Segments (1995-1997).................... 3-8 Fatal Accident Locations ................................................................................. 3-9 Accident Rates by Functional Class - Fatal Accidents .................................. 3-10 Accident Rates by Functional Class - Injury Accidents ................................. 3-10 Base Year 2000 Levels-of-Service................................................................ 3-12 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000 - Gwinnett County...... 3-13 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000 - Barrow County ........ 3-13 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000 - Oconee County ....... 3-14

Figure No. Title

4-1

District Boundary Map ................................................................................... 4-1

4-2

2025 Traffic Bandwidth Map .......................................................................... 4-4

4-3

Year 2025 Travel Patterns Gwinnett County .............................................. 4-3

4-4

Year 2025 Travel Patterns Barrow County ................................................. 4-5

4-5

Year 2025 Travel Patterns Oconee County ................................................ 4-5

5-1

Number of Vehicles to Move 45 Persons....................................................... 5-4

5-2

Proposed Cross-Sectional Design Options - HOV Facility............................. 5-6

6-1

Access Locations - Alternative 1.................................................................... 6-2

6-2

Access Locations - Alternative 2.................................................................... 6-3

6-3

Off-Peak Travel Times From Lawrenceville................................................... 6-4

6-4

Peak Period Travel Times From Lawrenceville ............................................. 6-5

6-5

Future Year 2025 Traffic Congestion............................................................. 6-9

iii

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Study Purpose

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) conducted this study to identify a set of roadway improvements on State Route 316/University Parkway in the study area of Gwinnett, Barrow, and Oconee Counties eligible to be included in GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This is the first step in the process of getting a major transportation improvement project funded and scheduled. This requires documentation of proposed project's purpose, need, concept layout, project costs, benefits and the identification of issues that will need to be addressed in subsequent design and environmental studies.
SR 316 is an important regional roadway. Local governments as well as members of the State Legislature have taken notice of transportation conditions in the SR 316 Corridor. Chairmen of the Board of Commissioners from Gwinnett County, Barrow County and Oconee County signed a joint resolution stating their shared vision for a safer SR 316/University Parkway. Moreover, they urged the State to pursue sources of state and federal funding to implement those improvements. A joint Georgia House and Senate Legislative Study Committee for SR 316, was formed to investigate safety and mobility concerns that were brought to their attention. The University Parkway Alliance is interested in improvements to the corridor.
Based upon GDOT's previous planning efforts for the corridor, the extent of improvements needed to fully address safety and mobility needs in the corridor suggest that funding will be a critical issue for implementation. The corridor is 40 miles long, includes three counties and three different local planning jurisdictions. The study recognizes that any proposed improvements will likely impact a broad spectrum of individuals, businesses and branches of government. In light of the potential impacts, public involvement and participation in the planning stages was essential to gain the support needed for adoption of recommendations developed by this study into local, regional and statewide transportation plans. A map of the study area showing County and City jurisdictions in the corridor is shown in Figure 1-1.
SR 316 is the central transportation artery of one of Georgia's fastest growing corridors. The area includes several institutions of higher learning: the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, Emory University, Gwinnett Tech, University Center in Gwinnett as well as the University of Georgia. This area is promoted by the State of Georgia and local economic development organizations as an attractive place for high technology and light industrial businesses to start, expand, or relocate. The corridor's main asset in terms of being able to make "high tech" companies successful is its proximity to workers with "high tech" skills.

In response to concerns about safety from local governments, the State Legislature, and the general public, the study included a comprehensive investigation of accidents in the corridor. In addition, the study focused on congestion, economic development and system-wide integration with other transportation improvements proposed in the corridor (including new Gwinnett bus service, proposed commuter rail service, existing local airports, and new HOV lanes on I-85). The study's findings include a prioritized list of recommended projects, implementation scenarios based on the recommended funding plans, and the need to coordinate with other transportation and landuse plans in the corridor.
The study developed the following products for inclusion in the final report:
Documentation of the purpose and need for improvements based on existing and future conditions;
Description of the assessment process used to identify potential improvement strategies for further detailed study;
Documentation of findings from the evaluation of alternatives; Identification of potential funding source(s) for project
implementation; Description of the Corridor's improvement concept; Coordination with other planned improvements, plans and programs
within the Corridor; Documentation of the public involvement process including its
proactive efforts to inform and involve the general public during the study process; and, Description of issues that will require further detailed investigation as specific projects proceed into the preliminary engineering phase.
1.3 Study Methodology
In addition to analyses of safety, congestion and economic development, the study contained substantial public information and local coordination activities. This was important because the study area encompasses several different planning jurisdictions that each has different transportation providers, local elected officials, and local planning agencies. Therefore, for the study to effectively investigate the needs of a 40-mile long transportation corridor required the extensive involvement and coordination with the following organizations:
1-1

Atlanta Regional Commission Athens-Clarke County Regional Transportation Study Northeast Georgia Regional Development Council Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Federal Highway Administration Environmental Protection Agency Gwinnett County Barrow County Oconee County

A clear formulation of the purpose and need was an important element in
building consensus for the study's recommended improvements to the SR 316
corridor. A graphical overview of the principal activities performed during
this study is depicted in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-2
Study Methodology Diagram

TECHNICAL ANALYSES

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/ OUTREACH

Data Collection Existing Conditions
Travel Model

Advisory Panel

Web Site

Outreach/ Stakeholder/
Public Meetings

Initial Alternatives Screening

Alternatives Evaluation
Recommend SR 316 Master Plan

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 1-1 Study Area Map

1-2

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 2 - Data Collection

The collection of quality data was an early priority in this study. Most importantly, a clear statement of purpose and need for any recommended improvements to SR 316 would be needed to further the planning for these projects.
In addition, safety was a key consideration in developing strategies to improve conditions in the corridor. As such, a significant portion of data collection was devoted to an investigation of accidents from a data set containing the latest three years of complete accident information. Also, with the coordination of data collected from the Atlanta Regional Commission, the Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center, and Athens-Clarke County, and to make the data applicable to the entire corridor, demographic data, aerial photography and travel model information from these organizations was merged and converted into a common format for use by this study.
2.1 Traffic Volumes
The study collected supplemental traffic data at several locations in the SR 316 corridor to complement daily traffic counts published annually by the GDOT. In addition, supplemental data including peak period turning movement counts was provided by the Gwinnett County Department of Transportation for several major intersections in the Lawrenceville-Dacula area.
Two types of counts were used to compile the base year profile of traffic volumes: peak period (AM and PM) turning movement counts and 24-hour vehicle classification counts. Locations where supplemental traffic counts were collected for the study are listed in Table 2-1, while vehicle classification locations are listed in Table 2-2..
All turning movement and vehicle classification data was collected during February and March of 2001. The volumes and vehicle types reflect those that occur on typical weekdays. Data collection activities did not occur on weekends, holidays or during the University of Georgia's spring break.
Twenty-four hour vehicle classification counts were used to obtain the percentage of trucks on several sections of SR 316 and some cross streets. Table 2-2 lists the locations of the vehicle classification counts along with truck percentages for daily, A.M. peak-hour, and P.M. peak-hour. Truck percentages on SR 316 were found to be typical for this type of roadway, with daily values fluctuating between 10% and 20% of the total traffic. During peak hours, the percentage of trucks usually falls relative to the daily share in the peak direction of travel. However, in the off-peak direction of travel, the peak hour percent of trucks can be equivalent or higher than the daily average.

Based on the classification counts, a traffic flow bandwidth map (Figure 2-1) was created showing concentrations of daily volume on SR 316 as well as selected cross streets where observed traffic volumes were available.

Table 2-1 Turning Movement Count Locations

County
Gwinnett
Barrow Oconee

Intersection Name
WB SR316 Ramps At SR120 EB SR316 Ramps At SR120 Lawrenceville-Suwanee At SR120 Lawrenceville-Suwanee At Old Norcross SR316 At Hi Hope Rd. SR316 At Progress Center Rd. SR316 At Hurricane Trail SR316 At Fence Rd. SR316 At Kilcrease Rd. SR316 At Patrick Mill Rd. SR316 At Bethlehem Rd./SR324 SR316 At SR81 SR316 At SR11 SR316 At SR53 SR316 At McCarty Rd.
SR316 At Stratham Rd./SR324 SR316 At McNutt Rd. SR316 At Mars Hill Rd. SR316 At Jimmy Daniels Rd. SR316 At Virgil Langford Rd. SR316 At Mars Hill Extension

Area
Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Dacula Auburn Auburn Auburn Winder Winder Winder Stratham
Stratham Bogart Bogart Watkinsville Watkinsville Watkinsville

Daily traffic volume on SR 316 varies from its western end at I-85 to its eastern end in Oconee County. Traffic volumes are heaviest on the five mile portion of urban freeway in Gwinnett County (between I-85 and SR 120). Daily traffic volumes range from a total of 70,000 to 86,000 vehicles per day between Boggs Road and the SR 120 interchange.

Moving east into the five-mile portion classified as an urban principal arterial between SR 120 and Winder Highway (State Route 8), traffic volumes are lower. At Collins Hill Road, average daily traffic is 59,000 vehicles per day. Further east between Cedars Road and Winder Highway, daily traffic falls to 40,000 vehicles per day. SR 316's four-lane capacity is restricted in this area by a series of closely spaced, at-grade intersections that limit the growth of traffic volumes through this area.

East of Winder Highway, adjacent land-uses change from urban types of development to low-density residential and agricultural uses. As a result, traffic volumes fall significantly compared to near Lawrenceville. In this

rural section, daily traffic volumes range from 15,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day between Winder Highway and the Oconee Connector. At the Oconee Connector, an influx of traffic comprised mainly of motorists commuting between Watkinsville and Athens use SR 316. Consequently, daily traffic volumes in that portion average between 30,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day.

Table 2-2 Vehicle Classification Count Locations

Type

Location

SR316 ( Boggs Rd. - Sugarloaf Pkwy.)

SR316 ( SR120 - Cedars Rd.)

Mainline SR316 (Patrick Mill Rd. - Bethlehem Rd.)

SR316 (West of US78/SR10)

SR316 (East of US78/SR10)

Sugarloaf Pkwy. (EB Off Ramp)

Ramp

Sugarloaf Pkwy. (WB Ent. Ramp) Sugarloaf Pkwy. (EB Ent. Ramp)

Sugarloaf Pkwy. (WB Off Ramp)

Riverside Pkwy. (EB Off Ramp)

Ramp Riverside Pkwy. (WB Ent. Ramp)

Riverside Pkwy. (EB Ent. Ramp)

SR 120 (EB Off Ramp)

SR 120 (WB Ent. Ramp) Ramp SR 120 (EB Ent. Ramp)

SR 120 (WB Off Ramp)

US 78 (EB Off Ramp)

US 78 (WB Ent. Ramp) Ramp US 78 (EB Ent. Ramp)

US 78 (WB Off Ramp)

Athens Loop (SB Ent. From EB SR 316)

Athens Loop (NB Ent. From EB SR 316)

Ramp Athens Loop (SB Ent. From WB SR 316)

Athens Loop (SB Off To SR 316)

Athens Loop (NB Off To SR 316)

Truck %'s

Day AM PM

Area

9% 7% 7% Lawrenceville

15% 10% 10% Lawrenceville 10% 8% 8% Winder 16% 10% 10% Bogart 11% 7% 7% Watkinsville

6% 6% 6% 9% 7% 9% 8% 10%

3% Lawrenceville 2% Lawrenceville 3% Lawrenceville 5% Lawrenceville

10% 10% 6% Lawrenceville

11% 10% 10% Lawrenceville 7% 7% 6% Lawrenceville 6% 6% 3% Lawrenceville 6% 7% 6% Lawrenceville

5% 8% 4% Lawrenceville 8% 7% 9% Lawrenceville 14% 16% 12% Bogart 13% 8% 8% Bogart

10% 6% 9% 4% 9% 5% 9% 10%

6% Bogart 6% Bogart 6% Watkinsville 5% Watkinsville

7% 7% 4% 7% 11% 11%

7% Watkinsville 3% Watkinsville 5% Watkinsville

The relative volume of daily traffic on cross streets is also shown in Figure 2-1. Cross street volumes are highest at the Lawrenceville-Duluth portion of the corridor. Daily traffic on I-85 exceeds 220,000 vehicles per day south of SR 316. Also on the western end of SR 316, Sugarloaf Parkway, Riverside Parkway, SR 120 and SR 20 in Gwinnett County experience daily traffic volumes in the 20,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day range. The Athens Loop/SR 10 has traffic volumes on it approaching 50,000 vehicles per day south of SR 316.

2-1

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 2-1 Daily Traffic Bandwidth

2-2

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

2.2 Safety
Accident data was supplied by the GDOT, using traffic records collected and maintained by the State of Georgia's Office of Highway Safety. It consisted of individual accident records in digital format and several hardcopy reports summarizing accident experience on SR 316 in the study area. Accidents that occurred on streets crossing SR 316, and in the vicinity of its intersection with SR 316, were also included in the accident record data.

The accident data included all accidents that occurred during the 1995 to 1997 calendar years (the most current years that a complete datasets were available). For tabulations of fatal accidents, data from 1994, 1998, 1999, and most of calendar year 2000, supplemented the 1995 to 1997 data (only location and date information was available from the statewide database for fatal accidents that occurred in 1999 and 2000).

The study makes frequent reference to "severe" types of accidents, which are those where at least one person who was either injured or killed. The study performed accident analyses to:
Provide a basis for the calculation of the estimated future safetyrelated benefits that could be expected from the recommended improvements;
Demonstrate that the recommended improvements to better manage access onto and off of SR 316 will lower existing accident rates;
Provide justification for prioritizing the study's recommended improvements into an overall long range improvement plan; and,
Identify locations where safety could be improved by the implementation of study-recommended safety projects.
The total number of accidents (all types) that occurred on SR 316 in each county between 1995 and 1997 are illustrated Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2 Total Accidents By County

1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0

1355
Gwinnett

285
Barrow

186
Oconee

The distribution of fatal accidents by month-of-year is shown in Figure 2-3. The highest number occurred in April and July during. None occurred during the month of August.

Figure 2-3 Fatal Accidents By Month-Of-Year

5

4

Frequency

3

2

1

0

JanuarFyebrurary March

April

May June

July AuguSsetptemberOctobNeor vembDeer cember

A bar chart showing total accidents by month-of-year is presented in Figure 2-4. The distribution of total accidents by month-of-year follows a pattern similar to the distribution of traffic volumes throughout a calendar year. December, January and February are usually low traffic volume months in comparison with the others. Fewer accidents occurred on SR 316 during these same months.
Figure 2-4 Total Accidents By Month-Of-Year

200

150

Frequency

100

50

0

JanuarFyebrurary March

April

May June

July AugSuespt temberOctobNeorvembDeercember

The number of fatal accidents by day-of-week is shown in Figure 2-5. Fatal accidents were most likely to occur on Sundays or Tuesdays. Seven fatal accidents occurred on Sundays and Tuesdays. These figures indicate that

high numbers of fatal accidents are not correlated with high traffic volumes (Sundays are the lowest volume travel day of the week). The data may indicate that fatal accidents are more likely correlated with low to moderate traffic volume and relatively higher average travel speeds.
Figure 2-5 Fatal Accidents By Month-Of-Year

7

6

No. of Accidents

5

4

3

2

1

0

Sun.

Mon.

Tue.

Wed.

Thurs.

Fri.

Sat.

Total accidents, by day-of-week, are displayed in Figure 2-6. Similar to

Figure 2-4, the day-of-week accident pattern closely resembles typical

distributions of traffic volume by day-of-week. It demonstrates how closely

the total number of accidents is related to traffic volume under normal

circumstances. Fridays are typically the highest volume traffic day and on

SR 316 the highest number of total accidents takes place then. The lightest

traveled day-of-week is Sunday which is when the fewest total accidents

occur.

Figure 2-6 Total Accidents By Day-Of-Week

No. of Accidents

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Sun.

Mon.

Tue.

Wed.

Thurs.

Fri.

Sat.

2-3

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

2.3 Origin-Destination Study

Figure 2-7 Survey Station Locations

As part of the data collection of this study, an Origin-Destination Survey ("O-D survey") was performed to obtain the actual, current travel patterns of motorists in the corridor. It investigated several aspects of each typical trip: its origin and destination; the time-of-day it occurred; what its purpose was for; what type of vehicle was used; and how many people were in the vehicle ("vehicle occupancy"). Results from this O-D survey were combined with Atlanta Regional Commission 1995 O-D survey data that was completed as part of the update to their regional travel model. The observed trip origins and destinations from both O-D surveys gave the SR 316 study a credible set of travel patterns to update and calibrate its base year (2000) travel demand model.
Some of the properties that distinguished the SR 316 study's survey:
Motorists were directly interviewed at the roadside; Survey periods were from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; Passenger cars, buses and trucks were included in the sample; Designed to capture a 10% sample of passing traffic passing through
the survey stations; and, 24-hour vehicle classification counts were performed concurrently with
motorist interviews.
O-D survey data was collected directly from passing motorists at eight survey stations using a roadside interview technique. The eight locations are displayed in Figure 2-7. There were several factors involved in selecting these survey sites. Most importantly, the study team needed approximately a 10% sample of trip origins and destinations to reasonably validate existing travel patterns in the Barrow and Oconee Counties. In addition, because there was no available current travel pattern information was Barrow County many survey stations were located there. In Gwinnett County, the study made maximum use out of the Atlanta Regional Commission's travel model and the sample of trips it collected as part of its 1995 O-D survey.
At the eastern end, in Athens and Oconee County, the SR 316 study utilized travel patterns from the Athens-Clarke County travel model. With the Athens-Clarke County travel model, however, there were no O-D surveys that were current enough to validate the reliability of modeled travel patterns on the eastern end of SR 316. Therefore, the study's O-D survey included two survey sites in Oconee County.

Surveys were conducted on weekdays between February 28, 2001 and March 22, 2001, a 3 to 4 week period. Spring semester break forced a one week postponement in surveying. Inclement weather also affected the survey, causing interviews to be rescheduled at two sites.
The final sample size of the SR 316 O-D survey is summarized by station in Table 2-3. Overall, a total of 3,821 motorist surveys were completed, which was 106 more than specified when the survey was designed. More than 3,821 motorists were stopped at the survey stations. Some of them, however, were not counted in the preliminary count of completed surveys for the following reasons: some chose not to participate; some were in the process of turning around after making a wrong turn; some misinterpreted the survey questions; and some gave responses that were incomplete or illogical based upon the initial inspection during data entry. Of the 3,821 completed surveys, 3,788 were actually useable for the purpose of further analysis - 438 more than required by the preliminary sample design.

Table 2-3 Origin-Destination Survey Sample

Est.

Sample

Survey 2000 Direction Size Completed

Site

Date ADT1 of Travel (10%)3 Interviews4

Kilcrease Rd. Patrick Mill Rd. Carl Bethlehem Rd./SR324 Charles Floyd/SR81 Monroe Hwy./SR11 Hog Mountain/SR53 SR316 Oconee Connector
Totals

2/28/01 3/1/01 3/2/01 3/21/01 3/22/01 3/13/01 3/16/01 3/14/01

1,250 2,000 2,000 4,500 5,000 1,750 10,000 7,000

northbound2 northbound2 southbound2 southbound2 northbound2 northbound2
eastbound northbound2

33,500

125 200 200 450 500 175 1,000 700
3,350

181 270 255 473 521 270 1,091 760 3,821

(1) Directional ADT (2) At the approach to SR316 (3) Sample design (4) Preliminary sample count

2-4

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

2.4 Demographics and Land-Use
In the process of conducting this study, use of reasonable forecasts of future population and employment centers were vital. The study updated estimates of base year (2000) population, number of households, total employment and retail employment. Using historical trends, county land-use plan maps, and base year demographic estimates, the horizon year (2025) forecasts for population, number of households, total employment and retail employment were estimated. Due to the impact existing and future development would have on estimates of travel demand in the SR 316 corridor, estimates were also made for Athens-Clarke County, in addition to Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee counties.
Local land-use plans, zoning maps and information about local development proposals and re-zonings also contributed to the demographic projections of future land-use in the corridor. The Atlanta Regional Commission, AthensClarke County, Northeast Georgia Regional Development Council, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Gwinnett County, Barrow County, and Oconee County made significant contributions of data.
2.4.1 Base Year (2000)
For the base year demographic analysis, county-level estimates of the demographic variables were made. These estimates were then allocated into smaller units of geography called traffic analysis zones (TAZ's). As an important component of the travel demand model framework, there were 386 TAZ's in the SR 316 study area. TAZ boundaries for the corridor are shown in Figure 2-9.
The county-level estimates of population and household data were made available from the Atlanta Regional Commission, Athens-Clarke County Transportation Study, Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center, Georgia Rail Passenger Authority and Gwinnett County. These figures were updated to reflect new data made available from the 2000 Census. Countylevel employment figures reflect the latest Woods & Poole1 economic data.
Distribution of the population and employment data to the TAZ's required a careful analysis. These analyses utilized current land use patterns; specific knowledge of the area; discussions with local planning staffs; community facilities maps; and professional judgment.
Analysis maps were created to display the distributions of population, households and total employment graphically on density maps for the base year. These allocation figures were sent to each local planning jusdiction,2

and their feedback was integrated into the next phase of the allocation process. Further refinements were carried out to distribute the population, household and employment figures into study area TAZ's as appropriate to known land uses. County-level distributions of population and total employment are shown in Table 2-4 below.

Table 2-4 Year 2000 Population and Total Employment for Study Area

County
Gwinnett Barrow1 Oconee2 Athens-Clarke3

Population Total Employment

Year

%

Year

%

2000 Allocation 2000 Allocation

589,426

82% 373,338

84%

44,805

6% 16,188

4%

27,604

4% 9,208

2%

56,491 718,326

8% 42,226 100% 442,960

10% 100%

2.4.2 Future Year (2025)

Population, number of households, total employment and retail employment were projected to future planning years 2020 and 2025. The population projections were based on "best fit" regression analyses of Census data from 1970 to 2000, including the available 2000 Census data. The socioeconomic projections were mapped and using the same TAZ's as the base year data.
Allocations to the TAZ-level were similar to those that were described for baseline data by utilizing each jurisdiction's future land use maps and any further refinement based on feedback from the local jurisdictions. Work meetings with each jurisdiction's representatives were held to discuss the expected growth patterns within Gwinnett, Barrow, Oconee and AthensClarke County as well as the principal cities within the corridor. Barriers to future development, such as availability of sewer or condition of soils, were identified. The land use and zoning maps for each jurisdiction were examined and recent zonings of note were identified. Also, major developments that were in their early stages, such as Gateway in Bogart, were identified. The results are the base year 2000 and horizon year estimates of population and total employment for the total study area shown in Figure 2-8. Population is projected to grow by 112%, from 720,326 persons in 2000 to 1,533,458 in 2025. During this same time, total employment in the study area is expected to grow by 131%.

1 Woods & Poole Economics, Washington, D.C. 2 Gwinnett County Planning and Development Dept., Athens-Clarke County
Planning Dept., Northeast Georgia RDC (Oconee and Barrow Counties).

Figure 2-8 Study Area Population and Total Employment
(2000 and 2025)

1,533,458

1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000
800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000
0

720,326

Population

442,960

1,027,710

2000 2025
Employment

2-5

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

2.5 Travel Model
The study included the creation of a travel demand model to assist in identifying potential improvements for the entire SR 316 corridor. Travel demand model assists in the identification of traffic impacts that would be expected as a result of changes to the transportation system or land use within a study area. The Atlanta Regional Commission and Athens-Clarke County Transportation Study already have travel demand models used to support their transportation planning activities for the respective Gwinnett County and Athens-Clarke County areas. Prior to this SR 316 study, there was not such a model for the entire SR 316 study area. The study's model:
Helped assess the feasibility of different improvement strategies; Estimated user-benefits for a proposed set of improvements compared
to a future baseline condition; Estimated the impact and potential use of HOV lanes on SR 316; Identified sections of SR 316 with current and potential future
operational problems; and Performed a preliminary study of travel demand versus toll sensitivity.
The study's travel demand model was used to estimate the base year (2000) travel patterns, as well as to estimate horizon year (2025) traffic projections. This model was unique in that it subcategorized the number of trips made by Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV's) and Multi-Occupant Vehicles (MOV's). Completion of the model was done using Citilab's TP+ modeling and visual graphics platform, consistent with GDOT's existing urban area travel demand models.
A full description of the procedure that was used in developing base and horizon year travel demand model applications is beyond the scope of documentation included in this report, which contains only a brief summary of the models. A full description of the models' formulation is reported in two technical documents that were done during the study. These are titled:
Technical Memorandum Number 4, Base Year 2000 Trip Table; and, Technical Memorandum Number 7, Future Year 2025 Trip Table .
2.5.1 Base Year 2000
The base year 2000 model application was designed to simulate daily traffic patterns on major streets across the entire SR 316 study area. Although most analyses were done using the 2025 model application, the base year 2000 application is important because its calibrated set of data files provided the foundation needed for development of the 2025 application. For a basic understanding how the base year 2000 application works, several of the most important elements are described below.
TAZ's and Highway Network. TAZ's are the small units of geography facilitating the assignment of trips from a trip table onto a highway network.

TAZ's are small subareas to which county-level estimates of population, number of households and employment are subdivided for use in the travel demand model. TAZ's correlate the intensity of different development types to levels of trip making. The TAZ system and road network coverage are illustrated in Figure 2-9. There are 386 TAZ's inside the study area.
A highway network represents the study area road system. It consists of links symbolizing the roadway facilities. Each link has the following attributes: length; free-flow speed; capacity; number of lanes; facility type; and area type.
Trip Table. The base year 2000 trip table was constructed to contain average annual daily traffic flow for zone-pair combination in the study area. Each vehicle trip was assigned to be a SOV or MOV based on its length and the socioeconomic characteristics at its zone of origin and destination zone.
Trip generation is the first step performed in calculating the number of trips. It is also the step that links land use with travel demand. Trip generation calculates the number of trips that begin and end in each individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The demographic variables that were used in trip generation are:
Population; Number of total households; Number of retail employees; and Number of total employees (for all classifications of employment).
2.5.2 Future Year 2025
The base year trip table for total vehicles was used along with projections of future year socioeconomic data to compute the horizon year trip table using the Fratar Process. In anticipation of subsequent model applications, the horizon year total vehicle trip table was split into three other trip tables: SOV, MOV; and a total person trip table. MOV and SOV trip tables were created because a HOV-lane project on SR 316 is proposed in the Atlanta Regional Commission's Regional Transportation Plan (2025 RTP) for Gwinnett County. The total person trips estimated by the model were used to take into account all trips in the corridor, regardless of mode (including a commuter rail line between Atlanta and Athens as proposed in the Atlanta Regional Commission's 2025 RTP).
Fratar Process. Total vehicle trip tables for the horizon year were computed through application of the Fratar process. The Fratar expansion process works by applying growth factors to each of the TAZ's. Individual trip interchanges in the base trip table are expanded in an iterative process to develop the future trip table.
Demographic Growth and Travel Demand. Using the Atlanta Regional Commission's ravel model for Gwinnett County, the relationship between

changes in socioeconomic data over time and its impact on regional travel demand was examined. Regional population, total employment and vehicle trip figures for 1990, 1995 and 2000 in the Atlanta metropolitan area are shown by means of a bar chart in Figure 2-10.
Figure 2-10 Socioeconomic Growth and Travel Demand Relationship

12,000,000 10,000,000
8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000
0

1990

1995 YEAR

2000

Employment Population Vehicle Trips

According to trends tracked by the Atlanta Regional Commission, population and total employment grew by 27% and 33%, respectively, in the Atlanta metropolitan area between 1990 and 2000. During the same time period, the number of trips in the region grew by 31%, from 8.3 to 10.9 million per day. These numbers show that the relative increase in vehicle trips was essentially the same as the relative change in population and total employment between 1990 and 2000. The forecast of future travel demand in the SR 316 applied the same relationship in the Fratar Process, using the base year trip table as the base from which the horizon year forecasts were made.

2-6

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 2-9 Traffic Analysis Zones and Highway Network Coverage

2-7

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Trip Tables. Summaries of the base year and horizon year trip tables generated by the study's travel demand model are summarized by county in Figure 2-11. It shows the estimated change in total vehicle trips between the base and horizon year, the estimated split between SOV and MOV trips in the future (2025), and the average vehicle occupancy. As one would anticipate, the 2.3 million and 5.0 million trips per day estimated for Gwinnett County in 2000 and 2025, respectively, surpass the level of trips made in the other counties in the study area.

The portion of Athens-Clarke County included for analysis in this study has the second highest number of trips with an estimated 330,402 trips in 2000 and 572,900 trips projected for 2025. However, the highest relative traffic growth is anticipated in Barrow County where the daily number of trips is forecast to expand from 131,500 in 2000 to 423,200 in 2025, a 222% rate of growth. The highest share of MOV trips was in Gwinnett County and Athens-Clarke County where 31% of the trips had two or more occupants.

The lowest percentage was in Barrow County where 28% of the total trips were estimated to have at least 2 occupants.

GWINNETT

TOTA L V EHICLE TRIPS

6,0 00,0 00 5,0 00,0 00 4,0 00,0 00 3,0 00,0 00 2,0 00,0 00 1,0 00,0 00
0

2,3 37,0 00 20 00

5,0 37,4 00 20 25

Figure 2-11 Travel Model Data (2000 and 2025)

BARROW

TOTAL VEHICLETRIPS

50 0,00 0 40 0,00 0 30 0,00 0 20 0,00 0 10 0,00 0
0

13 1,50 0 2 00 0

42 3,20 0 2 02 5

OCONEE1

TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS

25 0,000 20 0,000 15 0,000 10 0,000 5 0,000
0

10 0,298 2000

19 3,900 2025

CLARKE1

TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS

8 00,0 00 6 00,0 00 4 00,0 00 2 00,0 00
0

3 30,4 02 20 00

5 72,9 00 20 25

MOV SHAR E
MOV 31%

MOV SHARE MOV 28%

MOV SHARE
MOV 29 %

SOV 69%
Daily Avg. Auto Occupancy: 1.45 (Persons/Vehicle)

SOV 72%
Daily Avg. Auto Occupancy: 1.42 (Persons/Vehicle)

SOV 71 %
Daily Avg. Auto Occupancy: 1.44 (Persons/Vehicle)

1 Portion of Oconee and Clarke counties in the modeled study area.

2-8

MOV SHARE MOV 31%
SOV 69%
Daily Avg. Auto Occupancy: 1.45 (Persons/Vehicle)
Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

2.6 Current Transportation Plans
Transportation recommendations in this study took into account, and were consistent and coordinated with, other proposed improvements in the corridor. Some are planned; others have been planned and partially or fully designed, while others have been implemented. For example, express bus services in Gwinnett County started operations during the fall of 2001. Other significant projects being considered in this study are listed in Table 2-5 with brief descriptions and their general location. They are shown graphically in Figure 2-12.
These proposed projects do not constitute an exhaustive list of transportation improvements being planned in the corridor. There could be other future highway system, transit, travel demand management and ITS improvements proposed in the future. The list in the table is limited in that it provides a snapshot of the most significant improvements currently programmed by the transportation planning processes of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), Athens-Clarke County Transportation Study (ACORTS), and GDOT (as noted in the State Transportation Improvement Program [STIP]). This list provides a reasonable background context, or "baseline condition", to serve as a foundation for this study to consider improvement recommendations for SR 316. In fact, the horizon year highway network for study's travel model included these projects to represent the baseline condition.
The Governor's Transportation Choices Initiative program, introduced by Governor Roy Barnes in 2001, will accelerate the implementation of a number of transportation projects throughout Georgia. By doing this, more projects, including some in the STIP and ARC's 2025 RTP will be able to advance due to the availability of funding. The Transportation Choices Initiative program could benefit projects recommended in this study by making more money available for their implementation in the near term.
Eight different types of improvements are shown in Figure 2-5. Four of the planned improvements are new roads and include: the proposed Northern Arc in Gwinnett County, the proposed Winder Bypass in Barrow County , Jennings Mill Parkway Extension in Oconee County and a short connector road that would link Epps Bridge Road with Daniels Bridge Road in Oconee County. Some form of new commuter or intercity rail service is being planned in the Athens to Atlanta corridor running generally parallel to the SR 316 highway alignment. The commuter rail improvement is in the preliminary stages of project development, and as such, decisions regarding its implementation schedule, station locations and levels-of-service were not available for use in this study. Other improvement types in Table 2-5 include: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in Gwinnett County; Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) expansions; road widening; express bus service; interchange reconstructions; and a new interchange.

Table 2-5 Currently Planned Improvements

Map

No.

Description

1 SR 316 HOV-Lanes

2 SR 316 Intersection Reconstruction 3 SR 316 Interchange Reconstruction

Location
I-85 to Drowning Creek Rd. Collins Hill Rd. and Buford Dr./SR 20 At I-85

4 ITS on SR 316

I-85 to Buford Dr./SR 20

5 Northern Arc

I-75 (Cartersville) to SR 316 (Lawrenceville)

6 Intercity/Commuter Rail or Bus

Athens to Atlanta

7 Gwinnett Co. Commuter Bus

Lawrenceville to Atlanta

8 Winder By-Pass

SR 316 to SR 53

9 US 78/SR 10

Athens Hwy. to Athens Loop/SR 10

10 SR 53/Mars Hill/Oconee Connector

US 441 to SR 316

11 Jennings Mill Pkwy.

Epps Bridge Rd. to Jennings Mill Rd.

12 Athens Loop/SR 10

At Jennings Mill Pkwy.

13 Daniels Bridge-Epps Bridge Connector Daniels Bridge to Epps Bridge

14 Gwinnett Co. Commuter Bus

Buford (SR 20) to Atlanta

15 I-85 HOV Lanes Extension

SR 316 to I-985

16 I-85

Barrow County to I-984

17 ITS on I-85

SR 316 to I-985

18 SR 120

From I-85 to Sugarloaf Parkway

Type
Add 2 lanes/1 each travel direction Grade Separate Reconfigure

County
Gwinnett Gwinnett Gwinnett

Traffic management, Variable messages & Cameras

Gwinnett

New 4-Lane Expressway
Public Transportation
Public Transportation New 4-Lane Roadway Widen 4>6 Widen 2>4 New 2-Lane Roadway New Partial Interchange New 2-Lane Roadway Public Transportation Add 2 lanes/1 each direction Widen 4>6

Gwinnett Gwinnett/Barrow/ Oconee Gwinnett Barrow Clarke Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee Gwinnett Gwinnett Gwinnett

Traffic management, Variable messages & Cameras

Gwinnett

Widen 2>4

Gwinnett

Plan
ARC
ARC ARC
None
ARC ARC/ ACORTS ARC STWP ACORTS ACORTS ACORTS ACORTS ACORTS ARC ARC ARC
ARC
ARC

2-9

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 2-12 Planned Transportation Improvements

2-10

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
A number of factors have contributed to changing travel patterns and transportation system performance in the SR 316/University Parkway corridor. They include: residential and commercial growth in metro Atlanta, improved accessibility made possible by SR 316 itself, extensions of sewer and water service, rising school enrollments, facilities expansions at the University of Georgia, as well as a strong economy. In combination, these developments have changed travel patterns and place new demands on the corridor's entire transportation network. This chapter profiles the study's findings on growth and development in the corridor, a description of the existing road system, an analysis of safety conditions, and a description of traffic patterns.
3.1 Demographics
Current demographic information, growth trends, and horizon year projections are important in describing the environment or background in which transportation infrastructure decisions are made. This section presents historical trends of population and employment within the study area over the past 30 years. These data sets were vital to projecting population and total employment numbers for the horizon year. In addition, the study collected data on households by categories including low income, race, and ethnicity. This information was crucial in identifying concentrations of low income or minority households within the study area so that a preliminary identification of potential environmental justice issues could be addressed.
3.1.1 Population
The following population numbers were obtained from U.S. Census Bureau.
Gwinnett County. As one of the fastest growing counties in the United States during the last 30 years, its population figures show that between 1970 and 2000, the number of persons rose from 73,644 in 1970 to 588,488 in 2000, a seven-fold increase. On average, Gwinnett added more than 171,000 persons every ten years. The average annual growth rate was 7% per year. This information is reflected in Figure 3-1.
Barrow County. It experienced modest, but steady growth during the last 30 years. The number of persons almost tripled between 1970 and 2000, climbing from 16,986 to 46,144. Population grew by only 4,491 people from 1970 to 1980.
More recently, however, 16,090 were added between 1990 and 2000. The average annual growth rate exceeded 3% per year. The population numbers are presented in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-1 Gwinnett County Population Trends

POPULATION TREND (1970-2000)

700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
-

588,448

73,664 1970 1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 3-2 Barrow County Population Trends

POPULATION TREND (1970-2000)

50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00
-

46,144
16,986
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Oconee County. This county experienced modest, but steady growth during the last 30 years. The study area did not include all of Oconee County, so portions of the County south and east of Watkinsville are not reflected in the study's analysis. Oconee's population more than tripled from 1970 to 2000, climbing from 7,965 to 26,225. From 1970 to 1980 population grew by only 4,561 people. During the last decade, however, 8,428 persons were added. The average annual growth rate was 4% per year. Population numbers for the portion of the county within the study area are presented in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3 Oconee County Population Trends

POPULATION TREND (1970-2000)

30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00
-

26,225
7,965
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Athens-Clarke County. It experienced extremely steady growth during the last 30 years. For the purposes of this study, portions of Clarke County were not included in the demographic figures -- areas northeast, east and southeast of Athens are not reflected. Athens-Clarke's population grew slightly more than 50% from 1970 to 2000, rising from 65,557 to 101,489. From 1970 to 1980 population grew by only 9,466 people. Unlike the other counties, Athens-Clarke's growth rate from 1990-2000 was similar to its change between 1970 and 1980. During the last decade, population grew by 13,666 persons. The average annual growth rate was 1.5% per year. Population numbers are presented in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4 Athens-Clarke County Population Trends
POPULATION TREND (1970-2000)

120,00 100,00 80,00 60,00 40,00 20,00
-

65,557

101,489

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

3-1

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.1.2 Total Employment
During the past 10 years, the growth rate of commercial development in the study area has outpaced residential development. Using employment estimates from Woods & Poole (a Washington, D.C. based firm specializing in demographic information services), the study found that total employment in the study area grew at a faster rate between 1990 and 2000 than population growth.
Gwinnett County. Its growth as an employment center has been as prolific as its residential growth. Total employment rose from 17,512 in 1970 to 372,147 in 2000 -- more than a 20-fold increase. Employment gains have risen precipitously during the last 30 years. Total employment grew by just 41,574 from 1970 to 1980. More recently, however, 189,378 jobs were added between 1990 and 2000. The average annual growth rate was 10.5% per year over the 30-year time span. Total employment figures for the 30-year period between 1970 and 2000 are presented in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-5 Gwinnett County Total Employment Trends

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TREND (1970-2000)

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000
50,000 -

372,147
17,512 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Barrow County. This county experienced modest growth in total employment during the last 30 years. The number of jobs more than doubled between 1970 and 2000, climbing from 7,137 to 17,174. The rate of employment growth during the past 10 years far exceeds that experienced earlier. Total employment grew by 2,561 from 1970 to 1980. In contrast, from 1990 to 2000, 5,360 jobs were added. Overall, the average annual growth rate was 3% per year. Between 1970 and 2000. Total employment numbers are presented in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6 Barrow County Total Employment Trends

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TREND (1970-2000)

20,00 15,00

17,174

10,00 5,00

7,137

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Oconee County. The SR 316 study area did not include all of Oconee County and the portions of the county south and east of Watkinsville are not reflected in the total employment numbers. The total number of jobs grew from 1,849 to 9,328 during the 30-year time frame. During the last decade 3,994 jobs were added in the county. The average annual growth rate was 5.5% per year. Employment figures for most of the County are presented in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7 Oconee County Total Employment Trends
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TREND (1970-2000)

10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00
0

9,328
1,849
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Athens-Clarke County. Portions of Clarke County are not included in the demographic figures and jobs in areas northeast, east and southeast of the City of Athens are not reflected. It experienced steady growth during the last 30 years, particularly during the 1990-2000 decade. AthensClarke's total employment grew more than 130% from 1970 to 2000, rising from 36,099 to 83,627. From 1970 to 1980 employment grew by only 12,565. In contrast, during the last decade, jobs grew by 20,862. The average annual growth rate was 2.8% per year. Employment figures are presented in Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-8 Athens-Clarke County Total Employment Trends

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TREND (1970-2000)

100,00 80,00 60,00 40,00 20,00
0

83,627
36,099
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

3-2

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.1.3 Environmental Justice
Throughout the study's development, potential environmental justice (EJ) issues were identified for consideration and a preliminary analysis of EJ considerations was completed. These were addressed through focused demographic studies and proactive execution of the study's public involvement process. Environmental justice has been defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as:
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the developing, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local and tribal programs and policies.
Each of Barrow, Gwinnett, Athens-Clarke and Oconee, contain (at the census tract level of geography) potential EJ populations. As illustrated in Figure 3-9 on the following page, there is one significant concentration of minority or low-income population directly along the SR 316 corridor itself that the study could address as an EJ area. It is a concentrated population of African-Americans in Barrow County between Winder and SR 316. While significant concentrations were found in other sections of the counties, both at the census tract and small community levels of geography, they were much further removed from the SR 316 Corridor in comparison with the Winder census tract. Based on the existing conditions under investigation, no readily identifiable environmental justice issues were discovered. The public involvement process reinforced this conclusion.
A statistical analysis by census tract for each county in the study area, as well as Athens-Clark County, was conducted in order to determine an overall impression of the types of potential EJ communities within the study area. In addition, the overall percentage of these groups within each of the counties within the study area was established. Statistical concentrations were calculated for the African American population, Asian population, other single-race populations, Native American population, Pacific Islanders population, and two-or-more-races population. Within each county, population by census tract was determined by race from the 2000 Census and a total percentage by race for each county was determined. These percentages are displayed in Table 3-1. This preliminary analysis set gave an initial illustration of areas that should be considered in more detail. Any census tract that had an overall concentration of a specific minority population greater than the countrywide average was identified as having a

minority concentration. For example, Gwinnett County's population is 13% African American; any census tract in Gwinnett County that had more than a 13% African American population was identified as a minority concentration census tract. It should be noted that the EJ analysis in this study is a preliminary identification of potential EJ communities and issues; a more detailed EJ analysis will be performed on specific SR 316 improvement projects as they are developed and implemented.
Table 3-1 County Population by Race

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee Athens-Clarke

Race

Total Population 588,448 46,144

White

73.0% 85.0%

Black

13.0% 10.0%

Indian

0.3% 0.3%

Asian

7.0% 2.0%

Islander

0.0% 0.0%

Other

4.0% 2.0%

2+

2.0% 1.0%

Source: 2000 Census of Population

26,225 90.0% 6.0% 0.2% 1.0% 0.1% 1.0% 1.0%

101,489 65.0% 27.0% 0.2% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0%

From this initial analysis it was determined that there are three primary minority groups concentrated in the study area: African American, Asian and Hispanic. The study then conducted a more in-depth analysis on these three population groups to determine the possibility of adverse impact.

In order to identify populations, or neighborhoods, which are minority and low-income, a reference population was established. This reference population is the total population affected by policies or programs that are being evaluated. For the purpose of evaluating the environmental justice consequences of potential actions in this study, Gwinnett County was compared to Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) averages, Athens-Clarke and Oconee Counties were compared to the ACORTS Region, and Barrow County percentages were used as a base for that county since there were no regional comparison populations for Barrow County. All base data is taken from the 2000 Census of Population.

EPA guidance suggests the use of a multiplier of 1.2 times the calculated percent of the minority populations for the reference area (i.e., the ARC Region, the ACORTS Region and Barrow County). Any census tract percentage of residents above the minority thresholds established for the study area is identified as potential EJ areas of concern. The EJ minority

thresholds for the study area are identified in Table 3-2. Thus, any census tract in the study area that has a percent minority larger than the percentage of minority concentration listed in Table 3-2 will be considered an EJ. In addition, interviews were conducted with key municipal and county officials and contacts to find out detailed information regarding specific neighborhoods and potential small concentrations of minorities that may not show up as such in the census area analysis. These areas were identified and mapped in the full EJ analysis.
Table 3-2 EJ Threshold Comparison

Race
AfricanAmerican
Asian
Hispanic

%

Threshold

EJ

Minority with EJ

Region Population Multiplier

ARC ACORTS Barrow ARC ACORTS Barrow ARC ACORTS Barrow

32% 23% 10% 4% 3% 2% 7% 6% 3%

39% 28% 12% 6% 3% 3% 9% 7% 4%

Census tracts highlighted in Figure 3-9 denote concentrations of minorities and low-income households, but not strictly in accordance with the procedure described earlier. The highlighted areas follow EPA guidance, but add the following stipulation: the overall minority population percentage must comprise at least 15% of the total population. The full environmental justice analysis strictly followed the guidelines, but the minority "concentrations" presented herein more truly reflect census tracts containing communities of a significant size that are comprised of minority populations. Lowincome census tracts depicted in the figure have a mean household income below the poverty threshold for a family of four, $17,463.

3-3

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Census tracts with concentrations of low-income households in Athens-Clarke County are shown in the vicinity of the University of Georgia campus. This appears to denote where student housing is located as opposed to the presence of low-income families. There were no census tracts in Gwinnett, Barrow or Oconee Counties where the mean household income fell below the poverty line.

In light of SR 316's stature as an existing major transportation corridor, each county has based transportation and land use decisions to take full advantage of the importance of this corridor as a major commuting and commercial corridor. Because existing and future employment generators and attractors are planned for this corridor, any improvements to the SR 316 Corridor should provide improved access to employment opportunities, recreation facilities, education

Figure 3-9 Environmental Justice Areas of Concern

and housing choices for all people within the study area and metro Atlanta. Except for the possibility of a temporary disruption to commuting patterns due to construction, this study does not indicate that residential populations will be adversely affected. This study's preliminary analysis indicates there should not be a negative or disproportionately adverse effect on human health or to the surrounding environment in minority and/or low-income communities.

3-4

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.2 Roadway Characteristics
Although there are currently a total of four lanes with the same crosssectional design for the entire length of SR 316 between I-85 and the Athens Loop/SR 10, there are significant differences in how the roadway functions and is perceived by drivers over its 40 mile length. The roadway has three distinct areas. Starting at I-85 traveling eastbound, the first 5.5 miles of SR 316 is an urban, limited access freeway design with grade-separated intersections/interchanges. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
The next 5.0 miles, between Lawrenceville and Dacula, is an urban arterial type of roadway with frequently spaced at-grade intersections. Through this portion, the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
Except for a one-mile portion, the remaining 29.5 miles to the east through Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee counties is a rural arterial type of roadway traversing rolling hills. The intersections are at-grade and are spaced much further apart than in the urban portion. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour up until the edge of the Athens area, where the speed limit is reduced to 45 miles per hour. The exception to the rural arterial design occurs on the edge of Bogart in Oconee County around the US 78/SR 10 interchange.
The basic cross-sectional design for SR 316 is illustrated in Figure 3-10. Although there are major differences in the intersection/interchange design (access type) within the corridor, the basic cross-section design remains the same. It includes two 12 feet wide travel lanes in each direction. The different directions of travel are separated by 6-foot shoulders on the inside of the traveled way as well as a 32 feet wide grassy median. Along with 10foot shoulders on the outside edge of the traveled way, the existing total width is 112 feet from outside of shoulder to outside of shoulder.
This cross-sectional design is generally perceived by motorists as similar to a rural freeway design for the rural 29.5-mile portion in northeast Gwinnett, Barrow County and Oconee County. Based on findings from the study's safety analysis, this perception creates a conflict with motorists who are crossing, getting onto, or getting off of SR 316 at any of the 26 existing atgrade intersections along the rural portion. Motorists traveling the full length of the corridor tend to drive this portion as if it were a freeway. They share the road with a significant number of motorists traveling at slower speeds because they have a trip starting or ending in Barrow County or Oconee County and are in the process of crossing SR 316, slowing down to exit SR 316 or getting onto SR 316 at an intersection.

Gwinnett County. SR 316 has 16.3 miles in Gwinnett County, which is 41% of the entire corridor. Of this, 5.5 miles are urban, limited access freeway; 5.0 miles are urban arterial with at-grade intersections; and the remaining 5.8 miles are rural arterial with at-grade intersections. The existing intersection access and spacing on SR 316 in Gwinnett County is displayed in Table 3-3.

On the urban freeway portion, interchanges are spaced approximately 1.1 miles apart, which is typical for this type of roadway and area type. Within the next 5.0 mile section, intersection spacing changes significantly; there are ten at-grade intersections, or one every 0.5 miles, on the urban arterial portion north of Lawrenceville. In contrast, the 5.8-mile rural arterial portion has three at-grade intersections, which results in an intersection density of approximately one every 1.9 miles.
Table 3-3 Gwinnett County Intersections/Interchanges

Cross Street Name
I-85
Boggs
Sugarloaf Pkwy.
Riverside Pkwy.
SR 120/Duluth Hwy.
Walther Blvd. Collins Ind. Way Collins Hill SR 20/Buford Dr. Hi-Hope Progress Center Cedars Hurricane Tr. Fence US 29/Winder Hwy.
Harbins Williams Farm Drowning Ck. County Line

Move- Access Traffic

ments Design Control

Urban Freeway

Partial

GradeSeparated

None

Partial

GradeSeparated

None

Full

GradeSeparated

None

Full

GradeSeparated

None

Full

GradeSeparated

None

Urban Arterial

Partial At-Grade Stop

Partial At-Grade Stop

Full At-Grade Signal

Full At-Grade Signal

Full At-Grade Signal

Full At-Grade Stop

Full At-Grade Signal

Full At-Grade Signal

Full At-Grade Stop

Full At-Grade Signal

Rural Arterial

Full At-Grade Signal

Partial At-Grade Stop

Full At-Grade Stop

None None

-NA-

Milepost
0.00
0.47
2.45
3.93
5.13
5.78 6.17 6.53 7.14 7.90 8.29 9.04 9.92 10.44 10.69
12.97 14.44 15.18 16.34

Distance
0.00
0.47
1.98
1.48
1.20
0.65 0.39 0.36 0.61 0.76 0.39 0.75 0.88 0.52 0.25
2.28 1.47 0.74 16.34

Barrow County. There are 15.9 route miles in Barrow County, which accounts for 40% of the corridor length. All of SR 316 within the county is classified as a rural arterial type of roadway with at-grade intersections providing access to and from side streets. Existing intersection access and spacing on SR 316 in Barrow County is shown in Table 3-4.
There are 14 at-grade intersections, or an average of one every 1.1 miles through Barrow County. Compared to the rural arterial portion in northeast Gwinnett County, intersections are more closely spaced in Barrow County. Of these 14 intersections, six are controlled by traffic signals. Therefore, the driving behavior of motorists traveling completely through Barrow County on SR 316 is directly influenced by a traffic signal on average of every 2.64 miles.

Table 3-4 Barrow County Intersections/Interchanges

Cross Street Name

Movements

County Line

None

Kilcrease

Full

Patrick Mill

Full

SR 324/Carl BethlehemFull

SR 81/Charles Floyd Full

Harry McCarty

Full

SR 11/Monroe Hwy. Full

Harrison Mill

Full

Smith Cemetary Road Full

Jackson Trail

Full

SR 53/Hog Mountain Full

Wall

Full

McCarty

Full

SR 324/Statham

Full

Barber Creek Road Full

Craft Road

Full

County Line

None

Access Traffic

Design Control

Rural Arterial

None

None

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

None

None

Milepost

Distance

0.00

0.00

0.81

0.81

2.22

1.41

3.95

1.73

4.89

0.94

6.19

1.30

7.27

1.08

8.32

1.05

9.02

0.70

9.85

0.83

10.95

1.10

12.36

1.41

13.39

1.03

13.90

0.51

14.93

1.03

15.47

0.54

15.89

0.42

3-5

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Oconee County. There are 7.5 route miles of SR 316 in the county, accounting for almost 20% of the corridor's total length. It is currently classified as a rural arterial type of roadway. With the exception of a gradeseparated interchange at US 78/SR 10, SR 316 in Oconee County has mostly at-grade intersections providing access to and from its cross streets. Existing intersection access and spacing on SR 316 through Oconee County is

presented in Table 3-5. There are ten existing at-grade intersections or an average of one every 0.75 miles. Intersection spacing is, on average, more frequent than the rural arterial portions in either Gwinnett or Barrow counties. Traffic signals control movements at three Oconee intersections: Jimmy Daniel; Oconee Connector; and the Athens Loop/SR 10.

Figure 3-10 Existing Roadway Cross Section

Table 3-5 Oconee County Intersections/Interchanges

Cross Street Name

Movements

County Line Dials Mill Ext. Dials Mill Pete Dickens McNutt Creek Mars Hill

None Full Full Full Full Partial

US78/M. Moina Hwy. Full

Julian Dr. Jimmy Daniel Virgil Langford Oconee Connector

Full Full Partial Full

SR10/Athens Loop Full

Access Traffic

Design Control

Urban Freeway

None

None

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Stop

GradeSeparated

None

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

At-Grade Stop

At-Grade Signal

Grade-

Signal &

Separated Stop

Milepost Distance

0.00

0.00

0.42

0.42

0.71

0.29

1.46

0.75

2.09

0.63

2.81

0.72

3.86

1.05

4.61

0.75

5.70

1.09

6.43

0.73

6.88

0.45

7.50

0.62

10ft.

12ft.

12ft.

6ft.

Shoulder General Purpose Lanes

112 ft.

16ft. Median

16ft. Median

Shoulder

6ft.

12ft.

12ft.

10ft.

Shoulder General Purpose Lanes

3-6

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.3 Safety
For the entire corridor, safety on SR 316 was the most pressing concern voiced at the study's Issues Forums (which were public meetings held in each county of the study area). In light of this, the study completed a comprehensive analysis of accident data so that safety issues would be fully considered in the formulation of recommendations for SR 316. Surprisingly, the investigation suggested that experience on SR 316 has not been entirely different from that experienced on comparable highways elsewhere in the state. If all accidents on SR 316 were grouped into a single class, the accident rate on SR 316 is not significantly different from rates experienced on comparable roadways elsewhere in Georgia. However, if only severe types of accidents are grouped together, the study found that these types of accidents occur more frequently on SR 316 than on comparable highways elsewhere in the State. Severe accidents were those where one or more persons was either injured or killed.
Safety analysis for this study was completed with respect to intersections and segments along a portion of the roadway having the same functional classification. Cross-sectional designs, intersection spacing and intersection configuration are generally related to the functional classification of a roadway.
In analyzing accident data on SR 316, the study distinguished different accident types according to severity. The category of "Total Accidents" is comprised of both "Severe Accidents" and "Property Damage-Only Accidents". "Severe Accidents" are typically broken down into two different classes:
Injury An accident involving one or more vehicles with at least one individual non-fatally injured; and
Fatal An accident involving one or more vehicles in which one or more individuals is fatally injured.
Accident statistics are listed in Table 3-6 by severity and for each county in the study area. Of the 13 fatal accidents that occurred between 1995 and 1997, all were located in either Barrow or Gwinnett counties. Six of fatal accidents occurred in Gwinnett County and seven in Barrow County. More fatal accidents were located in Barrow County even though there were nearly five times as many total accidents in Gwinnett compared to Barrow County.
Analysis shows that Barrow County has the highest severe accident rating of all counties in the study area. Between 1995 and 1997, approximately 40% of all accidents on SR 316 in Barrow County included an injury or fatality. In Gwinnett County, approximately 29% of all accidents were classified with an injury or fatality. Oconee County has a slightly lower percentage of approximately 28%.

Table 3-6 Number of Accidents By County and Severity (1995-1997)

County
Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

Route Daily Traffic Miles Range
16.34 22,000-86,000 15.89 15,000-25,000
7.96 15,000-34,000

Number of Accidents Property Damage Injury Fatal

961 388

6

172 106

7

133

53

0

Total Accidents
1,355 285 186

Differing types of roadway sections on SR 316 through the corridor may explain the relative difference in accident severity for each section. In Barrow County, which had the highest severe accident rate in the study area, all of the major cross streets meet SR 316 at an at-grade intersection. In contrast, US 78/SR 10 in Oconee County (the highest volume cross street in the county), intersects SR 316 as a grade-separated interchange. Between 1995 and1997, there were no fatal accidents on SR 316 in Oconee County. In Gwinnett County, traffic congestion caused by high traffic volumes tends to slow drivers' speeds; in absolute terms there were more accidents in Gwinnett County yet a smaller percentage of them were severe.
Vehicle speeds on SR 316 in Barrow County tend to be higher than in comparable portions in Gwinnett County. As a result, there is potentially added conflict between vehicles on SR 316 and those crossing, getting onto, or getting off of SR 316 at the existing at-grade intersections. In absolute terms, there are fewer total accidents in Barrow County compared to Gwinnett County, however when they do occur in Barrow County they typically involve higher speed differentials between vehicles and thus more severe.
Within each county of the study area, there are specific locations, especially at signalized intersections, where accidents are concentrated. Figure 3-11 shows the number of accidents on SR 316 between 1995 and 1997 by their location at individual intersections and over individual segments of the roadway.
3.3.1 Intersections
Most of the relatively higher accident intersections are located in Gwinnett County on the 5.0-mile portion classified functionally as an urban principal arterial. These intersections include:
Buford Drive (SR 20) which averages more than 30 accidents per year;
Collins Hill Road which averages between 21 and 30 accidents per year;
Hi-Hope Road which averages between 11 and 20 accidents per year; and
Cedars Road which averages between 11 and 20 accidents per year.
3-7

Another Gwinnett County intersection with a relatively higher accident frequency is Winder Highway (SR 8). This location is situated in a transition area, i.e., where SR 316 changes from an urban principal arterial to a rural principal arterial. ON average, more than 30 accidents per year took place at this intersection between 1995 and 1997.
There are two more intersections that experienced a relatively higher accident frequency during the 1995-1997 time period. In Barrow County, the SR 11 intersection averaged between 11 and 20 accidents per year. In Oconee County, the Mars Hill intersection fell into the 11-20 per year category based on 1995-1997 accident experience. GDOT recently eliminated turning movements through the median at the Mars Hill intersection; consequently, future accident frequency is anticipated to drop significantly at this location.
There is an intersecting cross street in Oconee County whose accident experience indicates the substantial safety improvements could be expected by reconstructing an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated interchange. Prior to 1996, SR 316 and US 78/SR 10 crossed as an at-grade intersection. By 1996, it was reconstructed by GDOT to the existing grade-separated interchange. Before this improvement, there were 20 accidents at or near the intersection in 1994 and 17 more in 1995. After the grade-separation, five accidents were recorded there in 1996 and also in 1997. In this case, gradeseparation led to a 75% reduction in total accidents on SR 316 at US 78/SR 10.
3.3.2 Segments
Accidents that were assigned to roadway segments of SR 316 were different from intersection accidents. Classification of individual accidents into intersection or segment types involved two steps. First, intersection accidents were identified. Accidents were given the intersection type label if they occurred within 105 feet of an existing intersection (as defined by its mile marker). The unit of measurement for the mile marker was "hundredths of miles". The second step was to classify segment accidents. All accidents that were not labeled as being an intersection type were given the segment label.
Similar to the intersection-based accident analysis discussed in the previous section, most of the high accident segments are located in Gwinnett County between Lawrenceville and Dacula. Relatively higher accident segments of SR 316, defined as those with more than 15 accidents per year, include those between:
I-85 and Sugarloaf Parkway; Riverside Parkway and Duluth Highway (SR120); Duluth Highway (SR120) and Collins Hill Road; Collins Hill Road and Duluth Drive (SR20); and Duluth Drive (SR20) and Hi-Hope Road.
Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 3-11 Accident Frequency By Intersection and Segments (1995-1997)

3-8

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Outside of Gwinnett County, the only segment experiencing between six and 15 total accidents per year between 1995 and 1997 was the area near the US 78/SR 10 interchange area in Oconee County. Further analysis of this area showed that the data within the 1995-1997 timeframe included those accidents from 1995 that was before the grade separation was complete and open to traffic.
3.3.3 Fatal Accident Locations
A total of 31 fatal accidents occurred on SR 316 from 1995 through 2000. Nineteen took place in Gwinnett County, 12 occurred in Barrow and zero fatal accidents were recorded in Oconee County. The approximate locations

of the fatal accidents are shown in Figure 3-12. Those intersections where more than one fatal accident occurred during this timeframe, as well as the total number of fatalities are:
Harbins Road in Gwinnett County (4); Cedars Road in Gwinnett County (3); SR81 in Barrow County (3); Patrick Mill Road in Barrow County (2); Carl Bethlehem Road in Barrow County (2); and Riverside Pkwy. in Gwinnett County (2).

Most fatal accidents between 1995 and 2000 occurred at or near cross streets to SR 316 in the section between Lawrenceville and Winder. Out of the 31 fatal accidents within the entire corridor, 20 were located on the 13mile segment between Progress Center Road and SR 81. The intersection at Harbins Road on the southern edge of Dacula had the highest frequency, with 4 fatal accidents. The area of this intersection is where the functional classification of SR 316 changes from being an urban principal arterial to a rural principal arterial. In this transition area, eastbound drivers on SR 316 may perceive that they are driving on a freeway because Harbins Road is 2.3-miles past the previous signalized intersection at Winder Highway. In the westbound direction of travel, drivers approaching Harbins Road have traveled 5.7 miles from the previous signalized intersection at Patrick Mill Road in Barrow County.

Figure 3-12 Fatal Accident Locations (1995-2000)

3-9

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.3.4 Accident Rate Analysis
The volume of traffic on a roadway is typically a strong indicator of how many accidents would occur on a particular type of roadway. Segments or intersections with high traffic volumes generally experience more absolute numbers of accidents than similar roadways having lower volumes. To negate the influence that traffic volume has on accident frequency, the "accident rate" statistic is used along with the absolute "number of accidents" statistic to determine whether certain highway portions have an unusually higher number of accidents notwithstanding the influence from traffic volume.
Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are used to measure traffic volume along a portion of highway. For a typical section, VMT is computed by multiplying the daily traffic volume by its length. The factors used in calculating accident rates are:
Annual number of accidents (NUMACCS); and
Annual vehicle miles of Travel (AVMT).

The standard accident rate statistic used by the GDOT is the number of accidents per 100 million AVMT. The formula for computing it is:
Accident Rate = NUMACCS*108 / AVMT
For this study, accident rates were calculated for three individual portions of SR 316 with differing functional classifications. In addition, accident rates for SR 316 were computed for two severity groups: injury accidents and fatal accidents. SR 316's accident rates were compared with the comparable respective statewide statistics to determine if a significantly higher rate of injury or fatal accidents took place during the 1995 to 1997 time period. A summary of the accident rate analysis is illustrated in Figure 3-13 for fatal accidents, while Figure 3-14 shows injury accidents. The analysis reveals that that the accident frequency on the urban freeway and urban principal arterial portions of SR 316 in Gwinnett County are approximately the same or lower than the average rates computed for comparable highways within Georgia.

In contrast, the rural principal arterial portion shows a higher rate of injury and fatal accidents on SR 316 in comparison with other rural principal arterials elsewhere in the state. Specifically, this fatal accident rate of 2.83 per 100 million AVMT is 32% higher than the 2.15 computed for comparable roads elsewhere in the state.
Accident rates shown in Figures 3-13 and 3-14 give a preliminary indication of the safety benefits that could be achieved by reconstructing the arterial portions into a freeway design. For example, the fatal accident rate was 1.76 per 100 million AVMT on the 5.0-mile portion of SR 316 classified as urban principal arterial; this rate is 2.6 times greater than the rate for the portion existing as an urban Freeway of 0.67 fatal accidents per 100 million AVMT.

Figure 3-13 Accident Rates By Functional Class
Fatal Accidents

Figure 3-14 Accident Rates By Functional Class
Injury Accidents

3-10

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.4 Level-of-Service

Low levels of service on SR 316 are found mainly on the portions functionally classified as urban freeway and urban principal arterial near Lawrenceville and Duluth in Gwinnett County. Level-of-service (LOS) calculations essentially measure the ratio between the peak hour traffic volume and the roadway's capacity (also known as maximum service volume). As the ratio approaches a value of 1.0, peak hour traffic reaches the road's capacity. In this situation, the roadway is considered to have a low LOS because of congestion and there is little or no room for motorists to maneuver. Low LOS is characterized by low travel speeds and long delays near intersections. When the ratio reaches 1.0, the LOS is assigned a letter grade "F" and LOS conditions on the roadway are considered undesirable.
LOS conditions are typically assigned by a letter grade, ranging from A through F, to represent the condition of traffic flow. These letter grades can be assigned to freeway segment, arterial portions of the roadway, and each intersection. These grades are similar to those that children get on their report cards. The most desirable is LOS "A" that signifies that traffic can flow freely because the roadway's capacity greatly exceeds its peak hour traffic volume. At LOS "A" motorists experience little or no delay and have room to maneuver as they approach an intersection. This condition is always referred to as a "high" or adequate LOS. In many urban areas, LOS grades "A" through "D" are considered adequate in terms of traffic operations. At the other extreme, LOS "E" denotes that the peak hour volume is approaching the capacity threshold. Low travel speeds, congestion, delay at intersections and little room to maneuver characterize LOS "E". The most undesirable condition, however, is LOS "F". This condition occurs when more traffic attempts to pass through an intersection or portion of road than the intersection or segment is designed to accommodate. LOS "E" and "F" are considered "low" levels-of-service in urban and rural areas. Table 3-7 summarizes the general traffic conditions associated with each LOS at arterial intersections and freeway.
Table 3-7 Level-of-Service Definitions

Description LOS Arterial Intersections Freeway Facilities

Category

A

Little or no delay Free-flow operations Adequate

B

Short delays

Reasonably free-flow Adequate

C

Average delays

Noticeable congestion Adequate

D

Long delays

Speeds decline

Undesirable

E

Very long delays

At capacity

Undesirable

F

Excessive delays Breakdown conditions Failing

In this study, a computer model called CORSIM was used to compute peak hour level-of-service grades. CORSIM is a model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to simulate traffic for an entire hour based on roadway data including the number of lanes, traffic control data, traffic signal timing and traffic volume data. The computer model keeps track of the operating characteristics of each individual vehicle passing through an intersection or traveling over a freeway segment. Once an intersection or freeway segment is simulated, the LOS through the intersection can be determined using parameters such as average vehicle delay for the approaches.
Calculated LOS values for the SR 316 corridor are shown in Figure 3-15. Table 3-7 describes the LOS category that corresponds to the color-coded categories shown on Figure 3-15. Low LOS values on freeway segments and at intersections near the Lawrenceville area are primarily due to high traffic volumes on SR 316. It is important to note that the actual observed LOS on the freeway segments between Lawrenceville and Duluth may be worse than reported in this analysis, because this portion of SR 316 is highly sensitive to traffic conditions that occur immediately to the east and west. Congestion experienced by westbound motorists in this area is typically caused by heavy traffic volumes or by incidents/crashes that occur on I-85, causing traffic to "back up" onto SR 316. Eastbound motorists are often subjected to delays that "back up" from the Collins Hill Road and/or SR 20 intersections. Therefore, the actual LOS observed by motorists on the freeway portions may be affected by conditions in the adjacent roadway portions of SR 316.
On the rest of the SR 316 corridor in east Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee counties, current LOS values are better due to lower traffic volumes. There are exceptions to this for a relatively smaller number of motorists getting on SR 316 at unsignalized intersections. This is apparent to motorists stopped on the cross street waiting to make a left-turn onto SR 316 or who want to reach the other side of SR 316. These motorists experience significant delay waiting for an acceptable gap between vehicles on SR 316 so they can safely complete their turn.
A list of intersections considered deficient due to a relatively low LOS is presented below. If an entire intersection is listed as deficient, it means there are several approaches with a LOS "E" or LOS "F" in the peak hours. If an approach is listed as deficient, it means there are several turning movements within that approach with LOS "E" or LOS "F" in the peak hours. Otherwise, only the specific deficient turning movement(s) is listed. These intersections are also assumed to be signalized unless otherwise specified:
Gwinnett County
SR 316 eastbound west of Sugarloaf Parkway (through-lanes) SR 316 eastbound off-ramp to Sugarloaf Parkway (exit ramp) SR 316 eastbound off-ramp at Riverside Parkway (eastbound left
turns)
3-11

SR 316 eastbound off-ramp at SR 120 (intersection) SR 316 WB off ramp at SR 120 (northbound approach) SR 316 at Collins Hill Road (intersection) SR 316 at Buford Drive/SR 20, (intersection) SR 316 at Hi-Hope Road, (eastbound and southbound approaches) SR 316 at Progress Center Avenue, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at Cedars Road (eastbound left turns) SR 316 at Hurricane Trail (eastbound left turns) SR 316 at Fence Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at Winder Hwy. /SR 8, (eastbound and northbound left
turns) SR 316 at Drowning Creek Road, intersection (unsignalized)
Barrow County
SR 316 at Kilcrease Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at SR 11 (northbound left turns) SR 316 at Harrison Mill Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at Harry McCarty Road (northbound left turn and
southbound approach) (unsignalized) SR 316 at Barber Creek Road, northbound approach (unsignalized)
Oconee County
SR 316 at Crowe Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at Dials Mill Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at McNutt Creek Road, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 westbound off-ramp at US 78, intersection (unsignalized) SR 316 at Julian Drive, intersection (unsignalized)
In many instances, adding a short right-turn lane or channelizing the approach lanes differently could improve the operational LOS at the unsignalized intersections. However, that type of improvement would likely be detrimental with respect to safety and is not recommended because it would encourage more vehicles to use the approaches to unsignalized intersections. More turns onto and off of SR 316 would increase the number of situations where conflicting movements would include high-speed differentials. As indicated previously in this report, these situations may contribute to the relatively higher rate of injury accidents and fatal accidents on the rural portions of the SR 316 corridor.
Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 3-15 Base Year 2000 Levels-of-Service

3-12

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

3.5 Travel Patterns
The study predicted travel patterns within the corridor by using its travel demand model. The ability to identify significant travel patterns and movements in the corridor was important because study used this current (year 2000) travel pattern data, in combination with the analysis of the accident data, to provide valuable information in developing a short-term access management strategy to improve safety on SR 316. The study also used horizon year travel patterns to recommend the location of proposed interchanges on SR 316, as well as to refine the study's longer-range recommendations.
During the data collection phase of the study, origin-destination patterns of motorists traveling on SR 316 were obtained from nearly 4,000 motorists at selected sites in Barrow and Oconee Counties through the study's O-D survey. These origin-destination patterns were expanded to reflect daily travel patterns and then were incorporated into the study's travel demand model. Bandwidth maps illustrating base (year 2000) travel patterns on

specific portions of SR 316 in Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee counties are presented in figures 3-16, 3-17, and 3-18. A sample of origin-destination patterns of motorists using SR 316 in Gwinnett County is illustrated by trips traveling westbound on SR 316 between Sugarloaf Parkway and Boggs Road. This segment of SR 316 is referred to as the "selected link" in the study. As shown on Figure 3-16, a total of 40,000 vehicles per day were estimated in this direction of travel. Places where these vehicles originated are shown by means of bandwidths in Figure 3-16; the largest share of traffic on this selected link originates in the Lawrenceville and Snellville areas. The travel demand model estimated that a total of 20,000 vehicles per day come from this direction. Of these, 8,600 come from the west end of Lawrenceville and 11,400 from the center of Lawrenceville or the east side. The second largest number of trips, approximately 6,600 trips per day, originated outside of the county from the direction of Barrow, Oconee and Athens-Clarke counties. Another 6,200 trips originated in the Lawrenceville area that is north of SR 316.
Travel patterns in Barrow County, as shown in Figure 3-17, are represented by eastbound and westbound traffic on SR 316 between SR 81 and SR 11. The study's travel demand model estimates a total of 13,500 vehicles per day

in each direction on this portion of SR 316. Places from which these vehicles originated are also shown in Figure 3-17 by means of bandwidths. Travel patterns are shown for both westbound and eastbound travel.
In the westbound direction of travel in Barrow County, the largest segment of traffic comes from outside Barrow County. This includes 6,900 vehicles, just over 50% of total traffic on that link, from the direction of Oconee and Athens-Clarke counties. The rest comes from different parts of East Barrow: 2,000 from Bethlehem and Walton County; 1,700 from Winder; and, 1,700 from the Statham area.
The largest movement of traffic in Barrow County using the selected link in the eastbound direction comes from Gwinnett County and places to the west of Barrow County. A total of 10,300 vehicles per day or 76% come from the direction of Gwinnett County. A relatively small percentage of total eastbound traffic comes from inside Barrow County. The directional orientation of local traffic is distributed as follows: 1,100 vehicles from Walton County/southwestern Barrow County; 1,000 from Auburn; and 1,000 from southwestern Barrow County and eastern Gwinnett County.

Figure 3-16 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000
Gwinnett County

Figure 3-17 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000
Barrow County

3-13

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Travel patterns in Oconee County are shown in Figure 3-18 by vehicles traveling eastbound on SR 316 between the Oconee Connector and the Athens Loop/SR 10. A total of 17,500 vehicles per day are estimated by the study's model as eastbound motorists. The largest component of traffic using this selected link comes from the Watkinsville area by way of Mars Hill Road and the Oconee Connector. A total of 7,300 vehicles per day or 40% enter SR 316 from the Oconee Connector. The second largest number of trips using the selected link comes from outside Oconee County in the direction of Barrow County, Gwinnett County and metro Atlanta. An estimated 5,600 trips per day or 32% come from Barrow and places further west.

Figure 3-18 Origin-Destination Travel Patterns - Base Year 2000
Oconee County

3-14

Final Report SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 5 - Preliminary Assessment of Strategies

This chapter includes a comprehensive list of transportation improvements that the study analyzed to address the issues of safety, mobility, economic development and future growth in the SR 316 Corridor. From this list, three of the alternative strategies were selected for further analysis. They include the "Baseline Condition" represented in Figure 2-12 along with the improvement of SR 316 to a 4-lane freeway with HOV lanes. Compared to other strategies analyzed, the study recommends that a 4-lane freeway design with HOV lanes is most responsive to addressing the corridor's current and future issues.
HOV lanes could be implemented in several different ways, each having different operational layouts with distinct advantages and disadvantages. The study identified two potential types of HOV lane designs, selected a preferred HOV design, and incorporated it into the 4-lane freeway concept. The basic cross-sectional designs for a 4-lane freeway with each of the two alternate HOV lane designs are shown in Figure 5-2.
Only long-range type improvements are presented in this chapter. Without a recommended long-range transportation plan for the corridor that includes a preliminary timetable with implementation dates for its key elements, specification of short-term projects would be impractical.
5.1 Strategy Identification
The comprehensive list of potential improvements, referred to as improvement "strategies", were identified and analyzed in this study and are discussed in this chapter. Where appropriate, the list includes a description of each specific strategy. This is followed by a qualitative assessment for each strategy. After this assessment, the study recommended a "short list" of three strategies to evaluate in further detail. The performance and feasibility of the three strategies were evaluated in light of objective criteria set forth by consensus of the SR 316 Study's Advisory Committee and later validated by the general public and stakeholders in public involvement meetings held in each county of the study area.
Before the three "short list" strategies were identified, several other strategies (beyond those listed in this section), were posed by the public or by the study's stakeholders. An example includes the discussion of looking at a 4-lane roadway in each direction, which was not chosen for further evaluation because the additional costs for acquiring right-of-way and environmental mitigation appeared to outweigh the potential public benefits of mobility and economic development.
Another strategy that was discussed during the public involvement process for further consideration was to either preserve or acquire right-of-way in the median area of SR 316 for future intercity or commuter passenger rail service. This was not chosen for further evaluation because the Georgia

Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA) is planning for Commuter Rail service between Athens and Atlanta on an alignment following the existing railroad tracks paralleling SR 316 through the cities of Bogart, Statham, Winder, Auburn and Dacula. The tracks cross over SR 316 immediately west of Winder Highway/SR 8, between Lawrenceville and Dacula on their way to Atlanta. Preliminary review of travel demand in the corridor strongly suggests that both a commuter rail component and improvements to SR 316 will be vital to meeting future mobility and travel options in the entire SR 316 corridor.
The study identified the following six strategies as potential improvements to further refine and evaluate. More than six preliminary concepts were initially looked at; the six strategies below are those that were screened out as those that could potentially address the most critical needs in the corridor or that would be feasible due to factors such as cost constraints. It is noted that auxiliary improvements, such as collector-distributor roads; frontage roads; park and ride lots; auxiliary lanes or ITS-related enhancements, would need to be investigated as part of any final recommended strategy.
Strategy A Baseline Condition. The baseline condition is also referred to as the future "No-Build" strategy. This option includes proposed projects already listed in the formally adopted plans of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (ACORTS), and GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This includes projects in ARC's 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and ACORTS 2025 RTP. These road improvement projects were shown in Figure 2-12 and are listed below:
Re-design & reconstruct the existing interchange at I-85 & SR 316;
The proposed limited access, 4-lane, Northern Arc Expressway from US 41 in Cartersville to SR 316 in Lawrenceville;
Reconstruct the at-grade intersections at SR 316 & Collins Hill, as well as SR 316 & SR 20, to grade-separated interchanges;
Build HOV-lanes on SR 316 from I-85 to Drowning Creek Road;
Extend Metropolitan Atlanta ITS architecture eastward on SR 316 from I-85 to SR 20;
A proposed 4-lane Winder Bypass in Barrow County that includes a grade-separated interchange with SR 316;
Widen US 78/SR 10 between Athens Hwy. & Athens Loop/SR 10 from 4 to 6-lanes;
Widen SR 53/Mars Hill/Oconee Connector from 2 to 4 lanes between SR 15 and SR 316;
Extend Jennings Mill Parkway north from Epps Bridge Road to Jennings Mill Road;

5-1

Construct new partial interchange on Athens Loop/SR 10 at proposed Jennings Mill Pkwy. Extension with access to and from the north only; and
Construct new connector road between Daniels Bridge Road (south of Athens Loop) and Epps Bridge Rd. (north of Athens Loop).
Under Strategy A, SR 316 would remain a principal arterial type of roadway. With the proposed grade separations at Collins Hill and SR 20, the existing urban freeway section of SR 316 would be extended approximately 1.5 miles to the east. As per ARC's 2025 RTP, Strategy A assumes no other grade separation projects on SR 316; the planned HOVlanes on SR 316 in Gwinnett County would not be grade separated.
There are also two new public transportation services being planned in the ARC 2025 RTP, ACORTS 2025 RTP or the GDOT STIP. Recently, commuter bus service linking Lawrenceville and Atlanta has been implemented in Gwinnett County. The feasibility of intercity rail or bus service connecting Athens to Atlanta is currently being investigated in a study sponsored by the GRPA. Some form of intercity public transportation service could be implemented in the corridor during the short-term but it could also take longer. Different types of commuter or intercity bus/rail services linking Athens and Atlanta do not have implementation schedules. As such, it is not possible to reasonably assume a specific public transportation mode, route, or level-of-service in this study. It is, however, reasonable to assume that plans for commuter rail or commuter bus service could be implemented during the 25-year planning horizon of this study. In light of that, land acquisition for potential park-and-ride lots and bus/rail terminals was considered as this study's improvement strategies were identified and evaluated.
In preparation for moving people during the 1996 Olympics, GDOT and City of Atlanta opened the first stage of its Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) architecture on much of the Interstate System inside I-285. Now, referred to as the NaviGAtor system, it consists of these ITS features: video detection system; closed circuit television cameras; dynamic message signs; highway advisory radio; and road weather information systems. Since the Olympics, GDOT, with the cooperation of local governments, extended its NaviGAtor system outside I-285. As part of the recently completed I-85 HOV-lane extension project, ITS architecture was installed alongside I-85 for an additional 11.8 miles from Chamblee-Tucker Road in Dekalb County to SR 316 in Gwinnett County.
Final Report SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

The NaviGAtor system is designed to promote efficient operations and enhance safety of the total transportation system by means of incident management, advanced communication systems and public outreach. Its partners include local governments, the Georgia State Highway Patrol, transit operators and traffic management associations (TMA's). These organizations provide information and services that support alternative forms of transportation to commuters who typically use single occupant vehicles.
Strategy B Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Intersection Improvements. Building upon the baseline condition of Strategy A, Strategy B also includes deployment of the GDOT's basic ITS infrastructure east of SR 20 plus a number of operational and safety improvements, such as: turn lanes at intersections; traffic control modifications; an access management program; and selective roadway realignments and/or improvements to drivers' sight distance at intersections.
Strategy C 4-Lane Freeway Without High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes. This strategy includes the baseline projects of Strategy A, as well as the conversion of SR 316 into a freeway type of roadway with essentially the same cross-sectional design that already exists. Under this strategy, SR 316 would include 2 general purpose through-lanes in each direction and a 36 foot grassy median. The major design changes would be grade-separating existing at-grade intersections or terminating cross streets north and south of SR 316 between SR 120 in Lawrenceville and the Athens Loop/SR 10 in Oconee County. This strategy was first conceived by GDOT preliminary planning in the mid 1990's based on studies done in the early 1990's. A list of intersecting cross-streets proposed by Strategy C is shown in Table 5-1. The table also shows those cross-streets that would cross over or under SR 316 (without full access) and those cross streets that would be terminated north or south of SR 316.
Strategy D - 4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes. This strategy builds upon the freeway design proposed in Strategy C and includes the baseline projects in Strategy A. It differs from Strategy C because it includes HOV lanes. The basic cross-sectional design for each direction of travel would include the following: two general-purpose, through-travel lanes available for all vehicle types; and one HOV lane (for multi-occupant vehicles only).
Strategy E - 6-Lane Freeway Without HOV Lanes. This builds on Strategy C including the baseline projects from Strategy A, except there would be three general-purpose traffic lanes in each direction. In Gwinnett County, this strategy would consist of three general-purpose lanes plus an HOV lane in each travel direction. It could also include modest alterations such as not adding the third general-purpose lane through Barrow and Oconee counties.

Table 5-1 Initial Treatment of Cross Streets in Freeway Design

Cross Street Name
I-85 Boggs Herrington Sugarloaf Pkwy. Riverside Pkwy. LawrencevilleSuwanee SR 120/Duluth Hwy. Walther Blvd. Collins Ind. Way Collins Hill SR 20/Buford Dr. Hi-Hope Progress Center Cedars Hurricane Trail Fence

Existing Design Proposed Design
Gwinnett County
Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separaged Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated
Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

Grade-Separated
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated
At-Grade (C-D Road) At-Grade (C-D Road) Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate

US 29/Winder Hwy. At-Grade

Grade-Separated

Proposed Northern Arc

None

Harbins

At-Grade

Williams Farm

At-Grade

Drowning Creek At-Grade

Grade-Separaged
Grade-Separated Terminate Grade-Separated

Access w/SR 316
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes No Yes

Strategy F - 6-Lane Principal Arterial Without HOV Lanes. This strategy would include the baseline projects in Strategy A, except there would be three through traffic lanes in each travel direction east of SR 20. Also, the existing freeway portion in Gwinnett County would remain the same except for the addition of an HOV-lane in each direction. There would be three general- purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction of travel east of SR 20. This strategy could also include alterations. For example, it could be scaled down in Barrow and Oconee counties by not including the third general- purpose lane in each direction of travel.

Table 5-1 (Continued)

Cross Street Name
County Line Kilcrease Patrick Mill SR 324/ Carl Bethlehem SR 81/ Charles Floyd Harry McCarty SR 11/Monroe Hwy. Harrison Mill Church Proposed Winder Bypass Jackson Trail SR 53/ Hog Mountain Cosby Wall McCarty SR 324/Statham Barber Creek Craft
Dials Mill Ext. Dials Mill Pete Dickens McNutt Creek Mars Hill

Existing Design Proposed Design

None At-Grade At-Grade

Barrow County
None Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

At-Grade

Grade-Separated

At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated
Terminate
Grade-Separated
Grade-Separated Terminate
Grade-Separated
Terminate
Grade-Separated
Terminate Terminate Terminate Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate
Oconee County
Grade-Separated Terminate Terminate Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

US 78/ Michael Moina Hwy

Grade-Separated

Grade-Separated

Julian Dr. Jimmy Daniel Virgil Langford

At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate

Oconee Connector At-Grade

Grade-Separated

Access w/SR 316
No No Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No No
Yes
No
Yes
No No No Yes No No
No No No No No
Yes
No Yes No
Yes

SR10/Athens Loop Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

Yes

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-2

State Route 316 Co3 rridor Study

5.2 Strategy Assessment
Each of the six strategies was then screened to identify those that would best address transportation and land-use problems in the corridor. Five criteria were used to guide the strategy assessment:
Safety - the relative capability of a strategy to lower the accident rate. Mobility this issue concerns two aspects: (1) reducing motorists'
delay; and (2) supporting commuting choices by alternative transportation modes (e.g. transit, carpooling). Economic Development this issue considers two aspects: (1) sufficient road capacity to support existing commerce and to accommodate anticipated growth; and (2) providing good accessibility to key properties inside the SR 316 Corridor whose successful development is an important part of land-use plan implementation. Environmental this issue addresses the amount of right-of-way needed to construct each strategy. The assessment assumed that those basic strategies needing more right-of-way, wider bridges, and structures would lead to greater environmental impacts. Cost - Considers the estimated order-of-magnitude costs for right-ofway and construction.
The screening process was qualitative, although much of the reasoning is derived from information presented in Chapter 2 through Chapter 4, as well as from the description of strategies presented in this chapter. In particular, the accident analyses presented in Chapter 3 was an important component in the screening process.
A summary of the strategies' assessment is shown in Table 5-2 and described using the terms "LO", "MED" and "HI". This methodology revealed the relative advantages and disadvantages of each strategy in comparison with others. The relative measure of "HI" denotes that a strategy would address a particular screening criteria better than the other basic strategies. "LO" denotes that a strategy would not address a particular screening criteria as well as other basic strategies. The comparison term, "MED" is applied when a strategy addresses particular criteria better than others, but not as well as other strategies in the case where all of the alternatives address the issue almost equally.
Safety. Strategies C, D and E would provide the greatest reduction in accidents, particularly those involving injuries or fatalities. As such, they receive a "HI" mark in Table 5-2. These three strategies entail reconstructing the principal arterial sections of SR 316 into a freeway type roadway. In terms of total accidents in the corridor, a slight reduction would be expected as these accidents may occur where the freeway ramps connect with intersect-

Table 5-2 Preliminary Screening Assessment Summary

A

B

C

D

E

F

Future Baseline Condition Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS)
4-Lane Freeway Without HOV
4-Lane Freeway With HOV
6-Lane Freeway Without HOV
6-Lane Principal Arterial
Without HOV

County

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED LO LO

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED LO LO

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED MED MED

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED HI HI

Gwinnett HI

Barrow

HI

Oconee

HI

SAFETY

MED

HI

HI

HI

MED

HI

HI

HI

MED

HI MOBILIMTHEYID

HI

MED

MED

MED

MED

LO

MED

HI

MED

LO

MED

HI

MED

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

ENVIRONMENTAL

MED

MED

MED

LO

HI

HI

MED

MED

HI

HI

MED

MED

COST

HI

MED

MED

LO

HI

MED

LO

LO

HI

MED

LO

LO

MED LO LO
MED MED MED
MED MED MED
LO MED MED
LO LO LO

ing/interchanging cross streets. Substantial reductions in accidents involving injuries and fatalities, however, would be expected under Strategies C, D and E. Severe types of accidents involving at least one injury or fatality are most likely to occur when fast moving vehicles conflict with slower moving vehicles. Implementation of a freeway-type design, with grade-separated intersections, would reduce the number of conflicting movements as well as speed differentials between vehicles. The impact on SR 316 would be to sharply reduce, if not eliminate, most of the severe accidents.

Grade-separating the existing at-grade intersections would increase safety because the severity of the accidents that do actually occur at the ramps and the cross streets would be expected to less severe that with the at-grade intersection. Many of the injury and fatal accidents now occurring on SR 316 would sharply decrease and "property damage only" type accidents would be more likely at ramp intersections with cross streets.

The expected accident reduction on SR 316 resulting from grade-separations was estimated by comparing actual accident experience on SR 316 with estimates for SR 316 assuming it was a freeway type of roadway. The number of accidents estimated on SR 316 if it was all freeway was based on the statewide average accident rates for 4-lane freeways. Computed accident savings are presented in Table 5-3 by functional classification. The accident rates are distinctly different for urban and rural roads, and for principal arterial and freeway facilities. Upgrading to a freeway type design would produce an estimated total savings of 315 accidents. Of the total, 184 are injury-type accidents and five are fatality accidents. The net reduction represents the number that would be expected only on SR 316 itself, not for the entire corridor.
Table 5-3 Estimated Accident Reduction Assuming Basic Freeway Design

FUNCTIONAL CLASS
Principal Arterial

Number of Accidents Total Injury Fatal

268

94 1

Urban

Freeway
Reduction (Urban Section)
Principal Arterial

135

35 0

133

59 1

290

161 6

Rural

Freeway
Reduction (Rural Section)

108

36 2

182

125 4

Total Reduction (Urban and Rural)

315 184 5

(1) Estimated annual number of accidents per year

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-3

State Route 316 Co4rridor Study

Except for at SR 20 and Collins Hill Road, Strategies A, B and F do not propose grade separating the existing at-grade intersections on the principal arterial sections of SR 316. Therefore, a "MED" impact is assigned to these strategies for Gwinnett County. Strategy B, with the ITS and intersection improvement features, would also include incident management, variable message signs to alert motorists, and advanced communications features that would reduce accidents throughout the corridor, but probably not as effective as the strategies featuring grade-separation of the existing interchanges.
Mobility. There are two aspects to consider in assessing the relative strength of each strategy with regards to mobility. The first is how well it reduces motorists' delay. The second considers how much the strategy provides motorists with transportation choices. The only alternative assigned a "HI" mark was Strategy D (the 4-Lane Freeway with HOV lanes). The "HI" mark was also assigned to Strategy D for Barrow and Oconee counties because the other options include HOV lanes in Gwinnett County only.
HOV lanes support travel modes like carpooling and transit that give commuters alternatives to the single occupant vehicle mode of travel. Since all of the strategies include HOV lanes in Gwinnett County, each alternative was given a "MED" under Gwinnett for its relative ability to address mobility. As for reducing delay, Strategy C, Strategy D, Strategy E and Strategy F were considered equivalent. Under these strategies, traffic flow at all existing bottlenecks on the north side of Lawrenceville would be improved. However, motorists could experience slightly more delay on the westbound freeway portion in Gwinnett County during the morning commute because the morning peak hour volume is likely to increase there. Currently, morning traffic volumes in the westbound direction of travel are metered, in effect, by existing congestion at Hi-Hope, SR 20, and Collins Hill.
HOV lanes provide two advantages for carpools, vanpools and transit. First, they can significantly increase the number of people carried by the road in fewer vehicles. This fact is illustrated in Figure 5-1. Second, when the public recognizes these benefits, there is a possibility that a significant number of single occupant vehicle drivers will switch to commuting in a carpool, vanpool or transit. HOV lanes have worked well in many settings throughout the United States and Canada. Their effectiveness relies largely on the willingness of individuals to create or join carpool, or use public transportation for their daily commute.
There are strong signs suggesting that HOV lanes will be highly successful in the SR 316 corridor. Recently instituted express bus service in Gwinnett County is serving three times more riders than were projected prior to the opening of service. The recent extension of the I-85 HOV lanes to SR 316 is considered to be instrumental in allowing these buses to operate on schedule and be a competitive commuting option. In addition, this study's own O-D survey on SR 316 revealed that 28% of those vehicles surveyed contained two or more persons. That percentage drops to 18% for commute trips,

although many of the other trips currently happening on the corridor are in HOV-eligible vehicles.
There would not be significant additional capacity added in Barrow or Oconee County under Strategy "A" or Strategy "B". Since there are no HOV lanes to support alternative modes, these two alternatives were assigned a "LO" mark in Barrow and Oconee.
Figure 5-1 Number of Vehicles to Move 45 Persons
1 Bus (45 Persons)
6 Vanpools (8 Persons Each)
15 Carpools (3 Persons Each)
22 Carpools (2 Persons Each)
45 Single Occupant Vehicles
Source: Texas Transportation Institute
Economic Development. The evaluation of each strategy's impact on economic development was based on two factors: (1) roadway capacity to support existing businesses and expected growth; and, (2) accessibility to properties inside the corridor. Strategy F, the 6-Lane Principal Arterial, has the strongest impact for this criterion. Initially, Strategy F also appeared to support economic development better than the other alternatives: it would add one general-purpose lane in each direction from SR 20 in Gwinnett County to the Athens Loop/SR 10 in Oconee County, and it would allow for direct access to properties abutting SR 316. However, closer inspection and analysis of Strategy F reveals its weakness compared to the scenarios with grade-separated interchanges for several reasons. First, the amount of additional capacity furnished by one additional lane in each direction is less than the amount of extra capacity that would be supplied by converting the

existing roadway to a freeway design. Moreover, Strategy F would be a less attractive option for motorists due to travel times compared to a strategy featuring a freeway design. Because this could affect employment decisions of potential job seekers using SR 316 for their daily commute, Strategy F was assigned a grade of "MED" for economic development.
The 4-lane and 6-lane freeway strategies would provide additional roadway capacity on SR 316 between SR 20 and the Athens Loop as well, but would not produce direct or close access to some adjacent properties. In terms of travel time accessibility, the three freeway design strategies would perform better than their principal arterial counterparts. Strategy A and Strategy B, the other non-freeway alternatives would score well in terms of providing access to key properties, but not in terms of making additional capacity available to support both existing and future developments in the corridor.
Local land use decisions involving property adjacent or near to SR 316 in both Barrow County and Oconee County have recognized GDOT's previous studies recommending the upgrade of SR 316 to a grade-separated freeway. Strategies C, D, and E are consistent and complementary to these counties' land-use decisions that are consistent with the vision of a making all of SR 316 a grade-separated freeway.
Environmental. Based on the right-of-way needs, Strategy A, Strategy B, and Strategy C get "HI" ratings in Barrow and Oconee Counties, but "MED" in Gwinnett County. These strategies have essentially the same right-of-way needs in Gwinnett County as Strategy D; therefore, strategies A, B, C and D are assigned "MED" in Table 5-2. Strategy E and Strategy F were assigned "LO" marks in Gwinnett County because additional right-of-way would be needed for the eight total lanes featured in that strategy. Strategies featuring six total lanes would have a neutral impact on the environment in Barrow and Oconee Counties when compared to the four-lane freeway (and HOV lanes).
Aside from the right-of-way requirement impacts on the environment, there are other environmental benefits from Strategy D. With the Atlanta region in non-attainment of federal clean air standards, extension of the HOV lanes past Gwinnett County could enhance the roadway LOS for carpoolers, vanpoolers, and transit users. If more commuters from outside metro Atlanta are encouraged to use these transportation alternatives, fewer single occupant vehicles would enter the Atlanta region. Consequently, this would contribute to the lowering of vehicular emissions from commuters in the SR 316 corridor.
Cost. Alternative strategies were assessed for relative cost in terms of rightof-way needs for their basic design and their cost to construct. Strategies with the lowest estimated costs relative to others were assigned a "HI" mark in Table 5-2.
Strategy A and Strategy B ranked "HI" relative to the others in all counties primarily because the right-of-way needs would be minimal. Strategy A's

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-4

State Route 316 Co5rridor Study

cost would not be insignificant, but has the lowest cost of the six strategies. Strategy B also received a "HI" rating for cost; its cost would be higher than Strategy A due to the implementation of ITS components and addition of turn lanes at intersections. The costs for ITS and turn lanes would be significantly lower than those associated with grade separating intersections east of SR 20 in Gwinnett County. Therefore, Strategy C (the 4-Lane freeway without HOV lanes) was assigned a relative mark of "MED" even though it has the same basic right-of-way needs as strategies A and B in terms of its design. Similarly, Strategy D was awarded a relative mark of "MED" because it has the same cross-sectional design as Strategy C in Gwinnett County. In Barrow and Oconee Counties, the cost for adding HOV lanes in Strategy D would significantly increase its construction costs in relation to Strategy E; therefore the cost grade assigned to Strategy D was dropped to "LO".
A relative mark of "LO" was assigned to Strategy E and Strategy F for Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee Counties. Both strategies have basic total sixlane cross-sections whose lanes would be general-purpose lanes. In Gwinnett County, where HOV lanes are in the baseline Strategy A, a total eight-lane cross-section would be needed for these strategies. The total eight-lane crosssection in Gwinnett County would require higher construction costs compared to the other strategies.
5.3 Strategy Selection
Selecting one to three alternatives from the exhaustive list of candidate strategies for further study was a straightforward process. The most important objectives were safety, mobility and economic development. By consensus, the Department of Transportation staff, local elected officials and the general public agreed that their highest priority in developing a long-range transportation plan was safety in the corridor. In light of this emphasis, the three strategies consisting of a freeway design over the length of SR 316 became candidates for further consideration. These were: Strategy C (4-lane freeway without HOV); Strategy D (4-lane freeway with HOV); and, Strategy E (6-lane freeway without HOV).
Another strategy that would make safety conditions better, to a limited extent, is Strategy B, (ITS and Intersection Improvements). This option would include a comprehensive application of access management strategies, ITS intersection treatments and geometric improvements at intersections along the entire length of SR 316, in addition to future baseline improvements.
By itself, Strategy B, maintains at-grade intersections. Even with access management, geometric intersection improvements and ITS applications that are components of this strategy, traffic conditions that lead to a higher rate of severe accidents will exist along SR 316. That is, a relatively large volume of vehicles traveling at high speeds on SR 316 would be likely to conflict with the growing number of motorists accessing or crossing over SR 316 at cross streets. In light of existing conditions and considering the amount of traffic growth that is anticipated in this corridor, grade-separating the intersections is the optimum long term improvement option ensuring the safety and mobility concerns will be adequately addressed.

If minimizing cost and environmental impacts were the highest priorities, Strategy A (Future Baseline Condition) and Strategy B (ITS and intersection improvements) would be recommended for further analysis. In light of cost savings, consideration was given to the possibility of combining elements of Strategy A or Strategy B with the freeway options. However, it did not make sense to formulate a hybrid strategy on different sections of SR 316 without significantly compromising gains in safety and mobility. In addressing implementation issues later in the report, a hybrid alternative may make sense in an interim capacity as staged construction of the full, long-range improvement could take many years under the traditional funding scenario. Also, elements of Strategy B would be important as short term recommendations if implementation of the long term recommendation is delayed.
In addition to safety, the next most common issues voiced by local elected officials, stakeholders and the general public throughout the study's development were economic development and mobility. To determine if any more strategies could be eliminated prior to more detailed evaluation, the three freeway-type strategies were screened in more detail to determine how well they would address economic development and mobility issues in the corridor.
With regards to economic development, each of the freeway-type strategies were limited in their ability to offer either direct, or "nearby", access to properties immediately adjacent to SR 316. To address this issue, collectordistributor roads (C-D) and/or frontage roads, parallel to SR 316 could be added to those strategies featuring a freeway-type design. Inclusion of C-D and/or frontage roads would raise the right-of-way and construction costs for each of the freeway alternatives significantly.
The 4-lane freeway without HOV lanes (Strategy C) would be adequate in meeting the mobility needs of existing and future development in the shortterm, but not through the year 2025. Based on population and total employment forecasts in the corridor, significant traffic congestion would be apparent by the horizon year. Based on the growth forecast, the 4-lane freeway with HOV lanes (Strategy D) and 6-lane freeway without HOV lanes (Strategy E) would better accommodate anticipated future growth compared to Strategy C.
As alluded to in the screening for economic development, Strategy D and Strategy E are preferred to Strategy C due to their ability to minimize congestion and delay on SR 316, particularly in later years of the planning horizon, near 2025. Strategy E has a significant drawback in terms of mobility; it could contribute to congestion at the SR 316/I-85 interchange. This is because more traffic would arrive at this interchange in a shorter period of time as a result of the additional general-purpose lane. Recurring traffic tieups experienced by westbound morning commuters heading towards southbound I-85 could be more frequent and last longer. As for mobility and the potential to encourage carpool and transit opportunities in Barrow and Oconee Counties, Strategy D is preferred over other freeway-type strategies.
5-5

Therefore, Strategy D (4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes) is the long-term option that is most responsive to transportation and land-use issues in the SR 316 corridor. It should be particularly effective in terms of its potential to reduce the number of severe accidents while affording mobility for motorists by supporting the development of alternative transportation modes. Under this strategy, there would also be increased roadway capacity in Barrow and Oconee counties an important feature evident in light of the growth expected throughout the 25 year planning window. This additional capacity and availability of commuting options will also support economic development activity in the corridor.
For these reasons, Strategy D, in combination with added C-D or frontage roads running parallel to SR 316 along selected sections, was identified by the study for further analysis for these reasons:
The reduction in severe-types of accidents; Alleviate roadway congestion and delay; Support alternative travel modes through the entire corridor; and Accommodate growth and economic development.
As part of its further analysis, Strategy D (the four-lane freeway with HOV lanes) evolved into two variations, which are referred to as "alternatives". Each alternative includes HOV lanes, but differ because one alternative would have the HOV lanes be separated from the general-purpose lanes by a barrier, while the other alternative would not have the HOV lanes separated by a physical barrier.
For identification purposes, the barrier separated variation is referred to as Alternate 1 (of Strategy D) and the non-barrier separated HOV lane option as Alternate 2 (of Strategy D). Cross sections of each alternative's proposed design are shown in Figure 5-2.
Both alternatives have significantly different operational and design characteristics. Alternative 1 would have a 130 feet traveled way, with shoulders that would fit into SR 316's existing right-of-way. Due to the barrier separating HOV lanes from general purpose lanes, access to the HOV lanes would be limited. As such, HOV-type vehicles would be able to get to and from the HOV lanes using special HOV-only ramps at specific interchanges. Alternative 2 does not have an inside shoulder and the traveled way is 120 feet.
Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Co6 rridor Study
Figure 5-2 Proposed Cross-Sectional Design Options - HOV Facility
130 Ft.

10 Ft. Shoulder

12 Ft.

13 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

10 Ft. 14 Ft.
Shoulder
HOV Lane

Shoulder Shoulder

5 Ft. 5 Ft.

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

10 Ft.
Shoulder

13 Ft.

12 Ft. 10 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

Shoulder

4-Lane SOV With Barrier Separated HOV Lanes
Alternate 1

120 Ft.

10 Ft. Shoulder

12 Ft.

12 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

13 Ft. 13 Ft. Shoulder Shoulder

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

12 Ft.

12 Ft. 10 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

Shoulder

4-Lane SOV With Barrier Median and HOV Lanes
Alternate 2

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-6

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 5 - Preliminary Assessment of Strategies

This chapter includes a comprehensive list of transportation improvements that the study analyzed to address the issues of safety, mobility, economic development and future growth in the SR 316 Corridor. From this list, three of the alternative strategies were selected for further analysis. They include the "Baseline Condition" represented in Figure 2-12 along with the improvement of SR 316 to a 4-lane freeway with HOV lanes. Compared to other strategies analyzed, the study recommends that a 4-lane freeway design with HOV lanes is most responsive to addressing the corridor's current and future issues.
HOV lanes could be implemented in several different ways, each having different operational layouts with distinct advantages and disadvantages. The study identified two potential types of HOV lane designs, selected a preferred HOV design, and incorporated it into the 4-lane freeway concept. The basic cross-sectional designs for a 4-lane freeway with each of the two alternate HOV lane designs are shown in Figure 5-2.
Only long-range type improvements are presented in this chapter. Without a recommended long-range transportation plan for the corridor that includes a preliminary timetable with implementation dates for its key elements, specification of short-term projects would be impractical.
5.1 Strategy Identification
The comprehensive list of potential improvements, referred to as improvement "strategies", were identified and analyzed in this study and are discussed in this chapter. Where appropriate, the list includes a description of each specific strategy. This is followed by a qualitative assessment for each strategy. After this assessment, the study recommended a "short list" of three strategies to evaluate in further detail. The performance and feasibility of the three strategies were evaluated in light of objective criteria set forth by consensus of the SR 316 Study's Advisory Committee and later validated by the general public and stakeholders in public involvement meetings held in each county of the study area.
Before the three "short list" strategies were identified, several other strategies (beyond those listed in this section), were posed by the public or by the study's stakeholders. An example includes the discussion of looking at a 4-lane roadway in each direction, which was not chosen for further evaluation because the additional costs for acquiring right-of-way and environmental mitigation appeared to outweigh the potential public benefits of mobility and economic development.
Another strategy that was discussed during the public involvement process for further consideration was to either preserve or acquire right-of-way in the median area of SR 316 for future intercity or commuter passenger rail service. This was not chosen for further evaluation because the Georgia

Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA) is planning for Commuter Rail service between Athens and Atlanta on an alignment following the existing railroad tracks paralleling SR 316 through the cities of Bogart, Statham, Winder, Auburn and Dacula. The tracks cross over SR 316 immediately west of Winder Highway/SR 8, between Lawrenceville and Dacula on their way to Atlanta. Preliminary review of travel demand in the corridor strongly suggests that both a commuter rail component and improvements to SR 316 will be vital to meeting future mobility and travel options in the entire SR 316 corridor.
The study identified the following six strategies as potential improvements to further refine and evaluate. More than six preliminary concepts were initially looked at; the six strategies below are those that were screened out as those that could potentially address the most critical needs in the corridor or that would be feasible due to factors such as cost constraints. It is noted that auxiliary improvements, such as collector-distributor roads; frontage roads; park and ride lots; auxiliary lanes or ITS-related enhancements, would need to be investigated as part of any final recommended strategy.
Strategy A Baseline Condition. The baseline condition is also referred to as the future "No-Build" strategy. This option includes proposed projects already listed in the formally adopted plans of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (ACORTS), and GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This includes projects in ARC's 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and ACORTS 2025 RTP. These road improvement projects were shown in Figure 2-12 and are listed below:
Re-design & reconstruct the existing interchange at I-85 & SR 316;
The proposed limited access, 4-lane, Northern Arc Expressway from US 41 in Cartersville to SR 316 in Lawrenceville;
Reconstruct the at-grade intersections at SR 316 & Collins Hill, as well as SR 316 & SR 20, to grade-separated interchanges;
Build HOV-lanes on SR 316 from I-85 to Drowning Creek Road;
Extend Metropolitan Atlanta ITS architecture eastward on SR 316 from I-85 to SR 20;
A proposed 4-lane Winder Bypass in Barrow County that includes a grade-separated interchange with SR 316;
Widen US 78/SR 10 between Athens Hwy. & Athens Loop/SR 10 from 4 to 6-lanes;
Widen SR 53/Mars Hill/Oconee Connector from 2 to 4 lanes between SR 15 and SR 316;
Extend Jennings Mill Parkway north from Epps Bridge Road to Jennings Mill Road;

5-1

Construct new partial interchange on Athens Loop/SR 10 at proposed Jennings Mill Pkwy. Extension with access to and from the north only; and
Construct new connector road between Daniels Bridge Road (south of Athens Loop) and Epps Bridge Rd. (north of Athens Loop).
Under Strategy A, SR 316 would remain a principal arterial type of roadway. With the proposed grade separations at Collins Hill and SR 20, the existing urban freeway section of SR 316 would be extended approximately 1.5 miles to the east. As per ARC's 2025 RTP, Strategy A assumes no other grade separation projects on SR 316; the planned HOVlanes on SR 316 in Gwinnett County would not be grade separated.
There are also two new public transportation services being planned in the ARC 2025 RTP, ACORTS 2025 RTP or the GDOT STIP. Recently, commuter bus service linking Lawrenceville and Atlanta has been implemented in Gwinnett County. The feasibility of intercity rail or bus service connecting Athens to Atlanta is currently being investigated in a study sponsored by the GRPA. Some form of intercity public transportation service could be implemented in the corridor during the short-term but it could also take longer. Different types of commuter or intercity bus/rail services linking Athens and Atlanta do not have implementation schedules. As such, it is not possible to reasonably assume a specific public transportation mode, route, or level-of-service in this study. It is, however, reasonable to assume that plans for commuter rail or commuter bus service could be implemented during the 25-year planning horizon of this study. In light of that, land acquisition for potential park-and-ride lots and bus/rail terminals was considered as this study's improvement strategies were identified and evaluated.
In preparation for moving people during the 1996 Olympics, GDOT and City of Atlanta opened the first stage of its Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) architecture on much of the Interstate System inside I-285. Now, referred to as the NaviGAtor system, it consists of these ITS features: video detection system; closed circuit television cameras; dynamic message signs; highway advisory radio; and road weather information systems. Since the Olympics, GDOT, with the cooperation of local governments, extended its NaviGAtor system outside I-285. As part of the recently completed I-85 HOV-lane extension project, ITS architecture was installed alongside I-85 for an additional 11.8 miles from Chamblee-Tucker Road in Dekalb County to SR 316 in Gwinnett County.
Final Report SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

The NaviGAtor system is designed to promote efficient operations and enhance safety of the total transportation system by means of incident management, advanced communication systems and public outreach. Its partners include local governments, the Georgia State Highway Patrol, transit operators and traffic management associations (TMA's). These organizations provide information and services that support alternative forms of transportation to commuters who typically use single occupant vehicles.
Strategy B Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Intersection Improvements. Building upon the baseline condition of Strategy A, Strategy B also includes deployment of the GDOT's basic ITS infrastructure east of SR 20 plus a number of operational and safety improvements, such as: turn lanes at intersections; traffic control modifications; an access management program; and selective roadway realignments and/or improvements to drivers' sight distance at intersections.
Strategy C 4-Lane Freeway Without High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes. This strategy includes the baseline projects of Strategy A, as well as the conversion of SR 316 into a freeway type of roadway with essentially the same cross-sectional design that already exists. Under this strategy, SR 316 would include 2 general purpose through-lanes in each direction and a 36 foot grassy median. The major design changes would be grade-separating existing at-grade intersections or terminating cross streets north and south of SR 316 between SR 120 in Lawrenceville and the Athens Loop/SR 10 in Oconee County. This strategy was first conceived by GDOT preliminary planning in the mid 1990's based on studies done in the early 1990's. A list of intersecting cross-streets proposed by Strategy C is shown in Table 5-1. The table also shows those cross-streets that would cross over or under SR 316 (without full access) and those cross streets that would be terminated north or south of SR 316.
Strategy D - 4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes. This strategy builds upon the freeway design proposed in Strategy C and includes the baseline projects in Strategy A. It differs from Strategy C because it includes HOV lanes. The basic cross-sectional design for each direction of travel would include the following: two general-purpose, through-travel lanes available for all vehicle types; and one HOV lane (for multi-occupant vehicles only).
Strategy E - 6-Lane Freeway Without HOV Lanes. This builds on Strategy C including the baseline projects from Strategy A, except there would be three general-purpose traffic lanes in each direction. In Gwinnett County, this strategy would consist of three general-purpose lanes plus an HOV lane in each travel direction. It could also include modest alterations such as not adding the third general-purpose lane through Barrow and Oconee counties.

Table 5-1 Initial Treatment of Cross Streets in Freeway Design

Cross Street Name
I-85 Boggs Herrington Sugarloaf Pkwy. Riverside Pkwy. LawrencevilleSuwanee SR 120/Duluth Hwy. Walther Blvd. Collins Ind. Way Collins Hill SR 20/Buford Dr. Hi-Hope Progress Center Cedars Hurricane Trail Fence

Existing Design Proposed Design
Gwinnett County
Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separaged Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated
Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

Grade-Separated
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated
At-Grade (C-D Road) At-Grade (C-D Road) Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate

US 29/Winder Hwy. At-Grade

Grade-Separated

Proposed Northern Arc

None

Harbins

At-Grade

Williams Farm

At-Grade

Drowning Creek At-Grade

Grade-Separaged
Grade-Separated Terminate Grade-Separated

Access w/SR 316
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes No Yes

Strategy F - 6-Lane Principal Arterial Without HOV Lanes. This strategy would include the baseline projects in Strategy A, except there would be three through traffic lanes in each travel direction east of SR 20. Also, the existing freeway portion in Gwinnett County would remain the same except for the addition of an HOV-lane in each direction. There would be three general- purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction of travel east of SR 20. This strategy could also include alterations. For example, it could be scaled down in Barrow and Oconee counties by not including the third general- purpose lane in each direction of travel.

Table 5-1 (Continued)

Cross Street Name
County Line Kilcrease Patrick Mill SR 324/ Carl Bethlehem SR 81/ Charles Floyd Harry McCarty SR 11/Monroe Hwy. Harrison Mill Church Proposed Winder Bypass Jackson Trail SR 53/ Hog Mountain Cosby Wall McCarty SR 324/Statham Barber Creek Craft
Dials Mill Ext. Dials Mill Pete Dickens McNutt Creek Mars Hill

Existing Design Proposed Design

None At-Grade At-Grade

Barrow County
None Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

At-Grade

Grade-Separated

At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade
At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated
Terminate
Grade-Separated
Grade-Separated Terminate
Grade-Separated
Terminate
Grade-Separated
Terminate Terminate Terminate Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate
Oconee County
Grade-Separated Terminate Terminate Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

US 78/ Michael Moina Hwy

Grade-Separated

Grade-Separated

Julian Dr. Jimmy Daniel Virgil Langford

At-Grade At-Grade At-Grade

Grade-Separated Grade-Separated Terminate

Oconee Connector At-Grade

Grade-Separated

Access w/SR 316
No No Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No No
Yes
No
Yes
No No No Yes No No
No No No No No
Yes
No Yes No
Yes

SR10/Athens Loop Grade-Separated Grade-Separated

Yes

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-2

State Route 316 Co3 rridor Study

5.2 Strategy Assessment
Each of the six strategies was then screened to identify those that would best address transportation and land-use problems in the corridor. Five criteria were used to guide the strategy assessment:
Safety - the relative capability of a strategy to lower the accident rate. Mobility this issue concerns two aspects: (1) reducing motorists'
delay; and (2) supporting commuting choices by alternative transportation modes (e.g. transit, carpooling). Economic Development this issue considers two aspects: (1) sufficient road capacity to support existing commerce and to accommodate anticipated growth; and (2) providing good accessibility to key properties inside the SR 316 Corridor whose successful development is an important part of land-use plan implementation. Environmental this issue addresses the amount of right-of-way needed to construct each strategy. The assessment assumed that those basic strategies needing more right-of-way, wider bridges, and structures would lead to greater environmental impacts. Cost - Considers the estimated order-of-magnitude costs for right-ofway and construction.
The screening process was qualitative, although much of the reasoning is derived from information presented in Chapter 2 through Chapter 4, as well as from the description of strategies presented in this chapter. In particular, the accident analyses presented in Chapter 3 was an important component in the screening process.
A summary of the strategies' assessment is shown in Table 5-2 and described using the terms "LO", "MED" and "HI". This methodology revealed the relative advantages and disadvantages of each strategy in comparison with others. The relative measure of "HI" denotes that a strategy would address a particular screening criteria better than the other basic strategies. "LO" denotes that a strategy would not address a particular screening criteria as well as other basic strategies. The comparison term, "MED" is applied when a strategy addresses particular criteria better than others, but not as well as other strategies in the case where all of the alternatives address the issue almost equally.
Safety. Strategies C, D and E would provide the greatest reduction in accidents, particularly those involving injuries or fatalities. As such, they receive a "HI" mark in Table 5-2. These three strategies entail reconstructing the principal arterial sections of SR 316 into a freeway type roadway. In terms of total accidents in the corridor, a slight reduction would be expected as these accidents may occur where the freeway ramps connect with intersect-

Table 5-2 Preliminary Screening Assessment Summary

A

B

C

D

E

F

Future Baseline Condition Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS)
4-Lane Freeway Without HOV
4-Lane Freeway With HOV
6-Lane Freeway Without HOV
6-Lane Principal Arterial
Without HOV

County

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED LO LO

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED LO LO

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED MED MED

Gwinnett Barrow Oconee

MED HI HI

Gwinnett HI

Barrow

HI

Oconee

HI

SAFETY

MED

HI

HI

HI

MED

HI

HI

HI

MED

HI MOBILIMTHEYID

HI

MED

MED

MED

MED

LO

MED

HI

MED

LO

MED

HI

MED

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

MED

ENVIRONMENTAL

MED

MED

MED

LO

HI

HI

MED

MED

HI

HI

MED

MED

COST

HI

MED

MED

LO

HI

MED

LO

LO

HI

MED

LO

LO

MED LO LO
MED MED MED
MED MED MED
LO MED MED
LO LO LO

ing/interchanging cross streets. Substantial reductions in accidents involving injuries and fatalities, however, would be expected under Strategies C, D and E. Severe types of accidents involving at least one injury or fatality are most likely to occur when fast moving vehicles conflict with slower moving vehicles. Implementation of a freeway-type design, with grade-separated intersections, would reduce the number of conflicting movements as well as speed differentials between vehicles. The impact on SR 316 would be to sharply reduce, if not eliminate, most of the severe accidents.

Grade-separating the existing at-grade intersections would increase safety because the severity of the accidents that do actually occur at the ramps and the cross streets would be expected to less severe that with the at-grade intersection. Many of the injury and fatal accidents now occurring on SR 316 would sharply decrease and "property damage only" type accidents would be more likely at ramp intersections with cross streets.

The expected accident reduction on SR 316 resulting from grade-separations was estimated by comparing actual accident experience on SR 316 with estimates for SR 316 assuming it was a freeway type of roadway. The number of accidents estimated on SR 316 if it was all freeway was based on the statewide average accident rates for 4-lane freeways. Computed accident savings are presented in Table 5-3 by functional classification. The accident rates are distinctly different for urban and rural roads, and for principal arterial and freeway facilities. Upgrading to a freeway type design would produce an estimated total savings of 315 accidents. Of the total, 184 are injury-type accidents and five are fatality accidents. The net reduction represents the number that would be expected only on SR 316 itself, not for the entire corridor.
Table 5-3 Estimated Accident Reduction Assuming Basic Freeway Design

FUNCTIONAL CLASS
Principal Arterial

Number of Accidents Total Injury Fatal

268

94 1

Urban

Freeway
Reduction (Urban Section)
Principal Arterial

135

35 0

133

59 1

290

161 6

Rural

Freeway
Reduction (Rural Section)

108

36 2

182

125 4

Total Reduction (Urban and Rural)

315 184 5

(1) Estimated annual number of accidents per year

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-3

State Route 316 Co4rridor Study

Except for at SR 20 and Collins Hill Road, Strategies A, B and F do not propose grade separating the existing at-grade intersections on the principal arterial sections of SR 316. Therefore, a "MED" impact is assigned to these strategies for Gwinnett County. Strategy B, with the ITS and intersection improvement features, would also include incident management, variable message signs to alert motorists, and advanced communications features that would reduce accidents throughout the corridor, but probably not as effective as the strategies featuring grade-separation of the existing interchanges.
Mobility. There are two aspects to consider in assessing the relative strength of each strategy with regards to mobility. The first is how well it reduces motorists' delay. The second considers how much the strategy provides motorists with transportation choices. The only alternative assigned a "HI" mark was Strategy D (the 4-Lane Freeway with HOV lanes). The "HI" mark was also assigned to Strategy D for Barrow and Oconee counties because the other options include HOV lanes in Gwinnett County only.
HOV lanes support travel modes like carpooling and transit that give commuters alternatives to the single occupant vehicle mode of travel. Since all of the strategies include HOV lanes in Gwinnett County, each alternative was given a "MED" under Gwinnett for its relative ability to address mobility. As for reducing delay, Strategy C, Strategy D, Strategy E and Strategy F were considered equivalent. Under these strategies, traffic flow at all existing bottlenecks on the north side of Lawrenceville would be improved. However, motorists could experience slightly more delay on the westbound freeway portion in Gwinnett County during the morning commute because the morning peak hour volume is likely to increase there. Currently, morning traffic volumes in the westbound direction of travel are metered, in effect, by existing congestion at Hi-Hope, SR 20, and Collins Hill.
HOV lanes provide two advantages for carpools, vanpools and transit. First, they can significantly increase the number of people carried by the road in fewer vehicles. This fact is illustrated in Figure 5-1. Second, when the public recognizes these benefits, there is a possibility that a significant number of single occupant vehicle drivers will switch to commuting in a carpool, vanpool or transit. HOV lanes have worked well in many settings throughout the United States and Canada. Their effectiveness relies largely on the willingness of individuals to create or join carpool, or use public transportation for their daily commute.
There are strong signs suggesting that HOV lanes will be highly successful in the SR 316 corridor. Recently instituted express bus service in Gwinnett County is serving three times more riders than were projected prior to the opening of service. The recent extension of the I-85 HOV lanes to SR 316 is considered to be instrumental in allowing these buses to operate on schedule and be a competitive commuting option. In addition, this study's own O-D survey on SR 316 revealed that 28% of those vehicles surveyed contained two or more persons. That percentage drops to 18% for commute trips,

although many of the other trips currently happening on the corridor are in HOV-eligible vehicles.
There would not be significant additional capacity added in Barrow or Oconee County under Strategy "A" or Strategy "B". Since there are no HOV lanes to support alternative modes, these two alternatives were assigned a "LO" mark in Barrow and Oconee.
Figure 5-1 Number of Vehicles to Move 45 Persons
1 Bus (45 Persons)
6 Vanpools (8 Persons Each)
15 Carpools (3 Persons Each)
22 Carpools (2 Persons Each)
45 Single Occupant Vehicles
Source: Texas Transportation Institute
Economic Development. The evaluation of each strategy's impact on economic development was based on two factors: (1) roadway capacity to support existing businesses and expected growth; and, (2) accessibility to properties inside the corridor. Strategy F, the 6-Lane Principal Arterial, has the strongest impact for this criterion. Initially, Strategy F also appeared to support economic development better than the other alternatives: it would add one general-purpose lane in each direction from SR 20 in Gwinnett County to the Athens Loop/SR 10 in Oconee County, and it would allow for direct access to properties abutting SR 316. However, closer inspection and analysis of Strategy F reveals its weakness compared to the scenarios with grade-separated interchanges for several reasons. First, the amount of additional capacity furnished by one additional lane in each direction is less than the amount of extra capacity that would be supplied by converting the

existing roadway to a freeway design. Moreover, Strategy F would be a less attractive option for motorists due to travel times compared to a strategy featuring a freeway design. Because this could affect employment decisions of potential job seekers using SR 316 for their daily commute, Strategy F was assigned a grade of "MED" for economic development.
The 4-lane and 6-lane freeway strategies would provide additional roadway capacity on SR 316 between SR 20 and the Athens Loop as well, but would not produce direct or close access to some adjacent properties. In terms of travel time accessibility, the three freeway design strategies would perform better than their principal arterial counterparts. Strategy A and Strategy B, the other non-freeway alternatives would score well in terms of providing access to key properties, but not in terms of making additional capacity available to support both existing and future developments in the corridor.
Local land use decisions involving property adjacent or near to SR 316 in both Barrow County and Oconee County have recognized GDOT's previous studies recommending the upgrade of SR 316 to a grade-separated freeway. Strategies C, D, and E are consistent and complementary to these counties' land-use decisions that are consistent with the vision of a making all of SR 316 a grade-separated freeway.
Environmental. Based on the right-of-way needs, Strategy A, Strategy B, and Strategy C get "HI" ratings in Barrow and Oconee Counties, but "MED" in Gwinnett County. These strategies have essentially the same right-of-way needs in Gwinnett County as Strategy D; therefore, strategies A, B, C and D are assigned "MED" in Table 5-2. Strategy E and Strategy F were assigned "LO" marks in Gwinnett County because additional right-of-way would be needed for the eight total lanes featured in that strategy. Strategies featuring six total lanes would have a neutral impact on the environment in Barrow and Oconee Counties when compared to the four-lane freeway (and HOV lanes).
Aside from the right-of-way requirement impacts on the environment, there are other environmental benefits from Strategy D. With the Atlanta region in non-attainment of federal clean air standards, extension of the HOV lanes past Gwinnett County could enhance the roadway LOS for carpoolers, vanpoolers, and transit users. If more commuters from outside metro Atlanta are encouraged to use these transportation alternatives, fewer single occupant vehicles would enter the Atlanta region. Consequently, this would contribute to the lowering of vehicular emissions from commuters in the SR 316 corridor.
Cost. Alternative strategies were assessed for relative cost in terms of rightof-way needs for their basic design and their cost to construct. Strategies with the lowest estimated costs relative to others were assigned a "HI" mark in Table 5-2.
Strategy A and Strategy B ranked "HI" relative to the others in all counties primarily because the right-of-way needs would be minimal. Strategy A's

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-4

State Route 316 Co5rridor Study

cost would not be insignificant, but has the lowest cost of the six strategies. Strategy B also received a "HI" rating for cost; its cost would be higher than Strategy A due to the implementation of ITS components and addition of turn lanes at intersections. The costs for ITS and turn lanes would be significantly lower than those associated with grade separating intersections east of SR 20 in Gwinnett County. Therefore, Strategy C (the 4-Lane freeway without HOV lanes) was assigned a relative mark of "MED" even though it has the same basic right-of-way needs as strategies A and B in terms of its design. Similarly, Strategy D was awarded a relative mark of "MED" because it has the same cross-sectional design as Strategy C in Gwinnett County. In Barrow and Oconee Counties, the cost for adding HOV lanes in Strategy D would significantly increase its construction costs in relation to Strategy E; therefore the cost grade assigned to Strategy D was dropped to "LO".
A relative mark of "LO" was assigned to Strategy E and Strategy F for Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee Counties. Both strategies have basic total sixlane cross-sections whose lanes would be general-purpose lanes. In Gwinnett County, where HOV lanes are in the baseline Strategy A, a total eight-lane cross-section would be needed for these strategies. The total eight-lane crosssection in Gwinnett County would require higher construction costs compared to the other strategies.
5.3 Strategy Selection
Selecting one to three alternatives from the exhaustive list of candidate strategies for further study was a straightforward process. The most important objectives were safety, mobility and economic development. By consensus, the Department of Transportation staff, local elected officials and the general public agreed that their highest priority in developing a long-range transportation plan was safety in the corridor. In light of this emphasis, the three strategies consisting of a freeway design over the length of SR 316 became candidates for further consideration. These were: Strategy C (4-lane freeway without HOV); Strategy D (4-lane freeway with HOV); and, Strategy E (6-lane freeway without HOV).
Another strategy that would make safety conditions better, to a limited extent, is Strategy B, (ITS and Intersection Improvements). This option would include a comprehensive application of access management strategies, ITS intersection treatments and geometric improvements at intersections along the entire length of SR 316, in addition to future baseline improvements.
By itself, Strategy B, maintains at-grade intersections. Even with access management, geometric intersection improvements and ITS applications that are components of this strategy, traffic conditions that lead to a higher rate of severe accidents will exist along SR 316. That is, a relatively large volume of vehicles traveling at high speeds on SR 316 would be likely to conflict with the growing number of motorists accessing or crossing over SR 316 at cross streets. In light of existing conditions and considering the amount of traffic growth that is anticipated in this corridor, grade-separating the intersections is the optimum long term improvement option ensuring the safety and mobility concerns will be adequately addressed.

If minimizing cost and environmental impacts were the highest priorities, Strategy A (Future Baseline Condition) and Strategy B (ITS and intersection improvements) would be recommended for further analysis. In light of cost savings, consideration was given to the possibility of combining elements of Strategy A or Strategy B with the freeway options. However, it did not make sense to formulate a hybrid strategy on different sections of SR 316 without significantly compromising gains in safety and mobility. In addressing implementation issues later in the report, a hybrid alternative may make sense in an interim capacity as staged construction of the full, long-range improvement could take many years under the traditional funding scenario. Also, elements of Strategy B would be important as short term recommendations if implementation of the long term recommendation is delayed.
In addition to safety, the next most common issues voiced by local elected officials, stakeholders and the general public throughout the study's development were economic development and mobility. To determine if any more strategies could be eliminated prior to more detailed evaluation, the three freeway-type strategies were screened in more detail to determine how well they would address economic development and mobility issues in the corridor.
With regards to economic development, each of the freeway-type strategies were limited in their ability to offer either direct, or "nearby", access to properties immediately adjacent to SR 316. To address this issue, collectordistributor roads (C-D) and/or frontage roads, parallel to SR 316 could be added to those strategies featuring a freeway-type design. Inclusion of C-D and/or frontage roads would raise the right-of-way and construction costs for each of the freeway alternatives significantly.
The 4-lane freeway without HOV lanes (Strategy C) would be adequate in meeting the mobility needs of existing and future development in the shortterm, but not through the year 2025. Based on population and total employment forecasts in the corridor, significant traffic congestion would be apparent by the horizon year. Based on the growth forecast, the 4-lane freeway with HOV lanes (Strategy D) and 6-lane freeway without HOV lanes (Strategy E) would better accommodate anticipated future growth compared to Strategy C.
As alluded to in the screening for economic development, Strategy D and Strategy E are preferred to Strategy C due to their ability to minimize congestion and delay on SR 316, particularly in later years of the planning horizon, near 2025. Strategy E has a significant drawback in terms of mobility; it could contribute to congestion at the SR 316/I-85 interchange. This is because more traffic would arrive at this interchange in a shorter period of time as a result of the additional general-purpose lane. Recurring traffic tieups experienced by westbound morning commuters heading towards southbound I-85 could be more frequent and last longer. As for mobility and the potential to encourage carpool and transit opportunities in Barrow and Oconee Counties, Strategy D is preferred over other freeway-type strategies.
5-5

Therefore, Strategy D (4-Lane Freeway With HOV Lanes) is the long-term option that is most responsive to transportation and land-use issues in the SR 316 corridor. It should be particularly effective in terms of its potential to reduce the number of severe accidents while affording mobility for motorists by supporting the development of alternative transportation modes. Under this strategy, there would also be increased roadway capacity in Barrow and Oconee counties an important feature evident in light of the growth expected throughout the 25 year planning window. This additional capacity and availability of commuting options will also support economic development activity in the corridor.
For these reasons, Strategy D, in combination with added C-D or frontage roads running parallel to SR 316 along selected sections, was identified by the study for further analysis for these reasons:
The reduction in severe-types of accidents; Alleviate roadway congestion and delay; Support alternative travel modes through the entire corridor; and Accommodate growth and economic development.
As part of its further analysis, Strategy D (the four-lane freeway with HOV lanes) evolved into two variations, which are referred to as "alternatives". Each alternative includes HOV lanes, but differ because one alternative would have the HOV lanes be separated from the general-purpose lanes by a barrier, while the other alternative would not have the HOV lanes separated by a physical barrier.
For identification purposes, the barrier separated variation is referred to as Alternate 1 (of Strategy D) and the non-barrier separated HOV lane option as Alternate 2 (of Strategy D). Cross sections of each alternative's proposed design are shown in Figure 5-2.
Both alternatives have significantly different operational and design characteristics. Alternative 1 would have a 130 feet traveled way, with shoulders that would fit into SR 316's existing right-of-way. Due to the barrier separating HOV lanes from general purpose lanes, access to the HOV lanes would be limited. As such, HOV-type vehicles would be able to get to and from the HOV lanes using special HOV-only ramps at specific interchanges. Alternative 2 does not have an inside shoulder and the traveled way is 120 feet.
Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis

State Route 316 Co6 rridor Study
Figure 5-2 Proposed Cross-Sectional Design Options - HOV Facility
130 Ft.

10 Ft. Shoulder

12 Ft.

13 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

10 Ft. 14 Ft.
Shoulder
HOV Lane

Shoulder Shoulder

5 Ft. 5 Ft.

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

10 Ft.
Shoulder

13 Ft.

12 Ft. 10 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

Shoulder

4-Lane SOV With Barrier Separated HOV Lanes
Alternate 1

120 Ft.

10 Ft. Shoulder

12 Ft.

12 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

13 Ft. 13 Ft. Shoulder Shoulder

14 Ft.
HOV Lane

12 Ft.

12 Ft. 10 Ft.

General Purpose Lanes

Shoulder

4-Lane SOV With Barrier Median and HOV Lanes
Alternate 2

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Analysis 5-6

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 6 - Evaluation of Alternatives

The two alternatives identified for Strategy D were further investigated by the study though a detailed screening. The following discussion provides a more detailed description of each alternative as well as a comparison of their benefit-cost analyses, travel time savings, safety, cost, operations and accessibility.
6.1 Alternative Definitions
Operationally, the two alternatives would function differently. Alternative 1 would have interchanges on SR 316 that would not provide exclusive access to the HOV lanes. If HOV-eligible vehicles did not use these interchanges to access SR 316, they would not be able to get into the HOV lanes once they were on SR 316. In contrast, Alternative 2 would allow HOV-eligible vehicles to get into the HOV lane after entering SR 316 from any interchange.
To provide the level of detail necessary to study each alternative, specific SR 316 mainline and HOV lane configurations were assumed. This included identifying which existing cross streets would have a future interchange (and access) to SR 316 and which would not. Interchanges were identified based on existing travel demand and minimum interchange spacing thresholds. This study recommends specific interchanges, yet it recognizes that subsequent project-level studies on SR 316, which could include detailed analyses of environmental, design and right-of-way issues, could alter the location of these interchanges.
Both alternatives would include collector-distributor (C-D) roads to serve accessibility, operational and safety needs in Gwinnett County. Preliminary analyses of the horizon year traffic volumes showed that these C-D roads would be needed for operational and safety reasons on SR 316 around the north side of Lawrenceville. Costs for constructing the C-D roads in Gwinnett County are included in the total project cost estimates for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.

6.1.1 Alternative 1: Four-Lane Freeway With Barrier Separated HOV Lanes

This alternative would involve replacement of the existing, 32-foot grassy median with: (1) HOV-lanes; (2) outside and inside shoulders adjacent to the HOV lanes; and, (3) physical barriers separating general-purpose lanes from concurrent flow HOV lane traffic as well as separation from the HOV lane flowing in the opposite direction. As noted before, this alternative differs from Alternative 2 due to the physical barrier.

Under this alternative, access to and from the HOV lanes would be from designated HOV-only interchanges whose locations are listed in Table 6-1 and shown graphically on Figure 6-1.

Table 6-1 Alternative 1 - Exclusive HOV Access Locations

Herrington

To & From East Only

Gwinnett

LawrencevilleSuwanee

Walther Blvd.

Kilcrease

SR 324/

Barrow

Carl Bethlehem Harry McCarty

Harrison Mill

Barber Creek

Oconee

Dials Mill Mars Hill

To & From West Only
To & From East Only Full Access
Full Access
Full Access Full Access Full Access Full Access Full Access

Under Alternative 1, there would be three types of interchanges in the entire corridor: 14 interchanges that would provide access only to the generalpurpose lanes, five "hybrid" interchanges providing access to and from the general-purpose lanes and the HOV lanes, and ten "HOV-only" interchanges providing exclusive access to the HOV lanes (listed in Table 6-1).

These existing cross streets would be grade-separated to cross over SR 316, but would not provide access to SR 316 or its HOV lanes:
Wall Road in Barrow County; McNutt Creek Road in Oconee County; and Julian Drive in Oconee County.
6.1.2 Alternative 2: Four-Lane Freeway With NonBarrier Separated HOV Lanes
Alternative 2 would not have physical barriers separating its HOV lanes from the adjacent general-purpose lanes. Instead, traffic in the general-purpose lanes would be separated from HOV lane traffic only by pavement markings, similar to the HOV lanes currently operating in the Atlanta region. Therefore, HOV-eligible traffic would enter and leave the HOV-lanes from the generalpurpose lanes where pavement markings permit; and, access to the generalpurpose lanes would be from any interchange. . There would be no HOVonly interchanges under this alternative.
Interchange locations identified for Alternative 2 are shown in Figure 6-2. Unlike Alternative 1, HOV lane access is not restricted to specific interchange locations. Therefore, more cross streets are assumed to be grade-separated as a "cross-over" compared to Alternative 1. These locations would be:
Walther Boulevard./Hurricane Shoals in Gwinnett County; Kilcrease Road in Barrow County; Carl Bethlehem Road in Barrow County; Harry McCarty Road in Barrow County; Harrison Mill Road in Barrow County; Wall Road in Barrow County; Barber Creek Road in Barrow County; Dials Mill Road in Oconee County; McNutt Creek Road in Oconee County; Mars Hill Road in Oconee County; and Julian Drive in Oconee County.

6-1

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 6-1 Access Locations - Alternative 1

LEGEND
Interchange Grade Separation Partial HOV Interchange Full HOV Interchange Frontage Road HOV/Express Lanes

SR 20 Collins Hill Rd

Sugarloaf Pkwy I-85/Boggs Rd

SR 120

US 29/SR 8 Hurricane Trl

Harbins Rd Drowning Creek Rd
SR 81 Bethlehem Rd

Alternate 1

Harry McCarty Rd

Statham Rd / SR 324

Wall Rd

Barber Creek Rd McNutt Rd

Herrington Rd Riverside Pkwy
Lawrenceville-Suwanee Rd
Walther Blvd/ Hurricane Shoals

Hi-Hope Rd Cedars Rd
Northern Arc

Patrick Mill Rd Kilcrease Rd

Dials Mill Rd Bogart Pkwy.

SR 11 Harrison Mill Rd Winder Bypass

US 78/SR 10

Hog Mountain Rd/ SR 53

Mars Hill Rd
Julian Dr

Jimmy Daniel Rd Virgil Langford Rd
Athens Bypass Oconee Connector
McNutt Rd

6-2

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 6-2 Access Locations - Alternative 2

LEGEND
Interchange Grade Separation Partial HOV Interchange
Full HOV Interchange Frontage Road HOV/ Exp ress Lanes

US 29/SR 8 Hurricane Trl SR 20 Collins Hill Rd

Sugarloaf Pkwy I-85/Boggs Rd

SR 120

Alternate 2

Harbins Rd Drowning Creek Rd

SR 81 Bethlehem Rd

Harry McCarty Rd

Statham Rd/ SR 324

Wall Rd

Barber Creek Rd McNutt Rd

He rrington Rd Riverside Pkwy
Lawrenceville-Suwanee Rd
Walthe r Blvd/ Hurricane Shoals

Hi-Hope Rd Cedars Rd
Northern Arc

Patrick Mill Rd Kilcrease Rd
SR 11 Harrison Mill Rd Winder Bypass

Dials Mill Rd Bogart Pkwy

Hog Mountain Rd/ SR 53

Mars Hill Rd US 78/SR 10 Jimmy Daniel Rd

Julian Dr

Athens Bypass Oconee Conne ctor

McNutt Rd

6-3

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

6.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis
A benefit-cost analysis is typically used to indicate the cost-effectiveness of a large public expenditure for public projects. If the computed benefits of a project outweigh its estimated implementation costs, then it is considered a cost-effective investment. Typical factors used in a benefit-cost analysis of transportation projects include: estimated travel time savings of road users; accident reduction estimates; construction cost estimates; and estimates of annual maintenance costs. For this study, the benefit-cost analysis utilized a 20-year benefit-cost stream using a 5% discount rate to adjust future benefits and costs for present worth. The 20-year time frame began in 2005 and ended in 2025 (the horizon year).
To calculate benefits, the baseline condition (also known as Strategy A in Chapter 2), was assumed for analysis purposes to compare travel time and accidents benefits from Alternatives 1 and 2. One of the baseline condition projects depicted in Figure 2-12, the HOV lanes in Gwinnett County, was removed from the baseline condition to eliminate its redundancy in relation to Alternatives 1 and 2.
The computed benefit-cost ratios for Alternatives 1 and 2, both support the significant public investment required for implementation. Specifically, the computed benefit-cost ratio for Alternative 1 is 2.34, while Alternative 2 has a value slightly higher of 2.63.
Travel Time Savings. This user benefit was computed from the study's travel demand model by assigning base year and horizon year trips to the baseline condition, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 highway networks. The calculated travel time savings were based on traffic volumes and travel times for the entire study area. The primary model output used to calculate travel time savings was person hours of travel (PHT). PHT for each of the network scenarios relied on SOV and MOV trips because the measurement unit was persons instead of vehicles. Year 2005 PHT was computed from a straightline interpolation of the base year and horizon year model output.
A summary of each alternative's PHT savings compared to the baseline condition is presented in Table 6-2. Under Alternative 1, Year 2005 daily PHT was 15,918 hours less than in the baseline condition. By the horizon year, the computed PHT savings relative to the baseline condition increased to 34,087 hours. PHT savings in Alternative 2 were 15,947 hours and 32,788 hours for 2005 and 2025, respectively, in relation to the baseline condition.

Table 6-2 Daily Person Hours of Travel (2000 and 2025)

Reference Years
2005 2025

Future Baseline Daily PHT 1
1,363,575 2,813,926

1 Person Hours of Travel

Alternate 1

Daily PHT 1
1,347,657 2,779,839

Difference From
Baseline
15,918 34,087

Alternate 2

Daily PHT 1
1,347,628 2,781,138

Difference From
Baseline
15,947 32,788

In addition to the PHT estimates coming from the study's model, other factors went into calculating travel time savings. First, daily savings in PHT were converted to an annual savings by applying a factor of 300. Second, the value of time used to convert hours to dollars was $14.35 per hour. This amount was lower than the current average hourly labor rate for all metro Atlanta area workers, as well as the average for truck drivers. Applying these assumed values to the PHT savings produced the total dollar equivalent travel time benefits listed below.
Alternative 1
Year 2005 - $ 68,524,000 Year 2025 - $146,744,535
Alternative 2
Year 2005 - $ 68,652,696 Year 2025 - $141,152,340

Modeled travel time savings from the two alternatives are shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. They show that the estimated time savings for both alternatives are essentially the same and are therefore both represented by a single label called "Build Alternatives". Sampled routes represented in these same figures are for motorists traveling from the center of Lawrenceville to selected destinations in the corridor.
Figures 6-3 and 6-4 differ in that they are for the off-peak and peak period times-of-day, respectively. Calculation of the off-peak time-of-day was developed using the free-flow speeds and link distances on the minimum time path between two places. Calculation of peak period travel times reflected the impacts of congestion. It is important to note that in calculating the off-peak and peak travel times, HOV links were not included so that the

reported times reflect travel time of motorist using the general-purpose lanes of SR 316.
Figure 6-3 Off-Peak Travel Times From Lawrenceville

70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0 DiscoGvewrGinMwnilielnsttnUetnt iTveecrshity CPerongterress CeBBntareirsrrcooweIFnideFulodsrttrYiaal rPGgaoerokSrtgaitaeMPaaUlrlkninivAerthsietnysof Georgia

Baseline
Build Alternatives

For short distance trips in or near Lawrenceville, the calculations predict there would be little or no savings from the "Build Alternatives" (Alternative 1 or 2) compared to the baseline condition. However, as the trip distances increase, travel time savings also increase. Slightly more than ten minutes would be saved on a trip to the University of Georgia in the "Build Alternatives" compared to the baseline condition for the off-peak and peak periods. The off-peak travel time to the University of Georgia under the baseline condition would take 58 minutes, compared to the 47 minutes for "Build Alternatives". It is important to note that the travel time savings shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 are somewhat understated because carpools and buses receive priority treatment in the HOV lanes. If HOV lanes had been used to calculate the minimum travel time, then the "Build Alternatives" would predict an even shorter travel time than those shown in Figure 6-4.
Accident Savings. For the purposes of conducting the benefit-cost analyses, the total accident benefits that would have accumulated as a result of constructing either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 were deemed roughly equivalent compared to the baseline condition. If the design and operational characteristics were considered in more detail, Alternative 1 could be considered a safer design than Alternative 2. Nevertheless, the design of both alternatives would eliminate the at-grade intersections over the entire length of SR 316 which would significantly reduce the number of injury and

6-4

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

fatality accidents in the corridor. In contrast, the baseline condition does not include additional grade-separations outside of those already planned.

Figure 6-4 Peak Period Travel Times From Lawrenceville

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
DiscoGvweirGnMnweiilntltsnUenttivTeercshity PCreongtreerss CeBBnartiresrrocwoeInFdFieuolsdrttrYiaalrGgPeoaorSrkgtaiateMPaUallrnkiinveArtshiteynsof Georgia

Baseline
Build Alternatives

Average annual accident reductions that could be expected for the base year if the existing at-grade intersections were converted to grade-separated interchanges is shown in Table 6-3. The reductions in injury type accidents and fatal accidents are pronounced; a total of 184 fewer injury accidents and 5 less fatal accidents are estimated to occur on SR 316 under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 as compared to the baseline condition.

Table 6-3 Estimated Annual Average Accidents By Severity Type
(Base Year 2000)

Accident Severity
Property Damage Injury Fatality

Without Grade Separation

With

Grade

Accident

Separation Reduction

296

170 126

255

71 184

7

2

5

Prior to applying average costs to the accident savings calculations, an adjustment was done to account for the likelihood that some of the accidents eliminated from SR 316 could occur at ramp intersections at cross streets. The net result of this adjustment was that more property damage type accidents may occur under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 than in the baseline condition; approximately half of the injury accident reduction, and all of the fatal accident reduction, would be expected to happen as a result of gradeseparating the intersections.

Average dollar cost figures applied to the accident reductions as a result of implementing Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 were taken from the Federal Highway Administration's Motor Vehicle Accident Costs Technical Advisory published in 1994. These cost figures were inflated to a year 2005 dollar value for application in the study's benefit-cost analysis. As a result, the estimated net annual dollar savings from Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 for the Year 2005 is $26,900,000 per year as compared to the baseline condition. The projection of the net annual dollar savings to the horizon year increases the total to approximately $63,545,000. This figure was based on horizon year traffic volumes and the base year accident rates with, and without, the presence of grade-separated intersections.

Costs. The costs of implementing Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, along with the annual maintenance expenses, were estimated for comparison with the estimated benefits. The total cost estimated for Alternative 1 is shown in Table 6-4 and is subcategorized by its components: preliminary engineering; right-of-way; HOV lane construction; interchange construction; gradeseparations; C-D roads; and a contingency amount. The estimated total for Alternative 1 is $800,000,000.

Table 6-4 Estimated Project Cost - Alternative 1

Category
Preliminary Engineering Right of way New HOV Retrofit Existing Lanes Interchanges1 Grade Seperations2 Collector/Distributor
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Grand Total

No. Units Avg. Cost/Unit

Cost

-N/A-

-N/A-

$60,000,000

-NA-

-NA-

$175,000,000

40 Miles

$4,075,000 $163,000,000

29 3 1
-NA-NA-NA-

$5,000,000 $145,000,000

$3,000,000 $9,000,000

$175,500,000 $175,500,000

-NA-

$727,500,000

-NA-

$72,750,000

-NA-

$800,250,000

(1) Not including: I-85, Northern Arc, Winder Bypass, Athens Loop (2) Includes Wall Rd., McNutt Creek Rd. and Julian Dr.

Alternative 2 was estimated to cost $700,000,000, which is less than Alternative 1 because its cross-section span is 10 feet shorter; it has fewer interchanges; does not include physical barriers separating general-purpose lanes from the concurrent flow HOV lane traffic; and it would have lower right-of-way costs. Detailed costs are shown in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5 Estimated Project Cost - Alternative 2

Category
Preliminary Engineering Right of way New HOV Retrofit Existing Lanes Interchanges1 Grade Seperations2 Collector/Distributor
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Grand Total

No. Units Avg. Cost/Unit

Cost

-N/A-

-N/A-

$50,000,000

-NA-

-NA-

$145,000,000

40 Miles

$3,650,000 $146,000,000

18 10
1 -NA-NA-NA-

$5,000,000 $90,000,000

$3,000,000 $30,000,000

$175,500,000 $175,500,000

-NA-

$636,500,000

-NA-

$63,650,000

-NA-

$700,150,000

(1) Not including: I-85, Northern Arc, Winder Bypass, Athens Loop (2) Includes Wall Rd., McNutt Creek Rd. and Julian Dr., Walther Blvd.,
Carl Bethlehem, Kilcrease Rd., Harry McCarty Rd., Harrison Mill Rd., Barber Creek Rd., Dials Mill Rd., Mars Hill Rd.
It is important to note that the cost differential between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is based on a preliminary estimate that assumes specific interchange locations, basic interchange designs, and those specific options described earlier about how HOV users would access and leave the HOV lanes. Based on existing development and travel patterns in the SR 316 corridor, the computed cost-effectiveness of the project could be improved by reducing the number of interchanges that were assumed for the benefitcost analysis done in this study. For example, interchanges providing exclusive HOV access under Alternative 1 could be modified to lower this alternative's estimated implementation costs.

6-5

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

6.3 Evaluation
Using the following performance criteria, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were evaluated against each other as well as against the baseline condition: safety and operations, accessibility differences and ability to address future traffic growth. The relative differences for safety and operations were evaluated utilizing the prior HOV implementation experience in metro Atlanta as well as in other areas in North America. For each alternative, accessibility differences were highlighted by each county and by each cross street. Special attention was paid to cross streets that would not have access to SR 316 (via an interchange) or a crossover (allowing north-south traffic to get from one side of SR 316 to the other). Traffic congestion resulting from future traffic growth was calculated using the SR 316 travel demand model.
The results of this evaluation show that Alternative 1 is preferred under the performance criteria as compared to Alternative 2. This is because the HOV and general-purpose lanes, taken together, would allow traffic on the entire corridor to operate better through the system that would physically separate each HOV lane and have HOV-only interchanges.
Operations and Safety. Because barrier-separated HOV facilities are safer than non-barrier separated HOV facilities, Alternative 1 is preferred. In a study done for the U.S. Federal Highway Administration exploring the safety of different HOV lane treatments1, the average total accident rate in the HOV lanes for barrier-separated facilities was 1.5 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel in comparison to 6.7 accidents for non-barrier separated concurrent flow HOV lanes. On average, the total accident rate for a barrierseparated HOV lane was more than 3 times safer than a non-barrier separated HOV lane. This data only provides a safety comparison applicable to the HOV lanes themselves. It does not provide a full comparison that considers the entire facility (HOV lanes and general-purpose lanes together).
A barrier-separated HOV System would also improve operating conditions on the HOV lanes throughout the entire corridor. The combination of barrierseparation and exclusive HOV-only interchanges will preserve the future operating performance on the HOV lanes as well as the general-purpose lanes for a significantly longer period during peak periods than in Alternative 2. Under Alternative 1, HOV-eligible vehicles enter and leave the HOV lane directly from an HOV-only interchange. With exclusive HOV access, HOVeligible vehicles would not have to maneuver across the general-purpose lanes to enter or leave the HOV lanes. In contrast, Alternative 2 would require HOV-eligible vehicles to navigate across the general-purpose lanes to get to the HOV lane. This not only reduces the priority access for HOV
1 Safety Evaluation of Priority Techniques for High Occupancy Vehicles, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979

vehicles to easily enter the HOV lane, but also significantly impacts operating conditions for other motorists in the general-purpose lanes.
In addition to the potential conflicts associated with high levels of traffic weaving, abrupt lane changes would be more likely in Alternative 2. SOV and HOV motorists in slow moving or stopped traffic in congested areas of the general-purpose lanes can be tempted to make sudden lane changes into the HOV lane to avoid congestion. This type of maneuver would result in more side-swipe and rear-end accidents that would further deteriorate the level-of-service on SR 316. With barrier-separation, sudden lane changes from the outermost general-purpose lane to the HOV lane would be eliminated.
The superior future operational and safety advantages from Alternative 1 may not be as noticeable on SR 316 in Barrow and Oconee County. However, these advantages would be most obvious on SR 316 in Gwinnett County where current levels of congestion and roadway performance are very sensitive to operational conditions.
Accessibility. This issue addresses the relative changes that each alternative would have on properties adjacent to or near the existing roadway. Under this criterion, there could be some impacts for land development and its relative accessibility to SR. For a large majority of property owners near the SR 316 right-of-way, however, the proposed changes are beneficial in terms of their accessibility to and crossing SR 316.
To facilitate further evaluation, three types of roadway accessibility were considered:
Full Access refers to the types of vehicles allowed to access the roadway at a specific location. It means that single occupant vehicles (SOV), multi-occupant vehicles (MOV), buses and trucks may use the particular intersection or interchange. It does not refer to the directional orientation or configuration of ramps or to allowable turning movements (as in the case of the baseline condition). Some existing cross street intersections, like Virgil Langford Road in Oconee County, currently allow for right-in and right-out turning movements only. In the context of the baseline condition, this is still considered a Full Access intersection because all vehicle types (SOVs and MOVs) can enter or leave SR 316 at that location. Under Alternative 1, Virgil Langford Road would have HOV-only Access to the HOV lanes on SR 316 as well as Crossover Access, but not Full Access because no vehicles could get to the general-purpose lanes of SR 316 at that location. In Alternative 2, all access to SR 316 at Virgil Langford would be terminated; it would not have Full Access or Crossover Access.

HOV Access indicates that only HOV-eligible traffic would be able to get into or leave the HOV lanes via an HOV-only interchange at or near that particular cross street.
Crossover Access refers to a grade-separated structure that allows all north-south traffic to cross over SR 316 without conflicting with motorists driving on the HOV or general-purpose lanes of SR 316.
Accessibility differences under each alternative in Gwinnett County are highlighted in Table 6-6. Because the baseline condition does not include the Gwinnett County HOV-lanes or the eastward expansion of the freeway type design to Drowning Creek Road, there are significant accessibility differences.
Table 6-6 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Gwinnett County
Future Baseline Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Ful l Access1
HO V Access2 Crossover Access3
Ful l Access1
HO V Access2 Crossover Access3
Ful l Access1
HO V Access2 Crossover Access3

Cross Street
I-85 Boggs Herrington Sugarloaf Pkwy. Riverside Pkwy. Lawrenceville-Suwanee SR 120/Duluth Hwy. Walther Blvd. Collins Ind. Way Collins Hill SR 20/Buford Dr. Hi-Hope Progress Center Cedars Hurricane Tr. Fence US 29/Winder Hwy. Northern Arc Harbins Williams Farm Drowning Ck.

Type access available Type access not available

(1) Access to general purpose lanes for all vehicle types May only serve traffic in one direction
(2) Access to high occupancy vehicle lanes for HOV-eligible vehicles
(3) Grade separation connecting both sides of SR 316

6-6

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

Full Access1
HOV Access2 Crossover Access3
Full Access1
HOV Access2 Crossover Access3
Full Access1
HOV Access2 Crossover Access3 Full Access1 HO V Access2 Crossover Access3 Full Access1 HO V Access2 Crossover Access3 Full Access1 HO V Access2 Crossover Access3

State Route 316 Corridor Study

With Alternative 1 or 2, the following Gwinnett County cross streets would no longer have direct access to general-purpose lanes on SR 316 or the ability to cross over SR 316:
Collins Industrial Way Progress Center/Airport Road; Fence Road; and Williams Farm Road.
Under both build alternatives, the existing direct access at Walther Boulevard/Hurricane Trail, Collins Industrial Way, and other individual properties west of Hi-Hope Road would be eliminated or modified. If C-D or frontage roads were to be constructed as part of Alternatives 1 or 2, the accessibility impacts on these areas would be significantly lessened.
The accessibility differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 pertain to where multi-occupant vehicles are permitted to enter or leave the HOV lanes. For example, there would be crossover access at Walther Blvd./Hurricane Shoals in Alternative 1 that would not be provided in Alternative 2. In Alternative 1, access for multi-occupant vehicles to the HOV lanes would only be at HOV-only interchanges identified earlier in this chapter and are also noted in Table 6-6. In Alternative 2, HOV eligible vehicles would be permitted to access HOV lanes at any of the proposed interchanges by entering SR 316 and maneuvering across the generalpurpose lanes. Five of the grade-separated interchanges providing full access in Gwinnett County are proposed to serve the HOV-lanes, see Figure 6-6. These include Hi-Hope Road, Cedars Road, the proposed Northern Arc, Harbins Road and Drowning Creek Road.
Accessibility differences in Barrow County are highlighted in Table 6-7. The baseline condition assumed that existing access will remain for purposes of this analysis, although GDOT could implement turning movement restrictions at some locations if future accident experience warrants access management changes. Based upon that assumption, there is full access at all 17 cross streets under the baseline condition. Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would scale back access on SR 316 to the six.
Under Alternative 1 or 2, the existing cross streets would no longer have access to the general-purpose lanes on SR 316: Kilcrease Road, Carl Bethlehem Road, Harry McCarty Road, Harrison Mill Road, Smith Cemetary Road, Jackson Trail Road, Cosby Road, Wall Road, McCarty Road, Barber Creek Road and Craft Road. Crossover access, however, would be provided at: Kilcrease Road, Carl Bethlehem, Harry McCarty Road, Harrison Mill, Wall Road and Barber Creek Road. Locations that have access currently but where access is completely eliminated under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are listed below:

Smith Cemetary between Winder and Bethlehem; Jackson Trail outside Winder; Cosby Road between Winder and Statham; McCarty Road outside Statham; and Craft Road outside Statham.
If frontage roads were to be constructed along SR 316 in Barrow County, the accessibility impact from Alternatives 1 or 2 would be lessened.

Table 6-7 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Barrow County

Future Baseline Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Cross Street
Kilcrease Patrick Mill SR 324/Carl Bethlehem SR 81/Charles Floyd Harry McCarty SR 11/Monroe Hwy. Harrison Mill Winder Bypass Smith Cemetary Jackson Trail SR 53/Hog Mountain Cosby Wall McCarty SR 324/Statham Barber Creek Craft
Type access available
Type access not available

(1) Access to general purpose lanes for all vehicle types May only serve traffic in one direction
(2) Access to high occupancy vehicle lanes for HOV-eligible vehicles
(3) Grade separation connecting both sides of SR 316

The accessibility differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in Barrow County focus on how multi-occupant vehicles would be permitted to enter or leave the HOV lanes. None of the Full Access interchanges in Barrow County were proposed to serve the barrier separated HOV-lanes proposed in Alternative 1. Therefore, access for multi-occupant vehicles to the HOV-lanes would occur at different interchanges in Alternative 1 than in Alternative 2.

Accessibility differences in Oconee County are highlighted in Table 6-8. In the baseline condition it is assumed, for the purpose of this analysis, that existing access will remain, although GDOT could implement turning movement restrictions at some locations if future accident experience warrants access management changes. Based upon that assumption, there is full access at all 11 cross streets under the baseline condition. As defined for evaluation purposes, both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would reduce access to SR 316 to the five locations indicated in Table 6-8. Existing access to the general-purpose lanes would be eliminated under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 at: Dials Mill Extension, Dials Mill Road, McNutt Creek, Mars Hill, Julian Drive and Virgil Langford. Crossover access would be provided at several locations: Dials Mill Road, McNutt Creek Road, Mars Hill and Julian Drive. The only location with current direct access to SR 316 that would be eliminated and not have the ability to cross over SR 316 under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is the Dials Mill Extension outside Bogart.

Table 6-8 Accessibility By Vehicle Type - Oconee County

Future Baseline Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Cross Street Dials Mill Ext. Dials Mill Bogart Pkwy. McNutt Creek Mars Hill US 78/M. Moina Hwy. Julian Dr. Jimmy Daniel Virgil Langford Oconee Connector SR 10/Athens Loop
Type access available
Type access not available

(1) Access to general purpose lanes for all vehicle types May only serve traffic in one direction
(2) Access to high occupancy vehicle lanes for HOV-eligible vehicles
(3) Grade separation connecting both sides of SR 316

Consistent with the expectation in Barrow and Gwinnett counties, if frontage roads were to be constructed along SR 316 in Oconee County, the impact on accessibility would be significantly reduced.

6-7

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Accessibility differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in Oconee County focus on how multi-occupant vehicles enter or leave the HOV lanes. None of the full access interchanges in Oconee County were proposed to serve the barrier separated HOV-lanes proposed in Alternative 1. Therefore, access for multi-occupant vehicles to the HOV-lanes would occur at different interchanges in Alternative 1 than in Alternative 2. These differences are highlighted in Table 6-8.
Traffic Congestion. A comparative profile of horizon year traffic congestion is displayed in Figure 6-5 for the baseline condition, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. The illustration shows the relationship between future travel demand on SR 316 and the vehicle capacity of SR 316. Where the shaded areas rise above the red line, (which represents a LOS D service volume) congestion is likely. The LOS D service volume is not the threshold associated with bottleneck conditions, but nearing it. On portions where the shaded area greatly exceeds the service volume line, there is more congestion than on those segments where the shaded area narrowly crosses the red line.
Because no significant increases to SR 316's capacity are included in the baseline condition, traffic on substantial portions of the roadway will be congested, and for longer periods of time, in the horizon year. In fact, the study predicts that by the horizon year, travel demand and roadway congestion could extend along the entire corridor. The threshold for this future congestion under the baseline condition is predicted to be the same as under the corridor's existing conditions: varying from 76,000 vehicles per day west of SR 120 and 50,000 daily vehicles east of SR 120. Existing travel demand capacity on SR 316 in Gwinnett County already exceeds the LOS D service volume. The worst congestion in the horizon year is expected to occur at the western end, between I-85 and Drowning Creek Road, just as it currently does. Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 would not likely do away with all future year congestion on SR 316; however, these two alternates would eliminate congestion from most of the corridor and dramatically reduce it in Gwinnett County, resulting in significantly improved traffic flow through the horizon year.
The design of both alternatives includes: (1) a new HOV lane in each direction for the entire length of the corridor; (2) new auxiliary lanes between I-85 and SR 120 in Gwinnett County; and, (3) a new collector-distributor roadway system between SR 120 and Winder Highway/SR 8 in Gwinnett County. These improvements substantially increase SR 316's ability to move traffic efficiently -- especially in Gwinnett County. Under Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 the daily LOS D service volume increases to 130,000 vehicles per day from Winder Highway/SR 8 to I-85. It expands to 98,000 vehicles per day east of Winder Highway/SR 8.

The study's analysis of horizon year congestion under both alternates predicts there could be varying degrees of congestion from I-85 to Drowning Creek Road. In comparison with the baseline condition, however, there would be significantly less congestion throughout the corridor under either alternative. This congestion level is indicated by the narrower amount of shaded area above the red line in Figure 6-5 on all portions of SR 316.
With only 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day above LOS D service volume on SR 316 in the horizon year between I-85 and Drowning Creek Road, Alternatives 1 and 2 will distribute traffic through the corridor roadway network much better than under the baseline condition (40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day above LOS D service volume). Under the baseline condition, much of this additional traffic would most likely have to be absorbed by the local street system, i.e., more motorists on the local streets seeking a secondary route to complete their trip. This diversion of traffic from SR 316 could happen because these secondary roadways would appear to be as good, or better, routes to use than the primary system of roads. This situation would lead to an undesirable mix of motorists on local streets: those making local trips would be mixing with an increasing number of time sensitive, longer distance trips in the vicinity of subdivisions, schools and other community facilities. The result would be longer travel times and greater congestion for all motorists on the secondary roadways.
An important feature of both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 is that with the HOV lanes proposed in these alternatives there will be a significant increase in the capacity to move people as opposed to just moving vehicles. HOV facilities intrinsically carry more people by offering better traffic flow to the multioccupant vehicles. In terms of "person-movements" and "person capacity", as opposed to the movement of vehicles and vehicle capacity, Alternatives 1 and 2 will effectively offer substantially more capacity because there will be more carpools, vanpools, and users of public transportation.
Even under Alternate 1 and Alternate 2, forecasted travel demand exceeds the LOS D vehicle capacity of SR 316 in Gwinnett County and a portion of western Barrow. In order to address this increasing demand, the implementation of express bus and commuter rail service (as specifically included in the baseline condition) that would complement this study's recommendations for SR 316, will likely be needed to provide adequate commuting options within the corridor.

6-8

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

Future Baseline
Alternate 1
Alternate 2

175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000
75,000 50,000
175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000
75,000 50,000
175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000
75,000 50,000

74,000 130,000 130,000

State Route 316 Corridor Study
Figure 6-5 Future Year 2025 Traffic Congestion

50,000

98,000 98,000

505,00,0000

I-85 Sugarloaf Pkwy State Route 120 State Route 20 Winder Hwy (SR 8)
Northern Arc Drowning Creek Patrick Mill Road
State Route 81 State Route 11 Winder Bypass State Route 53 Statham Road (SR
211) US 78/SR 10 Oconee Connector Athens Loop

LEGEND 50,000

Estimated service volume (vehicles per day) for LOS D Estimated 2025 Daily Traffic Volume from SR 316 travel demand model

6-9

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 7 - Implementation

The study findings include short range and long term transportation improvements on SR 316. The short-range recommendations include projects that can reasonably be expected to be implemented in the next five years. The initial time frame for long-term improvements covered a 6-25 year planning horizon but was adjusted to a 5-10 year horizon because of the need for prompt implementation of the full set of recommended improvements.
Both the short range and long term elements of the SR 316 Improvement Plan consist of projects whose justification resulted from analyses in this study, as well as projects whose justification and sponsorship was determined prior to this study. Projects in the short-range element that provide immediate improvements to operational and safety conditions on SR 316are provisional. They are provisional in the sense that the decision to implement them should consider how quickly elements of the long-term plan could be implemented. The amount of operational and safety benefits anticipated from the shortrange improvements are small in comparison with those expected from the long-range elements. Moreover, benefits from short-range projects would last only until the construction phase of the long-range improvements begin. As such, the decision to allocate resources for implementation of the short range improvements on SR 316 should be weighed against the anticipated timeline associated with funding and implementation of the long range improvements to SR 316.
A crucial issue affecting the implementation of the recommended long-range transportation plan for the SR 316 Corridor is funding. The sheer scope of SR 316 improvements relegates it to the category of major public investment. The state has typically funded these types of major projects through traditional funding sources (federal and state funds) or a combination of traditional and innovative financing. Funding decisions have been based on the availability of alternative resources, the viability of the project and the urgency of the public need and purpose.
The first step in developing a funding element for SR 316 improvements is to establish and agree upon the preferred alternate concept. Then the estimated cost of the preferred alternate would be matched with potential funding sources. The funding sources explored include traditional and innovative combinations of federal funding, state resources, private resources, and local funds. Based on the mix of available resources, different short-term improvements and construction staging scenarios can be developed.
Successful implementation of the study's recommendations will rely on coordinating the institutional relationships of the public and private entities involved, as well as the roles and responsibilities of each in financing, design, construction and operations. This chapter includes a description of the short-

range improvement plan; selection of the preferred alternate for SR 316; a description of the long-range transportation plan for the SR 316 Corridor; and, a discussion of different sources of potential funding and their availability for funding the recommended long-range improvements. This chapter will also address other implementation issues such as agency coordination and the next steps for further development of the recommendations.
7.1 Short-Range Plan Recommendations
Prior to this study, GDOT had already been implementing relatively easy and low cost intersection improvements to increase safety and operations on SR 316. These have included the following types of treatments:
Installation of flashing beacons on traffic signals at intersections with high accident frequency;
Added or lengthened turn lanes to separate vehicles turning off of SR 316 from traffic on the mainline; and,
Access management strategies that eliminated through and left-turn movements from unsignalized intersections where the accident experience suggested that less access would produce safer conditions.
Safety gains expected from intersection modifications or piecemeal access management strategies are smaller in comparison with those anticipated from grade-separating the existing intersections. These grade-separations, as featured in this study's long-range recommendations, should produce significant increases in safety.
7.1.1 Short Range Projects - SR 316
Short-range projects are those having relatively low costs that can be implemented relatively quickly. They were obtained by evaluating results from the operational and safety analyses of existing conditions. Due to their relative simplicity and unsystematic nature, they will not solve the operational and safety problems on SR 316, but could provide marginal safety and/or slightly better operations at specific intersections. These projects can be grouped into three categories: traffic control; geometric improvements; and, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) solutions.
Traffic Control. These measures are focused on reducing the number of turning movement conflicts. As such, their primary emphasis is to improve safety; however, they also improve traffic operations somewhat. Several types of traffic control changes were identified: (1) adding more phases to a signal to allow turning movements to occur without conflict with opposing traffic; (2) increasing green time for specific phases; (3) increasing green

time of a protected left-turn; (4) adding new traffic signals to unsignalized intersections; and, (5) replacing yield signs with stop-controlled cross streets. Table 7-1 identifies these intersections and the specific modifications proposed. These improvements were based mainly on deficient operations, particularly in the urban intersections in Gwinnett County, but accident experience was also examined as a potential reason for improvement.
Table 7-1 Recommended Traffic Control Improvements

Intersection
Riverside Pkwy Progress Center Avenue Hurricane Trail State Route 8 State Route 11 Mars Hill Road US 78/SR 10 Virgil Langford Road

Traffic Control Improvements
Increase green time for left-turns on EB exit ramp
Add new traffic signal
Add protected-left signal phase to EB SR 316 Add protected-left signal phase to NB Winder Hwy. Add protected-left signal phase to NB SR 11 Replace Yield signs with Stop signs Add new traffic signal to WB exit ramp termini Replace Yield signs with Stop signs
Total

Estimated Cost
$5,000 $50,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$50,000
$5,000
$130,000

Funds for implementing these traffic control improvements can come from a number of local, state, and federal spending accounts for transportation improvements. To minimize the funding impact on other recommended priority projects in the corridor, and in light of the relatively small cost, the study recommends that the Lump Sum Safety category of state and federal funds be pursued if these projects are developed.
Geometric Intersection Improvements. This category of short-range improvements includes the construction of new or additional turn lanes at intersections. They generally improve safety by removing slower moving vehicles from the path of faster moving vehicles that are traveling through the intersection. The addition of left-turn lanes also increases an intersection's storage capacity by reducing delay to motorists in the through-lanes. Similarly, right-turn lanes allow turning traffic to make a right-turn-on-red without being blocked behind vehicles waiting to turn left or travel through the intersection. Table 7-2 contains a list of geometric intersection improvements that were identified as a result of the operational and safety analyses (for existing conditions).

7-1

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Table 7-2 Recommended Geometric Intersection Improvements

Intersection

Description

Hi-Hope Road

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Extend right-turn lane on SB approach

Fence Road

Add right-turn lane to SB approach

State Route 8

Add 2nd left-turn lane to EB SR 316

Harbins Road

Extend left-turn lane on NB approach

Drowning Creek Road Add left-turn lane on NB approach

Patrick Mill Road

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

Carl Bethlehem

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

US 78/SR 10

Extend WB Right-turn lane

Kilcrease Road2

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

Harrison Mill Road2

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

Dials Mill Road2

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

McNutt Creek Road2

Add left-turn lane to SB approach/ Add left-turn lane to NB approach

Total

Estimated Cost1
$350,000 $200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $150,000 $500,000
$400,000 $250,000 $200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$3,250,000

(1) Costs do not include design, utility relocation or right-of-way (2) Provisional recommendation for implementation

The last four intersection improvements listed in the table are provisional recommendations. Their justification is based on results of the operational analyses which indicated that vehicles on some minor street approaches to SR 316 experience long delays while waiting to turn onto or cross over SR 316. In terms of safety, these improvements could be counterproductive because less delay on the unsignalized cross streets could encourage more turning movements onto SR 316 at these intersections -- it would be desirable to move these turning movements to signalized intersections
The costs for individual geometric projects are estimates that do not include design, utility relocation or right-of-way. Actual costs could vary significantly from those listed in Table 7-2 depending on the need for utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, excavation and drainage treatments.
Compared to traffic control modifications, these types of short-range improvements require significant. As such, the decision to implement these, especially, should carefully consider how quickly construction could begin on the recommended long-range improvements to SR 316. Obtaining funds for these improvements could adversely affect the availability of funds for the

long-range improvements recommended for SR 316 as well as other high priority improvements proposed elsewhere.
Funding for the geometric improvements in Table 7-2 could come from a number of local, state or federal spending accounts. Partial funding by local governments is practical for these improvements when the cross street intersecting SR 316 is a local road. Time to develop and implement local funding agreements is required that could lessen the time period that operational and safety benefits accumulate from the improvement. Any issues that delay implementation of these improvements could significantly reduce their cost-effectiveness.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Short-range ITS strategies can be implemented along SR 316 to improve safety and reduce congestion. A more extensive ITS infrastructure can be achieved with a fiber optic backbone installed along the entire corridor. While this treatment would be more applicable in the in the long ranger vision, there are some short-term ITS improvements that could be marginally effective in improveing safety and traffic flow on SR 316.
Speed/queue detection stations provide for enhanced safety at specific locations having safety concerns. In particular, these systems can identify driving conditions where motorists may be traveling too fast for conditions, especially as they approach to intersections where delays are present. If necessary, such systems could be initially installed on a standalone basis, i.e. not integrated into GDOT's NaviGAtor system, or integrated on a temporary basis (until the fiber optic backbone is in place) using wireless communications. The estimated cost for equipping an intersection approach with the speed/queue detection is $65,000; a typical intersection it would cost $130,000 to furnish both approaches.
Red light running cameras. Many jurisdictions across the nation are using red light cameras to increase compliance and improve safety. Such systems do not require a law enforcement officer to be present to observe the offence and issue a citation or attend time-consuming court hearings. Red light cameras obviate the need for dangerous chases in the event that the violator does not stop. They also provide round-the-clock deterrence. Specific locations for red light cameras on SR 316 are not recommended because they will depend on local characteristics and law enforcement jurisdictions' participation. The estimated capital cost per intersection is $110,000. Annual maintenance and operating costs per intersection would be around $60,000 per year.
During construction of any short-range or long-range improvements in the corridor, ITS components provide the means to enhance safety and mobility through work zones. Using combinations of portable detection, surveillance, control, and traveler information devices (signs and radio), ITS components can be used on a temporary basis to reduce delays, or provide notice of delays, and enhance safety through work zones for motorists and workers. Interfaces could be with the statewide TMC, local TCCs, or even temporary control centers. As work zones are completed, the portable devices can be dynamically relocated to other active work zones.
7-2

In addition to these general ITS components, there are two elements specifically identified to be placed at several intersections. These include flashing warning lights plus a "Signal Ahead" warning sign on an intersection approach; and flashing strobe lights installed on the signal head to alert drivers of red lights. These two elements presently exist at some SR 316 intersections and it is recommended that they be added or upgraded to several others. Higher intensity flashing lights (using LED-type beacons) displayed prominently at intersections will improve the drivers' awareness at intersection approaches. Table 7-3 lists intersection locations where flashing light type improvements would be effective. Funding for the implementation of these warning devices could be pursued through state and federal lump sum allocation for safety improvements.
Table 7-3 Flashing Light Intersection Improvements

Intersection
Collins Hill Road Progress Center Avenue Cedars Road Winder Hwy./SR 8 Harbins Road Patrick Mill Road Carl Bethlehem Road State Route 81
Total

Estimated Cost
Flashing Strobe Beacons1 Lights2
$30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500 $30,000 $2,500
$240,000 $20,000

Notes: (1) Flashing beacons with Signal Ahead warning
lights. Per two approaches. (2) Red single section traffic signal heads with
strobe lights. Per approach.

7.1.2 Previously Planned Short Range Projects

Several significant transportation improvements could be fully implemented in the SR 316 Corridor during the next five years. These are multi-million dollar projects are reflected in the baseline condition. They are not all located directly on SR 316, but are improvements to roads feeding into SR 316. They will provide short-term relief in terms of mobility in the corridor. They are also important in terms of creating the type of transportation infrastructure that will be needed to fully implement the long-term transportation improvements. They offer early opportunities to acquire property for future park-and-ride lots that will be needed to make HOV lanes function effectively. They include:

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

I-85 at SR 316 An interchange reconstruction project in Gwinnett County.
Duluth Highway/SR 120 (Sugarloaf Parkway to Riverside Parkway) A road widening project in Gwinnett County that will increase the number of existing lanes from 2 to 4.
Winder Bypass (SR 316 to SR 53) A new 4-lane road in Barrow County that will bypass the City of Winder on the east side of the City.
SR 53/Mars Hill Road (SR 15 to SR 316) A road widening project in Oconee County that will increase the number of lanes to a total of four.
Gwinnett County expects to raise almost $200 million for transportation improvements from its most recent Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST) over the next four years. As property development occurs and transportation improvements are planned in the SR 316 corridor in the shortrange, Gwinnett County could be a significant partner in planning and providing the needed support system that will make HOV lanes function effectively in the SR 316 corridor.
In addition, the Gwinnett County portion of the proposed Northern Arc project could receive construction funds during the next five years. The proposed Northern Arc is planned as a 4-lane, controlled access facility on new alignment that would have a limited number of interchanges. While it would divert traffic off the most congested sections of SR 316 and improve mobility in the SR 316 corridor, it would not provide as good an opportunity for park-and-ride lots as the other short-range improvements listed above.
7.2 Long Range Plan Recommendations
Two sets of alternates were developed for SR 316 based on study's analyses results. Both included grade-separating interchanges for access to SR 316. An HOV lane in each direction is recommended to address the future travel demand in the entire. These HOV lanes would also assist in relieving current congestion by satisfying the high occupancy vehicle demand that currently exists. Moreover, the HOV lane concept can be coordinated with the existing HOV improvements on I-85 and the forthcoming improvement of the I-85/ SR 316 interchange. As noted previously, this study analyzed two HOV alternatives for SR 316. Tables 7-4 and 7-5 detail the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
Alternate 1- Barrier Separated HOV Lanes - Exclusive access to the HOV lanes would be from HOV-only interchanges. There would be no access to and from the HOV lanes by way of the general purpose lanes.

Table 7-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Barrier Separated HOV
Alternate 1 Barrier Separated HOV Lanes Has potential to offer very high level-of-service to HOV-eligible vehicles and to motorists in the general purpose lanes as well.
In terms of safety, it eliminates weaving conflicts between HOV lane motorists and vehicles in general purpose lanes and eliminates the temptation of motorists in general purpose lanes from making abrupt maneuver in attempt to get into faster moving HOV lane.
In terms of operations, with elimination of weaving movements between HOV and general purpose lanes, traffic flow in the general purpose lanes will be smoother. Enforcement of HOV-lane violators is made easier May reduce overall accessibility to HOV lanes, but provides better access for those HOV-eligible vehicles who get on and off facility at designated HOV interchanges. HOV barriers could reduce sight distances in HOV and general purpose lanes compromising level-of-service and require additional lighting. Potential to provide high levels of service to niche travelers: carpools, vanpools, and bus transit, especially to certain activity centers. Higher cost in contrast to non-barrier separated HOV. Offers more flexibility in terms of financing options. Barrier separated HOV lanes would allow for the option of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, where the use of excess HOV lane capacity would be available to single occupant vehicles (SOVs) for a fee. It is sometimes impractical to provide exclusive HOV lane access at busy interchanges. Making high volume interchanges operate reasonably well without exclusive HOV ramps is a challenge. With additional HOV ramps at a busy interchange, the ability to develop a cost-effective design with acceptable operating conditions is an even bigger challenge.
Alternate 2- HOV Lanes Without Barriers - This design allows for access to HOV lanes access from any interchange by way of crossing the general purpose lanes. HOV eligible traffic would enter or leave the facility by way of the general purpose lanes along with traffic using the general purpose lanes.

Table 7-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of non-Barrier Separated HOV
Alternate 2 - HOV Lanes Without Barriers Has potential to offer high level-of-service to HOV-eligible vehicles and to motorists in the general purpose lanes under certain conditions. If a majority of motorists using the HOV lanes accessed them and exited off them where the general purpose lanes were not congested, then they would operate better and safety concerns would be lessened. Enforcement of HOV-lane violations is difficult. Improves overall accessibility to HOV lanes. Lower implementation and operational cost in contrast to alternative with barriers. Preliminary cost estimates indicated that Alternate 2 could cost as much as 15% less than Alternate 1. Greater flexibility in terms of conversion to general purpose lanes in the future, if HOV lanes are deemed unsuccessful.
Alternate 1, the barrier separated HOV facility, is recommended for implementation over Alternate 2 for the reasons listed below. It maximizes safety and operations in HOV lanes and general purpose
lanes (see Section 6.3). It will provide a higher level of service for both single occupant vehicle
(SOV) and HOV commuters; It will broaden the number of federal funding opportunities available to
support the implementation of all long-range transportation improvements recommended by the study. It is compatible and readily coordinated with existing and future public transit plans.
7.3 Project Costs
The estimated project cost for implementing Alternate 1 ranges between $750 and $850 million. This cost includes preliminary engineering, right-of-way
acquisition and construction in the following amounts:
Preliminary Engineering- $50 million; Right-of-way- $200-$250 million; and, Construction - $500-$550 million.

7-3

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

The cost estimate includes the access locations identified in Table 7-6 and the recommended improvements listed below.
Reconstructing SR 316 into a freeway-type facility from SR 120 to the Athens Loop.
Adding two barrier separated HOV lanes (one in each direction) over the entire length of SR 316.
Building a collector-distributor road system in Gwinnett County between SR 120 and Winder Hwy/SR 8.
Adding auxiliary lanes between existing interchanges on SR 316 between SR 120 and Boggs Road in Gwinnett County.
Existing land uses and near-term developments make the collectordistributor and auxiliary roads essential for providing adequate operating conditions on the improved facility in Gwinnett County.
The study's long-range transportation plan for the corridor does specify a need for new local (frontage) roads along SR 316 in Barrow and Oconee Counties to improve accessibility for short trips. Implementation of these access roads, including their funding, would primarily be the responsibility of the respective local governments. This estimated cost for Alternate 1 does not include ancillary transportation system improvements, such as: the extension of ITS architecture; express bus service; parking lots for carpooling and bus transfer stations; or, improving approaches on local roads proposed to interchange with SR 316.
7.4 Funding Alternatives
Based upon the estimated $750 to $850 million cost for the study's recommended long-range improvements, it is necessary to determine the potential for available funds to complete the project. There were several approaches investigated to establish a funding program for the recommended improvements. Each approach has an impact on the time frame for project implementation and staging of improvements. The approaches investigated included:
Traditional federal funds; State resources, bonds; Local funds; and, Toll collection.
7.4.1 Traditional Federal Funds
Traditionally, federal funds have been the primary source of funds for major capital improvement projects. Federal funds are programmed by GDOT for projects statewide (including Barrow and Oconee counties) and prioritized

by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) for the Atlanta region (including Gwinnett County).
Table 7-6 Recommended SR 316 Access Locations

General Purpose/ SOV Access Locations Boggs Road Sugarloaf Parkway Riverside Parkway SR 120 Collins Hill Road SR 20 Hi-Hope Road Cedars Road Hurricane Trail US 29/SR 8 Northern Arc Harbins Road Drowning Creek Rd. Patrick Mill Road SR 81 SR 11 Winder Bypass Hog Mt. Road/SR 53 Statham Road/SR 324 Bogart Parkway US 78/SR 10 Jimmy Daniel Road Oconee Connector Athens Bypass

HOV Access Locations Herrington Rd. Lawrenceville- Suwanee Rd. Walther Blvd./Hurricane Shoals High Hope Road Cedars Road Northern Arc Harbins Road Drowning Creek Rd. Kilcrease Road Bethlehem Road Harry McCarty Road Harrison Mill Road Barber Creek Road Dials Mill Road Virgil Langford Road

To illustrate the difficulties of pursuing federal funds needed for the SR 316 improvements, it is necessary to compare the funds needed in light of funds currently being received for the area. For example, most of the SR 316 corridor that is an arterial roadway with at-grade intersections is located in Congressional District 11. The total amount of traditional state and federal transportation funds available for all projects in this district is $100 million per year. As previously noted, the total estimated cost for improving all of SR 316 is estimated to be between $750 million and $850 million. Theoretically, if only traditional state and federal transportation funds were pursued for improving all of SR 316, the upgrade of the corridor would

exclusively consume almost nine complete years worth of available funding. Under this scenario, these funds would not be available for other important and needed transportation projects in the other counties and cities in Congressional District 11. Therefore, it is unlikely that a single project in District 11 would receive such a significant amount of the available federal funds for an extended period of time.
Another major factor influencing the use of federal transportation funds is the state law requiring that transportation funding, on average, be disbursed equally among the state's eleven Congressional Districts. This means that additional federal transportation funds would not be available from other Congressional Districts to use for the recommended improvements on SR 316.
Due to these factors, it is evident that if only traditional federal funds are pursued for the SR 316 improvements, full project implementation could take up to 20 years. The extended time frame is mainly due to the funding and budgetary constraints outlined above. Should federal funds be the only funding option, then the short-range improvements recommended for SR 316 should be implemented as expeditiously as possible.
However, the safety and transportation service needs in the corridor are too critical to treat with short-range projects for an extended period of time. Moreover, additional federal and state resources would be needed to fund geometric intersection improvements which would further exacerbate the ability to obtain federal funds for the long-range SR 316 improvements. It is in this context that GDOT must explore other funding options to supplement the federal available dollars for SR 316 improvements.
7.4.2 State Resources
The State of Georgia has recently approved the sale of bonds to accelerate implementation of two major transportation improvement programs over the next several years. One is the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) consisting primarily of developmental roadways in rural Georgia. The other program is the Governor's Transportation Choices Initiative (TCI) whose goal is to accelerate projects designed to address transportation, environmental and economic development needs in the metro Atlanta and throughout the State. Some of the projects being funded in the TCI program include construction of transit corridors and new HOV lanes.
There are two efforts currently underway which may provide additional State resources to the SR 316 project. One is a proposal bill in the legislature (House Bill 1214) to include SR 316 in the GRIP program. Should this be adopted by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor, then additional resources could be provided for the improvements recommended. The other is a proposal in the draft FY 2003-2005 ARC TIP to include construction of the HOV lanes along SR 316 from I-85 to Drowning Creek

7-4

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

in Gwinnett County. The proposal includes the programming of approximately $174 million worth of improvements to be funded with bonds.

7.4.3 Local Resources

All three counties along SR 316 have traditionally relied on local option sales taxes (SPLOSTS) to construct infrastructure and community facility improvements. A profile of existing SPLOSTS in Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee counties are shown in Table 7-7.

Table 7-7 Local Government SPLOST Initiatives

County

Description Raises approximately $400 million over 4-year period from 2001 to 2004.
Evenly split between Transportation and Community Services leaving approximately$200 million for transportation improvements.
Transportation funding allocated to following categories:

Gwinnett

School Safety; Road Safety; Bridges/Culverts/Drainage; Intersection Improvements; Roadway Improvements; Rehabilitation and Resurfacing; Neighborhood Speed Control; Sidewalk/Pedestrian/Bikeway Improvements; Transportation Planning; and, Unpaved Road Improvements. Raises approximately $40 million over 5-yearperiod from 2001 to 2005
Funds allocated to following types of projects:

Barrow Oconee

Road improvements; Traffic Concerns; Renovation of County Annex; Work Release Program; Senior Citizens Center; Renovate Adult Learning Center; Two new fire stations; Recreational Facilities; Land Acquisition; and , Sewer Expansion. Raises approximately $13.5 million over 5-year period from 2000 to 2004.
Funds allocated to following types of projects:
Water and Sewer System; Recreational and Cultural Facilities; Improvements to roads, streeets and bridges; Animal Shelter Facilities; and, Expansion of County Jail .

The amount of funds have traditionally been limited for Barrow and Oconee and concentrated on countywide improvements. While Gwinnett County's SPLOST revenue is substantial, their unmet transportation and community facility needs transcend the borders of the SR 316 corridor. It does not appear that enough local funds could be allocated to the SR 316 improvements to significantly reduce the $100 to $170 million share of local match needed to secure full funding through the traditional sources. It is possible that some of these local resources would be dedicated to constructing local access roads on an as needed basis and for improvements/upgrades to the cross streets intersecting with SR 316.
7.4.4 Toll Financing
Because there are significant public benefits to be gained, in terms of safety and operations, to be expected by implementing the long-range SR 316 improvement project, the feasibility of using toll revenues was studied as another source of revenue. The major advantage of using tolls is the ability to expedite the project's implementation. Other advantages include: the ability to generate a large amount of revenue quickly, toll rates and toll collection can be adjusted on the HOV lanes; the actual roadway users pay a share of the improvements in the form of a toll, or "user fee"; and, toll charges are usually graduated by vehicle weight and size.
The potential disadvantages of tolls are the ability for all income groups to pay the toll and the potential cost of toll collection operations and enforcement. To address these disadvantages it will be important that alternate routes to SR 316 continue to be accessible to all income groups and that costs for operations, maintenance and enforcement are included in any future, detailed toll studies for the corridor.
Motorists have a number of alternative routes to SR 316. For some trips in the SR 316 corridor, alternative routes will provide motorists with a level of service that is as good, or nearly as good. as the route using SR 316. For others, alternative routes will result in higher travel times and inconvenience. Some of the roadways providing alternate routes to SR 316 are listed in Table 7-8, by county. Preliminary toll analyses completed using the study's travel demand model indicate that up to 5,000 vehicles per day could divert from SR 316 to other roadways. That level of diversion would be expected to occur on several sections of the US 29/Athens Highway/Atlanta Highway facility in Gwinnett, Barrow, Oconee and Clarke counties. For example, diversions of up to 2,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day are predicted on sections of SR 53 in Barrow and Oconee County and onto US 78/SR 10 in Oconee County.
Two roadways, in particular, provide long distance alternatives for motorists. Located mostly to the south of SR 316, the US 78/SR 10 facility parallels the I-85 and SR 316 corridor from metropolitan Atlanta to the Athens area. The other alternative route is located mostly between I-85 and SR 316. This route is comprised of several highway facilities, including: Lawrenceville Highway/US 29; Winder Highway/SR 8; Athens Highway/SR 8; Atlanta

Highway; and, US 78/SR 10. Both of these alternative facilities merge with each other between Bogart and Athens in Clarke County.

Table 7-8 List of Alternative Routes

County

Routes

Lawrenceville Highway/US 29

Old Norcross Road

Duluth Highway/SR 120 Gwinnett I-85

Winder Highway/SR 8

Harbins Road

Alcovy Road

Athens Highway/SR 8

Harbins Road/Patrick Mill Road

Barrow Carl Bethlehem Road

Bethlehem Road

SR 53

SR 53

Oconee

Atlanta Highway Mars Hill Road

US 78/SR 10

There is a multitude of ways that a toll funding mechanism could be employed to expedite the implementation of the study's recommendations. There are only two types to pursue; each is different in its institutional framework:
Public Sponsored. The most common method of using tolls to implement projects is in conjunction with bonds. In this scenario, a public agency sells bonds to investors with the understanding that toll revenues will be used to repay the principal and interest on the bonds over a certain period of time. Revenue generated from the sale of the bonds is used to construct the facility. The bonds are then repaid with toll revenues collected after the facility is constructed. The State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) would have the ability to issue bonds for constructing improvements along SR 316.
Private Sponsored. In some cases a road can be "privatized" which means that a private company would take over the road from a public agency, build the recommended improvements to the roadway, and charge tolls to not only recoup their costs but also gain a guaranteed profit. Once these costs were recouped, the private company would return the road to the public agency.
Private sponsored toll roads are being considered more frequently by government officials throughout the country in response to funding delays that are customarily associated with dependence upon traditional

7-5

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

sources of revenue. Examples of three private sponsored toll partnerships are described below.
91 Express Lanes - The California Private Transportation Company owns and operates 10 miles of express toll lanes on the Riverside Freeway in Orange County, California. This private enterprise constructed 2 express lanes in the center of the freeway in each direction of travel for $130 million in 1996. The only access points to the express lanes are at the beginning and end of the facility. Payment of tolls is done strictly by means of electronic equipment. Vehicles using the 91 Express Lanes must be equipped with a transponder tag that is read at an automated toll plaza.
Dulles Greenway - This 14 mile toll road through Loudoun County, Virginia was built and is operated by the Toll Road Investors Partnership II. It is the only 4-lane expressway facility in the travel corridor between Washington, D.C.'s Dulles Airport and Leesburg, Virginia. The facility was constructed in 1995 at a cost of $350 million.
Route 28 Corridor Improvements - The Commonwealth of Virginia recently selected a private consortium of transportation firms to construct $300 - $400 million of highway improvements in the Route 28 corridor of Northern Virginia. The improvements include gradeseparation of 10 existing intersections along with the addition of one through-lane in each direction of travel. The corridor is 14 miles in length and connects I-66 to SR 7. The private consortium, in this case, joined into a financial partnership with the Commonwealth. The Virginia Department of Transportation committed $85 million to the project that is approximately 20% of the total cost.
Recommendations to pursue either a public or private sponsorship type of toll operation typically depend on the following parameters: the amount of revenue needed to complete all improvements; the time frame needed to implement the improvements; and, the degree of private sector involvement in a tollway's development and operation.
There are a number of hybrid funding mechanisms that could be used along with the toll collection approach. Some of these approaches could combine toll funds with various levels of funding from traditional state and federal resources. Examples of these are: (1) toll collection to cover full project implementation (preliminary engineering, right-of-way, construction and future maintenance and operation); (2) toll collection to cover implementation over just part of SR 316; (3) toll collection to cover the cost of grade-separating intersections and converting the general purpose lanes to freeway standard but not for the HOV lanes; and (4) using traditional resources for a traffic and revenue study, preliminary engineering, right-ofway acquisition and toll collection to cover the construction, maintenance and operations for the entire facility.

This study completed a preliminary investigation of the potential for tolls on SR 316. The investigation was performed as part of the study's modeling effort to synthesize a number of factors that investors would evaluate in the process of determining a project's feasibility. These factors included existing traffic, anticipated growth of population and employment in the corridor, and future travel patterns. The analysis of current and future travel demand, in combination with the estimated project costs, maintenance and operation costs and an assumed interest rate indicated that implementation of the SR 316 project improvements would be feasible under the toll collection funding scenario.
The investigation of toll feasibility used average toll rates of $0.08 to $0.10 per mile that are commensurate with rates charged on existing toll roadways in the nation. Based on this preliminary feasibility analysis, a substantial share, if not all, of the cost for the recommended improvements could come from revenues generated by collecting tolls from motorist using SR 316. Below is an example of passenger car toll rates being used on other facilities in the southeast.
Dallas North Tollway, Texas- $.11 per mile President George Bush Turnpike, Dallas, Texas- $.11 per mile East-West Expressway, Orlando, Florida- $.10 per mile Bee Line Expressway, Orlando, Florida- $ .10 per mile GA 400, Atlanta, Georgia- $ .20 per mile
Due to the urgency with which safety and mobility needs in the SR 316 corridor need to be addressed, the study recommends that toll revenues, in combination with available funding from traditional federal and state sources, be used to accelerate implementation of the SR 316 recommended improvements. To assure that the process continues toward implementation, the following steps need to be undertaken immediately:
Preliminary engineering concept studies; Traffic and Revenue studies; and, Environmental studies.
7.5 Coordination
A significant level of coordination activities will be necessary for the following reasons:
Opportunities will be presented to reserve rights-of-way along intersecting cross streets for park-and-ride lots and bus transfer station facilities at the proposed Winder Bypass, SR 120 (Riverside Pkwy. to Atkinson) and SR 53/Mars Hill/Oconee Connector (SR 15 to SR 316).

Coordination with local governments will provide opportunities to acquire property for ancillary facilities that will increase the attractiveness of HOV lanes in large-scale developments such as the University Center in Gwinnett; further build-out at Progress Center in Gwinnett; further development at the Barrow Industrial Park; and the proposed Gateway development in Oconee County.
Coordination of the implementation schedule for the HOV lanes with Gwinnett Transit, GRTA and any Traffic Management Associations (TMA's) in the corridor. All these organizations stand to benefit from construction of the HOV lanes and sponsor programs or projects promoting them.
Coordination with other transportation providers and planning partners will need to be extensive as the project moves forward. For the SR 316 HOV lanes to achieve their full potential, express bus service, park-and-ride lots and convenient connections between the park-and-ride lots and SR 316 will be needed. The costs of these auxiliary transportation improvements/services were not included in the improvement cost estimate for SR 316. Nevertheless, local government and regional transportation planners have proposed them and the findings of this study support the need for these projects. To the extent possible, scheduling of these other improvements should coincide with the final construction schedule of SR 316. Some of these improvements are related to Gwinnett County's new transit system, the system wide HOV plans and GRTA's express bus plans.
7.6 Recommended SR 316 Improvement Program
The recommended SR 316 Improvement Program is composed of two basic elements: a short-range element and a long-range element. The short-range element consists of projects that are to be completed within the next five years. The long-range program is defined to include improvements expected to be implemented within the next ten years because of the urgency to address compelling safety problems on SR 316. The relative importance of grade-separating intersections along SR 316 to improve safety is noted in Section 5.0 of this report.
The short-range program is composed of the projects listed in Tables 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3. The estimated cost for all of these improvements is approximately $4,000,000 and eligible funds can be pursued from existing federal, state and local sources. That figure assumes that four SR 316 intersections would be equipped with speed/queue detector technology and one intersection furnished with camera equipment installed to identify vehicles running red lights.
In addition to these improvement projects, the short-range program includes three studies that should begin within the next year, using existing state and federal funds. These studies should be initiated as soon as possible to reduce

7-6

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study
the potential of delaying the long-range improvement program. These studies are:
Environmental Studies and Documentation Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study For Toll Financing Conceptual Engineering Studies
The long-range program consists of the following:
Reconstruct SR 316 from SR 120 to the Athens Loop into a freewaytype facility with interchanges at locations identified in Table 7-6;
Add two barrier separated HOV lanes, one in each direction of travel, over the entire length of SR 316 (I-85 to Athens Loop) with HOV interchanges at the locations identified in Table 7-6;
Build a collector-distributor road system in Gwinnett County between SR 120 and Winder Hwy/SR 8; and
To improve traffic operations, add auxiliary lanes between existing interchanges on SR 316 between SR 120 and Boggs Road in Gwinnett County.
The estimated cost of the long-range program is between $750,000,000 and $850,000,000 with funding recommended to come from a combination of toll revenues and federal/state funds.

7-7

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Chapter 8 - Public Involvement
The federal legislation known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) mandates proactive outreach to involve the public in transportation planning and service delivery. GDOT is responsive to that initiative and welcomes the public as a partner in its approach to project development. This partnership is evident in the study's Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that guided the public involvement elements during all parts of this study.
As a crucial part of this study, many public comments and input were received as this study progressed and future public involvement will remain important as improvements recommended by the study are implemented. Meaningful participation from a broad cross-section of the public was essential for the recommendations developed in this study to receive the support that will be needed to move them forward. To that end, the study's public involvement included activities to foster local public and private coordination as well as a proactive approach to disseminating information and ideas in a two-way communication process with stakeholders and the general public.
The SR 316 PIP was established at the project kick-off in November of 2000. The process and elements of the PIP consisted of:
Holding a PIP workshop to formally structure the local coordination/ public involvement portion of the project;
Developing a Media plan; Developing a project database/mailing list; Establishing an Advisory Panel; Establishing a web page access; Conducting public Issues Forums in each county of the study area; Conducting public Choices Forums in each county of the study area; Conducting interest group and public officials interviews; and Conducting Environmental Justice Outreach activities.
8.1 Outreach Activities
PIP Workshop. The Public Involvement Plan was developed to guide and coordinate public activities throughout the project. Coordination was established on the process flows for information distribution and public involvement activities to be performed throughout the corridor for the duration of the study.

Developing a Media Plan. The PIP identified the timing necessary for information dissemination to the public, media contacts to be made and media contact persons. Implementation of the PIP media plan was very successful.
Media coordination was a key to the success of the study's O-D survey conducted along SR 316. There were several articles in the major metro Athens and Atlanta newspapers, which alerted travelers to the surveys. Moreover, a local television station interviewed GDOT staff at one survey location. Both the public Issues Forums and Choices Forums received extensive coverage in the local newspapers and television. One local newspaper specifically included in the media contact and outreach was the "Community Newsleader", an African-American based media outlet in Gwinnett County. Public information in the form of articles updating the study's progress appeared in GDOT Office of Planning's quarterly "On Target" newsletters, whose statewide audience consists of over 6,000 of GDOT's stakeholders.
Developed a Project Database. Through the course of the study GDOT maintained a database/mailing list of individuals who had expressed interest in improvements to the SR 316 corridor. This database continually grew and was updated to include attendees of study meetings, contacts made through the website and contacts made directly with members of the study team. Information, updates, and notices of public meetings were mailed at critical points throughout the study's duration to individuals on the database. The database included citizens, local and state elected public officials, agency representatives and community organizations within the corridor.
Established an Advisory Panel. In January 2001, study team members contacted the initial list of SR 316 stakeholders to solicit their recommendations on individuals to serve on the study's Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel consisted of 25 members representing local and state elected officials, local government representatives, environmental groups, regional planning agencies, the private sector and the general citizenry. The Advisory Panel represented varied interests along the corridor and were geographically distributed evenly across all counties in the study area. In order to maximize opportunities for including participation from potential Environmental Justice communities in the study, a prominent member of the Hispanic community in Gwinnett County was included on the Advisory Panel.
The Advisory Panel was consulted throughout the study. Initial data findings and information, strategic ideas and preliminary analyses of the study were discussed by the Advisory Panel prior to presentations at public

meetings. The Panel's comments and input generally improved the study's ability to communicate with its stakeholders and the general public.
The first Advisory Panel meeting was held on February 19, 2001 in Gwinnett County. This initial meeting kicked-off the project by discussing the study `s process and schedule, as well as informing them about the study's PIP. The second Advisory Panel meeting was on May 23, 2001 in Barrow County, prior to the study's series of public Issues Forums held in each county within the study area. At this meeting, the Panel discussed the study's preliminary data collection findings, including information from the O-D survey, traffic accident data, land use conditions, and current traffic operations and LOS. Input received at this Advisory Panel meeting was helpful in organizing the presentation of this information at the Issues Forums. The third and final Advisory Panel meeting was held on October 24, 2001 in Oconee County. At this meeting, the study's draft strategies and alternative recommendations were discussed. Similar to the previous meeting, the Advisory Panel provided information and insight that was valuable in narrowing the study's focus to three strategies for presentation and comment by the public at the corridor-wide public Choices Forums.
Established Web Page Access. The study's web page went online in the Spring of 2001. Hosted on the GDOT server, the web page provided a basic overview of the study's background and process. As the study progressed, technical documentation that was presented at the public forums was posted on the website. Comments made by attendees of the public forums were posted on the site as well. In addition, announcements of the public forums' dates, time, and location maps were posted on the site. Although it did not include a mechanism to determine how many "hits or page views" were received, the study received over 30 e-mail messages from web users with comments and questions about the study.
Conducted "Issues" Forums. Held in each county of the study area, the study hosted a total of three well-attended Issues Forums. Held on June 4, 5, and 6, 2001, the forums were coordinated with the respective county Board of Commissioners meetings to reduce potential conflicts. Meetings were held at schools and public facilities that were in close proximity to the corridor and easily recognizable by local citizens. In all, a total of over 120 people attended the three forums.
The format of these forums was a general open house with time to view information and ask questions of the study team, followed by formal presentations and solicitation of public comment. The information presented was broken down into three areas: highway improvement issues, alternate modes of transportation, and funding issues. A facilitated session for each area generated many comments from the attendees. Comments were

8-1

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

recorded and later grouped/organized by key topic areas, and mailed to all attendees as well as posted on the study's website. These valuable comments were then utilized later in the study, especially in the process of developing potential improvement strategies for consideration. Several key topic areas that emerged from comments made at the Issues Forums are shown here:
Highway
Safety is the most pressing issue. Accessibility to properties located along SR 316 is also an important
issue. Strong consensus that grade-separating intersections would improve
safety on SR 316. Proposed HOV lanes elicited many comments - some favorable and
others critical.
Funding
The idea of tolls on SR 316 drew the most comments some supportive of tolls, some critical and others were in opposition.
A number of people supported the toll concept, provided that toll revenues are only spent on the debt service of bonds issued to implement improvements to SR 316.
Alternate Transportation Modes
A lot of individuals commented on public transit options in the corridor, including express bus and commuter rail services both in support of and critical of transit.
Many comments pertained to the need to coordinate any future road improvements to SR 316 with park and ride lots, potential commuter rail, and local/express bus transit services.
Conducted "Choices" Forums. The study team conducted one Choices Forum in each county of the study area between November 13 and 15, 2001. Again, each of the meetings was coordinated with County Board meetings and held at schools or public buildings in close proximity to the corridor. At these Choices Forums Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were presented to attendees consisting of stakeholders and the general public. Communication of the design and operational differences distinguishing Alternate 1 from Alternate 2 was a significant part of the Choices Forums.
The public was asked to comment on each alternative as well as to give their input on potential funding options to implement improvements to SR 316. Attendees formed small, facilitated group discussions to ask questions and

provide input. Many comments were recorded from almost all in attendance. These comments were also posted on the website, as well as being taken into account as the study developed its final corridor-wide recommendations. In total, approximately 175 people attended the Choices Forums. Some of the most common or strongly expressed comments are shown below, grouped by key topic area:
Alternate 1 Versus Alternate 2
The need for HOV lanes on SR 316 in Barrow and Oconee counties is questionable.
Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 were each supported and criticized for various reasons.
There was opposition to Alternate 1 for a variety of different reasons, including concerns about difficulties in accessing the HOV lanes.
There was general agreement that the grade-separations and interchanges proposed in both alternatives would improve the safety of SR 316.
There were numerous concerns about access to SR 316 for adjacent properties as well as for right-of-way that would be needed to build the proposed interchanges.
Implementation Issues
Common and strong concern that the use of toll collection should only go to fund improvement projects to SR 316.
The concept of using a toll system to fund improvements elicited many comments both in support and opposition.
Many attendees expressed their support for tolls provided that the toll revenues are only spent on the debt service of bonds issues to implement improvements to SR 316.
A number of suggestions were made concerning short-term operational and safety improvements in the corridor.
Conducted Interest Group and Public Officials Interviews. During the course of the study, several interest groups along the corridor requested meetings to discuss issues and receive a presentation explaining the study's status. The following meetings and presentations were conducted as part of the study process.
November 30, 2000 Attended a meeting with the University Parkway Alliance and other transportation officials in the corridor to discuss the other planning studies and efforts also underway in the SR 316 corridor.

8-2

March 16, 2001 Attended a Georgia Conservancy's communitybased "Blueprints for Successful Communities" workshop. This initiative addressed issues in Athens-Clarke County, Barrow and Oconee Counties, and Gwinnett County. The information presented was coordinated with the SR 316 study process.
April 26, 2001 Presented information on the study's background, process, and data collection to the Gwinnett Council for Quality Growth.
May 14, 2001 At the county's request, the study team met with the Oconee County Commission chairman and County officials to receive additional information on their local development plans and community vision.
May 19, 2001 A presentation explaining the development of the study and its process was made to the Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center's Board of Directors.
May 24, 2001 Attended a second meeting with the University Parkway Alliance and other transportation officials to update the study's status and ensure continued coordination with the other studies along the corridor that are also occurring.
June 21, 2001 Attended a "Councilio Latino" forum in Gwinnett County. This is a group of individuals that represent varied Hispanic organizations. A short information piece regarding input to the SR 316 study process was presented and an open-ended offer to receive further community input was made.
July 11, 2001 Made a presentation of the study's preliminary data analysis to the Georgia Section of The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) members at their annual Summer Seminar.
August 2, 2001 Made a presentation to the Joint Legislative Study Committee on SR 316.
August 29, 2001 Met with the Oconee County Commission chairman to hear additional information about the county's development plans and community vision.
Distributed technical project information to the Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism in Athens for posting at libraries and public places, at their request.
October 16, 2001- A presentation was made to Leadership Gwinnett on the overview and status of the study.
Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

December 4, 2001 Presentation on study's results to GDOT Board Member Steve Reynolds.
December 12, 2001 Presentation of study's results to GDOT Board's Committee of the Whole.
December 17, 2001 Presentation of study results to the SR 316 Legislative Study Committee.
January 9, 2002 - Presentation of study results to the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority's Transportation Committee.
March 12, 2002 Presentation of study result to the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority's Value Pricing Task Force.
Conducted Environmental Justice (EJ) Outreach Activities. The following contacts were made to locate and inform EJ communities in the Atlanta metropolitan area regarding the study's process. Meeting dates were also coordinated and published through the Atlanta Regional Commission's Public Involvement study group.
Atlanta Urban League A letter was sent to the Atlanta chapter offering a presentation on the study to themselves or their recommended contacts in the study area. The study team was then informed that there are no branches in Gwinnett, Barrow and Oconee. They suggested that local DFACS offices be contacted for potential outreach. The study team continued to work with county representatives to identify EJ communities in the study area.
Latin American Association - Investigations revealed that there are no chapters in Gwinnett, Barrow or Oconee.
Gwinnett Hispanic Advisory Committee The study team learned that there is a Gwinnett Hispanic Advisory Committee which consists of directors of hispanic groups in Gwinnett. The study team was notified there was a meeting on June 26th and given a contact. Team members attended a subsequent meeting of the Concilio Latino which included representatives from the Hispanic Advisory Committee.
NAACP, Southern Regional Office - Contact was made by the study team to offer a presentation on the study. No presentation request was received..
Adams and Adams (Attorneys specializing in immigrant employment services in Athens) - No response to inquiries made by telephone.
Concilio Latino - Study team member attended meeting on Thursday, June 21 and gave short introduction, overview of the study, and offered to receive community input regarding SR 316 issues and the study. No inquiries or comments were received by study team attending this meeting.

"Community Newsleader" (African-American based media in Gwinnett County) - The study team transmitted a press release to African-American based media in Gwinnett County regarding SR 316 public forums.
EJ Analysis. In conjunction with the study's EJ outreach activities, it also conducted a demographic-based analysis to identify any "EJ areas of concern" in or near the study area. Using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, the study identified several census tracts with significant concentrations of minority or low income populations in the study area. These census tracts are highlighted in Figure 3-9. Only one of these census tracts was found in the SR 316 corridor itself. It should be noted that the EJ analysis in this study is a preliminary identification of potential EJ communities and issues; a more detailed EJ analysis will be performed on each specific SR 316 improvement project as they are developed.
Additional efforts to identify potential EJ communities and issues were conducted through interviews with local government officials and representatives of economic development agencies within the study area counties. The results of these efforts follow, by county.
Gwinnett County. The county has a large employment base which includes three large shopping malls, many new and existing schools and major industrial facilities. Concentrations of low income and minority populations are primarily located in the incorporated cities of Gwinnett County. There is currently a large Bosnian population throughout the county. There are Hispanic concentrations on the west side of Gwinnett Mall and in the Buford area. Gwinnett also has a significant Asian population in the Norcross area and African-American concentrations in the southern part of the County along the Dekalb County border. Lawrenceville has several areas containing lower income neighborhoods and public housing. Dacula has some concentrations of manufactured housing, rental property and established African-American communities.
Barrow County. Major employment generators are retail areas in downtown Winder and Statham, a poultry company and some light industrial areas. Existing Hispanic communities were located along Gin Road and there were small concentrations of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Korean populations along Jim Johnson Road. There are public housing communities in Statham and downtown Winder. There are also several communities of mobile home parks in Auburn and Winder. The main minority population in the City of Winder is African American.
Oconee County. The major employment generator is the University of Georgia in Athens and the commuting patterns support attraction to this

major generator. There are some established African-American communities and transient Hispanic populations.
Athens-Clarke County. The major employment generator is in the downtown Athens area at the University of Georgia. There are Hispanic concentrations in the northern part of the County. There are also several public housing sites within the downtown Athens area.

8-3

Final Report - SR 316 Corridor Study

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Appendix
"Issues" Forum Comments "Choices" Forum Comments
Written Comments

Appendix - 1

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study Issues Forum Comments

No.

Alternative Transportation Modes

1 People would use if it had connections to MARTA. Especially for airport trips.

2 Would be used for work trips.

3 Would not be used for shopping.

4 Cost about $5.00 for one-way trip.

5

With only AM and PM schedules it may limit additional users. They don't want to feel "stranded" at work if the train only ran at certain times.

6

There are similar patterns of commuters to and from Atlanta or Athens in each peak period, so the trains should run in both directions equally in each peak.

7 Commuter rail schedule is not very time-sensitive for business. (Working late, leaving early, etc.)

8 May not be used as much because of high cost.

9 People would definitely use rail if available, however it would depend on cost.

10 About $10.00 round-trip, though some think this is too high.

11

Rail would be used much more if SR 316 were not improved. i.e., more delay on 316 would cause more to use rail.

12

The location of the stations should be convenient for commuters. Provide shuttle buses to stations and good accessibility.

13 People would ride if it was fast and convenient.

14 It is a good economic alternative if comparable to cost of trip in gas.

15 Rail is easier than bus because of consistent schedules. It is not affected by traffic congestion.

16 Need more frequent rail service for more use.

17 There is generally more support for rail service as opposed to other modes.

18 People would pay $2.00 - $3.50 for one-way service.

19 Rail use would be very dependent on the location of stations and route. Would need to be convenient for riders.

20 Rail would not be used for special events, like football games.

21 Strong support for rail. Most think it would be used more than express bus.

22 Would need to have connections to MARTA.

23 People would pay about $3.00 one-way or $100 for a month pass.

24 Rail would save time as opposed to bus or carpool.

25 Rail might encourage or help shape development and growth, which would happen with or without the rail.

26 Would need connection to MARTA.

27 A lot of use for trips to the airport.

28 People would pay $5-6.00 for round-trip or $3-$4 for one-way.

29 Students probably would not use rail.

30 More use compared to bus because of quicker travel time.

31 Support for rail would be used more than rail. Especially for trips to the airport.

32 Rail use would reduce the need to improve 316 as drastically.

33 More frequent schedules for commuter rail would be better.

34 Rail use allows riders to get work done during commute. Less time is spent transferring and waiting for buses.

35 Rail service should be offered at off-peak times for special events (sports, culture, etc.)

36 People would pay about $11.00 roundtrip.

37 Rail is desirable because it offers consistent travel time, unaffected by road congestion.

38 Mixed support for rail use.

39 Students may use rail.

40 Presence of rail may raise safety issues. "Bringing the city out to the communities."

41 Commuter rail would be used for business and special events, if it offered frequent schedules.

42 Support for commuter rail because it offers time for commuters to work, read, etc. while riding.

No.

Alternative Transportation Modes

43 Rail would need more frequent schedule and frequent headways to get higher use.

44 Tie into the bus system to allow circulation around destination points.

45 Would pay $5-$6 for one-way trip.

46 Employers should offer programs to subsidize rail pass costs.

No.

HOV Lanes

1

Most people see HOV lanes as being desirable all the way to Athens, not right away, but eventually it will be necessary. (Others think it's not needed further than Gwinnett Co. line.)

2 Better enforcement to discourage violators.

3 Have reversible/moveable barriers to accommodate different peak periods.

4 People don't feel express bus would be used on the HOV lanes.

5 HOT lanes are a good option charging SOV passengers to use the HOV lane.

6 Some would use HOV, others say they would not.

7 Isolate HOV lanes so that accidents on 316 don't stop HOV travel.

8 Make HOV reversible for peak direction.

9 Some people suggested SR 316 being entirely HOV during peak periods (others say this is unfeasible)

10 Establish programs with employers to have staggered work hours and carpool options.

11 HOV not feasible because it is difficult for carpool coordination.

12 Not cost-beneficial.

13 Express bus is a good idea.

14 HOV lanes are too fast and unsafe.

15 Not many carpool options for local Barrow residents.

16 Express bus would get more use on the HOV lanes than carpools.

17 Elevated HOV lanes.

18 Build isolated HOV lanes with barriers.

19 Mixed support for HOV lanes.

20 Some think it would have a negative impact on the environment.

21 Needed all the way to Athens.

22 Express bus would be used only if it was convenient. Provide shuttle circulators/P&R lots.

23 HOV would be useful for family carpools as well as business commuters.

24 Support for HOV all the way to Athens.

25

Express bus is not a good short-term solution, but may be necessary after about 10 years of growth on the corridor.

26 Express bus would get used, but not as much as rail.

27 Provide more HOV exit ramps to cross streets (better access than HOV on I-75/85).

28 Express bus would work well with an extensive HOV system in connection with existing system.

29 HOV should not be extended to Athens.

30 Would not be used much by work commuters.

31 Express bus would be used if it offered connections to a wider area. Provide circulators at destination areas.

32 Students may be likely to carpool, use HOV.

33 Majority think HOV would be used.

34 Higher use if it is enforced well.

35 Barrier walls for HOV are bad for clearing accidents if they happen in HOV lane.

36 Model HOV like Washington, D.C. (Virginia side) with median space to clear accidents.

37 There are limited carpool options for many to use HOV.

Appendix - 2

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Issues Forum Comments

No.

HOV Lanes (Continued)

No.

Funding (Continued)

38 Increasing gas price may lead to more carpool use. 39 Good integration with existing HOV is essential (I-85 interchange especially).

36 Consider all different cost components of this project: Overpasses/Underpasses, Frontage Roads, Interchanges. 37 For tolls need to be freeway-type facility.

40 May be a lot of use of express bus between UGA and new campus at Collins Hill. 41 Cirulators at stations are necessary for convenience.

38 Concerned about traffic that would be diverted from SR 316 to Atlanta Hwy. if there were tolls. 39 What happens to tolls on GA 400 once bonds are paid off?

42 General support for HOV lanes along with good enforcement, all the way to Athens.

40 What would happen on SR 316 after the bonds are paid off?

43 Some say HOV lanes would not influence commuter's decision to carpool (i.e. carpooling is inconvenient)

41 Tolls make sense for long trips but not for short trips.

44 Enforcing a lower speed limit on the SOV lanes may encourage HOV use.

42 Generally willing to pay $.50 to use facility.

45 Charging SOV commuters to use HOV lanes is a good option. 46 Express bus would be used if it offered good connections to existing transit.

No.

Funding

1 If SR 316 is to become a toll road need to have an alternative free route.

2 It would be helpful to have a Master Plan to pursue funding sources/mechanisms.

3 Consider Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

4 Tolls generally supported if necessary to move project forward.

5 Some prefer flat toll.

6 Some prefer toll based on length.

7 Need to move forward on this project. May need a special authority created to move forward.

8 If there are a lot of long distance trips, like to see tolls with frontage roads for local access.

9 Would favor whatever funding option works fastest so that right-of-way costs don't keep increasing.

10 User-fee concept makes sense.

11 Who pays for frontage roads.

12 Make sure Planning and Zoning compatible with road design.

13 Oconee County has been acknowledging special access needs along specific sections of SR 316.

14 Need alternative routes for short-distance trips.

15 Question about what funding alternatives will be studied along with toll facility.

16 Is there a way to get SR 316 improvements on the Governor's GRIP program.

17 Does GARVEE program consume 100% of future federal funds.

18 GARVEE bonds can only be used for GRIP projects.

19 Tolls are possible source of funds to accelerate implementation.

20 Would support tolls, if alternatives like commuter rail were funded with tolls too.

21 Would support tolls if tolls are used just for SR 316 improvements and not for alternatives like commuter rail.

22 Supportive of tolls if other road alternatives were provided with toll revenues.

23 Supportive of tolls if tolls were to be removed after bonds for SR 316 were retired.

24 Tolls more favorable than impact fee.

25 General support for HOT concept.

26 Concern about amount of traffic that would divert off of SR 316 to local roads.

27 Previous old cost estimates for improvements on SR 316 were around $450 million.

28 Construction costs will rise rapidly the longer the project languishes.

29 Where would tolls be collected if toll road (concern about the location of toll booths)?

30 If toll road, where would the toll revenue be spent?

31 Could toll revenues from GA 400 be applied to project costs to improve SR 316.

32 Expectation that State and Federal Gas Tax Funds and taxes would pay for SR 316 improvements.

33 Advantages in developing purpose and need based on operation/safety/HOV type of improvement.

34 Amount of toll would be of concern.

35 Do not support HOT lanes, the whole point of HOV lanes is to get people out of their cars.

43

Tolls would leverage funds to improve SR 316 from users outside of Gwinnett, Barrow & Oconee and take the burden off of local residents and businesses.

44 Toll collection could complicate operations and safety on SR 316.

45 Also difficult during UGA football game days.

46 Education, Enforcement, and Engineering to improve operations and safety on SR 316.

47 I will not pay toll. I will use other facilities. So will my friends.

48 Investigate Gwinnett Co.'s Current SPLOST program for potential funds.

49 Important for Community to think that "Everyone" is paying for some part of project.

50 Need more enforcement of speed limit.

51

Would support tolls if it would improve safety on SR 316. The cost would be worth it (his daughter was almost killed on SR 316).

52 Collateral impacts like traffic diversions to SR8/Atlanta Hwy.

53

Toll Road Retail establishments would be adversely affected. (Why pay toll to come to Barrow when it's free to travel to the mall in Gwinnett?)

54 Concern tolls and SR 316 improvements are geared for the Athens to Atlanta trip.

55 Tolls are feasible for some for travel but not for others.

56 Concern where toll monies are spent?

57 Concern about the location of toll booths and collection of tolls.

58 Would you have to pay when you get on and off?

59 Will tolls collected in Barrow be spent in Barrow?

60 What happens with toll revenues when bonds are pay off?

61 Can the toll ever be removed?

62 Some questioned whether the toll would ever be removed even when the bonds are paid off?

63 Consider many transportation improvements options along with the toll option: HOV's, buses, HOT Lanes.

64 May support HOT/HOV concept.

65 View toll as just an additional tax.

66 Concerned about complexity and amount of funding.

67 SR 316 Hwy Improvements: Commuter Rail , HOV, etc.

68 Concerns about being tolled for frequent, short trips.

69 Concerns about impact of tolls on business activities where they use SR 316 all day.

70 Concerns about whether toll revenue would ultimately be spent on the toll road or related roads.

71 Concern about truck traffic diverting away from toll collection sites and on to local thoroughfares.

72 As metro Atlanta grows has anyone considered extension of SR 316 east to Augusta?

73 If HOT lanes- toll would need to be high enough so that the lane would not fill up.

74 Concern that tolls would be collected before grade-separation/expressway was constructed.

75 Question about impact fees some thought everyone should help pay, both citizens and businesses.

76 Would like to use GARVEE Bonds for SR 316.

77 Don't want tolls. Federal government penalizing commuters for unrestricted development.

78 Could tolls be used to finance highway improvements to avoid Air Quality Sanctions?

79 Would tolls be removed when the construction bonds are paid off?

Appendix - 3

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Issues Forum Comments

No.

Funding (Continued)

No.

Highway Improvements (Continued)

80 Believe that DOT has enough money to do the necessary improvements within their existing budget. 81 HOT lanes are a valid option.

28 Build earth noise buffers. 29 Relocate McNutt and should be a full interchange.

82

Need to know how much money is needed to bolster DOT's traditional project to construct improvements. Don't ask question "How much will you pay?"

83 Would paying a toll become a safety issue?

84 Would prefer a flat fare of $.50 like GA 400.

85 Would like to use GARVEE Bonds for SR 316.

30 Start in Oconee County with grade separated interchanges.

31 Consider crossovers at: Dials Mill Rd.; Mars Hill Rd.; Julian Dr.; and, Virgil Langford Rd.

32 Enforce speed limits (especially with trucks).

33

Access roads should extend from Jimmy Daniel Rd. to Oconee Connector or bridge Virgil Langford Rd. over 316.

86 Need to talk to make it a re-election issue in Gwinnett County.

34 Don't close off Virgil Langford Rd.

87 Toll collection plazas could divert traffic off of SR 316 to secondary roads.

35 Need lots of overpasses if limited access.

88

Think elected officials could split up project to orchestrate a funding plan that would use Federal Formula and Discretionary Funds.

89 Tolls make sense in that it's a user fee and is equitable in that sense.

90 Feeling that tolls will discriminate against students.

91 Feeling that tolls will be permanent revenue source that government will use forever.

92 Feel that GDOT and Feds have sufficient funds to construct project in a reasonable time frame.

93 Feel that DOT does not have the funds available.

94 Concerns about being tolled for short, frequent trips on SR 316.

95 I work directly off of SR 316. Unfair to pay toll to go to work.

No.

Highway Improvements

1 Construct grade separated interchanges.

2 Construct interstate entire length with appropriate number of interchanges.

3 Provide more access at Bogart.

4 Use ITS strategies.

5 Use good traffic engineering judgment.

6 Construct full interchange at SR 11.

7 SR 20 is a problem interchange.

8 Improvements should be made one interchange at a time.

9 Construct limited access entire length of 316.

10 Land Use should be High-Tech industries.

11 Land Use should be Mixed-Use development.

12 Should be several centers along corridor (diversified zoning).

13 Avoid haphazard zoning/development.

14 Coordinate with commuter rail projects.

15 SR 20 and Collins Hill need immediate improvements.

16 I-20 and US 78 have been alternative for SR 316.

17 Plan for water, sewage, and infrastructure improvements.

18 Plan for enough residential.

19 Locate residential away from SR 316.

20 Construct interstate with appropriate interchanges and frontage roads.

21 Located residential away from interchanges.

22 Locate high-tech and industrial sites near interchanges.

23 Build landscape buffers (interstate and industrial adjacent).

24 County must coordinate land use.

25 Provide infrastructure for development.

26 Ordinances should protect buffers (coordinate with proposed development).

27 Construct full interchange at Jimmy Daniel Road, Oconee Connector, and Bogart.

36 Need lower speed limit on 316 (short-term).

37 Need interchanges (limited access).

38 Want high-tech land use along corridor.

39 Need interchange at Bethlehem.

40 Residential Land should not be within a mile of 316.

41 Need limited access highway.

42 Need stricter enforcement by GSP.

43 Speed is too high for current conditions.

44

Consider subdivisions whose current access is directly on 316 (make dangerous U-Turns currently to travel opposite direction from access side).

45 Major trouble seeing traffic signal in sunlight (backplates?).

46 Need flashing beacon to warn when signals are about to turn red.

47 Need more advanced timing on signals (short-term) (ensure no "gap-outs"/time-density).

48 Need signal at Patrick Mill.

49 Want more consistent zones high tech.

50 Need limited access highway.

51 Interchanges needed at: SR 20; SR 11; SR 81; Old Freemans Mill Rd.; Patrick Mill; and, Harbins Rd.

52 Access needed to Frontage Rd or 316 at (Fire, Safety, Emergency): Patrick Mill; SR 321; SR 81; and, SR11.

53 Towns need access to Frontage Rd or 316(Fire, Safety, Emergency): Monroe; Statham; and Bethlehem.

54 Timing of project is big concern in regards to new and current land use.

55 Utilize county and city improvement (don't waste money already spent).

56 Pay close attention to land use planning.

57 Plan ahead for HOV construction.

58 Need HOV as part of Project.

59 Extend Turn lanes on SR 11 and SR 81 (Short term solution).

60 Patrick Mill needs short term attention (current conditions dangerous).

61 Need Access/Frontage Roads.

62 Need access to 316 for emergency, safety, mail, school, etc.

63 Need completely limited access with frontage roads.

64 Hills cause bad sight distance at intersections.

65 Need short term solutions @ Patrick Mill and Wall Rd (Extend turn lanes).

66 Speed not the problem Impatience at intersections is problem.

67 Deceleration/ Acceleration problem.

68 Do not use Yield Signs/ Only stop signs or signals.

69 Sight distance is problem for turners.

70 Signalized intersections are more dangerous than unsignalized.

71 Speed should be 45 mph across corridor

72 Interchange improvements only.

Appendix - 4

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Issues Forum Comments

No.

Highway Improvements (Continued)

73 Interchange at 316 WB and I-85 SB should be converted to right side entry. 74 Widen 316 to 8-lanes.

75 Increase speed limit to 70 mph on 316. 76 Take down signals.

77 Upgrade 316 to interstate.

78 Consider new college at Collins Hill Rd.

79 Consider new developments.

80 Construct 6-lane freeway in Gwinnett Co.

81 Consider interchange improvements at I-85 and 316 based on lanes.

82 Need interchange improvements for short term.

83 C-D or frontage roads around Collins Hill Rd are needed.

84 Construct access roads and frontage roads along 316 (possibly elevated).

85 Revisit clearance intervals along corridor.

86 Extend acceleration/deceleration lanes.

87 No residential zoning adjacent to 316.

88 Don't restrict trucks to one lane.

89 Allow a buffer of industrial, commercial or greenspace along corridor. 90 Interest from Atlanta to Athens. 91 Interchanges should be widely spaced. 92 Construct frontage roads or access roads along corridor. 93 Similar to Peachtree Industrial Blvd. 94 Use "rumble strips" before intersections. 95 Use red light running enforcement. 96 Extend/provide acceleration/deceleration lanes.

97 Round-a-bouts should be used at appropriate locations.

Appendix - 5

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Choices Forum Comments

No.

HOV Alternates

No.

HOV Alternates (Continued)

1 Possible problems with barrier separated HOV lanes: safety, emergency vehicle access, difference in speed. 2 HOV interchanges will be expensive.

48 The new HOV lanes should be constructed to full design standards. 49 Consider reversible HOV lanes instead of permanent HOV lanes.

3 What if there is an accident in the HOV lanes? Does it block traffic? 4 Don't need barrier separating HOV lanes too expensive.

50 Are HOV lanes needed? 51 Could we do Alternate 1 for some sections and Alternate 2 for others?

5 Do not like to drive between the HOV barriers.

52 Are the HOV lane barriers concrete or "moveable"?

6 Emergency vehicle access in Alt. 1 concern remove barriers like I85 @ J.C. Blvd.

53 Cost for HOV worth more than extra general purpose lane.

7 HOT lane support (for long distance SOV trips).

54 HOV not worth cost.

8 Barriers are not good for routing traffic around accidents.

55 HOV to reduce traffic/pollution.

9 Barriers not necessary enforcement not needed.

56 Like Alternate 2 better. Has more flexibility.

10 HOV interchanges not necessary compared to cost of building them.

57 Left-hand exits onto and off of HOV very unsafe due to high merge speeds into single lane.

11 Alternate 2 gives more flexibility to clear traffic.

58 Missed interchange no options to turn around at next exit.

12 Use HOV for trucks. May be safety issue (blind spots).

59 No need for 24-hour HOV lanes should be based on AM/PM peak.

13 Can't pass slower traffic in Aternate 1 HOV.

60 Ok with Barrier HOV, but need to have breaks/places where you can cross over.

14 Could passing lanes be possible in Alternate 1 HOV?

61 Alternate 2 desirable for ability to get around accidents.

15 Discourage/enforce HOV trips in the SOV lanes.

62 Plastic barriers are better to prevent accidents, more flexibility in case want to get off HOV.

16 Consider reversible HOV lanes.

63 Need education process with implementation of HOV.

17 HOV interchanges at major intersections. 18 HOV may not be benefit east of Patrick Mill Rd. 19 Enforce HOV lanes. 20 HOV wouldn't be cost effective in Oconee and Barrow. 21 Project and HOV should be phased. 22 HOV interchanges on Alternate 1 should be separate or full interchanges. 23 Alternate 1 good access. 24 Alternate 2 not enough access.

64 Anticipate future traffic. 65 Take into account truck traffic (separation?). 66 Alternate 2 in favor. 67 Phase in Alternate 1 if needed. 68 Build at Alternate 1 width but start at Alternate 2. 69 Build out to 132' for added general purpose. 70 Alternate 1 should be 2 reversible HOV lanes. 71 HOV warranted in Oconee and Barrow?

25 Alternate 1 would be unsightly.

72 Design for build-out.

26 Alternate 1 safer but more money. Alternate 2 for Barrow. Tolls to get project started.

73 Phase construction as warranted.

27 Alternate 2 is better and more convenient.

74 Ensure HOV enforcement.

28 Reversible HOV. 29 No reversible HOV. 30 If HOV Alternate 1 is safer. 31 HOV not needed now. 32 No barrier extra shoulder, freedom to exit. 33 In Gwinnett, why build HOV lanes without interchanges doesn't make sense. 34 HOV lanes will not work. People will not use them. 35 Why do we think that HOV lanes will work on SR 316? 36 Will HOV lanes be fully utilized in the peak hours? 37 Why do we think that HOV lanes will work on SR 316? 38 Will HOV lanes be fully utilized in the peak hours? 39 Consider reversible lanes (some disagree). 40 Consider breaks in barrier in Alternate 1 in order to reduce number of HOV exits required. 41 Dual purpose interchanges needed in Barrow. 42 Alternate 1 is too constricting for traffic flow emergency vehicle/accident concerns. 43 No Emergency vehicle access in Alternate 1. 44 Alternate 1 stuck behind slower traffic. 45 Alternate 1 stuck behind slower traffic. 46 Do not think that HOV lanes are needed. 47 Barriers may prevent emergency vehicles from having access to accidents.

Alternate 2 is more desirable. More flexibility in clearing traffic, allows passing by slower traffic, enforcement 75 not needed for SOV. 76 Support HOV/SOV interchanges (dual purpose). 77 Consider Reversible HOV lanes. 78 Consider HOT lanes. 79 Exclusive exits onto barrier HOV would be unsafe because of high merge speeds. 80 No need for 24-hour HOV. 81 Alternate 2 more desirable, increased flexibility for mobility. 82 Education process for new HOV concepts. 83 Alternate 1 width with Alternate 2-lane use with addition of another general-purpose lane. 84 Mix feelings with HOV/toll. 85 I strongly object (disagree) to Alternate 1 with HOV interchange. 86 I strongly favor Alternate 2 with two HOV lanes. 87 Alternate 2 is easier to convert back to general-purpose lanes. 88 Some don't feel safe with barriers on either side of HOV lanes. 89 Are the barriers concrete or rubber poles? 90 I like the idea of limited access but I don't like HOV. I agree something has to be done for safety purposes. 91 Look at access to HOV interchanges by way of the local roads. 92 Tough to get to Virgil Langford HOV interchange. 93 Does not need Mars Hill Road overpass.

Appendix - 6

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study Choices Forum Comments

No.

HOV Alternates (Continued)

94 All interchanges dual-purpose access needed at cross streets.

95 Request for direct access from Virgil Langford in Alt 2.

96 Extend frontage roads to Athens loop.

97 Frontage roads on R/W of SR 316 not on private property.

98 Alternate 1 is best B/C of frontage roads.

99 Decisions on interchange should be dynamic.

100 Kilcrease (main route from 316 to Auburn) should be full interchange (widening/ext. of 324).

101 Hwy. 29 should be HOV as well.

102 Consider interchange at Boggs Road exit.

103 Kilcrease Road generates more traffic than adjacent interchanges. Put a full interchange at Kilcrease.

104 Barber Creek need full access interchange for SOV.

105 Industrial parks on Kilcrease need full access interchange.

106 Fence Road not HOV.

107 Kilcrease Road full interchange in Alternate 2. Will relieve traffic on Patrick Mill.

108 Alternate 1 provides better access.

109 Why don't we just widen SR 316 to a six-lane road, and no HOV lane?

110 If you have the space, why don't we add more general-purpose lanes, instead of HOV lanes?

111 Don't need HOV lanes instead have another general-purpose lane.

112 Use 3 general-purpose lanes instead of HOV (build HOV when needed).

113 Alternate 2 with 3 general purpose lanes.

114 Consider more lanes in higher traffic area (Gwinnett).

115 Make SR 316 - 3 lanes (general purpose) in each direction. 116 Leave room on the inside for a possible 4th lane.

117 Just add another lane.

118 Bus only (no HOV).

119 Additional lanes don't help traffic. Need alternate routes or alternate transportation modes.

No.

Alternative Funding Strategies

1 How much more money is Alt 1 than 2?

2 Increase spacing between interchanges. This will save money.

3 When will this project start? Completed?

4 Alternate 2 less expensive, flexible in traffic movement.

5 Instead of tolls-raise gas tax.

6 Don't raise tax.

7 More detailed cost necessary before you make a decision.

8 No tolls.

9 Is Alternate 1 much more expensive than Alternate 2?

10 Toll would be higher if Alternate 1 is built.

11 If a toll is installed, it will stay there "forever".

12 Is Alternate 1 much more expensive than Alternate 2?

13 Toll would be higher if Alternate 1 is built.

14 If a toll is installed, it will stay there "forever".

15 We do not want to pay everyday to use SR 316 using a toll.

16 Increase Barrow County sales tax to pay for part of the road.

17 Increase gas tax to help pay for SR 316 improvements.

18 Do not want tolls. Would rather pay a sales tax instead. 19 Would prefer tax to tolls for financing. 20 Expense of Alternate 1 is not justified with safety. 21 Alternate 1 much more expensive. 22 What is the cost of new interchanges? 23 Will tolls speed up the construction of the SR 316 improvements? 24 If we install tolls, when would they be taken away? 25 Can existing sales tax be used for this project? 26 Alternate 2 is less expensive than alternate 1. 27 How much would it cost to convert HOV lanes to general-purpose lanes? 28 No toll. 29 Tolls to fund planning model. 30 Against the tolls. Tolls are never taken away. 31 Take money away from other program/projects and apply it to SR 316. 32 Set a time limit for toll. 33 Reluctant to pay toll on road that has been used previously for free. 34 Mainline toll facility would cause problems. 35 I would support toll roads if a break were made for residents along the corridor. I live off of Harbins Road.
Funding should come from Tractor Trailer operator companies as well as from State, Federal, and Bond 36 programs. Creative funding needs to be considered 37 No tolls, that costs money too.

No.

Miscellaneous Comments

1 What happens to homes/businesses that are in way of improvements?

2 ROW taking should be avoided.

3 GDOT should consider public comment (specifically property adjacent owners).

4 How do you determine where c/d frontage roads are needed?

5 How do you determine where c/d frontage roads are needed?

6 Development along 316 proper access?

7 Purchase right-of-way now for future use.

8 Address frontage road now, right-of-way, and cost.

9 Frontage road needed.

10 Buffer between frontage road and developments.

11 Purchase more than enough right-of-way.

12 Purchase right-of-way for full-length frontage road.

13 Right-of-way acquisition should be avoided or limited.

14 Frontage roads critical for access.

15 Consider CD/frontage road. (Right-of-way, development concerns, location).

16 Buy ROW for final build-out, but delay construction.

17 Frontage roads are critical.

18 Look at SR 316/Athens Bypass interchange-has problems now.

19 What will be the sequence of improvements, what interchange will be built first?

20 Short-term improvements have flashing lights, flash only when traffic light is red.

21 Have future improvements be coordinated with recently finished projects (i.e. Oconee Connector Interchange).

22 Use cameras to enforce.

23 Consider avoiding permits for heavy industrial/commercial land uses around interchanges (including buffer).

Appendix - 7

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Choices Forum Comments

No.

Miscellaneous Comments (Continued)

24 "Project will start in Gwinnett County". 25 Restrict truck traffic to one lane only (Right-turn lane).
Barrow County school buses have to cross 316 many times. It is extremely dangerous. Limit trucks speed on 26 316. 27 Extend red light phase at Patrick Mill signal. 28 Patrick Mill Road needs improvements 1st. 29 SR 81 also needs immediate improvements.
Implement short term improvements acceleration/deceleration lanes, speed enforcement and lower speed limit. 30 Red light strobes. 31 Patrick Mill speed enforcement has led to slower traffic. 32 Use electronic surveillance to "police" HOV lanes. 33 Regular policing causes more problems. 34 Does light-rail impact the study? 35 More crossing on I-85 to reduce volume on 316, extend 316 across 85 to Norcross. 36 Need speed enforcement, no need to improve 316. 37 Westbound 316 at Collins Hill road needs right turn lane NOW. Eastbound right turn lengthened.

Appendix - 8

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study Written Comments

It is important for the economic potential of the 316/US 78 interchange to keep in the plan a frontage road from Julian Drive to US 78 for Deerbrook, Silver Leaf and future development of open road on the N. East corner of 316 and US 78.
I strongly object (disagree) to Alternate 1 with HOV interchange. I strongly favor Alternate 2 with two HOV lanes. The only long-term satisfactory solution to the problems along GA 316 is to upgrade the highway to limited access and
Interstate status, thereby eliminating crossroads and traffic lights. To fail to do this will create a situation similar to that on US 78 in Southern Gwinnett County at Snellville. As commercial development continues along this corridor, conditions will only grow worse, to the point where finding solutions will be impossible. Attached is a recent article from the Athens Banner-Herald concerning highway safety. Why did you stop at the Athens by-pass? Won't 316 have a major impact on Clarke County and the University of Georgia as well? What about spur roads coming off 316? How will development in the area affect Mars Hill Road and Jimmy Daniels Road areas? Are the single lane divided HOV lanes going to work? They seem to really confine the cars and busses in the case of breakdown or accident. Do the frontage roads have to be right beside 316 or can they be offset to mile to accommodate residences, farms, and business? Can we force HOV vehicles to use only the HOV lane? That would give 1/3 of the 3 lanes to the 1/3 of the cars you project to be HOV. Any chance of making this part of an intrastate highway system? A very cheap short-term safety improvement would be to add a right turn lane for westbound traffic at 316 and Collins Hill Road. It is currently difficult to make this turn if the light is green, since traffic behind you does not allow you to slow down. I like the idea of the limited access HOV in Alternative 1. I think, though, that you will see a lot of opposition to this from the public, due to a lack of comprehension. I would support toll roads if a break were made for residents along the corridor. I live off of Harbins Road. I don't think HOV lanes would work on 316 but if implemented, I would prefer a barricade between HOV and SOV lanes. Phase 1 should be installation of red light cameras at intersections to ticket speeders. Traffic lights at Collins Hill and 20 are both bottlenecks. Collins will get much worse with new WalMart and Perimeter College. We need limited on/off ramps where interchanges are close (e.g. Collins Hill to SR 20). In keeping with the above, the use of frontage roads may help make this a reality. Are we contemplating a future light commuter rail down the center of HWY 316? Will policing of the HOV lanes be done electronically or with cops? Cops with flashing lights screw up traffic worse. Are the barriers concrete or rubber poles? I like the idea of limited access but I don't like HOV. I agree something has to be done for safety purposes. I am for anything for improvement of GA 316 even if it means a toll road. I like HOV lanes. Need some frontage road to get vehicles off freeway. I like Alternate 2 on HOV. I am 100% against making 316 a toll road for the following reason. Once a road becomes a toll road in the country they tolls never go away. In the comments of last time, one person stated "could tolls from 400 go and fund 316"? Proof people forget the concept of tolls and once a toll always a toll, therefore, no toll on the road. Find another way take money from other projects and put it to 316 because most traffic use the entire 316 therefore this should be a state issue full state funding, not toll road.

Before frontage roads right-of-way is purchased, future development along the frontage roads need to be considered. Specifically, large buffers between the frontage roads and developments should exist so that businesses won't "hug" the frontage roads. In other words, buy plenty of right-of-way now while the land is not as expensive. Because once the land becomes developed, right-of-way will be very expensive to purchase.
Impacts on converting GA 316 to a toll road should be carefully considered. There should also be good access to alternate roads (e.g. US 29, US 78) from GA 316 for those motorists who do not want to use the GA 316 toll road to navigate from point A to point B. In other words, a very well planned grid system needs to be put in place connecting GA 316 to US 29, US 78 and etc. at various points.
Also, funding should come from Tractor Trailer operator companies as well as from State, Federal, and Bond programs. Creative funding needs to be considered.
Do not like the limited access to the HOV lanes. Definitely need interchanges, but locations need to be studied in detail to assure they are constructed in the proper locations.
Local governments need to establish the future land-use plans and be held to them along the 316 corridor. This should help with the location studies of the interchanges.
Tolls might be a hard sell. This could push a lot of traffic to highway 8 and other secondary roads. Toll roads "never" disappear.
Alternate 2 is preferred. Reduce speed. Speed was 55 and changed to 65 and added more lights and didn't reduce speed. Add more law enforcement and add a third lane. No tolls, that costs money too. You'll only flood back and side
streets. Toll road would only penalize the people who live next to 316. $900,000 for this study could be used as
improvements. Reduce speed limits to reduce accidents. Less exits, more patrol, speed detector. No tolls, no HOV. Toll road would
flood HWY 8 and other roads where school busses and town businesses are. There is not enough traffic to justify HOV lanes. If HOV lanes "must" be built, we need the freedom to enter or exit
them without barriers. Alternate 1 is more expensive and should not be considered. Add an additional generalpurpose lane to each side. There does not need to be a tax increase to fund this project. We pay enough in taxes already to fund this. No gas tax increase no sales tax increase. No toll. Tolls "never" go away. If there is a toll there "must" be an expiration date that is after a certain number of years or keep a running total of what is paid so we know when it is paid off. How much does Alternate 1 cost? How much is Alternate 2? No one had the answer to this. When will this be implemented? How long will it take? No one had the answers to these either. So, No Toll, NO Barriers, NO HOV at this time, No tax increases. And when did we pay $900,000 for this study when that money could have been used to fix the problem instead of talking about it. I find it offensive that someone who received $900,000 in taxpayer funds would tell me that they are going to recommend that my tax burden should increase. There is no need for tolls. I do not care if it takes 20 or more years to do upgrades without tolls and sales tax increases. There are plenty of programs that the State and Federal Governments fund that are merely "pork" projects and since 28% of my income never makes it into my bank account as it is, you guys have plenty of money and can balance it out without confiscating more of my income. Alternate 1 with barrier separated HOV lanes is the only practical design for an HOV facility. Adjacent HOV lanes have been proven inefficient because drivers in HOV lanes must drive more cautiously if there is the possibility of another vehicle entering the lane. Frequent entrance and exit points would be necessary as well as frequent HOV interchanges to accommodate the barrier separated lanes. An additional alternate should be considered that allows for 6 SOV plus 2 HOV lanes between I-85 and SR 20.

Appendix - 9

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study

Written Comments

The Kilcrease Road exit is so very busy, how can you consider making it only a grade separation? Also, no one will even begin to explain what will be done with the wetlands at Kilcrease? Even though it has been so dry, it's still wet on both sides of the road. And the west side is drainage for several hills. I'm only 1,000 feet from 316 and the road in front of my place goes up for nearly a mile. It all has to be drained where? Eventually we will get rain. I don't want a lake in my front yard if you dam up the wetlands. No HOV lanes please, especially the barriers.

GDOT to make SR 316 an interstate, which would eliminate current methods of crossing and accessing SR 316. New methods for accessing SR 316 would include formal on and off ramps, such as those found on interstate 85, a bridge overpasses to cross SR 316 if that meant making these types of safety improvements. However, I believe just about anything GDOT does to limit access to and crossing of SR 316 would greatly improve the safety of all travelers. Thank you for the chance to comment.

After attending the meeting in Oconee County concerning HWY 316 I found that it dealt with the problem of getting more cars into the system without any consideration for the current problems. There must be a solution for the merge at 316 and I-85, as I-85 cannot handle the problem now. Do not add more cars to the system without some solution for the current problems.
I work in the Lenox Building in Buckhead. I spend one to one and a half hours each morning commuting to work, although at least a good 30 minutes of my commute is on the 8-mile stretch of 316 from Hwy 20 to I-85. I was asked to e-mail you with information about my commute, as I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. It's gotten to where every morning my stomach turns as I listen to traffic report after traffic report, always mentioning problems on I-85 and the back up on 316. I don't know what to suggest to make things better, but I do know that a toll won't solve the problem. I feel a toll would make things worse as far as holding up moving traffic. Overpasses actually make more sense to me as far as keeping traffic moving. Or, going to four lanes instead of two, although that may only encourage more traffic and only contribute to the volume. Sitting in completely stopped traffic on a major interstate defies logic and reason. Why automobiles aren't moving completely baffles the mind, not to mention what the fumes from those automobiles are doing to the air quality (and to the lungs of the drivers). Something has to give...I am in favor of that. I just don't know what. Well, those are my feelings on the matter, for what it's worth.
All the congestion on Hwy 316 is caused by having to stop at traffic lights. Toll collection would make 316 come to a standstill. My home is located 1 mile north of Hwy 316 just north of Hi Hope Road. Every weekday morning at 8:00 am I enter the bumper-to-bumper traffic on Hwy 20 from Hwy 124. It takes from 3 to 6 minutes to reach Hwy 316 from Hwy 124 (less than 1 mile). The delays are caused by trucks that are not capable of accelerating quickly after the frequent stops. Entering Hwy 316 westbound from Hi Hope Road is not an alternative because I have sat through a minimum of three light cycles on 316 to cross Hwy 20. At least 3 of 5 weekdays, Hwy 316 westbound traffic is backed up to Hwy 20 from Collins Hill, waiting to pass the Collins Hill traffic light. Then it's a smooth ride to Sugarloaf PKWY, where I exit, continue to Old Norcross Road and onto work new Gwinnett Place Mall. At 5:15 pm every day, I come to a stop on 316 east at Hwy 120, and then creep to Collins Hill, then creep again to finally turn left onto Hwy 20. Rail, HOV lanes, buses would be useless to me. As I am a Chicago native, I have seen that toll roads create more traffic backups than were there originally, and the toll collection is never removed. I patronize the businesses new Hwy 20, Collins Hill, and Hwy 120 frequently. If Hwy 316 were toll, Hurricane Shoals Road would be at a standstill for all of us trying to reach those businesses. And when the university is finished it will be 10 times worse. I believe the only solution for the Hwy 20 and Collins Hill section of Hwy 316 is to build overpasses.
Just this morning I found the SR 316 Corridor Study website via the GDOT website. I did not know this website existed until today, or I would have contacted you sooner. It appears as though there was a public comment meeting yesterday, November 13, in Watkinville, which I would have attended had I known about it. You are listed as a contact person for public comment; therefore, I am sending my comments to you. I travel SR 316 five days a week, Monday through Friday, from my home in Athens to my place of employment in Chamblee (off interstate 85 and Chamblee Tucker Road). I choose to live in Athens because of the high quality of life, but my biggest daily stress is traveling on SR 316. I constantly worry about my safety especially at all of the intersections, both with and without traffic lights. Based on the summary of the Accident analysis, my worries are well founded. As the summary states, "The arterial portions of SR 316 had significantly higher accident rates, both injury and fatality accidents than similar facilities throughout the state." At least three times a week I must quickly move around a car that has turned onto SR 316, either in the right or left lane, to avoid an accident. Further, the Christian crosses that dot length of SR 316, especially at intersections, are a constant reminder of the danger of traveling the highway. Since none of the proposed alternatives to improving SR 316 are posted on the website, I cannot comment on specific alternatives. I have heard some alternatives presented on the news and my comments incorporate some of what I have heard. I do encourage the

I attended the public hearing on SR 316 at Oconee Middle School on November 13 and would like to submit these comments regarding the proposed project. o Time is of the essence. DOT must do everything it can to speed this project up, including innovative funding mechanisms and fast tracking the construction process. Lives are at stake, many of them UGA faculty/staff and students, and untold wasted hours, many of them being paid by UGA to state employees on business. Construction cannot begin too soon. It is needed yesterday. This road should have been an interstate highway from the start and was built on the cheap. We are paying for that now. o There seemed to be some presumption on the part of some of the presenters that most of the traffic was bound from Athens to Atlanta in the mornings and returning in the evenings. I think you will find a much larger percentage than you suspect will be east bound in the mornings and west bound in the evenings, those being UGS faculty, staff and students bound for campus. 11% of the UGA faculty and staff live in Oconee County and 48% of UGA students live in core counties of metropolitan Atlanta. 20% of UGA freshmen live in Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. A number of the fatalities and serious injuries on SR 316 have been UGA students en route to and from campus. o The alternative calling for barrier-separated HOV lanes and dedicated HOV interchanges id overkill, in my opinion. There is no such system now in place anywhere in Georgia. I would much prefer adding two lanes in each direction one and HOV lane and the other an additional standard lane, giving three standard lanes and one HOV lane going in each direction. Certainly this could be done within the budget otherwise required to build barriers and dedicated interchanges for HOV. It is my opinion that not only would the alternate 1 design for separated HOV lanes be expensive to build, it would be a confusing and inconvenient design for drivers who would not know where and how to access the system vs. the standard lanes. Such a design would undoubtedly slow construction and completion, as well, and again, time is of the essence. The alternative 2 design is better in that it adds an HOV lane, but it adds only one lane. I would propose an alternate 3 adding two lanes; one HOV and one a standard lane in each direction. o Construction should begin immediately to grade separate the most problematic intersections. As someone who drives the full length of this route in three or four round trips many weeks, experience tells me those are, in order of concern, at SR 20 in Lawrenceville, Collins Hill Road in Lawrenceville, and the remaining intersections from US 29 at Dacula and west. Growing rapidly in concern are SR 316 at SR 10 loop in Oconee County, and SR 316 at the Oconee Connector, followed by SR 81 and SR 11 in Barrow County, then Jimmie Daniel Road in Oconee County. The other intersections are still worrisome, but of less immediate priority for grade separation. When the project is staged, I would suggest that construction should begin from each end and meet in the middle.
There are further concerns beyond each end of this project, which I would hope DOT would address soon, those being the poorly designed interchanges at SR 316 at I-85 in Gwinnett County and the Epps Bridge Parkway (which is the 316 extension) at Atlanta Highway in Clarke County. West/southbound traffic at SR 316 and I-85 needs to be able to flyover and merge from the right (slow), not the left (fast) lanes of I-85 south. North/eastbound traffic at Atlanta Highway in Athens needs a way to go westbound on Atlanta Highway rather than being forced to go east and then make a U-turn at Old Epps Bridge Road. This is very confusing to inbound traffic. Also, the Epps Bridge Parkway thru lanes should remain thru lanes on Atlanta Highway, rather than the current configuration, which rapidly turns the right lane into a rightturn-only lane (dangerous and confusing).

Appendix - 10

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report

State Route 316 Corridor Study Written Comments
The City of Statham needs two access roads coming off SR 316 at Hwy 211 and near Barber Creek Road. The City of Statham needs a road that runs parallel to SR 316 coming from Hwy 211 to Barber Creek Road.
Barrow County supports the upgrade of SR 316 to limited access freeway standards, including local access along a system of frontage roads. Barrow County has invested a substantial amount of money into developing plans that deal with a limited access upgrade, and has put together specific ideas for interchange and frontage road locations that take into account our local land use patterns, proposed developments and current and future traffic patterns. We would like to see our plans and ideas merged with the Department's plans and ideas to produce the best possible solutions.
I am a local property owner, citizen and business owner. I urge DOT to act in all dispatch to demonstrate your intent to make SR 316 a safe and efficient freeway system. I also ask you to incorporate the technological component for data and and communication as well as providing for the aesthetic quality of a world class parkway. The need to begin the process to make the 316 route a safe and efficient parkway is now. This project should be high priority.
I want to express my concern about the lack of safety along SR 316. I believe there is a critical need to upgrade this road to be a limited access freeway.
I am a resident of Bethlehem in Barrow County. SR 316 needs to be limited access. So many accidents and deaths occur because that what happens when you put turning lanes and red lights on what is basically an interstate. However, I disagree with the plan to make 316 a per mile toll road. I could understand a system similar to 400 but for many commuters their drive consists of the whole distance between Atlanta and Athens. Not only working commuters go to Atlanta but students to Tech, GA State and Georgia. The DOT will face great opposition to the proposed per mile toll. I commend the DOT for recognizing the problem with 316 but lets fix it without robbing the people who need it the most.
Any set of options GDOT is considering for improving the road must put safety foremost. If budgetary shortfalls mean postponement of the ultimate goal of eliminating all at-grade intersections, then GDOT should concentrate immediately on making the existing road safer. The safest option is reduced speed limits. No amount of HOV lane, electronic signage, or public relations can substitute for driving at slower speeds. If state and local governments can not or will not vigorously enforce lower limits, then GDOT should install any and all legal devices, including traffic signals at all intersections to slow down traffic.
go to Atlanta but students to Tech, GA State and Georgia. The DOT will face great opposition to the proposed per mile toll. I commend the DOT for recognizing the problem with 316 but lets fix it without robbing the people who need it the most.
Any set of options GDOT is considering for improving the road must put safety foremost. If budgetary shortfalls mean postponement of the ultimate goal of eliminating all at-grade intersections, then GDOT should concentrate immediately on making the existing road safer. The safest option is reduced speed limits. No amount of HOV lane, electronic signage, or public relations can substitute for driving at slower speeds. If state and local governments can not or will not vigorously enforce lower limits, then GDOT should install any and all legal devices, including traffic signals at all intersections to slow down traffic.
Appendix - 11

SR 316 Corridor Study Final Report