! "# $ % &' ( )* +)"" #, &' -. Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the methodology and findings of a detailed operational analysis conducted for consideration of a proposed interchange at Interstate 85 (I-85) and CR103/Poplar Road in Coweta County, Georgia. URS Corporation, as a subconsultant to Parsons Transportation Group, was contracted by the Georgia Department of Transportation in January 2005 to complete an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) satisfying applicable FHWA requirements for the subject proposed interchange location. Coweta County, acting as the project sponsor, in partnership with the City of Newnan, proposed the interchange, provided the Department with an acceptable Initial Feasibility Study, and provided the funds necessary for this IJR. GDOT project number INTCH-0007-00(074) Coweta County, P.I. No. 0007074, has been assigned to this study by the Department. Close coordination has been maintained with the Department, Coweta County, and the City of Newnan throughout the course of the study with coordination meetings held on several occasions. Details of this coordination are included in the Appendix portion of this report. The analysis detailed herein was undertaken to assess the need and potential impact of the proposed interchange on traffic safety and operations and the environment. The operational analysis was performed using existing traffic counts and forecasted travel demand volumes extracted from the Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC's) Regional Travel Demand Model. It included analysis of sections of the interstate up to and including the first adjacent existing interchange to the north and south of the proposed access point. Crossroads and other roadways and streets were included in the analysis, to the extent necessary, to ensure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange. The interchange, as proposed, was evaluated for its consistency with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Additionally, the study area was investigated to identify any issues of potential environmental concern. This environmental screening E-1 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road was undertaken for the purpose of identifying any significant obstacles or "fatal flaws" that could jeopardize the project's ability to eventually receive the necessary environmental approvals to move to construction. This study concludes that the proposed interchange can be supported, as it satisfies the FHWA policy requirements for new interstate access points as detailed in Interstate System 23 CFR 630 and reproduced in Table 1-2 on Page 3 of this report. The proposed interchange will provide increased access, reduced travel times and congestion, and flexibility in the roadway network for the study and surrounding areas. These benefits can be provided with no overall negative impact to the interstate system or to the surrounding surface roadway network. The interchange may have some adverse effect on historic structures, streams, wetlands, and community quality of life, but these effects appear to be minor and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should be possible without modifying the project concept. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives considered are included in this report beginning on Page 47. The recommended alternative providing the most benefit is the "Optimized Build Alternative" (Alternative 4). It is a combination of the interchange itself (Alternative 2) with other minor improvements in the study area ("In Lieu of Alternative" Alternative 3) that, together, produce impressive results. This report is organized for ease of reading and is detailed in the Table of Contents following this Executive Summary. An introduction sets the parameters for the study, then a discussion of existing and future conditions, results of environmental screening, methodology for determining projected traffic volumes, description of alternatives considered, and results of traffic analysis and modeling. Traffic analyses are described in two sections (Interstate and Intersection) and were performed for three conditions: Existing (2005), Base Year (2020), and Design Year (2030). The base year of 2020 was chosen since that is the year the interchange is to be open to traffic as modeled in the 2030 RTP. The design year of 2030 was chosen since it is the last year of an approved conforming air quality plan (2030 RTP, approved by ARC Board on December 1, 2004). E-2 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road The "In Lieu of" Alternative (Alternative 3), the "Optimized Build" Alternative (Alternative 4), and the "Optimized Build with Collector-Distributor Network Alternative" (Alternative 5) were only modeled for the design year since that is the worst case condition. E-3 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1 1.2 FHWA Guidance and Policy Compliance 1 1.3 Coordination/Data Sources 4 2.0 Planning Background Existing Conditions 2.1 Study Area 6 2.2 I-85/Poplar Road Site 6 2.3 Population 7 2.4 Employment, Unemployment, and Income 11 2.5 Existing Land Use 13 2.6 Analysis of 2003 Crash Information 15 3.0 Planning Background Future Conditions 3.1 Population Forecast 18 3.2 Employment Forecast 19 3.3 Future Land Use 20 3.4 Planned and Programmed Improvements 24 3.5 Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) 26 3.6 Other Developments of Significance 33 3.7 Regional Air Quality Compliance 33 3.8 Summary 34 4.0 Environmental Screening 4.1 Current Project Description 35 4.2 Cultural Resources (Archaeology and History) 35 4.3 Jurisdictional Waters of the US Wetlands and Streams 38 4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 39 4.5 Community Issues 40 4.6 Hazardous Materials/UST's 41 4.7 Summary 44 5.0 Traffic Volume Projects - Travel Demand Model Methodology 5.1 Travel Demand Model 45 5.2 2000 Base Year Validation Check 45 5.3 Initial Traffic Projections 45 5.4 Network Edits 47 5.5 Summary 48 TOC-1 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 6.0 Description of Alternatives 6.1 Alternative 1 - No Build Alternative 49 6.2 Alternative 2 - Build Alternative 49 6.3 Alternative 3 - In Lieu of Alternative 50 6.4 Alternative 4 - Optimized Build Alternative 51 6.5 Alternative 5 - Optimized Build with Collector-Distributor Network 52 6.6 Cost Estimates 52 7.0 Traffic Analysis and Modeling 7.1 Interstate Operations Analyses 7.1.1 Introduction 66 7.1.2 Methodology 67 7.1.3 Existing 2005 Conditions Analysis 69 7.1.4 Base Year 2020 Analysis 7.1.4.1 Alternative 1 73 7.1.4.2 Alternative 2 76 7.1.4.3 Comparison of Results 80 7.1.5 Design Year 2030 Analyses 7.1.5.1 Alternative 1 83 7.1.5.2 Alternative 2 86 7.1.5.3 Comparison of Results 90 7.1.5.4 Alternative 5 93 7.1.5.5 Comparison of Results (Alt. 5 versus Alts 1 & 2) 96 7.1.5.6 Design Year 2030 CORSIM Modeling Results 99 7.2 Intersection Operations Analyses 7.2.1 Introduction 102 7.2.2 Methodology 103 7.2.3 Existing 2005 Conditions Analysis 105 7.2.4 Base Year 2020 Analyses 7.2.4.1 Alternative 1 109 7.2.4.2 Alternative 2 109 7.2.5 Design Year 2030 Analyses 7.2.5.1 Alternative 1 115 7.2.5.2 Alternative 2 115 7.2.5.3 Alternative 3 119 7.2.5.4 Alternative 4 122 7.2.5.5 Alternative 5 122 7.3 Traffic Operations Summary 125 TOC-2 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A Other Developments of Significance Residential Developments South of Senoia A-1 Need and Purpose Statement A-2 References Environmental Screening A-3 Cost Estimates A-4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Meeting Minutes A-5 2030 RTP Project Data for Coweta County A-6 Chief Engineer's Policy 4A-3 Establishing Access Control A-7 TOC-3 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background An IJR was conducted for the purpose of assessing the need for, and potential impact of, a proposed interchange at I-85 and Poplar Road on traffic safety and operations in Coweta County Georgia. To ensure that all pertinent factors and alternatives were appropriately considered, and to provide FHWA with the necessary information to properly evaluate the request for a new access point along I-85 at Poplar Road, the following activities were undertaken. Review of FHWA policy and guidelines; Identification of existing transportation and land use plans; Examination of area growth and development; Environmental screening of potential area impacts; Development and analysis of design alternatives (i.e., diamond interchange, single-point, directional ramps, alternate locations, etc.); Development of a concept level design; Model network development for forecasting future travel demand; Traffic operations (capacity) analyses for existing, no-build and build conditions; Consideration of existing and future traffic safety operations; Development of preliminary cost estimates and implementation schedule; and Identify available funding strategies. 1.2 FHWA Guidance and Policy Compliance FHWA policy states that all requests for new or revised access must include sufficient supporting information to allow FHWA to independently evaluate the request and ensure that all pertinent factors and alternatives have been appropriately considered. To facilitate the review process and to support FHWA's independent evaluation of the request, FHWA's general information requirements and policy requirements are 1 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road summarized in Tables 1-1 and 1-2, and the corresponding text section that addresses each requirement is referenced. Table 1-1 General Information Requirements and Corresponding Report Sections1 General Requirement The location and type of proposed access Report Section Section 6.2 Alternative 2 The purpose and need for the new or revised access point. Identification of any known issues of concern or controversy Background or supporting information that explains the basis of the proposal for a new interchange. State if the interchange is located within a Transportation Management Area. A description of the design alternatives considered and why the proposed alternative was selected. Estimated costs of the project, proposed funding sources and implementation schedule. Relationship and distance of the interchange to adjacent interchanges and the ability to provide adequate signing. Any necessary design exceptions from currently adopted AASHTO Interstate design standards. Existing and proposed limits of access. Appendix Need and Purpose Statement Section 4.0 - Environmental Screening Sections 2.0 and 3.0 The proposed access point at I-85 and Poplar Road falls within a TMA2. Section 6.0 and 7.3 respectively Section 6.5 Estimated Costs Section 6.2 Alternative 2 No exceptions from AASHTO standards were noted. Section 6.2 Alternative 2 Schematic drawings showing current and design Schematic drawings are presented as year ADT and DHV for mainline traffic Exhibits 7-1, 7-3, 7-4, 7-7, 7-8, 7-11, volumes, ramp volumes, cross road volumes, and 7-13, 7-15, 7-17, and 7-18 in Section intersection turning movements. 7.0. Additional proposed traffic signalization and Section 6.2 Alternative 2, signing (where applicable). Section 7.0 Safety issues regarding the existing conditions No safety issues were noted, see also and proposed alternatives. Section 2.6. 1Source: FHWA, Georgia Division, Guidance on Interstate Access Requests, August 5, 2003. 2Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) are urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. 2 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 1-2: Policy Information Requirements1 Policy Requirement Report Section Existing Facilities: "The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets Section 7.0 in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal." Transportation System Management:: "All reasonable alternatives for design Section 7.0 options, location, and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified." Operational Analysis: "The proposed access point does not have a significant Section 7.0 adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on each side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with the new or revised access points." Access Connections and Design: "The proposed access connects to a public Section 7.2 road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal- aid projects on the Interstate System." Transportation Plans: "The proposal considers and is consistent with local Sections 1.3 and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all and 3.1.6 requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93." Comprehensive Interstate Network Study: "In areas where the potential Section 7.1 exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long-term plan." Coordination with Transportation System Improvements: "The request for Sections 1.3, a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development and 3.4-3.6 demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements." Status of Planning and NEPA: "The request for new or revised access Section 4.0 contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal." 1Source: FHWA, Georgia Division, Guidance on Interstate Access Requests, August 5, 2003, FHWA's interstate interchange policy, as set forth in the Federal Register on February 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 28, Page 7045-7047). 3 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 1.3 Coordination/Data Sources The assessments undertaken as part of this IJR were conducted in close coordination with local and regional transportation officials. Meetings with FHWA, GDOT, the City of Newnan, and Coweta County were held throughout the course of the study. One on one interviews with City and County officials were also conducted to facilitate the exchange of information. Key documents were identified through consultation with local and regional officials and were reviewed to ensure consistency with relevant local and regional land use and transportation plans. Key documents identified during data gathering efforts included, but were not limited to: The Coweta County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Draft, November 2004 The City of Newnan's 2003-2023 Comprehensive Plan and 2003 2007 Short Term Work Program Coweta County Long Range Transportation Plan, December 2002 Statement of Need Interchange Justification Report, Part B2, Coweta County Planning Department, May 11, 2004. ARC's Long Range Transportation Plan (2030 RTP), approved by ARC Board on December 1, 2004 ARC's Transportation Improvement Program (2005-2010 TIP), approved by ARC Board on December 1, 2004 Local studies, such as the traffic impact studies for Stonebridge at Newnan Crossing (September 2004), Parkside Village (May 2004), the Forum at Newnan Crossing (November 2004) and other DRIs were reviewed to better understand planned and approved developments. 4 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road The most current existing and future zoning/land use information, was obtained from the City of Newnan Community Development Department and Coweta County Planning Department to assist with the analysis of existing and future conditions. Additionally, traffic projections, applied in the operations analysis, were extracted from ARC's Regional Travel Demand Model to be consistent with ARC's conforming Regional Transportation Plan. 5 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Study Area Coweta County is located in the southwestern portion of the Atlanta Metropolitan Region. Coweta is bordered by Carroll and Fulton County to the North, Fayette County and Spalding County to the east, Troup County and Meriwether County to the south, and Heard County to the west. Coweta County state routes, county roads and city streets total approximately 1,264 centerline miles of roadway. A 23 mile segment of Interstate 85 (I85) containing 5 interchanges passes through Coweta County. Other significant roadways within the county include: US 27 Alternate, US 29, SR 16, SR 34 (Bullsboro Drive), SR 54, SR 74, SR 85, SR 154, Lower Fayetteville Road, and Poplar Road. 2.2 I-85/Poplar Road Site The interchange proposed for consideration by this IJR is located at Poplar Road and I85. A vicinity map is provided to show the general location of the proposed access (see Figure 2-1). Poplar Road (CR 103) is a two-lane east-west secondary arterial that bridges I-85 approximately 2.5 miles east of the downtown area of the City of Newnan, Georgia. It is classified as a minor arterial immediately west of I-85 and a principal arterial east of I-85. The segment of I-85 near Poplar Road is a four (4) lane (2 lanes in each direction) interstate principle arterial. The interchanges at SR 34/Bullsboro Drive and SR 14/US 27 Alt (or Alt 27/HWY29) define the northern and southern limits of the study area (see Figure 2-2). The proposed interchange location is positioned approximately midway between the two state routes. Along I-85, the SR 34/Bullsboro Drive Exit (Exit 47/ MP 46.7) is 2.7 miles north of Poplar Road and the SR 14/US 27 ALT/the Moreland/Greenville Exit (Exit 41/MP 41.2) is approximately 2.5 miles south of the proposed interchange. Bullsboro Drive is a 4-lane divided highway bordered by heavy strip commercial development. SR 34/Bullsboro Drive Interchange serves as the main point of entry to the City of Newnan. 6 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Poplar Road intersects the Newnan Bypass approximately 1100 feet west of the proposed interchange. Newnan Crossing Boulevard East, a southern extension of Newnan Crossing Boulevard (currently under construction), will "T" into Poplar Road approximately 1600 feet east of the proposed interchange, once completed. Lower Fayetteville Road (CR 546), a minor urban arterial, and Turkey Creek Road, a local collector, are located approximately 1.0 mile north and 0.6 miles south of the proposed I85/Poplar Road interchange, respectively (see Figure 2-2). 2.3 Population Between 1990 and the Year 2000 Newnan's population rose by 3,745 residents, an increase of approximately 30%. During the same time period, the population of Coweta County increased by approximately 65.7 percent. The growth in the City of Newnan and Coweta County outpaced the growth rate of State of Georgia, which saw a 21.2% increase during the same 10 year period (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Table 2-1: Population, City of Newnan 1970-2023 Year Population Year Population 1970 11,449 2007 25,442 1980 11,449 2010 28,998 1985 11,973 2015 33,307 1990 12,497 2020 35,354 1995 12,978 2023 35,813 2000 16,242 2005 22,269 2003 19,310 2010 28,998 2004 20,612 2015 33,307 2005 22,269 2020 35,354 2006 24,222 2023 35,813 1970 Population: U.S. Census Bureau. Data for years 1980-2004: Newnan Comprehensive Plan 2003-2023 7 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 2-2: Population, Coweta County 1930-2030 Year 1930 1940 1950 1960 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 25,127 26,972 27,786 28,893 39,268 53,853 89,215 110,498 154,411 205,023 According to ARC's Mobility 2030 Coweta County was among the top 35 fastest growing counties in the nation in the 1990's (see Table 2-3). Table 2-3: County Name Rank of 3,141 counties County Ranking Forsyth County 2 Henry County 4 Paulding County 7 Gwinnett County 31 Coweta County 35 Cherokee County 57 Barrow County 66 Newton County 96 Walton County 104 Fayette County 107 Bartow County 196 Cobb County 201 Clayton County 309 Rockdale County 318 Douglas County 319 Fulton County 430 DeKalb County 562 Spalding County 1707 Source: ARC's Mobility 2030 10 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 2.4 Employment, Unemployment, and Income Location and transportation are important factors instrumental in the City of Newnan and Coweta County's development. Interstate 85 bisects the County providing direct access to Atlanta (the City of Newnan is only 40 minutes from downtown Atlanta and only 25 minutes from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport). I-85 provides access to the north to I-20, I-75, and I-285. This accessibility provided by I-85 to major facilities in the region has contributed to the City of Newnan's and Coweta County's growing economy. Employment According to the Newnan-Coweta Chamber of Commerce, Coweta County maintains a diversified industrial base which includes over 90 industries and employs over 8,000 people. Bon L Manufacturing; Caldwell Tanks; EGO Products; Excel Corporation; KMart Distribution Center; Olsonite Corporation; Triumph Motorcycles; Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation; and Yokogawa Corporation of America are among the industries located in Coweta County. Employment data for Coweta County is presented in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: County Employment Year 1990 2000 Employment 17,800 27,500 % Change 54% Source: The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), 2004 As indicated in the table above, the County employment level increased by 54% between 1990 and 2000. Employment growth is most concentrated in the center of the County, within the City limits of Newnan. U.S. Census data indicates that the greatest number of jobs, 13,123, was associated with Census Tract 1703.02 in the Year 2000 (see Figure 21). This tract represents the northeastern section of the Newnan City Limits; it straddles I-85 and includes Bullsboro Drive from a location east of SR 34/I-85 to the town center of Newnan. 11 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Unemployment Historically, Coweta County has stayed below the state's average unemployment level, while Meriwether, Heard and Troup County's unemployment rates have been higher than the State rate. Income The per capita and median household income levels for the City of Newnan and Coweta County are presented in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Income Data City of Newnan and Coweta County Newnan 1989 Median HH Income 1999 Median HH Income 1989 Per Capita Income 1999 Per Capita Income Source: U.S. Census Bureau 17,202 36,142 7,535 19,081 % Change 110 153 Coweta County 31,925 52,706 13,708 21,949 % Change 65 60 According to a report of the University of Georgia, Coweta County's buying power (disposable personal income in thousands of dollars) was $796,012 in 1990 and $2,048,473 in 2001, representing a positive increase in buying power of over 157% during this period. Overall, the economy of Coweta County and the City of Newnan is strong.1 Overall, major transportation routes and access to developed areas in the county are believed to be a factor that has contributed to the economic development in the region. Access to major transportation routes, like I-85, has made the region especially attractive for location of major distribution centers.1 1 Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, Simon S. Selig, Jr. Center for Economic Growth, University of Georgia, September-October 2001 12 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 2.5 Existing Land Use Newnan Land Use An existing land use map for the City of Newnan is presented as Figure 2-3. The total acreage currently dedicated to each of the City's eight land use categories are presented in Table 2-6. Table 2-6: Existing Land Use Allocation, 2003 City of Newnan Land Use Category Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Industrial Public/Institutional Parks/Recreation/Conservation Transportation/Communications/Utilities Right-of-Way Agriculture Undeveloped Total Acres 2,355 474 691 523 1,645 257 52 886 0 5,021 11,904 Percent of Total Area 19.8 4.0 5.8 4.4 13.8 2.2 0.4 7.4 0.0 42.2 100.0% As indicated in Table 2-6, over 40 percent of the City's land area is undeveloped. Of the developed land, residential land use makes up nearly a quarter of all land. Publiclyowned lands (Public/Institutional, Parks/Recreation/Conservation, Right-of-Way, and Transportation/ Communications/Utilities) make up another quarter of the City's area, leaving 10 percent of the land in the City for Commercial and Industrial.2 Bullsboro Drive/Hwy 34 is a primary commercial corridor of the City that has undergone significant commercial development. Approximately 10 years ago the commercial areas along Bullsboro extended only to I-85. Commercial centers now extend along Bullsboro/SR 34 from the City of Newnan to the east towards Peachtree City and Fayetteville. 2 Comprehensive Plan 2003-2023 http://www.ci.newnan.ga.us/pubdocs/compplan/proposed/ch06.pdf 13 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Coweta County Land Use The I-85/Poplar Road area is situated outside the Newnan City Limits. An existing land use map for Coweta County was unavailable to assess existing land uses in the area immediately adjacent to the proposed interchange. However, through field observations, the land use in the immediate vicinity of Poplar Road is estimated to fall into the County's undeveloped or low density estate and residential categories. See also the City of Newnan Existing Land Use Map (Figure 2-3) and the Coweta County Future Land Use Map (Figure 3-2) for reference. 2.6 Analysis of 2003 Crash Information A crash analysis investigation was performed using the latest available data to document the existing crash rates along road segments impacted by the Poplar Road Interchange. The Coweta County roadways investigated include State Route (SR) 34, US 29, and County Route (CR) 103. Information collected for each road segment analyzed includes functional classification and milepost measurements from Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) Road Characteristics (RC) file, obtaining 2003 crash location data for Coweta County, and statewide accident data from GDOT's Office of Traffic Safety and Design for 2003. The crash rate for each road segment is compared to the overall average crash rate along the entire road, and statewide crash rate for the corresponding functional classification. The following paragraphs provide a discussion of the findings presented in Table 2-7. Table 2-7: 2003 Crash Data Analysis Road Road Segment SR 34 9.55 CR 103 11.09 US 29 2.28 Crash Rate per MVM traveled Roadway Average Statewide 6.01 5.85 11.05 2.11 0.94 NHS 8.15 2.69 Non-NHS 15 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Bullsboro Drive (SR 34), is classified as an urban minor arterial. A crash rate of 9.55 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM) traveled was recorded adjacent to the I-85 interchange, between milepost 14.6 and 15.5. The overall average crash rate recorded along SR 34 in Coweta County was 6.01 crashes per 100 MVM. This is slightly higher than the statewide rate of 5.85 100 MVM for this road classification. This illustrates a higher incidence of crashes along SR 34 near the I-85 interchange almost double the statewide rate. Poplar Road (CR 103), classified as a rural major collector had a crash rate of 11.09 crashes per 100 MVM between mileposts 0.5 and 1.4 and an overall average crash rate of 11.05 from milepost 0 to 5.4. These rates are significantly higher than the statewide average of 2.11 for this roadway type. US 29 is classified as a rural principal arterial had an overall average crash rate of 8.15 crashes per 100 MVM traveled. This is much higher than the rate of 2.28 reported for the segment immediately adjacent to I-85. To compare the crash rate along US 29 to the statewide crash rate it is important to point out that US 29 is classified differently on either side of I-85. North and west of I-85, US 29 is classified as a part of the National Highway System (NHS), while to the south and east of I-85 this designation is removed. NHS is a designation granted by the Federal Highway Administration signifying the road is "important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility." The statewide average for NHS roadways of this classification is 0.94, while for Non-NHS roadways the rate is 2.69. This indicates that along US 29 adjacent to I-85, the crash rate is more than double the national NHS average. In conclusion, crash rates in Coweta County are higher than statewide crash rates. One possible explanation for this is that growth is occurring faster than infrastructure improvements are being made. The most drastic deviation from statewide crash rates exists along CR 103, where the crash rate is more than five times the statewide rate. Closer inspection revealed a higher quantity of less severe crashes closer to Newnan, and 16 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road fewer more severe crashes farther away from Newnan where less development exists. SR 34 crashes near the I-85 interchange are more frequent and less severe than other areas of SR 34. Two-thirds of these involved property damage only, while the remaining were injury crashes. This trend could be explained due to the density of development adjacent to SR 34 around I-85. On US 29, despite having a generally lower crash rate near the I85 interchange, the crashes that occurred were more severe than other areas of US 29. Similar to SR 34 the crash severity generally increased as the distance away from Newnan increased. Overall, roads in Coweta County have higher crash rates than similar roadways statewide. 17 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND - FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Population Forecast Coweta's population is expected to double by 2030 (see Table 3-1). According to The Atlanta Regional Commission, the population density along freeway corridors in Coweta County, in particular, is anticipated to increase significantly in the future3. The population of the City of Newnan is anticipated to increase by approximately 61% between 2005 and 2023 (see Table 3-2). Census Tract 1703.01, north of Newnan, is forecast to lead the county in population growth, between the year 2000 and 2030, with an increase of 15,348 persons. Tracts 1703.02 and 1702.00, northwest of Newnan, are close behind with forecast increases of 14,082 and 13,250, respectively3. Table 3-1: Coweta County, Population Forecasts for 2010-2030 Year Population 2000 89,215 2010 110,498 2020 154,411 2030 205,023 Source: Forecasts provided by The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), 2004 3 Population and Employment Forecasts 2000 2030, Atlanta Regional Commission, 2004 18 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 3-2: City of Newnan, Population Forecasts for 2005-2023 Year Population 2005 22,269 2006 24,222 2007 25,442 2010 28,998 2015 33,307 2020 35,354 2023 35,813 2005 22,269 2010 28,998 2015 33,307 2020 35,354 2023 35,813 Source: Newnan Comprehensive Plan 2003-2023 3.2 Employment Forecast Employment forecasts for Coweta County are presented in Table 3-3. According to the table, significant employment growth is forecasted to continue over the next 25 years. Table 3-3: County Employment 2000-2030 Year Employment % Change 2000 27,500 54% 2010 37,427 36% 2020 51,932 39% 2030 70,397 36% Source: Forecasts provided by The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), 2004 The Census Tract northeast of 1703.02 (Tract 1704.01) in the I-85 corridor (located closer to downtown Atlanta) is projected to increase by 9,232 jobs between the Year 2000 and 2030. Tract 1703.02, (referenced in Section 2.4) is forecasted to add 8,248 jobs by 2030. Tract 1706.00, which includes the portion of Poplar Road at I-85, is forecast to experience Coweta's third largest increase, of 4,299 jobs3. 19 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.3 Future Land Use Newnan Land Use The future land use allocation, prepared for the City of Newnan is summarized in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Future Land Use Allocation, 2023 City of Newnan Land Use Category Acres Single-Family Residential 4,345 Multi-Family Residential 1,156 Commercial 1,519 Office/Professional 396 Commercial/Mixed-Use 76 Industrial 723 Public/Institutional 1,645 Parks/Recreation/Conservation 422 Transportation/Communications/Utilities 90 Right-of-Way 1,532 Agriculture 0 Total 11,904 Source: Comprehensive Plan 2003-2023 http://www.ci.newnan.ga.us/pubdocs/compplan/proposed/ch06.pdf Percent of Total Area 36.5% 9.7% 12.8% 3.3% 0.6% 6.1% 13.8% 3.5% 0.8% 12.9% 0.0% 100.0% The corresponding future land use map for the City of Newnan is presented in Figure 3-1. According to the City's forecast, single-family residential land will increase by nearly 85% over the next 20 years, and multi-family residential will increase by 144%. Commercial land will increase by 74%, and industrial land will increase by 38%. Residential land use of either low or medium-density is forecasted for locations at the edges of town, and future land use near the town center is forecasted as medium-density residential. It is anticipated that the Newnan Crossing area, in particular, will be predominately commercial, office and professional and high density residential by 2023. Overall, the proportion of commercial land area in the City is anticipated to rise dramatically in the future. 20 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Coweta County Land Use Coweta County's future land use map is presented in Figure 3-2. Land use in the vicinity of the proposed Poplar Road/I-85 interchange is forecasted as residential. The County land use allocation forecasts low density residential land use (0-1 units/acre) east of I85/Poplar Road and south of Turkey Creek Road and medium residential west of the I85/Poplar Road proposed interchange. 22 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.4 Planned and Programmed Improvements Planned and programmed transportation improvements from ARC's Mobility 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program are presented in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Area Planned and Programmed Transportation Projects Project Name I-85 Widening from SR34 to US29 I-85 Widening from US29/US27Alt to S. of US29/SR14 I-85 at Poplar Road New Interchange SR34 Bypass from SR34 to Jefferson Pkwy SR34 Bypass Extension from US29/27 Alt at SR 16 to Turkey Creek Road I-85 South at SR34 Loop Ramp Lower Fayetteville Road from Greison Trail to Fisher Road - shoulder widening Pine Road at US29 Major Intersection Improvement SR16 fm I-85 to US29 Final Connection of Eastern Bypass to US29 S. East Washington Street Extension from Farmer Street to Newnan Crossing Poplar Road at SR34 Bypass Extension Newnan Crossing East Blvd extended to Poplar Road Source: ARC's Mobility 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program Project Number (CW-AR-001) (CW-AR-002) (CW-AR-003) (CW-006B) (CW-007) (CW-AR-007B) (CW-032) (CW-033C) (CW-034) (CW-041) City of Newnan Project-to add traffic signal Developer constructed roadway Status/ Completion Date Programmed/2008 Long Range/2025 Long Range/2020 Programmed/2009 Programmed/2009 Programmed/2007 Programmed/2007 Programmed/2007 Programmed/2009 Long Range/2030 The locations of the planned and programmed transportation improvements are presented in Figure 3-3. 24 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.5 Developments of Regional Impact The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) is responsible for the review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). The Coweta County DRI projects and their review status are presented in Table 3-6. Table 3-6: Coweta Developments of Regional Impact DRI No. Project DRI Status Development Type 543 Coweta County Industrial Park (Phases I and II) Approved subject to conditions Industrial Residential Other Units Development Acreage Daily Trips 5,502,000a 641 See DRI 706 604 Stonebridge at Newnan Crossing 591 The Forum at Newnan Crossing Approved subject to conditions Residential (Single Family/ Townhomes) Approved subject to conditions Commercial 626 200 5,002 1,553,714b 64,233 531 Parkside Village 625 Crossroads Church 706 Coweta County Industrial Park (Phase III) Approved without conditions Residential (Single Family Homes) Approved without conditions Other Approved subject to conditions Industrial 451 189 4,158 796,000 118 2,067 1,598,000 114c 14,766 728 Twin Lakes Approved subject to conditions Residential (Single Family Homes) 752 Powell Business Park Approved subject to conditions Mixed Use 757 Creekside Industrial Park Approved subject to conditions Total Source: Coweta County Planning Department, 2005 aLight Industrial bCommercial/Retail cArea is in addition to the 661 acres developed under Phases I and II (see DRI # 543) dIndustrial and Commercial eIndustrial Industrial 663 1,740 630,500d 1,872,480e 11,952,694 760 2,022 3,984 94,210 The DRI locations are shown in Figure 3-4. 26 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Descriptions of the DRI's listed in Table 3-6 are provided in the following paragraphs. Coweta County Industrial Park (Phase 1&2) Coweta County Industrial Park is approved for development west of I-85, east of US 29 North and south of SR 154. The park is planned as a 661-acre facility with 5,502,000 square feet of light industrial and commercial space. Roadways nearest to the park include I-85, US 29 N, SR 154 and Walt Sanders Road. The principal transportation facilities providing access to the industrial park will be SR 154 and Walt Sanders Road. Stonebridge at Newnan Crossing Stonebridge is an approved 200-acre residential subdivision. Construction of 619 residential homes and town homes is planned including amenities such as a clubhouse, pool, tennis courts and walking trails set within 45 acres of open space. The intersections closest to Stonebridge are Lower Fayetteville Road and Shenandoah Boulevard and Lower Fayetteville Road and Newnan Crossing Boulevard. The principal roadways that will provide access to this site will be Lower Fayetteville Road and Newnan Crossing Boulevard. The Forum at Newnan Crossing The Forum at Newnan Crossing is an approved commercial development under construction on the south side of Bullsboro Drive (SR 34), west of I-85. The Forum consists of 404,500 square feet of retail space, 20,000 square feet of office space, a 50,580 square foot movie theater with 2632 seats, and nine (9) out- parcels. Newnan Crossing II consists of 304,729 square feet of retail space and restaurants, with approximately 118,629 square feet (already constructed and opened to business), and five (5) out-parcels for future development. In total, this development includes 1,553,714 square feet commercial/retail space. The principal roadways providing access to the Forum include SR 34 (Bullsboro Drive), Newnan Crossing Bypass and Newnan Place Drive. Bullsboro Drive/Newnan Crossing Bypass is the nearest intersection to this site. 28 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Parkside Village Parkside Village is an approved residential development sited for construction in the southeastern extent of Newnan City Limits fronting Parks Road, north of Poplar Road and south of Lower Fayetteville Road. The original preliminary plat approval by the City of Newnan consisted of 385 lots on 164 acres. The developer has since purchased 25.12 additional acres adjacent to the 164-acre area for construction of an additional 61 singlefamily homes. If this latter proposal is approved, a total Parkside Village will include 446 single-family detached dwellings on 189.12 acres. Parks Road, Lower Fayetteville Road, and Poplar Road are the primary roadways providing access to Parkside Village. Crossroads Church Development Crossroads Church is a planned Baptist worship and educational facility. The Church is to be constructed in three phases. If it is approved, Phase I will involve construction of a 44,600 square foot building with 1,210 parking spaces. Under Phases II and III, a 70,707 square foot building with 259 parking spaces and a 193,976 square foot building with 2,272 parking spaces will be built. Four recreational ball fields will also be constructed for this development. The principal roadways providing access to the proposed development and the nearest intersection are Poplar Road and SR 16. Coweta County Industrial Park (Phase 3) Coweta County Industrial Park is a proposed Industrial Development. This planned development will involve a 114.28-acre area and a 7,100,000 square foot light industrial use facility. If approved, the principal roadways that would provide access to the site would include I-85, SR 154 and US 29 N. The nearest intersection to the proposed park is I-85 and SR 154. Twin Lakes Senoia Twin Lakes (Senoia) is a residential development proposed near the intersection of RockA-Way Road and Blue Herron Boulevard. Twin Lakes would involve the construction of 663 single-family residential units on approximately 760 acres. The principal roadways providing access to a residential development at this location would be Rock-A-Way Road and Stallings Road. 29 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Powell Business Park Powell Business Park is a mixed-use development proposed for siting near the intersection of SR 34 East and Walt Sanders Memorial Drive. This 630,500 gross square foot development would consist of 439,000 square feet of Industrial 191,500 square feet of commercial space. The principal means of accessing the business park would be via SR 34 East. The nearest streets/intersection to this location is SR 34 East and Walt Sanders Memorial Drive. Creekside Industrial Park Creekside Industrial Park is a master planned industrial development located near the intersection of SR 34 East and Walt Sanders Memorial Drive. Infrastructure such as roads sewer water gas and electric are presently in place at the industrial park. The industrial park has 926,000 of existing floor space. The proposal submitted as part of the DRI is for the addition of 2,057,480 square feet of floor space. Overall, DRI's represent the addition of approximately 1,065 single family units and town homes, 18,078,977 square feet of commercial, industrial, or retail space, and 1,934 acres of developed land. Table 3-7 provides supplemental information on approved or proposed developments compiled by the City of Newnan. 30 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 3-7: Approved or Proposed Developments, City of Newnan1 Development Acres Units Sq. Ft. Belmont Park 40 120 Avery Park 373 620 Harpers Farm 27 104 Calumet 158 797 Theater Retail 52 79,000 The Club 17 192 The Villas 36 356 Madison Park 52 206 Madison Park at Newnan Lakes 80 283 Auto Mall 90 Stonebridge 195 399 Mall 150 1,200,000 Golden Gate 50 159 Brookhaven Park 63 250 Kroger 70,000 Amli Apartments 26 248 Lakeshore 115 234 Southwind 61 305 Amesbury Park 21 82 The Preserve 25 147 Christian's Corner 3 20 Camden Village Walk 109 332 Fox Ridge 134 399 Olmstead 149 312 Parkside Village 164 385 Summer Grove 1,554 3,112 Total 3,743 9,062 1,349,000 Source: City of Newnan Community Development, June 21, 2004 1Note: some overlap exists with DRI list in Table 3-6. The locations of the approved or proposed developments in Table 3-7 are presented in Figure 3-5. 31 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.6 Other Developments of Significance Other planned and approved developments (those not requiring a DRI) are submitted to Coweta County for review and approval. Although these are developments that just fell short of meeting or exceeding the development thresholds that would trigger a DRI, these developments, individually or in combination, are significant enough to warrant mention. These projects are listed in Appendix A-1 and include 36 residential developments (southeast of the study area near Senoia) submitted to the Coweta County Planning Department since January 2003 for review and approval. Some are considered significant by the County Planning Department (i.e. developments requiring construction of a new road or with more than ten lots). Others are not considered significant, when viewed individually, however, in combination, represent a total of 981 lots that are planned or approved. 3.7 Regional Air Quality Compliance In non-attainment areas traffic projections and planning must be consistent with the conforming transportation plan's assumptions. On December 21, 2004, the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), in consultation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, approved the Conformity Determination for the Mobility 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and its associated FY 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). ARC was required to show conformity to both the one-hour and eight-hour Ozone standards in the Mobility 2030 Plan. Mobility 2030 met and exceeded the requirements of both standards. The traffic projections employed for an operations analysis of the proposed I/85 Poplar Road interchange were obtained from ARC's Regional Travel Demand Model, and are thus consistent with the conforming plan. The proposed new interchange is included in the Atlanta Regional Commission's conforming long range transportation plan (Mobility 2030). 33 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 3.8 Summary A tremendous growth potential is being realized in Coweta County, especially in the I-85/Poplar Road study area. Based on historic population and employment trends, forecasted growth, and planned and approved developments, a new interchange at Poplar Road and I-85 would be beneficial in providing an alternative access point to the growing communities adjacent to the study area and beyond. Summer Grove, Camden Village, Southwind, Stonebridge, Parkside Village and numerous other significant residential developments in the City of Newnan and southeastern Coweta County are being located in close proximity to the study area and are anticipated to result in increasing travel demands and pressure on existing interchanges facilities. Likewise, residents living in areas beyond the study area are in need of alternative routes. A proposed interchange at I-85/Poplar Road has great potential for providing motorists originating in southeastern Coweta County, for example, with an alternative access point which would allow them to bypass peak hour congestion along SR 154 by taking SR 16 to Poplar Road to access I-85. Currently, those who commute to work in Atlanta from this area of the County must rely on SR 154 to access I-85 North. Interstate 85 is a key component to making Coweta County an especially attractive location for economic investment. Planned and approved commercial and industrial developments, such as the Forum at Newnan Crossing, Creekside Industrial Park, Coweta County Industrial Park, and Powell Business Park, located in the vicinity of SR 34/Bullsboro Drive, Newnan Bypass, Newnan Crossing Boulevard, and other key corridors, are anticipated to place an increasing demand on area access points and roadways. The proposed interchange along I-85 at Poplar Road would serve to alleviate forecasted congestion at the I-85/SR 34 interchange, along Bullsboro Drive, and along other key corridors in this area of Coweta County. 34 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING An environmental screening was undertaken for the I-85 interchange at Poplar Road. The screening was a preliminary step in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process designed to identify resources/issues of concern through background research and non-intensive visual survey of the study area. The inventory provided below lists only those resources/issues of concern that are readily apparent at the screening level of investigation. The inventory should not be considered exhaustive. An environmental screening does not fulfill FHWA Georgia Division requirements for final approval of an IMR/IJR with regard to NEPA (per FHWA Georgia Division: Interstate Access Requests; Section 4--Procedures for Interstate Access Requests; Subsection j--Policy information required in an IMR/IJR.). 4.1 Current Project Description The project proposes to build an interchange on Interstate 85 (I-85) at Poplar Road. As currently conceived, the interchange will be a typical diamond configuration (see Figure 2-2). Interstate-85 will be widened to accommodate exit and merge lanes. These improvements will extend about 4,700 feet north and 3,250 feet south of Poplar Road. Poplar Road itself will also be widened to accommodate turn and merge lanes to a distance of about 1,650 feet west and 1,450 feet east. 4.2 Cultural Resources (Archaeology and History) Site file research conducted on behalf of URS Corporation by staff of the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) revealed 10 previously recorded sites within one mile of the I-85 corridor between State Route 34 (SR 34) and U.S. 29 (Figure 4-1, Table 4-1). While none of these sites are recommended eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), four of them (9CW129-132) are situated very near the proposed interchange on two landforms overlooking tributaries of White Oak Creek. This concentration of prehistoric sites suggests that there is a good chance other sites exist in the area, particularly in proximity to water. The probability is high enough to 35 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road warrant an archaeological survey of those portions of the study area that will be directly impacted by the construction of the interchange. Table 4-1: Sites Within One Mile of the Project Area* Site Site Number Name Type Cultural Affinity Eligibility Date Recorded lithic and 9CW81 N/A ceramic scatter 9CW112 N/A lithic scatter 9CW129 N/A lithic and ceramic scatter Undetermined unknown prehistoric Woodland/ Mississippian undetermined 5/10/1982 recommended ineligible 4/14/1995 recommended ineligible 10/31/1997 9CW130 N/A lithic and ceramic scatter Middle Archaic; Woodland/ Mississippian recommended ineligible 10/31/1997 9CW131 N/A lithic and ceramic scatter Middle Archaic; Woodland/Mississippian recommended ineligible 10/31/1997 9CW132 N/A lithic workshop Archaic? recommended ineligible 10/31/1997 9CW133 N/A lithic scatter Ud lithic recommended ineligible 10/31/1997 9CW152 N/A house site 19th and 20th Century recommended ineligible N/A 9CW186 N/A sparse lithic scatter unknown prehistoric recommended ineligible 2/25/2004 9CW187 N/A sparse lithic scatter unknown prehistoric recommended ineligible 2/25/2004 *Information provided in this table is as it appears in the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF). Staff of the GASF also examined survey reports housed at that facility. Four previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within one mile of the project area. These include a survey for a water reservoir site and pipeline route that included Poplar Road (Smith 1979); a survey for the Turkey Creek Road Bridge over Turkey Creek (Joseph et al. 1993); A survey for the Newnan Bypass (Braley 1997); and a survey for a realignment of the Newnan Bypass South of Turkey Creek Road (Joseph 2000). 36 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Research of files housed at the Georgia Historic Preservation Division revealed 13 historic properties in the Newnan area that are listed in the NRHP. Situated within the City itself are the Cole Town District, Greenville Street-LaGrange Street Historic District, Newnan Commercial Historic District, Newnan Cotton Mill and Mill Village Historic District, Northwest Newnan Residential Historic District, Coweta County Courthouse, and Willcoxon-Arnold House. Other properties include the Platinum Point Historic District, north of downtown Newnan; Powell Chapel School, north of Newnan; Crowder, William Leonard, Home Place, west of Newnan; Goodwyn-Bailey House, east of the project area; Old Grove Plantation, northeast of the project area; and GordonBanks House, south of Newnan. All of these properties are sufficiently removed from the project area that no direct or indirect effects should result from the construction of the interchange. In addition to those properties listed in the NRHP, the Department of Natural Resources 1992 Coweta County survey lists seven properties fifty years or older in the general project area (see Figure 4-1). Three of these lie to the south in the vicinity of the I-85 and U.S. 29 Interchange; two lie west of the I-85 and SR 34 Interchange; one lies west of I-85 on Turkey Creek Road; and one lies west of I-85 on Poplar Road. This last property is of particular concern, as it lies within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the interchange in its currently proposed configuration. Further evaluation of this property and an assessment of effects may be required. A visual inspection of the Interchange Corridor between SR 34 and U.S. 29 was conducted on February 24, 2005. Particular attention was paid to properties that may be 50 years old or older. In addition to the known property on Poplar Road discussed above, at least two additional properties will likely require evaluation (see Figure 4-1). Two properties were also noted on Lower Fayetteville Road in proximity to I-85; however, as currently configured, the proposed interchange should have no effect on them. No National Historic Landmarks are located within or around Newnan. 37 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 4.3 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. - Wetlands and Streams Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) and are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). An assessment of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that could be impacted by the proposed project was performed using U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) interactive wetland inventory map, and county soil survey maps in-house. Although the area was visually surveyed no field delineations were performed and no jurisdictional determinations were made. According to the Hydrologic Unit Map of Georgia (USGS, 1974), the subject site is located in the Upper Flint River Basin (HUC 03130005). Topographic mapping and the USFWS interactive wetland inventory map for the project area identified five I-85 stream crossings between Highway 16 and SR 34. Any linear construction projects along this corridor would encounter the same crossings. One stream was identified running parallel to I-85 where Lower Fayetteville Road crosses the I-85 corridor. This stream is located less than one-tenth mile from the interstate corridor. The existing mapping identified no wetland crossings by I-85 in this corridor. According to existing mapping there are no streams or wetlands within the proposed interchange right of way at the Poplar Road crossing. Additional field surveys would be required to confirm these findings. Minor impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are allowed without prior authorization by the ACOE. However, if impacts exceed the allowed minor impacts (typically onetenth acre of wetlands or 100-linear feet of stream), permitting through the ACOE is required prior to any site development activities and mitigation to offset the impacts would be necessary. More stringent thresholds may be required for development within special protected areas, such as floodplains and the cumulative impacts of the project will be considered. Any longitudinal encroachments would have to be coordinated with ACOE and USFWS. 38 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species The United States Fish and Wildlife Service County Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species was reviewed to determine the proposed project's potential impact to protected species in Coweta County. See Table 4-2 for a listing of these species. No pedestrian surveys were conducted to identify specific habitat or populations of individual species. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a survey must be conducted to identify protected individuals and/or potential habitat for protected individuals within the project corridor prior to project implementation. Although no formal survey was conducted along the I-85 corridor between SR 34 and U.S. 29, areas were identified that would require terrestrial survey. The need to perform aquatic surveys will be determined through coordination with GDOT/OEL and USFWS. After only a preliminary visual survey, it is impossible to identify which habitats will be affected among those that potentially exist within the six-mile corridor. It is fairly certain, however, that the interchange design currently proposed will likely have much less impact on species and/or habitats listed in Table 4-2 than an alternate design proposing access/frontage roads that traverse streams and a variety of topographic settings on either side of I-85. 39 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 4-2: Federal and State Listed Species Known to Occur in Coweta County Common Name Bald eagle Invertebrates Gulf moccasinshell mussel Oval pigtoe mussel Purple bankclimber mussel Scientific Name Haliaeetus leucocephalus Federal Status T State Status Bird E Habitat Inland waterways and estuarine areas in Georgia Medionidus pencillatus E Pleurobema pyriforme E Elliptoideus sloatianus T Medium streams to large rivers with slight to E moderate current over sand and gravel substrates; may be associated with muddy sand substrates around tree roots River tributaries and main channels in slow to E moderate currents over silty sand, muddy sand, sand, and gravel substrates Main channels of ACF basin rivers in moderate T currents over sand, sand mixed with mud, or gravel substrates Shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel Lampsilis subangulata E Medium creeks to the mainstems of rivers with E slow to moderate currents over sandy substrates and associated with rock or clay Fish Bluestripe shiner Cyrinella callitaenia None T Brownwater streams Highscale shiner Notropis hypsilepis None T Blackwater and brownwater streams Floral Species Bay star-vine Schisandra glabra None T Twining on subcanopy and understory trees/shrubs in rich alluvial woods Red maple-blackgum swamps; also sandy damp Monkeyfaces orchid Platanthera integrilabia C T stream margins; on seepy, rocky, thinly vegetated slopes. Also known as Monkey-face Orchid Pink ladyslipper Cypripedium acaule None U Upland oak-hickory-pine forests; piney woods Key: T = Threatened; E = Endangered; C = Candidate; U = Unusual; PS = Partial status; LE = Listed as endangered Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4.5 Community Issues Per Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation (Publication No. FHWA-PD-96-036): Community impact assessment is a process to evaluate the effects of a transportation action on a community and its quality of life. The assessment process is an integral part of project planning and development that shapes the outcome of a project. Its information is used continuously 40 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road to mold the project and provide documentation of the current and anticipated social environment of a geographic area with and without the action. The assessment should include all items of importance to people, such as mobility, safety, employment effects, relocation, isolation, and other community issues. An assessment of community impact will likely be necessary, as some of the potential impacts identified by the FHWA apply to the I-85 at Poplar Road Interchange as currently planned. As a capacity and volume-adding project, some increase in noise, vibration, dust, or odor is anticipated. Increased traffic volume on Poplar Road could affect community cohesion and interaction; however it should not isolate any segment of the community. As currently planned, minor residential displacement is likely to occur; however, farm and/or business displacement is not anticipated. Should frontage/access roads be built, additional displacements might occur. The project is not anticipated to cause a change in social values; however, increased traffic volumes along Poplar Road may affect the quality of life and the aesthetic character of the community in the vicinity of the interchange. In its current configuration, the interchange is not anticipated to affect the use of public facilities, nor is it likely to displace any public facilities. The interchange will likely have a positive impact on mobility and access and should improve emergency-response time. Finally, the interchange may encourage businesses to move to the area, which could ultimately affect the tax base. 4.6 Hazardous Material/USTs The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Enviromapper and Facility Registry System (FRS), and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Underground Storage Tank Database were consulted to locate known hazardous material sites and Underground Storage Tank (UST) locations within the project corridor. According to these sources, there are two sites that handle hazardous materials, and two additional sites with underground storage tanks. Additional assessment may be required 41 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road (soil and groundwater sampling) if right of way is to be acquired or disturbed on or down-gradient of these properties where contaminants may have migrated. Known Sites in Project Area: Southtown Motors, 640 Highway 34 East, Newnan, GA 30263 FRS Registry ID: 110007493701 Environmental Interest Type: Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Mike Patton Chevrolet/Oldsmobile 695 Highway 34 East, Newnan, GA 30263 FRS Registry ID: 110006160340 Environmental Interest Type: Unknown Newnan Citgo #19 1010-B Highway 34 East, Newnan, GA 30263 EPD Facility ID: 9056051 USTs Newnan Crossing 1075 Highway 34 East, Newnan, GA 30263 EPD Facility ID: 9038080 USTs 42 December 8, 2006 N KEY: Known Archaeological Sites Structures Recorded in the DNR 1992 Coweta County Survey Structures 50 Years Old or Older Noted During Preliminary Visual Survey CLIENT: Georgia Department of Transportation FIGURE 4-1: Locations of Known Cultural Resources PROJECT: Big Poplar Road IJR Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 4.7 Summary An environmental screening for the proposed I-85 Interchange at Poplar Road revealed a number of archaeological sites and historic structures in proximity to I-85 between SR 34 and U.S. 29. While none of the archaeological sites have NRHP-eligible status, their presence suggests other sites may also exist in the area. Therefore, a standard Phase I archaeological survey will be necessary for areas directly affected by construction associated with the interchange project. In addition, background research and the preliminary visual survey of the project area determined that at least three standing structures would require evaluation. A more exhaustive historic structures survey is needed to fully assess the projects impact to these and any other properties within the APE that are 50 years old or older. Streams and wetlands are present within the corridor. Permitting through the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction will likely be required. The need to mitigate impacts to streams and wetlands is also anticipated; however, the level of mitigation required cannot be determined until an ecological survey and wetlands delineation have taken place. Construction plans are required prior to the assessment of impacts. The impacts to threatened and endangered species cannot be determined prior to intensive field surveys devoted to habitat and population identification for both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. However, a number of threatened and endangered species are listed for Coweta County. Since this is a capacity and volume-adding project, some impacts to the community and its quality of life are anticipated. A formal assessment concerning the nature and extent of these impacts will likely to be required by FHWA. There are at least four Hazardous Materials/UST sites within the immediate project vicinity that would require additional consideration. Prior to right-of-way acquisition or disturbance, the absence of contaminants both at and down-gradient of these sites should be confirmed. Additional investigation may also be requested by GDOT/OEL or FHWA. 44 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 5.0 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS - TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL METHODOLOGY 5.1 Travel Demand Model Traffic projections for the Poplar Road Interchange Justification Report were derived from the most recently adopted Travel Forecasting Model Set for the Atlanta Region, Version 2003, developed by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). This model utilizes the TP+/VIPER user interface in the Cube software environment and has a 2000 base year validation. Future year scenarios include year 2030 based upon the currently adopted Mobility 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and an interim year 2020 scenario. 5.2 2000 Base Year Validation Check The ARC model is validated at the multi-county regional level. In order to assess the accuracy of the model estimation within the project study area, the volume-to-count ratios were evaluated for highway network links within the study area. This was done to identify any trip generation or trip distribution characteristics that would need to be equally applied to the future year scenarios. A subarea validation is often warranted within the context of a regional travel demand model in order to increase the reliability or confidence in projected highway volumes. The review of the volume-to-count ratios revealed that all major roadway facilities in the study area were estimated within an acceptable margin of error. No concerns regarding trip generation or trip distribution were identified at the study area or corridor level. Therefore, no subarea validation was deemed necessary. Neither was the need for applying adjustment factors to future year projections. 5.3 Initial Traffic Projections Initial runs of the future year traffic projections yielded some concerns regarding trip distribution and assignment. The model network as coded for the 2020 and 2030 future year scenarios does not provide the level of detail necessary to develop design hour traffic or perform traffic operational analyses. This is primarily due to the addition of new roadways in the study area. 45 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Planned roadway improvements in the study area will affect the distribution of traffic. Most notable among these are the SR 34 Bypass and the Newnan Crossing Boulevard East. These roadways will serve as parallel reliever roads to I-85 between SR 34 and Poplar Road. No direct loadings from centroid connectors were provided for these future roads in the 2020 or 2030 scenarios. This results in a perceived under-loaded condition in the area of the proposed interchange. A more detailed review of the highway model network in the study area revealed that only large traffic analysis zones (TAZs) exist east of I-85 in the study area. From these TAZs only limited loading points exist for principal roadways in the study area including the previously mentioned roadways and Poplar Road, resulting in unbalanced trip loadings and distribution. The loading problems described above can most properly be addressed in one of two ways. Off-model adjustments can be made to smooth or redistribute trips in the study area, or model network enhancements can be made to provide additional traffic loading points. In order to use the dynamic aspects of the travel demand model, it was determined that the latter approach, providing additional loading points, was the more practical course of action. Additional model analysis was required to forecast the Alternative 5 Scenario (described in Section 6.5) appropriately. This alternative includes a C-D roadway system linking the SR 34, Poplar Road, and US 29 interchanges. The forecast analysis for this alternative included coding in the C-D roadway system and several select link runs (model based origin and destination) to determine if any latent demand or diversions would occur on the C-D Roadway not forecasted for the previous alternative. The model results indicated that this would not occur, but was used to determine the origins and destinations of vehicles traveling between the Coweta County interchanges so they would be routed appropriately along the C-D Roadway. 46 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 5.4 Network Edits Network edits associated with the Poplar Road IJR included the creation of new traffic analysis zones (TAZs) by splitting existing large zones. Additional centroid connectors, primarily associated with the new TAZs, were added to accurately represent the distribution of trips in the study area. Four large traffic analysis zones were split, 1573, 1576, 1585, and 1586. The zone splits are described below. Zone 1573 was split to create two new zones, 1684 and 1685. Zone 1684 is west of I-85 and provides new direct trip loading to the SR 34 Bypass and Lower Fayetteville Road. Zone 1685 is on the east side of I-85 and provides direct access to SR 34, Newnan Crossing Boulevard East, and Lower Fayetteville Road. Traffic Analysis Zone 1576 was divided along SR 34 to create a new zone on the south side of SR 34. The new zone, 1686 provides additional connections to Lower Fayetteville Road, SR 154, and SR 34. Zone 1585 was split along Poplar Road and Greison Trail to create two new zones, 1687 and 1688. New zone 1687 provides traffic loading points to US 29 and Lower Fayetteville Road. Additional centroid connections were made to Poplar Road, Greison Trail, Lower Fayetteville Road and the SR 34 Bypass. Traffic Analysis Zone 1586 was split to create three additional zones 1689, 1690, and 1691 along Poplar Road and Turkey Creek Rd. Zone 1689 creates new loading points to Newnan Crossing Boulevard East, Poplar Road, and Lower Fayetteville Road. Zone 1690 connects to Poplar Road, Parks Road, and SR 154. The new zone provides access to SR 16 and Turkey Creek Road, 1691. In conjunction with these revisions, the socio-economic data associated with the split zones was disaggregated. This resulted in no net addition or loss in household, population, or employment in the study area. The regional control totals were maintained. 47 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road The zone splits described above provided approximately twenty-five (25) new loading points in the study area. This resulted in more evenly distributed traffic and a reasonable highway assignment. In addition to these network edits, the proposed Creekside interchange (CW-AR-004) was removed from the future year networks. Although this interchange is part of the ARC 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the Poplar Road interchange will be built first. These network edits were applied consistently to the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The daily and peak hour volumes from the model were used to develop design hour volumes for the IJR traffic operations analyses. In addition, turning movement percentages from the model were used for the future year traffic analyses. 5.5 Summary Refinements are often made to a regional travel demand model in the development of traffic for corridor and subarea analyses. These refinements commonly include socioeconomic data adjustments, highway network edits, and subarea validations. In reviewing the 2020 and 2030 scenarios of the Travel Forecasting Model Set for the Atlanta Region, Version 2003, developed by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), it was determined that network edits were necessary to effectively distribute and load the projected trips in the study area. These network edits resulted in reasonably distributed future year traffic for use in the IJR traffic operations analyses. 48 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 6.1 Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) In this alternative, the proposed interchange at Poplar Road is not included. All other projects currently planned in the ARC 2030 RTP along the roadway network within study area are included. This alternative was eliminated since it does not provide improved access or road network connectivity for the Poplar Road area and does not provide any benefits in travel time or congestion savings in the design year. 6.2 Alternative 2 (Build Alternative) Alternative 2, the Build Alternative, proposes to construct a conventional diamond interchange at the existing location of the Poplar Road overpass at I-85 in Coweta County. The project is included in ARC's 2030 RTP as Project CW-AR-003 with an implementation year of 2020. The proposed location meets the minimum and average spacing requirements for interchanges in urban/suburban areas as follows: Minimum Spacing Average Spacing Required Spacing (Urban/Suburban) 1.0/2.0 2.0/4.0 Actual Spacing 2.5 3.2 The spacing provides ample room for advance signing of the interchange. The existing Poplar Road bridge over I-85 would need to be widened or replaced to accommodate the wider roadway section along Poplar Road. This roadway section would be four (4) lanes, two (2) travel lanes each direction, separated by a minimum 20 foot wide raised median. The bridge would carry a minimum of six (6) lanes, four (4) travel lanes with back to back left turn lanes for each direction turning onto I-85 NB and SB. Poplar Road would be four (4) lanes between I-85 and the Newnan Bypass intersection west of I-85, approximately 1200 feet, and then would taper down to the existing roadway width entering the City of Newnan. Between the ramp and the Newnan Bypass, an additional westbound travel lane is proposed (for a total of three (3) lanes WB) to improve traffic 49 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road operations. To the east, Poplar Road would be four (4) lanes for a short distance (approximately 400 feet) beyond the ramp terminal, and then taper back to the existing two (2) lane section as quickly as possible (approximately 1000 feet from the ramp terminal). The ramp intersections with Poplar Road would be signalized. A conceptual layout of the proposed interchange is shown in Figure 6-2. The interchange is shown in conceptual nature only, the details of which would need to be finalized during preliminary and final design according to AASHTO Green Book criteria for the appropriate type facility. Typical sections detailing the proposed roadway sections are shown in Figure 6-8 for information only. There are no existing limits of access along Poplar Road (except the I-85 right of way itself). The proposed limits of access vary along each side of Poplar Road between Newnan Crossing Boulevard to the east and Newnan Bypass to the west. Current GDOT policy, as stated in Chief Engineer's Policy 4A-3 entitled "Establishing Access Control", is to provide a minimum of 600 feet from the ramp intersections in urban conditions and 1000 feet in rural conditions (see Appendix A-7). Providing at least 1000 feet of limited access rights along Poplar Road east and west from the ramp terminals would require the relocation of as many as 20 residences at substantial cost. As this area redevelops in the future, this control of access will be very important in maintaining a high level of service and efficient traffic operations in the Poplar Road interchange area. Alternative 2 provided benefits in overall congestion and travel times within the study area. It relieved the SR34 and US29 interchanges to some degree, while increasing density along I-85 slightly between Poplar Road and SR34. The details of this analysis are included in Section 7. 6.3 Alternative 3 (In Lieu Of Alternative) In Alternative three, the "In Lieu Of" Alternative, projected Design Year 2030 deficiencies in the No Build roadway network within the study area were identified and 50 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road various methods of mitigation were analyzed. The following is a list of those improvements included in Alternative 3: Signal timing adjustments throughout the SR34 corridor from Lakeside Way extending west to the Newnan Bypass An additional right turn lane on the SB I-85 off ramp onto SR34 WB. This lane continues WB along SR34 and terminates into Amlajack Boulevard. Make the SB I-85 off ramp at SR34 a two lane exit ramp. Additional storage length for turn lanes on the SB I-85 off ramp at SR34, NB I-85 off ramp at SR34, and NB I-85 off ramp at US29. Additional WB exclusive left turn lane on SR16 onto US29. Additional NB lane on US29 at SR16. Additional SB lane on US29 at SR16. Timing adjustments to the intersection of the NB I-85 on/off ramp at US29. Alternative 3 provides minimal scope improvements that provide maximum benefits at a low overall cost. This alternative provides benefits in overall congestion and travel times within the study area. Conceptual layouts are provided in Figures 6-3 to 6-7 detailing these improvements. 6.4 Alternative 4 (Optimized Build Alternative) Alternative 4, the Optimized Build Alternative, incorporates those mitigation measures proposed in Alternative 3; however, it includes the implementation of the proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road as well (Alternative 2). Alternative 4 also includes the addition of an auxiliary lane SB along I-85 between SR34 and the proposed Poplar Road interchange to mitigate the slight decrease in LOS for this segment of interstate. Alternative 4 represents a complete build package and it is this study's recommendation for approval. It provides significant congestion and travel time benefits over each of the previous three alternatives at a modest additional cost. 51 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 6.5 Alternative 5 (Optimized Build with Collector-Distributor Network) Alternative 5, the Optimized Build with Collector-Distributor Network, incorporates those mitigation measures proposed in Alternative 4; however, it includes the implementation of a collector distributor (C-D) roadway network between SR 34 and US 29. In addition, this alternative removes the direct connections with I-85 at the proposed Poplar Road interchange as well as reducing the existing full-diamond I-85 interchanges at SR 34 and US 29 to half-diamond facilities. Though Alternate 5 appears to cause fewer impacts across the study area, significant adverse conditions created at the southbound SR 34 off-ramp as well as high construction costs relative to its moderate benefits make Alternate 5 less desirable. Conceptual layouts are provided in Figures 6-9 to 6-12 detailing these improvements. Analysis results are discussed further in Chapter 7. 6.6 Cost Estimates Cost estimates, in 2005 dollars, for each of these alternatives are provided in detail in Appendix A-4; however, the following table summarizes the results: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Preliminary Right of Way Construction Engineering ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) 0 0 0 1,065 3,044 7,103 316 939 2,107 1,877 3,991 12,514 4,462 3,375 44,242 Total Cost ($1000) 0 11,212 3,362 18,382 52,079 NOTE: Engineering costs have been added in this table. 52 December 8, 2006 ...\Aerials\i85tile1.dgn 09/13/2005 09:47:31 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-2.dgn 09/13/2005 09:49:43 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-3.dgn 09/13/2005 09:42:20 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-4.dgn 09/13/2005 09:50:43 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-5.dgn 09/13/2005 09:51:19 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-6.dgn 09/13/2005 09:51:48 AM ...\Aerials\figure6-7.dgn 09/13/2005 09:52:22 AM ...\Aerials\typicals.dgn 09/13/2005 09:52:50 AM ...\Aerials\ALT-5-FIGURE6-9.dgn 1/9/2007 10:10:54 AM ...\Aerials\ALT-5-figure6-11.dgn 1/9/2007 10:08:45 AM ...\Aerials\ALT-5-figure6-10.dgn 1/9/2007 10:10:00 AM ...\Aerials\ALT-5-figure6-12.dgn 1/9/2007 10:08:13 AM Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND MODELING Introduction Traffic operations in the study area were analyzed according to the following alternates: Existing 2005 Alternative 1 - No Build (Base Year 2020 & Design Year 2030) Alternative 2 - Build (Base Year 2020 & Design Year 2030) Alternative 3 - In Lieu Of (Design Year 2030) Alternative 4 - Optimized Build (Design Year 2030) Alternative 5 - Optimized Build with Collector-Distributor Network (Design Year 2030) In the Existing 2005 alternate, interstate and surface street operational analyses were based upon geometric conditions as they exist in the present and traffic signal timing currently in place. Alternative 1 included all projects currently planned along the roadway network within study area. In this alternate volumes projected by the ARC Travel Demand Model were applied without a proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road. In addition, traffic signal timing information currently in operation was used to compare Alternatives 1 and 2 conditions with common criteria. Alternative 2 conditions included those planned projects that are in Alternative 1 and existing traffic signal timing; however, alternate volumes projected by the ARC Travel Demand Model were applied with a proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road as well as a full southbound auxiliary road between SR 34 and Poplar Road. In Alternative 3, projected Design Year 2030 deficiencies in the Alternative 1 roadway network within the study area were identified and various methods of mitigation outside 65 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road of the implementation of an interstate access were analyzed. Some methods of mitigation included traffic signal timing modification and additional turn lane capacities. Alternative 4 incorporates those mitigation measures proposed in Alternative 3; however, it includes the implementation of the proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road as well. This alternate represents a complete Build package. Alternative 5 incorporates those mitigation measures proposed in Alternative 4; however, it includes the implementation of a collector distributor (C-D) roadway network between SR 34 and US 29. This alternative removes the direct connections with I-85 at the proposed Poplar Road interchange as well as reducing the existing full-diamond I-85 interchanges at SR 34 and US 29 to half-diamond facilities. As traffic patterns on surface streets were not altered in this alternate, capacity analysis results in Alternate 4 apply. 7.1 Interstate Operations Analyses 7.1.1 Introduction The study area relative to interstate / freeway operations encompasses I-85 from just north of its interchange with SR 34 extending just south of its interchange with US 29. The adjacent roadway network and intersection operations including interchange intersections with SR 34, Poplar Road, and US 29 are covered in the Intersection Operations section of this chapter. Alternatives will be broken down into two (2) sections: 1) Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments 2) Interstate Freeway Ramps Comparative interstate mainline analyses results extracted from CORSIM modeling runs for the Design Year 2030 PM Peak will also be presented at the end of Section 7.1. These results will shed a broader light on overall operative benefits realized between alternative operations. Typically, capacity analysis using HCS 2000 is limited in evaluating a larger study area as it focuses on a finite space; however, CORSIM provides a better overall evaluation of a study area and its global operations. 66 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.2 Methodology In this study, the methodology used for evaluating traffic operations along I-85 is based on criteria set forth in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition (HCM 2000). HCS 2000 software, which emulates HCM 2000 methodology, was used for interstate / freeway analysis. The following is a description of methodologies employed for the analysis of interstate mainline segments and divergent and convergent ramp connections. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments For analysis of interstate or freeway segments the Basic Freeway Operational Analysis module of HCS 2000 was employed. Analyses are based upon the following input variables: o Hourly vehicular volume o Peak hour factor o Number of interstate mainline travel lanes o Terrain (i.e. level, rolling, mountainous, etc.) o Percentage of trucks and RVs o Driver Population Adjustment o Free Flow Speed From these inputs, LOS is calculated based upon density measured in passenger cars per mile per lane of interstate / freeway. Table 7-1 presents LOS criteria for interstate or freeway segments. 67 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 7-1 Level of Service Criteria for Interstate or Freeway Segments Level of Service Density (pc/mi/ln) A 0 - 11 B 11 - 18 C 18 - 26 D 26 - 35 E 35 - 45 F > 45 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Interstate / Freeway Ramps For analysis of ramp facilities, the Ramp and Ramp Junctions Diverge Analysis and Ramp and Ramp Junctions Merge Analysis modules were employed. Analyses are based upon the following input variables: o Ramp connection type o Number of interstate mainline travel lanes o Interstate Free Flow Speed o Interstate Hourly vehicular volume o Ramp alignment o Ramp Free Flow Speed o Ramp Hourly vehicular volume o Number of ramp travel lanes o Length of first acceleration lane o Adjacent ramp information (i.e. distance upstream / downstream) o Peak hour factor 68 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road o Terrain (i.e. level, rolling, mountainous, etc.) o Percentage of trucks and RVs o Driver Population Adjustment From these inputs, LOS is calculated based upon density measured in passenger cars per mile per lane of ramp influence area. Table 7-2 presents LOS criteria for interstate or freeway segments. Table 7-2 Level of Service Criteria for Interstate / Freeway Ramps Level of Service Density (pc/mi/ln) A 10 B > 10 - 20 C > 20 - 28 D > 28 - 35 E > 35 F v/c > 1.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 7.1.3 Existing 2005 Conditions Analysis The section of I-85 within study limits is currently a six (6) lane facility north of its interchange at SR34 with the outermost northbound and southbound lanes terminating at SR 34. Thus, I-85 south of SR 34 operates as a four (4) lane facility extending beyond US 29 to Alabama. The posted speed limit in this area is 70 miles per hour (mph). Terrain in the study area is primarily rolling in nature with no apparent problematic conditions as a result of roadway grades. Ramp facilities are comprised of one (1) lane entering / exiting I-85. Peak period and turning movement and 24-hour classification counts were conducted throughout the study area in March 2005 during a typical weekday with local schools in 69 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road session. These counts were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for existing 2005 conditions during the AM peak hour (occurring between 6am and 9am) and the PM peak hour (occurring between 4pm and 7pm) indicated from 24-hour bi-directional tube counts recorded on I-85 immediately to the south of SR 34. Existing I-85 count information is presented in Figure 7-1. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area currently operate at a LOS A or B for both the AM and PM peak periods. Existing I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figure 7-2. Interstate / Freeway Ramps I-85 ramps bordering the location of the proposed Poplar Road Interchange were analyzed. The ramp facilities analyzed are as follows: o Southbound on-ramp from SR 34 o Northbound off-ramp to SR 34 o Southbound off-ramp to US 29 o Northbound on-ramp from US 29 Analysis results indicate that these ramps currently operate at a LOS A or B for both the AM and PM peak periods, with one exception: The southbound on-ramp from SR 34 operates at a LOS C during the PM peak period. A LOS D is generally considered acceptable by Georgia DOT for peak hour traffic; therefore, there are no concerns with current ramp operations. Existing I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figure 7-2. 70 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.4 Base Year 2020 Analysis 7.1.4.1 Alternative 1 (No Build) The section of I-85 within study limits is currently a six (6) lane facility north of its interchange at SR34 with the outermost northbound and southbound lanes terminating at SR 34. However, in 2020 a third through lane will be added to the I-85 mainline throughout the study area, thereby extending the currently terminating lanes south past US 29. Ramp facilities will be comprised of one (1) lane entering / exiting I-85 with additional vehicle storage along the southbound off-ramp at SR 34. Also, a one (1) lane cloverleaf is planned and will merge with the northbound I-85 on-ramp from SR 34. Vehicular volume information, including relative turning movements, used in this scenario was based upon the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2020. Development of projected future year volumes is detailed in Section 5.0. These volumes were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for base year 2020 no build conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. Base year 2020 No Build I-85 volume information is presented in Figure 7-3. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2020. Even though the I-85 segment between the SR 34 and US 29 interchanges is forecast to operate at a LOS D in the southbound direction during the PM peak period and northbound direction during the AM peak period; a LOS D is generally considered acceptable for such facilities. Base year 2020 No Build I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figures 7-5. 73 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramps servicing the interstate system south of SR 34 including the southbound SR 34 on-ramp, the northbound SR 34 off-ramp and the US 29 interchange will operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2020. However, the ramp facilities servicing I-85 to the north side of the SR 34 interchange are forecast to be problematic. The southbound SR 34 off-ramp is forecast to operate at a LOS F during the PM peak and the northbound SR 34 on-ramp is forecast to operate at a LOS F during the AM peak. It should be noted that while LOS is based upon density (D), in the event a facility indicates a LOS F it is due to capacity being exceeded (v/c > 1.0). Base year 2020 I-85 No Build ramp operations are also presented in Figure 7-5. 74 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report 7.1.4.2 Alternative 2 (Build) I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Interstate facilities in the 2020 Build scenario remain the same as previously stated in the Base Year 2020 No Build Conditions; however, a typical diamond interchange facility is proposed at Poplar Road. In evaluating projected volumes and distribution patterns accessing I-85, it was concluded that a typical diamond interchange facility would be proposed. Ramp facilities at the proposed interchange will be comprised of one (1) lane entering / exiting I-85 for each direction. With the implementation of an interchange at Poplar Road, distances from adjacent interchanges at SR 34 and US 29 are reduced by approximately as the proposed location is situated equidistant (2.2 miles) from either interchange. Thus, interstate signing distance requirements would not present any problematic issues. Vehicular volume information, including relative turning movements, used in this scenario is based upon the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2020 with the proposed interchange facility included. These volumes were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for base year 2020 build conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. Base year 2020 build I-85 volume information is presented in Figure 7-4. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south past the proposed Poplar Road interchange to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2020 with one exception. The southbound I-85 segment between the SR 34 and Poplar Road interchanges is forecast to operate at a LOS E during the PM peak period. Base year 2020 Build I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figures 7-5. 76 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramps servicing the Poplar Road and US 29 interchanges will operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2020. However, the ramp facilities servicing the SR 34 interchange are forecast to be problematic. Of the four (4) facilities accessing I-85 at this interchange, only the northbound SR 34 off-ramp is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Aside from this, there are only three (3) cases of acceptable LOS forecast. First, the southbound SR 34 off-ramp is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak, but during the PM peak results indicate it operating at a LOS F. Second, the southbound SR 34 on-ramp is also forecast to operate at a LOS C in the AM peak period, but results show a LOS F during the PM peak as well. Third, the northbound SR 34 on-ramp is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak, but during the AM peak results indicate it operating at a LOS F. Base year 2020 I-85 Build ramp operations are presented in Figures 7-5. 77 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.4.3 Comparison of Results - Base Year 2020 Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 Traffic patterns indicate that with the implementation of the proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road, some adverse impacts are expected. This is due primarily to the ARC Travel Demand Model redirecting trips throughout the network due to an additional access point on I-85. The southbound section of I-85 between SR 34 and Poplar Road will see adverse impacts. On the other hand, the US 29 interchange and the segment of I85 south of the proposed Poplar Road Interchange is not forecasted to be adversely impacted. No Build vs. Build operations are presented in Figures 7-6. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments In comparing analysis results, it was noted that the only reductions in LOS occurred on the segment of I-85 immediately in between the proposed Poplar Road interchange and the SR 34 interchange. During the PM peak southbound I-85 LOS is reduced from a LOS D in the No Build scenario to a LOS E in the Build scenario and northbound I-85 is reduced from a LOS C in the No Build scenario to a LOS D in the Build scenario. This is due to an increase in trips taking a shorter path with higher speeds from areas westnorthwest of I-85 and SR 34 to regions immediately east-southeast of Poplar Road. Otherwise, without an interchange at Poplar Road, these trips utilize the most efficient surface street routes thereby negatively impacting the local roadway network. More vehicle trips will travel on southbound I-85 from SR 34 to Poplar Road with the proposed interchange in place due to a more convenient travel path. Therefore, a reduction in congestion on local surface streets can be expected with the implementation of Alternate 2. The vehicular trips that travel from the northwest to the southeast during the PM peak hour period are primarily work related trips. For the baseline model, of all work trips that originate within Coweta County, only 34 percent satisfy the trip end internally. The remaining 64 percent of work related trips travel outside the county for employment purposes. As a result, I-85 is a primary travel route because of its inter-county connectivity, higher travel speeds and access to major employment centers. 80 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road By the year 2030, Coweta County is anticipated to capture a greater percentage work trips internally. The ARC travel demand model projects 54 percent of work trips beginning and ending internally within Coweta County. However, even with this projected shift in employment capture, internal to external work trips remain a significant factor in travel demand for I-85. In addressing future problematic conditions, an additional southbound auxiliary lane between the SR 34 and proposed Poplar Road interchanges was analyzed. With the implementation of this auxiliary lane, operations are improved to a LOS D during the PM peak, thus, bringing all interstate facilities in the study area to acceptable levels of service. Analysis results did not indicate the need for a northbound auxiliary lane along this section of I-85, as levels of service are forecast to be acceptable. Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramp facilities servicing the south side of the SR 34 interchange are forecast to experience degradation in LOS in either the AM or PM peak period. Analysis results do indicate an improvement in LOS for the northbound SR 34 on-ramp during the PM peak. Alternate 1 results indicate a LOS F, but Alternate 2 improves operations to an acceptable LOS D. With the previously mentioned additional southbound auxiliary lane between the SR 34 and proposed Poplar Road interchanges, future operations would improve at the SR 34 southbound on-ramp from a LOS D in the No Build scenario and from a LOS F in the Build scenario to a LOS B during the PM peak period. In addition, an improvement in the AM peak period (LOS C) at this location would also occur. 81 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5 Design Year 2030 Analysis 7.1.5.1 Alternative 1 No Build conditions will be consistent with those cited in the previous Base Year 2020 section. There are no physical additions to be in operation in 2030 that are outside of those future projects already considered for the base year 2020 analyses. Vehicular volume information, including relative turning movements, used in this scenario was based upon the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030. Development of projected future year volumes is detailed in Chapter 5. These volumes were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for design year 2030 No Build conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. Design year 2030 No Build I-85 volume information is presented in Figure 7-7. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2030. Though the I-85 segment between the SR 34 and US 29 interchanges is forecast to operate at a LOS D in the southbound direction during the PM peak period, a LOS D is generally considered acceptable for such facilities. Design year 2030 No Build I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figures 7-9. Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramps servicing the interstate system south of SR 34 including the southbound SR 34 on-ramp, the northbound SR 34 off-ramp and the US 29 interchange will operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2030. However, the ramp facilities servicing I-85 to the north side of the SR 34 interchange are forecast to be problematic. The southbound SR 34 off-ramp is 83 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road forecast to operate at a LOS F during the PM peak and the northbound SR 34 on-ramp is forecast to operate at a LOS F during the AM peak and a LOS E during the PM peak. Again, it should be noted that while LOS is based upon density (D), in the event a facility indicates a LOS F it is due to capacity being exceeded (v/c > 1.0). Design year 2030 I-85 No Build ramp operations are presented in Figures 7-9. 84 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5.2 Alternative 2 As cited previously in Base Year 2020 conditions, a typical diamond interchange facility is proposed at Poplar Road in the 2030 Build condition. Vehicular volume information, including relative turning movements, used in this scenario is based upon the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 with the proposed interchange facility included. These volumes were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for design year 2030 build conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. Design year 2030 Build I-85 volume information is presented in Figure 7-8. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south past the proposed Poplar Road interchange to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area would operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods with one exception. The southbound I-85 segment between the SR 34 and Poplar Road interchanges is forecast to operate at a LOS E during the PM peak period. Design year 2030 Build I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figures 7-9. Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramps servicing the Poplar Road and US 29 interchanges will operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods in 2030. However, the ramp facilities servicing the SR 34 interchange are forecast to be problematic. Of the five (5) facilities accessing I-85 at this interchange, only the northbound SR 34 off-ramp is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Aside from this, there are only 2 cases of acceptable LOS forecast. First, the southbound SR 34 off-ramp is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak, but during the PM peak results indicate it operating at a LOS F. Second, the southbound SR 34 on-ramp is also forecast to operate at a LOS C in the 86 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road AM peak period, but results show a LOS F during the PM peak as well. Design year 2030 I-85 Build ramp operations are presented in Figures 7-9. 87 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5.3 Comparison of Results Design Year 2030 Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 Impacts as a result of modifications in traffic patterns due to the implementation of an interchange facility at Poplar Road are expected. The SR 34 interchange and the segment of I-85 north of the proposed Poplar Road interchange are forecast to experience some degradation in traffic operations. However, the US 29 interchange and the segment of I85 south of the proposed Poplar Road Interchange is not forecast to be adversely impacted. No Build vs. Build operations are presented in Figures 7-10. Degradation forecast on freeway facilities can be attributed to traffic pattern reassignments in the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model. In particular, the impacts forecast along the southbound I-85 On Ramp at SR 34 and southbound I-85 mainline between SR 34 and Poplar Road are a result of trips normally destined for those areas southeast of Poplar Road at I-85. Trips that would otherwise access Poplar Road and areas to the east via the Newnan Bypass or directly from the west in Newnan on Poplar Road (surface streets) will utilize I-85 and the proposed interchange (interstate facilities). Therefore, in increasing trips along these facilities that are not normally accessed, some adverse impacts are forecast on freeway segments. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments In comparing analysis results, it was noted that reductions in LOS occurred in two (2) locations: 1.) On the segment of I-85 immediately in between the proposed Poplar Road Interchange and the SR 34 interchange, and 2.) The northbound segment of I-85 approaching the northbound on-ramp from US 29. During the AM peak period the segment of I-85 immediately in between the proposed Poplar Road Interchange and the SR 34 interchange southbound I-85 LOS is reduced from a LOS B in the No Build scenario to a LOS C in the build scenario and northbound I-85 is reduced from a LOS C in the No Build scenario to a LOS D in the build scenario. However, these reductions did not result in unacceptable levels of service. During the 90 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road PM peak southbound I-85 LOS is reduced from a LOS D in the No Build scenario to an unacceptable LOS E in the Build scenario. A reduction in LOS occurring on the northbound segment of I-85 approaching the northbound on-ramp from US 29 was also noted. During the AM peak period northbound I-85 LOS is reduced from a LOS B in the No Build scenario to a LOS C in the build scenario; however, this is an acceptable LOS. In addressing future problematic conditions, the additional southbound auxiliary lane between the SR 34 and proposed Poplar Road interchanges analyzed in the base year 2020 condition was also analyzed for design year 2030. With the implementation of this auxiliary lane, operations are improved to a LOS D during the PM peak; thus, bring all interstate facilities in the study area to acceptable levels of service. Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the SR 34 southbound off-ramp, the SR 34 northbound I-85 off-ramp, and all US 29 interchange ramps are not forecast to experience degradation in LOS in either the AM or PM peak period. The SR 34 southbound I-85 on-ramp is forecast to experience degradation in operations from a LOS B to a LOS C during the AM peak. During the PM peak, it is forecast to drop from a LOS D to a LOS F. However, with the previously mentioned additional southbound auxiliary lane between the SR 34 and proposed Poplar Road interchanges, future operations would improve at the SR 34 southbound on-ramp from a LOS D in the No Build scenario and from a LOS F in the Build scenario to a LOS C during the PM peak period. In addition, an improvement in the AM peak period levels of service at this location is also likely to occur. 91 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5.4 Alternative 5 A C-D roadway network between SR 34 and US 29 is proposed in the 2030 Build condition. In addition, this network would provide access to Poplar Road. Vehicular volume information, including relative turning movements, used in this scenario is based upon the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 with the proposed C-D facility included. These volumes were used in analyzing I-85 interstate / freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramps for design year 2030 build conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. Design year 2030 Build I-85 volume information is presented in Figure 7-11. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments The I-85 mainline from just north of the SR 34 interchange extending south past Poplar Road to include the US 29 interchange was analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods. Analysis results indicate that all freeway / interstate segments throughout the study area would operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak periods. Design year 2030 Alternate 5 I-85 mainline operations are presented in Figures 7-12. Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the ramp facilities servicing the SR 34 interchange are forecast to be problematic. Both ramps accessing I-85 in the vicinity of SR 34 are forecast to experience a LOS F for both the AM and PM peak periods. Ramp facilities accessing I-85 in the vicinity of US 29 are forecast to experience a LOS C for both the AM and PM peak periods with one exception. The southbound on-ramp is forecast to experience a LOS D during the PM peak period. Design year 2030 I-85 Alternate 5 ramp operations are presented in Figure 7-12. 93 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5.5 Comparison of Results Design Year 2030 Alternative 5 (C-D Network) vs. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Impacts as a result of modifications in traffic patterns due to Alternate 5 (the implementation of a C-D roadway network between SR 34 and US 29 that also includes access to Poplar Road) are expected. The southbound off-ramp at SR 34 is forecast to experience degradation in traffic operations during the AM peak period. However, the segment of I-85 between SR 34 and US 29 is forecast to experience an improvement in LOS for both the AM and PM peak periods. Operational comparisons are presented in Figures 7-13. The degradation of operations forecast at the SR 34 southbound off-ramp is primarily a result of alterations in traffic patterns due to southbound access reductions at US 29 (Alternates 1 and 2) and Poplar Road (Alternate 2). Vehicles that would normally be expected to continue southward along I-85 until they reach their destinations (US 29 & Poplar Road off-ramps) would be required to exit via the SR 34 off-ramp and utilize the proposed C-D roadway. Conversely, this leads to reduced traffic volumes on I-85, thus an improvement in LOS is forecast on I-85 between SR 34 and US 29. Interstate / Freeway Mainline Segments In comparing analysis results, it was noted that improvements in LOS occurred on I-85 between SR 34 and US 29. During the AM peak period southbound I-85 between SR 34 and US 29 is improved from a LOS C in Alternate 2 to a LOS B in Alternate 5 and northbound I-85 is improved from a LOS C in Alternate 1 and a LOS D in Alternate 2 to a LOS B in Alternate 5. During the PM peak period southbound I-85 between SR 34 and US 29 is improved from a LOS D in Alternate 1 and a LOS E in Alternate 2 to a LOS B in Alternate 5 and northbound I85 is improved from a LOS C in Alternates 1 and 2 to a LOS B in Alternate 5. As previously mentioned, the forecast improvement is due to the redirection of trips from I85 onto the proposed C-D roadway network.. 96 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Interstate / Freeway Ramps Analysis results indicate that the SR 34 southbound off-ramp is forecast to experience degradation in LOS during the AM peak period when comparing Alternate 5 to Alternates 1 and 2. However, the remaining interstate access points will not experience a change in operations. 97 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.1.5.6 Design Year 2030 CORSIM Modeling Results The previously mentioned analyses have indicated that interstate mainline facilities will experience some adverse impacts to performance as a result of connectivity provided by the proposed interchange at Poplar Road, yet the nature of these analysis are microscopic and, at times, lack a more general insight. Thus, in addition to the traditional analyses methods cited in this report, Traffic Software Integrated System version 5.1 (TSIS 5.1) was employed to create corridor simulation (CORSIM) models of the various alternates. CORSIM (corridor simulation) software is utilized for the modeling of traffic operations on roadway and freeway networks. Geometric parameters including all traffic control measures are used in constructing a roadway network to depict various conditions (i.e. existing, future, etc.). Traffic volumes are then input into entering nodes and subsequently dispersed according to turning movement percentages, source-sink designations, and/or origin-destination assignments. Typically, a base or existing condition is established prior to evaluating future alternatives. To accomplish this, existing volumes are recorded and input into a subject roadway network with appropriate geometry and traffic control features. Once the existing network has been constructed, field investigations are conducted to calibrate the CORSIM model thereby validating animation outputs. It should be noted that in calibrating models for this project, no adjustments to default values were needed in replicating the existing condition. Upon successful model calibration, CORSIM can be utilized as not only an animation tool but as a diagnostic tool as well. This is accomplished by inserting a variety of proposed geometric and traffic control alternatives then evaluating animations and measures of effectiveness (MOE) for specified time periods. 99 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road The MOEs of travel time and delay were recorded on the following interstate mainline approaches to divergent /off-ramp facilities within the study area during the worst-case PM peak period: 1. Southbound I-85 approaching SR 34 2. Northbound I-85 approaching SR 34 3. Southbound I-85 approaching US 29 4. Northbound I-85 approaching US 29 5. Southbound I-85 approaching Poplar Road (Build alternate only) 6. Northbound I-85 approaching Poplar Road (Build alternate only) The MOEs attributed to these segments were recorded directly from PM peak period CORSIM model animations for the interstate mainline and are defined by arbitrary distances to provide a basis of comparison (i.e. measurements taken from #1 are based upon 1600+ feet of interstate mainline approaching SR 34). Table 7-3 summarizes MOEs recorded on these segments for the various alternates. 100 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 7-3 PM Peak CORSIM MOE Summary Results 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 Existing n/a ! " 16.8 12.5 13.2 8.6 2020 Alt.1 ! " 65.4 0.8 1.7 0.4 80.9 13.0 14.7 8.8 n/a 2020 Alt.2 ! " 46.5 0.9 0.9 62.4 13.0 13.3 0.4 4.5 1.6 8.8 35.8 23.5 2030 Alt.1 ! " 111.3 2.7 1.6 0.5 126.3 14.7 14.0 8.9 n/a 2030 Alt.2 ! " 85.9 1.2 0.7 101.3 13.2 13.1 0.5 4.3 1.4 8.9 35.6 23.3 *2030 Alt.3 ! " 78.7 0.8 2.2 0.4 94.0 13.0 14.6 8.8 n/a *2030 Alt.4 ! " 57.2 0.9 0.9 72.9 13.1 13.3 0.4 4.3 1.4 8.8 35.6 23.3 92.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 2030 Alt. 5 ! " 107.5 12.5 12.7 8.9 n/a * Alternate is described further in the Intersection Operations section that follows. Results indicated in RED represent a comparison of equivalent links where connections were removed due to C-D alignment. 101 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road These analyses indicate modest changes in delay and travel time from No Build alternates to Build on most segments; however, the 2030 In Lieu Of and Optimized Build alternates experience significant decreases in both delay and travel time. Further, Optimized Build alternate results forecast a significant reduction in delay and travel time experienced on the southbound segment of I-85 approaching SR 34 during the PM peak. This actually indicates a significant improvement in forecast interstate mainline operations with the implementation of both 2030 In Lieu Of and Optimized Build strategies. Lastly, results for Alternate 5 support capacity analysis results indicating a significant increase in delay and travel time on the southbound approach to SR 34. 7.2 Intersection Operations Analyses 7.2.1 Introduction The following intersections were analyzed for the Existing, 2020 No Build, 2020 Build, 2030 No Build, and 2030 Build scenarios during the AM and PM peak periods: 1. SR 34 at Newnan Bypass 2. SR 34 at Amlajack Road 3. SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp 4. SR 34 at Northbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp 5. SR 34 at Newnan Crossing Boulevard 6. SR 34 at Lakeside Drive 7. Poplar Road at Newnan Bypass (2020 and 2030 Build scenarios only) 8. Poplar Road at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp (2020 and 2030 Build scenarios only) 9. Poplar Road at Northbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp (2020 and 2030 Build scenarios only) 10. Poplar Road at Newnan Crossing (2020 and 2030 Build scenarios only) 11. US 29 at Northbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp 12. US 29 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp 13. US 29 at SR 16* 102 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road * Pine Road and SR 16 are analyzed as separate unsignalized intersections in existing analyses and as one (1) signalized intersection in 2020 and 2030 analyses. Two (2) additional scenarios (2030 In Lieu Of and 2030 Optimized-Build) were also developed, and the intersections above were analyzed according to these additional scenarios during the PM peak as it represent the worst case peak period. The 2030 In Lieu Of and 2030 Optimized-Build scenarios will be described in the sections that follow. Overall, in analyzing surface street operations the objective is to correlate both existing interstate operations and with projected improvements and volumes with adjacent surface street intersections. Thus, quantifying any benefits or costs that may be associated with the addition of interstate access facilities. 7.2.2 Methodology In this study, the methodology used for evaluating traffic operations at each intersection is based on criteria set forth in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition (HCM 2000). Synchro Traffic Signal Coordination Software by Trafficware was used for the analysis. The following is a description of methodologies employed for the analysis of unsignalized and signalized intersections. Unsignalized Intersections For unsignalized intersections at which the side street or minor street is controlled by a stop sign, the criteria for evaluating traffic operations are the Level of Service (LOS) for the turning movements at the intersection and the Level of Service for the overall intersection. LOS is based on the average controlled delay incurred at the intersection. Controlled delay for unsignalized intersections includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Several factors affect the controlled delay for unsignalized intersections, such as availability and distribution of 103 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road gaps in the conflicting traffic stream, critical gaps, and follow-up time for a vehicle in the queue. LOS is assigned a letter designation from A through F. LOS A indicates excellent operations with little delay to motorists, while LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of acceptable size to allow vehicles on the side street to cross safely, resulting in extremely long total delays and long queues. Table 7-4 presents LOS criteria for twoway stop-controlled and all-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersections. Table 7-4 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 10 B > 10 and 15 C > 15 and 25 D > 25 and 35 E > 35 and 50 F > 50 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, it is necessary to consider both capacity and LOS in order to evaluate the overall operation of the intersection. The capacity analysis of an intersection is performed by comparing the volume of traffic using the various lane groups at the intersection to the capacity of those lane groups. This results in a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio for each lane group. A v/c greater than 1.0 is an indication that the volume of traffic exceeds available capacity of the intersection and may result in temporary excesses in demand and delay. Although the capacity of the entire intersection is not defined, a composite v/c ratio for the sum of the critical lane groups within the intersection is 104 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road computed. This composite v/c ratio is an indication of the overall intersection sufficiency. LOS for a signalized intersection is defined in terms of average controlled delay per vehicle, which is composed of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 7-5 presents LOS criteria for signalized intersections as they are defined by average controlled delay. LOS A indicates operations with very low controlled delay, while LOS F describes operations with extremely high average controlled delay. LOS D is typically considered to be the limit of acceptable delay; LOS E is considered unacceptable by the general motoring public. Table 7-5 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Controlled Delay Per Vehicle (sec) A 10.0 B > 10.0 and 20.0 C > 20.0 and 35.0 D > 35.0 and 55.0 E > 55.0 and 80.0 F > 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 7.2.3 Existing 2005 Conditions Analysis Existing traffic signal timing information was provided by GDOT District 3 for all signalized intersections. This timing information and existing turning movement counts were used for the analysis of all signalized intersections. Existing 2005 turning movement count information is provided in Figure 7-14. Existing intersection geometry and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-15. Existing intersection analyses indicate that only three (3) intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections of SR 34 at Newnan Bypass, SR 34 at 105 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Newnan Crossing Boulevard, and US 29 at Pine Road currently operate at a LOS E during the PM peak period. US 29 at Pine Road also operates at a LOS E during the AM peak period. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 106 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.2.4 Base Year 2020 Conditions Analysis 7.2.4.1 Alternative 1 Existing timing information provided by GDOT and turning movement volumes extracted from the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2020 were used for the analysis of all intersections. Base Year 2020 No Build turning movement count information is provided in Figure 7-16. Intersection geometry and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-17. Intersection analyses indicate that only three (3) intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service in this scenario: 1) SR 34 at Amlajack Road; 2) SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramps; and 3) SR 34 at Lakeside Drive. During the AM peak period SR 34 at Amlajack Road and SR 34 at Lakeside Drive are forecast to operate at a LOS E. During the PM peak period SR 34 at Amlajack Road is forecast to operate at a LOS F and SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramps is forecast to operate at a LOS E. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 7.2.4.2 Alternative 2 Existing timing information provided by GDOT and turning movement volumes provided by the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2020 with the implementation of a diamond interchange at Poplar Road and I-85 were used for the analysis of all intersections. Base Year 2020 Build turning movement count information is provided in Figure 7-18. Intersection geometry and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-19. Intersection analyses indicate that there is an overall increase in intersection capacity (v/c) at the majority of intersections in the study area as a result of implementing the proposed interchange facility at Poplar Road with an upgrade in LOS at the following three (3) intersections: 1) SR 34 at Amlajack Road; 2) SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramps; and 3) US 29 at SR 16. During the AM peak period SR 34 at Amlajack Road is forecast to improve to a LOS D from a LOS E and US 29 at SR 16 is forecast to improve from a LOS C to a LOS B. During the PM peak period SR 34 at Southbound I- 109 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 85 On/Off-Ramps is forecast to improve to a LOS D from a LOS E and US 29 at SR 16 is forecast to improve from a LOS D to a LOS C. Also, with the proposed southbound I-85 interchange On/Off ramp at Poplar Road being forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service, the southbound right turning movement onto Poplar Road from the off-ramp is recommended to be a free-flowing, channelized movement. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 110 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.2.5 Design Year 2030 Analysis 7.2.5.1 Alternative 1 Existing timing information provided by GDOT and turning movement volumes extracted from the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 were used for the analysis of all intersections. Design Year 2030 No Build turning movement count information is provided in Figure 7-20. Intersection geometry and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-17. Intersection analyses indicate that overall intersection operations are forecast to be poor with the majority of intersection facilities experiencing a LOS F and saturated conditions (v/c > 1.0). During the AM peak period only the three (3) following intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service: 1) SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/OffRamps; 2) SR 34 at Northbound I-85 On/Off-Ramps; and 3) US 29 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp. During the PM peak period only the two (2) following intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service: 1) SR 34 at Northbound I-85 On/OffRamps and 2) US 29 at Northbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 7.2.5.2 Alternative 2 Existing timing information provided by GDOT and turning movement volumes provided by the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 with the implementation of a diamond interchange at Poplar Road and I-85 were used for the analysis of all intersections. Design Year 2030 Build turning movement count information is provided in Figure 7-21. Intersection geometry and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-19. Intersection analyses indicate that overall intersection operations are forecast to be poor with the majority of intersection facilities experiencing a LOS F and saturated conditions (v/c > 1.0). However, an overall improvement due to an increase in intersection capacity (v/c) at the majority of intersections in the study area is forecast. This is primarily due to the implementation of the proposed interchange. Upgrades in LOS were noted at the 115 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road following three (3) intersections during the AM peak: 1) SR 34 at Newnan Bypass; 2) SR 34 at Newnan Crossing Boulevard; and 3) US 29 at SR 16. During the AM peak period SR 34 at SR 34 at Newnan Bypass is forecast to improve to a LOS E from a LOS F, SR 34 at Newnan Crossing Boulevard is forecast to improve to a LOS D from a LOS E, and US 29 at SR 16 is forecast to improve from a LOS F to a LOS D. During the PM peak period no elevation in LOS was noted; however, as previously stated, analyses indicate an overall increase in intersection capacity. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 116 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.2.5.3 Alternative 3 In this alternative, the implementation of various traffic control measures and strategic lane additions (outside of interstate capacity increases or connections) were introduced to the Design Year 2030 No Build alternative in an attempt to reduce future congestion in lieu of constructing an interstate interchange. The previously mentioned turning movement volumes provided by the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 were used for the analysis of all intersections (Figure 7-20). Intersection geometric additions and lane usage is provided in Figure 7-22. Strategies applied to the study area are as follows: 1. Signal Timing adjustments throughout the SR 34 corridor from Lakeside Way extending west to the Newnan Bypass. Primarily an increase in cycle length (170 seconds). 2. An additional southbound right turn lane on the southbound I-85 Off Ramp at SR 34. 3. Extension of dual lane section of the southbound I-85 Off Ramp at SR 34 to create a fully-functional two (2) lane off ramp. 4. Additional storage lanes on the southbound I-85 Off Ramp at SR 34, northbound I-85 Off Ramp at SR34, and northbound I-85 Off Ramp at US 29. 5. Additional westbound exclusive left turn lane on SR 16 at US 29. 6. Additional northbound dual usage left turn/through lane on US 29 at SR 16. 7. Additional southbound through lane on US 29 at SR 16. 8. Timing adjustments to the intersection of northbound I-85 On/Off Ramp at US 29. Increase in green time to phase servicing off-ramp trips. Due to the PM peak period presenting far more significant congestion-based issues, analysis of these strategies was based upon PM peak period conditions. 119 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Analyses indicate that an improvement in 2030 No Build intersection operations can be expected at the majority of the intersections in the study area; however, unacceptable levels of service can still be expected at SR 34 at Newnan Bypass, SR 34 at Amlajack Road, SR 34 at Southbound I-85 On/Off-Ramp, and SR 34 at Newnan Crossing. In comparing this scenario with the 2030 Build scenario, analyses indicated an overall increase in intersection capacity with two exceptions: The intersections of SR 34 at Newnan Crossing and SR 34 at Lakeside Drive had marginal increases in levels of congestion forecast. Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 120 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.2.5.4 Alternative 4 In this alternative, the implementation of various traffic control measures and strategic lane additions introduced in the In Lieu Of alternate were applied to the 2030 Build scenario. Also, turning movement volumes extracted from the ARC TP+ Travel Demand Model for the year 2030 with the implementation of a diamond interchange at Poplar Road and I-85 were used for the analysis of all intersections (Figure 7-21). Analyses indicate that an overall improvement to the 2030 Build and 2030 In Lieu Of alternates can be expected. Only two (2) intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service. SR 34 at Newnan Bypass and SR 34 at Newnan Crossing are forecast to operate at a LOS F; however, forecast congestion is reduced when compared to all other future alternates. Congestion forecast at the intersection of SR 34 and Amlajack Road increase, but this is due to projected land uses and geometric limitations (i.e. not implementing roadway facilities on structure as a means of mitigation). Analysis results are presented in Table 7-6 and 7-7. 7.2.5.5 Alternative 5 In this alternative, all surface street conditions presented in Alternative 4 were maintained. Travel patterns along surface streets were not altered due to the introduction of a C-D network, thus turning movement volumes did not change and, consequently, analysis results remained equivalent to those in Alternate 4. 122 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Table 7-6 AM Peak Intersection Analysis Results Location 1. SR34 & Newnan Bypass 2. SR34 & Amlajack 3. SR34 & I-85 Southbound On/Off-Ramp 4. SR34 & I-85 Northbound On/Off-Ramp 5. SR34 & Newnan Crossing 6. SR34 & Lakeside Dr. 7. Poplar Rd & Newnan Bypass 8. Poplar Rd & Southbound Exit Ramp 9. Poplar Rd & Northbound Exit Ramp 10. Poplar Rd & Newnan Crossing 11. US 29 & I-85 Northbound Ramp 12. US 29 & I-85 Southbound Ramp 13. US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & Pine Rd Signalized Intersection Analysis 2020 2020 Existing Alt. 1 Alt. 2 LOS D C C v/c 0.72 0.66 0.65 LOS C E D v/c 0.56 1.06 0.91 LOS A A A v/c 0.48 0.78 0.71 LOS C B B v/c 0.78 0.57 0.57 LOS B C C v/c 0.58 0.80 0.71 LOS C E E v/c 0.72 0.92 0.89 LOS v/c n/a n/a A 0.36 LOS v/c n/a n/a A 0.27 LOS v/c n/a n/a A 0.45 LOS v/c n/a n/a B 0.27 LOS B D D v/c 0.56 0.78 0.73 LOS A B B v/c 0.32 0.74 0.71 LOS v/c n/a C B 0.78 0.73 LOS A Average 6.6 n/a n/a Delay Seconds LOS D Average 2.6 n/a n/a Delay Seconds LOS E Average 4.1 n/a n/a Delay Seconds Shaded items indicate an improvement in operations. 2030 Alt. 1 F 0.87 F 1.80 D 1.10 B 0.73 E 1.07 F 1.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a F 1.16 C 0.93 F 1.13 n/a n/a n/a 2030 Alt. 2 E 0.78 F 1.51 C 1.02 B 0.75 D 0.90 F 1.34 B 0.53 A 0.38 B 0.71 B 0.37 E 0.97 C 0.90 D 0.94 n/a n/a n/a 123 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 5.0 Location 1. SR34 & Newnan Bypass 2. SR34 & Amlajack 3. SR34 & I-85 SB On/Off-Ramp 4. SR34 & I-85 NB On/Off-Ramp 5. SR34 & Newnan Crossing 6. SR34 & Lakeside Dr. 7. Poplar Rd & Newnan Bypass 8. Poplar Rd & Southbound Exit Ramp 9. Poplar Rd & Northbound Exit Ramp 10. Poplar Rd & Newnan Crossing 11. US 29 & I-85 Northbound Ramp 12. US 29 & I-85 Southbound Ramp 13. US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & SR 16 US 29 & Pine Rd LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay Table 7-7 PM Peak Intersection Analysis Results Signalized Intersection Analysis Existing E 0.96 C 0.79 C 0.82 C 0.87 E 0.88 C 0.69 n/a 2020 Alt. 1 D 0.85 F 1.47 E 1.23 B 0.78 D 0.91 C 0.68 n/a 2020 Alt. 2 C 0.72 F 1.46 D 1.08 B 0.75 D 0.86 C 0.73 B 0.49 2030 Alt. 1 F 1.23 F 2.29 F 1.40 C 0.96 F 1.16 D 0.95 n/a A n/a n/a 0.48 n/a A n/a n/a 0.46 n/a B n/a n/a 0.40 n/a A C C D 0.35 0.72 0.68 0.95 B C B F 0.63 0.73 0.63 1.42 n/a D C F 0.80 0.71 1.38 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis A 4.7 n/a n/a n/a Seconds C 3.3 n/a n/a n/a Seconds E 5.2 n/a n/a n/a Seconds 2030 Alt. 2 F 1.13 F 2.28 F 1.35 C 0.96 F 1.06 D 0.93 B 0.77 A 0.68 C 0.75 A 0.32 D 0.87 F 1.39 F 1.03 n/a n/a n/a 2030 Alt. 3 F 1.11 F 2.10 E 1.11 C 0.96 F 1.16 D 0.95 n/a n/a n/a n/a D 0.65 B 0.89 D 0.75 n/a n/a n/a Items in bold indicate an improvement in LOS. Shaded area indicates comparison between ideal no build conditions (Alternative 3) and ideal build conditions (Alternative 4). 2030 Alt. 4 F 1.02 F 2.25 D 1.03 C 0.96 F 1.06 D 0.92 B 0.77 A 0.68 C 0.75 A 0.32 D 0.61 B 0.82 C 0.63 n/a n/a n/a 124 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road 7.3 Traffic Operations Summary Interstate Operations Analyses have indicated that interstate mainline facilities may experience some adverse impacts to performance as a result of connectivity provided by the proposed interchange at Poplar Road, yet CORSIM model animations highlight potential benefits of implementing the 2030 Optimized Build alternate. Through a global interaction of strategies applied in Alternative 3 and connectivity provided in Alternative 2, CORSIM model animations provide a look into the future in the form of MOEs as to the benefits I85 as well as the surrounding area may experience. While Alternate 4 is the preferred alternate, provisions can be made during design phases to allocate appropriate right-of-way that would allow future implementation of a C-D roadway network should Alternate 5 be desirable in the future. Intersection Operations Overall, intersections within the study area are forecast to be well into the range of unacceptable in 2020 and 2030. However, analyses indicate that the comprehensive implementation of strategic geometric lane additions, modified signal timing, and an interchange facility at Poplar Road will minimize the affects of future generated trips throughout the study area. The most problematic situation presents itself at the intersection of SR 34 and Amlajack Road. The rate and quantity of forecast development along Amlajack Road far exceeds any benefits from changes to the surrounding network may provide. Due to the amount of projected left turn volume from eastbound SR 34 onto Amlajack Road and southbound Amlajack Road onto SR 34, problematic conditions arise that cannot be addressed in this study effort. It should be mentioned that in mitigating this situation, interstate mainline operations would be positively affected, as well as the entire SR 34 corridor. 125 December 8, 2006 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road APPENDIX September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-1 Other Developments of Significance September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-1: Other Developments of Significance Residential Developments South of Senoia Job # class P# Yr Sub Status Project Developer R-006-03 R 006 03 Approved Glazier Farms - Ph 2 R-011-03 R 011 03 Changed Name East Side Estates R-012-03 R 012 03 Approved Willow Bend R-013-03 R 013 03 Approved Elders Mill Estates R-014-03 R 014 03 Approved Oak Villa R-006-03 A R-017-03 R 006 03 A R 017 03 Approved Glazier Farms - Phase 3 Bradshaw Farms R-018-03 R-019-03 R 018 03 R 019 03 Approved Walden Pond Massengale Farms R-001-04 R 001 04 Approved Janie Property R-001-05 R 001 05 Traemore Green R-002-04 R 002 04 Will's Run R-005-04 R 005 04 Approved Shoal Creek Crossing R-006-04 R 006 04 Rock House Ridge R-010-04 R 010 04 Cody Estates R-011-04 R 011 04 Garden View R-011-03 A R-011-03 B R 011 03 A Approved R 011 03 B Approved Mount Moriah Mount Paran R-014-03 A R-013-04 R 014 03 A Approved R 013 04 Approved Oak Villa - Phase 2 Oaks Plantation R-014-04 R 014 04 Fieldstone Farms R-015-04 R 015 04 Approved Waters Farm R-016-04 R 016 04 Approved Standing Rock Estates R-019-04 R 019 04 Approved Crawford Acres R-021-04 R 021 04 Connelly Park R-022-04 R-023-04 R 022 04 R 023 04 Approved Hadley Farms Old Mill Crossing R-024-04 R-025-04 R 024 04 R 025 04 Approved Approved Bello Couches Corner R-028-04 R-018-03 B R 028 04 Approved R 018 03 A Sundance Homes Gordon Road R-018-03 C R 018 03 B Walden Pond - Revised R-003-05 R-008-05 R 003 05 R 008 05 Hunter Farm Musick Park R-010-05 R-013-03 B R 010 05 R 013 03 B Bailey Hills Elders Mill Estates - Ph 2 Source: Coweta County Planning Department, April 14, 2005 Sundance Homes D + R Development Harp Development Co. Frank James Jason Veitch Sundance Homes Southern Prestigious Dev Walden pond, LLC Jonescar, LLC. Shane Waters Rockport Partners Southern Empire Development Tom Wilson Leonard Thompson Jeff Betsill Homes, Inc. Tim Biddy (Tonka Const) D + R Development D + R Development Jason Veitch Jason Veitch RH Development The Scarbrough Group Peach State Land Development Prestigious Homes Burt Clark Jim Justice Tom Wilson Donovan Gossett Development Site Services Kelly Tuttle Walden pond, LLC Walden pond, LLC Adventure Homes Reese Developers, Inc Sundance Homes Frank James Location Phone Professional Al Roberts Rd East Side School Rd East Side School Rd Elders Mill Rd Hwy 85 Glazier Rd Crawford Road Gordon Rd & Rock House Rd Luther Bailey & Crawford Rd John C. Hunter Rd Sid Hunter Rd Linch Rd Hwy 54 Rock House Rd Chestlehurst Rd Roscoe Rd East Side School Rd Old Hwy 85 Hwy 85 Hwy 34 West Old Hwy 85 Rowe Rd Standing Rock Rd Crawford Road East Side School Rd Hwy 154 Elders Mill Rd Rock-a-way Rd Gordon Rd and Couch Rd Couch Rd Gordon Rd & Rock House Rd Gordon Rd & Rock House Rd Sid Hunter Rd Hwy 85 Luther Bailey Rd Elders Mill Rd 770-560-8054 770-775-0098 770-461-5388 770-719-8128 770-253-0980 770-560-8054 770-252-4522 770.855.9975 770-461-8603 770-461-8603 770-632-3636 not given 770-251-3233 770-460-0184 770-460-9925 770-616-7023 770-775-0098 770-775-0098 770-253-0980 770-253-0980 770-599-1800 770-461-8603 770-460-6318 770-632-5812 770-486-0001 678-410-2574 770.251.3233 770-599-0732 770-683-3774 678.471.8711 770.855.9975 770.855.9975 404-427-9108 770.897.9700 770.486.5643 770.719.8128 McLain Surveying Moore Bass Paragon Jason Breeding Jamie Higgins McLain Surveying Rochester & Associates Moore Bass Jason Breeding Piedmont Land Surveyors Rochester & Associates Neal Spradlin Jamie Higgins Dennis Boutwell R.M. Boyd Omni Consulting Moore Bass Moore Bass Jamie Higgins Jamie Higgins Asford Engineering Piedmont Land Surveyors S.J. Reeves and Associates Robinson Stanley & Co R.M. Boyd Jamie Higgins Jamie Higgins W.D. Gray Robinson Stanley & Co McClain Surveying Moore Bass Moore Bass Neal Spradlin Gerald Bernhard Randy McClain Jason Breeding Tax I.D. 159-1205-001 158-1234-001 158-1235-002 150-1163-001 163-1277-009 159-1205-001 157-1198-001 151-1165-001 158-1200-001 138-1094-001 126-1062-001 137-1012-004 146-6131-028 157-1212-009 168-1308-004 058-5219-004 158-1234-001 158-1234-001 163-1227-001 062B-044 157-1213-002 170-1298-001 149-1159-001 158-0199-007 158-1209-002 135-6096-016 149-1160-009 166-1286-003 139-1133-002 139-1133-013A 151-1165-001 151-1165-001 126-1062-001 163-1276-001 151-1174-008 150-1163-014 Zoning R-160 R-160 R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-160-OS R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-200 R-160 R-200 R-160-OS R-160-OS R-160 R-160 R-160 R-160 Submittal # of Lots Open Space Acres 04/07/03 8 06/10/03 n/a 08/01/03 48 27.69 09/03/03 33 09/05/03 4 10/17/03 60 10/24/03 32 11/04/03 250 163.5 12/23/03 23 01/12/04 8 01/12/04 4 01/14/04 38 35.13 02/02/04 4 02/17/04 27 03/12/04 34 12.88 03/22/04 24 8.35 04/01/04 25 04/01/04 19 05/24/04 4 05/24/04 3 05/25/04 20 05/26/04 18 05/27/04 12 06/24/04 5 07/19/04 43 not given 08/05/04 4 08/20/04 19 08/26/04 4 09/08/04 9 10/05/04 4 12/03/04 14 4.31 01/04/05 108 120.3 01/25/05 22 02/28/05 12 03/01/05 15 04/08/05 24 September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-2 Need and Purpose September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Primary access to the Atlanta metropolitan region for the City of Newnan and Coweta County is via I-85. The transportation accessibility in conjunction with other policy and economic factors has resulted in this area growing in all facets of land use: residential, industrial, commercial, and office. The eastern portion of Coweta County is included within the Atlanta Urbanized Area and the projections are for all of the land use activities to continue to grow. The associated growth in vehicular traffic is expected to produce a greater burden on the transportation network to provide acceptable levels of accessibility and mobility especially for those trips oriented to and from the Interstate. As the City of Newnan has grown, its eastern expansion is incorporated within the eastern portion of Coweta County. The City's primary roadway grid in this area includes Lower Fayetteville Road, Greison Trail, Poplar Road, and SR 34. Additional new northsouth roadways on each side of I-85 have been constructed (Newnan By-pass) or are under construction (Newnan Crossing Boulevard) to strength the network. However, even with this system and current improvements, given the expected growth (residential traffic on Newnan's east side is expected to triple by 2010), volumes are expected to increase on: Lower Fayetteville Road by 200%; on Greison Trail by 64%; on SR 34 at the northbound I-85 ramps by 148%; and on SR 34 at the southbound I-85 ramps by 70%. The traffic analysis of the proposed I-85/Poplar Road interchange indicates that, with enhancements defined under the recommended Alternative 4 in place, an overall improvement in Level of Service on most surface streets will be realized, under the Design Year 2030 Condition. The specific level of service information for various intersections for each alternative and analysis year is summarized in Tables 7-6 and 7-7. Shaded areas indicate an improved level of service over the no build alternative (Alternative 2). Additionally, the analysis of accident data indicates a relatively high accident rate along key facilities in the vicinity of the proposed interchange. A crash analysis of 2003 September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road accident data conducted as part of this IJR showed the crash rate for SR 34, along the segment immediately adjacent to I-85, at 9.55 crashes per million vehicle miles (MVM) traveled. This rate is over 1.6 times the average statewide rate for the same facility type. The crash rate on Poplar Road, adjacent to the proposed interchange, was determined to be 11.09 crashes per million vehicle miles (MVM) traveled, over 5 times higher than the statewide average rate during the same period. Taking into consideration the potential benefit of improved level of service offered by Alternative 4, the infrastructure improvements under this scenario which, as mentioned previously, were observed to improve traffic operations along surface streets, might also serve to address the traffic safety issues within the study area. To address continued lowering levels of service, increase the number of travel route options, redistribute traffic from intersections with a high number of accidents, and relieve congestion specifically within the SR 34 corridor that includes the I-85 northbound and southbound ramps, there is a need for an additional interchange with I-85 to serve the City of Newnan and adjacent portions of Coweta County. A preferred location for the interchange is at Poplar Road, an east-west roadway that is an underutilized component of the grid network of streets. Poplar Road currently exists with a bridge over I-85 and is almost equidistant between the SR 34 interchange to the north and the US 29 interchange to the south. Both the Newnan By-pass and Newnan Crossing Boulevard intersect Poplar Road within one-half mile of I-85. The Poplar Road interchange at I-85 will provide an additional option for increasing residential and commercial traffic in Newnan and southeast Coweta County to access the Interstate Highway System, in addition to providing alternate access of oversized truck traffic coming into and going out of Newnan and Coweta County south of SR 34, improving the capacity of the existing and planned local grid street network, and relieving the current and projected congestion concentrated at the SR 34 ramps with I-85. September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-3 References September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Braley, Chad O., 1997Phase I Archeological Survey of the Newnan Bypass, Coweta County, Georgia. Report prepared for Coweta County and Rosser Lowe. Prepared by Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. Athens, Georgia. Joseph, J.W., Brody Fredericksen and Theresa Hamby, 2000 Phase I Archeological Survey of the Newnan Bypass Project, Coweta County, Georgia. Report submitted to Rosser Civil Engineering. Report submitted by New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia. Joseph, J.W., Theresa Hamby and Mary Beth Reed, 1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Eleven Proposed Bridge Replacements in Coweta County, Georgia. Report submitted to Federal Highway Administration and Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. Report submitted by New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia. Smith, Betty A., 1979 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Water System Improvements, Newnan, Georgia. Report prepared for Wiedman and Singleton, Engineers. Part B2. Statement of Need Interchange Justification Report; Sponsored by Coweta County Board of Commissioners, Submitted to The Georgia Department of Transportation, Prepared by The Coweta County Planning Department with support from The City of Newnan Planning Department, May 11, 2004. September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-4 Cost Estimates September 9, 2005 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate POPLAR ROAD IJR ALTERNATIVE 5 Date: 12/07/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION Maintenance of Traffic Field Engineers Office TP 3 Grading Complete Graded Aggregate Base Crs 10 in Incl. Matl. 4" Asph Conc Base Gp 1 or 2 Incl Bitum Matl & H Lime 2" Asph Conc B Gp 1 or 2 Incl Bitum Matl & H Lime 1 1/2" Asph. Conc. E Gp Incl. Bitum Matl & H Lime Bitum. Tack Coat Retaining Walls Storm Drainage Complete Signing And Marking Erosion Control Grassing Complete Utilities Complete Signals Bridges QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE 1 1 1 287,555 287,555 287,555 267,555 86,266 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 LS LS LS SY SY SY SY GAL LS LS LS LS LS LS EA LS $600,000.00 $45,000.00 $4,586,666.00 $9.45 $17.60 $8.80 $6.60 $1.50 $750,000.00 $1,550,000.00 $350,000.00 $780,000.00 $50,000.00 $450,000.00 $110,000.00 $14,455,000.00 Sub-Total E&C Rate Inflation Rate SUB TOTAL 10.00% @ 5% 2Yrs Right Of Way TOTAL TOTAL $600,000.00 $45,000.00 $4,586,666.00 $2,717,394.75 $5,060,968.00 $2,530,484.00 $1,765,863.00 $129,399.00 $750,000.00 $1,550,000.00 $350,000.00 $780,000.00 $50,000.00 $450,000.00 $660,000.00 $14,455,000.00 $36,480,774.75 $3,648,077.48 $4,113,207.38 $44,242,059.61 $3,375,000.00 $47,617,059.61 Page 1 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-5 Meeting Minutes September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-6 2030 RTP Project Information September 9, 2005 Interchange Justification Report I-85 at CR103/Poplar Road Appendix A-7 Chief Engineer's Policy 4A-3 "Establishing Access Control" September 9, 2005 4A--Chief Engineer Page 1 of 3 4A-3 Establishing Access Control Chief Engineer's Policy See document history Roadway functional classification is the foundation of an access management program. Functional classification systems establish the planned function of different types of roadways and the priority placed on access as opposed to through traffic movement. Roadways that serve higher volumes of regional through traffic need more access control to preserve their traffic function. Frequent and direct property access is more compatible with the function of local and collector roadways. Regulating access is called "access control". It is achieved through the regulation of public access rights to and from properties abutting the highway facilities. Official Code of Georgia, Annotated (OCGA) 326-111 and OCGA 32-6-112 give the Department this authority. These regulations generally are categorized as full control of access, partial control of access, access management, and driveway/entrance regulations. For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions will apply: "Full control of access" means that preference is given to through traffic by providing access connections by means of ramps with only selected public roads and by prohibiting crossings at grade and direct driveway connections. "Partial control of access" means that preference is given to through traffic to a degree. Access connections, which may be at-grade or grade-separated, are provided with selected public roads and private driveways. In areas with partial control of access the decision to grant access to private driveways is made at the time of project development, and thereafter no private driveway access is to be added. The following guidelines will be used to establish access control (A/C): 1. Full control of access will be established on all Interstates. http://www.dot.state.ga.us/topps/ss/chengr/4a-3.htm 8/2/2005 4A--Chief Engineer Page 2 of 3 2. Full control of access will be established on major arterials constructed on new location with grade separated interchanges. 3. Partial control of access will be established on minor and major arterial projects constructed on new location with intersections at-grade. Breaks in access will only be permitted for public road intersections, and where property that is not accessible from existing roadways abuts or has been bisected by the new roadway alignment and limits of access has not been acquired by the Department. 4. A/C will not be established on portions of projects on new location which are less than a mile in length, unless the project connects to a section of roadway where A/C has been/will be established. (Exception would be to preserve the functional area of an intersection, as defined in paragraph 7). 5. Partial control of access will be established on existing major arterials that are being widened, when a planning study for upgrading the arterial has determined that partial access control is advisable. On this type project, every attempt will be made to consolidate existing access to the roadway by developing a supporting roadway network. All undeveloped property frontage will be A/C. Waivers of this policy will only be considered in the right of way acquisition phase when an economic impact analysis determines that it is not cost effective to acquire access rights. Any exceptions must be approved by the Chief Engineer. 6. For projects that involve an Interstate interchange, new construction or reconstruction, A/C will be established along the intersecting route for a minimum distance of 600 feet in urban areas, and 1000 feet in rural areas, measured from the intersection of the ramp centerline with the crossroad centerline. Any exceptions must be approved by the Chief Engineer. In cases where existing development has access within the limits stated above, waivers of this policy will only be considered when an economic impact analysis determines that it is not cost effective to acquire the access rights. 7. On major and minor arterials, and major collector roadways that are being reconstructed, it is desirable that A/C be acquired so that driveway connections are not permitted within the functional area of any intersection. The functional area of an intersection is the area where motorists are responding to the intersection, decelerating, and maneuvering into the appropriate lane to stop or complete a turn. Access connections too close to intersections can cause serious traffic conflicts that impair the function of the affected facility. Upstream functional distance is defined as the distance traveled during perception-reaction time, plus the deceleration distance while the driver maneuvers to a stop, plus the queue storage. Downstream functional distance is defined as the stopping sight distance. Record of Access Control: From the date of adpotion of this policy all A/C acquired by the Department will be properly recorded by the Office of Right of Way. The Office of Transportation Data will develop and maintain a current listing of all sections of roadway that are A/C. Document History: added to TOPPS: 12/14/04 moved from Traffic Operations to Chief Engineer: 01/27/05 http://www.dot.state.ga.us/topps/ss/chengr/4a-3.htm 8/2/2005 4A--Chief Engineer Return to top of document Return to TOPPS home page Page 3 of 3 http://www.dot.state.ga.us/topps/ss/chengr/4a-3.htm 8/2/2005