Troup County multi-modal transportation study : multi-modal transportation plan report

TROUP COUNTY
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN REPORT November 2006
PREPARED FOR Georgia Department of Transportation #2 Capitol Square Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: (404) 463-4377 Fax: (404) 463-5033 Contact: Roxana Ene PREPARED BY HNTB Corporation 3715 Northside Parkway 400 Northcreek, Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: (404) 946-5700 Fax: (404) 841-2820 Contact: Douglas Allen, AICP

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Technical Memorandum November 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 Study Purpose ............................................................................................................1 Study Area Description................................................................................................2 Study Process.............................................................................................................4

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT .............................................................5 Summary of Activities..................................................................................................5 Public Information Workshops.....................................................................................6 Study Advisory Group Meetings ..................................................................................6 Other Meetings............................................................................................................8 Program Evaluation.....................................................................................................8

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION....................................................................................9 Historic Population Growth........................................................................................10 Future Population......................................................................................................12 Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................12 Employment Data......................................................................................................17

4.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................19 4.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics.............................................................................19 4.2 Future Land Use Characteristics ...............................................................................20

5.0 5.1
5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

PREVIOUS STUDIES ...................................................................................................23 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program ....................................................................................................................23 GDOT Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan..............................................................27 GDOT Statewide Interstate System Plan...................................................................27 Chattahoochee-Flint RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ............................................28 Troup County Comprehensive Plan...........................................................................30 City of LaGrange Comprehensive Plan .....................................................................30

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES...................................................32 6.1 Public Transportation ................................................................................................32 6.2 Freight Transport.......................................................................................................33 6.2.1 Railroad Facilities......................................................................................................33 6.2.2 Freight Activity and Commodities ..............................................................................34 6.3 Airports .....................................................................................................................36 6.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian..............................................................................................36 6.5 Bridges......................................................................................................................40 6.6 Safety........................................................................................................................48 6.7 Roadway Operating Conditions.................................................................................51 6.7.1 Sketch Planning Tool Development...........................................................................51 6.7.2 Existing (2004) Operating Conditions ........................................................................53 6.7.3 Future Operating Conditions .....................................................................................56 6.8 Citizen and Stakeholder Input ...................................................................................61

7.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................65 7.1 Background...............................................................................................................65 7.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................65

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

i

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

7.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents............................................................67 7.4 2035 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................68

8.0 IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS..............................................................72 8.1 Identification of Potential Improvement Strategies for Corridors ................................72 8.1.1 Applicable Corridor Strategy Screening.....................................................................73 8.1.2 Deficient Corridor Screening .....................................................................................75 8.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ......................................................................77 8.3 Transit Improvements................................................................................................79 8.4 Freight Improvements ...............................................................................................80 8.5 Aviation Improvements..............................................................................................81 8.6 Summary of Public Input ...........................................................................................81

9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3

IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................89 Estimated Costs........................................................................................................89 Summary of Recommended Improvements ..............................................................93 Environmental Justice Considerations.......................................................................98

10.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ......................................................................................100 10.1 Corridor Prioritization...............................................................................................100 10.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization...........................................................................106 10.3 Intersection Prioritization .........................................................................................107 10.4 Bridge Prioritization .................................................................................................108

11.0 FUNDING ....................................................................................................................110 11.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation ...........................................................110 11.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation..................................................................112 11.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation...............................................................113 11.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation...............................................................113 11.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) .....................................114 11.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs.....................................................................115

12.0 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................116

CMP Regulations

APPENDIX

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ii

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Figure 1.2 Study Area ..........................................................................................................3 Figure 1.3 Study Process.....................................................................................................4 Figure 3.1 2000 Population................................................................................................11 Figure 3.3.1 Minority Population Locations ...........................................................................14 Figure 3.3.2 Low-Income Population Locations ....................................................................15 Figure 3.3.3 Overlay of Minority & Low Income Populations .................................................16 Figure 4.2 Future Land Use ...............................................................................................22 Figure 5.1 GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects...........................................................26 Figure 5.4 RDC's Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan......................................................29 Figure 6.2 Freight Transportation Facilities ........................................................................35 Figure 6.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Areas .........................................................39 Figure 6.5 Bridges for Maintenance or Rehabilitation.........................................................47 Figure 6.6 High Crash & Fatality Locations ........................................................................50 Figure 6.7.2 Existing Daily Deficient Segments.....................................................................55 Figure 6.7.3.1 2015 Daily Deficient Segments .........................................................................57 Figure 6.7.3.2 2035 Daily Deficient Segments .........................................................................60 Figure 6.8 Citizen & Stakeholder Input...............................................................................64 Figure 9.2 Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................96 Figure 9.3 Environmental Justice Evaluation .....................................................................99

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3 Table 2.5 Table 3.0 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.4.1 Table 3.4.2 Table 3.4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.6.1

Study Advisory Group Members .........................................................................7 Public Workshop Participation.............................................................................8 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics ...............................................9 Historical Population Profile ..............................................................................10 Projected Population.........................................................................................12 Existing Industry Jobs .......................................................................................17 Existing Work Commute Patterns .....................................................................18 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled ....................................................18 2005 2007 STIP & 2005-2010 GDOT Construction Work Program ................24 Anticipated Development and Forecasted Population in LaGrange...................30

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

iii

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 5.6.2 Recommended Transportation Projects ............................................................31

Table 6.5

Bridge Inventory................................................................................................40

Table 6.6

High Crash Segments.......................................................................................48

Table 6.7.2 Existing Deficient Segments..............................................................................54

Table 6.7.3.1 2015 Deficient Segments ..................................................................................56

Table 6.7.3.2 2035 Deficient Segments ..................................................................................58

Table 6.8

Citizen & Stakeholder Input...............................................................................61

Table 7.2

Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors....................................................66

Table 7.4

LRTP Goals and Objectives Compared to SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors .....71

Table 8.1.1 Applicable Strategy Screening ..........................................................................74

Table 8.1.2 Capacity Deficient Corridor Screening ..............................................................76

Table 8.6

Suggested Improvements .................................................................................82

Table 9.1.1 Central Georgia Roadway Enhancement Costs (per mile) ..............................90

Table 9.1.2 Corridor Project Cost Estimates ........................................................................92

Table 9.2

Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................94

Table 10.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring.......................................................................101

Table 10.1.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring ....................................................................102

Table 10.1.3 Corridor Prioritization ......................................................................................103

Table 10.1.4 Additional Corridor Prioritization Measures .....................................................105

Table 10.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization...................................................................107

Table 10.3 Intersection Prioritization.................................................................................108

Table 11.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations*111

Table 11.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation* ............112

Table 11.4 Own Source Revenues ...................................................................................114

Table 11.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2005 2007)..............................................................115

Table 11.5.2 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) .............................115

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

iv

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

ES-1.0 Introduction
Growth in Troup County has resulted in increased travel demand. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), in conjunction with Troup County and the City of LaGrange, initiated a study to develop a Multi-Modal Transportation Plan to serve the County through the planning horizon, 2035. HNTB coordinated with GDOT, Troup County, local cities and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of study recommendations. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that recommended transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to the County's transportation network.

Ultimately, study efforts produced a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that guides the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. The format of the LRTP, and the process by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal legislation known as the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the most recent federal transportation legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports. Figure ES-1.0 displays a flow chart depicting the study process.

ES-1.1

Study Area Description

Troup County is located in west Georgia on the Alabama border southwest of Atlanta and north of Columbus and covers a land area of approximately 414 square miles. There are three incorporated municipalities within Troup County LaGrange, West Point, and Hogansville. The study area is displayed in Figure ES-1.1.

Troup County is traversed by the I-85 corridor, one of the Southeastern US's most dynamic corridors for economic development and business growth. In recent years, communities located in the I-85 corridor from Virginia to Alabama have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses. The significance of the population and commercial growth in this multi-state corridor has even prompted the states to examine the feasibility of introducing new interstate rail service in the I-85 corridor connecting the Middle Atlantic and Southern states from Richmond, Virginia to Birmingham, Alabama. The appeal of this corridor to attract growth is recognized by the decision of KIA Motor Corporation to locate a manufacturing facility in West Point.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-1

Executive Summary

Figure ES-1.0 Study Process

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-2

Executive Summary
Study Area
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

ES-3

Figure No: ES-1.2

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

ES-2.0 Public and Stakeholder Involvement
The purpose of the public involvement program was to inform the public and include them in the decision-making process. Area stakeholders, individual citizens and interested groups were given multiple opportunities to become involved in the planning process. Citizens with an interest in the study were informed of the study's progress and provided various forums for input into the decision-making process, including newsletters and web site updates. Through the public involvement process, the Study Team was able to identify improvements that meet the needs of stakeholders and residents of Troup County. Table ES-2.0 documents the public involvement activities during this study.

Table ES-2.0 Public Workshop Participation

Meetings Workshop #1 Workshop #2 Workshop #3

Date 31-Jan-06 30-Mar-06 25-July-06

Location
Troup County Government Center
Troup County Government Center
West Point Recreation Center Gym

# of Newsletters
350
450
500

# of Attendees
81
99
400

# of Comments
31
15
18

Additionally, the Study Team was available for presentations to other groups. As part of this effort presentations were made to the residents of Vernon Road, West Georgia Flyers and Troup County Historical Preservation Society. A complete summary of public involvement activities is provided in the Public Involvement Report.
ES-3.0 Demographic Information
Table ES-3.0 presents selected demographic data to more fully illustrate the characteristics of the population living in Troup County, its households, and other socio-economic factors.
Table ES-3.0 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Total Population Median Age Households Average Household Size Total Housing Units
Source: 2000 US Census

Troup County 58,779 34.6 21,920 2.61 23,824

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-4

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

ES-3.1

Future Population

Table ES-3.1 displays the projected growth, provided by the Troup County Comprehensive Plan, for Troup County through the horizon year of 2035.

Table ES-3.1 Projected Population

2000 2005

Projected Population

58,779 62,619

Source: Troup County Comprehensive Plan

2010 66,458

2015 73,177

2020 79,896

2025 91,655

2030 103,413

2035 113,500

ES-3.2

Employment Data

In Troup County, manufacturing is the largest employment sector providing about one-third of the total jobs. Other important sectors are education, services and retail trade. Among the major employers in the County are Milliken & Co. (1,750 employees), Wal-Mart (1,600 employees), West Georgia Medical Center (1,300 employees), Interface (900 employees), and Duracell (475 employees). Thirty-five companies in Troup County employ 100 or more employees. The number, type, and location of jobs in the County have direct implications to the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area. The County's per capita income ($17,626) in 1999 was significantly lower than Georgia's statewide average of $27,324 and the national average of $28,546.

ES-4.0 Land Use and Development
Based on Troup County's 1993 Comprehensive Plan, currently being updated, the existing and future land use patterns for the County continue to show a substantial percentage of land devoted to residential and agricultural land uses. Development is projected to occur both north and south of LaGrange with concentrations in the southeast and southwest quadrants. Additionally, at the time of this study a major employment center (KIA Motors facility) was anticipated just north of West Point. These two factors suggest that transportation enhancements will be required to adequately service future travel demand, particularly employment related demand throughout the County.

ES-5.0 Previous Studies
An effective Transportation Plan coordinates with other planning efforts to ensure continuity between planning documents and to ensure that goals and related projects for the transportation system are consistent with the established community vision. It is important to recognize that this Plan is not the first transportation planning effort for the County. GDOT continually conducts planning efforts throughout the state this study will build on these efforts. The following planning studies and programs were reviewed:
GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program and Six Year Construction Work Program;

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-5

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

GDOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (GABPP); GDOT Statewide Interstate System Plan; Chattahoochee - Flint Regional Development Center (RDC) Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan; Troup County Comprehensive Plan; and, City of LaGrange Comprehensive Plan.

ES-6.0 Assessment of Transportation Facilities
Extensive data was collected for the transportation facilities within Troup County. Based on the existing conditions inventory and assessment, an analysis of operating conditions was conducted for the following elements:
Public Transit; Freight; Aviation Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridge Inventory; Safety Assessments; Roadway Operating Conditions; and, Citizen and Stakeholder Input.

ES-6.1

Sketch Planning Tool

In addition to the collected data, a county level sketch planning tool was developed to assist in the evaluation of existing and future travel conditions through the County. The key output from the sketch planning tool is a volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment. The volume to capacity ratios correspond to a level of service based on accepted methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. A qualitative description of the different levels of service is provided below.

LOS A Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. LOS B Drivers experience some delay but generally conditions are favorable. LOS C Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable
delay in intersection areas. LOS D Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to
pass and considerable intersection delay. LOS E The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps
in the traffic. LOS F More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle
resulting in extreme delays.

Figures ES-6.1 through ES-6.3 display the level of service on Troup County's roadway network for the study years 2004, 2015 and 2035.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-6

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Existing Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-7

Figure No: ES-6.1

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

2015 Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-8

Figure No: ES-6.2

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

2035 Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-9

Figure No: ES-6.3

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Development of the sketch planning tool followed the process presented below:

Network Development; Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Development; Traffic Count Database Development; O-D Matrix Estimation; and, Traffic Assignment Process.

The development of the future conditions sketch planning tool is as follows:

Network Development; Trip Table Forecasting; and, Traffic Assignment.

ES-6.2

Summary of Key Findings

This study addresses most modes of passenger travel: including auto, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, freight, and aviation. Some of the key findings of the data analysis report include:

Previous and On-Going Studies 42 projects in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program
Roadway System Characteristics 175 miles of State and US Roads 543 miles of County Roads 194 miles of Collectors and Local Streets
Public Transportation 58,334 one-way trips with Troup Transit in 2005
Freight Transport 7 designated truck routes: I-85, I-185, US 27, US 29, SR 18, SR 109, and SR 219 60 miles of rail line operated by CSX
Airports
LaGrange-Callaway Airport (LGC) o Level III airport o 2 runways - 5,600' x 150' and 5,000' x 100'
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 4 pedestrian fatalities from 2002 to 2004 Additional infill and sidewalks recommended within a one-mile buffer of schools, libraries, parks and community centers
Bridges
165 bridges 23 bridges with a sufficiency rating less than 50 meaning they are candidates for
rehabilitation or repair. 18 additional bridges have a sufficiency rating less than 75 and may be considered
candidates for rehabilitation or replacement through the horizon year, 2035.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-10

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Safety 6,847 crashes 2,111 injuries 45 fatalities (16 on Interstates) 11 intersections with 30 or more crashes over the three-year analysis period o US 27 & US 29 o US 29 & Davis Road o US 29 & S Greenwood Street o US 27 & N Lafayette Square o Davis Road & SR 109 o Broad Street & SR 219 o US 29 & Horace King Street o US 29 & Broad Street o US 29 & SR 109 o US 29 & Forrest Avenue o US 29 & Hartwell Avenue
Deficient Segments
Existing - 10 deficient segments 2015 - 15 deficient segments 2035 - 28 deficient segments

ES-7.0 Goals and Objectives
Using existing plans, meetings with County and GDOT staff and input received from the general public, the following Goals and Objectives were established to guide the transportation decision-making process for Troup County.

Goal 1.0 - Strategic Investment to Provide Connectivity and Accessibility throughout the County
Goal 2.0 - Optimize Utilization of Existing Infrastructure for the Safe and Efficient Movement of People and Goods
Goal 3.0 - Accommodate Users without Access to Automobiles Goal 4.0 - Provide a Range of Mobility Options Goal 5.0 - Provide a Connection Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions Goal 6.0 - Enhance the Quality of Life for All Residents

ES-8.0 Improvement Development Process
After the existing and future conditions were evaluated, strategies were developed to address identified deficiencies. Improvements were developed for each element of the transportation system:

Deficient Roadway Corridors; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Transit; Freight;

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-11

Executive Summary
Aviation; and, Summary of Citizen and Stakeholder Input. The figure below illustrates the improvement development process.

Technical Memorandum November 2006

ES-9.0 Improvement Recommendations
Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for Troup County. This listing includes:
Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.
This information is presented in Table ES-9.0 and mapped in Figure ES-9.0.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-12

Project Ref. No.

Facility

From

Capacity Improvements/New Roadways

1

I-85

I-185

2

I-85 SB

SR 109

3

I-185 Connector

I-185

4

Bass Cross Rd

US 29

5

Callaway Church Rd

SR 109

6

Cameron Mill Rd

SR 219

7

Colquitt St

US 27

8

Davis Rd

SR 109

9

Davis Rd

SR 109

10 Gabbettville Rd

US 29

11 Greenwood St

US 29

12 Lukkens Industrial Blvd

US 29

13 Lukkens Industrial Blvd (West Extension) US 29

14 Lukkens Industrial Blvd (East Extension) US 27

15 Hammett Rd

I-185 Connector

16 Young's Mill Rd

Waugh Rd

17 South LaGrange Loop

SR 109

18 North LaGrange Loop

SR 109

19 Davis Rd Realignment

SR 219

20 Waugh Rd Realignment

US 27

21 Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

22 Orchard Hill Rd

Lukkens Industrial Blvd

23 Tin Bridge Rd

Hammett Rd

24 Upper Big Springs Rd

Davis Rd

25 Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

26 SR 18

I-85

27 SR 54

US 29

28 SR 109

US 29

29 SR 109

US 27

30 SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

31 SR 219

US 27

32 SR 219

I-85

33 US 27

SR 219

34 US 27

SR 219

35 US 27

I-85

36 US 27

I-185

37 US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd

38 US 29

US 27

39 US 29

Young's Mill Rd

40 US 29 NB & SB

MP 3.87 - 5.37

176 Ragland St Extension

SR 109

Segment Limits To
SR 14 (Coweta County)
US 27 SR 54 Upper Big Springs Rd Whitaker Rd Davis Rd US 27 Hammett Rd Bartley Rd Mooty Bridge Rd US 27 South LaGrange Loop Davis Rd Young's Mill Rd Hammett Rd SR 219 US 27 Davis Rd Waugh Rd Wares Cross Rd SR 219 US 29 Knott Rd US 27 3rd Ave Meriwether County Alabama Callaway Church Rd Meriwether County Davis Rd Bartley Rd Mooty Bridge Rd Auburn Ave I-185 Old Chipley Rd Old Vernon Rd Vernon Rd SR 54 MP 7.07 - 8.41 US 29

Intersection/Geometric Improvements
41 I-85 Exit Ramps 42 US 29 43 Long Cane Rd 44 Neely Rd 45 Hightower Rd 46 Blue Creek Rd 47 Patillo Rd 48 SR 109 49 Antioch Rd 50 Cameron Mill Rd / Wares Cross Rd 51 Carr / Boddie Rd 52 Dallas Mill Rd 53 Durand Rd 54 Garrett Rd 55 Glass Bridge Rd 56 Gordon Commercial Dr 57 Greenville Rd 58 US 27 59 US 27 60 US 27 61 Hammett Rd 62 Hightower Rd 63 Hines Rd 64 US 29 65 US 29 66 Holland Rd 67 Jim Turner Rd 68 Knott Rd 69 Leonard Rd 70 N Davis Rd 71 N Davis Rd 72 N Davis Rd 73 Old West Point Rd 74 Pine Rd 75 Pine Rd 76 Pine Rd 77 Rock Mill Rd 78 S Davis Rd 79 Smokey Rd 80 Stovall Rd 81 Stovall Rd 82 Teaser Rd 83 Tin Bridge Rd 84 Towns Rd 85 Upper Big Springs Rd 86 Wares Cross Rd 87 Whitaker Rd 88 SR 219 89 SR 219 90 US 27 91 US 29 92 US 27 93 Davis Road 94 Broad Street 95 US 29 96 US 29 97 US 29

SR 18

Meadow Way Dr

Davis Rd

Long Cane Elementary

Antioch Rd

end

Hammett Rd

Mobley Bridge Rd

Mountville Hogansville Rd

Meriwether County

SR 109

US 29

Stewart Rd / Almond Rd

Rock Mill Rd

Mooty Bridge Rd

SR 109

Cook Rd

LaFayette Pkwy

Liberty Hill Rd

Hudson Rd

Gordon Rd/N Kight St

Towns Rd

Bartley Rd

Lower Bigs Springs Rd

Vulcan Rd / Sam Walker Rd

Whitfield Rd

Mobley Bridge Rd

Willowood Rd

Whitfield Rd

Patillo Rd

Hightower Rd

Gray Hill Rd

Upper Big Springs Rd

Hammett Rd

Hammett Rd

US 29

Young's Mill Rd

Canyonville Rd / Hudson Rd

Glass Bridge Rd

Teaser Rd / Newton Rd

Plymouth Dr / Malay Rd

Holliday Rd

Upper Big Springs Rd

Lower Big Springs Rd

Big Springs Rd

Dallas Mill Rd

Hill Rd

Hammett Rd

Costly Rd

Callaway Church Rd / John Loveless Rd

Ramp Rd

Cameron Mill Rd

Bartley Rd

Baugh's Cross Rd / Burkes Chapel Rd

US 29

S Greenwood St

N Lafayette Sq

SR 109

SR 219

Horace King St

Broad St

SR 109

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Existing Configuration
4-Lane Divided
N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided
N/A N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided N/A N/A N/A N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided N/A

Table ES-9.0 Recommended Improvements

Improved Configuration

Notes/Comments

6-Lane Divided Extend SB Auxiliary Lane & Improve
4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 2 Lanes w/ Turn Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use 4 Lanes, Divided
4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use
4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 4 Lanes, Divided
4 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 2 Lanes w/ Passing Lanes 4 Lanes

9.0 miles in Troup (14.76 miles Macon-to-LaGrange Corridor

Source

Improvement Type

Need

Anticipated Benefit

CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange CWP County/Lagrange County/LaGrange LaGrange Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis STIP Analysis Analysis STIP CWP Analysis CWP LaGrange

Freeway Widening Auxiliary Lane & Ramp New Roadway Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening New Roadway New Roadway Arterial Widening Connector Widening New Roadway New Roadway New Roadway New Roadway Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Passing Lanes New Roadway

Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency & Safety Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity

Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Improved Safety & Capacity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity

Implementation Near Mid Long Candidate
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County Local

$104,500,000 3

3

3

$4,630,000 3

3

3

$36,764,000 3

3

3

$7,391,000

3

3

$5,455,000

3

3

3

$13,369,000

3

3

$7,088,000

3

3

3

$16,287,000

3

3

3

$10,928,000

3

3

3

$13,965,000

3

3

$3,886,000

3

3

3

$15,500,000

3

3

3

$3,067,000

3

3

3

$5,528,000

3

3

3

$10,458,000

3

3

3

$5,176,000

3

3

3

$20,719,000

3

3

3

$25,064,000

3

3

3

$5,693,000

3

3

3

$2,066,000

3

3

3

$17,568,000

3

3

$8,447,000

3

3

3

$8,516,000

3

3

$9,862,000

3

3

$6,196,000

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$9,780,000 3

3

3

$27,746,000 3

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$16,195,000 3

3

3

$7,148,000 3

3

3

3

$7,668,000 3

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$4,760,000 3

3

3

$13,252,000 3

3

3

$10,058,000 3

3

3

$7,929,000 3

3

3

$4,923,000 3

3

3

$41,482,000 3

3

3

$1,715,000 3

3

3

$3,023,000

3

3

$523,802,000

1-Lane NB & SB Off-Ramps 2-Lane undivided w/o turn lanes 2-Lane undivided w/o turn lanes
narrow road skewed intersection
Dirt Road 3-Way Stop 3-Way Stop
2-Way Stop
skewed intersection skewed intersection skewed intersection

2-Lane NB & SB Off-Ramps BE Left Turn Lane
BE Right Deceleration/Turn Lane aligned intersection Pave
NB & SB Left Turn Lanes aligned intersection aligned intersection aligned intersection

Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves
Awkward alignment Capacity Sight distance Sight distance, grade, alignment Sight distance, alignment Sight distance, grade Sight distance, alignment Alignment, capacity Alignment, capacity Sight distance, capacity Skew, sight distance, capacity Capacity Capacity Sight distance, grade Sight distance, grade Capacity Capacity, need deceleration lane Sight distance Sight distance
Sight distance Capacity 81 crashes, 1 fatality, capacity Capacity
Capacity
Sight distance Sight distance, grade, alignment Capacity Sight distance Grade Sight distance Sight distance Capacity Sight distance, realignment Grade, speed, skew Curve Sight distance, curve Capacity Sight distance, alignment 180 crashes 49 crashes 50 crashes 42 crashes 42 crashes 39 crashes 46 crashes 38 crashes

STIP STIP County County County County County Public County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County Analysis County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues

Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity

3

$3,229,000 3

3

3

$1,475,000

3

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

$50,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$150,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$400,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$200,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$80,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$200,000

3

3

3

$400,000

3

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$80,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$500,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

$500,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

3

$50,000

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

ES-13

Table ES-9.0 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref. No.
98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

US 29 US 29 US 29 US 27 US 27 SR 219 SR 219 US 29 US 27

Facility

Segment Limits

From

To

Forrest Ave Harwell Ave Jefferson St Colquitt St Union St Mooty Bridge Rd Lukens Industrial Blvd Young's Mill Rd Greenville St

Existing Configuration 2-Lanes Undivided

Improved Configuration WB Left Turn Lane

Notes/Comments 34 crashes 30 crashes
High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site

Source
Analysis Analysis Public LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange

Improvement Type
Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Need
Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues

Anticipated Benefit
Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity

Bridge Improvements

107 I-85/I-185/I-185 Connector Interchange I-185

I-85

108 Ragland St Extension

CSX Railroad

109 Glenn Rd

Whitewater Creek

110 Cannonville Rd

Long Cane Creek

111 Hammett Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary

112 Juniper St

CSX Railroad

113 Salem-Chipley Rd

Turkey Creek Tributary

114 Adams Rd

Big Branch

115 Dallas Mill Rd

Big Springs Creek

116 Salem-Chipley Rd

Turkey Creek

117 Baughs Cross Rd

Mud Creek

118 Mountville-Hogansville Rd

Flat Creek

119 Stewart Rd

Long Cane Creek

120 Finney Rd

Polecat Creek

121 Hunt Rd

Mud Creek

122 Mountville Hogansville Rd

Beech Creek

123 Thompson Rd

Polecat Creek

124 Young's Mill Rd

Beech Creek

125 Salem Rd

Flat Shoals Creek

126 Fort Dr

Tankard Branch

127 Mobley Bridge Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary

128 Elverson Rd

Beech Creek

129 US 27

Flat Shoals Creek

130 Callaway Church Rd

Long Cane Creek

131 US 27

Long Cane Creek

132 Antioch Rd

Whitewater Creek

133 Gilbertville Rd

Long Cane Creek

134 SR 100

Yellow Jacket Creek

135 SR 109

CSX Railroad

136 Tucker Rd

Polecat Creek

137 3rd Ave

Chattahoochee River O/F

138 New Hutchinson Mill Rd

Long Cane Creek

139 SR 18 (BE)

Long Cane Creek

140 Salem Rd

Turkey Creek

141 I-85 (NB)

SR 18

142 I-185

Polecat Creek

143 I-185

Turkey Creek

144 Industrial Dr

CSX Railroad

16,422 sq ft 511 sq ft 5,633 sq ft 810 sq ft 2,562 sq ft 710 sq ft 2,671 sq ft 384 sq ft 1,428 sq ft 2,236 sq ft 1,716 sq ft 1,179 sq ft 1,928 sq ft 806 sq ft 2,049 sq ft 675 sq ft 3,318 sq ft 3,920 sq ft 1,066 sq ft 1,139 sq ft 2,744 sq ft 8,394 sq ft 3,087 sq ft 3,864 sq ft 6,680 sq ft 2,720 sq ft 7,825 sq ft
27,853 sq ft 1,671 sq ft 8,160 sq ft 5,445 sq ft 9,108 sq ft 3,228 sq ft 8,272 sq ft
sq ft sq ft 7,128 sq ft

Interchange 4.00 suff. rating (Greenville St) 5.00 sufficiency rating 7.56 sufficiency rating 14.65 sufficiency rating 16.24 sufficiency rating 16.61 sufficiency rating 24.74 sufficiency rating 25.55 sufficiency rating 26.49 sufficiency rating 26.98 sufficiency rating 27.13 sufficiency rating 27.55 sufficiency rating 27.65 sufficiency rating 28.20 sufficiency rating 28.58 sufficiency rating 31.18 sufficiency rating 39.25 sufficiency rating 42.56 sufficiency rating 48.59 sufficiency rating 51.11 sufficiency rating 53.99 sufficiency rating 55.05 sufficiency rating 58.73 sufficiency rating 59.10 sufficiency rating 59.42 sufficiency rating 63.82 sufficiency rating 65.32 sufficiency rating 67.08 sufficiency rating 67.38 sufficiency rating 68.03 sufficiency rating 69.75 sufficiency rating 70.92 sufficiency rating 72.46 sufficiency rating 73.18 sufficiency rating 73.99 sufficiency rating 73.99 sufficiency rating 74.06 sufficiency rating

CWP CWP Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Analysis Long Range Long Range Long Range Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

New Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge

Replaces Greenville St Bridge Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

Improved Operations & Connectivity Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
145 Young's Mill Bridge Bike Ped Trail 146 Hogansville Elementary 147 SR 54 Sidewalks 148 US 29 Sidewalks 149 N Davis Rd Sidewalks 150 Davis Rd Sidewalks 151 Colquitt St Sidewalks 152 Ragland St Sidewalks 153 US 29 Sidewalks 154 SR 109 Sidewalks 155 Vernon St Sidewalks 156 SR 18 Sidewalks 157 Avenue K Sidewalks 158 12th St Sidewalks 159 West Point Pedestrian Crossing 160 Country Club Road Loop 161 Downtown LaGrange Connector 162 SR 109 163 Old West Point Rd/US 29 164 Hillcrest Rd/Hammett Rd 165 South Troup 177 4th Ave Streetscaping

Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade

Maple Dr

Boyd Rd

Ware St

SR 100

US 29

Hammett Rd

SR 219

Ragland St

US 27

Ragland St

Colquitt St

SR 109

US 27

Young's Mill Rd

US 27

LaGrange Mall

SR 109

Ferrell Dr

Dogwood Cir

OG Skinner Dr

SR 18

12th St

West Point Elementary

OG Skinner Dr

SR 18 & US 29

Cameron Mill Rd/Country Club Rd/Broad St/SR 219

US 29

Pine Park

Bartley Rd/Lower Big Springs Rd/Wright Rd

7th St

10th St

Pedestrian Pavement Markings

Pedestrian Flashing Signal

Partial sidewalk on North side

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No sidewalks

Sidewalk on West side

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

Partial sidewalk on North side

Sidewalks on North and South sides

Partial sidewalk on East side

Sidewalks on East and West sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on East side

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North side

Pedestrian Pavement Markings

Pedestrian Signal

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

Connect residential & commercial areas

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

Streetscaping

0.7 mile 0.4 mile 1.7 mile 2.4 mile 1.2 mile 1.2 mile 0.9 mile 3.0 mile 0.9 mile 0.5 mile 0.1 mile, 1 Fatality 0.4 mile
14.0 mile 1.5 mile 4.5 mile 9.0 mile 11.0 mile / 8.3 mile 18.3 mile

STIP Hogansville
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
Public Public Public Public Public Public West Point

Bike/Ped Trail Ped Flashing Beacon Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Pedestrian Signal Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Streetscape

Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities

Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System

Airport Improvements 166 LaGrange-Callaway Airport

Runway Extension

5,000' runway

5,500' runway

1 runway already 5,500'

County

Runway Extension

Level III runway

Enhanced Aviation Operations

Rail Improvements 167 Railroad Warning Device 168 SR 109 169 Railroad Crossing

Green St & CSX in Hogansville CSX RR west of SR 14 8th St & CSX in West Point

No warning devices At-Grade crossing Rough crossing

Lighted warning signals Grade separated crossing Improved crossing

Potential realignment & connection to US 29

STIP

Improve Crossing

County/LaGrange

Public

Improve Crossing

Rail Issues Rough Crossing

Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Transit Improvements
170 Express Bus Service 171 Express Bus Service 172 Park & Ride Lot 173 Park & Ride Lot 174 Park & Ride Lot 175 Park & Ride Lot

LaGrange to Atlanta LaGrange to Columbus I-85 & SR 54 I-85 & SR 109 I-85 & Gabbettville Rd I-185 & US 27

Public Public County County County County

Express Bus Service Express Bus Service Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots

Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination.
2. Intersection costs provided by Troup County Engineeringm, or a unit cost of $250,000 was used 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $140 per square foot, costs for Projects 142 & 143 are not provided due to incomplete available information 4. Projects 26, 29 and 33 are proposed to have non-widening improvements, therefore costs were not provided 5. Aviation Costs to be provided by the County 6. Projects 44-48 require detailed study to determine costs 7. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way

Near
3 3 3

Implementation Mid Long Candidate
3 3 3 3 3 3

Estimated
Cost
$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $16,964,000

Potential Funding Source

Federal State County Local

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

$28,552,000 3

3

3

$2,933,000

3

3

3

$71,540

3

3

3

$429,000

3

3

3

$112,000

3

3

3

$358,680

3

3

3

$81,000

3

3

3

$322,000

3

3

3

$53,760

3

3

3

$199,920

3

3

3

$170,000

3

3

3

$246,000

3

3

3

$110,000

3

3

3

$269,920

3

3

3

$215,000

3

3

3

$164,000

3

3

3

$94,500

3

3

3

$464,520

3

3

3

$993,000

3

3

3

$149,240

3

3

3

$159,460

3

3

3

$384,160

3

3

3

$1,175,160

3

3

3

$432,180

3

3

3

$540,960

3

3

3

$935,200

3

3

3

$380,800

3

3

3

$1,095,500

3

3

3

$3,899,420

3

3

3

$233,940

3

3

3

$1,142,400

3

3

3

$762,300

3

3

3

$1,275,120

3

3

3

$451,920

3

3

3

$1,158,080

3

3

3

-

3

3

3

-

3

3

3

$997,920

3

3

3

$51,013,600

3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3
3

$200,000

3

3

3

3

$10,000

3

3

3

3

$303,800

3

3

3

3

$86,800

3

3

3

3

$737,800

3

3

3

3

$1,041,600

3

3

3

3

$520,800

3

3

3

3

$520,800

3

3

3

3

$390,600

3

3

3

3

$1,302,000

3

3

3

3

$390,600

3

3

3

3

$217,000

3

3

3

3

$21,700

3

3

3

3

$86,800

3

3

3

3

$25,000

3

3

3

3

$2,884,000

3

3

3

3

$309,000

3

3

3

3

$1,854,000

3

3

3

3

$927,000

3

3

3

3

$3,975,800

3

3

3

3

$3,769,800

3

3

3

3

$625,000

3

3

3

3

$20,199,900

3

-3

3

3

$0

3 3

$150,000

$2,500,000

3

-

$2,650,000

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

$250,000 3

3

3

3

$250,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

$900,000

$615,529,500

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-14

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-15

Figure No: ES-9.0

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Recommended Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-16

Figure No: ES-9.0

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

ES-10.0 Funding
Several funding sources will be used to construct as many of the recommended projects as possible. This is usually controlled by the agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the roadway. Most major facilities in Troup County are either operated by GDOT or the County. Should the County desire to accelerate projects on state owned and maintained facilities, it is highly likely that local funds could accelerate the process.

Funding for most transportation projects in the County comes in part through GDOT. To understand the ability of GDOT to continue to provide funds to Troup County it is useful to understand the components of GDOT funding. Key components include:

Federal Title I Apportionments; State Motor Fuels Taxes; State License Tag Fees; State Title Registrations; State Motor Carrier Fuels Tax; State Personal Property Tax; and, Tax Allocation Districts.

} Accounts for approximately 98% of the budget

While detailed analysis of these funding sources is beyond the scope of this study, it is useful to point out that all of the revenue streams identified as key components of GDOT funding have positive growth rates historically and it is anticipated that they will continue to grow in the future.

While GDOT funding components have positive growth rates, the Department is experiencing some funding challenges. Construction costs have increased up to 65% over the past two to three years forcing the Department to continually assess which projects it can reasonably fund. It is anticipated that in the future local funding sources will become more significant. A review of project implementation shows that jurisdictions with a SPLOST have been in the best position to leverage funds and ultimately construct projects.

ES-11.0 Conclusions
Growth in Troup County has resulted in increased travel demand. GDOT in conjunction with Troup County and the City of LaGrange initiated a study to develop a LRTP to serve the County through the planning horizon, 2035. Recommended projects were identified and selected according to all applicable rules and regulations with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-17

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum November 2006

HNTB coordinated with GDOT, County planning and engineering staff, cities within the County and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of study alternatives and the LRTP. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to ensure that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating planned improvements to the transportation network.

The end product for this study was a LRTP that provided for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Troup County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports.

This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for Troup County's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ES-18

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

1.0 Introduction

Growth in Troup County has resulted in increased travel demand. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), in conjunction with Troup County and the City of LaGrange, initiated a study to develop a Multi-Modal Transportation Plan to serve the County through the planning horizon, 2035. Currently the transportation planning function for the County is provided by GDOT through coordination with Troup County. The Transportation Plan developed as part of this study built upon existing work efforts to date, and provides a mechanism for guiding transportation decision-making as development pressures increase through the County.

The purpose of this technical memorandum was to identify existing and future operating conditions for the multi-modal transportation system within Troup County. Ultimately the study will identify multi-modal improvements and prioritize project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

HNTB coordinated with GDOT, Troup County, local cities and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of study recommendations. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that recommended transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to the County's transportation network.

Ultimately, study efforts will produce a LRTP that guides the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports.

1.1 Study Purpose

The purpose of the LRTP is to identify long-range transportation needs, determine resources to meet those needs, and outline a framework of projects that meet the transportation needs of a community to the extent allowed by existing and future resources. While Troup County is not within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area, the transportation plan development process followed the guidelines established for MPO's. This more rigorous process established a strong framework for transportation planning and decision-making. The format of the LRTP, and the process by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal legislation known as the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the most recent federal transportation legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

Long range transportation plans are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

1

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

term transportation needs for the community. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, long range transportation plans are updated at least every five years.

1.2 Study Area Description

Troup County is located in west Georgia on the Alabama border southwest of Atlanta and north of Columbus and covers a land area of approximately 414 square miles. The County was formed in 1825 from lands belonging to the Creek Indians and was named after Governor George M. Troup. LaGrange, the County seat, is named for the ancestral home of Revolutionary War hero Marquis de LaFayette. A major defining feature of the county is the presence of West Point Lake, a 26,900-acre reservoir on the Chattahoochee River built by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, located in the western and northwest reaches of the County. There are three incorporated municipalities within Troup County LaGrange, West Point, and Hogansville. LaGrange is located in the geographic center of the county. West Point is located in the extreme southwest quadrant of the county on the Alabama state line. Hogansville is located in the northeastern part of the county. All three municipalities lie along I-85 and US 29. The study area is displayed in Figure 1.2.

Several sites in the County are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the County Courthouse and the Benjamin Harvey Hill House (Bellevue). Other points of interest are the two higher learning educational institutions located in Troup County, including LaGrange College, the oldest independent college in Georgia - founded in 1831. Additionally, the West Georgia Technical Institute which is a two-year unit of the University System of Georgia located in West Point.

Troup County is traversed by the I-85 corridor, one of the Southeastern US's most dynamic corridors for economic development and business growth. In recent years, communities located in the I-85 corridor from Virginia to Alabama have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses. The significance of the population and commercial growth in this multi-state corridor has even prompted the states to examine the feasibility of introducing new interstate rail service in the I-85 corridor connecting the Middle Atlantic and Southern states from Richmond, Virginia to Birmingham, Alabama. The appeal of this corridor to attract growth is recognized by the decision of KIA Motor Corporation to locate a manufacturing facility in West Point.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Study Area
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006
Figure No: 1.2 3

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

1.3 Study Process

There are several important steps in developing a LRTP. After all of the data has been collected and the model has been validated and calibrated, the deficiencies are identified and the rest of the process is used to address and prioritize improvements for these deficiencies.

Figure 1.3 displays a flow chart depicting the study process.

Figure 1.3 Study Process

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

4

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

2.0 Public and Stakeholder Involvement

The purpose of the public involvement program was to inform the public and include them in the decision-making process. Public concerns were brought to the forefront so that they could be discussed and resolved. This approach engaged the end users (i.e. the residents and business owners of Troup County) in the identification, development, evaluation, and selection of transportation improvements. The ultimate goal of the Public Involvement Plan was to build consensus for the recommended short-term and long-term improvements identified through the long range transportation planning process.

A public involvement program that encourages participation and interaction throughout the process has a good chance of attaining community consensus. An effective, well-planned and organized public involvement program helps anticipate and lessen negative perceptions, and can encourage acceptance of the study results. The Study Team implemented a public involvement program that utilized consensus-building techniques throughout the study process.

Area stakeholders, individual citizens and interested groups were given multiple opportunities to become involved in the planning process. Citizens with an interest in the study were informed of the study's progress and provided various forums for input into the decision-making process, including newsletters and web site updates. Through the public involvement process, the Study Team was able to identify improvements that meet the needs of stakeholders and residents of Troup County. A complete summary of public involvement activities is provided in the Public Involvement Report

2.1 Summary of Activities
Involving the public in the decision-making process was essential for developing consensus or acceptance among the community it is intended to serve. Throughout the process, the public was invited to provide information, offer alternatives, and present their interests and concerns. As stakeholders who live and travel through the study area, citizens were able to provide insightful input to technical and non-technical issues relevant to the project.
Several forums were available for citizens to voice their opinions, concerns, and ideas. Three (3) Open House Workshops were conducted as part of the study. These workshops ensured that public input was reflected accurately for the evaluation and recommendation of the proposed transportation improvements. Each public workshop was used to encourage consensus among citizens, County staff, and area municipalities, as to the planned improvements for the County's transportation network.
The public workshops and other proposed forums available throughout the study are described below.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

2.2 Public Information Workshops

A brief presentation was given at each of the public workshops to support facilitation activities and/or informal review of display materials with the public. The Study Team was available for one-on-one discussions at all of the workshops. In addition, public comment forms were available for citizens to officially record their comments. As appropriate HNTB developed responses to all comments and coordinated these responses with GDOT.

Based on input from the project Steering Committee it was determined that three public workshops was appropriate for this study. These Workshops took place from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM on either a Tuesday or Thursday night to avoid conflicts with recreational activities and church gatherings. The Troup County Government Center was identified for hosting public workshops. This facility is centrally located in the County and provided adequate space for the workshops.

Workshop #1 (Overview of Existing and Future Operating Conditions) -- This workshop provided an overview of the study process; document data collection activities; overview existing and future operating conditions; and, identified deficiencies. This workshop included a formal presentation, followed by an open house format to solicit public input, identify issues and concerns, and to aid the Study Team in evaluation of existing and future deficiencies.

Workshop #2 (Present Preliminary Long Range Transportation Plan) -- This workshop presented preliminary improvement concepts for major deficiencies, and the findings to date for public review and comment. A formal presentation of the study results was followed by an open house format to solicit public input on the study recommendations.

Workshop #3 (Present Final Long Range Transportation Plan) -- This workshop presented preliminary improvement recommendations for major deficiencies, preliminary prioritization criteria, and the findings to date to include a Preliminary Long Range Transportation Plan for public review and comment. An open house format was used to solicit public input on the study recommendations.

2.3 Study Advisory Group Meetings

In addition to the public workshops, Study Advisory Group (SAG) meetings were held to solicit key stakeholder feedback at key junctures throughout the study. Troup County selected its Advisory Group participants typically including representatives from the business community, planning staff, school board, elected officials and emergency management staff. Member of the SAG are listed in Table 2.3.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 2.3 Study Advisory Group Members

Mike Dobbs County Manager, Troup County 100 Ridley Avenue LaGrange, GA 30240 mdobbs@troupco.org
Jeff Lukken Mayor, LaGrange PO Box 430 LaGrange, GA 30241
Paula Grizzard Emergency Management Agency 100 Ridley Avenue LaGrange, GA 30240 troup@gema.state.ga.us
Glen Boyd LaGrange-Callaway Airport 200 Airport Pkwy LaGrange, GA 30240 airportmanager@troupair.com
Speer Burdette Callaway Foundation PO Box 790 LaGrange, GA 30241 hsburdette@callawayfoundation.org Russell Grizzle Milliken & Co. Design Center 201 Lukken Industrial Dr W LaGrange, GA 30240 russell.grizzle@milliken.com
Bobby Traylor LaGrange City Council 1006 Malibu Dr LaGrange GA 30240
O.W. McGowan 310 Lane Circle LaGrange, GA 30240 owmcgowan@bellsouth.net

Randy Jordan City Manager, Hogansville 400 E. Main St Hogansville, GA 30230 rjordan02@bellsouth.net Ed Moon City Manager, West Point 730 1st Ave West Point, GA 31833 emoon@cityofwestpointga.com
Frank Gurley Troup Co. Board of Education 200 Mooty Bridge Rd LaGrange, GA 30240 gurleyf@troup.org
David Barr U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 500 Resource Management Dr West Point, GA 31833-9517 David.A.Barr@SAM.USACE.Army.mil
Carl Von Epps 100 Black Men of W. GA PO Box 3106 LaGrange, GA 30241-3106 vonepps@charter.net
Ken Smith Commissioner District 3 ksmith@troupcountyga.org
Billy Golden Golden Bike Shops 101 Harwell Ave LaGrange GA 30240 goldensbikes@mindspring.com Joy Maltese District 4 Health Services 201 Moccasin Trail LaGrange, GA 30241 jnmaltese@dhr.state.ga.us

Tom Hall City Manager, LaGrange PO Box 430 LaGrange, GA 30241 thall@lagrange-ga.org
Billy Head Mayor, West Point 730 1st Ave West Point, GA 31833
Tod Tentler Troup County Parks & Rec. Dept 1220 Lafayette Pkwy LaGrange, GA 30241 ttentler@troupco.org Daryl Gilley West Georgia Technical College 303 Fort Dr LaGrange, GA 30240 dgilley@westgatech.edu
Doris Jefferson Keep Troup Beautiful, Inc. PO Box 3413 LaGrange, GA 30241-3413 djefferson@asginfo.net
Tim Duffey County Chairman tduffey@troupcountyga.org
David Johnson West Georgia Flyers 130 Ashling Dr LaGrange, GA 30240 dagolfer@charter.net

This group met a total of three times throughout the study excluding project kick-off to discuss issues and opportunities and review study progress to date. Meeting dates and locations are documented below:

Troup County Government Center January 19, 2006; Troup County Recreation Center March 21, 2006; and,

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

7

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

West Point Recreational Complex Gym July 25, 2006.

The third workshop was held in conjunction with GDOT's I-85 Interchange Project (CSNHS0008-00(232) at Gabbettville Road.

2.4 Other Meetings

The Study Team coordinated with interested agencies, representatives, organizations, and citizen groups via the distribution of project newsletters to elected officials, citizens, and local governments' engineering and planning staff, and local and state agencies. Additionally, the Study Team was available for presentations to other groups. As part of this effort presentations were made to the residents of Vernon Road, West Georgia Flyers and Troup County Historical Preservation Society.

2.5 Program Evaluation

It was important to document and evaluate the effectiveness of the Multi-Modal Transportation Study Public Involvement Plan. The following data was documented:

Number of newsletters and fact sheets distributed; Number of open house attendees; and, Number of public comments received.

Feedback from GDOT, Advisory Group members and Environmental Justice representatives was evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the public involvement plan. Table 1.4.2 displays the public workshop participation information.

Table 2.5 Public Workshop Participation

Meetings Public Workshop #1 Public Workshop #2 Public Workshop #3

Date 31-Jan-06 30-Mar-06 25-July-06

Location
Troup County Government Center
Troup County Government Center
West Point Recreation Center
Gym

# of

# of

# of

Newsletters Attendees Comments

350

81

31

450

99

15

500

400

18

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

8

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

3.0 Demographic Information

A review of US Census data shows that Troup County has seen population growth at a modest level during the past 20 years. Table 3.0 presents selected demographic data to more fully illustrate the characteristics of the population living in Troup County, its households, and other socio-economic factors. Dialogue with County Staff revealed that many new residents of the County relocated from the Atlanta metro area to live in a more rural area. However, historically employment has not shifted to Troup County. The ratio of residents (58,779) to jobs (26,339) is approximately two to one based on the 2000 Census information. This places increased demand on the transportation system linking the County to Atlanta, Columbus, Auburn and other employment centers.

The demographic overview of the County documents: historic population growth, future population, environmental justice and existing employment.

Table 3.0 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

Total Population

Demographic

Troup County 58,779

Median Age Households

34.6 21,920

Average Household Size Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Owner-Occupied Housing Units Renter-Occupied Housing Units School Enrollment (Age 3+) Percent High School Graduate or Higher Total Disabled Population (Age 5+) Percent of Population in Same House in 1995
Source: 2000 US Census

2.61
23,824
21,920 (92.0% of total)
14,131 (64.5% of total)
7,789 (35.5% of total)
15,898 (27.0% of total)
73.0%
12,498 (21.3 %)
53.1%

Over half of the residents (32,154) of Troup County live outside of the cities. The following shows the population of each city for the year 2000:

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

9

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Hogansville 2,774; LaGrange 25,998; and, West Point 3,382.

The population for West Point includes residents of the City located in Harris County, Georgia.

Perhaps the most significant figure identified in the demographic data is the percent of disabled individuals in the County, (21.3%). This figure exceeds the statewide average of (19%). The US Census Bureau defines disability as:

"A long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business."

Dialogue with County Staff revealed that the County's population is aging and is attracting an older population. As the County continues to attract retirement residential land uses, the need will increase for a transportation system that accommodates the aging population.

3.1 Historic Population Growth

Table 2.1 illustrates the growth trends for Troup County and Georgia from 1900 to 2000. Information in Table 3.1 shows that the area has had low historical growth compared to the growth trend for the State of Georgia. The population for Troup County can be expected to continue to increase throughout most of the County through the study horizon of 2035.

Table 3.1 Historical Population Profile

County Troup

1900 24,002

1920 36,097

1940 43,879

1960 47,189

1980 50,003

2000 58,779

Percent Change 1980 - 2000
18%

Georgia 2,216,331 2,895,832 3,123,723 3,943,116 5,462,982 8,186,453
Source: 2000 US Census

50%

Figure 3.1 shows the year 2000 population distribution in Troup County for each Census Block Group. The densest population areas are located around the City of LaGrange.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

10

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006

2000 Population

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

11

Figure No: 3.1

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

3.2 Future Population

Although Troup County has received a relatively low amount of growth over the past 20 years (18%), this is expected to change. The County has become increasingly attractive to people and business owners who enjoy a rural lifestyle while having good access to nearby amenities in the Atlanta and Columbus urban areas as well as proximity to Auburn, Alabama. Several developments of regional impacts (DRIs) have been proposed as well as the potential growth in the industrial industry. Table 3.2 displays the projected growth, provided by the Troup County Comprehensive Plan, for Troup County through the horizon year of 2035.

Table 3.2 Projected Population

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

2030

2035

Projected Population

58,779 62,619 66,458 73,177 79,896 91,655 103,413 113,500

Source: Troup County Comprehensive Plan

Reviewing Troup County's Compressive Plan reveals that over the next 30 years the County is projected to double in population. It is important to recognize this growth and the substantial demand for a quality transportation system and transportation services.

3.3 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice (EJ) is intended to acknowledge minority and low-income populations and ensure that these groups are not disproportionately impacted as a result of transportation improvement recommendations. The US DOT Order on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 defines environmental justice populations as persons belonging to any of the following groups:

Black; Hispanic; Asian American; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and, Low-Income a person whose household income (or in the case of a community or
group, whose median household income) is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

It is important to look at the distribution and concentration of minority and low-income populations to determine potential EJ impacts. The intent of EJ analysis is locating these populations and involving them early and continuously through the decision making process, as well as using data to analytically assess if there would be a disproportionate

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

12

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

impact on traditionally underrepresented communities. The following sections document the location of minority and low-income populations.

Minority Populations

The minority population for Troup County was analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by Census Block Group, and shows concentrations of minority populations are located on the southern and eastern portions of LaGrange as well as the I85 area of West Point. The average minority population figure for the County is 34.2% while the statewide average is 34.9%. The minority Census Block Groups are displayed in Figure 3.3.1.

Low-Income Populations

The second component for environmental justice, poverty level, was also analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by Census Block Group, and shows concentrations of low-income populations are located in the southern portion of LaGrange as well as the I-85 area of West Point and Hogansville. The study wide average for poverty in the County is 14.8% while the statewide average is 13.0%. The low-income census blocks are displayed in Figure 3.3.2.

It is helpful to analyze the low-income areas with the location of minority population areas. Interest is drawn to areas with high populations for both of these categories. Figure 3.3.3 combines the minority and low-income population data and presents it in a single graphic.

Disadvantaged populations were identified as part of this analysis and extra efforts were made to include these groups in the planning process. These areas include the downtown areas of LaGrange and West Point. These areas were evaluated to ensure that transportation improvements would benefit and not disproportionately impact these areas in a negative manner. The following tasks were conducted for the identified low-income and minority populations:

Coordinated with the Study Advisory Group to identify leaders within these communities;
Posted notice for workshops in these communities where possible; Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that disproportionate impacts did not
accrue to these communities; and, Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that mobility benefits accrued to these
communities including bicycle and pedestrian amenities.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

13

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006

Minority Population Locations

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

14

Figure No: 3.3.1

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006

Low-Income Population Locations

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

15

Figure No: 3.3.2

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006

Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations Figure No: 3.3.3

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

16

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

3.4 Employment Data
In Troup County, manufacturing is the largest employment sector providing about one-third of the total jobs. Other important sectors are education, services and retail trade. Among the major employers in the County are Milliken & Co. (1,750 employees), Wal-Mart (1,600 employees), West Georgia Medical Center (1,300 employees), Interface (900 employees), and Duracell (475 employees). Thirty-five companies in Troup County employ 100 or more employees. The number, type, and location of jobs in the County have direct implications to the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area. Table 3.4.1 shows the major categories of jobs and industries located in Troup County.

Table 3.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs

Industry Type Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining

Troup County 207

Construction

1,992

Manufacturing

7,467

Wholesale Trade

779

Retail Trade

3,140

Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities

944

Information

524

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services
Education, Health, and Social Services

993 1,463 5,241

Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services

1,763

Other Services

1,204

Public Administration

952

TOTAL
Source: 2000 US Census

26,669

The County's per capita income ($17,626) in 1999 was significantly lower than Georgia's statewide average of $27,324 and the national average of $28,546.

Transportation mobility for workers in Troup County is an important consideration for the Plan. Not surprisingly, most workers (95%) in the County rely on highway-based transportation for commute trips, either by driving alone or carpooling. About four percent

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

17

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

(4%) of workers in the County walk or commute to work by other means and a little over one percent (1%) work at home. Table 3.4.2 illustrates the breakdowns in commuting modes for Troup County.

Table 3.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns

Work Commute Total Workers (Age 16+)

Troup County

Population

Percentage

26,339

100%

Georgia Percentage
100%

Drove Alone

20,728

78.7%

77.5%

Carpooled

4,255

16.2%

14.5%

Transit/Taxi

440

1.7%

2.3%

Biked or Walked

264

1.0%

1.9%

Motorcycle or Other Means

299

1.1%

1.0%

Worked at Home
Mean Travel Time to Work (mins.)
Source: 2000 US Census

353

1.3 %

2.8%

21.1

27.7

The County's journey to work averages corresponds closely to the statewide averages for the various modes of travel. The mean travel time to work is lower than the statewide average (27.7 minutes). This competitive advantage was cited by County Planning Staff as one reason why the County has become increasingly attractive to people and business owners who enjoy a rural lifestyle while having good access to nearby amenities in the Atlanta urban area as well as proximity to Columbus and Alabama.

Table 3.4.3 displays the mileage and vehicle miles traveled for the different roadway classifications in Troup County. Troup County is served by multiple State Roads (20% of the lane miles) which handles a majority of the traffic (70%). This closely matches the statewide averages of 16% State Roads handling 64% of the total traffic. To ensure future mobility, it will be important to evaluate and identify needed improvements to the State Road system through close coordination with GDOT.

Table 3.4.3 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled

County Troup

State Roads

Miles

VMT

175

1,916,455

Country Roads

Miles

VMT

543

537,839

Local Roads

Miles

VMT

194

248,017

Total

Miles

VMT

911

2,702,311

State

18,044 189,513,149 82,887 85,524,538 13,931 21,773,307 114,863 296,810,994

Source: GDOT

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

18

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

4.0 Land Use and Development

Based on Troup County's 1993 Comprehensive Plan, currently being updated, the existing and future land use patterns for the County continue to show a substantial percentage of land devoted to residential and agricultural land uses Development is projected to occur both north and south of LaGrange with concentrations in the southeast and southwest quadrants. Additionally, at the time of this study a major employment center (KIA Motors facility) was anticipated just north of West Point. These two factors suggest that transportation enhancements will be required to adequately service future travel demand, particularly employment related demand throughout the County.

4.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics

The Comprehensive Plan is currently being developed for Troup County and no existing land use mapping was available to support this study. To assess the impact of existing land use bon the transportation system the following types of areas were identified for the County: major residential areas; key activity centers; key employment centers; and, primary travel corridors.

Major Residential Areas City of Hogansville City of LaGrange City of West Point West Point Lake

Key Activity Centers Downtown Hogansville Downtown LaGrange Downtown West Point West Point Lake LaGrange College Lagrange-Callaway Airport

Key Employment Centers Downtown Hogansville Downtown LaGrange Downtown West Point Interchange areas along I-85 at SR 54, SR 109, US 27, SR 219, and SR 18

Primary Travel Corridors I-85 I-185 US 27 / SR 1 US 29 / SR 14 SR 18

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

19

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

SR 54 SR 109 SR 219 CSX

4.2 Future Land Use Characteristics

It is important to document future land use characteristics because this information is essential in the evaluation of future operating conditions through the County. The future land use plan identifies the desired location of population and employment through the horizon year of the study. These two variables are the key inputs into the travel model to forecast future travel volumes and related deficiencies.

For the purposes of this study it was important to work with the Future Land Use Map contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This map identifies where growth is likely to occur in the County through the horizon year of the study. By clearly identifying where growth is allowed to occur in the County, it is possible to more accurately represent travel demand on the roadway network and future year travel conditions.

The Future Land Use Map designates most of the County for rural land uses. The County has plans for growth but much of the County is zoned as agricultural or has no zoning designation. Recently, several developments of regional impacts (DRIs) have been proposed throughout the County. Several of these DRIs are located in the southeast portion of LaGrange. The following growth areas were identified:

Residential City of Hogansville City of LaGrange City of West Point West Point Lake

Intensive Agricultural Northwest Troup County South Troup County

Commercial Uses City of Hogansville City of LaGrange City of West Point Callaway Property Megasite

Industrial Uses LaGrange Industrial Park Jim Hamilton Industrial Park KIA Plant

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

20

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

5 Major Suppliers for Kia Plant (Required to locate in Georgia)

Parks/Recreation/Conservation West Point Lake

The future land use map and developments are presented in Figure 4.2.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

21

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006
2120 Houses 400 Apartments 400 Motel Room 51 ac Commercial

New School

1500 Houses

1000 Houses Commercial

Potential New Marina

LaGrange Industrial Park

Callaway Megasite

2900 Houses
900 Houses Commercial

KIA

Future Land Use

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

22

Figure No: 4.2

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

5.0 Previous Studies

An effective Transportation Plan coordinates with other planning efforts to ensure continuity between planning documents and to ensure that goals and related projects for the transportation system are consistent with the established community vision. It is important to recognize that this Plan is not the first transportation planning effort for the County. GDOT continually conducts planning efforts throughout the state this study will build on these efforts. The following planning studies and programs were reviewed:

GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program and Six Year Construction Work Program;
GDOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (GABPP); GDOT Statewide Interstate System Plan; Chattahoochee - Flint Regional Development Center (RDC) Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan; Troup County Comprehensive Plan; and, City of LaGrange Comprehensive Plan.

5.1 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program

In addition to current studies there are several planned and programmed improvements along roadways in Troup County. Programmed improvements for this review refer to projects with a construction phase included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) within the first three years of the planning horizon 2005, 2006, and 2007 with a dedicated funding source identified. Planned projects refer to projects with a construction phase included in the last three years of the Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP). The following list highlights the general types of planned and programmed improvements for the County:

Bridge Rehabilitation / Replacement; Intersection Improvements; Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements; Roadway Widening; New Facilities; Intersection Improvements; and, Roadway Resurfacing and Maintenance.

The STIP and CWP were reviewed for projects within and impacting the County and these projects are displayed in Table 5.1. Additionally, these projects are mapped in Figure 5.1. Projects included in the STIP were carried forward and included in the existing conditions network for analysis of future (beyond 2007) transportation scenarios.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

23

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 5.1 2005 2007 STIP & 2005-2010 GDOT Construction Work Program

Map

Prime Work

Id Project Id Type

1 0002382 Landscaping

2 0003246 Widening

Description Landscaping on I-185 in Harris and Troup Counties
I-85 from I-185 to SR 14 (Coweta)

3 0003787 Ramp

I-85 Exit Ramps @ SR 18

4

0006488

RRX Warning Device

Green St @ CSX (Hogansville)

5 0006628 Multi-Use Trail Young's Mill Bridge Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail

6 0006629 Streetscapes West Point Pedestrian Enhancement Project

7 0007654 Lighting 8 321715 Widening 9 322240 Widening

I-85 @ SR 54/SR 100 Interchange
SR 14/US 29 from Upper Glass Bridge to Old Vernon Rd
SR 109 from I-85 to Callaway Church Rd

10 322250 Widening

US 27 from Auburn St to Morgan St

11 343190 Bridges

Jefferson St @ CSX Railroad (LaGrange)

STIP/ Program CWP Date

STIP Underway

CWP
STIP, CWP STIP, CWP STIP, CWP STIP, CWP

Long Range Lump
Lump
2006
Lump

CWP Lump

STIP, CWP
CWP
STIP, CWP

2010
Long Range
2012

STIP Underway

12 343455 Bridges

Greenville St @ CSX Railroad (LaGrange)

13 350990

Roadway Project

S LaGrange Loop from SR 109 along Fling & Pegasus to SR 219

14 351170 Turn Lanes

SR 14/US 29 Left Turn Lane from Meadow Way Dr to Davis Rd

15 362910

Roadway Project

I-185 Connector from I-185 to US 27 S of Beech Creek

16

M000890

Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements @ several locations in Improvements District 3

17

M002969

Resurface & Maintenance

I-185 from Williams Rd (Muscogee) to US 27

18

M003131

Resurface & Maintenance

Proposed Joint Sealing & Rehab @ 25 Locations

19

S005850

Roadway Project

Boozer St & Russell St (Hogansville)

20

S006059

Bridge Replacement

Two County Road Bridges

21

S009103

Resurface & Maintenance

Four Roads

22

S009104

Resurface & Maintenance

Four Roads

23

S009105

Resurface & Maintenance

Lee St (Hogansville)

CWP 2010

CWP 2012

STIP, CWP
CWP
STIP, CWP STIP, CWP

2008 Long Range Lump
2007

STIP Underway

CWP 2006

CWP CWP CWP CWP

2004
Long Range Long Range Long Range

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

24

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Map

Prime Work

Id Project Id Type

24

S009106

Resurface & Maintenance

25

S009107

Resurface & Maintenance

26

S009108

Resurface & Maintenance

Description Two Streets (LaGrange) Two Streets (LaGrange) Three Streets (West Point)

27 0007391 Bridges

Salem Rd @ Flat Shoal Creek

28

0007904

Auxiliary Lanes

I-85 SB @ SR 109 (Lafayette Pkwy), incl. ramp

29 310730 Interchange I-185 Connector @ I-85 & I-185

30 311710

Miscellaneous Call Boxes on I-85 from Alabama to SR 74 Improvements (Fulton)

31 321713 Widening

SR 14 (Vernon Rd) from Ferrell Rd to Morgan St

32 322230 33 342870 34 350920

Passing Lanes SR 14 NB & SB from MP 3.87-5.37, 7.07-8.41

Bridges

Hammett Rd @ West Point Lake Tributary(N of LaGrange)

Bridges

SR 109 @ CSX RR W of SR 14

35 370900 Bridges

Hunt Rd @ Mud Creek

36 370904 Bridges

Stewart Rd @ Long Cane Creek

37 370905 Bridges

Baughs Cross Rd @ Mud Creek

38 371070 Bridges

Adams Rd @ Big Branch

39 371071 Bridges

Cannonville Rd @ Long Cane Creek

40 371075 Bridges

Salem Chipley Rd @ Turkey Creek Tributary

41 371077 Bridges

Mountville-Hogansville Rd @ Beech Creek

42 371079 Bridges
Source: GDOT Department of Planning

Mountville-Hogansville Rd @ Flat Creek

STIP/ CWP CWP
CWP
CWP

Program Date
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range

CWP 2014

CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP
LR CWP
LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR

Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range
Long Range

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

25

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 5.1 26

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Some of these planned projects may have a dramatic effect on the movement of traffic in the County, particularly in the vicinity of LaGrange. The South LaGrange Loop and I-185 Connector provide a bypass option to LaGrange in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. These projects could help traffic through downtown LaGrange by providing additional east-west connectivity.

5.2 GDOT Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan

The Georgia Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (GABPP) was approved in August 1997 and focuses on developing a statewide primary route network. The network contains 14 routes totaling 2,943 miles. A statewide advisory committee consisting of staff from GDOT Districts, the Federal Highway Administration, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Development Centers, the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, the Georgia Municipal Associations, local planning departments, bicycle clubs, and other state agencies evaluated each proposed corridor and defined routes. The goals developed as part of this study include:

Promote non-motorized transportation as a means of congestion mitigation; Promote non-motorized transportation as an environmentally friendly means of
mobility; Promote connectivity of non-motorized facilities with other modes of transportation; Promote bicycling and walking as mobility options in urban and rural areas of the
state; Develop a transportation network of primary bicycle routes throughout the state to
provide connectivity for intrastate and interstate bicycle travel; and, Promote establishment of U.S. numbered bicycle routes in Georgia as part of a
national network of bicycle routes.

Several factors were used in evaluating routes, including: accident history; total traffic volumes and truck volumes; speeds; shoulder and travel lane width; pavement condition; network connectivity; access to cities and to major points of interest; aesthetics; and the presence of potentially hazardous spot conditions. Bicyclists were considered the primary users of this route network, however pedestrian friendly designs are used in urban areas and paved shoulders are constructed on rural sections.

GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan were reviewed to identify proposed facilities through Troup County. There are currently no routes in the plan which are located in Troup County.

5.3 GDOT Statewide Interstate System Plan

Sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Statewide Interstate System Plan identified necessary improvements, and produced a comprehensive and prioritized program of projects to meet increasing traffic demands and ensure future statewide mobility. The plan, completed in the summer of 2004, is organized into three phases and focuses primarily on the interstates outside the Atlanta metro area.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

27

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

The Interstate System Plan documents three interchanges within Troup County that are expected to operate under congested conditions by 2035; I-85 and SR 54, I-85 with SR 109 and I-185 with Upper Big Springs Road. The Interstate System Plan calls out widening I-85 near LaGrange as part of GDOT's program, but does not provide additional recommendations in the study area for widening.
5.4 Chattahoochee-Flint RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Chattahoochee-Flint RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was completed in April 2005 and focuses on developing a bicycle and pedestrian network throughout its region. As part of this effort the following goals were created:
Increase public awareness of bicycling and pedestrian needs in the region; Promote regional inter-connectivity; and, Support the development of a regional greenway system.
Additionally, the plan documents the following objectives:
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian needs in local transportation and recreation plans;
Include state and regional network in local government comprehensive plans; Map bicycle-friendly routes; Promote and establish Bicycle Safety events; Encourage the use of helmets; Provide better training in the rules of the road; Strongly encourage that schools be located in or near residential areas; Adopt sidewalk and maintenance programs; Adopt better drainage grate design standards; and, Enhance the discussion of cyclists in the Georgia Driver's Education Manual.
The RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes several types of routes for Troup County such as, regional, inner city and recreational routes. The routes total 308.5 miles in Troup County. Recommendations from the Chattahoochee-Flint RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are presented in Figure 5.4.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

28

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

RDC's Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 5.4 29

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

5.5 Troup County Comprehensive Plan

The Troup County Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1993 and is currently being updated. The Comprehensive Plan was developed to guide the growth of the County through 2012. To the greatest extent possible the transportation planning effort is being developed with respect to transportation and land use issues and opportunities in Troup County it is not relying on data developed in 1993. Because of the critical linkage between land use and transportation, it is recommended that the Transportation Plan developed as part of this study be reviewed once the Comprehensive Plan updates are complete.

5.6 City of LaGrange Comprehensive Plan

Similar to the Troup County Comprehensive Plan, the City of LaGrange Comprehensive Master Plan is currently under development. A draft report was completed in December, 2004 and has a horizon year of 2014. This plan was completed because of the anticipated growth in LaGrange. This plan, while not a standard comprehensive plan and not prepared in accordance to the Minimal Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning, has information to offer. Table 5.6.1 documents the number of housing units anticipated within the City of LaGrange as well as the forecast population.

Table 5.6.1 Anticipated Development and Forecasted Population in LaGrange

Year

Anticipated Number of Housing Units

2005

615

2006

580

2007

604

2008

616

2009

602

2010

511

2011

481

2012

481

2013

450

2014

450

Source: City of LaGrange Comprehensive Master Plan

Forecasted Population 28,406 30,511 32,673 34,864 37,141 39,201 41,189 43,296 45,329 47,362

A key component of the LaGrange Comprehensive Plan was recommended transportation improvements. Table 5.6.2 documents the recommended transportation projects from this Plan.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

30

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 5.6.2 Recommended Transportation Projects

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Prime Work Type

Description

Road Widening / Upgrade N Davis Rd from Hogansville Rd to Lafayette Pkwy

Road Widening / Upgrade N Greenwood St from Mooty Bridge Rd to Vernon St

Road Widening / Upgrade Vernon St from Ferrell Dr to CBD

Intersection Improvement Realignment & Signal Timing
Intersection Improvement Signal Timing

Young's Mill Rd at Commerce Rd US 27 at Commerce Ave

Intersection Improvement Signal Timing

Vernon Rd at Forrest St

Intersection Improvement Signal Timing

Vernon St at Morgan St

Intersection Improvement Turn Lanes/Widening/Striping

Davis Rd at Lafayette Pkwy

Sidewalks

Broad St from Vernon St to CBD

Sidewalks

Colquitt St from Hamilton Rd to Ragland St

Sidewalks

Commerce Ave from US 27 to Young's Mill Rd

Sidewalks

Davis Rd from Lafayette Pkwy to Colquitt St

Sidewalks

Forrest Ave from Vernon St to Dallis St

Sidewalks

Greenville St from Ragland St to Lafayette Pkwy

Sidewalks

Hill St from US 27 to Oak Ln

Sidewalks

Lafayette Pkwy from CBD to Davis Rd

Sidewalks

Mooty Bridge Rd from City Limits to US 27

Sidewalks

N Davis Rd from Hogansville Rd to Hammett Rd

Sidewalks

US 27 from N Page St to CBD

Sidewalks

SR 109 from Vernon Rd to City Limits

Sidewalks

Vernon Rd from Lukken Industrial Blvd to Ferrell Dr

Sidewalks

Young's Mill Rd from Hammett Rd to Commerce Ave

Multi-Use Path

Along conservation areas adjacent to the lakes

Multi-Use Path

Along stream from E Render St to Colquitt St

Multi-Use Path

Along stream from Hogansville Rd to Lafayette Rd

Multi-Use Path

Along stream from US 27 to Hogansville Rd

Bike Lane

Along Lafayette Pkwy to CBD

Bike Lane

Ragland St from Lafayette Pkwy to Colquitt St

Source: City of LaGrange Comprehensive Master Plan

These projects served as input to this study and were incorporated into the planning process as appropriate.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

31

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.0 Assessment of Transportation Facilities
Extensive data was collected for the transportation facilities within Troup County. This data collection effort included inventorying existing roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, freight, bridges, traffic collisions, rail and airport services. The following sections provide an overview of the existing transportation system. This information will form the basis for evaluating its performance and determining future improvements.

Based on the existing conditions inventory and assessment, an analysis of operating conditions was conducted for the following elements:
Public Transit; Freight; Aviation Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridge Inventory; Safety Assessments; Roadway Operating Conditions; and, Citizen and Stakeholder Input.
This analysis documents the baseline operating conditions for each element of the transportation system and forms the foundation for development of improvement recommendations.

6.1 Public Transportation
Troup County operates a rural paratransit operation through the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Department of Human Resources (DHR) called Troup Transit. The system primarily serves seniors, disabled and low income populations in the County. The services are provided with federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA Section 5311) and state funds administered through the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). No conventional, fixed route, fixed schedule transit service is provided in Troup County.

The dial-a-ride service is provided to customers who call and request transportation from a specific location to a specific place at a designated time. Requests for service are usually made at least 24 hours in advance. The services for the County are provided in vans. Currently Troup Transit has nine (9) vehicles in use 4 GDOT vehicles, 4 Troup County vehicles and 1 DHR vehicle. A majority of the riders are senior citizens or low-income people with physical and/or mental disabilities. Linkages are provided to each of the cities with major drop-off locations including:
Clark Howard Clinic; Pathways Service Center; Division of Children and Family Services; New Ventures Inc; Positive Options;

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

32

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Senior Centers; LaGrange Rehab; Grocery Stores; LaGrange Mall; and, Medical Center.
Troup Transit has had fairly consistent ridership over the past several years. The following data reflects the total yearly trips (2003 2005) as reported by Troup Transit:
2003 56,802 one-way trips 2004 65,414 one-way trips 2005 58,334 one-way trips
Troup Transit indicated that they are currently operating near capacity. Troup Transit currently provides service Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with a fee of $0.25 per one-way trip.
Public comments received through the study process indicated a desire for additional transit service throughout Troup County. In particular, residents desire express transit service to Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

6.2 Freight Transport
The identification of freight corridors and preservation of freight mobility is a key component of the Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study. There are currently seven roadways in Troup County that are designated as truck routes and three active rail lines. The following sections summarize the existing freight activity and facilities in Troup County.

6.2.1 Railroad Facilities
There are currently several active rail lines within Troup County. There are currently no active rail yards in the County, though some sidings are provided to allow businesses to access the main line railroads. The information presented below comes from the GDOT Office of Intermodal Programs, particularly the 2000 Rail Freight Plan.
There are three railroads in the County, each of which is operated by CSX. One CXS line parallels US 29 and provides access to all the municipalities in the County and also connects to the railroad hub in Atlanta. This line typically carries between 22 and 26 trains a day, of which approximately 10 run between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Currently, this line carries 28 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile (MGTM/M) north of LaGrange and 22 MGTM/M south of LaGrange.
In LaGrange, a spur line branches off the Atlanta-West Point mainline to travel west over West Point Lake and into Alabama. This line typically carries 19 trains a day, of which approximately 8 run between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Currently, this line carries 23 MGTM/M.

Also, another branch line leaves the mainline in LaGrange and travels southeast from LaGrange to Greenville. This line typically carries 17 trains a day, of which approximately 6

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

33

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

run between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Currently, this line carries 17 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile.
There are a total of 123 crossings in Troup County. A majority of these crossings are public (105) while a few of them are private (15). Additionally, there are three crossings dedicated to pedestrians. Another factor to consider is the way the railroad crosses roadways there are 104 at-grade crossing in the County, 16 underpass crossings and 3 overpass crossings. The numerous at-grade crossings can cause delay to the roadway network, particularly at peak travel times.
Between 2001 and 2005, there were nine incidents reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on rail facilities located in the County. These incidents resulted in two injuries and one fatality. The fatality occurred in 2001 at the Green Street crossing in Hogansville. This crossing also experienced another incident in 2005 with no injuries. This location is currently programmed in the STIP for safety enhancements.

6.2.2 Freight Activity and Commodities
Several companies depend on freight operations in Troup County. A majority of these freight operations involve trucks; however some of the businesses are located along the railroads and utilize trains for the movement of their freight. The facilities designated in Troup County as truck routes include:
I-85; I-185; US 27; US 29; SR 18; SR 109; and, SR 219.
The major commodities utilizing freight transport that originate or terminate within the County are lumber and wood products. Overall, the 2000 State Freight Plan predicts a 1.3% annual growth rate for lumber and wood products.
Over the next 30 year planning horizon, National Trends, as documented by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), indicate that freight traffic, both rail and heavy truck, will increase at a higher rate than automobile traffic. With key distribution hubs in Atlanta and the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick, freight rail and truck traffic growth is likely to exceed national averages. This growth will potentially result in increased volumes of train and truck traffic through Troup County. Further, care should be taken to ensure that adequate grade separations are provided to accommodate local traffic movements and preserve the integrity of emergency vehicle access particularly in activity centers such as Hogansville, LaGrange and West Point. This issue was further validated by public comment concerning the blockage of vehicular traffic during rail activity.
Figure 6.2 displays the railroad corridors and designated truck routes for Troup County

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

34

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
)November 2006

Freight Transportation Facilities

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

35

Figure No: 6.2

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.3 Airports

There is currently one airport located in the County. The LaGrange-Callaway Airport (LGC) is located southwest of LaGrange, south of US 29 and north of I-85. The nearest commercial aviation airport is Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, which is approximately 60 miles to the northeast. Troup County Airport Authority manages Troup Air and the LaGrange-Callaway Airport. All of the following information about the airport is taken from the Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) 2002 Aviation Directory or GDOT's General Aviation System Plan

The airport has two runways: a 5,600' x 150' runway with an instrumented approach and a 5,000' x 100' visual flight runway. Both runways feature full parallel taxiways. The LaGrange-Callaway Airport is currently listed by GDOT's General Aviation System Plan as a Level III Airport a business airport of regional impact. This airport is capable of accommodating commercial aircraft as well as business and corporate jets. GDOT has established an objective of a minimum runway length of 5,500 feet for Level III airports. Currently, the LaGrange-Callaway Airport meets this objective with one of its runways. GDOT does not currently have plans to extend the second runway; however the Airport Authority has expressed an interest in expanding this runway by 900 feet.

This airport primarily serves personal, business, and other travel needs by smaller planes; however it does provide some commercial services. There are 55 aircraft based at the airport with an average of 45 operations per day. Approximately 33% of operations are local general aviation, 65% are transient general aviation, and 2% are military operations.

6.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian

Given the rural nature of the majority of Troup County, the limited bicycle and pedestrian transportation network is not unexpected. However, even in rural areas, there are places where bicycle and pedestrian activity occurs and infrastructure could be provided in these areas. In Troup County, these places include the historic downtown areas, concentrations of retail development, and educational institutions such as schools and colleges. Some areas within the County possessing pedestrian activity include Downtown Hogansville, LaGrange and West Point, LaGrange College, and some subdivisions.

While the demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is not present throughout the entire County, there are important locations where this type of travel activity must be accommodated safely and conveniently. The current condition of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are characterized by a partially developed network with varying levels of maintenance. Some areas, notably Downtown LaGrange, Hogansville and West Point, have significant networks of sidewalks that are maintained. However, other areas in the County have limited sidewalk networks or gaps in the network that need improvement. In some more recently developed areas, such as newer retail areas, and in some areas around schools, effective pedestrian networks are not in place.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

36

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

According to GDOT's crash database, from 2002 to 2004, there were four reported pedestrian fatalities in Troup County. Pedestrian fatalities are defined as a crash between a pedestrian and a vehicle along the highway system. Pedestrian fatalities occurred at the following locations:

SR 14 and Davis Road; SR 18 and Avenue K; Shoemaker Road at milepost 2.05; and, Towns Road at milepost 1.10.

A review of the information in the crash database did not identify system contributing causes.

Public outreach identified bicycle and pedestrian enhancements as a desired quality of life improvement in selected areas including the Troup County Recreation Center, City of LaGrange and around schools. Field observations were conducted to identify existing deficiencies in the pedestrian and bicycle networks. There are areas where sidewalks have been provided, but in a limited manner that inhibits their usefulness by breaking up the sidewalks with a gap of unfinished surface. Another deficiency common to all areas is the lack of pedestrian accommodation at intersections. Several locations lack pedestrian signals, crosswalk striping, or both.

Priorities for enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are based on proximity to schools, libraries, and activity centers. The goal is to provide a bicycle and pedestrian network to serve the local and regional needs of the communities. It is also the intent of the County to promote these facilities as a safe and healthy transportation option throughout the region for potential users.

Criteria were developed to identify and prioritize potential bicycle and pedestrian enhancements beyond those established in the RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Key bicycle and pedestrian prioritization criteria include:

Proximity to Schools and other public facilities; Infill Connecting existing pieces of the sidewalk network; Connectivity Access between major bicycle and pedestrian origins and
destinations; Roadway Expansion Where roads are reconstructed or constructed along new
alignments, provide sidewalks as appropriate; As new development occurs, encourage development to provide adequate right of
way for bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and, Consistency with the GDOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Key bicycle and pedestrian trip producers such as schools, libraries and parks were defined with a one-mile buffer to facilitate identification of priority improvement areas. Similarly, activity centers with the potential for bicycle and pedestrian improvements were identified

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

37

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

and mapped. Public involvement, including meetings with the West Georgia Flyers bicycle club, further identified potential bicycle lanes improvements along the following facilities:

1. Country Club Road Loop; 2. Downtown Connector; 3. SR 109; 4. US 29; 5. Hillcrest Road/Hammett Road; and, 6. South Troup (Bartley Road, Lower Big Springs Road and Wright Road).

These suggested projects are mapped along with the bicycle and pedestrian priority areas in Figure 6.4

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

38

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements Areas
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 6.4 39

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.5 Bridges

One of the critical concerns for the County was bridge conditions. The County's bridges were evaluated to determine the need for potential improvement. Deficient bridges pose a major obstacle to a fully functional road network due to load limits or other restrictions. The study area was reviewed to identify all bridges and assess the need for potential improvements.
To facilitate the completion of this effort GDOT provided bridge condition reports for each bridge within the County. A general measure of the condition of each bridge is the sufficiency rating. The sufficiency rating is used to determine the need for maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a bridge structure. Guidance provided by GDOT shows that a bridge with a sufficiency rating above 75 should maintain an acceptable rating for at least 20 years with adequate maintenance. Structures with a rating between 65 and 75 are less satisfactory and structures with a sufficiency rating of 65 or lower have a useful life of less than twenty years and may require major rehabilitation or reconstruction work during the study horizon. All bridges with a sufficiency rating of fifty (50) or lower are identified by GDOT as deficient and a more detailed assessment of bridge inventory elements was performed in this study to facilitate the ranking of bridges for potential improvement.
The study area was reviewed to identify all bridges within Troup County and document a sufficiency rating. Currently, 165 bridges exist within the County. Table 6.5 displays the collected information.
Table 6.5 Bridge Inventory

Road CSX Railroad CSX Railroad CSX Railroad Greenville St* Glenn Rd Cannonville Rd Jefferson St* Hammett Rd Juniper St Salem-Chipley Rd Adams Rd Dallas Mill Rd Salem-Chipley Rd Baughs Cross Rd Mountville-Hogansville Rd

Feature Leman St Forrest Ave Mulberry St CSX Railroad Whitewater Creek Long Cane Creek CSX Railroad Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary CSX Railroad Turkey Creek Tributary Big Branch Big Springs Creek Turkey Creek Mud Creek Flat Creek

Sufficiency Rating
0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 4.00 5.00 7.56 13.81 14.65 16.24 16.61 24.74 25.55 26.49 26.98 27.13

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

40

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Road Stewart Rd Finney Rd Hunt Rd Mountville-Hogansville Rd Thompson Rd Young's Mill Rd Salem Rd* Fort Dr Mobley Bridge Rd Alverson Rd US 27 Callaway Church Rd US 27 Antioch Rd Gabbettville Rd SR 100 SR 109* Tucker Rd 3rd Ave N. Hutchinson Mill SR 18 (EB) Salem Rd I-85 (NB) I-185 I-185 Industrial Dr US 29 Whitaker Rd I-85 (SB) SR 18 (WB) I-85 (SB) US 27 (NB) US 27 (SB) Frost School Rd SR 219 I-185 (SB) SR 18 Fas 740 Spur

Feature Long Cane Creek Polecat Creek Mud Creek Beech Creek Polecat Creek Beech Creek Flat Shoals Creek Tanyard Branch Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary Beech Creek Flat Shoals Creek Long Cane Creek Long Cane Creek Whitewater Creek Long Cane Creek Yellow Jacket Creek CSX Railroad Polecat Creek Chattahoochee River O/F Long Cane Creek Long Cane Creek Turkey Creek SR 18 Polecat Creek Turkey Creek CSX Railroad Chattahoochee River West Point Lake SR 18 Long Cane Creek SR 109 I-185 I-185 Big Springs Creek Yellow Jacket Creek CSX Railroad Flat Shoals Creek Wilson Creek

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

41

Technical Memorandum November 2006
Sufficiency Rating 27.55 27.65 28.20 28.58 31.18 39.25 42.56 48.59 51.11 53.99 55.05 58.73 59.10 59.42 63.82 65.32 67.08 67.38 68.03 69.75 70.92 72.46 73.18 73.99 73.99 74.06 75.75 75.96 76.64 77.29 77.48 77.94 77.94 78.46 78.66 79.16 79.21 79.53

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Road US 27 US 27 I-85 (SB) SR 219 SR 219 I-85 (NB) SR 109 US 27 Sims Rd I-85 (SB) Oak Grove Rd I-85 (NB) Edgewood Ave I-85 (NB) I-85 (SB) I-85 (NB) I-85 (SB) I-85 (SB) I-85 (NB) I-85 I-85 I-185 I-185 I-85 SR 219 Country Club Rd US 27 SR 219 Glass Bridge Rd I-85 (SB) I-185 Dallas Mill Rd Pyne Whitley Rd Cook Rd Cameron Mill Rd Colquitt St SR 109 Dennis Smith Rd

Feature Yellow Jacket Creek Beech Creek CSX Railroad West Point Lake Mud Creek CSX Railroad Chattahoochee River West Point Lake Flat Creek Cannonville Rd I-185 Cannonville Rd Blue John Creek Flat Creek Flat Creek Beech Creek Beech Creek US 27 / SR 1 Long Cane Creek Beech Creek Tributary. Shoal Creek Panther Creek Panther Creek Tributary Long Cane Creek Tributary Wildcat Creek West Point Lake Dix Branch Flat Shoals Creek Maple Creek (West Point Lake) Long Cane Creek Long Cane Creek Crawford Creek Wilson Creek Big Springs Creek Yellow Jacket Creek Blue John Creek Wehadkee Creek I-185

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

42

Technical Memorandum November 2006
Sufficiency Rating 79.71 80.41 80.70 81.01 81.56 81.73 81.90 82.15 82.28 82.40 83.26 83.85 84.05 84.22 84.22 84.63 84.63 84.71 84.88 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.52 85.55 85.59 85.74 85.91 86.27 86.45 87.72 88.43 88.46 88.64 89.16 89.20 89.25

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Road US 27 SR 54 Wildwood Rd US 27 US 27 SR 14 Spur SR 219 I-185 (NB) SR 109 M.-Hogansville Rd I-85 (NB) Floyd Rd Vulcan Material Rd Hightower Rd Robertson Rd Bill Taylor Rd Hood Rd Salem Rd Gabbettville Rd I-85 (SB) LaGrange Bypass I-85 (NB) SR 109 SR 109 I-185 (NB) I-185 (SB) SR 219 I-185 (SB) SR 219 Hammett Rd I-85 (NB) I-85 (SB) SR 109 SR 54 US 29 Hill St SR 14 Spur King St

Feature Mud Creek Yellow Jacket Creek I-85 Polecat Creek Blue John Creek Blue John Creek Blue John Creek CSX Railroad CSX Railroad I-85 US 27 / SR 1 Turkey Creek Panther Creek Flat Creek Mud Creek Ingram Creek Long Cane Creek I-185 Long Cane Creek Tributary Long Cane Creek CSX Railroad Long Cane Creek I-185 (NB) I-185 (SB) Thompson Rd Thompson Rd I-85 I-85 Dix Branch Yellow Jacket Creek Big Springs Rd Big Springs Rd CSX Railroad I-85 Flat Creek CSX Railroad (Removed) CSX Railroad CSX Railroad

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

43

Technical Memorandum November 2006
Sufficiency Rating 89.78 89.80 90.00 90.08 90.11 90.20 90.39 90.81 90.84 91.08 91.95 92.01 92.02 92.07 92.20 92.27 92.36 92.40 92.45 92.67 93.06 93.58 93.62 93.62 93.63 93.63 94.01 94.08 94.15 94.39 94.65 94.65 94.70 94.96 95.38 95.65 95.73 95.81

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Road

Feature

I-185 (NB)

Flat Shoals Creek

SR 219

Long Cane Creek

I-85 (NB)

SR 109

Upper Big Springs Rd

I-185

I-85 (NB)

Webb Rd

I-85 (SB)

Webb Rd

Hammett Rd

Beech Creek

US 29

Beech Creek

I-185 (SB)

Flat Shoals Creek

Fling Rd

CSX Railroad

Handley St

Tanyard Branch

US 27 (SB)

West Point Lake Tributary

US 27 (NB)

West Point Lake Tributary

Orchard Hill Rd

Blue John Creek

Salem Rd

Polecat Creek

US 29

Shoal Creek

Lower Big Springs Rd

I-185 (SB)

US 27

CS 919 - CSX Railroad

Stovall Rd

Flat Shoals Creek

Webb Rd

Long Cane Creek

Hammett Rd

Shoal Creek

Rock Mill Rd

CSX Railroad

US 29 Connector

I-185 (SB)

Dallas Mill Rd

Sulphur Creek

Young's Mill Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek

Upper Big Springs Rd

Long Cane Creek

US 29

CSX Railroad

US 29

Yellow Jacket Creek

Blue Creek Rd

Blue Creek

US 29 Connector

I-85

SR 14 Spur

Blue John Creek

Young's Mill Rd

Shoal Creek

Lower Big Springs Rd

I-185 (NB)

Mobley Bridge Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek

Swift St

Tanyard Branch

Perrys Mill Rd

Crawford Creek

Source: GDOT * These bridges are currently part of the 2005 2007 STIP or 2005-2010 CWP ** These bridges are maintained by CSX and information was unavailable.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

44

Technical Memorandum November 2006
Sufficiency Rating 95.88 95.98 96.13 96.14 96.28 96.28 96.58 96.62 96.68 96.82 96.94 96.94 96.94 97.05 97.19 97.30 97.64 97.69 97.72 97.74 97.77 97.88 98.00 98.44 98.61 98.68 98.80 98.83 98.83 99.00 99.27 99.50 99.64 99.67 99.92 99.94

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Based on the sufficiency rating, a majority of the bridges are in good condition and not in need of any major maintenance or upgrade activities. There are twenty-three (23) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 50 and are potentially in need of maintenance and rehabilitation.

CSX Railroad at Leman Street CSX Railroad at Forrest Avenue CSX Railroad at Mulberry Street Greenville Street at CSX Railroad (CWP) Glenn Road at Whitewater Creek Cannonville Road at Long Cane Creek (Long Range) Jefferson Street at CSX Railroad (STIP) Hammett Road at Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary (Long Range) Juniper Street at CSX Railroad Salem-Chipley Road at Turkey Creek Tributary (Long Range) Adams Road at Big Branch (Long Range) Dallas Mill Road at Big Springs Creek Salem-Chipley Road at Turkey Creek Baughs Cross Road at Mud Creek (Long Range) Mountville-Hogansville Road at Flat Creek (Long Range) Stewart Road at Long Cane Creek (Long Range) Finney Road at Polecat Creek Hunt Road at Mud Creek (Long Range) Mountville-Hogansville Road at Beech Creek (Long Range) Thompson Road at Polecat Creek Young's Mill Road at Beech Creek Salem Road at Flat Shoals Creek (CWP) Fort Drive at Tanyard Branch

The Jefferson Street bridge over the CSX Railroad is currently under construction. The Greenville Street bridge over the CSX Railroad, Salem Road bridge over Flat Shoals Creek and SR 109 bridge over CSX are part of the 2005-2010 CWP, however the Salem Road and SR 109 bridges are listed as long range.

Additionally, there are eighteen (18) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 75 and should be evaluated as candidates for maintenance and rehabilitation within the next 20 years. The following bridges have a sufficiency rating below 75.

Mobley Bridge Road at Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary Alverson Road at Beech Creek US 27 at Flat Shoals Creek Callaway Church Road at Long Cane Creek US 27 at Long Cane Creek Antioch Road at Whitewater Creek Gabbettville Road at Long Cane Creek

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

45

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

SR 100 at Yellow Jacket Creek SR 109 at CSX Railroad (CWP) Tucker Road at Polecat Creek 3rd Avenue at Chattahoochee River O/F N. Hutchinson Mill at Long Cane Creek SR 18 (EB) at Long Cane Creek Salem Road at Turkey Creek I-85 (NB) at SR 18 I-185 at Polecat Creek I-185 at Turkey Creek Industrial Drive at CSX Railroad

The candidate bridges for maintenance and rehabilitation evaluation are mapped in Figure 6.5.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

46

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Bridges for Maintenance or Rehabilitation
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 6.5 47

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.6 Safety

The latest three years of available vehicular crash data from the Georgia Department of Transportation (2002, 2003 and 2004) was collected and analyzed for the entire County. The crash data was used to determine roadway locations with potential safety deficiencies through Troup County. The County experienced a total of 6,847 crashes with 2,111 injuries and 45 fatalities during the three-year period. A majority of the fatalities (35%) were concentrated on I-85 and I-185.

When analyzing the crash data, it was determined that a threshold of 30 crashes over the three-year period (10 crashes per year) would serve to identify "high crash" locations for planning purposes. This provided the ability to pinpoint locations that may potentially have safety issues. Table 6.6 displays the intersections with the highest amount of crashes in the County.

Table 6.6 High Crash Segments

Roadway US 27 US 29 US 29 US 27 Davis Road Broad Street US 29 US 29 US 29 US 29 US 29

Intersection US 29 Davis Rd S Greenwood St N Lafayette Sq SR 109 SR 219 Horace King St Broad St SR 109 Forrest Ave Harwell Ave

Crashes 180 81 49 50 42 42 39 46 38 34 30

Fatalities 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Injuries 39 24 12 6 9 19 11 12 1 5 2

In addition to the high crash locations, an area of focus and concern was the location of fatal crashes. The locations listed below experienced at least one (1) fatality related crash during the three-year analysis period.
US 27 at Salem Chipley Road US 27 at S Thompson Road US 27 north of Hagler Road US 27 between Robertson Road & I-185

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

48

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

US 27 between Robertson Road & I-185 US 27 at Davis Road US 27 at Hillcrest Road US 27 at West Point Lake Bridge US 29 south of Webb Road US 29 at Davis Road (Pedestrian) US 29 at Hale Road US 29 at Hogansville City Limit SR 18 at Ave K (Pedestrian) SR 18 at SR 103 Shoemaker Road south of Gilbert Road (Pedestrian) Bartley Road south of New Hutchinson Mill Road SR 109 at Mallory Drive SR 219 at Poole Rd Stewart Road south of SR 109 Towns Road south of Costley Road (Pedestrian) Glover Road north of Power Plant Road Upper Glass Bridge Road at Earl Cook Road Old West Point Road north of Freeman Road Mountville Hogansville Road at Hines Road Hillcrest Road west of Hightower Road Leisure Circle at Deerwood Drive N Davis Rd north of Shannon Drive Lukken Industrial Drive west of SR 219

Figure 6.6 shows intersections with more than 30 crashes over the three year analysis period as well as fatality crash locations.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

49

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

High Crash & Fatality Locations
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 6.6 50

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.7 Roadway Operating Conditions

County level sketch planning tool was developed to assist in the evaluation of existing and future travel conditions through the County. The key output from the sketch planning tool is a volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment. The volume to capacity ratios correspond to a level of service based on accepted methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Existing (2000) and future (2015 and 2035) operating conditions for the County are summarized in the following sections.

6.7.1 Sketch Planning Tool Development

Since there is no travel demand model existing for Troup County, a simplified process, in the form of a sketch planning tool, was developed based on the available data elements. This simplified process estimates the highway origin-destination (O-D) trip table in the form of a matrix from observed traffic counts instead of using traditional trip generation and trip distribution steps. The assignment is used to relate the estimated trip table to the highway network for existing and future conditions.

Development of the sketch planning tool followed the process presented below.

Network Development: An existing roadway network (2004) was created as the baseline network. All significant roads with traffic count information in the County were included in this baseline network. HNTB coordinated with stakeholders in Troup County to identify appropriate roads for inclusion in this network. The roadway network within the County was classified by facility type (such as interstates, arterials and collectors) and area type (such as urban and rural). Other roadway attributes such as distance, number of lanes, road names, etc. were added to enhance the sketch planning tool.

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Development: The study area was divided into numerous smaller analysis areas referred to as traffic analysis zones or TAZs. The number of TAZs was dependent on the size of the study area, the level of detail required in the study and the availability of land use data and network data. TAZ boundaries follow natural and man-made barriers such as rivers, railroad tracks, major arterial roadways, census tracts, etc. - 168 TAZs were developed for Troup County.

Traffic Count Database Development: The highway O-D matrix estimation procedure was used to produce an O-D matrix consistent with observed link counts. A traffic count database for the network links was developed using GDOT permanent count station data. Troup County currently does not collect its own traffic count data. The link counts were used to provide directional counts to represent the traffic flow on both sides of the street. For the links with the observed by-direction AADTs, 50/50 split was assumed to achieve the traffic flow for each direction.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

51

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

O-D Matrix Estimation: A 2005 vehicle trip table representing weekday travel was developed from the traffic count database using TransCAD to facilitate highway O-D matrix estimation. This was an iterative (or bi-level) process that switches back and forth between a traffic assignment stage and a matrix estimation stage. As a result of this estimation process, a matrix file containing the estimated O-D flows and a table file containing estimated link flow volume and link cost (such as travel time) was generated.

Traffic assignment process: This process is similar to the highway assignment process used in most travel demand models (equilibrium assignment) to assign the trip table to the highway network.

The development of the future conditions sketch planning tool is as follows:

Network Development: In order to develop and evaluate future travel conditions (2015 and 2035); an existing plus committed (E+C) network was developed based on the existing network with the new projects identified in GDOT's Construction Work Program (CWP). The CWP was reviewed and it was determined that all capacity related projects in the CWP were considered long range and did not have a direct impact to the sketch planning tool, therefore no additional projects were added to the existing plus committed roadway network.

Trip Table Forecasting: The trip tables for future years (2015 and 2035) were developed from the base year O-D matrix and adjusted based on the relationship between historical traffic count growth, trip making behaviors, population growth, and future land use. HNTB worked closely with GDOT, Troup County and the Stakeholder Committee to forecast the trend and develop future year socioeconomic and land use data.

Traffic assignment: Given the future network and the future travel demand matrix, the traffic assignment model predicts the network flows that are associated with future planning scenarios (2015 and 2035). The traffic flow patterns and congested links were observed based on the assignment results.

Prior to documenting operating conditions it is useful to summarize level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic flow describing operating conditions. Six levels of service are defined by FHWA in the Highway Capacity Manual for use in evaluating roadway operating conditions. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. A facility may operate at a range of levels of service depending upon time of day, day of week or period of the year. A qualitative description of the different levels of service is provided below.

LOS A Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. LOS B Drivers experience some delay but generally driving conditions are
favorable.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

52

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

LOS C Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable delay in intersection areas.
LOS D Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to pass and considerable intersection delay.
LOS E The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps in the traffic.
LOS F More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle resulting in extreme delays.

The recommended approach to determine deficient segments in Troup County was to analyze the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments, also known as the V/C ratio. For daily operating conditions, any segment identified as LOS D or worse is considered deficient.

The following thresholds were used to assign a level of service to the V/C ratios for rural facilities:

V/C < 0.35 = LOS C or better; 0.35 > V/C < 0.55 = LOS D; 0.55 > V/C < 1.00 = LOS E; and, V/C > 1.00 = LOS F.

Similarly, the remaining facilities (urban City of LaGrange) used the following thresholds to assign a level of service to the V/C ratios:

V/C < 0.70 = LOS C or better; 0.70 > V/C < 0.85 = LOS D; 0.85 > V/C < 1.00 = LOS E; and, V/C > 1.00 = LOS F.

6.7.2 Existing (2004) Operating Conditions

The existing conditions scenario results derived from the Troup County sketch planning tool were used to determine deficient roadway segments. Deficient segments were determined by analyzing the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments. The corresponding volume to capacity ratios (V/C ratios) were related to level of service (LOS). The minimum acceptable LOS for daily roadway operating conditions is LOS C.

The existing analysis shows that 10 segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 6.7.2 displays the deficient roadway segments with the LOS for daily operating conditions. Figure 6.7.2 presents the daily deficient segments.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

53

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 6.7.2 Existing Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Roadway Davis Rd

From SR 109

To Ragland St

Volume(1) 11,038

V/C LOS 0.8236 D

SR 54

Maple Dr

Gates Rd

13,027 0.4771 D

SR 109

US 29

Pyne Rd

6,958

0.3842 D

SR 109

Davis Rd

Callaway Church Rd

29,110 0.7842 D

SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

Mountville Hogansville Rd

8,593

0.4777 D

SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

11,416 0.7063 D

SR 219

I-85

Bartley Rd

11,383 0.5774 E

US 27

SR 219

Auburn Ave

13,592 0.7512 D

US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd New Airport Rd

7,785

0.4335 D

US 29

US 27

Vernon Rd

19,998 1.0441 F

(1) - Two-way volumes Shaded rows represent facilities analyzed under rural LOS thresholds, while unshaded rows represent facilities analyzed under urban LOS thresholds.

Additionally, the following roadways segments are approaching LOS D and/or have smaller links associated with them that are currently operating below LOS C:

Davis Road from SR 109 to Hammett Road; Greenwood Street from US 29 to Mooty Bridge Rd; and, Upper Big Springs Road from Callaway Church Road to I-185.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

54

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Existing Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 6.7.2 55

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.7.3 Future Operating Conditions

Future operating conditions were evaluated for the years 2015 and 2035, the study interim and horizon year respectively. This extended horizon provides an opportunity to determine how well the existing roadway network will serve 2015 and 2035 population and employment in Troup County. Since the 2015 and 2035 population and employment projection techniques are based on stakeholders, it is important to point out that the projections are the least reliable and it could impact the estimation of the future traffic demand. This in turn impacts estimates of traffic demand. The long term results should be considered preliminary and when the transportation plan the projects should be revised as necessary.

The 2015 analysis shows that 15 segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 6.7.3.1 displays the 2015 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS. Figure 6.7.3.1 presents the 2015 daily deficient segments along the existing plus committed roadway network.

Table 6.7.3.1 2015 Deficient Segments

Roadway Davis Rd

From SR 109

To Ragland St

Volume(1) V/C LOS 13,823 1.0097 F

Greenwood St

US 29

Mooty Bridge Rd

13,437 0.7980 D

Lukken Industrial Blvd SR 219

Orchard Hill Rd

12,372 0.7491 D

Upper Big Springs Rd Callaway Church Rd

SR 18

I-85

I-185 3rd Ave

5,594 0.3885 D 13,759 0.4005 D

SR 54

US 29

Gates Rd

8,321 0.5114 D

SR 109

Davis Rd

Callaway Church Rd

35,521 0.9505 E

SR 109

Callaway Church Rd Mountville Hogansville Rd 10,522 0.520 E

SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

12,369 0.7925 D

SR 219

I-85

Bartley Rd

11,042 0.5925 E

US 27

SR 109

Mooty Bridge Rd

27,803 0.7147 D

US 27

SR 219

Auburn Ave

18,091 0.9495 E

US 27

Lower Big Springs Rd I-185

7,917 0.3663 D

US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd New Airport Rd

8,630 0.4791 D

US 29

US 27

Vernon Rd

24,982 1.2964 F

(1) - Two-way volumes Shaded rows represent facilities analyzed under rural LOS thresholds, while unshaded rows represent facilities analyzed under urban LOS thresholds.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

56

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

2015 Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No:6.7.3.1 57

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Additionally, the following roadways segments are approaching LOS D and/or have smaller links associated with them that are currently operating below LOS C:

Callaway Church Road from SR 109 to Upper Glass Springs Road; Davis Road from SR 109 to Hammett Road; Gabbettville Road from US 29 to Bartley Road; Mooty Bridge Road from US 27 to Wynnwood Drive; SR 109 from US 29 to Rock Mill Road; and, US 29 from Young's Mill Road to Whitfield Road.

The 2035 analysis shows that 28 segments can be expected to operate below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 6.7.3.2 displays the 2035 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS. Figure 6.7.3.2 presents the 2035 daily deficient segments along the existing plus committed roadway network.

Table 6.7.3.2 2035 Deficient Segments

Roadway Bass Cross Rd Callaway Church Rd Cameron Mill Rd Colquitt St Davis Rd Davis Rd Gabbettville Rd Greenwood St Lukken Industrial Blvd Mooty Bridge Rd Orchard Hill Rd Tin Bridge Rd Upper Big Springs Rd Wares Cross Rd SR 18 SR 54 SR 109 SR 109

From US 29 SR 109 SR 219 US 27 SR 109 SR 109 US 29 US 29 US 29 US 27 Lukken Industrial Blvd Hammett Rd Callaway Church Rd SR 219 I-85 US 29 US 29 US 27

To

Volume(1)

SR 54

6,911

Upper Glass Springs Rd 8,056

Whitaker Rd

7,822

Davis Rd

11.023

US 27

15.621

Hammett Rd

15,279

Bartley Rd

6,501

Mooty Bridge Rd

17,201

US 27

16,264

Wares Cross Rd

12,574

SR 219

12,126

US 29

7,449

I-185

11,236

US 27 3rd Ave

7,133 20,267

Gates Rd

10.502

Alabama

10,998

Callaway Church Rd

38,035

V/C LOS 0.5402 D 0.5510 E 0.4698 D 0.7093 D 0.9962 E 0.9270 E 0.4618 D 1.0468 F 0.9805 E 0.7445 D 0.9337 E 0.600 E 0.7395 E 0.4548 D 0.6006 E 0.6396 E 0.6128 E 1.0101 F

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

58

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Roadway SR 109

From Callaway Church Rd

To Meriwether County

Volume(1) V/C LOS 14,174 0.8293 E

SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

18,431 1.1586 F

SR 219

I-85

Bartley Rd

16,007 0.8177 E

US 27

SR 219

Mooty Bridge Rd

36,570 0.9356 E

US 27

SR 219

Auburn Ave

25,263 1.2639 F

US 27

I-85

I-185

12,726 0.6242 E

US 27

I-185

Old Chipley Rd

10,541 0.4847 D

US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd New Airport Rd

12,619 0.7007 E

US 29

US 27

Vernon Rd

27,958 1.4579 F

US 29

Young's Mill Rd

SR 54

11,337 .8051 E

(1) - Two-way volumes Shaded rows represent facilities analyzed under rural LOS thresholds, while unshaded rows represent facilities analyzed under urban LOS thresholds.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

59

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

2035 Daily Deficient Segments
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No:6.7.3.2 60

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

6.8 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

It was important to understand deficiencies as perceived by citizens and key stakeholders in addition to those identified through technical analysis. In combination, technical analysis, citizen and stakeholder input should clearly define transportation issues and opportunities in Troup County. The Study Team met individually with the County, City and key stakeholders to discuss their issues and concerns. Additionally, comment cards were used to collect the thoughts and ideas from local citizens during the Public Workshops. Table 6.8 summarizes the general themes expressed by citizens and stakeholders relative to transportation issues, opportunities and needs.

Table 6.8 Citizen & Stakeholder Input

Coordination and Cooperation
Working together as a community to bring about change Educate public on alternative modes of transportation Create a plan that makes Troup County a great place to live KIA plant impacts on County Transportation & Land Use
Additional interchange between LaGrange and Hogansville Additional interchange between LaGrange and West Point Need a North Loop Road around LaGrange Need a South Loop Road around LaGrange Widen Hamilton Road Expressway to Macon Widen Vernon Road to a maximum of 3-lanes Widen SR 219 from US 27 to I-85 Growth expected along Davis Road Lack of zoning and green space Widen SR 54 from I-85 to Gates Road Roadway and Operational Improvements
Congestion in Downtown LaGrange Congestion along Vernon Road and Broad Street Need free-flow route for emergency vehicles to/from hospital Several roads need resurfacing Poor signal coordination in LaGrange Poor N-S and E-W movement in LaGrange Provide turn lanes to improve traffic flow Realign Stewart Road to Almond Road Convert Vernon and Broad as one-way pairs Intersection Improvements
Davis Road & US 29 US 27 & US 29 SR 109 and US 27 Long Cane Road at schools need deceleration lane US 27 & Waugh Road needs a signal due to new school

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

61

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Vernon St & Jefferson St need westbound left turn lane Bicycle and Pedestrian
Need more bicycle lanes Need more sidewalks Enhance safety around schools Construct sidewalks as development occurs Bike path from Long Cane School to Pyne Road Park Streetscape along 3rd Avenue from 7th Street to 10th Street (West Point) Streetscape along 4th Avenue from 7th Street to 10th Street (West Point) Sidewalks along SR 18 (10th Street) Public Transportation
Train to Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport Need for regularly scheduled buses Not enough public transportation
Freight & Rail
Remove truck traffic through Hogansville Trucks bypassing weight station on I-85 Problems with trucks in Downtown LaGrange Problems with trucks in Downtown West Point At-grade crossing on SR 109 at CSX Tracks Unprotected crossing at Askew Avenue/Johnson Street & CSX Tracks Aviation Extend current 5,000 foot runway 900 additional feet

In addition to these issues, Troup County's Department of Roads and Engineering documented 41 intersections with various potential traffic and safety issues. These intersections and their potential geometric issues are listed below.

Antioch Road at Rock Mill Road - awkward alignment Cameron Mill Road/Wares Cross Road at Moody Bridge Road - capacity Carr/Boddie Road at SR 109 - sight distance Dallas Mill Road at Cook Road - sight distance, grade, alignment and dirt road Durand Road at Lafayette Parkway - sight distance and alignment Garrett Road at Liberty Hill Road - sight distance and grade Glass Bridge Road at Hudson Road - sight distance, alignment and 3-way stop Gordon Commercial Drive at Gordon Road/N Knight Street - alignment, capacity and
3-way stop Greenville Road at Towns Road alignment and capacity Hamilton Road at Bartley Road - sight distance and capacity Hamilton Road at Lower Big Springs Road - Skew, sight distance and capacity Hamilton Road at Vulcan Materials Road/Salem Walker Road - capacity Hammett Road at Whitfield Road - capacity Hightower Road at Mobley Bridge Road - sight distance and grade Hines Road at Willowood Road - sight distance and grade Hogansville Road at Whitfield Road - capacity

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

62

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Hogansville Road at Patillo Road capacity and lack of deceleration lane Holland Road at Hightower Road - sight distance Jim Turner Road at Gray Hill Road - sight distance Knott Road at Upper Big Springs Road - 2-way stop Leonard Road at Hammett Road - sight distance N Davis Road at Hammett Road - capacity N Davis Road at Hogansville Road - capacity N Davis Road at Young's Mill Road - capacity Old West Point Road at Cannonville Road/Hudson Road - offset roads Pyne Road at Glass Bridge Road - capacity Pyne Road at Teaver Road/Newton Road - offset roads Pyne Road at Plymouth Dr/Maley Road - sight distance and offset roads Rock Mill Road at Holliday Road - sight distance, grade and alignment S Davis Road at Upper Big Springs Road - capacity Smokey Road at Lower Big Springs Road - sight distance Stovall Road at Big Springs Road - grade Stovall Road at Dallas Mill Road - sight distance Teaver Road at Hill Road - sight distance Tin Bridge Road at Hammett Road - capacity Towns Road at Costley Road - sight distance and realignment Upper Big Springs Road at Callaway Church Road/John Loveless Road - grade,
speed and skew Wares Cross Road at Ramp Road - curve Whitaker Road at Cameron Mill Road - sight distance and curve Whitesville Road at Bartley Road - capacity Whitesville Road at Baugh's Cross Road/Burkes Chapel Road - sight distance and
alignment

Figure 6.8 displays the citizen and stakeholder comments.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

63

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Resurfacing

Streetscape

River Development Area (Historical Artifacts)

Rail Crossing Upgrade
Modify State Road Designation

Proposed Fire Station

Potential Gateway into LaGrange

Peak Hour Congestion

US 29 & Davis Rd (Need N/S Left Turn Lanes)

Signal Coordination Thru LaGrange

Vernon St @ Jefferson St (Need WB Left Turn Lane)
Reversible Lanes

Intersection Improvements

One-Way Pairs Vernon & Broad St

SR 109 & CSX Potential Grade
Separation

Provide Connection for Additional E-W Movement

Potential Gateway into LaGrange

Enhance Signal Operations Widen SR 219

Lengthen Runway
Additional Notes: - Increase Sidewalk Connectivity along Major Routes in LaGrange - Abandoned East-West Rail Line a Possible Bike-Ped Trail - East-West Movement through LaGrange is Difficult - North-South Movement through LaGrange is Difficult - Numerous Rail Crossings

Interchange Improvements

toBikGre/aPntevdillTerail

Unprotected Rail Crossing
Pedestrian Crossing At School

LEGEND
New Roads Corridor Improvements Bike/Ped Facility Intersection Improvements Potential Development Enhancement Project
Additional Notes: - Abandoned East-West Rail Line (Thomaston to Greenville) a Possible Bike-Ped Trail - Prepare for Growth (i.e. Right of Way Acquisition for Corridors and Intersection Improvements) - No Desirable Alternative to Interstates
Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

tBoikLea/PGreadnTgreail

4-Lane SR 54 Potential Truck By-Pass

Antioch Rd (Realign w/ Rock Mills Rd)

Bike Lanes

Trucks By-pass Weigh Station on I-85 and Travel Thru Hogansville
Hi(gHh&tVowCeurrRveds)

CommuAttelar nRtaail to
Blue Creek Rd (H&V Curves)
Proposed Landfill

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Park &
Ride

Bike Lanes

Potential New Marina

(H&VNeCeluyrvReds) Bike Lanes

North Loop

Potential Signal

New

Interchange

(New AlignmUSen2t7w/

Bike Lanes along

Davis Rd

I-185)

Pattillo Rd (Narrow Rd w/ H Curves)

H(aWmidmeetn)t Rd

Bike Lanes Peak Hour Congestion

South Loop

SR 109 (Lafayette Pkwy) (New Alignment w/ Greenville St
for 1-Way Pairs)
Widen

Sight Issue

Park &
Ride

Realign Stewart Rd With Almond Rd

Peak Hour Congestion

Truck Route Along Callaway Church Rd and Upper Big Springs Rd

Bike/Ped Trail

Bike/Ped Trail

Long Crane Rd (Deceleration Lane for School)

Potential Interchange

Widen

Park &
Ride

New Interchange

Kia Site

Enhance E-W Movement

Bike/Ped Trail

Park &
Ride

Complete 4-Laning

Salem Rd @ Flat Shoals Creek (New Bridge)

Widen

Widen

Expressway to Macon

Potential Gateway into LaGrange
64

Figure No: 6.8

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

7.0 Goals and Objectives

Goals and Objectives are the building block components of the long range planning process. They guide the development of the LRTP by providing a basis for evaluating Transportation Plan alternatives by reflecting the intentions that the Plan is meant to achieve. It is necessary to establish long-range goals and objectives to guide the Transportation Plan development process for Troup County. The goals represent the general themes and overall directions that Troup County, GDOT and the local planning authorities envision for the County. The objectives provide additional specificity and focus for each associated goals. Combined they provide the policy framework for development and implementation of the Transportation Plan.

7.1 Background

Goals and Objectives should be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local plans and legislation. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, eight factors must now be considered when a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) develops the LRTP. It is understood that Troup County is not within an MPO service area; however, the guidelines for MPO's were followed to provide a strong framework for transportation decisions. Specifically, the LRTP must be designed to:

Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the
quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operation; and, Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

7.2 Methodology

The goals and objectives were developed based on a review of relevant planning documents including the Troup County Comprehensive Plan and the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan. Additionally, through input obtained at various public workshops, development of the goals and objectives was also tailored to reflect the vision of County residents and business owners.

Table 7.2, excerpted from the "SAFETEA-LU Users Guide," shows how LRTP policies and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria are related. There can be

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

65

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

different ways of evaluating projects for the same SAFETEA-LU planning factors, depending on whether systems or individual projects are being evaluated.

Table 7.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

Factor 1. Support the economic
vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users

Long Range Considerations
Intermodal facilities Rail and port access Public/private
partnerships Land use policies Economic
development Energy consumption Community access Social equity System upgrades

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users

Accessibility Reliability

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight

Multi-modal considerations
Transit accessibility and level of service

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns

Air and water quality Energy consumption Livability of
communities --social cohesion, physical connection, urban design, and potential for growth

Project Selection Criteria
Community integration Long-term, meaningful
employment opportunities Accessibility Modal connectivity Infrastructure impacts

Sample Projects
Demand management
System preservation Planned community
development Transit-oriented
design

Number of crashes Number of rail grade
crashes Bicycle and pedestrian
crashes
Crashes Potential for security
hazard Access to critical
infrastructure Access to power sources Access to reservoirs Access to population
centers Prevention of
bottlenecks Segmentation prevented Intermodal connectivity Community-based
economic development
Environmental impact Emissions reductions Waterway preservation Preservation and
conservation of resources

Sidewalks Rail crossing
upgrades Traffic calming Dedicated right-of-
way for different modes System access and security Bridge security
System maintenance Intermodal facilities Planned
Communities Mixed use zoning Transit-oriented
development Land use controls Demand
management Scenic and historic
preservation Planned community
development Transit services Transit-oriented
development

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

66

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Factor 6. Enhance the
integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

Long Range Considerations
Intermodal transfer facilities
Rail access roads Container policies Freight policies/needs

Project Selection Criteria
Intermodal connectivity Accessibility for people
and freight Congestion relief

Life cycle costs Development of
intermodal congestion strategies Deferral of capacity increases
Maintenance priorities Demand reduction
strategies Reasonable growth
assumptions Alternative modes

Use of existing system Congestion impacts Community and natural
impacts Maintenance of existing
facilities
Maintenance vs. new capacity
Reallocates use among modes
Reflects planning strategies

Source: SAFETEA-LU Users Guide

Sample Projects Intermodal facilities Modal coordination
with social services
Traffic, incident and congestion management programs
Management System development
Maintenance of roads, bridges, highways, rail
Traffic calming Take-a-lane HOV Enhancement of
alternative modes

7.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents
In addition to SAFETEA-LU, the Goals and Objectives should also be consistent with other state and local plans, such as local comprehensive plans and regional policy plans. In this way, the Goals and Objectives of the Long Range Transportation Plan support the planning efforts of local governments and agencies. In particular, emphasis was placed on the Comprehensive Plan for Troup County. Key transportation related goals, objectives and strategies from Troup County's most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan include:
Provide a transportation system adequate to meet the needs of existing and future residents o Support joint transportation planning efforts established by the Troup County Transportation Authority o Implement projects from the existing DOT priority list to improve traffic circulation throughout Troup County o Improve the road construction standards for new streets to include the provision of curb and gutter section and the continuation of streets to adjoining properties

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

67

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

7.4 2035 Goals and Objectives

Using existing plans, meetings with County and GDOT staff and input received from the general public, the following Goals and Objectives were established to guide the transportation decision-making process for Troup County.

GOAL 1.0 Strategic Investment to Provide Connectivity and Accessibility throughout the County

Objective 1.1

Update the Long Range Transportation Plan a minimum of every five years to evaluate and provide for future needed transportation system links within the County.

Objective 1.2 Assess connectivity and accessibility as part of new construction, reconstruction of existing facilities, and maintenance activities.

Objective 1.3

The Long Range Transportation Plan will consider federal, state and local energy conservation programs, goals, and objectives that may be incorporated into the plan.

Objective 1.4 Focus on high accident areas for transportation improvements.

GOAL 2.0 Optimize Utilization of Existing Infrastructure for the Safe and Efficient Movement of People and Goods

Objective 2.1

In coordination with the County and municipalities, develop a cooperative program to maintain existing transportation facilities in the County.

Objective 2.2 All transportation engineering studies and designs shall consider life cycle costs of capital investments.

Objective 2.3

Existing and future roadway deficiencies, based on level of service standards, shall be mitigated through a continuous roadway or transportation system improvement program.

Objective 2.4

Maximize the use of existing transportation facilities through the use of Transportation System Management (TSM), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and Access Management strategies.

Objective 2.5

The County shall encourage each member unit of government (with responsibility) to properly maintain the various types of transportation facilities including streets, sidewalks, trails, and other modes.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

68

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Objective 2.6

As development is permitted, review the impact to the transportation system to ensure mobility is protected as parcel level development occurs

GOAL 3.0 Accommodate User Mobility without the Use of Automobiles

Objective 3.1

Develop and review annually the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) to provide for public transit and Paratransit.

Objective 3.2 Ensure that funding is established for bicycle and pedestrian improvements

GOAL 4.0 Provide a Range of Mobility Options

Objective 4.1

The County shall encourage each local government to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements in major activity centers, and for accessing schools, parks and libraries.

Objective 4.2 Coordinate transportation and land use decision making to ensure viability of alternative modes.

GOAL 5.0 Provide a Connection Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions

Objective 5.1

The Long Range Transportation Plan shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with the annual project priority listing to evaluate the impact of any changes in the future land use element of the local government comprehensive plans, approved during the previous year, on the overall transportation system.

Objective 5.2

Consider the overall social, land use compatibility, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions in the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan.

Objective 5.3

Encourage local governments to develop a Transportation Corridor Management Plan (Right-of-Way or Thoroughfare Plan Map) based on local government comprehensive land use plans and the Long Range Transportation Plan.

Objective 5.4

Identify intermodal roadway linkages between major travel destinations such as airports and population concentrations that are operating, or will operate, below acceptable minimum levels of service and develop transportation and land use strategies to overcome these conditions.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

69

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

GOAL 6.0 Enhance the Quality of Life for All Residents

Objective 6.1

Landscape transportation rights-of-way with native and/or "low-impact" vegetation on shoulders and medians, in order to conserve water, reduce pesticide use, conserve energy, and reduce costs by minimizing maintenance requirements.

Objective 6.2 Reduce transportation related accidents, injuries, and deaths.

Table 7.4 shows how the 2035 Goals and Objectives address the Federal guidelines as presented in SAFETEA-LU.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

70

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 7.4 LRTP Goals and Objectives Compared to SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

Technical Memorandum November 2006

SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

Objective Economic Safety Security Accessibility Environment Intermodalism Efficiency Preservation

1.1

3

3

3

3

1.2

3

3

3

1.3

3 3

3

1.4

3

3

2.1

3 33

3

3

2.2

3

3

2.3

3 3

3

3

3

2.4

3 3

3

3

2.5

3 3

3

3

2.6

3

3

3

3

3.1

3

3

3

3.2

3 3

3

3

4.1

3

3

4.2

3

3

3

3

5.1

3

3

3

5.2

3 33

3

3

5.3

3

3

3

3

5.4

3

3

3

3

6.1

3

3

6.2

3 33

Note: The eight Planning Factors are listed in their entirety on page 66.

The Goals and Objectives were determined to be consistent with the needs and vision for the County, based on input from GDOT, Troup County and the public. The study's Goals and Objectives adhere to the SAFETEA-LU planning factors and can be used as the foundation for ranking or choosing among individual projects.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

71

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

8.0 Improvement Development Process

After the existing and future conditions were evaluated, strategies were developed to address identified deficiencies. Improvements were developed for each element of the transportation system:

Deficient Roadway Corridors; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Transit; Freight; Aviation; and, Summary of Citizen and Stakeholder Input.

The following sections document the potential improvements in detail, ultimately producing preferred improvements for Troup County's transportation system documented in Section 10. The figure below illustrates the improvement development process.

8.1 Identification of Potential Improvement Strategies for Corridors
The requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and TEA-21, the follow up legislation SAFETEA-LU, and the supporting Congestion Management Process (CMP) regulations, guided the identification of potential strategies for deficient corridors in Troup County. These strategies include demand management, operational management and capital-intensive approaches. The CMP regulations require that appropriate consideration be given to all reasonable alternatives and, more specifically, that consideration be given to strategies that reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. These requirements are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Troup County MultiModal Transportation Study. A comprehensive listing of potential strategies is contained in

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

72

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

the CMP regulations. It is not, however, the intent of the regulations that all of these potential strategies be exhaustively studied. The key is to identify those strategies that are reasonable for the particular location or specific deficiency.

The CMP regulations include a comprehensive listing of strategies broken into twelve (12) categories or groups. The boundaries between these groups are not distinct and individual measures may be included in more than one category. For example, park and ride lots both encourage the use of high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and transit. For the purposes of applying the SAFETEA-LU, and CMP requirements to the LRTP, an attempt was made to separate potential strategies into a hierarchical order that considers first those actions which address the fundamental transportation and land use relationships that cause vehicle trips. If the reason for the trip can be eliminated, so can the trip and its contribution to congestion. In successive rounds, the residual trips not mitigated by previous levels of actions are successively dealt with using techniques aimed at the next higher level of concern. This process is described below:

Level One: Actions that decrease the need for trip making (i.e. growth management, activity centers, congestion pricing, and some transportation demand management measures).
Level Two: Actions that place trips into transit or other non-auto modes (i.e. public transit capital and operating improvements, and parking management).
Level Three: Actions that put as many trips as possible into HOVs. Level Four: Actions that optimize the highway system's operation for SOV trips and
for all other trips using highway facilities/modes (traffic signalization modification, intelligent transportation systems, etc.). Level Five: Actions that increase the capacity of the highway system for SOVs by adding general-purpose lanes.

While it is not required that this process be followed in order (i.e., Level One then Level Two then Level Three, etc.), this hierarchy responds to the intent of the regulations, as well as the intent of the LRTP. Many of these actions are not applicable to the transportation and land use character of Troup County. It is anticipated that most relevant improvement strategies will come from levels 4 and 5, selected strategies from other levels may be appropriate as well.

The CMP regulations are explained in further detailed in the Appendix of this report. The Appendix also contains documentation concerning the selection of CMP regulations that were considered appropriate for Troup County. The following sections illustrate the use of the appropriate CMP regulations for Troup County.

8.1.1 Applicable Corridor Strategy Screening

Based on this preliminary strategy screening analysis, the extensive list of almost 60 strategies has been narrowed to 22 strategies applicable to Troup County. Further analysis was completed to identify how these strategies could be applied to the transportation system within Troup County and the anticipated benefit to congested or deficient corridors.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

73

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 8.1.1 documents acceptable strategies and further designates the most appropriate improvement strategies for improving traffic operations along the deficient corridors in the County. These strategies all address one or more of the identified deficiencies. However, many strategies are dependent on operating characteristics; land use patterns and densities; and community perceptions and desires that do not currently exist within Troup County, but are likely to exist when considering long term improvements (15 - 20 years). Mid term improvements for this study, through 2015, force the current analysis to focus on existing operating conditions and problems so that solutions can be implemented in the three to ten year range. Three terms are used to further describe applicable strategies for improving operation within the County:

Near Term - Strategies addressing existing operating deficiencies within the 2008 time frame.
Mid Term (2015) - Strategies based on existing operating deficiencies and existing services but are contingent upon attainment of certain development thresholds that are likely to be reached but currently are not sufficient to warrant this strategy.
Long Term (2035) - Strategies that address some aspect of existing operating deficiencies and make use of some existing services but are contingent upon the development conditions and services that do not currently exist but are likely to exist in the future.

Table 8.1.1 Applicable Strategy Screening

CMP Level (1-5) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

Strategy Land Use Policies / Regulations Development Standards Locations of Jobs and Housing Telecommuting Paratransit Service Enhancement / Expansion Transit Marketing Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Park & Ride Lots Guarantee Ride Home Program Ride Share Matching Services Vanpooling Intersection Widening Channelization Intersection Turn Restrictions

Screening Near Term Near Term Near Term Near Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Near Term Near Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Near/Mid Term Near/Mid Term Near/Mid Term

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

74

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

CMP Level (1-5) 4 4 4 4 4 5

Strategy Signalization Improvements Geometric Enhancements Truck Restrictions Driveway Control Median Control Construct Arterial Lanes

Screening Near/Mid Term Near/Mid/Long Term Mid/Long Term Near Term Near Term Near/Mid/Long Term

These strategies were carried forward and used to evaluate the deficient corridors in Troup County.
8.1.2 Deficient Corridor Screening
The improvements strategies documented in Table 8.1.2 were used to address deficiencies through the County. Every strategy applicable to Troup County cannot be applied to each congested corridor segment. Consequently, these strategies were screened for each deficient corridor documented in Section 6.7 resulting in more specific strategies at the corridor level.
Additionally, some corridors with existing 4-lane sections were identified as deficient for daily operating conditions. Typically, this would result in identification of strategies for additional capacity. However, field review, public input and input from the County identified that capacity enhancements to these facilities would result in substantial impacts to the community and adjacent land uses. Consequently, strategies were identified to alleviate congestion along these facilities through enhancements to parallel corridors or through alternate modes.
Table 8.1.2 contains the screening results for the deficient corridors in the County.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

75

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Table 8.1.2 Capacity Deficient Corridor Screening

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Project Ref. No.

Facility

4 Bass Cross Rd

US 29

From

To
SR 54

Land Use
3

Level 1 Development Jobs &
Standards Housing

Telecommuting

Para Transit

Service Enhancement
3

Level 2 Transit Marketing
3

Bicycle Facilities
3

Pedestrian Facilities
3

Ride Share Matching
3

Vanpooling
3

Level 3 Park & Ride
Lots

Guarantee Ride Home Program
3

Intersection Widening
3

Channelization
3

Turn Restrictions

Level 4

Signalization

Geometric

Improvements Enhancements

3

3

Truck Restrictions

Driveway Control
3

Median Control
3

Frontage Roads

Level 5 Construct Arterial Lanes
3

5 Callaway Church Rd

SR 109

3 Upper Big Springs Rd

3

3

3

33 3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

6 Cameron Mill Rd

SR 219

Whitaker Rd

33

33

3

33 3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

7 Colquitt St

US 27

Davis Rd

33

3

3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

8 Davis Rd

SR 109

SR 219

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

33

3

9 Davis Rd

SR 109

Hammett Rd

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

33

3

10 Gabbettville Rd

US 29

Bartley Rd

33

3

33 3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

333

3

11 Greenwood St

US 29

Mooty Bridge Rd

33

3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

12 Lukken Industrial Blvd US 29

US 27

33

3

3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

13 Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

Wares Cross Rd

33

3

33

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

14 Orchard Hill Rd

Lukken Industrial Blvd SR 219

33

3

3

3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

21 Tin Bridge Rd

Hammett Rd

US 29

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

24 Upper Big Springs Rd Daivs Rd

Knott Rd

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

25 Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

US 27

3

3

33

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

26 SR 18

I-85

3rd Ave

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

333

27 SR 54

US 29

Meriwether County

3

3

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

28 SR 109

US 29

Alabama

3

33 3

33 3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

29 SR 109

US 27

Callaway Church Rd

3

3

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

333

30 SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

Meriwether County

3

33 3

33 3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

31 SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

32 SR 219

I-85

Bartley Rd

33

3

33

33 3

33

3

3

3

3

3

3

333

3

33 US 27

SR 219

Mooty Bridge Rd

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

33

34 US 27

SR 219

Auburn Ave

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

35 US 27

I-85

I-185

3

33 3

33 3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

333

3

36 US 27

I-185

Old Chipley Rd

3

33 3

33 3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

37 US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd Old Vernon Rd

33

3 33 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

38 US 29

US 27

Vernon Rd

33

33

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

33

39 US 29

Young's Mill Rd

SR 54

33

33 3

33 3

33 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

76

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

8.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

The analysis of existing bicycle and pedestrian systems in Troup County revealed that sidewalks are generally present only in the traditional town centers in the County, and that even in these locations, there are gaps in the sidewalk system. Discussions with stakeholders revealed that priorities for pedestrian improvements were areas around schools and other public facilities such as libraries and recreation areas. Accordingly, schools and parks in the County were located in order to assess the condition of the pedestrian network around these areas.

Once the locations of these facilities were known, a targeted examination of these facilities was conducted. In particular, schools and libraries located in town centers or near residential areas were examined since these locations were more likely to have existing pedestrian facilities and existing pedestrian demand. Schools in Hogansville, LaGrange and West Point were identified for closer examination because of the need to provide safe pedestrian paths for children and young adults.

Hogansville

The City of Hogansville recently completed a streetscape project which enhanced and increased the availability of sidewalks within the City. Hogansville Elementary is located within the City of Hogansville east of downtown. The school is located in close proximity to several residential neighborhoods. Sidewalks are present in the immediate vicinity of the school, but limited in several areas around the school. The surrounding area is residential, where children attending this school could walk or ride their bicycles to school if proper facilities were constructed. Expansion of the sidewalk network in this area would improve safety for students walking to and from school.

Recommendations:

Install flashing beacon warning devices at the pedestrian crossing on SR 54 at Hogansville Elementary.
Construct sidewalks along SR 54 from Maple Drive to Boyd Road. Extend sidewalk along the west side of US 29 from Ware Street to SR 100. Provide maintenance on existing sidewalks to extend their life and usefulness.

LaGrange

There are several schools within the city limits of Lagrange and are as follows:

Hollis Hand Elementary; Berta Weathersbee Elementary; Unity Elementary; Whitesville Road Elementary; Cannon Street Elementary; West Side Magnet School;

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

77

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Gardner-Newman Middle School; Ethel Knight Magnet School; LaGrange High School; Troup County High School; and, LaGrange College

These schools are distributed throughout the City and not in close proximity to each other. The schools in LaGrange are well served by sidewalks. Gardner-Newman Middle School on N Davis Road is currently in need of sidewalks.

The majority of LaGrange is well served by an extensive sidewalk network; however, there are key locations where sidewalks would be beneficial to the City. These locations include: the Troup County Recreation Center, the LaGrange Mall, the hospital, and commercial areas along US 29. Supporting pedestrian signals and crossings are currently in place, but there are no sidewalks connecting these crossings.

Recommendations

Construct sidewalks on both sides of N Davis Road from Hogansville Road to Hammett Road.
Construct sidewalks on both sides of Davis Road from SR 219 to Ragland Street. Construct sidewalks on both sides of Colquitt Street from US 27 to Ragland Street. Construct sidewalks on the east side of Ragland Street from Colquitt Street to SR
109. Construct sidewalks on both sides of US 29 from US 27 to Young's Mill Road. Construct sidewalks on both sides of SR 109 from US 27 to Davis Road. Construct sidewalks on both sides of Vernon Street from Ferrell Drive to SR 109. Provide maintenance on existing sidewalks to extend their life and usefulness.

West Point

West Point Elementary is located within the City of West Point northeast of downtown. The school is located in close proximity to several residential neighborhoods. The school is well served by sidewalks except on the east side.

Several pedestrian crossings in West Point are in need of upgrade. Intersections may have a painted crosswalk or a pedestrian signal, but several crossings do not have both of these features.

Recommendations:

Construct sidewalks on both sides of SR 18 from Dogwood Circle to OG Skinner
Drive. Construct a sidewalk on the east side of Avenue K from SR 18 to 12th Street. Construct sidewalks on the north side of 12th Street from West Point Elementary to
OG Skinner Drive.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

78

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Provide a pedestrian crossing with hardware and pushbuttons at SR 18 and US 29. Potential multi-use trail opportunity along abandoned rail line north of West Point. Provide maintenance on existing sidewalks to extend their life and usefulness.

Additional Bicycle Needs

While the majority of the County is rural, there are key locations, such as schools and parks outside of the city limits, where bicycle transportation is a desirable alternative mode. Improving bicycle transportation, specifically, the continuity of the bicycle transportation network was a topic discussed by several attendees of the public workshops. An additional small group meeting was conducted with the West Georgia Flyers, where several roadways were suggested as bike routes. Most of these suggested bike facilities are included in the Chattahoochee-Flint RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Recommendations:

As new schools are developed in the County, consider the need for bike lanes or bike paths to adjacent neighborhoods, town centers, and parks.
Country Club Road Loop Bike Lanes (Cameron Mill Road, Country Club Road, Broad Street and SR 219)
Downtown Connector Bike Lanes along SR 109 from US 29 to Pyne Park Bike Lanes along Old West Point Road and US 29 Bike Lanes along Hillcrest Road and Hammett Road Bike Lanes in South Troup (Bartley Road, Lower Big Springs Road and Wright
Road)

8.3 Transit Improvements

Population in Troup County is expected to continue to increase, including a growing elderly population. Accordingly, there may be a need to enhance the rural transportation services provided by Troup Transit. These service increases could be in the form of expansion of service hours and expansion of fleet size. If demand materializes in the future, some fixed route services may be needed. Troup County should periodically evaluate the need for a vanpool program and/or commuter-oriented express bus services to selected parts of the Metro Atlanta region as well as other nearby urban areas such as Columbus. If services are needed, the County should coordinate with the appropriate transit operators in developing the services. These operators could include the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and the METRA transit service in Columbus.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

79

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Recommendations:

The County should consider introducing vanpool programs to address commuter transportation needs where projected bus ridership levels may not be high enough to justify service. A potential vanpool service area could be LaGrange or LaGrange to Atlanta.
Locations for park and ride lots should be identified and secured to assure they are available in the future as the commuting population in the area grows. Based on qualitative assessment and stakeholder input, potential park and ride lot locations in the I-85 corridor at SR 54, SR 109, and Gabbettville Road are recommended. A park and ride facility at I-185 and US 27 should also be considered. These areas could be used as staging areas for vanpools and carpools early on and later used as parking areas for express bus services to the Metro Atlanta, Columbus and other important regional locations.
Troup Transit should annually evaluate demand for increased services.

8.4 Freight Improvements
There are three active lines in the study area the CSX Main Line, a spur line running from LaGrange into Alabama and a branch line running from LaGrange to Greenville. Each of these lines is in operation and provides freight service for the County. Two evaluation criteria were established to evaluate freight movement through the County area: safety and commodity flows. Generally, these two elements are satisfactorily addressed through the County. However several potential projects were identified to ensure high quality and safe rail service through Troup County.
CSX Main Line
Provide crossing gates and lighted warning signals at the Green Street crossing in Hogansville. This project is currently in GDOT's Construction Work Program.
Improve pavement condition with 8th Street railroad crossing in West Point. Examine traffic counts on Gabbettville Road at regular intervals (i.e., five, ten, and
fifteen years) to see if growth from the proposed I-85 interchange and Kia Plant has resulted in enough traffic to warrant consideration of a rail-highway grade separation at this location. Maintain existing grade crossings and encourage closing or grade separation of crossings where feasible.
CSX Spur Line LaGrange to Alabama
Provide grade separation at SR 109/Roanoke Road crossing west of LaGrange due to current queuing issues and emergency vehicle repose times to the nearby hospital.
Maintain and/or improve grade crossings in conjunction with CSX as the need arises.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

80

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

CSX Branch line LaGrange to Greenville
Maintain and/or improve grade crossings in conjunction with CSX as the need arises.
Summary
Rail traffic is a key element for maintaining the industrial base of the County. Care should be taken to make sure that any increases in rail traffic do not adversely impact commercial, residential, and historic areas. Special attention should also be paid to managing the impacts of freight traffic on the other travel modes in the County so that the rail lines continue to be a valuable transportation asset for Troup County.
8.5 Aviation Improvements
There is currently one active airfield in Troup County. The LaGrange-Callaway Airport (LGC) located southwest of LaGrange, south of US 29 and north of I-85. The airport entrance is located on Lukken Industrial Drive. LGC is a Level III airport and primarily provides general aviation services; however, some commercial services are also provided. The nearest commercial aviation airport is Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, which is approximately 60 miles to the northeast.
The County is well served by the LaGrange-Callaway Airport. GDOT has established an objective of a minimum runway length of 5,500 feet for Level III airports. Currently, the LaGrange-Callaway Airport meets this objective with one of its runways. GDOT does not currently have plans to extend the second runway; however the Airport Authority has expressed an interest in expanding this runway by 900 feet to allow for landings in variable weather conditions.
8.6 Summary of Public Input
Throughout the course of the study public comment and stakeholder input contributed significantly to the development of projects for improving travel conditions through Troup County. Projects identified by the public and stakeholders are documented in Table 8.6.
All comments received from the public are important and care was taken to evaluate each recommendation for inclusion in the plan. If the recommendation addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan, these were forwarded to the appropriate agency to address. Similarly, some recommendations could not be supported with technical planning or engineering justifications these instances are noted and these recommendations were flagged for reevaluation as the Plan is periodically updated in the future.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

81

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 8.6 Suggested Improvements

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Comment

#

Comment or Concern

Type

Response

1

Shift State Road designation for SR 14 from 10th St to 8th St to 3rd Ave

Miscellaneous This concern was forwarded to GDOT

Source West Point

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan
No

2 Make area a great place to live

Miscellaneous

Enhance the Quality of Life for All Residents' is a Goal for this Study

Public

Yes

3

Upgrade multi-modal transportation facilities as development occurs

Miscellaneous

Range of mode types recommended for improvement

Public

Yes

4 Need better zoning and more green space

Miscellaneous

This concern was forwarded to Troup County

Public

No

5 What are the effects of KIA

Miscellaneous

The KIA development and the growth associated with it will be monitored closely

Public

No

6

Cameron Mill Rd/Wares Cross Rd @ Moody Bridge Rd has capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

7

Carr/Boddie Rd @ SR 109 has sight distance issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

8

Dallas Mill Rd @ Cook Rd is a dirt road and has grade and alignment issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

9

Durand Rd @ LaFayette Pkwy has sight distance and alignment issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

10

Garrett Rd at Liberty Hill Rd has sight distance issues due to grade

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

11

Glass Bridge Rd @ Hudson Rd is a 3-way stop with alignment issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

12

Gordon Commercial Dr @ Gordon Rd/N Kight St is a 3-way stop with capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

13

Greenville Rd @ Towns Rd has alignment and capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

14

Hamilton Rd @ Bartley Rd has sight distance and capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

15

Hamilton Rd @ Lower Big Springs Rd is skewed with sight distance and capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

16

Hamilton Rd @ Vulcan Rd/Sam Walker Rd has capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

17 Hammett Rd @ Whitfield Rd has capacity issues Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

18

Hightower Rd @ Mobley Bridge Rd has sight distance issues due to grade

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

19

Hines Rd @ Willowood Rd has sight distance issues due to grade

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

20

Hogansville Rd @ Whitfield Rd has capacity issues

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

21

Hogansville Rd @ Patillo Rd has capacity issues and needs a deceleration lane

Intersection

This intersection is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

82

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

22

Holland Rd @ Hightower Rd requires an easement for improvement

Comment Type
Intersection

23

Jim Turner Rd @ Gray Hill Rd has sight distance issues

Intersection

24 Knott Rd @ Upper Big Springs Rd is a 2-way stop Intersection

25

Leonard Rd @ Hammett Rd has sight distance issues

Intersection

26 N Davis Rd @ Hammett Rd has capacity issues Intersection

27

N Davis Rd @ Young's Mill Rd has capacity issues

Intersection

28

Old West Point Rd @ Cannonville Rd/Hudson Rd are offset roads

Intersection

29 Pyne Rd @ Glass Bridge Rd has capacity issues Intersection

30

Pyne Rd @ Teaver Rd/Newton Rd are offset roads

Intersection

31

Pyne Rd @ Plymouth Dr/Maley Rd are offset roads with capacity issues

Intersection

32

Rock Mill Rd @ Holliday Rd has sight distance issues due to alignment and grade

Intersection

33

S Davis Rd @ Upper Big Springs Rd has capacity issues

Intersection

34

Smokey Rd @ Lower Big Springs Rd has sight distance issues

Intersection

35 Stovall Rd @ Big Springs Rd has grade issues Intersection

36

Stovall Rd @ Dallas Mill Rd has sight distance issues

Intersection

37 Teaver Rd @ Hill Rd has sight distance issues Intersection

38 Tin Bridge Rd @ Hammett Rd has capacity issues Intersection

39

Towns Rd @ Costley Rd has sight distance issues and needs realignment

Intersection

Upper Big Springs Rd @ Callaway Church 40 Rd/John Loveless Rd is skewed with grade and
speed issues

Intersection

41 Wares Cross Rd @ Ramp Rd has curves

Intersection

42

Whitaker Rd @ Cameron Mill Rd has sight distance problems due to curve

Intersection

43 Whitesville Rd @ Bartley Rd has capacity issues Intersection

Whitesville Rd @ Baugh's Cross Rd/Burkes 44 Chapel Rd has sight distance issues due to
alignment

Intersection

Response
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement
This intersection is recommended for improvement

Source

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County

Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

83

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

45

Signalize Waugh Road at US 27 due to new school

46

Vernon Street & Jefferson St needs westbound left turn lane

47 US 27 & Colquitt Rd

Comment Type
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection

48 US 27 & Union St

Intersection

49 SR 219 & Mooty Bridge Rd

Intersection

50 SR 219 & Lukken Industrial Blvd

Intersection

51 US 29 & Young's Mill Rd

Intersection

52 US 27 & Greenville St

Intersection

53

Need intersection improvements to improve traffic flow

Intersection

54 Reduce number of 4-Way Stops

Intersection

55 Signal Coordination in LaGrange

56

Change more signals to caution lights at night (12AM to 6AM)

57 SR 109 (Lafayette Pkwy) & US 27 (Morgan St)

Intersection Intersection Intersection

58 US 27 (New Franklin) & US 29 (Commerce)

Intersection

59 Broad St/Greenville St & US 27 (Morgan St)

Intersection

60 Davis Rd & US 29 (Hogansville Rd)

Intersection

61 Patillo Rd & SR 109

62

US 29 (Hogansville Rd) & Whitefield Rd / Willowood Rd

63 SR 109 (Lafayette Pkwy) & Mallory Dr

Intersection Intersection Intersection

64 Vernon Rd & Lee's Crossing

Intersection

65 Signal at West Point Rd & Fling Rd

Intersection

66 Need turn lanes along Vernon Rd

Intersection

Response
This intersection is recommended for improvement

Source LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This intersection is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

Several intersections are recommended for improvement

Public

This is beyond the scope of this study; forwarding comment to appropriate agency

Public

This comment was forwarded to Troup County and LaGrange

Public

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

This is beyond the scope of this study

Public

No

This intersection is recommended for improvement due to high crashes

Public

Yes

This intersection is recommended for improvement due to high crashes

Public

Yes

This intersection is recommended for improvement due to high crashes

Public

Yes

This intersection is recommended for improvement due to high crashes

Public/ Troup County/ LaGrange

Yes

Patillo Rd is recommended for geometric improvements

Public

Yes

This intersection requires further study to

determine needs; forwarding comment to Public

No

appropriate agency

This intersection requires further study to

determine needs; forwarding comment to Public

No

appropriate agency

This intersection requires further study to

determine needs; forwarding comment to Public

No

appropriate agency

This intersection requires further study to

determine needs; forwarding comment to Public

No

appropriate agency

Turn lane is recommended at Vernon Rd & Jefferson St

Public

Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

84

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

67 Interchange - Hammett Road & New US 27

Comment Type
Interchange

68 I-85 & Cannonville Rd

Interchange

69 I-85 & Webb Rd

Interchange

70

Additional interchange between LaGrange & West Point

Interchange

Response

Source

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan

This interchange is part of the I-185 Connector improvement

LaGrange

Yes

Interchange is programmed at Gabbettville

Rd, eliminating the need for this

Troup County

No

interchange

Interchange is programmed at Gabbettville

Rd, eliminating the need for this

West Point

No

interchange

Interchange is programmed at Gabbettville Rd

Public

No

71

Additional interchange between LaGrange & Hogansville

Interchange Interchange is not warranted

Public

No

72 Interchange at I-185 and SR 109 (Greenville Rd) Interchange

Fails to meet FHWA interchange spacing requirements

Public

No

73

Callaway Church Rd Bridge needs upgrade due to truck use

Bridges

This bridge is recommended for improvement due to truck use and current sufficiency rating

Troup County

Yes

74

Commuter train to Atlanta/Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport

Transit

This is not recommended due to low anticipated demand, however shuttle buses Public are recommended

No

75 Regularly scheduled buses

Transit

Expansion of transit service is recommended

Public

Yes

76 Not enough Public Transportation Options

Transit

Expansion of transit service is recommended

Public

Yes

77 3rd Ave from 10th St to Stateline Rd

Resurfacing

This comment was forwarded to Troup County

West Point

No

78 Stateline Road

Resurfacing

This comment was forwarded to Troup County

West Point

No

79 Whitefield Road near Callaway High School

Resurfacing

This comment was forwarded to Troup County

Public

No

80 Roadways need resurfacing

Resurfacing

This comment was forwarded to Troup County

Public

No

81

Blue Creek Rd has several horizontal and vertical curves

Realignment

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

82

Antioch Rd at Rock Mill Rd has an awkward alignment

Realignment

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

83 Whitaker Rd has horizontal and vertical curves

Realignment

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

84 Patillo Rd is narrow and has horizontal curves

Realignment

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

85 Hightower Rd has several operational issues

Operations

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

86 Neely Rd has several operational issues

Operations

The realignment of this road is recommended for improvement

Troup County

Yes

87

Long Cane Rd needs a deceleration lane at school

Operations

The deceleration lane on this road is recommended

Troup County

Yes

88 Realign Stewart Rd with Almond Rd

Operations

This intersection is recommended for further study to determine needs

Public

Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

85

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

89

Need free-flow route for emergency vehicles to/from hospital

90 Reduce congestion in Downtown LaGrange

91

Use of speed tables on side streets for traffic calming

Comment Type
Operations
Operations
Operations

92 Vernon Rd to 3-lanes and use reversible lanes Operations

93

Vernon Rd and Broad St converted to one-way pairs

Operations

94

Lukken Industrial Blvd Extension from US 29 to S Loop Rd

Roadway Project

95

Lukken Industrial Blvd Extension from US 27 to Davis Rd

Roadway Project

96 Expressway to Macon

Roadway Project

97 Connect Dallis St to Jackson St to US 29

Roadway Project

98

Upgrade Lukken Industrial Dr and Troup St - from US 27 to US 29

Roadway Project

99 E-W Corridor through LaGrange

Roadway Project

100 N-S Corridor through LaGrange

Roadway Project

101 Provide North Bypass Loop around LaGrange

Roadway Project

102 Provide South Bypass Loop around LaGrange

Roadway Project

103 Ragland St Extension

Roadway Project

104 Hammett Rd from Young's Mill Rd to I-185 Conn. Widening

105 Young's Mill Rd from Waugh Rd to Hammett Rd Widening

106 SR 54 from I-85 to Gates Dr

Widening

107 Widen Vernon Road through LaGrange

Widening

108 Widen SR 219 (Whitesville Rd) from US 27 to I-85 Widening

Response
This is beyond the scope of this study; forwarding comment to the City of LaGrange and Troup County

Source Public

Several recommended projects address this issue

Public

This is beyond the scope of this study; forwarding comment to the City of LaGrange and Troup County
This requires additional study - widening existing E-W roads through LaGrange conflicted with other community goals for the city
This requires additional study - widening existing E-W roads through LaGrange conflicted with other community goals for the city
This extension is recommended for improvement to enhance travel through LaGrange This extension is recommended for improvement to enhance travel through LaGrange

Public
Public
Public/Troup County/ LaGrange LaGrange
LaGrange

SR 109 is recommend for widening due to congestion and provides a potential linkage

Public

This is not recommended, however

recommended improvements such as Lukken Industrial & South Loop provide

Public

similar accessibility

Lukken Rd is recommended for

improvement to enhance travel through

Public

LaGrange

Lukken Rd and South/North Loop Rd are

recommended improvements to enhance Public

travel through LaGrange

South/North Loop Rd is a recommended

improvement to enhance travel through

Public

LaGrange

North Loop Rd is a recommended project to enhance travel through LaGrange

Public/Troup County/ LaGrange

Public/Troup

South Loop Rd is a recommended project County/

LaGrange

This project provides additional connectivity

for existing and new development. This improvement also includes a new bridge

LaGrange

replacing the Greenville St bridge

Hammett Rd is recommended for improvement

LaGrange/ Public

Young's Mill Rd is recommended for improvement

LaGrange

This is a congested facility and recommended for improvement

West Point

This is not recommended due to ROW and the historical features in the area, however intersection improvements are being recommended along Vernon Rd

Public

SR 219 is a congested facility and recommended for improvement

Public

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan No Yes No
No
No
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

86

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

109

Widen Lukken Industrial Dr from Whitesville St to US 29

Comment Type
Widening

Response
Lukken Rd is a congested facility and recommended for improvement

Source Public

110

Widen US 27 (Hamilton Rd) from Auburn St to Morgan St

Widening

US 27 is a congested facility and recommended for improvement

Public

111

Widen or add turn lanes on US 29 south of SR 109

112 Widen SR 109 from Greenville to Alabama

Widening Widening

113 Widen US 29 between West Point & LaGrange

114

Sidewalks are needed in the CBD and SW portions of LaGrange

115

Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Hogansville Elementary

Widening Bike/Ped Bike/Ped

116 Bike/Ped Trails from Hogansville to LaGrange

Bike/Ped

117

Bike/ped Trail from Hogansville to Grantville and tie into Silver Comet Trail

Bike/Ped

Two sections of US 29 are in the CWP for the addition of passing lanes
SR 109 is a congested facility and segments are recommended for improvement
Passing lanes are currently in GDOT's work program
Several bike/ped projects are recommended in LaGrange as part of this study The addition of a flashing beacon is recommended for the Hogansville School crossing Low priority improvement due to limited connectivity, however bicycle lanes and sidewalks are recommended as part of the SR 109 improvement.
Low priority improvement due to limited connectivity

Public Public Public LaGrange Hogansville Hogansville Hogansville

118 4th Ave from 7th St to 10th St

Streetscapes

This is an extension to the streetscaping recently completed along 3rd Ave

West Point

119 Need more Bicycle & Pedestrian Faculties

Bike/Ped

Several bike/ped projects are recommended as part of this study

Public

120 Need handicap accessible sidewalks/ramps

Bike/Ped

This comment was forwarded to Troup County and the Cities

Public

121 Provide safer access to schools

Bike/Ped

Schools were analyzed as high priority areas for bike/ped improvements

Public

122 Bicycle Lanes along Davis Road

Bike/Ped

Improvements recommended for Davis Rd include bike improvements

Public

123

Bike Path from Long Cane School to Pyne Road Park

Bike/Ped

Low priority improvement due to limited connectivity

Public

124

Bike Lanes along Country Club Dr, Broad St and SR 219

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

125

Bike Lanes connecting north LaGrange with South LaGrange

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

126

Bike Lanes along SR 109 from US 29 to Pyne Road Park

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

127

Bike Lanes along Old West Point Road from US 29 to Webb Rd

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

128

Bike Lanes along Hillcrest Rd from US 27 to US 29

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

129

Bike Lanes along Hammett Rd from US 29 to Bridge Rd

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

130

Bikes Lanes along Bartley Rd to Lower Big Springs Rd to Stovall Rd

Bike/Ped

Bike improvements for this area are being recommended

Public

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

87

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

#

Comment or Concern

131 Expand runway length by 900 feet at Airport

132

Upgrade Bass Rd for truck bypass around Hogansville

133 Divert truck traffic through Hogansville

134 8th St & Railroad is a rough crossing

135

Emergency vehicles blocked at SR 109 & CSX Railroad Tracks

136 Coordination of Train Traffic

Comment Type
Aviation
Truck Movement Truck Movement
Railroad
Freight/Rail
Freight/Rail

Response
This is recommended to allow the airport enhanced services
This project is recommended for widening and could be a potential truck bypass for Hogansville
State truck routes designated through Hogansville are potentially an issue

Source Public Hogansville Public

The improvement of this crossing is recommended

W est Point/Public

This crossing is recommended for improvement

Public

This is beyond the scope of the study; forwarding comment to appropriate agency

Public

Recommended for Inclusion in
Plan Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

88

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

9.0 Improvement Recommendations

Troup County has received moderate growth over the last two decades. This growth is expected to accelerate and the transportation infrastructure of the County needs to be maintained and enhanced to accommodate this growth. County needs for transportation improvements are supported by the deficiencies identified in Section 6.0. These deficiencies include:

Public Transit; Freight; Aviation Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridges; Safety; and, Roadway Operating Conditions.

Several transportation projects were developed in Section 8.0, which address these deficiencies. This section will identify the recommended improvements and the estimated costs associated with these improvements.

9.1 Estimated Costs

A necessary element of the LRTP is estimating the costs associated with the numerous recommended improvements. An estimated cost needs to be associated with each project to aid the County in planning for, and funding of, the recommended improvements. The estimated costs were generated for planning purposes and may be lower than actual costs. The cost of right of way was omitted from the cost estimate due to the high variation associated with this cost. Therefore, the estimated costs can be expected to be considerably less than actual costs. Additional variations in cost could be the result of several factors, such as, design, utility relocation or environmental impacts.

GDOT maintains a cost database, divided into regions, which was useful in estimating the costs for new roadways and roadway widening projects associated with this study. Troup County is in the Central Georgia Region. The cost database was developed in 1999, therefore adjustments were made to reflect inflation and bring the costs to 2006 dollars. An inflation rate of 5% was used for each year (1999 to 2006) resulting in an overall adjustment of 35%. These roadway cost estimates can be found in Table 9.1.1.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

89

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 9.1.1 Central Georgia Roadway Enhancement Costs
(per mile)

Improvement Type

Grad & Base & Lump

E & C Total

Drain Pave Items Misc. 10% Cost Per

Project Project Project Project Project Mile

Rural New Location

4 Lanes w/ 44' Grass Median

964,908 1,172,853 372,438 323,433 283,363 3,116,996

4 Lanes w/ 102' Grass Median

3,167,847 1,816,452 707,306 434,511 612,612 6,738,727

4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median

975,690 1,128,749 426,344 256,460 278,724 3,065,965

4 Lanes w/ 0' Median (48' Pavement)

673,819 1,128,749 207,455 135,581 214,560 2,360,162

4 Lanes w/ 4' Flush Median (52' Pavement)

697,178 1,216,958 207,455 147,015 226,860 2,495,465

4 Lanes w/ 12' Flush Median (60' Pavement)

742,099 1,390,109 207,455 169,884 250,955 2,760,501

4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median (62' Pavement)

749,286 1,432,580 207,455 174,785 256,410 2,820,515

3 Lanes w/ 36' Pavement

607,335 869,022 189,486 98,010 176,385 1,940,239

2 Lanes w/ 24' Pavement

539,055 607,662 161,717 122,513 143,095 1,574,041

Urban New Location

4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median

1,083,501 1,210,424 365,904 256,460 291,629 3,207,916

4 Lanes w/ 0' Median (48' Pavement)

813,973 1,210,424 194,387 176,418 239,520 2,634,721

4 Lanes w/ 4' Flush Median (52' Pavement)

855,301 1,314,968 194,387 191,120 255,577 2,811,352

4 Lanes w/ 12' Flush Median (60' Pavement)

939,753 1,514,255 194,387 220,523 286,892 3,155,808

4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median (62' Pavement)

961,315 1,566,527 194,387 228,690 295,092 3,246,010

2 Lanes w/ 24' Pavement

711,553 606,029 156,816 96,377 157,077 1,727,851

3 Lanes w/ 36' Pavement

761,864 909,860 156,816 135,581 196,412 2,160,532

Rural Widening

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 44' Grass Median

433,041 890,258 230,324 106,178 165,980 1,825,779

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median widen both sides 542,649 1,043,807 333,234 223,790 214,348 2,357,827

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median widen one side 517,493 820,017 259,727 142,115 173,935 1,913,286

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 0' Median (48' Pavement)

301,871 820,017 213,989 102,911 143,879 1,582,665

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 4' Flush Median ( 52' Pavement)

312,652 932,729 213,989 111,078 157,045 1,727,492

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 12' Flush Median ( 60' Pavement)

336,011 1,161,419 213,989 129,047 184,046 2,024,511

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median ( 62' Pavement)

341,402 1,216,958 213,989 132,314 190,466 2,095,127

3 to 4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median ( 62' Pavement)

240,778 877,190 213,989 106,178 143,813 1,581,947

Urban Widening

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median widen both sides 688,194 953,964 289,130 321,800 225,309 2,478,395

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 20' Raised Median widen one side 494,134 764,478 241,758 191,120 169,149 1,860,638

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 0' Median (48' Pavement)

379,135 764,478 209,088 168,251 152,095 1,673,047

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 4' Flush Median ( 52' Pavement)

420,463 891,891 209,088 196,020 171,746 1,889,208

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 12' Flush Median ( 60' Pavement)

488,743 1,146,717 209,088 253,193 209,774 2,307,515

2 to 4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median ( 62' Pavement)

508,509 1,210,424 209,088 266,261 219,428 2,413,709

3 to 4 Lanes w/ 14' Flush Median ( 62' Pavement)

395,307 828,185 209,088 182,952 161,553 1,777,085

Source: GDOT Planning

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

90

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

A review of recent bridge costs in Troup County revealed that the bridges were constructed for approximately $140 per square foot. This value was used to estimate the cost for improving the deficient bridges in Troup County.

GDOT is currently updating their cost information, therefore to further supplement the cost estimate data, research of other state DOT's was conducted to determine whether planning level cost estimates were available for various types of improvements. The most detailed planning level cost estimates were available from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). This information was taken by FDOT to develop planning level cost estimates for typical transportation improvements. The following additional costs were used in estimating the total costs for roadway improvements:

Sidewalk (6' on both sides) - $434,000 per mile; Bikeway (4' on both sides) - $205,508 per mile; and, Landscaping - $25,000 per mile.

These estimates were used to estimate costs for the recommended improvements found in Table 9.1.2. These costs should be considered preliminary in nature and taken with appropriate care. Costs do not include right of way. More detailed engineering studies are required to identify highly accurate cost estimates.

Over the past several years construction material costs have increased dramatically throughout the United States. Some typical GDOT pay items have increased over 60% in the last few years. Much of this cost increase can be attributed to the demand for construction materials in the Gulf Coast area and Iraq. As one of the most variable components of the LRTP, it is important that costs are revisited on a regular basis to ensure accuracy. In recognition of this situation, GDOT is in the process of evaluating all project costs in the Construction Work Program and establishing guidelines for cost updates.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

91

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Roadway and Limits

Table 9.1.2 Corridor Project Cost Estimates
Roadway Costs

Enhancement Features

Technical Memorandum November 2006
Additional Engineering

Length (C/L mi) State or County Facility Urban or Rural New or Improved Existing Configuration(1) Proposed Configuration(1) Unit Cost/Mile ($'s Millions) # of Intersections COST of Intersections ($'s Millions) # of Bridges COST of Bridges ($'s Millions) Roadway Subtotal ($'s Millions) Sidewalk Projects (One or Both Sides) Sidewalk Costs ($'s Millions) Bikeway Projects w/ Shoulder Bikeway Costs ($'s Millions) Landscaping ($'s Millions) Enhancement Subtotal ($'s Millions) Roadway + Enhancement ($'s Millions) Preliminary Engineering ($'s Millions) CEI ($'s Millions) Additional Engineering Sub Total ($'s Millions) TOTAL ($'s Millions)

Project Ref. No.

Facility

3 I-185 Connector

To I-185

4 Bass Cross Rd

US 29

5 Callaway Church Rd

SR 109

6 Cameron Mill Rd

SR 219

7 Colquitt St

US 27

8 Davis Rd

SR 109

9 Davis Rd

SR 109

10 Gabbettville Rd

US 29

11 Greenwood St

US 29

12 Lukken Industrial Blvd

US 29

13 Lukken Industrial Blvd (West E US 29

14 Lukken Industrial Blvd (East ExUS 27

15 Hammett Rd

I-185 Connector

16 Young's Mill Rd

Waugh Rd

17 South LaGrange Loop

SR 109

18 North LaGrange Loop

SR 109

19 Davis Rd Realignment

US 27

20 Waugh Rd Realignment

US 27

21 Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

22 Orchard Hill Rd

Lukken Industrial Blvd

23 Tin Bridge Rd

Hammett Rd

24 Upper Big Springs Rd

Davis Rd

25 Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

26 SR 18

I-85

27 SR 54

US 29

28 SR 109

US 29

29 SR 109

US 27

30 SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

31 SR 219

US 27

32 SR 219

I-85

33 US 27

SR 219

34 US 27

SR 219

35 US 27

I-85

36 US 27

I-185

37 US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd

38 US 29

US 27

39 US 29

Young's Mill Rd

176 Ragland St Extension

SR 109

Notes (1) U - Undivided
D -Divided O - One-Way A- Auxiliary

US 27

From

SR 54

Upper Big Springs Rd

Whitaker Rd

Davis Rd

SR 219

Hammett Rd

Bartley Rd

Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

South LaGrange Loop

Davis Rd

Young's Mill Rd

Hammett Rd

SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

Waugh Rd

Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

US 29

Knott Rd

US 27

3rd Ave

Meriwether County

Alabama

Callaway Church Rd

Meriwether County

Davis Rd

Bartley Rd

Mooty Bridge Rd

Auburn Ave

I-185

Old Chipley Rd

Old Vernon Rd

Vernon Rd

SR 54

US 29

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

6.23

State

Rural

N

None

4D

6.7387

1

0.150

5

6.720

48.852

3.21 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

4

0.600

0

0.000

6.461

1.72 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

2

0.300

1

1.344

4.784

4.09 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

2

0.300

1

1.344

9.111

1.96 County Urban

I

2U

4U

1.6730

5

0.750

1

1.344

5.373

3.24

State Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

5

0.750

3

4.032

12.258

2.65

State Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

3

0.450

1

1.344

7.909

4.41 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

4

0.600

2

2.688

11.340

1.15 County Urban

I

2U

4U

1.6730

5

0.750

0

0.000

2.674

3.91 County Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

5

0.750

1

1.344

11.116

0.28 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1558

2

0.300

1

1.344

2.528

0.85 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1558

2

0.300

1

1.344

4.326

2.51 County Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

3

0.450

1

1.344

7.586

1.44 County Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

2

0.300

0

0.000

3.623

6.20 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1170

4

0.600

3

4.032

23.957

5.88 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1170

4

0.600

3

4.032

22.960

1.24 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1558

2

0.300

0

0.000

4.213

0.40 County Urban

N

None

4D

3.1558

2

0.300

0

0.000

1.562

4.77 County Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

5

0.750

2

2.688

14.445

2.50 County Urban

I

2U

4D

2.3075

2

0.300

1

1.344

7.413

3.91 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

2

0.300

0

0.000

7.439

3.02 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

3

0.450

2

2.688

8.652

2.52 County Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

2

0.300

0

0.000

4.901

2.06

S

Rural

I

4D

-

0.000

0.000

0.000

3.32

State

Rural

I

2U

4D

2.3578

4

0.600

1

1.344

9.772

9.54

State

Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

6

0.900

3

4.032

22.350

3.89

State

Rural

I

4D

-

0.000

0.000

0.000

5.95

State

Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

5

0.750

1

1.344

12.957

1.81

State Urban

I

2U

4U

1.6730

5

0.750

1

1.344

5.122

2.50

State

Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

2

0.300

1

1.344

6.208

1.32

State

U

I

4D

-

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.89

State Urban

I

2U

4U

1.6730

4

0.600

0

0.000

2.089

4.56

State Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

4

0.600

2

2.688

11.614

3.84

State Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

3

0.450

1

1.344

8.805

2.66

State Rural

I

2U

4D

1.8258

5

0.750

1

1.344

6.951

1.35

State Urban

I

2U

4U

1.6730

8

1.200

0

0.000

3.459

11.64 State Rural

I

2U

4D

2.3578

8

1.200

4

5.376

34.021

0.93 County Urban

N

None

2U

1.7279

3

0.450

0

0.000

2.057

Costs

Intersections

150,000 per intersection

Bridges 1,340,000 per bridge (150' x 64' @ $140/sq ft)

Sidewalks Bike Lanes

217,000 per mile, per side 206,000 per mile, both sides

Landscaping

25,000 per mile

These costs DO NOT include Right of Way

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.156 0.156

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.080 0.080

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.043 0.043

2

1.775

Yes

0.843 0.102 2.720

2

0.851 None 0.000 0.049 0.900

2

1.406

Yes

0.667 0.081 2.155

2

1.150

Yes

0.546 0.066 1.762

0

0.000

Yes

0.908 0.110 1.019

2

0.499

Yes

0.237 0.029 0.765

2

1.697

Yes

0.805 0.098 2.600

2

0.122

Yes

0.058 0.007 0.186

2

0.369

Yes

0.175 0.021 0.565

2

1.089

Yes

0.517 0.063 1.669

2

0.625

Yes

0.297 0.036 0.958

2

2.691

Yes

1.277 0.155 4.123

2

2.552

Yes

1.211 0.147 3.910

2

0.538

Yes

0.255 0.031 0.825

2

0.174

Yes

0.082 0.010 0.266

0

0.000

Yes

0.983 0.119 1.102

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.063 0.063

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.098 0.098

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.076 0.076

0

0.000

Yes

0.519 0.063 0.582

0.000

0.000 0.052 0.052

2

1.441

Yes

0.684 0.083 2.208

0

0.000

Yes

1.965 0.239 2.204

0.000

0.000 0.097 0.097

0

0.000

Yes

1.226 0.149 1.374

2

0.786

Yes

0.373 0.045 1.204

0

0.000

Yes

0.515 0.063 0.578

0.000

0.000 0.033 0.033

2

0.386 None 0.000 0.022 0.409

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.114 0.114

0

0.000 None 0.000 0.096 0.096

0

0.000

Yes

0.548 0.067 0.614

2

0.586

Yes

0.278 0.034 0.898

0

0.000

Yes

2.398 0.291 2.689

2

0.404

Yes

0.192 0.023 0.618

Preliminary Engineering (PE) Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI)

10.00% total cost 3.00% total cost

49.008 6.541 4.827 11.831 6.273 14.413 9.671 12.358 3.439 13.717 2.714 4.892 9.255 4.580 28.080 26.870 5.038 1.828 15.547 7.475 7.537 8.727 5.483 0.052 11.980 24.554 0.097 14.332 6.326 6.786 0.033 2.497 11.728 8.901 7.565 4.356 36.710 2.675

4.901 0.654 0.483 1.183 0.627 1.441 0.967 1.236 0.344 1.372 0.271 0.489 0.926 0.458 2.808 2.687 0.504 0.183 1.555 0.748 0.754 0.873 0.548 0.005 1.198 2.455 0.010 1.433 0.633 0.679 0.003 0.250 1.173 0.890 0.757 0.436 3.671 0.268

1.470 0.196 0.145 0.355 0.188 0.432 0.290 0.371 0.103 0.411 0.081 0.147 0.278 0.137 0.842 0.806 0.151 0.055 0.466 0.224 0.226 0.262 0.164 0.002 0.359 0.737 0.003 0.430 0.190 0.204 0.001 0.075 0.352 0.267 0.227 0.131 1.101 0.080

6.371 0.850 0.628 1.538 0.815 1.874 1.257 1.607 0.447 1.783 0.353 0.636 1.203 0.595 3.650 3.493 0.655 0.238 2.021 0.972 0.980 1.135 0.713 0.007 1.557 3.192 0.013 1.863 0.822 0.882 0.004 0.325 1.525 1.157 0.983 0.566 4.772 0.348

TOTAL

55.379 7.391 5.455 13.369 7.088 16.287 10.928 13.965 3.886 15.500 3.067 5.528 10.458 5.176 31.731 30.363 5.693 2.066 17.568 8.447 8.516 9.862 6.196 0.058 13.537 27.746 0.110 16.195 7.148 7.668 0.037 2.822 13.252 10.058 8.548 4.923 41.482 3.023
450.527

92

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

9.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements

Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for Troup County. This information is presented in Table 9.2. This listing includes:

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.

For each recommendation several information elements were produced including: facility; limits; existing and improved configuration; comments; source; improvement type; need; anticipated benefit; phasing; cost and potential funding sources. For successful implementation of these projects it is recommended that additional detailed engineering studies be conducted to determine the most appropriate design, cost and phasing of the particular project. Additionally, successful project implementation will require identified funding mechanisms, political support, and public recognition of the project need and benefit.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

93

Project Ref. No.

Facility

From

Capacity Improvements/New Roadways

1

I-85

I-185

2

I-85 SB

SR 109

3

I-185 Connector

I-185

4

Bass Cross Rd

US 29

5

Callaway Church Rd

SR 109

6

Cameron Mill Rd

SR 219

7

Colquitt St

US 27

8

Davis Rd

SR 109

9

Davis Rd

SR 109

10 Gabbettville Rd

US 29

11 Greenwood St

US 29

12 Lukkens Industrial Blvd

US 29

13 Lukkens Industrial Blvd (West Extension) US 29

14 Lukkens Industrial Blvd (East Extension) US 27

15 Hammett Rd

I-185 Connector

16 Young's Mill Rd

Waugh Rd

17 South LaGrange Loop

SR 109

18 North LaGrange Loop

SR 109

19 Davis Rd Realignment

SR 219

20 Waugh Rd Realignment

US 27

21 Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

22 Orchard Hill Rd

Lukkens Industrial Blvd

23 Tin Bridge Rd

Hammett Rd

24 Upper Big Springs Rd

Davis Rd

25 Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

26 SR 18

I-85

27 SR 54

US 29

28 SR 109

US 29

29 SR 109

US 27

30 SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

31 SR 219

US 27

32 SR 219

I-85

33 US 27

SR 219

34 US 27

SR 219

35 US 27

I-85

36 US 27

I-185

37 US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd

38 US 29

US 27

39 US 29

Young's Mill Rd

40 US 29 NB & SB

MP 3.87 - 5.37

176 Ragland St Extension

SR 109

Segment Limits To
SR 14 (Coweta County)
US 27 SR 54 Upper Big Springs Rd Whitaker Rd Davis Rd US 27 Hammett Rd Bartley Rd Mooty Bridge Rd US 27 South LaGrange Loop Davis Rd Young's Mill Rd Hammett Rd SR 219 US 27 Davis Rd Waugh Rd Wares Cross Rd SR 219 US 29 Knott Rd US 27 3rd Ave Meriwether County Alabama Callaway Church Rd Meriwether County Davis Rd Bartley Rd Mooty Bridge Rd Auburn Ave I-185 Old Chipley Rd Old Vernon Rd Vernon Rd SR 54 MP 7.07 - 8.41 US 29

Intersection/Geometric Improvements
41 I-85 Exit Ramps 42 US 29 43 Long Cane Rd 44 Neely Rd 45 Hightower Rd 46 Blue Creek Rd 47 Patillo Rd 48 SR 109 49 Antioch Rd 50 Cameron Mill Rd / Wares Cross Rd 51 Carr / Boddie Rd 52 Dallas Mill Rd 53 Durand Rd 54 Garrett Rd 55 Glass Bridge Rd 56 Gordon Commercial Dr 57 Greenville Rd 58 US 27 59 US 27 60 US 27 61 Hammett Rd 62 Hightower Rd 63 Hines Rd 64 US 29 65 US 29 66 Holland Rd 67 Jim Turner Rd 68 Knott Rd 69 Leonard Rd 70 N Davis Rd 71 N Davis Rd 72 N Davis Rd 73 Old West Point Rd 74 Pine Rd 75 Pine Rd 76 Pine Rd 77 Rock Mill Rd 78 S Davis Rd 79 Smokey Rd 80 Stovall Rd 81 Stovall Rd 82 Teaser Rd 83 Tin Bridge Rd 84 Towns Rd 85 Upper Big Springs Rd 86 Wares Cross Rd 87 Whitaker Rd 88 SR 219 89 SR 219 90 US 27 91 US 29 92 US 27 93 Davis Road 94 Broad Street 95 US 29 96 US 29 97 US 29

SR 18

Meadow Way Dr

Davis Rd

Long Cane Elementary

Antioch Rd

end

Hammett Rd

Mobley Bridge Rd

Mountville Hogansville Rd

Meriwether County

SR 109

US 29

Stewart Rd / Almond Rd

Rock Mill Rd

Mooty Bridge Rd

SR 109

Cook Rd

LaFayette Pkwy

Liberty Hill Rd

Hudson Rd

Gordon Rd/N Kight St

Towns Rd

Bartley Rd

Lower Bigs Springs Rd

Vulcan Rd / Sam Walker Rd

Whitfield Rd

Mobley Bridge Rd

Willowood Rd

Whitfield Rd

Patillo Rd

Hightower Rd

Gray Hill Rd

Upper Big Springs Rd

Hammett Rd

Hammett Rd

US 29

Young's Mill Rd

Canyonville Rd / Hudson Rd

Glass Bridge Rd

Teaser Rd / Newton Rd

Plymouth Dr / Malay Rd

Holliday Rd

Upper Big Springs Rd

Lower Big Springs Rd

Big Springs Rd

Dallas Mill Rd

Hill Rd

Hammett Rd

Costly Rd

Callaway Church Rd / John Loveless Rd

Ramp Rd

Cameron Mill Rd

Bartley Rd

Baugh's Cross Rd / Burkes Chapel Rd

US 29

S Greenwood St

N Lafayette Sq

SR 109

SR 219

Horace King St

Broad St

SR 109

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Existing Configuration

Improved Configuration

Table 9.2 Recommended Improvements

Notes/Comments

Source

Improvement Type

Need

Anticipated Benefit

Implementation Near Mid Long Candidate

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County Local

4-Lane Divided
N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided
N/A N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided N/A N/A N/A N/A 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 4 Lanes, Divided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Undivided N/A

6-Lane Divided Extend SB Auxiliary Lane & Improve
4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 2 Lanes w/ Turn Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use
4 Lanes 4-Lane Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use 4 Lanes, Divided
4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 4 Lanes, Access Management, Land Use
4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 4 Lanes, Divided
4 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes, Divided 2 Lanes w/ Passing Lanes 4 Lanes

9.0 miles in Troup (14.76 miles Macon-to-LaGrange Corridor

CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange CWP County/Lagrange County/LaGrange LaGrange Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis STIP Analysis Analysis STIP CWP Analysis CWP LaGrange

Freeway Widening Auxiliary Lane & Ramp New Roadway Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening New Roadway New Roadway Arterial Widening Connector Widening New Roadway New Roadway New Roadway New Roadway Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Arterial Widening Operational Improvement Arterial Widening Passing Lanes New Roadway

Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency & Safety Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Connectivity

Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Improved Safety & Capacity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Increased Capacity & Improved Safety Connectivity

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

$104,500,000 3

3

3

$4,630,000 3

3

3

$36,764,000 3

3

3

$7,391,000

3

3

$5,455,000

3

3

3

$13,369,000

3

3

$7,088,000

3

3

3

$16,287,000

3

3

3

$10,928,000

3

3

3

$13,965,000

3

3

$3,886,000

3

3

3

$15,500,000

3

3

3

$3,067,000

3

3

3

$5,528,000

3

3

3

$10,458,000

3

3

3

$5,176,000

3

3

3

$20,719,000

3

3

3

$25,064,000

3

3

3

$5,693,000

3

3

3

$2,066,000

3

3

3

$17,568,000

3

3

$8,447,000

3

3

3

$8,516,000

3

3

$9,862,000

3

3

$6,196,000

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$9,780,000 3

3

3

$27,746,000 3

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$16,195,000 3

3

3

$7,148,000 3

3

3

3

$7,668,000 3

3

3

-3

3

3

3

$4,760,000 3

3

3

$13,252,000 3

3

3

$10,058,000 3

3

3

$7,929,000 3

3

3

$4,923,000 3

3

3

$41,482,000 3

3

3

$1,715,000 3

3

3

$3,023,000

3

3

$523,802,000

1-Lane NB & SB Off-Ramps 2-Lane undivided w/o turn lanes 2-Lane undivided w/o turn lanes
narrow road skewed intersection
Dirt Road 3-Way Stop 3-Way Stop
2-Way Stop
skewed intersection skewed intersection skewed intersection

2-Lane NB & SB Off-Ramps BE Left Turn Lane
BE Right Deceleration/Turn Lane aligned intersection Pave
NB & SB Left Turn Lanes aligned intersection aligned intersection aligned intersection

Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves Horizontal and vertical curves
Awkward alignment Capacity Sight distance Sight distance, grade, alignment Sight distance, alignment Sight distance, grade Sight distance, alignment Alignment, capacity Alignment, capacity Sight distance, capacity Skew, sight distance, capacity Capacity Capacity Sight distance, grade Sight distance, grade Capacity Capacity, need deceleration lane Sight distance Sight distance
Sight distance Capacity 81 crashes, 1 fatality, capacity Capacity
Capacity
Sight distance Sight distance, grade, alignment Capacity Sight distance Grade Sight distance Sight distance Capacity Sight distance, realignment Grade, speed, skew Curve Sight distance, curve Capacity Sight distance, alignment 180 crashes 49 crashes 50 crashes 42 crashes 42 crashes 39 crashes 46 crashes 38 crashes

STIP STIP County County County County County Public County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County Analysis County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County County Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Geometric Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues

Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity

3

$3,229,000 3

3

3

$1,475,000

3

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

- (see footnote 6)

3

$50,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$150,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$400,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$200,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$80,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$200,000

3

3

3

$400,000

3

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$80,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$300,000

3

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$500,000

3

3

$100,000

3

3

$50,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

$500,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

$250,000

3

3

$150,000

3

3

3

$50,000

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

3

$250,000

3

3

3

94

Table 9.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref. No.
98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

US 29 US 29 US 29 US 27 US 27 SR 219 SR 219 US 29 US 27

Facility

Segment Limits

From

To

Forrest Ave Harwell Ave Jefferson St Colquitt St Union St Mooty Bridge Rd Lukens Industrial Blvd Young's Mill Rd Greenville St

Existing Configuration 2-Lanes Undivided

Improved Configuration WB Left Turn Lane

Notes/Comments 34 crashes 30 crashes
High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site High Crash site

Source
Analysis Analysis Public LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange LaGrange

Improvement Type
Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Need
Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues Operational & Safety Issues

Anticipated Benefit
Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity Improved Safety & Capacity

Bridge Improvements

107 I-85/I-185/I-185 Connector Interchange I-185

I-85

108 Ragland St Extension

CSX Railroad

109 Glenn Rd

Whitewater Creek

110 Cannonville Rd

Long Cane Creek

111 Hammett Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary

112 Juniper St

CSX Railroad

113 Salem-Chipley Rd

Turkey Creek Tributary

114 Adams Rd

Big Branch

115 Dallas Mill Rd

Big Springs Creek

116 Salem-Chipley Rd

Turkey Creek

117 Baughs Cross Rd

Mud Creek

118 Mountville-Hogansville Rd

Flat Creek

119 Stewart Rd

Long Cane Creek

120 Finney Rd

Polecat Creek

121 Hunt Rd

Mud Creek

122 Mountville Hogansville Rd

Beech Creek

123 Thompson Rd

Polecat Creek

124 Young's Mill Rd

Beech Creek

125 Salem Rd

Flat Shoals Creek

126 Fort Dr

Tankard Branch

127 Mobley Bridge Rd

Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary

128 Elverson Rd

Beech Creek

129 US 27

Flat Shoals Creek

130 Callaway Church Rd

Long Cane Creek

131 US 27

Long Cane Creek

132 Antioch Rd

Whitewater Creek

133 Gilbertville Rd

Long Cane Creek

134 SR 100

Yellow Jacket Creek

135 SR 109

CSX Railroad

136 Tucker Rd

Polecat Creek

137 3rd Ave

Chattahoochee River O/F

138 New Hutchinson Mill Rd

Long Cane Creek

139 SR 18 (BE)

Long Cane Creek

140 Salem Rd

Turkey Creek

141 I-85 (NB)

SR 18

142 I-185

Polecat Creek

143 I-185

Turkey Creek

144 Industrial Dr

CSX Railroad

16,422 sq ft 511 sq ft 5,633 sq ft 810 sq ft 2,562 sq ft 710 sq ft 2,671 sq ft 384 sq ft 1,428 sq ft 2,236 sq ft 1,716 sq ft 1,179 sq ft 1,928 sq ft 806 sq ft 2,049 sq ft 675 sq ft 3,318 sq ft 3,920 sq ft 1,066 sq ft 1,139 sq ft 2,744 sq ft 8,394 sq ft 3,087 sq ft 3,864 sq ft 6,680 sq ft 2,720 sq ft 7,825 sq ft
27,853 sq ft 1,671 sq ft 8,160 sq ft 5,445 sq ft 9,108 sq ft 3,228 sq ft 8,272 sq ft
sq ft sq ft 7,128 sq ft

Interchange 4.00 suff. rating (Greenville St) 5.00 sufficiency rating 7.56 sufficiency rating 14.65 sufficiency rating 16.24 sufficiency rating 16.61 sufficiency rating 24.74 sufficiency rating 25.55 sufficiency rating 26.49 sufficiency rating 26.98 sufficiency rating 27.13 sufficiency rating 27.55 sufficiency rating 27.65 sufficiency rating 28.20 sufficiency rating 28.58 sufficiency rating 31.18 sufficiency rating 39.25 sufficiency rating 42.56 sufficiency rating 48.59 sufficiency rating 51.11 sufficiency rating 53.99 sufficiency rating 55.05 sufficiency rating 58.73 sufficiency rating 59.10 sufficiency rating 59.42 sufficiency rating 63.82 sufficiency rating 65.32 sufficiency rating 67.08 sufficiency rating 67.38 sufficiency rating 68.03 sufficiency rating 69.75 sufficiency rating 70.92 sufficiency rating 72.46 sufficiency rating 73.18 sufficiency rating 73.99 sufficiency rating 73.99 sufficiency rating 74.06 sufficiency rating

CWP CWP Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Analysis Long Range Long Range Long Range Analysis Long Range Long Range Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

New Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Replace Bridge

Replaces Greenville St Bridge Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

Improved Operations & Connectivity Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
145 Young's Mill Bridge Bike Ped Trail 146 Hogansville Elementary 147 SR 54 Sidewalks 148 US 29 Sidewalks 149 N Davis Rd Sidewalks 150 Davis Rd Sidewalks 151 Colquitt St Sidewalks 152 Ragland St Sidewalks 153 US 29 Sidewalks 154 SR 109 Sidewalks 155 Vernon St Sidewalks 156 SR 18 Sidewalks 157 Avenue K Sidewalks 158 12th St Sidewalks 159 West Point Pedestrian Crossing 160 Country Club Road Loop 161 Downtown LaGrange Connector 162 SR 109 163 Old West Point Rd/US 29 164 Hillcrest Rd/Hammett Rd 165 South Troup 177 4th Ave Streetscaping

Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade

Maple Dr

Boyd Rd

Ware St

SR 100

US 29

Hammett Rd

SR 219

Ragland St

US 27

Ragland St

Colquitt St

SR 109

US 27

Young's Mill Rd

US 27

LaGrange Mall

SR 109

Ferrell Dr

Dogwood Cir

OG Skinner Dr

SR 18

12th St

West Point Elementary

OG Skinner Dr

SR 18 & US 29

Cameron Mill Rd/Country Club Rd/Broad St/SR 219

US 29

Pine Park

Bartley Rd/Lower Big Springs Rd/Wright Rd

7th St

10th St

Pedestrian Pavement Markings

Pedestrian Flashing Signal

Partial sidewalk on North side

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No sidewalks

Sidewalk on West side

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

Partial sidewalk on North side

Sidewalks on North and South sides

Partial sidewalk on East side

Sidewalks on East and West sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks, Existing Ped Signals Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North and South sides

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on East side

No Sidewalks

Sidewalks on North side

Pedestrian Pavement Markings

Pedestrian Signal

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

Connect residential & commercial areas

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

No Bike Lanes/Narrow Shoulder Bike Lanes on both sides

Streetscaping

0.7 mile 0.4 mile 1.7 mile 2.4 mile 1.2 mile 1.2 mile 0.9 mile 3.0 mile 0.9 mile 0.5 mile 0.1 mile, 1 Fatality 0.4 mile
14.0 mile 1.5 mile 4.5 mile 9.0 mile 11.0 mile / 8.3 mile 18.3 mile

STIP Hogansville
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
Public Public Public Public Public Public West Point

Bike/Ped Trail Ped Flashing Beacon Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Pedestrian Signal Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Streetscape

Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities

Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System

Airport Improvements 166 LaGrange-Callaway Airport

Runway Extension

5,000' runway

5,500' runway

1 runway already 5,500'

County

Runway Extension

Level III runway

Enhanced Aviation Operations

Rail Improvements 167 Railroad Warning Device 168 SR 109 169 Railroad Crossing

Green St & CSX in Hogansville CSX RR west of SR 14 8th St & CSX in West Point

No warning devices At-Grade crossing Rough crossing

Lighted warning signals Grade separated crossing Improved crossing

Potential realignment & connection to US 29

STIP

Improve Crossing

County/LaGrange

Public

Improve Crossing

Rail Issues Rough Crossing

Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Transit Improvements
170 Express Bus Service 171 Express Bus Service 172 Park & Ride Lot 173 Park & Ride Lot 174 Park & Ride Lot 175 Park & Ride Lot

LaGrange to Atlanta LaGrange to Columbus I-85 & SR 54 I-85 & SR 109 I-85 & Gabbettville Rd I-185 & US 27

Public Public County County County County

Express Bus Service Express Bus Service Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots Park & Ride Lots

Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options Commute Options

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination.
2. Intersection costs provided by Troup County Engineeringm, or a unit cost of $250,000 was used 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $140 per square foot, costs for Projects 142 & 143 are not provided due to incomplete available information 4. Projects 26, 29 and 33 are proposed to have non-widening improvements, therefore costs were not provided 5. Aviation Costs to be provided by the County 6. Projects 44-48 require detailed study to determine costs 7. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way

Near
3 3 3

Implementation Mid Long Candidate
3 3 3 3 3 3

Estimated
Cost
$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $16,964,000

Potential Funding Source

Federal State County Local

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

$28,552,000 3

3

3

$2,933,000

3

3

3

$71,540

3

3

3

$429,000

3

3

3

$112,000

3

3

3

$358,680

3

3

3

$81,000

3

3

3

$322,000

3

3

3

$53,760

3

3

3

$199,920

3

3

3

$170,000

3

3

3

$246,000

3

3

3

$110,000

3

3

3

$269,920

3

3

3

$215,000

3

3

3

$164,000

3

3

3

$94,500

3

3

3

$464,520

3

3

3

$993,000

3

3

3

$149,240

3

3

3

$159,460

3

3

3

$384,160

3

3

3

$1,175,160

3

3

3

$432,180

3

3

3

$540,960

3

3

3

$935,200

3

3

3

$380,800

3

3

3

$1,095,500

3

3

3

$3,899,420

3

3

3

$233,940

3

3

3

$1,142,400

3

3

3

$762,300

3

3

3

$1,275,120

3

3

3

$451,920

3

3

3

$1,158,080

3

3

3

-

3

3

3

-

3

3

3

$997,920

3

3

3

$51,013,600

3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3
3

$200,000

3

3

3

3

$10,000

3

3

3

3

$303,800

3

3

3

3

$86,800

3

3

3

3

$737,800

3

3

3

3

$1,041,600

3

3

3

3

$520,800

3

3

3

3

$520,800

3

3

3

3

$390,600

3

3

3

3

$1,302,000

3

3

3

3

$390,600

3

3

3

3

$217,000

3

3

3

3

$21,700

3

3

3

3

$86,800

3

3

3

3

$25,000

3

3

3

3

$2,884,000

3

3

3

3

$309,000

3

3

3

3

$1,854,000

3

3

3

3

$927,000

3

3

3

3

$3,975,800

3

3

3

3

$3,769,800

3

3

3

3

$625,000

3

3

3

3

$20,199,900

3

-3

3

3

$0

3 3

$150,000

$2,500,000

3

-

$2,650,000

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

$250,000 3

3

3

3

$250,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

3

$100,000 3

3

3

$900,000

$615,529,500

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

95

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 9.2 96

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Recommended Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 9.2 97

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

9.3 Environmental Justice Considerations

Another key point of concern in evaluating proposed transportation improvements is environmental justice. This ensures that areas with high concentrations of low-income or minority populations are not adversely impacted by transportation improvements. The following recommended projects are located in EJ areas:

7 Widening Colquitt Street from US 27 to Davis Road 26 Widening SR 18 from I-85 to 3rd Avenue 29 Operational Improvements along SR 109 from US 27 to Callaway Church Road 31 Widening SR 219 from US 27 to Davis Road 34 Widening US 27 from SR 219 to Auburn Avenue 38 Operational Improvements along US 29 from Vernon Road to US 27 41 I-85 Exits Ramps at SR 18 91 Intersection of US 29 & Greenwood Street 95 Intersection of US 29 and Horace King Street 99 Intersection of US 29 and Harwell Avenue 101 Intersection of US 27 and Colquitt Street 106 Intersection of US 27 and Greenville Street 139 Bridge on SR 18 at Long Cane Creek 141 Bridge on I-85 at SR 18 151 Sidewalks on Colquitt Street from US 27 to Ragland Street 153 Sidewalks on US 29 from US 27 to Young's Mill Road 154 Sidewalks on SR 109 from US 27 to Davis Road 156 Sidewalks on SR 18 from Dogwood Circle to OG Skinner Dr 157 Sidewalks on Avenue K from SR 18 to 12th Street 159 West Point Pedestrian Crossing on SR 18 at US 29 161 Downtown LaGrange Bicycle and Pedestrian Connector

The recommended improvements will improve safety, mobility and access for all users on a countywide basis. These projects include the need for roadway widening and the possibility of additional right of way. Additional projects that will benefit the EJ communities include: bicycle and pedestrian improvements; transit park and ride lots along I-85; and, numerous safety and capacity enhancements throughout the study area, as shown in Table 9.2. Figure 9.3 shows the recommended projects in the vicinity of the environmental justice areas.

In addition to the technical analysis documented above, outreach activities were conducted throughout the course of the study to facilitate input and dialogue with EJ communities. In particular, information was distributed in these areas documenting study activities and workshops.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

98

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum
) November 2006

Environmental Justice Evaluation
Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 9.3 99

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

10.0 Project Prioritization

In order to aid GDOT and County staff, potential improvements were ranked by mode based on several evaluation factors. The following sections document the prioritization of improvements for Troup County.

10.1 Corridor Prioritization

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation Factors were established so that the potential improvements for Troup County could be evaluated objectively by County staff. These factors were developed by HNTB with the assistance of the Study Advisory Group, public comment and GDOT. This evaluation serves as a ranking for potential projects, resulting in a listing of improvement options to meet the County's transportation needs. Prioritization criteria were developed for four types of projects roadway capacity, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, intersections and bridges.

Qualitative Criteria

Qualitative criteria were established to evaluate the deficient corridors based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the qualitative criteria established for the roadway network improvement evaluation. These correspond to the vision established in the Goals and Objectives documented in Section 7.0.

Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) / National Highway System Supports Growth Management Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor Connectivity Construction Designs in Progress Parallel Relief Development Conditions

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means of prioritizing projects. Table 10.1.1 displays the qualitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Qualitative Criteria range from 0 to 28 points. These points were added to the points received from the Quantitative Criteria, which are documented on the following pages.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

100

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 10.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Is the proposed project a continuation of any previously completed or current project providing added lanes to the specific transportation corridor? Governor's Road Improvement Program/National Highway System Is the project identified as a GRIP Corridor or part of the National Highway System? Supports Growth Management Plan Does the proposed project support the Comprehensive Plan? Right of Way Protection Corridor Is the proposed project located along any designated corridor for right way protection? Connectivity Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing or proposed projects or provide regional connectivity? Construction Designs in Progress Are the designs for the proposed project already complete or in the process of being completed? Parallel Relief Does the proposed project provide relief to parallel corridors? Development Conditions A - Is the proposed project located within a development area, or, is the specific project part of an approved plan for the redevelopment or revitalization of a developed area, or does the specific project provide access infrastructure to a mixed-use project area?
B - Does the proposed project complete or link other projects that have been built by a municipality or County?

Possible Points
No = 0 Yes = 2
No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Yes = 4 No = 0 Yes = 3
No = 0 Yes = 3
No = 0 Yes = 2
No = 0 Yes = 4
No = 0 Yes = 3
No = 0 Yes = 3

C - Was the proposed project developed through an organized public participation process (such as Community charrette) that was sponsored by a municipality or County?
Sub-Total Possible Points

No = 0 Yes = 2
28

Quantitative Criteria

Quantitative criteria were set up to evaluate the deficient corridors based on various measurable conditions. The following list documents the quantitative criteria established for the roadway network improvement evaluation.

Volume to Capacity Ratio Ratio of Crash Rate to Statewide Average Number of Fatalities

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

101

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 10.1.2 displays the quantitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Quantitative Criteria range from 0 to 25 points.

Table 10.1.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.00 - 0.349 0.350 - 0.399 0.400 - 0.449 0.450 - 0.499 0.500 - 0.549 0.550 - 0.599 0.600 - 0.649 0.650 - 0.699 0.700 - 0.749 0.750 - 0.799 0.800 - 0.849 0.850 - 0.899 0.900 - 0.949 0.950 - 1.049 1.050 - 1.149 1.150 - 1.249 1.250 - 1.349 1.350 - 1.449 1.450 - 1.549 1.550 - 1.649 1.650 -
Number of Crashes per 1,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled
0.01-0.49 0.50-0.99 1.00 -1.99 2.00-2.49 2.50-2.99 3.00-3.99 4.00-5.99
6.00 Number of Fatalities
1 2 or more Sub-Total Possible Points

Possible Points
0.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
1 2 15

The total points that a facility can receive for both the qualitative and quantitative criteria is 53 points. Based upon the identified improvements and the evaluations made during the quantitative and qualitative evaluation, a set of recommended near, mid, and long-term transportation projects was established. The scoring for the deficient corridors is displayed in Table 10.1.3.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

102

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Segment Limits

Table 10.1.3 Corridor Prioritization

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Qualitative Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Governor's Road Improvement Program / National Highway System Supports Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor Connectivity Construction Designs in Progress Parallel Relief
A B Development Conditions C
Sub-Total Qualitative Criteria
Quantitative Criteria
Volume/Capacity Ratio Ratio of 100 Million VMT to Statewide Average Number of Fatalities
Sub-Total Quantitative Criteria
Total Score for Project

Project Ref. No.

Facility

From

To

3 I-185 Connector

I-185

US 27

4 Bass Cross Rd

US 29

SR 54

5 Callaway Church Rd

SR 109

Upper Big Springs Rd

6 Cameron Mill Rd

SR 219

Whitaker Rd

7 Colquitt St

US 27

Davis Rd

8 Davis Rd

SR 109

SR 219

9 Davis Rd

SR 109

Hammett Rd

10 Gabbettville Rd

US 29

Bartley Rd

11 Greenwood St

US 29

Mooty Bridge Rd

12 Lukken Industrial Blvd

US 29

US 27

13 Lukken Industrial Blvd (West Extension US 29

South LaGrange Loop

14 Lukken Industrial Blvd (East Extension)US 27

Davis Rd

15 Hammett Rd

I-185 Connector

Young's Mill Rd

16 Young's Mill Rd

Waugh Rd

Hammett Rd

17 South LaGrange Loop

SR 109

SR 219

18 North LaGrange Loop

SR 109

US 27

19 Davis Rd Realignment

US 27

Davis Rd

20 Waugh Rd Realignment

US 27

Waugh Rd

21 Mooty Bridge Rd

US 27

Wares Cross Rd

22 Orchard Hill Rd

Lukken Industrial Blvd SR 219

23 Tin Bridge Rd

Hammett Rd

US 29

24 Upper Big Springs Rd

Davis Rd

Knott Rd

25 Wares Cross Rd

SR 219

US 27

26 SR 18

I-85

3rd Ave

27 SR 54

US 29

Meriwether County

28 SR 109

US 29

Alabama

29 SR 109

US 27

Callaway Church Rd

30 SR 109

Callaway Church Rd

Meriwether County

31 SR 219

US 27

Davis Rd

32 SR 219

I-85

Bartley Rd

33 US 27

SR 219

Mooty Bridge Rd

34 US 27

SR 219

Auburn Ave

35 US 27

I-85

I-185

36 US 27

I-185

Old Chipley Rd

37 US 29

Upper Glass Springs Rd Old Vernon Rd

38 US 29

US 27

Vernon Rd

39 US 29

Young's Mill Rd

SR 54

176 Ragland St Extension

SR 109

US 29

0-2 0-2 0-5 0-3 0-2 0-2

0-3 0-3 0-2

33333333

3 25.00

3

3

3 9.00

3

3

3

10.00

3

3.00

3

3

6.00

3

3

333

17.00

3

3

333

17.00

3

333

33

18.00

3

3

33

13.00

3

3

33

14.00

3

3

33

13.00

3

3

33

13.00

3

3

33

14.00

3

3

33

14.00

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24.00

333

3 3 3 3 22.00

3

3

3 3 12.00

3

3

3 3 12.00

3

3

7.00

3

3

7.00

3

3.00

3

3

3

10.00

3

3

7.00

0.00

3

3

3

33

33

15.00 6.00 0.00

3

3333

3

17.00

3

3

3

3

3 14.00

3

3

3

8.00

0.00

333

3333

20.00

333

3

3

14.00

333

3

11.00

3

3333

33

20.00

3

3

3

8.00

3

333

3

15.00

333

3 3 3 18.00

0.00 0.00 0.54 0.27 0.55 0.77 0.47 1.36 0.71 0.21 1.00 0.91 0.93 1.42 0.46 3.98 1.05 1.19 0.98 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.38 0.18 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.57 0.93 0.62 0.60 0.27 0.74 1.25 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.58 0.64 0.59 0.61 0.94 1.01 0.56 0.83 0.72 1.16 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.94 2.68 1.26 1.32 0.62 0.72 0.48 0.78 0.70 1.05 1.46 2.13 0.81 3.69 0.00 3.69

0 0.00 25.00 0 3.50 12.50 0 4.00 14.00 0 3.00 6.00 0 5.50 11.50 1 9.00 26.00 1 8.50 25.50 0 3.00 21.00 0 8.00 21.00 1 9.00 23.00 0 0.00 13.00 0 0.00 13.00 0 3.00 17.00 0 0.00 14.00 0 0.00 24.00 0 0.00 22.00 0 0.00 12.00 0 0.00 12.00 0 5.50 12.50 0 7.50 14.50 0 4.50 7.50 0 5.50 15.50 0 3.00 10.00 1 5.50 5.50 0 4.50 19.50 0 4.50 10.50 1 9.00 9.00 0 6.50 23.50 0 10.00 24.00 0 6.50 14.50 0 7.50 7.50 0 11.00 31.00 2 7.50 21.50 1 4.00 15.00 0 5.50 25.50 0 14.00 22.00 3 9.50 24.50 0 0.00 18.00

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

103

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

The prioritization resulted in the following ranking of roadway improvements:

1. US 27 from SR 219 to Auburn Ave; 2. Davis Rd from SR 109 to SR 219; 3. Davis Rd from SR 109 to Hammett Rd; 4. US 29 from Upper Glass Springs Rd to Old Vernon Rd; 5. I-185 Connector from I-185 to US 27; 6. US 29 from Young's Mill Rd to SR 54; 7. South LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to SR 219; 8. SR 219 from US 27 to Davis Rd; 9. SR 109 from Callaway Church Rd to Meriwether County; 10. Lukken Industrial Blvd from US 29 to US 27; 11. North LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to US 27; 12. US 29 from US 27 to Vernon Rd; 13. US 27 from I-85 to I-185; 14. Gabbettville Rd from US 29 to Bartley Rd; 15. Greenwood St from US 29 to Mooty Bridge Rd; and, 16. SR 54 from US 29 to Gates Rd.

These projects represent the highest priority roadway investments. After presentation to the public and stakeholders three additional criteria were employed to rank improvements:

East-west connectivity; New alignments favored over widening existing roads through LaGrange; and, Minimize impact to existing development and communities.

These three criteria were developed to address concerns raised by the public and stakeholders that the existing prioritization criteria failed to fully recognize the benefits of new alignment capacity projects. Additionally, strong desire was voiced to remove as much through traffic as possible from LaGrange, while minimizing impacts to existing communities throughout the County. Table 10.1.4 shows the additional prioritization measures used for the refined project rankings.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

104

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Table 10.1.4 Additional Corridor Prioritization Measures

Recommended Project US 27 from SR 219 to Auburn Ave Davis Rd from SR 109 to SR 219 Davis Rd from SR 109 to Hammett Rd US 29 from Upper Glass Springs Rd to Old Vernon Rd I-185 Connector from I-185 to US 27 US 29 from Young's Mill Rd to SR 54 South LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to SR 219 SR 219 from US 27 to Davis Rd SR 109 from Callaway Church Rd to Meriwether County Lukken Industrial Blvd from US 29 to US 27 North LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to US 27 US 29 from US 27 to Vernon Rd US 27 from I-85 to I-185 Gabbettville Rd from US 29 to Bartley Rd Greenwood St from US 29 to Mooty Bridge Rd SR 54 from US 29 to Gates Rd

E-W Connectivity in LaGrange?

New Alignment?

3 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Minimize Impacts to
Existing Communities?
3 3
3
3
3

Projects that meet additional prioritization criteria received two points for each criteria. Based on the application of the additional prioritization criteria, the following project rankings were developed:
1. US 27 from SR 219 to Auburn Ave; 2. Davis Rd from SR 109 to US 27; 3. South LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to SR 219; 4. Davis Rd from SR 109 to Hammett Rd; 5. I-185 Connector from I-185 to US 27; 6. Lukken Industrial Blvd from US 29 to US 27; 7. North LaGrange Loop Rd from SR 109 to US 27; 8. US 29 from Upper Glass Springs Rd to Old Vernon Rd; 9. US 29 from Young's Mill Rd to SR 54; 10. SR 219 from US 27 to Davis Rd; 11. SR 109 from Callaway Church Rd to Meriwether County; 12. US 29 from US 27 to Vernon Rd; 13. US 27 from I-85 to I-185; 14. Gabbettville Rd from US 29 to Bartley Rd; 15. Greenwood St from US 29 to Mooty Bridge Rd; and,

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

105

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

16. SR 54 from US 29 to Gates Rd.

Corridors with higher points are considered to achieve more of the goals and objectives established for the LRTP. The points are not meant to be the final decision on whether a project should be implemented or not. Instead these rankings should be employed in conjunction with input from key technical staff from the County and GDOT; input from political decision makers; and, public comment. However, the total points, from the Qualitative and Quantitative scoring, could be used to establish a priority ranking.

10.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization

Criteria were established to evaluate the potential bicycle and pedestrian improvements based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the criteria established for the bicycle and pedestrian evaluation. These correspond to the established Goals and Objectives documented and project evaluation factors.

Is the project within a bicycle or pedestrian priority area (1-mile buffer around schools, parks & libraries)?
Did a bicycle or pedestrian related fatality occur in the proposed project area? Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing
or proposed projects or provide regional bicycle and pedestrian connectivity? Was the proposed project previously identified (STIP, RDC Bike/Ped Plan,
LaGrange Comp Plan, West Georgia Flyers)? Does the proposed project link to a major bicycle or pedestrian origin or destination?

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means for prioritizing projects. Table 10.2 documents the scoring used for the bicycle and pedestrian prioritization.

The prioritization scoring resulted in the following ranking of bicycle and pedestrian improvements:

1. N Davis Rd Sidewalks from US 29 to Hammett Rd; 2. Avenue K Sidewalk from 18th Street to 12th Street; 3. SR 109 Sidewalks from US 27 to LaGrange Mall; 4. Country Club Road Bike Lanes (Cameron Mill/Country Club/Broad/SR 219); and, 5. Hillcrest Rd / Hammett Rd Bike Lanes.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

106

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 10.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Bike Ped Priority Area Is the project within a bicycle or pedestrian priority area (1-mile buffer around schools, parks & libraries)? Fatality Did a bicycle or pedestrian related fatality occur in the proposed project area? Connectivity Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing or proposed projects or provide regional bicycle and pedestrian connectivity? Previously Identified Improvement Was the proposed project previously identified (STIP, RDC Bike/Ped Plan, LaGrange Comp Plan, West Georgia Flyers)? Origin & Destination Does the proposed project link to a major bicycle or pedestrian origin or destination?
# * 2 the number of projects or origins/destinations multiplied by 2

Possible Points No = 0 Partial = 5 Yes = 10 No = 0 Yes = 10
No = 0 Yes = 5
No = 0 Yes = # * 2
No = 0 Yes = # * 2

10.3 Intersection Prioritization
Criteria were established to evaluate the potential intersection improvements based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the criteria established for the intersection evaluation. These correspond to the established Goals and Objectives documented and project evaluation factors.
What is the AADT on the facility? How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2002 and 2004? Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City?
By comparing potential projects to these established criteria it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means of prioritizing projects. Table 10.3 documents the scoring used for the intersection prioritization.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

107

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 10.3 Intersection Prioritization

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
AADT What is the AADT on the facility?
Crashes How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2002 and 2004?
Fatality Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Previously Identified Improvement Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City?

Possible Points
> 15,000 = 5 15,000 - 10,000 = 4
10,000 - 5,000 = 2 < 5,000 = 0 > 30 = 10 30 - 20 = 5 20 - 10 = 2 <10 = 0 No = 0 Yes = 10 No = 0 Yes = 5

The prioritization scoring resulted in the following ranking of intersection improvements:

1. N Davis Road & Hogansville Road; 2. US 29 (Vernon Street) & Jefferson Street; 3. US 27 & US 29 (Commerce Avenue); 4. US 29 (Vernon Street) & S Greenwood Street; 5. US 27 & N Lafayette Square; 6. US 29 & Horace King Street; 7. US 29 & Broad Street; 8. US 29 & Forrest Avenue; 9. US 29 & Hartwell Avenue; 10. Davis Road & SR 109; 11. Broad Street & SR 219; and, 12. US 29 & SR 109.

10.4 Bridge Prioritization

Bridges with a sufficiency rating of 75 or lower were recommended for improvements. The sufficiency rating was also used to prioritize the bridges in need of rehabilitation or maintenance. The lower the sufficiency rating, the higher the improvement priority.

The prioritization scoring resulted in the following ranking of bridge improvements:

1. Greenville Street @ CSX Railroad; 2. Glenn Road @ Whitewater Creek; 3. Cannonville Road @ Long Cane Creek; 4. Hammett Road @ Yellow Jacket Creek Tributary; 5. Juniper Street @ CSX Railroad; 6. Salem-Chipley Road @ Turkey Creek Tributary; 7. Adams Road @ Big Branch;

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

108

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
8. Dallas Mill Road @ Big Springs Creek; 9. Salem-Chipley Road @ Turkey Creek; 10. Baughs Cross Road @ Mud Creek; 11. Mountville-Hogansville Road @ Flat Creek; 12. Stewart Road @ Long Cane Creek; 13. Finney Road @ Polecat Creek; 14. Hunt Road @ Mud Creek; 15. Mountville Hogansville Road @ Beech Creek; 16. Thompson Road @ Polecat Creek; 17. Young's Mill Road @ Beech Creek; 18. Salem Road @ Flat Shoals Creek; and, 19. SR 109 & CSX Railroad.

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

109

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

11.0 Funding

Several funding sources will be used to construct as many of the recommended projects as possible. This is usually controlled by the agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the roadway. Most major facilities in Troup County are either operated by GDOT or the County. Should the County desire to accelerate projects on state owned and maintained facilities, it is highly likely that local funds could accelerate the process.

Funding for most transportation projects in the County comes in part through GDOT. To understand the ability of GDOT to continue to provide funds to Troup County it is useful to understand the components of GDOT funding. Key components include:

Federal Title I Apportionments; State Motor Fuels Taxes; State License Tag Fees; State Title Registrations; State Motor Carrier Fuels Tax; State Personal Property Tax; and, Tax Allocation Districts.

} Accounts for approximately 98% of the budget

While detailed analysis of these funding sources is beyond the scope of this study, it is useful to point out that all of the revenue streams identified as key components of GDOT funding have positive growth rates historically and it is anticipated that they will continue to grow in the future.

While GDOT funding components have positive growth rates, the Department is experiencing some funding challenges. Construction costs have increased up to 65% over the past two to three years forcing the Department to continually assess which projects it can reasonable fund. It is anticipated that in the future local funding sources will become more significant. A review of project implementation shows that locations with a SPLOST have been in the best position to leverage funds and ultimately construct projects.

11.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation

A substantial portion of GDOT funding comes from the Federal Government through Federal Title I Apportionments. The primary funding source for Title I is the Federal gasoline tax collected at the state level. The U.S. Congress authorizes federal transportation funding to the states and other public entities generally every six years. The previous authorization was known as the "Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century" or TEA 21. The reauthorization of TEA 21 in August 2005 was the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU). SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005 through 2009

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

110

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Based on the reauthorization, Table 11.1 illustrates funding levels for major highway transportation programs and apportionments and allocations to Georgia over the five-year time frame (FY 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009).

Table 11.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations*

Area

Georgia

Interstate Maintenance

$922

National Highway System

$859

Surface Transportation System

$1,119

Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation

$272

Congress Mitigation & Air Quality

$186

Appalachian Development Highway System

$90

Recreational Trails

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$37

Safety

$141

Rail Highway Crossings

$30

Safe Route to Schools

$18

High Priority Projects

$350

Equity Bonus

$2,324

Total
* In millions of dollars (rounded to the nearest million) for FY 2005 through 2009. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

$6,356

U.S.
$25,202 $30,542 $32,550 $21,607
$8,609 $2,350
$370 $1,481 $5,064
$880 $612 $14,832 $40,896 $183,466

Federal funding for the majority of highway system improvements (excluding interstate highways) planned in Troup County is expected to come from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Minimum Guarantee Program. Locally-sponsored projects within the County will generally require a 20% local funding commitment to match federal funds. The local government is also generally responsible for completing the planning and design of the projects as well. Federal and state funds are programmed by GDOT for right of way and construction costs. State-sponsored projects generally require a 10%-20% local funding match.

As part of the federal apportionment and allocation, there are opportunities for local governments to collaborate with GDOT on special transportation projects. These programs include:

Scenic Byway Program GDOT has initiated a Scenic Byways Program to help communities preserve and promote the cultural and historic resources found along the roadways in Georgia. Once a road becomes designated as a Georgia Scenic Byway, it becomes eligible for federal Scenic Byway funds. Funds can be used to develop corridor management plans to protect the natural and cultural assets along the route.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

111

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA Funds) Currently, the TEA Grant Program provides federal transportation funds through GDOT to local governments through a competitive process for non-highway projects. Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, multi-use trails, the preservation of historic sites related to transportation, etc. In the past, TEA funds were approved for beautification and sidewalks in the Hogansville.
11.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation
The need for better mobility and access to transportation extends far beyond city limits. In Troup County, a very limited amount of public transportation services are available for people who cannot or choose not to drive their private autos. As the population grows and demographic trends change with a larger percentage of the population being elderly, the needs for special public transit to serve seniors and disabled people will grow.

In addition, as the study area urbanizes and households with workers are formed, there will be growing demands to serve commuter travel needs. Commuter-oriented public transportation services, such as vanpooling programs and express bus services as well as transit facilities, such as park and ride lots will be needed in the area. All of these programs are eligible for federal funding with the local share ranging from 10 percent for transit vehicle purchases and the construction of park and ride lots up to 50 percent for rural transit operating assistance.

As Troup County evolves, the County should monitor its needs for local and regional public transportation services and identify opportunities to tap into the available federal sources for these programs. Table 11.2 shows the estimated federal funds included in SAFETEALU. Generally, for public transit projects proposed in Troup County, the federal funding programs will be the Non-Urbanized Area Program; the Rural Transit Assistance Program; Transit for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Job Access and Reverse Commute; and SAFETEA's New Freedom Program.
Table 11.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation*

Area

Georgia

Urban Areas

$308

Fixed Guideway Motorization

$150

Non-Urbanized Areas

$62

Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)

$1

Job Access/Reverse Commute Program

$13

Elderly & Persons with Disabilities

$12

New Freedoms

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$9

State Planning

$2

Total

$567

* in millions of dollars (rounded to the nearest million) for the period from FY 2006 2009. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. $12,723 $6,076 $1,880
$29 $603 $490 $339 $343 $72 $22,598

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

112

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

11.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation
State funding for transportation projects in Georgia is derived from the following sources:
State tax on motor fuels (7.5 cents per gallon)(provides majority of revenue); State license tag fees; State title registrations; State motor carrier fuels tax; and, State personal property tax.
It is also useful to note that Georgia currently has one of the nation's lowest state motor fuels taxes, excluding sales taxes. Even when including the additional 4% sales tax, Georgia's motor fuel taxes are the third lowest in the U.S.
A major element of Georgia's Statewide Transportation Plan is the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP). The program is viewed as a priority funding program for GDOT. The GRIP program was started in 1989 through action by the Georgia Legislature. The program's goal is to connect 95% of the state's cities with a population of 2,500 or more to the Interstate Highway System.
One of the State's most important north-south GRIP corridors is US 27 which traverses the center of Troup County. The widening of US 27 from two lanes to four lanes is proceeding through northern Troup County. The construction of the southern portion for roadway widening is not yet funded.
11.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation
Local governments (cities and counties) receive revenues from a number of sources to support the public facilities and services they provide to citizens. These sources include federal and state funds, "own source" funds, such as property tax revenues and other monies, and discretionary grant funds from federal and/or state agencies.
Increasingly, counties in Georgia have enacted Special Purpose Local Option Taxes (SPLOST) to fund specifically identified capital projects. SPLOST taxes require voter approval and are time-limited. SPLOST funds can be used for transportation projects, including matching federal and/or state transportation funds. Cities and counties may also use Local Option Sales Taxes (LOST) for transportation purposes, including providing local matching funds for GDOT projects. Other local sources of transportation funding include impact fees or other exactions paid by developers according to local ordinances and the creation of self-taxing entities, such as Community Improvement Districts. In addition, counties in Georgia may issue general obligation bonds to support transportation capital projects.
County governments use a portion of their own revenues for transportation-related purposes, including capital projects, and operations and maintenance of transportation

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

113

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

facilities within their own jurisdiction. A key determinant of the ability to improve an area's transportation facilities is the availability of local funds to match state and/or federal transportation funds. Data on the County's expenditures for transportation were not available.

According to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the County's "own source" revenues, including revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, excise and special use taxes and service charges and fees were estimated. Own source revenues are relevant because a portion of these funds could be provided as local matching funds for federally and state-funded transportation improvements or for locally-funded projects, depending on the County's other funding priorities. Table 11.4 illustrates this data. In 2000, Troup County had per capita own source amounts less than the statewide average of $611.

Table 11.4 Own Source Revenues

County

1996 Own Source
Revenues

Troup County

$21.0 million

* Statewide per capita amount equals $ 611. Source: Georgia Department of Community Affairs

2000 Own Source
Revenues
$22.6 million

% Change from 1996
to 2000
7.6%

Per Capita Amount* $384

11.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Each year, GDOT develops its State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a listing of all projects and project phases anticipated to be funded with federal and state funds within the current three-year period. The STIP also contains "lump sum" projects for transportation activities that benefit more than one county jurisdiction, for example, roadway beautification projects.

In its 2005-2007 STIP, GDOT estimated that nearly $8 billion were allocated for various transportation functions throughout Georgia. Table 11.5.1 shows the allocation of these funds across major functional areas.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

114

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table 11.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2005 2007)

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Transportation Function New Construction Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Bridges Safety Maintenance Transportation Enhancement Transit Other Total

Amount Allocated $520,959,000 $2,590,212,000 $1,412,651,000 $755,482,000 $614,824,000 $400,721,000 $819,138,000 $854,522,000 $7,968,509,000

Percent of Total 6.5% 32.5% 17.7% 9.5% 7.7% 5.0% 10.3% 10.7%
100.0%

Additionally, GDOT develops its Construction Work Program (CWP), a listing of projects expected to be funded within a six-year period (current year plus five subsequent years). The fourth, fifth, and sixth years of the CWP are viewed as an expression of GDOT's intention to proceed with the projects as funding becomes available to develop the projects (complete engineering design, acquire right-of-way, if needed, and construct the improvement). These projects are documented in this Plan.
According to GDOT's latest STIP for Troup County, a total of 6 major projects have been programmed utilizing over $62 million in federal and state funds. Table 11.5.2 summarizes these programmed amounts.
Table 11.5.2 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Project/Phase I-85 Exit Ramps @ SR 18 West Point Pedestrian Enhancement Project SR 14/US 29 from Upper Glass Bridge to Old Vernon Rd US 27 from Auburn St to Morgan St Jefferson St @ CSX Railroad (LaGrange) SR 14/US 29 Left Turn Lane from Meadow Way Dr to Davis Rd TOTAL PROGRAMMED FUNDS

Total Funds Programmed
$2,196,000 $1,125,000 $13,415,000 $41,428,598 $2,206,227 $2,525,250 $62,896,075

11.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs
A combination of federal, state, local, and private funding sources should be pursued for individual projects to improve transportation facilities in the study area. These sources should be pursued depending on GDOT (state), regional and local investment priorities considering the safety, convenience, and economic benefits of the projects throughout the planning period.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

115

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

12.0 Conclusions

Growth in Troup County has resulted in increased travel demand. GDOT in conjunction with Troup County and the City of LaGrange initiated a study to develop a LRTP to serve the County through the planning horizon, 2035. Recommended projects were identified and selected according to all applicable rules and regulations with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.

HNTB coordinated with GDOT, County planning and engineering staff, cities within the County and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of study alternatives and the LRTP. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to ensure that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating planned improvements to the transportation network.

The end product for this study was a LRTP that provided for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Troup County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports.

This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for Troup County's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

116

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

APPENDIX

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-1

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

A - CMP Regulations

A-1 Level One Strategies

The first level includes actions that decrease the need for making the trip by vehicle. This can be accomplished through growth management and the development of activity centers, congestion pricing and also certain types of transportation demand management.

Growth Management / Activity Centers

Land use strategies seek to achieve concurrence between transportation infrastructure and land development. These strategies are often viewed as key to the success of any regional transportation plan, and should be analyzed at the regional scale. Land use strategies that can reduce the demand for SOV travel include locating residential or commercial development along transit corridors and mixed-use development. Mixed-use can be at a micro scale (i.e. individual building or parcel level), or at a macro scale. In addition, growth management practices and activity centers can even eliminate vehicular trips by matching trip productions with attractions at the same site, or by providing good pedestrian, transit and bicycle accessibility. Components of the Growth Management Plan could include:

Land use policies/regulations, including growth boundaries; Stricter design/zoning standards which promote this strategy (such as density
bonuses); Maintenance/development of a jobs/housing balance; and, Mixed-use developments, to include zoning classifications which allow and promote
mixed-use developments.

Typical keys to success include strong political support for growth management and the promotion of activity centers; good public information and outreach regarding the benefits of this strategy; an emphasis on providing good pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, internal transit circulation, and permitting mixed use/compact development.

Congestion Pricing

There has been limited practice of congestion pricing in the United States, but this strategy may be implemented more often pending the outcome of several demonstration projects that are underway. Congestion pricing is generally used to charge roadway users at a time-differentiated rate to discourage trips during congested periods. Elements of a congestion pricing scheme could include:

Road user fees; Parking fees; Graduated fares; Automated collection/billing systems; and, Subsidies for low-income commuters.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-2

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

This strategy can be very controversial and requires an extensive public education and outreach effort, as well as strong political support to follow through on implementation and enforcement. If parking fees are used to implement the road pricing, cooperation and coordination with parking agencies and private sector providers will be necessary.

Transportation Demand Management

Some transportation demand management strategies are effective at eliminating vehicle trips, including telecommuting and trip reduction ordinances. With improvements in communications and reasonably low costs, telecommuting is becoming more acceptable to both employers and employees. This trend is expected to continue, with such recent technological capabilities as computer-to-computer teleconferencing becoming more common and high speed internet connections available for residential properties. Trip reduction ordinances can be used to eliminate trips, especially through telecommuting.

Keys to success include, understanding private sector operations, getting employers to recognize benefits of telecommuting, quantifying lower operating costs for employers. Employee support is typically high, given the opportunity to work at home and reduce travel time and costs. Transportation Management Organizations can be effective in promoting telecommuting and other transportation demand management strategies.

A-2 Level Two Strategies

The second level includes actions which attempt to place the trips not addressed in Level One into transit or other non-auto modes. This can be accomplished through capital investments in public transit, public transit operational improvements, intelligent transportation systems, methods to encourage the use of non-traditional modes and certain types of transportation demand management.

Public Transit Capital Improvements

Transit capital improvements are designed to increase ridership on transit lines by improving transit infrastructure or vehicles. These strategies are generally implemented to address regional or corridor transportation system deficiencies. Potential improvements could include:

New rail lines, busways, or bus lanes (on exclusive right of way); Bus bypass ramps for preferential treatment of buses; Fleet expansion; Vehicle replacement/upgrades; Park-and-ride lots; New, expanded, or improved transit stations (intermodal facilities); Paratransit services; and, Increased transit security.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-3

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

The main key to success in implementing any of these strategies is a thorough study and understanding of the complicated issues which affect the use of non-automobile modes. It is also important to evaluate the entire trip, from origin to destination, when determining the appropriate strategy for shifting trips away from the personal vehicle. For example, land use densities affect the ability to provide competitive transit travel times at attractive costs. In turn, outside factors, such as parking costs, can determine what is considered an attractive cost for transit service. Good intermodal connections are crucial to providing competitive travel times. These transfers should be efficient and often require coordination between the various modes accessing intermodal facilities to minimize transfer times. It is also important to consider the pedestrian element of any trip to achieve the complete evaluation of the entire trip, from origin to destination. The convenience of alternatives is important, such as the proximity / access of transfer points and the reliability of the system. Finally, transit security should not be overlooked (as required originally by ISTEA) as an important factor which has a direct impact on travelers' decisions to use alternative modes of travel.

Public Transit Operational Improvements

Like capital improvements, operational improvements to the transit system can increase the demand for transit, which reduces the number of vehicles on the road. Operational improvements can be implemented on specific routes or within transit corridors, although regional operational improvements are commonly developed. Some strategies are:

Increases in service frequency; Longer operating hours and or/ more operating days; Improvements in service quality; Additional bus routes; Restructured or extended bus lines; Traffic signal preemption; Fare reductions; Improvement of coordination and transfers between systems and routes; Improved marketing of transit; and, Transit passenger information systems.

Several of the operational improvements may require a reallocation of resources to allow for increased service frequencies, hours of operation, additional routes, extensions of current routes, or even farebox reductions on routes. To ensure that the reallocation is justified, it is important to conduct studies to determine the impact on ridership and the financial implications of the changes. These studies should include the consideration and potential implementation of the keys to success identified for the various strategies.

As identified above, it is important for alternative modes to provide competitive travel times. One way to accomplish this is by providing preferential treatment to transit vehicles using traffic signal preemption. This strategy requires multi-agency coordination and support, as well as planning and impact studies required to build this support.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-4

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

One of the biggest keys to success for any of the improvement strategies is effectively communicating the benefits to the public. This can take place through marketing, using public and media education and outreach. Another tool is the use of transit information systems to better communicate the services provided and increase the convenience to the user.

Advanced Public Transportation Systems

Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) are a type of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), and include coordinated operational strategies implemented through technology. Intelligent bus stops and advanced mode choice systems can be used to provide up-to-date travel information to transit patrons.

As with any new technology, its effectiveness often hinges on public education and outreach to create user-friendly systems. To be effective, these information systems should provide data on multiple factors which affect the trip making decision. This typically requires multi-agency coordination to identify traffic conditions created by incidents, or just the current extent of congestion. Elements may include:

Travel Planning - Pre-trip multi-modal travel information and ride-matching services can help travelers determine their optimal mode choice, departure time, and route before their trips.
Traveler Information - Real-time information to guide travelers during trips includes advisory services (to warn of traffic or transit congestion or delays), route guidance systems, and traveler services information.

Non-Motorized Modes

In many areas, walking and bicycling are a viable alternative to vehicle use. In some cases, demand for these non-traditional modes can be increased by improving the transportation system to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. The scale of these measures ranges from a regional approach (i.e., land use strategies) to facilityspecific improvements (i.e., bicycle paths). Strategies that can be used include:

New pedestrian and bicycle facilities; Improved facilities (safety, aesthetic, or travel time improvements); and, Bicycle storage systems can be installed at transit terminals, on transit vehicles and
at work sites.

The keys to these types of improvements include adequate planning to ensure the facilities are effectively implemented within the overall land use plan and transportation system, and public education and outreach to ensure the implemented improvements are consistent with public desires. Often, multi-agency coordination is required to achieve the level of planning needed to fully integrate these strategies within the highway and transit systems.

Parking Management

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-5

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

One aspect of transportation demand management which is effective in shifting automobile travel to other modes is parking management. These strategies can include establishing maximum limits on the total number of spaces in a given area or for each employer, and increased parking charges (which may be reduced or eliminated for carpool/vanpool users).
This can be a very controversial subject and requires a thorough study of the full impacts and implications of alternative strategies. Public education and outreach are important to build consensus between property owners, businesses and employees. Multi-agency coordination is also required to implement, monitor and enforce the management strategies.
A-3 Level Three Strategies
The third level includes actions which attempt to place the trips not addressed in Levels One and Two into high occupancy vehicles (HOVs). This can be accomplished through various strategies which encourage HOV use and certain types of transportation demand management.
The key to success with HOV strategies is a holistic approach which considers how to aggregate HOV riders at the residential trip end, how to provide preferential treatment of the line-haul portion of the trip (in terms of time and/or cost savings), preferential treatment on the work trip end (i.e. parking availability, location and costs), as well as flexibility (i.e. guaranteed rides home). Thus, strategies in this level, if constructed into packages, will be more successful than if independently evaluated and implemented.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
High occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities are designed to increase person throughput by increasing vehicle occupancies on a facility or in a corridor. Even though most HOV measures are applied to specific facilities, strategies to support HOV use must occur throughout a transportation corridor to be effective. Measures to encourage HOV use include:
HOV lanes (lanes on a mixed flow roadway or a dedicated facility); HOV signal priority; HOV access priority (including queue bypasses at ramp meters, queue jump lanes
at arterial signals); HOV toll savings; Park-and-ride lots; Guaranteed ride home programs; and, Employer trip reduction ordinances.
The implementation of HOV lanes requires extensive planning on a regional level and at the corridor level. Multi-agency cooperation (i.e. local governments, the Department of Transportation) is typically beneficial. This helps to maximize the effectiveness of the

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-6

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

system, by coordinating with transit service and incorporating transit within the HOV system. Public education and marketing campaigns are also effective in building public acceptance and support for HOV travel.

Technical strategies to complement and support HOV travel, such as priority treatments and park-and-ride lots, should be based on sound engineering criteria, and should incorporate multi-agency cooperation.

Guaranteed ride home programs are effective at eliminating barriers to carpooling and can be very effective in the public's acceptance of ridesharing. An effective program needs public education and marketing of the services. As with any strategy that affects employees, high level employer support is very beneficial. Efficient and reliable administration of the program is also critical.

Employer trip reduction ordinances can be used to shift trips from SOVs to higher occupancy vehicles. It is important that the appropriate areas are covered by the ordinances and that flexibility is provided in the ordinance to accomplish the intended purposes. This strategy also requires ongoing oversight and enforcement.

Rideshare Matching Services

A transportation demand management strategy which is effective at shifting trips to higher occupancy vehicles includes providing ride share matching services. This strategy needs effective public education and marketing campaigns to stir interest. Rideshare matching services can be provided by existing agencies, or a new agency, such as a Transportation Management Organization. In addition, a common characteristic of successful ride sharing programs is high level employer support. This typically includes effective communication of the programs to employees as well as preferential treatment for ridesharers, such as special parking spaces and/or rates.

Vanpooling Programs

Another transportation demand management strategy which can be effective at shifting trips to higher occupancy vehicles is the provision of vanpooling programs. These programs are often linked to rideshare matching services, as they both require the same types of information, public education and marketing. As with rideshare matching, high level employer support is important for the program to be successful. This includes preferential treatment for vanpools, such as special parking spaces and/or rates. Vanpool programs typically require a seed agency to provide the initial financial support for the van purchase; however, they can be self supporting. One potential fatal flaw to avoid is to ensure there is adequate parking clearance for the vans -- many parking structures cannot accommodate larger vans.

A-4 Level Four Strategies

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-7

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Despite the best possible results from strategies in the first three levels, a significant portion of trips in the study area will likely remain via the automobile. Thus, the fourth level includes actions to optimize the existing highway system's operation for these residual automobile trips, whether HOV or SOV. This can be accomplished through traffic operational improvements and management, access management and intelligent transportation systems (ITS).

Traffic Operational Improvements

Improvements in traffic operations are designed to allow more effective management of the supply and use of existing roadway facilities. These improvements can increase effective capacity by optimizing traffic operations, especially in recurring congestion conditions. Although some of these strategies may involve the construction of additional lanes, this category encompasses improvements intended to help "optimize" existing capacity on the road system, as opposed to "adding" new capacity. Depending on the specific strategy, traffic operations improvements can be appropriate for a region, corridor, or specific facility. Some strategies can include:

Intersection geometric improvements, such as the construction of turning lanes to increase turning movement capacity, restriping, and channelization;
Intersection turn restrictions to eliminate conflicting movements; Traffic signal improvements, such as adjustments to signal timing and phasing, and
the installation and maintenance of actuated system components (i.e., loops and controllers); Traffic control centers, including coordinated signal systems on arterials, and regional control centers with communication systems to interconnected signal systems; Advanced traffic surveillance and control centers allow monitoring, dynamic updates to signal systems, and coordinated traffic signal control and can be used to support incident management and traveler information activities; Roadway widening, including auxiliary lanes, passing lanes, widened shoulders, and reversible lanes; and, Truck restrictions to increase roadway capacity.

The main key to success for each of these strategies is through engineering studies to identify the appropriate strategy, and the application of appropriate engineering criteria in the design of the improvements. Another important factor is adequate maintenance of traffic signals and loops to ensure the system operates efficiently. Some of these strategies, such as turn and truck restrictions, require public education and outreach.

Access Management

These strategies are designed to improve arterial flow by controlling access to and from arterial roadways. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has developed standards which govern road design and driveway connections. In general, these measures are appropriate for application in the study area. However, local governments

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-8

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

may wish to enforce more strict access management criteria through the site plan review process. Access management strategies can be used to plan for:

Driveway control (residential and business); Median control; and, Frontage roads.

According to GDOT, raised medians increase the capacity of the roadway, reduce accidents, lower congestion, provide pedestrian refuge and often save lives. They may also be landscaped to beautify corridors and may become focal points for community landscaping efforts.

Each of these strategies requires the appropriate application of accepted engineering criteria. For new developments, this access control can be implemented during the permitting process. Retrofitting existing roadways typically requires studies to identify the impact of proposed changes and the identification of alternate access opportunities. Public outreach and education can be beneficial when implementing access control, with special attention placed on property directly impacted.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) include coordinated operational strategies implemented through technology. These systems can be applied to many of the strategies described above, especially in the areas of traffic operations, transit operations, and incident management. In addition, ITS can be applied throughout a region, along a transportation corridor, or on a specific facility. Samples of ITS effectiveness in improving highway operations include:

Automated toll collection systems to eliminate congestion and delays at toll booths; Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), which may include:
o Travel Planning - Pre-trip multi-modal travel information and ride matching services can help travelers determine their optimal mode choice, departure time, and route before their trips;
o Traveler Information - Real-time information to guide travelers during trips includes advisory services (to warn of traffic or transit congestion or delays), route guidance systems, and traveler services information;
Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) include weigh station pre-clearance, automated safety inspections, on-board safety monitoring, and commercial fleet management; and,
Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (AVCS) are being researched to assess the viability of technology that could greatly enhance roadway capacity and safety, including systems for longitudinal collision avoidance, lateral collision avoidance, intersection crash warning and control, vision enhancement, impairment alert, and fully automated vehicles.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-9

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

One of the keys to success for implementing ITS strategies is the availability of affordable, proven technology. Public outreach and education are also important when implementing new technologies. Some ITS strategies, such as advanced traveler information systems and commercial vehicle operations require multi-agency coordination. GDOT has existing ITS infrastructure through Georgia Navigator that when ready, locals can interconnect to become part of the statewide system.

A-5 Level Five Strategies

The fifth level includes strategies to increase the capacity of the highway system by providing additional general purpose lanes.

Addition of General Purpose Lanes

General purpose lanes may be used by all vehicular traffic modes (i.e., SOVs, HOVs, transit, and trucks). The addition of general purpose lanes may include the addition of lanes to an existing facility or the construction of a new facility. These infrastructure improvements may be the best approach to congestion management in some cases, as long as appropriate elements of the other strategies are incorporated into the design and operation of the new or expanded facility. It should also be noted that several measures that would increase the number of general purpose lane miles are also identified under traffic operational improvements (Level Four). The improvements in that section generally refer to smaller scale additions (i.e., turn lanes) or those for specific purposes (i.e., passing lanes).

B - Corridor Improvement Strategy Screening

With such an extensive list of potential strategies identified and documented in Section A, it is desirable to perform an initial screening to determine which strategies are applicable for deficient corridors in Troup County. This screening analysis will be followed by a more detailed corridor evaluation of strategies.

This section presents a list of questions that have been identified for each strategy to determine which strategies could possibly be appropriate for a given application in Troup County. Generally, each question does not require an affirmative answer to justify additional analysis; however, the more affirmative answers to multiple questions usually indicate a higher likelihood of application.

The screening questions are presented in the same five tiered hierarchy presented in the previous section. Unless otherwise noted, affirmative answers to the screening questions imply the strategy is potentially applicable. While it is not required to consider the strategies in order (i.e. beginning with Level One, then Two, Three, Four and finally Five), this progression will ensure all reasonable strategies are considered. Specific answers to each of the screening questions are not required. They are to serve only as a guide to assist in the identification of potentially effective strategies.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-10

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

B-1 Level One Strategies

The first level includes actions that decrease the need for making the trip, such as growth management, the development of activity centers, congestion pricing and also certain types of transportation demand management. Table B-1 summarizes the screening questions for this first tier of strategies. Many questions are related to existing and future development levels, as well as existing travel characteristics. Level One Strategies which may be appropriate for Troup County include various growth management / activity center strategies and telecommuting.

Table B-1 Level One Strategy Screen

Screening Questions
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ACTIVITY CENTERS
Land Use Policies/ Regulations 1. Is significant land available for development? 2. Is projected population and/or employment growth high? 3. Are there areas designated for redevelopment or growth? 4. Is the SOV share for work trips high? 5. Is the transit share for work trips low? 6. Does the area pass the transit enhancement / expansion criteria? 7. Will alternative travel modes be available within the area? Development Standards 1. Is commercial office space being developed? 2. Are there pending building permits?
Locations of Jobs and Housing 1. Is there a large imbalance between jobs and housing? 2. Are there areas designated for redevelopment or growth? CONGESTION PRICING
Road User Fees 1. Are there corridors with a V/C ratio with at least 70% lane miles >
1.1? 2. Is answer to question 1 still affirmative if congestion pricing is
excluded on the corridor? 3. Is a limited access facility available? 4. Are alternative travel modes available? 5. Will revenues be used for transportation improvement projects? 6. Are tolls in the area politically acceptable? Parking Fees 1. Are there primarily commercial or retail land uses in congested
areas? 2. Are alternative travel modes available? TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Telecommuting 1. Is the type of employment at activity center/downtown suitable for
telecommuting? 2. Is public agency participation likely?

Result
Strategy is applicable Much of the County is currently undeveloped. It is anticipated that significant commercial, industrial and residential development will occur through the horizon year of the study.
Strategy is applicable Development efforts should include design standards to maintain the character of the County. Strategy is applicable New residential and commercial development is anticipated.
Strategy is not applicable Road user fees cannot be implemented
Strategy is not applicable Development densities will not support parking costs.
Strategy is applicable

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-11

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions Trip Reduction Ordinances 1. See Employee Trip Reduction Ordinances strategies in Level

Result
Strategy is not applicable Employment densities are not high enough to support trip reduction ordinances

B-2 Level Two Strategies
The second level includes actions which attempt to place the trips not addressed in Level One into transit or other non-auto modes. This level of strategies includes capital investments in public transit, public transit operational improvements, intelligent transportation systems, methods to encourage the use of non-traditional modes and certain types of transportation demand management. Table B-2 summarizes the screening questions for this second tier of strategies. Many of these questions relate to development densities, existing transit service and use, travel times and the availability of modal choices.
Level Two Strategies which may be appropriate for Troup County include: further development of transit services, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Table B-2 Level Two Strategy Screen

Screening Questions
PUBLIC TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Exclusive Right of Way (Rapid Rail) 1. Are there areas with net residential density 12 dwelling units
(d.u.)/acre, or alternatively, is the gross population density 8,600/square mile? 2. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have 50 million square feet of non-residential floor space? 3. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have 70,000 employees? 4. Does the major employment area (downtown, activity center) have an employment density 15,000/square mile? Exclusive Right Of Way (Commuter Rail) 1. Are there areas with net residential density 1 d.u./acre, or alternatively, is the gross population density 350/square mile? 2. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have 75 million square feet of non-residential floor space? 3. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have 150,000 employees? 4. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have an employment density 15,000/square mile?

Result
Strategy is not applicable Population and employment density is not sufficient for this strategy.
Strategy is not applicable The population and employment density is not sufficient for this strategy.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-12

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions

Exclusive Right Of Way (Busways)

1. Are there areas with net residential density 3 d.u./acre, or

alternatively, is the gross population density 1,900/square mile?

2. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have

20 million square feet of non-residential floor space?

3. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have

42,000 employees?

4. Do the major employment areas (downtown, activity center) have

an employment density 10,000/square mile?

5. Are there corridors with a V/C 0.80 with headways of 4 minutes

or less in the peak hour?

Exclusive Right Of Way (Bus Lanes)

1. Are there corridors containing 8 scheduled buses in the peak

hour?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then do any of these corridors

have peak hour auto volumes 2,000 vehicles per lane?

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, then do any of these corridors

meet the following threshold:

qb



qa X N -1

where qA and qB are hourly volumes of autos and buses,
respectively; N is the total number of lanes per direction; and X is

the ratio of average auto to bus occupancies?

Bus Bypass Ramps

1. Do corridors pass the exclusive ROW busway screen?

2. Do corridors have any exclusive busway sections? If yes, then go

to question 5.

3. Do corridors have any HOV lane sections? If yes, are there 15 or

more buses scheduled on any of these sections in the peak hour?

4. Do corridors pass the HOV lane screen?

5. Do corridors have any freeway sections with V/C 0.80 and 15 or

more buses scheduled in the peak hour?

Fleet Expansion

1. Does the area pass the service enhancement/expansion screen

identified later in this table?

Transit Park and Ride Facilities 1. Does transit service exist? 2. Is there at least one express bus with a one-way trip length 8
miles? 3. Is the HOV mode share > 15% for work trips? 4. Is there rapid rail, light rail or commuter rail service? 5. Do any corridors pass the HOV lane, rapid rail, light rail, commuter
rail or exclusive ROW busway screens? Other Intermodal Facilities 1. Is there any location where there is not an existing intermodal
facility and at least two of the following modes converge: rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, express bus, intercity bus, intercity rail or local bus?

Result Strategy is not applicable The population and employment density is not sufficient for this strategy.
Strategy is not applicable Fixed route bus service is not currently provided in the County nor are future services anticipated.
Strategy is not applicable.
Strategy is not applicable Fixed route transit service is not currently provided through the County. Strategy is applicable Moderate number of trips to employment centers outside of County strategy must be supported with implementation of van pools or express transit.
Strategy is not applicable No intermodal facilities

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-13

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions Paratransit Services 1. Are there any areas not currently served by paratransit? 2. Are requests for paratransit being denied because of capacity
restrictions?
Increased Transit Security 1. Has the number of crimes related to transit service, or security-
related complaints received by the transit agency increased in each of the last two years? PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Service Enhancement/Service Expansion 1. Are there any routes for which the peak hour load factor > 0.8? 2. Is the population density of any zone or census tract >
3,150/square mile or the percentage of low income residents > 20%? Traffic Signal Preemption 1. Does the area have transit service? 2. Are there any routes for which the peak hour load factor > 0.8? 3. Is the frequency of service for any of those routes > 6/hr? Fare Reductions 1. Is transit mode split for work trips > 2%? 2. Is the average population density in zones adjacent to these routes > 1,575/square mile or the percentage of poor in these zones > 10%? Transit Coordination 1. Are there 2 transit agencies/operators providing service? 2. If yes, are fare payment methods or the transit schedules coordinated? (Negative answer implies potential application.) 3. Are there 4 possible transfers within the area? Transit Marketing 1. Is there at least one activity center with > 500 employees accessible by transit? 2. Is difference in travel time between competing modes < 30%? 3. Can the transit system handle more patrons? ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Intelligent Bus Stops 1. Is the average population density in any of the zones within 0.25
miles of the route > 1,575/square mile or percentage of poor in these zones > 10%? 2. If yes, is the load factor on any route < 0.8? Advanced Mode Choice System 1. Is the difference in travel time between transit & other competing modes < 30%? 2. If yes, do more than 40% of the links on any route have peak hour V/C 0.8? ENCOURAGE THE USE OF NON-MOTORIZED MODES

Result Strategy is applicable As development continues to occur within the County this strategy could become a stronger option and public comment suggests that on demand transit is currently insufficient. Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is applicable Should focus on provision of vanpools or express transit to select locations. Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is not applicable Multiple transit service providers do not exist.
Strategy is applicable This effort would focus on park and ride lots and vanpooling.
Strategy is not applicable Currently no fixed route transit service.
Strategy is not applicable

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-14

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions Bicycle Facilities 1. Are there any jurisdictions with a bicycle plan? 2. Are at least 15% of the work trips < 5 miles or 10 minutes in
length? 3. Is there any rail or express bus service? 4. Are there areas with net residential density 4.5 d.u./acre, or
alternatively, is the gross population density 3,150/square mile? 5. Are there areas with employment density 4,000/square mile? 6. Does the area have a college campus? Bicycle Storage Systems 1. Are there any exclusive ROW bicycle facilities? 2. Does the area pass the bicycle facilities screen? 3. Is the bicycle mode share 0.5% for work trips? Pedestrian Facilities 1. Are there any rail or fixed-route bus services? 2. Are there areas with net residential density 4.5 d.u./acre, or
alternatively, is the gross population density 3,150/square mile? 3. Are there areas with employment density 4,000/square mile?
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Parking Management 1. Is there any kind of transit service? 2. Are there any HOV lanes or does the area pass the HOV lane
screen? 3. Are there any park-and-ride lots or does the area pass either the
HOV or transit park-and-ride lot screen?

Result Strategy is applicable Planning documents and public comment indicate that nonmotorized transportation is a key issue for residents throughout the County. Priority should be placed on areas within one mile of pedestrian activity centers.
Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is applicable Adequate pedestrian facilities should be provided linking neighborhoods and other key origins and destinations. Priority should be placed on areas within the one-mile buffers of pedestrian activity centers.
Strategy is not applicable

B-3 Level Three Strategies
The third level includes actions which attempt to place the trips into high occupancy vehicles (HOV) and includes various strategies which encourage HOV use and certain types of transportation demand management. Table B-3 summarizes the screening questions for this third tier of strategies. Most of these questions relate to existing travel characteristics.
Level Three Strategies which may be appropriate for Troup County include: transportation demand management strategies.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-15

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table B-3 Level Three Strategy Screen

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions
ENCOURAGE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE USE
HOV Lanes 1. Are lane additions planned or under consideration for any freeway
segments that already have three or more mixed-flow lanes in one direction? 2. Are there any freeway segments of at least three miles with 70% of lane miles congested (V/C > 0.9)? 3. Are there any arterial segments of at least two miles with 70% of lane miles congested (V/C > 0.9)? 4. Are there 10 or more buses scheduled in the peak hour for a single facility? 5. Is there employment of 20,000 or more in the chief activity center? 6. Is the HOV mode share > 15% for work trips? 7. Does the area contain freeway, expressway, or rural principal arterial facilities that connect a residential area to an employment center? HOV Ramp Bypass Lanes 1. Does the area pass the HOV lane screen? 2. Does the area contain other HOV incentives, such as HOV lanes or HOV toll discounts? 3. Is there ramp-metering? HOV Toll Savings 1. Does the area have a toll facility? 2. Is the HOV mode share > 15% for work trips?
HOV Park and Ride Lots 1. Does the area pass the HOV lane screen? 2. Does the area contain other HOV incentives, such as HOV lanes or
HOV toll discounts? 3. If park and ride lots exist, is utilization > 50%?
Guaranteed Ride Home Programs 1. Does the area pass the HOV lane screen? 2. Does the area contain other HOV incentives, such as HOV lanes or
HOV toll discounts? 3. Are rideshare matching services available or recommended below? Employer Trip Reduction Ordinances 1. Are there areas already subject to an employer trip reduction
ordinance? 2. Do 20% or more of employees work for employers of 100 or more
on-site employees? 3. Is the drive alone mode share 60% for work trips? 4. Is the transit mode share 2% for work trips?
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Ride Share Matching Services 1. Does the area pass the parking management screen? 2. Are at least 60% of the work trips 9 miles?

Result
Strategy is not applicable Existing and planned roadway system does not support HOV operations.
Strategy is not applicable No HOV facilities available in the County.
Strategy is not applicable No toll facilities in the County.
Strategy is applicable While the County is not currently conducive for HOV facilities, park and ride lots could benefit users traveling to and from employment centers and making use of carpools and vanpools. Strategy is applicable With the recommendations for vanpooling and ride matching services, this strategy becomes necessary. Strategy is not applicable Existing employment characteristics do not support this strategy.
Strategy is applicable Long work commutes to Atlanta and Columbus could benefit from ride matching.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-16

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions
Vanpooling Programs 1. Does the area pass the parking management screen? 2. Do 20% or more of employees work for employers of 100 or more
on-site employees? 3. Are at least 60% of the work trips 9 miles?

Result
Strategy is applicable Long work commutes and a growing older driver population makes vanpooling a strong strategy to address transportation needs.

B-4 Level Four Strategies
The fourth level includes actions to optimize the existing highway system's operation for automobile trips, whether HOV or SOV, and includes traffic operational improvements and management, access management and intelligent transportation systems. Table B-4 summarizes the screening questions for this fourth tier of strategies. Many of these questions relate to existing traffic characteristics.
Level Four Strategies which may be appropriate for Troup County include: various traffic operational improvements, truck restrictions, access management and ITS applications.
Table B-4 Level Four Strategy Screen

Screening Questions
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection Improvements 1. Are deficiencies isolated on specific facilities? 2. Is the left turn volume on any shared left/through lane > 100
vehicles per hour? 3. Is the left turn volume on any single left turn lane > 300 vehicles per
hour? 4. Is the right turn volume on any shared right/through lane > 300
vehicles per hour? Channelization 1. Is right turn volumes at intersections > 500 vehicles per hour? 2. Is there adjacent signalized intersection within 300 feet? 3. Is the intersection skewed by < 75 degrees? 4. Does a designated truck route turn at the intersection? 5. Is there a history of accidents due to wrong-way movements? Intersection Turn Restrictions 1. Are deficiencies isolated on specific facilities? 2. Can intersections be widened? 3. Can restricted movements (usually a left turn) be accomplished
using other routes? 4. Is there significant conflicts between pedestrians and turning
vehicles?

Result
Strategy is applicable Several intersections were identified as needing enhancements through both the public involvement process and study working groups.
Strategy is applicable Channelization could improve intersection operations and safety.
Strategy is applicable Some land uses along key corridors have multiple access/egress points turn restrictions would reduce conflict points.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-17

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions One-Way Pairs 1. Is parallel facility available within one or two blocks? 2. Are sufficient number of cross streets available to permit traffic
circulation?
Signalization Improvements (including maintenance) 1. Are deficiencies isolated on specific facilities? 2. Have the signal timings been updated within the last five years?
(Negative answer implies potential application.) 3. Is the signal inspected regularly? (Negative answer implies
potential application.) 4. Is the left turn volume on any single left turn lane without signal
protection > 100 vehicles per hour? 5. Does a field inspection, or capacity analysis, identify a need for re-
timing? Traffic Control Centers 1. Is the geographic scale of the deficiency either regional or corridor? 2. Are incidents a major cause of congestion? 3. Are alternate routes available within deficient corridors? 4. Do "special events" (i.e. sports events, concerts, etc.) regularly
create congestion? Computerized Signal Systems 1. On major arterials, are all signals within one half mile of adjacent
signals interconnected? (Negative answer implies potential application.) 2. Have the timing patterns for existing system been reevaluated within the last five years? (Negative answer implies potential application.) Traffic Surveillance & Control Systems 1. Does one or more facilities experience significant congestion due to incidents, such as accidents? 2. Is ramp metering used, or is planned to be implemented? 3. Are congestion patterns irregular? Geometric Enhancements 1. Are through lane widths < 12 feet? 2. Does the area have multiple driveway connections on sections where the speed limit is > 45 mph? 3. Does a capacity analysis show a need for additional through lanes? 4. Is the congestion localized between two or three adjacent intersections? Truck Restrictions 1. Are through lane widths < 12 feet? 2. Is the percentage of trucks during the peak hours > 10%? 3. Is there an acceptable alternate truck route available? 4. Do trucks block travel lanes when they load/unload?
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Driveway Control 1. Does the facility have multiple driveway connections on sections
where the speed limit is > 45 mph? 2. Do accident reports reflect a high incidence of rear end and/or right
angle collisions near driveways?

Result Strategy is not applicable Implementation would increase travel speeds in areas with significant pedestrian activity. Strategy is applicable Signal operations were a major concerned identified through the public involvement process.
Strategy is not applicable No ATMS/ITS system in place or recommended.
Strategy is applicable Signal coordination would greatly enhance the performance of the corridors.
Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is applicable Future capacity deficiencies show the need for additional travel lanes.
Strategy is applicable Several heavy vehicle trip generators exist in the County. Future development will dictate the need to consider limiting truck travel within the County.
Strategy is applicable The roadways should generally conform to GDOT access management standards.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-18

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions Median Control 1. Does the area have facilities with more than two lanes, with a speed
limit > 45 mph, and no median? 2. Are existing median openings spaced < mile apart? 3. Do accident reports reflect a high incidence of right angle collisions
near driveways?
Frontage Roads 1. Does the facility have multiple driveway connections on sections
where the speed limit is > 45 mph? 2. Do accident reports reflect a high incidence of rear end and/or right
angle collisions near driveways? 3. Is it desirable to convert an existing facility from no, or limited,
access control to full access control? 4. Is adequate right of way available for constructing the frontage
roads? INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Automated Toll Collection 1. Are deficient facilities currently tolled? 2. Is the number of tollbooths sufficient to service the demand without
creating long queues? (Negative answer implies potential application.) 3. Is the percentage of trucks during the peak hours > 10%? Advanced Traveler Information Systems 1. Are there alternative modes of travel available in the region? 2. Does the region experience a high level of congestion? 3. Are there alternative routes available? Commercial Vehicle Operations 1. Does the area include a truck weigh station? 2. Are hazardous materials prohibited on congested facilities? Advanced Vehicle Control Systems 1. This strategy is currently unavailable for implementation.

Result Strategy is applicable The roadway should generally conform to GDOT access management standards. This strategy is strongly recommended for facilities with limited right of way, insufficient capacity and high numbers of mid-block turning crashes. Strategy is applicable County and GDOT looking for alternatives to I-85 during incident travel periods.
Strategy is not applicable No toll facilities in the County.
Strategy is not applicable No ITS capabilities
Strategy is not applicable
Strategy is not applicable

B-5 Level Five Strategies
The fifth level includes strategies to increase the capacity of the highway system by providing additional general purpose lanes. Table B-5 summarizes the screening questions for this tier of strategies. These questions are largely based on volume to capacity ratios, with a check for other planned improvements that may address the deficiency. Based on this screen, adding general purpose lanes to a corridor is an appropriate strategy.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-19

Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Report
Table B-5 Level Five Strategy Screen

Technical Memorandum November 2006

Screening Questions
ADDITION OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES
Freeway lanes 1. Are there any freeway segments 3 miles with at least 70% of
lane miles congested (V/C > 0.9)? 2. Are there are any new freeways or freeway lane additions in
approved regional transportation plans? Arterial lanes 1. Are there any arterial segments 2 miles with at least 70% of
lane miles congested (V/C > 0.9)? 2. Are there are any new arterials or arterial lane additions in
approved regional transportation plans?

Results
Strategy is not applicable The interstate system is not included as part of this study.
Strategy is applicable Existing and future capacity deficiencies show the need for additional lanes.

Troup County Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-20