Interchange Analysis Report I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Bryan County Georgia Prepared for: Office of Planning October 2008 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1 FHWA Policy Compliance................................................................................................................................. 1 Policy 1: Existing Facilities..................................................................................................................1 Policy 2: Transportation Management System.................................................................................2 Policy 3: Operational Analysis............................................................................................................2 Policy 4: Access Connections & Design...........................................................................................3 Policy 5: Transportation Plans ...........................................................................................................3 Policy 6: Comprehensive Interstate Network Study .......................................................................4 Policy 7: Coordination with Transportation System Improvements............................................4 Policy 8: Status of Planning and NEPA............................................................................................4 Recommendations Based on FHWA Policies................................................................................................. 5 Overall Study Findings & Recommendations................................................................................................. 5 1. INTERCHANGE PURPOSE, NEED, AND JUSTIFICATION ...............................6 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Description.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose, Need, & Justification .......................................................................................................................... 6 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS.................................7 Forecast of Future Traffic Volume................................................................................................................... 7 Traffic Analysis Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Analysis Scenarios.............................................................................................................................................. 14 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ........................ 15 Study Area Overview......................................................................................................................................... 15 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Planned Transportation Improvements......................................................................................................... 18 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS .................................................................... 20 Freeway Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 20 Merge/Diverge Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 21 Intersection Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Crash Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 24 October 2008 i Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 5. DESIGN YEAR 2032 ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 25 Freeway Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 25 Merge/Diverge Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 26 Intersection Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Needs for All Scenarios .................................................................................................................................... 30 Needs for "With Requested Interchange" Scenario..................................................................................... 31 Needs for "Without Requested Interchange" Scenario............................................................................... 31 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ......................................................................... 34 7. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 35 Implications of the Requested Interchange................................................................................................... 35 Improvements Needed without the Requested Interchange...................................................................... 35 Conclusions & Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix A FHWA and GDOT Policies on IMR's and IJR's Appendix B - Meeting Notes and Correspondences Appendix C Traffic Flow Diagrams Appendix D Alternative Intersection Designs October 2008 ii Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Figure 2-2: Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2: Figure 3-3: Figure 4-1: Figure 5-1: Figure 5-2: Historic Traffic Volumes and Growth Rates........................................................................8 Potential Development Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones..............................................10 Location Map.........................................................................................................................16 Interchange Spacing...............................................................................................................17 Existing Lane Configurations & Traffic Control ..............................................................19 Existing Improvements Recommended ............................................................................23 Design Yr 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Improvements..............................32 Design Yr 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Improvements ...................................33 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Daily Traffic Generation for TerraPointe Site...........................................................................9 Table 2-2: Traffic Generation and Distribution of New Trips by Sub-area ..........................................11 Table 2-3: Matrix of Trip Origins and Destinations...................................................................................12 Table 4-1: Existing Freeway Conditions .....................................................................................................20 Table 4-2: Existing Merge/Diverge Conditions.........................................................................................21 Table 5-1: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Freeway Conditions ...............................................25 Table 5-2: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Freeway Conditions .....................................................25 Table 5-3: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Merge/Diverge Conditions ..................................26 Table 5-4: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Merge/Diverge Conditions ........................................27 Table 5-5: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Intersection Conditions.........................................28 Table 5-6: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Intersection Conditions .............................................29 October 2008 iii Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Interchange Analysis Report (IAR) is to analyze and document the need, or lack thereof, for a new interchange at Belfast Siding Road located in Bryan County, Georgia (see pg 16 for map of study area). In accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidance on the installation of new access points, the IAR examines operations at the requested interchange location, as well as the adjacent interchanges upstream and downstream of the requested access break at Belfast Siding Road. The study area, which is centered on the Belfast Siding Road corridor, extends from north of SR 144 to south of US 84 along I-95 and encompasses the surrounding region, as shown in Figure 3-1 (pg 16). The requested interchange is located approximately 4.6 miles south of the US 17 interchange and 6.4 miles north of the US 84 interchange. In addition to analyzing the operations at the requested Belfast Siding Road interchange, this IAR examined conditions along I-95 as well as at other intersections within the vicinity of this requested interchange. This analysis utilized the current FHWA policies regarding breaks in access along the freeway system to determine if a new interchange is justified. FHWA Policy Compliance FHWA has issued a series of policies regarding the installation of new access points on the Interstate System, published in the Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 28 (pages 7045-7047), dated February 11, 1998 (Doc. 98-3460). GDOT endorses these FHWA policies and has instituted a policy, titled "Responsibility and Procedures for Interchange Justification Reports (IJR's) and Interchange Modification Reports (IMR's) for Interstate and Non-Interstate Limited Access Facilities," which compliments the requirements and procedures set forth by FHWA. Both FHWA and GDOT policies, detailed in Appendix B, are intended to protect the capacity and safety of travel along the Interstate System by maintaining its limited access functionality. Compliance with these policies ensures that appropriate alternatives to providing new Interstate access points are considered prior to granting an additional access point. Although this report is not considered an IJR because of the lack of justification for the requested interchange, it adheres to the analysis requirements set forth by FHWA and GDOT, which are used when developing an IJR. The need for a new break in access along I-95 between US 17 and US 84 at Belfast Siding Road was examined in relation to the eight policy requirements of the Federal Register and included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests. The following presents an examination of the findings and how they relate to these eight criteria. In order for an interchange to be recommended, all eight criteria must be met. Policy 1: Existing Facilities "The existing interchange and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal." Policy 1 is not satisfied by the requested interchange. October 2008 1 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Based on traffic data and analyses documented in this IAR, the adjacent existing interchanges immediately north and south of the requested interchange at Belfast Siding Road can provide the necessary access to satisfactorily accommodate the Design Year (2032) traffic demands. Adequate traffic operations can be achieved for Design Year (2032) via a combination of GDOT's currently programmed projects and newly identified transportation improvements. The implementation of the recommended improvements, described on pages 30 and 31, which could be performed in conjunction with the programmed widening of I-95 (PI # 511025), will satisfy the interstate access needs for the currently identified (as of 2007) planned development in southern Bryan County. Therefore, Policy 1 is not satisfied by the requested interchange at I-95 at Belfast Siding Road. Policy 2: Transportation Management System "All reasonable alternatives for design options, location, and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified." Policy 2 is satisfied by the requested interchange. Currently, no transportation system management type improvements such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities have been identified in the vicinity of the requested access break at Belfast-Siding Road. Since there are no system-wide plans for these improvements, they are not considered as viable options to serve the traffic intended by the requested interchange. Policy 3: Operational Analysis "The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on each side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with the new or revised access points." Policy 3 is satisfied by the requested interchange. According to analysis of existing and future traffic, the requested interchange will not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operations of the freeway facility and the supporting road network. Though the requested new access is anticipated to add or concentrate traffic in some areas, mitigation treatments are feasible and can reduce the potential for any safety hazards induced as a result of this proposal. An analysis of existing peak hour traffic conditions was performed to determine the level of service (LOS) at the study intersections. LOS for an intersection is based on vehicular delay at the intersection and is a typical measure of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection operations. The Highway Capacity Manual provides ranges of delay for each LOS definition, spanning from very minimal delays (LOS A) to high delays (LOS F). LOS F is considered unacceptable for most drivers. For the purpose of this study, Level-of-service "C" (LOS C) and above is considered to be adequate peak hour traffic conditions. Levels-of-Service "D," "E," and "F" were considered to be inadequate peak hour conditions. For some cases, in which financial and environmental concerns prevent the attainment of LOS "C" or better conditions, LOS "D" can be considered adequate. October 2008 2 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Although the existing freeway analysis indicates that the segment of I-95 north of SR 144 currently operates at LOS F and the segment of I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 operates at LOS D for both peak periods, planned improvements, such as the widening of I-95 from 6 to 8 lanes (PI # 511025), will mitigate this capacity issue for future years. Existing conditions analyses show that the section of I-95 north of SR 144 experiences poor operations during the AM (northbound) and PM (southbound) peak periods. However, with the programmed widening of I-95, the Design Year (2032) freeway analysis indicates that I-95 will provide adequate capacity to sustain the anticipated traffic flow and density. Similarly, the merge/diverge analysis identified existing operational problems that were mitigated with the planned widening of I-95. For existing conditions, several of the merge/diverge sections surrounding the interchanges of I-95 at SR 144 and US 17 operate at LOS E or F. With planned improvements to I-95, all merge/diverge sections are anticipated to operate adequately for the Design Year (2032). Improvements to several intersections within the study area will be necessary to serve the anticipated peak hour traffic flows and are, thereby, recommended to be programmed. Intersection modifications, described on pages 30 and 31 will improve operations at the intersections of SR 144 at I-95 NB; US 17 at I-95 NB; and US 17 at SR 196. Additional improvements (also described on pages 30 and 31), including widening of US 17 from Belfast Siding Road through the US 17 at I-95 interchange (also described on page 30 and 31) would be needed to provide adequate operations. Policy 4: Access Connections & Design "The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System." Policy 4 is satisfied by the requested interchange. The requested access is a diamond interchange, which will provide for all traffic movements, thereby satisfying Policy 4. The lane configurations and traffic control requested for the new access and adjacent intersections are described on pages 30 and 31 Policy 5: Transportation Plans "The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to the final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93." Policy 5 is satisfied by the requested interchange. The proposal is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. The requested interchange is a key item in the Bryan County transportation planning efforts and is one of the proposed recommendations of the Draft 2007 Bryan County Transportation Plan, developed by Bryan County. October 2008 3 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Policy 6: Comprehensive Interstate Network Study "In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long-term plan." Policy 6 is satisfied by the requested interchange. No new future interchanges in the vicinity of the requested access have been discussed nor have they been identified through any state, regional or local planning process. Policy 7: Coordination with Transportation System Improvements "The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements." Policy 7 is satisfied by the requested interchange. The need for the access, within the study area, is driven by the TerraPointe Belfast Siding Master Plan (2007), indicating development along Belfast Siding Road. This plan, which includes over 10 thousand residential units, 3 million SF of office/retail space and 3 million SF of industrial property has been considered in the analysis. In addition to the TerraPointe site, 21 other developments, covering over 7 thousand acres in southern Bryan County that were not included in the Belfast Siding Master Plan have been considered for traffic generation. The interchange is consistent with and supportive of the planned development efforts. However, as indicated in Policy number 1, existing roads and interchanges could be improved to provide and negate the need for a new interchange along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road. Policy 8: Status of Planning and NEPA "The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal." Policy 8 is satisfied by the requested interchange. An initial GIS-based examination of the existing Belfast Siding Road crossing of I-95 suggests that the current roadway alignment is not impacted by wetlands. If the interchange were to be constructed, various alternatives with differing alignments would need to be considered. Each of these alternatives would need to be analyzed for potential impacts on wetlands. Additionally, a review of the National Register of Historic Places showed that no historic resources were located within the vicinity of the requested interchange. Since the interchange was not justified through the traffic analyses performed, no further study was conducted at this time. October 2008 4 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Recommendations Based on FHWA Policies This IAR indicates that FHWA Policy 1 is not satisfied since the adjacent interchanges can be improved to provide the access intended by the requested interchange. The requested access does not meet this essential criterion (Policy 1), which relates to upgrading the current infrastructure prior to building new infrastructure. According to FHWA policy, all criteria must be met for a requested interchange to be justified. Therefore, the request for a new access break along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road is not recommended to be forwarded to FHWA for consideration and approval. Overall Study Findings & Recommendations Through the traffic analysis performed for this study, it was determined that a new interchange at Belfast-Siding Road is not warranted. The requested new interchange would not preclude the need for improvements to the interchanges along I-95 at SR 144 and US 17. The analysis contained in this IAR establishes that improvements made to the interchanges and roadways in the vicinity of Belfast-Siding Road could accommodate anticipated traffic in the Year 2032, without the requested access break. Though improvements are necessary to support Design Year (2032) traffic conditions, a majority of these improvements are necessary whether or not an interchange is constructed at Belfast Siding Road. According to the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21, used to determine arterial capacity needs, the section of US 17 from west of I-95 to Belfast Siding Road will require widening to adequately serve projected traffic volumes. Additionally, various intersection improvements, described on pages 30 and 31, will be required to obtain adequate LOS throughout the study area. In addition to the improvements recommended for the future system with or without the requested interchange, a few scenario-specific improvements are necessary. For future conditions with the requested interchange, a right turn lane is needed from US 17 northbound onto Belfast Siding Road to accommodate traffic accessing the requested interchange. Belfast Siding Road would also need to be widened to four lanes from US 17 to I-95 to provide capacity for traffic flowing to and from the requested interchange. For Design Year (2032) traffic conditions without the requested interchange, the following additional improvements are needed: SR 144 at US 17 Add a westbound left turn lane on SR 144; Add southbound left turn lane on US 17. US 17 at I-95 Ramps Add one westbound left turn on US 17 the I-95 SB Ramps; The results of the traffic analyses show that the Design Year (2032) traffic can be accommodated with improvements to the existing transportation network surrounding the requested Belfast Siding Road corridor, most of which would be required with or without the requested new access break along I-95. Therefore, it is recommended that the interchange not be built. Instead, the "Without Requested Interchange" improvements, illustrated in Figure 5-1 (page 32) and described on page 30 and 31, are recommended to accommodate future travel demand within the area and facilitate flow to and from the interstate. October 2008 5 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 1. INTERCHANGE PURPOSE, NEED, AND JUSTIFICATION Introduction The intent of this Interchange Analysis Report (IAR) is to analyze and document the need, or lack thereof, for a new interchange on I-95 between US 17 (Coastal Highway) and US 84 (East Oglethorpe Highway), located in Bryan County, Georgia. In accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidance, the Interchange Analysis Report examines operations at the requested interchange location, as well as adjacent interchanges upstream and downstream. Work performed through the course of study was coordinated with GDOT Office of Planning and Bryan County. Project Description The requested break in access analyzed along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road is located between the existing US 17 (Coastal Highway) interchange to the north and the US 84 (East Oglethorpe Highway) to the south, in Bryan County, Georgia. Purpose, Need, & Justification The purpose of this Interchange Analysis Report is to document the analysis of the need for or lack thereof and implications of a new interchange on I-95 between US 17 and US 84 in accordance with FHWA and GDOT guidance (detailed in Appendix A). The analysis indicates that the adjacent interchanges just north and south of the Belfast Siding Rd overpass can be improved to satisfy the need for enhanced I-95 access. Therefore, the construction of a new interchange is not justified. The need for the improved I-95 access is driven by Bryan County's plan for development along Belfast Siding Road, which is described in chapter 2 of this IAR. This planned development has been considered in the analysis, along with other development planned in southern Bryan County. Providing access to these areas without impeding the I-95 at US 17 interchange is necessary to allow the US 17 corridor provide effective access to I-95 for those who currently rely on this road, as well as new development. The requested interchange along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road is consistent with and supportive of the anticipated growth in southern Bryan County, including the proposed development at TerraPointe, as well as additional development not yet formally documented by a DRI request. However, as indicated in Section 5 of this report, existing roads and interchanges could be improved to provide the necessary freeway access. Further, many of these improvements will be needed with or without the requested interchange. Since the existing I-95 access points can be modified to provide the access intended by the requested Belfast Siding interchange, justification for the interchange is not provided, based on FHWA and GDOT Policy Guidance. October 2008 6 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS FHWA has issued a series of policies regarding the installation of new access points on the Interstate System, published in the Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 28, dated February 11, 1998 (Doc. 98-3460). This series of policies, described in Appendix A, is intended to protect the capacity and safety of travel along the Interstate System by maintaining its limited access functionality. Compliance with these policies ensures that appropriate alternatives to providing new Interstate access points are considered prior to granting an additional access point. In this manner, the additional access location must be justified to allow it to be considered for implementation. The need for a new break in access along I-95 between US 17 and US 84 was examined in relation to the eight policy requirements listed in the Federal Register and included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests. This section describes the approach to estimating the future growth in the study area, as well as, southern Bryan County. It includes the calculation of development-generated traffic, assignment of traffic to the roadway network, and discusses information provided by Bryan County suggesting the inclusion of increased growth assumptions. This section also describes the traffic analysis tools and methods used to evaluate the potential interchange location, as well as the adjacent interchanges, intersections and freeway sections. Forecast of Future Traffic Volumes The IAR includes analysis of future year conditions to determine the need and justification for a new interchange along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road. Based on discussions with Bryan County, the potential interchange, if warranted, could potentially be constructed as soon as year 2012. Therefore, year 2012 was used as the "open to traffic year" and 2032 was designated as the "design year" for analysis. The steps used in forecasting future traffic volumes for use in the Interchange Analysis Report analysis are shown below. Step 1 Examine Existing Traffic Volume and Growth Trends The first step in developing future year traffic forecasts was to examine existing traffic volumes and trends in traffic growth. GDOT traffic count stations in southern Bryan County were examined to determine area growth trends. Figure 2-1 shows traffic volumes for year 1996, 2001, and 2005 along with five and ten year growth rates. Step 2 Determine Future Year Traffic Growth The five year growth trend along I-95 (2.8% per year) was used to establish a growth rate for external to external travel along the freeway through year 2012. Following this time, the 22 planned developments will be in place, resulting in additional internal and external trips. The trips generated by these sites were explicitly accounted for in future analysis. Therefore, a reduced growth rate (1.4%) was assumed for years 2012 through 2032 to avoid double counting of this growth. Along the non-interstate segments, the future year growth rates were estimated in a different manner. The average of the five and ten year growth rates along non-freeway roads in Bryan County was used to determine a background growth rate of 1.7% per year for application through year 2032. October 2008 7 N W E S 2005: 12,600 2001: 13,500 1996: 9,900 5 year (%): -1.3 10 year (%): 3.0 2005: 70,700 2000: 66,100 1996: 50,700 5 year (%): 3.0 10 year (%): 4.6 2005: 60,100 2001: 54,700 1996: 41,800 5 year (%): 3.8 10 year (%): 5.2 2005: 22,800 2001: 23,000 1996: 17,600 5 year (%): -4.1 10 year (%): 0.7 2005: 6500 2001: 6,600 1996: 4,300 5 year (%): -0.8 10 year (%): 4.2 2005: 10,200 2001: 10,100 1996: 6,000 5 year (%): -0.4 10 year (%): 3.7 2005: 18,940 2001: 12,400 1996: 10,500 5 year (%): 13.1 10 year (%): 7.2 2005: 44,800 2001: 43,200 1996: 30,400 5 year (%): 1.5 10 year (%): 3.8 2005: 2,020 2001: 900 1996: n/a 5 year (%): 27.3 10 year (%): n/a 2005: 8,100 2001: 8,200 1996: 6,300 5 year (%): 0.4 10 year (%): 1.7 2005: 5,400 2001: 6,000 1996: 5,300 5 year (%): -2.8 10 year (%): 1.0 2005: 2,500 2001: 2,700 1996: 1,800 5 year (%): -1.6 10 year (%): 2.9 LEGEND 2005: 8,100 2001: 7,800 1996: 5,600 Daily Traffic Volume from GDOT Count Station 5 year (%): 0.4 10 year (%): 2.4 5 and 10 year Trend Growth Rate per year October 2008 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 8 Office of Planning Figure 2-1 Historic Traffic Volumes and Growth Rates Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia The anticipated new development associated with 22 planned development sites was determined through discussions with Bryan County in Spring of 2007. The potential development areas and traffic analysis zones are shown in Figure 2-2 (page 10). This figure shows the relative size and location of the 22 planned developments along with traffic analysis zones, used for aggregating anticipated traffic for assignment to the roadway network. The trips anticipated by the planned developments were determined using Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the standard resource used nationally for determining trip generation based on proposed development size and land use type. Table 2-1, below, shows the overall trip generation for the TerraPointe Development at Belfast Siding Road, while Table 2-2 (pg 11) shows the overall trip generation for the other 21 development sites. As shown in Table 2-1, the characterization of this site as a mixed use development calls for the reduction in trips by a percentage specified by Trip Generation, 7th Edition. This reduction is due to the fact that some of the trips will occur between complementary land uses within the site, thereby not adding additional trips to the surrounding roadway network. An example would be a trip from the planned residential units to a retail establishment within the site. Land Use Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential School Office Retail Industrial Total Table 2-1: Daily Traffic Generation for TerraPointe Site Quantity 4,271 6,460 75 1,050 2,100 3,721 Units units units acres ksq. ft. ksq. ft. ksq. ft. Daily Trip Rate 7.7 6.0 13.8 7.8 23.4 4.8 Total Daily Trips 32,887 38,975 1,034 8,156 49,134 17,708 147,894 Mixed Use Reduction Percent Trips 8% 2,586 7% 2,586 25% 258 5% 436 35% 17,258 9% 1,543 17% 24,668 Net with Reduction 30,301 36,389 775 7,720 31,876 16,165 123,226 Step 3 Distribute and Assign Future Year Growth to the Roadway Network The next step was to determine how much traffic would be present in southern Bryan County in opening year 2012 and future year 2032. This includes traffic due to 22 major developments, approved by Bryan County (explicitly evaluated to determine traffic generation). This also includes traffic volumes at smaller developments, those with existing compatible zoning, and large developments to be approved in the future (reflected in the assumed 1.7% background growth rates indicated in Step 2). October 2008 9 Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Grove P Chevis Rd rail Rd Ha r r s Loop Fl ming Cir Rd US Highway 17 H il l Potential Development StateRoute144 Areas and Traffic AnalysRid s Zones Fort Stewart Military Reservation e 16 1 H aym an 17 Shaw Rd Ford Ave Cedar St 6 White Oak Ln Ocean Hwy Richmond Hill oint Rd CHATHAM Tranquilla Hill R d is T Port Royal Rd 22 15 Charlies Rd Warnell Dr Cartertown Rd Hog Island Rd Mill Run Rd Pate Rogers Rd Leroy Coffer Hwy Freedman Grove Rd BRY1A2 N 14 5 Fort Mcallister Rd Bryan Neck Rd lig Pro man Trl Warren Hill 1 Belfast Siding Rd 0 2 20 t Keller Rd B B e Tr l ,4,7, 10 21 1 8 ,11 Ocean Hwy St i Interstate 95 SB Se Leroy Luke Rd Limerick Rd Baker Rd Limerick Rd 1stJerico Dr River Rd abroo k Island Dr Magnolia Dr W First St Number SUBMITTAL 1 Shadow Moss 2 Brigham Lakes / The Mulberry Co. M3 idway Demeries Lake Martin Rd 4 Chastain Park (2 Ph.) 5 PalmUSBHiaghyw/ayP8a4lmetto Point Developers 6 Saddlebrook / Charlie Stafford Zoning Acres Lots PUD 87 72 R-1 63 58 AR 2.5 gh4t R0d 19 PIUsleDOf W 59 60 R-1 24 23 R-1 19 22 E 1 st St Bodaford Rd 3 5 Sayle Ln 19 Jerico Trl Buck land Hall Dr 9 6 2 H arden Rd 4 Jake Brown Trl Kilkenny Rd Star Creek Rd State Route 144 Belle Island Rd e Dr 7 8 9 10 11 Baconton R Wellington Oaks, Clarktown Road R-30 Buckhead Lakes / Palmetto Point Developers R-1 d The Bluffs at Richmond Hill Sanctuary US Highway 84 R-1 R-1 Sandy Springs Cottages / N Buckhead PUD 24 41 200 274 265 145 42 33 6 59 3,13 Bryan Neck Rd 12 River Marsh Marina, KillKenny Road R-3 23 180 13 14 SmileyMHoalldReDdrenmCerarifetsHCormeeeks,TSrCpaayucCtrr e ek Rd 144 AR-1 5 22 A-5 42 42 Sunbury Rd Morgan Rd S unday Rd 15 1O6ak 17 Creek Rd 18 19 20 21 E B Coope2r H2wy McCallister Row Townhomes Cartertown Ext. Daniel Siding Development Genesis Point Genesis Point II Terrapointe Property Residential Development Town Home Development R-1 A-5 A-5 PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD 6 24 494 300 494 300 2200 2946 3000 4200 3300 298 143 LIBERTYBlack Islands Hwy Trade Hill Rd J Don Ln Ft Morris Rd Erni Interstate 95 NB er Dr Fra Source: Bryan County, March 2007 Land Use Meeting zi Riceboro 0 0.5 1 2 3 Peter King Rd 4 Miles River Dr Deloach Rd Blount Ln La ke side D r Faye Dr Alice Dr e lfas h Lincoln Trl Jessup Rd Redbird Creek Trl Oak Level Rd Felt Dr Savannah Vernonburg D iamond Cswy R o se Dhu Island Dr Shipyard Rd Savage Island Rd am Trl Cotto n 18 12 Ossabaw Island WMA S End Rd H ell Hol e Rd S Beach Rd ule Ru M n Rd Ferguson Ave Whitfield Ave Bradley Rd Regional Inset EMANUEL CANDLER SCREVEN BULLOCH EFFINGHAM TOOMBS TATTNALL EVANS BRYAN COUNTY APPLING LONG LIBERTY CHATHAM BACON PIERCE WAYNE MCINTOSH GLYNN Figure 2-2 Legend Bryan County Zoning and TAZ Bryan County TAZ Road Network Interstate Ramp Major Road Other Road Other Layers Potential Development Areas Future Commercial / Retail Nodes Bryan County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, Bryan County, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. October 2008 10 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Table 2-2: Traffic Generation and Distribution of New Trips by Sub-area No. Submittal Residential Lots Trip Rate Trips Generated Gross Mixed Use Net with Reduction Reduction US 17 Corridor west of I-95 16 Cartertown Ext 300 9.5 2,857 n/a 2,857 17 Daniel Siding SR 144 north of Fort McCallister Road 300 9.5 2,857 n/a 2,857 14 Modern Craft 42 11.1 468 15 McCallister Row 24 11.7 280 22 Town Home 143 10.1 1,445 West of SR 144 between Belfast Keller Rd (north) and Belfast Keller Rd (south) n/a 468 n/a 280 n/a 1,445 1 Shadow Moss 72 10.7 769 10% 692 4 Chastain Park 60 10.8 650 10% 585 7 Wellington Oaks, Clarktown 41 11.2 458 10% 412 8 Buckhead Lakes / Palmetto Point 274 9.6 2,628 10% 2,365 11 Sandy Springs / N Buckhead 21 Town home SR 144 south of Oak Level Road 59 10.8 298 9.5 640 10% 576 2839 10% 2,555 2 Brigham Lakes / Mulberry Co 3 Demeries Lake 5 Palm Bay / Palmetto Point 6 Saddlebrook 58 10.9 19 11.9 23 11.7 22 11.7 630 n/a 630 226 n/a 226 269 n/a 269 258 n/a 258 9 The Bluffs 145 10.1 1,464 n/a 1,464 13 Demeries Creek 22 11.7 258 n/a 258 Oak Level Road East of SR 144 10 Sanctuary 33 11.4 375 n/a 375 12 River Marsh Marina 180 9.9 1,786 10% 1,607 18 Genesis Point 2946 7.9 23,369 10% 21,032 19 Genesis Point 2 4200 7.7 32,384 10% 29,146 Source: Bryan County, March 2007 Land Use Meeting Bryan County lies south of the Chatham Urban Transportation Study (CUTS) boundary and is not included in the MPO's travel demand model. Therefore, a manual assignment method was used to apply future growth to the roadway network. The traffic analysis zones indicated in Figure 2-2 (pg 10) were used to group developments within similar geographic areas. Travel time was used for the creation of travel impedance in this study. Travel time between each pair of TAZs was calculated based on the speed and distance between the pair of TAZs. The TransCAD gravity model program used the trip generation and trip impedance for trip distribution, resulting in the trip origindestination (OD) matrix shown in Table 2-3 (pg 12). As indicated above, calculation of 2030 external trips was based on the 2007 ADT with the estimation of annual growth rate 2.8% from year 2007 to 2012 and 1.4% from year 2012 to 2030. October 2008 11 I-95 at Belfast Siding IJR Byran County, Georgia Table 2-3: Matrix of Trip Origins and Destinations for Proposed Developments in Southern Bryan County TAZ 1 - Developments 16 and 17 2 - Development 20 west of I-95 3 - Developments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 21 4 - Developments 3, 10, 12, 18, and 19 5 - Developments 14, 15, and 22 6 - Richmond Hill 7 - External Zone - US 17 west of I-95 8 - External Zone - I-95 south of Belfast Siding Rd 9 - External Zone - SR 144 North of I-95 10 - External Zone - I-95 North of Richmond Hill 11 - External Zone - US 17 North of Richmond Hill 12 - Development 20 east of I-95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 253 101 17 0 540 733 13 176 221 264 539 253 0 270 446 12 0 0 400 0 358 358 1,115 101 270 836 6,451 189 479 279 40 183 265 607 8,942 17 446 6,451 2,484 38 2,075 793 665 408 740 849 16,793 0 12 189 38 0 229 126 37 40 61 90 276 540 0 479 2,075 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,772 733 0 279 793 126 0 0 0 197 1,160 57 4,739 13 400 40 665 37 0 0 0 987 44,603 120 2,325 176 0 183 408 40 0 197 987 0 6,316 1,737 2,817 221 358 265 740 61 0 1,160 44,603 6,316 0 0 1,848 264 358 607 849 90 0 57 120 1,737 0 0 1,988 539 1,115 8,942 16,793 276 4,772 4,739 2,325 2,817 1,848 1,988 6,043 Total TerraPointe Development 3,212 Traffic Productions West of I-95 Total TerraPointe Development 52,209 Traffic Productions East of I-95 Total TerraPointe Development Traffic Productions (note: productions are half of overall trip generation) 55,421 Total TerraPointe Development Traffic Remaining in Southern Bryan County 40,588 Total TerraPointe Development Traffic Leaving Southern Bryan County 14,833 October 2008 12 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia The traffic noted in Table 2-3 represents travel to/from the 22 planned development sites in southern Bryan County that were identified through coordination with Bryan County in Spring 2007. This volume was added to the roadway network on top of the assumed background growth rates, as explained on page 7. Thus, the traffic generated in the origin-destination matrix reflects new trips from the 22 developments explicitly examined. In addition, the background growth rate reflects any new trips from development not included in the 22 indicated sites. The traffic was assigned to the roadway network and is shown on the traffic flow diagrams provided in Appendix C. Consideration of Additional Traffic Generation Proposed by Bryan County In a coordination meeting with Bryan County in August 2007, the County indicated that the trip generation rates assumed for the development may be low. TerraPointe indicated that the site may serve as an inland port with substantially higher truck trip generation than was reflected in the traffic estimates. In addition, they indicated that additional planned developments, above and beyond the development identified in March 2007, may need to be included in the analysis. At the request of Bryan County, the study paused to allow the County and TerraPointe to provide additional data for input to the study. In December 2007, additional information was provided by Bryan County which included 8 additional DRI locations, served by freeway access outside the study area, additional trips assumed to be generated from the 22 planned developments included in the Interchange Analysis Report, and trip generation due to assumed currently undocumented build-out of 23,000 acres of land at 1.4 units per acre. The information transmittal, shown in Appendix B, indicated that the County agreed that additional truck traffic would not need to be applied to the proposed development and that the use of ITE Land use Code 110 Light Industrial would satisfactorily address industrial trip generation. The growth assumed in the December 2007 growth projections provided by King Engineers on behalf of Bryan County was addressed in GDOT's February 5, 2008 letter (see Appendix B). This letter indicated GDOT's concern that the growth in traffic estimated by King Engineering was unrealistically high. The growth assumption provided by King Engineers resulted in 458,000 new daily trips due to development. The 458,000 new daily trips estimated by King Engineering would equate to 45% of the 1,015,000 daily trips assumed in all of Chatham County for year 2030, which is a larger urbanized area. Therefore, GDOT decided to use the traffic generation presented in the August 2007 meeting which reflects 286,000 new daily trips, which exceeds the documented development in order to account for potential growth beyond what is currently planned. The background growth assumptions included in the IAR analysis represent an additional 92,000 vehicles per day in southern Bryan County (see Study Area map, page 16) along with the 194,000 vehicles per day for the 22 planned developments. Thus, the Interchange Analysis Report analysis assumes a total of 286,000 vehicles per day over current traffic volumes (this includes background growth rates equivalent to the Bryan County recommendations assuming a buildout of 29% of the unspecified development area identified by Bryan County). Therefore, development of 23,000 acres of unspecified development was included in the Interchange Analysis Report analysis in the form of assumed growth in background traffic. October 2008 13 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Traffic Analysis Tools Per FHWA and GDOT policy, various analysis methods were utilized to examine existing and future traffic conditions in the study area. The interstate and associated ramps were analyzed using freeway analysis and merge/diverge analysis methods. Intersection capacity analyses were performed on the arterial intersections within the study area. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 was used to determine the LOS and vehicle density along the freeway sections subject to this Interchange Analysis Report. The following criteria were used: Base free-flow speed of 70 miles per hour (mph); Peak hour factor of 0.90; Grade set as "level" (short grades of 2% or less); and, Heavy vehicle percentage of 25%. HCS+ also provided the LOS and vehicle density for merge and diverge points along I-95 in the vicinity of Belfast-Siding Road. The criteria used in the merge/diverge analyses included: Ramp free-flow speed of 35 mph; Peak hour factor of 0.90; Heavy vehicle percentage of 25%; and, "Level" freeway setting for I-95 and 3% grade for the ramps. Intersection level performance was measured using Synchro 7.0 analysis software. Using existing peak hour factors, lane configurations and traffic control, the software was used to determine the peak hour LOS and vehicular delay at the study intersections. For the purpose of analysis, signal timings were assumed to be optimized, and signalized intersections spaced less than approximately 1,000 feet apart were assumed to have coordinated timings. Analysis Scenarios The analysis scenarios performed for each type of analysis described above include the following: Existing Conditions; Year 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Conditions; and Year 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Conditions. Analyses showed that several locations require improvements to operate at adequate Levels of Service (LOS). Mitigation analyses were performed, where necessary, for each scenario, under each type of analysis, to indicate improvements necessary to provide satisfactory operations. October 2008 14 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Before performing traffic analyses, it is important to gain an understanding of the physical and operational characteristics of the existing transportation network and the surrounding region. To provide insight on the operations and potential needs, an inventory of existing facilities was performed. To supplement this existing conditions information and provide an understanding of the future transportation network, project information was gathered on GDOT's planned transportation improvements within the study area. Study Area Overview The study area, which is centered on the Belfast-Siding Road corridor, extends from north of SR 144 to south of US 84 along I-95 and encompasses the surrounding region, as shown in Figure 3-1 (page 16). The requested interchange is located approximately 4.6 miles south of the US 17 interchange and 6.4 miles north of the US 84 interchange. The minimum spacing requirements set forth in FHWA's and GDOT's policies on new or revised access points states at least two miles between interchanges in rural and suburban areas, which is met by the requested interchange (see Appendix A). Figure 3-2 (page 17) illustrates the interchange spacing within the study area. Several large developments, including TerraPointe and Genesis Point, planned within the study area will have a significant impact on the transportation system. These planned developments as well as the potential for unplanned development has been considered in the growth analysis. The study area includes the southern portion of Bryan County and portions of the surrounding counties where necessary for traffic analysis. In general, the borders of Bryan County served as the boundaries for the study area due to the limited access caused by the surrounding bays. These bodies of water that serve as the northeastern and southwestern boundaries of the county restrict traffic to a few limited points. Therefore, most of the traffic generated in this eastern portion of the county must travel through the intersections within the study area to access the interstate. For this reason, all of Bryan County east of I-95, as well as portions of Liberty and Chatham Counties, was included in the study area for existing and future trip generation purposes. In order to meet current FHWA and GDOT guidelines, the study must include analysis of adjacent interchanges. For this reason, the study area extends beyond Bryan County, southwards to the interchange of I-95 at US 84 in Liberty County. The study also includes several non-interchange intersections along US 17. In order to analyze the impacts of the requested new interchange on the existing network, the study area includes three existing interchanges at SR 144, US 17 and US 84 as well as additional key intersections within the study area. For analysis purposes, 12 intersections were identified and studied for capacity and traffic flow levels of service. The 12 intersections, detailed on page 18 and shown in Figures 3-2, 4-1, 5-1 and 5-2 (pg 19, 23, 32 and 33, respectively), include interchange and non-interchange intersections, as well as future intersections at Belfast Siding Road and I-95 requested for the "With Requested Interchange" alternative. October 2008 15 Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Cartertown Rd US Highway 17 Study Area Fort Stewart Military Reservation State Route 144 Ford Ave Wh i te Oak Ln Richmond Hill n t Rd CHATHAM Gro ve Poi Felt Dr Savannah Vernonburg Rose Dhu Island Dr hipya S rd Rd Fleming Cir Rd s Trail Rd Har Shaw Rd ri Tranquilla Hill R d Port Royal Rd Warnell Dr Leroy Coffer Hwy Freedman Grove Rd Luke Rd Midway US Highway 84 Martin Rd ie Dr E Baconton Rd Smiley Hall Rd Ocean Hwy 1 St Interstate 95 SB Limerick Rd st S eabrook Island Dr W First St Isle O f Wight Rd E 1s t St US Highway 84 Cay Cre ek Rd i Proma n Trl Warren Hill 1 ding R B fas t Sayle Ln Jake Brown Trl BRYAN 0 Keller Rd Bel Bl ge Trl elfast Si d Bodaford Rd Bryan Neck Rd Fort Mcallister Rd Oak Level Rd Harden Rd Star Creek Rd Kilkenny Rd Sunbury Rd rn Interstate 95 NB Morgan Rd E B Cooper Hwy Riceboro 0 0.5 1 Interstate Paper Rd 2 3 Peter King Rd 4 Miles LIBERTY Islands Hwy J Don Ln Ft Morris Rd River Dr Deloach Rd Lake side Dr Faye Dr Alice Dr Lincoln Trl Jessup Rd Redbird Cr ek Trl Cottonham Trl e Ossabaw Island WMA ule R Hell H ole R d M un Rd S End Rd Bradley Rd Regional Inset EMANUEL CANDLER SCREVEN BULLOCH EFFINGHAM TOOMBS TATTNALL EVANS BRYAN COUNTY APPLING LONG LIBERTY CHATHAM BACON PIERCE WAYNE MCINTOSH GLYNN Figure 3-1 Legend Study Interchanges Study Interchanges Road Network Interstate Interchange Ramps State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Study Area Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. October 2008 16 Exit 94 4.1 mi . Proposed Interchange 4.6 mi 2.3 mi . . Exit 90 Exit 87 6.4 mi . NOTE: Average Spacing with new interchange = 4.33 mi. Exit 76 8.6 mi. October 2008 Exit 67 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 17 Office of Planning Figure 3-2: Interchange Spacing Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Interchange and Roadway Network Inventory To determine the impacts of the requested interchange at Belfast Siding Road, the roadway network surrounding this location and the adjacent interchanges was analyzed. The following list details the intersections and interchanges that would be impacted by such an improvement. The lane configurations and traffic control for these existing intersections and interchanges within the study area are shown in Figure 3-3 (page 19). (1), SR 144 at I-95 SB ramps; (2), SR 144 at I-95 NB ramps; (3), SR 144 at US 17; (4), US 17 at I-95 SB ramps; (5), US 17 at I-95 NB ramps; (6), US 17 at Belfast Siding Rd; (7), US 17 at SR 196; (8), US 17 at US 84; (9), US 84 at I-95 SB ramps; (10), US 84 at I-95 NB ramps; (11) Belfast Siding Road at I-95 SB ramps (future "With Requested Interchange" analysis); (12) Belfast Siding Road at I-95 NB ramps; (future "With Requested Interchange" analysis). Traffic Volumes Weekday peak period and daily traffic volumes were collected at the study intersections and along roadways within the study area in March 2007. The weekday peak hour volumes and ADT turning movement volumes at the existing study intersections are shown in Appendix C. These volumes were used to evaluate existing traffic conditions in and around the requested interchange vicinity. They were also used to develop the Design Year (Year 2032) traffic volumes. Planned Transportation Improvements There is one transportation improvement project programmed by GDOT in the vicinity of the study area that will have an impact on traffic operations and have implications on the overall findings and recommendations related to the requested new access break. This project is the programmed widening of I-95 (PI # 511025) through Bryan County from six to eight lanes. According to GDOT's Long Range Program (2007), preliminary engineering for this project is scheduled to begin in 2014. October 2008 18 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 B (D) SR 144 2 SR 144 D (F) SR 144 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 C (C) US 17 I - 95 5 US 17 F (F) US 17 I - 95 October 2008 N W E S 7 1 2 3 5 4 6 11 12 8 9 10 Legend 11 12 Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign AM (PM) LOS I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 19 6 US 17 F (F) US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 F (F) SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (A) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 A (B) US 84 I-95 NB Ramps Office of Planning B (A) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 3-3: 2007 Existing Lane Configuration & LOS Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Freeway, merge/diverge, and intersection capacity analyses were performed for existing conditions (based on Year 2007 data). Level-of-service "C" (LOS C) and above was considered to be adequate peak hour traffic conditions. For some cases, in which financial and environmental concerns prevent the attainment of LOS "C" or better conditions, LOS "D" is considered adequate. Generally, Levels-of-Service "D," "E" and "F" were considered to be inadequate peak hour conditions. Where necessary, transportation improvements were tested to improve traffic conditions to LOS C or better. Freeway Analysis An analysis of existing freeway conditions was performed on the segment of I-95 from south of US 84 to north of SR 144. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 was used to determine the existing LOS and vehicle density along the freeway sections. Based on field observations and engineering judgment, the following criteria were used to analyze freeway segments: Base free-flow speed of 70 miles per hour (mph); Peak hour factor of 0.90; Grade set as "level" (short grades of 2% or less); and, Heavy vehicle percentage of 25%. The results of the freeway segment analysis are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Existing Freeway Conditions AM Peak Hour Freeway Section Direction Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)1 I-95 south of US 84 NB C 21.2 SB B 14.1 I-95 between US 84 and US 17 NB C 23.5 SB B 15.4 I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 NB D 32.9 SB C 19.8 I-95 north of SR 144 1Passenger cars/mile/lane NB F >45 SB C 25.8 PM Peak Hour Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)1 B 14.1 C 21.2 B 15.4 C 23.5 C 19.8 D 32.9 C 25.8 F >45 As shown in Table 4-1 (above), most freeway sections operate with adequate LOS. However, I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 operates at LOS D and the section of I-95 north of SR 144 operates at LOS F during both peak periods (northbound in the AM peak hour and southbound in the PM peak hour). October 2008 20 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Merge/Diverge Analysis Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 software was also used to analyze the operation of merge and diverge sections along I-95 within the study area. The existing LOS and vehicle density at these locations, described in Table 4-2 (below), were developed using the following criteria: Ramp free-flow speed of 35 mph; Peak hour factor of 0.90; Heavy vehicle percentage of 25%; and, "Level" freeway setting for I-95 and 3% grade for the ramps. Table 4-2: Existing Merge/Diverge Conditions Ramp1,2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 84 C 25.2 B 16.7 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 84 C 27.6 B 19.0 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 84 B 18.2 C 27.8 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 84 B 17.7 C 25.4 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 17 C 27.8 B 18.2 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 17 D 34.3 C 23.6 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 17 C 23.6 E 35.5 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 17 B 19.0 C 27.7 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ SR 144 E 35.5 C 23.6 I-95 NB On Ramp @ SR 144 F 40.8 D 29.4 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ SR 144 D 30.1 E 36.2 I-95 SB On Ramp @ SR 144 C 23.9 D 34.7 1Four travel lanes on freeway have been assumed 2Two lanes on the ramp have been assumed 3Passenger cars/mile/lane As shown in Table 4-2 (above), a majority of the existing merge/diverge sections at the studied interchanges operate with adequate LOS. During the AM peak hour, the merge and diverge sections at the NB I-95 On-Ramp at US 17; the NB I-95 Off-Ramp and On-Ramp at SR 144; and the I-95 SB Off-Ramp at SR 144 operate at LOS D or worse. For the PM peak hour, the I-95 SB Off-Ramp at US 17; the I-95 NB On-Ramp at SR 144 and both ramps at I-95 SB at SR 144 operate at LOS D or worse. October 2008 21 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Intersection Analysis Intersection analyses for existing conditions were performed for the intersections/interchanges identified in previous sections. Synchro 7.0 software was used to determine the peak hour LOS and vehicular delay at the study intersections. Existing peak hour factors, lane configurations and traffic control (i.e. signals, signage) were included in the analysis. Signal timing was assumed to be optimized, and signalized intersections, spaced less than approximately 1,000 feet apart, were assumed to have coordinated timings. Although coordinated timings do not exist in the field today, the assumption was made to standardize analyses since it is likely that the intersections in the Year 2032 will be eventually optimally adjusted to reflect changes in traffic volumes and patterns. The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 4-3, below. As shown this table, several intersections operate with inadequate peak hour operations. Improvements were tested, using Synchro 7.0 software, at these intersections in addition to others that could easily be enhanced to operate more efficiently. The result of this mitigation analysis is described in Table 4-3, below. The improvements necessary to improve the existing roadway network to LOS C or better are also shown graphically on Figure 4-1 (page 23). Table 4-3: Existing Intersection Conditions Int No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Intersection SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps US 17 @ SR 144 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road US 17 @ SR 196 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) Control Movement Signal Signal with improvements Stop Control Signal with improvements Signal Signal with improvements Signal Signal with improvements Stop Control Signal with improvements Stop Control Signal with improvements Stop Control Signal with improvements Signal Overall Overall NB-L NB-R EB-L Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall NB-LR WB-LR Overall SB-L WB-LR Overall NB-L EB-L EB-R Overall Overall AM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) B 19 B 18.0 D 32.6 D 32.6 A 8.4 B 11.8 D 43.0 D 45.6 C 31.4 C 27.8 F >50 B 10.5 B 14.0 B 13.9 F >50 B 8.3 A 7.9 F >50 A 10.0 C 22.6 A 7.7 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) D 50.4 C 25.9 F >50 F >50 A 8.4 A 6.9 D 51.0 D 52.9 C 21.7 C 22.4 F >50 A 8.8 B 14.6 B 11.3 F >50 A 8.4 A 8.3 F >50 B 10.7 B 18.8 A 7.9 9 US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall A 9.5 B 11.8 10 US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 14.8 B 11.8 October 2008 22 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 B (C) SR 144 2 SR 144 B (A) SR 144 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 C (C) US 17 I - 95 5 US 17 B (A) US 17 I - 95 October 2008 N W E S 7 1 2 3 5 4 6 11 12 8 9 10 Legend 11 12 Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign Required Signal AM (PM) LOS I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 23 6 US 17 B (A) US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 7 C (B) SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (A) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps A (B) US 84 I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 I-95 NB Ramps 10 Office of Planning B (B) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 4-1: 2007 Required Improvements & LOS Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Crash Analysis To identify potential safety issues within the study area, the most recent available crash data (Year 2002 through Year 2006) was analyzed. The crash data includes a variety of detailed information such as crash location, day of crash, time of crash, type of crash, and severity of crash (i.e. PDO, non-injuries, injuries, and fatalities). The following table summarizes the crash rates for roadway segments within the study area and provides a comparison between these segments and the statewide average for various roadway classifications. Table 4-4: Crash Analysis Route Extents GDOT Roadway Classification Average crashes Statewide average per year per 100 crashes per 100 MVM MVM1 US 17 South of US 84 to north of SR 144 Rural Principal Arterial 130 150 SR 144 West of I-95 to US 17 Rural Minor Arterial 230 208 US 84 From US 17 to I-95 Belfast Siding Rd Full extent Rural Minor Arterial 220 208 Rural Major Collector 210 221 1 Rates are an average of statewide average crashes from Years 2002 through 2006 for each roadway classification As shown in Table 4-4 (above), the crash rates within the study area are similar to statewide averages for roadways with similar characteristics. Therefore, no safety issues have been identified within the study area. October 2008 24 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 5. DESIGN YEAR 2032 ANALYSIS Freeway, merge/diverge, and intersection capacity analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 software for Year 2032 conditions. The same methodologies used in the existing conditions analysis were assumed in the future analysis. The volumes used for this analysis are included in Appendix C. Both "With Requested Interchange" and "Without Requested Interchange" scenarios were analyzed for the Year 2032, which includes the planned widening of I95. The "With Requested Interchange" scenario assumed the construction of a diamond interchange at Belfast Siding Road. Freeway Analysis The segment of I-95 spanning from south of US 84 to north of SR 144 was analyzed for future, Year 2032, conditions using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 software. The criteria and methodologies used for the existing conditions analysis were assumed to remain true for future conditions. The results of the freeway segment analysis are shown below in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Table 5-1: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Freeway Conditions Freeway Section1 Direction I-95 south of US 84 NB SB I-95 between US 84 and US 17 NB SB I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 NB SB I-95 north of SR 144 NB SB 1 Four travel lanes on freeway have been assumed 2Passenger cars/mile/lane AM Peak Hour Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)2 B 16.5 B 11.8 C 18.1 B 12.7 C 22.4 B 14.9 D 29.4 C 19.5 PM Peak Hour Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)2 B 11.8 B 16.5 B 12.7 C 18.1 B 14.9 C 22.4 C 19.5 D 29.4 Table 5-2: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Freeway Conditions Freeway Section1 I-95 south of US 84 I-95 between US 84 and Belfast Siding Road I-95 between Belfast Siding Road and US 17 I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 I-95 north of SR 144 1 Four travel lanes on freeway have been assumed 2Passenger cars/mile/lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction Density Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)2 LOS (pc/mi/ln)2 NB B 16.5 B 11.8 SB B 11.8 B 16.5 NB C 18.1 B 12.7 SB B 12.7 B 18.1 NB C 22.3 B 14.5 SB B 14.5 C 22.3 NB C 27.4 B 16.8 SB B 16.8 C 27.4 NB D 35.0 C 20.8 SB C 20.8 D 35.0 October 2008 25 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia As shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 (page 25), the freeway operations for the Year 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" and "With Requested Interchange" conditions are forecast to maintain an adequate LOS for most segments. Both the freeway and merge/diverge analyses show that the section of I-95 north of SR 144 will operate at LOS D during AM (northbound) and PM (southbound) peak periods. Merge/Diverge Analysis The merge/diverge ramps at the interchanges of I-95 at US 84, US 17 and US 144 were analyzed for Year 2032 conditions using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21. The methodologies and assumptions used for the existing conditions analysis were assumed to remain the same for future Year 2032. The results of the merge/diverge analysis are shown in Tables 5-3 (below) and 5-4 (page 27). Table 5-3: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Merge/Diverge Conditions Ramp1,2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 84 B 17.6 B 12.7 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 84 B 17.3 B 13.3 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 84 B 14.9 C 21.4 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 84 B 12.2 B 15.9 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 17 C 20.9 B 16.2 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 17 C 20.5 B 16.6 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 17 C 21.6 D 30.9 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 17 B 13.8 B 17.2 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ SR 144 C 24.3 B 16.3 I-95 NB On Ramp @ SR 144 C 22.6 B 19.1 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ SR 144 B 12.3 B 19.2 I-95 SB On Ramp @ SR 144 B 14.7 C 20.3 1Four travel lanes on freeway have been assumed 2Two lanes on the ramp have been assumed 3Passenger cars/mile/lane October 2008 26 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Table 5-4: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Merge/Diverge Conditions Ramp1,2 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 84 AM Peak Hour Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 B 16.8 PM Peak Hour Density LOS (pc/mi/ln)3 B 11.4 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 84 B 16.8 B 12.4 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 84 B 13.6 C 20.7 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 84 B 11.2 B 15.4 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ Belfast Siding Road B 18.7 B 13.2 I-95 NB On Ramp @ Belfast Siding Road C 20.5 B 15.0 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ Belfast Siding Road B 17.6 D 28.5 I-95 SB On Ramp @ Belfast Siding Road B 12.6 B 17.2 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ US 17 C 25.0 B 17.9 I-95 NB On Ramp @ US 17 C 22.1 B 17.4 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ US 17 (2) A 9.1 B 17.3 I-95 SB On Ramp @ US 17 B 14.9 C 20.1 I-95 NB Off Ramp @ SR 144 D 28.6 B 18.2 I-95 NB On Ramp @ SR 144 C 23.9 B 19.5 I-95 SB Off Ramp @ SR 144 (2) B 12.0 B 19.3 I-95 SB On Ramp @ SR 144 B 16.2 C 23.4 1Four travel lanes on freeway have been assumed 2Two lanes on the ramp have been assumed 3Passenger cars/mile/lane As shown in Tables 5-3 (page 26) and 5-4 (above), most of the merge/diverge sections at the interchanges of I-95 at SR 144, US 17 and US 84 are forecast to operate with adequate LOS in Year 2032. For the "Without Requested Interchange" scenario, the diverge section at the SB Off-Ramp to US 17 operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The analysis of the "With Requested Interchange" scenario shows that the diverge section at the requested interchange of Belfast Siding at the SB Off-Ramps would experience LOS D during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the diverge section at I-95 NB at SR 144 Off-Ramp would operate at LOS D during the AM peak for the "With Requested Interchange" scenario. Arterial Analysis Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21 was used to determine arterial capacity needs throughout the study area. According to this software, improvements are needed along US 17 to adequately serve the projected future volumes with or without the requested interchange. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) were used to determine the capacity needs along this corridor for Design Year (2032). With an AADT between 40,000 and 65,000 vehicles per day (with or without the requested interchange), the section of US 17 between Belfast Siding Road and I-95 (west of the interstate) would require a six-lane roadway. At the interchange and to the east of the interstate, a four-lane road could adequately serve anticipated volumes. Additionally, the arterial analysis indicated that Belfast Siding Road would also require widening for the "With Requested Interchange" scenario. October 2008 27 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Intersection Analysis Using Synchro 7.0 software, intersection analyses were performed for the intersections/interchanges identified earlier in this report for future Year 2032. The methodologies and assumptions used for existing conditions analyses were assumed to remain true for 2032 analysis. Improvements were tested at the intersections operating at inadequate LOS and the results of the analysis are also shown in Tables 5-5 (below) and 5-6 (page 29). The improvements are also shown graphically on Figure 51(page 32) and 5-2 (page 33). Table 5-5: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Intersection Conditions Int No. Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Signal Overall E 62.5 F >80 1 SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal with improvements Overall C 29.2 C 29.8 NB-L F >50 F >50 Stop Control NB-R F >50 F >50 2 SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps EB-L A 9.3 A 9.5 Signal with improvements Overall C 26.1 B 10.4 Signal Overall F >80 F >80 3 US 17 @ SR 144 Signal with improvements Overall D 46.8 D 54.9 Signal Overall F 4 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal with improvements Overall C Stop Control NB-LR F 5 US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps WB-L E Signal with improvements Overall C SB-L F Stop Control 6 US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road WB-LR F Signal with improvements Overall C NB-L A Stop Control EB-L F 7 US 17 @ SR 196 EB-R B Signal with improvements Overall C >80 F 27.3 C >50 F 36.0 C 26.6 C >50 F >50 F 22.3 B 8.3 A >50 F 11.0 B 26.6 C >80 21.3 >50 16.0 40.0 >50 >50 16.6 8.9 >50 12.4 20.8 8 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) Signal Overall A 8.4 A 9.4 9 US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall B 11.0 B 14.1 10 US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 11.1 B 13.6 October 2008 28 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Table 5-6: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Intersection Conditions Int No. Intersection Control Movement Signal Overall 1 SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal with improvements Overall NB-L Stop Control NB-R 2 SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps EB-L Signal with improvements Overall Signal Overall 3 US 17 @ SR 144 Signal with improvements Overall Signal Overall 4 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal with improvements Overall Stop Control NB-LR 5 US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps WB-L Signal with improvements Overall Stop Control SB-L 6 US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road WB-LR Signal with improvements Overall NB-L Stop Control EB-L 7 US 17 @ SR 196 EB-R Signal with improvements Overall 8 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) Signal Overall AM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) C 34.5 C 22.1 F >50 F >50 A 9.3 B 16.8 F >80 D 47.6 F >80 C 30.4 F >50 C 16.3 C 30.7 F >50 F >50 C 23.2 A 8.3 F >50 B 11.0 C 26.6 A 8.4 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) F >80 C 23.8 F >50 F >50 A 9.6 B 11.0 F >80 D 38.6 F >80 C 31.1 F >80 B 12.6 B 18.0 F >50 F >50 C 22.3 B 8.9 F >50 B 12.4 C 20.8 A 9.4 9 US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall B 11.0 B 13.0 10 US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 7.1 B 14.8 11 Belfast Siding Road @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall C 25.4 C 33.8 12 Belfast Siding Road @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 18.9 B 12.9 October 2008 29 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Needs for All Scenarios A majority of the improvements needed to achieve adequate LOS for Design Year (2032) were required with or without the implementation of the requested interchange at Belfast Siding Road. Analyses performed for the study identified operational and capacity projects throughout the study area. Using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Version 5.21, multilane roadway analysis tool, an examination of roadway segment volumes verses capacity was conducted. This analysis determined that future volumes in the area, with or without the requested interchange, would justify the widening of US 17 from Belfast Siding Road to I-95. Additionally, the following intersection improvements were identified as needs for both "With Requested Interchange" and "Without Requested Interchange" scenarios: SR 144 at I-95 Add an additional southbound left turn lane on SB Ramp; Signalize intersection at NB Ramps and optimize timings; Add an eastbound through lane on SR 144 along with receiving lane. SR 144 at US 17 Add two eastbound and two westbound through lanes on SR 144 along with receiving lanes; Add two eastbound and westbound right turn lanes and one eastbound and two westbound left turn lanes on SR 144; Add two northbound and two southbound through lanes on US 17 along with receiving lanes; Add one northbound and two southbound left and one northbound and southbound right turn lane on US 17. US 17 at I-95 SB Ramps Add one eastbound through lane on US 17; Add one northbound left turn lane on SB Ramp. Add one westbound left turn lane on US 17; Add one northbound right turn lane on NB Ramp; Signalize intersection at NB Ramps and optimize timings. US 17 at Belfast Siding Road Add a westbound right and left turn lanes on Belfast Siding Road; Signalize intersection and optimize timings; Add northbound and southbound thru lanes on Belfast Siding Road. US 17 at SR 196 Add an eastbound left turn lane on SR 196; Signalize intersection and optimize timings. As noted above, the intersection of US 17 at SR 144 will need significant improvements for either the "With Requested Interchange" or "Without Requested Interchange" scenarios. A variety of October 2008 30 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia opportunities exist that could improve operations at this busy intersection. Widening of the roadways in the vicinity of this critical intersection is a common solution which could be employed. However, widening is not the only alternative. By providing roadway connectivity in the vicinity of the intersection and, thereby, reducing demand on this busy intersection, it may be possible to delay the need for road widening. Another way to improve the intersection without widening the intersecting roadways is to implement a high-capacity intersection treatment such as a Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI), a Two-Level Signalized Intersection or a Center Turn Overpass Intersection. These innovative designs, have served as practical solutions to critical intersections within the United States and abroad, as noted in Appendix D. It should be noted that while these improvements could serve as viable solutions to the severe operational issues projected for Future Year (2032) at this intersection, they will not preclude the need for the other improvements recommended on page 30. ` Needs for "Without Requested Interchange" Scenario In addition to the recommended improvements for all scenarios, detailed on page 30, "Without Requested Interchange" conditions for 2032 require the following additional intersection improvements; SR 144 at US 17 Add a westbound left turn lane on SR 144 to US 17 southbound; Add southbound left turn lane on US 17 to SR 144 eastbound. US 17 at I-95 Ramps Add one westbound left turn on US 17 to I-95 SB on-ramps. Needs for "With Requested Interchange" Scenario In addition to the recommended improvements for all scenarios, detailed on page 30, the 2032 "With Requested Interchange" scenario requires the widening of Belfast Siding Road and the following additional intersection improvements: US 17 at Belfast Siding Road Add northbound right turn lane on US 17 to Belfast Siding Road eastbound. This improvement facilitates increased movements to the requested interchange. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 (pages 32 and 33) show the "With Requested Interchange" and "Without Requested Interchange" improvements, respectively, for the Year 2032 analyses. October 2008 31 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 C (C) SR 144 2 SR 144 SR 144 C (B) 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 C (C) US 17 I - 95 5 US 17 C (C) US 17 I - 95 October 2008 N W E S 1 2 3 6 US 17 C (B) 5 4 6 US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 C (C) 7 11 12 8 9 10 Legend Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign 11 Belfast Siding Road I-95 SB Ramps Future No-Build Required Signal Future No-Build Required Lane AM (PM) LOS I-95 SB Ramps I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 32 12 Belfast Siding Road I-95 NB Ramps I-95 NB Ramps Office of Planning SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (A) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps B (B) US 84 I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 I-95 NB Ramps B (B) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 5-1: 2032 "Without Requested Interchange" Required Lane Configuration & LOS 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 B (C) SR 144 2 SR 144 SR 144 B (A) 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 D (C) US 17 I - 95 5 US 17 C (B) US 17 I - 95 October 2008 N W E S 1 2 3 6 US 17 C (B) 5 4 6 US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 C (B) 7 11 12 8 9 10 Legend Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign Future Build Required Signal 11 Belfast Siding Road I-95 SB Ramps C (D) Future Build Required Lane AM (PM) LOS I-95 SB Ramps I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Analysis Report 33 12 Belfast Siding Road I-95 NB Ramps B (B) I-95 NB Ramps Office of Planning SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (A) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps B (B) US 84 I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 I-95 NB Ramps B (B) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 5-2: 2032 "With Requested Interchange" Required Lane Configuration & LOS Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING An environmental screening was conducted to determine the feasibility of the requested interchange at Belfast Siding Road. Several environmental factors must be considered when analyzing constructability of a transportation project. For this initial review, the location of wetlands and historic resources were identified and reviewed using GIS resources and online databases. An initial screening of the existing Belfast Siding Road crossing of I-95 indicates that the current roadway alignment is not impacted by wetlands. If the interchange were to be constructed, various alternatives with differing alignments would need to be considered. Each of these alternatives would need to be analyzed for potential impacts on wetlands. Another environmental feature that must be considered prior to construction is the location of historical resources. To screen for potential impacts on historical resources, aerial photography (2008) was used to identify structures surrounding the requested interchange, which might be impacted by construction. No such buildings or structures were identified. In addition to this visual review of the study area, information was obtained from the National Register of Historic Places online data center on the historical resources located in Bryan County. According to this database, 10 locations within Bryan County have been identified as historic resources, none of which are in the vicinity of the Belfast Siding Road overpass at I-95. October 2008 34 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia 7. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As stated in previous sections, the intent of this Interchange Analysis Report is to analyze and document the need, or lack thereof, for a new interchange along I-95 between US 17 (Coastal Highway) and SR 144 (Ford Avenue), located in Bryan County, Georgia. In accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidance, this study and resulting document examined operations at the requested interchange location, as well as adjacent interchanges upstream and downstream. The study also considered the impact of the requested interchange on the surrounding transportation system, extending to non-interchange intersections within the study area. Implications of the Requested Interchange The requested new access along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road is not recommended. This IAR indicates that the requested interchange satisfies FHWA Policies 2 through 8 and meets FHWA and GDOT minimum spacing guidelines. However, the analysis also shows that the adjacent interchanges at SR 144 and US 17 can be improved to accommodate the projected traffic for Design Year (2032). Results indicate that, with improvements similar to those needed in addition to the new interchange, the transportation network surrounding the requested new access point can be improved, thus precluding the need for an additional interchange. Improvements Needed without the Requested Interchange The results of this study demonstrate that the existing interchanges at US 17 and at SR 144 can be improved to accommodate future demand. Recommended improvements, described on pages 30 and 31, would adequately upgrade interchange capacity and facilitate adequate traffic flow during the AM and PM peak travel hours without the requested new access break. Conclusions & Recommendations The requested new access break along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road is not recommended, as it fails to meet FHWA Policy 1. The adjacent interchanges to the north (SR 144 and US 17) and south (US 84) can be improved to adequately serve and facilitate Design Year (2032) traffic in the study area as intended by the proposal. Recommendations for improvements include the programmed widening of I-95 from six to eight lanes (PI # 511025) along with additional improvements not currently programmed, which are needed with or without the requested new interchange. These improvements, not currently programmed, include the widening of US 17 to six lanes and the widening of Belfast Siding Road to four lanes in addition to various intersection improvements. With the programmed and recommended improvements identified in this study, the existing interchanges can be expected to adequately serve anticipated Year 2032 traffic demands within the study area and especially to and from I-95. Furthermore, the requested new interchange will not eliminate the need for improvements to the interchanges of I-95 at US 17 and SR 144. The analysis of the "With Requested Interchange" October 2008 35 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia scenario indicated that widening would be necessary along both US 17 and Belfast Siding Road to serve future travel demands despite the added capacity of the requested interchange. According to the analysis and the standards set forth by the FHWA guidelines on interstate access requests, the access break along I-95 at Belfast Siding is not justified. As an alternative to providing this new interchange, it is recommended that the intersection improvements identified in this report be implemented in addition to the programmed projects in Bryan County. October 2008 36 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia APPENDICES Appendix A FHWA and GDOT Policies on IMR's and IJR's Appendix B - Meeting Notes and Correspondences Appendix C Traffic Flow Diagrams Appendix D Alternative Intersection Designs October 2008 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding IJR Bryan County, Georgia Appendix A FHWA and GDOT Policies on IMR's and IJR's October 2008 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Additional Interchanges to the Interstate System [Federal Register: February 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 28)] [Page 7045-7047] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [DOCID:fr11fe98-120] AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of policy statement. SUMMARY: This document issues a revision of the FHWA policy statement regarding requests for added access to the existing Interstate system. The policy includes guidance for the justification and documentation needed for requests to add access (interchanges and ramps) to the existing Interstate System. The policy statement was originally issued in the Federal Register on October 22, 1990 (55 FR 42670). DATES: The effective date of this policy is February 11, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Seppo I. Sillan, Federal-Aid and Design Division, Office of Engineering, (202) 366-0312, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 111 of title 23, U.S.C., provides that all agreements between the Secretary and the State highway department for the construction of projects on the Interstate System shall contain a clause providing that the State will not add any points of access to, or exit from, the project in addition to those approved by the Secretary in the plans for such project, without the prior approval of the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated the authority to administer 23 U.S.C. 111 to the Federal Highway Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.48(b)(10). A formal policy statement including guidance for justifying and documenting the need for additional access to the existing sections of the Interstate System was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1990 (55 FR 42670). The FHWA has adopted the AASHTO publication "A Policy on Design Standards-Interstate System" as its standard for projects on the Interstate System. This publication provides that access to the Interstate System shall be fully controlled by constructing grade separations at selected public crossroads and all railroad crossings. Where interchanges with selected public crossroads are constructed, access control must extend the full length of ramps and terminals on the crossroad. October 2008 A-1 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Summary of Changes The changes in the policy statement are being made to reflect the planning requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, Pub. L. 102-240) as implemented in 23 CFR part 450, to clarify coordination between the access request and environmental processes, and to update language at various locations. The following specific revisions are made to the existing policy statement: 1. An additional sentence is added to item 5 under "Policy" that ensures requests for new or revised access are consistent with 23 CFR part 450 and 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 2. Text in item 5 pertaining to future interchange additions has been moved to item 6 because it covers a different subject. 3. Item 6 is redesignated as item 7. 4. A new item 8 is added so that those reviewing the access request have the information necessary to process the request. 5. The fifth paragraph under "Application" is revised to clarify coordination with the environmental process. The revised policy statement also includes various editorial changes to enhance clarity and readability. The revised policy statement is as follows: Policy It is in the national interest to maintain the Interstate System to provide the highest level of service in terms of safety and mobility. Adequate control of access is critical to providing such service. Therefore, new or revised access points to the existing Interstate System should meet the following requirements: 1. The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. 2. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. 3. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit October 2008 A-2 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System. 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and/or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 6. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long-term plan. 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. 8. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal. Application This policy is applicable to new or revised access points to existing Interstate facilities regardless of the funding of the original construction or regardless of the funding for the new access points. This includes routes incorporated into the Interstate System under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139(a) or other legislation. Routes approved as a future part of the Interstate system under 23 U.S.C. 139(b) represent a special case because they are not yet a part of the Interstate system and the policy contained herein does not apply. However, since the intention to add the route to the Interstate system has been formalized by agreement, any proposed access points, regardless of funding, must be coordinated with the FHWA Division Office. This policy is not applicable to toll roads incorporated into the Interstate System, except for segments where Federal funds have been expended, or where the toll road section has been added to the Interstate System under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139(a). For the purpose of applying this policy, each entrance or exit point, including "locked gate" access, to the mainline is considered to be an access point. For example, a diamond interchange configuration has four access points. Generally, revised access is considered to be a change in the interchange configuration even though the number of actual points of access may not change. For example, replacing one of the direct ramps of a diamond interchange with a loop, or changing a cloverleaf interchange into a fully directional interchange would be considered revised access for the purpose of applying this policy. All requests for new or revised access points on completed Interstate highways must be closely coordinated with the planning and environmental processes. The FHWA approval constitutes a Federal action, and as such, requires that the National Environmental Policy October 2008 A-3 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Act (NEPA) procedures are followed. The NEPA procedures will be accomplished as part of the normal project development process and as a condition of the access approval. This means the final approval of access cannot precede the completion of the NEPA process. To offer maximum flexibility, however, any proposed access points can be submitted in accordance with the delegation of authority for a determination of engineering and operational acceptability prior to completion of the NEPA process. In this manner, the State highway agency can determine if a proposal is acceptable for inclusion as an alternative in the environmental process. This policy in no way alters the current NEPA implementing procedures as contained in 23 CFR part 771. Although the justification and documentation procedures described in this policy can be applied to access requests for non-Interstate freeways or other access controlled highways, they are not required. However, applicable Federal rules and regulations, including NEPA procedures, must be followed. Implementation The FHWA Division Office will ensure that all requests for new or revised access submitted by the State highway agency for FHWA consideration contain sufficient information to allow the FHWA to independently evaluate the request and ensure that all pertinent factors and alternatives have been appropriately considered. The extent and format of the required justification and documentation should be developed jointly by the State highway agency and the FHWA to accommodate the operations of both agencies, and should also be consistent with the complexity and expected impact of the proposals. For example, information in support of isolated rural interchanges may not need to be as extensive as for a complex or potentially controversial interchange in an urban area. No specific documentation format or content is prescribed by this policy. Policy Statement Impact The policy statement, first published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1990 (55 FR 42670), describes the justification and documentation needed for requests to add or revise access to the existing Interstate System. The revisions made by this publication of the policy statement reflect the planning requirements of the ISTEA as implemented in 23 CFR part 450, clarify coordination between the access request and environmental processes, and update language at various locations. The States will have to take these factors into consideration when making future requests for new or revised access points, but the overall effort necessary for developing the request will not be significantly increased. October 2008 A-4 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia GDOT's IMR/IJR Policy "Responsibility and Procedures for Interchange Justification (IJR) and Interchange Modification (IMR) Reports for Interstate and Non-Interstate Limited Access Facilities" Purpose and Goal: This policy documents the Department's Interchange Justification Reports (IJR) and Interchange Modification Reports (IMR) policy and responsibilities associated with preparing IJRs. These guidelines address local requests for new interchanges, initial reviews to determine if minimal requirements will be met, Federal IJR/IMR guidelines and requirements, supporting data needed to accompany the IJR/IMR, and submission to FHWA for action. If the Department proposes new interchanges, the Office of Planning will assume responsibility for preparing the IJR, incorporating concept and capacity/weave analyses prepared by the Division of Preconstruction. Modifications of existing interchanges require preparation of an Interchange Modification Report (IMR). As interchange modification is a function of design issues, the Design Office managing the project will be responsible for preparation of the IMR. Preparation of IMRs and support material should be incorporated in the Department's design/concept contracts as a deliverable. The Office of Planning will review and provide comments on draft IMRs. The Office of Planning will submit the IJRs and IMRs to FHWA for their consideration and action. Applicability: The policy and guidelines contained herein apply to new or revised access points to the Interstate System, regardless of funding source. The procedures and responsibilities outlined in this policy also apply to freeway facilities on the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), non-Interstate facilities, freeways or other limited access highways. The FHWA has review and approval authority for new or revised access points to the Interstate System and non-Interstate ADHS facilities. General Procedures: I. Applicable Definitions: A. Minimum spacing is calculated as the crossroad to crossroad distance between the proposed interchange and the adjacent upstream and downstream interchanges. In urban or suburban areas with high-density development and/or complex transportation features, use of grade-separated ramps or collector-distributor roads may be considered to manage safety and October 2008 A-5 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia other operational difficulties associated with proposed interchanges not meeting the minimum spacing guideline. B. Average spacing reflects the crossroad to crossroad distance between downstream and upstream interchanges beyond, but adjacent to and including those used to calculate minimum spacing. Existing interchange spacing is calculated as follows: there are four interchanges (A, B, C, and D); the distance between interchanges A and D is "Z" miles; the average spacing is therefore Z divided by 3 (interchanges A, B, C, and D). A new interchange (X) is proposed to be located between interchanges B and C; therefore the proposed average interchange spacing would be Z divided by 4 (interchanges A, B, C, D, and proposed interchange X). Using this same example, the interchange spacing, defined above under minimum spacing, would be the distances between the crossroads for interchanges B and X and between X and C. See following graphic. C. Urban and rural areas are as defined by the latest U.S. Census. If a proposed interchange is located within a Census-defined urban cluster or urbanized area, it is considered either an urban or suburban area. If the proposed interchange is located outside an urban or urbanized area, the area is considered rural. As the next Census approaches, it is probable that some locations within Census-defined rural areas could exhibit suburban characteristics (see D., below). D. Suburban areas traditionally provide an informal transition area between areas with urban or rural characteristics. "Suburban" is based on prudent judgement of such factors as land use and density of development. Use of suburban area spacing guidelines will require Sponsor's documentation of the various contributing factors. Based on information provided by the Sponsor, the Office of Planning will determine the appropriateness of "suburban" area designation. This designation is for planning purposes only and unrelated to design criteria and guidelines. October 2008 A-6 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia E. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the transportation planning entity designated by the Governor to receive Federal transportation planning funds for the conduct of the "3C" metropolitan planning process. The MPO is responsible for meeting the Federal transportation planning requirements within areas designated by the Census as urbanized areas. As of the 2000 Census, Georgia has 15 distinct geographic areas associated with MPOs and participation in the metropolitan planning process. F. "Sponsor" refers to the governmental entity having jurisdiction for the geographic area in which the proposed interchange is located (i.e. a City or County). II. This Policy recognizes that there are two types of planning processes and areas within which Sponsors may be located: within MPO areas and those located in nonMPO areas. For proposed interchanges located in non-MPO areas, the Sponsor of the proposed interchange addition is responsible for providing, to the Department's Office of Planning, the information required under Section II-A of this Policy, along with the request for the new interchange. For proposed interchanges located within an MPO's geographic area of responsibility, the process is more complex. The MPO will ensure that the proposed interchange is not included in the transportation plan until the proposed interchange has been determined, by the Department, to be feasible in accordance with the criteria contained in Section II-A. Therefore, should the MPO receive a request for a new interchange, they will notify the Sponsor of the Department's Interchange Policy and requirements. The Sponsor of the proposed interchange is responsible for providing the information required under Section II-A. The request for a new interchange and the information required under Section II-A will be submitted to the Department's Office of Planning through the MPO. If a new interchange is proposed during the MPO's update of the transportation plan, the MPO will ensure the Department is provided the information required under Section II-A. The timeframe of the submittal will be such that the Department can review and determine feasibility prior to the interchange's proposed inclusion in the plan. Responsibility for preparation of Section II-A information will be addressed between the Sponsor and the MPO. If the Department proposes the new interchange, the Department will develop the information required under Section II-A. Under either planning process (MPO or non-MPO), the Office of Planning will review the Sponsor's information and determine if the interchange addition appears to be feasible. The following describes the information required of the Sponsor (Section II-A) and Department's review procedures (Sections II-B & C). A. As part of the feasibility review, the Sponsor must provide the Department, as appropriate per the above, with the following information: October 2008 A-7 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 1. A review and written analysis demonstrating that the proposed interchange will provide adequate interchange spacing. Interchange spacing guidelines are as follows: a. Minimum spacing of one (1) mile in urban areas with an average spacing of two (2) miles, or b. Minimum spacing of two (2) miles in suburban areas with an average spacing of four (4) miles, or c. Minimum spacing of two (2) miles in rural areas with an average spacing of eight (8) miles. 2. A written statement defining why the Sponsor considers the proposed interchange as needed: a. A written statement defining the need for the proposed interchange, including why access at existing interchanges are not adequate, local commitments that support the need and purpose (such as pending development, letters of interest from companies, dedicated special purpose local option sales tax, etc.). b. An environmental scan and documentation detailing existing infrastructure in vicinity of the proposed interchange, including water, sewerage, utilities, schools, and roads. c. Documentation detailing current land use & zoning, existing and pending development (ground-breaking within 5 years), future land use plan and current comprehensive plan as approved by DCA. d. Existing and forecast daily traffic volumes without and with the proposed interchange. Volumes shall be provided for the "mainline" facility, adjacent interchanges, parallel roadways, and the surface street network of roadways providing access to and between the subject interchanges. e. Other information: any other material that would illustrate need for the proposed interchange. 3. Written documentation addressing each requirement delineated in the FHWA's IJR Guidance, included below as Section III, Subsections A-H. B. The Office of Planning will analyze data including: existing and forecasted daily (24-hour) traffic volumes, roadway conditions, existing access to the Interstate System, and the information supplied by the Sponsor. C. The Office of Planning will develop a recommendation and notify the Sponsor, and MPO if applicable, of the determination of feasibility: 1. If the review indicates the proposed interchange is not feasible, the Department will notify the Sponsor, and MPO if applicable, and take no further action with the proposal. October 2008 A-8 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 2. If the review indicates the proposed interchange may be feasible and could possibly benefit regional access, the Department will notify the Sponsor, and MPO if applicable, that the interchange may be feasible. Upon such notification, the MPO may include the proposed interchange in the transportation plan in accordance with their procedures and if the transportation plan will remain financially constrained. 3. If the interchange appears to be feasible, an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) must be prepared and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in accordance with the process described below. The Sponsor will determine if the IJR should be pursued immediately or postponed until the need is less long range. Within MPO areas, an IJR will not be submitted to FHWA for approval until the interchange is a component of the adopted transportation plan. 4. Initiation of the IJR is as follows: a. The Sponsor is responsible for 100% of the costs associated with the Department procuring a consultant to develop the IJR and concept layout. The Office of Planning will provide the Sponsor with an estimate for the necessary consultant services and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for execution by the local government. b. Upon receipt of a fully executed MOU, the Office of Planning will secure the consultant services for the IJR, the required support data and analyses, and a reproducible concept layout. c. The Office of Planning will manage the consultant contract. The consultant must be prequalified with the Department for the appropriate planning and design area classes. Consultant selection and review of deliverables will be a joint effort between the Office of Planning and the applicable Design Office(s). d. Before the Department executes the agreement with the consultant, the Sponsor's funds, covering the costs to produce the IJR and supporting information, must be on deposit with the Department. e. The Sponsor must appoint a person to serve as the Sponsor's "single point of contact" for the Department and the consultant. f. The Sponsor's "single point of contact" will be responsible for providing the Department's consultant with other appropriate points of contact, current and future zoning and land use information, and any other information that would further document the Sponsor's statement of the interchange's need and purpose and fulfillment of the IJR data requirements. October 2008 A-9 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia g. The IJR/IMR must address FHWA's guidance for "Additional Access Points to the Interstate System 23 CFR 630." See requirements at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/0630csu p.htm. h. The IJR/IMR must address the guidance on Interstate Access Requests developed by the FHWA Georgia Division Office in coordination with the Department. The guidance is maintained by FHWA and located at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/gadiv. III. The following extract is from the Federal Aid Policy Guide (FAPG) of June 17, 1998, and is provided for user convenience only. Please see the above website for FHWA's latest requirements. "Policy. It is in the national interest to maintain the Interstate System to provide the highest level of service in terms of safety and mobility. Adequate control of access is critical to providing such service. Therefore, new or revised access points to the existing Interstate System should meet the following requirements: A. The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. B. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. C. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. D. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than `full interchanges' for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOVs, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System. E. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and/or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. F. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with October 2008 A-10 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a longterm plan. G. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. H. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal." IV. The IJR/IMR Data Requirements are as follows: A. Planning and Background information, including: 1. Brief description of proposed improvement with location map and diagrams, 2. Response to each of the elements listed in the FHWA policy, 3. Description of the study area and existing transportation facilities (including access/frontage roads and local roadways), 4. Need and purpose statement for proposed improvement, 5. Relationship to other transportation projects in area, 6. Relationship to regional comprehensive and/or long-range transportation plans. In MPO areas, the interchange must be a component of the adopted transportation plan prior to submittal of the IJR to the Department. In non-MPO areas, the interchange must be included in the approved comprehensive plan prior to submittal of the IJR to the Department, 7. In non-attainment areas, planning information must be consistent with the conforming transportation plan's assumptions, 8. Distance to and size of communities directly served by proposed interchange, 9. Distance to the next existing interchange in each direction and other proposed adjacent interchanges, when applicable. B. Environmental screening of potential area of impact, including: 1. Review and consideration of resources covered under NEPA for area between existing interchanges so as not to preclude from consideration a less environmentally-intrusive location. Provide map depicting general location of applicable environmental items, 2. Review and consideration of community issues. Provide map as applicable, 3. Documentation of alternatives considered during development of the IJR, 4. Documentation as to why a particular alternate is recommended. C. Traffic volumes for "build" alternatives and "no-build," including: 1. Traffic networks will include Interstate mainline at site of proposed interchange and include at least one interchange each direction from the proposed interchange. October 2008 A-11 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 2. Networks will include traffic data for crossroads within the interchanges and their approaches to the interchanges, both existing and proposed. 3. Traffic data requirements are similar to those already required for project design traffic and as such will also consider any traffic projections available from the Office of Planning. Typical traffic data requirements: a. No-Build and Build Average Daily Traffic for both Base Year (planned open to traffic year) and Design Year (20 Years from proposed open to traffic year), b. AM/PM Peak, and Midday Peak if applicable, Hour Turning Movements for all conditions, c. Weaving movements on Interstate Mainline to the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange in both directions from subject proposed interchange, d. % 24 Hour Trucks and % Peak Hour Trucks, e. K-Factor and Direction Split (D), f. In non-attainment areas, traffic projections must be consistent with the conforming transportation plan. D. Capacity Analyses for "existing", "build", and "no-build" conditions, including: 1. Intersection and arterial capacity analyses for crossroads (and intersections with side streets), ramp junctions within the proposed interchange area, and for the first adjacent existing or proposed interchanges in both directions from the subject proposed interchange. 2. Interstate mainline and weaving analyses reflecting the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange in both directions from subject proposed interchange. 3. Selection of analysis tools/software will depend on the complexity of the proposed interchange and its relationship to the transportation system. The degree of anticipated complexity and appropriate software will be determined and included in the consultant's workscope. E. Design Concept, including: 1. IJR layouts on aerial imagery; IMR layouts as design plans. Both reflecting appropriate consideration of the site's terrain & environmental features, 2. Adjacent interchanges, configuration of proposed interchange, travel/auxiliary lanes, bridge structures, ramp radii, grades, proposed additions and removals, frontage/access roads and collector/distributor roads, 3. Lengths of acceleration/deceleration lanes, auxiliary lanes, tapers, ramps, and weaving areas, 4. Right-of-way and access control limits, October 2008 A-12 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 5. Intersection control information (signalized, STOP signs, turn lanes), 6. Schematic map (line diagram) of total analysis area depicting: a. Proposed and existing laneage, and b. All merge/diverge, weaving, intersections, roadways, etc. LOS for all movements, 7. A computer disk with all files needed to properly examine IJR/IMR options, and 8. A description of model calibration, if applicable. F. Cost Estimates for alternatives analyzed in IJR, including: 1. Preliminary Engineering, 2. Right-of-Way, 3. Construction: a. Roadway, Drainage, and Paving, b. Bridges and other Major Structures, c. Utilities and d. Signage. V. Federal Design Requirements: A. Interstate and Appalachian Development Highway (ADH) System projects will be designed in accordance with the AASHTO publication, "A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System." B. Where interchanges with selected public crossroads are constructed, access control must extend the full length of ramps and terminals on the crossroad. Other access controls shall be adhered to for ramp and side street intersection spacing as per Department policies. C. Concept layouts must provide all the information FHWA will need to independently review or perform capacity analyses, weave analyses, and design review. D. The proposed interchange location reflects consideration of environmental issues and concerns. E. FHWA approval of an Interstate break-in-access is based on a "determination of engineering and operational acceptability." Final location and approval of the proposed interchange is contingent on the results of the NEPA process. VI. Federal Review and Approval Process: A. The Department will review the IJR/IMR prior to its submission to FHWA. B. If during development of the IJR, the proposed interchange's need does not warrant a break in Interstate access, the Department will notify the Sponsor. C. If the IJR determines a break in access may be warranted and the Department determines it will support submittal of the IJR to the FHWA, the Office of Planning will forward 3 copies of the IJR, concept layout, and supporting data to the Georgia Division of the FHWA. D. The FHWA Division (Atlanta Office) may approve: 1. New freeway-to-crossroad interchanges not located within a Transportation Management Area (TMA). TMAs are urbanized areas with a Census-recognized population exceeding 200,000. October 2008 A-13 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 2. Modifications of existing freeway-to-crossroad interchanges. 3. Completion of basic movements at a partial interchange. E. FHWA Headquarters (Washington D.C. Office) may approve: 1. New or major modification to freeway to freeway interchanges. 2. New partial interchange (such as, a half-diamond interchange). 3. New freeway-to-crossroad interchanges located within TMAs. F. FHWA will notify the Department: 1. If additional information is required before reaching a recommendation, or 2. If the requested Interstate break-in-access is denied and why, or 3. If the request is approved as being engineering and operationally feasible and if any conditions apply to the approval. G. The Department will notify the Sponsor and Design Office of the FHWA's action and any conditions placed on that action. H. Final FHWA approval is subject to completion of the NEPA process. In non-attainment areas, the proposed interchange must be included in the conforming transportation plan before FHWA may take the approval action. VII. The Department's Internal IJR/IMR Review and Approval Procedures: A. Review Procedures for Interstate, ADHS and Non-Interstate Limited Access Facilities: 1. The Office of Planning will serve as Lead Office. The Office will review the IJR/IMR documentation for satisfactory consideration and treatment of the required information, including documentation of the proposed improvement's Need and Purpose. 2. The Director of Preconstruction will designate a Design Office to perform an independent review of engineering assumptions, including concept drawings, calculations, and analyses. 3. The Office of Environment/Location will review the concept drawing(s) and IJR/IMR documentation for satisfactory consideration of Need & Purpose, environmental screening, community issues, and alternatives analyzed. 4. All review comments will be forwarded to the Office of Planning so that comments may be addressed prior to submitting the IJR/IMR for approval. Approval procedures for Interstate and ADHS facilities are addressed under Section VI., above. See remainder of this section (VII.B.) for approval procedures for non-Interstate limited access facilities. B. Approval Procedures for Non-Interstate Limited Access Facilities: 1. The Office of Planning will prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Chief Engineer with recommendations by the Division of Preconstruction, and the Division of Transportation Planning, Data and Intermodal Development. 2. In nonattainment areas, the proposed improvement must be included in the conforming transportation plan before the Department will take an approval action. October 2008 A-14 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia 3. The Department's approval, and the proposed interchange's final location, is subject to completion of the appropriate environmental (GEPA/NEPA) process. Until that time, the Department's approval represents an opinion that the proposed improvement is engineering and operationally feasible. 4. The Office of Planning will notify the Sponsor and the Design Office of the Department's action and any conditions placed on that action. 5. Regardless of the Department's action, the Sponsor's cost for preparing the IJR/IMR is not reimbursable by the Department. October 2008 A-15 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia FHWA Interstate Access Request Policies 1. Purpose This guidance provides procedures for processing requests for new or revised Interstate access. 2. Legislation and Regulations 23 USC 111 Federal Register: February 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 28, Page 7045- 7047) 23 CFR 625 3. Guidance FHWA Rodney Slater memo "Action: Delegation of Authority Requests for New or Revised Access Points on Completed Interstate Highways" dated August 19, 1996. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2001 GDOT Plan Development Process (PDP) A Policy on Interstate Design Standards - Interstate System, AASHTO, 1991 MUTCD GDOT Policy TOPPS 3140 4. Procedures for Interstate Access Requests a. Summary of Federal Law Section 111 of Title 23, United States Code (23 USC 111) requires that proposed new or revised Interstate access must be approved by the FHWA before such access modifications can be made. b. Definitions of Interstate Access Requests GDOT has historically referred to Interstate Access Requests as either Interstate Justification Reports (IJR's) or Interstate Modification Reports (IMR's). An IJR is a request for approval to add a new interchange on the Interstate System. GDOT's Office of Planning prepares IJR's and submits them to FHWA. An IMR is a request for approval to add or modify access points to an existing Interstate interchange. GDOT's Preconstruction Division is responsible for preparing IMR's. However, as with the case of IJR's, IMR's are submitted to FHWA by GDOT's Office of Planning. October 2008 A-16 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Because the terms IJR and IMR have historically been used by GDOT to describe the actual request for access as well as the supporting documentation, this document will use the term IMR/IJR to refer to the request for Interstate access. c. Applicability of this Policy This policy applies to the Interstate System and portions of the Appalachian Development Highway System that are full access-controlled. The policy applies regardless of the funding source. Therefore, it applies to local government agencies and private developers that propose and/or finance projects for Interstate access. All FHWA approvals for additional or modified access are conditioned upon compliance with applicable Federal rules and regulations. Applicable design standards must be used and final project designs are subject to review and approval by FHWA. The FHWA approval of new or modified access constitutes a Federal action and requires that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures are followed. This requirement applies even when changes to an Interstate facility are being financed completely by the State, local municipality, or private developer. NEPA approval is a condition to receiving final access approval. d. Determination of whether an IJR is required A new interchange, new partial interchange, or new ramps to-from frontage roads always requires an IJR. e. Determination of whether an IMR is required In accordance with 23 USC 111, FHWA must approveall new or revised Interstate access. Therefore, FHWA must approve all revised access or modifications within the limits of an existing interchange. The only exceptions are maintenance activities that do not change existing geometric or operational features of the roadway. The limits of an interchange as applied to this policy are defined as "within the roadway and within the limited access of the interchange." The roadway is defined as "the portion of a highway, including shoulders, for vehicular use." The limited access includes the limited access on the cross street. Therefore, any changes to an existing Interchange, other than routine maintenance, require FHWA approval. FHWA approval of a proposed modification to an existing interchange does not necessarily require a separate IMR document. If there is doubt as to whether a proposed modification will require an IMR, then the appropriate FHWA Transportation Engineer shall be contacted. FHWA will determine whether or not an IMR is required. October 2008 A-17 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia If FHWA determines that an IMR is not required, then that determination by itself constitutes FHWA approval for the access. If FHWA determines that an IMR is required, then FHWA approval of the IMR is the FHWA approval for the access. The following modifications always require submittal of an IMR: Major modification of an existing interchange (i.e., adding new ramp(s), removing ramp(s), changing the interchange configuration, completing basic movements at a partial interchange) Locked gate access (i.e., Interstate access via locked gate) Abandonment of ramps or interchanges Decreasing the length of any deceleration lane or acceleration lane on any existing ramps Addition of an auxiliary lane between two (2) adjacent interchange ramps. If the proposed action does not fall under one of the categories above, FHWA will determine if an IMR is required. GDOT should provide FHWA with a description of the action in enough detail to make this determination. The level of information needed can be obtained by contacting the appropriate FHWA Transportation Engineer. In some cases, FHWA may request some type of analysis to help determine if an IMR is required or not. The keys to FHWA's determination will be (1) whether an IMR analysis would add value, (2) whether the action may have an adverse effect on operations or safety, and (3) whether there are other alternatives that should also be analyzed. Some hypothetical examples are provided below just to illustrate the process: The proposed action is to shift an exit ramp and move the termini over 100 feet. GDOT provides FHWA with information showing the nearest intersection is a sufficient distance away from the new ramp terminal. FHWA determines no IMR is required and therefore, approves the access. The proposed action is to widen a bridge and lengthen entrance and exit ramps at an interchange. GDOT provides FHWA with information that shows traffic volumes are light and the closest adjacent interchanges are several miles away in each direction. FHWA determines no IMR is required and therefore, approves the access. Similar to the example above, the proposed action is to widen a bridge and lengthen entrance and exit ramps at an interchange. However, GDOT provides FHWA with information that shows traffic volumes are heavy and an adjacent exit ramp is now only 2000 feet from the new proposed entrance ramp. FHWA determines that an IMR is required because this may have an adverse effect on Interstate operations. The proposed action is to add new left-turn lanes on the exit ramps of an interchange, resulting in a dual left turns. However, to accommodate the left turns, an existing lane on the cross street is added by narrowing the existing lanes from 12-feet to 10-feet. Furthermore, the new left turn lane further October 2008 A-18 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia reduces the signal spacing of the existing tight-diamond interchange. FHWA determines that an IMR is required because this may have an effect on safety and operations of the interchange and other alternatives should be analyzed. To reiterate, FHWA must provide approval for any modification, other than maintenance activities, to an existing interchange. This approval can be made by either (1) determining that the modification does not require an IMR or (2) approving an IMR. As explained in Section(g), a Concept Report may serve as an IMR if it contains the appropriate level of analysis. FHWA's determination that a modification does not require an IMR must be made in writing, but does not necessarily require an official letter. In many cases, approval can be made via e-mail to the appropriate GDOT Office that initiated the request. Alternatively, GDOT may send a letter to FHWA requesting that no IMR be required, and FHWA can sign a concurrence block on the letter. f. FHWA Internal Delegation of Authority for approving IMR/IJR's This section explains what types of IMR/IJR's may be approved at the Georgia Division Office and what types have to be approved at FHWA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The FHWA Georgia Division Office may approve the following types of new or revised Interstate Access Requests: New freeway-to-crossroad interchanges not located within a Transportation Management Area (as defined in 23 USC 134). Modifications of freeway-to-crossroad interchanges Minor modifications of freeway-to-freeway interchanges Completion of basic movements at partial interchanges Locked gate access Abandonment of ramps or interchanges All other types of access not defined below The following types of new or revised Interstate Access Requests must be approved at FHWA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., after a recommendation for approval from the Division Office. New freeway-to-freeway interchanges Major modifications of freeway-to-freeway interchanges New partial interchanges or ramps to/from continuous frontage roads that create a partial interchange New freeway-to-crossroad interchanges located within a TMA. g. Timing of submittal of IMR's and IJR's and their relationship to the Concept Report A question frequently asked of FHWA is "What point in the Plan Development Process (PDP) should GDOT obtain access approval from the FHWA Division Office?" October 2008 A-19 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Early project development usually consists of concept development, NEPA, and IMR/IJR analyses taking place concurrently. Ultimately, the final products of each of these processes will need to be approved in order to advance the project. In every case, the IMR/IJR should be approved prior to starting final design. In most cases, the appropriate time to obtain access approval from FHWA is prior to, or concurrently with, or shortly after approval of the concept report. Also, it is important to clarify that final FHWA approval of an IMR/IJR is always dependent upon NEPA approval. When FHWA approves an IMR/IJR prior to completion of NEPA, it is understood that final approval of the IMR/IJR is contingent upon NEPA approval. In the past, routine practice has been for FHWA to approve concept reports prior to approving the IMR/IJR. In some cases, projects have progressed to substantial public involvement and final design prior to the IMR/IJR being submitted. This has caused problems when the concept had to be changed late in the process due to the operational analyses in the IMR/IJR. This is why FHWA feels that the IMR/IJR analyses should be done prior to, or concurrently with the concept report. However, in cases where a concept is submitted to FHWA without traffic analyses to support an IMR/IJR, it must be clear that FHWA's signature on a concept report does not constitute Interstate access approval for that concept. It must also be clear that the concept may have to be changed based upon the findings of the IMR/IJR. Therefore, for projects that involve Interstate access, FHWA will be approving concept reports with one of the two comments listed below. Comment (1) will be used when an IMR/IJR has been previously approved or when the concept report contains enough information to approve the Interstate access. Comment (2) will be used when the concept report is submitted to FHWA for approval without the analyses necessary to approve Interstate access. (1) The Concept Report contains all the necessary analyses required by an IMR/IJR. This Concept Report approval constitutes the Interstate access approval and no separate IMR/IJR will be required. It is understood that the concept may need to be revised as a result of the NEPA process. (2) The Concept Report does not contain all the necessary analyses for FHWA to provide Interstate access approval. A separate IMR/IJR must be approved by FHWA prior to starting final design. It is understood that the concept may need to be revised as a result of (a) the operations analyses contained in the IMR/IJR or (b) the NEPA process. Final FHWA approval of an IMR/IJR is always dependent upon NEPA approval. However, FHWA may approve an IMR/IJR for engineering and operational acceptability prior to completion of NEPA. In this case, it is understood that final approval of the IMR/IJR is contingent upon NEPA approval. In the case where the concept is advanced prior to IMR/IJR approval, and where Federal funds are used for design, FHWA's expectation is that the IMR/IJR should be submitted prior to devoting significant design resources toward advancing the concept. October 2008 A-20 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia h. Flowchart showing the FHWA approval process The flowchart shown below is intended to provide a brief summary of the process for obtaining Interstate access approval. **Note: All FHWA Approval of Interstate Access is conditioned on final NEPA Approval. IMR/IJR: Interchange Modification Report/Interchange Justification Report i. General information required in an IMR/IJR FHWA policy states that all requests for new or revised access must include sufficient supporting information to allow FHWA to independently evaluate the request and ensure that all pertinent factors and alternatives have been appropriately considered. GDOT should submit three copies of the IMR/IJR to FHWA. The following is a description of what information should typically be included in an IJR or IMR: A clear description of the location and type of proposed new or modified access. Maps, schematic diagrams, and functional preliminary design plans shall be included as needed to clearly describe the proposal. Drawings and plans should include (as applicable): project limits, adjacent interchanges, proposed interchange configuration, travel lanes and shoulder widths, ramps October 2008 A-21 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia to be added, ramps to be removed, ramp radii, ramp grades, acceleration lane lengths, deceleration lane lengths, taper lengths, auxiliary lane lengths, "taper" or "parallel" type exit ramps, truck climbing lanes, and collector/distributor roads. A large-scale layout of the project on an aerial photograph is helpful to FHWA in reviewing the request. Purpose and need for the new or revised access points (i.e., why it is needed, what are the intended benefits). Any background or supporting information that further explains the basis for the proposal (i.e., new highway proposed, planned private developments, known political support, etc.) Maps should show exact locations of all developments. If the purpose of the IMR/IJR is to support one or more proposed developments, the IMR/IJR should say so. Economic development can be a valid justification for new access. If the interchange is within a Transportation Management Area If there are any known issues of concern or controversy (i.e., environmental, public opposition, etc.). A description of the design alternatives considered (i.e., diamond interchange, single-point, directional ramps, alternate locations, etc.) and why the proposed alternative was selected. Estimated costs of the project, proposed funding sources (i.e., private development, local funds, State or Federal-aid funds), and implementation schedule. Relationship and distance of the interchange to adjacent interchanges and the ability to provide adequate signing. Any necessary design exceptions from currently adopted AASHTO Interstate design standards. Existing and Proposed Limits of Access Schematic drawings showing current and design year ADT and DHV for mainline traffic volumes, ramp volumes, cross road volumes, and intersection turning movements. Additional proposed traffic signalization and signing (if applicable). Safety issues regarding the existing conditions and proposed alternatives j. Policy information required in an IMR/IJR The IMR/IJR needs to address each of the following eight policy requirements listed in the Federal Register: Existing Facilities: FHWA policy states: "The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal." The intent of this requirement is to demonstrate that an access point is needed for regional traffic needs and not to solve local system needs or problems. The Interstate facility should not be allowed to become part of the local circulation system but should be maintained as the main regional and interstate highway it was intended to be. October 2008 A-22 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia In the case of adding a new interchange or new ramp(s), the IMR/IJR needs to analyze whether existing or proposed roads parallel to the Interstate facility could be used as a connection to existing adjacent interchange ramps in lieu of adding a new interchange or ramps. Transportation System Management: FHWA policy states: "All reasonable alternatives for design options, location, and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified." The intent is to assure that all reasonable alternatives, including improvements to the existing local roads and streets in lieu of new access, have been fully considered. The IMR/IJR needs to contain a description of the design alternatives considered, (e.g., diamond interchange, single-point, directional ramps, collector-distributor roads, alternate locations, no-build, HOV, transit, park and ride lots, signal timing modifications, etc.) as applicable, and why the proposed alternative was selected. The IMR/IJR will need to make the case that all reasonable alternatives have been considered and that the alternative being recommended is the best alternative. Operational Analysis: FHWA policy states: "The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on each side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with the new or revised access points." The intent of this requirement is to assure that sufficient operational analyses are made to determine the impact of the revised or new access on the Interstate operation. For consistency, it is anticipated that the current Transportation Research Board (TRB) "Highway Capacity Manual" (HCM) analysis procedures will be used. Other analysis tools may be used to supplement the HCM when appropriate. The operational impact on the mainline Interstate between the proposed new/revised access and the adjacent existing interchanges on either side is a critical item that must be analyzed. The analysis may need to extend farther along the mainline and include additional existing interchanges if necessary to establish the extent and scope of the impacts. This could be critical in urban areas with many closely spaced interchanges. The spacing between interchanges must safely accommodate weaving, diverging, merging maneuvers, and good directional signing. Access Connections and Design: FHWA policy states: "The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System." October 2008 A-23 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia The intent of this requirement is that, except in the most extreme circumstances, all interchanges should provide for all basic movements. Partial interchanges usually have undesirable operational characteristics. If circumstances exist where a partial interchange is considered appropriate as an interim design, then commitments should be made to providing the ultimate future design, such as purchasing necessary right-of-way, during the initial project stage. Special purpose access for HOV's, for transit vehicles, or for park and ride lots should be treated as special cases and decided on a case-by-case basis. Transportation Plans: FHWA policy states: " The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93." The intent of this requirement is that the request must include a discussion as to how the current proposal fits into the transportation plan for the area and its implications to air quality conformity. Although requests for engineering and operational approval of access may be made prior to being included in transportation plans, final approval cannot be given if the project is not included in the appropriate plan (i.e. approved by MPO in the Long Range Plan). Such coordination should be made as part of the normal project development process. Comprehensive Interstate Network Study: FHWA policy states: " In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a longterm plan." The intent of this requirement is to cause sufficient review and coordination so as not to have piece-meal consideration of added access and to avoid future conflict as much as possible with other proposed access points. It is usually best to consider all proposed changes in access for an area at the same time. If a new or revised interchange is being proposed and another new or revised adjacent interchange is being planned and programmed, then both changes should be analyzed together. The expectation here is that any proposal is considered in view of currently known plans for transportation facilities and/or land use planning and is especially important when several new interchanges are anticipated. Coordination with Transportation System Improvements: FHWA policy states: " The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements." The intent of this requirement is to assure that highway facilities are developed in an orderly and coordinated manner to serve the public. Therefore, when private development is clearly the driving force behind the need for access, it is only reasonable that the State and the developer work closely together in order to develop the access to achieve mutual benefits October 2008 A-24 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia with minimal adverse impact on the Interstate travelers. Stage construction should be considered where extensive private development is not expected to be completed for several years. As a condition of approval, the developer may be required to have certain parts of the local circulation system ready before ramps can be constructed or opened to traffic. Coordination and cooperation is essential where different entities (GDOT, developers, local governments, etc.) are each responsible for a portion of the proposed project. Status of Planning and NEPA: FHWA policy states: " The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal." The intent of this requirement is to confirm and report information relative to the status of the planning and NEPA processes in regard to the access request. Final approval of an IMR/IJR is contingent upon approval of the NEPA and planning processes. Also, the development of final plans, right-of-way acquisition, and physical construction may be performed only after approval of the environmental document. k. Operational analysis required in an IMR/IJR The IMR/IJR must contain an operational analysis. The operational analysis of the proposed access must clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of FHWA that there will be little or no impact to the safety and operation of the Interstate facility. The methodology from the current TRB Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), or current version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) shall be used to perform the needed engineering analyses. Other analysis tools, such as Corsim, may be used to supplement the HCS analysis and in some complex projects, may be required. The IJR/IMR submittal shall include a computer disk containing all electronic data used in all the analyses. The operational analysis should use traffic data based on a design year 20 years from the date when the project is scheduled to be complete and open to the traveling public. Alternate analysis tools for determining operational acceptability will need prior approval by FHWA. The operational impact on the mainline Interstate between the proposed new/revised access and the adjacent existing interchanges on either side must be analyzed. The analysis should be extended as far along the mainline and include as many existing interchanges as is necessary to establish the scope of the impacts. In some cases in urban areas, the effects of a new interchange may be felt several miles downstream where a bottleneck occurs. If this is the case, then it must be addressed in the analysis. If there are multiple planned projects on a corridor, the corridor should be analyzed. The spacing between interchanges must safely accommodate weaving, diverging, and merging maneuvers, and also allow for understandable signing. The engineering analysis shall include all of the following, as applicable, unless agreed otherwise by FHWA: Existing Peak Hour Volumes: Plan view map with ramps and Interstate through lanes labeled with existing "AM Peak Hour" and "PM Peak Hour" volumes. October 2008 A-25 Office of Planning I-95 at BelBBfrrayyaasnntCC-ooSuuinndttyyi,,nGGgeeoorrIggAiiaaR Bryan County, Georgia Design Year No-Build Peak Hour Volumes: Plan view map with ramps and Interstate through lanes labeled with the Design Year No-Build "AM Peak Hour" and "PM Peak Hour" volumes. Design Year Build Peak Hour Volumes: Plan view map with ramps and Interstate through lanes labeled with the Design Year Build Peak "AM Peak Hour" and "PM Peak Hour" volumes. Summary Of Operational Analysis: Preferably, a table listing the "Freeway LOS", "Ramp LOS", and "Weave LOS" for the corresponding Existing AM/PM, Design Year "No-Build" AM/PM, and Design Year "Build" AM/PM for the appropriate Interstate through lane sections, on-ramps, offramps, and weave areas. Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service: Plan view map with ramps, Interstate through lanes, and crossroads labeled with calculated Existing "AM Peak Hour Level of Service" values and " PM Peak Hour Level of Service" values. Design Year No-Build Peak Hour Levels of Service: Plan view map with ramps, Interstate through lanes, and crossroads labeled with calculated Design Year No-Build "AM Peak Hour Level of Service" values and "PM Peak Hour Level of Service" values. Design Year Build Peak Hour Levels of Service: Plan view map with ramps, Interstate through lanes, and crossroads labeled with calculated Design Year Build "AM Peak Hour Level of Service" values and "PM Peak Hour Level of Service" values. Basic Freeway Segments Analyses of Existing Conditions Basic Freeway Segments Analyses of the Design Year "No-Build" Conditions Basic Freeway Segments Analyses of the Design Year "Build" Conditions Ramp Junction Analyses of the Existing Conditions Ramp Junction Analyses (including queue analysis) of the Design Year "No- Build" Conditions Ramp Junction Analyses (including queue analysis) of the Design Year "Build" Conditions Weave Area Analyses of the Existing Conditions Weave Area Analyses of the Design Year "No-Build" and "Build" Conditions Weave Area Analyses of the Design Year "Build" Conditions A copy of the raw input and output data used in the traffic analyses, both in hard-copy form and electronic form. If CORSIM is used to supplement the HCM, the following information needs to be provided with the CORSIM analysis: A disc with a copy of the .trf files. A description of the method used to calibrate the CORSIM model. An explanation of what default values were changed and why. An explanation of the number of runs and random seeds used to develop the final CORSIM results. A summary of the CORSIM results in graphical or tabular format. A summary chart showing the Level of Service results from the operational analysis. October 2008 A-26 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding IJR Bryan County, Georgia Appendix B - Meeting Notes and Correspondences October 2008 Summary of Activities IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Summary of Activities 2007 through 2008 Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 Discussed study scope, analysis procedures, and input data Verified available data Examined field conditions Performed initial traffic projections and analyzed existing conditions February through Mid-March, 2007 Coordination Meeting Regarding Land Use March 14, 2007 Confirmed planned development with Bryan County Verified locations in follow-up with Bryan County Analyzed Traffic data provided by Bryan County and Terra Point Development Mid March through April, 2007 Prepared trip generation estimates Prepare future year forecast traffic volumes with and without proposed interchange Coordination Meeting with GDOT Regarding Generated Traffic May 2, 2007 Performed IJR Analysis May through July 2007 Analyzed proposed and adjacent interchanges along I-95 Analyzed FHWA Policies Coordination Meeting Regarding Draft IJR Results August 2, 2007 Adjacent US 17 interchange could be improved to provide access intended by Belfast Siding Road Interchange Bryan County indicated they want to revisit growth assumptions Terra Point indicates their development will be an inland port with much greater truck trip generation Bryan County requests three months for Bryan County and Terra Point to compile data Received Data from King Engineering on Behalf of Bryan County December 15, 2007 Draft Bryan County Transportation Plan July 2007 Markup of traffic generation assumptions Thomas & Hutton Engineering Bryan County Future Development Plan Map Thomas & Hutton Engineering Performed preliminary examination of additional data Mid-December through Mid January 2007 Additional development does not significantly alter assumptions (assuming only a portion of unspecified development area will develop by year 2030) Prepared memorandum of findings for GDOT (January 24, 2008) GDOT provides response letter to Bryan County February 5, 2008 1 Kickoff Meeting Agenda (January 29, 2007) AGENDA IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 Agenda Item I. Introductions Consulting Team Public Agency Representatives II. Project Purpose Project Background Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination III. Project Overview Study Tasks Schedule Application of GDOT Technical Guidance o Guidance on Interstate Access Requests, by FHWA o GDOT Design Manual Chapter 13, Traffic Forecasting and Analysis IV. Data Input to IJR Study Process Traffic Volume Data Development and Growth Information Future Year Traffic Forecasts Aerial Photography GIS Data V. Discussion of Preliminary IJR Issues and Improvement Concepts Potential Interchange Directionality and Connection to Roadway Network Anticipated Benefits and Operational Issues with New Interchange Potential Improvement of Adjacent Interchanges or Parallel Facilities VI. Next Steps Examine Existing Conditions and Project Future Traffic o Examine Field Conditions / Collect data o Review Available Studies and Planned Projects o Identify Potential Environmental Justice Communities o Analyze Existing Conditions o Prepare Initial Future Year Traffic Volume Projections Analyze Key FHWA Policies o Interchange Spacing o Ability of Adjacent Interchanges to Satisfy Needs o Potential Impacts of New Interchange on I-95 Traffic Service Project Contacts: GDOT Project Manager: Michael Hatfield (404) 651-5330 Michael.Hatfield@dot.state.ga.us Consulting Team Contact: Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess, Inc. (404) 249-7550 Richard.Fangmann@c-b.com 1 AGENDA IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 N W E S Parallel corridor to be considered for improvement in place of new interchange Adjacent interchange to be analyzed Long Range GDOT Project Widen to 8 lanes Proposed interchange I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Adjacent interchange to be analyzed Jan 29, 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road 2 Interchange Justification Report Figure 1 Study Area IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 Interchange Justification Report (IJR) Work Plan Task 1: Data Collection Task 1.1: Perform Field Reconnaissance Task 1.2: Collect Traffic Volume and Turning Movement Data Task 1.3: Review Available Studies and Identify Planned Projects Task 2: Development of Base Year and Design Year Traffic for All Interstate Routes Task 2.1: Determine Historic Traffic Growth Trends and Travel Demand Model Growth Forecasts Task 2.2: Forecast Opening Year and Design Year Traffic Task 3: Evaluation of the Existing System Task 3.1: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini (Current and Future Year with Current Network) Task 3.2: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements (Current and Future Year with Current Network) Task 3.3: Define Interchange Need and Purpose Task 4: Development of Potential Improvements and Conceptual Layouts for Projects in the Study Area Task 4.1: Define Potential Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 4.2: Perform Screening for Impact to Environmental Resources Task 4.3: Identify Potential Environmental Justice Communities in the Study Area Task 4.4: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini (Future Year with Network Modifications) Task 4.5: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements (Future Year with Network Modifications) Task 4.6: Prepare Preliminary Interchange Alternative Layouts and Preliminary Cost Estimates Task 4.7: Evaluate Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 5: Prepare Preliminary Concepts for Each Project Task 5.1: Prepare Refined Interchange Alternative Layouts for Preferred Alternative Task 5.2: Prepare Cost Estimate for Preferred Alternative Task 6: Document the Implementation Plan Effort Task 6.1: Prepare Interim Evaluation Memorandum Task 6.2: Prepare Study Documentation (Draft and Final IJR) Task 7: Meetings with GDOT, FHWA Task 7.1: Conduct Kickoff Meeting Task 7.2: Attend Coordination Meetings Task 7 A: Consultant Present Findings to Bryan County 3 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 IJR Schedule Project Task Task 1: Data Collection Month (2006 - 2007) Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Task 1-1: Perform Field Reconnaissance Task 1-2: Collect Traffic Volume and Turning Movement Data Task 1-3: Review Available Studies and Identify Planned Projects Task 2: Development of Base Year and Design Year Traffic for All Interstate Routes Task 2-1: Determine Historic Growth Trends and Travel Demand Model Growth Forecasts Task 2-2: Forecast Opening Year and Design Year Traffic Task 3: Evaluation of the Existing System Task 3-1: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini Task 3-2: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements Task 3-3: Define Interchange Need and Purpose Technical Memo Interim Report Task 4: Development of Potential Improvements and Conceptual Layouts for Projects in the Study Area Task 4-1: Define Potential Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 4-2: Perform Screening for Impact to Environmental Resources Task 4-3: Identify Potential Environmental Justice Communiites in the Study Area Task 4-4: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini (Future with Network Modifications) Task 4-5: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements (Future with Network Mod.) Task 4-6: Prepare Preliminary Interchange Alternative Layouts and Preliminary Cost Estimates Task 4-7: Evaluate Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 5: Prepare Preliminary Concepts for Each Project Task 5-1: Prepare Refined Interchange Alternative Layouts for Preferred Alternative Task 5-2: Prepare Cost Estimates for Preferred Alternative Task 6: Document the Implementation Plan Effort Task 6-1: Prepare Interim Evaluation Memorandum Task 6-2: Prepare Study Documentation (Draft and Final IJR) Technical Memo Interim Report Task 7 / 7(A): Meetings with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County / Present Findings to Bryan County Task 7-1: Conduct Kickoff Meeting Task 7-2: Attend Coordination Meeting GDOT Monthly Coordination Meetings Task 7-3: Provide Formal Presentation to Bryan County Officials Notice to Proceed Meeting with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County Technical Memo s Interim Report s Draft IJR Document s Final IJR Document 4 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 GDOT Technical Guidance on Preparing Interchange Justification Reports (IJRs) The need for a new break in access along I-95 at Belfast Siding Road will be examined in relation to the eight policy requirements listed in the Federal Register and included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests, as follows: 1. The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. 2. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. 3. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System. 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and /or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CRF part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 6. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long-term plan. 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. 8. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal. In accordance with FHWA and GDOT guidance, the IJR will examine operations at the proposed interchange location, as well as adjacent interchanges upstream and downstream. 5 N W E S IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road 2005: 70,660 Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning 2005: 10,150 2000: 61,739 Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 2000: 9,671 2005: 60,120 2000: 51,195 2005: 22,800 2000: 21,004 2005: 6,510 2000: 5,140 2005: 44,790 2000: 39,293 2005: 2,020 2000: 929 2005: 6,700 2000: 4,780 2005: 8,100 2000: 7,864 2005: 44,790 2000: 39,293 LEGEND 2005: 18,110 Daily Traffic Volume from 1999: 11,671 GDOT Count Station 2005: 5,430 2000: 5,908 2005: 2,520 2000: 2,571 Jan 29, 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road 6 Interchange Justification Report Proposed 24-hour Bi-directional Traffic Counts Proposed 24-hour Single Direction Traffic Counts Proposed AM and PM Peak Period Turning Movement Counts Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Traffic Volumes from GDOT Count Stations 1999-2005 Average Daily Traffic IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 7 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year 2003 2004 2005 Belfast Siding Road south of I-95 I-95 North of Belfast Siding Road US 17 West of I-95 I-95 South of SR 144 I-95 North of SR 144 SR 144 East of I-95 US 17 North of US 84 US 17 North of Limerick Road US 84 East of US 17 US 84 West of I-95 I-95 North of US 84 SR 84 East of I-95 Kickoff Meeting Minutes (prepared February 9, 2007) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 SUBJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road CSMSL-0006-00(941), PI N. 0006941 Kickoff Meeting MEETING DATE: January 29, 2007 TODAY'S DATE: February 9, 2007 PREPARED BY: Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess ATTENDEES: Phil Jones, Bryan County Administrator Jimmy Burnsed, Bryan County Commission Mike Hatfield, GDOT Office of Planning Mathew Fowler, GDOT Office of Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Office of Planning Kyle Mote, GDOT Office of Planning Teresa Scott, GDOT District 5 Jim Collins, Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company Jeff Ingham, Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company Ray Pittman, Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company Jeannie Fewell, TerraPointe Jeff Lawrence, TerraPointe Marta Rosen, Carter & Burgess Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess LOCATION: Bryan County Meeting Summary 1. The meeting began at 10:00 AM with an introduction of the meeting attendees. Mathew Fowler provided a brief overview of the study purpose and background. 2. Richard Fangmann provided a summary of the project schedule and FHWA requirements for obtaining a break in access. He indicated the study would be coordinated with GDOT and FHWA to ensure it adequately addressed the eight FHWA policies included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests. 3. Richard Fangmann indicated that the study will initially look at three key FHWA interchange requirements to determine if the proposed interchange will satisfy these criteria based on initial traffic projections prior to performing the full traffic analysis. Interchange spacing to GDOT/FHWA standards for minimum and average spacing. The existing interchanges cannot provide the needed access nor be improved to provide it. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse effect on the safety and operations of the existing freeway system. 1 of 3 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 4. Phil Jones provided a summary of the recent growth trends occurring in the County and the proposed growth planned for the Belfast Siding Road area near I-95. The County is rewriting its Comprehensive Land Use plan to include recent significant growth planned in the area. The previous plan was prepared in 1990. Marta Rosen indicated Carter & Burgess would like a copy of the previous plan. The following are some major developments underway in Bryan County: Genesis Point Large residential development with commercial along Oak Level Road. TerraPointe 20,000 acres of development overall with 7,000 acres being planned now. Other residential and commercial development is occurring along the SR 144 corridor. 5. Representatives of TerraPointe and Thomas & Hutton provided an overview of the TerraPointe development. They will develop 3,000 acres south of the Genesis Point Development east of I-95. They will develop 4,000 acres along Belfast Siding Road to include residential, commercial, and industrial. The industrial development will be 1,100 acres west of I-95 along Belfast Siding Road in the vicinity of the existing rail line. 6. Richard Fangmann requested TerraPointe provide information on the square footage for each of the proposed uses along Belfast Siding Road so the development could be included in the interchange analysis work. The information was requested by February 15th. TerraPointe indicated they will likely need more time to finalize these plans. 7. Richard Fangmann provided a discussion of the data collection to be performed as a part of the study. Phil Jones indicated that the analysis boundaries should include the intersection of US 17 at SR 144, as well as analysis along the SR 144 corridor, as it provides access to the growing area served by the proposed Belfast-Siding interchange. 8. Jimmy Burnsed inquired as to whether Hurricane evacuation will be considered as a part of the analysis of interchange needs. Cater & Burgess indicated that it would be considered, although not to the degree of detailed evacuation route planning. Hurricane evacuation is not explicitly indicated in the eight FHWA policies included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests. 9. Phil Jones indicated Bryan County has aerial photography performed in April of 2006 that could be provided to the Carter & Burgess Team. He indicated the County has parcel level data on properties and information on environmental conditions available in the County GIS. He agreed to coordinate with the GIS department regarding the use of this data by the Carter & Burgess Team. 2 of 3 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Kickoff Meeting January 29, 2007 10. The group discussed the next steps. Receipt of information on the proposed development in the vicinity of the proposed Belfast Siding Road is a key component to performing future traffic volumes to/from that area. The following is a summary of next steps to be performed. Carter & Burgess to perform peak hour traffic observations Carter & Burgess to perform traffic counts Bryan County to provide copy of previous comprehensive plan Bryan County to provide GIS database for use by Carter & Burgess. The following data is requested (if available): o Aerial Photography o Zoning (parcel data) o Land Use o Streets o Local Functional Classification o Contour Lines / LIDAR o Transit Routes and Stops o Sidewalks / Multiuse Trails o Traffic Signals o Wetlands o Socioeconomic data (population and employment by Traffic Analysis Zone or Census Tract) o Environmental Justice data - if any is available that is more recent than 2000 census data TerraPointe to provide information on proposed development along Belfast Siding Road. Carter & Burgess to discuss land use growth assumptions for analysis in a meeting with Phil Jones Carter & Burgess to prepare initial future year traffic forecasts and analysis of roadway operations. Carter & Burgess to perform initial evaluation of interchange needs based on application of primary FHWA policies. Richard Fangmann requested the data be provided by February 15th. TerraPointe indicated that it is not likely to have its site plan sufficiently set by that time. They indicated it would likely be the end of February before the information is available. 11. Following the kickoff meeting, Phil Jones provided an automobile tour of the portion of the County affected by the proposed interchange. These meeting minutes reflect the understanding of Richard Fangmann, attendee at the above referenced meeting. Please indicate any changes and return these meeting minutes via email to Richard.Fangmann@c-b.com If no changes are requested, these meeting minutes will be considered final in seven calendar days. As always, please call or email me if you have any questions or comments regarding the meeting summary. 3 of 3 Letter From Bryan County Describing Terrapointe Development (March 2, 2007) Land Use Assumptions Meeting Agenda (March 14, 2007) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Meeting to Discuss Land Use Assumptions March 14, 2007 Agenda Item I. Introductions Consultant and Public Agency Representatives Meeting Purpose II. Update on Data Input to IJR Study Process Aerial Photography GIS Data Traffic Volume Data Development and Growth Information Future Year Traffic Forecasts III. Discussion of Land Use Assumptions Based on Development Information Approved development - location and size of development by land use Proposed but not yet approved development (identified in master plans or other active planning efforts) - location and size of development by land use Proposed development not included in identified plans - (areas where growth is anticipated or developers are planning work that is not yet in a master plan or active planning effort) Information on Terra Point development at Belfast Siding Road - Area of proposed development and development plans IV. Next Steps Project future traffic growth based on historic growth and planned development Conduct traffic counts Analyzed existing conditions Perform initial environmental screening to identify wetlands Prepare future year forecast traffic volumes with and without proposed interchange Analyze Key FHWA Policies o Interchange Spacing o Ability of Adjacent Interchanges to Satisfy Needs o Potential Impacts of New Interchange on I-95 Traffic Service Project Contacts: GDOT Project Manager: Michael Hatfield (404) 651-5330 Michael.Hatfield@dot.state.ga.us Consulting Team Contact: Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess, Inc. (404) 249-7550 Richard.Fangmann@c-b.com 1 N W E S 2005: 70,660 2000: 61,739 2005: 60,120 2000: 51,195 2005: 22,800 2000: 21,004 2005: 10,150 2000: 9,671 2005: 6,510 2000: 5,140 2005: 44,790 2000: 39,293 2005: 2,020 2000: 929 2005: 6,700 2000: 4,780 2005: 8,100 2000: 7,864 2005: 44,790 2000: 39,293 LEGEND 2005: 18,110 Daily Traffic Volume from 1999: 11,671 GDOT Count Station 2005: 5,430 2000: 5,908 2005: 2,520 2000: 2,571 March 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Proposed 24-hour Bi-directional Traffic Counts Proposed 24-hour Single Direction Traffic Counts Proposed AM and PM Peak Period Turning Movement Counts Figure 1 Traffic Volume N W E S SR 144 West 5-Year: -8.4% US 17 South 5-Year: 1.3% I-95 North 5-Year: 2.7% US 17 North 5-Year: 1.4% SR 144 City Limits 5-Year: 5.9% I-95 5-Year: 3.0% SR 144 Rural 5-Year: 8.7% SR 196 5-Year: -0.3% I-95 Liberty 5-Year: 2.9% US 84 East 5-Year: -0.4% US 84 Midway 5-Year: -0.4% March 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Figure 2 Annual Growth Rates Email Correspondence - Questions about TerraPointe Development (April 19, 2007) Page 1 of 1 From: Fangmann, Richard B. Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:38 PM To: 'Phil Jones' Cc: 'Simpson, Radney'; 'Mote, Kyle'; Rosen, Marta V. Subject: I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR Phil, We received the information on the master plan for the TerraPoint development along Belfast Siding Road (copy attached). We appreciate you forwarding this information to us. We are beginning to look at what development scenarios may be feasible for the site in the timeframe of the proposed interchange analysis (opening 2015 with design year 2035. The following are a few questions: Has Terra Point let you know any more specific plans as to the type or phasing of development, particularly within the 2015 to 2035 timeframe? Would you please forward a scanned or electronic version of the Master Plan, we cannot read the smaller text that provides details on the tracts and summary data? Do they have a document that describes their Master Plan that goes along with the map? If so, could you forward that, as well? Thank you for getting this information to us. We have also prepared a graphic that indicates the developed areas discussed in our last meeting. Please review this graphic and let us know if we have missed anything. We would like to receive your concurrence with this information, as we plan to use it to define future development for purposes of projecting future traffic for evaluation of the need for an interchange at I-95 and Belfast Siding Road. Thanks again for the information. Richard Fangmann, P.E., PTOE Carter & Burgess, Inc. 1718 Peachtree Street NW Suite 461 Atlanta, GA 30309 404-249-7550 Main 404-478-3913 Direct 404-249-7705 Fax file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 Project Status Meeting Agenda (May 2, 2007) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Project Status Meeting May 2, 2007 Agenda Item Discussion Item I. Introductions / Meeting Purpose II. Comparison of TerraPointe Master Plan to Previous Conceptual Work Status of TerraPointe Work Comparison to previous concept submitted to Bryan County III. Preliminary Traffic Generation and Distribution Traffic Generated by TerraPointe Development Preliminary Residential and External Commercial Traffic Generation and Distribution for Additional Development in Southern Bryan County IV. Schedule and Next Steps Review of Schedule and Next Meeting Date Next Steps: o Prepare future year forecast traffic volumes with and without proposed interchange o Perform initial environmental screening to identify wetlands o Analyze Key FHWA Policies Interchange Spacing Ability of Adjacent Interchanges to Satisfy Needs Potential Impacts of New Interchange on I-95 Traffic Service o Meet with GDOT and Bryan County to discuss preliminary results 1 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Project Status Meeting May 2, 2007 COMPARISON OF TERRAPOINTE MASTER PLAN TO PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL WORK Status of TerraPointe Development TerraPointe Submitted Master Plan to Bryan County for Belfast Siding Property at I-95 (3,300 acres) Thomas & Hutton Engineering, Inc. is currently preparing DRI for property (traffic study not available at this time) Table 1 Comparison of Development Intensity for TerraPointe Development at Belfast Siding Road Land Use Type Industrial Regional Activity Center Commercial Multifamily Residential Single Family Residential Development Intensity Previous Concept Submitted Master Plan size unit size unit 17,290,700 sq. ft. 3,721,000 sq. ft. 7,636,640 sq. ft. 3,150,000 sq. ft. 3,063 Dwellings 6,460 Dwellings 4,928 Dwellings 4,271 Dwellings Reduced Intensity size 13,569,700 4,486,640 -3,397 657 unit sq. ft. sq. ft. Dwellings Dwellings Percent 80% 45% -164% 7% Net Difference: Reduction of 18,056,340 sq. ft. industrial/commercial (72%) Increase of 2,740 dwelling units (34%) Note: Future development of 942 dwelling units and 8,393,000 square feet of industrial development on property west of I-95 owned by others was not considered in the table above. Result: Submitted development master plan has lower intensity than previous concept. PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Table 2 Preliminary Daily Traffic Generation for TerraPointe Site IJR for I-20 at Belfast Siding Road Land Use Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential School Office Retail Industrial Total Quantity Units 4,271 units 6,460 units 75 acres 1,050 ksq. ft. 2,100 ksq. ft. 3,721 ksq. ft. Daily Trip Rate 7.7 6.0 13.8 7.8 23.4 4.8 Total Daily Trips 32,887 38,975 1,034 8,156 49,134 17,708 147,894 Mixed Use Reduction Percent Trips 8% 2,586 7% 2,586 25% 258 5% 436 35% 9% 17,258 1,543 17% 24,668 Net with Reduction 30,301 36,389 775 7,720 31,876 16,165 123,226 2 Table 3 Preliminary Traffic Generation and Distribution of New Trips by Subarea IJR for I-20 at Belfast Siding Road No. Submittal Residential Trip Lots Rate Trips Generated Gross Mixed Use Net with Reduction Reduction US 17 Corridor west of I-95 16 300 9.5 2,857 n/a 2,857 17 300 9.5 2,857 n/a 2,857 SR 144 north of Fort McCallister Road 15 24 11.7 280 n/a 280 22 143 10.1 1,445 n/a 1,445 West of SR 144 between Belfast Keller Rd (north) and Belfast Keller Rd (south) 1 72 10.7 769 10% 692 4 60 10.8 650 10% 585 7 41 11.2 458 10% 412 8 274 9.6 2,628 10% 2,365 11 59 10.8 640 10% 576 SR 144 south of Oak Level Road 2 58 10.9 630 n/a 630 3 19 11.9 226 n/a 226 5 23 11.7 269 n/a 269 6 22 11.7 258 n/a 258 9 145 10.1 1,464 n/a 1,464 13 22 11.7 258 n/a 258 Oak Level Road East of SR 144 10 33 11.4 375 n/a 375 12 180 9.9 1,786 10% 1,607 18 2946 7.9 23,369 10% 21,032 19 4200 7.7 32,384 10% 29,146 Belfast Siding Road near I-95 20 TerraPointe 10,731 6.7 71,862 5,172 66,690 14 42 11.1 468 n/a 468 21 298 9.5 2,839 10% 2,555 Carter Burgess, Inc. May 2, 2007 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Project Status Meeting May 2, 2007 IJR Schedule Project Task Task 1: Data Collection Month (2006 - 2007) Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Task 1-1: Perform Field Reconnaissance Task 1-2: Collect Traffic Volume and Turning Movement Data Task 1-3: Review Available Studies and Identify Planned Projects Task 2: Development of Base Year and Design Year Traffic for All Interstate Routes Task 2-1: Determine Historic Growth Trends and Travel Demand Model Growth Forecasts Task 2-2: Forecast Opening Year and Design Year Traffic Task 3: Evaluation of the Existing System Task 3-1: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini Task 3-2: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements Task 3-3: Define Interchange Need and Purpose Technical Memo Interim Report Task 4: Development of Potential Improvements and Conceptual Layouts for Projects in the Study Area Task 4-1: Define Potential Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 4-2: Perform Screening for Impact to Environmental Resources Task 4-3: Identify Potential Environmental Justice Communiites in the Study Area Task 4-4: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini (Future with Network Modifications) Task 4-5: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements (Future with Network Mod.) Task 4-6: Prepare Preliminary Interchange Alternative Layouts and Preliminary Cost Estimates Task 4-7: Evaluate Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 5: Prepare Preliminary Concepts for Each Project Task 5-1: Prepare Refined Interchange Alternative Layouts for Preferred Alternative Task 5-2: Prepare Cost Estimates for Preferred Alternative Task 6: Document the Implementation Plan Effort Task 6-1: Prepare Interim Evaluation Memorandum Task 6-2: Prepare Study Documentation (Draft and Final IJR) Technical Memo Interim Report Task 7 / 7(A): Meetings with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County / Present Findings to Bryan County Task 7-1: Conduct Kickoff Meeting Task 7-2: Attend Coordination Meeting GDOT Monthly Coordination Meetings Task 7-3: Provide Formal Presentation to Bryan County Officials Notice to Proceed Meeting with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County Technical Memo s Interim Report s Draft IJR Document s Final IJR Document 4 Preliminary Results Meeting Agenda (August 2, 2007) IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Discussion Item I. Introductions Introductions Study Status II. Summary and Implication of Study Findings Summary of Study Findings Application of FHWA Policy Requirements III. Future Year Traffic Projections Growth Trends Traffic Generated by Terra Point Development Traffic Generated by Other Approved Development Methodology for Assigning Future Traffic Future Traffic Volumes IV. Traffic Analysis Results Intersection Operations Improvement Needs with and Without Interchange V. Next Steps Prepare documentation of study findings Office of Planning Office of Planning Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Laurel St US Highway 17 Grove Po Chevis Rd il Rd Study Area State Route 144 Wil d Heron Rd Shore Rd Mount H Hog Island Rd Mt Olivet Church Rd M Fleming Cir Rd Cook Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation Daniel Siding Loop Dixie Rd Daniel S iding L oop Rd Cartertown Rd Clarkt Ray SmitGhiRlldRd own R d Iq Hill Rd Lee Kelly Rd DavOisakRHdill Rd US Highway 17 Shaw Rd !"e$ 1stSt FordAve Wh i te Oak LnEdseMl Darple St Richmond Hill int Rd CHATHAM O Ocean Hwy sprey Dr Butler Rd Casey Dr Timber Trl Harris Tra A Brisbon Rd Ford Ests Rice Gate Dr Tran quilla Hill Rd Por t Royal Rd Fox RCdharSliaelsleRttdRd Strathy Hall Rd Adam Johnson Rd Oxford Dr Mill Kelsall Rd Run Rd Warnell Dr Tunie Miller Rd Leroy Coffer Hwy Oak Hampton Rd Freedman Grove Rd Johnson Cir ope Rd Belfast Siding Rd BRYAN Belfast Keller Rd Bryan Neck Rd li Proma n Trl 10 n Warre Hill Dun m B ge Trl Mingarry Dr Fort McallisPtearssRadic Ln Phillips Ln Ocean Hwy Swamp Trl ha 1 St Luke Rd Leroy Limerick Baker Rd Rd Co urt Dr Ave Dr stJeri co DrWye Rd Lake Dr River Rd Pin e Oa k Interstate 95 SB S ea bro ok arsh Dr Island Dr W First St Mag nolia Rd E 1st St Interstate 95 NB Midway Martin Rd US Highway 84 Is le Of W ight Rd Bodaford Rd Selina Rd Jeric o Trl Old Mill Rd E Tivoli Trail Rd Lake G ale Dr Jane St Baconton Rd ie Dr E Iq Smiley Hall Rd Oak Creek Rd S Costal Hwy E B Cooper Hwy Jon es St er Dr Frazi 0 S Riceboro 0.5 1 Costal Hwy 2 P eter K ing 3Rd Charlie Butler Rd ICaUySCHreigehkwRayd84 Sunbury Rd Morgan Rd Black Sunday Rd !"e$ 4 Miles LIBERTY Dorchester Village Rd J Don Ln Islands Hwy Old SeaFbtrMoookrrSiscRhdRd Greenlee Dr Mariners Rd Ft Morris Rd Ma r sh vi e w Dr Sweet Hill Rd Harden Rd Bryan Fishermans Coop Rd Jake Brown Trl Star Creek Rd Kilkenny Rd d Steedle Chase Ln Brown Rd Belle Island R Blount Ln Lake Pamona Rd Faye Dr Alice Dr Lincoln Trl Jessup Rd Jake Brown Rd Redbird Cr ek Trl Oak Level Rd Savage Island Rd Cotto nh am Trl e S B Largo Dr w F Coffee Bluff Rd h Ave tfield Ave Ferguson Ave Vernonburg Windsor Still o od Dr RdBriarWcliifllfoCwirRdRendan Cedar Grove Rd t Ave Mill Dr Mary Cir Rivers Edge Dr elt Dr Cardiff Rd Savannah Rose Dhu Island Dr Bea Whi uliLeeuhAi gveS hipya Bethesda Rd D iamond Cswy rd Rd Mc Alpin Hunt Dr S End Rd Ossabaw Island WMA Hell Hole Rd each Rd ule R M un Rd Bradley Rd Regional Inset EMANUEL SCREVEN CANDLER BULLOCH !"`$ EFFINGHAM TOOMBS EVANS TATTNALL BRYAN COUNTY CHATHAM APPLING LONG LIBERTY !"e$ CHATHAM BACON PIERCE WAYNE MCINTOSH MCINTOSH GLYNN Figure 1 Legend Road Network Interstate Interchange Ramps State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Bryan County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. rn August 2, 2007 DRAFT IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Figure 2 - IJR Schedule Project Task Task 1: Data Collection Month (2007) Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Task 1-1: Perform Field Reconnaissance Task 1-2: Collect Traffic Volume and Turning Movement Data Task 1-3: Review Available Studies and Identify Planned Projects Task 2: Development of Base Year and Design Year Traffic for All Interstate Routes Task 2-1: Determine Historic Growth Trends and Travel Demand Model Growth Forecasts Task 2-2: Forecast Opening Year and Design Year Traffic Task 3: Evaluation of the Existing System Task 3-1: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini Task 3-2: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements Task 3-3: Define Interchange Need and Purpose Technical Memo Interim Report Task 4: Development of Potential Improvements and Conceptual Layouts for Projects in the Study Area Task 4-1: Define Potential Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 4-2: Perform Screening for Impact to Environmental Resources Task 4-3: Identify Potential Environmental Justice Communiites in the Study Area Task 4-4: Perform Analysis of Arterial Segments, Intersections, and Ramp Termini (Future with Network Modifications) Task 4-5: Perform Analysis of Freeway Ramps, Merge/Diverge Areas, and Weaving Movements (Future with Network Mod.) Task 4-6: Prepare Preliminary Interchange Alternative Layouts and Preliminary Cost Estimates Task 4-7: Evaluate Build and No-Build Alternatives Task 5: Prepare Preliminary Concepts for Each Project Task 5-1: Prepare Refined Interchange Alternative Layouts for Preferred Alternative Task 5-2: Prepare Cost Estimates for Preferred Alternative Task 6: Document the Implementation Plan Effort Task 6-1: Prepare Interim Evaluation Memorandum Task 6-2: Prepare Study Documentation (Draft and Final IJR) Technical Memo Interim Report Task 7 / 7(A): Meetings with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County / Present Findings to Bryan County Task 7-1: Conduct Kickoff Meeting Task 7-2: Attend Coordination Meeting GDOT Monthly Coordination Meetings Task 7-3: Provide Formal Presentation to Bryan County Officials Notice to Proceed Meeting with GDOT, FHWA, and Bryan County Technical Memo s Interim Report s Draft IJR Document s Final IJR Document Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Summary of Study Findings The proposed interchange was evaluated versus the eight FHWA Policies to determine if construction of an interchange is justified. Since the nearby interchanges can be improved to provide access to I-95 with acceptable LOS (LOS D or better), the FHWA Policy Guidance (Policy #1) is not satisfied and therefore, installation of an interchange is not recommended. FHWA Policy #1: "The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. " The proposed Terra Point Development will generate significant traffic when built out (123,000 external trips per day). Many of the Terra Point development trips (approximately 70%) will satisfy travel needs within Southern Bryan County without the need for interstate access (both trip ends within southern Bryan County). Proposed improvements to the I-95 interchanges at SR 144 and US 17 (see improvement needs below) which could be performed in conjunction with the planned widening of I-95, will satisfy the interstate access needs for planned development in southern Bryan County. Improvements Needed with or without New Interchange I-95 @ SR 144 interchange Southbound ramp intersection Add second southbound left-turn lane on the off-ramp Add second eastbound through lane on SR 144 Northbound ramp intersection Add traffic signal Add second eastbound through lane on SR 144 I-95 @ US 17 interchange Southbound ramp intersection Add second southbound left-turn lane on the off-ramp Add third eastbound through lane on US 17 Add second westbound left-turn lane on US 17 Northbound ramp intersection Add traffic signal Add northbound right-turn lane on the off-ramp Add second westbound left-turn lane on US 17 Add eastbound right-turn lane on US 17 I-95 @ US 84 interchange Southbound ramp intersection - No improvements required Northbound ramp intersection - No improvements required Office of Planning Exit 94 4.1 mi . Proposed Interchange 4.6 mi 2.3 mi . . Exit 90 Exit 87 6.4 mi . NOTE: Average Spacing with new interchange = 4.33 mi. Exit 76 8.6 mi. August 2, 2007 Exit 67 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Office of Planning Figure 3: Interchange Spacing IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Evaluation of Eight FHWA Policies included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests: The need for a new break in access will be examined in relation to the eight policy requirements listed in the Federal Register and included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests, as follows: 1. The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. [Policy Not Satisfied] 2. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. [Policy Satisfied] 3. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. [Policy Satisfied] 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System. [Policy Satisfied] 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and /or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CRF part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. [Policy Satisfied] 6. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a longterm plan. [Policy Satisfied] 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. [Policy Satisfied] 8. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal. [Policy Could be Satisfied Information Not Yet Provided] In accordance with FHWA and GDOT guidance, the IJR will examine operations at the proposed interchange location, as well as adjacent interchanges upstream and downstream. Office of Planning Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Potential Development Areas Fort Stewart Military Reservation 16 !"e$ 17 Iq Richmond Hill A BRYAN CHATHAM 22 15 14 Future Commercial / Retail Nodes 20 1 ,4,7, 21 8 ,11 10 18 Midway Iq I !"e$ LIBERTY 5 6 9 2 3 ,13 19 12 Vernonburg Savannah Ossabaw Island WMA Regional Inset EMANUEL SCREVEN CANDLER BULLOCH !"`$ EFFINGHAM TOOMBS EVANS TATTNALL BRYAN COUNTY CHATHAM APPLING LONG LIBERTY !"e$ CHATHAM BACON PIERCE WAYNE MCINTOSH MCINTOSH GLYNN Figure 4 Legend Road Network Interstate Interchange Ramps State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Potential Development Areas Future Commercial / Retail Nodes Bryan County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Railroads Riceboro 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: GDOT, Bryan County, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2007 DRAFT Table 1 Daily Traffic Generation for TerraPointe Site IJR for I-20 at Belfast Siding Road Land Use Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential School Office Retail Industrial Total Quantity Units 4,271 units 6,460 units 75 acres 1,050 ksq. ft. 2,100 ksq. ft. 3,721 ksq. ft. Daily Trip Rate 7.7 6.0 13.8 7.8 23.4 4.8 Total Daily Trips 32,887 38,975 1,034 8,156 49,134 17,708 147,894 Mixed Use Reduction Percent Trips 8% 2,586 7% 2,586 25% 258 5% 436 35% 17,258 9% 1,543 17% 24,668 Net with Reduction 30,301 36,389 775 7,720 31,876 16,165 123,226 Carter Burgess, Inc. DRAFT August 2, 2007 IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Methodology for Estimating Traffic Volumes Trip Generation Purpose of trip generation is to predict the number of trips that are generated by and attracted to each TAZ in the study area Trip generation in Bryan County was based on the following data: Daily trip rate from the Trip Generation 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Dwelling (units), acreage of land use for school, office, retail and industrial (square feet) for the potential development areas Procedure: Twelve TAZs were created that included twenty-two future commercial/retail potential developments in TAZ 1,2,3,4,5 and 12 TAZs 7 to 11 were treated as external zones Proposed new interchange along Belfast Siding Road is located in TAZ 2 and 12 along I95 Adjacent interchanges on I-95 at US 84, US 17, and SR 144 were examined Intersection of SR 144 at US 17 was investigated due to the capacity constraints Production and Attraction (PA) Trip table was created Once the PA table was created, the next step was to create an impedance factor o Measurement of impedance based on travel time (minutes) Trip Distribution Purpose of trip distribution is to predict the trips between origin and destination zones Procedure: Gravity model was applied for HBW trips and HBO trips An Origin-Destination (OD) trip table was produced External-External trips were added to the OD trip table o Calculation of external-external trips was based on the existing ADT with the estimation of annual growth rate: 2.7% from year 2007 to 2012 and 1.35% from year 2012 to 2030 Trip Assignment Purpose of trip assignment is to predict traffic volumes on roadway network in the study area Procedure Based on the paths between TAZs daily trips and peak hour traffic volumes were assigned to the roadway network for year 2030 at the proposed interchange on I-95 at Belfast Siding Road and existing interchanges of I-95 at SR 144, US 17 and US 84 and the intersection of SR 144 at US 17 Office of Planning Table 2 Matrix of Trip Origins and Destinations for Proposed Developments in Southern Bryan County TAZ 1 - Developments 16 and 17 2 - Development 20 west of I-95 3 - Developments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 21 4 - Developments 3, 10, 12, 18, and 19 5 - Developments 14, 15, and 22 6 - Richmond Hill 7 - External Zone - US 17 west of I-95 8 - External Zone - I-95 south of Belfast Siding Road 9 - External Zone - SR 144 North of I-95 10 - External Zone - I-95 North of Richmond Hill 11 - External Zone - US 17 North of Richmond Hill 12 - Development 20 east of I-95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 253 101 17 0 540 733 13 176 221 264 539 253 0 270 446 12 0 0 400 0 358 358 1,115 101 270 836 6,451 189 479 279 40 183 265 607 8,942 17 446 6,451 2,484 38 2,075 793 665 408 740 849 16,793 0 12 189 38 0 229 126 37 40 61 90 276 540 0 479 2,075 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,772 733 0 279 793 126 0 0 0 197 1,160 57 4,739 13 400 40 665 37 0 0 0 987 44,603 120 2,325 176 0 183 408 40 0 197 987 0 6,316 1,737 2,817 221 358 265 740 61 0 1,160 44,603 6,316 0 0 1,848 264 358 607 849 90 0 57 120 1,737 0 0 1,988 539 1,115 8,942 16,793 276 4,772 4,739 2,325 2,817 1,848 1,988 6,043 Total Terra Point Development Traffic Productions West of I-95 3,212 Total Terra Point Development Traffic Productions East of I-95 52,209 Total Terra Point Development Traffic Productions (note: productions are half of overall trip generation) 55,421 Total Terra Point Development Traffic Remaining in Southern Bryan County 14,833 Total Terra Point Development Traffic Leaving Southern Bryan County 40,588 Carter Burgess, Inc. DRAFT August 2, 2007 Bryan County Interchange Justification Report Laurel St US Highway 17 Grov e Point Chevis Rd il Rd Study Area and 2000 Census StateRoute144 Tracts W il d H eron Rd Mount H Hog Island Rd Mt O livet Church Rd M Fleming Cir Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation Daniel Siding Loop Dixie Rd D aniel S iding L oop Rd Cartertown Rd Clarkt Ray Sm ith Rd Gill Rd own R d Iq Hill Rd Lee Kelly Rd DavOisakRHdill Rd US Highway 17 Shaw Rd !"e$ 1stSt Ford Ave W h i te Oak LnEdseMl Darp le St Richmond Hill Rd CHATHAM O Ocean Hwy sprey Dr Butler Rd Casey Dr Timber Trl H arris Tra A Brisbon Rd Ford Ests Rice Gate Dr Tran q uilla Hill R d Por t Royal R d Fox RCdharSliaelsleRttdRd Strathy Hall Rd Adam Johnson Rd Oxford D r Mill Kelsall Rd Run R d Warnell Dr Cook Rd Tunie Miller Rd Leroy C offer Hwy Oak Ham pton Rd Freedman Grove Rd Johns on Cir ope Rd Belfast Siding Rd BRYAN Belfast K eller Rd i Proma n Trl 10 n W arr e Hill D un m Bl ge Trl Trivoli M Bryan Neck Rd F ort Mcallister Rd Phillips Ln Ocean Hwy arsh Rd Sw amp Trl ha 1 St Luke Rd Leroy Limerick Baker Rd Rd C o u rt Dr Ave Dr stJeric o Dr Wye Rd L ake Dr River Rd Pine Oa k Interstate 95 SB S eabrook arsh Dr Is la n d Dr Tideland W Dr F irs t St E 1s t S t Interstate 95 NB Midway Martin Rd US Highway 84 Is l e Of W ight Rd Bodaford Rd Jeri co Trl Old Mill Rd E Selina Rd Tivoli Trail Rd Lake Gale Dr Jane St Baconton Rd rn ie Dr E Iq Smiley Hall Rd Charlie Butler Rd IUS Highway 84 Cay Creek Rd Sunbury Rd Morgan Rd Black Sunday Rd S Costal Hwy Oak Creek Rd E B Cooper Hwy Jon es St er Dr Interstate Papermill Frazi 0 S Riceboro 0.5 1 Costal Hwy 2 P eter King 3Rd !"e$ 4 Miles LIBERTY Dorchester Village Rd J Don Ln Islands Hwy Old SeaFbtrMoookrrSiscRh dRd Greenlee Dr Mariners Rd Ft Morris Rd M arshvi e w Dr Davis R d Sweet Hill Rd Harden Rd B ryan Fish erm ans Coop Rd Jake Brown Trl Star Creek Rd Kilkenny Rd d Steedle Chase Ln Brown Rd Belle Island R Blount Ln Lake Pamona Rd Faye Dr Alice Dr Lincoln Trl Jessup Rd Jake Brown R d Re dbird Cr ek Trl Oak Level Rd Savage Island Rd C otton ham Trl e S B L argo Dr w F C offee Bluff Rd h A ve tfield Ave Ferguson Ave Windsor Rd Briarcliff Cir Still ood Dr Willow Rd Cedar Grove Rd Mill Dr Vernonburg e lt Dr Cardiff Rd Savannah Whitefield Ave Rose Dhu Island Dr Whi Lehi g S hipya Bethesda Rd D iamond Cswy rd Rd Mc Alpin Hunt Dr Regional Inset !"`$ BRYAN COUNTY !"e$ Ossabaw Island WMA He ll Ho le R d each Rd ule R M un Rd S End Rd Bradley Rd Figure 5 Legend Traffic Analysis Zones (Bryan County Area) Bryan County TAZ Zones Road Network Interstate 95 Interchange Ramps State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Bryan County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: U.S. Census (2000), GDOT, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2007 DRAFT N W E S [64,400] (55,500) 36,900 [26,500] (32,300) 17,100 [14,200] (16,300) 10,800 [21,900] (25,200) 12,200 [7,500] (7,500) 4,100 [7,900] (3,000) 1,900 [54,800] (46,000) 28,800 [18,900] (3,000) 1,900 [46,000] (46,000) 28,800 [6,600] (6,600) 4,300 [42,300] (42,300) 26,300 [3,600] (3,600) 2,200 August 2, 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report LEGEND [1000] 2032 Build ADT (1000) 2032 No-Build ADT 1000 2007 Existing ADT Figure 6 Existing and Future ADT Traffic Volumes 4.1 m i . 2.3 mi . . 4.6 mi Exit 94 Exit 90 Exit 87 Proposed Interchange Exit 76 6.4 mi . 8.6 mi. August 2, 2007 Exit 67 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Figure 7 Interchange Spacing IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 3a Year 2007 Intersection Operations Analysis - Existing Conditions Int No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Intersection SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps US 17 @ SR 144 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road US 17 @ SR 196 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Control Movement Signal Signal w/imp Stop Control Signal w/imp Signal Signal w/imp Signal Signal w/imp Stop Control Signal w/imp Stop Control Signal w/imp Stop Control Signal w/imp Signal Overall Overall nb-l nb-r eb-l Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall nb-lr wb-l Overall sb-l wb-lr Overall nb-l eb-l eb-r Overall Overall Signal Overall Signal Overall AM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) B 19 C 20.0 D 32.6 D 32.6 A 8.4 A 8.8 D 43.0 D 42.9 C 31.4 C 28.3 F >50 B 10.5 B 13.5 B 13.9 F >50 B 10.9 A 7.9 F >50 A 10.0 C 24.4 A 7.6 A 9.7 B 10.9 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) D 50.4 D 38.5 F >50 F >50 A 8.4 A 6.9 D 51.0 D 51.1 C 21.7 C 22.4 F >50 A 8.8 B 11.1 B 11.3 F >50 A 6.8 A 8.3 F >50 B 10.7 B 14.5 A 8.6 A 9.4 A 9.9 Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 3b Year 2032 Intersection Operations Analysis - No-Build Conditions (Without new interchange) Int No. 1 2 Intersection SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps Control Signal Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Overall E 62.5 F >80 Signal w/imp Overall C 26.3 C 29.1 nb-l F >50 F >50 Stop Control nb-r F >50 F >50 eb-l A 9.3 A 9.5 Signal w/imp Overall B 19.5 A 9.3 Signal Overall F >80 F >80 3 US 17 @ SR 144 Signal w/imp Overall D 47.4 D 54.9 Signal Overall F >80 F >80 4 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal w/imp Overall C 34.8 C 28.9 Stop Control nb-lr F >50 F >50 5 US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps wb-l E 36.0 C 16.0 Signal w/imp Overall C 33.3 C 31.3 Stop Control sb-l D 29.7 C 17.7 6 US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road wb-lr F >50 F >50 Signal w/imp Overall C 25.2 B 13.7 nb-l A 8.3 A 8.9 Stop Control eb-l F >50 F >50 7 US 17 @ SR 196 eb-r B 11.0 B 12.4 Signal w/imp Overall C 23.2 B 18.4 8 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) Signal Overall B 10.5 B 10.6 9 US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall B 12.5 B 12.5 10 US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 12.4 B 12.4 Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 3c Year 2032 Intersection Operations Analysis - Build Conditions (With new interchange) Int No. 1 2 Intersection SR 144 @ I-95 SB ramps SR 144 @ I-95 NB ramps Control Movement Signal Overall Signal w/imp Stop Control Signal w/imp Overall nb-l nb-r eb-l Overall AM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) C 34.5 B 20.1 F >50 F >50 A 9.3 B 13.1 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec) F >80 C 23.4 F >50 F >50 A 9.6 A 9.2 Signal Overall F >80 F >80 3 US 17 @ SR 144 Signal w/imp Overall D 48.6 D 52.0 Signal Overall F >80 F >80 4 US 17 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal w/imp Overall D 51.1 D 36.8 Stop Control nb-lr F >50 F >80 5 US 17 @ I-95 NB ramps wb-l C 16.3 B 12.6 Signal w/imp Overall C 26.3 B 16.5 6 Stop Control US 17 @ Belfast Siding Road sb-l wb-lr F F >50 F >50 F >50 >50 Signal w/imp Overall C 22.6 B 17.5 nb-l A 8.3 B 8.9 Stop Control eb-l F >50 F >50 7 US 17 @ SR 196 eb-r B 11.0 B 12.4 Signal w/imp Overall C 23.2 B 18.4 8 US 17 @ US 84 (Sunbury Road) Signal Overall A 8.6 B 10.6 9 US 84 @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall B 12.5 B 12.5 10 US 84 @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 12.4 B 12.4 11 Belfast Siding Road @ I-95 SB ramps Signal Overall C 25.1 D 40.4 12 Belfast Siding Road @ I-95 NB ramps Signal Overall B 14.5 B 11.2 Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 4a Year 2007 Freeway Analysis - Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Section Direction LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) I-95 south of US 84 NB C 21.2 B 14.1 SB B 14.1 C 21.2 I-95 between US 84 and US 17 NB SB C 23.5 B 15.4 B 15.4 C 23.5 I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 NB SB D 32.9 C 19.8 C 19.8 D 32.9 I-95 north of SR 144 NB F >45 C 25.8 SB C 25.8 F >45 Table 4b Year 2032 Freeway Analysis - No-Build Conditions (Without New Interchange) AM Peak Hour Freeway Section Direction LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) I-95 south of US 84 NB B 16.5 SB B 11.8 I-95 between US 84 and US 17 NB SB C B 18.1 12.7 I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 NB SB C B 22.4 14.9 I-95 north of SR 144 NB D 29.4 SB C 19.5 - Analysis includes I-95 widening project to eight lanes PM Peak Hour LOS B B B C B C C D Density (pc/mi/ln) 11.8 16.5 12.7 18.1 14.9 22.4 19.5 29.4 Table 4c Year 2032 Freeway Analysis - Build Conditions (With New Interchange) Freeway Section Direction I-95 south of US 84 NB SB I-95 between US 84 and Belfast NB Siding Rd SB I-95 between Belfast Siding Rd NB and US 17 SB I-95 between US 17 and SR 144 NB SB AM Peak Hour LOS B Density (pc/mi/ln) 16.5 B 11.8 C 18.1 B 12.7 C 22.3 B 14.5 C 27.4 B 16.8 PM Peak Hour LOS B Density (pc/mi/ln) 11.8 B 16.5 B 12.7 B 18.1 B 14.5 C 22.3 B 16.8 C 27.4 I-95 north of SR 144 NB D 35.0 C 20.8 SB C 20.8 D 35.0 - Analysis includes I-95 widening project to eight lanes Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 5a Year 2007 Merge and Diverge Analysis - Existing Conditions Ramp On/Off AM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) PM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 84 On C 25.2 B 16.7 C 27.6 B 19.0 Off I-95 SB Ramps @ US 84 On B 18.2 C 27.8 B 17.7 C 25.4 Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 17 On C 27.8 B 18.2 D 34.3 C 23.6 Off I-95 SB Ramps @ US 17 On C 23.6 E 35.5 B 19.0 C 27.7 Off I-95 NB Ramps @ SR 144 On E 35.5 C 23.6 F 40.8 D 29.4 Off I-95 SB Ramps @ SR 144 On D 30.1 E 36.2 C 23.9 D 34.7 Table 5b Year 2032 Merge and Diverge Analysis - No-Build Conditions (Without New Interchange) Ramp On/Off AM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) PM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 84 On B 17.6 B 12.7 B 17.3 B 13.3 Off I-95 SB Ramps @ US 84 On B 14.9 C 21.4 B 12.2 B 15.9 Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 17 On Off I-95 SB Ramps @ US 17 On C 20.9 B 16.2 C 20.5 B 16.6 C 21.6 D 30.9 B 13.8 B 17.2 Off I-95 NB Ramps @ SR 144 On C 24.3 B 16.3 C 22.6 B 19.1 Off C 27.3 E 37.3 I-95 SB Ramps @ SR 144 Off w/2 lanes B 12.3 B 19.2 On B 14.7 C 20.3 - Analysis includes I-95 widening project to eight lanes - Analysis assumes one lane on ramp Office of Planning IJR Planning Study for I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 Table 5c Year 2032 Merge and Diverge Analysis - Build Conditions (With New Interchange) Ramp On/Off Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 84 On Off I-95 SB Ramps @ US 84 On Off I-95 NB Ramp @ Belfast Siding Rd On Off I-95 SB Ramps @ Belfast Siding Rd On Off I-95 NB Ramps @ US 17 On I-95 SB Ramps @ US 17 Off Off w/ 2 lanes On Off I-95 NB Ramps @ SR 144 On Off I-95 SB Ramps @ SR 144 Off w/ 2 lanes On - Analysis includes I-95 widening project to eight lanes - Analysis assumes one lane on ramp AM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) B 16.8 B 16.8 B 13.6 B 11.2 B 18.7 C 20.5 B 17.6 B 12.6 C 25.0 C 22.1 C 23.4 A 9.1 B 14.9 D 28.6 C 23.9 C 25.5 B 12.0 B 16.2 PM Peak Hour LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) B 11.4 B 12.4 C 20.7 B 15.4 B 13.2 B 15.0 D 28.5 B 17.2 B 17.9 B 17.4 E 35.0 B 17.3 C 20.1 B 18.2 B 19.5 F 38.0 B 19.3 C 23.4 Office of Planning 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 C (D) SR 144 2 SR 144 A (A) SR 144 N W E S 1 2 3 5 4 6 I - 95 NB Ramps 7 3 US 17 SR 144 D (D) SR 144 11 12 4 US 17 8 5 US 17 C (C) I - 95 US 17 I-95 SB Ramps Legend B (B) I - 95 US 17 I-95 NB Ramps C (C) Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign Existing Required Signal AM (PM) LOS 9 10 August 2, 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Office of Planning 6 US 17 B (A) US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 C (B) SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (A) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 A (A) US 84 I-95 NB Ramps B (A) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 8 2007 Existing with Improvements & LOS 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 C (C) SR 144 N W E S 1 2 3 5 4 2 SR 144 SR 144 6 B (A) 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 7 11 12 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 8 C (C) I - 95 US 17 I-95 SB Ramps 9 10 5 US 17 C (C) I - 95 Legend Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal US 17 I-95 NB Ramps C (C) Existing Stop Sign Existing Required Signal Future Build Required Lane AM (PM) LOS August 2, 2007 I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report Office of Planning 6 US 17 C (B) US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 C (B) SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 B (B) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps B (B) US 84 I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 I-95 NB Ramps B (B) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 9 2032 No-Build with Improvements & LOS 1 I - 95 SB Ramps SR 144 B (C) SR 144 N W E S 1 2 3 5 4 2 SR 144 SR 144 6 B (A) 3 SR 144 I - 95 NB Ramps US 17 7 11 12 D (D) SR 144 4 US 17 8 D (D) US 17 I - 95 I-95 SB Ramps 5 US 17 C (B) I - 95 US 17 I-95 NB Ramps August 2, 2007 9 10 Legend Existing Lanes Existing Traffic Signal Existing Stop Sign Existing Required Signal Future Build Required Signal 11 Belfast Siding Road I-95 SB Ramps C (D) Future Build Required Lane C (C) AM (PM) LOS I-95 at Belfast-Siding Road Interchange Justification Report 12 Belfast Siding Road B (B) I-95 NB Ramps Office of Planning 6 US 17 C (B) US 17 Belfast Siding Road 7 US 17 C (B) SR 196 8 US 84 US 17 US 17 A (B) US 84 US 17 9 US 84 I-95 SB Ramps B (B) US 84 I-95 SB Ramps 10 US 84 I-95 NB Ramps B (B) I-95 NB Ramps US 84 Figure 10 2032 Build with Improvements & LOS Office of Planning Bryan County Interchange Justification Report s Dr S Scie nc a i a B e aufort Rd Hill Pin Westm inister D r G Results of Preliminary Environmental Screening Canebrake Rd Rd Basin Rd Ogeechee Rd Sylv n Vid alia Rd Clyo Cir A State Route 204 Red Fox Dr e Gro ve Dr King George Blvd Brandy Rd Sagebrush Ln Chevis Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation State Route 144 Daniel Siding Loop Coo k Rd Hunting Club RdPa M t O livet Ch urch Rd Fl ming Cir Rd e Allie Blount Rd Dixie Rd Daniel S iding Lo Hayman op Rd s Loop Cartertown Rd Clarkt Ray Sm ith Rd Gill Rd own Rd Hill Rd Iq LDeaeniReldSiKdeilnlyg Oak Davis Rd Rd Hill Rd US Highway 17 Shaw Rd hns on Cir ope Rd Mo unt H Hog Island Rd Rd Carter St Laurel St n US Highway 17 !"e$ Ford Ave Whit e Oak L EdsEelMllDisarpDlerCSetdarHSetrmitage Dr Richmond Hill Bee Keeper Ct Rice Gate Dr amp Rd Rd dp i per St R Ponderosa Ocean Rd Hw y Sa n sprey Dr O But ler d CCaastteayilDCrt Tim Hill R A ber Trl d Harris Trail Holly Brisbon Rd Ford Ests T r anquilla Hill R d Barnard P or Rd t Ro yal RPdoplar Sw George Oliver Rd Adam Johnson Rd Fox RdCharliSeasllRedtt Rd Strathy Hall Rd Oxfo rd Dr Sandhurst Dr Belfast Keller Rd Kelsall Rd Mill Run R d Kinsale Dr W ild Heron Rd Shore Rd rove Point Rd CHATHAM Warnell Dr Fort McallisterPWRailsdlisamaiscoLn nDr Savage Island Rd Rio Rd Navajo Rd Apache Ave Largo Dr Me rcy Blv d ood Dr Mo Dutchtown hawk St Rd MiddlegroSuannd Rd Anton Dr MoWnTiiclisbaheBitrlAevvdBelvd Dyche Bliss Ave Abercorn St WeinDdr sor Rd Woodley Rd Briarcliff Cir Willow Rd Hoover Creek Rd WhRitoebiBnluRffd Rd Davidso n Ave Savannah Stillw Vernonburg elt Dr F Coffee Blu ff Rd Cardiff Rd E Back St Waubun Dr Ros e Dhu Island Dr Indigo Rd Fleming Loop Rd Jo Allen Clark Rd t e Rogers Rd Leroy Coffer Hwy Arcadia Dr US Highway 84 Lewis Fra sier Rd Luke Rd Lake Gale Dr Jane St LIBERTY Oak Hampton Rd Freedman Grove Rd Phillips Ln ShellcrOaccekaenrHDwry Leroy Limerick Baker Rd Rd Court D r Ave Dr 2nd St St 1 st Jeric o Dr L ake River Rd S 4th St Myrtle Dr Pine Oa k Interstate 95 SB r Dr Se Midway Martin Rd Ma abro ok Island Dr rsh D r Old Sikes Rd Interstate 95 NB Magn olia Ma Dr W Firs gnoIslliaanRd dD t St Pon c ell E Dr 1 st St Isl e Of W i ght Rd Belfast Siding Rd Cr anst o SOealiknPaoiRntdDr lig Pro man Trl W arre Hill 1 n Bluff Rd 0 n h Bodaford Rd B e Trl Jeric o Trl Old Mill Rd E Tivoli Trail Rd Da vis Rd am S wamp Trl Dun Mingarry Dr Sweet Hill Rd Harden Rd Bryan Neck Rd Buck land Hall Dr Star Creek Rd Harbor Ln Sayle Ln Jake Brown Trl h Jake Brown R d Oak Level Rd am Trl Cotto n BRYAN C Bryan Fis hermans Coop Rd reek Trl Red bi rd Kilkenny Rd Ossabaw Island WMA Jessup Rd Bill Carter Rd Quarterman Rd State Route 144 B acont on R Dr Er nie d Smiley Ln 0 0.5 E B Cooper Hwy Salter Rd Iq Smiley Hall Rd d Mc iver R Lewis Frasier R d 1 2 Barrington Ferry Rd S Costal Hwy 3Oak Creek Rd Miles Riceboro IUS Highway 84 Cay Creek Rd Islands Hwy !"e$ Dorchester Village Rd Stevens Rd Black Sunday Rd Sunbury Rd Mariners Rd Morgan Rd Ft Morris Rd Th e J Don Dirt Rd L n Ft Morris Rd Marshvie w Bryan Neck Rd Dr Steedle Chase Ln Brown Rd Turkey Trot Trl Belle Island Rd Lincoln Trl Bluff Dr Beac h Rd Hell Hole Rd Regional Inset EMANUEL CANDLER SCREVEN BULLOCH !"`$ EFFINGHAM EVANS TATTNALL BRYAN COUNTY CHATHAM APPLING LONG LIBERTY !"e$ CHATHAM BACON PIERCE WAYNE MCINTOSH MCINTOSH GLYNN Figure 11 Legend Environmental Screening Criteria Wetlands Marshlands Wetlands / Conservation Areas Marshlands / Conservation Areas Conservation Areas Road Network Interstate Ramp Major Road Other Road Other Layers Bryan County Boundary City Limits Fort Stewart Military Reservation Railroads Source: National Wetlands Inventory (2004), GDOT, and Carter & Burgess, Inc. This map is intended for planning purposes only. August 2, 2007 DRAFT Preliminary Results Meeting Minutes (prepared August 10) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Minutes of Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 SUBJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road CSMSL-0006-00(941), PI N. 0006941 Kickoff Meeting MEETING DATE: August 2, 2007 TODAY'S DATE: August 14, 2007 PREPARED BY: Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess ATTENDEES: Phil Jones, Bryan County Administrator Jimmy Burnsed, Bryan County Commission Mathew Fowler, GDOT Office of Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Office of Planning Kyle Mote, GDOT Office of Planning Teresa Scott, GDOT District 5 Jeff Ingham, Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company Jeannie Fewell, Terra Pointe Rod Wilburn, Carter & Burgess Richard Fangmann, Carter & Burgess Shawn Pope, Carter & Burgess, Inc. LOCATION: Bryan County Meeting Summary 1. The meeting began at 10:00 AM with an introduction of the meeting attendees. Mathew Fowler provided a brief overview of the study purpose and work to date. 2. Richard Fangmann provided a summary of the project schedule and extents of the area being studied. 3. Richard Fangmann provided a summary of study findings which included the finding that the future traffic conditions do not satisfy FHWA Policy Guidance #1 since the nearby interchanges can be improved to provide access to I-95 with acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). 4. Richard Fangmann reviewed the FHWA requirements for obtaining a break in access based on the eight FHWA policies included in the FHWA Guidance on Interstate Access Requests. He also indicated that the strong interaction between the proposed development and existing and planned residential elsewhere in southern Bryan County suggested that most of the new trips from the Terra Pointe development would not access the interstate system as they would satisfy needs within Bryan County. 5. Phil Jones of Bryan County expressed concern that the proposed development will generate considerable traffic with access needs that are a great as other locations that have had new interchanges elsewhere along the coast, notable in Camden Office of Planning 1 of 2 IJR Planning Study I-95 at Belfast Siding Road Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Planning Minutes of Preliminary Results Meeting August 2, 2007 County. Mr. Jones indicated that it is the County's intension that the industrial area served by the proposed interchange be considered as an inland port. 6. Jeannie Fewell indicated the nature of the industrial development planned by Terra Pointe in the vicinity of Belfast Siding Road would facilitate a large number of truck movements per day as it serves movements directly to and from the ports of Savannah and Brunswick. Ms. Fewell indicated the assumed trip generation for industrial property in the ITE trip generation manual is lower than has been experienced with similar properties developed recently. A property and interchange in the Jacksonville area was specifically mentioned. Rod Wilburn indicated that Carter & Burgess will consider additional data if specific examples can be provided by Terra Pointe to show a higher truck generation rate. 7. Phil Jones also indicated there have been other developments approved and more planned that are not included in the future traffic estimates. Mr. Wilburn indicated that Carter & Burgess will consider these developments if the County provides additional details on their location and size. 8. Radney Simpson of GDOT agreed that this additional data could be considered in the study prior to preparing a report. Phil Jones inquired as to whether the final report will be sent to FHWA. Mr. Simpson indicated that the report would be sent to FHWA if an interchange were justified and approval of FHWA was sought. Otherwise it would be a GDOT staff report. 9. The following is a summary of next steps to be provided as a part of the study: Carter & Burgess will provide a .pdf copy of the study area map showing the assumed developments to Bryan County for their use in identifying the location and size of other approved and/or planned development. Phil Jones of Bryan County will provide information on additional development to be assumed as a part of the IJR. Terra Pointe will provide additional information on trip generation for the proposed industrial development. This information is to include counted traffic volumes from similar study areas with the corresponding development square footage and details on the uses present at the development. The type of land use and relationship to the ports should be indicated for the example development and compared to that for the proposed development along Belfast Siding Road. Terra Pointe is requested to provide an estimated timeframe to GDOT indicating when they anticipate having the supplemental data available so that Carter & Burgess and GDOT can adjust the overall schedule to allow incorporation of new information. These meeting minutes reflect the understanding of Richard Fangmann, attendee at the above referenced meeting. Please indicate any changes and return these meeting minutes via email to Richard.Fangmann@c-b.com If no changes are requested, these meeting minutes will be considered final in seven calendar days. As always, please call or email me if you have any questions or comments regarding the meeting summary. Office of Planning 2 of 2 Email Correspondence Request for Development Information Page 1 of 3 From: Fangmann, Richard B. Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:10 AM To: 'Simpson, Radney' Subject: FW: IJR Belfast Siding/I-95 Radney, As this previous email and attachments show, we have previously provided Bryan County with information on the origin-destination matrix and our methodology for projecting traffic. Richard Fangmann, P.E. Carter & Burgess Project Manager, Sr | Trans Prgm, Atlanta 404.478.3913 404.249.7705 fax richard.fangmann@c-b.com www.c-b.com From: Fangmann, Richard B. Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:16 AM To: 'Phil Jones' Cc: Jaffar, Naveed; Wilburn, Rod; 'Simpson, Radney'; 'Mote, Kyle' Subject: RE: IJR Belfast Siding/I-95 Phil, I apologize for the delay, but I was out of the office last week and not able to respond to your email. As I understood the outcome of the last meeting, we were awaiting additional information on input data regarding additional development and trip generation to feed into the the analysis process. The items below were the next steps included in the meeting minutes: Carter & Burgess will provide a .pdf copy of the study area map showing the assumed developments to Bryan County for their use in identifying the location and size of other approved and/or planned development. Phil Jones of Bryan County will provide information on additional development to be assumed as a part of the IJR. Terra Pointe will provide additional information on trip generation for the proposed industrial development. This information is to include counted traffic volumes from similar study areas with the corresponding development square footage and details on the uses present at the development. The type of land use and relationship to the ports should be indicated for the example development and compared to that for the proposed development along Belfast Siding Road. Terra Pointe is requested to provide an estimated timeframe to GDOT indicating when they anticipate having the supplemental data available so that Carter & Burgess and GDOT can adjust the overall schedule to allow incorporation of new information. We would like to receive your input on the items above to allow us to include this information in the analysis prior to preparing a detailed write-up of data inputs and output, methodology, and procedures, which would be included in the study report. I have included the previous email (below) and attachments that were a follow up to our meeting, providing the information in bullet 1. I have also attached the following materials that file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 Page 2 of 3 were part of the information provided in the August 2, 2007 meeting: Table 1 - Trip Generation assumed for the Terra Point Development Table 2 - Matrix of trip Origins and Destinations by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) - see attached graphic for TAZs and associated assumptions of new development in each. Methodology for Estimating Traffic Volumes - This is a summary sheet of the methodology used to determine the future traffic volumes. We are interested in receiving any additional information regarding the action items described above to allow us to move forward with further analysis. Richard Fangmann Carter & Burgess Project Manager, Sr | Trans Prgm, Atlanta 404.478.3913 404.249.7705 fax richard.fangmann@c-b.com www.c-b.com From: Phil Jones [mailto:pjones@bryan-county.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:48 AM To: Fangmann, Richard B. Subject: IJR Belfast Siding/I-95 Richard: We are having a group review the data initially presented for the IJR that you've based your numbers from. Last week I requested that you provide all data consider in that review and the procedural process that your followed and the methodology for calculating traffic counts. I have not heard from your and am wondering if you received my e-mail?. From: Fangmann, Richard B. Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:08 AM To: 'Phil Jones'; Jeannie. Fewell Cc: 'Scott, Teresa'; 'Mote, Kyle'; 'Simpson, Radney'; 'matthew.fowler@dot.state.ga.us'; Wilburn, Rod Subject: I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR Phil and Jeannie, We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and GDOT regarding the proposed I-95 at Belfast Siding interchange and the IJR report being prepared for the location. As was discussed in the meeting, the anticipated traffic in year 2030 did not provide enough demand for additional freeway access to satisfy FHWA guidance Policy 1, as the adjacent interchanges could be improved to provide access intended by the new interchange (see attached meeting minutes). In the meeting, you indicated that additional developments were approved and planned since we met with you last Spring. We have attached a figure indicating the developments assumed in the analysis work to date. Please mark-up this drawing and return via email or fax to indicate the location of any additional development to be considered. Please attach information including the development name, file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 Page 3 of 3 size, and land uses. In addition, you mentioned that the Belfast Siding development area is planned to function as an inland port and should include trip generation rates higher than that of standard industrial property. Terra Point indicated they will provide additional information regarding the proposed land use and will include examples from other locations that indicate the square footage and corresponding traffic demand. We would be interested in examining this data and considering it for application in the I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR. For any example data, we would be interested in the following: Location Type of Freeway Access Size of development Land uses within development Agreements related to port utilization / relationship to port Generated trips (AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily) and resulting trip generation rates. Please let us know the timeframe you anticipate providing this data to GDOT and Carter & Burgess for further analysis. Richard Fangmann, P.E., PTOE Carter & Burgess, Inc. 1718 Peachtree Street NW Suite 461 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-249-7550 Fax: 404-249-7705 file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 Letter to King Engineering (November 15, 2007) Email Correspondence Status Update for Bryan County (November 26, 2007) Page 1 of 2 From: Fangmann, Richard B. Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:50 PM To: 'Phil Jones' Cc: Simpson, Radney; 'Mote, Kyle'; 'jrobinson@kingengineering.com' Subject: IJR at Belfast Siding Rd. Phil, As requested by GDOT, below is a recap of the information provided to Bryan County regarding the I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR. Planned Development In Bryan County Carter & Burgess coordinated with Bryan County in Spring of 2007 to develop a map of planned developments in Bryan County. This included developments which had approved development plans or master plans for development. The attached Fig 4 Development Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones shows these anticipated developments. The number of trips generated by each development was determined based on Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The Terra Point development trip generation is shown in Table 1, while trip generation for the other developments is show in Table 2. Methods for Determining Growth within Bryan County A travel demand model does not exist for Bryan County. Therefore, the future distribution and assignment of traffic was performed using an origin-destination matrix prepared using TRANSCAD travel demand software. This allow the new development trips to be assigned to the roadway network based on the "gravity model" methods. The modeling work performed does not provide a calibrated travel demand model based on existing socioeconomic data that is projected into the future. It does provide a logical means for distribution and assignment of traffic anticipated from the planned developments in Bryan County. A brief summary of the traffic projection methodology is attached. Growth in background traffic volumes (through development not yet planned and external traffic growth) was estimated based on historic traffic growth trends. The current traffic volumes were grown by 2.7% per year from years 2007 to 2012 and by 1.35% per year from years 2012 through 2030. The initial growth rate is consistent with traffic volume growth over the past ten years in Bryan County. The reduced background growth rate in years 2012 through 2030 reflects the assumption that the planned developments will account for half the future growth during that time period. Distribution of Future Traffic As described above, the traffic generated by the planned development in Bryan County was distributed to the roadway network based on a TRANSCAD origin-destination matrix. Table 3 shows the resulting origin and destination patterns based on the development location and related traffic analysis zones(TAZs) (refer to Figure 4). Please note, developments 4, 7, 8, and 11 are also in TAZ 3 and development 13 is in TAZ 4. As this table shows, the majority of the Terra Point development traffic is anticipated to have a origin or destination within Bryan County. The traffic from Terra Point and the other developments that are destined for points other than southern Bryan County were assigned to the I-95 interchanges. Interchange Needs and Traffic Analysis Subsequent analysis of the I-95 interchanges indicates they can be improved to accommodate the anticipated traffic growth due to the planned development (plus assumed background growth) through year 2032. At the assumed future background growth rate of 1.35% per year,the US 17 interchange fails even with four through lanes in each direction with 25 years of additional growth (year 2057). Information We are Awaiting for Use in Analysis In our August 2, 2007 meeting, both Terra Point and Bryan County indicated they would like to provide file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 Page 2 of 2 information to modify the input data for the study. Terra Point indicated that the Belfast Siding development area is planned to function as an inland port and should include trip generation rates higher than that of standard industrial property. Terra Point indicated they will provide additional information regarding the proposed land use and will include examples from other locations that indicate the square footage and corresponding traffic demand. Terra Point indicated they have specific knowledge of developments elsewhere in the southeastern United States that are similar to the proposed development that have truck traffic generation and use by time of day that differs from the input data used in the study, which is based on trip generation rates provided in Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In addition, Bryan County indicated that they have additional information on new growth planned in the County that will increase the planned level of development over that provided to us by the County in spring of 2007. During the August 2, 2007 meeting, the Georgia Department of Transportation indicated that, while they want to move forward to complete the study, they want to base it upon the best information available and will delay the study while waiting to receive additional information from Bryan County and Terra Point. Bryan County and Terra Point Indicated at that time that it may take three months to compile the information. We have just received a copy of the updated data regarding future planned development in Bryan County, but have not received additional information regarding the Terra Point truck generation characteristics, referenced in previous discussions. We look forward to discussing the above information further with you and GDOT, as indicated in the email below. Richard Fangmann, P.E. Jacobs Carter Burgess Project Manager, Sr | Trans Prgm, Atlanta 404.478.3913 404.249.7705 fax richard.fangmann@c-b.com www.c-b.com -----Original Message----From: Simpson, Radney [mailto:Radney.Simpson@dot.state.ga.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:41 AM To: Phil Jones Cc: Mote, Kyle; Fangmann, Richard B. Subject: RE: IJR at Belfast Siding Rd. Phil, Enjoyed speaking with you today. I understand that you are going to provide some potential dates for a meeting. I would think that a conference call would be adequate, but if you / King Engineering would prefer to meet in Atlanta, that can be arranged as well. In an effort to aid our upcoming conversation, I have instructed the consultant firm to provide you & King Engineering an email recapping what effort has been done to date on the subject study. Radney Simpson Central Georgia Planning Branch Chief Office of Planning Georgia Department of Transportation 404-657-6689 file://Z:\Projects (2006)\06049-00 (GDOT On Call)\TO 9 - Bryan County IJR\507005 Bry... 10/1/2008 King Engineering Letter to GDOT (December 10, 2007) Memo - Review of Additional Data Provided by King Engineers on Behalf of Bryan County (January 24, 2008) Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: cc: Kyle Mote, Georgia Department of Transportation Richard Fangmann, Jacobs Carter Burgess January 24, 2008 I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR Review of Additional Data provided by King Engineers on Behalf of Bryan County Radney Simpson, Georgia Department of Transportation Matthew Fowler, Georgia Department of Transportation Rod Wilburn, Jacobs Carter Burgess As requested, Carter & Burgess, Inc. examined the data for the I-95 at Belfast Siding Road IJR provided by King Engineering on behalf of Bryan County. As this information and suggested next steps indicates, the proposed data differs significantly from that used in the previous analysis. Therefore, we will need to recreate future year traffic projections and redo previous analysis, resulting in work steps not anticipated in the current scope and budget. The paragraphs below compare the data previously used in the IJR with that provided by King Engineering and suggest next steps for further discussion. Comparisons of Data Used in IJR Study, Bryan County Draft Transportation Master Plan, and Thomas & Hutton Plan The IJR Study included 22 approved developments. These developments were estimated to generate approximately 194,000 daily trips. For the 22 developments, the total acreage amounts to approximately 10,700 acres. The Bryan County Draft Transportation Master Plan (BCTP), dated June 2007, identified approximately 30,300 acres of potential development, for a total daily trip generation of 52,300. The developments identified in the IJR study were accounted for in the BCTP as either potential developments or existing. 18 additional areas of potential development were identified beyond the 22 developments previously identified in the IJR study. These additional 18 areas of potential development account for approximately 20,800 acres of land. Although Bryan County' Draft Transportation Master Plan includes 20,800 acres of land, the trip generation in the IJR study significantly exceeds the trip generation shown in the BCTP by approximately 142,000 daily trips. It appears that the trip generation shown in the BCTP map may be underestimated. The Thomas & Hutton Plan (THP), dated December 10 2007, included the 22 developments identified in the IJR study, and assumed an additional 11,000 daily trips to the IJR study trip generation of 194,000 - for a total of 205,000 daily trips. Beyond the identified developments in the IJR study, the THP included developments from BCTP and estimated a higher trip generation for those developments. THP also included 8 Development of Regional Impact sites (DRI's). In total, the THP assumes approximately 525,200 daily trips and 37,400 acres of potential land development. However, 6 of the 8 DRI sites are remote relative to the proposed new interchange and will appear to have their infrastructure needs served by other interchanges and roadways. Therefore, excluding the 6 remote DRI's, the THP assumes approximately 34,000 acres and 458,000 daily trips. 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30309 1 of 3 Phone: (404) 249-7550 Fax: (404) 249-7705 Memorandum In summary, the following are some main points: The IJR study assumed only approved developments, totaling 22 sites. The remaining growth was accommodated by a background growth rate applied to all roads. The BCTP assumed the approved developments (22 sites) and an additional 18 sites for potential development. However, the trip generation estimates shown in the BCTP appear to be underestimated. BCTP includes 20,800 acres of additional development but 142,000 fewer daily trips when compared to the IJR study. The THP assumes the 22 sites from the IJR study, the additional BCTP areas for development, and 8 DRI's sites. The THP assumes 11,000 additional daily trips for the IJR study sites. The THP revised the trip generation analysis for additional areas of developments shown in the BCTP, thereby substantially increasing the expected daily trips for those areas. THP introduced 8 DRI sites for consideration, however, 6 of the 8 DRI sites are remote relative to the proposed new interchange and will appear to have their infrastructure needs served by other interchanges and roadways. Therefore, excluding the 6 remote DRI's, the THP assumes approximately 34,000 acres and 458,000 daily trips (representing the 22 approved sites in the IJR study, the additional areas of potential development in the BCTP, and 2 applicable DRI sites). Given the additional development shown in the BCTP, the revised trip generation for the BCTP sites in the THP, and the 2 additional (and applicable) DRI's identified in the THP, and an additional 264,000 daily trips and 23,400 acres are assumed on top, or in addition to, the daily trips estimates and acreage in the IJR study. Future Land Development Plans Total Daily Trips Total Development Acreage IJR Study 193,583 10,699 Notes THP assumes additional 11,000 daily trips Bryan Co. Draft TP June 2007 (BCTP) 52,300 30,317 BCTP has low trip generation Thomas & Hutton Plan December 2007 (THP) 458,217 34,163 a) Increasing IJR study trip generation by 11,000 daily trips b) Substantially increasing BCTP trip generation c) Excluding 6 remote DRI's provided for consideration In Addition to IJR Study 264,634 23,464 THP trips and acreage minus IJR study trips and acreage Note: The numbers shown in this table are estimates and approximations. 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30309 2 of 3 Phone: (404) 249-7550 Fax: (404) 249-7705 Memorandum Suggested Steps for Incorporation of Additional Data If GDOT is in agreement with the proposed additional data provided by Bryan County, the following next steps would be needed to incorporate the additional data provided by King Engineering, assuming confirmation of data with Bryan County: Confirm the Thomas & Hutton data projections reflect the desires of Bryan County and will be included in the County's future transportation and land use planning. Revise trip generation to incorporate new land use. The proposed information results in future land use at a location that will effect the adjacent interchanges ability to be improved to provide access intended by the proposed new interchange. Therefore, incorporation of this data into the traffic forecasting methodology, rather than applying a background growth rate, is preferred. Rerun travel demand forecasting methodology to produce future year volumes reflecting revised land use. Reassign traffic volumes to interchange movements Perform future year analysis of interchanges with and without proposed interchange Examine potential improvements to current interchanges to see if they can be improved to provide the access intended by the proposed interchange. We anticipate one month will be needed to complete this work effort to provide revised IJR results for review with GDOT. 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30309 3 of 3 Phone: (404) 249-7550 Fax: (404) 249-7705 GDOT Letter to Bryan County (February 5, 2008) Bryan County Letter to GDOT (March 4, 2008) GDOT Response to Bryan County Letter (April 2, 2008) Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding IJR Bryan County, Georgia Appendix C Traffic Flow Diagrams October 2008 45400 45400 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 13 N I-9 5 9700 9700 5600 SR 144 5600 3200 2400 6500 600 600 5000 35700 2400 3200 6500 600 8300 600 8900 SR 144 8900 35700 I-9 5 1200 1200 US 17 10800 10800 11700 11700 1100 6000 4600 1100 4600 6700 6700 3000 2600 3000 6000 2600 11600 11600 MATCHLINE B 13900 SR 144 13900 36900 36900 MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 EXISTING ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGURC E-1-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 23 N MATCHLINE A 36900 36900 I-9 5 MATCHLINE B 17100 US 17 17100 9500 7600 1100 16400 700 2300 9900 700 11100 7600 2300 1100 9900 27000 27000 9900 12200 12200 US 17 13800 13800 12400 1400 1400 500 12400 500 1900 BELFAST SIDING ROAD 1900 12900 12900 MATCHLINE D 1800 1800 I-9 5 25200 25200 MATCHLINE C BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 EXISTING ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGURCE-1-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE D 11100 11100 SR 196 7200 7200 7100 4000 7100 100 100 4000 4100 4100 US 17 3400 3400 5200 5200 1600 1400 400 1600 400 3300 3300 300 1200 300 1400 1200 2900 2900 US 17 4900 4900 MATCHLINE C 28800 28800 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 33 N I-9 5 3200 3200 4300 4300 US 84 2400 1900 800 600 100 3700 25600 1400 2400 800 600 2100 100 2200 US 84 2200 25600 700 700 I-9 5 26300 26300 BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 EXISTING ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGURCE-1-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 76900 76700 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 14 N I-9 5 14700 14700 8400 SR 144 8400 4700 3700 10300 1000 1200 7400 62200 3900 4700 10300 1000 13000 1200 14200 SR 144 14200 62200 2200 2200 US 17 16900 16900 21800 21800 1700 12200 7900 1700 7900 10700 10700 4500 9300 4500 12200 9300 26000 26000 27900 SR 144 27900 64900 64900 MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGUREC-2-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ MATCHLINE A 64400 64400 N STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 24 I-9 5 26500 US 17 26500 15000 11500 4400 25500 1000 3500 18400 1000 17500 11500 3500 4400 15000 49400 49400 15000 21900 21900 US 17 MATCHLINE D 22700 22700 18600 4100 4100 2700 18600 2700 6800 BELFAST SIDING ROAD 6800 21300 21300 MATCHLINE C 5400 5400 54800 54800 MATCHLINE B BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGURC E -2-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ MATCHLINE B 54800 54800 STATE GA. PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 34 N I-9 5 MATCHLINE D 13100 13100 2400 7900 5500 10700 BELFAST SIDING ROAD 7900 3500 7100 800 41700 8200 2400 10700 800 15400 3500 18900 BELFAST SIDING ROAD 18900 41700 4300 4300 I-9 5 46000 46000 MATCHLINE E BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGURC E -2-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE C 16700 16700 SR 196 11000 11000 10700 6000 10700 300 300 6000 6300 6300 US 17 5300 5300 8000 8000 2500 2100 700 2500 700 5000 5000 500 1800 500 2100 1800 4400 4400 US 17 7500 7500 MATCHLINE E 46000 46000 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 44 N I-9 5 4900 4900 6600 6600 US 84 3700 2900 1300 900 300 5700 41100 2300 3700 1300 900 3300 300 3600 US 84 3600 41100 1200 1200 I-9 5 42300 42300 BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGUREC-2-4 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 70500 70500 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 13 N I-9 5 17100 17100 8400 SR 144 8400 4700 3700 12400 1200 7400 1000 53400 3900 4700 12400 1000 15100 1200 16300 SR 144 16300 53400 2200 2200 US 17 19000 19000 23300 23300 1700 12500 9100 1700 9100 12800 12800 4500 12300 4500 12500 12300 29300 29300 MATCHLINE B 34200 SR 144 34200 55500 55500 MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGUREC-3-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 23 N MATCHLINE A 55600 55600 US 17 I-9 5 MATCHLINE B 32300 US 17 32300 20700 11600 3300 29800 2500 3700 21500 2500 21900 11600 3700 3300 15300 40300 15300 40300 25200 25200 20700 20700 18600 3900 3900 2700 18600 2700 6600 BELFAST SIDING ROAD 6600 19500 19500 MATCHLINE D 5800 5800 46100 46100 MATCHLINE C BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGUREC-3-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE D 16700 16700 SR 196 11000 11000 10700 6000 10700 300 300 6000 6300 6300 US 17 5300 5300 8000 8000 2500 2100 700 2500 700 5000 5000 500 1800 500 2100 1800 4400 4400 US 17 7500 7500 MATCHLINE C 46100 46100 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 33 N I-9 5 5000 5000 6600 6600 US 84 3700 2900 1300 900 300 5700 41100 2300 3700 1300 900 3300 300 3600 US 84 3600 41100 1200 1200 I-9 5 42300 42300 BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO BUILD BALANCED ADT = 000 T = 15% FIGUREC-3-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 2820 3990 (3990) (2820) N STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 13 I-9 5 680 (780) 780 (680) 520 (320) SR 144 320 (520) 290 (190) 230 390 (130) (590) 40 (602) 80 (460) 40 (60) 3210 (2140) 590 210 (390) (150)190 (290) 60 480(40) (760) 60 (40) 800 (540) SR 144 540 (800) 2140 (3210) 80 (120) 120 (80) 970 (650) 650 (970) 710 (1060) 1060 (710) US 17 360 70 (540) (100) 280 (420) 100 (70) 420 (280) 630 (370) 370 (630) 180 (270) 160 (240) (217800()534600)(214600) 700 1050 (1050) (700) MATCHLINE B 1210 (890) SR 144 890 (1210) 2220 3330 (3330) (2220) MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E -4-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE D 670 (1000) 1000 (670) SR 196 440 (660) 660 (440) 430 (640) 240 (360) 640 (430) 20 (10) 10 360 (20()240) 260 (370) 370 (260) US 17 310 (230) 230 (310) 380 (420) 420 (380) (115000)(19300 )(3400) 100 (150) 40 (30) 200 (300) 300 (200) 20 (30) 70 (110) 30 (20)90 110 (130) (70) 220 (230) 230 (220) 310 (440) (440) 310 US 17 MATCHLINE C 1720 (2610) 2610 (1720) STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 23 N I-9 5 200 (290) 290 (200) 270 (390) 390 (270) US 84 150 (220) 120 (170) 50 (70) 50 (40) 10 (10)340 (230) 2320 (1520) 90 (130)220 (150) 40 (50) 170 (150) 70 (50) 10 (10) 160 (180) US 84 180 (160) 1520 (2320) 60 (50) 50 (60) 1580 (2370) 2370 (1580) BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURCE-4-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 MATCHLINE A 2220 3330 (3330) (2220) N STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 33 I-9 5 MATCHLINE B 990 (1570) US 17 1570 (990) US 17 840 (1250) 1250 (840) 750 (1120) 90 (130) 130 (90) 50 (30) 1120 (750) 30 (50) 180 (120) BELFAST SIDING ROAD 120 (180) 800 (1150) 1150 (800) MATCHLINE D 540 (880) 450 (690) 60 (40) 100 (70) 1510 (950) 210 (140) 600 (890) 40 (60) 1030 (640) 690 (450) 140 (210) 70 (100) 660 (830) 830 (660) 1560 2500 (2500) (1560) 160 (110) 110 (160) 740 (1100) 1100 (740) I-9 5 1720 2610 (2610) (1720) MATCHLINE C BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2007 PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E-4-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 13 N I-9 5 1180 (1405) 780 (680) 780 (480) SR 144 480 (775) 435 (285) 345 745 (195) (1120) 80 (1004)20 (685) 60 (90) 1120 335 (745) (2352) 85 (435) 90 875(60) (1375) 100 (80) 1455 (980) SR 144 975 (1455) 140 (190) 190 (140) 1710 (1145) 1145 (1710) 1405 2090 (2090) (1405) US 17 750 105 (1125) (150) 550 (815) 150 (105) 815 (550) 1200 (725) 725 (1200) 270 (405) 990 (860) (420750()1715250()896900) 2010 2390 (2390) (2010) MATCHLINE B 3005 (2135) SR 144 2135 (3005) MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E -5-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ MATCHLINE A N STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 23 I-9 5 MATCHLINE B 2055 (2775) US 17 2775 (2060) US 17 1365 2030 (2030) (1365) 355 (245) 1120 (1675) 245 (355) 235 (155) 1675 (1120) 155 (235) 590 (400) BELFAST SIDING ROAD 400 (590) 1355 (1830) 1830 (1355) MATCHLINE D 1365 (1725) 690 (1050) 230 (150) 290 (195) 2545 (1910) 335 (230) 1025 (1280) 520 (345) 1505 (1690) 150 (230) 1830 (1445) 1050 (690) 230 (335) 195 (290) 1280 (1025) 1735 (2025) 2025 (1735) 345 (520) I-9 5 MATCHLINE C BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E-5-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE D 1000 (1495) 1495 (1000) SR 196 655 (985) 985 (655) 640 (955) 360 (540) 955 (640) 30 (15) 15 540 (30()360) 390 (555) 555 (390) US 17 465 (345) 345 (465) 570 (630) 630 (570) (212550)(119355()4650) 150 (225) 60 (45) 300 (450) 450 (300) 30 (45) 105 (165) 45 (30)135 165 (195) (105) 525 (630) 345 (330) 465 (660) 660 (465) US 17 MATCHLINE C STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 33 N I-9 5 300 (435) 435 (300) 405 (585) 585 (405) US 84 225 (330) 180 (255) 75 (105) 75 (60) 15 (15) 510 (345) 135 (195)330 (225) 60 (75) 255 (225) 105 (75) 15 (15) 240 (270) US 84 270 (240) 90 (75 75 (90) BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURCE-5-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 14 N I-9 5 1050 (1215) 1215 (1050) 780 (480) SR 144 480 (775) 435 (285) 345 615 (195) (930) 80 (1004)20 (685) 60 (90) 930 335 (615) (2352) 85 (435) 90 745(60) (1185) 100 (80) 1265 (850) SR 144 845 (1265) 140 (190) 190 (140) 1520 (1025) 1025 (1520) 1305 (1950) 1950 (1305) US 17 730 105 (1095) (150) 480 (705) 150 (105) 705 (480) 1010 (605) 605 (1010) 270 (405) 720 (680) (420750()1703905()678200) 1720 2180 (2180) (1720) MATCHLINE B 1805 (1765) SR 144 1765 (1805) MATCHLINE A BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E -6-1 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ MATCHLINE A N STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 24 I-9 5 MATCHLINE B US 17 MATCHLINE F 1375 2050 (2050) (1375) 375 (255) 1120 (1675) 255 (375) 235 (155) 1675 (1120) 155 (235) 610 (410) BELFAST SIDING ROAD 410 (610) 1355 (1830) 1830 (1355) MATCHLINE D 1565 (2405) US 17 2405 (1570) 885 (1355) 680 (1050) 390 (265) 90 (60) 2315 (1510) 315 (210) 995 (1260) 480 (325) 1215 (1530) 60 (90) 1580 (1035) 1050 (680) 210 (315) 265 (390) 1260 (995) 1425 (1845) 1845 (1425) 325 (480) I-9 5 MATCHLINE C BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E-6-2 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ MATCHLINE B STATE GA. PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 34 N I-9 5 MATCHLINE F 790 (1170) 1170 (790) 650 (540) BELFAST SIDING ROAD 540 (650) 150 (210) 500 (330) 640 (960) 310 (210) 470 (600) 70 (50) 760 (470) 210 (150) 50 (70) 900 (1410) 960 (640) 210 (310) 1720 (1110) BELFAST SIDING ROAD 1110 (1720) I-9 5 380 (260) 260 (380) MATCHLINE E BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURC E -6-3 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 $FILE$ $USER$ $TIM E$ $DATE$ $DATE$ $TIM E$ $USER$ $FILE$ MATCHLINE D 1000 (1595) 1495 (1015) SR 196 655 (985) 985 (655) 640 (955) 360 (640) 955 (640) 30 (15) 15 540 (30()360) 390 (655) 555 (390) US 17 465 (345) 345 (465) 570 (630) 630 (570) (212550)(119355()4650) 150 (225) 60 (45) 300 (450) 450 (300) 30 (45) 105 (165) 45 (30)135 165 (195) (105) 525 (630) 345 (330) 465 (660) 660 (465) US 17 MATCHLINE C STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS 44 N I-9 5 300 (435) 435 (300) 405 (585) 585 (405) US 84 225 (330) 180 (255) 75 (105) 75 (60) 15 (15) 510 (345) 135 (195)330 (225) 60 (75) 255 (225) 105 (75) 15 (15) 240 (270) US 84 270 (240) 90 (75 75 (90) BRYAN COUNTY IJR 2032 BUILD PEAK HOUR AM(PM) = 000(000) T = 15% FIGURCE-6-4 SCALE: N.T.S. OCT 2008 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding IJR Bryan County, Georgia Appendix D Alternative Intersection Designs October 2008 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Continuous Flow Intersection Main Advantage: Left and right turns are removed from the main intersection and run concurrently with the corresponding through movement. This results in a two-phase signal operation, increasing intersection efficiency. Implications: This intersection can support significantly more traffic than at a standard, at- grade intersection. Accommodating the contraflow left turn lanes and dedicated right turn lanes requires additional width and access control extending several hundred feet from the intersection. Where it has been applied: Baton Rouge, LA Prince George County, Maryland Mexico. October 2008 D-1 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Two-Level Signalized Intersection Main Advantage: Under this design, 4 phases can operate concurrently Implications: Intersection capacity during peak hours of traffic can support more than twice the amount of traffic as at-grade intersections. 4 Phases Concurrent Where it has been applied: Seoul, Korea 4 Phases Concurrent October 2008 D-2 Office of Planning I-95 at Belfast-Siding Interchange Analysis Report Bryan County, Georgia Center Turn Overpass Main Advantage: Removes left turns from the signal, allowing 2-phase signal operation Implications: Prevents left turning traffic from impacting signal operations. Requires grade separation with elevate sections along both streets. Where it has been applied: Texas October 2008 D-3