Butts, Jones and Monroe counties multi-modal transportation study [Aug. 2008]

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Executive Summary
August 2008

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................2 Study Purpose .............................................................................................................2 Study Area Description ................................................................................................3 Study Process .............................................................................................................5

2.0 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION....................................................................................6 2.1 Future Population ........................................................................................................6 2.2 Employment Data ........................................................................................................7

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.....................................................8

4.0 IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS..............................................................11

5.0 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................12

6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3

PRIORITIZATION..........................................................................................................24 Butts County Priorities ...............................................................................................24 Jones County Priorities..............................................................................................24 Monroe County Priorities ...........................................................................................25

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6

Study Area ...........................................................................................................4 Study Process......................................................................................................5 Improvement Development Process ..................................................................11 Butts County Recommended Improvements Roadway ...................................18 Butts County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian..................19 Jones County Recommended Improvements - Roadway...................................20 Jones County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian ................21 Monroe County Recommended Improvements - Roadway ................................22 Monroe County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian..............23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.0 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics ...............................................6 Projected Population...........................................................................................7 Existing Work Commute Option Patterns ............................................................7 Recommended Improvements Butts County ..................................................13 Recommended Improvements Jones County.................................................15 Recommended Improvements Monroe County ..............................................17

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

i

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction

Residential, commercial and industrial growth in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand throughout the 3-County Region. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon year of 2035. Currently, the transportation planning function for the Counties is provided by GDOT through coordination with each County. The transportation plans developed as part of this study were built upon existing work efforts to date; and the LRTP can provide a mechanism for guiding transportation decision-making as development and growth increase throughout the 3-County Region.

GDOT and the study team coordinated with Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, local cities, and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of potential improvements. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to establish plan goals and objectives consistent with county comprehensive plans, identify issues and opportunities and to identify potential improvements. This ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to each County's transportation network.

Ultimately, study efforts have produced a documented LRTP that provides for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties through the study horizon year (2035). In addition, an interim analysis was also conducted for the year 2015 for the three-county region.

1.1 Study Purpose

The purpose of the LRTP is to identify long-range transportation needs, determine the resources to meet those needs, and to provide a framework of projects that address the transportation needs of the county to the extent possible by leveraging existing and future resources. While the majority of the 3-County Region is not within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area, the transportation plan development process methodology followed the Federal guidelines established for MPOs. A portion of Jones County falls within the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission, the MPO for the Macon metropolitan area, and transportation planning for this area of Jones County is included in the Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS). Incorporating the Federal planning guidelines established for MPOs creates a more rigorous process and establishes a strong framework for transportation planning and decision-making. The format of the LRTP, and the process by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the longterm transportation needs of the planning study area. Since many factors influencing the

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, long range transportation plans should be updated at least every five years.

1.2 Study Area Description

The transportation planning study area is located along the I-75 corridor in middle Georgia, north of Macon. In recent years, communities located in the I-75 corridor from south of Atlanta to Macon have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses.

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties cover a land area of just over 976 square miles. Butts County is comprised of 187 square miles, Jones County covers 394 square miles, and Monroe County covers 396 square miles. The area features many appealing points of interest, is significant to the State's natural and built environments, and contains cultural and historic assets, all of which create unique impacts on the transportation system.

Butts County is home to Indian Springs State Park, the oldest state park in the United States.

Jones County has natural and historical sites including the Ocmulgee River, the restored Jarrell Plantation, and the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge.

Monroe County, named after President James Monroe, was formed in 1821 from Creek Indian land. The oldest Methodist church in Georgia resides in the City of Culloden. The Whistle Stop Caf, in Juliette, made famous by the movie Fried Green Tomatoes has become a tourist attraction and is still serving fried green tomatoes today.

The 3-County Region is part of two Regional Development Centers (RDCs): McIntosh Trail RDC (MTRDC) and Middle Georgia RDC (MGRDC). Butts County is part of the MTRDC. Jones and Monroe Counties are part of the Middle Georgia RDC. The study area is displayed in Figure 1.2.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Study Area
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
4

F
Figure No: 1.2

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.3 Study Process

The following activities generally represent the transportation plan development process: data collection and development of analysis tools and methodologies; analysis of existing and future conditions; development of improvement strategies; and, ultimately, project cost development and prioritization.

Figure 1.3 displays a flow chart depicting the study process.

Figure 1.3 Study Process

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Demographic Information

A review of the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, shows that the 3-County Region has experienced population growth greater than the statewide average during the past 20 years. The Statewide average yearly growth was three percent over this period and the 3-County Region grew at an average yearly rate of five percent Table 2.0 presents select demographic data to illustrate the characteristics of the population living in each of the three Counties, their households, and other socio-economic factors.

Table 2.0 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

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

Butts
19,522

Jones
23,639

Monroe
21,757

35.9

36.1

36.4

17,607

23,287

21,131

2.73

2.69

2.74

7,380
6,455 (87.5% of total)
4,947 (76.6% of total)
1,508 (23.4% of total)
4,354 (23.2% of total)
69.8%

9,272
8,659 (93.4% of total)
7,433 (85.8% of total)
1,226 (14.2% of total)
6,342 (27.9% of total)
77.9%

8,425
7,719 (91.6% of total)
6,137 (79.5% of total)
1,582 (20.5% of total)
5,835 (27.8% of total)
77.7%

3,737

4,241

4,668

49.4%

63.5%

65.0%

2.1 Future Population
The 3-County Region has received a moderate amount of growth over the past 20 years (45%). This growth trend is expected to continue or accelerate as the area continues to attract people and business owners who enjoy a rural or suburban lifestyle in relatively close proximity to nearby amenities in the Atlanta and Macon urban areas. Recently, several developments of regional impact (DRI) studies have been completed throughout the 3-County Region. The majority of these DRIs are located in Butts County. Table 2.1 displays the projected growth for each of the three Counties through the horizon year of 2035.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.1 Projected Population

Butts

2000 19,522

2006 23,543

2015 36,761

2035 56,552

Jones

23,690 26,955 29,280 36,440

Monroe

21,774 24,420 26,664 33,804

Total

66,986 76,924 94,720 128,831

Sources: Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025, Georgia Department of Community Affairs Population Projection Scenario, Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Jones County and the City of Gray (Wood and Poole Economics, Inc.), Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Culloden and Forsyth (MGRDC)

2.2 Employment Data
In the 3-County Region, public administration is the largest employment sector providing about one-fourth of the total jobs. Other important sectors are manufacturing, education services, construction and retail trade. Ten companies in the 3-County Region employ 100 or more employees. The number, type, and location of jobs in these Counties have direct implications to the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area.
Table 2.2 illustrates the breakdowns in commuting modes for each of the Counties.
Table 2.2 Existing Work Commute Option Patterns

Work Commute Total Workers (Age 16+) Drove Alone Carpooled Transit/Taxi Biked or Walked Motorcycle or Other Means Worked at Home Mean Travel Time to Work (min.)
Source: 2000 US Census

Butts 7,924 6,374 1,271
8 36 54 181 31

Jones
10,543 9,035 1,187
4 37 47 233 28

Monroe
10,316 8,560 1,373
15 133 108 127 28

Total 28,783 23,969 3,831
27 206 209 541

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Assessment of Transportation Facilities

Extensive data was collected for the transportation facilities within the 3-County Region. Based on the existing conditions inventory and assessment, an analysis of operating conditions was conducted for the following elements:

Roadways; Public Transportation; Freight Transport; Airport Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridges; and, Safety.

This analysis documented the baseline operating conditions for each element of the transportation system in an Existing and Future Conditions Report and forms the foundation for development of improvement recommendations. Some of the key findings of the Existing and Future Conditions Report include:

Butts County
Previous and On-Going Studies o 11 projects in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program
Roadway System Characteristics o 61 miles of State and US Roads o 324 miles of County Roads o 38 miles of Collectors and Local Streets
Public Transportation o 5,373 one-way trips annually with Butts County Rural Transit Program
Freight Transport o 3 Nationally designated truck routes I-75, SR 16, SR 42 o 21 miles of rail line operated by Norfolk Southern
Airports o None
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities o 1 pedestrian fatality from 2004 to 2006 o Additional infill and sidewalks recommended within a 1-mile buffer of schools, libraries, parks and community centers. o Trail connections and on-road bicycle lanes recommended.
Bridges o 37 bridges o 6 bridges with a sufficiency rating less than 50 meaning they are potentially in need of rehabilitation or repair. o 7 additional bridges have a sufficiency rating less than 75 and may need rehabilitation or replacement through the plan horizon year, 2035.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Safety o 1,961 crashes o 1,001 injuries o 17 fatalities o 5 intersections with 20 or more crashes (2004-2006)
Deficient Roadway Segments o 6 Existing deficient segments o 9 deficient segments in 2015 o 19 deficient segments in 2035

Jones County
Previous and On-Going Studies o 9 projects in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program
Roadway System Characteristics o 87 miles of State and US Roads o 449 miles of County Roads o 19 miles of Collectors and Local Streets
Public Transportation o 20,235 one-way trips annually with Jones County Rural Transit Program
Freight Transport o 5 Nationally designated truck routes US 129, SR 11, SR 18, SR 22, SR 49 o 36 miles of rail line operated by Norfolk Southern o 17 miles of rail line operated by CSX
Airports o No airports
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities o 0 pedestrian fatalities from 2004 to 2006 o Additional infill and sidewalks recommended within a 1-mile buffer of schools, libraries, parks and community centers o Multi- use trail connections and on-road bicycle lanes recommended
Bridges o 48 bridges o 8 bridges with a sufficiency rating less than 50 meaning they are potentially in need of rehabilitation or repair. o 9 additional bridges have a sufficiency rating less than 75 and may need rehabilitation or replacement through the studies horizon year, 2035.
Safety o 1,832 crashes o 746 injuries o 17 fatalities o 5 intersections with 20 or more crashes (2004-2006)
Deficient Roadway Segments o 3 Existing deficient segments o 5 deficient segments in 2015 o 11 deficient segments in 2035

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Monroe County Previous and On-Going Studies o 7 projects in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Construction Work Program Roadway System Characteristics o 255 miles of State and US Roads o 464 miles of County Roads o 28 miles of Collectors and Local Streets Public Transportation o None Freight Transport o 3 Nationally designated truck routes I-75, US 41, SR 83 o 22 miles of rail line operated by Norfolk Southern Airports o None Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities o 2 pedestrian fatalities from 2004 to 2006 o Additional infill and sidewalks recommended within a 1-mile buffer of schools, libraries, parks and community centers o Multi-use trails and on-road bicycle lanes recommended Bridges o 72 bridges o 6 bridges with a sufficiency rating less than 50 meaning they are potentially in need of rehabilitation or repair. o 21 additional bridges have a sufficiency rating less than 75 and may need rehabilitation or replacement through the studies horizon year, 2035. Safety o 2,675 crashes o 1,194 injuries o 26 fatalities o 3 intersections with 20 or more crashes (2004-2006) Deficient Segments o 2 Existing deficient segments o 7 deficient segments in 2015 o 23 deficient segments in 2035
The next step in the long range transportation planning process was to address these deficiencies with improvements. A screening process identified and evaluated the improvements, resulting in a prioritized list and cost estimates that were developed for these potential improvements.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.0 Improvement Development Process

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

Deficient Roadways and Bridges; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Public Transportation; Freight; and, Aviation.

Recommended improvements were also based on citizen and stakeholder input as well as technical analysis. The figure below illustrates the improvement development process.

Figure 4.1 Improvement Development Process

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.0 Improvement Recommendations

Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for each of the Counties in the study area. This listing includes:

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Minor Roadway Widening (increasing travel lane widths and/or shoulders); Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.

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

This information is presented in Tables 5.1 5.3 and Figures 5.1 - 5.3.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Table 5.1 Recommended Improvements - Butts County

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

B1

SR 16

B2

SR 36

B3

SR 36 Passing Lanes

B4

SR 42 Passing Lanes

B5

South Jackson Bypass

B6

SR 36

B32 England Chapel/High Falls Road

B33 US23

B34 US23

B35 High Falls Road

B37 Brownlee Road

B38 SR 16

B39 Halls Bridge Road

B40 SR 42

B42 Kinards Mill Road

B44 Keys Ferry Road

B46 SR 16

B47 SR 16

B55 SR36

Segment Limits

From

To

I-75 SR 16 North of Jackson Jackson SR 16 at Bert Road I-75 SR 36 County Line Road SR16 SR 36 Mountain View Road Wallace Road Stark Road Monroe County Line Colwell Road Jackson Lake Road Imagene Goff Rd. US 23/SR 42 I-75

City of Jackson limits CR 289/Stark Road Newton County line Jenkinsburg SR 16 at Bibb Station Road SR 18/Lamar County line US23 SR16 Monroe County Line Monroe County Line Monroe County Line I-75 Interchange Pratt Smith Road Mt Vernon Church Road High Falls Road Fincherville Road US 23/ SR 42 SR 16/ US 23 SR16

Existing Configuration

Improved Configuration

2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes N/A 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 4-lane, Divided 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes

4-lane, Divided One-way pair Passing Lanes Passing Lanes 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 6-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided

Notes/Comments
6.98 miles 0.65 miles 2.00 miles 2.50 miles 8.00 miles 8.53 miles 6.32 miles 5.88 miles 8.60 miles 3.40 miles 2.66 miles 1.24 miles 1.92 miles 2.25 miles 2.01 miles 1.13 miles 0.56 miles 1.19 miles 8.45 miles

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

B35, M73 Henry County M59 B32, M73 M64
M63
Henry County B47 B46 Lamar County

CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening New Road Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening

Operational Improvements B48 Lamars Mill Road B51 Mt Vernon Church Road B52 SR 42 B53 Stark Road

Vickers Road High Falls Road US 23 Four Points Road

Dodson Road SR 42 Mt Vernon Church Road Barnetts Bridge Road

< ideal typical section < ideal typical section < ideal typical section < ideal typical section

12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders

3.46 miles 4.47 miles 2.54 miles 1.58 miles

Comment Sub-Standard Typical Section

B52

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

B51

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

Intersection/Geometric Improvements B15 SR 42/ US 23 B16 SR 16 E B17 High Falls Road B18 US 23 B19 SR 16 B20 SR 42/US 23N B21 SR 42 B22 SR 16 B23 SR 16 B24 SR 36 B25 SR 16 B26 SR 42 B28 SR 36 B29 SR 16 B30 Shiloh Road B31 SR16

England Chapel Road SR 42 S England Chapel Road SR 42 McDonough Road SR 16 W Shiloh Road SR 36 S/ Mulberry Street England Chapel Road Fincherville Road Higgins Road Cenie Road Old Bethel Church Road Shiloh Road Honeysuckle Lane/Tara Road SR36N

24 crashes 43 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 21 crashes 17 crashes 0 crashes 13 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 23 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 38 crashes

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Bridge Improvements B13 Fill Bridge Road B7 SR 36 B14 Colwell Road B8 SR 36 B9 SR 36 B103 Lake Clark Road B104 Kinards Mill Road B105 Wolf Creek Road B10 SR 36 B107 Halls Bridge Road B108 Wildwood Road B109 Spring Road

Towaliga River Tributary Towaliga River Cabin Creek Yellow Water Creek South River Big Sandy Creek Towaliga River Wolf Creek Tussahaw Creek Yellow Water Creek Caney Fork Creek Big Sandy Creek Tributary

378 sq ft 5,454 sq ft 4,450 sq ft 2,454 sq ft 12,847 sq ft 2,825 sq ft 6,091 sq ft 4,896 sq ft 3,853 sq ft 3,488 sq ft 643 sq ft 858 sq ft

25.08 sufficiency rating 46.32 sufficiency rating B3 47.18 sufficiency rating 47.39 sufficiency rating 47.86 sufficiency rating 52.35 sufficiency rating 53.08 sufficiency rating 55.50 sufficiency rating 58.40 sufficiency rating 61.61 sufficiency rating 65.35 sufficiency rating 68.78 sufficiency rating

Analysis CWP Analysis CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

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

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

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

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

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$31,051,000 $11,940,000
$8,014,000 $9,066,000 $22,247,000 $1,306,300 $25,280,000 $23,520,000 $34,400,000 $13,600,000 $10,640,000 $4,960,000 $7,680,000 $9,000,000 $8,040,000 $4,520,000 $2,240,000 $4,760,000 $33,800,000 $266,064,300

$9,618,800 $12,426,600
$7,061,200 $4,392,400 $33,499,000

$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $4,000,000

$209,088 $3,100,000 $1,723,392 $2,386,000 $2,182,500
$875,072 $1,455,872 $1,239,040
$799,000 $1,364,352
$162,624 $255,552 $15,752,492

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

13

Table 5.1 Recommended Improvements - Butts County

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements

B61 SR 42 (Indian Springs) Sidewalks

B62 SR 42 (Indian Springs) Sidewalks

B63 McDonough Road Sidewalks

B64 Stark Road Sidewalks

B65 Shiloh Road Sidewalks

B66 S. Harkness Street Sidewalks

B67 Buttrill Road Sidewalks

B68 Brownlee Road Sidewalks

B69 Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B70 Pathway to Learning Sidewalks

B71 Franklin Avenue Sidewalks

B72 SR 42 Sidewalks

B73 Nelson Street Sidewalks

B74 SR 16 Sidewalks

B75 SR 16 Sidewalks

B76 N. Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B77 Heard Street Sidewalks

B78 Heard Street Sidewalks

B79 Jackson Lake Loop Bicycle Lane

B80 High Falls Road Bicycle Lane

B81 Stark Road/ SR36/ Brownlee Road Bicycle Lane

B82 Jackson Lake to Indian Springs Bicycle Lane

B83 SR 42 Bicycle Lane

B84 Proposed South Jackson Bypass Bicycle Lane

B85 McIntosh Indian Trail Proposed Scenic Byway Bike Lane

B86 Through the County Loop Bike Lane

B87 Ocmulgee River Trail Bike Lane

B97 S. Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B98 George Tate Drive Sidewalks

B99 Garden Walk Multi-Use Path

Segment Limits

From

To

Cenie Road Indian Spring St Park N Sylvan Drive SR 36 Daughtry Elementary School SR 16 Bob White Drive Viewpoint Drive Brownlee Road Jackson High School Freeman Street Nelson Street Franklin Avenue Carolina Avenue Eighth Street 1st Street McGee Street Lee Street SR 16 Mt Vernon Rd Stark Rd SR 16 Indian Spring St Pk N entr. SR 16 West of Jackson SR 42 High Falls Rd Ocmulgee River Park Brownlee Road S Mulberry St Garden Walk subdiv.

Indian Spring St Park N Potts Road SR 16 Regal Drive Honeysuckle Lane existing sidewalk George Tate Drive Mulberry Street Hancock Street Fairgrounds Indian Springs Street SR 16 SR 42 Eighth Street Halls Bridge Road N. Mulberry Elementary School Beaty Street Nesby Watson SR 36 east Monroe Co line Mt Vernon Rd Indian Springs Pk N entr. Monroe Co. line SR16 East of Jackson Spalding County line Stark Road Monroe County Cherokee Rose Dr Clyde's Way Brownlee Rd

Existing Configuration
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

Improved Configuration
Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet add 4-foot bicycle lane widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet Multi-Use Path on Western Shore Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path

Notes/Comments
0.4 mile 0.2 mile 0.8 mile 1.3 miles 0.7 mile 0.5 mile 0.3 mile 1.1 miles 0.05 mile 2.6 miles 0.5 mile 0.3 mile 0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.4 mile 0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.6 mile 10.4 miles 0.9 miles 10.2 miles 7.2 miles 3.4 miles 8.1 miles 15.5 miles 14.5 miles 13.3 miles 0.6 mile 0.4 mile 0.4 mile

Rail Improvements B88 Heard Street B89 Bunch Road B90 Wolf Creek Road B91 Covington Street B92 Benton Street B93 3rd Street B94 Bibb Station Road B95 Cork Road B96 Mt. Pleasant Church Road

Crossing #718461W Crossing 718446U Crossing 718445M Crossing #718448H Crossing #718449P Crossing #718450J Crossing 718456A Crossing #718467M Crossing #718468U

Overpass-low clearance X-bucks, stop sign Gates,x-bucks,lights Gates.x-bucks,lights Gates,x-bucks, lights Gates,x-bucks,lights,signs X-bucks,stop signs X-bucks,stop sign Gates,x-bucks,lights

Requires further study Add adv warn signs; mark/sign x-ing Add adv warn signs; mark all app's Add adv warn signs/mark NB app Add adv warn signs 3 approaches Add adv warn signs-Lyons EB app Review/safety features warranted Requires further study Add adv warn signs EB approach

Short-term proj est only. Further review needed

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

Local Project B68 and B70
B5 B70

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Local Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Analysis Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane SIdewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk

GDOT/NS Rail GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT/NS Rail GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Requires further study Install signage;add warning signs Install adv. warning signage Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warning signage Review for safety features Requires further study Install adv warn signs/markings

Need
Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities
Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

Anticipated Benefit
Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System
Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$80,000 $20,000 $160,000 $260,000 $70,000 $50,000 $30,000 $220,000
$5,000 $520,000 $100,000
$60,000 $100,000 $100,000
$40,000 $100,000
$50,000 $120,000 $1,560,000 $135,000 $1,530,000 $1,080,000 $510,000 $1,215,000 $2,325,000 $2,175,000 $1,995,000 $120,000
$80,000 $140,000 $14,950,000

$0 $3,150 $2,400
$600 $1,800
$600 $0 $0
$600 $9,150
$334,274,942

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

14

Table 5.2 Recommended Improvements - Jones County

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

J1

SR 44

J2

SR 44

J3

SR 22

J4

SR 49

J8

Gray North Bypass

J26 Henderson Road

J27 Griswoldville Road

J29 SR 49

J30 Joycliff Road

J31 US 129

J32 US 129

J33 SR 22

J35 Lite-n-Tie Road and Garrison Road

J36

US 129

From
Gray Bypass Mathis Road Gray Bypass Griswoldville Road SR 18 SR 57 Henderson Road SR 18 SR 49 Joycliff Road Lite-n-Tie Road SR 11 SR 49 Greene Settlement Road

Segment Limits To
CR 104/ Mathis Road US 441/Putnam County SR 29/Baldwin County SR 18 SR 22 Griswoldville Road SR 49 Bowen Hill Road US 129 Greene Settlement Road Jackson Avenue Pinewood Drive US 129 Lite-n-Tie Road

Existing Configuration
2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane N/A 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 4-lane 4-lane 2-lane 2-lane 4-lane

Improved Configuration
4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 6-lane 6-lane 4-lane 4-lane 6-lane

Notes/Comments
11.6 miles 1.7 miles 7.8 miles 8.8 miles 5.6 miles 0.9 miles 3.0 miles 8.2 miles 2.9 miles 7.1 miles 0.7 mile 0.50 miles 7.25 miles 0.5 mile

Operational Improvements
J28 SR 57 J38 Cumslo Road J39 Huckabee Road J42 Morton Road J43 Green Settlement Road J44 Olive Green Road J45 Howard Roberts Road/Dye Road/Wheeler Road J46 Stagecoach Road

Bibb County Line SR 18 Graham Road SR 18 US 129 Greene Settlement Road SR 11 Upper River Road

Twiggs County Line US 129 SR 18 Turner Woods Road Wheeler Road SR 11 SR 18 Graham Road

2.4 miles 3.3 miles 1.9 miles 0.9 mile 3.7 miles 2.4 miles 9.0 miles 2.0 miles

Intersection/Geometric Improvements

J18 US 129

J19 US 129 S

J20 US 129

J21 US 129

J22 US 129

J23 Lite-n-Tie Road

J24 US 129 N

J25

SR 22

J48 SR 22

Joycliff Road SR 18 W Jackson Avenue RL Wheeler Road Greene Settlement Road Railroad Crossing 733418D (Norfolk Southern) SR 18 E Ethridge Road - Haddock Community Harris Morton Road

35 crashes 34 crashes 32 crashes 21 crashes 22 crashes 4 crashes 3 crashes 4 crashes 5 crashes

Bridge Improvements

J5

Howard Roberts Road

J6

County Line Road (Beginning at Mile Point .031)

J7

County Line Road (Beginning at Mile Point .042)

J14 Folendore Road

J13 Turner Woods Road

J12 Shoal Creek Road

J11 Hitchiti Road

J10 Roundok-Juliette Road

J109 SR 49

J108 Caney Creek Road

J107 Dumas Road

J106 Graham Road

J105 Graham Road

J104 US 129

J103 Hadaway Road

J102 US 129 (SBL)

J101 US 129 (SBL)

Chehaw Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek Milsap Creek Shoal Creek Falling Creek Falling Creek Southern Railroad Falling Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek Cedar Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek

2,000 sq ft 2,400 sq ft 4,800 sq ft 2,419 sq ft 2,024 sq ft 4,080 sq ft 1,760 sq ft 4,816 sq ft 10,496 sq ft 2,560 sq ft 504 sq ft 2,454 sq ft 2,909 sq ft 9,261 sq ft 3,768 sq ft 4,104 sq ft 4,092 sq ft

9.76 sufficiency rating 40.98 sufficiency rating 40.98 sufficiency rating 41.99 sufficiency rating 42.17 sufficiency rating 48.40 sufficiency rating 49.37 sufficiency rating 49.77 sufficiency rating 50.02 sufficiency rating 51.43 sufficiency rating 53.41 sufficiency rating 54.30 sufficiency rating 54.59 sufficiency rating 55.17 sufficiency rating 57.12 sufficiency rating 57.15 sufficiency rating 64.75 sufficiency rating

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

Twiggs County, J27 J26

CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening New Road Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening

Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

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

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

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source

Federal State

County

$38,433,000 $8,246,560 $9,558,930
$47,225,000 $26,367,000
$3,600,000 $12,000,000 $32,800,000 $11,600,000 $28,400,000
$2,800,000 $2,000,000 $29,000,000 $2,000,000 $254,030,490

$9,600,000 $13,200,000
$7,600,000 $3,600,000 $14,800,000 $9,600,000 $36,000,000 $8,000,000 $102,400,000

$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,250,000

$272,000 $210,000 $395,000 $890,560 $1,239,040 $2,369,664 $309,760 $1,146,112 $627,264 $743,424 $743,424 $1,486,848 $2,090,880 $743,424 $929,280 $929,280 $929,280 $16,055,240

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

15

Table 5.2 Recommended Improvements - Jones County

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements

J61 SR 49

J62 Mattie Wells Drive

J63 J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr.

J64 SR 22 (Haddock)

J65 SR 22 (Haddock)

J66 SR 22 (Gray)

J67 SR 18 E (Gray)

J68 Allen Green Drive

J69 Railroad Street

J70 Stewart Avenue

J71 Gordon Street

J72 Martin Luther King, Jr.

J73 Dolly Street

J74 Highview Street

J75 Maggie Califf Street

J76

North Madison Street

J77 Huckabee Road

J78 SR 18 W

J79 SR 18 W

J80 Old Clinton Road

J81 Jackson Avenue

J82 GA 18 Connector

J83 GA 18 E

J84 New Clifton Road (Macon)

J85 Ocmulgee Heritage Shared Use Trail

J86 Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway

J87 Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway

J88 Gray Connector Bicycle Route

J89 Central Georgia Rails to Trails

J90 Upper River Road/Stagecoach Road Bicycle Route

J91 Gray Bypass

Railroad Improvements J92 SR 49 J93 Wheeler Road J94 Skinner Road J95 Otis Redding Road

Segment Limits

From

To

Jones County South Recreational Complex SR 49 Mattie Wells Drive Unincorporated sign on west Bowen Hill Road Pinewood Drive Gray Station Middle School SR 18 Jones County High School Stadium Entrance US 129 Railroad Street SR 11 North Madison US 129 Dolly Street US 129 Katherine Drive Huckabee Road Dames Ferry Elementary School Green Settlement Road Old Clinton US 129 GA 18 Connector Old Stage Coach Juliette Road Juliette Road SR 11 from Jasper County Line Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 S Inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County Upper River Road to Stagecoach Road US 129/ SR 22 west of Gray

Mattie Wells Drive J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr. Mattie Wells Elementary School Pk lot Unincorporated sign on east Ethridge Road Faye Circle Allen Green Drive Jones County Central Rec. Complex US 129 Railroad Street US 129 Maggie Califf Street Coolidge Street Martin Luther King, Jr. Highview Street Martin Luther King, Jr. SR 18 W Dames Ferry Elementary School entr. Trotters Ridge Trail Washburn Drive US 129 GA 18 E Gray Station Middle School Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road) Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road) SR 11 SR 22 in Gray Inactive Norfolk Southern line NE to Baldwin County line to Graham Road SR 22 east of Gray

Crossing # 733415H Crossing # 733292Y Crossing # 733413U Crossing # 733284G

Existing Configuration
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

Improved Configuration
Sidewalk on south side Sidewalk on west side only Sidewalk on south side Sidewalk both sides Crosswalk Upgrade Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path on south side Sidewalk on west and south side Sidewalk on east side Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path on south side Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Trail on west side Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 4 ft Bicycle Lane in both directions Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 10 foot Rails to Trails Path Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 4 foot bicycle lane in both directions

Notes/Comments
0.2 mile 0.1 mile 1.3 mile 1.1 miles
0.4 mile 0.4 mile 0.4 mile 1.6 miles 0.3 mile 0.2 mile 0.5 mile 0.9 mile 0.3 mile 0.1 mile 0.15 mile 0.3 mile 0.4 mile 0.2 mile 1.4 miles 0.1 mile 0.1 mile 0.8 mile 1.1 miles 22.4 miles 11.3 miles 12.8 miles 7.1 miles 16.5 miles 9.8 miles 5.5 miles

Coordination Required?
J25
Gray Bypass

Source

Improvement Type

Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Analysis Local Local Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Analysis Local Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail

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

Anticipated Benefit
Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System

X-bucks, lights, warn signs X-bucks, stop sign X-bucks, stop sign X-bucks, stop sign

Gates and stop bars, 2 app, if warrant Add adv warn 2 app Old SR11, stop sign Replace broken X-buck Add adv warn 5 app SR11,Old SR11

Must review w/GDOT

GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Install gates, signage Install adv warn/stop signs Replace X-buck Install adv warning signage

Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source

Federal State

County

$20,000 $10,000 $130,000 $220,000
$200 $80,000 $140,000 $40,000 $160,000 $60,000 $40,000 $100,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $20,000 $280,000 $20,000 $20,000 $280,000 $220,000 $7,840,000 $1,695,000 $1,920,000 $1,065,000 $5,775,000 $1,470,000 $825,000 $22,700,200

$250,600 $1,500 $300 $3,000
$255,400
$397,691,330

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

16

Table 5.3 Recommended Improvements - Monroe County

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

M1 SR 18

M2 SR 19

M59 US23

M60 Jenkins Road

M61 SR 83

M62 Sutton Road

M63 SR 42

M64 Brownlee Road

M65 Boxankle Road

M66 Stokes Store Road

M68 US 41

M71 SR 83

M72 US 41

M73 High Falls Road

Operational Improvements M67 Juliette Road

Intersection/Geometric Improvements
M5 SR 19/ US 41 M48 Brent Road M49 Boxankle Road M50 SR 83 M51 US 41 M52 SR 18 M53 US 41 M54 US 41 M55 US 41 M56 Rumble Road M57 SR 42 M58 Rumble Road

Bridge Improvements
M11 Reedy Creek Road M12 Reedy Creek Road M13 Montpelier Springs Road M14 Johnstonville Road M15 Maynards Mill Road M100 SR 83 M101 SR 74 M102 High Falls Road M103 Lee King Road M104 US 23 M105 Zebulon Road M106 CR 161 M107 SR 42 M108 SR18 M109 SR 83 M110 SR 42 M111 SR 18 M112 SR 83 M113 Boxankle Road M114 SR 42 M115 SR 83 M116 US 23 M117 US 341 M118 Rumble Road

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
M31 Montpelier Road Sidewalks M32 Zebulon Road/ Estes Road Bicycle Lane M33 Klopfer/Old Popes Ferry/Ferry/Pate/New Forsyth M34 SR 74 M35 SR 83 M36 SR 42 M37 SR 18

M38 Various Local Roads

M39 US 41 Sidewalks M40 SR 42 Sidewalks
Rail Improvements M41 Collier Road M42 Harold Clark Road M43 Indian Springs Drive M44 N. Lee Street M45 Old Rumble Road M46 Industrial Park Drive

Segment Limits

From

To

Southbound 13.7 - 15.2/ Monroe. Eastbound 2.3 - 3.6. Westbound 3.38-5.1/TL 5.1-5.6

CR 73/ King Road

0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd

I-75 Interchange/Bibb County

Butts County Line

I-75

SR 18

US 41

US 23

SR 83

SR 42

I-75

Butts County Line

SR 42

Butts County Line

SR 42

High Falls Road

SR 42

SR 83

Crawford Road (Lamar County)

SR 42

Abercrombie Road

Vaugh Road

0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd

Pea Ridge Road

I-75

Butts County Line

Existing Configuration

Improved Configuration

2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes

Passing lane Passing lane 4-lane, divided 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes

Notes/Comments
3.70 miles 1.90 miles 19.00 miles 3.50 miles 11.20 miles 2.40 miles 11.30 miles 2.05 miles 9.30 miles 7.40 miles 6.70 miles 7.90 miles 2.40 miles 3.60 miles

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

M59, Bibb County
B40 B37 Lamar County B32, B35

CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Local Road Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

US 23

Jones County Line

2-lanes

Widen shoulders 2 - 4 feet

4.20 miles

Analysis Operational Improvements

Operational & Safety Issues

Improved Safety & Capacity

SR 18 SR 83 SR 42 SR 87/ US 23 SR 42 SR87/ US 23 Hill Road King Road Old Rumble Road Evans Road Indian Springs Drive US 41

0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 21 crashes 35 crashes 22 crashes 1 crash 1 crash 2 crashes 2 crashes 2 crashes 1 crash

CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Realignment Realignment Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment

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

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

Tobesofkee Creek Tributary Tobesofkee Creek Tobesofkee Creek Rocky Creek Little Tobesofkee Creek Towaliga River Echeconnee Creek Towaliga River Deer Creek Tablers Creek Tobesokee Creek Little Towaliga River Tributary Tobesofkee Creek Norfolk-Southern Railroad Tobesofkee Creek Little Tobesofkee Creek Ocmulgee River Little Tobesofkee Creek Little Towaliga River Yellow Creek Todd Creek Rum Creek Echeconnee Creek Little Deer Creek

473 sq ft 587 sq ft 1,264 sq ft 3,121 sq ft 4,864 sq ft 8,721 sq ft 3,168 sq ft 8,602 sq ft 2,419 sq ft 4,116 sq ft 5,376 sq ft 336 sq ft 2,438 sq ft 4,504 sq ft 3,336 sq ft 3,078 sq ft 17,604 sq ft 2,511 sq ft 4,608 sq ft 2,703 sq ft 3,336 sq ft 8,232 sq ft 5,411 sq ft 3,432 sq ft

2.00 sufficiency rating 6.71 sufficiency rating 25.93 sufficiency rating 44.29 sufficiency rating 44.79 sufficiency rating 49.70 sufficiency rating 53.01 sufficiency rating 55.47 sufficiency rating 56.41 sufficiency rating 57.43 sufficiency rating 57.89 sufficiency rating 57.91 sufficiency rating 58.83 sufficiency rating 61.20 sufficiency rating 61.21 sufficiency rating 61.43 sufficiency rating 62.49 sufficiency rating 62.56 sufficiency rating 63.80 sufficiency rating 64.85 sufficiency rating 65.24 sufficiency rating 71.91 sufficiency rating 72.90 sufficiency rating 74.21 sufficiency rating

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Mary Persons High School Entrance Zebulon Rd - Bibb Co. Line to Estes Rd

James Madison (new Subdivision) Estes Rd - Zebulon Rd to US 41

US 341 US 341 Crawford County Line US 41

Bibb County Line Jasper County Line Butts County Line US 23

Klopfer Rd; Taylor Rd; Shi Rd; Zebulon Rd; Bagley Rd; Maynard Mill Rd; Hopewell Rd; Brent Rd; Rock Quarry Rd/Strounds Rd; Juliette; Collier Rd/Smith Rd; Johnstonville Rd; Higgins Mill Rd/Boxankle Rd; High Falls Rd; High Falls Park Rd; Blount Rd

394 West Main Street 3769 SR 42

539 West Main Street West Old Indian Springs Road

Siedewalk on both sides

.70 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

1.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

2.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

5.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

7.50 miles

M71

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

8.30 miles

M70

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

4.10 miles

M1

Install Share the Ride signs

21.50 miles

Sidewalk on both sides

.5 miles

M68

Sidewalk on both sides

.55 miles

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane

Analysis Share the Ride signage

Analysis Sidewalk Analysis Sidewalk

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

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

Crossing # 718320M Crossing # 718337R Crossing # 718331A Crossing # 718330T Crossing # 718342M Crossing # 718338X

X-bucks, stop signs. Gates, x-bucks, lights Gates, x-bucks, lights Gates, x-bucks, lights X-bucks, stop signs.

Add adv warn signs; mark all app's Re-paint pavement markings 2 app Add adv warn signs 3 app;stop sign Eliminate train standing Add adv warn signs,mark NB app

GDOT Rail Mgr Local gov. GDOT Rail Mgr NS Rail, FRA GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Install adv warn signs/markings Re-paint pavement markings Install adv warn signs/stop sign Report train standing FRA, NS Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warn signs/markings

Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

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

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$7,825,980 $2,710,000 $76,000,000 $14,000,000 $44,800,000 $9,600,000 $45,200,000 $8,200,000 $37,200,000 $29,600,000 $26,800,000 $31,600,000 $9,600,000 $14,400,000 $357,535,980

$16,800,000 $16,800,000

$710,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $3,460,000

$224,576 $278,784 $604,032 $789,888 $1,239,040 $1,313,000 $743,424 $2,680,832 $743,424 $1,436,160 $1,239,040 $185,856 $964,000 $1,076,416 $1,436,160 $882,816 $4,181,760 $1,077,120 $1,723,392 $789,888 $929,280 $2,872,320 $1,177,088 $851,840 $29,440,136

$140,000 $225,000 $375,000 $825,000 $1,125,000 $1,245,000 $615,000

$2,150

$100,000 $110,000 $4,762,150
$2,400 $600
$2,100 $0
$600 $600 $6,300 $412,004,566

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

17

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
18

F
Figure No: 5.1

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
19

F
Figure No: 5.2

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
20

F
Figure No: 5.3

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
21

F
Figure No: 5.4

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
22

F
Figure No: 5.5

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
23

F
Figure No: 5.6

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.0 Prioritization
In order to aid GDOT and County staff, potential improvements identified by the study were ranked by mode based on several evaluation factors. This section highlights some of the top priorities for each County.
6.1 Butts County Priorities
Corridors US 23 from County Line Road to SR 16; SR 16 from Imagene Goff Rd. to US 23/SR 42 ; SR 16 from US 23/SR 42 to SR 16/US 23 ; US 23 from SR 16 to Monroe County Line; and Mount Vernon Church Road from High Falls Road to SR 42.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway to Learning from Jackson High School to Fairgrounds; Sidewalks along SR 16 from Carolina Avenue to Eight Street; Sidewalks along Stark Road from SR 36 to Regal Drive; Sidewalks along S. Harkness Street from SR 16 to existing sidewalk; Sidewalks along N. Mulberry Street from 1st Street to N. Mulberry Elementary School; Bike lanes along Stark Road to SR 36 in Jackson, south to Brownlee Road; and, Bike lanes from Jackson Lake to Indian Springs State Park.
Intersections SR 16 and SR 36 N; SR 42 / US 23 and England Chapel Road; SR 16 E and SR 42 S; High Falls Road and England Chapel Road; and, US 23 and SR 42.
Bridges Fill Bridge Road at Towaliga River tributary; SR 36 at Towaliga River; Colwell Road at Cabin Creek; SR 36 at Yellow Water Creek; and, SR 36 at South River.
6.2 Jones County Priorities
Corridors SR 22 from SR 11 to Pinewood Drive; Henderson Road from SR 57 to Griswoldville Road;

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

24

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Griswoldville Road from Henderson Road to SR 49; US 129 from Joycliff Road to Greene Settlement Road; and, Lite n Tie Road and Garrison Road from SR 49 to US 129.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Sidewalks along SR 18 East in Gray from Gray Station Middle School to Allen Green Drive; Sidewalks along Allen Green Drive from SR 18 to the Jones County Central Recreation Complex; Sidewalks along Stewart Avenue from US 129 to Railroad Street; Sidewalks along Gordon Street from Railroad Street to US 129; Gray Connector Bicycle Route along Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 to inactive Norfolk Southern Rail Line; Central Georgia Rails to Trails along inactive Norfolk Southern Rail Line from Bibb County Line northeast to the Baldwin County Line; and, Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway along SR 11 from Jasper County Line to SR 22 in Gray.

Intersections US 129 at Joycliff Road; US 129 S and SR 18 W; US 129 and Jackson Avenue; US 129 and R.L. Wheeler Road; US 129 and Greene Settlement Road; and, SR 22 at Ethridge Road.
Bridges Howard Roberts Road at Chehaw Creek; County Line Road at Commissioner Creek (Beginning at Mile Point 0.31); County Line Road at Commissioner Creek (Beginning at Mile Point 0.42); Folendore Road at Commissioner Creek; Turner Woods Road at Millsap Creek; Shoal Creek Road at Shal Creek; and, Hitchiti Road at Falling Creek.
6.3 Monroe County Priorities

Corridors US 41 from Crawford Road (Lamar County ) to SR 42; SR 83 from US 41 to US 23; SR 42 from I-75 to the Butts County Line; US 41 from 0.5 miles east of CR 74/Hill Road to Pea Ridge Road; and, US 23 from I-75 Interchange to the Butts County Line.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

25

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Bicycle and Pedestrian Sidewalks along Montpelier Road from Mary Persons High School to James Madison subdivision; Sidewalks along US 41 from 394 West Main Street to 539 West Main Street; Bicycle lanes along SR 42 from Crawford County Line to the Butts County Line; Bicycle lanes along SR 83 from US 341 to the Jasper County Line; and, Bicycle lanes along SR 18 from US 41 to US 23.

Intersections SR 18 and SR 87 / US 23; SR 83 and SR 87 / US 23; US 41 and SR 42; and, SR 42 and Indian Springs Drive.

Bridges Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek Tributary; Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek; Montpelier Springs Road at Tobesofkee Creek; Johnstonville Road at Rocky Creek; Maynards Mill Road at Little Tobesofkee Creek; and, SR 83 at Towaliga River.

7.0 Conclusions
Growth in Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand through the 3-County Region. GDOT Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study to develop a LRTP to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon, 2035.
Recommended projects were identified by analyzing current and future projected transportation deficiencies and selected based on local goals and objectives with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.
The study team coordinated with GDOT, Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, cities, area residents and business leaders, and other partners in the planning, development, and review of potential improvements. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

26

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Executive Summary

Technical Memorandum August 2008

citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to each County's transportation network.

The end product for this study is this LRTP document, providing for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian, freight, transit, rail and airports.

This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for the 3-County Region's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties

27

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Butts County Long Range Transportation Plan
August 2008

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Preface

This document serves as a guide to the County's transportation needs, in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), through the horizon year, 2035. LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the County. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, LRTP's should be updated at least every five years.
The LRTP is a useful tool that empowers a County to act on its current and expected needs. GDOT programs projects for all 159 counties in the state of Georgia, and it is extremely helpful to them to know the true needs of each county. The LRTP follows an accepted process that documents existing and future needs. These needs are then addressed by potential improvements which are prioritized.
The LRTP is a living document that can be revisited as the County experiences changes in population and employment and sees the impact of those changes on local land use, growth, and development. Typically Transportation Plans are updated every three to five years. The current LRTP was based on existing data and forecasts developed with information from current comprehensive plans, the most recent U.S. Census data, and other recent and relevant planning initiatives. It is expected that the inputs into this original planning process, particularly public comments and opinions; population forecasts; development forecasts; and, the distribution of population and employment within the county will change over time in response to changing realities through the study area. A critical mass of new information should provide a stimulus to the update of the plan and the refining of the planning process. The following key components of the LRTP should be reviewed and updated as necessary:

LRTP Goals; Population Forecasts; Employment Forecasts; Distribution of Population and Employment; Needs; Projects; Costs; and, Funding.
Updating the LRTP acknowledges changes to 20-year growth forecasts, updates travel patterns and trends through the use of evolving analysis methods and tools such as the travel demand model, introduces updated revenue forecasts, and provides an opportunity to incorporate new data influencing the development and outcome of the Plan and its recommendations.
The outcome of the LRTP is a prioritized list of transportation improvements that attempt to meet the current and future transportation goals and objectives of the County. This list is recognized by planning partners as the most important projects for the County and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

correspondingly is the focus of funding and implementation efforts. It is important to recognize that these priorities are not static. As the inputs to the planning process change so will the priorities. A systematic approach to meeting current and future transportation needs applied at regular intervals facilitates the project implementation process by revisiting local consensus on transportation goals. This allows limited transportation funding and resources to be allocated in the most effective manner to achieve priorities consistent with the County's current landscape.

An LRTP is made more effective by an informed public that actively contributes to the planning process. The interested resident should utilize the Plan in several ways to actively contribute to the planning process and quality of life within the County:

1. Review the documented input from the public involvement process and provide additional comment when conditions change;
2. Review the list of prioritized projects to understand where the County will be investing its limited transportation resources;
3. Understand that the improvements recommended in the Plan relate to deficiencies identified through the planning process the Plan has an established methodology for assessing need and determining improvements;
4. Use the Plan as a mechanism to provide input to the County to reflect changing realities within the County;
5. Understand the goals for the LRTP and hold the County and other planning partners accountable for achieving the established outcomes.

The planning partners (Elected Officials, County Staff, Regional Development Center, GDOT and others) also make use of the Plan for key activities including:

1. Clear documentation and technical analysis to support the need for transportation investment using proven analytical methods and analysis tools and approaches;
2. An understanding of the County priorities for transportation investment; 3. A role to assist with the development of and contribute to uses for a Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Program; 4. A framework for continuous LRTP activities; and, 5. A mechanism for ensuring active dialogue of transportation issues and
opportunities.

The current transportation funding climate at the Federal, State, and Local levels is one of great need and limited resources. The LRTP process creates an opportunity for discussion and exploration of alternative funding sources. Opportunities to fund eligible projects in local LRTP's with support from Federal and State resources as has been possible in the past is not likely to continue at the same levels. County governments and other local authorities must anticipate that many projects may need to be funded with local dollars. Development of an LRTP with clear priorities first provides a blueprint for Counties as they determine how to allocate local resources, and also places the County in a good position if a project is determined to be eligible for Federal and State funds.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

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

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 5 Historic Population Growth............................................................................................ 7 Future Population .......................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. 10 Employment Data........................................................................................................ 15

3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 17 3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics............................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Butts County Existing Land Use Characteristics ......................................................... 18

4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PROGRAMS....................................................................... 20 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program ...................................................................................................................... 20 Ongoing GDOT Projects Coordination ........................................................................ 23 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan ................................................................. 23 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ 23 McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan...................... 24 Existing Planning Studies for Butts County ................................................................. 26

5.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................... 29 5.1 Butts County Transit.................................................................................................... 29

6.0 FREIGHT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................. 34 6.1 Butts County Freight Transport ................................................................................... 34 6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail Butts............................................................................ 40

7.0 AIRPORT FACILITIES .................................................................................................... 41 7.1 Butts County................................................................................................................ 41

8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .................................................................... 42 Butts County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .............................................. 42 Bicycle System Elements ............................................................................................ 46 Pedestrian System Elements ...................................................................................... 48

9.0 BRIDGES ........................................................................................................................ 50 9.1 Butts County Bridges................................................................................................... 50

10.0 SAFETY .......................................................................................................................... 54 10.1 Butts County Crash Summary..................................................................................... 54

11.0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 57 11.1 Functional Classification.............................................................................................. 57 11.2 Road Lanes ................................................................................................................. 59 11.3 Roadway Shoulders .................................................................................................... 59 11.4 Roadway Surface Type ............................................................................................... 62

12.0 ROADWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 64 12.1 Existing Operating Conditions ..................................................................................... 65 12.2 Future Operating Conditions ....................................................................................... 67

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

i

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.0 CITIZEN AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT .......................................................................... 72 13.1 Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings............................................................. 72 13.2 Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Input ................................................................... 73
14.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 76 14.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 76 14.2 Methodology................................................................................................................ 76 14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents ............................................................. 78 14.4 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 80
15.0 IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS............................................................... 82 15.1 Deficient Roadways..................................................................................................... 82 15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................ 83 15.3 Public Transportation Improvements........................................................................... 84 15.3.1 Transit ......................................................................................................................... 84 15.3.2 Commuter Options ...................................................................................................... 86 15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail........................................................................................ 86 15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements....................................................................................... 87 15.5 Aviation Improvements................................................................................................ 95 15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input ..................................................................................... 95
16.0 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 99 16.1 Estimated Costs .......................................................................................................... 99 16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements.............................................................. 100 16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations ...................................................................... 107
17.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION........................................................................................ 109 17.1 Corridor Prioritization................................................................................................. 109 17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization............................................................................. 113 17.3 Intersection Prioritization ........................................................................................... 117 17.4 Bridge Prioritization ................................................................................................... 119
18.0 FUNDING...................................................................................................................... 120 18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation............................................................. 120 18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation ................................................................... 122 18.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 123 18.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 123 18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ...................................... 124 18.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs ...................................................................... 126 18.7 Effective Use of the Plan ........................................................................................... 126
19.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 127

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

ii

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 1.2 Study Area............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1.3 Study Process ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.1 Block Group Population Distribution in 2000 ......................................................... 8 Figure 2.3.1 Butts County Minority Population Locations ........................................................ 11 Figure 2.3.2 Butts County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations ................................ 13 Figure 2.3.3 Butts County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations ............................. 14 Figure 3.1 Butts County Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 19 Figure 4.1 Butts County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects ....................................... 22 Figure 4.5 MTRDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2005) ...................................................... 25 Figure 4.6 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Butts County ................................ 28 Figure 6.0 Butts County Freight Transportation Facilities..................................................... 35 Figure 8.0 Butts County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............. 43 Figure 9.1 Butts County Bridges for Potential Maintenance and Rehabilitation ................... 53 Figure 10.1 Butts County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations............................. 56 Figure 11.1 Butts County Functional Classification ................................................................ 58 Figure 11.2 Butts County Roadway Lanes ............................................................................. 60 Figure 11.3 Butts County Roadway Shoulders....................................................................... 61 Figure 11.4 Butts County Roadway Surface Type.................................................................. 63 Figure 12.1 Butts County Existing Daily Deficient Segments ................................................ 66 Figure 12.2.1 Butts County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments..................................................... 69 Figure 12.2.2 Butts County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments..................................................... 71 Figure 13.1 Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Input ........................................................... 75 Figure 15.0 Transportation Improvement Development Process ........................................... 82 Figure 16.2.1 Butts County Recommended Improvements - Roadway.................................. 105 Figure 16.2.2 Butts County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian............... 106 Figure 16.3 Butts County Environmental Justice Evaluation ............................................... 108

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

iii

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF TABLES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 5

Table 2.0.2 Area Population..................................................................................................... 6

Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile.................................................................................. 7

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population ............................................................................................ 9

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change.................................................................. 9

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs ........................................................................................ 15

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns....................................................................... 16

Table 3.0

Development of Regional Impact Studies .......................................................... 17

Table 4.1

Butts County 2008-2011 STIP............................................................................ 21

Table 4.5

McIntosh Trail Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .................................. 24

Table 4.6

Summary of 2005 Butts County Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update) ............... 26

Table 5.1.1 Butts County Rural Transit Service Statistics ..................................................... 29

Table 5.1.2 Butts County Rural Transit 2006 Ridership Statistics......................................... 30

Table 5.1.3 Butts County Rural Transit 2006 Destination Statistics ...................................... 30

Table 5.1.4 Butts County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency... 30

Table 5.1.5 Butts County Population Projections .................................................................. 31

Table 5.1.6 Butts County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment (May 2007)...................................................................................... 31

Table 6.1.1 Butts County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT ................................................. 36

Table 6.1.2 Butts County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains) .................................................................................................. 37

Table 6.1.3 Butts County Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Not Involving Trains) .................................................................................................. 37

Table 6.1.4 Butts County 2008-2013 CWP Railroad Improvement Projects ......................... 39

Table 8.1.1 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects in Butts County .................................................................................................... 44

Table 8.1.2 Butts County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006.............................. 46

Table 8.1.3 Butts County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006 ................. 46

Table 9.1

Bridge Inventory Butts County......................................................................... 50

Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Butts County ......................................................... 54

Table 11.1 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled ..................................................... 59

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments ................................................................... 65

Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments .................................................................................. 68

Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments ................................................................................... 70

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

iv

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 13.0 Table 13.1 Table 13.2 Table 14.2 Table 15.6 Table 16.2 Table 17.1.1 Table 17.1.2 Table 17.1.3 Table 17.2.1 Table 17.2.2 Table 17.2.3 Table 17.3.1 Table 17.3.2 Table 18.1 Table 18.2 Table 18.4 Table 18.5.1 Table 18.5.2

Study Advisory Group Butts County ................................................................ 72 Butts County Meetings ....................................................................................... 72 Citizen & Stakeholder Input ................................................................................ 73 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors..................................................... 77 Suggested Improvements .................................................................................. 96 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................... 103 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring........................................................................ 110 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring...................................................................... 111 Corridor Prioritization........................................................................................ 112 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria............................................................... 114 Pedestrian Prioritization ................................................................................... 115 Bicycle Prioritization ......................................................................................... 116 Intersection Scoring Criteria ............................................................................. 117 Intersection Prioritization .................................................................................. 118 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations121 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation.............. 123 Own Source Revenues .................................................................................... 124 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)............................................................... 125 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........... 125

APPENDIX A

Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Project Sheets

APPENDIX B

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

v

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction

Residential, commercial and industrial growth in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand throughout the 3-County Region. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon year of 2035. Currently, the transportation planning function for the Counties is provided by GDOT through coordination with each County. The transportation plans developed as part of this study are built upon existing work efforts to date, and provide a mechanism for guiding transportation decision-making as development pressures increase throughout the 3-County Region. Although this study effort involved a three county study area, an individual transportation plan was developed for each county. This document focuses specifically on Butts County.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify existing and future operating conditions for the multi-modal transportation system (roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, freight, transit, rail, and airports) within the 3-County Region, and to utilize that information to identify improvements and prioritize project implementation for Butts County. As part of this effort, a travel demand model was developed for the 3-County Region to represent the transportation network of the study area and to assist with the analysis of future operating conditions. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to establish plan goals and objectives, identify issues and opportunities and to identify potential improvements to the Butts County transportation network. This process ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input.
Ultimately, study efforts have produced a documented LRTP that provides for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the study area through the study horizon year (2035). Interim analysis was also conducted for the year 2015.
1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of the Butts County LRTP is to identify long-range transportation needs, determine the resources to meet those needs, and to provide a framework of projects that address the transportation needs of the county to the extent possible by leveraging existing and future resources. While the majority of the 3-County Region is not within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area, the transportation plan development process methodology followed the guidelines established for MPO's. A portion of Jones County falls within the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission, the MPO for the Macon metropolitan area, and transportation planning for this area of Jones County is included in the Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS). Including the guidelines from these additional agencies, creates a more rigorous process and establishes a strong framework for transportation planning and decision-making. The format of the LRTP, and the process by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the community. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, long range transportation plans should be updated at least every five years.

The existing conditions established in the first half of this report form the foundation for the technical analyses completed as part of the LRTP development process. Evaluation factors were established to assess both the existing and future transportation networks. Deficiencies and operating conditions were documented and ultimately used to develop the recommended improvements for Butts County.

1.2 Study Area Description

The study area is located along the I-75 corridor in middle Georgia, north of Macon. In recent years, communities located in the I-75 corridor from south of Atlanta to Macon have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses.

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties cover a land area of just over 976 square miles. Butts County is comprised of 187 square miles. The area features many appealing points of interest, is significant to the State's natural and built environments, and contains cultural and historic assets, all of which create unique impacts on the transportation system.

Butts County is home to Indian Springs State Park, the oldest state park in the United States.

The 3-County Region is part of two Regional Development Centers (RDCs): McIntosh Trail RDC (MTRDC) and Middle Georgia RDC. Butts County is part of the MTRDC. The study area is displayed in Figure 1.2.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Study Area
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
3

F
Figure No: 1.2

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.3 Study Process
Figure 1.3 outlines the process of developing a long-range transportation plan for Butts County.
Figure 1.3 Study Process

Detailed information for all analysis elements is provided in the following sections. It is within this framework that the existing conditions data was identified for collection, analyzed, and established as a baseline condition for the transportation system within the study area.
Data collection sources are documented in Appendix A.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Demographic Information

A review of the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, shows that the 3-County Region has experienced population growth at a moderate level during the past 20 years. The Statewide average yearly growth was three percent over this period and the 3-County Region also grew at an average yearly rate of three percent. Table 2.0.1 presents select demographic data to illustrate the characteristics of the population and households in Butts County and other socio-economic factors. Using 2000 US Census Occupied Housing Units counts and employment figures, a jobs-to-housing ratio was calculated. The employment figures are the sum of the 2000 Census industry numbers. The ratio of the number of jobs (8,114) to number of housing units (7,380) is greater than one (1.10), based on the 2000 US Census information. This places increased demand on the transportation system linking County residents to jobs in Atlanta, Macon, and other employment centers.
The demographic overview of the County documents the historic population growth, future population projections, environmental justice population, and existing employment.
Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

Demographic

Butts

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

19,522
35.9
17,607
2.73
7,380 6,455 (87.5% of total) 4,947 (76.6% of total) 1,508 (23.4% of total) 4,354 (23.2% of total) 69.8%
3,737
49.4%

Approximately 75 percent of Butts County residents (14,733) live outside of the cities. The data in Table 2.0.2 is from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and shows the rural and urban population breakdown for each county for the year 2000.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Table 2.0.2 Area Population

County

City

Population

Flovilla

652

Butts

Jenkinsburg Jackson

203 3,934

Unincorporated 14,733

Total

19,522

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The demographic data demonstrates the percent of disabled individuals in Butts County is 19 percent, which equals the statewide average of 19 percent. The US Census Bureau defines disability as:
"A long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business."
Dialogue with stakeholders also revealed that the study area's population is beginning to attract an older population. The list of stakeholders participating as part of the Study Advisory Group is located in Section 13, Citizen and Stakeholder Input.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.1 Historic Population Growth
Butts County has received a moderate amount of growth over the past 20 years, with a 43 percent increase in total population, which is less than the 3-County Region, which had a 45 percent increase in total population, and the State of Georgia, which had a 50 percent increase in total population. Table 2.1.1 illustrates the growth trends from 1900 to 2000. Information in Table 2.1.1 shows that the area has had a lower historical growth compared to the growth trend for the State of Georgia between 1980 - 2000. Growth in the region has continued on a strong upward trend since 1960.
Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile

County

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Percent Change 1980 - 2000

Butts

12,805

12,327

9,182

8,976

13,665

19,522

43%

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

50%

Figure 2.1 displays the block group population distribution in 2000, according to the US Census, the most recent data available. While decennial census counts allow for block group level analysis, current year population estimates are limited to county-level statistics; therefore, changes in population at the block group level are not able to be displayed. However, for illustrative purposes, the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, population distribution at the block group level is shown.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Block Group Population Distribution in 2000
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
8

F
Figure No: 2.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.2 Future Population

The population for Butts County is expected to increase at a moderate rate through the study horizon of 2035. Butts County has received a moderate amount of population growth over the past 20 years, with a 2.94 percent average annual increase in total population, which is slightly less than the 3-County Region (3.05 percent average annual increase in total population) and the State of Georgia, which had a 3.33 percent average annual increase in total population. This growth trend is expected to continue as the area continues to attract people and business owners who enjoy a rural or suburban lifestyle in relatively close proximity to amenities in the Atlanta and Macon urban areas.

Table 2.2.1 displays the projected growth as estimated in the Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2007 Amendment to the 2005 Butts County Comprehensive Plan. Over the next 25 years the study area is expected to grow by over 37 percent in population. It is important to recognize this growth and the increased demand on the transportation system that accompanies the population increase.

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population

County

2000

2005

2010

2015

Butts

19,522

20,986

22,451

Sources: Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025 Georgia Department of Community Affairs Population Projection Scenario

23,915

2020 25,379

2025 26,843

Table 2.2.2 shows the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, and 2006 population estimates and the percentage change of the county population.

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change

County Butts

2000 19,522

2006 Percent Estimate Change

23,561

20.5%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.3 Environmental Justice
The Environmental Justice (EJ) Executive Order 12898 defines EJ populations as persons belonging to any of the following groups:
Black; Hispanic; Asian American; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and, Low-Income a person whose household income (or in the case of a
community or group, whose median household income) is at or below the US Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
Environmental justice is intended to acknowledge minority and low-income populations that have been historically underrepresented in the transportation planning process and ensure that these groups are not disproportionately impacted as a result of transportation improvement recommendations.
The intent of EJ analysis is to locate these populations and to involve them early and continuously through the decision making process, as well as use data to analytically assess if there would be a disproportionate impact on traditionally underrepresented communities. The following sections document the location of minority and low-income populations.
Minority Populations
The minority populations for Butts County were identified and analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group and shows concentrations of minority populations located in the western portions of Butts County, while denser concentrations of minorities are located in and near the Cities of Jackson and Jenkinsburg. The average minority population in Butts County is 41.2 percent while the statewide average is 34.9 percent.
The minority census block groups as a percentage of the county population are displayed in Figure 2.3.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Minority Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
11

F
Figure No: 2.3.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Low-Income Population

The second component of EJ, poverty level, was also analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group. Similar to the minority population, there are concentrations of low-income residents located in the City of Jackson. The average number of residents below the poverty line in Butts County is 11 percent while the statewide average is 13 percent.

The low-income census blocks are displayed in Figure 2.3.2.

It is helpful to analyze the low-income population areas with respect to the location of minority population areas. Extra attention is drawn to areas with high population in both of these categories. Figure 2.3.3 combines the minority and low-income population data and presents it in a single graphic.

Historically underrepresented populations were identified as part of this analysis and extra efforts were made to include these groups in the planning process. Representation from these groups was actively sought out for inclusion in the study advisory group and advertised public meetings used media to reach these groups. Areas in the Cities of Jackson and Jenkinsburg and surrounding areas just south of Jackson were included. These areas were evaluated to ensure that transportation improvements would benefit and not disproportionately impact these areas in a negative manner. The following tasks were conducted for the identified low-income and minority census tracks:

Coordinated with the Study Advisory Group (SAG) (see Table 13.0 page 72 for SAG Members) to identify leaders within these communities;
Posted notice for workshops in these communities; Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that disproportionate impacts did not
accrue to these communities; and, Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that mobility benefits accrued to
these communities including bicycle and pedestrian and public transportation amenities.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
13

F
Figure No: 2.3.2

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
14

F
Figure No: 2.3.3

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.4 Employment Data

In Butts County, manufacturing is the largest employment sector accounting for about 16 percent of the total jobs. Other important sectors are public administration, retail trade, educational services, and health care and social assistance. Using the Georgia Department of Labor 2006 annual average employment data, the major employers for Butts County are listed below.
American Woodmark Corporation (487 employees) Georgia Department of Judges-Superior Courts (402 employees) Salad Time, LLC (312 employees) Williams Brothers Lumber, Inc. (246 employees) Westbury Medical Care Home (201 employees)
The number, type, and location of jobs has direct implications on the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area. Table 2.4.1 shows the major categories of jobs and industries located in Butts County.

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs

Industry Type Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services Education, Health, and Social Services Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Public Administration TOTAL
Source: Georgia Department of Labor 2006

Butts County Not Available (NA)
337 1,090 358 900 496
25 249 100 NA 31 197 1,511 6,588

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

15

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

According to the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, Butts County's per capita income in 1999 was lower than Georgia's statewide average of $21,154 and the national average of $21,587. The per capita income for Butts County in 1999 was $17,016.

Transportation mobility for workers in Butts County is an important consideration for the Plan. Most workers (96.5 percent) rely on roadway-based transportation for commute trips, either by driving alone or carpooling. About three percent (3.5 percent) of workers in Butts County bike or walk, commute by other means, or work at home. Table 2.4.2 illustrates the breakdowns in commuting modes for Butts County.

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns

Work Commute

Butts County

Percentage

Statewide Total Percentage

Total Workers (Age 16+)
Drove Alone

7,924 6,374

100% 80.4%

3,832,803 2,968,910

100% 78%

Carpooled

1,271

16.0%

557,062

15%

Transit/Taxi

8

0.1%

90,030

2%

Biked or Walked

36

Motorcycle or Other Means

54

Worked at Home

181

Mean Travel Time to Work (min.)

31

Source: 2000 US Census

0.5%

65,776

2%

0.7%

42,039

1%

2.3%

108,986

3%

27.7

The Butts County journey to work data corresponds closely to the statewide averages for the various modes of travel. The mean travel time to work is greater than the statewide average. The longer average commute time to work associated with Butts County residents is attributed to the proportion of workers commuting to the Atlanta area (39%) as published by the Georgia Department of Labor. In 2006, the percent of total employed Butts County residents traveling to Atlanta area counties was as follows:
Henry - 18 percent; Fulton - 9 percent; Clayton - 8 percent; and DeKalb - 4 percent.

The proximity to the Atlanta and Macon urbanized areas was cited as a competitive advantage by area planning staff and is one reason why Butts County is anticipating future growth. Additionally, the I-75 corridor is attracting industrial and commercial employment centers that will provide additional jobs to the 3-County area. The residential, industrial, and commercial expansion in Butts County will increase demand for transportation facilities to the area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

16

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Land Use and Development

The existing and future land use patterns for Butts County shows a substantial percentage of land devoted to residential and agricultural land uses. Additionally, discussions with the planning staff of Butts County revealed the anticipated development of several major employment centers through much of the study area. These two factors suggest that transportation projects will be required to adequately service future travel demand, particularly employment related demand throughout Butts County.
Recently, eight Development of Regional Impact (DRI) studies have been completed in Butts County as shown in Table 3.0.
Table 3.0 Development of Regional Impact Studies

DRI ID # 1521
1494

Project Name
Colwell Road - I-75 Zoning Plan Wallace Crossing

Development Type Mixed Use Mixed Use

County/ City
Butts/ Jackson Butts

Initial Form Submitted 7/16/2007
6/29/2007

1322 Butts Co. Concrete Quarries, Asphalt &

Batch Plant

Cement Plants

Butts

1/29/2007

1267 Higgins Park Subdivision

Housing

Butts

11/14/2006

1185 Hickory Hills

Housing

Butts

8/3/2006

1183 Rosehill

Mixed Use

Butts

8/3/2006

932

Briscoe Property

Mixed Use

836 Midway Distribution Industrial Center

Butts/ Jackson Butts

10/10/2005 6/13/2005

Current Status
Submitted
Submitted
Additional Form Submitted 1/29/2007 Additional Form Submitted 11/17/2006 Additional Form Submitted 8/28/2006 Additional Form Submitted 10/13/2006 Submitted
Additional Form Submitted 6/17/2005

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

17

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics

To assess the impact of existing land use on the transportation system the following types of areas were identified for Butts County: major residential areas; key activity centers; key employment centers; and primary travel corridors. The existing land use map for Butts County is presented in Figure 3.1.

3.1.1 Butts County Existing Land Use Characteristics

Major Residential Areas Cities of Flovilla, Jackson, and Jenkinsburg Jackson Lake

Key Activity Centers Cities of Flovilla, Jackson, and Jenkinsburg Interchange areas along I-75 at SR 16 and SR 36

Key Employment Centers Cities of Flovilla, Jackson, and Jenkinsburg Interchange areas along I-75 at SR 16 and SR 36

Primary Travel Corridors I-75 US 41 US 23/ SR 42 US 129 SR 11 SR 16 SR 18 SR 22 SR 36 SR 49

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

18

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Land Use data derived from Butts County

Butts County Existing Land Use
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
19

F
Figure No: 3.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.0 Previous Studies and Programs

An effective transportation plan accounts for previous planning efforts to ensure continuity between planning documents and to ensure that goals and related projects for the transportation system are consistent with the established community vision. Several studies and planning documents contribute to the community vision for each of the Counties and these were reviewed. The following planning studies and programs were reviewed and key results summarized:

GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program and Six Year Construction Work Program;
Currently planned major GDOT projects in the 3-county study area; GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan; GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the McIntosh Trail RDC Butts County's Comprehensive Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
4.1 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program
In addition to current studies, there are several planned and programmed multi-modal improvements in Butts County. The projects identified are those listed in the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and 2008-2013 Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP). The following list highlights the general types of planned and programmed improvements for the County:

Bridge Rehabilitation / Replacement; Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements; Roadway Widening; New Roadways; Intersection Improvements; and, Passing Lanes.
The STIP and CWP were reviewed for projects within and impacting Butts County and these projects are displayed in Tables 4.1. Additionally, these projects were given a study ID number and are mapped in Figure 4.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

20

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 4.1 Butts County 2008-2011 STIP

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Map Project Prime Work

Id

Id

Type

Description

B-1 0000760

Widening

SR 16 Widening from I-75 to City of Jackson

B-2 322440

Widening

SR 36 in City of Jackson from SR 16 to CR 289/Stark Road

B-3

0000479

Passing

Lanes

SR 36, 2 eastbound & 3 westbound passing lanes north of Jackson

SR 42/US 23 passing lanes at 2

B-4 332360 Passing Lanes locations between Jackson and

Jenkinsburg

B-5 343440

Roadway Jackson South Bypass from SR 16 at Project Bert Road to SR 16 at Bibb Station

B-6 0006973

Roadway SR 36 from I-75/Butts County to SR Project 18/Lamar County

B-7 333170

Bridges

SR 36 at Towaliga River 7.5 miles southwest of Jackson

B-8 333171

Bridges

SR 36 at Yellow River Creek, 1 mile north of junction with SR 42

B-9 333172

Bridges

SR 36 at South River at Butts Newton County line

B-10 331640

Bridges

CR 290 north of SR 36 at Tussahaw Creek

B-11 0007580

Sidewalks

Sidewalks, lighting and landscaping in Jackson

*LR denotes long range Source: GDOT Office of Planning

Program
STP STP STP STP STP STP Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Local

Construction Date 2013 2014 2010
LR
LR 2012 2009 2011 2008 LR 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

21

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
22

F
Figure No: 4.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.2 Ongoing GDOT Projects Coordination

Coordination with the stakeholders of currently planned projects has occurred for the following projects:
SR 16 major widening and location of proposed South Jackson bypass; SR 36 one-way pair concept in Jackson; and Butts County LARP project priority list.

The 3-County study included analysis relevant to the SR 16 widening project and South Jackson bypass. For more information, see the Butts County Transportation Improvement Analysis Technical Memorandum, April 2008.
4.3 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan
Sponsored by GDOT, the Statewide Interstate System Plan was designed to evaluate Georgia's Interstate System, identify necessary improvements, and produce a comprehensive and prioritized program of projects to meet increasing traffic demands and ensure future statewide mobility. The study, completed in the summer of 2004, is organized into three phases and focuses primarily on the interstates outside the Atlanta metro area. Review of the Interstate System Plan reveals proposed improvements along the interstate system in the 3-County Region. The plan recommends expanding I-75 between south metro Atlanta and metro Macon from six to eight lanes by 2035.
4.4 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan

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

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

23

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was reviewed to identify proposed facilities through the 3-County Region.

4.5 McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan
The McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center, with funding support from the Georgia Department of Transportation and advisory support from Butts County Bike/Pedestrian Plan Planning Advisory Committee, developed the McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan in 2005. The focus of this plan is to establish a system of interregional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown Jackson, schools, Jackson Lake, and recreational destinations is the focus of the proposed network. The marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general is also a focus of the plan. Table 4.5 outlines and Figure 4.5 illustrates the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network including Butts County.
Table 4.5 McIntosh Trail Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network

Location

Description

Lake Jackson Loop on SR 16, Big Dam, Barnett Bridge/Stark Road, and SR 36
Along Mount Vernon Road from SR 42 to Monroe County Line connecting to High Falls State Park
Along Stark Road from Jackson Lake south through Jackson and south on Brownlee Road to Mount Vernon Shortcut to Mount Vernon Road
Along SR 16 from Higgins Road to Jasper County Line

On-Road Bike Route On-Road Bike Route On-Road Bike Route On-Road Bike Route

Along Higgins Road from SR 16 to SR 42

On-Road Bike Route

Along SR 42 from Higgins Road to Mount Vernon Road

On-Road Bike Route

Source: McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan 2005

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

24

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 4.5 MTRDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2005)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

25

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.6 Existing Planning Studies for Butts County

Butts County Comprehensive Plan The Butts County Comprehensive Plan was completed in 2005 to guide the growth of the County through 2025. In 2007, a Comprehensive Plan Update was developed to evaluate the suitability of various growth management techniques and to develop policies for dealing with ongoing development pressures. Due to increasing development pressures, the 2007 Update seeks to reassess the adequacy of community facilities and services, given the accelerated pace of development that the County is currently experiencing. To the greatest extent possible, the transportation planning effort is being developed with respect to land use issues and opportunities in Butts County. It is important to review the Comprehensive Plan because of the critical linkage between land use and transportation. Table 4.6 presents key findings in the Comprehensive Plan.

Table 4.6 Summary of 2005 Butts County Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update)

Key Data/Trends

Description

Population
Commute Patterns Largest Employment Sectors in 2000
Land Uses

US Bureau of Census; Projections by MTRDC 1980: 13,665 1990: 15,326 2000: 19,522 2005: 20,986 2010: 22,451 2015: 23,915 Almost one-half of Butts County residents work within the County. Approximately 18 percent are employed in Henry County.

The state and local government sector employs the largest percentage of the population, followed by the Services and Retail industries.

Land Use

Acres

2007

Residential

28,703.8

24.9%

Manufactured Home Residential

181.5

0.2%

Multi-family Residential

38.2

0.03%

Commercial

494.4

0.4%

Industrial

1,864.2

1.6%

Public/Institutional

1365.4

1.2%

Transportation/Communications/Utilities 4,161.4

3.6%

Agriculture

36,171.1

31.4%

Parks/Recreation/Conservation

1,048.0

0.9%

Vacant/Undeveloped

41,216.3

35.8%

TOTAL

115,070.5

100.0%

Source: Butts County Draft Community Assessment 6/12/2007

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

26

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Key Data/Trends

Description

Growth Areas in the County

Residential Uses It is expected that most new growth to Butts County will occur in and around
Jenkinsburg and in the western central portion of Butts County. This is due to the proximity to fast growing Henry County.
Commercial Uses Most commercial activity is centered in and around downtown Jackson and arterial
roads flowing in and out of same.
Industrial Uses I-75 interchanges in southwestern Butts County feature small industrial areas and
the eastern side of Jackson is the main location for industry in the county.

Parks/Recreation/Conservation Indian Springs State Park, Dauset Trails, Lake Jackson

Planning Issues in Cities
Land Use Issues
TransportationRelated Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies

There is congestion, partly due to truck traffic, in downtown Jackson.
Suburban pressure from growing Henry County Commercial and industrial growth along the I-75 corridor New housing and possible overcrowding near Lake Jackson Encroachment of subdivisions into traditional farmland Preserve Indian Springs State Park, possibly expanding the Park Desire to maintain Butts County's rural character. Push for the development of the South Jackson Bypass. Try to resolve problems of congestion and truck traffic in downtown Jackson. Possible new access roads and/other improvements within the I-75 corridor. There is a need for more sidewalks, pedestrian paths and consideration for alternate
modes of transit for Butts County residents.

Butts County Comprehensive Plan Community Assessment Butts County prepared a draft of the Comprehensive Plan Community Assessment in June 2007. One concern expressed in the assessment is that the development patterns in the County do not create a pedestrian friendly environment. The lack of a trail network in the County was also expressed as a concern. Local trails are not linked with those of neighboring communities, the region, and the state. The plan expresses a considerable need for more sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and other alternative modes of transportation. The inclusion of streetscape improvements and pedestrian amenities are recommended to improve safety, alleviate congestion on the road network, and to foster the development of more compatible land uses.

Butts County Parks and Recreation Master Plan The Butts County Parks and Recreation Department completed a Recreation Master Plan in Fall 2006. As a part of the plan, several recreational pathways are proposed. The proposed locations for trails related to bicycle and pedestrian use are the Indian Springs Bicycle Route, Towaliga Bicycle Route, Cross Country Bicycle Route, Stark Community Bicycle Route, Jackson Lake Loop Bicycle Trail, Proposed South Jackson Bypass, McIntosh Indian Trail, Stage Coach Trail, and Dixie Pipeline. See Figure 4.6 for the locations of these proposed facilities.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

27

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 4.6 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Butts County

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

28

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.0 Public Transportation

Currently, public transportation services are offered in Butts County. The services in Butts County are administered by the McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center (MTRDC) and are provided with federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA Section 5311) and state funds distributed through GDOT. No conventional, fixed route, fixed schedule transit service is currently provided in Butts County.

5.1 Butts County Transit
Butts County participates in the 5311 Rural Transit Program, a fare-based, demandresponse public transportation service which provides County residents with transportation access to shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social activity centers. The McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center (MTRDC) administers the program for its region, which includes Butts, Lamar, Pike, Spalding, and Upson Counties.

The Council on Aging for McIntosh Trail, Inc. is the third party provider for the 5311 Program in Butts County, operating one 16-passenger shuttle bus that is equipped with a wheel chair lift. As part of the 16-vehicle MTRDC regional system, the bus generally operates in Butts County but does cross county lines within the 5-county region if such trips are needed to increase efficiencies. Residents wishing to use the service must make a reservation 24 hours in advance to schedule a van pick-up. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the fee is $2.00 per one way trip.

Service statistics for Butts County for 2006 are presented in the table below.

Table 5.1.1 Butts County Rural Transit Service Statistics

Service Statistics 2006 (January to August)

All Vehicles

Total One-Way Trips 2006

5,373

Number of Vehicles

1

Average Number of One-Way Passenger Trips per Month

448

Average Trips per Vehicle per Day

23

Source: GDOT, McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center, August 2007

Table 5.1.2 further characterizes the passengers that utilize Butts County's transportation services each month. The data shows that the services are largely used by the elderly, minorities, and the disabled.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

29

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5.1.2 Butts County Rural Transit 2006 Ridership Statistics

Passenger

Percentage

Elderly

86%

Non Elderly

14%

White

41%

Minority

59%

Disabled

5.4%

Source: GDOT, McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center, August 2007

The system provides transportation to a variety of destinations which include medical, employment, educational, shopping, and recreational centers. The percentage of the 5,373 trips provided in 2006 to each destination type is shown in Table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3 Butts County Rural Transit 2006 Destination Statistics

Medical

Employment Nutrition

Social & Recreation

9.9%

8.1%

65.5%

4.7%

Source: McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center, August 2007

Education 4.9%

Shopping & Personal
6.9%

The Council on Aging for McIntosh Trail, Inc. also operates two additional vans in Butts County to transport elderly, disabled, and other residents who qualify for Georgia Department of Human Resources assistance. These residents are clients of the Division of Aging Services, the Division of Family and Children Services and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases. The breakdown of DHR transportation services provided by each department/agency referenced above is shown in Table 5.1.4 below.

Table 5.1.4 Butts County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency

DHR Aging

DHR DFCS

DHR MHDDAD

Total DHR Trips

5,619

722

6,613

12,954

Source: Department of Human Resources Region Four Transportation Office - August 2007 *Some DHR trips are provided by the 5311 van.

Southeastern Trans serves as the major Medicaid transportation provider in Butts County, contracting both assisted and private-pay transportation services to Liberty Convalescence and other carriers.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

30

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The elderly are major users of both the 5311 Program and the DHR-provided transportation services in Butts County. Planning for additional future services needs to consider population projections for the elderly in coming years. The Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025 reports the following population projections for these potential transit system users.
Table 5.1.5 Butts County Population Projections

2000

2010

Number of Percent of Number of Percent Persons County Persons of County

Total Population

19,522

-

31,817

-

Population 65

years of age or

1,994

10.2%

4,071

older

Source: Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025

12.8%

2025
Number of Percent Persons of County

46,646

-

8,506

18.2%

As seen from the data above, the County is expected to experience a 327 percent increase in elderly population between the year 2000 and 2025. This growing elderly population will place increased demands on the rural transit system, as evidenced by the current ridership statistics (86 percent elderly) presented above.

Recent planning initiatives also present the need for additional future services. The Public Transit - Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan was completed by the DHR Region Four Transportation Office in May 2007. Region Four is comprised of Butts, Carroll, Coweta, Heard, Lamar, Meriwether, Pike, Spalding, Troup and Upson Counties. The purpose of this plan was to:
Identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with limited incomes;
Outline strategies for meeting these transportation needs; and Prioritize services.

The plan shows the following information for Butts County, based on Census data from 2000.

Table 5.1.6 Butts County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment (May 2007)

Population 2000

Disabled Persons

Developmentally Disabled Persons

Elderly Persons

Persons Below Poverty Level

Households w/o a Motor
Vehicle

19,522 2,761 14.1% 322

1.7% 1,994 10.2% 2,017 10.3% 378 1.9%

Source: Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan, DHR Region Four Transportation Office, May 2007

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

31

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The Plan identified service gaps which exist both in Butts County and in the region. By order of priority, current unmet needs include:
Transportation to access needed medical and health related services for medical appointments and treatments that are not Medicaid eligible, including trips to pharmacies, grocery stores, mental health services center, and substance abuse services centers;
Transportation to access goods and services that are considered to be life essential or preventive in nature including trips for grocery shopping, social services, food stamps, pharmacy, bill paying, energy assistance programs, and commodities programs;
Transportation for the general public after 5311 services hours (5 p.m. to 8 a.m. during the week and on weekends), access to training and employment, and access to child care; and
Transportation services that cross geographic boundaries.

The Plan identified numerous potential projects to meet these service gaps. These include, but are not limited to:

Increasing hours and days of operation on existing public transit systems and reducing geographical restrictions within existing public transit systems;
Increasing capacity in existing transit systems; Establishing a voucher/token system that would allow the transportation disadvantaged
target groups to solicit transit assistance from family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and faith based organizations; and Utilizing technology such as GIS, smart cards, and web-based information systems to increase system access and efficiency.

While it is important to apply these solutions on a regional basis, additional analysis would be useful to further pinpoint specific needs/solutions for Butts County.
Butts County Commuter Patterns
According to the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, 45 percent of Butts County residents work in the County, while 55 percent commute to employment centers in other counties. Of those commuting outside Butts County, the majority travel is into the Atlanta region (50 percent) with the remaining working in neighboring counties.

96 percent of Butts County resident commute to work in a truck or car, 84 percent drive alone and 16 percent carpool. Almost one-half of residents (48 percent) spend over 30 minutes commuting per one-way trip to work each day.

Butts County does not currently have a GDOT Rideshare lot to provide a free parking facility for any organized or informal carpooling or vanpooling. Nearby Rideshare lots are found in Spalding County in the City of Griffin, in Henry County at I-75 and Jodeco Road, and in Newton County at I-20 and US 278.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

32

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts County's close proximity to Henry County allows relatively convenient access to the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) Xpress bus services. Route 430 operates between the McDonough Park and Ride Facility located at Exit 218 off I-75 in McDonough (15 minutes north of Butts County) to Downtown and Midtown Atlanta.

Butts County residents are also utilizing other resources to make the commute into Atlanta. Three vanpools have been established by Butts County residents through the 1-87-Ridefind Program, a cooperative effort between the ARC, GDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. The program maintains a confidential database that matches commuters in Georgia with potential carpool partners and/or vanpools with open seats. All three Butts County vans commute into Atlanta, with two departing from E. Third Street and the other from Towaliga Church Road. Additionally, three vanpools have been organized from Hampton and another nine from McDonough. Private companies also facilitate and provide vehicles for vanpools. Companies operating in Butts County include Metro Van Pool and Enterprise Rideshare.

There is evidence that employers are also assisting Butts County workers with commutes to Atlanta. Turner Broadcasting/CNN, through a Clean Air Campaign initiative, provides an 8-person commuter van for employees living in Butts County. Currently, 5 employees participate in this vanpool which meets at the 3rd Street Ingle's parking lot in Jackson. Other companies have inquired or initiated commuting options, thus indicating a need for rideshare parking facilities as well as an organized shared ride program in Butts County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

33

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.0 Freight Transport

The identification of freight corridors and preservation of freight mobility is one of the key components of the Butts County Transportation Study. There are currently two roadways in Butts County that are designated as truck routes, as well as four active freight rail lines. The following sections summarize the existing freight activity and facilities in Butts County. The information presented in this section comes from the GDOT Office of Intermodal Programs, particularly the 2000 Georgia Rail Freight Plan. Figure 6.0 maps the freight transport facilities in Butts County.
6.1 Butts County Freight Transport
Norfolk-Southern Railroad operates 50 trains per day along 21 miles of rail through Butts County on its primary route which runs between Atlanta and Macon. This line transports approximately 66 million gross ton miles per mile (MGTM/M) of track per year, a measure of rail traffic density which provides an indication of the relative use of the rail system and demand for service along a particular track section. The Atlanta-Macon line is one of Georgia's most heavily used mainlines as Macon serves as a Norfolk Southern hub for traffic consolidation and distribution.
Butts County is a point of origination for lumber and wood products, with approximately 50,000 tons originating within the County and transported beyond Georgia boundaries. One of the County's industrial parks sits alongside approximately two miles of the track line, with roughly four service docks available for local business use.

The County is not a termination point for any particular commodity. Many products are transported through the County via rail as part of intrastate traffic (commodities which both originate and terminate within the State) and through traffic (products which move through the State but neither originate nor terminate in Georgia.) These commodities include nonmetallic minerals, clay, concrete, glass/stone products, coal, chemicals/allied products, hazardous materials, pulp, paper, and allied products, food products, and miscellaneous mixed shipments.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

34

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Freight Transportation Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
35

F
Figure No: 6.0

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts County Rail Crossings
Butts County has 42 railroad crossings. Forty-one of these are at-grade and one is a grade separated overpass with the railroad crossing over the road. Twenty are private crossings with the remaining 22 crossing public roads.
Several crossings in the County experience heavy vehicle traffic volume. Table 6.1.1 presents Butts County rail crossings on roadway facilities with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts greater than 1,000 vehicles per day.
Table 6.1.1 Butts County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT

Rail Crossing and Location

AADT

Crossing 718448H at Covington Street/SR36 in Jackson Crossing 718450J at 3rd Street/SR16 in Jackson

5,310 4,670

Crossing 718443Y at Bethel Road in Jenkinsburg Source: GDOT Office of Utilities, August 2007.

1,640

Butts County Railroad Crash Data

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis, reports 58 crashes which involved trains at rail crossings in Butts County for the period 1975 to early 2007. Locations with the greatest frequency of crashes are:

Crossing 718443Y - Bethel Road in Jenkinsburg with 8; Crossing 718446U Bunch Road in Jackson with 5; Crossing 718456A - Bibb Station Road in Jackson with 4; and Crossing 718445M Private Crossing in Jenkinsburg with 4.

Table 6.1.2 documents incidences involving a train since 2000.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

36

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 6.1.2 Butts County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains)

Railroad

Crossing Location

City

ID

Date of Highway User

Incident

Involved

Position

Injuries

04/12/07

Truck-trailer

Moving over Crossing

None

718445M

Private crossing

Jenkinsburg 01/10/07

Truck

Moving over Crossing

None

09/28/05

Truck-trailer

Moving over Crossing

None

Bibb

01/29/07

Truck-trailer

Moving over Crossing

None

718456A

Station Road

Jackson

11/28/03

Auto

Moving over Crossing

1 Fatality Crossing User Killed

718446U

Bunch Road

Jackson

05/10/06 12/30/04

Truck-trailer Truck-trailer

Moving over Crossing Moving over Crossing

None None

718443Y

S1997 Bethel Road

Jenkinsburg 09/20/03

Auto

Stopped on Crossing

None

Mt.

718471C

Pleasant Church

Flovilla

09/18/01

Auto

Moving over 4 Rail Crossing

Crossing

Users Injured

Road

718462D

Sandy Creek

Flovilla

01/30/00

Bus

Trapped

None

Road

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report, 2007

Additionally, the GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design maintains crash data as reported by local law enforcement. For the period 2000 to 2006, 13 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Butts County. This does not include the incidences involving trains as reported above.

Table 6.1.3 Butts County Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Not Involving Trains)

Railroad Crossing ID

Location

718443Y

S1997 Bethel Road

City

Date of Incident

Manner of Collision

03/19/04 Angle

Jenkinsburg 12/01/05 Rear End

01/27/06 Rear End

Injuries
1 Injury None None

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

37

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Railroad Crossing ID

Location

City

Date of Incident

Manner of Collision Injuries

718448H

Covington Street SR36 Jackson

06/12/01 12/27/04 03/07/05 09/12/05

Angle
Sideswipe-Opposite Direction Sideswipe-Opposite Direction
Rear End

None None None None

04/14/06

718450J 718450J

3rd Street SR16 3rd Street SR16

Jackson Jackson

02/14/00 07/27/04 09/22/04

718458N

Higgins Road

Flovilla

12/08/05

718462D

Sandy Creek Road

Flovilla

01/30/00

Source: GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design, August 2007

Rear End
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle Sidesweep Same Direction
Rear End
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Angle

None None None None None None

Local Railroad Concerns Butts County
The Butts County Study Advisory Committee has expressed concerns over several crossings in the County, as identified below by locality.

Jackson: The railroad crossing at Bibb Station Road (Crossing 718456A) may need a warning
device; it currently has crossbucks and stop signs. Bunch Road (Crossing 718446U) has no railroad crossing arms and may need warning
devices.

Flovilla: The crossing at Cork Road (Crossing 718467M) and Strickland lacks railroad crossing
arms. Trucks and school buses are unable to clear the railroad overpass bridge over Heard
Street. Only cars are able to clear the bridge.

Jenkinsburg: Jenkinsburg experiences trains stopping that block roads, creating emergency vehicle
access problems. An overpass is cost prohibitive.

Additionally, local concern about railroads was expressed at public meetings, as follows:

Rail crossing points are limited between Macon and Locust Grove but are needed, particularly for emergency vehicle access.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

38

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

School buses are delayed when the railroad crossing gates are positioned down, prohibiting crossing, although there is not presence of a train. The railroad has to be called to reset the crossing arms safely.
Grade separations are needed at railroad crossings to reduce bottleneck effects.

Butts County Planned Transportation Improvements
Two railroad improvement projects are listed for Butts County in GDOT's Construction Work Program. Both will improve the crossings with warning devices and are described in Table 6.1.4 below:

Table 6.1.4 Butts County 2008-2013 CWP Railroad Improvement Projects

GDOT's

Project Work Type

Location

Phase

ID

Train Detection Crossing #718448H at

8572

Circuitry Upgrades

Covington Street in Jackson

Preconstruction

8573

Train Detection Circuitry Upgrades

Crossing #7184450J @

3rd Street/SR36 in

Preconstruction

Jackson

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation, Construction Work Program

Program Date
Lump
Lump

Status
Completion expected in 8
months Completion expected in 8
months

In addition to those listed above, planned improvements to SR 36 in downtown Jackson will create a one-way pair with a grade separation over the railroad, facilitating both vehicle and train movement and safety.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

39

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail Butts
The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) a Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Georgia Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA), and Georgia Regional Transportation Agency (GRTA) joint initiative, which began in 2000, proposes future commuter and intercity rail transportation options in close proximity to Butts County and will directly benefit Monroe County. The commuter rail option would provide daily home-to work trips using traditional rail passenger cars with stops 2-10 miles apart and heavy service during AM and PM rush hours. Intercity rail service would offer 2-3 trains per day between major cities with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with few stops to minimize travel time.
The GRPP proposes an aggressive build schedule; however, all projects are on hold at this time. GDOT, the project sponsor, is currently trying to pinpoint sources of funding for facilities operations. According to GRPA, projects will proceed as described below once these funding sources are established.
The Rail Program outlines a series of prioritized rail projects, starting with commuter rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The first phase of this route will be the Lovejoy to Atlanta leg, with planned stops in Jonesboro, Morrow, Forest Park and East Point, terminating at the planned Atlanta Five Points Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal. Here commuters will be able to transfer to MARTA or walk to many downtown jobs. Four trains will operate every 30-40 minutes on this route, making the end-to-end trip in 46 minutes, competitive with rush hour drive times for the 26-mile segment.
The next phase will extend the service to Hampton and Griffin, a 16-mile segment. The final phase will implement track, signal, crossing and station/parking improvements to extend service to Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke and Macon, completing the 103-mile project. It is estimated that at maturity, more than 3,080 daily trips will be made on the Atlanta to Macon line for an annual count of 770,000 trips, eliminating 800,000 hours of highway delay for drivers remaining on the roads.
The GRPP also proposes future intercity rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The proposed Atlanta-Griffin-Macon Intercity Rail line will offer three daily express intercity trains stopping in Griffin and a Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport related station. The service is proposed as a long term initiative, with commuter rail service a current priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

40

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

7.0 Airport Facilities
7.1 Butts County
Butts County does not currently have a local airport. A private landing strip is located at Lakeview Lane and Stark Road; several other private landing strips dot the County but are indicated as closed on the State Aviation Map. Nearby airports include the Griffin-Spalding County Airport in Griffin, Clayton-County-Tara Field outside of Hampton, and HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta.
The Griffin-Spalding County Airport is classified as a Level II Business Airport of Local Impact by the State of Georgia classification system. Airports are classified based on runway length and width, lighting systems, visual aids, approach systems, general aviation facilities, and services. Griffin-Spalding can accommodate small corporate/business jets, recreational flying, police/law enforcement, and experimental aircraft. The airport is hampered by its runway size, 3,701 feet long x 75 feet wide, which limits the types of aircraft that can use the facility. Located off US 19/41, the airport is approximately 20 miles from Jackson.
Clayton County-Tara Field is also classified as a Level II-Business Airport of Local Impact. Its 4,500 foot by 75 foot runway can accommodate corporate/business jets, recreational flying, police/law enforcement, and shipping of just-in-time. The airport is accessed via US 19/41 west of Hampton and is approximately 24 miles from Jackson.
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, a Level III Business Airport of Regional Impact, offers commercial jet service and is located 47 miles north of Jackson.
Butts County has recently received notification from the Governor's Office that it is under consideration as the site for a new regional airport. Final site selection is currently being studied and determined, with additional information forthcoming.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

41

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

8.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

This section provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts, an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Butts County, and an outline of issues to consider during the development of future transportation system conditions and recommendations for improvements to the system.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important part of a multi-modal transportation system designed to efficiently move people. It is important to consider that everyone is a pedestrian at one point in almost every trip, even if the primary mode of travel for a trip involves a personal vehicle or transit. Sidewalks are an important element along roadways near local activity centers such as schools, libraries, commercial centers, and public recreation areas which attract significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Crosswalks at roadway intersections in areas with pedestrian activity can be utilized to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians. This report provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts and an outline of issues taken into consideration during the development of future transportation system alternatives.
8.1 Butts County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
The City of Jackson maintains a fairly extensive sidewalk network in the downtown and residential areas of the City. The existing network offers a safe location for pedestrians to walk within the City and adequate connection of residential areas into downtown, but there are opportunities for additional connections within Jackson and between Jackson and surrounding attractions. The sidewalk network in the remainder of Butts County is very sparse. The City of Jenkinsburg does not have an existing sidewalk network and the City of Flovilla has a very sparse existing sidewalk network in the downtown area. There may be an opportunity for connection of residential areas in Flovilla to the downtown area if there is a desire for such a network. The Indian Springs State Park area is a prime candidate for sidewalks to connect the various shopping, dining, and recreational areas nearby.
Bicycle facilities are nearly non-existent in Butts County. The Dauset Trails Nature Center has a good bicycle network with its facility offering recreational opportunities for beginner and advanced riders. A trail called the Pathway to Learning is currently in the early stages of construction. This path connects Jackson High School and Clarks Plantation Subdivision to SR 36 north of Brownlee Road and will continue along SR 36 north to West College Street to the library, College Drive, Woodland Way by Jackson Elementary School and south on Fairground Street to the Fairgrounds. The possibility of providing improved on-road or trail connectivity for bicyclists throughout Butts County will be examined.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

42

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
43

F
Figure No: 8.0

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts County Programmed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

To help reduce overall costs of implementing a bicycle and pedestrian network, new facilities could be implemented concurrent with subdivision development and roadway resurfacing, widening, or utility upgrade improvements. Recommendations for development of a county wide system for bicyclists and pedestrians will focus on connectivity with the existing designated bicycle routes, system of sidewalks, neighborhood streets, and pathway connections. Planned improvements included in GDOT's 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or 2008-2013 Construction Work Program (CWP) will be evaluated to ensure that any opportunities for the inclusion of bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the project scope are considered. Programmed projects that are specifically designated to serve as bicycle or pedestrian facilities are listed in Table 8.1.1.

Table 8.1.1 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects in Butts County

GDOT's Project Primary Work Type
ID #

Description

PE ROW CST

0007580

Sidewalks

Sidewalks; Lighting & Landscaping in Jackson Local Local 2008

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation

Butts County Potential Locations for New Facilities

Butts County has many destinations that can benefit from connectivity to alternative forms of transportation. Several key destinations will be considered when evaluating locations for new bicycle or pedestrian facilities. These include:

Existing Schools: Daughtry Elementary School 150 Shiloh Road, Jackson Jackson Elementary School (potential future high school site would replace this existing school location) 218 Woodland Way, Jackson North Mulberry Elementary School (Stark Elementary will replace this school the site will be the future home of a Pre-K and possible Alternative School) 820 North Mulberry Street, Jackson Henderson Middle School 494 George Tate Drive Jackson High School 717 Harkness Street, Jackson

Planned Schools: Stark Elementary (has large new subdivision nearby for consideration for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

44

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

169 Stark Road, Jackson New Jackson Elementary
Between 1059 and 1265 Brownlee Road, Jackson

Other Destinations: Jackson-Butts County Public Library 436 East College Street Jackson, GA 30233 High Falls State Park Dauset Trails Nature Center Indian Springs State Park (An application for Transportation Enhancement funds was submitted to GDOT and funding was not awarded for FY 08-09. The proposed project includes construction of sidewalks on each side of SR 42 from Lake Clark Road to Cenie Road for .21 miles.) Sylvan Grove Medical Center Downtown Jackson Jackson Lake Ocmulgee River Potential Chief McIntosh Trail from Indian Springs to Carrollton Daughtry Park Senior Center Other Local Parks

These destinations will be considered when developing recommendations for additional facilities to foster bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.

The MTRDC developed a bicycle and pedestrian plan that was previously documented in Section 4.5.

Butts County Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

Statistics for bicycle and pedestrian crashes from 2004-2006 were examined to offer insight into safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in Butts County. Table 8.1.2 summarizes bicycle and pedestrian crash data and Table 8.1.3 lists the locations of these incidents. This is an average number of bicycle and pedestrian incidents compared to the three-county study area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

45

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 8.1.2 Butts County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006

Year

Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle and Pedestrian

Crashes

Injuries

2004

4

4

2005

6

5

2006

1

1

2004-2006

11

10

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) Database

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities 0 1 0 1

Table 8.1.3 Butts County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006

Year 2004

Bicycle and Pedestrian Injuries North Oak Street south of Valley Road and north of Glenn Street

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities
Non-Fatal Injury

2004 2004

Brookwood Avenue west of West Third at the intersection with North Harkness
East Third Street (SR 16) at the intersection with Seventh Street

Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury

2004

East Third Street (SR 16) at the intersection with Mulberry Street

Non-Fatal Injury

2005

SR 42 west of Barg Street near Jenkinsburg

Non-Fatal Injury

2005 2005

SR 42 0.5 miles east of Watkins Park Pool Road near Bibb Station Road intersection east of Jackson I-75 at mile post 5.13

Non-Fatal Injury Fatal Crash

2005

Biles Road north of Howard Purdue Road

Non-Fatal Injury

2005 2005 2006

Indian Springs Street just west of Fairground at intersection of Benton Street
East Third Street (SR 16) east of Franklin Avenue and west of Bailey Street
SR 42 east of Walter Moore Road

Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) Database

8.2 Bicycle System Elements
Once a location for a potential bicycle improvement is determined, the type of improvement must also be considered. Factors such as lane width, vehicle speed, sight distance, frequency of intersections, pavement surface quality, and hazard removal such as lane obstructions like grating or blind curves need to be considered in the facility selection and design process. In addition to facility selection and design, bicycle systems should be designed to ensure the security of bicycles at typical bicyclist destinations. Primary

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

46

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

destinations such as schools, public recreation areas, commercial businesses, and restaurants should include bicycle racks or lockers for securing bicycles.

There are four primary types of bicycle facilities: bike paths, bike routes, bike lanes, and bike shoulders. A description of each type of facility along with design considerations are listed below. Transportation Planners and Engineers should refer to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities when selecting and designing bicycle facilities.
Bike Paths
A bike path is a special pathway designated for the exclusive use of bicycles where cross flows by pedestrians and motorists are minimized. A bike path is usually buffered from vehicular roadways through the use of a landscaped strip or physical barrier. It is also usually grade separated but may have at-grade crossings. Bike paths are identified through proper signing and also may have pavement markings.

The paved width and the operating width of the bicycle path are the primary design factors. Under most conditions, a paved width for a two-directional shared (bicycles and pedestrians) path is 10 feet. If a bike path requires a reduction in size due to Right of Way needs, a reduced width of 8 feet could be utilized. Under certain conditions including anticipated high use or the need for maintenance vehicle use, a paved width of 12 feet is required. A minimum of 2-foot width graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the paving for safety reasons.
Bike Routes
A bike route is a roadway identified as a bicycle facility only by guide signage along the roadway. There are no special lane markings and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motor vehicles. There are several reasons for designating signed bike routes. A route may be signed if it provides continuity to other bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or bike paths. A route may be signed if it is a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor or if the route is preferred for bicycling due to low motor vehicle traffic or paved shoulder availability. Route signage may be preferred if the route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors leading to an internal destination such as a park, school, or commercial district.

Bicycle routes should be plainly marked and easy for the bicyclist to interpret. The route should provide through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. Traffic control devices (stop signs and signals) should be adjusted to accommodate bicyclists on the route. Street parking should be removed where possible to increase the safety of the rider. A smooth surface should be provided and maintained. Wide curbs are desirable on designated bike routes.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

47

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Bike Lanes
A bike lane is a designated strip usually located along the edge of the paved area outside the travel lanes or between the parking lane and the outside motor vehicle through lane. Bike lanes should be one-way facilities and carry bike traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On one way streets, bike lanes should typically be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes are identified by "Bike Lane" markings on the pavement and other pavement markings or signs deemed appropriate by AASHTO design guidelines and / or GDOT standards to give adequate guidance to users of the facility. Bicyclists usually have exclusive use of a bike lane for travel, but must be aware of cross flows by motorists at driveways and intersections and also by pedestrians.

For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum bicycle lane width is 4 feet. If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the travel lane and the parking area and should have a minimum width of 5 feet. If a curb and gutter is present, the minimum width from the face of the curb to the bike lane stripe should be 5 feet if the gutter pan is smooth for bicycle travel. Four feet of maneuverable surface is always necessary.
Bike Shoulders
Bike shoulders are paved shoulders that are smooth and sufficiently wide enough for use by bicyclists. Paved shoulders are used by bicyclists if they are relatively smooth, sufficiently wide enough, and kept clean of debris. Adding or improving paved shoulders often can be the best way to accommodate bicyclists in rural areas. Paved shoulders also provide valuable maneuvering room and reduce potential motor vehicle conflicts for slowmoving bicycles traveling up a hill.

Ideally, a paved bicycle shoulder should be at least 4 feet wide. However, where 4 feet cannot be accommodated, any shoulder is better than none. Rumble strips used to alert motorists that they are driving on the shoulder are not recommended on bike shoulders in the travel path of the cyclist. If rumble strips are placed on the shoulder, there should be additional shoulder adequate for bicycle travel in order to designate a shoulder as a bike shoulder. A bike shoulder is multi-faceted in that it can serve more than one function (i.e. it can serve as a temporary parking lane, an emergency lane, or a bus stop as well as an area for cyclists to travel within).
8.3 Pedestrian System Elements
There are also several considerations when selecting the type of pedestrian facility to implement. Along local streets in residential areas, sidewalks with a 4-foot clear width should be used. Five-foot clear width sidewalks should be used along collector streets, and six-foot clear width should be used along arterials. In commercial areas with high pedestrian and vehicular volumes, sidewalks of 6 or more feet should be considered. In order to maintain clear sidewalk widths, obstructions such as traffic signs, utility poles and supports should be placed outside the specified 4 to 6 foot sidewalk width. Grades on sidewalks should be limited to 6 to 8 percent in order to allow a consistent walking pace

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

48

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

and ease of wheelchair use. Handicapped accessible ramps should be provided at driveways and intersections to provide accessibility to the system for everyone.

The following criteria are provided as a basis for determining when sidewalks should be considered:
When streets are within mile of a school. When a street is classified as a collector or arterial. When health and safety are threatened due to pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts. When sidewalks would provide system continuity between existing pedestrian
destinations. When parks, playgrounds, libraries, or other attractors of small children are not
served by sidewalks. When there is an existing, frequently traveled, unpaved path along a roadway. When sidewalks would provide an easy and safe route for pedestrians to gain
access to public transportation.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

49

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

9.0 Bridges

One of the critical concerns in Butts County is bridge conditions. Bridges were evaluated to determine the need for potential improvement. Deficient bridges pose a major obstacle to a fully functional road network due to load limits or other restrictions. The study area was reviewed to identify all bridges and assess the need for potential improvements.
To facilitate the completion of this effort GDOT provided bridge condition reports for each bridge within the study area. A general measure of the condition of each bridge is the sufficiency rating. The sufficiency rating is used to determine the need for maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a bridge structure. Consultation with structural/bridge engineers shows that generally a bridge with a sufficiency rating above 75 should maintain an acceptable rating for at least 20 years with adequate maintenance. Structures with a sufficiency rating of 75 or lower have a useful life of less than twenty years and will require major rehabilitation or reconstruction work during the study horizon. All bridges with a sufficiency rating of fifty (50) or lower were identified as potentially deficient and qualifying for federal bridge replacement funds.

9.1 Butts County Bridges
All bridges within Butts County were identified and documented with a sufficiency rating for each of the 37 bridges within the County. Table 9.1 displays the collected information. Italics font indicates that the bridge is on the state system.
Table 9.1 Bridge Inventory Butts County

Road
Fill Bridge Road SR 36
Colwell Road SR 36 SR 36
Lake Clark Road Kinards Mill Road Wolf Creek Road
SR 36 SR 16 Halls Bridge Road Wildwood Road Spring Road Colwell Road
I-75 Barnett's Bridge Road
SR 42 - US 23

Feature
Towaliga River Tributary Towaliga River* Cabin Creek
Yellow Water Creek* South River*
Big Sandy Creek Towaliga River
Wolf Creek Tussahaw Creek
I-75 Yellow Water Creek Caney Fork Creek Big Sandy Creek Tributary
I-75 Cabin Creek Lake Jackson Big Sandy Creek

Sufficiency Rating
25.08 46.32 47.18 47.39 47.86 52.35 53.08 55.50 58.40 59.96 61.61 65.35 68.78 70.02 73.00 77.32 79.79

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

50

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Road

Feature

SR 16

Towaliga River

Joe Lane Road

Towaliga River Tributary

Indian Creek Road

Indian Creek

Fincherville Road

Tussahaw Creek Tributary

Cenie Road

Big Sandy Creek

SR 42 - US 23

Rocky Creek

SR 42 - US 23

Yellow Water Creek

Douglas Creek Road

Plymale Creek

Stark Road

Yellow Water Creek Tributary

Riley Road

Plymale Creek

Halls Bridge Road

Caney Fork Creek

Dean Patrick Road

Lee Creek

Nathan Thaxton Road

Big Sandy Creek

Giles Ferry Road

Douglas Creek

Locust Road

Indian Creek Tributary

Rocky Creek Road

Rocky Creek

Brownlee Road

Big Sandy Creek

Brownlee Road

Aboothlacoosta Creek

SR 16

Yellow Water Creek

Stark Road
Source: GDOT. * Included in GDOT's current work program. Italic font indicates that the bridge is on the state system

Yellow Water Creek

Sufficiency Rating
80.45 81.26 81.90 83.30 83.64 86.41 89.00 90.45 91.30 91.49 91.84 91.85 92.08 92.29 92.42 92.44 95.09 96.86 96.95 97.25

Based on the sufficiency rating, a majority of the bridges are in good condition and not in need of any major maintenance or upgrade activities. There are six (6) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 50 and are potentially in need of maintenance and rehabilitation.
Fill Bridge Road at Towaliga River tributary SR 36 at Towaliga River Colwell Road at Cabin Creek SR 36 at Yellow Water Creek SR 36 at South River
Bridge replacement projects are currently planned for SR 36 at Towaliga River, Yellow Water Creek, and South River as part of GDOT's work program.
Additionally, there are ten (10) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 75 and should be considered candidates for maintenance and rehabilitation within the next 20 years. The following bridges have a sufficiency rating below 75.
Lake Clark Road at Big Sandy Creek Kinards Mill Road at Towaliga River Wolf Creek Road at Wolf Creek

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

51

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

SR 36 at Tussahaw Creek Halls Bridge Road at Yellow Water Creek Wildwood Road at Caney Fork Creek Spring Road at Big Sand Creek Tributary

The candidate bridges in the 3-County Region for maintenance and rehabilitation are mapped in Figure 9.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

52

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Bridges for Potential Maintenance or Rehabilitation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
53

F
Figure No: 9.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

10.0 Safety

The latest three years of available vehicular crash data from GDOT (2004, 2005, and 2006) were collected and analyzed for Butts County. The crash data was used to determine roadway locations with potential safety deficiencies throughout the study area. Butts County experienced a total of 1,961 crashes with 1,001 injuries and 17 fatalities during the three-year period.

When analyzing the crash data, it was determined that a threshold of 20 crashes over the three-year period would serve to identify "active crash" locations.
10.1 Butts County Crash Summary
Three years of crash data (2004, 2005 and 2006) were collected and analyzed for Butts County. Table 10.1 displays the intersections with active crashes.
Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Butts County

Roadway
SR 16 at SR 36 SR 16 at SR 42 SR 36 at CR 295 SR 42 at CR 3 SR 16 at CS 525-03

Intersection
Covington Street at Mulberry Street 3rd Street at Cross Street SR 36 at Old Bethel Road
SR 42 at England Chapel Road 3rd Street at McDonough Road

Crashes
38 43 23 24 21

Fatalities Injuries

0

6

0

5

0

13

0

10

0

3

In addition to the active crash locations, an area of focus and concern was the location of fatal crashes. The locations listed below experienced at least one (1) fatality crash during the three-year analysis period. Interstate crashes were excluded from this analysis because the Interstate System Plan, conducted in 2004, is responsible for analyzing the interstate system.
Robinson Road near US 23, Higgins Road, and Railroad Brownlee Road near Mile Post 5.53 US 23 near Mile Post 4.5 Barnesville-Jackson Road at High Falls Road High Falls Road south of Britton Road intersection, near Mile Post 2.52 SR 16 east of Colwell Road intersection, near Mile Post 2.1 US 23 west of Wolf Creek Road, east of Jenkinsburg US 23 west of Jenkinsburg Halls Bridge Road near Mile Post 5.78 south of Airstrip Road SR 36 at High Falls Road US 23 near Mile Post 12.33

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

54

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

SR 16 is currently under construction and should help to address crashes occurring east of Colwell Road. Passing lane projects are planned between Jackson and Jenkinsburg on US 23, which is expected to help operations and increase safety.

Figure 10.1 shows intersections with more than 20 crashes over the three-year analysis period as well as fatality and pedestrian related crash locations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

55

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
56

F
Figure No: 10.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.0 Roadway Characteristics

This section presents the characteristics of the roadways in Butts County. The data is provided from GDOT's Roadway Conditions (RC) Database. The following data was reviewed as part of the study process:

Functional Classification; Road Lanes; Roadway Shoulders; and, Roadway Surface Type.
11.1 Functional Classification
Roadways are grouped into functional classes according to the character of traffic they are intended to serve. There are four highway functional classifications: expressway/freeway, arterial, collector, and local roads, and these can be defined as:

Expressway/Freeway - Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control.
Arterial - Provides the next highest level of service at moderate to high speeds, with some degree of access control. Arterials are typically classified as principal arterial and minor arterial.
Collector - Provides a lower level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. Collectors are typically classified as major collector and minor collector.
Local - Consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors; primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement.
The 3-County Region has about 209 lane miles of interstate, which includes I-75 and I-475. There are also approximately 389 lane miles of arterial facilities in the study area and 2,375 lane miles of collectors and local streets. Figure 11.1 displays the functional class of roadways in Butts County.

Table 11.1 displays the mileage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the different roadway classifications in Butts County. The 3-County Region as a whole is served by multiple state roads, (approximately 25 percent of the lane miles) which handle a majority of the traffic (80 percent). This differs slightly from the statewide averages of 16 percent of lane miles, handling 63 percent of the total traffic. To ensure future mobility, it will be important to evaluate and identify needed improvements to the state road system through close coordination with GDOT.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

57

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Functional Classification
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
58

F
Figure No: 11.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 11.1 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled

State Roads

County

Miles

VMT

County Roads

Miles

VMT

Local Roads

Miles

VMT

Total

Miles

VMT

Butts

61

736,382

324

230,690

38

20,382

423

987,454

State 18,066 192,333,604 84,118 89,159,091 14,502 23,319,169 116,685
Source: GDOT Office of Transportation Data-Mileage by Route Type and Road System Date: 12/31/06

304,811,865

11.2 Road Lanes

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is the number of lanes provided on each road. The roads in the 3-County Region predominately serve bidirectional traffic in both directions. Additionally, the majority of the roads in the study area are 2-lane facilities. The dependency on a largely 2-lane roadway network may become strained in the future as traffic levels increase. Figure 11.2 displays the number of lanes on the roads in Butts County.

11.3 Roadway Shoulders

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway shoulders. For this analysis, both the shoulder type and shoulder width were reviewed to determine segments of roadways in need of potential shoulder upgrades. A wide variety of shoulder widths and types are present throughout the 3-County Region. Insufficient shoulder width can contribute to travel speed reductions, potentially impact safety and influence bicycle and pedestrian usage. The following guidelines are used to determine potential shoulder deficiencies:

No shoulder or an unidentifiable shoulder; Grass shoulder less than 4 feet; and, Paved shoulder less than 2 feet.

Figure 11.3 displays the roadway shoulder type and widths according to GDOT's RC Database for Butts County. Roadway segments with potential deficient shoulders will become candidates for recommended upgrades.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

59

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Roadway Lanes
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
60

F
Figure No: 11.2

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Roadway Shoulders
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
61

F
Figure No: 11.3

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.4 Roadway Surface Type

The final attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway surface type. Roadway surface dramatically affects the capacity, useful life, and safety of a particular facility. The list below details the surface types used in the study area.

Paved Roads High Rigid - Portland cement concrete pavements with or without bituminous
surface if less than one inch. High Flexible - Mixed bituminous penetration road on a rigid or flexible base
with a combined (surface and base) thickness of seven inches or more. Includes any bituminous concrete, sheet asphalt, or rock asphalt. Mixed Bituminous Penetration - Low type (less than seven inches combined thickness surface and base). Surface is one inch or more. Mixed Bituminous Pavement - A road, the surface course of which is one inch or more in compacted thickness composed of gravel, stone, sand, or similar material, mixed with bituminous material under partial control as to grading and proportions. Bituminous Surfaced Treated - An earth road, a soil-surfaced road, or a gravel or stone road to which has been added by any process a bituminous surface course with or without a seal coat, the total compacted thickness which is less than one inch. Seal coats include those known as chip seals, drag seals, plant mix seals, and rock asphalt seals.

Unpaved Roads Gravel or Stone Road - A road, the surface of which consists of gravel or
stone. Surfaces may be stabilized. Graded and Drained - A road of natural earth aligned and graded to permit
reasonable convenient use by motor vehicles and drained by longitudinal and transverse drainage systems (natural and artificial) sufficient to prevent serious impairment of the road by normal surface water, with or without dust palliative treatment or a continuous course of special borrow material to protect the new roadbed temporarily and to facilitate immediate traffic service.

There are several roads in the 3-County Region, particularly in Jones County, that are dirt or gravel. It may be appropriate to upgrade and pave some of these facilities to provide better connectivity throughout the study area. Figure 11.4 displays the roadway surface type according to GDOT's RC Database for Butts County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

62

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Roadway Surface Type
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
63

F
Figure No: 11.4

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.0 Roadway Operating Conditions

A travel demand model was developed to assist in the evaluation of existing and future travel conditions throughout the 3-County Region. More detailed information regarding the model and model development process is presented in the Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties Model Documentation Technical Memorandum, August 2008. The key output from the travel demand model is the daily volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment. Each volume to capacity ratio corresponds to a level of service based on accepted methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Existing (2006), interim year (2015) and future (2035) operating conditions for the study are summarized in the following sections.
Prior to documenting operating conditions it is useful to summarize level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic flow describing operating conditions. Six levels of service are defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the Highway Capacity Manual for use in evaluating roadway operating conditions. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. A facility may operate at a range of levels of service depending upon time of day, day of week or period of the year. A qualitative description of the different levels of service is provided below.
LOS A Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. LOS B Drivers experience some delay but generally driving conditions are favorable. LOS C Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable delay in
intersection areas. LOS D Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to pass
and considerable intersection delay. LOS E The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps in
the traffic. LOS F More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle
resulting in extreme delays.
The recommended approach used to identify deficient segments in Butts County was to analyze the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments, also known as the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. For daily operating conditions, any segment identified as LOS D or worse was considered deficient.

The following thresholds were used to assign a level of service to the V/C ratios for rural facilities based on GDOT standards:
V/C < 0.35 = LOS C or better; 0.35 > V/C < 0.55 = LOS D; 0.55 > V/C < 1.00 = LOS E; and, V/C > 1.00 = LOS F.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

64

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.1 Existing Operating Conditions

The existing conditions results derived from the 3-County travel demand model were used to determine deficient roadway segments in Butts County. Deficient segments were determined by analyzing the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments. The corresponding V/C ratios were related to LOS. The minimum acceptable LOS for daily roadway operating conditions is LOS C based on GDOT standards.

The existing analysis shows that six segments currently operate daily at or below LOS D. Table 12.1 displays the deficient roadway segments with the LOS for daily operating conditions. Figure 12.1 displays the existing LOS for Butts County.

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments

Roadway SR 16

From

To

Spalding County Line I-75

Volume(1) 10,999

V/C LOS

0.89

E

SR 16

I-75

Shiloh Rd

13,998

1.02

F

SR 16

Shiloh Rd

US 23 (N)

10,486

0.77

D

SR 16

US 23 (N)

US 23 (S)

12,110

0.93

E

SR 36

I-75

Mt Vernon Church Rd
(1) - Two-way volumes

High Falls Rd

SR 16 Brownlee Rd

11,200 6,334

0.76

D

0.75

D

The majority of roadways in Butts County currently operate at an acceptable LOS during daily conditions. Future analysis shows that as traffic volumes continue to increase, some of these roadways will degrade to an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

65

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Existing Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
66

F
Figure No: 12.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.2 Future Operating Conditions

Future operating conditions were evaluated for the years 2015 and 2035. The existing roadway network was used to determine how well the roadway network will serve the 2015 and 2035 population and employment in Butts County with no additional improvements. The projects identified in GDOT's Construction Work Program were considered long-range and thus were not added to the model network.

It is useful to point out that the long-term projections for population and employment are the least reliable. This is not due to specific inaccuracies or projection techniques but simply because it requires the judgment of stakeholders to assign population and employment throughout the study area. This in turn impacts estimates of traffic demand. These long term results should be considered preliminary and when the transportation plan is updated every 3 to 5 years, the projects should be reexamined and amended as necessary.

The 2015 analysis shows that nine segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.1 displays the 2015 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

67

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Roadway SR 16

From

To

Spalding County Line I-75

SR 16

I-75

Shiloh Rd

SR 16

Shiloh Rd

US 23 (N)

SR 16

US 23 (N)

US 23 (S)

SR 36

I-75

SR 16

US 23 US 23 High Falls Rd

Henry County Line
Lower Floritta Indian Springs Rd
SR 36

Wolf Creek Rd Monroe County Line Monroe County Line

Mt Vernon Church Rd
(1) - Two-way volumes

High Falls Rd

Brownlee Rd

Volume(1) 14,827 15,336 9,986 12,950 12,652 11,374 10,037 8,392 7,120

V/C LOS

1.00

F

1.10

F

0.75

D

1.01

F

0.83

D

0.75

D

0.85

D

0.80

D

0.85

D

Figure 12.2.1 presents the 2015 daily deficient segments along the existing roadway network.
The 2035 analysis shows that 19 segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.2 displays the 2035 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

68

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
69

F
Figure No: 12.2.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Roadway SR 16 SR 16 SR 16 SR 36 SR 36 Brownlee Rd US 23 US 23 US 23 US 23
US 23 England Chapel Rd High Falls Rd High Falls Rd Kinards Mill Rd Keys Ferry Rd Halls Bridge Rd SR 42 Mt Vernon Church Rd
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Spalding County Line I-75 US 23 (N) Lamar County Line I-75 SR 36 Henry County Line Wolf Creek Rd SR 16
Higgins Rd Lower Floritta Indian Springs Rd US 23 SR 16 SR 36 High Falls Rd Henry County Line Stark Rd Cenie Rd High Falls Rd

To I-75 Shiloh Rd US 23 (S) I-75 SR 16 Monroe County Line Wolf Creek Rd SR 16 Higgins Rd Lower Floritta Indian Springs Rd Monroe County Line
SR 16 SR 36 Monroe County Line Colwell Rd Fincherville Rd Higgins Rd Monroe County Line Brownlee Rd

Volume(1) 25,503 18,509 12,442 15,997 15,629 8,931 17,393 10,547 10,074 13,302
16,063 11,107 12,543 12,012 9,377 8,550 7,133 9,603 9,253

V/C 1.68 1.28 1.07 0.82 1.03 0.81 1.14 0.74 0.73 0.89

LOS F F F D F D F D D E

13.2

F

0.84

D

0.97

E

1.05

F

0.85

D

0.78

D

0.71

D

0.83

D

1.12

F

Figure 12.2.2 presents the 2035 daily deficient segments along the existing roadway network.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

70

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
71

F
Figure No: 12.2.2

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.0 Citizen and Stakeholder Input
It is important to understand deficiencies as perceived by citizens and key stakeholders in addition to those identified through technical analysis. In combination, technical analysis, and citizen and stakeholder input should clearly define transportation issues and opportunities in the 3-County Region. The Study Team met individually with Butts County staff representatives and created an advisory group of community leaders in Butts County. Participants in the Study Advisory Group are listed in Table 13.0. In addition, public meetings were held to obtain feedback from citizens in Butts County, and to discuss their issues and concerns.
Table 13.0 Study Advisory Group Butts County

Opal Greene Trucks, Inc.
Robert Hiett McIntosh Trail RDC
Christy Taylor Butts County Planning
Jane Welchel Middle Georgia Community
Action Agency
Romela Freeman City of Flovilla

Steven Lease Butts County Planning
Lou DuFresne Jackson Lakes Homeowners
Association
Christy Anderson Jones Petroleum

Lynda White Butts County Board of Education
Joe Blankenship Butts County Board of Education
Jeannie Brantley McIntosh Trail RDC

Bart White Industrial Development Authority

Perry Ridgeway City of Jackson

Dr. Van Whaler Butts County Administrator

13.1 Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings
Five meetings were held with Butts County representatives to gather input on transportation issues and to share study findings and recommendations. Table 13.1 includes meeting dates and locations.
Table 13.1 Butts County Meetings

Meeting Type
County Issues Discussion Study Advisory Group Public Meeting #1 Study Advisory Group #2 Public Meeting #2

Date
07/25/07 10/01/07 10/16/07 04/08/08 04/29/08

Location
Butts County Government Center Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

72

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.2 Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Table 13.2 summarizes the general themes expressed by citizens and stakeholders relative to transportation issues, opportunities, and needs.

Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Transportation & Growth
Growth pressures from north and south resulting from increases in population and employment in
the Atlanta and Macon metro areas.
Major residential development proposed for south of Flovilla. A new rock quarry is located south of Jackson, east of SR 36. 1 million square feet of industrial use planned near Jackson, along SR 16 and SR 23. 300 acres off of Wallace Road zoned industrial ripe for development. Industrial development coming to I-75 interchange at SR 36 and Short Road. Collwell Road development expected; connection to SR 16 and a future interchange with I-75 is
proposed frequently.
Commercial and industrial proposed between Jenkinsburg and Jackson near Wolf Creek Road. New subdivision proposed along SR 23 near bunch Road.
Roadway and Operational Improvements
SR 42 has congestion and high traffic volumes; it serves as an alternate route to I-75 when
incidents occur which causes severe congestion.
SR 16 - High truck traffic interferes with quality of life in downtown area. The interaction between
truck traffic and school operations (i.e. pedestrians and buses) makes safety a concern.
SR 36 - Potential one-way pair concept in future in Jackson; High truck traffic interferes with
quality of life on downtown
High Falls Road is county maintained and will need improvement in future, has high traffic and
serves as a cut through from SR 16 to SR 36
Roads in southern part of county that connect growth areas south of Flovilla to I-75 will need
improvement
Griffin Tech to Old Bethel Road may be logical location for a north bypass around Jackson Due to a bridge being out, some property has no access to another road without first crossing a
railroad track: locations include Cork Road, Lamars Mill, Mt. Pleasant Church Road
Intersection Improvements
SR 42 and England Chapel Road and Burg Road poor intersection design. SR 42 and Shiloh Road sight distance. SR 16 at Honeysuckle Lane sight distance. SR 16 and Shiloh Road sight distance. SR 16 and Old Higgins sight distance. SR 36 and Fincherville Road bad angle. SR 42 and Cenie Road (near Indian Springs) - tight intersection.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

73

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Old Bethel / 4-Points Road @ Stark needs wider travel lanes; this is a major connection
between SR 42 and the lake area.
Keys Ferry from Henry County southeast to SR 36 lanes were made wider in 2005; this is a
temporary solution for a high growth area.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Dauset Trails is popular mountain biking area, privately-owned, located southwest of Indian
Spings near the new Rock Quarry additional sidewalks or bike lane connections are desired.
Indian Springs is working on a master plan to connect to Dauset Trail to High Falls Road area
greenspace committee developed a bike/ped plan.
In general, County lacks sidewalks and there is mixed opinion about citizen's desire. Sidewalks needed in subdivision in northeast Butts, near SR 36 and Ocmulgee River. TE funding to connect pedestrians on SR 42 to historic McIntosh Trail. Barnetts Bridge need for improved walking facilities. Sidewalk expansion is complicated by maintenance responsibility issues. Need for new recreation facility in area west of Jackson. Facilities for bicycle and pedestrian use are desired along the Ocmulgee River.
Public Transportation
5311 Program is managed by the McIntosh Trail RDC.

Freight & Rail
Truck traffic issues in downtown areas such as pedestrian safety, damage to curbs and
sidewalks, conflict with cars at intersections.
RR crossing safety and congestion associated with trains blocking crossings.
Aviation
Butts County currently does not have an airport; Regional Airport in study phase by Governor'
Office.
Figure 13.1 graphically displays the citizen and stakeholder comments.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

74

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
75

F
Figure No: 13.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

14.0 Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives are the foundation of the long range planning process. They guide the development of the LRTP by providing a basis for evaluating transportation plan improvements reflecting the intentions that the Plan is meant to achieve. It is necessary to establish long range goals and objectives to guide the transportation plan development process for Butts County. The goals represent the general themes and overall direction that Butts County and its residents envision for the future of the County. The objectives provide additional specificity and focus for each associated goal. Combined, they provide the policy framework for development and implementation of the transportation plan.
14.1 Background
Goals and Objectives should be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local plans and legislation. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, eight factors must now be considered when a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) develops an LRTP. It is understood that Butts County is not within an MPO service area; however, the guidelines for MPO's were followed to provide a strong framework for transportation decisions. Specifically, the LRTP must be designed to:

Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve
the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operation; and, Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
14.2 Methodology
The goals and objectives were developed based on a review of relevant planning documents including the Butts County Comprehensive Plan and the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan. Additionally, through input obtained at various public workshops, development of the goals and objectives was also tailored to reflect the vision of County residents and business owners.
Table 14.2, excerpted from the "SAFETEA-LU Users Guide," shows how LRTP policies and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria are related. There can be

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

76

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

Table 14.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

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

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

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

Accessibility Reliability

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

Multi-modal considerations
Transit accessibility and level of service

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

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

Number of crashes Number of rail grade
crashes Bicycle and pedestrian
crashes
Crashes Potential for security
hazard Access to critical
infrastructure Access to power
sources Access to reservoirs Access to population
centers Prevention of
bottlenecks Segmentation prevented Intermodal connectivity Community-based
economic development

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

77

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Factor 5. Protect and enhance
the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

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

Project Selection Criteria
Environmental impact Emissions reductions Waterway preservation Preservation and
conservation of resources

Intermodal transfer facilities
Rail access roads Container policies Freight policies/needs

Intermodal connectivity Accessibility for people
and freight Congestion relief

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

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

Source: SAFETEA-LU Users Guide

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

14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents
In addition to SAFETEA-LU, goals and objectives should also be consistent with other state and local plans, such as local comprehensive plans and regional policy plans. In this way, the goals and objectives of the LRTP support the planning efforts of local governments and agencies. In particular, emphasis was placed on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update for Butts County. Key transportation related goals, objectives and strategies from Butts County's most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan include:
The County must continue to pursue the development of the South Jackson Truck Route and review future development around the road to resolve the problems of congestion and truck traffic in downtown Jackson.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

78

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Continued monitoring of traffic counts and annual update of level of service analyses, particularly for Highways 16 and 36 for both traffic and development control.
Possible new access roads and/other improvements within the I-75 corridor.
Improved communication and planning between the Planning and Zoning Department, the Road Department and the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Monitor performance and needs of existing public transportation program.
Gather information from other communities that have been recently added to Atlanta Metropolitan Planning Areas; Report outlining lessons learned and what Butts County can do in preparation for such designation.
Assessment of railroad needs from local businesses; Confirmation of projected railroad service available through the planning period.
Monitor development of passenger rail service within the region; Develop study of public transportation services providing connection from Butts County to rail stations.
Continue to assist with the feasibility studies for a regional airport along the I-75 corridor.
There is considerable need for more sidewalks, pedestrian paths and consideration for alternate modes of transit for Butts County residents.
Possibility of a transportation and access plan for Butts County, analyzing the existing and potential routes for connecting key origins and destinations within the county.
Goal: To ensure that public facilities in Butts County have the capacity to support and attract growth and development and maintain and enhance the quality of life of Butts County residents.
Objectives:
The County should develop a Transportation Plan Butts County should create a formal transportation plan for guiding improvements, coordinating requests of new development and communication with the Georgia Department of Transportation. This plan should be done in coordination with neighboring counties to ensure of compatibility.

Feasibility studies for special transportation projects Butts County should perform (continue with) several advanced studies concerning the prospects for a regional airport, for supporting passenger rail service and for long range provision of public transportation. These studies should examine the proposed land use strategies and system improvements to identify specific needs for each type of transportation.

Annual transportation planning forum To improve communication with the DOT and among local departments, the County should regularly hold a planning forum to review transportation needs and outline actions needed to support planned improvements.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

79

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

14.4 Goals and Objectives

Based on input from County officials and local stakeholders, the following goals and objectives were established for the Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan to guide the transportation decision-making process:

Goal 1: Keep and improve the land use and transportation connection

Objective 1.1:

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

Objective 1.2

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

Objective 1.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision-making to encourage viability of alternative modes.

Objective 1.4 As development is permitted, review the impact to the transportation system to ensure mobility is protected as parcel level development occurs.

Goal 2: Enhance countywide mobility through improved roadway connectivity

Objective 2.1
. Objective 2.2

Identify potential projects that provide key linkages between existing roadway facilities and/or improve linkages by upgrading existing facilities on a grid-like system.
Existing and future roadway deficiencies, based on level of service standards, shall be addressed through solutions that connect, as well as enhance, existing roadways.

Goal 3: Protect our Downtown areas by removing trucks and other through traffic

Objective 3.1 Consider transportation investments and land use management strategies that remove or discourage heavy trucks from cutting through downtown areas.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

80

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Goal 4: Ensure that our transportation system is safe for all users and Citizens

Objective 4.1 Reduce transportation related accidents, injuries, and deaths through regular analysis of high crash locations and identification of safety related funding streams.

Objective 4.2 Identify projects that address high crash locations and other safety related issues.

Goal 5: Improve the range of mobility options for our Citizens
Objective 5.1 Ensure that funding is established for bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Objective 5.2 Develop and review annually the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) to provide for public transit and Paratransit.
Objective 5.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision making to ensure viability of alternative modes.
Objective 5.4 Update the Long Range Transportation Plan a minimum of every five years to evaluate and provide for future needed transportation system links within the County.
Goal 6: Protect our natural resources parks, lakes, and historic sites

Objective 6.1 Improve the environmental quality of transportation decision-making by incorporating context sensitive solutions principles in all aspects of planning and the project development process.
Objective 6.2 Consider the overall social, land use compatibility, economic, energy, and environmental effects when making transportation decisions.
Objective 6.3 Identify potential environmental impacts early on in the transportation decision-making process to protect significant natural and cultural resources.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

81

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.0 Improvement Development Process

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

Deficient Roadways and Bridges; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Public Transportation; Freight; and, Aviation.
Recommended improvements were based on citizen and stakeholder input as well as technical analysis. Improvements were also shared with local officials and GDOT District 3 for comment before being incorporated into the plan. The following sections document the potential improvements in detail, ultimately producing preferred improvements for Butts County's transportation system which are documented in Section 16. Figure 15.0 below illustrates the improvement development process.
Figure 15.0 Transportation Improvement Development Process

15.1 Deficient Roadways
Using the travel demand model developed as part of this study, future traffic volumes were forecasted and analyzed. This analysis revealed that the existing roadway network generally serves Butts County well through the year 2015. However, by year 2015, the roadway sections from I-75 to downtown Jackson, on both State Route 16 and 36 begin to

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

82

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

experience travel speeds that are well below the posted speed and considerable intersection delay. As documented in Section 12.2, the 2035 operational analysis reveals several roadways begin to perform below the acceptable level of service.

Based on the results of the operational analysis, the following roadway segments are recommended for widening:

High Falls Road from Mt. Vernon Church Road to US 23 US 23 from High Falls Road to SR 16 US 23 from SR 16 to Monroe County Line High Falls Road from Monroe County Line to Mt. Vernon Church Road Brownlee Road from Moutain View Rd to Monroe County Line SR 16 from Spalding County line to I-75 Interchange Hall's Bridge Road from Stark Road to Pratt Smith Road SR 42 from the Monroe County Line to Mount Vernon Church Road Kinards Mill Road from Colwell Road. to High Falls Road Colwell Road from Bucksnort Road to Steve Harness Road/I-75 Keys Ferry Road from Henry County Line to Fincherville Road Colwell Road from SR 16 to Mattie Thomason Road SR 16 from Imagene Goff Road to US 23/SR 42 SR 16 from US 23/SR 42 to SR 16/US 23 Higgins Road from Riley Road to SR 16 SR 36 from I-75 to SR 16

Additionally, review of the existing roadway typical sections revealed several of the facilities in the County do not meet the ideal typical section of 12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders. Key corridors were selected for operational improvements based on traffic volumes and input from the Study Advisory Group. These corridors include:

Mt. Vernon Church Road from High Falls Road to SR 42 SR 42 from Mt Vernon Church Rd to US 23 Stark Road from Four Points Rd to Barnetts Bridge Rd

15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
As part of the LRTP process, existing pedestrian and bicycle origins and destinations and flows are discussed with locals during the identification of potential bicycle and pedestrian improvement areas and are further evaluated through field visits. The evaluation of existing bicycle and pedestrian systems in the study area revealed the presence of a well developed sidewalk network in and nearby downtown Jackson. Where the sidewalk system is developed, there remain gaps in connectivity between downtown and residential areas, schools, and parks. Some gaps were also identified in commercial areas where people may desire to walk between businesses or from their homes to businesses. The network adjacent to each of the elementary, middle, and high schools and established

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

83

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

commercial areas was examined carefully to identify locations where sidewalk placement would be beneficial.
Bicycle facilities are not prevalent in Butts County. There are several local roads with low traffic volume suited for bicycle riding and Dauset Trails provides bicycle trails for recreation. Butts County is in need of a connected and continuous bicycle route system. Several local plans identify potential facilities. All local plans were considered in making recommendations for additional bicycle facilities. Focus was given to providing connectivity between activity centers and recreational destinations. Suggested improvements are included in Table 15.6 later in this section.
15.3 Public Transportation Improvements
15.3.1 Transit
Butts County participates in the Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program which is administered by the McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center (MTRDC). The Council on Aging for McIntosh Trail, Inc. is the third party provider for the service to transport the county's residents to a variety of shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social destinations. Service statistics for the fiscal year ending June 2007 indicate that the majority of the program's passengers are elderly (86%) and minority (59%). The Council on Aging is also the county's contracted provider of transportation services for residents who are clients of the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) Division of Aging Services (DAS), Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD). Service statistics for the same fiscal year show that the majority of DHR trips are made for MHDDAD clients (51%) followed by elderly clients (43%).
Butts County's 5311 Rural Transportation Program operates one van which provides over 5,000 one-way trips per year. The program, however, is underutilized by its citizens as only 14% of 2007 trips were requested by and made for county residents who are not DHRservices-eligible. The remaining 86% of the trips on the 5311 van were made for DHR clients (the Council on Aging also operates two additional vans solely for DHR clients in the county). Both the GDOT District Three Office and DHR Region Four Transportation Office report there is need for transportation by residents who are not DHR-services-eligible to access jobs and training and to make trips to medical appointments and treatments, child care, pharmacies, grocery stores and the like. The GDOT District Three Office and the MTRDC have both stated that the 5311 Program is in need of additional marketing efforts to publicize the service, its hours, and its cost to residents to bridge the gap between the service available and the public who needs it.
As seen in the ridership statistics above, Butts County seniors are major users of both rural transit and DHR transportation services. Federal funding for the DHR Division of Aging, however, was significantly cut statewide in 2007. This will greatly reduce transportation services for Butts County's elderly residents who are DAS clients, beginning July 2008. These cuts are problematic for Butts County, in particular, as the county's demand for transportation services for seniors will continue to increase in coming years. Butts County

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

84

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

is expected to experience a 327% increase in elderly population between the year 2000 and 2025, with projections showing an increase from 1,994 seniors in 2000 to 8,506 by 2025 (Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005 2025). The McIntosh Trail RDC has expressed that while the current 5311 program meets existing demand, the program may need to be expanded in the future to accommodate the anticipated growth of elderly population. The RDC is planning to conduct a transportation services study in 2008 that focuses on Butts County.

A new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program, the Section 5317 New Freedom Program, will be available to Georgia counties in 2008 and an application was submitted in May. This grant-based program is designed to provide transportation services for the elderly and the disabled that address specific service gaps identified in each DHR Region's Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan. The DHR Region Four Plan, completed in May 2007, identified a number of service gaps in Butts County and in the overall region. These include the need for transportation to medical, mental health and substance abuse centers; to pharmacies and grocery stores; to access life essential and/or preventative goods and services; and for transportation above and beyond the weekly 5311 services hours and services that cross geographic boundaries. The Region Four Office submitted an application for Section 5317 funding in May of 2008.

Another new FTA program, the Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute Program (JARC) also starts up in Georgia in 2008 and an application was submitted in May. This grant-based program provides funding for transportation services to and from employment centers. The program could potentially address the need by many Butts County residents for transportation to training and better-paying jobs outside of the 5311 rural transit service boundaries. For example, the program could be used to provide fixed-route transportation to and from employment centers in Griffin, McDonough, and Macon. It could also potentially benefit residents who receive work support services from DFCS by offering transportation to jobs and training once their six-month DFCS services expire. The Region Four Office submitted an application for Section 5316 funding in May of 2008.

Recommendations

Working with the MTRDC and the Council on Aging, increase publicity of the 5311 Rural Transportation Program. Post service hours of operation, costs, and reservation requirements on the Butts County website. Place flyers at shopping centers, employment centers, day care centers, and schools and training facilities to increase use of the service.

Participate with the MTRDC on its transportation study for Butts County in 2008 to address the county's elderly, disabled, and general population existing and future transit needs.

The Study Advisory Committee identified developing better public transportation services for seniors and the disabled as a high level of importance in 2035. In light of federal funding cuts to the DHR Division of Aging Services and the county's elderly

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

85

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

population projections, assess and address future transportation needs of the growing elderly population and plan appropriate 5311 program services to meet this need.

Identify appropriate county personnel to participate in the DHR Region Four Regional Transportation Coordination Committee (RTCC) to better ensure that the transportation needs and interests of Butts County citizens are addressed. DHR Region Four has expressed the desire for greater involvement by local governments in its RTCC, the transportation planning arm for each DHR region. Local government participation would allow DHR to better understand, plan for, and respond to the needs of each county's citizens and to be better equipped to respond in a timely fashion to funding opportunities that arise (such as the 5317-New Freedom and 5316-JARC Programs).

Work with the MTRDC and the DHR Region Four Office and its RTCC to analyze the benefits, costs, and possible future application/implementation of the Section 5316 JARC program in Butts County to address employment transportation needs.

15.3.2 Commuter Options

Butts County has a well-established commuting pattern between the county and the Atlanta region. Its close proximity to Henry County allows relatively convenient access to the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) express bus service which operates out of the McDonough Park and Ride Facility located at Exit 218 off of I-75 (15 minutes north of Butts County). In addition, a number of vanpools, employer provided van services, and informal carpools have been organized in Butts County, many of which utilize various locations along 3rd Street in Jackson as informal park and ride lots.

The McIntosh Trail RDC has expressed the need for increased transit options between the county and the Macon and Atlanta regions. Butts County does not have a GDOT Rideshare lot to provide a free parking facility for any organized or informal carpooling or vanpooling within county boundaries. The RDC feels that a park and ride lot could increase north and south ridership numbers to Atlanta and Macon.

Recommendations

Coordinate with GDOT to assess the need and potential location for a park and ride facility in the Jackson area and along I-75 to accommodate carpooling, vanpooling, corporate van services, and links to regional bus service. Potential locations include SR 16 at I-75, SR 16-Third Street in downtown Jackson, and SR 36 in downtown Jackson.

15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail
The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) proposes long-range commuter and intercity rail transportation options in close proximity to Butts County. The commuter rail service will offer daily home-to-work trips between Atlanta and Macon. Phase one will implement a route between Atlanta and Lovejoy; phase two will extend the line to Hampton and Griffin,

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

86

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

and the final phase will complete the 103 mile segment with stops in Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke, and Macon. Intercity rail service will offer two to three trains per day between Atlanta, Griffin, and Macon with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with fewer stops to minimize travel time.
Recommendations

Expand transit services to provide/enable/encourage use of the passenger rail service by county citizens. Provide methods to facilitate transportation (via vans, buses, vanpools, carpools, etc.) between households to the terminals in Griffin, Hampton, and Forsyth and to park and ride facilities.

15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements
Norfolk-Southern railroad operates approximately 50 trains per day through Butts County, traversing 21 miles of track and 42 railroad crossings. Forty-one of these are "at grade" crossings and one is an overpass (railroad crosses over the road).
Highway-rail crossings which are "at grade" pose risks because the train always has the right of way. These crossings require traffic control devices (passive and active) to permit reasonably safe and efficient operation of both the rail and traffic. Passive devices are signs and pavement markings that are not activated by trains. Types of passive devices include:
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Crossbuck Signs - the white crisscrossed sign with RAILROAD CROSSING in black lettering. These are required in each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, either alone or in combination with other traffic control devices.
Stop and Yield Signs - formerly recommend with crossbucks only where two or more trains operate daily, but now recommended along with crossbucks for all crossings. A YIELD sign should be the default choice, with a STOP sign required when an engineering study deems conditions necessary for a vehicle to make full stop. Factors to be considered include:
o The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle to an approaching train;
o Characteristics of the highway, such as the functional classification, geometric conditions, and traffic volumes and speed;
o Characteristics of the railroad including frequency, type and speed of trains, and number of tracks;
o Crossing crash history, and o Need for active control devices.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

87

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Railroad Advance Warning Signs - intended for approach roadways that parallel the railroad to warn turning drivers that they will encounter a highway/rail crossing soon after making the turn.

Active traffic control devices are controlled by the train operator and give warning of the approach or presence of a train. Types of active traffic control devices include:

Flashing-Light Signals - two red lights in a horizontal line flashing alternately at approaching highway traffic.

Cantilever Flashing Light Signals - additional one or two sets of lights
mounted over the roadway on a cantilever arm and directed at approaching highway traffic. Supplemental to the standard flashing light, used frequently on multi-lane approaches, high speed, two lane highways, roads with a high percentage of trucks or where obstacles obstruct visibility of standard flashing lights.

Automatic Gates - consisting of a drive unit and gate arm. Supplemental to flashing and cantilever lights.

Additional Flashing Light Signals - used for additional approaches to active highway rail grade crossings. These lights can be mounted on existing flashing light masts, extension arms, additional traffic signal masts, cantilever supports, and in medians or other locations on the left side of the road.
Active Advance Warning Signs with Flashers - a train activated advance warning sign, considered at locations where sight distance is restricted on the approach to a crossing and the

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

88

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

flashing light signals can not be seen until an approaching driver has passed the decision point. Two amber lights can be placed on the sign to warn drivers in advance. of a crossing where the control devices are activated. The continuously flashing amber caution lights can influence driver speed and provide warning for stopped vehicles ahead.

Active Turn Restriction Signs - display `No Right Turn' or `No Left Turn' on a parallel street within 50 feet of the tracks, at a signalized highway intersection.

Barrier devices - median separation devices to prohibit crossing gate violations.

The GDOT, Office of Traffic Safety and Design, maintains an inventory of the State's railroad crossings and a priority list for those requiring improvements. Local governments are encouraged to report crossings within their jurisdictions which appear to be unsafe, deficient in their currently traffic control devices, candidates for closure, or in need of an upgrade. GDOT will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of the crossing in question, evaluating a number of criteria, including:
The maximum number of passenger trains per day; Maximum number of freight trains per day; Distance to alternate crossings; Accident history of the crossing for the immediately preceding five year period; Type of warning device present at the crossing; The horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway; The average daily traffic volume in proportion to the population of the jurisdiction; The posted speed limit over the crossing; The effect of closing/altering the crossing for persons utilizing it (hospitals and
medical facilities; federal state and local government services such as court, postal, library, sanitation, and park facilities; commercial, industrial and other areas of public commerce); Any use of the crossing by trucks carrying hazardous material, vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses, emergency vehicles, public or private utility vehicles; Other relevant factors such as clearing sight distance, traversing the crossing, high profile or "hump" crossings, land locked property, at-grade crossing signalized with bells, lights, and proximity to other crossings.
Upon review, if traffic control devices are found to be deficient, GDOT will assign a priority and program an improvement project to correct the deficiency.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

89

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Specific Rail Recommendations The Study Advisory Group (See Table 13.0, page 72, for SAG members) has stated that dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings is of high importance today and in 2035. There is particular concern over the limited railroad crossing points between Macon and Locust Grove and how this hinders and causes delays in emergency vehicle access. Given the input provided by the project Study Advisory Committee, the public, the procedures outlined above and, and from analysis of the existing rail crossing and accident data, several Butts County crossings have been identified for further examination by GDOT. Each of these is discussed below.

Jenkinsburg 1) Bunch Road (Crossing #718446U) The Stakeholder Advisory Committee has
expressed concern over accidents and safety at this crossing. Bunch Road forms and oddly configured intersection with SR 42 at this crossing.

Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to incorporate additional markings and signage. Place advance warning signs on Bunch Road and advance warning signs and pavement markings on both SR 42 approaches. Mark and sign permitted movements through the intersection.

2) Wolf Creek Road/Old Bethel Road at SR 42 (Crossing #718443Y) The Study Advisory Committee has identified this crossing as high priority for improvements to handle increased traffic from new development. The crossing is currently equipped with crossbucks, gates, and flashing lights.

Recommendation Identify a project for a new intersection design at this crossing. In the interim, add advance warning signs and pavement markings on Wolf Creek Road and on Old Bethel Road. Review and submit long-term and interim requests to GDOT.

New development is expected to increase traffic at the Wolf Creek Road/Old Bethel Road rail crossing.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

90

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3) The Study Advisory Group (see Table 13, p. 72, for Study Advisory Group members) has expressed that train standing is a problem at a number of crossings in Jenkinsburg.
Recommendation Report train standing problems to the Federal Railroad Administration at: Phone: 404-562-3800; Hot Line: 1-800-724-5993; www.fra.dot.gov.
Jackson 1) Covington Street/SR 36 (Crossing #718448H) This crossing has the highest average
daily traffic count in the county and experiences accidents. It is currently equipped with crossbucks, gates, and flashing lights. Train detection circuitry upgrades to this crossing are currently programmed and in progress.
Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to add advance warning signs and pavement marking on northbound approach. The southbound approach is currently equipped with these features.
2) Benton Street (Crossing #718449P) The Benton Street crossing is equipped with crossbucks, gates, and flashing lights, yet there was an accident with a fatality in 1998. Lyon Street runs parallel to the railroad at this crossing.
Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to improve passive traffic control features on all approaches. Install advance warning signs on the Benton Street northbound approach and pavement markings on both the northbound and southbound approaches. Install advance warning signs on both Lyon Street approaches.
3) 3rd Street/SR 16 (Crossing #718450J) The crossing at 3rd Street/SR 16 is well equipped with crossbucks, gates, flashing lights, advance warning signs, and pavement markings. The crossing is characterized as one of the most heavily traveled in the county and experiences accidents. Lyon Street runs parallel to the railroad at this crossing. Train detection circuitry upgrades to this crossing are currently programmed and in progress.
Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to incorporate advance warning signs on Lyon Street eastbound approach.
4) Bibb Station Road (Crossing #718456A) The Study Advisory Committee has expressed concern over accidents and safety at this crossing. The crossing is currently equipped with minimal passive traffic control features (crossbucks, stop sign).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

91

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to determine if additional traffic control features are warranted.

Flovilla 1) Heard Street (Crossing #718461W) Trucks and buses experience difficulty passing
underneath this grade separated overpass.

Recommendation Review conditions and possible upgrades with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager and Norfolk Southern Railroad as rail design standards for clearance range from 18 to 23 feet.

The Heard Street railroad overpass.
2) Cork Road (Crossing #718467M) Cork Road becomes a dead end once it crosses the railroad due to a closed bridge. Residents living on the dead end road must cross the railroad to get from their homes into town and have no other means of access. The crossing is minimally equipped with crossbucks and a stop sign. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee has noted this crossing as a local safety concern. Up to three times per week, trains stop and block the crossing which then completely limits emergency vehicle access to the residential area. A number of elderly residents live in the inaccessible area, and one resident reported having to sleep in his car overnight as he was unable to get to his home due to a train stopped blocking the crossing.
Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to incorporate
accessibility improvements. Lessen the grade of the southbound approach to the railroad crossing. Install a guardrail at the steep drop off on Cork Road.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

92

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Contact Norfolk Southern and the Federal Highway Administration to minimize train delays at this crossing and throughout the county. Norfolk Southern Railroad Crossing Problems (800) 453-2530; Federal Railroad Administration: Phone: 404562-3800; Hot Line: 1-800-724-5993.
At the county level, determine alternative means for residents to cross the railroad. Identify potential locations for a new road which can connect into an existing road with a rail crossing.

3) Mount Pleasant Church Road (Crossing #718468U) This crossing has crossbucks, gates, and flashing lights. Accidents have occurred in this location. Road was recently paved so now there are no rail pavement markings.

Recommendation Review crossing with the GDOT Railroad Crossing Manager to add advance warning sign on the eastbound approach and pavement marking on both the eastbound and westbound approaches.

Review of the crossings noted above may result in railroad crossing improvement projects to be programmed for future completion.

Other Rail Recommendations Report crossings described above to the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager:

Key Phillips Railroad Crossing Program Manager Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of Traffic Safety and Design Phone 404-635-8120 Fax 404-635-8116

The Crossing Program Manager will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of each crossing in question.

Log and present an itemized list of occurrences of train standing and crossing gate malfunctions to Norfolk Southern, GDOT, and FRA as these issues are endangering citizens by limiting emergency vehicle access and interfering with school buses and trucks. Work with each of these entities to ascertain a workable course of action.

Report train standing problems to the Federal Railroad Administration at:

61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 16T20 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 Phone 404-562-3800 Hot Line 1-800-724-5993 www.fra.dot.gov

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

93

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Limit construction of any new "at grade" highway-rail crossings. The county has a high number of these crossings which pose risk for both vehicular and pedestrian accidents. Preliminary plans are to include a grade separated crossing railroad underpass in the SR 36 new alignment project.

GDOT offers local government incentive payments for at-grade rail-highway crossing closures, a provision of U.S. Code 23, section 130 (SAFETEA-LU section 1401(d)). The amount of the incentive grant may be up to $7,500 to local governments for the permanent closure of public-at-grade crossings if matched by the railroad involved, for a total incentive of $15,000. The local government receiving the incentive payment must use the portion received from the State for transportation safety improvements. Types of safety improvements include:

o Grading, paving and drainage improvements associated with crossing removal; o Guardrail, barricades and barrier wall; o Traffic signals; o Highway signs; o Turn lanes; o Pavement markings; o Sidewalks; o Emergency vehicles primarily responding to highway incidents; o Emergency equipment (i.e. "Jaws of Life); o Sirens and flashing lights for emergency response vehicles; o Radar guns; o Sponsorship of a community driver's education class.

Contact the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager, above, for additional information.

Utilize available programs to address crossings with safety concerns and crossing violations.

The Georgia Operation Lifesaver Program is a national, non-profit education and awareness program dedicated to ending tragic collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway-rail grade crossing and on railroad rights of way. The organization promotes safety through:

o Education for drivers and pedestrians to make safe decisions at crossings and around railroad tracks;
o Active enforcement of traffic laws relating to crossing signs and signals; and o Continued engineering research and innovation to improve the safety of railroad
crossings.

Free programs are presented to schools, businesses, civic organizations, school bus drivers, professional drivers, law enforcement and emergency responders.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

94

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.5 Aviation Improvements

Butts County does not have a local airport but does have several private landing strips scattered throughout the county. Nearby small aircraft airports include the Griffin-Spalding County Airport in Griffin and Clayton County-Tara Field outside of Hampton. Commercial airport needs are met by Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, located south of Atlanta.

Two events occurring and ongoing in 2007 and 2008 will likely affect aviation in Butts County. The county was notified by the Governor's Office in 2007 that it is under consideration as a site for a new regional airport. Final site selection is currently being studied and determined, with additional information forthcoming. Secondly, the City of Griffin and Spalding County are jointly exploring whether to expand or relocate GriffinSpalding County Airport. Phase one of an ongoing study has narrowed down potential relocation sites to the eastern third of Spalding County, which abuts Butts County.
Recommendations To ensure county interests are met, remain involved and informed about proposed
regional airport activity within the county or the relocation of the airport in neighboring Spalding County. Any future airport site will impact future development patterns and the need for transportation and public infrastructure in Butts County and would affect the area in terms of traffic, noise, and pollution.

15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

Throughout the course of the study public comment and stakeholder input contributed significantly to the development of projects for improving travel conditions through Butts County. Projects ideas from local citizens and other stakeholders are documented in Table 15.6.

All comments received from the public are important and care was taken to evaluate each recommendation for inclusion in the plan. If the recommendation addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan, these were forwarded to the appropriate department for consideration. Similarly, some recommendations could not be supported at this time with technical planning or engineering justifications these instances are noted and these recommendations were flagged for reevaluation as the plan is periodically updated in the future.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

95

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 15.6 Butts County Suggested Improvements

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvement

Source

Colwell Road development expected;

1

connection to SR 16 and a future interchange with I-75 is proposed

Butts County Staff

frequently

2

SR 42 - General congestion and high traffic volumes; acts as alternative and alleviator to I-75 when accidents occur

Butts County Advisory Committee

SR 16 - High truck traffic interferes 3 with quality of life on downtown;
School location

Butts County Advisory Committee

SR 36 - Potential one-way pair

4

concept in future in Jackson; High truck traffic interferes with quality of

life on downtown.

High Falls Road is county maintained

5

and will need improvement in future, has high traffic and serves as a cut

through from SR 16 to SR 36.

Roads in southern part of county that 6 connect growth areas south of Flovilla
to I-75 will need improvement.

Griffin Tech to Old Bethel Road may 7 be logical location for a north bypass
around Jackson Due to a bridge being out, some property has no access to another 8 road without first crossing a railroad track: locations include Cork Road, Lamars Mill, Mt. Pleasant Church Rd.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Advisory Committee
Butts County Staff
Butts County Staff
Butts County Staff
Butts County Public Comment

Does a Need Exist? No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Possible Environmental Impacts? Yes needs further analysis
Yes needs further analysis
Yes historic
Yes historic

Status
An interchange at Colwell Rd does not meet the Interchange Feasibility Study density spacing requirements for a suburban interchange. The model supports adding capacity to SR 42 from Monroe County line to Mt Vernon Church Road. The model supports adding capacity to SR 16 and/or providing a bypass as a downtown alternative and this project is included in GDOT's construction work program. The model supports improvements to SR 36 and this project is included in GDOT's construction work program.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan? No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

The model supports adding capacity to High Falls Road.

Yes

The model supports widening

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

High Falls Road. Mt. Vernon Church has been identified for

Yes

operational improvements.

Yes

Yes streams, wetlands.

Analysis supports a south bypass as opposed to a north bypass.

No

Yes

No

Possible solutions include

coordination with rail and emergency service or a new

Yes

connector road.

96

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvement

Source

9

SR 42 and England Chapel Road and Burg Road poor intersection design

Butts County Advisory Committee

10

SR 42 and Shiloh Road insufficient sight distance

Butts County Advisory Committee

11

Shiloh Road at Honeysuckle Lane insufficient sight distance

Butts County Advisory Committee

12

SR 16 and Shiloh Road insufficient sight distance

Butts County Advisory Committee

13

SR 16 and Old Higgins insufficient sight distance

Butts County Advisory Committee

14

SR 36 and Fincherville Road bad angle

Butts County Advisory Committee

15

SR 42 and Cenie Road (near Indian Springs) - tight intersection

Butts County Advisory Committee

16

Old Bethel / 4-Points Road @ Stark needs wider travel lanes; this is a major connection between SR 42 and the lake area

Butts County Advisory Committee

Keys Ferry from Henry County southeast to SR 36 lanes were 17 made wider in 2005; this is a temporary solution for a high growth area Sidewalks needed in subdivision in 18 northeast Butts, near SR 36 and Ocmulgee River

19

Barnetts Bridge need for improved walking facilities

Butts County Staff
Butts County Advisory Committee Butts County Advisory Committee

Does a Need Exist? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Possible Environmental Impacts? No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes needs further analysis

Status
Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Added to recommended intersection improvement projects. Minor widening to the shoulders and wider travel lanes are recommended. The model does not show future deficient level of service.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

The model supports adding capacity between Fincherville Road and Henry County line.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Private subdivision level improvements are beyond the No scope of the study.

Improved sidewalks are proposed at this location.

Yes

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

97

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvement

Source

20

Need for new recreation facility in area west of Jackson

21

Bike/ped facilities along the Ocmulgee River are desired

The Butts County bike paths need to reflect a connection on High Falls Road across SR 36 to SR 16 then 22 north of SR 16 on England Chapel to SR 42 across Burg to Oak Street back SE on Wolf Creek then on 4Points Road to Stark Road.
RR crossing safety and congestion 23 associated with trains blocking
crossings

Butts County currently does not have 24 an airport; Regional Airport included
in study by Governor' Office

Butts County Advisory Committee Butts County Public Comment
Butts County Advisory Committee
Butts County Advisory Committee
Butts County Staff

Does a Need Exist?

Possible Environmental Impacts?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Status
Bicycle paths are proposed in this vicinity.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan?
Yes

Trails are proposed in this vicinity.

Yes

Yes

No

Proposed bicycle projects reflect this connection.

Yes

Yes

No

Specific railroad locations

have been identified for

Yes

improvements.

No

Yes needs further analysis

The study will defer to the Governor's Regional Airport study findings.

No

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

98

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.0 Improvement Recommendations

Butts County's transportation improvement recommendations are substantiated by the future operating deficiencies identified in Section 15. Deficiencies have been evaluated in the areas of:

Public Transportation; Freight Transport; Airport Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridges; Safety; Roadway Characteristics; and, Roadway Operating Conditions.
Transportation improvements to address deficiencies in several of these categories were identified in Section 15.2 through 15.5. This section will identify the recommended improvements and the estimated costs associated with these improvements.
16.1 Estimated Costs
A necessary element of the LRTP is estimating the costs associated with the numerous recommended improvements. An estimated cost needs to be associated with each project to aid the County in planning for, and funding of, recommended improvements. GDOT is currently updating their cost information; however in 2006 the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) developed a costing tool. This costing tool presents cost estimates for both urban and rural conditions and was the tool used to develop capacity and operational project costs for this study. The rural cost estimates were used for the proposed projects in Butts County. In the case of intersection improvement recommendations, a micro-level analysis and review by a professional engineer is required to make specific recommendations for intersection improvements. For purposes of construction cost estimation for these improvements, a placeholder of $250,000 is used. This estimate represents a reasonable average for intersection improvements but costs could be higher or lower depending on the specifics of the improvement identified (for example, addition of a left-hand turn lane vs. geometric modifications). Construction cost estimates for intersections should be revisited once those improvements are identified.
The estimated costs were generated for planning purposes and may vary from actual costs. The costs of right of way and utilities were omitted from the cost estimates for projects due to the high variation and market changes associated with these costs. Therefore, the estimated costs can be expected to be considerably less than actual costs. Additional variations in cost could be the result of several factors, such as, design or environmental impacts.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

99

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

A review of recent GDOT bridge costs revealed that bridges are generally being constructed for approximately $160 per square foot. In addition, to account for bridges being built wider and longer, it was assumed that bridges would be constructed as fortyfour feet in width for two-lane roadways and 68 feet for four-lane roadways and an additional 10 percent was added to the existing structure length. This total square foot value was used to estimate the cost for improving the deficient bridges in Butts County.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvement cost estimates were developed based on data and research provided by GDOT that included actual costs for similar projects in Georgia and surrounding states in recent years. A per-mile improvement average was developed and applied based on the type of proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvement. Similarly, rail improvement costs were developed based on equipment unit costs applied in other studies.

These estimates were used to develop costs for the recommended improvements presented in Section 16.2 (Table 16.2). These costs should be considered preliminary in nature and taken with appropriate care. Costs do not include right of way or utility relocation. More detailed engineering studies are required to identify highly accurate cost estimates.

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

16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements

Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for Butts County. This information is presented in Table 16.2. This listing includes:

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Operational Improvements (increasing travel lane widths and/or shoulders); Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.

For each recommendation several informational elements were produced including: facility; limits; existing and improved configuration; comments; source; improvement type; need; anticipated benefit; phasing; cost and potential funding sources. For successful

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

100

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

implementation of these projects, it is recommended that additional detailed engineering studies be conducted to determine the most appropriate design, cost and phasing of the particular project. Additionally, successful project implementation will require identified funding mechanisms, political support, and public recognition of the project need and benefit.

Table 16.2 identifies the estimated PE and construction costs of potential projects based on the length that is within the county limits. Most of the potential projects are entirely within Butts County, but there are project that have limits which cross county boundaries. For those projects that cross county boundaries, the estimated PE and construction costs are assigned to individual projects in each county. To calculate the total PE and construction costs for projects that cross county boundaries, the individual projects costs were combined and are contained in the individual project sheets. The recommended improvements which cross the Butts County boundary are identified below to facilitate project coordination with Monroe County, Lamar County, Bibb County, and Henry County; these potential projects include:

High Falls Road from US 23 (Butts County) to I-75 Interchange (Monroe County), see project sheet # B32, B35, M73.
US 23 from County Line Road to SR 16, see project sheet # B33. The Joint Henry County/Cities Comprehensive Transportation Plan identified widening US23/SR42 to its county line and coordination with Henry County and the Atlanta Regional Commission is recommended.
Brownlee Road from Mountain View Road (Butts County) to SR 42 (Monroe County), see project sheet # B37, M64
SR 42 from Mount Vernon Church Road (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County), see project sheet # B40, M63.
US 23 from SR 16 (Butts County) to I-75 Interchange (Bibb County), the total project length is approximately 30.1 miles, of which 8.6 miles in Butts County, 19 miles is in Monroe County, and 2.5 miles is in Bibb County, see project sheet # B36, M59.
Keys Ferry Road from Fincherville Road to Jackson Lake Road, see project sheet #B44. The Joint Henry County/Cities Comprehensive Transportation Plan identified Keys Ferry Road for widening as a low priority and coordination with Henry County and the Atlanta Regional Commission is recommended.
SR 36 from I-75 to SR 16, see project sheet # B55. This is a continuation of the widening of SR 36 from I-75 to the Lamar County line, currently included in the GDOT CWP, referenced in the Recommended Improvements Table (Table 16.2 p. 103) as project #B6. The Lamar, Pike and Upson Counties Regional Transportation Study identified SR 36 for widening to 4 lanes.

Project sheets were developed for all capacity improvement and new roadway projects, and intersection improvement projects. The project sheets include the project limits including logical termini, distance, priority, and jurisdiction. Project sheets are contained in Appendix B.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

101

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Logical Termini

For the roadway capacity improvements, logical termini were developed to help link the long range planning process with National Environmental Policy (NEPA) regulations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations include three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(f) that should used to frame a highway project:

In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:
1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; 2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

Transportation projects that receive federal funds must follow NEPA requirements in order to receive approval from the Federal Highway Administration. Among other environmental studies conducted during the NEPA process, a survey is conducted to assess historic resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Identified historic resources that are National Register eligible properties are given special consideration during the NEPA process and transportation projects must receive State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence before receiving approval. These requirements are in place to identify historic resources, assess impacts, and determine appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic resources.
These principles were factored into the project development process. Recommended roadway improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.1 and recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.2.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

102

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

B1

SR 16

B2

SR 36

B3

SR 36 Passing Lanes

B4

SR 42 Passing Lanes

B5

South Jackson Bypass

B6

SR 36

B32 England Chapel/High Falls Road

B33 US23

B34 US23

B35 High Falls Road

B37 Brownlee Road

B38 SR 16

B39 Halls Bridge Road

B40 SR 42

B42 Kinards Mill Road

B44 Keys Ferry Road

B46 SR 16

B47 SR 16

B55 SR36

Segment Limits

From

To

I-75 SR 16 North of Jackson Jackson SR 16 at Bert Road I-75 SR 36 County Line Road SR16 SR 36 Mountain View Road Wallace Road Stark Road Monroe County Line Colwell Road Jackson Lake Road Imagene Goff Rd. US 23/SR 42 I-75

City of Jackson limits CR 289/Stark Road Newton County line Jenkinsburg SR 16 at Bibb Station Road SR 18/Lamar County line US23 SR16 Monroe County Line Monroe County Line Monroe County Line I-75 Interchange Pratt Smith Road Mt Vernon Church Road High Falls Road Fincherville Road US 23/ SR 42 SR 16/ US 23 SR16

Existing Configuration

Improved Configuration

2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes N/A 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 4-lane, Divided 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes

4-lane, Divided One-way pair Passing Lanes Passing Lanes 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 6-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided

Notes/Comments
6.98 miles 0.65 miles 2.00 miles 2.50 miles 8.00 miles 8.53 miles 6.32 miles 5.88 miles 8.60 miles 3.40 miles 2.66 miles 1.24 miles 1.92 miles 2.25 miles 2.01 miles 1.13 miles 0.56 miles 1.19 miles 8.45 miles

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

B35, M73 Henry County M59 B32, M73 M64
M63
Henry County B47 B46 Lamar County

CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening New Road Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening

Operational Improvements B48 Lamars Mill Road B51 Mt Vernon Church Road B52 SR 42 B53 Stark Road

Vickers Road High Falls Road US 23 Four Points Road

Dodson Road SR 42 Mt Vernon Church Road Barnetts Bridge Road

< ideal typical section < ideal typical section < ideal typical section < ideal typical section

12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders 12' lanes and 2' paved shoulders

3.46 miles 4.47 miles 2.54 miles 1.58 miles

Comment Sub-Standard Typical Section

B52

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

B51

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

Analysis Sub-Standard Typical Section

Intersection/Geometric Improvements B15 SR 42/ US 23 B16 SR 16 E B17 High Falls Road B18 US 23 B19 SR 16 B20 SR 42/US 23N B21 SR 42 B22 SR 16 B23 SR 16 B24 SR 36 B25 SR 16 B26 SR 42 B28 SR 36 B29 SR 16 B30 Shiloh Road B31 SR16

England Chapel Road SR 42 S England Chapel Road SR 42 McDonough Road SR 16 W Shiloh Road SR 36 S/ Mulberry Street England Chapel Road Fincherville Road Higgins Road Cenie Road Old Bethel Church Road Shiloh Road Honeysuckle Lane/Tara Road SR36N

24 crashes 43 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 21 crashes 17 crashes 0 crashes 13 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 23 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 38 crashes

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

Bridge Improvements B13 Fill Bridge Road B7 SR 36 B14 Colwell Road B8 SR 36 B9 SR 36 B103 Lake Clark Road B104 Kinards Mill Road B105 Wolf Creek Road B10 SR 36 B107 Halls Bridge Road B108 Wildwood Road B109 Spring Road

Towaliga River Tributary Towaliga River Cabin Creek Yellow Water Creek South River Big Sandy Creek Towaliga River Wolf Creek Tussahaw Creek Yellow Water Creek Caney Fork Creek Big Sandy Creek Tributary

378 sq ft 5,454 sq ft 4,450 sq ft 2,454 sq ft 12,847 sq ft 2,825 sq ft 6,091 sq ft 4,896 sq ft 3,853 sq ft 3,488 sq ft 643 sq ft 858 sq ft

25.08 sufficiency rating 46.32 sufficiency rating B3 47.18 sufficiency rating 47.39 sufficiency rating 47.86 sufficiency rating 52.35 sufficiency rating 53.08 sufficiency rating 55.50 sufficiency rating 58.40 sufficiency rating 61.61 sufficiency rating 65.35 sufficiency rating 68.78 sufficiency rating

Analysis CWP Analysis CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

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

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

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

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

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$31,051,000 $11,940,000
$8,014,000 $9,066,000 $22,247,000 $1,306,300 $25,280,000 $23,520,000 $34,400,000 $13,600,000 $10,640,000 $4,960,000 $7,680,000 $9,000,000 $8,040,000 $4,520,000 $2,240,000 $4,760,000 $33,800,000 $266,064,300

$9,618,800 $12,426,600
$7,061,200 $4,392,400 $33,499,000

$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $4,000,000

$209,088 $3,100,000 $1,723,392 $2,386,000 $2,182,500
$875,072 $1,455,872 $1,239,040
$799,000 $1,364,352
$162,624 $255,552 $15,752,492

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

103

Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements

B61 SR 42 (Indian Springs) Sidewalks

B62 SR 42 (Indian Springs) Sidewalks

B63 McDonough Road Sidewalks

B64 Stark Road Sidewalks

B65 Shiloh Road Sidewalks

B66 S. Harkness Street Sidewalks

B67 Buttrill Road Sidewalks

B68 Brownlee Road Sidewalks

B69 Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B70 Pathway to Learning Sidewalks

B71 Franklin Avenue Sidewalks

B72 SR 42 Sidewalks

B73 Nelson Street Sidewalks

B74 SR 16 Sidewalks

B75 SR 16 Sidewalks

B76 N. Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B77 Heard Street Sidewalks

B78 Heard Street Sidewalks

B79 Jackson Lake Loop Bicycle Lane

B80 High Falls Road Bicycle Lane

B81 Stark Road/ SR36/ Brownlee Road Bicycle Lane

B82 Jackson Lake to Indian Springs Bicycle Lane

B83 SR 42 Bicycle Lane

B84 Proposed South Jackson Bypass Bicycle Lane

B85 McIntosh Indian Trail Proposed Scenic Byway Bike Lane

B86 Through the County Loop Bike Lane

B87 Ocmulgee River Trail Bike Lane

B97 S. Mulberry Street Sidewalks

B98 George Tate Drive Sidewalks

B99 Garden Walk Multi-Use Path

Segment Limits

From

To

Cenie Road Indian Spring St Park N Sylvan Drive SR 36 Daughtry Elementary School SR 16 Bob White Drive Viewpoint Drive Brownlee Road Jackson High School Freeman Street Nelson Street Franklin Avenue Carolina Avenue Eighth Street 1st Street McGee Street Lee Street SR 16 Mt Vernon Rd Stark Rd SR 16 Indian Spring St Pk N entr. SR 16 West of Jackson SR 42 High Falls Rd Ocmulgee River Park Brownlee Road S Mulberry St Garden Walk subdiv.

Indian Spring St Park N Potts Road SR 16 Regal Drive Honeysuckle Lane existing sidewalk George Tate Drive Mulberry Street Hancock Street Fairgrounds Indian Springs Street SR 16 SR 42 Eighth Street Halls Bridge Road N. Mulberry Elementary School Beaty Street Nesby Watson SR 36 east Monroe Co line Mt Vernon Rd Indian Springs Pk N entr. Monroe Co. line SR16 East of Jackson Spalding County line Stark Road Monroe County Cherokee Rose Dr Clyde's Way Brownlee Rd

Existing Configuration
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

Improved Configuration
Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet add 4-foot bicycle lane widen shoulders 2-4 feet widen shoulders 2-4 feet Multi-Use Path on Western Shore Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path

Notes/Comments
0.4 mile 0.2 mile 0.8 mile 1.3 miles 0.7 mile 0.5 mile 0.3 mile 1.1 miles 0.05 mile 2.6 miles 0.5 mile 0.3 mile 0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.4 mile 0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.6 mile 10.4 miles 0.9 miles 10.2 miles 7.2 miles 3.4 miles 8.1 miles 15.5 miles 14.5 miles 13.3 miles 0.6 mile 0.4 mile 0.4 mile

Rail Improvements B88 Heard Street B89 Bunch Road B90 Wolf Creek Road B91 Covington Street B92 Benton Street B93 3rd Street B94 Bibb Station Road B95 Cork Road B96 Mt. Pleasant Church Road

Crossing #718461W Crossing 718446U Crossing 718445M Crossing #718448H Crossing #718449P Crossing #718450J Crossing 718456A Crossing #718467M Crossing #718468U

Overpass-low clearance X-bucks, stop sign Gates,x-bucks,lights Gates.x-bucks,lights Gates,x-bucks, lights Gates,x-bucks,lights,signs X-bucks,stop signs X-bucks,stop sign Gates,x-bucks,lights

Requires further study Add adv warn signs; mark/sign x-ing Add adv warn signs; mark all app's Add adv warn signs/mark NB app Add adv warn signs 3 approaches Add adv warn signs-Lyons EB app Review/safety features warranted Requires further study Add adv warn signs EB approach

Short-term proj est only. Further review needed

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

Local Project B68 and B70
B5 B70

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Local Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Analysis Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane Bike lane SIdewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk

GDOT/NS Rail GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT/NS Rail GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Requires further study Install signage;add warning signs Install adv. warning signage Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warning signage Review for safety features Requires further study Install adv warn signs/markings

Need
Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities Bike/Ped Facilities
Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

Anticipated Benefit
Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System
Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations Improved Safety & Operations

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$80,000 $20,000 $160,000 $260,000 $70,000 $50,000 $30,000 $220,000
$5,000 $520,000 $100,000
$60,000 $100,000 $100,000
$40,000 $100,000
$50,000 $120,000 $1,560,000 $135,000 $1,530,000 $1,080,000 $510,000 $1,215,000 $2,325,000 $2,175,000 $1,995,000 $120,000
$80,000 $140,000 $14,950,000

$0 $3,150 $2,400
$600 $1,800
$600 $0 $0
$600 $9,150
$334,274,942

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

104

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
105

F
Figure No: 16.2.1

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
106

F
Figure No: 16.2.2

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations

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

US 23 from County Line Road to SR 16 SR 16 from Imagene Goff Road to US 23/SR 42 SR 16 from US 23/SR 42 to SR 16/US 23 SR 42 from Mount Vernon Church Road to US 23 SR 36 from I-75 to SR 16

The recommended improvements will improve safety, mobility, and access for all users on a county-wide basis. These projects include the need for roadway widening and the possibility of additional right of way. Additional projects that will benefit the EJ communities include: bicycle and pedestrian improvements and numerous safety and capacity enhancements throughout the study area, as shown in Table 16.2. Figure 16.3 shows the recommended projects in the vicinity of the EJ areas.

Sidewalks SR 42 (Indian Springs from Cenie Road to Indian Springs State Park N McDonough Road from Sylvan Drive to SR 16 Stark Road from SR 36 to Regal Drive Shiloh Road from Daughtry Elementary School to Honeysuckle Lane S. Harkness Street from SR 16 to existing sidewalk Buttrill Road from Bob White Drive to George Tate Drive Pathway to Learning from Jackson High School to Fairgrounds Franklin Avenue from Freeman Street to Indian Springs Street SR 42 from Nelson Street to SR 16 Nelson Street from Franklin Avenue to SR 42 SR 16 from Carolina Avenue to Eighth Street SR 16 from Eighth Street to Halls Bridge Road N. Mulberry Street from 1st Street to N. Mulberry Elementary School

Bike routes Stark Road/ SR36/ Brownlee Road Jackson Lake to Indian Springs SR 42 Proposed South Jackson Bypass Through the County Loop

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

107

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Butts County Environmental Justice Evaluation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
108

F
Figure No: 16.3

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.0 Project Prioritization

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

17.1 Corridor Prioritization
Qualitative and quantitative evaluation factors were established so that the potential improvements for Butts County could be evaluated objectively by County staff. These factors were developed by the study team with the assistance of the Study Advisory Group (see Table 13, p. 72 for SAG Members). This evaluation serves as a ranking for potential projects, resulting in a prioritization of improvement options to meet the County's transportation needs. Prioritization criteria were developed for four types of projects roadway capacity, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, intersections, and bridges.
Qualitative Criteria Qualitative criteria were established to evaluate the deficient corridors based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the qualitative criteria established for the roadway network improvement evaluation. These correspond to the vision established in the Goals and Objectives documented in Section 14.0.

Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) / National Highway System Supports Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor Connectivity Construction Designs in Progress Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions
By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as an input for prioritizing projects. Table 17.1.1 displays the qualitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Qualitative Criteria range from 0 to 36 points. These points were added to the points received from the Quantitative Criteria, which are documented on the following pages.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

109

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Is the proposed project a continuation of any previously completed or current project providing added lanes to the specific transportation corridor? Governor's Road Improvement Program/National Highway System Is the project identified as a GRIP Corridor or part of the National Highway System? Supports Comprehensive Plan Does the proposed project support the Comprehensive Plan? Right of Way Protection Corridor Is the proposed project located in a developing area where right of way protection or early acquisition is needed? Connectivity Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing or proposed projects or provide regional connectivity? Construction Designs in Progress Are the design plans for the proposed project already complete or in the process of being completed? Parallel Relief Does the proposed project provide relief to parallel congested/ deficient corridors? Protection of Downtown Does the proposed project enhance the quality of life in downtown areas? Ideal Typical Section Does the proposed project address upgrading sub standard roadway segments? Development Conditions A - Is the proposed project located within a development area, or, is the specific project part of an approved plan for the redevelopment or revitalization of a developed area, or does the specific project provide access infrastructure to a mixed-use project area?

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

B - Does the proposed project maintain the distinct rural or suburban areas of the County?

No = 0 Yes = 2

C - Has the proposed project coordinated with, or support, land use decisions in the area?
Sub-Total Possible Points

No = 0 Yes = 2
36

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

Volume to Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate (Number of Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles
Traveled) to Statewide Crash Rate Average Number of Fatalities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

110

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.2 displays the quantitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Quantitative Criteria range from 0 to 25 points.

Table 17.1.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring

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

Possible Points
0.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
1 3 25

The total points that a facility can receive for both the qualitative and quantitative criteria is 61 points. Based upon the identified improvements and the evaluations made during the quantitative and qualitative evaluation, a set of recommended near, mid, and long-term transportation projects was established. The scoring for the deficient corridors is displayed in Table 17.1.3.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

111

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Segment Limits

Table 17.1.3 Corridor Prioritization

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Qualitative Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project
Governor's Road Improvement Program / National Highway System
Part of Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor
Connectivit y Construction Designs in Progress
Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown
Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions Community Preservation Transportation Land Use Linkage Sub-Total Qualitative Criteria
Quantitative Criteria
Expected 2035 Volume/Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate to Statewide
Crash Rate Number of Fatalities Sub-Total Quantitative Criteria
Total Score for Project

Project

Ref.

Facility

From

To

No.

B33 US23

County Line Road

B46 SR 16

Imagene Goff Road

B47 SR 16

US 23/SR 42

B34 US23

SR 16

B51 Mt Vernon Church Road

High Falls Road

B35 High Falls Road

SR 36

B55 SR36

I-75

B38 SR 16

Wallace Road

B42 Kinards Mill Road

Colwell Road

B32 High Falls/England Chapel Road US23

B40 SR 42

Monroe County Line

B52 SR 42

US 23

B44 Keys Ferry Road

Jackson Lake Road

B37 Brownlee Road

Mountain View Road

B39 Halls Bridge Road

Stark Road

B53 Stark Road

Four Points Road

B48 Lamars Mill Road

Vickers Road

SR16 US 23/ SR 42 SR 16/ US 23 Monroe County Line SR 42 Monroe County Line SR 16 I-75 Interchange High Falls Road SR 36 Mt Vernon Church Road Mt Vernon Church Road Fincherville Road Monroe County Line Pratt Smith Road Barnetts Bridge Road Dodson Road

0-4

0-2

0-3 0-3 0-4 0-2 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-2 0-2 0-2

23.00

27.00

21.00

21.00

23.00

19.00

21.00

11.00

21.00

19.00

19.00

21.00

15.00

15.00

11.00

8.00

4.00

0.94 1.19 2 0.67 2.40 0 1.07 15.61 0 0.98 0.32 2 1.12 0.09 0 1.05 0.22 2 1.03 0.77 0 1.68 0.55 0 0.85 0.03 0 0.91 0.35 1 0.83 0.18 1 0.22 0.77 0 0.78 0.61 0 0.81 0.29 0 0.71 0.19 0 0.35 1.36 0 0.23 0.0 0

12 35

7

34

13 34

11.5 32.5

9.5 32.5

12.5 31.5

9

30

19 30

7.5 28.5

9

28

8

27

1

22

7

22

7

22

6

17

3.5 11.5

0

4

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

112

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The prioritization resulted in the following ranking of top roadway improvements:

US 23 from County Line Road to SR 16 SR 16 from Imagene Goff Rd. to US 23/SR 42 SR 16 from US 23/SR 42 to SR 16/US 23 US 23 from SR 16 to Monroe County Line Mount Vernon Church Road from High Falls Road to SR 42 High Falls Road from SR 36 to Monroe County line SR 36 from I-75 to SR 16 SR 16 from Wallace Road to I-75 Interchange Kinards Mill Road from Colwell Road to High Falls Road England Chapel/High Falls Road from SR 36 to US 23 SR 42 from Monroe County Line to Mount Vernon Church Road SR 42 from US 23 to Mount Vernon Church Road Keys Ferry Road from Jackson Lake Road to Fincherville Road Brownlee Road from Mountain View Road to Monroe County line

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

17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization

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

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

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

113

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

as a means for prioritizing projects. Table 17.2.1 documents the scoring used for the bicycle and pedestrian prioritization and Tables 17.2.2 and 17.2.3 display the scoring applied to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Table 17.2.1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria

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

Possible Points No = 0
Partial = 5 Yes = 10 None = 0 Injury = 5
Fatality = 10
No = 0 Yes = 5
No = 0 Yes = # * 2
No = 0 Yes = # * 2

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

Pedestrian: Pathway to Learning from Jackson High School to Fairgrounds SR 16 from Carolina Avenue to Eighth Street Stark Road from SR 36 to Regal Drive S. Harkness from Street SR 16 to existing sidewalk George Tate Drive from S. Mulberry Street to Clyde's Way N. Mulberry Street from 1st Street to N. Mulberry Elementary School Mulberry Street from Brownlee Road to Hancock Street

Bicycle: Stark Road/SR 36 Brownlee Road Jackson Lake to Indian Springs

The remaining bicycle and pedestrian improvements scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority. Some bicycle projects that exist along corridor widening project routes can expect earlier implementation due to GDOTs procedure of bike lane inclusion during programmed widening projects.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

114

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization

Road

From

To

Pathway to Learning Jackson High School

Fairgrounds

SR 16 Stark Road S. Harkness Street N. Mulberry Street
George Tate Drive Mulberry Street Brownlee Road SR 16 S. Mulberry Street McDonough Road Shiloh Road
Buttrill Road Franklin Avenue Nelson Street Garden Walk
SR 42 (Indian Springs) SR 42 (Indian Springs) SR 42 Heard Street Heard Street

Carolina Avenue SR 36 SR 16 1st Street
S. Mulberry Street Brownlee Road Viewpoint Drive Eighth Street Brownlee Road Sylvan Drive Daughtry Elementary School Bob White Drive Freeman Street Franklin Avenue Garden Walk Subdivision
Cenie Road
Indian Spring St Park N

Eighth Street Regal Drive existing sidewalk N. Mulberry Elementary School Clyde's Way Hancock Street Mulberry Street Halls Bridge Road Cherokee Rose Drive SR 16 Honeysuckle Lane
George Tate Drive Indian Springs Street SR 42 Brownlee Road and new school Indian Spring St Park N Potts Road

Nelson Street McGee Street Lee Street

SR 16 Beaty Street Nesby Watson

Priority Area

Injury / Connectivity Previously O & D

Fatality

Id

Score
27 26 21 21 21 21 19 16 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 14
11
11 4 4 4

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

115

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.2.3 Bicycle Prioritization

Route Name Stark Road/ SR36/ Brownlee Road
Jackson Lake to Indian Springs Jackson Lake Loop
High Falls Road Proposed South Jackson Bypass
McIntosh Indian Trail Proposed Scenic Byway
SR 42 Through the County Loop
Ocmulgee River Trail

Description
Begin on Stark Road at Big Dam Road; Stark Road to SR 36 in Jackson; SR 36 south through Jackson to Brownlee Road; Brownlee Road to Mount Vernon Shortcut; Mount Vernon Shortcut to Mount Vernon Road SR 16 from Big Dam Road to Higgins Road; Higgins Road to SR 42; SR 42 to Indian Springs Park North Entrance SR 16 Jasper County Line to Big Dam Road; Big Dam Road to Barnett Bridge/Stark Road; follow Barnett Bridge/Stark Road east and turn north to SR 36; SR 36 east to Jasper County Line Mount Vernon Road to Monroe County Line (to join to Monroe County project) Begins at SR 16 west of Jackson on new location south of Jackson and ends at SR 16 east of Jackson. Consider bicycle facility connection to Indian Springs State Park once bypass alignment is determined. Begin SR 42 and Cenie Road; Cenie Road to Mt. Vernon Road; Mt. Vernon Road to High Falls Road; High Falls Road to Kinards Mill Road; Kinards Mill Road to Patillo Road; Patillo Road to Buckshort Road; Bucksnort Road to Spalding County Line Begin at Indian Springs State Park North Entrance and go south to Monroe County Line Begin at High Falls Road at Kinards Mill Road; High Falls to England Chapel; England Chapel north to Burg Road; Burg Road to Singley Drive/Woodward Road; Singley Drive/Woodward Road east to Wolf Creek Road; Wolf Creek/Old Bethel/4-Points to end at Stark Road. Ocmulgee River Park on Jackson Lake south to Monroe County Line

Priority Area

Injury / Fatality

Previously

Connectivity

Id

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

O & D 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3

Score 16 12 10 10 10
10 9 9 1

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

116

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.3 Intersection Prioritization
Criteria were established to evaluate the potential intersection improvements based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the criteria established for the intersection evaluation. These correspond to the established Goals and Objectives and project evaluation factors.
What is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the facility? How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2003 and 2005? Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?
By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means of prioritizing projects. Table 17.3.1 documents the scoring used for the intersection prioritization and Table 17.3.2 displays the scoring applied to the proposed intersection improvements.
Table 17.3.1 Intersection Scoring Criteria

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
AADT What is the Average AADT at the intersection?
Crashes How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2004 and 2006?
Fatality Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Previously Identified Improvement Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Improvement Opportunities Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?

Possible Points
> 6,000 = 5 6,000 - 4,000 = 4 4,000 - 2,000 = 2
< 2,000 = 0 > 25 = 10
25 - 20 = 5 20 - 15 = 2
<15 = 0 No = 0 Yes = 10 No = 0 Yes = 5 No = 0 Yes = 5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

117

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Project Ref. No.
B31 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B26 B20 B21 B23 B24 B25 B28 B29
B30
B22

Road
SR 16 SR 42/ US 23 SR 16 E High Falls Road US 23 SR 16 SR 42 SR 42/US 23N SR 42 SR 16 SR 36 SR 16 SR 36 SR 16
Shiloh Road
SR 16

Table 17.3.2 Intersection Prioritization

Intersection

Average

Active

AADT Crash Sites

SR 36 N

5110

38

England Chapel Road

4052

24

SR 42 S

3886

43

England Chapel Road

1986

0

SR 42

1464

0

McDonough Road

6124

21

Cenie Road

1106

0

SR 16 W

4591

17

Shiloh Road

2920

0

England Chapel Road

4562

0

Fincherville Road

1776

0

Higgins Road

1032

0

Old Bethel Church Road

1803

23

Shiloh Road

6840

0

Honeysuckle Lane/ Tara Road

6818

0

SR 36 S/ Mulberry Street

5110

13

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

County / City List

Improvement Opportunity

Score
19 14 12 10 10 10 10 7 7 5 5 5 5 5
5
4

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

118

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The prioritization scoring resulted in the following ranking of intersection improvements:
SR 16 and SR 36 N SR 42/ US 23 and England Chapel Road SR 16 E and SR 42 S High Falls Road and England Chapel Road US 23 and SR 42 SR 16 and McDonough Road SR 42 and Cenie Road
The remaining intersections scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

17.4 Bridge Prioritization
Bridges with a sufficiency rating of 75 or lower were recommended for improvements. The sufficiency rating was also used to prioritize the bridges in need of rehabilitation or maintenance. The lower the sufficiency rating, the higher the improvement priority. Bridges that are italicized are on the state system. The prioritization scoring resulted in the following ranking of bridge improvements:
Fill Bridge Road at Towaliga River Tributary SR 36 at Towaliga River Colwell Road at Cabin Creek SR 36 at Yellow Water Creek SR 36 at South River Lake Clark Road at Big Sandy Creek Kinards Mill Road at Towaliga River Wolf Creek Road at Wolf Creek SR 36 at Tussahaw Creek Halls Bridge Road at Yellow Water Creek Wildwood Road at Caney Fork Creek Spring Road at Big Sandy Creek Tributary

The remaining bridges have a higher sufficiency rating and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

119

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

18.0 Funding

Several funding sources will be utilized to implement recommended projects. Eligibility for funds is typically dictated by the agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the transportation facility in question. Most major facilities in Butts County are either operated by GDOT or the County. Should the County desire to accelerate projects on state owned and maintained facilities, it is highly likely that overmatching of local funds could accelerate the process.
Funding for most transportation projects in the County has historically come in part through GDOT. To understand the ability of GDOT to continue to provide funds to Butts County, it is useful to understand the components of GDOT funding. Key components include:

Federal Title I Apportionments; State Motor Fuels Taxes;

} Accounts for approximately 98% of the budget

State License Tag Fees;

State Title Registrations;

State Motor Carrier Fuels Tax;

State Personal Property Tax; and,

Tax Allocation Districts.

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

While GDOT funding components have positive growth rates, the Department is experiencing some funding challenges. Construction costs have increased up to 65% over the past two to three years forcing the Department to continually assess which projects it can reasonably fund. Simultaneous to this study, the State's Project Prioritization Process for transportation is under study, and it is expected that the outcomes will significantly impact the amount and type of projects that GDOT funds in the future. It is anticipated that in the future local funding sources will become more significant. A review of project implementation shows that locations with a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) have been in the best position to leverage funds and ultimately construct projects.

18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation

A substantial portion of GDOT funding comes from the Federal Government through Federal Title I Apportionments. The primary funding source for Title I is the Federal gasoline tax collected at the state level. The US Congress authorizes federal transportation funding to the states and other public entities, generally every six years. The previous authorization was known as the "Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century" or TEA 21. The reauthorization of TEA 21 in August 2005 was SAFETEA-LU

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

120

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

which authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005 through 2009.

Based on the reauthorization, Table 18.1 illustrates funding levels for major highway transportation programs and apportionments and allocations to Georgia over the five-year time frame (FY 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009).

Table 18.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations

Area

Georgia*

Interstate Maintenance

$922

National Highway System

$859

Surface Transportation System

$1,119

Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation

$272

Congress Mitigation & Air Quality

$186

Appalachian Development Highway System

$90

Recreational Trails

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$37

Safety

$141

Rail Highway Crossings

$30

Safe Route to Schools

$18

High Priority Projects

$350

Equity Bonus

$2,324

Total

$6,356

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

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

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

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

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

121

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

develop corridor management plans to protect the natural and cultural assets along the route.

Transportation Enhancement Program (TE Funds) - Currently, the TE Grant Program provides federal transportation funds through GDOT to local governments through a competitive process for non-highway projects. Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, multi-use trails, the preservation of historic sites related to transportation, etc.

18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation

The need for better mobility and access to transportation extends far beyond city limits. In Butts County, a very limited amount of public transportation services are available for people who cannot or choose not to drive their private autos. As the population grows and demographic trends change with a larger percentage of the population being elderly, the needs for special public transit to serve seniors and disabled people will grow.

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

As Butts County evolves, the County should monitor its needs for local and regional public transportation services and identify opportunities to tap into the available federal sources for these programs. Table 18.2 shows the estimated federal funds included in SAFETEALU. Generally, for public transit projects proposed in Butts County, the federal funding programs will be the Non-Urbanized Area Program; the Rural Transit Assistance Program; Transit for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Job Access and Reverse Commute; and SAFETEA-LU's New Freedom Program.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

122

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 18.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation

Area

Georgia*

Urban Areas

$308

Fixed Guideway Motorization

$150

Non-Urbanized Areas

$62

Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)

$1

Job Access/Reverse Commute Program

$13

Elderly & Persons with Disabilities

$12

New Freedoms

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$9

State Planning

$2

Total

$567

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

US* $12,723 $6,076 $1,880 $29 $603 $490 $339 $343 $72 $22,598

18.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation

State funding for transportation projects in Georgia is derived from the following sources:

State tax on motor fuels (7.5 cents per gallon)(provides majority of revenue); State license tag fees; State title registrations; State motor carrier fuels tax; and, State personal property tax.

It is also useful to note that Georgia currently has one of the nation's lowest state motor fuels taxes, excluding sales taxes. Even when including the additional 4% sales tax, Georgia's motor fuel taxes are the third lowest in the US.

A major element of Georgia's Statewide Transportation Plan is the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP). The program is viewed as a priority funding program for GDOT. The GRIP program was started in 1989 through action by the Georgia Legislature. The program's goal is to connect 95% of the state's cities with a population of 2,500 or more to the Interstate Highway System through a four-lane facility.

18.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation

Local governments (cities and counties) receive revenues from a number of sources to support the public facilities and services they provide to citizens. These sources include federal and state funds, "own source" funds, such as property tax revenues and other monies, and discretionary grant funds from federal and/or state agencies.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

123

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Increasingly, counties in Georgia, like Butts, have enacted a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax, or SPLOST, to fund specifically identified capital projects. SPLOST taxes require voter approval and are time-limited. SPLOST funds can be used for transportation projects, including matching federal and/or state transportation funds. A portion of Butts County's SPLOST funding goes to transportation improvements. Cities and counties may also use Local Option Sales Taxes (LOST) for transportation purposes, including providing local matching funds for GDOT projects. Other local sources of transportation funding include impact fees or other exactions paid by developers according to local ordinances and the creation of self-taxing entities, such as Community Improvement Districts. In addition, counties in Georgia may issue general obligation bonds to support transportation capital projects.

County governments use a portion of their own revenues for transportation-related purposes, including capital projects, and operations and maintenance of transportation facilities within their own jurisdiction. A key determinant of the ability to improve an area's transportation facilities is the availability of local funds to match state and/or federal transportation funds. Data on the County's expenditures for transportation were not available.

According to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the County's "own source" revenues, including revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, excise and special use taxes and service charges and fees were estimated. Own source revenues are relevant because a portion of these funds could be provided as local matching funds for federally and state-funded transportation improvements or for locally-funded projects, depending on the County's other funding priorities. Table 18.4 illustrates this data. In 2004, Butts County had per capita own source amounts of $897, which is greater than the statewide revenue per capita of $736.

Table 18.4 Own Source Revenues

County

2000 Own Source
Revenues

Butts County

$13.8 million

* Statewide per capita amount equals $631. Source: Georgia Department of Community Affairs

2004 Own Source
Revenues
$19.8 million

% Change from 1996
to 2000

Per Capita Amount*

43.8%

$897

18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

124

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

In its 2008-2011 STIP, GDOT estimated that nearly $9.5 billion were allocated for various transportation functions throughout Georgia. Table 18.5.1 shows the allocation of these funds across major functional areas.
Table 18.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)

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

Amount Allocated $1,273,880,000 $3,239,680,000 $969,770,000 $560,049,000 $911,204,000 $495,397,000 $957,176,000 $1,052,411,000 $9,459,567,000

Percent of Total 13.47% 34.25% 10.25% 5.92% 9.63% 5.24% 10.12% 11.13% 100.00%

Additionally, GDOT develops a Construction Work Program, a listing of projects expected to be funded within a six-year period (current year plus five subsequent years). The fourth, fifth, and sixth years of the CWP are viewed as an expression of GDOT's intention to proceed with the projects as funding becomes available to develop the projects (complete engineering design, acquire right-of-way, if needed, and construct the improvement). These projects are documented in this Plan.

According to GDOT's latest STIP, a total of 6 major projects for Butts County have been programmed utilizing nearly $84 million in federal and state funds. Table 18.5.2 summarizes these programmed amounts.

Table 18.5.2 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Project SR 16 from I-75 to City of Jackson SR 36 from SR 16 to CR 289/Stark Road SR 36 eastbound and westbound passing lanes SR 42/US 23 passing lanes Jackson South Bypass from SR 16 at Bert Road to SR 16 at Bibb Station Road SR 36 from I-75 to SR 18/Lamar County TOTAL PROGRAMMED FUNDS

Total Funds Programmed
$31,051,000 $11,940,000
$8,014,000 $9,066,000 $22,247,000 $1,306,300
$83,624,300

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

125

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

18.7 Effective Use of the Plan
This LRTP Document identifies potential projects for implementation based on local transportation needs and verified by technical analysis. This is an important step towards implementation but additional steps are necessary in order to advance projects into the Georgia Department of Transportation's Project Development Process and / or to identify and solidify funding commitments from the state, if desired. The project implementation process for Georgia outside of an MPO area begins with support from local elected officials. Each County should begin with a thorough review of their LRTP priority projects. If funding is desired beyond what is available locally, the following steps are recommended:

Step 1: Gather letters of support from local elected officials highlighting the need for the project(s) and the merits of the project(s).
Step 2: Assess the level of funding support that may be provided by the County as a local match and / or for specific project phases (i.e. PE, ROW, etc.).
Step 3: Contact your GDOT District Office and coordinate with the GDOT District Engineer regarding the project. Depending on project type, the GDOT District may know of state aid resources that could be used for feasibility studies and potentially for additional match funding sources.
Step 4: The GDOT District Office typically serves as the project sponsor and submits a project information package to GDOT's Project Nominating Review Committee (PNRC) for consideration. The information included in the long-range plan and the project sheet, in addition to any supporting information resulting from additional study, is included in this package.
Step 5: Projects approved by the PNRC are programmed into GDOT's Long-Range Program. As funding is identified, the project will move into GDOT's six-year Construction Work Program (CWP).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

126

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

19.0 Conclusions

Growth in Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand through the 3-County Region. GDOT Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study to develop a LRTP to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon, 2035. Recommended projects for Butts County were identified by analyzing current transportation deficiencies and selected based on local goals and objectives with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.
The study team coordinated with GDOT, Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, cities including Jackson, Flovilla, and Jenkinsburg, area residents and business leaders, and other partners in the planning, development, and review of potential improvements. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to each County's transportation network.
The end product for this study is this LRTP document, providing for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Butts County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian, freight, transit, rail and airports.
This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for Butts County's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

127

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix A
Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Data Collection
The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study includes multi-modal analysis of existing conditions and future transportation needs related to roadways, bridges, public transportation, freight, airports, railroads, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities for development of a long-range transportation plan with a horizon year of 2035. HNTB, with assistance from the Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) Office of Planning, has worked with various contacts at GDOT, the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC), McIntosh Trail RDC, Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties, and City governments as appropriate to obtain relevant information for use in the existing and future conditions analysis. These data sources include transportation related data and statistics, generated at the federal, state, and local levels, County and local comprehensive plans, existing and future land use plans, and special studies related to transportation and development projects, if applicable. This memorandum provides a summary of the information collected for use in the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study.
Land Use, Socioeconomic, Growth and Development Data
Locally developed comprehensive plans provide information on both existing and future land use within each county and local jurisdiction. The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study will factor in goals, objectives, and policies associated with each relevant comprehensive plan in order to develop a transportation plan that is consistent with the broader goals and objectives of each county and appropriately integrates future growth plans and projections. Information including existing zoning, local developments, county employment, socioeconomic characteristics, and school related data is also important to understanding county land use and needs related to future growth.
Table 1 summarizes the relevant materials related to land use, growth, and development that have been collected for use in the plan's development.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 1: Land Use, Employment, Growth, and Development Data Sources

Document/Dataset Butts County Draft Comprehensive Plan

Source McIntosh Trail RDC

Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Assessment and Community Participation Program Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Agenda Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for Monroe County Monroe County Existing Land Use Map Monroe County Future Lane Use Map Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for the City of Forsyth City of Forsyth Zoning Map The Middle Georgia Joint Regional Plan And Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Butts County Generalized Water Map Rosehill DRI Information School enrollment 2005-2006 County Employment Data
Georgia K-12 Schools (2006) Census Blockgroups (2001) Census Journey to Work Data

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Butts County GDOT GA Dept of Education GA Dept of Labor GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse U.S. Census Bureau

Format Microsoft Word Document JPEG Images PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Map PDF Document PDF Map/DB Tables Microsoft Excel Files GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile Database Tables

Roadways and Bridges

Roadway characteristics, functional classification data, and traffic counts are essential to the existing and future needs analysis as well as the development of the travel demand model. This information was obtained from GDOT's Office of Transportation Data (OTD). Bridge sufficiency and crash data were also obtained from GDOT for use in the analysis of existing and future deficiencies. Planned and programmed projects currently included in GDOT's long-range and construction work program (CWP) for each of the three counties were also obtained for analysis.

Table 2 summarizes data source related to roadway and bridge information.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 2: Roadway and Bridge Data Sources

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Document/Dataset
Functional Classification Maps- Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Road Characteristics Data Bridge Sufficiency Data CARE Crash Data Macon-Bibb Travel Demand Model ARC Travel Demand Model Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts Special Studies Counts for High Falls Rd and SR 16
Construction Work Program (CWP) Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Pre-construction Status Report Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties South Jackson Bypass Concept Report and Potential Corridor Concept Layout on aerial photography Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application - Butts County Roads & Highways Tiger (2005) Bridges (2000)

Source GDOT OTD
GDOT OTD GDOT GDOT GDOT ARC GDOT OTD GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
Butts County
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse

Format PDF Maps
Database Tables Database Tables Database Tables Network Files Network Files Database Tables Database Tables/PDF Docs Database Tables
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

Other Modes

Data relevant to Airports, Railroads, Freight, Public Transportation, Bicycle, and Pedestrian was collected and compiled to support the development of the multi-modal elements of the plan. Data sources are presented by mode in Tables 3 through 7.

Table 3: Aviation Data Sources

Document/Dataset Airports -Butts & Monroe (1997) General Airport Information Locations/Characteristics
Table 4: Railroad Data Sources

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT

Format
GIS Shapefile Document

Document/Dataset
Railroads (2000) Rail lines operating, miles of track, location of crossings, number of trains per day/week
Georgia Rail Freight Plan (2000) List of rail crossings with crossing id number, type of crossing, location, AADT, safety warning features Railroad crossing planned improvements (CWP, TIP)
Rail crossing accident data Commuter and Intercity Rail Plan, latest update

Source GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT
GDOT GDOT
GDOT FRA/GDOT GDOT/GRTA

Format GIS Shapefile Document
Document Database Tables
Database Tables Database Tables Document

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5: Freight Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Freight Routes Truck Classification Counts Freight Traffic Generators

Source
GDOT/STAA GDOT GDOT

Table 6: Public Transportation Data Sources

Format
Map Database Tables GIS Shapefile

Document/Dataset Population data including current and projected population, population aging, disabled population, low-income population Regional Transit Executive Summary Coordinated Human Services Plan
Park and Ride and other commuting options available/needed in county

Source
County Comprehensive Plans / US Census

Format Database Tables

McIntosh Trail RDC McIntosh Trail RDC/GA Department of Human Resources GDOT Rideshare /McIntosh Trail RDC

Document Document
Document

Table 7: Bicycle/Pedestrian Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Existing Sidewalk Network -City of Gray McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan Middle Georgia Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Source Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC
Middle Georgia RDC

Format PDF Map Document
Document

Middle Georgia RDC / Service Area 6 Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Five Year Plan & Long Range Plan Middle Georgia RDC- Existing State Bike Route System Butts County Community AssessmentExecutive Summary and Data Appendix Butts County Recreational Paths Butts County Recreation Master Plan Butts County FY 08-09 Transportation Enhancement Narrative

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Butts County Butts County Butts County Butts County

PDF Map
PDF Map Document Document Document Document

Base Mapping

Additional shapefiles available from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse were downloaded and utilized for base mapping purposes to illustrate geographical features and characteristics within the study area.

These features are included in Table 8 below.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 8: Base Map Data Sources
Document/Dataset County Boundaries (2001) Lakes & Ponds (2001) Streams & Rivers (2001) Census Landmark Features (2000) Community Facilities Conservation Land Georgia Place Features - Physical and cultural geographic features Forest Lands

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse USGS

Format
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

USGS

GIS Shapefile

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix B
Project Sheets

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 23/ SR 42 & England Chapel Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Intersection improvements at US 23/ SR 42 & England Chapel Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 23/SR 42 with England Chapel Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 24 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B15

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16E @ SR 42 S PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 E and SR 42 S

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 E and SR 42 S may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 43 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B16

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: High Falls Road at England Chapel Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at High Falls Road and England Chapel Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of High Falls Road and England Chapel Road was identified during the study process as having sight distance issues. This intersection has experienced one fatality crash from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B17

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 23 at SR 42 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at US 23 and SR 42

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 23 and SR 42 was identified during the study process as having sight distance issues. This intersection has experienced one fatality from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B18

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and McDonough Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and McDonough Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and McDonough Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 21 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B19

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42/US 23 N and SR 16 W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 42/US 23 N and SR 16 W

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 42/US 23 N and SR 16 W may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 17 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B20

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42 and Shiloh Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 42 and Shiloh Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 42 and Shiloh Road was identified through the study process as having sight distance and geometric concerns. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

Shiloh Rd.

?d
Shiloh Rd.

B21

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and SR 36 S/Mulberry Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and SR 36 S/Mulberry Street

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and SR 36 S/Mulberry Street may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 13 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in June 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B22

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and England Chapel Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and England Chapel Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and England Chapel Road was identified during the study process as having sight distance concerns. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B23

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 36 and Fincherville Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 36 and Fincherville Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 36 and Fincherville Road was identified during the study process as having potential sight distance and geometric issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B24

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and Higgins Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and Higgins Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and Higgins Road was identified during the study process as having potential safety issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B25

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42 and Cenie Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 42 and Cenie Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 42 and Cenie Road was identified during the study proess as having potential safety issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B26

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 36 and Old Bethel Church Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Intersection improvements at SR 36 and Old Bethel Church Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 36 and Old Bethel Church Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 23 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B28

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and Shiloh Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and Shiloh Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and Shiloh Road was identified during the study process as having potential sight distance and geometric issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B29

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Shiloh Road and Honeysuckle Lane/Tara Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at Shiloh Road and Honeysuckle Lane/Tara Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Shiloh Road and Honeysuckle Lane/Tara Road was identified during the study process as having potential geometric issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B30

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 and SR 36 N PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 16 and SR 36 N

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 16 and SR 36 N appearss to have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 38 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Butts
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MTRDC

B31

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: High Falls Road and England Chapel Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from US 23 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 13.32 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: US 23

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $4,795,200

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$4,795,200

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,609 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
11,959

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$4,795,200

$0

$0

$47,952,000

$47,952,000

$47,952,000

$53,280,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen England Chapel Road from US 23, west of the City of Jenkinsburg, and High Falls Road from SR 16 in Butts County to the I-75 interchange in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to provide enhanced connectivity and relieve congestion on parallel routes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening High Falls Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.

High Falls Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. High Falls State Park is located in Monroe County along the projects limits. In Butts County, a On-Road Bicycle Route is recommended on High Falls Road by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet shoulders during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage. In Monroe County, only "Share the Road" signage would be installed; no shoulder widenings are planned.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B32, B35, M73

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from County Line Road to SR 16

LENGTH (MI): 5.88 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: County Line Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $2,352,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$2,352,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 7,177 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
13,363

SR 16

FY 20

TOTAL

$2,352,000

$0

$0

$21,168,000

$21,168,000

$21,168,000

$23,520,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 23, from County Line Road, west of the City of Jenkinsburg to SR 16, west of the City of Jackson. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity between Jenkinsburg and Jackson. Additionally, the Joint Henry County/Cities Comprehensive Transportation Plan identified widening US23/SR42 to its county line and coordination with Henry County and the Atlanta Regional Commission is recommended. Widening this section of US 23 is needed to maintain the efficient movement of people and goods. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening US 23 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
US 23 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B33

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 23

PRIORITY:

High

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from SR 16 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Bibb County)

P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI): 30.10 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 16

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $12,040,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$12,040,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,495 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035

Butts/ Monroe/ Bibb
4 13,922

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$12,040,000 $0

$108,360,000

$0 $108,360,000

$108,360,000 $120,400,000

$0 $0 $0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 23, from SR 16, west of the City of Jackson, to the I-75 interchange in Bibb County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and enhanced connectivity parallel to I-75. This project is needed to maintain the efficient movement of people and goods. Coordination is required with Bibb County and the Macon Area Transportation Study. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening US 23 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
US 23 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. Based on LOS, the highest priority phase is from SR 42 (Butts County) to SR 83 (Monroe County), followed by SR 18 (Monroe County) to the I-75 interchange (Bibb County), then SR 83 to SR 18, and finally SR 16 to SR 42 in Butts County.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B34, M59

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Brownlee Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from Mountain View Road (Butts County) to SR 42 (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 4.71 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Mountain View Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $1,884,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$1,884,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 1,906 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
9,487

SR 42

FY 20

TOTAL

$1,884,000

$0

$0

$16,956,000

$16,956,000

$16,956,000

$18,840,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Brownlee Road from Mountain View Road to SR 42 in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose is to provide connectivity to SR 42. It is anticipated that the route north of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require an additional capacity project. There is a proposed project to widen SR 42 at the southern limits of this project. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening Brownlee Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Brownlee Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B37, M64

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Wallace Road to I-75 interchange

LENGTH (MI): 1.24 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Wallace Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$446,400

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$446,400

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

4 10,717 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 6
25,664

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$446,400

$0

$0

$4,464,000

$4,464,000

$4,464,000

$4,960,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 16 from Wallace Road to the I-75 interchange. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose is to maintain the efficient movement of people and goods on SR 16 for anticipated commercial growth in the I-75 interchange vicinity. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening SR 16 to 6-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 16 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of commercial and undeveloped property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B38

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Halls Bridge Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stark Road to Pratt Smith Road

LENGTH (MI): 1.92 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Stark Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$768,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$768,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

2 2,301 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
7,133

Pratt Smith Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$768,000

$0

$0

$6,912,000

$6,912,000

$6,912,000

$7,680,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Halls Bridge Road from Stark Road to Pratt Smith Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. It is anticipated that the existing routes south and north of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require additional capacity improvements. The need and purpose of this project is to provide connectivity between Stark Road and Pratt Smith Road. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening Halls Bridge Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Halls Bridge Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of residential and undeveloped property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B39

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from Mt. Vernon Church Road (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 13.55 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Mt. Vernon Church Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $4,878,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$4,878,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,926 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
12,361

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$4,878,000

$0

$0

$48,780,000

$48,780,000

$48,780,000

$54,200,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC: MG & MT RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 42, from Mt. Vernon Church Road, southeast of the City of Flovilla, to the I-75 interchange, northwest of the City of Forsyth, in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and by providing enhanced connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to provide north and south connectivity through Butts and Monroe Counties to I-75. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening SR 42 to 4lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 42 is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. An On-road Bicycle Route would be constructed with the roadway shoulders widened 2 to 4 feet during resurfacing.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B40, M63

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Kinards Mill Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Colwell Road to High Falls Road

LENGTH (MI): 2.01 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Colwell Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$804,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$804,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 758 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
9,377

High Falls Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$804,000

$0

$0

$7,236,000

$7,236,000

$7,236,000

$8,040,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Kinards Mill Road from Colwell Road to High Falls Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to provide connectivity between Colwell Road and High Falls Road and provide congestion relief to parallel routes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening Colwell Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Colwell Road is functionally classified as a minor collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. Cowell Road is recommended as an On-Road Bicycle Route by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet shoulders during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B42

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Keys Ferry Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Jackson Lake Road to Fincherville Road

LENGTH (MI): 1.13 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Jackson Lake Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$452,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$452,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

2 3,405 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
8,550

Fincherville Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$452,000

$0

$0

$4,068,000

$4,068,000

$4,068,000

$4,520,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

Jackson Lake Road

This improvement proposes to widen Keys Ferry Road from Jackson Lake Road to Fincherville Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose is to provide connectivity between Jackson Lake Road and Fincherville Road. It is anticipated that the routes south and north of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require additional capacity in Butts County. The Joint Henry County/Cities Comprehensive Transportation Plan has identified Keys Ferry Road for widening as a low priority and coordination with Henry County and the Atlanta Regional Commission is recommended. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening Keys Ferry Road to 4lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Keys Ferry Road is functionally classified as a minor collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of residential and agricultural property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B44

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen SR 16 from Imagene Goff Road to US 23

LENGTH (MI): 1.75 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Imagene Goff Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$700,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$700,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 11,122 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
14,991

US 23

FY 20

TOTAL

$700,000

$0

$0

$6,300,000

$6,300,000

$6,300,000

$7,000,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 16 in the City of Jackson. The section of roadway is currently operating at a LOS of E. This project demonstrates logical termini due to an extension of a proposed widening project. The need and purpose is to provide congestion relief and connectivity in Downtown Jackson. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening SR 16 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 16 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of commerical and residential property. Alternatives to widening through the historic downtown area may be developed and more detailed analysis of impacts should be performed during the environmental documentation phase. This project may be considered for coordination with the Jackson Bypass.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B46, B47

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen SR 36 from I-75 interchange to SR 16

LENGTH (MI): 8.45 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: I-75 interchange

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $3,380,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$3,380,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 11,200 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts 4
15,629

SR 16

FY 20

TOTAL

$3,380,000

$0

$0

$30,420,000

$30,420,000

$30,420,000

$33,800,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MTRDC

COMMENTS
This improvement proposes to widen SR 36 from the I-75 interchange to SR 16, in the City of Jackson. The section of roadway is currently operating at LOS D. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and by providing enhanced connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to provide connectivity between SR 16 and I-75 and relieve congestion to Jackson. The Lamar, Pike and Upson Counties Regional Transportation Study identified SR 36 for widening to 4 lanes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS F in 2035. Widening SR 36 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 36 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with commerical property in downtown Jackson.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B55

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Jones County Long Range Transportation Plan
August 2008

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Preface

This document serves as a guide to the County's transportation needs, in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), through the horizon year, 2035. LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the County. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, LRTP's should be updated at least every five years.
The LRTP is a useful tool that empowers a County to act on its current and expected needs. GDOT programs projects for all 159 counties in the state of Georgia, and it is extremely helpful to them to know the true needs of each county. The LRTP follows an accepted process that documents existing and future needs. These needs are then addressed by potential improvements which are prioritized.
The LRTP is a living document that can be revisited as the County experiences changes in population and employment and sees the impact of those changes on local land use, growth, and development. Typically Transportation Plans are updated every three to five years. The current LRTP was based on existing data and forecasts developed with information from current comprehensive plans, the most recent U.S. Census data, and other recent and relevant planning initiatives. It is expected that the inputs into this original planning process, particularly public comments and opinions; population forecasts; development forecasts; and, the distribution of population and employment within the county will change over time in response to changing realities through the study area. A critical mass of new information should provide a stimulus to the update of the plan and the refining of the planning process. The following key components of the LRTP should be reviewed and updated as necessary:

LRTP Goals; Population Forecasts; Employment Forecasts; Distribution of Population and Employment; Needs; Projects; Costs; and, Funding.
Updating the LRTP acknowledges changes to 20-year growth forecasts, updates travel patterns and trends through the use of evolving analysis methods and tools such as the travel demand model, introduces updated revenue forecasts, and provides an opportunity to incorporate new data influencing the development and outcome of the Plan and its recommendations.
The outcome of the LRTP is a prioritized list of transportation improvements that attempt to meet the current and future transportation goals and objectives of the County. This list is recognized by planning partners as the most important projects for the County and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

correspondingly is the focus of funding and implementation efforts. It is important to recognize that these priorities are not static. As the inputs to the planning process change so will the priorities. A systematic approach to meeting current and future transportation needs applied at regular intervals facilitates the project implementation process by revisiting local consensus on transportation goals. This allows limited transportation funding and resources to be allocated in the most effective manner to achieve priorities consistent with the County's current landscape.

An LRTP is made more effective by an informed public that actively contributes to the planning process. The interested resident should utilize the Plan in several ways to actively contribute to the planning process and quality of life within the County:

1. Review the documented input from the public involvement process and provide additional comment when conditions change;
2. Review the list of prioritized projects to understand where the County will be investing its limited transportation resources;
3. Understand that the improvements recommended in the Plan relate to deficiencies identified through the planning process the Plan has an established methodology for assessing need and determining improvements;
4. Use the Plan as a mechanism to provide input to the County to reflect changing realities within the County;
5. Understand the goals for the LRTP and hold the County and other planning partners accountable for achieving the established outcomes.

The planning partners (Elected Officials, County Staff, Regional Development Center, GDOT and others) also make use of the Plan for key activities including:

1. Clear documentation and technical analysis to support the need for transportation investment using proven analytical methods and analysis tools and approaches;
2. An understanding of the County priorities for transportation investment; 3. A role to assist with the development of and contribute to uses for a Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Program; 4. A framework for continuous LRTP activities; and, 5. A mechanism for ensuring active dialogue of transportation issues and
opportunities.

The current transportation funding climate at the Federal, State, and Local levels is one of great need and limited resources. The LRTP process creates an opportunity for discussion and exploration of alternative funding sources. Opportunities to fund eligible projects in local LRTP's with support from Federal and State resources as has been possible in the past is not likely to continue at the same levels. County governments and other local authorities must anticipate that many projects may need to be funded with local dollars. Development of an LRTP with clear priorities first provides a blueprint for Counties as they determine how to allocate local resources, and also places the County in a good position if a project is determined to be eligible for Federal and State funds.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

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

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 5 Historic Population Growth............................................................................................ 6 Future Population .......................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 8 Employment Data........................................................................................................ 14

3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 16 3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics............................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Jones County Existing Land Use Characteristics........................................................ 17

4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PROGRAMS....................................................................... 19 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program ...................................................................................................................... 21 Ongoing GDOT Projects Stakeholder Coordination.................................................... 24 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan ................................................................. 24 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ 24 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for Middle Georgia Region.................................................... 25 Existing Planning Studies for Jones County................................................................ 27

5.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................... 34 5.1 Jones County Transit .................................................................................................. 34

6.0 FREIGHT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................. 40 6.1 Jones County Freight Transport.................................................................................. 40 6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail........................................................................................ 44

7.0 AIRPORT FACILITIES .................................................................................................... 45 7.1 Jones County .............................................................................................................. 45

8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .................................................................... 46 Jones County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network ............................................. 46 Bicycle System Elements ............................................................................................ 51 Pedestrian System Elements ...................................................................................... 53

9.0 BRIDGES ........................................................................................................................ 55 9.1 Jones County Bridges ................................................................................................. 55

10.0 SAFETY .......................................................................................................................... 59 10.1 Jones County Crash Summary ................................................................................... 59

11.0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 62 11.1 Functional Classification.............................................................................................. 62 11.2 Road Lanes ................................................................................................................. 64 11.3 Roadway Shoulders .................................................................................................... 64 11.4 Roadway Surface Type ............................................................................................... 67

12.0 ROADWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 69 12.1 Existing Operating Conditions ..................................................................................... 70 12.2 Future Operating Conditions ....................................................................................... 72

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

i

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.0 CITIZEN AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT .......................................................................... 76 13.1 Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings ........................................................... 76 13.2 Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Input.................................................................. 77
14.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 80 14.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 80 14.2 Methodology................................................................................................................ 80 14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents ............................................................. 82 14.4 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 83
15.0 IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS............................................................... 85 15.1 Deficient Roadways..................................................................................................... 86 15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................ 86 15.3 Public Transportation Improvements........................................................................... 87 15.3.1 Transit ......................................................................................................................... 87 15.3.2 Commuter Options ...................................................................................................... 89 15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail........................................................................................ 89 15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements....................................................................................... 90 15.5 Aviation Improvements................................................................................................ 99 15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input ..................................................................................... 99
16.0 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 104 16.1 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 104 16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements.............................................................. 105 16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations ...................................................................... 112
17.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION........................................................................................ 114 17.1 Corridor Prioritization................................................................................................. 114 17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization............................................................................. 118 17.3 Intersection Prioritization ........................................................................................... 123 17.4 Bridge Prioritization ................................................................................................... 125 17.5 Projects in the MATS Area ........................................................................................ 126
18.0 FUNDING...................................................................................................................... 127 18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation............................................................. 127 18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation ................................................................... 129 18.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 130 18.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 130 18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ...................................... 131 18.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs ...................................................................... 132 18.7 Effective Use of the Plan ........................................................................................... 132
19.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 134

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

ii

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 1.2 Study Area............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1.3 Study Process ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.1 Block Group Population Distribution in 2000 ......................................................... 7 Figure 2.3.1 Jones County Minority Population Locations....................................................... 10 Figure 2.3.2 Jones County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations............................... 12 Figure 2.3.3 Jones County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations............................ 13 Figure 3.1 Jones County Existing Land Use......................................................................... 18 Figure 4.0 Macon Area Transportation Study....................................................................... 20 Figure 4.1 Jones County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects...................................... 23 Figure 4.5 MGRDC Bicycle Plan .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.6 Jones Character Areas........................................................................................ 29 Figure 4.8 Jones County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .................................. 33 Figure 6.0 Jones County Freight Transportation Facilities ................................................... 41 Figure 8.0 Jones County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............. 47 Figure 9.1 Jones County Bridges for Potential Maintenance and Rehabilitation.................. 58 Figure 10.1 Jones County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations ........................... 61 Figure 11.1 Jones County Functional Classification............................................................... 63 Figure 11.2 Jones County Roadway Lanes............................................................................ 65 Figure 11.3 Jones County Roadway Shoulders ..................................................................... 66 Figure 11.4 Jones County Roadway Surface Type ................................................................ 68 Figure 12.1 Jones County Existing Daily Deficient Segments................................................ 71 Figure 12.2.1 Jones County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments..................................................... 73 Figure 12.2.2 Jones County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments..................................................... 75 Figure 13.1 Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Input .......................................................... 79 Figure 15.0 Improvement Development Process ................................................................... 85 Figure 16.2.1 Jones County Recommended Improvements - Roadway ................................. 110 Figure 16.2.2 Jones County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian .............. 111 Figure 16.3 Jones County Environmental Justice Evaluation............................................... 113

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

iii

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF TABLES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 5

Table 2.0.2 Area Population..................................................................................................... 6

Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile.................................................................................. 6

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population ............................................................................................ 8

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change.................................................................. 8

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs ........................................................................................ 14

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns....................................................................... 15

Table 3.0

Development of Regional Impact Studies .......................................................... 16

Table 4.1 Jones County 2008-2011 STIP ........................................................................... 22

Table 4.8.1 Summary of Jones County Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update)....................... 30

Table 4.8.2 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Jones County.............................. 32

Table 5.1.1 Jones County Rural Transit Service Statistics.................................................... 36

Table 5.1.2 Jones County Rural Transit 2006 Ridership Statistics ....................................... 36

Table 5.1.3 Jones County Rural Transit 2006 Destination Statistics..................................... 36

Table 5.1.4 Jones County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency . 37

Table 5.1.5 Jones County Population Projections................................................................. 37

Table 5.1.6 Jones County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment......................................................................................................... 38

Table 6.1.1 Jones County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT ................................................ 42

Table 6.1.2 Jones County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains) .................................................................................................. 42

Table 6.1.3 Jones County Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Not Involving Trains) .................................................................................................. 43

Table 8.1.1 Jones County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region...................................... 48

Table 8.1.2 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects in Jones County................................................................................................... 49

Table 8.1.3 Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006 ............................ 51

Table 8.1.4 Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006................ 51

Table 9.1

Bridge Inventory Jones County ....................................................................... 55

Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Jones County......................................................... 59

Table 11.1 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled ..................................................... 64

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments ................................................................... 70

Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments ................................................................................... 72

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

iv

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments ................................................................................... 74 Table 13.0 Study Advisory Group Jones County............................................................... 76 Table 13.1 Jones County Meetings ....................................................................................... 77 Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input ................................................................................. 77 Table 14.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors..................................................... 81 Table 15.6 Suggested Improvements ................................................................................ 100 Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................... 108 Table 17.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring........................................................................ 115 Table 17.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring...................................................................... 116 Table 17.1.3 Corridor Prioritization........................................................................................ 117 Table 17.2.1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria............................................................... 119 Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization .................................................................................... 121 Table 17.2.3 Bicycle Prioritization .......................................................................................... 122 Table 17.3.1 Intersection Scoring Criteria ............................................................................. 123 Table 17.3.2 Intersection Prioritization ................................................................................... 124 Table 18.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations128 Table 18.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation.............. 129 Table 18.4 Own Source Revenues ..................................................................................... 131 Table 18.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)............................................................... 131 Table 18.5.2 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........... 132

APPENDIX A
Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Project Sheets

APPENDIX B

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

v

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction

Residential, commercial and industrial growth in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand throughout the 3-County Region. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon year of 2035. Currently, the transportation planning function for the Counties is provided by GDOT through coordination with each County. The transportation plans developed as part of this study are built upon existing work efforts to date, and provide a mechanism for guiding transportation decision-making as development pressures increase throughout the 3-County Region. Although this study effort involved a three county study area, an individual transportation plan was developed for each county. This document focuses specifically on Jones County.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify existing and future operating conditions for the multi-modal transportation system (roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, freight, transit, rail, and airports) within the 3-County Region, and to utilize that information to identify improvements and prioritize project implementation for Jones County. As part of this effort, a travel demand model was developed for the 3-County Region to represent the transportation network of the study area and to assist with the analysis of future operating conditions. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to establish plan goals and objectives, identify issues and opportunities and to identify potential improvements to the Jones County transportation network. This process ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input.
Ultimately, study efforts have produced a documented LRTP that provides for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the study area through the study horizon year (2035). Interim analysis was also conducted for the year 2015.
1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of the Jones County LRTP is to identify long-range transportation needs, determine the resources to meet those needs, and to provide a framework of projects that address the transportation needs of the county to the extent possible by leveraging existing and future resources. While the majority of the 3-County Region is not within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area, the transportation plan development process methodology followed the guidelines established for MPO's. A portion of Jones County falls within the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission, the MPO for the Macon metropolitan area, and transportation planning for this area of Jones County is included in the Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS) (See Figure 4.0, p. 20 for a map of the MATS area). Including the guidelines from these additional agencies, creates a more rigorous process and establishes a strong framework for transportation planning and decision-making. The format of the LRTP, and the process

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the community. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, long range transportation plans should be updated at least every five years.

The existing conditions established in the first half of this report form the foundation for the technical analyses to be completed as part of the LRTP development process. Evaluation factors were established to assess the existing and future transportation network. This report documents the deficiencies and operating conditions used to develop the recommended improvements for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Transportation Study.

1.2 Study Area Description

The study area is located along the I-75 corridor in middle Georgia, north of Macon. In recent years, communities located in the I-75 corridor from south of Atlanta to Macon have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses.

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties cover a land area of just over 976 square miles. Jones County is 394 square miles. The area features many appealing points of interest, is significant to the State's natural and built environments, and contains cultural and historic assets, all of which create unique impacts on the transportation system.

Jones County has natural and historical sites including the Ocmulgee River, the restored Jarrell Plantation, and the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge.

The 3-County Region is part of two Regional Development Centers (RDC's): McIntosh Trail RDC (MTRDC) and Middle Georgia RDC (MGRDC). Jones County is a part of the MGRDC. The study area is displayed in Figure 1.2 on page 3.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Study Area
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
3

F
Figure No: 1.2

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.3 Study Process
Figure 1.3 outlines the process of developing a long-range transportation plan for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties.

Figure 1.3 Study Process

Detailed information for all analysis elements is provided in the following sections. It is within this framework that the existing conditions data was identified for collection, analyzed, and established as a baseline condition for the transportation system within the study area.
Data collection sources are documented in Appendix A.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Demographic Information

A review of the 2000 US Census data, most recent available, shows that the 3-County Region has experienced population growth at a moderate level during the past 20 years. The Statewide average yearly growth was three percent over this period and the 3-County Region also grew at an average yearly rate of three percent. Table 2.0.1 presents select demographic data to illustrate the characteristics of the population and households in Jones County and other socio-economic factors. Using 2000 US Census Occupied Housing Units counts and employment figures, a jobs-to-housing ratio was calculated. The employment figures are the sum of the 2000 Census industry numbers. The ratio of the number of jobs (10,819) to number of housing units (9,272) is greater than one (1.17), based on the 2000 US Census information. This places increased demand on the transportation system linking County residents to jobs in Atlanta, Macon, and other employment centers.
The demographic overview of the County documents the historic population growth, future population projections, environmental justice population, and existing employment.
Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

Demographic

Jones

Total Population

23,639

Median Age

36.1

Total Population in Occupied Housing Units

23,287

Average Household Size

2.69

Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Owner-Occupied Housing Units Renter-Occupied Housing Units School Enrollment (Age 3+) Percent High School Graduate or Higher

9,272
8,659 (93.4% of total)
7,433 (85.8% of total)
1,226 (14.2% of total)
6,342 (27.9% of total)
77.9%

Total Disabled Population (Age 5+)

4,241

Percent of Population in Same House in 1995
Source: 2000 US Census

63.5%

Approximately 92 percent of Jones County residents (21,828) live outside of the cities. The data in Table 2.0.2 is from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and shows the rural and urban population breakdown for each county for the year 2000.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Table 2.0.2 Area Population

County

City

Population

Gray Jones County
Unincorporated

1,811 21,828

Total

23,639

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The demographic data demonstrates the percent of disabled individuals in Jones County is 18 percent and is slightly below the statewide average of 19 percent. The US Census Bureau defines disability as:

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

Dialogue with stakeholders also revealed that the study area's population is beginning to attract an older population. A list of stakeholders can be found in Section 13.0, p. 78.

2.1 Historic Population Growth

The population for Jones County is expected to continue increasing at a high rate through the study horizon of 2035. Table 2.1.1 illustrates the growth trends from 1900 to 2000. Information in Table 2.1.1 shows that the area declined in population from 1900 to 1940, but has increased in population since 1960. Growth in the region has continued on a strong upward trend since 1960. The area experienced a lower percentage of growth than the State of Georgia from 1980 - 2000.

Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile

County

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Percent Change 1980 -
2000

Jones 13,358

13,269

8,331

8,468

16,579

23,639

43%

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

50%

Figure 2.1 displays the block group population distribution in 2000, according to the US Census. While decennial census counts allow for block group level analysis, current year population estimates are limited to county-level statistics; therefore, changes in population at the block group level are not able to be displayed. However, for illustrative purposes, the 2000 US Census population distribution at the block group level is shown.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Block Group Population Distribution in 2000
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
7

F
Figure No: 2.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.2 Future Population

The population for Jones County is expected to increase at a moderate rate through the study horizon of 2035. Jones County has received a moderate amount of growth over the past 20 years, with a 2.93 percent average annual increase in total population, which is less than the 3-county Region, which had a 3.05 percent average annual increase in total population, and the State of Georgia, which had a 3.33 percent average annual increase in total population. This growth trend is expected to continue as the area continues to attract people and business owners who enjoy a rural or suburban lifestyle in relatively close proximity to amenities in the Atlanta and Macon urban areas.

Table 2.2.1 displays the projected growth as estimated by the 2006 Jones County Comprehensive Plan. Over the next 25 years, Jones County is expected to grow in population by 38 percent. It is important to recognize this growth and the increased demand on the transportation system that accompanies the population increase.

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population

County

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Jones

23,690

26,070

27,640

29,280

31,010

32,800

Source: Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Jones County and the City of Gray (Wood and Poole Economics, Inc.)

Table 2.2.2 shows the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, and 2006 population estimates and the percentage change of the county population.

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change

County Jones

2000 23,639

2006 Percent Estimate Change

26,973

14.1%

2.3 Environmental Justice

The Environmental Justice (EJ) Executive Order 12898 defines EJ populations as persons belonging to any of the following groups:

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Environmental justice is intended to acknowledge minority and low-income populations that have been historically underrepresented in the transportation planning process and ensure that these groups are not disproportionately impacted as a result of transportation improvement recommendations.
The intent of EJ analysis is to locate these populations and to involve them early and continuously through the decision making process, as well as use data to analytically assess if there would be a disproportionate impact on traditionally underrepresented communities. The following sections document the location of minority and low-income populations.
Minority Populations
The minority populations for Jones County were identified and analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group and shows concentrations of minority populations located in the southern portion of Jones County, near Macon, and in the northern portion of the county, to the north and east of Gray. The average minority population figure for Jones County is 34.8 percent while the statewide average is 34.9 percent.
The minority census block groups as a percentage of the county population are displayed in Figure 2.3.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Minority Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
10

F
Figure No: 2.3.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Low-Income Population

The second component of EJ, poverty level, was also analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group. Similar to the minority population, there are concentrations of low-income residents located in the southern portion of the county, near Macon, and in the northern portion of the county, to the north and east of Gray. The average number of residents below the poverty line in Jones County is 10 percent while the statewide average is 13 percent.

The low-income census blocks are displayed in Figure 2.3.2.

It is helpful to analyze the low-income population areas with respect to the location of minority population areas. Extra attention is drawn to areas with high population in both of these categories. Figure 2.3.3 combines the minority and low-income population data and presents it in a single graphic.

Historically underrepresented populations were identified as part of this analysis and extra efforts were made to include these groups in the planning process. Representation from these groups was actively sought for inclusion in the study advisory group and advertised public meetings used media to reach these groups. This included the downtown Gray area. These areas were evaluated to ensure that transportation improvements would benefit and not disproportionately impact these areas in a negative manner. The following tasks were conducted for the identified low-income and minority census tracts:

Coordinated with the Study Advisory Group (SAG) (see Section 13.0, p. 76) to identify leaders within these communities;
Posted notice for workshops in these communities; Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that disproportionate impacts did not
accrue to these communities; and, Analyzed recommended projects to ensure that mobility benefits accrued to
these communities including bicycle and pedestrian and public transportation amenities.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
12

F
Figure No: 2.3.2

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
13

F
Figure No: 2.3.3

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.4 Employment Data

In Jones County, educational service is the largest employment sector accounting for about 22 percent of the total jobs. Other important sectors are construction, public administration, and health care and social assistance. Based on the Georgia Department of Labor 2006 annual average employment data, the major employers in Jones County are listed below.

Ingles Markets, Inc. (85 employees) Lynn Haven Nursing Home (83 employees) Healy Point Country Club (74 employees) Appling Brothers Co (69 employees) Tri-County Electric Membership Corp (66 employees)

The number, type, and location of jobs in Jones County has direct implications on the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area. Table 2.4.1 shows the major categories of jobs and industries located in Jones County.

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs

Industry Type
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services Education, Health, and Social Services Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Public Administration TOTAL
Source: Georgia Department of Labor 2006

Jones County
54 569 69 55 309 70 19 103 88 NA NA 83 1,110 3,388

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

14

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

According to the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, Jones County's per capita income in 1999 was lower than Georgia's statewide average of $21,154 and the national average of $21,587. The per capita income for Jones County in 1999 was $19,126.

Transportation mobility for workers in Jones County is an important consideration for the Plan. Most workers (96 percent) rely on roadway-based transportation for commute trips, either by driving alone or carpooling. About three percent (3.3 percent) of workers in Jones County bike or walk, commute by other means, or work at home. Table 2.4.2 illustrates the breakdown in commuting modes for Jones County.

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns

Work Commute

Jones County

Study Area Total Percentage

Statewide Total Percentage

Total Workers (Age 16+)
Drove Alone

10,543 9,035

28,783 23,969

100% 83%

3,832,803 2,968,910

100% 78%

Carpooled

1,187 3,831

13%

557,062

15%

Transit/Taxi

4

27

0%

90,030

2%

Biked or Walked

37

206

Motorcycle or Other Means

47

209

Worked at Home

233

541

Mean Travel Time to Work (min.)

28

Source: 2000 US Census

1%

65,776

2%

1%

42,039

1%

2%

108,986

3%

27.7

The Jones County journey to work data corresponds closely to the statewide averages for the various modes of travel. The mean travel time to work is generally equal to the statewide average (27.7 minutes).

Jones County has become an attractive residential area for Macon-based employees. Fifty percent of employed Jones County residents travel to Bibb County for employment.

Additionally, the I-75 corridor is attracting industrial and commercial employment centers that will provide additional jobs to the 3-County area. The residential, industrial, and commercial expansion in Jones County will increase demand for transportation facilities to the area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

15

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Land Use and Development

The existing and future land use patterns for Jones County shows a substantial percentage of land devoted to residential and agricultural land uses. Additionally, discussions with the planning staff of Jones County revealed the anticipated development of several major employment centers through much of the study area. These two factors suggest that transportation projects will be required to adequately service future travel demand, particularly employment related demand throughout Jones County.
Recently, seven Development of Regional Impact (DRI) studies have been completed in Jones County as shown in Table 3.0.
Table 3.0 Development of Regional Impact Studies

DRI

Project

ID #

Name

Development Type

County/ City

Initial Form Submitted

Current Status

RDC Finding

1474 1360

Rinker Materials Hitchcock Quarry Expansion
Jones County Industrial Park

Quarries, Asphalt & Cement Plants
Industrial

Jones Jones

1154 A Mining Group

Quarries, Asphalt Jones & Cement Plants

1091 Arbor Oaks

Housing

Jones/ Gray

1041 Hawk's Ridge Housing

Jones

941 Hampton

Housing

Lakes Phases

2 and 3

Jones

816 Rinker Materials Hitchcock Quarry Expansion

Quarries, Asphalt Jones & Cement Plants

6/12/2007

Request for

Pending

comments made

6/14/2007

3/21/2007 6/27/2006 4/11/2006 2/13/2006 10/26/2005 5/26/2005

Request for Comments Made 6/5/2007 Completed 6/27/2006
Completed 4/11/2006
Completed 2/13/2006
Completed 10/26/2005
DRI Determination Made

Pending
not in the best interest of the region and therefore the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

16

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics

To assess the impact of existing land use on the transportation system the following types of areas were identified for each of the Counties: major residential areas; key activity centers; key employment centers; and, primary travel corridors. The existing land use map for the 3-County Region is presented in Figure 3.1.

3.1.1 Jones County Existing Land Use Characteristics

Major Residential Areas Cities of Gray and Macon

Key Activity Centers Cities of Gray and Macon

Key Employment Centers Cities of Gray and Macon Bass Road Development

Primary Travel Corridors US 129 SR 11 SR 18 SR 22 SR 49

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

17

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Existing Land Use
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
18

F
Figure No: 3.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.0 Previous Studies and Programs

An effective transportation plan accounts for previous planning efforts to ensure continuity between planning documents and to ensure that goals and related projects for the transportation system are consistent with the established community vision. Several studies and planning documents contribute to the community vision for each of the Counties and these were reviewed. The following planning studies and programs were reviewed and key results summarized:

GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program and Six Year Construction Work Program;
Currently planned major GDOT projects in the 3-county study area; GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan; GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia RDC; Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray; and, The MATS 2008-20011 Transportation Improvement Program and 2030
Transportation Plan

Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS)

It is important to recognize that a portion of Jones County is located within the Macon Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and is therefore included in an ongoing and formalized long- and short-range transportation planning process. The Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS) was established by the Governor of Georgia as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Macon Urbanized Area on February 21, 1964. As such, MATS is the organization responsible for the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive metropolitan planning process required by Title 23 U.S.C. 134. Its planning boundaries include all of Bibb County and a third of Jones County as shown in Figure 4.0. As stated in the Bibb County Comprehensive plan, the City of Macon, Payne City, Bibb County and the Georgia State Highway Department (now the Georgia Department of Transportation), and the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Department entered into an agreement to establish the Macon Area Transportation Study in response to the legislation. Over the years, the study area has expanded to include the southern portion of Jones County as a result of the region's growth and the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC) as an active participant in the planning process.

As part of the ongoing metropolitan transportation planning process, MATS, in coordination with GA DOT, has developed a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that has followed both the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Authority Metropolitan Planning Regulations (23 CFR Part 450) and the Transportation Conformity Rules (40 CFR Part 93). The TIP is the result of comprehensive transportation planning at the local level, combined with cooperation and assistance from state and federal officials. The Fiscal Year 2008 -2011 TIP is a subset of the current conforming 2030 Transportation Plan and its projects are consistent with the project descriptions and timing reflected in the conforming Transportation Plan's emission analyses. There were no relevant projects

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

19

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS)
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
20

F
Figure No: 4.0

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

listed in the TIP within this study's boundary. The Long Range Transportation Plan 2030 listed two projects for the 2030 project years in Jones County: The projects are listed as Milledgeville Road/SR 49 and Joycliff Road Extension and are in the portion that is in the MATS area. The Milledgeville Road/SR 49 would widen the roadway to four lanes from Griswoldville Road to SR 18 and the Joycliff Road Extension would build a new two lane roadway from SR 49 to SR 57 and would preserve right-of-way for four lanes in the future.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, with amendments in 1977 and 1990, is a Federal law that covers the entire country. States, Tribes, and local governments assist in implementing strategies to meet these requirements. The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set limits on how much particular pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States. The Clean Air Act specifies how areas within the country are designated as either "attainment" or "non-attainment" of an air quality standard, and provides the USEPA the authority to define the boundaries of non-attainment areas. States have to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that outline how each state will control air pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Effective October 19, 2007, the EPA took final action to approve a request submitted on June 15, 2007, from the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), to redesignate the Macon 8-hour ozone non-attainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Macon 8-hour ozone area is comprised of Bibb County, and a portion of Monroe County located in middle Georgia (hereafter referred to as the ``Macon Area''). EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination that Georgia has demonstrated that the Macon Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act, including the determination that the Macon Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.

Additionally, EPA approved a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Macon Area that contains the new regional 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Through this action, EPA is also finding the new regional 2020 MVEBs adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

It is recognized that ongoing coordination of Jones County planning activities with MATS planning activities is integral to the successful implementation of projects developed as part of this long-range plan.

4.1 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program
In addition to current studies, there are several planned and programmed multi-modal improvements in Jones County. The projects identified are those listed in the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the 2008-2013 Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP). The following list highlights the general types of planned and programmed improvements for the County:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

21

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Bridge Rehabilitation / Replacement; Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements; Roadway Widening; New Roadways; Intersection Improvements; and, Passing Lanes.

The STIP and CWP were reviewed for projects within and impacting Jones County and these projects are displayed in Tables 4.1. Additionally, these projects were given a study ID number and are mapped in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.1 Jones County 2008-2011 STIP

Map Project Prime Work

Id

Id

Type

Description

J-1 0001040 J-2 231620 J-3 232350 J-4 332450

Widening Widening Widening Widening

SR 44 from Gray Bypass to CR 104/Mathis Road
SR 44 from Mathis Road/Jones County to US 441/Monroe County
SR 22 from Gray Bypass/Jones County to SR 29 near Milledgeville Baldwin County
SR 49 widening from Griswoldville Road to SR 18

J-5 370860

Bridges CR 28 west of Clinton at Chehaw Creek

J-6 371180 J-7 371181 J-8 322540

Bridges
Bridges Roadway
Project

CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line
CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line
SR 899/Gray North Bypass from SR 18 northeast to SR 22

J-9 0007603 Streetscape Sidewalks and bike trails in Gray

Source: GDOT Office of Planning LR denotes Long Range

Program STP STP STP STP Bridge Bridge
Bridge STP HPP

Construction Date LR LR LR LR LR LR
LR 2012 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

22

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
23

F
Figure No: 4.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.2 Ongoing GDOT Projects Stakeholder Coordination Coordination with stakeholders has occurred for the currently planned Gray Bypass project.

4.3 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan
Sponsored by GDOT, the Statewide Interstate System Plan was designed to evaluate Georgia's Interstate System, identify necessary improvements, and produce a comprehensive and prioritized program of projects to meet increasing traffic demands and ensure future statewide mobility. The study, completed in the summer of 2004, is organized into three phases and focuses primarily on the interstates outside the Atlanta metro area. Review of the Interstate System Plan reveals proposed improvements along the interstate system in the 3-County Region. The plan recommends expanding I-75 between south metro Atlanta and metro Macon from six to eight lanes by 2035.
4.4 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan

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

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

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

GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was reviewed to identify proposed facilities through the 3-County Region.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

24

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for Middle Georgia Region

The focus of the Middle Georgia RDC's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region plan is to establish a system of inter-regional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown areas and schools and the marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general are key points in the plan.

The local plan focuses on the development of new bicycle routes, shared use trails, and sidewalks connecting downtowns, schools, employment centers, and other activity centers. Local marketing programs to increase bicycle and pedestrian activity and the feasibility of implementing the Safe Routes to School program were also evaluated.

As part of this effort the following goals were created:
Provide and maintain a safe, convenient, and accessible road network that accommodates bicycles for all users through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Provide and maintain safe, convenient, and accessible shared- use trails for all users through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Provide and maintain safe, convenient, and accessible sidewalk network for the region's communities through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Promote and encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian travel in the Middle Georgia region through effective bicycle and pedestrian safety education and training, design and maintenance standards, and the application and enforcement of the rules of the road;
Promote better health and fitness of the region's population through walking and riding a bicycle;
Promote and encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian travel to the schools in the Middle Georgia region that integrates health, fitness, traffic relief, and environmental awareness;
Promote the usage of the regional and local bicycle, sidewalk, and multi- use trails that have been constructed; regional safety and health/fitness programs; and safe routes to school programs through a variety of marketing and outreach tools; and,
Expand the general public's awareness of the positive economic, social, and environmental benefits that are derived from the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes several types of routes for Jones and Monroe County such as dedicated paths and signed routes. The plan documents are located at this website address: http://www.middlegeorgiabikeped.org/. Recommendations from the Middle Georgia RDC Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan from 2005 are shown in Figure 4.5.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

25

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Figure 4.5 MGRDC Bicycle Plan
Middle Georgia Service Area 6 Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian
Five Year Plan & Long Range Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County
26

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.6 Existing Planning Studies for Jones County

Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray
Jones County adopted a Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray in June 2007. The comprehensive plan outlines the need for bicycle and pedestrian amenities throughout the County. Geographic character areas were identified for unincorporated areas of Jones County and, as they are developed, many of them call for inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as follows:

The Conservation Area and Open Space character area includes a private hunting reserve and Lucas Lake in western Jones County. Greenways and a bicycle/pedestrian trail are considered desirable uses in this area
The Ocmulgee River Corridor character area includes a strip of land paralleling the Ocmulgee River in Western Jones County. Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas by setting them aside as public parks, bicycle/pedestrian trails, and greenbelts is recommended.
The National/State Forest and WMAs character area includes the Oconee National Forest, the Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Area, the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, the Hitachi Experimental Forest, and Jarrell Plantation. Greenways and bicycle/pedestrian trails are listed as specific uses allowed in the character area.
The Linear Greenspace and Pedestrian/Bike Network character area includes the proposed rail-to-trail pedestrian/bicycle shared-use facility on the abandoned CSX tracks in southeastern Jones County. The plan calls for the development of a 10foot shared use trail along the abandoned rail line.
The Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Corridor includes portions of SR 11 and Round Oak Juliette Road recently designated as the Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic byway including the communities of Bradley, Wayside, Round Oak, and Juliette. The promotion of bicycle and pedestrian usage along the byway is encouraged.
The Urban Residential character area is bound by Griswold Road/Chapman Road/R.L. Wheeler Road on the north, Bibb County Line on the south, Twiggs County Line on the south, and US 129 on the west. Recommendations in this area include facilities for bicycles, including bike lanes and frequent storage racks.
The Department of Community Affairs comprehensive plan requirements include a provision for delineation of character areas and implementation of development strategies for each of them. A character area is defined as a geographic area within the community that:
Has unique or special characteristics to be preserved or enhanced (such as a downtown, a historic district, a neighborhood, or a transportation corridor);
Has potential to evolve into a unique area with more intentional guidance of future development through adequate planning and implementation (such as a strip commercial corridor that could be revitalized into more attractive village development pattern); or
Requires special attention due to unique development issues (rapid change of development patterns, economic decline, etc.)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

27

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Several Character areas have also been identified specifically for the City of Gray as follows: The Gray Downtown character area parallels SR 11 N and SR 18 E from Forest Street in the south to approximately Deer Acres Drive in the north. The downtown area extends along portions of US 129 S and SR 22 E. The plan explains desired development of a downtown that serves as a focal point that is pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Facilities for bicycles, including bicycle lanes and frequent storage racks, are recommended. The Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Corridor character area within the City of Gray extends along SR 11 North from the Gray Downtown character area north to the City Limits. The plan recommends attractive sidewalks or pathways leading to and through the site to promote comfortable safe walking between destinations in the area. The Suburban Area Developing character area encompasses the northwestern, southern, and southwestern portions of the city. Street trees, pathways, and sidewalks are encouraged. The Traditional Neighborhood Stable character area includes the areas north and south of US 129 in the proximity of the SR 18 Connector and east of Clinton. The area north and south of SR 22 just east of the downtown area is also included. Streets integrated with safe sidewalks and pathways throughout are encouraged.

See Figure 4.6, p. 31 for a map of these

The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for the following: Inter-connecting bicycle trails and sidewalks to link Clinton, SR 18 Connector (Gray Bypass), the new high school, and recreation park on SR 18. Sidewalks on Dusty Lane, in the Haddock Area, and the City of Gray New and reconstructed roadways will be designed to accommodate multiple functions, such as pedestrian facilities and bicycle routes, as well as vehicular circulation.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

28

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Figure 4.6 Jones Character Areas

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

29

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 4.8.1 Summary of Jones County Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update)

Key Data/Trends Population
Commute Patterns

Description

MGRDC Estimates

1980:

16,680

1990:

20,800

2000:

23,690

2005:

26,070

2010:

27,640

2015:

29,280

Living and working in Jones:

Living in Jones and working in Monroe:

Living in Jones and working elsewhere:

23.4% 1.6%
76.4%

Largest Employment Sectors in 2000 Land Uses
Growth Areas in the County

Bibb County receives the largest share of workers from Jones County (56.8% of Jones County residents). Educational, Health and Public Services were the biggest employment sectors followed by Manufacturing and then Retail.
Almost 84% of the total land area in Jones County is timberland, while over 60% of this land is under non-industrial corporate or non-industrial individual ownership.
Residential Uses
Residential land use in the City of Gray consists of single-family site-built and multifamily.
Two types of residential uses are found in unincorporated Jones County--single family site-built and manufactured homes.

Single family site-built residential is concentrated in the southern half of the county.

Intensive Agricultural (Poultry Farms, etc.) Intensive agricultural is focused on almost the entire eastern half of the county, as
well as the area between SR 18 W and the Gray City Limits to the Oconee National Forest/Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge.

Future agriculture/forestry areas will include most of the central and eastern sections of unincorporated Jones County.

Almost 84% of land in Jones County land is in timberland. Commercial Uses

Commercial uses are found primarily in the City of Gray and US 129 and 49, as well as in Haddock.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

30

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Key Data/Trends

Description

Growth Areas in the County (Cont)

Industrial Uses
Light industrial uses are planned for the new industrial park near SR 57 and the area east of Haddock. Existing mining (rock quarries) and gas storage areas operate in the proximity of Pitts Chapel Road.

Parks/Recreation/Conservation

Ocmulgee River Corridor, Lucas Lake, Oconee National Forest, the Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Area, the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, the Hitachi Experimental Forest, Jarrell Plantation

Planning Issues in Cities
Land Use Issues
TransportationRelated Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies

Creating a vibrant downtown Gray Making the SR 18 Corridor an attractive entrance to Gray. Issue of undeveloped areas east and west of downtown, surrounded by residential
areas with declining popularity and property values.
There is a lack of long-range strategy to coordinate land use development and community facilities (schools, recreation centers, parks, etc.) policies.
SR 11 and US 129 corridors, US 129/SR 22 corridor, SR 18 Connector, and Highway 18 E will necessitate buffering and landscaping along the respective corridors to reduce visual and noise impacts from more intensive uses.
SR 18 Connector Commercial Corridor is expected to experience intensive commercial growth due to accessibility and available land.
Reduce traffic congestion along Gray Highway corridor. Reduce traffic in the Gray downtown area. Establish attractive entranceways along major thoroughfares in Jones County. Commuter strategies including car and vanpooling to help reduce traffic between
Jones County and the employment centers in Baldwin, Bibb, and Houston Counties. Provide satisfactory alternative forms of transportation including public transit and
bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Gray-Jones County.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region
The Middle Georgia Regional Development Center (MGRDC), with funding support from the Georgia Department of Transportation and advisory support from a regional Bike/Pedestrian Plan Planning Advisory Committee, has developed the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region. The focus of this plan is to establish a system of interregional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown Gray, schools, and recreational destinations is the focus of the proposed network. The marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general is also a focus of the plan. Table 4.8.2 outlines and Figure 4.8 illustrates the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network in Jones County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

31

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 4.8.2 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Jones County

Location
Along Ocmulgee River from Juliette Road south to Bibb County Line
Juliette Road from Monroe County Line east to SR 11
From Jasper County Line south to SR 22 in Gray Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 south to inactive Norfolk Southern Line On inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County Line northeast to Baldwin County Line Along SR 42 from Higgins Road to Mount Vernon Road Source: MGRDC Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region

Construction Date Ocmulgee Heritage Shared
Use Trail 2 Foot Bicycle Lane 4 Foot Bicycle Lane
2 Foot Bicycle Lane
10 Foot Rails to Trails Path
On-Road Bike Route

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

32

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
33

F
Figure No: 4.8

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.0 Public Transportation

Currently, public transportation services are offered in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties. The services in Butts County are administered by the McIntosh Trail Regional Development Center and are provided with federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA Section 5311) and state funds distributed through GDOT. The services in Jones County are administered by the Middle Georgia RDC and, also, are provided with federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA Section 5311) and state funds administered through GDOT. Monroe County offers transportation services for the elderly, the disabled, and other residents who qualify for Department of Human Resources (DHR) assistance. No conventional, fixed route, fixed schedule transit service is currently provided in Jones County.

5.1 Jones County Transit
Jones County participates in the Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program, utilizing the Middle Georgia Community Action Agency (MGCAA) as its third party provider to transport the county's residents to a variety of shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social destinations. Service statistics for the fiscal year ending June 2007 indicate that the 5311 system is used nearly equally by elderly (44%) and non-elderly (56%) residents, and that the majority of passengers are African American (67%). MGCAA is also the contracted provider of transportation services for the Georgia Department of Human Resources Division of Aging Services (starting in July 2007), Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD). Service statistics for the same fiscal year show that the majority of DHR trips are for MHDDAD clients (79%).
The Jones County 5311 Rural Transportation Program provides a significant number of public trips compared to other county programs of similar size. Over 82% of the 20,000 annual trips (utilizing three vans) are requested by non-DHR eligible residents with the remaining 18% of trips made for DHR clients. (DHR also operates an additional van in the county solely for DHR clients.) According to the GDOT District Three Office, the program's success is largely attributed to excellent marketing efforts on behalf of the county and clean, efficient services provided by MCGAA.
The GDOT District Three Office reports that Jones County ridership is currently exceeding a GDOT service threshold of 500 trips per vehicle per month. Programs exceeding this threshold typically consider expansion if/when residents have to be denied rides due to capacity or scheduling constraints. At present, Jones County has not had to deny any resident a ride for these reasons. The county, however, is expected to experience a 38% increase in population between 2000 and 2025 (Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005 2025) which will place additional capacity demands on the 5311 system.
The state Department of Human Resources (DHR) Region Six Transportation Office has expressed a desire for lower trip costs in Jones County. One-way trips currently cost between $2.00 and $4.00, depending on the passenger's number of stops. The Georgia DHR

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

34

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Region Six Transportation Office has expressed that either increased funding and lower trip costs or a public transit system like the Macon-Bibb Transit System would be beneficial to Jones County residents. The Jones County Study Advisory Group (see Table 13.0, p. 76) also commented on this issue, stating that providing public transportation in the form of bus service, while deemed a low priority currently, did constitute a medium to high priority in the future.

Federal funding for the Georgia DHR Division of Aging Services (DAS) was significantly cut statewide in 2007. This will greatly reduce transportation services for Jones County's elderly residents who are DAS clients, beginning July 2008. These cuts are problematic for Jones County as the county is expected to experience a 111% increase in its elderly population between 2000 and 2025. (Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005 2025)
Despite the aforementioned federal funding cuts to the Georgia Department of Human Resources, two new competitive grant programs, both funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), will become available to Georgia counties in 2008 which may help to alleviate the increasing demand for services in Jones County. The Section 5317 New Freedom Program, will be available to Georgia counties in 2008. This grant-based program is designed to provide transportation services for the elderly and the disabled that address specific service gaps identified in each DHR Region's Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan. The Georgia DHR Region Six Plan, completed in May 2007, identified the need for 2,500 additional trips for Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) clients as well as another 1,500 trips for DFCS clients to employment locations in Jones County. The Georgia DHR Region Six Transportation Office applied for Section 5317 funds in May 2008. The FTA is expected to announce award recipients after the fall of 2008.

The other new FTA program, the Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute Program (JARC), is a grant-based program which provides funding for transportation services to and from employment centers. Both the Georgia DOT District Three Office and the Georgia DHR Region Six Transportation Office express the sentiment that while Jones County does provide a high number of public trips, there is unmet need for transportation to employment, particularly for low-income residents. The Section 5316 Program could potentially address this need with fixed-route transportation to and from employment centers in Macon as well as providing the DFCS employment transportation needs identified above. Despite the many benefits that the program could offer Jones County residents, it does require a significant local match commitment for funding to be granted. The Georgia Region Six Office applied for Section 5316 funding in May 2008, with the FTA expected to announce award recipients late fall 2008.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

35

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5.1.1 Jones County Rural Transit Service Statistics

Service Statistics 2006 (January to August)

All Vehicles

Total One-Way Trips 2006

20,235

Number of Vehicles

3

Average Number of One-Way Passenger Trips per Month

562

Average Trips per Vehicle per Day

28

Source: GDOT, Middle Georgia Community Action Agency, August 2007

Table 5.1.2 further characterizes the passengers that utilize Jones County's transportation services each month.

Table 5.1.2 Jones County Rural Transit 2006 Ridership Statistics

Passenger

Percentage

Elderly Non Elderly

44% 56%

White
AfricanAmerican
Hispanic

32% 67% 1%

Disabled

2.5%

Source: GDOT, Middle Georgia Community Action Agency, August 2007

The system provides transportation to a variety of destinations which include medical, employment, educational, shopping, and recreational centers. The percentage of the 20,235 trips provided in 2006 to each destination type is shown in Table 5.1.3.
Table 5.1.3 Jones County Rural Transit 2006 Destination Statistics

Medical Employment Education Shopping & Personal

5.8%

4.4%

16.9%

72.9%

Source: GDOT, Middle Georgia Community Action Agency, August 2007

The Middle Georgia Community Action Agency operates a fourth van in Jones County to transport elderly, disabled, and other residents who qualify for Georgia Department of Human Resources assistance. These residents are clients of the Division of Family and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

36

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Children Services and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases. As of July 2007, transportation was also provided for the Division of Aging Services.

For the fiscal year ending in June 2007, 5,243 DHR trips were provided. The breakdown of DHR transportation services provided by each department/agency referenced above is shown in Table 5.1.4 below.
Table 5.1.4 Jones County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency

DHR Aging

DHR DFCS

DHR MHDDAD

Total DHR Trips

Started Fiscal Year `07-08 1,086

4,157

5,243

Source: Department of Human Resources Region Six Transportation Office - August 2007 *Some DHR trips are provided by the 5311 van.

Southeastern Trans serves as the major Medicaid transportation provider in Jones County.

Jones County's rural transportation system provides a significant number of trips when compared to other County programs of similar size. Planning for additional future services needs to consider population projections of potential users of the system. The Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025 reports the following population projections for elderly residents by the year 2025.

Table 5.1.5 Jones County Population Projections

2000

2010

2025

Number of Percent of Number of Percent Number of Percent Persons County Persons of County Persons of County

Total Population 23,690

-

Population 65

years of age or 2,460

10.4%

older

Source: Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025

27,640 3,280

11.9%

32,800 5,200

15.9%

As seen from the data above, the County is expected to experience a 5 percent increase in elderly population between the year 2000 and 2025. This growing elderly population will place additional demands on the rural transit system, as evidenced by the current ridership statistics presented above.

Recent planning initiatives also document the need for additional services in the future. The Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan was completed by the DHR Region Six Transportation Office in May 2007. Region Six is comprised of Baldwin, Bibb,

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

37

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Crawford, Houston, Jones, Monroe, Peach, Pulaski, Monroe, Twiggs, and Wilkinson Counties. The purpose of this plan was to:

Identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with limited incomes;
Outline strategies for meeting these transportation needs; and Prioritize services.

The plan shows the following information for Jones County, based on Census data from 2000:

Table 5.1.6 Jones County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment

Population 2000

Disabled Persons

Developmentally Disabled Persons

Elderly Persons

Persons Below Poverty Level

Households w/o a Motor
Vehicle

23,690

3,403 14.4% 390

1.65%

2,441 10.3% 2,375 10.0% 409 4.7%

Source: Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan, DHR Region Six Transportation Office, May 2007

For Jones County, the plan identified 2,500 additional trips that are needed for new DFCS clients. These clients are those qualifying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Plan also identified an additional 1,500 trips needed for Non-TANF DFCS clients to employment locations, services which are not currently provided.

Planning for future transportation services must also consider the needs of residents who do not qualify for DHR assistance, or for whom the 5311 Rural Transit Program is not a viable option, i.e., those requiring transportation on weekends or after the weekday 5311 van operating hours. Both the GDOT District Three Office and the Georgia DHR Region Six Transportation Office express the sentiment that while Jones County does provide a high number of public trips, there is still likely unmet need for transportation access to employment, particularly for low-income residents, in the County.
Jones County Commuter Options

Seventy-seven percent of Jones County has a high percentage of residents who work outside of the county. A majority of these workers (57%) commute 15 to 20 miles each way to the Bibb-County Macon area. Because of the close proximity of the Bibb-Macon employment center to Jones County, the overwhelming majority of workers (88%) commute alone by car and there is little evidence of either informal or organized carpooling or vanpooling effort. Jones County does not have a GDOT Rideshare lot to provide free parking for those wishing to have a place to meet to carpool or vanpool to work. Despite the unmet need for transportation access to employment, described above, several public and private attempts to operate bus service between Jones County and Macon have failed in recent years due to low ridership.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

38

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The Georgia Department of Corrections' (DOC) projected move to neighboring Monroe County in 2009 may impact future commuting patterns in Jones County as employees transferring from Atlanta may decide to move into Jones County or as Jones County residents seek jobs at the new DOC facilities in Forsyth. This would create a 27+ mile oneway commute between the two counties which may increase future carpooling interests in the region.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

39

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.0 Freight Transport
The identification of freight corridors and preservation of freight mobility is one of the key components of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Transportation Study. There are currently four roadways in Jones County that are designated as truck routes, as well as two active freight rail lines. The following sections summarize the existing freight activity and facilities in Jones County. The information presented in this section comes from the GDOT Office of Inter-modal Programs, particularly the 2000 Georgia Rail Freight Plan. Figure 6.0 maps the freight transport facilities in Jones County.
6.1 Jones County Freight Transport
Norfolk Southern operates 36 miles of rail along two tracks in Jones County. The MadisonMacon line parallels SR 11 through the City of Gray and carries 5 trains per day. This line transports approximately 3 million gross ton miles per mile (MGTM/M) of track per year, a measure of rail traffic density which provides an indication of the relative use of the rail system and demand for service along a particular track section. By comparison, some of Georgia's most heavily used main lines transport more than 40 MGTM/M per year.
The second line skirts the southern portion of Jones County. This line transports approximately 29 MGTM/M per mile of track per year on up to 10 trains per day on a route extending from Macon to Savannah. Macon serves as a Norfolk Southern hub for traffic consolidation and distribution.
Seventeen miles of CSX rail line extend from southern central Jones County to Milledgeville located in Baldwin County. This line is currently inactive.
Jones County is a major point of origination for nonmetallic mineral products such as gravel. These products originate within Jones County and are shipped beyond Georgia boundaries. Approximately 1.26 million tons are transported from within Jones County, joining Floyd, Talbot, and Warren Counties as key locations originating this commodity.
Jones County is not a major termination point for any particular commodity. Many products, however, are transported through the County via rail as part of intrastate traffic (commodities which both originate and terminate within Georgia) and through traffic (products which move through the State but neither originate nor terminate in Georgia). These commodities include clay, concrete, glass/stone products (much of which originates in Bibb County), lumber/wood products, coal, chemicals/allied products, hazardous materials, pulp, paper, and allied products, food products, and miscellaneous mixed shipments.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

40

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Freight Transportation Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
41

F
Figure No: 6.0

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Jones County Rail Crossings
Jones County has 49 railroad crossings. Forty-eight of these are at-grade and one is a grade separated overpass with the railroad crossing over the road. Twenty-five are private crossings with the remaining 24 crossing public roads.

Several crossings in Jones County experience heavy vehicle traffic volume. Table 6.1.1 presents Jones County rail crossings on roadway facilities with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts greater than 1,000 vehicles per day.
Table 6.1.1 Jones County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT

Rail Crossing and Location

AADT

Crossing 733402G at T.E. Watson Highway in Gray Crossing 733415H at SR 49 in Gray Crossing 733407R at Cumslo Road in Gray

21,000 7,720 2,600

Crossing 732706U at Henderson Road in Macon Crossing 733283A at Shoal Creek Road in Round Oak

1,931 1,920

Crossing 733404V at SR 18 Connector in Gray Crossing 733418D at Lite-N-Tie Road in Macon
Source: GDOT Office of Utilities, August 2007.

1,200 1,010

Jones County Railroad Crash Data

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis, reports 26 crashes which involved trains at rail crossings in Jones County for the period 1975 to early 2007. Since 2000, accidents have occurred at the following crossing locations as shown in Table 6.1.2.

Table 6.1.2 Jones County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains)

Rail Crossing
ID

Location

City

Date of Highway User

Incident

Involved

Position

733415H

Old Garrison SR 49

Gray 03/13/07

Truck-trailer

Stopped on Crossing

732709P

Mountain Springs Church Road

Macon

12/05/00

Truck

Moving over Crossing

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report, 2007

Injuries
None 1 Fatality Crossing Motorist Killed

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

42

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Additionally, the GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design maintains crash data as reported by local law enforcement. For the period 2000 to 2006, 15 crashes have been reported at rail crossings in Jones County. This does not include the incidences involving trains as reported above.
Table 6.1.3 Jones County Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Not Involving Trains)

Rail Crossing ID
733290K
733299W 733401A

Location
Old Highway 11 Industrial Boulevard Martin Luther King

City
Gray Gray Gray

Date of Incident
07/03/04
12/19/00 02/15/05

Manner of Collision Injuries

Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Angle

None None None

02/17/01

Rear End

None

733402G

Thomas E. Watson Highway/SR 22

Gray

08/07/01 10/20/01

Rear End Angle

None None

733407R 733413U 733415H

CR 291 Skinner Road Old Garrison / SR 49

Gray Gray Gray

06/20/05 06/04/01 01/26/03 07/10/04 07/28/04 10/27/04

Rear End
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle

None None None None 1 Injury None

733421L

Griswoldville Road/ CR 139

Macon

02/28/01

Rear End

None

Source: GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design, August 2007

Local Railroad Concerns - Jones County

Jones County Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 76) has expressed concerns over several crossings in Jones County. These are described below.

There are significant rail crossing issues in downtown Gray which hopefully will be alleviated with the construction of the proposed Gray bypass project.
There are no railroad crossing signals at Crossing 733284G - Otis Redding Road and at Crossing 733292Y - Hungerford Road. These crossings may warrant additional safety features.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

43

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The crossing at Lite-N-Tie (Crossing 733418D) just past the rock quarry has sight distance issues.

Jones County Planned Transportation Improvements There are currently no programmed railroad improvements for Jones County in GDOT's Construction Work Program.

6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail
The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) a Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Georgia Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA), and Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) joint initiative, which began in 2000, proposes future commuter and intercity rail transportation options in close proximity to Jones and Butts Counties and will directly benefit Monroe County. The commuter rail option would provide daily home-to work trips using traditional rail passenger cars with stops 2-10 miles apart and heavy service during AM and PM rush hours. Intercity rail service would offer 2-3 trains per day between major cities with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with few stops to minimize travel time.

The GRPP proposes an aggressive build schedule; however, all projects are on hold at this time. GDOT, the project sponsor, is currently trying to pinpoint sources of funding for facilities operations. According to GRPA, projects will proceed as described below once these funding sources are established.

The Rail Program outlines a series of prioritized rail projects, starting with commuter rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The first phase of this route will be the Lovejoy to Atlanta leg, with planned stops in Jonesboro, Morrow, Forest Park and East Point, terminating at the planned Atlanta Five Points Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal. Here commuters will be able to transfer to MARTA or walk to many downtown jobs. Four trains will operate every 30-40 minutes on this route, making the end-to-end trip in 46 minutes, competitive with rush hour drive times for the 26-mile segment.

The next phase will extend the service to Hampton and Griffin, a 16-mile segment. The final phase will implement track, signal, crossing and station/parking improvements to extend service to Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke and Macon, completing the 103-mile project. It is estimated that at maturity, more than 3,080 daily trips will be made on the Atlanta to Macon line for an annual count of 770,000 trips, eliminating 800,000 hours of highway delay for drivers remaining on the roads.

The GRPP also proposes future intercity rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The proposed Atlanta-Griffin-Macon Intercity Rail line will offer three daily express intercity trains stopping in Griffin and a Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport related station. The service is proposed as a long term initiative, with commuter rail service a current priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

44

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

7.0 Airport Facilities
7.1 Jones County
Jones County does not have a local airport. Nearby small aircraft airports include the Herbert Smart Downtown Airport in Macon and Baldwin County Airport northeast of Milledgeville. Commercial airport needs are met by the Middle Georgia Regional Airport, located in Macon, and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, located south of Atlanta.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

45

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

8.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

This section provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts, an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the 3-County Region, and an outline of issues to consider during the development of future transportation system conditions and recommendations for improvements to the system.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important part of a multi-modal transportation system designed to efficiently move people. It is important to consider that everyone is a pedestrian at one point in almost every trip, even if the primary mode of travel for a trip involves a personal vehicle or transit. Sidewalks are an important element along roadways near local activity centers such as schools, libraries, commercial centers, and public recreation areas which attract significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Crosswalks at roadway intersections in areas with pedestrian activity can be utilized to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians. This report provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts and an outline of issues to consider during the development of future transportation system alternatives.
8.1 Jones County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Based on field inventory, the City of Gray currently has a sparse sidewalk network in the downtown and residential areas of the City. New sidewalks are being constructed along US 129 in front of the Civic Center and Court House. There is a need for an expanded sidewalk network to provide connectivity between residential areas and activity centers in and near the City of Gray. In June 2007, the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center completed a Rails-to-Trails Feasibility Study was completed regarding the Rails-to-Trails project from the Ocmulgee Heritage Trail to Milledgeville. The Central Georgia Rail-to-Trail Association, Inc., a non-profit organization has been created to oversee the development of this facility. Stagecoach Road and Upper River Road are popular bicycling routes are both roads are lacking shoulders which would provide a safer bicycling environment. Jones County has applied for Transportation Enhancement funding for the construction of sidewalks and street lighting along SR 22 in Haddock and for the construction of a trailhead adjacent to SR 18 on the Ocmulgee River to serve the future Ocmulgee River Trail. Transportation Enhancement funding is a set-aside funding category targeted for enhancing the multimodal environment through projects including streetscape, sidewalk, and bicycle facility improvements.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

46

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
47

F
Figure No: 8.0

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region
The Middle Georgia Regional Development Center, with funding support from GDOT and advisory support from a regional Bike/Pedestrian Plan Planning Advisory Committee, consisting of local bicycle advocates, civic organizations, and government representatives, developed the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region, in 2005. The focus of this plan was to establish a system of interregional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown Gray, schools, and recreational destinations is the focus of the proposed network. The marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general was also a focus of the plan.

Central Georgia Rail-to-Trail Feasibility Study
The Central Georgia Rails-to-Trails Association, Inc., with assistance from the Middle Georgia RDC, completed a Central Georgia Rail to Trail Feasibility Study in June 2007. A copy of the study can be obtained by contacting the Middle Georgia RDC. The 33-mile corridor is proposed along an abandoned CSX Railway line from just south of Central City Park in Macon to just south of Garrett Way in Milledgeville. The feasibility study identifies a series of issues and opportunities associated with the proposed corridor.

Table 8.1.1 outlines the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network in Jones County.

Table 8.1.1 Jones County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region

Location

Description

Along Ocmulgee River from Juliette Road south to Bibb County Line Ocmulgee Heritage Shared Use Trail

Juliette Road from Monroe County Line east to SR 11

2 Foot Bicycle Lane

from Jasper County Line south to SR 22 in Gray
Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 south to inactive Norfolk Southern Line
On inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County Line northeast to Baldwin County Line
Source: Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region 2005

4 Foot Bicycle Lane 2 Foot Bicycle Lane 10 foot Rails to Trails Path

Jones County Programmed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

To help reduce overall costs of implementing a bicycle and pedestrian network to potential funding agencies, new facilities could be implemented concurrent with subdivision development, widening, or utility upgrade improvements. Recommendations for the development of a county wide system for bicyclists and pedestrians will focus on connectivity with the existing designated bicycle routes, a sidewalks network, neighborhood streets, and pathway connections. Planned improvements included in the GDOT's 2008 2011 Statewide

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

48

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or 2008-2013 Construction Work Program (CWP) will be evaluated to ensure that any opportunities for the inclusion of bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the project scope are considered. Jones County currently has one programmed project which includes the construction of a multi-use path along SR 18 between Gray Station Middle School and the nearby Jones County Recreation facility, as listed in Table 8.1.2.
Table 8.1.2 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects in Jones County

GDOT Project ID #

Primary Work Type

Description

PE ROW CST

0007603

Streetscapes

Sidewalks and Bike Trails in Gray

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation

Local

Local 2008

Jones County Potential Locations for New Facilities

Jones County has many destinations that can benefit from connectivity to alternative forms of transportation. Several key destinations were considered when evaluating locations for new bicycle or pedestrian facilities. These included:

Existing Schools: Mattie Wells Primary School 101 Mattie Wells Drive, Macon Wells Elementary School 512 Hwy 49, Macon Dames Ferry Elementary School 545 Hwy 18 West, Gray Gray Elementary School 272 Railroad Street, Gray Jones County Ninth Grade Academy 110 Maggie Califf Street, Gray Clifton Ridge Middle School 169 Dusty Lane, Macon Gray Station Middle School 324 Hwy 18 East, Gray Jones County High School 339 Railroad Street, Gray

Planned Schools: New Elementary School (open to students in 2010) On Turner Woods Road near Morton traffic will access site via SR 22 and Altman this site is planned to also have a Middle school in Long Range New High School (accepting students 8-10 years away)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

49

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

On Howard Roberts Road (which makes a horseshoe and intersects SR 18 twice). The site will be one mile from the eastern intersection of Howard Roberts Road and SR 18 and also one mile from Dames Ferry Elementary. New Primary or Middle School (on hold Long Range) On Huckabee Road within one quarter mile of SR 18 West
Other Destinations: Jones County Library 146 Railroad Street, Gray Jones County Recreation Center- Central Complex 146 Recreation Road Hwy 18E, Gray Jones County Recreation Center - South Complex at 436 Hwy 49, Macon Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge Jarrell Plantation Hillsboro Lake Downtown Gray Carol's Park Haddock Park Clinton Historical Park Miller Lake Upper River Road Park

These destinations were considered when developing recommendations for additional facilities to foster bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.

The MGRDC developed a bicycle and pedestrian plan that was previously documented in Section 4.6.

Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data
Statistics for bicycle and pedestrian crashes from 2004-2006 were examined to offer insight into safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in Jones County. Table 8.1.3 summarizes bicycle and pedestrian crash data statistics and Table 8.1.4 lists the locations of these incidents. Each of these locations were examined in the field to determine if bicycling or walking conditions could be improved to minimize the possibility of future crashes. This is a below average number of bicycle and pedestrian incidents compared to the threecounty study area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

50

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 8.1.3 Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006

Year

Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle and Pedestrian

Crashes

Injuries

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities

2004

3

3

0

2005

0

0

0

2006

3

3

0

2004-2006

6

6

0

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE)

Table 8.1.4 Jones County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006

Year

Bicycle and Pedestrian Injuries

2004

Ethridge Road at intersection of Haddock Drive

2004 2004 2006

Linda Drive
Old Garrison Road (SR 49) north of Timothy Circle and south of Pecan Road
SR 11 .1 mile southeast of Weidner Drive

2006

Henderson Road .1 mile north of Old Henderson Road

2006

SR 11/US 129 1/8 mile south of Joycliff Road

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE)

8.2 Bicycle System Elements

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities
Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury

Once a location for a potential bicycle improvement is determined, the type of improvement must also be considered. Factors such as lane width, vehicle speed, sight distance, frequency of intersections, and pavement surface quality, and hazard removal such as lane obstructions like grating or blind curves need to be considered in the facility selection and design process. In addition to facility selection (bicycle path, route, lane, or shoulder) and design, bicycle systems should be designed to ensure the security of bicycles at typical bicyclist destinations. Primary destinations such as schools, public recreation areas, commercial businesses, and restaurants should include bicycle racks or lockers for securing bicycles.

There are four primary types of bicycle facilities: bike paths, bike routes, bike lanes, and bike shoulders. A description of each type of facility along with design considerations are listed below. Transportation Planners and Engineers should refer to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities when selecting and designing bicycle facilities.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

51

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Bike Paths
A bike path is a pathway designated for the exclusive use of bicycles where cross flows by pedestrians and motorists are minimized. A bike path is usually buffered from vehicular roadways through the use of a landscaped strip or physical barrier. It is also usually grade separated but may have at-grade crossings. Bike paths are identified through proper signing and also may have pavement markings.

The paved width and the operating width of the bicycle path are the primary design factors. Under most conditions, a paved width for a two-directional shared (bicycles and pedestrians) path is 10 feet. If a bike path requires a reduction in size due to Right of Way needs, a reduced width of 8 feet could be utilized. Under certain conditions including anticipated high use or the need for maintenance vehicle use, a paved width of 12 feet is required. A minimum of 2-foot width graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the paving for safety reasons.
Bike Routes
A bike route is a roadway identified as a bicycle facility only by guide signage along the roadway. There are no special lane markings and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motor vehicles. There are several reasons for designating signed bike routes. A route may be signed if it provides continuity to other bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or bike paths. A route may be signed if it is a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor or if the route is preferred for bicycling due to low motor vehicle traffic or paved shoulder availability. Route signage may be preferred if the route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors leading to an internal destination such as a park, school, or commercial district.

Bicycle routes should be plainly marked and easy for the bicyclist to interpret. The route should provide through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. Traffic control devices (stop signs and signals) should be adjusted to accommodate bicyclists on the route. Street parking should be removed where possible to increase the safety of the rider. A smooth surface should be provided and maintained. Wide curbs are desirable on designated bike routes.
Bike Lanes
A bike lane is a designated strip usually located along the edge of the paved area outside the travel lanes or between the parking lane and the outside motor vehicle through lane. Bike lanes should be one-way facilities and carry bike traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On one way streets, bike lanes should typically be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes are identified by "Bike Lane" markings on the pavement and other pavement markings or signs deemed appropriate by AASHTO design guidelines and / or GDOT standards to give adequate guidance to users of the facility. Bicyclists usually have exclusive use of a bike lane for travel, but must be aware of cross flows by motorists at driveways and intersections and also by pedestrians.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

52

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum bicycle lane width is 4 feet. If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the travel lane and the parking area and should have a minimum width of 5 feet. If a curb and gutter is present, the minimum width from the face of the curb to the bike lane stripe should be 5 feet if the gutter pan is smooth for bicycle travel. Four feet of maneuverable surface is always required.
Bike Shoulders
Bike shoulders are paved shoulders that are smooth and sufficiently wide enough for use by bicyclists. Paved shoulders are used by bicyclists if they are relatively smooth, sufficiently wide enough, and kept clean of debris. Adding or improving paved shoulders is an efficient way to accommodate bicyclists in rural areas. Paved shoulders also provide valuable maneuvering room and reduce potential motor vehicle conflicts for slow-moving bicycles traveling up a hill.

Ideally, a paved bicycle shoulder should be at least 4 feet wide. However, where 4 feet cannot be accommodated, any shoulder is better than none. Rumble strips used to alert motorists that they are driving on the shoulder are not recommended on bike shoulders in the travel path of the cyclist. If rumble strips are placed on the shoulder, there should be additional shoulder adequate for bicycle travel in order to designate a shoulder as a bike shoulder. A bike shoulder is multi-faceted in that it can serve more than one function (i.e. it can serve as a temporary parking lane, an emergency lane, or a bus stop as well as an area for cyclists to travel within).
8.3 Pedestrian System Elements
There are also several considerations when selecting the type of pedestrian facility to implement. Along local streets in residential areas, sidewalks with a 4-foot clear width should be used. Five-foot clear width sidewalks should be used along collector streets, and six-foot clear width should be used along arterials. In commercial areas with high pedestrian and vehicular volumes, sidewalks of 6 or more feet should be considered. In order to maintain clear sidewalk widths, obstructions such as traffic signs, utility poles and supports should be placed outside the specified 4 to 6 foot sidewalk width. Grades on sidewalks should be limited to 6 to 8 percent in order to allow a consistent walking pace and ease of wheelchair use. Handicapped accessible ramps should be provided at driveways and intersections to provide accessibility to the system for everyone.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

53

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The following criteria are provided as a basis for determining when sidewalks should be considered:
When streets are within mile of a school. When a street is classified as a collector or arterial. When health and safety are threatened due to pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts. When sidewalks would provide system continuity between existing pedestrian
destinations. When parks, playgrounds, libraries, or other attractors of small children are not
served by sidewalks. When there is an existing, frequently traveled, unpaved path along a roadway. When sidewalks would provide an easy and safe route for pedestrians to gain
access to public transportation.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

54

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

9.0 Bridges

One of the critical concerns in the 3-County Region is bridge conditions. The bridges were evaluated to determine the need for potential improvement. Deficient bridges pose a major obstacle to a fully functional road network due to load limits or other restrictions. The study area was reviewed to identify all bridges and assess the need for potential improvements.
To facilitate the completion of this effort GDOT provided bridge condition reports for each bridge within the study area. A general measure of the condition of each bridge is the sufficiency rating. The sufficiency rating is used to determine the need for maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a bridge structure. Consultation with structural/bridge engineers shows that generally a bridge with a sufficiency rating above 75 should maintain an acceptable rating for at least 20 years with adequate maintenance. Structures with a sufficiency rating of 75 or lower have a useful life of less than twenty years and will require major rehabilitation or reconstruction work during the study horizon. All bridges with a sufficiency rating of fifty (50) or lower were identified as potentially deficient and qualifying for federal bridge replacement funds.

9.1 Jones County Bridges
All bridges within Jones County were identified. Documented sufficiency rating for each of the 48 bridges existing within the County are listed in Table 9.1. Italics font indicates that the bridge is on the state system.
Table 9.1 Bridge Inventory Jones County

Road
*Howard Roberts Road *County Line Road *County Line Road Folendore Road Turner Woods Road Shoal Creek Road Hitchiti Road
Roundoak-Juliette Road SR 49
Caney Creek Road Dumas Road Graham Road Graham Road US 129
Hadaway Road US 129 SB US 129 SB

Feature
Chehaw Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek
Millsap Creek Shoal Creek Falling Creek Falling Creek Norfolk Southern Railroad Falling Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek Cedar Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek

Sufficiency Rating
9.76 40.98 40.98 41.99 42.17 48.40 49.37 49.77 50.02 51.43 53.41 54.31 54.59 55.17 57.12 57.15 64.75

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

55

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Road

Feature

Sufficiency Rating

Jarrell Plantation

Falling Creek

Union Hill Church Road

Little Cedar Creek

Howard Robert Road

Walnut Creek

Barron Russell Road

Falling Creek

Camelot Road

Walnut Creek Tributary

Stagecoach Road

Walnut Creek

SR 22

Fishing Creek Tributary

SR 18

Wolf Creek

Hillsboro Lake Road

Glady Creek

Damascus Church Road

Hog Creek

SR 18

Gordon Branch

Old Griswoldville Road

Slash Creek

Henderson Road

Sandy Creek

McKay Road

Walnut Creek

SR 18

Crooked Creek Tributary

SR 18

Crooked Creek

Joycliff Road

Dry Bone Creek

SR 18

Little Creek

Comer Road

Chehaw Creek

Masseyville Road

Swift Creek

Luke Smith Road

Christian Branch

Stewart Farm Road

Wolf Creek

James Road

Little Creek

Luke Smith Road

Rock Creek

SR 18

Butlers Creek

Creekside Drive

Sand Creek

SR 22

Commissioner Creek

US 129

Bonner Creek

Cumslo Road

Norfolk-Southern Railroad (Abandoned)

US 129 NB

Rock Creek

US 129 NB
Source: GDOT. * Included in GDOT's current work program Italics font indicates that the bridge is on the state system.

Sand Creek

77.67 79.99 80.03 80.79 85.14 85.57 87.68 89.25 90.29 90.60 91.14 91.21 91.87 91.91 91.92 91.92 92.15 92.33 92.40 92.44 92.44 92.46 92.47 92.47 92.68 92.72 93.40 94.18 95.37 95.56 96.54

Based on the sufficiency rating, a majority of the bridges are in good condition and not in need of any major maintenance or upgrade activities. There are eight (8) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 50 and are potentially in need of maintenance and rehabilitation.

CR 28 / Howard Roberts Road at Chehaw Creek County Line Road at Commissioner Creek (Beginning at Mile Point 0.31) County Line Road at Commissioner Creek (Beginning at Mile Point 0.42) Folendore Road at Commissioner Creek Turner Woods Road at Millsap Creek Shoal Creek at Shoal Creek

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

56

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Hitchiti Road at Falling Creek Roundoak-Juliette Road at Falling Creek

There are currently three bridges listed in the STIP or CWP for Jones County. The three bridges programmed for upgrade or replacement are listed below:

CR 28 / Howard Roberts Road west of Clinton at Chehaw Creek CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line

Additionally, there are nine (9) bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 75 and should be considered candidates for maintenance and rehabilitation within the next 20 years. The following bridges have a sufficiency rating below 75.

SR 49 at Norfolk-Southern Railroad Caney Creek Road at Falling Creek Dumas Road at Glady Creek Graham Road at Rock Creek Graham Road at Sand Creek US 129 at Cedar Creek Hadaway Road at Glady Creek US 129 southbound lane at Rock Creek US 129 southbound lane at Sand Creek

The candidate bridges in the 3-County Region for maintenance and rehabilitation are mapped in Figure 9.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

57

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Bridges for Potential Maintenance or Rehabilitation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
58

F
Figure No: 9.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

10.0 Safety

The latest three years of available vehicular crash data from GDOT (2004, 2005, and 2006) were collected and analyzed for the entirety of Jones County. The crash data was used to determine roadway locations with potential safety deficiencies throughout the study area. Jones County experienced a total of 1,832 crashes with 746 injuries and 17 fatalities during the three-year period.

When analyzing the crash data, it was determined that a threshold of 20 crashes over the three-year period would serve to identify "active crash" locations.
10.1 Jones County Crash Summary
Three years of crash data (2004, 2005 and 2006) were analyzed for Jones County. Table 10.1 displays the intersections with active crashes.
Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Jones County

Roadway
SR 11 at SR 18 SR 11 at CR 3 SR 11 at CR 19 SR 49 at CR 182 SR 11 at CR 179

Intersection
Antebellum Trail at Forsyth Highway Antebellum Trail at Old Macon Gray Highway Antebellum Trail at Greene Settlement Road SR 49 at Joycliff Road Antebellum Trail at RL Wheeler Road

Crashes
34 35 22 23 21

Fatalities Injuries

0

10

0

10

0

12

0

10

0

5

In addition to the high crash locations, an area of focus and concern was the location of fatal crashes. The locations listed below experienced at least one fatality crash during the three-year analysis period.

Roundoak Juliette Road at Will Russell Road Roundoak Juliette at Old SR 11 US 129 north of Roosevelt Road US 129 at Mile Post 6.71 SR 49 at Morris Stevens Road SR 22 east of Fortville Road at Mile Post 14.13 Upper River Road north of Stagecoach Road Upper River Road at Mile Post 2.17, south of Woodmen of the World Road Joycliff Road north of Camp Joycliff Road Joycliff Road north of Stonewall Road US 129 south of Lite-n-tie Road at Mile Post 8.18 Oliver Green Road south of Comer Road at Mile Post 1.31 US 129 north of Old Highway 41 SR 18 at Christopher Drive

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

59

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Tanal Terrace at Griswoldville Road SR 49 at Mile Post 7.8, north of Kitchens Road Bowenhill Road south of James Road Lite-n-tie Road southeast of US 129 at Mile Post 6.9

There are planned widening projects on US 129, SR 22, and SR 49, which are expected to improve safety conditions on these facilities.

Figure 10.1 shows intersections with more than 20 crashes over the three-year analysis period as well as fatality and pedestrian related crash locations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

60

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
61

F
Figure No: 10.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.0 Roadway Characteristics

This section presents the characteristics of the roadways in the 3-County Region. The data is provided from GDOT's Roadway Conditions (RC) Database. The following data was reviewed as part of the study process:

Functional Classification; Roadway Operating Conditions; Road Lanes; Roadway Surface Type; and, Roadway Shoulders.
11.1 Functional Classification
Roadways are grouped into functional classes according to the character of traffic they are intended to serve. There are four highway functional classifications: expressway/freeway, arterial, collector, and local roads, and these can be defined as:

Expressway/Freeway - Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control.
Arterial - Provides the next highest level of service at moderate to high speeds, with some degree of access control. Arterials are typically classified as principal arterial and minor arterial.
Collector - Provides a lower level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. Collectors are typically classified as major collector and minor collector.
Local - Consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors; primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement.
The 3-County Region has about 209 lane miles of interstate, which includes I-75 and I-475. There are also approximately 389 lane miles of arterial facilities in the study area and 2,375 lane miles of collectors and local streets. Figure 11.1 displays the functional class of roadways in Jones County.
Table 11.1 displays the mileage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the different roadway classifications in Jones County. The 3-County Region is served by multiple state roads, (approximately 25 percent of the lane miles) which handle a majority of the traffic (80 percent). This differs slightly from the statewide averages of 16 percent of lane miles, handling 63 percent of the total traffic. To ensure future mobility, it will be important to evaluate and identify needed improvements to the state road system through close coordination with GDOT.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

62

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Functional Classification
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
63

F
Figure No: 11.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 11.1 Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled

State Roads

County

Miles

VMT

County Roads

Miles

VMT

Local Roads

Miles

VMT

Total

Miles

VMT

Jones

87

562,633

449

304,837

19

9123

555

876593

State 18,066 192,333,604 84,118 89,159,091 14,502 23,319,169 116,685
Source: GDOT Office of Transportation Data-Mileage By Route Type and Road System Date: 12/31/06

304,811,865

11.2 Road Lanes

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is the number of lanes provided on each road. The roads in the 3-County Region predominately serve bidirectional traffic. Additionally, the majority of the roads in the study area are 2-lane facilities. The dependency on a largely 2-lane roadway network may become strained in the future as traffic levels increase. Figure 11.2 displays the number of lanes on the roads in Jones County.

11.3 Roadway Shoulders

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway shoulder. For this analysis, both the shoulder type and shoulder width were reviewed to determine segments of roadways in need of potential upgrades. A wide variety of shoulder widths and types are present throughout the 3-County Region. The objective of this analysis is to determine areas where the shoulder is potentially deficient. Insufficient shoulder width can contribute to travel speed reductions, potentially impact safety and influence bicycle and pedestrian usage. The following guidelines are used to determine potential shoulder deficiencies:

No shoulder or an unidentifiable shoulder; Grass shoulder less than 4 feet; and, Paved Shoulder less than 2 feet.

Figure 11.3 displays the roadway shoulder type and widths according to GDOT's RC Database for Jones County. Roadway segments with potential deficient shoulders will become candidates for recommended upgrades.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

64

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Roadway Lanes
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
65

F
Figure No: 11.2

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Roadway Shoulders
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
66

F
Figure No: 11.3

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.4 Roadway Surface Type

The final attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway surface type. Roadway surface dramatically affects the capacity, useful life, and safety of a particular facility. The list below details the surface types used in the study area.

Paved Roads High Rigid - Portland cement concrete pavements with or without bituminous
surface if less than one inch. High Flexible - Mixed bituminous penetration road on a rigid or flexible base
with a combined (surface and base) thickness of seven inches or more. Includes any bituminous concrete, sheet asphalt, or rock asphalt. Mixed Bituminous Penetration - Low type (less than seven inches combined thickness surface and base). Surface is one inch or more. Mixed Bituminous Pavement - A road, the surface course of which is one inch or more in compacted thickness composed of gravel, stone, sand, or similar material, mixed with bituminous material under partial control as to grading and proportions. Bituminous Surfaced Treated - An earth road, a soil-surfaced road, or a gravel or stone road to which has been added by any process a bituminous surface course with or without a seal coat, the total compacted thickness which is less than one inch. Seal coats include those known as chip seals, drag seals, plant mix seals, and rock asphalt seals.

Unpaved Roads Gravel or Stone Road - A road, the surface of which consists of gravel or
stone. Surfaces may be stabilized. Graded and Drained - A road of natural earth aligned and graded to permit
reasonable convenient use by motor vehicles and drained by longitudinal and transverse drainage systems (natural and artificial) sufficient to prevent serious impairment of the road by normal surface water, with or without dust palliative treatment or a continuous course of special borrow material to protect the new roadbed temporarily and to facilitate immediate traffic service.

There are several roads in the 3-County Region, particularly in Jones County, that are dirt or gravel. It may be appropriate to upgrade and pave some of these facilities to provide better connectivity throughout the study area. Figure 11.4 displays the roadway surface type according to GDOT's RC Database for Jones County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

67

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Roadway Surface Type
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
68

F
Figure No: 11.4

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.0 Roadway Operating Conditions

A travel demand model was developed to assist in the evaluation of existing and future travel conditions throughout the 4-County Region. More detailed information regarding the model and model development process is presented in the Model Development Technical Memorandum. The key output from the travel demand model is the daily volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment. The volume to capacity ratios correspond to a level of service based on accepted methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Existing (2006), interim year (2015) and future (2035) operating conditions for the study are summarized in the following sections.
Prior to documenting operating conditions it is useful to summarize level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic flow describing operating conditions. Six levels of service are defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the Highway Capacity Manual for use in evaluating roadway operating conditions. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. A facility may operate at a range of levels of service depending upon time of day, day of week or period of the year. A qualitative description of the different levels of service is provided below.
LOS A Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. LOS B Drivers experience some delay but generally driving conditions are favorable. LOS C Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable delay in
intersection areas. LOS D Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to pass
and considerable intersection delay. LOS E The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps in
the traffic. LOS F More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle
resulting in extreme delays.
The approach used to identify deficient segments in Jones County was to analyze the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments, also known as the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. For daily operating conditions, any segment identified as LOS D or worse was considered deficient.
The following thresholds were used to assign a level of service to the V/C ratios for rural facilities based on GDOT standards:
V/C < 0.35 = LOS C or better; 0.35 > V/C < 0.55 = LOS D; 0.55 > V/C < 1.00 = LOS E; and, V/C > 1.00 = LOS F.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

69

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.1 Existing Operating Conditions

The existing conditions results derived from the 3-County travel demand model were used to determine deficient roadway segments in Jones County. Deficient segments were determined by analyzing the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments. The corresponding V/C ratios were related to LOS. The minimum acceptable LOS for daily roadway operating conditions is LOS C based on GDOT standards.

The existing analysis shows that three segments currently operate daily at or below LOS D. Table 12.1 displays the deficient roadway segments with the LOS for daily operating conditions. Figure 12.1 displays the existing LOS for Jones County.

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments

Roadway SR 49 Joycliff Road Henderson Road
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Garrison Road US 129 Griswoldville Road

To Griswoldville Road SR 49 SR 57

Volume(1) 9,983 11,676 10,928

V/C 0.70 0.73 1.37

LOS D D F

The majority of roadways in Jones County currently operate at an acceptable LOS during daily conditions. Future analysis shows that as traffic volumes continue to increase, some of these roadways will degrade to an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

70

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Existing Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
71

F
Figure No: 12.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.2 Future Operating Conditions

Future operating conditions were evaluated for the years 2015 and 2035. The existing roadway network was used to determine how well the roadway network will serve 2015 and 2035 population and employment in Jones County with no additional improvements. The projects identified in GDOT's Construction Work Program were considered long-range and thus were not added to the model network.

It is useful to point out that the long-term projections for population and employment are the least reliable. This is not due to specific inaccuracies or projection techniques but simply because it requires the judgment of stakeholders to assign population and employment throughout the study area. This in turn impacts estimates of traffic demand. These longterm results should be considered preliminary and when the transportation plan is updated every 3 to 5 years, the projects should be reexamined and amended as necessary.

The 2015 analysis shows that five segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.1 displays the 2015 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

The 2035 analysis shows that eleven segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.2 displays the 2035 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments

Roadway SR 22 SR 49 SR 49 Joycliff Road Henderson Road
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Bowen Hill Road SR 18 Garrison Road US 129 Griswoldville Road

To Baldwin County Line Cumslo Road Griswoldville Road SR 49 SR 57

Volume(1) 9,216 10,701 10,272 12,339 11,894

V/C LOS

0.73

D

0.77

D

0.71

D

0.78

D

1.49

F

Figure 12.2.1 presents the 2015 daily deficient segments along the existing roadway network.

The 2035 analysis shows that 19 segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.2 displays the 2035 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

72

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
73

F
Figure No: 12.2.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Roadway SR 18 US 129 SR 22 Lite-n-tie Road Garrison Road SR 49 SR 49 SR 49 Joycliff Road Griswoldville Road Henderson Road
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Monroe County Line SR 18 Connector Bowen Hill Road Overland Way Lite-n-tie Road Bowen Hill Road SR 18 Garrison Road US 129 SR 49 Griswoldville Road

To Five Points Road Joycliff Road Baldwin County Line Garrison Road SR 49 SR 18 Cumslo Road Griswoldville SR 49 Henderson Road SR 57

Volume(1) 7,900 23,675 11,261 8,314 8,314 11,582 13,064 11,741 13,108 8,107 14,520

V/C 0.77 0.78 0.89 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.95 0.81 0.84 0.82 1.82

LOS D D E D D D E D D D F

Figure 12.2.2 presents the 2035 daily deficient segments along the existing roadway network.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

74

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
75

F
Figure No: 12.2.2

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.0 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

It is important to understand deficiencies as perceived by citizens and key stakeholders in addition to those identified through technical analysis. In combination, technical analysis, and citizen and stakeholder input should clearly define transportation issues and opportunities in the 3-County Region. The Study Team met individually with Jones County staff representatives and created an advisory group of community leaders in Jones County. Members of the Study Advisory Group are listed in Table 13.0. Public meetings were also held to obtain feedback from citizens in each county, and to discuss their issues and concerns.
Table 13.0 Study Advisory Group Jones County

Decius Aaron City of Gray Superintendent
John Conn Conn Realty
Wayne Garrett Jones County Schools,
Transportation
Candy McMahon Conn Realty
Tim Pitrowski Jones County Planning and
Zoning
Mike Underwood Jones County Administrator

Laten Bonoil Jones County Public Works
Charlie Cruz Middle Georgia Community Action
Agency
Cheryl Harrington DHR Region 6 Transportation Office
Velma McFadden The Plan Group
Greg Mullis Jones County Development
Authority

Pam Christopher Jones County Chamber of
Commerce
Pat Daniel Better Hometown
Steve McClendon Tri County EMC
Carol Miller Jones County Board of
Education Harry Goff Jones County Schools Transportation

13.1 Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings
Five meetings were held with Jones County representatives to gather input on transportation issues and to share study findings and recommendations. Table 13.1 includes meeting dates and locations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

76

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 13.1 Jones County Meetings

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Meeting Type County Issues Discussion Study Advisory Group 1 Public Information Workshop 1 Study Advisory Group 2 Public Information Workshop 2

Date 07/18/07 10/10/07 10/23/07 04/07/08 05/08/08

Location Jones County Government Center Jones County Government Center Jones County Government Center Jones County Government Center Jones County Government Center

13.2 Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Table 13.2 summarizes the general themes expressed by citizens and stakeholders relative to transportation issues, opportunities, and needs.

Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input

Transportation Issues and Opportunities
SR 129 - Milledgeville thru traffic from US 441 and Macon creates congestion; There is a
widening to four-lanes included in Putnam County's Long-Range Plan
Traffic in downtown Gray - Four roads converge near railroad tracks; Traffic signals an issue Bypass needed to give trucks an alternative around City of Gray Recent Scenic Byway designation (SR 11 to North Roundoak/Juliette Road) SR 49 - Two rock quarries, two asphalt plants location; traffic travels at high speed on hilly-
terrain; traffic emerging from two schools creates dangerous traffic conditions with limited sight distance; Children walk on SR 49 to the County recreational fields
Connector roads need improvement (Cumslo Road, Lite-n-tie Road, Joy Cliff Road) East-west connectivity needed to the Bass Rd employment center SR 57 - Industrial park will encompass 1000 acres and access needs to be maintained Upper River Road - "S" Curve near Bibb County is unsafe; High bicycle usage SR 18 residential growth expected with new, planned water line Huckabee Road from Graham Road to SR 18 needs improvement Stagecoach Road, Morton Road - Could be used by new schools as a more direct route if
improvements are made
Olive Green road current dirt road could be paved Haddock Community - Reinvesting in community, seeks measures to slow traffic in the area Minimize impacts to Haddock community, preserve character; traffic signal requested Cross- County Connector to Bibb County has community opposition, but a need exists SR 22 onto SR 18 from Milledgeville needs left turn lanes US 129 additional passing lanes needed for Saturday college football and Lake Sinclair traffic

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

77

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Use Upper River Road to connect to I-75 in Bibb County as an alternative to US 129; with new
school on SR 18, this would be a more direct route for those commuting to jobs in Macon
Green Settlement Road has high traffic and needs improvement SR 22 at the Harris Morton Road/Altman Road intersection has high speeds and needs
improvement
From Wayside to Jarrell Plantation is currently dirt and is busy with traffic: could be paved to
connect SR 11 and SR 18
Fire Tower Road and Five Points Road citizen wants the road to be paved

Bicycle and Pedestrian



Potential for new bicycle facilities with proposed road projects



Widened shoulders on bike routes to minimize conflicts for bicyclists with rumble strips and traffic



Bypass connector from SR 22 to US 129/SR 22 has potential for bike lanes to be included in the

design, which could eventually connect to SR 11



Downtown Civic Center and courthouse connection to school on Cumslo Road



SR 18 east to Gray Station School to recreation park and 500 single-family residential lots nearby



SR 18 was awarded $500,000 in HPP funds for sidewalks between Gray Station and Allen Green

Parkway to the recreation complex



Upper River Road to Stagecoach bicycle route planned



SR 22 in Haddock community should focus on pedestrian road crossing safety



Transportation Enhancement project for sidewalks and lighting for the two "Unincorporated

Haddock" signs

Public Transportation



Jones County participates in 5311 program

Freight & Rail



There are currently no railroad crossing signals at Otis Redding and Hungerford Roads



Lite-N-Tie Road just past rock quarry has sight distance issues



Train passes through City of Gray approximate 5 times per day, but does not stop



In Gray, two traffic signals are at SR 11 and SR 44 at the railroad crossing: SR 11 signal should

be relocated to correct sight distance problem and a brighter signal should be installed

Figure 13.1 graphically displays the citizen and stakeholder comments.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

78

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
79

F
Figure No: 13.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

14.0 Goals and Objectives
Goals and Objectives are the foundation of the long-range planning process. They guide the development of the LRTP by providing a basis for evaluating transportation plan improvements by reflecting the intentions that the Plan is meant to achieve. It is necessary to establish long-range goals and objectives to guide the transportation plan development process for Jones County. The goals represent the general themes and overall directions that Jones County, and its residents envision for the future of the County. The objectives provide additional specificity and focus for each associated goal. Combined, they provide the policy framework for development and implementation of the Transportation Plan.
14.1 Background
Goals and Objectives should be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local plans and legislation. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, eight factors must now be considered when a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) develops a LRTP. It is understood that most of Jones County is not within an MPO service area; however, the guidelines for MPO's were followed to provide a strong framework for transportation decisions. Specifically, the LRTP must be designed to:

Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve
the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operation; and, Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
14.2 Methodology
The goals and objectives were developed based on a review of relevant planning documents including the Jones County Comprehensive Plan and the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan. Additionally, through input obtained at various public workshops, development of the goals and objectives was also tailored to reflect the vision of County residents and business owners.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

80

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 14.2, excerpted from the "SAFETEA-LU Users Guide," shows how LRTP policies and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria are related. There can be different ways of evaluating projects for the same SAFETEA-LU planning factors, depending on whether systems or individual projects are being evaluated.

Table 14.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

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

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

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

Accessibility Reliability

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

Multi-modal considerations
Transit accessibility and level of service

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

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

Number of crashes Number of rail grade
crashes Bicycle and pedestrian
crashes
Crashes Potential for security
hazard Access to critical
infrastructure Access to power
sources Access to reservoirs Access to population
centers Prevention of
bottlenecks Segmentation prevented Intermodal connectivity Community-based
economic development

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

81

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Factor 5. Protect and enhance
the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

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

Project Selection Criteria
Environmental impact Emissions reductions Waterway preservation Preservation and
conservation of resources

Intermodal transfer facilities
Rail access roads Container policies Freight policies/needs

Intermodal connectivity Accessibility for people
and freight Congestion relief

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

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

Source: SAFETEA-LU Users Guide

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

14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents

In addition to SAFETEA-LU, goals and objectives should also be consistent with other state and local plans, such as local comprehensive plans and regional policy plans. In this way, the goals and objectives of the LRTP support the planning efforts of local governments and agencies. In particular, emphasis was placed on the Comprehensive Plan for Jones County. Key transportation related goals, objectives and strategies from Jones County's most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan include:

Traffic congestion along Gray Highway corridor.
Extensive amount of traffic (including trucks) through the City of Gray's downtown area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

82

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Establish attractive entranceways along major thoroughfares in Jones County/City of Gray.
Commuter strategies including car and vanpooling that will help reduce traffic between Jones County and the employment centers in Baldwin, Bibb and Houston Counties.
Provision of satisfactory alternative forms of transportation including transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Gray-Jones County

14.4 Goals and Objectives

Based on the citizens, stakeholders, and county officials for the transportation network, a series of goals and objectives for this transportation plan have been established. Jones County following goals and objectives are listed as follows:

Goal 1: Keep and improve the land use and transportation connection

Objective 1.1:

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

Objective 1.2

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

Objective 1.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision-making to encourage viability of alternative modes.

Objective 1.4 As development is permitted, review the impact to the transportation system to ensure mobility is protected as parcel level development occurs.

Goal 2: Enhance countywide mobility through improved roadway connectivity

Objective 2.1
. Objective 2.2

Identify potential projects that provide key linkages between existing roadway facilities and/or improve linkages by upgrading existing facilities on a grid-like system.
Existing and future roadway deficiencies, based on level of service standards, shall be addressed through solutions that connect, as well as enhance, existing roadways.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

83

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Goal 3: Protect our Downtown areas by removing trucks and other through traffic

Objective 3.1 Consider transportation investments and land use management strategies that remove or discourage heavy trucks from cutting through downtown areas.

Objective 3.2 Provide alternate routes for trucks and through traffic..

Goal 4: Ensure that our transportation system is safe for all users and Citizens

Objective 4.1 Reduce transportation related accidents, injuries, and deaths through regular analysis of high crash locations and identification of safety related funding streams.

Objective 4.2 Identify projects that address high crash locations and other safety related issues.

Goal 5: Improve the range of mobility options for our Citizens

Objective 5.1 Ensure that funding is established for bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan.

Objective 5.2 Develop and review annually the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) to provide for public transit and Paratransit.

Objective 5.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision making to ensure viability of alternative modes.

Objective 5.4 Update the Long Range Transportation Plan a minimum of every five years to evaluate and provide for future needed transportation system links within the County.

Goal 6: Protect our natural resources parks, lakes, and historic sites

Objective 6.1 Improve the environmental quality of transportation decision-making by incorporating context sensitive solutions principles in all aspects of planning and the project development process.

Objective 6.2 Consider the overall social, land use compatibility, economic, energy, and environmental effects when making transportation decisions.

Objective 6.3 Identify potential environmental impacts early on in the transportation decision-making process to protect significant natural and cultural resources.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

84

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.0 Improvement Development Process

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

Roadways and Bridges; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Public Transportation; Freight and Aviation
Recommended improvements were based on citizen and stakeholder input as well as technical analysis. Improvements were also shared with local officials and GDOT District 3 for comment before being incorporated into the plan. The following sections document the potential improvements in detail, ultimately producing preferred improvements for Jones County's transportation system which are documented in Section 16. Figure 15.0 below illustrates the improvement development process.

Figure 15.0 Improvement Development Process

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

85

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.1 Deficient Roadways

Using the travel demand model, developed as part of this study, future travel volumes were forecasted and operating conditions analyzed. This analysis revealed that the E+C roadway network generally serves Jones County well through the year 2015. From the 2035 operational analysis it was revealed that several roadways begin to perform below the acceptable level of service.

Based on the results of the operational analysis, the following roadway segments are recommended for widening:

Henderson Road from SR 57 to Griswoldville Road Griswoldville Road from Henderson Road to SR 49 SR 49 from SR 18 to Bowen Hill Road Joycliff Road from SR 49 to US 129 US 129 from Joycliff Road to Jackson Street US 129 from SR 11 to Pinewood Drive

Additionally, review of the existing roadway typical sections, conducted in Section 6.7, revealed several of the facilities in the County do not meet the ideal typical section of 12foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders. Key corridors were selected for operational improvements based on traffic volumes and input from the SAG (See Table 13.0, p.78). These corridors include:
Lite-n-Tie Road from SR 49 to Overland Way Cumslo Road from SR 18 to US 129 Huckabee Road from Graham Road to SR 18 Morton Road from SR 18 to Turner Woods Road Greene Settlement Road from US 129 to RL Wheeler Road Olive Green Road from Greene Settlement Road to SR 11 Howard Roberts Road/Dye Road/RL Wheeler Road from SR 11 to SR 18 SR 57 from Bibb County Line to Twiggs County Line Stagecoach Road from Upper River Road to Graham Road

15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

As part of the LRTP process, existing pedestrian and bicycle origins and destinations and flows are discussed with locals during the identification of potential bicycle and pedestrian improvement areas and are further evaluated through field visits. The evaluation of existing bicycle and pedestrian systems in the study area revealed the presence of a fragmented sidewalk network in and nearby downtown Gray. Where the sidewalk system is developed, there remain gaps in connectivity between downtown and residential areas, schools, and parks. Some gaps were also identified in commercial areas where people may desire to walk between businesses or from their homes to businesses. The network adjacent to

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

86

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

each of the elementary, middle, and high schools and established commercial areas was examined carefully to identify locations where sidewalk placement would be beneficial.

Bicycle facilities are not prevalent in Jones County. Jones County is in need of a connected and continuous bicycle route system. Several local plans identify potential facilities. All local plans were considered in making recommendations for additional bicycle facilities. Suggested improvements are included in Table 15.6 later in this section.

15.3 Public Transportation Improvements
15.3.1 Transit
Jones County participates in the Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program, utilizing the Middle Georgia Community Action Agency (MGCAA) as its third party provider to transport the county's residents to a variety of shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social destinations. Service statistics for the fiscal year ending June 2007 indicate that the 5311 system is used nearly equally by elderly (44%) and non-elderly (56%) residents, and that the majority of passengers are African American (67%). MGCAA is also the contracted provider of transportation services for the Georgia Department of Human Resources Division of Aging Services (starting in July 2007), Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD). Service statistics for the same fiscal year show that the majority of DHR trips are for MHDDAD clients (79%).

The Jones County 5311 Rural Transportation Program provides a significant number of public trips compared to other county programs of similar size. Over 82% of the 20,000 annual trips (utilizing three vans) are requested by non-DHR eligible residents with the remaining 18% of trips made for DHR clients. (DHR also operates an additional van in the county solely for DHR clients.) According to the GDOT District Three Office, the program's success is largely attributed to excellent marketing efforts on behalf of the county and clean, efficient services provided by MCGAA.

The GDOT District Three Office reports that Jones County ridership is currently exceeding a GDOT service threshold of 500 trips per vehicle per month. Programs exceeding this threshold typically consider expansion if/when residents have to be denied rides due to capacity or scheduling constraints. At present, Jones County has not had to deny any resident a ride for these reasons. The county, however, is expected to experience a 38% increase in population between 2000 and 2025 (Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005 2025) which will place additional capacity demands on the 5311 system.

The DHR Region Six Office has expressed a desire for lower trip costs in Jones County. One-way trips currently cost between $2.00 and $4.00, depending on the number of stops, a cost which may be deemed unaffordable by many. The sentiment is that either increased funding and lower trip costs or a public transit system like the Macon-Bibb Transit System would be beneficial to Jones County residents. The Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 76) also commented on this issue, stating that providing public transportation in the

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

87

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

form of bus service, while deemed a low priority currently, did constitute a medium to high priority in the future.

Federal funding for the DHR Division of Aging was significantly cut statewide in 2007. This will greatly reduce transportation services for Jones County's elderly residents who are DAS clients, beginning July 2008. These cuts are problematic for Jones County as the county is expected to experience a 111% increase in its elderly population between 2000 and 2025. (Jones County Comprehensive Plan 2005 2025)

A new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program, the Section 5317 New Freedom Program, will be available to Georgia counties in 2008. This grant-based program is designed to provide transportation services for the elderly and the disabled that address specific service gaps identified in each DHR Region's Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan. The DHR Region Six Plan, completed in May 2007, identified the need for 2,500 additional trips for DFCS clients as well as another 1,500 trips for DFCS clients to employment locations in Jones County. The Region Six Office is currently investigating the availability of matching resources (funds and partners) needed to apply for Section 5317 funding.

Another new FTA program, the Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute Program (JARC), also goes online in Georgia in 2008. This grant-based program provides funding for transportation services to and from employment centers. Both the Georgia DOT District Three Office and the DHR Region Six Transportation Office express the sentiment that while Jones County does provide a high number of public trips, there is unmet need for transportation to employment, particularly for low-income residents. The Section 5316 Program could potentially address this need with fixed-route transportation to and from employment centers in Macon and as well as providing the DFCS employment transportation needs identified above. Despite the many benefits that the program could offer Jones County residents, it does require a significant local match commitment for funding to be granted. The Region Six Office is currently investigating the availability of matching resources (funds and partners) needed to apply for Section 5317 funding.

Recommendations Work with the GDOT District Office to determine the feasibility and associated costs of
expanding the 5311 Rural Transportation Program to serve the county's growing elderly population. Determine if additional funding is possible and if trip costs can be lowered to make the program more affordable for Jones County residents.

Work with the DHR Region Six Office to analyze the benefits, costs, and possible future application/implementation of the Section 5317 New Freedom Program to address additional transportation services for the elderly and the disabled.

Work with the DHR Region Six Office to analyze the benefits, costs, and possible future application/implementation of the Section 5316 JARC Program in Jones County to address employment transportation needs.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

88

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.3.2 Commuter Options
Jones County has a high percentage of residents who work outside of the county (77%). A majority of these workers (57%) commute 15 to 20 miles each way to the Bibb-CountyMacon area. Because of the close proximity of the Bibb-Macon employment center to Jones County, the overwhelming majority of workers (88%) commute alone by car and there is little evidence of either informal or organized carpooling or vanpooling effort. Jones County does not have a GDOT Rideshare lot to provide free parking for those wishing to have a place to meet to carpool or vanpool to work. Several public and private attempts to operate bus service between Jones County and Macon have failed in recent years due to low ridership.
The Georgia Department of Corrections (DOC) move to neighboring Monroe County in 2009 may impact future commuting patterns in Jones County as employees transferring from Atlanta may decide to move into Jones County or as Jones County residents seek jobs at the new DOC facilities in Forsyth. This would create a 27+ mile one-way commute between the two counties which may spawn future carpooling interests among county workers.
Recommendations Jones County government leaders should monitor any signs of organized carpooling and
vanpooling and parking in retail and grocery center parking lots, etc. The county should work with the GDOT District Three Office to identify potential locations for a Rideshare lot, if warranted.
Jones County government leaders should monitor the impact of the DOC move to Monroe
County in terms of new Jones County residents who will work in Forsyth and existing residents seeking jobs in Forsyth. The county should work with the GDOT District Three Office to identify potential locations for a Rideshare lot in Gray, if warranted.
15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail
The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) proposes long-range commuter and intercity rail transportation options in close proximity to Jones County. The commuter rail service will offer daily home-to-work trips between Atlanta and Macon. Phase one will implement a route between Atlanta and Lovejoy; phase two will extend the line to Hampton and Griffin, and the final phase will complete the 103 mile segment with stops in Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke, and Macon. Intercity rail service will offer two to three trains per day between Atlanta, Griffin, and Macon with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with fewer stops to minimize travel time.
Recommendations Expand local transit services to provide/enable/encourage use of the passenger rail
service by county citizens in the future. Utilize available transit funding sources to

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

89

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

provide methods to facilitate transportation (via vans, buses, vanpools, carpools, etc.) between households to the stop in Forsyth and to park and ride facilities.

15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements

Norfolk-Southern railroad operates approximately 10-15 trains per day along two tracks which traverse 36 miles through Jones County. This may go up to 20 trains per day as a new warehouse distribution facility will likely begin operations in an industrial site with access to the southern rail line. The County also has 17 miles of inactive CSX rail line which extends from southern central Jones County to Milledgeville. Along the Norfolk Southern lines are 49 railroad crossings, 48 "at grade" and one underpass (railroad crosses under the road). The majority of crossings are private (25) with the remaining 24 crossing public roads.

Highway-rail crossings which are "at grade" pose risks because the train always has the right of way. These crossings require traffic control devices (passive and active) to permit reasonably safe and efficient operation of both the rail and traffic. Passive devices are signs and pavement markings that are not activated by trains. Types of passive devices include:

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Crossbuck Signs - the white crisscrossed sign with RAILROAD CROSSING in black lettering. These are required in each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, either alone or in combination with other traffic control devices.

Stop and Yield Signs - formerly recommend with crossbucks only where two or more trains operate daily, but now recommended along with crossbucks for all crossings. A YIELD sign should be the default choice, with a STOP sign required when an engineering study deems conditions necessary for a vehicle to make full stop. Factors to be considered include:

o The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle to an approaching train;
o Characteristics of the highway, such as the functional classification, geometric conditions, and traffic volumes and speed;
o Characteristics of the railroad including frequency, type and speed of trains, and number of tracks;
o Crossing crash history, and o Need for active control devices.

Railroad Advance Warning Signs - intended for approach roadways that parallel the railroad to warn turning drivers that they will encounter a highway/rail crossing soon after making the turn.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

90

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Active traffic control devices are controlled by the train operator and give warning of the approach or presence of a train. Types of active traffic control devices include:

Flashing-Light Signals - two red lights in a horizontal line flashing alternately at approaching highway traffic.

Cantilever Flashing Light Signals - additional one or two sets of lights mounted over the roadway on a cantilever arm and directed at approaching highway traffic. Supplemental to the standard flashing light, used frequently on multilane approaches, high speed, two lane highways, roads with a high percentage of trucks or where obstacles obstruct visibility of standard flashing lights.

Automatic Gates - consisting of a drive unit and gate arm. Supplemental to flashing and cantilever lights.

Additional Flashing Light Signals - used for additional approaches to active highway rail grade crossings. These lights can be mounted on existing flashing light masts, extension arms, additional traffic signal masts, cantilever supports, and in medians or other locations on the left side of the road.

Active Advance Warning Signs with Flashers - a train activated advance warning sign, considered at locations where sight distance is restricted on the approach to a crossing and the flashing light signals can not be seen until an approaching driver has passed the decision point. Two amber lights can be placed on the sign to warn drivers in advance of a crossing where the control devices are activated. The continuously flashing amber caution lights can influence driver speed and provide warning for stopped vehicles ahead.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

91

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Active Turn Restriction Signs - display `No Right Turn' or `No Left Turn' on a parallel street within 50 feet of the tracks, at a signalized highway intersection.

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Barrier devices - median separation devices to prohibit crossing gate violations.

The GDOT, Office of Traffic Safety and Design, maintains an inventory of the State's railroad crossings and a priority list for those requiring improvements. Local governments are encouraged to report crossings within their jurisdictions which appear to be unsafe, deficient in their currently traffic control devices, candidates for closure, or in need of an upgrade. GDOT will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of the crossing in question, evaluating a number of criteria, including:
The maximum number of passenger trains per day; Maximum number of freight trains per day; Distance to alternate crossings; Accident history of the crossing for the immediately preceding five year period; Type of warning device present at the crossing; The horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway; The average daily traffic volume in proportion to the population of the jurisdiction; The posted speed limit over the crossing; The effect of closing/altering the crossing for persons utilizing it (hospitals and
medical facilities; federal state and local government services such as court, postal, library, sanitation, and park facilities; commercial, industrial and other areas of public commerce); Any use of the crossing by trucks carrying hazardous material, vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses, emergency vehicles, public or private utility vehicles; Other relevant factors such as clearing sight distance, traversing the crossing, high profile or "hump" crossings, land locked property, at-grade crossing signalized with bells, lights, and proximity to other crossings.
Upon review, if traffic control devices are found to be deficient, GDOT will assign a priority and program an improvement project to correct the deficiency.
Specific Rail Recommendations Given the procedures outlined above and input provided by the project Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 76), the public, and from analysis of the existing rail crossing and accident data, several Jones County crossings have been identified for further examination by the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager. Each of these is discussed below.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

92

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Gray 1) SR 49 (Crossing #733415H) Despite crossing symbols and flashing warning devices,
several crashes and one injury have recently occurred at this heavily traveled crossing.

Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT to determine if additional crossing features such as gates and stop bars should be added to improve safety.

SR 49 rail crossing has experienced several crashes with injuries in the past several years.
2) Tomas E. Watson Highway/SR 22 (Crossing #733402G) This major crossing in Gray experiences the highest traffic volume in the county (an average of 21,000 vehicles per day). Despite active traffic control devices (gates and flashing lights), four crashes have occurred since 2000. Several traffic signals are located very close together due to several roads converging at this intersection and are difficult for motorists to see on their approach to the intersection.
Recommendation Per the GDOT District Three Office, upgrade traffic signals on all approaches to this intersection with new LED technology lights and auxiliary lights which will provide greater distance visibility, particularly during daylight hours. Synchronize upgraded signals to the tracks to ensure that vehicles have time to cross all intersections so as not to become "stuck" between traffic lights. No upgrades are recommended for the rail crossing itself or its traffic control devices at this time.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

93

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

SR 22 crossing in Gray has a number of traffic signals which create visibility limitations.
3) Skinner Road (Crossing #733413U) Crossbucks at this rail crossing are damaged.
Recommendation Report damaged crossbucks to GDOT for maintenance.

Skinner Road rail crossing has damaged crossbucks.

4) Otis Redding Road (Crossing #733284G) This crossing is characterized by minimal passive control devices (crossbucks) and has been identified by the Study Advisory

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

94

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Group (see Section 13.0, p. 76) as having safety issues. Otis Redding Road also intersects SR 11 and Old SR 11 which run parallel to the railroad line on both sides.

Recommendation Review crossing safety with GDOT to determine if advance warning signage should be installed at all approaches (SR 11, Old SR 11, and Otis Redding Road).

Crossing at Otis Redding Road may warrant additional traffic control devices to improve safety.
5) Hungerford Road (Crossing #733292Y) The Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p.76) has expressed concerns over safety at this crossing. This crossing has crossbucks and a stop sign, but the stop sign on the west side of the crossing is improperly placed. Old SR 11 runs parallel to the rail line at this crossing, yet lacks advance warning signage.
Recommendation Report crossing to GDOT for proper stop sign placement. Install advance warning signage to Old SR 11 on the east side of the railroad line.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

95

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The stop sign at this crossing is improperly placed.

Old SR 11 lacks advance railroad warning signage at the Hungerford Road crossing.
Review of the crossings noted above may result in railroad crossing improvement projects to be programmed for future completion.
Other Rail Recommendations Report crossings described above to the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager:
Key Phillips Railroad Crossing Program Manager Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of Traffic Safety and Design Phone 404-635-8120 Fax 404-635-8116

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

96

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The Crossing Program Manager will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of each crossing in question.
Consider useful alternatives for the 17 miles of inactive CSX rail track which extends from southern central Jones County to Milledgeville. This rail could potentially be used in the future for freight, for commuter rail, or as a greenway.
Jones County has a high number of private rail crossings (25) compared to public crossings (24). Future land development around the private crossings will necessitate that they become public crossings equipped with safety and mobility features.
Limit construction of any new "at grade" highway-rail crossings. The County has a high number of these crossings which pose risk for both vehicular and pedestrian accidents.
GDOT offers local government incentive payments for at-grade rail-highway crossing closures, a provision of U.S. Code 23, section 130 (SAFETEA-LU section 1401(d)). The amount of the incentive grant may be up to $7,500 to local governments for the permanent closure of public-at-grade crossings if matched by the railroad involved, for a total incentive of $15,000. The local government receiving the incentive payment must use the portion received from the State for transportation safety improvements. Types of safety improvements include:
o Grading, paving and drainage improvements associated with crossing removal; o Guardrail, barricades and barrier wall; o Traffic signals; o Highway signs; o Turn lanes; o Pavement markings; o Sidewalks; o Emergency vehicles primarily responding to highway incidents; o Emergency equipment (i.e. "Jaws of Life); o Sirens and flashing lights for emergency response vehicles; o Radar guns; o Sponsorship of a community driver's education class.
Contact the Railroad Crossing Program Manager, above, for additional information.

Report train standing problems to the Federal Railroad Administration at:
61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 16T20 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 Phone 404-562-3800 Hot Line 1-800-724-5993 www.fra.dot.gov

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

97

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

GDOT offers local government incentive payments for at-grade rail-highway crossing closures, a provision of U.S. Code 23, section 130 (SAFETEA-LU section 1401(d)). The amount of the incentive grant may be up to $7,500 to local governments for the permanent closure of public-at-grade crossings if matched by the railroad involved, for a total incentive of $15,000. The local government receiving the incentive payment must use the portion received from the State for transportation safety improvements. Types of safety improvements include:
o Grading, paving and drainage improvements associated with crossing removal; o Guardrail, barricades and barrier wall; o Traffic signals; o Highway signs; o Turn lanes; o Pavement markings; o Sidewalks; o Emergency vehicles primarily responding to highway incidents; o Emergency equipment (i.e. "Jaws of Life); o Sirens and flashing lights for emergency response vehicles; o Radar guns; o Sponsorship of a community driver's education class.
Contact the Railroad Crossing Program Manager, above, for additional information.
Utilize available programs to address crossings with safety concerns and crossing violations.
The Georgia Operation Lifesaver Program is a national, non-profit education and awareness program dedicated to ending tragic collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway-rail grade crossing and on railroad rights of way. The organization promotes safety through:
o Education for drivers and pedestrians to make safe decisions at crossings and around railroad tracks;
o Active enforcement of traffic laws relating to crossing signs and signals; and o Continued engineering research and innovation to improve the safety of railroad
crossings.
Free programs are presented to schools, businesses, civic organizations, school bus drivers, professional drivers, law enforcement and emergency responders.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

98

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.5 Aviation Improvements

Jones County does not have a local airport. Nearby small aircraft airports include the Herbert Smart Downtown Airport in Macon and Baldwin County Airport northeast of Milledgeville. Commercial airport needs are met by the Middle Georgia Regional Airport, located in Macon, and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, located south of Atlanta.

Recommendations There are no aviation recommendations at this time no needs were identified through technical analysis or stakeholder input.

15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

Throughout the course of the study public comment and stakeholder input contributed significantly to the development of projects for improving travel conditions through Jones County. Projects identified by the public and stakeholders are documented in Table 15.6.

All comments received from the public are important and care was taken to evaluate each recommendation for inclusion in the plan. If the recommendation addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan, these were forwarded to the appropriate agency to address. Similarly, some recommendations could not be supported with technical planning or engineering justifications these instances are noted and these recommendations were flagged for reevaluation as the Plan is periodically updated in the future.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

99

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Table 15.6 Jones County Suggested Improvements

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvements

Source

Does a Possible Need Environmental Exist? Impacts?

Status

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan?

US 129 has through traffic from

Jones County

1

Milledgeville US 441 and needs additional passing lanes for Saturday

Advisory Committee and

Yes

college football and Lake Sinclair traffic Public Comment

Traffic in downtown Gray - Four roads 2 converge near railroad tracks; Traffic
signals an issue

Jones County Public Comment

Yes

3

Bypass needed to give trucks an alternative around City of Gray

Jones County

Advisory

Yes

Committee

SR 49 - Traffic travels at high speed on

hilly-terrain; traffic emerging from two

4

schools creates dangerous traffic conditions with limited sight distance;

Children walk on SR 49 to the County

Jones County Advisory Committee

Yes

recreational fields

Upper River Road - "S" Curve near

Jones County

5 Bibb County line is unsafe; High bicycle Advisory

Yes

usage

Committee

Minimize impacts to Haddock

Jones County

6 community, preserve character; traffic

Advisory

Yes

signal requested

Committee

7

Lite-N-Tie Road just past rock quarry has sight distance issues

Jones County Advisory Committee

Yes

Yes streams and wetlands.
Yes - historic
Yes streams and wetlands.
Yes streams and wetlands
Yes needs further analysis
No
Yes streams and wetlands.

GDOT's Work Program

includes a widening of US 129 from SR 22 into Putnam

Yes

County.

Traffic signal

synchronization

recommendations have been forwarded to District 3.

Yes

Intersection improvements

are recommended.

GDOT's Work Program

includes a north Gray

Yes

Bypass.

The model supports adding

capacity to SR 49 and

operational improvements are recommended to the

Yes

road to improve sight

distance.

Operational improvements

are recommended due to safety concerns and high

Yes

bicycle usage.

Intersection safety

improvements and sidewalk improvements have been

Yes

recommended.

Lite-n-Tie Road is

recommended for capacity and operational

Yes

improvements.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

100

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvements

Source

Connector roads need improvement

Jones County

8 (Cumslo Road, Lite-n-tie Road, Joy Cliff Advisory

Road)

Committee

9

Huckabee Road from Graham Road to SR 18 needs improvement

Jones County Advisory Committee

Stagecoach Road, Morton Road - Could Jones County

10 be used by new schools as a more direct Advisory

route if improvements are made

Committee

11

Olive Green Road current dirt road could be paved

Jones County Public Comment

12

There is a need for east-west connectivity to Bibb County

Jones County Advisory Committee

Use Upper River Road to connect to I-75

in Bibb County as an alternative to US 13 129; with new school on SR 18, this
would be a more direct route for those

Jones County Public Comment

commuting to jobs in Macon

14

Green Settlement Road has high traffic and needs improvement

Jones County Public Comment

From Wayside to Jarrell Plantation is

15

currently dirt, is busy with traffic, and could be paved to connect SR 11 and

SR 18

Jones County Advisory Committee

On US 129 north to Eatonton are there

any plans to put in passing lanes? Tom Jones County

16 Queen said there is a 4 lane project

Advisory

being developed from SR 44 from the

Committee

new bypass to Eatonton.

Does a Need Exist?
Yes
Yes

Possible Environmental Impacts?
Yes streams and wetlands. Environmental Justice communities around Joycliff Road area.
Yes streams and wetlands

Yes

Yes streams and wetlands

Yes

Yes streams and wetlands

Yes

Yes stream and wetlands

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

Yes

Yes stream and wetlands

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Status

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan?

The model supports adding

capacity to Lite-N-Tie Road

and Joycliff Road. Operational improvements

Yes

are recommended on

Cumslo Road.

Huckabee Road operational

improvements are

Yes

recommended.

Morton Road and

Stagecoach Road are recommended for

Yes

operational improvement.

Olive Green Road is recommended to be paved.

Yes

The model supports capacity

improvements to Joycliff Road and Griswoldville

Yes

Road.

Upper River Road is recommended to have operational improvements to Yes address unsafe curves and sight distance issues.

Green Settlement Road is recommended to be paved.

Yes

Five Points Road is recommended to be paved.

Yes

GDOT's Work Program

includes a widening of US 129 from SR 22 into Putnam

Yes

County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

101

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvements

Source

17

SR 22 onto SR 18 from Milledgeville needs left turn lanes

Jones County Public Comment

18

SR 22 at the Harris Morton Road/Altman Road intersection has high speeds and needs improvement

Jones County Public Comment

Bypass connector from SR 22 to US

19

129/SR 22 has potential to include bike lanes in the design, which could

eventually connect to SR 11

Jones County Advisory Committee

Downtown Civic Center and courthouse Jones County

20 to school on Cumslo Road - add

Advisory

bike/ped facility

Committee

SR 18 east to Gray Station School to

21

recreation park and 500 single-family residential lots nearby - add bike/ped

facility

Jones County Advisory Committee

22

SR 18 was awarded $500,000 in HPP funds for sidewalks between Gray Station and Allen Green Parkway to the recreation complex

Jones County Advisory Committee

23

Upper River Road to Stagecoach bicycle route planned

Jones County Advisory Committee

24

SR 22 in Haddock community should focus on pedestrian road crossing safety

Jones County Advisory Committee

25

No railroad crossing signals at Otis Redding and Hungerford Roads

Jones County Advisory Committee

In Gray, two traffic signals are at SR 11

and SR 44 at the railroad crossing: SR Jones County

26 11 signal should be relocated to correct Advisory

sight distance problem and a brighter

Committee

signal should be installed

Does a Possible Need Environmental Exist? Impacts?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes streams and wetlands

Yes

No

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

Yes

No

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Status
Intersection added to recommended projects. Intersection improvement at SR 22 at the Harris Morton Road/Altman Road has been added to the recommended projects list.
It is recommended that the N. Gray Bypass include bike lanes in the design.
Sidewalks are recommended at this location.
Multi-use path is recommended in this vicinity.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan? Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes

Sidewalks are

recommended at this

Yes

location.

A shoulder widening and

improved signage are recommended at this

Yes

location.

Sidewalk and intersection

safety improvements are

Yes

included at this location

Rail crossing improvements

are recommended at this

Yes

location.

Referred to District 3 for correction.

No

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

102

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

# Suggested Improvements

Source

Pave Five Points Rd between SR 18 and 27 SR 11.

Jones County Advisory Committee

Does a Possible Need Environmental Exist? Impacts?

No

No

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Status
The paving of Howard Roberts Road addresses the need for connectivity in this area. It is a higher volume corridor.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan?
No

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

103

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.0 Improvement Recommendations

Jones County's transportation improvement recommendations are substantiated by the future operating deficiencies identified in Section 15. Deficiencies have been evaluated in the areas of:

Public Transportation; Freight Transport; Airport Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridges; Safety; Roadway Characteristics; and, Roadway Operating Conditions.

Transportation improvements to address deficiencies in several of these categories were identified in Section 15.2 through 15.5. This section will identify the recommended improvements and the estimated costs associated with these improvements.

16.1 Estimated Costs

A necessary element of the LRTP is estimating the costs associated with the numerous recommended improvements. An estimated cost needs to be associated with each project to aid the County in planning for, and funding of, recommended improvements. GDOT is currently updating their cost information; however in 2006 the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) developed a costing tool. This costing tool presents cost estimates for both urban and rural conditions and was the tool used to develop capacity and operational project costs for this study. The rural cost estimates were used for the proposed projects in Jones County. In the case of intersection improvement recommendations, a micro-level analysis and review by a professional engineer is required to make specific recommendations for intersection improvements. For purposes of construction cost estimation for these improvements, a placeholder of $250,000 is used. This estimate represents a reasonable average for intersection improvements but costs could be higher or lower depending on the specifics of the improvement identified (for example, addition of a left-hand turn lane vs. geometric modifications). Construction cost estimates for intersections should be revisited once those improvements are identified.

The estimated costs were generated for planning purposes and may vary from actual costs. The costs of right of way and utilities were omitted from the cost estimates for projects due to the high variation and market changes associated with these costs. Therefore, the estimated costs can be expected to be considerably less than actual costs. Additional variations in cost could be the result of several factors, such as, design or environmental impacts.

A review of recent GDOT bridge costs revealed that bridges are generally being constructed for approximately $160 per square foot. In addition, to account for bridges

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

104

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

being built wider and longer, it was assumed that bridges would be constructed as fortyfour feet in width for two-lane roadways and 68 feet for four-lane roadways and an additional 10 percent was added to the existing structure length. This total square foot value was used to estimate the cost for improving the deficient bridges in Jones County.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvement cost estimates were developed based on data and research provided by GDOT that included actual costs for similar projects in Georgia and surrounding states in recent years. A per-mile improvement average was developed and applied based on the type of proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvement. Similarly, rail improvement costs were developed based on equipment unit costs applied in other studies.

These estimates were used to develop costs for the recommended improvements presented in Section 16.2 (Table 16.2). These costs should be considered preliminary in nature and taken with appropriate care. Costs do not include right of way or utility relocation. More detailed engineering studies are required to identify highly accurate cost estimates.

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

16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements

Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for Jones County. This information is presented in Table 16.2. This listing includes:

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Minor Roadway Widening (increasing travel lane widths and/or shoulders); Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.

For each recommendation several informational elements were produced including: facility; limits; existing and improved configuration; comments; source; improvement type; need; anticipated benefit; phasing; cost and potential funding sources. For successful implementation of these projects it is recommended that additional detailed engineering studies be conducted to determine the most appropriate design, cost and phasing of the

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

105

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

particular project. Additionally, successful project implementation will require identified funding mechanisms, political support, and public recognition of the project need and benefit.

Table 16.2 identifies the estimated PE and construction costs of potential projects based on the length that is within the county limits. Most of the potential projects are entirely within Jones County, but there are project that have limits which cross county boundaries. For those projects that cross county boundaries, the estimated PE and construction costs are assigned to individual projects in each county. To calculate the total PE and construction costs for projects that cross county boundaries, the individual projects costs were combined and are contained in the individual project sheets. The recommended improvements which cross the Jones County boundary are identified below to facilitate project coordination with Twiggs County; these potential projects include:
Henderson Road from Griswoldville Road (Jones County) to SR 57 (Twiggs County), the estimated total project length is 1.4 miles, with approximately 0.9 miles in Jones County and 0.6 miles in Twiggs County (See project sheet # J26).
SR 57 operational improvements are in support of the industrial park activities and include improvements such as turn lanes. Further detailed engineering analysis should be performed to determine appropriate design to meet the needs along SR 57. The project length in Jones County is about 2.4 miles and improvements may be considered to connect with the intersection at Henderson Road, which would extend the project approximately 0.6 miles into Twiggs County, for a total project length of approximately 3.0 miles. (See project sheet # J28).

Additional project coordination with Bibb County and the Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS) is necessary to ensure that relevant projects are included in the MATS planning process. See Section 17.5, page 126, for more details on projects within the MATS boundary.

Project sheets were developed for all capacity improvement and new roadway projects. The project sheets include the project limits including logical termini, distance, priority, and jurisdiction. Project sheets are contained in Appendix B.

Logical Termini

For the roadway capacity improvements, logical termini were developed to help link the long-range planning process with National Environmental Policy (NEPA) regulations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(f) that are to be used to frame a highway project:

In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

106

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

evaluated in each environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: 1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; 2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

Transportation projects that receive federal funds must follow NEPA requirements in order to receive approval from the Federal Highway Administration. Among other environmental studies conducted during the NEPA process, a survey is conducted to assess historic resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Identified historic resources that are National Register eligible properties are given special consideration during the NEPA process and transportation projects must receive State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence before receiving approval. These requirements are in place to identify historic resources, assess impacts, and determine appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic resources.

These principles were factored into the project development process. Recommended roadway improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.1 and recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.2.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

107

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

J1

SR 44

J2

SR 44

J3

SR 22

J4

SR 49

J8

Gray North Bypass

J26 Henderson Road

J27 Griswoldville Road

J29 SR 49

J30 Joycliff Road

J31 US 129

J32 US 129

J33 SR 22

J35 Lite-n-Tie Road and Garrison Road

J36

US 129

From
Gray Bypass Mathis Road Gray Bypass Griswoldville Road SR 18 SR 57 Henderson Road SR 18 SR 49 Joycliff Road Lite-n-Tie Road SR 11 SR 49 Greene Settlement Road

Segment Limits To
CR 104/ Mathis Road US 441/Putnam County SR 29/Baldwin County SR 18 SR 22 Griswoldville Road SR 49 Bowen Hill Road US 129 Greene Settlement Road Jackson Avenue Pinewood Drive US 129 Lite-n-Tie Road

Existing Configuration
2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane N/A 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 2-lane 4-lane 4-lane 2-lane 2-lane 4-lane

Improved Configuration
4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 4-lane 4-lane, Divided 4-lane 6-lane 6-lane 4-lane 4-lane 6-lane

Notes/Comments
11.6 miles 1.7 miles 7.8 miles 8.8 miles 5.6 miles 0.9 miles 3.0 miles 8.2 miles 2.9 miles 7.1 miles 0.7 mile 0.50 miles 7.25 miles 0.5 mile

Operational Improvements
J28 SR 57 J38 Cumslo Road J39 Huckabee Road J42 Morton Road J43 Green Settlement Road J44 Olive Green Road J45 Howard Roberts Road/Dye Road/Wheeler Road J46 Stagecoach Road

Bibb County Line SR 18 Graham Road SR 18 US 129 Greene Settlement Road SR 11 Upper River Road

Twiggs County Line US 129 SR 18 Turner Woods Road Wheeler Road SR 11 SR 18 Graham Road

2.4 miles 3.3 miles 1.9 miles 0.9 mile 3.7 miles 2.4 miles 9.0 miles 2.0 miles

Intersection/Geometric Improvements

J18 US 129

J19 US 129 S

J20 US 129

J21 US 129

J22 US 129

J23 Lite-n-Tie Road

J24 US 129 N

J25

SR 22

J48 SR 22

Joycliff Road SR 18 W Jackson Avenue RL Wheeler Road Greene Settlement Road Railroad Crossing 733418D (Norfolk Southern) SR 18 E Ethridge Road - Haddock Community Harris Morton Road

35 crashes 34 crashes 32 crashes 21 crashes 22 crashes 4 crashes 3 crashes 4 crashes 5 crashes

Bridge Improvements

J5

Howard Roberts Road

J6

County Line Road (Beginning at Mile Point .031)

J7

County Line Road (Beginning at Mile Point .042)

J14 Folendore Road

J13 Turner Woods Road

J12 Shoal Creek Road

J11 Hitchiti Road

J10 Roundok-Juliette Road

J109 SR 49

J108 Caney Creek Road

J107 Dumas Road

J106 Graham Road

J105 Graham Road

J104 US 129

J103 Hadaway Road

J102 US 129 (SBL)

J101 US 129 (SBL)

Chehaw Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek Commissioner Creek Milsap Creek Shoal Creek Falling Creek Falling Creek Southern Railroad Falling Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek Cedar Creek Glady Creek Rock Creek Sand Creek

2,000 sq ft 2,400 sq ft 4,800 sq ft 2,419 sq ft 2,024 sq ft 4,080 sq ft 1,760 sq ft 4,816 sq ft 10,496 sq ft 2,560 sq ft 504 sq ft 2,454 sq ft 2,909 sq ft 9,261 sq ft 3,768 sq ft 4,104 sq ft 4,092 sq ft

9.76 sufficiency rating 40.98 sufficiency rating 40.98 sufficiency rating 41.99 sufficiency rating 42.17 sufficiency rating 48.40 sufficiency rating 49.37 sufficiency rating 49.77 sufficiency rating 50.02 sufficiency rating 51.43 sufficiency rating 53.41 sufficiency rating 54.30 sufficiency rating 54.59 sufficiency rating 55.17 sufficiency rating 57.12 sufficiency rating 57.15 sufficiency rating 64.75 sufficiency rating

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

Twiggs County, J27 J26

CWP CWP CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening New Road Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening

Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements Operational Improvements

Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement

CWP CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

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

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

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source

Federal State

County

$38,433,000 $8,246,560 $9,558,930
$47,225,000 $26,367,000
$3,600,000 $12,000,000 $32,800,000 $11,600,000 $28,400,000
$2,800,000 $2,000,000 $29,000,000 $2,000,000 $254,030,490

$9,600,000 $13,200,000
$7,600,000 $3,600,000 $14,800,000 $9,600,000 $36,000,000 $8,000,000 $102,400,000

$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,250,000

$272,000 $210,000 $395,000 $890,560 $1,239,040 $2,369,664 $309,760 $1,146,112 $627,264 $743,424 $743,424 $1,486,848 $2,090,880 $743,424 $929,280 $929,280 $929,280 $16,055,240

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

108

Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements

J61 SR 49

J62 Mattie Wells Drive

J63 J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr.

J64 SR 22 (Haddock)

J65 SR 22 (Haddock)

J66 SR 22 (Gray)

J67 SR 18 E (Gray)

J68 Allen Green Drive

J69 Railroad Street

J70 Stewart Avenue

J71 Gordon Street

J72 Martin Luther King, Jr.

J73 Dolly Street

J74 Highview Street

J75 Maggie Califf Street

J76

North Madison Street

J77 Huckabee Road

J78 SR 18 W

J79 SR 18 W

J80 Old Clinton Road

J81 Jackson Avenue

J82 GA 18 Connector

J83 GA 18 E

J84 New Clifton Road (Macon)

J85 Ocmulgee Heritage Shared Use Trail

J86 Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway

J87 Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway

J88 Gray Connector Bicycle Route

J89 Central Georgia Rails to Trails

J90 Upper River Road/Stagecoach Road Bicycle Route

J91 Gray Bypass

Railroad Improvements J92 SR 49 J93 Wheeler Road J94 Skinner Road J95 Otis Redding Road

Segment Limits

From

To

Jones County South Recreational Complex SR 49 Mattie Wells Drive Unincorporated sign on west Bowen Hill Road Pinewood Drive Gray Station Middle School SR 18 Jones County High School Stadium Entrance US 129 Railroad Street SR 11 North Madison US 129 Dolly Street US 129 Katherine Drive Huckabee Road Dames Ferry Elementary School Green Settlement Road Old Clinton US 129 GA 18 Connector Old Stage Coach Juliette Road Juliette Road SR 11 from Jasper County Line Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 S Inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County Upper River Road to Stagecoach Road US 129/ SR 22 west of Gray

Mattie Wells Drive J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr. Mattie Wells Elementary School Pk lot Unincorporated sign on east Ethridge Road Faye Circle Allen Green Drive Jones County Central Rec. Complex US 129 Railroad Street US 129 Maggie Califf Street Coolidge Street Martin Luther King, Jr. Highview Street Martin Luther King, Jr. SR 18 W Dames Ferry Elementary School entr. Trotters Ridge Trail Washburn Drive US 129 GA 18 E Gray Station Middle School Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road) Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road) SR 11 SR 22 in Gray Inactive Norfolk Southern line NE to Baldwin County line to Graham Road SR 22 east of Gray

Crossing # 733415H Crossing # 733292Y Crossing # 733413U Crossing # 733284G

Existing Configuration
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

Improved Configuration
Sidewalk on south side Sidewalk on west side only Sidewalk on south side Sidewalk both sides Crosswalk Upgrade Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path on south side Sidewalk on west and south side Sidewalk on east side Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on north side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on east side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on south side only Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Path on south side Sidewalk on both sides Multi-Use Trail on west side Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 4 ft Bicycle Lane in both directions Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 10 foot Rails to Trails Path Widen shoulders 2-4 feet both sides 4 foot bicycle lane in both directions

Notes/Comments
0.2 mile 0.1 mile 1.3 mile 1.1 miles
0.4 mile 0.4 mile 0.4 mile 1.6 miles 0.3 mile 0.2 mile 0.5 mile 0.9 mile 0.3 mile 0.1 mile 0.15 mile 0.3 mile 0.4 mile 0.2 mile 1.4 miles 0.1 mile 0.1 mile 0.8 mile 1.1 miles 22.4 miles 11.3 miles 12.8 miles 7.1 miles 16.5 miles 9.8 miles 5.5 miles

Coordination Required?
J25
Gray Bypass

Source

Improvement Type

Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Analysis Local Local Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Local Local Local Analysis Local Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail Bike Trail

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

Anticipated Benefit
Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System Enhanced Multi-Modal System

X-bucks, lights, warn signs X-bucks, stop sign X-bucks, stop sign X-bucks, stop sign

Gates and stop bars, 2 app, if warrant Add adv warn 2 app Old SR11, stop sign Replace broken X-buck Add adv warn 5 app SR11,Old SR11

Must review w/GDOT

GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Install gates, signage Install adv warn/stop signs Replace X-buck Install adv warning signage

Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source

Federal State

County

$20,000 $10,000 $130,000 $220,000
$200 $80,000 $140,000 $40,000 $160,000 $60,000 $40,000 $100,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $20,000 $280,000 $20,000 $20,000 $280,000 $220,000 $7,840,000 $1,695,000 $1,920,000 $1,065,000 $5,775,000 $1,470,000 $825,000 $22,700,200

$250,600 $1,500 $300 $3,000
$255,400
$397,691,330

Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

109

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
110

F
Figure No: 16.2.1

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
111

F
Figure No: 16.2.2

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations

Another key point of concern in evaluating proposed transportation improvements is environmental justice. This ensures that areas with high concentrations of low-income or minority populations are not adversely impacted by transportation improvements. The following recommended projects are located in areas that meet the state's EJ threshold. These locations are identified as:
Roadway Projects Joycliff Road from SR 49 to US 129 US 129 from Joycliff Road to Greene Settlement Road SR 22 from SR 11 to Pinewood Drive Cumslo Road from SR 18 to US 129 Morton Road from SR 18 to Turner Woods Road (shoulder upgrades) Howard Roberts Road/Dye Road/Wheeler Road from SR 11 to SR 18 (paving) Greene Settlement Road from US 129 to RL Wheeler Road Olive Green Road from Green Settlement Road to SR 11

Intersection Improvements US 129 at SR 18 SR 22 at Ethridge Road - Haddock Community SR 22 at Harris Morton Road
Bridge Projects Shoal Creek Road over the Shoal Creek
The recommended improvements will improve safety, mobility, and access for all users on a county-wide basis. These projects include the need for roadway widening, operational improvements and intersection improvements; and the possibility of additional right of way. Additional projects that will benefit the EJ communities include: bicycle and pedestrian improvements and numerous safety and capacity enhancements throughout the study area, as shown in Table 16.2. Figure 16.3 shows the recommended projects in the vicinity of the environmental justice areas.
Pedestrian/Safety Improvements SR 22 from Bowen Hill Road to Ethridge Road
Freight/Railroad Crossing Enhancements Railroad crossings improvement at Wheeler Road Railroad crossings improvement at Otis Redding Road

The recommended improvements will improve safety, mobility, and access for all users on a county-wide basis. These projects include the need for roadway widening and the possibility of additional right of way. Additional projects that will benefit the EJ communities include: bicycle and pedestrian improvements and numerous safety and capacity enhancements throughout the study area, as shown in Table 16.2. Figure 16.3 shows the recommended projects in the vicinity of the environmental justice areas.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

112

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Jones County Environmental Justice Evaluation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
113

F
Figure No: 16.3

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.0 Project Prioritization

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

17.1 Corridor Prioritization
Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation Factors were established so that the potential improvements for Jones County could be evaluated objectively by County staff. These factors were developed by the study team with the assistance of the SAG (See Section 13.0, p. 78), public comment, and GDOT. This evaluation serves as a ranking for potential projects, resulting in a prioritization of improvement options to meet the County's transportation needs. Prioritization criteria were developed for four types of projects roadway capacity, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, intersections, and bridges.
Qualitative Criteria Qualitative criteria were established to evaluate the deficient corridors based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the qualitative criteria established for the roadway network improvement evaluation. These correspond to the vision established in the Goals and Objectives documented in Section 14.0.

Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) / National Highway System Supports Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor Connectivity Construction Designs in Progress Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions
By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as an input for prioritizing projects. Table 17.1.1 displays the qualitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Qualitative Criteria range from 0 to 36 points. These points were added to the points received from the Quantitative Criteria, which are documented on the following pages.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

114

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Is the proposed project a continuation of any previously completed or current project providing added lanes to the specific transportation corridor? Governor's Road Improvement Program/National Highway System Is the project identified as a GRIP Corridor or part of the National Highway System? Supports Comprehensive Plan Does the proposed project support the Comprehensive Plan? Right of Way Protection Corridor Is the proposed project located in a developing area where right of way protection or early acquisition is needed? Connectivity Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing or proposed projects or provide regional connectivity? Construction Designs in Progress Are the design plans for the proposed project already complete or in the process of being completed? Parallel Relief Does the proposed project provide relief to parallel congested/ deficient corridors? Protection of Downtown Does the proposed project enhance the quality of life in downtown areas? Ideal Typical Section Does the proposed project address upgrading sub standard roadway segments? Development Conditions A - Is the proposed project located within a development area, or, is the specific project part of an approved plan for the redevelopment or revitalization of a developed area, or does the specific project provide access infrastructure to a mixed-use project area?

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

B - Does the proposed project maintain the distinct rural or suburban areas of the County?

No = 0 Yes = 2

C - Has the proposed project coordinated with, or support, land use decisions in the area?
Sub-Total Possible Points

No = 0 Yes = 2
36

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

Volume to Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate (Number of Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles
Traveled) to Statewide Crash Rate Average Number of Fatalities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

115

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.2 displays the quantitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Quantitative Criteria range from 0 to 25 points.

Table 17.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring

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

Possible Points
0.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
0..50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
1 3 25

The total points that a facility can receive for both the qualitative and quantitative criteria is 61 points. Based upon the identified improvements and the evaluations made during the quantitative and qualitative evaluation, a set of recommended near, mid, and long-term transportation projects was established. The scoring for the deficient corridors is displayed in Table 17.1.3.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

116

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Segment Limits

Table 17.1.3 Corridor Prioritization

Technical Memorandum June 2008

Qualitative Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project
Governor's Road Improvement Program / National Highway System
Part of Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor
Connectivit y Construction Designs in Progress
Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown
Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions Community Preservation Transportation Land Use Linkage Sub-Total Qualitative Criteria
Quantitative Criteria
Expected 2035 Volume/Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate to Statewide Crash
Rate Number of Fatalities Sub-Total Quantitative Criteria
Total Score for Project

Project Ref. No.

Facility

From

To

J33

SR 22

SR 11

J26

Henderson Road

SR 57

J27

Griswoldville Road

Henderson Road

J31

US 129

Joycliff Road

J35

Lite-n-Tie Road and Garrison Road

SR 49

J32

US 129

Lite-n-Tie Road

J30

Joycliff Road

SR 49

J29

SR 49

SR 18

J36

US 129

Greene Settlement Road

J38

Cumslo Road

SR 18

J43

Greene Settlement Road

US 129

J45

Howard Roberts Road/Dye Road/Wheeler Road SR 11

J46

Stagecoach Road

Upper River Road

J44

Olive Green Road

Greene Settlement Road

J42

Morton Road

SR 18

J39

Huckabee Road

Graham Road

Pinewood Drive Griswoldville Road SR 49 Greene Settlement Road US 129 Jackson Avenue US 129 Bowen Hill Road Lite-n-Tie Road US 129 RL Wheeler Road SR 18 Graham Road SR 11 Turner Woods Road SR 18

0-4 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-2 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-2 0-2 0-2
21.00 11.00 17.00 17.00 21.00 21.00 17.00 15.00 17.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 19.00 17.00 13.00 11.00

0.84 3.62 0 9.5 30.5 1.82 0.00 0 18 29.0 0.82 0.74 1 8 29.0 0.77 0.54 1 7.5 28.5 0.75 0.70 0 10.5 27.5 0.71 1.30 0 8.5 25.5 0.80 1.36 2 8 25.0 0.95 0.58 0 7.5 24.5 0.55 2.67 1 9 24.0 0.27 6.76 0 1.5 22.5 0.25 0.79 0 1 20.0 0.35 0.29 0 2.5 19.5 0.23 0.15 0 0.5 19.5 0.00 0.00 1 1 18.0 0.30 1.54 0 1.5 14.5 0.36 0.61 0 3 14.0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

117

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The prioritization resulted in the following ranking of top roadway improvements:

SR 22 from SR 11 to Pinewood Drive Henderson Road from SR 57 to Griswoldville Road Griswoldville Road from Henderson Road to SR 49 US 129 from Joycliff Road to Greene Settlement Road Lite-N-Tie Road and Garrison Road from SR 49 to US 129 US 129 from Lite-N-Tie Road to Jackson Avenue Joycliff Road from SR 49 to US 129 SR 49 from SR 18 to Bowen Hill Road US 129 from Green Settlement Road to Lite-N-Tie Road Cumslo Road from SR 18 to US 129

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

17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization

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

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

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means for prioritizing projects. Table 17.2.1 documents the scoring used for the bicycle and pedestrian prioritization and Tables 17.2.2 and 17.2.3 display the scoring applied to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

118

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 17.2.1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

Possible Points No = 0
Partial = 5 Yes = 10 None = 0 Injury = 5
Fatality = 10
No = 0 Yes = 5
No = 0 Yes = # * 2
No = 0 Yes = # * 2

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

Pedestrian: SR 18 E (Gray) from Gray Station Middle School to Allen Green Drive Allen Green Drive from SR 18 to the Jones County Central Rec. Complex Stewart Avenue from US 129 to Railroad Street Gordon Street from Railroad Street to US 129 Martin Luther King, Jr. from SR 11 to Maggie Califf Street Dolly Street from North Madison to Coolidge Street Highview Street from US 129 to Martin Luther King, Jr. Maggie Califf Street from Dolly Street to Highview Street North Madison Street from US 129 to Martin Luther King, Jr. SR 49 from the Jones County South Rec. Complex to Mattie Wells Drive J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr from Mattie Wells Drive to Mattie Wells Elementary School Parking Lot

Bicycle:



Gray Connector Bicycle Route Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 to the inactive Norfolk Southern Rail Line Central Georgia Rails to Trails Along the inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County NE to the Baldwin County Line Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway SR 11 from the Jasper County Line to SR 22 in Gray

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

119

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

From Upper River Road along Stagecoach Road to Graham Road

The remaining bicycle and pedestrian improvements scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority. Some bicycle projects that exist along corridor widening project routes can expect earlier implementation due to GDOTs procedure of bike lane inclusion during programmed widening projects.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

120

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum June 2008

Road
SR 18 E (Gray)
Allen Green Drive Stewart Avenue Gordon Street Martin Luther King, Jr. Dolly Street Highview Street Maggie Califf Street North Madison Street
SR 49 Mattie Wells Drive
J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr.
Railroad Street Huckabee Road
SR 18 W
SR 18 W
GA 18 E
New Clifton Road (Macon)

Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization

From Gray Station Middle School
SR 18 US 129 Railroad Street SR 11 North Madison US 129 Dolly Street US 129 Jones County South Recreational Complex SR 49
Mattie Wells Drive Jones County High School Stadium Entrance Katherine Drive
Huckabee Road Dames Ferry Elementary School
GA 18 Connector
Old Stage Coach

Priority Injury /

To

Area

Fatality Connectivity

Allen Green Drive Jones County Central Rec. Complex Railroad Street US 129 Maggie Califf Street Coolidge Street Martin Luther King, Jr. Highview Street Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mattie Wells Drive
J. Alvin Andrews, Sr. Dr. Mattie Wells Elementary School Pk lot

Previously Id

O & D

Score
23
23
21 21 21 21 21 21 21
19 19 19

16

US 129

SR 18 W

14

Dames Ferry Elementary School entrance

14

Trotters Ridge Trail

14

Gray Station Middle School

14

Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road)

14

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

121

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum June 2008

Road Old Clinton Road Jackson Avenue
SR 22 (Haddock) SR 22 (Haddock) SR 22 (Gray) GA 18 Connector

Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization (cont.)

From Green Settlement Road Old Clinton Unincorporated sign on west Bowen Hill Road Pinewood Drive US 129

To Washburn Drive US 129 Unincorporated sign on east Ethridge Road Faye Circle GA 18 E

Priority Injury /

Area

Fatality Connectivity

Previously Id

O & D

Score 9 9
6
6 4 4

Table 17.2.3 Bicycle Prioritization

Route Name
Gray Connector Bicycle Route Central Georgia Rails to Trails Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway Upper River Road/Stagecoach Road Bicycle Route Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway
Gray Bypass Ocmulgee Heritage Shared Use Trail

Description Railroad Street/Cumslo Road from SR 22 to inactive Norfolk Southern Rail Lne Inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb county NE to Baldwin County Line
SR 11 from Jasper County Line to SR 22 in Gray
Upper River Road to Stagecoach Road to Graham Road
Juliette Road from Monroe County Line east to SR 11 US 129/ SR 22 west of Gray to SR 22 east of Gray
Juliette Road to Bibb County Line (Sun Valley Road)

Priority Area

Injury /

Previously

Fatality Connectivity

Id

O & D

Score 23 13 11

9

7 4 2

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

122

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.3 Intersection Prioritization

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

What is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the facility? How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2004 and 2006? Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means of prioritizing projects. Table 17.3.1 documents the scoring used for the intersection prioritization and Table 17.3.2 displays the scoring applied to the proposed intersection improvements.

Table 17.3.1 Intersection Scoring Criteria

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
AADT What is the Average AADT at the intersection?
Crashes How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2002 and 2004?
Fatality Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Previously Identified Improvement Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Improvement Opportunities Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?

Possible Points
> 6,000 = 5 6,000 - 4,000 = 4 4,000 - 2,000 = 2
< 2,000 = 0 > 20 = 10
10 - 20 = 5 5 - 10 = 2 <5 = 0 No = 0 Yes = 10 No = 0 Yes = 5 No = 0 Yes = 5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

123

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum June 2008

Project Ref. No.
J18 J19 J20 J21 J 22 J25 J48 J24 J23

Road
US 129 US 129 S US 129 US 129 US 129 SR 22 SR 22 US 129
Lite-N-Tie Rd

Table 17.3.2 Intersection Prioritization

Intersection

Average

Active

AADT Crash Sites

Joycliff Road

8,820

35

SR 18 W

6,358

34

Jackson Avenue

5,126

32

RL Wheeler Road

7,909

21

Greene Settlement Road

6,616

22

Ethridge Road: Haddock area

4,168

4

Harris Morton Road

1,654

5

SR 18

3,500

3

Railroad Crossing ID 733418D (Norfolk Southern)

3,245

4

Fatalities
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0

County / City List

Improvement Opportunity

Score
15 15 14 10 10 9 5 2
2

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

124

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

US 129 at Joycliff Road US 129 S at SR 18 W US 129 at Jackson Avenue US 129 at RL Wheeler Road US 129 at Greene Settlement Road SR 22 at Ethridge Road - Haddock Community

The remaining intersections scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

17.4 Bridge Prioritization

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

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

Howard Roberts Road at Chehaw Creek County Line Road at Commissioner Creek County Line Road at Commissioner Creek Folendore Road at Commissioner Creek Turner Woods Road at Millsap Creek Shoal Creek Road at Shoal Creek Hitchiti Road at Falling Creek Roundoak-Juliette Road at Falling Creek\ SR 49 at Norfolk Southern Railroad Caney Creek Road at Falling Creek Dumas Road at Glady Creek Graham Road at Rock Creek Graham Road at Sand Creek US 129 at Cedar Creek Hadaway Road at Glady Creek US 129 SB at Rock Creek US 129 SB at Sand Creek

The remaining bridges have a higher sufficiency rating and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

125

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.5 Projects in the MATS Area

The Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS) is responsible for the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive metropolitan planning process required by Title 23 U.S.C. 134. Its planning boundaries include all of Bibb County and a third of Jones County.

The following are the projects that are within the MATS planning area:

Intersections

US 129 at Joycliff Road US 129 at RL Wheeler Road

Roadway Improvements

Henderson Road from SR 57 to Griswoldville Road Griswoldville Road from Henderson Road to SR 49 US 129 from Greene Settlement Road to Lite-N-Tie Road Huckabee Road operational improvements Stagecoach Road operational improvements

Coordination between Jones County and MATS will be essential to the inclusion of these projects in the MATS long-range planning process.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

126

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

18.0 Funding

Several funding sources will be utilized to implement recommended projects. Eligibility for funds is typically dictated by the agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the transportation facility in question. Most major facilities in Jones County are either operated by GDOT or the County. Should the County desire to accelerate projects on state owned and maintained facilities, it is highly likely that overmatching of local funds could accelerate the process.
Funding for most transportation projects in the County comes in part through GDOT. To understand the ability of GDOT to continue to provide funds to Jones County, it is useful to understand the components of GDOT funding. Key components include:

Federal Title I Apportionments; State Motor Fuels Taxes;

} Accounts for approximately 98% of the budget

State License Tag Fees;

State Title Registrations;

State Motor Carrier Fuels Tax;

State Personal Property Tax; and,

Tax Allocation Districts.

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

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

18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

127

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Based on the reauthorization, Table 18.1 illustrates funding levels for major highway transportation programs and apportionments and allocations to Georgia over the five-year time frame (FY 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009).

Table 18.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations

Area

Georgia*

Interstate Maintenance

$922

National Highway System

$859

Surface Transportation System

$1,119

Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation

$272

Congress Mitigation & Air Quality

$186

Appalachian Development Highway System

$90

Recreational Trails

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$37

Safety

$141

Rail Highway Crossings

$30

Safe Route to Schools

$18

High Priority Projects

$350

Equity Bonus

$2,324

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

$6,356

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

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

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

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

128

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Transportation Enhancement Program (TE Funds) - Currently, the TE Grant Program provides federal transportation funds through GDOT to local governments through a competitive process for non-highway projects. Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, multi-use trails, the preservation of historic sites related to transportation, etc.

18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation

The need for better mobility and access to transportation extends far beyond city limits. In Jones County, a very limited amount of public transportation services are available for people who cannot or choose not to drive their private autos. As the population grows and demographic trends change with a larger percentage of the population being elderly, the needs for special public transit to serve seniors and disabled people will grow.

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

As Jones County evolves, the County should monitor its needs for local and regional public transportation services and identify opportunities to tap into the available federal sources for these programs. Table 18.2 shows the estimated federal funds included in SAFETEALU. Generally, for public transit projects proposed in Jones County, the federal funding programs will be the Non-Urbanized Area Program; the Rural Transit Assistance Program; Transit for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Job Access and Reverse Commute; and SAFETEA-LUs New Freedom Program.

Table 18.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation

Area

Georgia

Urban Areas

$308

Fixed Guideway Motorization

$150

Non-Urbanized Areas

$62

Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)

$1

Job Access/Reverse Commute Program

$13

Elderly & Persons with Disabilities

$12

New Freedoms

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$9

State Planning

$2

Total

$567

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

129

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

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

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

130

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

According to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the County's "own source" revenues, including revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, excise and special use taxes and service charges and fees were estimated. Own source revenues are relevant because a portion of these funds could be provided as local matching funds for federally and state-funded transportation improvements or for locally-funded projects, depending on the County's other funding priorities. Table 18.4 illustrates this data. In 2004, Jones County had per capita own source amounts of $468, which is less than the statewide average of $631.

Table 18.4 Own Source Revenues

County

2000 Own Source
Revenues

Jones County

$9.8 million

* Statewide per capita amount equals $631. Source: Georgia Department of Community Affairs

2004 Own Source
Revenues
$12.3 million

% Change from 1996
to 2000
25.2%

Per Capita Amount* $468

18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

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

In its 2008-2011 STIP, GDOT estimated that nearly $9.5 billion were allocated for various transportation functions throughout Georgia. Table 18.5.1 shows the allocation of these funds across major functional areas.
Table 18.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)

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

Amount Allocated $1,273,880,000 $3,239,680,000 $969,770,000 $560,049,000 $911,204,000 $495,397,000 $957,176,000 $1,052,411,000 $9,459,567,000

Percent of Total 13.47% 34.25% 10.25% 5.92% 9.63% 5.24% 10.12% 11.13% 100.00%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

131

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Additionally, GDOT develops a Construction Work Program, a listing of projects expected to be funded within a six-year period (current year plus five subsequent years). The fourth, fifth, and sixth years of the CWP are viewed as an expression of GDOT's intention to proceed with the projects as funding becomes available to develop the projects (complete engineering design, acquire right-of-way, if needed, and construct the improvement). These projects are documented in this Plan.

According to GDOT's latest STIP for Jones County, a total of 5 major projects have been programmed utilizing nearly $130 million in federal and state funds. Table 18.5.2 summarizes these programmed amounts.

Table 18.5.2 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Project SR 44/Gray Bypass to CR 104/Mathis Road SR 22/Gray Bypass to SR 29 SR 49 from Griswoldville Road to SR 18 SR 899/Gray North Bypass from SR 18 NE to SR 22
SR 44 from Mathis Road to US 441/Putnam
TOTAL PROGRAMMED FUNDS

Total Funds Programmed
$38,433,000 $9,558,930
$47,225,000 $26,367,000
$8,246,560
$129,830,490

18.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs
A combination of federal, state, local, and private funding sources should be pursued for individual projects to improve transportation facilities in the study area. These sources should be pursued depending on GDOT (state), regional and local investment priorities considering the safety, convenience, and economic benefits of the projects throughout the planning period.
18.7 Effective Use of the Plan
This LRTP Document identifies potential projects for implementation based on local transportation needs and verified by technical analysis. This is an important step towards implementation but additional steps are necessary in order to advance projects into the Georgia Department of Transportation's Project Development Process and / or to identify and solidify funding commitments from the state, if desired. The project implementation process for Georgia outside of an MPO area begins with support from local elected officials. Each County should begin with a thorough review of their LRTP priority projects. If funding is desired beyond what is available locally, the following steps are recommended:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

132

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Step 1: Gather letters of support from local elected officials highlighting the need for the project(s) and the merits of the project(s).
Step 2: Assess the level of funding support that may be provided by the County as a local match and / or for specific project phases (i.e. PE, ROW, etc.).
Step 3: Contact your GDOT District Office and coordinate with the GDOT District Engineer regarding the project. Depending on project type, the GDOT District may know of state aid resources that could be used for feasibility studies and potentially for additional match funding sources.
Step 4: The GDOT District Office typically serves as the project sponsor and submits a project information package to GDOT's Project Nominating Review Committee (PNRC) for consideration. The information included in the long-range plan and the project sheet, in addition to any supporting information resulting from additional study, is included in this package.
Step 5: Projects approved by the PNRC are programmed into GDOT's Long-Range Program. As funding is identified, the project will move into GDOT's six-year Construction Work Program (CWP).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

133

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Jones County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

19.0 Conclusions

Growth in Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand through the 3-County Region. GDOT Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study to develop a LRTP to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon, 2035. Recommended projects for Jones County were identified by analyzing current transportation deficiencies and selected based on local goals and objectives with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.
HNTB coordinated with GDOT, Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties, cities including the City of Gray, citizens, and other partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of potential improvements. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to each County's transportation network.
The end product for this study is this LRTP document, providing for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Jones County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports.
This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for Jones County's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

134

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix A
Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Data Collection
The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study includes multi-modal analysis of existing conditions and future transportation needs related to roadways, bridges, public transportation, freight, airports, railroads, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities for development of a long-range transportation plan with a horizon year of 2035. HNTB, with assistance from the Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) Office of Planning, has worked with various contacts at GDOT, the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC), McIntosh Trail RDC, Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties, and City governments as appropriate to obtain relevant information for use in the existing and future conditions analysis. These data sources include transportation related data and statistics, generated at the federal, state, and local levels, County and local comprehensive plans, existing and future land use plans, and special studies related to transportation and development projects, if applicable. This memorandum provides a summary of the information collected for use in the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study.
Land Use, Socioeconomic, Growth and Development Data
Locally developed comprehensive plans provide information on both existing and future land use within each county and local jurisdiction. The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study will factor in goals, objectives, and policies associated with each relevant comprehensive plan in order to develop a transportation plan that is consistent with the broader goals and objectives of each county and appropriately integrates future growth plans and projections. Information including existing zoning, local developments, county employment, socioeconomic characteristics, and school related data is also important to understanding county land use and needs related to future growth.
Table 1 summarizes the relevant materials related to land use, growth, and development that have been collected for use in the plan's development.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 1: Land Use, Employment, Growth, and Development Data Sources

Document/Dataset Butts County Draft Comprehensive Plan

Source McIntosh Trail RDC

Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Assessment and Community Participation Program Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Agenda Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for Monroe County Monroe County Existing Land Use Map Monroe County Future Lane Use Map Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for the City of Forsyth City of Forsyth Zoning Map The Middle Georgia Joint Regional Plan And Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Butts County Generalized Water Map Rosehill DRI Information School enrollment 2005-2006 County Employment Data
Georgia K-12 Schools (2006) Census Blockgroups (2001) Census Journey to Work Data

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Butts County GDOT GA Dept of Education GA Dept of Labor GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse U.S. Census Bureau

Format Microsoft Word Document JPEG Images PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Map PDF Document PDF Map/DB Tables Microsoft Excel Files GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile Database Tables

Roadways and Bridges

Roadway characteristics, functional classification data, and traffic counts are essential to the existing and future needs analysis as well as the development of the travel demand model. This information was obtained from GDOT's Office of Transportation Data (OTD). Bridge sufficiency and crash data were also obtained from GDOT for use in the analysis of existing and future deficiencies. Planned and programmed projects currently included in GDOT's long-range and construction work program (CWP) for each of the three counties were also obtained for analysis.

Table 2 summarizes data source related to roadway and bridge information.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 2: Roadway and Bridge Data Sources

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Document/Dataset
Functional Classification Maps- Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Road Characteristics Data Bridge Sufficiency Data CARE Crash Data Macon-Bibb Travel Demand Model ARC Travel Demand Model Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts Special Studies Counts for High Falls Rd and SR 16
Construction Work Program (CWP) Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Pre-construction Status Report Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties South Jackson Bypass Concept Report and Potential Corridor Concept Layout on aerial photography Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application - Butts County Roads & Highways Tiger (2005) Bridges (2000)

Source GDOT OTD
GDOT OTD GDOT GDOT GDOT ARC GDOT OTD GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
Butts County
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse

Format PDF Maps
Database Tables Database Tables Database Tables Network Files Network Files Database Tables Database Tables/PDF Docs Database Tables
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

Other Modes

Data relevant to Airports, Railroads, Freight, Public Transportation, Bicycle, and Pedestrian was collected and compiled to support the development of the multi-modal elements of the plan. Data sources are presented by mode in Tables 3 through 7.

Table 3: Aviation Data Sources

Document/Dataset Airports -Butts & Monroe (1997) General Airport Information Locations/Characteristics
Table 4: Railroad Data Sources

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT

Format
GIS Shapefile Document

Document/Dataset
Railroads (2000) Rail lines operating, miles of track, location of crossings, number of trains per day/week
Georgia Rail Freight Plan (2000) List of rail crossings with crossing id number, type of crossing, location, AADT, safety warning features Railroad crossing planned improvements (CWP, TIP)
Rail crossing accident data Commuter and Intercity Rail Plan, latest update

Source GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT
GDOT GDOT
GDOT FRA/GDOT GDOT/GRTA

Format GIS Shapefile Document
Document Database Tables
Database Tables Database Tables Document

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5: Freight Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Freight Routes Truck Classification Counts Freight Traffic Generators

Source
GDOT/STAA GDOT GDOT

Table 6: Public Transportation Data Sources

Format
Map Database Tables GIS Shapefile

Document/Dataset Population data including current and projected population, population aging, disabled population, low-income population Regional Transit Executive Summary Coordinated Human Services Plan
Park and Ride and other commuting options available/needed in county

Source
County Comprehensive Plans / US Census

Format Database Tables

McIntosh Trail RDC McIntosh Trail RDC/GA Department of Human Resources GDOT Rideshare /McIntosh Trail RDC

Document Document
Document

Table 7: Bicycle/Pedestrian Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Existing Sidewalk Network -City of Gray McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan Middle Georgia Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Source Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC
Middle Georgia RDC

Format PDF Map Document
Document

Middle Georgia RDC / Service Area 6 Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Five Year Plan & Long Range Plan Middle Georgia RDC- Existing State Bike Route System Butts County Community AssessmentExecutive Summary and Data Appendix Butts County Recreational Paths Butts County Recreation Master Plan Butts County FY 08-09 Transportation Enhancement Narrative

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Butts County Butts County Butts County Butts County

PDF Map
PDF Map Document Document Document Document

Base Mapping

Additional shapefiles available from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse were downloaded and utilized for base mapping purposes to illustrate geographical features and characteristics within the study area.

These features are included in Table 8 below.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 8: Base Map Data Sources
Document/Dataset County Boundaries (2001) Lakes & Ponds (2001) Streams & Rivers (2001) Census Landmark Features (2000) Community Facilities Conservation Land Georgia Place Features - Physical and cultural geographic features Forest Lands

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse USGS

Format
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

USGS

GIS Shapefile

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix B
Project Sheets

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Griswoldville Road and Henderson Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 57 (Twiggs County) to SR 49

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI): 3.9 miles NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 57

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $1,560,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 lane 8,652 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones/Twiggs 4 lane 10,178

SR 49

FY 20

TOTAL

$1,560,000

$0

$0

$14,040,000

$14,040,000

$15,600,000

$0

$0 $0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS
This improvement proposes to widen Griswoldville Road and Henderson Road from SR 57 to SR 49. This project demonstrates logical termini due to connectivity and forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Coordination with Twiggs County would be required. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS F in 2035. Widening Griswoldville Road and Henderson Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
Griswoldville Road is functionally classified as a minor collector and Henderson Road is functionally classified as a major collector, each with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J26,J27

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 49 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 18 to Bowen Hill Road

LENGTH (MI): 8.2 miles NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 18

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $3,280,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 lane 8,385 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 4 lane 11,582

Bowen Hill Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$3,280,000

$0

$0

$29,520,000

$29,520,000

$32,800,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 49, from SR 18 to Bowen Hill Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and an extension of an existing widening project located to the south. It is anticipated that the routes to the north will satisfactorily service current and future traffic and not require additional capacity projects. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening SR 49 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 49 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J29

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Joycliff Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 49 to US 129

LENGTH (MI): 2.9 miles NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 49

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $1,160,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 lane 11,676 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 4 lane 13,108

US 129

FY 20

TOTAL

$1,160,000

$0

$0

$10,440,000

$10,440,000

$11,600,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Joycliff Road, from SR 49 to US 129. The section of roadway is currently operating at a LOS D. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity. The need and purpose is to provide connectivity between US 129 and SR 49. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening Joycliff Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
Joycliff Road is functionally classified as a local road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J30

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Joycliff Road to Greene Settlement Road

LENGTH (MI): 7.1 miles NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Joycliff Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $2,840,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

4 lane 18,283 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 6 lane 23,959

Greene Settlement Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$2,840,000

$0

$0

$25,560,000

$25,560,000

$28,400,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 129, from Joycliff Road to Greene Settlement Road. This project demostrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity to Gray and the Gray Bypass project. There are proposed widening projects to the north to meet future traffic needs. It is anticipated that the route south of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require an additional capacity project. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening US 129 to 6-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
US 129 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J31

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Lite-n-Tie Road to Jackson Avenue

LENGTH (MI): 0.7 mile NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Lite-n-Tie Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$280,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

4 lane 8,194 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 6 lane 13,885

Jackson Avenue

FY 20

TOTAL

$280,000

$0

$0

$2,520,000

$2,520,000

$2,800,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 129, from Lite-n-Tie Road to Jackson Avenue. This project demonstrates logical termini due to connectivity to Gray and the extension of proposed widening to the south. It is anticipated that the route north of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require an additional capacity project. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening US 129 to 6-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
US 129 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J32

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 11 to Pinewood Drive

LENGTH (MI): 0.5 mile NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 11

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$200,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 lane 8,521 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 4 lane 11,467

Pinewood Drive

FY 20

TOTAL

$200,000

$0

$0

$1,800,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 22, from SR 11 to Pinewood Drive. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening SR 22 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
SR 22 is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of commerical and residential property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J33

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Lite-n-Tie Road and Garrison Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 49 to US 129

LENGTH (MI): 7.25 miles NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 49

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $2,900,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 lane 3,809 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 4 lane 7,917

US 129

FY 20

TOTAL

$2,900,000

$0

$0

$26,100,000

$26,100,000

$29,000,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Lite-n-Tie Road and Garrison Road, from SR 49 to US 129. This project demonstrates logical termini due to enhanced connectivity to Gray. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening Lite-n-Tie Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
Lite-n-tie Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Garrison Rd.

J35

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Greene Settlement Road to Lite-n-Tie Road

LENGTH (MI): 0.5 mile NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Greene Settlement Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$200,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

4 lane 13,608 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Jones 6 lane 18,599

Lite-n-Tie Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$200,000

$0

$0

$1,800,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 129, from Greene Settlement Road to Lite-n-Tie Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to connectivity to Gray and the extension of other proposed widenings located to the north and south. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening US 129 to 6-lanes is projected to improve operations in 2035.
US 129 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property, with some commercial and industrial properties along the route.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

J36

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment at US 129 and Joycliff Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 and Joycliff Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 35 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

Joycliff Road

J18

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 S PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at US 129 S and SR 18 W

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 S and SR 18 W may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 34 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

J19

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at US 129 and Jackson Avenue

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 and Jackson Avenue may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 32 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

Jackson Ave

J20

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at US 129 and R L Wheeler Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 and R L Wheeler Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 21 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

J21

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Intersection realignment at US 129 and Greene Settlement Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 and Greene Settlement Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 22 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

J22

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Lite-n-Tie Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvement at Lite-n-Tie Road and Railroad Crossing 733418D

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Lite-n-Tie Road and Railroad Crossing 733418D may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 4 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

J23

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 129 N PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvement at US 129 N and SR 18 E

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 129 N and SR 18 E may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 3 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

J24

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 22
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvement at SR 22 and Ethridge Road - Haddock Community

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS: TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:
FY 20
$0
RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 22 and Ethridge Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 4 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Ethridge Road
Haddock

Medium
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

?

J25

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvement at SR 22 and Harris Morton Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 22 and Harris Morton Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 5 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in June 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Harris Morton Rd.

Low
Jones
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

?

J48

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Monroe County Long Range Transportation Plan
August 2008

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Preface

This document serves as a guide to the County's transportation needs, in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), through the horizon year, 2035. LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the County. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, LRTP's should be updated at least every five years.
The LRTP is a useful tool that empowers a County to act on its current and expected needs. GDOT programs projects for all 159 counties in the state of Georgia, and it is extremely helpful to them to know the true needs of each county. The LRTP follows an accepted process that documents existing and future needs. These needs are then addressed by potential improvements which are prioritized.
The LRTP is a living document that can be revisited as the County experiences changes in population and employment and sees the impact of those changes on local land use, growth, and development. Typically Transportation Plans are updated every three to five years. The current LRTP was based on existing data and forecasts developed with information from current comprehensive plans, the most recent U.S. Census data, and other recent and relevant planning initiatives. It is expected that the inputs into this original planning process, particularly public comments and opinions; population forecasts; development forecasts; and, the distribution of population and employment within the county will change over time in response to changing realities through the study area. A critical mass of new information should provide a stimulus to the update of the plan and the refining of the planning process. The following key components of the LRTP should be reviewed and updated as necessary:

LRTP Goals; Population Forecasts; Employment Forecasts; Distribution of Population and Employment; Needs; Projects; Costs; and, Funding.
Updating the LRTP acknowledges changes to 20-year growth forecasts, updates travel patterns and trends through the use of evolving analysis methods and tools such as the travel demand model, introduces updated revenue forecasts, and provides an opportunity to incorporate new data influencing the development and outcome of the Plan and its recommendations.
The outcome of the LRTP is a prioritized list of transportation improvements that attempt to meet the current and future transportation goals and objectives of the County. This list is recognized by planning partners as the most important projects for the County and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

correspondingly is the focus of funding and implementation efforts. It is important to recognize that these priorities are not static. As the inputs to the planning process change so will the priorities. A systematic approach to meeting current and future transportation needs applied at regular intervals facilitates the project implementation process by revisiting local consensus on transportation goals. This allows limited transportation funding and resources to be allocated in the most effective manner to achieve priorities consistent with the County's current landscape.

An LRTP is made more effective by an informed public that actively contributes to the planning process. The interested resident should utilize the Plan in several ways to actively contribute to the planning process and quality of life within the County:

1. Review the documented input from the public involvement process and provide additional comment when conditions change;
2. Review the list of prioritized projects to understand where the County will be investing its limited transportation resources;
3. Understand that the improvements recommended in the Plan relate to deficiencies identified through the planning process the Plan has an established methodology for assessing need and determining improvements;
4. Use the Plan as a mechanism to provide input to the County to reflect changing realities within the County;
5. Understand the goals for the LRTP and hold the County and other planning partners accountable for achieving the established outcomes.

The planning partners (Elected Officials, County Staff, Regional Development Center, GDOT and others) also make use of the Plan for key activities including:

1. Clear documentation and technical analysis to support the need for transportation investment using proven analytical methods and analysis tools and approaches;
2. An understanding of the County priorities for transportation investment; 3. A role to assist with the development of and contribute to uses for a Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Program; 4. A framework for continuous LRTP activities; and, 5. A mechanism for ensuring active dialogue of transportation issues and
opportunities.

The current transportation funding climate at the Federal, State, and Local levels is one of great need and limited resources. The LRTP process creates an opportunity for discussion and exploration of alternative funding sources. Opportunities to fund eligible projects in local LRTP's with support from Federal and State resources as has been possible in the past is not likely to continue at the same levels. County governments and other local authorities must anticipate that many projects may need to be funded with local dollars. Development of an LRTP with clear priorities first provides a blueprint for Counties as they determine how to allocate local resources, and also places the County in a good position if a project is determined to be eligible for Federal and State funds.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2 Study Purpose............................................................................................................... 2 Study Area Description.................................................................................................. 3 Study Process ............................................................................................................... 5

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 6 Historic Population Growth............................................................................................ 8 Future Population ........................................................................................................ 10 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. 11 Employment Data........................................................................................................ 16

3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 18 3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics............................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Monroe County Existing Land Use Characteristics ..................................................... 19

4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PROGRAMS....................................................................... 21 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program ...................................................................................................................... 21 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan ................................................................. 24 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ 24 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region.............................................. 25 Existing Planning Studies for Monroe County ............................................................. 27

5.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................... 30 5.1 Monroe County Transit................................................................................................ 30

6.0 FREIGHT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................. 34 6.1 Monroe County Freight Transport ............................................................................... 34 6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail Monroe........................................................................ 39

7.0 AIRPORT FACILITIES .................................................................................................... 40 7.1 Monroe County............................................................................................................ 40

8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .................................................................... 41 Monroe County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .......................................... 41 Bicycle System Elements ............................................................................................ 46 Pedestrian System Elements ...................................................................................... 48

9.0 BRIDGES ........................................................................................................................ 50 9.1 Monroe County Bridges............................................................................................... 50

10.0 SAFETY .......................................................................................................................... 55 10.1 Monroe County Crash Summary................................................................................. 55

11.0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 58 11.1 Functional Classification.............................................................................................. 58 11.2 Road Lanes ................................................................................................................. 60 11.3 Roadway Shoulders .................................................................................................... 60 11.4 Roadway Surface Type ............................................................................................... 63

12.0 ROADWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 65 12.1 Existing Operating Conditions ..................................................................................... 66 12.2 Future Operating Conditions ....................................................................................... 68

13.0 CITIZEN AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT .......................................................................... 73

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

I

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.1 Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings......................................................... 73 13.2 Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Input ............................................................... 74
14.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 77 14.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 77 14.2 Methodology................................................................................................................ 77 14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents ............................................................. 79 14.4 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 80
15.0 IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS............................................................... 83 15.1 Deficient Roadways..................................................................................................... 83 15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................ 84 15.3 Public Transportation Improvements........................................................................... 85 15.3.1 Transit ......................................................................................................................... 85 15.3.2 Commuter Options ...................................................................................................... 86 15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail........................................................................................ 87 15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements....................................................................................... 87 15.5 Aviation Improvements................................................................................................ 96 15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input ..................................................................................... 96
16.0 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 99 16.1 Estimated Costs .......................................................................................................... 99 16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements.............................................................. 100 16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations ...................................................................... 106
17.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION........................................................................................ 108 17.1 Corridor Prioritization................................................................................................. 108 17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization............................................................................. 112 17.3 Intersection Prioritization ........................................................................................... 115 17.4 Bridge Prioritization ................................................................................................... 117
18.0 FUNDING...................................................................................................................... 118 18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation............................................................. 118 18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation ................................................................... 120 18.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 121 18.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation ................................................................ 121 18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ...................................... 122 18.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs ...................................................................... 123 18.7 Effective Use of the Plan ........................................................................................... 123
19.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 125

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

II

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 1.2 Study Area............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1.3 Study Process ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.1 Block Group Population Distribution in 2000 ......................................................... 9 Figure 2.3.1 Monroe County Minority Population Locations .................................................... 12 Figure 2.3.2 Monroe County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations ............................ 14 Figure 2.3.3 Monroe County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations ......................... 15 Figure 3.1 Monroe County Existing Land Use ...................................................................... 20 Figure 4.1 Monroe County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects ................................... 23 Figure 4.4 MGRDC 2005 Bicycle Plan ................................................................................. 26 Figure 4.5 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Monroe County ............................ 29 Figure 6.1 Monroe County Freight Transportation Facilities................................................. 38 Figure 8.0 Monroe County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes ............. 42 Figure 9.1 Monroe County Bridges for Potential Maintenance and Rehabilitation ............... 54 Figure 10.1 Monroe County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations......................... 57 Figure 11.1 Monroe County Functional Classification ............................................................ 59 Figure 11.2 Monroe County Roadway Lanes ......................................................................... 61 Figure 11.3 Monroe County Roadway Shoulders................................................................... 62 Figure 11.4 Monroe County Roadway Surface Type.............................................................. 64 Figure 12.1 Monroe County Existing Daily Deficient Segments ............................................. 67 Figure 12.2.1 Monroe County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments ................................................... 70 Figure 12.2.2 Monroe County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments ................................................... 72 Figure 13.1 Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Input ....................................................... 76 Figure 15.0 Transportation Improvement Development Process ........................................... 83 Figure 16.2.1 Monroe County Recommended Improvements - Roadway ................................ 104 Figure 16.2.2 Monroe County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian ............. 105 Figure 16.3 Monroe County Environmental Justice Evaluation ............................................ 107

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

III

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
LIST OF TABLES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 6

Table 2.0.2 Area Population..................................................................................................... 7

Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile.................................................................................. 8

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population .......................................................................................... 10

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change................................................................ 10

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs ........................................................................................ 16

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns....................................................................... 17

Table 3.0

Development of Regional Impact Studies .......................................................... 18

Table 4.1

Monroe County 2008-2011 STIP........................................................................ 22

Table 4.5

Summary of the 2005 Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden's Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update) ................................................................... 27

Table 4.5

Summary of the 2005 Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden's Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update) (Continued) .............................................. 28

Table 5.1.1 Monroe County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency30

Table 5.1.2 Monroe County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment......................................................................................................... 31

Table 6.1.1 Monroe County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT ............................................. 35

Table 6.1.2 Monroe County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains).................................................................................................................. 35

Table 6.1.3 Monroe County Railroad Crossing Crash Data, 2000 to 2006 (Crashes Not Involving Trains) .................................................................................................. 36

Table 6.1.4 Monroe County 2008-2013 CWP Railroad Improvement Projects ..................... 37

Table 8.1.1 Monroe County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region...................................... 43

Table 8.1.2 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects (Monroe County) ................................................................................................. 44

Table 8.1.3 Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006.......................... 46

Table 8.1.4 Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006 ............. 46

Table 9.1

Bridge Inventory Monroe County..................................................................... 50

Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Monroe County ..................................................... 55

Table 11.1 Monroe County Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled............................. 60

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments ................................................................... 66

Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments ................................................................................... 69

Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments ................................................................................... 71

Table 13.0 Study Advisory Group Monroe County ............................................................ 73

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

IV

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 13.1 Monroe County Meetings .................................................................................... 74 Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input Monroe County .................................................... 74 Table 14.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors..................................................... 78 Table 15.6 Suggested Improvements .................................................................................. 97 Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................... 103 Table 17.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring........................................................................ 109 Table 17.1.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring...................................................................... 110 Table 17.1.3 Corridor Prioritization........................................................................................ 111 Table 17.2.1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria............................................................... 113 Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization ................................................................................... 114 Table 17.2.3 Bicycle Prioritization .......................................................................................... 114 Table 17.3.1 Intersection Scoring Criteria ............................................................................. 115 Table 17.3.2 Intersection Prioritization .................................................................................. 116 Table 18.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations119 Table 18.2 Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation.............. 120 Table 18.4 Own Source Revenues .................................................................................... 122 Table 18.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)............................................................... 122 Table 18.5.2 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........... 123

APPENDIX A
Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Project Sheets

APPENDIX B

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

V

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction
Residential, commercial and industrial growth in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand throughout the 3-County Region. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon year of 2035. Currently, the transportation planning function for the Counties is provided by GDOT through coordination with each County. The transportation plans developed as part of this study are built upon existing work efforts to date, and provide a mechanism for guiding transportation decision-making as development pressures increase throughout the 3-County Region. Although this study effort involved a three county study area, an individual transportation plan was developed for each county. This document focuses specifically on Monroe County.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify existing and future operating conditions for the multi-modal transportation system (roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, freight, transit, rail, and airports) within the 3-County Region, and to utilize that information to identify improvements and prioritize project implementation for Monroe County. As part of this effort, a travel demand model was developed for the 3-County Region to represent the transportation network of the study area and to assist with the analysis of future operating conditions. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted to establish plan goals and objectives, identify issues and opportunities and to identify potential improvements to the Monroe County transportation network. This process ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input.
Ultimately, study efforts have produced a documented LRTP that provides for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the study area through the study horizon year (2035). Interim analysis was also conducted for the year 2015.
1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of the Monroe County LRTP is to identify long-range transportation needs, determine the resources to meet those needs, and to provide a framework of projects that address the transportation needs of the county to the extent possible by leveraging existing and future resources. While the majority of the 3-County Region is not within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area, the transportation plan development process methodology followed the guidelines established for MPO's. A portion of Jones County falls within the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission, the MPO for the Macon metropolitan area, and transportation planning for this area of Jones County is included in the Macon Area Transportation Study (MATS). Including the guidelines from these additional agencies, creates a more rigorous process and establishes a strong framework for transportation planning and decision-making. The

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

format of the LRTP, and the process by which it was developed, is prescribed by federal legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). LRTPs are required to have a planning horizon of 20 or more years. This time frame provides a basic structure and overall goal for meeting the long-term transportation needs for the community. Since many factors influencing the development of the LRTP, such as demographics, forecast revenue, and project costs, change over time, long range transportation plans should be updated at least every five years.

The existing conditions established in the first half of this report form the foundation for the technical analyses completed as part of the LRTP development process. Evaluation factors were established to assess both the existing and future transportation network. Deficiencies and operating conditions were documented and ultimately used to develop the recommended improvements for Monroe County.

1.2 Study Area Description
The study area is located along the I-75 corridor in middle Georgia, north of Macon. In recent years, communities located in the I-75 corridor from south of Atlanta to Macon have recognized the economic importance of the corridor in attracting manufacturing, distribution, logistics, and warehousing operations and the associated residential, commercial, and office development that supports these valuable businesses.
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties cover a land area of just over 976 square miles. Monroe County is comprised of about 396 square miles. The area features many appealing points of interest, is significant to the State's natural and built environments, and contains cultural and historic assets, all of which create unique impacts on the transportation system.
Monroe County, named after President James Monroe, was formed in 1821 from Creek Indian land. The oldest Methodist church in Georgia resides in the City of Culloden. The Whistle Stop Caf, in Juliette, made famous by the movie Fried Green Tomatoes has become a tourist attraction and is still serving fried green tomatoes today.
The 3-County Region is part of two Regional Development Centers (RDC's): McIntosh Trail RDC and Middle Georgia RDC. Monroe County is part of the Middle Georgia RDC (MGRDC). The study area is displayed in Figure 1.2.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Study Area
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
4

F
Figure No: 1.2

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.3 Study Process

Figure 1.3 outlines the process of developing a long-range transportation plan for Monroe County.
Figure 1.3 Study Process

Detailed information for all analysis elements is provided in the following sections. It is within this framework that the existing conditions data was identified for collection, analyzed, and established as a baseline condition for the transportation system within the study area.
Data collection sources are documented in Appendix A.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Demographic Information

A review of the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, shows that the 3-County Region has experienced population growth at a moderate level during the past 20 years. The Statewide average yearly growth was three percent over this period and the 3-County Region grew at an average yearly rate of three percent. Table 2.0.1 presents select demographic data to illustrate the characteristics of the population and households in Monroe County and other socio-economic factors. Using 2000 US Census Occupied Housing Units counts and employment figures, a jobs-to-housing ratio was calculated. The employment figures are the sum of the 2000 Census industry numbers. The ratio of the number of jobs (10,410) to number of housing units (8,425) is greater than one (1.24), based on the 2000 US Census information. This places increased demand on the transportation system linking County residents to jobs in Atlanta, Macon, and other employment centers.
The demographic overview of the County documents the historic population growth, future population projections, environmental justice population, and existing employment.

Table 2.0.1 Year 2000 General Demographic Characteristics

Demographic

Monroe

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

21,757
36.4
21,131
2.74
8,425 7,719 (91.6% of total) 6,137 (79.5% of total) 1,582 (20.5% of total) 5,835 (27.8% of total) 77.7%
4,668
65.0%

Approximately 82 percent of Monroe County residents (17,758) live outside of the cities. The data in Table 2.0.2 is from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and shows the rural and urban population breakdown for each county for the year 2000.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.0.2 Area Population

County

City

Population

Forsyth

3,776

Monroe County Culloden

223

Unincorporated 17,758

Total

21,757

The demographic data demonstrates the percent of disabled individuals in the Monroe County is 21 percent and exceeds the statewide average of 19 percent. The US Census Bureau defines disability as:
"A long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business."
Dialogue with stakeholders (see Section 13.0, page 73 for the list of stakeholders) also revealed that the study area is beginning to attract an older population.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.1 Historic Population Growth
Monroe County has received a moderate amount of growth over the past 20 years, with a 49 percent increase in total population, which is greater than the 3-County Region, which had a 45 percent increase in total population, and slightly less than the State of Georgia, which had a 50 percent increase in total population. Table 2.1.1 illustrates the growth trends from 1900 to 2000. Information in Table 2.1 shows that the area declined in population between 1900 to 1960 (at least, in part, due to the carving of Lamar County out of a portion of Monroe County in 1920), but has experienced solid growth from 1980 to 2000. Growth in Monroe County and the region has continued on a strong upward trend since 1960.
Table 2.1.1 Historical Population Profile

County

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Percent Change 1980 - 2000

Monroe 20,682

20,138

10,749

10,495

14,610

21,757

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

49% 50%

Figure 2.1 displays the block group population distribution in 2000, according to the US Census. While decennial census counts allow for block group level analysis, current year population estimates are limited to county-level statistics; therefore, changes in population at the block group level are not able to be displayed. However, for illustrative purposes, the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, population distribution at the block group level is shown.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Block Group Population Distribution in 2000
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
9

F
Figure No: 2.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.2 Future Population

The population for Monroe County is expected to increase at a moderate rate through the study horizon of 2035. Over the past 20 years, Monroe County has experienced an average annual population increase of 3.28 percent, which is greater than the 3-County's average annual population increase of 3.1 percent, but slightly less than the State of Georgia's average annual population increase of 3.3 percent. This growth trend is expected to continue as the area continues to attract people and business owners who enjoy a rural or suburban lifestyle in relatively close proximity to amenities in the Atlanta and Macon urban areas.

Table 2.2.1 displays the projected growth as estimated by the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County. Over the next 25 years the study area is expected to grow by over 40 percent in population. It is important to recognize this growth and the increased demand on the transportation system that accompanies the population increase.

Table 2.2.1 Projected Population

County

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Monroe

21,774

23,544

25,331

27,117

28,904

30,691

Source: Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Culloden and Forsyth (MGRDC)

Table 2.2.2 shows the 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, 2006 population estimates and the percentage change of the county's population.

Table 2.2.2 Estimated County Population Change

County Monroe

2000 21,757

2006 Percent Estimate Change

24,443

12.3%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.3 Environmental Justice

The Environmental Justice (EJ) Executive Order 12898 defines EJ populations as persons belonging to any of the following groups:

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

Environmental justice is intended to acknowledge minority and low-income populations that have been historically underrepresented in the transportation planning process and ensure that these groups are not disproportionately impacted as a result of transportation improvement recommendations.

The intent of EJ analysis is to locate these populations and to involve them early and continuously through the decision making process, as well as use data to analytically assess if there would be a disproportionate impact on traditionally underrepresented communities. The following sections document the location of minority and low-income populations.

Minority Populations

The minority populations for Monroe County were identified and analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group and shows concentrations of minority populations are located in the western portions of Monroe County. Denser concentrations of minorities are located near and in the City of Forsyth. The average minority population figure for Monroe County is 39.5 percent while the statewide average is 34.9 percent.

The minority census block groups as a percentage of the county population are displayed in Figure 2.3.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Minority Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
12

F
Figure No: 2.3.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Low-Income Population

The second component of EJ, poverty level, was also analyzed using the 2000 Census data. This census data was reviewed by census block group. Similar to the minority population, there are concentrations of low-income residents located in, and immediately to the west of, the City of Forsyth. The average number of residents below the poverty line in Monroe County is 9 percent while the statewide average is 13 percent.

Census blocks meeting the low-income population thresholds for the State of Georgia are displayed in Figure 2.3.2.

It is helpful to analyze the low-income population areas with respect to the location of minority population areas. Extra attention is drawn to areas with high population in both of these categories. Figure 2.3.3 combines the minority and low-income population data and presents it in a single graphic.

Historically underrepresented populations were identified as part of this analysis and extra efforts were made to include these groups in the planning process. Representation from these groups was actively sought out for inclusion in the study advisory group and advertised public meetings used media to reach these groups. The area includes downtown Forsyth. This area was evaluated to ensure that transportation improvements would benefit and not disproportionately impact the area in a negative manner. The following tasks were conducted for the identified low-income and minority census tracks:

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

13

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Low-Income Threshold Population Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
14

F
Figure No: 2.3.2

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Overlay of Minority & Low-Income Populations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
15

F
Figure No: 2.3.3

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.4 Employment Data

In Monroe County, public administration is the largest employment sector accounting for about 31 percent of the total jobs. Other important sectors are retail trade, construction, and manufacturing. Using the Georgia Department of Labor 2006 annual average employment data, the major employers for Monroe County are listed below.

Georgia Power Company (421 employees) Monroe County State Prison (211 employees) MOR PPM, Inc. (160 employees) Monroe County Hospital (128 employees) Leggett & Platt, Inc (105 employees)

The number, type, and location of jobs in these Counties has direct implications to the types of transportation facilities needed by business operators and employees in the area. Table 2.4.1 shows the major categories of jobs and industries located in Monroe County.

Table 2.4.1 Existing Industry Jobs

Industry Type Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services Education, Health, and Social Services Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Public Administration TOTAL
Source: Georgia Department of Labor 2006

Monroe 182 618 262 52 465 228 NA 98 77 NA NA 117 1,767 5,648

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

16

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

According to the 2000 US Census, the most recent available data, Monroe County's per capita income in 1999 was lower than Georgia's statewide average of $21,154 and the national average of $21,587. The per capita income for Monroe County in 1999 was $19,580.

Transportation mobility for workers in Monroe County is an important consideration for the Plan. Most workers (96 percent) rely on roadway-based transportation for commute trips, either by driving alone or carpooling. About three percent (3.3 percent) of workers in Monroe County bike or walk, commute by other means, or work at home. Table 2.4.2 illustrates the breakdowns in commuting modes for Monroe County.

Table 2.4.2 Existing Work Commute Patterns

Work Commute
Total Workers (Age 16+) Drove Alone
Carpooled
Transit/Taxi
Biked or Walked Motorcycle or Other Means Worked at Home Mean Travel Time to Work (min.)
Source: 2000 US Census

Monroe County
10,316 8,560 1,373
15 133 108 127 28

Percentage
100% 83% 13% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Statewide

Total Percentage

3,832,803 2,968,910 557,062
90,030 65,776 42,039 108,986
27.7

100% 78% 15% 2% 2% 1% 3%

The Monroe County journey to work data corresponds closely to the statewide averages for the various modes of travel. The mean travel time to work is generally equal to the statewide average (27.7 minutes).

Monroe County has become an attractive residential area for Macon-based employees. Thirty-two percent of Monroe employees travel to Bibb County for employment. Additionally, the I-75 corridor is attracting industrial and commercial employment centers that will bring additional jobs to the 3-County region. The residential, industrial, and commercial expansion in Monroe County will increase demand for transportation facilities providing access to and within the area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

17

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Land Use and Development

The existing and future land use patterns for Monroe County shows a substantial percentage of land devoted to residential and agricultural land uses. Additionally, discussions with the planning staff of Monroe County revealed the anticipated development of several major employment centers through much of the study area. These two factors suggest that transportation projects will be required to adequately service future travel demand, particularly employment related demand throughout Monroe County.
Recently, four Development of Regional Impact (DRI) studies have been completed in Monroe County as shown in Table 3.0.
Table 3.0 Development of Regional Impact Studies

DRI ID #
1426

Project Name
Rumble Road Industrial Park

Development Type
Industrial

County/ City
Monroe

Initial Form Submitted
5/1/2007

Current Status
Request for Comments Made 5/31/2007

970 Juliette Village

Housing

Monroe/ Forsyth

12/9/2005

Completed 12/19/2005

960 The Manor at Housing Montpelier

Monroe/ Forsyth

11/15/2005

Completed 11/17/2005

853 Indian Springs Station

Housing

Monroe/ Forsyth

7/6/2005

Completed 10/12/2005

RDC Finding
Pending
in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

18

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics

To assess the impact of existing land use on the transportation system the following types of areas were identified for each of the Counties: major residential areas; key activity centers; key employment centers; and, primary travel corridors. The existing land use map for Monroe County is presented in Figure 3.1.

3.1.1 Monroe County Existing Land Use Characteristics

Major Residential Areas City of Forsyth

Key Activity Centers City of Forsyth

Key Employment Centers City of Forsyth Department of Corrections Tift College site (planned opening year is 2010) Georgia Power Plant Scherer

Primary Travel Corridors I-75 US 23 US 41 US 341 SR 42 SR 83 SR 74

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

19

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Existing Land Use
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
20

F
Figure No: 3.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.0 Previous Studies and Programs

An effective transportation plan accounts for previous planning efforts to ensure continuity between planning documents and to ensure that goals and related projects for the transportation system are consistent with the established community vision. Several studies and planning documents contribute to the community vision for each of the Counties and these were reviewed. The following planning studies and programs were reviewed and key results summarized:

GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program and Six Year Construction Work Program;
Currently planned major GDOT projects in the 3-county study area; GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan; GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia RDC; Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan; Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth
and Culloden
4.1 GDOT's State Transportation Improvement Program & Six Year Construction Work Program
In addition to current studies, there are several planned and programmed multi-modal improvements in Monroe County. The projects identified are those listed in the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the 2008-2013 Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP). The following list highlights the general types of planned and programmed improvements for the County:

Bridge Rehabilitation / Replacement; Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements; Roadway Widening; New Roadways; Intersection Improvements; and, Passing Lanes.
The STIP and CWP were reviewed for projects within and impacting Monroe County and these projects are displayed in Table 4.1. Additionally, these projects were given a study ID number and are mapped in Figure 4.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

21

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 4.1 Monroe County 2008-2011 STIP

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Map Project Prime Work

Id

Id

Type

Description

SR 18 southbound 13.7-

M-1 321370 Passing Lanes 15.2/Monroe/eastbound 2.3-

3.6/westbound 3.38-5.1/TL 5.10-5.6

M-2

342920

Passing Lanes

SR 19 from CR 73/King Road to 0.5 mile east of CR 74/Hill Road

M-3 0007045

Bridges

SR 42 at Tobesofkee Creek 2 mile south of Forsyth

M-4 0007046 Bridges SR 83 at Towaliga River

M-5 0007219

Intersection Improvement

M-6 371800 Rail Projects

M-7 0007599 Sidewalk
*LR denotes long range Source: GDOT Department of Planning

SR 19/US 41 at SR 18
Commuter Rail Griffin to Macon/Bibb Houston County Phase 4 Sidewalk & Streetscape in Downtown Forsyth

Program
STP STP Bridge Bridge STP NHS HPP

Construction Date*
LR
LR LR LR LR LR 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

22

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County GDOT Planned & Programmed Projects
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
23

F
Figure No: 4.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.2 GDOT's Statewide Interstate System Plan
Sponsored by GDOT, the Statewide Interstate System Plan was designed to evaluate Georgia's Interstate System, identify necessary improvements, and produce a comprehensive and prioritized program of projects to meet increasing traffic demands and ensure future statewide mobility. The study, completed in the summer of 2004, is organized into three phases and focuses primarily on the interstates outside the Atlanta metro area. Review of the Interstate System Plan reveals proposed improvements along the interstate system in the 3-County Region. The plan recommends expanding I-75 between south metro Atlanta and metro Macon from six to eight lanes by 2035.
4.3 GDOT's Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan

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

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

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

GDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was reviewed to identify proposed facilities through the 3-County Region.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

24

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region

The focus of the Middle Georgia RDC (MGRDC) Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region is to establish a system of inter-regional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown areas and schools and the marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general are key points in the plan.

The local plan focuses on the development of new bicycle routes, shared use trails, and sidewalks connecting downtowns, schools, employment centers, and other activity centers. Local marketing programs to increase bicycle and pedestrian activity and the feasibility of implementing the Safe Routes to School program were also evaluated.

As part of this effort the following goals were created:

Provide and maintain a safe, convenient, and accessible road network that accommodates bicycles for all users through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Provide and maintain safe, convenient, and accessible shared- use trails for all users through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Provide and maintain safe, convenient, and accessible sidewalk network for the region's communities through the coordinated efforts of governmental agencies, the private sector, and the general public;
Promote and encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian travel in the Middle Georgia region through effective bicycle and pedestrian safety education and training, design and maintenance standards, and the application and enforcement of the rules of the road;
Promote better health and fitness of the region's population through walking and riding a bicycle;
Promote and encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian travel to the schools in the Middle Georgia region that integrates health, fitness, traffic relief, and environmental awareness;
Promote the usage of the regional and local bicycle, sidewalk, and multi- use trails that have been constructed; regional safety and health/fitness programs; and safe routes to school programs through a variety of marketing and outreach tools; and,
Expand the general public's awareness of the positive economic, social, and environmental benefits that are derived from the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes several types of routes for Monroe County such as dedicated paths and signed routes. Information about the plan may be found on the MGRDC website: http://www.mgrdc.org/code/bike_ped.html. Recommendations from the Middle Georgia RDC Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan from 2005 are shown in Figure 4.4.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

25

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Figure 4.4 MGRDC 2005 Bicycle Plan
Middle Georgia Service Area 6 Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian
Five Year Plan & Long Range Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Monroe County

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

26

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.5 Existing Planning Studies for Monroe County

Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden

Developed in 2007, the Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden seeks to guide the growth of the County through 2026. To the greatest extent possible, the transportation planning effort is being developed with respect to land use issues and opportunities in Monroe County. It is important to review the Comprehensive Plan because of the critical linkage between land use and transportation. Table 4.5 presents key findings in the Comprehensive Plan and Figure 4.5 shows the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network.

Table 4.5 Summary of the 2005 Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden's Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update)

Key Data/Trends

Description

Population
Commute Patterns Largest Employers in
2000 Land Uses

RDC Estimates (W&P) US Census Estimates

1980:

14,670

14,610

1990:

17,180

17,113

2000:

21,860

21,774

2005:

23,830

23,544

2010:

25,350

25,331

2015:

26,960

27,117

Living and working in Monroe:

40%

Living in Monroe and working in Butts:

5%

Living in Monroe and working elsewhere: 31%

Forsyth Inns, Georgia Power, Leggett and Platt, Inc. and MOR PPM Inc. This list

excludes the public school system and government agencies.

Agriculture/Forestry: Residential (single family and mobile homes): Public/Institutional: Transportation/Communications/Utilities: Commercial: Industrial: Parks/Recreation/Conservation: Undeveloped:

1992 76.91%
7.67% 1.06% 2.45% 0.22% 0.07% 0.39% 12.26%

Data derived from the Department of Community Affairs, Current Plans. Web Accessed October 8, 2007: <www.georgiaplanning.com>

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

27

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 4.5 Summary of the 2005 Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden's Comprehensive Plan (2007 Update) (Continued)

Key Data/Trends

Description

Growth Areas in Residential Uses the County Residential growth areas are located on the outskirts of the city near I-75.

Commercial Uses

Commercial growth areas are along the I-75 Corridor and extend along entrance corridors into Forsyth. Commercial activity is also centered in downtown Forsyth.

Industrial Uses

The industrial areas are located along SR 83, SR 87 north of Forsyth and between I-75 and SR 42 south of Forsyth.

Parks/Recreation/Conservation

Rum Creek Wildlife Management Area surrounding Lake Juliette

Planning Issues in Cities Land Use Issues
TransportationRelated Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies

Large trucks, which are contributing to congestion in downtown Forsyth, are also making it difficult to establish a pedestrian friendly atmosphere downtown.
New suburban developments are being constructed in the county due to accessibility of Macon and Atlanta.
Agricultural land is being encroached upon by development. Strip commercial development along the I-75 Exit 187 creates an unattractive
entrance into the City of Forsyth.
Improve local road network to accommodate growth in northern and southern Monroe County.
Develop an interconnected network of bikeways and walkways. Develop a countywide transit development plan. Develop a road classification system that IDs arterial and collector roads. Establish a pedestrian friendly atmosphere in downtown Forsyth.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

28

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 4.5 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in Monroe County

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

29

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.0 Public Transportation
Currently, public transportation services are offered in Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties. Monroe County offers transportation services for the elderly, the disabled, and other residents who qualify for Department of Human Resources (DHR) assistance. No conventional, fixed route, fixed schedule transit service is currently provided in Monroe County.
5.1 Monroe County Transit

Monroe County does not currently participate in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 Rural Transit Program. However, Monroe County does have transportation services for the elderly, the disabled, and other residents who qualify for Department of Human Resources (DHR) assistance. The Georgia DHR Region Six Coordinated Transportation System, utilizing the Middle Georgia Community Action Agency as the third party provider, operates vans which transport clients of the Division of Aging Services, the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD). Starting fiscal year '08 (July 2007), transportation will also be provided for residents qualifying for assistance from the Department of Labor Vocational Rehabilitation Program (DOL/VRS). This program provides services to help persons with disabilities prepare for, start, and maintain competitive employment, allowing them to become productive and independent citizens in their communities.
The breakdown of DHR transportation services provided by each department/agency referenced above is shown in Table 5.1.1 below.
Table 5.1.1 Monroe County DHR Coordinated Transportation Trips by Department/Agency

DHR Aging

DHR DFCS

DHR MHDDAD

DOL/VRS

Total DHR Trips

4,430

16,153

10,982

Starts Fiscal Year `07-08

27,135

Source: Department of Human Resources Region Six Transportation Office - August 2007

Southeastern Trans serves as the major Medicaid transportation provider in Monroe County, contracting both assisted and private-pay transportation services to Logisticare and other carriers.

Recent planning initiatives do present the need for additional DHR trips. The Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan was completed by the Georgia DHR Region Six Transportation Office in May 2007. Region Six is comprised of Baldwin, Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Jones, Monroe, Peach, Pulaski, Putnam, Twiggs, and Wilkinson Counties. The purpose of this plan was to:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

30

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with limited incomes;
Lay out strategies for meeting these transportation needs; and Prioritize services.
The plan shows the following information for Monroe County, based on US Census data from 2000:
Table 5.1.2 Monroe County Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan Needs Assessment

Passenger Type

Population Percentage

Disabled Persons

3,774

17.3%

Developmentally Disabled Persons 359

1.65%

Elderly Persons

2,251

10.3%

Persons Below Poverty Level

2,069

9.5%

Households w/o a Motor Vehicle 653

8.5%

Population 2000

21,757

100%

Source: Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan, DHR Region Six Transportation Office, May 2007

For Monroe County, the plan identified 500 additional trips that will be needed for new DFCS clients. These clients are those qualifying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The future population of Monroe County should be considered in the analysis of the need for the 5311 Rural Transit Program. According to the Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County, 2007, total population is expected to increase rather dramatically at a rate of approximately 41 percent between 2000 and the year 2025. The population of elderly age 65 and over is expected to increase at a constant rate of growth to almost 3,000 persons by 2025. Seniors are major users of the 5311 Program for transportation to grocery and pharmacy shopping, to medical appointments, and the like.

The GDOT District Three Office, Thomaston, and the DHR Region Six Transportation Office both report that there are numerous residents who do not qualify for federal assistance who could have a job or a better paying job if they had transportation to work or who would go to school for additional training if transportation was available. While the 5311 may not be the ideal solution for all transportation needs, it may provide a viable option for many Monroe County residents.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County, 2007, identifies a Short Term Work Program Action Item to develop a Transit Plan to determine the existing and future mobility requirements of Monroe County residents and how to best meet their needs. This

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

31

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

planning initiative would address whether to implement the 5311 Rural Transit Program at either a county or city level in Monroe County.

Monroe County Commuter Patterns
The 2000 US Census, the most recent data available, reports that 56 percent of Monroe County residents work outside of the County. Thirty-five percent commute to Bibb CountyCity of Macon employment centers, 25 miles away. Just over 10 percent head north to the Atlanta region to jobs in Henry, Clayton, and Fulton Counties. The Census data also shows that 83 percent of commuters ride alone in a car to work while 13 percent carpool. The remaining workers use other means such as bus, motorcycle, or walking. The majority of Monroe County residents travel less than 30 minutes to work (65 percent) while 35 percent travel over 30 minutes. Thirty to 34 minutes was the most frequently cited commute time, by 17 percent of workers.
The Monroe County Advisory Committee for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Transportation Study has stated that there is a need for the provision of areas where commuters can park for vanpooling and carpooling purposes. Monroe County does not currently have a GDOT Rideshare lot to provide a free parking facility, and the closest Rideshare lot is located in Henry County at Exit 222 (I-75 and Jodeco Road), almost 30 miles north of Forsyth. There is evidence that residents are organizing carpools and/or vanpools, particularly in Forsyth, for their commutes to Macon and Atlanta. The Ingles Supermarket located on Tift College Drive, off of I-75 in Forsyth, has become the de facto park and ride lot, with at least 30 commuters parking in this lot each day to carpool.
The 1-87-Ridefind Program provides commuters with a means to establish vanpools to employment centers. The Program, a cooperative effort between the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), GDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration, maintains a confidential database that matches commuters in Georgia with potential carpool partners and/or vanpools with open seats. There are currently no organized vanpools through the Ridefind Program in Monroe County.
Another potential option for Monroe County residents commuting to the Atlanta area is the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) Xpress bus service. Route 430 transports passengers between the McDonough Park and Ride Facility located at Exit 218 off I-75 in McDonough (33 miles north of Forsyth) to Downtown and Midtown Atlanta.
In addition to commuters leaving the County every day, Monroe will soon gain a substantial reverse commute pattern of workers into the County. The Georgia Department of Corrections (DOC) is consolidating/relocating its Atlanta-based headquarters to the vacant Tift College site in Forsyth. The renovated facility will also house the DOC training academy, offering over 200 classes and serving 12,000 DOC employees. The relocation project, initially announced in early 2006, is currently in the design/feasibility phase to work out details of the campus renovations and infrastructure improvements. Current plans call for renovations to be completed in mid-2009 with the move to occur in the summer of 2009.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

32

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Once the design is completed, Phase One efforts will focus on refurbishing the existing dormitories. Phase Two will address infrastructure improvements which will include a new entry road off of Frontage Road along I-75, a renovated historical entry on Tift College Drive, and a parking deck. The plan is to logistically improve access to the facility from either Exit 186 Tift College Drive or Exit 187 Lee Street off of I-75.

The Department of Corrections is making plans to transition its employees to the Tift College location. As many as 400 employees are expected to either move into the local area or commute into Forsyth, mainly from the south Atlanta area. The DOC conducted an employee survey in May 2006 which showed that the vast majority of workers (77 percent of those responding) plan to commute into the area, with McDonough being the preferred location for bus/van transit stops. The Center will be exploring alternatives to facilitate transportation from hub sites around Atlanta either directly to Forsyth or to McDonough where additional transportation will continue the commute to Forsyth. Final architectural plans are expected to incorporate the provision for these commuter alternatives into the renovation and new infrastructure design (Georgia Department of Corrections, 2007; Forsyth-Monroe County Chamber of Commerce, 2007).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

33

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.0 Freight Transport

The identification of freight corridors and preservation of freight mobility is one of the key components of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Transportation Study. There are currently three roadways in Monroe County that are designated as truck routes, as well as two active freight rail lines. The following sections summarize the existing freight activity and facilities in Monroe County. The information presented in this section comes from the GDOT Office of Intermodal Programs, particularly the 2000 Georgia Rail Freight Plan. Figure 6.0 maps the freight transport facilities in Monroe County.
6.1 Monroe County Freight Transport

Two Norfolk Southern Rail lines traverse 22 miles of track in Monroe County. One line runs through central Monroe County through the City of Forsyth and parallels Highway 41 southeast through Bolingbroke to Macon. Up to 45 trains per day travel on this line. This line transports approximately 2 million gross ton miles per mile (MGTM/M) of track per year, a measure of rail traffic density which provides an indication of the relative use of the rail system and demand for service along a particular track section.
The second Norfolk Southern Rail line follows the eastern County line along the Ocumulgee River also heading southeast to Macon. Up to 47 trains per day travel on this line. This line transports 50 MGTM/M of track per year, one of the highest traffic densities in the State, as Macon serves as a Norfolk Southern hub for traffic consolidation and distribution.
Monroe County is a major point of origination for nonmetallic mineral products such as gravel, with approximately 500,000 tons originating within the County and transported by rail to other destinations. Monroe joins Jones, Floyd, Talbot, and Warren Counties as key locations originating this commodity. Monroe County is also one of the largest terminating points for coal, along with Bartow, Carroll, and Putnam Counties. Nearly 10 million tons of coal terminates in Monroe County each year.
Many products are transported through the County via rail as part of intrastate traffic (commodities which both originate and terminate within the State) and through traffic (products which move through the State but neither originate nor terminate in Georgia). These commodities include clay, concrete, glass and stone products (much of which originates in Bibb County), lumber and wood products, chemicals and allied products, hazardous materials, pulp and paper, food products, and miscellaneous mixed shipments. (GDOT - Georgia Rail Freight Plan, Update 2000)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

34

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Monroe County Rail Crossings
Monroe County has 78 railroad crossings along the two Norfolk Southern lines. Seventysix of these are at-grade crossings. Two underpasses (where the rail crosses under the road) are located at I-475 in Bolingbroke and at SR 18 in Juliette. Forty-two of the 78 crossings are public while 36 are private.

Several crossings in the County experience heavy vehicle traffic volume. Table 6.1.1 presents rail crossings on roadway facilities with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count greater than 1,000 vehicles per day.
Table 6.1.1 Monroe County Rail Crossing with Highest AADT

Rail Crossing and Location

AADT

Crossing 718337R at SR 18 in Forsyth

5,880

Crossing 718332G at Tift College Drive in Forsyth

4,330

Crossing 718330T at Lee Street in Forsyth

3,970

Crossing 718338X at Industrial Access Road in Forsyth

2,238

Crossing 718472J at SR 83 in Juliette Source: GDOT Office of Utilities, August 2007.

1,900

Monroe County Crash Data

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis, reports 21 crashes which involved trains at rail crossings in Monroe County for the period 1975 to early 2007. The location with the greatest frequency of crashes is:

Crossing 718472J - SR83 in Juliette with six; and Crossing 718483W - CR42 Dames Ferry Road with two (none since 1982).

Table 6.1.2 reports crashes involving trains in Monroe County as reported to the FRA since 2000.

Table 6.1.2 Monroe County FRA Railroad Crossing Accident Data, 2000 to 2007 (Crashes Involving Trains)

Rail Crossing
ID

Location

City

Date of Highway User

Incident

Involved

Position

718486S

Private Crossing Popes Ferry Rd

Juliette

09/30/06

Auto

Moving over Crossing

718350E

Pearidge Rd Bolingbroke 11/28/04

Auto

Moving over Crossing

718472J

SR 83

Juliette

07/18/00

Truck-trailer

Moving over Crossing

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report, 2007

Injuries
None None None

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

35

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Additionally, the GDOT Traffic Office of Safety and Design maintains crash data as reported by local law enforcement. For the period 2000 to 2006, 10 crashes have been reported at rail crossings in Monroe County. This does not include the incidences involving trains as reported above.
Table 6.1.3 Monroe County Railroad Crossing Crash Data, 2000 to 2006 (Crashes Not Involving Trains)

Rail Crossing ID
718320M

Location Collier Road

City Forsyth

718325W

West Park Drive

Forsyth

718326D

CR 144

Forsyth

718337R

Harold G. Clarke Parkway SR 18

Forsyth

718345H

Rumble Road

Smarr

718346P

Old Macon Road Bolingbroke

Source: GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design, August 2007

Local Concerns Monroe County

Date of Incident 12/20/00 04/04/04 12/03/02 09/16/04 09/24/06 06/15/03 06/09/00 05/25/05 02/26/99 02/13/04

Manner of Collision Injuries

Rear End
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Rear End
Angle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Angle
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle
Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle

None None None None None None 1 Injury None None None

The Monroe County Study Advisory Group has expressed concerns over several railroad crossings in the County, as identified below:

Trains through Forsyth cause traffic delays and block intersections on a daily basis. This is particularly problematic at SR 42/SR 83 (Crossing 718330T) as emergency vehicle response time and access are hampered to areas north of the railroad.
The railroad crossing located at SR 42, North Indian Springs, and Mize Road (Crossing 718331A) has safety concerns.
Residential land use in close proximity to the railroad tracks needs to be examined with the Pate Road interchange.

Monroe County Planned Transportation Improvements There currently is one programmed railroad improvement for Monroe County in GDOT's Construction Work Program.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

36

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 6.1.4 Monroe County 2008-2013 CWP Railroad Improvement Projects

GDOT Project Work Type
ID

Location

Phase

Program Date

8366

Rail Crossing

Crossing

Warning #718340Y at CR Construction

Device

15 Bunn Road

2008

Source: GDOT Construction Work Program; GDOT Office of Utilities, August 2007

Status
Awaiting GDOT funding authorization. Once authorized, Norfolk Southern will install in 6-
8 months.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

37

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Freight Transportation Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
38

F
Figure No: 6.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.2 Commuter and Intercity Rail Monroe
The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP), a GDOT, Georgia Rail Passenger Authority (GRPA), and Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) joint initiative, which began in 2000, proposes future commuter and intercity rail transportation options in close proximity to Butts and Jones Counties and will directly benefit Monroe County. The commuter rail option would provide daily home-to work trips using traditional rail passenger cars with stops 2-10 miles apart and heavy service during AM and PM rush hours. Intercity rail service would offer 2-3 trains per day between major cities with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with few stops to minimize travel time.

The GRPP proposes an aggressive build schedule; however, all projects are on hold at this time. GDOT, the project sponsor, is currently trying to pinpoint sources of funding for facilities operations. According to GRPA, projects will proceed as described below once these funding sources are established.

The Rail Program outlines a series of prioritized rail projects, starting with commuter rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The first phase of this route will be the Lovejoy to Atlanta leg, with planned stops in Jonesboro, Morrow, Forest Park and East Point, terminating at the planned Atlanta Five Points Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal. Here commuters will be able to transfer to MARTA or walk to many downtown jobs. Four trains will operate every 30-40 minutes on this route, making the end-to-end trip in 46 minutes, competitive with rush hour drive times for the 26-mile segment.

The next phase will extend the service to Hampton and Griffin, a 16-mile segment. The final phase will implement track, signal, crossing and station/parking improvements to extend service to Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke and Macon, completing the 103-mile project. It is estimated that at maturity, more than 3,080 daily trips will be made on the Atlanta to Macon line for an annual count of 770,000 trips, eliminating 800,000 hours of highway delay for drivers remaining on the roads.

The GRPP also proposes future intercity rail service between Atlanta and Macon. The proposed Atlanta-Griffin-Macon Intercity Rail line will offer three daily express intercity trains stopping in Griffin and a Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport related station. The service is proposed as a long term initiative, with commuter rail service a current priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

39

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

7.0 Airport Facilities
7.1 Monroe County
Monroe County does not currently have a local airport. Nearby airports include the GriffinSpalding County Airport in Griffin, the Herbert Smart Downtown Airport and the Middle Georgia Regional Airport in Macon, and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta.
The Griffin-Spalding County Airport is classified as a Level II Business Airport of Local Impact by the State of Georgia classification system. Airports are classified based on runway length and width, lighting systems, visual aids, approach systems, general aviation facilities, and services. Griffin-Spalding can accommodate small corporate/business jets, recreational flying, police/law enforcement, and experimental aircraft. The airport is hampered by its runway size, 3,701 feet long x 75 feet wide, which limits the types of aircraft that can use the facility. Located off US 19/41, the airport is approximately 30 miles northwest of Forsyth.
The Herbert Smart Downtown Airport is also classified as a Level II Business Airport of Local Impact. This facility has two runways (one 4,696 feet long by 150 feet wide and the other 3,600 feet long by 75 feet wide) and can accommodate a variety of aviation related activities including recreational flying, small corporate/business jets, police/law enforcement, agricultural spraying, experimental aircraft, and ultra-lights. The airport is accessed via US 80/23 and SR 19, approximately 25 miles southwest of Forsyth.
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is located 57 miles northwest of Forsyth. Commercial services are also offered at the Middle Georgia Regional Airport, located south of Macon, approximately 35 miles from Forsyth. Classified as a Level III Business Airport of Regional Impact, the facility has two runways measuring 6,501 feet long by 150 feet wide and 5,001 feet long by 150 feet wide. The airport offers five daily arrivals and departures between Macon and Atlanta on Delta Airlines commuter partners as well as corporate/business jets, recreational flying, and police law enforcement.
Monroe County has been identified as a potential future site for a Level I Minimum Standard General Aviation Airport in the Georgia Aviation System Plan Executive Summary, completed in 2002. A Level I airport would accommodate all single-engine and some small twin-engine general aviation aircraft, and would have a minimum runway length objective of 4,000 feet and a non-precision instrument approach. In light of this, the Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County, recently completed in May 2007, has specified, as a long-term and ongoing activity, the following action item:
Explore the possibilities and benefits of pursuing the construction of a local airport. Consider completing a benchmarking study of other similarly situated rural communities that have local airports. Coordinate efforts between Monroe County, GDOT and the Regional Development Center for any actions undertaken. (Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden, May 2007)

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

40

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

8.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

This section provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts, an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the 3-County Region, and an outline of issues to consider during the development of future transportation system conditions and recommendations for improvements to the system.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important part of a multi-modal transportation system designed to efficiently move people. It is important to consider that everyone is a pedestrian at one point in almost every trip, even if the primary mode of travel for a trip involves a personal vehicle or transit. Sidewalks are an important element along roadways near local activity centers such as schools, libraries, commercial centers, and public recreation areas which attract significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Crosswalks at roadway intersections in areas with pedestrian activity can be utilized to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians. This report provides a summary of previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts and an outline of issues to consider during the development of future transportation system alternatives.
8.1 Monroe County Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
The City of Forsyth maintains a fairly extensive sidewalk network in the downtown and residential areas of the City. The existing network offers a safe location for pedestrians to walk within the City. The existing network provides adequate connection of residential areas into downtown, but there are opportunities for additional connections within Forsyth and between Forsyth and surrounding attractions. The sidewalk network in the remainder of Monroe County is very sparse. The City of Culloden does not have an existing sidewalk network. Bicycle facilities are nearly non-existent in Monroe County. The possibility of providing improved on-road or trail connectivity for bicyclists within Monroe County were examined by the study team. Monroe County applied for Transportation Enhancement funding to incorporate bicycle lanes along New Forsyth Road near the Bass Pro Shops entrance to Pate Road; the route will continue to the right to Old Popes Ferry Road to Klopher Road; then the route continues on Klopher Road under I-75 to US 41. A second route is proposed on Estes Road from US 41 to Zebulon Road and along Zebulon Road to the Bibb County Line. The City of Forsyth has applied for Transportation Enhancement funding to improve Lee Street from I-75 into downtown Forsyth. This project is expected to include sidewalks. Transportation Enhancement funding is a set-aside funding category targeted for enhancing the multimodal environment through non-motorized transporation related projects including streetscapes, sidewalks, multi-use paths and bicycle facility improvements.
Georgia State Bicycle Route
The Central Route Corridor (#15) that begins in Cobb County at Georgia 243 and ends in Echols County at the Florida State line on US 41, travels through Monroe County (See Figure 8.0). The Central Route Corridor enters Monroe County on US 41/SR 18 at the Lamar County Line and proceeds southeast to the City of Forsyth. From there, the route continues along US 41 to the Bibb County Line.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

41

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
42

F
Figure No: 8.0

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region

In 2005, the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center, with funding support from GDOT and advisory support from a regional Bike/Pedestrian Plan Planning Advisory Committee, consisting of local bicycle advocates, civic organizations, and government representatives, developed the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region. The focus of this plan was to establish a system of interregional bicycle facilities and shared-use trails connecting major regional points of interest. Accessibility of residents to downtown Forsyth, schools, and recreational destinations was the focus of the proposed network. The marketing of bicycle and pedestrian travel in general was also a focus of the plan. Table 8.1.1 outlines the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network in Monroe County. Figure 8.0 shows the locations of these proposed improvements, which were previously illustrated in Section 4.5 with Figure 4.5.

Table 8.1.1 Monroe County Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region

Location

Description

US 41 from Lamar County Line to Bibb County Line 4 Foot Bicycle Lane

Red Oak Drive from Estes Road east to US 41 2 Foot Bicycle Lane

US 41 from Lamar County Line to Bibb County Line 4 Foot Bicycle Lane

Red Oak Drive from Estes Road east to US 41 2 Foot Bicycle Lane
Source: Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the Middle Georgia Region, 2005

Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden

Monroe County has prepared the Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden in 2007. The comprehensive plan expresses a desire for inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian amenities within the County. The Comprehensive Plan specifically outlines the following:
Monroe County currently lacks an interconnected network of bikeways and walkways. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be an important mode of transportation in Forsyth and Monroe County.
In all cross-roads communities, encourage a greater emphasis on streetscape, landscape, and sidewalk improvement projects. Cross-road communities such as Bolingbroke, High Falls, Juliette, and Smarr are considered to be historic based on their location-oriented development and are part of the cultural heritage of the area.
Encourage use of landscaped buffers between roadways and new bike/pedestrian trails.
We will support the creation of a community-wide pedestrian/bike path network Our new and reconstructed roadways will be designed to enhance community
aesthetics, minimize environmental impacts and to accommodate multiple functions,

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

43

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

including pedestrian facilities, parking, bicycle routes, public transit as well as local vehicular circulation.
Monroe County Programmed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
To help reduce local, state, and federal costs of implementing a bicycle and pedestrian network, new facilities could be implemented concurrent with subdivision development, roadway widening or utility upgrade improvements. Recommendations for development of county wide system for bicyclists and pedestrians will focus on connectivity with the existing designated bicycle routes, system of sidewalks, neighborhood streets, and pathway connections. Planned improvements included in GDOT's 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or 2008-2013 Construction Work Program (CWP) will be evaluated to ensure that any opportunities for the inclusion of bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the project scope are considered. Monroe County currently has one programmed project which includes the implementation of sidewalks and streetscape features around the Courthouse Square in downtown Forsyth, which are listed in Table 8.1.2
Table 8.1.2 GDOT's 2008-2011 STIP and 2008-2013 CWP Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects (Monroe County)

GDOT Poject Primary Work Type
ID #

Description

PE ROW CST

0007599

Sidewalks

Sidewalks and Streetscape in Downtown Forsyth Local Local 2008

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation

Monroe County has many destinations that could benefit from connectivity by alternative forms of transportation. Several key destinations were considered when evaluating locations for new bicycle or pedestrian facilities. These included:

Existing Schools:

Hubbard Elementary School (adjacent site to Hubbard Middle School) 558 Hwy 83 South, Forsyth
Hubbard Middle School 500 Hwy 83 South, Forsyth
T.G. Scott Elementary School (adjacent site to Banks Stephens Middle School) 70 Thornton Road, Forsyth
Banks Stephens Middle School 66 Thornton Road, Forsyth
9th Grade Campus (adjacent to Mary Persons High School, Monroe County Achievement Center, and Board of Education Building) 25 Brooklyn Avenue, Forsyth
Mary Persons High School 300 Montpelier Avenue, Forsyth
Monroe County Achievement Center

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

44

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

25A Brooklyn Avenue, Forsyth Monroe Academy
433 Hwy 41 South, Forsyth
Planned Schools:
New Pre-K-5th grade (open to students in Fall 2009 with grades 6-8 open 3-5 years out)(large housing development adjacent Denrick Development Grand Point) 1289 Hwy 83 North, Forsyth (near Bunn Road)
Other Destinations:
Monroe County Library 62 West Main Street, Forsyth
High Falls State Park County Recreation Centers Rum Creek Wildlife Management Area Lake Juliette Local Parks Old Recreation Park (currently being renovated) New Youth Center at the Recreation Sports Complex off of SR 42 near I-75
These destinations were considered when developing recommendations for additional facilities to foster bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
The MGRDC developed a bicycle and pedestrian plan that was previously documented in Section 4.4.
Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Statistics for bicycle and pedestrian crashes from 2004-2006 were examined to offer insight into safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in Monroe County. Table 8.1.3 summarizes bicycle and pedestrian crash data statistics and Table 8.1.4 lists the locations of
these incidents. Each of these locations were examined in the field to determine if bicycling or walking conditions could be improved to minimize the possibility of future crashes. This is an above average number of bicycle and pedestrian incidents
compared to the three-county study area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

45

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 8.1.3 Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2004-2006

Year

Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes

Bicycle and Pedestrian Injuries

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities

2004

3

2

0

2005

3

2

1

2006

4

3

1

2004-2006

10

7

2

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) Database

Table 8.1.4 Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations 2004-2006

Year

Bicycle and Pedestrian Injuries

2004 2004

North Lee Street (SR 42) north of Railroad Avenue/North Indian Springs Road
Blount Street at the intersection of Schoolboy Lane

2004

I-75 at Mile Post 7.21

2005

I-75 at Mile Post 13.59

2005

Jackson Indian Springs Road south of Stokes Store Road

2005

I-75 at Mile Point 21.04

2006

North Lee Street (SR 42) south of W. Morse Street and north of W. Adams Street

2006

Parsons Street at the intersection of Kynette Street

2006

SR 42 west of North Lee Street between downtown Forsyth and I-75

2006

Tift College Drive between Patrol Road and Aaron Street

Source: Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) Database

Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities
Non-Fatal Injury Property Damage Only
Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury
Fatal Crash Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury
Fatal Crash

8.2 Bicycle System Elements
Once a location for a potential bicycle improvement is determined, the type of improvement must also be considered. Factors such as lane width, vehicle speed, sight distance, frequency of intersections, pavement surface quality, and hazard removal such as lane obstructions like grating or blind curves need to be considered in the facility selection and design process. In addition to facility selection (bicycle path, route, lane, or shoulder) and design, bicycle systems should be designed to ensure the security of bicycles at typical bicyclist destinations. Primary destinations such as schools, public recreation areas, commercial businesses, and restaurants should include bicycle racks or lockers for securing bicycles.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

46

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

There are four primary types of bicycle facilities: bike paths, bike routes, bike lanes, and bike shoulders. A description of each type of facility along with design considerations are listed below. Transportation Planners and Engineers should refer to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities when selecting and designing bicycle facilities.
Bike Paths
A bike path is a pathway designated for the exclusive use of bicycles where cross flows by pedestrians and motorists are minimized. A bike path is usually buffered from vehicular roadways through the use of a landscaped strip or physical barrier. It is also usually grade separated but may have at-grade crossings. Bike paths are identified through proper signing and also may have pavement markings.
The paved width and the operating width of the bicycle path are primary design factors. Under most conditions, a paved width for a two-directional shared (bicycles and pedestrians) path is 10 feet. If a bike path requires a reduction in size due to right of way needs, a reduced width of 8 feet could be utilized. Under certain conditions including anticipated high use or the need for maintenance vehicle use, a paved width of 12 feet is required. A minimum of 2-foot width graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the paving for safety reasons.
Bike Routes
A bike route is a roadway identified as a bicycle facility only by guide signage along the roadway. There are no special lane markings and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motor vehicles. There are several reasons for designating signed bike routes. A route may be signed if it provides continuity to other bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or bike paths. A route may be signed if it is a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor or if the route is preferred for bicycling due to low motor vehicle traffic or paved shoulder availability. Route signage may be preferred if the route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors leading to an internal destination such as a park, school, or commercial district.
Bicycle routes should be plainly marked and easy for the bicyclist to interpret. The route should provide through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. Traffic control devices (stop signs and signals) should be adjusted to accommodate bicyclists on the route. Street parking should be removed where possible to increase the safety of the rider. A smooth surface should be provided and maintained. Wide curbs are desirable on designated bike routes.
Bike Lanes
A bike lane is a designated strip usually located along the edge of the paved area outside the travel lanes or between the parking lane and the outside motor vehicle through lane. Bike lanes should be one-way facilities and carry bike traffic in the same direction as

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

47

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On one way streets, bike lanes should typically be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes are identified by "Bike Lane" markings on the pavement and other pavement markings or signs deemed appropriate to give adequate guidance to users of the facility. Bicyclists usually have exclusive use of a bike lane for travel, but must be aware of cross flows by motorists at driveways and intersections and also by pedestrians.

For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum bicycle lane width is 4 feet. If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the travel lane and the parking area and should have a minimum width of 5 feet. If a curb and gutter is present, the minimum width from the face of the curb to the bike lane stripe should be 5 feet if the gutter pan is smooth for bicycle travel. Four feet of maneuverable surface is always required.
Bike Shoulders
Bike shoulders are paved shoulders that are smooth and sufficiently wide enough for use by bicyclists. Paved shoulders are used by bicyclists if they are relatively smooth, sufficiently wide enough, and kept clean of debris. Adding or improving paved shoulders is an efficient way to accommodate bicyclists in rural areas. Paved shoulders also provide valuable maneuvering room and reduce potential motor vehicle conflicts for slow-moving bicycles traveling up a hill.

Ideally, a paved bicycle shoulder should be at least 4 feet wide. However, where 4 feet cannot be accommodated, any shoulder is better than none. Rumble strips used to alert motorists that they are driving on the shoulder are not recommended on bike shoulders in the travel path of the cyclist. If rumble strips are placed on the shoulder, there should be additional shoulder adequate for bicycle travel in order to designate a shoulder as a bike shoulder. A bike shoulder is multi-faceted in that it can serve more than one function (i.e. it can serve as a temporary parking lane, an emergency lane, or a bus stop as well as an area for cyclists to travel within).
8.3 Pedestrian System Elements
There are also several considerations when selecting the type of pedestrian facility to implement. Along local streets in residential areas, sidewalks with a 4-foot clear width should be used. Five-foot clear width sidewalks should be used along collector streets, and six-foot clear width should be used along arterials. In commercial areas with high pedestrian and vehicular volumes, sidewalks of 6 or more feet should be considered. In order to maintain clear sidewalk widths, obstructions such as traffic signs, utility poles and supports should be placed outside the specified 4 to 6 foot sidewalk width. Grades on sidewalks should be limited to 6 to 8 percent in order to allow a consistent walking pace and ease of wheelchair use. Handicapped accessible ramps should be provided at driveways and intersections to provide accessibility to the system for everyone.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

48

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The following criteria are provided as a basis for determining when sidewalks should be considered:
When streets are within mile of a school. When a street is classified as a collector or arterial. When health and safety are threatened due to pedestrian/vehicular traffic
conflicts. When sidewalks would provide system continuity between existing pedestrian
destinations. When parks, playgrounds, libraries, or other attractors of small children are not
served by sidewalks. When there is an existing, frequently traveled, unpaved path along a roadway. When sidewalks would provide an easy and safe route for pedestrians to gain
access to public transportation.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

49

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

9.0 Bridges

One of the critical concerns in Monroe County is bridge conditions. Bridges were evaluated to determine the need for potential improvement. Deficient bridges pose a major obstacle to a fully functional road network due to load limits or other restrictions. The study area was reviewed to identify all bridges and assess the need for potential improvements.
To facilitate the completion of this effort GDOT provided bridge condition reports for each bridge within the study area. A general measure of the condition of each bridge is the sufficiency rating. The sufficiency rating is used to determine the need for maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a bridge structure. Consultation with structural/bridge engineers shows that generally a bridge with a sufficiency rating above 75 should maintain an acceptable rating for at least 20 years with adequate maintenance. Structures with a sufficiency rating of 75 or lower have a useful life of less than twenty years and will require major rehabilitation or reconstruction work during the study horizon. All bridges with a sufficiency rating of fifty (50) or lower were identified as potentially deficient and qualifying for federal bridge replacement funds.

9.1 Monroe County Bridges
All bridges within Monroe County were identified and documented with a sufficiency rating for each of the 72 bridges existing within the County. Table 9.1 displays the collected information. Italic font indicates that the bridge is on the state system.
Table 9.1 Bridge Inventory Monroe County

Road
Reedy Creek Road Reedy Creek Road Montpelier Springs Road Johnstonville Road Maynards Mill Road
*SR 83 SR 74 High Falls Road Lee King Road US 23 Zebulon Road CR 161 SR 42 SR 18 SR 83 *SR 42 SR 18

Feature
Tobesofkee Creek Tributary Tobesofkee Creek Tobesofkee Creek Rocky Creek
Little Tobesofkee Creek Towaliga River
Echeconnee Creek Towaliga River Deer Creek Tablers Creek
Tobesofkee Creek Little Towaliga River Tributary
Tobesofkee Creek Norfolk-Southern Railroad
Tobesofkee Creek Tobesofkee Creek
Ocmulgee River

Sufficiency Rating
2.00 6.71 25.93 44.29 44.80 49.70 53.01 55.47 56.41 57.43 57.89 57.92 58.83 61.20 61.21 61.44 62.49

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

50

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Road
SR 83 Boxankle Road
Old 19 Spur SR 42 SR 83
Estes Road I-75 SB US 23 US 341
Rumble Road Johnstonville Road
Boxankle Road SR 83
High Falls Road Simmons Road Pea Ridge Road
I-75 NB Oxford Road
I-75 Rogers Church Road
I-75 Shi Road
US 41 US 23 Parks Road Watson Road
I-75 SR 83 SR 74 US 23 SR 74 SR 42 Ingram Road Reedy Creek Road SR 83 Juliette Road Stokes Store Road
I-75 I-75 Rock Quarry Road Bagley Road Freeman Road
Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Feature
Little Tobesofkee CR Creek Little Towaliga River I-75 Yellow Creek Todd Creek I-475 (SR 408) CR 61 Clopper Road Rum Creek Echeconnee Creek Little Deer Creek I-75 Rocky Creek Standard Creek I-75 I-75 I-75 Red Creek Echeconnee Creek Rocky Creek Tobesofkee Creek SR 83 Tobesofkee Creek Todd Creek Berry Creek Tobesofkee Creek Beech Creek Little Towaliga River Rum Creek
Echeconnee Creek Tributary Lee Creek Overflow Wood Creek Meaks Branch Cole Creek Reedy Creek Yellow Creek Rum Creek Eight Mile Creek Little Deer Creek Little Deer Creek Echeconnee Creek
Echeconnee Creek Tributary Eight Mile Creek
51

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Sufficiency Rating
62.57 63.80 64.14 64.86 65.24 66.61 70.51 71.92 72.91 74.21 77.34 78.33 79.35 79.72 80.10 80.44 80.86 84.30 85.00 85.05 87.04 87.34 87.40 87.51 87.88 88.45 90.08 90.17 90.31 90.46 90.55 91.41 91.50 91.56 91.68 91.77 91.87 91.98 92.09 92.20 92.24 92.24

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Road
I-75 I-75 SB I-75 SB Whittle Road SR 42 US 23 Buck Creek Road Goodwynne Road US 23 Juliette Road SR 18 Old Zebulon Road SR 18
Source: GDOT. * Included in GDOT's current work program. Italic font indicates that the bridge is on the state system

Feature
SR 42 Red Creek Tributary
Red Creek Calaparchee Creek
Towaliga River Branch of Berry Creek
High Falls Lake Phinazee Creek Towaliga River
I-75 Rum Creek Yellow Creek
I-75

Sufficiency Rating
92.36 92.66 92.66 92.94 94.66 95.45 95.68 95.98 96.62 98.16 98.40 99.67 100.00

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

Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek Tributary Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek Montpelier Springs Road at Tobesofkee Creek Johnstonville Road at Rocky Creek Maynards Mill Road at Little Tobesofkee Creek SR 83 at Towaliga River

Bridge replacement projects are currently planned for SR 42 at the Tobesofkee Creek and SR 83 at the Towaliga River as part of GDOT's work program.

Additionally, there are 21 bridges that have a sufficiency rating below 75 and should be considered candidates for maintenance and rehabilitation within the next 20 years. The following bridges have a sufficiency rating below 75.

SR 74 at Echeconnee Creek High Falls Road at Towaliga River Lee King Road at Deer Creek US 23 at Tablers Creek Zebulon Road at Tobesofkee Creek CR 161 at Little Towaliga River Tributary SR 42 at Tobesofkee Creek SR 18 at Norfolk-Southern Railroad SR 83 at Tobesofkee Creek SR 42 at Tobesofkee Creek

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

52

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

SR 18 at Ocmulgee River SR 83 at Little Tobesofkee Creek Boxankle Road at Little Towaliga Creek Old 19 Spur at I-75 SR 42 at Yellow Creek SR 83 at Todd Creek Estes Road at I-475 (SR 408) I-75 southbound lane at CR 61/Clopper Road US 23 at Rum Creek US 341 at Echeconnee Creek Rumble Road at Little Deer Creek
The candidate bridges in the 3-County Region for maintenance and rehabilitation are mapped in Figure 9.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

53

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Bridges for Potential Maintenance or Rehabilitation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
54

F
Figure No: 9.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

10.0 Safety

The latest three years of available vehicular crash data from GDOT (2004, 2005, and 2006) were collected and analyzed for Monroe County. The crash data was used to determine roadway locations with potential safety deficiencies throughout the study area. Monroe County experienced a total of 2,675 crashes with 1,194 injuries and 26 fatalities during the three-year period.

When analyzing the crash data, it was determined that a threshold of 20 crashes over the three-year period would serve to identify "active crash" locations.
10.1 Monroe County Crash Summary
Three years of crash data (2004, 2005 and 2006) were collected and analyzed for Monroe County. Table 10.1 displays the intersections with active crashes.
Table 10.1 Active Crash Intersections Monroe County

Roadway US 41 at SR 42 SR 83 at SR 87/ US 23 SR 18 at SR 87/ US 23

Intersection Main Street at Lee Street SR 83 at Golden Isles Hwy SR 18 at Golden Isles Hwy

Crashes Fatalities Injuries

35

0

6

21

0

7

22

2

8

In addition to the active crash locations, an area of focus and concern was the location of fatal crashes. Interstate crashes were excluded from this analysis because the Interstate System Plan, conducted in 2004, is responsible for analyzing the interstate system. The locations listed below experienced at least one (1) fatality crash during the three-year analysis period.
US 41 at Mile Post 12.06, north of Thornton Road and south of Hardage Road Dames Ferry Road at US 23 High Falls Road at Pioneer Drive US 23 at Pate Road US 23 north of Turkey Run Road US 341 at SR 74 Dames Ferry Road east of US 23 at Mile Post 18.6 Maynard Mill Road at Mile Post 2 Faulkner Road at Teagle Road Lee King Road at Pine Valley Road Juliette Road north of Byars Road at Mile Post 8.38 Tift College Road east of Patrol Road at Mile Post 0.83 SR 18 at Mile Post 18.49

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

55

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

There are planned intersection improvements at SR 19/US 41 and SR 18 as well as planned sidewalk and streetscape improvement, which is expected to improve safety around and in downtown Forsyth.

Figure 10.1 shows intersections with more than 20 crashes over the three-year analysis period as well as fatality and pedestrian related crash locations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

56

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Active Crash Intersections & Fatality Locations
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
57

F
Figure No: 10.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.0 Roadway Characteristics

This section presents the characteristics of the roadways in Monroe County. The data is provided from GDOT's Roadway Conditions (RC) Database. The following data was reviewed as part of the study process:

Functional Classification; Road Lanes; Roadway Surface Type; and, Roadway Shoulders.
11.1 Functional Classification
Roadways are grouped into functional classes according to the character of traffic they are intended to serve. There are four highway functional classifications: expressway/freeway, arterial, collector, and local roads, and these can be defined as:

Expressway/Freeway - Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control.
Arterial - Provides the next highest level of service at moderate to high speeds, with some degree of access control. Arterials are typically classified as principal arterial and minor arterial.
Collector - Provides a lower level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. Collectors are typically classified as major collector and minor collector.
Local - Consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors; primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement.
The 3-County Region has about 209 lane miles of interstate, which includes I-75 and I-475. There are also approximately 389 lane miles of arterial facilities in the study area and 2,375 lane miles of collectors and local streets. Figure 11.1 displays the functional class of roadways in Monroe County.

Table 11.1 displays the mileage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the different roadway classifications in Monroe County. The 3-County Region is served by multiple state roads, (approximately 25 percent of the lane miles) which handle a majority of the traffic (80 percent). This differs slightly from the statewide averages of 16 percent of lane miles, handling 63 percent of the total traffic. To ensure future mobility, it will be important to evaluate and identify needed improvements to the state road system through close coordination with GDOT.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

58

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Functional Classification
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
59

F
Figure No: 11.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 11.1 Monroe County Existing Mileage and Vehicle Miles Traveled

State Roads

County

Miles

VMT

County Roads

Miles

VMT

Local Roads

Miles

VMT

Total

Miles

VMT

Monroe 155 2,340,339 464

336687

28

14886

648

2,691,913

State 18,066 192,333,604 84,118 89,159,091 14,502 23,319,169 116,685 304,811,865
Source: GDOT Office of Transportation Data-Mileage by Route Type and Road System Date: 12/31/06

11.2 Road Lanes

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is the number of lanes provided on each road. The roads in the 3-County Region predominately serve bidirectional traffic in both directions. Additionally, the majority of the roads in the study area are 2-lane facilities. The dependency on a largely 2-lane roadway network may become strained in the future as traffic levels increase. Figure 11.2 displays the number of lanes on the roads in Monroe County.

11.3 Roadway Shoulders

Another important attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway shoulders. For this analysis, both the shoulder type and shoulder width were reviewed to determine segments of roadways in need of potential shoulder upgrades. A wide variety of shoulder widths and types are present throughout the 3-County Region. Insufficient shoulder width can contribute to travel speed reductions, potentially impact safety and influence bicycle and pedestrian usage. The following guidelines are used to determine potential shoulder deficiencies:

No shoulder or an unidentifiable shoulder; Grass shoulder less than 4 feet; and, Paved shoulder less than 2 feet.

Figure 11.3 displays the roadway shoulder type and widths according to GDOT's RC Database for Monroe County. Roadway segments with potential deficient shoulders will become candidates for recommended upgrades.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

60

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Roadway Lanes
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
61

F
Figure No: 11.2

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Roadway Shoulders
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
62

F
Figure No: 11.3

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

11.4 Roadway Surface Type

The final attribute reviewed from GDOT's RC Database is roadway surface type. Roadway surface dramatically affects the capacity, useful life, and safety of a particular facility. The list below details the surface types used in the study area.

Paved Roads High Rigid - Portland cement concrete pavements with or without bituminous
surface if less than one inch. High Flexible - Mixed bituminous penetration road on a rigid or flexible base
with a combined (surface and base) thickness of seven inches or more. Includes any bituminous concrete, sheet asphalt, or rock asphalt. Mixed Bituminous Penetration - Low type (less than seven inches combined thickness surface and base). Surface is one inch or more. Mixed Bituminous Pavement - A road, the surface course of which is one inch or more in compacted thickness composed of gravel, stone, sand, or similar material, mixed with bituminous material under partial control as to grading and proportions. Bituminous Surfaced Treated - An earth road, a soil-surfaced road, or a gravel or stone road to which has been added by any process a bituminous surface course with or without a seal coat, the total compacted thickness which is less than one inch. Seal coats include those known as chip seals, drag seals, plant mix seals, and rock asphalt seals.

Unpaved Roads Gravel or Stone Road - A road, the surface of which consists of gravel or
stone. Surfaces may be stabilized. Graded and Drained - A road of natural earth aligned and graded to permit
reasonable convenient use by motor vehicles and drained by longitudinal and transverse drainage systems (natural and artificial) sufficient to prevent serious impairment of the road by normal surface water, with or without dust palliative treatment or a continuous course of special borrow material to protect the new roadbed temporarily and to facilitate immediate traffic service.

There are several roads in 3-County Region, particularly in Jones County, that are dirt or gravel. It may be appropriate to upgrade and pave some of these facilities to provide better connectivity throughout the study area. Figure 11.4 displays the roadway surface type according to GDOT's RC Database for Monroe County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

63

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Roadway Surface Type
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
64

F
Figure No: 11.4

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.0 Roadway Operating Conditions

A travel demand model was developed to assist in the evaluation of existing and future travel conditions throughout the 3-County Region. More detailed information regarding the model and model development process is presented in the Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties Model Documentation Technical Memorandum, August 2008. The key output from the travel demand model is the daily volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment. The volume to capacity ratios correspond to a level of service based on accepted methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Existing (2006), interim year (2015) and future (2030) operating conditions for the study are summarized in the following sections.
Prior to documenting operating conditions it is useful to summarize level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic flow describing operating conditions. Six levels of service are defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the Highway Capacity Manual for use in evaluating roadway operating conditions. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. A facility may operate at a range of levels of service depending upon time of day, day of week or period of the year. A qualitative description of the different levels of service is provided below.
LOS A Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. LOS B Drivers experience some delay but generally driving conditions are favorable. LOS C Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable delay in
intersection areas. LOS D Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to pass
and considerable intersection delay. LOS E The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps in
the traffic. LOS F More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle
resulting in extreme delays.
The recommended approach used to identify deficient segments in Monroe County was to analyze the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments, also known as the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. For daily operating conditions, any segment identified as LOS D or worse was considered deficient.

The following thresholds were used to assign a level of service to the V/C ratios for rural facilities based on GDOT standards:
V/C < 0.35 = LOS C or better; 0.35 > V/C < 0.55 = LOS D; 0.55 > V/C < 1.00 = LOS E; and, V/C > 1.00 = LOS F.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

65

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.1 Existing Operating Conditions

The existing conditions results derived from the 3-County travel demand model were used to determine deficient roadway segments in Monroe County. Deficient segments were determined by analyzing the volume of traffic on the roadway segments compared to the capacity of those segments. The corresponding V/C ratios were related to LOS. The minimum acceptable LOS for daily roadway operating conditions is LOS C based on GDOT standards.

The existing analysis shows that two segments currently operate daily at or below LOS D. Table 12.1 displays the deficient roadway segments with the LOS for daily operating conditions. Figure 12.1 displays the existing LOS for Monroe County while Figures 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 show deficient roadways for the intermediate and horizon model years.

Table 12.1 Existing (2006) Deficient Segments

Roadway SR 42

From Boxankle Rd

To I-75

Volume(1) 8,046

V/C LOS

0.72

D

US 41
(1) - Two-way volumes

SR 83 (S)

SR 42

10,494

0.77

D

The majority of roadways in Monroe County currently operate at an acceptable LOS during daily conditions. Future analysis shows that as traffic volumes continue to increase, some of these roadways will degrade to an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

66

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Existing Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
67

F
Figure No: 12.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

12.2 Future Operating Conditions

Future operating conditions were evaluated for the years 2015 and 2035. The existing roadway network was used to determine how well the roadway network will serve 2015 and 2035 population and employment in Monroe County with no additional improvements. The projects identified in GDOT's Construction Work Program were considered long-range and thus were not added to the model network.

It is useful to point out that the long-term projections for population and employment are the least reliable. This is not due to specific inaccuracies or projection techniques but simply because it requires the judgment of stakeholders to assign population and employment throughout the study area. This in turn impacts estimates of traffic demand. These long term results should be considered preliminary and when the transportation plan is updated every 3 to 5 years, the projects should be reexamined and amended as necessary.

The 2015 analysis shows that seven segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.1 displays the 2015 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

68

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 12.2.1 2015 Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Roadway High Falls (Park) Rd SR 42 SR 42 US 41 SR 83 US 23 US 23
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Butts County Line Brownlee Rd Boxankle Rd SR 83 (S) I-75 Butts County Line SR 18

To I-75 Boxankle Rd I-75 SR 42 US 41 SR 83 Bibb County Line

Volume(1) 8,392 7,957 11,033 13,151 10,450 10,037 9,822

V/C LOS

0.80

D

0.78

D

0.94

E

0.95

E

0.82

D

0.85

D

0.80

D

Figure 12.2.1 presents the 2015 daily deficient segments along the existing roadway network.
The 2035 analysis shows that 23 segments can be expected to operate at or below LOS D under daily conditions. Table 12.2.2 displays the 2035 roadway segments operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

69

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County 2015 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
70

F
Figure No: 12.2.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 12.2.2 2035 Deficient Segments

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Roadway High Falls (Park) Rd Brownlee Rd Boxankle Rd Boxankle Rd Stokes Store Rd SR 42 SR 42 SR 42 US 41 US 41 US 41 Sutton Rd SR 83 SR 83 SR 83 SR 83 Jenkins Rd US 23 US 23 US 23 W Johnston St N Jackson St SR 18
(1) - Two-way volumes

From Butts County Line Butts County Line High Falls Park Rd Johnstonville Rd SR 42 Butts County Line Brownlee Rd Boxankle Rd Larmar County Line SR 83 (S) Old Macon Rd SR 42 US 23 Sutton Rd I-75 Vaughn Rd SR 18 Butts County Line SR 83 SR 18 N Jackson St W Johnston St US 23

To I-75 SR 42 Johnstonville Rd SR 42 SR 83 Brownlee Rd Boxankle Rd I-75 SR 83 (S) SR 42 I-475 SR 83 Byars Rd I-75 US 41 US 341 Rumble Rd SR 83 SR 18 Bibb County Line SR 42 N US 41 Jones County Line

Volume(1) 12,012 8,222 9,475 9,709 7,783 9,603 12,157 15,725 10,972 17,264 9,975 7,794 10,612 14,647 15,726 10,035 7,144 16,063 12,311 17,115 9,604 9,604 7,900

V/C 1.05 0.81 0.84 1.11 0.86 0.83 1.16 1.28 0.84 1.22 0.79 1.05 0.87 1.00 1.17 0.79 0.78 1.32 1.00 1.22 0.82 0.82 0.77

LOS F D D F E D F F D F D F E F F D D F F F D D D

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

71

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County 2035 Daily Deficient Segments
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
72

F
Figure No: 12.2.2

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

13.0 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

It is important to understand deficiencies as perceived by citizens and key stakeholders in addition to those identified through technical analysis. In combination, technical analysis, and citizen and stakeholder input should clearly define transportation issues and opportunities in the 3-County Region. The Study Team met individually with Monroe County staff representatives and created an advisory committee of community leaders in Monroe County. Members of the Study Advisory Group are listed in Table 13.0. Public meetings were also held to obtain feedback from citizens in each county, and to discuss their issues and concerns.
Table 13.0 Study Advisory Group Monroe County

David Clark Department of Corrections
Phil Clark Middle Georgia RDC
Larry Evans Monroe County
Tiffany Andrews Monroe-Forsyth Chamber of
Commerce
Robert Williams Juliette River Club

Sid Banks Monroe County Road
Superintendent
Matt Perry EMA Director
Jim Peters Monroe County Board of
Commissioners
Bud Queen High Falls Lake Association
Melvin Lawrence Elderly/Disabled Community

Bob Rychel Middle Georgia RDC
Jeff Turner Monroe County School Board
Cindy Crowley Monroe County Clerk
Vicky Smith Bolingbroke Community Club

13.1 Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Meetings
Five meetings were held with Monroe County representatives to gather input on transportation issues and to share study findings and recommendations. Table 13.1 includes meeting dates and locations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

73

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 13.1 Monroe County Meetings

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Meeting Type Study Kickoff Meeting County Issues Discussion Study Advisory Group #1 Public Meeting #1 Study Advisory Group #2 Public Meeting #2

Date 06/26/07 07/25/07 10/02/07 11/01/07 04/08/08 05/01/08

Location Middle Georgia RDC Monroe County Water Department Monroe County Clubhouse Monroe County Clubhouse Monroe County Clubhouse Monroe County Clubhouse

13.2 Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Table 13.2 summarizes the general themes expressed by citizens and stakeholders relative to transportation issues, opportunities, and needs.
Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input Monroe County
Transportation & Growth
Department of Corrections, moving headquarters from Atlanta to Forsyth and will locate at the
Tift College site.
SR 42 and SR 83 near Hardee's has a new Walmart under construction Bass Pro Shop draws traffic Mall in North Bibb County is planned High Falls State Park has bike and pedestrian activity going to local shops and restaurants Georgia Power Plant Scherer has 4000 part time employees, a parking lot located off of Luther
Smith Road
SR 42 - High Falls Road, new planned development Truck traffic on SR 83 and SR 41 culminates in downtown Forsyth; a comment was made to
construct a new road at Collier Road to connect to I-75 from SR 41 along the rail corridor to help alleviate the downtown tuck traffic, under the assumption that truck traffic is using SR 83 to go to I-20

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

74

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 13.2 Citizen & Stakeholder Input Monroe County (Continued)
Roadway and Operational Improvements
Trucks exit at Johnstonville Road to avoid the weigh station (presumably with illegal loads) and
use Smith Road and SR 42, which cuts through downtown Forsyth, to access I-75.
SR 18 and SR 42 major traffic congestion when I-75 traffic is re-routed SR 41 is a state bike route and could better accommodate cyclists SR 83 interchange reconfigured in 1980s and does not operate well, Lack of parking and truck traffic are issues for Forsyth SR 83 and SR 87 bad sight distance (E/W) - Possible site for a round-about or an overpass Juliette Road and SR 87 river development could affect traffic SR 87 will likely to show deficiencies soon, rock quarry on SR 36 will double in size There are 98 miles of unpaved, dirt roads in Monroe County Bass Pro, hub of outdoor activities - Bass Road highly ranked bike route in Georgia Pate Road and Zebulon Road high activity area Bad intersections at Meyers Street/SR 42/Indian Springs; at Rumble Road and SR 41 and
railroad warehouse operations and I-75 access; and at Evan Road (bad skew)
Four red lights in Forsyth are not synchronized New boat ramp at Old Popes Ferry on the Ocmulgee River could have impact on SR 87 Accidents near Wadley Road from Rock Quarry to Bolingbroke Safety issues on US 41 and Smarr Road and Rumble Road A comment was made that the funding allocated for the passing lanes project on US 41 could be
used elsewhere, on a higher priority project.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bike traffic is coming out of north Bibb County High Falls State Park visitors walk/bike to shopping area and restaurants Dauset Trail and Indian Springs are popular destinations Have applied for TE Grant for bicycle funding to connect Zebulon Road and Bass Road (Bass
Pro Shop)
SR 41 is state bike route - bicycling on US 41 is a safety concern
Public Transportation
No rural transit program Participates in 5130 Transit Program for elderly and disabled - administered by Middle Georgia
RDC
Freight & Rail
Train passes through City of Forsyth everyday, blocks all intersections Train intersection blockage means north of SR 42 and SR 83 emergency vehicle response time
and access becomes an issue
Railroad crossing as SR 42/Indian Springs and Mize Road is an issue
Figure 13.1 graphically displays the citizen and stakeholder comments.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

75

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Citizen & Stakeholder Input
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
76

F
Figure No: 13.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

14.0 Goals and Objectives

Goals and Objectives are the foundation of the long-range planning process. They guide the development of the LRTP by providing a basis for evaluating transportation plan improvements reflecting the intentions that the Plan is meant to achieve. It is necessary to establish long-range goals and objectives to guide the Transportation Plan development process for Monroe County. The goals represent the general themes and overall direction that Monroe County and its residents envision for the future of the County. The objectives provide additional specificity and focus for each associated goal. Combined, they provide the policy framework for development and implementation of the transportation plan.
14.1 Background
Goals and Objectives should be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local plans and legislation. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, eight factors must now be considered when a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) develops a LRTP. It is understood that Monroe County is not within an MPO service area; however, the guidelines for MPO's were followed to provide a strong framework for transportation decisions. Specifically, the LRTP must be designed to:

Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve
the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operation; and, Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
14.2 Methodology
The goals and objectives were developed based on a review of relevant planning documents including the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan. Additionally, through input obtained at various public workshops, development of the goals and objectives was also tailored to reflect the vision of County residents and business owners.
Table 14.2, excerpted from the "SAFETEA-LU Users Guide," shows how LRTP policies and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria are related. There can be

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

77

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

Table 14.2 Applying the SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

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

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

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

Accessibility Reliability

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

Multi-modal considerations
Transit accessibility and level of service

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

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

Number of crashes Number of rail grade
crashes Bicycle and pedestrian
crashes
Crashes Potential for security
hazard Access to critical
infrastructure Access to power
sources Access to reservoirs Access to population
centers Prevention of
bottlenecks Segmentation prevented Intermodal connectivity Community-based
economic development

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

78

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Factor 5. Protect and enhance
the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

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

Project Selection Criteria
Environmental impact Emissions reductions Waterway preservation Preservation and
conservation of resources

Intermodal transfer facilities
Rail access roads Container policies Freight policies/needs

Intermodal connectivity Accessibility for people
and freight Congestion relief

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

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

Source: SAFETEA-LU Users Guide

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

14.3 Consistency with Other Planning Documents
In addition to SAFETEA-LU, goals and objectives should also be consistent with other state and local plans, such as local comprehensive plans and regional policy plans. In this way, the goals and objectives of the LRTP support the planning efforts of local governments and agencies. In particular, emphasis was placed on the Comprehensive Plan for Monroe County. Key transportation related goals, objectives and strategies from Monroe County's most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan include:
To accommodate the extensive growth taking place in both northern and southern Monroe County, the local road network will likely have to be improved to meet desired level of service standards.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

79

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The City of Forsyth and Monroe County do not have a road classification system that identifies arterial and collector roads in their land development regulations or an official major thoroughfare map. With the expected growth in the City of Forsyth and unincorporated Monroe County, it will be beneficial for both jurisdictions to establish an official major thoroughfare system that will insure proper traffic flow, and that the road network is in place to handle the projected volume of traffic.
Monroe County currently lacks an interconnected network of bikeways and walkways. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be an important mode of transportation in Forsyth and Monroe County.
A countywide Transit Development Plan should be developed in order to determine the existing and future mobility needs of Monroe County residents and how to best address these needs.

14.4 Goals and Objectives

Based on the citizens, stakeholders, and county officials for the transportation network, a series of goals and objectives for this transportation plan have been established. Monroe County's following goals and objectives are listed as follows:

Goal 1: Keep and improve the land use and transportation connection

Objective 1.1:

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

Objective 1.2

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

Objective 1.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision-making to encourage viability of alternative modes.

Objective 1.4 As development is permitted, review the impact to the transportation system to ensure mobility is protected as parcel level development occurs.

Goal 2: Enhance countywide mobility through improved roadway connectivity

Objective 2.1 .

Identify potential projects that provide key linkages between existing roadway facilities and/or improve linkages by upgrading existing facilities on a grid-like system.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

80

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Objective 2.2 Existing and future roadway deficiencies, based on level of service standards, shall be addressed through solutions that connect, as well as enhance, existing roadways.

Goal 3: Protect our Downtown areas by removing trucks and other through traffic

Objective 3.1 Consider transportation investments and land use management strategies that remove or discourage heavy trucks from cutting through downtown areas.

Objective 3.2 Coordinate with the Department of Public Safety Motor Carrier Compliance Division to develop strategies to address through-traffic generated by the Forsyth weigh station.

Goal 4: Ensure that our transportation system is safe for all users and Citizens

Objective 4.1 Reduce transportation related accidents, injuries, and deaths through regular analysis of high crash locations and identification of safety related funding streams.

Objective 4.2 Identify projects that address high crash locations and other safety related issues.

Goal 5: Improve the range of mobility options for our Citizens

Objective 5.1 Ensure that funding is established for bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan.

Objective 5.2 Develop and review annually the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) to provide for public transit and Paratransit.

Objective 5.3 Coordinate transportation and land use decision making to ensure viability of alternative modes.

Objective 5.4 Update the Long Range Transportation Plan a minimum of every five years to evaluate and provide for future needed transportation system links within the County.

Goal 6: Protect our natural resources parks, lakes, and historic sites

Objective 6.1 Improve the environmental quality of transportation decision-making by incorporating context sensitive solutions principles in all aspects of planning and the project development process.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

81

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Objective 6.2 Consider the overall social, land use compatibility, economic, energy, and environmental effects when making transportation decisions.

Objective 6.3 Identify potential environmental impacts early on in the transportation decision-making process to protect significant natural and cultural resources.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

82

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

15.0 Improvement Development Process

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

Deficient Roadways and Bridges; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Public Transportation; Freight; and, Aviation.
Recommended improvements were also based on citizen and stakeholder input as well as technical analysis. The following sections document the potential improvements in detail, ultimately producing preferred improvements for Monroe County's transportation system which are documented in Section 16. Figure 15.0 below illustrates the improvement development process.

Figure 15.0 Transportation Improvement Development Process

15.1 Deficient Roadways
With the aid of the travel demand model, which was developed as part of this study, future travels volumes were forecasted and operating conditions analyzed. This analysis revealed that the existing roadway network generally serves Monroe County well through the year 2015. From the 2035 operational analysis, outlined in section 12.2, it was revealed that several roadways begin to perform below the acceptable level of service.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

83

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Based on the results of the operational analysis, the following roadway segments are recommended for widening:
US 41 from Crawford Road (Lamar County) to SR 42 SR 83 from US 41 to US 23 SR 42 from I-75 to Butts County Line US 41 from 0.5 miles east of CR 74/Hill Road to Pea Ridge Road US 23 from I-75 interchange/Bibb County Line to Butts County Line High Falls Road from I-75 to Butts County Line Boxankle Road from SR 42 to High Falls Road Stokes Store Road from SR 42 to SR 83 SR 83 from Abercrombie Road to Vaugh Road Brownlee Road from SR 42 to Butts County Line Jenkins Road from I-75 to SR 18 Sutton Road from SR 83 to SR 42
Additionally, review of the existing roadway typical sections revealed that one of the facilities in the County did not meet the ideal typical section of 12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders. One key corridor was selected based on community input from the Study Advisory Group (See Section 13.0, p. 72 for members of the Study Advisory Group). This corridor follows:
Juliette Road operational improvements such as shoulders improvements to accommodate boat ramp facilities on the Ocmulgee River
15.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
As part of the LRTP process, existing pedestrian and bicycle origins and destinations and flows are discussed with locals during the identification of potential bicycle and pedestrian improvement areas and are further evaluated through field visits. The evaluation of existing bicycle and pedestrian systems in the County revealed the presence of a sidewalk network in most of the existing town centers in Monroe County. Where the sidewalk system is developed, there remain gaps in connectivity between residential areas and schools, parks, and libraries. Some gaps were also identified in commercial areas where people may desire to walk between businesses or from their homes to businesses. The network adjacent to each of the elementary, middle, and high schools and established commercial areas was examined carefully to identify locations where sidewalk placement would be beneficial.
Bicycle facilities are not prevalent in Monroe County. There are several local roads with low traffic volume suited for bicycle riding. Monroe County is in need of a connected and continuous bicycle route system. Several local plans identify potential facilities. All local plans were considered in making recommendations for additional bicycle facilities. Focus was given to providing connectivity between activity centers, recreational destinations, and the state bicycle route along US 41.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

84

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Along with newly identified sidewalk segments identified in this study, the bicycle facilities identified in the Middle Georgia Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan have been incorporated into this plan. Suggested improvements are included in Table 15.6 later in this section.
15.3 Public Transportation Improvements
15.3.1 Transit
Monroe County currently does not participate in the 5311 Rural Transportation Program but is part of the DHR Region Six Coordinated Transportation System which provides services for the elderly, the disabled, and other residents who qualify and are clients of the Department of Human Resources (DHR) Division of Aging Services (DAS), Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD), and as of July 2007, Department of Labor Vocational Rehabilitation Program (DOL/VRS). The Middle Georgia Community Action Agency (MGCAA) is the third party provider of the DHR transportation services. Statistics for the fiscal year ending in June 2007 show that most trips are made for DFCS clients (51%) followed by MHDDAD (35%) and Aging (14%) clients. Federal funding for the DHR Division of Aging was significantly cut statewide in 2007. This will greatly reduce transportation services for Monroe County's elderly residents who are DAS clients, beginning July 2008.
Monroe County's population is projected to increase by 41% between the year 2000 and 2025 (from 21,757 to nearly 31,000 persons). Its elderly population is expected to remain a constant percentage of total population (10%), reaching 3,100 persons by 2025. The growing population and increase in seniors will likely generate greater need for some type of transit program to provide transportation to jobs, education, medical centers, shopping, and other services.
The DHR Region Six Office attributes the unmet transportation needs of Monroe County citizens to the unavailability of a public transit system, the absence of affordable transportation for many, and inadequate funding. DHR also reports that there are waiting lists in the county for DHR transportation services as the demand exceeds the supply. Both DHR and the GDOT District Three Office state that there are numerous residents who do not qualify for DHR transportation assistance who could have a job or a better paying job if they had transportation to work, or who would go to school for additional training if transportation was available. While the 5311 may not be the ideal solution for all transportation needs, it would provide a viable option for many Monroe County residents.
A new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program, the Section 5317 New Freedom Program, will be available to Georgia counties in 2008. This grant-based program is designed to provide transportation services for the elderly and the disabled that address specific service gaps identified in each DHR Region's Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan. The DHR Region Six Plan, completed in May 2007, identified a need in Monroe County for 500 additional trips for new DFCS clients. The Region Six Office is

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

85

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

currently investigating the availability of matching resources (funds and partners) needed to apply for Section 5317 funding.

Another new FTA program, the Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute Program (JARC), will become available to Georgia counties beginning in 2008. This grant-based program provides funding for transportation services to and from employment centers and would potentially alleviate some of the employment transportation demand noted above. The Region Six Office is currently investigating the availability of matching resources (funds and partners) needed to apply for Section 5317 funding.

Recommendations

Working with the GDOT District Office and the DHR Region Six Office, develop a transit plan to determine the existing and future mobility requirements of Monroe County residents and how to best meet their needs. This would include examining the feasibility of the 5311 Rural Transportation Program as well as the new Section 5316 and 5317 programs. The Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County, 2007, actually identifies the development of such a plan as a Short Term Work Program Action Item.

15.3.2 Commuter Options
Monroe County workers who commute to jobs outside the county do so primarily to the Bibb County Macon area. A smaller percentage of workers commute into the Atlanta region. The Study Advisory Group (See Section 13.0 p. 72) has stated that there is an immediate need for the provision of areas where commuters can park for vanpooling and carpooling. Monroe County does not currently have a Georgia DOT Rideshare lot to provide a free parking facility and there is evidence that residents are organizing carpools and/or vanpools, particularly in Forsyth, for their commutes to Macon and Atlanta. The Ingles Supermarket located on Tift College Drive, off of I-75 in Forsyth, has become the defacto park and ride lot, with at least 30 commuters/carpoolers parking in this lot each day.

The Georgia Department of Corrections (DOC) move to Forsyth is scheduled to occur in the summer of 2009, with as many as 400 employees expected to either move or commute into the county. This move will bring both commercial and residential development to the area, will require transportation infrastructure be put into place, and will create demand for transportation alternatives for those commuting into the county.

Recommendations

Working with the GDOT District Office, assess the need and potential locations for a park and ride facility in the Forsyth area along I-75 to accommodate carpooling, vanpooling, and corporate van services. Potential locations are at I-75 and North Lee Street, near the new Wal-Mart site, and at I-75 at either of the Tift College exits.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

86

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Continue coordination and planning efforts with the Department of Corrections relocation to Forsyth. Design plans call for infrastructure improvements which will create a new entry road off of Frontage Road along I-75 and a renovated entry on Tift College Drive to logistically improve access to the facility from either Exit 186 or 187 on I-75. Work with the DOC to explore alternatives for employees commuting into Forsyth from the Atlanta and McDonough areas. Work with GDOT to coordinate these planning efforts with park and ride facilities recommended above.

15.3.3 Commuter and Intercity Rail

The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) proposes long-range commuter and intercity rail transportation options which will be available to Monroe County residents. The commuter rail service will offer daily home-to-work trips between Atlanta and Macon. Phase one will implement a route between Atlanta and Lovejoy; phase two will extend the line to Hampton and Griffin, and the final phase will complete the 103 mile segment with stops in Barnesville, Forsyth, Bolingbroke, and Macon. Intercity rail service will offer two to three trains per day between Atlanta, Griffin, and Macon with trains traveling at higher rates of speed and with fewer stops to minimize travel time.

Recommendations

Participate in appropriate planning activities with GDOT and the Georgia Passenger Rail Authority (GRPA) for the commuter rail stop, station, and parking facilities in Forsyth. While currently identified as part of the final phase for implementation, the stop in Forsyth will impact the area in terms of development and transportation infrastructure. Additional shuttles, buses, and parking facilities will likely be required to accommodate commuters and users of the system from Monroe County and surrounding areas.

15.4 Freight & Rail Improvements

Two Norfolk Southern Rail lines traverse 22 miles of track in Monroe County. One line runs through central Monroe County through Forsyth and Bolingbroke to Macon. The second line follows the eastern county line along the Ocumulgee River also heading southeast to Macon. Monroe County has 78 railroad crossings along the two Norfolk Southern lines. Seventy-six of these are at-grade crossings and two are underpasses (where the rail crosses under the road). Forty-two of the 78 crossings are public while 36 are private.

Highway-rail crossings which are "at grade" pose risks because the train always has the right of way. These crossings require traffic control devices (passive and active) to permit reasonably safe and efficient operation of both the rail and traffic. Passive devices are signs and pavement markings that are not activated by trains. Types of passive devices include:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

87

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Crossbuck Signs - the white crisscrossed sign with RAILROAD CROSSING in black lettering. These are required in each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, either alone or in combination with other traffic control devices.

Stop and Yield Signs - formerly recommend with crossbucks only where two or more trains operate daily, but now recommended along with crossbucks for all crossings. A YIELD sign should be the default choice, with a STOP sign required when an engineering study deems conditions necessary for a vehicle to make full stop. Factors to be considered include:

o The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle to an approaching train;
o Characteristics of the highway, such as the functional classification, geometric conditions, and traffic volumes and speed;
o Characteristics of the railroad including frequency, type and speed of trains, and number of tracks;
o Crossing crash history, and o Need for active control devices.

Railroad Advance Warning Signs - intended for approach roadways that parallel the railroad to warn turning drivers that they will encounter a highway/rail crossing soon after making the turn.

Active traffic control devices are controlled by the train operator and give warning of the approach or presence of a train. Types of active traffic control devices include:

Flashing-Light Signals - two red lights in a horizontal line flashing alternately at approaching highway traffic.

Cantilever Flashing Light Signals - additional one or two sets of lights mounted over the roadway on a cantilever arm and directed at approaching highway traffic. Supplemental to the standard flashing light, used frequently on multi-lane approaches, high speed, two lane highways, roads with a high percentage of trucks or where obstacles obstruct visibility of standard flashing lights.

Automatic Gates - consisting of a drive unit and gate arm. Supplemental to flashing and cantilever lights.

Additional Flashing Light Signals - used for additional approaches to active highway rail grade crossings. These lights can be mounted on existing flashing light masts, extension arms, additional traffic signal masts, cantilever supports, and in medians or other locations on the left side of the road.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

88

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Active Advance Warning Signs with Flashers - a train activated advance warning sign, considered at locations where sight distance is restricted on the approach to a crossing and the flashing light signals can not be seen until an approaching driver has passed the decision point. Two amber lights can be placed on the sign to warn drivers in advance of a crossing where the control devices are activated. The continuously flashing amber caution lights can influence driver speed and provide warning for stopped vehicles ahead.

Active Turn Restriction Signs - display `No Right Turn' or `No Left Turn' on a parallel street within 50 feet of the tracks, at a signalized highway intersection.
Barrier devices - median separation devices to prohibit crossing gate violations.

The GDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Design, maintains an inventory of the State's railroad crossings and a priority list for those requiring improvements. Local governments are encouraged to report crossings within their jurisdictions which appear to be unsafe, deficient in their current traffic control devices, candidates for closure, or in need of an upgrade. GDOT will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of the crossing in question, evaluating a number of criteria, including:
The maximum number of passenger trains per day; Maximum number of freight trains per day; Distance to alternate crossings;

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

89

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Accident history of the crossing for the immediately preceding five year period; Type of warning device present at the crossing; The horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway; The average daily traffic volume in proportion to the population of the jurisdiction; The posted speed limit over the crossing; The effect of closing/altering the crossing for persons utilizing it (hospitals and
medical facilities; federal state and local government services such as court, postal, library, sanitation, and park facilities; commercial, industrial and other areas of public commerce); Any use of the crossing by trucks carrying hazardous material, vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses, emergency vehicles, public or private utility vehicles; Other relevant factors such as clearing sight distance, traversing the crossing, high profile or "hump" crossings, land locked property, at-grade crossing signalized with bells, lights, and proximity to other crossings.

Upon review, if traffic control devices are found to be deficient, GDOT will assign a priority and program an improvement project to correct the deficiency.

Specific Rail Recommendations The Study Advisory Group (See Section 13.0, p. 73) has stated that dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings is of a high level of importance both today and in 2035. The Study Advisory Group also reports that trains now move faster through downtown, traveling at 30 mph compared to 10 mph in the past. Given the procedures outlined above and input provided by the project Study Advisory Group, the public, and from analysis of the existing rail crossing and accident data, several Monroe County crossings have been identified for further examination by the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager. Each of these is discussed below.

Forsyth 1) Collier Road (Crossing #718320M) This crossing has minimal passive traffic control
devices (crossbucks, stop sign). Two auto crashes have occurred since 2000, both with no injuries.

Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT. Install advance warning signage and pavement markings on both approaches to improve safety.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

90

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Additional rail warning signage may improve safety at the Collier Road crossing.
2) Industrial Park Drive (Crossing #718338X) This crossing is equipped with gates and lights, stop signs, and advance warning signage on US 41 southbound and on the Industrial Park Drive approach.
Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT. Install advance warning signage on US 41 northbound approach and add pavement markings on Industrial Park Drive.
3) Harold G. Clark Parkway (Crossing #718337R) This crossing is equipped with crossbucks, flashing lights, and gates. There was an auto crash in 2000 with injuries and another in 2005 with no injuries.
Recommendation Recommend repainting pavement markings on the approach. Report the crossing to GDOT for maintenance.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

91

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Pavement markings at the Harold G. Clark Parkway crossing are in need of maintenance
4) Lee Street/SR 42/SR 83 (Crossing #718330T) The Lee Street crossing is equipped with crossbucks, flashing lights and gates. The Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 73) has commented that trains block this intersection and cause emergency vehicle delays to areas north of the railroad.
Recommendation Report train standing problems to the Federal Railroad Administration at: Phone: 404562-3800; Hot Line: 1-800-724-5993.
5) North Indian Springs/SR 42/Mize Road (Crossing #718331A) This intersection has three roads and a railroad yet minimal railroad crossing traffic control devices. The Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 73) has cited concern for safety at this crossing.
Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT to upgrade/improve rail crossing safety features. Move the stop sign on Mize Road to the intersection with Indian Springs Drive. Add advance warning signage on Indian Springs Drive (both approaches) and the one North Indian Springs approach. SR 42 is currently equipped with advance warning signage, so no further upgrades are needed. Report to GDOT that the railroad crossing number posted at the crossing (not entirely legible) appears to be incorrect.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

92

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Relocating the Mize Road stop sign may improve railroad crossing safety.

Indian Springs Drive lacks advance warning signage.
6) Old Rumble Road (Crossing #718342M) The Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 73) has identified this crossing as a dangerous intersection.
Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT to determine if adding advance warning signage to the Old Rumble Road northbound approach is warranted.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

93

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

There are safety concerns at the Old Rumble Road crossing.

Juliette 1) Popes Ferry Road (Crossing #718486S) This private crossing is equipped with
crossbucks and experienced an accident with a train in 2006 with no injuries.
Recommendation Review crossing with GDOT to determine if a public crossing is warranted.
Review of the crossings noted above may result in railroad crossing improvement projects to be programmed for future completion.
Other Rail Recommendations Report crossings described above to the GDOT Railroad Crossing Program Manager:
Key Phillips Railroad Crossing Program Manager Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Safety and Design Phone 404-635-8120 Fax 404-635-8116
The Crossing Program Manager will schedule a field review to conduct a Highway Rail Engineering Analysis of each crossing in question.
Limit construction of any new "at grade" highway-rail crossings. The county has a high number of these crossings which pose risk for both vehicular and pedestrian accidents.
Monroe County has a high number of private rail crossings (36) compared to public crossings (42). Continue to monitor with GDOT Crossing Program Manager as future

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

94

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

land development around the private crossings will necessitate that they become public crossings equipped with safety and mobility features.

GDOT offers local government incentive payments for at-grade rail-highway crossing closures, a provision of U.S. Code 23, section 130 (SAFETEA-LU section 1401(d)). The amount of the incentive grant may be up to $7,500 to local governments for the permanent closure of public-at-grade crossings if matched by the railroad involved, for a total incentive of $15,000. The local government receiving the incentive payment must use the portion received from the State for transportation safety improvements. Types of safety improvements include:

o Grading, paving and drainage improvements associated with crossing removal; o Guardrail, barricades and barrier wall; o Traffic signals; o Highway signs; o Turn lanes; o Pavement markings; o Sidewalks; o Emergency vehicles primarily responding to highway incidents; o Emergency equipment (i.e. "Jaws of Life); o Sirens and flashing lights for emergency response vehicles; o Radar guns; o Sponsorship of a community driver's education class.

Contact the Railroad Crossing Program Manager, referenced on the previous page, for additional information.

Report train standing problems to the Federal Railroad Administration at:

61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 16T20 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 Phone 404-562-3800 Hot Line 1-800-724-5993 www.fra.dot.gov

Utilize available programs to address crossings with safety concerns and crossing violations.

The Georgia Operation Lifesaver Program is a national, non-profit education and awareness program dedicated to ending tragic collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway-rail grade crossing and on railroad rights of way. The organization promotes safety through:

o Education for drivers and pedestrians to make safe decisions at crossings and around railroad tracks;
o Active enforcement of traffic laws relating to crossing signs and signals; and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

95

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

o Continued engineering research and innovation to improve the safety of railroad crossings.

Free programs are presented to schools, businesses, civic organizations, school bus drivers, professional drivers, law enforcement and emergency responders.

15.5 Aviation Improvements

Monroe County does not have a local airport. Nearby small aircraft airports include the Griffin-Spalding County Airport in Griffin and the Herbert Smart Downtown Airport in Macon. Commercial airport needs are met by the Middle Georgia Regional Airport, located in Macon, and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, located south of Atlanta.

Monroe County was identified as a potential future site for a Level I Minimum Standard General Aviation Airport in the Georgia Aviation System Plan Executive Summary, completed in 2002. A Level I airport would accommodate all single-engine and some small twin-engine general aviation aircraft, and would have a minimum runway length objective of 4,000 feet and a non-precision instrument approach.

Recommendations Monroe's Comprehensive Plan Update, completed in May 2007, specifies an action
item to explore the possibilities and benefits of pursuing the construction of a local airport. A benchmark study of airports in other similarly situated rural communities was also recommended. Coordination will need to occur between the county, Georgia DOT and the Middle Georgia RDC (MGRDC) as placement of a local airport would impact both existing and future development and would affect the area in terms of noise, and pollution.

15.6 Citizen and Stakeholder Input

Throughout the course of the study public comment and stakeholder input contributed significantly to the development of projects for improving travel conditions through Monroe County. Project suggestions identified by the public and stakeholders are documented in Table 15.6.

All comments received from the public are important and care was taken to evaluate each recommendation for inclusion in the plan. If the recommendation addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan, these were forwarded to the appropriate agency to address. Similarly, some recommendations could not be supported with technical planning or engineering justifications these instances are noted and these recommendations were flagged for reevaluation as the Plan is periodically updated in the future.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

96

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Table 15.6 Monroe County Suggested Improvements

Technical Memorandum August 2008

# Suggested Improvements

Source

Does a Need Exist?

Possible
Environmental Status Impacts?

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan?

US 23 / SR 87 will likely show deficiencies Monroe County

1 soon, rock quarry on SR 36 will double in

Advisory

Yes

size

Committee

Yes streams The model supports adding Yes and wetlands capacity to US 23.

New boat ramp at Old Popes Ferry on the Monroe County

2 Ocmulgee River could have impact on US Advisory

Yes

23 / SR 87

Committee

Yes streams and wetlands

The model supports adding capacity to US 23.

Yes

3

Four red lights in Forsyth are not synchronized

Monroe County Public Comment

Needs

further

No

analysis

The traffic lights

synchronization issues has been forwarded to District

No

3.

4

SR 18 and SR 42 major traffic congestion Monroe County

when I-75 traffic is re-routed

Public Comment

Yes

Yes streams and wetlands

The model supports adding capacity to SR 42.

Yes

Construct a new road at Collier Road to

5

connect to I-75 from SR 41 along the rail corridor to help alleviate the downtown tuck traffic, under the assumption that truck traffic

Monroe County Public Comment

No

is using SR 83 to go to I-20

SR 83 and SR 87 bad east / west sight

Monroe County

6 distance - Possible site for a round-about or Advisory

Yes

an overpass

Committee

7

Bad intersections at Meyers Street/SR 42/Indian Springs; at Rumble Road and SR 41 and railroad warehouse operations and I-75 access; and at Evan Road (bad skew)

Monroe County Advisory Committee

Yes

8

Accidents near Wadley Road from Rock Quarry to Bolingbroke

Monroe County

Advisory

Yes

Committee

Yes streams and wetlands

A new roadway facility is not recommended at this time, however, truck routing No will be considered in the plan.

No

This intersection has been identified for improvement.

Yes

These intersections have

been identified for

improvement:

SR 42 at Indian

Yes needs further analysis

Springs

Rumble Road at

Yes

US 41

Rumble Road at

Evans Road

US 41 at King

Road

Yes needs further analysis

US 41 in this vicinity has been recommended for improvement.

Yes

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

97

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

# Suggested Improvements

Source

9

Safety on US 41 and Smarr Road and Rumble Road

Monroe County Advisory Committee

10

Bike traffic is coming out of north Bibb County

Monroe County Public Comment

11

High Falls State Park visitors walk/bike to shopping area and restaurants

Monroe County Advisory Committee

TE Grant for bicycle funding to connect 12 Zebulon Road and Bass Road (Bass Pro
Shop)

Monroe County Staff

13 Bicycling on US 41 is a safety concern

Monroe County Advisory Committee

14

Train passes through City of Forsyth everyday, blocks all intersections

Train intersection blockage means north of

15

SR 42 and SR 83 emergency vehicle response time and access becomes an

issue

16

Railroad crossing at SR 42/Indian Springs and Mize Road is an issue

Monroe County Advisory Committee
Monroe County Advisory Committee
Monroe County Advisory Committee

17

Shortcut desired from new development off Buck Creek Rd / Hickory Rd directly to High Falls Rd.

Monroe County Public Comment

Potential upgrades to Buck Creek Rd off 18 High Falls Rd and into Lamar County to
connect to SR 36 as alternate to I-75.

Monroe County Public Comment

Does a Need Exist? Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Possible Environmental Impacts?
Yes needs further analysis
Yes streams and wetlands
No

Status
US 41 at Old Rumble Road and Rumble Road at US 41 have been recommended for improvement. Bike projects are proposed for the southeastern portion of the county at the Bibb County line.
Trail related improvements are proposed in the vicinity.

Recommended for Inclusion in Plan? Yes
Yes
Yes

No

Bike projects are proposed in this location.

Yes

Proposed bicycle projects

provide alternate routes

No

and / or improve bicycle

Yes

related signage in this

vicinity.

Yes needs Ongoing coordination with further analysis the rail is recommended.

Yes

Yes needs further analysis

Coordination between the railroad and emergency services is recommended.

Yes

Railroad crossing

N/A

improvement analysis is

Yes

recommended.

Traffic volume does not

Yes needs further analysis

warrant an additional cut through and origination is in

No

Lamar Co.

Yes needs further analysis

Not warranted based on traffic volumes and available alternatives

No

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

98

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.0 Improvement Recommendations

Monroe County's needs for transportation improvements are substantiated by the future operating deficiencies identified in Section 15. Deficiencies have been evaluated in the areas of:

Public Transportation; Freight Transport; Airport Facilities; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Bridges; Safety; Roadway Characteristics; and, Roadway Operating Conditions.
Transportation improvements to address deficiencies in several of these categories were identified in Sections 15.2 through 15.5. This section will identify the recommended improvements and the estimated costs associated with these improvements.
16.1 Estimated Costs
A necessary element of the LRTP is estimating the costs associated with the numerous recommended improvements. An estimated cost needs to be associated with each project to aid the County in planning for, and funding of, recommended improvements. GDOT is currently updating their cost information; however in 2006 the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) developed a costing tool. This costing tool presents cost estimates for both urban and rural conditions and was the tool used to develop capacity and operational project costs for this study. The rural cost estimates were used for the proposed projects in Monroe County. In the case of intersection improvement recommendations, a micro-level analysis and review by a professional engineer is required to make specific recommendations for intersection improvements. For purposes of construction cost estimation for these improvements, a placeholder of $250,000 is used. This estimate represents a reasonable average for intersection improvements but costs could be higher or lower depending on the specifics of the improvement identified (for example, addition of a left-hand turn lane vs. geometric modifications). Construction cost estimates for intersections should be revisited once those improvements are identified.
The estimated costs were generated for planning purposes and may vary from actual costs. The costs of right of way and utilities were omitted from the cost estimates for projects due to the high variation and market changes associated with these costs. Therefore, the estimated costs can be expected to be considerably less than actual costs. Additional variations in cost could be the result of several factors, such as, design or environmental impacts.
A review of recent GDOT bridge costs revealed that bridges are generally being constructed for approximately $160 per square foot. In addition, to account for bridges

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

99

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

being built wider and longer, it was assumed that bridges would be constructed as fortyfour feet in width for two-lane roadways and 68 feet for four-lane roadways and an additional 10 percent was added to the existing structure length. This total square foot value was used to estimate the cost for improving the deficient bridges in Monroe County.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvement cost estimates were developed based on data and research provided by GDOT that included actual costs for similar projects in Georgia and surrounding states in recent years. A per-mile improvement average was developed and applied based on the type of proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvement. Similarly, rail improvement costs were developed based on equipment unit costs applied in other studies.

These estimates were used to develop costs for the recommended improvements presented in Section 16.2 (Table 16.2). These costs should be considered preliminary in nature and taken with appropriate care. Costs do not include right of way or utility relocation. More detailed engineering studies are required to identify highly accurate cost estimates.

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

16.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements

Based on the analysis completed as part of this study, a listing of recommended projects was created for Monroe County. This information is presented in Table 16.2. This listing includes:

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways; Minor Roadway Widening (increasing travel lane widths and/or shoulders); Intersection and Geometric Improvements; Bridge Improvements; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; Airport Improvements; Rail Improvements; and, Transit Improvements.

For each recommendation several informational elements were produced including: facility; limits; existing and improved configuration; comments; source; improvement type; need; anticipated benefit; phasing; cost and potential funding sources. For successful implementation of these projects it is recommended that additional detailed engineering studies be conducted to determine the most appropriate design, cost and phasing of the

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

100

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

particular project. Additionally, successful project implementation will require identified funding mechanisms, political support, and public recognition of the project need and benefit.

Table 16.2 identifies the estimated PE and construction costs of potential projects based on the length that is within the county limits. Most of the potential projects are entirely within Monroe County, but there are project that have limits which cross county boundaries. For those projects that cross county boundaries, the estimated PE and construction costs are assigned to individual projects in each county. To calculate the total PE and construction costs for projects that cross county boundaries, the individual projects costs were combined and are contained in the individual project sheets. The recommended improvements which cross the Monroe County boundary are identified below to facilitate project coordination with Butts, Lamar, and Bibb Counties; these potential projects include:

High Falls Road from US 23 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County), see project sheet # B32, B35, M73.
Brownlee Road from Mountain View Road (Butts County) to SR 42 (Monroe County), see project sheet # B37, M64.
SR 42 from Mt. Vernon Church Road (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County), see project sheet # B40, M63.
US 23 from SR 16 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Bibb County), the total project length is approximately 30.1 miles, of which 19 miles is in Monroe County, 8.6 miles in Butts County and 2.5 miles is in Bibb County, see project sheet # B36, M59.
US 41 from Crawford Road (Lamar County), see project sheet # M68. The Lamar, Pike and Upson Regional Transportation Study identified US 41 for widening to 4 lanes. Coordination with Lamar County is recommended.

Project sheets were developed for all capacity improvement and new roadway projects. The project sheets include the project limits including logical termini, distance, priority, and jurisdiction. Project sheets are contained in Appendix B.

Logical Termini

For the roadway capacity improvements, logical termini were developed to help link the long-range planning process with National Environmental Policy (NEPA) regulations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(f) that are to be used to frame a highway project:

In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:
1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

101

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

Transportation projects that receive federal funds must follow NEPA requirements in order to receive approval from the Federal Highway Administration. Among other environmental studies conducted during the NEPA process, a survey is conducted to assess historic resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Identified historic resources that are National Register eligible properties are given special consideration during the NEPA process and transportation projects must receive State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence before receiving approval. These requirements are in place to identify historic resources, assess impacts, and determine appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic resources.

These principles were factored into the project development process. Recommended roadway improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.1 and recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements are mapped in Figure 16.2.2.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

102

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Table 16.2 Recommended Improvements

Project Ref.

No.

Facility

Capacity Improvements and New Roadways

M1 SR 18

M2 SR 19

M59 US23

M60 Jenkins Road

M61 SR 83

M62 Sutton Road

M63 SR 42

M64 Brownlee Road

M65 Boxankle Road

M66 Stokes Store Road

M68 US 41

M71 SR 83

M72 US 41

M73 High Falls Road

Operational Improvements M67 Juliette Road

Intersection/Geometric Improvements
M5 SR 19/ US 41 M48 Brent Road M49 Boxankle Road M50 SR 83 M51 US 41 M52 SR 18 M53 US 41 M54 US 41 M55 US 41 M56 Rumble Road M57 SR 42 M58 Rumble Road

Bridge Improvements
M11 Reedy Creek Road M12 Reedy Creek Road M13 Montpelier Springs Road M14 Johnstonville Road M15 Maynards Mill Road M100 SR 83 M101 SR 74 M102 High Falls Road M103 Lee King Road M104 US 23 M105 Zebulon Road M106 CR 161 M107 SR 42 M108 SR18 M109 SR 83 M110 SR 42 M111 SR 18 M112 SR 83 M113 Boxankle Road M114 SR 42 M115 SR 83 M116 US 23 M117 US 341 M118 Rumble Road

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
M31 Montpelier Road Sidewalks M32 Zebulon Road/ Estes Road Bicycle Lane M33 Klopfer/Old Popes Ferry/Ferry/Pate/New Forsyth M34 SR 74 M35 SR 83 M36 SR 42 M37 SR 18

M38 Various Local Roads

M39 US 41 Sidewalks M40 SR 42 Sidewalks
Rail Improvements M41 Collier Road M42 Harold Clark Road M43 Indian Springs Drive M44 N. Lee Street M45 Old Rumble Road M46 Industrial Park Drive

Segment Limits

From

To

Southbound 13.7 - 15.2/ Monroe. Eastbound 2.3 - 3.6. Westbound 3.38-5.1/TL 5.1-5.6

CR 73/ King Road

0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd

I-75 Interchange/Bibb County

Butts County Line

I-75

SR 18

US 41

US 23

SR 83

SR 42

I-75

Butts County Line

SR 42

Butts County Line

SR 42

High Falls Road

SR 42

SR 83

Crawford Road (Lamar County)

SR 42

Abercrombie Road

Vaugh Road

0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd

Pea Ridge Road

I-75

Butts County Line

Existing Configuration

Improved Configuration

2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes 2-lanes

Passing lane Passing lane 4-lane, divided 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes 4-lanes

Notes/Comments
3.70 miles 1.90 miles 19.00 miles 3.50 miles 11.20 miles 2.40 miles 11.30 miles 2.05 miles 9.30 miles 7.40 miles 6.70 miles 7.90 miles 2.40 miles 3.60 miles

Coordination Required?

Source

Improvement Type

M59, Bibb County
B40 B37 Lamar County B32, B35

CWP CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Local Road Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Collector Widening Minor Arterial Widening Minor Arterial Widening Major Collector Widening Major Collector Widening

Need
Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency Capacity Deficiency

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

Implementation Near Mid Long

US 23

Jones County Line

2-lanes

Widen shoulders 2 - 4 feet

4.20 miles

Analysis Operational Improvements

Operational & Safety Issues

Improved Safety & Capacity

SR 18 SR 83 SR 42 SR 87/ US 23 SR 42 SR87/ US 23 Hill Road King Road Old Rumble Road Evans Road Indian Springs Drive US 41

0 crashes 0 crashes 0 crashes 21 crashes 35 crashes 22 crashes 1 crash 1 crash 2 crashes 2 crashes 2 crashes 1 crash

CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Intersection Improvement Realignment Realignment Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment Realignment

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

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

Tobesofkee Creek Tributary Tobesofkee Creek Tobesofkee Creek Rocky Creek Little Tobesofkee Creek Towaliga River Echeconnee Creek Towaliga River Deer Creek Tablers Creek Tobesokee Creek Little Towaliga River Tributary Tobesofkee Creek Norfolk-Southern Railroad Tobesofkee Creek Little Tobesofkee Creek Ocmulgee River Little Tobesofkee Creek Little Towaliga River Yellow Creek Todd Creek Rum Creek Echeconnee Creek Little Deer Creek

473 sq ft 587 sq ft 1,264 sq ft 3,121 sq ft 4,864 sq ft 8,721 sq ft 3,168 sq ft 8,602 sq ft 2,419 sq ft 4,116 sq ft 5,376 sq ft 336 sq ft 2,438 sq ft 4,504 sq ft 3,336 sq ft 3,078 sq ft 17,604 sq ft 2,511 sq ft 4,608 sq ft 2,703 sq ft 3,336 sq ft 8,232 sq ft 5,411 sq ft 3,432 sq ft

2.00 sufficiency rating 6.71 sufficiency rating 25.93 sufficiency rating 44.29 sufficiency rating 44.79 sufficiency rating 49.70 sufficiency rating 53.01 sufficiency rating 55.47 sufficiency rating 56.41 sufficiency rating 57.43 sufficiency rating 57.89 sufficiency rating 57.91 sufficiency rating 58.83 sufficiency rating 61.20 sufficiency rating 61.21 sufficiency rating 61.43 sufficiency rating 62.49 sufficiency rating 62.56 sufficiency rating 63.80 sufficiency rating 64.85 sufficiency rating 65.24 sufficiency rating 71.91 sufficiency rating 72.90 sufficiency rating 74.21 sufficiency rating

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis CWP Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge Upgrade Bridge

Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance Rehabilitation or Maintenance

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

Mary Persons High School Entrance Zebulon Rd - Bibb Co. Line to Estes Rd

James Madison (new Subdivision) Estes Rd - Zebulon Rd to US 41

US 341 US 341 Crawford County Line US 41

Bibb County Line Jasper County Line Butts County Line US 23

Klopfer Rd; Taylor Rd; Shi Rd; Zebulon Rd; Bagley Rd; Maynard Mill Rd; Hopewell Rd; Brent Rd; Rock Quarry Rd/Strounds Rd; Juliette; Collier Rd/Smith Rd; Johnstonville Rd; Higgins Mill Rd/Boxankle Rd; High Falls Rd; High Falls Park Rd; Blount Rd

394 West Main Street 3769 SR 42

539 West Main Street West Old Indian Springs Road

Siedewalk on both sides

.70 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

1.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

2.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

5.50 miles

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

7.50 miles

M71

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

8.30 miles

M70

Widen shoulders 2-4 feet

4.10 miles

M1

Install Share the Ride signs

21.50 miles

Sidewalk on both sides

.5 miles

M68

Sidewalk on both sides

.55 miles

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Sidewalk Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane

Analysis Share the Ride signage

Analysis Sidewalk Analysis Sidewalk

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

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

Crossing # 718320M Crossing # 718337R Crossing # 718331A Crossing # 718330T Crossing # 718342M Crossing # 718338X

X-bucks, stop signs. Gates, x-bucks, lights Gates, x-bucks, lights Gates, x-bucks, lights X-bucks, stop signs.

Add adv warn signs; mark all app's Re-paint pavement markings 2 app Add adv warn signs 3 app;stop sign Eliminate train standing Add adv warn signs,mark NB app

GDOT Rail Mgr Local gov. GDOT Rail Mgr NS Rail, FRA GDOT Rail Mgr

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Install adv warn signs/markings Re-paint pavement markings Install adv warn signs/stop sign Report train standing FRA, NS Install adv warn signs/markings Install adv warn signs/markings

Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues Operation & Safety Issues

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

Notes: 1. Intersection Improvements listed include all intersections developed through the public involvement process. Many of these locations may not warrant improvements, however additional study is required to make this determination. 2. Intersection costs assume a placeholder cost of $250,000. 3. Bridge replacement costs are based off of $160 per square foot (replacement bridge were assumed to be 44 feet wide and 10% longer in length. 4. Estimated costs DO NOT include Right of Way or Utility Relocation. 5. Segment limits indicate costing termini. For project logical termini, see the Project Sheets in Appendix B. 6. Cost estimates are in current year dollars (uninflated dollars).

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Source Federal State County

$7,825,980 $2,710,000 $76,000,000 $14,000,000 $44,800,000 $9,600,000 $45,200,000 $8,200,000 $37,200,000 $29,600,000 $26,800,000 $31,600,000 $9,600,000 $14,400,000 $357,535,980

$16,800,000 $16,800,000

$710,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $3,460,000

$224,576 $278,784 $604,032 $789,888 $1,239,040 $1,313,000 $743,424 $2,680,832 $743,424 $1,436,160 $1,239,040 $185,856 $964,000 $1,076,416 $1,436,160 $882,816 $4,181,760 $1,077,120 $1,723,392 $789,888 $929,280 $2,872,320 $1,177,088 $851,840 $29,440,136

$140,000 $225,000 $375,000 $825,000 $1,125,000 $1,245,000 $615,000

$2,150

$100,000 $110,000 $4,762,150
$2,400 $600
$2,100 $0
$600 $600 $6,300 $412,004,566

Butts, Jones, Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

103

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Recommended Improvements - Roadway
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
104

F
Figure No: 16.2.1

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Recommended Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
105

F
Figure No: 16.2.2

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

16.3 Environmental Justice Considerations

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

Roadway Projects US 23 from the I-75 interchange/Bibb County to the Butts County Line SR 83 from US 41 to US 23 Sutton Road from SR 83 to SR 42 SR 42 from I-74 to the Butts County Line Boxankle Road from SR 42 to High Falls Road Stokes Store Road from SR 42 to SR 83

Intersection Improvements Boxankle Road at SR 42 SR 83 at SR 87/ US 23 US 41 at SR 42

The recommended improvements will improve safety, mobility, and access for all users on a county-wide basis. These projects include the need for roadway widening and the possibility of additional right of way. Additional projects that will benefit the EJ communities include: bicycle and pedestrian improvements and numerous safety and capacity enhancements throughout the study area, as shown in Table 16.2. Figure 16.3 shows the recommended projects in the vicinity of the environmental justice areas.

Sidewalks US 41 from 394 to 539 West Main Street SR 42 from 3769 SR 42 to Old Indian Springs Road

Bicycle Projects SR 74 from US 341 to the Bibb County Line SR 83 from US 341 to the Jasper County Line SR 42 from the Crawford County Line to the Butts County Line Various local roads will receive "Share the Road" signage

Rail/Freight Safety Crossing at Collier Road Crossing at North Lee Street Crossing at Industrial Park Drive

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

106

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum
August 2008

Monroe County Environmental Justice Evaluation
Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
107

F
Figure No: 16.3

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.0 Project Prioritization

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

17.1 Corridor Prioritization
Qualitative and quantitative evaluation factors were established so that the potential improvements for Monroe County could be evaluated objectively by County staff. These factors were developed by the study team with the assistance of the Study Advisory Group (see Section 13.0, p. 73), public comment, and GDOT. This evaluation serves as a ranking for potential projects, resulting in a prioritization of improvement options to meet the County's transportation needs. Prioritization criteria were developed for four types of projects roadway capacity, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, intersections, and bridges.
Qualitative Criteria Qualitative criteria were established to evaluate the deficient corridors based on various conditions or standards established through the study process. The following list documents the qualitative criteria established for the roadway network improvement evaluation. These correspond to the vision established in the Goals and Objectives documented in Section 14.0.

Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP) / National Highway System Supports Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor Connectivity Construction Designs in Progress Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions
By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as an input for prioritizing projects. Table 17.1.1 displays the qualitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Qualitative Criteria range from 0 to 36 points. These points were added to the points received from the Quantitative Criteria, which are documented on the following pages.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

108

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.1 Qualitative Criteria and Scoring

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project Is the proposed project a continuation of any previously completed or current project providing added lanes to the specific transportation corridor? Governor's Road Improvement Program/National Highway System Is the project identified as a GRIP Corridor or part of the National Highway System? Supports Comprehensive Plan Does the proposed project support the Comprehensive Plan? Right of Way Protection Corridor Is the proposed project located in a developing area where right of way protection or early acquisition is needed? Connectivity Does the proposed project improve access between activity centers or link existing or proposed projects or provide regional connectivity? Construction Designs in Progress Are the design plans for the proposed project already complete or in the process of being completed? Parallel Relief Does the proposed project provide relief to parallel congested/ deficient corridors? Protection of Downtown Does the proposed project enhance the quality of life in downtown areas? Ideal Typical Section Does the proposed project address upgrading sub standard roadway segments? Development Conditions A - Is the proposed project located within a development area, or, is the specific project part of an approved plan for the redevelopment or revitalization of a developed area, or does the specific project provide access infrastructure to a mixed-use project area?

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

B - Does the proposed project maintain the distinct rural or suburban areas of the County?

No = 0 Yes = 2

C - Has the proposed project coordinated with, or support, land use decisions in the area?
Sub-Total Possible Points

No = 0 Yes = 2
36

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

Volume to Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate (Number of Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles
Traveled) to Statewide Crash Rate Average Number of Fatalities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

109

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.1.2 displays the quantitative criteria and the associated scoring. The total points established by the Quantitative Criteria range from 0 to 25 points.

Table 17.1.2 Quantitative Criteria and Scoring

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

Possible Points
0.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
1 3 25

The total points that a facility can receive for both the qualitative and quantitative criteria is 61 points. Based upon the identified improvements and the evaluations made during the quantitative and qualitative evaluation, a set of recommended near, mid, and long-term transportation projects was established. The scoring for the deficient corridors is displayed in Table 17.1.3.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

110

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
Segment Limits

Table 17.1.3 Corridor Prioritization

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Qualitative Criteria
Continuation of Existing Road Widening Project
Governor's Road Improvement Program / National Highway System
Part of Comprehensive Plan Right of Way Protection Corridor
Connectivit y Construction Designs in Progress
Parallel Relief Protection of Downtown
Ideal Typical Section Development Conditions Community Preservation Transportation Land Use Linkage Sub-Total Qualitative Criteria
Quantitative Criteria
Expected 2035 Volume/Capacity Ratio Ratio of Corridor Crash Rate to Statewide Crash
Rate Number of Fatalities Sub-Total Quantitative Criteria
Total Score for Project

Project

Ref.

Facility

From

To

No.

M68 US 41 M61 SR 83 M63 SR 42 M72 US 41 M59 US 23 M73 High Falls Road M65 Boxankle Road M66 Stokes Store Road M71 SR 83 M64 Brownlee Road M62 Sutton Road M60 Jenkins Road

Crawford Road (Lamar County) SR 42

US 41

US 23

I-75

Butts County Line

0.5 miles east of CR74/Hill Road Pea Ridge Road

I-75 interchange/Bibb County Line Butts County Line

I-75

Butts County Line

SR 42

High Falls Road

SR 42

SR 83

Abercrombie Road

Vaugh Road

SR 42

Butts County Line

SR 83

SR 42

I-75

SR 18

0-4 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-2 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-2 0-2 0-2
30.00 27.00 21.00 24.00 15.00 17.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 17.00 12.00 8.00

0.84 0.79 0 1.01 1.87 0 1.09 0.52 0 0.79 0.42 0 1.18 0.35 3 1.05 0.50 1 0.98 0.13 0 0.86 0.08 0 0.79 0.12 0 0.81 0.13 1 1.05 0.06 0 0.78 0.13 0

7.5 37.5

10.5 37.5

10 31

6.5 30.5

13.5 28.5

11 28

8.5 27.5

8

27

6.5 25.5

8

25

9.5 21.5

6.5 14.5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

111

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The prioritization resulted in the following ranking of top roadway improvements:

US 41 from Crawford Road (Lamar County) to SR 42 SR 83 from US 41 to US 23 SR 42 from I-75 to the Butts County Line US 41 from 0.5 miles east of CR 74/Hill Road to Pea Ridge Road US 23 from the I-75 interchange/Bibb County Line to the Butts County Line High Falls Road from I-75 to the Butts County Line Boxankle Road from SR 42 to High Falls Road Stokes Store Road from SR 42 to SR 83 SR 83 from Abercrombie Road to Vaugh Road Brownlee Road from SR 42 to the Butts County Line Sutton Road from SR 83 to SR 42 Jenkins Road from I-75 to SR 18

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

17.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritization

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

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

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means for prioritizing projects. Table 17.2.1 documents the scoring used for the

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

112

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

bicycle and pedestrian prioritization and Table 17.2.1 displays the scoring applied to the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Table 17.2.1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Scoring Criteria

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

Possible Points No = 0
Partial = 5 Yes = 10 None = 0 Injury = 5
Fatality = 10
No = 0 Yes = 5
No = 0 Yes = # * 2
No = 0 Yes = # * 2

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

Pedestrian: East side of Montpelier Road from Mary Pearsons High School to Pecan Circle US 41 sidewalks from 394 West Main Street to 539 West Main Street

Bicycle:

SR 42 from the Crawford County Line to the Butts County Line SR 83 from US 341 to the Jasper County Line SR 18 from US 41 to US 23

The remaining bicycle and pedestrian improvements scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

113

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Project Ref. No. M31
M33
M40

Road Montpelier Road Sidewalks
US 41 Sidewalks
SR 42 Sidewalks

Project Ref. No. M36 M35 M37 M32
M33
M34 M38

Route Name SR 42
SR 83
SR 18
Zebulon Road/ Estes Road Bicycle Lane Monroe/Bibb County Commercial Area Connection SR 74
Various Local Roads

From Mary Persons High School Entrance
394 West Main Street
3769 SR 42

Table 17.2.2 Pedestrian Prioritization

To
James Madison (new Subdivision) 539 West Main Street West Old Indian Springs Road

Priority Injury/

Previously

Area Fatality Connectivity

Id

O & D

Score 23 21 4

Table 17.2.3 Bicycle Prioritization

Description
Crawford County Line to Butts County Line US 341 to Jasper County Line US 41 to US 23 Zebulon Rd - Bibb Co. Line to Estes Rd; Estes Rd - Zebulon Rd to US 41

Priority Injury/

Previously

Area Fatality Connectivity

Id

O & D

Score 37 23 19
7

Klopfer Rd/ Old Popes Ferry/ Ferry Rd/ Pate

7

Rd/ New Forsyth Rd

US 341 to Bibb County Line

5

Including: Klopfer Rd; Taylor Rd; Shi Rd;

Zebulon Rd; Bagley Rd; Maynard Mill Rd;

Hopewell Rd; Brent Rd; Rock Quarry Rd/ Strounds Rd; Juliette; Collier Rd/ Smith Rd;

5

Johnstonville Rd; Higgins Mill Rd/ Boxankle Rd;

High Falls Rd; High Falls Park Rd; Blount Rd

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

114

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

17.3 Intersection Prioritization

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

What is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the facility? How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2003 and 2005? Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?

By comparing potential projects to these established criteria, it was possible to determine which projects scored highest against these critical measures. This information was used as a means of prioritizing projects. Table 17.3.1 documents the scoring used for the intersection prioritization and Table 17.3.2 displays the scoring applied to the proposed intersection improvements.

Table 17.3.1 Intersection Scoring Criteria

Corridor Prioritization Criteria
AADT What is the Average AADT at the intersection?
Crashes How many crashes occurred at the intersection between 2002 and 2004?
Fatality Did a fatality occur at the intersection? Previously Identified Improvement Was the intersection currently identified by the County/City? Improvement Opportunities Can operational issues be addressed without installing a traffic signal?

Possible Points
> 4,000 = 5 2,500 - 4,000 = 4 1,000 - 2,500 = 2
< 1,000 = 0 > 20 = 10
10 - 20 = 5 5 - 10 = 2 <5 = 0 No = 0 Yes = 10 No = 0 Yes = 5 No = 0 Yes = 5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

115

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 17.3.2 Intersection Prioritization

Project Ref. No.
M52 M50 M51 M57 M54 M56 M58 M49 M48 M53 M55

Road
SR 18 SR 83 US 41 SR 42 US 41 Rumble Road Rumble Road Boxankle Road Brent Road US 41 US 41

Intersection
SR 87/US 23 SR 87/US 23 SR 42 Indian Springs Drive King Road Evans Road US 41 SR 42 SR 83 Hill Road Old Rumble Road

Average AADT
2126 2126 3147 1490 484 307 372 2753 1937 465 623

Active Crash Sites
22 21 35 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 2

Fatalities
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

County / City List

Improvement Opportunity

Score
27 22 14 7 5 5 5 4 2 0 0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

116

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

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

SR 18 at SR 87/ US 23 SR 83 at SR 87/ US 23 US 41 at SR 42 SR 42 at Indian Springs Drive

The remaining intersections scored lower and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

17.4 Bridge Prioritization

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

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

Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek Tributary Reedy Creek Road at Tobesofkee Creek Montpelier Springs Road at Tobesofkee Creek Johnstonville Road at Rocky Creek Maynard's Mill Road at Little Tobesofkee Creek SR 83 at Towaliga River SR 74 at Echeconnee Creek High Falls Road at Towaliga River Lee King Road at Deer Creek US 23 at Tablers Creek Zebulon Road at Tobesofkee Creek CR 161 at Little Towaliga River Tributary SR 42 at Tobesofkee Creek SR 18 at Norfolk-Southern Railroad SR 83 at Tobesofkee Creek SR 42 at Little Tobesofkee Creek SR 18 at Ocmulgee River SR 83 at Little Tobesofkee Creek Boxankle Road at Little Towaliga River SR 42 at Yellow Creek SR 83 at Todd Creek US 23 at Rum Creek US 341 at Echeconnee Creek Rumble Road at Little Deer Creek

The remaining bridges have a higher sufficiency rating and, at this time, should be considered a lower priority.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

117

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

18.0 Funding

Several funding sources will be utilized to implement recommended projects. Eligibility for funds is typically dictated by the agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the transportation facility in question. Most major facilities in Monroe County are either operated by GDOT or the County. Should the County desire to accelerate projects on state owned and maintained facilities, it is highly likely that overmatching of local funds could accelerate the process.
Funding for most transportation projects in the County comes in part through GDOT. To understand the ability of GDOT to continue to provide funds to Monroe County, it is useful to understand the components of GDOT funding. Key components include:

Federal Title I Apportionments; State Motor Fuels Taxes;

} Accounts for approximately 98% of the budget

State License Tag Fees;

State Title Registrations;

State Motor Carrier Fuels Tax;

State Personal Property Tax; and,

Tax Allocation Districts.

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

While GDOT funding components have positive growth rates, the Department is experiencing some funding challenges. Construction costs have increased up to 65% over the past two to three years forcing the Department to continually assess which projects it can reasonably fund. Simultaneous to this study, the State's Project Prioritization Process for transportation is under study, and it is expected that the outcomes will significantly impact the amount and type of projects that GDOT funds in the future. It is anticipated that in the future local funding sources will become more significant. A review of project implementation shows that locations with a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) have been in the best position to leverage funds and ultimately construct projects.

18.1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation

A substantial portion of GDOT funding comes from the Federal Government through Federal Title I Apportionments. The primary funding source for Title I is the Federal gasoline tax collected at the state level. The US Congress authorizes federal transportation funding to the states and other public entities, generally every six years. The previous authorization was known as the "Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century" or TEA 21. The reauthorization of TEA 21 in August 2005 was SAFETEA-LU

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

118

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

which authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005 through 2009.

Based on the reauthorization, Table 18.1 illustrates funding levels for major highway transportation programs and apportionments and allocations to Georgia over the five-year time frame (FY 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009).

Table 18.1 Estimated Five-Year SAFETEA-LU Highway Apportionments and Allocations

Area

Georgia

Interstate Maintenance

$922

National Highway System

$859

Surface Transportation System

$1,119

Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation

$272

Congress Mitigation & Air Quality

$186

Appalachian Development Highway System

$90

Recreational Trails

$10

Metropolitan Planning

$37

Safety

$141

Rail Highway Crossings

$30

Safe Route to Schools

$18

High Priority Projects

$350

Equity Bonus

$2,324

Total

$6,356

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

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

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

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

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

119

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

develop corridor management plans to protect the natural and cultural assets along the route.

Transportation Enhancement Program (TE Funds) - Currently, the TE Grant Program provides federal transportation funds through GDOT to local governments through a competitive process for non-highway projects. Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, multi-use trails, the preservation of historic sites related to transportation, etc.

18.2 Federal Funds for Public Transportation

The need for better mobility and access to transportation extends far beyond city limits. In Monroe County, a very limited amount of public transportation services are available for people who cannot or choose not to drive their private autos. As the population grows and demographic trends change with a larger percentage of the population being elderly, the needs for special public transit to serve seniors and disabled people will grow.

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

As Monroe County evolves, the County should monitor its needs for local and regional public transportation services and identify opportunities to tap into the available federal sources for these programs. Table 18.2 shows the estimated federal funds included in SAFETEA-LU. Generally, for public transit projects proposed in Monroe County, the federal funding programs will be the Non-Urbanized Area Program; the Rural Transit Assistance Program; Transit for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Job Access and Reverse Commute; and SAFETEA-LU's New Freedom Program.

Table 18.2

Four-Year Apportionments and Allocations for Public Transportation

Area

Georgia

US

Urban Areas

$308

$12,723

Fixed Guideway Motorization

$150

$6,076

Non-Urbanized Areas

$62

$1,880

Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)

$1

$29

Job Access/Reverse Commute Program

$13

$603

Elderly & Persons with Disabilities

$12

$490

New Freedoms

$10

$339

Metropolitan Planning

$9

$343

State Planning

$2

$72

Total

$567

$22,598

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

120

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

18.3 State Funding Sources for Transportation
State funding for transportation projects in Georgia is derived from the following sources:
State tax on motor fuels (7.5 cents per gallon) (provides majority of revenue); State license tag fees; State title registrations; State motor carrier fuels tax; and, State personal property tax.
It is also useful to note that Georgia currently has one of the nation's lowest state motor fuels taxes, excluding sales taxes. Even when including the additional 4% sales tax, Georgia's motor fuel taxes are the third lowest in the US.
A major element of Georgia's Statewide Transportation Plan is the Governor's Road Improvement Program (GRIP). The program is viewed as a priority funding program for GDOT. The GRIP program was started in 1989 through action by the Georgia Legislature. The program's goal is to connect 95% of the state's cities with a population of 2,500 or more to the Interstate Highway System through a four-lane facility.
18.4 Local Funding Sources for Transportation
Local governments (cities and counties) receive revenues from a number of sources to support the public facilities and services they provide to citizens. These sources include federal and state funds, "own source" funds, such as property tax revenues and other monies, and discretionary grant funds from federal and/or state agencies.
Increasingly, counties in Georgia, like Monroe County, have enacted a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax, or SPLOST, to fund specifically identified capital projects. SPLOST taxes require voter approval and are time-limited. SPLOST funds can be used for transportation projects, including matching federal and/or state transportation funds. A portion of Monroe County's SPLOST funding goes to transportation improvements. Cities and counties may also use Local Option Sales Taxes (LOST) for transportation purposes, including providing local matching funds for GDOT projects. Other local sources of transportation funding include impact fees or other exactions paid by developers according to local ordinances and the creation of self-taxing entities, such as Community Improvement Districts. In addition, counties in Georgia may issue general obligation bonds to support transportation capital projects.
County governments use a portion of their own revenues for transportation-related purposes, including capital projects, and operations and maintenance of transportation facilities within their own jurisdiction. A key determinant of the ability to improve an area's transportation facilities is the availability of local funds to match state and/or federal transportation funds. Data on the County's expenditures for transportation were not available.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

121

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

According to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the County's "own source" revenues, including revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, excise and special use taxes and service charges and fees were estimated. Own source revenues are relevant because a portion of these funds could be provided as local matching funds for federally and state-funded transportation improvements or for locally-funded projects, depending on the County's other funding priorities. Table 18.4 illustrates this data. In 2004, Monroe County had per capita own source amounts of $807, which is greater than the statewide average of $631.

Table 18.4 Own Source Revenues

County

2000 Own Source
Revenues

Monroe County

$17.3 million

* Statewide per capita amount equals $631. Source: Georgia Department of Community Affairs

2004 Own Source
Revenues
$18.9 million

% Change from 2000
to 2004
9.4%

Per Capita Amount* $807

18.5 GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

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

In its 2008-2011 STIP, GDOT estimated that nearly $9.5 billion were allocated for various transportation functions throughout Georgia. Table 18.5.1 shows the allocation of these funds across major functional areas.

Table 18.5.1 STIP Fund Allocations (2008 2011)

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

Amount Allocated $1,273,880,000 $3,239,680,000 $969,770,000 $560,049,000 $911,204,000 $495,397,000 $957,176,000 $1,052,411,000 $9,459,567,000

Percent of Total 13.47% 34.25% 10.25% 5.92% 9.63% 5.24% 10.12% 11.13% 100.00%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

122

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Additionally, GDOT develops a Construction Work Program, a listing of projects expected to be funded within a six-year period (current year plus five subsequent years). The fourth, fifth, and sixth years of the CWP are viewed as an expression of GDOT's intention to proceed with the projects as funding becomes available to develop the projects (complete engineering design, acquire right-of-way, if needed, and construct the improvement). These projects are documented in this Plan.

According to GDOT's latest STIP, a total of 2 major projects for Monroe County have been programmed utilizing approximately $10.5 million in federal and state funds. Table 18.5.2 summarizes these programmed amounts.

Table 18.5.2 GDOT 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Project SR 18 passing lanes SR 19 from CR 73/King Road to .5 mile east of CR 74/Hill Road passing lanes TOTAL PROGRAMMED FUNDS

Total Funds Programmed
$7,825,980
$2,710,000
$10,535,980

18.6 Future Transportation Funding Needs
A combination of federal, state, local, and private funding sources should be pursued for individual projects to improve transportation facilities in the study area. These sources should be pursued depending on GDOT (state), regional and local investment priorities considering the safety, convenience, and economic benefits of the projects throughout the planning period.
18.7 Effective Use of the Plan
This LRTP Document identifies potential projects for implementation based on local transportation needs and verified by technical analysis. This is an important step towards implementation but additional steps are necessary in order to advance projects into the Georgia Department of Transportation's Project Development Process and / or to identify and solidify funding commitments from the state, if desired. The project implementation process for Georgia outside of an MPO area begins with support from local elected officials. Each County should begin with a thorough review of their LRTP priority projects. If funding is desired beyond what is available locally, the following steps are recommended:
Step 1: Gather letters of support from local elected officials highlighting the need for the project(s) and the merits of the project(s).
Step 2: Assess the level of funding support that may be provided by the County as a local match and / or for specific project phases (i.e. PE, ROW, etc.).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

123

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Step 3: Contact your GDOT District Office and coordinate with the GDOT District Engineer regarding the project. Depending on project type, the GDOT District may know of state aid resources that could be used for feasibility studies and potentially for additional match funding sources.
Step 4: The GDOT District Office typically serves as the project sponsor and submits a project information package to GDOT's Project Nominating Review Committee (PNRC) for consideration. The information included in the long-range plan and the project sheet, in addition to any supporting information resulting from additional study, is included in this package.
Step 5: Projects approved by the PNRC are programmed into GDOT's Long-Range Program. As funding is identified, the project will move into GDOT's six-year Construction Work Program (CWP).

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

124

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Monroe County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Technical Memorandum August 2008

19.0 Conclusions

Growth in Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties has resulted in increased travel demand through the 3-County Region. GDOT Office of Planning, in conjunction with these three Counties, initiated the Butts, Jones, Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study to develop a LRTP to serve the 3-County Region through the planning horizon, 2035. Recommended projects for Monroe County were identified by analyzing current transportation deficiencies and selected based on local goals and objectives with the intent of enhancing the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Efforts were taken to ensure that proposed projects impacted the community as little as possible while providing maximum benefits. Analysis was conducted to ensure that the projects benefited and did not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. Ultimately, the study identified multi-modal improvements and prioritized project implementation in the form of a Long Range Transportation Plan.
The study team coordinated with GDOT, Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, the City of Forsyth, area residents and business leaders, and other partners in the planning, development, and review of potential improvements. Additionally, a comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was conducted. This ensured that alternative transportation improvements were not only coordinated with various governments, but afforded individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating potential improvements to each County's transportation network.
The end product for this study is this LRTP document, providing for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through Monroe County through the horizon year of this study, 2035. Interim year analysis was conducted for the year 2015. As part of this effort existing and future operating conditions were documented for the following modes: highways and bridges, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, freight, transit, railways and airports.
This document should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that the planning factors and other assumptions are still relevant and effectively address transportation needs. This document should serve as the foundation for Monroe County's transportation planning efforts and a starting point for addressing transportation needs.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

125

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix A
Data Collection Technical Memorandum

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Data Collection
The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study includes multi-modal analysis of existing conditions and future transportation needs related to roadways, bridges, public transportation, freight, airports, railroads, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities for development of a long-range transportation plan with a horizon year of 2035. HNTB, with assistance from the Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) Office of Planning, has worked with various contacts at GDOT, the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC), McIntosh Trail RDC, Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties, and City governments as appropriate to obtain relevant information for use in the existing and future conditions analysis. These data sources include transportation related data and statistics, generated at the federal, state, and local levels, County and local comprehensive plans, existing and future land use plans, and special studies related to transportation and development projects, if applicable. This memorandum provides a summary of the information collected for use in the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study.
Land Use, Socioeconomic, Growth and Development Data
Locally developed comprehensive plans provide information on both existing and future land use within each county and local jurisdiction. The Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study will factor in goals, objectives, and policies associated with each relevant comprehensive plan in order to develop a transportation plan that is consistent with the broader goals and objectives of each county and appropriately integrates future growth plans and projections. Information including existing zoning, local developments, county employment, socioeconomic characteristics, and school related data is also important to understanding county land use and needs related to future growth.
Table 1 summarizes the relevant materials related to land use, growth, and development that have been collected for use in the plan's development.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 1: Land Use, Employment, Growth, and Development Data Sources

Document/Dataset Butts County Draft Comprehensive Plan

Source McIntosh Trail RDC

Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Assessment and Community Participation Program Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jones County and City of Gray - Community Agenda Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for Monroe County Monroe County Existing Land Use Map Monroe County Future Lane Use Map Joint Comprehensive Plan Update for Monroe County and the Cities of Forsyth and Culloden Draft Community Agenda for the City of Forsyth City of Forsyth Zoning Map The Middle Georgia Joint Regional Plan And Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Butts County Generalized Water Map Rosehill DRI Information School enrollment 2005-2006 County Employment Data
Georgia K-12 Schools (2006) Census Blockgroups (2001) Census Journey to Work Data

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Middle Georgia RDC
Butts County GDOT GA Dept of Education GA Dept of Labor GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse U.S. Census Bureau

Format Microsoft Word Document JPEG Images PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Document PDF Document
PDF Map PDF Document PDF Map/DB Tables Microsoft Excel Files GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile Database Tables

Roadways and Bridges

Roadway characteristics, functional classification data, and traffic counts are essential to the existing and future needs analysis as well as the development of the travel demand model. This information was obtained from GDOT's Office of Transportation Data (OTD). Bridge sufficiency and crash data were also obtained from GDOT for use in the analysis of existing and future deficiencies. Planned and programmed projects currently included in GDOT's long-range and construction work program (CWP) for each of the three counties were also obtained for analysis.

Table 2 summarizes data source related to roadway and bridge information.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 2: Roadway and Bridge Data Sources

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Document/Dataset
Functional Classification Maps- Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Road Characteristics Data Bridge Sufficiency Data CARE Crash Data Macon-Bibb Travel Demand Model ARC Travel Demand Model Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts Special Studies Counts for High Falls Rd and SR 16
Construction Work Program (CWP) Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Pre-construction Status Report Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties South Jackson Bypass Concept Report and Potential Corridor Concept Layout on aerial photography Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application - Butts County Roads & Highways Tiger (2005) Bridges (2000)

Source GDOT OTD
GDOT OTD GDOT GDOT GDOT ARC GDOT OTD GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
GDOT
Butts County
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse

Format PDF Maps
Database Tables Database Tables Database Tables Network Files Network Files Database Tables Database Tables/PDF Docs Database Tables
PDF Document
PDF Document
PDF Document
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

Other Modes

Data relevant to Airports, Railroads, Freight, Public Transportation, Bicycle, and Pedestrian was collected and compiled to support the development of the multi-modal elements of the plan. Data sources are presented by mode in Tables 3 through 7.

Table 3: Aviation Data Sources

Document/Dataset Airports -Butts & Monroe (1997) General Airport Information Locations/Characteristics
Table 4: Railroad Data Sources

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT

Format
GIS Shapefile Document

Document/Dataset
Railroads (2000) Rail lines operating, miles of track, location of crossings, number of trains per day/week
Georgia Rail Freight Plan (2000) List of rail crossings with crossing id number, type of crossing, location, AADT, safety warning features Railroad crossing planned improvements (CWP, TIP)
Rail crossing accident data Commuter and Intercity Rail Plan, latest update

Source GA GIS Clearinghouse GDOT
GDOT GDOT
GDOT FRA/GDOT GDOT/GRTA

Format GIS Shapefile Document
Document Database Tables
Database Tables Database Tables Document

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5: Freight Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Freight Routes Truck Classification Counts Freight Traffic Generators

Source
GDOT/STAA GDOT GDOT

Table 6: Public Transportation Data Sources

Format
Map Database Tables GIS Shapefile

Document/Dataset Population data including current and projected population, population aging, disabled population, low-income population Regional Transit Executive Summary Coordinated Human Services Plan
Park and Ride and other commuting options available/needed in county

Source
County Comprehensive Plans / US Census

Format Database Tables

McIntosh Trail RDC McIntosh Trail RDC/GA Department of Human Resources GDOT Rideshare /McIntosh Trail RDC

Document Document
Document

Table 7: Bicycle/Pedestrian Data Sources

Document/Dataset
Existing Sidewalk Network -City of Gray McIntosh Trail Region Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan Middle Georgia Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Source Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC
Middle Georgia RDC

Format PDF Map Document
Document

Middle Georgia RDC / Service Area 6 Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Five Year Plan & Long Range Plan Middle Georgia RDC- Existing State Bike Route System Butts County Community AssessmentExecutive Summary and Data Appendix Butts County Recreational Paths Butts County Recreation Master Plan Butts County FY 08-09 Transportation Enhancement Narrative

Middle Georgia RDC
Middle Georgia RDC Butts County Butts County Butts County Butts County

PDF Map
PDF Map Document Document Document Document

Base Mapping

Additional shapefiles available from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse were downloaded and utilized for base mapping purposes to illustrate geographical features and characteristics within the study area.

These features are included in Table 8 below.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix
Table 8: Base Map Data Sources
Document/Dataset County Boundaries (2001) Lakes & Ponds (2001) Streams & Rivers (2001) Census Landmark Features (2000) Community Facilities Conservation Land Georgia Place Features - Physical and cultural geographic features Forest Lands

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Source
GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse GA GIS Clearinghouse USGS

Format
GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile GIS Shapefile

USGS

GIS Shapefile

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Appendix

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Appendix B
Project Sheets

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 23

PRIORITY:

High

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from SR 16 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Bibb County)

P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI): 30.10 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 16

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $12,040,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$12,040,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,495 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035

Butts/ Monroe/ Bibb
4 13,922

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$12,040,000 $0

$108,360,000

$0 $108,360,000

$108,360,000 $120,400,000

$0 $0 $0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 23, from SR 16, west of the City of Jackson, to the I-75 interchange in Bibb County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and enhanced connectivity parallel to I-75. This project is needed to maintain the efficient movement of people and goods. Coordination is required with Bibb County and the Macon Area Transportation Study. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening US 23 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
US 23 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. Based on LOS, the highest priority phase is from SR 42 (Butts County) to SR 83 (Monroe County), followed by SR 18 (Monroe County) to the I-75 interchange (Bibb County), then SR 83 to SR 18, and finally SR 16 to SR 42 in Butts County.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B34, M59

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Jenkins Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: I-75 to SR 18

LENGTH (MI): 3.50 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: I-75

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $1,400,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$1,400,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

2 2,298 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
7,257

SR 18

FY 20

TOTAL

$1,400,000

$0

$0

$12,600,000

$12,600,000

$12,600,000

$14,000,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Jenkins Road from I-75 to SR 18. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening Jenkins Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Jenkins Road is functionally classified as a minor collector with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M60

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 83 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: US 41 to US 23

LENGTH (MI): 11.20 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: US 41

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $4,480,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$4,480,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

2 4,024 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
14,564

US 23

FY 20

TOTAL

$4,480,000

$0

$0

$40,320,000

$40,320,000

$40,320,000

$44,800,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 83 from US 41 to US 23. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening SR 83 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 83 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural with some commerical and residential use near US 41 in Forsyth. SR 83 is recommended as an OnRoad Bicycle Route by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M61

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Sutton Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 83 to SR 42

LENGTH (MI): 2.40 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 83

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$960,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$960,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

2 392 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
7,794

SR 42

FY 20

TOTAL

$960,000

$0

$0

$8,640,000

$8,640,000

$8,640,000

$9,600,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Sutton Road from SR 83 to SR 42. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people and provide enhanced connectivity between SR 42 and SR 83. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS F in 2035. Widening Sutton Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Sutton Road is functionally classified as a local road with a posted speed limit of 35 - 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M62

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from Mt. Vernon Church Road (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 13.55 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Mt. Vernon Church Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $4,878,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$4,878,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,926 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
12,361

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$4,878,000

$0

$0

$48,780,000

$48,780,000

$48,780,000

$54,200,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC: MG & MT RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 42, from Mt. Vernon Church Road, southeast of the City of Flovilla, to the I-75 interchange, northwest of the City of Forsyth, in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and by providing enhanced connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to provide north and south connectivity through Butts and Monroe Counties to I-75. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening SR 42 to 4lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 42 is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. An On-road Bicycle Route would be constructed with the roadway shoulders widened 2 to 4 feet during resurfacing.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B40, M63

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Brownlee Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from Mountain View Road (Butts County) to SR 42 (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 4.71 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Mountain View Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $1,884,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$1,884,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 1,906 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY:

Low

P.I. NOS:

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
9,487

SR 42

FY 20

TOTAL

$1,884,000

$0

$0

$16,956,000

$16,956,000

$16,956,000

$18,840,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Brownlee Road from Mountain View Road to SR 42 in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose is to provide connectivity to SR 42. It is anticipated that the route north of the proposed improvements will satisfactorily serve current and future traffic needs and not require an additional capacity project. There is a proposed project to widen SR 42 at the southern limits of this project. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening Brownlee Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Brownlee Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B37, M64

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Boxankle Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 42 to High Falls Road

LENGTH (MI): 9.30 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 42

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $3,720,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$3,720,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 1,331 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
9,684

High Falls Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$3,720,000

$0

$0

$33,480,000

$33,480,000

$33,480,000

$37,200,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Boxankle Road from SR 42 to High Falls Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to provide connectivity between High Falls Road and SR 42 and provide congestion relief to parallel routes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening Boxankle Road to 4lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Boxankle Road is functionally classified as a minor collector with a posted speed limit that varies between 35 - 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural. The northern portion of Boxankle Road is recommended as an OnRoad Bicycle Route with suggested installation of "Share the Road" signage.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M65

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Stokes Store Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SR 42 to SR 83

LENGTH (MI): 7.40 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: SR 42

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $2,960,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$2,960,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 526 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
7,955

SR 83

FY 20

TOTAL

$2,960,000

$0

$0

$26,640,000

$26,640,000

$26,640,000

$29,600,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen Stokes Store Road from SR 42 to SR 83. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and connectivity. The need and purpose of this project is to provide connectivity between SR 42 and SR 83 and provide congestion relief to parallel routes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening Stokes Store Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
Stokes Store Road is functionally classified as a minor collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M66

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Crawford Road (Lamar County) to SR 42

PRIORITY:

High

P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI): 6.70 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Crawford Road (Lamar County)

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $2,680,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$2,680,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 5,017 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe/Lamar 4
10,955

SR 42

FY 20

TOTAL

$2,680,000

$0

$0

$24,120,000

$24,120,000

$24,120,000

$26,800,000

$0

$0 $0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS
This improvement proposes to widen US 41 from Crawford Road (Lamar County) to SR 42. This project demonstrates logical termini due to an extension of an existing passing lane project and connectivity to the planned widening to Barnesville in the Lamar, Pike and Upson Regional Transportation Study. Coordination with Lamar County is required. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening US 41 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
US 41 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 - 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural, with areas of residential and commercial in near SR 42 in Forsyth. US 41 is recommended as an On-Road Bicycle Route in Forsyth by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M68

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 83 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Abercrombie Road to Vaugh Road

LENGTH (MI): 7.90 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: Abercrombie Road

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $3,160,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$3,160,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 5,104 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
9,780

Vaugh Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$3,160,000

$0

$0

$28,440,000

$28,440,000

$28,440,000

$31,600,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen SR 83 from Abercrombie Road to Vaugh Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. It is anticipated that the routes to the north and south will satisfactorily service current and future traffic needs and not require additional capacity projects. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening SR 83 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
SR 83 is functionally classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural. SR 83 is recommended as an On-Road Bicycle Route by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M71

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd to Pea Ridge Road

LENGTH (MI): 2.40 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: 0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

$960,000

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$960,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

2 2,455 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Monroe 4
10,822

Pea Ridge Road

FY 20

TOTAL

$960,000

$0

$0

$8,640,000

$8,640,000

$8,640,000

$9,600,000

$0

$0

$0

RDC:

MGRDC

COMMENTS

This improvement proposes to widen US 41 from 0.5 miles east of CR 74/ Hill Rd to Pea Ridge Road. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion and an extension of an existing passing lane project. The need and purpose of this project is to maintain the efficient movement of goods and people. It is anticipated that the routes to the north and south will satisfactorily service current and future traffic and not require additional capacity projects. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS D in 2035. Widening US 41 to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.
US 41 is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Land use along this section is primarily agricultural.

A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

M72

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: High Falls Road and England Chapel Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from US 23 (Butts County) to I-75 interchange (Monroe County)

LENGTH (MI): 13.32 NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN: US 23

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR. $4,795,200

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT COST

$4,795,200

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

2 4,609 FUNDING:
END: FY 18
$0
8

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

Medium

TIP #: COUNTY:
PLANNED: 2035:

Butts/Monroe 4
11,959

I-75 interchange

FY 20

TOTAL

$4,795,200

$0

$0

$47,952,000

$47,952,000

$47,952,000

$53,280,000

$0

$0 $0

RDC: MT & MG RDC

COMMENTS
This improvement proposes to widen England Chapel Road from US 23, west of the City of Jenkinsburg, and High Falls Road from SR 16 in Butts County to the I-75 interchange in Monroe County. This project demonstrates logical termini due to forecasted congestion. The need and purpose of this project is to provide enhanced connectivity and relieve congestion on parallel routes. Without improvements, this facility will operate at LOS E in 2035. Widening High Falls Road to 4-lanes is projected to improve operations to LOS C in 2035.

High Falls Road is functionally classified as a major collector with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Land use along this section is primarily a mixture of agricultural and residential property. High Falls State Park is located in Monroe County along the projects limits. In Butts County, a On-Road Bicycle Route is recommended on High Falls Road by widening the shoulders 2 to 4-feet shoulders during pavement resurfacing and installing "Share the Road" signage. In Monroe County, only "Share the Road" signage would be installed; no shoulder widenings are planned.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

B32, B35, M73

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Brent Road & SR 83 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection Realignment of Brent Road and SR 83

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Brent Road and SR 83 was identified during the study process as having potential alignment and sight distance issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M48

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Boxankle Road & SR 42 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of Boxankle Road and SR 42

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Boxankle Road and SR 42 was identified during the study process as having potential sight distance and alignment issues. This intersection has experienced 0 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M49

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 83 & SR 87/ US 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 83 and SR 87/ US 23

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 83 with SR 87/ US23 may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 21 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M50

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 & SR 42 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at US 41 and SR 42

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 41 with SR 42 may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 35 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M51

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 18 & SR 87/ US 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection improvements at SR 18 and SR 87/ US 23

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 18 with SR 87/ US23 may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 22 crashes and 2 fatalities from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a high priority through the prioritization process of this study.

High
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M52

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 & Hill Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of US 41 and Hill Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 41 with Hill Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 1 crash from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M53

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 & King Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of US 41 and King Road

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:
TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 41 with King Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 1 crash from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M54

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: US 41 & Old Rumble Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of US 41 and Old Rumble Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of US 41 with Old Rumble Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 2 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a low priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Low
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M55

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Rumble Road & Evans Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of Rumble Road and Evans Road

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Rumble Road with Evans Road may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 2 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M56

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: SR 42 & Indian Springs Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of SR 42 and Indian Springs Drive

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of SR 42 with Indian Springs Drive may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 2 crashes from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M57

OFFICE OF PLANNING

PROJECT NAME: Rumble Road & US 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Intersection realignment of Rumble Road and US 41

PRIORITY: P.I. NOS:

LENGTH (MI):

NUMBER OF LANES

EXISTING:

TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)

2006:

LOCAL RD #:

ST/US#:

MILE POINT

BEGIN:

PROJECT PHASE

FY 12

FY 14

FY 16

PRELIMINARY ENGR.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

CONSTRUCTION

$250,000

PROJECT COST

$250,000

$0

$0

FEDERAL COST

STATE COST

LOCAL COST

DOT DISTRICT #:

3

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

NA FUNDING:
END:
FY 18

TIP #: COUNTY: PLANNED:
2035:
FY 20

$0

$0

8

RDC:

COMMENTS

The intersection of Rumble Road with US 41 may have safety issues. This intersection has experienced 1 crash from 2004 to 2006. It is recommended that a licensed professional engineer review this intersection.
A multi-modal transportation study for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties was completed in August 2008 to evaluate the need and feasibility for transportation needs across the County. This project is considered a medium priority through the prioritization process of this study.

Medium
Monroe
NA
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
$250,000 $250,000
$0 $0 $0 MGRDC

M58

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Model Development
August 2008

Model Development

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

HIGHWAY NETWORK SETUP......................................................................................... 3 Initial Network Development.......................................................................................... 3 Supplemental Network Variables .................................................................................. 5 Variables Automatically Added to the Networks............................................................ 7

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

TRIP GENERATION MODULE ......................................................................................... 9 Trip Purpose for I-I Trips ............................................................................................... 9 Model TAZ Structure and Socioeconomic Data .......................................................... 10 Household Stratification Model.................................................................................... 13 Trip Production Submodel........................................................................................... 16 Trip Attraction Submodel............................................................................................. 19 External-External (E-E) Trips ...................................................................................... 20 Balancing Productions and Attractions........................................................................ 23 Trip Generation Validation........................................................................................... 24

4.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION MODULE ..................................................................................... 26

5.0 MODE SPLIT .................................................................................................................. 30

6.0 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................ 31

7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

BASE YEAR CALIBRATION ........................................................................................... 32 Link Volume Percent Deviation ................................................................................... 32 R-Square / Scatter Plot ............................................................................................... 33 Percent Root Mean Square Error................................................................................ 34 Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) ..................................................................................... 35 Screenline Analysis ..................................................................................................... 35

8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3

FUTURE ALTERNATIVE TESTING ............................................................................... 38 Highway Network Update............................................................................................ 38 Socioeconomic Data Projections................................................................................. 39 External Station Traffic Projections ............................................................................. 40

APPENDIX

Appendix A: 2006 Socioeconomic Data Appendix B: Productions and Attractions by TAZ Appendix C: Link Volume Percent Deviation Appendix D: Link-by-Link Volume of Screenlines

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

i

Model Development

LIST OF FIGURES

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 1.0: Study Area .................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2.0: Highway Network........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3.2: TAZ System and Boundaries.................................................................................... 11 Figure 7.1: Traffic Assignment Percent Deviation....................................................................... 33 Figure 7.2: Scatter Plot of Modeled Volume versus Traffic Counts ............................................ 34 Figure 7.5: Screenlines ............................................................................................................... 37

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

ii

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Attributes from Road Classification Database ............................................................. 3 Table 2.2: Facility Type Attributes................................................................................................. 6 Table 2.3.1: Variables Automatically Added to the Networks ....................................................... 7 Table 2.3.2: Area Type Definitions................................................................................................ 7 Table 2.3.3: Hourly Capacities per Lane....................................................................................... 8 Table 2.3.4: Speed Matrix (MPH) ................................................................................................. 8 Table 3.2: DOL/GDOT Employment Equivalency Table............................................................. 12 Table 3.3.1: Household Size Factors CTPP Lookup Table ..................................................... 14 Table 3.3.2: Income Factors CTPP Lookup Table ................................................................... 15 Table 3.3.3: Composite Household Factors Augusta Household Survey ................................ 16 Table 3.4.1: Default GDOT Daily Trip Production Rates ............................................................ 17 Table 3.4.2: Resident County to Workplace County ................................................................... 18 Table 3.6.1: Percent Trucks by Functional Classification ........................................................... 21 Table 3.6.2: Percentages of I-E and E-E Trips ........................................................................... 22 Table 3.8.1: Trip Generation Validation ...................................................................................... 25 Table 4.1: Average Trip Length (Minutes) .................................................................................. 28 Table 4.2: Terminal Times (Minutes) in 3-County Model ............................................................ 28 Table 4.3: Calibrated Exponential Function Parameters ............................................................ 29 Table 4.4: Average Trip Lengths by Purpose (in minutes).......................................................... 29 Table 5.0: Vehicle Occupancy Rate............................................................................................ 30 Table 7.3: Percent Root Mean Square Error Statistics ............................................................... 35 Table 7.4: 3-County Model VMT ................................................................................................. 35 Table 7.5: Screenline Analysis.................................................................................................... 36 Table 8.1: Committed Project List............................................................................................... 38 Table 8.2: Socioeconomic Data .................................................................................................. 39 Table 8.3: External Station Volume Forecast ............................................................................. 40

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

iii

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), in conjunction with Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, is developing a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3County region through the planning horizon year of 2035. Since there is no county-level travel demand model at the county level for the 3-County region, a travel demand model was developed as part of this planning process to represent the transportation network of the study area and to assist with analysis of future operation conditions. This document addresses the model development process.

The primary objectives of the 3-County Model are to:

Accurately reflect current travel demands; Accurately predict the travel demands in the 2015 interim year and 2035 horizon
year; and, Utilize GIS and travel demand modeling merging capabilities in order to
simplify/automate application procedures and produce easily understood graphic results.

The development of the travel demand model was performed in TP+/CUBE software, and is consistent in function and operation with the family of models currently maintained by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning.

In the Butts, Jones & Monroe Multi-Modal Transportation Study, the 3-County travel demand model was applied to identify transportation network performance characteristics and for testing and quantifying potential transportation investment improvement scenarios.

Like other GDOT models, the 3-County Model has the following main modules:

Highway Network Module; Trip Generation Module; Trip Distribution Module; and, Traffic Assignment Module.

Descriptions of each module are presented in the subsequent sections of this technical memorandum. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1.0.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

1

Model Development

Figure 1.0: Study Area

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

2

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Highway Network Setup

The highway network for the 3-County Model contains a variety of information about the roadway system. Some of this information is manually coded onto the highway links while other information was automatically added to the network using GIS. The purpose of the highway network is to provide accurate routing paths based on the minimum time to travel from one traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to another.

The final network was reviewed and approved by GDOT. It includes all roadways with functional classifications of minor collector or greater, except for several low-volume collector links located in rural areas with slow growth. All roads with traffic count stations were included in the model highway network. A graphical representation of the model highway network is presented in Figure 2.0.

2.1 Initial Network Development

The GDOT Office of Transportation Data (OTD) maintains road attribute data for all roads within the state on the Road Classification (RC) Mirror system. The highway networks for the 3-County Model relied heavily on the RC database for location, geometric, and operational characteristics. Table 2.1 displays RC data that was added as link-level attributes into the 3-County Model.

Table 2.1: Attributes from Road Classification Database

Attribute Number of Lanes
Divided Direction County FIPS Route Number Road Name Speed Limit HPMS Functional Classification Traffic Count Station ID # Base Year Direction Count Base Year Total AADT Distance A-node B-node

Data Type Integer Text Integer Integer Integer Text Integer Integer Text Integer Integer Double Integer Integer

Method Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Calculated Calculated Calculated

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

3

Model Development

Figure 2.0: Highway Network

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

4

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.2 Supplemental Network Variables
In addition to the RC data, two variables were added manually:
FTYPE GDOT facility type; and SCREENLINE screenline.
These two data attributes are described below.
Facility Type HNTB initially determined the roadways' facility types by utilizing GDOT's Functional Classification maps as a starting point. Thereafter, similar to other model data, HNTB checked with GDOT and County staff to confirm the initial facility type assignments and to make any necessary changes. The facilities types used in the 3-County Model are as follows:
Interstate-Freeway - Limited Access Highway Mainline (includes Interstates) Serves trips traveling longer distances. These facilities are not intended or designed to provide direct access to land use activities. Access is limited to interchange points.
Principal Arterial Type 1 - Major road with a higher emphasis on serving thru trips and less emphasis on providing access to adjacent property. Common characteristics include fewer curb cuts, raised medians and limited signal density. Type 1 Principal Arterials should have a divided median. Type 1 Principal Arterials have higher speeds and/or more lanes than Type 2 Principal Arterials.
Principal Arterial Type 2 - Major road with a higher emphasis on serving thru trips and less emphasis on providing access to adjacent property. Common characteristics include fewer curb cuts, raised medians and limited signal density. Type 2 Principal Arterials do not have to have a divided median.
Minor Arterial Type 1 - Major road with a balance of serving thru trips and providing access to adjacent property. Access to Minor Arterials is primarily from the Collector system. Type 1 Minor Arterials have higher speeds and/or more lanes than Type 2 Minor Arterials.
Minor Arterial Type 2 - Major road with a balance of serving thru trips and providing access to adjacent property. Access to Minor Arterials is primarily from the Collector system.
Collector Type 1 - Minor road with a primary purpose of providing connectivity to/from arterial highways and/or to serve property. These facilities provide connectivity between arterial highways and commercial areas.
Collector Type 2 - Minor road with a primary purpose of providing connectivity to/from arterial highways and/or to serve property. These facilities provide connectivity between arterial highways and residential areas.
Local Roads - A local street is intended to provide direct property access and is not intended to serve through traffic.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

5

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

On-Ramp - On-Ramp from a controlled intersection Off-Ramp - Off-Ramp to a controlled intersection Centroid Connector - Connects TAZ centroids to the analysis network. A
centroid connector is a facility that represents local streets and access points to the network within the zone. The connectors should be connected to the lower design facilities within the zone such as collectors. Typically there can be 1 to 4 connectors for each zone, but additional ones may be added if deemed necessary. The number of connectors depends on the size and shape of the TAZ as well as the location of local facilities and activity in the zone. Centroid connectors should not connect directly to intersections but rather to mid-block locations.
Table 2.2 displays the coding attributes used for facility types in the 3-County model.
Table 2.2: Facility Type Attributes

Code

Facility Type

1

Interstate

7

Freeway Entrance Ramp

8

Freeway Exit Ramp

11

Principal Arterial Class I

12

Principal Arterial Class II

13

Minor Arterial Class I

14

Minor Arterial Class II

15

One Way Arterial

21

Major Collector

22

Minor Collector

23

One Way Collector

30

Local Road

32

Centroid Connector

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Screenlines Screenlines are imaginary lines that are useful tools for the calibration of trip assignment models. Screenlines typically extend completely across the modeled area. Screenlines are often associated with physical barriers such as rivers or railroads; however, jurisdictional boundaries such as county lines that extend through the study area make excellent screenlines. The purpose of a screenline is to evaluate the total traffic that moves from one side of a screenline to the other.
Six screenlines were used during the model validation process. The results from the screenline analysis are presented in detail in Section 7.5 of this technical memorandum.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

6

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.3 Variables Automatically Added to the Networks

Table 2.3.1 summarizes the variables that are automatically added to the highway network during processing. Many of theses variables are produced using look-up tables based on the facility type and area type for each link.

Table 2.3.1: Variables Automatically Added to the Networks

Field TAZ ATYPE HCAP CAPACITY HCAPAM HCAPPM
SPEED

Description Nearest TAZ Area Type Hourly Capacity Daily Capacity AM Peak Hour Capacity PM Peak Hour Capacity
Free-flow Speed

Comment Assigned using x & y coordinates (link midpoint)
Numeric Numeric Numeric Calculated from the hourly capacity and LanesAM or LanesPM. These are only used if reversible lanes are coded.
Numeric

Area Type Area Type was automatically added to the highway network links. It is based on a floating zone methodology where acreage and socioeconomic data is accumulated for each zone within one mile of the centroid of the zone. The data was used to calculate the population and employment density for that TAZ. Seven percentile ranges in Area Type were determined and used in the 3-County Model development. Table 2.3.2 lists the definitions for the different area types.
Table 2.3.2: Area Type Definitions

Code 1

Area Type High Density Urban

2

High Density Urban Commercial

3

Urban Residential

4

Suburban Commercial

5

Suburban Residential

6

Exurban

7

Rural

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Link Capacities Link capacities for the model network were obtained from a lookup table of per-lane hourly capacities based on facility type and area type. A lane hourly capacity lookup table was provided by GDOT, as shown in Table 2.3.3 below. The final link capacity was calculated by multiplying the hourly capacity per lane by the number of lanes which was automatically added to the links when running the model script file.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

7

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 2.3.3: Hourly Capacities per Lane

Facility

Type

1

2

3

1

1,900

1,950

2,000

7

1,400

1,400

1,700

8

1,200

1,200

1,400

11

1,000

1,000

1,200

12

900

900

1,000

13

800

800

900

14

700

700

800

21

600

600

700

22

500

500

600

30

400

400

500

32

0

0

0

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Area Type 4
2,050 1,700 1,400 1,200 1,000 900 800 700 600 500
0

5 2,100 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600
0

6 2,060 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600
0

7 2,020 1,700 1,400 1,200 1,000 900 800 700 600 500
0

Link Speeds GDOT provides a free-flow calibrated speed lookup table as shown in Table 2.3.4. Link speeds in the model network were derived based on link facility type and area type. In combination with link distance, functional classifications, number of lanes, and traffic counts, these attributes constitute the base layer of highway network data needed for developing the model.

Table 2.3.4: Speed Matrix (MPH)

Facility

Area Type

Type

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

55

60

60

60

60

70

70

7

45

50

50

50

50

55

55

8

22

23

30

31

34

40

48

11

22

28

33

34

37

47

52

12

23

26

31

32

35

45

49

13

22

23

30

31

34

40

47

14

21

22

27

30

32

38

45

21

17

18

21

27

29

34

42

22

14

15

18

24

26

30

40

30

14

14

17

18

22

28

35

32

14

14

17

18

22

28

35

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

8

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Trip Generation Module

Trip generation is the first step in the traditional four-step model process. It estimates the number of person or vehicle trips that will begin and end in each individual TAZ within a planning area. Trip generation is functionally related to the area's land use. Factors influencing the amount of travel in a region may include automobile ownership, income, household size, and density and type of development. Trip generation models consist of two sub-models including trip production models and trip attraction models. Trip productions are the trip ends associated with the traveler's home. Trip attractions are the trip ends associated with the non-home end of the trip, such as a workplace, shopping center, or school. The most common forms of the trip generation models are regression equations and cross-classification tables. Trip rates are typically developed from local survey data.

The Office of Planning at GDOT developed the initial TP+ code for the trip generation process based on a household travel survey done in the Augusta MPO in 1998. The development of the trip generation sub-model for the 3-County Model followed the standardized trip generation modeling process developed and required by GDOT.

The trip generation module includes two submodels - trip production and trip attraction. The trip production submodel applies trip rates from cross-classification tables of household size (1, 2, 3, 4+), automobile availability (0, 1, 2, 3+), and household median income to estimate trip productions for all trips that have origins and destinations inside the study area, excluding trucks. For other trip purposes, the trip production submodel applies regression equations to estimate trips. The trip attraction submodel applies regression equations for all trip purposes.

In the 3-County Model, three types of trips are included: (1) internal-internal (I-I) trips whose origin and destination are inside the study area boundary; (2) internal-external (I-E) trips that have one trip end inside the study area and one outside the study area; and (3) external-external (E-E) trips that have both trip ends outside of the study area. I-I trips follow the production and attraction logic of trip formulation, and are commonly grouped into several trip purposes. I-E and E-E trips are developed separately using a different methodology that is heavily dependent on traffic counts observed on the principal roads leading into and out of the region.

3.1 Trip Purpose for I-I Trips

Seven trip purposes, as adopted by GDOT, were included in the trip generation process. These purposes are summarized below:

1. Home Based Work (HBW): all travel made for the purpose of work that begins or ends at the traveler's home.
2. Home Based Shopping (HBS): trips made for the purpose of shopping that begins or ends at the traveler's home.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

9

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3. Home Based Other (HBO): any trip made with one end at the home except those for the purpose of work or shopping.
4. Non-Home Based (NHB): any trip that neither begins nor ends at home. 5. Internal-Internal Truck (IIT): internal trips made by commercial vehicles. 6. Internal-External Car (IEC): internal trips that begin or end outside the model area,
excluding trucks. 7. Internal-External Truck (IET): internal truck trips that begin or end outside the
model area.

3.2 Model TAZ Structure and Socioeconomic Data

Delineation of Traffic Analysis Zones Per guidance provided by GDOT and County staff, 119 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were included in the 3-County Model; 41 TAZs were included in Butts County; 36 TAZs were included in Jones County; and 42 TAZs were included in Monroe County. TAZ boundaries were made consistent with Census Tract boundaries. Also, major functionally classified roads were used to delineate the TAZ boundaries to enable the model to function most efficiently. The TAZ boundary map is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Preparation of Base Year Socioeconomic Data Socioeconomic data for the TAZs were developed by County staff, in consultation with GDOT and HNTB staff. This data is included in Appendix A. In the 3-County Model, each TAZ contains the following socioeconomic variables, standard to transportation modeling, for use in the trip generation process:

Total Population: the total number of individuals that are residing in a given TAZ. First, the zonal population in 2000 was obtained by aggregating available Census Block data. Then 2000 zonal populations were factored to the 2006 base year by applying a countywide growth factor, which was based on the 2006 population estimates provided by U.S. Census Bureau.

Occupied Households: the total number of occupied households in a given TAZ. The zonal number of households was aggregated based on the Census Block data from the 2000 Census. Assuming the household occupancy rate remained the same from 2000 to 2006, the base year (2006) number of households for each TAZ can be calculated using the following formula:

Year 2006 Population * Year 2000 Households
Year 2006 Households =
Year 2000 Population

School Enrollment: the total number of enrolled students in a given TAZ where the educational facility is located. School enrollment data was obtained from the Georgia Department of Education.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

10

Model Development

Figure 3.2: TAZ System and Boundaries

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

11

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Employment: the following five employment types were used to develop the 3County Model: o Retail Employment: number of employees working for retail businesses in a given TAZ where the business is located; o Service Employment: number of employees working for service based businesses in a given TAZ where the business is located; o Manufacturing Employment: number of employees working for manufacturing based businesses in a given TAZ where the business is located; o Wholesale Employment: number of employees working for wholesalebased businesses in a given TAZ where the business is located; and, o Total Employment: the total number of individuals that are working in a given TAZ.

The 2006 Retail / Service / Manufacturing / Wholesale / Total employment data were obtained from the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL). The data include agency name, employment number, address, zip code, SIC code, etc. The businesses were then geocoded and aggregated into model TAZs. Then the DOL/GDOT employment equivalency table, as shown in Table 3.2, was used to aggregate the SIC-based employment into retail / service / manufacturing / wholesale classifications for use in the model. A list of the largest employers in the 3-County region was also requested from the counties to ensure those largest employers were at the right locations and had the correct employee numbers.

Table 3.2: DOL/GDOT Employment Equivalency Table

DOL Category Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation and public utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Services Federal, State, Local government (or Public Administration)

GDOT Category Omit Omit Omit Manufacturing Service Wholesale Retail Service Service
Service

Acreage: area of a given TAZ in acres. Income: The median household incomes in the model were obtained from the
2000 Census. Income data is usually available at both Census Tract and

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

12

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Census Block Group levels. Since the Census Block Group is a smaller geographic unit than the Census Tract, median household income at this level is more detailed and better meets the model requirements. Therefore, if a TAZ falls inside a Block Group, the income for that Block Group was used for that TAZ; if a TAZ is comprised of several Block Groups (or parts of them) a household number weighted average income was used for that TAZ.

3.3 Household Stratification Model

The household stratification model subdivides the total number of households by TAZ into 16 household strata, defined by household size and the number of automobiles available. Stratification is done using zonal income, data from the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and data from the household surveys performed in similar study areas. The model distributes the total households in a given TAZ to each cross-classification cell by calculating a relative probability that a household will be a particular size with a particular number of automobiles. The relative probability is calculated with the following equation:

P(i,j) = S * I * CF

where,
P(i,j) S I CF

= relative probability that a household will be size i and own j autos = household size factor from CTPP lookup table = income factor from CTPP lookup table = composite household factor from Augusta household survey lookup table

Household size factors (S) and income factors (I) were obtained from CTPP lookup tables, and are presented in Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, respectively. Composite household factors (CF) were obtained from Augusta household survey lookup table, and are presented in Table 3.3.3.

Once the relative probability P(i,j) is determined, the number of households in a particular cross-classification cell is estimated by the following two steps:

1. Estimate the number of households of size i that own j autos in a given TAZ.

HHij(est.)
where,
HHij(est.) HH

= HH * P(i,j)
= estimated number of households of size i that own j autos = total number of households in the TAZ

2. Apply an adjustment factor to the above estimated number to obtain the final number of households of size i that own j autos in a given TAZ.

HHij = HHij(est.) * F

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

13

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

where,
HHij
F

= final number of households of size i that own j autos (not rounded to an integer value to eliminate problems with round off errors) = HH/HHij(est.), control total adjustment factor

The adjustment factor F is applied to ensure that the sum of the resulting disaggregated households equals the original aggregate number of households.

Table 3.3.1: Household Size Factors CTPP Lookup Table

Computed Persons/HH Ranges
0.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.2 1.2 to 1.4 1.4 to 1.6 1.6 to 1.8 1.8 to 2.0 2.0 to 2.2 2.2 to 2.4 2.4 to 2.6 2.6 to 2.8 2.8 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.2 3.2 to 3.4 3.4 to 3.6 3.6 to 3.8 3.8 to 4.0
Source: 2000 CTPP

1 1.0000 0.7812 0.6898 0.5752 0.4839 0.4141 0.3487 0.2872 0.2389 0.1939 0.1553 0.1253 0.1152 0.1119 0.1038 0.1028

Household Size

2

3

0.0000

0.0000

0.2056

0.0133

0.2568

0.0331

0.3128

0.0687

0.3511

0.1021

0.3537

0.1279

0.3563

0.1464

0.3471

0.1689

0.3274

0.1879

0.3140

0.1985

0.2947

0.2076

0.2749

0.2074

0.2489

0.1996

0.2116

0.1932

0.2042

0.1688

0.2032

0.1608

4+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0203 0.0433 0.0630 0.1043 0.1486 0.1968 0.2458 0.2935 0.3424 0.3924 0.4363 0.4832 0.5232 0.5332

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

14

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 3.3.2: Income Factors CTPP Lookup Table

TAZ Level Median HH Income

$0 to $2,500 to $5,000 to $7,500 to $10,000 to $12,500 to $15,000 to $17,500 to $20,000 to $22,500 to $25,000 to $27,500 to $30,000 to $32,500 to $35,000 to $37,500 to $40,000 to $42,500 to $45,000 to $47,500 to $50,000 to $52,500 to $55,000 to $57,500 to $60,000 to $62,500 to $65,000 to $67,500 to $70,000 to $72,500 to $75,000 to $77,500 to $80,000 to $82,500 to $85,000 to $87,500+
Source: 2000 CTPP

$2,499 $4,999 $7,499 $9,999 $12,499 $14,999 $17,499 $19,999 $22,499 $24,999 $27,499 $29,999 $32,499 $34,999 $37,499 $39,999 $42,499 $44,999 $47,499 $49,999 $52,499 $54,999 $57,499 $59,999 $62,499 $64,999 $67,499 $69,999 $72,499 $74,999 $77,499 $79,999 $82,499 $84,999 $87,499

1 <$20,000
0.8835 0.8549 0.8300 0.7585 0.6933 0.6311 0.5771 0.5031 0.4326 0.3927 0.3316 0.3071 0.2734 0.2399 0.2108 0.1825 0.1655 0.1501 0.1391 0.1207 0.1188 0.1016 0.0945 0.0901 0.0844 0.0766 0.0688 0.0653 0.0601 0.0535 0.0512 0.0485 0.0446 0.0405 0.0364 0.0350

Income Group

2

3

$20,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $59,999

0.1165

0.0000

0.1168

0.0232

0.1318

0.0300

0.1468

0.0427

0.1826

0.0718

0.2131

0.0802

0.2465

0.0894

0.2938

0.1046

0.3321

0.1257

0.3387

0.1449

0.3581

0.1702

0.3488

0.1824

0.3395

0.1945

0.3356

0.2152

0.3322

0.2254

0.3143

0.2418

0.2840

0.2612

0.2688

0.2676

0.2550

0.2663

0.2387

0.2649

0.2142

0.2569

0.2012

0.2566

0.1894

0.2480

0.1853

0.2256

0.1684

0.2102

0.1598

0.2025

0.1510

0.1948

0.1416

0.1926

0.1271

0.1833

0.1218

0.1698

0.1087

0.1636

0.1042

0.1551

0.0991

0.1465

0.0939

0.1455

0.0889

0.1359

0.0839

0.1238

4 >=$60,000
0.0000 0.0050 0.0081 0.0521 0.0523 0.0756 0.0870 0.0985 0.1096 0.1236 0.1401 0.1617 0.1926 0.2093 0.2316 0.2615 0.2893 0.3134 0.3396 0.3758 0.4101 0.4407 0.4682 0.4990 0.5371 0.5612 0.5854 0.6004 0.6295 0.6549 0.6765 0.6922 0.7099 0.7202 0.7387 0.7573

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

15

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 3.3.3: Composite Household Factors Augusta Household Survey

Income Persons per

Group

Household

0

1

0.30628

1

2

0.09778

3

0.07326

4

0.10000

1

0.25483

2

2

0.04000

3

0.11111

4

0.09000

1

0.18333

2

0.02740

3

3

0.09000

4

0.06000

1

0.05769

4

2

0.06944

3

0.02000

4

0.01892

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Auto Availability

1

2

0.66893

0.02479

0.65778

0.22222

0.69093

0.16279

0.56941

0.17647

0.47759

0.22586

0.21400

0.63200

0.12556

0.60333

0.10797

0.59420

0.60560

0.15775

0.16767

0.63425

0.10500

0.50333

0.04381

0.38619

0.66539

0.20000

0.10444

0.53222

0.05814

0.50977

0.04054

0.54054

3+ 0.00000 0.02222 0.07302 0.15412 0.04172 0.11400 0.16000 0.20783 0.05332 0.17068 0.30167 0.51000 0.07692 0.29389 0.41209 0.40000

3.4 Trip Production Submodel
The routine for computing trip productions uses cross-classified data from the household stratification model and applies trip rates to calculate Home Based Work (HBW), Home Based Shopping (HBS), Home Based Other (HBO), and Non-Home Based (NHB) trip productions. Trip production rates were applied to estimate the number of trips produced for each trip purpose. The trip productions were then combined to establish the total trips produced for each TAZ. GDOT's internal daily person trip production rates are based on the 1997 Augusta Household Travel Survey and shown in Table 3.4.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

16

Model Development

Table 3.4.1: GDOT Daily Trip Production Rates

Household

Auto

Size

Ownership

HBW

0

0.285

1

0.751

1

2

0.733

3+

0.909

0

0.750

1

1.165

2

2

1.305

3+

1.422

0

1.556

1

1.780

3

2

1.625

3+

1.983

0

1.000

1

1.727

4+

2

2.109

3+

2.387

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

HBO
0.694 1.190 1.300 1.818 1.350 1.835 2.360 2.688 4.444 4.195 4.048 3.600 5.833 6.523 8.122 7.312

HBS
0.367 0.411 0.200 0.636 0.558 0.882 0.675 0.688 0.222 0.585 0.490 0.733 0.417 1.023 0.769 1.151

Technical Memorandum August 2008
NHB
0.245 1.081 1.033 1.364 0.500 1.518 1.939 2.016 0.889 2.976 2.154 2.667 1.333 2.886 3.184 3.720

Adjustment of Trip Production Rates As can be seen from the trip production modeling process described above, GDOT data derived from the Augusta household survey was initially used in the 3-County Model, such as auto ownership distributions by household size, income and trip rates by household size and auto ownership, etc. The use of this data was based on an assumption that this information has good spatial transferability to the 3-County area.
However, a further investigation of the 3-County study area found that its socioeconomic characteristics and land-use complexion is not similar to that of Augusta, an MPO area. In the early stages of model calibration, it was found that the trip generation targets were not met using GDOT default trip production rates and coefficients of attraction equations. A high region-wide Production/Attraction ratio was observed before balancing. The resulting high Production/Attraction ratio indicates that a considerable part of trips produced in 3County area are actually attracted by activity centers outside the modeled area. Overall, the workers-to-household ratio is only 0.7 in the 3-County area, which is lower than the target ranges of 1.0 - 3.0.
Table 3.4.2 presents 2000 US Census Journey-to-Work data from resident counties to workplace counties in the 3-County region. According to the county-to-county flows shown in the table, only about 25.2% of Jones County's working population work within 3-County area while the remaining 74.8% of Jones County's workers commute outside of the 3-

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

17

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

County area. Butts County and Monroe County have relatively high percentages of work trips occurring within the 3-County area (45.8% and 45.1% respectively) but still have more than 50% of total work trips commuting outside the counties. This pattern is mainly because of the 3-County area's rural attributes and its function as a bedroom-community serving the nearby metropolitan areas. There are not a significant number of employers compared to residents in the 3-County area. A large number of region-wide workers are attracted to nearby large cities (e.g., Atlanta and Macon).

Table 3.4.2: Resident County to Workplace County

Resident County

Butts

Butts

44.6%

Jones

0.2%

Monroe 4.8%
Source: 2000 CTPP

Jones
0.0% 23.4% 0.4%

Workplace County

Monroe

Others

Inside 3_County

1.2%

54.2%

45.8%

1.6%

74.8%

25.2%

39.9%

54.9%

45.1%

Outside 3_County
54.2%
74.8% 54.9%

Totals
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

To account for the specific socioeconomic characteristics and the resulting trip patterns in the 3-County area, a factor of 0.3 was determined based on the 2000 U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data and then applied to internal-internal trip production estimation formulas for Home Based Work, Home Based Shopping, Home Based Other, and NonHome Based trip purposes for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties.

Trip Production of Other Purposes: For other trip purposes (i.e., internal-internal trucks, internal-external passenger cares and internal-external trucks), necessary adjustments were made to default GDOT model formulas for trip production estimation.

To account for the high proportion of work trips commuting outside of the 3-County study area, the GDOT default formulas of internal-external trip productions (both passenger cars and trucks) were adjusted and are shown below.

I-E Car Productions (Butts, Jones and Monroe):
pie = 0.331 * hh * 3 + 0.724 * totemp (GDOT default: pie = 0.331 * hh + 0.724 * totemp)

I-E Truck Productions:

Butts:

pietrk = 0.078 * retail + 2.149 * whole + 0.228 * manuf

Jones: pietrk = (0.078 * retail + 2.149 * whole + 0.228 * manuf) * 4

Monroe: pietrk = (0.078 * retail + 2.149 * whole + 0.228 * manuf) * 6

(GDOT default: pietrk = 0.078 * retail + 2.149 * whole + 0.228 * manuf)

where,
pie

= I-E car productions

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

18

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

pietrk hh totemp retail whole manuf

= I-E truck productions = Occupied households = Total employment = Retail employment = Wholesale employment = Manufacturing employment

For internal-internal truck trip productions, the default GDOT formula was used without adjustments for Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties:

I-I Truck Productions (Butts, Jones and Monroe):
ptrk = 0.2481 * hh + 0.7971 * retail + 0.8404 * manuf + 1.0197 * whole + 0.3424 * service

where,

ptrk = I-I truck productions

hh

= Occupied households

retail = Retail employment

manuf = Manufacturing employment

whole = Wholesale employment

service = Service employment

3.5 Trip Attraction Submodel

GDOT default trip attraction equations, which were developed from 1997 Augusta Household Travel Survey, were used to calculate preliminary trip attraction results in the 3County area. However, the preliminary estimations caused unreasonable results in following trip distribution and trip assignment steps. A further look into the Table 3.4.2 found that Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties are more likely to be isolated sub-areas within each other because the region-wide internal-internal work trips produced by each county are nearly absorbed by themselves. Therefore, GDOT default trip attraction equations were adjusted so that the resulting trip attraction shares of each county are approximately equal to their trip production shares. The adjusted attraction equations are listed below for each trip purpose and each county.

HBW Attraction:

Butts:

ahbw = 1.196 * totemp * 0.25

Jones:

ahbw = 1.196 * totemp

Monroe: ahbw = 1.196 * totemp * 0.65

(GDOT Default: ahbw = 1.196 * totemp)

HBO Attraction:

Butts:

ahbo = (0.5077 * pop + 0.967 * totemp + 1.5258 * school) * 0.3

Jones:

ahbo = (0.5077 * pop + 0.967 * totemp + 1.5258 * school) * 0.4

Monroe: ahbo = (0.5077 * pop + 0.967 * totemp + 1.5258 * school) * 0.4

(GDOT Default:

ahbo = 0.5077 * pop + 0.967 * totemp + 1.5258 * school)

HBS Attraction:

Butts:

ahbs = 2.655 * retail * 0.5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

19

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Jones:

ahbs = 2.655 * retail * 1.5

Monroe: ahbs = 2.655 * retail * 1.5

(GDOT Default:

ahbs = 2.655 * retail)

NHB Attraction:

Butts:

anhb = [0.293 * pop + 2.82108 * (retail + whole) + 0.6984 * service] * 0.3

Jones:

anhb = [0.293 * pop + 2.82108 * (retail + whole) + 0.6984 * service] * 0.6

Monroe: anhb = [0.293 * pop + 2.82108 * (retail + whole) + 0.6984 * service]*0.5

(GDOT Default:

anhb = 0.293 * pop + 2.82108 * (retail + whole) + 0.6984 * service)

where,
ahbw = Home Based Work attractions ahbo = Home Based Other attractions ahbs = Home Based Shopping attractions anhb = Non-Home Based attractions totemp = Total employment pop = Population school = School enrollment retail = Retail employment whole = Wholesale employment service = Service employment

Per the GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide, the internal truck attractions were set equal to its productions:

I-I Truck Attractions = I-I Truck Productions

I-E Car and Truck Attractions were calculated based on traffic counts, the percentage of external-to-external trips, and the assumed truck percentage at each external station. For each external station, the total number of I-E trips was calculated by subtracting the estimated number of E-E trips from the station's daily traffic volume. The percentage of EE trips at each external station was determined based on E-E trip estimation models and professional judgments.

3.6 External-External (E-E) Trips

In the 3-County Model, the 2006 base year E-E trips were estimated based on procedures suggested by the GDOT Travel Demand Guide. The E-E trip estimation process follows the steps listed below:

1) Identify the external stations. The 3-County Model includes all federal and state routes and all roads classified as minor collector or greater. Several significant local roads were also included in the 3-County Model.
2) Obtain the 2006 base year AADT for each external station based on GDOT coverage count stations.
3) Identity the functional classification for each external station facility. This information is maintained by GDOT in the Road Classification (RC) database and was incorporated into the 3-County model when the network was developed.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

20

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4) Assume a truck percentage for each external station based on GDOT statewide averages by functional classifications. If an explicit truck percentage was observed for a given count station, it was used. Table 3.6.1 shows the GDOT default percent trucks by functional classification.

Table 3.6.1: Percent Trucks by Functional Classification

Functional Class

Description

Percent Functional Trucks Class

1

Rural Interstate

26%

11

2

Rural Principal Arterial

11%

12

6

Rural Minor Arterial

16%

14

7

Rural Major Collector 11%

16

8

Rural Minor Collector 4%

17

9

Rural Local Road

4%

19

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Description
Urban Interstate Urban Freeway/ Expressway Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Urban Local Road

Percent Trucks
11%
6%
6% 3% 4% 2%

5) Apply a recently developed E-E trip model and the professional judgment to
determine the most appropriate percent E-E trip ends for each external station. Published in the 2008 87th TRB Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, the new
E-E trip model is shown as below:

EE = (3.353 0.850*Other + 1.671*Small + 2.682*MR + 0.000104*ADT 0.000029*Pop + 0.046*TRK + 0.0012*Area + 0.000026*Emp)2
where,
EE = Percent of E-E trip ends of ADT at external station (%) Other = Collector/local roads (0 = No, or 1=Yes) Small = Small urban area with population less than 50,000 (0=No, or 1=Yes) MR = Marginal highway route (0=No, or 1=Yes) ADT = Average daily traffic at external station Pop = Population in study area TRK = Percentage of trucks at external station Area = Area size of study area (mile2) Emp = Employment in study area

The same percent E-E trip ends were used for both passenger cars and trucks. The I-E trips were obtained by subtracting E-E trip ends from the ADT at each external station. Table 3.6.2 shows ADT, estimated E-E and I-E trip percentages for each external station.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

21

Model Development

Table 3.6.2: Percentages of I-E and E-E Trips

Technical Memorandum August 2008

External Station
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Road Name
Bucksnort Rd SR 16 W I-75 N Indian Creek Rd US 23 N Wolf Creek Rd Keys Ferry Rd SR 36 E SR 16 E SR 83 N SR 11 N Shoal Creek Rd US 129 N SR 22 E SR 49 N SR 18 E Garrison Rd SR 57 S SR 57 N New Clinton Rd US 129 S Graham Rd Upper River Rd US 23 S I-75 S US 41 S I-475 S Zebulon Rd SR 74 E SR 42 US 341 S College St SR 74 W US 341 N Brent Rd US 41 N Johnstonville Rd High Falls Rd SR 36 W SR 49 S

ADT
1,110 10,160 75,560
1,830 10,590
1,180 3,350 3,570 2,700 2,250 1,140
110 5,180 6,400 5,430 2,090 1,820 4,190 6,950 4,790 21,650 1,610 1,800 8,410 33,930 2,520 55,370 2,500 2,620
930 1,750 2,270 1,850 1,710
450 4,640
620 430 7,120 13,920

I-E PC
83% 66% 19% 91% 66% 83% 82% 71% 72% 72% 62% 92% 46% 42% 46% 71% 83% 52% 49% 89% 38% 91% 83% 68% 22% 72% 19% 82% 59% 83% 72% 91% 72% 72% 83% 70% 83% 83% 85% 42%

I-E Truck E-E PC

10% 13% 7% 4% 13% 10% 10% 14% 14% 14% 8% 4% 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 6% 6% 4% 2% 4% 10% 13% 8% 14% 7% 10% 11% 10% 14% 4% 14% 14% 10% 13% 10% 10% 10% 3%

6% 18% 56% 5% 18% 6% 7% 13% 12% 12% 27% 4% 38% 42% 38% 18% 6% 37% 40% 7% 56% 5% 6% 16% 52% 12% 56% 7% 25% 6% 12% 5% 12% 12% 6% 14% 6% 6% 4% 52%

E-E Truck
1% 3% 20% 0% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 7% 8% 7% 2% 1% 5% 5% 0% 4% 0% 1% 3% 18% 2% 20% 1% 5% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

22

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6) Identify external stations pairs that will not exchange E-E trips and create an "external trip logic" matrix.
7) Use GDOT TP+ script and base year highway network to create a matrix of distance and then multiply it with the "external trip logic" matrix to obtain the "seed" matrix.
8) Create a DBF file that contains the external station number, the total ADT, the percent trucks and the percent E-E trips for each external station.
9) Use the "seed matrix" (created in step 7) and the DBF file (created in step 8) to run the Fratar model (using the GDOT TP+ script) so as to create E-E trip matrices for passenger cars and trucks. The Fratar model is a popular approach to produce the balanced E-E trip table, which proportions future trip generation estimates to each zone as a function of the product of the current trips between the two zones and the growth factor of the attracting zones. The standard format of the Fratar model is:

T

ij

=

(ti

Gi)

tij G j tix Gx

x

where,

Tij = Number of trips estimated from zone i to zone j ti = Present trip generation in zone i Gx = Growth factor of zone x ti = tiGi = Future trip generation in zone i tix = Number of trips between zone i and other zones x tij = Present trips between zone i and zone j Gj = Growth factor of zone j

The application of the Fratar model is an iterative process until the controlled E-E trip ends or acceptable tolerances at each external station are achieved. 10) Check the resulting E-E trip matrix to make sure the results make sense and there was adequate closure between the Fratar volumes and the desired volumes for each external station. 11) Coordination was done with the adjoining Macon model such that the same external stations were used for corresponding external stations.

3.7 Balancing Productions and Attractions
Trip productions and attractions were calculated using the procedures outlined in the above sections. As described, for most trip purposes, the model computes production and attraction trip ends separately. As such, the sum of productions across all zones does not necessarily equal to the sum of attractions. In reality though, each trip must have two trip ends: one is a production (P) and one is an attraction (A). Therefore it makes sense to balance the sum of productions with the attractions across all zones. The balanced trips productions and attractions are included in Appendix B. The following steps summarize the P/A balancing process used in the 3-County Model:

Calculate the productions and attractions for all internal TAZs by trip purposes.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

23

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Proportionally adjust zonal attractions by purpose for all internal zones to ensure that total attractions equal total productions. Attractions are balanced to productions for all internal zones (except NHB).
Non-home based productions are set equal to non-home based attractions. I-E attractions (including trucks) are calculated for external stations. I-E productions (including trucks) are balanced to the calculated attractions. I-E productions and attractions are appended to the I-I trip end file to produce
the final productions and attractions.

3.8 Trip Generation Validation

GDOT calibrates and / or validates model components by comparing model outputs to expected targets. Targets for various model parameters have been compiled from a number of sources. The following documents serve as the primary sources for checking the reasonableness of model parameters and results:

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 365 Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning
Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, Travel Model Improvement Program, Federal Highway Administration
Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models, USDOT, Federal Highway Administration

The primary targets GDOT uses for validating the trip generation process and the 3-County Model trip generation results are compared in Table 3.8.1. As discussed in previous sections, the specific socioeconomic characteristics in the 3-County area results in a region-wide workers/household ratio of 0.7, which is lower than the GDOT target range of 1.0 3.0. All other model results agree with the GDOT target ranges or values.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

24

Model Development

Table 3.8.1: Trip Generation Validation

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Calibration Measure

Target Range / Value

Socio-Economic Data Persons / Household Workers / Household

2 - 4 1 - 3

3-County Model
2.8 0.7

Trip Generation Person Trips Per Household Person Trips Per Person HBW Trips / Employee
Shopping Trips / Retail Employment P/A Ratio Before Balancing (HBW) P/A Ratio Before Balancing (HBO)
P/A Ratio Before Balancing (HBShop) P/A Ratio Before Balancing (NHB)
Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

8.5 - 9.2 3 - 4 < 2 -
0.9 - 1.1 0.9 - 1.1 0.9 - 1.1 0.9 - 1.1

8.9 3.2 0.2 13.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

25

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

4.0 Trip Distribution Module

Trip distribution is the second major step in the travel demand modeling process. Trip distribution is a vital part of the planning process because it is the trip interchanges between each zone pair that eventually have to be accommodated by the transportation system.

Trip distribution models estimate trip interchanges between zones based on characteristics of the land-use pattern and the transportation system. A gravity model, the most widely used trip distribution model, is used to perform trip distribution in the 3-County Model. As its name suggests, the gravity model for transportation planning is based on the gravitational theory of Newtonian physics. It predicts that the relative number of trips made between two TAZs is directly proportional to the number of trip ends (productions or attractions) in each TAZ and inversely proportional to a function of the spatial separation between those two areas. Mathematically, the gravity model is expressed as follows:





T ij

=

Pi

A j F ij




j

A

j

F

ij



where,

Tij = Number of trips that are produced in TAZ i and attracted to TAZ j Pi = Total number of trips produced in TAZ i Aj = Number of trips attracted to TAZ j Fij = Friction factor, a value which is an inverse function of travel time

Many different measures of impedance can be used, such as travel time, travel distance, or travel cost. The potential impedance functions that can be used to derive the relative attractiveness of each TAZ from the impedance include: (1) exponential, (2) inverse power, and (3) gamma functions. In the 3-County Model, exponential functions were used to calculate travel impedance based on travel time. The impedance function, also known as the friction factor, is shown below:

f (d ij ) = e -c(dij )

Where, c is a parameter that needs to be calibrated in the model. The parameter, c, needs to be calibrated such that the model estimated trip length frequency distributions (often average length) match the observed/target trip length frequency distributions (or average trip length) for each of the trip purposes. The calibration of the parameter c will be described in the section below.

Important issues in the development of the 3-County trip distribution model are addressed in the following section.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

26

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Derivation of Target Trip Lengths In the 3-County region, the CTPP 2000 Journey to Work data shows that the average motorized non-public-transportation Journey to Work trip lengths are 31 minutes for Butts County, 27.8 minutes for Jones County and 27.6 minutes for Monroe County.

Since the internal-external (I-E) trips were grouped into a separate trip purpose in the 3County Model, which included part of the HBW trips, it is necessary to estimate an adjusted CTPP Journey to Work trip length that applies to only the internal-internal (I-I) work trips. This is commonly done by estimating the share of work trips that are l-E trips based on census county-to-county work trip flow data. By assuming an average travel time for the IE work trips, the 3-County Model estimated an adjusted I-I work trip length as:

T



=

T

- (S (1 -

* TIE
S)

)

where, T' T S TIE

= Adjusted I-I work trip length = CTPP work trip length = Share of I-E work trips = Estimated trip length for I-E work trips

In Butts County, I-E HBW trips were assumed to account for 54% of trips and average 40 minutes. In Jones County, I-E HBW trips were assumed to account for 75% of trips and average 32 minutes. In Monroe County, I-E HBW trips were assumed to account for 55% of trips and average 35 minutes. Given the above assumption, the estimated internal HBW trip length are 20.3 minutes, 15.3 minutes and 18.6 minutes for Butts County, Jones County and Monroe County respectively. An average internal work trip length of 18.1 minutes in the 3-County Model area was used as a target for model validation.

The average trip lengths for other trip purposes (HBO, HBS and NHB) were estimated for the 3-county model area based on equations from the Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models and NCHRP Report 365. Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models includes equations to estimate average trip lengths based on the urban area population. NCHRP Report 365 includes an equation to estimate average work trip length based on the geographic size of the modeled area and also suggests rules of thumb for non-work trip lengths relative to the work trip lengths. The average trip length for HBO, HBS, and NHB trips were adjusted to 16.5 minutes, 16.2 minutes and 13.3 minutes for the 3-County Model area respectively.

The average trip lengths for different trip purposes in each county and for a 3-County average are illustrated in Table 4.1.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

27

Model Development

Table 4.1: Average Trip Length (Minutes)

Technical Memorandum August 2008

County
Butts Jones Monroe 3-County Average

CTPP Trip Length 31.0
27.8
27.6
28.8

% I-E HBW Trips 54%
75%
55%
61%

I-E Trip Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Travel I-I HBW

I-I HBO

I-I HBS

I-I NHB

Time Trip Length Trip Length Trip Length Trip Length

40

20.3

18.5

18.3

14.9

32

15.3

13.9

13.8

11.3

35

18.6

16.9

16.7

13.7

35.7

18.1

16.5

16.2

13.3

Development of Minimum Time Paths Minimum time paths for the network were calculated using the TP+ HWYLOAD function. These time paths included turn prohibitions and turn penalties. The paths were then adjusted to include intrazonal times and terminal times. Intrazonal times were estimated by averaging travel times from the subject TAZ to the four nearest TAZs using the TP+ MATRIX function.
Terminal Times Terminal times were assigned based on the employment density of the origin and destination TAZs. At the trip origin end, terminal time generally refers to the time for walking from traveler's residence to his/her car. At the trip destination end, it generally represents the time it takes to go from where traveler's car is parked to his/her destination. Table 4.2 summarizes the terminal times used in the 3-County Model.
Table 4.2: Terminal Times (Minutes) in 3-County Model

0 1

Origin

1

Destination

1

Source: GDOT Model Script

Employment Density (Total Employees per Acre)

> 1 15 > 15 25 > 25 50 > 50 75

> 75

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

5

6

Calibration of Exponential Function Parameters The procedure for calibrating the exponential function parameters in the gravity model involved the following steps: (1) Set an initial value for the parameter for each of the trip purposes; (2) Run the TP+ main script and observe the calculated average trip lengths; (3) If a calculated average trip length is shorter than the target average trip length, lower the parameter; (4) If a calculated average trip length is longer than the target average trip length, increase the parameter; and (5) Adjust the parameter until the output trip lengths are close to the target trip lengths.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

28

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

The calibrated parameters, as shown in Table 4.3, were then used in the model to produce trip matrices for different trip purposes. The estimated average trip lengths by the calibrated model are shown in Table 4.4. As presented in Table 4.4, the modeled trip lengths are very close to the target average trip lengths.
Table 4.3: Calibrated Exponential Function Parameters

Trip Purpose HBW HBO HBS NHB Truck I-E
I-E Truck

c 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.130 0.075 0.170 0.300

Table 4.4: Average Trip Lengths by Purpose (in minutes)

Trip Purpose HBW HBO HBS NHB Truck I-E
I-E Truck

Target Length 18.1 16.5 16.2 13.3 n/a n/a n/a

Modeled Length 17.7 16.7 15.4 13.8 18.1 20.5 20.8

In the trip distribution process, trips obtained for the HBW, HBO, HBS and NHB purposes are person trips. A conversion to vehicle trips is discussed in the next section.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

29

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.0 Mode Split
Mode split is the determination of what mode of travel will be used to make trips between TAZs. The FHWA manual Calibration and Adjustment of Systems Planning Models (FHWA-ED-90-015) acknowledges that in small or medium urban areas, transit patronage may be too insignificant to warrant an adjustment to highway volumes for transit trips. Since the transit portion of the trips in the 3-County study area is significantly smaller than the +/- 5% margin of error for the model calibration, the mode split step is eliminated from the 3-County Model.
Since the 3-County Model assumes that the automobile is the only mode, the full mode split process is simplified into a factoring calculation to convert person trips to vehicle trips. Vehicle occupancy rates were introduced to account for the ridesharing. Since I-E and E-E trips were calculated in terms of vehicle trips at their inception, no adjustments were made for these purposes. Vehicle occupancy rates employed in the 3-County Model are displayed in Table 5.0.
Table 5.0: Vehicle Occupancy Rate

Trip Purpose

Occupancy Rate

Home Based Work

1.10

Home Based Other

1.50

Home Based Shopping

1.20

Non Home Based

1.40

Internal Trucks

No adjustment already vehicle trips

Internal-External Cars

No adjustment already vehicle trips

Internal-External Trucks

No adjustment already vehicle trips

Source: GDOT Travel Demand Model Development Guide

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

30

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

6.0 Traffic Assignment

The last step in the travel demand modeling process is traffic assignment. Traffic assignment takes the trips distributed by TAZ in the Trip Distribution step, and loads them onto the model highway network. The trip assignment step provides data that can be utilized to:

Test alternative transportation plans; Establish priorities between different transportation investment strategies; Analyze alternative locations for roadway improvements; and Forecast volumes and levels of service needed to adequately design and
construct new roadway facilities.

In order to replicate the process of identifying the best path between a given origin and a given destination, different algorithms can be used for trip assignment depending on planning needs, path variables of the highway system and the characteristics of the system users. In general, the most common algorithms used by the highway traffic assignment for travel demand models are: 1) All-or-nothing (AON); 2) Capacity Restraint; 3) User Equilibrium; and 4) Stochastic. In this study, the User Equilibrium algorithm was employed for traffic assignment. User Equilibrium assignment assigns the full trip table for each iteration. Link travel time is recalculated within each iteration using the total link demand. The number of iterations is determined by a user defined closure parameter or until the system reaches equilibrium which is defined by the condition where no individual traveler can improve his/her travel time by selecting an alternative path. The final assignment is an average of the iteration (i) assignment and the previous iteration (i-1).

Inputs required for User Equilibrium assignment are link performance functions. These functions describe the travel time across a link under various conditions of congestion as measured by volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. The most commonly used volume-delay function is the BPR (Bureau of Public Roads) equation. In the 3-County Model, v/c multiplier and the v/c coefficient in the BPR function are set to 0.84 and 5.5 respectively for freeways and arterials / collectors.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

31

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

7.0 Base Year Calibration

Calibration efforts were measured by a variety of statistics, including system-wide vehicle miles of travel (VMT), VMT by functional class, system-wide root mean square error (RMSE), RMSE by volume group, system-wide percent deviation of traffic, percent deviation of traffic by functional class, percent deviation of traffic by screenline, and systemwide coefficient of determination. All these statistics were generated by comparing model estimated traffic volumes, average trip lengths, and vehicle miles of travel with observed values.

7.1 Link Volume Percent Deviation

The Percent Deviation method is described in Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models, FHWA-ED-90-015. This method is used to calibrate a model for systemwide studies. It is based on the expectation that the travel demand model should accurately predict the number of through-lanes required to provide a specified level of service for a given facility. Traffic assignment deviation should not result in a design deviation of more than one highway travel lane. Therefore, the expected accuracy of the model increases as the average annual daily traffic (AADT) on a facility increases. The percent deviation is calculated as follows:

Percent Deviation = [(Base Year Assignment Base Year Count)/Base Year Count]*100

Figure 7.1 shows the deviation between the 2006 base year volumes assigned by the model and observed traffic counts for the study area.

Maximum desired deviation is represented by the red sloping curve in Figure 7.1. In the 3County Model, the following equation provided by GDOT was used to estimate the Maximum Desirable Deviation for individual links:

Maximum Desirable % Deviation links

= 38.262 *

AADTTwo -Way 10000

-0.4361

Traffic counts, assigned model volumes, and percent deviation of the links are presented in Appendix C. Figure 7.1 indicates that most of the link-level model deviation points are concentrated between maximum desirable deviation positive line and maximum desirable deviation negative line. The following conclusions can be drawn from the graph:

Nearly all of the model highway links were assigned volumes which were in reasonable agreement with traffic counts;
Observed traffic counts for most of the highway links were under 10,000 per day; and,
There are a few links whose deviation points are located beyond the maximum desirable curve. Most of these occur on facilities whose daily traffic volume is below 5,000 vehicles per day.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

32

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Percent Deviation (Model Volumes vs. Traffic Counts)

200% 150% 100%
50% 0%
-50% -100% -150% -200%
0

Figure 7.1: Traffic Assignment Percent Deviation

10,000

20,000

Observed Deviation

30,000

40,000

50,000

Traffic Counts (Both Direction)

Maximum Desirable Deviation +

60,000

70,000

80,000

Maximum Desirable Deviation -

7.2 R-Square / Scatter Plot
The coefficient of determination (R2) represents the proportion of variability in values of the dependent variable (traffic volume) that is explained by the model. It helps in the understanding of the model's predictive power. The 3-County Model achieves a systemwide R2 equal to 0.98, which is close to 1.0 and greater than the model validation target (R2 = 0.88) required by the Federal model validation guideline (Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, FHWA, Feb, 1997).
A scatter plot of modeled volumes versus traffic counts helps identify outliers. Figure 7.2 presents the scatter plots of modeled volumes versus traffic counts. As indicated in the figure, nearly all modeled volumes are within +/- 3,000 of the corresponding traffic counts. The +/- 3,000 range is a randomly selected range utilized to illustrate and reference data variations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

33

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 7.2: Scatter Plot of Modeled Volume versus Traffic Counts

Modeled Volume

50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000
5,000 0 0

R2 = 0.9799

5,000

10,000

15,000

Count vs. Volume 3000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Traffic Counts
X=Y Linear (Count vs. Volume)

35,000

40,000

45,000

-3000 Linear (Count vs. Volume)

50,000

7.3 Percent Root Mean Square Error
Percent Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE) is a measure of the average deviation between the actual count and the base year assigned volume. It is another indicator to illustrate how closely the model volumes match the traffic counts. The %RMSE is calculated as follows:

%RMSE =

(V i - Ci)2 i (N -1)
100 Ci
i

N

where,

Vi

= model volume at link i;

Ci = traffic count at link i; and

N = number of count stations.

The 3-County Model achieved an overall RMSE of 29.6%, which is lower than the GDOT target of 35%. Low RMSEs were also observed for links by volume groups, as shown in Table 7.3.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

34

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 7.3: Percent Root Mean Square Error Statistics

Counts

3-County Model

Typical Range of Maximum Acceptable Error

Less than 5,000 ADT

103%

< 100%

5,000 to 9,999 ADT

41%

75%

Greater than 10,000 ADT

9%

30%

Source: Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, FHWA, Feb, 1997 (interpreted from Tables 7-5 and 7-6)

7.4 Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT)
Comparing the assigned VMT to the observed VMT provides another method of the reasonableness check for the assignment. Assigned VMT is simply the product of the link volume and the link distance, summed over the desired facility type. The observed VMT is a product of a comprehensive traffic count program.
Table 7.4 shows VMT statistics aggregated by functional classification for both modeled VMT and actual VMT of 2006 for the 3-County study area. The actual VMT was taken from GDOT's Report 445 listing VMT summarized by Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties. As shown in the table, the modeled VMT is very close to the actual VMT.
Table 7.4: 3-County Model VMT

Facility Type

VMT

Observed(1)

Model

Interstates

2,425,927 2,538,057

Principal Arterial

65,556

51,973

Minor Arterial

952,090 1,003,648

Collectors

677,735

660,545

Total VMT

4,121,308 4,254,224

(1): Observed values were obtained from GDOT report 445-2006.

Error Difference Percent
112,130 4.6% -13,583 -20.7% 51,558 5.4% -17,189 -2.5% 132,916 3.2%

VMT Distribution

Observed Model

58.9% 59.7%

1.6%

1.2%

23.1% 23.6%

16.4% 15.5%

100.0% 100.0%

7.5 Screenline Analysis
Screenline analyses were performed as another indicator to assess model reasonableness. Six screenlines were established to intercept major traffic flows through the 3-County study area. Assigned volumes in the 2006 base year model were compared with the traffic counts at each screenline crossing. The maximum desirable deviation for screenlines used for model calibration was from NCHRP Report 255. Figure 7.5 illustrates screenlines used in the calibration of base year model.
The screenline analysis results are shown in Table 7.5. It is clear that the observed percent deviations agree with the maximum desired values for all screenlines. Link-by-link estimated volumes by screenline are provided in Appendix D.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

35

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 7.5: Screenline Analysis

Screenline
Screenline 1 Northern 3-County Screenline 2 South of I-75 Screenline 3 Southern 3-County Screenline 4 North of I-75 Screenline 5 South of US 129 Screenline 6 North of US 129
Total

Traffic Counts
19,930 26,700 131,420 30,310 15,600 11,180
235,140

Model Volume
18,911 29,571 138,461 37,921 13,572
9,244
247,681

Deviation%
-5.1% 10.8% 5.4% 25.1% -13.0% -17.3% 5.3%

Max Desired Deviation%
45.9% 41.0% 22.4% 39.1% 50.4% 57.2%
17.9%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

36

Model Development

Figure 7.5: Screenlines

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

37

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

8.0 Future Alternative Testing

After the base year (2006) travel demand model was calibrated and validated, the model was used to assist in evaluating the traffic conditions for the 2015 interim year and 2035 planning horizon year. To simulate the future years' travel demand in the 3-County study area, the following information was updated:

Future year highway network; Future year socioeconomic data (population, household and employment)
projection at zone level; and External station traffic forecasting.

8.1 Highway Network Update
There are several programmed multi-modal improvements in the 3-County study area. For the purpose of this study, programmed improvements refer to committed projects, which are included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (Fiscal Year 2008-2011) with a dedicated funding source identified and have construction phases no later than 2011. The updated roadway network that includes the committed projects is called existing plus committed (E+C) network. The committed projects in 3-County area are presented in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Committed Project List

Project County 0007580 Butts 0008572 Butts 0008573 Butts M002785 Butts 0007603 Jones 0008165 Jones 0006696 Monroe 0007140 Monroe 0007422 Monroe 0007464 Monroe 0007522 Monroe

Type Sidewalks RRX Warning
Device RRX Warning
Device
Bridges
Streetscapes TE-Bike/Ped
Facility TE-Bike/Ped
Facility
Realignment
RRX Warning Device
Barriers
Pavement Markings

Description Sidewalks; Lighting & Landscaping in Jackson
SR 36/Covington Street @ NS #718448H in Jackson
SR 16/3rd Street @ NS #7184450J in Jackson
I-75 @ Cabin Creek/Butts & @ Bill Gardner Pkwy/HenryDeck Rehab Sidewalks & Bike Trails in Gray SR 11/US 129 FM CS 537/Strewart Ave to CS 520/Jefferson St
Forsyth Downtown Streetscapes
SR 74 from Pine Grove Church Road to Russellville Road
CS 614/Berner Street @ NS #718335C
I-16 & I-75 Cable Barrier Installation in Bibb & Monroe Counties Off-system Safety Improvements @ 6 Locations in Monroe County

Program Date 2008 Lump* Lump*
2007 2008 Lump*
2008 Lump*
2007 Lump*
2007

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

38

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Project County

Type

Description

0007599 Monroe Sidewalks Sidewalks & Streetscape in Downtown Forsyth

0007647 Monroe 0008249 Monroe 0008250 Monroe 0008366 Monroe

Intersection Improvement
RRX Warning Device
RRX Warning Device
RRX Warning Device

SR 7/US 341 @ SR 74 CR 285/PEA Ridge Road @ NS #718350E CR 61/Klopfer Road @ NS #718354G CR 15/Bunn Road @ NS #718340Y

M003502 Monroe Weigh Scales I-75 @ Truck Weigh Station in Monroe Phase I
*Lump - Funds set up in lump sum banks to undertake projects that are developed after the STIP is approved

Program Date 2008 Lump*
2007
2007
Lump* Lump*

8.2 Socioeconomic Data Projections

Each county's socioeconomic data is projected for the interim year 2015 and the planning horizontal year 2035 based on historical trends of countywide population and the Comprehensive Plan. The existing and forecasted socioeconomic data are summarized in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Socioeconomic Data

Butts County Population Employment
Retail Service Manufacture Wholesale Occupied Household Jones County Population Employment Retail Service Manufacture Wholesale Occupied Household Monroe County Population Employment Retail
Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

2006
23,543 10,057 1,268 6,189 2,069
531 7,901
26,955 3,058 502 2,421
85 50 10,138
24,420 4,488 436
39

2015
36,761 15,704 1,980 9,664 3,232
828 13,401
29,280 3,319 545 2,628
92 54 11,482
26,664 4,954 481

2035
56,552 24,515 3,090 15,087 5,043 1,295 22,324
36,440 4,136 680 3,274 114
68 15,183
33,804 6,211 603

Model Development
Service Manufacture Wholesale Occupied Household

2006 3,718 244
90 8,718

2015 4,105 269
99 10,108

Technical Memorandum August 2008
2035 5,147 336 125 13,798

8.3 External Station Traffic Projections
External trips are those that have at least one trip end outside the 3-County Model. Future traffic volumes at external stations were estimated by applying annual growth rates which were calculated based on historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) from year 2001 to year 2005. If the calculated annual growth rate fell outside of an acceptable range (1% minimum and 3% maximum) then the minimum or maximum annual growth rate was used (i.e. 0.50% growth resulted in 1.00% growth and 4.5% growth resulted in 3.0% growth). The projected external station volumes are presented in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: External Station Volume Forecast

TAZ County

Road Name

2005 AADT

120 Butts Bucksnort Rd west of Butts County Line 1,110

121 Butts SR 16 west of Butts County Line

10,160

122 Butts I-75 west of Butts County Line

75,560

123 Butts Indian Creek west of Butts County Line 124 Butts US 23 west of Butts County Line

1,830 10,590

125 Butts Wolf Creek Rd west of Butts County Line 1,180

126 Butts Keys Ferry Rd west of Butts County Line 3,350

127 Butts SR 36 east of Butts County Line 128 Butts SR 16 east of Butts County Line

3,570 2,700

129 Monroe SR 83 east of Monroe County Line

2,250

130 Jones SR 11 north of Jones County Line

131

Jones

Hillsboro Lake Rd north of Jones County Line

132 Jones US 129 north of Jones County Line

1,140 110 5,180

131 Jones SR 22 east of Jones County Line

6,400

134 Jones SR 49 east of Jones County Line

5,430

135 Jones SR 18 south of Jones County Line

2,090

136 Jones Henderson Rd south of Jones County Line 1,820

137 Jones SR 57 east of Jones County Line

4,190

138 Jones SR 57 west of Jones County Line

139

Jones

New Clinton Rd south of Jones County Line

140 Jones US 129 south of Jones County Line

6,950 4,790 21,650

2015 AADT 1,385 13,654 83,465 2,231 14,232 1,586 4,502 4,798 2,982 2,485 1,259
140
5,722 7,070 5,998 2,309 2,010 4,628 7,677
5,291
23,915

2035 Average Annual AADT Growth Rate

2,155

2.24%

24,661

3.00%

101,843

1.00%

3,315 25,705

2.00% 3.00%

2,864

3.00%

8,131

3.00%

5,665 3,639

3.00% 1.00%

3,003

1.00%

1,537

1.00%

225

2.41%

6,982 8,626 7,319 2,817 2,453 5,647 9,368

1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

6,456

1.00%

29,181

1.00%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

40

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ County

Road Name

2005 AADT

141 Jones Graham Rd south of Jones County Line

142

Jones

Upper River Rd south of Jones County Line

143 Monroe US 23 south of Monroe County Line

144 Monroe I-75 south of Monroe County Line

145 Monroe US 41 south of Monroe County Line

146 Monroe I-475 south of Monroe County Line

1,610
1,800
5,410 33,930 2,520 55,370

147 Monroe Zebulon Rd south of Monroe County Line 2,500

148 Monroe SR 74 south of Monroe County Line

2,620

149 Monroe SR 42 south of Monroe County Line 150 Monroe US 341 south of Monroe County Line

930 1,750

151 Monroe College St south of Monroe County Line 2,270

152 Monroe SR 74 west of Monroe County Line

1,850

153 Monroe US 341 west of Monroe County Line 154 Monroe Brent Rd west of Monroe County Line

1,710 450

155 Monroe US 41 west of Monroe County Line

4,640

156

Monroe

Johnstonville Rd west of Monroe County Line

620

157

Monroe

High Falls Park Rd west of Monroe County Line

430

158 Butts SR 36 south of Butts County Line

7,120

159 Jones SR 49 south of Jones County Line

13,920

2015 AADT 1,778
1,988
11,302 45,599 2,784 74,413 2,762 2,894 1,250 2,352 3,051 2,044 1,889
497 6,236
833
475
7,865 15,376

2035 Average Annual AADT Growth Rate

2,170

1.00%

2,426

1.00%

20,413 82,357 3,397 134,398 3,370 3,531 2,257 4,248 5,510 2,494 2,305
607 11,262

3.00% 3.00% 1.00% 3.00% 1.00% 1.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 3.00%

1,505

3.00%

580
9,597 18,762

1.00%
1.00% 1.00%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

41

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX A 2006 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

42

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ

Population Household

Total Employment

Retail Employment

Service Employment

Manufacturing Employment

Wholesale Employment

School Enrollment

Acres

Median Income, $

1

291

100

204

147

57

0

0

0 2,773

49,798

2

866

283

40

0

40

0

0

0 4,206

49,324

3

50

18

0

0

0

0

0

0 2,680

40,591

4

503

187

145

106

15

0

24

0 3,208

49,759

5

1,940

1

500

0

500

0

0

0

238

8,754

6

502

105

81

0

81

0

0

0 2,876

49,763

7

483

191

965

133

502

313

17

0 3,694

49,729

8

307

104

15

10

5

0

0

0 3,678

49,784

9

248

89

20

0

20

0

0

0 2,259

49,769

10

590

235

5

0

5

0

0

0 3,388

40,985

11

1,048

332

82

0

82

0

0

603 3,088

40,586

12

660

234

433

94

339

0

0

1,030 3,488

42,793

13

221

83

0

0

0

0

0

0 2,033

44,166

14

593

233

15

0

15

0

0

864

514

22,469

15

331

128

194

2

192

0

0

0

171

30,499

16

531

202

119

1

75

43

0

0 2,311

40,571

17

296

117

295

10

213

0

72

0 2,047

43,831

18

310

99

25

8

13

0

4

0 4,981

42,077

19

243

81

1

0

0

0

1

0 1,916

41,787

20

754

283

19

3

3

12

1

0 5,538

40,452

21

686

250

25

18

0

0

7

0 6,156

41,566

22

2,509

1,017

234

82

147

2

3

0 5,723

41,448

23

471

180

2

2

0

0

0

0 2,867

43,364

24

73

30

20

0

13

0

7

0

830

43,351

25

126

55

246

162

0

0

84

0 1,576

39,366

26

431

157

111

8

38

29

36

0 2,223

39,373

27

1,678

596

1,940

149

1,722

7

62

520

727

32,108

28

775

272

483

19

319

106

39

0 1,243

35,005

29

489

165

0

0

0

0

0

0 2,090

39,362

30

412

179

22

0

21

0

1

0 2,337

36,154

31

228

85

24

10

0

0

14

0 4,426

36,151

32

238

100

0

0

0

0

0

0 1,322

39,362

33

1,236

423

16

0

14

2

0

0 16,195

37,010

34

456

146

680

0

88

592

0

0 1,288

46,001

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-1

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ

Population Household

Total Employment

Retail Employment

Service Employment

Manufacturing Employment

Wholesale Employment

School Enrollment

Acres

Median Income, $

35

497

244

955

194

502

166

93

0

107

24,776

36

1,011

408

1,149

105

1,021

0

23

442 1,249

27,207

37

189

73

0

0

0

0

0

0 4,139

33,192

38

473

149

0

0

0

0

0

0

836

40,076

39

289

94

387

0

76

311

0

0 2,128

40,229

40

287

96

0

0

0

0

0

0 6,465

39,983

41

222

77

605

5

71

486

43

0 3,378

40,003

42

92

38

0

0

0

0

0

0 19,677

41,262

43

44

16

0

0

0

0

0

0 5,371

29,063

44

172

74

0

0

0

0

0

0 18,022

29,106

45

380

140

0

0

0

0

0

0 15,074

29,146

46

250

99

0

0

0

0

0

0 10,522

29,099

47

591

214

0

0

0

0

0

0 10,644

29,065

48

228

97

0

0

0

0

0

0 21,594

41,260

49

274

114

5

0

5

0

0

0 5,712

41,289

50

901

317

32

0

32

0

0

0 14,877

41,399

51

390

155

82

0

82

0

0

0 2,653

29,350

52

64

28

306

0

302

0

4

0 2,106

47,440

53

193

71

0

0

0

0

0

0 1,440

29,088

54

530

210

13

9

4

0

0

0 4,207

36,521

55

822

324

0

0

0

0

0

0 5,528

36,485

56

1,550

580

100

7

93

0

0

0 18,596

43,984

57

520

213

37

10

8

19

0

0

209

36,297

58

1,428

471

729

200

513

16

0

724 2,768

47,957

59

962

374

106

10

77

19

0

0 1,110

36,261

60

344

118

810

200

594

16

0

0

274

45,838

61

600

217

8

0

8

0

0

0 3,422

49,565

62

38

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

866

49,561

63

129

50

229

2

218

0

9

2,405

742

49,164

64

511

195

26

4

22

0

0

0 10,286

44,057

65

1,075

381

7

0

0

7

0

0 15,958

42,455

66

620

234

19

0

18

1

0

0 4,399

42,474

67

432

155

108

21

54

0

33

0 2,397

42,441

68

2,607

968

5

3

2

0

0

680 6,435

39,913

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-2

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ

Population Household

Total Employment

Retail Employment

Service Employment

Manufacturing Employment

Wholesale Employment

School Enrollment

Acres

Median Income, $

69

379

165

19

0

19

0

0

0 4,414

42,479

70

2,999

1,167

40

16

18

6

0

0 4,223

40,111

71

869

319

22

0

20

1

1

0 5,777

46,898

72

417

153

20

0

20

0

0

0 2,970

49,576

73

285

110

3

3

0

0

0

754 1,933

49,580

74

1,242

469

21

16

5

0

0

0 5,920

51,430

75

973

374

1

1

0

0

0

0 6,901

60,985

76

1,928

707

306

0

303

0

3

0 14,557

60,307

77

2,116

810

4

0

4

0

0

560 1,337

38,360

78

332

129

9

4

2

0

3

0 4,292

37,279

79

130

55

0

0

0

0

0

0 5,605

39,436

80

247

81

0

0

0

0

0

0 7,673

37,280

81

46

19

0

0

0

0

0

0 6,223

37,279

82

375

146

0

0

0

0

0

0 9,059

37,365

83

428

149

0

0

0

0

0

0 13,415

45,686

84

318

105

0

0

0

0

0

0 10,912

45,684

85

334

116

13

0

13

0

0

0 5,664

48,045

86

167

65

6

0

6

0

0

0 5,298

45,588

87

147

52

14

0

14

0

0

0 3,825

44,547

88

1,593

563

243

3

239

0

1

1,239 2,927

33,017

89

108

39

48

0

48

0

0

0 5,329

33,043

90

866

317

633

13

516

104

0

0

299

33,087

91

1,618

475

682

163

515

4

0

0 4,073

35,071

92

479

164

64

0

64

0

0

0 8,318

34,021

93

691

255

3

0

1

2

0

0 5,776

39,397

94

166

53

17

2

15

0

0

0 2,842

34,483

95

277

98

13

4

9

0

0

0 4,527

39,406

96

1,047

415

0

0

0

0

0

0 2,361

39,419

97

366

128

0

0

0

0

0

0 2,067

39,409

98

170

48

0

0

0

0

0

0 1,236

39,406

99

977

309

43

0

0

0

43

0 7,391

39,404

100

655

234

101

0

96

4

1

0 12,846

35,335

101

36

15

13

0

13

0

0

0 1,786

35,336

102

423

161

8

0

8

0

0

0 6,732

40,992

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-3

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ
103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 Total

Population Household

573 826 1,467 421 1,471 123 595 483 426 396 1,269 1,639 905 646 272 395 517 74,918

172 301 531 156 537
51 233 220 168 152 444 578 320 234
93 146 191 26,757

Total Employment
0 117 418
17 19 508
5 610 320 133
1 65 137 10 156
1 61 17,603

Retail Employment
0 6 3 1 0 130 0 61 0 36 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 2,206

Service Employment
0 109 413
2 19 324
0 524 312
86 1
61 126
8 116
0 58 12,328

Manufacturing Employment
0 0 1 3 0 50 5 20 2 11 0 0 0 0 37 0 1 2,398

Wholesale Employment
0 2 1 11 0 4 0 5 6 0 0 4 5 0 3 1 0 671

School Enrollment
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,300 12,293

Acres
15,624 8,733
23,240 8,475 749 177 5,500 301 2,391 3,876 9,049 3,734 3,746 7,306 4,051
10,159 6,868
629,768

Median Income, $
35,337 41,002 41,016 46,035 35,333 34,636 45,636 34,683 33,892 45,652 69,892 69,380 69,930 69,944 69,903 46,879 45,566

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

A-4

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX B PRODUCTIONS AND ATTRACTIONS BY TAZ

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Trip Production Ends

Trip Attraction Ends

TAZ HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

1

46

123

21

158

162

782

67

70 117

196 158

162

0

0

2

134

367

61

82

84

981

0

14 162

0

82

84

0

0

3

8

21

4

4

4

57

0

0

9

0

4

4

0

0

4

81

210

38

153

160

920

351

50 134

141 153

160

0

0

5

0

1

0

268

171 1149

0

171 496

0 268

171

0

0

6

46

117

21

60

54

516

0

28 113

0

60

54

0

0

7

80

200

38

268

606 2811

694

330 398

177 268

606

0

0

8

48

130

22

36

35

361

5

5

58

13

36

35

0

0

9

40

104

18

25

29

325

0

7

49

0

25

29

0

0

10

97

242

46

52

60

750

0

2 103

0

52

60

0

0

11

158

443

72

107

110 1231

0

28 518

0 107

110

0

0

12

104

277

48

203

249 1727

43

148 786

125 203

249

0

0

13

36

92

17

19

21

261

0

0

38

0

19

21

0

0

14

94

239

47

54

63

767

0

5 552

0

54

63

0

0

15

53

135

26

69

99

847

1

66 120

3

69

99

0

0

16

86

220

40

62

113

907

58

41 130

1

62

113

0

0

17

49

122

23

137

183 1044

912

101 147

13 137

183

0

0

18

47

131

21

39

39

368

54

9

61

11

39

39

0

0

19

38

103

17

22

21

257

13

0

42

0

22

21

0

0

20

121

313

57

69

85

933

30

6 136

4

69

85

0

0

21

109

286

51

79

84

843

96

9 126

24

79

84

0

0

22

414 1025

198

315

373 3732

78

80 507

109 315

373

0

0

23

76

195

36

42

46

570

1

1

81

3

42

46

0

0

24

12

30

6

15

19

140

88

7

19

0

15

19

0

0

25

21

50

10

214

228

736 1133

84 102

216 214

228

0

0

26

68

180

32

81

119

748

496

38 110

11

81

119

0

0

27

261

696

123

670

925 6318

859

662 1190

199 670

925

0

0

28

121

323

57

179

321 1961

642

165 291

25 179

321

0

0

29

76

206

35

42

41

518

0

0

84

0

42

41

0

0

30

69

164

34

40

53

613

13

8

78

0

40

53

0

0

31

36

94

17

39

43

322

181

8

47

13

39

43

0

0

32

40

96

19

20

25

314

0

0

41

0

20

25

0

0

33

191

518

89

109

111 1366

3

5 217

0 109

111

0

0

34

70

193

32

57

564 2017

792

232 300

0

57

564

0

0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

B-1

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Trip Production Ends

Trip Attraction Ends

TAZ HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

35

84

187

44

382

621 2955 1483

326 397

259 382

621

0

0

36

163

407

80

401

558 3915

338

392 777

140 401

558

0

0

37

30

78

15

16

18

229

0

0

32

0

16

18

0

0

38

71

200

32

41

37

468

0

0

81

0

41

37

0

0

39

44

122

20

40

311 1182

416

132 176

0

40

311

0

0

40

44

121

20

25

24

302

0

0

49

0

25

24

0

0

41

35

93

16

73

500 1628 1194

207 236

7

73

500

0

0

42

15

37

7

16

9

119

0

0

21

0

16

9

0

0

43

7

18

3

8

4

50

0

0

10

0

8

4

0

0

44

28

68

14

29

18

233

0

0

39

0

29

18

0

0

45

60

156

29

65

35

440

0

0

87

0

65

35

0

0

46

40

101

20

43

25

311

0

0

57

0

43

25

0

0

47

92

244

44

101

53

672

0

0 135

0 101

53

0

0

48

38

92

18

39

24

305

0

0

52

0

39

24

0

0

49

46

111

22

49

30

370

0

7

65

0

49

30

0

0

50

142

378

66

168

90 1069

0

44 220

0 168

90

0

0

51

63

158

31

100

67

675

0

112 125

0 100

67

0

0

52

11

26

5

141

114

789

202

418 148

0 141

114

0

0

53

30

79

14

33

18

223

0

0

44

0

33

18

0

0

54

86

217

41

107

61

690

16

18 127

36 107

61

0

0

55

133

337

64

141

80 1018

0

0 188

0 141

80

0

0

56

250

645

117

315

181 2052

13

137 398

28 315

181

0

0

57

85

211

41

109

80

754

120

51 135

40 109

80

0

0

58

221

605

101

785

465 3150

452

996 1142

800 785

465

0

0

59

155

395

74

213

143 1418

120

145 266

40 213

143

0

0

60

54

145

25

632

406 2227

452 1106 432

800 632

406

0

0

61

96

252

45

106

57

700

0

11 141

0 106

57

0

0

62

6

16

2

7

3

35

0

0

9

0

7

3

0

0

63

21

54

10

129

98

682

458

313 1783

8 129

98

0

0

64

83

212

39

103

59

672

7

36 128

16 103

59

0

0

65

170

451

79

184

100 1213

37

10 249

0 184

100

0

0

66

100

258

47

114

65

779

5

26 150

0 114

65

0

0

67

69

181

32

185

107

735 1703

148 146

84 185

107

0

0

68

417 1084

196

453

243 3053

5

7 1066

12 453

243

0

0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

B-2

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Trip Production Ends

Trip Attraction Ends

TAZ HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

69

64

152

31

73

47

562

0

26

95

0

73

47

0

0

70

488 1237

231

548

313 3759

61

55 703

64 548

313

0

0

71

140

363

65

159

88 1053

56

30 208

0 159

88

0

0

72

67

175

31

80

45

527

0

27 104

0

80

45

0

0

73

47

118

22

54

30

353

5

4 585

12

54

30

0

0

74

202

519

94

241

131 1522

29

29 293

64 241

131

0

0

75

161

407

75

168

94 1178

2

1 223

4 168

94

0

0

76

313

812

144

459

282 2923

151

418 574

0 459

282

0

0

77

341

874

162

364

202 2555

0

5 871

0 364

202

0

0

78

54

137

26

58

39

426

238

8

80

16

58

39

0

0

79

22

52

11

19

14

173

0

0

30

0

19

14

0

0

80

38

104

17

35

20

255

0

0

57

0

35

20

0

0

81

8

19

4

7

5

60

0

0

11

0

7

5

0

0

82

61

154

29

54

36

459

0

0

86

0

54

36

0

0

83

67

180

31

61

37

468

0

0

98

0

61

37

0

0

84

49

135

22

45

26

330

0

0

73

0

45

26

0

0

85

53

141

24

52

33

394

0

12

82

0

52

33

0

0

86

27

69

13

26

18

218

0

5

41

0

26

18

0

0

87

23

62

11

26

18

195

0

12

40

0

26

18

0

0

88

248

662

117

314

225 2326

84

216 1322

12 314

225

0

0

89

17

45

8

32

26

233

0

43

46

0

32

26

0

0

90

137

358

65

317

353 2446

870

562 474

52 317

353

0

0

91

232

673

106

631

427 3055

480

606 667

652 631

427

0

0

92

74

200

34

90

63

662

0

57 137

0

90

63

0

0

93

110

287

52

99

65

808

16

3 159

0

99

65

0

0

94

25

70

11

32

20

205

5

15

45

8

32

20

0

0

95

44

116

20

48

31

338

11

12

69

16

48

31

0

0

96

171

430

82

150

103 1304

0

0 240

0 150

103

0

0

97

57

153

27

52

32

402

0

0

84

0

52

32

0

0

98

24

71

11

24

12

151

0

0

39

0

24

12

0

0

99

147

413

67

199

121 1070 3253

38 242

0 199

121

0

0

100

103

272

48

128

95

967

108

90 194

0 128

95

0

0

101

6

15

3

10

8

77

0

12

14

0

10

8

0

0

102

68

175

32

63

43

524

0

7 100

0

63

43

0

0

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

B-3

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Trip Production Ends

Trip Attraction Ends

TAZ HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

HBW

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

Car (I-E)

Truck (I-E)

103

83

239

38

82

43

540

0

0 131

0

82

43

0

0

104

132

345

61

166

119 1214

168

104 240

24 166

119

0

0

105

233

612

109

356

277 2626

92

371 518

12 356

277

0

0

106

68

176

32

77

54

529

859

15 104

4

77

54

0

0

107

232

610

110

217

140 1731

0

17 345

0 217

140

0

0

108

20

50

10

312

273 1324 1061

451 249

520 312

273

0

0

109

98

246

46

85

62

744

40

4 138

0

85

62

0

0

110

81

189

41

338

305 2089

706

542 376

244 338

305

0

0

111

69

174

33

175

156 1261

470

284 1043

0 175

156

0

0

112

65

164

30

135

105

782

187

118 149

144 135

105

0

0

113

204

539

93

182

110 1398

0

1 291

0 182

110

0

0

114

264

696

120

260

168 1965

303

58 403

0 260

168

0

0

115

146

384

66

187

132 1319

395

122 267

24 187

132

0

0

116

105

273

48

98

62

758

5

9 152

8

98

62

0

0

117

43

116

20

82

97

650

524

139 130

0

82

97

0

0

118

64

165

30

58

37

461

76

1

91

0

58

37

0

0

119

83

216

39

96

70

740

14

54 1039

8

96

70

0

0

120

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

922

114

121

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 6730 1282

122

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 13979 4911

123

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1661

69

124

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 6978 1329

125

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

980

121

126

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2746

339

127

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2540

484

128

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1937

369

129

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1620

309

130

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

710

88

131

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

101

4

132

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2393

456

133

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2688

512

134

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2509

478

135

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1488

184

136

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1506

186

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

B-4

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TAZ
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Total

HBW
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11597

Trip Production Ends

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30229 5441 16766 15316

Car (I-E)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124414

Truck (I-E)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23900

HBW
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11605

Trip Attraction Ends

HBO HBShop NHB

Truck (I-I)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30225 5442 16766 15316

Car (I-E)
2188 3395 4278 8140 1463 1490 5687 7532 1811 10243 2060 1541
773 1266 2056 1337 1238
375 3267
517 359 6020 5888 124412

Truck (I-E)
270 420 178 520
61 184 1083 2647 345 3599 255 293
96 241
86 255 236
46 622
64 44 744 376 23900

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

B-5

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX C LINK VOLUME PERCENT DEVIATION

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Model Development

Count Station
224 226 228 129 229 127 230 125 185 234 236 267 269 107 109 101 103 105 114 220 222 178 181 181 161 169 118 132 143 176 167 167 163 174 107 154 152 152 145 165 114 113 172 147 300 169 169

ADT Count
80,290 78,750 77,030 75,560 75,050 73,680 72,850 72,190 72,190 71,250 70,940 55,370 54,890 23,470 23,440 21,650 19,360 18,830 18,170 33,930 32,240 15,640 15,610 15,610 13,950 11,630 10,590 10,200 9,540 9,470 9,470 9,470 8,500 8,390 8,380 7,680 7,660 7,660 7,240 7,240 7,090 6,930 6,910 6,750 6,720 6,340 6,340

Modeled Volume
86,624 85,959 85,281 77,506 77,747 74,100 80,638 72,963 72,963 71,297 71,461 54,302 55,893 18,424 15,352 17,741 19,668 16,595 12,872 33,337 30,731 12,063 12,450 11,512 10,138 10,336 10,866 7,221 6,535 10,304 10,123 12,920 9,004 10,721 6,655 4,190 5,909 5,811 6,535 9,000 8,559 5,817 13,656 4,988 2,123 1,439 2,180

Deviation
7.9% 9.2% 10.7% 2.6% 3.6% 0.6% 10.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.7% -1.9% 1.8% -21.5% -34.5% -18.1% 1.6% -11.9% -29.2% -1.7% -4.7% -22.9% -20.2% -26.3% -27.3% -11.1% 2.6% -29.2% -31.5% 8.8% 6.9% 36.4% 5.9% 27.8% -20.6% -45.4% -22.9% -24.1% -9.7% 24.3% 20.7% -16.1% 97.6% -26.1% -68.4% -77.3% -65.6%

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Maximum Desirable Deviation 15.4% 15.6% 15.7% 15.8% 15.9% 16.0% 16.1% 16.2% 16.2% 16.3% 16.3% 18.1% 18.2% 26.4% 26.4% 27.3% 28.7% 29.0% 29.5% 22.5% 23.0% 31.5% 31.5% 31.5% 33.1% 35.8% 37.3% 37.9% 39.1% 39.2% 39.2% 39.2% 41.1% 41.3% 41.3% 42.9% 43.0% 43.0% 44.0% 44.0% 44.5% 44.9% 45.0% 45.4% 45.5% 46.7% 46.7%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

C-1

Model Development

Count Station
105 284 158 158 147 138 169 208 209 209 145 141 149 210 120 132 206 183 194 194 134 212 112 187 172 232 136 167 172 227 178 178 205 152 122 204 163 116 165 229 217 133 213 189 118 227 214

ADT Count
6,340 5,880 5,860 5,860 5,750 5,500 5,430 5,400 5,390 5,390 5,310 5,230 5,230 5,010 4,980 4,970 4,890 4,670 4,640 4,640 4,330 4,330 4,310 4,270 4,190 4,150 4,130 4,090 4,070 4,000 3,940 3,940 3,890 3,770 3,710 3,670 3,650 3,650 3,620 3,600 3,470 3,360 3,350 3,350 3,310 3,130 3,100

Modeled Volume
4,518 4,591 6,282 6,580 4,386 9,315 6,897 7,896 1,728 1,522 6,147 9,287 2,626 5,739 4,289 3,836 7,893 1,338 3,778 3,665 12,907 4,167 4,238 1,770 5,283 11,391 9,387 7,950 1,246 3,390 5,048 3,488 1,891 5,489 8,210 2,091 4,617 6,956 7,603 3,857 2,902 1,761 3,405 1,984 356 4,934 1,573

Deviation
-28.7% -21.9% 7.2% 12.3% -23.7% 69.4% 27.0% 46.2% -67.9% -71.8% 15.8% 77.6% -49.8% 14.5% -13.9% -22.8% 61.4% -71.3% -18.6% -21.0% 198.1% -3.8% -1.7% -58.6% 26.1% 174.5% 127.3% 94.4% -69.4% -15.3% 28.1% -11.5% -51.4% 45.6% 121.3% -43.0% 26.5% 90.6% 110.0% 7.1% -16.4% -47.6% 1.6% -40.8% -89.2% 57.6% -49.3%

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Maximum Desirable Deviation 46.7% 48.2% 48.3% 48.3% 48.7% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.4% 50.8% 50.8% 51.7% 51.9% 51.9% 52.3% 53.3% 53.5% 53.5% 55.1% 55.1% 55.2% 55.5% 55.9% 56.1% 56.3% 56.5% 56.6% 57.1% 57.4% 57.4% 57.8% 58.5% 59.0% 59.2% 59.4% 59.4% 59.6% 59.7% 60.7% 61.6% 61.6% 61.6% 62.0% 63.5% 63.8%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

C-2

Model Development

Count Station
150 176 174 111 135 129 252 180 141 103 186 203 190 190 241 295 203 299 156 225 116 124 138 161 202 126 140 212 118 303 207 147 196 139 8015 7516 159 7433 198 150 123 131 157 240 219 143 221

ADT Count
3,060 3,030 2,990 2,920 2,910 2,620 2,610 2,610 2,610 2,590 2,550 2,510 2,470 2,470 2,450 2,450 2,420 2,400 2,360 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,290 2,250 2,240 2,210 2,170 2,120 2,070 2,040 2,020 2,010 1,960 1,930 1,910 1,910 1,910 1,840 1,820 1,770 1,760 1,750 1,720 1,680 1,650 1,620 1,610

Modeled Volume
1,439 1,431 690 2,080 4,198 4,548 2,800 3,297 1,898 3,454 7,827 1,749 7,832 6,581 3,063 5,478 1,682 2,717 1,902 3,319 1,929 4,087 2,015 2,281 2,119 4,407 1,860 1,624 1,099 917 2,428 5,810 1,072
47 3,226 6,421 1,252 1,551 3,315 5,489 2,679 1,761 1,545 1,004 4,823 1,302 1,135

Deviation
-53.0% -52.8% -76.9% -28.8% 44.3% 73.6% 7.3% 26.3% -27.3% 33.4% 207.0% -30.3% 217.1% 166.4% 25.0% 123.6% -30.5% 13.2% -19.4% 41.2% -17.9% 73.9% -12.0% 1.4% -5.4% 99.4% -14.3% -23.4% -46.9% -55.1% 20.2% 189.1% -45.3% -97.6% 68.9% 236.2% -34.4% -15.7% 82.1% 210.1% 52.2% 0.6% -10.2% -40.2% 192.3% -19.6% -29.5%

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Maximum Desirable Deviation 64.1% 64.4% 64.8% 65.5% 65.5% 68.6% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 69.0% 69.4% 69.9% 70.4% 70.4% 70.7% 70.7% 71.0% 71.3% 71.8% 72.0% 72.0% 72.0% 72.8% 73.3% 73.5% 73.9% 74.5% 75.3% 76.0% 76.5% 76.9% 77.0% 77.9% 78.4% 78.8% 78.8% 78.8% 80.1% 80.4% 81.4% 81.6% 81.8% 82.4% 83.3% 84.0% 84.6% 84.9%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

C-3

Model Development

Count Station
8019 207 109 200 101 174 123 145 145 125 158 205 223 297 194 209 165 165 192 191 128 121 127 156 137 229 198 121 184 218 199 193 234 182 257 161 189 8011 101 254 101 254 159 265 192 263 195

ADT Count
1,550 1,550 1,470 1,470 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,430 1,430 1,310 1,290 1,290 1,260 1,250 1,250 1,210 1,200 1,200 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,170 1,140 1,120 1,020 970 940 920 830 770 730 700 700 680 640 630 560 550 540 540 540 540 520 510 390 390 340

Modeled Volume
403 475 2,612 451 3,900 2,050 1,383 5,391 5,391 1,474 3,565 1,179 943 1,626 1,894 2,625 4,004 4,004 1,057 4,142 4,357 267 1,358 2,524 4,115 2,278 1,762 4,078 315 487 756 1,232 3,425 628 2,167 3,894 4,727 177 1,210 2,094 1,210 2,094 2,333 2,297 1,055 444 504

Deviation
-74.0% -69.4% 77.7% -69.3% 170.8% 42.4% -4.0% 277.0% 277.0% 12.5% 176.4% -8.6% -25.2% 30.0% 51.5% 117.0% 233.6% 233.6% -10.5% 251.0% 269.3% -77.2% 19.2% 125.4% 303.5% 134.8% 87.5% 343.3% -62.1% -36.8% 3.5% 76.0% 389.3% -7.7% 238.6% 518.1% 744.0% -67.8% 124.0% 287.7% 124.0% 287.7% 348.7% 350.4% 170.5% 14.0% 48.3%

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Maximum Desirable Deviation 86.3% 86.3% 88.3% 88.3% 89.1% 89.1% 89.1% 89.4% 89.4% 92.8% 93.5% 93.5% 94.4% 94.8% 94.8% 96.1% 96.5% 96.5% 97.2% 97.2% 97.2% 97.5% 98.6% 99.4% 103.5% 105.8% 107.3% 108.3% 113.3% 117.0% 119.8% 122.0% 122.0% 123.6% 126.9% 127.8% 134.5% 135.5% 136.6% 136.6% 136.6% 136.6% 138.9% 140.1% 157.5% 157.5% 167.2%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

C-4

Model Development

Count Station
266 259 183 181 187 178 261 167

ADT Count
320 240 220 200 190 160 90 60

Modeled Volume
1,096 347 494 494 510
4 102 193

Deviation
242.7% 44.7% 124.5% 147.1% 168.5% -97.6% 13.2% 222.2%

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Maximum Desirable Deviation 171.7% 194.6% 202.1% 210.7% 215.5% 232.2% 298.5% 356.2%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

C-5

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX D LINK-BY-LINK VOLUME OF SCREENLINES

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Model Development

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Screen Line 1:
Road Name
Fincheville Rd Stark Rd Barnett Bridge Rd SR 16 US 23 Monticello Hwy Juliette Rd Jarrell Plantation Rd SR 11 US 129 Total

2006 ADT Count 940 2,420 770 3,350 2,350 1,910 730 160 1,440 5,860 19,930

2006 Modeled Volume 1,762 1,682 487 1,984 3,319 1,252 756 4 1,383 6,282 18,911

Deviation%
87.4% -30.5% -36.8% -40.8% 41.2% -34.5% 3.6% -97.5% -4.0% 7.2% -5.1%

Max. Deviation%
146.9% 102.5% 158.5% 90.5% 103.6% 112.1% 161.8% 288.5% 124.9% 73.1% 45.9%

Screen Line 2:
Road Name
SR 16 Bucksnort Rd Johnstonville Rd US 41 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr SR 42 Zebulon Rd SR 74 Total

2006 ADT Count 11,630 1,120 680 3,650 3,770 2,920 320 2,610 26,700

2006 Modeled Volume 10,336 2,524 628 4,617 5,489 2,080 1,096 2,800 29,570

Deviation%
-11.1% 125.4% -7.6% 26.5% 45.6% -28.8% 242.5%
7.3% 10.8%

Max. Deviation%
56.3% 137.4% 166.2% 87.6% 86.5% 95.4% 221.5% 99.5% 41.0%

Screen Line 3:
Road Name
SR 74 GA 42 Maynard S Mill Rd Dixie Hwy I-75 US 23 SR 18 US 129 Chapman Dr Old Garrison Rd SR 57 Total

2006 ADT Count 1,620 540 640 3,030 80,290 5,010 2,620 18,830 700 13,950 4,190 131,420

2006 Modeled Volume 1,302 1,210 2,167 1,431 86,624 5,739 4,548 16,595 3,425 10,138 5,283 138,462

Deviation%
-19.6% 124.1% 238.6% -52.8%
7.9% 14.6% 73.6% -11.9% 389.3% -27.3% 26.1% 5.4%

Max. Deviation%
119.4% 181.5% 170.1% 94.0% 27.0% 77.6% 99.4% 46.9% 164.4% 52.6% 83.1% 22.4%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

D-1

Model Development
Screen Line 4:
Road Name US 23 W 3rd St Lake Clark Rd Brownlee Rd Johnstonville Rd SR 42 SR 83 Juliette Rd Dames Ferry Rd Golden Isles Hwy Total
Screen Line 5:
Road Name Ethridge Rd SW SR 22 SR 18 Cumslo Rd Lite-n-tie Rd Total
Screen Line 6:
Road Name Hungerford Rd SR 11 Green Settlement Rd SR 18 Upper River Rd Total

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2006 ADT Count 7,090 8,390 60 340 830 2,350 2,360 2,240 1,250 5,400 30,310

2006 Modeled Volume 8,559 10,721 193 504 315 4,087 1,902 2,119 1,626 7,896 37,922

Deviation%
20.7% 27.8% 221.7% 48.2% -62.0% 73.9% -19.4% -5.4% 30.1% 46.2% 25.1%

Max. Deviation%
68.0% 63.8% 419.2% 216.4% 154.0% 103.6% 103.4% 105.5% 131.8% 75.5% 39.1%

2006 ADT Count 390 7,240 4,600 1,550 1,820 15,600

2006 Modeled Volume 1,055 6,535 2,264 403 3,315 13,572

Deviation%
170.5% -9.7% -50.8% -74.0% 82.1% -13.0%

Max. Deviation%
205.4% 67.5% 80.2% 121.4% 114.2% 50.4%

2006 ADT Count 190 2,070 2,510 4,970 1,440 11,180

2006 Modeled Volume 510 1,099 1,749 3,836 2,050 9,244

Deviation%
168.4% -46.9% -30.3% -22.8% 42.4% -17.3%

Max. Deviation%
270.2% 108.7% 101.0% 77.9% 124.9% 57.2%

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

D-2

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Involvement Report
August 2008

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................1 2.0 Public Involvement Program.......................................................................................3 3.0 Public Involvement Process .......................................................................................4 4.0 Public Involvement Goals and Objectives ..................................................................4 5.0 Public Involvement Techniques ..................................................................................5
5.1 Local Government Coordination ............................................................................................................ 5 5.2 Study Advisory Group ............................................................................................................................ 5 5.3 Public Notification................................................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Public Workshops .................................................................................................................................. 8 5.5 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 10 5.6 Plan Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 13

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

i

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0 Study Area ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 5.0 Minority & Low-Income Population Locations ......................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.0 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5

Butts County Study Advisory Group Members........................................... 6 Jones County Study Advisory Group Members ......................................... 6 Monroe County Study Advisory Group Members....................................... 7 Study Advisory Group Meetings ................................................................ 7 Public Workshops ...................................................................................... 9 Public Workshop Participation ................................................................. 13

APPENDIX
A. Study Advisory Group Documentation B. Meeting Notifications C. Public Workshop Documentation D. Media Coverage and Public Comment Forms

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

ii

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

1.0 Introduction

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Office of Planning, in conjunction with Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties, conducted the Butts, Jones and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to serve the 3-County Region through 2035.

The Study Team, made up of GDOT Planning Staff and its Consultant Team HNTB and MPH & Associates coordinated with the Counties and Cities within the study area, GDOT District 3 staff, the McIntosh Trail and Middle Georgia Regional Development Centers (RDCs), and other local partners in the planning, development, review, and approval of study recommendations. A comprehensive and interactive public involvement program was developed to ensure that potential transportation improvements were coordinated with the the goals stated in the county's current comprehensive plan to afford individual citizens and interested groups the opportunity to provide their input in developing and evaluating planned improvements to the transportation network.

The purpose of the public involvement program was to inform and include the public in the transportation planning process. Public concerns were brought to the forefront so that they could be discussed and addressed in plan documentation. This approach engaged the end users (i.e. the residents and business owners of the three Counties) in the identification, development, evaluation, and selection of transportation improvements. The ultimate goal of the public involvement effort was to build consensus for the recommended near-term, mid-term and long-term improvements identified through the long range transportation planning process.

The end product for this study was an LRTP that provided for the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the study area through the study horizon year (2035). Interim analysis took place for the year 2015. The Public Involvement Plan ensured that residents and citizens of the study area were involved in the planning process from the development of goals and objectives through identification of transportation needs and associated improvements.

The 3-County study area is displayed in Figure 1.0.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Study Area

Study Area

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Technical Memorandum August 2008
Figure No: 1.0

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

2.0 Public Involvement Program

A public involvement program incorporating active participation and interaction among citizens, the study advisory group, and elected officials throughout the planning process is a proven means to attaining community consensus around proposed transportation solutions. An inclusive, well-planned and organized public involvement program also helps to proactively address potential transportation issues, lessen negative perceptions, and build acceptance of the study results. To that end, the Study Team implemented a public involvement program that utilized consensus-building techniques and facilitated open communication throughout the study process.

Area stakeholders, individual citizens and interested groups were given multiple opportunities to become involved in the planning process. Citizens with an interest in the study were informed of the study's progress and provided various means for input into the decision-making process including: public workshops, study advisory groups, comment forms, and a study web site. Through the public involvement process, the Study Team was able to identify improvements that will help to alleviate the current and future transportation needs of stakeholders and residents of the 3-County Region.

The Study Team disseminated information to stakeholders using proven outreach techniques. Study team representatives also listened to ideas and concerns, responded to comments, and incorporated input into the decision making process.

This document outlines the following:

The Public Involvement Process; The Public Involvement Goals and Objectives; The Study Team's use of a Study Advisory Group; The Study Team's plan for public participation throughout the study; The Study Team's method to inform and involve stakeholders, including those with
an interest in the project or who may be directly impacted by potential improvements; and, The Study Team's method of informing and involving appropriate State, Regional, and Local agencies and public officials throughout the study process.

The following sections outline the techniques that were used to inform the public of project events and milestones, and the opportunities for the public's involvement in the study process.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

3.0 Public Involvement Process

The Public Involvement Process developed for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study focused on meetings with stakeholders and the public scheduled at key technical milestones in the study process. This ensured that input and feedback provided by citizens and stakeholders was effectively integrated and considered in the development of the plan and in the conception of project recommendations. The process involved the following major components:

Ongoing local government coordination; A Study Advisory Group convened twice throughout the course of the study; Public workshops held twice during the study; and, A project website including study background and documentation.

4.0 Public Involvement Goals and Objectives
A number of goals and objectives were established to guide the public involvement process. They are outlined below:
Goal 1 - Maximize the visibility of the transportation planning process.
Objectives-
o Identify umbrella organizations that can help distribute information and involve residents in the public involvement process.
o Maintain contact with individuals who have expressed an interest in the project by maintaining a mailing list.
o Employ as many outlets as possible to inform the public such as: local newspapers, local and state web sites, community newsletters, and others.
Goal 2 - Maximize and enhance the opportunities for people to be involved in the planning process.
Objectives-
o Identify appropriate locations and times of day to meet with communities. o Involve communities in the planning process early and often prior to
developing preliminary improvement concepts. o Determine the most appropriate methods for communicating information to
the public through local input and feedback from the Study Advisory Group.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Goal 3 - Increase the public's understanding of the long range transportation planning process.

Objectives-

o Provide information documenting the study process at public workshops and on the study web site.
o Provide materials documenting existing and future transportation conditions. o Provide opportunities for the public to ask questions and provide written
replies in a timely manner. o Utilize graphics, charts, and tables in addition to text on public displays.

5.0 Public Involvement Techniques
5.1 Local Government Coordination
Staff representatives and elected officials from regional planning agencies, Counties, and Cities within the study area were engaged throughout the study process. A kick-off meeting was held on June 25, 2007 to introduce the study and discuss transportation issues and opportunities with stakeholders from all three counties. Additional one-on-one meetings were conducted with each respective county throughout the course of the study to facilitate communication, gather a deeper understanding of each County's needs, and to assist with the following processes:
Develop goals and objectives and identify opportunities and constraints for the LRTP;
Identification of opportunity areas within local jurisdictions; Identification of local issues to address during the study process; Coordination with ongoing planning efforts; Provide guidance on ways to effectively reach out to the local citizens; Review of the travel demand model, including the roadway network, socio-economic
and land use data; and, Review of potential improvements.
5.2 Study Advisory Group
A Study Advisory Group (SAG) was established for each individual County. SAG Members were identified with guidance from local staff and represented local jurisdictions and municipalities, planning agencies, business leaders, special interest groups, environmental justice groups, area homeowners, and others suggested by County staff. The role of the SAG was to provide a local perspective and feedback regarding:
Development of goals and objectives Review of existing deficiencies and issues Identification of development opportunities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Recommendation of potential improvements Identification of institutional barriers and opportunities

Individuals invited to participate in the SAG are listed in Tables 5.0 5.2.

Table 5.0 Butts County Study Advisory Group Members

Opal Greene Trucks, Inc.
Robert Hiett McIntosh Trail RDC
Christy Taylor Butts County Planning
Jane Welchel Middle Georgia Community
Action Agency
Romela Freeman City of Flovilla

Steven Lease Butts County Planning
Lou DuFresne Jackson Lakes Homeowners
Association
Christy Anderson Jones Petroleum

Lynda White Butts County Board of Education
Joe Blankenship Butts County Board of Education
Jeannie Brantley McIntosh Trail RDC

Bart White Industrial Development Authority

Perry Ridgeway City of Jackson

Dr. Van Whaler Butts County Administrator

Table 5.1 Jones County Study Advisory Group Members

Decius Aaron City of Gray Superintendent
John Conn Conn Realty
Wayne Garrett Jones County Schools,
Transportation
Candy McMahon Conn Realty
Tim Pitrowski Jones County Planning and
Zoning
Mike Underwood Jones County Administrator

Laten Bonoil Jones County Public Works
Charlie Cruz Middle Georgia Community Action
Agency
Cheryl Harrington DHR Region 6 Transportation Office
Velma McFadden The Plan Group
Greg Mullis Jones County Development
Authority

Pam Christopher Jones County Chamber of
Commerce
Pat Daniel Better Hometown
Steve McClendon Tri County EMC
Carol Miller Jones County Board of
Education Harry Goff Jones County Schools Transportation

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Table 5.2 Monroe County Study Advisory Group Members

David Clark Department of Corrections
Phil Clark Middle Georgia RDC
Larry Evans Monroe County
Tiffany Andrews Monroe-Forsyth Chamber of
Commerce
Robert Williams Juliette River Club

Sid Banks Monroe County Road
Superintendent
Matt Perry EMA Director
Jim Peters Monroe County Board of
Commissioners
Bud Queen High Falls Lake Association
Melvin Lawrence Elderly/Disabled Community

Bob Rychel Middle Georgia RDC
Jeff Turner Monroe County School Board
Cindy Crowley Monroe County Clerk
Vicky Smith Bolingbroke Community Club

Each County's SAG met at two key milestones during the plan development effort. The first meeting took place early in the study schedule to finalize goals and objectives that are consistent with the current county comprehensive plan and to gather feedback on issues and opportunities identified during the existing conditions evaluation. The second meeting was an opportunity to share and gather feedback on preliminary project recommendations. Each SAG meeting took place approximately two weeks before each public workshop to provide members with a "preview" of the material and to encourage assistance in getting the word out to other citizens in the area. Study Advisory Group dates and locations are documented in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Study Advisory Group Meetings

Meeting Butts County Workshop #1 Jones County Workshop #1 Monroe County Workshop #1 Butts County Workshop #2 Monroe County Workshop #2 Jones County Workshop #2

Location Butts County Administration Building Jones County Government Center Monroe County Clubhouse Butts County Administration Building Monroe County Clubhouse Jones County Government Center

Date October 1, 2007 October 2, 2007 October 10, 2007 April 7, 2008 April 8, 2008 April 8, 2008

Documentation of each SAG meeting can be found in Appendix A.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.3 Public Notification

The Study Team utilized several methods to inform the public of study activities and to solicit public input for the selection of alternative improvements. The following notification techniques were employed during this study:

Press Releases, Advertisements and Flyers The Study Team developed and distributed a press release and flyer for each County's public meetings to promote and encourage public participation. The press releases were used to generate media interest in attending the meetings and writing related news articles. The releases also provided information included in advertisements in local newspapers.

Coordination with the Georgia Department of Transportation District 3 Communications Contact ensured that all information was released to the media at least three weeks prior to the date of the workshops. Study advisory group members and County staff also assisted in the distribution of flyers at key locations within the study area. Email distribution of the flyers was also initiated by the Study Team.

Several Macon local news affiliates also helped to spread the word about the study by providing coverage of the public meetings, and in the case of Jones County, providing leadup interviews and news promos generating interest in the initial public meeting.

Meeting notification materials are included in Appendix B.

Web Site A study webpage was developed as part of GDOT's website at: http://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/programs/studies/Pages/ButtsJonesMonroe.aspx

Study details, a calendar of upcoming meetings, a downloadable comment form, and all public meeting materials were made available for download from the website.

5.4 Public Workshops

Involving the public in the decision-making process is essential for developing consensus and acceptance within the community it is intended to serve. Throughout the planning process, the public was invited to provide information, offer alternatives, and present their interests and concerns. As stakeholders who live in and travel through the study area, citizens were able to provide insightful input on issues relevant to the plan's development.

Public workshops were held to provide a forum for citizens to voice their opinions, concerns, and ideas. Two rounds of open house workshops, one workshop in each of the three Counties for a total of six workshops, were conducted during the study. These workshops ensured that ample opportunity for public input and education was provided and considered in the evaluation and recommendation of the proposed transportation improvements. Each public workshop encouraged collaboration among citizens, County staff and local leadership in the identification of potential transportation improvements.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

A brief presentation was provided at each of the public workshops to support facilitation activities and to educate attendees on the purpose of the study and on the long range planning process. Additionally, the workshops provided opportunity for the informal review of display materials with the public. These materials included maps and graphics designed to convey technical information to non-technical audiences. The Study Team was available for one-on-one discussions at all of the workshops. In addition, public comment forms were available for citizens to officially record their comments and submit them to the Study Team.

Two public workshops took place in each county at key milestones in the study process. These milestones mirrored those identified for the Study Advisory Group meetings. Based on input from local representatives, public workshops were scheduled either from 5PM to 7PM or 6PM to 8PM on a Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday night with an attempt to avoid any conflicts with any other significant community events or meetings. Public workshops dates and locations are provided in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Public Workshops

Meeting Butts County Workshop #1 Jones County Workshop #1 Monroe County Workshop #1 Butts County Workshop #2 Monroe County Workshop #2 Jones County Workshop #2

Location Butts County Administration Building Jones County Government Center Monroe County Clubhouse Butts County Administration Building Monroe County Clubhouse Jones County Government Center

Date/Time October 16, 2007, 6PM-8PM October 23, 2007, 5PM-7PM November 1, 2007, 5PM-7PM April 29, 2008, 5PM-7PM May 1, 2008, 5PM-7PM May 8, 2008, 5PM-7PM

Workshop #1 (Overview of Planning Process and Existing Operating Conditions) This workshop provided an overview of the study process; documented data collection activities; and presented the existing conditions of the transportation system. This workshop included a formal presentation, followed by an open house period to solicit public input, identify issues and concerns, and to aid the Study Team in the evaluation of existing and future deficiencies.
Workshop #2 (Present Preliminary Long Range Transportation Plan) This workshop presented preliminary improvement recommendations for major deficiencies and the findings to date, including a preliminary project prioritization methodology for public review and comment. A formal presentation of the study results was followed by an open house period to solicit public input on the draft study recommendations.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

In addition to the scheduled public workshops, GDOT District 3 staff, in conjunction with the GDOT Office of Planning, presented study background information to the High Falls Civic Association on April 27, 2008 in response to a citizen request.

Documentation of each public workshop can be found in Appendix C.

5.5 Environmental Justice

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

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

Environmental justice (EJ) consideration played a key role in the public involvement and plan development process. It is paramount to look at the distribution and concentration of minority and low-income populations to determine potential EJ impacts. The intent of EJ analysis is locating these populations and involving them early and continuously through the decision making process, as well as using data to analytically assess if there would be a disproportionate impact on traditionally underrepresented communities.

The Study Team utilized 2000 US Census Data, the most current data available, to identify minority and low-income groups at the blockgroup level. Disadvantaged populations were identified as part of this analysis and extra efforts were made to include these groups in the planning process. As illustrated in Figure 5.0, these populations were identified in the vicinity of downtown Jackson, Jenkinsburg, and Forsyth. These areas were given special attention to ensure that transportation improvements would benefit and not disproportionately impact these areas in a negative manner. The following tasks were conducted for the identified low-income and minority populations:

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

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Figure 5.0 displays minority and low-income populations through the study area based on Census Block Group Data. This information was used to assist in the identification of potential EJ impacts associated with transportation improvements through the study area.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Minority & Low-Income Population Locations

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Figure No: 5.0

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

5.6 Plan Evaluation

Corresponding to the first goal documented in the Goals and Objectives for the Public Involvement Plan, "Maximize the visibility of the transportation planning process", the Study Team verified the effectiveness of the public involvement effort by documenting public workshop participation, specifically:

Number of comment forms received; Number of meeting attendees; and Participation by local media and public events.

Table 5.5 provides an overview of public workshop participation.

Table 5.5 Public Workshop Participation

Meetings

Date

Butts County Workshop #1 October 16, 2007

Jones County Workshop #1 October 23, 2007

Monroe County Workshop #1 November 1, 2007

Butts County Workshop #2 April 29, 2008

Monroe County Workshop #2 May 1, 2008

Jones County Workshop #2 May 8, 2008

Local Media Coverage? No Yes Newspaper and TV Yes Newspaper No Yes Newspaper and TV Yes - Newspaper

# of Attendees
15 18 6 8 17 11

# of Comment
Forms 3
4
4
1
4
3

It is also important to assess what did and did not work well at each public workshop and make recommendations to enhance this and other public involvement programs moving forward. Further evaluation of the effectiveness of the public involvement effort was accomplished by feedback received from GDOT and other Study Advisory Group members. Feedback included additional possibilities for future meeting locations and formats.
Media coverage and public comments received at the public meetings are included in Appendix D.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties

13

Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX A STUDY ADVISORY GROUP MATERIALS

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

MEETING DOCUMENTATION

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Middle Georgia RDC

Meeting Date 06/25/07

Subject Kick-Off Meeting

Present Phil Clark, Robert Hiett, Tom Queen, Sid Banks, Jim Peters, Perry Ridgeway, Sei Kpeyei,

Kelly Gwin, Matt Fowler, Radney Simpson, Beth Radke, Mary Huffstetler, Steven Lease, Van Whaler,

Bert Liston, Mike Underwood, David Millen, Thomas B. Howell, Tim Pitrowski, Tim Hatton, Andrew Smith,

Alvin Randall, Don Tussing, and Claudia Bilotto.

The purpose of this meeting was to kick-off the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study. Following the presentation pertaining to the scope and schedule of the study, the discussion shifted to local issues. Information about concerns, opportunities, deficiencies, improvements, and growth areas within the transportation study area were gathered. The following is a summary:
Butts County: Growth and Development o Comprehensive plan update in process o Regional Airport Site selection received notification from Governor's office o Butts/Monroe County line - Rose Hill development proposes 3680 residential units on 257 acres (Data from DCA DRI application) o Transportation infrastructure needed at Rose Hill site o Flovilla may annex Rose Hill University of Georgia Urban Design charettes may be planned o Falcon Quarry located off State Route (SR) 36 has truck traffic o Henry County considering reservoir, which could bring residential growth around water Transportation o Interest in use of ARC model along with or as a comparison to the Macon-Bibb model o SR 16 interchange could become "Gateway," opportunity provided in conjunction with proposed widening and desires to keep "character" of the road o SR 16 improvements to City of Jackson include south loop, but the loop is a low priority o SR 36 is planned as a 1-way pair and grade separated over railroad in City of Jackson o SR 36 relocation, serves as route to Barnesville and Thomaston from I-75 o SR 36 has several truck stops o Truck Lanes Study on I-75 o North/south movement on SR 42 o Bike and Pedestrian projects interests are mixed o McIntosh Trail RDC has participated in planned trail from Carroll to Butts County Butts County and Indian Springs are Signature Communities

Authored By: Tim Hatton Copy To: Meeting Participants, Read, File

Issue Date: 8/22/2008

Page 1 of 2

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Middle Georgia RDC

Meeting Date 06/25/07

Jones County: Growth and Development o Upper River Road has high growth in area with potentially unsafe existing transportation infrastructure o Town Creek Reservoir water line extension o 965 acre industrial park on Highway 57 could lead to increased truck traffic to I-16 o Public lands funding National Parks system (Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge) Transportation o Bike path on Clinton Road is a Rails-to-Trails which would connect Oconee to Heritage Greenway o Scenic byway on Highway 11 o North bypass around City of Gray o Rail crossing delay in City of Gray Service Delivery between City of Gray and County could become issue

Monroe County: Growth and Development o Pressures from north - Butts County and Atlanta regional growth o Pressures from south Macon commercial development on SR 41 and I-75 o New industrial park on Rumble Road o Department of Corrections is locating into Tift College site o Bass Road and Bass Pro development larger employment center than downtown Macon, 20,000 employees with 32,000 employees expected by 2030 Transportation o Cross-county connector using SR 18 to connector to employment center on Bass Road o Four-lane from LaGrange to Macon - East-West multi-lane, five counties, pursuing funding o Half diamond interchange at Pate Road o Truck traffic on SR 41, SR, 83, and SR 42 o City of Forsyth rerouting truck traffic o Rail delay re-routing truck traffic through downtown Forsyth o Bolingbroke, Maynard Mill, and SR 41 offers area for bikes Monroe County and Forsyth are Signature Community

Authored By: Tim Hatton Copy To: Meeting Participants, Read, File

Issue Date: 8/22/2008 Page 2 of 2

MEETING DOCUMENTATION

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Jones County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/18/07

Subject County Issues Discussion

Present Kelly Gwin, Radney Simpson, Mary Huffstetler, , Mike Underwood, Tim Pitrowski, Tim Hatton,

Wayne Garrett, Harry Goff, Carol Miller, J. Preston Hawkins, Laten Boniol, and Claudia Bilotto.

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study, a one-on-one meeting was held with Jones County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants included Mike Underwood, Jones County Administrator, as well as representatives from the Jones County School System, the Board of Education, Planning & Zoning, and Public Works. The following summarizes the issues raised by those in attendance.
Transportation Issues: State Route (SR) 129 o Milledgeville thru traffic from 441 and Macon o Four-lane widening planned in Putnam County's Long-range Plan o Traffic from SR 129 in City of Gray could be alleviated by North Gray By-Pass, which should be completed by 2012 o Recent Scenic Byway designation (SR 11 to North Roundoak/Juliette Road) SR 49 o Two rock quarries, two asphalt plants are located on this road, which has traffic traveling at high speed on hilly-terrain o Sheriff directs traffic emerging from two schools due to dangerous traffic conditions and limited sight distance o Children walk on SR 49 to the County recreational fields SR 49 to SR 129 Connector Roads seen as potential for improvement o Cumslo Road o Lite-n-tie Road has a rock quarry and a rail road crossing; may need shoulder improvements for safety concerns o Joy Cliff Road SR 57 o Industrial park will encompass 1000 acres and access needs to be maintained Four roads converge in City of Gray near railroad tracks o Leads to congestion o Signals are an issues o MLK road intersection has traffic back-up; could be widened to help school bus maneuverability

Page 1 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Jones County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/18/07

Upper River Road

o "S" curve near Bibb County is unsafe

o high bicycle usage

o With new, planned water line comes residential growth to the area and on SR 18

towards City of Gray

o New park and picnic area encompasses about 8 acres

Huckabee Road from Graham Road to SR 18 needs improvement

Stagecoach Road

Morton Road o Could be used by new schools as a more direct route if improvements are made

Olive Green road

o Dirt to paved road

Haddock Community

o Reinvesting in community and to slow traffic in the area requested a blinking yellow

light to be converted into a red light, but was denied by GDOT district officials

Cross County Connector Jones County Connector

o Community opposition

Community Groups: The Plan Group Pam Christopher of the Chamber of Commerce can help with the contact list Civic Center Auditorium Cross County Connector o Citizens agree on need, exact alignment needs to be re-examined

School Information: Earl Colvin Director of Operations and Maintenance can provide information on property and future school locations. Phone: 214-0687 New elementary school planned on Turner Woods Road o Will likely use Morton Road as direct route to SR 18 east New middle and high school planned on Howard Roberts Road Harry Goss reconfiguring school bus routes in southern Jones, near Bibb County and city of Macon. He will provide a map upon completion. SR 49 Congestion in the City of Gray impacts school bus movement

Page 2 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Jones County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/18/07

Funding:

SPLOST Program provided $2 million and is in its 4th year of the 5-year program o County used funds for paving of dirt roads and re-pavement of existing

Renewal vote for SPLOST expected to pass next year

TE Funds awarded in July 2006

Congressional earmark pending in 2008

Transit:

Jones County participates in 5311 program Tony Sack rural transportation contact Middle Georgia Community Action Agency OAC Senior Citizens contact Ann Carter

Bike/Pedestrian: Don Tussin of the Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission can provide bike route Candy McMahon is the bike community contact and can be reached at Conn Realty. Middle Georgia RDC has maps on-line Potential for new bicycle facilities o Bypass connector from 22 to 129/22 has potential to be included in the design, which could eventually connect to SR 11 o Downtown Civic Center and courthouse to school on Cumslo Road o SR 18 east to Gray Station School to recreation park and 500 single-family residential lots nearby o Upper River Road to Stagecoach bicycle route planned

Rail: No railroad crossing signals at Otis Redding and Hungerford Roads Lite-N-Tie just past rock quarry has sight distance issues Train passes through City of Gray approximate 5 times per day, but does not stop

Page 3 of 3

for
Madeby Date

Job No. Checkedb Date

Sheet No. Backchecked b Date

c-INTB

fJcv..~~y

~~ <;:tJu~ scJ-b -p-q# . <fd>-'313 h7~J4/t~.)4J-..,....up

fuwl ~\'\leY
JV\ttyr lfu6fs+e:H~
~_ fJt1JNe( Sf(}AP~of11

1M lilhU.t.d~
d1\'d GW\"-'
-1. ~10AI ~AI.r
"7/n; 7?froWS'K,1

00NS 'BoE

01k-l.o3'l3 CttMl(W@

MPHiA-Y\J As&vc,-a.:les
GDO\-~(c."'~:~ ufF~
)

,J dV\.Q.$.~ Z.:f'US
'778'1173(058 (Y1tif!:j . hU(g+eHer
4,,(P{-=1~~ ~b~nt~e.+

~ ~--- _ I G'bOT~l''\M:6

t.f1fJjg"~W9 /I(~~
~aQ~t!t/"A/~r
~~ LlD'{~C,s1-513o

...JMis- QvQ~ ~-9~-:$Ozz. ::fJJ1J..'!:k

7~.i 0=>44r ~4

l(7~-7tft'-S/17 tli'~~b

hdet1 60h/~ /

.:JOIJe~u ,iJ,,/'tc.4Jk$ ~~8'- ,t6-- ~ CO/

MEETING DOCUMENTATION

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Monroe County Water Department

Meeting Date 07/25/07

Subject County Issues Discussion

Present Kelly Gwin, Radney Simpson, Mary Huffstetler, Tim Hatton, Claudia Bilotto, Jim Peters, Sid Banks,

Mike Bilderback, Cindy Crowley, Anton Sova, and Tom Queen.

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study, a one-on-one meeting was held with Monroe County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants included Sid Banks, Monroe County Roadway Superintendent, as well as the representatives from the Monroe County Board of Commissioners and the County Clerk's Office. The following summarizes the issues raised by those in attendance.

Growth:

Tift College Department of Corrections, moving headquarters from Atlanta to Forsyth SR 42 and SR 83 by the Hardee's had a new Walmart under construction Bass Pro Shop Mall in North Bibb County High Falls State Park Georgia Power Plant 4000 part time employees, parking lot located off of Luther Smith Road

Transportation Issues: State Route (SR) 42 o High Falls Road o New planned development Rose Hill o Trucks exit at Johnstonville Road to avoid weigh station (presumably with illegal loads) and use Smith Road and SR 42, which cuts through downtown Forsyth, to access I-75 SR 18 and SR 42 major traffic congestion when I-75 traffic is re-routed SR 3 SR 41 o State bike route SR 83 interchange reconfigured in 1980s, lack of parking and truck traffic are issues for Forsyth SR 83 and SR 87 bad sight distance (E/W) o Possible site for a round-about or an overpass, as locals would prefer citing safety issues Juliette Road and SR 87 river development could affect traffic

Page 1 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Monroe County Water Department

Meeting Date 07/25/07

SR 87 will ikely to show deficiencies soon, rock quarry on SR 36 will double in size

98 miles of unpaved, dirt roads

Bass Pro, hub of outdoor activities

o Bass Road highly ranked bike route in state

Pate Road and Zebulon Road

Cherry Blossom Festival locals would prefer an underpass to Bolingbroke for 20K run

Bad intersections

o at Meyers Street/SR 42/Indian Springs

o at Rumble road and SR 41 and railroad warehouse operations and I-75 access

o Evan Road (bad skew)

Four red lights in Forsyth are not synchronized

New boat ramp at Old Popes Ferry on the Ocmulgee River could have impact on SR 87

Community Groups: The Report Will Davis is the editor River Club in Juliette Robert Williams 994-2770 Bolingbroke Community club Vicky Smith 747-7743 High Falls Civic Association High Falls Lake Association Chamber of Commerce Tiffany Andrews School Board Dr. Jeff Turner Georgia Power Butch Copeland EMA Director Matt Perry Exchange Club Meeting space o Fire Station o Old Board Room o High school cafeteria

School Information: Currently 2 elementary, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school and 1 private school and Crossroads Elementary and Middle School on SR 83 consists of 40 acres Longer range plans include 40 acres for elementary and middle school near Bolingbroke, no land purchased as of yet

Page 2 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL-003

Meeting Location Monroe County Water Department

Meeting Date 07/25/07

Funding:

SPLOST Program provided $8 million over 6 years and expires in December o County used funds for paving of dirt roads and re-pavement of existing

Renewal vote for SPLOST expected to pass, vote is on September 18 Special Election

TE Grant (Mike Bilderback authored) for SR 42

Transit:

No rural transit Contact Melvin Lawrence for information on elderly or disabled citizens Ingles serves as defacto park-and-ride lot for car pools Senior citizens OAC bus limited to elderly and handicapped DHR in Macon OAC council oversees

Bike/Pedestrian: Bike traffic is coming out of north Bibb County High Falls State Park visitors walk/bike to shopping area and restaurants Indian Springs Dawson Trail TE Grant for bicycle funding to connect Zebulon Road and Bass Road (Bass Pro Shop) SR 41 is state bike route TE Grant

Rail: Train passes through City of Forsyth everyday, blocks all intersections o North of SR 42 and SR 83 emergency vehicle response time and access becomes an issue Bolingbroke rails not an issue, 2 trains per day estimated Railroad crossing as SR 42/Indian Springs and Mize Road is an issue

Page 3 of 3

for
MadebV Date

Job No. Checked bv Date

Sheet No. Backchecked bv Date

c-INTB

6 ~~

J /(~P F 2.G&bc,/lJh1.J..~C~;fA

h rr/c t{

t( t1~ I () q:,@ '-.JVf l10. \ OrJl

- - - - - - --

---

MEETING DOCUMENTATION

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Butts County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/25/07

Subject County Issues Discussion

Present Kelly Gwin, Radney Simpson, Mary Huffstetler, Perry Ridgeway, Lanier Barford, Tim Hatton,

Christy Taylor, Van Whaler, Steven Lease, Kathy Mitchell, Tommy Newsome, Tommy Crochet, Sam

Woods, David Acree, Daniel Pass, Romela Freeman, and Claudia Bilotto.

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study, a one-on-one meeting was held with Butts County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants included Dr. Van Whaler, Butts County Administrator, as well as representatives from the Butts County Community Development and Road Departments, the City of Jackson, City of Jenkinsburg, and the City of Flovilla.

Growth:




Draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed in September or October 2007 Jerry Weitz is studying growth management techniques traffic shed concepts being used Regional Airport in study phase 3000 acres located south of Flovilla and north of the proposed Rose Hill development Rose Hill development o Water board is suing Board of Commissioners, which is delaying the development
process Pressures from north and south Sewer is provided in Jackson and near I-75 New Rock Quarry located south of Jackson, east of SR 36 1 million square feet of industrial planned near Jackson, along SR 16 and SR 23 300 acres off of Wallace Road zoned industrial ripe for development American Woodmark is a major employer located east of Jackson between SR 16 and SR 23 Industrial development coming to I-75 interchange at SR 36 and Short Road Collwell Road crosses over I-75 and development is on the horizon; it connects to SR 16 o Future interchange with I-75 proposed frequently Commercial and industrial proposed between Jenkinsburg and Jackson near Wolf Creek Road New subdivision proposed along SR 23 near Bunch Road

Transportation Issues: State Route (SR) 42 o General congestion and high traffic volumes

Page 1 of 4

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Butts County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/25/07

o TE Grant proposes to connect SR 42 streetscape project with parking area to McIntosh

Trail

o England Chapel Road and Burg Road are bad intersections along SR 42

o Shiloh Road has sight distance issues

o SR 42 acts as alternative and alleviator to I-75 when accidents occur

SR 16 o High truck traffic interferes with quality of life on downtown

o Bad intersection at Honeysuckle Lane

o SR 16 south bypass has an approved concept but no NEPA approval yet and is

considered as a long-range transportation project

o One-way pair concept in development, viewed as difficult

o Shiloh Road has sight distance issues and angle intersection

School is located on this road

Trucks overturn at SR 16 and Shiloh Road intersection

SR 36 o Potential one-way pair concept in future in Jackson

o High truck traffic interferes with quality of life on downtown

Bridge out at Jackson Maddox Road and at either Jack Smith Road or Lamar S Mill Road, which were damaged during a flood in 1994

High Falls Road is county maintained and will need improvement in future, has high traffic and serves as a cut through from SR 16 to SR 36

Roads in southern part of county that connect growth areas south of Flovilla to I-75 will need improvement

Griffin Tech to Old Bethel Road may be logical location for a north bypass around Jackson

The airport on Stark Road is active (northeast of Jackson), all others inactive

Public Outreach and Community Groups: Jackson Progress-Argus Steven Lease will provide the reporter's contact info that the county has used in the past o Word-of-mouth seen best way to inform public about events and study information Meeting location o County Commission room Jackson Lake Home Owners Association (HOA) Lou Dufrense High Falls Lake HOA Bud McQueen

School Information:

Page 2 of 4

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Butts County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/25/07

School Superintendent - Lynda White

3 public elementary school, 1 middle school and 1 high school

o existing elementary school on Honeysuckle Lane near Kimbeough Road

o High school and middle school located on Old Griffin Road/S. Harkeness Street will

covert to an all middle school

o Middle school on north Mulberry will be closing

o Stark Road elementary (new school) opening in 2008

o Exiting elementary schools on Franklin Ave will be convert to High School and will

create a campus, anticipated by 2015

o New elementary school opens in 2007 on Brownlee Road

o Rose Hill development is setting aside land for 2 schools, along SR 42 and SR 23

Griffin Tech opening on SR 16 in August

Funding:


SPLOST Program will provide $29 million over 6 years. Road and bridge projects will be funded by $2 million from the previous SPLOST and about $3.8 million is anticipated for the upcoming program o County used funds for paving of dirt roads and re-pavement of existing o Used as local match to GDOT funded projects o A jail is being constructed with SPLOST funds Impact fees are under consideration and will apply to recreation, libraries, and public safety projects

Transit:

5311 Program is managed by the McIntosh RDC Robert Hiett Liberty Convalesces provides transit serves - contact Larry O'Neil Middle Georgia Community Action Agency Churches in area provide transit, van are noticed around town Turner/CNN employees have 4 van pools that carries travelers to downtown Atlanta Other private companies have inquired and are beginning to emerge General sense of increased need in future

Bike/Pedestrian: Indian Springs Bike shop called "Outfitters" could serve as local contact Jim Herbert at Parks and Recreation is a contact

Page 3 of 4

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)

Project Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Transportation Study

Job # 42737-PL003

Meeting Location Butts County Government Center

Meeting Date 07/25/07

Dauset Trails is popular mountain biking area, privately-owned, located southwest of Indian

Spings near new Rock Quarry

Indian Springs is working on a master plan to connect to Dauset Trail to High Falls Road

area greenspace committee developed a bike/ped. plan

In general, county lacks sidewalks and there is mixed opinion about citizen's desire

Sidewalks needed in subdivision in northeast Butts, near SR 36 and Ocmulgee River

TE funding to connect pedestrians on SR 42 to historic McIntosh Trail

Barnetts Bridge need for improved walking facilities

Sidewalk expansion is complicated by maintenance responsibility issues

Need for new recreation facility in area west of Jackson

Rail: Railroad crossing issue at Bibb Station Road may need warning devices No railroad crossing arms located at Strickland Road and Cork Road Bunch Road has no railroad crossing arms may need warning devices Jenkinsburg experiences trains stopping that block roads, creates emergency vehicle access problems o Overpass is cost prohibitive Flovilla has inadequate underpass on Heard Street, cars can fits under railroad bridge, but not trucks or school buses

Page 4 of 4

--

--

-
DQ.o..1.iOaG~_~ D~rv 'EL_ Pf\S5_
Ru~t.\6 Mt ~~
AhA--~~'\-tG. dt~

G"i>cJr~~4D .vt-'gt:d
t;~ J- ~IO~\\~
Aif1t~It~jQ .~ flNT 13

,.

~.r s

~. a~( e { .{)e...s.s@

. _'M7(""G, A.tAs

F\OO\~Cl.C~,~"'ll ~..ol. ~
~~eb.dl~.~
f),4if<?n{~i1/1-1P gfPl

- - -- - -

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Butts County Study Advisory Group Meeting #1 October 1, 2007, 1PM to 3PM Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room

Attendees: Opal Greene, Trucks, Inc. Robert Hiett, McIntosh Trail RDC Christy Taylor, Butts County Lou DuFresne, Jackson Lakes HOA Jane Welchel, Middle GA Community Action Agency Steven Lease, Butts County Christy Anderson, Jones Petroleum Bart White, Industrial Development Authority Joe Blankenship, Butts County Board of Education Lynda White, Butts County Board of Education

Perry Ridgeway, City of Jackson Jeannie Brantley, McIntosh Trail RDC Mac Collins David Millen, GDOT District 3 Tom Queen, GDOT District 3 Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Andrew Smith, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Study Advisory Committee Packet

Meeting Summary:

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a Study Advisory Group meeting was held in Butts County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants from the Butts County community represented a diverse range of perspectives including the business and trucking industries, retirees, and local agencies.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and led off self-introductions. She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process and the role in which the study advisory group plays. Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, scheduled for October 16, from 6PM to 8PM. Following the presentation, Ms. Bilotto led the group through the information packet summarizing existing conditions in the county and explained that one of the goals of the day's meeting was to develop a set of goals and objectives that can be incorporated as part of the study. Specific topics included the following:

Planned and Programmed Projects Safety Bridges Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks Public Transportation Aviation Travel Demand Model Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing and Planned Projects Local Issues and Opportunities

Page 1 of 3

Ms. Bilotto then led the group through a list of broad transportation needs to generate discussion regarding specific interest areas now and in the future. The following highlights the transportation issues:
High level of Importance Today and in 2035 Relieving traffic congestion on I-75 Providing adequate evacuation and emergency routes o Issues with rail crossing Improving roadway safety o Buses and trucks on SR 36 Addressing truck travel o Friday afternoon has heavier truck traffic Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow o SR 42 and SR 16 signals needed (Shiloh Road and SR 16) o Adding turn lanes along major roads would help improve traffic flow Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system o New development to accommodate (Starks Road and Brownlee Road) Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings o Wolf Creek/Old Bethel Road and SR 42 is high priority o Increased traffic expected Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks, and shopping areas Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our transportation system o Property tax issue (under consideration next Legislative session)
Medium level of importance today and in 2035 Adding new roadway capacity (new roads) to the transportation system o Improve existing system Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians o Barnett Bridge Road considered dangerous bike and pedestrian environment
High level of importance in 2035 Developing better public transportation services for seniors and disabled people
Topics Discussion: The following comments from the group are organized by topic rather than the order in which they were made:
Planned and Programmed Projects SR 36 David Millen of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) District 3 explained that SR 36 would potentially be built as a one-way pair concept in the future in the downtown Jackson area. The project would not be located entirely on its existing alignment and would include a new bridge over the railroad tracks to accommodate the new alignment and one-way pair concept. Additionally, in a separate effort to upgrade the road's performance, GDOT is examining installing turning lanes on SR 36 and is funding the project using state aid.
SR 16 David Millen explained that as part of the SR 16 widening project from I-75 to Jackson, preliminary engineering for a by-pass to the south of Jackson was included originating at Bert Road. The study advisory group discussed that SR 16's intersections with English Chapel Road and Burg Road and with the Shiloh Road are areas where crashes have occurred and are considered unsafe. David Millen explained that intersections would be aligned to current standards as part of the widening project, which should correct the sight distance issues related to these intersections.
Page 2 of 3

Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks The widening of SR 36 to provide a four-lane connection to I-75 is a high priority for Upson County and will potentially increase freight movement along this corridor. Truck traffic is considered heavy in downtown Jackson. The Board of Education representative raised the issue of trucks traveling too close to school buses and the dangerous situation that the behavior creates.
Another study in the area that could potentially affect truck traffic is the I-75 South managed lanes study. The study's limits extend to SR 16 and Steven Lease conveyed his opinion that the managed lanes should be extended further south to SR 36 where several truck parking facilities are located. Claudia Bilotto, Project Manager, explained the scope of the study and clarified that the study will be completed later in the year and may or may not become an actual project.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Heritage Trail was mentioned as a bicycle and pedestrian project under study although no specific location information was provided. The Barnett Bridge area is dangerous for walking and biking.
Local Issues and opportunities Railroad crossing points are limited between Macon and Locust Grove, and the study advisory group expressed a need for them, particularly for emergency vehicle access. Additionally, school busses have been delayed when the railroad crossing gates are positioned down prohibiting crossing, although there is no presence of a train. The railroad company has to be called to reset the crossing arms safely.
An underpass in Flovilla only provides a passage for smaller vehicles and does not allow enough clearance for trucks or school buses.
The McIntosh Trail RDC provides 5311 Transit assistance and estimates that 58% of the current ridership is employment based and travels predominately to Spalding County. The program manager Robert Hiett expressed that the service meets existing demand, but in the future better transit might be needed to the Macon and Atlanta region and for the anticipated growing elderly population. A need for a park and ride lot was proposed and was seen as a way to increase north and south ridership numbers to Atlanta and Macon. The program could also benefit from advertisement of its current service to promote increased ridership. The RDC is planning on conducting a study in 2008 that focuses on Butts County.
Improvement to the existing network could provide increased efficiency. Turn lanes in certain locations may be a quick fix to transportation problems along state routes and heavier traveled roads. Grade separation is need at railroad crossings to reduce bottleneck effects.
Road and sidewalk improvements should accompany new growth areas. Development is anticipated along SR 42 north toward Locust Grove. Frontage roads along I-75 were proposed as a need. State route in the southern part of the county may need widening. New school locations should be accompanied by road improvements to the area, including sidewalks.
Property tax legislation may have an impact on available funding for transportation.
Summary of Top Concerns Widen SR 36 and SR 42. Identify intersection with SR 16 on the west for the South Jackson Bypass. Determine location of SR 36 through Jackson. Coordinate with counties to the north of Butts County, who may have more similar needs. Anticipate the possibility that Butts County will be absorbed into the ARC regional transportation planning process and plan for a smooth transition by following the ARC model. Address railroad crossing congestion. Acknowledge east-west and north-south one-way pair concepts proposed to alleviate congestion in downtown Jackson. Explore temporary/short-term fixes to help traffic congestion in Jackson, similar to McDonough.
Page 3 of 3

Butts Jones Monroe Transportation Study
Butts County Advisory Committee
- Kick-Off Meeting October 1,2007
SIGN-IN SHEET
Please
Page of

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study Butts County
Study Advisory Group #1 October 1st, 2007
Prepared by:
In Association with: MPH & Associates, Inc

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study
Agenda
1.0 Study Team Members 2.0 Study Overview 3.0 Public Involvement Plan 4.0 Data Collection 5.0 Model Development 6.0 Local Issues & Opportunities 7.0 Goals & Objectives 8.0 Public Workshop #1 9.0 Next Steps
Action Items for Today's Meeting Transportation Issues & Needs Development Opportunities Goals & Objectives

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

2

Study Team Members

Agency
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
HNTB Project Manager
HNTB Senior Planner
MPH & Associates
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
Middle Georgia RDC
McIntosh Trail RDC Monroe County Road Superintendent Butts County Planning Director Jones County Administrator

Contact
Radney Simpson Kelly Gwin Matthew Fowler Claudia Bilotto Tim Hatton Mary Huffstetler Thomas Howell David Millen Tom Queen Phil Clark Robert Hiett Sid Banks Steven Lease Mike Underwood

Phone

Email

404-657-6689 radney.simpson@dot.state.ga.us

404-651-5330 Kelly.Gwin@dot.state.ga.us

404-657-6916 Matthew.fowler@dot.state.ga.us

404-946-5747 cbilotto@hntb.com

404-946-5755 thatton@hntb.com

404-210-6123 maryhuffstetler@bellsouth.net

706-646-6900 thomas.howell@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6987 david.millen@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6317 tom.queen@dot.state.ga.us

478-751-6160 pclark@mgrdc.org

770-227-6308 rhiett@cityofgriffin.com

478-994-7029

770-775-8210 srlease@buttscounty.org

478-986-8219 mikeunderwood@alltel.net

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

3

Study Overview
PHASE I
1. Data Collection a. Previous Studies b. GIS Data c. Socio-Economic Data Existing Conditions Inventory Travel Demand Model
2. Public Involvement Public Involvement Process Goals & Objectives
3. Develop Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors
4. Evaluate Existing Conditions a. Multi-Modal Assessment b. Goals and Objectives c. Safety Summary of Existing Operating Conditions
5. Future Conditions Evaluation a. Travel Demand Model b. Key Points i. Socio-Economic Data ii. Household Data iii. Business Data Summary of Future Operating Conditions
PHASE II
6. Identify Improvements a. Strategy Screening for Types of Improvements i. Needs ii. Parallel Relief iii. Network Connectivity iv. Access Improvements v. Reconstruction vi. Safety
7. Develop Cost Estimates 8. Financial Resources and Funding Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

4

Public Involvement Process
1. Public Involvement Process a. Detailed b. Flexible c. Measures to Evaluate Performance
2. Study Advisory Group a. Development of Goals and Objectives b. Review Existing Deficiencies and Issues c. Development Opportunities d. Identify and Review Potential Improvements e. Identify Institutional Barriers and Opportunities f. Meet 1-2 Weeks Prior to Public Workshops i. October 2007 ii. February/March 2008
3. Public Workshops a. 2 Rounds of Workshops with 1 Workshop in each County (6 total Workshops) b. Public Workshop Structure i. Workshop # 1 Overview of Existing and Future Operating Conditions (October 2007) ii. Workshop #2 Preliminary Improvement Recommendations (February/March 2008) c. Identify Specific, Possible Locations for Workshops d. Appropriate Instruments to Post Notices i. Press Release ii. Newsletters iii. Website e. Mailing List/Key Invitees f. Small Group Meetings
4. Coordination with Other Meetings Occurring in the Study Area

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

5

Data Collection

Data Collection Items
Background Information and Studies RC Data Bridge Inventory Crash Data Land Use Plans
Rural Transit
Freight
Rail
Aviation Bicycle and Pedestrian
Socioeconomic Data
Development Areas
GIS Data

Responsible Parties
HNTB HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB MPH
MPH
MPH MPH MPH
HNTB HNTB
HNTB

Data Sources

Status

GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities
GDOT

Completed Completed

GDOT

Completed

GDOT
Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Statewide Aviation System Plan GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities

Completed In Progress Completed Completed
Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed In Progress

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

6

Previous/Ongoing Studies and Plans
Comprehensive Plans o Documentation of Existing and Future Land Use o Understanding of Development Areas o Documentation of Growth Areas o Documentation of Infrastructure Expansion Utilities Sewer Schools Parks and Recreation o Transportation Plan Coordinates with Comprehensive Plan to ensure Consistency with Community Goals and Objectives
GDOT Interstate System Plan o No improvements are recommended in study area
GDOT Truck Lanes Needs Identification Study o Recommendations late 2007
GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP), and Long Range Plan
Middle Georgia and McIntosh Trail RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

7

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program

Butts County

Map

Prime Work

Id Project Id

Type

Description

Construction Program Date

B-1 0000760 Widening SR 16 Widening from I-75 to City of Jackson

STP

2013

B-2 322440

Widening

SR 36 in City of Jackson from SR 16 to CR 289/Stark Road

B-3

0000479

Passing

Lanes

SR 36, 2 eastbound & 3 lanes north of Jackson

westbound

passing

B-4

332360

Passing

Lanes

SR 42/US 23 passing lanes at 2 locations between Jackson and Jenkinsburg

B-5 343440

Roadway Jackson South Bypass from SR 16 at Bert Road Project to SR 16 at Bibb Station

B-6 0006973

Roadway SR 36 from I-75/Butts County to SR 18/Lamar Project County

B-7 333170

Bridges

SR 36 at Towaliga River 7.5 miles southwest of Jackson

B-8 333171

Bridges

SR 36 at Yellow River Creek, 1 mile north of junction with SR 42

B-9 333172

Bridges

SR 36 at South River at Butts-Newton County line

STP STP STP STP STP STP Bridge Bridge

2014 2010 LR LR 2012 2009 2011 2008

B-10 331640

Bridges CR 290 north of SR 36 at Tussahaw Creek

Bridge

NA

B-11 0007580 Sidewalks Sidewalks, lighting and landscaping in Jackson Source: GDOT Office of Planning

Local

2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

8

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

9

Crash History

Butts County Crash Locations

Roadway SR 16 (west of Jackson) SR 16 (east of Jackson) SR 16 Source: CARE Database

Intersection US 23 (west of Jackson) US 23 (east of Jackson) SR 36

Crashes 17 20 19

Fatalities 0 0 0

Injuries 1 4 3

Crash Locations and Severity

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

10

Bridges
40 Bridges in Butts County o 6 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation o 10 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation in the next 20 years o 2 Bridges currently in GDOT's Construction Work Program
Bridge Sufficiency Ratings

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

11

Freight & Rail
GDOT Georgia Rail Freight Plan Update, 2000
Primary Atlanta-Macon Route through Butts County Norfolk Southern -21 miles of Track 50 Trains Per Day 66 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile (MGTM/M)
Rail Safety o 42 Crossings 41 At-Grade Crossings 1 Overpass o 6 Incidents reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (2000-2006). o 13 Incidents at rail crossings that don't include trains.
Commodities/Freight Originating in the County o Lumber and Wood
Commodities/Freight Transported Through the County o Nonmetallic Minerals o Clay, Concrete, Glass and Stone Products o Coal o Chemicals and Allied Products o Hazardous Materials o Pulp and Paper o Food Products o Mixed Shipments

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

12

Rail Locations and Truck Routes

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

13

Multi-Modal (Bike/Ped, Aviation & Transit)
Butts County Bike/Ped
Locations to examine for walking/biking potential:
Existing Schools: Dougherty Elementary School 150 Shiloh Road, Jackson Jackson Elementary School (this will be torn down and the highschool will be located on the site) 218 Woodland Way, Jackson North Mulberry Elementary School (Stark Elementary will replace this school the site will be the future home of a Pre-K and possible Alternative School) 820 North Mulberry Street, Jackson Henderson Middle School 494 George Tate Drive Jackson High School 717 Harkness Street, Jackson
Planned Schools: Stark Elementary (has large new subdivision nearby for consideration for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity) 169 Stark Road, Jackson New Jackson Elementary Between 1059 and 1265 Brownlee Road, Jackson
Other Destinations: Jackson-Butts County Public Library 436 East College Street Jackson, GA 30233 High Falls State Park Dauset Trails Nature Center Indian Springs State Park Downtown Jackson Jackson Lake Ocmulgee River Potential Chief McIntosh Trail from Indian Springs to Carrollton Daughtry Park Senior Center Other Local Parks
Crash Statistics: 2004-2006: Bicycle-Pedestrian Crashes: 10 injuries, 1 fatality

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

14

Existing Bike/Ped Recommendations from McIntosh Trail RDC:
Recommendations for On-Road Bicycle Facilities: Lake Jackson Loop on SR 16, Big Dam, Barnett Bridge/Stark Road, and SR 36 Along Stark Road from Jackson Lake south through Jackson and south on Brownlee Road to Mount Vernon Shortcut to Mount Vernon Road Along Mount Vernon Road form SR 42 to Monroe County Line connecting to High Falls State Park
Bicycle/Pedestrian Existing and Planned Facilities

Aviation: Butts County currently does not have a local airport. It is currently a potential location under consideration as part of the Governor's regional airport program.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

15

Public Transportation: Butts County is a 5311 Rural Transit Participant, administered by the McIntosh Trail RDC. The system is a fare-based, demand-response system providing access to shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social activity centers. A van must be reserved 24 hours in advance and operates Monday through Fridays, 8AM to 5PM. The cost is $2.00 per one way trip. The service is primarily used by the elderly, minorities, and the disabled.
The Council on Aging for McIntosh Trail, Inc. also operates two additional vans in Butts County to transport elderly, disabled, and other residents who qualify for Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) assistance. These residents are clients of the Division of Aging Services (DAS), the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD).
The elderly are major users of both the 5311 Program and the DHR-provided transportation services in Butts County. Planning for additional future services needs to consider population projections for the elderly in coming years. The Butts County Comprehensive Plan 2005-2025 projects a 327% increase in the elderly population through 2035.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

16

Model Development
A Travel Demand Model is a tool used to project future traffic. It is developed using the following information: Network Development
o Functional Classification of Roadway Capacity Speeds
o Number of Lanes o Traffic Counts Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) o Census Blocks o Natural Boundaries o Socioeconomic data population and employment

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

17

Population Distribution in 2000

25000

Population Change from 1990 to 2000
1900 - 2000 Population Change

20000

Population

15000

10000

5000

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year
Source: US Census

Butts Jones Monroe

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

18

Local Issues & Opportunities
Background on Key Transportation Issues in the Study Area Safety Congestion Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Desired Projects or Improvements Development Areas Political Realities
Local Issues and Opportunities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

19

Transportation Issues & Needs
A. What do you see as the three greatest transportation issues or concerns in your County?
B. What transportation corridors are of most interest to you in terms of the Transportation Study?
C. What do you think is the relationship between transportation and land use in the Study Area?
D. Given this is a Plan that discusses short-range and long-range transportation issues, what is the best way to reach out to citizens and community groups to involve them in the Transportation Study?
E. What funding sources should be used to pay for future transportation improvements in the Study Area? Which sources should not be used?
F. If you could share one major message with the Project Team, what would it be?
G. How engaged do you think Study Area residents want to be in discussing transportation and land use issues and the Transportation Study?
H. What do you see as the transportation "Hot Spot" in the study area?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

20

I. What aspects of the transportation system are important to you TODAY and what aspects will be important to you in 2035 (25 years from now). Please rank importance of the following transportation strategies as "High", "Medium" or "Low".

Transportation Needs Relieving traffic congestion on I-75

Level of Importance
to You Today

Level of Importance
to You in 2035

Providing adequate evacuation and emergency routes

Improving roadway safety

Addressing truck travel
Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow
Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system

Adding new roadway capacity (new roads) to the transportation system

Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings

Building more north-south roadways to better connect areas within the County

Building more east-west roadways to better connect areas within the County
Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks and shopping areas, etc
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
Developing better public transportation services for seniors and disabled people
Providing public transportation (bus) services to residents
Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our existing transportation system
Coordination between Counties for Transportation

J. Do you have any other issues or concerns that you would like to see dealt with in the Transportation Study?

K. What do you expect as the outcome of this study?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

21

Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives are components of the long range planning process. They guide the development of the Plan by providing a basis for evaluating Transportation Plan alternatives. Goals and objectives reflect those intentions that the plan is meant to achieve.
Factors to Consider Economics & Development Safety Accessibility Employment Environment Efficiency Preservation
Developing Goals and Objectives What are the County's Mobility Needs? What Types of Transportation Improvements? Are Multi-Modal Improvements Needed in the County? Which Improvements are the Most Important to the County? What are Transportation Quality of Life Factors?
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Related Goals Push for the development of the South Jackson Truck Route. Try to resolve problems of congestion and truck traffic in downtown Jackson. Possible new access roads and other improvements within the I-75 corridor. There is a need for more sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and consideration for alternate modes of transit for Butts County residents.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

22

Public Workshop #1
October 16, 2007, 6PM-8PM Butts County Administration Building Commissioners Meeting Room 625 West Third Street Jackson, GA 30233
Format Open House (2 Hours) Formal Presentation (15 Minutes) Formal Q&A (10-15 Minutes) Display Boards Comment Sheets
Help Us Get the Word Out!!

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

23

Next Steps
Complete Existing Conditions Report Complete Travel Demand Model Develop Future Operating Conditions Identify Preliminary Existing and Future Deficiencies Schedule Next Advisory Group Meeting (February/March)

July Develop Transportation Plan
Public Involvement
Data Collection
Evaluate Existing & Future Operating Conditions Alternatives Development
Develop 2035 Transportation Plan

STUDY SCHEDULE

August

2007
September October

November December

January

2008
February

March

Public Workshop Notice

Public Workshop

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

24

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Monroe County Study Advisory Group Meeting #1 October 2, 2007, 10AM to 12PM Monroe County Clubhouse

Attendees: David Clark, Department of Corrections Sid Banks, Monroe County Jim Peters, Monroe County Bob Rychel, Middle Georgia RDC Phil Clark, Middle Georgia RDC Tiffany Andrews, Monroe-Forsyth Chamber of Commerce Matt Perry, EMA Director Jeff Turner, Monroe County School Board Cindy Crowley, Monroe County

Larry Evans, Monroe County David Millen, GDOT District 3 Tom Queen, GDOT District 3 Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Matthew Fowler, GDOT Planning Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Garth Lynch, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Study Advisory Committee Packet

Meeting Summary:

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a Study Advisory Group meeting was held in Monroe County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants from the Monroe County community represented a diverse range of perspectives including elected officials, the business community, employers, and local agencies.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and led off self-introductions. She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process and the role in which the study advisory group plays. Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, which was scheduled based on feedback from the group for Thursday, November 1, from 5PM to 7PM. Following the presentation, Ms. Bilotto led the group through the information packet summarizing existing conditions in the county and explained that one of the goals of the day's meeting was to develop a set of goals and objectives that can be incorporated as part of the study. Specific topics included the following:

Planned and Programmed Projects Safety Bridges Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks Public Transportation Aviation Travel Demand Model Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing and Planned Projects Local Issues and Opportunities

Page 1 of 4

Existing and Future Conditions Discussion: Ms. Bilotto then led the group through a list of broad transportation needs to generate discussion regarding specific interest areas now and in the future. The group discussed issues by level of importance and considered future priorities as the County experiences change, as listed below:
High Level of Importance Today and in 2035 Improving roadway safety Addressing truck travel Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our transportation system Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow (In Downtown Forsyth)
Relieving traffic congestion on I-75 was considered important when there was an accident on I-75. When there is an incident, traffic is rerouted on to local routes SR 18, US 41, and Rumble Road.
Low Level of Importance Today and Medium in 2035 Developing better public transportation services for seniors and disabled people Providing public transportation (bus) services to residents
Medium Level of Importance in 2035 Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks, and shopping areas Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
Building more east-west roadways to better connect areas within the County, particularly in the northern areas as growth occurs was proposed by the group. In the southern portion of the County, providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks, and shopping areas was deemed important in the future.
General Discussion: Comments from the group are organized by topic rather than the order in which they were made.
Planned and Programmed Projects In downtown Forsyth, another pedestrian improvement project needs to be added to the list, according to Tom Queen from the GDOT.
Crash History On I-75 from Mile Post 187 to 185, water flow creates problems for vehicles and results in crashes SR 42, SR 83, and SR 18 intersections are high crash areas SR 42 and SR 74 are in currently under design Interchange modification at Pate Road received public backlash when proposed several years ago High Falls Road has the potential to be a high growth area for residential and commercial development Rumble Road and US 41 and railroad crossing is concerned to be a dangerous intersection At SR 83 and US 41, left turn lanes off of MLK are needed and a traffic signal could be warranted
Bridges A wooden bridge exists on Higgins Mill Road that allows only one-way, in/out access, and the area is experiencing growth, so this bridge should be examined and considered for an upgrade.
Page 2 of 4

Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks US 41
Collier Road from US 41 to Smith Road will be repaved; this might result in a shift in truck traffic. In Bolingbroke, trains impede US 41 traffic flow which also causes school busses to back up. Commercial and school traffic, starting at about 3pm until 5pm, cause traffic conflicts on US 41 and SR 18.
Trains move faster than in the past; trains now travel up to 30 mph through downtown whereas they used to travel at about 10 mph. The railroad through downtown is a route from Macon to Barnesville and passes through town about once a day. The "Juliette-line" runs about 40 trains per day, located on the eastern portion of the county. Norfolk Southern and the State have a list of potential railroad crossing closings.
A concern is the hazardous materials coming through town. An analysis of a possible bypass around the center of town for trucks was proposed. A comment was made that Milner propane line was an origindestination for some of the trucks carrying hazardous material.
US 23 US 23 is fast becoming a major freight route.
Emergency Access Overall, there is no major concern over emergency vehicle access and conflicts with railroad crossings.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Thornton Road and US 41 area improvement would benefit school bus operations and have target potential for safe routes to schools.
Recreational biking occurs on SR 18 and US 41, which are considered dangerous roads for this activity given the lack of shoulders and inadequate lane width.
Local Issues and opportunities New Growth
The Department of Corrections is planning to locate about 500 employees to the Tift College site over the next 2 years and the area could potentially be home to 1000 new employees at various government agencies by 2011. The entrance is on Patrol Road and this road could be widened to three lanes to accommodate turning movements and the guard shack could be moved further away from the road to create vehicle storage space to prevent backups on Patrol Road. Commercial development is increasing and will continue to do so with the new employment arriving to the area. There is a sight distance issue at the Tift College exit over the bridge. A park and ride lot near this area has potential to attract usage.
The northern part of the county could experience high growth and east-west connectivity will need to be addressed to serve future growth.
Downtown Forsyth SR 42 and Old Indian Springs Road and Ensign Road are four major roads coming together and are a bad intersection.
New Freight Routes A potential east-west multi-lane corridor from LaGrange to I-75 though Monroe County has a resolution in place. LaGrange is attracting big box distribution centers that use main routes through Monroe County to access middle Georgia.
Page 3 of 4

Detour routes Detour routes off of I-75 when there is an accident overload local county roads. Portable Message Boards deployed early on to the incident site would greatly increase detour efficiency and relieve congestion faster. State Route 42 and US 41 are parallel routes that function as relievers to I-75. SR 18 and Rumble Road are also detour routes used. A potential I-16/I-75 bypass through Jones County that could impact Monroe County is currently off the table for consideration.
Transit 5310 currently provides adequate transportation options to employment centers in McDonough and Warner Robbins and Spalding and Bibb counties.
SPLOST SPLOST was recently approved and will extend for 6 years. Summary of Top Concerns
Montpelier Road is seen as a road that would experience traffic congestion in the near term. About 500 acres near the High Falls Road exit at I-75 is owned by one person and has the
potential to be development once water and sewer capacity reach the area. Johnsonville Road also has development potential once utilities are extended to this area. Safety on I-75 is important. An analysis of the existing designated detour routes to determine if
they are adequate was proposed. Tift College Road exit ramp sight distance issue over the bridge is a short-term need. All arterials could be widened from 18' to 24' including additional shoulder work and could be
considered for bike lanes.
Page 4 of 4

Butts Jones Monroe Counties Transportation Study
- Monroe County Advisory Committee
Kick-Off Meeting October 2 , 2 0 0 7
SIGN-IN SHEET
Please
Page of

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study Monroe County
Study Advisory Group #1 October 2nd, 2007
Prepared by:
In Association with: MPH & Associates, Inc

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study
Agenda
1.0 Study Team Members 2.0 Study Overview 3.0 Public Involvement Plan 4.0 Data Collection 5.0 Model Development 6.0 Local Issues & Opportunities 7.0 Goals & Objectives 8.0 Public Workshop #1 9.0 Next Steps
Action Items for Today's Meeting Transportation Issues & Needs Development Opportunities Goals & Objectives

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

2

Study Team Members

Agency
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
HNTB Project Manager
HNTB Senior Planner
MPH & Associates
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
Middle Georgia RDC
McIntosh Trail RDC Monroe County Road Superintendent Butts County Planning Director Jones County Administrator

Contact
Radney Simpson Kelly Gwin Matthew Fowler Claudia Bilotto Tim Hatton Mary Huffstetler Thomas Howell David Millen Tom Queen Phil Clark Robert Hiett Sid Banks Steven Lease Mike Underwood

Phone

Email

404-657-6689 radney.simpson@dot.state.ga.us

404-651-5330 Kelly.Gwin@dot.state.ga.us

404-657-6916 Matthew.fowler@dot.state.ga.us

404-946-5747 cbilotto@hntb.com

404-946-5755 thatton@hntb.com

404-210-6123 maryhuffstetler@bellsouth.net

706-646-6900 thomas.howell@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6987 david.millen@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6317 tom.queen@dot.state.ga.us

478-751-6160 pclark@mgrdc.org

770-227-6308 rhiett@cityofgriffin.com

478-994-7029

770-775-8210 srlease@buttscounty.org

478-986-8219 mikeunderwood@alltel.net

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

3

Study Advisory Group Members (Monroe County)

Contact Robert Williams Vicky Smith Dennis Smith Bud Queen Tiffany Andrews Jeff Turner Butch Copeland Matt Perry Melvin Lawrence Larry Lattimer Charlie Cruz

Organization

Phone

Juliette River Club

478-994-2770

Bolingbroke Community Club

478-747-7743

High Falls Civic Association

770-504-1703

High Falls Lake Association

478-992-9063

Monroe-Forsyth Chamber of Commerce 478-994-9239

Monroe County School Board

478-994-2031

Georgia Power

478-994-0022

EMA Director

478-994-2040

Elderly/Disabled

478-994-1701

Department of Corrections

404-735-5659

Middle Georgia Community Action Agency 478-922-4464

Email b.smith@remax.net bud4monroe@yahoo.com
latiml00@dcor.state.ga.us ccruze@mgcaa.org

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

4

Study Overview
PHASE I
1. Data Collection a. Previous Studies b. GIS Data c. Socio-Economic Data Existing Conditions Inventory Travel Demand Model
2. Public Involvement Public Involvement Process Goals & Objectives
3. Develop Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors
4. Evaluate Existing Conditions a. Multi-Modal Assessment b. Goals and Objectives c. Safety Summary of Existing Operating Conditions
5. Future Conditions Evaluation a. Travel Demand Model b. Key Points i. Socio-Economic Data ii. Household Data iii. Business Data Summary of Future Operating Conditions
PHASE II
6. Identify Improvements a. Strategy Screening for Types of Improvements i. Needs ii. Parallel Relief iii. Network Connectivity iv. Access Improvements v. Reconstruction vi. Safety
7. Develop Cost Estimates 8. Financial Resources and Funding Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

5

Public Involvement Process
1. Public Involvement Process a. Detailed b. Flexible c. Measures to Evaluate Performance
2. Study Advisory Group a. Development of Goals and Objectives b. Review Existing Deficiencies and Issues c. Development Opportunities d. Identify and Review Potential Improvements e. Identify Institutional Barriers and Opportunities f. Meet 1-2 Weeks Prior to Public Workshops i. October 2007 ii. February/March 2008
3. Public Workshops a. 2 Rounds of Workshops with 1 Workshop in each County (6 total Workshops) b. Public Workshop Structure i. Workshop # 1 Overview of Existing and Future Operating Conditions (October 2007) ii. Workshop #2 Preliminary Improvement Recommendations (February/March 2008) c. Identify Specific, Possible Locations for Workshops d. Appropriate Instruments to Post Notices i. Press Release ii. Newsletters iii. Website e. Mailing List/Key Invitees f. Small Group Meetings
4. Coordination with Other Meetings Occurring in the Study Area

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

6

Data Collection

Data Collection Items
Background Information and Studies RC Data Bridge Inventory Crash Data Land Use Plans
Rural Transit
Freight
Rail
Aviation Bicycle and Pedestrian
Socioeconomic Data
Development Areas
GIS Data

Responsible Parties
HNTB HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB MPH
MPH
MPH MPH MPH
HNTB HNTB
HNTB

Data Sources

Status

GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities
GDOT

Completed Completed

GDOT

Completed

GDOT
Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Statewide Aviation System Plan GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities

Completed In Progress Completed Completed
Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed In Progress

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

7

Previous/Ongoing Studies and Plans
Comprehensive Plans o Documentation of Existing and Future Land Use o Understanding of Development Areas o Documentation of Growth Areas o Documentation of Infrastructure Expansion Utilities Sewer Schools Parks and Recreation o Transportation Plan Coordinates with Comprehensive Plan to ensure Consistency with Community Goals and Objectives
GDOT Interstate System Plan o No improvements are recommended in study area
GDOT Truck Lanes Needs Identification Study o Recommendations late 2007
GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP), and Long Range Plan
Middle Georgia and McIntosh Trail RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

8

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program

Monroe County

Map

Prime Work

Construction

Id Project Id

Type

Description

Program Date

M-1

321370

Passing

Lanes

SR 18 southbound 2.3-3.6/westbound

13.7-15.2/Monroe/eastbound 3.38-5.1/TL 5.10-5.6

STP

LR

M-2

342920

Passing

Lanes

SR 19 from CR 73/King Road CR 74/Hill Road

to 0.5

mile east

of

STP

LR

M-3 0007045

Bridges

SR 42 at Tobesofkee Creek 2 mile south of Forsyth

Bridge

2008

M-4 0007046 Bridges SR 83 at Towaliga River

Bridge

2009

M-5 0007219

Intersection Improvement

SR 19/US 41 at SR 18

STP

NA

M-6 371800

Rail Projects

Commuter Rail Griffin to Macon/Bibb Houston County Phase 4

HPP

NA

M-7 0007599 Sidewalk Sidewalk & Streetscape in Downtown Forsyth

NHS

NA

Source: GDOT Office of Planning

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

9

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

10

Crash History

Monroe County Crash Locations

Roadway SR83/Lee Street Source: CARE Database

Intersection US 41/Main Street

Crashes Fatalities Injuries

30

0

10

Crash Locations and Severity

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

11

Bridges
46 Bridges in Monroe County o 7 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation o 9 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation in the next 20 years o 2 Bridges currently in GDOT's Construction Work Program
Bridge Sufficiency Ratings

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

12

Freight & Rail
GDOT Georgia Rail Freight Plan Update, 2000
2 Lines Operated in Monroe County Norfolk Southern -22 miles of Track Up to 45 Trains /Up to 47 Trains 52 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile (MGTM/M)
Rail Safety o 78 Crossings 76 At-Grade Crossings 2 Underpasses o 3 Incidents reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (2000-2006). o 10 Incidents at rail crossings that don't include trains.
Commodities/Freight Originating/Terminating in the County o Non-metallic Mineral Products o Coal
Commodities/Freight Transported Through the County o Clay, Concrete, Glass and Stone Products o Lumber and Wood Products o Chemicals and Allied Products o Hazardous Materials o Pulp and Paper o Food Products o Mixed Shipments

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

13

Rail Locations and Truck Routes

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

14

Multi-Modal (Bike/Ped, Aviation & Transit)
Monroe County Bike/Ped
Locations to examine for walking/biking potential:
Existing Schools: Hubbard Elementary School (adjacent site to Hubbard Middle School) 558 Hwy 83 South, Forsyth Hubbard Middle School 500 Hwy 83 South, Forsyth T.G. Scott Elementary School (adjacent site to Banks Stephens Middle School) 70 Thornton Road, Forsyth Banks Stephens Middle School 66 Thornton Road, Forsyth 9th Grade Campus (adjacent to Mary Persons High School, Monroe County Achievement Center, and Board of Education Building) 25 Brooklyn Avenue, Forsyth Mary Persons High School 300 Montpelier Avenue, Forsyth Monroe County Achievement Center 25A Brooklyn Avenue, Forsyth Monroe Academy 433 Hwy 41 South, Forsyth
Planned Schools: New Pre-K-5th grade (open to students in Fall 2009 with grades 6-8 open 3-5 years out)(large housing development adjacent Denrick Development Grand Point) 1289 Hwy 83 North, Forsyth (near Bunn Road)
Other Destinations: Monroe County Library 62 West Main Street Forsyth, GA 31029 High Falls State Park County Recreation Centers Rum Creek Wildlife Management Area Lake Juliette Local Parks
Crash Statistics: 2004-2006: Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes: 1 property damage only, 7 injuries, 2 fatalities
Existing Bike/Ped Details:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

15

State Bicycle Route Central Route Corridor Route #15 enters Monroe County on US 41/SR 18 at Lamar Count Line southeast to Forsyth continuing on US 41 to the Bibb County Line.
RDC Plan Recommendations: 4 foot bike lane on US 41 from lamar County Line to Bibb County Line 2 foot bike lane on Estes Road from Bibb County Line northeast to Red Oak Drive 2 foot bike lane on Red Oak Drive from Estes Road east to US 41 2 foot bike lane on Juliette Road from US 41 northeast to Jones County Line
Bicycle/Pedestrian Existing and Planned Facilities

Aviation: No local airport- Comprehensive plan calls for consideration in the future
Public Transportation: Assistance is provided for those who qualify for Department of Human Resources Assistance (elderly, disabled, and other qualified participants). Planning efforts will determine how the program may be enhanced and if a rural transit program should be implemented.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

16

Model Development
Network Development o Functional Class Capacity Speeds o Number of Lanes o Traffic Counts
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) o Census Blocks o Natural Boundaries

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

17

Population Distribution in 2000

25000

Population Change from 1900 to 2000
1900 - 2000 Population Change

20000

Population

15000

10000

5000

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year
Source: US Census

Butts Jones Monroe

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

18

Local Issues & Opportunities
Background on Key Transportation Issues in the Study Area Safety Congestion Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Desired Projects or Improvements Development Areas Political Realities
Local Issues and Opportunities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

19

Transportation Issues & Needs
A. What do you see as the three greatest transportation issues or concerns in your County?
B. What transportation corridors are of most interest to you in terms of the Transportation Study?
C. What do you think is the relationship between transportation and land use in the Study Area?
D. Given this is a Plan that discusses short-range and long-range transportation issues, what is the best way to reach out to citizens and community groups to involve them in the Transportation Study?
E. What funding sources should be used to pay for future transportation improvements in the Study Area? Which sources should not be used?
F. If you could share one major message with the Project Team, what would it be?
G. How engaged do you think Study Area residents want to be in discussing transportation and land use issues and the Transportation Study?
H. What do you see as the transportation "Hot Spot" in the study area?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

20

I. What aspects of the transportation system are important to you TODAY and what aspects will be important to you in 2035 (25 years from now). Please rank importance of the following transportation strategies as "High", "Medium" or "Low".

Transportation Needs Relieving traffic congestion on I-75
Providing adequate evacuation and emergency routes
Improving roadway safety
Addressing truck travel Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system
Adding new roadway capacity (new roads) to the transportation system

Level of Importance
to You Today

Level of Importance
to You in 2035

Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings

Building more north-south roadways to better connect areas within the County

Building more east-west roadways to better connect areas within the County
Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks and shopping areas, etc
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
Developing better public transportation services for seniors and disabled people
Providing public transportation (bus) services to residents
Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our existing transportation system
Coordination between Counties for Transportation

J. Do you have any other issues or concerns that you would like to see dealt with in the Transportation Study?

K. What do you expect as the outcome of this study?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

21

Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives are components of the long range planning process. They guide the development of the Plan by providing a basis for evaluating Transportation Plan alternatives. Goals and objectives reflect those intentions that the plan is meant to achieve.
Factors to Consider Economics & Development Safety Accessibility Employment Environment Efficiency Preservation
Developing Goals and Objectives What are the County's Mobility Needs? What Types of Transportation Improvements? Are Multi-Modal Improvements Needed in the County? Which Improvements are the Most Important to the County? What are Transportation Quality of Life Factors?
Comprehensive Plan Goals Improve local road network to accommodate growth in northern and southern Monroe County. Develop an interconnected Network of bikeways and walkways. Develop a countywide transit development plan. Develop a road classification system that IDs arterial and collector roads Establish a pedestrian friendly atmosphere in downtown Forsyth.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

22

Public Workshop #1
Week of October 22 or 29- TBD Forsyth, GA
Format Open House (2 Hours) Formal Presentation (15 Minutes) Formal Q&A (10-15 Minutes) Display Boards Comment Sheets
Get the News Out!!

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

23

Next Steps
Complete Existing Conditions Report Complete Travel Demand Model Develop Future Operating Conditions Identify Preliminary Existing and Future Deficiencies Schedule Next Advisory Group Meeting (February/March)

July Develop Transportation Plan
Public Involvement
Data Collection
Evaluate Existing & Future Operating Conditions Alternatives Development
Develop 2035 Transportation Plan

STUDY SCHEDULE

August

2007
September October

November December

January

2008
February

March

Public Workshop Notice

Public Workshop

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

24

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Jones County Study Advisory Group Meeting #1 October 10, 2007, 10AM to 12PM Jones County Government Center

Attendees: Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Pam Christopher, Jones County Chamber and Development Authority Harry Goff, Jones County Board of Education Phil Clark, Middle Georgia RDC Tom Queen, GDOT District 3 John Conn, Conn Realty, Inc. Larry Beck, Jones County (Safety)

Laten Boniol, Jones County, Public Works Mike Underwood, Jones County, Administrator Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Johnny Han, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Study Advisory Committee Packet

Meeting Summary:

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a Study Advisory Group meeting was held in Jones County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Local participants from the Jones County community represented a diverse range of perspectives including the business community and local agencies.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and led off self-introductions. She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process and the role in which the study advisory group plays. Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, scheduled for October 23, from 5PM to 7PM. Additionally, Ms. Bilotto provided flyers to the attendees for distribution in the community to advertise the meeting.

Following the presentation, Ms. Bilotto led the group through the information packet summarizing existing conditions in the county and explained that one of the goals of the day's meeting was to develop a set of goals and objectives that can be incorporated as part of the study. Specific topics included the following:

Planned and Programmed Projects Safety Bridges Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks Public Transportation Aviation Travel Demand Model Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing and Planned Projects Local Issues and Opportunities

Page 1 of 4

Existing and Future Conditions Discussion: Ms. Bilotto then led the group through a list of broad transportation needs to generate discussion regarding specific interest areas now and in the future. The following table illustrates the level of importance now and in year 2035.

Transportation Needs Relieving traffic congestion on I-75

Level of Importance
Today
Medium

Level of Importance in
2035
High

Providing adequate evacuation and emergency routes

Low

Medium

Improving roadway safety

High

High

Addressing truck travel

High

Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system Adding new roadway capacity (new roads) to the transportation system

High High High

Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings

Low-Medium

Improving more north-south roadways to better connect areas within the County Improving more east-west roadways to better connect areas within the County Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks, and shopping areas

High Medium-High
High

Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians

High

Developing better public transportation services for seniors and Low
disabled people

Providing public transportation (bus) services to residents

Low

Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our transportation system

High

Coordination between Counties for transportation

High

High High High Low Low-Medium High Medium-High High High Medium-High Medium-High High High

Page 2 of 4

General Discussion: Comments from the group are summarized below:
Series of dirt roads that connect SR 44 and SR 11 need paving Green Settlement Road/ Hwy 129
o A safety study for traffic signal concluded a signal was not warranted o As an alternative, a suggestion was made to improve warning devices on approaches Haddock citizens have requested reduced speeds through town o Current the speed limit is 45 mph o Other measures should also be considered o Trish Ann Antiques shop should be included as Haddock representative o Mike England GDOT District 3 representative can provide guidance o GDOT Commissioner was approached about this issue in June 2007 Upper River Road o 2 fatalities in the "S-curve" o Local project, with some GDOT support funding, is addressing this issue Industrial park with access to southern rail line o 10 trains per day, currently, but should increase to 15-20 in future o Warehouse distribution likely occupiers of the site Train increases will increase safety issues o Design of main rail crossing at US 129 in Gray needs evaluation; truck trailers have issue
crossing it Four-lane road from Gray Bypass north to Putnam County needs to be scheduled sooner than
long-range as Bypass construction will generate need for 4-lane road Better access to I-16 needed
o Hwy 57 to I-16 may realize increased truck traffic with new industrial park o Jeffersonville Road/Emery Hwy/Ocmulgee East Blvd East-West / Cross County connector o Study was completed; Jones County does not have an interest (public opposition) o Projects in this area need to be in the Macon MPO Connect Gray to proposed Rails-to-Trails facility o Safe Routes to Schools program needs to be used o Clifton Ridge Development of Regional Impact new subdivision could be designed to
have a connection to Clifton Middle School Funding for bike and pedestrian projects
Page 3 of 4

o National Scenic Byway Funding o Safe Routes to Schools Program
area needs to be identified in a plan to receive funds o Transportation Enhancement o Rails-to-Trails o State funding in conjunction with widening Bus traffic from elementary and high school and Gray Station Middle School could be connected with new road to avoid Hwy 18, Railroad Street, Bill Conn Parkway o Would have ancillary benefit to Cumslo Road and Hwy 18 SR 96 proposed to be four-lane road (Fall line Freeway put on shelf in this area) SPLOST will end in 2009 ($12 million total, with about $2million for transportation)
Summary of Top Concerns:
Roads connecting to I-75 likely to see more traffic in future Bottleneck around high school on Hwy 18 could be issue in an emergency situation Issues at peak traffic times and Saturday college football games Downtown Gray operational improvements needed Gray Bypass and Cross-County connector are two high priority projects Railroad crossings could be issues with increased train traffic Hwy 57 to I-16 is a needed north-south connection More alternatives route to Macon needed Need 4-lane road between Milledgeville and Gray Shoulders and wider lanes on the following:
o Lite-N-Tie Road o Cumslo Road o Green Settlement Road o Stagecoach Road o Joycliff Road o Upper River Road o Morton Road o Turner Woods Road
Page 4 of 4

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study Jones County
Study Advisory Group #1 October 10th, 2007
Prepared by:
In Association with: MPH & Associates, Inc

Butts, Jones & Monroe Transportation Study
Agenda
1.0 Study Team Members 2.0 Study Overview 3.0 Public Involvement Plan 4.0 Data Collection 5.0 Model Development 6.0 Local Issues & Opportunities 7.0 Goals & Objectives 8.0 Public Workshop #1 9.0 Next Steps
Action Items for Today's Meeting Transportation Issues & Needs Development Opportunities Goals & Objectives

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

2

Study Team Members

Agency
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
GDOT - Planning
HNTB Project Manager
HNTB Senior Planner
MPH & Associates
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
GDOT District 3
Middle Georgia RDC
McIntosh Trail RDC Monroe County Road Superintendent Butts County Planning Director Jones County Administrator

Contact
Radney Simpson Kelly Gwin Matthew Fowler Claudia Bilotto Tim Hatton Mary Huffstetler Thomas Howell David Millen Tom Queen Phil Clark Robert Hiett Sid Banks Steven Lease Mike Underwood

Phone

Email

404-657-6689 radney.simpson@dot.state.ga.us

404-651-5330 Kelly.Gwin@dot.state.ga.us

404-657-6916 Matthew.fowler@dot.state.ga.us

404-946-5747 cbilotto@hntb.com

404-946-5755 thatton@hntb.com

404-210-6123 maryhuffstetler@bellsouth.net

706-646-6900 thomas.howell@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6987 david.millen@dot.state.ga.us

706-646-6317 tom.queen@dot.state.ga.us

478-751-6160 pclark@mgrdc.org

770-227-6308 rhiett@cityofgriffin.com

478-994-7029

770-775-8210 srlease@buttscounty.org

478-986-8219 mikeunderwood@alltel.net

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

3

Study Advisory Group Members (Jones County)

Contact Pam Christopher Velma McFadden Candy McMahon Carol Miller Wayne Garrett Harry Goff Tim Pitrowski Cheryl Harrington Charlie Cruz Decius Aaron Pat Daniel Steve McClendon Laten Bonoil John Conn Greg Mullis

Organization Jones County Chamber of Commerce The Plan Group Conn Realty Jones County Board of Education Jones County School System Jones County Schools - Transportation Jones County Planning & Zoning DHR Region 6 Transportation Office Middle Georgia Community Action Agency City of Gray Superintendent Better Hometown Tri County EMC Jones County Public Works Conn Realty Jones County Development Authority

Phone

Email

478-932-5773 478-318-6759 478-986-6373 478-986-3032 478-986-6373 478-986-5117 478-757-2530 478-922-4464 478-986-5433 478-986-5199

camiller@jones.k12.ga.us wgarrett@jones.k12.ga.us hgoff@jones.k12.ga.us timpitrowski@alltel.net
ccruze@mgcaa.org
daniels244@alltel.net

478-986-8112 478-461-1421

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

4

Study Overview
PHASE I
1. Data Collection a. Previous Studies b. GIS Data c. Socio-Economic Data Existing Conditions Inventory Travel Demand Model
2. Public Involvement Public Involvement Process Goals & Objectives
3. Develop Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors
4. Evaluate Existing Conditions a. Multi-Modal Assessment b. Goals and Objectives c. Safety Summary of Existing Operating Conditions
5. Future Conditions Evaluation a. Travel Demand Model b. Key Points i. Socio-Economic Data ii. Household Data iii. Business Data Summary of Future Operating Conditions
PHASE II
6. Identify Improvements a. Strategy Screening for Types of Improvements i. Needs ii. Parallel Relief iii. Network Connectivity iv. Access Improvements v. Reconstruction vi. Safety
7. Develop Cost Estimates 8. Financial Resources and Funding Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

5

Public Involvement Process
1. Public Involvement Process a. Detailed b. Flexible c. Measures to Evaluate Performance
2. Study Advisory Group a. Development of Goals and Objectives b. Review Existing Deficiencies and Issues c. Development Opportunities d. Identify and Review Potential Improvements e. Identify Institutional Barriers and Opportunities f. Meet 1-2 Weeks Prior to Public Workshops i. October 2007 ii. February/March 2008
3. Public Workshops a. 2 Rounds of Workshops with 1 Workshop in each County (6 total Workshops) b. Public Workshop Structure i. Workshop # 1 Overview of Existing and Future Operating Conditions (October 2007) ii. Workshop #2 Preliminary Improvement Recommendations (February/March 2008) c. Identify Specific, Possible Locations for Workshops d. Appropriate Instruments to Post Notices i. Press Release ii. Newsletters iii. Website e. Mailing List/Key Invitees f. Small Group Meetings
4. Coordination with Other Meetings Occurring in the Study Area

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

6

Data Collection

Data Collection Items
Background Information and Studies RC Data Bridge Inventory Crash Data Land Use Plans
Rural Transit
Freight
Rail
Aviation Bicycle and Pedestrian
Socioeconomic Data
Development Areas
GIS Data

Responsible Parties
HNTB HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB /GDOT HNTB MPH
MPH
MPH MPH MPH
HNTB HNTB
HNTB

Data Sources

Status

GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities
GDOT

Completed Completed

GDOT

Completed

GDOT
Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Statewide Aviation System Plan GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties GDOT Middle Georgia RDC McIntosh Trail RDC Counties/Cities

Completed In Progress Completed Completed
Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed In Progress

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

7

Previous/Ongoing Studies and Plans
Comprehensive Plans o Documentation of Existing and Future Land Use o Understanding of Development Areas o Documentation of Growth Areas o Documentation of Infrastructure Expansion Utilities Sewer Schools Parks and Recreation o Transportation Plan Coordinates with Comprehensive Plan to ensure Consistency with Community Goals and Objectives
GDOT Interstate System Plan o No improvements are recommended in study area
GDOT Truck Lanes Needs Identification Study o Recommendations late 2007
GDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Six Year Construction Work Program (CWP), and Long Range Plan
Middle Georgia and McIntosh Trail RDC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

8

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program
Jones County

Map

Prime Work

Id Project Id

Type

Description

Construction Program Date

J-1 0001040 Widening SR 44 from Gray Bypass to CR 104/Mathis Road STP

LR

J-2 231620

Widening

SR 44 from Mathis Road/Jones County to US 441/Putnam County

STP

LR

J-3 232350

Widening

SR 22 from Gray Bypass/Jones County to SR 29 near Milledgeville Baldwin County

STP

LR

J-4 332450

Widening

SR 49 widening from Griswoldville Road to SR 18

STP

LR

J-5 370860

Bridges CR 28 west of Clinton at Chehaw Creek

Bridge

LR

J-6 371180 J-7 371181 J-8 322540

Bridges
Bridges Roadway
Project

CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line CR 133/County Line Road at Commissioner Creek west of Baldwin County line
SR 899/Gray North Bypass from SR 18 northeast to SR 22

Bridge Bridge STP

LR LR 2012

J-9 0007603 Streetscape Sidewalks and bike trails in Gray

HPP

2008

Source: GDOT Office of Planning

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

9

2006 2008 STIP & 2008-2013 Construction Work Program

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

10

Crash History

Jones County Crash Locations

Roadway SR 11 at SR 18
SR 11 at CR 3
SR 11 at CR 19 SR 49 at CR 182 SR 11 at CR 179 Source: CARE Database

Intersection
Antebellum Trail at Forsyth Highway Antebellum Trail at Old Macon Gray Highway Antebellum Trail at Greene Settlement Road
SR 49 at Joycliff Road
Antebellum Trail at RL Wheeler Road

Crashes 34 35 22 23 21

Crash Locations and Severity

Fatalities Injuries

0

10

0

10

0

12

0

10

0

5

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

11

Bridges
72 Bridges in Jones County o 6 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation o 21 Bridges in Need of Maintenance or Rehabilitation in the next 20 years o 2 Bridges are currently in GDOT's Construct Work Program
Bridge Sufficiency Ratings

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

12

Freight & Rail
GDOT Georgia Rail Freight Plan Update, 2000
2 Lines Operated in Jones County by Norfolk Southern (36 miles of track) Madison-Macon Line along Highway 11 (5 trains per day) 3 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile (MGTM/M) Southern portion of the County in Macon vicinity (10 trains per day) 29 Million Gross Ton Miles/Mile (MGTM/M)
Inactive CSX Rail Line from Central Jones to Milledgeville (17 Miles)
Rail Safety o 49 Crossings 48 At-Grade Crossings 1 Underpasses o 2 Incidents reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (2000-2006). o 15 Incidents at rail crossings that don't include trains.
Commodities/Freight Originating/Terminating in the County o Non-metallic Mineral Products
Commodities/Freight Transported Through the County o Clay, Concrete, Glass and Stone Products o Lumber and Wood Products o Coal o Chemicals and Allied Products o Hazardous Materials o Pulp and Paper o Food Products o Mixed Shipments

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

13

Rail Locations and Truck Routes

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

14

Multi-Modal (Bike/Ped, Aviation & Transit)
Jones County Bike/Ped Locations to examine for walking/biking potential:
Existing Schools: Mattie Wells Primary School 101 Mattie Wells Drive, Macon Wells Elementary School 512 Hwy 49, Macon Dames Ferry Elementary School 545 Hwy 18 West, Gray Gray Elementary School 272 Railroad Street, Gray Califf Middle School 110 Maggie Califf Street, Gray Clifton Ridge Middle School 169 Dusty Lane, Macon Gray Station Middle School 324 Hwy 18 East, Gray Jones County High School 339 Railroad Street, Gray
Planned Schools: New Elementary School (open to students in 2010) On Turner Woods Road near Morton traffic will access site via SR 22 and Altman this site is planned to also have a Middle school in Long Range New High School (accepting students 8-10 years away) On Howard Roberts Road (which makes a horseshoe and intersects SR 18 twice). The site will be one mile from the eastern intersection of Howard Roberts Road and SR 18 and also one mile from Dames Ferry Elementary. New Primary or Middle School (on hold Long Range) On Huckabee Road within one quarter mile of SR 18 West
Other Destinations: Jones County Library 146 Railroad Street Gray, GA 31032 County Recreation Centers Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge Jarrell Plantation Hillsboro Lake Downtown Gray Local Parks
Crash Statistics:

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

15

2004-2006: Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes: 6 injuries
Existing Bike/Ped Recommendations from RDC Plan: Ocmulgee Heritage Shared Use Trail from Juliette Road south to Bibb County Line 2 foot bike lane on Juliette Road from Monroe County Line east to SR 11 4 foot bike lane from Jasper County Line south to SR 22 in Gray 2 foot bike lane on Railroad Street/Cumslo Road form SR 22 south to inactive Norfolk Southern Line 10 foot Rails to Trails path on inactive Norfolk Southern Line from Bibb County Line northeast to Baldwin County Line
Bicycle/Pedestrian Existing and Planned Facilities

Aviation: No local airport.
Public Transportation: 5311 Rural Transit Program operated by the Middle Georgia Community Action Agency (MGCAA). The system is a fare-based, demand-response system providing access to shopping, medical, educational, employment, and social activity centers. A van must be reserved 24 hours in advance and operates Monday

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

16

through Fridays, 8AM to 5PM. The cost is $2.00 per trip. Vans will provide service up to a 50-mile radius for $4.00 per round trip. Three vans are currently operated.
A fourth van is operated for those who qualify for Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) assistance.
The transit system's current number of trips is significant when compared to counties of similar size. When considering future needs, it should be noted that the Jones County Comprehensive Plan projects a 111% increase in senior citizens by 2025, and this population is likely to place additional demands on the system based on current ridership statistics.
A recent planning initiative by DHR Region 6 The Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan documents the need for additional services in the future.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

17

Model Development
Network Development o Functional Class Capacity Speeds o Number of Lanes o Traffic Counts
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) o Census Blocks o Natural Boundaries

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

18

Population Distribution in 2000

25000

Population Change from 1900 to 2000
1900 - 2000 Population Change

20000

Population

15000

10000

5000

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year
Source: US Census

Butts Jones Monroe

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

19

Local Issues & Opportunities
Background on Key Transportation Issues in the Study Area Safety Congestion Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Desired Projects or Improvements Development Areas Political Realities
Local Issues and Opportunities

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

20

Transportation Issues & Needs
A. What do you see as the three greatest transportation issues or concerns in your County?
B. What transportation corridors are of most interest to you in terms of the Transportation Study?
C. What do you think is the relationship between transportation and land use in the Study Area?
D. Given this is a Plan that discusses short-range and long-range transportation issues, what is the best way to reach out to citizens and community groups to involve them in the Transportation Study?
E. What funding sources should be used to pay for future transportation improvements in the Study Area? Which sources should not be used?
F. If you could share one major message with the Project Team, what would it be?
G. How engaged do you think Study Area residents want to be in discussing transportation and land use issues and the Transportation Study?
H. What do you see as the transportation "Hot Spot" in the study area?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

21

I. What aspects of the transportation system are important to you TODAY and what aspects will be important to you in 2035 (25 years from now). Please rank importance of the following transportation strategies as "High", "Medium" or "Low".

Transportation Needs Relieving traffic congestion on I-75

Level of Importance
to You Today

Level of Importance
to You in 2035

Providing adequate evacuation and emergency routes

Improving roadway safety

Addressing truck travel
Adding or coordinating traffic signals, building turn lanes, and adding other features to improve traffic flow
Adding new roadway capacity (widened roads) to the transportation system

Adding new roadway capacity (new roads) to the transportation system

Dealing with problems associated with railroad crossings

Building more north-south roadways to better connect areas within the County

Building more east-west roadways to better connect areas within the County
Providing good walking and bicycling paths near schools, libraries, parks and shopping areas, etc
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
Developing better public transportation services for seniors and disabled people
Providing public transportation (bus) services to residents
Providing adequate resources to operate and maintain our existing transportation system
Coordination between Counties for Transportation

J. Do you have any other issues or concerns that you would like to see dealt with in the Transportation Study?

K. What do you expect as the outcome of this study?

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

22

Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives are components of the long range planning process. They guide the development of the Plan by providing a basis for evaluating Transportation Plan alternatives. Goals and objectives reflect those intentions that the plan is meant to achieve.
Factors to Consider Economics & Development Safety Accessibility Employment Environment Efficiency Preservation
Developing Goals and Objectives What are the County's Mobility Needs? What Types of Transportation Improvements? Are Multi-Modal Improvements Needed in the County? Which Improvements are the Most Important to the County? What are Transportation Quality of Life Factors?
Comprehensive Plan Goals Reduce traffic congestion along Gray Highway corridor. Reduce traffic in the Gray downtown area. Establish attractive entranceways along major thoroughfares in Jones County. Commuter strategies including car and vanpooling to help reduce traffic between Jones County and the employment centers in Baldwin, Bibb, and Houston Counties. Provide satisfactory alternative forms of transportation including transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Gray and Jones County.

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

23

Public Workshop #1
October 23, 2007, 5pm - 7pm Jones County Government Center
Format Open House (2 Hours) Formal Presentation (15 Minutes) Formal Q&A (10-15 Minutes) Display Boards Comment Sheets
Get the Word Out!!

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

24

Next Steps
Complete Existing Conditions Report Complete Travel Demand Model Develop Future Operating Conditions Identify Preliminary Existing and Future Deficiencies Schedule Next Advisory Group Meeting (February/March)

July Develop Transportation Plan
Public Involvement
Data Collection
Evaluate Existing & Future Operating Conditions Alternatives Development
Develop 2035 Transportation Plan

STUDY SCHEDULE

August

2007
September October

November December

January

2008
February

March

Public Workshop Notice

Public Workshop

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study

25

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Jones County Study Advisory Group Meeting #2 April 7, 2008, 1PM to 3PM Jones County Administration Building

Attendees: Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Wayne Garrett, Jones County Board of Education Mike Underwood, Jones County Phil Clark, Middle GA RDC

Tim Pitrowski, Jones County Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Tim Hatton, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Jones County Suggested Improvements Jones County Potential Improvement Maps and ID key Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria and Scoring Public Meeting Announcement

Meeting Summary:

This meeting was the second meeting of the Jones County Study Advisory Group for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The meeting was held to provide an update of the status of the project tasks completed to date and to discuss the initial list of potential multi-modal transportation improvements.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group, thanked them for coming, and presented the study's findings since the first round of public meetings. She explained to the group that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented comments from stakeholder and public meetings which were provided to the group in a hand out. HNTB evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, who reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with baseline conditions in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. The HNTB team identified potential improvements based on future transportation deficiencies for a mid-range of year 2015 and a long-range year of 2035.

Page 1 of 2

The potential improvements considered included the following: Capacity Enhancement Widen existing roads or build new facilities Parallel Relief Improve a Corridor Parallel to a Congested Facility Network Connectivity Enhance Connectivity of the Highway Network Access Improvement Improve Access to a Site or Area Reconstruction Improve an Existing Deficient Facility Safety Correct a Potential Safety Deficiency Alternative Modes Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transit and Rail
The HNTB team has completed the initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. Ms. Bilotto reviewed the potential projects to get feedback from the group. The Study Advisory Group was provided maps and an identification key that provided information about the projects limits and locations. Also, the qualitative and quantitative criteria were given to the group for review and comment. The group approved the criteria used to prioritize the potential improvements. The group reviewed the potential improvements, which included:
GDOT's Work Program Projects Potential roadway widening and operational improvements Potential intersection safety improvements Potential bridge replacements Potential improvements to railroad crossings Potential bicycle and pedestrian projects The Study Advisory Group reviewed proposed improvements and provided local knowledge that helped refine the list of projects. The public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the potential improvement during a public meeting scheduled for May 8, 2008. After the public meeting comments are received the improvements will be refined as needed and the final prioritized list of recommended improvements will be completed. The next steps are to complete potential project screening and ranking, develop cost estimates, provide recommendations for financial resources and funding, and finalize the development of long-range transportation plan (horizon year of 2035). Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, scheduled for Thursday, May 8, 2008 from 5PM to 7PM at the Jones County Government Center.
Page 2 of 2

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Monroe County Study Advisory Group Meeting #2 April 8, 2007, 10AM to 12PM Monroe County Clubhouse

Attendees: Bud Queen, Monroe resident Jim Peters, Monroe County Anita Buice, Monroe County Sid Banks, Monroe County Bob Rychel, Middle Georgia RDC David Clark, Georgia Department of Corrections

Larry Evans, Monroe County Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Garth Lynch, HNTB Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Monroe County Suggested Improvements Monroe County Potential Improvement Maps and ID key Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria and Scoring Public Meeting Announcement

Meeting Summary:

This meeting was the second meeting of the Monroe County Study Advisory Group for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The meeting was held to provide an update of the status of the project tasks completed to date and to discuss the initial list of potential multi-modal transportation improvements.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group, thanked them for coming, and presented the study's findings since the first round of public meetings. She explained to the group that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented comments from stakeholder and public meetings which were provided to the group in a hand out. HNTB evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

Ms. Gwin reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with baseline conditions in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. The HNTB team identified potential improvements based on future transportation deficiencies for a mid-range of year 2015 and a long-range year of 2035.

Page 1 of 2

The potential improvements considered included the following: Capacity Enhancement Widen existing roads or build new facilities Parallel Relief Improve a Corridor Parallel to a Congested Facility Network Connectivity Enhance Connectivity of the Highway Network Access Improvement Improve Access to a Site or Area Reconstruction Improve an Existing Deficient Facility Safety Correct a Potential Safety Deficiency Alternative Modes Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transit and Rail
The HNTB team has completed the initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. She turned the floor over to Tim Hatton, HNTB, to go over the potential projects and to get feedback from the group. The Study Advisory Group was provided maps and an identification key that included information about the projects limits and locations. Also, the qualitative and quantitative criteria were given to the group for review and comment. The group agreed that the criteria were appropriate for Monroe County. Mr. Hatton led the group to go over the potential improvements, which included:
GDOT's Work Program Projects Potential roadway widening and operational improvements Potential intersection safety improvements Potential bridge replacements Potential improvements to railroad crossings Potential bicycle and pedestrian projects The Study Advisory Group reviewed proposed improvements and provided local knowledge that helped refine the list of projects. The public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the potential improvement during a public meeting scheduled for May 1, 2008. After the public meeting comments are received the improvements will be refined as needed and the final prioritized list of recommended improvements will be completed. The next steps are to complete potential project screening and ranking, develop cost estimates, provide recommendations for financial resources and funding, and finalize the development of long-range transportation plan (horizon year of 2035). Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, scheduled for May 1, 2008 from 5PM to 7PM.
Page 2 of 2

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Butts County Study Advisory Group Meeting #2 April 8, 2007, 2PM to 4PM Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room

Attendees: Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Joe Blankenship, Butts County Board of Education Garth Lynch, HNTB Cathy Perry, Department of Human Resources David Millen, GDOT District 3 Christy Taylor, Butts County Alan White, Industrial Development Authority Lou DuFresne, Jackson Lakes HOA

Linda Sisio, Department of Human Resources Bart White, Industrial Development Authority Robert Hiett, McIntosh Trail RDC Lanier Boatwright, McIntosh Trail RDC Evelyn O'Neal, Liberty Convalescence Services, Inc. Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB

Handouts:

Meeting Agenda Butts County Suggested Improvements Butts County Potential Improvement Maps and ID key Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria and Scoring Public Meeting Announcement

Meeting Summary:

This meeting was the second meeting of the Butts County Study Advisory Group for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The meeting was held to provide an update of the status of the project tasks completed to date and to discuss the initial list of potential multi-modal transportation improvements.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group, thanked them for coming, and presented the study's findings since the first round of public meetings. She explained to the group that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented comments from stakeholder and public meetings which were provided to the group in a handout. HNTB evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

Ms. Gwin reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with baseline conditions in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. The HNTB team identified potential improvements based on future transportation deficiencies for a mid-range of year 2015 and a long-range year of 2035.

Page 1 of 2

The potential improvements considered include the following: Capacity Enhancement Widen existing roads or build new facilities Parallel Relief Improve a Corridor Parallel to a Congested Facility Network Connectivity Enhance Connectivity of the Highway Network Access Improvement Improve Access to a Site or Area Reconstruction Improve an Existing Deficient Facility Safety Correct a Potential Safety Deficiency Alternative Modes Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transit and Rail
The HNTB team has completed the initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. Ms. Gwin turned the floor over to Tim Hatton, HNTB, to go over the potential projects and to get feedback from the group. The Advisory Group members were provided maps and an identification key that included information about the project limits and locations. Also, the qualitative and quantitative criteria were given to the group for review and comment. The group agreed that the criteria were appropriate for Butts County and the GDOT District representative stated it matched GDOT's prioritization criteria. Mr. Hatton led the group through the potential improvements, which included:
GDOT's Work Program Projects Potential roadway widening and operational improvements Potential intersection safety improvements Potential bridge replacements Potential improvements to railroad crossings Potential bicycle and pedestrian projects The Study Advisory Group reviewed proposed improvements and provided local knowledge that helped refine the list of projects. The public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the potential improvement during a public meeting scheduled for April 29, 2008. After the public meeting comments are received the improvements will be refined as needed and the final prioritized list of recommended improvements will be completed. The next steps are to complete potential project screening and ranking, develop cost estimates, provide recommendations for financial resources and funding, and finalize the development of long-range transportation plan (horizon year of 2035). Members were encouraged to help get the word out regarding upcoming public meetings in the county, scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, 2008 from 5PM to 7PM.
Page 2 of 2

Public Involvement Report

APPENDIX B MEETING NOTIFICATION

Technical Memorandum August 2008

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
BUTTS COUNTY Public Workshop Tuesday, October 16, 2007
6PM to 8PM Butts County Administration
Building Commissioners Meeting Room 625 West 3rd Street, Jackson
Phone: 770-775-8200
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and
in the future!
This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose and seek public input related
to the existing and future transportation system. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Butts County, GDOT, and the study team will be on
hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Workshop Scheduled!
Butts County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), will be conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the County Administration Building, 625 West Third Street, Jackson. The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on transportation needs and issues concerning Butts county residents. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. The study is being developed to identify solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system that meets all of the County's mobility needs. Public input is needed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose, study schedule, summarize existing transportation conditions and seek public input related to the existing and future transportation system. Study information and plans will be on display. Representatives from Butts County, GDOT, and the project team members will be on hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public information meeting. Your participation is important and Butts County and GDOT want to be aware of any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us.

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
JONES COUNTY Public Workshop Tuesday, October 23, 2007
5PM to 7PM Jones County Government
Center 166 Industrial Boulevard, Gray
Phone: 478-986-6405
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and
in the future!
This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose and seek public input related
to the existing and future transportation system. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Jones County, GDOT, and the study team will be on
hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Workshop Scheduled!
Jones County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), will be conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at Jones County Government Center, 166 Industrial Boulevard, Gray. The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on transportation needs and issues concerning Jones county residents. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. The study is being developed to identify solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system that meets all of the County's mobility needs. Public input is needed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose, study schedule, summarize existing transportation conditions and seek public input related to the existing and future transportation system. Study information and plans will be on display. Representatives from Jones County, GDOT, and the project team members will be on hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public information meeting. Your participation is important and Jones County and GDOT want to be aware of any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us.

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
MONROE COUNTY Public Workshop Thursday, November 1, 2007
5PM to 7PM Monroe County Clubhouse
(across from library) Phelps Street, Forsyth Phone: 478-994-7029
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and
in the future!
This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose and seek public input related
to the existing and future transportation system. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Monroe County, GDOT, and the study team will be on
hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Workshop Scheduled!
Monroe County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), will be conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Thursday, November 1, 2007, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Monroe County Clubhouse, Phelps Street, Forsyth (Across from the Library). The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on transportation needs and issues concerning Monroe county residents. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will address transportation needs through the year 2035. The study is being developed to identify solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system that meets all of the County's mobility needs. Public input is needed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
During this meeting, we will discuss the study purpose, study schedule, summarize existing transportation conditions and seek public input related to the existing and future transportation system. Study information and plans will be on display. Representatives from Monroe County, GDOT, and the project team will be on hand to discuss the project, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public information meeting. Your participation is important and Monroe County and GDOT want to be aware of any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us.

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
BUTTS COUNTY Public Workshop Tuesday, April 29, 2008
5PM to 7PM Butts County Administration
Building Commissioners Meeting Room 625 West 3rd Street, Jackson
Phone: 770-775-8200
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and in the
future!
This meeting is part of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, the study team will present potential project recommendations that address transportation issues identified by Butts County citizens during the initial round of meetings in fall of 2007. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Butts County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions, and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kgwin@dot.ga.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Second Public Workshop Scheduled!
Butts County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), is conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Tuesday, April 29, 2008, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the County Administration Building located at 625 West Third Street in Jackson, GA. The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on potential transportation project recommendations for Butts County. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which seeks to mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. The study will identify potential solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system in an effort to meet the County's current and future mobility needs. Public input is welcomed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
Key study information to be presented at the meeting includes: a summary of key transportation issues, an overview of the project evaluation process, and potential project recommendations. Representatives from Butts County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public meeting and provide input on the potential projects proposed for inclusion in the Butts County Transportation Plan. Your participation is important, and Butts County and GDOT are interested in any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kgwin@dot.ga.gov.

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
MONROE COUNTY Public Workshop Thursday, May 1, 2008
5PM to 7PM Monroe County Clubhouse
(across from library) Phelps Street, Forsyth Phone: 478-994-7029
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and in the
future!
This meeting is part of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, the study team will present potential project recommendations that address transportation issues identified by Monroe County citizens during the initial round of meetings in fall of 2007. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Monroe County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions, and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kgwin@dot.ga.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Second Public Workshop Scheduled!
Monroe County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), is conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Thursday, May 1, 2008, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Monroe County Clubhouse located on Phelps Street across from the library in Forsyth, GA. The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on potential transportation project recommendations for Monroe County. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which seeks to mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. The study will identify potential solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system in an effort to meet the County's current and future mobility needs. Public input is welcomed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
Key study information to be presented at the meeting includes: a summary of key transportation issues, an overview of the project evaluation process, and potential project recommendations. Representatives from Monroe County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public meeting and provide input on the potential projects proposed for inclusion in the Monroe County Transportation Plan. Your participation is important, and Monroe County and GDOT are interested in any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kgwin@dot.ga.gov.

Butts, Jones, & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Public Meeting Announcement
JONES COUNTY Public Workshop Thursday, May 8, 2008
5PM to 7PM Jones County Government
Center 166 Industrial Boulevard, Gray
Phone: 478-986-6405
Three - County Study Area
Please join us and provide your input on transportation needs and issues today and in the
future!
This meeting is part of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which will mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. During this meeting, the study team will present potential project recommendations that address transportation issues identified by Jones County citizens during the initial round of meetings in fall of 2007. Study information will be on display. Representatives from Jones County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions, and listen to input.
The meetings will begin with a formal presentation providing an overview of the study; after that feel free to browse display boards, ask questions, and provide your comments.
For More Information, Contact:
Georgia Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Kelly Gwin
#2 Capitol Square, Office of Planning Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 651-5330 E-Mail: kgwin@dot.ga.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Second Public Workshop Scheduled!
Jones County, in association with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), is conducting a Public Involvement Workshop on Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the County Government Center located at 166 Industrial Boulevard in Gray, GA. The purpose of this meeting is to gather public input on potential transportation project recommendations for Jones County. This meeting is a key component of the Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study, which seeks to mitigate transportation needs through the year 2035. The study will identify potential solutions to provide a safe and efficient transportation system in an effort to meet the County's current and future mobility needs. Public input is welcomed and has a significant role in the development of this study.
Key study information to be presented at the meeting includes: a summary of key transportation issues, an overview of the project evaluation process, and potential project recommendations. Representatives from Jones County, GDOT, and the study team will be on hand to discuss the study, answer questions and listen to recommendations. Everyone is encouraged to attend this public meeting and provide input on the potential projects proposed for inclusion in the Jones County Transportation Plan. Your participation is important, and Jones County and GDOT are interested in any questions or recommendations you may have.
For additional information on the study, or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Ms. Kelly Gwin, Georgia Department of Transportation, by phone at (404) 651-5330, or by e-mail at kgwin@dot.ga.gov.

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX C PUBLIC WORKSHOP DOCUMENTATION

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Butts County Study Advisory Group Meeting #1 October 16, 2007, 6PM to 8PM Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room

Attendees: Steven Lease, Butts County Christy Taylor, Butts County Marty Long, Public Works Director Jim Herbert, Butts County Recreation Tommy Crochet, McGee Partners Ronnie Duffey Kim Duffey Sandra Reid

David Millen, GDOT District 3 Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Matthew Fowler, GDOT Planning Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Andrew Smith, HNTB

Meeting Summary: As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a public meeting was held in Butts County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. Ms. Bilotto highlighted specific topics related to Butts County that included the following:

Planned and Programmed Projects Safety Bridges Freight Networks for Rail and Trucks Public Transportation Aviation Travel Demand Model Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing and Planned Projects Local Issues and Opportunities

A questions and answers session was offered. The meeting then progressed into an open house format where the meeting participants were able to ask questions of the staff positioned at various maps displayed around the room. Based on these conversations and the comment forms received, the following is a list of issues raised at the public meeting:

Emergency vehicle access to roads that have no existing access to a main road Trains blocking the cross-roads Cork Road currently has no access to another road without first crossing a railroad track and the
road also has a closed bridge. Sidewalk needs are critical for safety concerns as well as quality of life. Currently, sidewalks are
not provided to any school, except Jackson Elementary, which is planned to be relocated.
Affordable transportation for individuals, including transportation options for low-income workers to other employment centers in Spalding and Henry Counties.

Page 1 of 2

The Butts County bike paths need to reflect a connection on High Falls Road across SR 36 to SR 16 then north of SR 16 on England Chapel to SR 42 across Burg to Oak Street back SE on Wolf Creek then on 4Points Road to Stark Road. In Jenkinsburg, there is a new Road completed in 2001 or 2002, Kudzu Road, further west that provides an additional crossing on the single track portion. A lot of the original problem was that the crossings were on the double track portion where the trains were required to stop for other trains to pass. Problem Intersections:
SR 16 and Shiloh Road sight distance SR 42 and Shiloh Road sight distance SR 42 and Burg/England Chapel (west of Jenkinsburg) poor intersection design SR 16 and Old Higgins sight distance SR 36 and Fincherville bad angle SR 42 and Cenie Raod (neaer Indian Springs) intersection is tight more room needed Old Bethel/4-Points Road @Stark needs wider travel lanes this is a major connection between SR 42 and the lake area Keys Ferry from Henry County SE to SR 36 lanes were made wider in 2005 this is a temporary solution for a high growth area. Bike/Ped facilities would be desirable along the Ocmulgee.
Page 2 of 2

Butts Jones & Monroe Counties Transportation Study
Butts County Public Meetinq- October 16,2007
SIGN-IN SHEET
Please Print
- - Page of

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Jones County Public Meeting #1 October 23, 2007, 5PM to 7PM Jones County Government Center

Attendees: Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Chuck Thompson, Macon Telegraph Joe Metzker, Haddock community Butch Reece, Jones County Sheriff Dept. Lyndall and Billy Moore Craig Fluck, CGRTA Connie and Larry Smith, Gray Debbie Lurie Smith, Jones County news Fleta M. Harpon, Gray Berry W. Moore, Gray Jill F. Ussery, Gray Bobby May

Jimmy Roberts, Gray J. Preston Hawkins, Jones County Glenda Wood, Jones County Paul Melton, Jones County Tim Ingram, P.E., Ingram & Associates Berta Morton Tom Queen, GDOT District 3 Mike Underwood, Jones County, Administrator Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Johnny Han, HNTB

Meeting Summary:

As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a public meeting was held in Jones County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and provided an overview of the study's purpose. She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. Ms. Bilotto explained specific topics related to Jones County. She covered topics related to planned and programmed projects, transportation safety issues, bridges, and freight networks for rail and trucks. She provided information on the public transportation program. An overview of travel demand model development was given, including the use of population and employment statistics and projections. Existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian projects were discussed. Ms. Bilotto explained that previous meetings with county stakeholders relieved local issues and opportunities and one of the purposes of this meeting was to continue that data collection process.

Questions and Answer Session: Questions were asked about the location of north Gray Bypass. Mike Underwood had a proposed alignment engineering concept which he posted on the wall.

A member of the audience proposed a "quick fix" solution to the railroad crossing at the Gray intersection, the request included signal timing and a new signal location so as to provide 2 pairs of traffic lights.

State Route 22 onto SR 18 from Milledgeville needs left turn lanes.

Page 1 of 2

Additional passing lanes on US 129 were requested to accommodate Saturday college football traffic to Athens and others going to Lake Sinclair.
Notes from Open House Session: A comment was made to look at the use of Upper River Road as a connection to I-75 in Bibb County to act as an alternative north-south route to Macon instead of US 129. In conjunction with the proposed school on SR 18, Upper River Road would become a more direct route for those dropping off children at school then proceeding onto Macon for employment.
Oliver Green Road is currently not a paved roadway; a request was made to pave it.
Green Settlement Road was considered a high traffic area that needed improvement.
Improvements to the intersection at SR 22 and Harris Morton Road/ Altman Road were requested due to high speeds on SR 22.
Bypass is needed to get truck traffic off Gray highway through Gray On US 129 north to Eatonton are there any plans to put in passing lanes? Tom Queen said there is a 4lane project being developed from SR 44 from the new bypass to Eatonton. The RR intersection in downtown Gray with two traffic signals @ SR 11 and SR 44: SR 11 signal should be relocated to correct sight distance issue. Tom Queen stated that there is a possible need to switch to LED signals which can be seen better. Refer to District 3 for correction. Left turn signal needed from SR 22 from Milledgeville onto SR 18 East. SR 11 and SR 18 need to be connected from Wayside to Gerald Plantation there is a dirt road (5-Points Road) and it is very busy now. This could be paved. Look into paving Oliver Green Road part is paved and the rest needs to be paved. Widen shoulders on bicycle routes to minimize conflicts for bicyclists and rumble strips. Haddock has new businesses. Look at the widening of SR 22 to Milledgeville and take steps to minimize impacts to Haddock as a part of this project. Haddock does not want the character to be affected. There is pedestrian traffic crossing SR 22 between the church, antique shops, post office, etc. Continue to look into a traffic signal in Haddock @ SR 22 and Ethridge and Bowen Hill Road. Bowen Hill provides a connection between SR 22 and SR 49 used frequently. There is a Haddock TE project for sidewalks and lighting from the two "Unincorporated Haddock" signs. SR 18 awarded $500K in HPP funds for sidewalks between Gray Station and Allen Green Parkway to the Recreational Complex. Ingram and Associates is in charge of design.
Page 2 of 2

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Monroe County Public Meeting #1 November 1, 2007, 5PM to 7PM Monroe County Clubhouse

Attendees: Joann Woodward Hal Gagnon George McGinty Bill Trigg Jim Mickle Scott Cowart Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning

Matthew Fowler, GDOT Planning Tom Queen, GDOT District 3 Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB Garth Lynch, HNTB

Meeting Summary:
As part of the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study, a public meeting was held in Monroe County to discuss county-specific issues related to transportation and growth. Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and provided an overview of the study's purpose. She turned the floor over to Claudia Bilotto, HNTB, to begin the presentation. Ms. Bilotto began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. Ms. Bilotto explained specific topics related to Monroe County. She covered topics related to planned and programmed projects, transportation safety issues, bridges, and freight networks for rail and trucks. She provided information on the public transportation program. An overview of travel demand model development was given, including the use of population and employment statistics and projections. Existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian projects were discussed. Ms. Bilotto explained that previous meetings with county stakeholders relieved local issues and opportunities and one of the purposes of this meeting was to continue that data collection process.

Questions and Answer Session:
A question was raised as to whether the Department of Corrections is factored in to the study. Ms. Bilotto explained that future increases in employment in the area are incorporated into the transportation demand model and that specific information regarding the employment estimates for the Department of Corrections would be included in the future analysis.
The topic of commuter rail was brought up by one of the public meeting attendees. Ms. Bilotto, along with Matthew Fowler from GDOT, explained that commuter rail was part of long-range study for the area that included the future possibility of commuter rail from Macon to Atlanta, with the interim project considered from Lovejoy to Atlanta.
A comment was made that the truck traffic from Highway 83 and US 41 culminates in downtown Forsyth and a possible solution could be to construct a new road at Collier Road to act as a connector to I-75 from SR 41 along the rail corridor. It was assumed that the truck traffic was using Highway 83 to go to I-20.
Ms. Bilotto and Matthew Fowler explained the prioritization process with other counties in response to a question about how county projects are funded. This study acts as a catalyst for project generation and formulates a transportation project prioritization plan for the county. Projects could be funded through state and/or local funds.
A comment about one-way pairs on SR 41 in downtown Forsyth or SR 23/ 87 as an alternate.

Page 1 of 2

Comments: Transportation safety issues:
Bicycling on US 41 Accidents near Wadley Road from Rock Quarry to Bolingbroke 41/Smarr/Rumble Road A comment was made that the funds dedicated to the passing lanes located south of Forsyth could be used elsewhere, on a higher priority project.
Page 2 of 2

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Butts County Public Meeting Meeting #2 April 29, 2008, 5PM to 7PM Butts County Commissioners Meeting Room

Attendees: Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Ray Bitrick Jim Herbert, Butts County Parks and Rec Joe Blankenship, Butts County BOE Al Duke Brent Fisher, KW Realty

Sheri Hudson, Butts County Historical Society Lou DuFresne Christy Taylor, Butts County Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB

Meeting Summary: This meeting was the second of two public meetings held in Butts County for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The purpose of this meeting was to present the study findings to date and to present and gather feedback on the preliminary recommendations for addressing Butts County transportation issues through the year 2035.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. She explained to the public meeting attendees that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented the comments from the first round of study advisory group and public meetings. HNTB has evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

Ms. Gwin reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with a baseline, no-build condition in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. Using this data, the HNTB team completed an initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. The Travel Demand Model results for 2006, 2015, and 2035 and potential transportation improvements projects for Butts County and for 3-county regional project were on display boards at the meeting.

Following the presentation, Ms. Gwin asked if there were any questions from the audience. She stated that the list of potential projects is preliminary and welcomed comments about the recommendations and suggestions for modifications to the current list or for additional projects to address the transportation needs. Comment cards were available for the public to fill out and return at the meeting or to fax or mail later. Ms. Gwin stated that the study would be concluding in the summer of 2008.

The meeting then moved to an open house format. Project staff made themselves available at the boards for one-on-one conversations about the potential projects and to answer any questions that the meeting attendees had.

Page 1 of 1

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Monroe County Public Meeting Meeting #2 May 1, 2008, 5PM to 7PM Monroe County Clubhouse

Attendees: Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Jim Peters, Monroe County Commissioner Harold Carlisle, Monroe County Commissioner Sidney Jones Wiley Crosby Howell Newton Mike Dodd, Forsyth City Council Don Daniel Tye Howard, Mayor City of Forsyth Tiffany Andrews

Pam Bittick Rosemary Walker, Forsyth City Council Alvin Walker, City of Forsyth Jimmy Pace, Pace and Pace, Inc. Ansley Hunt, Harvey Plumbing Marilyn Smith, Library Florence Pace, Pace and Pace, Inc. Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB

Meeting Summary: This meeting was the second of two public meetings held in Monroe County for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The purpose of this meeting was to present the study findings to date and to present and gather feedback on the preliminary recommendations for addressing Monroe County transportation issues through the year 2035.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. She explained to the public meeting attendees that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented the comments from the first round of study advisory group and public meetings. HNTB has evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

Ms. Gwin reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with a baseline, no-build condition in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. Using this data, the HNTB team completed an initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. The Travel Demand Model results for 2006, 2015, and 2035 and potential transportation improvements projects for Monroe County and for 3-county regional project were on display boards at the meeting.

She stated that the list of potential projects is preliminary and welcomed comments about the recommendations and suggestions for modifications to the current list or for additional projects to address the transportation needs. Comment cards were available for the public to fill out and return at the

Page 1 of 2

meeting or to fax or mail later. Ms. Gwin stated that the study would be concluding in the summer of 2008. Following the presentation, Ms. Gwin asked if there were any questions from the audience and several were asked. The following issues were raised:
Truck traffic in downtown Forsyth Increased traffic on streets in the vicinity of the Department of Corrections former Tift College
facility Frontage roads to be used for truck traffic Sidewalks on US 41 near Johnston Street Sidewalks for new subdivisions The meeting then moved to an open house format. Project staff made themselves available at the boards for one-on-one conversations about the potential projects and to answer any questions that the meeting attendees had.
Page 2 of 2

Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study Jones County Public Meeting Meeting #2 May 8, 2008, 5PM to 7PM Jones County Commissioners Meeting Room

Attendees: Kelly Gwin, GDOT Planning Radney Simpson, GDOT Planning Bill Parker James Nobles Greg Kimball Daniel Clark Connie and Larry Smith Yvonne Bonds

Phil Clark Debbie Lurie-Smith Carl Bonds Kevin and Jenny Reynolds Donna L. Clark Mary Huffstetler, MPH & Associates Tim Hatton, HNTB Claudia Bilotto, HNTB

Meeting Summary: This meeting was the second of two public meetings held in Jones County for the Butts, Jones, and Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study. The purpose of this meeting was to present the study findings to date and to present and gather feedback on the preliminary recommendations for addressing Jones County transportation issues through the year 2035.

Kelly Gwin, GDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group and thanked them for coming. She introduced the project team and began a PowerPoint Presentation providing an overview of the transportation study and process. She explained to the public meeting attendees that the reason for the plan is to ensure that each County is able to meet the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses and make sure transportation priorities match community priorities. The study will develop a listing of prioritized transportation projects that coordinate with other planning efforts which will allow for early identification of funding issues and opportunities.

She then provided an update of the study's efforts so far. The HNTB team has documented the comments from the first round of study advisory group and public meetings. HNTB has evaluated the existing and future conditions, developed preliminary improvement recommendations, and developed a prioritization strategy. Work has begun on the development of transportation plan documentation.

Ms. Gwin reviewed the process for identifying deficiencies and developing preliminary improvements. The HNTB team developed a 3-County Travel Demand Model with a baseline, no-build condition in 2006 that used Census data, traffic counts, employment information from the Department of Labor, School enrollment, and socioeconomic forecasts for 2015 and 2035, which were allocated by the County's local knowledge about expected growth in population and employment. Using this data, the HNTB team completed an initial screening of improvements against evaluation criteria. The Travel Demand Model results for 2006, 2015, and 2035 and potential transportation improvements projects for Jones County and for 3-county regional project were on display boards at the meeting.

Following the presentation, Ms. Gwin asked if there were any questions from the audience. She stated that the list of potential projects is preliminary and welcomed comments about the recommendations and suggestions for modifications to the current list or for additional projects to address the transportation needs. Comment cards were available for the public to fill out and return at the meeting or to fax or mail later. Ms. Gwin stated that the study would be concluding in the summer of 2008.

Page 1 of 2

Several comments were made regarding the Gray Bypass. There was both opposition to and support for the bypass. Issues concerning the bypass were cost, traffic and environmental impacts, and impact to property owners along the route. Potential positive aspects included potential removal of truck traffic in historical, downtown Gray and increased safety in this area as well. A request was made to pave Five Points Road and Fire Tower Road. It was explained that these roads are local and local funds would need to be identified to pave these roads. The meeting then moved to an open house format. Project staff made themselves available at the boards for one-on-one conversations about the potential projects and to answer any questions that the meeting attendees had.
Page 2 of 2

Public Involvement Report

Technical Memorandum August 2008

APPENDIX D MEDIA COVERAGE AND PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS

Butts, Jones & Monroe Counties Multi-Modal Transportation Study

Transportation study workshop tonight in Gray
By Chuck Thompson - cthompson@macontel.com
GRAY --
The Georgia Department of Transportation will hold a public involvement workshop this evening to collect information for a study it is performing to identify transportation needs through 2035 in Jones, Monroe and Butts counties.
The meeting is set for 5-7 p.m. at the Jones County Government Center, 166 Industrial Blvd., off of Ga. 11 in Gray. Another similar workshop is scheduled for 5 p.m. Nov. 1 at the Monroe County Clubhouse in Forsyth.
During the meetings, DOT and Jones County officials will discuss the purpose of the study and schedule, summarize existing transportation conditions and seek public input about the existing and future transportation system.
For more information or to be added to the project mailing list, contact Kelly Gwin of the DOT at (404) 6515330 or kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us.
MACON TELEGRAPH
DOT outlines proposed Jones road projects
By Chuck Thompson - cthompson@macon.com
About 20 people attended a workshop Tuesday evening where the Georgia Department of Transportation and its consultant group outlined a study they are conducting to identify transportation needs in Jones County through 2035.
Claudia Bilotto of HNTB, the company preparing the study, and Kelly Gwin, who is the DOT's point person on the project, said they began collecting information for the study in June by meeting with county officials and other stakeholders to see what they thought Jones County's transportation needs would be during the next 28 years.
Tuesday's meeting at the Jones County Government Center was to gather public input from residents.
Bilotto said that the study also includes Monroe and Butts counties, but that the needs of each also will be considered separately.
"They are combined because we are going to be calculating a travel-demand model, and those run better if you can group counties. But we'll also be looking at individual needs for each county and projects that will be confined to individual counties," Bilotto said.

A similar workshop was held last week in Butts County, and one for Monroe County is scheduled for 5 p.m. Nov. 1 at the Monroe County Clubhouse.
The study is needed to help county and city governments identify transportation needs, to be sure transportation priorities meet community priorities, develop prioritized lists of potential projects, coordinate planning efforts of projects and begin to identify funding issues and opportunities, Bilotto and Gwin said.
They had several maps already prepared. One shows road projects already planned, such as the bypass around Gray and widening or improvement projects on U.S. 129 north of Gray, Ga. 49, Ga. 22, Ga. 18 and Ga. 11. Another map included proposed bicycle or pedestrian trails in downtown Gray, along Ga. 11 and Round Oak-Juliette Road, another along Cumslo Road and the Jones County portion of a rails-to-trails project from east Macon to Milledgeville. Others showed proposed bridge improvements, high accident areas that could be made safer and freight corridors.
Jones County Administrator Mike Underwood said county officials see the study as a way to get road projects they want on the DOT's radar so they will be included in future plans.
"Including these things in the study won't automatically mean they'll be done, but it does give us something to use when it comes time to apply for federal or state grants so we can say a certain project is something we've been planning for a while," he said.
Gwin said other projects could be added later even if they aren't identified in the study.
"It isn't a case that if it isn't included it won't be done before 2035. This is just a planning tool to get people to think about what may be needed," she said.
Bilotto said her group will continue to collect information and perform future traffic and population calculations, then hold another series of meetings in February and March with county officials and the public. Then it will complete the study, hopefully having it ready by June 2008.
Those attending Tuesday's meetings only offered a few suggestions not already made by the county officials. Among them were to replace the traffic lights and possibly add turning lanes at the railroad crossing in downtown Gray where U.S. 129, Ga. 11, Ga. 22 and Ga. 18 all intersect, to add more passing lanes on U.S. 129 north of Gray, and to pave Oliver Greene and Five Points roads to improve traffic flow west of Gray.
Those unable to attend the meeting can send suggestions to Gwin by e-mail at kelly.gwin@dot.state.ga.us or to Bilotto at cbilotto@hntb.com. More information on the study is available on the DOT's Web site at www.dot.state.ga.us by clicking on the plans and programs bar on the left side of the screen.
COMMENT ON THIS STORY AT MACON.COM.

Transportation Issues Needs
A. What do you see as the three greatest transportation issues or concerns in your

B. What transportation corridors are of most interest to you in terms of the Transportation Study?

C. What do Study

think is the relationship

transportation and land use in the

D. Given this is a Plan that discusses short-range and long-range transportation issues, what is the best wav to reach out to citizens and communitv. aroups to involve them in the
-
E. What funding sources should be used to pay for future transportation improvements in the Study Area? Which sources should not be used?

F. If you could share one major message with the Project Team, what would it be?

G. How engaged do you think Study Area residents want to be in discussing transportation and land use issues and the Transportation Study?

H. What do you see as the transportation "Hot Spot" in the study area?

Butts, Jones Monroe Counties Transportation Study

C

1CdMMFNT WEET

- - Jan@45 Manme Cowtkr TransporMlonStudy

: hb!lc:.Wo-
actobrr Id",

#I fkltbQunly
&OOPM to &#PM

'thonh K f 6 r a t b e UtbWTk Wet-

t~dbSibtwltCl~d~#@pd.~~mM t b,.b#$mcl

Caunilh

mil Tramgartation Study. Tlw

PaprFtmmt of T m 8 4 W ~ nseeks your input and r-olrn

ow regah.rg trelrtg0rtrtiM Mum snd o~~~)rt~lniCtlE?em, uqMthe

umh Re&# t a b s h w rrrimrtes to

~ ~ p r & e t S lfof rim

C

-

--- - -

1

Thqnk yw lot at&-

this Public Wor&shop to asskt with developmant of the Butts, Jones and Monroe Cwntles

Tr~appFtrWStMv. mh #a-

f&m@mf d

seeks y d W hp~a?n4 r w m f 8 t M d t b n s

npprdhlI~~-hllla110emUdy-

~hh&~I)IRIUhb

mJbkt*tllrls-

-

- -