Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County: Appendices [July 2008]

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDICES TO FINAL REPORT
July 2008

Prepared for:

by

Office of Planning

Table of Contents
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Summary of Stakeholder Input................................................................................................................3 Summary of Public Questionnaire Responses ....................................................................................... 4 Detailed Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................................................7
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
Effingham Population and Employment Projection Methodology ...................................................... 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1 Historic and Current Population........................................................................................................ 1 Historic and Current Employment .....................................................................................................2 Establishing County Population and Employment Control Totals for 2030 ......................................4
Using Population and Employment Forecasts in a Travel Demand Model..........................................11
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Four-Step Modeling .................................................................................................................................. 1 Trip Generation.................................................................................................................................. 1 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................................7 Traffic Assignment............................................................................................................................ 8
Components of the Travel Demand Model ............................................................................................ 8 TAZ Boundaries................................................................................................................................. 8 Socioeconomic Data ........................................................................................................................ 10 Base Year Network Development.................................................................................................... 13 Base Year Model Calibration ............................................................................................................ 17 2030 E+C Model................................................................................................................................ 21 2030 Build Model ............................................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX D. Preliminary Environmental Screening of Selected Projects
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation

Summary of Stakeholder Input
The consulting team and Georgia Department of Transportation representatives identified and interviewed twenty-two community leaders regarding transportation issues and improvement priorities. These stakeholders' responses to detailed questions about Effingham's transportation system are located at the end of this appendix. The following stakeholders were interviewed:

Name John Henry
Charles Hinely
Delmons White Adam Kobeck George Shaw Steve Liotta David Crawley Lowell Morgan Brett Bennett Donald Toms LaMeisha Hunter Walter Wright Jimmy McDuffie Richard Bush Val Ashcraft Homer Wallace Lucy Powell Randy Shearhouse Ed Brown Carrie Thompson Jay Ryczkowski Brent Howell

Title Director and CEO
Councilman
Pastor Assistant County Administrator Planner Engineer Zoning Administrator Public Works Director City Manager City Manager City Planner Fire Department Sheriff Chief Deputy Fire Chief President Secretary Superintendent Chief Financial Officer Public Affairs Manager Engineering Manager Manager, Government Affairs

Affiliation Effingham County Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Authority City of Springfield and Effingham County Economic Development Authority Macedonia Baptist Church and Effingham County Economic Development Authority Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County Springfield Springfield City of Rincon City of Rincon Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County NAACP Effingham County NAACP Effingham County Effingham County Board of Education Effingham Hospital Georgia Pacific Georgia Pacific Georgia Pacific

The following overarching themes of the stakeholder interview are listed below:
Effingham County is experiencing significant population growth that is going to continue and it must be planned and controlled.
Need more balance between people/housing and jobs and between the southern and northern portion of the county.
Traffic congestion is a critical challenge in certain transportation corridors that requires immediate action to prevent gridlock in those corridors.
The existing transportation system does not adequately support land use.
Truck traffic is a major concern. However, there are several additional routes proposed to address the problem.

Summary of Public Questionnaire Responses
Questionnaire responses were received from fifteen Effingham citizens. Although this is not a statistically significant quantity, the comments do provide an insight into the issues that are important to people, and there are some clear commonalities in where people see the most immediate problems as being. Of the fifteen respondents, twelve were employed, two were retired, and one was disabled and not working. As can be seen in Table A.1, only one of the twelve employed respondents worked in the same area as they lived. Two respondents from Unincorporated Effingham County cited more than one area in which they worked. The majority of respondents lived in Effingham and worked in Chatham, mirroring trends shown in US Census data for the area.

LOCATION

City of

City of

Springfield Rincon

City of Springfield

HOME

City of Rincon City of Guyton

Unincorporated

Effingham

1

County

ALL

Employment

1

Locations

EMPLOYMENT

City of Guyton

Unincorp. Effingham
County

Chatham County

Other Location

ALL Home Locations

1

1

4

4

1

5

2

9

1

10

2

14

Table A.1 Public Questionnaire Respondents Place of Employment and Residence

The first question was: "What are your visions and goals for Effingham County? (Include live, work, play, shop, education, growth)". Figure A.1 summarizes the results.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

33% Education

60% Growth

40%

60%

7%

Health

Restaurants and
Shopping

Other Leisure

33% Other

Figure A.1 Goals and Objectives for Effingham County
(Figures do not total 100% because people could provide several goals and objectives)
Of the nine responses relating to growth, four specified the area of jobs and industry, and two specified environmentally sensitive or continued but slower growth. Of the nine responses on other leisure, two specified young people or families, and three specified more parks.
Respondents were then asked to choose three issues from a list corresponding to the question: "What do you think are the most critical problems the county will face over the next 25 years?" Their responses are shown in Figure A.2.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

53%

40%

13%

Too many Inadequate jobs Inadequate

people

Schools

53% 20%

40%

Inadequate Housing

Inadequate Clean Water / Air Pollution

Inadequate Cultural /
Recreational Resources

27% Other

Figure A.2 Critical problems over the next 25 years
(figures do not total 100% because people could make up to 3 choices)

Respondents selected a range of the available issues, though too many people and inadequate clean water/air pollution were the joint-favorites, closely followed by jobs and cultural/recreational resources. The issues specified by the five people answering Other included traffic, high taxes, less traffic signals, limiting developments that generate a lot of traffic, and the condition of rented property.
Traffic and congestion was an almost unanimous response to the question: "what are the major transportation problems you face as you move about Effingham County on a day-to-day basis?" Twelve comments relating to congestion were received, of with over half specifying SR 21. Other comments mentioned better road maintenance, bottlenecks, throughways and stop lights, and better road safety and pedestrian crossing facilities.
The questionnaire then asked: "Identify areas in the existing transportation network that you feel need immediate attention." Twelve people responded to this, and 10 of those responses mentioned SR 21. Four of these mentioned the need for widening of SR 21 or for a North-South alternative to provide relief for the I-95 interchange at SR 21 and SR 21 north of Rincon. Other responses included a need for door-to-door transit to serve the handicapped population.
Finally people were asked to make four choices from a list in response to the question: "What do you believe are the most critical transportation needs in Effingham County?"

70% 60% 50%

60%

47%

40% 30%

27%

33%

33%

27%

20%

13%

10%

0%

0%

more paved roads
Intersection Improvements 4-lane roads in key Corridors
More traffic signals More bike paths / sidewalks
More Public Transportation
Accident Reduction Bridge Repairs

Figure A.3 Critical transportation needs in Effingham County
(figures do not total 100% because people could make up to 4 choices)
As illustrated in Figure A.3, 60% of respondents were in favor of 4-lane highways, citing SR 17, SR 21, SR 30, Midland Road, Blue Jay Road, and Old Augusta Road in response to the request to identify which corridors should be 4-lane. 33% also felt intersection improvements were critical. 47% felt that more public transportation was a priority.

Detailed Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews are an integral part of the citizen participation plan and the outreach strategy for the Multi-Modal Countywide Transportation Study for Effingham County. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to ensure that key stakeholders in the County and cities were knowledgeable of the study and provided input into the process. The purpose of the briefings/interviews was to ensure that the leadership of the community had a working knowledge of the study, including its purpose and need, the expected outcome, the process and the timetable. In this way, the leadership was equipped to assist in reaching out to the general public. Further, the stakeholders provided feedback on major issues related to transportation projects, policies and prioritization. During the interviews, stakeholders were also asked to assist in the promotion of the study by recommending names of citizen groups, community leaders and business leaders and by using their communication networks to encourage participation from all citizens and stakeholders throughout the study area.
Twenty-two stakeholders were interviewed and a record of the actual interviews is recorded in the last section of this report. Joint interviews were conducted in some cases, resulting in ten interview reports.
Overarching Themes
Overarching themes of the stakeholder interviews are listed below:
Effingham County is experiencing significant population growth that is going to continue and it must be planned and controlled.
Need more balance between people/housing and jobs and between the southern and northern portion of the county.
Traffic congestion is a critical challenge in certain transportation corridors that requires immediate action to prevent gridlock in those corridors.
The existing transportation system does not adequately support land use.
Truck traffic is a major concern. However, there are several additional routes proposed to address the problem.
Recurring Themes
Recurring themes of the stakeholder interviews are listed below:
Strong support for the following projects:
Effingham Parkway I-16 Interchange at Old River Road Rincon By-Pass (Old Augusta Road) SR 21 corridor needs a variety of transportation improvements, ranging from traffic signalization
(including traffic synchronization) to capacity expansion Ft. Howard Road need to be expanded to four lanes with sidewalks

SR 119 needs to be expanded to four lanes, especially because of school traffic. School trips also support the need for sidewalks and bike paths
SR 119 By-Pass is needed to reduce truck traffic into downtown Springfield
Truck traffic is a major concern that can be addressed by the Rincon By-Pass, Effingham Parkway and SR 119 By-Pass projects
Congestion on US 80 is a major concern
No significant need for traditional transit, but paratransit service need to be expanded for seniors and disabled persons. Further, limited shuttle or subscription needs bus service is needed for citizens without cars, especially for work trips. Carpooling and vanpooling should be considered along the SR 21 corridor.
Roadways in the northern part of Effingham County need more attention (too many dirt roads and poorly maintained roads)
INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY REPORTS See following pages.

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form

Interviewees:

John Henry, Director of Effingham County Chamber of Commerce and CEO of Effingham County Industrial Development Authority; Charles Hinely, Industrial Development Authority and Councilman, City of Springfield; Reverend Delmons White, Industrial Development Authority and Pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church

Date of Interview: October 24, 2007

Interviewer: Richard Fangmann

Attendees: Radney Simpson, GDOT; Kyle Mote, GDOT; Theodore R. Williams, DW & Associates

______________________________________________________________________________

Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical transportation issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years?
a. Effingham Parkway is most important for the county and the I-16 interchange at Old River Road is most important for the Industrial Development Authority. The main issue is accommodating future growth
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry?
a. The County is growing at what the market will support. We need to create additional jobs to offset residential growth so fewer people must leave the County to work. There are three key development initiatives with which the Industrial Development Authority is involved:
Logisticenter I-16 at Old River Road - Overall $6 million square feet Now have developer for pods A and B - 1.7 million square feet. The developer will make road improvements near site. The County has prepared an IMR to improve the I-16 at Old River Road interchange. This is their number one priority. They are talking to other developers regarding the remainder of the area
Manufacturing Center north of Rincon The property north of SR 275 and east of SR 21 will be developed into a manufacturing center with 600 jobs planned in the next year. Large vehicles leaving this plant for the Savannah port will need to travel north on SR 21 to SR 119, west to SR 17 then south to US 80 due to size and load. They anticipate one such shipment per month
Research Forest This development area is located east of Rincon and will be served by SR 21 and Effingham Parkway. This will require grade separation of the CSX railroad at Fort Howard Road. The west area of the site could by a 1000-acre mega site for industrial development. Along the SR 21 corridor, light industrial and commercial development is planned. West of the railroad a research center and offices are planned, with heavy industrial along the Effingham Parkway corridor further west. The total size of the site is 2,600 acres and it is anticipated to generate 4000 to 6000 jobs

July 2008

A-1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make?
a. No, existing congestion along SR 21 in Rincon is a problem, as well as along US 80. The Rincon Bypass, Effingham Parkway, and I-16 at Old River Road interchanges will help solve the problem
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur?
a. The most serious delays are along the SR 21 corridor in Rincon and at I-95. Increased port activity will make these conditions worse
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns.
a. See No. 3 above
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify.
The population is not dense enough to support traditional transit. The Coastal Georgia RDC has a demand responsive transit system that may need to be expanded
Carpool and vanpool programs may be possible for traffic traveling to/from Port and Gulfstream
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where?
The main focus for the Industrial Development Authority is on major traffic movements and getting employees to jobs. Due to lower development density in this area, these are not compatible with walking and bicycling in most cases
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
Truck traffic through Rincon is an issue. The Rincon Truck Bypass will help reduce this load. In addition, the Research Forest development area, east of Rincon will need to rely on Effingham Parkway for movement of truck traffic
9. In your opinion, does the current road system meet your transportation needs? If not, where should transportation improvements take place?
See no. 3 above
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
There is a need for expanded paratransit to serve unserved needs

July 2008

A-2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewees: Rev. Delmons White, Pastor Macedonia Baptist Church and member of Effingham County Industrial Development Authority (Supplemental to the Interview with John Henry, Effingham County Industrial Development Authority)
Date of Interview: October 24, 2007 and November 9, 2007
Interviewer: Theodore R. Williams
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years? Old Augusta Road Improvement (Rincon Bypass) concerned about potential impact on residents and cemetery Chimney Road need traffic signal, especially because of school bus traffic
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? See ECIDA Interview
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? See ECIDA Interview
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? See ECIDA Interview
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns. See ECIDA Interview
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify. There is not a need for traditional public transit, but there is a need to examine the adequacy of existing paratransit services
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where? See ECIDA Interview

July 2008

A-3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic on the road system, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
See ECIDA Interview
9. In your opinion, is spending on transportation adequate? If not, where would you spend more money?
A traffic signal is needed at SR 21 and Chimney Road. Apparently, a recent study recommended that a traffic signal for SR 21 at McCall Road, but Chimney Road has a greater need
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
Mr. Levi Scott of Concerned Citizens of Effingham County should be contacted (Mr. Scott is also a Councilman for the City of Rincon). Mr. Scott was contacted and agreed to promote the December 13th Public Meeting

July 2008

A-4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewees: Adam Kobeck, Effingham County Assistant County Administrator
George Shaw, Effingham County Planner
Steve Liotta, Effingham County Engineer
David Crawley, Effingham County Zoning Administrator Date of Interview: October 24, 2007
Interviewer: Richard Fangmann
Attendee: Radney Simpson, GDOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical transportation issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years? Funding of transportation improvements Limited capacity to/from Chatham County Transportation planning coordination between Effingham, Chatham, and Bryan Counties
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? The County is excited about the growth and thinks it will be good for the County. There needs to be a balance between residential growth and employment opportunities
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? The Effingham Parkway is needed to relieve traffic along SR 21, as well as the Rincon Bypass. The Old River Road interchange with I-16 needs to be upgraded. The County submitted and Interchange modification report to FHWA The Effingham Parkway is a key corridor for the County. It is currently in the GDOT long range program for funding. The County would like to see that accelerated. The north and south connectors to the Effingham Parkway would follow construction of the Parkway
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? SR 21 at I-95 causes considerable delay for County residents. US 80 also becomes congested, but is scheduled for improvement. This improvement will also relieve traffic at the SR 17 intersection with US 80

July 2008

A-5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns.
The Rincon area is currently congested. The Old Augusta Road improvements can help. Signal coordination is also important
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify.
There is a need to allow CATS to run a shuttle to the port along SR 21. The CATS authority would need a legislative change to allow this
An organized rideshare and vanpool program would be helpful. This should target trips to the Port and GulfStream
The County tried to organize staggered shifts with the port, but that did not work
The RDC is providing demand responsive transportation. This is a regional program in the pilot stages and will need to be expanded
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where?
Pedestrian facilities are needed along Fort Howard Road and within Rincon. New signals have pedestrian crossings, but no sidewalks connecting them
A bike path is needed along SR 119 from Springfield to Guyton to serve trips to/from the schools
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
The Rincon Truck Bypass is needed to relive some of the truck traffic through Rincon. Effingham Parkway will serve truck travel needs for the planned industrial site west or Rincon without adding truck traffic through Rincon
9. In your opinion, does the current road system meet your transportation needs? If not, where should transportation improvements take place?
The projects currently on the improvement program are needed and justified. These are necessary to meet future transportation needs
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
The study team should contact Margaret Moore at Effingham County regarding Senior Transportation Issues

July 2008

A-6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewees: Lowell Morgan, Springfield Public Works Director
Brett Bennett, Springfield City Manager Date of Interview: October 24, 2007
Interviewer: Richard Fangmann
Attendee: Radney Simpson, GDOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical transportation issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years? Implementation of projects that are already planned in county (such as Rincon Bypass, Effingham Parkway, SR 119 Bypass, and Springfield Streetscape/pedestrian access
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? We think the growth will have a positive effect on Springfield
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? No, existing congestion is present along SR 21. The projects indicated in #1 above, will help relieve congestion
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? The SR 119 corridor is experiencing growth. School traffic is likely to increase in this area with growth. Widening to four lanes may be needed
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns. See No.1 above
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify. Pedestrian improvements are needed in Downtown Springfield. The City has sidewalk along Ash Street and South Laurel Street. One major issue is connecting the two. Construction of sidewalks requires additional work for drainage, increasing costs

July 2008

A-7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where?
The City has a need to move pedestrians in Downtown. That is why the Streetscape/pedestrian access project is critical. The city also needs to connect the Downtown to surrounding streets. A third need is to provide a pedestrian connection across SR 21 bypass to the park along Courthouse Road. This will require an elevated pedestrian crossing or a pedestrian signal at SR 21 at McCall Street
The City is working on a pedestrian plan (to be prepared by staff) and will forward it to us when completed
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
Trucks are not able to use the low clearance railroad underpass north of Springfield. So, they must use SR 119 through downtown. The SR 119 project would realign this route, eliminating the truck traffic downtown
9. In your opinion, does the current road system meet your transportation needs? If not, where should transportation improvements take place?
See No. 1 above
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
Within Springfield there is a need to provide pedestrian connections to underprivileged neighborhoods along Ash Street and other areas near Downtown

July 2008

A-8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewee: LaMeisha R. Hunter, City Planner City of Rincon Date of Interview: October 24, 2007
Interviewers: Kyle Mote, Theodore R. Williams
Attendee:Donald Toms, City Manager City of Rincon
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years? Congestion and travel time on SR 21 Expand Fort Howard Road to four lanes because of existing subdivisions (five new subdivisions expected) and the Georgia Pacific plant Need a traffic signal at SR 21 and 9th Street
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? Population growth in City of Rincon ranges from steady "to too fast" at 8 10% per year
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? The City of Rincon has adequate controls and does a good job of planning new roads for new neighborhoods A major problem is the railroad bisecting the city, resulting in circuitous travel, thus resulting in the need for more railroad crossings
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? Other traffic concerns include SR 17 and SR 119 in Guyton McCall Road and SR 21 very dangerous (suggested limiting left hand turns) The Overpass at 4th Street, limits the visibility existing the Elementary School
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns. Extend Lexington Avenue to Lisa Street Extend Carolina Street to the new Lowe's site Expand Ft. Howard Road to four lanes

July 2008

A-9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Rincon Bypass to divert truck traffic only 6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile?
Specify. Medical transportation for seniors and disabled people Some type of transit service because some citizens are paying $20 to private drivers for work
trips 7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham
County? If yes, what issues do you see and where? There is no parking problems because the City of Rincon does not have a traditional downtown Sidewalks are needed on Ft. Howard Road because of numerous subdivisions and people walking
in the road or ditch A bike path is needed on the Ebenezer Scenic Bypass 8. Are there issues related to truck traffic on the road system, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed? Truck traffic is a problem on SR 21, Ft. Howard Road and 9th Street The Rincon Bypass is needed to divert truck traffic, but not car traffic 9. In your opinion, is spending on transportation adequate? If not, where would you spend more money? See No. 5 above 10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team? No

July 2008

A-10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewees: Walter Wright, Effingham County Fire Department
Jimmy McDuffie, Effingham County Sheriff
Richard Bush, Effingham County Chief Deputy
Val Ashcraft, Effingham County Fire Chief Date of Interview: October 24, 2007
Interviewer: Richard Fangmann
Attendee: Radney Simpson, GDOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary 1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical transportation issues facing Effingham
County and its cities over the next 25 years? Highway 21 and US 80 are already overcapacity Limited hurricane evacuation capability with only two state roads leading to the north 2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? The County has plans to move people in, but no plans on how to move people within the County 3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? The Effingham Parkway is needed to relieve traffic along SR 21. It will need to be 4-lanes to keep
pace with growth The Rincon bypass is needed to reduce truck traffic through town 4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? SR 21 has backups from I-95 that can stretch 4 or 5 miles. Also, US 80 is congested. It is planned
for improvements. These need to extend west to US 280 The emergency services have difficulties traveling east to west, particularly in the northern part
of the County. They must take several County roads that are not as well maintained to wind through the area. The state routes provide good north to south connectivity

July 2008

A-11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns.
SR 21 and US 80 are currently congested and in need of relief. The SR 119 is a major safety concern. Accidents are frequent along the corridor, especially when school lets out. Two Sheriff's Deputies direct traffic from the high school exit
A free right turn movement is needed from SR 119 eastbound onto SR 21. In addition, this intersection has a drainage problem leading to standing water on the road
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify.
Springfield and Guyton have park and ride lots, Rincon needs one, as well. There should be an organized program to use these lots
Bicycle safety is an issue along SR 119. A bike lane is needed to provide access to the schools
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where?
SR 119 pedestrian and bicycle travel to the schools is important
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
SR 119 north of Springfield is a heavy logging truck route. This does not have a truck connection to SR 21, therefore, all the trucks must go through downtown Springfield
9. In your opinion, does the current road system meet your transportation needs? If not, where should transportation improvements take place?
The lack of east-west connectivity, especially north of SR 119 limits the response time for emergency services
Load restrictions on bridges are also a concern, as the fire trucks are now heavier than in the past. Many are rated at 30 to 40 tons. Fire trucks and garbage trucks are now around 30 tons
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
These communities are present in Clyo, the west side of Guyton, the northwest side of Springfield, along Ash Street and in some areas of Rincon

July 2008

A-12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation

Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form

Interviewees:

Homer L. Wallace, President NAACP of Effingham County

Date of Interview:

Lucy Powell, Secretary NAACP of Effingham County October 24, 2007

Interviewers:

Kyle Mote, Theodore R. Williams

______________________________________________________________________________

Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years?
Lack of non-medical transportation for seniors and disable people and single parents without cars
Lack of affordable transportation
Lack of awareness of existing paratransit services
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry?
Residential growth is too fast in the south part of the county, especially around Rincon. However, more residential growth is needed in the northern part of the county. There is a need to consider using the replacement of new schools to manage growth
Need more industrial growth
Older residential areas need more roadway improvements
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make?
Need to pave dirt roads, especially in the northern part of the county. These dirt facilities interferes with medical transportation and floods badly when it rains
Need to improve roads in the older residential areas, which have too many potholes and uneven pavement surfaces
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur?
Major traffic concerns are as follows: US 80 SR 17 SR 21, south of Rincon

July 2008

A-13

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns. See No. 3 and No. 4 above
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify. See No. 1 above
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where? The City of Guyton needs more sidewalks (contact Pearl Bones about trails, bikeways and sidewalk issues)
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic on the road system, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed? Truck traffic in Rincon is too high. The new loads will increase this problem Need the Old Augusta Road Bypass (Rincon Bypass)
9. In your opinion, is spending on transportation adequate? If not, where would you spend more money? See No. 3 above
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team? Need to distribute flyers to local churches and city council officials. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Powell agreed to help with the flyer distribution to churches

July 2008

A-14

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form
Interviewee: Randy Shearouse, Superintendent Effingham County Board of Education Date of Interview: October 24, 2007
Interviewers: Kyle Mote, Theodore R. Williams
______________________________________________________________________________
Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years? Traffic on SR 21 US 80 in Flakeville SR 119 a new middle school is being constructed with 1,200 students next to Effingham High School Lack of staging area for parents picking up students
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry? There is tremendous growth in the student population with 300 new students this year The area around Guyton Elementary is a high growth area as well as the area around Marlow Elementary School
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make? Yes
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur? McCall Road at SR 21 this is a safety problem and buses cannot travel thru this intersection The school must dispatch more buses on the road because of the level of congestion in the Rincon area (more buses are needed because of travel time constraints)
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns. SR 119 needs to be widened to four lanes from Springfield to Guyton Sandhill Road at US 80 is a bad problem See No. 1 above

July 2008

A-15

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify.
There is a need for transit services for seniors and disable people
There is a need for medical transportation for special needs students
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where?
Only at Rincon Elementary School is there a need for sidewalks
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic on the road system, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed?
Concerned about truck traffic on SR 275 affecting the school located along this road. This problem could be increased by the Rincon Bypass dumping additional truck traffic onto SR 275
9. In your opinion, is spending on transportation adequate? If not, where would you spend more money?
See responses to the above questions
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team?
Leadership Effingham has a special transportation group that is examining transportation issues in Effingham County that would be interested in participating in this transportation study. Mr. Shearouse volunteered to a liaison to the Leadership Effingham Transportation Study Group

July 2008

A-16

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form

Interviewee:

Ed Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Effingham Hospital

Date of Interview: October 24, 2007

Interviewer: Richard Fangmann

Attendee: Radney Simpson, GDOT

______________________________________________________________________________

Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical transportation issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years?
Growth along the south side of the County and along the SR 119 corridor
Access to healthcare for people north of SR 119 who do not have a car
Access to Hospital in Savannah for critical care patients
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry?
The County growth is good and provides additional opportunities for people. It needs to be planned to include employment
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make?
No, existing congestion is present along SR 21 and the Old River Road access to I-16. However, accommodating the projected new growth is the main issue
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur?
Rincon along SR 21 is a congested area, as is SR 21 throughout Chatham County. The SR 17 approach to US 80 is very congested and will finally be getting a traffic signal. The Guyton 4-way stop has regular backups, as well
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns.
SR 17 at US 80 is a safety concern, as it needs a traffic signal due to significant congestion
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify.
Public transportation of some type is needed. It may be possible to expand the Chatham bus system. Carpool and vanpool programs may be possible, as well. A system is needed to help transit dependent people get to/from the hospital

July 2008

A-17

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where? Children ride along the roads on bikes. This was safer in the past when there was less traffic. SR 119 is a problem area
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed? There are many trucks on the road. We need to make sure we service them adequately as the Ports grow. A major issue for the hospital is related to the ambulance service for trauma care and heart patients. These are sent to the hospital in Savannah. Providing a congestion free route for them is important. In Savannah, the EMS vehicles have a preemption device to turn the signals green. We may be able to use that for trips from Effingham County to Savannah hospital, as well
9. In your opinion, does the current road system meet your transportation needs? If not, where should transportation improvements take place? The improvements already identified should make a difference to accommodate future growth (Rincon Bypass and Effingham Parkway)
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team? There is a need to provide public transportation service to the north end of the County EJ communities include: Clyo, Egypt and Marlow

July 2008

A-18

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
Stakeholder Interview Summary Report Form

Interviewee:

Brent G. Howell, Manager, Governmental Affairs Georgia Pacific

Date of Interview: October 24, 2007

Interviewers: Kyle Mote, Theodore R. Williams

Attendees: Carrie A. Thompson, Public Affairs Manager, Savannah River Mill Georgia Pacific

Jay R. Ryczkowski, Engineering Manager, Savannah River Mill Georgia Pacific

______________________________________________________________________________

Interview Summary
1. What, in your opinion, will be the top three most critical issues facing Effingham County and its cities over the next 25 years?
SR 21 moving people from Effingham County to Chatham County
The Rincon Bypass this will take 300 trucks out of the City of Rincon
Access in and out of the Georgia Pacific plant on Ft. Howard Road
2. How do you feel about the rate of growth taking place in the county (the city)? How do you feel about the type of growth? Growing too fast? Too slow? OK? Too much residential? Not enough industry?
Residential growth is too fast, but growth is coming and it must be planned and controlled
Georgia Pacific employs 1,500 people of which 40% lives in Effingham County
3. Do you believe the existing transportation system adequately supports land uses in Effingham County? If not, what specific improvements would you make?
SR 21 is a parking lot during peak periods the problem is caused at SR 21 and I-95 with the spillover effect causing the congestion backlog
The new neighborhood of "Rice Hope" is a major concern. It could potentially add 4,000-6,000 people on SR 21
4. Are you experiencing delays or difficulty in traveling to and from different parts of the county or in and out of the county? If so, Please indicate where and when do the most serious delays occur?
See No. 3 above
5. Identify areas in the current transportation network that you feel are most in need of immediate attention. Include safety concerns.
Rincon Bypass this project has been on the drawing board for the last five years. What is the current status and development phases

July 2008

A-19

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation
6. In your opinion, is there a need for modes of transportation in addition to the private automobile? Specify. No
7. Do you see any issues associated with parking, pedestrians and/or bicycle facilities in Effingham County? If yes, what issues do you see and where? No
8. Are there issues related to truck traffic on the road system, and if so, what and where? Are adequate routes available for trucks to effectively transport goods? Are additional alternate truck routes needed? Rincon Bypass Additional access off of Ft. Howard Road to the Georgia Pacific plant (what are the county's plans)
9. In your opinion, is spending on transportation adequate? If not, where would you spend more money? See No. 3 above
10. Are you aware of any Environmental Justice populations (low income, minority, disabled, elderly), groups or neighborhoods in your area that should be contacted by the project team? Contact Bonnie Dixon of the United Way regarding EJ issues

July 2008

A-20

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting

APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
This section provides an overview of the creation of socioeconomic data for use in the travel demand model and the workings of the travel demand model itself. Population and employment projections and geographic distribution thereof are tied to character areas and other growth factors set forth by the county's Future Zoning and Development map.

Effingham Population and Employment Projection Methodology

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to identify and prioritize multi-modal transportation needs throughout the county over the next 20-25 years. In order to determine what infrastructure improvements may be necessary in this timeframe, the overall population and employment of Effingham County must be forecast to the planning horizon year, 2030. The locations of residents and jobs can then be allocated to smaller geographic areas throughout the county to determine potential travel stresses on individual transportation facilities. A computerized Travel Demand Model (TDM) is used to quantify these stresses.

Historic and Current Population
Effingham County is part of the 10-County Coastal Region of Georgia, as well as the three-county Savannah Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). The 10-County Coastal Region consists of Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, and Screven. Major regional cities include Savannah in Chatham County, Statesboro in Bulloch, Hinesville in Bryan, Brunswick in Glynn, and St. Mary's in Camden.

In recent years, the Coastal Region has experienced a high rate of

population growth with a 17.5% increase between 1990 and 2000 alone.

Because of this rapid growth and the perceived inability of traditional

population projection methods to adjust to the unique context and trends

of the Coastal Region, the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center

(RDC) collaborated with the Georgia Tech Center for Quality Growth and

Regional Development (CQGRD) to produce population projections for

the 10-County area. The populations of each county and its incorporated

areas were forecasted to 2030.

10-County Georgia Coastal Region Source: www.coastalgeorgiardc.org

July 2008

B-1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
Effingham County's population has grown from less than 14,000 people in 1970 to almost 47,000 people in 2005. The county has benefited from its proximity to the region's largest city (Savannah), military bases (Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield), and universities (Georgia Southern, Georgia Tech Savannah, and Savannah Technical College among others). The highly-regarded public school system, rural character, and relatively low taxes also serve to attract residents. Figure B.1 depicts historic population growth for Effingham County.

60,000 50,000

2005 46,924

People

40,000 30,000
1970
20,000 13,753 10,000

1990 25,687

0
1970

1980

1990
Year

2000

2010

Figure B.1 Population of Effingham County, 1970 2005
(Source: CQGRD, Georgia Coast 2030)
Historic and Current Employment
Though population growth has exploded in recent years, the number of jobs in the county has not kept pace with the increased number of residents. Effingham is disproportionately residential and acts as a bedroom community to Savannah and, to a lesser degree, Fort Stewart, Statesboro, and Hilton Head, South Carolina. Figure B.2 depicts county employment from 1990 to 2005. The current population to employment ratio, an indicator of how well local employment serves county residents, is 5.59 i.e., 47,000 8,412. Thus, there are more than five residents for every job, and many workers must commute to other places to obtain employment. Because not all residents work, for financial, legal, or other reasons, a more balanced ratio of residents to jobs would be somewhere between 1.6 and 2.5, corresponding to approximately one job per household.

July 2008

B-2

Jobs

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting

20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000 8,000
6,000 1970
2,445
4,000
2,000
0
1970

1980

1990 4,400
1990
Year

2005 8,412

2000

2010

Figure B.2 Employment of Effingham County, 1970 2005

Though Effingham has historically been a bedroom community, and will continue to be in the fore- seeable future, the county population is reaching a critical level necessary to support a diverse local economy. The population growth resulting from the transition from rural to higher-density suburban land uses, particularly in the southern part of the county, will enable Effingham to develop retail and service jobs at a much greater rate than in the past. New jobs in these industry sectors, especially, will begin to close some of the gap between the number of workers and the number of jobs in the county. At the same time, manufacturing will continue to be a primary employment sector for many county residents. The current employment mix of Effingham County can be seen in Figure B.3. Government, which includes the workers in the education and health systems, makes up the largest slice of county employment, though the service and manufacturing sectors are prominent as well.

July 2008

B-3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting 27.6%

21.7%

16.6%

8.5%
0.5% 4.6% 2.9%

12.5%

21.7%

Agriculture, Mining, Construction W holesale Transportation, Utilities, Information Professional and Other Services

Manufacturing Re ta il Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) Go ve rnme nt

Figure B.3 Employment Mix 2006 (GDOL)
Establishing County Population and Employment Control Totals for 2030
2030 POPULATION
To determine the future population of Coastal counties, the CQGRD used a cohort-component projection method calibrated by interviews with local representatives and sources such as building permits, occupancy certificates, military base personnel changes, and school enrollment databases. Cohort- component projections measure births, deaths, and in/out migrations in a place over time, tracking population by age and gender "cohorts", or groups.
In Effingham County, the population through 2030 was determined via cohort-component projection with forecasts calibrated by recent building permit activity and population estimates from the Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget.01 This method resulted in a forecast of 79,935 residents in 2030, which is used as the county population control total for further employment and small-area forecasts. The value of 79,935 residents has been accepted by the RDC as a realistic 2030 population to be used in long-range comprehensive planning efforts for Effingham County.

1 Effingham County was the only county in the region to have its population forecast calibrated using the GA GOPB model values. This is because it was the only county whose cohort-component forecast values were lower than those predicted by the OPB.

July 2008

B-4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
2030 EMPLOYMENT
No detailed Effingham County employment forecast to 2030 existed to use as a control total, so it was necessary to develop one to give an overview of county employment and for geographically disaggregated use in a travel demand model.12 To determine a realistic range of the number of future jobs in Effingham County, a variety of projection methods were applied using applicable historic employment and/or population data. Table B1 depicts the results of those methods, and a brief description of each follows.
Table B.1 Results of Various Employment Projection Methods

#

Projection Method

1 Simple Linear 2 Simple Geometric 3 Simple Exponential 4 Linear 5 Geometric 6 Parabolic 7 Cubic 8 Modified Exponential 9 Logistic 10 Constant Share 11 Growth Share - GA 12 Growth Share - Coastal Region (10-Cnty) 13 Growth Share - Savannah MSA (3-Cnty) 14 Shift Share - Aggregated - GA 15 Economic Base Theory / Location Quotients
Shift Share - Disaggregated - GA - '02 to '06 16 growth
Shift Share - Disaggregated Region (WIA) 17 '02 to '06 growth
Shift Share - Disaggregated - GA - '02 to '06 18 capped growth
Shift Share - Disaggregated Region (WIA) 19 '02 to '06 capped growth

2010 Proj. Employment
9,749 10,440 10,440
9,671 10,775
9,920 9,187 9,008 9,452 8,758 9,726
10,020 -

2020 Proj. Employment
12,424 16,082 16,082 12,475 17,152 13,371
8,143 10,311 11,122
9,904 11,731
13,184 10,371

2030 Proj. Employment
15,099 24,773 24,773 15,279 27,303 17,192
768 11,208 11,971 12,536 16,340 20,954 18,987 19,035 12,373

-

-

20,990

-

-

18,103

-

-

16,159

-

-

14,637

The first nine methods shown in Table X2 are trendline extrapolations based entirely on historic aggre- gate employment levels from 1990-2005 for Effingham County. These methods are simple to apply and

2 The CQGRD report contained a brief reference to "Economic Conditions" within the county, and provided industry projections to 2030 based on national Woods and Poole Economics data. No methodology was detailed, and the expected 2030 county employment was approximately 15,000 jobs. Because the CQGRD report primarily concentrated on population and there was no obvious justification for the 2030 employment forecast value, it was not considered a reliable source to use as the county employment control total.

July 2008

B-5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
are most useful in areas with relatively stable growth rates and diverse industry mixes. In many cases, however, simplicity comes at the expense of reality.
Methods 10-14 predict the aggregate future employment of the county, taking into account the overall job market trends of a larger reference area, such as the State of Georgia, Coastal Region, or Savannah MSA. Constant share projections assume that the small area (e.g., Effingham County) will retain employment in constant proportion to the larger reference area over time. Growth share projections apply the growth rate of the larger area to the smaller area, which is useful if the behavior of the smaller area is expected to mimic the area it references. The shift share method projects forward historic growth trends in the smaller area tempered by the predicted behavior of the larger reference area. A "shift- term" is used to capture the difference between these growth rates, and provides some measure of local advantage or disadvantage.
Method 15 utilizes Economic Base Theory to provide future employment projections, disaggregated by industry sector. Economic base theory states that some industries are "basic" and export their goods or services to other geographic areas due to surplus capacity, whereas other industries are "local" and consist of jobs that provide support for basic industries. Typically, there are 3-4 "local" workers for each "basic" worker. For each industry sector, a "location quotient" may be calculated to determine the relative advantage or disadvantage that an area has in attracting employment versus a larger reference area. The location quotient is a ratio of industry share in a small area divided by industry share in the larger area. A location quotient greater than 1 indicates that an industry has a local advantage and produces more goods or services than necessary for the area, and thus exports some of their products to other places.
Methods 16-19 are disaggregated (by industry sector) employment projections utilizing the shift-share method previously described. Different reference areas and historical employment base data can be used, depending on how accurately certain geographical areas or past trends are perceived to be a model for the future. Additionally, annual growth rate caps can be applied to particular industries to mitigate the effects of employment gains in industry sectors or areas with relatively few jobs at the beginning of the projection period. Very high growth rates resulting from this scenario are typically not sustainable in the long term, and should be capped to preserve some semblance of reality.
Ultimately Method 18, a growth-capped industry-disaggregated shift-share analysis utilizing the trends of Effingham County and the State of Georgia, was chosen to generate the employment control total for the county. Because Effingham does not border the Atlantic Ocean, unlike most of the other counties in the Coastal Region, it is thought that the county more closely follows state trends than regional trends. Additionally, growth in other coastal region counties is so strong that Effingham appears to have little comparative advantage over these counties and displays lower than expected employment growth. Expected employment due to organic continued growth according to observed trends is 16,159 jobs in 2030. The process by which this number was arrived at is seen in the following Table B.2, which is split over two pages for clarity.

July 2008

B-6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County

Table B.2 Shift-Share Employment Projection Method

APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting

TDM Category

Industry

D
Effingham Emp. 2002

E
Effingham Emp. 2006

SOURCE

GDOL

GDOL

O/S

Agriculture, forestry, & fishing

122

88

O/S

Mining

O/S

Construction

17 550

8 660

M

Manufacturing

1,881

1,916

W

Wholesale trade

R

Retail trade

59 929

47 1,106

O/S

Transportation and warehousing

75

254

O/S

Utilities

O/S

Information

87

119

41

32

O/S

Finance and insurance

O/S

Real estate and rental and leasing

O/S

Professional, scientific/tech svcs

117 72
225

166 92
320

O/S

Management: companies/enterprises

O/S

Administrative and waste svcs

5* 394

10* 447

O/S

Educational services

O/S

Health care and social services

O/S

Arts, entertainment and recreation

3* 212
42

7* 296
40

O/S

Accommodation and food services

O/S

Other services (except government)

415 163

579 205

O/S

Unclassified - industry not assigned

18

12

O/S

Federal government

O/S

State government

65

68

75

51

O/S

Local government

1,968

2,324

All industries

7,535

8,847

F
Effingham Growth Rate 2002-2006 (E-D)/D*100
-27.90% -52.90% 20.00%
1.90% -20.30% 19.10% 238.70% 36.80% -22.00% 41.90% 27.80% 42.20% 100.00% 13.50% 133.30% 39.60%
-4.80% 39.50% 25.80% -33.30%
4.60% -32.00% 18.10% 17.40%

G
Effingham Growth Rate
100% Cap F at 25%
-27.90% -52.90% 20.00%
1.90% -20.30% 19.10% 100.00% 36.80% -22.00% 41.90% 27.80% 42.20% 100.00% 13.50% 100.00% 39.60%
-4.80% 39.50% 25.80% -33.30%
4.60% -32.00% 18.10% 17.40%

H GA Emp.
2002
GDOL
26,867 7,238
195,951 466,855 204,584 451,192 148,194
20,547 132,317 151,267
57,035 191,438
73,930 249,934
40,567 312,973
35,258 300,920 100,175
16,668 95,717 146,482 376,871 3,802,980

I GA Emp.
2006
GDOL
26,044 6987
218,487 447,877 215,703 469,722 156,711
20,096 115,956 162,577
64,458 210,980
52,420 286,696
53,128 360,917
39,928 343,858
98,913 14,672 94,709 152,301 410,433 4,023,573

J
GA Growth Rate 2002-
2006 (I-H)/H*100
-3.10% -3.50% 11.50% -4.10% 5.40% 4.10% 5.70% -2.20% -12.40% 7.50% 13.00% 10.20% -29.10% 14.70% 31.00% 15.30% 13.20% 14.30% -1.30% -12.00% -1.10% 4.00% 8.90% 5.80%

K
GA Growth Rate 100%
Cap J at 25%
-3.10% -3.50% 11.50% -4.10% 5.40% 4.10% 5.70% -2.20% -12.40% 7.50% 13.00% 10.20% -29.10% 14.70% 31.00% 15.30% 13.20% 14.30% -1.30% -12.00% -1.10% 4.00% 8.90% 5.80%

L
Four Year Shift Term

M
Ten Year Shift Term

G-K
-24.80% -49.50%
8.50% 5.90% -25.80% 14.90% 94.30% 39.00% -9.60% 34.40% 14.80% 32.00% 129.10% -1.30% 69.00% 24.30% -18.00% 25.20% 27.00% -21.40% 5.70% -36.00% 9.20% 11.60%

(1+L)^(10/4 )-1 -51.00% -81.90% 22.60% 15.50% -52.50% 41.70% 425.90% 127.70% -22.30% 109.40% 41.10% 100.20% 694.40% -3.10% 271.50% 72.30% -39.10% 75.60% 81.90% -45.20% 14.80% -67.20% 24.60% 31.60%

N
250% Capped Ten Year Shift
Term M at 250%
-51.00% -81.90% 22.60% 15.50% -52.50% 41.70% 250.00% 127.70% -22.30% 109.40% 41.10% 100.20% 250.00%
-3.10% 250.00%
72.30% -39.10% 75.60% 81.90% -45.20% 14.80% -67.20% 24.60% 31.60%

July 2008

B-7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting

TDM Category
O/S O/S O/S M W R O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Industry

O GA Emp. 2004

SOURCE
Agriculture, forestry, & fishing Mining Construction
Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing Utilities Information
Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific/tech svcs Management: companies/enterprises Administrative and waste svcs
Educational services Health care and social services Arts, entertainment and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services (except government) Unclassified - industry not assigned
Federal government State government Local government
All industries

GDOL
44,230 7,056
200,010
448,000 206,640 446,510
178,810 20,160
119,450
161,459 59,460
192,940 53,300
264,430
345,470 368,710
36,810 322,580 165,570
25
72,170 80,720 133,270
3,927,780

P GA Emp. 2014
GDOL-Projected 45,260 7,845
241,930 452,840 238,910 518,360 205,580
20,550 137,870 170,454
69,260 246,360
62,060 368,230 432,130 487,190
46,620 407,210 199,750
11 60,700 86,730 155,150 4,661,000

Q
10 Year GA Growth Rate 2004-2014
(P-O)/O 2.30%
11.20% 21.00%
1.10% 15.60% 16.10% 15.00%
1.90% 15.40%
5.60% 16.50% 27.70% 16.40% 39.30% 25.10% 32.10% 26.70% 26.20% 20.60% -56.00% -15.90%
7.40% 16.40% 18.70%

R
9 Year GA Growth Rate
(1+Q)^(9/10)-1 2.10%
10.00% 18.70%
1.00% 14.00% 14.40% 13.40%
1.70% 13.80%
5.00% 14.70% 24.60% 14.70% 34.70% 22.30% 28.50% 23.70% 23.30% 18.40% -52.20% -14.40%
6.70% 14.70% 16.70%

S
Effingham Employmen
t 2015
(1+N+R)*E 45 2
933 2231
29 1726
923 273
29 356 143 720
36 588
26 594
34 1152
411 0
68 20 3236 13575

T
24 -year GA Growth Rate
(1+Q)^(24/10)-1 5.70%
29.00% 57.90%
2.60% 41.70% 43.10% 39.80%
4.70% 41.10% 13.90% 44.20% 79.80% 44.10% 121.40% 71.10% 95.20% 76.30% 74.90% 56.90% -86.10% -34.00% 18.80% 44.00% 50.80%

U
Effingham Employment
2030
(1+N+T)*E 48 4
1191 2263
42 2043
990 277
38 371 170 896
39 976
29 792
55 1450
489 -4 55 26
3918 16159

V
Change in Employment 2006 - 2030
U-E -40 -4 531 347 -5 937 736 158 6 205 78 576 29 529 22 496 15 871 284 -16 -13 -25
1594 7312

W
Industry Share Effingham 2030
% 0.30% 0.00% 7.40%
14.00% 0.30%
12.60% 6.10% 1.70% 0.20% 2.30% 1.10% 5.50% 0.20% 6.00% 0.20% 4.90% 0.30% 9.00% 3.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.20%
24.20% 100.00%

July 2008

B-8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
Columns "D" and "E" in the previous table provide industry mix data for the boundary years of the time period thought to best predict future employment trends. Because business practices and technologies have changed significantly in recent years and cause differing growth patterns among industries, a relatively recent time frame was chosen. Between 2002 and 2006, the fastest growing industries in Effingham were transportation and warehousing, educational (support) services, management, and professional services. Georgia's fastest growing industries during the same time period were education, healthcare, accommodations, and entertainment (column J). The growth rate of each industry was then capped at 25% maximum annual growth (columns G and K) , as higher levels are not likely to be sustain- able in the long run. In order to generate a shift term, the relative advantage in different industries that Effingham has over the State of Georgia, Georgia's capped growth was subtracted from Effingham's. This has the effect of both acknowledging and tempering the influence of greater economic trends.
The State of Georgia has official employment projections for the year 2014, based on 2004 data shown in column "O" of the previous Table B.2. Thus, the four-year industry growth rates that Effingham experienced had to be extrapolated to a 10-year time period, and then further modified in order to match up to base data time periods and the forecast years (i.e. Georgia growth rates from 2004-2014 had to be modified/applied to a 2006 Effingham base year to generate forecasts for both 2015 and 2030.) Column U shows the forecasted employment of the county based on continued organic industry growth. Figure B.4 shows a pie chart of Effingham's industry mix resulting from the shift-share analysis. Recent local and state trends predict that services and infrastructure-related jobs will increase at a greater rate in the future, with retail holding steady as "organic" manufacturing jobs decline relative to their previous impact on county employment.

July 2008

B-9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting 24.8%

29.2%

19.4%

7.7% 0.3% 8.1%
3.3%

12.6%

14.0%

Agriculture, Mining, Construction W ho le s a le Transportation, Utilities, Information Professional and Other Services

Manufacturing Re ta il Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) Go ve rn me nt

Figure B.4. Employment Mix 2030 (Shift-share)
ADJUSTMENTS TO SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS
The Effingham Economic Development Authority has set aside several large tracts of land for new manufacturing, logistics, and research-related businesses. As of 2006, these tracts had no existing employment, but they are all predicted to have various levels of build-out and accompanying jobs by 2030. The first industrial tract is located at the intersection of SR-21 and Ebenezer Road. A Portuguese manufacturing firm bought the site and expects to build a plant and generate 600 new jobs by 2010. A second tract, "Logisticenter", on 1,600 acres near SR-80 and I-16, has begun attracting new firms and expects that it will be mostly built out by 2030. According to the site plan, approximately 5 million square feet of space is distributed in 13 buildings, some of which are predicted to be used for warehousing, while other buildings will house offices. The third site, "Research Forest" is located on 2,200 acres east of Rincon. While marketing of this property has begun, its development is at least partially dependent on adding new transportation capacity and access to the site. Assuming that appropriate infrastructure improvements are undertaken, partial build-out and associated employment could be expected by 2030. Employment is predicted to be distributed among a number of sectors, including commercial, office, manufacturing, warehousing, research and services. There is also room for a school in Research Forest.
Because the shift-share analysis relied on relatively steady growth, based on historic numbers, it cannot forecast non-organic growth. Thus, additional analysis had to be undertaken to account for employment growth in completely new geographic areas. Using available site plans, estimates for building areas and

July 2008

B-10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
uses, square footage per employee (based on building use), and potential build-out timelines, the number of jobs generated at each industrial site was calculated. The Portuguese site was anticipated to generate 600 jobs by 2030, whereas LogistiCenter was expected to have just over 4,000 jobs by the same point (at 90% build-out), and Research Forest was predicted to have approximately 3,000 jobs by 2030 (50% build-out). Table B.3 depicts predicted employment at various build-out levels for each site.
Table B.3. Additional Industrial Park Employment

2030 BuildOut
100% 90% 80% 75% 70%
60% 50% 40% 25% 10%

LogistiCenter
4,570 4,113 3,656 3,428 3,199
2,742 2,285 1,828 1,143
457

# of Employees
Research Forest
5,957 5,361 4,765 4,468 4,170 3,574 2,978 2,383 1,489
596

SR 21 @ Ebenezer Rd
600 -
-

2030 EMPLOYMENT CONTROL TOTAL
Overall, 7,692 new jobs, on top of the shift-share forecast of 16,159 are expected in the county by the horizon of this plan. The 2030 control total for county employment is thus 23,851 jobs, giving a more balanced population to employment ratio of 3.35:1.

Using Population and Employment Forecasts in a Travel Demand Model
To utilize population and employment in a travel demand model, the county control totals must be disaggregated to smaller traffic analysis zones (TAZ), which attract and generate trips based on underlying socioeconomic data. For this study, Effingham was divided into 52 TAZs which were drawn along various census area boundaries and major infrastructure (rail and roadways). Each TAZ is given a number and assigned a certain number of residents and jobs.
While it is possible that small geographic areas will continue to steadily accumulate population and employment at their historic rates, it is unlikely that future growth is distributed so evenly. Proximity to transportation corridors, employment, cultural and shopping opportunities, sewer lines, schools, and future land use policy are among the many factors that play a role in attracting people to different areas of the county. Thus, these factors were used to weight future growth towards particular areas. Table B.4 lists population growth factors and the number of weighting points a TAZ could receive, while Table B.5 shows employment growth factors. Since different industries and land uses generate differing travel

July 2008

B-11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
demand, overall employment was divided into four sectors: manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and other/services for use in the travel demand model. "Other/services" encompasses all types of service, as well as government and jobs in industries such as construction. The previous table describing the shift- share projection method steps lists the employment category of each sector in the leftmost column.
To provide input for travel demand model, population and employment were estimated, weighted, normalized (by maximum points), and assigned to the appropriate TAZ geography. Some TAZs were further fine-tuned in 2015 and 2030 to account for the geography-specific industrial employment adjustments previously described. Figures B.5 through B.9 display the TAZ level population and employment distribution in 2006 and 2030.

July 2008

B-12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting
Table B.4 Population Growth Factors

Growth Factor City Community Development Node Zoning Prox. to Corridors Prox. to Savannah, ports, mil. Base, water/sewer Industrial Park

Point Allocation
2 = contains most of city, 1 = contains piece of city. 0 = no city 1.5 = contains most of community, .75 = contains piece, 0 = no community
# of dev nodes touching borders / 2, max = 1.5
2 = suburban (water/sewer), 1 = mid, 0 = rural residential 1 x major primary corridors, .5 x secondary corridors 3 = south of Blandford Rd, borders Chatham 2 = S of Blandford Rd 1 = S of 119
1 = < 3 miles away

Maximum Points for seven population growth factors:

Maximum Points
2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0
3.0
1.0 14.0

Table B.5 Employment Growth Factors

Growth Factor and Industry Sector

Point Allocation

Industrial Park (Manufacturing)

0 to 2, % in TAZ * 2

RR lines (Manufacturing)

# of lines / 2

Prox. to Savannah, ports, mil. Base (Manufacturing) Prox. to Corridors (All sectors)
City (Services, Retail)
Community (Services, Retail) Development Node (Retail, Services x 50%)

1.5= south of Blandford Rd, borders Chatham 1 = S of Blandford Rd, .5 = S of 119 1 x major primary corridors, .5 x secondary corridors 2 = contains most of city, 1 = contains piece of city, 0 = no city
1.5 = contains most of community, .75 = contains piece, 0 = no community
# of dev nodes touching borders / 2, max = 1.5

Comp Plan Adjustment (Services)

add points for specific references w/ explanation

Population Concentration (Retail, Services)

Pop/3500

Maximum points for manufacturing: 7.5, services: 10, retail: 10, wholesale: N/A

Maximum Points 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.8 2.0

July 2008

B-13

Office of Planning

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Population Change 2001 - 2030

Hampton

C

lyo

State Hwy 119

Us Hwy 301

State Hwy 21

Old Ri ver Rd

Screven
State Hwy 17

op Tr

Porter's Landing Rd

owell R d

ards Lo

E dw

26

Kildare

Pi tts R

Betsy Ave

Pr 25

Dixie Hwy N

Nixon Cha p Thomps

Clyo-ki

ldare

Old Rd

A

ugu

s

ta Rd

27

rinth C hurch R d

Sam Sm

R

eedsv i

lle Rd

Rd

Us Hwy 321

State Hwy 462

Us Hwy 601

Stat e Hwy 652

Us Hw 2 78

y

State Hwy 462

Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d

Co

art Rd

Old
yor Rd O
Walden Br

alter Rd oo

Burkh
Br
Brooklet

State Hwy 24

ld Elam Cemeta ry Rd
1Shea r

24
Egypt

48 Old Dixie Hwy

Savannah

Town

Dew Rd

itt

Rd

Old Dixie Hwy S

Shawnee

Lee Rd

Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd

r

g

an

R

Chester d

T ho m a s

R

d

o

28
Clyo-shawne e Rd
30 Green Mo rgan School Rd

Friendship Rd

Ollie Morgan Rd

Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd
S i sters Ferry Rd

F

St

Stillwell Cl air

Preister Rd

yo Rd

31

32 Whitaker Rd

Dutton Ln wood Rd

Dixie Hwy Old
i
Old River Rd

klet Leefield Rd

Stil

son Leefield Rd

County Road 34

Bulloch

Ga Highway 119

George H Rd
H ar ry or

urst

Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d

ter Rd

Old

Lo

uisv

P lle

R

d

2

Newton Rd

Riverside Dr

M

Sister Ferry Rd

23

Sp ringfield Egypt R d

Tusculum Mt Hope Rd

29

Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd

Bo aen Rd

S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R
3

Keiffer Hill Rd

22 Old Tu sculam R dWallace Rd

33

21 Springfield

Early St Mock Rd

51
Stillw ell R d

Brog don Rd

Archer Rd

Gracen Rd

44

Guyton

Forest Rd

20

19 Clyde Rd

18 Little Mccall Rd

Rd Z et tl Mccall Rd

R

er alph R ahn Rd
35

Rd

Union Springs Rd

Spring Rd

Bethany Rd

50 WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd
Stillwell

Long Bridge Rd

High Bluff Rd Wylly Rd

Waldhour Rd

34

Mill Pond Rd

d

Ebenezer
Nellie R
49

Barney Rd

Fort Howard Rd

Rd

Watts Rd Pound Rd

n

37

Old Augusta Rd

Rahn Statio

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

State Hwy 119

Hon e

Central Ave Co
ouse Rd

Helmey Dr cart Rd

52 17 45 yR idge Rd

Go-

Rincon Heidt Landing Rd
46 Pineora Marlow 42 Marlow Rd

w Rd

San ill R d

Neas

Herbert Ke

er Rd

16 Effingh15am 36 dH
4 5 14 13 43 38 Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd 41 12 San

Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd

lue Jay

Ho

e ville

Paddleford Dr

R

Huger St

Highlaand D r

urth

Shirley Dr B ig T Rd

Anza Ln

G round

Lo

B

Midland Rd Zittrover Rd

BlandforsdslRd e Rd Zip perer Rd

Hardy Rd

Blandford Rd

Rd

Mccall

d

dg

Goshen Rd

Rd

Earl Lain Rd

4th St

Chimmey Rd

Abercorn Rd

47

State Hwy 336
Jasper
State H wy 141
South Carolina State Hwy 170

Brooklet Denmark Rd

Heidt Rd

d Hill Rd
Eldora Rd

Oak Dr 7th St Zeigl er Rd

State Hwy 119 St

ate Hwy 119

Elm St Pine St

6
Eden

Conaway Rd

10

Jabez Jones Rd

Roebli n Rd

g Bluff Dr

39

40

Meldrim

Shearouse Rd

9
Godley Rd

Pecan L

n

Port Wentworth

Georgia

Jimmy De Loach PkwyJim my De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

State Hwy 170

State Hwy

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Us Hwy 280

0

2.5

Liberty

Pembroke Bryan

5

10 Miles

State Hwy

Schum an Dr
7

204

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

Van Rd

Fort Argyle Rd

Faulkville

y

P Pkw

8

Bloomingdale

ooler Chatham
d

Dean Forest R

Pooler

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Garden City
Us Hwy 80

Fair St

LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St

170 Alt

Us Hwy 17

State

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

Hwy 13

S tate

Us Hwy 278

State Hw y 462

Sun y Blvd

Cit

State Hwy 170
Hwy 4 6 Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke

Jenkins

Screven

Allendale Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler Bulloch

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt

!"`$
Evans

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt
Beaufo rt

Tattnall
Long Wayne

Bryan

Chatham

!"e$ Liberty

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure B.5
Legend

Population Change 2001 - 2030
1,500 - 4,377
751 - 1500
251 - 750 Less than 250
00 Census Area ID Number
Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads

Source: GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

State Hwy 67

July 2008

Office of Planning

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Employment Change 2001 - 2030

Hampton

C

lyo

State Hwy 119

Us Hwy 301

State Hwy 21

Old Ri ver Rd

Screven
State Hwy 17

op Tr

Porter's Landing Rd

owell R d

ards Lo

E dw

26

Kildare

Pi tts R

Betsy Ave

Pr 25

Dixie Hwy N

Nixon Cha p Thomps

Clyo-ki

ldare

Old Rd

A

ugu

s

ta Rd

27

rinth C hurch R d

Sam Sm

R

eedsv i

lle Rd

Rd

Us Hwy 321

State Hwy 462

Us Hwy 601

Stat e Hwy 652

Us Hw 2 78

y

State Hwy 462

Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d

Co

art Rd

Old
yor Rd O
Walden Br

alter Rd oo

Burkh
Br
Brooklet

State Hwy 24

ld Elam Cemeta ry Rd
1Shea r

24
Egypt

48 Old Dixie Hwy

Savannah

Town

Dew Rd

itt

Rd

Old Dixie Hwy S

Shawnee

Lee Rd

Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd

r

g

an

R

Chester d

T ho m a s

R

d

o

28
Clyo-shawne e Rd
30 Green Mo rgan School Rd

Friendship Rd

Ollie Morgan Rd

Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd
S i sters Ferry Rd

F

St

Stillwell Cl air

Preister Rd

yo Rd

31

32 Whitaker Rd

Dutton Ln wood Rd

Dixie Hwy Old
i
Old River Rd

klet Leefield Rd

Stil

son Leefield Rd

County Road 34

Bulloch

Ga Highway 119

George H Rd
H ar ry or

urst

Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d

ter Rd

Old

Lo

uisv

P lle

R

d

2

Newton Rd

Riverside Dr

M

Sister Ferry Rd

23

Sp ringfield Egypt R d

Tusculum Mt Hope Rd

29

Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd

Bo aen Rd

S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R
3

Keiffer Hill Rd

22 Old Tu sculam R dWallace Rd

33

21 Springfield

Early St Mock Rd

51
Stillw ell R d

Brog don Rd

Archer Rd

44
Gracen Rd
Guyton

Forest Rd

20

19 Clyde Rd

18 Little Mccall Rd

Rd Z et tl Mccall Rd

R

er alph R ahn Rd
35

Rd

Union Springs Rd

Spring Rd

Bethany Rd

50 WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd
Stillwell

Long Bridge Rd

High Bluff Rd Wylly Rd

Waldhour Rd

34

Mill Pond Rd

d

Ebenezer
Nellie R
49

Barney Rd

Fort Howard Rd

Rd

Watts Rd Pound Rd

n

37

Old Augusta Rd

Rahn Statio

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

State Hwy 119

Hon e

Central Ave Co
ouse Rd

Helmey Dr cart Rd

52 17 45 yR idge Rd

Go-

Rincon Heidt Landing Rd
46 Pineora Marlow 42 Marlow Rd

w Rd

San ill R d

Neas

Herbert Ke

er Rd

16 Effingh15am 36 dH
4 5 14 13 43 38 Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd 41 12 San

Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd

lue Jay

Ho

e ville

Paddleford Dr

R

Huger St

Highlaand D r

urth

Shirley Dr B ig T Rd

Anza Ln

G round

Lo

B

Midland Rd Zittrover Rd

BlandforsdslRd e Rd Zip perer Rd

Hardy Rd

Blandford Rd

Rd

Mccall

d

dg

Goshen Rd

Rd

Earl Lain Rd

4th St

Chimmey Rd

Abercorn Rd

47

State Hwy 336
Jasper
State H wy 141
South Carolina State Hwy 170

Brooklet Denmark Rd

Heidt Rd

d Hill Rd
Eldora Rd

Oak Dr 7th St Zeigl er Rd

State Hwy 119 St

ate Hwy 119

Elm St Pine St

6
Eden

Conaway Rd

10

Jabez Jones Rd

Roebli n Rd

g Bluff Dr

39

40

Meldrim

Shearouse Rd

9
Godley Rd

Pecan L

n

Port Wentworth

Georgia

Jimmy De Loach PkwyJim my De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

State Hwy 170

State Hwy

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Us Hwy 280

0

2.5

Liberty

Pembroke Bryan

5

10 Miles

State Hwy

Schum an Dr
7

204

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

Van Rd

Fort Argyle Rd

Faulkville

y

P Pkw

8

Bloomingdale

ooler Chatham
d

Dean Forest R

Pooler

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Garden City
Us Hwy 80

Fair St

LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St

170 Alt

Us Hwy 17

State

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

Hwy 13

S tate

Us Hwy 278

State Hw y 462

Sun y Blvd

Cit

State Hwy 170
Hwy 4 6 Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke

Jenkins

Screven

Allendale Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler Bulloch

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt

!"`$
Evans

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt
Beaufo rt

Tattnall
Long Wayne

Bryan

Chatham

!"e$ Liberty

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure B.6
Legend

Employment Change 2001 - 2030
1,500 - 4,467
751 - 1500
251 - 750 Less than 250
00 Census Area ID Number
Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads

Source: GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

State Hwy 67

July 2008

Office of Planning

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Population Forecast 2030

Hampton

C

lyo

State Hwy 119

Us Hwy 301

State Hwy 21

Old Ri ver Rd

Screven
State Hwy 17

op Tr

Porter's Landing Rd

owell R d

ards Lo

E dw

26

Kildare

Pi tts R

Betsy Ave

Pr 25

Dixie Hwy N

Nixon Cha p Thomps

Clyo-ki

ldare

Old Rd

A

ugu

s

ta Rd

27

rinth C hurch R d

Sam Sm

R

eedsv i

lle Rd

Rd

Us Hwy 321

State Hwy 462

Us Hwy 601

Stat e Hwy 652

Us Hw 2 78

y

State Hwy 462

Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d

Co

art Rd

Old
yor Rd O
Walden Br

alter Rd oo

Burkh
Br
Brooklet

State Hwy 24

ld Elam Cemeta ry Rd
1Shea r

24
Egypt

48 Old Dixie Hwy

Savannah

Town

Dew Rd

itt

Rd

Old Dixie Hwy S

Shawnee

Lee Rd

Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd

r

g

an

R

Chester d

T ho m a s

R

d

o

28
Clyo-shawne e Rd
30 Green Mo rgan School Rd

Friendship Rd

Ollie Morgan Rd

Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd
S i sters Ferry Rd

F

St

Stillwell Cl air

Preister Rd

yo Rd

31

32 Whitaker Rd

Dutton Ln wood Rd

Dixie Hwy Old
i
Old River Rd

klet Leefield Rd

Stil

son Leefield Rd

County Road 34

Bulloch

Ga Highway 119

George H Rd
H ar ry or

urst

Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d

ter Rd

Old

Lo

uisv

P lle

R

d

2

Newton Rd

Riverside Dr

M

Sister Ferry Rd

23

Sp ringfield Egypt R d

Tusculum Mt Hope Rd

29

Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd

Bo aen Rd

S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R
3

Keiffer Hill Rd

22 Old Tu sculam R dWallace Rd

33

21 Springfield

Early St Mock Rd

51
Stillw ell R d

Brog don Rd

Archer Rd

44
Gracen Rd
Guyton

Forest Rd

20

19 Clyde Rd

18 Little Mccall Rd

Rd Z et tl Mccall Rd

R

er alph R ahn Rd
35

Rd

Union Springs Rd

Spring Rd

Bethany Rd

50 WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd
Stillwell

Long Bridge Rd

High Bluff Rd Wylly Rd

Waldhour Rd

34

Mill Pond Rd

d

Ebenezer
Nellie R
49

Barney Rd

Fort Howard Rd

Rd

Watts Rd Pound Rd

n

37

Old Augusta Rd

Rahn Statio

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

State Hwy 119

Hon e

Central Ave Co
ouse Rd

Helmey Dr cart Rd

52 17 45 yR idge Rd

Go-

Rincon Heidt Landing Rd
46 Pineora Marlow 42 Marlow Rd

w Rd

San ill R d

Neas

Herbert Ke

er Rd

16 Effingh15am 36 dH
4 5 14 13 43 38 Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd 41 12 San

Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd

lue Jay

Ho

e ville

Paddleford Dr

R

Huger St

Highlaand D r

urth

Shirley Dr B ig T Rd

Anza Ln

G round

Lo

B

Midland Rd Zittrover Rd

BlandforsdslRd e Rd Zip perer Rd

Hardy Rd

Blandford Rd

Rd

Mccall

d

dg

Goshen Rd

Rd

Earl Lain Rd

4th St

Chimmey Rd

Abercorn Rd

47

State Hwy 336
Jasper
State H wy 141
South Carolina State Hwy 170

Brooklet Denmark Rd

Heidt Rd

d Hill Rd
Eldora Rd

Oak Dr 7th St Zeigl er Rd

State Hwy 119 St

ate Hwy 119

Elm St Pine St

6
Eden

Conaway Rd

10

Jabez Jones Rd

Roebli n Rd

g Bluff Dr

39

40

Meldrim

Shearouse Rd

9
Godley Rd

Pecan L

n

Port Wentworth

Georgia

Jimmy De Loach PkwyJim my De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

State Hwy 170

State Hwy

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Us Hwy 280

0

2.5

Liberty

Pembroke Bryan

5

10 Miles

State Hwy

Schum an Dr
7

204

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

Van Rd

Fort Argyle Rd

Faulkville

y

P Pkw

8

Bloomingdale

ooler Chatham
d

Dean Forest R

Pooler

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Garden City
Us Hwy 80

Fair St

LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St

170 Alt

Us Hwy 17

State

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

Hwy 13

S tate

Us Hwy 278

State Hw y 462

Sun y Blvd

Cit

State Hwy 170
Hwy 4 6 Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke

Jenkins

Screven

Allendale Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler Bulloch

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt

!"`$
Evans

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt
Beaufo rt

Tattnall
Long Wayne

Bryan

Chatham

!"e$ Liberty

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure B.7
Legend

Population Forecast 2030
2,501 - 7,503
1,501 - 2,500
501 - 1,500 Less than 500
00 Census Area ID Number
Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads

Source: GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

State Hwy 67

July 2008

Office of Planning

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Employment Forecast 2030

Hampton

C

lyo

State Hwy 119

Us Hwy 301

State Hwy 21

Old Ri ver Rd

Screven
State Hwy 17

op Tr

Porter's Landing Rd

owell R d

ards Lo

E dw

26

Kildare

Pi tts R

Betsy Ave

Pr 25

Dixie Hwy N

Nixon Cha p Thomps

Clyo-ki

ldare

Old Rd

A

ugu

s

ta Rd

27

rinth C hurch R d

Sam Sm

R

eedsv i

lle Rd

Rd

Us Hwy 321

State Hwy 462

Us Hwy 601

Stat e Hwy 652

Us Hw 2 78

y

State Hwy 462

Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d

Co

art Rd

Old
yor Rd O
Walden Br

alter Rd oo

Burkh
Br
Brooklet

State Hwy 24

ld Elam Cemeta ry Rd
1Shea r

24
Egypt

48 Old Dixie Hwy

Savannah

Town

Dew Rd

itt

Rd

Old Dixie Hwy S

Shawnee

Lee Rd

Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd

r

g

an

R

Chester d

T ho m a s

R

d

o

28
Clyo-shawne e Rd
30 Green Mo rgan School Rd

Friendship Rd

Ollie Morgan Rd

Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd
S i sters Ferry Rd

F

St

Stillwell Cl air

Preister Rd

yo Rd

31

32 Whitaker Rd

Dutton Ln wood Rd

Dixie Hwy Old
i
Old River Rd

klet Leefield Rd

Stil

son Leefield Rd

County Road 34

Bulloch

Ga Highway 119

George H Rd
H ar ry or

urst

Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d

ter Rd

Old

Lo

uisv

P lle

R

d

2

Newton Rd

Riverside Dr

M

Sister Ferry Rd

23

Sp ringfield Egypt R d

Tusculum Mt Hope Rd

29

Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd

Bo aen Rd

S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R
3

Keiffer Hill Rd

22 Old Tu sculam R dWallace Rd

33

21 Springfield

Early St Mock Rd

51
Stillw ell R d

Brog don Rd

Archer Rd

44
Gracen Rd
Guyton

Forest Rd

20

19 Clyde Rd

18 Little Mccall Rd

Rd Z et tl Mccall Rd

R

er alph R ahn Rd
35

Rd

Union Springs Rd

Spring Rd

Bethany Rd

50 WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd
Stillwell

Long Bridge Rd

High Bluff Rd Wylly Rd

Waldhour Rd

34

Mill Pond Rd

d

Ebenezer
Nellie R
49

Barney Rd

Fort Howard Rd

Rd

Watts Rd Pound Rd

n

37

Old Augusta Rd

Rahn Statio

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

State Hwy 119

Hon e

Central Ave Co
ouse Rd

Helmey Dr cart Rd

52 17 45 yR idge Rd

Go-

Rincon Heidt Landing Rd
46 Pineora Marlow 42 Marlow Rd

w Rd

San ill R d

Neas

Herbert Ke

er Rd

16 Effingh15am 36 dH
4 5 14 13 43 38 Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd 41 12 San

Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd

lue Jay

Ho

e ville

Paddleford Dr

R

Huger St

Highlaand D r

urth

Shirley Dr B ig T Rd

Anza Ln

G round

Lo

B

Midland Rd Zittrover Rd

BlandforsdslRd e Rd Zip perer Rd

Hardy Rd

Blandford Rd

Rd

Mccall

d

dg

Goshen Rd

Rd

Earl Lain Rd

4th St

Chimmey Rd

Abercorn Rd

47

State Hwy 336
Jasper
State H wy 141
South Carolina State Hwy 170

Brooklet Denmark Rd

Heidt Rd

d Hill Rd
Eldora Rd

Oak Dr 7th St Zeigl er Rd

State Hwy 119 St

ate Hwy 119

Elm St Pine St

6
Eden

Conaway Rd

10

Jabez Jones Rd

Roebli n Rd

g Bluff Dr

39

40

Meldrim

Shearouse Rd

9
Godley Rd

Pecan L

n

Port Wentworth

Georgia

Jimmy De Loach PkwyJim my De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

State Hwy 170

State Hwy

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Us Hwy 280

0

2.5

Liberty

Pembroke Bryan

5

10 Miles

State Hwy

Schum an Dr
7

204

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

Van Rd

Fort Argyle Rd

Faulkville

y

P Pkw

8

Bloomingdale

ooler Chatham
d

Dean Forest R

Pooler

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Garden City
Us Hwy 80

Fair St

LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St

170 Alt

Us Hwy 17

State

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

Hwy 13

S tate

Us Hwy 278

State Hw y 462

Sun y Blvd

Cit

State Hwy 170
Hwy 4 6 Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke

Jenkins

Screven

Allendale Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler Bulloch

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt

!"`$
Evans

Beaufo rt Beaufo rt
Beaufo rt

Tattnall
Long Wayne

Bryan

Chatham

!"e$ Liberty

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure B.8
Legend

Employment Forecast 2030
2,501 - 4,644
1,501 - 2,500
501 - 1,500 Less than 500
00 Census Area ID Number
Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads

Source: GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

State Hwy 67

July 2008

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
As a part of Effingham County Transportation Plan, Jacobs Carter Burgess (JCB) developed a travel demand model for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). A travel demand model is a mathematical tool that predicts future travel demand based on current conditions, planned or proposed transportation facilities, and projections of household and employment characteristics.
Travel demand modeling was used to evaluate the performance of the roadway system in Effingham County. Effingham County's model is a traditional analysis tool that is used to identify where major improvements should be made to its roadway system. Since there is usually more than one strategy proposed to address future congestion and safety concerns, the model is frequently used to study which combination of improvements provides the most benefits. A model, however, is only one resource to identify needs. The next sections describe the general methodology of traditional four-step travel demand modeling and the specific inputs to the Effingham County model network.
Four-Step Modeling
Four-step travel demand modeling implements and iterates the following steps: trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and network assignment. In essence, where do people travel to and from, in what type of vehicle, and along what route? In this case, potential pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips were evaluated off-model and so vehicle type (mode split) was not evaluated in Effingham.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is the first step in the traditional four-step model process. It estimates the number of trips that will begin and end in an area known as a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The origins and destinations of travelers are referred to as "trip ends". Trip ends generated by households are referred to as productions. Trips ends calculated from employment or student enrollments are referred to as attractions. The trip generation process is accomplished by establishing relationships between trips and socioeconomic variables. The process estimates the number of trip ends, or productions and attractions, for each TAZ by various trip purposes. Trip generation determines the total trips generated by each TAZ's socioeconomic characteristics.
The trip generation process includes trip production and trip attraction. Trip production applies trip rates through a cross-classification of household size (1,2,3,4+) and automobiles available (0,1,2,3+) for estimation of internal person trips. Aggregate household data for each TAZ is disaggregated into 16 cross-classified cells using a household stratification model. This model breaks out the total number of households into cross-classification cells using household median income by TAZ. The regression equations are applied to the trip production for vehicle trips. The trip attraction applies regression equations for all trip purposes.
Typically, there are three types of trips that the model includes: (1) Internal-Internal (I-I) trips whose origin and destination are inside the study area; (2) Internal-External (I-E) trips that have one trip end

July 2008

C-1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
inside 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 procedures. I-E and E-E trips are developed separately using a different methodology that is heavily dependent on traffic counts observed on the major roads through the study area.
TRIP PURPOSES
Seven trip purposes were included in the trip generation process. These purposes are summarized below:
1. Home Based Work (HBW): person trips made for the purpose of work that begin or end at a traveler's home
2. Home Based Other (HBO): person trips made with one end at the home except those for the purposes of work or shopping
3. Home Based Shopping (HBS): person trips made for the purpose of shopping that begin and end at a traveler's home
4. Non Home Based (NHB): person trips that neither begin nor end at home 5. Trucks (Commercial Vehicles): commercial vehicle trips beginning and ending in the study
areas 6. Internal-External Passenger Cars: passenger car trips beginning or ending outside the study
area 7. Internal-External Trucks (Commercial Vehicles): commercial vehicle trips beginning or ending
outside the study area
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 household median income. The model distributes the total households in a 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) = relative probability that a household will be size I and own j autos
S = household size factor from CTPP 2000 lookup table
I = income factor from CTPP 2000 lookup table
CF = composite household factor from GDOT Model Procedures
An estimate of the number of households in a particular cross-classification cell is then calculated by multiplying the total number of households in the TAZ by the corresponding relative probability. The

July 2008

C-2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
final number of households in each cross-classification cell is calculated by applying an adjustment factor to each calculated value. The adjustment factor is applied to insure that the sum of resulting disaggregated households equals the original aggregate number of households. This process is represented mathematically with the following equations:
HHij (est.) = HH P(i, j)
where
HHij (est.) = Estimated number of households of size I that own j autos
HH = Total number of households in the TAZ
HHij = HHij (est.) F
where
HHij = Final number of households of size I that own j autos
F = HH / HHij (est.) , control total adjustment factor
Tables C.1, C.2, and C.3 show household size distribution, household median income distribution, and Household Size/Income/Auto Ownership Distribution.

July 2008

C-3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.1 Household Size Distribution

Computed Persons/HH

Ranges

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.8

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.6

2.8

2.8

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.2

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.2

4.2

4.4

4.4

5.0

1 1.0000 0.7709 0.7182 0.5766 0.4358 0.3200 0.2871 0.2637 0.2381 0.1987 0.1801 0.1486 0.1300 0.1300 0.1200 0.1100 0.0500 0.0300 0.0200

Household Size

2

3

0.0000

0.0000

0.2075

0.0216

0.2331

0.0403

0.3122

0.0722

0.3839

0.1164

0.4500

0.1200

0.4324

0.1393

0.3567

0.1844

0.3298

0.1891

0.3146

0.2017

0.2871

0.2095

0.2948

0.1872

0.2500

0.1850

0.2200

0.1800

0.2100

0.1750

0.2000

0.1700

0.1800

0.1500

0.1300

0.1400

0.0500

0.1300

4+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0085 0.0390 0.0639 0.1100 0.1413 0.1953 0.2430 0.2850 0.3232 0.3693 0.4350 0.4700 0.4950 0.5200 0.6200 0.7000 0.8000

Table C.2 Household Median Income Distribution

TAZ-level Median HH

Income

$0 $4,999

$5,000

$9,999

$10,000 $14,999

$15,000 $19,999

$20,000 $24,999

$25,000 $29,999

$30,000 $39,999

$40,000 $49,999

$50,000 $59,999

$60,000 $69,999

$70,000 $79,999

$80,000 $89,999

$90,000 $99,999

$100,000 $109,999

$110,000 $119,999

$120,000 $124,999

Income Group1 <$17,500 0.8009 0.7150 0.5959 0.4256 0.3347 0.2523 0.1715 0.1076 0.0887 0.0666 0.0473 0.0450 0.0410 0.0340 0.0200 0.0000

Income Group2 Income Group3

$175,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $59,999

0.1123

0.0334

0.1583

0.0756

0.2284

0.1172

0.3358

0.1575

0.3437

0.2119

0.3063

0.2525

0.2549

0.3329

0.1943

0.3240

0.1443

0.2754

0.1088

0.2111

0.1009

0.1781

0.0800

0.1750

0.0506

0.1740

0.0331

0.1401

0.0300

0.0900

0.0200

0.0500

Income Group4 >=$60,000 0.0534 0.0512 0.0584 0.0812 0.1098 0.1889 0.2407 0.3741 0.4916 0.6135 0.6738 0.7000 0.7343 0.7928 0.8600 0.9300

July 2008

C-4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.3 Household Size/Income/Auto Ownership Distribution

Autos Available

Income Group Persons Per Household 0

1

2

1

0.30628 0.66893 0.02479

1

2

0.09778 0.65778 0.22222

3

0.07326 0.69093 0.16279

4+

0.10000 0.56941 0.17647

1

0.25483 0.47759 0.22586

2

2

0.04000 0.21400 0.63200

3

0.11111 0.12556 0.60333

4+

0.09000 0.10797 0.59420

1

0.18333 0.60560 0.15775

3

2

0.02740 0.16767 0.63425

3

0.09000 0.10500 0.50333

4+

0.06000 0.04381 0.38619

1

0.05769 0.66539 0.20000

4

2

0.06944 0.10444 0.53222

3

0.02000 0.05814 0.50977

4+

0.01892 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

TRIP PRODUCTION
The trip production uses cross-classified data from the household stratification model and applies trip rates to calculate trip productions for HBW, HBO, HBS, and NHB. Table C.4 shows trip rates for each purpose.

Table C.4 GDOT Daily Trip Production Rates

Household Size 1 2 3 4+

Auto Available 0 1 2 3+ 0 1 2 3+ 0 1 2 3+ 0 1 2 3+

HBW 0.285 0.751 0.733 0.909 0.750 1.165 1.305 1.422 1.556 1.780 1.625 1.983 1.000 1.727 2.109 2.387

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

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

July 2008

C-5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Trip productions for other purposes are calculated using the following regression equations:
I-I Truck Production = 0.8404 ManufacturingEmployment + 0.7971 Re tailEmployment + 1.0197WholesaleEmployment + 0.3424 ServiceEmployment + 0.2481 Households
I-E Passenger Car Production = 0.331 Households + 0.724 TotalEmployment I-E Truck Production = 0.078 RetailEmployment + 2.149 WholesaleEmployment +
0.228 ManufacturingEmployment
TRIP ATTRACTION The trip attraction uses the following regression equations:
HBW Attraction = 1.196 TotalEmployment HBO Attraction = 0.5077 Population + 0.967 TotalEmployment +1.5258 SchoolEnrollment HBS Attraction = 2.655 RetailEmployment NHB Attraction = 0.293 Population + 2.82108 (Re tailEmployment + WholesaleEmployment)
0.6984 ServiceEmployment
I-I Truck Attraction = I-I Truck Production I-E Attraction = Based on counts and EE% (internal TAZs=0) I-E Truck Attraction = Based on counts, EE%, and Truck% (internal TAZs=0)
The total number of I-E trips for each external station is calculated by subtracting the estimated number of E-E trips (based on an assumed percentage) from the daily traffic counts of the station. Then the total I-E trips are separated into I-E passenger car trips and I-E truck trips based on an assumed truck percentage at each external station.

July 2008

C-6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL TRIPS
Two external-external (E-E) trip tables were developed for the model, one for passenger cars and the other for trucks. E-E trips are allocated to other external stations based on the magnitude of external trips at the potential destination and the distance between the stations. The higher the traffic count, the more likely it will attract E-E trips. The external trip estimation process assumes that the larger the distance between external stations, the higher the probability that trip interchange will serve E-E trips. For example, typically, the distance between two external stations on either end of an interstate facility would be longer and, likewise, the number of trips that will travel between the two external stations on either end of the interstate would be higher.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution uses the gravity model process, a commonly used tool that estimates the number of trips between places based a cost such as time or distance. The estimated number of trips between any two origin-destination zones will, in general, be proportional to the number of trip ends and inversely proportional to the travel time between these two zones. The gravity model computes trips such that the resulting distribution matches an observed distribution of trips by travel time for each of the trip purposes.
Minimum time paths for the network are calculated using Cube Voyager function. These times include turn prohibitions and turn penalties. The minimum times are then adjusted to include intrazonal times, terminal times, and topographical penalties. Intrazonal times, the average time it takes to make a trip inside a particular TAZ, are created by the Cube Voyager function using travel time to the nearest four TAZs. Terminal times are assigned based on the employment density of the origin and destination TAZs. At the trip origin end, terminal time generally refers to the time walking from residence to cars. At the trip destination end, it generally represents the time to go from cars to destination. Table C.5 summarizes the terminal time criteria.
Table C.5 Terminal Time Criteria (Minute)

Zone Origin Destination

0 - 1.00 1 1

Employment Density (Total Employment Per Acre)

1.01 - 15.00 15.01 - 25.00 25.01 - 50.00 50.01 - 75.00

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

5

>75.00 2 6

Gravity model input consists of a set of travel time impendence factors (friction factors), in addition to production trip ends, attraction trip ends and minimum time skim. These parameters force the gravity model to produce sets of trips by trip purpose, whose distributions approximate an observed travel time distribution. The friction factors for the model are calculated by one minute travel time increments.

Four of trip tables, computed in the trip distribution process, are estimated in terms of person trips. For trip assignment process, the four person trip tables are converted to vehicle trips. The four trip tables are HBW, HBO, HBS, and NHB. The other trip tables, for I-E and E-E trips, were calculated in terms of

July 2008

C-7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
vehicle trips at their inception. Conversion to vehicle trip table enables comparison to vehicle counts and capacity analyses. Table C.6 shows vehicle occupancy rates used in the model.
Table C.6 Occupancy Rate

Trip Purpose
Home Based Work Home Based Other Home Based Shopping Non Home Based Trucks I-E Passenger Cars I-E Trucks

Occupancy Rate
1.12 1.65 1.48 1.68 No adjustment, already vehicle trip No adjustment, already vehicle trip No adjustment, already vehicle trip

Traffic Assignment
The last step in modeling sequence is traffic assignment. Trip assignment for the model is accomplished using equilibrium assignment technique. The traffic assignment algorithm is iterative, running through successive applications until equilibrium occurs. Equilibrium occurs when no trip can be made by an alternate path without increasing total travel time of all trips on the network. Equilibrium assignment is an iterative process that reflects travel demand assigned to minimum time paths as well as the effects of congestion. In each iteration, traffic volumes are loaded onto network links and travel times are adjusted in response to volume to capacity relationships.

Components of the Travel Demand Model
The development of Effingham County travel demand model included (1) traffic analysis zone boundaries, (2) base year 2001 socioeconomic data, (3) base year model network, (4) base year model calibration and validation, (5) future year 2030 SE data, (6) future year existing plus committed model; and (7) future year build model. Each of these components is described in further detail in the next sections.

TAZ Boundaries
The unit of geography most commonly used in travel demand model, a traffic analysis zone (TAZ), usually consists of one or more census blocks or block groups. Within each TAZ, population, households, and employment totals area derived and used as model input for trip generation. After reviewing the census block boundaries and roadways in Effingham County, 52 TAZs were defined. The TAZ boundaries follow major highways so that major highways do not split TAZs. Figure C.1 depicts the TAZ boundaries.

July 2008

C-8

Office of Planning

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Traffic Analysis Zones Screven

C Rd
Us Hwy 601

Hampton

lyo

State Hwy 462

State Hwy 652

Us Hw 2 78

y

State Hwy 462

Us Hwy 301

Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 119

26

27

Old River Rd

25

State Hwy 21

S tate Hwy 2 4

alter Rd o

Burkh

klet Leefield Rd Bro

Brooklet

Stil

son Leefield Rd

Bulloch

390

Road

Rd County

Old

River

24

ore Rd

48

gypt Ardm

E
1

23

State Hwy 21

28
30 29

31 32

State Hwy 17

22

51

50

33

2

3

21 Springfield

44

34

State Hwy 275

Us Hwy 17

State Hwy 336

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

Hwy 13

S tate

Jasper

Green St

Brooklet Denmark Rd

0

2.5

Liberty

Ga Highway 119

State Hwy 46

ate Hw y 119

State Hwy 119 St

Pembroke Bryan Us Hwy 280

5

10 Miles

Us Hwy 280

Eldora Rd

tate Hwy

Guyton
119

20 19

35

18

49 37

S

45

52

17

42
16 Effingh15am

Rincon
46
36

47

4

13

38

5

14

41

43

12

10

11

6

State Hwy 30
Port Wentworth
9

Georgia

39

Us Hwy 80

40

Jimmy De Loach PkwySavannah

Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 141

Us Hwy 278

State Hw y 462

Cit

Su n y Blvd

tate Us Hwy 17

S

State Hwy 170

Hwy 4 6

South Carolina State Hwy 170

Beaufort

State Hwy 170

State Hwy

er P Dean Forest Rd Fair St
170 Alt

State Hwy 25

State Hwy

8 7

Bloomingdale

Pool kwyChatham

Fort Argyle Rd 204

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

John Carter Rd

Pooler
Pine Barren Rd

Garden City Us Hwy 80

LouSistvaitleleHRwdy 25c Bay St

Regional Inset

Burke

Jenkins

Screven

Allendale

Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler Bulloch
!"e$
Evans
Tattnall

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufort Beaufort

Bryan

Chatham

Beaufort Beaufort
Beaufort

Long Wayne

!"e$ Liberty

Chatham

Figure C.1

Legend
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)
Traffic Analysis Zones
00 Traffic Analysis Zone ID Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary
Other County Boundary City Limits
Water
Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads
Source: Census 2000, GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

State Hwy 67

July 2008

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Socioeconomic Data Table C.7 shows socioeconomic (SE) data required and descriptions for each TAZ. Appendix B, Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting, describes the methodology of SE data projection. Tables C.8 and C.9 provide 2001 and 2030 SE data by TAZ, respectively.
Table C.7 Socioeconomic Data Required by TAZ

Data Variable
Population Households Median Income Retail Employment Service Employment Manufacturing Employment Wholesale Employment Total Employment School Enrollment Acres

Description
the total number of individuals that are residing in a TAZ the total number of occupied households in a TAZ household median income in TAZ in 2000 dollar the number of employees working for retail business at work places in a TAZ the number of employees working for service business at work places in a TAZ
the number of employees working for manufacturing at work places in a TAZ
the number of employees working for wholesale business at work place in a TAZ
the total number of employees at work places in a TAZ The total number of enrolled students at school locations in a TAZ area of a TAZ in acre

Table C.8 2001 SE Data by TAZ

Employment TAZ HH Population
Retail Service Manuf. Whole

1 92 229

0

0

3

0

2 109 292

0

22

0

0

3 217 593

37 38

0

0

4 503 1,416

1

15

0

2

5 174 481

0

73

0

0

6 236 646

0 110 19

3

7 190 537

0

6

0

0

8 338 845

13 129 35

0

9 205 604

0

69

0

0

10 395 1,042

0

22 188

0

11 255 860

0

16

0

0

12 223 633

9

0

35

0

13 73 195

0

0

0

0

14 66 209

8 110

0

0

15 72 203

0

4

0

0

16 192 537

0

2

0

0

17 176 464

0 149

9

0

18 211 632

0

2

0

0

Total 3 22 75 18 73
132 6
177 69 210 16 44 0 118 4 2 158 2

School Acres
Enrollment

0

16,482

0

17,224

500

6,500

0

9,143

900

3,500

700

5,163

0

1,885

0

5,224

800

3,182

0

5,267

0

1,452

0

1,885

0

3,759

0

2,651

0

4,625

0

1,152

0

7,643

0

1,565

Median Income
30,000 45,355 45,355 45,355 39,880 39,880 26,125 46,475 39,880 39,880 68,200 68,200 48,475 39,880 48,475 45,355 42,000 42,000

Centriod
590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607

July 2008

C-10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County

APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development

Table C.8 2001 SE Data by TAZ, Continued

TAZ HH Population

Employment

Retail Service Manuf. Whole

19 148 398

9

46

30

2

20 143 468

2

8

0

5

21 243 1,018

12 250

0

0

22 87 261

36 243

0

0

23 105 281

0

5

0

0

24 74 209

11

4

0

0

25 15

44

0

0

0

0

26 22

49

7

18

0

0

27 171 497

9

5

30

2

28 121 347

0

27

0

0

29 143 434

0

9

0

0

30 289 769

0 110

0

0

31 127 400

0

0

0

0

32 169 451

0

0

0

0

33 316 786

15 460

0

7

34 344 946

3

37

0

12

35 200 529

31 168

0

10

36 1018 3,026

45 209 12

0

37 674 1,902

44 168

9

0

38 25

61

51 16

15

5

39 371 1,015

23 30

2

1

40 785 2,249

15 255

0

0

41 300 918

0 104

0

0

42 324 1,000

0

6

0

0

43 255 821

0

8

0

0

44 451 1,386

6 139

0

5

45 333 918

35 465 149 15

46 1177 3,176 431 656

1

1

47 74 214

0

7

0

0

48 200 496

5

31

0

1

49 143 399

0

6 1,426 0

50 366 1,052

0

54

0

0

51 88 249

0

4

0

0

52 123 348

0

11

0

2

Total 87 15 262 279 5 15 0 25 46 27 9 110 0 0 482 52 209 266 221 87 56 270 104 6 8 150 664
1,089 7 37
1,432 54 4 13

School Enrollment

Acres

400

2,064

1,900

1,940

0

1,552

0

5,105

0

12,332

0

11,199

0

1,548

0

3,326

0

14,770

0

15,104

0

5,124

0

14,210

0

8,816

0

4,203

400

1,984

0

4,798

0

2,438

0

3,452

1800

4,200

0

1,587

0

2,332

0

4,725

0

4,731

0

6,856

0

2,294

0

6,668

0

5,881

0

4,263

0

14,783

0

12,574

0

6,473

0

10,428

0

5,347

0

3,587

Median Income 42,000 42,680 42,680 45,335 45,335 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 45,335 46,085 46,085 39,315 39,315 41,250 44,775 42,680 51,820 51,820 49,090 39,880 50,625 68,200 42,000 49,090 42,680 51,820 55,565 49,090 45,335 51,820 39,315 39,315 45,355

Centriod 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641

July 2008

C-11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.9 2030 SE Data by TAZ

Employment TAZ HH Population
Retail Service Manuf. Whole

1 121 301

0

0

3

0

2 139 371

0

41

0

0

3 367 1,003

77

95

0

0

4 1,062 2,988

2

42

0

1

5 360 995

0

154

0

0

6 587 1,607

0

283

23

2

7 401 1,133

0

13

0

0

8 997 2,492

38 2,736 1,869 0

9 433 1,275

0

108

0

0

10 867 2,287

0

45 198

0

11 570 1,923

0

31

0

0

12 536 1,522

17

0

44

0

13 160 428

0 1,587 795

0

14 139 441

15 216

0

0

15 152 428

0

8

0

0

16 365 1,021

0

4

0

0

17 401 1,057

0

447

11

0

18 410 1,228

0

4

0

0

19 337 907

20 124 36

1

20 326 1,066

5

25

0

3

21 472 1,978

28 700

0

0

22 143 430

70 571

0

0

23 142 381

0

10

0

0

24 110 310

21

9

0

0

25 19 56

0

0

0

0

26 31 68

12

38

0

0

27 225 653

15 10

30

1

28 134 383

0

40

0

0

29 206 625

0

17

0

0

30 380 1,010

0

222

0

0

31 167 525

0

0

0

0

32 222 592

0

0

0

0

33 693 1,725

36 1,501 0

4

34 755 2,076

6

104

0

7

35 389 1,028

50 323

0

6

36 2,490 7,402 123 1,059 214

0

37 1,705 4,812 117 537 613

0

38 55 134

87

31

20

3

39 892 2,440

52

77

2

1

40 1,953 5,596

35 711

0

0

Total 3 41
172 45 154 308 13 4,643 108 243 31 61 2,382 231 8 4 458 4 181 33 728 641 10 30 0 50 56 40 17 222 0 0 1,541 117 379 1,396 1,267 141 132 746

School Acres
Enrollment

0

16,482

0

17,224

738

6,500

0

9,143

1,328

3,500

1,033

5,163

0

1,885

0

5,224

1,180

3,182

0

5,267

0

1,452

0

1,885

0

3,759

0

2,651

0

4,625

0

1,152

0

7,643

0

1,565

590

2,064

2,805

1,940

0

1,552

0

5,105

0

12,332

0

11,199

0

1,548

0

3,326

0

14,770

0

15,104

0

5,124

0

14,210

0

8,816

0

4,203

590

1,984

0

4,798

0

2,438

0

3,452

2,657

4,200

0

1,587

0

2,332

0

4,725

Median Income 30,000 45,355 45,355 45,355 39,880 39,880 26,125 46,475 39,880 39,880 68,200 68,200 48,475 39,880 48,475 45,355 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,680 42,680 45,335 45,335 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 45,335 46,085 46,085 39,315 39,315 41,250 44,775 42,680 51,820 51,820 49,090 39,880 50,625

Centriod
590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629

July 2008

C-12

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County

APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development

Table C.9 2030 SE Data by TAZ, Continued

Employment TAZ HH Population
Retail Service Manuf. Whole

41 696 2,130

0

212

0

0

42 602 1,859

0

13

0

0

43 602 1,939

0

17

0

0

44 857 2,634

15 440

0

3

45 787 2,169

76 1,176 205

9

46 2,780 7,502 1,114 2,087 1

1

47 156 452

0

10

0

0

48 279 693

9

68

0

1

49 284 792

0

11 1601 0

50 665 1,911

0

109

0

0

51 160 452

0

8

0

0

52 249 705

0

27

0

1

Total 212 13 17 458 1,466 3,203 10 78 1,612 109
8 28

School Acres
Enrollment

0

4,731

0

6,856

0

2,294

0

6,668

0

5,881

0

4,263

0

14,783

0

12,574

0

6,473

0

10,428

0

5,347

0

3,587

Median Income
68,200 42,000 49,090 42,680 51,820 55,565 49,090 45,335 51,820 39,315 39,315 45,355

Centriod
630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641

Base Year Network Development
The model network was developed by extending the network of the travel demand model for Chatham County Interstate Needs Analysis and Prioritization Plan. Therefore, the network for Effingham County covers both Effingham and Chatham County. Figure C.2 displays the base year 2001 network.
The highway network consists of links and nodes that represent roadway segments and intersections. The attributes of links contain characteristics of roadways such as free flow speed, distance, number of lanes, area type (according to density of population and employment), facility type (similar to functional classification) and capacity. The attributes of nodes contain positional, two dimensional x and y coordinates to enable the network file to be displayed pictorially.
FACILITY TYPE AND AREA TYPE.
Individually and in combination these two link attributes provide a framework for organizing a network into sub-groups so that free-flow speed and capacity can be assigned. In combination with the distance and number of lanes, these attributes constitute the base layer of highway network data needed to update and apply the model. The facility type and area type definitions used in the network and modeling process are shown in Tables C.10 and C.11.

July 2008

C-13

Office of Planning
2001 Network

Us Hwy 301

County Road 474

Old River Rd

Screven
State Hwy 17

Sta te Hwy 24
Kildare

alter Rd Broo

Bu rkh

klet Leefield Rd

Brooklet

St

ilson Leefield Rd

IBulloch

County Road 590

O ld R iver Rd County Road 390

?
Egypt

Shawnee

?
Tusculum

Ga Highway 119

Guyton

A

Pineora Marlow

Brooklet Denmark Rd

State Hwy 67

State Hwy 119

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Hampton

Clyo R

State Hwy 462

State Hwy 119 d
Us Hwy 601

Clyo
A

Springfield

Stillwell

?

Ebenezer

Rincon

Sta te Hwy 652
State Hwy 336
Jasper
Sta te Hwy 141 State Hwy 46
South Carolina State Hwy 170

Us Hwy 17

Us Hwy 278

Sta te Hwy 462

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

State Hwy 13

Us Hwy 278

State Hwy 4 62 n C

Su ity Blvd

State Hwy 170
Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke Jenkins

Screven

Allendale

Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler

Bulloch

!"`$
Evans

Tattnall

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufort Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Bryan

Chatham

Appling Wayne

Long

Liberty
!"e$
McIntosh

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure C.2
Legend
2001 Network
Interstate Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road
Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers
Effingham County Boundary

Other County Boundary

Eldora Rd

Us Hwy 280
Liberty

State Hwy 119 S

tate Hwy 1 19

Pembroke Bryan

State Hwy 204

Little Neck Rd Fort Argyle Rd

!"`$

? Eden

Meldrim

Faulkville

Port Wentworth
!"e$ Jimmy De Loach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

Georgia

State Hwy 170

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

I
Bloomingdale
Hwy 17

r Pkw

y
Poole Chatham
Pooler

Dean Forest Rd Fair St

S tat e

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Pooler Pkwy

Garden City0

2.5

5

Us Hwy 80

Telfair Rd

State Louisville

Hwy Rd

25c

Bay St

State Hwy 170 Alt

10 Miles

City Limits Water (Outside Effingham County) Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads
Source: GDOT, ESRI, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

July 2008

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.10 Facility Type

Code
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 30 32

Facility Type
Interstate Freeway Expressway Parkway Freeway to Freeway Ramp Freeway Entrance Ramp Freeway Exit Ramp Principal Arterial Class I Principal Arterial Class II Minor Arterial Class I Minor Arterial Class II One Way Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector One Way Collector Local Road Centroid Connector

Table C.11 Area Type

Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area Type
High Density Urban High Density Urban Commercial Urban Residential Suburban Commercial Suburban Residential Exurban Rural

CAPACITY Link capacities for the model network are obtained from a lookup table of per-lane hourly capacities based on facility type and area type. The final link capacity is calculated by multiplying the per-lane hourly capacity by the number of lanes. Table C.12 displays capacities.
SPEED. Link speed in the model network is derived from a speed lookup table based on facility type and area type. The speeds are shown in Table C.13.

July 2008

C-15

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.12 Hourly Capacity per Lane

No

Facility Type

1

Interstate

2

Freeway

3

Expressway

4

Parkway

6

Freeway to Freeway Ramp

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

1
1900 1800 1300 1200 1600 1400 1200 1100
900 800 700 750 600 500 550 400
0

2
1900 1800 1300 1200 1600 1400 1200 1000
900 800 700 750 600 500 550 400
0

Area Type

3

4

5

2000 2000 2200

1900 1900 2000

1400 1300 1800 1700

1400 1300 1800 1700

1500 1400 1900 1800

1400 1400 1600

1200 1200 1400

1000 1000 1100

900 900 1000

800 800 900 850 850 950 700 700 800 600 600 700

650 650 750

500 500 600

0

0

0

6
2200 2000 1500 1400 1900 1800 1600 1400 1100 1000
900 950 800 700 750 600
0

7
2000 1900 1400 1300 1800 1700 1400 1200 1000
900 800 850 700 600 650 500
0

Table C.13 Speed Table

No

Facility Type

1 Interstate 2 Freeway 3 Expressway 4 Parkway 6 Freeway to Freeway Ramp 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

Area Type

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

55

60

60

60

60

70

70

50

55

55

55

55

60

60

50

50

50

50

55

55

55

45

50

50

50

50

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

45

50

50

50

50

55

55

22

23

30

31

34

40

47

25

28

33

34

37

47

52

23

26

31

32

35

45

49

22

23

30

31

34

40

47

21

22

27

30

32

38

45

23

26

30

32

35

42

48

17

18

21

27

29

34

42

14

15

18

24

26

30

40

17

18

21

27

29

34

42

14

14

17

18

22

28

35

14

14

17

18

22

28

35

July 2008

C-16

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Base Year Model Calibration The base year 2001 model was calibrated to replicate 2001 traffic counts from GDOT. The model validation results are summarized as below.
PERCENT DEVIATION BY LINK A reasonable expectation is for a model to accurately estimate number of lanes required for a facility to provide a specified level of service. As annual average daily traffic (AADT) on a facility increases, the expected accuracy of a model increases as well. Figure C.3 shows deviation between 2001 volumes assigned by the model with observed traffic counts.

Percent Deviation (Model Volume vs. Count)

2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
0

Effingham County Base Year 2001 Travel Demand Model

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Traffic Count

35000

Percent Deviation from Count

Maximum Desirable Deviation

40000

45000

50000

Figure C.3 Percent Deviation in 2001 Model

The percent deviation is calculated as follows:
Percent Deviation = (Base Year Volume Assigned Base Year Count)/Base Year Count
Maximum desired deviation, represented by a thick, downward sloping curve, is relatively high for low volume facilities and much smaller for higher volume links. The link-level model deviation points are concentrated in the lower left corner of the graph, below the maximum desirable deviation line. The

July 2008

C-17

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
graph is comprised of modeled volumes versus counts deviations from 68 links on the highway network. These data points illustrate (1) the deviation of 91% test links in the highway network are within maximum desirable deviation, and (2) six links whose deviation points are located above the maximum desirable deviation; however, these six traffic counts are below 2,500 vehicles per day.
SCREENLINE COMPARISON Seven screenlines were selected to intercept major traffic flows through Effingham County. Assigned volumes in 2001 model are compared with 2001 traffic counts at each screenline crossing. In evaluating screenlines during a model calibration, the maximum desirable deviation is from NCHRP 255. Figure C.4 depicts each screenline used in the calibration and validation of the base year model. Table C.14 summarizes screenline analysis.
Table C.14 Screenline Analysis

Screenline

Description

Count

1

South of County line

8,240

2

North of Effingham County

8,450

3

North of SR 119

16,550

4

South of Effingham County

32,400

5

North of Chatham County line

71,850

6

East of SR 17

12,220

7

East of SR 21

6,410

Total

156,120

* FHWA Model Calibration and Reasonableness Checking Manual

Percent Volume
Deviation

10,050 9,530 18,070 33,950 77,590 10,700 8,010 167,900

22% 14% 9% 5% 8% -12% 25% 8%

Maximum Desirable Deviation*
+/-42% +/-41% +/-31% +/-23% +/-16% +/-35% +/-46% +/-12%

PERCENT ERROR COUNTYWIDE
Percent error is the total assigned traffic volumes divided by the total counted traffic volumes for all links that have traffic counts. The percent error systemwide should be less than five percent. The percent error for the Effingham County base year model is two percent, which is within the target five percent.

PERCENT DEVIATION BY VOLUME GROUP
Assignment by volume groups is used to assess model performance against aggregate traffic counts on roads categorized by traffic volumes. Table C.15 compares the model performance to recommended FHWA desirable ranges for the different volume groups. As this table shows, all model volumes fall within the recommended guidelines.

July 2008

C-18

Office of Planning

Screenlines for 2001 Network 6
Screven

Us Hwy 301

County Road 474

Old River Rd

State Hwy 17

Sta te Hwy 24

7

Kildare

1

alter Rd Broo

Bu rkh

klet Leefield Rd

Brooklet

St

2
ilson Leefield Rd

IBulloch

County Road 590

O ld R iver Rd County Road 390

?
Egypt

Shawnee

?
Tusculum

Ga Highway 119
3

Guyton

A

Pineora Marlow

Brooklet Denmark Rd

State Hwy 67

State Hwy 119

State Hwy 46

Us Hwy 80

Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21

Effingham County Transportation Plan

Hampton

Clyo R

State Hwy 462

State Hwy 119 d
Us Hwy 601

Clyo
A

Springfield

Stillwell

?

Ebenezer

Rincon

Sta te Hwy 652

State Hwy 336

Jasper
4

5

Sta te Hwy 141

State Hwy 46

South Carolina State Hwy 170

Us Hwy 17

Us Hwy 278

Sta te Hwy 462

Green St

State Hwy 29

Us Hwy 2 78 Alt

State Hwy 13

Us Hwy 278

State Hwy 4 62 n C

Su ity Blvd

State Hwy 170
Beaufort

Regional Inset

Burke Jenkins

Screven

Allendale

Hampton

Colleton

Emanuel

!"e$ Beaufort

Candler

Bulloch

!"`$
Evans

Tattnall

Effingham

Jasper

Beaufort Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Beaufort

Bryan

Chatham

Appling Wayne

Long

Liberty
!"e$
McIntosh

Chatham

Atlantic Ocean

Figure C.4
Legend
Screenlines
Screenlines 1 - 5 Screenlines 6 - 7

#

Screenline Number

Road Network
Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads
Other Layers

Effingham County Boundary

Other County Boundary

Eldora Rd

Us Hwy 280
Liberty

State Hwy 119 S

tate Hwy 1 19

Pembroke Bryan

State Hwy 204

Little Neck Rd Fort Argyle Rd

!"`$

? Eden

Meldrim

Faulkville

Port Wentworth
!"e$ Jimmy De Loach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy
Savannah

Georgia

State Hwy 170

State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21

Fort Stewart Military Reservation

I
Bloomingdale
Hwy 17

r Pkw

y
Poole Chatham
Pooler

Dean Forest Rd Fair St

S tat e

John Carter Rd

Pine Barren Rd

Pooler Pkwy

Garden City0

2.5

5

Us Hwy 80

Telfair Rd

State Louisville

Hwy Rd

25c

Bay St

State Hwy 170 Alt

10 Miles

City Limits Water (Outside Effingham County) Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads
Source: GDOT, ESRI, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only.

July 2008

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
Table C.15 Percent Deviation by Volume Group

Links with Volume Group
Counts

Mean Count

<=1000

7

640

1,000-2,500

17

1,850

2,500-5,000

22

3,760

5,000-10,000

12

6,160

10,000-25,000

5

16,660

>25,000

5

29,700

All Links

68

6,240

* FHWA Model Calibration and Reasonableness Checking Manual

Mean Model Volume
1,020 2,270 3,870 5,750 16,740 29,830 6,360

Percent Deviation
59% 23% 3% -7% 0% 0% 2%

Maximum Desirable Deviation*
+/-60% +/-47% +/-36% +/-29% +/-25% +/-22%

PERCENT DEVIATION BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Table C.16 compares model performance to recommended FHWA desirable ranges for assignment by roadway functional classification. As the table shows, all model volumes fall within the recommended guidelines.

Table C.16 Percent Deviation by Functional Classification

Functional Classification

Links with Counts

Mean Count

Freeway

3

31,790

Principal Arterial

0

0

Minor Arterial

26

7,920

Collector

39

3,160

All Links

68

6,240

* FHWA Model Calibration and Reasonableness Checking Manual

Mean Model Volume
33,080 0
7,920 3,270 6,360

Percent Deviation
4% 0% 0% 4% 2%

Maximum Desirable Deviation*
+/-7% +/-10% +/-15% +/-25%

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
A correlation coefficient is calculated using pairs of model volumes and traffic counts, and should typically be greater than 0.88. The correlation coefficient for the base year model is 0.96, which is above the acceptable threshold.

ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a general statistical measure of how close the model volumes to traffic counts. With all available traffic counts in the network, the RMSE is calculated to be 25%. A suggested appropriate aggregate RMSE is less than 30%; therefore, the result is within the acceptable threshold.

July 2008

C-20

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
DETERMINE ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES
Deficient sections of roadway are identified by level of service (LOS) on all roadways contained in a highway network. LOS is used by traffic engineers and transportation planners to describe the degree of maneuverability and comfort that motorists could expect driving on a particular section of road. LOS is from A to F, with LOS A representative of free flow operation conditions and available space for drivers to maneuver safely on the road. As LOS drops toward F, there is increasingly less space available for motorists to maneuver. When LOS reaches F, there is not any room left on the road for other vehicle and there are stop and go conditions. Typically, transportation decision-makers identify projects and make plans that will result in acceptable LOS.
Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is calculated for each section of roads in the network. LOS E is equivalent to a v/c ratio of 1.00. Since link capacities in the model are based on LOS E service volumes, LOS F begins when the forecasted volumes begin to consume 100% of the LOS E capacity on a facility. Table C.17 shows threshold of v/c ratio in relation with LOS.
LOS C is acceptable LOS for identifying deficient roads or corridors in developing the Effingham County Transportation Plan. Therefore, the sections of roads with v/c over 0.70 are considered capacity deficiency.
Table C.17 LOS and v/c Ratio

LOS
A or B or C D E F

v/c Ratio
<0.70 0.7 to 0.85 0.85 to 1.00
>1.00

2030 E+C Model
After having calibrated and validated the base year 2001 model, JCB used it to assist GDOT and Effingham County in evaluating of alternatives in future year 2030 transportation systems.
The E+C (existing plus committed) network represents existing and future transportation infrastructure for which a committed funding source exists, and typically includes programmed projects in the most current regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). In the case of the Effingham County model, 2030 E+C projects are currently programmed in the state's TIP, the STIP, and include projects for which right-of-way has been funded or purchased or funding for construction is committed.
The 2030 E+C model is run with 2030 SE data, and is used to forecast and analyze the condition of transportation infrastructure based on current levels of investment. It highlights areas of future need based on defined performance measures such as congestion, travel time or delay.

July 2008

C-21

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development
2030 Build Model
After evaluating 2030 E+C model results and identifying capacity deficient roadways, JCB worked with GDOT and Effingham County to determine potential capacity improvement projects such as new roads or widening roads . JCB applied the model to evaluate the potential projects. The model results show better condition with the recommended projects in Effingham County. Table6.2 in the report shows the recommended projects with descriptions.

July 2008

C-22

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX D. Preliminary Field and Environmental Screening
APPENDIX D. Preliminary Field and Environmental Screening of Selected Projects
In assessing the suitability of draft transportation project recommendations, a preliminary field and environmental screening was undertaken on a number of projects that were of special importance to the transportation network or involved significant amounts of right-of-way. Certain projects that fell primarily within Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) or were already in the State or County Transportation Improvement Programs were not evaluated at this time given that detailed environmental assessments will be undertaken as part of their approval processes. During the screening, field surveys documented potentially sensitive natural, historic, and other features in the proximity of suggested improvements. A list of the projects selected for preliminary screening is shown in Table D.1 below, and the results follow over the next 24 pages. Refer to Chapter 6 and Appendix E for project maps and detailed descriptions.
Table D.1 Recommended Projects that Underwent Preliminary Environmental Screening

Project ID

Facility

55

Mock Rd

84

Meldrim-Jabez Jones Connector

88

Old River Rd

91

Sandhill Rd, Segment 1

101

US 80

124

North Carolina Ave

126

Fort Howard Rd

127

Fort Howard Rd

130

Richland Rd

133

SR 21

134

SR 21

78

SR 119

39, 123 Blue Jay Road

Extents

Type of Improvement

SR 21 to Stillwell Rd (Springfield) US 80 to Jabez Jones Rd US 80 to John Carter Rd in Chatham County US 80 to Blue Jay Rd
SR 17 to Sand Hill Rd
W 17th to North Ridge Dr
SR 21 to Old Augusta Rd SR 21 to RR tracks (to McCall Rd +, eventually)

New two-lane road
New two-lane road with sidewalks and bike lanes
Roadway widening (2-->4 lanes)
Addition of occasional turn lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks Roadway widening (2-->4 lanes) with bike lanes and sidewalks New two-lane road with bike shoulder and sidewalk Addition of occasional turn lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks New two-lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks

10th St to Ft Howard Rd

New two-lane road

Effingham/Chatham county line to Ft Howard Rd Effingham/Chatham county line to 4th St
SR 119 to SR 21 (in Springfield, not bypass)
entire length

Widening (4 --> 6 lanes) + 8' MultiUse Path on Sidewalks - Both Sides
Multi-Use Path on both sides
Widening (2-->3 lanes) + 8' MultiUse Path on both sides (minimum of south side) Widening (2-->3 lanes) + 8' MultiUse Path on both sides

July 2008

D-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 21, from Chatham County Line to 4th St in Rincon (#133, 134)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
COUNTY LINE

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PROJECT 133 (FROM CHATHAM COUNTY LINE TO FORT HOWARD ROAD)

PICTURES

0.4 miles

Crosses Road

Powerline Easement

1.1 miles 1.2 miles

Southbound Side of One-
way Pairs

GA Power Substation

Southbound Side of One-
way Pairs

Goshen Methodist Church and Cemetery

1.2 miles - 2.5 miles

Both

SR 21 north of Goshen Road is more heavily developed with commercial
properties

N
source: www.maps.live.com
N
source: www.maps.live.com
N

July 2008

source: www.maps.live.com
D-2

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 21, from Chatham County Line to 4th St in Rincon (#133, 134)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
COUNTY LINE

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

2.5 miles

Crosses Road

Schweighoffer Creek

PROJECT 134 (FROM FORT HOWARD ROAD TO FOURTH STREET)
General Note: Fort Howard Road is located approximately 3.4 miles from county line. The following information is related only to Project 134

4.1 miles 4.2 miles 4.3 miles 4.7 miles

Crosses Road

Dasher Creek

None

West

GA Power Substation

source: www.maps.live.com
None
source: stock, from down road

East

Community Center

None
source: www.maps.live.com

East

Rincon Elementary School

None
source: www.effinghamschools.com

July 2008

D-3

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 119, from Laurel St in Springfield to SR 17 (# 215, 117, 78)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE WEST FROM S LAUREL ST

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PROJECT 117 (FROM LAUREL ST / SR 21 BUSINESS TO SR 21)

PICTURES

0.1 miles

Crosses Road At Grade Railroad Crossing

0.3 miles

South

GA Power Substation

0.4 miles PROJECT 78 (FROM SR 21 to SR 17)

South

Effingham County Prison

None
source: www.effga.com

0.6 miles

South

Effingham Hospital

0.9 miles

Crosses Road

Stream Crossing

July 2008

D-4

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 119, from Laurel St in Springfield to SR 17 (# 215, 117, 78)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE WEST FROM S LAUREL ST

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

1.2 miles

North

County Office Annex and Health Department Offices

1.3 miles 1.4 miles

North

Library

None
source: www.effga.com

North

Effingham Memorial Gardens Cemetery

1.4 miles

South

Open Water

1.6 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

July 2008

D-5

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 119, from Laurel St in Springfield to SR 17 (# 215, 117, 78)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE WEST FROM S LAUREL ST

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

2.1 miles

North

Georgia Forestry Commission Fire Tower and Quonset Hut Potential Historic Resources

2.2 miles

North

Effingham County Middle School

2.5 miles

North

Georgia Power Substation with onsite USTs

2.5 miles 2.7 miles

North

Gas Pipeline/Substation

None
source: www.maps.live.com

South

Effingham County High School

July 2008

D-6

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 119, from Laurel St in Springfield to SR 17 (# 215, 117, 78)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE WEST FROM S LAUREL ST

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

3.4 miles 3.5 miles 3.9 miles

South

Faith Baptist Church

None
source: www.maps.live.com

South

Riggs Funeral Home

None
source: www.maps.live.com

South

Potential Historic Residence

4.0 miles 4.2 miles

South

Potential Historic Residence

None

source: www.maps.live.com

South

New Vision Pentecostal Church

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-7

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: SR 119, from Laurel St in Springfield to SR 17 (# 215, 117, 78)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE WEST FROM S LAUREL ST

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

4.5 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

4.5 miles

South

Potential Historic Residence

General Note:Within Guyton City Limits

Both

Both sides of road have residences that appear to be
a historic district (Representative Photos
Provided)

July 2008

D-8

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: US 80 from SR 17 to Sandhill Road (#101)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE SIDE OF

FROM US 17

ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

0.1 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

0.2 miles

South

International Worship Center

0.5 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

1.5 miles

Crosses Roadway

Powerline easement

2.7 miles

North

Large wetland (just north of Old River Road)

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-9

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: US 80 from SR 17 to Sandhill Road (#101)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE SIDE OF

FROM US 17

ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

2.8 miles

South

Chevron with USTs

3.1 miles 3.2 miles 3.3 miles

North

Open water

NE quadrant of Magnolia Dr Intersection

Potential Historic Residence

None
source: www.maps.live.com

SE qudrant of Foxbow Drive Intersection

Roadside Historic Marker Sherman's Right Wing

3.4 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

July 2008

D-10

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: US 80 from SR 17 to Sandhill Road (#101)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE SIDE OF

FROM US 17

ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

3.4 miles

South

Powers Baptist Church

3.5 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

3.9 miles

North

Wetland

July 2008

D-11

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: OLD RIVER ROAD FROM JOHN CARTER RD. TO US 80 (#88)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM JOHN
CARTER RD.

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

0.3 miles

East

Residential Open Water

3.8 miles

West

Potential Historic Residence (just south of Schuman Drive)

3.9 miles

West

Time Saver Mini Market (UST Sites)

3.9 miles

East

Potential Historic Residence

4.5 miles

Crosses Roadway At grade Railroad Crossing

July 2008

D-12

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: OLD RIVER ROAD FROM JOHN CARTER RD. TO US 80 (#88)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM JOHN
CARTER RD.

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

4.6 miles

East

Entrance to Simpson Lumber Yard

5.6 miles

Both

Open waters

6.2 miles

West

Powers Baptist Cemetery

6.3 miles

East

Chevron w/ UST

July 2008

D-13

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Bluejay Road from SandHill Rd to SR 21 (#39, 123)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
SANDHILL RD

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

0.4 miles

North

Open Water/Wetland

0.8 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

0.9 miles

North

Potential Historic Residence

1.1 miles

Crosses road

Stream Crossing

1.6 miles

NW quadrant of Bluejay Rd
and SR 17

New Gas Station (Under Construction) - UST site

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-14

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Bluejay Road from SandHill Rd to SR 21 (#39, 123)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
SANDHILL RD

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

1.9 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

3.7 miles

Crosses road

Powerline Easement

4.0 miles 4.7 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

South

Open Water/Residential Pond

None
source: www.maps.live.com

5.0 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

July 2008

D-15

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Bluejay Road from SandHill Rd to SR 21 (#39, 123)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
SANDHILL RD

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

5.6 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

6.2 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

6.7 miles 7.0 miles

North

1886 Bluejay Road - Potential Historic Residence

North

1796 Bluejay Road - Potential Historic Residence

8.1 miles

North

Open Water/Residential Pond

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-16

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Bluejay Road from SandHill Rd to SR 21 (#39, 123)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM
SANDHILL RD

SIDE OF ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

8.3 miles

South

Gas pipeline (Atlanta Gas Light) Substation

9.6 miles

Crosses road

At-Grade Railroad Crossing

July 2008

D-17

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Sandhill Road from US 80 to Bluejay Road (#91)

APPROXIMATE

SIDE OF

DISTANCE FROM US 80 ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

PROJECT 91 (Note: This project continues north Stagefield Rd, further screening necessary if undertaken)

0.1 miles

West (Intersection w/ Elm Street)

Potential Historic Residence

1.0 miles

West

Potential Historic Residence

1.4 miles

West

Potential Historic Residence - Farm with large oak in front yard

July 2008

D-18

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Fort Howard Road (#126) and Fort Howard Road Extension (#127)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE SIDE OF

FROM SR 21

ROADWAY

PROJECT 126 (FROM SR 21 TO OLD AUGUSTA RD)

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

0.9 miles

South

Open Water

0.9 miles

North

Texaco Gas Station

1.4 miles 2.2 miles 2.3 miles

North

Church (Latter Day Saints)

North

Potential Historic Residence (Vacant)

None
source: www.maps.live.com

North

Potential Historic Residence

July 2008

D-19

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

DESCRIPTION: Fort Howard Road (#126) and Fort Howard Road Extension (#127)

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE SIDE OF

FROM SR 21

ROADWAY

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

2.3 miles

South

Potential Historic Residence

PROJECT 127 (FORT HOWARD ROAD EXTENSION)

0.1 miles

END OF COMMERCIAL
DRIVE

Tractor Supply Company

0.1 miles

SURROUNDING EXISTING
COMMERCIAL

Potential Jurisdictional Waters

July 2008

D-20

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
DESCRIPTION: Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector (#84)

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

Proposed Eastern Terminus (Jabez Jones Road) is wooded. In close proximity to Powerline Easement. Project would cross this easement. (See Photo)

Proposed Eastern Terminus (Jabez Jones Road) is in close proximity to Mary Kahrs Warnell Forestry Education Center. (See Photo)

July 2008

D-21

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
DESCRIPTION: Carolina Ave Extension (#124)

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

17th Street Terminus is adjacent to Fire Station
Large ditch runs along corridor and parrallel to Railroad corridor. Potential Jurisdictional Water of US.

None
source: www.maps.live.com

Parcels along corridor (south of railroad corridor) are cleared for construction.

Large retention pond located behind Lowes hardware.

July 2008

D-22

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
DESCRIPTION: Richland Avenue Extension (#130)

FIELD OBESERVATION

PICTURES

Weisenbaker Road (Potential Commercial Relocations) - Two Restaurants and Dentist Office. Behind City Hall Offices.

Crosses Dasher Creek East 10th Street - Residence (Potential Relocation)

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-23

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
DESCRIPTION: Mock Road Extension (#55)

FIELD OBESERVATION

At Stillwell Road:

Residence in NE quadrant of intersection (road would go east of house) Photo (Right) is of house and entrance. SE Quadrant is residential. SW Quadrant is cattle and farmland.

PICTURES

SR 21 Terminus difficult to determine. Appears to be at open field and planted pine.

None
source: www.maps.live.com

July 2008

D-24

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Proj. ID

Facility Name

1 Boaen Road

2 Boaen Road Extension

3

Effingham Parkway Northeastern

4

Griffin Lake Road Extension

5 Morgan Road

6 Morgan Road Extension

7

Old Tusculum Road, Segment 2

8 Porter Road

9 Powell Road Extension

Extents Springfield-Egypt Road to Sawmill Road
Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 21
119 to Boaen Road@Sawmill Road
SR 17 to Springfield-Egypt Road
SR 21 to Springfield-Egypt Road
Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 17
SR 21 to Standard Lane Old Louisville Road to Riverside Drive 4th Avenue to SR 119 (intersect w/ Little McCall Realignment)

Area of County
NW NW
NW
NW
NW
NW NW NW NW

Details / Justification

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

This road is the end of the potential northeastern extension of Effingham Pkwy. Paving this road will provide better connectivity from Effingham Parkway-related projects to SR 21. Improve in tandem with #2.
This road segment provides a short connector from the existing Boaen Road to SR 21, continuing from the intersection of Boaen Road and Springfield-Egypt Road. It forms the final segment of a potential Northeastern extension of Effingham Parkway, providing a convenient terminus at SR 21.
First segment of potential Northeastern extension of Effingham Parkway. Though currently considered a "county project" due to relatively low traffic volumes projected by the study's travel demand model, completing this segment will allow Effingham Parkway traffic to channel back to SR 21 north of Springfield (via additional projects #1 and #2), rather than completely loading on to SR 119. Undertaking project #13 in addition to this one will enable vehicle movement to SR 17 north of Guyton, rather than directing offloading traffic through the center of Guyton.
Extending Griffin Lake Road to Springfield-Egypt/Shawnee-Egypt Road will improve high-level connectivity in the Northern part of the county, aiding in emergency vehicle movement. E-W connectors between SR 17 and SR 21 north of Guyton were specifically requested by public safety officials. This segment can form a part of a near continuous improved route from Old Louisville Road to Clyo-Kildare Road (in combination with projects #31 and #22).
Paving Morgan Road between SR 21 and Springfield-Egypt Road will improve high-level connectivity in the Northern part of the county, aiding in emergency vehicle movement. E-W connectors between SR 17 and SR 21 north of Guyton were specifically requested by public safety officials. This improvement would be most effective in combination with Projects #14, #6, and #28.
Extending Morgan Road between Springfield-Egypt Road and SR 17 will improve high-level connectivity in the Northern part of the county, aiding in emergency vehicle movement. E-W connectors between SR 17 and SR 21 north of Guyton were specifically requested by public safety officials. This improvement would be most effective in combination with Projects #5 and #14, and is already recorded in the Effingham Capital Improvement Plan.
Adding sidewalks to this road will enable children to safely walk to local schools, and allow general pedestrian access to destinations along SR 21 and in downtown Springfield. This improvement would be most effective in combination with projects #72, #121, and #118.
Constructing this roadway extension will aid in better access to existing or potential river-based recreation activities and emergency vehicle movement.
Constructing this road will allow local vehicular and pedestrian access to the residential areas of Guyton without forcing vehicular traffic through the busy SR 119 / SR 17 intersection in downtown Guyton. Would be most effective in combination with project # 78 (realignment of Little McCall Road intersection with SR 119).

Paving New Two-Lane Road
New Two-Lane Road
New Two-Lane Road
Paving
New Two-Lane Road
New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road

Rural Route Signage Only

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks One Side

Length 2.19 0.42
3.00
2.20
1.64
2.74 0.33 2.12 0.54

Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$1,336,646

38

33

0

0

5

$1,233,332

28

23

0

0

5

$8,894,188

43

33

0

0

10

$6,512,025

28

23

0

0

5

$1,000,900

38

33

0

0

5

$8,107,776

42

23

9

0

10

$286,946

33

0

0

23

10

$6,269,268

28

23

0

0

5

$1,726,301

61

33

0

23

5

July 2008

E-1

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Proj. ID

Facility Name

10 Sawmill Drive

11 Long Bridge Road

12 Shearwood Road

13

Springfield-Tusculum Road

14 Springfield-Egypt Road

15 SR 17, Segment 4

16 SR 21, Segment 5 17 4th Street

18

Angus Exley Road Extension

19 Angus Exley Road

20 Bark Drive 21 Clyo-Kildare Road 22 Corinth Church Road 23 Fair Street 24 Indigo Road

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Extents
SpringfieldTusculum Road to Boaen Road
Ebenezer Road to Wylly Road
Old Louisville Road to Ogeechee River
SR 17 to Brogdon Road
Shawnee-Egypt Road to SR 21
Old Elam Cemetary Road to 1300 ft S of Egypt Ardmore Road
Old Tusculum to Springfield-Egypt Road
Marion Avenue to Stillwell-Clyo Road
End of Angus Exley Road to Bark Dr
Sister's Ferry Rd to End
SR 119 to end
SR 119 to Marion Avenue
Clyo-Kildare Road to Bird Road
Clyo-Stillwell Road to community center Mock Road to Stillwell-Clyo Road

Area of County
NW SE NW NW NW NW NW NE
NE
NE NE NE NE NE NE

Details / Justification

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

Paving this short segment will increase the connectivity of area roadways if done in combination with projects #3, #13, and #1.

Paving

Adding bike lanes to this road will connect existing county bike lanes to Old Augusta Road and Fort Howard Road (with implementation of #131 and #46), in addition to providing eventual access to SR 21 business and Downtown Rincon. It is a key segment of an integrated bicycle network, providing safe, direct transportation and recreation opportunities.

Marked Bicycle Lanes

This project is in the Capital Improvement Plan, and also provides access to potential outdoor recreation area & boat launch.

New Two-Lane Road

The Capital Improvement Plan calls for paving this segment of SpringfieldTusculum Road. Paving a relatively heavily-traveled dirt road will decrease maintenence expenses. Improved roadway connectivity in this area will aid in local and emergency vehicle movement.
Springfield-Egypt Road is a heavily used unpaved road. Paving it will improve mobility, safety, and maintenance expenditures.
SR 17 is the main street in the Egypt community, and adding a short sidewalk will help local residents safely access commercial destinations in the area. Eventually add pedestrian crosswalk and/or signal at EgyptArdmore Road to aid in local multimodal mobility. Locate the sidewalk on the northeast side of road.
Adding a sidewalk provides opportunity for area residents to access the highway and community facilities in Springfield. Implement in combination with projects # 72, #118, #117, and #115.
4th Street is a primary street in Clyo. Adding a sidewalk to it will provide a continuous connection between future pedestrian facilities on Marion Avenue and Stillwell-Clyo Road. Locate sidewalk on south side of 4th Street, and build in combination with project #36.
Extending Angus Exley Road to Bark Drive will cost-effectively aid in regional connectivity by utilizing existing roadways (coordinate with projects #19 and #20). Other potential connections in vicinity between SR 119 and Sister's Ferry Road can be undertaken if this extension is not feasible.
Pave in coordination with extending this road to Bark Road to aid in regional macro-connectivity. Other connections in vicinity b/w SR 119 and Sister's Ferry Road can be undertaken if extension is not feasible. Coordinate w # 18 and #20
Pave in coordination with extending this road to Angus-Exley to aid in regional macro-connectivity. Other connections in vicinity b/w SR 119 and Sister's Ferry Road can be undertaken if extension is not feasible. Coordinate w # 18 and #19
Local pedestrian connectivity, access to SR 119. Most effective in combination with projects #27, #34, and #17
This segment is part of a continuous E-W route in the northern part of the county. Improving the road will enhance local connectivity and emergency vehicle access. Would be most effective if improved at the same time as project #31.
Adding a sidewalk to this road will provides opportunity for area residents to access Clyo community center safely, and helps to address environmental justice issues in this low-income part of the county.
Paving this road will address maintenance issues and railroad crossing safety. A paved road would also accommodate a rural bike route (marked with signage only). Current Capital Improvement Plan project.

Paving Paving
New Two-Lane Road Paving Paving Paving Paving

Rural Route Signage Only

Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks One Side
Sidewalks One Side
Sidewalks One Side

Length 0.22 0.10 0.78 3.86 6.38 0.42 2.46 0.22
0.88
0.78 0.35 0.09 4.63 0.32 2.52

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$131,880

38

33

0

0

5

$105,000

33

0

21

0

13

$2,294,196

28

23

0

0

5

$2,357,526

28

23

0

0

5

$3,892,109

38

33

0

0

5

$182,430

43

10

0

23

6

$1,069,090

44

10

0

23

11

$96,885

32

0

0

23

5

$2,595,253

28

23

0

0

5

$475,922

28

23

0

0

5

$211,508

38

33

0

0

5

$39,310

42

10

0

23

5

$2,822,977

38

33

0

0

5

$140,384

32

0

0

23

5

$1,534,700

47

33

9

0

5

July 2008

E-2

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

25

Josiah Morgan - Sam Smart Connector

26 Josiah Morgan Road

27 Marion Avenue

Extents
Connect Josiah Morgan Road to Sam Smart Road (at ends) Clyo-Shawnee Road to JM/SS Connector (new)
SR 119 to ClyoKildare Road

28

Lorenzo Hurst / Elbert Arnsdorff

SR 21 to Old Dixie Highway

29 Sam Smart Road

Corinth Church Road to end

30

Shawnee Road, Segment SR 21 to Old

1

Dixie Highway

31

Shawnee Road, Segment 2

Old Dixie to Corinth Church Road

32 Sisters Ferry Road

SR 119 to Green Morgan School Road

33 SR 119, Segment 4 34 SR 119, Segment 5 35 SR 21, Segment 6

36 Stillwell-Clyo Road

37

4th Street / RinconStillwell Road

38

Azalea - Commercial Connector

SR 21 realign (Springfield) to SC State Line
Marion Avenue to Clyo-Kildare Road
Shawnee Egypt Road to 500 ft N of Shawnee Road
4th Street to Fair Street
Bunyan Kessler Road to Long Pond Road end of Azalea Avenue to Goshen Commercial Park Dr

Area of County
NE NE NE
NE NE NE NE
NE
NE NE NE NE SE SE

Details / Justification
Building a new road between Josiah Morgan Road and Sam Smart Road will cost-effectively aid in regional connectivity by utilizing existing roadways (coordinate with projects #26 and #29). It is an important local N-S link between SR 21 and SR 119 in northeastern Effingham County.

Roadway Improvement
New Two-Lane Road

Bicycle Improvement

Pedestrian Improvement

Paving this road (and also constructing project #25) will aid in emergency vehicle access, connectivity, and decreased maintenance needs.

Paving

A sidewalk is recommended for the eastern side of the street to aid in pedestrian safety and connectivity to SR 119. Several fatal vehicular incidents occurred in vicinity, and adding a sidewalk may reduce the chance of pedestrian involvement or give a vehicle an additional correction buffer.
This road forms is a segment of a direct E-W corridor north of 119, connecting Clyo to other northern communities and SR 21. Northern Effingham is lacking in paved roads, and this one should be a priority based on its usage and role in providing direct connections between places. Paving also decreased maintenance needs.
Paving this road (and also constructing project #25) will aid in emergency vehicle access, connectivity, and decreased maintenance needs.
Paving this street provides opportunity for area residents to access SR 21 and community facilities in Shawnee. Also provides pedestrian safety if #31 built as the road may experience slight increase in traffic.
This segment is part of a continuous E-W route in the northern part of the county. Improving the road will enhance local connectivity and emergency vehicle access. Would be most effective if improved at the same time as project #22.
Sister's Ferry is a relatively well-travelled dirt road that provides direct access to Clyo via non-highway means. It forms part of an identified E-W corridor between SR 119 and SR 17 (including other projects #28, # 5, and #6), potentially reducing some local traffic along SR 119 between Springfield and Guyton.
This winding segment of SR 119 lacks a shoulder and has experienced several fatal crashes. Adding an improved shoulder (to standards of other State Route segments in the County) will help with safety in the area. Additionally adding roadside reflectors will reduce incidents based on failure to navigate turns at night.
Adding a sidewalk to the east side of SR 119 will increase pedestrian safety and access to future businesses on SR 21 in vicinity of Clyo.
Providing a short sidewalk will enhance pedestrian access to commercial development and potential transit stops for local residents. Sidewalk is recommended on northeast side of SR 21. This project is located in an environmental justice area where people are more likely to visit destinations through some means other than driving themselves.
Stillwell-Clyo Road is a local direct travel route with fast -moving vehicles. Adding a sidewalk on the west side of this street will help Clyo residents safely access the community center on Fair Street.

Paving Paving
New Two-Lane Road
Paving
Shoulder Increase

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks One Side
Sidewalks One Side
Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks One Side

This is a key segment of an integrated bicycle network and would be most effective built in conjunction with projects #122 and #51.

Wide Shoulder

This parallel new road would provide a local alternative to SR 21 so that area businesses could be accessed from a low-speed rear access road rather than a high-speed high-volume arterial. It provides a terminus to a McCall Road eastern extension (#54) and increases area connectivity.

New Two-Lane Road

Length 1.33 0.99 0.69
2.29 1.32 1.05 1.12 2.37
11.65 0.68 0.32 0.58 0.24 0.26

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$3,946,049

28

23

0

0

5

$603,507

28

23

0

0

5

$301,809

42

10

0

23

5

$1,399,069

28

23

0

0

5

$802,749

38

33

0

0

5

$455,303

32

0

0

23

5

$3,301,933

28

23

0

0

5

$1,448,536

28

23

0

0

5

$8,853,386

59

30

16

0

14

$294,954

33

0

0

23

6

$139,426

33

0

0

23

6

$252,565

32

$179,804

23

0

0

23

5

0

16

0

8

$771,884

28

23

0

0

5

July 2008

E-3

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

Extents

39 Blue Jay Road

McCall Road to SandHill Road

40 Bunyan Kessler Road 41 Chimney Road

Rincon-Stillwell Road to Fort Howard Road
SR 21 to Old Augusta Road

42

Chimney - Busch Connector

43 Ebenezer Road

44

Effingham Parkway, Segment 2

45

Effingham Parkway (Chatham)

46

Fort Howard Road, Segment 1

47

Research Forest E-W connector

48 Goshen Road

Busch Road to SR 21
SR 21 to Waldhour Road (by powerlines)
Blue Jay Road to SR 119
Chatham County Line to vicinity of Monteith Road (Chatham)
Old Augusta Road to Rincon-Stillwell Road
McCall Road to Hodgeville Road (in DRI)
SR 21 to Effingham Parkway

49

Goshen/Hodgeville/Kolick Effingham

Helmey Roads

Parkway to SR 30

50 Long Bridge Road

Ebenezer Road to 4000 ft N of Wylly Road

Area of County
SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE

Details / Justification
This road is a primary E-W connector and should up upgraded to have better functionality. It can be initially widened by providing a center turning lane or otherwise adding occasional left and right turn bays in necessary places. Long-term, a four-lane road may be called for but is not currently justified by travel demand model volume projections. Blue Jay Road should also have bike lanes as it is a critical direct E-W bike link south of 119. In Capital Improvement Plan.
Adding a shoulder to Bunyon Kessler Road will help bicyclists travel north and south just outside of Rincon. It is a key segment of an integrated bicycle network and increases safety and connectivity.
Chimney Road has many residences located along it and is the first E-W connector between SR 21 and Old Augusta Road when entering Effingham County from the south. It is a critical link for adding bicycle facilities, which will enable children to get to school and parks more easily as well as generally increasing non-vehicular access to commercial destinations along SR 21.
Creating an official road in place of the existing parking lot will allow area residents to access the current traffic signal at Chimney Road and SR 21, reducing reliance on McCall Road until the intersection there can be upgraded.

Roadway Improvement Widen (2-->3 Lanes)
New Two-Lane Road

Bicycle Improvement Multi-Use Path
Wide Shoulder
Wide Shoulder

Pedestrian Improvement
Multi-Use Path

New sidewalks along Ebenezer Road are critical in safely connecting nearby residential areas to a county middle school and elementary school.

Sidewalks Both Sides

Building a primary N-S roadway in the south central part of Effingham County would support high-impact economic development opportunities, serve as a truck bypass (to SR 21), and greatly increase regional connectivity. Effingham Parkway is listed in both the STIP and Capital Improvement Plan.

New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Road

Lanes

Both Sides

This segment of Effingham Parkway (project #44) is located in Chatham County and is a necessary link in connecting the potential parkway to a southern terminus that can handle a high potential volume of vehicles.

New Four-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Road

Lanes

Both Sides

Putting bicycle facilities along Fort Howard Road will connect large residential subdivisions to the City of Rincon, SR 21, area schools, and existing county bike lanes. It is a key segment of an integrated bicycle network.
If Research Forest Industrial Park is developed, E-W connectivity between McCall Road and SR 21 (and optimally Hodgeville Road) is needed. Coordinate planning and construction of this road with the Research Forest Site Plan and eventually Effingham Pkwy. Construct as "Complete Street" with pedestrian and bike facilities.
Many residences are located in the vicinity of Goshen Road, which is part of the southernmost continuous E-W route in Effingham County. A bike lane is necessary to safely connect area residents to destinations along SR 21. Road improvements along Goshen Road are in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Many residences are located in the vicinity of this corridor, which is the southernmost continuous E-W route in Effingham County. Sidewalks are necessary to safely connect area residents to a number of schools as well as destinations along SR 21. Adding sidewalks to this corridor is a critical link in the pedestrian network.
Adding a sidewalk here would provide a pedestrian connection to a recreation area, as well as providing a facility on which children could walk to Ebenezer Middle and Elementary Schools.

New Two-Lane Road

Wide Shoulder
Marked Bicycle Lanes
Marked Bicycle Lanes

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks One Side

Length 9.36 0.91 2.13 0.07 3.28 7.85 1.76 2.30 2.65 2.82 3.75 1.60

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$24,337,341

80

20

26

23

11

$694,958

31

10

16

0

5

$1,616,248

31

10

16

0

5

$192,930

38

33

0

0

5

$2,850,329

48

10

0

23

11

$30,615,000 101

33

26

23

20

$0, Located

in Chatham

89

County

25

26

23

15

$1,747,880

37

10

16

0

11

$0, within

Research Forest

96

development

33

26

23

15

$2,965,412

72

10

26

23

14

$3,262,500

49

10

0

23

16

$696,535

33

0

0

23

10

July 2008

E-4

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

51 Long Pond Road

52

Low Ground - Blue Jay Connector

Extents
Ft Howard Road to Rincon Stillwell Road
end of Hodgeville Road (realign to be perpendicular to Blue Jay) to just E of Sagepoint Road

53 McCall Road

SR 21 to Blue Jay Road (Blanford Rd)

54 McCall Road Extension

SR 21 to AzaleaCommercial Connector (New)

55 Mock Road Extension

SR 21 to Stillwell Road (Springfield)

56 Old Augusta Road 57 Stephens Drive 58 Vale Royal Drive

SR 21 to Ft Howard Road
Goshen Road to McCall Road
McCall Road to Westwood Drive

59 Westwood Drive

Vale Royal Dr to SR 21

60

Wylly /High Bluff/ Tommy Long Bridge Road

Long Road

to End

61

Zipperer - Hodgeville Connector

Zipperer Paddock (end) to Hodgeville Road

62 Zipperer Road

Midland Road to end

Area of County
SE SE
SE
SE
SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE

Details / Justification
In tandem with projects #122, #46, and #11, bicycle facilities along this roadway segment allow Rincon residents to access schools, recreation areas, and existing/proposed bike lanes.

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

Wide Shoulder

This segment extends Hodgeville Road northwards and aids in macroconnectivity. A smaller project than the parallel Effingham Parkway, it can have more immediate benefit by being part of a direct route between Guyton and southern Effingham County/ Coordinate with projects #69, #66, #71, #63.

New Two-Lane Road

McCall Road is a fairly high traffic volume road with a number of residences, schools, and nearby recreational and commercial destinations. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are needed to safely connect neighborhoods to elementary school and park. McCall road has higher vehicular crash rate than other roads of identical functional class and the addition of wide shoulders and sidewalks can potentially help to make the road safer via mode substitution for short and mid-length trips.
Extending McCall road across SR 21 will enhance local connectivity and decrease reliance on SR 21. Having a signalized four-way intersection here can mitigate turning-related safety issues at intersection of McCall Road and SR 21. The junction of McCall Road and SR 21 was specifically mentioned by public safety officials in relation to school bus movement.
Constructing this roadway segment aids in regional connectivity, allowing local through-travelers to access 119 E from 21 N (or vice versa) without going through Springfield. If desired, add truck route restrictions to this project and enforce usage of SR 21 and SR 119 for area freight movement.
Paving this road will increased connectivity and reduced maintenance costs. It is also recommended to use Old Augusta Road as a scenic bicycle route. Construction has already begun on southern end. In Capital Improvement Plan.
A sidewalk is needed to provide a pedestrian connection between Goshen Road and McCall Road without having to utilize SR 21. This road helps areas residents to access a nearby park and elementary school.
This is a central road within a compact existing neighborhood. In combination with project #59, sidewalks along this street segment will help area residents safely access SR 21 commercial and employment opportunities, recreational areas, and a nearby school.
This is a central road within a compact existing neighborhood. In combination with project #58, sidewalks along this street segment will help area residents safely access SR 21 commercial and employment opportunities, recreational areas, and a nearby school.
A sidewalk on this road allows nearby residents to safely access both schools and recreational opportunities in the area without a vehicle.
This project is a general recommendation of primary E-W connectivity for IDA Research Forest so that it meshes better with surrounding areas and transportation network. The final alignment should be coordinated with Research Forest and project #47.
Paving this road will provide better area connectivity, particularly as vehicular volume marginally increases due to construction of project #61. Zipperer Road (and project #61) form a minor but direct E-W route in the growing southern part of Effingham County.

New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road
New Two-Lane Road Paving

Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks Both Sides Sidewalks Both Sides Sidewalks One Side

Length 0.97 1.73
3.38
0.18 1.17 4.87 0.58 0.29 0.46 2.34 1.03 1.10

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$734,282

33

10

16

0

8

$5,111,750

28

23

0

0

5

$5,506,551

64

10

21

23

10

$529,041

28

23

0

0

5

$3,456,430

28

23

0

0

5

$3,704,837

43

10

16

0

18

$253,069

38

10

0

23

5

$251,860

33

0

0

23

10

$396,545

38

10

0

23

5

$1,015,769

47

10

0

23

10

$3,048,800

28

23

0

0

5

$673,416

28

23

0

0

5

July 2008

E-5

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

63 Big T Road

64 Courthouse Road

65

Effingham Parkway, Segment 1

66

Existing private road Off Low Ground Road

67

HS Access (to Deerfield Road)

68

Little McCall Road north terminus realign

69

Low Ground - Shirley Connector

70 Low Ground Road

71

Magnolia - Big T Connector

72

Old Tusculum Road, Segment 1

73 Pleasant Acres Road

Extents
Courthouse Road to Shirley Road
SR 21 to SR 17
County Line to Blue Jay Road
Low Ground Road to LowGroundShirley Connector (new)
Pleasant Acre Road (straightened) to SR 119 between HS and MS north end of road to SR 119
Shirley Road to end of #66
McCall Road to Midland Road
Magnolia Street Ext to Courthouse Road (E of Indica Pl)
SR 21 to SR 119 realign (GDOT)
SR 21 to Little McCall Road (or powerline easement)

Area of County Central Central
SE
Central
Central Central Central Central Central Central Central

Details / Justification
Paving this road in combination with improvement projects #69, #66, #71, #52 will aid in macro-connectivity, and local and emergency vehicle movement. There are a number of more recent developments in the area that would benefit from being able to travel on roadways besides Midland Road and McCall Road which have relatively high crash rates in some locations.
Many neighborhoods are located along Courthouse Road and sidewalks would more safely connect residents to Springfield and parks. Currently, vehicles travel along this road in numbers and at speeds that make it unsafe for pedestrians to share the road with them.
Building a major N-S roadway in the south central part of Effingham County would support high-impact economic development opportunities, serve as a truck bypass (to SR 21), and greatly increase regional connectivity. Effingham Parkway is listed in both the STIP and Capital Improvement Plan.
Paving this road in combination with improvement projects #69, #63, #71, #52 will aid in macro-connectivity, and local and emergency vehicle movement. There are a number of more recent developments in the area that would benefit from being able to travel on roadways besides Midland Road and McCall Road which have relatively high crash rates in some locations.

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

Length

Paving

0.85

Rural Route Signage Only

Sidewalks Both Sides

New Four-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Road

Lanes

Both Sides

8.35 5.11

Paving

1.25

This roadway connection allows Effingham Middle and High Schools to be accessed from the rear, thus reducing pressure on SR 119.

New Two-Lane Road

0.71

Realign Little McCall Road at SR 119 to help mitigate intersection-related safety issues. Continue north to Powell St and provide access to Guyton residential area. Aids in local connectivity.
Constructing this road in combination with improvement projects #66, #63, #71, #52 will aid in macro-connectivity, and local and emergency vehicle movement. There are a number of more recent developments in the area that would benefit from being able to travel on roadways besides Midland Road and McCall Road which have relatively high crash rates in some locations.
Low Ground Road provides direct access to various community facilities and employment opportunities. Paving it will increase mobility in this central area of Effingham while reducing maintenance needs. In Capital Improvement Plan.
A new roadway segment in this location will aid connectivity by creating another access point to and from the City of Guyton that does not depend on SR 119. It will be especially beneficial for residences along Courthouse Road.
Adding sidewalks to this road will enable children to safely walk to local schools, and allow general pedestrian access to destinations along SR 21 and in downtown Springfield. This improvement would be most effective in combination with projects #7, #121, and #118.
Pleasant Acres Road provides a parallel route to 119, allowing rear access to the nearby high school and middle school. It should be straightened out where necessary in addition to paving to make travel along it safer. If built in conjunction with #67 and #75, there is no great need to pave the roadway segment between a potential extension to Pineora and Little McCall Road.

New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road
Paving New Two-Lane Road
Paving

0.30 1.25

5.07

Sidewalks Both Sides

3.42 0.18

3.70

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$520,214

28

23

0

0

5

$7,267,451

52

10

14

23

5

$34,385,000

89

25

26

23

15

$765,257

28

23

0

0

5

$2,087,548

33

23

0

0

10

$883,148

28

23

0

0

5

$3,713,380

28

23

0

0

5

$3,092,100

38

33

0

0

5

$10,131,722

28

23

0

0

5

$152,701

33

0

0

23

10

$2,254,683

48

33

0

0

15

July 2008

E-6

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

74 Pound Road / Floyd Road

75

Pound Road - Pleasant Acres Connector

Extents
Entire length of both roads (to SR 17)
End of Pound Road to Pleasant Acres Road in vicinity of powerline easement

76

Multi-Use Path along power line easement

Courthouse Road to SR 119

77 Rahn Station Road

SR 21 to McCall Road at Effingham Parkway

78 SR 119, Segment 2

SR 17 to SR 21

79 SR 17, Segment 3 80 Courthouse Road 81 Heidt Landing Road 82 Honey Ridge Road 83 Jabez Jones Road

Midland Road to Pound Road SR 17 to Stagecoach Avenue Central Avenue to existing rd connecting to SR 119
SR 17 to SR 119
SR 17 to SR 30

Area of County
Central

Details / Justification
Paving this road, if done in conjunction with project #75, would aid in local connectivity by providing a way for areas residents to go between Springfield and Pineora without traveling through the center of Guyton or adding traffic along SR 119.

Roadway Improvement
Paving

Bicycle Improvement

Pedestrian Improvement

Length 1.88

Central

Building a new road in this location would aid local and regional connectivity, reducing reliance on primary city roads for local traffic.

New Two-Lane Road

3.39

Central Central
Central
Central SW SW SW SW

This multi-use path project provides a scenic non-vehicular connection between a large residential area and nearby middle and high schools via a power line easement. The segment of SR 119 adjacent to the two schools has a spike in vehicular incidents at times corresponding to the start and end of the school day. Providing more non-automobile options to get to school will improve the safety of students, their parents, and other drivers utilizing SR 119 between Springfield and Guyton.
Rahn Station Road is one of four recommended E-W bike routes in the southern half of the county. A facility on this road will connect existing lanes along Ebenezer Road to new lanes along Effingham Parkway, providing a decent level of large-scale bicycle network connectivity in the area.
A center turning lane along with right turn bays along this length of road as well as bike/pedestrian accommodation (multi-use path) is recommended to improve traffic operations and provide greater accessiblity through mode choice. 2030 travel demand model runs do not show excessive congestion to warrant additional through-lanes by 2030. If local input still shows desire for eventual 4-lane road, however, a multiuse path must be placed far enough from road to preserve adequate future ROW. A multi-use path, rather than bike lanes and sidewalks, is recommended due to the probable use of the facility by schoolchildren. Widening recommendations are in the Capital Improvement Plan.
This sidewalk connects recommended sidewalk facilities along Midland Road to the multi-use path corridor (#89) in Pineora via SR 17. It is part of an integrated pedestrian network.
Extending Courthouse Road to the Stagecoach Avenue off of Sand Hill Road will provide greater regional connectivity, allowing better citizen access to a major recreation center.
Paving Heidt Landing Road will improve access to the river and decrease maintenance. If project #99 is completed concurrently, regional connectivity will improve and divert some vehicular traffic from Honey Ridge Road to this route which has fewer nearby residences.
Sidewalks are necessary along Honey Ridge Road to safely access the recreation area and better separate pedestrians (including neighborhood children) from adjacent truck movement as this road is currently used as a shortcut from SR 17 to SR 119 to avoid their intersection in Guyton.
Adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities will help neighborhood kids get to the middle school and high school without having to navigate local highways by car. This is a safety improvement as well as an integral part of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network.

Widen (2-->3 Lanes)
New Two-Lane Road Paving

Multi-Use Path Wide Shoulder
Multi-Use Path
Rural Route Signage Only
Marked Bicycle Lanes

Multi-Use Path
Multi-Use Path
Sidewalks One Side Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides Sidewalks Both Sides

2.76 3.60
5.02
0.66 2.34 2.11 2.25 1.04

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$1,148,891

38

33

0

0

5

$10,029,273

33

23

0

0

10

$2,755,187

69

10

26

23

10

$2,732,228

31

10

16

0

5

$13,045,946

92

30

26

23

14

$288,048

33

0

0

23

6

$8,073,151

56

23

0

23

10

$1,287,100

47

33

9

0

5

$1,960,266

52

10

0

23

15

$2,735,164

69

10

26

23

10

July 2008

E-7

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

Extents

84

Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector

US 80 to Jabez Jones Road

85 Meldrim Road

Central Avenue (Meldrim) to US 80

86 Midland Road

SR 30 to Rails-toTrails

87 Nease Road

SR 30 to St. Matthew's Road

88 Old River Road

US 80 to John Carter Road

89 Rails-to-Trails

Downtown Guyton to Meldrim @ 2nd Street

Richmond Drive

90

S Effingham High School woodland path

to back of HS (between baseball

and football field)

91

Sand Hill Road, Segment US 80 to

1

Stagefield Road

92

Sand Hill Road, Segment Stagefield Road

2

to Boggy Road

93

Sand Hill Road, Segment Boggy Road to

3

railbed

94 SR 119, Segment 1

SR 17 to Bulloch County Line

95 SR 17, Segment 1

US 80 to Blue Jay Road

Area of County
SW
SW
SW
SW SW SW SW SW SW SW
SW
SW

Details / Justification
Constructing a facility to connect Meldrim Road and Jabez Jones Road will greatly aid in regional connectivity and increased safety for area residents (especially in Meldrim). It will improve access to highways and schools, and reduce volumes at the intersections of SR 17 with US 80 and SR 30. Construct as a "Complete Street" with sidewalks and bike lanes in addition to automobile travel lanes. It may be necessary to signalize the intersection of US 80 with this project, based on traffic volume.

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Road

Lanes

Both Sides

This project provides greater opportunity for Meldrim residents to access the highway and community facilities by bike.

Wide Shoulder

Adding a pedestrian facilities along Midland Road will help people to access to future commercial nodes as well as subdivisions, schools, and recreational areas. It is an important piece of a large-scale pedestrian network that will be necessary as the county expands. Minimally, right-ofway should be preserved and sidewalks could be implemented on one side at a time, beginning with the northernmost section accommodating existing neighborhoods between Courthouse Road and SR 17.
This sidewalk will allow neighborhood children to safely walk down a neighborhood through-street to access the nearby high school and middle school.
Operational improvements and widening are needed along Old River Road, which connects to the only Interstate exit in Effingham County. Directional signage pointing from US 80 to Old River Road is also necessary.

Widen (2-->4 Lanes)

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks One Side

Prime opportunity for recreational and mobility-oriented multi-use path. Using old railbeds as low-impact trails is a method to preserve railroad right-of-way in event of future passenger train service to area.

Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path

Adding a path through the woods would connect neighborhoods to middle and high school without forcing teenagers to drive on state highways, thus improving roadway safety. Consider pursuing this as a local project, potentially utilizing a boardwalk to traverse any area wetlands.
Adding turn lanes will improve mobility and safe vehicular access to neighborhoods. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will help residents access schools and recreational areas, as well as potential commuter bus stops along US 80 and SR17. Segment in Capital Improvement Plan.
Adding turn lanes will improve mobility and safe vehicular access to neighborhoods. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will help residents access schools and recreational areas, as well as potential commuter bus stops along US 80 and SR17.
Adding turn lanes will improve mobility and safe vehicular access to neighborhoods. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will help residents access schools and recreational areas, as well as potential commuter bus stops along US 80 and SR17.
Adding an improved shoulder (to standards of other State Route segments in the County) will help with safety in the area. It will also allow recreational bicyclists to travel more easily between proposed multi-use paths and a bike route located in Bulloch County (119/Stilson Road) which eventually leads to Statesboro. A river recreation area is accessed from SR 119 at the county line.
Bike/pededestrian facilities are needed in the vicinity of schools and future activity centers. SR 17 is a current state bike route, but is not safe due to the lack of dedicated facilities providing a buffer between bicyclists and fast-moving automobiles. All major roads should have sidewalks on them, especially if they have community facilities located alongside them.

Widen (+ turn lane) Widen (+ turn lane)
Shoulder Increase

Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Wide Shoulder

Wide Shoulder

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Length 1.70 1.28 8.38 0.55 4.09 13.62 0.35 3.11 1.31 1.70 4.23
5.30

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$5,857,171

81

23

26

23

10

$975,904

31

10

16

0

5

$7,288,785

42

10

0

23

5

$240,296

43

10

0

23

10

$19,632,000

46

30

0

0

16

$8,170,616

83

10

26

23

20

$351,838

59

0

26

23

10

$8,167,631

86

20

26

23

14

$3,448,476

82

20

26

23

14

$1,293,239

24

0

16

0

9

$3,211,445

57

30

16

0

11

$10,175,562

74

10

26

23

11

July 2008

E-8

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Proj. ID

Facility Name

96 SR 17, Segment 2

97 SR 30, Segment 1
98 SR 30, Segment 2
Unknown road between 99 Honey Ridge Road and
Ogeechee River on 119
100 US 80, Segment 1

101 US 80, Segment 2

102 US 80, Segment 3

103 Anderson Street 104 Gracen Road

105

Guyton Rails-To-Trails (underway)

106 Magnolia Street

107

119/21 Realignment in Springfield

108

119/21 Realignment in Springfield

109 2nd Street

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Extents
Blue Jay Road to Midland Road
Nease Road to Kolic Helmey Road SR 17 to Nease Road
Entire length
SR 17 to Chatham County Line
SR 17 to Sandhill Road
Sandhill Road to Bulloch County Line SR 17 to Magnolia Street SR 119 to Summer Place
Downtown Guyton
SR 119 to Anderson Street
SR 119 at school driveway to Old Tusculsum Road

Area of County
SW
SW SW SW
SW
SW
SW Guyton Guyton Guyton Guyton Springfield

Details / Justification
The State Bike Route present along this road segment should be upgraded to include dedicated facilities due to volume and speed of adjacent traffic. Because a nearby rails-to-trails conversion (#89) may be costly or take some time to plan, SR 17 should be upgraded to accommodate multiple modes.
Many residents in area need to access middle and high schools. Busy road requires separate pedestrian facilities for safety. This is an important link in a continuous pedestrian network.
Many residents in area need to access middle and high schools. Busy road requires separate pedestrian facilities for safety. This is an important link in a continuous pedestrian network.
Paving this road will improve access to the river and decrease maintenance needs. If project #81 is completed concurrently, regional connectivity will improve and divert some vehicular traffic from Honey Ridge Road to this route which has fewer nearby residences.
Four state bike routes utilize this stretch of road and should have dedicated facilities for safety. Additionally, all arterials should have sidewalks as they provide direction connections between many origins and destinations.
Continuation of widening from Chatham County, terminate at Sand Hill Road (or Old River Road). State bike route. provide facilities (lanes/sidewalks) on all of US 80 within Effingham. Four state bike routes utilize this stretch of road and should have dedicated facilities for safety. All arterials should have sidewalks.
Arterials should have sidewalks for multi-modal safety and accessibility. Additionally, facilities for a long distance state bike route are needed as the route continues into Bulloch County to connect with their greenway plan.
This is a key segment of integrated pedestrian network in Guyton, and connects an elementary school to a park, and local residents to both.
This is a key segment of integrated pedestrian network in Guyton, and connects an elementary school to a park, and local residents to both.
This project is already under construction, and provides an exciting recreational opportunity in the middle of the City of Guyton. Expanded southward into Meldrim, this rails-to-trails project also constitutes a viable bicycle commuter route.
This is a key segment of integrated pedestrian network in Guyton, and safely connects residents to multiple parks as well as area business located along SR 119.
GDOT has finished the design phase for this project, which will lead to more optimal truck movement in the area. However, sidewalks should be added to this roadway segment to connect west and east Springfield to each other, as well as a nearby school. In STIP.

Roadway Improvement
Paving Widen (2-->4 Lanes)
New Two-Lane Road

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement

Marked Bicycle Lanes

Sidewalks Both Sides

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

Both Sides

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks Both Sides

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides

Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path

Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides

Laurel Street to Old Dixie Highway

Springfield

GDOT has finished the design phase for this project, which will lead to more optimal truck movement in the area. In STIP.

New Two-Lane Road

Ash Street to RR Avenue

Springfield

One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.

Sidewalks Both Sides

Length 4.96 3.06 2.12 3.32 0.78
4.48
1.09 0.29 0.45 0.74 0.85 0.52 0.34 0.34

Estimated Cost

Score

$5,206,349

37

$2,666,321

39

$4,063,682

70

$2,025,494

28

$1,494,642

65

$21,487,285

87

$1,775,631

60

$251,197

37

$388,500

37

$0, Currently

under

63

construction

$742,130

37

$450,065

61

$0, Currently

under

34

construction

$294,224

32

Road 10 10 10 23 10
30
10 0 0 0 0 23 23 0

Bike Ped General

21

0

6

0

23

6

26

23

11

0

0

5

26

23

6

26

23

9

21

23

6

0

23

10

0

23

10

26

23

10

0

23

10

0

23

11

0

0

11

0

23

5

July 2008

E-9

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Proj. ID

Facility Name

110 3rd Street

111

Ash Street / Ash Street Extension

112 E Madison Street

113 Early Street

114 Railroad Avenue

115 S Laurel Street

116

Springfield Elementary School Drive Extension

117 SR 119, Segment 3

118 SR 21, Segment 4

119 Standard Lane 120 Stillwell Road

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Extents
SR 21 to S Laurel Street
S Laurel Street to Early Street
Laurel Street to N Ash Street
Laurel Street to "Springfield ES Drive Ext" between Ash Street and Lake Dr
W 2nd Street to W 3rd Street
SR 21 to SR 119/SR 21 Realign
Early Street to Spring ES driveway entrance
SR 21 to Laurel St
SR 21@ S Laurel Street to SR 119/SR 21 Realign
SR 119 to Old Tusculum Road
Laurel Street to Ash Street

Area of County Springfield Springfield Springfield
Springfield
Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield

Details / Justification
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide N-S city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide N-S city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide N-S city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
Extending Ash St northward (to the left side of the Armory) to Early Street will provide a direct connection between homes and residences in the area and downtown Springfield. This is an essential link in creating a more connected street network on the northern side of town and reducing dependency on automobiles for local trips.
This recommended multi-use path along this roadway segment provides safe, direct multi-modal access to Downtown Springfield, and is a continuation of project #78. It also accommodates a State Bike Route.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide N-S city street connectivity. This segment provides direct access to the primary County Hospital and Veterans Park. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multimodal upgrades.
This roadway segment is recommended to include sidewalks as it will provide direct pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods, a school, hospital, and park.
One of several streets highlighted in Springfield to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Springfield, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.

Roadway Improvement
New Two-Lane Road

Bicycle Improvement
Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path

Pedestrian Improvement Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks One Side
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Multi-Use Path
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides
Sidewalks Both Sides

Length 0.63 1.97 0.28 0.35 0.07 2.19 0.33 0.43 2.65 0.91 0.36

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$547,672

32

0

0

23

5

$1,714,552

37

0

0

23

10

$245,859

37

0

0

23

10

$303,452

32

0

0

23

5

$29,181

32

0

0

23

5

$4,213,570

64

0

26

23

11

$1,138,500

60

23

0

23

10

$477,864

61

0

26

23

9

$2,309,836

48

10

0

23

11

$789,739

47

10

0

23

10

$311,605

32

0

0

23

5

July 2008

E-10

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Proj. ID

Facility Name

Extents

121 W 1st Street Extension

SR 21 to SR 119

122

4th Street / Rincon Stillwell Road

SR 21 to Bunyan Kessler Road

123

Blue Jay / Blandford Road

SR 21 to McCall Road

124

Carolina Avenuenue (South)

W 17th Street to N Ridge Drive

125 E 9th Street (Rincon)

SR 21 to Lexington Avenue

126

Fort Howard Road, Segment 2

SR 21 to Old Augusta Road

127

Fort Howard Road, Segment 3

128 Lexington Avenuenue

129 North Ridge Road

130

Richland Avenuenue Extension

131 Rincon Stillwell Road

132

Smith Avenuenue Extension

SR 21 to McCall Road
9th Street to Madison Oaks Drive (Rincon) end of current road to Carolina Avenue extension parallel to RR Tracks (Rincon) 10th Street (Rincon) to Fort Howard Road
Ft Howard Road to Ebenezer Road
Smith Avenue to E 4th Street (Rincon)

Area of County Springfield Rincon Rincon Rincon Rincon
Rincon
Rincon Rincon

Details / Justification
A sidewalk is needed in front of the hospital and Veteran's Park to provide connectivity between them and downtown Springfield's commericial areas, neighborhoods, and community facilities.
Key segment of integrated bicycle/pedestrian network, connects residential neighborhoods with downtown Rincon and Elementary School
Blue Jay is the primary E-W connector south of SR 119 and should have dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Occasional right turn lanes will improve traffic flow, though additional vehicular through-lanes are not justified by the study's travel demand model at this time.
This project provides rear access to Lowe's and other development along SR 21 from residential Rincon, reducing the need for local traffic to utilize arterials. It was specifically requested by the Rincon planning department.
One of several streets highlighted in Rincon to provide E-W city street connectivity. Ultimately a block-by-block local pedestrian and bicycle plan should be developed by the City of Rincon, but highlighted improvements serve as a preliminary guide to potential multi-modal upgrades.
Roadway operations and access to residential development would be improved with turn lanes. This road is the primary means of access to Rincon and SR 21 for many residents, and dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities are recommended to give all residents transportation choice. Fort Howard Road is also a key segment of an integrated bicycle network to the east of Rincon
Ft Howard is an important E-W connector and should be continued west to provide direct access to employment center. Develop road (and RR crossing) as part of DRI. Construct "Complete Street" with bike lanes and sidewalks. Eventually this and parallel roads should connect to future Effingham Parkway.
Lexington Avenuenue is a key segment of an integrated pedestrian network. It connects residential areas with downtown Rincon, a ballpark, and an elementary school.

Rincon

Needed for continuation of connectivity (project #124) and providing local alternative to SR 21.

Rincon Rincon Rincon

Parallel/Rear access to development along SR 21 from residential Rincon. Requested by Rincon city planner. Increases connectivity, mobility, and access.
Part of scenic route system, key segment of bicycle network, provides access from residential areas in Rincon to Ebenezer Middle School and High School and ind park. Build in conjunction with Ft Howard, Rincon Stillwell, and 4th St bicycle facilities.
This segment is a continuation of Rincon's residential grid system. At a minimum, preserve right-of-way for transportation improvement as a part of new development.

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Improvement Improvement Improvement

Sidewalks Both Sides

Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Lanes

One Side

Occasional Right Turn Lanes

Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path

New Two-Lane Road

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks One Side

Sidewalks Both Sides

Widen (+ turn Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

lane)

Lanes

Both Sides

New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks -

Road

Lanes

Both Sides

Sidewalks Both Sides

New Two-Lane Road

New Two-Lane Road
Marked Bicycle Lanes
New Two-Lane Road

Length 0.39 1.49 1.89 0.69 0.18
2.51
1.29 1.44 0.23 0.77 1.40 0.20

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$335,499

37

0

0

23

10

$2,208,787

75

10

26

23

13

$3,412,727

89

20

26

23

16

$2,381,201

75

23

21

23

5

$159,729

37

0

0

23

10

$6,517,039

99

30

26

23

16

$0, build as part of DRI

81

23

26

23

6

$1,255,250

52

10

0

23

15

$694,864

33

23

0

0

10

$2,274,897

48

33

0

0

15

$1,475,082

42

0

21

0

18

$579,241

33

23

0

0

10

July 2008

E-11

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Proj. ID

Facility Name

133 SR 21, Segment 1

134 SR 21, Segment 2 135 SR 21, Segment 3

APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements, Continued

Extents
Old Augusta to Ft Howard Road
Ft Howard Road to 4th Street (Rincon) 4th St (Rincon) to Laurel St (Springfield)

Area of County
Rincon
Rincon Rincon

Details / Justification
Widening to 6 lanes (from I-95 through the City of Rincon) is justified by this study's travel demand model to provide adequate automobile capacity for Level of Service C or above in 2030, based on current travel behavior. However, any widening of SR 21 within Rincon city limits would negatively impact the existing urban character and future corridor revitalization efforts. Thus, Fort Howard Road is recommended as the northernmost potential terminus of this roadway widening project. Based on the preliminary environmental review, there are also a number of properties and structures along SR 21 between Goshen Road and Fort Howard Road in unincorporated Effingham that would be potentially impacted by a roadway widening. First implementing appropriate ITS and operational improvements (access management, channelized right turn lanes) on SR 21 in Chatham County could delay the need for widening of SR 21 north of the Effingham/Chatham County Line or Goshen Road. Regardless of improvements implemented for automobile movement, safe pedestrian and bicycle access is necessary along this corridor. Due to high adjacent traffic volume and speeds, a multi-use path on each side of SR-21 is recommended to separate walkers and bicyclists from cars.
Continue to implement multi-use paths along SR 21 to provide multimodal access to school, downtown, residential areas. SR 21 is a key segment of an integrated multimodal network.
Construct dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities along SR 21 to provide a direct multi-modal connection between Rincon and Springfield. This roadway segment is a proposed State Bike Route and also provides access to employment centers at Ebenezer Road and SR 21 as well as schools and recreational opportunities.

Roadway Improvement
Widen (4-->6 Lanes)

Bicycle Improvement
Multi-Use Path
Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes

Pedestrian Improvement
Multi-Use Path
Multi-Use Path Sidewalks Both Sides

Length 3.60
1.37 6.01

Estimated Cost

Score Road Bike Ped General

$19,404,000

99

30

26

23

16

$1,508,809

79

10

26

23

16

$11,539,200

79

10

26

23

16

July 2008

E-12

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Bike

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

1

Boaen Road

Paving

38

2

Boaen Road Extension

New TwoLane Road

28

3

Effingham Parkway Northeastern

New TwoLane Road

43

4

Griffin Lake Road Extension

New TwoLane Road

28

5

Morgan Road

Paving

38

6

Morgan Road Extension

7

Old Tusculum Road, Segment 2

8

Porter Road

9

Powell Road Extension

New Two- Rural Route Lane Road Signage Only

42

Sidewalks Both Sides

33

New TwoLane Road

28

New TwoLane Road

Sidewalks One Side

61

10

Sawmill Drive

Paving

38

11

Long Bridge Road

Marked Bicycle Lanes

33

12

Shearwood Road

New TwoLane Road

28

13

Springfield-Tusculum Road

Paving

28

14

Springfield-Egypt Road

Paving

15

SR 17, Segment 4

16

SR 21, Segment 5

17

4th Street

18

Angus Exley Road Extension

19

Angus Exley Road

New TwoLane Road
Paving

38

Sidewalks One Side

43

Sidewalks One Side

44

Sidewalks One Side

32

28

28

33

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

33

0

0

10

23

0

0

5

33

0

0

5

23

9

0

10

0

0

23

10

23

0

0

5

33

0

23

5

33

0

0

5

0

21

0

13

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

33

0

0

5

10

0

23

6

10

0

23

11

0

0

23

5

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

5

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

10 2.5

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

July 2008

E-13

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

20

Bark Drive

Paving

38

21

Clyo-Kildare Road

Sidewalks One Side

42

22

Corinth Church Road

Paving

38

23

Fair Street

Sidewalks One Side

32

24

Indigo Road

Paving

Rural Route Signage Only

47

25

Josiah Morgan - Sam Smart Connector

New TwoLane Road

28

26

Josiah Morgan Road

Paving

28

27

Marion Ave

28

Lorenzo Hurst / Elbert Arnsdorff

Paving

Sidewalks One Side

42

28

29

Sam Smart Road

Paving

38

30

Shawnee Road, Segment 1

31

Shawnee Road, Segment 2

New TwoLane Road

Sidewalks One Side

32

28

32

Sisters Ferry Road

Paving

28

33

SR 119, Segment 4

Shoulder Increase

Wide Shoulder

59

34

SR 119, Segment 5

Sidewalks One Side

33

35

SR 21, Segment 6

Sidewalks One Side

33

36

Stillwell-Clyo Road

Sidewalks One Side

32

37

4th Street / Rincon-Stillwell Road

Wide Shoulder

23

38

Azalea - Commercial Connector

New TwoLane Road

28

39

Blue Jay Road

Widen (2->3 Lanes)

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

80

33

0

0

5

10

0

23

5

33

0

0

5

0

0

23

5

33

9

0

5

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

10

0

23

5

23

0

0

5

33

0

0

5

0

0

23

5

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

30

16

0

14

0

0

23

6

0

0

23

6

0

0

23

5

0

16

0

8

23

0

0

5

20

26

23

11

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

10 2.5 1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

2.5

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

5

5

0

1.3

July 2008

E-14

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

40

Bunyan Kessler Road

Wide Shoulder

31

10

16

0

5

41

Chimney Road

Wide Shoulder

31

10

16

0

5

42

Chimney - Busch Connector

New TwoLane Road

38

33

0

0

5

43

Ebenezer Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

48

10

0

23

11

44

Effingham Parkway, Segment 2

New Two-

Marked

Sidewalks -

Lane Road Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

101

33

26

23

20

45

Effingham Parkway (Chatham)

New FourLane Road

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

89

25

26

23

15

46

Fort Howard Road, Segment 1

Wide Shoulder

37

10

16

0

11

47

Research Forest E-W connector

New Two-

Marked

Sidewalks -

Lane Road Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

96

33

26

23

15

48

Goshen Road

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

72

10

26

23

14

49

Goshen/Hodgeville/Kolick Helmey Roads

Sidewalks Both Sides

49

10

0

23

16

50

Long Bridge Road

Sidewalks One Side

33

0

0

23

10

51

Long Pond Road

Wide Shoulder

33

10

16

0

8

52

Low Ground - Blue Jay Connector

New TwoLane Road

28

23

0

0

5

53

McCall Road

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks Both Sides

64

10

21

23

10

54

McCall Road Extension

New TwoLane Road

28

23

0

0

5

55

Mock Road Extension

New TwoLane Road

28

23

0

0

5

56

Old Augusta Road

Wide Shoulder

43

10

16

0

18

57

Stephens Drive

Sidewalks One Side

38

10

0

23

5

58

Vale Royal Drive

Sidewalks Both Sides

33

0

0

23

10

59

Westwood Drive

Sidewalks -

38

10

0

23

5

July 2008

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

10

10

0

0

5 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

10

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

5

5

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

5

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

7.5

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

5

10

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

2.5

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

10

5

2.5

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

5

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

5

0

0

E-15

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

Both Sides

60

Wylly /High Bluff/ Tommy Long Road

61

Zipperer - Hodgeville Connector

62

Zipperer Road

New TwoLane Road
Paving

Sidewalks One Side

47

28

28

63

Big T Road

Paving

28

64

Courthouse Road

Rural Route Sidewalks Signage Only Both Sides

52

65

Effingham Parkway, Segment 1

New Four-

Marked

Sidewalks -

Lane Road Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

89

66

Existing private road Off Low Ground Road

Paving

28

67

HS Access (to Deerfield Road)

New TwoLane Road

33

68

Little McCall Road north terminus realign

New TwoLane Road

28

69

Low Ground - Shirley Connector

New TwoLane Road

28

70

Low Ground Road

Paving

38

71

Magnolia - Big T Connector

72

Old Tusculum Road, Segment 1

New TwoLane Road

28

Sidewalks Both Sides

33

73

Pleasant Acres Road

Paving

48

74

Pound Road / Floyd Road

Paving

38

75

Pound Road - Pleasant Acres Connector

New TwoLane Road

33

76

Multi-Use Path along power line easement

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

69

77

Rahn Station Road

Wide Shoulder

31

78

SR 119, Segment 2

Widen (2->3 Lanes)

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

92

10

0

23

10

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

10

14

23

5

25

26

23

15

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

10

23

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

33

0

0

5

23

0

0

5

0

0

23

10

33

0

0

15

33

0

0

5

23

0

0

10

10

26

23

10

10

16

0

5

30

26

23

14

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 0 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

5

0

0

5 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

10

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

5

10

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10 2.5 1.3

July 2008

E-16

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

79

SR 17, Segment 3

80

Courthouse Road

81

Heidt Landing Road

82

Honey Ridge Road

83

Jabez Jones Road

84

Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector

85

Meldrim Road

86

Midland Road

87

Nease Road

88

Old River Road

89

Rails-to-Trails

90

S Effingham High School woodland path

91

Sand Hill Road, Segment 1

92

Sand Hill Road, Segment 2

93

Sand Hill Road, Segment 3

94

SR 119, Segment 1

95

SR 17, Segment 1

96

SR 17, Segment 2

97

SR 30, Segment 1

98

SR 30, Segment 2

Sidewalks One Side

33

New TwoLane Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

56

Paving

Rural Route Signage Only

47

Sidewalks Both Sides

52

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

69

New Two-

Marked

Sidewalks -

Lane Road Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

81

Wide Shoulder

31

Sidewalks Both Sides

42

Sidewalks One Side

43

Widen (2->4 Lanes)

46

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

83

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

59

Widen (+ turn lane)

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

86

Widen (+ turn lane)

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

82

Wide Shoulder

24

Shoulder Increase

Wide Shoulder

57

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

74

Marked Bicycle Lanes

37

Sidewalks Both Sides

39

Marked

Sidewalks -

70

0

0

23

6

23

0

23

10

33

9

0

5

10

0

23

15

10

26

23

10

23

26

23

10

10

16

0

5

10

0

23

5

10

0

23

10

30

0

0

16

10

26

23

20

0

26

23

10

20

26

23

14

20

26

23

14

0

16

0

9

30

16

0

11

10

26

23

11

10

21

0

6

10

0

23

6

10

26

23

11

July 2008

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 7.5 4 5 10 6 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

5

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

5

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 4 10 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

10

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

10

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

10 2.5 1.3

0 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10 2.5 1.3

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

2.5 1.3

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

10

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

10

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

0

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

10

0

1.3

E-17

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

99

Unknown road in vicinity of Honey Ridge Road

Paving

28

100 US 80, Segment 1

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

65

101 US 80, Segment 2

Widen (2--

Marked

Sidewalks -

>4 Lanes) Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

87

102 US 80, Segment 3

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks Both Sides

60

103 Anderson Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

104 Gracen Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

105

Guyton Rails-To-Trails (underway)

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

63

106 Magnolia Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

107

119/21 Realignment in Springfield

New TwoLane Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

61

108

119/21 Realignment in Springfield

New TwoLane Road

34

109 2nd Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

32

110 3rd Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

32

111

Ash Street / Ash Street Extension

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

112 E Madison Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

113 Early Street

Sidewalks Both Sides

32

114 Railroad Ave

Sidewalks One Side

32

115 S Laurel Street

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

64

116

Springfield Elementary School Drive Extension

New TwoLane Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

60

117 SR 119, Segment 3

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

61

23

0

0

5

10

26

23

6

30

26

23

9

10

21

23

6

0

0

23

10

0

0

23

10

0

26

23

10

0

0

23

10

23

0

23

11

23

0

0

11

0

0

23

5

0

0

23

5

0

0

23

10

0

0

23

10

0

0

23

5

0

0

23

5

0

26

23

11

23

0

23

10

0

26

23

9

July 2008

0 7.5 4 5 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

5

2.5 1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 0 5 5 5 3 5

5

0

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

10

0

1.3

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

10

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

5

2.5 1.3

E-18

Location

Improvement Type

Detailed Evaluation Scoring

Score by Category

Roadway

Bike

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Pedestrian

General

Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service Safety - Hotpsot Economic Development (ED) Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility Character - Multi-Use Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Public Transit Safety - dedicated facility ED - MM, In City or Community Feedback from Stakeholders or Public Local Benefit, Proximity to Community Facilities Character - Scenic Located on arterial or collector

Proj ID

Facility Name

Roadway

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Total Score

Road Bike Ped General

118 SR 21, Segment 4

Sidewalks Both Sides

48

119 Standard Lane

Sidewalks Both Sides

47

120 Stillwell Road

Sidewalks Both Sides

32

121 W 1st Street Extension

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

122

4th Street / Rincon Stillwell Road

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes One Side

75

123 Blue Jay / Blandford Road

Occasional Right Turn
Lanes

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

89

124 Carolina Avenue (South)

New TwoLane Road

Wide Shoulder

Sidewalks One Side

75

125 E 9th Street (Rincon)

Sidewalks Both Sides

37

126

Fort Howard Road, Segment 2

Widen (+ turn lane)

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

99

127

Fort Howard Road, Segment 3

New Two-

Marked

Sidewalks -

Lane Road Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

81

128 Lexington Avenue

Sidewalks Both Sides

52

129 North Ridge Road

New TwoLane Road

33

130 Richland Avenue Extension

New TwoLane Road

48

131 Rincon Stillwell Road

Marked Bicycle Lanes

42

132 Smith Avenue Extension

New TwoLane Road

33

133 SR 21, Segment 1

Widen (4->6 Lanes)

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

99

134 SR 21, Segment 2

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path

79

135 SR 21, Segment 3

Marked

Sidewalks -

Bicycle Lanes Both Sides

79

10

0

23

11

10

0

23

10

0

0

23

5

0

0

23

10

10

26

23

13

20

26

23

16

23

21

23

5

0

0

23

10

30

26

23

16

23

26

23

6

10

0

23

15

23

0

0

10

33

0

0

15

0

21

0

18

23

0

0

10

30

26

23

16

10

26

23

16

10

26

23

16

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

10 2.5

0

0 0 4 10 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

5

10

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 0 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

5

0

0

0 0 00 00 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

0

10

0

0

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

10

5

0

1.3

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

0

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0

0

0 00553 5

5

4

5

10

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

5

5

0

0

5 7.5 4 0 10 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

5

10

0

0

0 0 00 00 5

5

3 2.5 5 0 0 0 0 0

0

4

5

10 2.5

0

5 7.5 4 0 0 6 0

0

0

0 00000 0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0 0 4 10 10 6 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

10

5

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

5

10

0

1.3

0 0 0 0 10 0 5

5

3 2.5 5 5 5 5 3 5

5

4

5

10

0

1.3

July 2008

E-19

Map ID

Location

200

ITS of signalized intersections along SR 21

201

SR 119 @ Marion Ave / Sister's Ferry

202

Ft Howard Rd @ Old Augusta Rd

203

Kollick-Hamley Rd @ SR 30, Midland Rd @ SR 30

204

SR 21 @ Ebenezer / Rahn Station

206 SR 21 @ McCall Rd

209

Courthouse Rd @ Little McCall Rd

210

Courthouse Rd @ McCall Rd @ SR 21

211

Rahn Station Rd @ McCall Rd

212

Midland Rd @ Blue Jay Rd

213 Old River Rd @ US 80

215 SR 119 @ SR 21 216 SR 21 @ 4th St 217 SR 21 @ 9th St

List of Intersection Improvements

Area of County
SE
NE
SE SE SE SE Central
Central
Central SW SW
Springfield Rincon Rincon

Cost

Type of Improvement / Justification

$50,000
$20,000
$0, Part of Old Augusta Road
project $2,880,000
$11,000 $145,000
$22,000
$0, in CIP $0, part of Effingham Pkwy
project $120,000
$3,025,000
$750,000 $145,000 $0, in STIP

Improve operations, increase effective capacity In STIP. Add rumble strips and roadway curvature signs to Marion Ave approaching train tracks. On SR 21 N approaching Clyo, add reflectors, painted right-turn arrow, and signage announcing Clyo's location to improve safety.
Realignment: Straighten out Old Augusta so the Ft Howard "T"'s into it.
In CIP. Realign intersections to improve safety and operations along intercounty corridor In STIP. Add remaining crosswalks and pedestrian signals to complete intersection. Signalization - safety, coordination + ped crossing. In STIP. Add rumble strips to intersection approaches, undertake study to determine whether signalization or roundabout is needed. Add pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks. In CIP. Add signal to SR 21 to allow cross- street traffic to safely traverse intersection. Add rumble strips on McCall Road and Courthouse Road to warn of approach to intersection. Long-term safety-related improvements to be implemented with construction of potential Effingham Pkwy
Safety-related signalization
Realign Old River Road to meet US 80 at perpendicular angle for safety and operational purposes. Add traffic signal and pedestrian accomodations. Add signage directing traffic to I-16. Right-turn channelization from SR 119 EB to SR 21 SB to better accommodate emergency vehicles. Add traffic signal with crosswalks and pedestrian countdown timers to this intersection for safety purposes. In STIP. Add traffic signal with crosswalks and pedestrian countdown timers to this intersection for safety purposes.

July 2008

Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County
APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements

Map ID

Location

300

no physical facilities

301 Eden P&R

302

Rincon - P&R North

303

Rincon - P&R South

Recommended Transit Improvements

Extent
-
Just south of intersection of US 80 and Old River Rd Near intersection of Ebenezer Rd and SR 21 Near intersection of Ft Howard Rd and SR 21

Type
Demand-Response / Paratransit
Park and Ride lot - commuter
Park and Ride lot or pick-up location - commuter
Park and Ride lot - commuter

Cost

Type of Improvement / Justification

$ 40,000

Locations identified that may have greater transit needs. Run through CGRDC

variable

Near Logisticenter, potential rails-to-trails facility, highway access, and population center

variable

Near new manufacturing plant, along key commuter route. Also connects to county bike lanes along Ebenezer Rd

variable

Can share P&R facility with Walmart lot, or have standalone facility

Rural Route Network Note: These routes are in addition to those listed in the previous multi-modal project List

Map ID

Location

Corinth Church Road / Sam Smart Road / 500 Morgan Road 501 Morgan Road/ Lorenzo Hurst Road 502 Springfield Road 503 Stillwell-Clyo Road / Clyo-Kildare Road 504 Old Louisville Road
Shearwood Road / Egypt-Ardmore Road / 505 Ardmore-Oaky Road 506 SR 17, Segment 4 507 Hodgeville Rd
Old Tusculum Road/ Spring-Tusculum Road 508 /Porter Road 600 Ogeechee River

Type
Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Rural Bicycle Route Signage Only Blueway - Kayak Trail

Length (miles)
6.04 9.61 13.66 22.48 11.65
10.55 10.28 3.17
8.86 47.30

E-20