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