Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County FINAL REPORT July 2008 Prepared for: by Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................1-1 Overview of Planning Area.....................................................................................................................1-1 Guyton ............................................................................................................................................ 1-2 Rincon ............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Springfield ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Relationship of Effingham County to the Coastal Region .............................................................. 1-3 Plans and Agencies................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Planning Agencies and Regions ...................................................................................................... 1-3 Existing Plans Review ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 2. Goals and Objectives............................................................................................ 2-1 Vision ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Transportation Goals .............................................................................................................................2-2 Transportation Planning................................................................................................................. 2-2 Accessibility and mobility ............................................................................................................... 2-2 Network connectivity ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Public transportation ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Aesthetics and scenic corridors ...................................................................................................... 2-2 Land Use and Related Goals ..................................................................................................................2-3 General policies............................................................................................................................... 2-3 Existing infrastructure and services ............................................................................................... 2-3 3. Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 3-1 Outreach effort and description ........................................................................................................... 3-1 Study Website ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Public Meetings and Surveys .......................................................................................................... 3-2 Issues and Opportunities Identified .....................................................................................................3-2 Stakeholder Interviews................................................................................................................... 3-2 Public Consultation.........................................................................................................................3-3 Previous findings from the 2007 Comprehensive Plan...................................................................3-3 4. Planning Context..................................................................................................4-1 Built and Natural Environment ............................................................................................................. 4-1 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Activity Centers and Community Facilities .....................................................................................4-3 Future Zoning and Land Use...........................................................................................................4-5 Historic Sites .................................................................................................................................. 4-8 Wetlands........................................................................................................................................ 4-8 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Table of Contents Residents and Businesses .....................................................................................................................4-11 Population .....................................................................................................................................4-11 Employment ................................................................................................................................. 4-12 Environmental Justice Communities ............................................................................................ 4-14 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis ............................................................ 5-1 Roadway ................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Functional Classification ................................................................................................................. 5-1 Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 5-5 Level of Service ...............................................................................................................................5-9 Road Surface and Bridge Conditions ............................................................................................. 5-11 Intersections and Operations ........................................................................................................5-15 Parking...........................................................................................................................................5-17 Emergency Vehicles and Evacuation Routes .................................................................................5-17 Summary of Roadway Needs........................................................................................................ 5-18 Freight Movement ............................................................................................................................... 5-18 Truck ............................................................................................................................................. 5-19 Rail ................................................................................................................................................5-20 Summary of Freight Needs ........................................................................................................... 5-23 Pedestrian and Bicycle .........................................................................................................................5-23 Existing Pedestrian Conditions..................................................................................................... 5-24 Summary of Pedestrian Needs ..................................................................................................... 5-24 Existing Conditions for Bicycle Transportation ............................................................................ 5-27 Summary of Bicycle Needs............................................................................................................5-28 Transit ...................................................................................................................................................5-30 Commuter Routes and Park and Ride Lots...................................................................................5-30 Paratransit ....................................................................................................................................5-30 Potential for Commuter or Regional Rail Service ......................................................................... 5-31 Present Regional Transit Planning and Programming Efforts ..................................................... 5-31 Summary of Transit Needs ........................................................................................................... 5-31 6. Recommended Projects and Policies..................................................................6-1 Roadway Recommendations................................................................................................................. 6-1 Bicycle Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 6-2 Pedestrian Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 6-6 Transit Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 6-8 Project Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 6-10 Evaluation and Prioritization............................................................................................................... 6-12 Prioritized Project Lists by Mode ........................................................................................................ 6-15 Recommended Policies...................................................................................................................... 6-36 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Table of Contents Multi-Modal Connectivity, Mobility, and Access...........................................................................6-36 Travel Demand Management (TDM) ............................................................................................6-36 Access Management .....................................................................................................................6-37 Parking .......................................................................................................................................... 6-37 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) .....................................................................................6-38 Urban Design, Planning, and Zoning Tools ...................................................................................6-39 7. Financial Resources.............................................................................................. 7-1 Federal Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 State Funding Sources ...........................................................................................................................7-4 Local Funding Sources ...........................................................................................................................7-5 Future Potential Funding Sources.........................................................................................................7-6 APPENDICES (provided under separate cover) APPENDIX A. Public Involvement Documentation APPENDIX B. Overview of Socioeconomic Data Forecasting APPENDIX C. Travel Demand Model Development APPENDIX D. Preliminary Field and Environmental Screening of Selected Projects APPENDIX E. List of All Recommended Transportation Improvements Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 1.1 Ten-County Coastal Georgia Region ................................................................................................................ 1-1 Figure 4.1 Existing Land Use............................................................................................................................................4-2 Figure 4.2 Activity Centers and Community Facilities ....................................................................................................4-4 Figure 4.3 Effingham County Future Development Map from Comprehensive Plan...................................................4-7 Figure 4.4 Historic Sites and Districts ............................................................................................................................ 4-9 Figure 4.5 Wetlands and Waterbodies ......................................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4.6 Historic and Projected Population, 1970-2030.............................................................................................4-11 Figure 4.7 Historic and Projected Employment, 1970-2030 ......................................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4.8 Environmental Justice Areas (2000) ........................................................................................................... 4-15 Figure 5.1 Roadway Functional Classification System Diagram..................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5.2 2007 GDOT Functional Class...........................................................................................................................5-3 Figure 5.3 2006 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)....................................................................................................5-4 Figure 5.4A Roadway Crash Frequency and Fatalities (2004 2006) ...........................................................................5-6 Figure 5.4B Road Segment Crash Rates by Functional Classification Vs. Statewide Averages (2004 2006) ........... 5-7 Figure 5.5 Vehicular Incidents by Time of Day................................................................................................................5-8 Figure 5.6 2030 Existing Plus Committed Daily Traffic Volume/Capacity (V/C) and Level of Service (LOS) .............. 5-10 Figure 5.7 Roadway Surface...........................................................................................................................................5-12 Figure 5.8 Signalized Intersections ............................................................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5.9 Truck Percentage on Roadway System.......................................................................................................5-20 Figure 5.10 Past and Current Railroad lines in Effingham .............................................................................................5-21 Figure 5.11 Railroad Ownership and Public Grade Crossings ....................................................................................... 5-22 Figure 5.12 Pedestrian Needs Analysis ..........................................................................................................................5-26 Figure 5.13 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................................................5-29 Figure 6.1 Proposed Roadway Segment Improvements ...............................................................................................6-3 Figure 6.2 Proposed Intersection Improvements ......................................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6.3 Proposed Bicycle Improvements...................................................................................................................6-5 Figure 6.4 Proposed Pedestrian Improvements ............................................................................................................6-7 Figure 6.5 Proposed Transit Improvements.................................................................................................................. 6-9 Figure 6.6 Estimated Cost of Roadway Segment Improvements Benefitting Each Mode.........................................6-11 Figure 6.7 Number of Miles of Roadway Recommended for Various Types of Improvements ................................ 6-12 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1.1 Resources Consulted During Planning Process ............................................................................................... 1-5 Table 4.1 Land Use Distribution in Effingham County....................................................................................................4-3 Table 4.2 Description of Transportation Facility Character Areas.................................................................................4-5 Table 4.3 Wetland Area in Cities and County................................................................................................................. 4-8 Table 5.1 Roadway Type and Utilization ......................................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5.2 Crash Statistics by Year....................................................................................................................................5-5 Table 5.3 Bridge Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Table 5.4 FHWA Sidewalk Guidelines............................................................................................................................ 5-25 Table 6.1 Assumed Per-mile Cost of Various Types of Transportation Improvements ............................................. 6-10 Table 6.2 Evaluation Factors and Associated Points ................................................................................................... 6-14 Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview) .......................................................... 6-15 Table 6.4 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Roadway Projects.......................................................................6-23 Table 6.5 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Bicycle Projects ...........................................................................6-27 Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects .................................................................... 6-31 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Glossary of Acronyms Glossary of Acronyms AADT AASHTO CARE CAT CID CMAQ CZM DCA DHR DNR DRI E+C EDA EJ FHWA FTA GDOT GIS HOV ISTEA ITS LOS MMTS MPO MSA NBI NHRP PACES PIP RDC SAFETEA-LU SOV SPLOST SRTA STAA STIP STP TAD TDM TDR USDOT V/C Annual Average Daily Traffic American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Critical Analysis Reporting Environment Chatham Area Transit Community Improvement District Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Coastal Zone Management Department of Community Affairs Department of Human Resources Department of Natural Resources Development of Regional Impact Existing plus Committed Economic Development Authority (Effingham) Environmental Justice Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Georgia Department of Transportation Geographic Information Systems High Occupancy Vehicle Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991) Intelligent Transportation System Level of Service Multi-Modal Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Statistical Area National Bridge Inventory National Register of Historic Places Pavement Condition Evaluation System Public Involvement Plan Regional Development Center Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) Single Occupant Vehicle Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax State Road and Tollway Authority (Georgia) Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982) State Transportation Improvement Program Surface Transportation Program Tax Allocation District Travel Demand Management Transfer of Development Rights United States Department of Transportation Volume to Capacity Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Introduction Transportation is fundamental to a prosperous economy and quality of life for residents, visitors, and businesses in Effingham County. As emphasized by current SAFETEA-LU legislation, the movement of people and goods is dependent on a safe, accountable, flexible and efficient transportation system, which takes into the account the needs of all users and the environment. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), in cooperation with Effingham County, initiated a multi-modal transportation study for the county and the cities of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield. The study is made necessary by the projected growth that will take place over the next twenty-five years of approximately 30,000 new residents and 15,000 new jobs. The objective of this Mutli-Modal Transportation Study (MMTS) is to improve access and mobility, with improved safety and security, for people and goods throughout the county and as part of the rapidly- growing Georgia Coastal Region. The MMTS supports, and was developed in coordination with, the 2007 update to the Effingham County Comprehensive Plan. This study provides an assessment of transportation inventory and needs, and the policy and strategy framework to help Effingham County Officials select and prioritize future transportation programs and projects through the year 2030. The MMTS includes a detailed inventory and analysis of multiple aspects of the transportation network, including roads and bridges, bicycles and pedestrian facilities, public transportation, and freight, and can be used as a guide in creating an official financially-constrained Effingham County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Overview of Planning Area Effingham is a rapidly growing county located in southeast Georgia. Georgia's Coastal Region comprises 10 counties, with Effingham being one of four that are inland. Effingham is bordered by Chatham County to the south, the Ogeechee River to the west, Screven County to the north, and the Savannah River to the east. Bulloch and Bryan Counties lie to the west of the Ogeechee, while the South Carolina counties of Hampton and Jasper are across the Savannah River. Sizeable cities in neighboring counties include Savannah, Statesboro, and Hilton Head, South Carolina. Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Air Force base are also close by. In Colonial days, Effingham County was referred to as St. Matthews Parish, of which the historic settlement of Ebenezer was the center. Following the Revolutionary War, the legislature named Effingham County as one of the eight original counties in Georgia in 1777. Ebenezer Figure 1.1 Ten-County Coastal Georgia Region Figure 1.1 Ten-County Coastal Georgia Region Source: coastalgeorgiardc.org July 2008 1-1 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 1. Introduction was the home of Georgia's first governor, John Adam Treutlen, who had represented Ebenezer at the Georgia Provincial Congress in 1775 and was on the drafting committee of Georgia's first Constitution. Today the county covers approximately 480 square miles and includes the incorporated cities of Springfield, Rincon and Guyton which are surrounded by unincorporated areas of Effingham County. With 4.7% annual growth, Effingham was the 57th fastest-growing county in the nation between July 1st 2004 and July 1st 20051. The county and the cities of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield all experienced a higher rate of growth than the State of Georgia as a whole, and ranked among the highest in the fast- growing coastal region. Guyton Guyton is located in west central Effingham County and is the smallest of the county's three cities in terms of both land area and population. Originally known as "Whitesville", Guyton began as a 250-acre land grant to a squire, following his service in the Revolutionary War. In 1838, the Effingham County Commission seized the land due to non-payment of taxes and proceeded to survey it, plat streets and property boundaries, and auction off lots. Additional streets were laid out when the city was incorporated in 1886. During its heyday in the early 1900's, Guyton saw up to 10 trains a day and was a thriving center of commerce for local farmers. After a period of decline following the 1960's abandonment of the prominent railroad running through the center of town, Guyton grew and prospered again, and has gained new residents at an increasing rate in recent years. In 2005, there were approximately 1,700 residents in the city, which now covers an area of 1.2 square miles. The downtown area has the most historic buildings of the three cities and is considered a historic district. Rincon Rincon is situated approximately 20 miles north of Savannah in southern Effingham. It is the youngest of the three cities, having been established in 1890 by the Southbound Railroad Company. As is typical of Georgia's "railroad strip communities" 2, Rincon is bisected by a railroad and its main street runs parallel to the tracks. Surrounding streets are arranged in a grid pattern. In 1955, Rincon was incorporated and over the next fifty years saw an increase of over 5,000 residents, to the current 2005 estimate of 6,850 people. Much of this growth occurred from 1980 onwards, spurred on by proximity to Savannah and employment opportunities at nearby industrial firms and utilities. The city limits cover approximately 6.7 square miles, making it the largest city in Effingham. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, Top 100 Fastest Growing Counties, Table HU-EST2005-05 2 Georgia Community Development and Morphology of Community Types, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Section (1989) July 2008 1-2 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 1. Introduction Springfield Located north of Rincon, Springfield was selected as the county seat for Effingham County in 1799. Little more than a "stagecoach stop" at first, Springfield was laid out by surveyors based on a "square town plan" in 1821, with squares and parks reserved for public use.3 In the aftermath of General Sherman's "March to the Sea" during the Civil War, Springfield waned but rose from the ashes to become a bustling railroad town by the early 1900's. Passenger rail service has since been discontinued, but an active freight line still runs through the city and various historic structures and businesses are still found in Springfield. Over the past few decades, Springfield experienced steady population growth. By 2005, 2,300 residents called the city home. Relationship of Effingham County to the Coastal Region Effingham is part of the Georgia Coastal Region, which covers 10 counties and 35 cities and is the second fastest growing region in the state, second only to Atlanta. The 2000 Census records the regional population at approximately 560,000 within a 5,110 square mile area. In 2005, Effingham contributed a population of 47,000. Effingham plays an important role in the coastal community, both as a destination and as a thoroughfare for people and freight traveling to destinations such as Savannah and South Carolina or connecting with I-95 or I-16 for longer distance journeys. The region is well served with strategic transportation connections, including interstates I-16 and I-95; several major highways such as US 80, SR 21, SR 119, and SR 17; as well as rail and the port of Savannah. These facilities are important drivers of physical and economic growth. Effingham County's Economic Development Authority (EDA), in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, has attracted over $1 billion of new investment since 2000. Plans and Agencies Planning Agencies and Regions The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) plans, constructs, maintains, and improves the state's roads and bridges. In addition, GDOT provides planning and financial support for other types of transpor- tation facilities and services including bicycle paths, mass transit, and airports. Effingham County and the Cities of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield are eligible to receive state and federal transportation funds through GDOT. The Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC) works with and serves governments in the coastal region, including Effingham County and the Cities of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield. The Coastal 3 Effingham County Comprehensive Plan (2007), Natural and Cultural Resources Data Appendix July 2008 1-3 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 1. Introduction Georgia RDC is the regional planning agency for Coastal Georgia and all planning activities in Effingham County should be consistent with regional plans produced by the RDC. The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) serves as an advocate for local governments. State policies are often articulated through DCA which provides extensive resources in the areas of building codes, coordinated planning, housing, and more. DCA's mission is "partnering with communities to help create a climate of success for Georgia's families and businesses." Formal programs include comprehensive planning guidance and Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review. Within Effingham County, several agencies and private organizations are engaged in planning activities. The county and each of the three incorporated cities have planners on staff. In 2007, county and city planners collaborated with each other and relevant agencies to update Effingham's countywide Comprehensive Plan. The independent EDA is responsible for industrial recruitment and economic development throughout the county. The EDA is composed of representatives from each of the cities and the county commission districts. It works closely with the Chamber of Commerce which supports the business community with special focus on small business development. Existing Plans Review In preparing this Multi-Modal Transportation Study, multiple other related planning documents were consulted in order to maintain continuity, as listed in Table 1.1. Current ongoing planning efforts also have an impact on the development of this Multi-Modal Transportation Study. In 2005, collaborative efforts were initiated with Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to design a Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation. The concept of the regional plan is to merge the funding and resources of the DHR with GDOT to bring about a seamless regional system providing transportation to DHR consumers and the general public simultaneously in Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, and Screven counties. Described in more detail in later chapters, the Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2008, with implementation of services in Effingham beginning in July 2008. July 2008 1-4 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 1. Introduction Table 1.1 Resources Consulted During Planning Process Planning Documents Effingham Comprehensive Plan - Community Assessment and Technical Appendix (2007) - Public Participation Plan (2007) - Community Agenda (November 2007) Geography Effingham County Municipal Code and Ordinances Historic Effingham - Ebenezer Scenic Byway Georgia Scenic Byways Map (June 2006) Developments of Regional Impact, various plans and documents (ongoing) Coastal Georgia Regional Plan (June 1998, updated November 2004) Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County, selected sites 9-County Coastal Region (Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, and McIntosh) Coastal Georgia Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (May 2005) 10-County Coastal Region (Same as above + Screven) Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation, Phase I (November 2005) 10-County Coastal Region 2005 2035 Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan State of Georgia 2008-2011 Georgia Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) State of Georgia 2005 2035 Georgia Statewide Freight Plan State of Georgia Georgia Coastal Comprehensive Plan - Community Agenda (October 2007) Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (September 2004) Chatham County Comprehensive Plan - Community Assessment (2007) Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, Camden Savannah and Chatham County Savannah and Chatham County Sponsor Coastal Georgia RDC Effingham County Government Effingham County Georgia DCA Coastal Georgia RDC Coastal Georgia RDC Coastal Georgia RDC Georgia DOT Georgia DOT Georgia DOT Georgia DCA SavannahChatham MPO SavannahChatham MPO July 2008 1-5 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 2. Goals and Objectives 2. Goals and Objectives Thoughtful goals and objectives assist in recognizing deficiencies and appropriate solutions. This Multi- Modal Transportation Study (MMTS) builds on the transportation elements of the 2007 Effingham County Comprehensive Plan, providing a more detailed analysis of each transportation mode and offering specific potential improvements in response to identified needs. The process of developing a strategic plan must also recognize that the plan does not exist in isolation. A robust and realistic plan should be informed by, and seek to inform, the goals and objectives of other related plans. Effingham's 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the policy basis of this study, is composed of three documents: a Community Assessment, a Community Participation Plan, and a Community Agenda. The Community Assessment portion of the plan was completed in early 2007, and provides an overview of Effingham County its people, history, environment, infrastructure, services, and industry. Undertaken concurrently was the Community Participation Plan that identified local stakeholders and solicited public input to the planning process. The Community Agenda was completed in November 2007 and defines the vision, issues and opportunities, and implementation program for Effingham County and its three cities of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield. As required by the DCA, it covers the following eight elements: population change, economic development, natural and cultural resources, community facilities and services, housing, land use, transportation, and intergovernmental coordination. In addition to the required eight elements, a ninth "community character" element is also present due to the volume of public comment received relating to the design of public spaces in Effingham County. Though this Multi-Modal Transportation Study focuses on providing a more in-depth assessment of Effingham's transportation infrastructure, transportation affects and is affected by all of the aforementioned elements discussed in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, especially land use. Recognition of planning element interdependency is present throughout the Community Agenda and is reflected in the vision and policies set forth by it. In the interest of truly comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing planning, these guiding principles serve to create a foundation for this Multi-Modal Transportation Study as well. Vision Exhibiting common themes in their visions, Effingham and its cities desire to be inclusive, sustainable communities that preserve their natural environment and history, while guiding growth and investing in appropriate infrastructure so that old and new residents alike experience a high quality of life. In support of these ideals, a number of goals and objectives were established according to the nine DCA elements previously described. Transportation and supportive land use goals, which were generally the same for the county and its cities, are reproduced on the pages that follow. Taken directly from the Effingham County Comprehensive Plan, the following goals are the basis of this Multi-Modal Transportation Study. July 2008 2-1 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 2. Goals and Objectives Transportation Goals Transportation Planning Develop a long-range transportation plan for the county. Promote comprehensive, long-range transportation planning in conjunction with comprehensive planning. Promote alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling and public transit. Accessibility and mobility Encourage mixed-use development and design standards that are pedestrian- oriented to promote mobility and access for all citizens. Ensure that new and reconstructed roadways will support multiple modes of transportation and enhance the aesthetics of the community. Support access management strategies to improve the safety and aesthetics of commercial corridors. Network connectivity Ensure connectivity between road network, public transit, and pedestrian/ bike paths. Promote higher-density and mixed-use developments in areas conducive to walking and bicycling. Promote a continuous network of bicycle routes and provide bicycle facilities (e.g., parking racks) at destinations throughout the county. Promote pedestrian and bicycle mobility and circulation in and between residential subdivisions and surrounding commercial uses. Public transportation Promote county participation in a regional bus system, such as commuter routes to Chatham County and rural routes between populated areas of the county. Identify potential linkages with social service agencies and proposed rural transit to provide transportation for those with special needs. Protect opportunities for the future re-use of railroad infrastructure for public transit. Aesthetics and scenic corridors Reduce the visual impact of the automobile in both commercial and residential areas of the county/city Protect scenic corridors including preservation of existing trees within the right-of-way. Create a "sense of place" along the county's gateways and entrance corridors. Adopt and enforce a signage ordinance to minimize the negative aesthetic impacts of inappropriate signage on the landscape. Evaluate the entryways into the community and develop landscaping, signage, etc., at all points of entry in conjunction with private landowners and the Georgia Department of Transportation. Develop a vision for the aesthetic quality of future arterial highways, gateway interchanges, and collector streets. July 2008 2-2 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 2. Goals and Objectives Land Use and Related Goals General policies Address compatible land uses in all districts, especially industrial and commercial uses adjacent to residential. Coordinate future land use with transportation. Allow greater residential densities in areas where water/sewer infrastructure already exists. Protect residential areas from intrusion of incompatible and conflicting non- residential land uses. Promote efficient use of land by creating well designed, pedestrian-friendly development patterns that contain a mix of uses [where people have easy access to schools, parks, residences and businesses through walkways, bike paths and other pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.] Target reinvestment in declining, existing neighborhoods to further encourage private sector redevelopment and accommodate future growth. Encourage efficient land use. Promote the development of mixed-uses and the redevelopment/revitalization of existing and underutilized commercial and industrial areas over development of new land for commercial purposes. Encourage innovative land use planning techniques to be used in building higher density and mixed-use developments, as well as infill developments. Accommodate new development while enhancing existing local assets. Promote mixed-use development by right in appropriate areas. Existing infrastructure and services Encourage development in areas where infrastructure and services already exist to maximize efficiency of services and reduce costs associated with sprawling development patterns. Promote increases in residential densities in areas that meet community design standards, environmental constraints and available infrastructure and service capacities. Unincorporated Effingham County also had a number of land use policies regarding farmland and rural preservation. These are detailed within the Community Agenda. July 2008 2-3 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 3. Public Involvement 3. Public Involvement A public involvement plan (PIP) was developed in the early stages of the planning process for this study. The PIP established the framework for public outreach and describes some of the tools and techniques to be utilized. It also highlights the multiple opportunities for citizen participation in the process and provides the foundation on which future engagement opportunities will build. This approach is in accordance with the GDOT policy on public involvement in transportation planning and decision-making "to reach out to Georgians of all walks of life and to invite and encourage them to participate in transportation decision-making." It is also consistent with Federal Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice), which sets forth the requirement where federal transportation funds are used "to involve appropriate agencies and all citizens in transportation planning regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or education level." Some specific goals of the PIP are to: Build public awareness and understanding of the transportation planning process Gain an understanding of the public's transportation needs and priorities Engage as many citizens as possible--including representatives from the cities and unincorporated Effingham County as well as traditionally under-represented communities-- using a broad range of outreach techniques. Encourage public and stakeholder consensus around the most effective and efficient transportation solutions to meet Effingham County's current and future mobility needs Outreach effort and description In October 2007, the Study Team conducted one-on-one briefings/interviews with key stakeholders in the study area to ensure that stakeholders and community leaders in the county and cities had a working knowledge of the Multi-Modal Transportation Study, including its purpose and need, and had a chance to provide input into the process. The list of stakeholders included local government agency representatives as well as leaders of the business community, faith and community-based organizations, homeowners associations, and others. Appendix A describes public involvement activities in more detail and includes a summary of stakeholder comments. Study Website During the study, an internet website was launched to provide an accessible repository of information for this Multi-Modal Transportation Study. It is hosted by GDOT at: http://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/programs/studies/Pages/Effingham.aspx July 2008 3-1 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 3. Public Involvement The website provides information on the study, such as fact sheets, frequently asked questions, public meeting schedules, maps and analysis findings. Public Meetings and Surveys A citizen questionnaire was prepared during Fall 2007 to seek opinions on such matters as the long-term vision for the county and the cities, transportation elements and/or needs requiring immediate attention, and opinions of alternative transportation modes such as transit or bicycling. The questionnaire is available on the study website, and has been distributed at public meetings. A summary of questionnaire results is contained in Appendix A. Public meetings are held in locations convenient to the largest number of people and scheduled to coincide with major study milestones. Various methods are utilized to promote the meetings, including newspapers, email notification of stakeholders, and information on the study's GDOT web page. The first meeting was held on December 13, 2007 at Ebenezer Middle School and was attended by about 40 people. This meeting focused on the transportation needs assessment process and preliminary findings. A second public meeting was held April 3, 2008 at Effingham High School and was attended by 35 members of the community. Preliminary potential project maps were displayed, following a discussion of the planning process to date and analytical basis of recommendations, by mode. At both meetings, GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess staff answered questions posed by the public, who were also able to utilize written comment forms created for the occasion. Fact sheets and meeting flyers are posted on the study website, with hard copies available at city and county government facilities. In addition, stakeholders are provided with copies of the fact sheet and meeting notes to inform those they know about public input opportunities. Outreach to traditionally underserved communities included local contacts such as Reverend Delmons White and Homer Lee Wallace of the NAACP, who distributed extra fact sheets and questionnaires and helped promote public meetings. The initial screening process for potentially underserved areas indicated that Clyo, Egypt, Marlow, and the northern part of the county were among this group. Issues and Opportunities Identified Both identified stakeholders and the public provided valuable qualitative insight regarding Effingham's transportation system. Their contributions are summarized in the next sections. Stakeholder Interviews The overarching themes included the county's population growth, the balance and geographic spread of people/housing and jobs, traffic congestion, the existing transportation system, and truck traffic. Interviewees voiced strong support for potential projects such as Effingham Parkway, upgrading the I-16 Interchange at Old River Road, enhancing Old Augusta Road, implementing corridor improvements on SR 21, and expanding Ft. Howard Road to accommodate future area subdivisions. A summary of the findings can be found in Appendix A. July 2008 3-2 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 3. Public Involvement Public Consultation Fifteen questionnaires were received following the first public meeting (December 2007) and through the study web page. The questionnaires asked respondents to identify: their goals and visions for Effingham County critical problems the County was likely to face in the next 25 years transportation problems they face moving about the county on a day-to-day basis areas in the existing transportation network they felt needed immediate attention, and the most critical transportation needs in Effingham County A broad range of issues was highlighted in response to the questions. In their vision for the county, residents wanted to see job and physical growth that occurred in a sustainable and controlled manner. Respondents also desired to see more cultural, shopping, and leisure opportunities, including a shopping mall and more public parks. "Inadequate clean water" and growing pains from "too many people" were the most popular views on the problems the county is likely to face over the next 25 years, and traffic and congestion was an almost unanimous response to the problems people faced on a daily basis. Comments received at the second public meeting (April 2008) highlighted the need for countywide transit services, expressed support for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and were generally supportive of proposed potential improvements in all transportation modes. Some community members expressed concern over the future alignment of the proposed Effingham Parkway and also questioned the impact of large-scale DRI development projects on existing transportation facilities such as SR 21. Previous findings from the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Detailed issues and opportunities in Effingham County were first identified by community stakeholders during a series of Comprehensive Plan workshops held in Summer 2006. The nine previous DCA planning elements were addressed and, at the county-level, transportation issues and opportunities are described as follows: Issues: Reliance on automobiles Most residents must rely on their vehicles for traveling to and from their destinations. Most residents understand that traffic congestion will likely worsen as the population increases. Alternatives to the automobile walking, bicycling, and public transit will offer residents more mobility choices and reduce automobile dependency. Inter-parcel connectivity and points of conflict Commercial development of single parcels has resulted in "strip development" and segregated business activities. Each parcel or July 2008 3-3 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 3. Public Involvement development that has a separate access creates a potential point of traffic conflict and reduces the efficiency of arterial roads. Roadway design and access management should ensure that new transportation facilities provide greater connectivity, better travel efficiency, and reduction of hazardous conditions. Disconnected subdivisions Accessibility between residential subdivisions is typically restricted to vehicle travel along collector roads, as many subdivisions are isolated and only have single entrances and exits. To promote greater accessibility and mobility options and increase efficient delivery of services, subdivisions should be linked with a network of shared roads that allow movement through and between subdivisions. Such linkages shorten travel distances, improve public safety, and promote walking and bicycling between residential areas and other nearby uses. Lack of public transportation For residents with limited means, or for those who would like an alternative to the auto commute, there are currently few options in the county. A rural transit system would introduce public transportation into the county. Regional bus routes for example, linking Effingham County with Savannah may also reduce automobile commutes. However, long-term public transportation solutions may require a more permanent and sustainable system than rural transit. As the county continues to grow, transportation alternatives should be continually re-evaluated. The county should also be prepared to participate in a regional commuter rail plan should one emerge. Opportunities: Creation of a long-range transportation plan The county currently lacks a long-range transportation plan. In cooperation with the cities, the county should create a long-range transportation plan to address proposed long-range mobility in the county. The plan should also take into account regional transportation demands, traffic forecasts, and the plans of surrounding jurisdictions. Future land uses and development patterns, as mentioned previously, should be intimately linked to the transportation plan. Also in conjunction with the land use plan, the transportation plan should be updated regularly to reflect new initiatives, funding opportunities, and public needs. The county is taking pro-active steps in promoting regional transportation through the development of the Effingham Parkway and this regional, long-term planning should continue. Creation of pedestrian routes and bicycle networks Several bicycle routes through the county already exist, but they do not form a continuous network that links residential and commercial areas. Extending these networks and providing bicycle facilities will provide a valuable alternative mode of transit in the county, especially at the southern end where development is becoming increasingly contiguous along major roads. In areas where commercial developments are located near housing, sidewalks and pedestrian amenities along the public right-of-way should also be provided. July 2008 3-4 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 3. Public Involvement Designation of scenic corridors The county's scenic roads, along with its natural resources and historic sites, are irreplaceable components which together form the area's unique character. Honey Ridge Road and Old Louisville Road, for example, are regarded by many residents as valuable aesthetic and historic corridors that need to be protected from inappropriate development, obstructive signage, and clear-cutting. Designation of these corridors as scenic resources will help guide an appropriate level of development while retaining the qualities that make them unique. The three cities also identified issues regarding automobile dependency and a lack of connectivity between destinations by multiple modes of travel. Immediate opportunities observed by each city include the creation and promotion of multi-use paths within and between city limits. July 2008 3-5 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context 4. Planning Context A transportation system cannot be studied in isolation from the environment in which it exists, the people it serves, and the industries whose development it facilitates. Evaluating context is crucial in determining how well a transportation system is performing and what current or future demands on it might be present. For instance, the intensity and arrangement of land development in a place directly relate to the types of transportation services and facilities that can be effectively implemented. Concentrations of jobs, services, and residences allow a wider range of viable multimodal options, especially public transit and walking. Dispersed development patterns do not readily support public transit and increase dependency on automobiles to satisfy mobility needs. Because a variety of land development patterns may be desirable to the community, transportation solutions must be tailored towards the character of each area. Conversely, land use decisions must also be tailored towards the type of transportation infrastructure that is or can be effectively implemented. The various economic, social, and land development considerations that influence travel demand are presented in this section. Knowledge and analysis of these considerations were essential in planning an integrated transportation system for Effingham County. Built and Natural Environment Effingham draws much of its character from the combination of rapidly growing historic cities, the large areas of rural land, the Savannah and Ogeechee Rivers along county borders, and the proximity to Georgia's beautiful coastline. It is therefore an important balancing act to ensure that transportation infrastructure does not detract from the historic character, adversely affect sensitive environments such as the county's wetlands, or take away from the sense of place in a community. It must respect this wide diversity of character while also providing residents and businesses with the high quality, modern transportation system that they deserve. It is vital that transportation systems and the built environment are designed with mutual respect for one another, and remain sensitive to the natural environment around them. Land Use The current parcel-level land use of Effingham County can be seen in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 shows the percent distribution of land uses in the entire county, as aggregated from city and unincorporated county data in the Community Assessment. July 2008 4-1 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Existing Land Use Screven Us Hwy 601 Hampton lyo C Rd State Hwy 652 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 Edw Porter's Landing Rd Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 op Tr Old State Hwy 21 State Hwy 13 Old River Rd State Hwy 17 Oliver/kildare Rd owell Rd ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha Thomps C ly o -k ild a re Old Rd A ugus Sam Sm ta Rd R ee dsv Us Hwy 278 ille Rd Springfie ld Rd on Rd pel Rd d Pryor R d more Bo art Rd Walden Br State Hwy 24 lter Rd ok Bur k ha let Leefield Rd Bro Brooklet Sti l son Leefield Rd County Road 34 Bulloch Ol Old River Rd d Elam Cem etary Rd Shearwo od Rd Dutton Ln und ary Rd Savanna h Old Dixie Cor inth Hwy De w itt Rd Town Rd C hurc h Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Ard Shawnee Lee Rd Shaw nee Eg ypt Rd Egypt o rg an R dChester Thomas Rd M Clyo-shawnee R d Green M o rgan School Rd Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cy lo-shaw nee S i sters Ferry Rd Rd F St St air ill well C Preister Rd lyo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Rd Sister Ferry Rd Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy George H Harr y or urst Rd Gr iffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d ter Rd Old L ouisv P lle Rd Spring field Egypt R d ranch Rd Old Dix Turkey B ie Hwy S Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Spri ngfield Tusclumboundary Li R Bo aen Rd Springfield Arnsdorff Rd Old Tusculam R Keiffer dWallace Rd Early St Hill Rd Guyton Riverside Dr Newton Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd 4th Ave Brogdon Rd P le as Wild er an Rd t Acres Rd 3 rd St Clyde Rd Ash St Zettler Rd Mccall Rd S Ash St B e r r y ville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell Rd Bethany Rd Wils on Rd B enjamin Gnann R d Stillwell Long Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Mock Rd Waldhour Rd n Rd Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd ph Rah Archer Rd Ga Highway 119 Watts Rd Pound Rd Hon e Central Ave y Ridge R d Go- Heidt Landing Rd Co hous e Rd Little Mc call Rd ur t Shirley Dr Big TRd Rahn Statio Rd Ral n Rincon Plan Bar tation ney Rd D r Long P on d Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Howard Rd Old Augusta Rd State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 278 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Jasper State Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 S tate Hwy 462 Cit Green St Us Hwy 17 Sun y Blvd Brooklet Denmark Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 U s Hwy 80 State Hwy 46 ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 Liberty Pembroke Bryan 5 10 Miles Little Neck Rd Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd Sand ill R d H Ogeechee River Dr San Edgewood Rd Blue Ja y Rd Midland Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd Blandford Rd Zittrover Rd Zipperer Rd w Rd lue Ja y B Rd Mcca ll R Oak d St Gr ee n e Pine Dr Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand D r Ho dg Goshen Rd evil l e R d Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 170 S tate Hwy 46 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Beaufort Keller RSdquirrel Run Heidt Rd Nease Rd d Hill Rd 170 Alt Bluff Dr Elm St Pine St Old River Rd Meldrim Rd Eden Conaway Rd Briarwood Rd g Jabez Jones Rd Roebli n Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Go dle y Rd Rd Bay Rd Faulkville Pecan L n Port Wentworth Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah Airways Ave Georgia State Hwy 170 State Hwy State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 State H Schum an Dr Bloomingdale Chatham Van Rd wy 204 Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Fort Argyle Rd Pine Pooler Barren Rd Us Hwy 80 Garden City Fair St Savannah River LoSutaisteviHllwe yRd25c Bay St State Hwy 67 Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufo rt 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 4.1 Legend Existing Land Use Agriculture / Silviculture Conservation / Parks / Recreation / Forested / Woodland Greyfield Industrial Single Family Residential Manufactured Home Park Multi-Family Office / Private Commercial Service / Retail Commercial Public / Institutional Transitional Transportation / Utilities 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 Railroads Source: Effingham County, GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Table 4.1 Land Use Distribution in Effingham County Source: Effingham County Community Assessment General Land Use Agriculture/Silviculture Commercial Conservation/Recreation Industrial Public/Institutional Residential Transportation/Utilities Undeveloped TOTAL Number of Parcels 3,717 479 359 64 451 15,427 379 1,964 22,840 Total Acres (rounded) 196,500 2,200 43,600 5,200 3,500 32,800 7,100 16,600 307,500 Percent of Percent of Area Parcels 63.9% 0.7% 14.2% 1.7% 1.1% 10.7% 2.3% 5.4% 100.0% 16.3% 2.1% 1.6% 0.3% 2.0% 67.5% 1.7% 8.6% 100.0% average parcel size (acres) 52.9 4.5 121.4 80.9 7.8 2.1 18.7 8.5 13.5 Agriculture and silviculture (tree farming) are undertaken on approximately 2/3 of all county land. Another 14% of land has been set aside for conservation or parks, leaving slightly over 20% of land that is designated for residential, industrial, commercial, civic, and infrastructure use. "Undeveloped" land has been zoned, typically for residential subdivisions, but is still free of structures. Differing land uses generate different types of travel demand in terms of traffic quantity and mode. Commercial uses tend to have the highest trip generation rates, followed by residential and industrial uses. Industrial, agricultural, and some commercial areas can generate more truck traffic, which has an impact on area roadway operations. Heterogeneous land uses within a relatively small area allow more walking and bicycling trips, while concentrations of activities (employment, cultural, shopping, etc) and direct routes between activity centers are amenable to transit. Multi-acre homogeneous zoning (of any type) and ample parking encourage the use of personal vehicles to fulfill travel requirements. Ultimately, the spatial distribution and quality of land uses, down to the site level, dictate the nature of travel demand even more than the simple quantity of activity generators present. Activity Centers and Community Facilities Activity Centers are important community focal points and feature in land use planning policies at regional and local levels. Three cities and a number of unincorporated communities serve as primary activity centers within Effingham County. Additionally, activity centers are found at crossroads areas and locations along key corridors connecting the cities and counties that have some commercial development. Community facilities are individual buildings or amenities (parks, etc) that serve as destinations, but are not necessarily contained within an activity center. Figure 4.2 depicts these potential travel generators. July 2008 4-3 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Activity Centers and Community Facilities C Rd lyo State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 y #* State Hwy 652 Rincon Inset Us Hw 2 78 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 Us Hwy 301 D RD Us Hwy 321 an Ln ta Rd Springfield Rd on Rd Tr State Hwy 21 Ol GA HWY 17 ARCHER RD Guyton Inset GRACEN RD Old River Rd ON BR OG #* ")#* _ #* * State Hwy 17 GA HWSYtat1e1H9wy 2 4 LITTLE MCCALL RD alter Rd GA HWY 119 Bur kh o GA HWY 17 klet Leefield Rd Bro Brooklet WATT S RD F LOY AVE son Leefield Rd Old River Rd County 390 Road owell Rd Kildare #*#*#* Thomps #*#* Old Augus #*#*#* Clyo-kildare Rd Corinth Churc h Rd #* Pryor Rd undary Rd dmore Bo #* #*#*#*#* d Elam Cemetary Rd EgAyr pt Shawnee Shear w #* Old Dixie H wy S Lee Rd #* ")) Morg r s #*SCistleyoFerry Rd * St #* ") F a ir ) Preister Rd Dutton Ln ood Rd Rd Sister Ferry Rd Old Louisvi Rd lle or #* ter Rd P Rive rside New Dr to n Rd Spring Rd #* Berr yville #* TusculumMt Hope Rd #* #* c#*#*_#*v#*_ #* KeithRd _ Gracen SRdee Inset #*#*_#* ") _ Guyton * Sp rin gfi Arnsdorff Rd eld Egypt RSd ee Inset O ld Tusculam Rd ")") Mock Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell Rd Wild ) er Rd ") * Springfield ) Beebe Rd Little Mc ca ll Rd Benjamin Gn ann Rd Stillwell ")) Ebenezer ")) Old Augusta Rd Mill Pond Rd Nellie R d GA HWY 21 #* ") HARDY RD #* ") #* State Hwy 336 #* _ c MCCALL RD * LISA ST Brooklet Denmark Rd Stil D D Central Ave Ga Highway 119 #* #*See Inset Co ouse Rd o w lue Jay GA HWY 21 PLEAS A NT State Hwy 119 St BEEBE RD S LAUREL ST MCCALL RD Springfield Inset KEIFFER HILL R State Hwy 46 #* #* #* v ") GA )HWY 119 c ACRES RD ") ") #** ate STILLWELL Hwy RD 119 Pembroke Us Hwy 280 ) WEBB RD cart Rd State Hwy 119 ") ") #*") ) GPoi- neora #* #*Marlow #* urth Big T Rd Ground Rd L Rd cc Mccall Rd _ #*#* #*")_c BluRincon * M ff Cir State Hwy 141 R ed Old Augusta Rd Us Hwy 80 San d ill R d H Edgewood Rd #* Blandford Rd B dg #* all Rd ")) #* #*") eville Ho #*")) Blue Jay Rd #* Zittrover Rd Rd #* Midland Rd South Carolina State Hwy 170 Nease Rd Ogeechee River Eldora Rd #*#*Eden #* #** #* #* Port Wentworth Godley Rd Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Georgia State Hwy 170 State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 State Hwy #*#* Meldrim #*#* #* * Faulkville Savannah r PkwyAirways Ave Bloomingdale Us Hwy P 80 d Fort Argyle Rd 204 Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pooler Pine Barren Rd Garden C0ity oole Dean Forest R Fair St 2.5 Savannah River 5 LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St State Hwy 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State FT HOWARD RD State Hwy 29 Green St Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate #* Us Hwy 278 State Hw y 462 Sun y Blvd Cit Hwy 4 6 State Hwy 170 10 Miles Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Emanuel Screven Georgia Hampton South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Tattnall Bryan Long Wayne !"e$ Liberty McIntosh Chatham Chatham Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Atlantic Ocean Figure 4.2 Legend Community Facilities and Activity Centers Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow c Library ") Park ") Landing v Hospital Fire Station _ Police Department #* Church 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: Effingham County, 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 Chapter 4. Planning Context Future Zoning and Land Use Comprehensive Planning is required by the State of Georgia as defined in the 1989 Georgia Planning Act. When the Comprehensive Planning effort for Effingham County was undertaken in 2007, a future development map delineating "character areas" was developed. This map is shown in Figure 4.3. According to the DCA, character areas are simply portions of counties and cities that "have unique or special characteristics, have potential to evolve into a unique area when provided specific and intentional guidance, or require special attention due to unique development issues". In effect, character areas are defined to serve as the basis for detailed and geography-specific small-area plans. All parts of Effingham County were assigned to character areas, whose unique qualities were agreed upon through an extensive public involvement process. For each character area, a description and vision were provided as well as implementation measures to achieve the vision. The descriptions make it clear what types, forms, styles, and patterns of development are to be encouraged in the area. Several character areas were specific to transportation corridors, and are seen in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Description of Transportation Facility Character Areas Source: Effingham County Community Assessment Character Area, Description, and Location Vision Implementation Measures Regional Connectors Arterial roads that provide high capacity access to adjoining counties and states. From a regional transportation standpoint, generally considered the main access routes in or out of the county.(SR 17, 21, and 119) These gateway corridors should portray a high quality image of the community through protection and enhancement of vegetation, appropriate signage, accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles, and proper access management. These corridors should continue to support an efficient transportation network. Maintain a vegetated buffer along the corridor. All new development should be set- back behind this buffer, with access roads, shared driveways or inter- parcel road connections providing alternate access to these developments and reducing curb cuts and traffic on the main highway. Encourage landscaped, raised medians to provide vehicular safety, aesthetics, and also pedestrian crossing refuge. Provide pedestrian facilities. Provide paved shoulders that can be used by bicycles or as emergency breakdown lanes. Coordinate land uses and bike/pedestrian facilities with transit stops, if applicable. Manage access to keep traffic flowing. July 2008 4-5 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Table 4.2 Description of Transportation Facility Character Areas, Continued. Primary Commercial Corridor Developed or undeveloped land paralleling the route of a street or highway in town that is already or likely to experience uncontrolled strip development if growth is not properly managed. Characterized by high degree of access by vehicular traffic; on-site parking; low degree of open space. (SR 21, south of SR 119) This corridor will support attractive commercial uses that meet the needs of the community, promote multi- modal accessibility (vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian) and provide development that promotes a sense of place through compatible signage, architecture and landscaping. Develop an access management program to improve safety and maintain mobility along these corridors. Focus on appearance with appropriate signage, landscaping and other beautification measures. Manage access to keep traffic flowing; using directory signage to clustered developments. Encourage infill and redevelopment of unattractive strip centers to improve the quality along the corridor Scenic Corridors: These corridors provide visual To protect, enhance and share Increase enforcement of ordinances and aesthetic benefits to the the cultural, natural, to address old cars, abandoned community, and are an important archeological, historic and properties, and debris along the part of the county's cultural recreational qualities of this route. heritage. They are remarkable for county through the preservation, Designate routes as Scenic Byways. their rural and agricultural beautification and presentation Create corridor management plans to landscapes, tree canopy, and of our unique heritage for address the preservation of cultural views of open fields and spaces. present and future generations. and aesthetic character. (SR 119, SR 17, Ebenezer Road, Market the cultural and historical Rincon-Stillwell Road, Long features that the scenic byway Bridge Road, Stillwell-Clyo Road) encompasses. Continue to manage and regulate signage along the corridors. Every other character area also specifically addressed the provision and style of transportation facilities. Further details are listed within the Community Agenda portion of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. July 2008 4-6 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Figure 4.3 Effingham County Future Development Map from Comprehensive Plan July 2008 4-7 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Historic Sites Effingham County has a rich history as one of the original eight counties in the state of Georgia, home to numerous Native American peoples and settled by Europeans in the late 18th century. There are museums, historic buildings and streets celebrating Effingham's Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Native American heritage. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that federally funded transportation projects identify historic properties and avoid or mitigate adverse impact. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) contains six sites in Effingham County: Jerusalem Lutheran Church at Ebenezer Townsite, Effingham County Courthouse, Effingham County Jail, Guyton Historic District, New Hope AME Church, and the Reiser-Zoller Farm. The Comprehensive Plan notes that the Coastal Georgia RDC database of local historic sites contains 83 local sites potentially eligible for the NRHP. The plan also mentions that there are twelve properties, including six historic districts, prioritized for nominating to the prestigious Register. Figure 4.4 depicts places on the NRHP. Wetlands Federal law and the Georgia Planning Act also require protection of wetlands and other natural resources from adverse impact. As such, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources maintains a database that defines, identifies, and maps the categories of freshwater wetlands and aquatic habitats. Table 4.3 shows the acreage of wetlands in the county, totaling 38% of the county area. Figure 4.5 depicts the geographic distribution of wetlands. Table 4.3 Wetland Area in Cities and County Source: Effingham County Community Assessment Place Area in Wetlands (Acres) Rincon 1,799 Springfield 262 Guyton 189 Unincorporated Effingham County 114,770 Entire County 117,020 As a coastal county, Effingham has substantially more wetland coverage than most other Georgia counties, and thus faces unique challenges relating to development impacts. Through the Comprehensive Plan, the county is also working to adopt the Georgia Planning Act's Wetlands Environmental Planning Criteria, as well as the Groundwater Recharge Environmental Planning Criteria, and the Protected River Environmental Planning Criteria. July 2008 4-8 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Historic Sites and Districts Hampton lyo C Rd State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 an Ln ta Rd Springfield Rd on Rd Tr State Hwy 21 Ol Old River Rd Screven State Hwy 17 S tate Hwy 2 4 owell Rd Kildare #* #* T ho mps Old Augus Clyo-kildare Rd Corinth Churc h Rd Pryor Rd d Elam Cemetary Rd undary Rd dmore Bo EgAyr pt Shawnee Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd State Hwy 119 #* #* Morg #* r s #* SCistleyoFerry Rd #* St #* #* F air Ogeechee River Brooklet Denmark Rd alter Rd o Burkh klet Leefield Rd Bro Brooklet Stil son Leefield Rd Bulloch State Hwy 46 390 Road Rd County Old River #* Ga Highway 119 Dutton Ln ood Rd State Hwy 119 Shear w #* Old Louisvi Rd lle or ter Rd P #* Riverside Newton Dr Rd Preister Rd Rd Sister Ferry Rd gfi cart Rd Spring Rd Berr y ville #* TusculumMt Hope Rd Reiser-Zoller Farm Sprin Arnsdorff Rd eld Egypt Rd Indigo Rd Benjamin Gn ann Rd Effingham County Courthouse Stillwell Mock Rd Effingham#* #* Effingham CountSytillJwaelliRld Ebenezer Old Augusta Rd Keith Rd #* Springfield Beebe Rd New Hope AME Church #* #* Gracen Rd Guyton Guyton LHittilse tMoccraicll RDdistrict Mill Pond RJed ruLsuNatehllleieemRrad EnvCahnugreclhical Central Ave #* GPoi- neora Marlow Sand ill R d H #* Edgewood Rd Co ous e Rd o w lue Jay urth Big T R d Ground Rd L Rd Blandford Rd B dg Ho Mccall Rd cc #* #* #* M all Rd #*#* Rincon State Hwy 652 State Hwy 336 Jasper State Hwy 141 Old Augusta Rd eville 0 2.5 Liberty ate Hw y 119 State Hwy 119 St Pembroke Bryan Us Hwy 280 5 10 Miles 204 Eldora Rd Us Hwy 80 #* Blue Jay Rd Zittrover Rd #* Eden Nease Rd Midland Rd Rd Pecan L n Port Wentworth South Carolina State Hwy 170 Georgia State Hwy Fort Stewart Military Reservation Fort Argyle Rd #*Meldrim #* Godley Rd Jimmy De Loach PkwySavannah Faulkville Bloomingdale Pool kwyChatham d Pooler John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80 er P Dean Forest R Fair St State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 State Hwy 170 Savannah River LouSitsavteillHe wRyd 25c Bay St State Hwy 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 Green St State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Us Hwy 278 State Hw y 462 Su n y Blvd Cit State Hwy 46 State Hwy 170 Beaufort Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Emanuel Screven Georgia Hampton South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort Evans Tattnall !"`$ Bryan Long Wayne !"e$ Liberty Chatham Chatham Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Atlantic Ocean Figure 4.4 Legend Historic Sites and Districts Historic Site #* Cemetery Scenic Corridors 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: NRHS (2006), 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 Wetlands and Waterbodies Screven Us Hwy 301 Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 Hampton lyo State Hwy 119 E dw Porter's Landing Rd op Tr Old State Hwy 21 Oliver/kildare Rd owell R d ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha p Thomps Clyo-ki ldare Old Rd A ugu s Sam Sm ta Rd R eedsv i lle Rd C Rd Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 Stat e Hwy 652 Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d Pryor R d dmore Bo art Rd Walden Br State Hwy 67 alter Rd oo Burkh Br Brooklet State Hwy 24 O ld Elam Cemeta ry Rd Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln Ar Shawnee un da rSy aRvdan na h Old Dixie Co rinth Hwy C Tow n DRdewSihttawRndee Rd hur ch Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd Egypt o rg an R dChester Thomas Rd M Clyo-shawne e Rd Green Mo rgan School R d Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd S i sters Ferry Rd F St S til lwel l air C l Preister Rd yo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Rd Sister Ferry R d Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy klet Leefield Rd Stil son Leefield Rd Old River Rd County Road 34 Bulloch Ga Highway 119 George H Rd H ar ry or urst Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d Sp ringfield Egypt R d Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Turke y B ran ch Rd Old Dix ie Hwy S Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd Bo aen Rd ter Rd Old Lo uisv P lle R d S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R Arnsdorff Rd Old Tu sculam R Keiffer dWallace Rd Early St Hill Rd Mock Rd Stillw ell R d S Ash St Newton Rd Riverside Dr Keith Rd Guyton Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Bro gdo n Rd P le as Wild er an Rd t Acres R d 3 rd St Clyde Rd Ash St Rd Z ettl Mccall Rd Springfield er n Rd Bethany Rd WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd Stillwell Long Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Waldhour Rd Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd ph Rah Archer Rd Watts Rd Pound Rd Central Ave Hon e y R idg e Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd Co ouse Rd Little Mccall Rd urth Shirley Dr B ig T Rd Ral n Anza Ln Rahn Statio Rd Plan Barney Rd tation D r Long P on d Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St For t Howard Rd Old Augusta Rd State Hwy 336 Jasper State H wy 141 Brooklet Denmark Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 State Hwy 46 Us Hwy 80 Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd San ill R d d H Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd San Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd w Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd Midland Rd Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd BlandforsdslRd Zipperer Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand D r ll e ville Ho lue Jay Rd B Mcca R Oak d St Green Pine Dr e Dr Rincon Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Run dg Goshen Rd Rd irre l Earl Lain Rd Squ Rd South Carolina State Hwy 170 Kelle r Nease Rd Heidt Rd d Hill Rd ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 Liberty Pembroke Bryan 5 10 Miles State Hwy 204 Bluff Dr Elm St Pine St R iv er S Laurel Rd Cir Eden Meldrim Rd Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd Roebli n Rd Meldrim Ran ch Oetgen Rd Go dle Rd y Rd n Briarwood Rd g Pecan L Port Wentworth Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah Ol d Bay Rd Schum an Dr Faulkville Bloomingdale y ooler Chatham d State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Georgia State Hwy 170 P Pkw Dean Forest R Van Rd Pooler Fort Argyle Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80 Fair St LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St State Hwy 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 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 Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufo rt 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 4.5 Legend Wetlands and Waterbodies Freshwater Wetlands Lakes / Ponds / Rivers Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water (Outside Effingham County) Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: NWI, Effingham County, GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Residents and Businesses Between 1990 and 2006, the number of residents and jobs in Effingham County each doubled. Over the next 20 to 25 years, it is anticipated that population and employment will increase over 60 and 180 percent, respectively, from present-day levels. Approximately 80,000 people and 24,000 jobs are expected in the year 2030. Proximity to Savannah, a well-regarded county school system, and an abundance of scenic rural land are factors that contribute to this growth. The Economic Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce have also been quite active in working to attract employment to the county, which has resulted in over $1 billion of new investment since 2000. Much of this investment has occurred in designated industrial parks and, as such, manufacturing and logistics-related businesses make up a relatively large segment of the local economy, though a more diverse industry mix is anticipated to arise in the near future. Population In 1970, less than 14,000 people lived in Effingham County. By 2005, another 33,000 residents called Effingham home, giving a total of 47,000 people. By 2030, 33,000 more are expected to move in. According to Coastal Georgia RDC population estimates, Effingham will have 79,935 residents in 2030 as seen in Figure 4.6. The predicted geographic distribution of the population is detailed in Appendix B, and is based on the future development map. While growth may seem inevitable, it is possible to manage it so that new residents are perceived as an asset to the community rather than a burden. People 90,000 80,000 70,000 2015 66,469 60,000 50,000 2005 46,924 40,000 30,000 1970 20,000 13,753 1990 25,687 10,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year 2010 2020 Figure 4.6 Historic and Projected Population, 1970-2030 Source: Coastal Georgia RDC Population Estimates 2030 79,935 2030 July 2008 4-11 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context A number of significant demographic changes have accompanied the population growth in Effingham County. For example, the median age has increased steadily since 1980 going from 28 years of age in 1980 to 33.6 in 2000. County school enrollment data from the past ten years shows total enrollment in- creasing by about 25% between fall 1994 and spring 2000 and increasing by approximately 19.5% between fall 2000 and spring 2006. The strong growth in school enrollment numbers, approximately 52% over the 12-year period, is no surprise given rapid population growth experienced by the county during this time. Employment Until 1990, Effingham was a very rural county, with less than 20,000 people and relatively little in-county employment. The period between 1990 and 2005 saw accelerated employment growth, particularly in manufacturing and port-related industries, and by 2005, there were 8,412 jobs in the county. The top five private sector employers in Effingham County in 2006 were Georgia Pacific (1500), Wal-Mart (350), Flint River Services (150), Doncasters, Inc. (135), and International Paper (125). The major public sector employers were the Board of Education (1703), Effingham County (280), and Effingham Hospital (224). Savannah Electric, a utility, employed 593 people in Effingham County. Together, these nine places currently provide two-thirds of the jobs in Effingham. While 4,000 new jobs were added between 1990 and 2005, 20,000 new residents came during the same time period. Thus, it is likely that business growth will continue to accelerate into the future as commercial investment follows the residential market. Based on detailed trend forecasting methods and the presence of new industrial parks planned in the county, the number of jobs in the county is expected to increase almost three-fold, to 23,850 by 2030. This will result in population to employment ratio of 3.35 to 1, a more balanced number than the current 5.58 residents for every job. The employment forecasting process is further explained in Appendix B. Figure 4.7 shows historic and projected employment in Effingham. July 2008 4-12 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context 30,000 25,000 2030 23,850 Jobs 20,000 15,000 10,000 1970 2,445 5,000 1990 4,400 2005 8,412 2015 13,150 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year 2010 2020 2030 Figure 4.7 Historic and Projected Employment, 1970-2030 Source: Jacobs Carter Burgess, as described in Appendix B Despite the growing number of jobs in the county, two-thirds of the labor force still works in other places, including Chatham County, Fort Stewart, and Hilton Head, South Carolina.4 In 2000, the labor force was approximately 17,200 people; 2006 statistics from the Georgia Department of Labor imply that there are 25,000 workers, just over half of the population. According to the 2000 US Census, Effingham County had the highest percentage (83.5%) of its labor force driving alone to work of any county in the Coastal Region.5 Approximately 14.1% of workers carpooled, while the remainder (2.4%) commuted using other forms of transportation or worked at home. Seventy percent of workers left home between 6-9 AM. This reliance on inter-county peak-time solo commuting does not make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities. 4 US Census Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2002-04 5 US Census, 2000, SF3 Table P30 July 2008 4-13 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 4. Planning Context Environmental Justice Communities Among populations, there are certain groups of people who have been historically marginalized in decision-making processes or who have borne disproportionate negative effects from various programs or sitings of locally unwanted land uses or facilities. The term "Environmental Justice" (EJ) refers to a series of federal regulations requiring that human health and environmental impacts (negative or positive) from programs and activities are distributed equitably throughout the population. It involves significant components of public outreach and analysis of the nature, extent, and incidence of various impacts on a community. The initial step in addressing potential EJ issues is to identify EJ target populations in the study area. The target populations include low-income (below poverty level), minority (non-white), elderly (over age 65), young (under age 15), and disabled residents. For financial, cultural, legal, or physical reasons, all of these groups display more propensity or need to utilize alternative modes of transportation than the general population. "Alternative" refers to all modes of transportation except personal vehicles. People without access to a personal vehicle would also benefit from increased attention to their needs during the planning process. Approximately four percent of Effingham households lack a personal vehicle, including ten percent of all renter households. The following Figure 4.8 depicts the locations of EJ populations in Effingham County. Census tracts with above average numbers (as compared to a base of 129 rural Georgia counties) of minority, elderly, and impoverished people were highlighted. Certain numerical "classes" were described for these three groups, from a "Class 1" population having a slightly higher percentage than average number of citizens with EJ characteristics to a "Class 4" population which has a very high percentage of EJ citizens, relative to other rural counties.6 Because disability levels are so variable and special support services typically exist for handicapped individuals, no specific thresholds were devised for this particular group of people. Thus, they are not depicted specifically in Figure 4.8, but are assumed to reside throughout the county, especially in areas of more concentrated population. During the public involvement process described in the previous chapter, concentrated effort was made to solicit input from EJ groups. As transportation improvement alternatives were evaluated, the effects on the aforementioned populations were considered. 6 Methodology based on "Environmental Justice Identification and Proposed Outreach Report", for the Georgia Department of Transportation by Sycamore Consulting, Inc., December 2006. July 2008 4-14 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County R State Hwy 119 d Environmental Justice Areas (2000) Us Hwy 301 State Hwy 21 Guyton Inset CountyRoad474 Screven d Tr owell Rd Kildare Pi tts R Edw ards Lo Betsy Ave op DyalPsorLtaer'nsdiLnagndRindg Rd Hampton Clyo R ta Rd Old Augus Clyo-kildare Rd Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 ? Rincon Inset State Hwy 652 Barney Rd Victory Ln Plantation Dr an Long Pond Rd State Hwy 462 P Rincon-stillwell Rd Seck inger Ford RdUs Hwy 278 n Kessler Rd Cir Lexington Ave xley St t Old O Walden Br Gracen Rd Gracen Rd S immons St Victory Dr Hines St unte Old Rive Victory Dr Lincoln Ave r RHd Alexander St 7th Ave Davis St r St Cherry St Brogdon Cedar Ln Rd Cemetary St 7th Ave 6th Ave Poplar St 4th Ave Powell Rd G rif f in Rd 4th Ave State Hwy 24 3rd St Little Mc call Rd Poplar St PopMlaar gSnt olia St Magnolia St ChurcPhinSetWStCentral Blvd W Central Blvd Us Hwy 80 Burkhalter Rd Central Ave Broo klet Leefield Rd St ilson Leefield Rd Central CArvoemley Rd Halfway Rd Poun d Rd Bulloch Archer Rd Brooklet Denmark Rd State Hwy 67 SpringfieldCoEugnytypRtoRadd 557 Springfield Inset Garden Ln Old Dix ie Hwy S Early S State Hwy 46 lle Rd State Hwy 17 Oliver/kildare Rd Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha pThomps el Rd on Rd th Church Rd Sam Sm eedsvi orin Pryor R d dmore Bo art Rd C Old River Rd County Road 390 Egypt TusculumShawnee Springfield StiClllwyoell Ebenezer Ogeechee River Old Louisville Rd ld Elam Cemetary Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln Springfiel d R d unda ry Rd Savanna h Old Dixie Hwy Dew itt Rd Town Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Ar Lee Rd Rd Shawnee Egypt Rd Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay Rd Sprin gf iel d Eg ypt Rd M rg an R dChester Thomas Rd Mt Hope Rd Pomery Rd Old Dixie Hwy Clyo-shawnee Rd Green Mo rgan School R d ranch Rd Old Dix ie Hwy S o Sister Ferry Rd Turkey B Bo aen Rd Harr y or ter Rd P Springfield Tusclumboundary Li R AOrnldsdToursffcRudlamSeRedWInallsaceetKRediffer Hill Rd Early St Riv er side Dr Newton Rd KeithSRed e Inset Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Bro gdon Rd P leas Wilder an Rd t Acres Rd 3 rd St Clyde Rd Ash St S Ash St Rd Z e ttl Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Cyl o-shaw nee Rd Stillw ell St S isters Ferry Rd F air Preister Rd Exley Rd Rd Berr yville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd S tillwell Rd Mock Rd er n Rd Cl yo Rd Laurel Tree Rd Whitaker Rd Spring Rd Bethany Rd Wilson Rd Benjam in Gn ann Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Waldhour Rd Mil l Pon d Rd Nellie Rd County Road 590 ph Rah Guyton Ga Highway 119 Archer Rd Watts Rd Pound Rd Central Ave Hone y R idge Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd Co ouse Rd Little Mccall Rd urth BiSghTirlReydDr Ral n Anza Ln Rahn Statio Rd See Barney Rd InPslaenttation Dr Long Pond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Howard Rd Old Augusta Rd ll Mccall Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd State Hwy 119 Marlow Pineora Marlow Rd Sa Hill Rd nd Ogeechee River Dr Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd Heidt Rd w Rd Lo GrounHdorsepen Rd B Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd Blandfosrdsl Rd ZippMeriedrlaRndd Rd lue J ay Rd Rincon Mcca R Oak d St Gr een e Pine Dr Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr evil le Ho dg Goshen Rd Rd Earl Lain Rd y 13 Hardy Rd LGoAnAgveS E 3rd St Tyle4rthStSt 6th St 7th S 8th St 9th St Boyd St 7th St Blandford Rd W 9th St Weis enbake r Rd t N Caro lina Ave State Hwy 336 Mccall Rd Oa k St Maple Dr MuWlbGeesrretrweynoWeodaDyrDr Red Blu Bunyo Fort Howard Rd ff Cir Cy p r ess Dr Lewis Dr Goshen Rd Gold en Rd Jasper Wisenbaker Rd Green St CSatraotneiHDwr y 29 Chimmey Rd Sta te Hw Old Augusta South Rd Us Hwy 17 Sta te Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 46 South CarolinaState Hwy 170 Beaufort h Rd Old Dixie Hwy S t Early St Keller RSdquirrel Run Nease Rd Bluff Dr Eldora Rd Standard Ln N Ash St Gum Wallace R d Webb Dr St N Pine Churc nt Acres Rd 3rd St W 1s t S t W 1st St 3rd St Rose Dr 1st Ave St E21nsdtESS4ttth St Us Hwy 280 Ash St S Hart St tate Hwy 119 S Stillwell Rd Stillwell Rd Ash St Zoller Dr Ash St Bryan State H wy 204 Van Rd Elm St Pine St Eden Bay Rd Schuman Dr Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd Roeblin R d Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Go dle Rd y Rd Faulkville tate Hwy n Briarwood Rd g Pecan L State Hwy 30 Georgia Jimmy De Loach P kwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy Airways Ave Chatham State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Census tracts (as compared twoitahbaabsoSetavtoeeHfaw1yv21e790rargueranl uGmeobregrisaStacte oHwuy 1n70tAiltes) of minority, elderly, and impoverished people are highlighted. Certain numerical "classes" are described for these three groups, from a "Class I" population having a slightly higher percentage than average number of citizens with EJ characteristics to a "Class IV" population which has a very high percentage of EJ citizens, relative to other rural counties. Old River Rd Meldrim Rd S 17 Pooler Pkwy Rogers St Dean Forest Rd Fair St S Railroad Ave Mccall Rd Pleasant Evans Liberty Zettler Rd Mccall Rd Fox St Webb Rd Golf Ln Beebe Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Fort Argyle Rd Little Neck Rd Pine Barren R d Old Louisville Rd 0 Us Hwy 80 2.5 Telfair Rd LGoSwutiianstnveeilHltetwSRytd25c 5 Bay St 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Regional Inset 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 4.8 Legend Environmental Justice Areas by Census Block Group for Effingham County (2000) Areas With Greater Proportion of African American Population (Rural Georgia Average: 23.9%) Class I (23.9 - 36.2 %) Class II (36.2 - 49.0%) Areas With Greater Proportion of Population Below Poverty (Rural Georgia Average: 15.5%) Class I (15.5 - 20.2%) Class II (20.2 - 25.7%) Areas With Greater Proportion of Population 65+ Years (Rural Georgia Average: 11.8%) Class I (11.8 - 13.5%) Class II (13.5 - 15.6%) Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Effingham County Blockgroups Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, Sycamore Consulting and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. Acres Rd Pleasa Courthouse Rd State Hwy 119 July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis In order to prepare for the future, it is necessary to examine past and present trends. This section provides an inventory of the transportation network according to mode and describes the usage, characteristics, and performance of the system now and in the future. Roadway Effingham's roadway network is the backbone of its multi-modal transportation system. It provides mobility for residents to get to dispersed destinations expeditiously and also provides access to activity centers for drivers, walkers, bicyclists, and transit users. The next sections review the following topics relating to the roadway system: functional classification, safety, level of service, surface and bridge conditions, intersections and operations, parking, and emergency use. Functional Classification Functional classification refers to the design, capacity, and role of a facility within the roadway network hierarchy. There are three basic types of roads: arterial, collector, and local. As defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a spectrum of roadway function exists with through movement at one end and access on the other. As seen in Figure 5.1, Interstates (a type of principal arterial) provide a high level of mobility, while local roads provide the most access to abutting destinations at lower design speeds. Arterials and collectors fall in the middle of the spectrum, and each roadway is either "rural" or "urban" depending on whether adjacent land has been formally designated as in an urbanized area by the U.S. Census. The functional classification of a roadway can change over time as improvements are made to the facility or as the surrounding area urbanizes. To be eligible for federal money for improvements, rural roadways must be designated as a major collector or above, and urban roadways must be collectors or above. Though Effingham is currently predominantly rural, it is anticipated that the southern portion of the county will be folded into the urban Savannah Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) during the 2010 Census. Thus, Effingham County will contain both "urban" and "rural" roadway classifications in the future. July 2008 5-1 Most Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis Arterial Collector Principal - Interstate Principal - Expressway Principal - Other Minor Major* Minor* Through movement Least Local Most Access * These categories are valid only for "rural" roads. The "urban" functional classification system does not make a distinction between major and minor collectors. Figure 5.1 Roadway Functional Classification System Diagram There are 737 miles of roadway in Effingham County, including 79 miles of (non-Interstate) arterials, 74 miles of major collectors, 121 miles of minor collectors, 459 miles of local roads, 11 miles of unclassified roads, and small portions of interstates in the southwest and southeast corners. Figure 5.2 depicts the current functional classification of county roadways. Figure 5.3 shows the average annual daily traffic as obtained from traffic count stations throughout the county. Table 5.1 depicts the recommended percentage of roadway miles by type and distribution of roadway miles by functional class in Effingham. As Effingham grows, it will likely need to upgrade some of its collectors to arterial status, providing greater mobility, and also construct more local roads for greater accessibility to abutting land. Table 5.1 Roadway Type and Utilization Source: FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec2_1.htm) Functional Classification Interstates and Expressways Principal (other) and Minor Arterials Major and Minor Collectors FHWA recommended (rural) 2 4% FHWA recommended (urban) 5 10% Effingham County (rural) 3 % 6 12% 15 25% 10.8% 20 25% 5 10% 26.5% Local Roads 65 75% 65 80% 62.3 % July 2008 5-2 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan 2007 GDOT Functional Class C Rd State Hwy 462 lyo State Hwy 652 Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 State Hwy 119 Edw Porter's Landing Rd Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21 op Tr Old River Rd State Hwy 17 owell Rd ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave O ryor Rd P Oliver/kildare Rd ld Dixie Hwy N Nixon Chap Thomps Clyo-kildare Old Rd Augus Sam Sm ta Rd R ee d s vi lle Rd Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d art Rd Walden Br Brooklet Denmark Rd Bur kh Cromley Rd o alter Rd State Hwy 2 4 klet Leefield Rd Bro Stil son Leefield Rd State Hwy 46 ate Hwy 119 Us Hwy 280 390 Road Rd County Old River O ld Elam Cemetary Rd Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln dmore Bo Ar Shawnee undarSy Rd av an na h Old Dixie Co r i nth Hwy C Tow n Dew itt Rd Rd Shawne e Rd hurc h Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Shaw nee Egypt Rd Egypt o rg an RdChester Thomas Rd M Clyo-shawnee Rd Green Morgan School Rd Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Cylo-sha wnee Rd Sisters Ferry Rd S isters Ferry Rd St Stillw F air Preister Rd ell Clyo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Rd Sister Ferry Rd Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy Old Augusta Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 Ga Highway 119 George H Rd Harry or urst Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d ter Rd Old Loui sv P lle R d Springfield Egypt Rd ranch Rd Old Dix Turke y B ie Hwy S Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Springfield Tusclumboundary Li R Bo aen Rd Arnsdorff Rd Old Tuscul am R Keiffer dWallace Rd Early St Hill Rd Berr yville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell Rd Mock Rd S Ash St Riverside Dr Newton Rd Keith Rd Guyton Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Brogdon Rd Pleas Wilder an Rd t Acres Rd 3rd St Ash St Springfield Zettler Rd Mccall Rd Clyde Rd n Rd Bethany Rd WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann R d Long Stillwell Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Waldhour Rd Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd ph Rah Archer Rd Watts Rd Pound Rd Central Ave Hon e y R idge Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd Co ouse Rd Little Mc call Rd urth Shirley Dr Big TRd Ral n Anza Ln Rahn Statio Rd Barney Rd Plantation Dr Long Pond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St Rincon 9th 4th St St Fort Howard R d Us Hwy 80 Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd San d ill R d H Ogeechee RSivtaegr eDfrield Rd San Edgewood Rd Blue Ja y Rd Lo GrounHdorsepen Rd Midland Rd Blandford Rd Zittrover Rd Zipperer Rd w Rd lue Jay Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr ll eville Ho Rd B Mcca R Oak d St Greene Pine Dr Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd dg Goshen Rd Rd Earl Lain Rd Keller RSdquirrel Run Heidt Rd Nease Rd d Hill Rd State Hwy Ogeechee River Bluff Dr Old River Rd Meldrim Rd Elm St Eden Bay Rd Schuman Dr Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd Roeblin Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Godley Rd Rd Faulkville n Briarwood Rd g Pecan L Sta te Hwy 30 Georgia Jimmy De Loach PkwyJim my De Loach Pkwy r PkwyAirways Ave P oole State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Us Hwy 17 State Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 4 6 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Sun y Blvd State Hw y 462 Cit State Hwy 170 170 Alt State Hwy 170 State Hwy Green St State Hwy 119 St State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 St y 17 Van Rd 204 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Fort Stewart Military Reservation Fort Argyle Rd ate Hw John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Rogers St Dean Forest R d Us Hwy 80Kessler Ave Fair St LouSitsavteSilalHevawRnynda2h5RciveBr ay St Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Colleton Emanuel !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Tattnall Bryan Long Wayne !"e$ Liberty McIntosh Chatham Chatham Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.2 Legend GDOT Roadway Functional Classification (2007) Interstate Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Unclassified (Paved) Unclassified (Unpaved) Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other 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 RC File (2007), and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. State Hwy 67 July 2008 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan 2006 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) C Rd Hampton lyo State Hwy 462 Stat e Hwy 652 Us Hwy 601 State Hwy 119 Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 ta Rd Springfield Rd on Rd Tr State Hwy 21 Ol Old River Rd Screven State Hwy 17 State Hwy 24 Kildare 3160 $+ $+ 680 owell Rd T homps 560 $+ Old Augus Clyo-kildare Rd Corinth Churc h Rd Pryor R d 2020 $+ d Elam Cemetary Rd $+ undary Rd 3380 Shawnee dmore Bo Ar Lee Rd Clyo-shawnee Rd Shear w Egypt 3770 $+ 730$+ $+ 2040 Clyo 150$+0 $+760 St F air Preister Rd $+740 $+ 1720 State Hwy 336 Dutton Ln ood Rd Sister Ferry Rd Ogeechee River alter Rd State Hwy 67 B ur kh klet Leefield Rd Bro Stil son Leefield Rd Cromley Rd o Bulloch Brooklet Denmark Rd State Hwy 46 Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 5 Liberty State Hwy 119 St ate Hwy 119 Bryan 10 Miles 390 Road Rd County Old River Ga Highway 119 Rd Spring Rd 2340 $+ Springfield Egypt Rd B e rr y vil le Old Louisvi Rd lle or t er Rd P Tusculum Mt Hope Rd $+ 3000 Guyton Riverside DrNewton Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd $+4460 $+ 2050 Mock Rd Arnsdorff Rd 3010 1460 $+$+$+$+ 4900 $+$+$+$+$+ Wilder Rd 3530 5420 8770 7970 5620 $+ Sp96r1i0ngfield Beebe Rd $+ 5630 $+ $+ 3100 6780 Little Mccall Rd Indigo Rd $+1160 Stillwell 2040 $+ $+ 3420 $+2470 $+ 14740 Ebenezer $+1080 N ellie R d $+3870 Jasper Central Ave Co ouse Rd o w lue Jay 2740 $+6830 $+ 198770900$+0$+$+$+$+74447900 urth Big T Rd Ground Rd Ri5n4c70o$+n$+$+2121543060 $+5400 Effingham State Hwy 141 cc Mccall Rd Helmey Dr State Hwy 119 Pineora$+ 3960 L Rd B $+ M all Rd 30100 Us Hwy 80 Eldora Rd Marlow $+ 3060 Eden Edgewood Rd 5020 $+ Blue Jay Rd $+ 2680 Zittrover Rd Nease Rd 3860 $+ 4720 $+ 3830 $+ Midland Rd 1930 6270 $+ $+4780 27990 $+ Sta te Hwy 30 50380 $+ South Carolina State Hwy 170 Georgia $+10160 $+ 7660 $+ $+ 3880 860$+ Faulkville $+ $+ 6430 15260 Jimmy De Loach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy Airways Ave State Hwy 170 State Hwy State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Fort Argyle Rd 204 State Hwy $+ Meldrim $+ $+ 28260 31670 ate Hw 3180 Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd St y 17 Dean Forest R Fair St Chatham d Pine Barren Rd Us Hwy 80Kessler Ave Savannah River LouSistvaitleleHRwdy 25c Bay St 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 Green St State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 462 Su n y Blvd Cit State Hwy 170 Hwy 4 6 Beaufort Regional Inset Burke Jenkins Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton Emanuel !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan !"e$ Liberty Chatham Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.3 Legend 2006 Traffic Count Stations with AADT $+ 35,001 and Above $+ 15,001 to 35,000 $+ 10,001 to 15,000 $+ 3,001 to 10,000 $+ 3,000 and Below Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other 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: STARS (2006) and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis Safety Assessing the safety of the roadway system is a critical component of a transportation plan, and incident statistics can help identify key locations where safety improvements would be most beneficial. To perform a safety analysis, GDOT crash data and the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) incident database were used to map incident locations and provide crash rates for road segments and intersections throughout Effingham County. Between January 1st, 2004 and December 31st, 2006, the most recent available data, a total of 3,310 traffic incidents were reported in Effingham County, resulting in an average of over 1,000 crashes a year as seen in Table 5.2. These incidents involved 5,254 vehicles and resulted in 24 fatalities and 1,310 injuries. Nine fatalities occurred during single vehicle crashes, which made up almost half of all incidents. Figure 5.4A shows the combined number of crashes occurring at intersections and along roadway segments, with fatal crash locations called out. Figure 5.4B depicts crash rates on mile roadway segments experiencing three or more crashes between 2004 and 2006. Table 5.2 Crash Statistics by Year Source: CARE Incident Database, GDOT Year 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL Number of Crashes 1,012 1,196 1,102 3,310 Number of Fatalities 5 9 10 Number of Injuries 433 409 468 Number of Vehicles Involved 1,616 1,889 1,749 Crash Rate per 1,000 population 22.7 25.5 22.5 24 1,310 5,254 23.6 Of the 21 fatal crashes (one crash resulted in four deaths), almost half occurred between 4-9 pm, and 17 (81%) occurred on roadways with a speed limit of 55mph or over, primarily minor arterials and major collectors. Driver age did not seem to be a factor and only three were confirmed to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While not unusual for rural counties, dark unlighted conditions were more prevalent in Effingham's crashes than they were in the rest of the state, as were off-roadway collisions. Fatal single-vehicle incidents typically resulted from failure to negotiate a curve. From analysis of fatal incident data, it appears that targeted improvements on county arterials and collectors would have the most beneficial safety impacts. Street lighting and wider shoulders in sections of difficult roadway geometry may decrease the number of fatal crashes. SR 119 near Laurel Hill Road in Clyo is a hotspot that deserves further investigation, having had three fatal incidents occur within half a mile of this location. July 2008 5-5 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Roadway Crash Frequency and Fatalities (2004 - 2006) Screven Us Hwy 601 Hampton lyo C Rd State Hwy 652 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 Edw Porter's Landing Rd Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21 op Tr State Hwy 13 Old River Rd State Hwy 17 Oliver/kildare Rd owell Rd ards Lo Kildare Betsy Ave !( Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha Thomps C ly o -k ild a re Old Rd A ugus Sam Sm ta Rd ee dsv Wes Edward Rd R Us Hwy 278 ille Rd Pryor R d Ar dm or Springfie ld Rd on Rd pel Rd art Rd Old Ol Walden Br lter Rd ok Sti l Old River Rd George H Harr y or Rd Dutton Ln BrookleIt Bulloch !( ?!( !( !(G?uyton !(S!(pringfieA!(ld!( ? Burkha let Leefield Rd Bro Archer Rd o Brogdon Rd Bo aen Rd Turkey B P le as Old Dixie Hwy Early St ie Hwy S Sister Ferry Rd Ash St ph Rah Zettler Rd Mccall Rd S Ash St Friendship Rd Mock Rd Rd St State Hwy 24 d Elam Cem etary Rd Shearwo od e BouSnadvaarnynRadh Tow n Rd Egypt Shaw nee Eg ypt Rd Cor inth C hurc h Rd Shawnee Lee Rd rg an R dChester Thomas Rd M Clyo-shawnee R d Green M o rgan School Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cy lo-shaw nee S i sters Ferry Rd Rd F St ill wel l air C Preister Rd lyo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Spring Rd Exley Rd son Leefield Rd County Road 34 Ga Highway 119 urst Rd Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d ter Rd Ol d L ouisv P lle Rd R iverside Dr Newton Rd Spring field Egypt R d ranch Rd Old Dix Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd 4th Ave Watts Rd Pound Rd Arnsdorff Rd Old Tusculam R Keiffer dWallace Rd Hill Rd Wild er an Rd t Acres R d 3 rd St Clyde Rd Little Mc call Rd Ral B e r r y ville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell Rd Bethany Rd WilsoBnenRjdamin Gnann R d Stillwell Long Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Waldhour Rd n Rd n Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd Barney Rd Plantation Dr Long Pond Rd Ebenezer Plant McIntosh !( !( Georgia-Pacific Complex Rahn Statio Rd Hon e A y Ridg e R d Heidt Landing Rd Central Ave Pineora !( Shirley Dr Big TRd Hardy Rd 7th St Rincon 9th 4th St St Fort Ho war d Rd Us Hwy 17 Sun y Blvd State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 278 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Jasper State Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 S tate Hwy 462 Cit Green St Brooklet Denmark Rd Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 U s Hwy 80 State Hwy 46 w Rd lue Ja y Marlow o thouse Rd Marlow Rd Sand ill R d H !( Ogeechee River Dr San ur C Edg ew o od Rd Blue Ja y Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd !( Midland Blandford Rd Rd Zittrover Rd Zipperer Rd B Rd !( Mcca ll R Oak d St Gree Pine Dr n e Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr Ho dg Goshen Rd evil l e R Run d irre l Squ Rd Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 170 S tate Hwy 46 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Beaufort Heidt Rd Nease Rd Kelle r d Hill Rd 170 Alt State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 ate Hwy 119 Pembroke Bryan !"`$ State H Ogeechee River Bluff Dr Briarwood Rd g !(!( ? !( !"e$ Elm St Eden Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd Roebli n Rd n Godley Rd Old River Rd !( !( Bay Rd Meldrim Faulkville Pecan L Port Wentworth Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah Airways Ave Schum an Dr I Chatham Bloomingdale State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Georgia State Hwy 170 State Hwy Van Rd wy 204 0 2.5 5 Liberty 10 Miles !( Fort Argyle Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pine Pooler Barren Rd Us Hwy 80 Garden City Fair St Savannah River LoSutaisteviHllwe yRd25c Bay St Little Neck Rd State Hwy 67 Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.4A Legend Roadway Crash Frequency and Fatalities (CARE Data) !( Fatal Crash 51 or More Crashes 26 to 50 Crashes 11 to 25 Crashes 6 to 10 Crashes 1 to 5 Crashes 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 Railroads Source: University Alabama CARE and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Road Segment Crash Rates by Functional Classification Vs. Statewide Averages (2004 - 2006) Screven Hampton lyo C Rd Us Hwy 601 State Hwy 652 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 Edw Porter's Landing Rd Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 op Tr Old State Hwy 21 Old River Rd State Hwy 17 Oliver/kildare Rd owell Rd ards Lo Kildare Pitts R Betsy Ave Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha Thomps Clyo-kildare Old Rd Augus Sam Sm ta Rd R eedsv Us Hwy 278 ille Rd Springfield Rd on Rd p el Rd d State Hwy 13 Pryor Rd more Bo art Rd Walden Br State Hwy 67 State Hwy 24 lter Rd ok Bur k ha let Leefield Rd Bro Brooklet S ti l son Leefield Rd IBulloch 390 Road Rd County Old River Ol ? d Elam Cemetary Rd Shearwoo d undarSyaRvdanna h Old Dixie Cor Hwy inth Dew itt Rd Town Rd C hurch Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Ard Shawnee Lee Rd Shaw nee Egypt Rd Egypt rg an R dChester Thomas Rd Clyo-shawnee Rd Green M organ School R d Friendship Rd A Ollie Morgan Rd Cylo-shaw nee Rd S i sters Ferry Rd Preister Rd St SistersSFteirlrlywRd F air ell Clyo R d Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Rd Dutton Ln Sister Ferry Rd o Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy Ga Highway 119 George H Harr y or Rd ? urst Rd Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay Rd Boaen Rd t er Rd Old L ouisv P lle Rd M Springfield Egypt Rd ranch Rd Old Dix Turke y B ie Hwy S Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Springfield Tusclumboundary Li R Arnsdorff Rd Keiffer Hill Rd Early St Mock Rd Berr yville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell Rd Bro gdon Rd EffinghamSpringfield Riverside Dr Newton Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd 4th Ave Rd Ash St Zettl Mccall Rd ph Rah Archer Rd Guyton ? Watts Rd Pound Rd Forest Rd Clyde Rd Little Mccall Rd er n Rd Ral n Bethany Rd WilsoBnenRjdamin Gnann Rd Long Stillwell Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Waldhour Rd Ebenezer Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd Barney Rd Plantation Dr Long Pond Rd Rahn Statio Rd Co house Rd Hone Central Ave A y Ridge Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd urt Shirley Dr Big T Rd Hardy Rd 7th St Rincon 9th 4th St St Fort Howard Rd Old Augusta Rd State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 278 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Jasper State Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 462 Cit Green St Us Hwy 17 Su n y Blvd Brooklet Denmark Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 U s Hwy 80 State Hwy 46 State Average Crash Rate per 100 MVM Rural Roadway Functional Classification ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Interstate: 67 Principal Arterial: 141 Minor UAs Hrwtye2r80ial: 181 Major Collector: 197 Pembroke Local: 150 0 2.5 5 Liberty Bryan 10 Miles Little Neck Rd Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd Sand ill R d H Ogeechee River Dr San Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd Lo GrounHdorsepen Rd Midland Rd Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd Blandfosrsdl Rd Zipperer Rd w Rd lue Jay B Rd Mcca ll R Oak d St Greene Pine Dr Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr Ho dg Goshen Rd eville R d Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 170 State H wy 46 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Beaufort Keller RSdquirrel Run Nease Rd Heidt Rd d Hill Rd 170 Alt !"`$ Ogeechee River Bluff Dr Elm St Rive r S Laurel Rd Cir Conaway Rd Briarwood Rd g Eden ?Jabez Jones Rd Roeb li n Rd Meldrim Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Godley Rd Rd Pecan L n Port Wentworth !"e$ Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah Georgia State Hwy 170 Ol d State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 State H Bay Rd Schuman Dr I Faulkville Bloomingdale Airways Ave Chatham d Dean Forest R Van Rd wy 204 Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Fort Argyle Rd Pine Pooler Barren Rd Us Hwy 80 Garden City Fair St Savannah River LoSutaisteviHllewyRd25c Bay St State Hwy Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan !"e$ Liberty Chatham Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.4B Legend Percent of State Average Crash Rate Greater than 400% 251 to 400% 151 to 250% 0 to 150% 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 Railroads Note: Crash rates are only shown for roadways experiencing three or more incidents between 2004-2006. Source: University Alabama CARE and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis There were 873 injury crashes (including the aforementioned 21 fatal crashes) in Effingham over the three-year period of 2004 to 2006. According to the time-of-day chart, seen in Figure 5.5, it appears that many of the incidents are associated with evening and morning commute activity, with an additional spike in early afternoon. Cross-tabulating driver age with time-of-day, teenage drivers account for a disproportionate share of crashes occurring between 3-4 pm, though 35-44 year-old drivers also see their highest incident share during this time period. Data seems to indicate that transporting children from school via personal vehicles could result in higher crash exposure and extra attention should be paid to safety mitigation measures in the vicinities of elementary, middle, and high schools. Number of incidents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12:01 1to:011:02to0:02A1:M03to0:03A1:M40to:004A1:M50to:005A1:M60to:006A1:M07to0:07A1:M08to0:08A19:M:0t0o0119A0t:Mo:000110A1t:Mo10:0101A1:1M0t2o0:01A12M1tNo:o01o1:n20to:002P1:M30to:003P1:M40to:004P1:M05to0:05P1:M06to0:06P1M:70to:007P1:M80to:008P19:M:0t0o0119P0t:Mo0:1001110:P0:tMo0101to1PM:1020MPiMdnight Time of day Figure 5.5 Vehicular Incidents by Time of Day Two-thirds of injury crashes occur on roadway segments, whereas the remainder occurs at or near intersections. Some roads experiencing frequent incidents include a seven-mile stretch of SR 21 between the Effingham-Chatham county line to just north of Rincon, SR 119, SR 17 approaching the intersection of US 80, and Old River Road at I-16. Intersections with the highest crash frequency in the county are SR 21 at Ebenezer Road SR 17 at Blue Jay Road SR 21 at Chimney Road Blue Jay Road at Midland Road, and SR 17 at US 80 US 80 at Sandhill Road. July 2008 5-8 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis Each intersection saw 20 to 50 incidents over three years. According to the most recent 2004-2006 crash rate data, Little McCall Road, McCall Road, Fort Howard Road, and Chimney Road have experienced crash rates significantly higher than the statewide average for their functional classification. Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of how well a facility is performing given its function and use. For roads, LOS is typically a function of the roadway volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio that provides a quantitative measure of network congestion. The following definitions of LOS are used here: LOS A C: Conditions where traffic is moving relatively freely, corresponding to v/c 0.7 LOS D: Conditions where vehicle speed and freedom of movement is beginning to decline slightly due to increasing volume, where 0.7 < v/c 0.85 LOS E: Conditions where traffic volume is at or close to capacity, resulting in delays. 0.85 < v/c 1.00 LOS F: Conditions where the demand for space exceeds the capacity of the roadway (v/c > 1.00) and a breakdown in vehicular flow occurs At the planning level, GDOT strives to provide service at LOS C, though in some cases, LOS D is considered acceptable due to the impacts required to obtain LOS C. Though slightly congested, traffic is still flowing at LOS D. Created using the travel demand model described in Appendix C, Figure 5.6 depicts the expected level of service on existing and committed roads in 2030. "Existing" roads refer to present-day facilities, while "committed" projects are those planned and budgeted in the GDOT 2006 6- year construction work program. Typically, roadway projects are programmed in phases, including preliminary engineering and design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. "Committed" projects have financial resources allocated to one or more of these phases between 2006 and 2012. The 2030 E+C network includes scheduled operational, capacity, and maintenance improvements. According to preliminary analysis, most of the county roadways are expected to be operating at acceptable levels of service in 2030. However, several locations are seen to experience unacceptable levels of congestion during peak periods, including US 80, SR 17, Old River Road, and the southern portion of SR 21. This congestion is due primarily to commuter movement into and out of Chatham County. In the case of SR 21, its difficult interchange with I-95 in Chatham is a cause of problems further upstream. In addition to the corridors identified in the year 2030 analysis, observation of current traffic conditions indicates congestion along SR 119 between Springfield and Guyton during school start and finish times. This results in significant queuing and delay for travel along the corridor and turning movements accessing the schools. These conditions are likely to worsen with increasing daily traffic volumes projected along SR 119. July 2008 5-9 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan 2030 Existing Plus Committed Daily Traffic Volume/Capacity (V/C) and Level of Service (LOS) Us Hwy 301 State Hwy 21 Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 Kildare Kildare Rd lyo Clyo-Kildare Rd State Hwy 119 C Rd State Hwy 462 NOTES: Level of Service congested. (LOS) SDtatetoHwFy 65a2re considered Us Hwy 601 Us Hwy 321 Future roadway network includes Old Augusta Road improvement (programmed in GDOT 2006 6-year construction work program. Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 Old Dixie Hwy SR 21 State Hwy 67 State Hwy 24 Ogeechee River SR 17 Egypt Church Rd Savannah Shawnee Town Rd Clyo State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Green St alter Rd Burkh Cromley Rd oo Us Hwy 17 klet Leefield Rd Br Old River Rd Stil son Leefield Rd County Road 34 Old Louisville Rd Tusculum Pleasant Acres Rd CR Springfield 308 Stillwell SR 275 Ebenezer Clyde Rd Brooklet Denmark Rd Fort Howard SR 21 State Hwy 46 Ga Highway 119 Us Hwy 80 State Hwy 119 Guyton SR 119 Honey Ridge Pineora Marlow Blue Jay Rd Courthouse Rd Little McCall McCall Rd Midland Rd CR 140 Rincon Old Augusta State H wy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 4 6 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Sun y Blvd State Hw y 462 Cit State Hwy 170 SR 21 Eldora Rd 170 Alt ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Eden SR 30 Monteith Rd State Hwy 30 Fort Argyle Rd 204 State Hwy Ogeechee River I-16 Fort Stewart Military Reservation Meldrim Rd US 80/SR Meldrim 26 Faulkville Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Crossroad Pkwy r PkwyAirw ays Ave oole P Ramp St y 17 Ramp Rogers St Ramp I-16/SR 404 John Carter Rd ate Hw I-16 I-16/SR 404 Pine Barren I-16 Rd I-95 Dean Forest R I-95 StaRteoHbweyr2t1Miller Rd Georgia State Hwy 170 SR-21 SR 25 State Hwy 25 d Us Hwy 80KesslerSAvRe 21 Fair St SpurLouSitsavteillSHeawvRaydnn2a5hcRivBeLar oycSat l State Hwy Regional Inset Burke Jenkins Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton Emanuel !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.6 Legend 2030 Daily V/C Ratios V/C Ratio: > 1.0 (LOS F) V/C Ratio: 0.86 - 1.0 (LOS E) V/C Ratio: 0.71 - 0.85 (LOS D) V/C Ratio: <= 0.70 (LOS A to C) Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other 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: CUTS, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing and Future Conditions Analysis Road Surface and Bridge Conditions ROAD SURFACE Slightly less than two-thirds of Effingham County's roads are paved. 128 centerline miles of roads are dirt, while an additional 71 miles are covered in ash. As traffic volume has increased in parts of the county from population growth, ash and dirt roads have become more difficult to maintain. Future development and freight movement will necessitate the paving of ash and more heavily traveled dirt roads, particularly in southern Effingham. Areas of northern Effingham, where connectivity between paved roads is limited, will also need to resurface some roads in order to better accommodate residents and emergency vehicles. Improved pavement conditions will help in terms of safety, as well as continuing maintenance responsibilities. Figure 5.7 displays the surface status of Effingham's roads. BRIDGES There are 72 bridges in Effingham, 36 of which are maintained by the county. Keeping bridges in good condition is important for safety as well as to avoid delays created by diversions when bridges are closed or have weight limit postings. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) to monitor the condition of bridges on public roads. The NBI identifies bridge characteristics including age, sufficiency and composition. The National Bridge Inspection Standards require that all bridges carrying public roads be inspected and evaluated for safety biennially. Additionally, each bridge must be rated for its safe load capacity. If the maximum legal load exceeds the operating load, the bridge must be immediately strengthened, closed, or posted. The calculated NBI sufficiency rating, on a scale of 0 to 100, is indicative of the fitness of the bridge to remain in service. A rating of 50 or less signifies that a bridge structure is eligible to receive funding for near-term replacement. The general characteristics and sufficiency ratings of county bridges is shown in Table 5.3. Overall, Effingham's 72 bridges have an average sufficiency rating of 87.2. Prioritization of repairs and allocation of moneys (a lump sum is usually set aside for maintenance) is conducted by county officials. July 2008 5-11 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Roadway Surface Screven Us Hwy 301 Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 Hampton lyo State Hwy 119 E dw Porter's Landing Rd op Tr Old State Hwy 21 Oliver/kildare Rd owell R d ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha p Thomps C ly o-kildare Old Rd A ug u s Sam Sm ta Rd R eedsv i lle Rd C Rd Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 Stat e Hwy 652 Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d Pryor R d dmore Bo art Rd Walden Br alter Rd oo Burkh Br Brooklet State Hwy 24 O ld Elam Cemeta ry R d Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln Ar Shawnee un da rSy aRvdan na h Old Dixie Co rinth Hwy C Tow n DRdewSihttawRndee Rd hur ch Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd Egypt o rg an R dChester Thomas Rd M Clyo-shawne e Rd Green Mo rgan School R d Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd S i sters Ferry Rd F St S tillwell air Cl Preister Rd yo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd Rd Sister Ferry R d Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy klet Leefield Rd Stil son Leefield Rd Bulloch State Hwy 46 Old River Rd County Road 34 Ga Highway 119 Eldora Rd i State Hwy 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 Newton Rd Riverside Dr Us Hwy 80 Sp ringfield Egypt R d ran ch Rd Old Dix Turke y B ie Hwy S Tusculum Mt Hope Rd S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R Bo aen Rd Arnsdorff Rd Keiffer Hill Rd Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd Mock Rd Early St Hart St Keith Rd Guyton Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Bro gdo n Rd Effingham Forest Rd Clyde Rd Ash St Rd Z ettl Mccall Rd Stillw ell R d Springfield er n Rd Bethany Rd WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd Stillwell Long Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Waldhour Rd Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd Old Augusta Rd ph Rah Archer Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd Watts Rd Pound Rd Central Ave Hon e y R idg e Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd San ill R d d H Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd San Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd Co ouse Rd Little Mccall Rd urth Shirley Dr B ig T Rd Ral Anza Ln w Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd B Midland Rd Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd Blan dford Rd ssl Zipperer Rd lue Jay Rahn Statio Rd n Plan Barney Rd tation Dr Long Pond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Ho ward Rd Rincon Rd Mcca R Oak d St Green Pine Dr e Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr ll e ville Ho dg Goshen Rd Rd Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 336 Jasper State H wy 141 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Brooklet Denmark Rd Keller RSdquirrel Run Nease Rd Heidt Rd d Hill Rd ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 Liberty Pembroke Bryan 5 10 Miles Bluff Dr Elm St Pine St R iv e r S Laurel Rd Cir Eden Meldrim Rd Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd Roebli n Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Go Rd dley Rd n Briarwood Rd g Pecan L Port Wentworth Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah Georgia State Hwy 170 Ol d State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 State Hwy Bay Rd Schum an Dr Van Rd 204 Fort Stewart Military Reservation Fort Argyle Rd P Pkw Dean Forest R Faulkville Bloomingdale y ooler Chatham d Pooler John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80 Fair St Savannah River LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St State Hwy 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 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 Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.7 Legend Roadway Surfaces Ash Surface Dirt Surface Paved Surface 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 (Outside Effingham County) Source: Effingham County, 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 Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Table 5.3 Bridge Conditions Source: National Bridge Inventory Facility Carried by Structure Features Intersected BUNYAN KESSLER RD LOG LANDING ROAD CLYO-KILDARE ROAD SPRINGFIELD-TUSCLU LITTLE McCALL ROAD LONG BRIDGE ROAD McCALL ROAD SR 21 (NBL) SR 21 (NBL) SR 21 (NBL) SR 21 (SBL) SR 21 (SBL) SR 21 (SBL) SECKINGER FORD RD SR 119 OLD AUGUSTA ROAD OLD LOUISVILLE ROA STANDARD LANE SR 21 SR 119 SR 21 I-95 (NBL) I-95 (SBL) SR 119 MILL POND ROAD OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY PRYOR ROAD RACE PATH ROAD RIVERSIDE DRIVE SHEAROUSE SPUR RD SPRINGFIELD-EYGPT CENTRAL AVENUE EARLY STREET STILLWELL-CLYO RD SR 17 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY SISTERS FERRY HONEY RIDGE ROAD SR 119 SR 26 - US 80 SR 26 - US 80 DASHER CREEK EBENEEZER CREEK EBENEZER CREEK JACKS BRANCH LITTLE EBENEZER CREEK LOCKNER CREEK LITTLE EBENEZER CREEK LITTLE EBENEZER BRANCH CSX RAILROAD JACKS BRANCH CSX RAILROAD JACKS BRANCH LITTLE EBENEZER BRANCH DASHER CREEK JACKS BRANCH SWEIGOFFER CREEK SHRIMP CREEK JACKS BRANCH COW PEN CREEK OGEECHEE RIVER O/F CSX RAILROAD (635128B) SAVANNAH RIVER SAVANNAH RIVER WHITE DEER BRANCH POLLY CREEK COW PEN CREEK JINK FORD BRANCH LITTLE EBENEZER CREEK SHRIMP CREEK WHITE DEER BRANCH HEIDT BRANCH MILL CREEK JACKS BRANCH GROOVER BRANCH MILL CREEK TURKEY BRANCH TURKEY BRANCH O/F EBENEZER CREEK MILL CREEK DEEP BRANCH LITTLE OGEECHEE CREEK LITTLE OGEECHEE CRK O/F Location Sufficiency Rating Maintenance Responsibility Functional Class of Route 2 MI E OFRINCON 100.0 2 9 4 MI N OF RINCON 100.0 2 9 13 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 99.9 2 7 1 MI NW OFSPRINGFIELD 99.9 2 8 5 MI NW OF RINCON 99.6 2 8 3 MI E OF RINCON 99.6 2 7 3 MI S OF SPRINGFIELD 99.6 2 8 3 MI N OF RINCON 99.5 1 6 .75 MI OF SPRINGFIELD 99.5 1 6 1 MI E OF SPRINGFIELD 99.5 1 6 .75 MI S OF SPRINGFIELD 99.5 1 6 1 MI E OF SPRINGFIELD 99.5 1 6 3 MI N OF RINCON 99.4 1 6 1.5 MI E OF RINCON 99.3 2 7 IN SPRINGFIELD CITY LIMIT 99.3 1 9 2 MI SE OF RINCON 99.2 2 7 1.5 MI NW OF GUYTON 98.9 2 8 1 MI W OF SPRINGFIELD 98.9 2 9 14 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 97.4 1 6 3.5 W OF GUYTON 94.6 1 6 IN RINCON CITY LIMITS 94.0 1 6 4 MI N OF JCT SR 21 93.7 1 1 4 MI N OF JCT SR 21 93.7 1 1 1 MI W OF SPRINGFIELD 93.7 1 6 2.5 MI NE OF RINCON 92.5 2 9 2 MI NE OF SHAWNEE 92.5 2 9 15 MI N OF GUYTON 92.5 2 9 3 MI S OF SPRINGFIELD 92.5 2 9 3 MI E OF GUYTON 92.5 2 9 2 MI W OF SPRINGFIELD 92.5 2 9 6 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 92.5 2 9 2 MI S OF GUYTON 92.4 2 9 CTY LMT OF SPRINGFIELD 92.4 2 9 4 MI E OF SPRINGFIELD 92.4 2 7 1 MI S OF GUYTON 91.7 1 7 4 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 91.6 2 8 4 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 91.6 2 8 6 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 91.5 2 9 4 MI S OF GUYTON 91.4 2 8 2 MI S OF CLYO 91.3 1 6 8 MI S OF GUYTON 90.9 1 6 8.5 S OF GUYTON 90.9 1 6 Year Built 2001 2002 1996 1997 1995 1996 1983 1996 1997 1996 1997 1997 1959 1986 1964 1991 1974 1997 1986 1992 1960 1976 1976 1989 1967 1950 1950 1950 1957 1950 1950 1950 1970 1955 1960 1950 1950 1978 1950 1963 1926 1926 Year Reconstructed AGE (2008) Age(2008) inc reconstruction Average Daily Traffic Historical significance Posting Status STRAHNET Highway Designation - 7 7 100 0 A 0 - 6 6 100 0 A 0 - 12 12 600 0 A 0 - 11 11 800 0 A 0 - 13 13 3020 0 A 0 - 12 12 2400 0 A 0 - 25 25 3020 0 A 0 - 12 12 9800 0 A 0 - 11 11 9800 N A 0 - 12 12 9800 0 A 0 - 11 11 9800 N A 0 - 11 11 9800 0 A 0 1996 49 12 13900 0 A 0 - 22 22 5000 0 A 0 - 44 44 5300 0 A 0 - 17 17 3020 0 A 0 - 34 34 3020 0 A 0 - 11 11 1050 0 A 0 - 22 22 3300 0 A 0 - 16 16 2800 0 A 0 1989 48 19 13900 N A 0 - 32 32 48720 1 A 1 - 32 32 48720 1 A 1 - 19 19 5000 0 A 0 - 41 41 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 90 0 A 0 - 51 51 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 100 0 A 0 - 58 58 530 0 A 0 - 38 38 740 0 A 0 - 53 53 1000 0 A 0 - 48 48 5300 0 A 0 - 58 58 3020 0 A 0 - 58 58 3020 0 A 0 2003 30 5 100 0 P 0 - 58 58 1900 0 A 0 - 45 45 2600 0 A 0 - 82 82 8000 0 A 0 - 82 82 8000 0 A 0 July 2008 5-13 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Facility Carried by Structure Features Intersected SR 17 SR 26 - US 80 SR 17 SR 26 - US 80 SR 26 - US 80 SR 30 LEWIS RAHN ROAD ARNSDORFF LOOP RD LEXINGTON AVE EXT. MORGAN ROAD OLD AUGUSTA ROAD SR 21 SR 119 SR 26 - US 80 SISTERS FERRY I-16 (WBL) I-16 (EBL) CLYO-SHANNEE ROAD OLD AUGUSTA ROAD SR 21 LONG BRIDGE ROAD CAROLINA AVENUE SR 21 SR 21 STILLWELL ROAD SR 26 - US 80 LOG LANDING ROAD OLD RIVER ROAD CSX RR (620047G)* I-16* OGEECHEE CREEK MELDRIM BRANCH LITTLE BLOCK CREEK REDDING BRANCH REDDING BRANCH MONTIETH CREEK LITTLE EBENEZER CREEK TURKEY BRANCH TRIB. POLLY CREEK TURKEY BRANCH DEVILS BRANCH TURKEY BRANCH EBENEEZER CREEK STILL BRANCH TURKEY BRANCH OGEECHEE RIVER O/F OGEECHEE RIVER O/F EBENEZER CREEK LOCKNER CREEK POLLY CREEK EBENEZER CREEK DASHER BRANCH DASHER CREEK SWEIGOFFER CREEK EBENEZER CREEK OGEECHEE RIVER O/F EBENEZER CREEK I-16 (SR 404) SR 21 SPUR S-1868 OLD RIVER ROAD TOTAL 72 Bridges Table 5.3 Bridge Conditions, Continued Location 11 MI S OF GUYTON 7.5 MI S OF GUYTON 6 MI N OF GUYTON 8 MI S OF GUYTON 8 MI S OF GUYTON 3 MI NE INT US 80 & SR 17 4 MI N OF RINCON 5 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 1.5 MI N OF RINCON 7 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 12 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 4 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 1 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 9 MI S OF GUYTON 4.5 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 16 MI S OF GUYTON 16 MI S OF GUYTON 8 MI NE OF SPRINGFIELD 6 MI NE OF RINCON IN CITY LIMITS OF RINCON 4 MI E OF SPRINGFIELD CITY LIMIT OF RINCON IN CITY LIMITS OF RINCON 1 MI S OF RINCON SPRINGFIELD CITY LIMITS 9 MI S OF GUYTON 4 MI N OF RINCON 15 MI S OF GUYTON .5 MI N OF SPRINGFIELD 15 MI S OF GUYTON Average: Sufficiency Rating 90.6 90.0 89.8 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.4 81.5 81.5 81.4 80.3 80.0 78.0 77.5 76.7 74.7 74.5 72.9 71.4 70.4 68.8 64.3 63.8 62.5 61.3 47.4 47.1 47.1 0.0 0.0 Maintenance Responsibility 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 Functional Class of Route 7 6 7 6 6 7 9 9 9 9 8 6 6 6 9 1 1 8 9 6 7 9 6 6 7 6 9 7 6 1 87.2 Year Built 1960 1926 1951 1926 1926 1955 1996 1955 1950 1950 1978 1986 1963 1944 1993 1966 1966 1975 1974 1931 1968 1960 1931 1960 1959 1944 1978 1966 1936 1966 Year Reconstructed 2005 1998 2004 2004 2003 1998 1989 1990 - AGE (2008) 48 82 57 82 82 53 12 53 58 58 30 22 45 64 15 42 42 33 34 77 40 48 77 48 49 64 30 42 72 42 41 years Age(2008) inc reconstruction 48 82 57 82 82 53 12 53 58 58 3 10 45 64 15 4 4 5 34 10 40 48 19 18 49 64 30 42 72 42 36 years Average Daily Traffic 4100 8000 2100 7300 7300 3400 100 100 100 100 1470 4400 2890 7300 740 22400 25410 3020 740 13900 2800 740 23800 28700 1500 7300 100 3500 1400 22300 6,315 vehicles Historical significance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 2 Significant Posting Status A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A P A A P A P A 0 0 5 Posted STRAHNET Highway Designation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Key: Sufficiency Rating (0-100): Less than 50 signifies potential short-term need for replacement or repairs Maintenance Responsibility: 1 = GDOT, 2 = Effingham County, 4 = Municipality, 0 = not coded Functional Class: 1 = Interstate Highway, 2 = Principal Arterial (rural), 6 = Minor Arterial (rural), 7 = Major Collector (rural), 8 = Minor Collector (rural), 9 = Local Road (rural) Average Daily Traffic: Average number of vehicles crossing bridge each day Historical Significance: 1 = National Register of Historic Places, 0 = not on NRHP or being considered for it Posting Status: A = Open with no weight restriction, P = Posted for reduced load STRAHNET Designation: 0 = not a STRAHNET highway, 1=on an interstate STRAHNET route * not included in totals or statistical calculations due to incomplete data July 2008 5-14 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Intersections and Operations Effingham County has 14 signalized intersections, seven of which are located in incorporated areas as seen in Figure 5.8. Numerous other intersections exist, most of which are controlled by an all-way stop sign, while some have two-way stops and/or flashing lights. (The latter accounts for two of the afore- mentioned signalized intersections.) The presence of intersections in a road network impacts mobility, connectivity, and safety. Closely spaced intersections with traffic control devices can significantly slow down vehicle through-movements, though coordination of electronic signals can improve traffic flow. Either effect may be desirable depending on the character of roadway where devices are installed. A higher number of intersections in a given area leads to improved connectivity and access to destina- tions. This is especially beneficial for users of non-motorized travel modes or public transit, though local businesses also gain from increased vehicular accessibility to their locations. Where speed and hierarchy differentials exist at intersections (such as a local road bisecting an arterial), it is crucial to provide appropriate traffic control devices and geometric design features such as adequate sight distance or turn lane channelization to maintain safety. Redundant warning devices, including rumble strips, signage, and flashing lights may need to be installed at intersections experiencing frequent or severe vehicular crashes. Because roadway capacity improvements are expensive and federal, state, and local financial resources are limited, it is important to make as efficient use as possible of the existing transportation system before widening or adding roads. Controlling operations through coordinated signal timing or other Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies will increase efficiency. Implementing access management techniques can also improve efficiency by reducing congestion and safety issues. Access management refers to a number of techniques used to provide or manage access to land development while simultaneous preserving roadway capacity, speed, and safety. It is typically incorporated on roadways accommodating a high volume of through traffic or commercial vehicles. Access management techniques include limiting abutting driveways through zoning (both commercial and residential), installing medians, providing or improving signalized intersections, and generally pursuing roadway enhancements that decrease the number of potential conflict points occurring on travel routes. SR 21, the most heavily traveled surface road in Effingham County, currently employs some access management techniques though application is inconsistent. The prominently featured grassy median helps to enhance the corridor aesthetics in addition to controlling access and turning movements. July 2008 5-15 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Us Hwy 321 an Ln ta Rd Springfield Rd on Rd Tr State Hwy 21 Ol Signalized Intersections Screven Us Hwy 301 Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 State Hwy 24 Ogeechee River Hampton lyo State Hwy 119 owell R d Kildare Thomps Old A ugus Clyo-kildare Rd Corinth Churc h Rd Pryor R d d Elam C emetary Rd undary Rd dmore Bo EgAyr pt Shawnee Old Dixie Hwy S Shear w Lee Rd Clyo-shawnee Rd M o rg St r s SCistleyoFerry Rd F air Preister Rd C Rd State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 Stat e Hwy 652 Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 Green St State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Dutton Ln ood R d Sister Ferry R d alter Rd oo State Hwy 67 Burkh klet Leefield Rd Br Brooklet Old River Rd Stil son Leefield Rd County Road 34 Bulloch Ga Highway 119 Brooklet Denmark Rd State Hwy 46 ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 Liberty Pembroke Bryan 5 10 Miles Spring Rd Berr yville Old Louisvi Rd lle or ter Rd P TusculumMt Hope Rd R i ve rside New to Dr n Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd )*+, Guyton Beebe Rd gfi Spr in Indigo Rd Effingha m ArnsdorffRd eld Egyp t Rd Mock Rd S tillwell Rd Springfield Little Mc ca ll Rd Benjamin Gn ann Rd Stillwell Ebenezer Old Augusta Rd Mill Pond Rd N ellie R d Jasper Central Ave Co ouse Rd o w lue Jay Us Hwy 80 State Hwy 119 204 Eldora Rd State Hwy San ill R d Mccall Rd cart Rd GPo-ineora Marlow urth Big T R d Ground Rd L Rd d H Edgewood Rd Blandford Rd B dg Ho e vi ll e Blue Jay Rd Zittrover Rd Nease Rd Midland Rd Rd Pecan L n Eden cc M Rincon all Rd Port Wentworth Old Augusta Rd Ogeechee River Godley Rd Meldrim Faulkville Bloomingdale Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah y ooler Chatham d State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Georgia State H wy 141 South Carolina State Hwy 170 State Hwy 170 State Hwy P Pkw Dean Forest R Fair St Pooler Fort Argyle Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80 LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St Rd 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State Us Hwy 278 State Hw y 462 Sun y Blvd Cit State Hwy 170 Hwy 4 6 Beaufort Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.8 Legend Signalized Intersection Signal 4 Way Stop Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water (Outside Effingham County) Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Parking The quantity, location, and design of automobile parking facilities affect the character and function of public space. Providing too little parking at businesses or other destinations may cause patrons who drove there to park their vehicles in places not originally intended to accommodate them. Conversely, providing too much parking, particularly if visible from public rights-of-way, degrades the aesthetic quality of the corridor, inhibits pedestrian and bicycle access to destinations, and increases water quality problems due to stormwater runoff from impervious pavement. The costs associated with constructing off-street parking can also pose a barrier to market entry for small businesses wishing to locate in a community if too many spaces are required by local zoning and development codes. Observations and interviews with local officials indicated no parking shortages anywhere in Effingham County, including the historic centers of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield. On-street parking is available in cities while off-street parking facilities are seen throughout the county. Newer commercial develop- ments have tended to provide exclusively off-street lots in strip-mall type layouts. In revitalizing historic downtown areas in coming years, it may be necessary to provide parking exemptions or require parking to be located on-street or behind buildings if the community wishes to preserve the existing small-town character of these locations. Directional signage can be installed to direct drivers to parking lots, if necessary. Emergency Vehicles and Evacuation Routes Emergency vehicles such as police cars, ambulances, and fire trucks depend on well-maintained and accessible transportation infrastructure to reach those in need in an acceptable amount of time. It is thus important to provide a grid of paved roads throughout the county. Currently, connectivity problems exist in northern Effingham forcing emergency vehicles to navigate circuitous dirt roads and slowing emergency response time, particularly for east-west travel movements. There is a need to pave dirt roads, align intersections, and add new roads in selected locations to benefit public safety. Signal pre- emption for ambulances transporting severely sick or injured patients to Savannah hospitals would also be beneficial; this technology is already implemented in Chatham County. Natural disasters also put stress on the transportation system. In a coastal region, it is imperative to provide hurricane evacuation routes leading inland to higher ground. Interstates and arterials provide the greatest capacity for vehicles, with I-16, US 80, and SR 21 being designated official Atlantic hurricane evacuation routes through Effingham County. I-16 has the ability to handle accommodate contra-flow traffic, thus doubling its capacity. Effingham should continue to uphold the highest performance standards for these roadways, which accommodate not only Effingham residents, but also numerous people from other southern coastal counties during natural disasters. July 2008 5-17 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Summary of Roadway Needs Based on public and stakeholder input, as well as quantitative safety and travel demand analysis, significant capacity and operational improvements are needed to accommodate 2030 travel demand in the southern part of Effingham County. Additional roadway improvement needs include: Paving of some ash and dirt roads to decrease maintenance needs associated with higher volumes of traffic and to aid in emergency vehicle travel Constructing new local roads in places where connectivity is lacking at a variety of scales (intra- county trips to interparcel access) Addressing roadway and intersection characteristics in places experiencing a high number or relatively severe vehicular crashes Improving operations through safety and ITS enhancements, particularly on roads experiencing a high commuter and truck volume Adding capacity to address deficiencies along key corridors and interstate access roads Upgrading bridges as needed according to inspection results Implementing access management on existing or potential arterials while providing alternatives to their use through adequate supportive infrastructure (i.e. parallel local routes) Reviewing and revising parking regulations, particularly in commercial or mixed-use areas Freight Movement Understanding and planning for goods movement has been a part of metropolitan and statewide transportation planning requirements since ISTEA in 1991. Commercial operators within the private sector manage freight movement, which is a complex, multimodal endeavor. The distribution of goods has become a field of its own; called logistics, it is the systematic process of moving a shipment from its origin to its destination. One shipment of consumer goods may move via ship, train, airplane, and/or truck from the manufacturer to the retail outlet. Therefore, not only are the means for transporting goods important (waterways, roadways, air routes, and railways), but so are the connections between the modes, known as the intermodal junctions. In Georgia, freight is moved primarily by truck (86%) and rail (11%), based on weight. Water and air modes transport an additional three percent of freight tonnage.7 For shorter freight routes (less than 500 miles), trucking tends to be the dominant freight mode for economic reasons. For longer journeys, rail is utilized to a greater extent. The Port of Savannah is the nation's fastest growing container port and is 7 "Statewide Truck-Only Lanes Needs Identification Study", GDOT and HNTB. Data is from 2004. July 2008 5-18 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis the fourth busiest in the United States8; much of this freight travels through Effingham County via Interstates and rail. Because I-16 and I-95 have very little mileage within county boundaries, rail freight movement and smaller routes used for local trucking or access to the Interstates are of primary concern in this Multi-Modal Transportation Study. Effingham has no public air or seaports used for freight movement, but the conditions of truck and rail facilities are detailed in the following sections. Truck To facilitate traffic flow, improve safety, and offer economic development incentives, governments often regulate truck use of public roadways. It is imperative that industrial sites, which are important to the economic well-being of a community, are served by appropriate roadways designed, constructed, and designated for truck use. Connectivity to interstate highways and other regional arterials is essential to attract and retain industrial users. However, large trucks may hinder the operation and maintenance of local roads built for use by automobiles and light trucks. Heavier vehicles take more time than lighter vehicles to accelerate and decelerate, negatively affecting traffic flow and causing significantly more damage to roadway facilities. Specific routes for oversized trucks are designated by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), a federal highway program administered by GDOT. All interstates are considered freight routes, including I-16 and I-95 in Effingham County. Additionally, United States and Georgia State highways are intended to accommodate large trucks given their generous geometric design standards and purpose of aiding regional mobility. In Effingham, US 80, SR 21, SR 119, SR 17 are de facto truck routes. Figure 5.9 shows truck usage on the entire roadway network. As freight movement via trucks is expected to double in the future, it will become increasingly important to ensure that routes typically used by trucks can safely accommodate them in addition to local traffic. 8 "US Port Rankings Report," Georgia Ports Authority, 6/18/08. http://www.gaports.com July 2008 5-19 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Truck Percentage on Roadway System Screven Us Hwy 601 Hampton lyo C Rd State Hwy 462 Stat e Hwy 652 Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21 Old Dixie Hwy Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 Kildare Rd Kildare Clyo-Kildare Rd State Hwy 67 Savannah Town Rd SR 119 Clyo-Stillwell Rd State Hwy 24 SR 17 ? Egypt Church Rd Shawnee Sisters Ferry Rd Clyo A State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Green St alter Rd oo Burkh ? SR 21 Brooklet Denmark Rd klet Leefield Rd Br Brooklet Old River Rd Stil son Leefield Rd County Road 34 IBulloch Ga Highway 119 State Hwy 46 Us Hwy 80 State Hwy 119 Tusculum Long Bridge Rd SR 21 Effingham SR 21 CR Springfield 308 Stillwell Ebenezer SR 275 Guyton Old Louisville Rd ASR 119 Honey Ridge Pineora Marlow Midland Rd Sandhill Rd Blue Jay Rd Courthouse Rd Clyde Rd SR 275 Fort Howard Little McCall Rd McCall Rd ? Rincon Stillwell Rd Blandford Rd McCall Rd Rincon Old Augusta CR 140 I-95 Kolic Helmey Rd Us Hwy 17 Jasper State H wy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hw y 462 Cit Sun y Blvd South Carolina State Hwy 170 State State Hwy 170 Hwy 4 6 Beaufort Eldora Rd 170 Alt ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 Liberty Pembroke Bryan 5 10 Miles Old River Rd Meldrim Rd P Pkw Dean Forest R Fair St !"`$ State Hwy ? Eden SR 30 Monteith Rd Port Wentworth I-16 Ramp US 80/SR 26 Meldrim Faulkville I Bloomingdale !"e$ Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah y ooler Chatham d State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Georgia State Hwy 170 Fort Argyle Rd 204 Pooler Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80 LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St State Hwy Regional Inset Burke Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.9 Legend Truck Percentage on Roadway System (From 2001 Effingham County Model Network) > 15 % 10 to 15 % 5 to 10 % Less than 5 % Unknown Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water (Outside Effingham County) Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: Effingham County, GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Rail During much of Effingham's history, railways fueled its population growth and commerce. Thriving communities were prominently located along several major rail lines (see Figure 5.10), two of which are still in operation today. Norfolk-Southern owns one north-south line in the central portion of the county, connecting Savannah to Springfield and Shawnee before continuing on to Screven County. It is used exclusively for freight movement. CSX owns a rail line on the eastern side of the county, connecting Savannah to Denmark, SC via Rincon and Clyo. This line is used primarily for freight movement, but also accommodates daily Amtrak service. Several spur lines from each set of railroad tracks exist to accommodate local power and manufacturing plants in the county. A small length of spur track in the northern part of the county is owned by GDOT. Figure 5.10 Past and Current Railroad lines in Effingham Source: www.garail.com Because most railroads are privately owned, they have latitude regarding the manner in which they conduct their operations. Thus, the primary role of Effingham County is to ensure safety at crossings and maintain access to future intermodal facility locations. There are currently 82 rail crossings in the county, 48 of which are at-grade crossings on public roads. The others are on private land and/or are grade- separated. All of these railroad crossings have signage or signal warnings, though only two-thirds of the crossings (31) are on paved roads. The number of daily trains at each site varies between 0 and 21, with thirteen crossings experiencing almost one train per hour. Figure 5.11 shows Effingham's rail infrastructure and public grade crossings. July 2008 5-21 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Us Hwy 601 Railroad Ownership and Public Grade Crossings Hampton lyo C Rd State Hwy 462 Stat e Hwy 652 State Hwy 119 Us Hwy 301 Us Hwy 321 Old State Hwy 21 E dw Porter's Landing Rd Screven op Tr Old Ri ver Rd Burkh Brooklet Cromley Rd oo alter Rd Br State Hwy 17 State Hwy 24 Ogeechee River Walden Br O Dutton Ln Pryor R d dmore Bo Oliver/kildare Rd !? !? ld Elam Cemeta ry R d Shearwood Rd ta Rd Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d owell R d ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave !? !?!? Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha p Thomps C ly o-kildare Old Rd A ug u s Sam Sm art Rd Ar !? !?!?Shawnee undarSyaRvdannah Old Dixie Co rinth Hwy C Tow n DRdewSihttawRndee Rd hur ch Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Clyo-shawne e Rd Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd Egypt o !?!? rgan R dChester Thomas Rd M Green Mo rgan School R d Friendship Rd R lle Rd eedsv i !? Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd !?!?!?!? S isters Ferry Rd F St S tillwell air Cl Preister Rd yo Rd Whitaker Rd Rd Laurel Tree Rd Sister Ferry R d Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy klet Leefield Rd Stil son Leefield Rd Bulloch State Hwy 46 Old River Rd County Road 34 Ga Highway 119 Eldora Rd i State Hwy 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 Newton Rd Riverside Dr Us Hwy 80 Old Augusta Rd !? !? Sp ringfield Egypt Rd ran ch Rd Old Dix Bo aen Rd Turke y B !?!? !? Tusculum Mt Hope Rd !? S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R Arnsdorff Rd ie Hwy S Keiffer Hill Rd Berr yville Reis e r Rd Indigo Rd Mock Rd Early St Hart St !? Stillwell Rd Waldhour Rd Ash St Bro gdo n Rd Effingham!?!?!?Springfield Keith Rd Rd Z ettl Mccall Rd !? Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave ph Rah Archer Rd Guyton !? !? !? !? Watts Rd Pound Rd Rahn Statio Rd Co ouse Rd Central Ave Hon e !? !? !?!? yR idge Rd Go- !?!? Heidt Landing Rd Forest Rd Clyde Rd Little Mccall Rd urth Shirley Dr B ig T Rd er n Rd Ral n Anza Ln Bethany Rd WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd Stillwell Long Bridge Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd Plan Barney Rd tation Dr Long Pond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Ho ward Rd Helmey Dr cart Rd !? !? Rincon Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd lue Jay w Rd San ill R d Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr ll e ville Ho Herbert Ke !? d H !? !? Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd San Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd er Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd Midland Rd Zittrover Rd Blan dford Rd ssl Zipperer Rd B Rd Mcca R Oak d St Green Pine Dr e Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd dg Goshen Rd Rd Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 336 Jasper State H wy 141 South Carolina State Hwy 170 Brooklet Denmark Rd State Hwy 67 Keller RSdquirrel Run Nease Rd Heidt Rd d Hill Rd ate Hwy 119 State Hwy 119 St Us Hwy 280 Pembroke Bryan 0 2.5 5 Liberty 10 Miles State Hwy 204 Conaway Rd Elm St Pine St Eden Jabez Jones Rd S Laurel Cir Meldrim Rd Roebli n Bluff Dr Rd !? !? Ogeechee River Bay Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Go Rd dley Rd Faulkville Schum an Dr Bloomingdale ate Hw St y 17 Van Rd Fort Argyle Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd n Briarwood Rd g Pecan L State Hwy 30 Georgia Port Wentworth Jimmy De Loach Pkwy Savannah State Hwy 170 State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Pkw y ooler Chatham d P Dean Forest R Rogers St Pooler Pine Barren Rd Garden City Us Hwy 80Kessler Ave Fair St LouSitsavteillHewRSydav2a5ncnahBRaivyerSt State Hwy 170 Alt Us Hwy 17 State Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 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 Allendale Jenkins Screven Hampton Emanuel Georgia South Carolina !"e$ Colleton Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.11 Legend Trains per Day at Crossing !? Greater than 15 Trains !? 8 to 14 Trains !? 1 to 7 Trains Railroad Ownership CSX-T Railroad Georgia Central Railway Georgia Department of Transportation Norfolk Souothern Chatham Railroad Surrounding County Railroad 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 (Outside Effingham County) Source: Effingham County, GDOT, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis From 2000 to 2007, there were six collisions between trains and motor vehicles at railroad crossings resulting in two injuries. An additional incident that did not involve motor vehicles resulted in a fatality. Three incidents took place at W Johnson Street in Rincon, while single incidents occurred at crossings at W 9th Street in Rincon, Indigo Road north of Stillwell, and Rahn Station Road south of Springfield. Due to safety concerns, it is the general policy of the federal government and major railroad owners to discourage the construction of new at-grade crossings. Existing crossings experiencing train incidents may need additional warning signals or barriers installed. It may also be wise to consider new or alternative roadways to avoid at-grade crossings. At this time, several of these crossings are slated for enhancement in the county's Capital Improvement Program. Summary of Freight Needs The Port of Savannah is one of the largest container ports in the United States and handles over 15 million tons of freight each year which is distributed inland mostly via truck and railroad. Logistics sector employment spills over into Effingham, which offers a number of comparative advantages including inexpensive large tracts of land set aside by the Economic Development Authority, access to major state routes, and amenities important to employees and their families such as high-quality schools and housing opportunities. The Port of Savannah has plans for expansion to accommodate even more container movement and larger vessels. This will certainly impact Effingham as more truck and rail traffic will be distributed through the county. New jobs created by the port expansion will also increase the number of commuters from Effingham to Chatham County. Both impacts necessitate adequate north-south roadway and rail transportation facilities. In addition, the increased commuter volume may generate need for public transportation options to relieve stress on the network. Designating some roads as official truck routes may help to better contain truck traffic, while installing more warning devices at problematic railroad crossings can increase the safety of car-train interactions. On the land use side, it is imperative that the county provide freight access to the industrial parks it is developing, first to provide stimulus for in-county employment, but second to channel trucks away from roadways that are used by a high volume of local traffic. July 2008 5-23 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Pedestrian and Bicycle Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure provide a safe environment for making short trips between home, school, work, recreational, and other destinations. Because of the marginal cost involved and the need to provide transportation choice, it is the policy of the USDOT to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all new transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist9. Further, for roadways that may need to accommodate transit in the future, setting aside right-of-way or space for shelters ahead of time will increase the possibility that transit can be easily implemented, if warranted, with minimized costs. Ensuring that roadways are designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit vehicles in addition to automobiles is known as providing "complete streets". Existing Pedestrian Conditions GIS data on existing sidewalks in Effingham do not yet exist, but field surveys and interviews with local officials revealed the general locations of sidewalks in Effingham County. They are primarily located in the historic areas of incorporated cities, in some subdivisions, and along portions of roads experiencing relatively recent development activity. Most county roadways completely lack sidewalks, and where sidewalks do exist, they are often narrow and present on just one side of the road. High-speed and high- volume roads are a major barrier to pedestrian activity due to crossing difficulties. Sidewalks are not required by Effingham County regulations, and therefore are not included in many developments. Summary of Pedestrian Needs Areas of pedestrian need were identified by creating mile walking distance buffers around community facilities (including schools, parks, libraries, civic buildings, and hospitals) and along various road types according to FHWA guidelines.10 Table 5.4 shows the FHWA sidewalk recommendations as classified by roadway types and adjacent development. 9 Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach is a policy statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation. The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Section 1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm) 10 Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA (2001) July 2008 5-24 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Table 5.4 FHWA Sidewalk Guidelines Source: FHWA. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, 2001 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks204.htm) Roadway Classification and Land Use Highway (rural) Highway (rural/suburban - less than 1 d.u./acre) Suburban Highway (1 to 4 d.u./acre) Major Arterial (residential) Collector and Minor Arterial (residential) Local Street (Residential - less than 1 d.u./acre) Local Street (Residential - 1 to 4 d.u./acre) Local Street (Residential - more 4 d.u./acre) All Streets (commercial areas) All Streets (industrial areas) Note: d.u. stands for dwelling unit. Sidewalk Requirements Future Phasing Min. of 60 inch shoulders required. One side preferred. Min. of 60 inch shoulders required. Secure/preserve ROW for future sidewalks. Secure/preserve ROW for future sidewalks. Both sides preferred. One side Second side required if density required. becomes greater than 4 d.u./acre. Both sides required. Both sides required. 60 inch One side preferred. Minimum Secure/preserve ROW for future of 60 inch shoulders required. sidewalks. Both sides preferred. One side Second side required if density required. becomes greater than 4 d.u./acre Both sides required. Both sides required. Both sides preferred. One side required. Based on GIS analysis, Figure 5.12 displays areas and roadways that would benefit most from the addition and/or maintenance of sidewalks. For Effingham County, all roadways in the vicinities of commercial areas are shown as needing sidewalks on both sides of the streets. All arterials and collectors are identified for pedestrian needs with potential improvements ranging from right-of-way preservation to implementing sidewalks. Although FHWA guidelines suggest sidewalks along local roads, many communities prefer to focus their resources on collector and arterial roads first, allowing pedestrians to make use of the street on lower volume residential roads. If sidewalk improvements are to be prioritized, clusters of mile "need buffers", commercial areas, and the highest functional classes of roadways should obtain sidewalks first. New roadway capacity projects (widened or new roads, including those located in subdivisions) should require sidewalks or otherwise preserve right-of-way. In making pedestrian travel accessible and attractive, installation of sidewalk ramps, marked crosswalks, and possibly pedestrian signals in appropriate places is needed to ensure safety. Sidewalks are an essential part of the public realm and their use links people to community facilities on a scale that promotes social interaction. In addition, studies have documented the health benefits of regular walking for transportation and recreation. July 2008 5-25 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan t Acres R d Courthouse Rd State Hwy 119 Pedstrian Needs Analysis Us Hwy 301 County Road 474 Guyton Inset Old R iver R d State Hwy 24 W Central B lvd Grace n Rd S immons St Hine s St Victory Dr Lin coln Ave Alexander St Davis St Che rry St Br og d on Rd Powell Rd Cedar Ln 7th Av e Poplar St Chu Cem etary St 6th Av e rch Pi St ne St 3rd St 4th Av e L it tle M c c all Rd Poplar St Magnoli a St r Rd Statesboro Burkhalte Archer Rd Cen tral Ave klet Leefield Rd Broo Brooklet St ilson Leefield Rd I Brooklet D enmark Rd State Hwy 67 Old D ixie Hwy S Early St S Mock Rd Springfield Inset Springfield Egypt Rd K eiffer H ill Rd Garden Ln State Hwy 46 Old Tusculam Rd Wallace Rd Standard Ln Cypress Poin t Rd Wilder Rd S hea r o Fore s t Rd Pleasa n use Sp GNuAmshNSStPtine St W 1st St 3rd St 1st Ave E2n1sdEtSS4ttth St Hart SStAsh St Stillwell Rd tate Hwy 119 S Railroad Ave Rose Dr PemZollebr Drr oke Fox St Ash St Us Hwy 280 Webb Rd Mccall Rd Beebe Rd County Road 590 Old R iver Rd County Road 390 State Hwy 462 Edw Porter's Landing Rd R State Hwy 119 d Us Hwy 601 Clyo R Us Hwy 321 State Hwy 21 op Tr State Hwy 17 owell Rd Morell Rd ards Lo Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave Pr Oliver/kildare Rd ld Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha p Thomps Cly o -k il da r e Old Rd A ugus Sam Sm ta Rd ")) ee dsvi lle Rd Springfield Rd on Rd el Rd d art Rd O yor Rd O Walden Br ? ld Elam Cemetary Rd Shearwood Rd dmore Bo Ar Shawnee und ary Rd Savann ah Old Dixie C Hwy o ri nth To wn Dew itt Rd Rd Shawne e Rd C hurc h Rd Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Egypt S haw nee Eg y pt Rd rg an R dChester Thom as Rd Clyo-shawnee R d Green Mo rgan School R d Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cylo-shaw nee Rd A ") S isters Ferry Rd F Stillw ell St a ir ) Cl Preister Rd yo Rd Whitaker Rd Laurel Tree Rd o S ister Ferry R d Dutton Ln Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy Ga Highway 119 George H Rd Harr y or urst Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d ter Rd Ol d Lou isv P lle R d Newton Rd River side Dr M d ? Springfield Egypt Rd Springfield Tusculum Mt Hope Rd Turk ey B ranch Rd O ld Dix ie Hwy S Berryville R Reise r Rd Indigo Rd Boaen Rd Guyton ")") ") Springfield Tusclumboundary Li R Arnsdorff Rd Old Tusculam R KSeeifeferInHsilel Rt d dWallace Rd Early St S Ash St Mock Rd Stillwell Rd Waldhour Rd Bro gdo n Rd c ") ") Keith Rd See Inset Ash St P le as ") Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Rd Z ettl Mccall Rd Wi l d er an Rd t Ac re s ) R d 3 rd St ) Clyde Rd er n Rd Archer Rd )*+, ? Little Mccall Rd Ral ph Rah Watt s Rd Pound Rd n Bethany Rd WilsoBneRnjdamin Gnann Rd Stillwell Long Bridge Rd ) Wylly Rd High ) Bluff Rd Ebenezer M ill Pond Rd Nellie Rd Barney Rd PlSanetaetiIonnsDertLong Pond Rd Old Augusta Rd Rah n Statio Rd Hone ")A ") y R id ge ) R d Go- Heidt Landing Rd Central Ave Co o us e Rd urth Shirley Dr B ig T Rd Anza Ln ") Hardy Rd ") 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Ho ward Rd Rincon Ke ssler Rd ir Rincon Inset State H wy 652 Plantation Dr Long Pond Rd Rincon-stillwell Rd Lexington an P C ir Ave Richland St Hardy Rd LGoAnAgveS Ex t l ey Tyler St 4th St Bu nyo n 7th St W 9th St Blandford Rd 6th St 8th St 9th St Ave Boyd St r N Carolina A Weisenbake Rd ve Fort Howard Rd Us Hwy 278 Seck inger Ford Rd State Hwy 462 Wisenbaker Rd Caroni Dr Green St Mccall Rd luff C Red B Crystal Dr Golden Rd State Hwy 336 MuWlbGeersretrwyenoWeodaDyDr r Oak St Maple EDxr lePyinLoeoDpr G os h en Rd WilCloywppergesRsdDr Lewis Dr Goshen Rd ChimSmtaetyeRHdwy 29 S ta te Old Augusta South Rd H wy 13 Us Hwy 17 Sta te Hwy 141 Us Hwy 2 78 Eldora Rd i State Hwy 119 Helmey Dr c ar t Rd State Hwy 204 Us Hwy 80 w Rd Pineora Marlow Marlow Rd S an ill Rd d H Og ee c he e River Stag Dr efield Rd ) ")San Edgewood Rd Blue Ja y Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd Midland Rd Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd BlandforsdslRd Zipperer Rd Nease Rd Heidt Rd d H ill R d ? Elm St ? Pine St Eden Conaway Rd Jabez Jones Rd lue Ja y Rd B c Mcca ll ") R Oak d St Gr ee n e Pine Dr Dr ) Chimmey Rd ") Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr Harley Rd Ho dg Goshen Rd evil l e Rd Run irre l n Earl Lain Rd Pecan L Kelle r Squ Rd Georgia Port Wentworth Briarwood Rd !"`$ Bluff Dr Ol d R iv er S Laurel Rd Cir Meldrim Rd Meldrim g Roeblin Rd Ran ch Oetgen Rd Go Rd dley Rd !"e$ Jimmy De Loach P kwyJimmy De Loach P kw y Savannah State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Bay Rd Schum an Dr I Faulkville er Pkw y P ool Airways Ave Bloomingdale Pooler Dean F orest Rd Van Rd Rogers St Fort Stewart Military Reservation John Carter Rd Pine Barren Rd Garden 0City Us Hwy 80 Fair St State Hwy 46 South CarolinaState Hwy 170 State Hwy 170 State Hwy 170 2.5 5 State Hwy 25c State Hwy 170 Alt 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Emanuel Regional Inset Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch !"`$ Evans Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Bryan Chatham Appling Wayne Long Liberty !"e$ McIntosh Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.12 Legend Pedestrian Needs Analysis Roads Identified For Pedestrian Improvements (thicker lines are higher roadway functional class) 1/2 Mile Buffer of Community Facilities Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow c Library ") Park ") Landing _ City Hall Police Department #* Post Office $+ Community or Senior Center %, Park & Ride Lot Commercial Zoning Future Development Nodes Signal Type Signalized Intersection )*+, 4-Way Stoplight Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits (Inside Effingham County) City Limits (Outside Effingham County) Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, Effingham County, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. Fort Argyle Rd July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Existing Conditions for Bicycle Transportation Over half of all car trips are less than 5 miles in length, and approximately one quarter of car trips are less than 2 miles in length.11 While areas that are more rural may experience somewhat higher average trip lengths, bicycles can provide convenient transportation for destinations 1 to 5 miles away. More experienced riders may be comfortable commuting up to 20 miles provided there are adequate facilities. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), there are three types of bicycle facility: Bicycle Routes, where route is defined as "a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and informational route markers, with or without specific bicycle route numbers. Bike routes should establish a continuous routing, but may be a combination of any and all types of bikeways" Bicycle Lanes, where lane is defined as "a portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists" Shared Use Paths, where shared use path is defined as "a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of- way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users" Any of these facilities may be implemented in Effingham, depending on their predicted users, coordination with automobile traffic, and several other factors. On-road bicycle lanes (both sides) are generally preferred because they allow higher bicycle speeds and cross over the ends of fewer drive- ways. Shared-use paths are useful for children and relaxed recreational riders who are uncomfortable sharing the road with automobiles. Just as for sidewalks, connectivity in the bicycle network is very important. Riders of all abilities should be able to use the network. There are sizeable portions of three State bicycle routes in Effingham, two existing and one proposed by the Coastal Georgia Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Coastal route 95, Savannah River Run route 85, and a proposed route on SR 21 that provides direct access to Savannah and connects existing State Bike Routes. All are on-road facilities demarcated solely by signage. The Coastal route (95) runs from Florida to South Carolina via Camden, Glynn, McIntosh, Liberty, Bryan, Chatham, and Effingham counties. The Savannah River Run (85) connects Savannah to North Carolina along the eastern border of the state. Both of these routes utilize GA 17 and GA 119 in Effingham. The proposed new route begins at Jimmy DeLoach Parkway and SR 21 in Chatham, travels north along SR 21, and terminates in Springfield at 11 National Household Travel Survey (2001), Bureau of Transportaiton Statistics July 2008 5-27 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Coastal route 95. Small lengths of two other State bicycle routes utilize US 80 in the southwest corner of Effingham, connecting Chatham to Bulloch County. Besides designated State bicycle routes, there are is one other existing bicycle facility in Effingham County. A striped county bike lane runs the length of Ebenezer Road, connects to a boat landing, and circles into Springfield as depicted in Figure 5.13. Built several years ago, the bike lane is poorly maintained. Lastly, a planned shared-use trail and park is located along an abandoned rail bed in the center of Guyton. Funded by a $750,000 Transportation Enhancement grant, it is approximately one mile long, but it could be extended as the rail bed spans the length of the county. Despite the general lack of formal bicycle facilities in the county, residents still use bicycles for recreation and have, on occasion, suffered injuries in bicycle/car collisions. Between 2000 and 2006, eighteen incidents were recorded, two of which resulted in fatalities. Based on the incident data, approximately half the bicycle victims were under the age of 20, and many accidents occurred in the afternoon and early evening. Additional bicycle facilities could enhance cycling safety while providing for recreational bicyclists, especially children, throughout the county. Summary of Bicycle Needs Though the existing and proposed routes connect to each other and provide recreational opportunities for citizens, there is a need to upgrade these facilities and add others so that bicycling is a viable and accessible transportation option in Effingham County. It is recognized by the Coastal Georgia Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that existing and proposed on-road routes utilizing state routes present some danger to cyclists due to the volume and proximity of high-speed motor vehicle traffic. Providing dedicated facilities, either marked lanes or off-roadway shared-use paths as described by AASHTO, and better maintaining these facilities would be beneficial to cyclists. New facilities are needed connecting activity centers, especially schools and parks, as well as existing bicycle routes to provide a comprehensive network for current and potential cyclists. Consideration regarding placement of bicycle facilities should take into account the potential level of service, which is based on a variety of factors, including outside lane width, traffic volume, grade, pavement conditions, and truck percentage on shared or adjacent roadways. July 2008 5-28 Office of Planning Effingham County Transportation Plan Us Hwy 301 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities State Hwy 21 OLD AUGUSTA R C Rd Us Hwy 321 Us Hwy 601 State Hwy 462 lyo Stat e Hwy 652 Us Hw 2 78 y State Hwy 462 State Hwy 119 D N RINGFIELD RD S GA HWY 21 Kildare P Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 ") State Hwy 24 GA HWY 17 85 ? Egypt Shawnee 95 ERRY SCISlTyEoRSCUBA RD F RD E ") A State Hwy 336 State Hwy 29 Us Hwy 2 78 Alt Hwy 13 S tate Green St SISTERS FERRY RD alter Rd OLD LOUISVILLE R Old River Rd Burkh ? Cromley Rd oo klet Leefield Rd Br Stil son Leefield Rd D TusculMumT HOPE RD TER R D INDIG O RD Us Hwy 17 OR County Road 34 P MOCK RD ") Stillwell ")") Ebenezer BROGDON RD I RIVERSIDE DR KEITH RD Guyto")n ") Springfield ") Brooklet Denmark Rd 35 Ga Highway 119 A")GA HWY 119 ") Pineora ? ") ") FT HOWARD RD Rincon State H wy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hw y 462 Cit Sun y Blvd State Hwy 119 BOGGY BAY Marlow 85 / 95 JAY R D BLUE MCCALL RD ") ") State Hwy 170 State State Hwy 46 35 / 40 Us Hwy 80 Eldora Rd ") ZITTROUER RD Hwy 4 6 I-95 South Carolina State Hwy 170 NEASE RD 170 Alt ate Hwy 119 ? Eden !"`$ State Hwy 30 Georgia !"e$ Jimmy De Loach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy State Hwy 170 State Hwy State Hwy 119 St State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Us Hwy 280 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Fort Argyle Rd 204 State Hwy I-16 Fort Stewart Military Reservation Meldrim Faulkville I-16 John Carter Rd St y 17 I oole r PkwyAirw ays Ave P ate Hw 35 / 40 / 85 / 95 Pine Barren Rd Rogers St Dean Forest R Fair St d Us Hwy 80Kessler Ave LouSitsavteillHewRyd25c Bay St State Hwy 67 Regional Inset Burke Jenkins Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton Emanuel !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort !"`$ Evans Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Long Wayne Bryan Chatham !"e$ Liberty Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 5.13 Legend Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities 00 Bicycle Route Number Existing State Bicycle Route Existing County Bicycle Route Proposed State Bicycle Route Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers ") Parks Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, Effingham County, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. June 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Transit The purpose of the transportation system is to move people and goods from place to place. If people and goods are spread out among many vehicles, congestion results when there are more vehicles vying for space than there is roadway capacity. In order to increase the efficiency of the transportation system, public transit vehicles can be utilized to simultaneously accommodate the many people who are taking similar routes to common destinations. Public transit can also be used to provide assistance to those who are unable to drive, walk, or bicycle to the destinations they wish to reach. Commuters as well as the one-third of Americans who do not drive for various physical, legal, or financial reasons can benefit from having increased travel choices in the county. Commuter Routes and Park and Ride Lots Though approximately half of Effingham's labor force undertakes daily commutes to Chatham County for work, no regional bus routes exist to provide an alternative to commuting in a personal vehicle. As a result, peak period congestion is a common occurrence in the southern portion of the county where the road network is not developed enough to handle demand from so many individual vehicles. To provide a central meeting place for car/vanpool formation and future commuter bus stops, there are two park-and-ride lots in Effingham. One lot has 20 spaces in downtown Guyton and the other has 53 spaces at the Effingham County Courthouse in Springfield. There are currently no formal programs to increase the knowledge and utilization of these lots. Additionally, there are no formal Park-and-Ride locations in the vicinity of Rincon, where a large percentage of Effingham's population lives. Paratransit Paratransit is a flexible alternative to fixed route/schedule traditional transit, and utilizes vehicles such as shuttle buses, vans, and taxis. Paratransit services range from those allowing pick-up/drop-off along a defined route by passenger request to those which offer on-demand door-to-door service within a given geographic area. Both public and private operators may provide paratransit; typical users include elderly and disabled citizens. When traditional transit services are not financially feasible in a place or do not serve desired destinations, paratransit fills an important niche in helping customers maintain their health, independence, and self-sufficiency. Rural demand-response paratransit providers do have a presence in the county. The Coastal Georgia RDC contracts with the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) for provision of coordinated transportation services. It administers the DHR transportation contract and subcontracts with various providers throughout the region for provision of coordinated transportation services for the Division of Aging Services; the Department of Family and Children Services; the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases; and the GoodWorks Program. July 2008 5-30 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 5. Existing/Future Conditions and Analysis Potential for Commuter or Regional Rail Service The CSX tracks are used primarily for freight movement, but Amtrak also operates daily passenger service on them via its Silver Star route connecting New York to Miami. Though the tracks go through central Rincon, there are currently no stops in Effingham County on this route; the nearest passenger terminal is located in northwest Savannah. The CSX tracks and Amtrak route are part of the National High Speed Rail Corridor connecting Florida to Maine. Regional commuter service to nearby cities could also be implemented along existing rail rights-of-way when demand is sufficiently high to justify capital and operational investments. In the interim, it is the policy of Effingham and its cities to protect these rights-of-way from development. Present Regional Transit Planning and Programming Efforts 103 counties in Georgia have some form of rural public transportation, including three of the ten counties in the Coastal Region. Each coastal county is currently operating independently of one another. Due to the inherent inefficiencies of this setup, and the fact that there are at least seven underserved counties, the Coastal Georgia RDC is undertaking a regional transit planning and service delivery effort. Initiated in 2005, the Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation has just concluded its study to develop a program for seamless regional transit service. Phase I, which explored the need for service based on public input and census data, determined that Effingham had an estimated minimum demand of almost 25,000 annual transit trips.12 Phase II commenced upon receipt of a $75,000 grant from United We Ride, an interagency Federal initiative that supports states and their localities in developing coordinated human service delivery systems. Implementation measures for the 10-county region were developed, including a potential fare schedule, allocation of services, and marketing campaign. The Coastal Georgia RDC is currently pursuing county commitments for the local operating match and plans to begin offering demand-response and vanpool operations in Summer 2008. Summary of Transit Needs In addition to providing commuter service to Chatham, a need exists to transport citizens to hospitals, community facilities, and other non-work destinations as indicated by public and stakeholder feedback. In areas with low or geographically dispersed populations, however, a fixed route transit system is often not financially feasible and other alternatives such as taxis, vanpools, and paratransit must fill in the gap. This study supports the ongoing efforts of the Coastal Georgia RDC and Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation. 12 Regional Plan for Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation. Presentation: Final Report, November 30, 2005. Coastal Georgia RDC. July 2008 5-31 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies 6. Recommended Projects and Policies A list of recommended projects and policies to be implemented between 2008 and the horizon year of 2030 was developed by building on information gleaned from the processes described in previous chapters. The rationale behind project identification, evaluation, and prioritization by mode is described in the following sections. Roadway Recommendations First and foremost, recommended roadway improvements were designed to conform to the stated goals of the transportation element of the Effingham County Comprehensive Plan: providing increased accessibility, mobility, and connectivity. In addition, the Future Development Map character area implementation measures were used to guide the type of improvements recommended in specific geographic areas. Input from stakeholder interviews and the general public was instrumental in the project identification process, as well as technical analyses such as travel demand modeling, vehicle crash location examination, spatial analysis via Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and on-site field surveys (Appendix D). Several types of roadway projects are proposed: construction of new roads, paving of existing roads, addition of turning or through lanes, shoulder increases, intersection enhancements, and operational improvements. Care was taken to minimize impacts to wetlands and existing structures for major roadway capacity improvements (lane addition or new roads). Potential new roadways were drawn, to the greatest possible extent, along existing corridors used for transportation and crossed through the smallest feasible number of land parcels. New roadway alignments and paving projects were identified throughout the county to provide a certain level of macro-connectivity in the form of a 1-2 mile resolution grid system, enhancing local, freight, and emergency vehicle movement. Shorter strategic connections were fashioned to provide rear access to properties developed along arterials as well as alternative access routes to some schools and activity centers in more populated areas. Multi-modal accommodations were identified in conjunction with motor vehicle oriented improvements wherever feasible, resulting in a network of future "Complete Streets." Complete Streets are those that allow safe movement and crossing opportunities for all users: automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Along some roadways, the travel demand model and local input indicated a need for increased capacity in the form of new travel lanes or additional turning lanes to improve the facility's level of service. In particular, parts of SR 21, SR 119, US 80, Blue Jay Road, Fort Howard Road, Old River Road, and Sand Hill Road were judged to have insufficient capacity in relation to their importance in the transportation network and current or projected traffic volumes. Figure 6.1 depicts 67 recommended roadway segment projects by type. Proposed intersection improvements include recommendations to add traffic signals to intersections experiencing relatively high levels of incidents, cross-street traffic, unprotected vehicular turning July 2008 6-1 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies movements, or pedestrian activity. In other locations, geometric design changes and supplementary warning devices such as rumble strips will increase safety and performance. Along arterials, operational improvements are addressed at both a physical and policy level: interconnected coordinated signal systems, access management strategies, and stricter land development guidelines are proposed. Figure 6.2 depicts 14 intersection improvement projects. All projects are described in detail in Appendix E at the end of this report. Bicycle Recommendations In identifying potential bicycle improvements, emphasis was placed on creating a continuous countywide network that served both recreational riders and those wishing to access specific destinations in a safe and timely manner. Special attention was given to developing bicycle facilities that connected residential areas to schools, parks, and activity centers as suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. Dedicated bicycle facilities such as multi-use paths and lanes are recommended especially in the vicinity of high schools and middle schools to provide a safe and viable alternative to long bus rides, parental pick-up/drop-off, or reliance on inexperienced teenage drivers for school-related mobility needs. Near the two county high schools, it is possible to utilize a powerline easement or new woodland path to provide direct non-motorized rear access to school property. Arterial and collector roads form some of the most direct routes in the county to get from place to place. The five State Bicycle Routes (four existing and one proposed) all make extensive use of the highway network to traverse the county and state. As traffic volume has increased along these high-speed roads, it is less safe for bicyclists to share roadway lanes with motor vehicle traffic. Thus, the majority of the arterial and collector network designated as current or proposed State Bicycle Routes is recommended for upgrade to include dedicated facilities such as bike lanes or multi-use paths. In the less developed northern part of Effingham and along the scenic Old Augusta Road, wide shoulders should suffice for safe long-distance bicycle movement. To supplement a network of dedicated facilities, almost 50 miles of potential signage-only rural routes along low-volume roads are identified as well. For inexperienced and recreational riders, separated bicycle facilities are likely to get more use than wide shoulders or bicycle lanes. In the western part of the county, an undeveloped abandoned railbed provides an opportune right-of-way for a multi-use path, which will help to preserve it from development. Approximately one mile of this railbed is being converted to a trail and park in downtown Guyton. To increase its feasibility in providing transportation alternatives in addition to recreational opportunities, it is recommended that the southern end of this railroad right-of-way also be converted to a trail that connects Guyton to Meldrim via the communities of Pineora, Marlow, and Eden. Rerouting State Bicycle Routes 85 and 95 to follow this alignment rather than SR 17 should also be considered. Figure 6.3 depicts 49 recommended bicycle network improvements, including multi-use paths, marked lanes, and widened shoulders, as well as identification of a strategic rural route network. Since recommended projects are classified by facility segment rather than mode, detailed descriptions and justification of bicycle improvements can also be found in the aforementioned Appendix E. July 2008 6-2 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County 31 22 1 Pryor R d d more Bo on Rd BRO GDON RD 99 Tr Proposed Roadway Segment Improvements Screven Guyton Inset D owell Rd Kildare KE ITH R Springfield Rd 29 Hampton Clyo-kildare Rd Corinth Ch urch Rd ") Morg an Ln Davis St Cherry St GA HWY 17 74 CHER RD ArcherRd OLD LOUISVILLE RD GRACEN RDGracen Rd AR S ") immons St Hi nes St Victory Dr Li ncol n Ave Alexander St Chur Cemetary St 6th Ave 7th Ave 4th Ave Br ogd Powell Rd Cedar Ln GA HWY 119 Poplar St ch St Pine Poplar St Magnolia St St W Central Blvd 3rd St Little M ccall Rd 78 94 Central Ave GA HWY 17 75 71 BIulloch Old Dixie Hwy S Early St Springfield Inset Springfield Egypt Rd Keiffer Hill Rd 33 Garden Ln 116 108 GA HWY 21 107 Old Tusculam Rd Wallace Rd Standard Ln Cypress Point Rd Wilder Rd Fore st Rd use Sp GA HWY 119 78 73 Shearo GNuAmshSNStPtine St 1st Ave ") ") ") W 1st St 3rd St E21nsdEtSS4ttth St Rose Dr SMRCailCroAadLALveRD Ash St S Hart St Ash St Stillwell Rd Zoller Dr Fox St 75 t Acres R d Courthouse Rd E TT LE Mccall Rd Pleasan Webb Rd Z Evans Liberty R RD Beebe Rd 55 MOCK RD Mock Rd Bryan 44 3 68 9 ? undary Rd EgAyr pt Shawnee 25 Clyo 26 St Lee Rd ") F air A 32 Dutton Ln 4 Rd Sister Ferry Rd 12 5 28 6 ? 19 18 Berr yville Spring Rd 1 14 2 Old Louisvi Rd lle P orter Rd TusculuMmt Hope Rd 13 10 8 Riverside Dr KeithSRed e Inset ") 78 Guyton 3 9 Arnsdorff Rd See Inset 33 16 ")") r 67 Wilde Rd ") Springfield Courthouse Rd 44 73 75 55 Mock Rd Ind2i4go Rd Bethany Rd Stillwell Stillwell Rd ") ") Mill Pond Rd ? Old Augusta Rd Ebenezer Sa Hill Rd A 94 ") 74 Watts Rd 71 ") GPoi- neora 81 Marlow cart Rd B6i3g T Rd69 nd 70 52 66 Mccall Rd ") See Inset 132 130 ") 126 123 127 Rincon M call Rd 47 ") 38 ") c 65 92 80 ") Blue Jay Rd Eden Zittrover Rd ? ? 39 ZipMpiedrlea6nr2dRRdd eville Ho 61 dg Rd 45 133 Georgia 91 84 !"`$ Godley Rd 101 !"e$ Faulkville 88 Meldrim I Chatham Fort Stewart 0 Military Reservation 38 133 130 124 MC 65 Seckinger Ford Rd Kessler Rd 132 GA HWY 21 Rincon Inset Plantation Dr HARHaDrdYy RRdD ") 7th St 123 ") 4th St Bunyon 126 Mccall Rd 127 129 CALL RD 47 Oak St MaEpxl eleDy rL oo p ff Cir 42 54 ") Goshen Rd Caroni Dr Red Blu Old Augusta South Rd Jasper South Carolina Beaufort 2.5 5 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Regional Inset 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 6.1 Legend Roadway Improvement Type 00 Project Number Extension / New Road (4 Lanes) Extension / New Road (2 Lanes) Paving Widening Additional Turning Lane With Widening Shoulder Increase Turn Lanes Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow ") Park ") Landing 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. July 2008 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Proposed Intersection Improvements KE ITH R Screven Guyton Inset D on Rd BRO G DON RD Davis St Che rry St GA HWY 17 GRACEN RD Gracen Rd AR S W Central B lvd Poplar St Magnoli a St ") immons St Hine s St Victory Dr Lin coln Ave Alexander St Chu Cem etary St 6th Av e 7th Av e Poplar St 4th Av e Br og d Powell Rd Cedar Ln GA HWY 119 rch Pi St ne St 3rd St L it tle M c c all Rd Dutton Ln Pryor R d d more Bo owell R d Kildare ? undary Rd EgAyr pt Shawnee Hampton Clyo-kildare Rd Cor inth Ch u rch Rd Lee Rd ? ") M o rg Clyo S2i0s t1e Ferry Rd $+ ") A Rd r s Berr yville S ister Ferry R d Spring Rd Cen tral Ave GA HWY 17 CHER RD Archer Rd OLD LOUISVILLE RD IBulloch Old D ixie Hwy S Early St Springfield Inset Springfield Egypt Rd K eiffer H ill Rd Garden Ln GA HWY 21 MOCK RD Mock Rd Old Tusculam Rd Wallace Rd Standard Ln Cypress Poin t Rd Wilder Rd Fore s t Rd use Sp GA HWY 119 S hea r o SMRCailCroAadLALveRD GNuAmshNSStPtine St ") ") 215 1st Ave ") $+ W 1st St 3rd St E2n1sdEtSS4ttth St Rose Dr 210 $+ Hart SStAsh St Ash St Stillwell Rd Zoller Dr Fox St t Acres R d Courthouse Rd Pleasa n Evans Liberty Webb Rd Z R RD Beebe Rd E T T LE Mccall Rd Bryan Sa Hill R d Co o us e Rd J ay R d r car t Rd Mock Rd Old Louisvi Rd lle P orter Rd TusculuMmt Hope Rd Riverside Dr KeithSRed e Inset ") Guyton Arnsdorff Rd See Inset $+")")215 Wild e Rd ") Sprin$+g2f10ield 209 $+ Watts Rd ")A ") GPo-ineora urth $+ 211 Marlow nd Blue cc Mccall Rd Indigo Rd Stillwell ") S tillwell Rd ") ?$+ 204 Mill Pond Rd Old Augusta Rd Ebenezer ") See Inset 216 ")$+$+ 217 202 $+ Rincon M all Rd 206 ")$+ ") eville Ho !"`$ ") Blue Jay Rd Eden 212 $+ ?Zittrover Rd ? dg ZipMpiedrleanr dRdRd Rd 203 $+ 213 $+ Godley Rd Faulkville Georgia !"e$ Ogeechee River Meldrim I Chatham Fort Stewart 0 Military Reservation GA HWY 21 an Ln Springfield Rd Tr Rincon Inset Plantation Dr ") Hardy Rd 4th St 216 $+ 7th St ") 217 $+ Bunyon Fort Howard Rd Sec kinger Ford Rd Ke ssler R d 202 $+ Red Blu Old Augusta South Rd Mccall Rd MC CALL RD Oa k St MaEpxleleDy rLoop ff C ir ") $+206 Goshe n Rd Caroni Dr Jasper South Carolina Beaufort 2.5 5 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Emanuel Regional Inset Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch !"`$ Evans Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Bryan Chatham Appling Wayne Long Liberty !"e$ McIntosh Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 6.2 Legend Intersection Improvement Type 00 Project Number $+ Geometry, Road Markings, or Signage $+ New Signal $+ Crosswalk Timers $+ New Signal with Crosswalk Timers Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow ") Parks ") Landings 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. July 2008 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Proposed Bicycle ImprovementsStateHwy24 DyalPsorLtearn'sdiLnagndRindg Rd Us Hwy 301 State Hwy 21 op Tr 506 County Road 474 Guyton Inset Old Ri ver Rd State Hwy 17 owell R d ards Lo E dw Oliver/kildare Rd Kildare Pi tts R Betsy Ave Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha p Thomps Old A ugus Clyo-kildare Rd 503 th Church Rd Sam Sm o rin ta Rd art Rd 33 lle Rd Clyo R ") eedsv i R State Hwy 119 d Us Hwy 321 134 C a ro State Hwy 462 Us Hwy 601 Hardy Rd 135 Rincon Inset State Hwy 652 Plantation Dr Long Pond Rd Lexington an C ir Rahn St Ave Richland St LGoAnAgveS Ex t l ey ") Tyle4rthS t St Bun yon 6th St ")8th St 9th St N Ave Boyd St Fort Howard Rd P Rincon-stillwell Rd Us Hwy 278 46 Sec kinger Ford Rd Kessler R d 51 56 Sta te Hwy 462 Wisenbaker Rd Pryor R d dmore Bo Springfiel d R d 502 on Rd el Rd d Old O Walden Br C Brooklet Denmark Rd St Archer Rd 504 35 Grace n Rd S 105 ") immons St Hine s St Victory Dr Lin coln Ave Alexander St 7th Av e Davis St Che rry St Br og d on Rd Powell Rd Cedar Ln 78 4th Av e Poplar St Chu Cem etary St 6th Av e rch Pi St ne St 3rd St L it tle M c c all Rd Poplar St Magnoli a St W Central B lvd alter Rd Burkh Cen tral Ave 94 B ro o klet Lee field Rd Brooklet 89 ilson L eefield Rd I 44 O ld R iver R d County Road 390 ? 8G5uyton") ? ")")")SpringfiAeld95") ") ") Ogeechee River Laurel Tree Rd ld Elam Cemeta ry R d Egypt 505 Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln Ar un da rSy aRvdan na h Old Dixie Hwy Tow n DRdewSihttawRndee Rd Shawnee Old Dixie Hwy S Lee Rd Shaw nee Eg y pt Rd S pr in g fiel d Egy pt Rd M o rg an R dChester Thomas Rd 501 500 Clyo-sh awnee Rd Green Mo rgan School R d Friendship Rd Ollie Morgan Rd Clyo Cyl o-shaw nee Rd S i sters Ferry Rd F St S tillwell air Cl Preister Rd yo Rd Whitaker Rd Rd Sister Ferry R d Spring Rd Exley Rd Old Dixie Hwy Old Louisville Rd Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay R d H ar ry ter Rd P 508 or Newton Rd Riverside Dr 6 Pom ery Rd ran ch Rd Old Dix Turke y B ie Hwy S Tusculum Mt Hope Rd S pringfield Tusclumboundary Li R 506 Bro gdo n Rd Keith Rd Gracen Rd VicStoeryeD4Itrnh Asveet 78 Bo aen Rd A rn s Old dorff Rd Keiffer Hill Rd See Inset Early St Tu sculam R dWallace Wild er an Rd t Acres Rd Rd 117 3 rd St 64 P le as 44 76 Clyde Rd Ash St S Ash St Rd Z ettl Berr yville Reis e r Rd 24 Indigo Rd Bethany Rd Wilson Rd B enjamin G n a nn Rd Mock Rd 135 er n Rd Stillwell Stillwell Rd 77 Waldhour Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Ebenezer Mill Pond Rd Nellie Rd 46 131 11 County Road 590 ph Rah Archer Rd ")A ") Proposed Effingham Parkway ? ") ") Rincon Ga Highway 119 504 Central Ave Watts Rd Pound Rd Hon e 94 y R idg e Rd Go- Heidt Landing Rd 81 cart Rd Co ouse Rd Little Mccall Rd urth Shirley Big T R Dr d Ral n Anza Ln Rahn Statio Rd Mccall Rd Plan SBeaernIneysRedt tation Dr Long4P0ond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 123 122 4th St 9th StFort Ho ward Rd 126 Old Augusta Rd 65 r Red Blu 7th Blandford Rd St 123 W 9th St A lina W eisenbake Rd ve 126 133 124 53 Mccall Rd 127 ff C ir State Hwy 336 MuWlbGeersretrwyenoWeodaDyDr r ") Oak St MaEpxl elePDyirnL oeoDpr 48 Gos WilCloywppergesRsdDr Lewis Dr hen Rd Goshen Rd Green St Caroni Dr Us 41 Hwy 2 78 Alt State HCwhimym2e9y Rd State Hwy 13 Old Augusta South Rd Golden Rd Magn olia Dr Us Hwy 17 Sta te Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 S tate Hwy 4 62 n C Su ity Blvd State Hwy 67 Helmey Dr State Hw y 119 Keller RSdquirrel Run Nease Rd 91 Heidt Rd 502 Old D ixie Hwy S Early St S Mock Rd Springfield Inset Springfield Egypt Rd K eiffer H ill Rd 33 State Hwy 46 Garden Ln 35 / 40 Us Hwy 80 Eldora Rd Marlow Marlow Rd Hill Rd 96 93 Sa 89 nd 85 / Edgewood Rd 95 92 ") Ogeechee RSivtaegr Defrield Rd Blue Jay Rd 98 w Rd Lo G rounHdorsepen Rd 39 B Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd Blan dford Rd ssl ZippMeriedlraRndd Rd lue Jay Ho 507 Rd 65 124 ll 53 127 Mcca R ") Oak d St Green Pine Dr e Dr ") Chimmey Rd 41 Abercorn Rd 133 Old Augusta Rd 56 Huger St Highlaand Dr dg Goshen Rd 48 eville Rd Earl Lain Rd State Hwy 46 South Carolina State Hwy 170 State Hwy 170 45 n Briarwood Rd 90 g 76 t Acres R d Courthouse Rd State Hwy 119 Mccall Rd 508 Old Tusculam Rd Wallace Rd Standard Ln Cypress Poin t Rd 78 Wilder Rd use Sp Fore s t Rd S hea r o Pleasa n GNuAmshNSStPtine St ") ") 117 1st Ave ") W 1st St 3rd St E2n1sdEtSS4ttth St Hart SStAsh St tate H wy 1 19 Stillwell Rd S Railro1a1d5Ave Rose Dr Pembroke Zoller Dr Fox St Ash St Us Hwy 280 135 Webb Rd State Hwy 204 Beebe Rd Little Neck Rd !"`$ 102 Elm St Pine St Eden Bluff Dr Ogeechee River Bay Rd Schum an Dr S Laurel Cir Meldrim Rd 84 95 Conaway Rd ? Jabez Jones Rd Roebli n Rd 101 Meldrim Ranch 100 Oetgen Rd Go Rd dley Rd Faulkville I Pool Pecan L Port Wentworth !"e$ Jimmy De Loach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pk wy Savannah er Pkwy Airways Ave Georgia State Hwy 170 State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Fort Stewart Military Reservation Van Rd Fort Argyle Rd John Carter Rd Bloomingdale Pooler 35 / 40 / 85 / 95 Pin e Barren R d Pooler Pkwy Dean Forest Rd Garden City0 2.5 Us Hwy 80 Kessler Ave Fair St Telfair Rd LouSistavtileleHRwdy 25c Bay St 5 State Hwy 170 Alt 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Emanuel Regional Inset Screven Allendale Hampton Colleton !"e$ Beaufort Candler Bulloch !"`$ Evans Effingham Jasper Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Tattnall Bryan Chatham Appling Wayne Long Liberty !"e$ McIntosh Chatham Atlantic Ocean Figure 6.3 Legend Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities 00 Project Number 00 Bicycle Route Number Existing State Bicycle Route Existing County Bicycle Lanes Planned Multi-Use Path Proposed Multi-Use Path Proposed Bicycle Lanes Proposed Wide Shoulder Lane Proposed Rural Route Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow ") Parks ") Landings Effingham County Boundary Other County Boundary City Limits Water Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas Railroads Source: GDOT, Effingham County, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Pedestrian Recommendations Proposed sidewalk locations were identified based on proximity and connection to activity centers and community facilities such schools, parks, community centers, and hospitals. Consideration of FHWA recommendations concerning the need for sidewalks by type of road also resulted in the identification of projects on stretches of most arterial and collector roads in more populated areas of the county. The goal of providing "Complete Streets," which accommodate multiple modes of transportation, meant that pedestrian facilities were considered in combination with every general roadway project proposed. Within the city limits of Guyton, Rincon, and Springfield, streets that provided direct connections to parks, schools, commercial areas, or other important transportation facilities were deemed crucial pieces of an integrated pedestrian network. While cities may elect to provide sidewalks on every street within their jurisdiction, projects on identified street segments should be placed at the top of the priority list. Due to a lack of accurate local data on existing sidewalk locations, it is possible that some proposed routes within cities already have sidewalks; thus, the city-based sidewalk recommendations serve as a conceptual guide. Along some existing or potential transportation corridors, multi-use paths are recommended instead of separate sidewalks and/or bike lanes. In these cases, a need for both pedestrian and bicycle facilities was identified, but certain characteristics of the corridor (high speed, high volume, or utilizing nature paths) necessitated non-roadway solutions for reasons of safety or feasibility. Figure 6.4 shows the locations of 75 proposed sidewalk and multi-use path projects throughout Effingham County. In addition, a number of intersections are proposed to receive crosswalks and pedestrian signals, as seen in the previous Figure 6.2. The cities of Rincon, Springfield, and Guyton should use these recommendations as a launching point to undertake their own block-by-block pedestrian and bicycle studies within city limits. The County should also undertake a complete sidewalk inventory. Pedestrian facility recommendations are detailed in Appendix E. July 2008 6-6 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Proposed Pedestrian Improvements Hampton Clyo R State Hwy 119 d Us Hwy 301 Screven e ith Rd Guyton Inset Develop Local Sidewalk Plan CountyRoad474 K Old R iver Rd State Hwy 17 rogdon Rd Gracen Rd State BHriwttiyng2h4am Rd W Central Blvd Poplar St Magnolia St Gracen Rd 104 immons St Hi nes St Victor y Dr Li ncol n Ave Alexander St Davis St Cherry St B Gri ffin R d Br ogd on R d Powell Rd 4th Ave Cedar Ln 7th Ave S 105 Poplar St Chur Cemetary St 6th Ave ch St Pine St 3rd St 4th Ave Li ttle M cc all Rd 9 78 Little Mccal 44 l Rd Ogeechee River Magnolia Central Ave Rd Rd St Archer Rd Archer Rd Old Louisville Rd Statesboro Burk ha lter klet Leefield Rd Brooklet W a tts Pou d S nd R tilson Leefield Rd Central Ave 89 Broo 82 Bulloch Old River Rd County Road 390 Tr State Hwy 21 Oliver/kildare Rd owell Rd Kildare Thomps on Rd orin Old Augus Clyo-kildare Rd th Church Rd C ta Rd Morg Pryor Rd 34 an Ln Springfield Rd 15 Old Louisville Rd Egypt Shearwood Rd Dutton Ln undary Rd d more Bo Ar Shawnee 35 Old 30 Dix ie Hwy S Springfiel d Eg ypt Rd ter Rd P Tusculum Mt Hope Rd or R iver side Newto Dr n Rd Keith Rd See Inset Guyton 104 78 Brogdon Rd 64 Mock Rd Lee Rd Clyo 36 uba Rd C St 27 F air Rd Sister Ferry Rd B e rr y vi lle Spring Rd Arnsdorff Rd Old Tusculam R d 7 Wilde Rd r 16 119 111 115 118 See Inset 107 Springfield 135 Indigo Rd Bethany Rd B enj am in Gn ann Rd Stillwell 60 50 Ebenezer 43 Mill Pond Rd N ellie R d Us Hwy 321 Us Hwy 601 State Hwy 462 r Fort Rincon-stillwell Rd Seckinger Ford Rd Kessler Rd Rincon Inset State Hwy 462 135 Lexington Ave Develop Local Sidewalk Plan StateHwy 652 Plantation Dr Cir Long Pond Rd Pan N Carolina Ave Long St Hardy Rd GA Ave Tyle4rthStSt 122 Bun yon Wisenbaker Rd 128 Richland Us Hwy 278 7th St Blandford Rd 123 W 9th St 5th St 6th St 8th St Ave 9th BSotyd St 134 15th St W eisenbake Rd Howard Rd 126 Caroni Dr Green St 133 124 Old Augusta South Rd Hwy 13 Mccall Rd 53 State Hwy 336 59 Oak St MaEpxlelePDyirnLoeoDpr Goshen Rd 49 Red Blu ff Cir WilCloywppergesRsdDr Chimmey R d Lewis Dr Goshen Rd State Hwy 29 S tate Charlton Rd 57 58 Golden Rd Magnolia Dr 65 Jasper Us Hwy 17 Brooklet Denmark Rd Mccall Rd 76 106 92 82 County Road 590 State Hwy 67 Old Dixie Hwy S Early St Springfield Inset 16 Develop Local Sidewalk Plan SpringfieldEgyptRd Keiffer Hill Rd Garden Ln State Hwy 46 Old Tusculam Rd 119 72 107 7 Wallace Rd 118 Standard Ln Cypress Point Rd 78 121 Wilder Rd Shearo use Sp Fore st Rd Pleasan GNuAmshSNStPtine St 116 117 W 1st St 3rd St 1st Ave E21nsdEtSS4ttth St 120 Ash St S Hart St Stillwell Rd tate Hwy 119 Ash St 111 S Railro1a1d5Ave Rose Dr PemZobllerrDor ke Fox St Bryan Us Hwy 280 135 Webb Rd S Mock Rd t Acres R d 110 Courthouse Rd State Hwy 119 Beebe Rd Mccall Rd 76 Evans Fort Argyle Rd Ga Highway 119 State Hwy 204 Us Hwy 80 State Hwy 119 Eldora Rd Sa Watts Rd Heidt Landing Rd Marlow 79 Pineora Co ous e Rd urth Big T Rd Hill Rd nd 86 Blue Ja y Rd 39 44 See Inset 128 122 126 Rincon 123 124 53 M cc all R d 59 65 57 133 89 le Rd Hodge 80 Blue Jay Rd Zittrover Rd 98 ZipMpeidrlearndRdRd 91 102 Eden 83 97 45 vil 49 Georgia Port Wentworth 84 87 Nease Rd 90 95 State Hwy 25 State Hwy 21 Fort Stewart Military Reservation 101 Meldrim 100 Faulkville Godley Rd Savannah Jimmy De Lo ach PkwyJimmy De Loach Pkwy er Pkw Chatham y Bloomingdale P ool Pooler Rd Rogers St John Carter Rd Pine Barren R d 0 Garden City Old Louisville Rd Us Hwy 80 Dean Forest Fair St Sta te Hwy 141 Us Hwy 278 State Hwy 46 South CarolinaState Hwy 170 Beaufort State Hwy 170 2.5 5 State Hwy 25c State Hwy 170 Alt 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Regional Inset 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 6.4 Legend Multi-Use Trails and Sidewalks 00 Project Number Multi-Use Path Sidewalks (Both Sides) Sidewalks (One Side) Pedestrian Needs Analysis Schools (K-12) Elementary School = Red Middle School = Orange High School = Yellow c Library ") Park ") Landing City Hall _ Police Department #* Post Office $+ Community or Senior Center %, Park & Ride Lot Road Network Interstate (Outside Effingham County) Other 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, Effingham County, and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Transit Recommendations The Coastal Georgia RDC has applied for federal funding and, if funding is received, will operate transit on a regional basis based on a feasibility and implementation study performed over the last three years. They are thus responsible for procuring vehicles and defining routes, headways, fares, and other operating characteristics. The recommendations here serve to supplement their analysis in reference to Effingham County, and help County officials and interested parties determine where different types of transit services might be most helpful. Though there are not enough population or employment concentrations in Effingham County at present to support high-frequency fixed-route local circulator buses, both commuter programs and paratransit services are likely to be feasible. Vanpools and peak-hour express buses could be used to assist commuters in getting back and forth to work. Vanpools must be arranged between groups of employees, whereas express buses or shuttles would serve a more generalized labor force. Both types of transit could utilize park-and-ride lots as common pick-up/drop-off points. There are two existing park- and-ride lots in the county; three more (two in Rincon, one in Eden) are recommended to provide additional support to ridesharing commuters. If fixed-route peak-hour transit were implemented in the future, potential highway-based express routes that stop at park-and-ride lots have been identified. An arguably more pressing need in Effingham is for demand-response paratransit that provides door-to- door service between residences and destinations such as hospitals, grocery stores, and other community facilities. Although available to anyone, paratransit is typically targeted towards disabled and elderly populations. Hybrid services such as route-based paratransit (demand-response transit within a particular geography or distance from a defined route) are also an option. To assist in defining potential paratransit service areas, a planning exercise was undertaken to identify census blockgroups with higher than average concentrations (compared to other rural Georgia counties) of low-income, elderly, and non-white residents, as these populations display a greater propensity for transit usage. There are also a number of disabled individuals who live throughout the county; in absolute numbers they are likely to be found in areas of concentrated population such as the cities and southern part of the county. Figure 6.5 depicts the locations of the two current and three proposed park-and-ride lots and three potential commuter routes between Effingham and Chatham County. The previous Figure 4.8 shows blockgroups with above average percentages of likely transit users, which could serve as a launching point to identify likely service areas. Ultimately, citizen requests to the Coastal Georgia RDC as regional paratransit operations get underway will reveal where and what type of demand-response services are most needed. July 2008 6-8 Office of Planning Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Red Blu Old Augusta South Rd Proposed Transit Improvements Hampton Edw DyalPsorLtaer'nsdiLnagndRindg Rd Screven Gracen Rd Guyton Inset G Hu Cherry St G r acimemnonRsdStVictoHriyneDsrSt Victory Dr Lincoln Ave Alexander St Davis St nter St B r ogd on Rd Powell Rd rif f in Cedar Ln Rd 7th Ave 4th Ave S 4th Ave Poplar St Cemetary St 7th Ave 6th Ave 3rd St Little Mccall Rd Little Mccall Rd Ogeechee River Poplar St PopMlaargSntolia St Magnolia St ChurcWPhinSCetWeSntCtraelnBtlrvadl Blvd %, Central Ave Central Ave Halfway Rd Pou nd Rd Bulloch O Walden Br ta Rd op Tr owell Rd Kildare ards Lo Betsy Ave Old Augus Clyo-kildare Rd Old Wes Edward Rd Ingram Rd orin R lle Rd Oliver/kildare Rd Dixie Hwy N Nixon Cha pThomps el Rd on Rd th Church Rd Sam Sm eedsvi Pryor R d dmore Bo art Rd C Springfiel d R d Ollie Morgan Rd Old Louisville Rd Dutton Ln Egypt TusculuSmhawnee Springfield StiClllwyoell 302 ld Elam Cemetary Guyton Pineora Shearwood Rd unda ry Rd Savanna h Tow n Rd Ar Rd Shawnee Egypt Rd Sprin gf iel Griffin Lake Rd Clark Rd Lindsay Rd d Eg Lee Rd ypt Rd M rg an R dChester Thomas Rd o Mt Hope Rd Pomery Rd Old Dixie Hwy Clyo-shawnee Rd Green Mo rgan School R d ranch Rd Old Dix ie Hwy S Sister Ferry Rd Friendship Rd Cyl o-shaw nee Rd Stil St S isters Ferry Rd Preister Rd F air Rd Berr yville Reis er Rd Indigo Rd Turkey B Bo aen Rd Harr y or ter Rd P Riv er side Dr Newton Rd Tusculam Rd Bro gdon Rd KeithSRed e Inset Gracen Rd Victory Dr 4th Ave Early St Arnsdorff Rd See Keiffer Inset Hill Rd Mock Rd Standard Ln Old Tusculam R d P leas Wilder an Rd t Acres Rd Clyde Rd Little Mccall Rd Ash St Hart St ph Rah Rd Z e ttl Stillwell R d er n Rd Ral Archer Rd Rahn Statio Rd Hone Watts Rd Pound Rd y R idge Rd Heidt Landing Rd Central Ave Co ouse Rd urth BiSghTirlReydDr n Anza Ln Spring Rd Exley Rd lwell Clyo Rd Laurel Tree Rd Whitaker Rd Bethany Rd Wilson Rd Benjam in Gn ann Rd Wylly Rd High Bluff Rd Waldhour Rd Mil l Pon d Rd Nellie Rd See Inset Plan Barney Rd tation Dr Long Pond Rd Hardy Rd 7th St 9th 4th St St Fort Howard Rd Ebenezer Archer Rd Archer Rd Rincon Inset Barney Rd Victory Ln Plantation Dr an Long Pond Rd P Rincon-stillwell Rd Seck inger Ford Rd n Kessler Rd Cir Lexington Ave xley St t Hardy Rd LGoAnAgveS E 3rd St Tyle4rthStSt 6th St 7th S 8th St 9th St Boyd St t N Caro lina Ave 7th St Blandford Rd W 9th St Weis enbake r Rd %, Mccall Rd 303 Oa k St Maple Dr MuWlbGeesrretrweynoWeodaDyrDr Bunyo Fort Howard Rd ff Cir Cy p r ess Dr Lewis Dr Goshen Rd Wisenbaker Rd Caroni Dr Chimmey Rd Gold en Rd Jasper ll Mccall Rd Mclaw s Rd Old Dixie Hwy S St Early St Springfield Inset Springfield Egypt Rd Garden Ln Old Dixi e Hwy S Old Tusculam Rd Wallace Dr Standard Ln Early Wallace Rd GNuAmshSNStPtine St %, W 1st S t W 1st St 3rd St 1st Ave S E21nsdEtSS4ttth St Cypress Point Rd Shearo sant Acres Rd 3rd St Rose Dr Rd Ave Mccall Railroad Hart SStAsh St Stillwell Rd Stillwell Rd Ash St Ash St Zoller Dr Fox St Mock Rd Mock Rd Bryan use Sp Beebe Rd Zettler Rd Mccall Rd Evans Pleasan Liberty Webb Rd Golf Ln n Briarwood Rd g Bluff Dr Helmey Dr Marlow Marlow Rd Sa Hill Rd nd Ogeechee River Dr Edgewood Rd Blue Jay Rd Heidt Rd w Rd Lo GrounHdorsepen Rd B Zittrover Rd Herbert Ke er Rd Blandfosrdsl Rd ZippMeriedrlaRndd Rd Nease Rd Conaway Rd Elm St Pine St Eden 301 Jabez Jones Rd Roeblin R d Meldrim Rd Harvey Rd Bay Rd Meldrim Ranch Oetgen Rd Go dle Rd y Rd Schuman Dr Faulkville lue J ay 303 Rd Rincon Mcca R Oak d St Gr een e Pine Dr Dr Chimmey Rd Abercorn Rd Old Augusta Rd Huger St Highlaand Dr evil le Ho dg Goshen Rd Rd Earl Lain Rd Pecan L Keller RSdquirrel Run Georgia Chatham South Carolina O ld River Rd Fort Stewart Military Reservation 0 2.5 5 Beaufort 10 Miles Burke Jenkins Regional Inset 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 6.5 Legend Existing and Proposed Park and Ride Lots and Rapid Transit Lanes 00 Project Number %, Proposed* %, Existing Potential Commuter Bus Route Road Network Interstate State Route / U.S. Highway Other Roads Other Layers Other County Boundary City Limits Fort Stewart Military Reservation Conservation Areas River Railroads *Note: Proposed locations are suggestions only, and require further study to determine final location Source: GDOT and Jacobs Carter Burgess This map is intended for planning purposes only. t Acres R d Plea Courthouse Rd July 2008 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Project Costs Project costs were estimated using the Atlanta Regional Commission's Transportation Project Costing Tool. Assuming reasonable expenditure for activities such as right-of-way acquisition, grading, paving, drainage, and curb and gutter construction, Table 6.1 shows the per-mile cost of various types of transportation improvements. These unit costs were multiplied by the length of each project, in miles, to provide an estimate of the financial obligation of undertaking particular improvements. Table 6.1 Assumed Per-mile Cost of Various Types of Transportation Improvements Improvement Type New Construction 2 lanes, no sidewalk 2 lanes, one sidewalk 2 lanes, wide shoulder, one sidewalk Roadway Improvement Paving of two-lane road Center turn lane Divided roadway with occasional left and right turn lanes Occasional right turn lanes Widen shoulders, 16' Bike lane Sidewalk, one side Sidewalks, both sides Widen, 2 new lanes with bike lanes and sidewalk Widen with median and 8' multi-use path on both sides Turn lane with 8' multi-use path on both sides Intersection Geometric realignment Turn lanes Signalization ITS coordination of signals 4 crosswalks and 4 pedestrian signals Rumble strips, signage Crosswalks only (each) Multi-Use Path (Bike/Ped) 8', both sides of roadway 12', with additional ROW 12', without additional ROW Est. Cost per Mile $ 2,960,000 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,450,000 $ 610,000 $ 1,960,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 710,000 $ 760,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 435,000 $ 870,000 $ 4,800,000 $ 5,390,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 2,880,000 $ 750,000 $ 120,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ 500 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 July 2008 6-10 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies In sum, 135 roadway segment projects, 14 intersection improvements, and 3 park-and-ride lots were recommended in Effingham County. Most roadway segments had multiple types of proposed improvements, including those supporting automobiles, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Figure 6.6 depicts a cost breakdown by mode. The overall planning-level cost of all proposed projects is approximately $461.7 million in 2008 dollars. Intersection improvements account for $7.2 million of that sum. Transit is not included in costs since it is being managed by the Coastal Georgia RDC. Because the region has a stronger hand than individual counties in applying for federal funding sources, it is currently pursuing Rural Public Transit (5311), Job Access and Reverse Commute (5316), and New Freedom Initiative Funding (5317). With these grants, Effingham County would be responsible for a 10 percent local farebox match plus 50 percent of the net operating deficit. Preliminary estimates show that it would cost Effingham County approximately $40,000 to begin implementing vanpools and regional paratransit services. The Coastal Georgia RDC plans on subsidizing the capital costs associated with vanpools. $11,388,017 3% $173,058,817 37% $125,146,535 27% $34,260,551 8% $22,994,407 5% $20,465,811 5% $67,209,966 15% Car only Car / Bike Bike only Bike / Ped Ped only Car / Bike / Ped Car / Ped Figure 6.6 Estimated Cost of Roadway Segment Improvements Benefitting Each Mode (Note: Transit, carpool, and vanpool recommendations are not included in this estimate) Improvements along a total of 278.5 miles of new or existing transportation corridors are detailed in the project list. Figure 6.7 displays the number of miles associated with various kinds of transportation improvements. Since most projects benefit multiple modes, they are included within multiple columns. July 2008 6-11 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Fifty-five percent of project miles benefit automobile travel, while seventy-two percent are recommended to include pedestrian or bicycle improvements, typically alongside existing motor vehicle facilities. With the recent, and likely permanent, steep rise in energy costs, it is increasingly important to retrofit roadways to accommodate more energy-efficient forms of transportation than single or multi- occupant personal vehicles. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, valuable for non-motorized transport, is also necessary to support successful public and paratransit services. 120 100 80 Mile s 60 40 20 0 Paving Wi deni ng New Si dewa l ks Cons truc ti on Improvement Type Bike Lanes and Routes Mul ti -Us e Paths Figure 6.7 Number of Miles of Roadway Recommended for Various Types of Improvements Project Evaluation and Prioritization Recommended projects were evaluated according to a number of quantitative and qualitative factors. The evaluation factors are as follows: Conformance to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan: multimodal accessibility, connectivity, and mobility; support of public transportation; character and aesthetics Increase in Level of Service based on travel demand modeling results (Appendix C) Potential to reduce number or severity of vehicular incidents Support of economic development and freight movement July 2008 6-12 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Aid in emergency vehicle response or evacuation (categorized under "Mobility" and "Level of Service") General importance in transportation network (arterial and collector projects as well as those potentially supporting future transit services) Benefit to local community via proximity to community facilities Steering committee and public feedback Points were systematically assigned to each factor based on professional judgment to assist in determining potential project phasing and prioritization. Table 6.2 shows the list of evaluation factors, how points were assigned to these factors, and eligible project types as necessary. Prioritization, of the overall project list and by mode (automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian), was based on the sum of numerical scores associated with each factor. While cost was calculated, the project list is not financially constrained. Thus, this study is aspirational and should be used primarily for guidance when creating an official Comprehensive Transportation Plan or when considering implementing transportation improvement projects through 2030. An overview of all prioritized projects can be seen in Table 6.3. The complete project list is sorted in a descending manner based on the sum of "roadway", "bicycle", "pedestrian", and "general" evaluation factor scores. Because they garner points in the most categories, "Complete Streets" projects with multi-modal improvements tend to have the highest scores. Tables 6.4 through 6.6 display ranked projects by mode, sorted first by the sum of the modal and general score, and then by the overall score. In the event of a tie, projects were then listed according to their identification numbers. Project identification numbers were assigned based solely on their geographic location. The detailed version of the project list and prioritization scores is seen in Appendix E, sorted by project ID. July 2008 6-13 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.2 Evaluation Factors and Associated Points Evaluation Factor Accessibility Connectivity Mobility Level of Service / Congestion Safety Economic Development Supports Public Transit Character - Multi-Use Path Character - Scenic Corridor Local Benefit - Located on arterial or collector Local Benefit - Proximity to Community Facilities Feedback from Stakeholders or Public TOTAL Maximum Points Per Category Roadway Bike Ped. General 5 5 5 0 7.5 5 5 0 4 3 3 0 10 0 0 0 10 5 5 0 6 0 4 0 0 2.5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 42.5 25.5 27 25 Max. Pts Per Project 15 17.5 10 10 20 10 7.5 5 2.5 Notes The following project types receive points: Roadway (new construction), Bicycle, Pedestrian. The following project types receive points: Roadway (new construction or paving), Bicycle, Pedestrian. The following project types receive points: Roadway (new construction, paving, or widening), Bicycle, Pedestrian. The following project types receive points: Roadway (paving or widening). Projects located in the vicinity of hotspots (Figures 5.4A & 5.4B) as well as those providing dedicated facilities for bicycles or pedestrians (bike lanes, sidewalks, multi- use paths) receive points. Roadway (new construction or widening) projects that enhance freight movement as well as pedestrian projects in cities or near commercial areas receive points. All projects with bicycle and pedestrian components receive points. Minimal impact multi-use paths receive points. Projects along designated scenic corridors receive points. 2.5 Projects along high-volume direct routes (arterials and collectors) receive points. All projects are assumed to provide some local benefit. Projects within 500 feet of a 10 park, 1/2 mile of an elementary school, or 1 mile of a middle school or high school receive more points. Projects specifically requested or supported 10 by stakeholders and the general public during the public involvement process were given points. 120 - July 2008 6-14 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Prioritized Project Lists by Mode Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview) ID Facility Name Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score 44 Effingham Parkway, Segment 2 Blue Jay Road to SR 119 New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Road Lanes Both Sides 101 133 SR 21, Segment 1 Old Augusta to Ft Howard Road Widen (4-->6 Lanes) Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 99 126 Fort Howard Road, Segment 2 SR 21 to Old Augusta Widen (+ turn Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Road lane) Lanes Both Sides 99 47 Research Forest E-W connector McCall Road to Hodgeville Road (in DRI) New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Road Lanes Both Sides 96 78 SR 119, Segment 2 SR 17 to SR 21 Widen (2-->3 Lanes) Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 92 123 Blue Jay / Blandford Road SR 21 to McCall Road Occasional Right Turn Lanes Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 89 45 Effingham Parkway (Chatham) Chatham County Line to vicinity of Monteith Road (Chatham) New Four-Lane Marked Bicycle Road Lanes Sidewalks on Both Sides 89 65 Effingham Parkway, Segment 1 County Line to Blue Jay Road New Four-Lane Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Road Lanes Both Sides 89 101 US 80, Segment 2 SR 17 to Sandhill Road Widen (2-->4 Lanes) Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 87 91 Sand Hill Road, Segment 1 US 80 to Stagefield Road Widen (+ turn Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on lane) Lanes Both Sides 86 89 Rails-to-Trails Downtown Guyton to Meldrim @ 2nd Street None Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 83 92 Sand Hill Road, Segment 2 Stagefield Road to Boggy Road Widen (+ turn Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on lane) Lanes Both Sides 82 127 Fort Howard Road, Segment 3 SR 21 to McCall Road New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Road Lanes Sidewalks on Both Sides 81 84 Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector US 80 to Jabez Jones Road New Two-Lane Marked Bicycle Road Lanes Sidewalks on Both Sides 81 39 Blue Jay Road McCall Road to SandHill Road Widen (2-->3 Lanes) Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 80 134 SR 21, Segment 2 Ft Howard Road to 4th Street (Rincon) None Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 79 135 SR 21, Segment 3 4th St (Rincon) to Laurel St (Springfield) None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 79 July 2008 6-15 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name 122 4th Street / Rincon Stillwell Road 124 Carolina Avenuenue (South) 95 SR 17, Segment 1 48 Goshen Road 98 SR 30, Segment 2 76 Multi-Use Path along power line easement 83 Jabez Jones Road 100 US 80, Segment 1 115 S Laurel Street 53 McCall Road 105 Guyton Rails-To-Trails (underway) 117 SR 119, Segment 3 107 119/21 Realignment in Springfield 9 Powell Road Extension 102 US 80, Segment 3 116 Springfield Elementary School Drive Extension 33 SR 119, Segment 4 90 S Effingham High School woodland path Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score SR 21 to Bunyan Kessler Road None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes One Side 75 W 17th Street to N Ridge Drive New Two-Lane Road Wide Shoulder Sidewalks on One Side 75 US 80 to Blue Jay Road None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 74 SR 21 to Effingham Parkway None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 72 SR 17 to Nease Road None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 70 Courthouse Road to SR 119 None Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 69 SR 17 to SR 30 None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 69 SR 17 to Chatham County Line None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 65 SR 21 to SR 119/SR 21 Realign None Marked Bicycle Sidewalks on Lanes Both Sides 64 SR 21 to Blue Jay Road (Blanford Rd) None Wide Shoulder Sidewalks on Both Sides 64 Downtown Guyton None Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 63 SR 21 to Laurel St None Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 61 SR 119 at school driveway to Old Tusculsum Road 4th Avenue to SR 119 (intersect w/ Little McCall Realignment) New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 61 Sidewalks on One Side 61 Sandhill Road to Bulloch County Line None Wide Shoulder Sidewalks on Both Sides 60 Early Street to Spring ES driveway entrance New Two-Lane Road None Sidewalks on Both Sides 60 SR 21 realign (Springfield) to SC State Line Richmond Drive to back of HS (between baseball and football field) Shoulder Increase None Wide Shoulder None 59 Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 59 July 2008 6-16 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score 94 SR 119, Segment 1 SR 17 to Bulloch County Line Shoulder Increase Wide Shoulder None 57 80 Courthouse Road SR 17 to Stagecoach Avenue New Two-Lane Road None Sidewalks on Both Sides 56 64 Courthouse Road SR 21 to SR 17 None Rural Route Signage Only Sidewalks on Both Sides 52 82 Honey Ridge Road SR 17 to SR 119 None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 52 128 Lexington Avenuenue 9th Street to Madison Oaks Drive (Rincon) None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 52 49 Goshen/Hodgeville/Kolick Helmey Roads Effingham Parkway to SR 30 None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 49 43 Ebenezer Road 118 SR 21, Segment 4 73 Pleasant Acres Road 130 Richland Avenuenue Extension SR 21 to Waldhour Road (by powerlines) SR 21@ S Laurel Street to SR 119/SR 21 Realign SR 21 to Little McCall Road (or powerline easement) 10th Street (Rincon) to Fort Howard Road None None None None Paving None New Two-Lane Road None Sidewalks on Both Sides 48 Sidewalks on Both Sides 48 None 48 None 48 60 Wylly /High Bluff/ Tommy Long Road Long Bridge Road to End None None Sidewalks on One Side 47 119 Standard Lane SR 119 to Old Tusculum Road None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 47 24 Indigo Road 81 Heidt Landing Road 88 Old River Road 16 SR 21, Segment 5 15 SR 17, Segment 4 56 Old Augusta Road Mock Road to Stillwell-Clyo Road Paving Rural Route Signage Only None 47 Central Avenue to existing rd connecting to SR 119 Paving Rural Route Signage Only None 47 US 80 to John Carter Road Widen (2-->4 Lanes) None None 46 Old Tusculum to Springfield-Egypt Road Old Elam Cemetary Road to 1300 ft S of Egypt Ardmore Road None None None None Sidewalks on One Side 44 Sidewalks on One Side 43 SR 21 to Ft Howard Road None Wide Shoulder None 43 87 Nease Road SR 30 to St. Matthew's Road None None Sidewalks on One Side 43 July 2008 6-17 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name 3 Effingham Parkway Northeastern 21 Clyo-Kildare Road 27 Marion Avenue 86 Midland Road 131 Rincon Stillwell Road 6 Morgan Road Extension 97 SR 30, Segment 1 57 Stephens Drive 59 Westwood Drive 1 Boaen Road 5 Morgan Road 10 Sawmill Drive 14 Springfield-Egypt Road Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score 119 to Boaen Road@Sawmill Road New Two-Lane Road None None 43 SR 119 to Marion Avenue None None Sidewalks on One Side 42 SR 119 to ClyoKildare Road None None Sidewalks on One Side 42 SR 30 to Rails-toTrails None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 42 Ft Howard Road to Ebenezer Road None Marked Bicycle Lanes None 42 Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 17 New Two-Lane Rural Route - Road Signage Only None 42 Nease Road to Kolic Helmey Road None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 39 Goshen Road to McCall Road None None Sidewalks on One Side 38 Vale Royal Dr to SR 21 None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 38 Springfield-Egypt Road to Sawmill Road Paving None None 38 SR 21 to SpringfieldEgypt Road Paving None None 38 Springfield-Tusculum Road to Boaen Road Paving None None 38 Shawnee-Egypt Road to SR 21 Paving None None 38 20 Bark Drive SR 119 to end Paving None None 38 22 Corinth Church Road Clyo-Kildare Road to Bird Road Paving None None 38 29 Sam Smart Road Corinth Church Road to end Paving None None 38 42 Chimney - Busch Connector Busch Road to SR 21 New Two-Lane Road None None 38 70 Low Ground Road McCall Road to Midland Road Paving None None 38 74 Pound Road / Floyd Road Entire length of both roads (to SR 17) Paving None None 38 July 2008 6-18 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name 96 SR 17, Segment 2 46 Fort Howard Road, Segment 1 103 Anderson Street 104 Gracen Road 106 Magnolia Street 111 Ash Street / Ash Street Extension 112 E Madison Street 121 W 1st Street Extension 125 E 9th Street (Rincon) 108 119/21 Realignment in Springfield 34 SR 119, Segment 5 35 SR 21, Segment 6 79 SR 17, Segment 3 7 Old Tusculum Road, Segment 2 11 Long Bridge Road 50 Long Bridge Road 51 Long Pond Road 58 Vale Royal Drive 72 Old Tusculum Road, Segment 1 Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score Blue Jay Road to Midland Road None Marked Bicycle Lanes None 37 Old Augusta Road to Rincon-Stillwell Road None Wide Shoulder None 37 SR 17 to Magnolia Street None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 SR 119 to Summer Place None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 SR 119 to Anderson Street None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 S Laurel Street to Early Street None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 Laurel Street to N Ash Street None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 SR 21 to SR 119 None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 SR 21 to Lexington Avenue None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 37 Laurel Street to Old Dixie Highway New Two-Lane Road None None 34 Marion Avenue to Clyo-Kildare Road Shawnee Egypt Road to 500 ft N of Shawnee Road Midland Road to Pound Road None None None None None None Sidewalks on One Side 33 Sidewalks on One Side 33 Sidewalks on One Side 33 SR 21 to Standard Lane None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 33 Ebenezer Road to Wylly Road Ebenezer Road to 4000 ft N of Wylly Road Ft Howard Road to Rincon Stillwell Road None None None Marked Bicycle Lanes None 33 None Sidewalks on One Side 33 Wide Shoulder None 33 McCall Road to Westwood Drive None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 33 SR 21 to SR 119 realign (GDOT) None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 33 July 2008 6-19 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name 67 HS Access (to Deerfield Road) 75 Pound Road - Pleasant Acres Connector 129 North Ridge Road 132 Smith Avenuenue Extension Extents Pleasant Acre Road (straightened) to SR 119 between HS and MS End of Pound Road to Pleasant Acres Road in vicinity of powerline easement end of current road to Carolina Avenue extension parallel to RR Tracks (Rincon) Smith Avenue to E 4th Street (Rincon) Roadway Improvement New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Bicycle Improvement None None None None Pedestrian Improvement None None None None Score 33 33 33 33 17 4th Street Marion Avenue to Stillwell-Clyo Road None None Sidewalks on One Side 32 23 Fair Street Clyo-Stillwell Road to community center None None Sidewalks on One Side 32 30 Shawnee Road, Segment 1 SR 21 to Old Dixie Highway None None Sidewalks on One Side 32 36 Stillwell-Clyo Road 4th Street to Fair Street None None Sidewalks on One Side 32 109 2nd Street Ash Street to RR Avenue None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 32 110 3rd Street 113 Early Street 114 Railroad Avenue SR 21 to S Laurel Street Laurel Street to "Springfield ES Drive Ext" between Ash Street and Lake Dr W 2nd Street to W 3rd Street None None None None None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 32 Sidewalks on Both Sides 32 Sidewalks on One Side 32 120 Stillwell Road Laurel Street to Ash Street None None Sidewalks on Both Sides 32 40 Bunyan Kessler Road Rincon-Stillwell Road to Fort Howard Road None Wide Shoulder None 31 41 Chimney Road SR 21 to Old Augusta Road None Wide Shoulder None 31 77 Rahn Station Road SR 21 to McCall Road at Effingham Parkway None Wide Shoulder None 31 85 Meldrim Road Central Avenue (Meldrim) to US 80 None Wide Shoulder None 31 July 2008 6-20 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score 2 Boaen Road Extension Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 21 New Two-Lane Road None None 28 4 Griffin Lake Road Extension SR 17 to SpringfieldEgypt Road New Two-Lane Road None None 28 8 Porter Road Old Louisville Road to Riverside Drive New Two-Lane Road None None 28 12 Shearwood Road Old Louisville Road to Ogeechee River New Two-Lane Road None None 28 13 Springfield-Tusculum Road SR 17 to Brogdon Road Paving None None 28 18 Angus Exley Road Extension End of Angus Exley Road to Bark Dr New Two-Lane Road None None 28 19 Angus Exley Road Sister's Ferry Rd to End Paving None None 28 25 Josiah Morgan - Sam Smart Connector Connect Josiah Morgan Road to Sam Smart Road (at ends) New Two-Lane Road None None 28 Clyo-Shawnee Road 26 Josiah Morgan Road to JM/SS Connector Paving None None 28 (new) 28 Lorenzo Hurst / Elbert Arnsdorff SR 21 to Old Dixie Highway Paving None None 28 31 Shawnee Road, Segment 2 Old Dixie to Corinth Church Road New Two-Lane Road None None 28 32 Sisters Ferry Road SR 119 to Green Morgan School Road Paving None None 28 38 Azalea - Commercial Connector end of Azalea Avenue to Goshen Commercial Park Dr New Two-Lane Road None None 28 end of Hodgeville 52 Low Ground - Blue Jay Connector Road (realign to be perpendicular to Blue Jay) to just E of New Two-Lane Road None None 28 Sagepoint Road 54 McCall Road Extension SR 21 to AzaleaCommercial Connector (New) New Two-Lane Road None None 28 55 Mock Road Extension SR 21 to Stillwell Road (Springfield) New Two-Lane Road None None 28 61 Zipperer - Hodgeville Connector Zipperer Paddock (end) to Hodgeville Road New Two-Lane Road None None 28 62 Zipperer Road Midland Road to end Paving None None 28 July 2008 6-21 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.3 Prioritized List of All Recommended Potential Projects (Overview), Continued ID Facility Name Extents Roadway Improvement Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Score 63 Big T Road Courthouse Road to Shirley Road Paving None None 28 66 Existing private road Off Low Ground Road Low Ground Road to LowGround-Shirley Connector (new) Paving None None 28 68 Little McCall Road north terminus realign north end of road to SR 119 New Two-Lane Road None None 28 69 Low Ground - Shirley Connector Shirley Road to end of #66 New Two-Lane Road None None 28 71 Magnolia - Big T Connector Magnolia Street Ext to Courthouse Road (E of Indica Pl) New Two-Lane Road None None 28 Unknown road between 99 Honey Ridge Road and Entire length Paving None None 28 Ogeechee River on 119 93 Sand Hill Road, Segment 3 Boggy Road to railbed None Wide Shoulder None 24 37 4th Street / RinconStillwell Road Bunyan Kessler Road to Long Pond Road None Wide Shoulder None 23 July 2008 6-22 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.4 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Roadway Projects Note: Does not include recommended paving projects Rank Map ID 1 44 2 47 3 130 4 126 5 133 6 88 7 78 8 33 9 3 Facility Name Extents Effingham Parkway, Blue Jay Road to SR Segment 2 119 Research Forest EW connector Richland Avenuenue Extension McCall Road to Hodgeville Road (in DRI) 10th Street (Rincon) to Fort Howard Road Fort Howard Road, Segment 2 SR 21 to Old Augusta Road SR 21, Segment 1 Old Augusta to Ft Howard Road Old River Road US 80 to John Carter Road SR 119, Segment 2 SR 17 to SR 21 SR 119, Segment 4 SR 21 realign (Springfield) to SC State Line Effingham Parkway 119 to Boaen - Northeastern Road@Sawmill Road Details / Justification 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. 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. Roadway Improvement New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Parallel/Rear access to development along SR 21 from residential Rincon. Requested by Rincon city planner. Increases connectivity, mobility, and access. New Two-Lane Road 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 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. 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. 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 multi-use 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 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. 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. Widen (+ turn lane) Widen (4-->6 Lanes) Widen (2-->4 Lanes) Widen (2-->3 Lanes) Shoulder Increase New Two-Lane Road Length (miles) 7.85 2.65 0.77 2.51 3.60 4.09 5.02 11.65 3.00 Total Score 101.0 96.0 47.5 98.8 98.8 46.3 92.3 59.3 42.5 Roadway Score 32.5 32.5 32.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.5 Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Roadway +General 25.5 23.0 20.0 52.50 25.5 0.0 23.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 47.50 47.50 25.5 23.0 16.3 46.25 25.5 23.0 16.3 46.25 0.0 0.0 16.3 46.25 25.5 23.0 13.8 43.75 15.5 0.0 13.8 43.75 0.0 0.0 10.0 42.50 July 2008 6-23 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.4 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Roadway Projects, Continued Rank Map ID 10 94 11 45 12 65 13 101 14 9 15 42 16 123 17 91 18 92 19 107 20 108 21 84 22 116 23 80 Facility Name SR 119, Segment 1 Effingham Parkway (Chatham) Effingham Parkway, Segment 1 US 80, Segment 2 Powell Road Extension Chimney - Busch Connector Blue Jay / Blandford Road Sand Hill Road, Segment 1 Sand Hill Road, Segment 2 119/21 Realignment in Springfield 119/21 Realignment in Springfield Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector Springfield Elementary School Drive Extension Courthouse Road Extents SR 17 to Bulloch County Line Chatham County Line to vicinity of Monteith Road (Chatham) County Line to Blue Jay Road SR 17 to Sandhill Road 4th Avenue to SR 119 (intersect w/ Little McCall Realignment) Busch Road to SR 21 SR 21 to McCall Road US 80 to Stagefield Road Stagefield Road to Boggy Road SR 119 at school driveway to Old Tusculsum Road Laurel Street to Old Dixie Highway US 80 to Jabez Jones Road Early Street to Spring ES driveway entrance SR 17 to Stagecoach Avenue Details / Justification 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. GDOT has finished the design phase for this project, which will lead to more optimal truck movement in the area. In STIP. 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. 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. 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. Roadway Improvement Shoulder Increase New Four-Lane Road New Four-Lane Road Widen (2-->4 Lanes) New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Occasional Right Turn Lanes Widen (+ turn lane) Widen (+ turn lane) New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Length (miles) 4.23 1.76 5.11 4.48 0.54 0.07 1.89 3.11 1.31 0.52 0.34 1.70 0.33 2.34 Total Score Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Roadway +General 56.8 30.0 15.5 0.0 11.3 41.25 88.5 88.5 25.0 25.0 25.5 25.5 23.0 23.0 15.0 15.0 40.00 40.00 87.3 30.0 25.5 23.0 8.8 38.75 60.5 37.5 88.8 32.5 32.5 20.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 23.0 0.0 23.0 5.0 5.0 16.3 37.50 37.50 36.25 86.3 82.3 60.8 33.8 20.0 20.0 22.5 22.5 25.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 13.8 13.8 11.3 11.3 33.75 33.75 33.75 33.75 81.0 22.5 25.5 23.0 10.0 32.50 59.5 22.5 0.0 23.0 10.0 32.50 55.5 22.5 0.0 23.0 10.0 32.50 July 2008 6-24 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.4 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Roadway Projects, Continued Rank Map ID 24 6 25 67 26 75 27 129 28 132 29 39 30 127 31 124 32 2 33 4 34 8 35 12 36 18 37 25 Facility Name Morgan Road Extension HS Access (to Deerfield Road) Pound Road Pleasant Acres Connector North Ridge Road Smith Avenuenue Extension Blue Jay Road Fort Howard Road, Segment 3 Carolina Avenuenue (South) Boaen Road Extension Griffin Lake Road Extension Porter Road Shearwood Road Angus Exley Road Extension Josiah Morgan Sam Smart Connector Extents Details / Justification Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 17 Pleasant Acre Road (straightened) to SR 119 between HS and MS End of Pound Road to Pleasant Acres Road in vicinity of powerline easement end of current road to Carolina Avenue extension parallel to RR Tracks (Rincon) Smith Avenue to E 4th Street (Rincon) McCall Road to SandHill Road SR 21 to McCall Road W 17th Street to N Ridge Drive Springfield-Egypt Road to SR 21 SR 17 to SpringfieldEgypt Road Old Louisville Road to Riverside Drive Old Louisville Road to Ogeechee River End of Angus Exley Road to Bark Dr Connect Josiah Morgan Road to Sam Smart Road (at ends) 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. EW 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. This roadway connection allows Effingham Middle and High Schools to be accessed from the rear, thus reducing pressure on SR 119. Building a new road in this location would aid local and regional connectivity, reducing reliance on primary city roads for local traffic. Needed for continuation of connectivity (project #124) and providing local alternative to SR 21. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Extending Griffin Lake Road to Springfield-Egypt/Shawnee-Egypt Road will improve highlevel 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). Constructing this roadway extension will aid in better access to existing or potential riverbased recreation activities and emergency vehicle movement. This project is in the Capital Improvement Plan, and also provides access to potential outdoor recreation area & boat launch. 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. Building a new road between Josiah Morgan Road and Sam Smart Road will costeffectively 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 New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Widen (2-->3 Lanes) New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Length (miles) 2.74 0.71 3.39 0.23 0.20 9.36 1.29 0.69 0.42 2.20 2.12 0.78 0.88 1.33 Total Score Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Roadway +General 41.5 22.5 9.0 0.0 10.0 32.50 32.5 22.5 0.0 32.5 22.5 0.0 32.5 22.5 0.0 32.5 22.5 0.0 79.8 20.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 11.3 32.50 32.50 32.50 32.50 31.25 81.3 75.0 27.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 25.5 20.5 0.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 6.3 28.75 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 July 2008 6-25 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.4 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Roadway Projects, Continued Rank Map ID 38 31 39 38 40 52 41 54 42 55 43 61 44 68 45 69 46 71 Facility Name Shawnee Road, Segment 2 Azalea Commercial Connector Low Ground - Blue Jay Connector McCall Road Extension Mock Road Extension Zipperer Hodgeville Connector Little McCall Road north terminus realign Low Ground Shirley Connector Magnolia - Big T Connector Extents Old Dixie to Corinth Church Road end of Azalea Avenue to Goshen Commercial Park Dr end of Hodgeville Road (realign to be perpendicular to Blue Jay) to just E of Sagepoint Road SR 21 to AzaleaCommercial Connector (New) SR 21 to Stillwell Road (Springfield) Zipperer Paddock (end) to Hodgeville Road north end of road to SR 119 Shirley Road to end of #66 Magnolia Street Ext to Courthouse Road (E of Indica Pl) Details / Justification 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. 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 highvolume arterial. It provides a terminus to a McCall Road eastern extension (#54) and increases area connectivity. This segment extends Hodgeville Road northwards and aids in macro-connectivity. 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. 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 throughtravelers 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. 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. 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. 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. Roadway Improvement New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road New Two-Lane Road Length (miles) 1.12 0.26 1.73 0.18 1.17 1.03 0.30 1.25 3.42 Total Score 27.5 Roadway Score 22.5 Bike Score 0.0 Pedestrian Score 0.0 General Score 5.0 Roadway +General 27.50 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 27.50 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 27.50 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 5.0 27.50 July 2008 6-26 Table 6.5 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Bicycle Projects Note: Does not include Signage-Only Rural Routes Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Rank Map ID 1 44 2 89 3 126 133 5 123 6 134 135 8 47 9 45 65 Facility Name Effingham Parkway, Segment 2 Rails-to-Trails Fort Howard Road, Segment 2 SR 21, Segment 1 Blue Jay / Blandford Road SR 21, Segment 2 SR 21, Segment 3 Research Forest EW connector Effingham Parkway (Chatham) Effingham Parkway, Segment 1 Extents Blue Jay Road to SR 119 Downtown Guyton to Meldrim @ 2nd Street SR 21 to Old Augusta Road Old Augusta to Ft Howard Road SR 21 to McCall Road Ft Howard Road to 4th Street (Rincon) 4th St (Rincon) to Laurel St (Springfield) McCall Road to Hodgeville Road (in DRI) Chatham County Line to vicinity of Monteith Road (Chatham) County Line to Blue Jay Road Details / Justification 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Continue to implement multi-use paths along SR 21 to provide multi-modal 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. 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. 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. 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. Bicycle Improvement Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Length (miles) Total Score 7.85 101.0 13.62 82.5 2.51 98.8 3.60 98.8 1.89 1.37 6.01 88.8 78.8 78.8 2.65 96.0 1.76 88.5 5.11 88.5 Roadway Score Bike Score 32.5 25.5 10.0 25.5 30.0 25.5 30.0 25.5 20.0 10.0 10.0 32.5 25.0 25.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Pedestrian Score General Score Bicycle +General 23.0 20.0 45.50 23.0 20.0 45.50 23.0 16.3 41.75 23.0 16.3 41.75 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 16.3 16.3 16.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 41.75 41.75 41.75 40.50 40.50 40.50 July 2008 6-27 Table 6.5 Ranked List of Recommended PotentialBicycle Projects, Continued Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Rank Map ID 11 78 12 91 13 92 14 48 15 122 16 131 17 39 18 95 19 98 20 115 21 84 22 76 Facility Name Extents SR 119, Segment 2 SR 17 to SR 21 Sand Hill Road, Segment 1 US 80 to Stagefield Road Sand Hill Road, Segment 2 Stagefield Road to Boggy Road Goshen Road SR 21 to Effingham Parkway 4th Street / Rincon SR 21 to Bunyan Stillwell Road Kessler Road Rincon Stillwell Road Ft Howard Road to Ebenezer Road Blue Jay Road McCall Road to SandHill Road SR 17, Segment 1 US 80 to Blue Jay Road SR 30, Segment 2 SR 17 to Nease Road S Laurel Street SR 21 to SR 119/SR 21 Realign Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector US 80 to Jabez Jones Road Multi-Use Path along power line easement Courthouse Road to SR 119 Details / Justification 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 multi-use path must be placed far enough from road to preserve adequate future ROW. A multiuse 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. 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. 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. Key segment of integrated bicycle/pedestrian network, connects residential neighborhoods with downtown Rincon and Elementary School 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 nonautomobile options to get to school will improve the safety of students, their parents, and other drivers utilizing SR 119 between Springfield and Guyton. Bicycle Improvement Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Length (miles) Total Score 5.02 92.3 3.11 1.31 2.82 1.49 1.40 86.3 82.3 72.3 75.0 42.0 9.36 79.8 5.30 73.8 2.12 2.19 69.8 63.8 1.70 81.0 2.76 68.5 Roadway Score Bike Score 30.0 25.5 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 20.5 25.5 10.0 10.0 0.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 22.5 25.5 10.0 25.5 Pedestrian Score General Score Bicycle +General 23.0 13.8 39.25 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 23.0 13.8 13.8 13.8 12.5 17.5 39.25 39.25 39.25 38.00 38.00 11.3 36.75 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 11.3 11.3 11.3 36.75 36.75 36.75 10.0 35.50 23.0 10.0 35.50 July 2008 6-28 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.5 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Bicycle Projects, Continued Rank Map ID 83 24 105 25 90 26 101 27 117 28 56 29 11 30 127 31 100 32 53 33 33 34 102 94 36 46 Facility Name Jabez Jones Road Guyton Rails-ToTrails (underway) S Effingham High School woodland path US 80, Segment 2 SR 119, Segment 3 Old Augusta Road Long Bridge Road Fort Howard Road, Segment 3 US 80, Segment 1 McCall Road SR 119, Segment 4 US 80, Segment 3 SR 119, Segment 1 Fort Howard Road, Segment 1 Extents SR 17 to SR 30 Downtown Guyton Richmond Drive to back of HS (between baseball and football field) SR 17 to Sandhill Road SR 21 to Laurel St SR 21 to Ft Howard Road Ebenezer Road to Wylly Road SR 21 to McCall Road SR 17 to Chatham County Line SR 21 to Blue Jay Road (Blanford Rd) SR 21 realign (Springfield) to SC State Line Sandhill Road to Bulloch County Line SR 17 to Bulloch County Line Old Augusta Road to Rincon-Stillwell Road Details / Justification 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bicycle Improvement Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Marked Bicycle Lanes Multi-Use Path Wide Shoulder Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Marked Bicycle Lanes Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Length (miles) Total Score 1.04 68.5 0.74 62.5 0.35 58.5 4.48 0.43 4.87 87.3 61.3 43.0 0.10 33.0 1.29 0.78 81.3 64.8 3.38 63.5 11.65 59.3 1.09 59.8 4.23 56.8 2.30 36.8 Roadway Score Bike Score 10.0 25.5 0.0 25.5 0.0 25.5 30.0 0.0 10.0 25.5 25.5 15.5 0.0 20.5 22.5 10.0 25.5 25.5 10.0 20.5 30.0 10.0 30.0 10.0 15.5 20.5 15.5 15.5 Pedestrian Score General Score 23.0 10.0 Bicycle +General 35.50 23.0 10.0 35.50 23.0 10.0 35.50 23.0 23.0 0.0 8.8 8.8 17.5 34.25 34.25 33.00 0.0 12.5 33.00 23.0 23.0 6.3 31.75 6.3 31.75 23.0 10.0 30.50 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 6.3 11.3 11.3 29.25 26.75 26.75 26.75 July 2008 6-29 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.5 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Bicycle Projects, Continued Rank Map ID 96 38 124 39 93 40 51 41 37 42 40 41 77 85 Facility Name SR 17, Segment 2 Carolina Avenuenue (South) Sand Hill Road, Segment 3 Long Pond Road 4th Street / Rincon-Stillwell Road Bunyan Kessler Road Chimney Road Rahn Station Road Meldrim Road Extents Blue Jay Road to Midland Road W 17th Street to N Ridge Drive Boggy Road to railbed Ft Howard Road to Rincon Stillwell Road Bunyan Kessler Road to Long Pond Road Rincon-Stillwell Road to Fort Howard Road SR 21 to Old Augusta Road SR 21 to McCall Road at Effingham Parkway Central Avenue (Meldrim) to US 80 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 railsto-trails conversion (#89) may be costly or take some time to plan, SR 17 should be upgraded to accommodate multiple modes. 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. 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. 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. This is a key segment of an integrated bicycle network and would be most effective built in conjunction with projects #122 and #51. 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. 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. This project provides greater opportunity for Meldrim residents to access the highway and community facilities by bike. Bicycle Improvement Marked Bicycle Lanes Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Length (miles) Total Score 4.96 36.8 0.69 1.70 0.97 0.24 0.91 75.0 24.3 33.0 23.0 30.5 2.13 30.5 3.60 1.28 30.5 30.5 Roadway Score Bike Score 10.0 20.5 22.5 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 20.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 10.0 15.5 10.0 10.0 15.5 15.5 Pedestrian Score General Score Bicycle +General 0.0 6.3 26.75 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 25.50 8.8 24.25 7.5 23.00 7.5 23.00 5.0 20.50 0.0 5.0 20.50 0.0 5.0 20.50 0.0 5.0 20.50 July 2008 6-30 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects Rank 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 Map ID 44 89 126 133 123 134 135 49 47 45 65 82 128 Facility Name Effingham Parkway, Segment 2 Rails-to-Trails Fort Howard Road, Segment 2 SR 21, Segment 1 Blue Jay / Blandford Road SR 21, Segment 2 SR 21, Segment 3 Goshen/Hodgeville/ Kolick Helmey Roads Research Forest EW connector Effingham Parkway (Chatham) Effingham Parkway, Segment 1 Honey Ridge Road Lexington Avenuenue Extents Blue Jay Road to SR 119 Downtown Guyton to Meldrim @ 2nd Street SR 21 to Old Augusta Road Old Augusta to Ft Howard Road SR 21 to McCall Road Ft Howard Road to 4th Street (Rincon) 4th St (Rincon) to Laurel St (Springfield) Effingham Parkway to SR 30 McCall Road to Hodgeville Road (in DRI) Chatham County Line to vicinity of Monteith Road (Chatham) County Line to Blue Jay Road SR 17 to SR 119 9th Street to Madison Oaks Drive (Rincon) Details / Justification 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Continue to implement multi-use paths along SR 21 to provide multi-modal 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 multimodal 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Lexington Avenuenue is a key segment of an integrated pedestrian network. It connects residential areas with downtown Rincon, a ballpark, and an elementary school. Pedestrian Improvement Sidewalks on Both Sides Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Length (miles) 7.85 13.62 2.51 3.60 1.89 1.37 6.01 3.75 2.65 1.76 5.11 2.25 1.44 Total Score 101.0 82.5 98.8 98.8 88.8 78.8 78.8 49.3 96.0 88.5 88.5 52.0 52.0 Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Pedestrian +General 32.5 25.5 23.0 20.0 43.00 10.0 25.5 23.0 20.0 43.00 30.0 25.5 23.0 16.3 39.25 30.0 25.5 23.0 16.3 39.25 20.0 10.0 10.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 23.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 23.0 32.5 25.5 25.0 25.5 25.0 25.5 23.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 16.3 16.3 16.3 39.25 39.25 39.25 16.3 39.25 15.0 15.0 15.0 38.00 38.00 38.00 15.0 15.0 38.00 38.00 July 2008 6-31 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects, Continued Rank 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 Map ID 78 91 92 48 122 39 95 98 115 107 43 118 16 84 Facility Name Extents SR 119, Segment 2 SR 17 to SR 21 Sand Hill Road, Segment 1 US 80 to Stagefield Road Sand Hill Road, Segment 2 Stagefield Road to Boggy Road Goshen Road SR 21 to Effingham Parkway 4th Street / Rincon SR 21 to Bunyan Stillwell Road Kessler Road Blue Jay Road McCall Road to SandHill Road SR 17, Segment 1 US 80 to Blue Jay Road SR 30, Segment 2 SR 17 to Nease Road S Laurel Street SR 21 to SR 119/SR 21 Realign 119/21 Realignment in Springfield Ebenezer Road SR 119 at school driveway to Old Tusculsum Road SR 21 to Waldhour Road (by powerlines) SR 21, Segment 4 SR 21@ S Laurel Street to SR 119/SR 21 Realign SR 21, Segment 5 Old Tusculum to Springfield-Egypt Road Meldrim - Jabez Jones Connector US 80 to Jabez Jones Road Details / Justification 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 multi-use 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. 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. 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. Key segment of integrated bicycle/pedestrian network, connects residential neighborhoods with downtown Rincon and Elementary School 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. 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. 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. 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 multimodal upgrades. 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. New sidewalks along Ebenezer Road are critical in safely connecting nearby residential areas to a county middle school and elementary school. 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. 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. 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. Pedestrian Improvement Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Length (miles) 5.02 3.11 1.31 2.82 1.49 9.36 5.30 2.12 2.19 0.52 3.28 2.65 2.46 1.70 Total Score 92.3 86.3 82.3 72.3 75.0 79.8 73.8 69.8 63.8 60.8 48.3 48.3 44.3 81.0 Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Pedestrian +General 30.0 25.5 23.0 13.8 36.75 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 20.0 25.5 23.0 13.8 13.8 13.8 12.5 36.75 36.75 36.75 35.50 11.3 34.25 10.0 10.0 0.0 22.5 10.0 10.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 23.0 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 34.25 34.25 34.25 34.25 34.25 34.25 11.3 34.25 22.5 25.5 23.0 10.0 33.00 July 2008 6-32 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects, Continued Rank Map ID Facility Name Multi-Use Path 28 76 along power line easement 83 Jabez Jones Road 30 53 McCall Road 31 105 Guyton Rails-ToTrails (underway) Springfield 116 Elementary School Drive Extension S Effingham High 33 90 School woodland path 34 80 Courthouse Road 35 60 Wylly /High Bluff/ Tommy Long Road 36 119 Standard Lane 87 Nease Road 38 103 Anderson Street 39 104 Gracen Road 106 Magnolia Street 111 Ash Street / Ash Street Extension 112 E Madison Street 121 W 1st Street Extension 125 E 9th Street (Rincon) Extents Courthouse Road to SR 119 SR 17 to SR 30 SR 21 to Blue Jay Road (Blanford Rd) Downtown Guyton Early Street to Spring ES driveway entrance Richmond Drive to back of HS (between baseball and football field) SR 17 to Stagecoach Avenue Long Bridge Road to End SR 119 to Old Tusculum Road SR 30 to St. Matthew's Road SR 17 to Magnolia Street SR 119 to Summer Place SR 119 to Anderson Street S Laurel Street to Early Street Laurel Street to N Ash Street SR 21 to SR 119 SR 21 to Lexington Avenue Details / Justification 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. A sidewalk on this road allows nearby residents to safely access both schools and recreational opportunities in the area without a vehicle. This roadway segment is recommended to include sidewalks as it will provide direct pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods, a school, hospital, and park. This sidewalk will allow neighborhood children to safely walk down a neighborhood throughstreet to access the nearby high school and middle school. 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 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. 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 multimodal 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 multimodal upgrades. 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. 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. Pedestrian Improvement Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Length (miles) 2.76 1.04 3.38 0.74 0.33 0.35 2.34 2.34 0.91 0.55 0.29 0.45 0.85 1.97 0.28 0.39 0.18 Total Score 68.5 68.5 63.5 62.5 59.5 58.5 55.5 47.0 47.0 43.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Pedestrian +General 10.0 25.5 23.0 10.0 33.00 10.0 25.5 23.0 10.0 33.00 10.0 20.5 23.0 10.0 33.00 0.0 22.5 25.5 0.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 22.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 10.0 33.00 33.00 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 10.0 10.0 10.0 33.00 33.00 33.00 July 2008 6-33 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects, Continued Rank 46 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Map ID 121 125 7 50 58 72 101 117 127 100 102 15 97 34 35 79 124 9 Facility Name W 1st Street Extension E 9th Street (Rincon) Old Tusculum Road, Segment 2 Long Bridge Road Vale Royal Drive Old Tusculum Road, Segment 1 US 80, Segment 2 SR 119, Segment 3 Fort Howard Road, Segment 3 US 80, Segment 1 US 80, Segment 3 SR 17, Segment 4 SR 30, Segment 1 SR 119, Segment 5 SR 21, Segment 6 SR 17, Segment 3 Carolina Avenuenue (South) Powell Road Extension Extents SR 21 to SR 119 SR 21 to Lexington Avenue SR 21 to Standard Lane Ebenezer Road to 4000 ft N of Wylly Rd McCall Road to Westwood Drive SR 21 to SR 119 realign (GDOT) SR 17 to Sandhill Road SR 21 to Laurel St SR 21 to McCall Road SR 17 to Chatham County Line Sandhill Road to Bulloch County Line Old Elam Cemetary Road to 1300 ft S of Egypt Ardmore Road Nease Road to Kolic Helmey Road Marion Avenue to Clyo-Kildare Road Shawnee Egypt Road to 500 ft N of Shawnee Road Midland Road to Pound Road W 17th Street to N Ridge Drive 4th Avenue to SR 119 (intersect w/ Little McCall Realignment) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This recommended multi-use path along this roadway segment provides safe, direct multimodal access to Downtown Springfield, and is a continuation of project #78. It also accommodates a State Bike Route. 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. 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. 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. 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 Egypt-Ardmore Road to aid in local multimodal mobility. Locate the sidewalk on the northeast side of road. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Pedestrian Improvement Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Multi-Use Path Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Length (miles) 0.39 0.18 0.33 1.60 0.29 0.18 4.48 0.43 1.29 0.78 1.09 0.42 3.06 0.68 0.32 0.66 0.69 0.54 Total Score 37.0 37.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 87.3 61.3 81.3 64.8 59.8 43.3 39.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 75.0 60.5 Roadway Score 0.0 Bike Score 0.0 Pedestrian Score 23.0 General Score 10.0 Pedestrian +General 33.00 0.0 0.0 23.0 10.0 33.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 30.0 25.5 23.0 8.8 31.75 0.0 25.5 23.0 8.8 31.75 22.5 25.5 23.0 6.3 29.25 10.0 10.0 25.5 20.5 23.0 23.0 6.3 29.25 6.3 29.25 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 6.3 29.25 6.3 29.25 6.3 29.25 6.3 29.25 6.3 29.25 5.0 28.00 32.5 0.0 23.0 5.0 28.00 July 2008 6-34 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Rank Map ID Facility Name 60 9 Powell Road Extension 61 64 Courthouse Road 62 21 Clyo-Kildare Road 63 27 Marion Avenue 64 86 Midland Road 65 57 Stephens Drive 66 59 Westwood Drive 67 17 4th Street 68 23 Fair Street 69 30 Shawnee Road, Segment 1 70 36 Stillwell-Clyo Road 71 109 2nd Street 72 110 3rd Street 73 113 Early Street 74 114 Railroad Avenue 75 120 Stillwell Road Table 6.6 Ranked List of Recommended Potential Pedestrian Projects, Continued Extents 4th Avenue to SR 119 (intersect w/ Little McCall Realignment) SR 21 to SR 17 SR 119 to Marion Avenue SR 119 to ClyoKildare Road SR 30 to Rails-toTrails Goshen Road to McCall Road Vale Royal Dr to SR 21 Marion Avenue to Stillwell-Clyo Road Clyo-Stillwell Road to community center SR 21 to Old Dixie Highway 4th Street to Fair Street Ash Street to RR Avenue SR 21 to S Laurel Street Laurel Street to "Springfield ES Drive Ext" between Ash Street and Lake Dr W 2nd Street to W 3rd Street Laurel Street to Ash Street Details / Justification 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). 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. Local pedestrian connectivity, access to SR 119. Most effective in combination with projects #27, #34, and #17 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. 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-of-way 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. 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 #58, sidewalks along this street segment will help area residents safely access SR 21 commercial and employment opportunities, recreational areas, and a nearby school. 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. 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 lowincome part of the county. 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. Stillwell-Clyo Rd is a local direct travel route with fast-moving vehicles. Adding a sidewalk on the west side of the street will help Clyo residents safely access the community center on Fair St 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 multimodal 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 multimodal 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 multimodal 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 multimodal 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 multimodal upgrades. Pedestrian Improvement Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on Both Sides Sidewalks on One Side Sidewalks on Both Sides Length (miles) 0.54 8.35 0.09 0.69 8.38 0.58 0.46 0.22 0.32 1.05 0.58 0.34 0.63 0.35 0.07 0.36 Total Score 60.5 52.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Roadway Score Bike Score Pedestrian Score General Score Pedestrian +General 32.5 0.0 23.0 5.0 28.00 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 10.0 0.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 5.0 28.00 July 2008 6-35 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Recommended Policies In addition to the project list, which supports the goals of the transportation plan, a number of policies will help Effingham to attain its vision of being inclusive, sustainable, and supportive of the environment and continued high quality of life. These policies can be incorporated into the Effingham County Comprehensive Plan, future Transportation Plan, local ordinances, and departmental guidelines as appropriate at the discretion of Effingham County or local jurisdictions and governing bodies. The policies are beneficial to the community as a whole in understanding the relationship between transportation and other comprehensive planning elements. Multi-Modal Connectivity, Mobility, and Access To have a balanced transportation system that accommodates and provides choices for all users, it is necessary to have connected and accessible multi-modal networks. The following policies can assist in working towards this goal: Follow a policy of "Complete Streets" whereby provisions are made for automobiles, bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians on every major transportation project. If it is not feasible to construct multi-modal facilities due to lack of current need or financial resources, preserve right-of-way so that they can be constructed in the future. Establish guidelines for ensuring bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and adjacent land uses, which are often within close proximity but do not provide convenient access to pedestrians. This could include roadway design or short paths that link the areas. Update the zoning code to require that certain commercial and mixed-use land development projects include bicycle parking facilities and other bicycle-related amenities. Develop and promote education, enforcement and awareness programs to encourage bicycling and walking, advance safety and awareness for cyclists, walkers and drivers, and understand the rules of sharing right-of-way. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Travel Demand Management refers to a series of strategies that increase transportation system efficiency by lessening the number of vehicles using the transportation network, particularly roadways that are already strained beyond their capacity. TDM tactics include programs to increase usage of travel modes other than single occupant vehicles, employer-based programs such as flex-time or telecommuting, carpools, vanpools, and economic incentives. Rising energy prices and the negative environmental impact of many forms of transportation further underscore the need for effective TDM strategies, including the following: July 2008 6-36 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Encourage mixed-use development patterns via the future land use plan and zoning code(s) for the purpose of reducing automobile travel trip demand as well as vehicle miles traveled. Within appropriate locations, improve the balance between employment, housing, recreational, commercial, and other activities. Ensure that bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks are at least as effective and convenient as automobiles. Implement access management along high-volume corridors. Encourage area employers to offer incentives for commuter alternative mode usage. Use traffic calming techniques along local roads where speeding is a concern, such as on- street parking, narrower widths, roundabouts, street trees, and speed humps. Access Management Access management focuses on the process of balancing access to property with the desire to preserve efficient through-movement. As development increases along a roadway, effective systems should combine and reduce street access points to increase public safety, extend the life of the roadway, reduce congestion, support alternative modes of transportation, and improve roadway character. Fund and complete corridor-specific access management plans along SR 21, SR 119, US 80, and other roads of high functional classification. The purpose of these plans is to develop implementable access management solutions as well as provide guidance to future land development access issues. Limit number of driveways per property, and locate them on lowest adjacent functionally classified road. Require interparcel connectivity by linking adjacent parking areas and walkways. Define minimum and maximum spacing of access points (both cross-streets and driveways) to provide a balance between efficient vehicle movement and multi-modal connectivity. For instance, pedestrian access points should be spaced between 200 and 500 feet apart, whereas intersections along arterials should be at least 1000 feet apart. Collector and local streets with lower design speeds can have more closely spaced intersections and driveways than arterials. Along high-volume roads, provide protected pedestrian crossing facilities at each signalized intersection. Parking While discussion of the storage of roadway vehicles is appropriate in a transportation plan, parking is most effectively addressed by ordinances governing urban design, land use, zoning, and development. Parking is the proverbial tail that wags the dog: provision of parking facilities and access to them often dictate the site layout and potential building footprints for any new construction. July 2008 6-37 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies To encourage multi-modal access to destinations and positively address other planning areas such as aesthetics of public space, economic development, housing affordability, and stormwater management, there are a number of guidelines concerning parking facilities that can be implemented, and which are important even in rural areas: Locate off-street parking in new developments behind or to the side of buildings. The majority of surface parking spaces should not be visible from roads. Directional signage can be used to assist patrons in locating vehicle parking areas as necessary. All local streets in commercial, mixed-use, or more dense residential areas (>8 dwelling units per acre) should have on-street parking on at least one side. Encourage businesses and organizations with different peak demand times to share parking areas whenever possible. Commuter park-and-ride lots can also utilize shared parking arrangements, particularly with churches or retail centers with excess weekday parking capacity. Implement maximum parking space requirements for all new developments and reduce or remove minimum requirements. Require the installation of bicycle parking racks in multi-family housing and all other non- residential developments according to a minimum ratio (to be determined) with motor vehicle spaces. For medium/large employers, encourage the creation/labeling of carpool spaces that are easily accessible to building entry/exit points to provide incentive for employee ridesharing. Promote the use of permeable or semi-permeable parking surfaces throughout the county to help control stormwater run-off and reduce negative impact to water quality. To minimize driveway access points, reduce impervious surface, assist with housing affordability, and enhance the small-town character of residences: encourage shared driveways; reduce construction of attached, front-facing garages; and/or provide rear (alley) entry or set-back vehicle storage areas. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems utilize technology to improve transportation system operations. ITS includes infrastructure applications to manage arterials, incidents, tolling, information, safety, general roadway operations, and emergency vehicle movement. Though Effingham is a primarily rural county, current commuting patterns and future growth rates will necessitate the use of some ITS strategies to make more efficient use of transportation infrastructure, preferably prior to investing in expensive upgrades and new projects. The following strategies could be utilized in Effingham for this purpose: July 2008 6-38 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 6. Recommended Projects and Policies Interconnect and coordinate all traffic signals in proximity to each other. For instance, implementing a coordinated and adaptive system along SR 21 may increase the effective capacity of this corridor. Provide traffic signal preemption for emergency vehicles. Provide information to travelers about congestion, route closings, and transit options. Implement a ridesharing/matching program in concert with new transit service. Information can be provided via the internet, 511, radio, kiosks, etc. Install warning signs for railroad crossings and in areas where roadway geometry is an identified safety issue. Urban Design, Planning, and Zoning Tools Urban design and streetscape guidelines are powerful tools to inform would-be developers of the desired character of a place. Defining roadway cross sections, building height ranges, architectural materials, and placement of streetscape features such as trees and lighting will help places to maintain their current charm as they grow. If detailed guidelines are employed in cities, it will be necessary to implement some level of design guidance and/or development restriction in unincorporated parts of the county to prevent builders from locating just outside city limits and contributing to sprawl, if current suburban style infrastructure patterns are continued. In Effingham, "character areas" have already been defined as part of the Comprehensive Plan effort. The physical attributes of these character areas must be described and enforced through zoning and development codes to be meaningful. Additional tools such as the use of "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) can be used to maintain rural areas and farms, guiding future new construction towards already-developed areas while still compensating rural landowners who wish to sell [development rights associated with] their property to builders. July 2008 6-39 ! " !# $! % #& ' & # ! & " % ' ( ) ! ) ! &) )# !# )+ # ) * ,# ) 1 + * + /0 2' % 1 - (34 - '+ % ! (34 '9 ! # !) 12 ! & '+ ' ! '* % - 2' )& 6 78 % # ! ) ) " - + .+ / 0 ) 5 # !) # '8 % '0 % )# - , ! * - % # ; )< - # !# &' & # (34 . %: ' ) > ?& )7 : >? ' 4 @ # &) =8 ! '> ? )# # ' # ) & >? ) '0 >? - =8 ! & '0 =8 ! 4 ! % ' ! )& ! : &! # ! ! % ? ' % '8 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 7. Financial Resources funds can be used on any roadway classified above a local road or a rural minor collector. The STP funds require a minimum 20 percent match. STP Enhancement A set-aside for transportation enhancement activities, such as providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, landscaping and historic preservation. A minimum of 10percent of each state's overall STP allocation must be used for such projects. GDOT programs these funds on a statewide basis using a competitive submittal and evaluation process Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) A newly established core program (pulled from the STP core program) with flexibility provided to allow states and regions to target funds to their most critical safety needs. About 10 percent of the total amount available will be distributed to the railway-highway crossing program, with another set-aside annually for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Provides funding for any public bridge replacement or rehabilitation. Included in this category are funds for both on and off Federal-aid system bridges. High Priority Projects Program Provides designated funding for specific projects identified by Congress (commonly referred to as earmarks). The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Provides funding for projects contributing to attainment of national ambient air quality standards in areas that do not meet the national standards (non-attainment areas) as well as former non-attainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Types of projects eligible for CMAQ funds include transit improvements, shared-ride services, traffic flow improvements, TDM strategies, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs, and alternative fuel programs. Up to 10 percent of a state's CMAQ apportionment may be dedicated to safety and traffic operations projects and financed 100 percent federally. The remaining CMAQ funds require a minimum 20 percent match. Safe Routes to School Federal funds are available for pedestrian and bicycle projects within two miles of a school. These funds are distributed through GDOT and are available for grades kindergarten through eight. Schools must develop and implement a plan which includes a program for promoting bicycling and walking and any proposed infrastructure projects. Funding is available to a maximum of $10,000 per school for development, $500,000 for infrastructure such as sidewalks or crosswalks, and $10,000 for non-infrastructure such as publicity. The funding is limited to $16 million through 2009. New Starts Program: FTA Section 5309 Provides funding for new fixed guideway transit facilities which utilize and occupy a separate right-of-way, or rail line, for the exclusive use of mass transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed centenary system and July 2008 7-2 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 7. Financial Resources a right-of-way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, and exclusive facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles. Funds are awarded by FTA through a competitive process to eligible transit agencies. Funds are programmed by the recipient transit agency. According to a new federal regulation, the match required for transit New Starts funds will be 50 percent of the project cost. Grants for Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities: FTA Section 5310 Discretionary funds to provide transit services for these population groups. Funds are awarded by FTA and programmed by the Georgia DHR. A 10 percent match is required for expenditures related to Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, with a 20 percent match is required for all other expenditures in this funding category. Rural and Small Urban Areas: FTA Section 5311 Provides formula funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas of less than 50,000 population. Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance. The maximum Federal share for capital and project administration is 80 percent (except for projects to meet the requirement of the ADA, the CAAA, or bicycle access projects, which may be funded at 90 percent.) The maximum Federal share for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating costs. The local share is 50 percent. The Rural Transit Assistance Program: FTA Section5311(b) Provides a source of funding to assist in the design and implementation of training and technical assistance projects and other support services tailored to meet the needs of transit operators in non-urbanized areas. Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative purposes. There is no Federal requirement for a local match. Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program: FTA Section 5308 Provides funding for the purchase of alternative fuel transit vehicles, the conversion of existing vehicles to alternative fuels, and the development of facilities to service clean fuel vehicles. Funds are allocated by FTA on a formula basis and programmed by the recipient transit agency. A minimum of 20 percent match is required. Job Access and Reverse Commute: FTA, Section 5316 Purpose is to develop transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and low-income individuals to and from jobs, and to develop transportation services for residents of urban centers and rural and suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities. Emphasis is placed on projects that use mass transportation services. Grants may finance capital projects and operating costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items related to providing access to jobs; promote use of transit by workers with nontraditional work schedules; promote use by appropriate agencies of transit vouchers for welfare recipients and eligible low-income July 2008 7-3 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 7. Financial Resources individuals; and promote use of employer-provided transportation including the transit pass benefit program. Typically, a 50 percent local match is required. New Freedom Program: FTA Section 5317 SAFETEA-LU established a new program of formula-based transit grants, the Section 5317 New Freedom Program. This is part of a larger, government-wide "New Freedom Initiative" formally established in 2001. The New Freedom Initiative is a means to integrate persons with disabilities into the workforce, and into daily community life, through a variety of strategies carried out by the federal departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and now Transportation. Typically, a 50 percent local match is required. Growing States and High Density States: FTA Section 5340 SAFETEA-LU established a new program of formula based transit grants called Growing States and High Density States. These funds are distributed into a single apportionment with the 5307 funds. Separate formulas are used to apportion Section 5307 and Section 5340 funds to urbanized areas. Under the 5340 formula, half of the funds are made available under the Growing States factors and are apportioned based on state population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent Census. Amounts apportioned for each state are then allocated to urbanized and rural areas based on the state's urban/rural population ratio. The High Density States factors distribute the other half of the funds to urbanized areas with population densities greater than 370 people per square mile. The distribution or sub-allocation of Sections 5307 and 5340 funds within an urbanized area is typically a local responsibility. Recreational Trails Program Provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-motorized recreational trail users. Funds are programmed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR). State Funding Sources The State of Georgia collects two types of taxes on motor fuels to help fund transportation infrastructure projects. Currently, it also has in place a bond program. Fuel Excise Tax A fee or tax based on the volume (gallons) of fuel purchased. The amount of the excise tax on gasoline is 7.5 cents per gallon. Since this tax is based solely on the volume of gasoline sold, it is not indexed to inflation. Revenues increase only with an increase in roadway usage, and revenue increases from travel are offset due to improved engine technology and higher fuel efficiency of vehicles. Prepaid State Tax A 4 percent sales tax on the average retail price of fuel, whereby 3 percent is dedicated to transportation and the remaining 1 percent goes to the State General Fund for other uses. Revenues from the motor fuel sales tax rise and fall with the price of gasoline. July 2008 7-4 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 7. Financial Resources Fast Forward Bond Program The Fast Forward program is a $15.5 billion state transportation program announced by Governor Sonny Perdue in 2004. The core of the program is designed to relieve traffic congestion and consists of about $4.5 billion of projects which will have construction dates accelerated through the sale of bonds. The remainder of the Fast Forward program is assigned to other GDOT projects. It is important to note that these bonds are not a new source of funding. The bonds act as new cash flow mechanisms allowing the state to borrow money to fund projects in the short-term. These funds will be paid back over the long term from the same funding sources traditionally used to pay for transportation infrastructure. Short-term congestion relief projects include ITS, Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO) Expansion, ramp metering, signal timing and synchronization upgrades; long-term congestion relief includes HOV lanes and new transit corridors; and economic development improvements include interstate capacity improvements. State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (STIB) Created by the Georgia legislature in 2008, the STIB is a revolving loan fund that cities, counties, transit operators, and Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) can use for transportation projects. Operated by the Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) and with initial funding of $50 million, STIB money will be distributed to projects based on criteria that promote economic development and provide "gap financing" for project completion, as drafted by an oversight taskforce. Eligible projects will include roads, bridges, transit vehicles and facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, rail, and airports. Additional Transportation Revenue SAFETEA-LU also offers additional opportunities to establish public-private partnerships and tolling for expediting the implementation of transportation facilities. Local Funding Sources Special Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) A Special Local Option Sales Tax can be levied by any Georgia county for the purpose of raising money to build and maintain transportation and other public facility improvements. SPLOSTs must undergo and pass a voter referendum, and can add up to two percent to the existing county sales tax. SPLOSTs typically have five- year horizons, at which point they must be reauthorized by voters. Tax Allocation District (TAD) A Tax Allocation District is a strategy for funding infrastructure projects in a limited area targeted for accelerated growth. A TAD finances infrastructure projects from the growth of property taxes based on new development and increased property values. Establishing a TAD and creating a plan for the district can spark redevelopment in the TAD area, which in turn serves to finance TAD bond funds. Funds can be spent on transportation and non-transportation projects in the TAD area. TADs are an appropriate tool for financing some types of transportation projects, especially in connection with the denser redevelopment of a particular area such as an activity center. July 2008 7-5 Multi-Modal Transportation Study for Effingham County Chapter 7. Financial Resources Community Improvement District (CID) A Community Improvement District is a strategy for funding infrastructure projects in a limited area at the discretion of existing commercial property owners. CIDs are essentially self-taxing areas, where property owners organize to raise funds to improve property values in the area. CIDs may organize to market an area, increase safety, and collect and use funds for all types of transportation projects. CIDs are an innovative source of funding for transportation projects with the scope of their activities limited by property owner interests and a defined geographic area. Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time fees charged in association with a new development and are designed to cover part of the cost of providing public facilities to support the development. The impact fee amount charged to a particular development must be directly tied to the amount of new infrastructure the development will require. Impact fees are tied to a specific capital improvement program so that it is clear which projects the impact fees will finance. In short, impact fees are effective in tying financing for new transportation infrastructure to new development. Future Potential Funding Sources The potential for areas of the county to fall into the Savannah urbanized area at the next census may, at that time, open up additional funding sources that are eligible to urban areas. These include: Surface Transportation Program (STP Urban) This federal program applies to projects in urban areas with a population greater than 50,000. Urbanized Area Formula Program: FTA Section 5307 Provides funding for capital investment, operating and planning assistance within the urbanized area. These funds may be sub- allocated to other transit service providers. Funds are programmed by the individual transit agencies. A match of 10 percent is required for expenditures related to CAAA and ADA compliance and a 20 percent match is required for all other expenditures in this funding category. July 2008 7-6