2035 Bryan County transportation study: appendices B-D [Jan. 2009]

Bryan County Transportation Study Appendix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bryan County Transportation Study Appendix

Appendix B: Travel Demand Model Documentation Appendix C: Cost Estimation Appendix D: Public Involvement
Public Involvement Plan Fact sheets Stakeholder Interviews Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Sign-In Sheets Advertisements/Newspaper Articles

Appendix B: Bryan CoBunRtYyATNravCeOl UDeNmTYand Model
DoTcRuAmVeEnLtatDioEnMaAnNdDUMseOr DGEuLide
Prepared for
Bryan County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan
By PBS&J January, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................1 2.0 Road Network ................................................................................................3 3.0 Traffic Analysis Zones...................................................................................7 4.0 Socioeconomic Data.......................................................................................9 5.0 External Trips ..............................................................................................13 6.0 Model Process ..............................................................................................16
6.1 Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 17 6.3 Daily Traffic Assignment ........................................................................................... 18
7.0 Base Year Model Validation.......................................................................21 8.0 Future Year 2035 Model (Baseline Scenario) ...........................................27
8.1 Zonal Socioeconomic Data......................................................................................... 27 8.2 Trips By Purpose ........................................................................................................ 30 8.3 External Trips ............................................................................................................. 31 8.4 Baseline Travel Demand and Traffic Assignment ..................................................... 32
9.0 Appendix.......................................................................................................36
Bryan County Travel Demand Model i

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to describe the travel demand forecast model that was built by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to support them and their planning partners in developing a multi-modal transportation plan for Bryan County. Parts of four counties, in addition to Bryan County, were represented in the Bryan County Travel Model. These include Chatham, Effingham, Bulloch and Liberty counties. Major roads in the I-16 Corridor north of Bryan County and in the I-95 Corridor south of Bryan County were considered important in being able to forecast future year travel patterns on major roadways in Bryan County. A map highlighting Bryan County and surrounding areas included in the Bryan County model appears in Figure 1-1.

Two basic travel demand model scenarios were built in the process of developing the Bryan County Travel Model. A base year set of travel model model files were built, calibrated and validated that represent average annual daily traffic in 2006. The year 2006 was selected because it is the most recent year for which reasonably accurate demographic and traffic data is available to validate the relationship between the existing road system, land-uses inside the study area and traffic volumes. A future year of 2035 was selected to be the horizon year for the Bryan County Travel Model. In order to build the future year 2035 model, new demographic and external trip data files were formulated to represent assumed baseline conditions in 2035. Although the base year 2006 and future year 2035 baseline model scenarios constitute the basic Bryan County Travel Model, a number of other model scenarios could be derived by superimposing changes to the future year road network and/or land use files.

Figure 1-1 Model Study Area Map

Overall design of the Bryan County Travel Model is patterned after a typical urban area travel demand model used by the GDOT. GDOT uses urban area travel models in 13 areas throughout the state to facilitate the individual transportation planning processes within those subareas of Georgia. The only significant difference between the Bryan County Travel Model and the urban area models is the External Trip data files. External trips comprise a much larger share of total trip making in the Bryan County Travel Model in comparison with GDOTs urban area models.

The rest of this memorandum includes summaries of the key files that comprise the Bryan County Travel Model. Separate sections are provided in this document for the following model subject areas:

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 1

Road Network; Traffic Analysis Zones; Socioeconomic Data; External Trips; Model Runstream; Base Year Validation; and Future Year 2035 Baseline Scenario.
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 2

2.0 Road Network

The link-node architecture and distances in the new Bryan County highway network were based on U.S. Census Bureau Tiger/Line street centerline files for Bryan, Chatham, Effingham, Bulloch and Liberty counties. The models base year road network file represents more than 500 total street centerline miles of roadway. Most of the mileage, approximately 60%, lies inside Bryan Countys border. The rest of the network lies within Chatham, Effingham, Bulloch and Liberty counties. Major Bryan County highway facilities represented in the network include I-95, I-16, US17/SR25, US280/SR30, US80/SR26, SR144, SR67 and SR119. A map illustrating the base year (2006) road network in the Bryan County Travel Model is shown in Figure 2-1, by functional classification. The classification of roadways in accordance with their primary function is an important step in developing a travel model and in conducting a transportation planning study.

The specific functional class system used in developing the Bryan County Travel Model is

referred to as the National Functional Classification. It is used for planning purposes by the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This particular data field was not directly Table 2-1 Street Centerline Route Miles

obtained in the Tiger/Line files. Instead, the

National Functional Class code plus other FUNCTIONAL

COUNTIES

link attributes like ,,number of lanes and

CLASS

Bryan Other TOTAL

,,2006 AADT were transferred from the Georgia Department of Transportations Road Classification (RC) street centerline file through application of a relational GIS data management tool. A breakdown of street centerline route miles by generalized

Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local
All Roadways

21.4 31.1 36.6 70.2 162.6
321.9

44.5 25.9 68.5 51.9 22.7
213.5

65.9 57
105.1 122.1 185.3
535.4

functional class category is displayed in Bryan County Travel Model's Base Year Table 2-1. Freeway facilities include I-95 Highway Network File (12/31/08)

and I-16. Principal Arterial highways in the network include US280/SR30, SR196 (Liberty

County) and US17/Coastal Highway. SR144, SR67 and SR119 fall into the Minor Arterial

classification.

Route mileage shares inside Bryan County and outside the county are also indicated in the table. The level of network detail inside Bryan County is much finer in comparison with the level of detail used to reflect the road network in areas outside Bryan County. Within Bryan County, 162.6 route miles of ,,Local roads are represented in the network. Outside of Bryan County, there are only 22.7 miles of roads classified as ,,Local.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 3

Figure 2-1 Base Year 2006 Highway Network Map
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 4

A total of twenty (20) link attribute variables are associated with the highway network file. Table 2-2 lists each of them and provides a brief definition. Of particular importance in

Table 2-2 Highway Network Link Attributes

NO.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 .

ATTRIBUTE

NAME

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A

Cube/Voyager link endpoint ID

B

Cube/Voyager link endpoint ID

DISTANCE Link distance in thousandths of a mile

FACTYPE A code indicating essentially the same as Functional Classification

ATYPE

Code that indicates the relative intensity of land-use in vicinity

LANES

Number of thru-lanes

NAME

Road name

SPEED

Average vehicle travel speed - from lookup table

CAPACITY Estimate of maximum daily traffic volume from a look-up table

TIME_OP Computed average travel time based on distance and speed

VOLUME

Estimate of 2006 AADT at traffic count station location

LINKCLASS Distinguishes freeway from non-freeway links

REV0

Distinguishes one-way from two-way highway network links

FUNCLASS Functional Classification assigned to link

DOD_FLAG Attribute to identify roads inside Fort Stewart

TC_NUMBER Georgia DOT traffic count station ID

AADT

Estimate of 2006 AADT from count stations, interpolation and extrapolation

SCREENLIN Screenline number

VOLGRP

Code to group links according to their Volume or AADT

COUNTY

Code that indicates a link's geograpic location according to county

developing the ability to forecast credible travel patterns are the ,,FACTYPE and ,,ATYPE variables. FACTYPE is a short name for facility type. It is essentially the same as the National Functional Classification code. ATYPE is short for area type. Its purpose is to assign a measure of land-use intensity in the area surrounding each individual network link. The most intense or dense land-use code for ATYPE is ,,Downtown Urban Area. This area type is associated with frequent signalized intersections and relatively low average travel speeds. The most undeveloped or lowest intensity land-use for area type is a ,,Rural designation. This is consistent with few intersections and driveways, minimal traffic control and relatively high average travel speeds.

Two more link attributes are assigned to the network file during execution of the model runstream leading to an assignment of daily vehicle traffic to the highway network. These two variables are link capacity ,,CAPACITY and average (Free-Flow) speed ,,SPEED. Link capacities used in developing vehicle trip tables and traffic assignments in the Bryan County Travel Model runstream are presented in Table 2-3. They are assigned to network links by means of a look-up table during execution of the model runstream. Link capacities are based on Level-of-Service ,,C volume thresholds established by the Florida Department of Transportation for transportation planning and modeling. Average travel speeds are based on computed average travel speeds observed from travel time and speed studies. Both modeled capacities and modeled speeds are refined during the calibration and validation process.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 5

Table 2-3 Speed and Capacity Lookup Table

FACTYPE DESCRIPTION 1 Freeway 2 HOV 3 Expressway 4 Fwy. to Fwy. Ramp 7 Fwy. Ent. Ramp 8 Fwy. Exit Ramp 11 Principal Arterial 12 Minor Arterial 13 1-Way Arterial 15 Major Collector 16 Minor Collector 17 1-Way Collector 19 Local 32 Access Links

AVERAGE FREE-FLOW SPEEDS

By Area Type

11

22

33

44

60

65

70

75

60

65

70

75

55

58

60

65

35

40

45

45

40

40

45

45

30

35

35

40

32

37

45

55

30

35

42

52

34

39

47

57

28

33

40

45

26

32

37

43

29

35

42

47

25

25

30

35

12

15

20

25

(1) Downtown Urban Area (2) Small Urban Area (3) Suburban (4) Rural

AVERAGE DAILY CAPACITIES

By Area Type

11

22

33

44

13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500

13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500

11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500

11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500

8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500

5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000

7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500

6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000

7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000

5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500

4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000

5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000

3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

0

0

0

0

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 6

3.0 Traffic Analysis Zones

Traffic Analysis Zones, referred to as TAZs, are relatively small units of geography that travel demand modelers use to relate different land-use patterns with trip purposes and trip end frequency. A map of TAZs that were created for the Bryan County Travel Model are illustrated in Figure 3-1. Although not always evident, the models TAZ boundaries were methodically drawn to reflect road alignments, census geography, jurisdictional and topographic boundaries or barriers that are central parameters in operating and applying the model. County, census tract, Fort Stewart and Canoochee Creek are examples of boundaries or barriers that were employed in creating TAZs for the Bryan County model.

The map shows a total of 143 TAZs inside the models study area. Of these, 105 or 73% of

them are located in Bryan County. A breakdown of the number of TAZs by county is depicted in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 TAZ's By County

The primary geographic framework of the model reflects more detail in the Bryan County portion of the study area than in portions of neighboring counties also represented in the study area. Moreover, the grain of density in the road network around Richmond Hill and Pembroke is more refined than in other subareas of Bryan County which are currently less developed.

LO

HI

COUNTY NUMBER NUMBER

Bryan

1 - 105

Liberty

106 - 115

Chatham 116 - 131

Effingham 132 - 137

Bulloch

138 - 143

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 7

Figure 3-1 Traffic Analysis Zone Boundaries Map
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 8

4.0 Socioeconomic Data

Trip making intensity is modeled using census tract, census block groups and census block estimates of socioeconomic data that are ultimately allocated into the models traffic analysis zone (TAZ) geography. The primary source for socioeconomic data allocated to Bryan County TAZs is information taken from the U.S. Census Bureaus decennial 2000 census. In order to convert the 2000-level census data to the models 2006 base year, the model development team used 2006-level estimates of population and employment at the county level of geography. The county-level estimates of 2006 population and employment are published by the Georgia Department of Labor.

For TAZs outside Bryan County, zonal socioeconomic data from four other travel demand models was used. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), in cooperation with local governments, has built travel demand models for Chatham County, Hinesville Area, Effingham County and Bulloch County. Base year 2006 and future year 2035 zonal socioeconomic data for the Bryan County Travel Model was computed from the same zonal data sets that are associated with these other travel models.

Average daily trip ends are the standard unit used my travel modelers to measure trip intensity associated with particular land uses. There are ,,production and ,,attraction trip ends. Productions are typically associated with the number of households and average household income in a zone. Attraction trip ends are usually calculated from employment and student enrollment estimates.

A list of socioeconomic variables used in the Bryan County Travel Model are shown below.

1. TAZ 2. Number of Households 3. School Enrollment 4. Population 5. Average Zonal Household Income

6. Retail Employment 7. Service Employment 8. Manufacturing Employment 9. Wholesale Employment 10. Total Employment

A summary of the 2006-level socioeconomic data used in the model is presented in Table 4-1 by county or part of a county. Subtotals of the demographic data for all of Bryan County are the largest for each socioeconomic variable, except for Retail Employment and Manufacturing Employment. The population estimate is 32,178 persons. Average household income for all zones in the county was $45,627 in 2000. School enrollment in the county was estimated to be 6,229 students in 2006. Bryan Countys total employment was estimated to be 5,542 in 2006. It is important to note in reading Table 4-1 that demographic subtotals for Chatham, Effingham, Bulloch and Liberty counties only represent relatively small portions of those jurisdictions.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 9

Table 4-1 Socioeconomic Data Summary By County

Bryan Liberty(Part) Chatham (Part) Effingham (Part) Bulloch (Part)

VARIABLE
Households Enrollment Population HH Income Retail Employment Services Employment Manufacturing Employment Wholesale Employment Total Employment

Model Study Area Total

11,114 6,229
32,178 $ 45,627
805 4,119
343 275 5,542

2,268 1,576 6,133 $ 33,667
360 1,175
0 0 1,789

7,206 3,596 18,411 $ 43,112 2,050 3,286
0 142 5,475

1,246 0
2,993 $ 40,885
48 830 494
2 1,374

255 0
804 $ 39,880
20 65
0 0 85

22,089 11,401 60,519 $ 40,634
3,283 9,475
837 419 14,265

Sources: U.S. Census 2000 Georgia Department of Labor County Profiles for 2006 Bryan County School Board

To facilitate the formulation of credible travel patterns in the Bryan County Travel Model, there are fundamental relationships that need to be reflected by the zonal socioeconomic data file. Concentrations of human activity, be they household-related or employment-related, generate elevated levels of vehicle traffic. In places where there is not a lot of human activity, there are not a lot of vehicle trips either produced or attracted there. Color-coded maps depicting varying levels of population and total employment throughout the travel model study area are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 by TAZ geography. For population in Figure 4-1, the highest concentrations of population are found in two Richmond Hill zones and in five Chatham County TAZs. For total employment, shown in Figure 4-2, the highest level occurs in a Chatham County TAZ situated north of the CSX railroad tracks and directly east of Richmond Hill. Bryan County has one TAZ where total employment reaches the 501 to 1,000 persons range. This is also in Richmond Hill, south of US17/Coastal Highway and west of SR144/Ford Avenue.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 10

Figure 4-1 2006-Level Population By TAZ
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 11

Figure 4-2 2006-Level Total Employment By TAZ
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 12

5.0 External Trips
External trips have at least one of their trip ends outside of the model study area. In the Bryan County Travel Model, external trips are especially important because they comprise a high proportion of total trip making. This is due to the preponderance of employment, shopping, medical and recreational opportunities in Savannah, as well as in the Hinesville/Fort Stewart area. The majority of large trip generators in Savannah and other Chatham County jurisdictions plus all of the densely settled areas of Hinesville and Fort Stewart reside beyond the Bryan County Travel Models study area boundary. Due to the proximity of Savannah, Hinesville and Fort Stewart to Bryan County, many trip ends produced or attracted in Bryan County TAZs have an origin or destination outside of the models boundary.
If a modeled trip is not external, then it is an internal trip. Internal trips have both trip ends inside the study area. For example, a trip from Pembroke to Blitchton in North Bryan would be an internal trip. Internal trips are subdivided by trip purpose so they match an empirical trip length distribution unique to that kind of trip. The five internal trip purposes used in the Bryan County Travel Model are: Home Based Work (HBW); Home Based Other (HBO); Home Based Shopping (HBSh); Non Home Based (NHB); and Commercial.
External trips are subdivided during model development into four different groups, but they are not split by trip purpose like internal trips. They are initially subdivided into Internal-External (I-E) and External-External (E-E) trips. Each of these categories is split one more time into Passenger Cars and Trucks leading to the four different types of external trips.
External trips have properties that make them valuable in the process of developing credible travel patterns and traffic assignment loadings. Due in large part to their definition, external trips nearly always have the longest average trip lengths of all trip purposes because they need to travel to at least one border of the study area. They add to the models credibility because the amount of base year traffic coming into and out of the study area on major state highways is usually available from the Georgia Department of Transportations annual traffic counting program. Travel modelers can easily control the daily volumes of traffic entering and exiting the study area at these locations, which are referred to as external stations. A map displaying the 24 external stations is presented in Figure 5-1. External station number 144 represents the place in the model highway network that vehicle traffic enters and leaves the study area using I95 in Liberty County. Station number 145 corresponds to the spot where traffic enters and leaves the study area on Coastal Hwy./US17 in Liberty County. There are no external stations physically positioned in Bryan County. All of them are located in counties surrounding Bryan.
Basic parameters defining the base year 2006 External Trip database for the Bryan County Travel Model are presented in Table 5-1. The highest volume external station is number 161 which represents I-95 in Chatham County by Savannah International Airport. The average annual daily traffic volume is 67,700 vehicles per day and the average daily share of large trucks, vehicles with 3 or more axles, is 17.5%.
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 13

Figure 5-1 Modeled External Stations
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 14

Table 5-1 External Trip Station Parameters

Station Number Roadname

Facility Type

Count Station County ID

144 I-95 So.

Freeway

145 US17/SR25 So.

Major Arterial

146 US84/SR38

Major Arterial

147 SR144

Minor Arterial

148 SR119 So.

Minor Arterial

149 Moody Bridge

Collector

(Ft. Stewart)

150 US280/SR30

Major Arterial

151 Groveland Nevils

Collector

152 I-16 No.

Freeway

153 SR46

Minor Arterial

154 SR67

Minor Arterial

155 Arcola

Collector

(Between these two locations)

156 US80/SR26 No.

Major Arterial

157 SR119 No.

Minor Arterial

158 Eldora

Collector

159 SR17

Minor Arterial

160 Pooler Pkwy.

Minor Arterial

(Don't think it existed in 2006)

161 I-95 No.

Freeway

162 US80/SR26 So.

Major Arterial

(Reflects Pooler Pkwy.)

163 I-16 So.

Freeway

164 US17/SR25 No.

Major Arterial

165 SR204/Abercorn Ext. Minor Arterial

166 Sunbury

Collector

167 Colonels Island

Collector

179 0134 179 0007 179 0063 179 0114 179 0107 109 none
109 0125 31 0149 31 0367 31 0234 31 0105 31 0354 0356 31 0316 31 0349 31 0372
103 0149 51 0259
51 0385 51 0264
51 0367 51 0198 51 0323 179 none 179 0078

Est. 2006 AADT
45,000 4,200
25,000 6,500 2,380 200
3,200 800
17,610 2,200 7,700 1,200
3,200 1,100 2,400 7,500 17,000
67,700 24,000
48,900 18,000 49,300
400 1,370

Pass. Car Total Vol.
37,125 3,990
23,125 6,337 2,261 200

Large Truck
%

Large Truck Total Vol.

17.5% 5.0% 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 0.0%

7,875 210
1,875 163 119 0

3,040 800
14,528 2,145 7,507 1,200

5.0% 0.0% 17.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0%

160 0
3,082 55
193 0

2,960 1,089 2,400 7,350 15,725

7.5% 1.0% 0.0% 2.0% 7.5%

240 11 0
150 1,275

55,852 21,600

17.5% 10.0%

11,848 2,400

41,565 16,200 47,328
400 1,370

15.0% 10.0%
4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7,335 1,800 1,972
0 0

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 15

Travel Model Methodology

6.0 Model Process

The overall framework and logic of the Bryan County Travel Demand Model was adapted from the Georgia Department of Transportations (GDOTs) standard urban area travel demand models. The same travel demand modeling software used by GDOT, Version 5.1 of Citilab Corporations TP+ scripting language, was employed by the Bryan County Travel Model development team. It computes daily traffic volumes using passenger car and truck trip tables. Computational processes and logic associated with developing trip tables and performing traffic assignments are illustrated in figures that are displayed in the Appendix to this document.

Essentially, the modeling process consists of three steps: (1) Trip Generation; (2) Trip Distribution; and, (3) Daily Traffic Assignment.

The trip generation phase of developing trip tables is done in a separate application, prior to executing the main TP+ model runstream.

6.1 Trip Generation

The Bryan County Travel Model uses seven (7) trip purposes to generate person trip ends. These are listed below.

No. Purpose Name
1. Home Based Work (HBW) 2. Home Based Other (HBO) 3. Home Based Shopping (HBSh) 4. Non-Home Based (NHB)

No. Purpose Name
5. Commercial Vehicles 6. Internal-External Pass. 7. CInatersrnal-External Trucks

Vehicle trips traveling from outside the model study area to outside the model study area, like from Hinesville to downtown Savannah, are referred to as External-External (E-E) trips. E-E trips were estimated for both passenger cars and trucks in separate data files.

Trip generation was slightly differently in the Bryan County model in comparison with a typical GDOT urban area travel demand model. A different logic was applied because there are a disproportionately high number of I-E and E-E trips in comparison with a typical urban area model. In a typical travel demand model, for any of Georgias urban areas, the regions central business district(s) and major concentrations of human activity are located inside the models geographic boundaries. In relation to the Bryan County model, however, the regions largest concentrations of human activity reside in Savannah which is essentially north and east of the model study area. To offset effects of this, internal to internal (I-I) trip rates for HBW, HBO, HBSh, NHB and Commercial Vehicles were discounted and trip rates for Internal-External (I-E) attractions were increased.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 16

6.2 Trip Distribution

Trip distribution is performed on all seven (7) trip purposes defined in the trip generation process using the standard gravity model process with convergence for all purposes on productions. Trip tables computed by the gravity model are in person trips, not vehicle trips except for the two Internal-External (I-E) trip types. Each trip purpose has a set of friction factor weights for the time range between 1 and 100 minutes. The friction factors were borrowed, originally, from one of GDOT's urban area models. However, some re-calibration of the friction factors was performed to improve the Bryan County model validation results as well as to get trip length frequencies by trip purpose that matched travel patterns expected from the inherent geography and land-use patterns input to the Bryan County model.

Free-flow time and the last iteration time skims were used to measure inter-zonal travel times in the gravity model process. Only the HBW trip purpose used last iteration, or congested times, for inter-zonal time impedances. All others used the free-flow time skim.

Out of all seven model purposes, the longest trips generated by the gravity model were for the Home Based Shopping (HBSh) trip purpose. Average travel times (in minutes) and average trip lengths (in miles) by trip purpose are displayed in Table 6-1. The shortest average time and distance were calculated for the Internal-External Passenger Car (IEPC) trip purpose. Clearly, the base year model calibration and validation process revealed that short IEPC trips resulted in better matches between modeled daily traffic and observed daily traffic volumes. IEPC trips were the most numerous of all trip types in the model, as well. The model estimated 83,874 daily IEPC trips which was more than twice as many as the 33,307 Home Based Other (HBO) trips.

Table 6-1 Trip Distribution By Trip Purpose

TRIP PURPOSE
HBW HBO HBSh NHB TRUCKS IEPC IETRK

NUMBER OF
TRIPS
12,247 33,307
6,207 25,525
9,715 83,874
8,323

AVG. TRIP TIME
(Min.'s)
6.9 7.9 8.3 7.4 5.6 2.2 5.4

AVG. TRIP LENGTH
(Miles)
4.2 4.9 5.4 4.6 3.5 1.6 4.5

Source: Bryan County Travel Model (12/31/08)

Although not technically part of the trip distribution step, person trip tables output from the gravity model were converted to vehicle trip tables prior to executing a daily traffic assignment. IEPC and IETRK trip tables are in units of vehicles from the beginning of the process, but the five I-I trip tables are initially estimated in person trips. Below is the list of average vehicle occupancy factors used to convert I-I person trip tables to I-I vehicle trip tables.
Home Based Work (HBW) 1.15 Home Based Other (HBO) 1.90 Home Based Shopping (HBSH) 1.88 Non Home Based (NHB) 1.50 Commercial (Commercial) - 1.15

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 17

6.3 Daily Traffic Assignment
The traffic assignment step of the modeling process produces minimum path routings, link volumes and link speeds that will be used to evaluate alternate roadway improvement strategies in Bryan County. There are two traffic assignments altogether in the model runscript. One is a daily equilibrium assignment to generate a congested (last iteration) time skim matrix for distributing Home Based Work (HBW) trips. The other is a daily equilibrium assignment to produce routings, link volumes and link speeds to evaluate different land use and road improvement scenarios.
Traffic assignment parameters for each daily traffic assignment in the model runstream are listed in Table 6-1. Both assignments are set up to assign trucks and passenger cars. However, the final daily assignment, No. 2 in the table, explicitly pre-loads trucks prior to making a passenger car assignment. Although both are designed to reach closure after a Gap less than .0001 is achieved, daily assignment No. 1 has a 20 iteration limit while the second has a 99 iteration limit. The first assignment uses the TP+ default volume-delay function, where Volume (V) is equal to the sum of truck loadings and passenger car loadings and capacity (C) is set equal to a nominal daily LOS C service volume threshold. In the second assignment, the TP+ default volume-delay function is only used for non-freeway highway network links. For freeway links, a larger Beta exponent of 6.0 is used to adjust link travel times.
Table 6-1 Traffic Assignment Parameters

Assignment Parameter Algorithm Max. Iterations Gap AAD RAAD Vehicle Types
Volume-Delay

Daily Assignment No. 1
(Congested Time Impedance)
Equilibrium 20
0.0001 Default Default Trucks & Passenger Cars Default

Daily Assignment No. 2
(Daily Link Speeds and Loadings)
Equilibrium 99
0.0001 0 0
Trucks & Passenger Cars freeway links: alpha = 0.15
beta = 6.0 non-freeway links: alpha = 0.15
beta = 4.0

The Bryan County Travel Model was built and calibrated using 2006-level data. As such, it was designed to produce estimates of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for the year 2006. AADT represents the two-way volume of 24-hour traffic on a section of road for an average annual day of the year. Base year 2006 AADT estimates produced by the travel demand model are displayed in bandwidth volume format in Figure 6-1.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 18

Figure 6-1 Base Year 2006 Traffic Assignment Map
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 19

Average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes generated by the travel model fluctuate in accordance with different road facility characteristics and the network path routings available to serve motorists travel patterns. The wide range of daily volumes is denoted in the figure by color and bandwidth. The least used roadway facilities are denoted by a thin, coral-red line. Roadway segments carrying the highest volumes in the model study area are shown with a thick, purple-colored line. The highest two-way AADT volume produced by the model occurs on the section of I-95 between I-16 and the Abercorn Extension in Chatham County. A total of 90,000 vehicles per day were estimated by the Base Year 2006 model to use this section of the road network.
The highest traffic volumes in Bryan County are currently in the southern portion of the county, referred to as South Bryan in this memorandum. There is not a large drop in present modeled 2006 daily traffic for the section of I-95 connecting South Bryan and Richmond Hill to Chatham County. Where I-95 crosses the Ogeechee River, the modeled two-way, AADT is 82,000 vehicles per day. Another 18,000 vehicles per day were projected to use the US17/Coastal Highway connecting Richmond Hill to Chatham County approximately 1.5 miles east of I-95. I-95 traffic volumes drop through Bryan County, moving south toward Liberty County. South of the US17/Coastal Highway Interchange, the modeled daily volume for I-95 was 48,000 vehicles per day. This substantial change in volume on sections of I-95 in South Bryan underscores the relatively high volumes getting on and off I-95 at SR144/Ford Avenue and US17/Coastal Highway in Richmond Hill.
US280/SR30 in the north part of Bryan County, referred to as North Bryan in this memorandum, is the main artery serving local travel in the vicinity of Pembroke. I-16 slices through the northeast corner of North Bryan providing freeway access to Savannah in the southeast and Macon to the northwest. The only I-16 interchange in Bryan County is with US280/SR30. Modeled daily traffic volumes on US280/SR30 vary between 5,000 vehicles per day around Pembroke and 9,000 closer to the interchange with I-16 in the vicinity of Blicthton. Estimates of daily traffic on I-16 vary from 25,000 vehicles per day north of the US280/SR30 interchange to 32,000 vehicles per day south of the interchange. The markedly larger volume on I-16 south of the interchange indicates a relatively high daily travel movement from North Bryan in the direction of Chatham County to the southeast.
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 20

7.0 Base Year Model Validation
In order to get the base year 2006 model components working together effectively, a number of model runs were performed as part of the calibration process to achieve better matches between modeled daily traffic volumes and observed 2006 traffic counts . Refinements were made to the following model parts: highway network; trip generation rates; trip length distributions, external station trip database and to the traffic assignment parameters. A total of 18 separate test runs of the Bryan Travel Model were made during the calibration and validation process. A set of tables charting both intermediate and final model outputs after each calibrationvalidation run provided the modeling team with model performance statistics that revealed which types of changes were most effective toward improving overall performance.
With limited resources and deadlines dictated by Bryan County Multi-Modal Transportation Plan study schedule, new models like this one are built and tested over a relatively short period of time. Numerous tests were used to determine the accuracy and predictive quality of the Bryan County Travel Demand Model. There are a couple very different criteria employed to validate a travel model. One of these is monitoring intermediate model output from trip generation and trip distribution. Earlier in the memorandum, in the section describing Trip Distribution, a table illustrating fundamental model behavior in terms of the number of modeled trips by model purpose and their respective average trip lengths was shown. Factors used to convert person trips into vehicle trips are also listed in the trip distribution section. Volumes of daily vehicle traffic coming into and out of the study area at the models external stations are reported in the External Trips section. This kind of information, in combination with tables showing the amount of deviation between modeled and observed traffic volumes, describe the validation process and provide others with a sense for the models predictive quality.
Several comparative tables or charts were used to describe the level of deviation between modeled and observed traffic for the base year 2006. These tests are listed along with brief descriptions below.
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) - The most important model validation test considered in this calibration process was the RMSE test. This test computes a statistic that measures the overall relative difference between estimated AADT volumes assigned to road network links by the model and their corresponding observed, 24-hour, weekday traffic counts for a particular class of model links. The sample size of two-way link locations in the RMSE was 130.
Screenline Line Deviations Its primary use in most model applications is to gage the deviation between modeled and observed daily traffic for specific travel corridors or border lines that demarcate topographic or jurisdictional features. It also provided an easy-to-use reference guide that was used to aid in focusing on the worst link deviations in the process of lowering RMSE statistics for particular Volume Groups. There were 63 unique two-way
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 21

network link locations in the screenline deviation sample. The final screenline deviations, from the last model run, are reported in the Appendix.
Systemwide DVMT - Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) is the standard measurement for the overall amount of vehicle travel demand inside a model study area. In this model development effort, Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMT) by generalized facility type or functional class was used. All roadway links in the highway network were used to compute the modeled and observed estimates of DVMT.
Loadings to Counts Ratio This is similar to the systemwide DVMT statistics, but link distances are not considered and the sample was confined to only those 130 network links where traffic count stations exist (i.e., the same sample used to compute RMSE statistics).
Scatter Diagram Illustration - A scatter diagram is a picture that illustrates how well modeled daily traffic volumes matched observed daily volumes. It is an easy-to-interpret graphic that provides a visual restatement of the same information shown by the RMSE and screenline evaluation tables.
There were 130 locations inside the Bryan County Travel Model study area where traffic counts were taken by the Georgia Department of Transportation or for other studies recently done. These are the locations where observed traffic volumes were used to guide the calibration and validation process. These locations and the calibration/validation screenlines are displayed in Figure 7-1. Links with observed traffic counts are shown in a blue color while the study area screenlines are drawn in red.
RMSE
In this calibration/validation, the "Volume Group" link attribute was used to classify model links for the RMSE test. A computed RMSE statistic of 0.00 would indicate that modeled traffic volumes for each validation link are the exact same as their observed counterparts. An RMSE of 100 would indicate that the average deviation of modeled ADTs from their observed counterparts was generally equivalent to the size of observed daily traffic. The later situation is not uncommon for low-volume model network links. Observed traffic counts were obtained on a total of 130 unique, network links in the study area. The locations of these counts are denoted by red and blue colored highlights in Figure 7-1.
The final base year 2006 RMSE statistics are shown in Table 7-1 by volume group. For the RMSE link analysis to be an effective diagnostic tool, the RMSE statistic is computed by link volume group. Seven volume groups were identified for use in this study. The smallest volume group included all links whose observed volumes were below 2,500 vehicles per day. The highest volume group captured all calibration/validation links whose daily traffic exceeded 25,000 vehicles per day. Links on five different highway facilities fell into the highest volume
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 22

Figure 7-1 Validation and Calibration Locations
Bryan County Travel Demand Model 23

group category. These facilities included I-95, I-16, US80, US17/Coastal Highway and the Abercorn Extension.

Network links on I-95, US17/Coastal Highway and SR144/Ford Avenue in South Bryan and

US280/SR30 and I-16 in North Bryan were the foremost concern in calibrating and validating

the model. Mostly, those links fell into the RMSE categories "Volume Group" 6 and "Volume Group" Table 7-1 Final Calibration Run 7. RMSE values of 8 and 22 were calculated for RMSE Results

Volume Group 7 and Volume Group 6, respectively. This means that the model was generally estimating ADTs to within + or - 8% accuracy in "Volume Group" 7 and within 22% for links in the "Volume Group" 6 category. The lowest accuracy was computed for links in the "Volume Group" 1 category (ADTs less than 2,500 vehicles per day) where the computed RMSE statistic was 95%. These traffic assignment accuracy measurements are consistent

Volume Group
1 2 3 4 5
6 7

Volume Range (VPD) 0 - 2,500 2,500 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 25,000 > 25,000

RMSE 95.0 29.0 62.0 32.0 19.0
22.0 8.0

with the level of accuracy achieved by urban area

All Links

25.0

travel demand models around the United States.

What does an RMSE statistic of 8% or 22% mean? According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines, modelers should try to achieve an RMSE of 7% for freeway facilities and 25% for collector roads - as targets. These accuracy objectives apply to a typical urbanized area travel demand model. In a model validation and reasonability checking manual prepared for the FHWAs Travel Model Improvement Program in 1997, final validation RMSEs for the Reno, NV urbanized area travel demand model were reported by facility type. These RMSE validation statistics for the Reno model ranged from 77.5% for low volume collector facilities to 18.3% for high volume freeway facilities. In comparison, traffic assignments from the Bryan County Travel Model are more accurate than the Reno, NV urban area model assignments.

System wide daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) are shown in Table 7-2 by generalized

functional classification. Freeway

and expressway facilities DVMT Table 7-2 Modeled Versus Observed DVMT

accounted for the highest share of

vehicle travel. Overall, the model assigns 5% more DVMT to these kinds of facilities than the corresponding DVMT computed

General Factypes Freeways/ Expressways

Observed VMT

Modeled VMT

Relative Difference

2,885,541 3,039,869

5%

from observed traffic counts. Arterials

1,316,385 1,297,026 -1%

Arterial links are representative of Collectors

316,355

257,193 -19%

facilities like: US17/Coastal High-

Total

4,518,281 4,594,088

2%

way, US80, US280 and

SR144/Ford Avenue. The model produces nearly 1.3 million daily vehicle miles of travel for

arterials which is 1% less than observed DVMT.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 24

A "Model" to "Counts" ratio was computed by Volume Group for the same sample of links that

was used in the RMSE sample. These statistics are presented in Table 7-3. This test shows that

the ratio between the sum of modeled link volumes and the sum of observed traffic counts is 0.99. This

Table 7-3 Modeled to Counts Ratio

means that overall, the modeled volumes were Volume Volume

slightly less than their observed traffic count Group Range (VPD)

Ratio

throughout the study area. Link Group 6, the

1 0 - 2,500

1.07

category where observed counts falls in the 20,000-

2 2,500 - 5,000

0.88

25,000 AADT range, showed a Model to Count ratio

3 5,000 - 10,000

0.93

of 1.10. The model appeared to over-assign traffic on

4 10,000 - 15,000 5 15,000 - 20,000

1.06 0.95

these links by 10%. The most under-assigned

6 20,000 - 25,000

1.10

category was Link Group 2, where the Model to

7 > 25,000

0.97

Count ratio was 0.88.

All Links

0.99

A scatter diagram that illustrates how well modeled daily traffic volumes matched observed daily is presented in Figure 7-2 for the same sample of study area network links that was used in the "RMSE" and "Modeled to Counts Ratio" tests. This is another way of showing the relative accuracy of AADTs produced by the model. If the modeled volumes were perfect (i.e., no deviation from the traffic counts), then all of the points would lie in the line representing the simple x=y equation. A total of 130 points are shown in the diagram, most of them a little under or over the line formed by the x=y equation. There is a strong correlation between the modeled and observed data points. The R2 value, which explains the proportion of variability explained by the model, was a little over 0.97.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model 25

Modeled Volume

Figure 7-2 Scatter Diagram (Observed AADT's Modeled Daily Volumes

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000 15000

R2 = 0.9714

10000

5000

0

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Counted Volume

Count -vs- Volume

X=Y

-2500

2500

Linear (Count -vs- Volume)

45000

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
26

8.0 Future Year 2035 Model (Baseline Scenario)
A summary of the Bryan County Travel Demand Model's baseline scenario for 2035 is presented in this section. The summary includes a description of data used to generate and formulate future year vehicle travel as well as a cross-section of data produced by the model.
8.1 Zonal Socioeconomic Data
Future year growth for Bryan County was established in a study performed by the Georgia Institute of Technology's Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development in 2006 for counties and municipalities inside the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center (RDC) planning area. The RDC makes future growth estimates by jurisdiction available to its county and municipal governments for use in conducting comprehensive planning activities. Forecasts of population and total employment for a future year 2030 planning horizon were furnished by the RDC to Bryan County. The key socioeconomic data estimates for future year 2030 were:
Population 45,986 persons; and Total Employment 13,430 employees.
While 2030 population estimates were developed especially for the Coastal Georgia RDC and its jurisdictions, county-level total employment projections for 2030 were made by the model development team using proprietary demographic forecasts published by a private data collection firm specializing in demographics and land use - Woods and Poole, Incorporated.
The study team allocated countywide forecasts of 2030-level zonal socioeconomic data into North and South Bryan County as well as into the 105 Traffic Analysis Zones. The allocation of countywide population and employment forecasts into small traffic analysis zones (TAZ's) was done using several different t sources of information to guide the process.
Population and Employment Allocation Reference List
Future Land Use Map; Potential Development Areas Map (Bryan County Interchange Justification Report); Bryan County Board of Education plans for locating new schools; Development and Marketing Information (obtained from study stakeholders); and, Base Year 2006 Zonal Socioeconomic Data.
A map of the model's study area highlighting those zones exhibiting the highest amount of change in human activity between 2006 and 2030 is presented in Figure 8-1. While the overall
Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
27

Figure 8-1 High Growth Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's)
Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
28

zonal allocation or spatial pattern of future growth in this study is similar to patterns used in Bryan Countys most recent transportation studies, there is one major difference.

Previous transportation planning studies that identified transportation deficiencies in Bryan County assumed that properties centered around the I-95 and Belfast Siding Road junction in South Bryan County would be intensively developed as a regional commercial node by 2030. The land use and growth analysis underlying modeled travel demand in the future year baseline scenario in this study does not assume that these properties will be developed at the level of intensity that was assumed in previous studies. In the Bryan County Interchange Justification Report, this generalized development area is labeled as the Terrapointe Property. Large-scale allocations of Bryan Countys future growth occur in other parts of the county in this study. Specifically, a high concentration of commercial development is anticipated to occur in North Bryan zones that include the Interstate Center Industrial Park and in South Bryan zones that include parts of the potential Daniel Siding Development. Both properties are currently underdeveloped and near to existing interchanges that already provide access to the Interstate System. In addition to freeway access, the Daniel Siding Development straddles a Class I rail freight line. Residential development that was assumed to occur at the Terrapointe Property in other studies, was allocated to South Bryan zones along SR144 near its intersection with Belfast Kellar Road and Oak Level Road in this study.

In addition to forecasting population and total employment model variables, future year 2030 zonal allocations were also done for the other variables: number of households; retail employment, services employment, manufacturing employment and school enrollment. Moreover, 2030-level zonal socioeconomic data for the Bryan County Travel Model was obtained from other travel models built that were built for Liberty, Chatham, Effingham and Bulloch counties.

Future year 2035 data was estimated by the model development team for the travel demand

models baseline scenario by extrapolating 2006 and 2030 zonal socioeconomic data to 2035-

level. A summary of the countywide population and total employment for future year 2035

are presented in Table 8-1 and Table 8-2, Table 8-1 Population Growth (2006 to 2035) respectively, by subarea of the travel

demand model. Population in the model study area was forecast to grow by 54% between 2006 and 2035, increasing from SUBAREA

POPULATION

%

2006

2035 Change

62,889 to 96,884 persons. This study anticipates approximately three times as much residential growth in South Bryan as North Bryan. South Bryans

South Bryan North Bryan Outside Bryan
Total Area

19,937 12,241 30,711
62,889

32,665 14,878 49,341
96,884

64% 22% 61%
54%

population was projected to grow from Sources: 2006 data from US Census and Ga. Dept. of Labor.

19,937 to 32,665 persons between 2006

2035 data from US Census, Ga. Dept. of Labor,

and 2035. North Bryans population was

Bryan County Comprehensive Plan, Hinesville MPO,

estimated to be 12,241 persons in 2006

Chatham County MPO, Georgia DOT and Study Team.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
29

and 14,878 in 2035.

Total employment throughout the entire model study area was forecast to grow by 119% from

2006 to 2035, twice the rate of residential growth. In addition to high employment

Table 8-2 Total Employment Growth

growth allocated to zones containing the

(2006 to 2035)

Interstate Center and Daniel Siding developments in Bryan County, there is a lot of employment growth forecast to take place in zones located in Northwest Chatham and South Effingham counties. Employment is expected to grow at a faster rate in North Bryan as compared to South Bryan. North Bryan is estimated to have 1,698 employees

SUBAREA
South Bryan North Bryan Outside Bryan
Total Area

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT

%

2006

2035 Change

3,844 1,698 8,677

9,052 5,464 16,628

135% 222% 92%

14,219 31,144 119%

in 2006 and increase by 222% to a 2035 estimate of 5,464. Commercial development in South Bryan was projected to grow by 135%, increasing from 3,844 to 9,052

Sources: 2006 data from US Census and Ga. Dept. of Labor. 2035 data from US Census, Ga. Dept. of Labor, Bryan County Comprehensive Plan, Hinesville MPO, Chatham County MPO, Georgia DOT and Study Team.

employees between 2006 and 2035. These socioeconomic projections measuring the relative

intensity of human activity inside Bryan County, by zone, provided the framework for

quantifying future year 2035 travel demand by the Bryan County Travel Demand Model.

Zonal socioeconomic data from which internal travel demand was computed by the model for

base year 2006 and the 2035 baseline is presented Table A-2 and Table A-3 in the Appendix.

8.2 Trips By Purpose

Demographic growth anticipated to occur inside the study area from 2006 to 2035 translates into additional vehicle trips in accordance with the trip generation, trip distribution and auto occupancy methodologies described earlier. Trips reported in this section refer to internal travel. These are trips having both an origin and destination inside the model study area. A description of forecasted external trip travel is reported in the next section.

Internal trip making increases almost 100% from 2006 to 2035 in response to study area

changes in projected population and employment. The number of vehicle trips by model trip

purpose is presented in Table 8-3 for 2006 and 2035. The total number of internal vehicle trips is forecast to grow from 101,910 in 2006 to 202,660 in 2035. The largest share of vehicle trips falls into the Home Based Other (HBO) category where 76,270 were forecast. These include school, medical-related and recreational trips among other types. One of

Table 8-3 Trips By Purpose (2006 to 2035)

MODEL TRIP PURPOSE HBW HBO HBSh NHB

DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS

%

2006

2035 Change

15,580 31,840 104%

41,010 76,270

86%

7,350 14,070

91%

26,470 52,820 100%

the two trip ends is required to originate or be TRUCKS

11,500 27,660 141%

attracted to the trip makers home. Non Home Totals 101,910 202,660

99%

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
30

Based (NHB) trips constitute the second highest overall trip volume. These trips can be for any purpose, but neither trip end can occur at home. A total of 52,820 future year 2035 trips were forecast for this purpose. The purpose having the highest growth rate was the Truck purpose/vehicle type. These trips represent internal-internal truck trips plus commercial and institutional travel. This trip type is inclusive of the following types of travel: truck deliveries; municipal trip making related to the provision of government services to residents; and, vehicle travel related to construction and other contractor businesses.

8.3 External Trips

External travel includes all vehicle trips into, out of and passing through the model study area. The amount of external trip making is controlled by daily volumes assigned to the modeled external stations. Estimated Base Year 2006 and Future Year 2035 external station volumes are displayed in Table 8-3 along with the cumulative and average annual percent change. From 2006 to 2035 external vehicle trip making is projected to grow by a total of 54%, from 267,550 to 413,000 trips. Future year 2035 forecasts were primarily based on existing daily traffic trends at or near the external station locations. The forecast analysis also included consideration for how much residential and commercial growth is anticipated to occur near the external stations plus consideration for how many additional trips equate to percentage change.

Table 8-4 External Station Daily Traffic Growth (2006 2035)

Station Number Roadname

Facility Type

County

144 I-95 So.

Freeway

Liberty

145 US17/SR25 So.

Major Arterial Liberty

146 US84/SR38

Major Arterial Liberty

147 SR144

Minor Arterial Liberty

148 SR119 So.

Minor Arterial Liberty

149 Moody Bridge

Collector

Evans

(Ft. Stewart)

150 US280/SR30

Major Arterial Evans

151 Groveland Nevils

Collector

Bulloch

152 I-16 No.

Freeway

Bulloch

153 SR46

Minor Arterial Bulloch

154 SR67

Minor Arterial Bulloch

155 Arcola

Collector

Bulloch

156 US80/SR26 No.

Major Arterial Bulloch

157 SR119 No.

Minor Arterial Bulloch

158 Eldora

Collector

Bulloch

159 SR17

Minor Arterial Effingham

160 Pooler Pkwy.

Minor Arterial Chatham

161 I-95 No.

Freeway

Chatham

162 US80/SR26 So.

Major Arterial Chatham

163 I-16 So.

Freeway

Chatham

164 US17/SR25 No.

Major Arterial Chatham

165 SR204/Abercorn Ext. Minor Arterial Chatham

166 Sunbury

Collector

Liberty

167 Colonels Island

Collector

Liberty

MODEL STUDY AREA

Est. 2006 AADT
45,000 4,200
25,000 5,610 2,380 100

Est. 2035 AADT
70,000 8,400
35,500 7,000 2,800 100

Total %
Change
56% 100% 42% 25% 18%
0%

Avg. Annual
% Change
1.5% 2.4% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0%

3,200 800
17,610 2,200 7,700 1,200 3,200 1,100 2,400 7,500
11,000 67,700 24,000 48,900 18,000 49,300
400 1,370
267,580

5,600 900
35,200 3,900
10,300 1,800 5,100 1,400 3,000
15,500 14,700 99,000 36,000 88,000 28,800 61,600
500 1,700
413,000

75% 13% 100% 77% 34% 50% 59% 27% 25% 107% 34% 46% 50% 80% 60% 25% 25% 24%
54%

1.9% 0.4% 2.4% 2.0% 1.0% 1.4% 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 2.5% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%
1.5%

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation traffic counts and trends (2002-2007) Zonal socioeconomic data estimated for the Bryan County Travel Demand Model

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
31

The highest volume external station in the base year, Station Number 161/I-95 North, is also anticipated to have the most daily traffic in future year 2035. Daily traffic is forecast to grow 46% during the 2006 to 2035 time frame before reaching 99,000 vehicle trips per day in 2035. The next highest volume external station in 2035 is expected to be Station Number 163/I-16 South, where daily traffic is expected to increase by a total 80% margin to 88,000 vehicles per day. Both of these external stations are located in Chatham County. External stations where future year 2035 daily traffic was forecast to grow the most were: (1) Station Number 145/US17/SR25 South in Liberty County at 100%; (2) Station Number 152/I-16 North in Bulloch County at 100%; and, (3) Station Number 159/SR17 in Effingham County at 107%.

8.4 Baseline Travel Demand and Traffic Assignment

Modeled travel demand in Bryan County, measured in Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMT), increases by 65% from 2006 to 2035. This is the net result of a comparison between modeled base year 2006 data and data generated by the future year 2035 baseline scenario. The 2035 Baseline Scenario was defined as follows:
Assumed future year land uses and development as defined by the zonal 2035-level socioeconomic file described earlier;
No changes to the base year highway network except for a 2.0 mile widening of US17 between the Bryan County border and the Abercorn Extension/SR204 in Chatham County which enlarges the capacity on those arterial links from 2-lanes to 4-lanes; and,
The same traffic assignment methodology that was used for the base year model scenario.
Modeled DVMT for 2006 and the baseline 2035 scenario are displayed in Table 8-5 for South Bryan, North Bryan and by functional class system. DVMT figures do not represent travel demand on modeled network links in Bulloch County, Liberty County, Effingham County or Chatham County.

Table 8-5 Bryan County DVMT (2006 to 2035)

FUNCTIONAL SUBAREA CLASSIFICATION

SOUTH BRYAN

Freeways Arterials Collectors

NORTH BRYAN

Subtotal Freeways Arterials Collectors

Subtotal

ALL BRYAN COUNTY

2006 664,149 233,903
91,650 989,702 175,488 122,684
56,625 354,797
1,344,499

DVMT1
2035 1,024,041
354,732 193,812 1,572,585 397,330 184,688
69,038 651,056 2,223,641

% Change
54% 52% 111%
59% 126% 51% 22%
84%
65%

Source: Bryan County Travel Demand Model (1) Represents travel demand on roads inside Bryan County

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
32

Systemwide travel, not including Bryan County roads classified as "Local" streets, grows from 1.3 million vehicle miles in 2006 to 2.2 million vehicle miles in 2035. Approximately 1.6 million vehicle miles were assigned to roadway links in South Bryan and slightly less than 0.7 million vehicle miles to North Bryan roads. A large majority of travel demand in both South and North Bryan took place on the Interstate System. In South Bryan, 1.0 million of the 1.6 million total vehicle miles of travel was assigned to I-95 freeway links in 2035. In North Bryan, 0.4 million vehicle miles were assigned by the model to I-16 freeway links out of the 0.7 million total vehicle miles in the 2035 baseline scenario. The overall amount of additional travel demand between 2006 and 2035 was higher in South Bryan than North Bryan, although the relative DVMT growth rate in South Bryan was smaller than in North Bryan. South Bryan DVMT grew by 0.6 million vehicle miles from 2006 to 2035 while the amount of DVMT growth on North Bryan network links amounted to 0.3 million vehicle miles. In relative terms, the DVMT change of 84% in North Bryan between 2006 and 2035 exceeded the 59% rate of growth in South Bryan.
The amount of future year 2035 daily traffic assigned to study area network links under the baseline scenario is displayed using color codes and bandwidths in Figure 8-2. The most notable difference between the plot of 2006 and 2035 daily traffic is the extent to which sections of I-95 are highlighted by the highest volume legend symbol, denoting daily traffic volumes that exceed 70,000 vehicles per day. In the 2006 traffic assignment, the highest volume classification was limited to sections of I-95 between US80 in Chatham County and SR144/Ford Avenue in Bryan County. The baseline 2035 traffic assignment expands the number of I-95 sections exceeding 70,000 vehicles per day to all sections from US80 in Chatham County to US84/SR38 in Liberty County. Moreover, several sections of I-16 around I-95 in Chatham County also reach the highest volume group classification.
Other facilities in Bryan County underwent significant volume group changes between 2006 and 2035, although these shifts are not as apparent in the color-coded daily volume maps as those on I-95. All of SR144/Ford Avenue through Richmond Hill moved from the 10,00020,000 vehicles per day classification to the 20,000-30,000 volume group in 2035. Sections of US17/Coastal Highway located west of I-95 remained in the 20,000-30,000 vehicles per day range from 2006 to 2035. East of I-95, however, daily traffic on sections of US17 jumped from the 10,000-20,000 vehicles per day range in 2006 to the 20,000-30,000 category. Daily traffic increases on US17 east of I-95 were aided by including the US17 widening project in the 2035 baseline highway network. From US17/Coastal Highway to I-95, daily traffic on Belfast Siding Road was forecast to grow from the 1,000-5,000 vehicles per day range in 2006 to the 10,000-20,000 vehicles per day range in 2035.
Traffic volumes on roadways in North Bryan did not change as much as roads in South Bryan, but there were some shifts. Around the interchange with I-16, daily traffic volumes on US280/SR30 were projected to jump from the 5,000-10,000 vehicles per day range in 2006 to the 10,000-20,000 volume grouping in 2035. That particular traffic impact appears to be confined to sections of US280/SR30 around I-16 and the Interstate Center Industrial Park area. The 2035 baseline scenario traffic assignment indicates that some vehicle trips travelling from
Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
33

Figure 8-2 Modeled Daily Traffic Volumes (2035 Baseline Scenario)
Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
34

the Pembroke area toward Savannah on I-16 will change their routing in response to future congestion around the I-16/US280/SR30 interchange. The model assigned some of these trips to SR119/Treutlen Highway between Pembroke and I-16.

System-wide performance measures computed from the base year 2006 and 2035 baseline model scenarios indicate how changes in land use, travel patterns and the highway network affect mobility on the road system. Average daily roadway travel speed, shown in Table 8-6, was computed from the 2006 and 2035 model scenarios for all roads in the South and North Bryan subareas of Bryan County. In South Bryan, modeled average daily travel speed drops by 16% from 2006 to 2035 falling from 45.2 miles per hour to 37.8 miles per hour on all roads. The average travel speed change isnt so large in North Bryan. North Bryans average speed falls by 5% between 2006 and 2035, going from 46 miles per hour to 43.9 miles per hour for all roads. This is only a model statistic used to benchmark one aspect of mobility. It is reported herein only to illustrate how Bryan County Travel Demand Model information can be used and to benchmark system-level performance changes that would be expected from a model scenario that assumes no major transportation improvements during the 2006 to 2035 planning window.

Table 8-6 Systemwide Travel Speeds (2006 to 2035)

PERFORMANCE STATISTIC
DVMT1 DVHT2 AVG SPEED3

SOUTH BRYAN %
2006 2035 Change

NORTH BRYAN %
2006 2035 Change

989,702 1,572,585

21,905 41,553

45.2

37.8

59% 354,797 651,056

90% 7,719 14,828

-16%

46.0

43.9

84% 92% -5%

Notes, (1) DVMT - denotes daily vehicle miles of travel (2) DVHT - denotes daily vehicle hours of travel (3) Average speed is the computed average daily link speed in miles per hour for
the entire road network in specified subarea. Computed dividing DVMT by DVHT.

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
35

9.0 Appendix

Figure A-1 Trip Generation Process Diagram

Production and Attraction Trip Ends For Seven Trip Purposes (Unbalanced)
Production and Attraction Trip Ends (Balanced)
External-External Vehicle T-T For Pass. Cars (Unbalanced)

IN: 143 Zone Socioeconomic File I-E Trip Volumes at External Stations
OUT: 143 Zone P & A Trip Ends File (Unbalanced)
IN: 143 Zone P & A Trip Ends File (Unbalanced)
OUT: 143 Zone P & A Trip Ends File (Balanced)
IN: E-E Seed Matrix File for Pass. Cars OUT: E-E Vehicle T-T for Pass. Cars
(Unbalanced)

External-External Vehicle T-T For Pass. Cars (Balanced)

IN: E-E Vehicle T-T for Pass. Cars (Unbalanced) OUT: E-E Vehicle T-T for Pass. Cars (Balanced)

External-External Vehicle T-T For Trucks
(Unbalanced)

IN: E-E Seed Matrix File for Trucks
OUT: E-E Vehicle T-T for Trucks (Unbalanced)

External-External Vehicle T-T For Trucks (Balanced)

IN: E-E Vehicle T-T for Trucks (Unbalanced) OUT: E-E Vehicle T-T for Trucks (Balanced)

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
36

Figure A-2 Main Travel Demand Model Runstream

Initialize
Calc. Time Skim (Free-Flow)
Terminal Times Geo/Topo Penalties
Trip Distribution (Gravity 7 Purposes)
I-E Symmetry (Pass. Cars & Trucks)
Auto Occupancy
Pass. Car T-T (O-D Format)
Truck T-T (O-D Format)
Congested Time Skim
Daily Traffic Assignment

IN: Hwynet File OUT: Time Skim File 1
IN: Hwyskm File 1 OUT: Time Skim File 2
IN: Time Skim File 2 OUT: Time Skim File 3 IN: Time Skim File 3
P's & A's File Friction Factor File OUT: Person T-T 1 File
IN: Person T-T 1 File OUT: Person T-T 2 File
IN: Person T-T 2 File OUT: Vehicle T-T 1 File
IN: Vehicle T-T 1 (Pass. Cars Only) E-E Pass. Car T-T
OUT: Vehicle T-T (Pass. Cars)
IN: Vehicle T-T 1 (Trucks Only) E-E Truck T-T
OUT: Vehicle T-T (Trucks)
IN: Vehicle T-T (Pass. Cars) Vehicle T-T (Trucks) Hwynet File
OUT: Congested Time Skim
IN: Vehicle T-T (Pass. Cars) Vehicle T-T (Trucks) Hwynet File
OUT: Traffic Assignment (Daily Volumes) Network File

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
37

Table A-1 Screenline Comparisons and Link Deviations

SCREENLINES - Calibration/Validation Run No. 18.

Station Number Roadname
1 Ogeechee 1 Ogeechee 2 I-95 2 I-95 3 Fort Argyle 3 Fort Argyle 4 I-16 4 I-16 5 US80 5 US80
Subtotals
1 Colonels Island 1 Colonels Island 2 Belfast Siding 2 Belfast Siding 3 Tranquilla Hill 3 Tranquilla Hill 4 US17 4 US17 5 SR144 5 SR144 6 Abercorn Extention 6 Abercorn Extention 7 Little Neck 7 Little Neck 8 Quacco 8 Quacco 9 I-16 9 I-16 10 US80 10 US80
Subtotals
1 I-95 1 I-95 2 Coastal 2 US17 3 3 4 SR144 4 SR144 5 5

Facility Observed Modeled Modeled Modeled

Anode Bnode Type AADT

AADT Difference Ratio

Screenline No. 1 - Ogeechee River

2553 2594

11

9,545 8,750

-795

8.3%

2594 2553

11

9,545 8,290

-1,255 13.1%

2490 2528

1 41,200 41,320

120

0.3%

2526 2481

1 41,200 41,800

600

1.5%

1879 1924

15

2,105 1,980

-125

5.9%

1924 1879

15

2,105 2,190

85

4.0%

1656 1704

1 14,130 16,260

2,130 15.1%

1703 1630

1 14,130 16,440

2,310 16.3%

1580 1598

12

4,200 3,080

-1,120 26.7%

1598 1580

12

4,200 2,630

-1,570 37.4%

142,360 142,740

380

0.3%

Screenline No. 2 - I-95

1948 1980

16

1,350 1,620

270 20.0%

1980 1948

16

1,350 1,620

270 20.0%

2138 2173

16

1,290

870

-420 32.6%

2173 2138

16

1,290

880

-410 31.8%

2361 3139

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

3139 2361

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

2179 2213

11 12,130 8,620

-3,510 28.9%

2213 2179

11 12,130 9,370

-2,760 22.8%

2203 2228

12

8,100 8,340

240

3.0%

2228 2203

12

8,100 7,060

-1,040 12.8%

2410 2430

1 24,640 21,600

-3,040 12.3%

2411 2410

1 24,640 23,500

-1,140

4.6%

3074 3075

15

1,500

260

-1,240 82.7%

3075 3074

15

1,500

250

-1,250 83.3%

2734 2737

12

5,145 4,100

-1,045 20.3%

2737 2734

12

5,145 2,620

-2,525 49.1%

2897 2917

1 24,435 24,450

15

0.1%

2962 2884

1 24,435 24,450

15

0.1%

2934 2945

11 13,330 10,800

-2,530 19.0%

2945 2934

11 13,330 10,800

-2,530 19.0%

184,080 161,210 -22,870 12.4%

Screenline No. 3 - Liberty County

2016 2053

1 24,010 22,400

-1,610

6.7%

2047 2013

1 24,010 22,420

-1,590

6.6%

1733 1740

11 10,300 14,100

3,800 36.9%

1737 1728

11 10,300 14,030

3,730 36.2%

1535 1549

19

250

10

-240 96.0%

1549 1535

19

250

10

-240 96.0%

1342 1356

12

2,805 2,770

-35

1.2%

1356 1342

12

2,805 2,770

-35

1.2%

1126 1173

19

120

40

-80 66.7%

1173 1126

19

120

40

-80 66.7%

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
38

Table A-1 Screenline Comparisons and Link Deviations (Continued)

SCREENLINES - Calibration/Validation Run No. 18.

Station Number Roadname
6 6 7 SR119 7 SR119 8 8 9 US280 9 US280
Subtotals
1 Groveland Nevils 1 Groveland Nevils 2 SR67 2 SR67 3 Ash Branch Church 3 Ash Branch Church 4 SR119 4 SR119 5 Bill Futch 5 Bill Futch 6 I-16 6 I-16 7 US80 7 US80 8 Eldora 8 Eldora
Subtotals
1 Bryan Neck 1 Bryan Neck 2 Belfast Keller 2 Belfast Keller 3 Belfast Keller 3 Belfast Keller 4 I-95 4 I-95 5 US17 5 US17 6 SR144 6 SR144 7 SR67 7 SR67 8 Bacon 8 Bacon 9 George Edwards 9 George Edwards

Facility Observed Modeled Modeled Modeled

Anode Bnode Type AADT

AADT Difference Ratio

692 775

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

775 692

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

590 595

12

0 1,190

1,190 #DIV/0!

595 590

12

0 1,190

1,190 #DIV/0!

407 411

19

120

70

-50 41.7%

411 407

19

120

70

-50 41.7%

348 349

11

1,975 1,600

-375 19.0%

349 348

11

1,975 1,600

-375 19.0%

79,400 84,310

4,910

6.2%

Screenline No. 4 - Bulloch County

356 368

16

315

400

85 27.0%

368 356

16

315

400

85 27.0%

528 540

12

1,175

710

-465 39.6%

540 528

12

1,175

710

-465 39.6%

801 802

15

80

250

170 212.5%

802 801

15

80

250

170 212.5%

954 959

12

575

580

5

0.9%

959 954

12

575

580

5

0.9%

1048 1795

16

0

120

120 #DIV/0!

1795 1048

16

0

130

130 #DIV/0!

1027 1066

1 11,130 11,890

760

6.8%

1068 1033

1 11,130 12,490

1,360 12.2%

1150 1153

12

1,540 1,580

40

2.6%

1153 1150

12

1,540

980

-560 36.4%

1409 3140

15

1,335 1,020

-315 23.6%

3140 1409

15

1,335 1,020

-315 23.6%

32,300 33,110

810

2.5%

Screenline No. 5 - Central Bryan

2767 2776

15

980 1,270

290 29.6%

2776 2767

15

980 1,260

280 28.6%

2604 2662

16

1,055

320

-735 69.7%

2662 2604

16

1,055

320

-735 69.7%

1757 2512

16

400

250

-150 37.5%

2512 1757

16

400

250

-150 37.5%

2165 2204

1 24,010 22,400

-1,610

6.7%

2199 2172

1 24,010 22,420

-1,590

6.6%

2048 2070

11 12,550 15,080

2,530 20.2%

2070 2048

11 12,550 14,990

2,440 19.4%

1619 1681

12

2,805 2,750

-55

2.0%

1681 1619

12

2,805 2,750

-55

2.0%

860 867

15

90

190

100 111.1%

867 860

15

90

190

100 111.1%

840 871

11

3,825 4,270

445 11.6%

871 840

11

3,825 4,260

435 11.4%

858 1916

19

120

110

-10

8.3%

1916 858

19

120

110

-10

8.3%

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
39

Table A-1 Screenline Comparisons and Link Deviations (Continued)

SCREENLINES - Calibration/Validation Run No. 18.

Station

Facility Observed Modeled Modeled Modeled

Number Roadname

Anode Bnode Type AADT

AADT Difference Ratio

10 SR119

872 899

12

865 1,010

145 16.8%

10 SR119

899 872

12

865 1,010

145 16.8%

11 I-16

889 901

1 10,980 11,680

700

6.4%

11 I-16

904 890

1 10,980 11,680

700

6.4%

12 SR46

892 894

15

425

40

-385 90.6%

12 SR46

894 892

15

425

40

-385 90.6%

Subtotals

116,210 118,650

2,440

2.1%

Screenline No. 6 - Pembroke-Blitchton

1 Moody Bridge

385 387

19

120

10

-110 91.7%

1 Moody Bridge

387 385

19

120

10

-110 91.7%

2 Harn

657 675

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

2 Harn

675 657

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

3 Main

730 736

12

0 1,070

1,070 #DIV/0!

3 Main

736 730

12

0 1,070

1,070 #DIV/0!

4 College

750 753

15

800

870

70

8.8%

4 College

753 750

15

800

870

70

8.8%

5 Little Creek

1012 1014

19

120

430

310 258.3%

5 Little Creek

1014 1012

19

120

430

310 258.3%

6 Porterfield

1296 1298

19

120

10

-110 91.7%

6 Porterfield

1298 1296

19

120

10

-110 91.7%

7 I-16

1388 1433

1 14,130 16,260

2,130 15.1%

7 I-16

1435 1389

1 14,130 16,440

2,310 16.3%

8 US80

1674 1688

12

4,200 3,080

-1,120 26.7%

8 US80

1688 1674

12

4,200 2,630

-1,570 37.4%

Subtotals

39,220 43,190

3,970 10.1%

Screenline No. 8 - Ft. Stewart & NW Chatham

1 US84

1112 1118

12

3,785 1,500

-2,285 60.4%

1 US84

1118 1112

12

3,785 1,500

-2,285 60.4%

2 SR196

1133 1162

11

6,645 9,790

3,145 47.3%

2 SR196

1162 1133

11

6,645 9,790

3,145 47.3%

3 Fleming Loop

1539 1546

19

600

280

-320 53.3%

3 Fleming Loop

1546 1539

19

600

280

-320 53.3%

4 Cartertown

1825 1855

19

120

80

-40 33.3%

4 Cartertown

1855 1825

19

120

270

150 125.0%

5 Clarktown

1915 1923

19

120

200

80 66.7%

5 Clarktown

1923 1915

19

120

0

-120 100.0%

6 Daniel Siding

1996 2011

19

120

200

80 66.7%

6 Daniel Siding

2011 1996

19

120

200

80 66.7%

7 SR144

2045 2104

12

2,805 2,740

-65

2.3%

7 SR144

2104 2045

12

2,805 2,750

-55

2.0%

8 Fort Argyle

2306 2311

15

3,730 2,250

-1,480 39.7%

8 Fort Argyle

2311 2306

15

3,730 2,000

-1,730 46.4%

9 Little Neck

2388 2403

15

1,500 1,050

-450 30.0%

9 Little Neck

2403 2388

15

1,500

780

-720 48.0%

10 I-16

2419 2495

1 26,350 21,690

-4,660 17.7%

10 I-16

3093 2425

1 26,350 22,200

-4,150 15.7%

11 US80

2567 2621

12

9,045 6,610

-2,435 26.9%

11 US80

2621 2567

12

9,045 6,500

-2,545 28.1%

Subtotals

109,640 92,660 -16,980 15.5%

ALL SCREENLINES

703,210 675,870 -27,340 3.9%

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
40

Table A-2 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Base Year 2006

-

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

1

1 426

4402

22

826

0

0

848 1025

547 45809

1

2

2 221

0

0

55

0

0

55

658

163 45809

1

3

3 393

0

34

69

0

0

103 1141

369 45809

1

4

4 107

0

0

82

0

0

82

337 2252 45809

1

5

5

0

0

45

388

31

21

485

0

139 45809

1

6

6 238

0

95

220

0

0

315

779 1006 45809

1

7

7 250

0

0

21

0

0

21

499 1147 45809

1

8

8 1182

0

13

289

0

0

302 3376

368 45809

1

9

9 124

0

13

110

16

33

172

416

840 45809

1

10

10 183

0

123

103

13

0

239

563 1470 45809

1

11

11

0

0

59

199

0

0

258

0

68 45809

1

12

12 180

0

0

186

0

0

186

513

481 45809

1

13

13 122

0

59

192

0

21

272

392

600 45809

1

14

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

299 45809

1

15

15 172

0

0

0

0

0

0

524

236 71875

1

16

16 181

0

0

0

0

0

0

579 1096 71875

1

17

17

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

236 45809

1

18

18

59

0

0

14

0

0

14

194 1067 45809

1

19

19 770

0

0

24

0

0

24 2397 3731 71875

1

20

20

0

0

0

110

26

62

198

0

193 45809

1

21

21

3

0

21

109

0

0

130

8

60 45809

1

22

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

635 71875

1

23

23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1109 71875

1

24

24

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

7 2181 71875

1

25

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

393 71875

1

26

26

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

7 1269 71875

1

27

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

998 71875

1

28

28

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

592 71875

1

29

29 109

0

0

0

0

0

0

315 1810 71875

1

30

30 210

0

20

15

0

0

35

669 2702 71875

1

31

31 316

0

20

15

0

0

35 1059 3815 71875

1

32

32 236

0

0

45

0

0

45

710 7947 71875

1

33

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 4078 71875

1

34

34

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

33 2303 71875

1

35

35

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

18 3843 71875

1

36

36

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

104 2024 71875

1

37

37

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

43 1316 71875

1

38

38 207

0

0

0

0

0

0

574 4342 71875

1

39

39 151

0

0

0

0

0

0

459

557 71875

1

40

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1797 71875

1

41

41 234

0

0

0

0

0

0

691 12661 71875

1

42

42

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

5 3013 71875

1

43

43

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2666 71875

1

44

44

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

354 71875

1

45

45

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

139 71875

1

46

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80 71875

1

47

47

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

195 71875

1

48

48

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

783 71875

1

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
41

Table A-2 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Base Year 2006 (Continued)

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

49

49

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

434 45809

1

50

50

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

11 1944 71875

1

51

51

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

550 71875

1

52

52

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

457 45809

1

53

53

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

335 45809

1

54

54 169

0

0

15

0

0

15

458

471 71875

1

55

55 194

0

0

5

0

0

5

594

340 71875

1

56

56 132

0

0

5

0

0

5

344

282 71875

1

57

57

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2544

0

3

58

58

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2502

0

3

59

59

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

43 3474 71875

1

60

60

48

0

0

0

0

0

0

140 1178 71875

1

61

61

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

202 71875

1

62

62

70

0

0

0

0

0

0

224 1362 71875

1

63

63

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2767

0

3

64

64

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2452

0

3

65

65

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1703

0

3

66

66

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 9498

0

3

67

67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 10506

0

3

68

68

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2132

0

3

69

69

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 7698

0

3

70

70

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 7351

0

3

71

71

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 19165

0

3

72

72

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 4167

0

3

73

73 118

0

0

0

0

0

0

361 4855 31194

2

74

74

70

0

8

7

0

0

15

175 4191 31194

2

75

75 239

0

0

3

0

0

3

710 4324 31194

2

76

76

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 10681

0

3

77

77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 17010

0

3

78

78

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 9001

0

3

79

79

96

0

0

0

0

0

0

294 2166 31194

2

80

80 485

533

8

60

0

0

68 1300 3155 34719

2

81

81 368

0

20

50

161

0

231 1080 6385 31194

2

82

82 148

0

8

28

0

62

98

333 3921 31194

2

83

83 224

0

22

0

0

0

22

570 5570 34719

2

84

84

55

0

0

0

0

0

0

146 2162 34719

2

85

85

54

0

0

0

0

0

0

137

762 34719

2

86

86 333

0

8

68

0

0

76

991 4392 34719

2

87

87

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

92 2232 34719

2

88

88 199

0

8

6

0

62

76

594

972 34719

2

89

89 102

0

8

72

0

0

80

258 3008 34719

2

90

90 166

0

0

0

0

0

0

491 3000 36713

2

91

91

87

0

0

0

0

0

0

265 6317 36713

2

92

92

37

0

0

0

0

0

0

118

674 36713

2

93

93

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 2310 36713

2

94

94

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

99 5176 36713

2

95

95

30

0

0

2

0

0

2

102 2681 31194

2

96

96

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

964 31194

2

97

97 176

0

24

127

28

0

179

558 3608 31194

2

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
42

Table A-2 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Base Year 2006 (Continued)

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

98

98

81

0

6

0

0

0

6

240 6735 34719

2

99

99 131

916

40

203

29

14

286

372 2552 36713

2

100 100 271

378

0

187

0

0

187

798

842 36713

2

101 101

41

0

0

5

0

0

5

111 2378 36713

2

102 102 228

0

0

63

9

0

72

649

888 36713

2

103 103 207

0

81

67

30

0

178

506 2577 36713

2

104 104 223

0

40

52

0

0

92

628

223 28611

2

105 105

81

0

0

22

0

0

22

247 1329 36713

2

106 106 453

0

5

9

0

0

14 1144 2151 35442

4

107 107 453

0

5

9

0

0

14 1144

428 35442

4

108 108 378

0

9

17

0

0

26

953 4312 35442

4

109 109

16

0

0

20

0

0

20

29 10002 26111

4

110 110 150

0

0

121

0

0

121

399 2064 35286

4

111 111 293

1576

6

111

0

0

117 1051 9320 35286

4

112 112 226

0

22

41

0

0

63

572 3484 35442

4

113 113

66

0

0

0

0

0

0

169 1120 31467

4

114 114

71

0

0

0

0

0

0

232 2934 35286

4

115 115

38

0

5

12

0

0

17

110 2942 31467

4

116 116 1520

0

544

717

0

94

1355 3717 3882 31005

4

117 117

87

1659

600

664

0

0

1263

238 1426 43069

4

118 118 677

0

153

183

0

0

336 1652 4614 30092

4

119 119 530

125

88

354

0

0

442 1150 1170 45265

4

120 120 801

196

149

286

0

0

435 1971 9496 30684

4

121 121 662

0

44

171

0

12

227 1685 1638 31342

4

122 122 298

0

250

641

0

0

891

768 4856 50190

4

123 123 271

0

0

62

0

0

62

761 1607 48515

4

124 124 468

0

0

5

0

0

5 1350 2872 60875

4

125 125 239

0

0

41

0

0

41

574 3192 54958

4

126 126 491

143

44

328

0

0

372 1235

968 40265

4

127 127 1080

1473

263

600

0

24

887 3095

920 44526

4

128 128 753

0

100

353

0

12

464 1876 1020 53749

4

129 129 126

0

0

0

0

0

0

264 2498 40916

4

130 130 209

0

15

31

0

0

46

542 2625 37288

4

131 131

94

0

0

0

0

0

0

233

648 47045

4

132 132 243

0

0

8

0

0

8

406 1362 26125

4

133 133

40

0

0

30

0

0

30

143

597 46475

4

134 134 156

0

9

300

0

0

309

558 2177 46475

4

135 135 305

0

9

450

492

0

951 1092 2442 46475

4

136 136 377

0

30

42

2

2

76

596 2305 39880

4

137 137 125

0

0

0

0

0

0

198

586 39880

4

138 138

85

0

0

20

0

0

20

260 9026 39880

4

139 139

75

0

0

15

0

0

15

240 4693 39880

4

140 140

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

260 39880

4

141 141

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

145 39880

4

142 142

25

0

0

5

0

0

5

80 1295 39880

4

143 143

60

0

20

25

0

0

45

190 2096 39880

4

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
43

Table A-3 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Future Year 2035 Baseline

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

1

1 437

5012

22

826

0

0

848 1051

547 45809

1

2

2 227

0

0

55

0

0

55

674

163 45809

1

3

3 403

0

61

189

0

0

250 1170

369 45809

1

4

4 126

0

0

203

0

0

203

383 2252 45809

1

5

5

0

0

45

388

31

21

485

0

139

0

1

6

6 244

0

95

220

0

0

315

798 1006 45809

1

7

7 308

0

0

136

0

0

136

629 1147 45809

1

8

8 1212

0

13

289

0

0

302 3409

368 45809

1

9

9 153

0

213

447

16

33

709

476

840 45809

1

10

10 226

0

159

226

13

0

398

646 1470 45809

1

11

11

0

0

59

199

0

0

258

0

68

0

1

12

12 221

0

50

417

0

0

467

596

481 45809

1

13

13 125

0

91

392

0

21

504

402

600 45809

1

14

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

299

0

1

15

15 258

0

0

0

0

0

0

763

236 71875

1

16

16 222

0

0

0

0

0

0

690 1096 71875

1

17

17

55

0

0

100

0

0

100

108

236 45809

1

18

18 214

0

0

14

0

0

14

537 1067 45809

1

19

19 789

0

0

24

0

0

24 2410 3731 71875

1

20

20

0

0

0

260

26

62

348

0

193

0

1

21

21

3

0

47

383

0

0

430

8

60 45809

1

22

22

84

0

0

0

0

0

0

219

635 71875

1

23

23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1109

0

1

24

24 218

0

0

0

0

0

0

524 2181 71875

1

25

25 338

0

33

83

0

0

116

607

393 71875

1

26

26 249

2408

49

367

0

16

432

484 1269 71875

1

27

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

998

0

1

28

28 206

0

0

0

0

0

0

517

592 71875

1

29

29 238

0

49

206

0

20

275

571 1810 71875

1

30

30 215

0

20

15

0

0

35

686 2702 71875

1

31

31 789

0

20

15

0

0

35 2036 3815 71875

1

32

32 1716

0

0

45

0

0

45 3554 7947 71875

1

33

33 103

0

0

0

0

0

0

205 4078 71875

1

34

34 297

0

0

0

0

0

0

584 2303 71875

1

35

35

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

18 3843 71875

1

36

36 1361

0

0

0

0

0

0 2636 2024 71875

1

37

37

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

44 1316 71875

1

38

38 212

0

0

0

0

0

0

588 4342 71875

1

39

39 230

0

0

0

0

0

0

620

557 71875

1

40

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1797

0

1

41

41 240

0

0

0

0

0

0

708 12661 71875

1

42

42

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

5 3013 71875

1

43

43 100

0

0

0

0

0

0

180 2666 45809

1

44

44 100

0

0

0

0

0

0

180

354 45809

1

45

45

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

139

0

1

46

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

0

1

47

47

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

195

0

1

48

48

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

783

0

1

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
44

Table A-3 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Future Year 2035 Baseline (Continued)

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

49

49

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

434

0

1

50

50

45

0

24

50

0

0

74

97 1944 71875

1

51

51

62

0

24

113

0

0

137

141

550 71875

1

52

52

0

0

49

206

0

20

275

0

457

0

1

53

53

0

0

49

376

0

20

445

0

335

0

1

54

54 173

0

0

129

0

0

129

469

471 71875

1

55

55 199

0

0

118

0

0

118

609

340 71875

1

56

56 135

0

0

5

0

0

5

353

282 71875

1

57

57

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2544

0

3

58

58

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2502

0

3

59

59 177

0

173

529

0

0

702

449 3474 71875

1

60

60 100

0

48

295

0

0

343

272 1178 71875

1

61

61

59

0

0

0

0

0

0

137

202 71875

1

62

62 149

0

0

40

0

0

40

422 1362 71875

1

63

63

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2767

0

3

64

64

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2452

0

3

65

65

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1703

0

3

66

66

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 9498

0

3

67

67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 10506

0

3

68

68

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2132

0

3

69

69

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 7698

0

3

70

70

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 7351

0

3

71

71

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 19165

0

3

72

72

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 4167

0

3

73

73 172

0

0

0

0

0

0

514 4855 31194

2

74

74

72

0

8

7

0

0

15

179 4191 31194

2

75

75 296

0

0

3

0

0

3

861 4324 31194

2

76

76

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 10681

0

3

77

77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 17010

0

3

78

78

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 9001

0

3

79

79

98

0

0

0

0

0

0

301 2166 31194

2

80

80 612

746

52

286

0

0

338 1666 3155 34719

2

81

81 541

0

96

424

87

193

800 1501 6385 31194

2

82

82 152

0

61

375

45

343

824

341 3921 31194

2

83

83 332

0

22

0

0

0

22

866 5570 34719

2

84

84

56

0

52

369

29

275

725

150 2162 34719

2

85

85

55

0

0

0

0

0

0

140

762 34719

2

86

86 393

0

8

68

0

0

76 1162 4392 34719

2

87

87

37

0

0

0

0

0

0

94 2232 34719

2

88

88 255

0

105

475

40

211

831

752

972 34719

2

89

89 156

0

29

244

0

0

273

406 3008 34719

2

90

90 191

0

0

0

0

0

0

550 3000 36713

2

91

91

89

0

0

0

0

0

0

272 6317 36713

2

92

92

38

0

0

0

0

0

0

121

674 36713

2

93

93

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 2310 36713

2

94

94

34

0

0

0

0

0

0

101 5176 36713

2

95

95

62

0

0

28

0

0

28

175 2681 31194

2

96

96

30

0

5

26

0

0

31

72

964 36713

2

97

97 216

0

38

200

28

0

266

655 3608 31194

2

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
45

Table A-3 Zonal Socioeconomic Data for Future Year 2035 Baseline (Continued)

N

Z

HH SCHOOL RETAIL SERVICE MANUF WHOLE TOTEMP POP ACRES INCOME SECTOR

98

98

83

0

6

0

0

0

6

246 6735 34719

2

99

99 175

1939

61

303

141

14

519

476 2552 36713

2

100 100 298

656

0

232

0

0

232

865

842 36713

2

101 101

88

0

0

5

0

0

5

220 2378 36713

2

102 102 280

0

0

95

9

0

104

772

888 36713

2

103 103 212

0

94

100

30

0

224

519 2577 36713

2

104 104 229

0

40

52

0

0

92

644

223 28611

2

105 105

83

0

0

50

0

0

50

253 1329 36713

2

106 106 453

0

105

240

0

0

345 1144 2151 35442

4

107 107 453

0

105

240

0

0

345 1144

428 35442

4

108 108 378

0

77

163

0

0

240

953 4312 35442

4

109 109

16

0

0

51

330

0

381

29 10002 26111

4

110 110 274

0

0

231

0

0

231

729 2064 35286

4

111 111 293

1615

14

135

0

0

149 1051 9320 35286

4

112 112 226

0

35

81

0

0

116

572 3484 35442

4

113 113

66

0

0

0

0

0

0

169 1120 31467

4

114 114

71

0

0

0

0

0

0

232 2934 35286

4

115 115

38

0

24

39

0

0

63

110 2942 31467

4

116 116 1689

0

630

673

0

186

1489 3873 3882 31005

4

117 117 216

1905

690

426

0

148

1264

551 1426 43069

4

118 118 1769

0

312

463

0

0

775 4053 4614 30092

4

119 119 530

513

152

334

0

0

486 1149 1170 45265

4

120 120 2361

274

301

571

0

0

872 5619 9496 30684

4

121 121 1012

0

51

183

0

17

251 2485 1638 31342

4

122 122 987

0 1000

2143

0

0

3143 2490 4856 50190

4

123 123 504

0

0

66

0

0

66 1433 1607 48515

4

124 124 750

0

0

6

0

0

6 1974 2872 60875

4

125 125 585

0

0

44

0

0

44 1352 3192 54958

4

126 126 847

586

51

351

0

0

402 2039

968 40265

4

127 127 1376

1692

302

643

0

34

979 3781

920 44526

4

128 128 752

0

199

269

0

68

536 1875 1020 53749

4

129 129 303

0

0

0

0

0

0

592 2498 40916

4

130 130 598

0

17

33

0

0

50 1518 2625 37288

4

131 131 314

0

0

0

0

0

0

761

648 47045

4

132 132 272

0

0

14

0

0

14

767 1362 26125

4

133 133 139

0

0

110

0

0

110

395

597 46475

4

134 134 156

0

22

880

275

165

1342

558 2177 46475

4

135 135 317

0

20

1375 1100

165

2660

792 2442 46475

4

136 136 623

0

57

85

2

1

145 1558 2305 39880

4

137 137 914

0

0

0

0

0

0 2501

586 46475

4

138 138 109

0

0

29

0

0

29

333 9026 39880

4

139 139

96

0

0

22

0

0

22

308 4693 39880

4

140 140

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

52

260 39880

4

141 141

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

52

145 39880

4

142 142

32

0

0

8

0

0

8

103 1295 39880

4

143 143

77

0

29

36

0

0

65

244 2096 39880

4

Bryan County Travel Demand Model An Introduction
46

Appendix C: Cost Estimation

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_I-95_WIDE

PI # BRYAN_I95_WIDE TPRO Description: I-95 INSIDE WIDENING FROM I-16 TO SR 196 (4 TO 6

LANES WITH BARRIER WALL)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # 511035

Length: 9.4 miles

Width assumed: 44 feet Concept: 8 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $8,441,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: For Interstates with 6 or more existing lanes, the widening template should be used for the construction of the extra lanes and shoulders. New construction include 2 lanes at 12' + 2 inside shoulders at 10' Total 44'

Resurfacing Existing Lanes: Resurfacing width include 6 lanes at 12' + 2 outside shoulders at 12' Total 96'

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_US17_WD

PI # BRYAN_US17_WD TPRO Description: US17/SR25 WIDENING FROM SR 196 to I-95 (4 TO 6

LANES WITH 20-FT RAISED MEDIAN)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: 4.8 miles

Width assumed: 89 feet Concept: 6 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $32,298,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: New Travel Lanes includes inside and outside shoulders + curb & gutter are assumed Total 89'

Earthwork Percent Assumptions: Changed statewide default value of 75% to 25% to reflect relatively minimal earth work required for generally flat coastal Georgia region.

Bridge #1

PI # BRYAN_US17_BRG2 Description: Bridge over water Bridge Length: .04 miles Bridge Width assumed: 118 feet Bridge crosses over (Roadway, Rail or Water): Water CES Cost Estimate = $948,879.36 (bridge widening only)

Concept: Bridge Widening

Bridge Width Assumptions: 72' Travel Lanes 46' Outside shoulders, inside shoulders and parapet
Total 32' (minus the 86 feet of current existing bridge) 32 new bridge width needed

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) All turn lanes are assumed to have the same unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate as the main widening project to produce a more accurate planning level cost estimate. These units costs are: Asphalt: $54.06001 per ton Base/Aggregate: $12.80506

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection improvement at US 17 at Daniel Siding Loop Road Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 275' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection improvement at US 17 at Belfast Siding Road

Bryan County Transportation Study Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #3 Description: Intersection improvement at US 17 at SR 196 Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: State Route Speed (Low/High): High Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 3 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 3

Median (Narrow/Wide): Wide

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 7 Total length: 0.6761 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $822,112.83 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 7 Total length: 0.5966 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $621,808.88

Traffic Signals
Signal #1 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at US 17 at Daniel Siding Loop Road CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #2 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at US 17 at Belfast Siding Road CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #3 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at US 17 at SR 196 CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_SR144_WD1

PI # BRYAN_SR144_WD1 TPRO Description: SR144 WIDENING FROM TIMBER TRAIL TO

BELFAST KELLER ROAD (2 TO 4 LANES WITH 44-FT GRASS MEDIAN)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # 532370

Length: 4.5 miles

Width assumed: 65 feet Concept: 4 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $21,157,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: New Travel Lanes includes inside and outside shoulders + curb & gutter are assumed Total 65'

Earthwork Percent Assumptions: Changed statewide default value of 75% to 25% to reflect relatively minimal earth work required for generally flat coastal Georgia region.

Bridge #1

PI # BRYAN_SR144_BRG Description: Bridge over Sterling Creek Bridge Length: .02 miles Bridge Width assumed: 71 feet Concept: Bridge Widening Bridge crosses over (Roadway, Rail or Water): Water CES Cost Estimate = $355,829.76 (bridge widening only)

Bridge Width Assumptions: 48' Travel Lanes 23' Outside shoulders, inside shoulders and parapet
Total 24' (minus the 47 feet of current existing bridge) 24 new bridge width needed

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) All turn lanes are assumed to have the same unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate as the main widening project to produce a more accurate planning level cost estimate. These units costs are: Asphalt: $55.46025 per ton Base/Aggregate: $14.70122

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection Improvements at SR 144 at Timber Trail Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Median (Narrow/Wide): Wide

Intersection #2

Bryan County Transportation Study Description: Intersection improvement at SR 144 at Belfast Keller Road Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 275' / 12' Quantity 2
Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3864 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $441.774.06 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3408 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $333,976.62
Traffic Signals
Signal #1 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at SR 144 at Timber Trail CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #2 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at SR 144 at Belfast Keller Road CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_US 280_WD

PI # BRYAN_US280_WD2 TPRO Description: US280/SR30 WIDENING INTERSTATE CENTRE (2

TO 4 LANES WITH 20-FT RAISED MEDIAN) Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # 0004799

Length: 1.0 miles

Width assumed: 65 feet Concept: 4 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $6,741,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: New Travel Lanes includes inside and outside shoulders + curb & gutter are assumed Total 65'

Earthwork Percent Assumptions: Changed statewide default value of 75% to 25% to reflect relatively minimal earth work required for generally flat coastal Georgia region.

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) All turn lanes are assumed to have the same unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate as the main widening project to produce a more accurate planning level cost estimate. These units costs are: Asphalt: $61.38752 per ton Base/Aggregate: $25.43824

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection improvement at US 280 at Interstate Centre Entrance West of I-16 Interchange Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection improvement at US 280 at Interstate Centre Entrance East of I-16 Interchange Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Wide Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3864 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $627,448.66 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3408 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $486,796.21

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_CR131_WD2

PI # BRYAN_CR131_WD2 TPRO Description: CR 131 (HARRIS TRAILROAD) WIDENING FROM

PORT ROYAL ROAD TO BELFAST KELLER ROAD (2 TO 4 LANES WITH 20-FT RAISED MEDIAN)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: 2.9 miles

Width assumed: 65 feet Concept: 4 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $14,685,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: New Travel Lanes includes inside and outside shoulders + curb & gutter are assumed Total 65'

Earthwork Percent Assumptions: Changed statewide default value of 75% to 25% to reflect relatively minimal earth work required for generally flat coastal Georgia region.

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) All turn lanes are assumed to have the same unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate as the main widening project to produce a more accurate planning level cost estimate. These units costs are: Asphalt: $57.12993 per ton Base/Aggregate: $17.25505

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection improvement at Harris Trail Road at Port Royal Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of Non-SR with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 275' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection improvement at Harris Trail Road at Belfast Keller Road Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of Non-SR with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 275' / 12' Quantity 2

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3864 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $469,848.19 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3408 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $355,200.37

Traffic Signals

Bryan County Transportation Study Signal #1 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at Harris Trail Road at Port Royal Road CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #2 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at Harris Trail Road at Belfast Keller Road CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_CR90_WD

PI # BRYAN_CR90_WD TPRO Description: CR 90 (BELFAST SIDING ROAD) WIDENING FROM

US 17 TO PARK HILL 20 ROAD (2 TO 4 LANES WITH 20-FT RAISED MEDIAN)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: 5.7 miles

Width assumed: 65 feet Concept: 4 Travel Lanes + outside and inside shoulders

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $33,832,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: New Travel Lanes includes inside and outside shoulders + curb & gutter are assumed Total 65'

Earthwork Percent Assumptions: Changed statewide default value of 75% to 25% to reflect relatively minimal earth work required for generally flat coastal Georgia region.

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) All turn lanes are assumed to have the same unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate as the main widening project to produce a more accurate planning level cost estimate. These units costs are: Asphalt: $54.58221 per ton Base/Aggregate: $13.48736

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection Improvements at Belfast Siding Road at US 17 Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of Non-SR with: State Route Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 2 Total length: 0.1932 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $283,590.70 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 2 Total length: 0.1704 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $226,843.15

Traffic Signals
Signal #1 Description: New Signal / Signal Replacement at Belfast Siding Road at US 17 CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_I95/SR144

PI # BRYAN_I95/SR144 TPRO Description: I-95 AT SR 144 INTERCHANGE UPGRADE)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: N/A

Width assumed: N/A Concept: Provide additional storage at all approaches at

eastbound and westbound ramp intersections

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $2,470,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: Addition of one eastbound 12' lane + 6.5'outside shoulder Total 18.5' Unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate were calculated based on LT lane costs because they were lower than the cost of widening. Asphalt: $71.52064 per ton Base/Aggregate: $58.04815

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) Unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate were calculated based on LT lane costs for consistency: Asphalt: $71.52064 per ton Base/Aggregate: $58.04815

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 17 at I-95 Westbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 3 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 17 at I-95 Eastbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 2 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 5 Total length: 0.4830 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $1,054,061.16 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3408 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $637,487.31

Traffic Signals

Signal #1 Description: New Signal at SR 144 at I-95 Eastbound Ramp CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_I95/US17

PI # BRYAN_I95/US17 TPRO Description: I-95 AT US17 INTERCHANGE UPGRADE)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: N/A

Width assumed: N/A Concept: Provide additional storage at all approaches at

northbound and southbound ramp intersections

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $3.323,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Widening Width Assumptions: Addition of one eastbound 12' lane + 6.5'outside shoulder Total 18.5' Unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate were calculated based on LT lane costs because they were lower than the cost of widening. Asphalt: $71.52064 per ton Base/Aggregate: $58.04815

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) Unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate were calculated based on LT lane costs for consistency: Asphalt: $69.28692 per ton Base/Aggregate: $48.90743

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 17 at I-95 Westbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 0 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 0

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 17 at I-95 Eastbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 0 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 0

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type B: 510' by 14' Quantity 8 Total length: 0.7728 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $1,686,497.86 Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.3408 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $578,811.24

Traffic Signals Signal #1

Bryan County Transportation Study Description: New Signal at US 17 at I-95 Northbound Ramp CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #1 Description: New Signal at US 17 at I-95 Southbound Ramp CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_I16/US280

PI # BRYAN_I95/US17 TPRO Description: I-95 AT US17 INTERCHANGE UPGRADE)

Date estimate done: 6/16/2009

Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG

Let With: PI # __________ (if applicable)

Length: N/A

Width assumed: N/A Concept: Provide additional storage at all approaches at

northbound and southbound ramp intersections

Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $767,000

Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Intersection Improvements (Turn lanes) Unit costs per ton for Asphalt and Base/Aggregate were calculated based on LT lane costs for consistency: Asphalt: $72.60621 per ton Base/Aggregate: $62.96768

Intersection #1 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 280 at I-16 Northbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 0 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Intersection #2 Description: Intersection Improvements at US 280 at I-16 Southbound Ramp Includes Left and/or Right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection of State Route with: Non-SR Speed (Low/High): High Median (Narrow/Wide): Narrow Left turn lanes: 510' / 14' Quantity 0 Right turn lanes: 450' / 12' Quantity 2

Total number of turn lanes by Type: Type F: 450' by 12' Quantity 4 Total length: 0.1704 miles Total CES Cost Estimate: $416,554.08

Traffic Signals
Signal #1 Description: New Signal at US 17 at I-95 Northbound Ramp CES Cost Estimate = $125,000
Signal #1 Description: New Signal at US 17 at I-95 Southbound Ramp CES Cost Estimate = $125,000

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_US80_BRG

PI # BRYAN_US80_BRG TPRO Description: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON US 80 OVER OGEECHEE RIVER Date estimate done: 6/16/2009 Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG Bridge Length: 0.26 miles (1350 feet) Bridge Width assumed: 47 feet Concept: Bridge Replacement Bridge crosses over WATER CES Cost Estimate = $ 3,344,939.63 (bridge widening only)
Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $4,756,000
Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Bridge Width Assumptions:
24' Travel Lanes 23' for outside shoulders/guardrails, parapets. right and left Total 47' 47 feet new bridge width needed

Approaches should be improved for a distance of 1,250 feet on each approach:

Length: 0.47 miles

Width assumed: 47 feet

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_OB_BRG
PI # BRYAN_OB_BRG TPRO Description: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON OLIVE BRANCH ROAD OVER I-16 Date estimate done: 6/16/2009 Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG Bridge Length: 0.046 miles (300 feet) Bridge Width assumed: 47 feet Concept: Bridge Replacement Bridge crosses over ROAD CES Cost Estimate = $ 3,344,939.63 (bridge widening only)
Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $4,756,000
Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN
Bridge Width Assumptions: 24' Travel Lanes 23' for outside shoulders/guardrails, parapets. right and left

Bryan County Transportation Study Total 47' 47 feet new bridge width needed

Approaches should be improved for a distance of 1,250 feet on each approach:

Length: 0.47 miles

Width assumed: 47 feet

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_BS_BRG

PI # BRYAN_BS_BRG TPRO Description: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON BELFAST SIDING ROAD OVER I-95 Date estimate done: 6/16/2009 Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG Bridge Length: 0.09 miles (465 feet) Bridge Width assumed: 47 feet Concept: Bridge Replacement Bridge crosses over ROAD CES Cost Estimate = $ 3,338,992.80 (bridge widening only)
Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $5,422,000
Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Bridge Width Assumptions:
24' Travel Lanes 23' for outside shoulders/guardrails, parapets. right and left Total 47' 47 feet new bridge width needed

Approaches should be improved for a distance of 1,250 feet on each approach:

Length: 0.47 miles

Width assumed: 47 feet

Bryan County Transportation Study
TEXT FILE ATTACHMENT for CES project BRYAN_I95_BRG
PI # BRYAN_OB_BRG TPRO Description: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON BELFAST SIDING ROAD OVER I-95 Date estimate done: 6/16/2009 Estimate done by: Jenny Lee Agency: JJG Bridge Length: 0.04 miles (225 feet) Bridge Width assumed: 140 feet Concept: Bridge Replacement Bridge crosses over ROAD CES Cost Estimate = $ 4,9663,104.73 (bridge widening only)

Bryan County Transportation Study Total Cost of Capacity Project (including all bridges, signals, intersections, turn lanes, etc.) = $5,472,000
Area Type Assumptions: Area type (Urban or Rural) Rural Primary County for Costing: BRYAN

Bridge Width Assumptions:
72' Travel Lanes 68' for outside shoulders/guardrails, parapets. right and left Total 140' 140 feet new bridge width needed

Approaches should be improved for a distance of 1,250 feet on each approach (resurfacing on I-95):

Length: 0.47 miles

Width assumed: 140 feet

Appendix D: Public Involvement

Public Involvement Plan
Prepared by:
Issue Date September 2008

Table of Contents
1.0 Study Introduction ........................................................... 1 2.0 Public Involvement Plan Purpose ................................... 3 3.0 Target Audiences and Stakeholder Identification............ 3 4.0 Participation Techniques ................................................. 4 5.0 Plan Evaluation ............................................................... 8 6.0 Public Involvement Program Schedule ........................... 9 Exhibit A: Stakeholder Interview List Exhibit B: Advisory Committee Membership List Exhibit C: Media Contact List
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
i

1.0 Study Introduction
This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is intended to provide a guideline for public involvement activities that are currently being undertaken by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) as part of the Bryan County Transportation Plan. True public involvement requires providing strategies, which allow stakeholders to help shape the solutions, bringing them into the discussion early, before the assessment of the problems are completed and before solutions are on the table. It requires an atmosphere of trust where hopes and concerns can be openly articulated by everyone in the stakeholder group. Accomplishing this requires both political leadership, citizen education, and involvement. Creating vibrant, livable places is very much a process of thinking about and visualizing the future. It is about carrying on a dialogue with the community concerning its vision for evolving and growing. Experience in public involvement has shown that lasting solutions are best identified when all segments of a community individuals, elected officials, educators, the business community, and civic organizations are brought together in a spirit of cooperation. The public involvement process will improve the quality of decisions, educate and provide greater public understanding of the goals and objectives, encourage community participation and collaboration, and provide tangible evidence that the community created its own vision of transportation solutions for Bryan County. The Bryan County Transportation Study encompasses the entire county. Bryan County is located in southeast Georgia. The county is served by and located just east of the confluence of Interstates 95 and 16. The Study Area Map is shown on the following page.
.
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
1

Study Area Map
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
2

2.0 Public Involvement Plan Purpose
This PIP is designed to involve agencies and the public as participants and enable them to provide meaningful input to the study process and its outcomes. It strives to establish new forums for information exchange while also taking advantage of existing groups and organizations. Outreach efforts will educate, inform and involve the public as to the purpose and progress of the study by highlighting local issues, technical considerations, and potential impacts. Outreach techniques will be designed to encourage participation in the public process and to generate meaningful feedback. The PIP provides tools for both disseminating projectrelated information and gathering public input that reflects community concerns and interests.
The PIP will include most methods utilized to educate stakeholders of activities related to the planning process. Generating public awareness and creating partnerships with residents, elected officials, local and regional agencies, businesses, educational organizations, civic associations, and special interest groups is critical to the success of the Bryan County Transportation Study. The public involvement activities carried out under the Bryan County Transportation Plan are intended to provide learning opportunities as well as productive, twoway communication and listening opportunities for the community and project team. Overall project success often depends on the success of the public involvement effort. It is our goal to make sure the public is well aware of project goals, timelines, and information throughout the duration of the project.
This PIP is also designed to comply with regulatory requirements for public outreach set forth in state law. Thus, the PIP will ensure that as prescribed, GDOT conducts public involvement open houses and public hearing open houses under procedures described in "The Plan Development Process," DOT's Manual of Guidance, Section 4055-1 on Public Involvement, and the Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 32-2-3. Additionally, GDOT has adopted a comprehensive agency-wide Public Involvement Plan and a Public Involvement Policy. These documents represent a conscious effort to create more proactive programs and initiatives that form additional partnerships and provide greater opportunities to involve citizens and stakeholders in transportation planning and project development.
In a project as significant as this is to a community, there is no doubt that unanticipated requests may arise. This PIP is built to ensure flexibility, and it may be revised throughout the project duration as needed to reflect the needs of the community and GDOT.
3.0 Target Audiences and Stakeholder Identification
One of the basic principles of public involvement for any project is to proactively outreach to "the public." For the purposes of this Plan, "the public" is defined as citizens, property owners, community leaders, elected officials, and community stakeholders of Bryan County. In addition to citizens living and working in the area, there are other known stakeholders in the throughout the county. Through early identification of key stakeholders, GDOT and the project team will establish a positive working relationship with the community, discuss key issues as the project

Bryan County Transportation Plan

Public Involvement Plan

3

moves forward, and refine concepts as necessary. Due to the diverse population within Bryan County, outreach activities must incorporate a range of techniques designed to reach and engage citizens and stakeholders within all demographic and economic groups.
The level of experience with and interest in transportation planning varies greatly among key stakeholders, such as government officials and staff, the business community, agency representatives, civic groups, the general public, and Environmental Justice populations. The techniques identified and outlined in the following section for the public involvement process address the needs of all stakeholders interested in the Bryan County Transportation Study, taking into account their varying interest and experience levels.
4.0 Participation Techniques
The PIP includes proven techniques that meet the expectations of citizens and stakeholder groups, and will be flexible enough to respond to requests for information and ongoing involvement. GDOT's Manual of Guidance, TOPPS Chapter 4055-1 will be adhered to in the implementation of this PIP, with specific attention placed on meeting advertisements and notification requirements, documentation needs, and response to public input.
All participation techniques and public meeting dates will be coordinated first with the Department's calendar, Coastal Georgia RDC's calendars of event and also with Bryan County. Meeting notices will be distributed to the Chatham and Hinesville MPOs and other stakeholder agencies. s. In addition, any project materials to be disseminated to the public will be submitted to GDOT ten (10) working days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval.
Coordination of study efforts with the Department, local agencies, and elected officials is important to providing a successful plan. The following describes the activities needed to perform this coordination and to provide documentation of the transportation plan.
Stakeholder Interviews - The project/study team will conduct one-on-one interviews with a minimum of 25 stakeholders in Bryan County and adjacent counties determined appropriate. The list of stakeholders will include elected leaders of the Bryan County and municipalities, legislative leaders, leaders in the development community, representatives of homeowners associations, advocacy groups, community-based and faith-based groups and others. A draft list of stakeholders to be interviewed will be approved by the GDOT Project Manager. The purpose of the interviews is to ensure that the stakeholders in Bryan County have a working knowledge of the transportation planning process, including its purpose and need, the expected outcomes, process and timetable. The interviews will also be used to surface major issues and expectations that might impact the Plan's success. A summary of each interview will be prepared and a summary report of all interviews will be compiled and provided to GDOT for consideration and use. The report will identify major issues, common themes and recommendations. A draft Stakeholder Interview listing is provided as Exhibit A.
Kick-off Meeting - A kick-off meeting will take place and include the Cities of Pembroke and Richmond Hill,, Bryan County, the Department, RDC, and other key staff. This kickoff meeting will set the course of the study and provide feedback and guidance on goals and objectives, key issues, constraints, problem areas, needed projects and sensitive areas with the study area.
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
4

Speakers' Bureau - The Speakers Bureau is a major element of the public education phase of the PIP. Members of the consultant team will accept invitations as well as seek opportunities to appear on the agendas of regularly scheduled meetings of organized groups in Bryan County to provide background and status information about the Transportation Plan and to receive feedback. These short appearances provide a costeffective way to distribute printed information about the Plan, including information about scheduled public meetings and about the various ways citizens can obtain more detailed information and provide input. Opportunities to appear at meetings of organizations representing special populations will be given priority attention.

It is anticipated that the Speakers' Bureau process will also seek out opportunities to reach student populations in Bryan County. Efforts to coordinate with the Bryan County Public School System to schedule speaking engagements to educate students about the planning process and seek their input will be carried out. In addition, this process will be used to disseminate study information via take home packages with students to inform parents of upcoming public involvement events and study progress.

Mailing List - The consultant team, building on input from GDOT, will develop a study mailing list to include e-mail addresses. This list will be an efficient way to keep core constituencies current on the status of the study and to provide notice of upcoming events such as public meetings. The list will include all available contact information: phone number, fax number, mailing address, e-mail address, website address, etc.

Coordination with the Department and Local Agencies The Bryan County Transportation Plan will require a significant amount of local government coordination and public involvement to achieve a consensus on the future transportation recommendations. An Advisory Committee (AC) will be established, which will serve as the study's advisory group. The AC will, at a minimum, comprise the following groups: Bryan County staff, staff from each municipality within the county, the Department's Transportation Planner, the Department's District Planning and Programming Engineer, the Department's Intermodal Planner, RDC staff, and others as appropriate. The AC will meet three (3) times, throughout the transportation study process and act in an advisory role by reviewing the interim findings from each phase and provide comments. The AC will review and provide comments on all planning products (travel demand forecasting model assumptions, financial forecast assumptions, transportation needs, final report, and other items as appropriate). The meetings will be designed to foster consensus among GDOT, the consultant team, and the community. Tentative meeting dates are:

Local Kickoff Meeting Meeting 1: Meeting 2: Meeting 3:

October 2008 January 2009 April 2009 July 2009

Data Gathering Evaluation Phase Study Recommendations

A series of meeting materials, maps, handouts, presentations will be developed for each meeting of the AC. A draft membership list for the AC is provided as Exhibit B. All meeting materials will be provided to the Department's Project Manager no less than 10 business days before each AC meeting in order to conduct a "dry-run" for the upcoming

Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
5

meeting. At a minimum, the "dry run" will review meeting agenda, handouts, and all maps and graphics, as needed for the AC meeting. It is required that consultant staff arrive early for all meetings with the Department and/or the AC. Detailed meeting minutes at all meetings will be developed and provide to the Department for review within 5 business days of each meeting.
The AC meetings are anticipated to last approximately two hours and will be directed by trained facilitators and GDOT staff. The AC members will also be asked to attend scheduled public meetings. The public open house will be the last scheduled involvement of the AC members.
Advertised Public Meetings - An advertised public meeting/open house is a special gathering to inform citizens and stakeholders about the progress of the project and solicit input on specific project issues. Open Houses will be held in accordance with GDOT's Manual of Guidance TOPPS 4055-1 as informal meetings to encourage dialogue between the project team and affected community.
Two public meetings will be held during the study and will be designed to allow highlevel interaction and participation in an open house format that engages participants in comfortable, two-way dialogue. The public meetings will be advertised at least two weeks in advance. The first advertisement will appear three weeks prior to the public meetings/open houses and the second one week prior to the meeting date. In addition, notices of all public meetings/open houses will be published on the Department's and Bryan County's websites, in flyers as well as any other project collateral materials distributed. Signs will be placed at key locations within the County notifying the public of meetings. A sample of the notification/advertisement format to be placed in newspapers and other media outlets will be submitted to the GDOT Project Manager for approval.
Additionally, various other paid advertisements (which will consist of more information than a typical legal advertisement, in order to attract the public to the public meetings) will be employed, in at least one media outlet, for each public meeting. All meeting materials will be provided to the Department's Project Manager no less than ten (10) business days before each public meeting. All public meeting dates and times will be scheduled and based on the deliverables and future target dates of the study.
At the first public meeting, community participants will be presented with: an overview of the study; preliminary goals and objectives for the transportation plan; summary of data collection activities; an inventory of the existing transportation system; a summary of the existing and future operating conditions; and an overview of existing and future deficiencies. The purpose of the meeting will be to solicit input and feedback as to what aspects presented need additional review and/or modification. The second public meeting will take place after the improvement alternatives are developed for existing and future deficiencies. The preliminary long-range transportation plan improvements will be presented at this public meeting for public review and comment.
Each public meeting will include a short formal presentation supplemented with displays of information for public review. Sign-in sheets and comment cards will be provided to facilitate public input and continued involvement in the study process. Team members
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
6

wearing nametags will be available at all times to assist citizens with questions or concerns. The summaries of all meetings will be furnished for inclusion in the Appendix of the Transportation Plan.
The meetings will last two hours, based on the expected attendance, and will be scheduled between the hours of 6:00 P.M. (start) and 8:00 P.M. (end). It is anticipated that for each of the two (2) public meetings, separate meeting facilities will be employed at two (2) different locations (e.g., Pembroke and Richmond Hill) within Bryan County. Notification letters for public meeting/open house will be sent to board members, elected officials, utility companies, planning organizations, news media, known stakeholders, and GDOT personnel as appropriate.
Other Recommended Outreach Techniques - The following are additional recommended outreach techniques that will be applied for additional public input.
Website A project webpage will be established to serve as an open forum for the study throughout the project process. The webpage will be hosted by GDOT as part of the GDOT website and identify links to the Bryan County website, providing easy access for citizens. Regular updates to the website will provide community members with the most recent information regarding the Transportation Study. Maps, draft documents, and other materials from public meetings, and general guidance regarding the process would be available as deemed appropriate. In addition, viewers will be able to find contact information for the project team, ensuring that an open window for public feedback is available at all times.
Questionnaire Surveys and questionnaires will be used to gather information from stakeholders and interested citizens. These surveys/questionnaires will contain both closed and openended questions to help target information to both extract information related to specific community concerns and to help identify those concerns.
Fact Sheets Fact Sheets will be developed at key milestones in the Transportation Study to educate, answer questions, and update the reader on the progress of the study. The fact sheets will be an easy source of information that can be mailed, distributed at community/public meetings, put in public buildings, and sent to the media and placed on the project web page.
Media Relations - All media relations will be directly coordinated with the GDOT recommended Communication Officer or other representatives. Media relations encompass the process of informing stakeholders about the project through mass media such as newspapers, radio, and television. A draft media listing is provided as Exhibit C.
Documentation - Documentation of all aspects of the public involvement process will help GDOT maintain continuity in project decision-making. As the project proceeds, it is imperative that members of the project team provide documentation detailing the issues
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
7

and impacts to be considered, particularly with regard to any commitments made by the public. These documents include, but are not limited to: the Public Involvement Plan, Project Database/Mailing Lists, Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, Public Information Open House Summaries, Public Hearing Open House Summaries, and Public Comments and Responses.

5.0 Plan Evaluation
Evaluation of the effectiveness of public involvement efforts is a key aspect of developing the PIP and is a critical component of any community and agency participation plan. Evaluating public involvement efforts helps determine which public involvement tools are effective for specific uses and under what circumstances. Evaluation measures are also important in documenting the level of citizen and stakeholder satisfaction with the public involvement activities. Based on the implementation of the public involvement program and the results of periodic surveys at public involvement meetings, existing communication and outreach techniques will be modified and new techniques added to ensure the success of the public involvement program.
The Table below outlines the major tasks and key performance measures for the Public Involvement Program for the Bryan County Transportation Study.

Public Involvement Program Evaluation Measures

Task PIP
Advisory Committee

Performance Measures
Successful implementation of strategies and techniques
Participant feedback Number of participants Participant feedback Results of satisfaction surveys

Public Meetings

Number of attendees Number of comments received Number of comment responses Results of satisfaction surveys

Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
8

6.0 Public Involvement Program Schedule
The schedule of public involvement program activities for the Bryan County Transportation Study is shown below. This schedule presents the anticipated time frame required to meet project public involvement goals.
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
9

Public Involvement Program Schedule

Bryan County Transportation Plan

Public Involvement Plan

10

Exhibit A: Stakeholder Interview List
Bryan County Board of Commissioners Jimmy Burnsed, Chairman*
Bryan County Administration Phil Jones, Bryan County Administrator* Jim Anderson, EMS Director Bryan County
Pembroke City Council Judy Cook, Mayor* Jonnie A. Miller, Sr., Mayor Pro-Tem
Richmond Hill City Council Richard R. Davis, Mayor*
Richmond Hill Police Department Chief Billy D. Reynolds
City of Pembroke Betty Hills City Clerk, City of Pembroke
Coastal Georgia RDC Vernon D. Martin, Executive Director*
Development Authority of Bryan County Jean Bacon, Executive Director
Bryan County Chamber of Commerce Kittie Franklin, Executive Director*
At Large Rita Johanson, ITO Chief, Transportation, Ft. Stewart Sallie Brewer, Superintendant Lawanda Stafford, Hobart Corp Mike Melton, City Manager Neil Smiley, Director of Engineer. Tom Thomson, CUTS Sonny Timmerman, HAMPO Derrell Newman, Public Works Leon Davenport, Chatham Co.
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
11

Exhibit B: Advisory Committee Membership List
Bryan County Phil Jones, County Administrator Dale Dudley, Planning & Zoning Terri Taylor, Transit/Senior Citizens Jim Anderson, EMS Director Derrell Newman, County Engineer Neil Smiley, County Engineering Kay Green, Recreation Director
City of Pembroke Chief Bill Collins, Pembroke Police Department Betty Hill, City Clerk Rickey McCoy, City Engineer
Richmond Hill Michael J. Melton, City Manager Steve Scholar, Director, Planning and Zoning Chief Billy D. Reynolds, Richmond Hill Police Department Nancy Frye, Zoning Administrator Randy Dykes, Building Inspections Jan Bass, Community Development Specialist
Coastal Georgia RDC Tricia Reynolds, Planning Director
GDOT District Office Brad Saxon Teresa Scott
At Large Karen Gramzaio, President, Buckhead Commonwealth Club, Inc Nevin Brown, President, Mainstreet Homeowners Association Reverend Carlton Cooper, Bethel Baptist Church Kittie Franklin, Bryan County Chamber of Commerce Father Joe Smith, St Anne's Catholic Church
Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
12

Exhibit C: Media Contact List

Print Media
Bryan County News (weekly) Savannah Morning News (daily)

(912) 756-2668 (912) 236-9511

Contact Person Aldo Nahed

Television Media
WSAV (3) NBC WVAN (9) PBS WTOC (11) CBS WJCL (22) ABC WTGS (28) FOX WGSA

(912) 651-0300 (912) 653-4996 (912) 234-1111 (912) 925-0022 (912) 925-0022 (912) 692-8000

Radio Media
Clear Channel Communications .....(912) 964-7794 WTKS............... 1290 AM News Talk Radio
Cumulus Broadcasting ....(912) 961-9000 WBMQ............... 630 AM News Talk Radio
Georgia Public Broadcasting ....(912) 598-3300 WSVH................91.1 FM Public Radio

Contact Person
Elaina Anderson
Dal Cannady Candice McGowan Candice McGowan

Bryan County Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
13

How Can You Stay Involved ?

Experience in public involvement and transportation planning has shown that lasting solutions are best identified when all segments of the community (e.g., citizens, elected officials, businesses, and civic organizations) are engaged to provide input on shaping the vision for improving the Bryan County transportation system. Throughout the study, the public will be given opportunities to participate in the transportation planning process. As such, the Bryan County Transportation Study will utilize the following methods to give all segments of the community a chance to participate in the study process. These include:

Stakeholder Interviews - the study team will conduct a series of interviews with key community leaders throughout Bryan County.
Study Advisory Committee - will be made up of local officials and community group representatives. The advisory committee will provide policy guidance and strategic direction to the study team at key milestones. It is envisioned that the advisory committee will meet several times over the course of the study.
Public Open House Workshops - will be held to solicit public input and feedback on the study findings. The first workshop is anticipated to be held mid to late April 2009.

Study Webpage - information regarding the study will be available via the GDOT website. The Bryan County Transportation Study webpage will provide study documentation, study updates and current activities. The webpage will also post the study schedule, various maps, and other associated materials. The webpage address is www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy
Fact Sheets - will be developed to highlight important study information. Fact Sheets will be available in electronic format as well as hard copy, and will be distributed at public locations (e.g., public libraries, government buildings, and electronically via GDOT website) throughout Bryan County.

Bryan County
TRANSPORTATION STUDY

FACT SHEET

Bryan County Transportation Study

Fall 2008

Volume 1

Overview of the Transportation Study Process

Review Previous Studies

Review Existing Conditions
Future Conditions
Analysis

Bryan County Transportation Study Schedule

13 Month Schedule

2008

2009

S O N D J FMA M J J AS

Public Meetings

Advisory Committee Meetings

Data Gathering & Evaluation

Model Development

Preliminary Reccommendations

Final Document

Develop Goals and
Objectives
Screen Projects Based On Goals

For More Information
GDOT Contact: Kyle Mote, Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W. Peachtree Street 5th Floor Office 566 Atlanta, Ga 30308 404-631-1987 kmote@dot.ga.gov

Team Contact: Grady Smith Jordan, Jones and Goulding 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 770-455-8555 grady.smith@jjg.com

Project Recommendations

STUDY AREA

BULLOCH

Groveland

?

I Southward Reka

PEMBROKE

EVANS

? A

A
Wilma Edwards Rd
? A Lanier
Ellabell

Ashbranch Rd Olive Branch Rd

Eldora
?
Blitchton
I I

16

EFFINGHAM

e River O g e e ch

e
Fort Stewart Military Reservation
B R YA N

Canoochee Ri ver

A

We need your input!

Is there a transportation problem in your community? If so, we

would like your input and details regarding the problem. For

example -

-- Is there an intersection that experiences safety problems or

high occurrences of accidents?

-- Are there locations where a sidewalk is needed or a traffic

signal may be warranted?

---

Are Are

there there

nseigwnirfoicaadnwt asypoctosnonLfetcIratBioffnicEscaoRnndg/Teosr tYaiorenaisn

your area? that present

opportunities for bicycle/multi-purpose trail improvement?

Take this opportunity to mark your concerns on the map provided

within this fact sheet. Feel free to indicate location, problem

areas, and potential transportation improvement(s) needed.

Additionally, general written comments about the Bryan County

transportation system are also welcome. This information will be

used in the study process to document existing conditions and

identify potential improvements. Please mail, fax or scan/email

your map mark-up back to us. Thank you for participating.





Mail to: Bryan County Transportation Study

Attn. Kyle Mote

One Georgia Center 600 W. Peachtree Street,

95



5th Floor Office 566

L O N G

Atlanta, Georgia 30308



Fax to: Bryan County Transportation Study at



(404) 541-9262



Email to: kmote@dot.ga.gov

17

C H AT H A M

RICHMOND HILL

Ocean Hwy

?
Daniel

Port Royal

Bryan Neck Rd Belfast Siding Rd

Belfast Keller Rd

Fort McAllister Rd
Hartwick

Belfast

Keller

Richmond Hill WMA

Fancy Hall

Lincoln Landing

Interstate US and State Route Street Railroad

Lakes & Rivers Conservation Lands Military Installation City Boundary County Boundary

MCINTOSH

p

0

1

2

Miles 4

FACT SHEET

Bryan County Transportation Study

Spring 2009

Volume 2

BULLOCH

Groveland



Southward
280 Reka

PEMBROKE

EVANS




Wilma Edwards Rd

Lanier
Ellabell

Ashbranch Rd Olive Branch Rd

Eldora
280
Blitchton
80
16

EFFINGHAM

e River O g e e ch

e
Fort Stewart Military Reservation
B R YA N

Canoochee Ri ver

Study Area Map
LIBERTY



17

RICHMOND HILL

Ocean Hwy


Daniel

Port Royal

CHATHAM

Bryan Neck Rd Belfast Siding Rd

Belfast Keller Rd

Fort McAllister Rd Hartwick

Belfast

Keller

LONG

95 Richmond Hill WMA

Fancy Hall

Lincoln Landing

Interstate US and State Route Street Railroad

Lakes & Rivers Conservation Lands Military Installation City Boundary County Boundary

MCINTOSH



0

1

2

Miles 4

Overview of the Bryan County Transportation Study Process
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is preparing the Bryan County Transportation Study in cooperation with Bryan County, the City of Pembroke, the City of Richmond Hill, and various other planning partners. The objective of the study is to identify and recommend transportation improvements necessary to meet existing and future travel needs through the year 2035.
Bryan County is experiencing a significant increase in population. In fact, projections released by the Georgia Institute of Technology's Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (2006) indicate that the County's population is projected to increase from 23,500 in 2000 to roughly 46,000 by 2030 an anticipated increase of 96 percent. The Bryan County Transportation Study will identify mobility and travel impacts associated with this growth, and recommend potential transportation improvement strategies and projects to adequately serve Bryan County residents.
Work efforts for the Bryan County Transportation Study are well underway. So far, the study team has reviewed all the relevant transportation and land use plans completed within the County. Additionally, the extensive data collection effort needed for the existing and future conditions analyses is nearly complete. These data include the inventory of current traffic/ travel trends, land use/development patterns, environmentally sensitive areas, high accident locations, and other transportation network conditions. The study team has also interviewed various stakeholders throughout the County to incorporate their input in the development of goals and objectives of the study. The final phase of the data collection will involve input collected from the general public. Next steps include finalization of the potential improvements, followed by screening analysis of potential projects, and identification of project recommendations. The study, anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2009, will highlight a list of potential transportation improvement suggestions to address Bryan County's anticipated mobility and accessibility needs.
Additional information regarding the study is available via the GDOT website:
www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy.

Bryan County Transportation Study
TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS Tuesday, April 21st:
Purpose of Meetings: The purpose of the meetings is to get the public's input regarding the transportation issues and challenges in the County and discuss some of the potential improvement suggestions available. These meetings are open to all, and will consist of informational displays and interactive discussion sessions. The community will be encouraged to share their ideas on the direction of transportation planning for Bryan County.
WE NEED YOUR INPUT! Public Meeting Locations and Times
Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 County Commissioner's Meeting Room (2:00PM) 151 South College Street, Pembroke, GA 31321
And John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center (6:00PM)
600 Cedar Street, Richmond Hill, GA, 31324
To find out more, please visit: www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy

Bryan County Transportation Study Schedule

BryanCountyTransportationPlanSchedule

13MonthSchedule

2008

2009

S O N D J F M A M J J A S

PublicMeetings

AdvisoryCommitteeMeetings

DataGathering&Evaluation

ModelDelelopment

PreliminaryRecommendations

FinalDocument

GDOT Contact: Kyle Mote, Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W Peachtree Street, 5th Floor, Office 566 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 404-631-1987 kmote@dot.ga.gov

Consulting Team Contact: Grady Smith Jordan, Jones and Goulding 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 678-333-0450 grady.smith@jjg.com

FACT SHEET

Bryan County Transportation Study

Summer 2009

Volume 3

Bryan County Transportation Study Team is set to present a Preliminary List of Potential Transportation Projects for Public Review and Comment.

After more than ten months of intensive research, analysis and public outreach, The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has presented a list of potential transportation

Review of Previous Studies

iamnpdroovtheemr esntatskefhoor lrdeevriseCwinoaBmnrydpaacnroaCmtomivuenentyLt.ObTSyhraponuubaglhlicytshoiesffiowcifoarlks
completed to date, which includes baseline conditions

Level of Services Analysis

Project

assessment, formulation of study goals, and travel demand model development, the study team has determined mobility and travel impacts associated with the anticipated growth

Safety Analysis

Definition/Purpose and Need

in the County. The draft transportation improvements are

designed to respond to an aggressive population projection, and also considered future land use strategies outlined in the

Stakeholder Input

County's Joint Comprehensive

Plan. The project categories

Project Identification Process

include Traffic Operations/

System Management Projects, Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and New

Capacity Projects.

Traffic Operation/System Management Projects: These projects could maximize the effectiveness of the existing system, and can be potentially implemented quickly. Total of 22 project concepts have been identified to include improvements such as new traffic signals, adding turn lanes, and bridge replacements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: The multimodal recommendations are designed to potentially improve the general quality of life as well as improve safety for all users of the transportation network. Total of 22 potential sidewalks and shared-use paths have been identified throughout the County.

New Capacity Projects: The new capacity recommendations can be significant investments. Thus, these potential projects are evaluated based on performance and benefit-cost.

Bryan County Transportation Study Final Public Meetings

The purpose of the last series of public meetings is to solicit input from stakeholders and residents in the county to prioritize and reach consensus on the list of potential transportation improvements. These meetings are open to all, and will consist of informational displays as well as interactive discussion sessions. The community will be encouraged to share their ideas on the direction of transportation planning for Bryan County.
WE NEED YOUR INPUT!
Thursday, August 6th, 2009

2:00 PM Bethel Baptist Church Fellowship Hall
40 White Oak Lane, Richmond Hill, GA

6:00 PM J Dixie Harn Community Hall
91 Lanier St, Pembroke, GA

Next Steps
The Bryan County Transportation Study will address public comments, then submit a long-term transportation plan for the county's consideration. Given funding constraints facing the state, it is unlikely that all of the projects identified by the study can be funded over the next 25 years. Therefore, the principal task remaining in the Bryan County Transportation Study is to identify potential funding programs for the recommended projects. Based on the input from the last series of public meetings (scheduled for August 6th), GDOT will then finalize study recommendations and submit the final documentation in the fall of 2009.

Bryan County Transportation Study Schedule

Bryan County Transportation Plan Schedule

13 Month Schedule

2008

2009

S OND J FMAM J J A S

Public Meetings

Advisory Committee Meetings

Data Gathering & Evaluation

Model Delelopment

Preliminary Recommendations

Final Document

Additional information regarding the study is available via the GDOT website: www.dot.ga.gov/ bryanstudy. For general comments or inquiries, please contact:

GDOT Contact: Kyle Mote, Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W Peachtree Street, 5th Floor, Office 566 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 404-631-1987 kmote@dot.ga.gov

Consulting Team Contact: Grady Smith Jordan, Jones and Goulding 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 678-333-0414 grady.smith@jjg.com

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette - Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Billy Albritton is Chairman of the Planning Commission and former City Council from Richmond Hill
Mr. Albritton began by suggesting that the Belfast Interchange would eliminate some of the traffic on SR 144.
I-95 at 17 interchange is a problem. Traffic backs up 3 miles from Liberty going towards Savannah in the morning.
The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission's (BRAC) recommendations will increase the forces based at Fort Stewart by 4,000 soldiers. The area will need to prepare for these soldiers and their families who will live and work in the area.
Mr. Albritton would like to see widening of SR 144 between Belfast Keller and Kilkenny Road.
Mr. Albritton was concerned about the large number of school facilities without sidewalks. Also, a multi use trail on US 17 and Francis Meeks to SR 144 is needed. Mr. Albritton said that City of Richmond Hill is currently working with the school district to make this happen.
The SR 144 and I-95 interchange was not designed to handle the amount of traffic it carries today. Because of the design, it backs up from SR 144. This is because the road chokes to 1 lane in each direction. The interchange at I-95 and US 17 was also designed for less traffic than it currently carries.The study should look at upgrading these interchanges.
Road conditions are the biggest short term transportation concern. Widenings of US 17 and SR 144 are the most important. Capacity is the biggest issue. Commuters need relief. In the long term, the entire roadway network capacity will need to be expanded to prepare for the city's (Richmond Hill) population growth.
A new interchange at Belfast Siding and I-95 is also an important project. Harris Trail should be expanded to serve as a future reliever to SR 144. This road would
serve as a second north-south (SR 144 is first) connection through town. The City of Richmond Hill and county should work with Rayonier (major land owner) to extend Harris Trail south from Timber Trail to Belfast Keller Road. Owen Thayer would be a good person to include as a stakeholder interview. He was on the development authority and has good ideas. Steve Lane, Pastor of New Beginnings Community Church in Richmond Hill would be someone to include as a representative of traditionally underserved communities. Reverend Lane has been a community advocate for affordable housing.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study
Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Radney Simpson - GDOT Office of Planning, and Grady Smith - Jordon, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Jean Bacon, Executive Director - Development Authority of Bryan County As the Executive Director Jean Bacon is responsible for promoting economically and
environmentally sound development through coordination of available public and private economic development resources in Bryan County. The Development Authority's nine member Board is appointed by County Commissioners, and includes Phil Jones, Bryan County Administrator as an ex-officio member. In this role, Mr. Jones provides guidance on transportation related issues. The Authority's current focus is on the development of the Interstate Centre Industrial/Business Park an industrial/business park located at I-16 and US 280 - Exit 143. She noted that the industrial park already has major tenants including Oracal with approximately 160 employees and Kawasaki among others. Ms Bacon stated that the development of Interstate Centre Industrial Park is envisioned to be similar to growth that occurred in the Pooler area. Thus, the objective is to target manufacturing and logistical related industry. It was noted that a significant amount of developable land is available in the Interstate Centre Industrial Park area. This would include more than 1000 acres. Ms. Bacon also mentioned that other large tracts are being marketed in proximity to I-16, and much of this land is owned by the Morgan Family. To improve access to the Interstate Centre Industrial Park, Ms. Bacon suggested that the study consider 4-lane improvement to both US 280 and US 80. She pointed out that the US 80 corridor provides a direct connection to the Georgia Port. She also asked that the study consider a new I-16 interchange east of the existing US 280 interchange (Tar City Road) to provide additional access to the park. It was noted that more than 40 trucks an hour (during peak periods) utilize I-16/US 280 facilities, and that there have been a number of accidents. To improve conditions, and address expansion of the park to the west Ms. Bacon asked that the study consider a traffic signal at Interstate Centre Parkway at the park main entrance. Ms. Bacon noted that in the mid to long term the next major area of development in the county would more likely be in the Richmond Hill area near Belfast Siding. Finally, Ms. Bacon stressed the importance of addressing the diversity of economic conditions in Bryan County. For example, she pointed out the difference in economic development incentives for industry locating in Bryan County. North Bryan County is considered "Tier1" which means businesses who locate in the northern area qualify for up to a $3,500 job tax credit. In contrast, South Bryan is considered "Tier 4" which allow up to a $750 job tax credit.

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette- Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: The Honorable Richard Davis, Mike Melton and Steve Scholar from the City of Richmond Hill. These stakeholders represent the mayor, city manager, and director of planning for the City of Richmond Hill.
The conversation began by discussing congestion on SR 144. The group provided two ideas to relieve traffic on this roadway which included widening the existing road and/or creating a parallel reliever (Harris Trail to Belfast Keller).
Mike Melton suggested that the interchange at US 17 and I-95 needed to be upgraded to reflect a larger amount of traffic (especially truck) than the interchange was originally designed to accommodate.
Mayor Davis was concerned about traffic that will be generated by a future middle school to be located on Belfast Keller Road (see Bryan County Transportation Plan 2007).
Mayor Davis was also concerned about an alternative way for people in the eastern part of the county to get out (Belfast Siding Interchange) of the county during evacuations.
When asked, the group prioritized their most important transportation projects as: 1. Widening of SR 144 (within the next five years); 2. Harris Trail Widening (within the next five to ten years); 3. Interchange at Belfast Siding and I-95 (long term project).
A large number of trains cross through the study area. Mayor Davis and Mike Melton were concerned about the at Grade crossing of CSX and SR 144. Mr. Melton estimated that the tracks average between 35 and 40 trains per day with posted speed of 70 mph.
The group advocated for sidewalks on both sides of SR 144 (currently on one side), US 17 (currently on one side) and Harris Trail (no sidewalks).
Trucks using the Love (I-95 at Ocean Highway) and TA (I-95 at SR 17) truck stops often make U turns on city streets and sometimes get stuck on the road. Need to address this issue by providing an alternative place for trucks to turn around.
Timber Trail needs major upgrade. Area around this road was recently annexed by Richmond Hill. This road needs maintenance and widening to accommodate growing traffic.
A new traffic signal will be needed at TA truck stop and Highway 17. This is a high accident area where lots of cars and trucks are entering the roadway.
New Kroger has exit that needs to be right out only. Mulbury Drive and US 17 needs a traffic signal.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Daniel Siding road should be improved. This area west of town will be experiencing a large amount of growth.
In the long term, the a new frontage road should be proposed along I-95 between SR 144 and US 17.
Camellia Street may need to be widened. International Paper has a paper completed by Bill Christian in 1972 shows a new road off of
US 17 to SR 144 continuing on to Fort McCallister. Copy of paper will be provided by Steve Scholar.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study
Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Radney Simpson - GDOT Office of Planning, and Grady Smith - Jordon, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Jo Hickson, Coastal Georgia Greenway Volunteer The Coastal Georgia Greenway lobbies for trail development at the grass roots level. It has
partnered with the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, city and county governments and related organizations. The organization's mission is to protect and acquire public access to identified trail corridors, plan for trail construction and promote the use of existing and new trails along Coastal Georgia. Jo Hickson mentioned that Coastal Georgia Greenway has been advancing toward implementation an overall trail network for Coastal Georgia since 1997. Coastal Georgia Greenway is in the process of establishing a non-profit to continue efforts to implement and construct the trail system. Ms. Hickson noted that it is envisioned that the trail system would be completed by 2021. It was noted that the current organization has raise over $3 million for trail construction as well as has paid out approximately $1 million in trail planning and design efforts. She encouraged that the study team explore opportunities to leverage the Safe Routes to School initiative as a means to fund trail and pedestrian improvements identified in the planning process. She also mentioned that significant trail planning has occurred for Bryan County and that the study team should take advantage of this previous body of work. Ms. Hickson pointed out that Bryan County's portions of the planned trail network is focused on the US 17 corridor as the trunk line with various spur tie-ins. She also mentioned that Bryan County is currently working to receive a grant from Georgia DNR for the Green Creek trail near SR 144. Ms. Hickson also noted that it is envisioned that the coastal Georgia trail system would link into a national trail system connecting the eastern seaboard from Maine to Key West, Florida - with many spurs and trailhead connection points in between. Ms. Hickson noted that many trail advocates believe the US 17 corridor should be designated as a scenic greenway corridor similar to the Blue Ridge Scenic Byway.

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Radney Simpson - GDOT Office of Planning, and Grady Smith - Jordon, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Phil Jones, Bryan County Administrator
Phil Jones serves as the County Administrator for Bryan County. In this role, Mr. Jones oversees the day-to-day operation of the county's transportation functions, and various other county management duties. Transportation related activities include coordination/management of GDOT funded maintenance and improvement projects for the State Route and Interstate roadways within Bryan County. Mr. Jones also manages all county-level transportation concerns including implementation of SPLOST projects as well as programs such as Bryan County Transit, which currently provides FTA 5311 rural transit services throughout the county.
Mr. Jones articulated from his viewpoint the need for a new interchange at I-95 and Belfast Siding Road is of high importance. Radney Simpson referenced GDOT's recently completed Interchange Analysis Report (IAR) that was done in coordination with Bryan County Radney Simpson noted that the technical findings did not support an access break along I-95 at Belfast Siding Rd. Mr. Simpson further explained that the Bryan County Transportation Study is not intended to address specifics regarding the interchange request and recent Interchange Justification Report, and further explained that the study is geared to be comprehensive to address countywide needs. However, if it is determined over the course of the study process the interchange is warranted, GDOT'S Interchange Justification Report process could be implemented and the Department would work with the county on next steps.
Mr. Jones expressed concerns regarding cut-through traffic from Liberty and Bulloch counties via corridors such as SR 144 and US 17. He stated it would be important for the study to address this issue.
Mr. Jones noted that City of Richmond Hill recently annexed property on the southwestern portion of its boundary. The annexation has triggered the need for transportation improvements to county roadways serving the area.
He also suggested that the study team should examine the need for signal upgrades on SR 144, and access management improvements along the US 280 corridor.
Mr. Jones distributed hard copy of Bryan County's accident database to the study team. He noted that the database has been continuously updated by the county, and that he would provide the electronic version on the database per request by the study team. It was noted that the database may be more current than the CARE accident information already collected by the study team.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Precursory review of the accident data suggests that US 280 has the highest occurrence of accidents of all major corridor in Bryan County.
Mr. Jones provided an overview of the plan by the RDC to consolidate the Bryan County FTA Section 5311 rural transit services program into a regional system that would provide cross county services throughout the coastal region.
Mr. Simpson clarified that the Bryan County Transportation Study would not be addressing logistics of the 5311 consolidation, and that the RDC would be leading that effort.
Mr. Jones provided status of the county's roadway resurfacing and SPLOST project activities. It was agreed that the study team would provide a base map to Mr. Jones for mark up to identify key county transportation project initiatives.
It was indicated that Moreland Altobelli Associates developed the systemic process to determine countywide repaving needs.
Mr. Jones indicated that the county spends roughly $500K to $600K annually on resurfacing projects funded with SPLOST dollars.
It was noted that the current SPLOST would expire in 2012.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted stakeholder interview summary for interviews held on November 18, 2008 as part of the first round of information gathering in the Bryan County Transportation Study. The stakeholder interview was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette - Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Nevin Patton is Senior Vice Presidnet of the 1st Bank of Coastal Georgia. Mr. Patton has been a resident of the area for over thirty years and works with many local developers.
If this study (Bryan County Transportation Study) does not address I-95 and Belfast Siding Interchange, you will have only one route to I-95 from that part of the county. This issue is very important to address, especially for developers.
School traffic on 144 to 144 spur is very bad. Causes a lot of backups. Need to help school district with future locations of facilities. Currently facilities areas are clustered within a campus.
Mr. Patton was not sure if sidewalks really make a difference in the town. He said that the area is growing mostly because of young families interested in quality schools. However, Mr. Patton said that multi use trails are attractive to young families moving into the community.
A new development of 1,100 homes is going into golf community off 144 and Oak Level Road. This will increase traffic along SR 144. Perhaps a traffic signal and SR 144 widening are warranted.
Mr Patton compared the value of constructing an interchange at Belfast Siding Road and SR 144 versus widening of SR 144. Mr. Patton feels that either the widening or the interchange should be completed in the short term. Later, whichever project has not been completed will need to be constructed.
Sinking roads in the area is the biggest maintenance issue. Extension of Harris Trail out to Belfast Keller Road may be done in lieu of widening SR 144.
The Belfast Keller Road project is seen as providing an parallel alternative route to traffic currently using SR 144. Making the transition from a rural to urban county is Mr. Patton's biggest long term concern in terms of the transportation network. Population and employment growth warrants a change in how the county and cities operate and cooperate. Mr. Patton suggested that Jean Brogdon should be included as a stakeholder interview. He lives in Liberty County. Mr. Brogdon's family are local developers of commercial and residential properties, including the building which houses the chamber of commerce. The Brogdon family have several other parcels in the area that they plan to develop in the future and are well connected with other development activites occurring in the area.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a stakeholder interview summary from February 11, 2009. This interview was part of the second round of stakeholder interviews and other information gathering activities held in as part of the Bryan County Transportation Study. This interview was completed by: Radney Simpson - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette - Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Dr. Sallie Brewer, Superintendent of Bryan County Public Schools
The conversation began by discussing the continuing challenges the district faces in getting children to and from school facilities. According to Dr. Brewer, the biggest challenge is getting qualified bus drivers. Often the district operates without the appropriate number of drivers, requiring longer wait times for students going home in the evening and earlier pick up times in the morning. Dr. Brewer would like to encourage more parents to send their children via bus, but the district does not have the capacity due to lack of available drivers.
Schools facilities tend to be designed in clusters within the county, often resulting in two to three separate schools (serving different age groups) built within close proximity to one another. The objective is to give the school district the future flexibility to convert a clustered campus into a single school when the demand for facilities dictates. However, clustering facilities has had the negative externality of creating traffic congestion in corridors leading to the facilities, with buses and parents converging on these campuses within a small period of time to drop off or pick up children. This practice has resulted in traffic congestion at a number of the clustered campuses, especially at State Route 144 and Francis Meeks Way in South Bryan County.
Several initiatives have been implemented to mitigate traffic congestion at these locations. Initiatives include police officers assigned to manage traffic at key locations and times, consolidation of pick up and drop off locations within the campuses and staggering of pick up times within a clustered campus.
A new clustered campus is planned to be located just off of Belfast Keller Road in South Bryan. This campus will initially host a new middle school, and is planned to eventually become a high school campus. This campus will be constructed in advance of the Rayonier mixed use development to be located adjacent to the campus.
The school district has also purchased property off of State Route 119 and Payne Road behind an existing school facility. This location will likely be the sight of a future elementary and middle school campus as part of the E-SPLOST program. In Richmond Hill, the district is
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
developing plans to construct a new elementary school near US 17 west of State Route 144. Dr. Brewer agreed to provide the study team maps and locations of likely new school facilities. Dr. Brewer discussed the school district's participation in the Safe Routes to School program. A point of discussion between the program and the school district was the district's desire to separate possible bike/pedestrian traffic from users of the multi-use trails and/or sidewalks due to safety concerns. According to Dr. Brewer, the master plan of the school district includes fencing in all campus facilities including playgrounds, parking lots and school buildings. Dr. Brewer would like to see implementation of the Safe Routes to Schools program if their plan develops bike/ped facilities that are located along the perimeter of the school facilities, allowing the school district to limit student access outside of the school district facilities. Dr. Brewer's transportation priorities include the Interchange at Belfast Siding and I-95, which is likely to be located near the future high school planned for Belfast Keller Road. Also mentioned was the importance of widening State Route 144 from Belfast Keller Road south. Dr. Brewer agreed to provide the team with a copy of the Bryan County School master plan replete with likely future school locations and size. This information will be used to calibrate the future year of the travel demand model.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a stakeholder interview summary from February 24th 2009. This interview documents the third round of stakeholder interviews and was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette- Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Nevin Brown, Former President of the Main Street Homeowners Association and active member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and resident of Richmond Hill.
The conversation began with Ms. Brown sharing her interest in transportation as that of an advocate for more options accessible by the poor and lower income populations to reach needed job opportunities in nearby Chatham County. Ms. Brown believes that the greatest transportation need in the Richmond Hill is to have the option of mass transportation, especially in the more heavily developed corridors of US 17 (Ocean Highway) SR 144 (Ford Avenue).
Ms. Brown suggested that since Richmond Hill has two railroads lines (CSX line between Waycross and Savannah and the Riceboro Southern Short line which connects the Port of Savannah to Riceboro) that are only a quarter of a mile apart, one of the lines may not be needed, and thus, providing the community with the option to convert one of the rail corridors into mass transit or commuter service.
Ms. Brown noted that newer developments especially along US 17 and SR 144 have sidewalks. She believes that all developments should provide access for pedestrians, especially seniors.
Ms. Brown agreed to help the study team publicize and distribute information for the upcoming public meetings to underserved groups in the area. Other methods to publicize the study included using the City of Richmond Hill Billboard, and the city council's email distribution list. The contact for the billboard and distribution list is Nancy Frye of the City of Richmond Hill.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a stakeholder interview summary from February 24th 2009. This interview documents the third round of stakeholder interviews and was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette- Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Jimmy Burnsed, Chairman of the Bryan County Commission
The interview began with the Commissioner's discussion of a letter from Representative Vance Smith, Chairman of the Transportation Committee. According to Mr. Burnsed, this letter outlined the increases of transportation funding for counties outside of the Atlanta region. According to Mr. Burnsed, the letter included a schedule of funding by county in the form of a spreadsheet. According to Mr. Burnsed, the scheduled transportation funding allocated for most counties grew by 200-1000% but Bryan County's share grew by just 80%. Mr. Burnsed's concern was how small the increase for Bryan County was relative to other counties.
Mr. Burnsed emphasized that Harris Trail is an important project to the county. The right of way for this project was recently donated by the Rayonier company and has been subsequently cleared by county staff. Mr. Burnsed believes this project is "shovel ready" but is currently without funding to be paved.
Mr. Burnsed pointed out the importance of the Belfast Keller Loop widening which will be funded through the county's SPLOST program, insurance settlement and other local sources.
Mr. Burnsed also believes that the widening of SR 144 is important, but it has been in some level of limbo because the project was cut from FY 2010 STIP schedule. According to Mr. Burnsed, GDOT amended the original widening to include a 6' to 8' trail to connect existing and future neighborhoods in the area to the new Henderson municipal park, to be located off of SR 144. Originally, the widening was to end at the 144 spur, but the county has formally requested that the widening be extended 1/8th of a mile to terminate at the new park. The county has not received official notice on the status of this extension.
According to Mr. Burnsed, truck traffic on US 280 at Interstate Centre necessitates the widening of the road around the interchange to the industrial park . Interstate Centre is the location of nearly 800 jobs and will likely continue to grow with the construction of distribution facilities that support the Port of Savannah.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Mr. Burkette asked how the SPLOST funding would cover Belfast Keller Loop, Harris Trail and various road paving projects given the small amount of the SPLOST money dedicated to road improvements. The response was that the county was conservative in the amount anticipated to be receive from SPLOST V proceeds by $5 million. Mr. Burnsed predicted that a portion of the total overage would likely be dedicated to road improvements.
Mr. Burnsed also pointed out that the priority projects were developed through the 2007 Bryan County Transportation Plan.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a stakeholder interview summary from February 11, 2009. This summary was developed to document the second round of stakeholder interviews and other information gathering activities held in the study area. This stakeholder interview was completed by: Radney Simpson - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette- Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: The Honorable Mayor Judy Cook, City Clerk Betty Hill and City Planner Wynn Carney from the City of Pembroke.
The conversation began with the discussion of widening State Route 280 west from I-16. The mayor is concerned about the potential impact to downtown Pembroke. A commercial district exists between Warnell and Ledford/Strickland Streets. Parking for the commercial district and the rail line (operated by Georgia Central Railroad) are located just south of State Route 280, within the footprint of the widening. Currently, the widening calls for State Route 280 to be expanded from 2 through lanes to 4 through lanes and 1 turn lane. Mayor Cook stated that parking should be preserved because it is critical to the viability of the commercial district.
The discussion moved to possible alternatives of widening State Route 280 through town. The first alternative discussed was creating a bypass around Pembroke. The mayor felt this was not a good option because it would attract development away from downtown and outside of the city limits.
The mayor mentioned that talks by the city had been initiated with the Georgia Central Railroad to have the tracks moved farther south to provide adequate right of way for the widening. Moving the tracks could reduce the need to take existing parking. In addition, Mr. Simpson suggested a one-way pair as a possible alternative solution. This alternative was positively received.
The conversation moved to State Route 280 between State Routes 119 and 67. At the beginning and end of the school day, school related traffic from Bryan County Elementary School creates congestion in this area, especially for those wishing to go north onto College from State Route 280 and those going south on State Route 67 wishing to go east or west on 280. The city currently uses the police department at this location during peak traffic times to manage traffic flow. The city believes a long term solution would be to install the town's second traffic signal at State Route 280 and State Route 67. The city's current traffic signal exists one block west of this intersection at Main Street and State Route 280. According to the mayor, GDOT believes that a second signal in this area would negatively affect operations due to the close proximity of the intersections.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Wynn Carney provided a PowerPoint presentation which was presented by Fort Stewart the previous week. The presentation identified that $34 million had been secured to construct a bypass around the Fort Stewart with a connection to State Route 144. The purpose of this bypass is to serve new military barracks and to consolidate commercial traffic into the base. Construction is to begin in FY2010. Mr. Carney suggested that this new bypass could encourage truck traffic to use State Route 280 through Pembroke from I-16, and State Route 144 through Richmond Hill from I-95 for future deliveries to the base. Mr. Carney also provided a hard copy of the presentation and contact person at Fort Stewart.
Betty Hill discussed the topic of trucks traveling south on Main Street and maneuvering right turns onto State Route 280. According to Ms. Hill, trucks making this right turn movement often jump the curb due to the tight turning radius. This often leads to collisions with ornamental streetlight poles installed in the area. To seek a solution to this issue, Mr. Simpson suggested that the Mayor have this concern relayed by the city engineer to the GDOT Jessup office.
The mayor noted that the city has successfully secured two Transportation Enhancement grants for the area, including an upcoming beautification project at Main and State Route 280. Also, funding for paving the canal network which surrounds Pembroke has been identified.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted summary of the stakeholder interview held with Pastor Carlton Cooper on February 11, 2008. This interview was part of the second round of stakeholder interviews for the Bryan County Transportation Study. This interview was completed by Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, Matthew Fowler GDOT Office of Planning, and Amanda Easoz - Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Carlton Cooper, Pastor, Bethel Baptist Church
Kyle Mote began the discussion by recapping the purposes and goals of the Bryan County Transportation Study. He reviewed the 2035 planning time frame and thanked Pastor Cooper for sharing his perspective on county transportation needs.
When asked about the most important transportation issues that should be addressed in the study, Pastor Cooper responded with issues associated with an increase in volume that is tied to growth.
Pastor Cooper identified traffic on US 17 (Ocean Highway) and State Route 144 (Ford Avenue) as the major issue. He has talked to many people that have to deal with congestion on this road. In the afternoon, these roads begin to see traffic congestion at 3:30 pm.
Pastor Cooper identified a couple likely causes of traffic congestion: 1. Traffic from Liberty County traveling through Bryan to reach employment in Chatham; 2. A number of Bryan County residents traveling to Chatham County and Savannah for work.
Looking forward, Pastor Cooper identified the need to address capacity issues on US 17 as growth occurs in the area about three miles south of his church.
Pastor Cooper identified a potential need to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods moving forward. He pointed out that he does not always pay attention to sidewalks.
Pastor Cooper stated that the Daniel Hwy extension should be a priority for the County. Development is coming that will require better connectivity in that area.
Mr. Mote asked Pastor Cooper if he was aware of any transportation issues in Pembroke. Mr. Cooper said he did not know of any.
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Some discussion ensued regarding the locations from which Bethel Baptist Church pulls its congregation. It was noted that the constituency is from Bryan and surrounding counties.
Mr. Mote asked if members of Pastor Cooper's congregation would be interested in participating in the study. Pastor Cooper suggested the following two names but would allow the individuals to contact the project team if interested in participating: 1. Tom Hill, business owner in Hinesville 2. Matt Connor, Georgia Power employee
Pastor Cooper would appreciate having more study pamphlets sent to him so he could redistribute them to his congregation.
Pastor Cooper reinforced his perspective that SR 144, particularly areas with only two lanes near Keller, should be a priority area for increasing capacity.
The group briefly discussed the urbanizing nature of Bryan County and the importance of maintaining Bryan County's rural character as growth occurs.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a bulleted summary of the interview held with Johnny Murphy on February 11, 2008. This interview was part of the second round of stakeholder interviews for the Bryan County Transportation Study. This interview was completed by Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, Matthew Fowler GDOT Office of Planning, and Amanda Easoz - Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Johnny Murphy, Developer of Buckhead Lakes and other areas of Southern Bryan County
Mr. Mote welcomed Johnny to the interview and thanked him for his time.
Johnny Murphy offered to give his perspective on the county's future growth and transportation needs, in large part by looking back at how the county has gotten to this point. He thought this would address many of the interview questions. Mr. Murphy's main points included the following: o He arrived in the county in 1983 (has been in Bryan County for 25 years). o His family was the 64th family in the County; now there are 7,000 households. o Rayonier (land previously owned by the Ford Foundation, then the International Paper Company) will have the most significant impact on growth in Bryan County. Rainer's subsidiary is installing infrastructure on Rayonier lands, then slowly selling it off to developers. Johnny's company is part of the subsequent land development. o The only notable transportation change that has happened in 25 years is that there are two new, four lane roads (US 17(Ocean Highway) and State Route 144 (Ford Avenue).
Mr. Murphy stated that the congestion problems in the southern region of the county are a result of all the schools being located in Richmond Hill. He said that heavy volumes are only a problem when school is in session.
Mr. Murphy believes that peak travel trends will decrease when new schools are built outside of Richmond Hill in other areas of the county.
Mr. Murphy sketched out when he foresaw major land and transportation developments occurring during the planning period. Two major developments (one being Mr. Murphy's and another being Genesis Point) will begin leaking new housing into the market within the next five years.
Mr. Murphy projected that the earliest date the interchange at Belfast Siding Road will be needed for public use is 2018. Development of the interchange should coincide with
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
industrial growth along the railroad in the Daniel area. He believes that this is the only area in the county suitable for industrial development and that Bryan County will remain a bedroom community.
Mr. Murphy highlighted the transportation improvements he thought would be needed during the period: o No improvements will be needed to I-95, other than some potential upgrade of the interchanges. o Towards the end of the study period, US 17 will need to be widened. o The US 17/State Route 144 intersection will need to be revamped. A traffic signal will not be sufficient to control the intersection beginning 2018. o The Harris Trail extension will help connect areas.
When asked if he believed there were any multi-mode transportation needs, Mr. Murphy stated that this was essential. o He stated that a major network of sidewalks already exists and that it is critical that a good multi-use trail system be developed that is accessible to the whole community and logically connects places. o Mr. Murphy pointed about that there are no taxis or buses in the county at this time. There needs to be another way to get around besides the car, and they should look into public transit (he'd loved to see a rail system) that brings people to the west side of the community.
In the long-term, Mr. Murphy said that land use strategies need to provide alternatives that allow for travel without the car (such as mixed use development) and that planning for the senior population will require this type of growth.
Mr. Murphy believes that more resources from outside the county are needed to plan with a forward-thinking mindset. Mr. Mote reinforced that a fundamental purpose of the study was to help the County with such efforts.
Mr. Murphy also stated that the "peninsula effect" of the county will always be a driving factor in transportation patterns and the county's overall growth.
Mr. Murphy suggested looking at The Village development in Florida as a good model for future development.
2

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
Provided below is a stakeholder interview summary from February 24th 2009. This interview is part of the third round documentation of stakeholder interviews and was completed by: Kyle Mote - GDOT Office of Planning, and Gordon Burkette- Jordan, Jones, and Goulding.
Interviewee Name: Sonny Timmerman, Director of the Hinesville MPO
The interview began with discussion of the proposed interchange at I-95 and Belfast Siding road. Mr. Timmerman was concerned about the associated growth in population and employment and the potential impact this development would have on Liberty County. He believes that the Interstate 95 can absorb the impact of an additional interchange, but felt that GDOT was not likely to approve the interchange.
According to Mr. Timmerman, Fort Stewart is planning to build a bypass on SR 144 and Military 47 to serve the new cantonment area for the new barracks and related facilities being built for the 5th Brigade. This has been on the Hinesville MPO's long range plan. He believes funding and construction is scheduled for FY 2010. Fort Stewart Bypass project is being funded through Department of Defense and is scheduled to come on line in 2011 to coincide with BRAC expansion.
Mr. Timmerman indicated that the military is moving the location of where commercial vehicles will enter the base. Currently, the commercial vehicle point of entry is from the 15th Street Airport Entrance. The new location will allow commercial traffic from Atlanta via SR 119 through Pembroke and traffic from I-95 to access the base via SR 144. He was unsure of the recent number of commercial vehicles entering the base per day, but anticipated the number to be several hundred vehicles per day that will be impacted by the change.
Coastal Georgia RDC is completing a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) for Fort Stewart. These studies are similar to comprehensive plans with the focus being on base activities and surrounding land. Counties included in the study area are Bryan, Liberty, Tattnal and Long.
As part of the JLUS funding through the Department of Defense (DOD), the Hinesville MPO has been commissioned to measure impacts of the base expansion on areas surrounding Fort Stewart through the use of an expanded travel demand model. The current Hinesville model includes Liberty and Long. Expansion through this effort is likely to include Tattnal and Bryan Counties. Mr. Timmerman suggested some coordination of the model expansion should occur with GDOT. The DOD military to local
1

Bryan County Transportation Study Interview Summary Sheet
funding match for expansion of the travel demand model is 90/10. The current model is maintained by RS&H. According to Mr. Timmerman, the military has advocated the widening of SR 144 from the I-95 Interchange west to the base. This is the military's preferred route for deploying troops and equipment from Fort Stewart to the Port of Savannah. He also mentioned that the military has not proposed to fund this project. Mr. Timmerman pointed out that SR 144 through Fort Stewart closes 3-4 times per year due to training. Fort Stewart usually publishes times and dates of closures well in advance to notify non-military traffic.
2

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
November 18th 2008 Richmond Hill/Bryan County Chamber of Commerce 2:00 3:00 pm
The purpose of the Local Agency Kickoff Meeting was to introduce the Bryan County Transportation Study to local officials and receive input on key issues affecting the Bryan County transportation system, in which the study should address. Meeting attendees are listed on the last page of this report. The following bullets highlight discussion items from the meeting:
Presentation
Kyle Mote, GDOT Project Manager provided a presentation covering the study purpose, as well as, an overview of current and upcoming activities. The major points covered during the presentation included: o The Bryan County Transportation Study is to document mobility needs of today and the future (2035); identify transportation projects based on community priorities; prioritize future transportations projects and identify potential transportation funding sources. o The study will analyze existing and future transportation conditions, and review previously completed studies. o The study will develop a travel demand model which will predict future daily traffic based on future land use plans for the County. o Public involvement is an important study element. Public outreach activities will include public meetings, an Advisory Committee to provide input on technical elements, fact sheets to report study status and progress, and a study web page to keep the community apprised of upcoming meetings and activities. o Potential transportation improvements to be identified will include project such as safety improvements, access management, increased roadway capacity, new roadway connections and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. o Study next steps are to finalize data collection and review of previous studies, continue the stakeholder interview process, complete development of the travel demand model and prepare for the first Advisory Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for January 2009. o A 13-month schedule was presented to the group with an anticipated completion date of Fall/Winter 2009.
Map Exercise
Following the presentation, the group engaged in an exercise to assist the study team in identifying transportation issues to be considered as the study progresses. The map exercise was conducted through the use of the following three maps: (1) Bryan County Study Area Map, (2) Pembroke Area Map and (3) Richmond Hill Area Map.
1

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Dots to Identify Key Locations Participants were given four types of colored dots and asked to place them on the maps provided. The intent of the effort was for participants to identify locations they felt transportation issues exist that should be addressed during the study process. Dot colors represented the following transportation needs:
o Red dots for indicated locations participants believe need traffic signal upgrades; o Yellow dots indicated locations that lack adequate sidewalks and pedestrian facilities; o Green dots indicated locations of safety concern; and o Blue dots indicated needs for roadway expansion to accommodate additional traffic.
Map Dot Exercise Results Ideas collected from the map exercise were transposed into a digital format. Figures 1-3 (attached) illustrate results from participants of the map dot exercise.
Participants Noted Key Areas of Need In addition to the dots, participants were given pens and markers to write and/or note on the maps other areas and points of concerns. At the conclusion of this exercise, these maps were collected by the study team, and the result of the exercise has been documented in this report. Results of the map exercise identified transportation needs largely concentrated in three locations within the study area including:
1. Incorporated Pembroke; 2. Areas in close proximity to Richmond Hill; 3. Blitchton Area in and around Interstate Centre Industrial Park.
Summary of Written Explanations from Participants The following points summarize the written notations during the mapping exercise. The notations have been organized by the map in which the information was collected:
Entire Study Area Maps o Consider intersection of US 280 and State Route 30 for potential safety improvements. o Identify sidewalks from US 280 to Hendrix Park Recreation Area along State Route 30. o Consider roadway widening of Old Cuyler Road to four lanes from Blitchton to I-16. o Consider new interchange at I-16 and Tar City Road to serve Interstate Centre Industrial
Park. o Consider extension of access roadway in the Interstate Centre Industrial Park (i.e., Oracal
Parkway) which would connect Eldora to US 280. o Consider new roadway connection from Bryant Highway in Hinesville to State Route 144. o Consider extension of Harris Trail to Belfast Siding Road.
2

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Pembroke Area Maps o Analyze the benefit of realignment and signalization of College Street and Ashbranch Road. o Consider addition of shoulder and acceleration/deceleration lanes on US 280 just west of
the Pembroke city limits. o Consider sidewalks improvements to connect adjacent neighborhoods to Bryan County High
School along Payne Road and Camelia Drive. o Address automobile traffic to Bryan County Elementary on Ashbranch Road.
Richmond Hill Area Maps o Consider extension of Port Royal Road to Belfast/Keller. o Consider improvements to Silk Hope Road (e.g., 4-lane upgrade and extension to the State
Route 144 spur with sidewalk and bike trails). o Consider a Fort Stewart Bypass which connects the northern and southern portions of the
county. This road could begin at SR 144 and I-95, while the northern terminus is to be determined. o Consider a frontage road along I-95 from State Route 144 to city limits. o Consider a new roadway connection from the aforementioned new frontage roadway along I-95 to Ocean Highway. o Consider a four lane widening improvement to State Route 144 throughout Richmond Hill. o Sidewalks should exist on both sides of State Route 144.
Next Steps/Other
The study team will continue to collect input on transportation conditions and areas of concern for Bryan County.
The study team is currently developing an Advisory Committee (AC) formulated from local agencies and community stakeholders. The AC will meet periodically during the study to provide technical input and guidance.
The study team will be drafting preliminary study goals based on the Joint Comprehensive Plan and input gathered during the upcoming Bryan County Transportation Study Advisory Committee meeting.
The study team is developing the Existing Conditions Report to document current and future transportation conditions as well as document input from previous studies reviewed as part of the study effort.
3

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Figure 1: Stakeholder Input: Pembroke
4

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Figure 2: Stakeholder Input: Richmond Hill
5

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Figure 3: Stakeholder Transportation Input: Bryan County
6

Local Agency Kickoff Meeting Summary Report
Meeting Attendees 1. Brad Anderson, Bryan County Public Schools 2. John Oliver, Bryan County Public Schools 3. Maureen Casey, Fort Stewart Transportation 4. Betty Hill, City of Pembroke 5. Richard McCoy, City of Pembroke 6. Terri Taylor, Bryan County Commission/Special Services 7. Steve Scholar, Richmond Hill Planning 8. Jerry DeLoach, Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce 9. Dale Dudley, Bryan County 10. Ed Bacon, Bryan County Commission 11. Jean Bacon, Development Authority of Bryan County 12. Brad Saxon, GDOT District 5 13. Teresa Scott, GDOT District 5 14. Shirley Heagerty, S&J Bookkeeping 15. Bonnie Proctor, Bryan County Chamber of Commerce 16. Ross Blair, Bryan County News 17. Billy Reynolds, Richmond Hill Police Department 18. Tricia Reynolds, Coastal Georgia RDC 19. Phil Jones, Bryan County 20. Radney Simpson, GDOT Office of Planning 21. Kyle Mote, GDOT Office of Planning 22. Grady Smith, JJG 23. Gordon Burkette, JJG
7

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

February 11th 2009 Bryan County Court House Annex, Richmond Hill 2:00 3:00 pm

The first Bryan County Transportation Study Advisory Committee Meeting was held February 11th from 2-3pm at the Bryan County Courthouse Annex in Richmond Hill.

The following people signed in as meeting attendees:

o W. Phillip Jones, Bryan County Board of Commissioners
o Teresa Scott, GDOT District 5 o John Oliver, Bryan County Public
Schools o Jan Bass, City of Richmond Hill o Steve Scholar, Richmond Hill
Planning o Dr. Sallie Brewer, Bryan County
Board of Education o Betty Hill, City of Pembroke o Wynn Carney, City of Pembroke o Dale Dudley, Bryan County

o Carl Elmore, Bryan County NOW Newspaper
o Derrell Newman, Bryan County Commission
o Ted Akins, Development Authority of Bryan County
o Matthew Fowler, GDOT Office of Planning
o Radney Simpson, GDOT Office of Planning
o Kyle Mote, GDOT Office of Planning o Amanda Easoz, JJG o Gordon Burkette, JJG

The following bullets highlight discussion items from the meeting:

Presentation

Kyle Mote, GDOT Project Manager provided a presentation outlining the purpose of the first Advisory Committee presentation. Mr. Mote indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to provide a progress update on study activities, conduct an interactive voting exercise designed to refine transportation related goals from previous studies, and to discuss next steps in the study process.

The presentation covered the following information:

o The Bryan County Transportation Study will identify mobility needs of today and the future (2035); develop and prioritize transportation projects based on community priorities; and identify potential transportation funding sources.
o The study will analyze existing and future transportation conditions through the year 2035; review findings from previous transportation studies; and develop a travel demand model which will be primarily used to predict future daily traffic taking into account land use changes identified in the Bryan County's Joint Comprehensive Plan.

1

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
o Public involvement activities will include a series of public meetings, input from the Advisory Committee which is intended to provide technical and policy guidance, fact sheets to provide updates and describe project activities, a questionnaire to gather input and gauge local concerns, and a web page to keep the community apprised of upcoming meetings and activities.
o The study will emphasize community input and use of previous studies to gauge community concerns and goals.
o Potential transportation improvements will include safety, improved access, increased capacity, new connections and alternative modes such as bicycle and pedestrian recommendations.
o Next steps include completion of the travel demand model, identification of future transportation needs, testing of potential improvement projects.
o A 13-month schedule was presented to the group with an anticipated completion date of September 2009.
Voting Exercise
To foster interactive dialogue between the study team and meeting participants, an electronic voting system that operated within the presentation was employed to gather committee input on potential project goals. The voting exercise was based on 4 potential goals that were drafted by consolidating goal statements presented in previous Bryan County planning efforts (e.g., Bryan County City of Pembroke and City of Richmond Hill Comprehensive Plans and Bryan County Bicycle Pedestrian Study).
Mr. Mote discussed each goal and posed a related question. The following summarizes the 4 potential goals presented, as well as, the voting results and associated discussion:
Goal 1: Encourage multi-modal transportation corridors
Participants were asked, "What is most lacking in terms of providing a multi-modal network in Bryan County?" Choices were:
1. Pedestrian/sidewalk improvements/connectivity along major corridors; 2. Increased roadway capacity within major corridors; 3. Improved truck mobility and access to major freight generators; 4. No changes needed; 5. Not applicable.
Seventy percent of participants voted for increased roadway capacity, while 30% voted for pedestrian/sidewalk improvements/connectivity along major corridors. The discussion that followed identified the following needs:
o Widening improvements needed along SR 119 and SR 280; o Widening of SR 144 is needed in the southern part of the county where the roadway is
currently two lanes;
2

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
o Construction of the interchange at Belfast Siding is important to connectivity and access to new developments;
o SR 204 to SR 280/Black Church Road should be upgraded; o Pedestrian connections in Pembroke to local schools should be improved.
Goal 2: Expansion of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Network
Participants were asked, "In terms of priority, where should the bike/pedestrian network be expanded?" Voting choices were:
1. Connections to parks and recreation; 2. Connections to schools and community facilities (e.g., Safe Routes to School Program); 3. Build bicycle and pedestrian network along major scenic corridors and greenways (e.g.
canal ways; 4. Build bicycle and pedestrian network along major commercial corridors (e.g., Ford
Avenue); 5. Not applicable.
Twenty percent of the respondents voted for connections to parks and recreation, 20% for connecting schools and community facilities while 60% would like trails built along major scenic corridors and canals.
During the discussion, it was noted that previous proposals have suggested using service roads along the canals as locations for possible multi-use trails, however there is some uncertainty regarding the feasibility of constructing such paths in these areas.
Additionally, a participant also noted that in Pembroke, if built a number of the canal adjacent multiuse trails would be in close proximity to school and recreation facilities, and therefore could serve a dual purpose connecting schools and community facilities.
To ensure that the network of trails is built strategically and is interconnected, one participant felt that a consolidated approach by the cities, county, and recreation departments be undertaken to construct and maintain trail facilities. . An additional comment received noted that a multi-use trail between Chatham and Bryan County should be completed extending a current trail that terminates on the Chatham side of US17 at King's Bridge and starts again at J F Gregory Park.
Goal 3: Coordinated Land Use and Transportation
Participants were asked, "What is the most important to ensure coordinated land use with transportation decision making?" Possible responses were:
1. Mixed Use - Promote a mix of uses (employment/livable areas)within major development to reduce transportation demand;
2. Impact Fees Investigate the possibility of developers to providing; 3. Transportation impact fees as part of new development projects;
3

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
4. Improve multimodal connectivity to major developments (e.g., Industrial Centre Park in Pembroke);
5. Not applicable.
Sixty percent of respondents voted for impact fees, 30% voted to improve multimodal connectivity to major developments and 10% for encouraging mixed-use developments.
Bryan County representatives stated that they currently use some impact fees to assist in making improvements related to development. The City of Richmond Hill stated that they do not currently impose impact fees. During this discussion it was also suggested that development reviews should include Emergency Management Services (EMS) to ensure that new facilities incorporate designs that are accessible to emergency vehicles.
Goal 4: Increase Safety of Transportation Network
Participants were asked, "What are the most pressing safety concerns for Bryan County?" Possible answers were:
1. Reduce roadway-related accident contributors deficient roadway geometrics (e.g., sight distances and tight curves), lack of signage, and drainage/flooding issues etc;
2. Improve current infrastructure - Reduce the number of unpaved roadways, add lighting on roadways, etc;
3. Improve pedestrian amenities (e.g., crosswalks, pedestrian signalization, etc.); 4. No change needed; 5. Not applicable.
Forty-four percent of respondents chose to improve current infrastructure, 33% chose reducing roadway-related accident contributors, while 22% noted improved pedestrian amenities.
Discussion concerning Goal 4 noted a clear differentiation of viewpoints expressed by representatives from urban areas versus rural areas of the county. Participants from urban parts of the county strongly advocated the need for sidewalks, while those in the rural areas suggested sidewalks were simply not a priority for their area.
The group collectively agreed that there were very few drainage issues and identified key areas to improve the existing transportation system. Other discussions surrounding Goal 4 included:
o Accidents mostly occur at major interchanges including US 80 and 280; o Deep ditches especially along dirt roads are dangerous; o Drainage around the Pembroke Dairy Queen should be addressed; o The Warnell Road curve and Lanier curve on SR119 should be modified to increase
safety; o The speed limit at US 280 and I-16 should be reduced from 55mph to 45mph around the
Interstate Centre;
4

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
o Due to limited lines of sight on US 280, the speed limit should be reduced to 45 mph from I-16 to Blichton;
o The county should prepare for new routing likely to be taken by trucks attempting to access the new commercial vehicle entrance to Fort Stewart. This entrance will be located on SR 119.
Potential Public Meeting Locations and Dates The final item for the meeting agenda was to ask the group about potential locations to hold
upcoming public meetings. Locations suggested by the group included: o Pembroke's new Community Center; o Richmond Hill's City Hall Council Chambers; o The Wetlands Center (Richmond Hill); o Black Creek Golf Course Meeting Area.
The group collectively agreed that the week of April 19-25 should be targeted for the first public meeting. This meeting would coincide with Georgia Cities week activities and could be coordinated with other area activities to increase public attendance. Other suggested methods to promote the meeting include the use of the Richmond Hill Billboard, Pembroke local cable access channel and other activities surrounding Georgia Cities week.
Next Steps Input regarding local values and vision from this meeting will be utilized to clarify project goals,
better understand key elements needed to be included in project recommendations, development of project evaluation metrics, and to identify potential policy changes needed to implement the future transportation network envisioned. Information, including the presentation, maps, minutes and other materials will be available on the project website www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy. Locations and times of the next public meetings will be identified and distributed to the Advisory Committee members.
5

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

June 24, 2009
John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center, Richmond Hill
3:00 4:00 pm

The second and final Bryan County Transportation Study Advisory Committee Meeting was held on June 24th from 3:00-4:00pm at the John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center in Richmond Hill.

The following members of the Advisory Committee were in attendance:

o W. Phillip Jones, Bryan County Board of Commissioners
o Teresa Scott, GDOT District 5 o Mike Melton, City Manager of
Richmond Hill o Jan Bass, Community Planner - City
of Richmond Hill o Billy D. Reynolds, Chief of Richmond
Hill Police Department o Neil Smiley, Bryan County
Engineering

o Kirk Croasmun, Bryan County Engineer
o Walter Shuman, Bryan County Public Works
o Matthew Fowler, GDOT Office of Planning
o Radney Simpson, GDOT Office of Planning
o Kyle Mote, GDOT Office of Planning o Habte Kassa, GDOT o Grady Smith, JJG o Jenny Lee, JJG

The purpose of this meeting was to present the preliminary project recommendations and receive input from the committee to finalize these recommendations. The following bullets highlight discussion items from the meeting:

Presentation:

Kyle Mote, GDOT Project Manager, opened the meeting by outlining the agenda items, which included a review of the work completed to date, an overview of the project identification process, preliminary project recommendations, summary of stakeholder activity to date, and next steps.

The presentation covered the following information:

o Mr. Mote reported that the following tasks have been completed: Assessment of baseline conditions; Development of study goals; Travel Demand Model development; Identification of potential improvements; and Preliminary project evaluation and screening.

o With respect to the project identification process, Mr. Mote announced that the projects have been identified based on recommendations from previous studies, LOS analysis, safety

1

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
and design issues, and stakeholder input. He emphasized that for every identified project, a need and purpose as well as logical termini were determined and refined.
o Mr. Mote then highlighted a few key System Management project recommendations and discussed the overall benefits of the System Management projects. He pointed out that these potential projects are recommended for consideration because they are low-cost and maximize the effectiveness of the existing system.
o Teresa Scott (GDOT District 5) asked why the bridge on I-95 at CSX Railroad should be replaced considering that I-95 bridges were upgraded as part of the I-95 widening. Mr. Mote replied that the bridge replacements identified in the study have sufficiency rating below 50, which make them eligible for federal funding. However, this is not to say that this particular bridge is structurally unsafe. The sufficiency rating also takes into account metrics not related to the structural integrity. Some of these factors include its role in public use (e.g., frequent school bus trips), if a bridge is on the national highway system and bridge approaches. Matthew Flower reiterated the point by stating that sufficiency ratings are used as a guide to identifying potential issues, and does not suggest that this particular bridge is structurally unsafe. The total estimated construction cost for System Management projects is approximately $41.2M.
o Mr. Mote explained that the cost estimations were performed using GDOT's cost estimation software (CES) and these costs are reported in today's dollars.
o With regards to Bicycle/Pedestrian recommendations, Mr. Mote stated that these projects were identified to enhance the multi-modal characteristics of the county. He then highlighted a few key sidewalk and multi-use path projects throughout the county. The total estimated construction cost for Bicycle/Pedestrian projects is approximately $13.4M.
o Mr. Mote then discussed in detail the top five capacity improvement projects in terms of benefit-cost rating. These projects included: I-95 Widening (6 to 8 lanes, 2-mile segment - SR 144 to Chatham County) - $8.4M SR 144 Widening (2 to 4 lanes, Timber Trail to Belfast Keller) - $32.3M SR 144 Widening (4 to 6 lanes, US 17 to Timber Trail) - $32.3M US 17 Widening (4 to 6 lanes, SR 196 to SR 144) $42.7M Belfast Siding Road Widening (2 to 4 lanes, US 17 to Park Hill 20 Road) $24.8M
o Comments related to the capacity improvements are as follows: Mike Melton stated that the widening of US 17 to SR 144 should terminate west of the I-95 interchange to direct commuter traffic from Liberty County to I-95 without having to go through the commercial district in Richmond Hill. Matthew Fowler indicated that there were operational reasons to have the logical terminus at SR 144, but the department will certainly take his suggestions into consideration. Mr. Melton also commented on the impact of widening SR 144 to six lanes would have on the commercial district in central Richmond Hill. Jan Bass pointed out the apparent contradiction of widening SR 144 and recommending sidewalks at the
2

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
same time that will increase pedestrian and vehicular conflict. She stated that widening this segment of SR 144 is not in accordance with the city's plans to preserve its character. In response, Mr. Mote stated that when using federal dollars for capacity improvements, GDOT has a policy to incorporate sidewalks in an urban section of a roadway. Grady Smith pointed out that right-of way (ROW) cost estimates have not been determined, and thus, this project could be revisited once ROW costs are taken into account in calculating the benefit-cost ratio. Mr. Melton emphasized that the widening of SR 144 to four-lanes between Timber Trail and Belfast Keller Road needs to happen before the six lane section. With regards to the Belfast Siding Road Widening project, Mr. Melton commented that this project cannot be warranted based on today's traffic needs. He pointed out that there other pressing transportation issues that need immediate attention. Mr. Mote responded that these recommendations are based on a future land use scenario 25 years from now that reflects the county's aggressive growth policy, per the locally adopted land use plan, to develop the lands surrounding Belfast Siding Road. Jan Bass indicated that Harris Trail Road functions as the most logical bypass to the city. She stated that improving this road will deflect traffic from SR 144 and preserve the character of downtown Richmond Hill. She further added that Transportation Enhancement (TE) grant has been spent on improving the streetscape along SR 144 and these should not be destroyed to make room for the widening. In response, Kyle emphasized the long-range nature of these project recommendations and that they were identified based on LOS needs of the future. Mr. Fowler added that the preliminary recommendations were purely based on a technical analysis using a "what if" scenario. He stated that the purpose of the Advisory Committee meeting was to gather input from the locals to refine the projects and reflect community values. Mr. Smith further commented that stakeholder input is necessary to finalize the project list. Mr. Melton reiterated that widening the southern section of SR 144 to four lanes should be a priority based on safety as well. Phil Jones stated that this project was still a priority project in the county and programmed for 2011. With regards to the Harris Trail Widening, Mr. Jones recommended applying three phases to the project. First phase should extend the existing four lane section south to Port Royal Road. Assuming that the paving of Harris Trail Extension is completed by this time, the second phase should entail widening the remaining two lane section from Port Royal Road to Belfast Keller Road to four lanes. The last phase should be widening the entire Harris Trail Road from US 17 to Belfast Keller Road to six lanes.
o Mr. Mote then discussed the evaluation process used for assessing capacity improvement projects, which involved both quantitative and qualitative metrics. He explained that some of the metrics such as delay reduction and travel time savings were evaluated using the Travel Demand Model.
Next Steps:
3

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Input regarding local values and comments from this meeting will be utilized to refine the project recommendations. The final task is identifying potential funding sources for these improvements.
The next public meeting is anticipated to be in July or August. Locations and times of the public meetings will be identified and distributed to the Advisory Committee members.
The Bryan County Transportation study has an anticipated completion date of September 2009.
4

Bryan County Transportation Study
TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS Tuesday, April 21st:
At the County Commissioner's Meeting Room in Pembroke at 2:00pm And
At the John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center in Richmond Hill at 6:00pm

About the Study: The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is preparing the Bryan County Transportation Study in cooperation with Bryan County, the City of Pembroke, the City of Richmond Hill, and various other planning partners. The objective of the study is to identify and potentially recommend transportation improvements necessary to meet existing and anticipated future travel needs through the year 2035. Bryan County is experiencing a significant increase in population. Studies suggest that the County's population could potentially double from 23,500 in 2000 to roughly 46,000 by 2030. The Bryan County Transportation Study, scheduled for completion in the fall of 2009, will identify mobility and travel impacts associated with the anticipated growth, and recommend potential transportation improvements to serve the current and the anticipated future needs of Bryan County.
Purpose of Meetings: The purpose of the meetings is to get the public's input regarding the transportation issues and challenges in the County and discuss some of the potential improvement suggestions available. These meetings are open to all, and will consist of informational displays and interactive discussion sessions. The community will be encouraged to share their ideas on the direction of transportation planning for Bryan County.

WE NEED YOUR INPUT!

Public Meeting Locations and Times Tuesday, April 21st, 2009
County Commissioner's Meeting Room (2:00PM) 151 South College Street, Pembroke, GA 31321
And John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center (6:00PM)
600 Cedar Street, Richmond Hill, GA, 31324

To find out more, please visit: www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy

Contact:
Kyle Mote, GDOT Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W. Peachtree Street, 5th Floor Office 566 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 404-631-1987 (kmote@dot.ga.gov)

Grady Smith, Consultant Team 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 770-455-8555 (grady.smith.jjg.com)

Overview of the Bryan County Transportation Study Process
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is preparing the Bryan County Transportation Study in cooperation with Bryan County, the City of Pembroke, the City of Richmond Hill, and various other planning partners. The objective of the study is to identify and recommend transportation improvements necessary to meet existing and future travel needs through the year 2035.
Bryan County is experiencing a significant increase in population. In fact, projections released by the Georgia Institute of Technology's Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (2006) indicate that the County's population is projected to increase from 23,500 in 2000 to roughly 46,000 by 2030 an anticipated increase of 96 percent. The Bryan County Transportation Study will identify mobility and travel impacts associated with this growth, and recommend potential transportation improvement strategies and projects to adequately serve Bryan County residents.
Work efforts for the Bryan County Transportation Study are well underway. So far, the study team has reviewed all the relevant transportation and land use plans completed within the County. Additionally, the extensive data collection effort needed for the existing and future conditions analyses is nearly complete. These data include the inventory of current traffic/travel trends, land use/development patterns, environmentally sensitive areas, high accident locations, and other transportation network conditions. The study team has also interviewed various stakeholders throughout the County to incorporate their input in the development of goals and objectives of the study. The final phase of the data collection will involve input collected from the general public. Next steps include finalization of the potential improvements, followed by screening analysis of potential projects, and identification of project recommendations. The study, anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2009, will highlight a list of potential transportation improvement suggestions to address Bryan County's anticipated mobility and accessibility needs.
Additional information regarding the study is available via the GDOT website: www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy. For general comments or inquiries, please contact:

Kyle Mote, GDOT Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W. Peachtree Street, 5th Floor Office 566 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 404-631-1987 (kmote@dot.ga.gov)

Grady Smith, Project Team 400 Colony Square 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 770-455-8555 (grady.smith.jjg.com)

Bryan County Transportation Study
Bryan County Transportation Study Team is set to present a Preliminary List
of Potential Transportation Projects for Public Review and Comment.

After more than ten months of intensive research, analysis and public outreach, The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has presented a list of potential transportation improvements for review and comment by public officials and other stakeholders in Bryan County. Through the work completed to date, which includes baseline conditions assessment, formulation of study goals, and travel demand model development, the study team has determined mobility and travel impacts associated with the anticipated growth in the County. The draft transportation improvements are designed to respond to an aggressive population projection, and also considered future land use strategies outlined in the County's Joint Comprehensive Plan. The project categories include Traffic Operations/System Management Projects, Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and New Capacity Projects.

Traffic Operation/System Management Projects: These projects could maximize the effectiveness of the existing system, and can be potentially implemented quickly. Total of 22 project concepts have
been identified to include improvements such as new traffic signals, adding turn lanes, and bridge
replacements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: The multimodal recommendations are designed to potentially improve the general quality of life as well as improve safety for all users of the transportation
network. Total of 22 potential sidewalks and shared-use paths have been identified throughout the
County.

New Capacity Projects: The new capacity recommendations can be significant investments. Thus, these potential projects are evaluated based on performance and benefit-cost.
Next Steps

The Bryan County Transportation Study will address public comments, then submit a long-term transportation plan for the county's consideration. Given funding constraints facing the state, it is unlikely that all of the projects identified by the study can be funded over the next 25 years. Therefore, the principal task remaining in the Bryan County Transportation Study is to identify potential funding programs for the recommended projects. Based on the input from the last series of public meetings (scheduled for August 6th), GDOT will then finalize study recommendations and submit the final documentation in the fall of 2009.

Bryan County Transportation Study Final Public Meetings
The purpose of the last series of public meetings is to solicit input from stakeholders and residents in the county to prioritize and reach consensus on the list of potential transportation improvements. These meetings are open to all, and will consist of informational displays as well as interactive discussion sessions. The community will be encouraged to share their ideas on the direction of transportation planning for Bryan County.

WE NEED YOUR INPUT!

2:00 PM

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

Bethel Baptist Church Fellowship Hall

40 White Oak Lane, Richmond Hill, GA

6:00 PM J Dixie Harn Community Hall
91 Lanier St, Pembroke, GA

Additional information regarding the study is available via the GDOT website: www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy. For general comments or inquiries, please contact:

GDOT Contact: Kyle Mote, Project Manager One Georgia Center 600 W Peachtree Street, 5th Floor, Office 566 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 404-631-1987 kmote@dot.ga.gov

Consulting Team Contact: Grady Smith Jordan, Jones and Goulding 400 Colony Square, 1201 Peachtree Street NE. Ste. 1905 Atlanta, GA 30061 678-333-0414 grady.smith@jjg.com

Final List of Stakeholders

SAL Ms. Mr. Chief Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms Ms.

First Name Last Name

Betty Hill

Billy Albritton

Billy D. Reynolds

Brad Saxon

Carlton Cooper

Dale Dudley

Derrell Newman

Donna Reed

Gwen Strickland

Jan

Bass

Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Father Mr. Mayor Ms. Ms. Mr. Chief Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mayor Mr. Ms.

Jean Bacon

Jim

Anderson

Jimmy Burnsed

Jo

Hickson

Joe

Smith

Johnny Murphy

Judy Cook

Kay

Green

Kittie Franklin

Leon Davenport

Mark Crowe

Maureen Casey

Mike Melton

Nancy Frye

Neil Smiley

Nevin Brown

Nevin Patton

Phil

Jones

Richard R.Davis

Rickey McCoy

Rita Johanson

Mr.

Sonny Timmerman

Mr.

Steve Scholar

Ms.

Tanya Raulston

Ms.

Teresa Scott

Ms.

Terri Taylor

Mr.

Tom Thomson

Ms.

Tricia Reynolds

Agency City of Pembroke Planning Commission Richmond Hill Richmond Hill Police Department GDOT District 5 Office Bethel Baptist Church Bryan County Planning and Zoning Bryan County Public Works Richmond Hill Recreation Assoc Bryan County Development Authority Richmond Hill Planning and Zoning Development Authority of Bryan County Bryan County Bryan County Commission Coastal Georgia Greenway Program St. Anne's Catholic Church Richmond Hill Planatation City of Pembroke Bryan County Bryan County Chamber of Commerce Assistant Chatham County Engineer Pembroke Police Department Fort Stewart City of Richmond Hill City of Richmond Hill Bryan County Main Street Homeowners Assoc First Bank of Coastal Georgia Bryan County City of Richmond Hill City of Pembroke Transportation, Ft. Stewart Hinesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Richmond Hill Planning and Zoning

Title City Clerk
District Preconstruction Engineer Pastor Engineer County Engineer Director
Community Development Specialist
Executive Director EMS Director Chairman
Pastor
Recreation Director Executive Director
ITO Richmond HIll City Manager Zoning Administrator Director of Engineering
Senior Vice President County Manager
City Engineer ITO Chief
Executive Director Director

Street 160 N Main St 40 Richard Davis Dr 40 Richard Davis Dr P.O. Box 610 40 White Oak Lane 185 Richard Davis Drive Suite 105 PO Box 186 500 Ledford Avenue 508 Timber Trail 116 Lanier Street P.O. Box 430 40 Richard Davis Dr

City

Zip

Pembroke, GA

31321

Richmond Hill, GA 31324

Richmond Hill, GA 31324

Jesup, GA

31598

Richmond Hill

31324

Richmond Hill, GA 31324

Pembroke, GA

31321

Richmond Hill , GA 31324

Pembroke, GA

31321

Richmond Hill, GA 31324

116 Lanier Street P.O. Box 430 PO Box 430 116 Lanier Street P.O. Box 430 3601 Abercorn Street 40 Richard Davis Dr 10950 Ford Ave 160 N Main St 508 Timber Trail 2591 Hwy 17, Suite 100 124 Bull Street Room 430 160 N Main St Building 2916 1624 West 6th Street 40 Richard Davis Dr 40 Richard Davis Dr 116 Lanier Street P.O. Box 430 P. O. Box 856 758 E. Bristol Way 9720 Ford Ave 116 Lanier Street P.O. Box 430 40 Richard Davis Dr 160 N Main St Building 2916 1624 West 6th Street

Pembroke, GA Pembroke, GA Pembroke, GA Savannah, GA Richmond Hill, GA Richmond Hill, GA Pembroke, GA Richmond Hill , GA Richmond Hill, GA Savannah, GA Pembroke, GA Fort Stewart , GA Richmond Hill, GA Richmond Hill, GA Pembroke, GA Richmond Hill Richmond Hill, Ga Pembroke, GA Richmond Hill, GA Pembroke, GA Fort Stewart GA

31321 31321 31321 31405 31324 31324 31321 31324 31324 31401 31321 31314 31324 31324 31321 31324 31324 31321 31324 31321 31314

205 E. Court Street 40 Richard Davis Dr

Hinesville, GA Richmond Hill, GA

31313 31324

North Pembroke Chamber of Commerce Director

18 E. Bacon St P.O. Box 916

GDOT District 5 Office

District Planning Programming Engineer P.O. Box 609

Bryan County

Director of Transportation

116 Lanier Street

Chatham County-Savannah

Metropolitan Planning Commission Executive Director

110 East State Street

Services Coastal Georgia RDC

Director of Planning & Government 127 F Street

Pembroke, GA Jesup, GA Pembroke, GA

31321 31597 31321

Savannah, GA 31412-8246

Brunswick, GA

31520

Officials, DOT talk roads
DOT and county officials discuss the future of road work that needs to be undertaken over the next 25 years at a meeting in Richmond Hill Tuesday
Ross Blair Bryan County News rblair@bryancountynews.net 912-756-3454 Posted: Nov. 21, 2008 6:41 p.m. Updated: Nov. 22, 2008 1 a.m. Officials with the Georgia Department of Transportation kicked off a Bryan County Transportation Study by conducting a meeting with area officials on Nov. 18 at the Richmond Hill/Bryan County Chamber of Commerce office.

"We just completed one for Effingham," DOT Project Manager Kyle Mote said. "We're trying to help out rapidly growing areas in rural Georgia by showing them the long range transportation planning process. We want to help Bryan County grow the way they want to grow."
Mote said the study will continue through 2009 and result in a plan that would identify, in order of priority, the work that DOT needs to do in Bryan County between now and 2035. After the plan is created, Mote and his partners plan to discuss available funding strategies with county officials.
During the meeting, Mote laid a five-foot map of the county in front of the attending local officials and asked them to mark it up with the areas they believe need DOT work, such as road widening, paving and additional traffic lights.
And exactly what projects do local officials deem to be most important? Here are a few responses:
- RHPD Chief Billy Reynolds: "As we've seen recently, when Hwy. 144 was cut off at the railroad crossing, we've got one main artery coming off the coast. When you cut that artery off, it causes all kinds of issues. In my opinion, the highest Richmond Hill priorities are the Belfast interchange and the connection from Harris Trail to Belfast. Widening of Hwy. 144 would be awesome, but, with that, we're still looking at one way off the coast."
- Pembroke Clerk of Works Ricky McCoy: "I would like to see the four-laning of Pembroke from Claxton to Hwy. 80. Also, we have several other areas that need attention due to safety concerns."
- County Engineer Dale Dudley: "The widening of the streets in the areas of growth, like Hwy. 144, is a definite priority. Also, there are some alternative routes from 144, 217 through Belfast-Siding/Belfast Keller. The interchange would be great, but even without that, we need an alternate route. We're working on it right now, in fact."
Work will begin as funding and scheduling allows, but DOT consultant Grady Smith said the completion of this plan coincides with the time that Congress is slated to discuss federal funding for transportation bills, "so timing works out really well."
The DOT is asking the public to complete a similar activity. They are requesting feedback, via www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy, from local residents on what Bryan road work needs to be done. A map of the area can be downloaded, which they are asking to be marked the same way they asked of the county officials and sent back to them.
"The more people that participate, the better we'll understand this community," said DOT transportation planner Gordon Burkette. "No one knows these areas better than the people that live in these neighborhoods or work in a part area or drive their kid down a part street every day. Especially things like sidewalks, multi-use trails where should they connect to; what would make them work better? Also, making sure that safety issues are addressed. Is there a blind corner that continues to be a hazard? Those are the kinds of things we want to identify."
Burkette said this project will work in conjunction with the recently completed Bryan County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which identifies many of the wants and needs of the citizens of Bryan County as growth commences.

DOT helps plan Bryan's roads | SavannahNow.com

Page 1 of 2

My Dashboard
Username: Password:

Site Web JOBS REAL ESTATE

AUTOS

ADVERTISE

Web Search powered by YAHOO ! SEARCH
SUBSCRIBE MOBILE

Log in Register
50 F
Yahoo Hot Jobs

News

Find things to DO today

Bryan | BryanCountyNow printer friendly version | 196 reads | Blog This | Post to Forums |

DOT helps plan Bryan's roads

Carl Elmore | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 12:30 am

DOT helps plan Bryan's roads

The Georgia Department of Transportation is planning to
convene two public meetings, this spring and summer, to help Bryan County determine its future road needs.

"We are doing long-term planning," explained Matthew Fowler, DOT assistant planning administrator for south Georgia. "We
are looking at our transportation networks and traffic volumes ...We will forecast future traffic."

The DOT planners are helping fast-growing rural counties forecast transportation needs, and met Feb. 11 with a group of local officials, including representatives from Bryan County, the cities of Richmond Hill and Pembroke, the Bryan Board of
Education and the Industrial Development Authority.

This local group, an advisory committee, was formed during a larger meeting with DOT planners here in mid-November.

DOT planners - utilizing population projections, land use plans and employment growth forecasts - hope to outline a plan for Bryan's roads up to the year 2035. With Bryan's population projected to double in that time, the transportation possibilities range from more and larger roads, to increased mass transit,
to non-fuel and recreational travel with more sidewalks, bike ways and canal paths.

The DOT planners polled the local advisory committee at the meeting and learned:

-- Most would like to consider enlarging existing thoroughfares, enabling more traffic;

(Photo: Savannah Morning News)

-- Most are interested in developing more bicycle and pedestrian networks and sidewalks along Bryan County's scenic roads and canals;
-- And most want to investigate the possibility of utilizing impact fees paid by developers to fund new transportation infrastructure.

There were several discussions about the differing transportation needs of urban Richmond Hill and rural Bryan County, and specific needs around the county. Ted Akins, Bryan County Development Authority vice chairman, for instance, mentioned the need for freight truck access around the rapidly expanding Interstate Centre.

The DOT planners wondered whether more paving and better lighting would make Bryan County's rural roads safer? Bryan County Administrator Phil Jones, noting that excessive speed is often a factor in accidents along those secondary roads, said better traffic signals and tighter speed limits might be of more help.

Asking about bad curves around Bryan County, the DOT planners heard several nominations: the Lanier curve on U.S. 280; Ga. 119 at Old Patrick School Drive, and the Strathy Hall curve on Ga. 144.

Pembroke City Planner Wynn Carney pointed out the U.S. Army's intention to build a new bypass inside Fort Stewart to
accommodate 3rd Infantry Division expansion, and asked the DOT planners to include that in their outlook. The $34-million bypass is part of some $400 million the Army is spending to accommodate 4,000 more soldiers at Fort Stewart, bringing some
10,000 new residents to Liberty, Bryan, Long, Chatham and Tattnall counties.

The DOT planners are taking all this input and hope to come up with a prioritized list of local improvement projects. They'll discuss and refine their ideas during public meetings in April and June. One meeting will be held in Richmond Hill, the other in Pembroke. The final study should be completed in September or October.

And what happens then? DOT officials concede there is little funding available.

"As you know ... there's not a lot of money going around. But that's probably not always going to be true," Kyle Mote, DOT project manager, told the Bryan advisory committee. But federal money - possibly stimulus funds - and other financing may
become available for communities that have transportation plans ready, he said.

View All Events

+ Add a Listing

Yahoo Hot Jobs

Top Jobs

Certified Nursing Assistants: needed to provide personal support...
GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY ,a unit of the University System...
HELP NEEDED *22 PERMANENT POSITIONS! General Help Delivery...
Dryclean And Laundry Pressers needed. Experience Pref....
Driver - If you like fast cars & loud music & need to earn...
View All Ads
Augusta Top Jobs No Ads Found
Athens Top Jobs No Ads Found

Top Autos
Expedition, '99, 3rd row seat, leather, XLT, $5700. Call...
2000 Toyota Sienna $4,250 Excellent condition and non ...
Ford Roush Mustang Convertible 2007, fully loaded, 1800 miles,...
2008 Nissan Frontier ext. cab, low mileage, 4 cyl., still...
2006 HD VROD Less than 1000 miles-must sell-silver, bags,...
View All Ads

Top Homes
15,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse w/ additional 1650 ft. Office Space...
Wilmington Isl. 3BR/2BA upstairs unit w/ small sunrm. Completely...
Georgetown Townhouse For Rent 2 Bed 1.5 Bath. Fenced in yard....
Several Rentals As low as $1,400 for 3bd, 2.5 ba, all new...
Wilmington Island, "Commons", 1 BR/BA Condo, carpet & appliances,...

http://savannahnow.com/node/674826

2/24/2009

DOT helps plan Bryan's roads | SavannahNow.com

Want to learn more about the Bryan County Transportation Study? Or tell the Georgia DOT how you think Bryan County's roads should be improved? Visit www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy.
Your Rating

Score: 0.0, votes: 0
If you'd like to rate or comment on the story above, please log-in or register now.

Lancaster County, PA New Homes
www.ke ysto necu st om ho me .co m

County
www.eb ay.co m

printer friendly version | 196 reads | Blog This | Post to Forums |

Ads by Yahoo!

SavannahNow Source Guide

Page 2 of 2
View All Ads
View All Source Items

Text Messages: Sign up now to receive breaking
news, weather and sports messages on your phone.

Prep Central: High school sports stories,
video, photos, more.

Food Inspections: Does your favorite restaurant
make the grade? Check to find out.

Green Living: Your guide to living a green life in
the Savannah-area.

Food & Dining: Click here for food, restaurant, drink
information.

Horoscopes: What's your sign? Check out this
page for your daily astrology reading.

2008 SavannahNOW and the Savannah Morning News. About Savannahnow.com | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Site Map | Local Business Listings | Jobs in Savannah

http://savannahnow.com/node/674826

2/24/2009

Turnout light for transportation meeting

Page 1 of 2

Published on SavannahNow.com (http://savannahnow.com)
Turnout light for transportation meeting
By Carl Elmore Created 2009-04-22 23:30
Turnout was light Tuesday afternoon for a Pembroke public meeting on Bryan County's future transportation needs.
A similar meeting was held Tuesday night at the Wetlands Education Center in Richmond Hill's J.F. Gregory Park, where more people were expected.
The Georgia Department of Transportation is looking at Bryan County's transportation needs through 2035. To do that long-term planning, DOT is looking at roads and traffic volumes to predict transportation needs in the future.
"Right now, we're in the data-gathering phase," explained Grady Smith, vice president at Jordan, Jones & Goulding, a firm working with DOT on the planning project.
"The most important part is getting the public input," said DOT Project Manager Kyle Mote. "We're not coming down here saying this is how it is. We're saying this is how we think things are, and we're asking you to tell us how it is."
Those who missed the meetings are invited to contact DOT at www.dot.ga.gov/bryanstudy [1].
DOT planners - utilizing population projections, land use plans and employment growth forecasts hope to outline a plan for Bryan's roads.
With Bryan's population growth projected to double by 2035, the transportation possibilities range from more and larger roads, to increased mass transit, to non-fuel and recreational travel with more sidewalks, bike ways and canal paths.
The planners are now deriving local goals, and hope to create needs statements from those goals.

http://savannahnow.com/node/710914/print

4/29/2009

Turnout light for transportation meeting

Page 2 of 2

The final Bryan County Transportation Study, due in late summer or early autumn.
"This will be a tool that can be used ... as guidance for local leaders," explained Radney Simpson, a DOT planner. .
Data so far shows that Ga. 144 in south Bryan County is already busy, and will be jammed by 2035. There is a plan to widen the road, but it remains unfunded.
Bryan County Administrator Phil Jones told some of the planners about the county's hope to pave Harris Trail Extension, easing traffic in south Bryan County.
Bryan County also presents some unique problems for road planners. "Forty-two percent of the county is wetlands, so that's going to give us a lot of issues building roads," Smith said.
Tricia Reynolds, director of planning and government services with the Brunswick-based Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, said it wasn't unusual for turnout to be low for transportation planning meetings.
"Transportation planning is long-range. It's a long, involved process," she explained.
Reynolds, who was at another meeting in the area, said she stopped in the public meeting to see how the Coastal Georgia RDC's county comprehensive plan melded with the DOT plans.
Source URL: http://savannahnow.com//node/710914

http://savannahnow.com/node/710914/print

4/29/2009

Page 1 of 1

Print This Article

Ross Blair

DOT: Traffic is going to get heavy

rblair@bryancountynews.net

912-756-3454

n Near gridlock could be common if projections of growth hold true

The Georgia Department of Transportation is progressing in their Bryan County Transportation Study. The study, which began last year and will be presented to county officials in September, is intended to be a tool for how future roadwork should be approached from now through 2035.

GDOT recently conducted public hearings on both ends of the county to "so that the citizens of Bryan County can give us information to make sure we're basing our information on all the right criteria," project manager Kyle Mote said. "Right now, we're almost to the point to come up with project recommendations."

Mote projects that the county population will double from 23,000 to 46,000 by 2035. He also projects the number of jobs in the county will triple from 5,500 to 14,500. All of this equals more commuters and more total traffic for the area.

Mote said if the county grows according to those projections and no road improvements are made, there will near-gridlock conditions in several parts of Bryan, including along Hwy. 144 and around the area of the Black Creek industrial park. He said traffic congestion will more than triple in many parts of Richmond Hill. For example, he said it would take 45 minutes to get to the interstate from Belfast Siding Road.

But Mote still is not ready to say what road projects should take place to avoid this dilemma.

That will come in July during the next phase, followed by more public hearings to see if the public thinks they're on target.

"That's when we'll be looking at data and decide projects and their priority level," said Grady Smith with the GDOT. "At that point, we'll look at cost estimates and potential environmental issues and come out with final set of recommendations. We'll then give our report to leaders in the county and put it up on our website."

http://www.bryancountynews.net/news/article/4134/

http://www.bryancountynews.net/news/article/4134/

5/6/2009

Transport planners zero in on Bryan bottlenecks
Carl Elmore | Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 12:30 am
Related Topics
Places - Bryan County, GA, Savannah, GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Pembroke, GA
Contextual linking provided by Topix
Georgia Department of Transportation planners have conducted their final public meeting on Bryan County's future road needs, and hope to produce a report this autumn, likely in October. Working with city and county officials, and the public, the planners have been able to identify several current bottlenecks. Many have identified Ga. 144 south of Richmond Hill as the road most needing attention, in this case, widening. Keller resident John Tanner, a semi-retired engineer, attended the Aug. 6 afternoon public meeting at the Bethel Baptist Church in Richmond Hill. A similar meeting was held that evening at the Dixie Harn Community Center in Pembroke. Tanner said he came to the hearing as an interested citizen because traffic has gotten so bad between his home and Richmond Hill. "Eight years ago, I could get to Richmond Hill from my place down on Sweet Hill Road in 10 minutes. It's a minimum 20 (minutes) now, and it can be 40, according to the traffic," Tanner said. "People going to work nowadays from that area cannot get to Savannah in a reasonable time," he continued. The Ga. 144 widening "has been needed for years," Tanner said. "I don't know how they can expect to have the development that they've authorized and permitted out in that area without having proper infrastructure to support it." Richmond Hill City Administrator Michael Melton, attending the Aug. 6 public hearing, said he also saw the widening of Ga. 144 as a priority. And at this month's Bryan County Commission meeting, Chairman Jimmy Burnsed emphasized the need for the paving of Harris Trail Extension to Belfast Keller Road, not only to support the new Richmond Hill Middle School, but also to provide traffic relief should funding become available to widen Ga. 144. The DOT planners, working since late 2008, hope to produce the Bryan County Transportation Study by October, according to Kyle Mote, the project manager. The planners are helping fast-growing rural counties forecast transportation needs. The planners - utilizing population projections, land use plans, employment growth forecasts, and community input are attempting to outline Bryan County's transportation needs through the year 2035. With population projected to double in that time, the transportation possibilities range from more and larger roads, to increased mass transit, to non-fuel and recreational travel on more sidewalks, bikeways and canal paths. In fact, DOT

planners could even call for the Ga. 144 bottleneck between Belfast Keller Road and Port Royal Road to be widened not only to four lanes, but eventually to six lanes.
While Mote conceded Georgia's DOT has little money for road building, he said the final study will present alternative funding sources and ideas for local planners.
Lack of money didn't stop the planners from creating several lists of needed or proposed transportation improvements, including:
-- New transportation capacity could be created on Bryan County's roads by widening U.S. 17, Belfast Siding Road and Ga. 144. The cost would be some $120 million, in 2009 dollars;
-- Bridge rebuilding would be the most costly traffic operations projects, including replacement of bridges at U.S. 80 over the Ogeechee River, Olive Branch Road over I-16, Belfast Siding Road over I-95, and the I-95 bridge over the CSX railroad. The four bridges would cost more than $20 million, in 2009 dollars.
Traffic improvements at I-95 and U.S. 17 would cost an estimated $3.3 million, and traffic improvements on Ga. 144 from I-95 to U.S. 17 would cost $2.8 million;
-- The planner's Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects list includes a proposal for a circular canal/bikeway/path around Pembroke, costing some $4.5 million. A separate but connected bikeway, costing another $4 million, would connect Pembroke to Ellabell/Black Creek. Adding bicycle access and sidewalks on Ga. 144 from I-95 through Richmond Hill would cost $1.6 million.