- Collection:
- Georgia Government Publications
- Title:
- Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan: Part 2: plan development and recommendations [Feb. 2009]
- Creator:
- Georgia. Department of Transportation. Office of Planning
- Contributor to Resource:
- Georgia. Department of Transportation. Office of Planning
- Publisher:
- Atlanta, Ga. : Georgia. Department of Transportation. Office of Planning
- Date of Original:
- 2009-02
- Subject:
- Georgia
- Location:
- United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018
- Medium:
- publications (documents)
- Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- External Identifiers:
- Call Number GA T700.P6 M1 2009 W3 Part II
- Metadata URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bt700-pp6-bm1-b2009-bw3-bpart-bii-belec-p-btext
- Digital Object URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bt700-pp6-bm1-b2009-bw3-bpart-bii-belec-p-btext
- Language:
- eng
- Holding Institution:
- University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library
- Rights:
-
February 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary ............................................................................... 6
2.0 Stakeholder and Public Involvement ................................................................................ 7
2.1
Advisory Panel ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2
Industrial, Commerce and Tourism Officials ........................................................................ 8
2.3
Wayne County School District .............................................................................................. 9
2.4
Public Participation............................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Roadway Improvements................................................................................................. 12
3.1
Roadway Paving Background ............................................................................................. 12
3.1.1 Needs Assessment Methodology.................................................................................... 12
3.1.1.1 Wayne County Road Paving Priorities ...................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Road Paving Priority Tool .................................................................................................... 15
3.2
Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................ 16
3.2.1 Intersection Improvement Needs ....................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Methodology and Recommendations................................................................................. 16
3.2.2.1 Intersection Improvement Criteria ............................................................................. 16
3.2.2.2 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................. 18
3.2.2.3 Planned and Programmed Intersection Improvement Projects ................................. 19
3.2.2.4 Project Recommendations .......................................................................................... 19
3.2.2.5 Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................ 19
3.3
Corridor and Sub-Area Improvements ............................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Needs .................................................................. 24
3.3.2 Methodology and Recommendations ............................................................................ 24
3.3.2.1 Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Criteria.......................................................... 24
3.3.2.2 Planned and Programmed Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Projects ............. 25
3.3.2.3 Project Recommendations ....................................................................................... 25
3.3.2.4 Policy Recommendations ......................................................................................... 26
3.4
Bridges and Overpasses...................................................................................................... 27
3.4.1 Needs Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................ 27
3.4.1.1 Bridge Sufficiency Rating Analysis ........................................................................... 27
3.4.1.2 Planned and Programmed Bridge Improvement Projects .......................................... 28
3.4.1.3 Bridge and Overpass Deficiencies Expressed by Stakeholders and Citizens ............ 29
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
1
3.4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 30
3.5 New Location Roadways and Roadway Extensions ...................................................................... 33
3.5.1 Methodology for New Location Roadways and Extensions ................................................ 33
3.5.1.1 Planned and Programmed New Roadway Projects..................................................... 33
3.5.1.2 Stakeholder and Public Comments New Roadways................................................. 33
3.5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 34
4.0 Airport Improvements .................................................................................................... 38
4.1
Airport Improvement Needs .............................................................................................. 38
4.2
Methodology and Recommendations ................................................................................ 38
4.2.1 Planned and Programmed Airport Projects .................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 39
5.0 Ports and Rail ................................................................................................................. 41
5.1
Ports and Rail Needs........................................................................................................... 41
5.2
Methodology and Recommendations ................................................................................ 42
5.2.1 Project Recommendations .................................................................................................. 42
5.2.2 Policy Recommendations .................................................................................................... 43
6.0 Multimodal Improvements .............................................................................................. 47
6.1 Sidewalks Improvements .............................................................................................................. 47
6.1.1 Needs Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................ 47
6.1.1.1 Planned and Programmed Projects............................................................................. 47
6.1.1.2 Sidewalk Needs Expressed by Advisory Panel and Public ........................................... 48
6.1.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 48
6.2
Bicycle Facility Needs.......................................................................................................... 53
6.2.1 Planned and Programmed Bicycle Facility Projects ............................................................ 53
6.2.2 Recommended Bicycle Facility Projects .............................................................................. 53
6.3 Transit Improvements................................................................................................................... 56
6.3.1 Transit Needs....................................................................................................................... 56
6.3.2 Planned Regional Transit Services....................................................................................... 57
6.3.3 Methodology and Recommendations................................................................................. 57
6.3.3.1 Project Recommendations .......................................................................................... 57
6.3.3.1 Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................ 59
7.0 Project Matrix ................................................................................................................. 61
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
2
8.0 Financial Plan and Funding Forecasts............................................................................... 66
8.1 Financial Sources and Assumptions .............................................................................................. 66 8.1.1 Federal and State Funding .................................................................................................. 66 8.1.1.1 Historic State Funding Programs ................................................................................. 67 8.1.2 Local Funding....................................................................................................................... 69 8.1.2.1 Potential Future Funding Opportunities ..................................................................... 71
8.2 Other Potential Sources of Transportation Funding for Wayne County ...................................... 72 8.2.1 Direct Impact Fees............................................................................................................... 73 8.2.1.1 DCA Suggested Considerations ................................................................................... 74 8.2.1.2 Georgia Impact Fee Legal Considerations ................................................................... 74 8.2.1.3 Georgia Jurisdictions with Existing Impact Fee Programs........................................... 75 8.2.2 Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST).............................................................. 78 8.2.3 Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) .......................................................................... 79 8.2.4 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) / Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) ......................................... 80 8.2.5 Statewide Transportation Funding Initiatives ..................................................................... 81 8.2.6 Special Districts, Service Districts, and Special Service Districts (SSDs) .............................. 81 8.2.6.1 Special Districts ........................................................................................................... 81 8.2.6.2 Service Districts ........................................................................................................... 81 8.2.7 Financial Options for Public Transit Facilities and Services................................................. 82 8.2.8 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Funding Sources .................................................................... 83
9.0 Additional Research ....................................................................................................... 85
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
3
Figures
Figure 1. Anticipated Growth Areas in and Around Jesup .......................................................................... 11 Figure 2. 2007 Unpaved Road Inventory .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Recommended Intersection and Corridor Improvement Projects ............................................. 23 Figure 4. Recommended Bridge and Overpass Projects ............................................................................. 32 Figure 5. Anticipated New Industry East of Jesup....................................................................................... 36 Figure 6. Recommended New Roadway and Roadway Extension Projects................................................ 37 Figure 7. William A. Zorn Jesup-Wayne County Airport Location Map ...................................................... 40 Figure 8. Recommended Sidewalk Projects................................................................................................ 52 Figure 9. Recommended New Bicycle Routes and Route Enhancements .................................................. 55 Figure 10. Recommended Transit Projects ................................................................................................. 60 Figure 11. Historic State Aid Grant Amounts for Wayne County............................................................... 68 Figure 12. Wayne County Reported Annual SPLOST Revenues ................................................................. 70
Tables
Table 1. Importance of Transportation Factors in Wayne County - Community Survey Results ............... 10 Table 2. Top 15 Georgia Counties by Percentage of Unpaved Road Mileage (2007) ................................ 14 Table 3. Specific Intersection Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public ............................... 17 Table 4. V/C Ratios of Intersections with Cited Needs .............................................................................. 18 Table 5. High Crash Intersections in Wayne County (2005-2007) ............................................................. 18 Table 6. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 1 (2009-2014). 20 Table 7. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 2 (2015-2024). 21 Table 8. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 3 (2025-2035). 22 Table 9. Recommended Policies for Rail/Roadway Crossing Improvement Needs................................... 24 Table 10. Specific Corridor Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public ................................... 25 Table 11. Specific Sub-Area Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public .................................. 25 Table 12. Corridor Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 1 ......................... 26 Table 13. Recommended Policies for Sub-Area Improvement Needs....................................................... 26 Table 14. Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less than 50............................................................................. 27 Table 15. Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Between 50 and 80 ................................................................. 28 Table 16. Planned and Programmed Bridge Improvement Projects .......................................................... 29 Table 17. Recommended Bridge Projects ................................................................................................... 30 Table 18. Potential New Roadways Recommended for Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way Acquisition in Tier 1 (2009-2014)................................................................................................................ 35 Table 19. Potential New Roadways Recommended for Construction in Tier 2 (2015-2024) .................... 35 Table 20. Planned/Programmed Airport Improvement Projects ............................................................... 39 Table 21. Recommended Wayne County Airport Improvements.............................................................. 39 Table 22. Recommended Projects for Ports and Rail: Tier 1 (2008-2014)................................................. 42 Table 23. Recommended Policies for Ports and Rail: Tier 1 (2008-2014).................................................. 43 Table 24. Planned and Programmed Sidewalks Projects ........................................................................... 48 Table 25. Recommended Sidewalk Projects .............................................................................................. 49 Table 26. Bicycle Facility Recommendations .............................................................................................. 54 Table 27. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 1 (2009-2014) ........................................... 57 Table 28. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 2 (2015-2024) ........................................... 58
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
4
Table 29. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 3 (2025-2035) ........................................... 58 Table 30. Recommended Policies for Transit Improvement Needs ........................................................... 59 Table 31. Project Matrix.............................................................................................................................. 62 Table 32. Historic LARP Funding to Wayne County................................................................................... 67 Table 33. Projected Annual Wayne County SPLOST Revenues (in current year dollars) ........................... 71 Table 34. Sample of Adopted Impact Fees for Georgia Jurisdictions ........................................................ 75 Table 35. Sample of Proposed Impact Fees for Georgia Jurisdictions ....................................................... 77 Table 36. Additional Research for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study ........................ 85
Appendices
Appendix A Summary of Meeting Notes from Advisory Panel Meetings Appendix B Summary of Meeting Notes with Wayne County Officials Appendix C Summary of Community Survey Results Appendix D Wayne County Road Paving Priorities as of August 6, 2007
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
5
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
In August 2008, a Multimodal Transportation Plan was initiated for Wayne County. This study is comprehensive in scope and takes into account all modes of transportation, including roadways, railroad, airport, public transit, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks. The first part of this study involved an evaluation of the existing conditions and systems within the County. The final report, Evaluation of Existing and Future Conditions, was completed in December 2008 and consists of a thorough review of the study area and demographics; land use and development (including existing and future land use, environmental resources, planned developments, and land development controls); the transportation system (including roadways and a future mobility demand analysis, traffic operations, bicycle and pedestrian network, airport, freight rail, and high-traffic areas); local, regional and State economic development programs; and any local, regional or statewide supporting studies, plans and programs that have been undertaken or are underway. The Evaluation of Existing and Future Conditions Report has set the framework for the entire multimodal planning process, providing a comprehensive view of the successful elements of transportation in Wayne County, what elements can be improved, and the existing resources available to help Wayne County meet its multimodal transportation goals.
This document, the Plan Development and Recommendations, represents the next step in the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan. This report has been developed through extensive stakeholder and public involvement from Wayne County leaders and citizens. Through collaborative efforts with an Advisory Panel of stakeholders and public comments and surveys received, the vision and ideals of Wayne County have been clearly defined in the plan's recommended projects and policies.
In addition to public and stakeholder input, technical analyses have been completed for each mode of transportation. This portion of the Multimodal Transportation Plan discusses a wide range of needs expressed for Wayne County and recommends improvements for roadways, rail, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit. These recommendations are prioritized into implementation timeframes of Tier 1 (2009-2014), Tier 2 (2015-2024), and Tier 3 (2025-2035). In addition to new project recommendations, planned and programmed projects from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Short-Term Program, State-Aid, and Local Assistance Road Program (LARP) have also been prioritized.
To complement the project recommendations, the Plan Development and Recommendations report presents several policies that Wayne County may utilize to facilitate a safer and more efficient multimodal transportation system.
Finally, this document presents a financial plan for Wayne County's transportation network as well as potential funding sources. State and federal funds have been, and will continue to be, an important resource to fund local transportation projects. As these funds become scarcer, however, and competition from other jurisdictions grows, other sources of potential transportation funding will become increasingly critical in the future. Wayne County's Special-Purpose Local-Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) for transportation funding has proven to be a vital asset for transportation funding and will continue to serve in this role. Other potential funding sources have been analyzed as well.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
6
2.0 Stakeholder and Public Involvement
2.1 Advisory Panel
In order to obtain input on transportation infrastructure and services in Wayne County, an Advisory Panel of stakeholders was formed. Attendees included representatives from the following organizations and agencies; some were specifically invited and others attended due to word-of-mouth:
Wayne County Commission Wayne County Chamber of Commerce Wayne County Board of Education City of Jesup City of Odum City of Screven Georgia Department of Transportation (General Office and District Five) State of Georgia Senate Majority Leader AT&T Jesup Press-Sentinel WIFO Radio Wayne County Chamber of Commerce Wayne County Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
The Advisory Panel met on three (3) separate occasions: on July 23, 2008; September 24, 2008; and November 18, 2008. The first meeting in July 2008 was a kick-off meeting for the Multimodal Transportation Study. Participants were presented an overview of the project and the project goals. The meeting also included a facilitated session that allowed participants to discuss the following items:
- Plans and initiatives for coordination throughout the study process - Transportation issues and needed improvements within the County - Considerations for how to prioritize transportation improvements and study elements
The goal of this kick-off meeting was to engage the participants in a discussion about issues of concern with regard to the transportation system and overall mobility within Wayne County. The meeting also included a discussion of how those issues of concern affect the participants in their daily lives.
At the second Advisory Panel meeting in September 2008, participants were presented with a recap of items discussed at the first meeting, including initial transportation priorities, existing transportation conditions, and coordination with local, state, regional and national plans for implementation. In addition, a facilitated group discussion focused on the following topics:
- Whether the list of existing transportation issues and needs (discussed at the first meeting in July 2008) was complete, and whether any additional items should be added
- The factors or criteria that should be used to rank road paving priorities in Wayne County
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
7
The discussions at the first and second Advisory Panel meetings were used to help guide the development of the Evaluation of Existing and Future Conditions Report for the Multimodal Transportation Study. At the third Advisory Panel meeting in November 2008, participants were presented with a review of the major themes regarding transportation needs in Wayne County, based on input heard during the previous two meetings. In addition, the panel was presented with the preliminary results of a transportation needs survey given during the City of Jesup's ArchFest (discussed in more detail in a following section of this report). Finally, the panel was shown the results of the travel demand model that was used to assess future transportation needs for Wayne County. Following these presentations, the participants were asked to give feedback on whether the project team had accurately described transportation needs in the County and whether additional issues should be noted. The final exercise at the meeting asked the panel to rank the types of transportation improvements that should be prioritized, based on a set amount of funding, using "play money."
According to the exercise results, the following types of projects were regarded as most important by the Advisory Panel:
1 (Tie). Paving Unpaved Roads 1 (Tie). Improved Access to Industrial Areas and Employment Centers 2. Maintenance of County and Local Roads 3. Sidewalks near Schools, Public Buildings, Commercial Areas, etc. 4. Intersection Improvements 5. Missing Road Gaps/Better Connections 6. Public Transportation 7. Park and Ride Lots 8. Traffic Signals 9. Bike Paths
A summary of the meeting notes from each of the three (3) Advisory Panel meeting can be found in Appendix A. Items from these meeting discussions regarding transportation needs will also be reiterated throughout the remainder of the document.
2.2 Industrial, Commerce and Tourism Officials
On November 25, 2008, the study team met with John Riddle, President and CEO of the Wayne County Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board/Tourism Board and Mickey Whittington, Wayne County Industrial Development Authority. These individuals helped the study team identify potential industrial and commercial growth areas in Wayne County over the next 20 years. The discussion focused on emerging industrial growth and commercial growth areas in the County, as well as the need to improve or construct new roadways to accommodate increasing truck traffic. Highlights of the discussion include:
- Industrial growth is expected to occur near the Jesup-Wayne County airport and west of Jesup. - There is a need to improve roads to accommodate increasing truck traffic, including the
construction of new connector roads.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
8
- The new ethanol plant and logistics center to be located east of Jesup will need access management strategies along U.S. 341 to mitigate any traffic circulation issues. This is being addresses already with GDOT.
A map of these high growth industrial and commercial areas is presented in Figure 1. This map also includes anticipated high growth residential areas that were discussed during Advisory Panel meetings. A summary of the meeting notes with the industrial, commerce and tourism officials is presented in Appendix B. Items from this meeting discussion will also be reiterated throughout the remainder of this document.
2.3 Wayne County School District
Also on November 25, 2008, the study team met with Kendall Keith and Kent Fountain from the Wayne County School District. These individuals helped the study team identify potential future school expansions and new construction activities in Wayne County over the next 20 years. Highlights of the discussion include:
- There are schools that will be rebuilt or renovated, including Odum Elementary School, Screven Elementary School, and Jesup Elementary School.
- New schools are planned in the County, including an elementary school north of Arthur Williams Middle School; and a new site west of U.S. 84 along Holmesville Road; and a potential site near the new ethanol plant.
- There are traffic circulation issues, particularly near Wayne County High School.
A map of these anticipated growth areas for schools is also presented in Figure 1. This map also includes anticipated high growth residential areas that were discussed during Advisory Panel meetings. A summary of the meeting notes with the school district officials is presented in Appendix B. Items from this meeting discussion will also be reiterated throughout the remainder of the document.
2.4 Public Participation
The general public was also given the opportunity to provide input into the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan. Each of the Advisory Committee meetings was advertised in the local newspaper and open to the public so that attendees had the opportunity to participate. In addition, on October 25, 2008, during the annual ArchFest festival, the study team issued surveys to gather input on Wayne County's transportation system. Among the questions asked was: "Rate the specific transportation factors in Wayne County as very important, somewhat important, not important, or do not know". The results of this survey are displayed in Table 1.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
9
Table 1. Importance of Transportation Factors in Wayne County - Community Survey Results
Factor
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Maintenance of County and local streets
57%
37%
10%
Alternative routes for truck traffic
37%
46%
15%
More bike paths and sidewalks around schools
34%
36%
24%
Improving transportation
connections between key
34%
40%
21%
places in the County
Better public transportation options
31%
51%
12%
Source: Community Survey compiled by RS&H (results are rounded to whole numbers)
Not Important
0% 3% 6%
4%
6%
Do Not Know
0% 0% 0%
0%
0%
A complete summary of Community Survey results are presented in Appendix C. Items from Community Survey results will also be reiterated throughout the remainder of the document. The Table 1 factors show the most important elements of Wayne County's transportation system from the perspective of the citizens who participated in the survey.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
10
Tank Rd
UV27
Red Hill Rd
SF. oFroersetsDt Dr r
tu Doctortown Rd
301
Nesbit Rd
Beechwood Rd
Ski Lake Dr
Holmesville Rd
Empire Rd
tu84
Slover Rd
Power Line Rd
k kk k
Cowboy Rd
k
Joey Williamson Rd
k
Jesup
k
Grantham Rd
Phillips Rd Bethlehem St
Ranger House Rd
Sunset Blvd
k Sansivilla Rd
Forest Cove Dr
S. Palm St
Longford Rd
Airport Rd
Little Creek Rd
Ivey Dr
Walker Creek Rd
UV23
February 2009
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Anticipated Growth Areas in and Around Jesup
Legend
Anticipated School Renovation and/or Construction Anticipated New Industry
k Public Schools
Major Roads Roads Railroad Wayne County
Sources: Wayne County Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board/Tourism Board, Wayne County Industrial Development Authority
0
0.4 0.8
1.6
Miles
Figure 1
3.0 Roadway Improvements
This section presents a summary of roadway needs and recommendations based upon technical analysis and input from citizens and stakeholders for the following elements:
Roadway paving, Intersection / traffic operations, Corridor roadway capacity in certain key areas of the County, Bridges and overpasses, and New roadways and roadway extensions.
3.1 Roadway Paving Background
Throughout the public involvement process, a concern heard consistently from the stakeholders and the public involved the many unpaved roads in Wayne County. At the Study Advisory Panel Meeting on November 18, 2008, attendees participated in an exercise where they were given paper money ("Wayne Bucks") that they were to spend on various types of transportation improvements of their choice. Paving unpaved roads tied for first as the highest priority, along with improving access to industrial areas and employment centers. Additionally, the Wayne County 2008 Annual State of the County Report indicated that dirt road paving is a high priority because it contributes to the quality of life in the County. The large number of unpaved roads in Wayne County complicates travel for residents and other road system users. Dirt roads are particularly undesirable in inclement weather conditions because rain can quickly degrade the surface and make travel difficult. Furthermore, the presence of unpaved roads may be a concern for new businesses and industries seeking to potentially relocate to Wayne County, as the unpaved materials make truck travel difficult. Figure 2 shows the locations of unpaved roads in Wayne County.
GDOT1 has compiled information on roadway surfaces in each of Georgia's 159 counties. Wayne County ranks among the top 15 counties in Georgia with percentage of road mileage that is unpaved with approximately 508 miles (52.3%) of its surface mileage unpaved. Table 2 shows how Wayne County ranks compared to other counties.
3.1.1 Needs Assessment Methodology
The study team has evaluated road paving needs that were identified through stakeholder and public involvement as well as through data analysis. Deficiencies and implementation solutions were identified as travel patterns and priorities were examined.
1 Office of Transportation Data
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
12
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
Beards Bluff Rd
UV169
Long
US 341 US 84
S. Macon St
Liberty
Sunset Blvd US 301S.BPyaplamssSt
Oglethorpe Rd
K'Ville Rd Odum Rd
y
Holmesville Rd
Walter Griffis Rd
tu341
UV Odum
27 Tank Rd
Holmesville Rd
Empire Rd
tu84
Rayonier Rd
tu301
Jesup Bethlehem St
Sansivilla Rd
City of Jesup
Altamaha River
Walker Creek Rd Gar LittleLCornegefkorRddRd
UV203
Slover Rd
Stanfield Dr
Nine Run Rd
UV38
UV23
Waycross Hw
Broadhurst R d
Screven
Hortense Rd
LIttle Satilla River
Pierce
tu White Star Rd
301
Rogers Break
tu di Rd
25
Golden Isles Hwy
Murphy Break Flowers Break
Browntown Rd
UV27 tu341
McIntosh
River Rd
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
2007 Unpaved Road Inventory
Legend
Unpaved Roads Paved Roads Cities Wayne County Surrounding Counties
Note: Only public roads are shown. Source: Wayne County GIS
0
1.5
3
6
Miles
Old Hortense Rd Wire Rd
Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
Brantley
Glynn
Figure 2
February 2009
Table 2. Top 15 Georgia Counties by Percentage of Unpaved Road Mileage (2007)
Rank County
Total
Mileage Paved
% Unpaved Unpaved
1
Brantley
628.81
209.74
419.07
66.6%
2
Bacon
590.23
240.16
350.07
59.3%
3
Appling
1078.01
441.79
636.22
59.0%
4
Pierce
728.83
312.27
416.56
57.2%
5
Berrien
831.15
369.29
461.86
55.6%
6
Long
330.92
150.97
179.95
54.4%
7
Wilcox
619.96
283.11
336.85
54.3%
8
Atkinson
481.42
225.42
256
53.2%
9
Clinch
571
268.41
302.59
53.0%
10
Wayne
970.69
462.58
508.11
52.3%
11 Jeff Davis
648.57
311.31
337.26
52.0%
12
Turner
544.06
264.69
279.37
51.3%
13
Tattnall
948.32
466.25
482.07
50.8%
14
Miller
469.21
233.07
236.14
50.3%
Source: GDOT Office of Transportation Data, Mileage of Public Roads in Georgia by Surface Type. 12/31/2007
3.1.1.1 Wayne County Road Paving Priorities
Each year, the Wayne County Commission develops its list of road paving priorities as part of its budgeting process. The County's most recent list of road paving priorities can be found in Appendix D.
Wayne County has explored alternative strategies to reduce cost and time in paving roads, such as utilizing in-house personnel to perform the road base and preparation work. Modifying the specifications for certain types of roads that do not warrant the high cost of certain paving specifications has also been considered to cut road paving costs. Wayne County currently has a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) program in place to help fund the improvement of unpaved roads in the County. This SPLOST is estimated to generate $22 million of revenue. Approximately $12 million of this is committed to hospital improvements, and the remaining funds will go toward road paving. The stakeholders have also mentioned several roads for which paving should be a priority. These are:
Collins Loop area (Odum) Screven Road to the landfill, from the railroad to the city limits Broadhurst Road Bennett Road
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
14
Sikes Road Slover Road (between U.S. 84 and U.S. 301) Buckboard Trail (for buses)
Buggy Whip Road (for buses)
Final decisions on local road paving priorities will be made by the Wayne County Board of Commissioners.
3.1.2 Road Paving Priority Tool
As an enhancement to the County's budgeting process for road paving, the study team developed a tool to analyze road paving needs based on specific technical criteria. Subsequent to reviewing Wayne County's current priorities and goals for road paving, the study team assessed road paving prioritization criteria from other peer regions and the GDOT State Aid Office. Peer regions studied included the State of Montana; Orangeburg, South Carolina; Denton, Texas; and Cape Town, South Africa. Examining the road paving criteria for other areas helped the study team determine the most commonly used criteria for road paving. The best practices from these areas were extracted to develop recommendations for road paving prioritization criteria specifically for Wayne County. The best practices from the peer regions were then compared to the road paving prioritization criteria input received from the stakeholders and public at the September 24, 2008 Advisory panel meeting.
The final criteria that the study team used to rank Wayne County paving projects are as follows:
Number of Households and Facilities Served o Total households o Total commercial businesses o Total educational facilities o Total emergency services facilities
Traffic Volume Connectivity Travel Time Saved
An initial application of these criteria was applied to unpaved roads in Wayne County that have multiple connections to other local roads, collector roads, or arterials. The initial assessment assigned points to each road for each of the categories with a total of 100 points. The total benefit (or total points assigned) was the sum of the points assigned for households and facilities serviced, traffic volume, connectivity, and travel time saved:
Total Benefit of Road Paving = Households and Facilities Serviced + Traffic Volume + Connectivity + Travel Time Saved
The value of the total benefits calculated for each roadway can be used to prioritize the roadway paving projects. This methodology can also be used to prioritize road paving projects into implementation tiers based on year of completion. While this tool provides a useful methodology to consider a set f
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
15
objective data to evaluate road priorities, the Wayne County Board of Commissioners plans to refine this methodology during its next budgeting cycle.
3.2 Intersection Improvements
Although Wayne County residents enjoy a primarily rural lifestyle, the cities and areas around the cities are hubs of local, regional, and statewide activity. Local public schools, primarily sited in the cities, draw students and traffic from across the County. The presence of Wayne County's government services in Jesup as well as retail and services also draws residents from all parts of the County throughout the week. There are multiple railroad lines serving freight and intercity travel that cross the County from Coastal Georgia as well as other parts of the country. This concentration of activity in the Jesup area, and to a lesser extent, Screven and Odum, result in the need for intersection improvements in certain locations. The section that follows details intersection improvement needs that have been cited by the public and stakeholders as well as through technical analysis.
3.2.1 Intersection Improvement Needs
The stakeholders and citizens of Wayne County have indicated that certain intersection improvements are needed in the County. General comments received to date include:
Intersections around schools, particularly in the Jesup area, can become congested during the morning and afternoon, when students are arriving and departing from school. This activity coincides with the normal commute period in the morning.
Intersections adjacent to railroad crossings experience bottlenecks from a few to several times a day when trains pass through Jesup, Odum, and Screven. Some of these rail/roadway crossing conflicts can last a relatively long period as freight trains pass through the area.
Table 7 presents specific intersection improvement needs as well as congested areas mentioned by stakeholders and citizens during Advisory Panel meetings, other discussions, and from the community survey results. In the case of intersections being identified by citizens and stakeholders, it is recommended that additional analysis should be conducted through GDOT and Wayne County to verify the engineering need for the proposed improvements.
3.2.2 Methodology and Recommendations
The intersections analyzed for potential improvements were taken from comments received from the public and stakeholders as well as a safety analysis of high-crash intersections in the County. In the following section, these intersections are analyzed based on specific criteria, ranked according to greatest needs, and placed into recommended project and policy lists.
3.2.2.1 Intersection Improvement Criteria
To assess the need for intersection and corridor improvements based upon congestion, the intersections and corridors listed above were assessed using a quantitative analysis. The 2007 Base Year Wayne County Travel Demand Model, discussed in detail in Section 5.2.3 of the Evaluation of Existing and
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
16
Future Conditions Report, does not show any existing level-of-service deficiencies. This model was utilized to gather data on peak volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios at each intersection cited in Table 3. Where model data were not available, v/c ratios were calculated based on 2007 (current year) GDOT traffic counts and a standard maximum stable roadway capacity of 2,800 vehicles per lane per hour (or daily capacity of 2,800 vehicles per lane x 10 hours) for rural highways.2 The results of this analysis for the intersections listed in Table 3 are shown in Table 4. Based upon this analysis, there are no intersections that are operating in congested conditions based upon the analysis of 24-hour traffic volumes. This analysis cannot account for intermittent congestion at intersections due to weather, special events, or traffic incidents.
Table 3. Specific Intersection Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public
Intersection
S.R. 27/W. Pine Street at U.S. 84
U.S. 341/SR 27/Cherry Street at U.S. 84/S.R. 38/N. 1st Street Orange Street at U.S. 84/S.R. 38/S. 1st Street
Identified Issue of Concern Trucks have turning movement problems Trucks have turning movement problems
Intersection needs left turn signal and a left turn lane on Orange Street; more "green time" needed for Orange Street
Spring Grove Road at S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road S. Church Street at U.S. 341 Sunset Boulevard at U.S. 301 South Sunset Blvd at S. Macon Street (Industrial Park) S.R. 169 and Red Hill Road/Rayonier Road U.S. 341 and U.S. 301
No specific issue cited Needs more analysis No specific issue cited Needs more analysis No specific issue cited Needs more analysis Intersection needs a turn lane Intersection needs a turn signal Traffic signal issues
Sunset Boulevard at U.S. 84
Trucks have turning movement problems
U.S. 84 and U.S. 301
Intersection needs more lighting
Joey Williamson Road at U.S. 84
Signal may be needed at intersection
Railroad at S.R. 169
Trains sometimes block traffic at at-grade
crossings
Railroad crossing at Sunset Boulevard
Trains sometimes block traffic at at-grade
crossings
Sources: Advisory Panel, Meeting with Wayne County officials, Community Survey
For some of the intersections mentioned as needs by citizens and stakeholders, a travel demand analysis was not applicable. In particular, intersections where school traffic was expressed as an issue was not conducive to this analysis, as the model uses 24-hour traffic volumes does not take into account peak- period, localized school traffic. Similarly, intersections with issues regarding blockage of traffic by trains were not analyzed with the model because the model cannot account for train movements. Rather, these particular needs have been addressed in the recommended policies section for Intersections improvements.
2 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
17
Table 4. V/C Ratios of Intersections with Cited Needs (Base Year 2007 Wayne County Travel Demand Model)
Road 1
W. Orange Street* U.S. 301
Road 2
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street
Peak V/C (2007) 0.75
0.50
Sunset Boulevard
S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road
0.48
U.S. 341/Cherry Street
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street
0.48
S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road Rayonier Road
0.32
S.R. 27/Pine Street
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street
0.30
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street
Entrance into Wal-Mart
0.28
U.S. 341
U.S. 301
0.23
Sunset Boulevard
U.S. 84
0.22
Church Street
U.S. 341
0.18
Sunset Boulevard
U.S. 301 South
0.13
Sunset Boulevard
S. Macon Street
0.10
*Because W. Orange Street was not included in the Wayne County Travel Demand Model network, 2007 traffic counts were utilized to ascertain the v/c ratio. Source: Advisory Panel, Wayne County officials, Community Survey results
3.2.2.2 Safety Analysis
As part of the analysis of existing conditions for Wayne County's transportation system, a safety analysis was completed to determine high-crash intersections in the County from 2005 to 2007. A high-crash intersection is defined as one that has experience 10 or more crash events within the three-year period. These high-crash intersections are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. High Crash Intersections in Wayne County (2005-2007)
Intersection
Crash Types
Fatal
Injury
PDO*
Total Crashes
1
S.R. 27/Pine Street at U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street
0
2
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street at W. Walnut Street
0
3
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street at Drennon Drive
0
W. Orange Street at S. 4th
4
Street
0
9
32
41
7
10
17
2
17
19
5
10
15
5
U.S. 341/S.R. 27 at S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road
1
6
8
15
*PDO = Property Damage Only
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation, via Critical Analysis Reporting Environment program
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
18
One of these intersections, S.R. 27/Pine Street at U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street, coincides with the intersection needs mentioned by Wayne County stakeholders and citizens.
3.2.2.3 Planned and Programmed Intersection Improvement Projects
The study team researched GDOT's Statewide Transportation Plan, State Transportation Improvement Program, Construction Work Program, State Aid Grant Program, and Local Road Assistance Program to ascertain whether there are any short- or long-term projects planned for Wayne County. Currently, there are no intersection improvement projects planned or programmed by GDOT at this time.
3.2.2.4 Project Recommendations
Tables 6 through 8 show potential intersection and corridor improvement projects that are recommended for implementation in Tier 1 (2009-2014), Tier 2 (2015-2024), and Tier 3 (2025-2035). Intersections with significant crash occurrences have been recommended for study and appropriate improvement measures in Tier 1. Intersections where issues were cited by stakeholders and citizens were further prioritized based on Base Year 2007 v/c ratios.3
Tier 1 (2009-2014): Tier 2 (2015-2024): Tier 3 (2025-2035):
Crash occurrences, or v/c greater than or equal to 0.40 V/c greater than 0.20 and less than 0.40 V/c less than 0.20
These potential recommended projects are also shown in Figure 3.
3.2.2.5 Policy Recommendations
The cited issues concerning railroad traffic that blocks roadway traffic at at-grade intersections could not be addressed through the travel demand model for Wayne County. This is because the model does not take into account the number of trains that travel through Wayne County and subsequent delays at at- grade crossings. For this reason, the issues regarding the railroad are addressed with policy recommendations. These policies are presented in Table 9.
3 Intersections with safety deficiencies did not undergo a v/c ratio analysis and were not ranked by v/c ratio value; rather, these projects were all placed in Tier 1. Similarly, intersections that stakeholders and citizens cited as having issues did not undergo a safety analysis; rather, these were ranked by v/c ratio value. The intersection of S.R. 27/Pine Street and U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street was both cited by stakeholders and citizens as a problem area and also was a high-crash intersection according to the safety analysis; therefore, this intersection (ID I-1) has data for both Base Year 2007 v/c ratio and total crash events (2005- 2007).
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
19
Table 6. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 1 (2009-2014)
ID
Intersection
Recommended Improvement
Base Year 2007
v/c Ratio
S.R. 27/Pine Street and U.S. 84/S.R. Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
I-1
38/1st Street
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
0.30
I-2
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street and W. Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
N/A
Walnut Street
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street and
Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
I-3
Drennon Drive
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
N/A
I-4
W. Orange Street and S. 4th Street
Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
N/A
I-5
U.S. 341/S.R. 27 and S.R. 169/Lanes Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
Bridge Road
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
N/A
I-6
Orange Street and U.S. 84
Assess intersection capacity and, if needed, add left turn lane from Orange Street to US 84
0.75
Assess signal timing, and if needed, re-time traffic
I-7
Orange Street and U.S. 84
signal to allow for additional "green time" along
0.75
Orange Street
I-8
U.S. 84 and U.S. 301
Assess lighting at intersection and enhance lighting if needed
0.50
I-9
Sunset Boulevard and S.R. 169/Lanes Conduct Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and install new
Bridge Road
signal (if warranted)
0.48
Assess truck operations and, where needed, widen
I-10
U.S. 341/Cherry Street and U.S. 84/N. 1st Street
and improve intersection for more efficient truck turning movements
0.48
PE = Preliminary Engineering, ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition, CST = Construction, NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Total Crash Events (2005- 2007)
41 17 19 15 15 N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Tier 1 (2009- 2014)
Study, PE, ROW
Study, PE, ROW
Study, PE, ROW
Study, PE, ROW
Study, PE, ROW
Study, PE, ROW
Study, CST
Study, CST
Study, CST
Study, PE, ROW
Cost
NFA NFA NFA NFA NFA NFA $10,000 NFA $160,000 NFA
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
20
Table 7. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 2 (2015-2024)
ID
Intersection
Improvement
I-1
S.R. 27/Pine Street and U.S. 84/S.R. Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
38/1st Street
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
I-2
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street and W. Walnut Street
Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
I-3
U.S. 84/S.R. 38/1st Street and Drennon Drive
Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
I-4
W. Orange Street and S. 4th Street
Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
I-5
U.S. 341/S.R. 27 and S.R. 169/Lanes Assess safety deficiencies at intersection and make
Bridge Road
appropriate improvements to intersection as needed
I-6
Orange Street and U.S. 84
Assess intersection capacity and, if needed, add left turn lane from Orange Street to US 84
U.S. 341/Cherry Street and U.S. 84/N. Assess truck operations and, where needed, widen and
I-10
1st Street
improve intersection for more efficient truck turning movements
I-11
S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road and Rayonier Road
Conduct Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and install new signal (if warranted)
Assess signal timing, and, if needed, re-time traffic signal
I-12
U.S. 84 adjacent to Wal-Mart
to allow more "green time" for traffic to travel from Wal-
Mart parking lot onto US 84
I-13
U.S. 341 and U.S. 301
Conduct study to assess safety or operational issues and make improvements as warranted
Assess truck operations and, where needed, widen and
I-14
U.S. 84 and Sunset Boulevard
improve intersection for more efficient truck turning
movements
PE = Preliminary Engineering, ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition, CST = Construction, NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Base Year 2007 v/c Ratio 0.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75
0.48
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.22
Tier 2 (2015-2024)
CST CST CST CST CST CST
CST
Study, CST
Study, CST Study, PE,
ROW Study, PE,
ROW
Cost NFA NFA NFA NFA NFA NFA NFA $160,000 NFA NFA NFA
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
21
Table 8. Intersection Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 3 (2025-2035)
ID
Intersection
Improvement
Base Year 2007 v/c Ratio
I-13
U.S. 341 and U.S. 301
Conduct study to assess safety or operational issues and make improvements as warranted
0.23
Assess truck operations and, where needed, widen
I-14
U.S. 84 and Sunset Boulevard
and improve intersection for more efficient truck
0.22
turning movements
I-15
U.S. 341 and Church Street
Conduct Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and install new signal (if warranted)
0.18
I-16
U.S. 301 South and Sunset Boulevard
Conduct Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and install new signal (if warranted)
0.13
Conduct operational study of intersection and add
I-17 Sunset Boulevard and S. Macon Street turn lanes along Sunset Boulevard to Macon Street
0.10
if warranted
PE = Preliminary Engineering, ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition, CST = Construction, NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Tier 2 (2015- 2024) CST
CST
Study, CST Study, CST
Study, PE, ROW
Cost NFA NFA $160,000 $160,000 NFA
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
22
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
Beards Bluff Rd
UV169
!(
IU-S5341/ChSRer2ry7/SPtine I-4 !(
St
I-2 !(
!(
!(
Liberty
US 84/SR
38
I-1
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Recommended
I-7 !(!( I-10
Intersection and Corridor
I-6
Improvement Projects
Long
Legend
Oglethorpe Rd Tank Rd
Holmesville Rd
Odum Rd
tu341 !( I-15 UV Odum 27
Holmesville Rd
UV203
Nine Run Rd
Stanfield Dr
Empire Rd
tu84
UV38
I-11!(
Rayonier Rd
tu301
I-9
C-1
!( !(
!( I-8 !(
I-14
!(!( !(!(!(!(!( I-3
I-12 !( Jesup
!(
I-13
I-17
Slover Rd
!( I-16
Rd
C-2
tu25
Longford Creek Rd
UV23
di Rd
Little Gar
Walker Creek Rd
Broadhurst R d
Screven
Old Hortense Rd
Hortense Rd
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
Downtown Jesup
Intersection Improvements !( Tier 1 !( Tier 2 !( Tier 3 Corridor Improvements (Tier 1)
Roads Major Roads
River Rd
UV27
McIntosh
Railroad Cities Wayne County Surrounding Counties
tu341
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
Team
0
0.2
0.4
0.8
Miles
Wire Rd Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
Brantley
Glynn
Figure 3
February 2009
Table 9. Recommended Policies for Rail/Roadway Crossing Improvement Needs
Issue of Concern Trains block roadway traffic at at-grade crossings in Wayne County, creating traffic delays on the roadway.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Policy Recommendation Coordinate with the railroad agencies (Norfolk Southern and CSX), GDOT, and the Wayne County Public Works Department to determine solutions to alleviate the delay at railroad crossings. Work to reduce the delays during peak periods of travel, including school drop-off and pick-up times. Set policies in place for emergency vehicles to bypass stopped trains at at-grade crossings in the most efficient and safest manner possible.
3.3 Corridor and Sub-Area Improvements
The centers of activity in Wayne County, including local schools, government services, and industry sites can create localized high-traffic in particular areas and along highly traveled corridors. Corridor and sub- area improvements entail roadway re-alignment projects and roadway widening projects. The section that follows details corridor and sub-area improvement needs that have been cited by the public and stakeholders as well as recommended projects and policies to address these needs.
3.3.1 Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Needs
Tables 10 and 11 present issues for specific corridors and sub-areas, respectively, which have been cited by the stakeholders and citizens of Wayne County during Advisory Panel meetings, other discussions, and from the community survey results.
3.3.2 Methodology and Recommendations
The corridors and sub-areas analyzed for potential improvements were taken from comments received from the public and stakeholders. In the following sections, these intersections are analyzed based on specific criteria, ranked according to greatest needs, and placed into recommended project and policy lists.
3.3.2.1 Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Criteria
Because there were few corridor and sub-area needs cited by the stakeholders and public, each issue was taken into account, and project and policy recommendations were made. Some of the issues, such problems in the U.S. 84 and Wal-Mart area, have been addressed in the recommended intersection improvements. The remainder of the corridor and sub-area improvements are detailed in the following sections.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
24
Table 10. Specific Corridor Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public
Corridors U.S. 84 in the Wal-Mart area
Identified Issue of Concern High-traffic area
S.R. 169 and the Spring Grove Road area
No specific issue cited needs more analysis
Sunset Boulevard from S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road No specific issue cited needs more analysis to S. Macon Street
Railroad parallel to U.S. 341
Blocks traffic at certain intersections
Sources: Advisory Panel, Meeting with Wayne County officials, Community Survey
Table 11. Specific Sub-Area Needs Identified by Stakeholders and General Public
Sub-Areas Wayne County High School (West Orange Street, U.S. 341 and Joey Williamson Road, U.S. 341 and Tech Drive)
Identified Issue of Concern Congestion around school in AM and PM and difficult left turn movement onto U.S. 341
Arthur Williams Middle School (S.R. 203)
Congestion around school in AM and PM
Martha Rawls Smith Elementary School (S.R. 27/W. Congestion around school in AM and PM Pine Street)
Sources: Advisory Panel, Meeting with Wayne County officials, Community Survey
3.3.2.2 Planned and Programmed Corridor and Sub-Area Improvement Projects
The study team researched the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan, State Transportation Improvement Program, Construction Work Program, State Aid Grant Program, and Local Road Assistance Program to ascertain whether there are any short- or long-term projects planned for Wayne County. Currently, there are no corridor or sub-area improvement projects planned or programmed in these programs by GDOT.
3.3.2.3 Project Recommendations
Table 12 presents the potential corridor improvement projects recommended for implementation in Tier 1 (2009-2014). The implementation period for these improvements will depend on the availability of funding, project development issues, and other factors. These potential recommended projects are also shown in Figure 3.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
25
Table 12. Corridor Improvement Projects Recommended for Implementation in Tier 1 (2009-2014)
ID
Intersection
Improvement
C-1
Sunset Boulevard from S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road to S.
Macon Street
Conduct Access Management Assessment
C-2
U.S. 341 near Gardi
Conduct Access Management Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Tier 1 (2009- 2014)
Study
Study
Cost $25,000 $20,000
3.3.2.4 Policy Recommendations
The sub-area issues concerning congestion around schools could not be addressed through the travel demand model for Wayne County. This is because the model produces daily v/c ratios and capacities, and does not account for peak school traffic in the morning and afternoon. These were therefore addressed through recommended policies. These sub-area policies are addressed in Table 13.
Table 13. Recommended Policies for Sub-Area Improvement Needs
Issue of Concern
Policy Recommendations
Work with the Safe Routes to School Program and sidewalk
recommendations (presented in Section 6.0 of this report) to
encourage the use of sidewalks and bicycles for travel to and from
There is localized congestion around public schools in Wayne County, particularly in the morning and afternoon when students start and end the school day.
schools and alleviate traffic volume on the local roadways. Coordinate with the Wayne County School Board to complete a circulation and parking assessment around all local schools. This study will identify specific issues and problematic areas for congestion, assess any deficiencies in parking around schools, and analyze the circulation pattern around local roads surrounding
the schools. Furthermore, it will make recommendations to
alleviate congestion and improve circulation and parking in areas
around the schools.
Coordinate with the railroad agencies (Norfolk Southern and CSX),
Trains block roadway traffic at at- grade crossings in Wayne County, creating traffic delays on the roadway.*
GDOT, and the Wayne County Public Works Department to determine solutions to alleviate the delay at railroad crossings. Work to reduce the delays during peak periods of travel, including school drop-off and pick-up times. Set policies in place for emergency vehicles to bypass stopped trains at at-grade crossings
in the most efficient and safest manner possible.
*This identified issue and recommended policy are identical to those discussed in Table 9, Potential Recommended Policies for
Rail/Roadway Crossing Improvement Needs; this issue is considered both an intersection and a corridor/sub-area deficiency.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
26
3.4 Bridges and Overpasses
Wayne County is rich in water resources including wetlands. There are 120 bridges located on county, state and federal routes in Wayne County according to the 2005 Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan. The following sub-section discusses bridge and overpass issues within the County, including needs expressed by stakeholders and citizens, planned and programmed bridge replacement projects, and additional recommended bridge replacement projects.
3.4.1 Needs Assessment Methodology
The bridges in Wayne County were analyzed by looking at bridge sufficiency ratings, in addition to projects that are planned and programmed by GDOT. Input from the public and stakeholders were also considered in determining recommended needs for bridge projects.
3.4.1.1 Bridge Sufficiency Rating Analysis
To assess the need for bridge maintenance or replacement, bridges throughout Wayne County were assessed based on bridge sufficiency ratings which were conducted by GDOT. The sufficiency rating is based on a formula evaluating factors which indicate the bridge's sufficiency to remain in service. The rating is never less than 0 or more than 100. Table 14 shows the Wayne County bridges with sufficiency ratings less than 50, while Table 15 shows the bridges with sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80. Bridges in both tables are actively monitored for replacement or repair by GDOT.
Table 14. Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less than 50
Location
Sufficiency Rating
Slover Road and Walker Creek
19.18
K'Ville Road and Dry Creek
21.7
Michael Lake Road and Colemans Creek
22.02
Walter Griffis Road and Goose Creek
22.16
Woods Road and Goose Creek
22.8
Collins Road and Boggy Creek
23.15
Holmesville Road and Boggy Creek
26.00
C.R. 72 and Little Satilla Creek
43.78
S.R. 203 and Dry Creek
44.15
Grantham Road and Little McMullen Creek
48.86
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation (2008) Note: Highlighted rows correspond to planned and programmed bridge and overpass projects presented on Table 16.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
27
Table 15. Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Between 50 and 80
Location
Sufficiency Rating
U.S. 341 and Little Satilla Creek
56.42
Oglethorpe Road and Little Goose Creek
60.05
Akin Road and Alex Creek
60.93
Lud O'Quinn Road and Goose Creek
62.32
Granny Crosby Road and Reedy Creek
63.80
S.R. 169 and Goose Creek
66.20
Bethesda Road and Goose Creek
66.73
Stanfield Road and Reedy Creek
67.60
Oglethorpe Road and Little Goose Creek
67.69
Holmesville Road and Little Satilla Creek
72.93
Empire Road and Little Satilla Creek
73.64
Broadhurst Road (west) and Little Penholloway Creek
75.11
J.A. Leaphart and Altamaha River
75.32
Broadhurst Road (east) and Penholloway Creek
75.11
Stanfield Road and Colemans Creek
76.07
Boggy Creek Road and Little Satilla Creek
78.29
U.S. 84(EBL & WBL) and Little McMullen Creek
78.48
Stanfield Road and Colemans Creek
78.53
U.S. 84 and Tiger Creek
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation (2008)
79.48
3.4.1.2 Planned and Programmed Bridge Improvement Projects
In addition to monitoring the bridges in Table 14 and Table 15, GDOT has also identified bridge replacements needed in Wayne County. They are presented in Table 16.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
28
Table 16. Planned and Programmed Bridge Improvement Projects
Project Description
Phase
Status
S.R. 203 at Dry Creek 5.7 Miles NW of Screven
ROW Unfunded
C.R. 145 South of Odum at Little Satilla Creek
PE
Unfunded
C.R. 99/Walter Griffis Road at Goose Creek, 1 mile North
of Odum
PE
Unfunded
PI # 0005572 570781
541985
C.R. 105 NE of Odum at Goose Creek
PE
C.R. 127/Holmesville Road at Boggy Creek 3.5 miles South
of Odum
CST
Unfunded Unfunded
570783 570950
C.R. 132 NW of Screven at Unnamed Stream
PE
C.R. 185/Michael Lake Road at Colemans Creek
PE
C.R. 388/Beards Bluff Road at Goose Creek, 4 miles North
of Odum
PE
Unfunded Unfunded
570780 0008302
Unfunded 542010
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation (2008)
3.4.1.3 Bridge and Overpass Deficiencies Expressed by Stakeholders and Citizens
Wayne County stakeholders and citizens expressed deficiencies concerning the railroad operations throughout the County and impacts upon local roadway operations. The following list outlines specific bridge and overpass improvement needs identified by stakeholders during Advisory Panel meetings, meetings with local officials, and through the Community surveys. These deficiencies are all due to passing trains impeding local traffic at rail/roadway grade crossings.
S.R. 169 in Jesup Emergency vehicles ability to cross while train passes Railroad crossing at Sunset Boulevard West Cherry Street at multiple railroad crossings in Jesup
In general, the deficiencies identified potentially could mean several grade-separations (railroad overpasses) across Wayne County, assuming that the engineering feasibility of each proposed improvement is confirmed. No engineering feasibility analysis has been initiated at these locations, other than the S.R. 169 location in Jesup. To meet the needs continuously expressed by the Wayne County community, GDOT has developed a Project Concept Report for a new railroad overpass in the vicinity of S.R. 169 and Sunset Boulevard which would cross U.S. 341 in Jesup. This project is locally known as the "S.R. 169 Railroad Overpass." This new overpass should alleviate the identified issues regarding trains blocking the Lanes Bridge roadway in Jesup. Federal funds have been earmarked by the
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
29
U.S. Congress to cover a portion of the total cost of the overpass. The new overpass is included in the recommendations detailed in the following section.
3.4.2 Recommendations
Table 17 shows recommended bridge projects. The S.R. 169 Railroad Overpass is recommended for new construction, while the remaining are recommended for new continued monitoring by GDOT for potential future maintenance and/or replacement. These recommended projects are also shown in Figure 4.
Table 17. Recommended Bridge Projects
ID
Bridge Location
Improvement
B-1
S.R. 169 Railroad Overpass
New construction
B-2
Slover Road and Walker Creek
Continued monitoring
B-3
K'Ville Road and Dry Creek
Continued monitoring
B-4
Michael Lake Road and Colemans Creek
Continued monitoring
B-5
Walter Griffis Road and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
B-6
Woods Road and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
B-7
Collins Road and Boggy Creek
Continued monitoring
B-8
Holmesville Road and Boggy Creek
Continued monitoring
B-9
C.R. 72 and Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
B-10 S.R. 203 and Dry Creek Continued monitoring
B-11
Grantham Road and Little McMullen Creek
Continued monitoring
B-12
C.R. 145 South of Odum at Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
B-13
C.R. 105 NE of Odum at Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
B-14
C.R. 132 NW of Screven at Unnamed Stream
Continued monitoring
Beards Bluff Road at
B-15 Goose Creek, 4 miles Continued monitoring
North of Odum
Sufficiency Rating N/A 19.18 21.70 22.02 22.17 22.76 23.15 26.00 43.78 44.15 48.86 N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
30
B-16
U.S. 341 and Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
56.42
B-17
Oglethorpe Road and Little Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
60.05
B-18
Akin Road and Alex Creek
Continued monitoring
60.93
B-19
Lud O'Quinn Road and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
62.32
B-20
Granny Crosby Road and Reedy Creek
Continued monitoring
63.80
B-21
S.R. 169 and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
66.20
B-22
Bethesda Road and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
66.73
B-23
Stanfield Road and Reedy Creek
Continued monitoring
67.60
B-24
Oglethorpe Road and Little Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
67.69
B-25
Holmesville Road and Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
72.93
B-26
Empire Road and Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
73.64
Broadhurst Road (west)
B-27 and Little Penholloway Continued monitoring
75.11
Creek
B-28
J.A. Leaphart and Altamaha River*
Continued monitoring
75.32
B-29
Broadhurst Road (east) and Penholloway Creek
Continued monitoring
75.11
B-30
Stanfield Road and Colemans Creek
Continued monitoring
76.07
B-31
Boggy Creek Road and Little Satilla Creek*
Continued monitoring
78.29
B-32
U.S. 84 (EBL & WBL) and Little McMullen Creek
Continued monitoring
78.48
B-33
Stanfield Road and Colemans Creek
Continued monitoring
78.53
B-34 U.S. 84 and Tiger Creek Continued monitoring
79.48
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team *The exact locations of these bridges could not be verified; therefore, they are not shown in Figure 4.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
31
Tattnall
Appling
UV169
Morris Break Rd
B-15 !(
B-19 !(
B-17 !(
B-24
Long
Oglethorpe Rd
B-9 !(
tu B-16
341 !(
B-5 !( !( B-13
B-6 B-21 !(
!(
UV Odum
27 Tank Rd
Rayonier Rd
tu301
Odum Rd
Holmesville Rd
B-8 !(
B-3 !(
K'Ville
Rd
B-14 !(
!( B-12
B-25 !(
Holmesville
Rd
Empire
Rd
B-26 !(
B-1 !(
Jesup
B-32 !( !( B-11
Bethlehem St
UV B-10
203
!(
Slover Rd
B-2
B-20
!(
!(
B-4 !(
Stanfield
Dr
B-33 !(
!(
Nine Run
B-23
Rd
UV38
UV23
B-30
B-34 !(
Broadhurst
Screven
R
d!(
B-27
B-29 !(
Walker Creek Rd GarLittleLCornegefkorRddRd
tu25
di Rd Murphy Break
Flowers Break
Altamaha River
UV27 tu341
Rogers Break
Hortense Rd
LIttle Satilla River
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
B-18 !(
Liberty
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Recommended Bridge and Overpass
Projects
Legend
Bridge and Overpass Projects
!( New Construction
Continued GDOT Monitoring for Potential !( Future Maintenance and/or Replacement
Roads
Major Roads
Railroad
Stream/River
Cities
McIntosh
Wayne County Surrounding Counties
River Rd
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
0 1.25 2.5
5
Miles
Old Hortense Rd Wire Rd
Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
February 2009
Brantley
Glynn
Figure 4
3.5 New Location Roadways and Roadway Extensions
In recent years, Wayne County has seen economic growth, particularly in the area of Jesup. In order to best accommodate these industries and to attract new ones, and to serve residents, some new roads would be very beneficial. As industry in the County continues to grow, there will be a greater demand put on the roadway system by the employees of new industries, as well as by the trucking activity that the industries would potentially generate. The Study team has evaluated the expected economic growth in Wayne County and has made recommendations on the new roadways or extensions, and improvements to existing roads that would best facilitate this growth.
3.5.1 Methodology for New Location Roadways and Extensions
Potential new roadways and extensions for economic growth in Wayne County were evaluated based on criteria such as project cost, the tier level for job tax credits, potential new jobs generated by the new industry, and the project's connections to existing state or local (paved and unpaved) roads . Wayne County is designated as Tier 1 for job tax credits, as determined by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. These standards help to measure the project's impact on local economic development. In addition, because the identified new roadway and extension projects tie directly into new industry in Wayne County, they are eligible for State Aid funds due to their impact on local economic development. The GDOT State Aid office does not specifically grant funds for new roadway projects. It does, however, grant funds for projects that would enhance economic development, as these potential new roadways and extensions do.
During the travel demand model development, information about new industries planned in the County was not available to be included in the model. Following a meeting with Wayne County officials in November of 2008, the Study team was made aware of the desire for new roadway extensions based on the new industries that are expected by County officials.
3.5.1.1 Planned and Programmed New Roadway Projects
The study team researched the GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan, State Transportation Improvement Program, Construction Work Program, State Aid Grant Program, and Local Road Assistance Program to ascertain whether there are any short- or long-term projects planned for Wayne County. Currently, there are no new roadway projects planned or programmed in these programs by GDOT.
3.5.1.2 Stakeholder and Public Comments New Roadways
Wayne County's location along the multi-lane highways including U.S. 341, U.S. 84 and U.S. 301 has caused the County to see itself as a rural growth center, according to the Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan.4 Recently, the County's position along these highways has brought commercial growth, particularly near the intersection of U.S. 301 and U.S. 341 to the east of Jesup and the intersection of U.S. 84 and Sunset Boulevard in southwest Jesup. County officials believe that this recent growth is indication that these and other similar areas near Jesup will continue to provide
4 The Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan: Wayne County, Jesup, Odum and Screven 2025, July 2004
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
33
opportunity for future economic growth. The County's existing industrial park located south of Jesup near Macon Street and Sunset Boulevard is also planned to expand in the future.
Within Wayne County, much of the new employment anticipated in the near future will be in or near the City of Jesup, as shown previously on Figure 1. At a meeting with Wayne County officials on November 25, 2008, members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industrial Development Authority (IDA) noted that they expect much of the industrial growth to occur along the bend of Sunset Boulevard south of U.S. 84. The IDA owns 421 acres in this area on Sunset Boulevard that currently house a number of industries, but there is room for more growth. The IDA also has plans to develop approximately 180 acres near the Wayne County Airport, and an additional industrial park adjacent to the airport along U.S. 301 is planned. This area has rail service and is expected to become a new growth center.
The IDA also stated that East Coast Ethanol and a logistics firm are expected to locate facilities to the east of Jesup, bounded by U.S. 341/S.R. 27 to the south, Akin Road to east, and Clubhouse Road to the west, shown in Figure 5. The ethanol plant will break ground in the spring of 2009 and will be located on 350 acres along U.S. 341. The new plant will likely generate about 100 heavy trucks per day. Both of these facilities are expected to have approximately 100 employees in the next few years. Also along U.S. 341, a 541-acre regional industrial park is proposed for development, and a strip commercial area is expected to develop along U.S. 341 east of Jesup, from U.S. 301 to the east. At the November 25, 2008 coordination meeting with Wayne County officials, it was noted that because of the expected development along U.S. 341, Wayne County, East Coast Ethanol, and GDOT are currently assessing access management strategies in order to mitigate traffic circulation issues that may result in the U.S. 341 corridor.
At the coordination meeting with Wayne County officials on November 25, 2008, it was agreed that new connector roads or roadway extensions in the area surrounding Jesup would be very beneficial to its economic development. The new roadway extension would improve the efficiency of the traffic flow as more cars and trucks are added to the existing roadways due to the employees added by new industry and the trucking activity that is generated. The following new connector roads were recommended by the stakeholders during the plan development process:
A new connector extending from west of U.S. 84, connecting SR 203 and U.S. 341 (as an alternate route for trucks that travel through Jesup on U.S. 341)
A new connector road from the eastern end of Slover Road to U.S. 341 (as an alternate for trucks that travel on U.S. 341)
The potential improvements will need additional engineering and environmental feasibility analysis, along with public involvement activities to determine the potential alignments and design concepts.
3.5.2 Recommendations
Only two projects were identified as potential new location roadways or roadway extensions to support economic development in Wayne County. Because they simultaneously support distinct emerging industries in the area, they are both recommended for implementation as funding becomes available. The need for these roadways results from private development in the County; therefore alternative
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
34
funding options should be available for their design and construction. This could involve both local public and private funding from Wayne County and/or developers.
Tables 18 and 19 show potential recommended new roadways and road extensions for economic development for Wayne County. These potential recommended projects are also shown in Figure 6.
Table 18. Potential New Roadways Recommended for Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way Acquisition in Tier 1 (2009-2014)
ID
Intersection
Improvement
N-1
S.R. 203 U.S. 341 Connector
Construct new roadway
N-2
Slover Road Eastern Extension
Construct new roadway
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Tier 1 (2009-2014) Study, PE Study, PE
Cost $2,400,000 $2,800,000
Table 19. Potential New Roadways Recommended for Construction in Tier 2 (2015-2024)
ID
Intersection
Improvement
Tier 2 (2015-2024)
Cost
N-1
S.R. 203 U.S. 341 Connector
Construct new roadway
ROW, CST
NFA
N-2
Slover Road Eastern Extension
Construct new roadway
ROW, CST
NFA
NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
35
tu301
Cowboy Rd
Jesup
Sunset Blvd Airport Rd
UV23
Longford Rd
Valentine Rd General Lake Rd
tu25
Manningtown Rd
Broadhurst Rd
Flowers Break
Rogers Break Old Hortense Rd
February 2009
Little Creek Rd Murphy Break Pendarvis Wire Rd Akin Rd Akin Rd Sansivilla Rd
Bethlehem St
Whaley Rd
Long
Hopkins Break
River Rd
UV27
Clubhouse Rd
tu341
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Anticipated New Industry East of Jesup
Legend
Anticipated Location: East Coast Ethanol and Logistics Firm Major Roads Roads Railroad Wayne County
McIntosh
Sources: Wayne County Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board/Tourism Board, Wayne County Industrial Development Authority
0 0.5 1
2
Miles
Figure 5
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
Beards Bluff Rd
UV169
Long
Oglethorpe Rd Tank Rd
tu341
Holmesville Rd
UV203
Odum Rd
UV Odum 27
Holmesville Rd
N-1
Empire Rd
tu84
Nine Run Rd
UV38
Stanfield Dr
Rayonier Rd
tu301
Jesup
Rd
Slover Rd
N-2
UV23
Longford Creek Rd
tu25
di Rd
Little Gar
Walker Creek Rd
Broadhurst R d
Screven
River Rd
UV27 tu341
Old Hortense Rd
Hortense Rd
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
Wire Rd Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
February 2009
Brantley
Liberty
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Recommended New Roadway and Roadway
Extension Projects
Legend
Approximate Area for New Roadway Alignment Roads Major Roads
Railroad Cities Wayne County Surrounding Counties
McIntosh
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
Team
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles
Glynn
Figure 6
4.0 Airport Improvements
The William A. Zorn Jesup-Wayne County Airport is located on U.S. 301 south of the City of Jesup, as shown in Figure 7. It currently serves various aviation activities, including business travel, recreational and agricultural flying, law enforcement, and prisoner transport. As part of the Georgia Aviation System, it is classified as a Level III airport. This type of airport is a business airport that has a regional impact because of the type of corporate and business travel it can accommodate. A Level III airport has certain requirements for the airside facilities as well as for the general aviation facilities, such as a 5,500-foot long and 100-foot wide runway, full parallel taxiways, airfield signage, aircraft storage, and a 2,500 square-foot terminal. The remaining requirements can be found in the Georgia Aviation System Plan (2003).5
4.1 Airport Improvement Needs
In the public involvement process, the study Advisory Panel indicated that improvements to the Jesup- Wayne County Airport will make the County more accessible for leisure and business travelers. They noted that improvements will also enhance economic development in the County by providing air services and aviation facilities for corporate air travel. According to the Advisory Panel, enhancements to the airport would improve the attractiveness of Wayne County to corporate relocations. Advisory Panel members also indicated that improved access to the Jesup-Wayne County Airport is needed as part of the airport enhancements.
4.2 Methodology and Recommendations
The Georgia Aviation System Plan Airport Summary Report provides information on the facilities and demands of the Jesup-Wayne County Airport. Because this airport is currently classified as Level III, the Aviation System Plan identifies the airport's needs and makes recommendations based on the standards required for this type of airport designation. This is to insure that the airport's facilities are consistent with other Level III airports across the State and to meet overall State's aviation goals for the Wayne County region. The recommendations from the plan consist of airside facilities, general aviation landside facilities, and other airport services. These recommendations are detailed in the following sections. This section addresses recommendations for the airport property only. Recommendations for improved access to the airport have been included under Section 3.0 of this document (Roadway Improvements).
4.2.1 Planned and Programmed Airport Projects
The following documents were reviewed to identify potential planned or programmed projects at the Jesup-Wayne County Airport:
- The Georgia Aviation System Plan - Airport Summary Report, 2003; - Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan: Wayne County, Jesup, Odum and Screven 2025; - State Transportation Improvement Program; - Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Plan; and - Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Work Program, 2007.
5 Georgia Aviation System Plan Airport Summary Report, 2003
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
38
Based upon a review of these documents, the only planned or programmed improvement project for the Jesup-Wayne County Airport is found in the State Transportation Improvement Program. This improvement is shown below in Table 20.
Table 20. Planned/Programmed Airport Improvement Projects
Project Name Install Ground Communication Outlet at William A. Zorn Airport
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation
P.I. Number T001817
Implementation Year 2007
4.2.2 Recommendations
The Georgia Aviation System Plan (2003) has identified needed improvements to the Jesup-Wayne County Airport in order to meet the standards of Level III airports in Georgia. These improvements are shown below in Table 21.
Table 21. Recommended Wayne County Airport Improvements
Improvements to Airside Facilities
Widen runway by 25 feet
Install HIRL runway lighting
Construct a full parallel taxiway
Install MITL taxiway lighting
Install precision approach
Install approach lighting system
Upgrade Navigational Aids and Equipment (VASI NAVAIDS to PAPI NAVAIDS)
Improvements to Landside Facilities
Provide an additional 500 square feet of terminal/administrative space
Add five auto parking spaces (Phase I), followed by an additional two auto parking spaces (Phase III)
Improvements to Other Airport Services
Provide full service FBO
Have rental cars available
Provide full service maintenance
Adopt land use/zoning controls
Upgrade the Master Plan/ALP in Phase II (2010) and Phase III (2020)
Source: Georgia Aviation System Plan Airport Summary Report, 2003, "Facility and Service Objectives Level III"
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
39
Old Hortense Rd Wire Rd
Post Rd
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
Beards Bluff Rd
UV169
Long
Oglethorpe Rd
Odum Rd G
riffis Rd Walter
tu341
UV Odum
27 Tank Rd
Holmesville Rd
Holmesville Rd
K'Ville Rd
UV203
Nine Run Rd
Stanfield Dr
Empire Rd
tu84
UV38
Jesup
Slover Rd
UV23
y Walker Creek Rd
Waycross
Hw
Broadhurst
Screven
R
d
Rayonier Rd
tu301
Bethlehem St
Gar LittleLCornegefkorRddRd
l
tu25
di Rd Murphy Break
Flowers Break
Rogers Break
Hortense Rd
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
UV27 tu341
Hortense Rd
-
February 2009
Brantley
Liberty
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
William A. Zorn Jesup-Wayne County Airport Location Map
Legend
l Airport Location
Roads Major Roads Cities Wayne County Surrounding Counties
McIntosh
River Rd
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Glynn
Source: Wayne County GIS
0
1.5
3
6
Miles
Figure 7
5.0 Ports and Rail
Wayne County stands to enhance its economic development opportunities from the County's proximity to the Ports of Savannah, Brunswick and Jacksonville and the accessibility to these ports via rail lines and major U.S. highways. As highlighted in Section 6.4 of the Evaluation of Existing and Future Conditions report, Jesup is approximately 40 rail miles (42 highway miles) from the Port of Brunswick, approximately 56 rail miles (70 highway miles) from the Port of Savannah, and approximately 98 rail miles (102 highway miles) from the Port of Jacksonville. All three (3) ports have been growing in the amount of cargo handled over the past few years, and projections indicate that port activities will continue to increase, as with all U.S. eastern seaboard ports with the widening of the Panama Canal. Wayne County has the potential to attract distribution centers or inland ports as results of the County's proximity to three major ocean ports.
The City of Jesup is one of the few cities in Georgia where Amtrak service is still operational. The Silver Service/Palmetto route serves passengers between New York City and Miami and stops in Jesup twice daily.6 The Amtrak route through Wayne County shares rails with the CSX Railroad Line. During a meeting with the Advisory Panel in September 2008, panel members indicated that the Amtrak service is very beneficial to Wayne County.
The following sections discuss Wayne County's needs and recommendations associated with passenger and freight rail within Wayne County. This section also discusses the impacts of the Ports of Brunswick, Savannah, and Jacksonville on freight rail within Wayne County, as well as specific issues and needs relating to Amtrak passenger rail and additional plans for regional passenger rail. Finally, this section includes specific recommended policies to meet the identified rail and port-related needs. Because a significant amount of freight is transported over highways, strategic improvements to select local highways are included in the policy recommendations.
5.1 Ports and Rail Needs
The stakeholders and citizens of Wayne County have indicated that the County can make improvements to its infrastructure and services to capitalize on its accessibility to ports and rails. In addition, they have also indicated that the County should establish policies to strengthen its passenger rail network. General comments received to date include:
Consider statewide and regional rail plans during the development of the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study and its subsequent future updates.
Improve infrastructure to address upcoming growth, within resource limitations. Consider the impacts on Wayne County from the growth of the port facilities in Savannah,
Brunswick, and Jacksonville, including economic development benefits and impacts on the County's transportation system. Utilize the federal funding earmark that the County has received to improve the train depot in Jesup.
6 Atlantic Coast Service Timetable. (http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/may08/T04.pdf)
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
41
Consider potential conflicts with other rail and/or highway traffic movements in the area as new industrial activities locate in the County and existing industries expand.
Utilize and expand side-tracks, where appropriate, to allow increased access to the Port of Brunswick.
Promote economic development through improved access to rail lines.
5.2 Methodology and Recommendations
The section below highlights two (2) planned or programmed projects pertaining to passenger rail in Wayne County. These have been recommended for inclusion as passenger rail improvement projects. Specific project improvements to the ports and railroads are planned by and controlled through the respective private port authorities and railroad companies, and could not be identified as part of this study. Therefore, this plan does include specific project or policy recommendations for ports and rail, but only those items and actions for which local and/or state governments have control. This includes recommendations for the County's roadway transportation network.
Policy recommendations for passenger rail in Wayne County have been adapted from input received from the Advisory Panel; recommendations from the Georgia Rail Freight Plan (discussed in Section 5.8.2 of the Existing and Future Conditions report); and action items from the Atlanta-Jacksonville Intercity Passenger Rail Service Study (July 2004) (discussed in Section 5.7 of the Existing and Future Conditions report). The Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC (HOGARDC) Regional Work Program (March 2007)7 and Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC (HOGARDC) Regional Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies (February 2005)8 address the need for Wayne County to improve its policies and infrastructure to benefit from local rail system and its proximity to the three (3) ports discussed earlier. To demonstrate conformance with HOGARDC programs, the recommended policies pertaining to ports and rail have been adapted from the Regional Work Program and Goals, Objectives, and Policies.9 The Intermodal Program for Rail Passenger Service in Georgia, last updated in November 1999 by the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority, does not include any recommended projects or policies for Wayne County.
5.2.1 Project Recommendations
Table 22 presents two (2) project recommendations to assist Wayne County in benefiting economically from its proximity to regional ports and the railroad. These projects have been planned/programmed in the GDOT Construction Work Program through a federal earmark.
Table 22. Recommended Projects for Ports and Rail: Tier 1 (2008-2014)
ID
Project Description
PR-1
Jesup Train Depot Intermodal Center
PR-2
Jesup Train Depot Intermodal Center
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation
Type Enhancement Enhancement
PI # 0008691 0008927
7 Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Work Program. March 2007. 8 Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. February 2005. 9 The wording of the policies may be slightly amended from the Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Work Program and Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Regional Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies to reflect application of the policies in Wayne County rather than the RDC region.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
42
The enhancements made to the Jesup Train Depot will make the facility more attractive to Amtrak rail passengers, encourage greater use of the facility and its services, and spur economic activity near the station (i.e., shops and restaurants, etc).
5.2.2 Policy Recommendations
Table 23 presents policy recommendations for Wayne County to capitalize on the rail system through the County and its proximity to the three (3) regional ports.
Table 23. Recommended Policies for Ports and Rail: Tier 1 (2008-2014)
Policy ID 1
2
Policy
Coordinate with the planned/programmed improvements at the Jesup Train Depot to further enhance the depot and make it attractive to passenger rail users. Coordinate with existing and future regional and statewide rail plans/studies10, as well as future updates of these plans/studies, to implement rail improvements for Wayne County.
3
Develop an intercity rail line on or parallel to the CSX railroad line through Wayne County.
Develop a federally-designated high-speed rail 4 corridor on or parallel to the CSX railroad line
through Wayne County.
5
Develop an intercity rail line on the Norfolk Southern between Appling County and Jesup.
Develop a federally-designated high-speed rail 6 corridor on the Norfolk Southern between Appling
County and Jesup.
Mode Addressed
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad Railroad Railroad Railroad
Responsible Parties
Wayne County
Wayne County
Wayne County, GDOT, and Railroad
Wayne County, GDOT, and Railroad
Wayne County, GDOT, and
Norfolk Southern Wayne County,
GDOT, and Norfolk Southern
7
Advocate and support development of rail passenger service through the region, and encourage regular contact with legislators, GDOT, Georgia Rail Passenger Authority, and others to keep region's needs at forefront.
Railroad
Wayne County Development Authority, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce,
RAC
Source
Study Team
Study Team
Georgia Rail Freight Plan
Georgia Rail Freight Plan
Georgia Rail Freight Plan
Georgia Rail Freight Plan HOGARDC
Regional Work
Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies
10 Including (but not limited to) Intermodal Program for Rail Passenger Service in Georgia (November 1999), Atlanta-Jacksonville Intercity Passenger Rail Service Study (July 2004), and Georgia Rail Freight Plan (March 2001) and future updates of these plans.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
43
Policy ID
Policy
Support and encourage implementation of any of
8
the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority's State Rail Plan's proposed Macon through region routes that
may cross Wayne County.
9
Advocate and encourage the development of rail passenger service through the region.
Support the retention of Amtrak passenger service 10 and improvement of depot/passenger facilities in
Jesup.
Support the continuation and improvement of the 11 existing railroad network (principally freight routes)
within the region.
Mode Addressed
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Responsible Parties
Wayne County Development Authority, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce,
RAC
Wayne County Development Authority, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce,
RAC
Wayne County Development Authority, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce,
RAC
Wayne County, HOGARDC, Railroads
Source
HOGARDC Regional
Work Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals HOGARDC Regional
Work Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals HOGARDC Regional
Work Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals HOGARDC Regional
Work Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
44
Policy ID
Policy
Implement recommended action items of the Atlanta-Jacksonville Intercity Passenger Rail Service Study:
In addition to the proposed new Atlanta-
Jacksonville rail service, expand market
potential by evaluating the feasibility of an
intercity passenger rail line to Savannah via
Jesup, and to Brunswick and Waycross from
Jesup.
Develop a partnership model (GRPA-Amtrak-
private vendor) for operation, maintenance, and
administration of the new Atlanta-Jacksonville
rail service.
Develop a financial plan for the Atlanta-
13
Jacksonville rail service to fund capital
improvements and operating assistance with
refined operating and maintenance cost
estimates, fare revenue estimates, and capital
cost estimates.
Develop plans for upgrading the Jesup Rail
Depot if necessary for the Atlanta-Jacksonville
rail service.
Evaluate potential infrastructure improvements
in the County such as rehabilitation or
replacement of bridges, comprehensive curve
analyses, drainage and soil stability, and signal
systems for high-speed rail.
Initiate a bridge engineering study to identify
necessary repairs for the Atlanta-Jacksonville rail
service and develop a capital program.
Encourage legislative and other support for 14 continued expansion/development of Ports of
Brunswick and Savannah.
Conduct an access management study, and develop an access management overlay ordinance for major 15 freight highway corridors (U.S. 341, U.S. 301, U.S. 84) within the County to ensure that the corridors are conducive to freight truck travel.
Mode Addressed
Railroad
Ports Highways
Responsible Parties
Source
Local legislators, Georgia Rail Passenger Authority, Railroad
Atlanta- Jacksonville
Intercity Passenger Rail Service
Study
Wayne County, Georgia Ports Authority, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce, HOGARDC, RAC
HOGARDC Regional
Work Program / HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies
Wayne County, GDOT
Study Team
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
45
Policy ID
Policy
Mode Addressed
Responsible Parties
Source
HOGARDC
Regional
Encourage the development of truck routes,
Work
connectors, and perimeter roads to provide 16 alternative routes around all of the region's major
activity centers for which truck traffic is
Highways
Wayne County, HOGARDC, GDOT
Program / HOGARDC Regional
inappropriate.
Plan's Goals,
Objectives
and Policies
HOGARDC = Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Development Center; RAC = Regional Advisory Council; GDOT = Georgia
Department of Transportation
Sources: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team, Georgia Rail Freight Plan, Atlanta-Jacksonville Intercity
Passenger Rail Service Study, HOGARDC Regional Work Program, HOGARDC Regional Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
46
6.0 Multimodal Improvements
Although Wayne County is primarily rural, the citizens have expressed a desire for enhanced multimodal transportation options, including additional sidewalks and trails, and enhanced transit service, especially commuter-oriented services. Additionally stakeholders and citizens were interested in additional park and ride and car and vanpooling opportunities. In addition to easing roadway traffic, multimodal transportation options enhance the quality of life in the community and often help to attract additional residents and businesses to the County. There are opportunities to enhance the County's existing multimodal transportation networks, including sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and transit. The following sections present a summary of these multimodal transportation needs that have been cited by the public and Advisory Panel.
6.1 Sidewalks Improvements
According to the Advisory Panel, sidewalks within Wayne County are viewed as one of the most important elements of the transportation network. At the November 18, 2008 Advisory Panel meeting, sidewalks ranked as the third most important transportation element by the attendees as part of the "Wayne Bucks" transportation prioritization exercise. The following section presents a summary of the sidewalk needs identified by the Advisory Panel and public, as well as recommended sidewalk projects for the County.
6.1.1 Needs Assessment Methodology
While a significant number of sidewalks exist in Wayne County, there are many deficiencies in sidewalk connectivity to destinations throughout the County. To assess the need for additional sidewalks in Wayne County, a sidewalk "gap analysis" was conducted for Jesup, Odum and Screven to assess sidewalk connectivity to schools and public buildings. Geographic information systems (GIS) data was acquired from Wayne County and used to complete the gap analysis. Sidewalks located within a two- mile radius near schools were first analyzed for connectivity. A few sidewalks were accessible to schools, but were often not adequate enough to provide continuous pedestrian accessibility. After gaps in sidewalk connectivity were identified, they were confirmed in using "on the ground photography" from Google's Street View mapping application.
6.1.1.1 Planned and Programmed Projects
The study team reviewed the following GDOT documents to identify potential sidewalk projects to determine whether there are any short- or long-term projects planned for Wayne County:
GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan; State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); Construction Work Program, and State Aid Grant Program.
Based upon review of these documents, there is one (1) sidewalk project identified in Wayne County, which is presented in Table 24.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
47
Table 24. Planned and Programmed Sidewalks Projects
Project Description
Phase
Jesup Streetscape Phase II
CST
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation
PI # 000914
6.1.1.2 Sidewalk Needs Expressed by Advisory Panel and Public
The stakeholders and citizens of Wayne County recognize that sidewalks are valuable not only as an alternate mode of transportation, but also to promote a healthy lifestyle and a safe place to walk. The following list outlines sidewalk improvement needs mentioned in Advisory Panel meetings and through the Community surveys:
There is a need for more sidewalks, pedestrian treatments, and crosswalks on roads near schools, including Wayne County High School
Sidewalks are needed on East and West Cherry Street Better sidewalks throughout Jesup are needed.
6.1.2 Recommendations
A recommended list of new sidewalks has been developed using results of the gap analysis and in concert with the general recommendations of the Advisory Panel. The recommended projects will ultimately provide increased pedestrian access for students to their local schools. Table 25 presents the recommended sidewalk project list, which are also presented on Figure 8. Several of the recommended projects are around schools, which is consistent with the comments received from the Advisory Panel members and citizens. A priority of citizens and stakeholders was to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, especially children. At this time, the projects shown in Table 25 on the following pages are not funded.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
48
Project ID
Table 25. Recommended Sidewalk Projects New Sidewalks Projects
Location
Landmark
City
Need
Approximate Length (miles)
S-1 U.S. 301/S.R. 23
Arthur Middle Jesup Build new sidewalks to
1.2
School
connect Retta Lynn
Road to Myrtle Street;
install pedestrian
crossings
S-2 Bamboo Street and Ritch School Jesup Install new sidewalks
0.25
Devonwood Drive
to connect to Ritch
School and new
segments
S-3 West Cherry Street Downtown Jesup Install new sidewalks
0.3
Jesup
to complete the entire
West Cherry Street
extent
S-4 Plum Street
Downtown Jesup Install new sidewalks
0.75
Jesup
to complete sidewalks
along Plum Street
from Bamboo Street
to U.S. 301/S.R. 23
S-5 Fifth Street
Orange Saint Jesup Install new sidewalks
1.25
School
from White Oak Street
to West Walnut Street
to provide safe access
to school
S-6 Bay Acres Road
Puckett Middle Jesup Install new sidewalks
2.0
School
to provide safe access
to school
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
49
S-7 Joey Williamson
Wayne County Jesup Install new sidewalks
3.25
Road
High School
to provide safe access
to school
S-8 South Church Street
Downtown Odum Install new sidewalks
0.25
Odum
from Main Street and
Shonn Street
Project ID
Location
Sidewalk Maintenance Projects
Type
City
Need
Approximate Length (miles)
S-9 Jesup
Sidewalk
Jesup Provide continued
N/A
Maintenance
maintenance for
existing and new
sidewalks
S-10 Odum
Sidewalk
Odum Provide continued
N/A
Maintenance
maintenance for
existing and new
sidewalks
S-11 Screven
Sidewalk Screven Provide continued
N/A
Maintenance
maintenance for
existing and new
sidewalks
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
In addition to the recommended sidewalks located near schools, additional sidewalk projects are recommended in Downtown Jesup and Odum to provide better pedestrian connectivity to retail locations and public buildings. The recommended projects will create the missing sidewalk gaps to increase pedestrian accessibility.
Maintenance projects have also been recommended for each of the three (3) Wayne County cities. This recommendation has been included based upon the numerous citizen and Advisory Panel comments requesting increased funding for sidewalk maintenance.
Georgia Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program
As part of the Georgia Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program, the Wayne County Board of Education or County government may apply for federal funding to help construct sidewalks within a two-mile radius
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
50
of elementary and middle schools. One of the SRTS program's goals is to increase the number of children in grades K-8 who bicycle and walk to school; therefore, installing sidewalks near and around the schools would help Wayne County meet this goal. Sidewalk project number S-7 is recommended adjacent to the Wayne County High School; however, this project is not eligible for SRTS funding since the program only provides funding for elementary and middle schools.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
51
Fannie Head Rd Ohio Rd
St
Polk Rd Third St Ln
Issac Rd
Thomas St
kRobert E Lee Dr
ErnestMTaygrgeieRdSt
WWeinsdt yRaHiillrloRadd St
Vinson St
Hires Ave
Mill Creek Ln
Ext
Mill Creek Cir
Alton Dr Linden Bluff Rd
Yellow Pine Rd
Melody
Blue Ln
Ct
Sierra Rd
Riverside Dr
Long Altamaha Rd
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Harrison Rd
Dogwood St
RobeSrosuotLnheRaCdLhnuNrecshBbeiSttthRedsdTao RmdBeaver TillWmhiapnpoSotrwill Rd
Red Hill Rd
Rayonier Rd
Tank Rd
US
Hwy
341
North
Miles
/Odum
Hw
0 0.05 0.1
0.2
Ski Lake Dr
Beechwood Rd Lanes Bridge Rd/Ga Hwy 16
OLladxtOoankRRdd Buckhorn Rd
East RaMilreoaaddoSwt Wood Dr Chapman Plantation Rd
Live Oak Dr Tyre Rd
Doe St
City of Odum
Big Oak Rd
FoSr.eFsot rDerstPDinr e Oak Dr
Heather Rd Lewis Rd
B Baker Dr
Cowboy Rd
Anderson Dr Fennel Dr
Douglass
Way Oa k
Doctortown Rd OldSDtaorcdtuosrtTLopwn Rd
Fourth St
Power Line Rd
Holmesville Rd Empire Rd
Dogwood Acres Rd
k k
Joey Williamson Rd
Glynn St Bacon St
kW. Orange St
Sixth St
City of Jesup
Sunset Blvd
Colonial Way S. Macon St
-J C Hamilton Rd
Slover Rd
Ranger House Rd
Ogden Rd
Buggywhip Ln
S. Palm St
B&R Cir Fern St
Littlefield St
Clint St
kFifth St
Walker
St N.
Palm
St
k
Grantham Rd
Phillips Rd Bethlehem St
k
Gilford St US Hwy 341 South
kRetta
Sansivilla Lynn Rd
Rd
Jesup Lake Rd
Forest Cove Dr
Birdie Dr S. Bogey Dr
Recommended Sidewalk Projects
Legend
Sidewalks Existing Recommended
k Public Schools
Public Buildings Roads Wayne County Surrounding Counties
Note: Only public roads are shown. Sources: Wayne County GIS
Figure 8
Longford Rd
Miles 0 0.10.2 0.4
Club Dr
Rose Petal Ln Flint Branch Ch Rd
Slash Ln
US-84 / US-25 / Waycross
Smith Ln
February 2009
6.2 Bicycle Facility Needs
According to the Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan, Wayne County is one of only a handful of rural counties with designated bike lanes. These lanes follow U.S. 84 from Jesup to a point near Jaycee Park located along the Altamaha River.
The City of Screven also hosts the Southern Pride Agricultural Ride annually, which brings many cyclists through Wayne and Appling Counties. The ride begins in Screven and offers various options which include a 23-mile ride, 48-mile ride, Century ride or a Metric Ride. Improved bicycle facilities would provide additional facilities for local and regional bicycle rides, boosting local tourism and the local economy.
The City of Jesup is nearing completion of the McMillan Creek Project. This project is a two-and-a-half mile long greenway that begins at Holmesville Road and U.S. 84, runs along McMillan Creek and ends at Irvin Street and Groveland in Downtown Jesup. The greenway will provide a safe bicycle and pedestrian facility connecting neighborhoods and schools. In addition to the recreational advantages of this project to Wayne County citizens, this project will also serve as a regional destination boosting local tourism and economic development for the County.
Wayne County has a fairly well-developed system of on-road bike lanes along routes U.S. 25 and U.S. 84. Although the need for additional bicycle lanes was not specifically cited by the Advisory Panel or citizens, several bicycle lane projects have been proposed through past planning efforts. Specifically, the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan developed by the Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC in June 2005 includes the following recommended bicycling facilities:
1. Four (4)-foot bike lanes parallel to U.S. 431/U.S. 23 from Gardi community to Cochran. 2. Four (4)-foot bike lanes along S.R. 169 from Jesup to Reidsville.
6.2.1 Planned and Programmed Bicycle Facility Projects
The project team reviewed the following GDOT documents to identify potential bicycle projects to determine whether there are any short- or long-term projects planned for Wayne County:
GDOT Statewide Transportation Plan; State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); Construction Work Program, and State Aid Grant Program; Currently, there are no bicycle facility projects planned or programmed in these programs by GDOT.
6.2.2 Recommended Bicycle Facility Projects
Table 26 shows potential bicycle facilities that were recommended in the Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. These potential recommended projects are also shown in Figure 9, which also shows the existing bicycle facilities within Wayne County. These projects are not funded at this time.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
53
Table 26. Bicycle Facility Recommendations
ID
Project Description
Enhance existing bicycle route on U.S. 341 from Gardi to Glynn BF-1
County by constructing four-foot bicycle lanes.
Construct a new bicycle route, consisting of four-foot bicycle BF-2
lanes, along U.S. 341 from Gardi to Appling County.
Construct a new bicycle route, consisting of four-foot bicycle BF-3 lanes, along S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road from Jesup to Appling
County
Source: Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
54
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
UV Beards
Bluff
Rd
BF-3
169
Long
Oglethorpe Rd Tank Rd
Holmesville Rd
Odum Rd
tu341 UV Odum 27
Holmesville Rd BF-2
UV203
Nine Run Rd
Stanfield Dr
Empire Rd
tu84
UV38
Slover Rd
UV23
Little Gar
Longford Creek Rd
Rd
Rayonier Rd
tu301
Jesup
tu25
di Rd
Walker Creek Rd
Broadhurst R d
Screven
River Rd
UV BF-1 27 tu341
Old Hortense Rd
Hortense Rd
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
Wire Rd Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
February 2009
Brantley
Liberty
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Recommended New Bicycle Routes and Route Enhancements
Legend
McIntosh
Recommended New Bicycle Routes Recommended Bicycle Route Enhancements Existing Bicycle Route Roads Major Roads Railroad Cities Wayne County Surrounding Counties
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
Team
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles
Glynn
Figure 9
6.3 Transit Improvements
In 2004, Wayne County began a countywide transit system (Wayne County Transit). This demand- response van service is designed to meet the mobility needs of low-income, elderly, and disabled citizens in Wayne County.11 The transit service is funded locally as well as through FTA Section 5311 funds.12
There is also a park and ride lot in Jesup located at the Rayonier Performance Fibers facility off Kimberly Road, as well as an unofficial park and ride lot in the Gardi community on Morning Glory Circle. These park and ride lots allow residents to carpool to common destinations outside of Wayne County and provide parking facilities for those carpooling to Wayne County.
In addition to the existing transit services and facilities, there are opportunities for enhanced transit service in Wayne County. These opportunities include options for the more dense municipalities and for regional travel to nearby Georgia cities in adjacent counties. The following sections detail transit needs that have been cited by the public and Advisory Panel, opportunities to coordinate with other regional transit programs (existing or under development), and specific transit recommendations and policies to meet the needs of Wayne County.
6.3.1 Transit Needs
The stakeholders and citizens of Wayne County have indicated that certain transit improvements would be beneficial to the County. General comments received to date include:
Consider the needs for improved transit in Wayne County; Coordinate with Wayne County Transit to provide additional rural transportation services; Modify the existing Wayne County Transit policy to allow customers to provide one, two-day or
notice, instead of three days; Expand the existing Wayne County Transit service to operate on Sundays and Wednesdays for
church goers; Wayne County needs facilities to meet the increasing need for vanpooling and carpooling
resulting from recent surges in gas prices; Develop a formalized carpooling program; informal carpooling currently exists; expand the
rideshare lot near the Rayonier facility, and/or develop additional facilities to meet carpooling demand; Identify additional potential locations for park and ride lots; The Gardi area needs park and ride areas, in addition to the existing informal park and ride lot in Gardi at Morning Glory Circle; and Wayne County should operate a public bus route on U.S. 84 to Hinesville, with stops along the way.
11 Wayne County Transit. http://www.co.wayne.ga.us/home/departments/Transit/ Accessed August 5, 2008. 12 Joint Wayne County Comprehensive Plan. July 2004. Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
56
6.3.2 Planned Regional Transit Services
As mentioned in Section 5.6 of the Existing and Future Conditions Report, the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center (CGRDC), in concert with GDOT and the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR), is preparing to initiate a Regional Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation Program for the 10-county Coastal Georgia region (which includes Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh and Screven Counties to the southeast of Wayne County). This program would provide vanpools specifically for work-related commutes. While Wayne County is not included in the CGRDC jurisdiction, a trip that either originates or ends in the 10-county region is eligible for the vanpool service. This would allow Wayne County residents to travel to work within the 10-county region, or those who reside in the 10-county region to travel to work in Wayne County. The regional vanpool program is expected to begin sometime between 2009 and 2014 pending the receipt of federal and state funding. 13
6.3.3 Methodology and Recommendations
The transit recommendations in the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan were ranked based upon several criteria. Needs cited by the public and stakeholders were given the highest priority. Enhancements to existing services were given the next highest priority based upon cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation (versus initiating new transit services). Priority was also given to expand regional transit efforts under development by the Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC into Wayne County.
6.3.3.1 Project Recommendations
Based upon the prioritization criteria discussed previously, seven (7) transit projects have been recommended. Tables 27 through 29 present these projects for the each of the three (3) implementation tiers: Tier 1 (2009-2014), Tier 2 (2015-2024), and Tier 3 (2025-2035). These potential recommended projects are also shown in Figure 10.14 None of these projects has an identified source of funding at this time.
Table 27. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 1 (2009-2014)
ID
Project Description
T-1 Expand park and ride lot at Rayonier Performance Fibers facility
T-2
Coordinate with local church or business to use existing parking area as a park and ride lot in the Gardi area
T-3
Participate in Regional Rural and Coordinated Public Transportation Program (CGRDC)
PE = Preliminary Engineering, ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition, CST = Construction
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Tier 1 (2009-2014) PE, ROW, CST --
--
Cost $300,000 $50,000
--
13 Personal contact with Barbara Foster-Hurst, Coordinated Transportation Director, Coastal Georgia RDC. September 17, 2008. 14 Project IDs T-3 (Regional Rural & Coordinated Public Transportation Program) and T-7 (Countywide demand-response service) have not been mapped, as these recommended services are applicable to all areas of Wayne County.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
57
Table 28. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 2 (2015-2024)
ID
Project Description
Tier 2 (2015-2024)
Cost
Coordinate with Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC to establish a
T-4
regional vanpool to Hinesville and Ft. Stewart via
U.S. 301/U.S. 84
Study, Capital and Operational Costs
NFA
T-5
Coordinate with Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC to establish a regional vanpool to Brunswick via U.S. 341/U.S. 25
Study, Capital and Operational Costs
NFA
NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Table 29. Recommended Transit System Enhancements: Tier 3 (2025-2035)
ID
Project Description
Tier 3 (2025-2035)
Cost
T-6
Establish a local circulator bus service in the City of Jesup
Study, Capital and Operational Costs
NFA
T-7
Establish a demand-response vanpool service for all citizens of Wayne County
Study, Capital and Operational Costs
NFA
PE = Preliminary Engineering, ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition, CST = Construction, NFA= Needs Further Assessment
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
58
6.3.3.1 Policy Recommendations
There is federal and state transportation funding available to help implement the recommended transit projects listed in Tables 27 through 29 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and GDOT. However, funding for transit, like all transportation funding, is becoming increasingly difficult to attain with diminishing sources of funds and rising competition by other jurisdictions. Typically, in order to receive federal or state transportation funds, local governments are required to provide a local match as a percentage of the total capital cost of the project. In order to maximize the availability and use of funding in Wayne County, the following section presents recommended policies to assist the County in obtaining additional funding for transit. The lack of funding was the only issue identified by the Advisory Panel and citizens in regards to transit service enhancements. Potential policies to address the funding issue are presented in Table 30.
Table 30. Recommended Policies for Transit Improvement Needs
Issue of Concern
Policy Recommendation In order to determine the funding available for transit programs in Wayne County, coordinate with following type of agencies:
Regional agencies (such as Coastal Georgia RDC and Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC);
State agencies (such as GDOT and Georgia Department of Human Resources);
Federal agencies (Federal Transit Administration)
There is limited transportation funding available for new transit projects.
Maintain continuous contact with these agencies in order to stay up-to-date on when funds are available and how to apply for the funds.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study Team
For transit services exclusive to Wayne County, such as local circulator buses, vanpool programs, and park and ride lots, consider some of the proceeds of a Countywide SPLOST to fund the cost of facilities, equipment, and operational costs. Maximize the use of available infrastructure for transit services (e.g., coordinate with local churches or retail stores with large parking lots to share their parking areas, or use during their off- peak periods (weekdays).
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
59
Appling
Tattnall
UV169
Morris Break Rd
Beards Bluff Rd
UV169
Long
Oglethorpe Rd Tank Rd
tu341
Rayonier Rd
Odum Rd
UV Odum 27
tu301 T-1
Holmesville Rd
Holmesville Rd
T-4
Empire Rd
T-6 Jesup
tu84
Rd
UV203
Stanfield Dr
Nine Run Rd
UV38
Slover Rd
UV23
Walker Creek Rd
Little Gar
Longford Creek Rd
tu25 T-2
di Rd
T-5
UV27
River Rd
Broadhurst R d
Screven
tu341
Hortense Rd
Pierce
White Star Rd
tu301
Browntown Rd
Old Hortense Rd Wire Rd
Post Rd
Hortense Rd
-
February 2009
Brantley
Liberty
Wayne County Multimodal
Transportation Study
Recommended Transit Projects
Legend
Approximate Area for New Transit Facilities or Services
New Regional Transit Routes
Roads
Major Roads
Railroad
Cities
Wayne County
Surrounding Counties
McIntosh
Project IDs T-3 (Regional Rural & Coordinated Public Transportation
Program) and T-7 (Countywide demand-response service) have
not been mapped, as these recommended services are applicable
to all areas of the County.
Glynn
Note: Only public roads are shown.
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
Team
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles
Figure 10
7.0 Project Matrix
Presented in Table 31 is a summary of all the recommended projects for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study.15 In this matrix, the recommended projects are compared to the six (6) goals of the study (listed below) as established by the Advisory Panel on July 23, 2008 (at an Advisory Panel meeting).16 The projects are also compared to the eight (8) planning factors of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (listed below). SAFETEA- LU authorizes the Federal transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for 2005 through 2009.
Goals of the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study:
Invest in Infrastructure Improve Traffic Flow and Safety Prioritize Road Paving and Establish Standards Enhance Economic Development Protect Community Character Incorporate Smart Growth Principles SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors:
Support Economic Vitality Increase Accessibility and Mobility Protect the Environment Enhance Modal Integration Promote Efficient System Management Preserve Existing System Increase Safety Increase Transportation Security The project matrix also details the tiers, or ranking, of the projects (where applicable). The tiers indicate a time period for implementation of the projects. These tiers are defined as follows:
Tier 1: 2009-2014 Tier 2: 2015-2024 Tier 3: 2025-2035
15 Airport improvement projects were not included, as these were taken directly from the Georgia Aviation System Plan and were not prioritized. 16 The goals of the study have been abridged for clarity and for efficient inclusion in the project matrix.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
61
Table 31. Matrix of Recommended Projects for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan
Project ID
Project Description
Project Location/Name
Project Type
Corridor Improvement Projects
C-1 Sunset Boulevard from S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road to S.
Conduct Access Management Assessment
U.S. 341/Cherry Street in vicinity Conduct Access Management
C-2
of Jesup City Hall
Assessment
Bridges and Overpasses
B-1 S.R. 169 Railroad Overpass
New Overpass Construction
B-2 Slover Creek and Walker Creek Continued monitoring
B-3 K'Ville Road and Dry Creek
Continued monitoring
Michael Lake Road and Colemans
B-4
Continued monitoring
Creek
B-5
Walter Griffis Road and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
B-6 Woods Road and Goose Creek Continued monitoring
B-7 Collins Road and Boggy Creek Continued monitoring
B-8 Holmesville Road and Boggy Creek
Continued monitoring
B-9 C.R. 72 and Little Satilla Creek Continued monitoring
B-10 S.R. 203 and Dry Creek
Continued monitoring
B-11 Grantham Road and Little McMullen Creek
Continued monitoring
C.R. 145 South of Odum at Little
B-12
Continued monitoring
Satilla Creek
B-13 C.R. 105 NE of Odum at Goose Continued monitoring Creek
C.R. 132 NW of Screven at B-14
Unnamed Stream
Continued monitoring
Beards Bluff Road at Goose
B-15
Continued monitoring
Creek, 4 miles North of Odum
B-16 U.S. 341 and Little Satilla Creek Continued monitoring
Oglethorpe Road and Little B-17
Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
B-18 Akin Road and Alex Creek
Continued monitoring
Lud O'Quinn Road and Goose
B-19
Continued monitoring
Creek
Granny Crosby Road and Reedy
B-20
Continued monitoring
Creek
B-21 S.R. 169 and Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
Goals of Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors
Prioritize Road
Promote
Tier
Improve Traffic
Invest in
Paving &
Enhance
Protect
Incorporate
Support
Increase
Protect the
Enhance
Efficient
Preserve
Increase
Flow and
Economic Community Smart Growth Economic Accessibility &
Modal
Existing Increase Safety Transportation
Infrastructure
Establish
Environment
System
Safety
Development Character
Principles
Vitality
Mobility
Integration
System
Security
Standards
Management
1
z
1
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
Tier 1: 2009-2014 Tier 2: 2015-2024 Tier 3: 2025-2035
Project ID
Project Description
Project Location/Name
Project Type
B-22 Bethesda Road and Goose Creek Continued monitoring
Goals of Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors
Prioritize Road
Promote
Tier
Improve Traffic
Invest in
Paving &
Enhance
Protect
Incorporate
Support
Increase
Protect the
Enhance
Efficient
Preserve
Increase
Flow and
Economic Community Smart Growth Economic Accessibility &
Modal
Existing Increase Safety Transportation
Infrastructure
Safety
Establish Development Character
Principles
Vitality
Mobility Environment Integration
System
System
Security
Standards
Management
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
B-23 Stanfield Road and Reedy Creek Continued monitoring
Oglethorpe Road and Little B-24
Goose Creek
Continued monitoring
Holmesville Road and Little B-25
Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
B-26 Empire Road and Little Satilla Continued monitoring Creek
Broadhurst Road (west) and B-27
Little Phennolloway Creek
Continued monitoring
B-28 J.A. Leaphart and Altamaha River Continued monitoring
Broadhurst Road (east) and B-29
Penholloway Creek
Continued monitoring
Stanfield Road and Colemans
B-30
Continued monitoring
Creek
B-31 Boggy Creek Road and Little Satilla Creek
Continued monitoring
U.S. 84(EBL & WBL) and Little
B-32
Continued monitoring
McMullen Creek
B-33 Stanfield Road and Colemans Continued monitoring Creek
B-34 U.S. 84 and Tiger Creek
Continued monitoring
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
New Roadways
N-1 S.R. 203 U.S. 341 Connector Construct new roadway
1 & 2
z
z
z
N-2 Slover Road Eastern Extension Construct new roadway
1 & 2
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Port and Rail Improvements
PR-1 Jesup Train Depot Intermodal Transportation Enhancement
1
z
Center
Jesup Train Depot Intermodal
PR-2
Transportation Enhancement
1
z
Center
Sidewalks (Multimodal Improvements)
Build new sidewalks to connect
U.S. 301/S.R. 23 at Arthur Middle Retta Lynn Road to Myrtle S-1
--
z
z
School
Street; install pedestrian
crossings
Bamboo Street and Devonwood Install new sidewalks to connect
S-2
to Ritch School and new
--
z
z
Drive at Ritch School
segments
Install new sidewalks to
West Cherry Street (Downtown
S-3 Jesup)
complete the entire West Cherry -- Street extent
z
z
Install new sidewalks to
complete sidewalks along Plum
S-4 Plum Street (Downtown Jesup)
--
z
z
Street from Bamboo Street to
U.S. 301/GA 23
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Tier 1: 2009-2014 Tier 2: 2015-2024 Tier 3: 2025-2035
Project Description
Goals of Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors
Project ID
Project Location/Name
Project Type
Prioritize Road
Promote
Tier
Improve Traffic
Invest in
Paving &
Enhance
Protect
Incorporate
Support
Increase
Protect the
Enhance
Efficient
Preserve
Increase
Flow and
Economic Community Smart Growth Economic Accessibility &
Modal
Existing Increase Safety Transportation
Infrastructure
Safety
Establish Development Character
Principles
Vitality
Mobility Environment Integration
System
System
Security
Standards
Management
Install new sidewalks from White
Fifth Street at Orange Saint S-5
Oak Street to West Walnut
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
School
Street to provide safe access to
school
Bay Acres Road at Puckett S-6
Install new sidewalks to provide --
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Middle School
safe access to school
Joey Williamson Road at Wayne Install new sidewalks to provide
S-7
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
County High School
safe access to school
S-8 South Church Street (Downtown Install new sidewalks from Main
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Odum)
Street and Shonn Street
S-9 Jesup
Provide continued maintenance --
z
z
for existing and new sidewalks
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
S-10 Odum
Provide continued maintenance --
z
z
for existing and new sidewalks
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
S-11 Screven
Provide continued maintenance
for existing and new sidewalks
--
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Bicycle Facilities (Multimodal Improvements)
Enhance existing bicycle route on
BF-1 U.S. 341 from Gardi to Glynn Co. Bicycle route enhancement
--
z
z
(4-foot bike lanes)
Construct 4-foot bicycle lanes BF-2 along U.S .341 from Gardi to New bicycle route
--
z
z
Appling Co.
Construct 4-foot bicycle lanes BF-3 along S.R. 169/Lanes Bridge Road New bicycle route
--
z
z
from Jesup to Appling Co.
Transit (Multimodal Improvements)
Expand park and ride lot at
T-1 Rayonier Performance Fibers Park and ride lot
facility
Coordinate with local church or
business to use existing parking
T-2
Park and ride lot
area as a park and ride lot in the
Gardi area
Participate in Regional Rural &
T-3 Coordinated Public
Public transportation
Transportation Program (CGRDC)
Coordinate with Heart of Georgia
T-4
Altamaha RDC to establish a regional vanpool to Hinesville
Public transportation
and Ft. Stewart via U.S. 301/U.S.
Coordinate with Heart of Georgia
Altamaha RDC to establish a
T-5
Public transportation
regional vanpool to Brunswick
via U.S. 341/U.S. 25
1
z
z
1
z
1
z
2
z
2
z
Establish a local circulator bus
T-6
Public transportation
3
z
service in the City of Jesup
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
Tier 1: 2009-2014 Tier 2: 2015-2024 Tier 3: 2025-2035
Project ID
Project Description
Project Location/Name
Project Type
Establish a demand-response T-7 vanpool service for all citizens of Public transportation
Wayne County
Source: Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan
Goals of Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors
Prioritize Road
Promote
Tier
Improve Traffic
Invest in
Paving &
Enhance
Protect
Incorporate
Support
Increase
Protect the
Enhance
Efficient
Preserve
Increase
Flow and
Economic Community Smart Growth Economic Accessibility &
Modal
Existing Increase Safety Transportation
Infrastructure
Safety
Establish Development Character
Principles
Vitality
Mobility Environment Integration
System
System
Security
Standards
Management
3
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
*Note: Airport improvement projects were not included, as these were taken directly from the Georgia Aviation System Plan and were not prioritized.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
Tier 1: 2009-2014 Tier 2: 2015-2024 Tier 3: 2025-2035
8.0 Financial Plan and Funding Forecasts
The purpose of this section is to identify potential funding sources available to Wayne County and its cities for implementing transportation projects and programs, and to estimate the amount of funding available from federal, state, regional and local sources.
8.1 Financial Sources and Assumptions
The data utilized to prepare the funding forecasts for Wayne County have come from various sources. Jurisdictions within the State of Georgia are required to report annual expenditures to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The corresponding Wayne County reported data for fiscal years 1985-2007 were obtained from DCA and are summarized in this section. Finally, Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST) revenue data for Wayne County were obtained from the 2008 State of the County Report, and are also summarized and reviewed as part of this section.
Since transportation funding is typically very project-specific (that is, federal bridge improvement money cannot be used to fund transit improvements, for example), is it assumed that the Wayne County funding by project type is static, with substitutions of funding between different project types not feasible. However, the substitution of one type of project (i.e., one bridge improvement project for another needed bridge improvement project) is feasible.
Several assumptions have been incorporated in this section to project future federal, state and local funding revenues. The following sections present detailed information regarding historic sources of federal, state, and local funding. Assumptions for the development of future revenue projections are also outlined in the following sections.
8.1.1 Federal and State Funding
Federal guidance requires that long-range plans developed by State Departments of Transportation (such as this Plan) must be financially constrained. This means that the set of recommended transportation investments must be able to be implemented within the transportation resources reasonably expected to be available through the planning period (2035). This guidance for the completion of financially-constrained plans states that use of historical growth rates is a sound methodology for estimation of future federal funding. However, federal and state transportation funding over the past several years has been significantly reduced, and may not provide the most reliable source for future projections. The following sub-section details the historic state and local funding for Wayne County, followed by a summary of future potential opportunities that may have positive ramifications for transportation funding in Wayne County.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
66
8.1.1.1 Historic State Funding Programs Local Assistance Road Program (LARP)
Since its initiation in 1978, GDOT's LARP program has provided roadway resurfacing funds to local jurisdictions in an effort to preserve existing transportation infrastructure. The historic LARP funding from GDOT to Wayne County since 2004 is summarized in Table 32.
Table 32. Historic LARP Funding to Wayne County
Road Name
Approval Date
OLD BETHEL CHURCH
2007
ROAD
HOLMESVILLE ROAD
2007
2007 Total
DENT ROAD
2006
O'STEEN BRANCH ROAD
2006
MANNINGTOWN ROAD
2006
2006 Total
LITTLE CREEK ROAD
2005
AKIN ROAD
2005
2005 Total
BETHESDA ROAD
2004
2004 Total
Source: LARP Priority Estimate Report
Estimate $8,973.85
$205,549.39 $214,523.24 $147,794.59 $47,636.86 $178,063.77 $373,495.22 $18,501.24 $156,744.16 $175,245.40 $130,378.15 $130,378.15
Based upon historic data, the projected annual LARP funding for Wayne County averages at $223,410 per year (in current year dollars). However, in the absence of a more robust data, historic LARP trends are used for the projection of future Wayne County transportation funding; although, the certainty of future funding is certainly not guaranteed.
State Aid Grant Program
The GDOT State Aid program was significantly modified in 2008 due to an overall reduction in the State's financial commitments for transportation and the "right sizing" of its programs to fit available resources. The State Aid program is continuing with "previously approved projects that are still priorities and that clearly meet the intent of this funding opportunity"17. The Program is now competitive whereby local governments within each Congressional district compete amongst one another by applying for, or nominating, worthy projects. Local governments may submit up to eight (8) applications each year with only one (1) roadway/street per application. Projects must be submitted in
17 State Aid Grant Program Applicants Manual- 2010, GDOT
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
67
one of the following categories, and will be scored against other projects in the same category within the applicant's Congressional district:
Dirt Road Enhancements Economic Development Bridges Intersections and Turn Lanes Rehabilitation and Repair Sidewalk Minor Widening, and Safety Historic State Aid Grant funding levels were obtained from GDOT and are presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Historic State Aid Grant Amounts for Wayne County
$1,200,000 $1,000,000
$992,231
$800,000
$600,000 $400,000 $200,000
$274,310
$485,516
$265,811
$0 2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Office of State Aid Contract Status
However, due to state financial constraints and the change in program structure (i.e., competitive grants), these historic State Aid grant revenues have not been used to project future Wayne County State Aid allocations. Future State Aid grant amounts will be determined based upon a competitive
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
68
qualifications-based system for which estimates cannot be determined at this time. State Aid applications were due to GDOT by December 31, 2008, with selections anticipated by Spring 2009.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
The SRTS program is a new state program created by the federal transportation bill, known as the " Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU). States manage this program using the available federal funding. The Georgia State program allows applicants to apply for either non-infrastructure or infrastructure assistance. The non-infrastructure assistance program gives schools (K-8) free assistance pertaining to:
Education Encouragement Enforcement Evaluation, and Planning
The infrastructure portion of the SRTS program provides funding for the following types of transportation enhancements:
Sidewalks Traffic calming and speed reduction Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements On-street and off-street bicycle facilities Off-street pedestrian facilities Traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools
Schools must submit applications for funding grants that are evaluated on a competitive basis with other applicants. SRTS applications were due to GDOT by December 12, 2008; however, according to GDOT staff, no schools within Wayne County submitted an application for the SRTS infrastructure funding.
8.1.2 Local Funding Since 2001, Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) referendums have been successful within Wayne County, with the passing of two (2) SPLOST referendums. "SPLOST 1" ran from 2001 through
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
69
2006, and the program was responsible for the collection of approximately $17 million. The current program, "SPLOST 2" began in 2006 and will continue through June 30, 2012. The total projected revenues for SPLOST 2 are estimated at approximately $22 million18. Figure 12 presents the reported SPLOST revenues collected by the cities and unincorporated Wayne County since 2001, which were reported to the Georgia DCA. As presented in Figure 12, the overall Countywide SPLOST revenues have been increasing at a rate of approximately 12% per year for the period of 2002 through 2007. 19 However, based upon the current national economic conditions, sales tax revenues have been drastically impacted with little or no recovery expected until past 2010. Based upon these current conditions, a conservative estimate assumes no growth in sales tax revenues through year 2011. For subsequent years (2012 through 2035) a more conservative 8% annual growth rate has been used. The future revenue projections also assume passage of future SPLOST referendums (2012 2035). Table 33 presents the anticipated SPLOST revenue for unincorporated Wayne County for each of the three (3) planning tiers.
Figure 12. Wayne County Reported Annual SPLOST Revenues
$5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000
$2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: GA DCA
Note: Includes Unincorporated Wayne County only, as City-reported SPLOST totals to the GA DCA were incomplete.
18 2008 State of the County Report 19 Year 2001 is omitted as it appears to be an outlying data value.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
70
Table 33. Projected Annual Wayne County SPLOST Revenues (in current year dollars)
Planning Tier
Projected SPLOST Revenues for Unincorporated Wayne County
Tier 1 (2009-2014)
$29.6 M
Tier 2: (2015-2024)
$89.7 M
Tier 3: (2025-2035)
$222.4 M
Source: Study Team
Note: Assumes passage of future SPLOST referendums subsequent to SPLOST 2, which ends in 2012.
8.1.2.1 Potential Future Funding Opportunities
There are several reasons for this level of uncertainty, including several initiatives that are currently in the development stages. The impacts of these initiatives specifically to Wayne County are unknown at this time, as detailed in the following sub-sections.
Federal Stimulus Package
Among President Barack Obama's early economic initiatives will most likely be a federal stimulus package. This package will include "shovel ready" construction projects that can be underway within 90- 180 days of approval of the legislation. GDOT and local governments are working together at this time to provide a complete list of potential stimulus projects to the Obama transition team. An initial list has been submitted by GDOT that totals $3.4 billion, which includes approximately $2.2 billion for roadway improvements. Many of the roadway projects include maintenance and resurfacing projects, traffic safety improvements (signal upgrades, turn lanes, etc.) and to a lesser degree, roadway widening projects. Some agencies across the country, including GDOT, are also identifying public transportation projects.
Although not yet confirmed, additional project funds dedicated to Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right-of-Way (ROW) phases of specific projects may now also be included in a later phase of the Stimulus Package. A list of these projects will be generated by GDOT and local governments should this phase of the stimulus package come to fruition. Again, the specific impacts to Wayne County are unknown at this time.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
71
Investing in Tomorrow's Transportation Today (IT3) Initiative
Governor Sonny Perdue's IT3 program is aimed at investing in transportation infrastructure in services in Georgia with the purpose of spurring economic growth and higher quality of life. IT3 investments and policies focus on:
Getting better utilization out of the transportation network we already have
Reducing congestion and improving reliability in major transportation corridors
Making the job centers across the whole state more economically competitive
Making it easier for people to reach those job centers
Capturing the growth opportunity in freight and logistics
This initiative involved a study by McKinsey & Company for GDOT which has concluded that by investing and building $14 billion of infrastructure in Georgia's medium-sized cities and rural areas, approximately 86,000 new jobs could be generated statewide over the next 20 years, reaping a $156 billion economic benefit over 30 years20. A specific strategy to invest in freight and logistics in rural areas would result in an $88 billion impact that would be felt primarily in medium-sized and rural areas. The specific impact to Wayne County will not be fully known until more of the final details of the plan are finalized over the months ahead. However, given Wayne County's proximity to the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick, it is possible that some of these benefits could be realized in the County.
8.2 Other Potential Sources of Transportation Funding for Wayne County
Due to the state of the very serious lack of transportation funding in the State of Georgia, including Wayne County, many jurisdictions may need to consider other potential sources of revenue as a means of keeping up with increasing transportation needs. The following sub-sections are provided as potential supplemental funding sources that Wayne County may consider for future implementation of a wide range of transportation improvements, including road and bridge enhancements, intersection improvements, bicycle, pedestrian, and trail networks, and public transportation services. A detailed discussion of the following funding mechanisms follows. The use of these funding tools generally requires legislative action at the local and/or state levels, depending on the particular circumstances.
Direct Impact fees
Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST)
Community Improvement Districts (CIDs)
20 IT3 Strategic Direction Presentation at the GDOT, GRTA, ARC, MARTA, TPB Joint Board Meeting, January 9, 2009
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
72
Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and
Special Districts (SDs) and Special Service Districts (SSDs)
8.2.1 Direct Impact Fees
In order to adopt an ordinance, the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act - Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) requires local governments to first undertake the following:
1) Include a Capital Improvements Element (CIE) in the comprehensive plan that projects future public service needs, outlines a schedule of capital improvement projects, and establishes service area designations as well as level-of-service criteria for public facilities in each service area. The CIE must be adopted prior to the adoption of the impact fee ordinance. The CIE must be updated annually.
2) Establish a development impact fee advisory committee that is comprised of at least 40% real estate development community representatives.
a. Prioritize identified projects with Committee into a five-year schedule of system improvements
b. Identify specific project information such as service area location, start and completion dates, costs, funding sources for each project including percent derived from impact fees.
3) Hold two public hearings regarding the ordinance.
A direct impact fee is imposed by local government via ordinance, and designed to require a development to pay for its impact upon the entire infrastructure system. It may cover a variety of services. In Georgia, direct impact fees can be used towards:
Libraries Recreation Water supply Roads and Bridges Public safety (police, fire, jails, EMS) Wastewater treatment Storm water management
The impact fee ordinance must include:
1) Schedule for different land uses that imposes fees on a per unit and service area basis
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
73
2) Fee based on actual (or reasonable estimates of) service costs, taking into account present value of future funding sources
3) Provision that a party may request an individual assessment of impact fees for their property
4) Provisions for refunds/credits if impact fee exceeds fees or dedications already made
5) Mechanism for appealing imposition of impact fees
8.2.1.1 DCA Suggested Considerations 1) Identify services to be covered by impact fees for which major capital costs will be incurred
over the next 5-10 years that will not be covered by normal general funding sources.
2) Find a balance in developing the fee structure for the impact fees considering what the market will be able to absorb without discouraging growth.
3) Some communities initiate an impact fee program based upon services that are less complicated to quantify each development's fair share of the costs (i.e. recreation, libraries, police, emergency medical services (EMS), water supply and waste water treatment versus fire, roads and bridges and storm water management).
4) Impact fee program must be consistent with local comprehensive plan.
5) Designated impact fee service delivery areas must not conflict with county service delivery strategy.
6) Development impact fee structure with lowest fees in locations where the community would like to see the most development (i.e. infill areas), and higher in less desirable locations, and the highest in environmentally sensitive areas that the community would not like to see any development. 8.2.1.2 Georgia Impact Fee Legal Considerations21
1) Legal definitions in the O.C.G.A. 36.71 are important:
a. Impact fee ordinance is tied to CIE; the CIE ties future improvements to "System Improvements" defined as "capital improvements that are public facilities and are designed to provide services to the community at large."
b. Impact fees can only support "System Improvements" not "Project Improvements" defined as "improvements that provide service for a specific project".
21 Olson, Peter R. of Jenkins & Olsen. September 2000.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
74
2) Impact fees can only be used to pay for the impacts from new growth (not used to mitigate existing system deficiencies).
3) Impact fees cannot exceed a proportionate share of the cost of the system improvements
4) Impact fees not used within six (6) years must be refunded to the developers.
5) Counties and municipalities must keep detailed records specifying the category for the collected fees, the payee of fees, and the service area for which the fees are collected. If fees are collected for several service types (i.e. parks and roads), and if one of the projects is not built within six years, then that portion of the impact fee would need to be refunded.
It should be noted that Wayne County has not pursued an impact fee system. Consideration of this potential funding tool is an option for local decision-makers in the future.
8.2.1.3 Georgia Jurisdictions with Existing Impact Fee Programs The following presents a sample of existing impact fee programs within Georgia. Table 34 presents a summary of the existing fee rates for select residential and commercial development types within each respective jurisdiction, and a breakdown of fees related to transportation improvements.
Table 34. Sample of Adopted Impact Fees for Georgia Jurisdictions
Example Impact Fees
Services Included
Jurisdiction Service Area Development
Type Fee (%) for Transportation
/ Roads Admin. Fee (%)
Total Fee
City of Roswell
Public Safety Parks &
Recreation Transportation
Entire City
Detached Residential
Attached Residential
General Office
Shopping Center
$161.68 (7.9%) per dwelling unit $109.54 (6.0%) per dwelling unit $279.54 (30.3%) per 1,000 sq. ft $425.54 (56.2%) per 1,000 sq. ft
$59.93 (3%)
$53.24 (3%)
$26.88 (3%)
$22.07 (3%)
$2,057.56 per dwelling
unit $1,827.86 per dwelling
unit $923.01 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$757.76 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
75
Jurisdiction Service Area Development
Type Fee (%) for Transportation
/ Roads Admin. Fee (%)
Total Fee
Services Included
Example Impact Fees
Cherokee County
Library Fire Protection Sheriff's Patrol Parks &
Recreation Public Safety
Facility Roads
Detached Residential
Unknown
Attached Residential (Condo / Town House) General Office
Shopping Center
Detached Residential
$251.50 (15.3%) per dwelling unit $154.00 (10%) per dwelling
unit
$47.54 (3%)
$44.62 (3%)
$1,643.55 per dwelling
unit $1,542.43 per dwelling
unit
$266.20 (21.4%) per 1,000 sq. ft
$356.77 (41.7%) per 1,000 sq. ft $988 (16.5%) per dwelling
unit
$35.90 (3%)
24.76 (3%)
Not Specified
$1,241.14 per 1,000 sq.
ft. $855.99 per 1,000 sq.
ft. $6,000 per dwelling
Effingham County
Parks Public Safety Roads Sewer Water
Entire County
Attached Residential
General Office
$681 (17.1%) per dwelling unit Varies by sq. ft.
($830 to $1,200) per
Not Specified
Not Specified
$3,992 per dwelling
Varies ($860 to $1,250) per 1,000 sq.
1,000 sq. ft
ft.
Commercial Varies by sq. ft. Not Varies by Sq.
/ Retail
($1,240 to Specified ft. ($1,360 to
Center
$2,070) per
$2,170) per
1,000 sq. ft
1,000 sq. ft.
Sources: City of Roswell, Cherokee County and Effingham County websites; Georgia Jurisdictions with Proposed Impact Fee
Programs
The City of Douglasville and Douglas County are both currently evaluating adopting impact fee ordinances. Table 35 presents a summary of the proposed fee rates for select residential and commercial development types within each of these two jurisdictions. The following summarizes a few key elements of the proposed impact fee program for each jurisdiction.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
76
Douglas County:
o Impact fees for roadways are proposed for unincorporated Douglas County only (separate fee structure for City of Douglasville)
o Roadway impact fees will only fund system improvements that expand the capacity of arterial roads that are not part of the State system. Developers will be required to dedicate rights-of-way and complete full project-level improvements22.
City of Douglasville:
o Roadway impact fees will only fund system improvements that expand the capacity of arterial roads. Developers will be required to dedicate rights-of-way and complete full project-level improvements23.
Gordon County is an example of a County where impact fees for roads were evaluated but not recommended. As part of the Gordon County, GA Impact Fee Feasibility Analysis Report (July 21, 2006) impact fees were recommended for public safety, parks and recreation, and for library services, but not for roads. The report recommends the continued use of Special Purpose Local Options Tax (SPLOST) funds (discussed below) for use in roadway expansions, and also recommends that developers be required to complete traffic impact studies to determine their "fair share cost" with implementation of mitigation improvements.
Table 35. Sample of Proposed Impact Fees for Georgia Jurisdictions
Example Impact Fees
Jurisdiction Services Included
Service Area Development
Type Fee (%) for Transportation
/ Roads Admin. Fee (%)
Total Fee
Douglas County (excludes City
of Douglasville)
Parks Libraries Arterial Roads Sheriff Jails
Entire County
Detached Residential
Attached Residential
$3,943 (59.1%)
$2,715 (60.1%)
Not Specified
Not Specified
$6,673 per
dwelling $4,514
per dwelling
22 Project-level improvements within Douglas County include local and collector streets, or intersections improvements including local or collector streets, such as traffic signalization and/or turn lane improvements. 23 Project-level improvements within the City of Douglasville include local and collector streets, or intersections improvements including local or collector streets, such as traffic signalization and/or turn lane improvements.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
77
Service Area Development
Type Fee (%) for Transportation
/ Roads Admin. Fee (%)
Total Fee
Jurisdiction Services Included
Example Impact Fees
Fire / Rescue
General
Varies by
Not
Varies
Office
sq. ft
Specified ($2,650 to
* City of has
($2,320 to
$5,160)
separate set of
$4,640) per
per 1,000
proposed impact
1,000 sq. ft
sq. ft.
fees, with City
Shopping Varies by
Not
Varies
residents only
Center
sq. ft. Specified ($5,940 to
funding
($5,440 to
$9,760)
Countywide
$8,950) per
per 1,000
libraries, jails and
1,000 sq. ft
sq. ft.
fire\rescue.
Detached
$5,604
Not
$7,370
Residential (76.0%) Specified
per
dwelling
Attached
$3,859
Not
$5,050
City of Douglasville
Parks Libraries Arterial Roads Police Jails
Entire City
Residential
General Office
(76.4%)
Varies by sq. ft
($3,760 to $6,390) per
Specified
Not Specified
per dwelling Varies ($4,110 to $6,950) per 1000
Fire / Rescue
1000 sq. ft
sq. ft.
Shopping Varies by
Not
Varies
Center
sq. ft. Specified ($8,040 to
($7,490 to
$13,220)
$12,330)
per 1000
per 1000
sq. ft.
sq. ft
Source: Links to Douglas County and City of Douglasville Impact Fee Studies provided on Gordon County website
8.2.2 Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST)
The Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) law was enacted by Georgia legislators in 1985. The law authorizes a county tax of one (1) percent on items subject to the state sales tax for funding capital projects. SPLOST is neither a municipal nor a joint county-municipal tax, such as the regular Local Option Sales Tax (LOST). As such, only a County's Board of Commissioners can authorize a SPLOST. A public referendum must be held to approve a SPLOST initiative. Wayne County voters have
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
78
successfully approved SPLOST referendums within the County since 2001. The current SPLOST funding period ends in 2011.
SPLOST proceeds can be used for capital improvement projects that would otherwise be paid for with general fund and property tax revenues. Often, the cost savings for the community is great, as projects funded through the use of bonds could cost up to twice as much as those that are paid for using SPLOST cash reserves, due to the costs of debt service involved in bond programs.
SPLOST also has the benefit of allowing communities to streamline construction of transportation projects, since no state or federal funding is involved, thereby minimizing the associated project permitting and procedural "red tape".
8.2.3 Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) are a means for property owners within commercial areas of Georgia to establish special tax districts to fund infrastructure improvements (O.C.G.A. 99-9-7.1). In Georgia, state law restricts the use of Community Improvement Districts (CIDS) to commercial districts and specifically forbids the inclusion of residential communities into a Community Improvement District. CIDs do not replace city or county government, but are a mechanism to supplement existing funding streams. The following types of projects can be funded by CIDs:
Street/road construction
Sidewalks and streetlights
Parking facilities
Water and sewage systems
Terminal and dock facilities
Public transportation, and
Parks and recreational facilities
CIDs are constitutionally established local governments entirely run by district leaders (typically business/property owners including real estate and banking interests. CIDs self-assess themselves, but are also able to leverage large sums of state and federal funds. CIDs are typically popular with local city and county governments where they are located. One consideration of CIDs is that their autonomous legal framework and ability to leverage state and federal monies requires the need for accountability to local governments and the general public.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
79
There are numerous CIDs located within the Metro Atlanta region, in outlying areas of the City, including:
Town Center CID
Fulton and DeKalb Perimeter CIDs
North Fulton CID
Cumberland CID
Gwinnet Place CID
Gwinnett Village CID
Highway 78 CID
Buckhead CID
Midtown Atlanta CID
Downtown Atlanta CID
South Fulton CID
There are no other CIDs known to exist within the State outside of the Metro Atlanta region.
8.2.4 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) / Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) within Georgia is governed by the Georgia Redevelopment Powers Law (O.C.G.A. 36-44), and is common in most states across the Country. TIF is a mechanism that allows a local government to capture increases in local property revenues within a specific area (designated as a Tax Allocation District or TAD or also called TIF districts), while using the revenue to finance projects within a specified time period. Once the TAD or TIF district is established, a base year and tax rate are established. The tax "increment" or the increase in assessed property values over the base year values, is then collected over a specified period of time and used to meet the debt service payments. The tax increment district is dissolved after a specified period of time which is included in the original redevelopment plan for the TIF.
The original intent of TIFs was to finance the redevelopment of blighted areas. The use of TIFs to finance development and redevelopment in non-blighted communities has become controversial across the nation leading many states to propose TIF reform laws to restrict the use of public money to finance development in affluent areas. Many states, including Georgia, have included a "but for" test in the TIF statutes that restrict the use of TIFs for blighted or sensitive areas. Specifically, the "but for" test asks
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
80
the question "would development have occurred without the expenditure of public funds?". The following is an excerpt from Georgia statute 36-44-8.(3)(G)(i):
The redevelopment area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development through private enterprise and would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the approval of the redevelopment plan or includes one of more natural or historical assets which have not been adequately preserved or protected and such asset or assets would not be reasonably anticipated to be adequately preserved or protected without the approval of the redevelopment plan;
8.2.5 Statewide Transportation Funding Initiatives
Several proposals and resolutions have been brought to the table over the past year to address the statewide funding transportation shortfall. Several proposals have included a new State sales tax and creation of legislation that will allow for two or more counties to join together to vote a one percent (1%) sales tax dedicated to transportation, where these funds would remain in the partnered counties and their respective municipalities.
As a result, the Georgia Senate adopted Resolution 365 creating the Joint Committee on Transportation Funding. The Joint Committee met four times in 2007. Statewide transportation funding legislation was not successful in 2008; however, new funding bills may likely re-appear on the Georgia Legislature's agenda for 2009. See the IT3 summary discussed earlier for more information.
8.2.6 Special Districts, Service Districts, and Special Service Districts (SSDs)
8.2.6.1 Special Districts
"Special District" is the terminology found in the Georgia State Constitution and Georgia code. Under the home rule section in the state constitution, special districts may be created by general law (by the General Assembly), municipal or county ordinance or resolution for the provision of services within the district and fees, assessments, or taxes may be levied and collected by same law, ordinance, or resolution (Ga. Const. Art. IX, II, Para. VI). The law/ordinance/resolution should:
Create the district; establish geographical boundaries; specify purposes; authorize levy of fees/assessments/taxes within the district; and establish an effective date for the law /ordinance / resolution. Continue on with text....or example: many counties create special districts including only those unincorporated areas of the county for provision of services exclusive to those unincorporated areas.
8.2.6.2 Service Districts
"Service district" terminology is not found in Georgia code except in relation to mental health facilities. These are sometimes referred to as "Special Service Districts" as referenced under the service delivery
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
81
strategy state code. Funding for services within unincorporated portions of a county shall be derived from special service districts created by the county in which property taxes, insurance premium taxes, assessments, or user fees are levied or imposed or through such other mechanism agreed upon by the affected parties. Local examples include:
Services to be provided including (but not limited to) road improvements, R/W maintenance, or transit funding.
Specific transportation services targeted for tourism or economic development purposes.
Special Districts or Special Service Districts within Wayne County appear to be a viable option for the collection of taxes or fees to provide for transportation system improvements (or other services) within a defined district(s) itself.
8.2.7 Financial Options for Public Transit Facilities and Services
In terms of financial options, Wayne County and its cities have the ability to tap into a number of federal, state, and local funding sources to support the implementation and delivery of public transit services. The provision of public transit services in Georgia typically involves a grant application process to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and GDOT. In rural areas such as Wayne County, GDOT administers the public transit programs on behalf of FTA.
The growing number of communities committed to providing public transit services in their communities is making the process of competing for financial resources much more difficult. Wayne County Transit is already operating on a limited basis in the County; however, additional transit needs have been suggested by the public during the development of this Plana, especially for commuter-oriented public transportation. While some resources could be available to Wayne County to cover the capital, operations, and administrative costs of providing additional transit services, the State of Georgia's contribution to transit programs is very low relative to other states. Therefore, a substantial local commitment, in terms of local funds, specially dedicated funding sources (SPLOST or other local taxes), or private sector contributions must be in place to provide these types of services. In general, the County and its Cities have the following funding options to support transit system development:
Federal Funding Sources
- 5311 Rural and Small Urban Grants (for capital, operating, and administrative costs)
- Job Access/Reverse Commute Funds
- Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
82
State Funding Sources
- State Transportation Funds
- Dept. of Health and Human Services Funding
Local Funding Sources
- Voluntary Assessments
- Local Government General Funds
- Local Sales Tax
- Local Property Tax
- Local Business Support
- Transportation Impact Fees
- Advertising
- Passenger Fares
- Contributions from Private Entities
8.2.8 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Funding Sources There a variety of sources that may be used to fund bicycle and pedestrian trails projects. On the federal and state level, the Recreational Trails Program, administered by FHWA, provides an apportionment to each state for grants to be used for recreational trails. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources administers the funds for Georgia through the Georgia Recreational Trails Program (GRTP).24 Local governments in Georgia, including counties and cities, may apply for these grants to fund recreational trail projects. Grant recipients are required to provide a local match for at least 20% of the project cost. Projects typically selected by GRTP for funding meet general criteria set forth in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. These include:
Develop a thoughtful recreational plan; Demonstrate awareness of the outdoor recreation and natural resource conservation
priorities in their communities; Show a direct relationship between proposed projects and their effect on health, fitness,
livability, economic vitality and resource conservation; and
24 Georgia Recreational Trails Program. Georgia State Parks. http://gastateparks.org/net/content/go.aspx?s=155600.0.0.5
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
83
Create alternative approaches to funding and develop partnerships that leverage and supplement requested state and federal funds.25
Other federal sources of trail funding include the Safe Routes to School Program (detailed in Section 6.1.2); Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as regulated through SAFETEA-LU; and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), administered by the National Park Service. Transportation Enhancement funds, administered through FHWA, provide grants for bicycle and pedestrian trails, among other enhancement activities for surface transportation. Local governments must provide a 20% match for projects funded with TE grants.26 The LWCF provides grants to fund recreational trails in public (government-owned) outdoor areas. Local governments are required to provide a 50% match for projects funded through LWCF grants.27
In addition to government grants, there are numerous private organizations that provide funding for bicycle and pedestrian trails. The American Hiking Society's National Trails Fund provides grants for the construction and protection of hiking trails. Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) provides grants for conservation and outdoor recreation projects. Grant recipients must be nominated by an REI employee.28
To obtain local funding or a local match for federal and state grants for bicycle and pedestrian trails, Wayne County or its municipalities may choose to solicit contributions from local and regional organizations. For the McMillan Creek Greenway Project, a number of local groups provided funding support, including the Boy and Girl Scouts, Wayne County Peachy Clean, Jesup Tree Board, Altamaha Wildlife Association, Altamaha River Keeper, and STAR Students. The Georgia Forestry Commission also contributed inkind matches for grants received. In addition, the City of Jesup received funds from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for land surveys, wetland delineation, legal fees for land acquisition, and boardwalk construction. Wayne County and its municipalities may also encourage local businesses, landowners (including utility companies) to donate parcels of land or easements for the development of bicycle and pedestrian trails.29
25 Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2008-2013. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. http://gastateparks.org/content/Georgia/parks/SCORP/SCORP_final/SCORP_book.pdf 26 FHWA Final TE Guidance. Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/1999guidance.htm#background 27 Land and Water Conservation Fund - State Assistance Program. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. October 1, 2008. 28 REI Grants Program. http://www.rei.com/aboutrei/grants02.html 29 McMillan Creek Greenway (Jesup, Georgia) - Georgia Quality Growth Examples. Georgia Department of Community Affairs. www.dca.state.ga.us/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/downloads/McMillan_Ga_Quality_Growth_Example.doc
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
84
9.0 Additional Research
The following are programs, plans, and studies were researched for the Evaluation of Existing and Future Conditions Report. These items are shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Additional Research for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Study
Data
Source(s) Reviewed
Date Reviewed
Silvaculture Industry
Extensive internet research
July August 2008
Inter-County Freight Issues
The Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) provides inter-county commuter flow information, not inter-
county freight data. The Statewide Freight Plan discusses any inter-county
freight issues
July August 2008
Park Plans for Wayne County
Heart of Georgia Altamaha RDC; Wayne County Website; Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Plan
July August 2008
Governor's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The latest crash data information available (2006), which shows total crashes, crashes per 100 mvm traveled, severity, and severity per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, does not have a location within Wayne County that ranks
as a high-crash area in Georgia
July August 2008
Greyhound Strategic Business Plan
Coastal Georgia Bike and Ped Plan
Safe Routes to School Guidebook
Source: Study Team
No Strategic Business Plan for Greyhound system was found
No information in this plan pertains to Wayne County nor neighboring Glynn
County No information in this plan pertains to
Wayne County
July August 2008
July August 2008
July August 2008
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
85
APPENDIX A Summary of Meeting Notes for July 23, 2008; September 24, 2008; November 18, 2008
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
86
Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan Advisory Panel Meeting #1 Meeting Summary July 23, 2008
A kick-off meeting for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan was held at the County Commission offices on July 23, 2008 at 10:00 AM. The meeting participants included elected officials, staff, and other community stakeholders. It was decided jointly by GDOT and Wayne County that all the attendees will be invited to serve as members of the Project Advisory Panel. This Advisory Panel will provide input and guidance over the course of the project.
The meeting included an overview presentation of the project and the project goals. The meeting also included a facilitated session focusing on the identification of issues and concerns from the perspective of the participants. The goal was to engage the participants in a discussion about what they viewed as issues with regard to the transportation system and overall mobility within Wayne County and how those issues affected their daily lives. Participants also identified any additional initiatives or existing/ongoing plans that should be coordinated with during the planning process.
The following notes reflect the comments of the meeting participants. These comments are only from the perspective of the attendees and do not reflect any technical analysis or evaluation by GDOT or the consultant. The technical analyses are currently underway and these identified issues will be incorporated into the analysis.
Additional Initiatives and Plans to Consider
Participants were asked to identify any existing or ongoing plans and initiatives that should be included/coordinated with over the course of the study. The following include those plans and studies that they felt required coordination.
1) Local Plans (Ex.: S.R. 169 Overpass) 2) Rail Plan 3) Impacts on neighboring communities from the growth of the port facilities in Savannah
and Brunswick 4) Coordination/Human Services Transportation
Potential for rural transportation 5) Economic Development
Local and Regional Industrial Development Authorities Coastal and other regional economic development efforts (Ex: U.S. 341 Corridor) 6) Area has received a funding earmark to improve the Jesup Train Depot
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
87
Needed Improvements/Transportation Issues
Participants were asked to identify any transportation issues, needed improvements or general comments on multimodal mobility. The following are those issues/improvements/comments identified by the meeting attendees and do not reflect the results of any technical analysis or evaluation accomplished during the study.
1) Railroad Issues Rail service going into Industrial Park; the rail spurs being developed by private companies Developing side-tracks to address issues related to connecting to Brunswick
2) Additional Overpass Overpass is a big local issue Need overpass at S.R. 169 (2) Meeting about the overpass with GDOT, but the project has not yet been added to GDOT's program
3) Traffic WalMart area Residential growth moving towards and past Goose Creek on S.R. 169, causing increased congestion/safety concerns Bottlenecks exist on Collins Loop and Tillman Street Congestion around schools is a problem and more sidewalks around schools are needed, for example at Arthur Williams Middle School The road by Martha Puckett Middle School should be considered for extension as shown in the original plans to provide additional connection to U.S. 84 Congestion around High School and Middle Schools Congestion at Martha Smith Elementary School on U.S. 341, causing bottlenecks during school hours Congestion around Arthur Williams Middle School on U.S. 301 South
5) Commuting Issues Increasing gas prices appear to be leading to more van/carpooling. The rideshare lot is full near the Rayonier facility. Informal carpooling already exists, but there is no formal program. Need to identify additional potential locations for park and ride lots Gardi area needs park/ride areas, although there is an existing informal park and ride lot at in Gardi at Morning Glory Circle.
7) Possible intersection improvements are needed to address traffic and other issues Pine Street @ U.S. 84 Cherry Street @ 1st Street
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
88
Orange Street @ 1st Street Sunset Boulevard @ U.S. 84 Traffic signal is needed at Sunset Boulevard and S.R. 169 Church Street @ U.S. 341 in Odum may need a traffic signal U.S. 84 in the WalMart area
- City is working on a connection from the area to 4th Street Sunset Boulevard @ U.S. 301 South
- Industrial Park and recreational facilities will cause increased traffic Spring Grove Road @ Rayonier facility
7) Maintenance/Road Conditions Unpaved roads throughout the County (2) In Odum, the Collins Loop area may need road upgrades Screven Road to the landfill, from the railroad to the city limits - the road is in bad condition and may need maintenance/resurfacing Major issue: road standards are not up to par for traffic and heavy vehicles, for example, Broadhurst Road Bennett Road is unpaved and the road may need to be upgraded to serve developing area; could also function as bypass for train blockages Sikes Road also may need to be upgraded and could function as bypass for train blockages
8) Pedestrian/Bicycle Need to focus on Safe Routes to School Sidewalks on East/West Cherry Street Citywide situation in Jesup: better sidewalks would be good Sidewalks in Odum along Church Street Around schools pedestrian and sidewalk treatments and crosswalks would be good, for example at Arthur Williams Middle School and Wayne County High School
9) Concerns Tillman Street @ U.S. 341 is a concern due to poor drainage (1) Trains blocking roadways in Screven is a concern, especially blocking emergency service vehicles Concern about deep, open ditches adjacent to roadways, for example along Cherry Street from 4th Street to 5th Street
10) Existing Programs Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant has been awarded, but there are issues in meeting all of the requirements and regulations, which leads to longer time for implementation Resurfacing program: there is a continuing need, but the programs are changing to become a competitive, grant based process, which makes obtaining funding more difficult.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
89
Transportation Priorities
Participants were asked to identify, in their opinion, what the transportation priorities are for Wayne County. These priorities are listed below.
1) Paving Roads Concentrate on those with high activities and residence for resurfacing Need to establish categories of priorities - Maintenance resurfacing and paving - Address congestion (WalMart area, railroad overpass at S.R. 169, school areas) Priority for growth and location of growth As residential areas expand outward and with the amount of unpaved roads, it will be tough to meet the needs Need to look at paving priorities and standards for roads being paved.
2) Growth and Economic Development Growth is a concern and a plan is needed to address this growth (note: link to local comprehensive plan) Encourage economic development to benefit from investment in infrastructure Community character needs to be protected even with growth. Transportation networks, including rail and roadways, can spur economic development Tremendous need to improve all infrastructure to address upcoming growth Population spillover from coast (Glynn County into Wayne County)
3) Funding and Regulations Regulations for new sidewalks may need to be re-examined with roadway standards Funding is an issue and will need local participation Need to do more with existing funds Prioritize by improving traffic flow and safety - Higher roadway standards result in higher costs; need to use alternatives, such as signing applications, etc. to maximize roadway efficiency
4) Leadership and Involvement Need to be sure all players are included and participation is critical. Leadership is important and is very good in Wayne County
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
90
What Works Well? The participants were asked, from their perspective to identify situations or areas within the transportation system that currently work efficiently and effectively. The following items were identified by the meeting participants.
1) U.S. 341 and U.S. 301 crossroads 2) Human Services transportation services are good. 3) Good trails and greenspace will be linked together in upcoming years. 4) Bike access is okay and U.S. 341 South has extra pavement for the bike lane. 5) Downtown Jesup Streetscape - additional streetscapes planned for Cherry and Walnut 6) Rumble strips for safety at intersection 7) Airports very positive with good access 8) Wayne County Transit 9) Wayne County is well positioned between two major ports, major rail lines, and roadway access 10) SPLOST Program (including paving) - County has completed five (5) years of its current program 11) AMTRAK system serves Wayne County
Note: numbers in parentheses (X) denote how many times the comment was made.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
91
Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan Advisory Panel Meeting #2 Meeting Summary September 24, 2008
The second meeting of the Project Advisory Panel was held on September 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM in Jesup, Georgia to:
Recap the July 23, 2008 Advisory Panel Meeting No. 1 Discuss Initial Transportation Priorities (from July 23, 2008 meeting) Discuss Existing Transportation Conditions Discuss the Coordination of the Plan with Other National, State, Regional, and Local Plans and
Programs Participate in a Group Discussion (see below for discussion questions) Learn about the next steps in the plan development process, including the upcoming
transportation modeling process that will be used to estimate future travel volumes for the major roadways in Wayne County.
More detailed information about the topics discussed at the meeting is shown below. The slide presentation given at the meeting which covers the first four (4) items shown above can be found on GDOT's webpage for the project. There were two items for the group to discuss at the meeting:
(1) Is the list of existing transportation issues and needs complete?
(2) What are the factors or criteria that should be used to rank the road paving priorities in Wayne County?
Question 1: The following comments were made by the Advisory Panel Members in response to the question of whether the list of existing issues and needs identified for the Plan was complete.
The slide about traffic circulation difficulties at the Arthur Williams Middle School should be changed. The issues at that school can be worked out. A bigger concern is Martha Rawls Smith Elementary School.
Where transportation improvements are identified on the slides, we need to indicate the community where they are located (i.e., Odum, Screven, or Jesup).
Wayne County is among the top five in the State of Georgia in terms of the number of unpaved roads. This is due to the large amount of forestry/timber land located in the County. The other counties with large amounts of unpaved roads are located adjacent to and near Wayne County. We need a realistic estimate of unpaved roads given our timber roads and compare it to other counties. We also need to consider the impact of unpaved roads on the potential for new industry and its associated development.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
92
Safety issues should be examined as part of the Plan.
We need to include consideration of improved airport access in the development of the Plan.
We need to clearly explain the impact of growth at both the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick and the potential impacts this could have on economic development and the transportation system in Wayne County.
We should consider the needs for improved transit for the County.
We should consider how evacuation needs should be incorporated into the Plan.
Question 2: The Advisory Panel members identified the following factors and criteria that should be used to rank the road paving priorities in the County; namely:
Population Traffic volumes How the condition of the road affects safety Land Use and Zoning
o Potential for development/economic development such as commercial and industrial sites
o Residential County's subdivision ordinance requires paved roads regardless of the size of the subdivision
o Connections from subdivisions to the main roads Right-of-Way presence of willing land owners who will donate land for paved roads Schools streets leading to and adjacent to schools should be paved Cost of paving and funding source Maintenance cost/difficulty of maintaining dirt roads Needs of emergency services vehicles Connectivity make connections vs. dead ends Political factor "Donator bump" having willing participants/landowners will move a project up in the priority Critical roadway connections Need to coordinate the location of new schools Need to coordinate with the goals identified at the County's retreat
o Education o Funding o Transportation o Recruitment Aesthetics and Community Character Connectivity to Amtrak Station
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
93
A public workshop for the Plan is scheduled for October 2008. The next Advisory Panel meeting is planned for November 2008. "Save the Date" meeting notifications for Advisory Panel members will be sent by e-mail. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 AM. JAC:c
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
94
Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan Advisory Panel Meeting #3 Meeting Summary November 18, 2008
The Study Advisory Panel for the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan met on November 18, 2008 at the Wayne County Administrative Building. The following topics were discussed at the meeting.
Parris Orr, GDOT Project Manager and Mike Deal, Wayne County Administrator, welcomed the group and explained the importance of obtaining feedback from the committee members on the information presented so that the Plan will be developed with the best possible input from the local community.
Parris Orr provided a review of the previous meeting (July 23, 2008), including the major themes on the discussion of transportation needs within Wayne County. Jamie Cochran (RS&H) continued the presentation discussing the preliminary results of the Arch Fest survey and the results of the travel demand modeling that has been done to describe the expected future transportation conditions in the county to the Year 2035 (see November 18, 2008 slide presentation).
Following the slide presentation, the Study Advisory Panel was asked whether the project team had accurately described the transportation needs in the County and whether any additional needs were present. The members responded with the following comments.
Traffic circulation problems are present near Wayne County High School. Information should be provided about the importance of the Port of Jacksonville to
Wayne County (along with the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick). There have been some complaints from the public about signals crossing U.S. 84 (having
to wait too long on the side streets in order to cross U.S. 84). The Mt. Pleasant Commons area is a growth area (with about 150 new homes). The Retreat at Post Road will have about 50 new homes. Growth is expected in the eastern part of the County. Increased rail traffic is expected on the Norfolk Southern line. The traffic on US 301 South is expected to increase due to more activity in the industrial
parks and new economic development programs. The data on population and employment should also consider the data provided by the
Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center (Region 9) as well as the Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Development Center's data.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
95
We need to look at all our unpaved roads and see where we need to create connector roads. (Note: This will be done as part of the Plan and a spreadsheet tool will be developed to assist GDOT and Wayne County.)
Should be pave roads near growing areas first? What about the needs for emergency vehicles?
The traffic volumes shown for S.R. 169 to Goose Creek look low. We should contact GDOT to obtain their traffic counts and verify the figures.
We need to obtain local input on economic development and growth from the Industrial Development Authority. (Note: A special meeting was held with the project team on November 25, 2008 to obtain this information.)
The School District is planning an Education SPLOST next year and is planning a big expansion program. We should get input from them on their plans as soon as possible. We should contact Kendall Keith and Kent Fountain to obtain this information.
The Wayne State Prison is closing and is moving to Long County (need to adjust employment numbers accordingly).
A firm on Sunset Boulevard is also closing (Southwood?).
Following the discussion of transportation needs, the Study Advisory Panel was given paper money ($ 1,000) to spend on various types of transportation improvements. This exercise was focused on understanding the local priorities for transportation system improvement types. Committee members were asked to "spend" their money on the types of improvements they thought were most needed in Wayne County. They were free to spend as much or as little as they liked on each improvement type. The results of the exercise are shown below in order of their ranking (highest priority improvements are listed first):
Tie: Paving Unpaved Roads Improved Access to Industrial Areas and Employment Centers
Maintenance of County and Local Roads Sidewalks Near Schools, Public Buildings, Commercial Areas, etc. Intersection Improvements Missing Road Gaps/Better Connections Public Transportation Park and Ride Lots Traffic Signals Bike Paths
The Study Advisory Committee members were informed that the last committee meeting would be held in the January/February time frame with the Plan being completed in February 2009. This will be the
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
96
last opportunity to provide comments and feedback about the Plan prior to its being completed. All committee members were urged to attend the meeting. The meeting was then adjourned.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
97
APPENDIX B Meeting with Wayne County Officials
November 30, 2008
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
98
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 30, 2008
To:
Parris Orr GDOT Office of Planning
From:
Jamie Cochran, RS&H
Copies:
Tom McQueen (GDOT); Beverly Davis (RS&H); Steve Cote (RS&H); and Whitney Shephard (RS&H)
Subject:
Meeting with Wayne County Officials
This memo will summarize the discussions held on November 25, 2008 with John Riddle, President/CEO of the Wayne County Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board/Tourism Board; Mickey Whittington, Wayne County Industrial Development Authority, and Kendall Keith and Kent Fountain, Wayne County School District. The purpose of the meetings were to identify potential future industrial and commercial growth areas and possible new sites for schools within the 20-year time frame of the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan. The following specific points were discussed.
Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board
The Chamber of Commerce and Industrial Development Authority expect most of the industrial growth to occur along the bend of Sunset Boulevard south of U.S. 84. This area is adjacent to the current industrial park (to the southwest) and is planned to allow companies to have good access to U.S. 84 and U.S. 301. Some future industrial development can be expected along the CSX rail line south of the current industrial park; although no specific plans are in place.
Wayne County current owns about 40 acres at the airport, of which 10-15 are buildable.
Trucks are having difficulty at some of the intersections along U.S. 84 near central Jesup. It is believed that excessive truck speeds are occurring at U.S. 84 at Cherry Street/First Street because of too much green time on U.S. 84.
There are not a lot of heavy trucks in the Jesup area now. The new ethanol plant will be the first big truck operation. Corn will be coming to the plant by rail and ethanol will be going to the ports by truck.
Some unwanted truck traffic is happening after 5 PM when trucks coming south on U.S. 84 from Savannah are cutting across Rayonier Road to S.R. 169 to avoid U.S. 301. Should U.S. 301 be signed as a truck route?
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
99
Turning movements by trucks are a problem at U.S. 84 at U.S. 341/Pine Street where they have to back up to make the turns. The intersection of Sunset Boulevard and U.S. 84 is also difficult for trucks turning north onto U.S. 84.
The interchange of U.S. 84 and U.S. 301 corridors may need lighting for safety.
The new ethanol plant is to be located in the area east of Jesup and bounded by U.S. 341/S.R. 27 to the south; Akin Road to the east; and Clubhouse Road to the west. In this area, both East Coast Ethanol and Karshner Logistics are expected to locate. The ethanol plant is located on 350 acres. Both operations are expected to have approximately 100 employees in the next few years. The ethanol plant is expected to generate about 100 heavy trucks per day. It is not a 24- hour operation and some congestion is anticipated along U.S. 341 during the morning peak hours. The County, the ethanol company, and GDOT are already working on access management strategies along US 341 to mitigate traffic circulation issues. Most of the traffic to the plant is expected to come from the east.
The area along U.S. 341 east of Jesup is expected to develop into strip commercial area from U.S. 301 to Ben Holloway Creek (?).
The Chamber of Commerce/Industrial Development Board meeting will be held on December 9, 2008. They will review these notes and provide any additions/corrections.
School District
Wayne County is preparing for an Education SPLOST referendum in March 2009 to approve the first five years of a 10-year program. The total program is expected to generate about $21 million.
The School District will be rebuilding Odum Elementary School on its current site and will include some new sports facilities, including a basketball area and gym. During the first five years of the program, the gym will be built. During the second five years, the school will be rebuilt. The School District is trying to redirect students living in the S.R. 203 corridor to Odum Elementary School vs. the other elementary schools in Jesup. This corridor is showing growth in student population.
Screven Elementary School will be improved at its current site with new support areas (lunch room, gym, etc.) and will be expanded as the need arises.
Jesup Elementary will be rebuilt on its current site during the first five years of the SPLOST. J. E. Bacon Elementary will be renovated during this same time period. Margaret Rawls Smith Elementary School (located on U.S. 341 in the western part of Jesup) is the traditional African American school and will not be demolished. The school is located between a major four-lane road and a railroad which is expected to be expanded, so the School District is looking for a
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
100
more appropriate location to rebuild the school. The location is still not determined, but will likely be located in central Jesup.
Traffic circulation issues are occurring near the Martha Puckett Middle School which is across Durrence Road from the high school.
The current policy of the School District is to allow any student to ride the bus to school; however, the level of bicycling and walking to schools is increasing.
A new elementary school is being planned north of Arthur Williams Middle School east of U.S. 301 and near Sansavilla Road. The schools would be accessible to each other via a circular driveway. The access road to the school is not paved now. About 60-65 employees would work at the school. The exact location/configuration is not yet known. However, it will be planned to handle 750 students. The school would be built in the first five years of the SPLOST.
A long-range potential new school site could be located west of U.S. 84 along Holmesville Road along the southern boundary of Jesup. Another potential long-range site will likely be near the new ethanol plant located south of U.S. 341 along Wire Road or Akin Road to serve the Mannington students.
Traffic circulation issues are occurring at U.S. 341 and Joey Williamson Road from Wayne County High School where sheriff's officers t direct traffic in the mornings (7:30-8:30 AM) and afternoons (2:45 3:30 PM) to help vehicles make turns onto U.S. 341. Difficulty in making left turns on U.S. 341 from Tech Drive is also present. Altamaha Technical College is also located in this area. Is a signal needed in this area? The County has worked with GDOT getting a new signal at the south end of Joey Williamson Road at U.S. 84.
Action Items
The project team should review these comments and identify potential transportation system improvements which are warranted.
S.R. 203 (Slover Road) between U.S. 84 and U.S. 301 is unpaved at this time, but is likely to serve new industrial/distribution/manufacturing activities in the future. It is not within the city limits of Jesup at this time, but could be annexed in the future.
A new paved roadway connection should be investigated west of U.S. 84 between S.R. 203 and U.S. 341 which would provide an alternative route for trucks vs. traveling through the heart of Jesup on U.S. 341. Additionally, a new connection from the current eastern end of Slover Road to U.S. 341 (perhaps via Gardi Road) could provide an alternative truck route to U.S. 341 and the Port of Brunswick. Research is needed to see if a viable alignment and compatible land uses are present for this connection.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
101
APPENDIX C Results of ArchFest Survey
October 25, 2008
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
102
City of Jesup - Arch Fest Community Survey Results
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Wayne County, along with the Cities of Jesup, Odum, and Screven, have developed the Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan to address the existing and future transportation needs in Wayne County. A survey was distributed to the public during Arch Fest in Jesup, Georgia on October 25, 2008. The objective of the survey was to gather input from the public about the transportation system in Wayne County.
The following data represents the results of 38 surveys completed by the public. The survey results are described in the following charts.
Part I: Participants were asked where they live.
4.84%
Jesup
24.19%
8.06% 9.68%
53.23%
Odum
Screven
Unicorporated Wayne County Outside Wayne County
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
103
Part II: Participants rated the following six (6) statements concerning the transportation system in Wayne County with "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Neither Agree Nor Disagree," "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree." The following charts display the respondents' input.
1. Traffic congestion is a major problem throughout Wayne County.
4.62% 6.15%
23.08%
27.69%
38.46%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2. Wayne County has too many unpaved roads in developed areas (neighborhoods, etc.).
7.58%
1.52%
22.73%
30.30%
37.88%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
104
3. More travel options are needed to help people get to work.
1.52% 6.06%
Strongly Agree
24.24%
19.70%
48.48%
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4. Better coordination of traffic signals is needed.
7.46%
29.85%
22.39% 40.30%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
105
5. There are traffic problems around most schools. 3.08%
7.69%
47.69%
41.54%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
6. Improving intersections, such as adding turn lanes, stop signs, or traffic signals, etc., should be a priority in Wayne County.
9.09%
1.52%
51.52%
37.88%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
106
Part III: Participants rated the importance of the following five (5) transportation factors in Wayne County as "Very Important," "Important," "Somewhat Important," "Not Important," or "Don't Know." The following charts display the respondents' input.
7. Maintenance of county and local streets
10.45%
32.84%
56.72%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important
8. Alternative routes for truck traffic
2.94%
14.71%
36.76%
45.59%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
107
9. More bike paths and sidewalks near schools 5.97%
23.88%
34.33%
35.82%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important
10. Improving transportation connections between key places in the County 5.97%
23.88%
34.33%
35.82%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
108
11. Better public transportation options 4.48%
20.90%
34.33%
40.30%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important
Part IV: In addition to transportation, participants were asked to indicate the importance of the following five (5) subjects that relate to good community and regional planning. The following charts display the respondents' input.
12. Natural Environment
1.49%
10.45%
35.82%
52.24%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
109
13. Economic Growth 2.99%
22.39% 74.63%
14. Employment
2.99%
22.39% 74.63%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important
Very Important Important Somewhat Important
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
110
15. Housing
1.75% 8.77%
1.75%
42.11%
45.61%
16. Education 18.33% 81.67%
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important Don't know
Very Important Important
Part V: The following comments were made by participants when asked if there are specific locations in Wayne County where they think the transportation system does not work well. Their input has been categorized by those with specific locations or for the County in general.
Specific Locations
S.R. 169 and the Spring Grove Road area - too much traffic at key times Sunset Boulevard and Orange Street needs a turn lane, or four-lane Sunset Boulevard from S.R.
169 to Industrial Park. S.R. 169 needs to be widened with turn lanes from Rayonier Road to city [Jesup] or needs to be
four-laned.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
111
Would like to see public bus route on U.S. 84 to Hinesville with stops along the way Buckboard Trail and Buggy Whip Road need to be paved for buses. Wayne County High School - leaving the pick-up line in the morning and afternoon Intersection of S.R. 169 and Rayonier Road needs a light due to many accidents. U.S. 341/U.S. 301 red lights to include the light just west Joey Williamson Road @ U.S. 84 and U.S. 341 Sunset Boulevard from S.R. 169 to Macon Street Need railroad overpass for Norfolk Southern Trains block traffic on the line that parallels U.S. 341. S.R. 169 railroad track blocks traffic too often. Railroad crossing on Sunset Boulevard U.S. 84 The light at Joey Williamson Road and U.S. 84 - if you are coming from a ball game at night on
Joey Williamson Road, you will sit at that light for 5-10 minutes. Too much red light time on U.S. 84 Need more sidewalks that lead to Wayne County High School Need shoulder on West Orange Street
Countywide Around schools In the country Unpaved roads in the county during very rainy weather Bus routes on unpaved roads Railroad crossings - trains block roads at school transport times In regards to the on-demand transit service, a one or two-day notice is needed, instead of a three-day notice.
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan February 2009
112
APPENDIX D Wayne County Road Paving Priorities as of August 6, 2007
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan - February 2009
113
Wayne County Road Paving Priorities (as of 08/06/07)
Priority
Road Name
Commission District
1 Longford Road (from U.S. 341 to Bethlehem Road)
3
Bethlehem Wesleyan Church Road (on Hold)
1
Palm Island Road
1
2
Palm Island Circle
1
Sea Island Road
2
Holmesville Road 3 Reddish Road
1 & 2 1
East Lake Drive
2
4 Meadowwood Drive (unpaved portion)
2
Sierra Road
3
5 Riverside Way
3
Riverside Circle Howard Road (City) 6 Walker Road (City)
7 Tyre Road Camden Street (from Bacon to Glynn Street)
3 4
4 2 & 1
5
Glynn Street (from end of pavement to Camden)
5
Ware Street (from Glynn Street to end)
5
Tift Street (from Glynn Street to end)
5
8
Middle Drive
5
Photonia Street
5
Photoria Avenue
5
Weeping Willow Street (from Photoria-Pin Oak)
5
Length
1.09 1.72 NA 0.80 NA 2.50 1.50 1.50 0.460 0.503 0.153 0.560 0.130 0.350 1.00 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.60 0.40 0.15
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan - February 2009
114
Priority
Road Name
Commission District
Sugar Maple Street (from Pin Oak to Green Ash)
5
S. Lake Drive
5
Green Ash Street
5
9 Lud O'Quinn Road
1
Bennett Road
4
Rochelle Lane (from Gilford to Myrtle Street)
4
10
Pine Street Lane (from Cypress to Mahogany)
4
Cypress Lane (from Oak to Pine Street)
4
Old Doctortown Road
3
11
Mt. Pleasant Road (from Ten Mile Road to Line)
3
Arron Holland Road
2
12 Clifford Jones Road
2
Cameron Road
2
Big Oak Road
5
Ski Lake Drive
5
Raintree Drive
5
13 Buggy Whip Road (from R/R to last house)
5
Buggy Whip Lane
5
Buckboard Trail
5
Oran Way Ext.
5
McClain Road (from New Hope Road to Constance Road)
1
14
Constance Road
1
Length
0.33 0.13 0.10 2.40 0.221 0.207 0.171 0.083 0.986 0.601 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.63 0.28 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.20 2.30 NA
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan - February 2009
115
Priority
Road Name
Commission District
Nursery Road
3
Evinrude Drive
3
15
Smith Street
3
Magnolia Boulevard
3
Hortense Road
2
16
Mona Avenue
2
Palm Island Circle
1
Old River Road (from end of pavement)
1
17
Ogden Loop (from Beards Bluff Road)
1
Fairfield Drive
1
Bailey Road
2
18
J.C. Hamilton Road
2
N. Bamboo Lane (Bethlehem Road to Railroad Avenue)
4
19 Nancy Street
4
Arabian Road
4
Altamaha Road (from Rayonier Road)
3
Penholloway Road Ext.
3
20
Roth Road
3
Sheep Head Road
3
Deerwood Estates Road
1
Hires Road
1
21
Melvin Westberry Road (from S.R. 169 to New Hope Road)
1
McClain Road (from Constance Road to Old River Road)
1
Source: Wayne County Commission NA = Data Not Available
Plan Development and Recommendations Report Wayne County Multimodal Transportation Plan - February 2009
116
Length
1.689 0.237 0.111 0.200 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.30 1.20 0.300 0.66 0.40
0.1 0.354 0.168 0.785 2.577 0.601 0.083
0.2 1.8 1.3 1.1