_B_ 2021_638_Transportation_Master_Plan_12072.pdf

Effingham County Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n M a s t e r P l a n

Approved by the BOC - FINAL December 7, 2021 ii

Table of Contents Introduction

Needs Assessment

Project Identification

Action Plan

Appendices A: Community Engagement B: Traffic Data C: Traffic Analysis

Approved by the BOC - FINAL December 7, 2021 elarson Typewritten Text Typographical Error Corrected Page 18, 19, 88, & 89 December 28, 2021 elarson Typewritten Text iii

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Effingham County sits along the Savannah River in southern Georgia bordered by South Carolina to the east, and by Chatham County and the Port of Savannah to the south. Since 1960, Effingham County has experienced substantial and accelerating growth in both industry and population, growing from around ten thousand residents in 1960 to over sixty-five thousand today. This growth is showing no sign of slowing in the near future with increased activity at the Port of Savannah and in Historic Downtown Savannah drawing more and more people and businesses to the eastern coast of Georgia. From 2010 to 2020, Effingham County is estimated to have grown by over twenty-five percent, the sixth-fastest growing county in the state (on a percentage basis). This growth has already begun to put a substantial strain on Effingham County’s transportation network, increasing congestion and safety concerns along its largely rural roadways. This planning document is intended to lay out a number of improvement projects that are needed today to improve the transportation network, or are anticipated to be needed in the future as growth continues throughout the County.

Planning Process This plan document is structured to mimic the planning process used. The next chapter includes a presentation of the needs present and anticipated in the County, including technical data and public engagement. These needs were then used to develop projects intended to address those needs. These projects inform the Universe of Projects, a list which includes all the projects considered in this plan. The process for identifying and analyzing these projects and other recommendations is presented in the third chapter. The final chapter of this report documents the process used to prioritize the projects and places them into specific tiers based on their relative expected importance to the County’s overall transportation network, priorities of the Effingham County community, and the easy of implementation.

Introduction

Needs Assessment

Project Development

Project Prioritization

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

SpringfieldSpringfield

SavannahSavannah

PoolerPooler

PembrokePembroke

Port Port WentworthWentworth

HardeevilleHardeeville GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

StatesboroStatesboro

BrookletBrooklet

Jasper County, Jasper County, South CarolinaSouth Carolina

Effingham Effingham CountyCounty

Chatham Chatham CountyCounty

Bryan Bryan CountyCounty

Liberty Liberty CountyCounty

Evans Evans CountyCounty

Screven Screven CountyCounty

Bulloch Bulloch CountyCounty

Downtown Savannah

Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport

Georgia Southern Georgia Southern UniversityUniversity

Port of Savannah

1. INTRODUCTION

Effingham County and Surroundings

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Recommendations Overview This plan document details the process used to identify both specific projects and recommended policies. These projects and policies have been created based on rigorous technical analysis, extensive public engagement, and a comprehensive view of Effingham County’s transportation network.

The map on the facing page shows all of the projects by type included in this plan, with key projects highlighted. Major improvements include:

Substantial investment in key intersections, through thirty-one separate intersection projects. These range from additional turn lanes to new traffic signals and accompanying safety improvements.

These include shorter term investment to maintain safe and efficient conditions prior to the implementation of larger, long term investments.

An expansion of the freight network throughout the County to complement the under-construction Effingham Parkway. Several projects will improve existing roadways to connect SR 17, SR 21, SR 119, and Effingham Parkway.

Increased network for all drivers, including new routes parallel to SR 21 and Blue Jay Road providing critical redundancy and improving reliability for travelers.

Improved connectivity to areas outside the County including a new connection west to improve connectivity to I-16 and a widening of SR 21 towards I-95 and the Port of Savannah.

Key countywide bicycle and pedestrian facilities connecting the Cities of Guyton, Springfield, and Rincon, improving quality of life and providing alternative ways to move around the county.

The plan also includes Policy Guides on the following topics:

• Expanding Roadway Network

• Access Management

• Roadway Materials and Elements

• Transit

Each of these guides lays the foundation of potential policies that can be developed and adopted by the County to guide future transportation and development decisions.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

1. INTRODUCTION

SpringfieldSpringfield

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

All Projects

Lane Improvements Single-Lane Roundabouts New Traffic Signals Median U-Turn Intersections

Freight Upgrades

Other Roadway Improvements

New Roadways Roadway Widenings

Multi-Use Trail

Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection (exact alignment TBD)

Other Point Projects

N-20: SR 21

Widening

N-9, N-10, N-18, and N-19: Expansion of Freight Network connecting SR 17, SR 21 and Effingham Parkway

N-21: Extension of Blue Jay

Road to improve connection to I-16

N-11 and N-12: Extension of Old Augusta Road freight route to SR 119

A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5: Creation of regional bicycle/ pedestrian network

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

In order to best understand the existing and anticipated future needs of Effingham County’s transportation system, a wide array of data was collected and considered. This information has been used to inform the identification and prioritization of projects, as described later. Some of this information, such as population growth and employment mix, is general information that helps explain the types of and locations where transportation improvements are needed. Other pieces of data are more transportation specific, including crash history and existing vehicular volumes. Also included in this section are the results of the first round of public engagement undertaken as part of this planning process. These results serve as a snapshot of the community’s concerns and priorities, and ultimately their goals and the desires they hold for their transportation system.

Population Density Effingham County has recently experienced substantial population growth due to new residents who commute into the Savannah area and to new developments within the county that are related to the Port of Savannah. From 1900 through the 1960 census, the population of Effingham County hovered consistently around 10,000 people. However, from 1960 onwards, the county has seen continuous growth. From 2010 to 2020, the county was estimated to add an average of 127 people each month, and grew more than the entire population of the county from 1970.

Due to the connectivity with the Savannah region, much of the county’s population currently lives south of SR 119, as shown on the map on the facing page. Across the County line, the northern reaches of Chatham County have high levels of new residential construction as well as residential demand reaches out of the core of the Savannah region. The southern portion of Effingham County still has large tracts of undeveloped land, which are likely to become developed into the future as development pressures from both the Chatham County area and the Port of Savannah push further outwards.

Needs Assessment

Historic Population of Effingham County (US Census Bureau)

8,3

8,3

9,9

9,9

9,9

9,9

10, 10, 9,8

9,8

9,1

9,1 33 10, 10, 144 13, 13, 2 18, 18, 25,68725,687

37,53537,535

50,51350,513

2020 Estimate: 2020 Estimate: 65,76565,765

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Population Density (2019, US Census Bureau)

0.06 ppl/acre or less

0.5 ppl/acre

2 ppl/acre or more

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Employment Concentrations Within Effingham County, employment is currently largely concentrated on the SR 21 corridor, which directly connects to both I-95 and to the Port of Savannah. This advantageous location is attractive to existing and ongoing developments, especially for warehousing, manufacturing, and other freight-related businesses.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Employment (2018, US Census Bureau)

10 Jobs

50 jobs

100 Jobs

500 Jobs

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Commuting Dynamics Overall, Effingham County houses more workers than it employs. In 2018, the county was estimated to host approximately 10,500 jobs and 26,100 workers. Of these, about 4,900 people were estimated to both live and work within the county, while 5,600 commute into the county and 21,200 commute out of the county. These maps show a regional view of where Effingham residents work, and where Effingham workers live. This need to travel for work contributes to existing and future congestion within Effingham County and throughout the Savannah region. Effingham residents frequently commute into Chatham County for work, with notable employment destinations in Savannah, Garden City, Port Wentworth, and Pooler.

SpringfieldSpringfield

SavannahSavannah

PembrokePembroke

Port Port WentworthWentworth

HardeevilleHardeeville GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

StatesboroStatesboro

Work Locations of Effingham County Residents (2018, US Census Bureau)

10 Workers

50 Workers

100 Workers

500 Workers

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Those who work in Effingham County are more likely to live near their jobs and commute a shorter distance.

46% of Effingham County residents who work drive 10 to 24 miles on their commute, and only 25% drive less than 10 miles. 39% of those who work in Effingham County drive less than 10 miles, and another 30% drive between 10 and 24 miles. Of those who commute out of Effingham County to work, a significant portion work in adjacent communities like Port Wentworth, Pooler, Bloomingdale, or Savannah. These employment destinations explain the importance of north-south routes like SR 21, SR 17, and the planned Effingham Parkway.

Home Locations of Effingham County Workers (2018, US Census Bureau)

10 Workers

50 Workers

100 Workers

500 Workers

SpringfieldSpringfield

SavannahSavannah

Port Port WentworthWentworth

HardeevilleHardeeville GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Freight Conditions The dynamics of freight movement throughout Effingham County are of special concern. Much of the economic activity in Effingham County is linked – directly or indirectly – to activities at the Port of Savannah or to the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines that run through the county. Recently Effingham County has enacted a truck route ordinance which focuses truck traffic on specific routes with the appropriate characteristics and facilities to support them. Currently, this network of routes includes all state routes in the county, as well as Old Augusta Road from SR 21 to SR 275.

To anticipate additional needs of the freight network, the map on the facing page shows this network, along with the state-maintained network outside of the county, and is overlaid with concentrations of freight-related employment. Freight-related employment shown includes manufacturing, transportation/warehousing, and wholesale trade jobs. Large concentrations of freight-re-lated employment follows these corridors today. However, access to these corridors is increasingly limited and does not provide direct, simple access to properties along the rail lines near the center of the county.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Existing Freight Conditions

10 Jobs

50 Jobs

100 Jobs

300 Jobs

State Routes, Interstates, and other roads designated for freight usage

Rail lines

Freight-Oriented Employment (2018, US Census Bureau)

Freight Network (2020, US Census Bureau and GDOT)

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Crash History To understand where safety deficiencies may be present or may emerge in the future, a review of historic crash data was conducted. The tables below and the map on the facing page are based on crash data from GDOT’s Georgia Electronic Accident Reporting System (GEARS) from 2014 through 2019.

In general, crashes occur more frequently in places with more traffic. To better understand locations where crashes occur at higher rates, the planning team looked at traffic volume at focus study intersections to create a crash rate for each, and compared intersections based on this rate.

The intersections included in this analysis match those included in the traffic analysis presented later in this chapter. Several of the intersections with the highest crash rates were found on SR 21, especially in a commercial area in Rincon with several driveways and closely-located signalized intersections. Another top intersection - SR 17 at Blue Jay Road - was under construction during this time period and has been improved to a roundabout. Roundabouts typically feature less severe crashes than traditional intersections.

Countywide Crashes by Type and Severity

(2014-2019, GDOT)

Top Intersections by Crash Rate

(2014-2019, GDOT)

Intersection Relative Crash Rate

SR 21 at Fort Howard Road

SR 17 at Blue Jay Road

SR 21 at Prosperity Drive/Walmart Access

Midland Road at Courthouse Road

SR 21 at McCall Road

Not a Collision with a Motor Vehicle (2,512, 28%)

Property Damage Only (7,432, 82%)

Rear End (2,210, 24%) Angle (1,882, 21%) Unclassified (1,265, 14%)

Injury (1,581, 17%)

Sideswipes (748, 8%)

Fatal (54, <1%)

Head On (449, 5%)

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Historic Crash Concentrations

(2014-2019, GDOT)

Low High

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Anticipated Developments As part of the planning process, Effingham County staff and stakeholders provided information on known or anticipated developments expected in the future.

Information about these developments is shown on the facing page. While many of these plans are preliminary and will evolve before their eventual completion, they show that new development activity is strong, especially south of SR 119. The south-central part of the county has a number of anticipated residential subdivisions while the southern section of SR 21 is anticipating industrial and commercial development. In total, these anticipated developments total over 2,500 new homes and over 5.5 million square feet in industrial/warehousing developments.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Georgia International Trade Center: Large warehousing complex currently under development New Haven at Belmont Glen: 99 units underway in development with 299 residential lots proposed

Buckingham Plantation: Phase 2B includes 50 approved lots;

Phase 2C includes 50 more lots proposed

SPIP Panattoni: 500,000+ square foot warehouse under development

Raindance: 153 lots proposed with 41 homesites already under construction

Old Augusta Commerce Center: Under review, could included almost 5 million square feet for warehouse/distribution space with offices

Anticipated Developments Residential Developments Commercial Developments Industrial Developments

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Ongoing and Upcoming Projects Effingham County has passed and is currently working on a program of projects as part of a Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (TSPLOST) that began in April 2021.

These locations were identified previous to the beginning of the TMP planning process. Projects at these locations have been incorporated into the TMP process to fully understand the transportation network anticipated to be in place in the future.

In addition, GDOT has a number of planned or envisioned projects in Effingham County, also shown on the map on the facing page. Some of these projects are programmed (have money set aside for them), while others are long-term projects with no specific funding yet assigned.

Ongoing and Upcoming Projects

Proj. ID Name/Description Effingham County TSPLOST

I-1 Old River Road at US 80 Lane Improvements

I-2A/B Lane Improvements at Blue Jay Road at Midland Road/Roundabout

I-3 Blue Jay Road at McCall Road (east) Reconfiguration

I-4A/B Hodgeville Road at Kolic Helmey Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

I-5 Kolic Helmey Road at South Effingham Elementary School Driveway Turn Lane Improvements

I-6 SR 30 at Midland Road Lane Improvements

I-7 Lane Improvements at Blue Jay Road and Hodgeville Road

I-8A/B Hodgeville Road and Goshen Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

I-9 Lane Improvements at Kolic Helmey Road and SR 30

I-10 Lane Improvements at McCall Road and Little McCall Road

I-11A/B Courthouse Road and Midland Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

N-1 Courthouse Road Realignment N-2 Effingham Parkway* N-3 Goshen Road Improvements

GDOT Projects A-1 RRFB and Crosswalk at SR 21 BU/Laurel St N-4 I-95 at Savannah River Bridge Replacement N-14 SR 119 Relocation from SR 119 to SR 21

N/A SR 17 and Blue Jay Road Roundabout (under construction)

*Effingham Parkway (project N-1) is being built in a joint effort between the County and GDOT elarson Typewritten Text Approved by the BOC - FINAL December 7, 2021 Typographical Error Corrected December 28, 2021 elarson

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Ongoing and Upcoming Projects Intersection Improvements

Other Projects

New Roadway Roadway Improvement

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

elarson Typewritten Text Approved by the BOC - FINAL December 7, 2021 Typographical Error Corrected December 28, 2021 elarson

Community Priorities At the onset of the TMP planning process, in-person and virtual public engagement events were held to understand the concerns and goals of the Effingham County community. From January 26 through February 28, 2021, community members could participate in these activities virtually at their leisure. On February 3, these activities were also available in-person at the Clarence E.

Morgan Complex gym from 5pm to 7pm. This round of engagement was focused on three activities:

A summary of the input received is provided here, and more complete records of the public engagement process are included in Appendix A.

Map Activity In the map activity, participants were provided a map of Effingham County and asked to make comments on the map. Participants could place comments in four categories:

Furthermore, virtual participants could see previous participants’ responses and could “Like” them to indicate agreement or “Dislike” them to indicate disagreement. Between the virtual and in-person meetings, over two hundred map comments were received and over eight hundred likes and dislikes were provided.

Congested Location

Forty-five of the comments received were used to indicate congestion. These comments largely followed major corridors and major travel patterns. However, a significant concentration of comments was received along SR 30, and especially at the intersection of SR 30 and Hodgeville Road, which lies immediately outside the county limits in Chatham County.

Other top locations include Hodgeville Road at Kolic-Helmey Road, SR 30 at SR 21 (also in Chatham County), and SR 30 at Midland Road. These comments suggest high levels of concern with major corridors to and from Chatham County, especially SR 30 and SR 21.

Congested Location Map Comments 0 Likes 5 Likes 10 Likes

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Safety Concerns Eighty-two comments indicating safety concerns were provided, making this the largest single group of comments. The intersection of SR 30 and Hodgeville Road was again a top subject of concern, as were the intersections of SR 21 at Goshen Road, McCall Road, and Chimney Road, and McCall Road at Blue Jay Road/ Blandford Road (which straddles an at-grade rail crossing). Safety concerns were also reported on SR 21 and Old Augusta Road, both of which are known for heavy freight movements.

Bicycle or Pedestrian Need and Other/General Comments

Only eight comments regarding bicycle or pedestrian needs were received. These included desire for improved facilities along SR 119 and on the western side of Rincon.

Sixty-five comments were received in the other/general comment category.

While these are dispersed and varied, some themes are present. Many of these commenters expressed a desire to have specific roads, or roads in general, repaved or upgraded from the ash roads they currently are to full-depth asphalt roadways.

Other comments identified limitations and potential solutions within the existing roadway network, calling out the need for more east-west connectivity, or suggesting new roadways, among other things. Still others identified potential improvements at specific intersections, ranging from turn lanes to new roundabouts and traffic signals.

Safety Concern Comments

Bicycle or Pedestrian Need Comments Other/General Comments

0 Likes 5 Likes 10 Likes

0 Likes 5 Likes 10 Likes 0 Likes 5 Likes 10 Likes

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Goals Activity In both the in-person and virtual meetings, participants were asked to prioritize a list of goals. At the in-person meetings, participants were provided eight dots and asked to apply those to the six goals to reflect their priorities. They could place all dots on a single goal, spread their dots out, or give their dots to a few goals they felt were important. Top goals include improving north/south travel and improving east/west travel, closely followed by improvements to support freight movement and relieving congestion in the cities of Effingham County. Enhancing roadway safety and providing facilities for walking and bicycling were supported less by this group.

Due to limitations within the virtual survey tools available, this question was asked in a different way for those who participated virtually. Online participants were asked to rate each of these same goals from Very Important to Not Important. These participants ranked improving north/south travel and enhancing roadway safety as the most important goals. Relieving congestion in Rincon, Springfield, and Guyton ranked slightly below those goals, but was considered more important than improving east/west travel and improvements for freight movement. Similar to the in-person group, this group also placed the lowest priority on bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

In-Person Goal Activity Responses

Goal Total Dots

Improve north/south travel

Improve east/west travel

Improve the roadway network to better facilitate freight movement

Relieve Congestion in central Rincon, Springfield, and Guyton

Enhance roadway safety

Provide more facilities for walking and bicycling

27 dots

25 dots

23 dots

20 dots

16 dots

7 dots

Virtual Goal Type Activity Responses

Improve north/south travel

Enhance roadway safety

Relieve Congestion in central Rincon, Springfield, and Guyton

Improve east/west travel

Improve the roadway network to better facilitate freight movement

Provide more facilities for walking and bicycling

Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not Important

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Project Types Activities A similar activity was also available to understand what types of projects were desired by the community.

During the in-person meeting, this activity was structured in a way identical to the goals activity. Top project types included new roadways, roadway widenings, and intersection improvements. Lower support was expressed for safety improvements and freight upgrades.

Online participants were asked to rank these six project types from one – most appropriate in Effingham County – to six – least appropriate in Effingham County. Online participants placed top priority on intersection improvements. Roadway widenings, safety improvements, and new roadways also received substantial support, generally being ranked second. Freight upgrades and bicycle and pedestrian facilities were generally ranked near the end, indicating lower priority from the community.

In-Person Project Type Activity Responses

Goal Total Dots

New roadways

Roadway widenings

Intersection improvements

Freight upgrades

Safety improvements

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

26 dots

23 dots

21 dots

18 dots

15 dots

6 dots

Virtual Project Type Activity Responses

Intersection improvements

Roadway widenings

Safety improvements

New roadways

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Freight upgrades

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Stakeholder Committee Throughout the planning process, a group of selected stakeholders was also consulted to review the status of the plan and to provide feedback. This committee included members of the existing Effingham County Transportation Advisory Board and several other organizations from the private and public sectors, including but not limited to the organizations represented on the facing page. The committee met four times throughout the planning process. Due to the nature of the Covid-19 pandemic, each meeting of the committee was held both in-person in the mornings and virtually in the afternoon.

Kickoff Meeting On February 3, 2021, the stakeholder committee met for the first time. At this meeting, the planning process was introduced to the committee and the role of the stakeholder committee was explained. The committee also participated in an activity where they provided their perceived challenges and opportunities for transportation in Effingham County, some of which are shown below.

Needs Assessment Meeting The second round of meetings with the stakeholder committee were held on March 16, 2021. In these meetings, the committee was presented with many of the findings of the needs assessment (material presented in this chapter) and the preliminary results of the first round of public engagement. The committee discussed the feedback received and agreed it was largely consistent with their views.

Draft Recommendations Meeting On May 18, the stakeholder committee met again to discuss draft recommendations. At these meetings, the committee was shown the emerging project recommendations and the nascent policy guide topics. The committee was also shown the proposed prioritization scheme and provided input on the factors used.

Draft Document Meeting At the final meetings of the stakeholder committee on July 27, 2021, the committee was shown the preliminary results of the prioritization process and encouraged to share the ongoing second round of public engagment (discussed in chapter three) information with their networks.

Challenges

• Movement to and from Savannah and other surrounding communities

• Limited east-west corridors

• Need for trails and other projects focused on residents

• Need to serve high commuting volumes

• Chokepoints in southern part of the county

• Limited travel options

• Need for more parallel routes to major roadways

• Safety at intersections

• Need to consider the feasibility of projects for implementation

Opportunities

• Ability to preserve green space and good aesthetics as improvements are built

• Improving residents’ lives through active transportation

• Public safety benefits through infrastructure investments

• Enhanced connectivity to the Savannah-Hilton

Head International Airport

• Proactive investment could be more financially prudent and build goodwill with the community

• Time to prepare infrastructure for future growth

• Option to limit overhead utilities

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Traffic Analysis A major component of the planning process was a technical analysis of traffic congestion at forty-eight intersection across and adjacent to Effingham County. Following the first round of public engagement, the planning team reviewed the information provided by the public, general information about the county, and feedback from the stakeholder committee and identified thirteen corridors and forty-eight intersections for focused traffic congestion analysis. These intersections are generally the intersection of collectors and arterials within Effingham County, in areas where traffic congestion exists today or is anticipated in the future with new development. Two intersections outside of the county limits (SR 30 at Hodgeville Road and SR 21 at SR 30) were also included to better understand impacts to travel for Effingham County residents and workers, as these lie on key routes in to and out of the county. Some important intersections were not included in this analysis because they are the subject of current or recent studies separate from this effort.

Results and recommendations from those studies were incorporated into this plan as appropriate.

ID Intersection

1 SR 17 at SR 119/Springfield Avenue

2 SR 17 at Midland Road

3 SR 17 at Courthouse Road

4 SR 17 at Blue Jay Road

5 SR 17 at SR 30

6 US 80 at SR 30

7 SR 21 at Old Tusculum Road

8 SR 21 at SR 119

9 SR 21 at McCall Road

10 SR 21 at Laurel Street

11 SR 21 at SR 275/Ebenezer Road

12 SR 21 at Ninth Street

13 SR 21 at Fort Howard Road

14 SR 21 at Prosperity Drive/ Walmart Access

15 SR 21 at Kroger/Goody's Access

16 SR 21 at Towne Park Drive

17 SR 21 at Westwood Drive/ Silver Lake Drive

18 SR 21 at McCall Road

ID Intersection 19 SR 21 SB at Goshen Road

20 SR 21 NB at Goshen Road

21 SR 21 at Old Augusta Road

22 SR 17 at SR 30

23 Central Avenue at Midland Road

24 Sand Hill Road at Marlow Road

25 Sand Hill Road at Blue Jay Road/Ray Fetzer Drive

26 Midland Road at Courthouse Road

27 US 80 at Sand Hill Road

28 SR 17 at Marlow Road

29 Midland Road at Low Ground Road

30 Blue Jay Road at Midland Road

31 SR 30/Noel C. Conaway Road at Midland Road

32 Blue Jay Road at Hodgeville Road

33 Hodgeville Road at Goshen Road

34 SR 30 at Hodgeville Road

ID Intersection

35 McCall Road at Courthouse Road

36 McCall Road at Little McCall Road

37 McCall Road at Low Ground Road

38 McCall Road at Blue Jay Road/Blandford Road

Old Augusta Road/Fort Howard Road at Fort Howard Road

40 SR 119 at Little McCall Road

41 SR 119/Laurel Street at SR 119/Madison Street

42 Courthouse Road at Little McCall Road

43 Blue Jay Road at Low Ground Road

44 US 80/SR 26 at Old River Road

45 SR 17 at Jebez Jones Road

46 SR 21 at 4th Street

47 Hodgeville at Kolic Helmey Road

48 SR 30 at Kolic Helmey Road

Study Intersections

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Study Corridors

SR 21 Courthouse Road Goshen Road Sand Hill Road

SR 17 Low Ground Road SR 30 McCall Road

SR 119 Blue Jay Road/ Blandford Road

Midland Road Hodgeville Road

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Traffic Analysis Methodology Traffic counts were collected at all forty-eight intersection and at several points along study corridors between February 9 and 11, 2021. Full copies of original traffic count information is included in Appendix B.

COVID-19 Adjustment At the time of these traffic counts, COVID-19 was having an effect on travel patterns and habits throughout the country. As such, observed volumes were reviewed to identify any differences in traffic volumes from expected levels. Segment counts taken in 2021 were compared to historic GDOT count data. Historic growth rates at GDOT count locations were used to project year 2021 volumes, effectively identifying theoretical “non-COVID” 2021 volumes. When observed volumes were compared to these theoretical volumes, the observed volumes were found to be an average of 13% below the theoretical volumes. To better ensure that the recommendations of this plan are reflective of typical conditions in Effingham County, all traffic volumes were increased by 13% to represent traffic levels anticipated in year 2021 without the dampening effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GD

OT

C ou nt

St at io n

ID

Count Location

Most Recent Pre-COVID-19 Data Year 2021 COVID-19

Shift PercentageYear Count

Volume Estimated

ADT

Observed

ADT

051-0307 SR 30 West of Augusta Rd 2019 14,772 15,817 12,801 -19% 051-0109 SR 21 North of Lakeside Blvd 2019 38,936 41,691 41,574 0% 103-0166 SR 30 West of Pecan Ln 2019 9,646 10,328 10,176 -1% 103-0244 Kolic Henry Rd East of Principal Way 2017 4,129 4,734 3,792 -20% 103-0102 US 80 East of Pine View Dr 2019 28,092 30,079 23,758 -21% 103-0206 Old River Rd South of Central Ave 2018 4,620 5,119 5,131 0% 103-0162 US 80 North of Dogwood Way 2018 13,226 14,654 13,025 -11% 103-0104 SR 30 South of Jabez Jones Rd 2018 12,595 13,955 10,722 -23% 103-0164 Noel C Connaway Rd East of Mustang Dr 2018 5,690 6,304 4,859 -23% 103-0272 Sand Hill Rd North of Blue Jay Rd 2017 4,112 4,714 3,846 -18% 103-0245 Hodgeville Rd North of Kolic Henry Rd 2018 8,553 9,477 9,138 -4% 103-0246 Goshen Rd West of Hiho Hill 2012 5,288 7,193 6,108 -15% 103-7193 Old Augusta Rd North of Holy Bluff Rd 2017 6,754 7,743 6,580 -15% 103-0270 Old Augusta Rd North of Flat Ditch Rd 2018 7,142 7,913 6,398 -19% 103-0248 Blandford Rd East of Giles Ave 2017 7,564 8,672 8,247 -5% 103-0268 Blue Jay Rd East of Midland Rd 2017 6,320 7,246 5,817 -20% 103-0106 SR 17 North of Frank W Dasher Ln 2019 7,408 7,932 6,472 -18% 103-8041 McCall Rd North of Neidlinger Ln 2018 2,246 2,489 2,348 -6% 103-0137 SR 21 South of Ebenezer Rd 2018 20,564 22,784 19,916 -13% 103-0251 Midland Rd South of SR 17 2019 3,292 3,525 3,233 -8% 103-0171 SR 119 East of Archer Rd 2019 5,146 5,510 4,777 -13% 103-0119 SR 17 Noth of SR 119 2018 5,262 5,830 6,055 4% 103-0177 SR 119 East of Magnolia Pl 2019 7,902 8,461 7,104 -16% 103-0182 SR 119 North of Cedar Dr 2018 3,209 3,555 3,018 -15% 103-0151 SR 21 South of Springfield Egypt Rd 2019 6,004 6,429 6,611 3%

Total 262,154 231,506 13%

Traffic Volume Adjustment for COVID-19 Effects

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Traffic Forecasting This planning process is based not only on the needs present today, but works to anticipate the needs of Effingham County in the future. To that end, an estimate of future traffic volumes was made based on historic growth and on the information available in the regional travel demand model. Traffic volumes were projected to year 2045 for consistency with other regional planning efforts, most notably the Savannah region’s most recent Long Range Transportation Plan.

Historic Traffic Volumes Often, growth in the recent past is a good indicator of what growth can be expected in the near future. As such, historic GDOT count locations on study corridors were reviewed, and an average Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) was calculated for those with sufficient data between 2010 and 2019. The map on the facing page shows the results of this analysis, with growth rates at each count station where the analysis was performed. Growth rates in the southern part of the county were found to be high (3% - 5%) with some specific areas featuring lower growth rates. However, rates were not considered varied enough to need different growth methodologies for the future. On average, traffic volumes at these historic count locations had grown at 3.5% per year from 2010 through 2019.

Travel Demand Model Every urban area is required to maintain a travel demand model (TDM), which uses an understanding of the transportation system and expectations about the location of existing and future population and employment to forecast travel volumes and conditions into the future. Effingham County is included in the TDM maintained by the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, or CORE MPO. In the CORE TDM, growth in Effingham County is much more modest than observered historic traffic growth. Countywide, total travel volume is forecast to grow by around 1% per year between 2015 and 2045. In the study area, growth is even more modest, and is closer to 0.8% per year. These low forecasts are based on generally low assumptions about residential and employment growth in Effingham County.

Based on growth observed since 2015 and anticipated developments alone, these population and jobs forecasts seem likely to be lower than what will occur in reality.

Growth Methodology Based on the information available in historic count data and in TDM forecasts, a two-phase approach to forecasting future traffic was taken. Starting with COVID-adjusted year 2021 traffic volumes, volumes were increased by 3.5% per year for ten years to year 2031, based primarily on the growth observed over the last ten years. From 2031 onwards, growth was expected to become more modest. From 2031 to 2045, 1.5% growth per year was applied to traffic volumes. Traffic volumes used for analysis are included as part of the Synchro reports included in Appendix C.

2015 2045 CAGR* (Total Change)

Population 54,291 75,982 1.1% (40%)

Employment 14,915 18,218 0.7% (22%)

Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,057,689 1,407,821 1.0% (33%)

Vehicle Miles Traveled South of (and including) SR 119 927,741 1,183,900 0.8% (28%)

*Compound Annual Growth Rate

CORE MPO TDM Statistics for Effingham County

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

GuytonGuyton

RinconRincon

Historic Traffic Volume Growth

(2010-2019, GDOT)

Lower Growth (<2% per year) Moderate Growth (2%-4% per year) Highest Growth (>4% per year)

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Analysis Methodology All intersections were analyzed in Trafficware’s Synchro 11 software using methodologies included in the Transportation Research Board’s 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). HCM methodology determines the average amount of delay an intersection control (signal, stop sign, etc.) causes for each vehicle in the intersection. This is typically expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicles (sec/ veh). Intersections (or individual approaches or movements at intersections) are then assigned a Level of Service based on this average delay, based on research about drivers’ perceptions of delay.

Levels of Service range from A to F, with different

A or B

C or D

E or F

Traffic Conditions by Level of Service

ID Intersection Control Type

AM Peak PM Peak

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

1 SR 17 at SR 119/Springfield Avenue Roundabout A 7.3 A 9.6

2 SR 17 at Midland Road Side-Street Stop C 21.4 C 20.9 3 SR 17 at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop B 14.1 B 12.5 4 SR 17 at Blue Jay Road Roundabout A 7.5 B 10.2 5 SR 17 at SR 30 Side-Street Stop B 11.4 C 15.6 6 US 80 at SR 30 Signal B 17.3 F 97.9 7 SR 21 at Old Tusculum Road Signal A 8.4 A 8.8 8 SR 21 at SR 119 Signal B 16.4 B 19.7 9 SR 21 at McCall Road (north) Side-Street Stop E 46.5 F ** 10 SR 21 at Laurel Street Signal B 17.1 B 16.5 11 SR 21 at SR 275/Ebenezer Road Signal A 8.6 B 10.9 12 SR 21 at Ninth Street Signal B 11 B 14.6 13 SR 21 at Fort Howard Road Signal B 15.7 B 19.9

14 SR 21 at Prosperity Drive/ Walmart Access Signal A 9.3 C 20

15 SR 21 at Kroger/Goody's Access Signal A 6.5 A 9.4

16 SR 21 at Towne Park Drive Signal A 7.9 B 14.4

17 SR 21 at Westwood Drive/Silver Lake Drive Signal B 11.7 C 25.6

18 SR 21 at McCall Road (south) Signal F 120.5 E 55.1 19 SR 21 SB at Goshen Road Signal A 9.7 A 9.3 20 SR 21 NB at Goshen Road Signal B 11.2 D 37.4 21 SR 21 at Old Augusta Road Signal D 42.1 B 14.3 22 SR 21 at SR 30 Signal D 46 F 120

23 Central Avenue at Midland Road Side-Street Stop A 8.9 A 9.1

24 Sand Hill Road at Marlow Road Side-Street Stop A 8 A 7.5

25 Sand Hill Road at Blue Jay Road/Ray Fetzer Drive Side-Street Stop C 22.7 C 16.5

Intersection Delay, COVID-Adjusted Year 2021 Existing Conditions

** Analysis indicates that these approaches or intersections have average delays of over 300 seconds per vehicle. This typically indicates that a facility’s demand exceeds its capacity.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL thresholds for signalized and unsignalized control.

Generally drivers expect longer delays at traffic signals, and thus the same LOS will accept a higher delay at a signal than at a stop sign or other unsignalized control.

Different jurisdictions have different policies, but generally an LOS of A through D is considered acceptable, while LOS of E or F is cause for concern. At signalized intersections, an overall average delay is shown.

At side-street stop-con-trolled intersections, the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay is shown.

Existing Conditions Results of this analysis on COVID-adjusted year 2021 traffic volumes are shown in the tables on the following pages. Currently, the majority of intersections operate with LOS of D or better. Some specific intersections or approaches are experiencing higher delays. Several of these locations are included in ongoing GDOT improvements or are included in planned TSPLOST projects, while others will need additional improvements from other sources.

ID Intersection Control Type

AM Peak PM Peak

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

26 Midland Road at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop C 18.3 C 20.2

27 US 80 at Sand Hill Road Side-Street Stop F ** F 144.4 28 SR 17 at Marlow Road Side-Street Stop B 13.7 C 15.1

29 Midland Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop B 12.5 B 13.5

30 Blue Jay Road at Midland Road Side-Street Stop B 12.1 C 16.6

31 SR 30/Noel C. Conaway Road at Midland Road Side-Street Stop F 180.2 C 22.3

32 Blue Jay Road at Hodgeville Road Side-Street Stop C 16.4 C 20.9

33 Hodgeville Road at Goshen Road Side-Street Stop D 26.5 D 26.3

34 SR 30 at Hodgeville Road Side-Street Stop F 177.5 E 39.3

35 McCall Road at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop B 10.8 B 12.6

36 McCall Road at Little McCall Road Side-Street Stop B 10.6 B 10.2

37 McCall Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop B 11.9 B 12

38 McCall Road at Blue Jay Road/ Blandford Road Side-Street Stop D 30.6 D 16.1

39 Old Augusta Road/Fort Howard Road at Fort Howard Road Roundabout B 14.4 B 13.9

40 SR 119 at Little McCall Road Side-Street Stop D 30.6 C 16.1

41 SR 119/Laurel Street at SR 119/ Madison Street Signal A 9 A 7.8

42 Courthouse Road at Little McCall Road All-Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.2

43 Blue Jay Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop A 9.7 A 9.8

44 US 80/SR 26 at Old River Road Side-Street Stop C 22.7 F 161.1 45 SR 17 at Jebez Jones Road Side-Street Stop D 33.8 C 19.3 46 SR 21 at 4th Street Side-Street Stop E 38.2 F 249.8

47 Hodgeville at Kolic Helmey Road Side-Street Stop D 33.7 D 27.1

48 SR 30 at Kolic Helmey Road Side-Street Stop F 85.4 D 32.4

Intersection Delay, COVID-Adjusted Year 2021 Existing Conditions (cont.)

** Analysis indicates that these approaches or intersections have average delays of over 300 seconds per vehicle. This typically indicates that a facility’s demand exceeds its capacity.

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Forecast Conditions An identical traffic analysis was conducted using the existing intersection configurations and forecast traffic volumes for year 2045. The tables on this and the facing page show the results of this analysis. As you can see, anticipated traffic growth may overwhelm many of the existing facilities at these intersections.

Several locations will require improvements to continue to operate well under these future demands. Specific improvements have been identified in the next chapter to address these future congestion concerns.

ID Intersection Control Type

AM Peak PM Peak

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

1 SR 17 at SR 119/Springfield Avenue Roundabout C 21.3 F 238.3

2 SR 17 at Midland Road Side-Street Stop F 82 F ** 3 SR 17 at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop F 57.2 D 28.7 4 SR 17 at Blue Jay Road Roundabout D 34.1 F 192.8 5 SR 17 at SR 30 Side-Street Stop D 28.8 F ** 6 US 80 at SR 30 Signal F 106.5 F ** 7 SR 21 at Old Tusculum Road Signal C 21 C 27.4 8 SR 21 at SR 119 Signal F 96.8 F 150.5 9 SR 21 at McCall Road (north) Side-Street Stop F ** F ** 10 SR 21 at Laurel Street Signal D 48.3 D 40.9 11 SR 21 at SR 275/Ebenezer Road Signal C 23.7 D 53.9 12 SR 21 at Ninth Street Signal D 37.9 F 127.2 13 SR 21 at Fort Howard Road Signal D 45.6 F 138.2

14 SR 21 at Prosperity Drive/ Walmart Access Signal A 5.3 F 93.8

15 SR 21 at Kroger/Goody's Access Signal A 6.6 B 10.1

16 SR 21 at Towne Park Drive Signal B 12.6 F 99.4

17 SR 21 at Westwood Drive/Silver Lake Drive Signal C 21.8 F 119.7

18 SR 21 at McCall Road (south) Signal F 117.9 F 290.2 19 SR 21 SB at Goshen Road Signal D 36.8 D 41.8 20 SR 21 NB at Goshen Road Signal D 39.7 F ** 21 SR 21 at Old Augusta Road Signal F 87.9 F 117.3 22 SR 21 at SR 30 Signal F 207.1 F **

23 Central Avenue at Midland Road Side-Street Stop A 9.3 A 9.6

24 Sand Hill Road at Marlow Road Side-Street Stop A 9.2 A 9

25 Sand Hill Road at Blue Jay Road/Ray Fetzer Drive Side-Street Stop F ** F **

26 Midland Road at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop A 8.1 B 10.8

27 US 80 at Sand Hill Road Side-Street Stop F ** F **

Intersection Delay, Year 2045 No-Build Conditions

** Analysis indicates that these approaches or intersections have average delays of over 300 seconds per vehicle.

This typically indicates that a facility’s demand exceeds its capacity.

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

ID Intersection Control Type

AM Peak PM Peak

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

LO

S

De la y (s ec /v eh

28 SR 17 at Marlow Road Side-Street Stop D 29.7 E 47.8

29 Midland Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop C 19.7 D 26.1

30 Blue Jay Road at Midland Road Side-Street Stop F 79.8 F 104.3

31 SR 30/Noel C. Conaway Road at Midland Road Side-Street Stop F ** F 273.8

32 Blue Jay Road at Hodgeville Road Side-Street Stop E 43.8 F 225.7

33 Hodgeville Road at Goshen Road Side-Street Stop F 630 F 693

34 SR 30 at Hodgeville Road Side-Street Stop C 15.9 F **

35 McCall Road at Courthouse Road Side-Street Stop F ** F **

36 McCall Road at Little McCall Road Side-Street Stop F 54.8 F 120.6

37 McCall Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop F 107.7 F 171.1

38 McCall Road at Blue Jay Road/ Blandford Road Side-Street Stop F ** F **

39 Old Augusta Road/Fort Howard Road at Fort Howard Road Roundabout D 33.5 E 38.8

40 SR 119 at Little McCall Road Side-Street Stop F ** F 187.3

41 SR 119/Laurel Street at SR 119/ Madison Street Signal C 30.6 C 24.5

42 Courthouse Road at Little McCall Road All-Way Stop B 12.5 C 16.5

43 Blue Jay Road at Low Ground Road Side-Street Stop B 11.4 B 12.2

44 US 80/SR 26 at Old River Road Side-Street Stop F 111.7 F ** 45 SR 17 at Jebez Jones Road Side-Street Stop F ** F 351 46 SR 21 at 4th Street Side-Street Stop F ** F **

47 Hodgeville at Kolic Helmey Road Side-Street Stop F 104.7 F 209.9

48 SR 30 at Kolic Helmey Road Side-Street Stop F ** F **

Intersection Delay, Year 2045 No-Build Conditions (cont.)

** Analysis indicates that these approaches or intersections have average delays of over 300 seconds per vehicle.

This typically indicates that a facility’s demand exceeds its capacity.

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

Based on the information gathered and analyses performed, a set of projects was identified. These projects are intended to reduce existing congestion and safety concerns, but also to look to the future and anticipate future needs. Projects were developed in four categories: Intersection Improvements, Network Improvements, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, and Policy Guides. The following sections explain more about how projects in each category were developed.

Ongoing and Upcoming Projects As discussed in Chapter 2, there are several ongoing or upcoming initiatives throughout Effingham County. These were included in the planning process and are documented as projects in this document. “Lane Improvement” projects were examined to determine specific lane improvements that are expected to best relieve congestion and are included in more detail in the next section.

Project Identification Ongoing and Upcoming Projects

Proj. ID Project Name Effingham County TSPLOST

I-1 Old River Road at US 80 Lane Improvements

I-2A/B Lane Improvements at Blue Jay Road at Midland Road/Roundabout

I-3 Blue Jay Road at McCall Road (east) Reconfiguration

I-4A/B Hodgeville Road at Kolic Helmey Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

I-5 Kolic Helmey Road at South Effingham Elementary School Driveway Turn Lane Improvements

I-6 SR 30 at Midland Road Lane Improvements

I-7 Lane Improvements at Blue Jay Road and Hodgeville Road

I-8A/B Hodgeville Road and Goshen Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

I-9 Lane Improvements at Kolic Helmey Road and SR 30

I-10 Lane Improvements at McCall Road and Little McCall Road

I-11A/B Courthouse Road and Midland Road Lane Improvements/Roundabout

N-1 Effingham Parkway* N-2 Goshen Road Improvements N-3 Courthouse Road Realignment

GDOT Projects A-1 RRFB and Crosswalk at SR 21 BU/Laurel St N-4 I-95 at Savannah River Bridge Replacement N-5 SR 119 Relocation from SR 119 to SR 21

N/A SR 17 and Blue Jay Road Roundabout (under construction)

*Effingham Parkway (project N-1) is being built in a joint effort between the County and GDOT

Approved by the BOC - FINAL

3. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Intersection Improvements Congestion-Focused Intersection Improvements Often, improvements at key intersections are the most cost-effective and easily implemented improvements in a roadway network. As such, improvements were considered at all study locations where traffic counts were taken. Analysis of the below recommendations was performed using the same methods and tools used for the no-build analyses included in Chapter 2. The table below shows congestion-focused intersection improvements by location and their anticipated performance in year 2045. There are additional intersection improvements in the plan that are focused on safety or broader concerns. Because these projects do not directly address congestion, they are not included here. Due to concerns about traffic and safety at schools, several projects propose to add turn lanes at school location. Because traffic counts were not available at these locations, their future performance can not be reliably determined and they are not included in these results either.

At some locations included in the ongoing TSPLOST program, only lane improvements were anticipated in the TSPLOST program, but analysis as part of this planning process suggests that larger improvements will be needed to accommodate future travel demand. These locations have a lane improvement-only improvement included with an “A” at the end and a more impactful, long-range improvement labeled with a “B”.