1 / 41

BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Discussing the proposed revisions and issues of the 2020 Transportation Improvement Program for Bulloch County. Topics include problems with funding, resurfacing issues, dirt roads, and recommendations for improvements.

harrymills
Télécharger la présentation

BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Bulloch County Transportation Improvement Program 2015 Preliminary Transportation Improvement Program 2020 Proposed Revisions and Discussion July 30, 2013

  2. Items to Discuss • Problems and Issues • Status of Current TIP • Proposed Revisions • Network Resurfacing Issues • Dirt Roads • Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Issues • Recommendations • Questions and Comments

  3. Workshop Objectives • Get BOC direction on priorities for road improvements in near-term and for the six-year program.

  4. Problems and Issues • Administration is doing a comprehensive review to fund as many projects as possible in the CIP. • Public Safety and Facilities are the most constricted areas and should be the subject of a follow up workshop before approving the CIP. • We need to consider planning for and beginning road improvements to new industrial park in the TAD with remaining $3M in bond proceeds. • We don’t know the effect of the TAVT and Energy Excise Tax on revenues.

  5. Problem(s) and Issues • County needs for roads are underfunded; we need about twice as much money as we expect to receive to keep up with demands and service levels. • Road improvement costs have tripled since 2004. • We will have limited opportunities to pave dirt-roads. • Network roads have fallen behind on resurfacing. • Preserve funds for Southeast Quadrant projects, bridges and safety striping, or they will become a more expensive problem later. • We will have to reserve some road money for the Gateway industrial park.

  6. Status of Current TIP

  7. Original 2015 TIP: Approved FY 2010

  8. SPLOST 07 Funds (Remaining and Estimated Through 11-2013)

  9. Status on 2015 TIP • “Shovel Ready” program is finished (under budget). • “Neighborhoods First” is finished; over budget. • “Bridge Rehabilitation” are pending (but, likely to be under budget). • “Southeast Quadrant” projects are pending. • “ROW Acquisition” program for future dirt-roads to be paved in LRTP are pending (likely to be under budget) • “Road Striping” program is approaching 33% complete (will be over budget due to higher cost). • “Capital Equipment” program costs have been below budget, but are due for turn over in new TIP with higher pricing expected.

  10. Revisions to TIP through 2020

  11. Recommended Revisions to Original TIP • We can expect to get $900K-$1 million per year from GDOT for projects; leveraging resurfacing projects is proposed – 30% match is required, but, not problematic. • Resolve immediate resurfacing needs by using $4.2 million of existing 07 SPLOST and state-aid – approximately 40 miles of roads. • Allocate funds to year-to-year projects for dirt roads, intersections, bridges and safety signage and striping. • Maintain allocations for equipment needs for capital maintenance.

  12. Recommended Revisions to Original TIP • Escrow funds for Transportation Plan Update in 2019. • Allocate $500,000 in 07 SPLOST road funds to complete AJ Riggs Road (to compensate for costs of utility relocation and railroad improvements.

  13. SPLOST 2013 Funds (Preliminary TIP in 2011 before Referendum)

  14. SPLOST 2013 Adjustments Using Unspent 2007 SPLOST Funds

  15. Network Resurfacing

  16. Network Resurfacing • The Barnhardt Group (TBG) has recommended a program of pavement preservation using alternative techniques to treat 100 miles of roads over ten years. • TBG recommendations have received an adverse reaction from regional pavement contractors. • County staff does not agree with every TBG recommendation, but does agree that many strategies are worth considering.

  17. Strategy • We have about 38 miles of network roads that justify the use of traditional hot-mix asphalt (in some cases with base work). • There are about 2-4 miles of older subdivisions that have very poor pavement condition as well. • The projects in the following slides are recommended for immediate attention – preferably to let bids before the 2013 paving season concludes.

  18. Candidate Roads for Network Resurfacing with Lowest PCI Ratings for 2013

  19. Subdivision Resurfacing – CY 2013

  20. Follow-up Strategy • Staff recommends the application of 1-2 inches of HMA, where appropriate. • Continue to evaluate TBG recommendations on other road sections going forward. • We paid TBG for advice, not to make decisions.

  21. Dirt Roads

  22. Dirt Roads - Ready

  23. Dirt Roads – Transportation Plan (Not Ready)

  24. Dirt Roads – Petitioned (Not Ready)

  25. Dirt Roads – Decision Points • Whichever roads are chosen, because of cash flow needed to do other projects, only one road per year can be completed. • It is possible that once roads are sequentially selected, we could begin to build up two roads per year to compact and make them pavement ready, but would need to have a one year lag to apply fine aggregates and asphalt (finishing). • There are few roads that improve the network because they end at a dirt road section (“*”) • Hot-Mix Asphalt or OGCM?

  26. Dirt Roads – Decision Points • There are few roads that improve the network because they end at a dirt road section (“*”) • Hot-Mix Asphalt or OGCM? • We could accelerate a project or two with excess bond proceeds (or you may want to reserve for public safety needs or the TAD).

  27. Southeast Quadrant

  28. Intersections – Southeast Quadrant

  29. Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Plan • Staff still believes that following the SEQ Plan is needed and necessary. • However, there are some issues related to Statesboro annexation strategies that merit consideration and further justifies the shifting of funds to Network Resurfacing. • Some decisions will need to be made to program funds properly.

  30. Intersections – Southeast Quadrant • Pretoria Rushing Road @ Burkhalter Road • Langston Chapel Road @ Lanier Drive • Burkhalter Road @ Harville Road • Golf Club Road @ Harville Road • Burkhalter @ Langston Chapel

  31. Candidate Projects for SEQ Plan

  32. Pretoria Rushing @ Burkhalter (Five Points) • Issue #1: Roundabout or Controlled Intersection? • Issue #2: Bike and Pedestrian Safety with the S&S Greenway. • Issue #3: Realignment of Josh Hagin Road from its existing point at the intersection to the lower side of the existing solid waste center is recommended as a part of the project.

  33. Langston Chapel @ Lanier Drive • Issue #1: Do we do anything at all given City Annexation encroachment? • Issue #2: If we should do something, it should be limited to a controlled T-leg stop or a three way stop using splitter islands or medians.

  34. Burkhalter @ Harville (just west of SR 67 • Issue #1: This project is under the construction work program with GDOT and is scheduled to have a Roundabout constructed by 2017. • To speed the project, the County is in a position to offer covering the costs of engineering and ROW.

  35. Golf Club Road @ Harville • Issue #1: This area is programmed to have a 120 lot subdivision development just southeast of the intersection. • Issue #2: Golf Club Road is out of alignment with the opposing intersecting road, Josh Deal Road.

  36. Burkhalter @ Langston Chapel • Issue #1: Traffic at this intersection has grown dramatically through the years. • Issue #2: There is zoning approval for a yet to be built convenience store at the southwest portion of the intersection. • Issue #3: Since the intersection rests on a hill, sight distance on the Burkhalter-Langston Chapel approach is limited. • Issue #3: A small roundabout or a controlled three-way with splitter islands or medians should be considered.

  37. Intersections to Consider for Project Execution This intersection may be eligible for GDOT funding. Shoulder widening in Langston Chapel can be eliminated but resurfacing is needed. A roundabout may be a better solution here than a realignment for a two or four-way stop; but this project may be on the bubble.

  38. Intersections to Consider for Project Deferral Each of these intersections are subject for water and sewer expansion and annexation; likely within the next five years. Would the BOC consider any joint participation with Statesboro at this time?

  39. Final Recommendations • Proceed with resurfacing projects identified with available SPLOST 07 and state-aid funds – allow County Engineer to determine pavement thickness. • Begin engineering work on selected SEQ intersections (solicit engineers for design, planning and programming – BOC to appropriate funds based on plan).

  40. Final Recommendations • Allow staff to program equipment, bridge work, and safety striping signage needs in six-year program. • BOC future considerations – dirt road programming and use of TBG recommendations based on staff input for paved roads (do we want to consider performing some PM techniques in-house, like crack sealing?). • Consider limited use of excess bond proceeds.

  41. Questions – Comments - Discussion?

More Related