HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnterprise Technology Parkway Phase I
Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: SN'f e IZ-f 1Z1 S. 6 lECI+#J DLO~ Y -p A ~\Z 10 A'f -~M <gEl :::r::
DOCUMENT TYPE: 6<..~V?O(Z"\
YEAR: \ C\ q ~
BOX NUMBER: l.e
FILE NUMBER: \ ~ ~~ I
NUMBER OF PAGES:
07
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~it/3F97
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY PARKWAY
PI1ASE I
AN ENGINEERING REPORT
PREPARED FOR
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
The HonorabJe Larry Sconyers, Mayor
Prepared by
Cranston, Robertson & \Vhitehurst, P.C.
Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
P.O. Box 2546 - 452 Ellis Street
Augusta, Georgia 30903
August 13, 1998
[}==
'-1
'1
4
Il
J
f'\
~I
----1
36-Z..yj
-,
-\
~6-1-5q
t- 3~-~
36-1-53 \
t- - 4 36-1-56
~
,
I \
, \
r----
ro \
,
\
36-2-3
--
36-2-33
-
36-1-76
--
o
,
\_1
\ 36-3-
_ U..
CD
::::0
o
- )>
- CJ
- (/)
-t
::::0
fTll
fTl
-t
,
~
~ C-.
~ 0
~ Z
~
, fTl
, ~[
[
.
~
.
,
,
\
,
-JP
14TH. (MILL)
~ . .
36-=:1711' ~4-':
, c;>
/' I
" ,
\
-
~
\
\
\
,
B
I
\
\
36-3-341
-
l
:+F
t
oJ
~
-
r
o
r
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
tt
'1CI
W
r
REQUIRED R/W ~\
36-4-349.2
&
It
T
~ : /
~/ ~ /;j;r-
~ ~ ..' ~~ '>-I I
z CJ~ FQ
()
.
~
~ . /
~ (
~ \
\ -
-REQUI E~ R/W t
\ ~
~.
· · .. · \ PARKWAY
'( '. -------- '"
oh 181
o
o
I
-
I
36-4-349.3
o
o
.p
o
o
~~ 0
\(:)_0
'" o~
o
o 0
)
~
~
0"
~
36-3-101
CHNOl!
T
-
-,
r /~
/ I~
..' ~~
~
.. r~ .'
, ~'V ·
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
/
-- - -. --.
,
~
j
.
&
f----
/
-
~
"
"
~
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
...0.
~
~
(:;'"
PRI
T
~.......... .........
~ ~~~
'-- ~
,
\
)
)~
-
46-1-64
~ Ii ~Th
NEW BAILIE STREET :::t:I::: ~
l'
1.\
I \
~I >- I
~ ~-
...J
~ 11...... ---~- e ~
, ,
46-1 -46.1
\ Q ~
c;>
, ,
-
t
I
60
I
I
~
o
(:)
~
"
,
u
I
I
f
I
,
,
,
--1
-
...........
-
~
--
~
~
0&
---
Z2
j
r
r1
'\
,
,
~
I
~L
46-1-44
--4
SA
...0
~
~
S
RISTIAN
S
---,
,
. ,
~ ,
;->
I
I
,
;:::)
-
",---
APPENDIX C
PLAN
--
SCALE: 1" = 100'
..........
190
-
-(
"=I
<II
1:;
180
~
I
~
~
.....
~
III
I
....,
-.,
~
8
..
PARKWAY
-
TECHNOLOGY
ENTERPRISE
170
,a.j
,.
-::
1-
17(1
,
PH AS E I
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PLAN
~160
-
-,
c..
GEORGIA
- RICHMOND COUNTY,
AUGUSTA
150
~
~
-li!
!
Q.
g
.....
~
--
t:
-
~
~
........
.......
~
.
r
~~
IIIiiiiiii;;
190
'7
.....
11'
't'lii
~
~
{iJ-
~
~
!
-
180
170
~
"
r
II
-;a
7'r
T
J"
"
......
~
I
~
T
-7
~I
~
160
150
I
--
--
-
..........
\
~--~-
::;;;;;iiiiif""
V'
1998
100
11 ,
AUG
-
--....
-
P.C.
200
1
seA LEI N FEE T
PRE PAR E 0 B Y
Rob~tson & Whitehurst,
P.O.
AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30903
SURVEYORS
DRAWER 2546
PLANNERS
452 ELLIS STREET
ENGINEERS
PROFILE
SCALE: HORIZ: 1" = 100'
VERT: 1" = 10'
APPENDIX E,
96-156
U
3:
c..!)
CD
OJ
OJ
~
<.D
LD
cD
o
~
~
(T1
~
01
:::l
<t
:::l
.c.
I-
01
3:
"Cl
0....
0....
<.D
LD
....-l
<.D
OJ
/"
U1
<.D
LD
~
<.D
OJ
/"
J
o
0:
0....
/"
~
(f)
"Cl
U1
/"
U
o
,
50
100
~
Cranston,
140
130
23+00
r
~
22+00
~
1
21+00
20+00
19+00
18+00
~
....
.
qi
tw')-
...
17+00
iiii!
~
~
....
B
16+00
iI
15+00
~
(0-
......
{
"""
-
i
....
13+00
...........
;.
-..-
~
~
-
,
...
~
~
12+00
....
~
;;;-
~
It-
~
+00
1 1
..
:5
~
....
~..
...
i
~
10+00
I(
~
~
....
r
r
~
~
~
9+00
1'1"
iJl
6
~
....
~
~
h.
8+00
....
~
~
l
tji;;""
7+00
~
I
~
~
.-;-
6+00
~,
~
{f
~-
i
....
5+00
;iJ
~
:! ~
~ ~
4+00
T
If)-
f
3+00
.
~
.-
...
~ ;
2+00
I-
~
....
+00
1
140
130
0+00
, \
r---'
TO
\
\
\~
\;:0
\r'1
\~
\
~
r--' ~
,. \ ~
, \ 7'
\~
:::0
r-l
-<
Z
o
.-
o
u)'
(/)
---4
:::0
r-l
r-l
---4
..
.
\
36-1-56
.
.
.
..
.
/
..
.
36-1-53
t--~
~
PLAN
\
\
MAP
--1
36~1-83'
-2-41
ALTER NATIVE
-1...
---
" 36-1-67
r----
36-1-68
~----1
, 36-1-69
r-----1
36-1 - 70
t------1
36-1-71
_---:4
PREFERRED
RIGHT -OF - WA Y
..<)
18
~
~
.
...
o
\
o
III
(/)
\
CD
:::0
o
l>
o
\ _ r--
r-ll---JO
.-
.-
-
(/)
(/)
--t
:::0
r-l
r-l
--t
\
\
.
.
.
~
\
. \
,-J
: \
I I \
. , ~
fi= I \
r-
,."
<::
,." ~
r- 0)
I
<r \
t-~~
.
4
.
.
\
.
\
.
.
.
'--'
.
.
.
..<)
~
~
~
..<)
~
~
~
..<)
~
~
~
.~
36-3-341
()
..<)
18
~
~
-1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I /
'--- I
----------------J
...()
18
~
~
II
<)
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/
...()
~
~
(;">
...()
~
~
(;">
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
.
.
.
... ~i
~ /
.1;;
: :tJ /
. ~
~
<c:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
036-4-273-00-0 CURTIS BAPTIST CHURCH
036-4-335-00-0 THE SALVATION ARMY
036-4-349-00-0 C &: W C R R
036-4-349-01-0 SIG COX, INC.
036-4-349-02-0 THE SALVATION ARMY
036-4-349-03-0 CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA
046-1 -010-00-0 W. RODGER GILES, INC. AND W. RODGER
GILES, INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST
046-1-036-00-1 UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES. INC.
046-1-044-00-0 BOARD OF REGENTS
046-1-046-00-0 THE CREEL FOUNDATION
046-1-046-01-0 WILLIAM B. MULLINS
046-1-060-00-0 CCA
046-1 -064-00-0 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF AUGUSTA
046-1-065-00-0 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF AUGUSTA
046-2-045-00-0 ANDREW J. JORDAN
046-2-046-00-0 DAVID T. CROZIER
CATHERINE G. CROZIER
046-2-086-00-0 AMERICAN CONCRETE, INC.
046-2-087-00-0 AMERICAN CONCRETE, INC.
046-2-088-00-0 AMERICAN CONCRETE, INC.
046-2-108-01-0 GEORGIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE,
046-2-109-00-0 GEORGIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE,
036-3-009-00-0 BRENDA B. SHACKELFORD
036-3-034-01 -0 BAILEY INVESTMENT CO.
036-3-035-00-0 B.C. ROOKS
036-3-036-00-0 ELECTRIC REALTY SALES
036-3-037-00-0 E.L. DOUGLAS, JR. AS TRUSTEE
036-3-101-00-0 GRANITEVILLE COMPANY
036-3-103-00-0 THE SALVATION ARMY
036-3-104-00-0 GRANITEVILLE COMPANY ENTERPRISE
INC.
INC.
o
,
,
,
-.ul- -l
::c;,
<2-
~
..a
'\ ~
/
r
I
r - --==:!":
,
,
,
,
,
,
...()
~
~
(;">
I
I
/
t-----
,
,
,
I f
I /
Ir--i
If
k
..<)
~
~
(;">
,
,
,
\.J
v
f\
u
,--....
~
~
l
>-
~
"
\\
u
('\
^
,
,
,
CLYDE W. JONES
CLYDE W. JONES
ANNEITE S. SMITH
MILDRED CATO BOYKIN
HELEN CATO GORDON
THELMA N. MCGEE
DR. HAL H. HOLMES
FORREST E. STOUT
ERIC P. STOUT
FOREST E. STOUT
ERIC P. STOUT
KATHRYN SIBLEY BOARDMAN
GEORGE R. SIBLEY, JR.
KEY & KEY PC
RC
BETlYE G. ZAFFIRO
CLYDE W. JONES, JR.
KATHERINE R. SIBLEY
MARGARET SIBLEY
KATHRYN R. BOARDMAN
MARGARET I. DALE
J &: S INVESTMENT COMPANY
JAMES F. KENDRICK, JR.
FRANK W. CAPERS
CREED C. BYRD
ERNEST C. DUKE
T. WAYNE RINER
ERNEST C. DUKE
T. WAYNE RINER
ERNEST C. DUKE
T. WAYNE RINER
CHRISTIAN VISION, INC.
JACKSON-WATKINS
RUBYE S. COX
RUBYE S. COX
CCA CANAL AUGUSTA GEORGIA
DENNIS BYRD
HAROLD TRENT
CURTIS BAPTIST CHURCH
THE SALVATION ARMY
NEW
BAILIE STREET
...0
11J
~
~
+
...()
~
~
(;">
+
036-4-100-00-0
036-4-101-00-0
306-4-102-00-0
306-4-103-00-0
036-4-104-00-0
036-4-105-00-0
036-4-106-00-0
036-4-107-00-0
036-4-108-00-0
036-4-109-00-0
036-4-110-00-0
306-4-111 -00-0
036-4-112-00-0
036-4-112-01-0
036-4-113-00-0
4-00-0
115-00-0
68-00-0
036-4-169-00-0
036-4-170-00-0
036-4-171-00-0
036-4-194-00~0
036-4-252-00-0
036-4-253-00-0
036-4-254-00-0
036-4-254-01-0
036-4-256-00-0
036-4-258-00-0
036-4-259-00-0
46-1-44
.....
Z
~
a:::
.....
...J
Vl
o
036-4-
036-4-
036-4-
(7
/
/
/
/
/
/
t....___
INC.
INC.
INC.
LTD.
H
Y,
Y,
Y,
~
!::O
r-~ --
I ..<)
I 18
~
, (;">
I
I
I
_I
...0
~
~
~
036-1 -051 -00-0 JOHN E. MORRIS, J
BILLY L. MORRIS
36-1-053-00-0 LANDRUM SUPPLY C
36-1-054-00-0 LANDRUM SUPPLY C
36-1-055-00-0 JOSEPH H. LANDRU~
VERNA M. LANDRUM
36-1 -056-00-0 JOSEPH H. LANDRU~
VERNA M. LANDRUM
36-1-057-00-0 LANDRUM SUPPLY C
36-1 -058-00-0 TERESA MARION BRC
36-1-059-00-0 J. &: B. REAL ESTAl
36-1 -070-00-0 C.C. JOHNSON
36-1-075-00-0 INSULATION SUPPLY
36-1-076-00-0 RANDALL L. REDMO~
36-1-078-00-0 STEEL REED REDMO
36-1 -081-00-0 BRENDA B. SHACKEI
36-1-082-00-0 BRENDA B. SHACKEI
36-1 -083-00-0 BETlYE G. ZAFFIRO
36-1-084-00-0 BETlYE G. ZAFFIRO
36-1-084-01-0 BETTYE G. ZAFFIRO
36-1 -086-00-0 RANDALL L. REDMOI
36-1 -087 -00-0 RANDALL L. REDMOI
36-1 -170-00-0 PEGGY O. ANDREWS
36-2-004-00-0 C &: E, INC.
36-2-005-00-0 THOMAS W. QUERY
36-2-006-00-0 WILLIAM P. BUTLER
MARY FAYE BUTLER
36-2-009-00-0 SIZEMORE SECURITY
36-2-010-00-0 SOUTHEASTERN NEW
36-2-025-00-0 H. ALLEN STRICKLA~
WILLIAM F. FRANKE,
36-2-026-00-0 GEORGE R. SIBLEY,
36-2-027-00-0 CAROLYN C. BAGGO'
JEAN C. BEALL
36-2-028-00-0 MARY RUTH WATERS
36-2-029-00-0 MARY WATERS
36-2-030-00-0 JERUSALEM BAPTIST
36-2-031-00-0 ROBERT G. MILLER
ROBERT G. MILLER,
36-2-032-00-0 G &: R ELECTRIC Ci
36-2-033-00-0 G &: R ELECTRIC C
36-2-034-00-0 CHARLES BUSH
36-2-038-00-0 MARY RUTH WATERS
36-2-039-00-0 W.S. COOK
39-2-041-00-0 BETTYE G. ZAFFIRO
39-2-041-01-0 CLYDE W. JONES
39-3-001-00-0 LEE JERNIGAN &: S(
36-3-002-00-0 HAL H. HOLMES
36-3-003-00-0 HAL H. HOLMES
36-3-004-00-0 HAL H. HOLMES
36-3-010-00-0 BRENDA B. SHACKE
36-3-011-00-0 G. RAYMOND SHACK
36-3-012-00-0 MIKE PADGETT
36-3-013-00-0 JOHN R. HOWARD, '
36-3-015-00-0 CREED C. BYRD
36-3-016-00-0 CREED C. BYRD
36-3-035-00-0 B. C. ROOKS
36-3-036-00-0 ELECTRIC REALlY SAI
36-3-037 -00-0 E. L. DOUGlAS. JR.
AS TRUSTEE
36-3-101-00-0 ENTERPRISE MILL. Ll
36-3-103-00-0 SALVATION ARMY
36-3-104-00-0 ENTERPRISEMILL, LL(
36-3-214-00-0 GRANITEVlLLE COMP,6
36-3-215-00-0 SALVATION ARMY
36-3-241-00-0 OSBON MEDICAL SY~
36-3-242-00-0 CCA
36-4-098-00-0 CLYDE W. JONES
BENJAMIN R. CHRISTI
36-4-099-00-0 CLYDE W. JONES
...()
~
~
~
z
tJ
~
~
/
/
/
/
/
...()
~
~
(;">
)
I
I
\
I
PARKWAY
TECHNOLOGY
SE
ENTERPR
STREET
I
-1---
I
SAINT SEBASTIAN WAY EXTENSION UTILIZING COTTAGE STREET CORRIDOR
3th
1
v
P.c
GEORGIA
997
Whitehurst
1
JULY 30,
COUNTY,
200.
FEE T
B Y
&
00'
RICHMOND
PRE PAR E D
RObertson
N
o
50'
SCALE
00'
00'
1
-
AUGUSTA
"
cranston
1
SCALE
.
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30903
SURVEYORS APPENDIX F
,
DRAWER 2546
PLANNERS
P.O
,
452 ELLIS STREET
ENGINEERS
.
.
.
: I
~
~
(;">
I
\
.
--
PARCEL PROPERTY OWNER REQUIRED REQUIRED
NO, RIGHT_OF_WAY EASEMENT AREA REMAINDER
S.F. Acres S.F. Acres Acres
46_'_64 HOUSING AUTHORI1Y OF AUGUSTA 191037 0.44- 71820 0.,8 3.49
46_'_'0.2 W. RODGER GILES, INC. TRACT. A. N/A N/A 31053 0.07 2.28
46_'_'0.' ~ RODGER GILES, INC. TRACT.tr 444- 0.01 976 0.02 0.97
36_3_'0' ENTERPRISE MILL. LLC 551387 ,.27 17,324 0.40 9.36
36_3_'03 SALVATION ARMY 140 0.003 21202 0.05 0.557
36_3_'04 ENTERPRISE MILL. LLC 21439 0.06 61469 0.,5 ,.50
36_3_214 AVONDALE MILLS, INC. 111884 0.27 61461 0.,5 2.27
46_'_36 UNNERSITY HEALTH SERVlCES, INC. 51955 0.,4 61007 0.,4 18.81
46_'_46. 1 WILLIAU 8. MUWNS 21924- 0.07 21718 0.06 0.91
46_'_44- BOARD OF REGENTS 55 .001 595 0.01 6.529
c~.
REQUIRED RIGHT_OF_WAY & EASEMENT AREAS
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY PARKWA Y
PHASE I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY PARKWA Y
PHASE I
AN ENGINEERING REPORT
PREPARED FOR
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
The Honorable Larry Sconyers, Mayor
Lee Beard
Ulmer Bridges
Henry H. Brigham
Jerry Brigham
Freddie Lee Handy
Bill Kuhlke, Jr.
William H. Mays, ill
James B. Powell
Steve Shepard
Moses Todd
Charles R. Oliver
Administrator
Jack F. Murphy
Interim Director of Public Works and Engineering
Clifford A. Goins
Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering
Prepared by
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.c.
Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
P.O. Box 2546 - 452 Ellis Street
Augusta, Georgia 30903
August 13, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Enterprise Technology Parkway
Phase I
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................
A. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II.
Basis of Study ......................................................
A. Traffic Projections ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Typical Cross Section .........................................
C. Subsurface Soil Conditions ......................................
D. Roadway Alignment Alternatives .................................
E. Canal Crossing Alternatives .....................................
F. Alternative Impacts ............................................
1. Roadyvay Alternative Impacts ..............................
a. Visual Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Continuity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. Local Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. Right-of-way Impacts ..............................
f. Historic and Environmental Impacts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Canal Crossing Alternative Impacts .........................
a. Visual Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Local Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Recreational Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Discussio11 of Impacts ....................................
a. Road\vay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Canal Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Alternative Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H. Alternative Comparisons ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
1
3
4
4
4
6
6
7
10
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
18
19
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
(Continued)
Page
III. Sununary, Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
A. Sununary and Conclusions ......................................
B. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
24
Appendices
A. References
B. A verage Daily Traffic Sketches
C. Foundation Investigation Report by CSRA Testing & Engineering
D. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Enterprise Teclmology Parkway - Phase I
E. Preferred Alternative Plan
F. Required Right-of-Way Map
List of Tables
1 . Roadway Alternative Impacts Summary
2 . Canal Crossing Alternative Impacts Summary
3 . Cost Estimate Surllinaries
4. Roadway Alternative Comparisons
5. Bridge Alternative Comparisons
List of Figures
1. Typical Section
2. Roadway Alternative A
3. Roadway Alternative B
4. Roadv.,ray Alternative C
5. Roadway Alternative D
6. Roadway Alternative E
7. Alternative I - Turmel
8. Alternative II - Suspension Bridge
9. Alternative III - Steel-Concrete Composite Bridge
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
The past twenty-five years have brought considerable change to the downtown Augusta area
in the forms of suburban migration, variations in retail shopping habits, downtown decline,
downtown revitalization, traffic improvements, railroad overpasses and pockets of traffic congestion.
The continuing recent trend toward the redevelopment of the downtown area has presented an
opportunity to strengthen p0l1ions of tIllS area which have long been dormant, provided current
traffic congestion and future traffic needs are addressed.
The late 1970's brought to the Augusta area two suburban malls which provided attractive
altematives to retail shopping located dovmtown. In fact, the opening of the malls, together with the
relocation of many professional offices, to follow suburban migration resulted in a number of vacant
buildings and a general decline in the downtovm area.
A notable exception to this decline has been the "Medical Campus" located essentially
between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets and south of Walton Way. This Medical Campus is
comprised of the Medical College of Georgia, University Hospital Complex, Veterans
Administration Hospital and related facilities. While the downtown core area suffered from the loss
of retail stores and professional businesses, the Medical Campus has grown through the acquisition
and reuse of existing nearby buildings and the construction of new facilities.
Early in the 1980's Augusta Tomorrow, Inc., the public/private partnership established to
spearhead the redevelopment of downtown Augusta, and officials from the City of Augusta
commissioned the development of a downtown master plan for the purpose of stimulating growth
and revitalization in the downtown area. The completed plan was adopted and many pOltions of the
redevelopment program were implemented, particularly those located along the riverfront.
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Following the success of revitalization along the river, Augusta Tomorrow commissioned
an updated master plan for the City of Augusta focusing on redevelopment away from the riverfront.
Completed in 1994, the new master plan identified an underutilized area of the City of Augusta
located between the Medical Campus and the central core of the city for use as a possible
Technology Park. Development of this area would provide a needed link between the Medical
Campus and downtown, allowing medical-related business to grow to the north which would have
the e1Iect of strengthening the overall downtown revitalization efforts.
Also in 1994, the Augusta Canal Master Plan was separately completed under the direction
of the Augusta Canal Authority to establish a plan for development of this scenic and historic canal.
The plan suggested the placement of a Canal Visitors Center in the area bounded by Walton Way
on the south, Reynolds Street to the north, Thirteenth Street on the east, and Fifteenth Street on the
west. It was suggested that an ideal location for the Visitors Center \vould be in the portion of
Enterprise Mill Complex k110\Vn as the Granite Mill, which is located at the heali of these boundaries
and in the Sal11e area as the Technology Park proposed in the updated Downtown Master Plan. The
plan also proposed a major economic development initiative for the Enterprise Mill, envisioned as
a mix of tourist-related facilities, employment and residential uses to benefit from proximity to the
canal. A local entrepreneur has undertaken this adaptive use project. Unfortunately, the existing
road network provides poor access to these potential tourist and economic development destinations.
The completion of the initial phases of the long awaited Riverwatch Parkway in 1991 \vas
heralded as a major step in improving traffic flow to al1d from dovmtown and residential areas to the
west, and was seen as especially beneficial to workers at facilities in the Medical Complex.
However, the cOlmecting route they must follow, Fifteenth Street, has become overloaded during
rush hour due to the traffic it receives from its intersections with Calhoun Express\vay and
Riverwatch Parhvay.
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Given the Fifteenth Street congestion, an options study of the Fifteenth Street area at the Butt
Memorial Bridge crossing of the Augusta Canal was commissioned by the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Conmlission in 1994. The purpose of the study was to evaluate schemes for
making a new railroad overpass, while improving traffic flow on Fifteenth Street and possibly saving
the Butt Memorial Bridge as a historic landmark. One of the ideas arising from the study was the
possibility of constructing a new roadway between Thirteenth Street and Fifteenth Street and
extending from Walton Way to Reynolds Street to relieve traffic congestion by providing an
alternate direct route to Rivenvatch Parkway.
The 1994 Augusta Tomorrow Master Plan and the Augusta Canal Master Plan both
suggested the need for a new road which would COlU1ect Walton Way to downtown by crossing the
canal and passing through the area of Enterprise Mill. Similarly, the Fifteenth Street study's
preferred option identified a needed new road in the same "Enterprise Redevelopment Zone" to
relieve congestion on Fifteenth Street, while also providing a route for traffic during the construction
of Fifteenth Street improvements when the Butt Memorial Bridge would be closed.
B. Purpose
In light of the multiple identified needs for a new cOlmector road in downtown Augusta, this
study was conmlissioned to detennine the most feasible route to connect Walton Way, Greene Street
and ultimately Reynolds Street \vithin the bqundaries that will best serve the needs of the Medical
Campus and Augusta-Richmond County. The primary objectives of such a roadway are to stimulate
a gro'N1h corridor between the Medical Campus and the core area of the Augusta business district
for enhancing continued downtown redevelopment, and to provide relief to the densely traveled
existing aJ1erials that not only serve the Medical Campus but also convey pass-through traffic
proceeding from residential areas to the downtown core.
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. Scope
The scope of this study includes detailed analysis of Phase I of the route, lying between
Walton Way and Greene Street. Phase II will extend the new road from Greene Street to Reynolds
Street to complete the roadway corridor and has been considered here only with regard to aligrunent.
The study encompasses an evaluation of a number of alternatives for roadway routes and crossings
of the first level of the Augusta Canal. The evaluation has been based on interviews with
representatives of Augusta-Richmond County, Augusta Tomorrow, Inc., Augusta Canal Authority,
and the Medical Campus facilities as well as the analysis of a number of selected parameters. Each
alternative has been rated and compared to other routes for the purpose of making a final route
selection. A detailed preliminary cost estimate of the selected alternative has been provided for
budgeting purposes.
II. BASIS OF STUDY
In order to develop and assess the merits of each alternative route, several key factors were
identified and studied in greater detail. These included developing estimated traffic volumes,
conducting a limited geotechn.ical investigation, and identifying viable route cOlTidors. Through use
of this information, preliminary geometric design parameters were set, a typical roadway section was
adopted, and unit cost figures \vere developed. Finally, the alternative routes were identified for
analysis, comparative impact considerations were established, preliminary cost projections were
generated, and alternatives were rated. Based upon the analysis, a prefened alternative was selected.
A. Traffic Projections
An area of substantial importance in attempting to develop a conceptual plan for a proposed
roadway cOlmecting Walton Way to Reynolds Street was the estimate of existing and future traffic
volumes on the CUlTent road system and the proposed new road. The primary impact of such
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
volumes concerns whether a two-lane road would suffice to meet project objectives or whether a
multi-lane road would be required.
Existing traffic was analyzed using traffic volumes published by the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission in January of 1997. These traffic volumes were compiled from
studies prepared by the Georgia Department of Transportation. The area evaluated is bounded by
Walton Way, Fifteenth Street, Thirteenth Street, and Reynolds Street. The traffic volumes developed
from this study \vere compared to volumes generated in the Fifteenth Street Transportation Study
and were found to be very similar. A sketch showing volumes for the existing roadways is shown
in Appendix B.
In an urban setting new roadway planning is usually conducted on the projections for traffic
volumes ten years into the future. However in the case of a road \vhich would generate groVolth, there
is a good bit of variance in the projections \vhen the exact nature of the grO\vth, its types of
businesses and the number of trips generated to service such businesses are not specifically known.
In light of the above, this study has utilized the estimated traffic for a new connector road as
published in the Fifteenth Street Options Study. In addition to the adjacent streets listed above,
traffic volumes from Riverwatch Parkway and Jolm C. Calhoun Express\vay were considered in
detennining the projected traffic volumes along the proposed new roadway. Although these traffic
volumes are only projected to the year 2000, they have been based on assumptions of such
development along the con-idor as a medical office and research center, residential hotel, marina and
proposed canal visitors center.
The Daily Traffic Volume Summary for the project year 2000, which is also attached in
Appendix B, shows projections of between 10,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day on the proposed road.
As actual development trends become evident, existing computer modeling could be used to
Page 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
determine more precise estimated trafiic numbers. It should also be noted that the current future
traffic assumptions are based upon the Fifteenth Street Overpass project being completed, and its
current status is uncertain.
B. Typical Cross Section
Based upon the projected traffic volumes for a new COlmector road it was evident that a four-
lane road would need to be constructed to meet the year 2000 traffic volumes. A typical roadway
section ,vas then developed which consists of two 24-foot wide driving lanes separated by a concrete
and/or grassed median of variable width. A five foot wide sidewalk with a three foot wide grass strip
is also proposed along both sides of the roadway. The pavement cross-section consists of 1 W' of
asphaltic concrete surface course, 2" asphaltic concrete binder course, 4" asphaltic concrete base
course, 1 A" aggregate base course and was used based upon recent experience on a similar roadway
\vith similar projected traffic volumes. Figure 1 shows the typical cross-section selected for analysis
purposes.
C. Subsurface Soil Conditions
Cost of construction of a new crossing of the canal will be directly affected by the underlying
soils conditions and the type of structure foundation required. In order to estimate costs better, a
limited geoteclmical exploration was conducted by CSRA Testing & Engineering Company for the
purpose of assessing the engineering characteristics of the underlying soils at the proposed First
Level Canal crossing site.
The soils were found to be extremely soft to a layer approximately 13 feet below the top of
the canal banks, or one foot below the canal bottom. Stiffer soils were encountered to a depth of 40
feet. CSRA Testing has recommended that HP 12 x 53 steel piles be used in the construction of a
bridge foundation to a depth of approximately 35 feet below the top of the canal banks to develop
Page 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LIGHTING @ 60'-0"(0.C. )(TYP)
~ - 90' -a" *(MIN) - - - - -
-
11/2" ASPHALT
CONC. SURFACE
COURSE
>- GRASSED STRIP \ >-
<( <(
3: 41'-0" 3:
1L.. ~ 41'-0' - - 1L..
0 0
I- 3' 24' 24' fi l-
I i-f-2'-6" 2'-6"=1 2'-6"- I
<..? 2'-6" <..?
~ 0:::
---=
~
- MEDIAN-CONCRETE ~
I ~ OR GRASS
SIDEWALK
10" GRADED AGGREGATE 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE
BASE COURSE BASE COURSE BINDER COURSE
82'-0"
* - VARIES
~ TYPICAL SECTION
-- -
SCALE 1 10'-0"
qj
<.0
Cl)
I ~
--..
CJ1
Cl)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a pile capacity of 40 tons. More detailed information on subsurface conditions can be found in the
geotechnical report in Appendix C.
D. Roadway Alignment Alternatives
After preliminary assessment of the overall project area and discussions with representatives
of Augusta-Riclunond County, it was determined that two primary corridors exist which can
generally meet project objectives. These corridors are fairly close together and basically have two
options as to the staI1ing point of each end of the roadway. These include the Fourteenth Street
Corridor, which would extend from an intersection with Greene Street at a point in line with the
extension of Fou11eenth Street as it passes from Reynolds Street south to Broad Street and on toward
Greene Street and tenninating either at St. Sebastian Way or New Bailie Street on Walton Way; or
the Cottage Street COlTidor, which would extend from Reynolds Street via a mid block route
between F oU11eenth Street and Fifteenth Street to the intersection of Cottage Street and Greene
Street, and thence south to either the intersection of St. Sebastian Way or New Bailie Street at
Walton Way.
In consideration of the two possible cOlTidors and the typical roadway section, five roadway
altematives were identified for evaluation in this study. Factors considered in selecting alignments
included reuse of existing road rights-of-way, impact on existing structures, position of support
structure columns for Calhoun Expressway, location of existing intersections, and horizontal and
ve11ical aligm11ent. It is noted that only one of the alternatives is shown to connect to Walton Way
at an intersection with New Bailie Street, although all alternatives shovm to intersect at St. Sebastian
Way could be reworked to intersect at New Bailie Street. However, as \vill be discussed later, the
New Bailie Street intersection has a number of detracting elements and has thus been shown on only
one alternative.
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative A-
Cottage Street Corridor intersecting with Walker Street!
New Bailie Street Connector
This altemative includes constructing a roadway route from Greene Street as it aligns with
Cottage Street and ultimately tying into Walton Way at the New Bailie Street intersection, as
illustrated on Figure 2. In order for this route to pass under the John C. Calhoun Expressway
without interfering with the bridge piers, the route would need to make a sharp tum to access New
Bailie Street, but a curve this sharp would not meet the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendations. To eliminate the sharp tum, the route could
be tied to a connector roadway as shown that would extend from Walker Street at the Thirteenth
Street intersection to New Bailie Street.
Alternative B-
Saint Sebastian \\lay Extension utilizing the
Fourteenth Street Corridor
This altemative cOlmects the FOUl1eenth Street Corridor at Greene Street with St. Sebastian
Way at its intersection with \\Talton Way. The route, illustrated on Figure 3, is continuous and
requires the single-directional lanes to be separated by approximately 200 feet at the Jolm C.
Calhoun Expressway overpass to clear the piers and maintain the maximum allowable curvature.
Alternative C-
Saint Sebastian \\lay Extension utilizing the
Cottage Street Corridor
This altemative utilizes an intersection at Greene Street and Cottage Street and a more direct
route to the intersection of St. Sebastian Way at Walton Way. Illustrated on Figure 4, it includes
a 60 foot separation of the individual travel lanes to pass the Calhoun Expressway bridge piers.
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative D-
Saint Sebastian Way Extension utilizing the
Cottage Street Corridor
TIlls route provides yet a more direct line to St. Sebastian Way from Greene Street as shown
on Figure 5. This alternative attempts to lessen the impact on the existing Radio Cab building on
the east side of Cottage Street south of Greene Street by moving the Cottage Street alignment some
60 feet to the west as compared to Alternative C.
Alternative E -
Saint Sebastian 'Vay Extension utilizing the Cottage
Street Corridor
This alternative is routed very similar to Alternative D \vith the exception of a slight shift to
the west along Greene Street as illustrated on Figure 6. This shift of approximately ten feet was
considered to allow for the Phase II corridor to have less impact on the parking and loading areas
used by businesses and a church along the route.
Page 9
-
"
-
--
~
~
,
--
-
'"
-
1
-
-
..-
~
>
I
;}
\
"'- ..
v .
/ /
,-
,-
<. -
I
I
,
I
__J
- ) ~
-
~
~
Cranston
452 ELLIS STREET
ENGINEERS
I III r E
PR(PARED liT
RobE~rtson & Whitehurst P.C
- "i -
- it -
- P.o. ORAWER 2546 - AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30903
Ii PlANNERS SURVEYORS
FIGURE
2
"
v
f
/
-4 :"
r /
J /
k :"
I ,/
'/
I '
: )
L___
s'.c A
~ J8-3-Z.Z 0
C D
I ..'
f
I
>
,
'}
-l
J
'1
I '1
-l
I
I
~ I __
:= )
~ I '....-2>4 I
" III /,
I /-
I.: .
/, .'
r;~"
l...~
.' #
-
i
It\LTERNA TIVE A
'1 or
':
ENTERPRISE TB,:CHNOLOGY PARKWAY
COTTAGE STREET CORRIDOR INTERSECTING WITH WALKER STREET/NEW BAILIE STREET CONNECTOR
AUGUSTA - Rlt:HMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
,
I
JULY 3D, 1997
"",. '00' zoo' '00'
-
\
.
v .
/
/
/
/
Z -
1
I
I
I
__J
- )
- u
==
n
/
I
f
I
...J
I /
J /
k :'
C-
O
:I:
:z
~
~_J"
G) rn
:::0
rT1
rT1 ~ .}6-J-242
:z
rT1 C~
I ...
1
-I
"
-
~
-
-
ENTERPRISE
SAINT SEBASTIAN
AUGUSTA
200'
Cranston,
52 ELLIS STREET
ENGINEERS
, feE,
s C " l [
i ~ q e: p 4. " E 0 BY
Ro bertson & Whitehurst. P.C
- - -
- - -
Ii P.Q DRAWER 2546 fA, GEORGIA
-I. PlANNERS SU,9VE'YORS FIGURE 3
j
IALTERNAT,VE B
lor
T[CHNOLOGY PARKWAY
WAY EXTJENSION UTILIZING 14TH. STREET CORRIDOR
- R!'CHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
I JULY 30. 1997
I
100' ! (J 200' 4QO'
c:::::::="
~
Cranston
452 ELUS STREET
ENGINEERS
/
15 (: ^ I .~ . e:
I
I PRE;I"REO 9'r
Rob:~ertson &_Whitehurst P.C
=--1' P.O. DRAWER 2545 - AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30903
- P/pNNERS 5UR'./EYO.RS
'I
,I
FIGURE
4
..
.
I
r-"
/
/
/ I'
1/
I ;
i J
n
u
f
L___
I
/ ...
:' /
(ALTERNATIVE C
lor
I
ENTERPRISE T[CHNOLOGY PARKWAY
SAINT SEBASTIAN WAY EXTENSION UTILIZING COTTAGE STREET CORRIDOR
I
AUGUSTA - RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
\
200' loo..l JULY 30. 199:00 ",0
j
C>
::::0
("Tl
("Tl
:z
("Tl
~_~I
I
I
I
I
-
- 400'
. I
;:(Ei
. y
& Whitehurst P.C
-
A.UGUSTA, GEORGIA .30903
SU.'?'iEYORS FIGURE 5 !
-j
/
/
<,
1
I
I
,
__J
c:::=::::==
.
.
~
u
I;
! '
: )
f
/
-A
r /
j /
1 :'
L__
C-
o
:l:
z:
~
C)
;0
rT1
rT1
z:
rT1
1
1
~
-
-
~
-
-
ENTERPRISE
SAINT SEBASTIAN
AUGUSTA
200'
.
L
Cranston,
452 ELLJS ST.~EET
ENGINEERS
'00'
~ I
,.
~ C A
F> It E P A ,q E
R:? bJ~rtson
IIp,a. DRAWER 2545
I' PlANNERS
,
Ilr
JULY 30
I
)'AL TERNA riVE 0
I or
T~CHNOLOGY PARKWAY
WAY EXTtNSION UTILIZING COTTAGE STREET CORRIDOR
- R}CHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
!,
1997
-
I
/
<.
--,
I
I
I
~ ~
E:----> =:== -
-
.
.
u
Ii
n
v
I
r-'/ ;1
/ /
L___
/;
I i
: /
/
~
C)
:::0
('T1
('T1 J6-J- 242
z:
('T1\
1
-I
J
'1
'1
-;
i
I
=
01 REF. APPENDIX C
ENTERPRISE
SAINT SEBASTIAN
AUGUSTA
Cranston,
452 EluS STREST
ffl/GlfJEERS
I JULY 30. 1997
2CO' 100' 200'
I
I ALTERNATIVE E
I 0 F
TfCHNOLOGY PARKWAY
WAY Di'TENSION UTILIZING COTIAGE STREET CORRIDOR
I
- ptlCHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
5 C F [
pR[~A,REO BY
I
Robertson &_Whitehurst P.C.
- --
P.G. DRAWER 2546 AUGUSTA. CSORGIA 30903
J ,oL4NNtRS SUR'/!:YORS
,I
<00'
FIGURE
6
\
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
."
E. Canal Crossing Alternatives
The crossing of the First Level of the Augusta Canal between Walton Way and Greene Street
is perhaps the most critical feature of the proposed new roadway. The crossing must account for
recreational watercraft on the canal, the future Augusta Canal Bikeway, and pedestrian traffic on the
new crossing structure, while at the same time presenting an aesthetic element which fits into the
surrounding landscape. In developing the alternatives, a clearance of eight feet above the nonnal
water level of the canal \vas used, based on a similar clearance being the controlling factor of the
.. nearby Butt Memorial Bridge crossing at Fifteenth Street. It was further assumed that the Augusta
Canal Bikeway would take approximately 12 feet in width with an 8 foot clearance. Yet aIlother
controlling factor was an assumption of a minimum design speed of 35 mph on the roadway. This
speed then dictates the degree of curvature on the bridge to accommodate minimum sight distances,
which in turn establishes the minimum bridge deck surface elevation. Based upon preliminary
design analysis, three options for crossing the canal including a tunnel and two bridge configurations
have been identified for further study.
In consideration of the design speed, the minimum deck elevation and the minimum
clearance required for boat traffic on the Augusta Canal, a maximum bridge girder depth of 27
inches using a 7 Ih inch thick concrete deck can be used to cross the canal at spans of 60 feet.
Inasmuch as it would take approximately 120 feet to span both canal banks, it is not possible to make
a single span of the canal including its banks with a girder-type bridge, given consideration of all
constraints.
Alternative I -
Concrete Tunnel
A concrete tUl111el could be utilized to cross under the canal as shown on Figure 7. In order
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to meet the minimum geometric recommendations of AASHTO, the tunnel would need to be
conslructed as dual barrels measuring 31 feet wide for two traffic lanes and 14 feet in height to allow
for minimum truck clearance. Drainage of the tunnel area would be by pumping.
Alternative II
Suspension Bridge
A suspension bridge could be constructed to span the canal as illustrated on Figure 8. The
suspension bridge would allow for a single-span condition over the canal. This bridge alternative
could be constructed using 4" diameter main cables supported by prestressed or cast-in-place
concrete towers. The main cable catenary would have a maximum sag of 12 feet. The primary
substructure would consist of the abutment towers and prestressed concrete main girder supported
by the main cable using 2" dian1eter suspenders. A conventional bridge would be required to span
the remaining distance over the canal bank to allow for the Augusta Canal Bikeway as shov'il1.
Alternative III
Steel Girder with Concrete Composite Deck
A steel girder/concrete composite deck would provide a standard type bridge structure.
Although the alternative would need to be constructed in a minimum of three spans to cross the
canal, a minimum number of four spans would be required to allow for the passage of the Augusta
Canal Bikeway and five spans, as illustrated in Figure 9, to provide symmetry or another bikeway
on the south side. The bridge would be constructed by using 27 inch deep steel girders on the
interior and steel facia girders on the exterior that would present an arched appearance for aesthetics.
A decorative handrail and lighting would be used to enhance the arched appearance of the bridge.
Lastly, the bridge could be designed to accommodate the Augusta Canal Bikeway on either side of
the canal, although it has been anticipated that the bikeway will be designed on the north side.
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
<0
~
~
,
~
'0
~
~
~
:~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AL TERi\jA TI VE I
I .
TUNNEL
LOOKING UPSTREAM
SCALE: VERT: 1" = 10
HORIZ 1" = 50
0+00
+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
0+00
+00
12+00
20
30
40
PROPOSED GRADE
TUNNEL BOTTOM SLAB
TUNNEL TOP SLAB
50
60
>-
<(
~
z
o
I-
-l
<(
~
eJ
::Zt:z:~%;I:Il:::I:I%:D:z:rcr~
LEXISTING GRADE
-------------- --------------
HANDRAIL
TYP
TYP
DIKE~
/...\ 53.5 ~
.... \: -
.... \
,//./ "
.... "
,,=---
I
.J
---------------------
r-......
""""~~:OPOSED BIKEPATH
70
AUGUSTA CANAL. FIRST LEVEL
80
90
./
(
I
i I
if)
if)
w
a::
~ I.
w ,
I
3 I
o ,
I I
-' ,
j I
II
eJ (
::::----____1
--------:J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
i
I
I
i
.
J
I
,
I
;
-
,
I
!
!
I)
,
I
I
I
~
~
on
~
~
:i
,
S
,,;
~
~
I
20
130
50
40
60
70
I I
I
i
16 SPACES @ 7'-6" 20'-0" 40'-0" 40'-0"
-
,
I
PROPOSED GRADE ~ ;::b ~.
- -
- -
-------------------................ -____ NORMAL POOL ELEVAnON . 153.5> / / .----------7-_ ____________
______----------------------~EXISTING GRADE (Typ ---- ~ /
-- /
----------.--------- -------------.../ EXISTING GRADE (TYP)-/'
PROPOSED BIKE PATH
AUGUSTA CANAL, FIRST LEVEL
5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50
I
AL TERNA TIVE IT
SUSPENSION BRIDGE
LOOKIl'vG UPSTREAM
SCALE: VERT: 1 ' = 10'
HORIZ 1 = 10 10 ~ 'll. .20
- I
seA 1
~";"
;
FIGURE 8
--~
8+00
1
1
I
'1'
I 70
60
I;
150
I 140
I 130
,
..
I 120
I.
(I I ., . ..
I 170
I 160
150
I
140
I 130
I ~ 120
. ;
I ~
'i
I i
I I
~
~
5+00
5+00
55'-0 55'-0" 60'-0" 55'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE
- -
-------------------.............. NORMAL POOL ELEVATION ~ 153.5:1: ................-------------,.Jt____
.------------~EXISTlNG GRADE (lyp) -----__ - /' /------______
'--CONCRETE RETAINING WALL . ....--------------------------____JL--\/ EXISTING GRADE (TYIf)
PROPOSED BIKE PATH
~OPOSED BIKE PATH AUGUSTA CANAL. FIRST LEVEL
INTERIOR BRIDGE SECTION
5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 (7+50
I
I
, 0" I
55 - 55'-0" 60'-0" 55'-0" I ' ..
I I , ,j 55 -0
-PROPOSED GRADE DECORATIVE HANDRAIL
'''..''.....-...''"11I111.''1111,.11.,1111I111I.,11I11111111111111111111I111I11111I11
I
120'R
--------...... ",-----------
--- ---- ............ NORMAL POOL ELEVATION ~ ......... ---- _____
------------~EXISTlNG GRADE (TYP) -....---__. /// /-- -------_____
-- ~ /
-- /
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ------------------------- -- __--.J EXISTING GRADE (TYPl
PROPOSED BIKE PATH
PA TH AUGUSTA CANAL, FIRST LEVEL
EXTERIOR BRIDGE SECTION
5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ill
STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE BRIDGE
LOOKING UPSTREAM
10 0 to 7:0
ER T I , ;.. ,.
SCALE v-: = 10 SCALE ,N 'I'
HORIZ 1 = 10 :
FIGURE
8+00
8+00
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F. Alternative Impacts
In order to better evaluate the overall viability of the various alternatives, a number of impact
considerations were identified. By nature, the rating of altern'atives according to these impacts is
somewhat subjective, but it is unlikely than anyone individual impact would sway the overall
decision. However, given two alternatives of approximately .the same cost and degree of meeting
project objectives, the total effect of these impacts on one alternative or the other might tilt the final
selection of the preferred alternative.
1. Roadway Alternative Impacts
The construction of a new roadway in an urban area will necessarily have an impact
on its surroundings. The identified roadway alternatives have been evaluated based
upon visual impacts, accessibility, continuity, local compatibility, rights-of-way, and
historic and environmental impacts. These impacts are discussed below.
a. Visual Impact
Visual impact involves an evaluation of how the roadway will appear when
completed. The analysis considers the aesthetic potential for landscaping
along the route and generally how the roadway will look. In this assessment,
for instance, a roadway with sharp curvature, no planting areas, and bisecting
of a public park would be a negative impact; whereas a roadway with gentle
curvature, extensive landscaping, and decorative sidewalk would have a
positive impact.
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b.
Accessibility
TI1e purpose for constructing the new roadway includes relieving traffic flow
on other adjacent arterial routes and encouraging development along the
corridor. If accessing the roadway becomes a burden on motorists or if
motorists are hindered by restrictions put in place along the roadway, they
may very well choose to continue using the existing routes or may not
frequent businesses developed along the road. Thus, how well the roadway
can be accessed is an impact to be considered and easy access is considered
a positive impact.
c.
Continuity
From a strict traffic flow standpoint; the design of the roadway should
provide a corridor as straight as possible bet\veen Walton Way and Greene
Street to facilitate traffic movement. Intennediate stop conditions or a jog in
the cOlTidor that would tend to slow traffic flow would be a negative impact
on the roadway, whereas a direct route without stopping would be a positive
impact.
d.
Local Compatibility
Especially in an historic area, the ability of the roadway to blend with the
local sUlToundings is desired. Items such as fill slopes or concrete retaining
walls along the roadway play an important role in whether the roadway will
blend with the area. In this analysis, a roadway considered to enhance its
environment would be a positive impact.
Page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e. Right-Of- Way Impacts
The amount of right-of-way required can be a major impact on the alternative
selection because of the cost ofland in an urban setting and the possible cost
of building demolition. An alternative that has the least amount of required
right-of-way and would limit the amount of business/property disruptions
would generally receive a positive i1i1pact in the ratings, whereas the
alternative requiring more right-of -way to construct would receive a negative
impact rating.
f. Historic and Environmental Impacts
Any alternatives that would involve razing or significantly altering the setting
of historic structures would receive a negative impact rating. Negative
envirolUnental impacts would accompany any alternative causing the
disturbance of wetlands or endangered plant and animal species or known
archeological sites.
2.
Canal Crossing Alternative Impacts
The canal crossing alternative impact evaluation was conducted in a similar maImer
to the roadway analysis. The bridge and tmmel altematives were evaluated for visual
impacts, local compatibility, and recreational impacts.
a. Visual Impact
The structure geometry, type, materials, lighting, and handrails are all
considered important components of the visual impact of the Augusta Canal
crossing. In the best case, a visually pleasing structure, such as the Butt
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Memorial Bridge, would be deemed to have a positive impact.
b. Local Compatibility
How well the structure fits into its surroundings will affect its rating. An
expensive, futuristic bridge, for example, might be out of place in a
nineteenth century vintage neighborhood and receive a negative rating. On
the other hand, a steel girder bridge that presents a gentle arched effect
similar to the Butt Memorial Bridge would receive a positive rating.
c. Recreational Impact
The canal crossing needs to allow for watercraft to pass along the canal and
for the proposed Augusta Canal Bikeway. Any alternative that accounts for
both of these considerations would receive a positive impact rating.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the impacts of the various alternatives evaluated. The tabular
representation used is a simple method to assess whether the alternative evaluated has a positive
impact (+), negative impact (-), or no appreciable impact (0). In addition, a summary line for a
cumulative ordinal rating is included. For purposes of this analysis all alternatives have been rated
relative to each other and the alternatives are ranked from 1 to 5 for roadway and 1 to 3 for canal
crossing based on all impacts considered.
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
~~
..~
~
-<
Eo-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
o Cl)
~ .... OJ)s :E -5
t., ~ t:
~ ~:!::l 0 B
E:::~==uQ)
~ 0,= =' i ~
:<:l{j5tlO
~ -fl 'Vi Vl r-
f-,;Vl5~-g
~c;5Jj~~_
U '" ~
~
j
o
CZl
CZl
~
U
<
~
.....
>=
.....
~
<
~
~
~
<
~
<
~
o
<
o
~
~ 5 Co)
Q o-:E-5
r., W OJ) t:
~ ~.5 0 B
E:::~~uQ)
~ .- '';: t) ~
:<:~~~~
Cl::.ooVl
~ Cl)._ Cl) ~
f-,;Vl;gOJ)Cl)
o....l....;Cl)~~
"<l::Vlxo..c-
UJu"'~
~
Cl) Ci
U >.-5:E
~ OJ) t:
~ ~.s 0
E:::~~u
~ .- '':= 't)
<:~::l~
Cl::.o5Vl
~ Cl)._ Cl)
f-,;Vl;gOJ)
~c;5B~
;< 0
UJu
Cl)
Cl:l ....-5 ~
~ OJ) Cl)
~ ~.s ~
E:::c~VlCi
:"l::: .~ .= -5 :E
:<:t:i::lct:
Cl:: ~ g ~ 0
~ Cl)._ t U
f-..:Vl:g:3
o....l ....; Cl) 0
"<l::VlXu"
UJ
5a>t>
"<l:::E~~
~~~~...
,...U-5:-:::B
t""'ol .......- '" u
::::~~o:lg
;:;; tl OJ) ~ C'
- Vl.S Cl) 0
1::: Cl)t)zu
o....l ~ ~ ~
"<l:: ~ ~ ~
u .5 ri5
~
~::::
f-..:Cl::
:51:::
o....l.....
Cl::
:;::u
t.t:J
+
+
+
t)
~
Q.
.5
co
::l
.!!l
>
+
+
+
o
g
;e
'"
'"
Cl)
<.)
u
<C
+
+
+
o
o
.:;
.5
c:
o
U
+
+
+
o
g
;e
'i;
Q.
E
o
u
co
u
o
....J
+
+
.:1
u
~
Q.
.5
~
~
<+!..
o
..!.
ih
2
.:1
u
~
Q.
.5
~]
~ 5
co E
u c
.~ .g
.~ i:
::r:UJ
o
o
N
~
V)
-:t
co
c
~
o
Cl)
.::
'i;
-OJ)
::l C
E .=
::l ~
ucr.::
-
u~
~ U
Q.~
E Q.
r-o.-Et)
......Cl)-~
;Z:>Cl)Q.
UJ '=.:: E
o ~.<;::-
UJ Cl) '" 0
....J;z:a:;z:
,+0
I
I . ..
I
I
I ~
I I
I c;I)
c;I)
E-<
U
I <
~
~
~
I N >
~ ~
E-<
..J <
~ 2
I <
~ UJ
E-<
~
I <
0
2;
c;I)
I c;I)
0
~
u
I ~
<
~
I u
I
I
I
I
I
I
::: 0
~ "\::.gz>
::.: 0.-
~ "0 ....
.!:: c:l
~ 03 + + + -
_ 0
c:::: o ....
~ o (,,)
.... c
!-.; CI) 0
....:l U
":::
::::: 0
~
~ "0
::.: .;:
~c:l
~ .~ 0 + + N
c:::: ~
~ Co)
!-.;o.
....:l III
"'~
-
~
~ ,]
~ I I + M
:3
c:::: !-
~
!-.;
....:l
'"
Z
0 t) -;::;
-:::s r:l .5
!-c:::: 0.
<t.:J E "0
....
:;)E-.; t) - 0
....J- ee ~ -;::; Co)
<0 0. C .::
E ;.e .9
> - ]
UJ or; III ~ ~
III Co) ::l
::l Co) .... E .~
.!!l (,,) (,,)
u Co) ::l '"
> < e:::: ue::::
....
u ....
'" (,,)
0.'"
E ~
O~..:-g
;2:>00.
~.- > ,...
o ~:-2 .s
~ Co) 0 0
....JZc..Z
1+0
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
.J.
Discussion of Impacts
a. Roadway Alignment Alternatives
The following discussion describes the rating of each alternative and why the
ratings were reached.
1) Alternative A, Cottage Street Corridor intersecting with New Bailie
Street, was rated fourth overall. This alternative received a neutral
impact rating for accessibility, inasmuch as its long length and extra
intersection at Thirteenth Street were positive, but its use of New
Bailie Street, which is not a collector road within the Medical
Campus, was a negative; and a neutral rating for local capability due
to the greater length occupying more space. The road received
negative ratings for visual impact, due to an extra intersection with
signalization; continuity, due to the same intersection; right-of-way,
due to the considerably greater length of road and therefore right-of-
way required; and historical impact, due to the required demolition of
the cotton warehouse located west of the Sutherland Mill.
2) Alternative B, Saint Sebastian Way Extension utilizing the
Fourteenth Street Corridor, was rated fifth of the roadway
alternatives. This alternative received a neutral impact rating for
continuity, inasmuch as the direct route from Greene Street to Walton
Way with no intersections or stops was seen to be a positive impact,
but the fact the railroad has moved to the south side of Greene Street
by the time it reaches the proposed new intersection, thereby
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
requiring a grade crossing at the awkward intersection and creating
possible train delays, was seen as a negative impact. It was rated
negatively for visual impact, due to the wide separation between the
directional lanes; for accessability, again due to the wide separation
of lanes; local compatibility, again due to the wide separation of
lanes; for right-of-way, due to the need to take the Salvation Army
building at Greene Street as well as a number of additional buildings
in Phase II; and for historical impact, due to the taking of the cotton
warehouse located west of the Sutherland Mill.
3)
Alternative C, Saint Sebastian Way Extension utilizing the Cottage
Street Corridor, was rated third of the five alternatives. This
alternative was rated positively for visual impact, due to the fairly
narrow median between the directional lanes which could be easily
landscaped and beautified; for accessability, again due to the close
proximity of the directional lanes; for continuity, due to the direct
route between Greene Street and Walton Way with no intersections;
for and local compatibility, due to the clean lines and closeness of the
directional lanes. This alternative was rated negatively with regard
to right-of-way, due to the impact on the Radio Cab building located
north of Greene Street in Phase II, as well as to the impact to the
Phase II church at Jones Street; and for historical impact due to the
taking of the cotton warehouse to the west of the Sutherland Mill.
Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4) Alternative D, Saint Sebastian Way Extension utilizing the Cottage
Street Corridor, was rated second overall. This alternative was a
slight revision with respect to Alternative C, which moved the
roadway some 60 feet to the west. The advantages of this alternative
as compared to Alternative C involved the positive impact from right-
of-way acquisition. This alternative has less impact on the Radio Cab
building and the Jones Street church, both of which would in Phase
11 construction.
5) Alternative E, Saint Sebastian Way Extension utilizing the Cottage
Street Corridor, was rated the number one choice of the five
alternatives with regard to the identified impacts. Again, this
alternative was a slight revision to Alternative D to further lessen the
right-of-way impact ramifications in Phase II construction. It is also
noted that the cotton warehouse to the west of the Sutherland Mill
would not be directly covered by the roadway footprint and might be
able to be saved. There would be some detrimental impact from the
close proximity of a retaining wall to this structure in that event.
b.
Canal Crossing
The following discussion describes the rating of each canal crossmg
alternative and why the ratings were reached.
I) Alternative I, tunnel, has been rated number 3 overall. This
alternative has been assigned a negative rating for accessability, due
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to the fact that the tunnel does not return to grade on either side until
fairly close to Greene Street and Walton Way, thus limiting access.
A positive rating for recreational impact was assigned to this
alternative due to the fact that it would not encumber or limit any use
of the canal upon its completion.
2) Alternative II, suspension bridge, received a number 2 rating as
compared to the other alternatives. This alternative received a neutral
rating for visual impact, tending toward positive due to the fact that
this type of bridge is unusual for the region and would be noteworthy
as such. However, the above is tempered by the fact that the
overhead space in the vicinity of the crossing is already occupied by
a number of overhead power lines and the addition of the suspension
structure might detract from the aesthetics of the overall area by
adding more wires. This alternative was deemed to have a positive
rating with respect to accessability and recreational impact.
3) Alternative III, steel girder/concrete bridge, was deemed to have the
number one rating of the three alternatives. It received a positive
impact rating for visual, accessibility and recreational impacts.
G. Alternative Cost Estimates
In order to further analyze the viability of the various alternatives, an estimated cost for each
has been developed. The cost figures for the alternatives are based on the current Georgia
Department of Transportation Item Mean Summary for April 1997. This cost summary is based on
the average unit costs for all projects let by the Georgia Department of Transportation between the
Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
period of April 1996 through March 1997. Other adjustments were made to individual unit costs
when the Item Mean Summary numbers appeared to be excessively high or low using comparable
costs to recent bid items in our region. The unit costs have been adjusted to account for inf1ation
over the next three years at an average rate of 4.0 percent. The comparative costs for each roadway
and bridge alternative are shown on Table 3.
In summary, Alternative A of the roadway alignments had the highest cost at some
$2,600,000, while the remaining alternatives were closely bunched in the $1,890,000 to $2,000,000
range. Alternative III, the steel/girder bridge, was the lowest cost canal crossing alternative at
$1,460,000 while the tunnel alternative was highest at $5,900,000.
Page 20
I.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
~
~
<
~
CI:l
u.J
t:2
<
~
:E
o
CI:l
u.J
E--<
<
~
~
E--<
CI:l
u.J
E--<
CI:l
o
u
h
C5
U
Q
t.:.:l
h
~
E::
13
":l
l<J
:::...
E::
~
~
t.:.:l
f-.,;
-...J
"
o
o
o
o
o
o~
o
I.O~
N
tA
~
....
~
~f)
U
Cl)
'"
...
~
~
~
~
.~J)
...
o
"0
.;::
...
o V
I U Cl)
..... .t:
-<~en
Q) l..., G)
.2: Vi ::
~ G) ~
~ Of) co
- -8. :>
~ 0 [)
<x:UZ
<X:
>-.
'"
~
-0
'"
o
0:::
cci
o
~
o
o
o
o~
o
o
N~
tA
~
~
Of)
t:
U
Cl)
'"
...
Cl)
C
...
o
-0
.;::
...
o
~~
~~
I ....
en t:
CO ..r: .~
.~ C u;
t\1~~
... 1:: Cl)
B;::len
<x:~v5
.D
o
~
o
o
o
ci
o
O'\~
-
tA
:€
~
Of)
.5
U
Cl)
'"
...
Cl)
c
...
o
"0
'E >-.
o '"
IU~
U '0 t:
Q) g .~
.~ CI) ~
t\1 ~~
"~ :3 ~
- '0
<x:uVi
u
o
o
o
o
o
o~
o
~
tA
~~
~ ~
gf~
....0
i:l1.O
~"2
.2c::
t: ~
...Vi
.g~
"i: ca
... ;>.,
o t<:l
IU~
o '0 ~
<l) ~.~
> en u;
t\1 ~~
E t<:l <l)
<l)--en
'::'0
<x:uv5
-d
o
~
o
o
o
ci
0'\
00
tA
=:c;
~ g
Of) '';:;
t: '-
._ -0
.... "0
i:l t<:l
"'-0
... <l)
~~
- ~
...Vi
0-0
"0 :::
"i:: ~
o ~
I~~
UJ <l) t:
<l) :: t<:l
.~ ci3 .~
g ~~
~~lS~
- '0
<x:uVi
~
u;
<l)
~
.8
o
gf
'"
'"
o
...
U
c;
t:
'"
U
<l)
.2:
t\1
E~
<l) t:
.::: ;::l
<X:f-
cci
N
o
o
o
o
o
o~
o
~
V)
tA
<l)
Of)
"0
I 'C
:::CO
<l) ~
.2: .Q
~ ~
t: <l)
2 5i-
:<65
.D
o
~
o
o
o
ci
o
f'"\
N
o
o
o
o
o
0"
1.0
"<t~
tA
tA
<l)
Of)
-0
'i:
co
..;0::
u
<l)
o
<l)
d)
...
U
t:
I 0
U
-I::;
<l) <l)
>-0
...
~6
i:_
<l) <l)
.::: <l)
<x: Vi
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H. Alternative Comparisons
Once the analysis of the effect of various impacts was completed and preliminary cost
estimates were developed for each alternative, a final comparison of roadway alternatives was
undertaken. TIus comparison was based upon achievement of primary objectives, cumulative effect
of identified impacts, and cost of construction. Canal crossing alternatives were compared in
consideration of cumulative effect of identified impact and cost of construction. With respect to
achievement of primary objectives Vv'hich included the enhancement of a growth corridor and a
roadway which would relieve traffic congestion, all alternatives accomplish these purposes.
However, Altemative A which ends at New Bailie Street was rated lov./er than other alternatives in
easing traffic congestion, inasmuch as New Bailie Street is not a main collector road within the
Medical Complex. Thus it would be more difficult for traffic to reach the new road from the
Medical Complex and the relief of traffic congestion is thought to be lessened. Similarly,
Alternative B which utilizes the Fourteenth Street COITidor was judged to be of lesser benefit in
meeting objectives than Altematives C, D, and E, because the railroad grade crossing with the new
road adjacent to its intersection with Greene Street would periodically increase traffic congestion.
This would not be the case for the Cottage Street Corridor altematives, at least during Phase I of the
project. Altemative C, D and E were rated equal in meeting project objectives due to the similarity
of their routes.
The cumulative effect of the identified impacts, as well as the cost of construction of. the
various alternatives, have been discussed in other sections of this report. Again, the Cottage Street
altematives, which tie to St. Sebastian Way, \vere judged more favorable than the other alternatives
Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with regard to the cumulative effect of impacts. Similarly, Alternative C, D and E cost virtually the
same amount, not counting right-of-way acquisition, with Alternative B being slightly more
expensive and Alternative A being considerably more expensive than the other three alternatives.
It is evident from the analysis and comparison that Alternative E, cOlmecting St. Sebastian Way to
Greene Street using the Cottage Street Corridor with the road shifted to the west as much as possible
is rated the preferred alternative.
Based upon the previous analysis of cumulative impacts, Alternative III, steel girder/concrete
deck, was deemed to be the favored alternative. A cost comparison also reveals that Alternative III
is the least costly, with Alternative II being nearly double that cost and Alternative I being
considerably higher. Therefore, Alternative III, consisting of steel girder/concrete deck, is the
preferred alternative for crossing the canal. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the comparisons for the
roadway and bridge alternatives, respectively.
Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
~
:Q
-<
E-
c
.~ ,9
~uuc:)
X u ,u
~L.:.J.=-
;--.. ~V) ~
..... ~ ~-o
~~~~
1::: .,g U 'in
~ l~ ~ ~
Ul._ t:
Vi:;8-5
r/)
Z
o
r/)
~
~
::B
o
u
~
>
~
~
--<
~
u.:l
~
~
--<
><
--<
~
Q
~
o
~
'"
o
,-. .~ U .9
~ 2) ~ u
t:xc/5~
f::: L.:.l ~o
3 ~~~
<-~oOJ
Q::: Uc::::
~ - u
~ .g -= V;
,,] ~ (5
u'~ ~
en._ t: tn
V5~8~
(5 cJ
.~ ~
uc/5
X
L.:J~
'"
>,:
'" 0
~U
U
~
.....
.....
:::::
<-
~~~
f-.
-.J Vl
~15
OJ
Ul
C!l~
:~ ~
- -~
Ul~U
o u
.~ 2
uVl
~x
~:..:J
u
~ ~~
;;. ::
~,~
~.~ ~
~V;
'. 1:5
OJ
Ul
C!l5
-0
:~ 'E
V)oJcJ
o ~ u
~.... ~ 2
~:;;
~~ 8
s:
.....
:-. '!) ~
~ ~ .... ~
e:::V3
~
.....
-.J
:1):;;..
.: U 0
ouZ'U
~ ~ u ~
:g ~ 2 0
U .: :;; U
<:
~::
:::20;::
C:::~
~t::
""::-oC::::
aU
U
-S
.:?
:J __~ u
.:: ~
~~o
c: On l"
~:.=~
< "'"
~~~~
c ~.5 ....
g'~ e.s
.~ 5 8:.9
~ -= ~ ~
~<:;'E
<ue2
~~~~
~:o ~]
g.: .-
.- c - ~
~::= ~ '-
~V'Jot.8
.~ ..s \0
Clu~i5
uu~=a
.~ .~
~~
E E
~3
<<
OJ
00
,g
'0
U
-5
~
o ~
<5-0
"J:
(5
g ~.
;: CJ
~.~ 2
:::-aV5
>'0
'" -
;;;
-0
'"
e
.... OJ
~.~
,. E-
... u
..9-;::
<5w:l
~5~
a -
OJ e
~ ~ .~
u .2
.~
--~ ~
.~ ....
u.9~
V> ...
.~ e-g
u '"
~~~
E -
~ -g :u
-< ~~
~
5'
CC3
'" ,.
Vl OJ
~-=='
U OJ
~ ~ =
5c
: 5 (5
t.2 o'~
o~
'"
:..:J
>,
'"
.g~
2
~
~ 0
c;r..::
,9 ~
~ ~
OJ U
~u
~ ~~
o _
c.. ':;'
....
.E>
~>"'::'
~ 0 ~
3 ~ ~~
.9 -;:'
U ':: E. ~ :;
u :...-.~ g
~]~ ~
OJ
.~
;;;
E ~
.3 0
c; g
.~
..r::: (3
!- u
~~
OJ 0
V') ::
c.~ 5 .-
,::!
.:: :r.
g ~ ~
:: ~.~
..9
<5 ::
Vl
OJ
.g
U U
,. -;:;~
~
t: u
.::! -~
<5
c._ u
= V'l ~
""O~V5
~C;U
o .-;:: ._
~ ~~
<00
~
"8.
OJ ,.
;;.. >. ....
'':::'~ Z
'" ....
= (,) 0
.B .~ -
< :5 .,g
c
E
....
Q..
.....
o
g rl
13 ,.
~ U
..:::.~
u.tO
<0
.3
~
CJ
5 g.
2~
:: u
~""O~
r: 2 0
~3~
_ 2 d
u
0-5
>,
;;
-5
'"
2
~ U
.3 2
2v:i
c
u
.::!
....
Vl ::l
~J:
l... .::: C)
~ r;-:S
~ .~
o ~
-~~
.~ ~ 8
~ .:: u
x ~ ~
t) '::l c/5
,.
>, ...
'" ::
,.-
-5 r:
'"
22
__~ 0
;;;
~
o
'"
~.5~
a CJ
OJ
o
U-o
Vl::;
OJ 0
.:: ~ fi
~ (,J c
EC)~.9
~~]c;
<eVl~
-~ :-_~ g ~
.5 !)
'E c ~
Vici8Vi
ur.~ ~ g
cuSg..c
:> :;. l... .-
.;:: ...".~
~Clt:>,
~ ~ g ~
<;;;Z
'o5,.g~
c)'::: V') t':l
~ < g ~
~ .~ .~ ]
~e8"E
-<-52~
U ;>"-0
~''5 a
v:i'3
u = C)
el)OOJ
'" <) ....
=>ci5
8.2
u c:5 S:!
-5:g~
,'::;
o~~
fA 0 ~
:: -0 u
~3]
~
.- (5
..::
~ ~
lJ
-g (5
<)
.~
u ~ 'E
=.; C) l...
2 ,:: ~
~ t)
E 5
_':-~ ~ u
~o
c.o-o l...
OJ Co)
N-'"
=:..::c;
2 g ~
Vl 00
~ 'Vi
;;; --;!
.::! '"
].9~
< >,
'" =
~ ~ 0
~ ~ u
c:c.~
~ -5 .~
~
u
'"
E
>.
'"
~
vi
'"
.~
0..
2
Vl
:a
~
.~
0..
2
.~
-0
g
.~ ~
>'0
"'<=
;;; u
3~
::a.=
~ .-
~g -5 .:nE
~'::.....~E
-000-
'" .........
.9g;>..uo
c; .~..g c
::: 'e.~ ~.~
"'000.
:: .!. 2
0. '" Vl
uCJ~
.~ ~ ~ ~
c:=uc/5~
.2-55~>
~ c: ~ ~.~
.9-5
.....
o
(',)o,g~~
:~=,r;
~.e:: ~
~....C)t>~
- ~
r;.~ .- ~
_-0..... -<
~ ~ 0 g
'~.f' ~
~ l... ~
?; ~.~ 0 ~
u 0 c-
~ U (5 E
u g U ~ .3
~ c :; t':l
Vi8-5,.g~
~.~ E
S:! c.. ::; u
c2~r:
o .~ c/5
(.) -c U
CJ u,~
__S:! ~ :: ~
~]c:)
=3 ?; ~
oo,gz
:: u ~
~ ~!= a
.~ ?; e C)
~"g~ ~
teor:;;
o
o
o
o
o
c:i
'"
000
lA
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
"'0
lA
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
"'0
lA
o
o
o
o
o
c:i
o
o
o
NO
lA
o
o
o
o
o
c:i
o
\0
N"
lA
Vl
o
U
-0
0)
;;;
..;
Vl
L.:.l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI
~
~
~
<
~
C/J
Z
o
C/J
C2
<t:
0...
~
o
u
~
>
>-<
~
<t:
~
~
~
~
<t:
~
o
Q
~
c:a
.....
.....
.....
~l::-ti
"" Q) Q)
1::]0
Q)
~~~
c::.:: Q) U
~ 2 I::
h;t/.lo
....:J U
"
..... Q)
..... OJ)
~:g
1::';:
~ .2
c::.:: ~
1:: ~
....:J Vl
",65
.....
~
t-
c- ~
~ I::
c::.:: ::::l
kJf-
f-
....:J
'"
<:.
a",
~Q2
c::.::~
"h
c........
~c::.::
aU
U
"'2C;3~0\'::~=
U ~~~:2..8
:::s~.o :::SOJl..t+..
.t: -"5 . en e:: wD
~-E~-eU:U:Q)~
8 'eo c:; ~ I::].s ::::l
Q) r:l.~ I:: _ r:l ...... E
J:) .- ... -0.... Q)
~~~~~~~~
~~8.2~U~r:l
;> c.o ~
Q) 0. Q).- ~ .5
OJ) -0 ~ ..g,n Vl E vi -0
~ ~ == or:: ~ .~ ':01:: ......uQ)
J:) U .E_ o:l Vl_
. C 0. ::::l
tC;V)~~b'C1)~
"E oCo:l Vl Q) oJ) I::
'eo.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
~ x c."= li:: - "" OJ
Q) Q) .5 "- i:;' > J:)
Vi OJ)::2 0 ~ 0) ::2
~~g-gQ).2e::::l
~~~~~c:;V58
Q) Q)::2 Q) Q)
>J:)::::l]l~
~320::::lu
- ::::l ~ ;:: OJ
~~]Vi;S
c:; Q) r:l ~ .5
OJoJ)r:l(;jVl
.2: ~ e OJ ~
g.E ~ 5-:.=
.: ;! g 't; Co
~ f= t: :::S._
~ ..; 0 ~.~
.!:2 U 0. ~ E
<U .~ 0 ~ ~
.ff9Vl2~
.~ 0..'- <U ......
.D .~ ~ -5 ~
.Q ...... ~ ~ 6
~ 5 (5 ~ 0...
Uo^-......
~V)....,~s~
::; _ 0 ~
Vl -:::~ ~ (1)
<~ .8C
Q)
~-
._ t..-
~ 0
~~
;::
.3
r:l 0 B
~ ~ g
~o
o
-5
~
(3
......
.:3
0.
r:l
-0
<C
~
.!:2
>
~Eu
._ Q) OJ
L-o L..'O'
E ~ a
5~
8]Q)
r:l r:l .s
OJ
>
~
Vl
...
OJ"-
-0 0
I::
~~Vl
E ~.~
Q) Vl ~
eJ}aJ-:::;
-0 OJ) Vl
]:g~
-B~-:s
~-5~
0..<:
>-, . -:= OJ)
.~ ~ I::
I:: ...... >
.- U 0
~ ~ ;::
lo... ~ Cj
0. OJ ...
-0
OJ
Vl
o
0.
o
...
0.
Q)
.s
"-
o
OJ
OJ)
r:l
Vl
~ >..
o.r:l
Q) ~
-5~
...
..8o:l
~~
.2 r:l
c:;U
B~
Vl ::::l
~ gp
5r<r::
Vl
Q)
>
u
Q)
B
o
G) - l....
> ~ ~ ~
~.2 ~ '0
i:cJ:;o
B~--5
C:;g~B
..><: U r:l I::
U ..<: 0
Q) ell -0 .::
-0 .5 -::: r:l
Vl ~'o.
::::l 0 E
~ 0
I:: U
.e I::
c.. ';:'
0,:::
.!:2 8
..<:~
f-::::vi
-0 Q)
'0 .2:
~
~ E
OJ)Q)
Q)'=
-0 r:l
Q)
0)
b-o
I:: 2
o U
~E
Q) Vl
-0 I::
... 0
OJ)U
Q)~
Q)
Vi
vi
-0
::2 0
Q) ::::l .s
~ 0 Q)
~ ~ E
c..B::2
<U ::::l
U>-,O
g,::: ~
U ::::l ...
U ~ B
.~ ~ ~
-o.t:;
0. c
;:: "- 0
o U
Vl I::
r:l Q) 0
.~ e t)
~.gE
"'0 Vl
.;: ~ 5
J:) ell U
I:: '-
o..c~
~ r:l ~
Q)
Q..U'l"U
~ ~ E
Q) ~
~~8
~
u 0
2 ~
~ ~
;:
8..8
E~
"'0 c; 5
~ ~l) 'u
u - ~
;=:o~1n
~"Vi lo...
0,,- 0
U 0 U
::J
0-
~
~E
::2g~
::J E
o r:l ::2
~ Q) ::J
t!) :: 0
= ~
I:: B
E ......
<c.g-5
E
::::l
U
l.::
I.;....
o
I.;....
o
Q)
Q)
...
ell
Q)
o
. Q)
eJ:)
g
c~
-5 g
... ~
::::l
u...
~~~~
::2 .;: Q)
::J >.. J:) >
o l...1.;.... ~
~ ~ 0 Q)
~2i.s
~ u ~ 0
-OJ............
-5.~ OJ
Vl ~::::l
Cl)~......,",o
;::! 0
taco"'O
].~ ~.~
o ~ I:: ;::
- E.g.=
E..8~
~ -B ~
~ g ~1)
~ '"'0 .~
c; Q) ::::l
~ s... -0
5 g.e:
0. ~ g
<C~2
o E
Vl ...
c:aB
:2 Vl
::J"O
o ~
:::
;::"E
~ B g
U Vl ...
.- .2 i:;' ~
oj) -:::
~ 0
"E .D
?;EQ)
r:l:O
o ~ c
Q) Q) r:l
J:) "'0 ..<:
ell
I::
..><:
...
o
~
B
Q)
::J
"'0
...2:">Q)
v;:o
o r:l
U ......
~ ti
a ~
~Il ~
oc u
--5tt:
~-o
~ ~ ~
"i: ~ ":::
E ;::
r:l -
~ !;
Q) X
"'0 Q)
o
o
o
o
o
o
1.0
o::t.
V'l
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
f"l.
N
V'l
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
0;.
V')
V'l
~
.2
<;;
...
Q)
c..
o
-
Vl
o
U
"'0
Q)
.~
Vi
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Summary and Conclusions
This study, commissioned by Augusta-Richmond County, has determined the most feasible
new street to COlmect Walton Way to Greene Street, and ultimately to Reynolds Street, that will (1)
stimulate a growth corridor between the Medical Campus and the core of the downtown Augusta
business district and (2) relieve traffic congestion on the densely traveled Fifteenth Street and
Thirteenth Street arterial routes. Five roadway alternatives and three canal crossing options were
evaluated to ascertain the best possible route for Enterprise Technology Parkway.
The results of the study indicate that the most viable route for a new road is one which aligns
with the intersection ofSt. Sebastian Way and Walton Way and extends in the most direct route to
the intersection of Greene Street and Cottage Street. By adjusting the route to the west at Cottage
Street apparent savings can be made, essentially during Phase II, in right-of-way acquisition and
minimization of impact on selected properties. This route is shown on the Preferred Alternative
Plan, which is attached to this report as Appendix E.
An aesthetically pleasing roadway and bridge combination, including right-of-way, can be
constructed at a total cost of approximately $4.00 million, broken down as follows:
Summary of Estimated Costs
Roadway
Augusta Canal Bridge
Right-of- Way
Total
1,890,940.10
1,459,637.00
652.200.00
$ 4,002,777.10
Page 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
By utilizing the preferred alternative, the issue of dealing with an at-grade railroad
crossing is deferred to Phase II, and the impact considered most detrimental to the preferred route
is the effect of the project on the old cotton warehouse located to the west of the Sutherland Mill.
Only through further detailed design would it be possible to determine whether or not this
building could, or should, be saved.
In order to facilitate further study of the preferred alternative, a detailed preliminary cost
estimate is attached as Appendix D and that a preliminary right-of-way map and listing of
required acquisitions are attached as Appendix F.
B. Recommendations
In light of the above study and discussion, the following recommendations are presented:
1. Adopt roadway Alternative E, consisting of the westernmost route from the St.
Sebastian Way/Walton Way intersection to the Greene Street/Cottage Street
intersection, together with the canal crossing Alternative III, consisting of a steel
girder type bridge with composite concrete deck as the Phase I project.
2. Identify possible sources of state and/or federal funding to assist the local
government in constructing the new roadway.
3. Address questions of historical impact, the crossing of the canal and other special
interest concerns early on in the project, so as to facilitate efficient scheduling for
design and completion of the project.
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.
Begin design and identify exact right-of-way requirements as soon as possible so
that right-of-way acquisition can proceed expeditiously.
5.
Continue to pursue this new roadway in conjunction with the proposed Fifteenth
Street overpass project to obtain maximum traffic improvement and funding
benefits.
6.
Commission a study for Phase II of the roadway extending from Greene Street to
Reynolds Street with particular emphasis on dealing with the railroad grade
crossing just north of Greene Street and the crossing of the third level of the
Augusta Canal.
Page 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
1.
The Augusta Canal Master Plan. CityDesign Collaborative and Lane, Frenchman and
Associates, Inc., December, 1993.
2.
Fifteenth Street Transportation - Options Study, CityDesign Collaborative, Lane
Frenchman and Associates, Inc. and The RBA Group, June, 1994.
3.
Downtown Master Plan, LDR International, Inc., February, 1995.
4.
The Proposed Augusta Canal National Heritage Area Boundary, map by CityDesign
Collaborative, Inc., and Lane, Frenchman & Associates, Inc., August 9, 1994.
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
SKETCHES
- .-.. .::........:..._:_:~.....,._--_.._~.__.-.:..;. ~~.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I;
I~
Ii
11
11
J
o
~
. JOHN C. CALHOUN
EXPRESSWAY
RE."<NOL05 51.
\ \,500 ,/?O
o
o
o
",.
N
9,700 vpO
8ROAD Sl.
10,000 VPD
LEVEL
r-:
Vl
:r:
f-
Z
W
W
f-
~
::r:
f-
st
I:
I]
11
Ii
11
I!
I~
I
/......
o
~
$
J:?
~ WALTON WAY
li:.
26.000 ypO
~
(I)
1997
A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
V.P.D. - VEHICLES PER DAY
FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC
NOT TO SCALE
APPENDIX B
--1
1\
II
11
-n
IJ
11
Il
Il
11
')
I~
-n
II
I
I
11
I
II
I
I)
I
I
o
~
12.000 VPD
~
U)
~
:z
lL.J
~
cr
~
RE't'NOlD5 51.
6,500 vr>O
o
o
l/')
cD
N
o
~
6ROAO 51.
15,500 VPD
LEVEL
st
GREENE 51.
ENTERPRISE
TECHNOLOGY
PARKWAY
JOHN C. CALHOUN
- EXPRESSWAY
J......
o
~
S
kJ
~
4:..
~
C/)
PROJECTED YEAR 2000
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
V. P. D. - VEHICLES PER DAY
FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC
NOT TO SCALE
APPENDIX B
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
. .. .
", :t~ .':
..... .
" :,. '.".
, ,~.-. - ',' ",'
......r . ".
.." 'I.
. 1,.'
l . ~. .. .....
APPENDIX C
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION REPORT.
CSRA TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
. .
.' ,
..,
11
IT
I]
tl
'1
I.
Il
11
I'l
"
I'
I..
1.\
..
I
II
.,
IJ
IJ
IJ
Ii
I.
I.
I'
.csra
TESTING AND ENGINEERING CO., INC.
. _ ';~:..;~-::,t'~: .
.. - .~-'. .
. :;~-
''';:~::;0.:-..;~~005 EMMETT STREET. SUITE A
: '5i~}"AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30904
. - ...~~\::;;.:..... .
. '~~:?C(706) 733-6960
...'.....:. FAX (706) 737-0629
Report No.
B-O]697
Date }..farch 28. 1997
CLIE~T:
PROJECT:
AugUsta-Richmond County Public \Vorks and Engineering
Enterprise Park.'Way"~ r
LOCATION:
<::oh"'C:+I'",,., ,7.1.,'1.1 ~""....C'+., r-<>"..c-ia
__"''-oJ",~.l ......../, . ..._.:~.J......, -..J,-,"v.a ~
REQIJEST:
Foundation Investigation
As requested, this finn has performed a subsurface exploration for proposed bridge abutments
at the above referenced location. .
It is our understanding that the planned construction is to consist of conventional style
bridges.
The scope of this exploration was to detennine the character and composition of underlying
soil strata and to define the soil profile. Field and laboratory analyses were made to assess
engineering characteristics of the foundation materials and to provide criteria for use by the design
engineers and architects in preparing the foundation design.
Three (3) borings have been made, and these were drilled to depths shown on the individual
test boring records. These test borings were perfonned at locations directed by the client.
Soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586 utilizing a truck mounted
drill rig. The borings were made with continuous steel auger flights. At regular intervals, standard
penetration tests were conducted with a two-inch (2") split tube sampler. The sampler was first
seated six inches (6") to penetrate any loose cunings, then driven an additional foot \vith blows of a
140-pound hanuner falling thirty inches\(30").' A record was made of the number of hammer blows
required to drive the sampler the final foot. This number is designated the penetration resistance and
is an index of the soil strength and density.
Based on the results of our test borings, it appears that this site can be developed as intended.
For bridge abutment design, we estimate that a ]2" HP pile will develop a capacity of 40 tons when
driven to a minimum depth of 35 feet below the existing ground surface.
Further recommendations and discussion can be made upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
CS~ 1estin,$ and E~ering Co., Inc.
1~ W. /'p-e
Michael W. Pope
2 cc: Augusta-Richmond County Public Works and Engineering
f \ .+- ';.
Member of American Society for Testing and Materials
1"1
I'j
11 PROJECT B-01697
LOCATION Augusta, GA
IJ
DEPTH
1 FEET
IJ
1-;
]
I:
I:
I;
1.1
11
j
Ij
1.1
11
II
I',
I,
I:
N Value is number of blows of 140 pound
I; hammer required to drive 2" split-tube.
sampler one foot after seated. .
c.g r a
TEST/.NG & ENGINEERING CO., INC.
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30904 (706) 733-6960
(FAX) 737-0629
1005 EMMETT STREET. SUITE A
VISUAL SOIL
DESCRIPTION
!3oft Reddish Tan Sandy clay
5'
!3oft Reddish BrownSlightly Sandy Clay
10'
15'
Stiff ReOn; ~h Tan Sandy Silty Clay
, 1
20'
Very Finn Brown Silty Sand
'"IC:'
....OJ
Very FiIm Tan and White Silty Sand w lSnal.l
Rock
30'
35'
Hard Green Silty Clay
40'
BORING NO.
DATE
PENETRATION
VALUE (N)
5 @ 2'
4 @ 4'
4 @ 7'
2 @ 9'
13 @ 14'
. 24 @ 19'
25 @ 24'
26 @ 29'
44 @ 34'
75 @ 39'
R-l
March 12. 1997
UNIFIED
CLASS.
---S-
. -==-.. WATER .TABLE
PERCENT
MOISTURE
~..,
II
1.'1
IJ
IJ
PROJECT
CS.ra
TESTING & ENGrNEERING CO., INC.
. AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30904 (706) 733-6960
(FAX) 737.-0629
'005 EMMETT STREET, SUITE A
8-01697
lOCATION Auqusta, Ga.
DEPTH
FEET
'. 1
11
11
I~
I:
I.;
I]
IJ
I.'
.;
..1
7>
I,J
I-i
I;
I.:
I.'
I.
I.
15'
20'
25'
30'
35'
40'
VISUAL SOIL
DESCRIPTION
Soft Brcwn Sandy Clayey Silt wjBrick Concret
.5'
Soft Brcwnish Gray. Sandy Silt
10'
Stiff Brawnish Tan Sandy Clay
" \
Very Firm B:r:own Silty Coarse Sand
Very Stiff ReClni c:;h Tan Sandy Clayey Silt
Hard Green Clayey Silt
N Value is number of blows of 140 pound
hammer required to drive 2" split-tube
sampler one foot after seated.
'.
BORING NO.
DATE
PENETRATION
VALUE (N)
2 @ 2'
,
, I) A'
.L t: -:
2 @ 5'
1 @ 6'
2 @ 7'
3 @ 8'
1 @ 9'
13 @ 14'
22 @ 19'
26 @ 24'
26 @ 29'
38 @ 34'
50 @ 2" @ 39'
R-?
March 17. 1997
UNIFIED
CLASS.
PERCENT
MOISTURE
4'
.~ VVATER.TABLE
I
Ii
11 PROJECT
1 LOCATION Auqusta, Ga,
I:!
DEPTH
1 i FEET
I'~
I
I:j
:j
II
IJ
1
Ij
IJ
j
I"]
I~
I.;
I~
I~
I."
N Value is number of blows of 140 pound
I hammer required to drive 2" split-tube
. sampler one foot after seated.
csra
1005 EMMETT STREET, SUITE A
AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30904
TESTING & ENGINEERING CO., INC.
(706) 733-6960
(FAX) 737-0629
8-01697
BORING NO.
9 ..
.... "
DATE
VISUAL SOIL
DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION
VALUE (N)
Very Stiff Brownish Tan Sandy Clayey Silt
12 @ 2'
5'
Very Stiff Reddish Brown Sandy Silty Clay
20 @ 4' -
Very Stilf Brownish Tan Sandy Silt
18 @ 7'
11 @ 9'
10'
Finn Tan Silty Sand
15'
Very Finn BrO'Nn Coarse 5aDd w/5-nal.l Gravel
21 @ 14'
Very Stiff Brown and Tan Clayey Silt
28 @ 19'
20'
65 @ 24'
25'
Hard Greenand Tan Clayey Silt
Auger Refusal Q 28 '
30'
35'
40'
B;-3
March 13,
1997
UNIFIED
CLASS;
14'
- WATER TABLE
PERCENT
MOISTURE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
FOR
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY P ARKW A Y
PHASE I
Preferred Roadway Alternative E
(St. Sebastian Way at Walton Way
to Cottage Street at Greene Street)
and
Canal Crossing Alternative III
(Steel Girder/Concrete Deck Bridge)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. cODE:>:>"'. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
,', >.~;.::~.~.~~>/.::'> :" '.'
641~1200 . GUARD RAIL, TP W 400 LF $ 11.00
~. : _ 5-'
641-5006 GUARDRAIL ANCHORAGE, TP6 4 EA $ 395.00
641-5011 GUARDRAIL ANCHORAGE, TP 11 2 EA $ 1,325.00
641-5001 GUARDRAIL ANCHORAGE, TP 1 1 EA $ 460.00
550-1180 STORM DRAIN PIPE, 181N, H 1-10 1108 LF $ 30.00
550-1240 STORM DRAIN PIPE, 24 IN, H 1-10 320 LF $ 35.00
550-1300 STORM DRAIN PIPE, 30 IN, H 1-10 460 LF $ 45.00
TIE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 EA $ 700.00
668-5000 JUNCTION BOX 1 EA $ 2,000.00
550-4230 FLARED END SECTION 30", STORM DRAIN 1 EA $ 610.00
603-1018 STN PLAIN RIPRAP, 18 IN 10 SY $ 35.00
18" STONE BEDDING 304 TON $ 25.00
668-2100 DROPINLET,GP1 10 EA $ 1,500.00
171-0030 TEMPORARY SfL T FENCE, TYPE C 3500 LF $ 5.00
MISCELLANEOUS EROSION CONTROL LS $ 5,000.00
653-1501 THERMOPLASTIC SOLID TRAF STRIPE, 5 IN, 4460 LF $ 0.70
WHITE
653-1502 THERMOPLASTIC SOLID TRAF STRIPE, 5 IN, 4460 LF $ 0.70
YELLOW
653-4501 THERMOPLASTIC SKIP TRAF STRIPE; 51N, 4910 LF $ 0.15
WHITE
Page 2
AMOUNT
$ 4,400.00
$ 1,580.00
$ 2,650.00
$ 460.00
$ 33,240.00
$ 11,200.00
$ 20,700.00
$ 700.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 610.00
$ 350.00
$ 7,600.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 17,500.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 3,122.00
$ 3,122.00
$ 736.50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CODE DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
501-3000 STRUCTURAL STEEL 493,300 LB $ 1.08 $ 532,764.00
511-1000 BAR REINFORCING 64,300 LB $ 0.53 $ 34,079.00
520-1125 STEEL H PILING, HP12x53 3200 LF $ 24.14 $ 77,248.00
HAND RAIL\BARRIER (SPECIAL DESIGN) 560 LF $ 250.00 $ 140,000.00
ENGINEERING $ 88,400.00
CANAL CROSSING ALTERNATIVE III SUBTOTAL
CANAL CROSSING CONTINGENCIES @ 15%
TOTAL COST OF CANAL CROSSING
$1,269,247.00
$ 190,390.00
$1,459,637.00
ESTIMATED COST OF RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENT $ 652.200.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $4.002.777.10
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PLAN
. . .. .
'. ,... , .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX F
I REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)"
PUBLIC \NORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
June 8, 1998
MEMO TO:
MEMO FROM:
RE:
Jack F. Murphy, Interim Director
Clifford A. Goins, Assistant Director
Engineering Division
Drew Goins, Assistant Director
Engineering Division
Jim Brown MK
Land ACqui~ Manager
Enterprise Technology Parkway
(saint Sebastian Way Extension)
Reference 87-056
RiQht-of-Wav Section
James B. Brown
land Acquisition Supervisor
1815 Marvin GriHin Road
Augusta, Georgia 30906
(706) 796-5040 - Fax (706) 796-G~..,.
Attached hereto is the estimated right-of-:-way cost for the
Enterpr ise Technology Parkway from Walton Way to Reynolds
street.
If there are any questions or we can be of further service,
please advise.
JBBjic
Attachment
xc: Jack F. Murphy
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ESTIMATE
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY PARKWAY
(Saint Sebastian Way Extension)
Right-of-way:
172,730 sq. ft. @ $5.00
$863,650
Easements:
79,921 sq. ft. @ $3.00
$239,763
Improvement Value
Estimated from Tax Values
$150,000
$1,253,413
ROUNDED
$1,300,000
No relocation considered
June 8, 1998
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~._"
, '.' j , . '-' :
\ \ ,\;./.
Cranston, Robelison & \Vhitehurst, P.C.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
POST omCE BOX :546 . AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30903-2546
OLD ENGINE COMPA.',YNO. I . 452 ELLIS STREET. AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30901-1631
TELEPHONE (706) 7:2-1588 . TELECOPJER (706) 712-8379
DATE: April 1, 1998
TO:
Mr. Clifford A. Goins
Augusta Engineering Department
701 Municipal Building
Augusta, GA 30911
VIA: 0 u. S. MAIL
o UPS
o UPS }\''EXT DA Y
IiJ HAND DELIVERY
o FEDERAL EXPRESS
o PRlORlTY MAIL
o OTHER PICI( liP
RE: Enterprise Technology Parkway - Right-of-way Requirements
Our FileNo. 96-156
We are transmitting the following item(s):
COPIES
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
( )
( )
( )
( )
REMARKS:
DESCRlPTION
Right-of-way dravlings
Phase I Right-of-way Summary
P11ase II Right-of-\vay Summary
Cranston, Robertson & \Vhitehurst, P.c.
I ~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ~
Right-of-way & Easement Areas
Enterprise Technology Parkway
Phase I
96-156
4/1/98
Parcel Property Owner Required Required Remainde
No. Right-of-way Easement Area r
S.F. Acres S.F. Acres Acres
46-1-64 Housing Authority of Augusta 19,037 0.44 7,820 0.18 3.49
46-1-10.2 W. Rodger Giles, Inc. Tract "A" N/A N/A 3,053 0.07 2.28
46-1-10.1 W. Rodger Giles, Inc. Tract "B" 444 0.01 976 0.02 0.97
36-3-101 GTX, Inc. 55,387 1.27 17,324 0.40 9.36
36-3-103 Salvation Army 140 0.003 2,202 0.05 0.557
36-3-104 GTX, Inc. 2,439 0.06 6,469 0.15 1.50
36-3-214 Avondale ~/1ills, Inc. 11,884 0.27 6,461 0.15 2.27
46-1-36 Aug-Rich Cry Hospital Authority 5,955 0,14 6,007 0.14 18.81
46-1-46. I William B. Mullins 2,924 0.07 2,718 0.06 0.91
46-1-44 Board of Regents 55 .001 595 I 0.01 6.5:9
I,",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
.
Right-of-way & Easement Areas
Enterprise Technology Parkway
Phase II
96-156
4/1/98
Parcel Property Owner Required Required Remainder
No. Right-of-way Easement Area
S.F. Acres S.F. Acres Acres
36-3 -36 Electric Realty Sales 23,570 0.54 5,171 0.12 0.40
36-3-15 Creed C. Byrd 133 0.003 3,253 0.07 0.147
36-3-16 Creed C. Byrd 7,097 0.16 n/a n/a . 0.00
36-4-98 Clyde \V. Jones 973 0.02 2,327 0.05 0.08
Benjamin R. Christian
36-4-99 Clyde \V. Jones 4,515 0.10 n/a I n/a 0.00
36-4-100 Clyde W. Jones, Jr. 6,873 0.16 3,623 0.08 0.09
36-1-27 Carolyn C. Baggott 14,318 0.33 3,461 0.08 0.07
Jean C. Beall
36-1-28 I r..-fary Ruth Waters 1,294 I 0.03 1,737 0.04 0.07
36-2-29 Mary Waters 1,486 0.03 1,748 0.04 I 0.07
36-4-168 Frank W. Capers 9,557 0.22 3,816 0.09 0.46
Creed C. Byrd
36-2-41.1 Clyde \V. Jones I 4,649 0.11 1,160 0.03 0.04