Final Report - Grand Strand Area Transportation Study

Transcription

LONG-RANGETRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE – DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
1. Planning Context ............................................................................. 1
1.1 GSATS MPO ............................................................................... 1
1.2 GSATS Planning Documents...................................................... 1
1.3 GSATS Structure ........................................................................ 1
1.3.1 Policy Committee ............................................................... 1
1.3.2 Study Team ........................................................................ 1
1.3.3 Organizational Responsibility............................................. 3
1.4 Legislative Mandates ................................................................ 3
1.5 Other Related Plans and Studies .............................................. 3
1.6 LRTP Overview .......................................................................... 4
2. Study Area Characteristics .............................................................. 4
2.1 Existing Transportation Conditions........................................... 4
3. Public Participation ......................................................................... 8
3.1 Transportation Survey .............................................................. 8
3.2 Visual Preference Survey .......................................................... 9
3.3 General Comments ................................................................... 9
3.4 Public Comment on Draft Final Report ..................................... 9
4. Goals and Objectives..................................................................... 12
5. Anticipated Future Conditions ...................................................... 13
5.1 Forecast Traffic Growth .......................................................... 13
6. Candidate Road Improvement Projects ........................................ 15
6.1 Ranking Improvement Projects .............................................. 15
6.2 GSATS Ranking Criteria ........................................................... 17
6.3 Project Rankings...................................................................... 17
6.4 Existing Ranking Procedures for Intersection Projects ........... 17
7. Potential Transit Improvements ................................................... 22
7.1 Community Overview ............................................................. 22
7.2 Aging Population ..................................................................... 22
7.3 Previous Plans ......................................................................... 23
7.4 Existing Providers .................................................................... 23
7.4.1 Ridership .......................................................................... 23
7.4.2 Future Planning ................................................................ 23
7.5 Future Outlook for Transit ...................................................... 23
7.6 Partnerships ............................................................................ 25
7.7 Transit Projects ....................................................................... 25
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................... 27
8.1 Existing Facilities ..................................................................... 27
8.2 East Coast Greenway .............................................................. 27
8.3 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) .................................................. 28
8.4 Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ......................... 28
9. Financial Plan ................................................................................ 29
9.1 Fiscally Constrained Plan ........................................................ 29
9.2 Federal and State Funding Sources ........................................ 29
9.3 Local Funding Sources............................................................. 29
List of Tables
Table 1-2: GSATS Study Team ............................................................. 1
Table 1-1: Members of GSATS Policy Committee ............................... 1
Table 2-1: Traffic Growth in the GSATS Area, 2000-2009 .................. 7
Table 3-1: Allocation of Funding to Transportation Improvements ... 9
Table 4-1: GSATS LRTP Goals and Federal Planning Factors............. 12
Table 5-1: GSATS Let, Programmed, and Committed Projects December 21st, 2010..................................................... 13
Table 6-1: Prioritization Factors for Widening Projects.................... 15
Table 6-2: Prioritization Factors for New Location Projects ............. 15
Table 6-3: GSATS 2035 Tier 1 Ranked Projects ................................. 18
Table 7-1: Coast Ridership (2007 – 2009) ......................................... 23
Table 7-2: Future Transit Projects and Needs .................................. 26
Table 8-1: Summary of Segments Recommended for Improvement28
Table 9-1: Summary of Projects Costs by Tier .................................. 30
Table 9-2: Tier 1 Year of Expenditure Conceptual Plan .................... 30
Figure 4-1: Planning Requirements .................................................. 12
Figure 5-1: Projected 2035 Traffic Conditions with Committed
Projects .......................................................................... 14
Figure 6-1: Road Improvement Project Locations ............................ 16
Figure 7-2: Coast Ridership ............................................................... 23
Figure 7-1: Streetcar Corridor Proposed by Myrtle Beach Streetcar
Feasibility Study ............................................................. 24
Figure 8-1: East Coast Greenway Master Plan.................................. 27
Figure 8-2: Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road Cross-Section
....................................................................................... 28
Appendices
Appendix A: GSATS Model Expansion
Appendix B: Public Input and Surveys
Appendix C: Goals and Objectives
Appendix D: Roadway Median Options
Appendix E: Regional Wayfinding
Appendix F: Pedestrian Walkways and Bikeways
Appendix G: Public Transportation
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: GSATS Boundary ............................................................... 2
Figure 2-1: Model Area and Road Network Functional Classification 5
Figure 2-2: Existing Traffic Conditions ................................................ 6
Figure 2-3: Level of Service Definitions............................................... 7
Figure 3-1: Transportation Survey Results.......................................... 8
Figure 3-2: Allocation of Funding to Transportation Improvements . 9
Figure 3-3: Transportation Survey .................................................... 10
Figure 3-4: Visual Preference Survey ................................................ 11
i
1. Planning Context
1.1 GSATS MPO
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a federally mandated
entity responsible for coordinating transportation planning, policies,
and programming in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or
more. MPOs are required to ensure that federally funded
transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) planning process. Grand
Strand Area Transportation Study (GSATS) is the MPO responsible
for transportation planning in accordance with the federal
metropolitan planning requirements for the land east of the
Waccamaw River from the North Carolina border to Winyah Bay,
including the City of Georgetown and the City of Conway, as
illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Like every MPO, GSATS is required to work cooperatively with
federal, state, and local governments and local transportation
service providers within the context of a well-defined metropolitan
transportation planning process.
GSATS does not lead the
implementation of transportation projects, but rather serves as the
formal agency that plans and programs transportation
improvements within the GSATS area, which are eventually
implemented by local and state jurisdictions. Furthermore, as
required by federal legislation, GSATS must provide the public and
interested stakeholders with reasonable and meaningful
opportunities to be involved in the transportation planning process.
Chapter 3 outlines the public and partner outreach conducted
during the GSATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
1.2 GSATS Planning Documents
In order to carry out its function as the coordinating agency for
transportation planning, GSATS develops, implements, monitors,
and updates a variety of transportation plans, including the Unified
Planning Work Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and this LRTP. The UPWP is an annual work program
and budget that identifies all activities to be undertaken by each
member agency in a fiscal year. The TIP is the short-range program
of transportation projects that is based on the LRTP and covers a
period of four to six years.
Finally, the LRTP (this document) is the long-range, financiallyconstrained transportation plan for the region that covers the
federal requirement. According to federal law, all LRTPs must be
updated every four or five years depending on their MPOs air quality
status: maintenance, nonattainment, or attainment. The GSATS LRTP
must be updated every five years because it is currently considered
in attainment for federal air quality standards.
1.3 GSATS Structure
Policy Committee and SCDOT.
1.3.2 Study Team
The Policy Committee is supported by an advisory committee, the
Study Team, whose function is to review, evaluate and recommend
ranking of proposed projects to the Policy Committee. The Study
Team members are listed in Table 1-2.
GSATS is made up of two committees: the Policy Committee and the
Study Team, as well as planning staff.
1.3.1 Policy Committee
The GSATS Policy Committee was designated by the local
governments and the Governor as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Myrtle Beach Urbanized Area. The
Policy Committee is governed by its own bylaws and consists of both
voting and non-voting members, as shown in Table 1-1. This
designation conveys the responsibility of discharging the planning
provisions of federal regulations in the Grand Strand Area to the
Table 1-2: GSATS Study Team
Horry County Planning Director
Georgetown County Planning Director
Transportation Planner/Engineer, WRCOG
FHWA, Environmental and Planning
Assistant Director of Planning, SCDOT
SCDOT Program Manager
District Traffic Engineer, SCDOT
Myrtle Beach Planning Director
North Myrtle Beach Director of Planning
Georgetown Planning Coordinator
City of Conway Director of Planning
Surfside Beach Administrator
Division of Mass Transit, SCDOT
General Manager, Coast RTA
Table 1-1: Members of GSATS Policy Committee
Entity
Voting Members
City of Myrtle Beach
City of North Myrtle Beach
City of Surfside Beach
City of Conway
City of Georgetown
Town of Atlantic Beach
Town of Briarcliffe Acres
Town of Pawleys Island
Horry County Council
Georgetown County Council
Horry County Legislative Delegation
Georgetown County Legislative Delegation
SCDOT
Waccamaw RTA “Coast RTA”
Non-Voting Members
Horry County Planning Commission
Georgetown County Planning Commission
Waccamaw Regional Planning Council
Federal Highway Administration
SCDOT
Port of Georgetown
Myrtle Beach International Airport
Representative
Number of
Representatives
Mayor and Councilmember
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Chairperson and Councilmember
Chairperson
(1) Senator & (2) House Members
Senator and House Member
District Commissioner and Executive Director
Chairperson
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(1)
Chairperson
Chairperson
Chairperson or Executive Director
Division Administrator
District Engineering Administrator
Director
Director
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
1
Figure 1-1: GSATS Boundary
2
1.3.3 Organizational Responsibility
The functions and responsibilities of GSATS staff and committees
may be summarized as follows:
•
MPO Planning Staff: The MPO planning staff carries out the
activities of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Those
activities include administration, planning, plan development,
program development and maintenance.
•
GSATS Study Team: The Study Team reviews, evaluates and
recommends action on all proposed projects within the GSATS
Study Area to the GSATS Policy Committee. Additionally, every
year they present to the Policy Committee a current TIP with an
annual element for (all federally funded) projects within the
GSATS Study Area. Finally, they must develop the 25-year LRTP
for the GSATS Study Area, and present it to the Policy
Committee.
•
GSATS Policy Committee: The Policy Committee receives,
reviews and takes action (approves, denies or sends back for
reconsideration) on all issues and items brought to it by the
MPO Planning Staff and Study Team. These actions will be in
keeping with federal requirements and will lead to the
development and approval of the Transportation Plan for the
GSATS Study Area. When completed, the Policy Committee
must forward the LRTP to the SCDOT and FHWA.
1.4 Legislative Mandates
In the mid-twentieth century, transportation planning was primarily
focused on highway building and expansion to accommodate the
increased use of automobiles. Through the decades, the focus has
shifted to establishing a multimodal transportation system that
includes roadways, public transit, and bicycling and pedestrian
facilities. As a result, more recent transportation laws, regulations,
and policies have encouraged the development of a multimodal
transportation planning process. Specifically, metropolitan
transportation planning has been shaped and defined by three
significant federal acts, including the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21); and the most recent, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
On August 10, 2005, SAFETEA-LU was signed into law, and on March
18, 2010, President Obama signed the Hiring Incentives to Restore
Employment (HIRE) Act into law, which extended SAFETEA-LU to
December 31, 2010. SAFETEA-LU approves funding for surface
transportation projects and also represents the largest surface
transportation venture in the country to date. While SAFETEA-LU
authorizes funding for many transportation categories and specific
projects, it also continues the concepts identified by its predecessors
ISTEA and TEA-21 regarding the cooperative, continuing, and
comprehensive regional planning process. SAFETEA-LU establishes
requirements that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
must follow in the development of their long-range plans. All new
metropolitan transportation plans developed after July 1, 2007 are
required to be consistent with the new SAFETEA-LU planning
guidance. The GSATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
update addresses and meets all SAFETEA-LU planning requirements
as provided by the Federal Transit and Federal Highway
Administrations.
needs, and intermodal, as it considers facilities to improve the
transfer of passengers and goods among those modes. It
includes transportation needs on the local, regional and state
levels.
•
Georgetown Countywide Transportation Master Plan: This
study completed in 2009 encompassed a number of activities in
addition to the Transportation Master Plan, including
development of the Transportation component of the
Community Facilities Element of the Georgetown County
Comprehensive Plan, a Capital Improvements Plan and
Development Impact Fees study, and development of a
countywide travel demand model to support future
transportation planning efforts.
•
Southern Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS): This 2009 study evaluated alternative
alignments, resulting in the selection of a preferred alignment,
for a new road connecting the US 501/SC 22 interchange west
of Conway to US 17 between Surfside Beach and Murrells Inlet.
•
Horry County North Myrtle Beach Northeast East Area
Transportation Plan: The 2009 Northeast Area Transportation
Plan provided a multimodal approach to the congestion and
safety problems that plague the transportation system in North
Myrtle Beach and eastern Horry County. The challenges facing
the area are the collective result of sustained growth, continued
reliance on the automobile for even short trips, and competing
agendas for scarce transportation funds.
•
Myrtle Beach Trolley Project Phase I, Cost Analysis, January
2008: TranSystems prepared the Myrtle Beach Trolley report
for the City of Myrtle Beach. The purpose of the study was to
present a low cost alternative for streetcar service. The report
presented a cost per mile for the identified streetcar corridor at
$3.3M per mile or a total cost for the project at approximately
$4.8M.
•
Myrtle Beach Streetcar Feasibility Study, Final Report, April
2007: The City of Myrtle Beach continued the pursuit of viable
transit alternatives for the growing transportation challenges
with this study. Several previous plans were reviewed including
transit lanes on Ocean Boulevard and light rail/monorail
feasibility studies. The Feasibility Study emphasized the
1.5 Other Related Plans and Studies
The GSATS 2035 LRTP is the most current transportation plan for the
Grand Strand area. As with most planning documents, it builds upon
and incorporates the ideas, issues, and recommendations of past
and current planning efforts. The following plans and studies served
as valuable inputs into the development of the GSATS 2035 LRTP.
A number of planning studies related to transportation and the
Grand Strand have been completed over the past several years,
including the following:
•
2011 City of Myrtle Beach Comprehensive Plan: The focus of
the 2011 Plan is becoming a sustainable city, and to develop
solutions for long-term challenges and to plan for new growth.
One goal of the plan is to incorporate land use patterns that
support a regional transportation system, including the
encouragement of less single occupant vehicle use. Several
objectives in the plan support land use and transportation
coordination.
•
South Carolina Statewide Comprehensive Multimodal
Transportation Plan: The 2008 Plan provided recommendations
for investment in transportation facilities through the year
2030. The plan is multimodal, as it considers the need to fund
and support a variety of passenger and freight transportation
3
importance of redevelopment for the corridor and planning for
streetcar service to be incorporated into that process.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive Transit Development Plan for the Coast RTA, June
2010: Coast RTA completed the TDP
to evaluate existing transit routes,
identify improvements, and develop a
financial plan for future services.
City of Conway, Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, December 2008:
The City of Conway completed the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
as an element to their City
Comprehensive Plan. The CTP provides a vision for the City of
Conway to implement a multimodal transportation system that
will help achieve sustainable future growth.
Downtown Myrtle Beach Transit Improvements Study, January
2003: This study resulted in the implementation of dedicated
transit lanes along Ocean Boulevard in Myrtle Beach. These
transit lanes were in use during the peak tourist season and
accessible to all vehicles during the off-season. The lanes were
discontinued in 2006.
US Highway 17 Corridor Study (Georgetown County), 2003:
This study examined multimodal transportation options along
the US 17 corridor in Georgetown County.
US Highway 17 Corridor Study (North Myrtle Beach), 2003:
This study developed recommendations for improvements to
the US 17 corridor in North Myrtle Beach.
US Highway 17 Business Corridor Study (South Strand), 1999:
This study developed recommendations centered on roadway
and bicycle / pedestrian improvements along the US 17
Business corridor between Murrells Inlet and Ocean Boulevard
in Myrtle Beach.
1.6 LRTP Overview
This GSATS 2035 LRTP is a culmination of extensive pubic and
partner participation, technical analysis, population and
employment projections, and local and regional needs assessment.
This process has resulted in recommendations for multimodal
transportation improvements for the GSATS area. The document is
organized into the following chapters:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 1 – Planning Context
Chapter 2 – Study Area Characteristics
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
Chapter 4 – Goals and Objectives
Chapter 5 – Anticipated Future Conditions
Chapter 6 – Potential Highway Improvements
Chapter 7 – Potential Transit Improvements
Chapter 8 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Volume 2 – Appendices
Appendices, in a separately bound document, provide additional
information on the following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A – GSATS Model Expansion
Appendix B – Public Input and Surveys
Appendix C – Goals and Objectives
Appendix D – Roadway Median Options
Appendix E – Regional Wayfinding
Appendix F – Pedestrian Walkways and Bikeways
Appendix G – Public Transportation
2. Study Area Characteristics
Despite the significant efforts of local jurisdictions, growth in the
Grand Strand area continues to outpace infrastructure. Recently
released US Census Bureau data reveals that Horry and Georgetown
counties’ growth continues as quality of life and livability features
attract population and business. The combined total of 2010
population in the two counties, 329,449, is an increase of over 23
percent in ten years. Households in the two counties have increased
from slightly over 150,000 to almost 220,000 between 2000 and
2010. Over the last decade the total number of households in the
region increased by 47 percent. Growth generates more traffic and
transportation infrastructure is increasingly taxed.
2.1 Existing Transportation Conditions
Residents and visitors experience firsthand congestion along US 17,
US 501 and other key corridors during the busy tourist season. The
GSATS maintains a Travel Demand Model (TDM) for forecasting
future traffic based on land use and socioeconomic data. During
development of the 2035 LRTP the area covered by the TDM was
expanded to better model for regional flow of traffic to encompass
all of Georgetown and Horry counties, as well as a portion of
Brunswick County in North Carolina. The study area covered by the
TDM is shown in white in Figure 2.1, which also identifies the
functional classification given to roads in the modeled highway
network.
Appendix A provides more detailed information on the expansion of
the GSATS travel demand model.
As a result of the increase in population and economic development
traffic volumes have also increased as shown in Table 2-1. The
resulting traffic conditions in 2009 are illustrated in Figure 2-2,
where each road segment is allocated a level of service (LOS) grade
in the range A – F. LOS A represents free-flow conditions whereas F
represents severely congested conditions, as illustrated in Figure 23.
•
4
Figure 2-1: Model Area and Road Network Functional Classification
5
Figure 2-2: Existing Traffic Conditions
6
Table 2-1: Traffic Growth in the GSATS Area, 2000-2009
Route
Location
Horry County
SC 9
Hemingway Rd. to Sea Mountain Hwy.
SC 9
S.C. 9 Bus. to S.C. 9 Bus.
US 17
S.C. 707 to U.S. 501
th
US 17
Lake Arrowhead Rd. to 48 Ave. S
st
US 17
S.C. 73 to 1 Ave S
US 17
Mineola Ave. to N. C. State Line
SC 22
S.C. 90 To U.S .17
SC 22
S.C. 905 To S.C. 90
SC 22
U.S. 701 To S.C. 905
SC 22
S.C. 319 To U.S. 701
th
Ocean Blvd
Porcher Dr. to 79 Ave. North
SC 90
French Collins Rd. to Wampee Rd.
SC 90
Wampee Rd. to Sea Mountain Hwy.
Joe White
U.S. 17 to U.S. 17
21 st Ave
S.C. 73 to 0.06 mi. of U.S. 17
US 378
Marion Co. Line to Nixon Ave.
US 501
S.C. 544 to Burcale Rd.
US 501
Bluewater Rd. to Enoch Rd.
US 501
U.S. 701 to Waccamaw Dr.
US 501
S.C. 905 to S.C. 544
SC 544
University Blvd. to S-814/Mill Pond Rd.
US 701
Georgetown Co. to Pitch Landing Rd.
US 701
S.C. 410 to Suggs St.
SC 707
Georgetown Co. to Dick Pond Rd.
SC 31
U.S. 501 To S.C. 544
SC 31
Robert M. Grissom Pkwy. to U.S. 501
SC 31
S.C. 22 To Robert M. Grissom Pkwy.
SC 31
S.C. 9 to S.C. 22
Georgetown County
US 17
St James St. to Waterford Rd.
US 17
Sandy Island Rd. to Wesley Rd.
US 17
Charleston Co. Line to Whitehall Ave.
US 521
U.S. 17 to Plum Lane
US 701
S.C. 51 to Horry Co. Line
Source: SCDOT
2000 AADT
2009 AADT
00-09 Growth
00-09 Inc Yr
18,600
6,000
52,800
57,500
29,600
25,300
9,300
9,200
5,500
4,200
8,500
7,400
9,900
15,100
22,800
8,300
48,100
18,900
46,400
20,700
21,600
7,600
6,700
13,300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20,200
5,500
57,000
55,200
26,500
16,000
24,500
11,900
7,700
5,600
8,200
6,300
12,500
10,500
19,600
8,800
43,400
24,200
41,900
19,800
27,000
7,200
6,600
19,000
12,500
17,600
25,600
20,100
8.6%
-8.3%
8.0%
-4.0%
-10.5%
-36.8%
163.4%
29.3%
40.0%
33.3%
-3.5%
-14.9%
26.3%
-30.5%
-14.0%
6.0%
-9.8%
28.0%
-9.7%
-4.3%
25.0%
-5.3%
-1.5%
42.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9%
-1.0%
0.9%
-0.5%
-1.2%
-5.0%
11.4%
2.9%
3.8%
3.2%
-0.4%
-1.8%
2.6%
-4.0%
-1.7%
0.7%
-1.1%
2.8%
-1.1%
-0.5%
2.5%
-0.6%
-0.2%
4.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,900
30,800
7,700
7,500
4,100
22,500
31,100
9,100
7,300
3,600
2.7%
1.0%
18.2%
-2.7%
-12.2%
0.3%
0.1%
1.9%
-0.3%
-1.4%
Figure 2-3: Level of Service Definitions
7
Figure 3-1: Transportation Survey Results
3. Public Participation
Input was invited and received
from residents of the Grand
Strand area through a number
of initiatives as documented in
Appendix B, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
First Round of Public
Meetings in February
2010;
Project website at www.gsats.org;
Transportation Survey;
Visual Preference Survey;
On-line Chat Session
hosted by The Sun News;
and
Second Round of Public
Meetings in April 2011.
3.1 Transportation
Survey
How Would You Rate Existing Highway Congestion?
In a similar survey conducted in the spring of 2004 for the GSATS
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan survey respondents were
asked ‘How would you rate transportation conditions in the Grand
Strand area?” and were asked to select between good, fair and poor.
The 119 responses were distributed as follows:
2004 Survey: Good – 15.1% Fair – 64.7% Poor – 20.2%
Very Satisfied,
2%
Very Satisfied,
2%
Very
Unsatisfied,
16%
Very
Unsatisfied,
19%
Satisfied,
9%
Satisfied, 14%
Adequate, 33%
Not Satisfied,
40%
Adequate, 30%
Not Satisfied,
35%
How Would You Rate Existing Sidewalk Availability and Condition?
How Would You Rate Existing Public Bus Service?
Very Satisfied,
1%
Very
Unsatisfied,
15%
Very Satisfied,
2%
Satisfied, 7%
Satisfied, 13%
Not Satisfied,
32%
Very
Unsatisfied,
34%
Adequate,
27%
Adequate,
39%
Some of the principal results of the Transportation Survey are
summarized below. Over 300 members of the public responded to
the Transportation Survey, either at the meetings or via the website.
When asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with various
aspects of the transportation system most were dissatisfied, except
for Existing Sidewalk Availability and Condition (47 percent) and
Existing Road Safety (50 percent), as illustrated in Figure 3-1. The
lowest levels of satisfaction were expressed for Public Bus Services
(64 percent) and Bicycle Path Availability (66 percent).
How Would You Rate Existing Highway and Street Condition?
Not Satisfied,
30%
How Would You Rate Existing Bicycle Paths Availability and
Condition?
How Would You Rate Existing Road Safety?
Very Satisfied,
1%
Very Satisfied,
2%
Very
Unsatisfied,
28%
Very
Unsatisfied,
12%
Satisfied,
10%
Adequate,
22%
Not Satisfied,
38%
Satisfied, 13%
Adequate, 36%
Not Satisfied,
38%
8
Respondents were asked to divide $100 among ten types of
transportation improvements to reflect the relative importance of
each improvement to them. The results from 277 responses are
illustrated in Figure 3-2 and summarized in Table 3-1. The
improvement types rated most important were:
•
•
Widening and building of major controlled access highways;
and
Roadway conditions (fix pot holes, resurface, signage, and
other).
Figure 3-2: Allocation of Funding to Transportation
Improvements
New and
existing
connector
parkways/
arterials, $11
Major controlled
access highways,
$14
Pavement
markings, lighting,
signs, $8
Roadway
Conditions, $13
Bike lanes and
paths, $9
Public
Transportation,
$12
Sidewalks, $6
Intersection
safety, $11
Traffic Flow, $10
Street Aesthetics,
$7
These were followed by the closely ranked group of:
•
•
•
3.2 Visual Preference Survey
Public Transportation;
Intersection Safely; and
Creating new and improving existing connector parkways and
arterials.
In a similar question in 2004 improvements relating to new roads,
adding lanes, safety and operations attracted $73 of the $100
available (including $6 for “Other”, which included responses such
as repaving/maintenance, signal coordination, and signage). In the
current survey a similar grouping of improvement types attracted
$66.
A comparison of these and other improvement types is provided
below:
Improvement Type
Roads: new, widening, safety and
operations
Public Transit
Bike/Pedestrian Paths
Sidewalks
Street Aesthetics
2004
Survey
2010
Survey
Difference
$73
$66.20
-$6.80
$8
$7
$4
$8
$11.65
$9.32
$6.13
$6.71
+$3.65
+$2.32
+$2.13
-$1.29
The complete Transportation Survey form is shown in Figure 3-3.
Table 3-1: Allocation of Funding to Transportation Improvements
Type of Transportation Improvement
Pavement markings, intersection lighting, and readable street signs
Intersection safety (turn lanes, sight distance, traffic controls, etc.)
Roadway Conditions (fix pot holes, resurface, signage, other)
Street Aesthetics (trees, lighting, planted medians, shoulders, other)
Traffic Flow (limit driveways, median breaks, coordinate signals)
Public Transportation (buses, bus stops, routing, other)
Sidewalks (curb ramps, crosswalks at intersections, etc.)
Bike lanes and Multi-use Paths
Creating new and improving existing connector parkways and arterials, such as the Robert M. Grissom Parkway
Widening and building of major controlled access highways
Totals
Allocation of Funds
Total
$100
$2,124
$7.67
$3,057
$11.04
$3,549
$12.81
$1,859
$6.71
$2,739
$9.89
$3,227
$11.65
$1,697
$6.13
$2,582
$9.32
$3,039
$10.97
$3,827
$13.82
$27,700
$100.00
Rank
8
4
2
9
6
3
10
7
5
1
The Visual Preference Survey presented design alternatives for five
types of transportation improvement:
•
•
•
•
•
Low speed roads;
High speed roads;
Intersections;
Commuter transit corridor; and
Urban transit corridor.
For each alternative a computer generated rendering was shown, as
well as a brief description and planning–level cost estimate.
Respondents were asked to select the alternative they preferred.
The alternative design concepts and the percent selected for each
improvement type are shown in Figure 3-4.
3.3 General Comments
In addition to responding to the two surveys, members of the public
also submitting 105 general comments in the February/March 2010
period. The topic receiving the most comments was Transit with 30
comments (20 percent).
3.4 Public Comment on Draft Final Report
The Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) made a
“Draft” of the proposed 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
available for review and comment from April 4th, 2011 until May
4th, 2011 at area libraries, on the web at www.gsats.org, and at
member government planning offices. A series of Public Meetings
was held on April 19th and 20th, 2011 and presentations were made
to a variety of other interest groups. There were opportunities for
the public to comment at each meeting or to submit written
comments on the web, e-mail, or US mail. A summary of the events
during the public review period is included as Appendix B. The
GSATS Study Team and Policy Committee met in May and June 2011
to consider the comments on the LRTP, necessary revisions to the
Draft, and verify that the requirements of the GSATS Public
Participation Plan were satisfied prior to approval.
9
Figure 3-3: Transportation Survey
10
Figure 3-4: Visual Preference Survey
11
4. Goals and Objectives
Figure 4-1: Planning Requirements
The GSATS 2035 LRTP was prepared in accordance with the
SAFETEA-LU, Section 302 23 C.F.R. Parts 450 and 500 and 49 C.F.R.
Part 613. Federal policy in developing long range transportation
plans also extends to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and the President’s Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice.
Figure 4-1 shows the numerous federal planning requirements that
must be addressed by the MPO during the development of a LRTP.
The illustration shows the eight federal planning factors that must
be considered in developing the LRTP and surrounding these factors
are other planning requirements.
Developing the GSATS 2035 LRTP differed from the process used to
develop past LRTPs due to the following reasons:
•
Regional efforts to manage and operate existing transportation
systems are becoming ever more important due to rapidly
increasing congestion.
•
Funding and environmental constraints on highway capacity
expansion.
•
Growing need to provide connectivity, interdependency, and
operational impacts across modes.
To address GSATS short and long-term multimodal transportation
needs, seven goals were developed during the LRTP process. The
multimodal transportation projects, programs, and policies
identified during the 2035 LRTP process were reviewed against these
goals to ensure the 2035 LRTP is consistent and supports these
locally-driven measures. As shown in Table 4-1, the comprehensive
GSATS 2035 LRTP goals address the eight SAFETEA-LU planning
factors, Act 114 criteria, and reflect local values. Appendix C
provided additional information on study Goals and Objectives,
while Appendix D reviews the pros and cons of two-way left-turn
lanes – a traffic management technique.
Source: Management & Operations in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan:
A Guidebook for Creating an Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach,
USDOT, FHWA, FTA, September 17, 2007.
Table 4-1: GSATS LRTP Goals and Federal Planning Factors
GSATS 2035 Goals
Goal 1 – Develop a Plan that will protect and sustain a high quality of life by coordinating land use and
transportation planning in the region.
Goal 2 – Develop a financially feasible plan that will advance the region’s economic competitiveness based
upon sustainable development.
Goal 3 – Develop a Transportation System that will increase accessibility and mobility throughout the
region and integrates modes to provide efficient movement of persons and goods.
Goal 4 – Develop a transportation system that will enhance economic and social values, protect the natural
environmental, and minimize adverse impacts.
Goal 5 – Establish a more balanced and livable transportation system that will increase modal choices by
prioritizing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel throughout the region.
Goal 6 – Provide and promote a safe, secure, accessible, and efficient multimodal transportation system
for residents, tourists, and commerce.
Goal 7 – Protect and preserve the existing public multimodal transportation system and facilities.
Related Planning Factor
Planning Factors 1, 4, and 6
Planning Factors 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8
Planning Factors 2, 4, 6, and 8
Planning Factor 8
12
Table 5-1: GSATS Let, Programmed, and Committed Projects - December 21st, 2010
5. Anticipated Future Conditions
Growth in the Grand Strand area is anticipated to continue over the
next 25 years.
5.1 Forecast Traffic Growth
Continued growth into the future is dependent upon maintaining
livability. Moderate climate coupled with strong economic
development efforts and robust tourist attractions provide a
foundation for continued steady increases in population and
employment through the study horizon.
Forecasts of future traffic conditions were developed based on
projections by local governmental agencies of the growth in various
types of land use between 2010 and 2035. Overall growth rates
over this period ranged from 60 percent for multi-family households
to 36 percent for public land uses.
Given the projected growth in economic development in the region
it is anticipated that vehicle-miles of travel will increase by 68
percent between 2009 and 2035. The extent of congestion by 2035
is illustrated in Figure 5-1, which shows the LOS on a road network
consisting only of existing roads, committed improvement projects,
and the proposed I-73 interstate from I-95 to SC 22 northwest of
Conway.
Committed projects are those for which a decision has been made to
construct the project and a source of funding has been identified.
Committed projects include those contained in the current GSATS
2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A listing of
committed projects is included in Table 5-1.
Location
Description
Location
Type of Project
NMB
Widening
MB
Conway
MB
MB
New Construction
Intersection
New Construction
Widening
Roadway
Improvements
New Construction
Roadway
Improvements
Roadway
Improvements
Project Status: Let
US 17 from 8th Ave N. to Sea Mountain
Hwy
Harrelson Boulevard Extension
University Boulevard at HGTC
Oak Forest Drive
38th Avenue Widening
Extension of Harrelson Blvd to Kings Highway (US 17 Bus)
Roundabout
Oak Forest Drive connector from Grissom Pkwy to Walmart
Widden 38th Avenue North in Myrtle Beach to 4 lanes divided from US 17 to Grissom Pakway.
Ocean Boulevard
Narrow Ocean Boulevard to 3 lanes from Springmaid to Porcher Drive
SC 9 at Hill / 20th North, NMB
Add 4th leg at intersection of SC 9 and Hill Street with extension of 20th Avenue N (see N-32) in NMB
NMB
Garden City Connector
Improve Garden City Connector (from US 17 Business to Pathfinder Way)
Horry
Water Tower Road
Water Tower Road Improvements
NMB
Project Status: Programmed
Add aditional westbound lane on US 501 from Factory Stores to Gardener Lacey.
Interchange on US 17 Bypass at SC 707, "Back Gate"
Horry
MB
Improve International Drive between SC 90 and River Oaks Drive
Horry
Improve Glenns Bay Road to 5-lanes and interchange at US 17 Bypass
Horry
Widening
Intersection
Roadway
Improvements
Widening
Widen SC 707 to 5 lanes from Murrells Inlet to Enterprise Road
Horry
Widening
MB
Atlantic
Beach
NMB
Horry
Conway
Georgetown
Horry
NMB
Conway
MB
Widening
US 501
US 17 Bypass at SC 707
International Drive, from SC 90 to River
Oaks Drive
Glenns Bay Road
SC 707, from Murrells Inlet to Enterprise
Road
3rd Avenue in Myrtle Beach
Widen US 17 from 4 to 6 lanes from 8th Avenue North to Sea Mountain Hwy (SC 9) in North Myrtle Beach
Widen 3rd Avenue from 2 to 3 lanes in Myrtle Beach
Ocean Boulevard
Make Ocean Boulevard continuous through Atlantic Beach
SC 65 (South Ocean Boulevard)
Carolina Bays Parkway, Phase 3
Singleton Rd at Technology Blvd
Wachesaw at Old Kings Highway
US 17 Bypass and Garden City Connector
US 17
Main St. at Oak St. and Park View Rd.
Old Socastee Highway / Emory
Widen SC 65 (South Ocean Boulevard) through Crescent Beach from 17th to 28th Ave S
Carolina Bays Parkway Phase 3, from SC 544 to SC 707
Intersection improvements to enhance circulation and safety
Roundabout
Intersection improvements to enhance circulation and safety
US 17 intersection improvements at 6th South in NMB
Main St. at Oak Street and Park View Road: Recommended intersection improvement
Extension North to Harrelson at Mall Drive (CC4754) and South to Farrow at (CC4745)
Project Status: Committed
Intersection improvements, future widening: (6th Avenue S), (17th Avenue S), (33rd Avenue S), and SC 65
(27th Avenue S)
Connect Platt Blvd to US 17 Bus in Surfside Beach by installing a traffic signal
US 17 and SC 707 Intersection Improvements
Extend Left Turn Lanes @ US 17 and Willbrook
Clemson property connector from Farrow Parkway to US 17 via the Clemson and Jackson Tracts - 3-lane
collector, 35 mph
Clemson property connector from US 17 to SC 544, via the Clemson and Jackson Tracts - 3-lane collector, 35
mph
Intersection improvements, future
widening
Platt Boulevard, Surside Beach
US 17 at SC 707
US 17
Clemson property connector
Clemson property connector
MB
New Construction
Widening
New Construction
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
New Construction
NMB
Intersection
Surfside
Georgetown
Georgetown
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
MB
New Construction
Horry
New Construction
Sources:
GSATS 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2005 ; Horry County North Myrtle Beach Northeast Area Transportation Plan, July 2008; Georgetown Countywide Transportation Master
Plan, April 2009; City of Conway Comprehensive Transportation Plan, December 2008; Kings Highway Corridor Study; South Strand US 17 Corridor Study; North Myrtle Beach US 17 Corridor Study;
Georgetown County US 17 Corridor Study
13
Figure 5-1: Projected 2035 Traffic Conditions with Committed Projects
14
6. Candidate
Projects
Road
Improvement
To improve future travel conditions, numerous road improvement
projects were identified for consideration. The list of projects was
generated from GSATS Study Team Meetings and the first round of
public meetings in February 2010, as well as thorough review of
previously conducted studies, including those previously listed in
Section 1 of this report.
The initial solicitation of projects revealed more than 200 road
improvement projects that were considered for implementation.
Within the full list, several projects were inappropriate for
consideration as GSATS roadway improvement projects. For
example, some projects lay outside the GSATS study area or funding
had already been identified. During the evaluation process, other
projects were deferred from further consideration by the Study
Team, as no longer being practical or effective at the present time.
Intersection improvement and enhancement projects or corridor
studies at identified locations with an estimated cost of less than $1
million are also not ranked in the 2035 LRTP Prioritized Project list;
however, it is expected that these types of projects will be funded
on the GSATS Transportation Improvement Program. When funds
become available for the Intersection or Enhancement program,
project locations will be provided by member jurisdictions and the
ranking procedure currently in place will be used. The procedure
used is described in Section 6.4.
Projects to be ranked were categorized by type of improvement as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N – New Construction
W – Widening
R – Roadway Improvements
M – Operations, Access Management, Safety
P – Pedestrian / Bicycle
T – Transit
B – Bridge
Project locations were uploaded to a Google Map, which is
accessible via the GSATS 2035 LRTP website at www.gsats.org.
Project locations are illustrated in Figure 6.1. Appendix E provides
background information on the Regional Wayfinding project.
6.1 Ranking Improvement Projects
In 2007, the South Carolina General Assembly enacted Act 114,
which requires MPOs to follow legislative guidance on prioritizing
transportation projects. Act 114 provides a statewide framework for
evaluating road widening, intersection improvements, and new
facilities, based on legislative guidance. SCDOT maintains a
statewide list of ranked widening and new-location roadway
projects using criteria consistent with Act 114.
The statewide list provides a uniform process for evaluating project
priorities and is for informational purposes only; projects compete
only with others within each respective urban or rural region. MPOs
have the discretion of using the statewide list to establish local
priorities or they may use commission-approved criteria consistent
with Act 114, in addition to other criteria that address local desires
and concerns related to transportation improvements.
During the GSATS 2035 LRTP process, the GSATS Study Team
developed Act 114 compliant rankings for widening projects, as
shown in Table 6-1 and for new construction projects, as shown in
Table 6-2. The maximum score a project can receive is 100 points.
The higher the points, the higher the priority. GSATS already has
approved procedures in place for selecting and ranking intersection
projects, so these projects were not ranked within the GSATS 2035
LRTP study.
Table 6-1: Prioritization Factors for Widening Projects
ACT 114 Criteria
Financial Viability
Public Safety
Economic Development
Traffic Volume
Truck Traffic
Pavement Quality Index
Environmental Impact
Alternative Solutions
(Livability)
Local Land Use
Recommended GSATS Widening and Interchange /
Large Intersection Improvement Project Criteria*
10 points possible
Project cost / (TIP) budget
20 points possible
Crash Rate
Addressed through Congestion and Livability criteria
30 points possible
2035 Volume / Capacity
5 points possible
Functional Class
Considered when funding becomes available in TIP
10 points possible
22 Environmental Criteria
20 points possible
Distance from destinations and project support of
other modes
5 points possible
Local Land Use Criteria
*Intersection Improvement, Enhancement projects, and Corridor Studies with an estimated cost
of less than $1 million are not ranked in the 2035 LRTP Project list. It is, however, expected that
these types of projects will be funded on the GSATS Transportation Improvement Program.
When funds become available for the Intersection or Enhancement program, project locations
will be provided by member jurisdictions and the Act 114 Compliant ranking procedure currently
in place will be used.
Table 6-2: Prioritization Factors for New Location Projects
ACT 114 Criteria
Financial Viability
Economic Development
Traffic Volume
Truck Traffic
Pavement Quality Index
Environmental Impact
Alternative Solutions
(Livability)
Local Land Use
Recommended GSATS New Location Project
Criteria
20 points possible
Project cost / (TIP) budget
Addressed through Congestion and Livability criteria
40 points possible
2035 Volume / Capacity
5 points possible
Functional Class
Considered when funding becomes available in TIP
10 points possible
22 Environmental Criteria
20 points possible
Distance from destinations and project support of
other modes
5 points possible
Local Land Use Criteria
15
Figure 6-1: Road Improvement Project Locations
16
6.2 GSATS Ranking Criteria
The methods used by GSATS to score projects for the Act 114 criteria
are summarized below:
Financial Viability - Based on the ratio of the Planning Level Cost
Estimate to the current level of funds available in the TIP over a six
year period, which is $40,702,000. This results in high-cost projects
receiving fewer points than low-cost projects.
Public Safety - Based on the number of crashes for existing roads
divided by the length of the improvement, so that projects to
improve roads with high crash rates receive more points.
Traffic Volume - Based on projected 2035 volume to capacity ratio
from the GSATS 2035 model, with more points going to the more
congested roadways.
Truck Traffic - Based on the functional class of the road being
improved or constructed. Five points for an Expressway, four points
for a Ramp, three for a Principal Arterial, two for a Minor Arterial,
and one point for a road classified as a Collector. For facilities that
provide an alternative to a level of service F route, the failing route's
functional classification was used.
Environmental Factors - Based on a number of environmental
criteria, including the potential for impacting threatened and
endanger species, forested habitat, wetlands, drainage crossings,
floodplains, outstanding resource water, uplands, HAZMAT sites,
Parks/Refuges/WMA 4(f)/6(f), historic structures, archeological sites,
farmland, communities, residencies, planned residence, commercial
sites, other relocations, environmental justice impacts, noise
receptors, and visual impacts. Projects broadly fell into three
expected levels of environmental documentation that would be
necessary to complete the project: preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE), preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI); or preparation and
drafting of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Livability - Based on a projects distance from defined public
facilities/destinations and the project’s ability to improve access,
connectivity, and mobility for other modes of travel. Two points
each for being within 1/2 mile and one point for being within one
mile of a school, public building, park, library, hospital, transit, or
other destination. Two points were possible for each project’s ability
to support and one point for “somewhat” ability to support:
complete streets, improve connectivity, and create walkable
neighborhoods.
Local Land Use - Based on the local government (City, Town, or
County’s) response to a project’s compatibility with the adopted
future land use map, comprehensive plan, contribution to walkable
communities, open space, or established communities. With each of
the five factors offered one possible point.
Pavement Quality Index, Cost, and Total Reduction in Vehicle Miles
Traveled (Considered when funding becomes available in the TIP) Based on the SCDOT’s schedule for resurfacing in relation to a
project’s scope, funding available compared with funding required,
and the total reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled when a project is
included in the GSATS Existing and Committed Travel Demand
Model.
6.3 Project Rankings
The first step in ranking candidate projects was to group them into
three Tiers based on the method or methods of funding considered
being most likely for each project. Projects were then ranked within
each Tier and grouped into three levels of priority, namely A, B,
and C.
•
•
•
Tier 1 Projects
o Projects likely to be funded entirely from GSATS resources
o Total cost approximately equal to 25 years of funding
o Tier 1 projects ranked based on Act 144 Criteria above
Tier 2 Projects
o Projects eligible for GSATS funding when other sources
available, such as FHWA High Priority Projects, SIB, LOST,
RIDE 3, CTC
Tier 3 Projects
o Projects eligible for GSATS funding when other private
sources available, such as Impact Fees, TIF, MID, or other
private investment
The results of the ranking process are shown in Tables 6-3, 6-4, and
6-5 for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 projects, respectively.
6.4 Existing Ranking Procedures for Intersection
Projects
Priorities for GSATS approved Intersection Improvement ranking
criteria are safety, congestion, SCDOT’s recommendation, cost, nonMPO financial participation, inclusion in a published plan,
multimodal components, and cost benefit analysis. The highest
priority is given to safety with a possible score of thirty-five points.
All of the intersections are ranked by the number of accidents per
million vehicles. The next most significant factors – congestion and
cost benefit ratios - are assigned fifteen points each. Congestion is
quantified by the level of service delay in seconds. SCDOT’s
recommendation is worth five points and are assigned five or zero
without a scale. Finally, the cost to benefit ratio is given a possible
fifteen points. Benefit is defined using the net benefit method along
with engineering judgment.
Several other criteria are considered in the intersection
improvement ranking; however, they all provided ten points or less.
The dollar amount of the federal cost is considered in the ranking:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less than $100,000 - 10 points
$100,000 to $199,000 - 8 points
$200,000 to $299,000 - 6 points
$300,000 to $399,000 - 4 points
$400,000 to $500,000 - 2 points
More than $500,000 - 0 points
Financial participation by another local government, public agency,
or private entity is also considered in the ranking. Local participation
in project funding equal to or greater than the federal share will
receive ten points, financial participation greater than fifty percent
of federal project cost will receive five points, and participation
greater than ten percent of the project cost will provide one point.
Projects included in the GSATS LRTP, an adopted corridor study, or a
local government’s comprehensive plan will receive three points. If it
is included in more than one of these planning documents it will
receive five points. If it is consistent with a recommendation in the
plan but not specifically mentioned, it would receive one point.
Improvements that addressed more than just automobiles were also
given priority. Projects with three or more additional modes will
receive five points, two or more additional modes will receive three
points, and those with one additional mode will receive one point.
17
Table 6-3: GSATS 2035 Tier 1 Ranked Projects
Ref #
M - 14
R - 21, 18,
19 and 22
W-2
R - 10
R-7
N - 45
Location
Description
Regional Wayfinding
Regional signage directing drivers to SC 31 and SC 22
Kings Highway
Improve Kings Highway (Farrow Parkway to 31st N and 67th N to 48th Ave S in NMB), including pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements
US 501 from Conway to
Forestbrook Drive
US 17 Business Median B (in
Surfside Beach)
US 17 Business Median C (in
Garden City)
Palmetto Point Boulevard
US 501 widening to 6 lanes between SC 31 and Conway with Transit. Intersection Improvements at Factory Stores, Gardner Lacey, Singleton
Ridge, CCU, and other signalized intersections.
(1)
Type
T/P
Cost
Roadway Improvements
1/A
2.5
Horry / Georgetown
1/A
22.3
MB / Horry / NMB
Widening
1/A
12.9
Conway / Horry
Close US 17 Business Median Breaks, modify intersections for U-turns, and coordinate signals in Surfside Beach
1/A
2
Surfside
Close US 17 Business Median Breaks, modify intersections for U-turns, and coordinate signals in Garden City
1/A
1
Horry
New
1/A
3
Horry
Widening
1/B
3.1
MB
New Construction
1/B
1.9
MB
Close Median Breaks, modify intersections for U-turns, and coordinate signals on US 17 Business between Myrtle Beach and Surfside Beach
1/B
2
Surfside
Improve Kings Highway (31st N to 67th N), including pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements
1/B
9.1
MB
New Construction
1/B
1
Georgetown
Roadway Improvement
1/B
3.1
Horry
Widen US 17 Bypass to 6 lanes divided: Airport to Murrells Inlet
Widening
1/B
13.4
Horry
Install Additional Lanes on Bus 17/Eliminate Frontage Roads in Surfside Beach
Tier 1 - Priority C
Widening
1/B
6.4
Surfside
Widen US 17 Bypass to 6 lanes from 29th Avenue N. northwards to Grissom and interchange improvements.
Widening
1/C
6
MB
Widen Black River Road in the City of Georgetown
Widening
1/C
6
Georgetown
Widening
1/C
13.2
Horry
Widening
Strategic Corridor Access
Management
Roadway Improvement
1/C
6
Horry
1/C
2
Horry
1/C
2.5
Georgetown
Widening
1/C
6.7
Horry
1/C
1/C
17.5
6.6
Horry / Georgetown
Horry / Georgetown
Tier 1 - Priority A
Palmetto Pointe Boulevard extension to US 544
Location
Tier 1 - Priority B
W-1
N - 12
R - 13
R - 20
N - 18
R-4
W - 3A
W - 29
Seaboard St from US 501 to 10th
Ave N
Pampus Drive
US 17 Business Median A
(between Myrtle Beach and
Surfside Beach)
Kings Highway C (31st N to 67th N)
Petigru Drive, N of MLK Road in
Pawleys Island
Sea Mountain Highway (SC 90 to
SC 9)
US 17 Bypass A (from Airport to
544)
US 17 Business B (Surfside Beach)
US 17 Bypass A (from 29 Ave N to
Grissom Interchange).
W - 34
Black River Road
US 17 Bypass B (from SC 544 to
W - 3B
Garden City)
W - 28
US 17 Business C (in Garden City)
SC 9 from S-26-57 to US 17
M-6
interchange
R - 31
US 521
US 17 Bypass C (from Garden City
W - 3C
to Murrells Inlet)
I - 99
Throughout Region
P - 99
Throughout Region
Note: (1) Cost in millions.
W-8
Widen Seaboard St between US 501 and 10th Avenue N in Myrtle Beach to 3 lanes with bike lane and sidewalk.
Pampus Dr. extension from Seagate Village to Prestwick Club Drive - 2-lane collector, 35 mph
Extension of Petigru Drive from just north of MLK Rd, N to Aspen Loop in Litchfield
Improve alignment of Sea Mountain Highway (SC 90 to SC 9) in Horry County to two-lane undivided minor arterial standards, including bicycle
and pedestrian facilities with turning pockets at major intersections.
Install Additional Lanes on Bus 17 in Garden City
Implement access management improvements along SC 9 from SC 57 to US 17 interchange, including construction of plantable median with
appropriate median opening spacing between full movement signalized intersections and partial movement leftover access.
New cross section for the portion of US 521 (Highmarket and St. James Streets) from N. Fraser Street to Church Street in the City of Georgetown
Intersection Improvement List RND3+
Transportation Enhancements
18
Ref #
Location
Type
T/P
Cost(1)
Location
New location
New Construction Widening
New Interchange
2/A
2/A
2/A
3.7
10
60
Conway
MB
Horry
Extend St Paul Place to Sandy Island Road and connect at Boyle Drive in Georgetown County
New Construction
2/A
1.4
Georgetown
Daytona - Atlantic Center Connector: Increase connectivity in Century Circle Area
New Construction
2/A
0.8
Conway
New location
New location
New Construction
Interchange Improvements
New Construction
New Construction
2/A
2/A
2/A
2/A
2/A
2/A
5.2
5.4
3.6
42
45
3.3
Conway
Conway
MB
Conway
MB
Georgetown
Widen Bridge
2/A
21
NMB
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
2/A
2/A
2/A
1
0.3
0.7
AB
Conway
Georgetown
Widening
2/A
9.1
Horry
Extend Library Lane South to Waverly Road, in Pawleys Island
New Construction
2/A
0.7
Georgetown
Extend Postal Way to Waccamaw Pines to the south and Atlantic Center to the north.
New Construction
2/A
11.3
Horry
New Construction
Widening
New Location
Intersection / Underpass
2/A
2/A
2/A
2/A
2/A
11.6
47
1.6
1
31.3
Horry
Horry
NMB
Conway
Conway
New Construction
2/A
1.3
Georgetown
New location
2/A
13.8
Conway
New Construction
2/A
95.2
Horry
New Bridge
2/A
186
Conway
New Construction
Roadway Improvement
2/A
2/A
2.2
0.8
Georgetown
Surfside
Widening
2/A
5
NMB
New Construction
2/A
6.9
Horry
Description
Tier 2 - Priority A
N - 26
N-3
I-7
Conway High School Connector
5th Avenue South, Myrtle Beach
US 501 at Carolina Forest
St Paul / Sandy Island Road
N - 36
Connector, Pawleys Island
Daytona
Atlantic
Center
N - 48
Connector
N - 25
Medlin Parkway Extension
N - 24
University Boulevard Extension
N - 11
17th Avenue S in Myrtle Beach
I-6
US 501 / SC 544 / SC 90
B - 56
10th Avenue N Extension
N - 34
Library Lane, Pawleys Island
US 17 Bridges in North Myrtle
B-1
Beach
N - 30
Wiley Connector, NMB
N - 49
2nd Avenue Extension
N - 37
Otis Drive, Pawleys Island
US 17 Business A (between Myrtle
W - 30
Beach and Surfside Beach)
N - 35
Library Lane, Pawleys Island
Postal
Way
extension
to
N-5
Waccamaw Pines and to Atlantic
Center.
N - 99
I-73 (not in GSATS)
N - 52
Augusta Plantation Extension
W-4
SC 94 (11th Avenue North)
N - 21
Park View Park Hill Connector
I - 19
1st/2nd Avenue at US 501
Parkersville Road from Baskerville
N - 19
to Gilman in Pawleys Island
El Bethel Road Extension from US
N - 23
378 to US 701 South
N-6
Carolina Bays Parkway Extension
East of Conway (New Bridge over
B-4
Waccamaw River)
N - 16
Beaumont Drive
R - 28
Surfside Industrial Drive
Little River Neck Road in North
W - 12
Myrtle Beach
N - 10
Scipio Lane
Conway High School Connector: Connect Conway US 501 at High School to US 378 at Westridge Blvd.
Extend 5th Ave S in Myrtle Beach from Broadway Street to Grissom Parkway and widen from Broadway Street to US 17 Bus.
Interchange on US 501 at Carolina Forest Boulevard
Medlin Parkway Extension: Realign western terminus at US 501 to continue straight to US 378
Extend eastern terminus of University Boulevard Extension to East Cox Ferry Rd
17th Avenue S connection from Highway 15 (Broadway) to Grissom Parkway - 3-lane collector, 35 mph
US 501 / SC 544 / SC 90 Interchange improvements
Extend 10th Ave. N (Mr. Joe White) west of the Intracoastal Waterway to Augusta Plantation Drive.
Extend Library Lane North to Litchfield in Pawleys Island
Widen US 17 Bridges in North Myrtle Beach and Little River; Interchange and bridge improvements at SC 9, SC 90, and Sea Mountain Highway;
and additional grade separation at SC 9.
Extend 30th South to Wiley Drive in NMB
2nd Avenue Extension to Highway 723 (US 501 exit ramp to 3rd Avenue)
Extend Otis Drive to Willbrook Boulevard in Pawleys Island
Install Additional Lanes on Bus 17/Eliminate Frontage Roads Between Myrtle Beach and Surfside
I-73 to NC State Line (not in GSATS)
Extend Augusta Plantation to Carolina Forest Blvd., with an interchange at SC 31
SC 94 (11th Avenue North) in NMB - widening and multipurpose path to accommodate Primary School traffic
Connect Park View Road to Park Hill Road at 18th Avenue and Realign 17th/18th Avenue and connect Park Hill Road to Main Street in Conway
Underpass connecting 1st/2nd Avenue to US 501 ramps for access to downtown Conway
Extension of Parkersville Road from Baskerville Road north to Gilman Road in Litchfield
El Bethel Road Extension from US 378 to U.S. 701 South to provide north-south capacity in Conway
Extension of SC 31 (Carolina Bays Parkway) to US 17 in N. Carolina (Hwy 57 / NC1303 improvements)
New Bridge over Waccamaw River, which would link US 501 and SC 90 with SC 905 east of Conway
Connect Beaumont Dr with Petigru Dr, W of US 17 in Pawleys Island
Improve Surfside Industrial Drive to enhance Backside Access in Surfside Beach
Widen Little River Neck Road to 3 lanes with multipurpose path in North Myrtle Beach and construct roundabout north of Hill St.
Scipio Lane Extension, from Holmestown Road to Big Block Road
19
Table 6-4: GSATS 2035 Tier 2 Ranked Projects (continued)
Ref #
Location
Description
N - 17
N-9
N - 54
N - 29
Murrells Inlet Road
Elizabeth Street in Conway
Powell St. Extension
Madison Connector, NMB
R - 30
Garden City Connector
N - 46
W-7
W - 35
N - 47
Causey-Edwards Connector
2nd Avenue N in North Myrtle Beach
Anthuan Maybank Drive
Barker St. / Pine St. Connector
Singleton Ridge Road from US 501 to SC
544
SC 90 Extension from US 501 Business to
US 501
Sandy Lane, Surfside Beach
SC 57 (SC 90 to SC 9)
US 17 from Murrells Inlet to Pawleys
Island
Myrtle Ridge Drive
West of Waterway Parkway
SELL to SC 31 Connector
Southern Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) in
the GSATS area
Connect South 1st St with Murrells Inlet Road (County Road-S22-188), E of US 17 in Murrells Inlet
Extend Elizabeth St from 16th Ave to Mill Pond Road (Conway)
Extend Powell Street from 1st Avenue to Marina Drive and install sidewalks in Conway
Connect Madison Drive to Poinsette Street in NMB
Widen Garden City Connector to 4 lanes divided to include turn lanes at major intersections and construct multi-purpose path to improve
capacity and safety".
Extend Edwards Lane to Causey Rd. at W. Cox Ferry Road, east of Conway
2nd Avenue North in North Myrtle Beach - widening to 3 lanes, with bike lane, and multipurpose path.
Widening and extending Anthuan Maybank Drive
Extend 13th Avenue from Barker St. to Pine St.
Widen Singleton Ridge Road from US 501 to SC 544 to 4 lanes divided with multipurpose path. Add capacity and improve safety in Conway.
W - 21
N - 22
R - 27
W - 18
W - 13
W - 32
N-1
N - 56
B-3
W - 10
River Oaks Drive
Tier 2 - Priority B
Extend SC 90 from US 501 Bus. to intersect US 501, east of Conway
Improve Azalea Drive and Sandy Lane to Improve Backside Access in Surfside Beach
Widen SC 57 (SC 90 to SC 9) to four lane-divided cross section with bicycle and pedestrian amenities.
Widen US 17 from Murrells Inlet to Pawleys Island (S. Causeway Rd)
Widen Myrtle Ridge Drive to 3 lanes from US 501 to SC 544
New West of Waterway Parkway between Long Bay Road and the Robert Edge Parkway in NMB - 4 lanes divided with multipurpose path
Connection between southern termini of SC 31 to eastern termini of SELL to relieve SC 707
The portion of the Southern Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) in the GSATS area between US 701 and US17
Widen River Oaks Drive to 4 lanes divided including turn lanes at major intersections to improve capacity / safety and construct multipurpose path
Type
T/P
Cost(1)
Location
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
2/B
2/B
2/B
2/B
1.5
2
0.2
0.6
Georgetown
Conway
Conway
AB
Roadway Improvement
2/B
5
Horry
New Construction
Widening
Widening
New Construction
2/B
2/B
2/B
2/B
0.6
1.4
3
0.5
Conway
NMB
Georgetown
Conway
Widening
2/B
10
Conway
New location
2/B
6
Conway
Roadway Improvement
Widening
2/B
2/B
1.5
13.5
Surfside
Horry
Widening
2/B
27.5
Georgetown
New
New Construction
New Construction
2/B
2/B
2/B
6
6
153.5
Horry
NMB
Horry
New Bridge
2/B
304
Conway
Widening
2/B
21.4
Horry
Roadway Improvement
2/C
3.5
Horry
Widening
2/C
25.5
Horry
Widening
2/C
12
Georgetown
Widening
2/C
3.5
Georgetown
Tier 2 - Priority C
R-5
Mt. Zion Road (SC 90 to S-26-57)
W - 14
Carolina Forest Boulevard
W - 36
Kings River and Willbrook
Old Kings Hwy & Wesley Road, Murrells
inlet
W - 25
W - 15
W-5
W-6
N - 13
N-8
W-9
Forestbrook Road
SC 90 from SC 9 to SC 22
SC 90 from US 501 to SC 22
Gardner Lacy Extension
Georgetown Bypass
US 701 from Conway to Georgetown
Long Bay Road (Intracoastal Waterway to
R-3
SC 90) in Horry County
Connector from US 17 and new West of
B-7
Waterway Parkway in NMB
Improve alignment of Mt. Zion Road (SC 90 to SC 57) to two-lane undivided minor arterial standards, including bicycle and pedestrian
amenities with turning pockets at major intersections.
Widen Carolina Forest Boulevard to 4 lanes divided including turn lanes at major intersections to improve capacity / safety and construct
multi-purpose path
Widen Kings River and Willbrook to 4 lanes divided with multipurpose path.
Widen Old Kings Hwy (from SC 707 to Turntable Road) & Wesley Road in Murrells Inlet and build new conection
Widen Forestbrook Road to 4 lanes divided including turn lanes at major intersections to improve capacity / safety and construct multipurpose path
Widen SC 90 to 4 lanes divided, from SC 9 to SC 22 in NE Horry County
Widen SC 90 to 4 lanes divided from US 501 to SC 22 (Veterans Hwy) in Horry County
Gardner Lacy Extension to International Drive and Interchange at US 501
Georgetown Bypass from US 701 (north of SC 51 to US 17 north of Sampit River)
Widening US 701 to 4 lanes divided between Conway and Georgetown
Pave existing alignment of Long Bay Road (Intracoastal Waterway to Watertower Rd) in Horry County to two-lane divided minor arterial
standards on four lanes ROW
Widening
2/C
14.3
Horry
Widening
Widening
New Construction
New Construction
Widening
2/C
2/C
2/C
2/C
2/C
34.5
34.8
65.2
90
170
Horry
Horry
Horry
Georgetown
Horry / Georgetown
Paving of road
2/C
12
Horry
Construct connector between US 17 and new West of Waterway Parkway in North Myrtle Beach, between 17th & 37th Ave. S
New Construction
2/C
47
NMB
20
Ref #
Location
T/P
Cost(1)
3/A
5
Frontage Roads
3/A
3/A
10
25.9
University Boulevard Grid: Increase connectivity in vicinity of University and E. Cox Ferry Road
Connect Possum Trot Road to Windy Hill Road Extension in NMB adjacent to Airport Property and extend 17th, 21st, 27th, 33rd, and 37th
Avenues. Include Multipurpose path on 21st to Ocean.
New Construction
3/B
3.9
3/B
5
3/B
0
3/B
28.2
3/C
3/C
1.7
4.6
3/C
3/C
26.1
4.6
Description
Type
Location
Tier 3 - Priority A
N - 15
N - 98
N-4
25 Avenue N/Founders Blvd,
Myrtle Beach
New US 17 and US 17 Business
connector roadway in Garden City
Parallel road - west side of US 501
25th Avenue N / Founders Blvd extension to Grissom Parkway in Myrtle Beach - 4-lane, collector, 35 mph
Construct new connector roadway between US 17 Bypass and US 17 Business in Garden City north of the Garden City Connector and South of
Glenns Bay Road.
Parallel road on the west side of US 501 between West Perry Road and Singleton Ridge Road
New Construction
New Construction
MB
Horry
Horry
Tier 3 - Priority B
N - 50
University Boulevard Grid
N - 38
Windy Hill Connector, NMB
N - 33
N Causeway Road / Litchfield
Drive, Pawleys Island
Improve Backside Access (3 locations) in Pawleys Island between N Causeway Rd & Litchfield Drive as redevelopment occurs
New Construction
N - 14
Water Tower Road Connector
New road connecting Water Tower Road and proposed West of Waterway Parkway in Horry County, with multipurpose path connecting to
Waterlilly and Watertower Road.
New Construction
Conway
NMB
Georgetown
Horry
Tier 3 - Priority C
Outrigger / Hilton Drive
Connector, North Myrtle Beach
N - 20
Arcadia /Debordieu
Water Tower Road from Parkway
W - 17
PUD to SC 90
W - 20
Pennyroyal Road, Georgetown
N - 44
Connect Outrigger Road with Hilton Drive the extension of Outrigger Rd. from just north of David St. to Belle Dr. at 9th Ave. S in NMB
New Construction
Arcadia East Connector, east of US 17 in Georgetown County
New Construction
Widen Water Town Road from Parkway PUD to SC 90 to four-lane divided minor arterial
Widening
Widen Pennyroyal Rd from E of Montford Drive to US 17 in Georgetown
Widening
NMB
Georgetown
Horry
Georgetown
21
The following factors are considered when more enhancement
projects are proposed for inclusion in the TIP than funding is
available:
•
Funding Request Amount - on a scale of 1 to 10 with a low score
reflecting a relatively high funding request.
•
Funding Ratio – on a scale of 1 to 25, with a high score
indicating a significant portion of the funding coming from other
sources.
•
Environmental Benefit – on a scale of 1 to 5, with a low score
indicating a negligible amount of positive impact on the
environment and a high score indicating a considerable amount
of positive impact on the environment.
•
•
•
•
Level of Support - on a scale of 1 to 15, with a low score
indicating little local support and a high score indicating
significant support (more than resolutions) that goes beyond
local jurisdictional boundaries. State or national support 11 to
15 points
Level of Benefit - on a scale of 1 to 15, with a low score
indicating little local benefit, and a high score indicating
benefits that have state or national significance.
Local Commitment to Enhancement Projects – on a scale of 1 to
15, with a high score indicating numerous policies or regulations
that require enhancement projects to be included in new
development; or that the applicant can demonstrate a history
of sponsoring or fostering similar projects.
Connectivity – on a scale of 1 to 15, with a high score indicating
a significant addition to existing improvements.
Enhancement projects are being programmed with eighty percent
set aside for East Coast Greenway related projects. Section 8.2 and
Appendix F of this Plan provide further information about the East
Coast Greenway. The remaining twenty percent of Enhancement
funds are rotated between participating units of government, with a
cap at $40,000 per project (federal share) for all jurisdictions with
the exception of Conway because they are not eligible for East Coast
Greenway funding.
7. Potential Transit Improvements
7.1 Community Overview
Transit is an integral component of the transportation network for
many residents of the Grand Strand region. A significant number of
local citizens and tourists rely on transit to access jobs, medical care,
needed services, and all other aspects of daily life. These needs are
increased tremendously during the peak tourist season and continue
through the remaining off-peak season. As the region’s population
continues to grow, convenient and reliable transit service will
become an even greater
necessity. The purpose of this
element of the Long Range
Transportation Plan is to
identify transit strategies that
will enhance mobility options
for all residents of the region.
Transit is reliant upon a complete transportation system to operate
effectively. Appropriate roads must be suitable for bus traffic and
sidewalks and other pedestrian features must provide adequate
access to transit stops. Thus, transit cannot be considered in
isolation. The strategies developed as part of this long-range plan
will be supportive of improvements to the total transportation
system. The success of transit in the Grand Strand depends upon the
coordinated efforts of many governmental entities, transit agencies,
and private businesses.
planning studies within the Grand Strand. Viable alternatives
include:
•
Inter-county bus service. This type of service is provided
currently by several providers in the region. Enhanced service
options are likely an alternative to meet future demand.
•
Volunteer Driver program. Supplemental service for outlying
destinations beyond the typical transit service area. This is a
viable low cost alternative for flexible service; however, policies
must be in place regarding insurance coverage and program
administration.
•
Rideshare Program. Ridesharing exists in the Grand Strand
today; however increased marketing and incentives will be
needed to meet future travel needs. This will likely include
vanpool, carpool, schoolpool, and bike pool programs.
•
College/University Coordination. The Coast RTA currently
coordinates with Coastal Carolina University for student passes
and free fares. Approximately 45 percent of the Coast RTA
ridership is from the University. This coordination is necessary
for the future with expanded services for students and staff.
•
Express or Rapid Bus Service. Increased express bus service
during peak hours connecting outlying park and rides or transit
centers with frequent service into Myrtle Beach will be needed
to meet the population and employment growth. This service is
a precursor to future rapid transit services, such as bus rapid
transit, rail service, or high occupancy vehicle facilities.
Coordinated land use and parking fee structure are key to the
success of ridership with these services.
•
Bus-Only Shoulders (BOS). One low cost alternative allowing
transit operators to have predictable route times. The BOS
provide an incentive for residents to ride transit with decreased
trip time.
7.2 Aging Population
Warm weather is a draw for retirees and the Grand Strand
anticipates an increase in baby boomers and older residents. Myrtle
Beach, the Myrtle Beach Planning Area,
and Horry County have more older adults
than South Carolina as a whole. Horry
County significantly outpaced both South
Carolina and the United States in the
growth in population age 55 and older
over the last decade, with an increase of
nearly 60 percent.
We live in an increasingly multimodal society; therefore, it is
important to identify various transit options that should be
considered during future transportation related projects and
22
A number of planning studies related to public transportation and
the Grand Strand have been completed over the past several years.
Most recently the City of Myrtle Beach completed the 2011
Comprehensive Plan, which focused on a sustainable community by
managing growth and the critical importance of balancing land use
and the transportation network. Transit-related studies include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2011 City of Myrtle Beach Comprehensive Plan
Myrtle Beach Trolley Project Phase I, Cost Analysis, January
2008
Myrtle Beach Streetcar Feasibility Study, Final Report, April
2007
Comprehensive Transit Development Plan for the Coast RTA,
Final Report, June 2010
City of Conway, Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
December 2008
Downtown Myrtle Beach Transit Improvements Study,
January 2003:
US Highway 17 Corridor Study (Georgetown County), 2003
US Highway 17 Corridor Study (North Myrtle Beach), 2003
US Highway 17 Business Corridor Study (South Strand), 1999
7.4 Existing Providers
The Coast RTA is based out of Conway and offers a family of service
options for residents traveling around coastal Carolina. Services
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Neighborhood circulators
Curb-to-curb paratransit service
CATS ADA service
Coast Transit Plus
Community service shuttles
Fixed-route service
The most recent route restructuring was implemented in June 2009,
in which underproductive routes were eliminated and service was
added to routes with high ridership.
The Coast RTA operates fixed-route regularly scheduled bus service
Monday through Friday, from approximately 5:45 a.m. to
approximately 10:00 p.m. during peak season. Saturday and Sunday
services vary from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., depending upon the area
served. Fifteen routes provide service within
the City of Andrews, Conway, Georgetown,
Myrtle Beach, and a demand response van
service in the outlying areas of Horry and
Georgetown Counties. Intercity bus service is
also available between each of these cities.
In addition to Coast RTA, a number of other transit operators
provide services that benefit the GSATS region, including:
•
•
•
•
•
Williamsburg County Transit Authority
Pee Dee RTA
Santee Wateree RTA
Greyhound, in coordination with Carolina Trailways
Human Service Transportation providers
7.4.1 Ridership
Figure 7-1: Coast Ridership
410,000
Table 7-1: Coast Ridership (2007 – 2009)
Year
2007
2008
2009
Fixed-Route
355,212
367,120
384,585
Demand
Response
13,206
15,080
13,890
System Total
368,418
382,200
398,475
7.4.2 Future Planning
In November 2010, 63 percent of voters in Horry County approved a
local referendum supporting dedicated annual funding through a
property tax increase for the Coast RTA. The ballot language stated
an amount not to exceed 6/10ths of a mill ($1,080,000) annually for
the operations of a regional public mass transportation provider.
In addition to the recent tax initiative, the Coast RTA has active plans
to begin ferry service to Sandy Island. Staff is in the process of
acquiring a passenger vessel, and developing schedules and details
for the ferry service. Planning for this service began in 2009.
7.5 Future Outlook for Transit
Systemwide ridership for the Coast RTA has increased over the past
three years, as illustrated in Figure 7-1 and listed in Table 7-1. The
Coast RTA staff indicates approximately 1,400 daily boardings for the
system. Overall annual ridership for 2009 was approximately
398,475 one-way trips.
Systemwide Annual Ridership
7.3 Previous Plans
The Coast RTA Ridership Trends
400,000
390,000
380,000
The Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments (COG) recognizes
that public transportation empowers individuals to be independent,
seek and retain employment, access medical care, and reach new
opportunities including education, commercial activity and
recreation. Nationally, the role of public transportation is evolving
from the perspective of a standalone transit agency to the
consideration of how mobility can enhance economic development
and improve quality of life in communities. As a result, in many
regions, transit is developing new partnerships that are leading to
improved mobility choices for customers for all services. This
evolutionary process has resulted in the recognition that
“community transportation networks" add value to many facets of
life for residents, tourists and workers.
The proposed streetcar corridor recommended by the Myrtle Beach
Streetcar Feasibility Study in 2007, shown in Figure 7-2, is one
potential transit development where public/private partnerships
may be key to successful implementation.
370,000
360,000
350,000
2007
2008
2009
23
Figure 7-2: Streetcar Corridor Proposed by Myrtle Beach Streetcar Feasibility Study
Proposed Streetcar Corridor
24
7.6 Partnerships
Beginning in 2009 a new federal sustainability and livability
partnership was developed with the goal of connecting policies,
planning and resources within the Department of Transportation
(USDOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This partnership recognizes
that by considering housing and environmental concerns
transportation becomes more connected to the major issues of the
day such as energy, environment, economy, and quality of life, all of
which can be positively affected by a broader public transportation
program. From the COG’s perspective, these concepts provide
opportunities to build upon the existing partnerships and develop
ideas for the future.
In the past two years, the Federal funding environment for
streetcar-type projects has become more favorable than in the past
decade. Federal policies, as evidenced by the DOT-HUD-EPA
Partnership for Sustainable Communities, are placing a much greater
emphasis on livable communities and sustainable development. All
new and updated funding programs within these agencies are
following the livability principles articulated in this partnership. FTA
is in the process of updating policy guidance related to the New
Starts and Small Starts programs, which will place a much higher
value on criteria related to livability, economic development,
environmental, social and congestion relief
benefits. Streetcar projects will likely be
more competitive for federal funding
under these revised criteria.
Given the changing and positive federal
funding stance towards streetcars, the City
of Myrtle Beach is one example of an
opportunity for this partnership with the proposed street car service
for Ocean Boulevard and Broadway at the Beach. This area has
higher density land use planned along the corridor and goals for
sustainable building standards. Recent conversations with private
developers along the corridor have indicated potential interest for
transit oriented development, which supports the City’s recently
adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City should continue to reach out
to representatives from each of the above agencies to ensure the
city is aligning and maximizing all resources for the coordinated
project. By working together, HUD, DOT, EPA, local developers, and
local governments will ensure that housing, transportation, and
energy efficiencies go hand in hand, resulting in safer, greener, and a
more livable community.
Another example of a coordinated project for the region includes
the award of federal stimulus funds for Plug In Carolina, who was
awarded $240,000 to install 28 electric vehicle charging stations in
Union, Rock Hill and the Grand Strand. The funds were awarded in
March 2010 for clean energy projects funded by the Energy Office.
Eight stations will be located along the Grand Strand and all will be
available to the public. The cities will provide electricity for the
charging stations, which will be located in municipal parking garages.
All plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles can recharge their batteries
with these devices including the plug-in Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf,
Chevy Volt, and any other vehicles with conversion kits. This clean
energy project and others encourage continued multimodal and
sustainable planning throughout the Grand Strand region.
•
Increasing density should be supported with enhanced transit
services. Initial planning for higher density areas should include
facilities and amenities for transit services. These may include
bus pullouts, shelters, queue jump lanes, signal pre-emption,
etc., which are precursors for future rapid transit services.
•
Multimodal facilities. Future planning and coordination of
transfer stations or multimodal facilities should involve all
jurisdictions to identify modal needs and access to sites.
Incorporating private development within the planning process
provides an opportunity for additional revenue sources. All new
development and infill development should follow transit
supportive design guidelines.
Appendix G provides additional information regarding Public
Transportation.
7.7 Transit Projects
Table 7-2 provides a summary of the recommended future public
transportation projects, which are categorized into existing
operating and expansion of services, and capital facilities and
studies.
Public transportation plays a key part in defining the transportation
system in the Grand Strand. The above projects provide a vision for
public transportation in the future and where we want the region to
be. The plan provides travel mode choices to residents in the
community, including regional and local services, a future streetcar
network, water taxi service, park and ride services, and other transit
circulators. These projects in coordination with roadway, pedestrian,
and bikeway improvements will build an overall cohesive future
transportation network.
The following trends affect transportation patterns and provide an
opportunity for public transit to meet these needs.
•
Growth in outlying communities. Expand transit services to
outlying communities to meet the need of residents looking for
employment, as well as non-traditional services, such as flex
services, Call-A-Ride services, and rideshare services to meet
future needs.
25
Table 7-2: Future Transit Projects and Needs
Project
Description
Tier
Cost
(Millions)
Location
Time
Frame
Type
1
0.15
Region
0-5 yrs
Study
2
16
Myrtle Beach
0-5 yrs
Facility
2
1 to 5
1
0-5 yrs
10-25
yrs
Facility
2
Region
Georgetown
County
Region
Georgetown
County
Horry
Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach
North
Myrtle
Beach
Conway
Georgetown
County
Horry
Myrtle Beach
0-5 yrs
Operations
0-5 yrs
Operations
0-5 yrs
0-5 yrs
0-5 yrs
Operations
Operations
Operations
0-5 yrs
Operations
0-5 yrs
Operations
5-10 yrs
Operations
5-10 yrs
5-10 yrs
10-25
yrs
10-25
yrs
Operations
Operations
1
Multimodal Study
2
Myrtle Beach Transit Hub
3
Park and Ride Lot
Source
Facilities and Studies
Justification Study - Multimodal
C
Multimodal Hub & Operations Facility at
B
Myrtle Beach Airport
Park and Ride Lot
B
4
Georgetown Co Transit Hub
Multimodal Hub
5
Water Taxi
Operations (Annual Cost)
Water Taxi & Ferry Services
A
2
0.5
6
Georgetown City Expansion
Circulator Route
I
2
0.1
7
8
9
Surfside & Garden City Expansion
Myrtle Beach Northbound Expansion
Myrtle Beach Southbound Expansion
Circulator Route
Circulator Route
Circulator Route
F
E
E
2
2
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
10
North Myrtle Beach Expansion
Circulator Route
G
2
0.2
11
Conway Expansion
Circulator Route
I
2
0.1
12
Georgetown County Expansion
Expand Circulator Routes
C
2
0.2
13
14
US 501 Service
9th Avenue North Streetcar
US 501 fixed-route Conway to Myrtle Beach
Circulator Route
B
D
2
2
0.2
0.25
15
North/South Fixed-route
Circulator Route
D
2
4
Myrtle Beach
16
East/West Fixed-route
Circulator Route
D
2
4
Myrtle Beach
B
Facility
Operations
Operations
Expansion
17
Water Taxi
Water Taxi & Ferry Services
A
2
1 to 5
Region
0-5 yrs
18
Street Car Service - Ocean Front Broadway to Beach
Streetcar Service with feeder services from
connecting bus routes
J
2
4.5
Myrtle Beach
0-5 yrs
19
US 501 Service
US 501 fixed-route Conway to Myrtle Beach
I
2
12.9
Horry
5-10 yrs
20
9th Avenue North Streetcar
9th Avenue North Single Vehicle Streetcar
from Depot to Ocean
D
3
6.7
Myrtle Beach
5-10 yrs
21
East/West Fixed-route
East/West Fixed Streetcar in Myrtle Beach
D
2
80 to 120
Myrtle Beach
22
North/South Fixed-route
North/South Streetcar in Myrtle Beach
D
2
140 to
210
Myrtle Beach
Source:
A. GSATS 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2005.
B. Coast RTA Transit Development Plan, June 2010.
C. Georgetown Countywide Transportation Master Plan, April
2009.
D. City of Myrtle Beach Street Car Feasibility Study, April 2007.
E. Kings Highway Corridor Study.
F. South Strand US 17 Corridor Study.
G. North Myrtle Beach US 17 Corridor Study.
H. Georgetown County US 17 Corridor Study.
I. GSATS Survey Comments, 2010.
J. Myrtle Beach Trolley Project Phase I, Cost Analysis, January
2008.
10-25
yrs
10-25
yrs
New
Construction
New
Construction
New
Construction
New
Construction
New
Construction
New
Construction
Tier:
1. Traditional Funding
2. Nontraditional and Traditional Funding
3. Developer Participation
26
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
National trends for use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the
United States have risen dramatically over the past 15 years. A
recent study published by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
the Federal Highway Administration, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Information Center provides insight into the frequency of trips taken
by cyclists and pedestrians, the funding for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and the safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities1. The
study compared the percentage of biking and walking trips taken in
relation to the number of total transportation trips taken from 1990
to 2009. The number of transportation trips increased for cycling
and walking, showing that the number of people using non-vehicular
forms of transportation is on the rise nationally.
•
Waccamaw Neck Bikeway: 6.9-miles (Murrells Inlet)
In addition, another 28 miles of the Greenway have been
programmed. The following segments have been successfully
planned and funded:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
S. Ocean Boulevard: 0.44-miles (Atlantic Beach)
Water Tower Road: 1.91-miles (North Myrtle Beach)
Harrelson Boulevard Extension: 1.51-miles (Myrtle Beach)
N. Waccamaw Drive: 1.08-miles (Garden City)
Atlantic Avenue: 0.82-miles (Garden City)
Meeting Street Extension: 2.07-miles (Georgetown)
South Island Road: 6.47-miles (Georgetown)
As the backbone of the bicycle/pedestrian system in the Grand
Strand area, the continued development of the Greenway is
recommended as a high priority. Specifically, six segments were
identified as priority projects to encourage the project’s momentum
and stimulate infrastructure expansion to complete the system.
The following six East Coast Greenway segments have been
identified as priority projects in the GSATS area:
•
Segment A: US Highway 17 Bridges over the Pee Dee and
Waccamaw Rivers (Winyah Bay) – Estimated Project Cost: see
text discussion
•
Segment B: US Highway 17 from South Causeway Drive to
Hobcaw Barony (Georgetown County) – Estimated Project Cost:
$2,177,000
•
Segment C: US Highway 17 and Highway 17 Business from
Atlantic Avenue (Garden City) to Horry/Georgetown County line
– Estimated Project Cost: $555,000
•
Facilities in the Grand Strand region range from roadside sidewalks
within the right-of-way through the nationally recognized 3,000 mile
East Coast Greenway that connects 25 cities along the eastern
seaboard via an off-road trail system.
Segment D: US Highway 17 from Farrow Parkway to 16th
Avenue South (Surfside Beach) – Estimated Project Cost:
$1,116,000
•
Segment E: Water Tower Road to International Drive (Carolina
Bays Parkway, Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve) – Estimated
Project Cost: $2,411,000
8.2 East Coast Greenway
•
Segment F: SC/NC state line to Sea Mountain Highway (SC 9) –
Estimated Project Cost: $1,955,000
Locally, the need for increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities to
support walking and cycling trips has been recognized. Numerous
planning efforts completed over the last ten years within the GSATS
Study Area indicate that citizens are interested in using nonvehicular forms of transportation in their daily lives.
Figure 8-1: East Coast Greenway Master Plan
8.1 Existing Facilities
Extending from Maine to Florida, the East Coast Greenway is being
planned and constructed by local governments. Horry and
Georgetown counties have succeeded in planning a 90 mile route,
shown in Figure 8-1, and constructing the following 21 miles of
paths:
•
•
•
•
North Myrtle Beach Greenway, Barefoot Resort segment:
3.1-miles (North Myrtle Beach)
Grissom Parkway Trail: 6.2-miles (Myrtle Beach)
Harrelson Boulevard Trail: 1.5-miles (Myrtle Beach)
Kings Highway Trail: 3.5-miles (Myrtle Beach)
The East Coast Greenway will cross the Pee Dee and Waccamaw
Rivers via the US Highway 17 bridges. Given the age, functionality,
and safety of these bridges, the addition of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on the bridge will need to be included in a bridge overhaul
or bridge replacement project. However, neither of the Pee Dee or
Waccamaw bridges is on SCDOT’s replacement priority list. There
are several options for providing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian
facilities across the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers. Each option will
need to consider the following design constraints:
•
1
U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Information Center, The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year
Status Report, May 2010. http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/
Replacement of the existing bridges will occur, though the
timetable for replacement is unknown.
27
•
The solution should be located in the existing SCDOT right-ofway.
•
The bridges are located in a significant seismic zone.
Potential options include:
•
•
•
Alternate 1: Total Replacement - Incorporating the multi-use
path as part of a total bridge replacement by SCDOT would be
the most economical solution. However, the existing US 17
bridges are not deficient and SCDOT has not programmed the
structures for replacement – Planning level cost estimate:
$3,975,000
Alternative 2: Attachment to Existing Structure - By extending
the existing pier caps to support widening the existing bridge
deck, the multi-use path could be attached to the existing
bridges. This method would require additional foundation work
and additional beam lines to carry the new deck. Bridge
attachments can be detrimental to the structural integrity of
the existing bridges as well as make bridge inspection
operations more difficult - Planning level cost estimate:
$6,075,000
Alternative 3: Freestanding Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Constructing new freestanding bridges strictly for bicycle and
pedestrian travel offers many advantages as a solution. The
choices could range from a utilitarian slab-beam bridge to a
signature structure type bridge like a cable-stayed or a
suspension bridge – the latter would provide the advantage of
serving as a major showcase for the East Coast Greenway and
could attract many visitors to the facility. In each case, the
structure would provide a more pleasing greenway experience
with scenic views and separation from vehicular traffic. The
structures would be designed to current codes, so concerns of
earthquake resistance would be minimized - Planning level cost
estimate range: $7,075,000 to $9,775,000
8.3 Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Congress approved funding in 2005 for each state to establish a Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) Program. The program encourages school
children to walk and bike to school. SRTS assists community groups
and schools with planning and developing safe, dedicated bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in the direct vicinity of schools. As part of
the LRTP process, elementary and middle schools within the GSATS
Study Area were identified that are eligible for SRTS funding. This
funding, if awarded, will be used to connect elementary and middle
schools to surrounding neighborhoods with safe, dedicated
pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.
Figure 8-2: Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road CrossSection
8.4 Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Additional detail on these and other topics related to bicycle and
pedestrian needs are provided in Appendix F. Based on an analysis
of existing conditions roadway segments were identified that may
warrant new or improved bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The
segments are summarized in Table 8-1 by county and type of
improvement. Typical cross-sections were also developed for each
type of improvement. An example is provided in Figure 8-2.
Table 8-1: Summary of Segments Recommended for
Improvement
Recommended CrossSection
Sidewalks with Bike
Lanes/ Shared Road
Multipurpose Path
Bike Lanes or Shared
Road
Boardwalk
Multipurpose Bridge
Total Number of Segments
Georgetown
Horry
Total Length in Feet
Georgetown
Horry
64
195
218,785
733,745
21
48
174,710
460,782
38
NA
263,874
NA
1
NA
NA
1
360
NA
NA
1,500
The following roadways, separated by county, were identified in the
bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or
underperforming facilities for cyclists
Above and beyond minimum improvements, recommended
improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities include:
•
Driveway aprons-should meet recommended standards for
cross-slope, frequency, and width. A maximum width of 24 feet
for two lane driveway aprons should be allowed. Consolidated
driveways will help with access management.
•
Medians and pedestrian refuge islands-should be included in
long crosswalks over 60 feet or in urban conditions as part of
traffic calming measures.
•
Mid-block crossings-should be used to encourage safe crossing
on long blocks.
•
Bridges-should include dedicated facilities for bicycles and
pedestrians.
•
Pedestrian signals-should include activation buttons and
auditory warnings.
•
Underpasses-should include facilities that provide separation
from automobile traffic.
•
Landscape buffers-should be eight feet wide and landscaped
with small shrubs, grass, and street trees.
•
Transit stops-should be located near intersections with
crosswalks and provide:
o Route and stop signage
28
o Transit schedule
o Accessibility to nearby bike lanes and sidewalks
o 5x8 paved wheelchair clearance area for loading and off
loading
funds, which are primarily derived from taxes on fuel, fees from
vehicle registrations, and local option sales taxes. Transit projects
are also funded through federal, state, and local sources, as well as
revenue received through fares.
•
Access to adjacent property-should be provided to ensure
connectivity to adjacent parcels
•
Street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, and drinking
fountains)-should be provided at certain sites such as gathering
areas. Other items that may be appropriate include emergency
phones, pedestrian lighting, bike racks, and bike lockers.
The Financial Plan provides an analysis of anticipated federal, state,
and local revenues, cost inflation factors, year-of-expenditure
dollars, and planning level cost estimates.
•
Signage-should be provided in accordance with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
9. Financial Plan
Funding for our nation’s transportation system is at a crossroads.
Federal and state transportation revenues are losing pace with
needed investments, and the gap between transportation needs and
available revenue continues to grow. A few key factors are eroding
these sources of revenue. First, state and federal gas tax rates have
not changed. Second, recent increases in oil prices and an increased
trend toward green technology have caused people to adjust their
driving habits and buy more fuel-efficient or hybrid cars, resulting in
less gas tax income.
While SAFETEA-LU was set up to expire in 2009, it has been
extended seven times to-date. Regardless of when the surface
transportation reauthorization occurs, it is unlikely that it will
adequately fund all of the nation’s transportation needs.
Federal planning regulations require that the financial plan
presented in LRTPs be financially constrained, which means that the
estimated cost for all transportation improvements presented in the
LRTP cannot exceed the amount of reasonably expected revenues
projected from identified funding sources. This requirement
ensures that the plan is based upon realistic assumptions and can be
implemented.
Actual funding availability during the period to 2035 will depend
largely upon future actions and public policy directives initiated at
the federal and state levels. Roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
projects are traditionally financed through federal, state and local
9.1 Fiscally Constrained Plan
The fiscally constrained plan required by SAFETEA-LU is represented
by the Tier 1 projects. These projects, which are likely to be funded
entirely from GSATS resources, are divided into three priority levels
corresponding approximately with future TIP periods, as follows:
•
•
•
Tier 1, Priority A: 2012 - 2020 (9 years);
Tier 2, Priority B: 2021 - 2027 (7 years); and,
Tier 3, Priority C: 2028 - 2035 (8 years).
In general, the projects listed in Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 do not
appear in the current 2010-2015 TIP, as the current TIP projects are
considered “Committed” projects. The exception being when
preliminary engineering and planning or right-of-way acquisition is
funded in the TIP but construction remains in the LRTP. An example
of this is the Regional Wayfinding Study.
The number of projects and total estimated costs by Tier and Priority
Level are shown in Table 9-1. The Year of Expenditure (YoE) cost is
derived by applying a cost inflation factor of 1.6 percent per year (as
was observed in 2010 by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics) to the Planning Level Cost Estimate. A specific Year of
Expenditure Conceptual Plan for projects included in Tier 1 is
included in Table 9-2. Notice that GSATS is not limited to
programming projects strictly in sequence with the 2012-2035 Year
of Expenditure Conceptual Financial Plan and individual projects will
be reviewed and funded in the TIP considering other factors
identified in Section 6.2 of this Plan as funding becomes available.
serves as the local match to the Federal dollars, so that local
governments do not have to identify monies to encumber these
funds. Between 2015, when the current TIP period ends, and the
year 2035, there will be at least $135.84 Million of additional
Guideshare revenue available for roadway projects (20 years at
$6.792M per year).
9.3 Local Funding Sources
A considerable number of highway improvements in Horry County
have been funded over recent years through the efforts of the Road
Improvement and Development Effort (RIDE) Committee. This
committee was formed in April 1996, to determine the short and
long-term transportation infrastructure needs for the County, along
with various funding options. Funding was provided through
applications to the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB), together with
matching funds from a 1.5% hospitality fee that became effective in
January 1997. In total the RIDE program provided $1.1 billion worth
of highway improvements for an investment by Horry County of
$652 million (matching funds), of which approximately 85% was paid
by the tourists who visit the Grand Strand area.
Following the success of RIDE, on November 7, 2006, Horry County
voters, by a 61.4 to 38.6 percent margin, supported a One-Cent
Capital Projects Sales Tax for roads. This tax went into effect on May
1, 2007, and increased the level of sales tax in Horry County an
additional penny on all retail sales, accommodations, and prepared
food and beverage. Horry County is slated to receive $425,307,500
over the seven-year life of the one-cent Capital Projects Sales Tax.
While the specified projects to be funded in whole or in part by the
“Riding on a Penny” program (sometimes referred to as RIDE 2)
include paving of dirt roads, resurfacing of existing roads, and
projects in Horry County outside the GSATS area, they also include a
number in the current 2010 – 2015 TIP projects, such as:
9.2 Federal and State Funding Sources
In the GSATS area, one of the primary sources of funding comes
from “Guideshare” – a mixture of state and federal transportation
monies. For the past decade, Guideshare has been set at
$6,792,000 per year for GSATS as specified by the South Carolina
Transportation Commission. The State portion of these monies
29
•
Construction of a grade separated interchange at the
intersection of U.S. 17 Bypass and SC 707 at the back gate of the
Myrtle Beach Air Base;
•
Widening SC 707 from Enterprise Road to the County line,
including intersection improvements at SC 544;
•
Widening Glenns Bay Road to 3 lanes and construction of a
grade separated interchange at US 17 Bypass;
•
Paving 2 lanes of International Drive from Carolina Forest to
SC 90; and
•
Extension of Carolina Bays Parkway (SC 31) from its current
terminus at SC 544 to SC 707.
Table 9-1: Summary of Projects Costs by Tier
(1)
(2)
Number of
PLCE
YoE
Tier
Priority
Projects.
($M)
($M)
1
A
9
43.7
45.1
1
B
8
40.0
45.5
1
C
7
42.4
53.3
1
Intersection Projects
N/A
17.5
17.5
1
Enhancement Projects
N/A
6.6
6.6
Tier 1 Totals
24
150.1
167.9
2
A
31
628.2
678.5
2
B
19
564.2
1,275.3
2
C
12
512.3
870.2
Tier 2 Totals
62
1,704.7
2,824.0
3
A
3
40.9
56.0
3
B
3
8.9
18.4
3
C
4
37.0
63.6
Tier 3 Totals
10
86.8
137.9
Grand Total
96
1,941.6
3,215.4
Note: (1) Planning Level Cost Estimate; (2) Year of Expenditure cost estimate
Table 9-2: Tier 1 Year of Expenditure Conceptual Plan
Ref #
Location
M - 14
Regional Wayfinding
R - 21, 18, 19 and 22
Kings Highway
W-2
US 501 from Conway to Forestbrook Drive
R - 10
US 17 Business Median B (in Surfside Beach)
R-7
US 17 Business Median C (in Garden City)
N - 45
Palmetto Point Boulevard
W-1
Seaboard Street from US 501 to 10th Ave N
N - 12
Pampus Drive
R - 13
US 17 Business Median A (between Myrtle Beach and Surfside Beach)
R - 20
Kings Highway C (31st N to 67th N)
N - 18
Petigru Drive, N of MLK Rd in Pawleys Island
R-4
Sea Mountain Highway (SC 90 to SC 9)
W - 3A
US 17 Bypass A (from Airport to 544)
W - 29
US 17 Business B (Surfside Beach)
W-8
US 17 Bypass A (from 29 Ave N to Grissom Parkway Interchange).
W - 34
Black River Road
W - 3B
US 17 Bypass B (from SC 544 to Garden City)
W - 28
US 17 Business C (in Garden City)
M-6
SC 9 from SC 57 to US 17 interchange
R - 31
US 521
W - 3C
US 17 Bypass C (from Garden City to Murrells Inlet)
Notes: (1) PLCE - Planning Level Cost Estimate; (2) YoE - Year of Expenditure.
T/P
1/A
1/A
1/A
1/A
1/A
1/A
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/B
1/C
1/C
1/C
1/C
1/C
1/C
1/C
PLCE (1)
($M)
$2.5
$22.3
$12.9
$2.0
$1.0
$3.0
$3.1
$1.9
$2.0
$9.1
$1.0
$3.1
$13.4
$6.4
$6.0
$6.0
$13.2
$6.0
$2.0
$2.5
$6.7
Estimated
YoE (2)
2012-2013
2014-2017
2018-2019
2020
2020
2020
2021
2021
2021-2022
2022
2023
2024
2025-2026
2026-2027
2028
2029
2030-2032
2032-2033
2033
2034
2035
YoE Cost
($M)
$2.5
$22.6
$13.5
$2.2
$1.1
$3.2
$3.4
$2.1
$2.2
$10.1
$1.1
$3.5
$15.5
$7.5
$7.2
$7.3
$16.4
$7.6
$2.6
$3.3
$8.8
30

Final Report - Grand Strand Area Transportation Study

Transcription

Similar documents

2014 Q2 Newsletter (copy 01) - Myrtle Beach Regional Economic

Litchfield Beach Access

myrtle beach - South Carolina Parks

Horry County Receives Work Ready Certification

horry county know your zone hurricane guide

You`re invited to the 3nd annual Weenie Roast

BROCHURE-ACQUALINA MIAMI

Coastal North Town Center

Mrs. House and Mrs. Huba`s STEM Challenge Day