Easley Roads, Intersections On GPATS Long-Term Transportation Plan

Greenville Pickens Area Transportation Study staff are planning for the future.

Staff presented an update to the area's Long Range Transportation Plan last week at the Central-Clemson Library. That plan projects road projects out to 2035.

“This update is only a five-year update,” said Transportation Planner Keith Brockington. “It's not a full plan. We just have to update the project list and make sure all of our assumptions are still correct, and most of them are.”

Staff began the update process in 2011.

Projects are ranked, using data from the base year of 2010, are ranked from A to F+, Brockington said.

“F+ is basically the worst roads you can imagine,” Brockington said. “In 2010, there were no roads that ranked F+. There were some that ranked F – (Highway) 123 right at the 93 split, Brushy Creek as you're heading south off 123, 153 as you're approaching and leaving I-85.”

An example of an F+ road would be Woodruff Road in Greenville, Brockington said.

Using that base data, a travel model was created projecting out two networks, existing plus committed and

Existing plus committed maps out what area roads would look like if the only projects completed were those that are currently funded in the five-year transportation improvement program.

If only those projects are tackled, other area roads begin sliding into F+ status over the next 20 years.

“183 starts showing F+ in 2035, just from the commute times,” Brockington said. “Most of 153 in Anderson County is all F+. I-85, Spartanburg all the way down, that one road is F+. It's just tremendous amounts of traffic.”

That network shows the impact of the projects lists generated by GPATS, which will leads into the creation of the 2035 network.

Easley and surrounding area roads on the project lists include

- US 123, from SC 93 to SC 8. The scope of that project would entail creating a 6-lane road with median.

- Farrs Bridge Road, from Groce Road to Hamburg Road: the scope of that project would be a 4 lane road with median.

- SC 8, from St. Paul Road to SC 135: a three lane road

- SC 153 to US 123. That project entails improving the lanes on SC 153 by adding left turn lanes at major intersections.

Easley intersections on the project list include SC 8 and St. Paul Road/Three and Twenty Road, Brushy Creek Road and Crestview Road, Main Street and SC 93, US 123 at Dogwood and Pilgrim, Saluda Dam and Prince Perry, SC 93 and Ross Road and 5^th Street and 2^nd Street.

The draft lists are included as attachments in this article.

Not all projects on the list will be able to be undertaken.

“We won't be able to do all the projects in this network,” Brockington said. “We're in the process of getting our lists fiscally constrained to the projects that we can expect to have funding for currently.”

SC DOT and the Federal Highway Administration are currently looking at funding formulas, he said.

“Every time a census comes around, everything gets messed up, and they're currently going through the formulas, and deciding how much money we're going to be getting,” he said.

Once that's done, a list of road and intersection projects will be created for 2035, he said.

“That's the process we've been going through this past year, getting this travel model network and prioritizing the projects that we have received from our public meetings, elected officials and other planners and engineers around the region,” Brockington said.

The extension of SC 153, one of the large projects previously identified by GPATS, has received funding for its first phase.

“That's currently being engineered right now,” Brockington said. “Funding is allocated in the five-year plan for phase one of that project. Phase 2, which will take the 153 extension out to Saluda Dam and Olive (Street), we'll have money for construction of that phase hopefully by 2018, 2019.”

The project list will be presented to the GPATS Policy Committee on Sept. 17.

Projects are prioritized based on scores drawn from a number of criteria.

“The primary ones are existing and future traffic,” Brockington said. “If the existing traffic is high, and if the future traffic predicted in the travel model is also high, then those get the highest scores.”

Vehicle to Capacity Improvement is another criterion.

“That's the ratio of what volumes are on the road versus what the road can handle,” Brockington said. “If the project that is identified through the travel model is expected to improve the traffic situation, then it gets a high score.”

Cost efficiency, crash data, community impact and environmental issues and impacts are factored into the score said Tiffany Wedmore, assistant transportation planner.

“We look at look at whether not the road has been identified as one that would be good for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, that also gives it a higher score, being more inclusive of all modes of transportation,” she said. “If it improves access to public transit, that also gives it a higher score.”