SR 25 / US 17 / Ogeechee Road Corridor Study

Chatham County, in cooperation with the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO), is undertaking the SR 25 / US 17 / Ogeechee Road Corridor Study to identify short-term and long-term improvements needed along the corridor to improve the safety and functionality of SR 25 / US 17 / Ogeechee Road. The goal of the study is to identify short and long-term improvements in a prioritized list of recommendations.

Please review the exhibits prior to completing the survey.

Thank you for your interest and for providing your input.

	Strongly Support	Support	No Opinion	Do Not Support	Strongly Opposed
Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes	Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Support	Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes No Opinion	Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes	Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Support	Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes No Opinion	Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
Quacco Road - Turn Lanes	Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Support	Quacco Road - Turn Lanes No Opinion	Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes	Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Support	Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes No Opinion	Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
Kroger Driveway - Signalization	Kroger Driveway - Signalization Strongly Support	Kroger Driveway - Signalization Support	Kroger Driveway - Signalization No Opinion	Kroger Driveway - Signalization Do Not Support	Kroger Driveway - Signalization Strongly Opposed
Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes	Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Support	Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes No Opinion	Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes	Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Support	Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes No Opinion	Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed
SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T	SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Strongly Support	SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Support	SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T No Opinion	SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Do Not Support	SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Strongly Opposed
Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes	Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Support	Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Support	Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes No Opinion	Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Do Not Support	Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Strongly Support

Support

No Opinion

Do Not Support

Strongly Opposed

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Support

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes No Opinion

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Little Neck Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Support

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes No Opinion

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Burton Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Support

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes No Opinion

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Quacco Road - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Support

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes No Opinion

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Berwick Boulevard - Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Kroger Driveway - Signalization

Kroger Driveway - Signalization Strongly Support

Kroger Driveway - Signalization Support

Kroger Driveway - Signalization No Opinion

Kroger Driveway - Signalization Do Not Support

Kroger Driveway - Signalization Strongly Opposed

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Support

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes No Opinion

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Cottonvale Road - Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Support

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes No Opinion

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Silk Hope Road/Derrick Inn Road - Signalized RCUT and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Strongly Support

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Support

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T No Opinion

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Do Not Support

SR 307/Dean Forest Road - Green-T Strongly Opposed

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Support

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Support

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes No Opinion

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Do Not Support

Fall Avenue/Buckhalter Road - Signalized Thru-Cut and Turn Lanes Strongly Opposed

	Strongly Support	Support	No Opinion	Do Not Support	Strongly Opposed
SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI))	SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Strongly Support	SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Support	SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) No Opinion	SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Do Not Support	SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Strongly Opposed
Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange)	Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Strongly Support	Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Support	Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) No Opinion	Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Do Not Support	Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Strongly Opposed
SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes)	SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Strongly Support	SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Support	SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) No Opinion	SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Do Not Support	SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Strongly Opposed

Strongly Support

Support

No Opinion

Do Not Support

Strongly Opposed

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI))

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Strongly Support

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Support

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) No Opinion

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Do Not Support

SR 25/US 17 at SR 204/Abercorn Street (Convert to Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)) Strongly Opposed

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange)

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Strongly Support

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Support

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) No Opinion

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Do Not Support

Chatham Parkway over SR 25/US 17 (Construct new Quadrant Interchange) Strongly Opposed

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes)

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Strongly Support

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Support

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) No Opinion

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Do Not Support

SR 25/US 17 at I-516/SR 21 (Lengthen Turn Lanes) Strongly Opposed

	Strongly Support	Support	No Opinion	Do Not Support	Strongly Opposed
Corridor-wide Raised Median	Corridor-wide Raised Median Strongly Support	Corridor-wide Raised Median Support	Corridor-wide Raised Median No Opinion	Corridor-wide Raised Median Do Not Support	Corridor-wide Raised Median Strongly Opposed
Corridor-wide Signal Retiming	Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Strongly Support	Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Support	Corridor-wide Signal Retiming No Opinion	Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Do Not Support	Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Strongly Opposed
Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections	Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Strongly Support	Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Support	Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections No Opinion	Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Do Not Support	Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Strongly Opposed

Strongly Support

Support

No Opinion

Do Not Support

Strongly Opposed

Corridor-wide Raised Median

Corridor-wide Raised Median Strongly Support

Corridor-wide Raised Median Support

Corridor-wide Raised Median No Opinion

Corridor-wide Raised Median Do Not Support

Corridor-wide Raised Median Strongly Opposed

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Strongly Support

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Support

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming No Opinion

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Do Not Support

Corridor-wide Signal Retiming Strongly Opposed

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Strongly Support

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Support

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections No Opinion

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Do Not Support

Innovative or Reduced-Conflict Intersections Strongly Opposed

	Strongly Support	Support	No Opinion	Do Not Support	Strongly Opposed
Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway	Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Strongly Support	Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Support	Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway No Opinion	Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Do Not Support	Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Strongly Opposed
Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting	Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Strongly Support	Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Support	Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting No Opinion	Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Do Not Support	Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Strongly Opposed

Strongly Support

Support

No Opinion

Do Not Support

Strongly Opposed

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Strongly Support

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Support

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway No Opinion

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Do Not Support

Shared-use path on both sides of the roadway Strongly Opposed

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Strongly Support

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Support

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting No Opinion

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Do Not Support

Pedestrian HAWK signals and lighting Strongly Opposed

	Strongly Support	Support	No Opinion	Do Not Support	Strongly Opposed
Expand Fixed-Route bus service	Expand Fixed-Route bus service Strongly Support	Expand Fixed-Route bus service Support	Expand Fixed-Route bus service No Opinion	Expand Fixed-Route bus service Do Not Support	Expand Fixed-Route bus service Strongly Opposed
Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service	Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Strongly Support	Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Support	Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service No Opinion	Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Do Not Support	Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Strongly Opposed
Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles	Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Strongly Support	Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Support	Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles No Opinion	Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Do Not Support	Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Strongly Opposed

Strongly Support

Support

No Opinion

Do Not Support

Strongly Opposed

Expand Fixed-Route bus service

Expand Fixed-Route bus service Strongly Support

Expand Fixed-Route bus service Support

Expand Fixed-Route bus service No Opinion

Expand Fixed-Route bus service Do Not Support

Expand Fixed-Route bus service Strongly Opposed

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Strongly Support

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Support

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service No Opinion

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Do Not Support

Expand Microtransit/Rideshare service Strongly Opposed

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Strongly Support

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Support

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles No Opinion

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Do Not Support

Provide dedicated pull-off areas for transit vehicles Strongly Opposed

SR 25 / US 17 / Ogeechee Road Corridor Study - PIOH Survey

Question Title

* 1. Please share your level of support and comments for the following major intersection improvements to improve traffic flow.

Question Title

* 2. Please share your level of support and comments for the following grade separations/interchanges to improve traffic flow.

Question Title

* 3. Please share your level of support and comments for the following access management strategies to reduce congestion and crash frequencies.

Question Title

* 4. Please share your level of support and comments for the following pedestrian and bicycle facilities to provide alternative travel modes.

Question Title

* 5. Please share your level of support and comments for the following transit expansion strategies to increase access to transit.

Question Title

* 6. Please rank the study recommendations in order of priority, with 1 as the top priority and 5 as the lowest priority.