Road and Access Law:

Researching and Resolving Common Disputes

from NBI, Inc. To order additional copies or for general information please contact our

Customer Service Department at (800) 930-6182 or online at www.NBI-sems.com.

For information on how to become a faculty member for one of our seminars, contact the

Planning Department at the address below, by calling (800) 777-8707, or emailing us at

[email protected].

This publication is designed to provide general information prepared by professionals in

regard to subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not

engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. Although prepared

by professionals, this publication should not be utilized as a substitute for professional

service in specific situations. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the

services of a professional should be sought.

NBI, Inc.

PO Box 3067

Eau Claire, WI 54702

38512

National Business Institute is a division of NBI, Inc. and is not in any way affiliated with the

National Business Institute, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia.

Any West copyrighted materials that are included in this manual are reprinted with

permission.

Are you

maximizing

the visibility of your

company?

SPONSORSHIPS

Let us help you.

Savvy businesses know they need to take every opportunity to get their company

and products in front of the right audience. NBI

that opportunity.

By sponsoring break times at NBI seminars, you’re taking advantage of yet another

way to establish relationships with new customers – and solidify your contact with

those you already have.

Why pass up this opportunity when reaching our shared audience is so easy?

Call us today to find out more about how you can become a sponsor for an

NBI seminar.

Legal Product Specialist

[email protected]

Laurie Johnston

800.777.8707

IN-HOUSE TRAINING

Can training your staff be

easy and individualized?

It can be with NBI.

Your company is unique, and so are your training needs. Let NBI tailor the content

of a training program to address the topics and challenges that are relevant to you.

With customized in-house training we will work with you to create a program that

helps you meet your particular training objectives. For maximum convenience, we’ll

bring the training session right where you need it…to your office. Whether you

need to train 5 or 500 employees, we’ll help you get everyone up to speed on the

topics that impact your organization most!

Spend your valuable time and money on the information and skills you really need!

Call us today and we will begin putting our training solutions to work for you.

Legal Product Specialists

[email protected]

Jim Lau Laurie Johnston

800.777.8707

Road and Access Law:

Researching and Resolving Common Disputes

Authors

A. McCampbell Gibson

Alston & Bird LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA

James A. Langlais

Alston & Bird LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA

Dale R. Samuels

Jarrard & Davis, LLP

105 Pilgrim Village Drive, Suite 200

Cummings, GA

PRESENTERS

A. McCAMPBELL GIBSON is a partner in with Alston & Bird LLP's litigation and trial

practice group. He co-chairs the group's Real Estate Litigation Team. Mr. Gibson has been

named a Georgia Super Lawyer in Real Estate Litigation in 2006 and 2007. He concentrates on

complex commercial litigation with an emphasis on real estate disputes. He represents and

counsels national retailers, developers, mall, hotel and office owners, property management

companies, petroleum companies, restaurants, and convenience stores in and contract

enforcement, restrictive covenant and brokerage disputes. Mr. Gibson is a member of the

International Council of Shopping Centers and Leadership Georgia. Mr. Gibson also devotes a

significant amount of time to defending companies from toxic tort and project liability claims,

involving alleged personal injuries (e.g., exposure to chlorine, welding fumes and pesticides) and

property damage (e.g., alleged adhesive failure and printing press damage). Mr. Gibson received

his B.A. degree, magna cum laude, from Washington & Lee University. He received his J.D.

degree, cum laude, from the University of Georgia, where he was an editor for the Georgia Law

Review. Mr. Gibson wrote Gibson and Pearson, "Enough is Enough! - the Scope of the

'Perpetual' Right to Cure," and Gibson and Stroud, "Do I Have Manganism or Parkinson's

Disease?: Causation Hurdles in Proving an Association Between Welding Fumes and Disparate

Neurological Disorders," Mealey's Welding Rod Litigation Reporter.

JAMES A. LANGLAIS is a partner in the Environmental and Land Use Group and the Toxic

Tort Group at Alston & Bird LLP in the firm's Atlanta office. His practice focuses on complex

toxic torts, mass torts and environmental litigation. He also represents clients in land use and

business litigation matters. Mr. Langlais routinely represents clients in toxic tort and mass tort

cases and cost recovery/contribution cases in federal and state courts. He drafted the Ethics

Ordinance for the newly-formed city of Sandy Springs, Georgia and was recently appointed the

Chair of the Sandy Springs Ethics Board. He also counsels the newly-formed city of Milton,

Georgia with respect to the promulgation of its own ethics ordinance and Ethics Board

procedural rules. Mr. Langlais has published about environmental and toxic tort matters in such

publications as Mealey's Emerging Toxic Torts and The State Bar of Georgia Environmental

Newsletter, and speaks before professional organizations such as the State Bar of Georgia. Mr.

Langlais was selected to be included in the 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America in the

specialty of Mass Tort Litigation. He received his B.S. degree and his M.B.A. degree, summa

cum laude with a concentration in environmental management, from the University of

Massachusetts and his J.D. degree from South Texas College of Law. Mr. Langlais is a member

of the State Bar of Texas and the State Bar of Georgia. He is admitted to practice in Georgia and

Texas.

DALE (BUBBA) R. SAMUELS is a partner in the law firm of Jarrard & Davis, LLP, where he

practices in the areas of government, real estate and land use law, particularly in the

representation of local governmental entities. Prior to joining the firm, he practiced law in South

Carolina where he served as county attorney for Florence County, South Carolina, and during his

tenure there, he served as the president of the South Carolina Association of County Attorneys.

In addition, Mr. Samuels served as an officer of the Government Law Section of the South

Carolina Bar, as a member of the Employment Law, Tax Law and Professional Responsibility

sections and as a voting member of the House of Delegates of the South Carolina Bar. He also

served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable William T. Howell, Chief Judge of the South

Carolina Court of Appeals. Mr. Samuels earned his B.A. degree from the Florida State

University in Tallahassee, Florida, and J.D. degree from the University of South Carolina School

of Law.

Table Of Contents

reation And Use Of Public Roads

rivate Roads In Georgia: Creation And Use

bandonment And Vacation Considerations

ontrol, Supervision And Management Of Roads And

ighways

oad And Access Pitfalls When Handling Real Estate

ransactions

ommon Road And Access Problems And Solutions

Creation And Use Of Public Roads

Submitted by Dale (Bubba) R. Samuels

• Special Circumstances Surrounding Public Roads

On Record

• Off Record: Is It Legitimately A Public Road?

• What Influences The Scope Of The Road Right Of

Way?

I. CREATION AND USE OF PUBLIC ROADS

The importance and affect of public roads on the ownership of land and the operation of

local government cannot be overstated. Public roads may fix one or more boundaries of a tract

of land, determine the legal right of access to a tract, and may constitute an easement in the title

across the interior of the tract. See generally

PINDAR'S GEORGIA REAL ESTATE LAW AND

PROCEDURE WITH FORMS § 5-1 (hereinafter “PINDAR’S”); see also 64 C.J.S. Municipal

Corporations § 1422. Further, public roads are also a major function of local governments which

are generally obligated to maintain, repair, record, and enforce right of ways on public roads.

See, e.g.

, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-6-21; 32-3-1 et seq.; Cherokee County v. McBride, 262 Ga. 460 (1992).

The following article explores the legal means and special circumstances surrounding public

road creation and the scope of a public road’s operation and affect on land ownership and the

authority of local government.

A. Special Circumstances Surrounding Public Roads on Record

Generally, “public road” as defined in State law is “a highway, road, street, avenue, toll

road, tollway, drive, detour, or other way open to the public and intended or used for its

enjoyment and for the passage of vehicles in any county or municipality of Georgia” including

those “public rights, structures, sidewalks, facilities, and appurtenances incidental to the

construction, maintenance, and enjoyment of such rights of way.” O.C.G.A. § 32-1-3 (24); see

also Chatham County v. Allen, 261 Ga. 177 (1991) (same); State Highway Board v. Baxter, 167

Ga. 124 (1928) (finding that the word “road’ in its popular sense includes overland ways of

every character, but has no fixed meaning in the law, depending on the context in which it

appears). Public roads may be constructed by private developers, counties, municipalities, the

state highway department, or by the federal government. P

INDAR'S § 5-3. Public roads in

Georgia are “legally” created by dedication, by prescription, by the express grant of an easement,

by deed, by special statutory proceeding, or by condemnation. See

O.C.G.A. §§ 32-3-3;

INDAR’S § 5-3; see also 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1422.

For each of these types of methods of creation, special circumstances arise which may

influence whether a road has in fact become a public road and the legal affect of a created public

road. These factors can be categorized as “on-record” and “off-record” public roads. On-record

public roads are those roads that have been established by express grant, express dedication, or

by a government’s special statutory authority such as through its condemnation or purchasing

powers. See

O.C.G.A. § 33-3-3. Off-record public roads can be characterized as those roads

which have not been expressly granted to the public, but may be designated as public roads

through a sequence of provable facts and events which mandate that the road enter the public

domain. See, e.g.

, Jordan v. Way, 235 Ga. 496 (1975) (“Road may be public road

notwithstanding fact that it is not recorded with Department of Transportation.”); Baker v. State

92 Ga. App. 60 (1955) (“A highway may have its origin in a legislative act, or in order of court

of competent jurisdiction, or may come into existence by dedication or by prescription.”).

Importantly, if a road is considered a dedicated public road or an otherwise valid public

road on record, then a county may be compelled by mandamus to maintain the road “so that

ordinary loads, with ordinary ease and facility, can be continuously hauled over [it].” O.C.G.A.

§ 9-6-21; see also O.C.G.A. § 32-4-41 (1) (“A county shall plan, designate, improve, manage,

control, construct, and maintain an adequate county road system and shall have control of and

responsibility for all construction, maintenance, or other work related to the county road

system.”); Cherokee County v. McBride

, 262 Ga. 460 (1992); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 179 (noting

that construction, maintenance, and repair of public highways is a governmental function, and

insofar as repair and maintenance are concerned, a duty).

First, regarding public roads on record, local government authorities may expressly create

public roads by statute by acquiring roads via purchase, dedication, condemnation, donations,

and exchange of property. O.C.G.A. §§ 22-1-2; 32-3-3; 32-4-41; 32-4-90; 32-4-92; 36-34-3.

For example, Code Section 32-3-3 provides local governments broad powers to: (1) “accept

donations, transfers, or devises of land” from private and public entities “in fee or any lesser

interest”; (2) enter into agreements with private persons “for the exchange of real property or

interests therein for public road purposes”; (3) acquire roads by prescription; and (4) acquire

roads by dedication. However, although a local government may acquire public roads through

several means, a local government has an obligation to work with property owners to allow them

the highest and best use of their property. Tilley Props., Inc. v. Bartow County

, 261 Ga. 153

(1991). Further, a local government may not acquire property for future public purposes unless

it brings a substantial monetary saving, enhances the integration of highways, or forestalls the

physical or functional obsolescence of highways; but an entire lot, block, or tract may be

acquired although only part is needed if it is in the public interest. See, e.g.

, Fulton County v.

Davidson, 253 Ga. 734 (1985).

Second, a public road may come into existence through a dedication of a strip of land for

road purposes by an owner, evidenced by some action on the owner’s part, showing consent to

the abandonment of the owner’s dominion and dominion and control by the public. See

O.C.G.A. § 32-1-3(8) (defining “dedication” as “the donation by the owner, either expressly or

impliedly, and acceptance by the public of property for public road purposes, in accordance

with statutory or common-law purposes”); P

INDAR’S § 5-4. Generally, “[t]o prove a dedication

of land to public use, there must be an offer, either express or implied, by the owner of the land,

and an acceptance, either express or implied, by the appropriate public authorities or the

general public.” Smith v. State of Georgia

, 248 Ga. 154, 158 (1981); Ross v. Hall County

Commissioners, 235 Ga. 309 (1975); Carroll v. DeKalb County, 216 Ga. 663 (1961); Brown v.

City of East Point, 148 Ga. 85 (1918); see also O.C.G.A. § 44-5-230. To prove an offer of

dedication, “it must be shown that a property owner's acts clearly manifested an intention to

dedicate the property for public use.” Chandler v. Robinson

, 269 Ga. 881 (1998). Further,

“acceptance of an express offer to dedicate property may be shown by public use of the

property for a period of time sufficient to indicate that the public is acting on the basis of a

claimed right resulting from the dedicatory acts by the owner." Smith

, 248 Ga. at 160.

A typical example of express dedication is by express contract and deed. Generally,

where a dedication is made by deed, the grantor, the grantee, and the public are all parties to the

transaction. See PINDAR'S § 5-6; see also 26 C.J.S. Dedication § 15 (“The intent to dedicate

may be manifested by a deed. Such a deed may be from the dedicator to an individual, in

which the dedicator declares that a part of the land is subject to a public use, or it may except

some part of the land conveyed for a public use.”). Creation by contract includes deeds in

which the fee-simple title is conveyed to the strip in question, or other instruments granting an

easement for road purposes. P

INDAR'S § 5-6. Further, although a road deed may be valid

without a delineation of the area, it must contain language sufficient to designate with

reasonable certainty the land over which the road extends and a reference to a plat will not

suffice unless it can be determined from the plat exactly where the lines of the proposed road

will run. See

Ketchum v. Whitfield County, 270 Ga. 180 (1998) (finding that a deed dedicating

a road does not need to contain a perfect legal description, and the deed and dedication will be

valid so long as the description provides sufficient keys to determine the boundaries by

extrinsic evidence); DOT v. Howard, 245 Ga. 96 (1980) (finding that highway deed to DOT

was invalid where true legal title was in the grantor's wife, and could not be color of title

because of indefinite description); State Highway Dep’t v. Blalock

, 214 Ga. 29 (1958);

INDAR’S § 5-7.

Another common example of an offer of express dedication is the recordation of a

subdivision plat by a developer showing designated streets. See

Smith, 248 Ga. at 158

(“Where the owner of a tract of land subdivides it into lots and records a map or plat showing

such lots, with designated streets, and sells lots with reference to such map or plat, the owner

will be presumed to have expressly dedicated the streets designated on the map to the public.”);

26 C.J.S. Dedication § 17 (“[A] survey and plat alone are sufficient to establish an offer to

dedicate if it is evident from the face of the plat that it was the intention of the proprietor to set

apart certain ground for public use.”). Further, even where a proposed dedication plat is

ambiguous, parol evidence, the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the

public can be used to show the boundaries and extent of a dedication. See

Cobb County v.

Crew, 267 Ga. 525 (1997). However, even though an owner may have expressly offered to

dedicate a road via a recorded plat, dedication will not be complete until the public accepts the

express offer. See

Watson v. Clayton County, 214 Ga. App. 225 (1994) (finding that the

recordation of a plat of subdivision containing offers to dedicate streets does not in itself

constitute acceptance by the public authorities of the street because the street must be both

dedicated by a private property owner and accepted by a public authority before it becomes a

public street.); 26 C.J.S. Dedication § 17 (“The mere filing of plat or map . . . does not of itself

work a dedication of the land indicated as reserved for the public use.”). Finally, acceptance of

an offer of dedication will not be inferred if a local government fails to assess property taxes on

the road. See Hale v. City of Statham, 269 Ga. 817 (1998) (“Although exemption from

taxation is one factor to consider in determining whether a government has exercised control

over property, a tax map is insufficient as a matter of law to manifest acceptance.”).

In sum, a road may be dedicated by express grant or presumed by the recordation of a

subdivision plat. However, although these facts may raise a presumption of dedication on the

part of an owner, a local government must still evidence acceptance of the express offer of

dedication. Accordingly, general contract law principles apply to determinations of offers and

acceptances of dedications, with the preferred construction that which renders all the provisions

of the instrument operative and effective, thus carrying out the intention of the parties. See

C.J.S. Dedication § 15.

B. Off Record: Is it Legitimately a Public Road?

If a public road has not been legally created by express grant, express dedication, or by

statute, then a road may still be considered a public road if certain facts and circumstances

arise. These include the manifestation of an implied easement, implied dedication, or a

prescription.

First, it is well established that where title to a public road or highway is not shown to be

in the public by express grant, there is a presumption that it exists merely as an easement, under

which the base fee in the underlying ground remains in the adjacent owners. R.G. Foster & Co.

v. Fountain, 216 Ga. 113 (1960); Thomas v. Douglas, 165 Ga. App. 128 (1983); PINDAR’S § 5-

14; 26 C.J.S. Dedication § 68 (noting that where the owner of property makes a common law

dedication, the ultimate fee remains unaffected, neither the government, the municipality, nor

the public acquiring any interest other than that of a mere easement). If a public road exists by

mere easement, then the public is not entitled to rights in timber, minerals, or other rights in the

roadway. Smith v. City of Rome, 19 Ga. 89 (1855). In the great majority of cases, however,

an express grant or express dedication is by fee simple due to the substantial cost in

constructing and maintaining public streets and highways. See

PINDAR’S § 5-16.

Second, as noted above, a road may considered a public road via implied dedication if

two criteria are established: (1) the owner intended to dedicate the land for public use; and (2)

the public accepted the dedicated property. Chandler

, 269 Ga. at 881. However, “[w]hen an

implied dedication is claimed, the facts relied on must be such as to clearly indicate a purpose

on the part of the owner to abandon his personal dominion over the property and to divert it to a

definite public use.” Id.

; Dunaway v. Windsor, 197 Ga. 705 (1944) (finding that to infer an

intention to dedicate property to public use from owner's “acquiescence” in use of his property

by the public “acquiescence” means a tacit consent to acts or conditions, and implies a

knowledge of those things which are acquiesced). Thus, whether an implied dedication or

acceptance has taken place is a question for the trier of fact. Jackson v. Stone

, 210 Ga. App.

465, 466 (1993).

Generally, actions that have been found to constitute an implied dedication include the

owner’s allowance of public use of the road and the acquiescence of the owner to local

governing authorities to repair and maintain roads. Jergens v. Stanley

, 247 Ga. 543 (1981)

(finding seven-year use by the public as a road and working by county is sufficient to establish

a dedication); Hood v. Spruill

, 242 Ga. App. 44 (2000) (finding that whether roadway easement

over private land is private or public is determined by use of roadway). Importantly, however,

these facts are not conclusive to show that a road has been dedicated to public use. See, e.g.

Forehand v. Carter

, 270 Ga. 534 (1999) (finding that an owner who permits the county to

occasionally grade a part of an alley does not manifest an intention to dedicate the alley to

public use); Chatham County v. Allen, 261 Ga. 177 (1991) (finding that unopened,

undeveloped, proposed roads in subdivision do not become “public roads” which county is

obligated to maintain, solely by virtue of process of implied dedication and acceptance, and

county could not be required to develop such roads); Irwin County v. Owens

, 256 Ga. App. 359

(2002) (“The mere use of one's property by a small portion of the public, even for an extended

period of time, is not sufficient to authorize an inference that the property has been dedicated to

a public use.”); see also

Central of Georgia R.R. Co. v. DEC Associates, Inc., 231 Ga. App.

787 (1998) (finding that where 15 to 20 years have elapsed since the dedication of an easement

without the government exercising any control, the presumption of law arises that the donation

of the easement was declined by the governmental entity).

Moreover, simply because the disputed road is depicted on a Department of

Transportation map, or a local government has a policy of delivering gravel and grading private

roads upon request, does not by themselves establish dedication of a road as a public roadway.

See

Chandler, 269 Ga. at 881 (“[A] road's placement on an official highway map is

‘administrative . . . as between the state, counties and municipalities. Its purpose [is] not to

ascertain and fix the status of the public right of use of every road in Georgia.’ Hence, this

evidence also fails to support a claim of implied dedication.”); Jackson v. Stone

, 210 Ga. App.

465 (1993) (finding that owner retained control over who used road by specifically granting or

refusing easements to use road, that road was built at his own expense, and that county's policy

of delivering gravel and grading private roads upon request was not indication of road's

dedication to public); P

INDAR’S 5-4; 26 C.J.S. Dedication § 40; 32 A.L.R.2d 953. Therefore, in

sum, implied dedication will generally be found to have occurred if an owner allows

continuous public use for an extended period of time and permits local authorities to

continuously maintain the road for many years. See, e.g., Chandler, 269 Ga. at 881-82 (finding

no implied dedication because no maintenance performed on road in twenty-five years and only

on an occasional basis before then); Childs v. Sammons

, 272 Ga. 737, 738 (2000) (plaintiff did

not prove that occasional grading of 40 foot strip of road traversing defendant’s land dedicated

road to public use).

Finally, similar to implied dedication, a roadway may also be transformed into a public

road if acquired by prescription through continuous public use after seven years. See

O.C.G.A.

§§ 32-3-3(c) (“[A]ny state agency, county, or municipality is authorized to acquire by

prescription and to incorporate into its system of public roads any road on private land which

has come to be a public road by the exercise of unlimited public use for the preceding seven

years or more.”); 44-5-164; Chandler

, 269 Ga. at 882; A.C.L.R. Co. v. Sweatman, 81 Ga. App.

269 (1950). Thus, while a dedication implies a conveyance and an acceptance, a prescription

requires an unbroken possession or user under a claim of right. Dunaway v. Windsor

, 197 Ga.

705 (1944).

Generally,

[i]n order to obtain prescriptive rights over a roadway, the possession must

not originate in fraud, must be public, continuous, exclusive,

uninterrupted, peaceable, and accompanied by a claim of right. The use

must also be adverse rather than permissive, and in the case of public

roads acquired by prescription, public authorities must have either

accepted the road or exercised dominion over it. Lastly, there must have

been unlimited public use of the roadway for at least the seven years

preceding the claim of prescriptive acquisition.

Harbor Co. v. Copelan

, 256 Ga. App. 79 (2002) (quoting Chandler, 269 Ga. at 883). Similar to

implied dedication, courts have accordingly held that only continuous public use and

maintenance, as opposed to tenuous public use and infrequent public maintenance, is sufficient

to put an owner on notice of adverse use for a prescription. See

Chandler, 269 Ga. at 883

(finding that county did not acquire roadway by prescription where roadway was blocked and

impassable for approximately ten years prior to the property owners’ acquisition of property

and clearance of the roadway and use of road by neighboring property owner was permissive);

Jordan v. Way

, 235 Ga. 496 (1975) (finding that evidence showing road across owner's

property had been in existence for 74 years prior to its closing, that public used road in manner

adverse to owner continuously throughout such period, and that county authorities had repaired

road, was sufficient to support finding that public road had been established across owner's

property by prescription); Dunaway

, 197 Ga. at 705 (finding that evidence indicating that

trucks passing over land owner’s property from time to time and that the public authorities had

performed some work on the roadway, was insufficient to establish a continuous, uninterrupted,

and adverse use of the property by the public as a highway, as would be sufficient to establish a

highway by prescription); Harbor Co.

, 256 Ga. App. at 79 (finding that county did not acquire

title through prescription to a six-inch privately owned strip of land abutting county road and

covered by portion of privately constructed curbs and gutters, even if county accepted or

exercised dominion over curbs and gutters, where curbs and gutters were constructed with

express permission from owner of strip, and there was no evidence that county ever gave owner

of strip notice that it was asserting any claims adverse to his right of ownership ); Bass v.

Pearson, 219 Ga. App. 487 (1995) (“While there is evidence that numerous individuals used

that road and that the county had at some point graded and graveled the road, there is nothing

indicating when or for how long the county performed that work.”). Accordingly,

prescriptions, like implied dedications, require continuous adverse use by the public with a

coterminous claim of dominion and control over the road by local government.

C. What Influences the Scope of the Road Right of Way?

Another crucial area involving the creation, use, and operation of public roads is the

scope of a public road’s right of way. Generally, “right of way” is defined by statute as

“property or any interest therein, whether or not in the form of a strip, which is acquired for or

devoted to a public road.” O.C.G.A. § 32-1-3(25). The scope a public road right of way may be

influenced by several statutory provisions and common law factors which include (1) whether

the road is owned in fee simple by local government or the road is a mere easement for public

use; (2) the established width and parameters of public roadways; (3) the existence and rights of

abutting property owners; (4) utility line easements and urban servitudes; and (5) encroachments.

See

PINDAR’S §§ 5-13 through 5-25; 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1462.

First, as noted above, a public road not dedicated to the public by express grant is

presumed to exist only as an easement, under which the base fee remains in the adjacent land

owners and the easement continues only as long as the public need for the road continues. See

Thomas v. Douglas, 165 Ga. App. 128 (1983); City of Atlanta v. Jones, 135 Ga. 376 (1910)

(holding that even a deed to a county or city may be subject to interpretation as to whether it

conveys a fee or a mere easement). As noted above, because of the costs of road maintenance,

most state and local governments acquire a fee simple title to the roadway, either by warranty

deed or by indefeasible fee authorized by statute. O.C.G.A. §§ 32-3-3; 32-4-41; 32-4-90; 32-4-

92; 36-34-3.

Second, the width of public roadways is generally determined by examination of the

deeds and records under which title to the road was acquired. Waller v. State Highway Dep’t

218 Ga. 605 (1963). Therefore, where a parcel of land of definite width is expressly dedicated as

a roadway, whether by deed, easement, subdivision plat, or otherwise, the width shown becomes

the official margin even though the actual part used and occupied for road purposes may be less.

Dover v. Pritchett

, 251 Ga. 842 (1984) (iron pins placed at corners of property said to prevail

over measurements to determine width of county road); Thurston v. City of Forest Park

, 211 Ga.

910 (1955). However, in cases where a public road has been established by implied dedication

or prescription, there is no presumption that the owner of the land on which the road traverses

intended to dedicate more than the public use requires. See, e.g.

, R.G. Foster & Co. v. Fountain,

216 Ga. 113 (1960) (finding that when dedication of a highway results from mere use and

acquiescence, it shall not to be inferred that the donor parted with more than the use necessitates,

therefore the evidence sustained verdict for landowner); Thrash v. Wood

, 215 Ga. 609 (1960)

(finding that parking area not included in dedication). Sidewalks are also considered part of a

public road, but dedication of an area solely for sidewalk purposes does not permit a government

from converting it into vehicular traffic without compensation to abutting property owners. R.G.

Foster, 216 Ga.113; see also Atlanta Muffler Shop v. McSwain, 98 Ga. App. 722 (1958)

(“Sidewalks are intended as public throughfares, and any person or corporation placing

obstructions on or over them in such manner as to render them dangerous to persons using them

in a normal manner is guilty of negligence.”). Finally, as noted in the statutory definition of

“public road,” a public roadway includes all “structures, sidewalks, facilities, and appurtenances

incidental to the construction, maintenance, and enjoyment of such rights of way.” O.C.G.A. §

32-1-3 (24). Accordingly, the width of a public right of way is determined by deed or the prior

public use of the right of way by the public in the absence of an express deed.

Third, the owners of land abutting a public road may influence a right of way and occupy

a special status as compared with members of the public generally. Generally, title to the

underlying fee of a street or road is prima facie vested in the abutting owners, unless conveyed or

transmitted to the public authorities. Fambro v. Davis, 256 Ga. 326 (1986) (noting that the fee in

all roads should be vested either exclusively in the owner of the adjacent land on one side of the

road, or in him as to one half of the road, and as to the other half, in the proprietor of the land on

the opposite side of the road). Further, subject to certain exceptions, and depending upon

whether the road is owned in fee simple or by easement, abutting owners may have special rights

of access, underground and overhead rights, and reversionary rights upon abandonment.

INDAR’S § 5-17; 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1462 (“The owner of property abutting on

a public street has an easement over the street of light, air, and view, and an interference with his

right of privacy has been considered as an element going to make up his right to relief against an

encroachment on the highway.”). An abutting owner may also be subject to special obligations

not to obstruct passage, and may be liable for improvements on the roadway in some cases.

O.C.G.A. §§ 36-39-16; 36-39-20; P

INDAR’S § 5-17.

Importantly, abutting owners may have a special easement of access to their land over the

public right of way. See Barham v. Grant, 185 Ga. 601 (1937). The easement of access includes

the to reach the traveled part of the public road, but an owner is not entitled to enter at all points

along his boundary, provided the abutting owner is offered a convenient access to the premises.

See, e.g.

, State Highway Board v. Baxter, 167 Ga. 124 (1928) (finding that an abutting owner “is

not entitled, as against the public, to access to his land at all points in the boundary between it

and the highway, if the entire access has not been cut off, and if he is offered a convenient access

to his property and to improvements thereon, and his means of ingress and egress are not

substantially interfered with by the public”). Therefore, courts have concluded that curbing and

medians in the public right of way and regulation of traffic flow generally do not impair access

to an abutting owner’s property rights. See, e.g.

, Clark v. Clayton County, 133 Ga. App. 171

(1974) (finding that median change by closing front cross-over of owner’s hotel and opening

another 370 feet away did not interfere with owner’s ingress and egress); Dougherty County v.

Snelling, 132 Ga. App. 540 (1974) (finding that abutting owner has no rights to control traffic

flow, which is regulated for public safety); Johnson v. Burke County

, 101 Ga. App. 747 (1960)

(“[I]t conclusively appears . . . that the curb in question is so constructed and situated as to not

interfere with the right of the plaintiffs, their customers or others, in the matter of ingress and

egress.”). Finally, the right of access of abutting owners can be taken away from the abutting

owner by the exercise of the power of eminent domain and the establishment of limited-access

highways. See

O.C.G.A. §§ 22-1-2; 32-1-3(14) (defining limited access highway as “a public

highway, road, or street for through traffic, over, from, or to which owners or occupants of

abutting land or other persons have no right or easement or only a limited right or easement of

access, light, view, or air by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited-access

highway, road, or street or for any other reason”).

Fourth, a public right of way may also be affected by the duty of local governments and

abutting property owners to keep the right of way free of encroachments. See

O.C.G.A. §§ 32-6-

1(a) (“It shall be unlawful for any person to obstruct, encroach upon, solicit the sale of any

merchandise on, or injure materially any part of any public road.”); 32-6-2 (authority to regulate

parking and unattended vehicles on public roads); Crider v. Kelly

, 232 Ga. 616 (1974) (finding

that DOT can require removal of any obstruction placed without express permission on road

within state's system and governing body of municipality can require removal of any such an

obstruction placed on city street not on state’s system).

Generally, encroachments on a right of way without the express permission of State or

local government is considered a “purpresture” and may constitute an abatable nuisance subject

to an injunction. See S.E. Pipeline Co. v. Garrett, 192 Ga. 817 (1941) (“The rule both in reason

and by authority is that, unless the public sustain or may sustain some degree of inconvenience

or annoyance in the use of a public highway or street or other public property, there is no public

nuisance.”); see also

Stephens v. State Highway Dep’t, 223 Ga. 713 (1967) (finding that an

inadvertent encroachment of less than one foot on the right of way would not require an

injunction which would in effect force demolition of the building). Courts have accordingly

found unauthorized encroachments as constituting an unlawful nuisance, including fuel tanks,

Williamson v. Souter

, 172 Ga. 364 (1931), pay telephones, City of Dalton v. Staten, 201 Ga. 754

(1947), newsstands, Magrill v. City of Atlanta

, 32 Ga. App. 5 (1924), and piles of debris.

Harbuck v. Richland Box Co.

, 204 Ga. 352 (1948). Thus, any unauthorized immobile structure

on a public road may constitute a public nuisance. See, e.g.

, Smith v. Hiawassee Hardware Co.,

167 Ga. App. 70 (1983) (“Structures on private property adjoining road rights-of-way only

become unlawful . . . if they obstruct a clear view of roads in such a manner as to constitute a

traffic hazard, and they are unauthorized.”) Williams v. Scruggs Co.

, 213 Ga. App. 470 (1994)

(finding plaintiff was unable to show that the allegedly vision-obstructing debris and heavy

equipment located on defendant’s property was “unauthorized”).

Finally, the right of way is also influenced by a local government’s power to regulate and

maintain utility lines. Generally, local governments are authorized by statute to license the use

of city and county streets for the transmission of utilities and for street railways so long as the

use of the public generally is not unreasonably interfered with. See, e.g.

, O.C.G.A. §§ 32-4-42

(“A county may grant permits and establish reasonable regulations for the installation,

construction, maintenance, renewal, removal, and relocation of pipes, mains, conduits, cables,

wires, poles, towers, traffic and other signals, and other equipment, facilities, or appliances of

any utility in, on, along, over, or under the public roads of the county . . . .”); 36-34-2 (regulation

of utilities by municipalities). Thus, although “the owner of the soil retains the exclusive right in

mines, quarries, springs of water, timber, and earth, . . . these rules must be taken with some

limitation as to the streets of a city. Certain uses . . . which are called ‘urban servitudes’ are the

necessary incidents of streets in large cities, and are paramount to the rights of the owner of the

fee.” City of Albany v. Lippitt

, 191 Ga. 756 (1941); PINDAR’S § 5-22.

Further, regulation of utilities and additional uses of the right of way for utilities may be

expanded over time. Faulker v. Georgia Power Co.

, 243 Ga. 649 (1979) (“A definition of land

to the public use as a street not only embraces all of the customary uses to which streets are

devoted at the time of the dedication, but will expand to take in all new uses that become

customary as civilization advances.”). Therefore, courts have found that the installation of

additional telephone wires, Kerlin v. Southern Bell Tel. Co.

, 191 Ga. 663 (1941), and facilities to

accommodate higher voltage electric lines, Humphries v. Georgia Power Co.

, 224 Ga. 128

(1968), amounted to a change in the degree of use rather than in the kind of use, so as not to

violate the existing right of way. However, while a local government may mandate that a utility

move utility lines to accommodate future road widening, it may not deny current permits based

on future potential use. DeKalb County v. Georgia Power Co.

, 249 Ga. 704 (1982) (electric

lines) (“The county may require the power company to move the power line to accommodate

future widening of [roads], but may not deny the power company a permit to locate the power

line within the right-of-way of that road because of speculation that [the road] may be widened at

some unspecified and unknown time in the future.”); City of Atlanta v. DeKalb County

, 196 Ga.

252 (1943) (water lines); P

INDAR’S § 5-22. In sum, State and local government may reasonably

regulate and license utility lines in the right of way subject to certain restrictions. See

O.C.G.A.

§§ 32-4-42; 36-34-2; 32-6-173.

Private Roads In Georgia: Creation And Use

Submitted by James A. Langlais

• Introduction

• Creating Private Roads Through Easements

• Difference Between Easements And Fee Estates,

Restrictive Covenants And Licenses

• Scope Of Easements

• Abandonment Or Forfeiture, Extinguishment

And Estoppel Of Easements

• Maintenance And Repair Of Easements

• Creation Of Private Roads Through

Condemnation

NATIONAL BUSINESS INSTITUTE

ROAD AND ACCESS LAW: RESEARCHING AND RESOLVING

COMMON DISPUTES

Atlanta, Georgia

July 17, 2007

PRIVATE ROADS IN GEORGIA: CREATION AND USE

James A. “Jim” Langlais

Alston & Bird, LLP

One Atlantic Station

1201 West Peachtree Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(404) 8881-7490

[email protected]

A. Introduction

In Georgia, private roads may be created in a number of ways: by express grants, by

prescription, by necessity, and by private condemnation.

Procedures for creating private roads

such as these are intended to provide for an economically affordable and efficient method to gain

access to property.

In addition to providing landlocked property owners with mechanisms to

gain access to property, these procedures also seek to protect the interests of the servient estate

owner, i.e., the one burdened with the private road or easement.

This paper examines the

various types of mechanisms to create private roads in Georgia, as well as the legal issues related

to their creation, scope, maintenance and extinguishment.

B. Creating Private Roads through Easements

An easement is “a right in the owner of one parcel of land (i.e., the dominant estate

owner), by reason of such ownership, to use the land of another for a special purpose not

inconsistent with the general property in the servient estate owner”.

It is not a fee estate in land

or merely a contract right, but rather it is an interest in land owned or possessed by another; a

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1; Jones v. Mauldin, 208 Ga. 14, 64 S.E.2d 452 (Ga., 1951) overruled on

other grounds.

Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Board of County Com’rs, Crook County, 2002 W.Y. 167, 57 P.3d 1218

(Wyo. 2002).

Barge v. Sadler, 70 S.W.3d 683 (Tenn. 2002); Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Board of County

Com’rs, Crook County, 2002 W.Y. 167, 57 P.3d 1218 (Wyo. 2002).

Brown v. Tomlinson, 246 Ga. 513, 272 S.E.2d 258 (1980); 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Easements and

Licenses § 1.

Hollomon v. Board of Education

, 168 Ga. 359, 147 S.E. 882 (1929).

privilege to enjoy and use the land of another.

Moreover, it may be created only by a person

with title to or an estate in the servient estate.

Easements can be created in a number of ways

including easement by express grant, easement by prescription, and easement by implication of

law or necessity.

1. Easements by Express Grant

Express easements can be created by contract, deed or other written instrument.

create an express easement, the written instrument must describe with reasonable particularity

the land to which the easement extends.

It is not, however, necessary to delineate the exact path

and boundaries of the easement, i.e., provide a legal description of the easement.

The

description of an easement is sufficient if it provides a key so that the land where the easement is

located can be identified.

An easement description has been found sufficient in the following

situations:

• easement was described as being situated “between Lot #77, Lake George and

Pine Avenue, including causeway to the creek, near the railroad bridge, known

as the headwaters of the Gress River” was held to be sufficient.

5 Rest. of Law, §§ 450, p. 2901, 540b, p. 2903; Sinnett v. Werelus, 83 Idaho 514, 365 P.2d 952

(1961); Young v. Thendara, Inc.

, 328 Mich. 42, 43 N.W.2d 58 (1950); Kazi v. State Farm Fire

and Cas. Co., 24 Cal. 4

871, 15 P.3d 223 (2001); Preseault v. U.S., 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir.

1996); Sun Valley Land and Minerals, Inc. v. Hawkes

, 138 Idaho 543, 66 P.3d 798 (2003).

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Easements and Licenses § 15.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1; Jones v. Mauldin, 208 Ga. 14, 64 S.E.2d 452 (Ga., 1951) overruled on

other grounds.

Latham Homes Sanitation, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 245 Ga.App. 573, 538 S.E.2d 107

(2000); Bibb County v. Georgia Power Co.

, 241 Ga.App. 131, 525 S.E.2d 136 (1999); Khamis

Enterprises, Inc. v. Boone, 480 S.E.2d 364 (1997); Irvin v. Laxmi, 266 Ga. 204, 467 S.E.2d 510

(1996); City of Columbia, Mo. v. Baurichter

, 729 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987); Lewis v.

DeKalb County, 251 Ga. 100, 303 S.E.2d 112 (1983); Georgia Power Co. v. Leonard, 187 Ga.

608, 1 S.E.2d 579 (1939); Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Greenfield

, 128 S.E. 430 (1925);

Chapman v. Gordon

, 29 Ga. 250 (1859).

Lovell v. Anderson, 242 Ga.App. 537, 530 S.E.2d 233 (2000); Concerned Citizens v. State Ex.

rel. Rhodes, 329 N.C. 37, 404 S.E.2d 677 (1991); Champion v. Neason, 220 Ga. 15, 136 S.E.2d

718 (1964); Lewis v. Bowen

, 209 Ga. 717 (1), 75 S.E.2d 422 (1953); Rest. of Law, § 471(d), p.

2964.

Wynns v. White, 273 Ga.App. 209, 614 S.E.2d 830 (2005); Murdock v. Ward, 267 Ga. 303,

477 S.E.2d 835 (1996).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1; Howard v. Rivers, 266 Ga. 185, 465 S.E.2d 666 (1996); Glass v. Carnes,

260 Ga. 627(4), 398 S.E.2d 7 (1990); Champion v. Neason

, 220 Ga. 15, 136 S.E.2d 718 (1964).

Wynns v. White, 273 Ga.App. 209, 614 S.E.2d 830 (2005); Adams v. City of Ila, 221 Ga.App.

372, 471 S.E.2d 310 (1996)(property description was sufficient in deed granting right-of-way;

deed contained sufficient “keys” to clarify any indefiniteness in property description, making

reference to militia district in which right-of-way was located, and defining right-of-way

specifically by referring to and incorporating street’s preexisting roadway).

• easement was described by a specific reference to a diagram or plat showing

the easement has been held sufficient.

• easement represented by parallel lines on plat of subdivision.

However, the grant of an easement with an indefinite description will be upheld where its

location has been established by parties’ consent.

Moreover, in instances where the written

instrument is ambiguous, parol evidence may be used to explain the extent of the description of

an easement and identify its location.

For example, in a situation where a plat is referenced in

a written instrument purporting to grant an easement, but where no plat is actually attached to the

written instrument, parol evidence identifying the plat may be introduced.

2. Easements by Prescription

In Georgia, the elements of a prescriptive easement are essentially the same as adverse

possession.

Prescription, however, differs from adverse possession;

adverse possession

confers title to the property while prescription only confers the right to use the property.

The person seeking to establish prescriptive easement must prove that the use or the road

or way was public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted (7 years for improved lands or 20 years

through wild lands), peaceable, and accompanied by a claim of right.

Moreover, the use must

be adverse (i.e., without the consent of the owner) rather than permissive, the private way must

not exceed 20 feet in width and be the same 20 feet as originally appropriated, and must be kept

in repair during the period of use.

Howard v. Rivers, 266 Ga. 185, 465 S.E.2d 666 (1996); Chicago Title Insurance Co. v.

Investguard, Ltd., 215 Ga.App. 121, 449 S.E.2d 681 (1994)(access easement may be described

by reference to a plat showing a road lineated on the plat, which plat is attached to a deed and

incorporated by reference into the deed); Turner v. City of Nashville

, 177 Ga.App. 649, 340

S.E.2d 619 (1986); Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Board of Education.

, 129 Ga.App. 668(4), 200

S.E.2d 461 (1973).

Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Investguard, Ltd., 215 Ga.App. 121, 449 S.E.2d 681 (1994);

Hardigree v. Hardigree

, 244 Ga. 830, 262 S.E.2d 127 (1979).

Barton v. Gammell, 143 Ga.App. 291, 238 S.E.2d 445 (Ga.App. 1977)(The grant of an

easement containing an indefinite description will be upheld where its location has been

established by consent of the parties).

Irvin v. Laxmi, 266 Ga. 204, 467 S.E.2d 510 (1996).

Mayor & Council of Athens v. Gregory, 231 Ga. 710, 203 S.E.2d 507 (1974).

Moody v. Degges, 258 Ga.App. 135, 137, 573 S.E.2d 93, 95 (2002).

Thomson v. Dypvik 174 Cal App 3d 329, 220 Cal.Rptr. 46 (6

Dist., 1986); Wheeler v.

Newman, 394 NW2d 620 (Minn App., 1986); Glenville v Strahl, 516 SW2d 781(Mo App.,

1974).

Id.

Moody v. Degges, 258 Ga.App. 135, 137, 573 S.E.2d 93 (2002); Jackson v. Norfolk Southern

R.R., 2002, 255 Ga.App. 695, 566 S.E.2d 415 (2002); Childs v. Sammons, 272 Ga.App. 737,

739(2), 534 S.E.2d 409 (2000); O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1.

Id.

Merely using a roadway, however, is insufficient to acquire a prescriptive easement.

Moreover, since the imposition of prescriptive rights is a rather harsh remedy, Georgia courts

will strictly construe the elements of OCGA § 44-9-1 against the party asserting the right to the

easement.

If the party seeking the prescriptive easement fails to strictly comply with OCGA §

44-9-1 or fails to prove any of the necessary elements to establish prescriptive rights, he will not

be entitled to acquire the easement.

Further, where a road has been used prescriptively as a private way for as much as one

year, the owner of land over which it passes (i.e., the servient estate) may not close it up without

first giving the users thereof thirty days’ written notice so that they may have the way made

permanent.

3. Easements by Necessity

Under O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(b), “[w]hen any person or corporation of this state owns real

estate or any interest therein to which the person or corporation has no means of access, ingress,

and egress and when a means of ingress, egress, and access may be had over and across the lands

of any private person or corporation, such person or corporation may file his or its petition in the

superior court of the county having jurisdiction…”

Even where other means of access exist,

condemnation of a private way or easement by necessity is warranted if the easement seeker can

establish that the existing access options are not economically feasible.

To be entitled to condemn an easement or private road over the lands of another by

necessity, the easement seeker must show that the way sought by him is absolutely indispensable

as a means for reaching his property.

The way of necessity must be more than one of

convenience.

A landowner seeking to establish an easement by necessity will not be entitled to a

private way of necessity to obtain access if he voluntarily landlocked himself; i.e, he created the

problem he now seeks redress for.

The reasoning behind the rule is that a private way would

only reward the property owner for his own negligence in failing to reserve an easement for

BMH Real Estate Partnership v. Montgomery, 246 Ga.App. 301, 304(3), 540 S.E.2d 256

(2000).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-54; In re Popescu, 172 B.R. 691 (1994)(under Georgia law, establishment of

private way by prescription is to be strictly construed); Farris Construction Co. v. 3032 Briarcliff

Road Associates, 247 Ga. 578, 277 S.E. 2d 673 (1981).

Id.

Hall v. Browning, 195 Ga. 423, 24 S.E.2d 392 (1943); Kirkland v. Pitman, 122 Ga. 256, 50

S.E. 117 (1905).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(b); Hensley v. Henry, 246 Ga.App. 417, 541 S.E.2d 398 (2000).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40; Atlanta-East, Inc. v. Tate Mountain Associates, Inc., 265 Ga. 742, 462

S.E.2d 613 (1995).

Wyatt v. Hendrix, 146 Ga. 143, 90 S.E. 957 (1916).

Moore v. Dooley, 240 Ga. 472, 241 S.E.2d 232 (1978); Hasty v. Wilson, 223 Ga. 739, 158

S.E.2d 915 (1967); Burton v. Atlanta & W.P.R. Co.

, 206 Ga. 698, 58 S.E.2d 424 (1950).

Bruno v. Evans, 200 Ga.App. 437, 408 S.E.2d 458 (1991), certiorari denied.

property he had previously sold.

However, even where a party has voluntarily landlocked

himself, under some circumstances, he may still be entitled to obtain access by condemnation

under O.C.G.A. § 44–9–40(b) if he can show that construction of a road over the property sold

would cost more than the value of the remaining property.

C. Difference between Easements and Fee Estates, Restrictive Covenants and Licenses

The difference between a fee simple estate and an easement is that the easement describes

the right to the use of the land, while title to the fee simple estate is the grant of title to the land

itself. This difference is not insignificant because a fee simple estate owner receives substantive

and procedural rights that are not to easement holders. For example, the owner of a fee simple

estate, unlike an easement, has the right to sell his land.

In determining whether the interest

conveyed is easement or fee simple title to land, each case depends upon its own particular facts

and circumstances.

As with many determinations involving real property, this determination

turns on the intent of the parties.

Easements also differ from restrictive covenants. Unlike restrictive covenants, easements

require only that the servient estate owner not to interfere with the dominant estate owner’s

rights.

Easements “run with the land”, which means that subsequent owners or successors may

either be able to enforce the easement or be burdened by it.

A restrictive covenant, on the

other hand, may or may not run with the land and it generally sets limits upon the use of the

subject property. A restrictive covenant relates to the burden or servitude upon land, an

easement relates to the benefit conferred upon the dominant tenement.

Whether an instrument

grants an easement or a restrictive covenant depends on the intent of the parties and an

evaluation of the whole instrument in light of the facts and circumstances at the time of its

execution.

For example, where a deed specifically states that the land was sold and conveyed

subject to specified restrictions, a restrictive covenant rather than an easement will be found; the

presence of the word “restrictions” was indicative of the intent of the grantor to restrict the use of

the property rather than grant an easement.

Easement are also distinguishable from licenses in that a licenses are mere permissive

uses which confer a personal privilege to do some act on the land without possessing an actual

estate in that land and they are generally revocable.

An easement, on the other hand, implies

Mersac v. National Hills Condominium Association, 267 Ga. 493, 480 S.E.2d 16 (1997).

Kellett v. Salter, 244 Ga. 601, 261 S.E.2d 597 (1979).

Lanier v. Burnette, 245 Ga.App. 566, 538 S.E.2d 476 (2000).

Barber v. Southern Ry. Co., 247 Ga. 84, 274 S.E.2d 336 (1981); Jackson v. Rogers, 205 Ga.

581, 54 S.E.2d 132 (1949); Georgia & F. Ry. v. Swain

, 145 Ga. 817, 90 S.E. 44 (1916).

City of Buford v. Gwinnett County, 262 Ga. 248, 585 S.E.2d 122 (Ga.App. , 2003).

Brown v DOT, 195 Ga.App. 262, 393 S.E.2d 36 (1990).

Barton v. Gammell, 143 Ga.App. 291, 238 S.E.2d 445 (Ga.App. 1977).

Id.

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-34.

Moreland v Henson, 256 Ga 685, 353 S.E.2d 181 (1987).

Barton v Gammell, 143 Ga.App. 291, 238 S.E.2d 445 (1977).

an interest in the land in and over which it is to be enjoyed, and are generally not revocable.

D. Scope of Easements

Where an easement is granted without limitations on its use, an easement owner is

entitled to use an easement for all reasonable purposes that develop over time if such uses

significantly relate to the purpose the easement was granted.

The first rule of construction in

examining the scope and purpose of an easement is to look at the intent of the parties.

In Savannah Jaycees Foundation, Inc. v. Gottlieb, subdivision lot owners were authorized

to park their automobiles on property designated as a park in the subdivision plat, as incident to

their easement to use the park property for recreational purposes;

implicit in the easement grant

was the authority to do things reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the easement, recreational

users of property.

Notwithstanding, the owners of the servient estate did have the power to

restrict which portions of property could be used for parking since unlimited parking rights were

unnecessary for enjoyment of the easement.

In Reece v. Smith, owners of landlocked property who acquired an implied easement

were authorized to install within path of easement, underground utilities since utilities were

necessary to reasonable enjoyment of the landlocked land in question as place of residence, and

there was no evidence that installation would unreasonably burden the servient landowners’

rights.

However, in Lanier v. Burnette, where landowners had acquired an easement for the

sole purpose of ingress to and egress from the property, they were not entitled to a utility

easement because, under the particular circumstances, it was not a reasonable use that

significantly related or was essential to the deed-granted easement.

E. Abandonment or Forfeiture, Extinguishment and Estoppel of Easements

An easement may be lost or extinguished in a number of ways including abandonment or

forfeited by nonuse, and estopppel.

An easement of necessity may also be extinguished where

Barton v Gammell, 143 Ga.App. 291, 238 S.E.2d 445 (1977).

Kiser v. Warner Robins Air Park Estates, Inc., 237 Ga. 385, 228 S.E.2d 795 (1976); Savannah

Jaycees Foundation, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 615 S.E.2d 226 (2005).

Kiser v. Warner Robins Air Park Estates, Inc., 237 Ga. 385, 228 S.E.2d 795 (1976).

Savannah Jaycees Foundation, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 273 Ga.App. 374, 615 S.E.2d 226 (2005).

Id.

Reece v. Smith, 265 Ga.App. 497, 594 S.E.2d 654 (2004).

Lanier v. Burnette, 245 Ga.App. 566, 538 S.E.2d 476 (2000).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-6; Owens Hardware Co. v. Walters, 210 Ga. 321, 80 S.E.2d 285 (1954);

Tietjen v. Meldrim

, 169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 349 (1930); Rolleston v. Sea Island Properties, Inc.,

1985, 254 Ga. 183, 327 S.E.2d 489, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 77, 474 U.S. 823, 88 L.Ed.2d 63

(an easement can also be extinguished by estoppel if the easement owner shows an intent not to

make use of the easement in the future, and the servient estate owner reasonable relies upon the

conduct of the dominant owner).

the purpose for the easement ceases to exist.

The owner of an easement may abandon or forfeit an easement if he abandons or fails to

use it for “a term sufficient to raise the presumption of release or abandonment”. There is,

however, no presumption of abandonment from nonuse for a period of time less than 20 years.

Moreover, the mere non-use of an easement acquired by grant, even for a time period greater

than 20 years, without further evidence of an intent to abandon it, will not be considered

abandoned.

Intent to abandon an easement can only be established with clear, unequivocal and

decisive evidence.

Intent can also, however, be inferred from acts of the parties.

For

example, sufficient evidence existed to extinguish an easement where an easement was not used

for approximately 30 years and a fence had been built barring access to the easement, and it had

been shown that the easement owner had been present at the property and therefore could have

used the easement or objected to the presence of the fence.

An easement can also be extinguished by estoppel if the easement owner shows an intent

not to make use of the easement in the future, and the servient estate owner reasonable relies

upon the dominant owner’s conduct.

To determine whether an easement is properly

extinguished by estoppel, one must ascertain whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the

servient owner would rely upon the easement owner’s actions, and whether reinstatement of the

easement would unreasonably harm the servient owner.

It is, also, well-settled that an easement of necessity may be extinguished where the

purpose for the easement ceases to exist.

For example, where credible evidence is presented

that other access to the property is available, a way of necessity will cease to exist.

F. Maintenance and Repair of Easements

The easement owner ordinarily has a duty to maintain or repair an easement, where the

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-5; Reece v. Smith, 265 Ga.App. 497, 594 S.E.2d 654 (2004), reconsideration

denied, certiorari denied.

Boling v. Golden Arch Realty Corp., 242 Ga. 3, 4, 247, S.E.2d 744 (1978).

Smith v. Gwinnett County, 248 Ga. 882(2), 286 S.E.2d 739 (1982); Church of the Nativity,

Inc. v. Whitener, 249 Ga.App. 45, 547 S.E.2d 587 (2001), reconsideration denied. (non-use of

express easement over church’s property for 24 years did not constitute abandonment of

easement, where current easement holders’ predecessors in title had no intent to abandon

easement).

Hardigree v. Hardigree, 244 Ga. 830(2), 262 S.E.2d 127 (1979).

Tietjen v. Meldrim, 172 Ga. 814, 159 S.E. 231 (1931).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-6; Duffy Street S.R.O., Inc. v. Mobley, 266 Ga. 849, 471 S.E.2d 507 (1996).

Rolleston v. Sea Island Properties, Inc., 254 Ga. 183, 327 S.E.2d 489 (1985), certiorari denied

106 S.Ct. 77, 474 U.S. 823, 88 L.Ed.2d 63

Id.

Reece v. Smith, 265 Ga.App. 497, 594 S.E.2d 654 (2004), reconsideration denied, certiorari

denied.

Russell v. Napier, 82 Ga. 770, 9 S.E. 746 (1889).

easement is used for his benefit alone.

This duty arises both statutorily

and by caselaw.

is implicit with the grant of an easement that the easement holder will undertake those things

reasonably necessary for and ancillary to the continued use and enjoyment of the easement.

With the requirement for the easement owner to maintain and keep the easement in repair also

comes the power to restrict the unauthorized use of that easement;

this despite the fact that the

easement owner does not actually own the property in fee.

An easement owner is responsible for repairs when use of easement is impaired due to

lack of maintenance.

An easement may be forfeited if the easement owner fails to properly

maintain or repair the easement.

It is, however, more likely that the easement owner would be

assessed damages, as opposed to forfeiture, since equity seeks to avoid the drastic measure of

forfeiture.

Moreover, one seeking a prescriptive easement must show that he made repairs and

maintenance for the prescriptive period.

The purpose of requiring a showing of repairs is to

give notice to the landowner that the prescriber’s use of the road is adverse rather than

permissive.

G. Creation of Private Roads through Condemnation

In Georgia, private condemnation is authorized by statute, specifically O.C.G.A. § 44-9-

40 et seq.

Under section 44-9-40, the county superior courts are vested with the authority and

jurisdiction to grant private ways or easements to individuals to enter and exit their property or

Kiser v Warner Robins Air Park Estates, Inc., 237 Ga 385, 228 S.E.2d 795 (1976).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40 (easements shall be kept “…in repair by the person on whose application

they are established or his successor in title”); O.C.G.A. § 44-9-43 (“the condemnor or his

successors in title have a duty to maintain the private way…and in a state of good repair”).

Lanier v. Burnette, 245 Ga.App. 566, 538 S.E.2d 476 (2000). The servient estate owner, on

the other hand, is not legally obligated to maintain or repair an easement for the benefit of an

easement owner. Harvey v. Lindsey

, 251 Ga.App. 387 (2001).

Lanier v. Burnette, 245 Ga.App. 566, 538 S.E.2d 476 (2000). The servient estate owner, on

the other hand, is not legally obligated to maintain or repair an easement for the benefit of an

easement owner. Harvey v. Lindsey

, 251 Ga.App. 387 (2001).

Sams v Young, 217 Ga 685, 124 S.E.2d 386 (1962).

Id.

Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. Tinsley Mill Village, 249 Ga. 769, 294 S.E.2d 495

(1982).

Kiser v Warner Robins Air Park Estates, Inc., 237 Ga 385, 228 S.E.2d 795 (1976).

Id.

Mersac, Inc. v. National Hills Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 267 Ga. 493, 480 S.E.2d 16 (1997),

reconsideration denied, (Feb. 14, 1997).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-54 Lopez v. Walker, 250 Ga.App. 706, 551 S.E.2d 745 (2001),

reconsideration denied, (July 2, 2001) and cert. denied, (Jan. 9, 2002); Simmons v. Bearden

, 234

Ga.App. 81, 506 S.E.2d 220 (1998)(the requirement that the plaintiff has kept the way in repair

is not so much the repairs as the notice which is given by the repairs).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40.

places of business under certain circumstances.

Such easements, however, must be 20 feet or

less in width depending on the particular needs of the applicant.

Any person or corporation with landlocked property may file in the superior court in the

county where the property sits a petition for ingress, egress, and access over and across the lands

of any private person or corporation in order to access there property.

Each such petition is

deemed a declaration of necessity by the applicant and must allege such facts and pray for a

judgment condemning an easement of access, ingress, and egress not to exceed 20 feet in width

over and across the property of the private person or corporation.

Additionally, each petition

must describe the property over which the easement is sought with particularity and must include

the following:

• the distance and direction of the easement;

• the nature of any improvements through which the private way will go;

• a plat showing the measurements and location of the easement;

• the names and addresses of all persons owning an interest in the property.

The applicant must also ensure that a copy of the petition and any attachments is served upon all

known persons with an ownership interest in the property and who reside in the county where the

property is situated.

Additionally, the petition must also name an assessor to act on behalf of

the person or corporation seeking to condemn the easement.

After taking into consideration the requirements of service, the superior court judge will

make and enter up a “show cause” order requiring the owner or owners of the property show

cause as to why the easement for private way should not be condemned and requiring the said

owner or owners to name an assessor to act on his or their behalf.

The owner of the property

that has been condemned, however, may challenge necessity, location, and width of private way,

and can, also, extinguish all claims to private way if party seeking way fails to timely pay

adequate compensation.

Id.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(b).

Id.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-41(1).

Id.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-41.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-42.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-43.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-47; Cline v. McMullan, 263 Ga. 321, 431 S.E.2d 368 (1993).

Once the private easement is established, “it shall be entered on and fully described on the

official minutes of the county commission and the road deed file”.

Moreover, once the

condemnation of the private easement becomes final, the condemnor has a duty to maintain the

private way and to keep it open and in a state of good repair.

Failure to maintain the private

way and to keep it open and in a state of good repair for a period of one year will constitute an

abandonment of the private way, and the title shall revert back to the owner of the property over

which the private easement was condemned or his successors in title.

Those individuals whose

property has been condemned for the creation of a private easement are entitled to fair and just

compensation by the condemnor for the taking of their property, the amount of which is to be

determined by a jury.

To prevail on summary judgment in a private way condemnation action, the landowner

opposing the condemnation must present evidence that the one seeking condemnation has a

reasonable means of access to its property other than over landowner’s property.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-50.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-41.

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-46.

O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-56(c), 44-9-40; Atlanta-East, Inc. v. Tate Mountain Associates, Inc., 265

Ga. 742, 462 S.E.2d 613 (1995).

Abandonment And Vacation Considerations

Submitted by Dale (Bubba) R. Samuels

• Abandonment Of Public Roads

• Termination Of Private Easements

III. ABANDONMENT AND VACATION CONSIDERATIONS

A. Abandonment of Public Roads

Once duly created and made a part of a public road system pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-4-1

seq., a public road may be abandoned pursuant to the procedures set forth in O.C.G.A. § 32-7-

1 et

seq. The road abandonment statute essentially provides a two-step process for removing a

public road from the public entity’s road system as follows: first, the public road must be

declared abandoned,

and once abandoned, the statute sets forth the methods of disposition of the

abandoned roadway.

1. When should statutory vacation be initiated?

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-1 provides the authority for the State, counties, and municipalities to

substitute for, relocate, or abandon public roads, pursuant to the procedure for abandonment set

forth in O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2. Thus, whenever the road to be abandoned constitutes a “public

road,” the statutory abandonment procedure must be utilized. See

, Forsyth County v.

Martin, 279 Ga. 215, 610 S.E.2d 512 (2005).

a. Authority to vacate public roads

The road abandonment statute specifically provides as follows:

Whenever deemed in the public interest, the department or a county or a

municipality may substitute for, relocate, or abandon any public road that

is under its respective jurisdiction, provided that a county or municipality

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-1 provides the authority of the State, counties, and municipalities to substitute

for, relocate, or abandon public roads. O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2 sets forth the procedure to be followed

in exercising that authority.

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-3 provides the authority for the State, counties, and municipalities to dispose

of property no longer needed for public road purposes. O.C.G.A. § 32-7-4 sets forth the

procedure to be followed in disposing of such property. Finally, O.C.G.A. § 32-7-5 provides for

the continued use, maintenance, and improvement of the abandoned road, as well as the authority

to lease the abandoned road to third parties, for other purposes.

shall first obtain the approval of the department if any expenditure of

federal or state funds is required.

Thus, the threshold inquiry involves a determination by the pertinent governing authority

of the

public interest to be served by the substitution, relocation,

or abandonment of the public road.

Additionally, if any expenditure of state or federal funds is involved in the substitution,

relocation, or abandonment of the public road, the statute requires that a county or municipality

must obtain the prior approval of the Department of Transportation for the proposed action.

b. Procedure for Abandonment

When it is determined by the pertinent agency that all or part of a public road has for any

reason ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served

by it, the road may be abandoned pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2. In consideration of the

hierarchy of political entities involved in the provision of public road services to their respective

constituencies, the statute contains provisions requiring the State to give notice of a proposed

abandonment to affected counties and municipalities, and to allow the appropriate county or

municipality the opportunity to accept the road to be abandoned into its own public road system.

Similarly, the statute requires a county to provide notice to an affected municipality concerning a

For the purposes of exercising the State’s authority to relocate or abandon public roads, the

General Assembly has delegated that authority to the Department of Transportation. McIntosh

County v. Fisher, 242 Ga. 66, 247 S.E.2d 863 (1978).

The relocation of a portion of a public road, where the remainder of the public road remains in

use by the public and continues to serve a public purpose, does not trigger the requirements of

the abandonment procedure processes set forth in O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2. Miller v. Lanier County

243 Ga. 58, 252 S.E.2d 909 (1979). Thus, while O.C.G.A. § 32-7-1 signifies the delegation of

authority by the General Assembly to the Department of Transportation, counties, and

municipalities to “substitute for, relocate, or abandon” public roads, the vacation of public roads

by abandonment is subject, by far, to the more comprehensive statutory requirements, i.e. the

procedures set forth in § 32-7-2. Notwithstanding that distinction, all property that has been

acquired for public road purposes is subject to the procedures for disposition set forth in § 32-7-

4, as well as utilization for other purposes and leasing the former road to third parties, set forth in

§ 32-7-5.

proposed abandonment of a portion of the county road system, and allows a municipality to

accept the road to be abandoned into its own municipal road system.

i. Abandonment by the State

In the case of an abandonment of a public road on the State highway system, the

determination of no substantial public purpose must be certified by the Commissioner of the

Department and accompanied by a plat or sketch of the affected roadway. Thereafter, the road is

declared abandoned, and the rights of the public in and to the section abandoned shall cease.

Prior to any such abandonment by the State, O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2(a)(1) requires the

Department to confer

with the governing authority of any concerned county and/or municipality,

and requires the Department to give “due consideration” to the wishes of those entities; however,

any disagreement regarding the abandonment is resolved in favor of the judgment of the

Department. The obligation of the Department to confer with concerned counties and

municipalities is stated as a prerequisite to the declaration of a public road as having been

abandoned by the State.

Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2(a)(3) requires the Department to give notice of its

intentions to the counties or municipalities through which such road passes. That notice triggers

a thirty (30) day period within which an affected county or municipality may, by resolution,

indicate its willingness and desire to take over the road that is proposed to be abandoned and to

maintain such road pursuant to § 32-7-2(a)(4). If a county or municipality accepts the abandoned

road into its public road system, the Department is required to convey the road to the county or

municipality by quitclaim deed executed by the Commissioner of the Department.

If the county or municipality does not resolve to accept the abandoned road into its public

road system, the State may dispose of the abandoned road pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-7-4, or may

use the property for other purposes pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-7-5. However, in the event of

disposition of the abandoned road by the State pursuant to § 32-7-4, the Department is again

required to give fifteen (15) days’ notice to the county or municipality, during which time the

county or municipality may reconsider its decision and accept the abandoned road into its public

road system.

ii. Abandonment by a County

As with the abandonment of a portion of the State highway system, the abandonment of a

section of a county road system requires a threshold determination that the section to be

abandoned “has for any reason ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial

public purpose is served by it.” O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2(b)(1). The determination of no substantial

public purpose must be included in a certification recorded in the minutes of the governing body

of the county, accompanied by a plat or sketch of the proposed abandonment.

In addition to the required certification in the minutes, the statute includes two distinct

notice requirements, and a public hearing component. First, the county must give notice of the

proposed abandonment to “property owners located thereon” — i.e., to those property owners

whose property abuts the road to be abandoned. Second, the county must publish notice of its

determination of no substantial public purpose in the newspaper in which the sheriff’s

advertisements for the county are published “once a week for a period of two weeks.” Finally, a

public hearing on the issue of the proposed abandonment must be held. Thereafter, the

abandoned road shall no longer be part of the county road system, “and the rights of the public in

and to the section of road as a public road shall cease.” O.C.G.A. § 32-7-2(b)(1).

As is the case for abandonment of roads by the State, prior to certifying the abandonment,

the county is required to give thirty (30) days’ notice to any municipality into which or through

which the road to be abandoned passes, affording the municipality the opportunity, by proper

resolution, to accept the abandoned road into its municipal road system. In the event of such

action by the municipality, the county, by quitclaim deed executed by the chairman or presiding

officer, shall convey the road to the municipality. If the municipality does not take over the road

within the thirty day period, the county is then free to dispose of the property pursuant to § 32-7-

4, or to utilize the property for other purposes pursuant to § 32-7-5. If the county determines to

dispose of the property pursuant to § 32-7-4, the county is required to give the municipality an

additional fifteen (15) days’ notice to reconsider its decision and take over the road.

iii. Abandonment by Municipality

Consistent with the abandonment process as pertains to the State and counties, the

abandonment of a road from a municipal street system requires a determination that the section

of road to be abandoned has for any reason ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no

substantial public purpose is served by it. As with the county road abandonment process, the

municipality is required to record the certification of the determination of no substantial public

purpose in its minutes, accompanied by a plat or sketch. Likewise, the municipality is required

to provide notice to property owners located on the street to be abandoned. Notably, however,

there is no public hearing requirement, and no requirement that a notice be published in a

newspaper. Additionally, municipalities are not required to provide notice to other jurisdictions

for the purpose of allowing those other jurisdictions the opportunity to accept the street to be

abandoned into their public road systems. Upon completion of the statutory abandonment

process, the rights of the public in and to the abandoned section shall cease, and the property

may be disposed of by the municipality in accordance with § 32-7-4.

2. Abandoned Road Bed: Who owns it? Who can use it?

As set forth above, upon completion of the road abandonment process by the applicable

public entity, “the rights of the public in and to the section of road as a public road shall cease.”

The ultimate effect of the abandonment vis-à-vis ownership and use of the former road depends

in large measure on how title is vested in the property.

Specifically, where fee title is vested in the city, county, or state, title to the property

remains vested in that entity until and unless the property is disposed of or put to some other use

pursuant to the statute. Sadtler v. City of Atlanta

, 236 Ga. 396, 223 S.E.2d 819 (1976). If,

however, the city, county, or state holds only an easement in the road, the abandonment of the

public road on the easement terminates all of the entity’s interest. See

, Campbell v. City of

Columbus, 224 Ga. 279, 161 S.E.2d 299 (1968).

Upon the termination of the easement by virtue of the abandonment, it is presumed that

fee simple title in and to the former roadway reverts to the adjacent property owners, each to the

centerline of the former road. Calvary Independent Baptist Church v. City of Rome

, 208 Ga.

312, 66 S.E.2d 726 (1951).

Note, however, that to the extent that an individual has acquired a

private easement in the road coincident with the public use, the abandonment of the public road

does not extinguish the private easement. Northpark Associates No. 2, Ltd. v. Homart

Development Co., 262 Ga. 138, 414 S.E.2d 214 (1992).

a. Disposition of Abandoned Road Property

When, after the abandonment of a public road, the state, county, or municipality is left

with ownership of fee title in and to the property, O.C.G.A. § 32-7-3 authorizes that entity to

The common law presumption in favor of the property rights of abutting property owners is

reflected in the disposition procedures discussed below, which procedures set forth rights of

acquisition of abandoned roads in abutting property owners.

dispose of the property in accordance with the procedure for disposition set forth in § 32-7-4.

Section 32-7-4(a)(1) requires that notice be given regarding the disposition of the property as

follows:

In disposing of property, as authorized under Code Section 32-7-3, the

department, a county, or a municipality shall notify the owner of such

property at the time of its acquisition or, if the tract from which the

department, a county, or a municipality acquired its property has been

subsequently sold, shall notify the owner of abutting land holding title

through the owner from whom the department, a county, or a municipality

acquired its property. The notice shall be in writing delivered to the

appropriate owner or by publication if his address is unknown; and he

shall have the right to acquire, as provided in this subsection, the property

with respect to which the notice is given.

In the event that the person entitled to receive notice pursuant to § 32-7-4(a)(1) chooses

to acquire the property, subparagraph 2 of that Code section provides that he may do so “at such

price as may be agreed upon, but in no event less than the price paid for its acquisition.”

The

owner from whom the former road was acquired or his successor(s) in interest has a period of

sixty (60) days within which he must exercise his right to acquire the parcel, and if the right is

not exercised, subsection (b) of the Code section sets forth the procedure for disposition of the

parcel.

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-4(b) sets forth three (3) alternative methods for the sale of the property

in the event that the property is not acquired pursuant to subsection (a), as follows

a. Sealed Bids

. The sale may be made based upon the receipt of sealed

bids received after public advertisement for such bids for two (2)

weeks, provided that the Department or county or municipality shall

The statute also provides for the disposition of remnants or portions of the original acquisition,

and provides that such parcels may be acquired for the market value thereof at the time the

Department, county, or municipality decides the property is no longer needed.

Note that the state is only authorized to utilize the sealed bid method of disposition. The

statute authorizes only counties and municipalities to utilize the real estate broker and public

auction methods.

have the right to reject any and all bids, in its discretion, to readvertise,

or to abandon the sale.

b. Real Estate Broker Listing. In the alternative, a county or municipality

may list the property through a real estate broker who’s place of

business is located in the county where the property is located, or

outside the county if no such business is located in the county where

the property is located. Under this alternative method, the property is

required to be listed for a period of at least three (3) months. The

property is required to be sold for not less than its fair market value.

The county or municipality is required to provide for a notice to be

inserted once a week for two (2) weeks in the county legal organ

identifying the names of the real estate brokers listing the property for

sale. All sales are required to be approved by the county or municipal

governing authority at a regular, open public meeting, during which

public comment shall be permitted concerning the sale. In its

discretion, the county or municipality may choose to reject any and all

offers, and may choose to revert to the sealed bid disposition

procedure described above.

c. Public Auction

. In addition to sealed bids and broker listing, the sale

of property may be made to the highest bidder at a public auction

conducted by a licensed auctioneer. Under this method of sale, the

county or municipality is required to publish a notice once a week for

a period of two weeks immediately preceding the auction in the legal

organ of the county, and the property may not be sold for less than fair

market value. As with the real estate broker method of sale outlined

above, the county or municipality shall have the right to reject any and

all offers, in its discretion, and may choose to revert to the sealed bid

method of disposition.

Subsection (c) of the statute provides that the conveyance procured through one of the

above methods of disposition must be approved by the Department (by order of the

Commissioner), and in the case of a county or municipality, by resolution, recorded in the

minutes of a meeting of the governing authority thereof. Upon approval, the Commissioner,

chairman, or presiding officer is authorized to execute a quitclaim deed conveying the subject

property. Proceeds from the sale of property pursuant to the statute are paid to the seller.

b. Diversion of Property to Other Uses

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-5 provides that, in addition to the authority to dispose of former roads

pursuant to § 32-7-3, the state, counties, and municipalities are authorized to “improve, use,

maintain, or lease any interest in property acquired for public road or other transportation

purposes that is not presently needed for such purposes.” Thus, the statute authorizes the use of

the property for other than road or transportation purposes in lieu of a sale into private

ownership.

In fact, the statute provides authorization for the applicable governmental entity to lease

the property, provided, as with the disposition statute, that the owner at the time of its

acquisition, his successor in interest, or a lessee of one of them, shall have the right to lease the

property at an appraised fair market value as determined by the Department, county, or

municipality, until such time as that entity determines that the property is needed for public road

or other transportation purposes. If the owner, his successor in interest, or the tenant of the

property does not lease the property, the Department, county, or municipality is authorized to

solicit sealed public bids for the lease of the property until such time as it is determined that the

property is needed for public road or other transportation purposes. In addition, the statute

authorizes the Department, county, or municipality to negotiate satisfactory lease terms with

other governmental entities without the requirement for procuring sealed bids or leasing to the

former owner or his successors.

B. Termination of Private Easements

As noted above, individuals may acquire a private easement in a road that is often

coterminous with the public use, and the abandonment of the public road does not extinguish the

private easement. Similar to public roads, there is generally an implied grant to purchasers of a

private easement in subdivision streets that are depicted on a plat in reference to which a

subdivider sells lots. Tietjen v. Meldrim

, 169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E.2d 349 (1930). As with public

roads, the means of creation of the easement, i.e. whether by express or implied grant, or by

prescription, dictates whether such easement may be lost by abandonment.

1. The Test of a Common Law Abandonment

Typically, the private easement that arises by implication based upon the sale of lots in

reference to a subdivision plat is not lost by mere nonuser, as is true with prescriptive easements.

Tietjen

, 151 S.E. at 357 (“Where an easement of way is acquired by mere user, the doctrine of

extinction by mere nonuser may in reason apply; but where such easement is acquired by grant,

the doctrine of extinction by nonuser should not apply. Where an easement has been acquired by

grant, mere nonuser, without further evidence of an intent to abandon it, will not constitute an

abandonment.”). In Tietjen

, however, the Supreme Court of Georgia succinctly set forth the

circumstances under which an express or implied easement may be abandoned at common law

as follows:

In order to extinguish an easement created by grant, there must be some

conduct on the part of the owner of the servient estate adverse to, and in

defiance of, the easement, and the nonuse must be the result of it, and

must continue for the statutory period of limitation; or, to produce this

effect, the nonuse must originate in, or be accompanied by, some

unequivocal acts of the owner, inconsistent with the continued existence

of the easement, and showing an intention on his part to abandon it; and

the owner of the servient estate must have relied or acted upon such

manifest intention to abandon the right, so that a subsequent assertion of it

would work him injury.

Tietjen

, 151 S.E. at 359-360 (citations omitted).

Thus, the relevant inquiry regarding the abandonment of an easement involves the

intention of the grantee of the easement based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the

creation and exercise of the easement rights and the conduct of the parties. The question of

abandonment of an easement is therefore a mixed question of fact and law, and the evidence to

establish a forfeiture of an easement by abandonment or nonuser must be decisive and

unequivocal. Gaston v. Gainesville & D. Electric Ry. Co.

, 120 Ga. 516, 48 S.E. 188 (1904).

The test of common law abandonment of private easements remains applicable today.

See

, Duffy Street S.R.O., Inc. v. Mobley, 266 Ga. 849, 471 S.E.2d 507 (1996)(“No presumption

of abandonment arises from mere nonuse for a time of less than 20 years, as a matter of law.

Although where an easement has been acquired by grant, a mere nonuse, without further

evidence of an intent to abandon it, will not constitute an abandonment, intent to abandon can be

established with evidence of a clear, unequivocal and decisive character. The issue is one for the

jury to decide.”)(citations omitted). Additionally, the test of common law abandonment has

since been codified at O.C.G.A. § 44-9-6 ("An easement may be lost by abandonment or

forfeited by nonuse if the abandonment or nonuse continues for a term sufficient to raise the

presumption of release or abandonment.”

2. What must be in place for adverse possession and use to occur?

While the test of common law abandonment applies to express or implied grants of

easements where there is evidence of an intent on the part of the grantee to abandon the

easement, an easement acquired or arising from adverse use or prescription may be lost by

abandonment or nonuser for a period of time sufficient to raise a presumption of release of the

easement. Westbrook v. Comer

, 197 Ga. 433, 29 S.E.2d 574 (1944)(An easement acquired by

user or prescription may be lost by abandonment or nonuser). The length of term during which

abandonment or nonuser of an easement must continue to result in loss of easement generally

follows usual prescriptive periods. Calfee v. Jones

, 54 Ga. App. 481, 188 S.E. 307 (1936).

Control, Supervision And Management Of

Roads And Highways

Submitted by Dale (Bubba) R. Samuels

• Federal Highway Administration

• The State Role

• Local Governments

IV. CONTROL, SUPERVISION & MANAGEMENT OF

ROADS AND HIGHWAYS

Georgia’s highways cannot be operated, maintained, or developed without the

acquisition and management of real estate. The relocation of individuals, families,

businesses, and others is often a necessary part of sustaining Georgia’s transportation

system. As a result of this substantial impact on property owners, the practices of Federal

and State instrumentalities in furtherance of State transportation systems are of practical

importance.

A. Federal Highway Administration

Federal and State highway systems are managed through a partnership between

the U.S. Department of Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), the State

Department of Transportation, and local governments. See

, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, From the Ground Up: Real Property

Transportation Needs, http://fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/groundup.htm. These entities work

closely together to carry out the process of “right-of-way”-related activities; i.e. the

acquisition and management of real estate in order to build transportation systems. The

FHWA allocates Federal-aid funds available to the State transportation departments.

State transportation officials then work with local governments to determine which

projects are ultimately funded. The States are responsible for acquisition of right-of-way,

although often, that responsibility is delegated to local jurisdictions. The FHWA works

with its partners during the acquisition process and, through them, assists other

customers, such as nonprofit organizations, property owners and businesses, and

individuals affected by transportation projects. The FHWA has a Georgia Division that

represents the agency and works closely with the Georgia Department of Transportation

on Federal-aid projects.

The FHWA Right of Way Program derives its authority from three fundamental

sources: (1) the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the due process/just

compensation provision; (2) the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition

Policies Act of 1970 (the “Uniform Act”), as amended, which provides benefits and

protections to those directly impacted by Federally-assisted projects; and (3) Title 23 of

the United States Code—the law pertaining to the Federal-aid highway program.

The Office of Real Estate Services develops and implements policies to carry out

the Constitutional mandates for just compensation and equitable treatment of the

American public, as set forth in the Uniform Act as amended. In support of the goals of

the strategic plan and mission of the FHWA, ORES develops, implements, and evaluates

policies for acquisition, management, and disposal of real estate in connection with

programs developed by the FHWA.

B. The State Role

The State agency with the dominant transportation role is obviously the Georgia

Department of Transportation (“GDOT”). Through this agency, the State carries out its

responsibility for the planning, development, construction, and maintenance of the State’s

highway system. GDOT is governed by a 13-member State Transportation Board which

exercises general control and supervision of the agency. The powers of the Board

include, but are not limited to the following: naming the Commissioner, designating

which public roads are encompassed within the State highway system, approving long-

range transportation plans, overseeing the administration of construction contracts, and

authorizing lease agreements. Board members are elected by a majority of the General

Assembly caucus from each of the respective thirteen congressional districts for a five-

year term.

GDOT is divided into seven (7) districts that are responsible for operating and

maintaining the State transportation system at the local level. Each district has a District

Engineer, who is responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the activities of the

district. Those districts are further subdivided into local area offices that are overseen by

Area Engineers.

C. Local Governments

The methods employed by local jurisdictions to fulfill their duty to administer

their respective transportation systems are as varied as the jurisdictions themselves. The

interrelationships among State, County, and Municipal road systems are explored in other

areas of these materials. For Federal-aid projects, however, each of the local entities can

be characterized as a “local public agency,” responsible for conception, planning,

environmental investigation, design of right-of-way (including the cost estimate), choice

of consultants, right-of-way certification, construction, and maintenance. The local

public agency is further obligated to ensure that its staff complies with all applicable

State and Federal laws, regulations, and procedures in developing, implementing, and

constructing projects. All right-of-way activities are subject to GDOT oversight.

GDOT annually produces a “Fact Book” outlining its programs and initiatives, as

well as including contact information for its various personnel and departments. The

2006 Fact Book, available on the GDOT website, is reproduced on the following pages.

Fact Book

2006

www.dot.state.ga.us

Georgia Department of Transportation

Executive Editors:

Administrator

Karlene Barron

Assistant Administrator

External Communications

Vacant

Assistant Administrator

Internal Communications

Lillian Jackson

Publications Coordinator

Carla Murphy

Editor/Design & Layout

Laurie Scott

Core Values

Core Values are enduring beliefs which Georgia

DOT Leadership and employees hold in common and

put into action. Core values answer the question,

"How do we act as we move toward achieving our

mission and vision?" Georgia DOT's Leadership team

identified the Department's core values to be: Committed,

Accountable, Responsible and Ethical (C.A.R.E.).

Our Vision

Georgia's transportation system will always be a vital

component of the state's future success and ability to

compete in a global economy. Our team of motivated

professionals and quality-driven management will

maintain and improve mobility by providing a safe,

seamless, intermodal, environmentally-sensitive

transportation system.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Congressional Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

State Transportation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5

Organization & Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-18

Primary Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19-21

Frequently Called Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Georgia DOT Districts & Area Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23-26

Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27-28

Georgia DOT’s Web Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Georgia Highway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Major Highway Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31-36

Transportation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36-41

Office of Environment and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42-43

Transportation Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Scenic Byways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45-46

Wildflower Auto Tag Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46-47

NAVIGATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48-50

HERO Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

TIME Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53-54

Safe Routes to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54-55

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Rideshare Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58-59

Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60-65

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66-67

Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68-69

Transportation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70-72

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73-79

Fast Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

snoitacinummoC

orraBenelraK

foeciffO

diA

etatS

rreT

lbaG

foeciff

nem

elkriPgeM

nedloGhtieK

llitsdutSdivaD

gninnalP

foeciffO

ngiseD&ytefaS

ataDnoitatropsnarT

nospmiSeimaJhtimS.He

naJ

erffeJ

lliH

foeciffO

ednaxelAalegn

foeciffO

nalepoClihP

foeciffO

snoitarepOciffarT

smargorP

ladomretnIfoeciffO

nosliW

laH

fonoisiviD

noitamrofnI

noitatropsnarTfonois

iviD

gnoLddoT

snoitarepO

tnempoleveDladomretnIyrneHev

tS ygolonhceT

noitc

rtsnoC

raeGenegroeG

5tcirtsiDfoeciffO

foeciffO

noitartsinimd

egoHdivaD

noitacoL/tnemnorivnE

3tcirtsiD

yaWfothgiR

secivreSlageL

amohTekiM

foeciffO

repooCleahciM

fonoisiviD

tnacaV

slairetaMfoeciffO

elooPtnayrB

fonoisiviD

maharG.LdivaD

noitcurtsnoC

onoisiviD

secivreSlageL

ssegruBardnaS

fonoisiviD

noitartsinimd

rerusaerT

zufhaM.LlraE

evitucexE

tnatsiss

senoJsirhC

renoissimmoCytupeD

nottarGydduB

reenignEfeihC

noitcurtsnocerPstcirtsiDdleiF

fonoisiviD

foeciffOevitucexE

&,ataD,gninnalP

foeciffO

soRdlareG

foeciffO

secivreStegduB

lareneG

osniboRalegn

foeciffO

oddaMnwaD

roppuSnoitacilpp

foeciffO

rekaBffeJ

ciffarTfoeciffO mailliWynoT

ecnanetniaM

mirCdivaD erutcurts

arfnITI

leahcimraCevaD

skeeMpihC

foeciffO

roppuSlareneG

foeciffO

stidu

eliLluaP

ngiseDegdirB

foeciffO

elpoeP

draoBotyraterceS

nomsOhtebazilE

tnatsissAevitucexE

draoB

renoissimmoC

lhoknenniL

dloraH

ecivreSgnireenignE

fonoisiviD

tnatsiss

amwoBnnelG

remmuSnairB

OEE

1tcirtsiD

yarruMcMllessuR

.rJ,

nospmohThtenneK eorfneRlyreB

foeciffO

stcartnoCfoeciffO

yaMger

foeciffO

noitcurtsnoC

foeciffO

2tcirtsiD

smialC

/yrevileDmargorP

rakabu

bAsbaB

elpeeKyevraH

foeciffO

leiffehSeoJ

cnerruDnnelG

hcraeseR&

tneK

enilCwehttaM

foecif

gnitnuoccsemloHalraC

rebmahCguoD

foeciffO

notnalByraG

llewoHsamohT

foeciffO

ngiseDtnatlusnoC

6tcirtsiD

7tcirtsiD

nahcuBneB

ngiseDnabrU

riAfoecif

ropsnar

foeciffO

lennosreP

cigetartS

tnempoleveD

foeciffO

sivaDmiJ

nemeganaM

moclaMekiM

nosnhoJekiM

seitilitU

ssenisuBTI

secitcarP

.tmgMlaicnaniFrotStnerB

ngiseDdaoR4tcirtsiD

revoD ekiM

kcirtapkriK nhoJ

fo noisiviD

ylbmessA lareneGronrevoG

noitatropsnarT etatS

Organizational

Chart

Metro Area Detail Map

Georgia’s Congressional Districts

Effective 2007 Election

District 1

Roy Herrington

382 East Parker Street, P. O. Box 130

Baxley, GA 31515

(912) 367-7723 • Fax (912) 367-1009

District 5

Emory McClinton

132 E. Lake Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA 30317

(404) 377-5101 • Fax (404) 373-3371

District 6

Garland Pinholster, Vice Chairman

1770 Flat Bottom Road

Ball Ground, GA 30107

(770) 735-3928 • Fax (770) 735-3928

District 2

W.P. Billy Langdale

P. O. Box 1088

Valdosta, GA 31603

(229) 242-7450 • Fax (229) 333-2534

District 3

Sam Wellborn

2110 Oak Avenue

Columbus, GA 31906

(706) 649-2233

District 4

Robert L. Brown, Jr.

250 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 8th floor

Decatur, GA 30030-0126

(404) 377-2460 • Fax (404) 377-5833

The Georgia DOT is governed by a 13-member State Transportation Board

which exercises general control and supervision of the Department. The Board is

entrusted with powers which include: naming the Commissioner; designating

which public roads are encompassed within the state highway system;

approving long-range transportation plans; overseeing the administration of

construction contracts; and authorizing lease agreements. Board Members are

elected by a majority of a General Assembly caucus from each of Georgia’s

thirteen congressional districts. Each board member serves a five-year term.

State Transportation Board

District 11

David Doss

P. O. Box 431

Rome, GA 30162

(770) 291-9191 • Fax (706) 291-1205

District 7

Rudy Bowen

6650 Sugarloaf Parkway, Suite 200

Duluth, GA 30097

(678) 325-4570 • Fax (678) 325-4540

District 8

Larry Walker

P. O. Box 1234

Perry, GA 31069

(478) 987-1415 • Fax (478) 987-1077

District 12

Raybon Anderson

P. O. Box 1447

Statesboro, GA 30458

(912) 764-9084 • Fax (912) 489-2783

District 9

Mike Evans, Chairman

212 Dahlonega Street

Cumming, GA 30040

(678) 771-1000 • Fax (678) 771-1329

District 10

Bill Kuhlke, Jr.

3704 Benchmark Drive, P. O. Box 14549

Augusta, GA 30919

(706) 650-8722 • Fax (706) 860-7363

District 13

Dana L. Lemon

7943 Thrailkill Road

Jonesboro, GA 30236

(770) 490-9125 • Fax (770) 957-6118

STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Board Members are elected by a majority of a General Assembly caucus

from each of Georgia’s thirteen congressional districts. Each board member

serves a five-year term. Terms alternate to ensure two members are elected

each year.

Georgia DOT Board Secretary

Elizabeth Osmon

Suite 106 (404) 656-5211

Serves as the Board’s liaison with legislators, local officials and the general

public. Acts on behalf of the Board when requested and arranges and plans

all Board meetings, workshops and conferences for the Board.

COMMISSIONER

Harold Linnenkohl

Suite 102 (404) 656-5206

Provides principle-centered leadership to effectively operate the

Georgia Department of Transportation. Leads employees to

provide a high standard of service to the citizens of Georgia so

that multimodal transportation needs are met. Strives to fully utilize the talents

of all employees and all other resources available to the Department.

Executive Assistant to the Commissioner

Mike Dover

Suite 102 (404) 656-5206

Coordinates and attends all of the Commissioner’s meetings with state and local

officials; coordinates with senior staff on behalf of the Commissioner; answers

inquiries from state Transportation Board members, state and local officials and

the public on various Department of Transportation matters; assists the

Commissioner with administrative duties and serves as a point of contact for

the Commissioner’s office for meeting requests and project updates that may

need addressing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Buddy Gratton

Suite 108 (404) 656-5212

Assists the Commissioner in maintaining and operating the activi-

ties of the Georgia DOT. Oversees the Special Staff offices, the

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Field Districts, Legal

Services and Construction Divisions.

SPECIAL STAFF

Office of Communications

Karlene Barron

Administrator

Suite 315 (404) 463-6464

Serves as the Department’s external communications liaison to the public and

the media. Prepares presentations and speeches for Board members, the

Commissioner, Division Directors and office heads. Assists upper management in

public affairs and public outreach decisions for the Department. Serves as the

internal communications liaison within the Georgia DOT. Develops the

Department’s Annual Report, Fact Book, personnel newsletter, quarterly

construction status map, magazine and Web page.

Office of State Aid

Terry Gable

State Aid Administrator

Suite 201 (404) 656-5185

Provides assistance to local governments through the County/City Contract

Program (State Aid), the Local Assistance Road Program (LARP) and the

off-system Bridge Program.

Office of Equipment Management

Mike Malcom

State Equipment Management Administrator

7565 Honey Creek Court, Lithonia, GA 30038

(770) 785-6947

This office is responsible for the administration and management of the

Department’s fleet, comprised of approximately 8,600 units. Directs and

administers the program for statewide purchasing of vehicles and equipment.

Determines vehicle and equipment replacement requirements, considering both

budget and needs.

DIVISION OF CONSTRUCTION

David L. Graham

Director

Suite 134 (404) 656-5207

Responsible for advertising, letting and awarding

projects; oversight of construction projects; transportation

research; testing of materials; contract payments and contract claims.

fice of Construction

Greg Mayo

State Construction Engineer

Suite 237 (404) 656-5306

Investigates citizens’ concerns on projects and assists in timely problem

resolution. Reviews and approves contract modifications and communicates

with construction industry.

Office of Contracts Administration

David Hoge

State Transportation Office Engineer

Suite 223 (404) 656-5325

Prepares and ensures proper execution of bid proposals, letting process

and contracts. Audits contract payment process.

Office of Materials and Research

Georgene Geary

State Materials & Research Administrator

(404) 363-7512

Tests materials used in construction and maintenance activities, maintains

qualified products lists and provides expertise in construction materials. Also

specifies material requirements, provides geotechnical services and manages

Department’s research effort.

Office of Construction Claims

Matthew Cline

Transportation Engineer Administrator

Suite 209 (404) 656-2106

Responsible for reviewing, analyzing, negotiating, mediating and

directing the Department’s defense against construction claims and

lawsuits filed by contractors.

DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES

Sandra Burgess

Director

Suite 329 (404) 656-5275

Responsible for advising the Commissioner and Deputy

Commissioner as well as senior staff on legal issues at the

federal and state level that might impact the Department.

Patricia Flowers

D.B.E. Assistant Administrator

Suite 142 (404) 656-1710

fice of Legal Services

Kenneth Thompson, Jr.

Legal Services Administrator

Suite 321 (404) 657-5807

Provides legal research and other general legal assistance services

concerning recurring issues of interest to the Department. Provides analysis

of federal and state legislation. Reviews consultant, local government and

personal services contracts for legal accuracy.

DIVISION OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Michael Cooper

Director

Suite 142 (404) 656-5323

Responsible for ensuring internal and external compliance with

federal and state laws/guidelines as they relate to fair and

equitable employment and business practices.

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

John Kirkpatrick

E.E.O. Assistant Administrator

Suite 142 (404) 656-5323

Adheres to state and federal regulations as they pertain to civil rights issues

concerning Title VI and Title VII of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

Monitors the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and the

state’s contractor review for compliance.

Georgia DOT Districts

District One-Gainesville

Russell McMurry, District Engineer (770) 532-5526

District Two-Tennille

Mike Thomas, District Engineer (478) 552-4601

District Three-Thomasville

Thomas B. Howell, District Engineer (706) 646-6500

District Four-Tifton

Joe Sheffield, District Engineer (229) 386-3280

District Five-Jesup

Glenn Durrence, District Engineer (912) 427-5711

District Six-Cartersville

Kent Sager, District Engineer (770) 387-3600

District Seven-Chamblee

Bryant Poole, District Engineer (770) 986-1001

DIVISION OF FIELD DISTRICTS

VACANT

Director

Suite 128 (404) 656-5214

Responsible for the operation and maintenance of the transportation system

in each of Georgia DOT’s seven districts to ensure proper utilization of

resources and adherence to prevailing policies.

CHIEF ENGINEER

David E. Studstill, Jr.

Suite 122 (404) 656-5277

Supervises and directs all engineering-related activities within

the Department to ensure the effective and efficient planning,

design, construction, operation and maintenance of transporta-

tion systems statewide. The Division of Preconstruction, Division of Operations,

Division of Transportation Planning, Data and Intermodal Development as well

as the Office of Engineering Services report directly to the Chief Engineer.

Office of Engineering Services

Brian Summers

Project Review Engineer

Suite 266 (404) 656-6843

Provides oversight of federally-funded projects. Directs project review process,

manages standard specifications and provides project cost estimates

DIVISION OF PRECONSTRUCTION

Todd Long

Director

Suite 129 (404) 656-5187

Develops environmental studies, right-of-way plans, construction

plans and bid documents through a cooperative effort that

results in project design and implementation.

Office of Environment/Location

Harvey Keepler

State Environmental/Location Engineer

3993 Aviation Circle, Atlanta, GA 30336

(404) 699-4401

Responsible for the environmental analysis and permitting of every project

let to construction by the Department. This office also is responsible for

location and feasibility studies for new projects, traffic projections, perform-

ing and processing aerial photography, and providing the surveys, mapping

and cross-sections needed for construction plans and earthwork payment of

contractors.

Office of Right-of-Way

Phil Copeland

Administrator

Suite 409 (404) 656-5372

Responsible for the acquisition of properties necessary for transportation

projects. This task includes plan design review and approval, appraisal,

relocation assistance, condemnation, negotiation and property management.

Both DOT acquisitions as well as local government acquisitions (if they

include state or federal funds) are monitored by this office.

Office of Road Design

Brent Story

State Road and Airport Design Engineer

Suite 444 (404) 656-5386

Responsible for the conceptual development and design of roadways,

including the preparation of preliminary construction plans, right-of-way

plans and final construction plans. Develops and designs roadways outside

of the urban area boundaries, including the Governor’s Road Improvement

Program (GRIP) and the rural interstate system.

Office of Urban Design

Ben Buchan

State Urban Design Engineer

Suite 356 (404) 656-5436

Develops and coordinates conceptual layouts, preliminary and final

construction plans and right-of-way plans for projects within major urban

areas. Responsibilities include extensive public involvement with federal

and state agencies, local governments, neighborhoods, businesses and the

general public.

Office of Program Delivery/Consultant Design

Babs Abubakari

State Consultant Design Engineer

Suite 432 (404) 463-6133

Enables the Department’s compliance with federal and state guidelines as

they relate to fair and equitable hiring and employee practices.

fice of Bridge Design

Paul Liles

State Bridge and Structural Design Engineer

Suite 258 (404) 656-5280

Responsible for structural design of highway bridges, culverts and retaining

walls. Also oversees the hydraulic design of bridge structures.

DIVISION OF OPERATIONS

Steve Henry

Director

Transportation Management Center

935 E. Confederate Ave., Atlanta, GA 30316

(404) 635-8043

Ensures a safe and efficient transportation system by setting policies that

control operational features, address maintenance needs and regulate the

proper use of the state highway system.

Office of Maintenance

David Crim

State Maintenance Engineer

Transportation Management Center

(404) 635-8734

Coordinates all statewide maintenance activities such as bridge and sign

maintenance, landscaping, the Wildflower Program, roadway striping, routine

maintenance of state highway system, emergency response (both roadway

and weather-induced) and the Adopt-a-Highway Program. Develops contract

documents for letting maintenance projects.

Office of Traffic Operations

Vacant

State Traffic Operations Engineer

Transportation Management Center

(404) 635-8038

Responsible for traffic signal repair, timing and emergency installation pro-

gram of the Department. Also responsible for the warehousing of

electrical/signal materials, the timing of signal systems and the centralized

repair support for approximately 1,650 signals statewide. Manages the

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) including operation of the

Transportation Management Center (TMC) and the Highway Emergency

Response Operators (HEROs) providing service to the traveling public 24-

hours a day, 365 days-a-year.

Office of Utilities

Jeff Baker

State Utilities Engineer

Transportation Management Center

(404) 635-8045

The State Utilities Office ensures the public’s interest is served through our

commitment to develop and administer reasonable utility and railroad poli-

cies, procedures, standards and regulations for the safe and efficient use of

highway right-of-way. Provides expert technical assistance and functional

guidance on utility and railroad encroachments, adjustments, relocations,

agreements and billings to meet diverse needs of stakeholders.

Office of Traffic Safety and Design

Keith Golden

State Traffic Safety and Design Engineer

Transportation Management Center

(404) 635-8115

The Office of Traffic Safety and Design is responsible for traffic engineering

and the traffic safety program statewide. The program includes vehicle crash

analysis, traffic studies and projects for safety improvements to the state

highway system. This Office designs the signs, pavement markings and traffic

signals for Georgia DOT projects. It also is responsible for the Department’s

programs for railroad crossing safety and access as well as commercial

driveways and freeway signage.

DIVISION OF PLANNING, DATA &

INTERMODAL DEVELOPMENT

Gerald Ross

Director

Suite 127 (404) 656-0610

This Division manages the statewide transportation planning

process and the collection and sharing of transportation data,

including vehicle volumes and the state route network. The Division researches,

develops and implements transit, port, freight and passenger rail opportunities.

fice of Intermodal Programs

Hal Wilson

Intermodal Programs Administrator

West Annex 2nd Floor

276 Memorial Drive, Atlanta, GA 30334

(404) 651-9201

Manages Georgia’s planning and operations programs in support of the

transit, rail, port, waterway and aviation systems. This Office manages the

statewide transportation planning process and the collection and sharing of

transportation data, including vehicle volumes and the state route network. In

addition, this Office researches, develops and implements transit, port,

freight and passenger rail opportunities across the state.

Office of Planning

Angela Alexander

State Transportation Planning Administrator

Suite 372

(404) 656-5411

Manages Georgia’s transportation planning program, in addition to

developing the Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP) and the Statewide

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Also manages the Department’s

Transportation Enhancement Program, designed to improve the quality of the

transportation experience. Has responsibility for the Bicycle and Pedestrian

Program, the Congestion and Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) coordination

and the Scenic Byways Program.

Office of Transportation Data

Jane H. Smith

Transportation Data Administrator

5025 New Peachtree Road, Chamblee, GA 30341

(770) 986-1360

The Office of Transportation Data is responsible for collecting, processing and

disseminating data to support transportation planners, designers and key

decision-makers. The types of data provided include: official state public

road mileage; average annual daily traffic; volume and classification; truck

weight information; vehicle miles traveled; road characteristics data; and

visual road imagery (video log). The Office also oversees the administration

of highway system and roadway functional classifications changes, and

updates and distributes the official state of Georgia Highway and

Transportation Regular and Large Print Maps and County Maps.

TREASURER

Earl Mahfuz

Suite 148 (404) 656-5224

Manages all financial matters for the Georgia DOT. Responsible

for acquiring and accounting all funds the Department is entitled

to receive. Develops policies for administering funds for the

Department. Oversees the Division of Administration, Division of Information

Technology, Office of Audits, Budget Services and the Office of Personnel.

DIVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Jeffrey Hill

Director

Suite 180 (404) 656-6034

Manages Department’s new and existing computer applications

and computer network. Oversees Department’s electronic

processing budget, configuration and asset management. Also develops

information technology policy, standards and strategic planning functions.

Office of Information Technology Infrastructure

Gary Blanton

Administrator

Suite 179 (404) 656-6034

Responsible for the operation and management of the Department’s

computer hardware and software and consists of Database Support,

Server Support, Network Support, Client Support and the Solutions Center.

Office of Application Support

Doug Chambers

Administrator

West Annex

(404) 463-2860 Ext. 103

This Office is composed of an Applications Development Section and an

Applications Support Section. The Development Section manages the

development of new applications for the Department. It is also home to the

Geographic Information System (GIS) coordination for the Department. The

Support Section supports and maintains the Department’s computer

applications including Computer-Aided Design (CAD), Web, COTS (off-the-

shelf) and enterprise-wide shared resources.

Office of Information Technology

Business Practices

Tony Williams

Administrator

Suite 183 (404) 656-6034

This office handles much of the administrative needs of the Information

Technology Division. It is composed of three working groups: the Operations

Group, the Configuration Management Group and the Policy and Standards

Group. The Operations Group handles the day-to-day administrative duties,

including personnel issues, payroll, leave records, budget and purchasing

needs. The Configuration Management Group maintains records of all IT

resources and also plays a major role in maintaining the Department's Asset

Management for IT equipment. The Policy and Standards Group maintains

and updates IT-related policies and standards in the Department.

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION

Meg Pirkle

Director

Suite 143 (404) 656-5239

Manages and oversees statewide administrative

activities for the Georgia DOT. Handles the payroll for all

employees and provides payment to contractors, consultants and all vendors

doing business with the Department. Maintains all accounting records, tracks

project expenditures and prepares financial statements for the Department.

Develops and manages the budget of the Department of Transportation.

Office of Budget Services

Angela Robinson

Budget Administrator

Suite 150 (404) 656-5237

Develops and manages the nearly $2 billion budget of the Department.

Serves as an advisor to the Treasurer and upper management in funding

matters. Also serves as liaison to the Office of Planning & Budget and the

Legislative Budget Office.

Office of General Accounting

Dawn Maddox

Transportation Accounts Administrator

Suite 169 (404) 656-5193

Manages the payout and receipt of the Department’s funds, which includes

issuing checks to vendors, contractors, cities/counties, consultants and commodi-

ty/service vendors. Also handles payroll and travel reimbursement for nearly

6,000 employees. Other tasks include keeping the Department’s books of

accounts and assuring all accounting records are accurate and are prepared

in a timely manner. The Units housed within the General Accounting Office

include Administration, Payroll, Cash Disbursement, Accounts Payable,

Contracts Payable, Central Cashier and Revenue.

Office of Financial Management

Jamie Simpson

Financial Management Administrator

Suite 170 (404) 463-2799

Prepares and manages the Department’s six-year Construction Work

Program (CWP) and project information system (Tpro). Requests and pre-

pares documents for authorization and billing for federal aid, bond and

state funds. Develops, submits and tracks project expenditures in the

Department’s project accounting system (PeopleSoft).

fice of Air Transportation

Dave Carmichael

Air Transportation Administrator

175 South Airport Road, Atlanta, GA 30336

(404) 699-4483

Operates and maintains a fleet of six aircraft, based at Fulton County

Airpor

t. Also provides air transportation for state officials and conducts

aerial photography flights to acquire precision mapping for the complete

design and construction of highways.

fice of Audits

Beryl Renfroe

Transportation Accounts Administrator

Suite 301 (404) 656-5598

Audits Division offices as well as contractors and consultants who do work for

the Depar

tment.

fice of General Support

Chip Meeks

Transportation Accounts Administrator

Suite 170 (404) 656-5239

Provides all offices with office equipment and supplies. The Office is

comprised of Asset Management/Telecommunication, Cost Accounting and

Inventory Control, Procurement, Facility Management, Fuel and Purchasing

Card Program Administration, Records Management, General Office Motor

Pool and Warehouse and Safety/Risk Management.

Office of Personnel

Mike Johnson

Director

Suite 270 (404) 656-5260

Responsible for developing, implementing and administering all personnel-

related functions and programs for the Department. These include benefits,

recruiting, training, job evaluation and compensation, employee relations,

employee assistance, performance management and personnel transaction

processing and drug/alcohol testing program for commercial driver’s license

holders.

Office of Strategic Development

Jim Davis

Director

276 Memorial Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 656-5181

Responsible for employee training and development, organizational

development, strategic planning and strategic management.

Commissioner/Special Staff

Email Address/Phone #

Harold Linnenkohl

Commissioner

Harold.Linnenkohl

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5206

Buddy Gratton

Deputy Commissioner

Buddy.Gratton

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5212

David E. Studstill, Jr.

Chief Engineer

David.Studstill

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5277

Mike Dover

Executive Assistant to Commissioner

Mike.Dover

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5206

Glenn Bowman

Executive Assistant to Chief Engineer

Glenn.Bowman

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 651-8355

Karlene Barron

Communications Administrator

Karlene.Barron

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 463-6464

Brian Summers

Project Review Engineer

Brian.Summers

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-6843

Terry Gable

State Aid Administrator

Terry.Gable

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5185

Mike Malcom

Statewide Equipment Mgt. Adm.

Mike.Malcom

dot.state.ga.us

(770) 785-6947

Elizabeth Osmon

DOT Board Secretary

Elizabeth.Osmon

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5211

Division of Construction

Email Address/Phone #

David Graham

Director of Construction

David.Graham

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5207

David Hoge

State Trans. Office Eng.-Contract Adm.

David.Hoge

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5325

Matthew Cline

Trans. Eng. Admin.-Const. Claims

Matthew.Cline

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-2106

Georgene Geary

State Materials & Research Adm.

Georgene.Geary

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 363-7512

Greg Mayo

State Construction Engineer

Greg.Mayo

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5306

Division of Equal

Employment Opportunity

Email Address/Phone #

Michael Cooper

Director

Michael.Cooper

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5323

Division of Field Districts

Email Address/Phone #

Vacant

Director of Field Districts

(404) 656-5214

Russell McMurry

District One - Gainesville

Russell.McMurry

dot.state.ga.us

(770) 532-5526

Mike Thomas

District Two - Tennille

Mike.Thomas

dot.state.ga.us

(478) 552-4601

Thomas Howell

District Three - Thomaston

Thomas.Howell

dot.state.ga.us

(706) 646-6500

Joe Sheffield

District Four - Tifton

Joe.Sheffield

dot.state.ga.us

(229) 386-3280

PRIMARY CONTACTS

Division of Field Districts

Email Address/Phone #

Glenn Durrence

District Five - Jesup

Glenn.Durrence

dot.state.ga.us

(912) 427-5711

Kent Sager

District Six - Cartersville

Kent.Sager

dot.state.ga.us

(770) 387-3602

Bryant Poole

District Seven - Metro Atlanta

Bryant.Poole

dot.state.ga.us

(770) 986-1011

Division of Legal Services

Email Address/Phone #

Sandra Burgess

Director of Legal Services

Sandra.Burgess

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 657-5808

Kenneth Thompson

Legal Services Administrator

Ken.Thompson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 657-5806

Division of Operations

Email Address/Phone #

Steve Henry

Director of Operations

Steve.Henry

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5214

David Crim

State Maintenance Engineer

David.Crim

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 635-8734

Jeff Baker

State Utilities Engineer

Jeff.Baker

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 635-8045

Vacant

Transp. Engineer Admin.-Traffic Ops

(404) 635-8038

Mark Demidovich

Asst. State Traffic Operations Engineer

Mark.Demidovich

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 635-8014

Keith Golden

Safety Traffic & Design Engineer

Keith.Golden

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 635-8115

Kathleen Gibson

Oversize Permit Unit Admin.

Kathleen.Gibson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 635-8176

Division of Preconstruction

Email Address/Phone #

Todd Long

Director of Preconstruction

Todd.Long

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5187

Genetha Singleton

Assistant Dir. of Preconstruction

[email protected]a.us

(404) 651-7455

Brent Story

State Road & Airport Design Engineer

Brent.Story

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5386

Ben Buchan

State Urban Design Engineer

Ben.Buchan

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5436

Paul Liles

State Bridge/Structural Design Engineer

Paul.Liles

dot.state.ga.us

404) 656-5280

Harvey Keepler

State Environmental/Location Engineer

Harvey.Keepler

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 699-4401

Phil Copeland

State Right-of-Way Administrator

Phil.Copeland

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5372

Babs Abubakari

State Consultant Design Engineer

Babs.Abubakari

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 463-6133

PRIMARY CONTACTS

Division of Planning, Data

& Intermodal Development

Email Address/Phone #

Gerald Ross

Dir. of Planning, Data, & Intermodal

Gerald.Ross

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-0610

Hal Wilson

Intermodal Programs Admin.

Hal.Wilson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 651-9200

Angela Alexander

State Trans. Planning Admin.

Angela.Alexander

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5411

Jane H. Smith

State Trans. Data Admin.

Jane.H.Smith

dot.state.ga.us

(770) 986-1360

Office of the Treasurer/

Division of Administration

Email Address/Phone #

Earl Mahfuz

Treasurer

Earl.Mahfuz

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5224

Mike Johnson

Personnel Director

Mike.Johnson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5260

Meg Pirkle

Administration Director

Meg.Pirkle

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5239

Beryl Renfroe

Trans. Accts. Admin.-Gen Acct.

Beryl.Renfroe

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5247

Angela Robinson

Budget Administrator

Angela.Robinson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5237

Chip Meeks

General Support Trans Accounts Admin.

Chip.Meeks

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 463-6029

Dawn Maddox

Trans. Accts. Admin.-Gen. Acct.

Dawn.Maddox

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5193

Jamie Simpson

Financial Management Admin.

Jamie.Simpson

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 463-2799

Dave Carmichael

Air Trans. Administrator

Dave.Carmichael

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 699-4483

Jim Davis

Strategic Development Admin.

Jim.Davis

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-5181

Division of Information

Technology

Email Address/Phone #

Jeffrey Hill

Director of Information Technology

Jeffrey.Hill

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-6034

Gary Blanton

Office of Infrastructure Admin.

Gary.Blanton

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 651-7136

Doug Chambers

Office of I.T. Applications Admin

Doug.Chambers

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 463-2860 Ext. 103

Tony Williams

Office of I.T. Business Practices

Tony.Williams

dot.state.ga.us

(404) 656-6034

PRIMARY CONTACTS

FREQUENTLY CALLED NUMBERS

Accident Location Traffic Safety & Design (404) 635-8131

Sites

Adopt-A-Highway Maintenance Office

(404) 635-8194

Bicycle Paths State Bic

ycle & (404) 657-6692

Pedestrian Coordinator

Auto Tags & Title (404) 362-6500

Commercial Georgia Depar

tment of (678) 413-8825

Vehicle Enforcement Driver Services

Drivers License www.dds.ga.gov (404) 657-9300

Information (678) 413-8400

Handicap Parking (404) 657-9300

Permits

Motor Vehicle (

678) 413-8400

Reports

Driv

eway Permits Traffic Safety & Design

(404) 635-8042

GA 400 Cruise State R

oad &

Cards/Violations Tollway Authority (

404) 365-7780

Natural Disasters 1.

Contact local law (404) 635-7000

enforcement agency24-Hour Line

2. Contact GEMA

(404) 635-7200

Outdoor Advertising Maintenance Activities Unit

404) 363-7625

Overweight Truck Ov

ersize Permit Unit 1-800-570-5428

Permits Cust. Service-

1-888-262-8306

Rest Areas Office of

Maintenance (404) 635-8174

Road Work Office of

Construction

(404) 656-3606

State Maps Map Sales Unit

(770) 986-1436

Traffic Counts Traffic Count Customer Srv.

(770) 986-1436

Traffic Incident TIME T

ask Force (404) 635-8463

Mgt. Enhancement General Info

Traffic Signals T

raffic Safety & Design (404) 635-8115

Transp. Enhancement State

wide Planning Bureau (404) 656-5411

Program

Transp. Mgt Center Info (404) 624-1300

Transp. Statistical Office of Transportation Data (770) 986-1364

Data (

770) 986-1360

Up-to-date Traffic T

ransportation Mgt. Center (404) 635-6800

Information AT&T Cingular, Verizon and 1-888-635-8287

Sprint *DOT (*368)

Wildflower Program Office of

Maintenance

(404) 635-8174

INFORMATION CONTACT PHONE #

The Georgia Department of Transportation is divided into seven districts which

are responsible for operating and maintaining the transportation system at the

local level. Each district has a District Engineer, who is responsible for planning,

organizing and directing the activities of the district. The districts are subdivided

by area offices which are overseen by Area Engineers.

Thomaston

Gainesville

Tennille

District Responsibilities:

Tifton

Jesup

Cartersville

Chamblee

Georgia DOT Districts

District One

District Engineer: Russell McMurry

(770) 532-5526

2505 Athens Highway, SE

P.O. Box 1057

Gainesville, GA 30503

Communications Officer: Teri Pope

(770) 718-3924

Website: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d1/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Gainesville Dawson,

Forsyth, Hall (770) 535-5759

Clarkesville Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens (706) 754-9559

Carnesville Elbert, Franklin, Hart, Madison (706) 384-7269

Cleveland Lumpkin, Union, Towns, White (706) 348-4848

Lawrenceville Barrow, Gwinnett (770) 339-2308

Athens Clarke, Jackson, Oconee, Walton (706) 369-5627

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

cDUFFIE

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

SEMINOLE

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

QUI

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

RIW

HEARD

COWETA

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

TGOM

PEACH

CKL

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

FORSY

HABERSHAM

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

OCONEE

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

• Roadway Maintenance and Operations

• Roadway Location and Design

• Construction Contract Administration

• Utility Conflicts (permits & relocation)

• Right-of-Way Acquisition

• Environmental Review

• Highway Beautification

• Coordination of Transit Systems

• Traffic Signals and Signs

• Permits

• Park & Ride Lots

• Public Outreach

District Two

District Engineer: Mike Thomas

(478) 552-4601

801 Highw

ay 15 South

P.O. Box 8

Tennille, GA 31089-0008

Communications Officer: Cissy McNure

(478) 552-4656

ebsite: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d2/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Sandersville Glascoc

k, Hancock, Washington, (478) 552-2464

Johnson

Swainsboro Emanuel, Jenkins, Screven (478) 289-2614

Louisville Burke, Jefferson, McDuffe, Warren (478) 625-3681

Augusta Columbia, Lincoln, Richmond, Wilkes (706) 855-3466

Madison Greene, Morgan, Newton, (706) 343-5836

Oglethorpe, Taliaferro

Milledgeville Baldwin, Jasper, Putnam, Wilkinson (478) 445-5130

Dublin Bleckley, Dodge, Laurens, Treutlen (478) 275-6596

District Three

District Engineer: Thomas B. Howell

(706) 646-6500

715 Andrews Drive

Thomaston, GA 30286-4524

Communications Officer: Barry Hancock

(706) 646-6257

Website: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d3/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Thomaston Crawford, Upson, Taylor, Pike, Lamar (706) 646-6630

Americus Marion, Schley, Stewart, Sumter, Webster (229) 931-2434

Perry Dooley, Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski (478) 988-7151

Macon Bibb, Jones, Monroe, Twiggs (478) 757-2601

Griffin Butts, Fayette, Henry, Spalding (770) 228-7205

LaGrange Coweta, Heard, Meriwether, Troup (706) 845-4115

Columbus Chattahoochee, Harris, Muscogee, Talbot (706) 568-2165

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

McDUFFIE

TAL

IAFE

RRO

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

NIER

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

EBSTE

QUITMAN

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

MERIWETHER

HEARD

COWETA

AYE

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

MONTGOMERY

PEACH

LEC

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

McDUFFIE

TALIAFERR

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

NIER

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

EBSTER

QUITMAN

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

MERIWETHER

HEARD

COWETA

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

MONTGOMER

PEACH

BLEC

LEY

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

NEE

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

District Four

District Engineer: Joe Sheffield

(229) 386-3280

710 W

est 2nd Street

P.O. Box 7510

Tifton, GA 31793-7510

Communications Officer: Craig Solomon

(229) 391-6852

ebsite: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d4/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Valdosta Clinc

h, Echols, Lanier, Lowndes (229) 333-5287

Douglas Atkinson, Coffee, Berrien, Irwin (912) 389-4201

Fitzgerald Ben Hill, Crisp, Turner, Wilcox, Worth (229) 426-5244

Moultrie Brooks, Colquitt, Tift, Thomas, Cook (229) 891-7130

Albany Baker, Dougherty, Lee, Mitchell (229) 430-4198

Cuthbert Calhoun, Clay, Early, Quitman,

Randolph, Terrell (229) 732-3066

Donalsonville Decatur, Grady, Miller, Seminole (229) 524-5760

I-75 Reconstr. Crisp, Turner, Tift, Cook, Lowndes (229) 556-9433

District Five

District Engineer: Glenn Durrence

(912) 427-5700

204 North Highway 301

P.O. Box 610

Jesup, GA 31598

Communications Officer: Sherry Beal

(912) 530-4075

ebsite: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d5/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Baxley Appling, Jeff Davis, Telfair, (912) 366-1090

Wheeler, Montgomery

Waycross Charlton, Brantley, Pierce, Ware, Bacon (912) 285-6009

Brunswick Camden, Glynn, McIntosh (912) 264-7247

Glennville Long, Tattnall, Toombs, Wayne, Liberty (912) 654-2940

Savannah Chatham, Bryan (912) 651-2144

Statesboro Bulloch, Candler, Effingham, Evans (912) 871-1103

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

McDUFFIE

TALIAFE

RRO

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

NIER

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

WEB

STER

QUITMAN

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

MERIWETHER

HEARD

COWETA

AYE

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

MONTGOMERY

PEACH

BLEC

LEY

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

McDUFFIE

TALIAFERRO

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

ANIE

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

EBSTER

QUITMAN

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

MERIWETHER

HEARD

COWETA

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

MONT

GOMERY

PEACH

LEC

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

HAM

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

CON

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

McDU

FIE

TAL

FERR

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

SCOC

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

SEMINOLE

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

WEBSTER

QUITM

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

HEARD

COWETA

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

ONTGO

PEACH

LEC

SCHLEY

TURNER

CKD

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

DADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

FORS

HAM

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

RICHMOND

BURKE

JEFFERSON

WARREN

HANCOCK

WASHINGTON

SCREVEN

JENKINS

EMANUEL

BULLOCH

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

McINTOSH

GLYNN

WAYNE

BRANTLEY

PIERCE

CAMDEN

CHARLTON

WARE

CLINCH

ECHOLS

ATKINSON

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

BROOKS

COOK

THOMAS

GRADY

COLQUITT

MITCHELL

DECATUR

MILLER

BAKER

EARLY

CALHOUN

DOUGHERTY

WORTH

TIFT

IRWIN

COFFEE

BEN HILL

BACON

APPLING

JEFF

DAVIS

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CANDLER

TREUTLEN

JOHNSON

LAURENS

BALDWIN

WILKINSON

TELFAIR

WHEELER

DODGE

WILCOX

PULASKI

TWIGGS

HOUSTON

MACON

DOOLY

CRISP

SUMTER

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

CLAY

ITM

STEWART

MARION

CHATTA-

HOOCHEE

BIBB

JONES

CRAWFORD

MONROE

LAMAR

UPSON

PIKE

SPALDING

BUTTS

TALBOT

HARRIS

TROUP

MERIWET

HER

HEARD

COWETA

FAYETT

DOUGLAS

HENRY

DEKALB

NEWTON

COBB

MORGAN

GREENE

JASPER

PUTNAM

MONTGOMERY

PEACH

SCHLEY

TURNER

MUSCOGEE

FULTON

TAYLOR

CARROLL

HARALSON

PAULDING

POLK

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

PICKENS

GORDON

CHATTOOGA

WALKER

GILMER

FANNIN

MURRAY

WHITFIELD

CATOOSA

ADE

TOWNS

UNION

RABUN

WHITE

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

HALL

FORSY

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

JACKSON

GWINNETT

BARROW

WALTON

OCONEE

CLARKE

MADISON ELBERT

District Six

District Engineer: Kent Sager

(770) 387-3602

500 J

oe Frank Harris Parkway

P.O. Box 10

Cartersville, GA 30120-0010

Communications Officer: Mohamed Arafa

(770) 387-4081

ebsite: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d6/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Cartersville Bar

tow, Cherokee, Gordon (770) 387-3680

Ellijay Fannin, Gilmer, Pickens (706) 635-5551

Dalton Catoosa, Dade, Murray, Walker, (706) 272-2211

Whitfield

Rome Chattooga, Floyd, Polk (706) 295-6025

Buchanan Haralson, Paulding, Carroll (770) 646-5522

District Seven

District Engineer: Bryant Poole

(770) 986-1011

5025 New Peachtree Road

Chamblee, GA 30341

Communications Officer: Mark McKinnon

770) 986-2801

Website: www

.dot.state.ga.us/dot/fielddistricts/d7/Index.shtml

Area Offices Counties Served Phone

Decatur DeK

alb, Rockdale (404) 299-4386

Marietta Cobb, North Fulton (770) 528-3238

Hapeville Clayton, South Fulton, Douglas (404) 559-6699

Atlanta City of Atlanta (404) 624-2444

Geographic Information System (GIS)

The Geographic Information System (GIS) links data that contains a place or a

location to mapping or geospatial data. It is composed of a collection of

computer hardware, software,

data, and people who use the

system. Software applications are

used or developed to facilitate

geospatial data collection,

analysis, or visualization.

Commonly, geospatial data is

arranged as ‘layers’ of informa-

tion, one on top of the other.

Users ask questions through the

"layers" of data concerning a

specific location or area of inter-

est. This allows the Department to

better understand spatial relationships or where things are in relation to each

other. For example, what bridges would be affected by a new road widening

project or what is the traffic volume within a mile of the interstate? These

results can then be presented as maps, graphs and tables.

GIS within Georgia DOT

Through a variety of business functions, the Georgia DOT collects a

significant amount of data that references a location, such as a GPS (Global

Positioning System) coordinate of a truck weigh station. Locations can also be

collected as a street address, a zip code, or more commonly in the Georgia

DOT as a route number and mile marker. This data is then loaded or published

to a centralized database repository that contains additional geospatial data.

The database is organized to bring together all of these different types of

location referencing methods. This allows multiple software applications across

the Department to all work with the same mapping information.

The Georgia DOT is implementing an Enterprise GIS (EGIS) Program to better

leverage this technology to support the mission of the Department. Seven key

service initiatives will be developed under this program:

• Mapping on Demand - Provide non-GIS users with the ability to

create, modify, and print multiple types of maps in multiple formats

online.

• Computer Aided Design (CAD) Integration - Provide interoperability

between CAD and GIS environments to facilitate access to CAD data

sets within GIS and vice versa.

• Asset Location - Provide centralized GIS data to allow identification

and location of Georgia DOT transportation structures, facilities and

equipment.

• Data Analysis - Provide applications to support analysis of

environmental, safety, traffic, inter-modal connectivity, project

planning/location and economic data.

• Work Activity Tracking - Provide real-time tracking applications to

monitor the status and retain the history of work being performed by

mobile field workers.

• Open Data Exchange - Provide data transformation, metadata and

data delivery services to facilitate free and open exchange of spatial

data within Georgia DOT and with its federal and local government

partners in transportation.

• Building the GDOT GIS - Provide a framework to support the collection,

maintenance, security, accessibility, performance, replication, and

versioning of the Georgia DOT GIS. This framework includes the

development of enterprise GIS architecture, infrastructure and services.

Overall, the Georgia DOT GIS is used and developed to improve transporta-

tion decision-making and operational efficiency.

Georgia DOT GIS Data for the Public

The Georgia DOT GIS is also being used in a variety of Web applications on

the Internet to serve the information and business needs of the general public.

For example, the Transportation Explorer (http://trex.dot.state.ga.us)

application provides the public with the locations of active and planned

transportation projects in

their neighborhoods. Utility

companies use the Georgia

Utilities Permitting System

(GUPS) to request permits

for constructing or moving

utilities. Property developers

might use the Access

Management Permitting

System (AMPS) to request

per

mission to connect the

traffic from a new subdivi-

sion to a state route.

The Georgia DOT, along with other state agencies, also provides the GIS data

to the public through the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse

(http://gis.state.ga.us).

z Georgia DOT general information

z Frequently asked questions

z List of primary contacts

z Responsibilities and breakdown of

Georgia DOT divisions and offices

z Traveler information

What the Web site has to offer:

z MY NaviGAtor information

z Up-to-date traffic conditions

z Current construction projects

z Transportation maps

z HOV system and facts

z General permit information

Georgia DOT Web Site

Strategic Development

Creation of the Office of Strategic Development (OSD) was announced by

Commissioner Harold Linnenkohl on May 1, 2004. OSD’s mission is to contribute

to the success of the Department by promoting strategic management,

professional development and organizational effectiveness. OSD supports

the integration of organizational performance through its programs and

processes using performance standards, performance measures and quality

improvements to maintain and improve the organization’s health. One of OSD’s

key principles is to incorporate the concepts of Principle-Centered Leadership

with strategic management. This infuses the values of integrity and service in

the Department’s execution of daily business actions and decision-making

processes.

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Rural Areas

Mileage

Daily Vehicle

Miles Traveled

Statewide Highway System

14,066

73,801,309

Interstates

715

27,577,932

County Roads

62,131

35,435,302

City Streets

3,453

2,050,025

Small Urban Areas

Statewide Highway System

1,084

13,150,652

Interstates

3,556,086

County Roads

2,695

3,838,745

City Streets

3,360

4,130,360

Urban Areas

Statewide Highway System

2,934

103,394,503

Interstates

460

52,255,173

County Roads

18,723

50,169,272

City Streets

7,556

17,328,527

* State Highway System includes Interstates

Total Miles of Public Roads in Georgia:

116,002

The Georgia Department of Transportation provides a safe and efficient

highway system designed to network Georgia’s interstates, county roads, city

streets and state highway system together to provide mobility and efficiently

connect travelers to their destinations.

Miles of Georgia Road 2005

72%

Georgia Highway Systems

Roadway Miles 2005

83,549

16%

12%

18,084

14,369

County Roads

Statewide

Highway System

City Streets

Georgia’s transportation system consists of the following major

highway programs:

• National Highway System (NHS)

• Fast Forward

• Local Assistance Road Program (LARP)

• Governor’s Road Improvement Program (GRIP)

• Surface Transportation Program (STP)

ationa

ig a

stem

Revised May 2005

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway System

The Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established

the National Highway System (NHS) to serve

as a network of highways linking together

different modes of transportation such as:

public transportation, airports, intermodal

facilities and major shipping ports. Economic

vitality nationwide is increased by the linking

of these transportation systems.

NHS FACTS

Total GA NHS Mileage

5,385

Total GA Interstate Mileage

1,245

NHS Major Intermodal

Connector Routes

Other NHS Routes

4,086

Fast Forward Transportation Program

In Spring 2004, Governor Perdue approved the sale of $4.5 billion worth of

bonds over six years to accelerate much-needed transportation projects. These

projects were in addition to the Georgia DOT’s regular program of projects of

$11 billion.

Fast Forward Program is working to provide:

• Short-Term Congestion Relief: Intelligent Transportation System,

Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO) Expansion, Ramp

Metering Expansion, Signal Timing and Synchronization Upgrades

• Long-Term Congestion Relief: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

Lane Expansion, Arterial Roadway Improvements and New Transit

Corridors Implementation

The Fast Forward Program has been funded using a blend of Grant

Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds, Guaranteed Revenue Bonds

(GRB) and General Obligation (GO) bonds.

TOTAL PROGRAMMED

PROJECTS FY 05 - FY 06

$1.43 Billion

TOTAL AUTHORIZED

PROJECTS FY 05 - FY 06

$1.77 Billion

Congestion/GARVEE

Program Total

Fast Forward FY 05 - FY 06

Congestion/GARVEE and GO Program Summary

$625 Million

808 Million

$808 Million

The Local Assistance Road Program

Initiated in 1978, the Local Assistance Road Program (LARP) is a resurfacing

program designed to help local governments preserve the integrity of their

paved road systems.

How It Works

Each year, during late summer or early fall, every

city and county in the state of Georgia is asked to

submit a LARP priority list to the Georgia DOT.

The LARP priority list identifies roads or streets in

each city or county jurisdiction which need to be

resurfaced. Georgia DOT reviews each road and

street submitted and develops a needs assessment

and cost estimate.

LARP Funding

Funding for LARP projects comes from the Motor

Vehicle Fuel Tax. Each year Georgia DOT reviews

the lists of projects received from each local

government and makes selections based on need

and availability of funds once the level of funding

is established.

LARP Facts

• There are currently 69,088 miles of paved

roads on the county and city systems.

• The Local Governments submitted over $188 million of paving

needs for FY 06.

• The Department resurfaced 1,107 miles of roads under LARP

contracts in 2006.

Before LARP

After LARP

Total Program Highlights since Fast Forward Began:

• Over $2.25 billion in contract awards in FY 06, marking the largest

award amount for one year in Georgia DOT’s history.

• Over $1.27 billion in contractor payments, ‘cash out the door’ between

December 2005 and November 2006, the largest 12- payout in

Georgia DOT history.

• Over $241 million in the month of June 2006 marked the largest monthly

payment in Georgia DOT’s history.

Governor’s Road Improvement Program

Initiated in 1989 by a resolution of the state legislature and the Governor,

the Governor’s Road Improvement Program (GRIP) will connect 95 percent of

the cities in Georgia with a population of 2,500 or more to the interstate sys-

tem. The GRIP system will also ensure that 98 percent of all areas of

Georgia will be within 20 miles of a four-lane road.

GRIP is currently made up of nineteen corridors (economic development high-

ways), three truck access routes and 3,314 miles of roadway. Project devel-

opment activities are underway for 2,651 miles of GRIP.

For up-to-date GRIP fact sheets, visit: http:

//www.dot.state.ga.us /DOT/plan-

prog/planning/programs/grip/Index.shtml

2006 GRIP FACTS

z 72 percent or 1,914 miles of GRIP Corridors with project

development activities underway are open or under construction.

z 58 percent of the total GRIP system is open or under

construction.

z 8 projects were opened to traffic in calendar year 2005.

z The projects opened to traffic added 40 miles of multi-lane

roadway to the GRIP system.

z The projects opened to traffic were constructed at a cost of

$109.3 million.

z The estimated cost to complete the GRIP Corridors with

project development activities underway is $2.618 billion.

z The estimated cost to complete the total GRIP system is

$3.967 billion.

Appalachian Developmental Highway

South Georgia Parkway

US 319

Golden Isles Parkway

Fall Line Freeway

SR 72

Savannah River Parkway

US 19

US 1/SR 17

US 27

US 441

US 84

Sunbelt Parkway

Power Alley/US 280

SR 32

SR 40

East-West Highway

SR 15

SR 125

Governor’s

Road Improvement

Program (GRIP)

October 2006 Map

Open

Under Construction

Right of Way

Preliminary Engineering

No Activities

GRIP Corridors

Surface Transportation Program

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that

may be used by the Department for projects on any Federal-aid highway,

including the National Highway System (NHS), Interstate system, bridge proj-

ects on any public road, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and

facilities. Funds are distributed to states based on lane miles of federal-aid

highways; total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways and estimated

contributions to the Highway Account of

the Highway Trust Fund. Each state must

set aside a portion of their STP funds (10

percent or the amount set aside in 2005,

whichever is greater) for transportation

enhancement activities. 62.5 percent of

the remaining STP funding (after the 10

percent transportation enhancement set-

aside) must be divided among the state's

urbanized areas; the remaining 37.5 per-

cent of the STP funding may be distrib-

uted at the discretion of the State.

To meet its responsibilities in the most-responsive and cost-efficient manner,

the Georgia DOT has participated in the following transportation-related

programs and initiatives:

• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

• Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP)

• Air Quality Improvement

• Public Private Initiatives (PPI)

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

This is a three-year multimodal program that contains federally-funded proj-

ects identified through the planning process. Every year, proposed projects for

the STIP are presented to local officials in non-metropolitan areas of the state

for their comment and review as per Georgia DOT's "Consultation Process

With Local Officials in Non-Metropolitan Areas of the State" policy. Within

metropolitan areas, public involvement for federally-funded transportation

projects are handled by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Roads and Bridges

To operate, maintain and improve

the safety of the existing

state highway system

Intermodal

Programs

To meet transportation needs of

citizens and businesses in Georgia

by providing various modes of

travel, including public

transportation, rail, airports

and deep-water ports

Transportation Enhancements

To enrich the traveling experience

of the highway user through

enhancements to the

transportation system

Metropolitan

Planning

Organization (MPO)

Areas

The STIP is presented for public review and comment at meetings throughout

the state and is available at libraries throughout the state. The STIP is also

available on Georgia DOT’s Web site at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/DOT/

plan-prog/planning/programs/index.shtml.

Types of projects in the STIP include:

Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP)

Federal and state laws require that the state's transportation program align

with a long-range strategy in the Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP). This

plan is updated every five years and maintains a minimum 20-year horizon.

The current update of the SWTP was initiated in 2005 and it developed a

plan for transportation improvements extending to the 2035 horizon year. The

2005 to 2035 SWTP was completed in the fall of 2005, when the State

Transportation Board adopted the plan in January 2006.

The Department worked with nationally-recognized experts in the develop-

ment of the SWTP. This allowed us to incorporate planning experience, state-

of-the-art information management and analytical tools to develop alternative

program scenarios, investigate future funding levels (revenue and project

costs), evaluate impacts and produce the plan update.

The current 2005 to 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan can be found online

at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/planning/swtp/index.shtml

Total Available Transportation Revenue by Source

($86.1 Billion) 2006-2035

FHWA

/$32.5

38%

Local Transit/$1.2

MARTA Revenue/$3.0

MARTA Sales Tax/$10.2

12%

State/$16.7

19%

Local Highway/$13.0

15%

FTA

/$6.2

Passenger Rail Revenue

/$3.5

2005 Dollars (in Billions)

* Assumes complete system is built.

+ Assumes SAFETEA-LU authorization levels.

Air Quality Improvement

The Department participates in the effort for clean air in

Georgia and maintains a strong commitment to improve air

quality in the state through the Congestion Mitigation and

Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. Although the

effects of transportation on air pollution are continuing to

diminish, a new standard for air quality has been set by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in addition to the 8-hour ozone

standard.

EPA recently added a new pollutant to Georgia's nonattainment area classifi-

cations. Particulate Matter (PM) is a complex mixture of extremely small parti-

cles and liquid matter. Increased exposure to PM has been linked to a range

of respiratory and cardiovascular health problems. Two types of PM are cur-

rently regulated by EPA: PM 10 and PM 2.5. Georgia has areas in nonattain-

ment for PM 2.5. Unlike ozone, PM 2.5 is a problem throughout the year.

Georgia's major source of PM 2.5 are coal burning power plants, outdoor

burning and diesel engines.

Counties designated

in nonattainment of

PM 2.5 include the

20-county metro

Atlanta area, as well

as parts of Putnam

and Heard counties.

Counties outside the

metro Atlanta area

include: Floyd,

Walker, Catoosa,

Bibb and a portion of

Monroe.

CMAQ funds are

used to implement a

variety of projects

aimed at reducing

emissions by relieving

traffic congestion.

One effective initia-

tive is a regional

transportation demand management (TDM) program across metro Atlanta.

Since the development of the program in 1999, changes in transportation

behavior have been accomplished in the Atlanta region through programs to

educate, encourage and facilitate the use of alternatives to driving alone.

Georgia’s Nonattainment Areas

Pollutant

The Department is directing a new broad-based regional program expected

to have a significant effect on congestion and air quality. The program

includes a project of signal synchronization across city limits and county lines

within the metro Atlanta region. The program includes retiming of about 2,500

traffic signals to form interconnected systems. This program involves coordina-

tion among many state and

local agencies, local govern-

ments and others; the improve-

ment will be felt both locally

and regionally.

The Department is assisting

areas across the state that are

now confronting air quality

problems. The Department

facilitates a collaborative

approach at the state level

to address air quality in

partnership with the

Environmental Protection

Division of the Department of

Natural Resources, the

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and the Georgia Environmental

Facilities Authority. A goal of these state partners is to use available resources

to implement the most effective projects and programs to reduce congestion

and to improve air quality.

For more information, please visit the Air Quality Branch's Web site

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/DOT/plan-prog/planning/aq/.

Public-Private Transportation Initiatives (PPI)

Georgia is challenged by a fast-growing population and expanding

commerce, which impact our transportation infrastructure needs. Traffic

congestion is the number one transportation issue in Georgia's metropolitan

areas, whereas in other parts of the state, improving access to education and

jobs drive transportation priorities. With current funding and delivery methods,

there are not enough resources to meet all of our state's transportation needs

in a timely manner. PPI allows the Department to partner with private/corpo-

rate businesses to help finance, design, construct, operate and/or maintain

transportation projects.

In 2003, the Georgia legislature lawfully created the process that allows the

Georgia DOT to consider unsolicited proposals from private companies to

build transportation improvement projects. In 2005, the Georgia General

100

Assembly amended the PPI law to give Georgia DOT the ability to solicit pro-

posals for much-needed transportation projects, to extend the time for receiv-

ing competing proposals from 90 to 135 days, and most importantly, provide

more opportunities for public review and input.

PPI gives us a faster and more efficient way to solve our transportation

challenges without compromising quality. Private partners bring innovation,

new technology, finance and

private resources to a

project, which frees up state

resources and dollars for

other transportation needs.

Whether or not the PPI

proposal develops into a

final contract for construction,

Georgia DOT may continue

to use the design and engi-

neering documents produced

by the private partner to

continue working on the

project.

What are the

benefits of PPI?

Georgia is one of the

fastest-growing states in the nation; PPI gives us a faster and more efficient

way to solve our transportation problems without compromising quality.

PPI allows the Georgia DOT to accept and evaluate solicited and unsolicited

proposals from private/corporate businesses for transportation projects.

For the latest news and information about PPI and current proposals visit:

www.dot.state.ga.us/ppi

PPI Proposal Criteria

Proposals are evaluated on:

1. Unique and innovative

methods and technical merits

2. Potential contribution to the

Department's mission

3. The proposing entity's

qualifications and experience

4. Whether proposal is consistent

with Board's Network Vision,

including free existing general

purpose lanes

101

Environment and Location

Georgia DOT Receives GPTQ Award for Public Involvement and

Context-Sensitive Design

The Georgia Department of Transportation partnered with the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Georgia Division and Fulton County to

streamline the environmental process of two proposed projects in Fulton

County: the widening of Johnson Ferry and Abernathy roads and the

Abernathy Road Greenspace Project sponsored by Fulton County. The goal

of including both the road-widening project and greenspace project in the

same environmental document was to streamline the environmental process

since both projects would be capturing federal funds for their implementation

and both were located along Abernathy Road. The Johnson Ferry Road

project consisted of widening the road approximately 1.24 miles, including

widening the bridge spanning the Chattahoochee River. The Abernathy Road

project consisted of widening the existing two-lane facility to four-lanes from

Johnson Ferry Road to Roswell Road. This project was also discussed in the

environmental document and proposal to construct a greenspace linear park

utilizing approximately 40 residential properties.

The environmental process began for both projects in September of 2003. The

public involvement process was begun at a very early stage of project plan-

ning in order for interested residents, neighborhood groups, businesses, govern-

ment officials, and the general public to become involved in the environmental

decision-making process. A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), consisting of

approximately 25 representatives of local neighborhoods, businesses, civic

associations, and government agencies, has been meeting since the spring of

2002. The CAC acted as a steering committee to give information and opin-

ions to Georgia DOT, FHWA and Fulton County and to evaluate and recom-

mend design features and design alternatives for both the proposed widening

and greenspace projects. Through a series of four meetings and two work-

shops, the CAC provided the project team with a wealth of information about

the public's needs and desires concerning both transportation and greenspace

Neighborhood Park

With Trail Access

Community

Center

Multi-Use

Neighborhood

Playground

Existing

Arts Center

Neighborhood

Playground

8‘ Wide Sidewalk

Creek

Multi-Use Trail

Pond

Overloo

Gazebo

Trail

Brandon Mill Road

Johnson Ferry Road

Abernathy Parkway

Shopping

Center

Wright Road

Illustration of Abernathy Parkway in Sandy Springs, Georgia

102

projects. The CAC has been very adamant throughout the planning process that

both the road widening project and greenspace project remain and progress

together through the planning and environmental phase. Their support of the

road- widening project was contingent upon the successful design and progress

of the greenspace plan.

Coordination with other federal and state agencies was needed to progress

the projects through the NEPA process. Coordination with the National Park

Service (NPS) was required to coordinate the purchase of land from the

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area along Johnson Ferry Road,

resulting in a Section 4(f) impact.

Because of the extensive public involvement activities and coordination of both

projects with state and federal agencies at the onset of project planning, the

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) with Section 4(f) was approved within 18

months from the initiation of the environmental process. An Environmental

Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) with Section 4(f) was

approved June 13, 2005.

Public Outreach Project

Georgia DOT has proposed a project to construct pedestrian safety improve-

ments along the Buford Highway corridor from the DeKalb/ Fulton County

line to Shallowford Terrace, a distance of approximately 4.8 miles. This would

include the construction of a raised median from the county line north to

Clairmont Road; the construction of

pedestrian refuge islands in nine

locations throughout the project

corridors; the construction of sidewalks;

and the installation of new traffic

signals at five locations. These

improvements were designed as a

result of a 10-month long public

involvement process which engaged

both residents and business owners

located in the corridor.

Public outreach within the community consisted of several events. The first was

a face-to-face survey of five Hispanic-owned businesses. The purpose of the

survey was to conduct a needs assessment based on input from those who lived

and worked in the corridor.

Outreach to the Asian business community was addressed in a different man-

ner. The Center for Pan Asian Community Services was retained to identify

four Vietnamese, four Chinese, and four Korean business owners and to conduct

interviews with these business owners to determine their perceptions of the

impact of a raised median. Before-and-after visualizations were used to show

possible design scenarios for Buford Highway.

103

Douglas Streetscape

Brunswick TE Projects: the images above show the Waterfront Farmers Market,

Waterfront longview and Waterfront sidewalk

Transportation Enhancement Program

Georgia DOT is responsible for more than just building roads and highways.

Created by ISTEA legislation in 1991and extended by SAFETEA-LU, the

Transportation Enhancement (TE) program focuses on the cultural, natural and

scenic elements of the statewide transportation network. Through the TE pro-

gram, governmental agencies (state and local), public universities, and authori-

ties created via the General Assembly may apply for federal funds to imple-

ment projects that fall within the eligible criteria.

TE projects may fit into one or more of the following categories:

z multi-use facilities, such as biking/pedestrian trails or paths

z safety and educational activities for pedestrians and cyclists

z historic preservation, such as railroad depots

and abandoned rail corridors

z transportation aesthetics, such as streetscape,

landscaping and scenic beautification projects

z acquiring scenic easements

z control and removal of outdoor advertising

z archaeological planning and research

z environmental mitigation

z transportation museums

The TE program implemented its first ever Web-based application process for

the fiscal year '06 - '07 TE call for projects. Through the innovative partnership

of Georgia DOT's IT Department and the Office of Planning, Georgians in all

13 Congressional districts were able to electronically submit their applications

for consideration of TE funding. The call for TE projects extended from July to

September 23, 2005 and 275 applications were received statewide. Of

these, 152 were selected for funding.

104

Georgia Scenic Byways Program

The Georgia Scenic Byways Program is a grassroots effort to

preserve, promote, protect and interpret treasured corridors

throughout the state. A Georgia Scenic Byway is defined as

any designated highway, street, road or route which features

certain intrinsic qualities that should be protected or enhanced. Scenic, natural,

recreational, historical, cultural, or archeological qualities give each byway its

character and appeal. There are currently nine scenic byways in Georgia that

give travelers extraordinary views of their surroundings.

Designation

To obtain designation, a local sponsor must complete a multi-stage process of

identifying a route, submitting an application, developing a Corridor

Management Plan and receiving approval by the Georgia DOT. The applica-

tion defines the route, acknowl-

edges local support of the byway

and assesses the intrinsic qualities

and potential issues of the route.

The Corridor Management Plan

(CMP), with significant public

involvement, documents the vision

for the byway and future steps to

be taken to achieve the goals of

promotion, preservation and

enhancement.

Ninth Scenic Byway

The State Transportation Board designated the Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic

Byway in Jones County as Georgia's ninth Scenic Byway at its December

2006 Board meeting. Visitors to this byway will observe vestiges of 200 years

of Jones County history as

well as pre-historic and

historic sites of the Creek

Indians who lived there in

the 17th and 18th cen-

turies. Civil War battle

sites, the Piedmont National

Wildlife Refuge, and the

setting for the 1991 film

Fried Green Tomatoes are

some of the many attrac-

tions featured on this corri-

dor.

Red Oak Creek Bridge in Meriwether County

105

For more information about Scenic Byways, please visit the Web site:

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/DOT/plan-prog/planni

ng/projects/scenic_byways/

index.shtml

Scenic Byways

Altamaha: 17 miles

Cohutta-Chattahoochee: 54 miles

Historic Piedmont: 82 miles

Meriwether-Pike: 55 miles

Monticello Crossroads: 29 miles

Ocmulgee-Piedmont: 21 miles

Ridge and Valley: 51 miles

Russell-Brasstown: 41

South Fulton: 29

The total mileage for the 9 scenic

byways is 379

Wildflower Program

This year, Georgia DOT's Office of Maintenance planted approximately 400

acres of wildflowers. Of total wildflowers planted, 350 acres were planted

using funds from the Wildflower Auto Tag,

which is the only guaranteed source of

revenue for the Wildflower Program.

The Maintenance office performs ongoing

research of Georgia native species and

updates conservation techniques to keep our

wildflowers blooming on the roadsides each

year.

The wildflower mixture includes:

z Indian Blanket (Gaillardia pulchella)

z Lemon Mint (Monarda citriodora)

z Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)

z Clasping Coneflower (Rudbeckia amplexicaulis)

z Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea)

z Golden-Wave (Coreopsis basalis)

Purple Coneflower

Georgia Scenic Byway

National Scenic Byway

106

Program

Maintenance

The Wildflower

Program experienced

phenomenal growth as

public awareness

efforts had a direct

influence on increased

Wildflower tag sales.

Helpful information

about the Wild-flower

Program is included on

the Georgia

Department of

Transportation Website.

The site even provides

growing tips that encourage Georgians to cultivate their own wildflower

gardens!

Program Promotion

Georgia DOT employees also expanded the Program's reach as a proud

participant in the 2005 Southeastern Flower Show. The

Department’s participation in the Flower Show provided

a platform to share information about cultivating wild-

flowers and to further increase the public's education

of the Wildflower Program. The Flower Show also

featured a "roadside garden" developed by

Department employees for patrons to view in the

event's Discovery Zone.

Ongoing Stewardship

For a one-time fee of $25, Georgians may purchase the Wildflower Auto Tag

and provide critical funding to sustain the

Program. The auto tag can be

purchased any time at local county tag

offices. For more information, visit

www.dot.state.ga.us or

http://www.etax.dor.ga.gov

Lanceleaf Coreopsis planted along I-285 in District 7

Black-eyed Susan

107

NaviGAtor, Georgia's Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), is a joint venture

between the Georgia Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)

and Atlanta Regional Commission.

Launched in 1996 in time for the Summer

Olympic Games, NaviGAtor integrates state-of-

the-art technology, information processing and

communication to make Georgia's roadways

safer and easier to travel. Housed at the

Transportation Management Center (TMC) in

Atlanta, NaviGAtor's operators monitor traffic

cameras, answer calls from 911 Centers for

assistance, and dispatch emergency responders.

Customer Service Representatives respond to

calls from the general public, who report inci-

dents and road hazards. Together, the team works

to confirm incidents, verify construction projects,

and communicate this information to the public in real time.

NaviGAtor Technology

z 367 full-color, pan-tilt-zoom, closed-circuit (CCTV) cameras confirm and

monitor traffic incidents on state routes and interstates. They are spaced

every one mile.

z 207 arterial CCTV cameras are

operated by area Traffic Control

Centers (TCCs).

z 1,361 Video Detection System (VDS),

fixed-position, black and white,

cameras, provide continuous speed an

volume data to the TMC and generate

travel times for Changeable Message

Signs (CMS). They are spaced every

one-third mile.

z 101 Changeable Message Signs (CMS)

display trip times, incident information, air quality, child abduction and

highway safety messages.

Transportation Management

Center

CCTV and VDS Cameras

108

z 48 Weather Stations statewide provide current

weather conditions to the TMC and the public.

They are used to aid in dispatch of emergency

crews during severe weather.

z Ramp Meters are placed at key access points

on metro-area interstates. Similar to a traffic

signal, they allow one motorist at a time to

merge onto an interstate. Ramp Meters reduce

interstate congestion by 22 percent.

z Remote Traffic Microwave Sensors (RTMS), also known as Radar

Vehicle Detectors, use real-time video to detect and verify road

congestion and traffic incidents. RTMS are found on SR 141and SR 166.

Web Site

The NaviGAtor Web site,

www.georgia-navigator.com, features

live traffic cameras, trip times,

weather, news and travel alerts, and

color-coded metro, regional, and

statewide maps displaying congestion

levels, traffic incidents, and active

construction. It also features

MyNaviGAtor, a free service that

provides subscribers with customized

traffic information for their own

routes. Users can log onto

www.myganav.com, create personal-

ized travel profiles, and get real-time

information sent directly to their cell

phones, computers, or PDAs.

TICKERAlert: Community Alert Networks

TICKERAlert is a community alert network of LCD billboards that supports the

national emergency response initiatives as an early warning alert network. Its

innovative news and marketing system provides timely, custom broadcasts to the

public. While offering effective news services, TICKERAlert gives immediate

notification in the event of a child abduction, homeland security alert or similar

emergency.

NaviGAtor’s TICKERAlert network is located throughout the state in the rest

areas and welcome centers in Atlanta, Macon, Savannah, Augusta, Columbus,

Valdosta, West Point, Tallapoosa, Ringgold, Lavonia and Kingsland. For more

information, go to www.tickeralert.com.

Weather Monitoring

Station

109

EMnet

EMnet is a secure, satellite-based messaging system designed for the

emergency management community. Messages are transmitted to our

EMnet server via an Internet connection, and then are delivered to the

intended stations by satellite broadcast. User-friendly EMnet provides

a platform for composing, sending, receiving and broadcasting Emergency

Alert System (EAS) messages in order to:

z Issue and monitor Amber Alerts and weather alerts.

z Monitor EAS messages issued by National Weather Service and

others.

z Provide a single, efficient interface for inbound hazard notices and

outbound warning systems.

The TMC currently utilizes EMnet computer software, designed to give

information about major emergency events throughout the state of Georgia.

For more information about EMnet, go to http://www.comlabs.com/products.php

Coastal Evacuation System

This is a traffic management, data collection and traveler information system

installed on evacuation routes along Georgia's Coastal Region for the purpose

of improving traffic flow and providing real-time information during an

evacuation due to such events as a hurricane. The Coastal Evacuation System

consists of data collection devices, changeable message signs and surveillance

cameras.

Accident Investigation Sites (AIS)

Accident Investigation Sites (AIS) are 100-foot long shoulder extensions that

provide a safe area for motorists involved in accidents to exchange informa-

tion away from the danger of on-coming traffic. Approximately 51 AISs have

been constructed along I-20, I-75, I-85 and I-285.

Get real-time traffic information or report a road hazard 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week

• *DOT (368) is available for

Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint and

Verizon wireless customers who

see or are involved in an accident

or traffic congestion.

• 404-635-6800 - landline and

other wireless carriers

• 1-888-635-8287 - toll-free

110

Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO)

z Assist in reducing traffic congestion and delays

z Provide support to law

enforcement, first responders,

and other emergency

management agencies

z Patrol 21 routes on 220

miles of metro Atlanta

interstates 7 days a week

z Operate on three shifts from

5 a.m. Monday until 5:30 a.m.

Saturday

z One shift of HEROs patrol routes Saturday and Sunday from 9:30 a.m. -

9:30 p.m.

z Shift supervisors and managers are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week

z Trained as first responders

- 360 hours in class and 200 hours on the road

When not responding to traffic incidents, HEROs assist stranded motorists by

providing such services as: changing flat tires, jump-starting weak batteries,

providing fuel or coolant, transporting motorists to safe areas away from

traffic, providing road and travel information, offering use of a courtesy

cellular phone, administering first aid, and performing minor mechanical

repairs.

HERO Unit Facts (2005)

Total HERO Unit Personnel: 78

Total Vehicles in Fleet: 62

• 59 Ford F-450 Incident Response vehicles

• 1 supply truck

• 2 Blazers (Management vehicles)

Total Assists/Accidents Worked: 63,457 for 2005

Average Response Time: 8 minutes

111

TIME Task Force

The Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) Task Force was formed in

2002 to address the critical issues related to incident management in the Metro

Atlanta region. Its members represent incident response teams from transportation

agencies, fire and rescue, police, towing and recovery, emergency medical

services and medical examiners/coroners.

Mission: Develop and sustain a region-wide incident management program to

facilitate the safest and fastest roadway clearance, lessening the impact on

emergency responders and the motoring public.

TIME holds general meetings on a quarterly basis to distribute

information on training and workshops, present updates on

incident management initiatives and provide its members

opportunities to network and share resources. Each autumn,

TIME facilitates an annual two-day conference for first responder

organizations to exchange ideas on inci-

dent management and discuss opportuni-

ties for improvement. Nationally-recog-

nized experts share their "best practices"

from jurisdictions all over the country.

The TIME Task Force is led by a Board of

Directors and four committees:

Operations Committee: focus is on how to

address the standardization of response

and clearance as well as the institutional

and jurisdictional barriers that reduce the

efficiency of incident management.

Communications Committee: focus is to coordinate timely and open

comm

unication, internally between transportation and public safety

agencies and externally with the public and media.

Program and Institutional Issues: focus is on issues that can be addressed by

polic

y changes and institutional coordination.

After-Incident-Review (AIR) Subcommittee: AIR is responsible for debriefing

incidents in the Metr

o Atlanta region by meeting with primary responders to

obtain incident overviews, determine expectations, note strengths and

weaknesses, and share information.

Annual Conference Planning: responsible for the planning and oversight of

the annual TIME Conference

The TIME Purpose

1. To continue the dialogue on

ways to improve inter-

agency coordination and

cooperation.

2. To create an opportunity

for multi-agency training

which promotes teamwork.

3. To serve as a platform for

participants to develop

common operational strategies.

For more information about the TIME Task Force, see our Web site at

www

.timetaskforce.com or call 404-635-8035.

112

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

The Department of Transportation is

committed to improving bicycle and

pedestrian access and safety. Through

its Bicycle and Pedestrian Program,

Georgia DOT is implementing the

recommendations from the 1997

Georgia Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,

and will be updating this plan in the

coming year. The Department also

sponsored and facilitated the develop-

ment of 15 regional bicycle and

pedestrian plans in conjunction with the Regional Development Centers. For

more information, visit www.dot.state.ga.us/bikeped/.

Examples of Georgia DOT's bicycle and pedestrian initiatives:

Georgia Guidebook for Pedestrian Planning

Completed in June 2006, the Guide assists local governments, regional

agencies, and other public and private entities in developing and

implementing pedestrian plans. The book details strategies for

evaluating, prioritizing, and funding pedestrian facilities.

Georgia Bike Sense: A Guide for Cyclists and Motorists

Published in March 2005, the Guide teaches cyclists and motorists how to

safely and legally share the road. It provides tips on safety and techniques,

rules of the road and also contains a listing of local, state and national bicycle

resources. So far, 200,000 copies of this popular Guide have been distributed

to schools and colleges, welcome centers, Department of Driver Services

locations and many more sites throughout Georgia.

Pedestrian and Streetscape

Guide

This manual provides direction to

design professionals, planners,

developers, municipalities and

others on the design, construction,

and maintenance of pedestrian

facilities. The Guide is also used by

Georgia DOT's design engineers

when designing pedestrian facilities

on state highways.

113

Georgia Bicycle & Pedestrian Conference

Georgia DOT hosted its first statewide bicycle and

pedestrian conference in October 2006 in Decatur,

Georgia. The conference provided a valuable

opportunity to bring together professionals from

diverse disciplines working toward a common goal:

improving bicycle and pedestrian access and safety

throughout the state and making Georgia a

healthier, more sustainable place to live. The conference was attended by

160 planning, engineering and public health professionals, law enforcement

officers, local government officials, students and non-profit organizations from

all over the state, including a few from neighboring states.

Metro Atlanta Safe Routes to School Demonstration Project

The Atlanta Bicycle Campaign, under contract with Georgia DOT, is conducting

a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program in four metro-Atlanta schools. This

four-year pilot program (currently in its last year) will produce a

final report on the effectiveness of SRTS programs, as well as a

statewide "how to" manual on developing SRTS programs. The

"how to" guide will be instrumental in preparing schools for the

new federally-funded Georgia Safe Routes to School program.

Safe Routes to School Program

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a new program created by the federal

transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. The Program's goal is to increase the number

of children in grades K-8 who bicycle and walk to school. The Program's

enabling legislation guides how this will be implemented: 1) by increasing

awareness; 2) developing

locally-driven and supported

programs; 3) improving

bicycling and walking condi-

tions near the qualifying

schools; and 4) evaluating at

the project and Program

levels. Benefits of the

Program include: reduced

congestion and increased

safety near participating

schools; reduced air pollution

in route to and near partici-

pating schools; and

increased physical activity of

children.

114

Safe Routes to School is a

comprehensive program that

includes the 5 E's:

The 5 E's include:

1) Evaluation - Monitoring and

researching outcomes and

trends through the collection

of data, including the collection

of mode share before and after

the program intervention(s).

2) Encouragement - Using events and activities to promote walking and

bicycling.

3) Education - Teaching the school community about the broad range of

transportation choices, instructing them in important life-long safety skills

and offering school-bound and school area driver safety campaigns.

4) Engineering - Creating operational and physical improvements to

the infrastructure surrounding schools that reduce speeds and establishing

safer crosswalks, walkways, trails and bikeways.

5) Enforcement - Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure rivers obey

traffic laws, initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard

programs and ensuring that policies are enforced.

Summary of Georgia SRTS Program:

z Georgia $1.00 Million (FY05), $2.7Million (FY06), $3.0 Million

(FY07), $4.5 Million (FY08), $5.6 Million (FY09)

z SRTS projects will be federally-funded at 100 percent, based

on the approved application

z Eligible applicants: state, local, and regional agencies, including

nonprofits and public schools

z Primary beneficiaries must be K-8 grade students

z Infrastructure projects must be within two miles of a school and

on public property or private land with legal public-access

z Competitive application process administered by Georgia DOT.

z Award recipient must comply with stringent federal and state funding

requirements

115

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

HOV lanes decrease driving times, reduce stress and improve

the region's air quality. How? The system is designated for

carpools, vanpools, and transit buses — all ways of travel that

reduce single-occupant vehicles on our busy roads.

HOV Occupancy Requirements

• Two or more occupants per vehicle

• Certified Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV), such as electrically-powered cars

and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles

• Motorcycles

• Emergency vehicles

• Buses

Hours of Operation

HOV lanes on I-75, I-85 and I-20 are all operated 24 hours a day, seven

days a week.

For more information on HOV lanes, visit the Georgia DOT Web site at:

www.dot.state.ga.us/specialsubjects/hov/index.shtml

Marietta

Smyrna

Mableton

Jonesboro

Union

City

Douglasville

Palmetto

McDonough

Lawrenceville

East Point

Stockbridge

Kennesaw

Sandy

Springs

Alpharetta

Buford

Conyers

Stone

Mountain

Lilburn

Duluth

Woodstock

Austell

Morrow

Chapel Hill

GWINNETT

HENRY

NEWTON

FAYETTE

FULTON

DOUGLAS

PAULDING

CHEROKEE

FULTON

WALTO

ROCKDALE

DEKALB

COBB

FORSYTH

Chamblee

Forest Park

Roswell

Norcross

Lithonia

Tucker

Powder

Springs

Fayetteville

Riverdale

Villa Rica

Lithia Springs

Decatur

285

675

285

575

985

400

278

ATLANTA

BARTOW

Legend:

HOV Lanes

Priority HOV Lanes

HOV Lane Map

116

Rideshare Program

The Georgia Rideshare Program offers residents a safe and convenient way to

commute through the operation of carpools, vanpools and Park & Ride lots.

Park & Ride Lots

NEWTON

BUTTS

DADE

WALKER

CATOOSA

CHATTOOGA

FLOYD

GORDON

FANNIN

GILMER

BARROW

CHEROKEE

UNION

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

FORSYTH

HALL

WHITE

TOWNS

RABUN

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

MADISON

CLARKE

OCONEE

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

RICHMOND

WARREN

GREENE

HANCOCK

MORGAN

PUTNAM

JASPER

WALTON

BARTOW

JACKSON

GWINNETT

HENRY

CLAYTON

FAYETTE

FULTON

COBB

POLK

CARROLL

HEARD

TROUP

HARRIS

MUSCOGEE

MERIWETHER

TALBOT

COWETA

SPALDING

PIKE

LAMAR

UPSON

TAYLOR

CRAWFORD

PEACH

BIBB

MONROE

JONES

TWIGGS

WILKINSON

LAURENS

JOHNSON

WASHINGTON

BALDWIN

JEFFERSON

BURKE

JENKINS

SCREVEN

EMANUEL

EFFINGHAM

BULLOCH

CANDLER

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

APPLING

JEFF DAVIS

DODGE

TELFAIR

BLECKLEY

HOUSTON

MACON

SUMTER

MARION

STEWART

WEBSTER

DOOLY

PULASKI

WILCOX

WORTH

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

QUITMAN

CLAY

CHATHAM

McINTOSH

WAYNE

GLYNN

CAMDEN

BRANTLEY

CHARLTON

WARE

PIERCE

BACON

COFFEE

ATKINSON

CLINCH

LANIER

IRWIN

BEN HILL

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

ECHOLS

TURNER

TIFT

COOK

COLQUITT

BROOKS

THOMAS

GRADY

DECATUR

SEMINOLE

MITCHELL

DOUGHERTY

BAKER

MILLER

EARLY

MURRAY

PAULDING

HARALSON

ELBERT

TALIAFERRO

McDUFFIE

GLASCO

TREUTLEN

WHEELER

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CRISP

SCHLEY

WHITFIELD

CALHOUN

DEKALB

DOUGLAS

PICKENS

1-87-RIDEFIND is a confidential

regional rideshare database

that matches commuters in the

Atlanta region with potential

carpool partners.

Active Park & Ride Lots 96

vailable Spaces 8,454

Percent Statewide Usage 28 percent

Avg. Daily Number of Spaces Used 2,326

2005 Park & Ride Facts

117

2005 Urban Transit Facts

Urban Transit Systems (statewide): 14

Total Revenue Vehicles: 1037 buses & 338 rail cars

Revenue Vehicle Miles: 62,354,992

Number of Passenger Trips: 158,638,939

Public Transit

2005 Rural Transit Facts

Number of Rural Transit Programs: 99

Total Revenue Vehicles: 355

ADA Compliant 181

Revenue Vehicle Miles: 9,526,913

Number of Passenger Trips: 1,612,520

118

1. Albany Transit System (ATS)

2. Athens Transit System (ATS)

3. Augusta Public Transit (APT)

4. Chatham Area Transit Authority (CAT)

5. Clayton County Transit (C-TRAN)

6. Cobb Community Transit (CCT)

7. Columbus Transit System (METRA)

8. County Rideshare*

9. Gwinnett County Transit (GCT)

1. Cedartown

2. Social Circle

3. Unadilla

Rural City Transit Systems

Urban Transit Systems

* Vanpool services provided

** Express Bus Service Only

Urban Transit System

Rural County Transit System

Rural City Transit System

Regional Urban Transit System

Urban and Rural Transit Map

4. Vienna

5. Americus

6. Canton

NEWTON

BUTTS

DADE

WALKER

CATOOSA

CHATTOOGA

GORDON

FANNIN

GILMER

PICKENS

BARROW

CHEROKEE

UNION

LUMPKIN

DAWSON

FORSYTH

WHITE

TOWNS

RABUN

BANKS

STEPHENS

FRANKLIN

HART

MADISON

OCONEE

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

COLUMBIA

RICHMOND

WARREN

GREENE

HANCOCK

MORGAN

PUTNAM

JASPER

WALTON

BARTOW

JACKSON

HENRY

FAYETTE

FULTON

COBB

POLK

CARROLL

DOUGLAS

HEARD

TROUP

HARRIS

MERIWETHER

TALBOT

COWETA

SPALDING

PIKE

LAMAR

UPSON

TAYLOR

CRAWFORD

PEACH

MONROE

JONES

TWIGGS

WILKINSON

LAURENS

JOHNSON

WASHINGTON

BALDWIN

JEFFERSON

BURKE

JENKINS

SCREVEN

EMANUEL

EFFINGHAM

BULLOCH

CANDLER

BRYAN

EVANS

LIBERTY

LONG

APPLING

JEFF DAVIS

DODGE

TELFAIR

BLECKLEY

HOUSTON

MACON

SUMTER

MARION

STEWART

WEBSTER

DOOLY

PULASKI

WILCOX

WORTH

LEE

TERRELL

RANDOLPH

QUITMAN

CLAY

McINTOSH

WAYNE

GLYNN

CAMDEN

BRANTLEY

CHARLTON

WARE

PIERCE

BACON

COFFEE

ATKINSON

CLINCH

LANIER

IRWIN

BEN HILL

BERRIEN

LOWNDES

ECHOLS

TURNER

TIFT

COOK

COLQUITT

BROOKS

THOMAS

GRADY

DECATUR

SEMINOLE

MITCHELL

BAKER

MILLER

EARLY

MURRAY

PAULDING

HARALSON

ELBERT

TALIAFERRO

McDUFFIE

GLASCOCK

TREUTLEN

WHEELER

TOOMBS

TATTNALL

CRISP

SCHLEY

WHITFIELD

CALHOUN

City of Arlington

City of Americus

City of Unidilla

City of Vienna

City of Canton

City of

Dawson

City of Sylvester

City of

Social Circle

City of Cedartown

CLARKE

GWINNETT

DEKALB

CLAYTON

FLOYD

CHATHAM

DOUGHERTY

MUSCOGEE

BIBB

HALL

10. Georgia Regional

11. Transportation Authority (GRTA)**

12. Hall Area Transit

13. Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority (MBTA)

14. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

(MARTA)

15. Rome Transit Department (RTD)

119

Georgia Rail System

The Georgia Railroad System consists of over 5,000 route miles.

Freight Rail

The leading rail freight commodities originating and terminating in Georgia

are: coal, wood products, and non-metallic minerals.

Two major freight railroad companies, CSX Transportation and the Norfolk

Southern Corp., own and operate 71 percent of the total state system.

• CSX operates 1,626 miles of railroad

in Georgia.

• Norfolk Southern operates 1,930 miles

of railroad in Georgia.

Railroad Facts

Light Density lines

z 29 percent (1,455 miles) of the state’s railroad system is operated by

23 independent or short line operators.

z Norfolk Southern has approximately 851 miles of light density lines

and CSX has another 242 miles.

z Georgia’s light density lines carry less than five million gross tons of

freight per year and function as local-service operators, primarily in

rural agricultural areas.

Corridor Preservation

z Georgia DOT seeks to preserve and enhance rail freight access for

the state’s shippers through the strategic acquisition and rehabilitation

of shortline trackage in danger of abandonment.

z Georgia DOT owns nearly 540

miles of light density line.

Approximately 90 percent of this

mileage is leased to a short-line

operator. The remaining 10 percent

is either leased to the Department

of Natural Resources and used as a

bicycle and pedestrian trail or is not

leased and the rail line is inactive.

Mainlines

z 2,436 miles of the rail system are classified as “mainline track.”

z Some Georgia main-lines transport more than 80 million gross tons per

year, ranking them among the most heavily used in the country.

120

LEGEND

Georgia Rail Map

Shortline Railroad Name

ABR The Athens Branch

CBR Chattahoochee Bay

CIRR Chattahoochee Industrial

CCKY Chattooga & Chickamauga

FCRD First Coast Railroad

FCR Fulton County Railway

GCR Georgia Central

GDOT Georgia Dept. of Transportation

GFRR Georgia & Florida Railway

GMR Georgia Midlands

GNRR Georgia Northeastern

GSWR Georgia Southwestern

GWRC Georgia Woodlands

GRWR Great Walton Railroad

GITM Golden Isles Terminal

HOG Heart of Georgia

HRT Hartwell

LW Louisville & Wadley

RSOR Riceboro Southern

SAN Sandersville

SAPT Savannah Port Terminal

SMWR Saint Mary’s West Railroad

VR Valdosta Railway

121

Commuter Rail

The Georgia Rail Passenger Program (GRPP) contains seven commuter rail

lines, seven lines of intercity rail service as well as the Multi-Modal

Passenger Terminal (MMPT). The state’s seven commuter lines serve 55 com-

munities. The intercity lines link nine of Georgia’s largest cities and towns

with the metro Atlanta/Macon area, as well as link two of the largest travel

markets in adjoining states. Once the 425-mile system is complete, commuter

trains will transport over 40,000 people to and from work every day.

Intercity trains will run on on over a thousand miles of Georgia’s railroads,

connecting communities all over the state.

Commuter Rail Service Map

122

Rail Passenger Program

This program involves two distinct kinds of

rail transportation: Commuter trains, which

will serve inbound commuters to work in the

Atlanta area in the mornings and then

home in the evenings, and Intercity trains,

which will connect communities throughout

Georgia and the Southeast.

Intercity Rail Passenger Service in Georgia is provided by the National

Railroad Passenger Corporation, known commonly as “AMTRAK.”

AMTRAK operates the following routes in Georgia:

z The Crescent operates daily between New York and New Orleans with

stops in Atlanta, Gainesville, and Toccoa. This train offers coach and

sleeping car accommodations, as well as full dining car and lounge car

service.

z The Silver Meteor and the Silver Star

operate daily between New York

and points in Florida with stops in

Savannah and Jesup. These trains

offer coach and sleeping car

accommodations, as well as

full dining car and lounge car

service.

z The Palmetto operates daily between New York and Savannah via

Charleston, S.C. The train offers coach and business class

accommodations along with lounge car service.

Proposed High-Speed

Passenger Rail Service

Studies are continuing on

developing High-Speed Passenger

Rail Service on two corridors:

• Macon to Atlanta to

Greenville, SC to

Charlotte, NC

• Atlanta to Chattanooga

AMTRAK at Buford, Georgia

2005 Georgia Rail Passenger Ridership

Station Passengers

Atlanta 87,811

Gainesville 4,721

Toccoa 3,994

Savannah 39,332

Jesup 6,190

Totals 142,048

Silver Star in Folkston, Georgia

123

Proposed Intercity Passenger Rail Service

A two-tiered intercity passenger rail network has been proposed for the state

of Georgia. Recommendations for implementation are

as follow:

• Atlanta to Macon via Griffin

• Savannah to Jacksonville via

Jesup

• Macon or Savannah via either

Vidalia or Eastman and Jesup

• Macon to Albany via Americus

• Atlanta to Augusta via Madison

• Atlanta to Columbus via Griffin

• Atlanta to Greenville via

Gainesville and Toccoa

Georgia Rail Lines Map

First Priority Corridors

Second Priority Corridors

Silver Meteor departs in Savannah

124

Railroad Company Miles

Class 1 Railroads

Norfolk Southern 1,930

CSX Transportation 1,626

Shortline Railroads

The Athens Branch (ABR) 19

Chattahoochee Bay (CBR) 2

Chattahoochee Industrial (CIRR) 16

Chattooga & Chickamauga (CCKY) 70

First Coast Railroad (FCRD) 8

Fulton County Railway (FCR) 25

Georgia Central (GCR) 173

Georgia & Florida Railway (GFRR) 232

Georgia Midlands (GMR) 78

Georgia Northeastern (GNRR) 100

Georgia Southwestern (GSWR) 270

Georgia Woodlands (GWRC) 17

Golden Isles Terminal (GITM) 16

Great Walton (GRWR) 36

Hartwell (HRT) 58

Heart of Georgia (HOG) 232

Louisville & Wadley (LW) 10

Riceboro Southern (RSOR) 19

Saint Mary’s (SM) 18

Saint Mary’s West Railroad (SMWR) 23

Sandersville (SAN) 13

Savannah Port Terminal (SAPT) 10

Valdosta Railway (VR) 10

TOTAL Railroad Mileage 5,011

Estimated Track Route Mileage

For more information about Georgia’s Rail Programs, visit

www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/intermodal/rail/

125

Georgia Airport System

Aviation Programs guides and directs the development of the state’s system of

airports in support of economic development and Georgia’s participation in

the global marketplace.

GEORGIA AIRPORTS

Total number of Landing Areas (Public and Private) 468

General Aviation and Air Carrier Airports 105

Publicly Owned and Open to the Public 103

Privately Owned and Open to the Public 2

General Aviation Airports 243

Heliports 116

PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS

PRIVATE USE AIRPORTS/HELIPORTS

RUNWAY LENGTH NUMBER

5500´ and Longer 39

5000´ to 5499´ 22

4000´ to 4999´ 20

Less than 4000´ 24

Air Carrier Airports 9

INSTRUMENT LANDING CAPABILITY

Precision Approach-ILS 27

Non-Precision Approach 58

LEGEND

126

Airports Providing Scheduled

Air Carrier Service

Number of Passengers 88.7 Million

International Airports (Atlanta and Savannah) 2

Number of Airport Employees 63,000+

AIR CARRIER FACTS 2005

Air Carrier Airports 9

5500' and Longer Runway

Precision Approach-ILS

LEGEND

127

Georgia Ports Authority (GPA)

The Port of Savannah and Port of Brunswick reported record gains in FY 06.

For the first time in history, the Port of Savannah surpassed two million TEUs

(Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) in FY06, an increase of 15.9 percent from the

previous year. Total GPA intermodal rail lifts also rose 23.1 percent for the

year, further increasing Georgia's reach into expanding markets.

Georgia’s deepwater ports and inland barge terminals support more than

275,968 jobs throughout the state annually and contribute $10.8 billion in

income, $35.4 billion in revenue and $1.4 billion in state and local taxes to

Georgia’s bustling economy.

In FY06, business grew at a rate above 11 percent in Brunswick, to almost 2.6

million tons. More

than 368,000 auto

and machinery units

were handled at

Colonel's Island

Terminal, a 13

percent increase

over FY05. In a

year when new car

sales in this country

grew at only .5

percent, Brunswick

recorded its best

year ever, expand-

ing market share

and improving

service to valued

customers.

Other GPA Highlights include:

• For the first time in history, GPA surpassed 20 million tons of cargo.

Savannah alone handled 17.6 million tons of cargo, a 10.1 percent

increase over the previous year.

• GPA experienced a 23.1percent growth in intermodal traffic.

• Savannah currently has more direct services to and from Asia than any

other port on the East Coast. Today, 36 shipping services call on the Port

of Savannah.

• The completion of phase one of Container Berth 8 (CB-8), part of the

largest single container facility in the USA.

• The Port of Brunswick rose in its status as a major auto port from

the position of 8th largest to 6th largest in the nation.

Savannah shipping photo credit courtesy of the Georgia

Department of Economic Development

128

• An ambitious rail expansion program was approved that will increase rail

capacity at the Port of Brunswick by 100%.

• Both Target and IKEA announced a total of four million additional square

feet of distribution space at the Savannah International Trade Park, four

miles from the Garden City Terminal at the Port of Savannah.

The number one priority for the Georgia Ports Authority, and one that is

critical to the economic growth of Savannah, the State of Georgia and the

entire nation, is the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, or the SHEP. This

harbor deepening project from 42 to 48 feet is not only critical to every

industry along the

river, but to the

future vitality and

staying power of

our economy. After

more than $32

million and ten

years of study,

GPA is nearing

completion of the

study phase of this

project.

Future Plans

In the coming

fiscal year, the

GPA will invest

more than $70

million in four new

Super Post

Panamax cranes, 15 new Rubber-Tired Gantry Cranes (RTGs), and other

infrastructure upgrades on-terminal, such as the completion of an additional

30 acres of container storage behind Container Berth 8, terminal paving and

overlay.

Examples of major capital projects for the Port of Brunswick in 2007 include a

Grain Storage Tank, Southside Colonel’s Island Development and Completion

of North/South Colonel’s Island Connector Road.

For updated information about Georgia’s ports, visit www.gaports.com.

The Authority’s Board of Directors has approved

partial funding of $2.5 million for a major expansion of

Anguilla Junction that, when complete, will increase rail

capacity at the Port of Brunswick by up to 100 percent.

129

SAFETEA-LU

Federal funding is a key component in financing state and local transportation

improvement programs. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users, referred to as SAFETEA-LU, was enacted by Congress in

2005 and provides guaranteed funding of $286.5 billion for highways, high-

way safety and transit programs for FYs 2005-2009. Average annual federal

highway funding to Georgia is projected to be 29 percent higher, or about

$285 million per year, compared to the previous reauthorization bill.

However, Georgia highway users contribute a larger share of federal fuel tax

revenue to finance the federal highway program than the share of funding the

state receives from the federal highway programs. Thus, it is referred to as a

"donor" state. Georgia highway users "donated" about $1 billion to fund high-

way projects in other states during FYs 1998-2003. Georgia worked with

other donor states to increase the minimum rate of return for formula highway

funds relative to a state's share of contributions. As a result, the state's overall

rate of return for highway funds is projected to increase from 85 percent

under the previous bill to 88 percent under SAFETEA-LU. This contributed to

the increased federal highway funding to the state under SAFETEA-LU.

Average annual transit formula funding to Georgia for FYs 2006-2009 is pro-

jected to be 40 percent higher, or about $42 million per year, compared to

the last four years. Funding for highway safety programs such as encouraging

the use of safety belts and child car seats, inspecting heavy trucks for safety

and combating drunk and drugged driving will increase as well.

Major Programs FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006

Interstate Maintenance

$281

Million

$260

Million

$252

Million

$240

Million

National Highway

System

$185

Million

$253

Million

$235

Million

$217

Million

Surface Transportation

$253

Million

$347

Million

$336

Million

$281

Million

Bridges

$68

Million

$92

Million

$74

Million

$70

Million

Congestion Mitigation

and Air Quality

$36

Million

$49

Million

$51

Million

$48

Million

Summary

$733

Million

$1,001

Million

$948

Million

$900

Million

Funding from Selected Federal Highway Categories

130

Georgia has several major sources for funding public-sector

transportation programs.

1. Motor Fuel Tax Funds

Georgia collects a motor fuel tax of 7.5 cents per gallon on gasoline,

diesel fuel, gasohol, liquid propane and any other substance sold as

motor fuel. It also levies a retail motor fuel sales tax for transportation at

a rate of 3 percent.

2. Federal Funds

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

authorizes funding for highway, highway safety, transit and other

surface transportation programs for the next three years.

The Federal Transit

Authority provides

mass-transit grants

that are used for

actions such as buying

buses and covering

operating expenses for

urban and rural public

transportation.

FY 2006 Actual Expenditures

$2,979,715,856.98

$923,250,662.28

Motor Fuel

Funds

Federal

Funds

State General

Funds

Other

Funds

$1,820,009,335.56

$14,293,095.70

$222,162,763.44

Annual Operating Budget for FY2007

Motor Fuel Tax $696,759,400

Federal Funds $1,176,511,379

State General Funds $17,272,062

Other Funds $9,457,265

Totals $1,850,000,106

131

STIP* Funds by Category for

2005-2007

New

Construction

$520,959

Bridges

$1,412,651

Reconstruction/Rehab

$2,590,212

Other

$854,522

Maintenance

$614,824

Enhancement

$400,721

Safety

$755,482

Transit

$819,138

* Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

* Costs are in the thousands

Total STIP Program Estimate

$7.9 Billion

3. Georgia General Assembly

The Georgia General Assembly funds transportation programs from

motor fuel tax and general funds or through the issuance of general

obligation bonds. Projects funded by the Georgia General Assembly can

include local roads, the Governor’s Road Improvement Program (GRIP)

and intermodal projects such as public transportation, rail, ports and

aviation.

4. State Road and Tollway Authority

The State Road & Tollway Authority provides guaranteed revenue bond

funding. These funds will be used to accelerate transportation needs in

Georgia.

132

GLOSSARY

Accident Investigation Sites (AIS)

Interstate shoulder extensions that provide safe areas for motorists involved in

accidents to exchange information.

Alternative Mode

Transportation modes other than one person in a motorized private

vehicle, such as transit, walking, bicycling or carpooling.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO)

AASHTO serves member state departments of transportation, the U.S. DOT,

and Congress by providing leadership, technical services, information and

advice as well as by contributing to national policy on transportation issues.

Arterial

A major highway that is primarily for through traffic and usually on a continu-

ous route; it serves major traffic movements while providing access to abutting

land.

Bicycle Lane or Bike Lane

A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing and

pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

Categorical Exclusion

Examples of categorical exclusions are actions which, based on past experi-

ence with similar actions, do not do any of the following: induce significant

impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; require the relocation of

significant numbers of people; have a significant impact on any natural, cultur-

al, recreational, historic or other resource; involve significant air, noise or

water quality impacts; have significant impacts on travel patterns; or other-

wise—either individually or cumulatively—have any significant environmental

impacts.

Changeable Message Sign (CMS)

Used to advise drivers of traffic or roadway

conditions ahead on I-20, I-75, I-85 and

Georgia 400 and, in some cases, recommend

alternate routes; the CMS also reduces driver

frustration by providing advanced warning.

A CMS is also referred to as a Variable

Message Sign (VMS); also utilized for Amber

Alerts and Levi Calls which aide in locating lost,

missing or kidnapped individuals.

133

The Clean Air Campaign

The Clean Air Campaign is a non-profit organization that

works to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality

through a variety of voluntary programs and services. It

serves as a clearinghouse for a multitude of organizations

that have programs in place to address traffic congestion

and air pollution.

Commuter Rail

Conventional rail passenger service within a metropolitan area, usually

operating over existing, inter-city railroad tracks; a diesel locomotive pulling

three (or more) passenger coaches normally provides service primarily in the

morning and afternoon home-to-work travel periods.

Conformity

The requirement that state or metropolitan transportation plans, programs

and projects be consistent with the State Implementation Plan and attaining

federal and state air quality standards. A conformity finding by the U.S. EPA

is required as part of the federal review of Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs.

Congestion Management System (CMS)

A systematic process which provides information on transportation system

performance and alternative strategies to alleviate congestion and enhance

the mobility of persons and goods. A CMS includes methods and evaluates

performance, identifies alternative actions, accesses and implements cost-

effective actions.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement Program (CMAQ)

A special provision of the ISTEA that directs funds toward projects in Clean Air

Act Non-Attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide.

Construction Work Program

A listing of all projects to be funded by/through the Department in a six-year

time frame. The project may include Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of

Way (R/W), and/or Construction (CST) phases; most projects are roadway

and bridge construction projects. However, the CWP includes other non-road-

way projects as well (e.g., transit, bike and pedestrian, railroad crossings, etc.).

*DOT (*368)

Free cellular phone service for motorists who see or are involved in an acci-

dent or traffic congestion. This phone number connects to the Traffic

Management Center’s operators, who can provide information on roadway

incidents.

134

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)

A daily average of the amount of miles a vehicle travels on Georgia’s public

roads.

Development of Regional Impact

Any development that, because of its character, magnitude or location, would

have substantial effect on the health, safety or welfare of more than one

county, city, town or other political subdivision.

District

A management region defined by the Georgia DOT; the

Department’s seven district offices throughout the state

provide localized services.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

A document that assesses an action that is not a categorical exclusion and does

not clearly require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS);

or where the Federal Highway Administration believes an environmental

assessment would assist in determining the needs for an EIS.

Environmental Documents

Environmental impact reports and statements, negative declarations, initial

studies and environmental assessments under CEQA and NEPA.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

A detailed statement prepared under NEPA presenting studies and information

needed to identify and assess the significant effects a project may have on the

quality of the human environment.

Environmental Justice (EJ)

According to the EPA, it is the fair treatment of people of all races, income

and culture with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement

of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment implies that no

person or group of people should shoulder a disproportionate share of

negative environmental impacts resulting from the execution of this country’s

domestic and foreign policy programs.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

A federal agency charged with protecting the natural resources of

the nation.

Environmental Protection Division (EPD)

A federal agency charged with protecting the natural environment.

135

Feasibility Study

A study about a project’s feasibility that is summarized in a document; the

study addresses issues including the project’s cost, effectiveness, alternatives

considered, analysis of alternative selection, environmental effects, public

options and other factors. The Major Investment Study replaced the Feasibility

Study for major projects involving federal funds under the ISTEA.

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

An environmental document is prepared following the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS), which includes the results of the public involvement

process and agency input of the DEIS; this document summarizes the

substantive comments on social, economic, environmental and engineering

issues made as a result of the public involvement process, and documents

compliance with requirements of all applicable environmental laws, executive

orders and other related requirements.

Flexible Funding

Authority given to the recipients of federal funds to carry out transportation

projects and provide transportation services with minimal governmental restric-

tions; this can be applied to state and local funds.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

An organized collection of data that utilizes computer software and a hard-

ware system to assemble, store, analyze and display geographically refer-

enced information.

Georgia Rideshare Program

Transportation program that provides a safe and convenient way to commute

to and from destinations through the operation of carpools, vanpools and Park

& Ride lots.

Governor’s Road Improvement Program (GRIP)

A system of four-lane highways that enhance economic development through-

out the state. It was initiated in 1989 by a resolution of the state legislature

and the Governor to connect 95 percent of our state's cities (with a population

of 2,500 or more) to the Interstate System.

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane

Travel lanes designated only for vehicles

carrying two or more occupants, motorcycles,

alternative fuel vehicles and emergency

vehicles travelling on I-20, I-75 and I-85

within the metro Atlanta area.

136

Highway Emergency Response Operators (HEROs)

Georgia DOT employees who are skilled at offering

assistance to motorists with vehicle problems or individuals

involved in accidents on Atlanta interstates.

Infrastructure

In transportation planning, all the relevant elements of the environment in which

a transportation system operates; in transit systems, all the fixed components of

the system such as rights-of-way, tracts, signal equipment, stations, park-and-

ride lots, bus stops and maintenance facilities.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Initiatives by government and industry to improve safety, mobility, efficiency,

productivity and environmental quality of transportation systems through the

use of modern electronics and communications technologies.

Intermodal Management Systems (IMS)

A systematic process of identifying key linkages between one or more modes

of transportation, where the performance or use of one mode will affect

another, defining strategies for improving the effectiveness of these modal

interactions, and evaluation and implementation of these strategies to enhance

the overall performance of the transportation system.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

Surface transportation legislation created by Congress in 1991 to guide and

fund the nation’s transportation system. The law expired in 1997, but much of

the program was carried forward by TEA-21.

Interstate

A freeway that is part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of

Interstate and Defense Highways (the Interstate System); a divided highway

which can be accessed only by on and off ramps.

Local Assistance Road Program (LARP)

The Georgia resurfacing program designed to assist local governments in pre-

serving their paved road systems.

Major Investment Study (MIS)

A study and resulting document that replaces Feasibility Studies under ISTEA

for major improvement projects involving significant Federal funds. A MIS

includes the study of factors that may justify a proposed project such as its cost

effectiveness and overall effectiveness and incorporation or intermodal trans-

portation. The MIS also requires consideration of other transportation modes

as well as broader public and agency input.

137

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The national environmental law that establishes procedures for conducting an

environmental analysis for a project involving federal action.

National Highway System (NHS)

A network consisting of the Interstates and other specifically designated routes

which provide access to major intermodal facilities and to key military bases.

NaviGAtor

Georgia’s integrated Intelligent Transportation System designated to minimize

congestion of highways and improve traveler safety within the metro Atlanta

area.

Non-attainment Areas

These are geographical areas, defined by the Environmental Protection

Agency, whose air quality does not meet Federal air quality standards

designed to protect public health.

Park & Ride

Transit access mode in which passengers drive or bicycle to a transit station,

park in a specified area and ride the transit system from there to their desti-

nation.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

The land acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes; for example,

highway ROW and railroad ROW.

SAFETEA-LU

The Safe, Accountable, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users

or SAFETEA-LU, is a bill that authorizes spending for a six-year reauthorization

of the nation’s surface transportation program.

Scenic Byway

Any designated highway, street, road or route which features certain intrinsic

qualities that should be protected or enhanced.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)

A list of federally funded, priority transportation projects

proposed to be carried out in the first three years of

adoption. The Office of Planning oversees the STIP public

involvement process for the six rural Georgia DOT Districts.

138

Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP)

An outline for meeting Transportation 2000 objectives over a 20-year period.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA)

A highway program that designates national routes for oversized trucks to

move freight throughout the state.

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

A block grant program that can be used for any roads that are not

functionally classified as local or rural minor collector roads.

Transportation Control Centers (TCC)

Satellite transportation management facilities that are linked directly to the

TMC, establishing a regional transportation management system.

Transportation Enhancements (TE)

A transportation enhancement project that uses

funding from TEA-21 to enhance the public’s

transportation experience by concentrating on

cultural, natural and scenic areas.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

Legislation that provided $198 billion in federal funding for highways,

highway safety, transit and other transportation programs (1998-2003).

Transportation Control Centers (TCC)

Satellite transportation management facilities that are linked directly to the

TMC, establishing a regional transportation management system.

Transportation Management Center (TMC)

The state-of-the-art facility — located in the Wayne Shackelford Building —

that houses Georgia’s NAVIGATOR system.

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

Document required by the ISTEA that contains a description of all proposed

transportation-related planning activities and air quality planning activities

undertaken in a metropolitan region in a given year.

Urban Transit Service

Public transportation service located within an urban area that operates on a

fixed schedule along designated routes.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

The total number of miles traveled on all roadways by all vehicles; reducing

VMT can help ease traffic congestion and improve air quality.

139

z The Department currently owns nearly 15,000 acres of wetland

mitigation stream banks.

z Georgia consists of more than 18,000 state highway system miles,

1,245 interstate miles, 83,000 county road miles and 14,000 city street

miles.

z There are 15,000 bridges in the state highway system.

z Georgia has 382 miles of Scenic Byways.

Georgia boasts 3,000 miles of bicycle and pedestrian routes.

z 101 Changeable Message Signs on interstates 20, 75, 85,

285 and GA 400 aler

t motorists of traffic incidents and Levi’s Calls.

z HERO Units assisted in more than 63,400 roadway incidents in 2005.

z 90 miles of HOV lanes on interstates 20, 75 and 85 operate

24 hours a da

y, 7 days a week

z 14 urban transit systems statewide made over 158.6 million passenger

trips in 2005.

z 99 rural transit systems statewide made over 1.6 million passenger

trips in 2005.

z 96 Park & Ride Lots statewide provide about 8,454 available spaces

to comm

uters.

z 3,100 mainline rail track miles transport more than 80 million gross

tons of

freight per year.

z 4 ports – Savannah, Brunswick, Bainbridge and Columbus – generate

$35.4 billion in rev

enue.

z 20,800 acres of dredged material containment areas provided

y Georgia DOT for harbor/waterway maintenance.

z 1.4 million square y

ards of pavement surround Georgia’s 103

publicly-owned, public-use airports and their 3.25 million takeoffs

and landings each year.

z Georgia collects a 7.5 cents-per-gallon Motor Fuel Tax and a 3

percent sales tax.

GEORGIA DOT’s FAST FACTS

140

NOTES

141

Georgia Department of Transportation

Office of Communications

2 Capital Square, S.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

(404) 656-5267

www.dot.state.ga.us

[email protected]

142

Road And Access Pitfalls When Handling

Real Estate Transactions

Submitted by James A. Langlais

• Introduction

• Title Insurance

• Determining Legal Access By Deed Or Other

Public Records

• Conclusion

143

NATIONAL BUSINESS INSTITUTE

ROAD AND ACCESS LAW: RESEARCHING AND RESOLVING COMMON

DISPUTES

Atlanta, Georgia

July 17, 2007

ROAD AND ACCESS PITFALLS

WHEN HANDLING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

James A. “Jim” Langlais

Alston & Bird, LLP

One Atlantic Station

1201 West Peachtree Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(404) 8881-7490

[email protected]

I. Introduction

The importance of roads and legal access to rights-of-way to real estate

practitioners and professionals cannot be overstated. The quality of ownership (e.g.,

value, marketability, etc.) of real property interests naturally depends upon the quality of

the title acquired. Lack of access or disputes about access to a parcel can negatively

affect the property’s title, which in turn can negatively affect a property’s marketability,

insurability, and value, and can result in significant expenses for purchasers, developers

and lenders. There are, however, a few practical steps that can be taken to avoid (or at

least minimize) costly and time-consuming access issues or disputes, such as obtaining

title insurance and carefully examining public (e.g., deeds) and non-public records.

II. Title Insurance

Title insurance is a policy that provides a measure of essential protection to an

owner, lessee, mortgagee, or some other holder of an estate, lien,

or other interest in real

property. The policy also provides protection against costs and expenses incurred in

defending the insured estate or interest. Title policies generally insure the warranty of the

title contained in the property deed and not the seller’s representations.

In Georgia, liens on a piece of property may include mortgages, construction or mechanic’s

liens, judgment liens, unpaid taxes, unpaid municipal utilities (water and sewer), or past due

support liens.

White v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 197 Ga. App. 780, 399 S.E.2d 526 (1990).

144

Typically, a standard title policy indemnifies against loss that may be sustained

because of:

• title to the estate or other property interest described in the policy being vested

other than as stated therein;

• a defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; and

• unmarketability of the title.

Title policies will also usually typically cover losses and damages suffered if title to the

property is unmarketable.

Matters typically excluded from coverage include loss or damage, costs, attorneys’

fees or expenses resulting from:

• surveying errors;

• errors regarding existence of easements that affect marketability of title;

• building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations restricting, regulating,

prohibiting or relating to the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land, except to

the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or

encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has

been recorded in the public records at the effective date of the policy;

• eminent domain rights unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in

the public records at the effective date of the policy; and

• any defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, assumed

or agreed to by the insured; or not known to the insurer, not recorded in the public

records at the policy’s effective date, but known to the insured and not disclosed in

writing to the insurer by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant

became an insured under the policy.

Even the most comprehensive title search, however, cannot protect against all title defects

and claims. The most common examples of these hidden risks are fraud, forgery, altered

documents, incapacity of parties, and inadequate or lack of powers of agents or

A title is unmarketable if it would be unacceptable to a “reasonable purchaser exercising

reasonable business prudence”, who is informed of the facts creating or affecting it and their

legal meaning, because it appears subject to material defect, grave doubt or to the likelihood of

litigation. See Black’s Law Dictionary (4

Ed. West Publishing Co. 1951).

U.S. Life Title Ins. Co. of Dallas v. Hutsell, 164 Ga. App. 443, 296 S.E.2d 760 (1982).

Green v. Sams, 209 Ga. App. 491, 433 S.E.2d 678 (1993).

145

fiduciaries.

In some cases, title to a property can also have technical issues related to access to

the property (i.e., egress and ingress). While a survey and a diligent search of the public

and non-public records should provide the information necessary to determine whether

there is legal access to the property, it is prudent to obtain a title policy that protects

against such loss. While many standard title policies provide coverage against loss for

lack of access to the land, it is prudent to closely review the title policy to determine

exactly what coverage is covered or excluded since in Georgia title policies are indemnity

contracts and are subject to the same rules of construction as other insurance policies.

Policy coverage extends only to the specific risks insured against.

In other words, courts

will only look to the four corners of the policy and will strictly construe the terms of the

contract.

In light of the importance of access to property, it is essential that title holders and

title insurers alike understand what constitutes a legal right-of-way. For example, in

Chandler v. Robinson, the Georgia Supreme Court held that even though the DOT’s road

map, and various closing documents, including surveys, indicated that a road ran across

properties adjacent to a buyer’s, the road was not a public road and the party seeking

access was forced to look elsewhere for access.

Before a title policy issues, the title insurance company conducts a title search,

which typically involves an extensive search, examination and interpretation of relevant

public records to determine possible rights, claims, liens or encumbrance that affect the

property. Insurance agents from most title insurance companies are instructed not to

issue a title policy if they are unable to determine that the insured property has a legal

right of access. Alternatively, title insurers may take exception in their policy such that

title is not insured against a lack of access. Should a private landowner subsequently have

Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank, 821 F. Supp. 1492 (N.D. Ga. 1993),

aff”d, 20 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1994).

Security Union Title Ins. Co. v. RC Acres, Inc., 269 Ga. App. 359, 604 S.E.2d 547 (2004), cert.

denied, (Nov. 22, 2004).

Lynburn Enterprises, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 191 Ga. App. 710, 382 S.E.2d 599

(1989); U.S. Life Title Ins. Co. of Dallas v. Hutsell

, 164 Ga. App. 443, 296 S.E.2d 760 (1982);

Green v. Sams

, 209 Ga. App. 491, 433 S.E.2d 678 (1993); Black v. Pioneer Nat. Title Ins. Co.,

138 Ga. App. 138, 225 S.E.2d 689 (1976); Security Union Title Ins. Co. v. RC Acres, Inc.

, 269

Ga. App. 359, 604 S.E.2d 547 (2004), cert. denied, (Nov. 22, 2004)( where an insured purchased

property subject to a flowage easement, which was recorded and disclosed in a survey to which

the deed referred for its legal description, the court ruled that the title policy did not cover the

alleged loss from the easement because the policy excluded all preexisting encumbrances and the

easement was reflected in the purchase price of the property).

Chandler, 269 Ga. at 883.

Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Matrix Financial Services Corp., 255 Ga. App. 874, 567 S.E.2d

96 (2002).

146

to pursue rights to access property, he could be subject to great personal expense. If he

has title insurance that covers situations where there is a lack of access, however, it will

be the insurance company (in most instances) who bear the burden for such expense.

Moreover, while a standard title policy typically insures the policy holder against

loss of legal right of access, it does not insure or guarantee the quality of the legal access.

III. Determining Legal Access by Deed or Other Public Records

The starting point for determining whether legal access exists is a title search of

the real property deeds. Beginning with the most recent deed, a qualified professional

should search the legal description of the property for a specific reference to a public

road. A property owner has a legal right of access to land appurtenant to a public

highway; whether the fee of the highway is owned by the public or owned by private

ownership, but dedicated to the public. For example, a reference to a road in a legal

description might be described in one or more of the following manners:

Northerly to the road to Pirates Bluff; thence westerly along said road;

Northerly to a point along the southern property line of Forest Glen Road; then

easterly along said Forest Glen Road;

Lot 23 on a plot plan of land described and entitled as the “Glen Lakes

Subdivision” recorded in the Simms County Registry of Deeds as Plot Plan No.

346 (with the plan specifically showing Lot 43 to be abutting a dedicated way).

A road may also be described in a legal description by exclusion

. For example, the deed

may include the following legal description”

[i]ncluding all with the above-mentioned bounds with the exception of a road

traversing in a northerly direction through said parcel beginning at the northern

property line of the adjacent property described and entitled as the “Glen Lakes

Subdivision” recorded in the Simms County Registry of Deeds as Plot Plan No.

346 and ending at Scenic Road.

A road may also be described in a deed as an easement benefiting the parcel described in

the deed which runs over and through the property of another to a public road. Therefore,

it is critical that the specifically referenced easement be searched as a separate parcel of

land to insure that the easement’s description was not made in error or modified in any

way. For example, an easement description may have been improperly given at its origin

and later refined, or it may have been revoked or abandoned at one time and not carried

147

over into subsequent deed references or legal descriptions.

In instances where the deed makes no reference to a public road or an easement,

one should look next to the plans of record identified in the deed for such references.

Practically speaking, plans for recently built subdivisions will specifically describe and

illustrate the access to each parcel created by the subdivision.

In other instances, the property in question may have access to a private road

which then leads to a public road. The private road may not, however, be described or

referenced in the deed, but instead may be part of the covenants for homeowner’s

association. Consequently, it is prudent to not only have the property deeds investigated

and evaluated, but to also look at the plans and covenants associated with the property in

question to determine whether legal access exists. Other possible sources of information

potentially identifying property access include deeds of adjacent property owners;

declarations of taking; Department of Transportation records, plans or layouts;

declarations of discontinuance by affected municipalities; public works department plans;

surveys and records of municipal surveyors and engineers; U.S.G.S. maps

Furthermore, even when legal access is described in a deed, care must be taken to

discern whether the road is public or private, or whether any restrictions or encumbrances

exist in the record that limit access to that road in any way. Likewise, even though a deed

may specifically refer to or describe legal access to a parcel and a public road, the mere

reference or description does not automatically insure legal rights of access. It is critical

to not only evaluate the easement owner’s rights but also the ownership rights of the

party purporting to grant the easement; a party cannot not give away what it does not

own.

IV. Conclusion

Access disputes can have a significant effect on title to property. Without a legal

right of access, the title is not deemed to be insurable or marketable. Even though the

title history to a property may be sound, the fact that the property has no legal right of

access renders it unmarketable and uninsurable. Moreover, the property value could

suffer, leading to losses upon resale. Therefore, prior to any real estate transaction, to

avoid costly and time-consuming mistakes, is it prudent that purchasers ands lenders

obtain sufficient title insurance, as well as determine whether legal access to the subject

property exists through a diligent search of public and non-public records by a qualified

real estate professional.

148

Common Road And Access Problems And Solutions

Submitted by A. McCampbell Gilson

• Disputes Between Private Landowners

• Impact Of Road And Access Disputes On Title

• Landlord/Owner Liability For Third Party Or

Public Use Easements

• Overweight Vehicle Permits

149

COMMON ROAD AND ACCESS PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

A. McCampbell Gibson, Esq.

∗

and

Mike H. Shanlever, Esq.

∗∗

I. Disputes Between Private Landowners.

Some of the most common road and access problems are disputes between two or

more private landowners about whether or not a neighboring landowner, or the public in

general, has a legal right to use a particular road. The purpose of this section is to create

a basic framework through which one can efficiently evaluate the issues and reach an

effective solution.

The first question parties in a road or access dispute should ask themselves is, “Is

the road a public road or a private road?”

If a party can prove that a road is public,

while there may still be room for disagreement over issues, such as the width or length of

the road, there can be very little dispute over whether or not parties may access the road

and use it as a means of travel because no private property owner possesses rights to

public roads to the exclusion of others.

Property can become public roads in three primary ways: (1) condemnation;

(2) dedication; or (3) prescription. Although it is conceivable private landowners may

dispute the public use of property that the State has condemned (e.g., because the

property subject to condemnation was not adequately described in the petition), in most

∗

A. McCampbell (“Mac”) Gibson is a Partner in Alston & Bird’s Litigation and Trial Practice group. Mac

focuses his practice on real estate disputes, and co-chairs the firm’s Real Estate Litigation Team. He

represents and counsels national retailers, developers, mall, hotel, industrial, and office owners, REITs,

property management companies, petroleum companies, restaurants, and convenience stores in contract

disputes, lease enforcement, easement, restrictive covenant, trespass and nuisance claims, mining rights,

brokerage disputes, zoning, premises liability, and eminent domain matters. See

http://www.alston.com/mac_gibson/.

∗∗

Mike Shanlever focuses his practice on commercial litigation, including business and real estate disputes.

As part of his business litigation practice, Mike’s real estate litigation practice involves private landowner

disputes, as well as counseling clients on lawful real estate development and transactional practices See

http://www.alston.com/mike_shanlever/.

In Georgia, the term ‘public road’ [refers to] a highway, road, street, avenue, toll road, tollway, drive,

detour, or other way open to the public and intended or used for its enjoyment and for the passage of

vehicles in any county or municipality of Georgia, including but not limited to . . . surface, shoulders, and

sides; bridges; causeways; viaducts; ferries; overpasses; underpasses; railroad grade crossings; tunnels;

signs, signals, markings, or other traffic control devices; buildings for public equipment and personnel used

for or engaged in administration, construction, or maintenance of such ways or research pertaining thereto;

wayside parks; parking facilities; drainage ditches; canals and culverts; rest areas; truck-weighing stations

or check points; and scenic easements and easements of light, air, view, and access.” O.C.G.A. § 32-1-

3(24).

150

cases, disputes between private parties will arise when parties disagree about whether

private property has been converted to public property through either dedication or

prescription. Accordingly, this section will focus on an analysis of dedication and

prescription issues.

A. Is the road a public road?

1. Public roads through statutory or condemnation proceedings.

The State of Georgia’s possesses general condemnation power allowing the State

to permanently assert its dominion over any property within the State so long as it is for

the public good.

Private landholders subject to condemnation receive “just and

adequate” compensation for their property.

By statute, the State also has the ability to accept dedications of land from public

and private landowners in the form of donations, transfers, or devises of land, in the form

of a fee interest or some lesser interest, so long as the land is suitable for public road

purposes.

In such cases, the State takes on the responsibility of recording such

acquisitions in counties where the subject property is situated.

When property is approved to become party of the State highway system, counties

and municipalities have the duty to acquire the property.

The county or municipality

through which the road will pass is responsible for compensating the private landholder.

Municipalities may also acquire and/or accept gifts of private property in

furtherance of a municipal street system,

as well as perform all acts which are necessary

or incidental to the creation and maintenance of a municipal street system.

2. Dedication of private property for use as a public road.

The concept of “dedicating” a piece of private property for the public’s use as a

road is defined as the “donation by the owner, either expressly or impliedly, and

acceptance by the public of property for public road purposes, in accordance with

statutory or common-law provisions.”

Private property owners often utilize this

process because it can make for a mutually beneficial arrangement: by donating a small

piece of property, the property owner creates a means by which the government can

provide him access to the remaining portion of property; likewise, the government

O.C.G.A. § 22-1-2.

O.C.G.A. § 22-1-5.

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-3(a).

Id.

O.C.G.A. § 32-4-90.

O.C.G.A. §§ 32-3-3(e), 32-5-25.

O.C.G.A. § 32-4-92(a)(3).

O.C.G.A. § 32-4-92 (b).

O.C.G.A. § 32-1-3(8).

151

acquires property through which is can provide a means for the entire community to

is personal use and devotion of

e same to the public use. “Acceptance” is simply the acceptance of the dedication by

) express

edication/express acceptance; (2) express dedication/implied acceptance; (3) implied

s, or in the alternative, protecting property from public invasion. Each

rm of dedication and acceptance can take on a life of its own, and requires individual

examination.

r to the State, a county, or a municipality. In these most

ommon situations, private parties have little room to disagree about the validity of the

reference to such a map or plat that reflects the common use of a road. Likewise, when

surveys or plats that conform to Georgia Code indicate the existence of public roads and

travel efficiently.

The mechanism of dedication requires two elements – there must be (1) a

dedication by the property owner, and (2) acceptance by the public. “Dedication” is

defined as consent to the abandonment of the land for h

the proper public authorities, or by the general public.

Both the dedication

and the acceptance

can be express or implied. As a

result, there are ultimately four manners in which the “dedication” may occur: (1

dedication/express acceptance; and (4) implied dedication/implied acceptance.

As you might expect, these complications are not found in the letter of §32-1-

3(8), but they can form the basis of significant disputes between private parties seeking

access to road

a. Express dedication.

Express dedications simply require “[a] private landowner…setting [land] apart

for public use.”

Express dedications typically take the form of written deeds and grants

from a private property owne

public’s use of the property.

In rarer cases, though, courts find that while a private party did not execute a

formal deed or grant to a public authority, the party still expressly intended to “set land

apart for public use.” For example, courts presume that a property owner expressly

dedicates land to the public for use as a road when the owner subdivides a tract of land

and either records a plat showing lots with designated streets, or sells the lots with

Cobb County v. Crew, 267 Ga. 525, 527 (1997); Postnieks v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., No. A07A0270, 2007 WL

at 1365406, at *3 (Ga. Ct. App. May 10, 2007); Smith v. State, 248 Ga. 154, 158 (1981); Ross v. Hall

County Bd. of Comm’rs, 235 Ga. 309, 310 (1975); Chandler v. Robinson, 269 Ga. 881, 882 (1998); R.G.

Foster & Co. v. Fountain, 216 Ga. 113, 123 (1960); Dunaway v. Windsor, 197 Ga. 705, 706 (1944); Irwin

County v. Owens, 256 Ga. App. 359, 361 (2002).

Id.

Crew, 267 Ga. at 527; Chick-fil-A, 2007 WL 1365406, at *3 (“There is no particular form of making a

dedication. It may be done in writing, or by parol; or it may be inferred from the owner’s acts, or implied,

in certain cases, from long use.”); Ross, 235 Ga. at 310.

Crew, 267 Ga. at 528; Chick-fil-A, 2007 WL 1365406, at *3; Ross, 235 Ga. at 310.

Ross, 235 Ga. at 310.

Crew, 267 Ga. at 527; Bruce, 248 Ga. at 159; Ross, 235 Ga. at 311; Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 709.

152

are filed with county commissioners, the maps serve as presumptive evidence of an

express dedication to the public.

Express dedications can also be oral, and can be proved by parol evidence.

written instrument is required, so long as there is evidence of an express intention to set

property aside for public use.

b. Implied dedication.

Examples of express dedication, including deeds, grants, maps, and even oral

agreements, all exhibit instances of a property owner taking action for the purpose of

communicating to others that he intends to dedicate his private property for public use.

By contrast, implied dedications are inferred from the conduct of a property owner, and

therefore require a heightened standard of scrutiny.

In Georgia, “[b]efore a dedication of property will be implied by conduct, it must

be shown that a property owner’s acts clearly manifested an intention to dedicate the

property for public use…the facts relied on must be such as to clearly indicate a purpose

on the part of the owner to abandon his personal dominion over the property and to

devote it to a definite public use.”

The dedication of land must be proved by “proof of

unequivocal and unambiguous words or acts of such owner…not an intention hidden in

the mind of the land-owner, but an intention manifested by his acts. It is the intention

which finds expression in conduct, and not that which is secreted in the heart of the

owner, that the law regards.”

Ultimately, though, in order to determine whether a landowner’s conduct exhibits

an implied dedication of use, courts do not look solely to the landowner’s conduct, but to

the landowner’s reaction to the public’s enduring use of his property.

The prevailing

notion is that implied dedication may be shown through a landowner’s “acquiescence by

the owner in the use of his property by the public. Acquiescence, however, means a tacit

knowledge of those things which are acquiesced in.”

Indeed, implied dedications result from the combination of the public’s use and

the landowner’s acquiescence. As you might expect then, proving an implied dedication

may be quite daunting because in many cases, “acquiescence” consists simply of

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 122; compare with Chandler, 269 Ga. at 883 (“[A] road’s placement on an official

highway map is ‘administrative . . . as between the state, counties and municipalities. Its purpose [is] not to

ascertain and fix the status of the public right of use of every road in Georgia’…[and] fails to support a

claim of implied dedication.”).

Chick-fil-A, 2007 WL 1365406, at *3 (citing Chatham Motorcycle Club, Inc. v. Blount, 214 Ga. 770, 775

(1959) (“There is no particular form of making a dedication. It may be done in writing or by parol; it may

be inferred from the owner’s acts, or implied, in certain cases, from long use.”)).

Id.

Chandler, 269 Ga. at 882, 883; Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 706-08.

Windsor, 197 Ga. at 708.

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 123-24; Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 708-09.

Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 709.

153

allowing the public to use the property without raising objection. In cases of implied

dedication, the permitted use is critical in establishing whether there has been a

dedication -- “there is no dedication implied beyond the use.”

For example,

“[P]ermitting public authorities to occasionally scrape and grade a private road…does not

manifest an intention to dedicate the roadway….[O]ccasional and customary

maintenance…[does] not implicitly dedicate [a] roadway for public use.” Chandler,

269 Ga. at 882-83; Owens, 256 Ga. App. at 361. And it should not, because the owner

never acquiesced in the use of the road by the public, only that the public can clean it.

Another way of viewing implied dedication is to analyze the elements in reverse

order, asking first whether the public accepted the property, and second whether, in

hindsight, it appears the property owner intended it as a dedication. The fluidity of the

analysis highlights the fact-intensive analysis of the issues and the flexibility courts have

to rationalize their decisions. As one court instructed, “[I]t must appear that the land has

been in the exclusive control of the public long enough to raise the presumption of a

gift…accompanied by evidence of such acquiescence on the part of the owner as would

manifest an intention to make a gift.”

In addition, courts have held that acquiescence must be at least somewhat

enduring. While implied dedication may be proved by showing the landowner’s assent,

mere use by a city from time to time, without more, will not create a dedication of such

property for that purpose forever.

On the contrary, use of a piece of property by a small portion of the public will

not amount to a dedication of the property to a public use, even if the use is for an

extended period of time.

c. Express acceptance.

Much like express dedication, express acceptance is rarely the source of much

debate amongst private landowners. Express acceptance of a dedication of private

property can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including board meetings of county

commissioners or municipalities.

In at least one instance, a county expressly accepted

(or was forced to accept) roads simply by passing ordinances that required them to accept

roads whenever a private party’s dedication met certain standards.

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 119 (owner with land abutting road allowed public to use property as sidewalk, but

the public cannot later try to turn the sidewalk into a road without going through proper purchase or

eminent domain procedures); Crew, 267 Ga. at 528.

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 123-24.

Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 708.

Owens, 256 Ga. App. at 361; Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 706.

Ross, 235 Ga. at 311.

Rabun County v. Mountain Creek Estates, 280 Ga. 855, 860 (2006).

154

In many instances, public authorities have express statutory obligations to record

grants or acquisitions of private property which the public authority intends to convert to

a public way.

As a result, when there is express evidence of acceptance by a public

authority, disputes between private parties over whether the public has a right to use a

road usually revolve around whether there was a valid dedication.

d. Implied acceptance.

While dedications must always be made by the private property owner, public

acceptance of a dedication may be accomplished by the public authorities, or by the

general public.

Instances of implied acceptance of a dedication are most common when

a dedication is accepted by the public, as opposed to public authorities, because there is

rarely conclusive evidence of such acceptance as the general public would not make

public recordings and certainly does not keep meeting minutes.

As a result, courts have crafted flexible standards to accommodate such a question

of fact. For example, “Georgia cases have not required that the public use the land for

any specific period of time in order to impliedly accept the offer of dedication; rather the

cases have indicated that the use must simply be over a period of time long enough to

indicate an intent or purpose to accept the offer” which is established when “the public

accommodation and private rights might be materially affected by the interruption of the

enjoyment.”

Essentially, the public need only show that it has some interest, such as by making

improvements to the road, or maintaining its upkeep.

Likewise, when the public

assumes control of part of a road, but not another tract, the court “must presume that the

dedication of that [latter] tract was declined.”

3. Acquisition of a public road through prescription.

The most significant distinction between the public’s acquisition of a road

through dedication versus prescription is that dedication involves a voluntary conveyance

on behalf of the landowner, whereas prescription requires unbroken possession under a

claim of right against the landowner.

Accordingly, since the landowner has not

dedicated his property to the public, “[t]o allow a person to acquire prescriptive rights

over the lands of another is a harsh result for the burdened landowner. Thus, Georgia

See footnote 5, supra.

See footnote 12, supra.

Smith, 248 Ga. at 160; Chick-fil-A, 2007 WL 1365406, at *5; Chatham Motorcycle Club, 214 Ga. at 774-

75.

Crew, 267 Ga. at 528; Ross, 235 Ga. at 312 (implied acceptance found where county officials approved

grading, listed roads on county books, prepared roads for paving, patched the roads, inspecting the roads).

Crew, 267 Ga. at 528.

O.C.G.A. §§ 44-5-161; Dunaway, 197 Ga. 705; see footnote 12, supra.

155

courts gave strictly construed the elements of O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1 against the party who

asserts a right of entry over the lands of another.”

There are two ways to acquire a public way by prescription in Georgia:

(1) prescription via public use; and (2) prescription via adverse possession.

Prescription via public use takes place when the public “incorporate(s) into its system of

public roads any road on private land which has come to be a public road by the exercise

of unlimited public use for the preceding seven years or more.

On the other hand,

prescription via adverse possession requires the customary showing that the possession

did not originate in fraud, is public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceable, and

accompanied by a claim of right such that the use is adverse rather than permissive.

39, 40

Due to Georgia courts’ distinguishing between the methods it is necessary to explore

each separately.

a. Prescription via public use.

ust overcome the fact that the owner never

anifested an intent to burden his property.

foundation of prescripti[on]” found in §

4-5-161 (the elements of adverse possession).

Even when the private landowner has no intention to dedicate his land for public

use, if the public takes possession and uses it and maintains it as a highway for the seven

years preceding the claim of right, “a highway by prescription becomes complete.”

While, in the case of an implied acceptance of a dedication, there is no specific period of

use required, the legislature requires seven years of “unlimited public use” to acquire an

easement by prescription because the public m

Since Shearin, courts have had little opportunity to apply the standard for

prescription via public use (even in Shearin, the court found prescription via adverse

possession and declined ruling on the prescription via public use portion of the case).

Because § 32-3-3(c) expressly authorizes acquisition by “prescription,” it incorporates

the elements necessary “for possession to be the

Norton v. Holcomb, No. A06A2437, 2007 WL 926056, at *3 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2007); Moody v.

Degges, 258 Ga. App. 135, 137 (2002).

Shearin v. Wayne Davis & Co., 281 Ga. 385, 387 (2006) (the adoption of the adverse possession criteria

does not necessarily include adoption of a 20 year period of use requirement in all situations).

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-3(c).

O.C.G.A. §§ 44-5-161, 44-5-163.

Prior to Shearin, courts generally combined the two prescription mechanisms such that parties had to

prove not only that they had previously acquired the property via adverse possession, but that they had been

in “unlimited use” of the property for the immediately preceding seven years. See Irwin County v. Owens,

256 Ga. App. 359 (2002); Harbor Co. v. Copelan, 256 Ga. App. 79 (2002); and Chandler v. Robinson,

269 Ga. 881 (1998). The Shearin court specifically disapproved of this over-burdensome construction, and

held that the legislature intended there to be two means of prescription. Shearin, 281 Ga. 385.

Windsor, 197 Ga. at 711; see, e.g., Chandler, 269 Ga. at 881 (even when there was continuous use for a

long period of time prior to the claim of prescriptive rights, if the owner blocked the path in question for a

period of time prior to the claim, a party cannot satisfy the requirements for prescription via public use).

Dunaway, 197 Ga. at 711.

See footnote 36, supra.

156

The primary difference between prescription via public use and prescription via

adverse possession lies in the time period requirement during which the public must

satisfy the elements of adverse possession. For prescription via public use, the focus is

on the time period ending with the claim of prescriptive rights (as opposed to prescription

via adverse possession, which requires twenty consecutive years of use).

If the public

can demonstrate the elements of adverse possession for the seven year period

immediately preceding the claim, they have satisfied the requirement of § 32-3-3(c).

b. Prescription via adverse possession.

Similar to prescription via public use, Georgia courts interpret the general

prescription mechanism to provide a second means for the public to acquire a prescriptive

easement.

The combination of §§ 44-5-161 and 163 require that “[i]n order to obtain

prescriptive rights over a roadway, the possession must not originate in fraud, must be

public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceable, and accompanied by a claim of

right. The use must also be adverse rather than permissive.”

As mentioned above,

though, prescription via adverse possession is distinct from prescription via public use

because there must be a demonstration of the elements of adverse possession for any

period of twenty years, rather than the seven years leading up to the claim.

The essential element to prescription via adverse possession is that the party uses

the road under a claim of right, such that his use is adverse to the interests of the

landowner’s, rather than permissive. It is the claim of right by the user that distinguishes

the prescriber from the acceptor of an implied dedication.

Parties often can establish the requisite continuous use, but only in hindsight

realize they must establish a claim of right. Courts closely analyze whether the

landowner was on notice of a claim against his interest.

Because parties that do not

own roads would rarely conduct significant improvements, those parties fail to indicate

an exertion of dominion, and cannot establish the claim for prescription.

B. If the road is not public, is there a personal right to use the road?

Even if a party ultimately determines that he has no claim that a particular road is

open to the public, the same party may have a private claim to use the road. Private

rights to a road, however, are quite limited in that only qualifying individuals gain access

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-3(c); compare with § 44-5-163.

See footnote 36, supra.

Owens, 256 Ga. App. at 361-62; Copelan, 256 Ga. App. at 82.

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-163.

See Owens, 256 Ga. App. at 360 (community members use of a private road to, “among other things,

walk to church, access crop fields, reach softball fields, and truck fertilizer to nearby fields” failed to

establish adversity); Copelan, 256 Ga. App. 79, 82 (while county maintained an entire road, it did not

acquire a prescriptive easement over six inch gutters because the county never did anything to maintain

them, and therefore, did not exhibit dominion over the gutters).

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 119 (merely scraping streets and raking sidewalks does not establish the elements of

prescription).

157

to the private way. The most common forms of private easements are those by express

grant, prescription and necessity.

1. Express grant.

“The right of a private way over another’s land may arise from an express grant.”

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1. Like express dedications to the public, this is the ideal means to

assert a claim of right over a road as there is likely some documentation of the express

grant of an easement.

To be a valid easement, an express grant must only contain language sufficient to

designate with reasonable certainty the land over which it extends.

It is generally

sufficient to identify the whole tract of land owned by the grantor over which the

easement passes.

2. Private easements through prescription.

Private prescriptive easements are very similar to the public’s acquisition of a

road through prescription, except that a private party’s use of the road (rather than the use

of the public, generally) manifests in a personal right to use the road under limited

circumstances. Like public prescription, courts combine statutes that allow for private

easements by prescription with the elements of adverse possession.

Also similar to

public prescriptive easements, courts construe the elements of private prescription strictly

against one party seeking to burden another.

Accordingly, the party seeking the prescriptive easement must first prove the

following elements of adverse possession: the claim did not originate in fraud, and that

the owner’s use was public, continuous,

exclusive, uninterrupted,

peaceable,

accompanied by a claim of right,

and adverse rather than permissive.

Lovell v. Anderson, 242 Ga. App. 537 (2000).

Id.

O.C.G.A. §§ 44-9-1, 44-9-54, 44-5-161; see Degges, 258 Ga. App. at 137; Norton, 2007 WL 926056, at

*2.

See Degges, 258 Ga. App. at 137; Norton, 2007 WL 926056, at *2.

Norton, 2007 WL 926056, at *3 (use by predecessors in interest may be tacked together when calculating

whether the use was continuous for the seven or twenty year period).

BMH Real Estate P’ship v. Montgomery, 246 Ga. App. 301, 303 (2000) (when an owner obstructs part of

a private way but permits the private way to be changed a few feet so that its use is continued without

interruption, the owner does not create a new date from which prescriptive title must ripen).

Degges, 258 Ga. App. at 139 (“mere use” does not establish a claim of right; there must be some claim of

ownership).

Norton, 2007 WL 926056, at *4 (“Building a road across the lands of another may be the strongest

example of constructive notice to the owner of those lands that the builder is asserting a claim of right and

is taking action adverse to the owner’s title and interest.”); Montgomery, 246 Ga. App. at 304 (“When the

use of a private way originates by permission of the owner, prescription does not begin to run until the

permissive user notifies the owner, by repairs or otherwise, that he has changed his position from mere

licensee to prescriber”).

158

If the prescriber is able to prove the general elements of adverse possession, he

must then establish the following requisite elements of a prescriptive easement: seven

years’ uninterrupted use through improved land or by 20 years’ through wild lands,

more than 20 feet wide,

and the road must have been kept open and in repair.

3. Easements of access and easements of necessity.

When any person owns real estate to which the person has no means of access,

ingress, and egress, and when the means of ingress, egress, and access may be had over

and across the lands of any private person, such person may petition the superior court of

the county having jurisdiction for judgment condemning an easement, not to exceed

20 feet in width.

The party potentially burdened by the easement may defeat the

petition by a showing that the petitioner has another reasonable means of access, or that

the petition is otherwise unreasonable.

While the general rule that a party may acquire

an easement due to necessity is relatively straightforward there are several peculiarities

that require attention.

While many states recognize the concept of an “implied reservation” of an

easement when a party sells a piece of property that renders the seller landlocked,

Georgia does not.

An easement by necessity cannot be created by one’s own voluntary

action in giving up reasonable access.

Georgia courts view the failure to reserve an

easement as creating an “otherwise unreasonable” attempt at acquiring an easement

through the property of an adjoining landowner.

Easements by necessity are also, in many cases, difficult to defend against for a

potentially burdened landowner. Section 44-9-40(b) provides, “The filing of the petition

shall be deemed to be the declaration of necessity.” Georgia courts interpret this statute

such that once a petitioner makes out a prima facie case that he is landlocked, the burden

shifts to the opposing party to prove that the petitioner has another reasonable means of

access.

Unless the opposing party can point to another road already in existence,

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1(a); Norton, 2007 WL 926056 at *2 (even though § 44-9-54 only requires seven years

to acquire a prescriptive easement, if the land is unimproved, the adverse use must persist for 20 years

pursuant to § 44-5-163).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(a); see Jackson v. Norfolk S.R.R., 255 Ga. App 695, 697 (2002) (“where the width of

a private way exceeds [20 feet], it cannot establish prescriptive rights…[even] if the width of the crossing

originally was less than 20 feet, the width appropriated for a prescriptive easement cannot subsequently

change.”).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(a); see Montgomery, 246 Ga. App. at 303 (rationale behind keeping the road in

repair is to afford landowner notice of adverse use).

O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40(b) et seq.

Id.

Mersac, Inc. v. Nat’l Hills Condominium Ass’n, 267 Ga. 493, 494 (1997); Kellett v. Salter, 244 Ga. 601,

602 (1979).

Id. (“The grant of a private way would reward [petitioner’s] negligence in failing to reserve an easement

and at the same time deprive [adjacent landowner] of the full use and enjoyment of its property.”).

Id. (petitioner could have reserved an easement over land it sold to provide access to its remaining land,

and therefore condemnation of adjoining land was “otherwise unreasonable.”);

Hensley v. Henry, 246 Ga. App. 417, 419 (2000); Atlanta-East, Inc. v. Tate Mountain Assocs., 265 Ga.

742 (1995).

159

several cases suggest that it is difficult to prove that building a new road is “more

reasonable” than simply allowing use of the present road.

The standard of “necessity” may also be different depending on the nature of the

landlocked landowner. While private parties must show no other reasonable means of

access, ingress and egress, § 44-9-70 states that businesses engaged in certain mining or

quarrying operations must only show that use of the road is “necessary for the successful

operation of their business” in order to obtain a right-of-way for a railroad across the

lands of others.

In certain unique situations, landowners find themselves landlocked with the

exception of a navigable waterway. Georgia courts, however, consistently maintain that

access to water does not constitute “reasonable” access to one’s property.

There is a

presumption of no reasonable access when the only means of access is by navigable

waterway, and the burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut the presumption with

evidence that the waterway constitutes reasonable means of ingress and egress.

Finally, questions arise when a party is landlocked, but there are multiple private

roads running through the property of adjacent property owners. At least two courts have

held that so long as one of those property owners has not cut off access, “even though the

owner may at some time in the future close off this access,” then “cases of necessity do

not arise” and the easement sought is not “absolutely indispensable” to the petitioner.

II. Impact of Road and Access Disputes on Title.

Road and access disputes can have a significant effect on the title to property. For

example, the title itself may inaccurately describe an owner’s actual property rights, or

simply lead to uncertainties that lead to difficulties in obtaining and enforcing title

insurance policies.

A. Title insurance.

From a title insurance perspective, if an insurer issues a policy insuring a title that

purports to provide access of ingress and egress, and later discovers a lack thereof, the

insurer could be subject to large payouts to an insured who is forced to pursue legal

remedies to acquire access to public roads. As a result, title insurers often require proof

of access to public roads in order to provide full insurance of title.

Id.

See Benton v. Ga. Marble Co., 258 Ga. 58 (1988).

Pierce v. Wise, 282 Ga. App. 709, 711 (2006); Int’l. Paper Realty Corp. v. Miller, 255 Ga. 676, 677

(1986).

Id.

Blount v. Chambers, 257 Ga. App. 663, 664 (2002); Moore v. Dooley, 240 Ga. 472, 474, 241 S.E.2d 232

(1978).

160

If a landowner is unable to proof access of ingress and egress, title insurers may

take exception in their policy such that title is not insured against a lack of access.

Should a private landowner subsequently have to pursue rights to access, he could be

subject to great personal expense. Moreover, the property value could suffer, leading to

losses upon resale.

Accordingly, it is important that title holders and title insurers alike understand

what constitutes a right of way. For example, in Chandler v. Robinson, the Georgia

Supreme Court held that even though the Department of Transportation’s road map, and

various closing documents, including surveys, indicated that a road ran across properties

adjacent to a buyer’s, the road was not a public road and the party seeking access was

forced to look elsewhere for access (no doubt having already incurred significant

expense).

B. Abutting landowners’ rights.

Landowner title can also be affected by the character of neighbors’ property. For

example, even if a landowner is not himself landlocked, a neighbor may seek an

easement traversing others’ property in order to achieve access. If the result is an

easement, it could decrease his neighbor’s property interest, and potentially resell

value.

nd circuitry of travel,”

and in some cases may be

able to alt the alteration altogether.

not be rebutted by a deed

that describes the road as the private party’s boundary line.

On the other hand, property owners whose land abuts public roads have property

interests in roads in excess of the general public. Changes to these roads may affect the

adjoining property owners’ rights. Consequently, property owners should be vigilant in

knowing the reason for and effect of any alterations to those roads that abut one’s

property. The owner may be entitled to recover damages for both the taking of one’s

property, as well as “inconveniences a

Moreover, in some situations a party’s property interest could increase through

diligent research of road and access issues. For example, if a party can prove that the

State does not have an express right to the property on which a road is situated, the owner

of a lot abutting the road is presumed to own half of the road that abuts his land.

Moreover, the private party’s presumption of ownership may

Chandler, 269 Ga. at 883.

See Section I.B.3., supra.

See Barham v. Grant, 185 Ga. 601 (1938); Dep’t of Transp. v. Whitehead, 253 Ga. 150, 151-52 (1984).

Fountain, 216 Ga. at 123; Thomas v. Douglass, 165 Ga. App. 128, 130 (1983).

Id.

161

C. Effect of court proceedings on title.

It is also important to be aware that there could be ongoing property disputes that

could manifest in title defects, but that are not evident through and inspection of deeds or

county records. For example, government condemnations and many easement

acquisitions require court proceedings, and their results are often recorded in court

records rather than deed offices. Because real estate professionals and individuals alike

may be unfamiliar with such proceedings, failure to identify rights acquired through the

judicial system can lead to gaps in the chain of title, and ultimately uncertainty about the

ownership of certain tracts.

Similarly, where roads are being used adversely, but a court has not yet deemed

them easements by prescription or condemnation, there will be no evidence of a right of

way through property in either court or deed records. As a result, a person may possess

title subject to a latent individual or public claim to an easement.

III. Landlord/Owner Liability for Third Party or Public Use Easements.

Once parties determine that either the general public or an individual has a right

of access to a road, someone must be responsible for maintaining the road, as well as its

design, quality, and ability to effectively serve the public. It is important to know which

public or private entities are responsible for maintaining roads, as these responsibilities

can lead to significant consequences regarding the allocation of maintenance costs,

liability for failure to properly maintain a road, and even a party’s ongoing right to use

the road.

A. The beneficiary of an easement is responsible for its maintenance.

1. Counties and municipalities are responsible for maintenance of

public roads and easements.

In the case of public roadways, the public as a whole is the beneficiary and as a

result, state counties and municipalities maintain the road through use of public

resources.

The duty of the public authorities to repair roads, however, does not arise

unless the public accepts the roads.

As a result, a private landholder cannot burden the

State simply by dedicating land for public use as a road.

In some cases, though, counties have been required to accept private landowner’s

dedications.

In Rabun County v. Mountain Creek, a private developer built roads for a

neighborhood in accordance with specifications found in county ordinances.

Those

same ordinances stated, “[t]he Rabun County Board of Commissioners shall accept roads

O.C.G.A. §§ 32-4-41, 32-4-91.

Ross, 235 Ga. at 311.

Mountain Creek Estates, 280 Ga. 855.

Id.

162

constructed according to specifications in the Rabun County road system.”

The

Georgia Supreme Court held that because the developer complied with the specifications,

the county’s ordinance required Rabun County to accept the dedication and maintain the

roads in accordance with state law and other county ordinances.

Once it is established that a public authority accepted dedication of a piece of

property for use as a road, the State must maintain it. “A county’s failure to meet its

obligation to maintain [the public road is not an acceptable] method of abandoning a

roadway.”

2. Holders of private easements or rights of way are responsible

for maintenance.

As a general rule, the beneficiary (or if there are multiple beneficiaries who enjoy

distinct easements) of an easement has a duty to the primary landowner to repair and

maintain the portions of land used in the enjoyment of the easement that are under the

beneficiary’s control.

If the beneficiary and the landowner share in the use of the

easement, the beneficiary and the landowner should contribute jointly to the costs

reasonably incurred for repair and maintenance of that portion of the easement that is

used in common.

The beneficiary has an obligation not to unreasonably interfere with the

landowner’s remaining estate.

As part of that responsibility, the beneficiary must take

whatever corrective measures are necessary to insure that the landowner avoids liability

to third parties as a result of the easement.

B. Failure to repair.

In the case of failing to repair or adequately maintain public roads, counties and

municipalities are protected from liability by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Despite the fact that several statutes require counties and municipalities to maintain

public roads, none of the statutes have constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity.

As for private roads and easements, private landholders or easement beneficiaries

are typically only responsible to third parties to the extent they have control over a piece

of property, and open that property to the general public. In certain commercial

situations, however, private parties grant the general public “common easements of

passage.” In those situations, landowners owe the general public the duty of care “not to

Id. at 858.

Id.

Shearin, 281 Ga. at 388.

See Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes §4.13 (2000).

Id.

Ga. Const., art. 1, § 2, ¶ IX; see Kordares v. Gwinnett County, 220 Ga. App. 848, 849 (1996).

Kordares, 220 Ga. App. at 849.

163

injure them in places where they are invited or their presence is reasonably to be

anticipated.”

IV. Overweight Vehicle Permits.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-6-20 et seq., no vehicle or load shall be operated or

moved upon the public roads of Georgia if a dimension or the weight of such vehicle or

load exceeds the limitations set out in §§ 32-6-22 through 32-6-24. Specific limitations

are addressed in the following Code sections:

• § 32-6-22. Height.

• § 32-6-23. Width.

• § 32-6-24. Length.

There are also several industry-specific exemptions to the general limitations

found in §§ 32-6-22 through 32-6-24. The following statutes provide for special

exemptions for vehicles involved in farming, agricultural, forest management, and certain

marine industries. Those exemptions are found in the following Code sections:

• § 32-6-25. Exemptions for farming, agricultural, and forest management

equipment.

• § 32-6-25.1. Exemptions for vehicles or equipment used within or within

radius of ten miles of port facility.

In addition to the limitations and exemptions set forth in §§ 32-6-20 through 32-6-

25.1, the State may issue special permits in accordance with the rules set for in § 32-6-28.

Sections 32-6-28(a)(1)(A)-(B) provide:

(A) The commissioner or an official of the department designated by the

commissioner may, in his or her discretion, upon application in writing

and good cause being shown therefor, issue a permit in writing authorizing

the applicant to operate or move upon the state's public roads a motor

vehicle or combination of vehicles and loads whose weight, width, length,

or height, or combination thereof, exceeds the maximum limit specified by

law, provided that the load transported by such vehicle or vehicles is of

such nature that it is a unit which cannot be readily dismantled or

separated; and provided, further, that no permit shall be issued to any

vehicle whose operation upon the public roads of this state threatens to

unduly damage a road or any appurtenance thereto, except that the

dismantling limitation specified in this Code section shall not apply to

loads which consist of cotton, tobacco, concrete pipe, and plywood that do

not exceed a width of nine feet or of round bales of hay that do not exceed

a width of 11 feet and which are not moved on part of The Dwight D.

Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. However,

Todd v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 258 Ga. 194 (1988); Spindel v. Gulf Oil Corp., 100 Ga. App. 323 (1959).

164

vehicles transporting portable buildings and vehicles not exceeding 65 feet

in length transporting boats on roads not a part of The Dwight D.

Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, regardless of

whether the nature of such buildings or boats is such that they can be

readily dismantled or separated, may exceed the lengths and widths

established in this article, provided that a special permit for such purposes

has been issued as provided in this Code section, but no such special

permit shall be issued for a load exceeding 12 feet in width when such

load may be readily dismantled or separated. A truck tractor and low boy

type trailer may, after depositing its permitted load, return to its point of

origin on the authorization of its original permit.

(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,

the commissioner or an official of the department designated by the

commissioner may, in his or her discretion, upon application in writing

and good cause being shown therefor, issue to a specific tow vehicle a

permit in writing authorizing the applicant to operate or move upon the

state's public roads a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles and loads

for transporting not more than two modular housing units or sectional

housing units if the total weight, width, length, and height of the vehicle or

combination of vehicles, including the load, does not exceed the limits

specified in Code Section 32-6-22 and Code Section 32-6-26. No permit

shall be issued to any vehicle or combination of vehicles whose operation

upon the public roads of this state threatens the safety of others or

threatens to damage unduly a road or any appurtenance thereto.

Further details regarding permits for excess weight and dimensions may be found

at §§ 32-6-28(a)(2)-(7) through (d). These provisions cover issues such as applications

for and issuance of permits, use of permits for multiple vehicles, the duration and limits

of permits, and the fees associated with acquiring excess weight and dimension permits.

Additional rules governing the issuance of permits and policies for enforcement

may be found in the Georgia Administrative Code, § 672, Chapter 2.

165

Customer Service: 1-800-930-6182

Faculty Relations: 1-800-777-8707

Credit Inquires: 1-866-240-1890

Online: www.nbi-sems.com

Customer Service: 1-800-793-5274

Faculty Relations: 1-800-777-8707

Credit Inquires: 1-866-240-1890

Online: www.ipe-sems.com

166

Customer Service: 1-800-930-6182

Faculty Relations: 1-800-777-8707

Credit Inquires: 1-866-240-1890

Online: www.nbi-sems.com

Customer Service: 1-800-793-5274

Faculty Relations: 1-800-777-8707

Credit Inquires: 1-866-240-1890

Online: www.ipe-sems.com

167