SCRPC/SCATS 2030
COMPREHENSIVE/TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
This plan has been prepared by the staff of Stark County Regional Planning Commission and Stark County Area Transportation Study to meet the future land use and transportation needs of Stark County through the year 2030.
November 4, 2005
Transportation Plan updated March 31, 2010
i
Table of Contents
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION...... 2 A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION...... 10 Introduction...... 10 Planned Growth ...... 10 Local Survey Results ...... 11 Top Local Concerns...... 12 The Northeast Ohio Urban Corridor...... 13 Amish Country/Muskingum Lakes Gateway...... 15 C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ...... 16 Mission Statement...... 16 Public Involvement ...... 16 Citizens’ Advisory Council...... 16 Stark County Consolidated Plan ...... 17 The Compass Project ...... 17 Other Public Outreach...... 18
SECTION II: DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY ...... 19 A: DEMOGRAPHICS...... 20 Demographics Introduction ...... 20 Population ...... 20 Planning Areas...... 21 Projections...... 23 Population Trends ...... 24 Population Trends and Land Use Planning Implications...... 27 Employment Projections...... 27 Employment Trends and Land Use Planning Implications ...... 32 Economics Introduction...... 36 Economic Structure...... 36 ii Manufacturing...... 37 Service...... 39 Trade ...... 39 Agriculture ...... 40 Labor Force Characteristics ...... 40 Income and Poverty ...... 41 Summary of Problems and Opportunities of the Economic Sector ...... 42
SECTION III: LAND USE ELEMENTS...... 45 A: LIVING AREAS...... 46 Introduction...... 46 Density Issues ...... 47 Housing Differences ...... 48 Affordable Housing Needs ...... 49 Public Housing Needs...... 50 Homelessness*...... 50 Identified Living Areas...... 52 Opportunities...... 56 Community Facilities*...... 57 Health Care ...... 59 Education ...... 60 Public Safety ...... 60 B: WATER RESOURCES ...... 64 Water Quality...... 64 Surface and Ground Water...... 65 Storm Water...... 69 Solid Waste:...... 74 C: PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES...... 76 Sewer Planning & Development...... 76 Existing Sewer Facilities and Repair Needs ...... 77 Land Use and Sewerage Planning...... 79 Long Range Sewer Planning...... 81
iii Existing Water Facilities and Repair Needs ...... 81 Distribution Facilities...... 83 Land Use and Public Water Supply...... 84 D: OPEN SPACE & RECREATION ...... 85 Defining Open Space ...... 85 Importance of Open Space...... 85 Difficulties in Preserving Open Space...... 86 Measuring Adequacy of Open Space...... 87 Types of Parks and Accessibility Concerns...... 87 Planning for Long Term Preservation...... 89 Current Open Space Preservation Plans and Needs...... 89 Natural Resource Areas and Other Large Facilities ...... 90 Regional Greenways ...... 90 Undeveloped Open Space...... 92 Tools for Preserving Open Space ...... 93 Entities Preserving Open Space...... 93 Goals for Preserving Open Space ...... 95 Open Space Summary...... 98 E: AGRICULTURAL LANDS...... 99 Historical Impact...... 99 Present Impact...... 100 Priorities for Preservation ...... 101 Understanding the Loss of Farmland...... 103 Quantifying the Loss of Farmland ...... 104 Tools for Preserving Farmland ...... 109 Farm Preservation Goals...... 110 Agricultural Summary ...... 110 F: PAST AND FUTURE LAND USE...... 112 Introduction...... 112 Residential...... 114 Commercial...... 114 Industrial ...... 115 iv Transportation Communication & Utilities ...... 115 Parks and Open Space...... 115 Agricultural...... 116 Public ...... 116 Undeveloped / Rural ...... 116
SECTION IV: TRANSPORTATION PLAN ...... 120 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...... 121 SCATS Organization ...... 121 Summary...... 122 CHAPTER 2 – PLAN SUMMARY ...... 122 Plan Components ...... 122 2030 Plan Listing...... 123 Chapter 3 – TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS ...... 134 Transportation Goals, Objectives and Strategies...... 134 Traffic Safety and Congestion Problem Areas ...... 135 Transportation Security...... 136 Demographic Projections...... 139 Traffic Zones...... 139 Travel Forecasting ...... 140 Transportation Plan Development ...... 141 Major Investment Studies ...... 141 CHAPTER 4 – HIGHWAY PLAN ...... 142 I-77 Corridor ...... 142 US 30 Corridor...... 142 US 62 Corridor...... 143 Alliance/Marlington Planning Areas ...... 144 Canal Fulton/Lawrence Planning Area...... 145 Canton/Canton Township Planning Area ...... 145 Fairless Planning Area ...... 147 Hartville/Lake Planning Area ...... 147 Jackson Planning Area...... 148
v Louisville/Nimishillen Planning Area ...... 149 Massillon/Perry Planning Area...... 150 Minerva/Paris Planning Area...... 151 North Canton/Plain Planning Area ...... 151 Osnaburg Planning Area...... 152 Sandy Valley Planning Area...... 153 Tuscarawas Planning Area...... 153 System Preservation Projects...... 153 CHAPTER 5 – OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES ...... 154 Introduction...... 154 Public Transportation...... 155 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trails ...... 163 CHAPTER 6 – FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 170 Introduction...... 170 Financial Resources ...... 171 Fiscal Constraint ...... 171 Transportation Plan Summary ...... 171
TRANSPORTATION APPENDICES...... 173
Appendix A: Air Quality Conformity Analysis...... 174 Introduction...... 174 Nonattainment Area Designation...... 174 Interagency Consultation and Conformity Process...... 175 Latest Planning Assumptions...... 176 Networks...... 176 Independent Variables ...... 176 Latest Emissions Modeling...... 177 Public Involvement Process...... 177 Plan Schedule...... 177 Canton 2030 Transportation Plan Update Conformity Analysis Summary...... 178 Ozone ...... 178
PM2.5 ...... 178 vi Other SCATS Planning Assumptions...... 180 Projects ...... 180 Final Conformity Determination...... 183
Appendix B: Financial Resources Forecast ...... 184 Introduction...... 184 Federal Legislation...... 184 Forecast Methodology and Assumptions...... 185 Funding Categories and Sources...... 185 Revenue Calculations and Conclusion...... 194
Appendix C: Environmental Justice Assessment ...... 200 Introduction...... 200 Target Population...... 200 Travel Time to Work ...... 203 Impact Analysis ...... 203 Appendix D: Environmental Mitigation, Analysis, and Consultation ...... 210 Introduction...... 210 Environmental Mitigation Activities ...... 210 Wetland Mitigation ...... 210 Noise Mitigation ...... 211 Storm Water Mitigation ...... 212 Environmental Resource Agencies...... 212 Environmental Agencies Contact List ...... 214 Potential Environmental Impacts of Projects...... 218 Endangered Species ...... 223 Historic Properties and Districts ...... 223 Superfund Sites ...... 223
Appendix E: Policy Committee Adoption Resolution...... 232 SECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION...... 233 vii A. PLANS FOR THE FUTURE...... 234 B: GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES ...... 237 Regional Land Use Goals: ...... 237
SECTION VI: LAND USE APPENDICES ...... 245 APPENDIX 1: SCRPC LONG RANGE PLANNING SURVEY...... 245 APPENDIX 2: COMPARISON WITH OTHER LOCAL LAND USE PLANS...... 250
viii Table of Figures
Figure I-1. Map of Northeast Ohio Region ______14 Figure II-1. Stark County Planning Areas ______22 Table II-1. Population by Planning Area (2000) ______23 Table II-2. Population by Planning Area (2030) ______24 Table II-3. Employment by Planning Areas (2000) ______29 Table II-4. Employment by Planning Areas (2030) ______29 Figure II-2. Map of Where Stark County Workers Live ______30 Figure II-3. Map of Where Stark County Residents Work______31 Table II-5. Stark County Commuting Patterns ______33 Table II-6. Employment by Industries, 1970-2000 ______36 Table II-7. Sectors’ Contribution to Gross Domestic Product (Year 2000)______38 Figure II-4. Sectors’ Contribution to the Economy (2000) ______39 Table II-8. Stark County Employment Growth/Decline by Sectors (1970-2000) ______40 Table II-9. Stark County Median Household Income compared with the State of Ohio ______41 Table III-1. Residential Densities ______47 Table III-2. Estimated Unmet Need for Homeless Housing ______51 Figure III-1. Map of Opportunity Areas (from Consolidated Plan)______58 Table III-3. Hospitals and Health Resources ______60 Figure III-3. Map of Flood Hazard Areas______67 Figure III-4. Map of Wetlands Inventory______70 Figure III-5. Storm Water Collection System Condition ______73 Figure III-6. Wastewater Collection System Condition______78 Figure III-7. Wastewater Treatment Plants Condition ______79 Figure III-8. Water Supply System Condition ______82 Figure III-9. Water Distribution System Condition______83 Table III-4. Farms in Stark County ______105 Table III-5. Changes in Farm Sizes ______106 Table III-6. Number of Farms by Commodity/Inventory/Acres/Production______107 Table III-7. Land Use Changes - Stark County - 1965-2030______113 Figure III-10. Stark County Land Use 2004 ______117 Figure III-11. Stark County Land Use 2030 ______118 Table 1-1- Plan Years ______121 Table 2-1- 2030 Plan Listing ______125 Map 2-1- 2030 Plan ______133 Table 3-1- Critical Facilities ______137 Table 3-2- Demographic Projections ______139 Table 3-3- SCATS Independent Variables ______140 Table 4-1- I-77 Corridor Projects ______142 Table 4-2- US 30 Corridor Projects ______143 Table 4-3- US 62 Corridor Projects ______144 Table 4-4- Alliance/Marlington Planning Area Projects ______144 Table 4-5- Canal Fulton/Lawrence Planning Area Projects ______145 Table 4-6- Canton/Canton Twp Planning Area Projects ______146 ix Table 4-7- Fairless Planning Area Projects______147 Table 4-8- Hartville/Lake Planning Area Projects______147 Table 4-9- Jackson Planning Area Projects ______148 Table 4-10- Louisville/Nimishillen Planning Area Projects______149 Table 4-11- Massillon/Perry Planning Area Projects ______150 Table 4-12- Minerva/Paris Planning Area Projects______151 Table 4-13- North Canton/Plain Planning Area Projects ______152 Table 4-14- Osnaburg Planning Area Projects ______152 Table 4-15- Sandy Valley Planning Area Projects______153 Table 4-16- Tuscarawas Planning Area Projects______153 Table 4-17- System Preservation Projects ______154 Table 5-1- Public Transportation Projects through 2015 ______159 Table 5-2- Public Transportation Projects through 2020 ______160 Table 5-3- Public Transportation Projects through 2030 ______161 Table 5-3- Public Transportation Projects Not Fiscally Constrained ______163 Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2015______168 Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2020______169 Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2030______170 Figure V-1. 2030 Future Land Use Map ______236
x SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Within Stark County there is a tremendous need to balance the desire to preserve natural resources and open space and to promote growth in jobs and the economy. Stark County Regional Planning Commission (SCRPC) would like to suggest that with careful planning, Stark County can grow in a method that not only cares for our natural environment which is critical to the health and well-being of all residents, but also allows for adequate housing and jobs within the County. Planned growth is designed to reduce the share of growth that occurs on existing farmlands and in environmentally sensitive areas. It refocuses a larger share of regional growth within central cities, urbanized areas, inner suburbs, and areas that are already served by infrastructure.1 Such planned growth requires true cooperation between multiple political subdivisions, between developers and conservationists, and between residents and businesses. In the end, however, through cooperation and compromise, a better Stark County will be the result. Mission Statement “The mission of the Stark County Regional Planning Commission is to provide a flexible framework for representatives of local governments to work cooperatively in areas which will have a positive effect on Stark County; to plan for and guide growth and development; and to participate in programs which provide for the physical, social, and economic needs of the County’s present and future residents.” In accordance with this mission, the SCRPC is responsible for preparing a Comprehensive/Transportation Plan that projects years into the future. Public Involvement In order to project the housing, employment, and transportation needs, as well as to forecast the future land use of Stark County, steps were taken to involve the largest possible segment of the population in preparing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use/Transportation Plan. Specific actions were taken to involve residents and gather their perspectives, insights, and opinions. Population The County’s population growth has been modest since 1980. After losing population in the 1980-90 decade, Stark County has rebounded slightly in recent years with economic growth. The 2000 Census lists the County’s population at 378,098, a 2.8% increase over 1990. According to the Ohio Department of Development, the County’s population is estimated at 389,174 in 2003, an increase of about 2.9% over the 2000 figure. The principal trends in the population have been continuing suburbanization, changing household composition and increases in aging and minorities among county residents. Various planning considerations must be made depending on the area under discussion.
2 Planning Areas & Projections Planning areas are statistical units drawn by combining small area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) to approximate local political unit boundaries and school districts as they presently exist. It is important to note that planning area boundaries differ from some political unit boundaries, which often change with annexation. Using existing Traffic Analysis Zones as a geographical base, current and future housing counts were determined. Availability of suitable land, access to the transportation system, and sewer and water capabilities were some of the issues that factored into these decisions. Existing platted subdivisions were examined to determine where new housing units would likely be constructed. Making the observation that the persons per housing unit is continuing to decline, a population total for each zone was then calculated. Population Trends Several factors have been identified as the primary trends in Stark County’s population. The suburbanization of the County's population is projected to continue to 2030. Overall, population growth will be modest. The mid-range projected 2030 population for Stark County is 389,174, an increase of 2.9% over 2000. The continued decline in household size will have a major implication on future residential land use needs, not only on the acreage required but the types of housing built and the community facilities needed to meet changing household demands. Since 1980, the population of Stark County has continued to grow older, and has shown a greater diversity in race and ethnic origin. The median age has steadily increased from 30.8 years in 1980 to 38.2 years in 2000. While total population remained fairly stable between 1980 and 2000, the number and percentage of persons aged 65 years and over and persons classed as minorities, has grown in each decade. It is assumed that the trends now occurring are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Planning considerations need to be made regarding the aging population, including the need for transit services and neighborhood facilities. Employment Projections Employment trends in Stark County have several important implications for land use planning. Where jobs are located and what kinds of jobs are available have obvious impacts on transportation systems, water and sewer facilities and provisions for retail and commercial support services. The characteristics of the labor force, particularly the growth of female labor force participation, older persons remaining in the work force, and persons holding multiple jobs, will also have increasing effects on home-to-work commuting patterns, day care and school facilities and leisure time activities of working families. The trends over the last several decades show major shifts in the growth of service jobs at the expense of traditional manufacturing employment, and changes in the makeup of the labor force. The projections show an increase in all employment sectors. The rate of growth in employment will exceed the growth in the population and the location of these jobs will have an impact on the future development of Stark County. Jobs have followed population shifts to the suburbs, especially commercial/retail employment. In 1970, there was a comparative balance between jobs located in the City of
3 Canton and the rest of Stark County. In the three decades that followed, the three major cities lost jobs while the balance of the County showed significant increases in jobs. Economic Structure Over the years, Stark County’s economy has been dominated by the manufacturing sector. It used to be the largest contributor to employment as well as gross domestic product (GDP). However, this trend started to change in the 1970s. The County, as well as the State of Ohio and the nation at large experienced a decline in manufacturing activities, especially within the heavy manufacturing industries. This trend has led to the current situation where the service sector has overtaken manufacturing as the County’s largest provider of employment. Manufacturing however, still accounts for the largest share of total GDP. Stark County also thrives on many smaller and family owned businesses. The service sector is a vital component of the County’s economy and a major employer, making up 55% of total employees in the County in 2000. Health care and social assistance make up a substantial portion of the services sector, with accommodations and food services being second. The wholesale and retail trades also account for a sizable portion of Stark County’s employment. Agriculture remains an important contributor to the Stark County economy, despite the fact that other land uses continue to increase at the expense of farmland. Economic objectives include: retain, expand and attract business investment in Stark County (Stark Development Board Mission Statement); put to economic use, buildings and lands that may currently contain environmental hazards, which are zoned commercial or industrial; improve the educational attainment of workers so as to build and expand quality jobs. Housing A mix is seen throughout the County in the age of housing stock. In the older developed urban centers of Alliance, Canton, and Massillon, according to the 2000 Census, roughly 50% of the housing stock is more than 50 years old. In the northern tier townships, such as Lake and Jackson, only 7–15% of the housing stock is 50 years or older. The median housing value for the County as a whole increased from $57,300 to $100,300 from 1990 – 2000, with some residential areas having a median housing value of over $150,000. Typically, housing values are at least 75% higher than in 1990, with the largest increase in a city being in the City of Massillon (up 89.2%). There are more than 148,320 households in Stark County. More than one-third of all households are located in the central city areas of the County, according to the 2000 census. Currently, home values in the urbanized areas of the County are considerably lower, and thereby more affordable, than those in the suburban and rural areas of Stark County. Only 27% of the housing within the urban centers is valued over $100,000, while 70% of the housing in the remainder of the County is valued over $100,000. Various methods of addressing affordable housing are included in the plan. Additionally, information relating to public housing, homelessness, health care, education and public safety is given in the Living Areas section of the plan.
4 Housing objectives include: partner with local political subdivisions within Stark County to focus redevelopment on neighborhoods within the urbanized areas and village centers; link provision of infrastructure to direct growth towards areas with adequate sewer and water lines and away from areas without adequate infrastructure; and the provision of additional senior housing choices in a variety of types and locations, including necessary services and facilities, to address the aging population. Water Resources The protection of water resources, including underground well fields, surface storage reservoirs, rivers and streams is vital to any community. Other critical areas for water-quality protection include wetlands, buffer zones, riparian corridors, and floodplains. It is critical to use appropriate zoning and other regulatory measures to protect the area’s water supply. Watershed planning is also an invaluable tool for protecting water resources. Many communities are seeking to reduce the need for costly infrastructure by preserving and managing watershed lands for source water protection.2 Stream protection is important in Stark County because streams can allow contaminants to move quickly from the surface to the water table. These streams need protection from runoff created by urban development and agricultural land use practices. Beyond stream protection, wetlands also play an especially critical role in maintaining water quality, serving as natural filtration plants. Storm Water: with the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act in 1987 came limits on nonpoint sources of pollution, which are impurities introduced into a surface water body, usually through a non-direct route. Some examples include automobile emissions, and runoff from parking lots, agricultural fields, construction, and mining.3 Phase I of the USEPA’s storm water program was enacted in 1990 to address storm water runoff from “medium” and “large” municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) which serve larger populations, construction areas, and industrial activity. Phase II of the USEPA’s storm water program was enacted in 1999 to address “small” MS4s which serve populations less than 100,000 in urbanized areas (UAs). Many political subdivisions within Stark County are designated by the EPA as Urbanized Areas and are automatically regulated under Phase II of the USEPA’s Storm Water Program. This is all in an effort to preserve, protect, and improve water resources. Solid Waste Disposal: is a critical element in public sewer and water planning, which affects both the capacity and treatment capabilities of the system and water quality of streams and underground aquifers. Landfills continue to be the most common form of waste disposal, not only in Stark County, but also throughout the state. While not popular, properly constructed and maintained sanitary landfills are the most cost effective means of waste management presently available in this area. Many would prefer that the County not accept out-of-state waste, but current law prevents forbidding it, as rejecting out-of-state waste is considered interfering with interstate commerce. Central Sewer and Water Services: are vitally important public facilities that help to determine the location, rate and intensity of urban development in Stark County. Communities
5 that provide sewer services are required to participate in the Section 208 areawide water quality management plan.4 One of the primary focuses of the 208 Plan is the issue of sewer expansion in the area and the protection of water resources. Developers should seek to locate where these infrastructure facilities are in place or are planned for the foreseeable future. Most of the focus over the term of the Plan will be in the repair and replacement needs of the existing sewer facilities in the County. Stark County has historically led the state in the number of private septic systems. The current estimate of the number of such systems is approximately 51,000.5 Many systems in the older, unsewered areas of the County are in need of repair or replacement. Sewer facility planning is also presented from a long range perspective in the Plan. As with the sanitary sewer system in the County, many of the needs related to the water supply system will focus on the repair and replacement needs as opposed to large expansions in the service areas. It is generally concluded that adequate water resources are available in Stark County to meet domestic and industrial needs for the foreseeable future. The principal issues of central water supply, as they relate to land use planning, deal with water quality and the distribution facilities needed to meet water pressure and fire protection demands in urban areas, particularly for commercial and industrial activities. Open Space An extensive section on open space: reasons for preservation, difficulties in preservation, adequacy of open space, types of parks, accessibility, current open space plans and needs, natural resource areas, regional greenways, the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, undeveloped open space, tools for preserving open space, entities currently involved in preserving open space, and planning for long term preservation is included in the Plan. Implementation of open space plans include outright purchases, transfer of development rights, donations, conservation developments, leaseback arrangements, joint development agreements, private foundation support, conservation easements, and other arrangements which will provide some guarantee that the land will be preserved in open space for future public use. The 2030 Plan recognizes that major open space and recreation areas can include both public and privately owned facilities, however, a number of privately owned open spaces (golf courses) have recently been lost to or slated for development. It is important to realize that, without a conservation easement or other land use protection tool in place; these cannot be counted on remaining as open space. While there is concern regarding the continued loss of open space throughout Stark County, it is encouraging to see the amount of progress that has been made over the past five years. The Stark County Park District has worked to stabilize and improve parks and facilities that were in need of renewal. It has garnered support from communities countywide as work on the trail and greenway plan is implemented and an awareness has been awakened in the general public that something must be done. It is over the effective time period of this plan, the next twenty-five years, that we will see how successful these efforts will be.
6 Agricultural Lands Agriculture currently plays a vital role in Stark County, not only due to its economic benefit and its physical impact as the single largest land use within the County, but also in relating to the County’s heritage and quality of life. Agricultural areas include lands that are undeveloped, or have limited development, and are devoted to a wide variety of enterprises, including crops, livestock, and forestry. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture survey was taken in 2002 and indicates that 145,163 acres were listed as farmland on 1,337 farms in Stark County. The market value of production on this land in 2002 was $69,046,000. This placed Stark County 16th out of all counties in Ohio and 819th out of 3,075 counties throughout the U.S. in overall agricultural sales. Stark County is among the leading agricultural counties in Ohio in a number of areas. In 2003, Stark County ranked eighth in cattle, fifth in milk cows, fourth in oats production, and second in the production of broiler and meat-type chickens. Stark County also has a significant presence in the truck farm industry, the practice of growing vegetable crops on a large scale for shipment to distant and local markets. Preservation of farmland has been a recurring theme across the country as suburbanization has placed increased pressure on agricultural uses. Besides its economic value, agriculture can provide environmental benefits through water pollution control (well field protection, groundwater aquifer recharge protection and flood mitigation), wildlife habitat enhancement and air quality improvements through retention of extensive woodland tracts. Preserving farmland has proven to be difficult. While everyone would like to see conservation easements, not many are willing to support their cost. Efforts to assist farmers in writing conservation easements, the creation of programs related to market assistance and the continuation of current efforts should be encouraged, including slowing the breakup of farms through exempt subdivisions and assisting townships with farm and rural zoning regulations. While farming has changed due to market forces, there is a growing recognition that the community as a whole should act to preserve traditions that have served Stark County well for generations. With a concerted effort we can benefit not only ourselves and our agricultural community, but maintain a sustainable, well balanced society that can provide for itself, others, and future generations. Environmental goals include: encourage protection and preservation of local natural resources; utilize sensitive urban design to incorporate the natural, historical and cultural assets of the region; and work cooperatively with local political subdivisions to manage surface water, groundwater, and storm water and drainage issues. Past & Future Land Use Land use describes the way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities, size and structures allowed. It refers to how a piece of land is managed or used by humans. Land use is generally locally regulated in the US based on zoning and other regulations. This part of the plan provides an overview of the physical manifestation and implications of development
7 policies and land use decisions in Stark County over the years and makes projections in to the future. The total area of Stark County is approximately 362,784 acres. Out of this, 109,466 acres (30.2%) has been developed. The remaining 253,318 acres (69.8 %) constitutes agricultural lands, water bodies and undeveloped lands. The major land uses that make up the developed areas are residential, commercial, industrial, transportation & communication & utilities, parks & open space and public areas. An analysis of past and current land use is included in this section, along with projections for future land use in 2030. One of the overall goals of this plan is to promote environmental quality through orderly development. To achieve this goal, additional goals, objectives and strategies have been created and are listed in the back of the plan. Transportation Plan Summary Local officials have identified traffic congestion and delay as major concerns. Ease of mobility and accessibility are primary goals for Stark County residents. These issues are addressed through the SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan. The transportation plan also addresses a variety of other needs - alternatives to new highway construction (e.g., trip demand reduction, highway rehabilitation, and ridesharing), transportation enhancements, public transit, and rail passenger and freight services. One of the objectives of the plan is to provide a balanced multimodal transportation system, which is sensitive to the social, economic and environmental concerns of the citizens of the region. Transportation Plan Components The 2030 Transportation Plan includes three major components, highways, transit, and bicycle pedestrian facilities. Highways: Freeways and Expressways. High speed, longer distance trips in and through Stark County and the surrounding region will utilize the freeway and expressway system, which includes I-77, US 30, and parts of US 62 and SR 21. The principal improvements planned for this system, include extension of US 30 east from Trump Avenue to SR 9 in Columbiana County, the extension of US 62 east from SR 225 to Salem, and the completion of the widening and reconstruction of I-77 to six lanes from US 30 to the Akron Canton airport. The Plan also includes a new I-77 interchange at Gracemont Avenue, and a major upgrade of the I-77 US 30 interchange. Arterial highways. The Plan proposes other regional highway projects to improve traffic circulation, in, and around other major traffic generators. These projects include widening portions of 12th Street, Applegrove St., Frank Ave., Portage St., Whipple Ave., SR 43, SR 241, SR 619, and SR 687. Improvements are also planned to connect the City of Canal Fulton to SR 21. System Preservation. The Plan does not specifically list system preservation projects such as bridge replacements and repairs or resurfacing and maintenance projects. However, it recognizes that preservation of the transportation system is a priority and sets aside funding for these projects.
8 Public Transit: the Plan is based in part on a public transit system in various forms (conventional fixed route bus service, paratransit demand response service, etc.) to encourage a balanced transportation system available to all residents of Stark County. Transit service is currently provided by the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA), which is supported in part by a countywide sales tax. The following general categories of transit capital improvements are recommended in the Plan: • Buses and Paratransit Vehicles - Existing vehicles will have to be replaced over the long term simply due to age and wear-and-tear. • Transfer Facilities – Included in this category is the construction of transfer facilities at various locations. Also included are improvements to transit stops such as shelters, bus pull off lanes and paved waiting areas. • Improvements at the Rehabilitation of Gateway Facility – Improvements to SARTA’s Gateway Facility. This building houses the SARTA offices, bus maintenance and bus storage facilities. • Equipment and Preventive Maintenance – equipment purchases and capitalized preventive maintenance of SARTA vehicles and facilities Bikeways & Pedestrian Facilities: finally, the Plan recognizes the value of bikeways and pedestrian facilities and for short-distance transportation as well as for recreation and tourism. Bike and pedestrian facilities are proposed as part of the open space trail network along the Ohio and Erie Canal corridor and other future linear greenways in the county in conjunction with the Stark County Park District Trail Plan. The detailed 2030 Plan Listing can be found in Section IV: Transportation Plan. A Plan for the Future The challenge towards planned growth in Stark County is that it must deal with a wide range of development contexts across the County, from very rural to urban. Each political subdivision has its own zoning code as well, which additionally complicates implementing a comprehensive plan. It is the desire of the SCRPC that each jurisdiction will review this 2030 Plan and seek to update their zoning codes to reinforce or complement the policies presented here. This plan contains recommendations regarding issues, projects and strategies to improve life in Stark County.
9 B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction Within Stark County there is a tremendous need to balance the desire to preserve natural resources and open space and to promote growth in jobs and the economy. Many other communities are facing the same issues throughout the United States. Frequently, situations arise that split communities between those who want to slow or stop growth and those who want to cash in on it. Searching for a wise and balanced approach may at times seem impossible, with the creation of a housing development here, and a preservation effort there. Stark County Regional Planning Commission (SCRPC) would like to suggest that with careful planning, Stark County can grow in a method that not only preserves and cares for our natural environment which is critical to the health and well-being of all residents, but also allows for adequate housing and jobs within the County.
Planned Growth The American Planning Association defines smart growth, which SCRPC prefers to use interchangeably with the term planned growth, as: using comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, redevelop and build communities for all that:
• Have a unique sense of community and place
• Preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources
• Equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development
• Expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner
• Value long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over short term incrementally geographically isolated actions
• Promote public health and healthy communities 6
To condense it, planned growth can be described as: “compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development patterns including the reuse of land”. Suburban sprawl has long been a concern in Stark County. Smart or planned growth is often understood as
10 the opposite of sprawl, which is characterized as the predominant form of American land use. Where sprawl treats land as an unlimited commodity, smart growth sees land as a limited resource. Where sprawl develops at low density on raw land at the urban fringe (a pattern largely underwritten by government policy and practice), smart growth first directs growth to areas within the existing urban footprint, such as infill and redevelopment, and often seeks to maintain open space at the urban edge. Sprawl develops at relatively low density with leap-frog development and separated land uses while smart growth emphasizes higher density with interconnected, compact, contiguous, and mixed use development.7
Planned growth is designed to reduce the share of growth that occurs on existing farmlands and in environmentally sensitive areas. It refocuses a larger share of regional growth within central cities, urbanized areas, inner suburbs, and areas that are already served by infrastructure.8 Such planned growth requires true cooperation between multiple political subdivisions, between developers and conservationists, and between residents and businesses. In the end, however, through cooperation and compromise, a better Stark County will be the result.
Local Survey Results Elected officials and a sampling of the public were polled in 1992 and again in 2003 with essentially the same survey. (See Appendix 1) On a bright note, several items of major concern in 1992 had moved down the list in rank when issues were surveyed in 2003. Mass transit, through the passage of the SARTA levy which turned a city-wide bus service into a countywide bus service, moved from #11 in importance down to #22. While debated loudly and with reasonable concerns expressed, the availability of countywide bus service is critical to the growth of any suburban county. Having transportation available and accessible to move people without cars to and from jobs can have a substantial result on job retention and joblessness, especially among those of low-moderate income.
Other areas of concern that have dropped in rank are environmental issues overall. While still concerned about the adverse impacts of landfills, the ranking for this issue dropped from #6 to #10. The deterioration of air and water quality dropped from #8 to #17. A shortage of parks in urban/suburban areas fell from #16 to #19. While much work remains to be done with these
11 issues, there is a current perception that progress is being made in Stark County in environmental issues. Developments of a large county trail system by the Stark County Park District, as well as the continued development of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway have been major steps toward providing greenspace and recreational areas for the public. Also, the development of a countywide recycling drop-off program has assisted in reaching the Stark-Tuscarawas- Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District’s waste reduction goals as mandated by the Ohio EPA. The recycling program has also diverted thousands of tons of waste from landfills. Controversy continues to surround landfill issues, and community leaders will have to remain vigilant on these matters.
Perhaps most interesting are the issues that have increased in importance over the last decade and the top four which have remained in the exact same rank order since 1992. Concern has increased in the area of urban sprawl, with its rank moving from #18 to #5. Paralleling that, the loss of farmland’s rank moved from #14 to #6. Citizens and elected officials alike realize this is an ongoing, serious problem in Stark County. Through wise decision making, growth can be steered in a way that is beneficial to the County, rather than in a haphazard manner which threatens local resources.
Top Local Concerns Remaining once again as the top four issues of concern are:
1. Traffic congestion and delays
2. Deterioration of roads and bridges
3. Abandoned central city industrial/commercial facilities
4. Aging/deterioration of water/sewer
It doesn’t take long to review all of these issues and realize that they are all directly related to the issue of sprawl. Many traffic improvements have taken place in Stark County in the past ten years, yet congestion is still the first issue on the list. “The Strip” did not yet exist when the 2020 Land Use Plan was written in 1995. At that time, it would have been hard to imagine that this area would so quickly become one of the county’s most congested areas. It is
12 interesting to consider what the outcome would have been, had “The Strip” or a similar commercial development, been planted in the center of downtown Canton.
Unfortunately, we see a continued and alarming trend to spread out from cities. Only through increased cooperative efforts working with the City of Canton, as well as the other cities in Stark County, can we address sprawl throughout Stark County. Reinvesting in the cities is perhaps the most beneficial task we can attempt for the County as a whole. Progress towards revitalization is being seen throughout downtown Canton, the Summit area neighborhood in Canton, downtown Massillon, and various other areas.
The Northeast Ohio Urban Corridor Land use, transportation, open space, living areas and economic development activities in the northeast Ohio region all have important impacts on Stark County and its residents. Economic development and highway improvements in the vicinity of the Akron-Canton Airport will provide jobs and access to jobs for Stark County workers. Completion of the 87 mile Cleveland to Zoar trail along the Ohio and Erie Canal cuts across municipal and township boundaries in four counties and provides hiking and biking opportunities for countless others. Regional developments as diverse as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and bed & breakfasts in Holmes County will affect how Stark County residents spend their time and money in coming years.
Northeast Ohio is home to nearly four million people and a commercial, industrial and transportation center of national and international importance. A north to south linear pattern is the consequence of major interstate highways which tie cities and villages into a regional community of common interests. Within Stark County, I-77, State Highways 21, 43, 93, 241 and 800 are the major north-south highway components of this inter-regional connection. The restored Ohio and Erie Canal is part of a recreation corridor which follows the Tuscarawas River throughout its entire length in Stark County. The regional land use plan builds upon the accessibility provided within this corridor framework. Improved access from home to work, shopping, schooling and leisure, both within and outside Stark County, is a community goal of the highest priority. See Figure I-1 Map of Northeast Ohio Region.
13
Amish Country/Muskingum Lakes Gateway The Canton-Akron-Cleveland urban corridor may end at Stark County, but there are scenic highway linkages to the south which help bring important economic benefits to Stark County residents. Maintaining the natural and aesthetically pleasing surroundings of this essentially rural environment is a goal of the regional land use plan.
To the southwest along US 62 and SR 241, the County is a gateway to Amish Country, a popular tourist destination based on the historical and cultural assets of the Amish people. Commercial uses such as hotels, country inns, restaurants, craft shops and tourist railroad excursions can provide additional economic opportunities to the villages and crossroads communities in the southwest corner of Stark County.
To the southeast, along SR 43 and 212, the County is linked with the popular water-based recreation facilities of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. This chain of manmade lakes provide a wide range of outdoor recreation uses: fishing, hunting, hiking, swimming, boating, camping and horseback riding within minutes of the County’s 378,000 residents.
The regional land use/transportation plan seeks to enhance this balance between an urban community with its many economic, social and cultural advantages and a pleasant rural environment easily accessible from all parts of the northeast Ohio region.
15 C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Mission Statement “The mission of the Stark County Regional Planning Commission is to provide a flexible framework for representatives of local governments to work cooperatively in areas which will have a positive effect on Stark County; to plan for and guide growth and development; and to participate in programs which provide for the physical, social, and economic needs of the county’s present and future residents.” In accordance with this mission, the SCRPC is responsible for preparing a Comprehensive/Transportation Plan projecting years into the future.
Public Involvement In order to project the housing, employment, and transportation needs, as well as to forecast the future land use of Stark County, steps were taken to involve the largest possible segment of the population in preparing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use/Transportation Plan. Specific action was taken to involve residents and gather their perspectives and opinions.
The public involvement process has been developed to meet the needs of all of the SCRPC programs. These include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) requirements, Federal Transportation Planning regulations, subdivision regulations and zoning. The SCRPC continually employs public involvement in all areas of planning. Throughout the drafting process of the 2030 Plan, SCRPC and SCATS staff included a number of efforts to reach Stark County citizens representing various minorities, neighborhoods and income levels. Their travel habits, physical environment and employment requirements are important factors in determining future land use and transportation planning into the year 2030. Census data was used to identify these low-income and minority areas.
Citizens’ Advisory Council To provide for citizen participation in this planning process, the SCRPC and SCATS utilized its Citizens’ Advisory Council (CAC). The CAC is the principal means of public involvement in the SCATS program, and its membership is open to all persons living or working in Stark County. Regularly scheduled meetings are held bimonthly at Goodwill Industries in Canton.
16 Initially, to assess widespread public opinion, a survey was taken of local elected officials, the CAC, the SCRPC and SCATS staff, and social studies teachers from throughout the Stark County. Twenty-six land use issues were divided into categories: transportation; housing and community development; economic development; public utilities/infrastructure; and open space/environment. Staff then identified the goal for each area and listed various problems in reaching that goal. Participants prioritized the problems on the survey. From this ranking, staff developed draft goals and objectives.
In August 2004, the goals and objectives were presented to CAC members to gather their perspectives, insights, and opinions through conversation and interaction. At its December meeting, SCRPC and SCATS staff updated the CAC on the progress of the Plan and once again solicited public opinion regarding specific strategies.
Stark County Consolidated Plan Various agencies worked together with the Community Development Department of SCRPC to provide background information regarding the needs of the community for the creation of the Stark County Consolidated Plan. These organizations include: the Stark County Housing Task Force; the Homeless Services Collaborative; the Continuum of Care Planning Committee, and Stark County Partners in Home Ownership. All of these include agencies that serve low-moderate income families. Input from the Consolidated Plans of Canton, Massillon and Alliance was also utilized in the planning process. Much of the Living Section of the 2030 Plan was adapted from the Stark County Consolidated Plan.
The Compass Project The United Way featured meeting information on its “Compass” website, which is a resource used by many in the social service field. “Compass, which stands for Community Objectives Met through a Partnership of All Segments of Society, is one of the eight United Way pilot projects in the nation aimed at helping communities inventory their needs and develop grass roots action plans to improve community life.”9 The Compass process involved input from many agencies and individuals, including SCRPC staff members. A few of the planning strategies included in the 2030 Plan were derived directly from the Compass project.
17
Other Public Outreach Staff presented a general overview of the 2030 Plan to the Regional Planning Commission at its September 2004 meeting, and returned in December to review its goals and objectives. On both occasions, staff gleaned opinions from Commission members. Public meetings were held during January 2005 in Alliance, Massillon and Canton. Specific efforts were made for these meetings to be conveniently located in areas that would be more accessible for minority and low-income individuals. Two meetings were held in Senior Citizens Centers and all three were available to Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) bus routes.
Advertisements were placed on approximately 80 SARTA buses promoting the January public meetings. Invitations were also mailed to social service agencies, civic and senior citizen organizations and county political subdivisions. Posters advertising the public meetings were displayed at The Stock Pile, SCRPC’s building materials reuse warehouse for low-to-moderate income individuals. Paid ads ran in the Alliance Review, the Massillon Independent and The Canton Repository announcing the meetings. News releases were sent to area newspapers and radio stations for a more general canvassing of the County.
To reach the political segment of the County, staff made a presentation of the draft 2030 Plan at the Stark County Township Association meeting in February 2005. This group represents both the more densely populated and rural townships in Stark County, with members aware of the housing, employment and transportation needs of their residents.
The first two weeks of April 2005, copies of the transportation portion of the 2030 Plan were available for public review and comment at the SCRPC/SCATS office. On April 14, SCATS held a public meeting highlighting this two-week comment period at Goodwill Industries in Canton. At the regular SCATS Policy Committee meeting on April 18, comments were also solicited. The SCRPC and SCATS staff continued to seek information from various groups and organizations throughout the 2030 Plan preparation process. In addition, it utilized its website, newsletter and annual report to communicate with the general public on an ongoing basis.
18 SECTION II: DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY
19 A: DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics Introduction For any meaningful planning to be done and achieve the anticipated goals, it is imperative to consider the demographic characteristics of the target population whose lives the plan seeks to improve. By studying demographic trends a community can better understand the changes taking place and plan for the future needs of its residents. This section of the plan provides a perspective of the County’s population growth trends and changes that affect Stark County today and into the future.
Stark County is unique in that it has a diversity of areas. While many counties tend to be mainly urban, suburban, or rural, Stark County has substantial amounts of each type of development. Within the County, there are urban areas complete with multi- family housing and single-family homes on small lots, many suburbs filled with subdivisions of half-acre lots and strip malls, and also very rural, agricultural areas.
Information about population and household trends provides a context within which decisions are made about the overall land use patterns. Accordingly, SCRPC periodically carries out demographic and economic studies resulting in projections of the future size, distribution and composition of the resident population. This results in projection of the future number, distribution and types of jobs, as a basis for updating and extending the comprehensive plan for physical development of the region. Where people will live depends in part on access to jobs. Where the jobs are located will be determined to some extent by accessibility to major highways. Thus, most new regional growth in Stark County is projected to take place along major transportation corridors, a reminder of a strong correlation between population, employment, transportation and land use.
Population
The County’s population growth has been modest since 1980. After losing population in the 1980-90 decade, Stark County has rebounded slightly in recent years with economic growth. The 2000 Census lists the County’s population at 378,098, a 2.8% increase over 1990. According to the Ohio Department of Development, the County’s population was estimated at 381,229 in 2004, an increase of less than 1% from the 2000 figure. The principal trends in the population have been continuing
20 suburbanization, changing household composition and increases in aging and minorities among county residents.
Recent population growth has been seen in the suburban townships of Jackson, Plain and Lake. These townships, as well as Perry and Canton Townships, have areas that resemble cities. The Cities of Canton and Alliance are both struggling with population loss. The southern townships of Sugarcreek, Bethlehem, Pike and Sandy are essentially very rural and seeing little growth. Marlboro, Tuscarawas and Lawrence Township are still primarily agricultural communities, with Marlboro, however, seeing some population growth. Having such vast differences within one county requires that various planning considerations must be made depending on the area under discussion.
Planning Areas Table II-1. presents the 2000 population of the various planning areas of Stark County, the number of dwelling units per planning area and average persons per dwelling unit in each planning area. Planning areas are statistical units drawn by combining small area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) to approximate local political unit boundaries and school districts as they presently exist. It is important to note that planning area boundaries differ from some political unit boundaries, which often change with annexation. Map 1 shows the various planning areas of the County. The use of planning area statistics is suggested for three reasons:
1. They provide data for combined township and village areas which would benefit from coordinated planning.
2. They provide a comparable data base when political boundaries are subject to change with annexation.
3. They allow a smaller base unit of geography to be used to develop more accurate projections of population and employment.
21 Figure II-1. Stark County Planning Areas
Lake
Marlington Alliance
Plain Lawrence Jackson Louisville
Canton
Massillon Tuscarawas Paris Perry Osnaburg Canton Twp.
Fairless Sandy Valley
22
Table II-1. Population by Planning Area (2000) 2000 2000 Persons per Population Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Alliance Total 25,175 10,547 2.39 Canton Total 85,071 37,375 2.28 Canton Twp. Total 12,388 4,959 2.50 Fairless Total 12,390 5,039 2.46 Jackson Total 37,577 15,793 2.38 Lake Total 25,892 9,426 2.75 Lawrence Total 13,382 4,965 2.70 Marlington Total 12,621 4,701 2.68 Massillon Total 31,056 13,453 2.31 Louisville Total 16,496 6,324 2.61 Osnaburg Total 5,156 2,031 2.54 Paris Total 5,969 2,440 2.45 Perry Total 27,770 11,340 2.45 Plain Total 50,565 21,897 2.31 Sandy Valley Total 7,767 3,161 2.46 Tuscarawas Total 8,823 3,556 2.48 Stark County Total 378,098 157,007 2.41
Projections
Using the existing TAZ as a geographical base, current and future housing counts were determined. Availability of suitable land, access to the transportation system, sewer and water capabilities were some of the issues that factored into these decisions. Existing platted subdivisions were examined to determine where new housing units would likely be constructed. Also, considering that many zones have no available land for new housing and that certain zones would have only commercial or industrial land use, a few zones that currently have housing units will have zero housing units in 2030. After taking into account these factors, housing unit totals were produced for each TAZ. Making the observation that the persons per housing unit is continuing to decline, a population total for each zone was then calculated. Control totals for the County were provided by the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research (OSR –
23 the slower growth number). The primary control total was a straight-line projection of the 2025 figure used in the SCATS original 2030 plan. This is shown in Table II-2. as the medium population projection. The higher population was created based on current growth trends observed in Stark County and changes in recent population estimates. By using three sets of projections, the Plan has the flexibility to adapt to probable changes to the population over the next 25 years. SCRPC staff has focused on the moderate growth projection as other analyses have been made in this plan.
Table II-2. Population by Planning Area (2030)
2000 2030 2030 2030 2030 (SCATS) (OSR) High Medium Low Dwelling Planning Area Population Population Population Population Units Alliance Total 25,175 27,104 27,066 25,657 11,150 Canton Total 85,071 82,538 81,346 77,105 37,077 Canton Twp. Total 12,388 12,623 12,456 11,808 5,460 Fairless Total 12,390 12,225 12,138 11,505 5,294 Jackson Total 37,577 43,653 41,455 39,298 18,311 Lake Total 25,892 31,818 29,876 28,321 11,980 Lawrence Total 13,382 16,814 15,877 15,052 6,495 Marlington Total 12,621 13,677 13,450 12,745 5,542 Massillon Total 31,056 30,842 29,861 28,305 13,626 Louisville Total 16,496 18,516 17,642 16,723 7,431 Osnaburg Total 5,156 5,072 5,036 4,771 2,137 Paris Total 5,969 5,862 5,832 5,528 2,524 Perry Total 27,770 27,545 27,351 25,925 11,897 Plain Total 50,565 53,750 52,284 49,564 23,850 Sandy Valley Total 7,767 7,589 7,395 7,009 3,300 Tuscarawas Total 8,823 10,577 10,109 9,584 4,358 Stark County 378,098 400,205 389,174 368,900 170,432
Population Trends Several factors have been identified as the primary trends in the Stark County’s population:
24 1. Suburbanization
The suburbanization of the County's population is projected to continue to 2030. Overall, population growth will be modest. The mid-range projected 2030 population for Stark County is 389,174, an increase of 2.9% over 2000. This trend is projected to continue with most of the new suburban population growth expected to occur in Lake, Jackson and northern Plain and Lawrence townships. In 1980, 60% of the population lived in suburban areas. It is projected that by 2030, approximately 65% of the County’s population will be living in the suburbs. It is likely that the population in the developed urban areas will continue to decline but at a rate slower than in the past as reinvestment in the cities takes place.
Population projections by planning areas again show the uneven distribution trends which are expected to occur. Some suburban townships (Jackson, Lake, Plain, etc.) will grow at faster rates than the County as a whole. Some townships and municipalities will experience very slow population increases while others (particularly rural townships) will continue to lose population, primarily due to aging and relatively few local employment opportunities which will result in out-migration.
2. Smaller Household Size
Between 1980 and 2000 the persons-per-housing unit decreased from 2.65 to 2.41. By 2030, the projected persons-per-housing unit figure is expected to be between 2.16 and 2.35, depending upon which projection is used. Using the moderate growth projection, it would be 2.28 persons per dwelling unit. The continued decline in household size will have a major implication on future residential land use needs, not only on the acreage required but the types of housing built and the community facilities needed to meet changing household demands. Household size is expected to decrease for several reasons: more single-parent families, delayed marriage age for men and women and fewer children per family. Also contributing to smaller household size is the older population, whose increased life span allows them to spend more years as empty nesters, widows and widowers, creating many more childless and single-person households than in the past.
25 Mainly for these reasons, the number of housing units will increase at a faster rate than the population as a whole. The projected increase of more than 13,000 housing units by 2030 is an increase of 8.54% over 2000. Like the population, most of the housing increase will take place in the suburban townships of Lake, Jackson and Plain. Other townships experiencing limited housing growth include Lawrence and Nimishillen.
3. Other Changes
Since 1980, the population of Stark County has continued to grow older and has shown a greater diversity in race and ethnic origin. The median age has steadily increased from 30.8 years in 1980, to 33.6 years in 1990 and 38.2 years in 2000. These changes have been most noticeable in the older urbanized areas of Alliance, Canton and Massillon. However, changes have also taken place in the suburban areas as job opportunities and housing choices have become available to a wider range of families and individuals.
While total population remained fairly stable between 1980 and 2000, the number and percentage of persons aged 65 years and over and persons classed as minorities, has grown in each decade.
Year 2030 projections of persons below the poverty level and minority groups have not been made. However, it is assumed that the trends now occurring are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Comparing the OSR projections with the actual 2000 Census, the number of persons aged 60 and over will increase nearly 10%. The Scripps Gerontology Center has projected that the population aged 60 and over in Stark County will increase to nearly 100,000 persons by the year 2020, an increase of 35%. It is probable that many older communities of Stark County will continue to have populations whose average age, poverty condition and minority status are much higher than that of the County as a whole. Many people will become driving impaired as aging occurs; yet our society continues to develop in a transportation dependent mode. Planning considerations need to be made regarding this issue, highlighting the need for transit services and neighborhood facilities.
26 Population Trends and Land Use Planning Implications
Stark County population trends toward uneven suburban growth distribution, smaller household sizes and changing character, have important consequences, many of which are only beginning to be recognized. Some are related to the physical environment and others to the increasing concentrations of populations with special needs in the urban, suburban and rural parts of the County.
In the older urban areas, the results of population loss and change include:
• Over capacity of water and sewer facilities
• Physical deterioration of housing
• Increasing poverty, crime and homelessness
• More persons with the need for government services, with fewer taxpayers
In the developing suburbs, population increases and changes lead to problems in meeting expected needs, such as:
• Traffic congestion and safety issues on local roads
• Shortages of affordable housing
• Water quality and environmental degradation
• Lack of public park and recreation space
In the rural parts of the County, population losses and stagnant growth will create problems similar in many ways to the urban areas:
• Longer commutes for workers
• Underutilized infrastructure in the villages
• An aging population with special needs
• Loss of productive farmland
Employment Projections Employment trends in Stark County have several important implications for land use planning. Where jobs are located and what kinds of jobs are available have obvious
27 impacts on transportation systems, water and sewer facilities and provisions for retail and commercial support services. The characteristics of the labor force, particularly the growth of female labor force participation, older persons remaining in the work force, and persons holding multiple jobs, will also have increasing effects on home-to-work commuting patterns, day care and school facilities and leisure time activities of working families. The following table shows the labor force or workers and the employment or number of jobs in each planning area. Other employment includes persons working in education, local government and certain non-profit organizations.
Future employment figures were developed in much the same way as the population projections. Traffic zones were again used as the base unit of geography. Using a variety of sources, including the Stark County Auditor and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, year 2000 figures were developed for both the number of employees and the square footage for different employment types. This varies from past plans in the fact that little reliance was placed on data provided by the US Census Bureau in previous plans. Because of this, few detailed comparisons can be made over the past decades, although certain conclusions can be formed.
28 Table II-3. Employment by Planning Areas (2000) Total Commercial Industrial Other Service Planning Areas Labor Force Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Alliance Total 10,483 14,660 3,327 2,612 2,166 6,555 Canton Total 35,206 62,585 7,599 13,237 10,439 31,310 Canton Twp. Total 5,307 6,906 974 2,643 1,013 2,276 Fairless Total 5,563 4,745 520 1,103 1,079 2,043 Jackson Total 19,145 36,244 10,208 2,225 3,106 20,705 Lake Total 13,582 7,351 1,774 1,271 704 3,602 Lawrence Total 6,895 2,976 497 400 648 1,431 Marlington Total 5,870 3,182 250 1,180 535 1,217 Massillon Total 14,451 17,671 2,092 5,583 2,593 7,403 Louisville Total 7,743 5,226 814 1,094 755 2,563 Osnaburg Total 2,419 1,049 131 286 279 353 Paris Total 2,703 3,303 376 1,306 518 1,103 Perry Total 13,076 15,227 3,161 5,213 1,872 4,981 Plain Total 24,905 20,131 3,369 4,642 2,554 9,566 Sandy Valley Total 3,624 2,116 342 618 308 848 Tuscarawas Total 4,429 1,330 305 186 480 359 Stark County Total 175,401 204,702 35,739 43,599 29,049 96,315
Table II-4. Employment by Planning Areas (2030) Total Commercial Industrial Other Service Description Labor Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Force Alliance Total 10,844 18,229 4,186 3,284 2,991 7,824 Canton Total 32,704 70,432 7,131 12,066 14,680 36,822 Canton Twp. Total 5,149 8,228 1,194 2,997 1,643 2,404 Fairless Total 5,269 5,973 756 1,306 1,317 2,594 Jackson Total 21,308 44,512 11,624 3,041 4,989 24,821 Lake Total 15,816 9,770 2,471 2,015 1,071 4,213 Lawrence Total 8,042 3,704 582 642 882 1,602 Marlington Total 6,135 3,787 250 1,254 793 1,492 Massillon Total 13,560 20,630 2,428 5,462 3,584 9,169 Louisville Total 8,224 6,765 1,134 1,094 1,152 3,402 Osnaburg Total 2,290 1,291 171 334 408 379 Paris Total 2,535 3,612 312 1,368 691 1,241 Perry Total 12,648 21,695 4,930 6,172 3,078 7,249 Plain Total 25,742 24,776 3,921 4,704 4,041 12,112 Sandy Valley Total 3,329 2,343 335 518 496 996 Tuscarawas Total 5,048 1,439 286 170 583 404 Stark County Total 178,643 247,186 41,711 46,427 42,399 116,724
29 Where Stark County Workers Live
108 37 15 9 82 565 9 4 62 202 1578 7 445 7665 2548 3 14 1672 140537 55 3306
6 200 5125 5707 24 195 4 15 89 292
10 88 56 34 19 23 9 19 7 31 4
12 10 5 12 13
9 2
11 5
Does not Include Out of State Residents Where Stark County Residents Work
142 39 7 27 2443 22 7 30 50 172 2256 11 770 21094 23 5 1158
15 14 3026 140537 102 640 6 14 956 3 480 1679 18 13 16 27
8 20 12 10 153 26
3 6 9 11
25 3 32 6 3 18 58 7 27 18 11
5
Does not Include Out of State Workers To arrive at 2030 employment figures, a straight-line projection of the 2008 employment figures provided by the Department of Job and Family Services was used. To allocate jobs to the TAZ level, these figures were based, as were the population figures, on factors such as, availability of water and sewer, access to the transportation system and suitable land for industrial and commercial use. Noting certain employment types are expected to grow faster than others will, (i.e. service employment vs. manufacturing employment) and current development patterns, square footage by employment type was finalized. Based on historic patterns of employees, the number of employees by type for each TAZ was calculated as shown in Table II-4. This data was then aggregated up to the planning area and county level.
The trends over the last several decades show major shifts in the suburbanization of employment opportunities, growth of service jobs at the expense of traditional manufacturing employment and changes in the makeup of the labor force. The projections show an increase in all employment sectors. The rate of growth in employment will exceed the growth in the population and the location of these jobs will have an impact on the future development of Stark County.
Employment Trends and Land Use Planning Implications
Suburbanization Jobs have followed population shifts to the suburbs, especially commercial/retail employment. In 1970, there was a comparative balance between jobs located in the City of Canton and the rest of Stark County. In the three decades that followed, the three major cities lost jobs while the balance of the County showed significant increases in jobs. While Canton still provides the largest number of jobs, other areas have become major employment centers: Plain Township, North Canton and the Belden Village commercial area in Jackson Township. There was also a corresponding increase in workers commuting to jobs outside of Stark County. More than half of workers commuting to jobs outside of the County in 2000 worked in Summit County. The following Table shows where Stark County workers live and where Stark County residents work.
32 Table II-5. Stark County Commuting Patterns Stark Percent of workers that work outside the county - 20.7% Average commute time in minutes - 21.3 Number of workers 16+ years of age Number of workers 16+ years of age living in Stark County 177,234 working in Stark County 171,642 Commute Out To Number Percent Commute In From Number Percent Summit Co. OH 21,094 11.9% Summit Co. OH 7,665 4.5% Wayne Co. OH 3,026 1.7% Tuscarawas Co. OH 5,707 3.3% Cuyahoga Co. OH 2,443 1.4% Carroll Co. OH 5,125 3.0% Portage Co. OH 2,256 1.3% Columbiana Co. OH 3,306 1.9% Tuscarawas Co. OH 1,679 0.9% Mahoning Co. OH 2,548 1.5% Mahoning Co. OH 1,158 0.7% Wayne Co. OH 1,672 1.0% Carroll Co. OH 956 0.5% Portage Co. OH 1,578 0.9% Medina Co. OH 770 0.4% Cuyahoga Co. OH 565 0.3% Columbiana Co. OH 640 0.4% Medina Co. OH 445 0.3% Holmes Co. OH 480 0.3% Harrison Co. OH 292 0.2%
Percent is of workers living in county. Percent is of workers working in county.
Service Employment Growth Trends in job types are difficult to track in precise detail due to the changes in data utilized and in census classifications, particularly for various service employment groups. Stark County, however, has closely followed national trends that show the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs in most urbanized areas. The loss of manufacturing jobs was most keenly felt in the older central cities where some areas have lost nearly half of the manufacturing jobs over the last three decades. On the other hand, wholesale and retail trade and services growth occurred primarily in the suburban areas of Jackson, Perry and Plain townships, and to a lesser extent in growing retail areas of Canton and Massillon.
33 Changing makeup of the Labor Force Closely related to the suburban movement of future job opportunities and the shift to service type employment is the increase in female participation in the labor force. Over the last twenty years, the number of females in the workforce has increased nearly 28%. Year 2000 Census data shows that females now makeup 47.3% of Stark County’s labor force.
In recent years, there are an increasing number of older workers remaining in the labor force. The acceleration of the share of older and near elderly (persons ages 55 to 64) in the labor force has been attributed to a loss in retirement savings, rising health care costs and decreasing access to health insurance for early retirees, and for some, a desire to remain active. Many of these workers enjoy the flexibility offered in many service and retail work environments. There appears to be a good "fit" between many employment growth areas in Stark County and female and older workers entering and remaining longer in the work force in the future. The urbanized areas and older neighborhoods of adjoining townships face a continued decline in manufacturing jobs and slow employment growth overall and could benefit from a variety of land use planning activities, including:
• industrial building renovation and reuse • upgrading older water and sewer infrastructure • "brownfield" site clearance and redevelopment • strengthening existing communities by directing development towards in-fill locations • public transportation to suburban jobs
The principal planning activities will include:
• zoning for planned industrial and office parks
• day care and convenience shopping for working families
• expanded water and sewer infrastructure
• community design to accommodate industry and business
• preservation of existing open spaces
34 • transportation system from suburban living area to suburban jobs
In the rural parts of the County, more limited employment opportunities in such areas as farming, mining, oil and gas drilling, tourism and related services will be linked to environmental concerns, as well as transportation needs, to reach jobs in nearby villages and cities. Land use planning will include:
• environmental protection of sensitive areas and local natural resources
• rural resource conservation of farmland, scenic areas and tourist attractions
• development of public and commercial leisure time facilities
• protection of existing corridors for pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• improved rural highway capacity and safety
35 B: ECONOMIC SECTOR
Economics Introduction Economic development planning is successful to the extent that it is based on a solid analytical framework that accurately describes the local economic context which includes the identification of the needs of the planning area, and the local resources that are available to address these needs. This process requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy as well as factors that are constraining it.
Economic Structure Over the years, Stark County’s economy has been dominated by the manufacturing sector. It used to be the largest contributor to employment as well as gross domestic product. However, this trend started to change in the 1970s. The County, as well as the State of Ohio and the nation-at-large, experienced a decline in manufacturing activities, especially within the heavy manufacturing industries. This trend has led to the current situation where the service sector has overtaken manufacturing as the County’s largest provider of employment. Table II-6. shows the contribution of the major sectors of the County’s economy to employment for 1970 - 2000.
Table II-6. Employment by Industries, 1970-2000
Sector 1970 1980 1990 2000 Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Census Number (%) Number (%) Number (%) Number (%)
Manufacturing 59,262 42.0 57,048 35.6 44,100 26.8 42,439 23.5
Transport/ 8,182 5.8 5,000 3.1 9,363 5.7 6,862 3.8 Communication Wholesale/ 27,336 19.4 32,596 20.3 39,517 24.0 41,537 23 Retail Services 37,184 26.3 46,706 29.2 52,108 31.7 69,165 38.3
Others 9,296 6.5 18,783 11.8 19,364 11.8 20,587 11.4
Total 141,260 100 160,135 100 164,452 100 180,590 100
36 Manufacturing Manufacturing has long been the engine of the Stark County economy. It still accounts for the largest share of total gross domestic product (GDP) despite the fact that manufacturing activities in the County and in the State of Ohio as a whole have been experiencing a downward trend over the last three decades. The high percentage of manufacturing’s contribution to the economy implies that Stark County also derives a significantly larger share of its gross domestic product from manufacturing. The sector’s employment declined by 3.7% from 1970 to 1980, declined by 22.7% from 1980 to 1990 and further declined 3.8% from 1990 to 2000.
The manufacturing industry includes food, leather and allied products, paper, printing and related supportive activities, chemical, plastics and rubber products, nonmetallic mineral products, primary metal, fabricated metal, machinery, computer and accessories, electronic equipment, appliance and components, transportation equipment and furniture and related products.
Many of the County’s manufacturing industries are located at the North Canton Industrial Park and other parks located within the County. Prominent among them are the Timken Company, the Hoover Company and Diebold Inc. Stark County also thrives on many smaller and family owned businesses. It has seven Enterprise Zones that cover 80 square miles. Businesses locating or expanding within these designated zones may qualify for substantial state and local tax breaks as incentive. Table II-7. and Figure II-1. show a breakdown of the economic composition of the County.
37 Table II-7. Sectors’ Contribution to Gross Domestic Product (Year 2000) Sector Dollars (%) Agriculture $ 51,705,000 0.5 Construction $ 610,119,000 5.9 Finance / Insurance / Real Estate $ 1,520,127,000 14.7 Government $ 878,985,000 8.5 Manufacturing $ 2,936,844,000 28.4 Mining $ 41,364,000 0.4 Service $ 1,995,813,000 19.3 Transport / Comm./ Public utilities $ 444,663,000 4.3 Trade (wholesale and retail) $ 1,861,380,000 18.0 Total $ 10,341,000,000 100.0 Source: IMPLAN database, Minnesota IMPLAN group Extension Data Center, Dept. of HCRD, The Ohio State University
38 Figure II-4. Sectors’ Contribution to the Economy (2000)
Wholesale & Retail Agriculture Construction 1% 6% 18% Finance / nsp/Comm/ Pub Insurance / Real Util Estate 4% 15%
Government 9%
Service 19%
Mining Manufacturing 0% 28%
Service The service sector is a vital component of the County’s economy and a major employer, making up 55% of total employees in the County in 2000. Employment in this sector has seen continuous growth over the last three decades. It increased by 25.6% from 1970 to 1980, 11.6% from 1980 to 1990 and further increased by 32.7% from 1990 to 2000. Health care and social assistance make up a substantial portion of the services sector, with accommodations and food services coming in second. Among the major employers in the service sector are Alliance Community Hospital, Aultman Hospital and Mercy Medical Center.
Trade The wholesale and retail trades also account for a more sizable portion of Stark County’s employment. Over the last three decades, the sector recorded constant growth from 1970 to 1990, it however declined by 1.5% from 1990 to 2000. Wal-Mart has become a major employer in this sector with five stores now open in Stark County.
39 Agriculture Agriculture remains an important contributor to the Stark County economy, despite the fact that other land uses continue to increase at the expense of farmland. Agriculture contributed $51,705,000 in output in 2000 to the County’s economy by way of sales. Nursery and horticultural production represent about 37% of production agriculture, while livestock and poultry production account for about 34%. Food & forestry processing also account for a substantial contribution to the economy.
Table II-8. Stark County Employment Growth/Decline by Sectors (1970-2000) Rate of Growth or Decline
Sector 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1970-2000
Manufacturing -3.7% -22.7% -3.8% -28.4%
Transport/ -38.9% 87.3% -26.7% -16.1% Communication Wholesale/ Retail 19.2% 22.2% -1.5% 34.1%
Services 25.6% 11.6% 32.7% 86%
Others 102.1% 3.1% 6.3% 121.5%
Total 13.4% 2.7% 9.8% 27.8%
The employment sector of Stark County has recorded significant growth over the last three decades. The total employment grew from 141,260 in 1970 to 180,590 in 2000, a growth rate of 27.8 %. As reported by the U.S. Bureau of Census, during the same period, the total population of the County grew by 1.6%; a rate substantially below employment growth. It must, however, be pointed out that the employment growth is concentrated on the service sector with lower paying jobs thereby limiting its impact on the total economy of the County.
Labor Force Characteristics The total number of persons who were 16 years or above constituting the labor force in the year 2000 was 189,219. The labor force participation rate, which is persons employed in the labor force, was over 95%. The trend since 1970 has been an overall increase in the rate of labor force participation rate and also the ratio of females in the
40 labor force. Over the last twenty years, the number of females in the workforce has increased nearly 28% as discussed in the Demographics Section of this plan. While females enter and remain in the labor force for a variety of economic and personal reasons, the move is facilitated by more job opportunities closer to home and for many, the flexibility of part-time work.
Income and Poverty Median household income for Stark County in 1996 was $27,852. This figure increased to $41,875 in 2002 representing an increase of over 50% during this 6-year period. These figures compare favorably with other counties in the state when comparing growth in median income, as shown in Table II-9. During that period, poverty rates declined in the County. The poverty rate for population of 18 years and above declined from 11.3% in 1990 to 7.8% in 1999. It is expected that the trends now occurring are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Table II-9. Stark County Median Household Income compared with the State of Ohio Year State of Ohio Stark County Rank
1996 $ 33,895 $ 27,852 41 1997 $ 36,029 $ 30,560 50 1998 $ 38,726 $ 34,522 37 1999 $ 39,707 $ 38,323 31 2000 $ 42,054 $ 39,701 33 2001 $ 41,780 $ 39,566 36 2002 $ 42,246 $ 41,875 35 Source: US Census Bureau
A close look at the poverty situation of the County reveals that poverty levels are highest in specific communities in the developed urban areas and the rural county and lowest on the whole in the suburban county. Communities with the highest poverty rates are Alliance, Massillon, Waynesburg and Sandy Township. Median household incomes are highest in the suburban county areas of Meyers Lake, Lake Township, Jackson Township, and in the rural county area of Marlboro Township.
41 Summary of Problems and Opportunities of the Economic Sector Problems • Continued decline of manufacturing industries • Increasing competitiveness of other Ohio cities, counties and other states to attract existing manufacturing and trade companies to relocate to their areas • Continued over-reliance on one business/ industry group Opportunities • Availability of developed industrial sites and parks • Location (access to major Midwest & Eastern markets) • Stable household incomes levels • Location of universities, colleges and technical schools to facilitate continuous supply of skilled manpower needed for production
The focus of economic development policies is to diversify the County’s local economic base, strengthen downtown businesses and increase employment. The most important economic goal identified is to build a diversified and employment based economy. SCRPC suggests the following objectives and strategies to work toward this goal.
Objective 1 Retain, expand and attract business investment in Stark County. (Stark Development Board Mission Statement)
Strategies: A. Collaborate with appropriate agencies to develop initiatives to target service, R&D high-tech, warehouse and distribution companies as new prospects
B. Encourage the Kent State University – Stark Campus’ Small Business Development Center and other agencies to provide more management training, counseling, consulting and research services for small firms as a means of improving their economic performance and expand their workforce
C. Evaluate and redesign the existing micro-enterprise programs to provide seed capital in a group lending approach that builds collective social capital
42 D. Explore methods to create increased economic opportunities in the downtown area of Canton and urban centers in smaller communities, a United Way Compass Goal
E. Identify and protect suitable service land for industrial and commercial development through municipal and township zoning regulations
Objective 2 Put to economic use, buildings and lands that may currently contain environmental hazards, which are zoned commercial or industrial.
Strategies: A. Promote the reuse of existing industrial facilities and central city employment through incentives and strategic partnership with appropriate agencies
B. Explore and make application for brownfield cleanup from state and federal sources
C. Package existing brownfield properties and sites and market them to prospective businesses
D. Encourage incentives to developers and business to utilize current facilities and land that is properly zoned before rezoning new land for industrial purposes
Objective 3
Improve the educational attainment of workers so as to build and expand quality jobs that pay a living wage, a United Way Compass goal.
Strategies: A. Encourage school-to-work programs that aim at improving the current workers educational attainment and improve their prospects in finding quality jobs
B. Encourage continued collaboration between education institutions and employers so as to provide customized training (specific training based on firms requirements)
43 C. Work with the Employment Source and other agencies to address the needs of both job seekers and employers by bringing into contact individuals seeking employment with businesses needing qualified job candidates
Objective 4 Facilitate funding for infrastructure improvements, which promote economic development consistent with sound land use principles.
Strategies: A. Coordinate funding priorities to promote economic development by targeting funds towards infrastructure improvement
B. Promote further local and Stark State College of Technology’s involvement in fuel cell research, technology and manufacturing systems development in support of Ohio’s long-term vision of becoming a manufacturing center for the fuel cell industry and a source of new innovative products
44
SECTION III: LAND USE ELEMENTS
45 A: LIVING AREAS Introduction Historically, housing and the associated amenities which make up livable neighborhoods have been the single largest users of land in the urbanized parts of Stark County. More than 50% of developed urban land consists of residences of various types and densities, public and private elementary and secondary schools, neighborhood parks, churches and local convenience shops which serve the immediate neighborhood. Perhaps more than any other land use, residential use shapes the direction, extent and character of the urban area. Ideally, these residential communities are readily accessible to the major highway network, and work and shopping districts in the region. Yet, they also must be protected from the worst effects of traffic congestion, noise, air and water pollution and other environmental degradation. Their design is critical to the quality of life for every Stark County resident.
According to a land use survey conducted by SCRPC in the summer of 2003, the primary issues of concern to local government officials, with regard to residential land use in Stark County are urban sprawl, inadequate neighborhood and community facilities, aging and deterioration of water and sewer, loss of productive agricultural lands through development, lack of variety of housing choices, unsafe or unattractive living areas and the lack of affordable housing to many residents. The three primary issues of concern to all respondents regarding living areas are urban sprawl, unsafe or unattractive living areas and inadequate neighborhood and community facilities.
The goal of the regional land use plan is to encourage more diverse, livable communities which will provide housing opportunities for all residents. Yet, livability means more than just houses. The majority of the housing stock in Stark County is privately built and owned. Livable residential communities require adequate public services including water supply, sewage disposal, police and fire protection, solid waste collection, etc. This may also include subsidized housing for persons with special needs and more innovative designs which increase housing choices, protect natural environmental features, promote walkable neighborhoods and provide for mixed-use development. Local government planning and private development should complement
46 one another by ensuring that adequate public facilities and services are available to meet the needs of all residents.
Density Issues Where densities are higher and special population needs exist, livability also calls for public transit services and a wider range of housing types, such as rental units, handicap accessible units, smaller units for elderly and smaller families, and more affordable housing, both in terms of units for purchase and rental.
The picture of living areas in Stark County which emerges is one of a variety of housing choices for residents. While some residential neighborhoods are relatively homogeneous in character, others present a mix of housing types and densities. These neighborhoods may vary in age, housing condition, affordability, rental unit availability and community amenities, including the quality of the educational system, water, sewer, and other features.
Table III-1. Residential Densities
Political Density Subdivision (Units/Acre) Alliance 1.8 Canton 2.7 Massillon 1.3 Canton Twp 0.4 Jackson Twp 0.7 Lake Twp 0.4 Perry Twp 0.8 Plain Twp 1.2 Rural Twps 0.1 Twp Average 0.3
Residential neighborhoods differ widely in densities from urban cities to suburban and rural localities as shown in the table above. The older urban areas have a mix of single family homes on small lots, multi-family apartments and special needs housing. Canton has the highest residential density with 2.7 housing units per acre, while the rural
47 townships, with predominantly single family housing, have an average of only about 0.1 housing unit per acre.
Housing Differences A mix is also seen throughout the County in the age of housing stock. In the older developed urban centers of Alliance, Canton, and Massillon, according to the 2000 Census, roughly 50% of the housing stock is more than 50 years old. In the Villages of East Sparta, Limaville, Navarre, Waynesburg and Wilmot, more than 60% of the housing is more than 50 years old. By contrast, only about 22% of the rest of the County has its housing stock aged 50 years or more. In the northern tier townships, such as Lake and Jackson, only 7–15% of the housing stock is 50 years or older.
Between 1990 and 2000, the median housing value for the County as a whole increased from $57,300 to $100,300, with some residential areas having a median housing value of over $150,000. Typically, these rates are at least 75% higher than in 1990, with the largest increase in a city being in the City of Massillon (up 89.2%). The smallest increase seen in the median range of housing was in Jackson and Lake Townships, where the value rose approximately 67%. In Lake Township the median housing value rose from $80,000 to $135,000; in Jackson, the median value rose from $88,500 in 1990 to $150,000 in 2000. The 2003 average sales price of homes in these two townships is closer to $200,000, according to the 2004 Consolidated Plan.
Smaller villages and townships also exhibit a varied pattern of housing age and values. In the rural southeast and southwest parts of the County, approximately 35-40% of the housing stock is 50 years of age or older, with median housing values increasing from the $30-40,000 range in 1990 to the $80,000-95,000 range in 2000, which is an increase of more than 100% from 1990. In the developing suburban fringe of the northern tier of townships, such as Lake and Jackson, only 7-15% of the housing stock is 50 years or older.
There are more than 148,320 households in Stark County. More than one-third of all households are located in the central city areas of the County, according to the 2000 census. The vast majority are family households, with a larger percentage of non-family
48 households (households where the members are not related) located in the central cities. Households are generally larger in the rural county and smaller in the central city areas. Household size has steadily decreased in the County since 1970: from 3.18 persons per household in 1970 to 2.58 in 1990. The average Stark County household had 2.49 persons in 2000. Projections predict this trend will continue, decreasing to approximately 2.43 persons per household by 2020 and 2.28 by 2030, using the moderate population growth projection.
Finally, the availability of rental units differs widely from one community to another. In the urban areas of Alliance and Canton, rental units make up more than 38% of all housing stock. Rental units in rapidly growing accessible suburban locations, such as Jackson and Plain Townships, account for 25-31% of all housing. In the more rural townships (Bethlehem, Marlboro, Nimishillen, Osnaburg, Paris, Pike, Sandy, Sugarcreek, and Washington), rental units are less common, accounting for 9-24% of the housing stock.
Affordable Housing Needs According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “the generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30% of its annual income on housing.” This includes all housing related expenses including PITI (Principle, Interest, Taxes and Insurance) for homeowners, or rent and insurance for renters. An estimated 12 million renters and homeowners nationwide currently pay more than 50% of their annual income for housing. A family with one full- time worker earning minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two- bedroom apartment anywhere in the U.S.
Currently, home values in the urbanized areas of the County are considerably lower, and thereby more affordable, than those in the suburban and rural areas of Stark County. Only 27% of the housing within the urban centers is valued over $100,000, while 70% of the housing in the remainder of the County is valued over $100,000. Various ways to address affordable housing are included in the strategies that follow.
49 Public Housing Needs The need for publicly subsidized housing, according to the 2004 Consolidated Plan, is apparent from the 5,331 residents in public housing and 3,588 residents in Section 8 Housing. Furthermore, significant waiting lists exist for both types of units. As of January 2004, approximately 967 households were on the waiting list for Public Housing Authority (PHA) units, and 1,394 were on the Section 8 waiting list.
Previous programs developing low and moderate-income housing focused on high concentrations of units within limited areas; however, current planning seeks to disperse public housing over a wider geographic area and has included homeownership programs. With this aim, the Stark Metropolitan Housing Agency (SMHA) created an affiliated non-profit development corporation known as the Freed Housing Corporation. Plans call for the development of 50 scattered site Section 8 rental units, creation of 50 units for elderly and disabled renters, development of 25 units for homeownership, and preservation of existing affordable housing in Stark County in the near future. Several other non-profit organizations are developing affordable housing for low-moderate income families using federal and state funding. Efforts like these, particularly in targeted neighborhoods and cooperatively between various agencies must continue. SCRPC and others should seek additional funding sources and create partnerships with SMHA, Stark County Building Industry Association and other housing providers to promote compact, mixed use and affordable housing development.
Homelessness* The 2003 Point-in-Time Homeless Count found 249 homeless persons in shelters and 166 without shelter, totaling 415 homeless persons, according to the 2004 Consolidated Plan. When all of the homeless individuals, including those in programs and/or transitional housing were counted, the total was 842 persons. This is an apparent increase from previous Point-in-Time Counts. The following table shows the estimated unmet need for homeless housing in Stark County. Based on the table, Stark County has just over 50% of the needed spaces for the homeless in the various shelters and housing programs. Additional living spaces need created for the homeless and/or increased homeownership opportunities need generated for low and moderate-income families in the County. An Interagency Council on Homelessness (referred to as the “Council”) was
50 formed in 2004 with the mission to develop and implement strategies and solutions to address the problem of homelessness throughout Stark County, including the development of supportive housing options and the securing of federal, state and local resources and other measures designed to:
• Prevent and end chronic homelessness in Stark County
• Insure a coordinated safety net of emergency services for those in a short term housing crisis
• Coordinate and consolidate local efforts to provide a cost-effective and streamlined system for addressing homelessness
Table III-2. Estimated Unmet Need for Homeless Housing Current Inventory Beds Under Unmet Need/Gap Development Individuals
Emergency Shelters 84 27 -123
Transitional Housing 93 12 -113
Permanent Supportive 106 12 -187 Housing
Total Individuals 283 51 -423
Families with Children
Emergency Shelters 120 10 -8
Transitional Housing 66 34 -38
Permanent Supportive 22 2 -7 Housing
Total Families 208 46 -53
Overall Totals 491 97 -476 Source: Stark County Homeless Consortium (March 2003)
51 The Council is comprised of representatives from the Cities of Alliance, Canton and Massillon, the Board of Stark County Commissioners, the private and public sector, foundations, local health care providers, United Way of Greater Stark County, non-profit service and housing providers, law enforcement and the SCRPC.
*portions of Homelessness Section taken from SCRPC’s 2004 Consolidated Plan
Identified Living Areas The plan shows three broad living areas, each requiring a different set of public sector planning strategies aimed at enhancing livability, while protecting the uniqueness of each area.
1. Developed Urban The Cities of Canton, Alliance, and Massillon and some of the villages are challenged by the issues of population decline, aging housing stock, older and in some cases deteriorating physical infrastructure and community facilities that are often overburdened and in need of expansion and modernization. Developed urban areas have vacant buildings, and often have increasing poverty, crime and homelessness. These areas are generally built out with little vacant land available for development.
Other characteristics include:
• An average of 1.25 or more dwelling units per acre of land
• Detached single-family homes and duplexes on small lots
• Multi-family units including high rise, garden apartments and condominiums
• Some mixed residential/commercial uses with converted housing
• Residential areas generally served by public water and sewer
Cultivating further involvement with Local Initiatives Support Consortium (LISC) (www.liscnet.org) which provides grants, loans and equity investments and advocates for Community Development Corporations (CDC’s) for neighborhood reinvestment is one suggested method of addressing the needs of the urbanized areas.
Community gardens are also suggested as a method to improve living areas in urban centers and villages. They increase a sense of community ownership and
52 stewardship, provide opportunities to meet neighbors, build block clubs, reduce stress and increase a sense of wellness and belonging. Also noted is that increasing the consumption of fresh healthy produce is one of the best ways to address childhood lead poisoning. Inner city parks tend to be maintained at a lower standard than other municipal green space and lower income neighborhoods generally have less access to green space than other parts of cities. Community gardens provide inter-generational exposure to cultural traditions and access to community information. A few local groups are initiating community garden efforts. The American Community Garden Association has additional information at their website www.communitygarden.org.
Planning and development strategies for developed urban areas require close cooperation between the local municipal and county officials to ensure the most productive and efficient use of land and other resources. Other strategies include:
• Flexible zoning to encourage infill housing and mixed use development
• Infrastructure upgrading to ensure adequacy of public facilities
• Community and neighborhood housing rehabilitation programs, including utilizing the state’s alternative building codes for rehabilitation of older buildings which permits different standards for older buildings
• Strengthened code enforcement programs
• Urban historic preservation design and amenities initiatives
• Adaptive reuse of buildings to meet changing population needs
2. Suburban County
The Cities of North Canton, Louisville and Canal Fulton, the Villages of Hills and Dales and Meyers Lake, and Canton, Jackson, Lake, Lawrence, Nimishillen, Perry and Plain Townships are generally referred to as the suburban county. Located in the central and northwest parts of the County, they have the greatest accessibility to Akron and Cleveland.
Extensive land subdivision and housing construction beginning in the late 1960’s and continuing since, have taken place in large tracts in central and western Jackson
53 Township, northern Plain Township, southern Lake Township and in smaller subdivision allotments in parts of Perry, Canton, Nimishillen, and Lawrence Townships. Some vacant lots remain in planned allotments interspersed with farmland, some that could be developed in the future, and a number that should be preserved.
Easy access to major highways, extension of trunk water and sewer lines and proximity to major employment and shopping centers generally account for the popularity of these growing suburban living areas. In many localities, traffic delays and overburdened infrastructure occur as local service demands cannot keep up with housing construction. There is also a need for additional affordable housing in these suburban areas.
According to the 2004 Consolidated Plan, the County population and household increases have not kept pace with increases in housing units overall, and there are 8,700 more housing units than households in the County. An oversupply of housing was present in 1990 and has increased since then, with more than 5.5% of county units sitting vacant. Vacancy has jumped among both owner- and renter-occupied units, with the highest vacancy rates being in the developed urban areas.
One concern is that these suburban areas should not be developed and housing built at a rate much faster than the population growth rate and the rate of demolition of older housing. This could lead to a situation of ever-increasing vacancy rates for both owner-occupied and rental units. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of housing units in the County increased by 6.9%, from 146,910 to 157,024 units. In the areas outside the central cities; however, the number of housing units increased 14.6%, from 85,760 units to 98,249 units. This is concerning because the population grew at only 2.9% for the County and at 4.9% for areas outside the central cities. Decreasing household sizes will absorb some of this overstock; however, this vacancy rate does need to be considered. It is important for developers to consider types and sizes on new housing that is needed, in light of the aging baby boomer population.
Although the suburban living areas typically have some unique distinguishing features, broadly their characteristics include:
• An average of more than 0.31 dwelling units per acre of land
54 • Nearly exclusive residential uses separated from non-residential uses
• Predominantly single-family homes on larger lots
• Multi-family uses limited to accessible highway corridors
• Water and sewer available or planned for the near future
The principal land use strategies needed to protect existing housing investments and strengthen neighborhood cohesiveness will be largely instituted through changes in local zoning and subdivision controls. They include:
• More diversity in housing types for the elderly, special needs populations and small families
• More affordable housing with reduced parking and yard requirements
• Subdivision design sensitive to local history, cultural and environmental concerns
• Preservation of trees and unique environmental features through conservation development
• Infrastructure concurrence with housing development
• Circulation system more attuned to pedestrian and cyclists needs
• Increased number of public transit connections to urban and suburban job locations
2. Rural County The rural county consists of all townships and villages outside of the developed urban areas and the suburban county, predominantly located along the southern, western, and eastern borders of Stark County. These areas are characterized by pockets of older housing, new housing on large tracts of land, limited physical infrastructure capacity and a relatively low level of community facilities.
These rural areas must address issues such as an aging population, fewer job opportunities, loss of green space and limited access to health and social services. The principal land use strategies in the rural township and county areas should be designed to minimize urban development pressures on these rural locations, preserve existing green
55 space and retain land in very low density residential or agricultural uses. Utilizing USDA’s local Crossroads Resource Conservation & Development Council (www.crossroadsrcd.org) and Stark Soil & Water Conservation District’s (www.starkswcd.org) technical expertise in improving quality of life through natural resource conservation and community development is recommended for these rural areas. Additional strategies include:
• Agricultural or rural residential use zoning
• Minimal public infrastructure investments, primarily in roads, with only limited development of water & sewer
• Protection of natural feature assets; the adoption of riparian setback ordinances
• Protection of historical and cultural assets
• Property tax incentives to retain farming operations – including agricultural and conservation easements
Opportunities Several areas of the County do not have public water and sewer. Many of these townships request CDBG funds to assist with extension of infrastructure services and development of new infrastructure to serve existing housing and fuel development of new housing or other forms of development. Significant pockets of undeveloped land exist in and around most of the developed urban areas of Stark County with good access to major transportation routes and sufficient amenities.
The 2004 Consolidated Plan states that the CDBG department will look for opportunities to link plans and commitments to develop new water, sewer and other infrastructure investments with the construction of new affordable housing, particularly in and around urban areas. By linking infrastructure and housing, SCRPC will help promote affordable homeownership opportunities within mixed income neighborhoods in and around urban areas with long-term benefit. The linking of infrastructure and housing will allow the use of CDBG funding (which continues to decrease) to have a greater impact and leverage other funds. In addition, by focusing on areas around the urban centers, further urban sprawl will be limited.
56 Please see the following Stark County Opportunities Map from the Consolidated Plan for a graphic representation of areas for potential housing development through linked provision of infrastructure and affordable housing funding. The map highlights three elements that are important to identifying potential areas for development of new affordable housing: major employers, neighborhoods identified through the 2004 Consolidated Plan as in need of revitalization, and areas planned for future public water/sewer development.
Community Facilities* Health, education, recreation and public safety needs of the Stark County population are met through an array of facilities and programs. Many facilities are centrally located in the City of Canton, while others are available throughout the County.
57 LIMAV
STARK COUNTY LEXINGTONT
OPPORTUNITIES MAP MARLBOROM
LAKELAKKEE
FFULUL NIMISHILLENHILH
LAWRENCER E WASHWASHINGTONH N
JACKSONJAA
STST
PARIS
OSNABURGS R
CANTONTO
MINNNE TUSCARAWASTUTTUSCARAWA E
STER SANDYS Planned Water/Sewer Development
SUGARUGG CCREEKRE PIKEE BETHLEHEME M Major Employers SPARTA WAYNESBUNESBURGNESBUN BBUBURGUURRG LLMOTLM Neighborhood CHC Revitalization Areas CCITYITY
Febureay 2004 Access of the suburban and rural populations may be limited, though access has been improved by the advent of the county-wide service of the SARTA. Following is an inventory of the community facilities and services that contribute to the stability and quality of life of Stark County households. Recreation is covered in the Open Space chapter.
Health Care Four public health departments provide a full range of community health services to the County: Alliance, Canton, Massillon and Stark County Health Departments. There are five acute care hospitals serving residents: Alliance Community Hospital, Aultman Hospital, Doctors Hospital, Massillon Community Hospital and Mercy Medical Center.
Aultman Hospital operates facilities in Canton, Massillon, Jackson Township and North Canton. Mercy Medical Center has established facilities in Canton, Louisville, Jackson Township, Massillon and North Canton. Heartland Behavioral Healthcare is also located in the County. Stark County administers health services through the Department of Human Services, Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD) and Board of Alcohol and Drug Addiction and Mental Health Board.
The Stark County Health Department holds public clinics in Beach City, the Belden Village area of Jackson Township, Canal Fulton, Lake Township, Louisville, Navarre and Waynesburg. These include a prenatal clinic, “well child” health centers, clinics for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) supplemental food program, immunization clinics, adult health clinics and a dental health clinic. Clinics operate on limited days and hours and are located in the health department office and various church/senior facilities. Other free and/or low cost clinics include, but are not limited to, the Good Samaritan Medical Care Clinic in Alliance, Western Stark County Medical Clinic and Healthvan, the Canton Community Clinic and Margaret Shipley Child Care Clinic in Canton.
59 Table III-3. Hospitals and Health Resources
Hospital # of Beds Health Resource #
Alliance Community 176
Aultman 682 Physicians 778
Doctors 183 Nursing Homes 54
Massillon Community 268 Nursing Home Beds 4,414
Mercy Medical 476
Source: Stark County Homeless Consortium (March 2003)
Education Stark County is home to 17 public school districts, educating over 65,000 students each year. In addition, 29 parochial and private schools serve the area. High schools in Stark County offer both vocational and college prep tracks and the County has one school dedicated completely to vocational education. The County also has a special school for students with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. More than 50% of high school graduates in Stark County go on to two- or four-year colleges.
Three universities, Ashland (Stark Branch), Kent State (Stark Branch) and Walsh, have four-year programs on-site that are located in Stark County. There are two four- year colleges: Malone College and Mount Union College. Stark State College of Technology is a two-year community college serving Stark County. Other major universities and colleges within easy commuting distance of Stark County include the University of Akron and Kent State University. Workforce development is a critical issue in Stark County as it is throughout the Midwest. Ohio ranks 41st in the nation in the percentage of its adult population holding four-year college degrees. In Stark County, only 11.9% of its residents age 25 and over have a Bachelor Degree, compared to 13.7% in Ohio and 15.5% in the nation.
Public Safety A wide range of police, fire and emergency medical service facilities serves county residents. The Stark County Sheriff’s Department staff provides protection in those townships without their own police forces. Local municipalities and some
60 township police departments provide service within their jurisdictions. The sheriff’s staff is divided among the following sections: operations, jail, staff services and court services. The Stark County Emergency Preparedness Center manages and operates a number of programs, including the County 9-1-1 program, the HAZMAT (hazardous materials) emergency response and confined space rescue team and the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Fire protection and EMS services vary among townships, cities and villages. Fire and EMS services within the County are provided in several ways: paid staff, volunteers and by contract.
A regional approach to public safety could provide a more uniform protection to all areas of the County, an improvement upon what some areas of the County are currently receiving. Many territorial issues, however, would have to be resolved for this to succeed.
*Portions of The Community Facilities Section were taken from the SCRPC’S 2004 Consolidated Plan.
Goal: Improve Community & Neighborhood Livability
Objective 1 Partner with local political subdivisions within Stark County to focus redevelopment on neighborhoods within the urbanized areas and village centers.
Strategies: A. Create a countywide consumer driven Purchase Rehabilitation Homes Sale Program to balance out existing vacancy rates and modest population growth B. Develop neighborhood revitalization partnerships with the Cities of Alliance, Massillon and Canton, promoting in-fill development and walkable neighborhoods C. Promote adaptive reuse of buildings to meet changing population needs and use the state’s alternative building codes for rehabilitation of older buildings D. Strengthen code enforcement programs E. Promote mixed use downtown centers, including use of design guidelines, specific consideration for building height, style, setbacks and streetscapes
61 Objective 2 Link provision of infrastructure to direct growth towards areas with adequate sewer and water lines and away from areas without adequate infrastructure.
Strategies: A. Improve deteriorating, aging infrastructure with use of OPWC infrastructure funds B. Shift allocation of CDBG funding priorities from public operating funds toward infrastructure improvement C. Limit use of public funds for extension of infrastructure into rural areas solely for the purpose of expanded or new development D. Encourage use of priority conservation and priority development area designations Objective 3 Provision of additional senior housing choices in a variety of types and locations, including necessary services and facilities, to address the aging population.
Strategies: A. Increase range of housing choice in size, price range and related residential needs (rental units, affordability, assisted living features) through flexible zoning, subdivision regulations and fair housing B. Create partnerships with various housing providers to promote compact and mixed use development C. Promote affordable housing through mixed income development, including clustering of homes with reduced parking and yard requirements D. Make places walkable for aging populations in response to new demographics and special needs
Objective 4 Encourage development of facilities related to quality of life issues.
Strategies: A. Structure new subdivisions to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks and trails), tying into the countywide trail system where possible B. Identify and develop possible community and neighborhood parks, recreation areas, community festival sites, etc.
62 C. Use trees and other green infrastructure to provide shelter, beauty, urban heat reduction and separation from automobile traffic D. Partner with and utilize other agencies’ technical expertise to improve the quality of life through natural resource conservation and community development E. Promote cultivation of community gardens in the urban centers
63 B: WATER RESOURCES Water Quality The protection of water resources, including underground well fields, surface storage reservoirs, rivers and streams is vital to any community. Other critical areas for water-quality protection include wetlands, buffer zones, riparian corridors and floodplains. It is critical to use appropriate zoning and other regulatory measures to protect the area’s water supply. Land use in the immediate vicinity of well fields should be restricted to minimize groundwater pollution potential. Urban development should be avoided in natural groundwater recharge areas such as wetlands, bogs, swamps and riparian corridors, which are essential to good water quality. Development should also be avoided in rural areas where landfills, abandoned strip mines and drilling operations can result in toxic runoff which can contaminate streams and underground water sources.
There are eight basic management tools designed to mitigate the impact of development: watershed planning, land conservation, aquatic buffers, better site design, erosion control, storm water treatment practices, control of non-storm water discharges and watershed stewardship. These can be applied with different methods or in different combinations, but each is valuable in protecting water quality.10
Watershed Planning
Watershed planning is an invaluable tool for protecting water resources. A small portion of Stark County drains into the Mahoning River Watershed and the Lake Erie Basin, but for the most part, Stark County’s waters drain into the Muskingum Watershed and then into the Ohio River. Many communities are seeking to reduce the need for costly infrastructure by preserving and managing watershed lands for source water protection.11 See Figure III-2 Watersheds in Stark County.
Portions of Stark County are located in the Tuscarawas River Region Watershed, and the Northeast Four County Planning Organization (NEFCO) plays a major role in watershed planning in this area. In addition to carrying out various studies on water quality, NEFCO also oversees the Nimishillen Creek Watershed Partners and has created an Upper Tuscarawas River Region Watershed Action Plan and a Nimishillen Creek
64 Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. Much of their information can be accessed at www.uptuscwatershed.org.)
The Muskingum Watershed is noted for its conservancy district and manmade lakes, such as Atwood Lake. Through a cooperative effort between the State of Ohio and the US Geological Survey, sediment discharges have been measured at stream gauges on the Muskingum River at two points. These stations give sediment discharge figures for the continuous period from October 1952 to the present. Measurements from these gauges, plus calculations of sediment retained by the 15 reservoirs in the Muskingum River basin result in estimates of about 4.6 tons per acre per year of gross erosion.12 When looked at from a watershed level, erosion is a very serious issue that concerns everyone, especially when looked at from a watershed level.
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) is a political subdivision of the state of Ohio and the largest of the 20 districts in the state. It was organized in 1933 for flood protection along the streams in an 18-county area in eastern Ohio. Since that time, the US Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the dams and reservoirs have been responsible for preventing more than $2.7 billion in potential property damage, including $478 million alone from this past year. The reservoirs are in need of basic maintenance to continue their current level of protection. The MWCD is the only district that does not levy an assessment for maintenance of its facilities. MWCD officials are in the planning stages of collecting an assessment from property owners in the district to carry out needed maintenance and improvements in order to meet accepted flood protection standards.13 See Figure III-3 Flood Hazard Areas.
Surface and Ground Water Stream protection is important in Stark County because many streams lie over buried valleys of porous gravel and glacial outwash materials which allow contaminants to move quickly from the surface to the water table. These streams need protection from runoff created by urban development and agricultural land use practices.
Designating riparian corridor protection zones is an important tool and is becoming a common practice to protect streams and their banks. Strips of vegetation
65 Figure III-2 Watersheds in µ Stark County 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles
Watersheds Cuyahoga River East Branch Nimishillen Creek Mahoning River Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Nimishillen Creek Sandy Creek Sugar Creek Tuscarawas River West Branch Nimishillen Creek Figure III-3 Limaville Village Flood Hazard Areas
Hartville Village µ Lexington Twp Marlboro Twp 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Lake Twp
Alliance City
Canal Fulton City
North Canton City Plain Twp Nimishillen Twp Jackson Twp Washington Twp Lawrence Twp
Louisville City Hills & Dales Vill
Meyers Lake Village Canton City
East Canton Village Massillon City Paris Twp Tuscarawas Twp Perry Twp Osnaburg Twp
Canton Twp
Minerva Village
Navarre Village Brewster Village Stark County, Ohio
Bethlehem Twp Pike Twp Sandy Twp Sugarcreek Twp Legend
East Sparta Village Waynesburg Village Flood Plains
Magnolia Village Flood Easements Wilmot VillageBeach City Village along streams and around reservoirs provide important buffers. These buffers decrease
the amount of pollution entering the water system. Tree and shrub roots hold stream banks in place, preventing erosion. Organic matter and grasses reduce the rate of runoff, giving the sediment time to settle. This process also gives water time to percolate, filter through the soil and recharge underlying groundwater.14 Riparian corridor protection is strongly encouraged as a method of improved water management within Stark County.
Beyond stream protection, wetlands also play an especially critical role in maintaining water quality, serving as natural filtration plants. As water’s flow-rate slows, it is filtered and trace metals bound to clay carried in runoff drop out and become contained in the soils and peat at the bed of marsh areas. Thus, open areas can provide a natural mechanism for filtering out the pollutants from development, agriculture, and other human activities.15
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is implemented by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and provides annual rental payments to agricultural landowners for planting permanent vegetation on idle, highly erosive farmland to help safeguard environmentally sensitive land. Producers enrolled in the CRP plant long-term, resource conserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), an offspring of the CRP, while currently unavailable in Stark County, is also a valuable program for agricultural landowners. This program involves state and federal partnerships where incentive payments can be received by landowners for installing certain conservation practices to meet state-specific environmental objectives on eligible land.16 The purpose is to protect environmentally sensitive lands, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water. A local CREP is being researched for future development that would include the Stark County area.
Wetlands need to be preserved in accordance with the Clean Water Act and wetland restoration is a tool that is very important in dealing with waters that are already impaired. Wetlands that have been filled and drained preserve their characteristic soil
68 and hydrology, allowing their natural functions to be reclaimed. Restoration requires much planning and involves renewing natural and historical wetlands that have been lost
or degraded and regaining their functions as vital ecosystems. Partnerships involving the public/private sector (i.e. park district, environmental groups such as The Wilderness Center, Ducks Unlimited, nature trusts, etc) should be encouraged to identify high quality wetlands and coordinate funding for their preservation and enhancement. See Figure
III-4 Stark County Wetlands Inventory.
Stark County’s groundwater resources are valuable assets to the County’s citizens and industry. The availability and quality of these resources are directly influenced by the properties of the geologic formations underlying the county. Stark County has a wide range of water-bearing formations. Some are classified as permeable sand and gravel with high yield potential, several formations are classified with moderate yield potential, and other areas made up of sandstone and shale have low yield potential. Sand and gravel formations underlying the County have excellent potential to supply water adequate for most uses. By understanding the physical and chemical nature of this resource, better decisions can be made about groundwater protection, management and use.17
Storm Water Passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 resulted in improvements in the quality of our nation’s waters. The CWA introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a regulatory mechanism seeking to control point source discharges that requires those who discharge pollutants into waters of the US to obtain a permit from the EPA. Despite the improvements, degraded water bodies still exist. According to the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory (a summary of state surveys of water quality), approximately 40% of surveyed U.S. water bodies are still impaired by pollution and do not meet water quality standards. They are not clean enough to meet even basic uses such as fishing or swimming. A leading source of impairments is polluted storm water runoff, including pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salts, litter, sediment and other debris.
69 Figure III-4 Stark County Limaville Hartville Wetlands Inventory Lexington Twp Marlboro Twp µ Lake Twp
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Alliance
Canal Fulton
North Canton Plain Twp Nimishillen Twp Jackson Twp Washington Twp Lawrence Twp
Louisville Hills & Dales
Meyers Lake Canton
East Canton Massillon Paris Twp Tuscarawas Twp Perry Twp Osnaburg Twp
Canton Twp
Minerva
Navarre Brewster
Bethlehem Twp Pike Twp Sandy Twp Legend Sugarcreek Twp Wetlands East Sparta Waynesburg Open Water Magnolia Wilmot Beach City Originally the NPDES permit program focused solely on reducing pollutants to surface water from industrial processed wastewater and municipal sewage. With the reauthorization of the CWA in 1987 came limits on nonpoint sources of pollution, which are defined as impurities being introduced into a surface water body or an aquifer, usually through a non-direct route. Some examples include automobile emissions, and runoff
from parking lots, agricultural fields, construction and mining.18 Phase I of the USEPA’s storm water program was enacted in 1990 to address storm water runoff from “medium” and “large” municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) which serve larger populations, construction areas and industrial activity.
Phase II of the USEPA’s storm water program was enacted in 1999 to address “small” MS4s which serve populations less than 100,000 in urbanized areas (UAs). Phase II also makes use of NPDES permitting by requiring operators of small MS4s in UAs, and operators of small construction sites that disturb land of one acre or more to implement practices to control polluted storm water runoff. This is all in an effort to preserve, protect and improve water resources.
Many political subdivisions within Stark County are designated by the EPA as Urbanized Areas and are automatically regulated under Phase II of the USEPA’s Storm Water Program. In Ohio, the permitting authority is the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Each regulated community must submit a permit application containing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a written description of the community’s storm water management program (SWMP) unless they have been waived from the program. The SWMP must be designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from small MS4s to the maximum extent practicable. The SWMP includes management practices, control techniques, system, design and engineering methods. It must include information as to how a community implements certain “best management practices” (BMPs) to address the following six minimum measures:
1. Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts
2. Public Involvement/Participation
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
71 4. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control
5. Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
For each BMP, measurable goals are documented to describe when communities will undertake required actions. Local leaders chose a regional approach to the Phase II process seeing it as most beneficial versus an individual approach, in order to avoid duplication of efforts and costs. Since watersheds usually do not coincide with political boundaries, practices being implemented in one community would most likely be duplicated in neighboring communities, thus promoting consistency. Also, many BMPs currently being implemented on a regional or county-wide basis provide services or benefits to all communities in Stark County.
In light of the recent flooding in Stark County, the Stark County Drainage Task Force was formed to investigate how to better manage storm water by identifying problems and projects as well as creating uniformity of regulations throughout Stark County and criteria which promote equitable resolution of drainage problems.19
According to current Ohio Public Works Commission project submissions, of the storm water collection systems in Stark County, 32% need upgraded or repaired. More attention has recently been focused on this water quantity issue than ever before. A regional approach at the watershed level is needed to address flooding and storm water issues. Partnerships, such as the Drainage Task Force, are vital in combating environmental problems including erosion, flooding, non-point source pollution and storm water runoff.
The following graph represents the general condition of the storm water collection system in Stark County. As part of the application process for the Ohio Public Works Commission, each political subdivision is required to submit a Capital Improvements Report. This report summarizes the repair and replacement cost of the various infrastructure systems in the community. The report also requires each community to
72 estimate the condition of the system ranging from excellent to critical. The graph is a summary of the individual reports.
Figure III-5. Storm Water Collection System Condition
Critical Poor 1% 6% Excellent 23%
Fair 25%
Good 45%
Runoff control related to storm water management system design is currently being updated in the Stark County Subdivision Regulations, and is expected to complete the approval process by late 2005. In addition, the Stark Soil & Water Conservation District is updating the water quality related storm water management system design. The Stark County Building Department is evaluating the use of site grading requirements and storm water runoff design as part of their permitting process. The Building Department is also looking into upgrading the Stark County flood plain regulations. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is updating the Stark County flood plain maps, which will impact future development as well.
73 Solid Waste: Solid waste disposal is a critical element in public sewer and water planning, which affects both the capacity and treatment capabilities of the system and water quality of streams and underground aquifers. Landfills continue to be the most common form of waste disposal, not only in Stark County, but also throughout the state. While not popular, properly constructed and maintained sanitary landfills are the most cost effective means of waste management presently available in this area.
Many would prefer that the County not accept out-of-state waste, but current law prevents forbidding it, as rejecting out-of-state waste is considered interfering with interstate commerce. In 2003, about 12% of the waste disposed of in Ohio came from out-of-state, which continued a seven year trend of increased out-of-state waste.
One reason waste disposal in Ohio is attractive to other states is that it has state- of-the-art waste disposal facilities with extensive capacity. It also has disposal fees that are much lower than the average for northeastern states20. Due to its geology and the reasons listed above, Stark County has the mixed blessing of plenty of landfill space and will continue to serve communities outside of the county with landfill space for the foreseeable future. Waste reduction, reuse and recycling measures that have been undertaken in the past will need to continue in order to reduce disposal costs and extend landfill life. The land use plan recognizes solid waste disposal as a regional problem and it encourages the provision of suitable open space and agricultural buffers around landfills to minimize their intrusion into adjacent rural residential neighborhoods.
Stark County has had a recycling education program for many years and recently has additionally focused on developing drop-off sites for recyclable and compostable materials. These programs have largely been funded through the Stark-Tuscarawas- Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District (JSWMD) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention. While these programs have grown considerably in the last few years, there is still much to be done to improve participation rates. To meet the EPA’s standards for recycling access, one drop-off for every 5,000 residents is required. New drop-off sites and curbside programs will need to be established county-wide to meet this high standard. The City of Canton is currently
74 studying this issue and deciding whether to initiate curbside recycling or to dramatically increase their drop-off program.
The JSWMD is currently in the situation of not having a Solid Waste Management Plan approved by the OEPA. A joint plan authorized by the EPA and JSWMD is currently underway. Regardless of the specifics of the plan, Stark County and District residents have many opportunities to implement waste reduction, reuse and recycling avenues and need to participate further in these programs. Industrial recycling and Residential/Commercial recycling are implemented and evaluated to help meet the District’s EPA total waste reduction goal of 50%.21
While many people think only of recycling when discussing environmental stewardship, waste reduction is the primary key to improved solid waste management. The hierarchy of solid waste management lists “reduce, reuse, recycle”, in the order of preferred best management practices. Residents need to learn the art of “pre-cycling”, evaluating a product and it’s packaging before purchasing to determine its waste factor, as one method of waste reduction. Opportunities for reuse exist by purchasing and donating at numerous reuse stores, both not-for-profit and privately owned. Many opportunities exist for the purchase of used and overstock building materials, books, clothes, furniture and household goods. Repair and maintenance of products, particularly large appliances, are also reuse options, extending the useful life of various items and keeping them out of the landfill longer. A strong consumer focus on all of the waste management practices could have a substantial impact on reducing waste in Stark County and is a vital step towards protection of Stark County’s water resources.
75 C: PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES Sewer Planning & Development Central sewer and water services are vitally important public facilities that help to determine the location, rate and intensity of urban development in Stark County. Where and when services are extended and the capacities of these infrastructure facilities (trunk water and sewer lines, treatment plants, pumping stations, etc.) will influence where businesses locate and what kinds of businesses will be attracted to the region. They also influence the density and types of residential development in the various communities.
There are many elements needed to implement development: good access to transportation, suitable zoning, sewer and water. The latter two are the most expensive to provide if they are not already available. Communities that provide sewer services are required to participate in the Section 208 area wide water quality management plan.22 One of the primary focuses of the 208 Plan is the issue of sewer expansion in the area and the protection of water resources. Developers should seek to locate where these infrastructure facilities are in place or are planned for the foreseeable future. The County and other public service providers should be in a strong position to direct where future urban development is most suitable for its residents and workers.
In Stark County, the primary service providers are the Stark County Metropolitan Sewer District, in conjunction with the major municipalities, and for water, the municipalities and Aqua Ohio Inc. formerly the Consumers Ohio Water. Service area coverage and facility plans by these agencies are developed on a long term 15 to 20-year basis. As the infrastructure ages and environmental regulations change, present plans generally call for major rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and capacity improvements. The 208 process dictates any peripheral suburban extensions when population growth and capital financing permits.
The rate of peripheral extensions of public sewer and water may also be influenced by other land development decisions and increasing land values. According to municipal providers, in Stark County current expansion plans include the SR 21 corridor south of US 30, and recently annexed areas of Canton (Mills Commercial park west of I- 77 & Faircrest and the Central Allied property) and residential areas in Massillon and
76 Louisville. Other areas likely to have sewers by 2030 include Uniontown, NE Plain Township and the Richville area in Perry Township. Decisions to make major new capital investments in sewer and water lines in these areas could mean delays or less costly improvements in other parts of Stark County.
For environmental reasons too, sewer and water services may be necessary in the short term that could slow growth elsewhere. EPA regulations on water pollution control require sewage treatment and water quality at acceptable health standards. Where existing facilities are at or near capacity or the facility needs extensive operational repairs, major capital investments may be diverted from other projects.
Nevertheless, the basic regional planning issues identified by local officials illustrate why future sewer and water facilities should be planned on a comprehensive regional basis.
• Realization of economic development potential: essential to job creation in the region
• Cost efficient and orderly development of land: prevention of wasteful, scattered development
• Protection of groundwater resources: eventual elimination of septic tanks
• Protection of open space and rural residential areas: enhancement of residential amenities, wider choice of living areas
Existing Sewer Facilities and Repair Needs Most of the focus over the term of the Plan will be in the repair and replacement needs of the existing sewer facilities in the County. The following graphs summarize Capital Improvement Reports representing the general condition of the wastewater collection systems and treatment plants in Stark County. As part of the application process for the Ohio Public Works Commission, each political subdivision is required to submit a Capital Improvements Report. These reports summarize the repair and replacement cost of the various infrastructure systems in the community. The report also requires each community to estimate the condition of the system ranging from excellent to critical.
77 Figure III-6. Wastewater Collection System Condition
Wastewater Collection System Condition
Critical 1% Excellent Poor 16% 19%
Good 33% Fair 31%
Total Replacement Cost: $291,861,983 Total Repair Needs: $52,212,435
78 Wastewater Treatment Plants Condition
Critical 4% Poor Excellent 4% 18%
Fair 38%
Good 36%
Figure III-7. Wastewater Treatment Plants Condition
Total Replacement Cost: $798,304,839 Total Repair Needs: $111,370,923
Land Use and Sewerage Planning The regional land use plan is based, in part, on the assumption of adequate public sewer facilities being available to those parts of Stark County where such facilities are necessary and desirable. It is not a detailed capital improvement plan for sewers as it concerns policies dealing primarily with major trunk lines and wastewater treatment plants.
Sewer planning is generally done on a watershed basis. Most urban development in the County requiring sewerage facilities is within the watersheds of Nimishillen Creek and the Tuscarawas River. Some smaller watersheds, such as the Mahoning River (near Alliance) and Sandy Creek (near Minerva), may include sewers that are outside of Stark County. Within the watershed, trunk lines are designed to carry waste by gravity flow to
79 treatment facilities usually located at the lowest point in the watershed. Pumping of waste from one watershed to another is an expensive process and is avoided wherever possible.
Sewer infrastructure imposes constraints on urban development in two ways: the limits of size of existing trunk lines, and the location/capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. These constraints can be overcome through replacement or duplication with larger sewer lines, expansion of treatment plant capacity or construction of new facilities. Topographical limitations may dictate the cost and feasibility of extensions. This is the case in the north central portion of Jackson Township, where sewage must be pumped between watersheds. Again, these are costly infrastructure improvements undertaken only after a thorough examination of all alternatives.
Future sewer infrastructure improvements may be necessary for a variety of reasons. Older, existing lines may have to be rehabilitated. Growth of the urban community may include industrial and commercial development with special waste treatment needs. Increased domestic wastes accompany new suburban housing development. This is the case in north central Plain Township, where a main trunk line must be extended to provide capacity to a growing area. Finally, EPA mandates under pollution regulations may require that communities meet higher standards of wastewater collection and treatment. Although all major waste treatment facilities are in compliance, Canton expects to receive notification of a mandate to further remove phosphates from their treated waste.
Stark County has historically led the state in the number of private septic systems. The current estimate of the number of such systems is approximately 51,000.23 Many systems in the older, unsewered areas of the County are in need of repair or replacement. The number of failing septic systems is difficult to quantify since reports of such failures are based primarily by complaints to the Stark County Health Department. In areas where sewage is discharged into storm sewer lines or into ditches, the area will be placed on a priority list by the Health Department.
The Stark County Metropolitan Sewer District has a petition process to extend service to areas previously served by septic systems. If sufficient interest exists, the
80 District will initiate the process, informing homeowners of the potential availability of service. Some areas of the County have strongly rejected the provision of sewers in the past, if 50% plus one signs petitions, the District will extend sewer service into the area. Service can also be extended when less than 50% agree, where significant health risks exist.
Long Range Sewer Planning From a long-range perspective, sewer facilities planning should include five basic requirements:
1. Rehabilitation and upgrading of existing facilities as needed to maintain acceptable levels of public health
2. Elimination of septic tanks and package plants, particularly in older areas where system failure is highest, or where soils are not suitable for proper effluent disposal
3. Provision for sewer expansion in suburban fringe areas with adequate capacity to handle flows from proposed development
4. Consideration of the timing of sewer facility rehabilitation/expansion which, includes short range construction (within 15 years) and long range construction (15 to 25 years)
5. Consideration of areas where development should be constrained with no public sewers provided
Existing Water Facilities and Repair Needs As with the sanitary sewer system in the County, many of the needs related to the water supply system will focus on the repair and replacement needs as opposed to large expansions in the service areas. The following graphs represent the condition of the water supply and distribution systems in the County. The information is taken from the Capital Improvement Reports.
81 Figure III-8. Water Supply System Condition
Water Supply System Condition
Poor Critical 4% 0%
Fair 21%
Excellent 43%
Good 32%
Total Replacement Cost: $102,819,903 Total Repair Needs: $24,348,800
82 Figure III-9. Water Distribution System Condition
y 1% Excellent Poor 13% 12% Fair 14%
Good 60%
Total Replacement Cost: $155,809,106* Total Repair Cost: $24,265,186*
(*Public facilities only)
Distribution Facilities The provision of central water treatment, storage and distribution in urban areas should be related to the type and intensity of land uses proposed. High rise apartments and office buildings, shopping centers, factories, warehouses, etc. will require higher water pressures and greater fire protection than residential neighborhoods for fire insurance rating purposes. Many industrial activities such as steel making and food processing, make heavy demands on water usage.
Where the land use plan proposes new industrial development, the extension of central water supply to suburban townships should be a prerequisite for development. Capital improvements in water facilities, like sewer, will be in use for 40 to 50 years. This will require very close cooperation between municipal water providers and townships in matters involving construction cost sharing, water rates and assessments.
83 With the recent changes to annexation laws, cities and townships may now negotiate the provision of water and sewer services as part of a Cooperative Economic Development Agreement, or CEDA. Essentially, a CEDA permits a township and a municipality to enter into an agreement whereby the township agrees not to contest the annexation of certain territory, the property stays in the township for property tax purposes and the city collects any income taxes.
Land Use and Public Water Supply Central water services (pumping, treatment, storage and distribution) are supplied by local municipalities and, in parts of western Stark County, the privately owned Aqua Ohio Inc. The primary sources of water are deep wells drawing from the extensive underground bedrock aquifers and glacial deposits underlying the Canton and Massillon urban areas and surface water reservoirs in the northeastern (Alliance) county areas. It is estimated that about 70% of the urban population is served by public water supply or a private company. Many industrial water users also have private wells and draw from the same underground resources. It is generally concluded that adequate water resources are available in Stark County to meet domestic and industrial needs for the foreseeable future. Some additional well field development may be necessary to meet increasing usage demands. Currently, the capacities of the major water suppliers are: City of Alliance (10 mgd), City of Canton (40 mgd) and Massillon/Aqua Ohio (15 mgd).
The principal issues of central water supply, as they relate to land use planning, deal with water quality and the distribution facilities needed to meet water pressure and fire protection demands in urban areas, particularly for commercial and industrial activities.
84 D: OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
Defining Open Space
“Open space”, while a seemingly simple term, can have many meanings dependent upon whether you are looking at it from the view of zoning, subdivision regulation, recreation or land use. In this plan, open space is defined as land with little or no development desirable for ecological, historical, scenic or recreational purposes. Agricultural, considered in the following section, includes cultivated crop lands, pasture areas, forestry, aquaculture and other such uses. In all cases, existing development should be minimal, such as golf clubhouses, campground offices or dining halls, etc., and limited to meet basic needs. Thus, open space can include areas as diverse as golf courses, swim clubs, campgrounds, surface mining areas, soccer and other ball fields and regional parklands.
Importance of Open Space
Open space, as a resource to be protected, is important for several reasons, it:
1. Provides for active and passive recreation facilities and natural areas which residents require as part of a balanced healthful and satisfying living experience
2. Is a valued community economic asset which serves to maintain housing property values and attract business development by showing that the community cares about its appearance, amenities and quality of life
3. Breaks up extensive suburban housing allotments and assists in defining the character of neighborhoods and communities
4. Can assist in promoting economic growth by providing appropriate settings for tourist, recreational and cultural attractions
5. Serves a valuable environmental function by preserving wetlands, flood plains, riparian areas, and groundwater recharge areas which assist in maintaining water quality, minimize flood damage and protect wildlife habitat
85 Difficulties in Preserving Open Space
Preservation of open space, however, is not simple. Difficulties include determining who should preserve open space, who should fund its preservation, deciding what use should be made of the land and gaining public support for deciding these issues.
Usually urban counties have relied on the creation of a metropolitan park district to act as the driving force towards purchasing and preserving large tracts of open space for parklands and nature preserves. The traditional hierarchy of National, State, County, and local parks was late in being realized in Stark County. The park district was formed in 1967, but did not pass a levy to provide funding until 1988. Its first substantial levy, one sufficient enough to fund major projects, was passed in 1997. This left a major gap in funding purchases of open space within the County at a time when rapid suburban growth drove up land prices and placed increased burdens upon local governments for services. Thus, acquisition of land was relegated to local governments which often lacked funds.
Protecting and purchasing open space is often not a high priority for local governments and ranks behind funding police and fire protection, road and highway improvements, economic development and other needs. It is also costly, with benefits to the community deferred to an indefinite future date. This is especially true for suburban townships, which, while having populations larger than many of the incorporated communities within the County, lack the funding options available to incorporated areas.
Despite this, a number of townships and local governments have been active in purchasing and developing various types of parks. Unfortunately, while there should be a balance between active recreational facilities and undeveloped lands suitable for passive uses, local government priorities have favored intensely developed active parks. Since providing ball fields and other active park facilities is popular and has built-in support, this imbalance has continued, resulting in the need for more passive recreational areas. Another difficulty is opposition by those who fear public use of land near their homes. A recent opportunity to include a sidewalk as part of a street improvement project was lost, due to such opposition. This will result in either rerouting that portion of the trail or increasing costs for construction which could have occurred in conjunction with the road
86 project. The sidewalk would have been a connection between routes in the Stark County Park Trail and Greenway Plan and would have been built within the public right-of-way. Enough opposition was garnered that the sidewalk portion of the project was dropped.
Measuring Adequacy of Open Space In reviewing the existing open space within Stark County, understanding how much open space is recommended is important in determining its adequacy and setting future goals. Also vital are the types of parks available and their accessibility to the population. For example, community parks should be within walking distance of developed residential areas.
Adequacy of open space in the past was commonly based on a broad standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents within the developed urban area and an additional 10 acres per 1,000 residents adjacent to urban areas in rural settings. These standards were developed by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and were intended to be a minimum standard. The most recent NRPA methodology to determine adequacy of open space suggests conducting a systematic community-wide study to determine needs instead of using a rote standard. While the old “standard” commonly remains in use as a general measurement, it would be beneficial for the community to carry out a study using current methodologies to determine overall needs.24
The Stark County Park and Open Space Plan, 2001-2005 showed that Stark County meets the basic standard for the gross amount of open space; however, there are gaps in the types and placement of facilities.25 These gaps exist mostly in access to community and large urban parks, and natural resource areas in many of the developing townships. It should also be noted that in many areas a large percentage of the available open space is dependent upon private and semi-private ownership in the form of golf courses or nonprofit groups preserving wildlife and natural areas. While privately owned facilities can fulfill needs usually met by public parks, they can be impermanent and provide limited access to the public.
Types of Parks and Accessibility Concerns
As defined by the NRPA, community parks are parks that meet community-based needs within several adjacent neighborhoods, are within walking distance, preserve
87 unique landscapes and open spaces, are 30-50 acres in size and retain at least 50% of their area as undeveloped for passive recreation. Large urban parks serve community- wide needs, preserve unique landscapes and open spaces and are preferably larger than 75 acres. Although urban parks can contain active recreational facilities, passive recreation is emphasized. Natural resource areas, traditionally categorized as parks with a “regional” appeal, draw visitors from throughout the County and have few, if any, active recreational components. Although past standards emphasized that these parks should be 200 acres or larger, current standards emphasize a sufficient size to: protect a chosen resource, provide the visual appeal of open space, and be as large as opportunity and costs permit for acquisition. This recognizes the reality of rising land costs and emphasizes the preservation of distinctive resources over simply making large land purchases.
How well do parks meet needs within our communities? Stark County has a diverse selection of parks and open space areas, especially within its municipalities. There are more than 100 municipal parks and playgrounds in the Cities of Alliance, Canal Fulton, Canton, Louisville, Massillon, and North Canton; 15 parks in the villages and townships; 11 parks in the Stark County Park District (one of which is part of the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway); and two state owned areas, Quail Hollow State Park near Hartville and the Jackson Bog Nature Preserve in Jackson Township. There are also numerous private and semi-public parks and open spaces including campgrounds, golf courses, swim clubs, sportsman’s clubs, nonprofit nature preserves, and other facilities, providing many additional acres of park and open space for county residents.
As can be seen by the number of parks, the incorporated cities generally have an adequate mix of type and size of parks when compared to developed townships. Many developed townships, and some newer areas within incorporated communities especially, lack access to neighborhood parks. Even Jackson Township, with eight parks totaling more than 200 acres, lacks adequate neighborhood parks in many areas according to NRPA standards.
88 While a detailed analysis of open space needs is beyond the scope of this plan, enough deficiencies exist that some shortfalls can be identified, enabling us to suggest some goals for open space acquisition.
Planning for Long Term Preservation
Setting up a proper framework for the long term preservation of open space is vital if the effort is to be successful. Problems with preserving open space within Stark County include questions related to funding issues, determining responsible entities, obtaining consensus on the type and location of facilities and preserved areas to be acquired, and garnering sufficient public support to implement projects. Deciding how to accomplish the planning process can follow existing methodologies that have been used successfully in many areas of the country. These include using standards and methods adopted by the NRPA for determining a community’s needs and National Park Service Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program requirements for local park Recovery Action Plans. 26 Information derived from these planning methods would include: a complete inventory of all open spaces, including types, ownership, spatial relationships to the population, maintenance and improvement needs, determination of public expectations regarding open space, including possible funding sources, expected lead agencies and evaluating public interest in fiscally supporting these efforts. Only after these answers are obtained can it be determined if a communitywide effort for open space preservation is feasible.
Current Open Space Preservation Plans and Needs
Existing preserved areas must be reviewed in order to determine needs based upon spatial relationships. Open space can be divided into three major categories as their characteristics involve differing interest groups, needs and responsible governmental agencies. Agricultural lands will be discussed in the following section.
These three major categories are:
1. Natural resource areas preserve habitat and/or natural features such as water, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands or distinct topographical features. This category has traditionally been defined as regional parks (areas of 200+ acres which draw
89 users from a great distance). More heavily developed areas such as campgrounds, golf courses, and other similar areas with large acreages, limited development, and regional draw for users are also included.
2. Linear “greenways” connect natural resource areas and parks of various types through multi-purpose trails, scenic drives, and other corridors. These greenways can include flood plains unsuited for development, riparian corridors needed to enhance water quality, utility easements, or lands interconnecting habitat areas required for foraging and/or migration.
3. Large, permanently undeveloped areas serving multiple functions such as water reservoirs, flood easements, riparian stream setbacks, storm water detention areas, airport protection zones, etc.
It should be noted that open spaces such as neighborhood parks and small community parks are not reviewed in the following sections due to their limited size and the countywide scope of this plan.
Natural Resource Areas and Other Large Facilities Existing major natural resource areas include Sippo Lake Park, Petros Lake Park, Walborn and Deer Creek Reservoirs, and the Canal Lands operated by the Stark County Park District; Quail Hollow State Park and the Jackson Nature Preserve operated by ODNR; the Wilderness Center (and associated lands) operated by a nonprofit group; the Huston/Brumbaugh Nature Preserve operated by Mt. Union College; the Beech Creek Botanical Garden and Nature Preserve operated by a nonprofit group; and the larger municipal parks in Alliance, Canton, Massillon and North Canton. A number of privately owned areas of significant size include numerous golf courses, campgrounds, sportsman’s clubs, church, YMCA and scout camps.
Regional Greenways Many of the natural resource areas discussed in the previous section are in the process of being linked with trails and bikeways as detailed in the Stark County Park District’s Trail and Greenway Plan, which was adopted in 1999 by the Park District. It is incorporated by SCATS in its bicycle and pedestrian plan, and serves as the outline for establishing trails and greenways throughout Stark County. This ambitious plan
90 identifies 25 trail systems throughout the County utilizing abandoned railway corridors, utility right-of-ways, roads and the extensive flood plains and riparian corridors of the Tuscarawas and Mahoning Rivers and the Nimishillen, Sandy, Beech and Deer Creeks. The multi-purpose trail system is designed “to connect the County’s parks, open spaces, cultural features, and historic sites…and to enhance the County’s environmental and economic resources.”27 The impetus for the plan was the development of the nearly complete, 24-mile long, Congressman Ralph Regula Towpath Trail, which was itself spurred by the construction of the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Both trails are part of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway.
The National Heritage Area encompasses an area stretching 110 miles from Cleveland to New Philadelphia and includes numerous local historical, recreation and tourist facilities centered on the Ohio & Erie Canal, the historical route of the Valley Railroad and the Lincoln Highway. The Heritage Area provides an opportunity to encourage heritage tourism and could serve as a means to revitalize older communities. Heritage Ohio and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas are among the resources that can assist in planning for heritage tourism and preservation efforts. The towpath trail is the major component of the western trail system and is one of the most significant historical resources in Stark County.
The trail system in central Stark County follows the Nimishillen Creek and its major tributaries. The centerpiece of this system will be the portion through the City of Canton’s extensive park system along the West Branch. This will interconnect attractions such as the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Canton Garden Center, the William McKinley Presidential Library and Museum and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad. The third major trail network is in eastern Stark County and follows the Mahoning River and Beech and Deer Creeks in Alliance and an abandoned rail line and roads south to Minerva.
Another regional greenway is the Canalway Ohio Scenic Byway, Ohio’s second nationally designated scenic byway. The route approximates the path of the Ohio and Erie Canal through Stark County (and Cuyahoga, Summit and Tuscarawas Counties) and
91 complements the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway by providing a driving route connecting attractions. While a scenic byway doesn’t necessarily equate to a greenway, management plans for scenic byways include issues such as protecting view-sheds and adopting overall land use tools to protect assets along such routes.
Undeveloped Open Space Within Stark County there are large acreages where minimal development should be allowed for reasons of public health and safety. These areas include flood plains, wetlands, flood control dam easement areas, water well fields and aquifer recharge areas, mined/reclaimed areas and landfills. Some of these areas, such as mined/reclaimed lands, have poor value due to disturbed soils and destroyed aquifers. Others, such as flood plains, flood easement areas, and well fields, can support limited activities such as farming, hunting and fishing.
Many of these areas are already in public ownership or have easements that greatly restrict development. Others should be set aside and preserved through public acquisition or clearly demarcated to prevent their development. To accomplish this, subdivision and zoning regulations should strictly regulate them and assist in their identification by showing them on zoning and land use maps. Zoning regulations should prohibit construction in wetland and flood easement areas; provide for riparian corridor setbacks and limit development in prime aquifer recharge areas.
The principal undeveloped open space areas shown on the land use plan are the major reservoirs of Walborn and Deer Creek, operated by the City of Alliance as a municipal water supply and leased by the Stark County Park District for recreation. The park district has been active in purchasing adjoining properties to protect this resource. Other undeveloped open space areas include the Berlin, Beach City and Bolivar reservoirs, operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers for flood control purposes; flood easement zones under the jurisdiction of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District; flood plains related to the Tuscarawas and Mahoning Rivers and their tributaries, and the airport protection zone around the Akron-Canton Regional Airport.
92 Tools for Preserving Open Space
Implementation of open space plans should consider a wide range of options in addition to outright purchases, including transfer of development rights, donations, conservation developments, leaseback arrangements, joint development agreements, private foundation support, conservation easements and other arrangements which will provide some guarantee that the land will be preserved in open space for future public use.
The regional land use plan recognizes that major open space and recreation areas can include both public and privately owned facilities, however, a number of privately owned open spaces (golf courses) have recently been lost to or slated for development. It is important to realize that, without a conservation easement or other land use protection tool in place; these cannot be counted on remaining as open space. Also, much of Stark Parks’ land is leased from the Board of Stark County Commissioners and the City of Alliance. While it is unlikely that major changes would occur with these lands, the Park District has limited authority for protecting the leased areas. These concerns, and others related to open space, are recognized by many. The principal open space issue identified in the RPC 2003 land use survey was the loss of green space, including prime agricultural lands to development.
Entities Preserving Open Space
At this time, those most likely to secure additional natural resource areas include the Stark County Park District, The Wilderness Center (a nonprofit conservation organization), and other local communities and nonprofits with assistance from the District 19 Natural Resource Assistance Council (NRAC).
Stark Parks Stark County Park District plans for land purchases are limited due to fiscal constraints while the District works to complete projects at existing parks, extends portions of the county trail and greenway system, and purchases adjoining lands to protect existing parks. Recently completed capital projects include infrastructure improvements to the Sippo Lake Park, construction of a marina/boat launch facility at Walborn Reservoir and the completion of numerous trail sections and trailheads related to
93 the trail and greenway plan. Current capital projects include the Park District/Stark District Library Educational Facility, the purchase of the historic Elson Mill and portions of its adjoining canal lands, purchases of lands adjoining Deer Creek and Walborn reservoirs and additional projects related to the trail and greenway plan.
The Park District, in order to earn public trust in passing its current and past levies, has stressed fiscal responsibility and the ability to show improvements with levy funds. In this vein, the District has adopted five-year plans and has traditionally limited park levies to five years. While this time frame enables the District to demonstrate progress, it limits the funds available for acquiring land to those which the District can generate within the short term of the levy. Options to correct this include adopting a longer range plan to demonstrate need, increasing the levy millage and dedicating a portion towards land purchases, increasing the length of the levy to enable the use of future funds, passing a separate levy dedicated towards open space preservation, or a combination of these.
The District’s current park and open space plan provided recommendations on developing new types of parks and listed high priority open space areas that adjoin existing properties in need of preservation. In recognition of the District’s commitment toward existing projects, the plan did not make specific recommendations for new parks. However, the District is aware of the need for additional natural resource area parks in areas where access to these types of parks is limited.
The Wilderness Center The Wilderness Center, Inc. (TWC) is another group actively purchasing open space areas within Stark County and adjoining counties. TWC has been particularly active in securing wetland areas through the use of wetland mitigation banking and has implemented a program to sell wetland preservation credits in order to fund purchases of additional land. They have also preserved high quality woodland areas and assisted other agencies in land preservation by purchasing and/or holding areas in trust until the other groups can secure funding. They own more than 917 acres of land in 12 locations in Stark County and are expanding holdings to promote conservation of native Northeastern
94 Ohio flora and fauna. Stark County’s District 19 NRAC recently approved funds to assist in expanding TWC property in the Sugarcreek Watershed.
TWC has also been active in assisting in conservation easements with farms. With the assistance and cooperation of farmers who would like to see their lands preserved for agricultural use, TWC has set up four conservation easements on four farms totaling 565 acres, 201 of which are two farms in Stark County. The creation of these easements was funded by the farm owners themselves, who want to see their land preserved for farming. In addition to paying for the expense of creating the easements, the farmers set aside funds for the TWC to use in defending the easements in the future if needed.
Natural Resource Assistance Council (NRAC) The District 19 NRAC oversees distribution of Clean Ohio funds in Stark County, assisting local communities and nonprofit organizations in protecting open space, cleaning up brownfields, and preserving farmland. The Clean Ohio Fund is a bond program created from the passage of State Issue 1 in 2000, and will allow more than $400 million in grants throughout the State to fund the protection of natural areas, farmland, streams and wetlands. Ten projects in Stark County were approved in the first two rounds of funding, totaling slightly more than $2.5 million dollars in aid for the acquisition of land. Unfortunately, this program will sunset shortly unless reinstated.
Goals for Preserving Open Space
While properly determining needs should be a community-wide effort, the listing of goals and planning parameters can provide a basis to begin these efforts. Although there are many excellent parks in Stark County, access to them by the public is limited due to their location and available facilities. Therefore, access limitations need to be considered in a threefold manner when setting goals: length of travel time in a personal and/or public transit vehicle, accessibility from public transit routes, and the facilities available at existing parks. In observing length of time to access parks there must be a standard to judge travel time. This can be based on actual cost/benefit analyses where a person will judge travel time in relationship to the expected reward. Anticipated travel times are as follows: 15-20 minute travel time seems reasonable if a person is traveling
95 to a natural resource “regional” type park, where they would be expected to spend from several hours to half a day in recreational activities; 5-10 minute travel time for accessing a greenway trail, where a person may spend only several hours; and 25-30 minutes for traveling to an undeveloped area for hunting and fishing.
Available facilities and recreational activities are also a major consideration. Decisions on choosing a park include observing available parking, sanitary facilities, and resources to meet particular recreational needs in addition to considerations for scenery, etc.
Natural Resource Area Goals At this time the only natural resource area accessible from public transit is the Ohio and Canal Towpath Trail, which can easily be reached by using SARTA routes operating in Massillon, Canal Fulton and Navarre. Although this park is actually a greenway trail, its scope in size easily places it in this category of park. Sippo Lake Park, Petros Lake Park and Quail Hollow State Park are within one half mile of SARTA routes. Lack of sidewalks on connecting streets, however, would make accessing these parks from SARTA routes unsafe.
The next consideration is access to parks within the acceptable drive time with personal vehicles. Many areas in the County have access to at least one natural area within a 15-20 minute drive. The Canal Trail is in the northwest and west, the Wilderness Center is in the southwest, Quail Hollow State Park is in the north, Deer Creek and Walborn Reservoirs are in the northeast, the Mt Union College Nature Preserve is in the east, and Sippo Lake Park and Monument Park are fairly central in Stark County. This leaves the south and southeast without ready access and portions of townships and cities in Plain, Canton and Jackson Townships and the cities of Canton and North Canton that cannot meet the ideal drive time due to distance and traffic congestion.
To meet the access goal, parks should be established in the south/southeast of Canton and in the Jackson /Plain/Lake Township area near North Canton. Unfortunately, the latter areas have become heavily developed and it is unlikely a suitable and/or affordable location will be found. Despite this, it is not unreasonable to expect the
96 creation of 3 or 4- 200+ acre natural areas within the next 25 years. In addition to this, facilities at Deer Creek and Walborn Reservoirs and along the Ohio & Erie Canal Trail should be expanded to attract additional recreational uses. These could include mountain bike and horse trails, additional protected wetland areas and more visitor amenities such as restrooms, parking, informational kiosks, and wildlife observation areas.
Greenway/Trail Goals The progress that Stark Parks and others have been making in developing trails outlined in Trail and Greenway Plan has been encouraging. Within the next 5 to 10 years we can expect the following trails to be completed:
• Ohio & Erie Canal Trail (and amenities) • Nickel Plate Trail • Mahoning Valley Trail (Alliance/Deer Creek/Walborn area) • West Branch Trail • Sippo Lake Connector • Hoover Park Connector • Stark Electric Railway Trail • Canton Downtown Connector • Iron Horse Trail It can be hoped that progress will be made in adding bicycle lanes on rural routes designated in the plan, additional connector trails will be completed and progress can be made in developing trails in other areas. Also, pedestrian facility improvements should be taken into account with road projects, as any encouragement for pedestrian movement serves to benefit transportation, greenways and trails in general. Perry Township is seeking to take advantage of nostalgia and improve the Lincoln Highway corridor through the township. This project would tie historic revitalization elements, pedestrian enhancements, scenic improvements and commercial revitalization together into one package and would serve as an example of what could be done in other areas of the County. Scenic Ohio is a nonprofit organization that is a resource in planning this type of project.
97 The amendment of subdivision and zoning regulations to take trails and trail connections into account is encouraged. Developers should also be encouraged to tie their subdivisions into existing trails and to provide future access in order to prevent roadblocks to future development.
Undeveloped Open Space It should be a goal of this plan to see that all local zoning resolutions incorporate designated flood plain, flood easement areas and other undevelopable areas into their zoning maps within the near future or when making major revisions to their ordinance/resolutions. This can be realistically accomplished once the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completes the overall revision/digitizing of Flood Maps for Stark County. This is expected to be completed by late 2006. Additionally, recent flooding has identified improvements needed in the overall flood prevention program overseen by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Stark County should be an active participant in activities related to planned improvements and consider the identification of homes within floodplains in the county geographic information system to assist in evacuations.
Open Space Summary
While there is concern regarding the continued loss of open space throughout Stark County, it is encouraging to see the amount of progress that has been made over the past five years. The Stark County Park District has worked to stabilize and improve parks and facilities that were in need of renewal. It has garnered support from communities countywide as work on the trail and greenway plan is implemented, many communities have taken an active role in seeking to protect open space, and an awareness has been awakened in the general public that something must be done. It is over the effective time period of this plan, the next 25 years, that we will see how successful these efforts will be.
98 E: AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Agriculture currently plays a vital role in Stark County, not only due to its economic benefit and its physical impact as the single largest land use within the County, but also in relating to the County’s heritage and quality of life. Agricultural areas include lands that are undeveloped, or have limited development and are devoted to a wide variety of enterprises, including crops, livestock and forestry.
Detailed agricultural information is collected by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) in its Census of Agriculture taken every five years. Every farm or ranch operator who sold (or normally would have sold) at least $1,000 worth of agricultural products is required to report crop acreages, quantities harvested, livestock and poultry inventories, values of products sold, land use and ownership and other details. The Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service (OASS) analyzes the data in Ohio and is a cooperative effort between the USDA NASS, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and Ohio State University (OSU). The NASS database and OSU Extension Service were the primary sources for agricultural data.
Historical Impact
For more than 200 years, agriculture has played a contributing role in Stark County’s history. It has not only been a source of income and livelihood, but has contributed to civic and social well being through agriculture-related organizations, family heritage, and inventive spirit. This inventiveness, tied to meeting agricultural needs, has led Stark County to become more than just an agricultural community. While agriculture remains a major economic force, it has long been overshadowed by manufacturing. As in many areas of the country, its initial growth in manufacturing owes its origins to meeting the needs of agriculture. In the mid-1800’s, Stark County was one of the State’s leading wheat producing areas and there was a great impetus to improve harvesting methods due to the manual labor required in harvesting wheat. Cornelius Aultman built and successfully marketed an early reaper based on a design by Obed Hussy. This eventually led to the formation of the C. Aultman Company of Canton, which became one of the largest companies manufacturing farm steam engines, threshers
99 and other implements. This, and other developments, such as Henry Timken’s design and patent on a roller bearing to improve carriages, laid a foundation for industrial manufacturing in Stark County.
Present Impact
The latest NASS comprehensive agricultural survey was taken in 2002 and indicates that 145,163 acres were listed as farmland on 1,337 farms in Stark County. The market value of production on this land in 2002 was $69,046,000. This placed Stark County 16th out of all counties in Ohio and 819th out of 3,075 counties throughout the U.S. in overall agricultural sales.
Farm use for 2002 accounted for 40% of the total land area of Stark County, the single largest land use. While the $69 million dollars in market value of agricultural production seems to be a small contribution in relationship to the overall economy, the OSU Department of Agriculture, Environmental and Developmental Economics publishes a report showing how it interacts with other industries. This technical report uses Input-Output economic models interrelating farm production and support industries, food processing, food and forestry wholesale/retail and food services.28 Thus, while we initially look at only sales of agricultural goods to judge their impact, the gains from the local end uses of the crops should also be observed. This multiplier effect is commonly used to show the results of adding value to raw materials in manufacturing and includes benefits derived not only from those selling and processing materials, but also from those supporting the entire process. Thus a more accurate “benefits from agriculture” includes those supporting agriculture such as farm implement sales and service, the sale of agricultural products themselves, and those who add value to the products such as packaged food manufacturers and restaurants. These industries contributed $2.38 billion to the Stark County economy for the year 2000, the latest year this report provided county data. Unfortunately, agricultural products produced in Stark County do not account for this entire “multiplier effect” as Stark County is a major food processing area and sources raw materials from a wide area. However, there is recognition of the significant ties agriculture has with different parts of our economy, just as there is recognition of the multiplier effect of other industries.
100 Stark County is among the leading agricultural counties in Ohio in a number of areas. In 2003, Stark County ranked 8th in cattle, 5th in milk cows, 4th in oats production, and 2nd in the production of broiler and meat-type chickens. Stark County also has a significant presence in the truck farm industry, the practice of growing vegetable crops on a large scale for shipment to distant and local markets. Stark County’s truck farms ranked 2nd in Ohio and 25th in the nation in producing romaine lettuce in 1997. Of course income, production, and rankings will vary dependent upon what is planted, weather and other growing conditions and how the individual markets fluctuate year to year.
Another benefit of agriculture, one that is not typically considered, is the cost of providing community services. Numerous studies show that the cost to provide services to farmland is lower than to residential uses. The American Farmland Trust, in its summary table for the cost of community services, has found that farmland costs 36 cents in public services for every dollar contributed in taxes to the local community, while residential uses cost $1.16 in services for every dollar in taxes paid.29
Priorities for Preservation
About half of the agricultural land (approximately 70,000 acres) in the County is designated “prime farmland”, where the combination of high soil productivity and good drainage is particularly amenable to agricultural activities. Within Stark County, two major concentrations of farmlands with productive soils and one area with special soils should be considered for special protection.
Northeast Stark County: Marlboro Township (17,450 acres in agricultural lands), Nimishillen Township (14,452 acres) and Washington Township (13,772 acres) have the three highest concentrations of farmed land in the County. Suburban expansion into these areas is expected to be minimal due to limited sanitary sewer and water extensions. The southwest parts of Nimishillen Township may be impacted by peripheral growth around the City of Louisville. Similarly, the northern part of Washington Township will be affected by suburban expansion of the City of Alliance where public water and sewer services may be extended.
101 Western Stark County: Tuscarawas Township (13,554 acres in agricultural land), Bethlehem Township (12,770 acres), Lawrence Township (12,616 acres) and Sugarcreek Township (12,514 acres) form a second major agricultural district in Stark County. Farm uses in this area will be adversely affected by suburban expansion of the Cities of Massillon and Canal Fulton and possibly by growth of the Villages of Navarre and Brewster. Activities associated with the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway are also having an impact in attracting housing and recreational/tourist type commercial businesses. This can be expected to grow and place additional pressure on agricultural lands as the heritage area is further developed and is seen as a desirable living area.
Unique Soils: Stark County also has a small area of unique, highly productive soils in Marlboro and part of adjoining Lake Township. These so-called “muck” lands cover about 1,550 acres of the Carlisle soils group and form the basis of an intensive, high-value commercial truck farm vegetable growing district. Carlisle soils have a high organic content, are poorly drained and have very limited load-bearing capacity. In areas where development occurs, the soils must be excavated in order to permit construction, therefore, protecting their agricultural use is beneficial.
Preservation of farmland has been a recurring theme across the country as suburbanization has placed increased pressure on agricultural uses. Besides its economic value, agriculture can provide environmental benefits through water pollution control (well field protection, groundwater aquifer recharge protection and flood mitigation), wildlife habitat enhancement and air quality improvements through retention of extensive woodland tracts.
Open farmlands also provide an important contrast and balance to the monotonous sprawl of suburban development. Many people prefer these rural areas because of the distance from neighbors, relatively low traffic volumes on rural roads and the proximity to open, rural countryside. While the number of families making a full- time living from farming continues to decline, those who wish to should have the opportunity and land protection measures to reasonably ensure their success.
102 Understanding the Loss of Farmland
If we are to successfully preserve farmland, we must understand why it is being lost and what it is that needs to be preserved. Farmland is lost due to factors almost too numerous to list. Among these are the demands on farmland for residential development and changes which increase farm production costs and lower farm income, including: increases in the cost of living, increases for medical insurance, volatile markets for selling farm products, changing technologies and shifting business models.
The most obvious reason for losing farmland is residential development. Changing standards of living and lifestyles for significant portions of the population have resulted in the desire for larger homes on larger lots. As our consumer society has evolved, smaller central city homes do not have the space for the amenities that are desired and the lots cannot accommodate the needs of families with multiple vehicles. The resulting demand results in increased land prices, placing farmers at a disadvantage in the market. While land has a value of $3,000 - $4,000 an acre for agricultural use, this increases to $10,000 - $15,000 when used for residential purposes.30 Not only does it make it more difficult for farms to expand, but also the increased value of farmland makes it tempting to sell, especially as farm operators near retirement. This has resulted in disagreements over farmland preservation among farmers as they seek to realize the maximum value for their largest asset, their land.
Meeting basic life needs makes it more difficult to financially survive as medical and other expenses increase out of proportion with inflation. Farming is an inherently dangerous occupation, and family members are often forced to take outside employment in order to obtain medical insurance and other benefits for the family.
Volatile energy markets have disturbed the economies of farming by increasing the expense of operating equipment, fertilizer and other supplies. Changing technologies can place farms unable to afford them at a disadvantage. More efficient but expensive equipment, new strains of seed, and new additives to increase production, are all developments that alter a farm’s economics.
New business models are influenced by some of the changes listed above and also by societal shifts, government regulation and market demand. Traveling rural highways
103 demonstrates the results of some of these changes. The countryside is littered with abandoned farm houses, collapsed barns, and the rusting remains of outdated equipment. While the land is still farmed, the detritus of small farms that have lost the battle of economies of scale is everywhere. More efficient equipment requires larger farms; changes in regulations and subsidies favor some over others; consumer eating habits in types and quantities of food affect market prices; and unforeseen or ignored threats damage consumer confidence. All result in changes that must be responded to by farmers.
One of the largest shifts has been where consumers eat. The rise of the fast food and hospitality industries has had a far-reaching effect that most do not understand. As the nation’s largest purchaser of beef and potatoes, and the second largest purchaser of chickens, McDonald’s, and other large corporations, have dominated the marketplace for many farm products. Centralized purchasing and the desire for standardized products have favored corporate, factory-type farms over family farms, affecting not only the production, but also the processing of farm goods. For example, in 1973 there were 795 beef-packing companies. At that time, the four largest beef-packing companies processed 29% of all cattle in the U.S and their two largest plants processed 7.5% of all cattle. Today, four corporate agribusinesses process 84% of the beef in the U.S. in 18 plants.31 This consolidation has occurred in other farm industries (poultry, pork, etc.) and has resulted in limiting markets for the products of family farms.
As consumers eat more meals where foods are purchased through centralized distributors, rather than buying meat and potatoes at a local market, the disadvantage has been compounded. This “McDonaldization of America”, as sociologists have termed it, has resulted in a homogenization of food production, the decline of independently owned businesses and placing family farms at a disadvantage in the market.32
Quantifying the Loss of Farmland
Observing only the basic statistics in agricultural use can be misleading. Comparing the acres being farmed, the number of farms, and average acres per farm, can give the impression that the decline in the number of farms and land being farmed isn’t very serious. For example, the table below shows that between 1970 and 2003, the
104 number of farms has dropped from 1,570 to 1,330, a 15% drop. During the same time period, the loss of farmland has seen a similar percentage decrease, 168,000 to 145,000 acres. The average number of acres per farm is even more deceptive since it has fluctuated even less, essentially remaining the same. Agricultural sales are also misleading since they have been constantly increasing. One might conclude that the loss of farms and farmland over 33 years of suburban growth isn’t a serious problem and that concern for this loss is unwarranted. A more detailed analysis, however, reveals an almost fundamental change in farming.
Table III-4. Farms in Stark County
Year Number of Average Acres Acres of Farms Per Farm Land Farmed 1970 1,570 107 168,000 1971 1,540 108 167,000 1972 1,500 110 165,000 1973 1,490 110 164,000 1974 1,470 112 164,000 1975 1,380 119 164,000 1976 1,370 120 164,000 1977 1,380 120 166,000 1978 1,400 119 166,000 1979 1,440 116 167,000 1980 1,450 114 166,000 1981 1,470 114 167,000 1982 1,480 113 167,000 1983 1,490 111 166,000 1984 1,460 113 165,000 1985 1,440 114 164,000 1986 1,430 114 163,000 1987 1,380 115 159,000 1988 1,400 113 158,000 1989 1,390 114 159,000 1990 1,350 117 158,000 1991 1,290 122 157,000 1992 1,280 117 150,000
105 Year Number of Average Acres Acres of Farms Per Farm Land Farmed 1993 1,320 113 149,000 1994 1,290 114 147,000 1995 1,270 115 146,000 1996 1,260 117 147,000 1997 1,280 115 147,000 1998 1,260 115 145,000 1999 1,280 113 145,000 2000 1,300 112 145,000 2001 1,300 112 145,000 2002 1,330 109 145,000 2003 1,330 109 145,000
As can be seen in the next table, the number of farms in categories 500 + acres and smaller than 50 acres is increasing, farms between 50 and 500 acres are decreasing. Most family type farms fall in the mid-size category, commercial factory farms are usually 1,000+ acres, and hobby type farms are less than 50 acres. Another indicator is in the median size of farms. In 1997, the median size of a farm was 58 acres; by 2002 it had decreased to 55 acres. Due to differences in gathering farm statistics in previous years, unfortunately, the median size was not reported in the summary statistics for those years.
Table III-5. Changes in Farm Sizes
Size Category 1987 1992 1997 2002 Commercial 1,000 or 13 12 17 19 Farms more acres 500 to 999 31 40 34 37 180 to 499 188 148 140 131 50 to 179 508 397 401 429 Family Farms Total 727 585 575 597 10 to 49 402 371 357 503 1 to 9 164 152 137 218 Hobby Farms Total 566 523 494 721 All Farms Column Total 1,306 1,120 1,086 1,337
106
Despite gaps in some information, the agricultural census provides almost overwhelming detail. Among these is a breakdown of the number of farms by agricultural product and production. Even though the choice of which crops to grow will alter through the years, the next table provides another means of observing the trends in farming.
A number of scenarios can be seen Table III-6., including the overall decline in farms producing a particular commodity, a consolidation of production into fewer farms, growth in some commodities and combinations of the above. In general, the number of farms producing many of the commodities has decreased. This shows either an overall decline in the commodity, where the number of farms, acres planted, and harvest have decreased (such as farms producing oats for grain) or that farms have become larger; such as milk cow farms, where the number of farms has decreased by almost 54% but the number of milk cows has only decreased by 23%. The largest gain has been in chickens for meat production. Most of these operations are corporate factory farms which have raised various concerns within the community.
Another interesting aspect of Table III-6. is seen in Meat Chicken Farms/Inventory. The impact of this type of corporate operation cannot be measured due to limited information. Some data is withheld as proprietary due to the limited number of operators. Its contribution, however, as a portion of Stark County overall agricultural operations is significant simply by observing inventory alone.
Table III-6. Number of Farms by Commodity/Inventory/Acres/Production
Farms/Product 1987 1992 1997 2002
Cattle/Calves Farms 762 586 550 600
Inventory 32,260 27,150 26,179 25,258
Beef Cow Farms 353 281 295 311
Inventory 3,795 3,080 3,348 3,161
Milk Cow Farms 256 188 141 118
Inventory 11,698 10,047 9,174 8,953
Hogs and Pig Farms 189 116 90 111
Inventory 14,733 7,218 9,354 6,461
107 Farms/Product 1987 1992 1997 2002
Sheep and Lamb Farms 79 63 51 91
Inventory 2,905 1,708 1,371 1,852
Layer and Pullet Farms 112 80 60 95
Inventory 107,031 24,263 N/A 24,474
Meat Chicken Farms 16 25 13 37
Inventory 1,369 7,554,676 7,163,141 6,864,838
Corn for Grain/Seed Farms 720 555 488 413
Acres 35,981 33,159 31,859 24,926
Bushels 3,767,337 3,868,149 3,338,774 1,745,818
Corn for Silage/Green Chop Farms 179 165 138 136
Acres 3,883 5,201 5,905 8,930
Bushels 60,549 72,635 71,119 107,968
Wheat for Grain Farms 397 312 251 230
Acres 8,071 8,362 6,951 7,208
Bushels 315,809 389,777 318,011 369,230
Oats for Grain Farms 474 312 249 192
Acres 7,820 5,284 3,585 2,606
Bushels 497,694 342,498 226,445 153,061
Soybeans for Beans Farms 198 175 244 251
Bushels 466,996 462,222 781,113 771,640
Hay-alfalfa, other silage Farms 822 673 614 701
Acres 29,068 25,319 22,477 24,645
Tons 79,058 64,928 51,450 70,838
Vegetable Farms 81 94 80 55
Acres 2,057 1,922 1,842 1,787
Orchards 58 46 27 33
Acres 607 399 339 370
108
Other data available in the agricultural census/NASS database provides information on the number of farms by value of sales, operators by principal occupation, operators by days worked off farm, etc. These, as well as analyzing the value of sales by type of operator, would be useful in understanding changes in agriculture, and could be included in a more detailed study.
Tools for Preserving Farmland
Farmland preservation, in addition to utilizing many of the tools discussed in the open space section, should include specific programs such as the Clean Ohio Agricultural Easement Program and NRAC’s Clean Ohio Conservation Fund and follow recommendations and guidelines from ODNR’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service and various farmland preservation organizations. Another component should be to promote outlets for farm goods, especially direct to consumer marketing. The Center for Farmland Preservation in Northeastern Ohio discusses a number of methods to accomplish this. These include frequenting and/or helping to set up farmers markets and roadside stands; creating and supporting buy local programs for grocery retailers, restaurants, and consumers; creating Community Supported Agricultural Programs where farms sell their products directly to consumers by selling “shares” of their production- usually for a half or full bushel of produce a week during growing season; and by providing resources to assist farms in these entrepreneurial farming efforts. Without markets that allow farms to remain profitable, preserved and affordable lands do farmers little good.
Examples of these efforts include the Massillon City sponsored farm market which has operated for approximately 10 years; the Canton Farmers Market which began operation in 2004; and the Hartville Marketplace, a multi-vendor venue that includes produce growers among other retailers.
Other examples include various entrepreneurial efforts by producers which include adapting their marketing strategies, crops or both. The Maize Valley Farm in Hartville is an example of adopting marketing strategies to attract customers by sponsoring events and evolving a roadside stand into a destination. The Lily of the
109 Valley Herb Farm between Minerva and Alliance has expanded from being an herb plant supplier to include direct sales and provides educational materials and an herb reference library. Perennial Vineyards is among others who specialize into viniculture and opened a winery.
Farm Preservation Goals
Preserving farmland has proven to be difficult. While everyone would like to see conservation easements, not many are willing to support their cost. Realistic goals, therefore, are difficult to set. At the least we should encourage: efforts to assist farmers in writing and defending easements, the creation of programs related to market assistance as previously discussed and continue current efforts. This includes slowing the breakup of farms through exempt subdivisions, assisting townships with farm and rural zoning regulations and assisting those creating easements in any manner available.
Agricultural Summary
Agriculture is an important part of Stark County’s economy, heritage and landscape. While farming has changed due to market forces, there is a growing recognition that the community as a whole should act to preserve traditions that have served Stark County well for generations. With a concerted effort we can benefit not only ourselves and our agricultural community, but maintain a sustainable, well balanced society that can provide for itself, others and future generations.
Objectives & Strategies for Promoting Environmental Quality
Objectives: 1. Utilize sensitive urban design to incorporate the natural, historical and cultural assets of the region.
Strategies: A. Identify and preserve unique and productive farmlands and open space areas in Stark County in coordination with appropriate agencies using conservation/agricultural easements where indicated B. Incorporate use of open space and/or agricultural zoning as a land preservation tool
110 C. Encourage and assist with Lincoln Highway revitalization efforts in cooperation with Perry Township and other involved agencies
2. Work cooperatively with local political subdivisions to manage storm water and drainage issues.
Strategies: A. Promote participation in watershed based planning groups such as Nimishillen Creek Watershed Partners B. Encourage designation of flood, riparian and groundwater zone districts in local zoning ordinances for stream and groundwater protection
3. Encourage protection and preservation of local natural resources.
Strategies: A. Improve air quality through implementation of land use development which considers provisions for public transit, bike path/pedestrian ways, and emissions reduction B. Encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling in an effort to minimize use of landfills C. Encourage development and use of alternative disposal methods
111 F: PAST AND FUTURE LAND USE Introduction Land use describes the way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities, size and structures allowed. It refers to how a piece of land is managed or used by humans. Land use is generally locally regulated in the U.S. based on zoning and other regulations. This part of the plan provides an overview of the physical manifestation and implications of development policies and land use decisions in Stark County over the years and makes projections into the future.
The acreages for current and future land uses have been calculated using ESRI ArcMap 9.1 GIS (geographic information system). The current GIS data is based on 2003 aerial photography, subdivision and site plan review data, Stark County Auditor’s office data and is current as of 2005. Calculations for past land uses were based on similar information but have been adjusted from previous studies to account for differing categories and more accurate data generated by the GIS system.
Differences between GIS generated data and other plan data occur from the general nature of the GIS land use categories. Agricultural acreage calculations, for example, are higher in GIS than those within the agriculture section of the plan. Data obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and others includes only currently farmed land and land fallow for less than one year. GIS calculations include not only those areas, but also lands fallow for longer periods of time, farm buildings, residences and other lands not defined as “agricultural” by the NASS.
Generally, Ohio’s population lived in the urban core areas in the 1920s. However, the early part of the last century saw most people leaving the farms and moving to the cities to obtain jobs in the high-paying manufacturing industries. Cities like Canton then became the centers of the nation’s industrial revolution. This is not the case today as only 22.9% of the inhabitants of Ohio now live in the urban core. The loss of population in the urban core of cities can partly be attributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Canton is one of the cities suffering from this development phenomenon. Besides having a declining population, the core area of the City of
112 Table III-7. Land Use Changes - Stark County - 1965-2030
Land use 1965 1970 1975 1980 1988 2004 2030 % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %Acr es%Acr es Residential 10.8 39,181 11.0 39,937 12.3 44,738 13.4 48,639 13.8 49,891 17.6 64,003 20.2 73,282 Commercial 1.0 3,627 1.0 3,442 1.2 4,422 1.3 5,005 1.3 4,644 1.9 6,979 2.3 8,344 Industrial 0.9 3,265 0.9 3,394 1.1 3,958 1.1 4,054 1.2 4,381 1.4 4,932 1.5 5,442 Transport. Comm. Utilities 4.2 15,307 - ** 4.6 16,528 4.7 17,207 4.8 17,591 5.2 18,708 5.9 21,404 Park & Open Space - * - ** 1.9 6,878 2.0 7,167 2.3 8,455 2.5 8,928 2.8 10,158 Agricultural - ** - ** 50.9 184,593 50.1 181,610 49.5 179,399 44.6 161,899 41.2 149,467 Water*** 0.8 2,902 - ** 1.0 3,940 1.1 3,940 1.1 4,035 1.9 6,723 2.1 7,619 Public 1.5 5,442 - ** 1.6 5,714 1.6 5,772 1.6 5,834 1.6 5,916 1.7 6,167 Undeveloped 80.8 293,060 87.0 316,011 25.4 92,013 24.5 89,386 24.4 88,554 23.3 84,696 22.3 80,901 Total 100 362,784 100 362,784 100 362,784 100 362,784 100 362,784 100 362,784 100 362,784
* = included with public ** = included with undeveloped *** = approximately 1,100 acres of water are available for public use (boating, fishing, etc.) as parkland but are not reflected in the acreage total of parks
113
Canton is facing many social challenges such as poverty, crime and under-performance in schools.
The total area of Stark County is approximately 362,784 acres. Out of this, 109,466 acres (30.2%) has been developed. The remaining 253,318 acres (69.8%) constitutes agricultural lands, water bodies and undeveloped lands. The major land uses that make up the developed areas are residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and communication, utilities, parks, open space and public areas.
Residential Residential land use refers predominantly to the living areas in the County. This category of land use has recorded consistent growth over the years. It constituted 39,181 acres (10.8%) in 1965 and rose to 48,639 acres (13.4%) in 1980. Currently, it covers 64,003 acres (17.6%) of the total land area of the County. The substantial growth experienced in residential land use in the past can partly be attributed to low density, dispersed development patterns. This issue is under debate nationwide, as residents see ever-increasing traffic and commuting times and rapid declines in productive farmlands. What appears to be unplanned or inappropriate growth on the outskirts of cities competes with older, inner-city areas or results in “leapfrog” development that ignores opportunities for in-fill. The future growth of residential land use in the County is projected to keep pace with population growth throughout the plan period, reaching 73,282 acres (20.2%) by 2030. It is expected, however, that much of the growth will be concentrated in the northern portion of the County in Jackson and Lake Townships.
Commercial Commercial land use in the County includes retail, office, service and other businesses. They are mainly concentrated in the central business district (CBD) of the City of Canton, Massillon and Alliance, along the main roads and a very substantial amount in other major townships. Commercial land use constituted 3,627 acres (1%) of the total land area in 1965. It, however, increased slightly to 5,005 (1.3%) in 1980. Currently, it covers 6,979 acres (1.9%) of the total land area in the County. It is not expected to change much through the plan period. However, as new residential areas are developed, neighborhood commercial facilities would be developed alongside. It is projected to reach 8,344 acres (2.3%) by 2030.
114
Industrial Industrial activities have long played a key role in Stark County’s economy. Major industrial activities are located in the City of Canton as well as in suburban areas immediately north and west of Canton. Other industrial activities are located in the Cities of Alliance and Massillon. The County’s industrial land use constituted 3,265 acres (0.9%) in 1965, this figure rose to 4,054 acres (1.1%) in 1980 and currently it constitutes 4,932 acres (1.4%). The percentage of land used for industrial purposes has not changed much since 1988. This could be explained by the decline in manufacturing activities since the 1970s and the emergence of high- tech industries that use comparatively less floor space. The situation is not expected to change significantly throughout the plan period, for the plan seeks to encourage the reuse of existing industrial facilities. Industrial land use is projected to cover 5,442 acres (1.5%) by 2030.
Transportation Communication & Utilities Transportation, Communication & Utilities land use includes airfields, railway yards, highway right-of-way, truck terminals, utility sub-stations, public or private utility offices and plants. This category of land use has been growing consistently from 1965 to 2004. The highest growth occurred between 1988 and 2004 when the land occupied by this land use grew from 17,591 acres (4.8%) to 18,708 (5.2%). Significant changes are not expected to occur within the plan period since most of the basic and important road infrastructures of the County have already been constructed. However, as additional lands are put into residential use there will be the need to service these new areas with roads and utilities. This category of land use is projected to constitute 21,404 acres (5.9%) in 2030.
Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space land use in the County includes existing and proposed public and private parks and recreational developments such as state and local parks, golf courses, driving ranges, land surrounding reservoirs and undeveloped flood plains within built-up areas. This category of land use has seen growth over the years. In 1965, it was included with the public land use. It constituted 6,878 acres (1.9%) in 1975; this figure grew to 8,455 acres (2.3%) in 1988 and currently constitutes 8,928 acres (2.5%). It should be noted that about 1,100 acres of the water areas are considered as parks but not included in the 8,928 acres listed. They are considered as parks though because they are used for recreational activities and are also open to the general public. Land in the park and open space category is projected to grow from the
115
current figure of 8,928 acres (2.5%) to 10,158 acres (2.8%) in 2030. Although public parklands will increase throughout the length of the plan, overall growth of parks is expected to be muted slightly as private open space areas, such as golf courses, succumb to residential and other development. Areas of park growth are not identified on the map as specific locations are not known but will most likely occur in areas identified as “undeveloped rural”.
Agricultural Agriculture has remained a major land use in Stark County. Major areas of agricultural activity include large portions of the east side of the County between Alliance and Louisville, areas west and southwest of Massillon, areas of Lake Township near Hartville and smaller scattered areas in the south and eastern part of the County. This land use has been decreasing consistently over the years. It decreased from 184,593 acres (50.9%) in 1975 to 179,399 acres (49.5%) in 1988. It decreased further to the current figure 161,899 acres (44.6%). With the exodus from the County’s urban core areas to growing suburbs, there has been significant pressure on rural areas. The County lost 22,694 acres of agricultural land from 1975 to 2004 to other land uses. Agriculture land use is expected to decline further during the plan period. However, the decline will be at a decreasing rate as more in-fill developments are undertaken within the plan period as a way of controlling urban sprawl. Agricultural land use is projected to reach 149,467 acres (41.2%) by 2030.
Public This category of land use includes schools, medical institutions, religious facilities, cultural facilities, government offices and other public buildings. These facilities are widely scattered in the County. With the exception of schools and government buildings serving the rural areas, most of these land uses are found in urban service areas of the County. This category of land use grew from 5,442 (1.5%) in 1965 to 5,714 acres (1.6%) in 1975 and thereafter has remained roughly the same with current figure of 5,916 acres (1.6%). With some additional schools and public buildings expected to be built in the developing suburban areas to take care for the increase in population, this land use is expected to reach 6,167 acres (1.7%) by 2030.
Undeveloped / Rural Undeveloped land constitutes areas outside the developed urban, developed suburban and developing suburban which are not used for agricultural activities. Typical uses of this land are
116
resource extraction, forest, steep slopes, flood plains and other open spaces. Land under this category has been declining since 1975, as areas such as strip mines are reclaimed and put into other land use. It declined from 92,013 acres (25.4%) in 1975 to 88,554 acres (24.4%) in 1988 and further declined to the current figure of 84,696 acres (23.3%). This category of land is expected to decline further to 80,901 acres (22.3) by 2030.
Figure III-10. Stark County Land Use 2004
Undeveloped 23.3% Residential 17.6% Public 1.6% Commercial 1.9% Water 1.9% Industrial 1.4%
Transport. Comm. Utilities Agricultural 5.2% 44.6% Park & Open Space 2.5%
117
Figure III-11. Stark County Land Use 2030
Undeveloped 22.3% Residential Public 20.2% 1.7%
Commercial Water 2.3% 2.1%
Industrial 1.5%
Transport. Co Agricultural Utilities 41.2% 5.9% Park & Open Space 2.8%
Some Recommendations for Future Land Use One of the overall goals of the land use plan is to promote environmental quality through orderly development. To achieve this goal, additional goals, objectives and strategies have been created and are listed at the end of the Plan. Some additional recommendations are made. While technology has given farmers the ability to produce more crops from less land, the rich soil needs to be protected as a vital and precious resource to ensure the sustainability of agriculture in the future. In light of this, townships should consider enacting appropriate rural/agricultural zoning for the specific purpose of preserving agriculture and agri-business.
Private lending institutions have traditionally been reluctant to approve lending for rehabilitation developments. Local governmental bodies and developers should partner with private lenders to assist financing rehabilitation and infill projects. This will be necessary to ensure that within the plan period much effort is made on infilling and rehabilitation of existing buildings to raise the density of current developed areas. The BIA/City of Canton project is an encouraging example of such partnerships.
118
The Clean Ohio Fund is a $400 million program to preserve green space, build recreational trails, revitalize brownfields and preserve farmlands. The current program will expire in 2006. The program has been successful. Its impact has been felt in Stark County and merits reauthorization in the 2006 legislation year.
119
SECTION IV: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
120
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION The Stark County Area Transportation Study (SCATS) was initiated in November, 1962 in order to prepare a long-range transportation plan meeting the requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. The act required the development of a comprehensive transportation plan coordinated with land use and other planning elements. The law also required a continuing transportation planning process where traffic and land use changes are monitored and periodic revisions to the Plan are made to keep abreast of changing conditions and maintain a 20 year planning horizon. The original SCATS Transportation Plan was adopted in 1971 with a target date of 1985. The table below documents the various Plans over the years: Table 1-1- Plan Years Plan Adoption Year Horizon Year 1971 1985 1979 2000 1985 2010 1995 2010 1999 2020 2002 2030 2005 2030
SCATS is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), designated by the Governor of the State of Ohio, responsible for transportation planning in Stark County. This document will update the 2030 Plan adopted in 2002 that was revised and readopted in 2005. The Transportation Plan is then incorporated as an element of the Stark County Regional Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan.
SCATS Organization Three committees and the staff comprise the organization of SCATS. They are the Policy Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the SCRPC Citizens Advisory Council (CAC).
The Policy Committee The Policy Committee is composed of county officials, mayors, a township representative, and representatives from Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA), the TAC Chair, and the CAC Vice-Chair. This committee is responsible for the basic non-technical policies, adopts the Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program, and approves the budget.
121
The Technical Advisory Committee The Policy Committee is assisted by the TAC, which reviews technical decisions and is composed of professionals in the fields of traffic, engineering, transportation, planning, and mass transit.
The Citizens Advisory Council The third committee is the CAC. The SCATS Citizens Advisory Committee was formed in 1968. During 1976, a Citizens Advisory Council was formed to provide citizen participation for the SCATS program, as well as for the Stark County Regional Planning Commission (SCRPC). The CAC membership is open to all persons living or working in Stark County. Currently the CAC meets on a quarterly basis, usually on the fourth Wednesday of the month. Special meetings are also called, as needed, in order to satisfy public participation requirements.
SCATS Staff The staff performs the day-to-day work of the study and prepares plans, reports and recommendations for review and adoption by the Policy Committee, TAC, and CAC. The staff also provides information as requested to the public. Summary The primary objective of SCATS, as the MPO for Stark County, is to develop the Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program for Stark County. The purpose of this report is to update the 2030 Plan to reflect recent developments and address the planning requirements of SAFETEA-LU, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, signed into law by President Bush in 2005.
CHAPTER 2 – PLAN SUMMARY Local officials have identified traffic congestion and delay as major concerns. Ease of mobility and accessibility are primary goals for Stark County residents. These issues are addressed through the SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan. The transportation plan also addresses a variety of other needs - alternatives to new highway construction (e.g., trip demand reduction through public transportation and other means, highway rehabilitation, ridesharing), transportation enhancements, public transit, and rail passenger and freight services. One of the objectives of the plan is to provide a balanced multimodal transportation system, which is sensitive to the social, economic and environmental concerns of the citizens of the region.
Plan Components The 2030 Transportation Plan includes three major components: highways, transit, and bicycle pedestrian facilities. Highways Freeways and Expressways- High speed, longer distance trips in and through Stark County and the surrounding region will utilize the freeway and expressway system, which includes I-77, US 30, and parts of US 62 and SR 21. The principal improvements planned for this system, include
122
extension of US 30, east from Trump Avenue to SR 9 in Columbiana County, and the extension of US 62 east from SR 225 to Salem.
Arterial highways- The Plan proposes other regional highway projects to improve traffic circulation, in, and around other major traffic generators. These projects include widening portions of 12th Street, Applegrove Street, Frank Avenue, Trump Avenue, Whipple Avenue, SR 43, SR 241, SR 619, SR 687, and SR 800. Improvements are also planned to connect the City of Canal Fulton to SR 21.
System Preservation- the Plan does not specifically list all system preservation projects such as bridge replacements and repairs or resurfacing and maintenance projects. However, it recognizes that preservation of the transportation system is a priority and sets aside funding for these projects. Public Transit The Plan is based in part on a public transit system in various forms (conventional fixed route bus service, paratransit demand response service, etc.) to encourage a balanced transportation system available to all residents of Stark County. Transit service is currently provided by the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA), which is supported in part by a countywide sales tax.
The following general categories of transit capital improvements are recommended in the Plan: • Buses and Paratransit Vehicles - Existing vehicles will have to be replaced over the long term simply due to age and wear-and-tear. • Transfer Facilities – Included in this category is the construction of transfer facilities at various locations. Also included are improvements to transit stops such as shelters, bus pull off lanes and paved waiting areas. • Completion of improvements at the Gateway Facility – Improvements to SARTA’s Gateway Facility. This building houses the SARTA offices, bus maintenance and bus storage facilities. • Equipment and Preventive Maintenance – equipment purchases and capitalized preventive maintenance of SARTA vehicles and facilities Bikeways and Pedestrian Facilities Finally, the Plan recognizes the value of bikeways and pedestrian facilities for short-distance transportation as well as for recreation and tourism. Bike and pedestrian facilities are proposed as part of completing the open space trail network along the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway and other linear greenways in the county in conjunction with the Stark County Park District Trail Plan. 2030 Plan Listing The SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan includes a financially constrained list of projects, which are recommended for implementation by the Year 2030. These projects are also shown in the map in Figure 1 following the listing.
123
Table 2-1- 2030 Plan Listing Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Alliance Transfer Upgrade transit center $1,237,000 $1,237,000 2015 Alliance Center Ohio & Erie SR212 Parking Lot Trail to bridge then east $100,000 $100,000 1.00 2015 Bethlehem Canal Aqueduct towards Bolivar Trail/SR212 Ohio & Erie Tuscarawas River Bridge $1,000,000 $1,000,000 0.20 2015 Bethlehem Canal Trail Aqueduct Aqueduct Riverland Ave over Tuscarawas River Bridge replacement $1,300,000 $1,300,000 0.10 2015 Bethlehem Shepler Church Tusc Co Line to Resurfacing $650,000 $650,000 10.37 2015 Bethlehem / Ave Cleveland Ave Perry / Canton SR 93, Intersection Intersection Widening $912,000 $912,000 0.10 2015 Canal Fulton Cherry/Locust 12th St NW Monument Dr to Maple Roadway and Bridge $9,000,000 $9,000,000 1.96 2015 Canton Ave Rehabilitation Downtown Trail West Branch Trail to Bike and Ped Trail $4,000,000 $4,000,000 1.00 2015 Canton Ph. 1 Court Ave Construction Downtown Trail Court Ave to Cook Park Bike and Ped Trail $8,800,000 $8,800,000 2.00 2015 Canton Ph. 2 Construction Stark Electric Cook Park to Hilcher Trail $100,000 $100,000 0.60 2015 Canton Trail Phase 2 Ave US 62 At Rowland, Maple, Replace traffic signal $2,500,000 $2,500,000 7.20 2015 Canton / Harrisburg, Regent, spans with box spans at 7 Louisville / Harmont, Broadway, intersections. Construct Nimishillen / and California. SLM offset LT lanes & right turn Plain 24.38 to 29.95 slots at 4 intersections. Install closed Loop Signal System. Structure & drainage work. US 62 Market Ave to SR 44 Corridor Study $500,000 $500,000 1.00 2015 Canton / Louisville / Nimishillen / Plain Covered Bridge West Branch Trail to Trail through Cemeteries $320,000 $320,000 4.00 2015 Canton / Trail Martindale Park Plain I-77 US 30 to Summit Freeway management $2,700,000 $2,700,000 9.26 2015 Canton / County system. Includes traffic Plain / flow detection, cameras, Jackson dynamic message signs and control center equipment. SR 43, 17th St to New US 30 Widen for TWLTL thru $1,890,000 $1,890,000 0.46 2015 Canton Twp Waynesburg Dr section and LT storage lanes on SR 43 at 17thStreet intersection; RR crossing upgrade SR 800, 45th St to Mill St Widen for TWLTL thru $3,190,000 $3,190,000 1.60 2015 Canton Twp Cleveland Ave section; Trump Ave At Georgetown St Intersection improvement $1,200,000 $1,200,000 0.10 2015 Canton Twp
125
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Jackson KSU/Stark Tech to Trail $120,000 $120,000 1.50 2015 Jackson / Connector Price Park North Canton Phase 1 Arlington Ave At Strausser St Intersection Improvement $375,000 $375,000 0.10 2015 Jackson Dressler Rd / Fulton Rd to Belden Resurfacing $588,000 $588,000 1.64 2015 Jackson Everhard Rd Village St Frank Avenue Mega St to Applegrove Roadway Widening $3,160,000 $3,160,000 1.13 2015 Jackson St Hills & Dales Rd Woodlawn Ave to Widening from 2 lanes to 5 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 0.60 2015 Jackson Whipple Ave lanes Hills & Dales Rd Wales Ave Sir Thomas Widen to 4 lanes $6,050,000 $6,050,000 2.20 2015 Jackson Blvd
Portage St. Lake O'Springs Ave to Resurfacing $544,000 $544,000 1.00 2015 Jackson Frank Ave Cleveland Ave At Mt Pleasant St Intersection Improvement $1,500,000 $1,500,000 0.10 2015 Lake Market Ave 4 intersections in Lake roadway $2,200,000 $2,200,000 0.40 2015 Lake Twp Middlebranch At State St Intersection Improvement $900,000 $900,000 0.10 2015 Lake Ave Deerfield Ave. S of Orrville St near RR Bridge Rehab $296,000 $296,000 0.10 2015 Lawrence tracks Mahoning Valley Deer Creek Reservoir Bridge over Spillway $1,500,000 $1,500,000 0.20 2015 Lexington Trail Phase 2 Dam Mahoning Valley Infill to connect sections Trail $150,000 $150,000 0.75 2015 Lexington Trail Phase 3 SR 619 at Intersection Construct Roundabout $880,000 $880,000 0.10 2015 Lexington McCallum Ave Walnut Ave over Mahoning River Bridge replacement $500,000 $500,000 0.10 2015 Lexington Main St Louisville WCL to SR Reconstruction $4,111,375 $4,111,375 1.60 2015 Louisville 44 Erie St Nave St to Treemont Resurfacing, Curb Ramps $1,051,000 $1,051,000 1.91 2015 Massillon Ave & Traffic Signals Sippo Lake O & E Canal Trail to Trail $800,000 $800,000 2.70 2015 Massillon / Connector Genoa Ave/12th St Perry Phase 2 Wooster Street At Tuscarawas R near Bridge Rehab $824,000 $824,000 0.10 2015 Navarre Navarre Corp Paris Ave At Meese Rd./ Easton Safety improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 0.20 2015 Nimishillen St Hoover Park Dogwood Park to Trail $400,000 $400,000 2.00 2015 North Canton Connector Hoover Phase 2 SR 44, Ravenna At Mapleton St Upgrade intersection $500,000 $500,000 0.10 2015 Osnaburg Ave US 30 at Intersection Add Turn Lanes $720,000 $720,000 0.10 2015 Osnaburg Broadway Ave Nickleplate Trail Swallen Ave to Stucky ROW Acquisition/Trail $500,000 $500,000 1.00 2015 Osnaburg / Phase 1 St Paris
126
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost 12th St NW Sippo Lake Entrance to 2-lane/Flood prevention $1,500,000 $1,500,000 1.00 2015 Perry Genoa Ave Kemary Ave. At RR tracks N of Fohl Bridge Rehab $324,000 $324,000 0.10 2015 Perry St Lincolnway Bus pull-offs, decorate $172,000 $172,000 2015 Perry Corridor shelters, passenger amenities Battlesburg At Nimishillen Creek N Bridge Rehab $420,000 $420,000 0.10 2015 Pike Road of SR-800 55th Street Birmingham Ave to Roadway Improvement $1,500,000 $1,500,000 0.09 2015 Plain Harmont Ave Covered Bridge Martindale Park to Trail along Trunk Sewer $80,000 $80,000 1.00 2015 Plain Trail Middlebranch Trail Werner Church At Applegrove St & Bridge Replacement and $3,750,000 $3,750,000 0.21 2015 Plain Middlebranch Ave Roadway Improvement SR 43, At SR 183 Add turn Lane $610,000 $610,000 0.16 2015 Sandy Waynesburg Dr Bicycle Bus bike racks/shelter $94,000 $94,000 2015 Carriers/Racks storage racks Bus Lift Bus Lift Replacement $79,000 $79,000 2015 Bus Replace buses according $11,186,000 $11,186,000 2015 Replacements to bus schedules Bus Replace 20 Buses/Yr $11,500,000 $11,500,000 2015 Replacements Computer Upgrade hardware $50,000 $50,000 2015 Upgrade Equipment Equipment Replacement $400,000 $400,000 2015 Replacement Equipment $100,000 per year Various Office and $600,000 $600,000 2015 Replacement Maintenance Equipment Fare boxes Replace/upgrade fare $1,454,000 $1,454,000 2015 boxes Fuel Computerized link to $70,000 $70,000 2015 Management buses System HVAC - Bus Replacement of current $900,000 $900,000 2015 Storage HVAC System Improved Heated/lighted $56,800 $56,800 2015 Shelters/Bus shelters/sidewalk ADA Stops access JARC/New Coordinated Plan Projects $1,900,000 $1,900,000 2015 Freedom Local System System Preservation $17,500,000 $17,500,000 2015 Preservation ODOT System System Preservation $175,000,000 $175,000,000 10.00 2015 Preservation Preventive Preventative Maintenance $8,100,000 $8,100,000 2015 Maintenance on assets Project Planning Yearly Planning $1,100,000 $1,100,000 2015
127
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Route/Timing Increase runs and create $168,000 $168,000 2015 Adjustments hybrid pulse/pull-through Routing Trapeze Software for Pro- $100,000 $100,000 2015 Software Line Upgrade Software Software upgrades and $25,000 $25,000 2015 new software Specialty Dispatch Furniture $40,000 $40,000 2015 Counters for Dispatch STP Vehicles 60,000/year Specialized Transportation $1,500,000 $1,500,000 2015 Program Various Safety Various Safety Projects $10,000,000 $10,000,000 2015 Projects Main St Old Main St to New New 2-lane connector $1,000,000 $1,120,000 0.30 2020 Alliance Connector Main St at Sawburg Ave SR 183, Union Alliance Underpass Grade Separation $2,000,000 $2,240,000 0.10 2020 Alliance Ave Improvement Iron Horse Trail Alliance to SR 153 Trail on Abandoned RR $350,000 $392,000 3.50 2020 Alliance / Phase 1 Washington Wilderness Navarre to Wilmot Trail along Roads $86,000 $96,320 8.60 2020 Bethlehem / Center Navarre / Sugar Creek / Wilmot SR 93, Wabash 4th St S to RR Streetscape $756,000 $846,720 0.30 2020 Brewster Ave Overpass Canton Waterworks Park to Trail along Streets $18,000 $20,160 1.80 2020 Canton Downtown Trail Cook Park Fulton Rd At Park Dr Signal & Turn Lane N of $742,000 $831,040 0.20 2020 Canton Fulton. Storm Water & Sewer, Sidewalk Guilford Ave Over Nim Creek S of Bridge replacement $375,000 $420,000 0.10 2020 Canton Bridge 38th St Harmont Ave SR 153 to US 62 Widen to 4 lanes $2,800,000 $3,136,000 1.40 2020 Canton I-77 US 30 Interchange Interchange Safety & $40,000,000 $44,800,000 1.00 2020 Canton Capacity improvements SR 153, Maple Ave to Harmont Roadway and Intersection $18,000,000 $20,160,000 1.70 2020 Canton Mahoning Road Ave Improvements US 30 Trump Ave to SR 44 New 4-Lane Freeway $58,000,000 $64,960,000 2.85 2020 Canton / East Canton / Osnaburg Sippo Lake Sippo Lake Park to Trail $2,000,000 $2,240,000 2.50 2020 Canton / Connector Waterworks Park Perry Phase 3 Whipple Ave Southway St to 13th St 2-lane/RR bridge $3,500,000 $3,920,000 0.52 2020 Canton Twp / Perry SR 619, Edison Cleveland Ave to Kent Widen to 4 lanes $9,390,000 $10,516,800 3.13 2020 Hartville / St Ave Lake
128
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Upper Martindale Park to Trail along Creek & Roads $330,000 $369,600 16.50 2020 Hartville / Middlebranch Quail Hollow State Park Lake / Plain Trail Applegrove Frank Ave to Strausser Intersection Improvement $3,000,000 $3,360,000 0.30 2020 Jackson Connector St Frank Ave Fulton Rd to University Widen to 5 lanes $2,800,000 $3,136,000 1.25 2020 Jackson St SR 687, Fulton 0.28 miles E of SR 241 Widen to 5 lanes $3,600,000 $4,032,000 1.00 2020 Jackson Rd to Brunnerdale Ave Strausser St At Lake O'Springs Ave Intersection Improvement $1,500,000 $1,680,000 0.10 2020 Jackson Whipple Ave Applegrove St to Widen to 5 lanes $1,500,000 $1,680,000 0.56 2020 Jackson Shuffel St Strausser St At High Mill Ave Intersection improvement $900,000 $1,008,000 0.10 2020 Jackson / Lawrence Market Ave At Mt Pleasant St Intersection Safety $800,000 $896,000 0.10 2020 Lake / Plain Improvement Strausser St At SR 236 Intersection improvement $1,600,000 $1,792,000 0.10 2020 Lawrence Greenbower St At Berlin Reservoir Bridge $1,000,000 $1,120,000 0.10 2020 Lexington Price St Over Walborn Bridge $1,000,000 $1,120,000 0.10 2020 Lexington / Reservoir Marlboro Stark Electric Richmond Ave to Trail $300,000 $336,000 3.00 2020 Louisville / Trail Phase 3 Louisville Nimishillen / Plain Columbus Rd At Beeson St & Reeder Roundabout $800,000 $896,000 0.10 2020 Marlboro Ave Hankins St Wales Ave to Louisa 2 Lane Improvement $1,800,000 $2,016,000 1.30 2020 Massillon Marie Ave Main St At Tremont Ave Upgrade intersection $1,000,000 $1,120,000 0.10 2020 Massillon SR 241, Wales Lincoln Way E to Hills & 2 lanes + Turn lane $4,500,000 $5,040,000 1.49 2020 Massillon Rd Dales Rd SR 241, Wales At Lake Ave Upgrade intersection $1,500,000 $1,680,000 0.10 2020 Massillon Rd Walnut Rd Southway St to 16th St 2 Lane improvement $450,000 $504,000 0.25 2020 Massillon SR 241, Wales Hills & Dales Rd to Widen to 4 lanes $8,935,000 $10,007,200 5.50 2020 Massillon / Ave Portage St Jackson Jackson Ave Richville Dr to Lincoln 2 Lane/RR Bridge $5,200,000 $5,824,000 1.50 2020 Massillon / Way Perry Richville Dr Nave St to Southway St Minor widening $570,000 $638,400 1.56 2020 Massillon / resurfacing, shoulders & Perry ditches Broadway Ave Over Nimishillen Creek Bridge $1,000,000 $1,120,000 0.10 2020 Nimishillen S of SR 153 Columbus Rd At Paris Ave Intersection Improvement $1,250,000 $1,400,000 0.10 2020 Nimishillen Main St 7th St to Applegrove St Streetscaping, sidewalk & $3,100,000 $3,472,000 0.52 2020 North Canton Storm Sewer Main St Applegrove St to Orion Streetscaping, sidewalk & $4,700,000 $5,264,000 0.54 2020 North Canton St Storm Sewer Maple St Taft Ave to Marquardt Streetscaping, sidewalk & $3,200,000 $3,584,000 0.73 2020 North Canton Ave Storm Sewer
129
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Maple St Marquardt Ave to Streetscaping, sidewalk & $3,500,000 $3,920,000 0.94 2020 North Canton Market Ave Storm Sewer Pittsburg Ave Applegrove St to Widen, turn lane, curb, $850,000 $952,000 0.45 2020 North Canton Shuffel St storm SR 43, Market 55th St to Applegrove Widen to 4 lanes $9,730,000 $10,897,600 2.00 2020 North Canton Ave St / Plain US 30 SR 44 Interchange to New 2-lane connector $4,000,000 $4,480,000 1.00 2020 Osnaburg Connector SR 172 at Miday Ave Iron Horse Trail SR 153 to Nickelplate Trail on Abandoned RR $300,000 $336,000 3.00 2020 Paris / Phase 2 trail Washington Nickleplate Trail Stucky St to Minerva Trail $600,000 $672,000 6.00 2020 Paris Phase 2 Georgetown St At Paris Ave Intersection Improvement $500,000 $560,000 0.10 2020 Paris / Washington 20th St NW At Lakeside Intersection Safety $250,000 $280,000 0.10 2020 Plain Improvement 30th St NE At Harrisburg Rd Intersection Improvement $1,500,000 $1,680,000 0.10 2020 Plain Applegrove St Marquardt Ave to Widen to 4 lanes $4,000,000 $4,480,000 2.24 2020 Plain Market Ave Bus $2,280,000 per year Replace 20 Buses/Yr $22,800,000 $25,536,000 2020 Replacements Equipment $100,000 per year Equipment Replacement $1,000,000 $1,120,000 2020 Replacement ($100k/yr) JARC/New Coordinated Plan Projects $1,350,000 $1,512,000 2020 Freedom Local System System Preservation $12,000,000 $13,440,400 2020 Preservation ODOT System System Preservation $120,000,000 $134,400,000 10.00 2020 Preservation Preventive $1,150,000 per year $1,600,00 per year $11,150,000 $12,488,000 2020 Maintenance STP Vehicles 60,000/year Specialized Transportation $1,100,000 $1,100,000 2020 Program Various Safety Safety Projects $7,500,000 $8,400,000 2020 Projects Mahoning Patterson Ave to New 2-lane connector $3,950,000 $5,135,000 1.00 2030 Alliance / Extension Armour St Lexington North Country Vine St to Price St Trail $575,000 $747,500 5.00 2030 Alliance / Loop Lexington Stark Electric Louisville to Alliance Trail $1,350,000 $1,755,000 9.00 2030 Alliance / Trail Phase 4 Louisville / Nimishillen / Washington Fohl St At Shepler Church Ave Intersection Improvement $900,000 $1,170,000 0.10 2030 Bethlehem / Perry 12th St NW At Market Ave Intersection Widening $350,000 $455,000 0.10 2030 Canton West Branch Thurman Munson Trail $160,000 $208,000 2.00 2030 Canton Trail Phase 3 Stadium to West Park
130
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Trump Ave Lincoln St to SR 153 Widen to 4 lanes $6,500,000 $8,450,000 2.30 2030 Canton / Canton Twp US 62 Columbus Rd to SR 44 Intersection Upgrading $19,000,000 $24,700,000 4.37 2030 Canton / Louisville / Nimishillen / Plain US 62 At Harmont Grade Separation $5,000,000 $6,500,000 0.30 2030 Canton / Plain Trump Ave SR 43 to New US 30 2 Lanes / new connector $4,000,000 $5,200,000 2.00 2030 Canton Twp Fohl St Navarre Rd to I-77 2 Lane improvement $5,230,000 $6,799,000 5.23 2030 Canton Twp / Bethlehem / Perry / Pike Lower Thurman Munson Trail along Creek & Roads $180,000 $234,000 9.00 2030 Canton Twp / Middlebranch Stadium to East Sparta East Sparta / Trail Pike East Canton Louisville to East Trail on Co & Twp Rds $460,000 $598,000 4.00 2030 East Canton Connector Canton / Louisville / Nimishillen / Osnaburg Everhard Rd & At intersection Widen to 5 or more Lanes $5,120,000 $6,656,000 0.22 2030 Jackson Whipple Ave Jackson Ave 12th St NW to Perry Dr Widen to 3 lanes $2,000,000 $2,600,000 2.00 2030 Jackson Jackson Crystal Springs Trail along Twp Roads $45,000 $58,500 4.50 2030 Jackson Connector Trailhead to Lake Cable Phase 2 Mt Pleasant – Lake Cable to Trail along Roads $60,000 $78,000 6.00 2030 Jackson Dogwood Trail Willowdale Lake SR 241, Wales Portage St to Summit Widen to 4 lanes $3,850,000 $5,005,000 2.37 2030 Jackson Ave Co Line Whipple Ave Shuffel Dr to Mt New 3-lanes $2,500,000 $3,250,000 0.60 2030 Jackson Pleasant St Mt Pleasant – Willowdale Lake to Trail along Roads $45,000 $58,500 4.50 2030 Jackson / Dogwood Trail Dogwood Park North Canton Pontius Price Quail Hollow State Park Trail along Roads $105,000 $136,500 10.50 2030 Lake / Connector to Alliance Reservoirs Lexington / Marlboro Canal Fulton Butterbridge Rd to New 2-lane connector $2,750,000 $3,575,000 1.10 2030 Lawrence Connector Locust St Beeson St At Freshley Ave Intersection Improvement $1,000,000 $1,300,000 0.10 2030 Lexington US 62** SR 225 to Salem New 4-Lane Freeway $8,000,000 $10,400,000 1.00 2030 Lexington Reno Drive SR 44 to Nickelplate New Facility $250,000 $325,000 0.25 2030 Louisville Ave SR 44 Bypass SR 153 to Frana Clara 2-lane bypass / RR Bridge $4,500,000 $5,850,000 1.70 2030 Louisville St Stark Electric Canton East Corp Line Trail $240,000 $312,000 3.00 2030 Louisville Trail to Louisville Sandy Valley Magnolia to Minerva Trail along roads & Canal $976,000 $1,268,800 12.20 2030 Magnolia / Loop Minerva / Sandy / Waynesburg
131
Name Location Type Work Present Future-Year Length Complete City / Village (2009) Cost By / Township Estimated (Miles) Cost Pleasant Valley Howenstine Dr to Trail along Roads $71,000 $92,300 7.10 2030 Magnolia / Trail Magnolia Village Pike / Sandy Navarre Rd SR 21 to 1 Mile E of SR Widen to 3 lanes $2,000,000 $2,600,000 1.00 2030 Massillon 21 SR 172, Lincoln At Main St Upgrade intersection $1,000,000 $1,300,000 0.10 2030 Massillon Way W Sterilite St Navarre Rd to Fohl St New 2-lane connector $4,000,000 $5,200,000 1.00 2030 Massillon Extension US 30, Lincoln Bonnieview Ave to Streetscape $300,000 $390,000 0.30 2030 Minerva Way Columbiana Co Line Hoover Park Glenoak High School to Trail $115,000 $149,500 0.70 2030 North Canton Connector Middlebranch Trail Phase 3 West Branch Arboretum Park to Trail $320,000 $416,000 4.00 2030 North Canton Trail Phase 2 Dogwood Park US 30 SR 44 to SR 183 Super 2 lane $48,600,000 $63,180,000 8.00 2030 Osnaburg / Paris
US 30** SR 183 to East Super 2 lane $4,300,000 $5,590,000 1.00 2030 Paris Rochester SR 43, Market Applegrove St to Mt Widen to 4 lanes $3,500,000 $4,550,000 1.12 2030 Plain Ave Pleasant St US 62 Market Ave to Major Reconstruction / $15,000,000 $19,500,000 1.36 2030 Plain Columbus Rd Access Control Alabama Ave At Stanwood St Intersection Improvement $800,000 $1,040,000 0.10 2030 Tuscarawas Beech St At Beechwood Ave Intersection Improvement $700,000 $910,000 0.10 2030 Washington Bus $2,280,000 per year Replace 20 Buses/Yr $22,800,000 $29,640,000 2030 Replacements Equipment $100,000 per year Equipment Replacement $1,000,000 $1,300,000 2030 Replacement ($100k/yr) JARC/New Coordinated Plan Projects $3,400,000 $4,420,000 2030 Freedom Local System System Preservation $26,000,000 $33,800,000 2030 Preservation ODOT System System Preservation $260,000,000 $338,000,000 10.00 2030 Preservation Preventive $1,150,000 per year $1,600,00 per year $11,150,000 $14,495,000 2030 Maintenance Safety Projects Safety Projects $30,000,000 $39,000,000 2030 STP Vehicles 60,000/year Specialized Transportation $2,900,000 $2,900,000 2030 Program
132
Map 2-1- 2030 Plan
133
Chapter 3 – TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS Transportation Goals, Objectives and Strategies The first step in transportation planning is the development of goals and policies to guide the selection of projects and planning recommendations. The full Comprehensive Plan describes and lists the goals, objectives and strategies for the entire Plan. The transportation specific objectives and strategies are repeated below: Objective 1 – Adopt a “system preservation” policy towards Stark County roadways in conjunction with ODOT’s system preservation policy. Strategies: A. Prioritize funding for system preservation; B. Implement Intelligent Transportation System strategies such as congestion management, safety planning, and mobility management.
Objective 2 – Provide a multi-modal transportation system which includes various modal options, such as pedestrian access, bikeways, mass transit, rail, and air facilities. Strategies: A. Evaluate and adjust SARTA’s routes to provide adequate transportation to and from suburbs and center cities; B. Support the objectives of the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan and SARTA’s continued curb to curb programs to serve transit dependent persons ; C. Encourage the development and creation of scenic improvements, historic improvements, and pedestrian and bike trails; D. Structure new subdivisions to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks and trails), tying into the countywide trail system where possible; E. Provide for pedestrian friendly transportation systems where appropriate in response to new demographics and special needs.
Objective 4 – Provide a congestion free transportation system. Strategies: A. Work cooperatively with appropriate agencies to create and implement countywide access management regulations; B. Address existing congestion before building new roads in undeveloped areas.
Objective 4 – Provide an efficient, safe and secure transportation system. Strategies:
134
A. Identify and target high crash locations for safety improvements; B. Implement intelligent transportation systems; C. Consult with appropriate agencies to provide for a secure transportation system
Objective 5 – Provide an economically and environmentally sound transportation system. Strategies: A. Develop fiscally constrained transportation plans and programs; B. Monitor and assess the cost effectiveness of transportation system components; C. Ensure projects are sensitive to social, economic and environmental effects; D. Encourage projects and programs that minimize the transportation system’s impacts on air and water quality and noise levels.
Traffic Safety and Congestion Problem Areas A second step in the planning process is the identification of deficiencies in the existing transportation system. The Traffic Congestion Management System (TCMS) is used to identify congestion deficiencies on the existing transportation system. Results of the latest TCMS analysis were published in the 2007 Congestion Management Process Report. The report examined highway congestion based on three scenarios: existing traffic on the base highway system, future 2030 traffic on the base highway system and future 2030 traffic on the 2030 Plan adopted in 2005.
The base highway system includes all highway facilities that currently exist plus those facilities which are under construction or for which construction funding is committed in the immediate future. Congested locations include I-77 from Tuscarawas to 13th Street and US 62 east of Market Avenue and in Alliance. Other locations include 12th Street in Canton, SR 619 in Lake Township, the Belden Village area, SR 43 in Canton, SR 800 near I-77, Woodlawn Avenue between 12th Street and Hills & Dales Road, SR 241 in Massillon, the Applegrove corridor, and US-30 in East Canton.
The future congestion analysis on the future network showed many of the existing congested locations remain congested with the increased 2030 traffic volumes. In addition congestion has spread to include many locations near Portage Street. Locations showing improvements include I-77 from Tuscarawas St to 13th Street, US 62 east of Market Avenue, the Applegrove corridor, US 30 in East Canton, SR 241 in Massillon, and Woodlawn Avenue.
The future congestion analysis on the base network showed all of the congested locations of the base scenario plus the additional congestion of the future scenario without the improvements of the future scenario.
135
SCATS also gathers traffic crash records and publishes an annual traffic crash report identifying and ranking high hazard intersections. Information from these reports are presented to local officials and the general public, who then incorporate it into their planning processes.
The Stark County Crash Report 2008 and the 2007 Congestion Management Process Report are available for review on the SCRPC/SCATS website at www.rpc.co.stark.oh.us/.
Transportation Security SAFETEA-LU calls for the security of the transportation system to be a stand-alone planning factor, signaling an increase in importance from prior legislation in which security was coupled with safety in the same planning factor. The Act states that the factor is to “increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users”. Regional transportation policy needs to respond to security threats. Threat assessments of transportation facilities should evaluate their vulnerabilities and risks, to prioritize security improvements.
The Stark County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is the agency that has the primary responsibility to address emergency preparedness in Stark County and coordinates with other governmental agencies responsible for the security of the region. This includes developing a planning process at the county level that establishes policies and procedures needed to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the impacts of all types of natural or hostile disasters.
SCATS met with the Stark County EMA to discuss and review plans and policies already in place to deal with the transportation system in Stark County. This includes the Stark County Emergency Operations Plan. The primary Emergency Support Function is transportation. This chapter of the plan covers the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery from damage to land and air routes. The plan is based on the concept that appropriate local authorities will execute initial response. Mutual aid assistance between supporting organizations is implemented as specified by local agreement.
The Stark County Engineer, in coordination with Stark County’s EMA Coordinator, has developed a Stark County Resource Manual. This manual identifies the source, location, and availability of earthmoving equipment, dump trucks, road graders, fuels, etc. and appropriate local contacts. These resources could be used to support response and recovery in case of a disaster. Homeland Security funds have been used to purchase four directional signs, light towers and other equipment that can quickly be accessed by emergency officials and local road departments.
SCATS will work with the Stark County EMA, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), SARTA, and others to coordinate the identification of security needs that can be addressed in the transportation planning process. These groups have plans in place for the protection of public assets, including the transportation system. SCATS will assist and consult
136
the EMA in this process but will not take the lead in planning for a specific event. The group is in the process of completing a Hazardous Materials Commercial Flow Study. In coordination with State and Federal agencies, High Risk Loads will be monitored in and through the region.
SCATS has included the Stark County Emergency Management Agency and the Local Emergency Planning Committee on the list of coordinating agencies to be contacted for comment and public involvement with the Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program.
Current training programs focus on ethanol transport, via both truck and rail. Mock disasters are staged on a regular basis, and usually involve some aspect of the transportation system. One recent scenario involved a truck crashing off I-77 and ending up in the parking lot of Thurman Munson Stadium. With both a weigh station and two large truck stops in the county, EMA encourages long haul truckers to participate in the “See Something, Say Something” campaign.
Critical Facilities SCATS has identified critical facilities and transportation system elements in Stark County. The continued and uninterrupted operation of these facilities is necessary for the health, safety, and well being of the general public. The vulnerability of these facilities or systems is due to the potential for any of the following to occur: disruption to emergency response operations; disruption of governmental functions; and threats to the economy of the region. Although the entire highway and railroad network could be considered vulnerable, the following locations have been identified as critical. Table 3-1- Critical Facilities Facility Criteria US 62 Bridge east of I-77 Major bridge structure and critical freeway interchange I-77/US 30 interchange Critical freeway interchange I-77 NHS Route US 30 NHS Route US 62 NHS Route SR 43 NHS Route Norfolk Southern RR Junction in Alliance Critical Junction of two major rail lines Akron Canton Airport Regional Airport
In the event of a local disaster, systems are currently in place to provide detour routes. ODOT currently has a Freeway Incident Management System that utilizes preplanned detours in the event that a section of the freeway system is impassable. As part of the Akron-Canton ITS architecture, ODOT District 4 is implementing the Akron-Canton Freeway Management System.
137
This system will also be available to assist in evacuation planning and will include changeable message signs and cameras along the freeway. The message boards could be used to inform the public in the event of an emergency situation. Also, the Ohio Transportation Information System, or OTIS, is designed to report major events that slow or detour traffic on Ohio highways.
Public Transit Security The Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) is the public transportation provider in Stark County. The RTA encourages riders to become part of the Transit Watch campaign. Transit Watch is a nationwide safety and security awareness program designed to encourage the active participation of transit passengers and employees in working together to maintain a safe transit environment. The campaign provides information and instructions to transit passengers and employees so that they know what to do and whom to contact in the event of an emergency in a transit setting. Transit Watch invites riders and employees to be the "eyes and ears" of their local transit system.
SARTA has completed a confidential Security and Emergency Procedures reference guide. The plan deals with responses to emergencies, whether caused by natural or human events. It also outlines recovery after the event to restore SARTA to full function. In the event of an incident in Stark County, SARTA could assist in evacuations and the transportation of personnel at the request of the Stark County EMA. SARTA’s plan is also coordinated with the American Public Transportation Association and the Ohio Public Transit Association to initiate an emergency response network in the event of a disaster.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Facility Security The Stark County Park District (Stark Parks) operates and maintains an ever-growing system of trails and greenways in the county. Stark Park’s Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan, adopted 12 years ago with financial support from most of the political subdivisions throughout Stark County, emphasizes creation of a 300-mile system of trails and greenways. To date nearly 80 miles have been created in partnership with the subdivisions where the trails are located. This plan is incorporated into SCATS Transportation Plan. One of the volunteer programs the District offers is the Trailblazer program. Trailblazers provide information and assistance to trail visitors along the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath trail, Hoover Park Trail, Olde Muskingum Trail, and Sippo Valley Trail. Stark Parks provides 24 hours of training in park and canal history, CPR and first aid, bicycle repairs, communication skills, and park regulations. Trailblazers are expected to provide at least 32 hours of service on the trails annually. The Park District provides Trailblazers with distinctive T-shirts, ball caps, and jackets for use on the trail. Their equipment packs for patrolling include cell phones, first aid kits and bicycle repair kits.
Numerous law enforcement agencies in Stark County are now equipped with All Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s). These ATV’s allow for the patrol of the trail system as well as ability to quickly respond to emergency calls on the trail system.
138
Demographic Projections Transportation planning relies on future population, employment and land use projections. The distribution of future population, employment and land use is as important as, or more important than, the total numbers. Population and employment distributions affect the number and lengths of future trips. Transportation also affects the distributions. Where people will live depends in part on access to jobs. Where the jobs are located will be determined to some extent by accessibility to major highways. Thus, most new regional growth in Stark County is projected to take place along major transportation corridors, which is evidence of a strong population / employment / transportation / land use connection. Table 3-2- Demographic Projections Demographic Projections 2000 2030 Population 378,098 368,900 Dwelling Units 157,024 170,432 Vehicles 266,837 294,604 Labor Force 175,401 178,643 Total Employment 204,702 247,186
Table 3-2 shows the existing and future totals for several key demographic items. The population shown in the table is the latest Ohio Department of Development population projection for Stark County. SCATS is required by an interagency agreement to use this number for transportation planning. The other numbers are documented in the demographic section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Traffic Zones The Land Use Plan provides the overall framework for the Transportation Plan but does not include the detail necessary for travel forecasting purposes. To forecast travel, the transportation planning models require detailed characteristics for small areas. For this reason, the SCATS planning area is divided into 690 traffic zones. Two criteria were used to divide the area into zones: • Zones should produce a similar amount of activity so similar amounts of trips would be produced. • The activity in each zone should be relatively homogeneous and special zones should be created for special uses such as hospitals, colleges, shopping centers and major industrial plants. Other considerations in creating traffic zones include not splitting zones with travel barriers such as rivers and railroads and having zone boundaries not cross census tracts to make obtaining population and employment data easier.
139
For each of the traffic zones, key demographics are sub-allocated to the traffic zone level. The following data was sub-allocated to the zone level: Table 3-3- SCATS Independent Variables Residential Employment Special Population / Population < 18 NAICS categories* School Enrollment Dwelling Units College Enrollment Labor Force Hotel Rooms Vehicles Available Average Parking Cost Median Household Income These data sets are referred to as independent variables because they are used as input data in the trip generation models.*NAICS stands for North American Industrial Classification System. Travel Forecasting The next step in the development of the plan is forecasting future travel. This involves the use of the following three mathematical models: Trip Generation (how many trips?) Trip Generation is the process used to forecast the number of trips generated by each traffic zone. Using the data from the 1965 Origin and Destination survey as a base, equations were developed that relate numbers of trips generated to the population, employment and land use data. In 1997, the trip generation equations were revised based upon a model calibration using 1990 as a base year. Six trip types are used in the process: • Home-based work trips • Home-based shopping trips • Home-based other trips • Non-home based trips • Truck trips • Internal-external trips
Trips originating outside of Stark County are forecast separately. The outputs of the trip generation equations are trip ends, either productions or attractions. For instance, residential zones produce work trip productions based on variables like the number of workers living in a zone. Industrial zones produce work trip attractions based on the employment in the zone. By using these equations and the appropriate forecast data, the number of future trip ends generated by each traffic zone is calculated. Trip Distribution (where are the trips going?) Trip Distribution is the process that distributes trips produced in each zone to other zones with trip attractions. This is accomplished using a “gravity” model, which distributes trips in direct proportion to the relative attractiveness of zones and in inverse proportion to the square of the
140
time distance between them. The result of the model is a current or future trip table, which shows how many trips go from each zone to every other zone. Traffic Assignment (what route do the trips take?) Traffic Assignment is the process whereby the trip table is assigned by a computer to a given highway network. The highway network includes all major highway facilities. Each link in the network has a distance and speed coded. The computer assigns the trips between two zones to the highway links that form the minimum time path between those two zones. Two types of traffic assignment are used, "free" and "capacity-restraint.” The "free" assignment assigns all trips to the minimum time path while the "capacity-restraint" assignment diverts some trips to alternate paths if the assigned volume reaches the capacity of the links on the minimum time path. The result of the models is a forecast of traffic on each link of a highway network. In 1997, the SCATS travel models were converted to a PC based model called TRANPLAN. In 2006, the SCATS travel models were converted to a CUBE model.
Future traffic is assigned to alternate networks to produce future traffic volumes and evaluate the effectiveness of the projects. The models also provide data for calculating the future air-quality impacts and the energy consumption of each alternative. Finally, the models provide the basic design data used to determine the number of lanes and other features of future highways.
Transportation Plan Development The SCATS Transportation Plan draws on many different sources. Important sources included ODOT’s Access Ohio 2004-2030 Statewide Transportation Plan, the Governor’s Jobs and Progress Plan, and the ODOT STIP. Other plans and studies used as input into the Plan include the Transportation Improvement Program, local communities’ capital improvement reports, the Transit Development Plan and the Stark County Park District Trail and Greenway Plan.
Major Investment Studies Another Federal transportation-planning requirement is the creation of major investment studies (MIS) for metropolitan transportation corridors. The MIS is undertaken to refine the Transportation Plan and to assist SCATS and other participating agencies in the decision making process, and in the design concept and scope of the investment. The MIS is a multimodal analysis to clarify the purpose and need, the appropriate mode to meet the purpose and need of the project and to define the design concept and scope of the project.
Major metropolitan transportation investments are defined as: “projects which cost ODOT more than $5 million and which do one or more of the following: increase mobility, provide connectivity, increase the accessibility of a region for economic development, increase the capacity of a transportation facility, or reduce congestion. This definition includes all new interchanges proposed for economic development or local access, any significant interchange modification, bypasses, general purpose lane additions, intermodal facilities, major transit facilities, or passenger rail facilities.”
141
Several projects in the Transportation Plan meet this definition. They include the extension of US 30 from Trump Avenue to SR 11, the completion of US 62 from the City of Alliance to Salem, and the US30/IR77 interchange. MIS studies have been completed for the US 30 and US 62 projects.
CHAPTER 4 – HIGHWAY PLAN This chapter presents the Highway Plan for Stark County. In order to assist in the visualization of projects, the highway plan is divided into descriptions of proposed projects for the major highway corridors, I-77, US 30, and US 62, and then into different geographic regions of the county identified in the Comprehensive/Transportation Plan as planning areas. Also included in the chapter are recommendations for the preservation of existing facilities.
I-77 Corridor The widening of I-77 by one additional lane from US-30 to Summit County is now complete. One additional lane was added in each direction. Table 4-1- I-77 Corridor Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost I-77 US 30 to Summit County Freeway Management System. 2,700,000 9.26 2015 Includes traffic flow detection, cameras, dynamic message signs and control center equipment. I-77 At US 30 Interchange Interchange Safety & Capacity 44,800,000 1.00 2020 Improvements
Even with the widening, I-77 will not operate at an acceptable level with the traffic increases forecast for 2030. In order to increase capacity and reduce delay, intelligent transportation system (ITS) improvements are recommended for the I-77 corridor. A freeway management system for I-77 is included in the Plan. The freeway management system will cover all the major freeways in the Akron Canton area north of US 30.
Another major project included in the Plan is the upgrading of the I-77/US 30 interchange to improve capacity and safety. This interchange has been identified as a safety problem by ODOT. US 30 Corridor US 30 is a Macro Corridor in Access Ohio, the state’s multimodal long-range transportation planning process. As part of this process, ODOT recommended improvements to all segments of US 30 in the state, which were not already 4-lane fully-access-controlled freeways. Within Stark County, US 30 is a freeway from the Wayne County line eastward to Trump Avenue.
142
The traffic assignments, along with consideration of other factors including economic development, system continuity, and overwhelming community support, justify improvements to US 30. However, completing US 30 as a freeway from Trump Avenue to SR 9 in Columbiana County would be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, SCATS is recommending that US 30 be built as a freeway to SR 44 and then be extended as a Super 2 lane road to the county line. The Super 2 concept allows for staged construction and eventual expansion to a full freeway.
Table 4-2- US 30 Corridor Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost US 30 At Broadway Ave Add turn lanes at intersection 720,000 0.10 2015 US 30 Trump Ave to SR 44 New 4-Lane Freeway 64,960,000 2.85 2020 US 30 Connector SR 44 interchange to New 2-Lane Connector 4,480,000 1.00 2020 Miday Ave US 30 SR 44 to SR 183 Super 2-Lane 63,180,000 8.00 2030 US 30** SR 183 to East Rochester Super 2-Lane 5,590,000 1.00 2030
US 62 Corridor The US 62 corridor runs from I-77 to the Mahoning County line just east of Alliance. ODOT will soon begin a planning study of the section of US 62 between Market Avenue and SR 44. The results of this study will determine the final recommendations for improvements in this corridor. Until completion of this study SCATS will continue with its preliminary recommendations from the initial 2030 Plan as follows: • From Market Avenue to Columbus Road, SCATS is recommending a major upgrading on the existing alignment and elimination of driveway and minor cross street access. This could be accomplished by acquiring the frontage on the north side of 30th Street between Market Avenue and Maple Avenue and shifting the through lanes of US 62 to the new right of way. A portion of the existing lanes would be used as a parallel service road for access to the remaining frontage. All cross streets except Maple Avenue would terminate at this new service road. On the North side all cross streets would terminate at 31st Street. Access to US 62 would be limited to Maple Avenue and possibly one other location. • At Harmont Avenue, SCATS recommends bridging Harmont Avenue over US 62. This intersection is usually at the top of the SCATS intersection crash hazard ratings. Access to and from US 62 would be provided by ramps connecting to Lesh Avenue and the service road parallel to US 62 on the south. With innovative design, this project could be built within the existing right of way limits. • From Columbus Road to SR 44 SCATS is recommending intersection upgrades to improve or eliminate some of the existing safety problems at the signalized intersections. These improvements could include grade separations, intersection designs that eliminate left turns or other improvements. • Between SR 44 and the end of new US 62 at SR 225, SCATS is not recommending any improvements. The freeway portion of US 62 ends at SR 225. SCATS recommendation is the extension of US 62 as a freeway to Salem.
143
Table 4-3- US 62 Corridor Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost US 62 Rowland Ave to California Upgrades at seven intersections 2,500,000 7.2 2015 Ave US 62 Market Ave to SR 44 Corridor Study 500,000 1.00 2015 US 62 Market Ave to Columbus Major Reconst / Access Control 19,500,000 1.36 2030 Rd US 62 Columbus Rd to SR 44 Intersection Upgrading 24,700,000 4.37 2030 US 62 At Harmont Grade Separation 6,500,000 0.30 2030 US 62** SR 225 to Salem New 4-Lane Freeway 10,400,000 1.00 2030
Alliance/Marlington Planning Areas The major project in this area is the extension of US 62 to Salem described earlier in the US 62 corridor section. Several improvements in this area are recommended in the City of Alliance. SCATS recommends lowering the grade of Union Avenue at the existing railroad underpass north of Main Street. This will reduce or eliminate the numerous accidents involving over-height vehicles at this location. To reduce truck traffic and improve access to new US 62 on the East side, SCATS is recommending that Mahoning Avenue be extended across the river to Armour Road. This project will also tie into proposed industrial development in Lexington Township.
On the west side of Alliance SCATS recommends connecting the end of Main Street at Sawburg Avenue to the new section of West Main Street in the industrial park. This project will eliminate the existing jog and provide better access to the Carnation Mall area from downtown Alliance. Three bridge replacements, two intersection improvements, and two roundabouts are also included in the Plan. Table 4-4- Alliance/Marlington Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete by Expenditure (miles) Cost Walnut Ave Over Mahoning River Bridge Replacement 500,000 0.10 2009
SR 619, Edison St At McCallum Ave Construct Roundabout 880,000 0.10 2015 Main St Connector Old Main St to New New 2-Lane Connector 1,120,000 0.30 2020 Main St at Sawburg Ave SR 183, Union Ave Alliance Underpass Grade Separation 2,240,000 0.10 2020 Improvement Columbus Rd, CR At Beeson St & Reeder Construct Roundabout 896,000 0.10 2020 67A Ave Greenbower St, TR Over Berlin Reservoir Bridge Replacement 1,120,000 0.10 2020 12 Price St, CR 3 Over Walborn Bridge Rehabilitation 1,120,000 0.10 2020 Reservoir
144
Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete by Expenditure (miles) Cost Beech St, CR 95 At Beechwood Ave Intersection Improvement 910,000 0.10 2030
Beeson St, CR 41 At Freshley Ave Intersection Improvement 1,300,000 0.10 2030
Mahoning Ave, TR Patterson Ave to New 2-Lane Connector 5,135,000 1.00 2030 1 Extension Armour St
Canal Fulton/Lawrence Planning Area The major highway facility in this area is SR 21. No major improvements are planned for SR 21. A new connector is proposed to connect Locust Street in Canal Fulton to Butterbridge Road at Erie Avenue. This will provide better access to the Locust St commercial area from SR 21. Three intersection improvements and one bridge rehabilitation are planned in this area. Table 4-5- Canal Fulton/Lawrence Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Deerfield Ave, CR S of Orrville St Bridge Rehabilitation 296,000 0.10 2015 103 SR 93, Cherry St At Locust St Intersection Improvement 912,000 0.10 2015 Strausser St, CR At High Mill Ave Intersection Improvement 1,008,000 0.10 2020 131 Strausser St, CR At SR 236 Intersection Improvement 1,792,000 0.10 2020 131 Canal Fulton Butterbridge to New 2-Lane Connector 3,575,000 1.10 2030 Connector Locust St
Canton/Canton Township Planning Area Major highways in this planning area include I-77, US 30 and US 62. Projects for these facilities are detailed in the corridor descriptions. Major widening projects in this planning area are planned for the Trump Avenue corridor.
Three projects are recommended in the Trump Avenue corridor. At the southern end, Trump is recommended to be connected to SR 43 and the existing two lanes be upgraded to the new US 30 interchange. From new US 30 to Lincoln Street, Trump Avenue has been widened. North of Lincoln Street SCATS is recommending Trump be widened to four lanes to SR 153. From SR 153 to US 62, Harmont Avenue is recommended to be widened to four lanes. During the public involvement process, SCATS was asked to consider a new road connecting US 30 to US 62 on the east side of Canton or in the unincorporated areas east of Canton. SCATS reviewed this proposal and, considering the following facts, determined that the Trump Avenue corridor improvements would best serve this need: there was widespread opposition to a proposed SR 333 in the 1970’s, the new facility would be costly, and existing and future traffic showed no serious congestion in this area.
145
In the City of Canton, the intersection of 12th Street and Market Avenue North is recommended for widening to solve safety and congestion problems. Several signal-upgrade projects are included in this project.
Southwest of Canton, at the Canton Township/Perry Township border, SCATS is recommending a new connector with a railroad grade separation to link Whipple Avenue to Southway Street.
In Canton Township, ODOT will be adding a two way left turn lane to SR 800 and SR 43.
Other projects will replace bridges, resurface roads and improve intersections in the planning area. Table 4-6- Canton/Canton Twp Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost 12th St NW Monument to Roadway & Bridge Rehab 9,000,000 1.96 2015 Maple Fulton Rd At Park Dr Signal & Turn Lane N of Fulton. 742,000 0.20 2015 Storm Water & Sewer, Sidewalk SR 800, Cleveland 45th St to Mill St Widen for TWLTL thru section 3,190,000 1.60 2015 Ave SR 43, 17th St to US 30 Widen for TWLTL thru section 1,890,000 0.46 2015 Waynesburg Dr and LT storage lanes on SR 43 at 17th Street intersection; RR crossing upgrade Trump Ave, CR At Georgetown Intersection Improvement 1,200,000 0.10 2015 170 30th St NE At Harrisburg Intersection Improvement 1,680,000 0.10 2020 Guilford Ave Over Nimishillen Bridge Replacement 420,000 0.10 2020 Bridge Creek S of 38th St Harmont Ave, CR SR 153 to US 62 Widen to 4 lanes 3,136,000 1.40 2020 170 SR 153, Mahoning Maple Ave to Roadway & Intersection 20,160,000 1.70 2020 Rd Harmont Ave Improvements
Whipple Ave, TR Southway St to New 2-Lane Road/RR Bridge 3,920,000 0.52 2020 219 13th St SW 12th St NW At Market Ave Intersection Widening 455,000 0.10 2030
Trump Ave, CR SR 43 to New US 2-Lane Improvement / New 5,200,000 2.00 2030 170 30 Connector Trump Ave, CR Lincoln St to SR Widen to 4 lanes 8,450,000 2.30 2030 170 153
146
Fairless Planning Area Industrial Development on the old county farm property is expected to generate heavy truck volumes in the future. One project will improve Fohl Road from the Village of Navarre east to I- 77. This ties in with an extension of Sterilite Ave through the county farm property to connect Navarre Road to Fohl Street. These improvements will provide better access to this area from I- 77. Other projects in this area include a streetscaping project in Brewster, two intersection improvements, two bridge improvements and a resurfacing project. Table 4-7- Fairless Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Riverland Ave, Over the Tuscarawas Bridge Replacement 1,300,000 0.10 2015 TR 298 River in Bethlehem Township Shepler Church Tusc Co Line to Resurfacing 650,000 10.37 2015 Ave, CR 257 Cleveland Ave Wooster St At Tuscarawas River Bridge Rehabilitation 824,000 0.10 2015 near Navarre Corp Limit SR 93, Wabash 4th St S to RR Streetscape 846,720 0.30 2020 Ave Overpass
Alabama Ave, CR At Stanwood St Intersection Improvement 1,040,000 0.10 2030 314
Fohl St, CR 252 Navarre to I-77 2-Lane Improvement 6,799,000 5.23 2030
Fohl St, CR 252 At Shepler Church Intersection Improvement 1,170,000 0.10 2030
Hartville/Lake Planning Area The Route 619 corridor has experienced traffic growth due to residential development in Lake Township and commercial development on the west side of Hartville. Traffic problems are especially acute on days when the Hartville Flea Market is in operation. Market Avenue through the Township is also becoming congested and safety has become a concern at several intersections. ODOT is studying SR 619 in Lake Township. Pending the results of the study, SCATS recommends improving SR 619 between Cleveland Avenue and SR 43 (Kent Avenue) by widening it to four lanes. Seven intersections are also recommended for improvement. Table 4-8- Hartville/Lake Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Cleveland Ave, At Mt Pleasant St Intersection Improvement 1,500,000 0.10 2015 CR 66 Market Ave, CR Four intersections from Intersection Improvements 2,200,000 0.40 2015 62 Lake Center St. north To Route 619 in Lake Township
147
Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Middlebranch At State St Intersection Improvement 900,000 0.10 2015 Ave, CR 192 Market Ave, CR At Mt Pleasant Intersection Improvement 896,000 0.10 2020 62 SR 619, Edison St Cleveland Ave to SR 43 Widen to 4 lanes 10,516,800 3.13 2020 North
Jackson Planning Area The Jackson planning area includes several arterial widening recommendations. SCATS recommends widening SR 241 to four lanes from Hills & Dales Road to Portage Street and from Portage Street to the county line. Along SR 687, SCATS calls for widening Fulton Road to five lanes from Wales to Brunnerdale.
Also included in the plan is a project to widen Frank Avenue to five lanes from Fulton Road to University Street. Frank Avenue will also be widened to three lanes from Mega St to Applegrove St.
Hills & Dales Road is recommended to be widened from Wales Avenue to Sir Thomas and from Woodlawn Avenue to Whipple Avenue.
Other widening projects include Whipple Avenue from Applegrove Street to Shuffle Drive and Jackson Avenue from 12th Street to Perry Drive.
Several other smaller projects will resurface existing roads, improve intersections, connect Applegrove to Strausser, and extend Whipple Avenue to Mt Pleasant. Table 4-9- Jackson Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Arlington Ave, TR At Strausser St Intersection Improvement 375,000 0.10 2015 234 Dressler Rd/Everhard Fulton Dr to Belden Resurfacing 588,000 1.64 2015 Rd, CR 101/98 Village St Frank Ave, CR 229 Mega St to Applegrove St Widen to 3 lanes 3,160,000 1.13 2015
Hills & Dales Rd, CR Wales Ave to Sir Thomas Widen to 4 lanes 6,050,000 2.20 2015 98 Hills & Dales Rd, CR Woodlawn Ave to Widening from 2 lanes to 5 2,000,000 0.60 2015 226 Whipple Ave lanes Portage St, CR 228 Lake O’Springs Ave to Resurfacing 544,000 1.00 2015 Frank Ave
148
Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Applegrove/Strausser Applegrove St to Strausser New 2-Lane Road 3,360,000 0.30 2020 Connector St Frank Ave, CR 229 Fulton Dr to University St Widen to 5 lanes 3,136,000 1.25 2020
SR 687, Fulton Rd 0.28 miles E of SR 241 to Widen to 5 lanes 4,032,000 1.00 2020 Brunnerdale Ave SR 241, Wales Ave Hills & Dales Rd to Widen to 4 lanes 10,007,200 5.50 2020 Portage St Strausser St, CR 231 At Lake O Springs Ave Intersection Improvement 1,680,000 0.10 2020 Whipple Ave, CR 214 Applegrove St to Shuffel Widen to 5 lanes 1,680,000 0.56 2020 Dr Everhard Rd, CR 215 At Whipple Widen intersection to 5 or more 6,656,000 0.22 2030 Lanes Jackson Ave, TR 242 12th St NW to Perry Dr Widen to 3 lanes 2,600,000 1.11 2030
SR 241, Wales Ave Portage St to Summit Widen to 4 lanes 5,005,000 2.37 2030 County Line Whipple Ave, CR 214 Shuffel Dr to Mt Pleasant New 3-Lane Road 3,250,000 0.60 2030 St
Louisville/Nimishillen Planning Area SCATS recommends a new 2-lane road with a railroad grade separation at Constitution Avenue, relocating SR 44 to bypass the downtown center. SCATS recommends an extension of Reno Drive to connect SR 44 to Nickleplate Avenue. Within Louisville, West Main Street would be reconstructed from the Louisville city limit to SR 44. The Broadway Avenue Bridge over the Nimishillen Creek is to be replaced and three intersections along Paris Avenue will be improved. Table 4-10- Louisville/Nimishillen Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Paris Ave, CR 44 At Meese Rd. and Easton St Safety Improvements 1,500,000 0.20 2015 intersections in Nimishillen Township SR 153, Main St Louisville WCL to SR 44 Reconstruction 4,111,375 1.60 2015
Broadway Ave, Over Nimishillen Creek S Bridge Replacement 1,120,000 0.10 2020 CR 199 of SR 153 Columbus Ave, At Paris Ave Intersection Improvement 1,400,000 0.10 2020 CR 67A SR 44 Bypass SR 44 to SR 153 to Frana 2-Lane Bypass/RR Bridge 5,850,000 1.70 2030 Clara
149
Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Reno Drive SR 44 to Nickleplate Ave New 2-Lane Connector 325,000 0.25 2030
Massillon/Perry Planning Area Two projects in this area will improve access from US 30 to southeast Massillon. The first project would improve Richville Drive from Nave St to Southway St. This project would include minor realignment of the intersection at Southway Street. Another project would extend this project along Walnut Avenue to 16th Street SE.
There are no railroad grade separations on the Norfolk Southern System railroad between Erie Avenue in Massillon, and Harrison Avenue in Canton. This results in a potentially hazardous condition where the north/south movement of safety forces could be impeded by a stopped train. Therefore Jackson Avenue is recommended to be extended between Southway Ave and Lincoln Way as a 2-lane improvement with a grade separation. The Whipple Avenue project in the Canton area (discussed previously) will provide another grade separation.
On SR 241, between Lincoln Way and Hills & Dales Rd, the addition of turn lanes is recommended to supplement the existing two lanes. Another recommendation is for an upgrade of the Lake Avenue intersection.
In the 12th St corridor beginning in the west, the first project would be a 2-lane improvement on Hankins from Wales Avenue to Louisa Marie Avenue. 12th street would be upgraded between Genoa Avenue and Perry Drive at the Sippo Lake Park entrance to eliminate flooding problems.
South of US 30, Navarre Road would be widened from SR 21 for one mile and Sterilite Street extended south to Fohl Street. These two projects will serve future traffic from the industrial and commercial development of the old county farm and other properties in this area.
At SR 21 and Erie Avenue, the existing bridge would be widened to allow three full lanes. Other projects in the Massillon/Perry area include intersection improvements, bridge rehabilitations, and system preservation projects. Table 4-11- Massillon/Perry Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost 12th St NW, CR Sippo Lake Entrance to 2-Lane Improvement – Flood 1,500,000 1.00 2015 240 Genoa Ave Prevention Erie St Nave Rd to Treemont Ave Resurfacing, Curb Ramps & 1,051,000 1.91 2015 Traffic Signals Kemary Ave, TR At RR tracks N of Fohl St Bridge Rehabilitation 324,000 0.10 2015 251
150
Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Jackson Ave, TR Richville Dr to Lincoln 2-Lane Improvement/RR Bridge 5,824,000 1.50 2020 242 Way Hankins St, CR Wales Ave to Louisa Marie 2-Lane Improvement 2,016,000 1.30 2020 240 Ave Main St At Treemont Upgrade Intersection 1,120,000 0.10 2020 Richville Dr, CR Nave St to Southway St Minor widening resurfacing, 638,400 1.56 2020 248 shoulders & ditches SR 241, Wales Rd Lincoln Way East to Hills 2-Lanes Improvement Turn 5,040,000 1.49 2020 & Dales Rd Lane SR 241, Wales Rd At Lake Ave Upgrade Intersection 1,680,000 0.10 2020
Walnut Rd, CR Southway St to 16th St SE 2-Lane Improvement 504,000 0.25 2020 248 Navarre Rd, CR SR 21 to 1 Mile E of SR 21 Widen to 3 lanes 2,600,000 1.00 2030 511 SR 172, Lincoln At Main St Upgrade Intersection 1,300,000 0.10 2030 Way West Sterilite St Navarre Rd to Fohl St New 2-Lane Connector 5,200,000 1.00 2030 Extension
Minerva/Paris Planning Area The US 30 extension projects are the major projects within this planning area. Other projects in this area include a streetscape project on existing US 30 in the village of Minerva and an intersection safety improvement at Georgetown Street and Paris Avenue. Table 4-12- Minerva/Paris Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Georgetown St, At Paris Ave Intersection Improvement 560,000 0.10 2020 CR 112 US 30, Lincoln Bonnieview to Columbiana Streetscape 390,000 0.30 2030 Way Co Line
North Canton/Plain Planning Area Within this planning area, SR 43 is recommended to be widened to four lanes from 55th Street to the intersection of Market and Kent just south of Mt. Pleasant Street. Other major widening projects include the widening of Applegrove to four lanes from Marquardt Avenue to Market Avenue and the widening of Pittsburg Avenue from Applegrove St to Shuffel St. Werner Church Rd will be realigned to eliminate the jog at Applegrove St and Middlebranch Ave. The bridge over Nimishillen Creek will also be replaced with this project. Two streetscaping projects are planned for North Main Street in North Canton, and three streetscaping projects are planned along East Maple Street. Intersection improvements are planned at 20th St NW and Lakeside and at Market and Mt
151
Pleasant (discussed previously in the Lake Township section). There is also a 2-lane improvement planned for 55th Street NE. Table 4-13- North Canton/Plain Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost 55th St NE, CR Birmingham Ave to 2-Lane Improvement 1,500,000 0.10 2015 146 Harmont Ave Werner Church At Applegrove St & Bridge Replacement & 3,750,000 0.20 2015 Rd, CR 190 Middlebranch Ave Realignment 20th St NW, CR At Lakeside Intersection Safety Improvement 280,000 0.10 2020 221 Applegrove St, Marquardt Ave to Market Widen to 4 lanes 4,480,000 2.24 2020 CR 190 Ave Main St 7th St to Applegrove St Streetscaping, Sidewalk & 3,472,000 0.52 2020 Storm Sewer Main St Applegrove St to Orion St Streetscaping, Sidewalk & 5,264,000 0.54 2020 Storm Sewer Maple St Taft Ave to Marquardt Ave Streetscaping, Sidewalk & 3,584,000 0.73 2020 Storm Sewer Maple St Marquardt Ave to Market Streetscaping, Sidewalk & 3,920,000 0.94 2020 Ave Storm Sewer Pittsburg Ave, CR Applegrove St to Shuffel St Widen, Add Turn Lane, Curb, 952,000 0.45 2020 216 Storm Sewer SR 43, Market 55th St to Applegrove St Widen to 4 lanes 10,897,600 2.00 2020 Ave SR 43, Market Applegrove St to Mt Widen to 4 lanes 4,550,000 1.12 2030 Ave Pleasant St
Osnaburg Planning Area Major highway projects planned for the Osnaburg Planning Area include the extension of US 30 to SR 44 and beyond. A related project is a new connector from the new US 30 interchange with SR 44 to the intersection of SR 172 at Miday Avenue. Since SR 44 is likely to be the terminus of the US 30 freeway for a number of years, this connector will allow US 30 traffic a choice of US 30, SR 44 or SR 172 to continue south or east. Another project is an intersection upgrade at US 30 and Broadway Avenue. These projects are described in the US 30 corridor section. The remaining project in this area is an intersection upgrade at SR 44 and Mapleton Avenue. Table 4-14- Osnaburg Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost SR 44, Ravenna At Mapleton Upgrade Intersection 500,000 0.10 2015 Ave
152
Sandy Valley Planning Area ODOT has plans to add turns lane to the SR 43 and SR 183 intersection north of Waynesburg. A bridge rehabilitation on Battlesburg Street is also planned for this area. Table 4-15- Sandy Valley Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Battlesburg St, At Nimishillen Creek near Bridge Rehabilitation 420,000 0.10 2015 CR164 SR 800 SR 43, At SR 183 Add Turn Lane 610,000 0.16 2015 Waynesburg Dr
Tuscarawas Planning Area An intersection safety project is recommended in the Tuscarawas Planning Area at Alabama Avenue and Stanwood Street. Table 4-16- Tuscarawas Planning Area Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Length Complete Expenditure (miles) by Cost Alabama Ave, CR At Stanwood St Intersection Improvement 1,040,000 0.10 2030 314
System Preservation Projects The Highway Plan does not list all individual system preservation projects. SCATS recognizes the need to reserve funding for system preservation but cannot accurately forecast system preservation needs. System preservation projects include safety projects, resurfacing, bridge rehabilitation and replacement projects and other projects such as guardrail replacement, pavement markings, lighting and traffic signals. ODOT has made system preservation a priority for its budget. ODOT system preservation needs are met through district allocations for both resurfacing and bridges. ODOT is committed to using the results of its management systems to assess current conditions and adjust funding levels to maintain the highway system to its standards.
In order to preserve funds for these projects, SCATS has included the following projects in the Project listings: • ODOT System Preservation Projects • Local System Preservation Projects • Various Safety Improvements
153
For the 2009-2015 period, the Plan amount is the total of the all the ODOT system preservation projects listed in the district work program. For the years 2016 – 2030, the amounts listed equal the total amounts forecasted by SCATS for the ODOT district system preservation and safety fund categories. For local system preservation, SCATS assumed the amounts spent would be about ten percent of ODOT’s planned system preservation based on the amount of money spent on system preservation in the past. Table 4-17- System Preservation Projects Road Location Type Work Year of Complete Expenditure Cost by ODOT System Preservation System Preservation $175,000,000 2015 2009 -2015 ODOT System Preservation System Preservation $134,400,000 2020 2016-2020 ODOT System Preservation System Preservation $338,000,000 2030 2021-2030 Local System Preservation System Preservation $17,500,000 2015 2009-2015 Local System Preservation System Preservation $13,440,000 2020 2016-2020 Local System Preservation System Preservation $33,800,000 2030 2021-2030 Safety Projects 2009-2015 Safety Projects $10,000,000 2015
Safety Projects 2016-2020 Safety Projects $8,400,000 2020
Safety Projects 2021-2030 Safety Projects $39,000,000 2030
System preservation projects off the state highway system do not rely on the federal funding programs for funding. The project listings in this chapter include some system preservation projects that local communities have identified in their capital improvement reports as candidates for federal funding. Other system preservation projects, especially resurfacing projects are funded with local funds. The County Engineer and the municipalities and townships in Stark County depend on gas tax, vehicle registration fees, municipal income taxes and local road and bridge levies to maintain roads in the county. These funds are supplemented by Ohio Public Works Commission funds to pay for some system preservation projects on the roads and bridges in Stark County.
CHAPTER 5 – OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES Introduction Although the vast majority of travel within Stark County takes place in private automobiles on the highway system, other transportation modes are an important part of a balanced transportation system. These modes include Public Transit and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. This chapter presents the SCATS Plan recommendations for these modes.
154
Public Transportation This section will discuss public transportation in Stark County and the history of the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA), its current operations and challenges and projects that are scheduled during the plan time period.
Stark County has access to every mode of available public transit: rail, through AMTRAK service in the City of Alliance and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad in the City of Canton; air, through numerous providers at the Akron-Canton Airport in the City of Green (Summit County) and Jackson Township; taxi services located throughout the county; intercity bus service by Lakefront Lines; paratransit operations by for-profit and non-profit providers and SARTA; and fixed-route bus service by SARTA.
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan SAFTEA-LU, the highway funding act approved in 2005, required the creation of a locally developed Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan in order to receive FTA Job and Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Section 5310 grant funds. The Act also required that an agency be appointed that would be responsible for sub-allocating these funds.
On October 26, 2006, the Board of SARTA approved a resolution designating SARTA as the designated recipient. On November 27, 2006, the Stark County Area Transportation Study (SCATS) policy committee approved a resolution designating SARTA to receive the funds under these same programs.
More than 342 local non-profit, for-profit and governmental agencies, transportation providers and others were invited to an organizational meeting on January 23, 2007 to begin the development of this plan for the county. Prior to the meeting transportation surveys that had been sent to the same invitees were analyzed to assess needs, gaps and overlaps in transportation services. This survey also created the beginnings of an inventory of available services and resources.
The first meeting of the volunteer committee to develop the plan was on March 30, 2007. The committee consisted/s of representatives from non-profits, for-profits, citizens, public transit, the local MPO and other governmental agencies, and other interested parties. The survey results were reviewed by the committee, which then prioritized a list of needs and gaps. The committee has been meeting on a monthly basis since then and established sub-committees to develop criteria for projects and applications, a rating system for projects, bylaws, and to review grant applications. SARTA also developed a management plan for the distribution and auditing of the grant funds. The committee adopted bylaws on October 24, 2008, officially becoming the Stark County Mobility Coordination Committee.
Needs and gaps in service identified as priorities include:
155
• Demand response services (immediate transportation needs for unexpected doctors appointments, etc.), • 24/7 availability of transit services, • additional service to rural areas, • additional types of transportation services such as family coverage to multiple destinations, transportation for frail persons unable to utilize existing vehicles (such as cancer patients and the elderly), • transportation to out-of-county medical appointments, and • lack of information about available services
Projects that have been funded through several rounds of grants include: subsidized rides for ADA passengers that SARTA cannot accommodate due to weight; a vehicle purchase assistance program for low/moderate income persons (applicants are required to register with the local Rideshare program); a travel training program to assist ADA passengers in using the more efficient fixed-route bus service; and a program to transport returning ex-offenders to their workplace.
Stark Area Regional Transit Authority On December 1, 1997, the Canton Regional Transit Authority (CRTA) began operating as SARTA following the successful passage of a ¼ percent sales tax levy, replacing Canton’s Municipal RTA property tax. This established SARTA as Stark County’s mobility provider for both fixed-route bus service and paratransit operations. In its almost twelve years of county- wide operation, SARTA has established transit centers in Stark County’s three largest cities, Canton, Massillon, and Alliance; expanded Paratransit service county-wide (irrespective of distance from fixed-route service); expanded service to seven days a week; and created an express route to Akron where passengers can then interconnect with Greyhound Lines and Summit and Portage County fixed-route services (and Summit County’s service to Cuyahoga County).
SARTA continues to maintain operations with the ¼ percent sales tax as their primary source of operating revenue despite spikes in diesel fuel costs, increasing costs for benefits (primarily health care coverage), increased demands for service, growth in equipment replacement costs, and a downturn in sales tax revenue due to poor economic conditions. This has been accomplished through a mix of fare increases, service changes to maximize route efficiency, changes in health care providers, and a number of cost containment efforts. Despite these efforts, SARTA will inevitably reach the point where inflation will necessitate changes as the current tax structure will no longer support operations as they exist. SARTA’s staff and board are examining a number of options that would allow operations to continue without seeking additional operating funds via a sales tax increase.
156
Transit Projects scheduled and in-progress through 2015 include: Although SARTA projects are usually limited to bus replacements, a comprehensive renovation of their office/bus garage/maintenance building was initiated several years ago. This included upgrading computer operations systems and software. A number of these projects are in- progress or are being finalized as portions of the project were scheduled over several years in order to spread costs out over additional fiscal years.
SARTA Transit Projects • Bus replacements- through 2015 SARTA will replace twenty-two 30’, 35’ and 40’ buses and thirty-four <30’ paratransit buses. Increasing ridership may also require SARTA to add capacity by increasing the base fleet size and/or increasing vehicle capacity by replacing 30’ buses with 35’ and 40’ buses. The Paratransit fleet capacity may also be adjusted by a mixture of increasing quantity and/or the capacity of buses. At this time a majority of Paratransit buses have a capacity of sixteen or fewer passengers; • Alliance Transfer Center- this project is substantially complete, opened for use in late 2008, and is waiting final project close-out. It included a bus transfer platform area, lobby waiting area, ticket counter, public restrooms, and a public meeting room; • Bicycle Racks- this project will encourage the multi-modal use of public transit with the installation of approximatley100 bicycle racks on-fixed route and paratransit vehicles in FY2009. Transit studies show that passengers typically walk 2-3 blocks to bus stops, with ridership decreasing the further one must walk. Adding bicyclists to the ridership pool will extend this range and allow the use of SARTA as an interconnection to the county pedestrian and bicycle trails system; • Bus Washer– this project will replace the bus washer wash rack. The bus washer system is systematically undergoing a rebuilding rather than replacement as a cost saving measure. This is a 2009 project with ARRA funding; • Bus lift replacements- this project will replace hydraulic bus lifts that have met their useful service life; • Computer Upgrade- this project will replace computer hardware that is beyond its useful service life. SARTA is moving into “virtualization” on its servers, hoping to reduce the number of servers required for system functionality (11 servers are currently used); • Equipment replacement– this project is to replace office and maintenance equipment as for each year at a cost of $100,000 per year; • Fare Box Replacement/Upgrade- this is an ongoing project to replace fare boxes in each of the fixed-route and paratransit buses and has been substantially completed. The new fare box system allows for the automation of a number of tasks, including the creation of ridership reports and integration with the financial and fleet maintenance software operating system. Additional components, such as the use of debit type fare cards, are being reviewed for possible implementation. Changes in US currency also require updating the bill recognition on the fare boxes;
157
• Fuel Management System- this project will integrate fuel usage on the bus fleet by linking the buses with the financial and fleet maintenance software operating system and the fuel management system; • Improved Shelters/Bus Stops- this project will provide funds to place and upgrade shelters in high demand locations and/or locations where express services interconnect with community circulators. Included in this project are the options of: lighting and/or heating shelters; upgrading waiting areas with pavement to improve ADA access; installing ADA accessible shelters; and installing Braille schedule; • Electronic Document & Process Management- this project will continue SARTA’s upgrading of hardware and software products to allow the electronic manipulation, archiving, and retrieval of documents, including managing and facilitating the workflow of documents with the Great Plains operating system; • Lincoln Way Corridor- this project would add bus pull-offs and decorative shelters along the “Lincoln Way” corridor though Perry Township on Tuscarawas Street. In 2002/2003 a concerned citizen’s group, The Lincoln Way Corridor Association, approached SARTA about adding amenities to one of SARTA’s busiest fixed-routes as part of on overall community improvement project. Consequently, SARTA has planned bus stop improvements along the historic route of the Lincoln Highway between Whipple and Jackson Avenues; • Preventive Maintenance- this project is for capitalized preventative maintenance on assets at $2,000,000 or more per year; • Project Planning- approximately $100,000 per year is allocated for project planning; • Route/Timing Adjustments- SARTA is primarily based on a “pulse” fixed-route system with most routes operating on an hourly basis. SARTA is considering the adoption of a hybrid pulse/drive-through system where not all routes would meet and depart at the same time. This project includes route adjustments, timing and professional services/software needed to assist SARTA staff in planning and development of increased runs and the creation of the hybrid pulse/pull-through route structure; • Trapeze Software- this project will upgrade the existing routing software for Pro-Line paratransit services; • Software- this project will upgrade obsolete software with the most current licensed product; • Travel Training Program – this project will implement a travel training program to train curb-to-curb riders to utilize the fixed-route service and educate members of the public who are not currently using either service on using public transportation as an effective substitute for the automobile. This project, for FY2009-2011, is being funded by a New Freedom Grant for one year, with the potential of funding for three years.
Non-SARTA Transit Projects • Specialized Transportation Program (STP) Vehicles- this program is managed by the ODOT Office of Transit and purchases vehicles for private, non-profit social service
158
agencies to serve persons with disabilities and the elderly that cannot be adequately served by existing services. The amount awarded varies with the number of vehicles awarded in each program year; • Job and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Programs- these programs assist projects that fill gaps in service that exist in public transit in Stark County. These are funds distributed through the Federal Transit Administration, administered by SARTA, and sub-allocated to for-profit and non-profit agencies and companies; • AMTRAK Alliance Station- AMTRAK has recently allocated $1,500,000 of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds into upgrading its station in Alliance with a 550’ ADA accessible platform and building. Note: this project is being funded through AMTRAK designated ARRA funds. As such this project is not reflected in the SCATS fiscal analysis/constraint tables. It should be noted that SARTA had been working with AMTRAK and the City of Alliance to create a multi-modal transfer center until rail service was scheduled to be withdrawn from Alliance. Plans for a multi-modal facility were dropped at that time. Subsequently, the decision to end AMTRAK service was changed, but at a time too late for SARTA to revise their transfer facility plans. Table 5-1- Public Transportation Projects through 2015 PROJECT/DESCRITPION COST YEAR Upgrade transit center $1,237,000 2015 Bus bike racks/shelter storage racks $94,000 2015 Bus Lift Replacement $79,000 2015 Replace approximately 10 Buses/Yr $11,500,000 2015 Upgrade hardware $50,000 2015 Equipment Replacement $400,000 2015 Various Office and Maintenance Equipment $600,000 2015 Replace/upgrade fare boxes $1,454,000 2015 Computerized link to buses $70,000 2015 Replacement of current HVAC System $900,000 2015 Heated/lighted shelters/sidewalk ADA access $56,800 2015 Bus pull-offs, decorate shelters, passenger amenities $172,000 2015 Preventative Maintenance on assets $8,100,000 2015 Yearly Planning $1,100,000 2015 Increase runs and create hybrid pulse/pull-through $168,000 2015 Trapeze Software for Pro-Line $100,000 2015 Software upgrades and new software $25,000 2015 Dispatch Furniture $40,000 2015 STP Vehicles (approx. $60k/yr) $420,000 2015 Coordinated Plan Projects (JARC, New Freedom) $1,900,000 2015 AMTRAK Alliance Station/Platform (ARRA Funds) $1,500,000 2015
159
Transit Projects scheduled and in-progress through 2020 include:
SARTA Transit Projects • Bus replacements- from 2016 through 2020 SARTA will replace eight 30’, 35’ and 40’ buses and forty-one <30’ paratransit buses. Due to increasing ridership, SARTA may also need to add to fleet size; • Equipment replacement– this project is to replace office and maintenance equipment as for each year at a cost of $100,000 per year; • Preventive Maintenance- this project is for capitalized preventative maintenance on assets at $2,000,000 per year; • Project Planning- approximately $100,000 per year is allocated for project planning. Non-SARTA Transit Projects • Specialized Transportation Program (STP) Vehicles- this program is managed by the ODOT Office of Transit and purchases vehicles for private, non-profit social service agencies to serve persons with disabilities and the elderly that cannot be adequately served by existing services. The amount awarded varies with the number of vehicles awarded in each program year; • Job and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Programs- these programs assist projects that fill gaps in service that exist in public transit in Stark County. These are funds distributed through the Federal Transit Administration, administered by SARTA, and sub-allocated to for-profit and non-profit agencies and companies. Table 5-2- Public Transportation Projects through 2020 PROJECT/DESCRIPTION COST YEAR Replace approximately 10 Buses/Yr $22,800,000 2020 Equipment Replacement ($100k/yr) $1,000,000 2020 Preventative Maintenance ($1.6m/yr) $11,150,000 2020 Project Planning ($100k/yr) $500,000 2020 STP Vehicles (approx. $60k/yr) $300,000 2020 Coordinated Plan Projects (JARC, New Freedom) $1,350,000 2020
Transit Projects scheduled and in-progress through 2030 include:
SARTA Transit Projects • Bus replacements- from 2021 though 2030 SARTA will replace approximately 40 30’, 35’ and 40’ buses and 60 <30’ paratransit buses; • Equipment replacement– this project is to replace office and maintenance equipment as for each year at a cost of $100,000 per year;
160
• Preventive Maintenance- this project is for capitalized preventative maintenance on assets at $2,000,000 per year; • Project Planning- approximately $100,000 per year is allocated for project planning. Non-SARTA Transit Projects • Specialized Transportation Program (STP) Vehicles- this program is managed by the ODOT Office of Transit and purchases vehicles for private, non-profit social service agencies to serve persons with disabilities and the elderly that cannot be adequately served by existing services. The amount awarded varies with the number of vehicles awarded in each program year; • Job and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Programs- these programs assist projects that fill gaps in service that exist in public transit in Stark County. These are funds distributed through the Federal Transit Administration, administered by SARTA, and sub-allocated to for-profit and non-profit agencies and companies. Table 5-3- Public Transportation Projects through 2030 PROJECT/DESCRIPTION COST YEAR Replace approximately 10 Buses/Yr $22,800,000 2030 Equipment Replacement ($100k/yr) $1,000,000 2030 Preventative Maintenance ($1.6m/yr) $11,150,000 2030 Project Planning ($100k/yr) $1,000,000 2030 STP Vehicles (approx. $60k/yr) $600,000 2030 Coordinated Plan Projects (JARC, New Freedom) $1,350,000 2030
Transit Projects Not Fiscally Constrained
Funding for the following projects, which can occur during any of the three project time frames, has not been secured at this time: • Automated Fare Dispensers/Info Kiosks – this project would place ten kiosks that would dispense tickets and provide route and other information in high traffic areas such as transfer centers and malls. Additional kiosks would be placed at other locations dependent upon the success of the initial units; • Automated On-line Trip Planning- this project would upgrade the website to include trip planning. SARTA is also reviewing the implementation of GOOGLE Transit; • Automatic Vehicle Locators- In combination with a GIS system, vehicle locators would allow dispatchers to provide ETA and other information to riders, simplify locating breakdowns, assist in route analysis, and provide enhanced security; • Belden Village Transfer Center- this project will provide for a transfer center in proximity to Belden Village Mall, one of SARTA’s primary destinations, in addition to being a hub for inter-route transfers. The project would provide space to accommodate up to ten buses and provide a waiting area and restrooms protected from the elements;
161
• Bus Lanes- this project would provide for creating up to four bus pull-off lanes in high traffic areas in order facilitate passenger boarding and safety, as well as to improve traffic flow. These pull-offs would include right-of-way acquisitions, sidewalks, cement pads, shelters and any necessary traffic studies; • Community Circulators- this project would assist in planning and expanding community circulator service in new and existing areas where demand warrants their expansion. These routes (and/or on-demand service) would then tie into express and/or fixed routes that would interconnect the service areas; • Improved Shelters/Bus Stops- this is for the remainder of the project portion that was not fiscally constrained; • Locker Room Upgrade- this project will upgrade the garage personnel locker room that was not included in previous Gateway facility project in order to spread project costs over additional budget years; • Park and Ride Lots- this project would assist in building four Park-and-Ride lots and the coordination of express runs to service them. Locations would include the IR77 and US30 corridors as well as the proposed Tri-County Service project which would assist Amish community needs; • Preventive Maintenance- this project includes preventative maintenance on assets not included in the fiscally constrained Plan. (2005-2010) $3,900,000, (2011-2020) $8,500,000, (2021-2030) $8,500,000; • Supervisor Vehicles- this project is for supervisor & customer service vehicle replacements not fiscally constrained; • Tri-County Service- this project would expand service to Holmes and Wayne counties, including jointly operated bus services and transfer locations between counties. Service would be in the form of community circulators tied to express services originating at park & ride lots; • Underground Storage Tanks- this project will replace underground fuel tanks at the Gateway facility and is one of several projects that were phased-in in order to spread project costs over additional budget years; • Enhanced Security- this includes several projects to enhance security within SARTA’s system including on-board and transit station cameras, security personnel and ongoing SARTA staff training. Included is the retrofit of interior and exterior cameras on buses; • Travel Training Program – this project will implement a travel training program to train curb-to-curb riders to utilize the fixed-route service and educate members of the public who are not currently using either service on using public transportation as an effective substitute for the automobile. This project is for the continued operation of the program that is not funded by the FY2009-2011 New Freedom Grant; • Boiler Replacement– this project will replace the boilers at the Gateway facility with a more energy efficient system. This is one of several projects that were phased-in in order to spread project costs over additional budget years;
162
• Computer Hardware – This includes upgrades to our telephone system, mail server, and other equipment due to obsolescence. The projected budget for this project is $25,000; • Mahoning Road Corridor Project- this is a comprehensive project to upgrade Mahoning Road in a similar manor as the City of Canton’s Tuscarawas Street and Market Avenue improvement projects. In addition to providing for the replacement of public utilities, road infrastructure and streetscapes, the project would incorporate transit friendly components to encourage the use of public transportation. These would include bus pull- off lanes/passenger shelters and pedestrian improvements; • Smart Cards & Ticket Vending Machines- this project will implement automated smart card technology for use with fare-boxes. The use of “refillable” plastic smart cards will streamline tickets sales and use, simplify tracking ticket sales and use, and lessen the need for printing paper tickets and transfers. Table 5-3- Public Transportation Projects Not Fiscally Constrained PROJECT/DESCRIPTION COST YEAR Automated Fare Dispensers/Info Kiosks $145,000 By 2030 Automated On-Line Trip Planning $75,000 By 2030 Automatic Vehicle Locators $530,600 By 2030 Belden Village Transfer Center $1,896,000 By 2030 Bus Pull-Off Lanes $805,000 By 2030 Community Circulators $575,000 By 2030 Improved Shelters/Bus Stops $56,000 By 2030 Locker Room Upgrade $75,000 By 2030 Park and Ride Lots $322,000 By 2030 Preventative Maintenance $20,900,000 By 2030 Supervisor Vehicles $218,450 By 2030 Tri-County Service $638,000 By 2030 Underground Storage Tanks $200,000 By 2030 Enhanced Security $3,834,000 By 2030 Travel Planning Program $2,100,000 By 2030 Boiler Replacement $60,000 By 2030 Computer Hardware $25,000 By 2030 Mahoning Road Corridor Project $17,000,000 By 2030 Smart Cards and Ticket Vending Machines $ By 2030
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trails This section will briefly discuss the background of planning pedestrian and bicycle access in Stark County, the need for future revisions and additions to the pedestrian and bicycle plan in order to successfully incorporate it into a multimodal system, and descriptions of completed work and scheduled projects through the year 2030.
163
The current bicycle and pedestrian trail plan was developed in cooperation with the Stark County Park District and resulted in the creation of the Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan that was published in March of 1999. The Park District conducted 11 regional meetings throughout the county with local officials, trail advocates, and residents to plan the countywide trail system. Underscoring the widespread participation in the plan is the fact that 17 political subdivisions contributed funding to develop the plan. The District continues to host regional and local meetings as portions of the plan are implemented and revised.
Since the effort to develop this plan was underway at the time SCATS was initiating the update of its bicycle and pedestrian trail plan, it was decided to utilize the Park District expertise and provide assistance where needed. The Park District’s plan, once completed, was incorporated into the SCATS Transportation Plan. Since the initial adoption of the trail plan by the Park District in 1999, SCATS has continued to work with the District on refining recommendations and implementing the Plan.
Although the trail plan was developed by the Park District, it is not just a system of recreational trails. Major portions of the plan follow “historic” transportation routes, such as canal lands and abandoned interurban and intrastate rail lines. As a result, these “recreational” trails serve, and will serve, to connect communities and urban centers inside and outside of Stark County. Also, the nearly complete Ohio & Erie Canalway Towpath Trail, that highlights our rich heritage in transportation history, has provided a model of trail development in Stark County and has spurred ancillary developments. The Park District has received cooperation from residential and commercial developers, school districts, and others in providing rights-of-way in extending and developing portions of the trail plan and connections into it.
The plan, however, was primarily intended to identify proposed routes for trails, and planning and analysis resulting from it has been limited to the design of the trails and selecting portions for construction. Now that several significant portions of the trail system have been completed, it is evident that updating the content of the plan should occur for some of the following reasons: • The Park District has expressed an interest in updating the 10-year old plan. Construction and land acquisitions have made several sections identified in the plan redundant and others need to be added; • the public is more knowledgeable about, and has been using portions of the system; • the Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s 2030 Comprehensive/Transportation Plan adopted in 2005 calls for encouraging walkable neighborhoods and includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a necessary quality-of-life issue; • the next revision of the long-range transportation plan will be more than a simple update, it will extend the plan time period and would mark an opportune time to expand the pedestrian and bicycle portion of the plan; • “Go Green” walkable community efforts encouraged by citizen and environmental groups mark this as an ideal time to maximize public involvement and interest;
164
• Health providers are encouraging healthy lifestyles, seeking to reverse the trends towards youth and adult obesity. These efforts include programs such as “Healthy Steps” which encourage walking (utilizing the Canal Towpath trail); • In addition to health benefits, the increased availability of trails reduces traffic congestion and air pollution; • The availability of the Safe Routes to School program and SmartMobility pilot programs serve as templates for planning efforts; and • The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, recognizing the popularity and multiple benefits of trails, has set a goal for all Ohio residents to be within 10-minutes of a recreational trail. Incorporating Pedestrian and Bicycle Needs into a Multi-Modal System
As mentioned previously, a successful pedestrian and bicycle plan must include more than just a list of trails and routes in order to be a part of a multimodal system. A successful plan should include a purpose or vision, goals and objectives with measurable criteria; public involvement; an assessment of existing and planned facilities; and methodologies for setting priorities in selecting projects. • Development of Purpose, Goals and Objectives- creating “walkable communities” is one of the new/old catch phrases as environmental efforts once again come to the forefront. The next revision of the plan should include developing a consensus for the purpose of the plan beyond that of simply outlining trail corridors. These could include: make communities walkable/bike-able, creating safe routes to schools, integrating public transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities, etc. This would also include developing identifiable measures to judge results. • Involving the public in the planning process has been one of the major successes of the current trail system as it has been developed. The Park District has further involved the public by developing a “Trailblazer” program of trained volunteers to assist those using the trails. As the system expands, additional programs can be established to teach children and others how to safely utilize the system by following guidance provided in the safe routes to school programs and others. This can also include using SARTA as an intermodal node for bicycle travel once they complete the installation of bike racks on their busses. • Reviewing Planned and Existing Facilities- as the Park District has completed sections of trails and acquired rights-of-way over the past ten years, portions of the trail plan identifying routes are in need of revision. This includes identifying completed portions as well as District owned rights-of way. As part of revising trail corridors, the plan should also review safety issues, including pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle accidents and locations, identifying corridors for possible safe-routes-to-schools, and identifying high priority locations vital for safe intermodal connections such as areas needing sidewalks and crosswalks and areas where trail connections need shared overpasses and underpasses. The plan could also include identifying areas where the installation of walkable/bike-able facilities would most likely succeed.
165
• As part of the plan, existing trails can be evaluated and users surveyed concerning their trail usage and potential usage of other facilities. This could be part of setting priorities for the construction and installation of facilities. Additional studies could be done to assess the need and likelihood for facility utilization in areas identified for walkable/bike- able trail efforts.
Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan
This section describes the pedestrian and bicycle trail plan and the work to be completed for each of the plan time periods. The Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan consists of more than 20 major trails and “connectors”, creating a network of approximately 300 miles in length, more than 20% of which has been completed. The trails include a mixture of off-road, on-road, and trails on the berm.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects scheduled and in-progress through 2015 include:
• The Congressman Ralph Regula Towpath Trail parallels the Tuscarawas River and Ohio-Erie Canal between the northwestern and southwestern county lines for approximately 25 miles, passing through the communities of Canal Fulton, Massillon, Navarre and Lawrence, Jackson, Perry, and Bethlehem Townships. Remaining work includes using the Tremont Avenue Bridge as a means to bypass crossing the Norfolk and Southern Railroad in Massillon and is now under construction. Completing the trail from the SR 212 parking lot, to the Tuscarawas River “aqueduct”, and then towards the Village of Bolivar for approximately ½ mile is in the planning stage. This project weaves back and forth in Stark and Tuscarawas Counties. The construction of the “aqueduct” bridge over the Tuscarawas River (in Tuscarawas Co.) was awarded a Congressional Earmark for FY2009. • The Olde Muskingham Trail parallels the Towpath Trail on the opposite (west) side of the Tuscarawas River from Canal Fulton, south for 6 miles. This trail was completed with the assistance of the Ohio National Guard and features the addition of a grass berm for the use of equestrians. • The Jackson Connector Trail will tie the Towpath Trail into the central trail network and passes primarily through Jackson Township. Phase one will connect the Stark State College/Kent State University Branch to Price Park in the City of North Canton and is planned for 2010. • The Downtown Connector Trail is in the City of Canton and will tie the West Branch Trail, the Canton downtown area, the Upper Middlebranch Trail and the Stark Electric Railway Trail to each other. • The Hoover Park Connector is in the City of North Canton and Plain Township and will provide east-west ties into the Towpath Trail and the West Branch and Middlebranch trails. Phase 1, in the area of Hoover Park and the Washington Square residential and
166
commercial development includes approximately 3 miles of trails that are substantially complete except for one bridge. Phase 2 will connect the YMCA in downtown North Canton and Dogwood Park into existing portions of the trail and also extend eastward from the completed section at Washington Square, to the new Glenoak High School complex and future Schneider Park. • The Mahoning Valley Trail (formerly the Deer Creek Trail) extends from Deer Creek Reservoir Park in Lexington Township to Early Hill Park in the City of Alliance. It parallels the Deer Creek and Berlin Reservoirs and the Mahoning River to Early Hill Park. Approximately 2 ½ miles of disconnected portions of this trail have been completed in Phase One and will be joined together by a bridge at Deer Creek Reservoir, to be built this year (Phase 2), and an underpass on SR225 and the completion of several small trail sections (Phase 3). • The Sippo Valley Trail extends from the City of Massillon, through Tuscarawas Township, to the Village of Dalton in Wayne County for a distance of approximately 9 ½ miles. This trail is owned and maintained by the City of Massillon in Stark County and is complete with the exception of a vandalized bridge that was burned in July of 2008. Although no detailed plans for its replacement have been proposed as of yet, and funding through SCATS would not be fiscally constrained, it is probable that it will be replaced before 2015. • The West Branch Trail extends north from 9th Street SE at West Park in the City of Canton north to 38th St NW in Plain Township via Water Works Park, Monument Park, Stadium Park, and Arboretum Park, all along the West Branch of the Nimishillen Creek. This trail is substantially complete. • The Covered Bridge Trail will connect the West Branch Trail to the Upper Middlebranch Trail via Covered Bridge Park and Martindale Park in Plain Township and the City of Canton. Phase one will extend East from 38th St. and parallel 44th Street through parks, schools and cemeteries to Martindale Park. Phase 2 will follow a trunk sewer line project from Martindale Park, east to the Middlebranch Trail. • The Nickel Plate Trail will connect the cities of Louisville and Minerva primarily via an abandoned Nickel Plate Railroad right-of-way. The trail is complete from Metzger Park in the City of Louisville for approximately 2.6 miles through the city and Nimishillen and Osnaburg Townships. The next phase will acquire un-owned right-of-way between Swallen Avenue and Stucky Street in Osnaburg and Paris Townships. The remainder is owned by the District and partially under lease to a mining company for use until trail construction commences. • The Sippo Lake Connector will connect the cities of Massillon and Canton together, as well as the Towpath Trail and West Branch Trail. This phase will extend the trail westward, from portions completed within Sippo Lake Park as part of the Exploration Gateway project, along 12th St NW to Genoa Ave. NW. It will then continue along the 12th St. NW corridor to the Towpath Trail via District-owned land, Massillon Parks, and Lake Avenue. • The Stark Electric Railway Trail will connect the cities of Canton, Louisville, and Alliance using portions of the abandoned Stark Electric Railroad right-of-way that once
167
extended to Salem, Ohio. Slightly more than one mile was completed in the City of Canton in 2001, extending from Hilcher Ave. eastward to Richmond Ave. Phase 2 will extend the trail westward about 1 mile to Cook’s Lagoon Park, which will act as a trailhead. Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2015 LENGTH TRAIL FROM TO DESCRIPTION COST YEAR (MILES) Ohio & Erie Canal Trail SR212 Tuscarawas River Bridge/Trail $1,000,000 1.2 2015 Jackson Connector Phase 1 KSU/Stark Tech Price Park Trail $120,000 1.50 2010 Downtown Connector Waterworks Park Downtown Trail $4,000,000 1 2015 Phase 1 Hoover Park Connector Market Ave to Dogwood Park to Hoover Trail $400,000 2015 Phase 2 High Schools 4.7 Mahoning Valley Trail Deer Creek Dam N/A Bridge $1,000,000 2015 Phase 2 .1 Mahoning Valley Trail Infill to connect sections N/A Trail $150,000 2015 Phase 3 1.5 Sippo Valley Trail Sippo Creek N/A Bridge $300,000 N/A 2015 Covered Bridge Trail Phase West Branch Trail Martindale Park Trail $320,000 4 2015 1 Nickleplate Trail Phase 1 Swallen Ave Stuckey St ROW $500,000 1 2015 Sippo Lake Connector Genoa Rd/12th St O & E Canal Trail Trail $800,000 2.7 2015 Phase 2 NE Stark Electric Trail Phase 2 Cook Park Hilcher Ave NE Trail $100,000 1 2015
Projects scheduled between 2016 through 2020 include:
• The Downtown Connector Trail will be extended east to the Cook’s Lagoon Park trailhead in this phase. • The Iron Horse Trail will connect the cities of Alliance and Minerva, primarily via abandoned railroad right-of-way, portions of which are owned by the District and a portion which is being held by a land conservancy. Phase 1 will extend the trail from the City of Alliance through Washington Township south to Louisville Street (SR153). Phase 2 will continue the trail to its intersection with the Nickel Plate Trail. • The Nickel Plate Trail Phase 2 will complete the trail from Stucky Street to Minerva through Paris Township. • The Sippo Lake Connector will be extended from Sippo Lake east to the West Branch Trail. This section will likely follow the 12th Street corridor and possibly connect the Stark County Fairground and Westbrook Park into the trail network. • This phase will extend the Stark Electric Railway Trail from Richmond Ave. eastward to the City of Louisville, passing through Nimishillen Township. • The Upper Middlebranch Trail will connect the Hoover Park Connector to Quail Hollow State Park, passing through Plain and Lake Townships and the Village of Hartville.
168
• The Wilderness Center Trail, expected to follow mostly road rights-of-way in the berm, will connect the Villages of Navarre, Brewster, and Wilmot while passing through Bethlehem and Sugarcreek Townships. This trail will provide access between the Wilderness Center, a non-profit nature center and land trust, and the Canal Towpath Trail. Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2020 LENGTH TRAIL FROM TO DESCRIPTION COST YEAR (MILES) Downtown Connector Downtown Cook Park Trail $8,800,000 2 2020 Phase 2 Iron Horse Trail Phase 1 Alliance Louisville Street Trail $350,000 4 2020 Iron Horse Trail Phase 2 Louisville Street Nickel Plate Trail Trail $300,000 4 2020 Nickleplate Trail Phase 2 Stuckey St Minerva Trail $500,000 6 2020 Sippo Lake Connector Sippo Lake West Branch Trail Trail $800,000 2.5 2020 Phase 3 Stark Electric Trail Phase 3 Richmond Ave Louisville Trail $240,000 3 2020 Quail Hollow State Upper Middlebranch Trail Martindale Park Trail $330,000 16.5 2020 Park Wilderness Center Trail Navarre Wilmot Trail in berm $86,000 8.6 2020
Projects scheduled between 2021 through 2030 include:
• This phase will complete the Stark Electric Railway Trail, connecting the cities of Louisville and Alliance, passing through Nimishillen Township. • The Hoover Park Connector trail will be extended east from GlenOak High School to the Middlebranch Trail. • The West Branch Trail will be extended north to Dogwood Park in North Canton. • The East Canton Connector Trail will connect the City of Louisville and the Village of East Canton. This trail will follow mostly road rights-of-way from East Canton to the Nickel Plate Trail. • Phase 2 of the Jackson Connector Trail will extend from the Crystal Springs area of the Towpath Trail to the Lake Cable area. • The Lower Middlebranch Trail will extend south from completed portions of the Middle Branch Trail in Canton, south to the Village of East Sparta. • The Mount Pleasant Dogwood Trail will be completed in two phases, one from Lake Cable to Willowdale Lake and the other from Willowdale Lake to Dogwood Park in North Canton. • The North Country Loop Trail will interconnect trails in the Deer Creek and Walborn Reservoir areas, primarily by existing roads, allowing for loop trips. • The Pontius/Price Connector will connect Quail Hollow State Park and the Deer Creek and Walborn Reservoir areas primarily by Pontius and Prices Streets.
169
• The Pleasant Valley Trail would have connected the Lower Middle Branch Trail to the Sandy Valley Loop in Magnolia via Howenstine Drive and other roads. When the trail plan is updated, it will likely connect the trails by passing through the Village of East Sparta and recently acquired District owned land on Westbrook Street. • The Sandy Beaver Canal Trail (formerly the Sandy Valley Loop) will connect the villages of Magnolia, Waynesburg, Malvern and the city of Minerva using portions of the abandoned Sandy-Beaver Canal that once connected to the Ohio-Erie Canal in Bolivar. • Several trails listed in the plan will be revised as other sections are completed. These include the Hartville/Quail Hollow Loop, the Sandy and Beaver Canal Trail, and the Stark Farmland Trail. Table 5-4- Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects through 2030 LENGTH TRAIL FROM TO DESCRIPTION COST YEAR (MILES) Stark Electric Railway Louisville Alliance Trail $544,000 7 2030 Phase 4 Glenoak High Hoover Park Connector Middlebranch Trail Trail $150,000 1 2030 School/Schneider Park West Branch Arboretum Park Dogwood Park Trail $320,000 4 2030 East Canton Connector Louisville East Canton On Road $40,000 4 2030 Jackson Connector Crystal Springs Lake Cable On Road $45,000 4.5 2030 Lower Middlebranch West Park East Sparta Trail $235,000 9.5 2030 Mount Pleasant/Dogwood Lake Cable Dogwood Park Trail $105,000 11.5 2030 North Country Loop Deer Creek Alliance Trail $400,000 5 2030 Walborn/Deercreek Pontius/Price Connector Quail Hollow On Road $105,000 10.5 2030 Reservoirs Pleasant Valley East Sparta Waynesburg Trail $35,000 3.5 2030 Sandy & Beaver Canal Waynesburg Minerva Trail $976,000 12 2030
Tremendous progress has been made in developing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Stark County over the past ten years. The benefits of incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities into an intermodal system will be further demonstrated as SARTA installs bicycle racks and current projects are completed.
CHAPTER 6 – FINANCIAL PLAN Introduction The Financial Plan demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources available to carry out the plan and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. SAFETEA- LU requires a financial plan that demonstrates fiscal constraint. A more detailed presentation of available resources is contained in Appendix B 2009-2030 FINANCIAL RESOURCES FORECAST report.
170
Financial Resources SCATS completed a Financial Resources Forecast in November 2008. The forecast is based on the Stark County share of funding from a variety of sources. A complete analysis of available funding is shown in the 2009-2030 FINANCIAL RESOURCES FORECAST in Appendix B of this document.
Fiscal Constraint Year of Expenditure Costs Fiscal constraint requires a comparison of the total cost of all planned projects against the total forecast of available funding. SAFETEA-LU requires that a demonstration of fiscal constraint include estimates of project costs in terms of Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars based on reasonable financial principles and information. Year of expenditure cost estimation requires a current year cost estimate, the expected year of project implementation along with the application of an appropriate rate of inflation for the period of time leading up to implementation. With input from project sponsors, this plan utilizes the best estimate of present project costs.
Year of Project Implementation The year in which a project is expected to be implemented has been estimated by SCATS staff with input from project sponsors. SAFETEA-LU permits the financial plan to group project completion times into aggregate ranges or bands. This update of SCATS 2030 plan shows projects being completed within 3 time bands – 2009 to 2015, 2016 to 2020 and 2021 to 2030.
Rate of Inflation For the first time band (2009 – 2015), the cost of implementation for each project has been estimated at the year of expenditure cost for the year the project is expected to be built. As a result, the project costs shown in this time band have not been additionally inflated. Beyond 2015 in time bands 2016 thru 2020 and 2020 thru 2030 an annual compounded inflation rate of 2% has been applied to the current estimate. As a result, multipliers of 1.19 and 1.31 have been applied to the current project cost estimates for projects shown in the two outer time bands respectively.
Transportation Plan Summary SCATS is required to demonstrate the projects recommended in the 2030 plan are fiscally constrained, meaning that funding sources can be reasonably expected to be available to finance the project costs. The 2030 Plan for Stark County reflects the needs of the county through the year 2030, as local officials are able to perceive that need at this time. Many of the recommendations will take many years to implement. This chapter presents a financial plan to implement the adopted Plan. Resources available to fund the Plan are difficult to predict. However, this financial plan presents a reasonable projection of funding sources and compares it to the transportation needs in order to achieve a fiscally constrained Transportation Plan.
171
- 172 -
TRANSPORTATION APPENDICES
A. Air Quality Conformity Analysis B. Financial Resources C. Environmental Justice D. Environmental Mitigation, Analysis, and Consultation E. SCATS Policy Committee Adoption Resolution Fiscal
- 173 -
Appendix A: Air Quality Conformity Analysis
Introduction The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 expanded transportation's role in contributing to national clean air goals. The 1990 amendments expand the definition of "transportation conformity" to:
Conformity to the (air quality implementation) plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and that such activities will not (i) cause or contribute to any new violations of any standards in any area, (ii) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any areas, or (iii) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.
This document describes the conformity determination for both Ozone and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in the SCATS MPO area and demonstrates that the SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan conforms to the applicable standards throughout the planning period. The conformity determination was conducted in accordance with the Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, issued November 24, 1993, and Final Rules adopted May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24280), which incorporated the Final Conformity Rule of July 1, 2004 (69 FR 4004) and in accordance with the Ohio State Transportation Conformity Rules, Ohio Administration Code Part 3745-1-1-01 through 20, issued August 21, 1995 and amended Spring 1997.
In order to determine conformity, the SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan tests must meet the following requirements: • Must be based on the latest planning assumptions • Must use the latest emissions model • Must include interagency consultation • Must provide for Public Involvement • Must show the plan meets the emissions budget test • Must include a MPO Board conformity determination resolution
Nonattainment Area Designation PM 2.5 – The Canton/Massillon Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), Ohio was classified as nonattainment for PM 2.5 in the Federal Register January 5, 2005. Although the MSA area also includes Carroll County, OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency) and USEPA concurred that only Stark County is designated as the nonattainment area within the MSA as Carroll
- 174 -
County is rural in nature with a population of less than 30,000. In March, 2007, SCATS showed that it was in conformity for PM 2.5 based on the permitted no-greater-than-2002 baseline test. Since then, new standards have been adopted for PM 2.5, once again classifying Stark County as nonattainment. Ozone - As part of the 1990 CAA Amendments re-evaluation, Stark County was designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment for the one-hour ozone standard pursuant to the CAA and therefore, has not previously been subject to nonattainment area rule-makings. As a result of the 2004 ozone designations, U.S. EPA designated Stark County basic nonattainment and subject to the eight-hour ozone requirements, including development of a plan to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions and a demonstration that the area will meet the federal eight-hour air quality standard for ozone by June 2009. A Redesignation Plan has been submitted. The adequacy finding on the 8-Hour Redesignation budgets is pending.
Interagency Consultation and Conformity Process
Interagency Consultation was achieved via a series of email exchanges, meetings and conference calls between USEPA, Ohio EPA, FHWA, ODOT and SCATS.
Based on those email exchanges, the following was established:
SCATS is in the process of preparing a quadrennial update of the Canton 2030 Transportation Plan that is scheduled for adoption and a new conformity finding by June 15, 2009. The conformity determination will include a redetermination of the conformity of the current 2008- 2011 SCATS Transportation Improvement Program.
Canton, Ohio (Stark County) is designated as an 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area and a PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The Transportation Plan Update conformity finding will address both the Ozone and PM2.5 pollutant standards. The Conformity Summary Table (on page 5 of this appendix) records the applicable conformity tests and analysis years for each pollutant standard.
Emissions data for this conformity demonstration will be established using standardized Ohio travel-demand-model-based VMT procedures. SCATS’ travel demand model covers all of Stark County and a small portion of Mahoning County along with the portions of Minerva and Magnolia outside of Stark County. The model produces roadway network segment-specific, 24- hour forecasts of freeway and arterial traffic for the entire region. An ODOT-developed post processor breaks the 24-hour model volumes into hourly, directional components and calculates an hourly, directional speed for the link based on the volume-to-capacity ratios. The post processor then multiplies MOBILE 6.2 generated emission factors by the hourly VMT for each model network link for each hour, and sums the results to establish daily pollutant emissions.
- 175 -
Lastly, the post processor calculates those emissions due to intrazonal trips and adds the resultant emissions to the network total.
Latest Planning Assumptions For this analysis, the latest planning assumptions available for the Canton region will be used. The Canton travel demand model underwent a major upgrade in 2007 and this new model was used for the analysis. The model is a traditional four-step model that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and traffic assignment. Upgraded model components that were not in the previous model include: household cross-classification, separate truck assignment, non-bus transit modes, and peak period assignments. The 2000 base year was established to take advantage of census data and new roadside origin-destination surveys that were taken at the Stark County line. The model was calibrated to replicate 2000 traffic counts, and was validated to meet the standards of ODOT’s Traffic Assignment Procedures manual.
Employment variables are based on the 2006 update of the ES202 data. Other independent variables were not changed from those used for the Long Range Plan update of 2006.
Current and Future Population - Base-year population data is 2000 Census data. Population was forecast to the year 2030 in 2004 as part of the Stark County Comprehensive Plan. The Plan used county-level population projections which were provided by the Ohio Department of Development - Office of Strategic Research (ODOD-OSR) through the year 2030. The RPC sub-allocated the projections to the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level. The sub-allocation process was based on allocating dwelling unit growth to TAZs
Networks
The 2005 and 2008 networks represent the highway networks as they actually existed in 2005 and 2008. SCATS’s Long Range Plan listing of projects was used to create the 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2025, and 2030 networks. Networks for these analysis years had been created in the past, but SCATS updated the networks to reflect changes in the TIP for this analysis. The networks will also be updated to reflect changes in the 2009 Financial Forecast.
Independent Variables
Independent variables (land use/socio-economic data) as provided by SCATS will be used to generate new traffic assignments for each analysis year 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2025, and 2030. The variable data for the intermediate years (2009, 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2025) were initially created by ODOT using interpolation between the model validation year and the final year of the LRP. SCATS used that data as a starting point and corrected the data to accurately account for predicted timing of the changes of land use development and other socio-economic data.
- 176 -
Latest Emissions Modeling
Emissions data for this conformity analysis were generated using US EPA MOBILE6.2 emission factors.
Temperature data for MOBILE6.2 emission factors used data from the Akron Canton Airport for the Canton nonattainment area conformity process.
Annual PM2.5 emissions data were established using the single season methodology. The standard emissions modeling routines establish daily pollutant burdens. Annual direct PM and NOx precursor emissions for the PM2.5 conformity tests were established by multiplying the daily model results by 365.
PM2.5 conformity will be established based on the no-greater-than-2020 baseline tests in CFR 93.119.
Public Involvement Process
SCATS initially sought public comments on the 2030 Transportation Plan Update development at the December 11, 2008 meeting of the Citizen’s Advisory Council and solicited and considered additional ongoing public input consistent with the adopted 2006 “Public Involvement Process” manual, as follows: SCATS scheduled three meetings for public involvement – January 15th from 2 to 4 pm in Perry Township, January 20th from 2 to 4 pm in the City of Louisville and January 21st from 6 to 8 pm in the City of Canton to provide an opportunity for the public to provide input regarding transportation issues and the preparation of the 2009 update of the SCATS 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. It is anticipated that a draft copy of the Plan including results of the air quality conformity analysis will be available for review by the public and the SCATS Policy Committee by the April 2009 meeting of the SCATS Policy Committee.
Plan Schedule
Approval of the updated SCATS Long Range Plan by the Policy Board is scheduled to occur in April, 2009. It is anticipated that the draft Plan update, including air quality conformity documentation, will be submitted to federal agencies by the end of April, 2009. The updated US DOT SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan conformity determination is required by June 15, 2009.
- 177 -
Canton 2030 Transportation Plan Update Conformity Analysis Summary
Ozone Attainment status: 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area – Re-designation Plan approved effective 6/15/07 Geography: Stark County, Ohio Conformity Tests: 8-Hour budget tests of SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan/TIP analysis year networks Analysis Years: 2009 8-Hour Re-designation Plan budget year 2018 8-Hour Re-designation Plan budget year 2020 Interim year 2030 Plan horizon year
8-Hour Ozone Tons / Day 2009 2009 2018 2018 2020 2030 Budget Budget HC 10.02 8.39* 5.37 4.09* 3.98* 3.90* NOx 18.03 14.22* 7.08 5.23* 4.82* 3.85* *From Mobile 6.2 run by ODOT 3/23/09
PM2.5
Attainment status: PM2.5 Nonattainment area Geography: Stark County, Ohio Conformity Tests: 2002 baseline interim budget tests of SCATS 2030 Transportation Plan/TIP analysis year networks Analysis Years: 2009 1st analysis year (one of the years included in current TIP) 2018 Interim year 2020 Interim year 2030 Plan horizon year
- 178 -
PM2.5 Tons/Year Stark Co. 2002 2009 2018 2020 2030 Baseline Direct PM 168.01 91.69* 46.39* 45.77* 47.52* NOx 9527.85 5094.56* 1806.56* 1653.01* 1285.24* Precursors * From Mobile 6.2 run by ODOT 5/4/09
The conformity analysis highway networks and budget test results are as follows:
• 2002 Base year: This represents the regional highway network that was in place by the end of 2002. The annual total tons for PM2.5 was 168 tons and for NOX Precursors was 9527 tons. • 2009 Base year: This represents the regional highway network that will be in place by the end of 2009. The annual total tons for VOC was 3062 tons and for NOX was 5190 tons. The annual total tons for PM2.5 was 92 tons and for NOX Precursors was 5095 tons. • 2018 Network: This is a budget-year analysis. The network includes the Baseline scenario network plus the 2008-2014 TIP projects plus regionally significant projects that are expected to be open to traffic by the 2018 analysis year. The trip table is based on 2018 Independent Variables. The annual total tons for VOC was 1493 tons and for NOX was 1909 tons. The annual total tons for PM2.5 was 46 tons and for NOX Precursors was 1807 tons. • 2020 Network: This is an interim analysis year to meet the requirement that analysis years must be no more than ten years apart. The network includes the Baseline scenario network plus the 2018 additional projects plus regionally significant projects that are expected to be open to traffic by the 2020 analysis year. The trip table is based on 2020 Independent Variables. The annual total tons for VOC was 1453 tons and for NOX was 1759 tons. The annual total tons for PM2.5 was 46 tons and for NOX Precursors was 1653 tons. • 2030 Plan Horizon Year Network: This represents the completed Plan network using the Plan horizon year 2030 trip table. The annual total tons for VOC was 1423 tons and for NOX was 1405 tons. The annual total tons for PM2.5 was 48 tons and for NOX Precursors was 1285 tons.
- 179 -
Other SCATS Planning Assumptions This section details planning assumptions utilized by SCATS and were not specifically addressed in the interagency coordination discussion.
TAZ Level Allocation: TAZ-level travel-demand-model (TDM) variables were developed in 2004 based on the previously described county-level population and employment forecasts. For transportation planning it was necessary to allocate this growth to the TAZ level and develop other data such as available vehicles, nonresidential floor area and acreage. Residential growth was allocated on a dwelling unit basis. Dwelling units were assigned to zones based on the following factors:
Accessibility to a major county arterial road; Availability (or planned extension) of public water and sewer services; Availability of vacant zoned residential land; Present or future residential subdivision activity and platted lots; Absence of major physical or environmental constraints to urban development
Population was then derived from dwelling units based on a person per dwelling unit ratio that was also forecast. Vehicles and labor force data were then derived from the population data.
Non-residential employment was allocated by industry based on zoning, individual communities’ land use plans and factors similar to those used for the residential land use. SCATS has confidence that these numbers represent the latest and best available data.
Projects
The following table shows all non-exempt 2030 Long-Range Plan projects and the year by which they will be built.
Name Route From To Type Work Year 12th St NW CR240 Monument Maple Roadway and Bridge Rehab 2015 55th Street CR 146 Birmingham Harmont Roadway Improvement 2015 Arlington Ave TR 234 At Strausser St Intersection Improvement 2015 Cherry/Locust SR93 intersection Intersect Widening 2015 Widen for TWLTL thru Cleveland Ave SR 800 45th St Mill St section; 2015 Cleveland Ave CR 66 At Mt Pleasant Intersection Improvement 2015 Frank Avenue CR 229 Mega St Applegrove At Roadway Widening 2015
- 180 -
Name Route From To Type Work Year Hills & Dales Rd CR 98 Wales Ave Sir Thomas Widen to 4 lanes 2015 Widening from 2 lanes to 5 Hills & Dales Rd CR 226 Woodlawn Ave Whipple Ave lanes 2015 Louisville WCL to SR Reconstruction, Widen to 3 Main St SR 153 44 SR 44 lanes 2015 Market Ave CR 62 4 intersections In Lake Twp Intersection Upgrading 2015 Middlebranch Ave CR 192 At State St Intersection Improvement 2015 SR 619 at McCallum SR 619 Intersection Construct Roundabout 2015 Trump Ave CR 170 At Georgetown Intersection improvement 2015 US 30 at Broadway US 30 Intersection Add Turn Lanes 2015 Widen for TWLTL thru Waynesburg Dr SR 43 17th St New US 30 section 2015 Waynesburg Dr SR 43 At SR 183 Add turn Lane 2015 Intersection Safety 20th St NW CR 221 At Lakeside Improvement 2020 30th St NE CR 67 At Harrisburg Intersection Improvement 2020 Applegrove Connector CR 190 Frank Ave Strausser New connector 2020 Applegrove St CR 190 Marquardt Market Ave Widen to 4 lanes 2020 Columbus Rd CR 67A At Beeson & Reeder Roundabout 2020 Edison St SR 619 Cleveland Ave SR 43 North Widen to 4 lanes 2020 Frank Ave CR 229 Fulton Rd University St Widen to 5 lanes 2020 0.28 miles E of SR Brunnerdale Fulton Rd SR 687 241 Ave Widen to 5 lanes 2020 Fulton Rd At Park Dr Add turn lane 2020 Louisa Marie Hankins St CR 240 Wales Ave Ave 2 Lane Improvement 2020 Harmont Ave CR 170 SR 153 US 62 Widen to 4 lanes 2020 Interchange Safety & I-77 IR 77 US 30 Interchange Capacity improvements 2020 Jackson Ave TR 242 Richville Dr Lincoln Way 2 Lane/RR Bridge 2020 Roadway and Intersection Mahoning Road SR153 Maple Harmont Improvements 2020 Main St At Tremont Upgrade intersection 2020 New Main St at Main St Connector Old Main St Sawburg New 2-lane connector 2020 Market Ave SR 43 55th St Applegrove St Widen to 4 lanes 2020 Intersection Safety Market Ave CR 62 At Mt Pleasant Improvement 2020 Pittsburg Ave Applegrove Shuffle Widen for turn lane 2020 Richville Dr CR 248 Nave St Southway St Minor widening 2020 Strausser St CR 231 At High Mill Ave Intersection improvement 2020 At Lake O Springs Strausser St CR 231 Ave Intersection Improvement 2020
- 181 -
Name Route From To Type Work Year Strausser St CR 231 At SR 236 Intersection improvement 2020 US 30 US 30 Trump Ave SR 44 New 4-Lane Freeway 2020 SR 172 at US 30 Connector SR 44 Interchange Miday New 2-lane connector 2020 Wales Ave SR 241 Hills & Dales Rd Portage St Widen to 4 lanes 2020 Wales Rd SR 241 At Lake Ave Upgrade intersection 2020 Hills & Dales Wales Rd SR 241 Lincoln Way East Rd 2 lanes + Turn lane 2020 Walnut Rd CR 248 Southway St 16th St SE 2 Lane improvement 2020 Whipple Ave CR 214 Applegrove St Shuffel Dr Widen to 5 lanes 2020 Whipple Ave CR 214 Southway St 13th St 2-lane/RR bridge 2020 12th St NW CR 240 At Market Ave Intersection Widening 2030 Beech St CR 95 At Beechwood Ave Intersection Improvement 2030 Beeson St CR 41 At Freshley Ave Intersection Improvement 2030 Fohl St CR 252 At Shepler Church Intersection Improvement 2030 Fohl St CR 252 Navarre I-77 2 Lane improvement 2030 Jackson Ave TR 242 12th St NW Perry Dr Widen to 3 lanes 2030 Lincoln Way W SR 172 At Main St Upgrade intersection 2030 Market Ave SR 43 Applegrove St Mt Pleasant St Widen to 4 lanes 2030 1 Mile E of SR 2030 Navarre Rd CR 511 SR 21 21 Widen to 3 lanes Trump Ave CR 170 Lincoln St SR 153 Widen to 4 lanes 2030 Summit Co 2030 Wales Ave SR 241 Portage St Line Widen to 4 lanes Whipple Ave CR 214 Shuffel Dr Mt Pleasant St New 3-lanes 2030 Canal Fulton Connector TR 356 Butterbridge Locust St New 2-lane connector 2030 Everhard Whipple CR 215 At intersection Widen to 5 or more Lanes 2030 Mahoning Extension CR 1 Patterson Ave Armour St New 2-lane connector 2030 Reno Drive SR 44 Nickleplate New Facility 2030 New 2-lane bypass / RR SR 44 Bypass SR 44 SR 153 Frana Clara Bridge 2030 Sterilite St Extension Navarre Rd Fohl St New 2-lane connector 2030 Trump Ave CR 170 SR 43 New US 30 2 Lanes / new connector 2030 US 30 US 30 SR 44 SR 183 Super 2 lane 2030 US 30** US 30 SR 183 East Rochester Super 2 lane 2030 US 62 US 62 At Harmont Grade Separation 2030 US 62 US 62 Columbus Rd SR 44 Intersection Upgrading 2030 Major Reconst / Access US 62 US 62 Market Ave Columbus Rd Control 2030 US 62** US 62 SR 225 Salem New 4-Lane Freeway 2030
- 182 -
Final Conformity Determination As described in this document, the conformity determination analysis was conducted consistent with the Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, issued November 24, 1993 and Final Rules adopted May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24280), which incorporated the Final Conformity Rule of July 1, 2004 (69 FR 4004).
- 183 -
Appendix B: Financial Resources Forecast
Introduction
This document was created as a planning tool to estimate the availability of funding for future projects in Stark County and to demonstrate compliance with Federal Highway Administration requirements for financial resources forecasting. This report will be used with the Stark County Area Transportation Study Year 2030 Transportation Plan to demonstrate that it is fiscally constrained in year of expenditure dollars.
This report contains five sections: this introduction, descriptions of legislation which impact Federal funding and planning requirements, the methodology for estimating SCATS funding amounts, a discussion of other funding sources, and a brief conclusion
Federal Legislation
The history of the federal legislation that funds highway projects illustrates the advances made in the planning process required to spend those funds. Each Federal authorization and reauthorization bill has included expanded requirements for planning where and when those dollars are spent. As funds become more difficult to obtain and costs escalate, it becomes increasingly imperative to efficiently make use of those funds and to minimize potential problems in the planning process. The major funding acts and requirements include:
• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). This legislation changed federal transportation philosophy from one of stressing construction of new roadways by including an emphasis on an increased use of mass transit, making existing roadways more efficient, mitigating congestion, mandating more planning at the state and metropolitan level, and encouraging alternative forms of transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ISTEA provided flexibility to state and local officials in choosing among highway, transit, and other transportation alternatives and expanded the type of projects and activities that were eligible for funding, created new highway funding classifications, and changed funding participation rates. ISTEA also required a financially constrained plan.
• The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted June 9, 1998, continued this trend, and, with technical corrections included in the TEA-21 Restoration Act enacted July 22, 1998, added additional requirements to strengthen planning efforts. Tea-21 required the development of a financial plan to identify funding sources and to demonstrate the ability for projects identified in the plan to be completed.
• The current funding bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law on August 10, 2005 and included a number of changes including emphasizing planning requirements for environmental consultations,
- 184 -
congestion and safety planning, among others. The most pertinent change in regards to fiscal planning is the requirement to account for inflation and ensure that the plan is fiscally constrained by showing projects costs and income in “year of expenditure dollars”.
Forecast Methodology and Assumptions The purpose of this Financial Resources Forecast is to determine the availability of resources that will fund transportation improvements in the SCATS area for fiscal years 2009 through 2030. Accurate financial forecasting requires the analysis of past trends and assumptions regarding future events. As recent events have made the process of predicting future funding trends more challenging, the following assumptions will be applied to this forecast:
• Forecasted revenues are based on actual or projected FY2009 allocations, • Federal funding through the Highway Trust Fund will remain viable and will continue over the forecast period, • ODOT will continue to allocate funds with the same methodology used in the past, • Allocations based on population utilize 2000 US Census figures, • Factors such as population, lane miles, deck area, accident rates, etc. will be assumed to remain consistent over the forecast period, • Local funding to meet match requirements will continue to be made available.
Funding Categories and Sources National Highway System (NHS)
The NHS is made up of approximately 160,000 miles of the most significant roads in the nation. This includes the existing interstate system (Eisenhower Interstate System), principal arterials in urban and rural areas that provide intermodal connections, the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) and its major connectors, and other major intermodal connectors and connections between these systems. Funding participation rates for NHS projects are 80% federal and 20% state and/or local (high occupancy lanes can qualify for up to 90% federal). Some safety improvements qualify for 100% funding.
Interstate Maintenance (IM)
The Interstate System retains a separate identity within the NHS. It consists only of routes with the "Interstate" designation. To ensure continued maintenance and improvement of this system, Congress first established the IM program under ISTEA. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) distributes funds to states based on lane-miles open to traffic, vehicle-miles traveled, and contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund attributed to commercial
- 185 -
vehicles. The funding participation rate for IM projects is 90% federal. Some safety improvements qualify for 100% funding.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Highways eligible for STP funding include highways having a federal functional classification of urban collector or higher in urbanized areas and rural major collector or higher in rural areas. STP funds may also be used for other modal projects such as capital transit projects, commuter rail, bus terminals and facilities, carpool projects, traffic monitoring, regional planning, advanced truck stop electrification systems, improvements to high congestion/accident rate intersections on the Federal-aid highway system, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and some environmental restoration and pollution abatement.
Approximately ten percent of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements (TEP) that encompass a broad range of environmental and other related projects. ODOT sub allocates a portion of the TEP funds to metropolitan planning organizations (MPO’s), including SCATS.
ODOT retains a portion of the remaining STP funds and sub allocates the balance to the MPOs and the County Engineers (through the County Engineers Association of Ohio).
Funding participation rates for STP projects are 80% federal and 20% state and/or local (high occupancy lanes can qualify for up to 90% federal). Some safety improvements qualify for 100% funding.
Highway Bridge Program (BR)
Under this program, bridges over twenty feet in length on public roads are eligible to receive funding for replacement, rehabilitation, or systematic preventive maintenance. USDOT distributes these funds to states partially based on deck area and requires that 15% of the funds be used on off-system routes. Ohio distributes BR funds through the following programs: City Bridge, Local Major Bridge, County Bridge, State Bridge and Major High Cost Bridge programs. The funding participation rate for projects using BR funding is 80% federal and 20% state and/or local except for bridges on the Intestate System which have a 90% federal share.
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) CMAQ funding was a new funding category established by ISTEA and is intended to lessen congestion and air pollution. Both highway and transit projects and programs are eligible for CMAQ funds if they meet specific criteria and have documented emission reductions associated with them. The funding participation rates for CMAQ projects are 80% federal and 20% local except for projects on the Intestate System which have a 90% federal share. Certain other activities, including carpool/vanpool projects, priority control systems for emergency vehicles and transit vehicles and traffic control signalization receive a Federal share of 100 percent.
- 186 -
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) This is a new category implemented by SAFETA-LU and replaces the previous Hazard Elimination and Safety Program that was funded through a set-aside percentage of STP monies. Funds for this program, once the Railway-Highway Crossing program funds are set aside, are distributed based on lane miles of Federal-aid highways, vehicle miles traveled on Federal-aid highways and number of fatalities on the Federal-aid system.
The funding participation rates for HSIP projects are 90% federal except for certain safety improvements listed in 23 USC 120(C) which are eligible for 100%.
Railway-Highway Crossings
This is a new category implemented by SAFETA-LU with 50% of funds to be used for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. The funding participation rate for this program is 90% federal. A railroad participating in a hazard elimination project is responsible for compensating the State transportation department for the net benefit to the railroad of the project not exceed 10 percent of the project cost.
Other Funding Programs
Other potential sources of funds are limited and awarded based upon competitive grants and/or discretionary programs. Some of these include: Safe Routes to School, Highways for LIFE Pilot Program, the National Scenic Byways Program and others.
Several of the “discretionary” type categories have been included in the revenue forecast tables in order to serve as “place holders”. While no specific funds have been programmed, it can be assumed that these types of funds will be utilized in the course of the long range plan as projects are identified and scheduled. For example, the ODOT District 4 Municipal Bridge Eligibility List includes bridges located in Stark County. It is likely that several of these will be replaced or rehabilitated under this program at some time in the future.
Federal Discretionary Funding
Congressional set-aside projects are enacted outside the authority of other funding categories and are dependent upon Congressional leadership and local needs. While a number of projects in Stark County have received discretionary funds in the past, no set schedule or amount of funding is assured.
FTA Section 5307 Block Grant Program
This program is designed for funding transit capital projects, such as buses, shelters, equipment, property, buildings, and other facilities. Federal Highway no longer funds operating expenses for urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more. However, Congress expanded the definition of "capital" to include preventive maintenance. This change in definition was coupled with an increase in capital funding, which offset losses in operating revenue. In addition, one
- 187 -
percent of the funding apportioned to each urbanized area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, access for the disabled, and one percent for public transportation security projects.
FTA Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities
This is a discretionary program for capital assistance for new and replacement buses and related equipment and facilities. Eligible capital projects include the purchasing of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment.
FTA Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities
ODOT manages this grant as the Specialized Transportation Program and assists public agencies and private non-profit corporations in transporting the elderly and disabled by aiding in the purchase of vehicles. The Specialized Transportation Program emphasizes assisting those unable to use regular transit service as well as the coordination of these services with existing transportation services. Projects are awarded annually by ODOT with the funding participation rate of 80% federal and 20% local. Awards from this program are competitive although in the past each MPO area received an allocation. Under the new competitive awards, agencies in the SCATS area have been awarded funds for two ADA accessible vans in each of the last two rounds.
FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
The JARC grant program assists in developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low-income persons to jobs and other employment related services. Job access projects are targeted at developing new or expanded transportation services such as shuttles, vanpools, new bus routes, connector services to mass transit, and guaranteed ride home programs for welfare recipients and low income persons. Reverse Commute projects provide transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, rural and other suburban locations for all populations.
FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Program The New Freedom formula grant program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society. Grants are used to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA of 1990.
- 188 -
Funding Amounts and Calculations
The following table contains basic data comparing Ohio, the ODOT District 4 area, and the SCATS MPO area (Stark County):
D4 as % Stark SC as % Ohio ODOT D4 of Ohio County of Ohio Population* 11,353,140 1,685,457 14.85% 378,098 3.33% National Highway System Miles* 4,388 569 12.97% 92 2.10% Interstate Centerline Miles* 1,332 178 13.36% 19 1.43% Interstate Lane Miles* 6,680 794 11.89% 90 1.35% Bridge Deck Area (sq. ft.)* 152,293,237 13,436,638 8.82% 2,428,187 1.59% *Highway/Bridge Statistics from 2007 ODOT Data, Population from 2000 US Census
Annual STP, CMAQ, and TEP Allocations Annual allocations are published in the Federal Register and programmed to each MPO area by ODOT. Individual MPO’s annual sub-allocation amounts are proportionate to the respective MPO’s percentage share of Ohio’s total urbanized area population. The FY 2009 SCATS allocations are as follow:
STP-A- $4,503,584
CMAQ-A- $2,491,127
TEP-A- $450,358
Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC)
The Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) was created to prioritize major transportation projects costing $5 million or more. TRAC funds are derived from various sources, including BR, IM, NHS, STP and State funds.
Projects are selected using criteria which seek to determine a project’s contribution to state, regional and local transportation and economic development goals including reducing congestion, increasing mobility, providing connectivity, and increasing a region’s accessibility for economic development. In general, TRAC prioritizes projects on state and federal highways, including determining a project’s suitability in meeting TRAC and ACCESS Ohio goals.
- 189 -
The amount of money available for major new capacity projects is certified to the TRAC by the director of ODOT after funds for system preservation are determined. Historically, the TRAC has approximately $300 million a year (source: 2008 TRAC data) to pay for projects, including design, right of way, and construction. Although TRAC has faced challenges due to recent project inflationary pressure, this report assumes that TRAC or some other similar major project funding program will continue in the future. Recent TRAC assisted projects in Stark County include the I-77 widening, the new I-77 & Shuffel Rd. interchange, US30 extension to Trump Road`, and the SR297 widening.
TRAC SCATS SCATS fair Average Population share X = Annual Ohio of TRAC Allocation Population Funding
378,098 $300,000,000 X = $9,991,016 11,353,140
ODOT District Four Allocation The Ohio Department of Transportation District Four receives an annual allocation of funds for system preservation projects. The allocation to each district is adjusted to maintain the state of the transportation system at an acceptable level in each district.
District 4 SCATS Average Population SCATS Annual D4 fair share of D4 Allocation Population Funding
$110,000, 378,098 $24,676, 000 1,685,457 263
Surface Transportation Program –County Engineer ODOT allocates funds to Ohio County Engineers through the County Engineers Association of Ohio. SCATS share of funds that are allocated to the County Engineers Association of Ohio by ODOT is calculated as follows: the funds allocated to the CEAO multiplied by the percentage of Stark County population versus the State using the year 2000 population from the U.S. Census Bureau.
- 190 -
Ohio’s FY SCATS SCATS 2009 Population Fair Share X = STP-C Ohio of STP-C Allocation Population Funding
378,098 $20,500,000 X = $682,719 11,353,140
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) This category of funding is also calculated based upon Stark County’s population as a percentage of Ohio’s population and is based on year 2000 U.S. Census figures.
Ohio’s FY SCATS SCATS 2009 Population Fair Share X = HSIP Ohio of HSIP Allocation Population Funding
378,098 $67,000,000 X = $2,231,327 11,353,140
County Bridge Program This category of funding is also calculated based upon Stark County’s population as a percentage of Ohio’s population and is based on year 2000 U.S. Census figures. The amount of funding available for the CEAO Bridge allocation was based the FY 2009 allocation of $38.5 million.
Ohio’s SCATS SCATS FY2009 CEAO Population Fair Share of X = Bridge Ohio CEAO Allocation Population Bridge Funding
378,098 $38,500,000 X = $1,282,180 11,353,140
- 191 -
Municipal Bridge Program This category of funding is also calculated based upon Stark County’s population as a percentage of Ohio’s population and is based on year 2000 U.S. Census figures.
Ohio’s SCATS SCATS FY2009 Municipal Population Fair Share of X = Bridge Ohio Municipal Allocation Population Bridge Funding
378,098 $8,000,000 X = $266,427 11,353,140
Federal Discretionary Funding
This program consists of Congressional earmarks enacted outside the authority of other funding categories and as such no set amounts or funding period can be determined. Therefore this report does not include estimates for this type of funding. However, as earmarks have contributed significant amounts of funding, it would be negligent not to discuss them. Earmarks have assisted in numerous projects, including those where local funds were inadequate or not available at the time, where a local agency had no ability to make a necessary match and for many other reasons. Recent projects receiving earmark funds include $2.5 million for SR172 safety improvements, $1.5 million towards the I-77 and Shuffel Road interchange, $1.2 million for the Tremont bridge project, $1.1 million for the Trump Avenue/Georgetown St. intersection improvement, $1.5 million towards the Market Avenue/Lake Center intersection, and $588,000 towards the Fulton Drive/Wales Avenue intersection improvement project.
FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA section 5307 funds are available to urbanized areas for transit capital and operating assistance based on urbanized area population. Eligible purposes include planning, engineering design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities. SARTA’s allocation for FY2009 is $4,127,843.
FTA Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program These funds can be used for capital projects including the purchase of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, transportation centers, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities, and miscellaneous equipment. The Secretary of Transportation has the discretion to allocate these funds, although Congress, at this time, has fully earmarked all available funding. As discretionary funding, no set amount or time period can be determined, although the amounts
- 192 -
have been significant in the past. Examples of funds received by SARTA include more than $1 million dollars for Gateway renovations and almost $1 million dollars each for the Alliance and Canton transfer centers. Over the past five years SARTA has received an average of almost $750,000 per year in FTA Section 5309 funds.
FTA Section 5310 Specialized Transportation Program
This program is managed by the ODOT Office of Transit, which calls it the Specialized Transportation Program. Grants are available for the purchase of vehicles, mobility management services, or other transportation related equipment to support transportation services for the elderly and people with disabilities where existing transportation is unavailable, inappropriate, or insufficient. In the past these funds were allocated to each MPO but are now distributed state- wide on a competitive basis. Approximately $5,000,000 has been authorized to ODOT for FY2009. If the funds were divided based upon population, the SCATS area would receive:
SCATS Ohio’s Population SCATS FY2009 X = Fair Share of Ohio 5310 Population 5310 Allocation Funding
378,098 $5,095,271 X = $169,690 11,353,140
In the past two rounds under the state-wide competitive awards, two vehicles in each round have been awarded to agencies in the SCATS area.
FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program The goal of this program is to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals and to transport residents of urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities. Projects eligible for funding include assistance for transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the transportation needs of eligible low-income individuals, and of reverse commuters regardless of income. As the designated recipient, SARTA manages this program in Stark County. The county’s allocation for FY2009 is $135,931.
FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Transportation Program This program entails grants to encourage services and facility improvements to address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the designated recipient, SARTA manages this program in Stark County. The county’s allocation for FY2009 is $84,949.
- 193 -
Other Funding Sources
A number of other sources of revenue exist in addition to those from the US Department of Transportation. These include local funds used as matches to receive Federal funds, other Federal, State, and/or local funds, private for-profit and/or non-profit sources. Examples include:
• SARTA: Stark County voters have approved and renewed several times a .25% sales tax to assist funding SARTA. The latest renewal was in 2006, expires in 2012, and generates approximately $12 million annually.
• Stark County Engineer: $12,273,851 (2007 revenue: $7,790,962 license plate fee, $1,216,692 permissive fee, $2,396,839 motor fuel tax revenue, $710,602 intergovernmental funding, and $158,756 misc.).
• Ohio Public Works Commission/Stark County District 19 Committee provides grants and loans for local public infrastructure improvements under the State Capital Improvement Program (SCIP), which is funded by the sale of bonds approved by Ohio voters, and the Local Transportation Improvements Program (LTIP), which is funded by a portion of the state motor fuel tax.
• $6.5 million annually (approx.), about 60% on average ($3.9 million) has funded road/bridge/culvert projects Motor Fuel Tax Revenue to cities, villages, and townships: $7,542,299 annually (2007 ODOT estimate).
Revenue Calculations and Conclusion
Table 1 and 2 on the following pages show the estimated fiscal resources that will be available through 2030. These estimates were divided into three time periods in order to reflect information included in the ODOT 2008-2009 Business Plan and to correspond to previous versions of the SCATS Year 2030 Transportation Plan. These time periods are: FY 2009-2015, FY 2016-2020, and FY 2021-2030, with differing growth rates of 1%, 2% and 3%, respectively.
The 1% growth rate mirrors the “conservative assumption” methodology in the ODOT 2008- 2009 Business Plan. In that scenario “state revenue remains flat and federal revenue grows at 1% annually”. The 2% and 3% growth rates represent conservative estimates in expected increases in Federal funding based on historical long-term trends. Reviewing data in US General Accounting Office documents GAO-03-744R, Trends in Federal and State Highway Investment, and GAO -04-802, Trends, Effects on State Spending, and Options for Future Program Design, indicate an average annual growth in federal highway spending of 4.9% between 1982 and 2002. The documents note that Federal expenditures, however, “were not consistent over this period” and there were several periods that experienced declines in Federal funding. For this reason, and the conservative growth rate adopted for projections in the FY2009-2015 time frame, it was decided to adopt the lower than average growth rates of 2 and 3 percent for the other two time periods.
- 194 -
Please note that several categories of funding show no revenue since they are either discretionary or no specific projects have been programmed with funds in these categories. However, they are included in the table since these types of funds will be utilized at some point during the time period encompassed by the long range plan.
In total, $1,383,545,013 will be available in Federal allocations and State sponsored programs in Stark County between 2009 and 2030 (see Table 1). Incorporating local matching monies and other funding brings this amount to $1,556,526,960 within the forecast period (see Table 2).
This financial analysis and forecast will guide the selection of projects to be included in the SCATS Year 2030 Transportation Plan and will ensure the effective and efficient use of available financial resources. It is hoped that these analyses and forecasts will assist both public officials and private citizens in identifying financial issues concerning transportation planning and aid in their decision making as the planning process evolves.
- 195 -
SCATS 2009-2030 Financial Resources Forecast: Estimated FY 2009 FY2009 - 2015 FY2016 – 2020 FY2021 - 2030 TOTAL Totals by Funding Category with Growth Rates Allocation Growth Growth Growth Revenue Revenue Revenue Rate Rate Rate
ODOT District Four Allocation 1.0% 178,003,092 2.0% 139,042,781 3.0% 341,489,474 $658,535,347 24,676,263
SCATS Surface Transportation Program Allocation (STP-A) 1.0% 32,486,762 2.0% 25,376,243 3.0% 62,324,126 $120,187,131 4,503,584 SCATS Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program Allocation 1.0% 17,969,832 2.0% 14,036,697 3.0% 34,474,169 $66,480,698 (CMAQ-A) 2,491,127 SCATS Transportation Enhancement Program Allocation (TEP- 1.0% 3,248,673 2.0% 2,537,622 3.0% 6,232,407 $12,018,702 A) 450,358
County STP (STP-C) 1.0% 4,924,818 2.0% 3,846,901 3.0% 9,448,001 $18,219,720 682,719
County Bridge Program (BR-C) 1.0% 9,249,051 2.0% 7,224,671 3.0% 17,743,812 $34,217,533 1,282,180
Municipal Bridge Program (City BR) 1.0% 1,921,881 2.0% 1,501,230 3.0% 3,687,026 $7,110,136 266,427
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 1.0% 16,095,756 2.0% 12,572,808 3.0% 30,878,852 $59,547,416 2,231,327
Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC)* 1.0% 72,070,546 2.0% 56,296,152 3.0% 138,263,513 $266,630,210 9,991,016 Local Major Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5) 1.0% 0 2.0% 0 3.0% 0 $0
State Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 1.0% 0 2.0% 0 3.0% 0 $0
Major High Cost Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5) 1.0% 0 2.0% 0 3.0% 0 $0
Railway-Highway Crossings (no projects scheduled, see page 5 1.0% 0 2.0% 0 3.0% 0 $0
Federal Discretionary Funding (no projects scheduled, see page 1.0% 0 2.0% 0 3.0% 0 $0 5)
FTA Section 5307 - Urbanized Grant Formula 1.0% 29,776,341 2.0% 23,259,064 3.0% 57,124,328 $110,159,732 4,127,843
FTA Section 5309 – Bus and Bus Facilities 1.0% 5,410,151 2.0% 4,226,008 3.0% 10,379,088 $20,015,247 750,000
FTA Section 5310 - Specialized Transportation Program 1.0% 1,224,065 2.0% 956,148 3.0% 2,348,303 $4,528,516 169,690 FTA Section 5316 – Job and Reverse Commute Program 1.0% 980,543 2.0% 765,927 3.0% 1,881,120 $3,627,590 (JARC) 135,931
FTA Section 5317 – New Freedom Program 1.0% 612,783 2.0% 478,660 3.0% 1,175,591 $2,267,034 84,949
- 196 -
SCATS 2009-2030 Financial Resources Forecast: Estimated FY 2009 FY2009 - 2015 FY2016 – 2020 FY2021 - 2030 TOTAL Totals by Funding Category with Growth Rates Allocation Total through Total FY2009 Allocation $51,843,414 2030 $1,383,545,013
- 197 -
Minimum FY 2009 2009-2030 2009-2030 SCATS 2009-2030 Financial Resources Forecast: Estimated Totals with Match TOTAL Allocation Subtotal Local Match Minimum Required Match Required
ODOT District Four Allocation 0% 24,676,263 658,535,347 0 $658,535,347
SCATS Surface Transportation Program Allocation (STP-A) 20% 4,503,584 120,187,131 30,046,783 $150,233,914
SCATS Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program Allocation (CMAQ-A) 20% 2,491,127 66,480,698 16,620,174 $83,100,872
SCATS Transportation Enhancement Program Allocation (TEP-A) 20% 450,358 12,018,702 3,004,676 $15,023,378
County STP (STP-C) 20% 682,719 18,219,720 4,554,930 $22,774,650
County Bridge Program (BR-C) 20% 1,282,180 34,217,533 8,554,383 $42,771,917
Municipal Bridge Program (City BR) 20% 266,427 7,110,136 1,777,534 $8,887,671
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 10% 2,231,327 59,547,416 6,616,385 $66,163,801
Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC)* 20% 9,991,016 266,630,210 66,657,552 $333,287,762
Local Major Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 20% - 0 $0
State Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 20% - 0 $0
Major High Cost Bridge (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 20% - 0 $0
Railway-Highway Crossings (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 10% - 0 $0
Federal Discretionary Funding (no projects scheduled, see page 5 discussion) 0% - 0 $0
FTA Section 5307 - Urbanized Grant Formula 20% 4,127,843 110,159,732 27,539,933 $137,699,665
FTA Section 5309 - Bus and Bus Facilities 20% 750,000 20,015,247 5,003,812 $25,019,059
FTA Section 5310 - Specialized Transportation Program 20% 169,690 4,528,516 1,132,129 $5,660,646
FTA Section 5316 - Job and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) 20% 135,931 3,627,590 906,898 $4,534,488
- 198 -
Minimum FY 2009 2009-2030 2009-2030 SCATS 2009-2030 Financial Resources Forecast: Estimated Totals with Match TOTAL Allocation Subtotal Local Match Minimum Required Match Required
FTA Section 5317 - New Freedom Program 20% 84,949 2,267,034 566,758 $2,833,792
Federal $1,383,545,013 Match $172,981,947 $1,556,526,960
- 199 -
Appendix C: Environmental Justice Assessment
Introduction Recognizing that the impacts of federal programs and activities may raise questions of fairness to affected groups, President Clinton, on February 11, 1994, signed Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The U.S. EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice defines EJ as follows: “The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio- economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.”
While not a new requirement, EJ amplifies the provisions found in the three-decade old Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory practices in programs and activities receiving federal funds. The transportation planning regulations issued in October 1993 require that metropolitan transportation planning processes be consistent with Title VI. EJ strengthens Title VI by requiring federal agencies to make achieving EJ part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.
SCATS devised a process to assess the impacts of the Transportation Plan on the target populations.
Target Population Demographic data were sought regarding target populations including minorities, low-income, minorities in poverty, and households without cars to respond to the direction of Executive Order 12898. These target populations were researched for the transportation study area of SCATS, which includes all of Stark County. The data set used to compile these statistics was the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP).
SCATS used Traffic Zone data to identify target populations. Traffic Zones are the basic unit of analysis for the SCATS transportation planning process. Census tracts and block groups were both too large an area for the detailed analysis necessary. Census blocks would provide very detailed information, but some demographic information is not available at the block level.
200
The map on the next page shows the target areas. There are 607 traffic zones in the SCATS area in the CTPP. Averages of regional totals for the various target populations were used as thresholds to identify concentrations of these populations in the study area. All Zones with minority populations greater than 12.0% of the total population or households in poverty of greater that 13% were identified as target areas. These numbers are slightly higher than the rates in the county as a whole. Two hundred seven (207) traffic zones were identified using the geographic information system (GIS).
The following table provides some statistics comparing the target zones to the total county population.
Environmental All Minority Poverty Both Target Per Cent Justice Target Zones Zones Zones Minority Zones of Zones & (Either) County Poverty Number of 607 151 157 101 207 34.1% Zones Population 378,111 81,549 75,024 56,979 99,594 26.3% Whites 341,549 55,312 53,513 36,218 72,607 21.3% Non-White 36,562 26,237 21,511 20,761 26,987 73.8% Black 27,067 21,752 18,093 17644 22,201 82.0% Households 148,398 32,042 29,936 22,332 39,646 26.7% Households 13,714 6,821 7,742 6,090 8,473 61.8% Below Poverty Percent 9.24% 21.29% 25.86% 27.27% 21.37% Below Poverty Dwelling Units 156,896 35,503 32,777 24,813 43,467 27.7% Zero Vehicle 10,399 5,391 5,420 4,436 6,375 61.3% Households
The target zones represent 34 % of the total number of zones in the county, up slightly from the EJ analysis done from the 1990 Census figures. They have only 26.3% of the county population but include 73.8% of the non-white population and 82 % of the black population. The target areas contain 61.8% of the households below poverty. The target areas include 61.3% of the households with no vehicles available. Zero vehicle households were initially considered in screening for target areas but were rejected since small numbers of these households were scattered all over the county.
201
202
In examining the map, it is apparent that most of the target zones are clustered around the older cities of Canton, Massillon and Alliance. There are however a number of zones located in the more rural parts of the county. A number of targeted zones in the more suburban areas have a higher than average numbers of older adults.
Travel Time to Work One measure of the impacts of the transportation system on target populations is how well these populations are served by the system. SCATS complied travel times for target zones versus the county as a whole. The data came from census question “Length of your travel time to work”. The average travel time includes trips by all modes. Travel times to work in minutes All Zones Target Zones
All Workers 16.56 16.17
Workers who drove alone 16.03 14.6
Workers who took transit 13.58 9.07
There is very little difference in the mean travel time to work for the county versus the targeted areas. There is greater difference for those that travel by transit. The timesaving for target zones are due, in part, to the central location of these zones. This is offset somewhat by the tendency to have more transit trips from the target areas. Therefore SCATS concludes that the transportation system serves target areas as well as it serves the non-target areas.
Impact Analysis The executive order requires evaluation of the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but not be limited to: • Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death • Air, noise and water pollution and soil contamination • Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources • Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values • Destruction or disruption of community cohesion • Destruction or disruption of a community’s economic vitality • Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services • Vibration • Adverse employment effects • Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non-profit organizations • Increased traffic congestion
203
• Isolation • Exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community • The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits
The burden on the transportation planner is to gage the impact of the transportation program as a whole on target areas scattered across the entire region and determine whether there is disproportionate negative impacts. At the Plan stage of project development, project scopes are still being defined and there often is little information upon which to base an impact analysis.
There are however, clearly types of projects that can be expected to have the greatest impacts. Resurfacing projects, bridge replacements, signal projects, and other system preservation projects generally have few serious adverse impacts and benefits tend to accrue to the same people impacted. The projects such as new roadways, major widening projects, roadway relocations and new interchanges all may generate adverse impacts. Impacts from these projects generally fall most seriously on adjacent property, while the benefits accrue to the public at large.
SCATS concentrated on these projects in order to assess the impacts on the target areas. One characteristic these projects share is the need to acquire right of way. Therefore, SCATS identified those Plan project types which require additional right of way. These projects are listed in the table below:
Name Description Cost (2009) Cherry & Locust Intersection Improvement $912,000 Cleveland-45th to Mill Widen to 3 lanes $3,190,000 Frank-Fulton to University Widen to 5 lanes $2,826,000 Hills & Dales-Wales to Sir Thomas Widen to 4 lanes $6,050,000 Hills & Dales-Woodlawn to Whipple Widen to 5 lanes $2,000,000 Main-Louisville WCL to SR-44 Widen to 3 lanes $4,111,375 Market-4 intersections Intersection Improvement $2,200,000 Richville-Nave to Southway 2-Lane Improvement $571,200 SR-619 & McCallum Roundabout $880,000 US-30 & Broadway Intersection Improvement $720,000 Waynesburg & SR-183 Intersection Improvement $610,000 Waynesburg-17th to US-30 Widen to 3 lanes $1,890,000 Werner Church Realignment New road $2,450,000 20th NW & Lakeside Intersection Improvement $250,000
204
30th NE & Harrisburg Intersection Improvement $500,000 Applegrove realignment New road $2,000,000 Edison-Cleveland to SR-43 Widen to 4 lanes $9,390,000 Frank-Mega to Applegrove Widen to 3 lanes $3,160,000 Fulton & Park Intersection Improvement $742,000 Fulton-Wales to Brunnerdale Widen to 5 lanes $3,600,000 Hankins-Wales to Louisa Marie 2-Lane Improvement $1,800,000 Harmont-SR-153 to US-62 Widen to 4 lanes $2,800,000 I-77 & Gracemont Interchange New road $10,340,000 Jackson-Richville to Lincoln Way 2-Lane Improvement $5,200,000 Jackson-Richville to Lincoln Way New road $5,200,000 Main & Tremont Intersection Improvement $1,000,000 Main St Connector New road $1,000,000 Market & Mt Pleasant Intersection Improvement $200,000 Market-55th to Applegrove Widen to 4 lanes $9,730,000 Market-Applegrove to Mt Pleasant Widen to 4 lanes $3,500,000 Middlebranch & State Intersection Improvement $500,000 Pittsburg-Applegrove to Shuffel Widen to 3 lanes $850,000 Strausser & Lake O'Springs Intersection Improvement $500,000 Strausser & SR-236 Intersection Improvement $600,000 Strausser & High Mill Intersection Improvement $500,000 Trump & Georgetown Intersection Improvement $750,000 US-30-Trump to SR-44 New road $28,020,000 US-30 Connector-SR-44 to Miday New road $4,000,000 Wales-Hills & Dales to Portage Widen to 4 lanes $8,935,000 Wales-Lincoln Way to Hills & Dales Widen to 3 lanes $4,500,000 Wales & Lake Intersection Improvement $1,500,000 Walnut-Southway to 16th 2-Lane Improvement $450,000 Whipple-Applegrove to Shuffel Widen to 5 lanes $840,000 12th & Market Intersection Improvement $350,000 Alabama & Stanwood Intersection Improvement $400,000 Beach & Beechwood Intersection Improvement $300,000
205
Beeson & Freshley Intersection Improvement $400,000 Canal Fulton Connector New road $2,750,000 Fohl-Navarre to I-77 2-Lane Improvement $5,230,000 Fohl & Shepler Church Intersection Improvement $300,000 Jackson-Lincoln Way to Perry Widen to 3 lanes $4,000,000 Lincoln Way & Main Intersection Improvement $1,000,000 Mahoning-Patterson to Armour 2-Lane Improvement $3,950,000 Mahoning-Patterson to Armour New road $3,950,000 Navarre-SR-21 to Sterilite Widen to 3 lanes $2,000,000 Sterilite Extension New road $4,000,000 Reno Extension New road $250,000 SR-44 Bypass New road $4,815,000 SR-44 Bypass 2-Lane Improvement $4,815,000 Trump-SR-43 to New US-30 New road $4,000,000 Trump-SR-43 to New US-30 2-Lane Improvement $4,000,000 Trump-Lincoln Way to SR-153 Widen to 4 lanes $6,900,000 US-30-SR-44 to SR-183 New road $48,600,000 US-30-SR-183 to East Rochester New road $4,300,000 US-62 at Harmont New road $5,000,000 US-62-Market to Columbus New road $15,000,000 US-62-SR-225 to Salem New road $8,000,000 Wales-Portage to Summit County Widen to 4 lanes $3,850,000 Whipple-Shuffel to Mt Pleasant New road $2,500,000 12th Bridge 2-Lane Improvement $2,500,000 Cleveland & Mt Pleasant Intersection Improvement $1,500,000 Columbus, Beeson & Reeder Roundabout $800,000 Applegrove-Marquardt to Market Widen to 4 lanes $3,249,000 Whipple-Southway to 13th 2-Lane Improvement $3,500,000 Whipple-Southway to 13th New road $3,500,000 55th-Birmingham to Harmont 2-Lane Improvement $1,500,000 12th-Monument to Maple 2-Lane Improvement $9,000,000 Ravenna & Mapleton Intersection Improvement $500,000
206
Impacted zones were then identified using GIS software. Any project within 0.05 mile of any part of an Impact Project was assumed to be an impacted zone. The map on the next page shows the impacted zones and impact projects. One hundred fifty-nine of the 607 zones were identified as impacted zones. Of these impacted zones, 42 were target zones. The following table summarizes the economic justice analysis of The Plan highway projects.
Environmental Justice Target % Zones acted p All Zones All Zones All Impacted Zones All Impacted Target Zones Target Zones Im Per Cent of all zones Per Cent of Target Zones 607 159 207 42 26% 20% Population 378,111 149,089 99,594 26,675 39% 27%
Whites 341,549 90% 137,679 92% 72,607 19,436 40% 27% Non-White 36,562 10% 11,410 8% 26,987 7,240 31% 27%
Black 27,067 8% 7,939 5% 22,201 5,758 29% 26% Households 148,398 57,178 39,646 10,565 39% 27%
Households 13,714 9% 3,857 7% 8,473 1,980 28% 23% Below Poverty
Dwelling Units 156,896 59,848 43,467 11,470 38% 26%
Zero Vehicle 10,399 7% 2,546 4% 6,375 1,362 24% 21% Households
Only 22% of target zones were impacted versus 26% of all zones. The impacted zones contained a smaller percent of minority populations (31%) than total population (39%). Impact zones contained a smaller percent of households below poverty level (28%) than total households (39%).
Only 7 % of households in impacted zones are below the poverty level compared to 9% of all zones. Only 4 % of households in impacted zones are zero vehicle households compared to 7% of all zones. In conclusion, SCATS analysis does not show any pattern of disproportionate adverse impacts on target zones or populations.
207
208
209
Appendix D: Environmental Mitigation, Analysis, and Consultation
Introduction SAFETEA-LU, the Federal authorization of the surface transportation program approved in August of 2005, incorporated new requirements for consultation and environmental mitigation under 23 CFR 450.322. MPO’s are required to include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities in transportation plans as well as consult with additional Federal, State and local land management, wildlife and regulatory agencies, and with environmental advocacy groups.
This addendum contains three sections: a discussion of environmental mitigation activities; identification of environmental resource agencies and others that will be consulted; and a discussion of projects that could potentially require environmental mitigation.
Environmental Mitigation Activities Environmental mitigation activities are actions that serve to minimize, or compensate for, the impacts to, or disruption of, elements of the human and natural environment associated with the implementation of transportation projects. The activities can include direct actions and also strategies, policies, programs, and/or activities that can mitigate or eliminate impacts. Environmental mitigation strategies and activities can also be regional in scope, and may not necessarily address potential project-level impacts.
There are three primary types of mitigation that may be necessary to remediate impacts of transportation projects: wetland (including streams), noise, and storm water runoff.
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has adopted project mitigation guidelines to meet requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). The USACE mitigation guidelines are outlined in USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 02-02, dated December 24, 2002. Ohio EPA guidelines for wetland mitigation are included in the Ohio Administrative Code Sections 3745-1-50 through 3745-1-54, "The Wetland Water Quality Standards." Stream mitigation is accomplished on a case-by-case basis as required and as negotiated between the USACE, the OEPA, and the ODOT Office of Environmental Services, as formal rules have not been adopted at this time.
Wetland Mitigation Wetlands are areas where the water table stands near, at, or above the land surface for at least part of the year and are defined according to the degree of wetness, soil condition, and vegetation
210
supported by existing conditions. Wetlands are important elements of a watershed, providing benefits such as water retention, which lessens flooding; aquifer recharge areas that replenish drinking water supplies; wildlife habitat; and attenuation of adverse environmental conditions such as water pollution. Wetland mitigation and the application of best management practices (BMPs) are implemented primarily to protect the functions of natural wetlands from the impacts of urban stormwater discharges and other sources of runoff or to replace wetland areas impacted by construction.
Mitigation banking is defined in the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Bank Guidance) (60 Federal Register 58605-58614) as "...wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and in exceptional circumstances, preservation undertaken expressly for the purpose of compensating for the unavoidable wetland losses in advance of development actions when such compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be environmentally beneficial. It typically involves the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into one large contiguous site. Units of restored, created, enhanced or preserved wetlands are defined as ‘credits’, which may be subsequently withdrawn to offset ‘debits’ incurred at a project development site."
The Wilderness Center, Inc., a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization, operates a USACE approved mitigation bank, the Brewster Wetland Mitigation Bank, which was approved for 46.8 wetland preservation credits in May, 2004. The Brewster Wetland is located in Brewster, Ohio along Sugar Creek, within the USACE Huntington District Boundary Tuscarawas River Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 05040001). The wetland is a high-quality category 3 forested wetland.
The Wilderness Center, Inc. is also approved to offer stream mitigation under its in-lieu fee agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The Center acquired stream frontage along the Sugar Creek in southwestern Stark County and can use this land for stream mitigation with the approval of the agencies.
Noise Mitigation Noise mitigation is considered in freeway projects that add additional capacity, lanes or include pavement replacement with changes in materials (such as from asphalt to concrete). These projects require an investigation for potential noise level increases and may require mitigation with noise walls or other buffers if USDOT noise thresholds are exceeded.
The level of highway traffic noise is dependent upon a number of conditions including traffic volume, speed, type of vehicle, pavement material and condition, and gradient and includes a mix of tire, exhaust and engine sounds. Generally, loudness increases with heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and an increasing proportion of trucks to cars, changes in pavement from asphalt to concrete and increases in gradient.
- 211 -
Noise reduction measures can include creating buffer zones, constructing barriers, and planting vegetation. Buffer zones are undeveloped open spaces which border a highway located within areas exceeding noise limits. Noise barriers are structures built to reduce the volume of sound between the highway and impacted adjacent lands and can consist of earth mounds, vegetation, and/or vertical walls. Determining the type of mitigation, if required, includes considering a mixture of local desires, the cost and type of material available, the right-of-way availability or acquisition cost required for the installation of the mitigation measure, and future maintenance costs. Additional factors to be taken into account include possible impacts to air circulation, ambient light conditions and the possible reflection of sound.
Storm Water Mitigation Three major methods of storm water mitigation are generally accepted- grass swales, vegetative filter strips, and bio-retention. Post-construction storm water management in both new developments and areas being redeveloped can make use of grass swales (grassed waterways) in median and drainage ditches as a low cost means to slow water flow.
Vegetative filter strips and buffers are areas of land with vegetative cover that are designed to accept runoff from upstream development and can utilize existing land areas or be constructed to maximize water retention.
Bio-retention manages and treats storm water runoff using specific soils and vegetation in order to filter runoff stored within retention areas. This method combines physical filtering and adsorption with biological processes to maximize water retention and to treat surface runoff.
ODOT has adopted storm water mitigation policies and developed a detailed Storm Water Management Plan to ensure that BMPs are used in ODOT-sponsored projects and to meet OEPA regulations and requirements of the OEPA Statewide Construction Permit. Standard designs for BMPs can be found in the ODOT Location and Design Manual and include practices such as energy dissipaters in open ditches, storm water retention ponds as required by the Clean Water Act for construction sites over one acre, and over-wide ditches.
Environmental Resource Agencies SAFETEA-LU emphasizes consultation with environmental resource agencies in the transportation planning process. As a result, SCATS coordinates with a number of Federal, State, and local land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, historic preservation, advocacy groups and other regulatory agencies.
Those in the following list have been identified as agencies dealing primarily with natural and other environmental conditions and are notified of the availability of the draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Transportation Plan. These agencies and others are
- 212 -
encouraged to review the TIP and Transportation Plan and comment to SCATS on any potential environmental impacts that may result from the projects and to provide recommendations for these documents.
- 213 -
[email protected] Environmental Agencies Contact List
FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Geological Survey
Ohio District Federal Highway Administration 975 W. Third Ave. Environmental Program Specialist Columbus, OH 43212 200 N. High St., Rm. 328 [email protected] Columbus, OH 43215-2408
U.S. National Park Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Regional Office Huntington District 1709 Jackson St. 502 Eighth St. Omaha, NE 68102 Huntington, WV 25701-2070 [email protected] [email protected]
STATE AGENCIES U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Massillon Service Center Division of Natural Areas and 2650 Richville Dr. SE, Suite 103 Preserves/Scenic Rivers Massillon, OH 44646 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. F1 Andy Bayham, District Conservationist Columbus, OH 43229 [email protected] [email protected]
U.S. Environmental Protection ODNR Division of Real Estate and Agency Region 5 Land Management 77 W. Jackson Blvd. 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. C4 Chicago, IL 60604 Columbus, OH 43229 [email protected] [email protected]
US Fish and Wildlife Service ODNR Division of Water - Floodplain Reynoldsburg Field Office 6950 Americana Parkway Management Program 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. B Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 Columbus, OH 43229
- 214 -
[email protected] Lazarus Government Center 50 W. Town St., Suite 700 ODNR Division of Mineral Resources Columbus, OH 43215 Management [email protected] 3575 Forest Lake Dr. Suite 150 Uniontown, OH 44685 OEPA Source Water Assessment and [email protected] Protection Program Division of Drinking and Ground Waters ODNR Northeast Ohio Scenic Rivers P.O. Box 1049 District Office 50 W. Town St., Suite 700 11027 Hopkins Rd. Columbus, OH 43215 Garrettsville, OH 44231 [email protected] [email protected]
Ohio EPA Northeast District Office ODNR Wildlife District Three 2110 E. Aurora Rd. 912 Portage Lakes Dr. Twinsburg, OH 44087 Akron, OH 44319 [email protected] [email protected] Ohio Historic Preservation Office Ohio Department of Transportation 567 E. Hudson St. (ODOT) Office of Environmental Services Columbus, OH 43211-1030 1980 W. Broad St. [email protected] Columbus, OH 43223 [email protected] REGIONAL/COUNTY AGENCIES
ODOT Scenic Byway Coordinator Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., 2nd Floor P.O. Box 349 Columbus, OH 43223 New Philadelphia, OH 44663 Paul F Staley, Section Chief [email protected] [email protected]
Stark County Engineer Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Central District 5165 Southway St. SW Office Canton, OH 44706
- 215 -
Michael Rehfus, County Engineer [email protected] American Electric Power 301 Cleveland Ave. SW Stark County Health Department PO Box 24400 3951 Convenience Circle NW Canton, OH 44701-4400 Canton, OH 44718 Mike Burnell William Franks, Health Commissioner [email protected] Aqua Ohio 870 3rd St. NW Stark County Park District Massillon, OH 44647 1500 Tyner Street NW Don Snyder Canton, OH 44708 [email protected] SBC 50 West Bowery St. Stark County Sanitary Engineer Akron, OH 44308 1701 Mahoning Rd. NE Doug Culp Canton, OH 44705 [email protected] Columbia Gas Company 7080 Fry Road Stark County Subdivision Engineer Middleburg Heights, OH 44130 201 3rd St NE, Suite 201 Dave Gulyas Canton, OH 44702-1211 Joe Underwood Dominion East Ohio [email protected] 320 Springside Drive Suite 320 Akron, OH 44333 Stark Soil & Water Conservation Mary J. Long, Engineering Review District 2650 Richville Drive SE, Suite 103 Ohio Edison Company Massillon, OH 44646 Eastern Region Engineering Julie Berbari 1441 S. Ellsworth Rd. [email protected] Salem, OH 44460 Bill Hoover UTILITY AGENCIES
- 216 -
Ohio Edison Company Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition Central Division Engineering 520 S. Main St., Suite 2452 1910 W Market St., Building #1 Akron, OH 44311 Akron, OH 44313 [email protected] Steve Vanchoff Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Midwest ADVOCACY GROUPS AND Regional Office OTHERS 30 Liberty St. Canal Winchester, OH 43110 Buckeye Trail Association [email protected] P.O Box 254 Worthington, OH 43085 Wilderness Center, Inc. [email protected] PO Box 202 9877 Alabama Ave. SW Buckeye Trail Association, Massillon Wilmot, OH 44689-0202 Trail Section Gordon Maupin, Executive Director rd 717 East 3 St. [email protected] Dover, OH 44622 Mary Hamilton, Supervisor
Canton Audubon Society P.O. Box 9586 Canton, OH 44711-9586 Alan Dolan, President [email protected]
- 217 -
Potential Environmental Impacts of Projects Projects listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Transportation Plan that will acquire additional rights-of way have been reviewed for potential impacts on eight environmental conditions. Projects range from those having the potential of major impacts, such as building new roads or freeway interchanges, to those having minimal potential impacts, such as intersection improvements. Repaving and rebuilding projects, including replacing bridges, were not reviewed. ODOT Technical services assisted in providing data layers for use with the Geographic Information System. This data was then reviewed for proximity to proposed projects. The environmental conditions reviewed were: • Threatened and Endangered Species, including State and Federally listed threatened or endangered species of plants, animals, and insects, etc. Only location data was provided by ODOT/ODNR in order to protect species from possible collection, capture, or hunting. A 1,000’ buffer range was used to review this category. • Potential Indiana Bat Habitat- identification of “primary” high quality potential Indiana Bat habitat, according to forest types; proximity to water, other forested areas and parkland or conservation areas. There have been no “captures” or identification of Indiana Bats within Stark County or within their 5 miles designated habitat/foraging zone. Thus, typical actions required to fulfill NEPA requirements, unless an area is identified as a potential high quality habitat, is the cutting of trees outside of the possible habitation and nesting period (tree removal between September 15 and April 15). Projects were reviewed at a 100’ buffer for woodland areas. • National Register Sites and Districts as identified by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) and national Park Service. A 1,000’ buffer is used to identify historic structures and districts. SCATS no longer has the ability to review archeological resources since the OHPO altered their online mapping to a subscription service. However, ODOT’s review of projects includes an archeological review in order to fulfill NEPA requirements. • USEPA Superfund Sites as identified from the USEPA CERCLIS listing. A 1,000’ buffer range was used to review this category. • 100-Year Flood Plain as determined by FEMA Flood layer converted to GIS by ODNR. Projects were listed if they intersect the 100-year flood plain. • Reservoirs and Lakes. Projects were listed if the fall within a 500’ buffer of a lake or reservoir. • Impacted Streams, i.e. those exceeding established Total Maximum Daily Loads set by the OEPA and identified by 11 digit Hydrologic Unit Code and ID code. All listed rivers and perennial streams are identified in this category. OEPA has not established limits and impacted areas at this time, thus all projects intersecting or within 500’ of streams and rivers are identified.
- 218 -
• Wetland and Woody Wetland Areas as identified by ODNR and USFWS. Projects were listed they fall within a 100’ buffer. • Parklands and Conservation Lands such as metropolitan, city, and township parks; state parks, state managed wildlife areas, privately held conservation areas, other open space areas, etc. These locations have been identified by ODNR, SCRPC, and other local governmental agencies within Stark County. A 500’ buffer was used for this review.
It should be noted that there are no identified wild, scenic, or recreational rivers in Stark County, thus this category was not reviewed. Only a small portion of the Mahoning River within Stark County is eligible for designation as a wild, scenic or recreational river.
Projects identified as having potential impacts are shown in Table 1, with the exception of potential Indiana Bat habitat. Almost all of the projects fall within a 100’ buffer of a woodland area (62 out of 78 projects) and can be assumed to require remediation if exfoliating bark trees are present.
TABLE 1: Projects Having a Possible Impact Possible Impact Category
Project Name Type of Project Endangered/Threatened Species Endangered/Threatened Sites Listed Register National Sites EPA Superfund Floodplain Lakes and Reservoirs Perennial Streams/Rivers Wetland Woody and Wetland Parks and Natural Areas 12th & Market Intersection Imp. x 12th Bridge 2-Lane Imp. x x x x x 12th-Monument to Maple 2-Lane Imp. x x x x x x 20th NW & Lakeside Intersection Imp. x x x 30th NE & Harrisburg Intersection Imp. 55th-Birmingham to Harmont 2-Lane Imp. x x x Alabama & Stanwood Intersection Imp. x x Applegrove realignment New road x Applegrove-Marquardt to Market Widen to 4 lanes x x x x
- 219 -
TABLE 1: Projects Having a Possible Impact Possible Impact Category
Project Name Type of Project Endangered/Threatened Species Endangered/Threatened Sites Listed Register National Sites EPA Superfund Floodplain Lakes and Reservoirs Perennial Streams/Rivers Wetland Woody and Wetland Parks and Natural Areas Beach & Beechwood Intersection Imp. x x x Beeson & Freshley Intersection Imp. x x x Canal Fulton Connector New road x x x Cherry & Locust Intersection Imp. x Cleveland & Mt Pleasant Intersection Imp. Cleveland-45th to Mill Widen to 3 lanes x Columbus, Beeson & Reeder Roundabout Edison-Cleveland to SR-43 Widen to 4 lanes x x x Fohl & Shepler Church Intersection Imp. Fohl-Navarre to I-77 2-Lane Imp. x x x Frank-Fulton to University Widen to 5 lanes x x Frank-Mega to Applegrove Widen to 3 lanes x x Fulton & Park Intersection Imp. x x x x Fulton-Wales to Brunnerdale Widen to 5 lanes x x x Hankins-Wales to Louisa Marie 2-Lane Imp. x x x x Harmont-SR-153 to US-62 Widen to 4 lanes Hills & Dales-Wales to Sir Thomas Widen to 4 lanes x x x Hills & Dales-Woodlawn to Whipple Widen to 5 lanes x x I-77 & Gracemont Interchange New road x x Jackson-Lincoln Way to Perry Widen to 3 lanes x x Jackson-Richville to Lincoln Way 2-Lane Imp. x x x Jackson-Richville to Lincoln Way New road x x x Lincoln Way & Main Intersection Imp. x Mahoning-Patterson to Armour 2-Lane Imp. x x x x Mahoning-Patterson to Armour New road x x x x
- 220 -
TABLE 1: Projects Having a Possible Impact Possible Impact Category
Project Name Type of Project Endangered/Threatened Species Endangered/Threatened Sites Listed Register National Sites EPA Superfund Floodplain Lakes and Reservoirs Perennial Streams/Rivers Wetland Woody and Wetland Parks and Natural Areas Main & Tremont Intersection Imp. Main St Connector New road x x x Main-Louisville WCL to SR-44 Widen to 3 lanes x x x x Market & Mt Pleasant Intersection Imp. x x x Market-4 intersections Intersection Imp. x x x x Market-55th to Applegrove Widen to 4 lanes x x Market-Applegrove to Mt Pleasant Widen to 4 lanes x x x x Middlebranch & State Intersection Imp. Navarre-SR-21 to Sterilite Widen to 3 lanes x Pittsburg-Applegrove to Shuffel Widen to 3 lanes x Ravenna & Mapleton Intersection Imp. x Reno Extension New road Richville-Nave to Southway 2-Lane Imp. SR-44 Bypass New road x x x x x x SR-44 Bypass 2-Lane Imp. x x x x x x SR-619 & McCallum Roundabout x x Sterilite Extension New road x x x Strausser & High Mill Intersection Imp. x x Strausser & Lake O'Springs Intersection Imp. x Strausser & SR-236 Intersection Imp. x Trump & Georgetown Intersection Imp. x x Trump-Lincoln Way to SR-153 Widen to 4 lanes x x x Trump-SR-43 to New US-30 New road x x Trump-SR-43 to New US-30 2-Lane Imp. x x US-30 & Broadway Intersection Imp. x
- 221 -
TABLE 1: Projects Having a Possible Impact Possible Impact Category
Project Name Type of Project Endangered/Threatened Species Endangered/Threatened Sites Listed Register National Sites EPA Superfund Floodplain Lakes and Reservoirs Perennial Streams/Rivers Wetland Woody and Wetland Parks and Natural Areas US-30 Connector-SR-44 to Miday New road x US-30-SR-183 to East Rochester New road x x x x US-30-SR-44 to SR-183 New road x x x x x US-30-Trump to SR-44 New road x x x x x US-62 at Harmont New road US-62-Market to Columbus New road x x US-62-SR-225 to Salem New road x x x x Wales & Lake Intersection Imp. Wales-Hills & Dales to Portage Widen to 4 lanes x x x x Wales-Lincoln Way to Hills & Dales Widen to 3 lanes x x x Wales-Portage to Summit County Widen to 4 lanes x x x Walnut-Southway to 16th 2-Lane Imp. Waynesburg & SR-183 Intersection Imp. x Waynesburg-17th to US-30 Widen to 3 lanes x x Werner Church Realignment New road x x Whipple-Applegrove to Shuffel Widen to 5 lanes x x x Whipple-Shuffel to Mt Pleasant New road x x Whipple-Southway to 13th 2-Lane Imp. x x Whipple-Southway to 13th New road x x COLUMN TOTAL 78 5 10 7 23 37 48 44 6
While most impacts can be properly mitigated by ordinary measures, others cannot, or might require corrective measures requiring more than ordinary measures. During this review process several projects were identified that might require more extensive measure. This includes projects in proximity to endangered species, buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and USEPA identified superfund sites. Thirteen
- 222 -
maps identifying these projects and possible impact categories were created to assist in reviewing the need for mitigation.
Endangered Species Maps 1, 2, and 3 identify potential impacts to endangered species. Of these three maps, only map 3 indicates a new project directly impacting an area identified by ODOT/ODNR as an area with an endangered species. Maps 1 and 2 have projects either at the extreme range of the buffer, or are in an area that has subsequently undergone private development.
Historic Properties and Districts Maps 4, 5, 6, and 7 identify potential impacts to historic properties and/or districts. Of these three maps, only map 6 and 7 indicate a potential impact due to proximity and the project type. Map 6 shows the Lake Township School (National Register reference #76001528) which is directly adjacent to an intersection improvement project. Map 7 indicates another intersection improvement project that is located in the Canal Fulton Historic District (National Register reference #82001488). Additional information on these locations can be found at the OHPO online search tool at http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/index.aspx .
Superfund Sites The remainder of the maps show projects located in proximity to identified USEPA Superfund sites. Additional information on these sites can be found at the USEPA Superfund website search tool at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm .
- 223 -
- 224 -
- 225 -
- 226 -
- 227 -
- 228 -
- 229 -
- 230 -
- 231 -
Appendix E: Policy Committee Adoption Resolution
- 232 -
SECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
- 233 -
A. PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
The challenge towards planned growth in Stark County is that it must deal with a wide range of development contexts across the county, from very rural to urban. Each political subdivision has its own zoning code as well, which additionally complicates implementing a comprehensive plan. It is very common for a jurisdiction seeking smart growth ideas to work on policies first and codes later; and it is not always easy to “line up” codes and policies. While policy language is crafted by the planning department, codes are written and implemented by a wide variety of other departments that may have different priorities or different orientations. 33 In this regard, Stark County is no different than many other jurisdictions. It is the desire of the SCRPC that each jurisdiction will review this 2030 plan and seek to update their zoning codes to reinforce or complement the policies presented here. This plan contains observations and recommendations regarding issues, projects and strategies to improve life in Stark County as time marches on. It is our hope that the residents of Stark County in 2030 will look back with gratitude for the vision shown in 2005 in the creation of this 2030 Plan.
The future growth of residential land use in the County is projected to keep pace with population growth throughout the plan period, reaching 73,282 acres (20.2%) by 2030. It is expected, however, that much of the growth will be concentrated in the northern portion of the County in Jackson and Lake Townships. Commercial land use in the County includes retail, office, service and other businesses. Currently, it covers 6,979 acres (1.9%) of the total land area in the County. It is not expected to change much through the plan period. However, as new residential areas are developed, neighborhood commercial facilities would be developed alongside. It is projected to reach 8,344 acres (2.3%) by 2030.
Currently industrial use constitutes 4,932 acres (1.4%). The percentage of land used for industrial purposes has not changed much since 1988. This can be explained by the decline in manufacturing activities since the 1970s and the emergence of high-tech industries that use comparatively less floor space. The situation is not expected to change significantly throughout
- 234 -
the plan period, for the plan seeks to encourage the reuse of existing industrial facilities. Industrial land use is projected to cover 5,442 acres (1.5%) by 2030.
Transportation, Communication & Utilities land use includes airfields, railway yards, highway right-of-way, truck terminals, utility sub-stations, public or private utility offices and plants. This category of land use has been growing consistently from 1965 to 2004. Significant changes are not expected to occur within the plan period since most of the basic and important road infrastructures of the County have already been constructed. However, as additional lands are put into residential use there will be the need to service these new areas with roads and utilities. This category of land use is projected to constitute 21,404 acres (5.9%) in 2030.
Land in the park and open space category is projected to grow from the current figure of 8,928 acres (2.5%) to 10,158 acres (2.8%) in 2030. Although public parklands will increase throughout the length of the plan, overall growth of parks is expected to be muted slightly as private open space areas, such as golf courses, succumb to residential and other development. Areas of park growth are not identified on the map as specific locations are not known but will most likely occur in areas identified as “undeveloped rural”.
The public category of land use (schools, government and religious buildings, etc) grew from 5,442 (1.5%) in 1965 to 5,714 acres (1.6%) in 1975 and thereafter has remained roughly the same with current figure of 5,916 acres (1.6%). With some additional schools and public buildings expected to be built in the developing suburban areas to take care for the increase in population, this land use is expected to reach 6,167 acres (1.7%) by 2030.
Undeveloped land constitutes areas outside the developed urban, developed suburban and developing suburban which are not used for agricultural activities. Typical uses of this land are resource extraction, forest, steep slopes, flood plains and other open spaces. Land under this category has been declining since 1975, as areas such as strip mines are reclaimed and put into other land use. It declined from 92,013 acres (25.4%) in 1975 to 88,554 acres (24.4%) in 1988 and further declined to the current figure of 84,696 acres (23.3%). This category of land is expected to decline further to 80,901 acres (22.3) by 2030.
- 235 - e Pontius St v
e A Pontius St
Sweitzer S v P t e ric A e d k St R e a e n G w v o L r a e L An e drews St A n s K m b Edis t on f 2030 Comprehensive Plan s o S w t i n n e u e e r r e v g a S I g t o K A
K w C n Swamp St M o e a h ap t Swam le t p St p u St C A G F e
e r r v een St c u bower v e e h
q e
v A
u k v A Stark County, Ohio A R
A
D
v m
e e P e r
e u
r e l
e
l e r v v
o t o d a F
A
A
d a e
e s c !(
r 3 a Edison Q n St v
p r c !( w
g t e
n A
e e
A
M
o v A
e c v v
o o t St e r M A mou P r Ar
o
S l
o
l i H t
m b e
l
h e
W a r S v µ
m G
i k Sm v ith-Kram l er St it a a l
h A c
i e
-K A s
ramer S k
p o i
M y t ill b
e W
b e
b
M R D l
v r e
i
d h Midwa A y St A
d A
s Vine St Legend t le v Nimishillen Church e
e St e b r
k r F
r a a e n Beeson St Ely St Patterson St v c Beeson St
e !(
M h e v
A e v
t v
A A A
n t A
v d
h n
e c S e Water Storage Facilities e e
r R o e g
H i
r v ighl K u n v and Pa s v i
rk h n
P u A u a A F an St
A Glamorg
C a
p b b M U
r y s h
i n r s t
m i
w
c r e u l
A r
t l a e
v o u A
e e S b e Mt Pl o easant St C i JK E v P
L Well Fields r A M i Mt P t e r leasant St e
e
S A te v
e v S
s h State St e v A
u v e A v G e f
h f t c e d l Wa ywo A od St l r n l D Orion R A i
r St l a e
l
Diamond St h s i
c b M M M k r k
h u 3 r FF Q
h u P Water Treatment Plants
a C e
h r a F h
M Strausser St e A
i i g t g e n e P t
n r c a i S t d d v t v k e r v Fi A s k s ppl K egro ha S QJ3K ve St l S le KJ H Beech St ll vil JJKy S W B
Beech St e
r A b r A e
R r c e i o
e t v t e v u s n v n p v a h C L i l r t A A g o r g C a K A A e
c J A t e A u n
n 3 g Q v t n t s i 7th St v JK A d e S a t S v e r S n o d A a K3 Waste Water Treatment Plants t i l JQ R i t e K v J v
e t A t d r p
S n v a !( Por s a ta e ge St s
g l e c t A a s e S u
r S o
' k e A A s n b
v u e P
r i k P
l e
t h
v l
r n
q m l E O r n A a
r a St
v
K Bayton St Bayton a a J r u 3 i e Q A u l r p e
l
a r P F A i Ea e o ston
e a t A e St l
r k i
S l M M W s k
u F C i db A rook e St d n A c F
i d M Gle i v
n h a v wood k A v St e
s
o k L Intermodal Facility e e N v A
e B K d Sch
J neider St o e K e a X KJ v J o a
v JK w
k e O
A Fo n d
A
v h ridge Rd utterb n g B F R c
W A
d
e l
n r Easthill d d e r St R i D Fu 55th St v s l e n lton Dr s R o Everh e t e ard Rd l i ul u F l k a i
f b e
s r
e B r F m s lu h e R
o v e a Colleges s e C S M
A P e !( e
e r n
d D
a
v O R i Reno Drive rrv D
n ille A d St r r
e t
e a o
e
r v k K f JKJK 44 h th S i t S
v r l
e
A l
e
a A v
e Hospitals e F v d e JK e R t e e JK l v K l v C J G E 38th St JK a p t s Q3 S a 3K n A i R K QJ J3 A K a r Q KJ J a d M H 37th S d t t t p O e n h r i Lesh S a t e t n r h r e r C r k L v S o t ouisv r F i l t r le n u e a S St i m ll h Hills i le & s l D a l n v ales m e e d Rd i A r M v e r o St s th e v h u 0 i A k S 3 30 Edmar S e M th St u t Airfields a r
r n o e v e A t K S L J s p t v B K i v H
J A A 28th St r !( KF n J K e J A
r k A JK JK
v x
o JK v
a K k J s
e o y d F e K JK A W J k ooster r 25th S St t H 3 Q F n v r e e 20 e a y e th S t e a
v v A e
v
a v
v r d K A K3v P JQ 19 A t th St R e S A w th a i A 8 1 Shopping Centers A g e e a Georgetown St
y r n i d n v H n n v
d a n
o a E o !(n h A A K a e 15t J h d St a
e o w s i e
i v M r o e d e v d Ave n k 12th a r v 1 G La St r l e M
v R r A B o o
A s t a K 1 l J S 2th St e B v JK s d r JK in e k a o A k s e t n e K y v a J a H e 1 R n o 1 A k t r h l E H v S w S t v
n G r A o t o c p h
A r t A o 7th e S a t a n c p Regional
r y W o i
J h y C f 4th St e
3 A l e e Q n m h 8t d 3r h St a t d S 6 t C e th v e R e u v e h rr S s y t d t E B W i e G A k t T B Lis K 5 bon St e 6th t u u G r Ave e St h sc i nt S a S t r M s h a o v A Lin e w col em a e n S r r s 3 k c t T rd A S d L r inc e S 9th t S v oln St t r n W F a t y k f e
a a A 3 t f a
11 G th St v S
e t e P a t
Harsh Ave S x r G e L L e A v F i u n M 13th St 11th S v coln a Community t P S s h t R a s v o v a t N D A s k
S A e
e F Walnut A e k 14 v t A 6 h A t S t h k n
P y v d e a e l 1 k l i
r t n a l S s r p 3 a 15th St t Q A d r r F
i e
e i i R B c D r F e m e f v h m i n i South v k L t wa s r g l R y St in r r c e s v r P D u o o !( i
A l t 7 n
e F i a r A u d c r S r b s t 1 i N e O h T v Sinclair S s n r e t e r M Railroads r v ch e r e b D e a i v r ll d l l d V l l a i R e i o e k A e
c w
A M o R v fr D H Millerton Ave D s e e r P in r A
v F u e t a
S d v B n ll a i A r
i M r r i r e i l
s r S A s
t v C
a a b ro A wl a r St Sanitary Landfills t A d B
o R m v
!( n e v e e n a N a n M
e v e ap
e e l u e et t G o G v n A t W C S v S k v t R e G n S A I o e S tan A h w A v t ood S n l k t e d n l l i p r e p i o d o A n a t o a e v e v C i M
m e c a y w s e g b r r i A Fairc Flood Plains rest t y e u St d d e n
v l r P e t e s A t tla a
!( n wn
v u e e B v A R Sa n S D rbaug
d h St a e r b r A B o
D u R Nava rre Rd R S e i o e d n t g m r i R r
g R
s e t u r A p ic Baum St b a e v e h S s E r v v A t e h C il A
l l e Flood Easements l e i c e D v Z s k r i M n St r rd e 53 w r a H a a stfall St i a e Wes l FM tf l M all S F l e t C P l H v W e e hurc JQK3 h St e
A Fohl S n v t i
t X n t F W A e
S e A
v
z Parks Elton St k a v t
e
k r H A y e
r v o
a e JK owe ine Dr J ns y
JKQ3a t L
A v
P M d A
h
n
c
e
n a
r
v u
S Brinker St u
A
h
R
e W Public/Semi-Public
a R
v !( H C a n
F i y A
m o u n es d ttl bu d n a e a r a g h B s g e e b
g s o S s i t v 7th m a St n t a b K r i l JK t JKQ3JK P d D H S e b W u R a e g A S ll r u ur w a t d h r n e S b i D Commercial o g t d t s l r a R S t E e n St le l M W rg Battlesbu Ba tt o D e v w rr La w r A 171 !( e a d v s F a v
a u e
l A t e N v
s
a
A A
u
n Industry v J
h H Do e n c w n e r u in g v u d St s a h o n R C d J a R M D erv u in r r M s
a e e l n t
u v p K Living Areas F JKJ c Q3 s a K e A J h e r W b JK 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 e JK h v s A e t R e h r bro St Miles e o n o S v S k o A s d g S b Q3 s v s Gr t t i s
t e R a L u c S e em a d d ont e A D r n o St r r g
o l d R f G d s D d R A d a n B rv i v n e r Developed Urban u e u F h s r v o i n e a J e A r R l k 3JK e 3 Fe QK b y Ja e M r e r
v e l d D l v A a i r 3 r St on e Harris A E l N v p v r A d y e v r C v A e i d Sa e e n v n 3 du JKJKQ Developed Suburban A JK s e a ky v Dr D S F e F!(Q3 olp hin St p JKQ3 Developing Suburban JKJKJKJKJKJK Rural/Agricultural
B: GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
Regional Land Use Goals: 1. Improve Community & Neighborhood Livability 2. Promote Environmental Quality 3. Coordinate the Development of Transportation Systems and Land Use 4. Strengthen Economic Growth of the Region
Goal 1: Improve Community & Neighborhood Livability
Objectives: 1. Partner with local political subdivisions within Stark County to focus redevelopment on neighborhoods within the urbanized areas and village centers.
Strategies: A. Create a countywide consumer driven Purchase Rehabilitation Homes Sale Program to balance out existing vacancy rates and modest population growth
B. Develop neighborhood revitalization partnerships with the cities of Alliance, Massillon and Canton, promoting infill development and walkable neighborhoods
C. Promote adaptive reuse of buildings to meet changing population needs and use the state’s alternative building codes for rehabilitation of older buildings
D. Strengthen code enforcement programs
E. Promote mixed use downtown centers, including use of design guidelines, specific consideration for building height, style, setbacks, and streetscapes
2. Link provision of infrastructure to direct growth towards areas with adequate sewer and water lines and away from areas without adequate infrastructure.
- 237 -
Strategies: A. Improve deteriorating, aging infrastructure with use of OPWC infrastructure funds
B. Shift allocation of CDBG funding priorities from public operating funds toward infrastructure improvement
C. Limit use of public funds for extension of infrastructure into rural areas solely for the purpose of expanded or new development
D. Encourage use of priority conservation and priority development area designations 3. Provision of additional senior housing choices in a variety of types and locations, including necessary services and facilities, to address the aging population.
Strategies: A. Increase range of housing choice in size, price range and related residential needs (rental units, affordability, assisted living features) through flexible zoning, subdivision regulations and fair housing
B. Create partnerships with various housing providers to promote compact and mixed use development
C. Promote affordable housing through mixed income development, including clustering of homes with reduced parking and yard requirements
D. Make places walkable for aging populations in response to new demographics and special needs
4. Encourage development of facilities related to quality of life issues.
Strategies: A. Structure new subdivisions to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks and trails), tying into the countywide trail system where possible
- 238 -
B. Identify and develop possible community and neighborhood parks, recreation areas, community festival sites, etc.
C. Use trees and other green infrastructure to provide shelter, beauty, urban heat reduction, and separation from automobile traffic
D. Partner with and utilize other agencies technical expertise to improve the quality of life through natural resource conservation and community development
E. Promote cultivation of community gardens in the urban centers
Goal 2: Promote Environmental Quality
Objectives:
1. Encourage protection and preservation of local natural resources.
Strategies: A. Identify and preserve unique and productive farmlands in coordination with appropriate agencies using agricultural zoning, purchase of development rights and/or agricultural easements where indicated
B. Carry out a resource assessment and/or inventory and analysis of open space to guide the use of conservation/scenic easements for open space as a land preservation tool
C. Encourage and provide opportunities for waste reduction, reuse and recycling, and alternative disposal methods in an effort to minimize use of landfills
D. Promote sustainable development as a method of resource protection
E. Investigate funding opportunities for local political subdivisions through various agencies for land conservation, water management and environmental needs
- 239 -
2. Utilize sensitive urban design to incorporate the natural, historical and cultural assets of the region.
Strategies:
A. Improve air quality through implementation of land use development which considers provisions for public transit, bike path/pedestrian ways, and emissions reduction
B. Encourage and assist with historic revitalization efforts in cooperation with local political subdivisions, Ohio Scenic Byways, and other involved agencies
C. Encourage use of federal historic tax credits as appropriate and evaluate urban historic preservation design and amenities initiatives
D. Promote Ohio & Erie Canalway efforts and other similar projects
E. Assist communities with involvement in heritage tourism
F. Promote brownfield redevelopment (see Economic section for more information)
3. Work cooperatively with local political subdivisions to manage surface water, groundwater, and storm water and drainage issues.
Strategies:
A. Promote participation in watershed based planning groups such as Nimishillen Creek Watershed Partners
B. Encourage designation of flood, riparian and groundwater zone districts in local zoning ordinances for stream and groundwater protection including floodplain easements
- 240 -
C. Promote increased regional cooperation through Northeast Ohio Four County Planning & Development Organization (NEFCO) and the Stark County Drainage Task Force
D. Facilitate compliance of local political subdivisions with EPA Nonpoint Source Regulations, including storm water management compliance
Goal 3: Coordinate the Development of Transportation Systems and Land Use
Objectives: 1. Adopt a “system preservation” policy towards Stark County roadways in conjunction with ODOT’s system preservation policy.
Strategies: A. Prioritize funding for system preservation
B. Implement Intelligent Transportation System strategies
2. Provide a multi-modal transportation system which includes various modal options, such as pedestrian access, bikeways, mass transit, rail and air facilities.
Strategies: A. Evaluate and adjust SARTA’s routes to provide adequate transportation to and from suburbs and center cities for jobs
B. Support SARTA’s continued curb to curb programs to serve the aging population
C. Utilize federal transportation dollars for scenic improvements, historic improvements, and pedestrian and bike trails
D. Structure new subdivisions to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks and trails), tying into the countywide trail system where possible (same as Goal 1; 4a)
- 241 -
E. Make places walkable for aging populations in response to new demographics and special needs (same as Goal 1; 3d)
3. Provide a congestion free transportation system.
Strategies: A. Work cooperatively with appropriate agencies to create and implement countywide access management regulations
B. Solve existing congestion before building new roads in undeveloped areas
4. Provide an efficient, safe and economically sound transportation system.
Strategies: A. Identify and target high crash locations for safety improvements
B. Ensure projects are sensitive to social, economic and environmental effects
Goal 4: Strengthen Economic Growth of the Region
Objectives 1. Retain, expand and attract business investment in Stark County. (Stark Development Board Mission Statement)
Strategies: A. Collaborate with appropriate agencies to develop initiatives to target service, R&D high-tech, warehouse and distribution companies as new prospects
B. Encourage the Kent State University – Stark Campus’ Small Business Development Center and other agencies to provide more management training, counseling,
- 242 -
consulting and research services for small firms as a means of improving their economic performance and expand their workforce
C. Evaluate and redesign the existing micro-enterprise programs to provide seed capital in a group lending approach that builds collective social capital
D. Explore methods to create increased economic opportunities in the downtown area of Canton and urban centers in smaller communities, a United Way Compass Goal
E. Identify and protect suitable service land for industrial and commercial development through municipal and township zoning regulations
2. Put to economic use, buildings and lands that may currently contain environmental hazards, which are zoned commercial or industrial.
Strategies: A. Promote the reuse of existing industrial facilities and central city employment through incentives and strategic partnership with appropriate agencies
B. Explore and make application for brownfield cleanup from state and federal sources
C. Package existing brownfield properties and sites and market them to prospective businesses
D. Encourage incentives to developers and business to utilize current facilities and land that is properly zoned before rezoning new land for industrial purposes
3. Improve the educational attainment of workers so as to build and expand quality jobs that pay a living wage, a United Way Compass goal.
Strategies: A. Encourage school-to-work programs that aim at improving the current workers educational attainment and improve their prospects in finding quality jobs
- 243 -
B. Encourage continued collaboration between education institutions and employers so as to provide customized training (specific training based on firms’ requirements)
C. Work with the Employment Source and other agencies to address the needs of both job seekers and employers by bringing into contact individuals seeking employment with businesses needing qualified job candidates
4. Facilitate funding for infrastructure improvements, which promote economic development consistent with sound land use principles.
Strategies: A. Coordinate funding priorities to promote economic development by targeting funds towards infrastructure improvement
B. Promote further local and Stark State College of Technology’s involvement in fuel cell research, technology and manufacturing systems development in support of Ohio’s long- term vision of becoming a manufacturing center for the fuel cell industry and a source of new innovative products
Looking To The Future
The goals, objectives and strategies presented throughout the Plan, and as a group in this section, have been derived from a number of sources. Public involvement was sought in a number of ways as described in the beginning of the Plan. Additionally, information from the United Way Compass Project, The Stark County Consolidated Plan, The Stark County 2020 Land Use Plan, and from a series of technical reports available from SCRPC/SCATS. These include: Environmental Justice, Air Quality Conformity, Financial Plans, and Planning Area Statistics, including forecast variables. Implementation of these goals, objectives and strategies involves more than the SCRPC and county officials. For the Plan to be a success, the support and participation of township, village, and city officials, as well as residents, is needed. This effort towards balanced growth also involves schools, developers, businesses and preservationists. Committing to an ethic of wise growth through environmental stewardship is everyone’s business. SCRPC is available to make presentations regarding the Plan. For further information, please contact SCRPC at 330- 451-7389.
- 244 -
SECTION VI: LAND USE APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: SCRPC LONG RANGE PLANNING SURVEY
Instructions The survey lists 26 land use issues of regional importance in the areas of: ¾ transportation ¾ housing & community development ¾ economic development ¾ public utilities/infrastructure ¾ open space/environment For each of the five areas, a long range goal and various problems have been listed. The problems identified represent major obstacles to reaching the goal.
Part I: Land Use Issues: Within each issue, rank the problems from 1 (most severe) to 5, 6, 7 or 8 (least severe); the number of problems varies between issues.
A. Transportation Goal: To increase the efficient movement of people and goods throughout Stark County. Rank Problem ____ Loss of existing rail lines. ____ Lack of adequate mass transit services. ____ Excessively long commuting distances. ____ Deterioration of roads and bridges. ____ Traffic congestion and delays on major streets & highways. ____ Difficulties due to lack of transportation from homes to places of work. ____ Other: ______
- 245 -
B. Housing & Community Development Goal: To improve the quality and affordability of residential areas in all parts of Stark County. Rank Problem ____ Lack of adequate senior housing choices. ____ Urban sprawl with excessive development costs. ____ Unsafe and/or unattractive living areas. ____ Inadequate neighborhood and community facilities. ____ High cost of new housing in the suburbs. ____ Lack of variety of housing choices in many communities. ____ Other: ______
C. Economic Development Goal: To increase job opportunities and choices for work for all County labor force participants. Rank Problem ____ Abandoned central city industrial and commercial facilities. ____ Inadequate infrastructure capacity to provide for needed job expansion. ____ Lack of suitable zoned/service land for industrial development. ____ Movement of central city employment opportunities to the suburbs. ____ Other______.
D. Public Utilities/Infrastructure Goal: To provide efficient community facilities and services to the residents of Stark County. Rank Problem ____ Lack of central water and sewer in developed areas. ____ Adverse impacts of landfills as solid waste disposal alternatives. ____ Over capacity or under utilized water/sewer facilities. ____ Aging and deterioration of public water and sewer facilities. ____ Other______.
- 246 -
E. Open Space/ Environment Goal: to conserve and protect environmental resources in the community. Rank Problem ____ Inadequate protection of flood plain, groundwater, and riparian (shores of waterways, streams) areas. ____ Low income/minorities bear disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from development. ____ Loss of productive agricultural lands through development. ____ Shortage of parks in developed urban and suburban neighborhoods. ____ Deterioration of air and water quality. ____ Over development of recreation uses in environmentally sensitive lands. ____ Other______.
Part II: Prioritizing Problems: Please rank all 26 issues/problems in order of their severity from 1 (most severe) to 26 (least severe).
Rank Problem ____ Loss of existing rail lines.
____ Lack of adequate mass transit services.
____ Excessively long commuting distances.
____ Deterioration of roads and bridges.
____ Traffic congestion and delays on major streets & highways.
____ Difficulties due to lack of transportation from homes to places of work.
____ Lack of adequate senior housing choices.
____ Urban sprawl with excessive development costs.
____ Unsafe and/or unattractive living areas.
____ Inadequate neighborhood and community facilities.
____ High cost of new housing in the suburbs.
- 247 -
____ Lack of variety of housing choices in many communities.
____ Abandoned central city industrial and commercial facilities.
____ Inadequate infrastructure capacity to provide for needed job expansion.
____ Lack of suitable zoned/service land for industrial development.
____ Movement of central city employment opportunities to the suburbs.
____ Lack of central water and sewer in developed areas.
____ Adverse impacts of landfills as solid waste disposal alternatives.
____ Over capacity or under utilized water/sewer facilities.
____ Aging and deterioration of public water and sewer facilities.
____ Inadequate protection of flood plain, groundwater, and riparian (shores of waterways, streams) areas.
____ Low income/minorities bear disproportionate share of negative environmental
consequences resulting from development.
____ Loss of productive agricultural lands through development.
____ Shortage of parks in developed urban and suburban neighborhoods.
____ Deterioration of air and water quality.
____ Over development of recreation uses in environmentally sensitive lands.
____ Other______.
Part III: Suggested Solutions: Briefly list or outline solution/s which you feel would best resolve the top 3 priority problems you listed in Part II.
1.______
- 248 -
2.______
3.______
Part IV: Other Regional Problems: Please add any other problems and solutions you feel should be addressed in the land use plan. ______
Part V: Sampling Data: Please fill out the brief data items requested to give us some insight into how people of various backgrounds view the issues discussed. Type of government you represent: city township village county Age: ______Sex: ______Length of residence in Stark County: ______
- 249 -
APPENDIX 2: COMPARISON WITH OTHER LOCAL LAND USE PLANS
Land use plans are the legal basis upon which land use controls are founded. While these plans are developed to meet the needs to guide communities into the future, it is important to realize that they are not static documents. Over time, planning methods, priorities, and theories change as knowledge increases, laws change, and communities grow or decline. As part of planning we must be aware of this dynamic and recognize varying opinions and priorities if we are to create a document that will benefit the community as a whole.
Comprehensive, or land use plans that have been written for various communities within Stark County are reviewed in this section including: information, maps and major conclusions in each plan and by comparing how the community’s goals, objectives, strategies, and land use map compare to the Stark County 2030 Land Use Plan.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of Alliance, March 2004
Information- This plan includes an introduction briefly describing the planning process, community impact, local control, public impact, the legal basis for planning, a mission and purpose statement, and general goals.
The background section contains a discussion of the region and history; population analysis and projections, with a detailed explanation of projection methodologies; demographics with age groups, income comparisons, labor force composition, educational attainment, household information; physical data including existing land use, drainage network, flood hazard areas, wetland areas, soils and slopes; housing by types, age, occupancy, ownership, size and quality, projected demand, comparison of types with the county/state, an analysis of affordable housing needs, need for design standards and historic preservation; an economic section with employment by industry, problems with the labor pool, property values and assessment by type, and city financial condition; a transportation section discussing the circulation system and classifications, deficiencies, pedestrian movement, public transportation, and air and rail systems; public facility section describing city, fire, police, EMS, street, health, cemetery, sewer, water, parks and recreation facilities (with sufficiency evaluation), schools by district, and other quasi public/private facilities: hospitals, colleges, library, AMTRAK station, senior centers, youth centers, YMCA/YWCA, theater, Chamber of Commerce, and Alliance Area Development Foundation.
- 250 -
The visioning workshop results are discussed along with future land use, describing opportunities and constraints to various areas of the City, adjoining township areas, and recommendations for future development. The final section describes general goals and policies for implementing the plan.
Maps- include regional context/location, existing land use, drainage network, flood hazard areas, wetlands, soils, roads and classifications, community facilities, school districts/political boundaries, opportunities and constraints, priority growth areas (by surrounding townships), future land use, and future land use including adjoining areas of opportunity.
Report Conclusions- General goals are to preserve community character, identify desirable areas for growth, and stimulate new development and redevelopment within the City. Population policies include expanding the local economy, developing a vision as a place to live and work, taking measures to protect the City from continued population losses, requiring property maintenance code and sale/rental inspections to protect housing stock, redeveloping vacant industrial areas, providing for greater housing varieties and multi-family housing opportunities.
Land use policies include adopting storm water management requirements, a floodplain overlay, wetlands setback, and steep slopes setback in the zoning codes. Housing policies include using CDBG funds and other incentives to encourage maintenance and replacement of homes; accommodate areas for new construction; investigate regulatory means to maintain housing stock; permit new multi-family only where appropriate and market-based need is shown; monitor income and housing costs to assure affordability and see that programs exist to assist low income persons with affordable housing; ensure that new single-family homes are compatible with surrounding homes; monitor the need for senior housing and allow private development with appropriate site developments where compatible; adopt residential design standards to ensure quality developments; and consider creating districts with local review procedures to protect historic properties.
Economic development recommendations include a list of tools such as: becoming a Main Street Community and list various state programs for aiding cities; the need to see that the comprehensive economic development strategy is reflected in the future land use map; review local regulations to see that they encourage rehabilitation and expansion of existing commercial and industrial facilities; encourage quality development and redevelopment to ensure quality jobs; expand the local tax base to increase tax revenues; monitor state law and impacts on the City as well as the general fund cash balance; inventory existing industrial facilities and plan for redevelopment where appropriate; continue to improve the downtown area as a functional and attractive area to enhance the sense of community; accommodate the growth and redevelopment of Mount Union College and Alliance Community Hospital to protect these assets and tax bases; - 251 -
encourage commercial development with site provisions to protect residential areas along the State Street corridor; consider workforce development and job training towards growth sector jobs. Transportation related recommendations include identifying, studying and implementing improvements of intersections with higher than average rates of accidents.
Comparison to 2030 Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The Alliance Plan is similar to the 2030 Plan in many aspects, particularly concerning the 2030 Plan goal “Improve Community & Neighborhood Livability”. The Alliance Plan recognizes the need to redevelop and revitalize the existing urban living area, including increasing the variety of housing choices and the need to make the downtown a more attractive centerpiece in order to make the City more livable. This includes adopting building maintenance codes and other measures. The study includes an analysis of population and cohort trends in the City and an in-depth housing affordability analysis.
Many elements of the goal “Promote Environmental Quality,” including adopting storm water management measures, a floodplain overlay, wetland and steep slope setbacks are included in the Alliance Plan. The 2030 goal “Strengthen Economic Growth in the Region,” also has many common elements including reusing existing vacant industrial areas and improving educational attainment in order to improve the workforce.
Comparison to 2030 Land Use Map- The existing and future land use maps agree in most cases with the exception that the Alliance map is able to show more detailed land uses at its larger scale. Future land uses in probable annexation areas agree closely with the 2030 land use map and are primarily seen as developing suburban areas along US 62 and industrial areas centered around Armour Street and the new industrial park on West Main Street.
City of Canton Comprehensive Plan, July 2000 and Downtown Development Plan, Canton Ohio, July 18, 2003
Information- The plan includes an introductory section describing the why, how, and process of the plan and major issues to be addressed. Among these issues are: significant concentrations of substandard housing, especially encircling downtown; related to this is the rate of demolition of substandard homes, which is greater than new construction, and the need to conserve housing and reverse downward trends in property values; the need to create a desirable atmosphere to attract/take advantage of trends in urban homesteading/gentrification; reverse the downward trend in homeownership in the City; work with emerging neighborhood groups/embrace “city of neighborhoods” concept in redevelopment; maintain redevelopment momentum of downtown to improve image; address lack of general fund commitment in community planning; move aggressively to add greenfields for additional development sites; - 252 -
encourage brownfield redevelopment; ensure that redevelopment enhances surrounding property values and isn’t just site specific.
The City profile includes a city history, demographics, and comparison with other Ohio cities. The demographics include a discussion of households/size, population projections, age, economic characteristics, travel time to work, major local employers, industrial employment, income, quality of life, per capita tax rates, family/female headed households with low incomes, high school education/dropout rates, educational attainment, and recreation space. An environmental section discusses brownfields and redevelopment, and air and water quality. Community facilities/services; educational facilities; law enforcement; medical health facilities; water and sewer systems; tourism, sports, cultural activities and facilities are also reviewed. A detailed description of neighborhoods is given and includes housing types, ownership, age, condition, trends in ownership, housing advocate groups, welfare reform and effects on housing, and interrelationships with property values.
Perceptions and attitudes of residents and non-residents about the City are described. The following two chapters discuss trends related to housing such as urban sprawl, commuting to work, urban homesteading/gentrification, household sizes/composition, demand for retail space, local trends and future influences. Included is a vision of how Canton can take advantage of these trends in rebuilding its neighborhoods and revitalizing its retail, commercial, cultural and entertainment areas.
This vision is expanded upon by describing each neighborhood, challenges facing them, solutions that the City can offer and how neighborhood support groups can help. The report describes the downtown area, several major commercial corridors, and methods that the City can use to improve them. The need to reverse homeownership trends is stressed as a major requirement to revitalize the City.
The next chapters discuss brownfields and redevelopment, annexation for additional industrial and living areas, park and recreational inventories and needs, transportation facilities, and a review of zoning and recommended changes. The final two chapters discuss implementation strategies and initiatives.
Maps- Included are: existing land use, neighborhood areas, sample “urban village” neighborhood design, qualified low income housing tax credit areas, downtown development map, Timken Campus, Downtown Development Entrances and Gateways Map , West Tuscarawas Corridor/Gateways Map, North Market Avenue Corridor (with zoning), Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan, Canton Comprehensive Plan Key Elements.
- 253 -
Report Conclusions- The City has neglected devoting resources to community planning and must reverse this trend if it is to ensure success in turning around the negative trends threatening the City. Successfully implementing the report recommendations will allow the City to utilize its established resources in public water & sewer systems and public safety forces.
Comparison to 2030 Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The Canton Plan deals less with natural and environmental conditions than other plans. It places more emphasis on societal and economic trends, stressing the need to revitalize neighborhoods, the downtown area, and major commercial corridors as well as the reuse of industrial brownfields.
Many key elements of Goal 1 are in the Canton Plan, which places an emphasis on the need to revitalize housing within the central city area and within other neighborhoods. Details in the appendices for numerous neighborhood areas demonstrate the hazards of allowing housing to become neglected as a planning issue: conditions decline, absentee rental properties increase, and property values decline. Many strategies are included to increase homeownership, housing quality, and to assist neighborhood advocacy groups.
Goal 2 is represented in detailed explanations of strategies to reuse brownfield areas. The Canton Plan’s transportation section reviews ODOT and SCATS plans and includes the need for a north/south outer loop on the east side to relieve traffic congestion. The plan includes discussing growing senior transit assistance by SARTA as related in Goal 3.
Areas of concurrence with Goal 4 include rezoning and brownfield cleanup to assist in redevelopment and a detailed breakdown of major areas within downtown and their use/reuse possibilities. The need to improve downtown to make it an attractive destination is also discussed, as well as the creation of a “theater district”, restaurant areas, etc.
The plan also discusses the need to annex additional greenfields for residential use (especially for upscale housing) and industrial development, including using city services and utilities as selling points. The plan also examines infrastructure, including parks, and notes the need to add more parkland and to work with Stark Parks in developing the trail and greenway plan.
A later plan, the Downtown Development Plan, Canton Ohio, July 18, 2003, provides more detail and specific design guidelines for redeveloping the Canton downtown area. It includes a detailed summary of economic conditions which allows a review of conditions necessary for the redevelopment effort to succeed. This is an excellent analysis with methodology that can be applied elsewhere by reviewing similar census data in other
- 254 -
communities. More importantly, it shows implications not only for the downtown, but for the City as a whole, if efforts to reverse trends that negatively impact Canton’s viability are not successful.
Comparison to 2030 Land Use Map- The existing land use maps coincide although the City map is able to show more detail. Other maps are used to highlight neighborhoods, major entrance gateways, redevelopment theme areas, etc.
Jackson Township Comprehensive Plan (Draft), December 2004
Information- The introduction describes the community vision, history, planning process, public involvement, and goals. The demographic section details population growth and projections by various methods, and household and population characteristics.
The existing land use section discusses uses by category/percentage as a whole and changes that have occurred over time. Housing types are compared by type, occupancy, age, and value to Stark County and Ohio. Gross rents and percentage of household income spent for housing are reviewed to examine housing affordability.
The natural resource section examines: surface water, flood hazard areas, groundwater, topography and soils, wetlands and rare and endangered plant and animal habitats. A review of community facilities and services includes a detailed evaluation of recreational facilities against NRPA standards. The water and sewer service section discusses areas for planned expansions and those not suitable for septic systems.
The economic section lists employment by industrial sector, average wages, property values and township revenues and expenses over time, strengths and weakness for economic development, available economic development incentives, an analysis of the retail trade in the township and surrounding area, and the feasibility of a Jackson Center mixed use area.
The transportation system section discusses the highway system by functional classification and the transition of some township roads from local to collector status, the need for access management, and brief descriptions of other modes of transportation, including the suggestion that the township develop a detailed bicycle and pedestrian plan.
The opportunity area section describes areas that show economic development potential or should be preserved for the protection and enhancement of existing natural resources such as - 255 -
parklands, storm water retention, greenway linkages, water recharge, or conservation areas. These are also ranked according to their importance and by priority for preservation.
The future land use section shows expected development to meet the township’s and residents’ needs and anticipated growth by various uses taking into account available services, adjoining land uses in other communities, and opportunities for economic development that exist. The plan discusses using an optional “planned district” as a tool for preserving open space and important natural features. Detailed descriptions are given for the opportunities that exist, as well as an explanation of how zoning modifications can be used to enhance them.
Maps- The plan contains a regional location map, existing land use, water resources, critical environmental features (wetlands, hydric soils, rare and endangered plant and animal habitat areas, and a champion tree), community facilities (schools, township buildings, parks, etc), sewer and water service areas, existing retail uses by type, retail trade areas (within a 12- mile radius of the township), transportation network by functional class, opportunity areas (for parks and economic development), and a generalized future land use map.
Report Conclusions- Goals and strategies listed in the demographics section include managing the rate of growth to ensure that public services can keep pace by lowering the density of housing allowed in rural areas without public water and sewer, encouraging the preservation of existing farmland, investigating the adoption of impact fees to help services keep pace with growth, considering methods of encouraging adequate affordable housing in proximity to workplaces, creating a new research and development zoning district to attract high paying jobs, improving parks facilities, and encouraging making commercial and other developments pedestrian friendly, especially in the “Jackson Center” area.
A residential land use goal is to minimize the loss of open space and negative environmental impacts while encouraging high-quality diverse housing for all ages and incomes. This will be done by promoting the use of planned districts, including adopting standards to see that preserved space is of sufficient size and quality, lowering rural residential density allowances, requiring landscape review as part of planned districts, directing commercial developments to areas already zoned as such, studying the adoption of residential maintenance codes, and facilitating the improvement of neighborhoods by assisting residents in upgrading streets to include curbs, gutters, lighting, sidewalks, water and sewer.
The commercial land use section goal is to encourage infill, redevelopment, and revitalization, to discourage large scale development in residential areas, and to promote high quality design and aesthetics. Strategies include separating commercial and industrial uses in the
- 256 -
zoning code and steering new development to existing areas, requiring site improvements such as landscaping and pedestrian circulation, and strengthening sign regulations.
The industrial land use goal is to encourage development of high tech research and development facilities as well as professional service sector employment while sustaining the existing industrial areas. This will be accomplished by amending the industrial zoning district, utilizing existing development incentives, working with the Chamber of Commerce and universities and expanding the Foreign Trade Zone.
Natural resource goals are to maintain the integrity and quality of water resources within the township, lower the risk of flooding, manage and decrease the creation of storm water, protect wetlands and other sensitive environmental features, protect rare and endangered plants and animals, and erosion control.
These will be done by funding land conservation and additional parkland purchases, adopting setback standards in riparian and steep slope areas, protecting the natural course of streams and waterways, creating a floodplain overlay, working with the County and others to establish a storm water utility district, integrating storm water management into the zoning resolution, adopting best management practices, adopting an overlay district to protect water resources, and adopting tree preservation recommendations.
The community facilities and service goals are to ensure that services can keep pace by planning growth, reinforcing the creation of a “center” in Jackson Township through facility locations, supporting the schools, encouraging new and existing developments to connect to sanitary sewers, and ensuring sufficient parks and open space for a fully developed township. These will be accomplished by long-term park capital planning, developing a plan for “Jackson Center”, working with school officials to meet facility needs, and working with sewer and water providers to see that sufficient capacity and extensions are available if needed.
Economic goals are to use existing tools to attract businesses to the Township and to protect the existing tax base while balancing residential and commercial development at a proper ratio. These include pursuing strategies to minimize annexation and other items mentioned previously in information section.
Transportation goals are to encourage pedestrian-oriented development, promote safe roadways by limiting and controlling access points, promote bicycle and pedestrian uses, limit negative environmental and historical impacts when making road improvements, and work cooperatively with other communities to resolve regional issues. These will be accomplished by
- 257 -
requiring traffic impact studies where appropriate, investigating impact fees to assist in paying for needed improvements, investigating adopting an overlay district to assist in the future expansion of roads (increased setbacks, etc.), encouraging sidewalks and bike paths in new developments, encouraging developers to tie into and expand greenways, and working with the state and county to provide and maintain sidewalks along roads where appropriate.
The community character sections goal is to improve and define the appearance of the Township and to help define a center by managing the impact of signs, and adopting a concept plan for “Jackson Center”, etc.
Opportunity area goals are to permanently protect at least 10% of the Township as open space, to establish a network of open spaces and parks linked by greenways, to link all community facilities through multi-use trails, to create a symbolic center of the Township, to strengthen the community’s identity, to maintain the regional shopping areas, and to foster the growth of high-tech research and development.
Comparison to 2030 Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- A number of the goals and strategies in both plans are similar. These include providing diverse housing options to meet the needs of all residents. Although the plan seeks to manage the growth of housing, an analysis of housing affordability concludes that more affordable housing is needed near the many service and retail areas, enabling employees to afford to live near their workplace, as well as meeting the needs of all age groups, particularly the growing population of elderly.
Natural resource goals include protecting riparian, wetland, water recharge, sloping areas, and rare and endangered flora and fauna through setback, overlay zoning and other requirements as well as working with the County and others for a broader agency to solve storm water issues. The plan also calls for the use of planned developments to protect natural areas and design standards to include landscaping requirements, in part, to lessen storm water runoff.
Farmland preservation and expanding park and recreational facilities based on an analysis of NPRA standards is encouraged, especially by working with developers to expand multipurpose trails to interconnect the community.
The plan also calls for making the community more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and creating a “Jackson Center” as a mixed use downtown center which would be a planned, multi- modal, community center. This is beneficial in that it calls for a designed, planned area, to meet many needs and to provide a sense of place, as opposed to allowing the area to grow based upon individual developers’ plans.
- 258 -
Limiting growth to areas with sufficient services (water/sewer, roads, etc.) and directing commercial and industrial development to already developed areas is also recommended.
The plan includes a number of other common goals such as historic preservation, access management, sensitive urban design, and cooperation with other agencies to coordinate economic development and to improve other environmental and quality of life issues.
Comparison to 2030 Land Use Map- The future land use maps compare favorably, with several exceptions, the most noticeable of which is the area in the far southwestern corner of the township, which is shown as industrial on the township plan. Much of this area is currently a sand and gravel operation and farmland. The sand and gravel operation has excavated below the depth of the water table, opening it to possible direct contamination. This is a concern, especially as the Township has identified much of this area as a drinking water protection area. This lessens the potential for this area as a choice for industrial uses, but could be prime “waterfront” land for residential uses or as additional parkland to complement the Canal Towpath Trail bordering the industrially zoned area to the east. The 2030 Plan shows this as a developing suburban area, a more appropriate classification. It should be noted that surface mining is a conditionally permitted use in most of Jackson Township’s land use categories, including industrial. Thus revising the zoning in this area to allow uses with fewer potential impacts on the environment would not affect the current mining operation.
Lake Township Comprehensive Plan & Land Use Report, April 2000
Information- This plan includes detailed historical and background information on almost all aspects of Lake Township and how the township form of government functions, including local school districts and local safety services. Other sections discuss population trends and projections, housing characteristics, educational statistics, and employment characteristics. Natural resource information describes parks, soils, sewer and water service, ground water, flood plains, current and future land use.
Several chapters contain extensive sections of supplemental material without direct attribution within the text. There is a reference to publications in the appendices, but nothing tying them to specific chapters. A number of comparison tables do not include percentages, making an analysis difficult; and there is no list of tables or maps.
Maps- Included in the study were the following: road map, historical 1875 map, school districts, industrial park/enterprise zone, police districts, soil map, water and sewer line maps, - 259 -
flood plain map, groundwater, digital elevation of Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill, zoning, household per square mile map and Quail Hollow State Park. The usefulness of sewer/water maps is limited; the maps were split up onto a number of panels and should have been combined into one map. The industrial park map/text does not identify Enterprise/CRA Zone State identification numbers or their boundary. Although the report breaks down uses by various classifications, the study did not include a land use map.
Report Conclusions- Adopt PRD/PUD overlay with requirements to retain more open space; adopt measures to protect agricultural areas; preserve commercially zoned areas by removing residential development as a permissible use; create another industrial/technology park; limit residential development based on infrastructure availability and land characteristics; encourage affordable housing by allowing a density bonus; expand recreation and open space by working with school districts, create mini-parks and trail easements, set a goal of active recreation parks of 4 acres/1,000 residents, encourage developers to donate park land; encourage historic preservation/reuse of old community cross-road center by adjusting regulations; adopt 7- minute fire response time and limit development outside of this response time, eliminate duplications between fire companies, require adequate fire water supplies in developments without public water; adopt 5-minute EMS response time, capture costs for servicing non- residents; encourage recycling, plan for household hazardous waste collection, educate about emergency preparedness plan; and a number of economic development goals.
Comparison to Long Range Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The Lake Township Plan agrees with a number of goals in the 2030 Plan including: the need to preserve and protect farmland, the need to improve residents’ quality of life by establishing additional parkland, the need to take environmental conditions into account when developing residential areas, the desire to provide a diversity of housing choices to meet housing needs of all segments of the population and adopting a PUD residential district overlay to assist in this and the protection of historic resources.
The plan discusses conserving natural resources and riparian areas, addressing storm water issues, and protecting groundwater. The plan also discusses protecting and encouraging commercial uses by amending the zoning code to prevent residential uses in commercially zoned areas and the need to identify and rezone another area for industrial uses. The plan recognizes the need for healthy commercial and industrial development to protect the tax base to operate the Township. The plan also agrees with the 2030 Plan in the need to limit development to areas with the necessary services.
Comparison to Long Range Plan Map- The plan lacks a land use map but does discuss specific areas based on current uses and zoning, which enables a comparison. One of the township’s objectives is to encourage the development of commercial uses in commercially - 260 -
zoned areas, possibly by limiting residential uses in such areas. Thus, the Township expects Cleveland Avenue to develop additional commercial uses if the zoning code is revised. The long range plan map shows this area as a developing suburban location, as opposed to strictly commercial, due to the extensive residential development which has already occurred.
City of Louisville Community Plan, December 2000
Information- The report includes an introduction, background data, goals, community plan and actions needed to fulfill the plan. Background data includes a short history; population and housing characteristics with projections; descriptions of existing land uses; environmental features including topography, watercourse, wetlands, floodways, storm water problems; the road system and problems descriptions; and water and sanitary sewer capacities and projections. Goals for general land use, economic development, transportation, infrastructure, community facility, community character and historic preservation, as well as recommendations are also included.
Maps- In the study were the following: existing land use, water features (wetlands, flood plains, water courses), city limits/service/sanitary service potential area, land use plan, downtown redevelopment concept, West Main Street strategies, transport plan, bikeways, water and sewer existing and planned areas, and a preferred annexation map.
Report Conclusions- The primary goal of the plan is to retain and enhance the residential character and needed infrastructure of the City. General land use goals include future residential areas around the City with lower densities than currently allowed, redevelopment of the commercial areas to the west and northwest of downtown, an expanded industrial area in the southwest, commercial/office area on the western edge of the City, and an expanded city-wide park/preserve bike system interconnecting with the neighborhoods.
Encouragement to infill residential and commercial areas is described as well as the need to promote a “greater downtown” and to provide adequate access and aesthetics to the Atlantic Avenue commercial area. The transportation section recommends an alternate SR 44 with railroad overpass to allow commercial and regional traffic to bypass the congested downtown area. The plan identifies collector roads that will need improvement/extension as the City grows as well as the creation of access management plans. An expanded pedestrian/bikeway system to tie neighborhoods and parks together is also recommended.
The utility section notes that as the water system is nearing capacity, major upgrades or a construction moratorium will need to be enacted within 10 years. The sewer system is near
- 261 - capacity and will need major upgrades within 5 years. Capacities of both systems are recommended to be able to meet the needs for expected development over the next 20 years. Future service areas in and outside the City are shown. Recreation and community facility recommendations include anticipating the need for more park and recreation areas, expanding city hall and safety service facilities in effective locations.
Preserving and enhancing community character recommendations include preserving the small town feel by saving view sheds, creating “welcome” entries at major roadway entrances to the City, landscaping public sites, and maintaining street trees. Economic development strategies include ensuring a tax base sufficient to serve residents by encouraging the redevelopment of existing commercial/industrial areas and expansion in several areas. The plan also notes areas where annexation would be advantageous to the City to meet different goals. A number of zoning and subdivision regulation changes are also proposed to assist in redevelopment and in preserving the character of the City.
Comparison to Long Range Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The primary goal of the plan as stated is to protect the residential character of Louisville above all other goals. The plan is seen as a guide to encourage private investment and reinvestment in homes and businesses in order to promote this goal. In concurrence with the 2030 Plan, Louisville’s plan calls for redevelopment, infill, and encouraged maintenance and improvements to existing homes and businesses.
The plan varies in that it places an emphasis on limiting construction of new multi-family housing in order to “promote a more traditional city-wide balance of owner-occupied and renter occupied housing”. This is somewhat contrary to the long range plan goal of increasing choice in size, price, and types of residences. The report uses 1990 census data to show the proportion of owner/renter, single/multi-unit, etc. housing units in comparison to the County as a whole. That section concludes with “the proportions of single-unit and multi-unit structures appear to be more comparable to urbanized areas or areas of the country where alternatives to traditional single family homes are accepted”. This is correct as Louisville should be considered an urbanized area. The plan does mention allowing some limited multi-family units in planned unit developments. If, however, as a general course of action, alternative types of housing are to be discouraged, Louisville could force current residents to relocate outside of the City as they seek housing more amenable to seniors unable to maintain traditional homes. This could also result in a loss of young families unable to afford traditional homes in current economic conditions. A more detailed analysis of age cohorts, family income, and housing types/costs should be undertaken if Louisville desires to establish itself as a city where a family can remain from infancy to old age.
- 262 -
The plan discusses public water and sanitary sewer facilities and capacities. It notes that sanitary sewer average daily flows will exceed plant capacity between 2010 and 2015, dependent upon the population extrapolation chosen. It notes that other growth, such as annexing “preferred growth areas” will shorten this time period and necessitate plant improvements.
The land use section calls for new residential areas outside of the City with lower densities than currently allowed, redeveloped existing commercial areas, an expanded industrial area in the southwest portion of the city, a commercial and office area at the western edge of the City, and a city-wide park/preserve/bikeway system that provides access and interconnection between all parks, major public facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Detailed descriptions and recommendations are given for each type of land use and their corresponding locations throughout the City.
The transportation section of the plan sites the need for an alternate SR 44 on the west side of the city (with a railroad overpass). A local collector would extend east from this alternate route tying South Chapel, Nickelplate, and Meese into it. Another local collector would be extended east of the current end of Reno, tying Nickelplate and Meese together. The need for a downtown overpass if rail traffic increases is mentioned, as well as the need to evaluate access management plans for several areas of traffic congestion.
Comparison to Long Range Plan Map- While the existing land use maps compare favorably, the future land use maps differ in two aspects: the Louisville map indicates a greater degree of industrial use south of the Norfolk and Southern Railroad, particularly south of the Nimishillen Creek and between the creek and the railroad. It also shows a lower density of housing surrounding the city on the northeast and southeast sides. The Louisville map indicates a low density rural residential area where the long range plan shows a developing suburban area.
North Canton Community Enhancement Plan, September 1992
Information- The North Canton plan varies from others in that it is a mixture of streetscape recommendations and a comprehensive plan. While it initially appears to primarily recommend improvements for gateways into the City and lists specific streetscape improvements, it expands to include comprehensive plan elements as a method of retaining and expanding the City while keeping its best attributes. The report is divided into four major sections: study background, the community enhancement plan, implementation, and community resource identification and analysis.
- 263 -
The background section describes the purpose of the study: to identify and enhance North Canton’s unique character; to assist in ensuring that these attributes continue into the future and improve; and describes actions/methodologies to expand the City and undertake projects that will enhance the City’s character.
The Enhancement Plan lists goals, objectives, and strategies which include economic development; educational excellence; natural resource protection; cultural resources and historic continuity; government service delivery; land use control; housing availability; recreational opportunities/suggested improvements; main street viability; visual image; environmental quality; and annexation. Included are streetscape plans for the town square, main street, and gateways; land use recommendations (zoning changes, etc) to retain and expand the best attributes, as well as annexation, road improvements, park improvements; needed school studies; and economic development opportunities.
The implementation section describes costs for the streetscape/gateway, park, and a multitude of other proposed projects as well as time frames, funding sources, etc. The final section of the report provides historical, physical, and cultural background of the City, as well as community perceptions.
Maps- Included are: Main Street enhancement program; downtown plan and special events space; streetscapes for North Canton Square, Main Street, near North/South Main Street, far North Main Street, and commercial linkage; community gateway identification and related illustrations; proposed land use; annexation priorities; 2010 highway plan; existing and proposed parks system; enhancement projects; Main Street land use; topographic levels; slope analysis; vegetative density; floodway and floodway fringe; soil analysis; growth sequence (1905-1990); school districts; community facilities; major water lines; existing land use; political jurisdictions; zoning; township zoning; traffic volumes; visual image (landmark buildings/facilities); and character (distinctive beneficial elements/views).
Report Conclusions- The report does not have conclusions per se as it is a plan recommending specific improvements. The major theme in these recommendations is to capitalize on the existing positive attributes of the City and take actions to preserve them, examine their characteristics in order to expand them to other areas, and improve major quality of life elements.
Comparison to Long Range Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The North Canton plan incorporates many elements in common with the 2030 Plan such as economic development, natural resource protection, cultural and historic preservation, housing issues, and recreation. These include encouraging affordable and senior housing, redevelopment and revised land use
- 264 -
regulations to accommodate alternate housing configurations as well as regulations to maintain housing quality.
Environmental issues include standards to protect and enhance site features (wetlands, etc.) when land is developed and to incorporate distinct natural features into zoning maps for protection. The plan calls for land use controls to encourage development in areas currently served by infrastructure, and many of the enhancement projects as a means of encouraging the preservation, infill, and reuse of developed areas. Recreational issues include balancing passive versus active recreational uses and establishing passive use areas that will not be developed, especially along floodplain areas and riparian corridors.
Historical and cultural issues include protecting community landmarks and historic structures and homes. The plan also calls for many educational efforts to ensure that the community understands and supports many of the issues that are intended to preserve and protect the existing community and to see that growth complements the existing attributes of the City.
Comparison to Long Range Plan Map- No major differences exist between the maps other than the North Canton map is able to show more detail.
Plain Township Comprehensive Mini Master Plan, June 2002
Information- The report describes its goals and vision; lists acres of land by use and availability by use; examines residential growth; describes using zoning as a planning tool to accomplish the plan goals; discusses the importance of commercial areas; describes creating gateways; and describes recommendations for five major planning areas in the Township. The report then analyses township parklands and those available in adjoining communities and then recommends areas for future preservation as open space. The transportation section lists road projects and plans; discusses access management, joint projects, intersection and sight distance problems, and lists recommendations. Capital improvement projects are discussed for fire/EMS, the sheriff, storm/sanitary sewers, and water. The final section is a review of the township zoning code with recommended changes.
Maps- In the study were the following: zoning districts, existing land use, vacant land by zoning district, planning strategy map, park and recreation map, future parkland map, sanitary sewer service areas including future service areas and storm sewer areas.
- 265 -
Report Conclusions- the Township should rezone most vacant R-R and R-1 areas to R-6 PUD (Planned Unit Development) in order to exert more control over protecting natural resources and creating more useful open spaces; encourage commercial redevelopment “in order to establish and maintain a sound revenue base…”; establish gateways into the community to provide identity; the Township should take an active roll in preserving open space and identify areas to be preserved based upon environmental sensitivity; access management should be enacted for congested commercial areas, joint projects with the County for intersection/signal improvements should be considered, and corridor planning should be considered to prepare the Township as it transforms from rural to urban.
Comparison to Long Range Plan goals, objectives, and strategies- The plan concurs with the 2030 Plan in many environmental goals. These include the need to protect natural resources, including riparian corridors, wetlands, well fields and groundwater recharge areas; calls for an interconnected park and recreation system; encourages development patterns to protect open space; and calls for adopting regulations for storm water management.
The commercial section calls for redevelopment before creating new retail/commercial areas and discusses the need for access management in high traffic areas. It also calls for encouraging a variety of housing types, densities, and values and methods to protect them by adopting an exterior maintenance code.
Comparison to Long Range Plan Map- The existing land use map is able to show more detail than the 2030 map, especially when identifying retail/office uses along SR 62 and SR 43 due to the scale of the maps.
- 266 -
1 APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth. American Planning Association. April 2002. http://ww.planning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm 2 ibid 3 Oelker, Ernest et al. Stark County Water Resources. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. www.ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_76.html 4 “Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan Fact Sheet,” Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/facts/Section_208_Fact_Sheet.pdf, March 2005. 5 Stark County Health Department. 6 APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth. American Planning Association. April 2002 http://www.planning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm 7 Weitz, Jerry and Leora Waldner. Smart Growth Audits, APA Planning Advisory Service Report No. 512. APA, 2002, p.2. 8 APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth. American Planning Association. April 2002. http://ww.planning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm 9 Compass. 2003. United Way of Greater Stark County. www.uwgsc.org/compass/index.aspx 10 What’s A Watershed? .Center For Watershed Protection. www.cwp.org/whats_a_watershed.htm 11 ibid 12 Oelker, Ernest et al. Stark County Water Resources. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. www.ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_76.html 13 Muskingum Watershed Receives $3.8 Million Planning Loan. December 17, 2004. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. www.mwcdlakes.com/Releases/04121702.htm 14 “Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies For Implementation”, p. 53; Smart Growth Network, International City/County Management Association, 2003. 15 ibid 16 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep 17 Oelker, Ernest et al. Stark County Groundwater Resources. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. www.ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0490_76.html 18 Oelker, Ernest et al. Stark County Water Resources. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. www.ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_76.html 19 Goals & Objectives. 2004. Stark County Drainage Task Force. www.drainage.co.stark.oh.us. 20 The Environmental Protection Fee. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, February 2005. 21 2004 Draft Plan, page 30. Stark Tuscarawas Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District. www.timetorecycle.org. 22 “Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan Fact Sheet,” Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/facts/Section_208_Fact_Sheet.pdf, March 2005. 23 Stark County Health Department. - 267 -
24 Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, National Recreation and Park Association, 1995. 25 Stark County Park District Park and Open Space Plan, 2001-2005: Visions of the Future Today, Stark County Regional Planning Commission, April 2001 26 UPARR Recovery Action Planning for the 1990s, Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Grant Program information materials, National Park Service, 1991 27 Stark County Trail and Greenway Plan, Stark County Park District, Environmental Design Group & Schmidt Copeland Parker Stevens, March 1999 28 OHFOOD: An Ohio Food Industries Input-Output Model, Version 6.0, AED Economics Report AEDE-RP-0033- 03, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, June 2003 29 “Cost of Community Services Fact Sheet”, American Farmland Trust, Northhampton, Maine, November 2002 30 Consultation with Stark County Auditor’s Department of Real Estate Appraisal, March, 2005 31 Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, Eric Schlosser, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001 and “Modern Meat”, Transcript of Program #2017, Doug Hamilton, Public Broadcasting System, Frontline, April 18, 2002 32 The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, George Ritzer, Pine Forge Press, February 2000; “The Irrationality of Rational Hogs”, D. Wynne Wright, University of Northern Iowa, Great Plains Sociologist, Volume 16, No. 1, Summer 2004; & “Fish Futures”, Bud Hazelkorn, East Bay Monthly, July 22, 2002 33 Fulton, William & Deepak Bahl. Orange County Policy and Code Audit Summary and Recommendations. July 2004. University of Southern California, Smart Growth Leadership Institute. http://www.sgli.org/OrangeCountyReport.pdf
- 268 -