DOCSLIB.ORG

Interstate 69 SIU 15 Final Environmental Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Section 1: PURPOSE AND NEED This section defines the action by the Louisiana consistent with national, state, regional, and local Department of Transportation and Development needs. (DOTD), in cooperation with the Federal Highway The proposed project, hereafter referred to as the Administration (FHWA) that is the subject of this I-69 project, would provide a divided four-lane, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and limited access highway on new location between establishes the purpose and need for that action. US Highway 171 (US 171) near the Town of In this section, the National, Regional and Local Stonewall in DeSoto Parish, and Interstate purposes and needs for the action are presented, Highway 20 (I–20) near the Town of Haughton in including the established logical termini and Bossier Parish, a distance of approximately 35 independent utility in the event that construction of miles. The routing and logical termini are identified adjacent Sections of Independent Utility are and described in the Corridor 18 Special Issues delayed or not completed. Study (1997) and in the I-69 (Corridor 18) Special 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Environmental Study, Task C Report - Sections of The DOTD, in cooperation with the FHWA, Independent Utility (SIU) report (1999) for SIU 15. proposes to construct a segment of the proposed The Study Area encompasses portions of Bossier, Interstate Highway 69 (I–69) in Bossier, Caddo, Caddo, and DeSoto Parishes (see Exhibit 1-2). An and DeSoto Parishes, Louisiana. The proposed evaluation of social, economic, environmental, and highway is a portion of the planned improvements engineering considerations will further refine the to Congressionally-designated High Priority proposed highway location. Corridor Number 18 (Corridor 18), which extends DOTD initiated studies for the preparation of an EIS from the Canadian border at Port Huron, Michigan for the I-69 project in April 2001. to several points on the Mexican/Texas border (see Exhibit 1-1). The purpose of 1.2 NATIONAL I-69 CORRIDOR Corridor 18 is to improve international and In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency interstate trade in accordance with national and Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the United States Congress state goals; facilitate economic development in designated certain highway corridors of national accordance with state, regional, and local policies; significance to be included in the National Highway and extend the Interstate highway system System. Twenty-one "high priority corridors" were so designated mainly in regions that are not well INTERSTATE 69 – SIU 15 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT served by the existing Interstate Highway System. renamed the I-69 Steering Committee following the The I-69 Corridor at that time was identified as passage of the Transportation Equity Act for Corridor 18 and only included the corridor between the 21st Century (TEA-21), which officially changed Indianapolis and Memphis. Congress has the corridor designation from Corridor 18 to I-69. subsequently extended the limits of I-69 to now The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation include a highway corridor from the Canadian Department (AHTD) is the administrative agency border in Michigan to the Mexican border in the acting on behalf of the I-69 Steering Committee. Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. In recognition of the important role that I-69 can Since 1991, several planning studies have been play, the Steering Committee adopted the following undertaken to address a variety of issues statement of overall purpose for the I-69 Corridor: associated with the Congressional designation “To improve international and interstate trade for I-69. Though the planning process, in accordance with national and state goals; to improvements within the I-69 Corridor have been facilitate economic development in accordance deemed feasible with overall travel efficiency with state, regional and local policies and benefits outweighing the overall cost of plans, and to improve surface transportation constructing and maintaining the roadway; special consistent with national, state, regional, and issues such as general locations of major river local needs and with Congressional crossings have been addressed; a nationwide designation of the corridor.” purpose and need has been established; and the 1,600-mile I-69 Corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility. 1.2.1 I-69 Steering Committee Following the passage of ISTEA, a Steering Committee was formed with members representing the eight states along the corridor. The member states are Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan. Each state department of transportation and the FHWA are represented on the Steering Committee. Initially, the Steering Committee was referred to as the Corridor 18 Steering Committee but was 1-2 PURPOSE AND NEED INTERSTATE 69 – SIU 15 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Based on the nationwide purpose established for Evansville, Memphis, Shreveport/Bossier City, the I-69 Corridor, the I-69 Steering Committee also and Houston and the Lower Rio Grande Valley) identified seven goals that include: with an Interstate highway connection. Improving international and interstate TEA-21 provided several additional stipulations for movement of freight and people by ensuring a the I-69 Corridor: safe transportation system that is accessible, Included the existing I-69 segment from integrated, and efficient while offering flexibility Indianapolis north to the Port Huron, Michigan of transportation choices in mid-America border crossing with Canada Enhancing the regional and local transportation Included existing I-94 from Port Huron, systems by providing transportation capacity to Michigan through Detroit (including the meet current and future needs Ambassador Bridge interchange) to Chicago, Facilitating economic development and Illinois enhance economic growth opportunities Required the corridor to follow the “alignment” domestically and internationally through generally identified in the Special Issues Study efficient and flexible transportation with in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, particular emphasis being given to economic Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas growth in the Lower Mississippi Delta region Provided for a connection from Pine Bluff, Facilitating connections to intermodal facilities Arkansas to the corridor identified in the and major ports along the corridor Special Issues Study near Monticello, Facilitating the safe and efficient movement of Arkansas persons and goods by fostering a reduction in Included connections to four ports of entry on incident risk the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Upgrading existing facilities to be utilized Valley: as I-69 within the corridor to design standards . A connection to Laredo following US 59 suitable for an Interstate highway and from the Mexican border to Victoria, Texas commensurate with the projected demand . A connection to McAllen following US 281 Directly connecting the urban areas named by from the Mexican border to US 59, then Congress (the "named cities" of Indianapolis, following US 59 to Victoria, Texas 1-4 PURPOSE AND NEED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTERSTATE 69 – SIU 15 . US 71 from the Mexican border near Extension Compatibility Report” (Shreveport 1992), Brownsville to US 59, then following US 59 that proposed a location for Corridor 18 through the to Victoria, Texas; and Shreveport metropolitan area that: . A connection from US 77 along FM 511 to Interchanges with I-20 on the east side of the the Port of Brownsville. urban area (near Haughton) 1.2.2 Previous Studies Passes along the eastern edge of Barksdale Several planning studies have been completed in Air Force Base the ten years since I-69 was officially designated in ISTEA. Two feasibility studies (Corridor 18 and Crosses LA 1 just north of the Caddo-Bossier Corridor 20) were completed in 1995 and 1996 Port respectively. Both feasibility studies confirmed that the corridor was a feasible transportation Interchanges with I-49 south of the urban area, improvement and a prudent expenditure of public and funds. The Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Continues westerly to an interchange with (Steering Committee 1997) addressed three US 171 special issues to facilitate future location and environmental studies: The Special Issues Study noted that this location and route configuration had the support of the Economic feasibility of extending Corridor 18 mayors of both Shreveport and Bossier City, and from Houston to the Lower Rio Grande Valley accordingly, was adopted for purposes of the Traffic impacts Corridor 18 would have on I-35, Special Issues Study. and In 1999, the Special Environmental Study was Evaluating major river crossings, connections initiated to facilitate the Corridor’s transition into the between states, and connections to urban FHWA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) areas that would be key considerations for process. The Special Environmental Study future location and environmental studies. accomplished the following tasks: Shreveport is one of the named urbanized areas in Provided a nationwide Purpose and Need for the Congressional definition of Corridor 18. The the project, including updates to the national Special Issues Study references a 1992 City of traffic demand forecasts for both vehicles and Shreveport study “Interstate 69 and Inner Loop freight PURPOSE AND NEED 1-7 INTERSTATE 69 – SIU 15 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Divided the 1,600-mile
Recommended publications
  • I-69 Implementation Strategy and Update Report

    I-69 Implementation Strategy and Update Report

    I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report February 2018 Transportation Planning and Programming Division Report Revision History The following table tracks revisions and changes made to this report over time. Date Revision Explanation March 2016 First edition of the report February 2018 • Updates Statewide and District Summaries based on fiscal year (FY) 2018 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and its December 2017 revision as well as TxDOT’s other internal planning and programming systems as of January 3, 2018 • Includes Advisory Committee $2B project prioritization exercise results I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 ii Table of Contents Page Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... v Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 I-69 System ............................................................................................................................... 1 Importance of the I-69 System to Texas ........................................................................ 3 I-69 System Project Prioritization ............................................................................................. 6 I-69 System Implementation Strategy Update .....................................................................
  • Data Sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form

    Data Sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form

    Form No. 10-300 (Rev. 10-74) 36 DATA SHEET UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ I NAME HISTORIC , Sesse Whltesell?House Same LOCATION U> C^(j STREET & NUMBER Route #5, Box 391 —NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Fulton f>\.A,, *> £. , . VICINITY OF 01 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Kentucky 021 Fulton 075 UCLA SSIFI c ATI ON CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE —DISTRICT _ PUBLIC XLOCCUPIilD —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM ^BUILDING(S) ^.PRIVATE — UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH _ WORK IN PROGRESb —EDUCATIONAL X.PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION XNO —MILITARY —OTHER. OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Hunter Whites ell STREET & NUMBER Route # 5, Box 391 CITY. TOWN STATE Fulton VICINITY OF Kentucky LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS,ETC Fulton County Courthouse, County Clerkfs Office, STREET & NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE Hickman Kentucky 1 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky (Supplement) DATE 1974 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY ._LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Kentucky Heritage Commission CITY, TOWN STATE Frankfort Kentucky CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED ^UNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE X.GOOD —RUINS —ALTERED —MOVED DATE———————— _FAIR __UNEXPOSED DESCRIBETHE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Whites ell House is located on State Route 116 approximately 1/2 mile west of the town of Fulton in the extreme southwestern section of the state.
  • I-69 Implementation Strategy Report – March 2016 Ii

    I-69 Implementation Strategy Report – March 2016 Ii

    I-69 Implementation Strategy Report March 2016 Transportation Planning and Programming Division Table of Contents Page Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ iv I-69 System Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Importance of the I-69 System to Texas ........................................................................ 1 I-69 System Progress ....................................................................................................... 5 I-69 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................. 6 Development .................................................................................................................... 7 Components ..................................................................................................................... 9 Next Steps - How the Implementation Strategy Will Be Used ..................................... 11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 12 I-69 Implementation Strategy Summary Information and Data .......................................... 13 Tables Table 1. I-69 System Activities Since September
  • A Community to Live, Work, & Play

    A Community to Live, Work, & Play

    A Community to Live, Work, & Play 2015 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fulton, KY Acknowledgements The City of Fulton Comprehensive Plan was made possible by a multitude of civic leaders, city department heads, and staff members who have given generously of their time, passion and expertise to collaborate on this vision. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Fulton City Commission, Fulton Planning Commission for their trust and support. In addition, significant input was provided by the Fulton County- Hickman County Economic Development Partnership, Housing Authority of Fulton, and the West Kentucky Workforce Investment Board. The time and effort on the part of many to provide this input is appreciated. This study has been funded with local funds contracted from the City of Fulton, Kentucky. The plan was created by the Purchase Area Development District and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the City of Fulton, Kentucky. The City of Fulton makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This plan is copyrighted by the organization that created it. Internal use by an organization and/or personal use by an individual for non-commercial purposes is permissible. All other uses require the prior authorization of the copy- right owner. Note to the Reader: Where there is a permanent URL to the source document online, that URL has been included in this report.
  • Kentucky Parkway System

    Kentucky Parkway System

    KENTUCKY PARKWAY SYSTEM D. H. Bray, President Brighton Engineering Company Frankfort, Kentucky Before discussing the Kentucky Parkway System, I want to touch first on the historical background of turnpikes, both those in general use and also those in Kentucky before 1952. My objective in saying anything about this historical background is because I think it will be interest­ ing_for you to see what parallels there are between the necessities and practices of turnpike con­ struction in those times compared with what we are now doing in Kentucky. I think this will give you a better perspective of this subject of toll roads. Following this historical statement, I will describe briefly the toll roads that have been built in Kentucky since 1952 under the two different legislative Acts, which pertain to the method of financing and the handling of the work. Then for the rest of my presentation and the part which is particularly fitting to the subject matter, in which those of you attending this committee ses­ sion on planning and research may be most interested, I will discuss the Kentucky toll roads con­ structed since 1952, their planning and location, special design and research features, and some maintenance experiments on them. Then in conclusion I will state the advantages, as I see them, of Kentucky's modern toll road program. Some 500 years ago there emerged in England a common law whereby the inhabitants of the parishes were bound to keep all roads in their parishes in repair. The local residents found this duty a real burden, especially for the up-keep of those roads that carried a considerable volume of through traffic.
  • Section 112 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban

    Section 112 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban

    Attachment Page 1 of 15 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 Section 112 Surface Transportation Projects (March 22, 2006) Obligation Authority Designated Amounts Amount available after Program Code LY60 Allocation Project Description in Statement of Managers This Memorandum (DELPHI Code State Demo ID in Conf.Rep. 1 percent rescission This Memorandum Conference Report 109-307 15X043P000-050) H.R. 109-307 Project State Total Project State Total Project State Total Alabama AL167 Airport Road Expansion, Phase II, Jasper, AL 1,830,000 1,811,700 1,811,700 1,811,700 Alabama AL168 Baldwin County Highway 83 Evacuation Route Project, AL 850,000 841,500 841,500 841,500 Alabama AL169 City of Selma Water Avenue Streetscape Improvement, AL 400,000 396,000 396,000 396,000 Alabama AL170 County Road 19 Improvements, Cherokee County, AL 500,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 Alabama AL171 Downtown Multimodal Parking System, Huntsville, AL 1,000,000 990,000 990,000 990,000 Expansion of access and parking adjacent to Post Office, City of Alabama AL172 Jacksonville, AL 110,000 108,900 108,900 108,900 Alabama AL173 Expansion of Highway 431, Town of Roanoke, AL 150,000 148,500 148,500 148,500 Alabama AL174 Extend I-759 East to US Highway 278, Gadsden, AL 2,800,000 2,772,000 2,772,000 2,772,000 Alabama AL175 Highway 21 extension, Talladega, AL 500,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 Alabama AL176 Third Avenue resurfacing Project, Ranburne, AL 40,000 39,600 39,600 39,600 University of South
  • I-69 Final Eis Document 6-28-06

    I-69 Final Eis Document 6-28-06

    FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01F INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY #9 From the Interstate 55/MS State Route 304 Interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the Intersection of U.S. 51 and State Route 385 in Millington, Tennessee DeSoto and Marshall Counties, Mississippi Shelby and Fayette Counties, Tennessee Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Tennessee Department of Transportation and Mississippi Department of Transportation Cooperating Agency Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service This document identifies and assesses the environmental impacts associated with the construction of an interstate facility from Hernando, Mississippi to Millington, Tennessee. The project is a segment of Corridor 18, a Congressionally-designated High Priority transportation Corridor that will be designated as Interstate 69. Segments of the roadway are proposed for new locations, while other segments will follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The length of the proposed improvement is approximately 44 miles. __________________ ______________________________________________________________ Date of Approval For Federal Highway Administration __________________ ______________________________________________________________ Date of Approval For
  • 279300000 the ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Bofa Merrill Lynch Siebert Brandford Shank & Co

    279300000 the ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Bofa Merrill Lynch Siebert Brandford Shank & Co

    NEW ISSUE – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: See “RATINGS” herein. Subject to compliance by the Authority with certain covenants, in the opinion of Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, Bond Counsel, under present law interest on the 2010A Bonds will not be includible in the gross income of the owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes. Interest on the 2010A Bonds will not be treated as an item of tax preference in computing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and corporations. See the heading “TAX MATTERS” herein for a more detailed discussion of some of the federal tax consequences of owning the 2010A Bonds. The interest on the 2010A Bonds is not exempt from present Illinois income taxes. $279,300,000 THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Toll Highway Senior Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A-1 Maturities, Principal Amounts, Interest Rates, Yields and CUSIP Numbers are shown on the Inside of the Front Cover This Official Statement contains information relating to The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (the “Authority”) and the Authority’s Toll Highway Senior Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A-1 (the “2010A Bonds”). The 2010A Bonds are being issued under a Trust Indenture dated as of December 1, 1985 (as amended, restated and supplemented, the “Indenture”) from the Authority to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as successor trustee (the “Trustee”). The 2010A Bonds will be issuable as fully registered bonds in the name of Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”).
  • Road-Plan-1521835694.Pdf

    Road-Plan-1521835694.Pdf

    2018-2020 BIENNIAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PLAN County Item No. Route Type of Work Description Phase Fund FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 ADAIR 1068 KY-704 AM-BRIDGE (P) ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES OF BRIDGE ON KY 704 PL (11.909) OVER PETTY'S FORK. (001B00078N) DN BR 175,000 (SD) RW UT CN BR 490,000 Project Cost: 0 175,000 490,000 ADAIR 80003 KY 55 CONGESTION MITIGTN(O) KY 55 NEW TURNING LANE AT BETTY'S OK PL COUNTRY COOKING DN SPP 250,000 RW UT CN Project Cost: 0 0 250,000 Total for ADAIR county PL DN 175,000 250,000 RW UT CN 490,000 Total Amounts: 0 175,000 740,000 ALLEN 320 KY-100 RECONSTRUCTION(O) IMPROVEMENTS TO KY 100: CURVE, BRIDGE, PL AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FROM DN NEAR THE STONY POINT ROAD INTERSECTION RW SPP 1,880,000 TO EAST OF THE ALONZO LONG HOLLOW UT ROAD INTERSECTION (12CCR) CN Project Cost: 0 0 1,880,000 ALLEN 8305 KY-100 RECONSTRUCTION(O) IMPROVE KY-100 (OLD GALLATIN ROAD) FROM PL SOUTH OF KY-2160 TO KY-980. (06CCN) DN RW UT CN SPP 1,250,000 Project Cost: 1,250,000 0 0 Page 3 of 214 2018-2020 BIENNIAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PLAN County Item No. Route Type of Work Description Phase Fund FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 ALLEN 8901 ECONOMIC DEVEL(O) IMPROVE ACCESS ROAD ON EACH END OF PL INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD IN SCOTTSVILLE DN RW UT CN SPP 300,000 Project Cost: 0 0 300,000 ALLEN 10000 KY-3499 AM-BRIDGE (P) ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES OF KY-3499 BRIDGE PL OVER BAYS FORK.
  • KY's Major Highways & Cities

    KY's Major Highways & Cities

    Kentucky's Major Highways Cabiinett fforr Economiic Devellopmentt !( Major Kentucky Cities Audubon Parkway Martha Layne Collins Bluegrass Parkway Ohio Hal Rogers Parkway Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Parkway Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway Indiana Julian M. Carroll Purchase Parkway 275 ¨¦§471 Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway ¨¦§ Florence !(Kenton Boone Campbell William N. Natcher PaIrkllwinayois Interstate ¨¦§71 Parkway Gallatin Bracken Pendleton US Highway Carroll Grant Trimble Mason State Road Lewis Greenup Ashland Owen Robertson !( Henry Harrison Boyd Oldham Fleming Carter Louisville Scott Nicholas West !( Shelby Frankfort 264 Bourbon ¨¦§265 !( Bath 64 Rowan Virginia Jefferson ¨¦§ Franklin ¨¦§ Elliott Fayette Lawrence Woodford Spencer Anderson !( Bullitt Lexington Clark Menifee Henderson Hancock Meade Montgomery Morgan Jessamine Johnson !( Owensboro Nelson Powell Martin Henderson Mercer !( Breckinridge Elizabethtown !( Richmond Wolfe Magoffin Daviess !( Union Washington Madison Estill Hardin Boyle Garrard Lee Floyd Pikeville Webster McLean Larue Marion 75 Breathitt !( Pike Ohio Grayson Lincoln ¨¦§ Jackson Owsley Crittenden Rockcastle Knott 65 Taylor Livingston Hopkins ¨¦§ Casey Perry Muhlenberg Hart Green 69 Butler Edmonson Paducah Caldwell ¨¦§ Clay Letcher !( Bowling Somerset Laurel Ballard Adair !( Pulaski Leslie McCracken Green Lyon !( Russell Virginia Missouri Hopkinsville Barren Metcalfe Marshall 24 Warren Knox Harlan Carlisle ¨¦§ !( Logan Trigg Christian Todd Wayne Graves Allen Cumberland Whitley Bell Hickman Simpson Monroe McCreary Clinton Middlesboro Fulton Calloway !( Fulton !( Tennessee North µ Carolina Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development - Old Capitol Annex - 300 West Broadway - Frankfort, KY 40601 - 502-564-7140 (local) - 800-626-2930 (toll free) - www.thinkkentucky.com.
  • Economic Impact Study Heartland Parkway

    Economic Impact Study Heartland Parkway

    Economic Impact Study Performed for Heartland Parkway December 2003 Heartland Parkway Economic Impact Analysis Younger Associates has projected the annual economic impact of the Heartland Parkway when the route is completed from the Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Parkway to the Bluegrass Parkway. When the Heartland Parkway is completed, the regional economic impact from increased business output and retail sales is projected to be $2.28 billion annually. A total of 2,596 jobs are projected to be created as a result of this increased activity. To determine the magnitude of the potential economic impact of the Heartland Parkway, key indicators were compared between the economies of rural counties with parkway access and rural counties without parkway access. The counties selected are not part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, nor are the counties to be served by the Heartland Parkway. For the comparison, a group of seven counties without parkway access were selected: Ballard, Breathitt, Carlisle, Lewis, Owen, Owsley, and Robertson. Another group of seven counties with parkway access was selected: Barren, Clay, Graves, Grayson, Ohio, Webster and Wolfe. Obviously, a vast number of physical, historical, and demographic factors influence the level of economic activity within any individual county or region. However, there is a clear variation in the level of economic activity among the group of randomly selected non-parkway counties and the group of parkway-served counties. The area to be served by the Heartland Parkway has a potential for economic expansion that is at least equal to, or possibly greater than, the increased rate of economic activity seen in rural counties with parkway access when compared to rural counties without parkway access.
  • AN ACT Relating to Road Projects. Be It Resolved by the General Assembly

    AN ACT Relating to Road Projects. Be It Resolved by the General Assembly

    UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 04/16/16 16 REG. SESS. 16 RS HJR 160/EN AN ACT relating to road projects. Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section 1. This Joint Resolution in conjunction with 2016 Regular Session HB 129 shall constitute the Six-Year Road Plan. The last four years of the Six-Year Road Plan are as follows: Page 1 of 1 HJR016020.100 - 2000 - 8564 Engrossed 2018-2022 HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PLAN County Item No. Route Description Phase Fund FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 ADAIR 1068 KY-704 REPLACE BRIDGE ON KY 704 (11.909) OVER PL UNNAMED STREAM (SR=53.5) (001B00078N) DN BRX 250,000 RW BRX 150,000 UT BRX 50,000 CN BRX 500,000 Project Cost: 0 250,000 200,000 500,000 Total for ADAIR county PL DN 250,000 RW 150,000 UT 50,000 CN 500,000 Total Amounts: 0 250,000 200,000 500,000 ALLEN 1088 CR-1328 REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BAYS FORK ON PL MITCHELL WEAVER ROAD (CR 1328) 2.1 MI W DN BRZ 400,000 OF KY 1332 (002C00063N)(SR=31.5) RW BRZ 150,000 UT BRZ 75,000 CN BRZ 1,655,000 Project Cost: 0 400,000 1,880,000 0 ALLEN 8802 KY-100 WIDENING OF KY 100 (FRANKLIN ROAD) TO 3 PL LANES WITH URBAN SECTION FROM OLIVER DN STREET TO US 31E TO INCREASE RW CAPACITY/SAFETY. MP 11.800-12.700 (14CCN) UT SP 670,000 CN SP 3,800,000 Project Cost: 670,000 3,800,000 0 0 ALLEN 8902 KY-98 RECONSTRUCT 1.0 MILE EAST OF BRIDGE OVER PL BARREN RIVER LAKE TO CORRECT VERTICAL DN AND HORIZONTAL DEFICIENCIES.