DOCSLIB.ORG

The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture December 2020 United States Department of Agriculture NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Agriculture in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Cover Credit: unitysphere via 123rf.com ii The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture COVID-19 NOTE The development of this report coincided with the advent of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has had multiple impacts that could affect agricultural highway freight, including disruptions to supply chains, shifts in food production and consumption patterns, workforce impacts, and fluctuations in fuel taxes and other revenues. In addition, there have been wide-reaching changes in overall macroeconomic conditions in the United States and overseas, including changes in economic output and exchange rates. The trajectory and long-term consequences of these impacts are difficult to forecast, making it unclear whether and when “normal” conditions may resume. This introduces additional uncertainty into the analysis. It is also important to note that, at the time this report was prepared, the available data sources, estimates, and future projections were largely developed prior to the pandemic and do not reflect these impacts. The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture iii Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 16-12-2020 Technical Report November 2019 - December 2020 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Kevin McCoy, Sean Peirce, Gary Baker, Ryan Endorf, Christina Foreman, 51OS96A119 Rachel Galton, Michelle Gilmore, Danielle Kittredge, Kendall Mahavier, 5e. TASK NUMBER Daniel DJ Mason, David Pace, Sari Radin, Emma Vinella-Brusher TH995, TH996, UK067, UK068 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER V-320 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation DOT-VNTSC-USDA-21-01 55 Broadway Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) Agricultural Marketing Service USDA AMS TM TSD U.S. Department of Agriculture Stop 0266 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT USDA AMS TM TSD NUMBER(S) 1400 Independence Ave SW 4523-S TS295.12-20 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT No restrictions. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT This report provides information to inform the transportation planning and project selection processes that build and maintain the highway infrastructure upon which the agriculture industry relies upon for safe and efficient transportation of goods. It demonstrates the interconnected nature of agricultural freight and highlights the need for cooperation across jurisdictions via 1) A summary of the economic significance of highway infrastructure to the agriculture industry; 2) Identification of High-Volume Domestic Agriculture Highways based on 2018 commodity flows; 3) Modeled projections of future infrastructure conditions and performance; 4) Identification of efforts to improve agricultural freight movements. 15. SUBJECT TERMS agriculture, freight, highway, freight data, freight analysis, economic analysis 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON ABSTRACT OF a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Adam Sparger PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) U U U UU 147 202-205-8701 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project team would like to thank the f ollowing organizations for graciously providing their valuable perspectives and insights during the development of this report. U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Bureau of Transportation Statistics Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations Agriculture Industry Groups Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC) Agriculture Transportation Working Group (ATWG) Membership Organization National Association of Counties (NACo) Regional Freight Organization Bi-State Development Corporation St. Louis Regional Freightway State Departments of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation California Department of Transportation Iowa Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation North Carolina Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Transportation The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... xi Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ xiii Section 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2: Economic Significance of Highway Infrastructure to the Agriculture Industry ..... 12 Section 3: Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................. 20 Section 4: Agricultural Freight Flows and Performance ............................................................. 27 Section 5: Future Conditions and Investment Scenarios ............................................................ 79 Section 6: Notable Practices Case Studies ................................................................................... 92 Section 7: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Strategies ................................................ 113 Section 8: Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 131 Bibliography and Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 134 Appendix A: Economic Significance of Surface Transportation to U.S. Agriculture Appendix B: Analysis Corridor Condition, Performance, and Commodity Flow Data Visualizations Appendix C: Methodology Appendix D: Detailed Commodity Production and Flow Data by State vi The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Modeled Agricultural and Total Freight Flows on U.S. Highways, 2015 ..............................................................5 Figure 2: Value of U.S. Shipments by Transportation Mode in 2018 ..................................................................................6 Figure 3: Ton-Miles of U.S. Shipments by Transportation Mode and Distance in 2018 .....................................................7 Figure 4: Modal Transportation Characteristics of Agricultural Commodities by Tonnage, 2018 .....................................13 Figure 5: Transportation Cost in Million 2009 Dollars ..........................................................................................................15 Figure 6: U.S. and Brazil Soybean Total Transportation Costs to Shanghai, China .............................................................16 Figure 7: U.S. Agricultural Supply Chain .................................................................................................................................17 Figure 8: Percent of Roadways in Poor Condition (International Roughness Index (IRI)>170) by Functional System ......19 Figure 9: High-Volume Domestic Agriculture Highways (HDAH) ............................................................................................28 Figure 10: Conceptual Map of Agricultural Trade Flows ........................................................................................................29 Figure 11: United States Multimodal Freight Flows ...............................................................................................................29 Figure 12: Map of County-Level Production of Selected Commodities and Top 10 Agriculture Producing States in 2017 .......................................................................................................................................................................32
Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................ 1 County Overview ............................................................................... 2 Population Trends & Demographic Profile .................................... 3 Population Trends in Pottawattamie County ....................................................... 3 Population Profile.............................................................................................. 5 Demographic Profile ......................................................................................... 7 Employment Profile ........................................................................................... 7 Projected Population & Employment ................................................................ 10 Roadways & Bridges ........................................................................ 12 Roadway Systems ............................................................................................ 12 Profile of County Roadways............................................................................. 14 Pavement Condition ........................................................................................ 16 Bridges in Pottawattamie County ..................................................................... 19 Traffic Trends in Pottawattamie County ........................................................... 21 Roadway Safety ..............................................................................................
  • Final Point of Access Study

    Final Point of Access Study

    Prepared for: I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project Technical Memorandum No. 28 FINAL POINT OF ACCESS STUDY Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A Prepared by: Philadelphia, PA In association with: HNTB Corporation STV Inc. Gannett Fleming, Inc. A.D. Marble & Company Kise Straw & Kolodner, Inc. Riverfront Associates, Inc. November, 2012 1 2 Technical Memorandum No. 28 – Final Point of Access Study Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, INTRODUCTION AMD REQUIREMENTS ... 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1 Purpose of Access......................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings .................................................................... 2 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 7 Project Description .............................................................. 7 Study Area Description ........................................................ 7 Project Area Description .................................................... 10 Project Purpose and Need .................................................. 11 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ..................................... 12 B. ENGINEERING STUDY ............................................................. 17 I. CURRENT CONDITIONS ........................................................... 17 Roadway Network
  • Our Aging Interstates

    Our Aging Interstates

    Our Aging Interstates Pennsylvania’s more than 2,700 miles of interstate highways snake into every corner of the state, carrying 1.8 million commuters a day and making the Commonwealth one of the busiest corridors for all those consumer goods people are buying from their phones this Christmas. With the fourth-largest interstate system in the country, including the 63 miles in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania has long been the envy of other states, but now its interstates are deteriorating faster than they can be repaired, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Highway Delivery Division Chief Melissa J. Batula said during a report to the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) and Freight Advisory Committee earlier this month. That includes Interstate 78 in the Lehigh Valley, where 62 percent of the roadway surface is rated to be in fair or poor condition, while just $8 million of the $259 million requested for “priority” projects has been programmed on the state’s 12-year plan for interstates. “We have a backlog of $251 million in the Lehigh Valley. We’re severely underfunded,” Batula said. “And that’s just what we need to keep the lights on. We’ve got to start talking about this amongst ourselves.” Those discussions won’t come easy. A report by the Interstate Steering Committee states that $13.8 billion in projects have been identified as priorities, while just $7.3 billion has been slated to be spent over the next 12 years, leaving about 188 “priority” projects unfunded. The ratio is even worse in the Lehigh Valley, where the more than 22,000 trucks daily – the second-highest statewide behind only I-81 – takes a greater toll on the roadway.
  • Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx

    Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx

    Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
  • Gregor Weichbrodt on the Road 0X0a

    Gregor Weichbrodt on the Road 0X0a

    0x0a On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt 0x0a © 2014 Gregor Weichbrodt All rights reserved. www.ggor.de CONTENTS About this book ........................ 5 Chapter 1 ............................... 7 Chapter 2 .............................. 23 Chapter 3 .............................. 41 Chapter 4 .............................. 53 ABOUT THIS BOOK Based on the novel “On the Road” by Jack Kerouac and Google Maps Direction Service. The exact and approximate spots Kerouac traveled and described are taken from the book and parsed by Google Direction Service API. The chapters match those of the original book. Gregor Weichbrodt January 2014 www.ggor.de 7 CHAPTER 1 Head northwest on W 47th St toward 7th Ave. Take the 1st left onto 7th Ave. Turn right onto W 39th St. Take the ramp onto Lincoln Tunnel. Parts of this road are closed Mon–Fri 4:00 – 7:00 pm. Entering New Jersey. Continue onto NJ-495 W. Keep right to continue on NJ-3 W, follow signs for New Jersey 3 W/Garden State Parkway/Secaucus. Take the New Jersey 3 W exit on the left toward Clifton. Merge onto NJ-3 W. Slight right onto the Garden State Pkwy N ramp. Merge onto Garden State Pkwy. Take exit 155P on the left to merge onto NJ-19 N toward I-80/ Paterson. Turn left onto Cianci St. Turn right onto Market St. Head west on Market St toward Washington St. Turn left onto Main St. Turn right onto County Rd 509 S. Take the Interstate 80 E ramp. Merge onto I-80 E. Take exit 62A-62B toward Saddle 9 Brook/Saddle River Rd/Garden State Pkwy.
  • I-24 SMART CORRIDOR Leveraging Technology to Improve Safety and Mobility

    I-24 SMART CORRIDOR Leveraging Technology to Improve Safety and Mobility

    I-24 SMART CORRIDOR Leveraging Technology to Improve Safety and Mobility Brad Freeze, Director, Traffic Operations Division, TDOT The Need • Interstate 24 (I-24) is a integral part of the Nashville transportation network and a major route for commuters and freight. • Traffic volumes along the I-24 corridor have experienced exponential growth rates over the past decade. Since 2005, traffic volumes have increased more than 60% on I-24 near Murfreesboro. • Currently, peak hour volumes exceed capacity and even a minor incident can have a severe impact on travel time reliability. • Due to physical, environmental, and financial constraints along the Corridor there are no viable, short term roadway widening projects. Area Map I-24 Congestion Contributors Traffic Incidents 27% Incidents Breakdown 2015 Contributors to Congestion (Total Crashes:1,661) Crash History & Analysis I-24 Section Crash Rate Crash Rate Data represents information collected between 2013-2015 System Performance Review AM Peak Period Travel Time I-24 From I-840 to Briley Pkwy. 85 High Variability 75 65 55 Travel Time 95th Percentile 45 Average Travel Time Travel Time (min) Time Travel 35 25 15 Reliability From Exit 78 (SR-96) & Exit 53 (I-440 Interchange), 25 miles Westbound Travel (Weekdays 2014-2016) Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes) 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 39.64 3.59 69.32 30.14 36 27.94 43.98 4.48 73.64 31.04 37.3 27.57 43.57 4.63 73.22 31.18 37.59 27.32 Eastbound Travel (Weekdays 2014-2016) Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes) 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 2.76 19.18 27.22 45.71 24.93 30.63 2.86 22.16 27.31 48.69 24.97 32.53 1.97 25.85 26.43 52.38 24.46 33.92 2014 User Costs 2015 2016 Previous Studies I-24 Multimodal Corridor Study • Identified short- and long-term solutions for improving problem spots along the entire corridor.
  • FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge

    FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge

    FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge Original US DOT Approval Date: 10/01/2008 Current Date: 06/30/2010 Allegheny MPMS #: 74919 Municipality: Glenfield (Boro) Title: SR 65 @ NI Ramps Route:65 Section: A38 A/Q Status: Exempt Improvement Type: Reconstruct Exempt Code: Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est. Let Date: 06/26/2009 Actual Let Date: 06/26/2009 Geographic Limits: Located on SR 65/I79 Neville Island Interchange (9 structures), Glenfield Borough, Allegheny County Narrative: Pavement reconstruction and crack sealing. Bridge preservation work to include; dam repair, deck repairs, latex overlay, minor abutment repairs, and bearing repairs. Located on SR 65/I79 Neville Island Interchange (9 structures), Glenfield Borough, Allegheny County TIP Program Years ($000) Phase Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 2nd 4 Years 3rd 4 Years CONBOO $9,047 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CONIM $12,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON185 $1,005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON581 $1,344 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,487 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total FY 2009-2012 Cost $23,487 MPMS #: 26926 Municipality: Title: I79 Ohio Rvr N to 279 Route:79 Section: 35M A/Q Status: Improvement Type: Restoration Est. Let Date: 12/08/2006 Actual Let Date: 12/08/2006 Geographic Limits: Located on I-79 from the Neville Bridge to the I279 north interchange in Boroughs of Glenfield, Sewickley Hills Narrative: Located on I-79 from the Neville Bridge to the I279 north interchange Glenfield, Sewickley Hills, and Franklin Park Boro; Aleppo, Neville and Ohio Twps in Allegheny County Reconstruction of concrete pavement TIP Program Years ($000) Phase Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 2nd 4 Years 3rd 4 Years CONIM $2,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON581 $260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total FY 2009-2012 Cost $2,600 Page 1 of 100 FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge Original US DOT Approval Date: 10/01/2008 Current Date: 06/30/2010 Allegheny MPMS #: 26924 Municipality: Title: I-79 Kirwin Heights-I279 Route:79 Section: A12 A/Q Status: Improvement Type: Restoration Est.
  • Fort Knox, Kentucky

    Fort Knox, Kentucky

    Fort Knox, Kentucky JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) 2008 Update Prepared for: FORT KNOX JLUS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE June, 2008 This manual was prepared under contract from Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Elizabethtown, Kentucky, with financial support provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Lincoln Trail Area Development District and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I: Description of Joint Land Use Study 1 Purpose 1 Scope 2 Organization 2 Study Methodology 3 SECTION II: Study Area Profile 5 Study Area Boundaries 5 Physical Setting and Population 5 Study Area Land Use 6 Physical Features 10 Utility Services Infrastructure 19 Transportation 24 Mission Encroachment 32 Noise/Vibrations 37 Compatible Land Use Buffer Zone 39 SECTION III: Land Use and Mission Compatibility Plan 58 Impact Analysis 58 Goals and Objectives 63 SECTION IV: Implementation Schedule 67 List of Appendices Appendix A-Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Six-Year Highway Plan Appendix B-Summary of State and Federal Economic Development Incentive and Assistance Programs Appendix C-Maps Section I Description of Joint Land Use Study SECTION I DESCRIPTION OF JOINT LAND USE STUDY PURPOSE Fort Knox is a compelling economic, historic, and cultural presence in our tri-county region. It is a certified Kentucky City covering approximately 170.4 square miles; the seventh largest community in Kentucky. Fort Knox was occupied by American Soldiers as early as the civil War, and the government considered the site for a military post in 1903. Congress allocated $1.6 million to purchase 40,000 acres in 1918 and construction of facilities began in July of that year.
  • Construction Suspended Where Possible for July 4

    Construction Suspended Where Possible for July 4

    State of Illinois JB Pritzker, Governor Illinois Department of Transportation Omer Osman, Acting Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: July 1, 2020 Paul Wappel 217.685.0082 Maria Castaneda 312.447.1919 Construction suspended where possible for July 4 Non-emergency closures called off, but motorists should still expect work zones SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Department of Transportation announced today that lanes that have been closed for construction will reopen, where possible, for the Fourth of July holiday to minimize travel disruption. Non-emergency closures will be suspended from 3 p.m. July 2 to 11:59 p.m. July 5. The following lane closures will remain in place during the holiday weekend. Work zone speed limits will remain in effect where posted. Please buckle up, put your phone down and drive sober. District 1 City of Chicago: • The following ramps in the Jane Byrne Interchange work zone will remain closed: • o Inbound Kennedy (Interstate 90/94) Expressway exit to inbound Ida B. Wells Drive. o Outbound Dan Ryan Expressway exit to Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive entrance from Canal Street. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Dan Ryan. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Kennedy. o Inbound Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate -290) to outbound Kennedy; detour with U-turn posted. o Inbound Eisenhower; lane reductions continue. o Inbound Ida B. Wells Drive; lane reductions continue. • Outbound Kennedy exit at Canfield Road; closed. • Westbound Bryn Mawr Avenue between Harlem and Oriole avenues; lane reductions continue. • Westbound Higgins Avenue between Oriole and Canfield avenues; lane reductions continue.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000

    Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000

    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
  • Appendix 2 - Existing

    Appendix 2 - Existing

    I-66 CORRIDOR STUDY WESTERN KENTUCKY TO MISSOURI BALLARD / MCCRACKEN COUNTY - ITEM # 1-23.00 APPENDIX 2 - EXISTING Prepared for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) – Division of Planning Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) – District 1 Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. In Association With: Qk4 Third Rock Consultants, LLC Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott & May FEBRUARY 2005 I-66 Corridor Study Western Kentucky to Missouri Existing Conditions Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Purpose..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Study Area Characteristics.................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Kentucky........................................................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Missouri......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE................................................................................ 5 2.1 Population ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Employment ........................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Economics..........................................................................................................
  • 0253S04.45H Sb 89

    0253S04.45H Sb 89

    0253S04.45H SB 89 House _______________________________________________________ Amendment NO.____ Offered By _____________________________________ ___________________________________ 1 AMEND Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 89, Page 1, Section A, Line 3, by 2 inserting after all of said section and line the following: 3 4 "227.463. The portion of Interstate 29 from its intersection of Interstate 70/U.S. State 5 Highway 71/40 in Jackson County north to the bridge crossing over Nishnabotna River in Atchison 6 County, except for those portions of Interstate 29 previously designated as of August 28, 2019, shall 7 be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private 8 donations. 9 227.465. The portion of Interstate 55 from State Highway O in Pemiscot County to U.S. 10 Highway 40 in St. Louis City, except for those portions of Interstate 55 previously designated as of 11 August 28, 2019, shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be 12 paid by private donations. 13 227.466. The portion of Interstate 57 from the Missouri/Illinois state line in Mississippi 14 County continuing south to U.S. State Highway 60/State Highway AA in Scott County shall be 15 designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private donations. 16 227.467. The portion of Interstate 64 from Interstate 70 from the city of Wentzville in St. 17 Charles County continuing east to Interstate 55 at the Missouri/Illinois state line in St. Louis City, 18 except for those portions of Interstate 64/US40/US61 previously designated as August 28, 2019, 19 shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail".