DOCSLIB.ORG

Southern Kentucky Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southern Kentucky Corridor I-66 Southern Kentucky Corridor between the Louie B. Nunn (Cumberland) and Daniel Boone Parkways Pulaski and Laurel Counties Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Six Year Highway Plan Item # 11-66.00 Prepared for: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Planning Frankfort, Kentucky Prepared by: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS — PLANNERS Lexington, Kentucky June 2000 SOUTHERN KENTUCKY CORRIDOR (I-66) Somerset to London Planning Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Project Background ................................................................................................. 1-1 B. Previous Studies...................................................................................................... 1-1 C. Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1 D. Project Study Area................................................................................................... 1-5 E. Report Contents....................................................................................................... 1-5 2. Study Area Conditions........................................................................................................ 2-1 A. Socioeconomics and Land Use ............................................................................... 2-1 B. Existing Study Area Characteristics......................................................................... 2-7 C. Traffic and Operational Conditions ........................................................................ 2-15 D. Planning Level Environmental Considerations ...................................................... 2-21 3. Proposed Corridors............................................................................................................. 3-1 A. Key Corridor Development Issues .......................................................................... 3-1 B. Proposed Corridor Options ...................................................................................... 3-4 4. Analysis of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 4-1 A. Traffic and Socioeconomics..................................................................................... 4-1 B. Environmental Issues .............................................................................................. 4-9 C. Engineering and Construction Costs ..................................................................... 4-24 5. Public and Agency Involvement.......................................................................................... 5-1 A. Public Meetings ....................................................................................................... 5-1 B. Other Public Input.................................................................................................... 5-3 C. Resource Agency Input ........................................................................................... 5-5 D. KYTC Intradepartmental Input................................................................................. 5-6 6. Recommendations and Conclusions................................................................................... 6-1 A. Development of Recommended Corridor................................................................. 6-1 B. Recommended Corridor Evaluation......................................................................... 6-6 C. Priority Segments and Implementation.................................................................... 6-9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A .............................................................................................. Public Airport Facilities Appendix B .................................................................Planned and Programmed Improvements Appendix C .............................................................................................. Critical Accident Rates Appendix D ......................................... Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species in Pulaski and Laurel Counties Appendix E ..........................................................................Kentucky Geological Survey Report Appendix F................................................................ Typical Sections/Proposed Design Criteria Appendix G.................................................................Public and Agency Involvement Materials Page i SOUTHERN KENTUCKY CORRIDOR (I-66) Page No. Somerset to London Planning Study 5.2 Summer 1999 Public Input Questionnaire Summaries................................ ......5-2 5.3 Spring 2000 Public Input Questionnaire Summaries ................................ .........5-3 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page No. 6.1 Recommended Corridor................................ ................................ ....................6-4 6.2 Approximate Location of I-66/I-75 Interchange................................ ..................6-3 1.1 Corridor 3 – The Transamerica Corridor (Interstate 66) ................................ ....1-2 6.3 Design Consideration for I-66/I-75 Interchange................................ .................6-5 1.2 Proposed I-66 Corridor Through Kentucky (50 mile Corridor Width) .................1-3 6.4 Potential Louie B. Nunn (Cumberland) Parkway Interchange............................6-5 1.3 1995 Estimates of Persons in Poverty ................................ .............................. 1-4 6.5 Potential Daniel Boone Parkway Interchange ................................ ...................6-6 1.4 Proposed I-66 Corridor Project Location................................ ........................... 1-6 6.6 Recommended Corridor Traffic Volumes ................................ ..........................6-7 2.1 Block Group Population ................................ ................................ .................... 2-1 6.7 Recommended Segment Priorities................................ ................................ ..6-10 2.2 Population Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................2-2 2.3 Labor Force Characteristics................................ ................................ ..............2-4 LIST OF TABLES 2.4 Earnings Information................................ ................................ ......................... 2-5 2.1 Population Estimates ................................ ................................ ........................2-1 2.5 Employment Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............2-6 2.2 Labor Force Characteristics................................ ................................ ..............2-3 2.6 Regional Tourism................................ ................................ .............................. 2-8 2.3 Study Area Industry ................................ ................................ ..........................2-3 2.7 Land Use Classification ................................ ................................ .................... 2-9 2.4 Existing Route Inventory................................ ................................ .................2-11 2.8 Regional Truck Network................................ ................................ .................. 2-10 2.5 Highway Characteristics ................................ ................................ .................2-11 2.9 Existing Bridge Inventory ................................ ................................ ................ 2-13 2.6 Area Industrial Facilities................................ ................................ ..................2-15 2.10 Kentucky Intermodal Facilities ................................ ................................ ........2-14 2.7 Traffic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .....................2-16 2.11 Year 1998 Level of Service and Average Daily Traffic Volumes...................... 2-18 2.8 Level of Service Definitions................................ ................................ .............2-17 2.12 Year 2010 Level of Service and Average Daily Traffic Volumes...................... 2-19 2.9 Critical Accident Rates................................ ................................ ....................2-17 2.13 Year 2030 Level of Service and Average Daily Traffic Volumes...................... 2-20 4.1 Average Traffic Volumes................................ ................................ ...................4-1 3.1 Potential Interchange Sites................................ ................................ ...............3-1 4.2 Projected Traffic Volumes for the Years 2010 and 2030 ................................ ...4-2 3.2 Existing Exits 38 and 41................................ ................................ .................... 3-2 4.3 Time and Distance Savings for Year 2030................................ ........................4-1 3.3 Major Areas of Avoidance................................ ................................ .................3-3 4.4 Daily VMT & VHT for Year 2030 ................................ ................................ .......4-1 3.4 Study Corridors................................ ................................ ................................ .3-5 4.5 Accident Reduction and Cost Savings for Proposed Corridors..........................4-6 4.1 Projected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report
    I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study - FINAL REPORT- Presented to: Submitted By: September 2015 Cover Letter Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049 Date: September 23, 2015 To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project. Respectfully, Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared For: By: Final Report September 2015 Disclaimer The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH I-75 MASTER PLAN Summary Report
    NORTH I-75 MASTER PLAN Summary Report Interstate 75 (SR 93) From the Florida’s Turnpike Interchange to the I-10 Interchange Alachua, Bradford, Clay, Citrus, Columbia, Duval, Levy, Marion, and Sumter Counties, Florida Financial Project ID: 191985-2-12-01 June 2017 Updated August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND & PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 I-75 Relief Task Force Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 STUDY AREA CORRIDORS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 4 STUDY METHODOLOGY & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 6 5 EXISTING AND FUTURE I-75 TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Element
    CHAPTER 3 CITY OF NORTH PORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN _________________________________ TRANSPORTATION Transportation Element Table of Contents Chapter 3 Transportation Page Introduction 3-3 Transportation Issues Identified in the EAR 3-4 Functional Classification of Roads 3-6 Strategic Intermodal System 3-8 Roadway Jurisdiction and Maintenance 3-8 Parking Facilities 3-8 Traffic Generators 3-9 Traffic Counts 3-10 Intersection Deficiencies 3-10 Roadway Level of Service 3-10 State Highway System Levels of Service 3-11 Existing Level of Service Standards 3-12 Concurrency Management 3-14 Proportionate Fair Share 3-14 Access Management Strategies 3-15 U.S. 41 Corridor Master Plan 3-15 Transportation and Disaster Management 3-16 Future Growth and Transportation Improvements 3-17 Alternative Modes of Transportation 3-20 Intergovernmental Coordination 3-21 List of Illustrations TABLES 3-1 Existing Roadway Classification 3-7 3-2 Existing Roadway Lanes 3-8 3-3 Existing Roadway Jurisdiction 3-8 3-4 Backlogged and Constrained Facilities 3-14 3-5 Time to Clear Landfalling Storm for Evacuation Zones 3-17 Attachment 2007 Existing Traffic Counts Goals, Objectives, & Policies 3-22 Maps follow GOP’s 3-1 Existing & Future Transit Generators 3-5 Existing Roadway Lane Classification 3-2 Existing Roadway Jurisdictional 3-5a Future Roadway Lane Classification 3-2a Future Roadway Jurisdictional 3-6 Future Transportation 3-3 Level of Service 3-3b LOS C Congestion Levels 3-4 Existing Roadway Classification 3-2 Transportation Element TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The goal of the transportation element is to develop an effective multi-modal transportation system which optimizes safety, convenience, cost, and pollution reduction practices by establishing internal and external transportation linkages between residential neighborhoods and activity centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Oversize/ Overweight Permit Manual
    Oversize/ Overweight Permit Manual Kentucky Foreword The Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association is pleased to publish this Oversize/ Overweight Permit Manual. Each state analysis includes information in a standardized format: contact, legal limits, special permit limits, general restrictions, types of permits available, fees, escort needs, fines, and restricted travel areas. Telephone numbers, locations, and hours of operation are listed for ports of entry and permit branches. However, readers are always advised to check with the state offices on current laws and procedures. This project could not have been completed without the advice and consultation of many state officials. We thank all of those who provided permit manuals, maps, laws, regulations, and various other forms of documentation. Legal Notice This SC&RA Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual is intended only to provide concise, easily read information, useful in planning movements of overdimensional and overweight loads. This Permit Manual is not intended to be an accurate summary of all the applicable laws and regulations. Users of the Permit Manual should confirm the information contained herein before dispatching vehicles and loads. The SC&RA cautions Permit Manual users that state laws and regulations are subject to change without notice, and that some time elapses between the effective date of such changes and the amendment of the Permit Manual to reflect those changes. The SC&RA assumes no responsibility for accident, injury, loss or claim, penalties or any other damage resulting from reliance on the contents of this Permit Manual. Specialized Carriers & Copyright 1987-2015 by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may Rigging Association be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any 5870 Trinity Parkway, Suite 200 form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, Centreville, VA 20120 recording, scanning, or otherwise, without the prior written PHONE: (703) 698-0291 permission of the publisher, Joel M.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex U.S. Institute of Peace
    Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: October 6, 2016 PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the 7650 Potomac Annex United States Institute of Peace NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW 1.33(38.00)44427 Washington, DC APPLICANT’S REQUEST SUBMITTED BY Final approval of site and building United States Institute of Peace plans PROPOSED ACTION REVIEW AUTHORITY Approve as requested Federal Projects in the District per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d) ACTION ITEM TYPE Consent Calendar PROJECT SUMMARY The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has submitted final site and building plans for the rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex, a federal property generally bounded by 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, the E Street Expressway, and the E Street approach ramp to Interstate 66. Buildings 6 and 7 are located directly north of the USIP Headquarters Building near the intersection of 23rd and C Street, NW. In 2012, the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) transferred administrative jurisdiction of Buildings 6 and 7 to USIP. The Navy transferred the remaining portion of Potomac Annex, except three Navy flag officer houses and associated land, to the United States General Services Administration (GSA) for use by the United States Department of State (DOS). Buildings 6 and 7 are surrounded to the southeast and east by other federal properties and organizational headquarters, including the American Pharmacists Association Building, the Harry S Truman Building, and the National Mall. Buildings 6 and 7 are contributing resources to the Observatory Hill Historic District, determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Directions to Ccc League Games
    DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO CCC LEAGUE GAMES TO: ANSONIA High School…Ansonia, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (North) on State Route 127 to and left (West) on State Route 47. The School is located approximately 3-4 miles from Route 127 on the North side of the road. TO: ARCANUM High School…Arcanum, Ohio Take State Route 503 North and right (East) on State Route 722 (in Ithaca) to and left (North) at the stop sign. Stay on this road as it winds through the edge of Ithaca and eventually continues North into Arcanum. The high school is located past the second traffic signal on the left (West) side of the street in Arcanum. TO: BETHEL High School…Tipp City, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to the second exit past Interstate 75 which is State Route 201. Take State Route 201 left (North). The High School is located approximately 3-4 miles from I70 on the left (West) side of the road. TO: BRADFORD High School…Bradford, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to the State Route 49 North Exit. Take Route 49 Northwest through Phillipsburg to and right (North) on State Route 721 and continue into Bradford. The High School is located at the North edge of Bradford on the left (West) side of Route 721. TO: COVINGTON High School…Covington, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to and left (North) on State Route 48 at the Englewood exit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Highway System: 50 Years of Perspective Jerome Hall and Loretta Hall
    The Interstate Highway System: 50 Years of Perspective Jerome Hall and Loretta Hall On June 29, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed historic legislation that authorized construction of the Interstate Highway System and created a pay-as-you-go Highway Trust Fund to generate the federal government’s 90+ percent share of the system’s cost. Although Eisenhower is justifiably credited with making it a reality, the Interstate System is actually the result of a series of concepts that were refined over several prior decades within the engineering and political arenas. Developing the system required a visionary financing strategy that would satisfy diverse philosophical and economic view points. Designing the system presented unprecedented challenges for standardizing elements that would improve safety and be appropriate for a truly national highway system. The current 46,700-mile Interstate System generated transportation efficiencies and enabled societal mobility to unanticipated degrees. This paper traces the system’s conceptual development; describes its major political, societal, financial, and technical challenges; and evaluates its influences on the American way of life. Conceptual Development The federal government undertook its first interstate road building project in 1806, when it authorized federally funded construction of the National Road (now US 40). President Thomas Jefferson approved legislation to build the 20-foot-wide highway on 60-foot-wide right-of-way. The War of 1812 slowed construction of the first section from Cumberland, Maryland, to the Ohio River. After spirited debate about federal versus state powers, the federal government transferred ownership of the road to the states about 1835. The National Road was a macadam highway traversed by herded livestock and covered wagons.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Foundation Document Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia Contact Information For more information about the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (606)248-2817 or write to: Superintendent, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, 91 Bartlett Park Road, Middlesboro, KY 40965 Purpose Significance Significance statements express why Cumberland Gap National Historical Park resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • Crossing the Great Appalachian Barrier. The Cumberland Gap represents a turning point in American history as the Gap witnessed nearly 300,000 settlers pushing through the Appalachian barrier during the late 18th to early 19th century. Today some 40 million Americans can trace their history to crossing through the Gap. • Geology. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park protects an extensive array of geologic features formed over the course of hundreds of millions of years in the wake of numerous Appalachian orogenies (mountain-forming periods). The park’s notable concentration of caves and The purpose of Cumberland Gap karst formations, cliffs, pinnacles, and other geologic national HistoriCal park is to features provide a valuable window into the dynamic nature preserve, protect, and interpret the of the landscape and the impact of geology on human geologic “doorway to the west”—the migration and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena
    MARCH 1997 VOLUME 39 NUMBER 3 SSTTOORRMM DDAATTAA AND UNUSUAL WEATHER PHENOMENA WITH LATE REPORTS AND CORRECTIONS NATIONAL OCEANIC AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER noaa ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE ASHEVILLE, N.C. Cover:TheremnantsofabuildingwhichoncestoodinArkadelphia,Arkansas.AnF4tornadomoveddirectlythroughthetownabout2:21PMon March1,1997.ThetornadoesinArkansasleft25peopledeadandinjuredanother400.Morethan13.000structuresweredamagedwithmorethan 1,000destroyed.(PhotocourtesyofTimHogan,Arkadelphia,AR) TABLEOF CONTENTS Page OutstandingStormsoftheMonth.................................................5 StormDataandUnusualWeatherPhenomena..........................................8 Additions/Corrections....................................................... N/A ReferenceNotes.......................................................... 189 STORMDATA (ISSN0039-1972) NationalClimaticDataCenter Editor:StephenDelGreco AssistantEditor:StuartHinson STORMDATAisprepared,funded,anddistributedbytheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA).The OutstandingStormsoftheMonthsectionispreparedbytheDataOperationsBranchoftheNationalClimaticDataCenter. TheStormDataandUnusualWeatherPhenomenanarrativesandHurricane/TropicalStormsummariesarepreparedbytheNational WeatherService.Monthlyandannualstatisticsandsummariesoftornadoandlightningeventsresultingindeaths,injuries,anddamage arecompiledbycooperativeeffortsbetweentheNationalClimaticDataCenterandtheStormPredictionCenter. STORMDATAcontainsallconfirmedinformationonstormsavailabletoourstaffatthetimeofpublication.However,dueto
    [Show full text]
  • US23 Route Is That You Avoid Congested Detroit and of Course Have Less Exposure to Accident Traffic Incidents with Resulting Backups
    Direct southbound route from Flint, Michigan to Perrysburg, Ohio (I-75 exit 192) From Flint, Michigan, Interstate-75 takes a significant turn to the southeast as it runs towards downtown Detroit ... and onwards to Toledo in Ohio. For those driving from the UP, Sault Ste Marie and other points in Michigan north of Flint, here is a route which avoids Detroit and the extra southeast I-75 miles; it is a direct southbound path which rejoins I-75 just below Toledo. Parts of the route are through rural country on a two-lane open highway while others are on a two lane limited access route similar to an interstate. The advantage of the US23 route is that you avoid congested Detroit and of course have less exposure to accident traffic incidents with resulting backups. Comparison Via I-75: time/dist. from Flint to Toledo/I-75 exit 192 = 147 miles (237km) 2:55 hours. Via US23 route: time/dist from Flint to Toledo/I-75 exit 192 = 130 miles (209km) 3:00 hours. Alternative US23 Route 1. On I-75 just south of Flint, Michigan, move to the two right lanes and take exit 115 - US23 to Ann Arbor. 2. Continue of US23 through Fenton, Brighton and Whitmore Lake to Ann Arbor. 3. Just north of Ann Arbor, move to left two lanes and continue following US23South - Toldeo (do not take exit 45, or follow US23 Business or signs to Ann Arbor). The road bends to the east (left) for 2.5 miles (4kms). 4. Stay in right two lanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
    COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2017 CEDS 177 Graham Avenue Bowling Green, KY 42101 December 2017 ALLEN – BARREN – BUTLER – EDMONSON – HART LOGAN – METCALFE – MONROE – SIMPSON - WARREN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….……………………….…..….…..4 II. Summary Background.………………………………………………………………….……………….……...……7 III. SWOT Analaysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….9 Economic Background of the Region………………………………..…………………………….…....…..11 . Population…………………………………………………………………………………….…..……….…..…..12 . Population Composition……………………………………………………………………..…….....…….16 . Economy & Workforce………………………………………………………………………………...….….19 . Tourism……………………………………………………………………………………………………………....26 . Education…………………………………………………………………….…………….……………….……...29 . Agriculture…………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………32 . Industrial Infrastructure……………………………………….…………………….……………………….33 . Broadband…………………………………………………………………………………….…….………………37 . Transportation……………………………………………………………………………………..……………..39 . Infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………….………….………….46 . Economic Resilience………………………………………………………………………………......………47 . Natural Disaster Resilience………………………………………………………………………………….49 . Identification of Other Plans and Strategies…………………………….………………………....53 . Integration of State’s Economic Priorities……………………………………………………………56 . Economic Cluster Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………57 IV. Goals/Action Plan………………………………………………………………………………………………………59 V. Evaluation/Performance Measures……………………………………………………………………………70 VI. Strategic Projects………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….71
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Infrastructure
    W ARREN C OUNTY Infrastructure Introduction A community’s infrastructure is the framework of essential services relating to utilities and transportation networks. This chapter focuses on the following four topics: Water Service, Sewer Service, Stormwater Management, and Transportation. Most often, capital improvement plans are an outgrowth of planning for creation and expansion of existing utility and transportation facilities. Warren County has had a history of privatization which is documented in the County Code, adopted in 1981. The code made it clear that the County wished to avoid an unreasonable burden for providing water and sewer, fire and rescue, police protection, and solid waste disposal services, or the expenditure of public funds for such services. This left many of these services in the hands of developers, untrained individuals, or owner associations which resulted in an inconsistent system of services. When subdivisions were plotted in the 1950s through the 1970s, no one could have foreseen the problems inherent in a lack of unity of the infrastructure provision and planning. A 1992 demographic survey conducted by Property Owners' Associations of Virginia, Inc., determined that in rural area subdivisions platted 30 to 40 years ago, dwellings occupied less than 40% of their lots. The Comprehensive Plan’s survey of Warren County residents, revealed that citizens are feeling the negative effects from the lack of infrastructure. In fact, 61% are concerned about development trends in their neighborhoods and 63% are concerned about development trends elsewhere in the County. The largest concern was traffic congestion, followed by substandard roads and lack of groundwater. In response to this dissatisfaction, the County must re-evaluate its development ordinances in relation to guiding and facilitating orderly and beneficial growth and 2013 C OMPREHENSIVE development that will promote public health, safety, and the population’s P LAN welfare.
    [Show full text]