DOCSLIB.ORG

Presbytery Boundaries Defined

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presbytery Boundaries Defined PRESBYTERY DIRECTORY 99 II. PRESBYTERY BOUNDARIES DEFINED Note: The following Presbytery boundary descriptions have been gathered from Minutes of the General Assembly as the Assembly has approved them. The number after the name of the presbytery represents the chronological sequence in which that presbytery was organized by General Assembly. There is no longer a presbytery numbered 32, as Mid-America was dissolved, and there is no longer a presbytery numbered 18, as Louisiana was dissolved. Arizona (23) The entire state of Arizona. Ascension Presbytery (19) All of Pennsylvania north and west of and including the counties of McLean, Elk, Clearfield, Jefferson, Armstrong, Butler, and Beaver. Blue Ridge Presbytery (65) All churches and missions in Virginia, bounded on the north and east and including the counties (and contained independent cities) of Frederick, Clarke, Warren, Rappannock, Culpeper, Orange, Louisa, Fluvanna, Buckingham, Prince Edward, Lunenburg, and Mecklenburg; and bounded on the west by and including the counties of Giles, Pulaski, and Carroll (east of I-77). Calvary Presbytery (8) All of South Carolina west of and including the counties of Edgefield, Saluda, Newberry, Laurens, and Cherokee, excluding that part of Cherokee county south of I-85 and east of the Broad River and that section south and east of State Routes 211 and 105. Catawba Valley Presbytery (81) The following counties of North Carolina: Alexander, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg north of Interstate 85, and Rowan. Central Carolina Presbytery (21) The following counties of North Carolina: Anson, Cumberland, Hoke, Lee, Mecklenburg south of Interstate 85, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Stanly, and Union. Central Florida Presbytery (20) The following counties of Florida: Marion, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Sumter, Lake, Volusia, Semiole, Orange, Osceola, and Brevard. Central Georgia Presbytery (4) All of Georgia south of and including Harris, Talbot, Upson, Lamar, Butts, Jasper, Morgan, Greene, and Hancock counties; and west of the following counties: Washington, Johnson, Laurens, Wheeler, Telfair, Coffee, Atkinson, Clinch and Echols. Central Indiana Presbytery (80) The following Indiana counties: south of and including Newton, Benton, White, Cass, Miami, Grant, Blackford, and Jay; north and east of and including Vermillion, Parke, Putnam, Morgan, Monroe, Lawrence, Orange, Crawford, and Perry; excluding Dearborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Jefferson, Scott, Clark, Floyd, Washington, and Harrison. Chesapeake Presbytery (63) In Maryland, the city of Baltimore and the counties of Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Anne Arundel, and Howard, excluding that area of Howard County west of US Route 29, south of MD Route 216, and east of MD Route 108; and Kent Island in Queen Anne’s County. Chicago Metro Presbytery (70) Includes the counties of Cook, Dupage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will in the state of Illinois; Lake County in Indiana. 100 YEARBOOK Columbus Metro Presbytery (87) All mission works and churches of the greater Columbus Metro region located in the counties of Franklin, Madison, Union, Delaware, Licking, Fairfield, and Pickaway. Covenant Presbytery (7) All the counties of Arkansas except the counties of Benton, Carroll, Washington, Madison, and Boone; all of Tennessee west of the Tennessee River (between Pickwick Lake and Kentucky Lake); and all of Mississippi north of and including the counties of Washington, Sunflower, Leflore, Choctaw, Oktibbeha, Lowndes, and Carroll County north of MS Hwy 430. Eastern Canada Presbytery (27) The whole area of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Eastern Carolina Presbytery (22) All of North Carolina east of and including the following counties: Person, Orange, Chatham, Harnett, Johnston, Sampson, Bladen, and Columbus. Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery (73) The counties of Susquehanna, Wayne, Pike, Monroe, Wyoming, Luzerne, Carbon, Lehigh, Northampton, Bucks, and Montgomery (north of Germantown Pike and east of I-476, excluding Cheltenham and Abington Townships). Evangel Presbytery (12) The Alabama counties of Lamar, Fayette, Walker, Jefferson, Shelby, Talladega, Clay, Randolph, Cleburne, Calhoun, Etowah, St. Clair, Blount, and Coosa. Fellowship Presbytery (55) South Carolina counties of Chester, York, Union, Lancaster and that part of Cherokee County south of I-85, and east of the Broad River and that section south and east of State Route 211 and 105. Georgia Foothills Presbytery (76) Gwinnett and Walton counties north of US Highway 78 and east of the Chattahoochee River, and all of Hall, Barrow, Jackson, Clarke, Oconee, Habersham, and Union counties; also the counties of Oglethorpe, Elbert, Madison, Hart, Franklin, Banks, White, Stephens, Rabun, and Towns. Grace Presbytery (9) All of Mississippi south of and including the following counties: Claiborne, Copiah, Simpson, Smith, Jasper, and Clarke. Great Lakes Presbytery (28) All of the state of Michigan; Indiana counties north and east of and including the counties of Porter, Jasper, Pulaski, Fulton, Wabash, Huntington, Wells, and Adams. Gulf Coast Presbytery (2) Mobile, Baldwin, and Escambia (west of SR 113 and CR 17) counties of Alabama; all of Florida west of and including the counties of Madison and Taylor. Gulfstream Presbytery (69) The Florida counties of Palm Beach, Martin, Okeechobee, Indian River, and St. Lucie. Heartland Presbytery (45) All of Kansas, with the northwest Missouri counties of: Atchinson, Nodaway, Worth, Harrison, Gentry, Holt, Andrew, DeKalb, Daviess, Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Platte, Clay, Ray, Jackson, Lafayette, Cass, and Johnson. PRESBYTERY DIRECTORY 101 Heritage Presbytery (26) The entire State of Delaware; In Maryland, all of Cecil County together with all that part of the State of Maryland on the Delmarva peninsula including Kent, Caroline, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester counties (but excluding Kent Island); In Chester County, Pennsylvania, the following townships: New Garden, Elk, New London, London Grove ( north of Route 41), London Britain, Birmingham, Pennsbury, East Marlborough, West Marlborough, Kennett, and Franklin, including the towns/boroughs contained therein, e.g., West Grove, Avondale, and Kennett Square. Hills and Plains All counties in the state of Oklahoma; in Arkansas the counties of Benton, Carroll, Washington, Madison, and Boone; in Missouri the counties of Jasper, McDonald, Newton, Dade, Polk, Dallas, Laclede, Texas, Wright, Webster, Greene, Lawrence, Christian, Douglas, Howell, Ozark, Taney, Stone, and Barry. Houston Metro Presbytery (66) All of the area south of and including the following Texas counties: Leon, Houston, Angelina, Nacogdoches, San Augustine and Sabine and the area east of and including the following Texas counties: Leon, Madison, Walker, Montgomery, Waller, Austin, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda. Illiana Presbytery (29) All of Illinois south of and including the counties of Pike, Morgan, Christian, Shelby, Moultrie, Douglas, and Edgar; all of Indiana south and west of and including the counties of Vigo, Clay, Owen, Greene, Martin, Dubois, and Spencer; and the following counties in Kentucky: Hancock, Daviess, Henderson, and Union. Iowa Presbytery (64) All of the state of Iowa except Pottawattamie County. James River Presbytery (13) The mid‐eastern counties and cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the counties of Stafford, Spotsylvania, King George, Caroline, Essex, Westmoreland, Richmond, Middlesex, Northumberland, Lancaster, King William, King and Queen, Hanover, Henrico, Charles City, New Kent, Chesterfield, Goochland, Powhatan, Amelia, Dinwiddie, Prince George, Nottoway, Sussex, Brunswick, and Greensville; and the independent cities of Richmond, Hopewell, Petersburg, Colonial Heights, and Fredericksburg. Korean Capital Presbytery (51) All of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, including Washington, D. C. Korean Central Presbytery (41) All of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota. Korean Eastern Presbytery (36) All of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Korean Northeastern Presbytery (82) All of New York and the New England states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Korean Northwest Presbytery (52) All of the California counties north of and including San Louis Obispo, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Mono. Korean Southeastern Presbytery (42) All of North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee. 102 YEARBOOK Korean Southern Presbytery (44) All of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Korean Southwest Presbytery (37) All of the California counties south of and including Inyo, Kern, and Santa Barbara; Los Angeles County and adjacent counties (excluding counties covered by Korean Northwest Presbytery). Also the states of Colorado and Nevada. Korean Southwest Orange County (O.C.) Presbytery (84) The California counties of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial; and the state of Arizona. Lowcountry Presbytery (86) The South Carolina counties of Charleston, Berkeley, Dorchester, Beaufort, Jasper, Hampton, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Calhoun, and Orangeburg. Metro Atlanta Presbytery (5) The Georgia counties of Dekalb, Fulton, Clayton, Cobb (East of I-75), Dawson, Lumpkin, Coweta, Heard, Spalding, Troup, Merriweather, Pike, Fayette, Forsyth,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040 4.1 Roads and Highways Element The largest part of the transportation system is a roadway network of more than 7,000 lane miles and is comprised of NCDOT maintained roads, locally maintained roads, and private roads. In late 2013 the metropolitan area boundary for the High Point MPO increased in size to include the remaining portion of Davidson County not already included in an MPO. This substantially expanded the roadway network for the MPO. Radial movements that are strongest in the MPO are: • Towards Greensboro and Jamestown to the northeast, • Towards Winston-Salem from High Point to the northwest via Interstate 74, • Towards the Piedmont Triad International Airport to the north via NC 68, • Towards Lexington from High Point to the southwest via Interstate 85 and US 29/70, and • Towards Winston-Salem from Lexington via US 52. • There is some radial demand between High Point, Thomasville, Archdale, Trinity, and Wallburg. Heavily traveled routes include: • Eastchester Drive (NC 68), towards Piedmont Triad International Airport • Westchester Drive and National Highway (NC 68), towards Thomasville • NC 109 • Main Street in High Point, • Main Street in Archdale, • US 311 Bypass, • Interstate 85, • US 29-70, • Wendover Avenue, • Main Street and NC 8 in and around Lexington, • High Point - Greensboro Road, and 4.1 Roads and Highways Element • Surrett Drive. Chapter: 1 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040 The projects in the Roadway Element of the Transportation Plan come from the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for the High Point Urbanized Area. The differences between the Roadway Element of the MTP and the CTP include: • The MTP is required by Federal Law, CTP is mandated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 85 Widening and Improvements Spartanburg And
    Interstate 85 Widening and Improvements Mile Marker 80 – 96 Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties Environmental Assessment SCDOT NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS Date: 10/12/2015 FORM Project ID : 027114 County : Cherokee District : District 4 Doc Type: EA Total # of 12 Commitments: Project Name: I‐85 Widening (MM80‐96) The Environmental Commitment Contractor Responsible measures listed below are to be included in the contract and must be implemented. It is the responsibility of the Program Manager to make sure the Environmental Commitment SCDOT Responsible measures are adhered to. If there are questions regarding the commitments listed please contact: CONTACT NAME: Mr. Brad Reynolds PHONE #: (803)‐737‐1440 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Water Quality Responsibility: CONTRACTOR The contractor will be required to minimize possible water quality impacts through implementation of construction BMPs, reflecting policies contained in 23 CFR 650B and the Department's Supplemental Specifications on Seeding and Erosion Control Measures (Latest Edition). Other measures including seeding, silt fences, sediment basins, etc. as appropriate will be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to Water Quality. Non‐Standard Commitment Responsibility: CONTRACTOR Floodplains The selected contractor will send a set of final plans and request for floodplain management compliance to the local County Floodplain Administrator. A hydraulic analysis will be performed for each encroachment of a FEMA‐regulated floodplain and a detailed hydraulic analysis
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadside Flowers by Josh Shaffer Photography by Joey and Jessica Seawell
    Roadside Flowers By Josh Shaffer Photography by Joey and Jessica Seawell The Department of Transportation’s wildflower program brings back-road scenery to North Carolina’s busiest highways. Little of beauty shows up on the side of a highway. It’s where cars break down. It’s where hitchhikers stand. It’s where litterbugs toss drink cans and cigarette butts. There’s nothing much to see but a gas station sign on a pole, a shredded tire from a tractor- Multicolored wildflowers catch the eyes of motorists traveling down U.S. Highways trailer, or the remains of an 52 near Rural Hall unlucky deer. Nobody fusses much about these places, places we pass in a hurry on the way to somewhere prettier. But for 27 years, North Carolina has persisted with the stubborn idea that those humdrum strips of road should offer some reward beyond six lanes and reflective highway markers. A driver crossing the state on Interstate 40 should see more than asphalt and weeds between Wilmington and Asheville. The hot, flat ribbons linking Raleigh and Charlotte ought to show off scenery more often found in meadows — the catchflies, the toadflax, the oxeye daisies. As a driver, the sudden flash of red from an acre of corn poppies ought to make you pull off on the roadside, stop the car, step over the bits of gravel and broken glass, and walk knee-deep into the blooms. Even in this budget-slashing era, the North Carolina Department of Transportation still treats 1,500 acres of lowly roadside as the state’s flower garden.
    [Show full text]
  • 1000 Abernathy Road Northpark 400, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328 (770) 671-0006
    1000 Abernathy Road Northpark 400, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328 (770) 671-0006 www.lhh.com Directions to Lee Hecht Harrison: From Interstate 75 Interstate 75 to 285 East. Travel approximately 7 miles to Exit 27 Georgia 400 Toll Road North to Exit 5A Abernathy Road. Turn left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left. From 75/85 Downtown 85 North to Georgia 400 Toll Road. Exit 5A Abernathy Road. Turn left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left. From Interstate 85 Interstate 85 to 285 West. Travel approximately 7 miles to Exit 27 Georgia 400 Toll Road North. Exit 5A Abernathy Road. Turn left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left and Northpark 500 and 600 are on the right. From Georgia 400 traveling South Take Georgia 400 Toll Road to exit 5 Sandy Springs / Abernathy Road. Turn left, under freeway bridge, make left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left. From 285 285 East or West to Exit 27 Georgia 400 Toll Road North. Exit 5A Abernathy Road. Turn left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left. From Interstate 20 East of 285 Take Interstate 20 West to 285 North to Exit 27 Georgia 400 Toll Road North. Exit 5A Abernathy Road. Turn left at 2nd light onto Peachtree Dunwoody Road. Northpark 400 is on the left. From Interstate 20 West of 285 Take Interstate 20 East to 285 North to Exit 27 Georgia 400 Toll Road North.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of State Speed Laws
    DOT HS 810 826 August 2007 Summary of State Speed Laws Tenth Edition Current as of January 1, 2007 This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................iii Missouri ......................................................138 Alabama..........................................................1 Montana ......................................................143 Alaska.............................................................5 Nebraska .....................................................150 Arizona ...........................................................9 Nevada ........................................................157 Arkansas .......................................................15 New
    [Show full text]
  • I-85 MM 96-106 Hazardous Materials Draft
    I-85 Widening Project Cherokee County, South Carolina Phase I Environmental Site Assessment September 14, 2015 ARM Project #16-314-15 Prepared For: HDR | ICA 501 Huger Street Columbia, SC 29201 1210 1st STREET SOUTH EXTENSION / COLUMBIA, SC 29209 / phone 803-783-3314 fax 803-783-2587 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 - Summary Page 1 2.0 - Introduction Page 4 3.0 - Site Description Page 6 4.0 – User Provided Information Page 7 5.0 – Records Review Page 8 6.0 – Site Reconnaissance Page 19 7.0 – Interviews Page 20 8.0 – Findings Page 21 9.0 – Opinion Page 21 10.0 – Conclusions Page 22 11.0 – Deviations Page 25 12.0 – Additional Services Page 25 13.0 – References Page 25 14.0 – Signature(s) of Environmental Professional(s) Page 26 15.0 – Qualifications of Environmental Professional(s) Page 26 16.0 – Warranty Page 26 17.0 – Appendices 17.1 Site (Vicinity) Map – Figure 1 17.2 Site Plan – Figure 2 17.3 Site Photographs 17.4 Historical Research Documentation 17.5 Regulatory Records Documentation 17.6 Interview Documentation 17.7 Special Contractual Conditions Between User and Environmental Professional 17.8 Qualifications of the Environmental Professional I-85 Widening Project, Cherokee Co. SC ARM Project No. 12-314-15 Phase I ESA September 14, 2015 1.0 Summary ARM Environmental Services, Inc. (ARM) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of a corridor study area along Interstate 85 (I-85), from a point approximately 1 mile northeast of SC 18 to the South Carolina / North Carolina border, located in Cherokee County, South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Potential Freeway Segments for Dedicated Truck Lanes
    Identifying Potential Freeway Segments for Dedicated Truck Lanes Submitted By: Christopher J. Espiritu A Thesis Quality Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Masters of Science in Transportation Management Mineta Transportation Institute San Jose State University June 2013 Acknowledgements My greatest appreciation goes to Dr. Peter Haas and Rod Diridon for guiding me through this process. A special thank you goes to Dr. Nick Compin and Dr. Amelia Regan for their guidance and support of this project. My appreciation also goes to the representatives of the Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, Georgia DOT, Virginia DOT, Washington DOT, Oregon DOT, and NJ DOT; this project would not be possible without your great work. A special thank you also goes to Viviann Ferea for all the help and support over the last couple of years. This is dedicated to my loving family. To my sister (Charity) and my brother‐in‐law (Dave), for their unfailing support and encouragement. To my beloved Susan, for her support and patience. And finally, this is dedicated to my mother (Deborah), who I have dearly missed over the last year and a half since starting this program. Page 2 Table of Contents BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 8 RESEARCH FOCUS .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Highway System
    _)OT North Carolina State Library N. C. Kl -· Raleigh Doc. 2 :I6/ c. 2. NORTH CAROLINA'S MAY 18 1976 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR: ■ SAFETY ■ CONVENIENCE ■ ECONOMY N. C. STATE HIGHWAY COMMl~IOH ' .• , •• 't' • • A S'IUDY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1 S INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM STATE HIGHWAY COM11ISSION RJBLIC RELATIONS JULY, 1958 THE INTER STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ~ ~ l..J ~ C) (.) ~ ...... ' " "'.... ~ \.) ~ ,q l\. -\" ~ The national system of interstate and defense highways ties togethe r the centers of populatio n and ind ustry throughout the Un ited States. NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS ttThe greatest public works program in man's history." That phrase has often been used to describe the scope of the Interstate Highway Program, made possible by Congress with the passage of the 11Federal Highway Act of 1956tt. The Congress levied an extra one cent tax per gallon on motor fuels, as well as an additional tax on certain automobile accessories, to make available funds for the hl,000 mile network of superhighways which ~ome experts estimate will eventually cost more than 50 billions of dollars. The Interstate System is the dream plan of transportation and civil engi­ neers alike and is being designed to carry traffic loads of future generations, as well as the growing demand of today. Interstate Highways are being built with the full realization that America is a mobile nation which must have adequate trans­ portation facilities if its way of life is to be improved and expanded. Best of all, the Interstate System is being built with the higt,wa} user in mind-safety features are DESIGNED IN and traffic bottlenecks and delay points are DESIGNED aJT.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Building 13 the Newest
    INTRODUCING BUILDING 13 THE NEWEST DEVELOPMENT AT ONE OF THE MOST ESTABLISHED OFFICE CAMPUSES IN NORTH DRUID HILLS PEACHTREE CORNERS MARIETTA DUNWOODY NORCROSS SANDY SPRINGS DEKALB PEACHTREE AIRPORT LILBURN SMYRNA VININGS BROOKHAVEN BUCKHEAD Corporate Square Office Park is a 10-building office campus totaling over 600,000 square feet of office NORTH DRUID STONE space prominently located in the Druid Hills submarket HILLS MOUNTAIN between I-85 and Buford Highway, within 10 minutes of both Buckhead and Midtown. MIDTOWN WEST MIDTOWN DECATUR Developed in phases from 1967 to 1971, the office park has been institutionally maintained and operated DOWNTOWN throughout its history, earning Energy Star ratings in majority of the buildings. Benefiting from its central location, the campus environment provides functional office space appealing to tenants of all sizes, ample GRANT PARK parking, an on-site cafe and great access to metro- Atlanta at cost effective rental rates. DRIVE TIMES from Corporate Square Interstate 85 3 Minutes Interstate 75 6 Minutes Interstate 285 8 Minutes Dekalb Peachtree Airport 11 Minutes HARTSFIELD JACKSON Georgia 400 11 Minutes INTERNATIONAL Interstate 20 15 Minutes AIRPORT Downtown Atlanta 15 Minutes Hartsfield Jackson International Airport 23 Minutes 145,000 Square Feet 26,000 Square Feet Typical Floorplate Up to Six Stores 4.3 per 1,000 Parking Ratio Highway Signage Opportunity Over 235,000 daily cars on I-85 Build-to-Suit Available Value-Office™ Construction Can be built for 10 − 20% less cost and time than traditional construction Outdoor Amenities Conference and café spaces, projection televisions, lawn games, and fire pits GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 14,686 RSF 21,863 RSF Amenities Lobby Lobby Below THIRD FLOOR FOURTH & FIFTH FLOOR 24,583 RSF 24,793 RSF SIXTH FLOOR ROOF 24,451 RSF TENANT BALCONY INSPIRATION IMAGERY Rooftop access complete with a unique dinning experience, full bar, and lounge.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Management for Major Highway Reconstruction
    Transportation Management for Major Highway Reconstruction Proceedigs of.the National Conference on Corridor Traffic Management for Major Highway Reconstruction Chicago, Illinois September :2&Octbber 1, 1986 NAS. NAE t1OM TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 1987 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chairman: Lowell B. Jackson, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Highways, Denver Vice Chairman: Herbert H. Richardson, Vice Chancellor and Dean of Engineering, Texas A&M University System, College Station Executive Director: Thomas B. Been, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Ray A. Barnhart, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) John A. Clements, Vice President, Sverdrup Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts (ex officio, Past Chairman, 1985) Donald D. Engen, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (retired), Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Francis B. Francois, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D:C. (ex officio) E. R. (Vald) Heiberg Ill, Chief of Enginers and Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) Lester A. Hoel, Hamilton Professor and Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville (ex officio, Past Chairman, 1986) Ralph L. Stanley, Administrator, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Diane Steed, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) George H. Way, Jr., Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads,Washinglon, D.C. (ex officio) Alan A. Altshuler, Dean, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University, New York John R. Borchert, Regents Professor, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Robert 0: Bugher, Executive Director, American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois Dana F.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.03.0 Freight Assessment Freight Assessment
    3.03.0 Freight Assessment Freight Assessment The Freight Assessment includes a technical services movement corridors and networks in analysis of existing freight data. The objective the region. is to develop a regional freight profile for the Gaston Urban Area including a GIS freight 3.1 Highway System Freight database by collecting all publicly available Profile freight data and economically feasible private data. This assessment is designed to be an on- The highway system freight profile includes an going effort and is based on publicly available assessment of the roadway network for trucks. data. The North Carolina National Truck Network for Surface Transportation Administration Act In order to analyze and report on truck (STAA) (double trailers, 48 foot, and 53 foot) volumes at all available locations in the Gaston vehicles identifies I-85 and US 321 (south of I- Urban Area, GUAMPO coordinated with the 85) as truck routes. Most of the volume on the North Carolina Department of Transportation other roadways identified in the profile is for (NCDOT), which maintains an in-house data- local freight trips. base of the most recent traffic data throughout the state. In addition, outputs from the travel The data collection includes highway traffic demand model were used to aid in under- volumes, speed, capacity, vehicle mix, and standing the future truck volumes throughout physical constraints of the highway on key the region. regional freight corridors. The data was used to identify priority freight corridors in the Gaston Coordinating with the Metrolina Regional Urban Area. Based on the analysis results, the Travel Demand Model staff, GUAMPO priority corridors are I-85, US 321, and US obtained future truck volume information in the 29/74 for the existing years and for the 2020 model for the Gaston MPO region.
    [Show full text]