DOCSLIB.ORG

Second Knolls Development REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Second Knolls Development REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY Second Knolls Development REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY Final Report Task Assignment MPD 011D-13 Prepared for: Prepared by: March 2014 Final Report Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Transportation System ................................................................................................................... 1 Development Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 1 Funding ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Geographic Setting ............................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Planning Context............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Public Outreach .................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Previous Plans and Studies ................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Population and Employment Projections ............................................................................ 12 3.0 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions ............................................................ 13 3.1 Road Network .................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Traffic Operations ............................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Traffic Safety .................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Public Transportation ........................................................................................................ 22 3.5 Airports ............................................................................................................................ 23 3.6 Goods Movement ............................................................................................................. 23 3.7 Non-Motorized Transportation .......................................................................................... 24 3.8 Future Conditions ............................................................................................................. 24 3.9 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.0 Development Case Studies ........................................................................................... 26 4.1 Industrial Clusters ............................................................................................................. 26 4.2 Inland Ports ...................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Transload Facility ............................................................................................................. 30 4.4 Forest Products ................................................................................................................. 32 4.5 Other Case Studies .......................................................................................................... 34 4.6 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 36 4.7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 39 5.0 Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................ 40 5.1 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 44 6.0 Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................. 45 6.1 Federal Funding Sources .................................................................................................. 45 i Final Report 6.2 State Funding Sources ...................................................................................................... 46 6.3 Local Funding Sources ...................................................................................................... 47 6.4 Transit Funding Assistance ................................................................................................ 48 6.5 Public-Private Partnerships ................................................................................................ 48 6.6 Other Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................ 49 6.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 56 Appendices Appendix A ...................................................................................... Level of Service Thresholds Appendix B .......................................................................................................... Case Studies Appendix C ....................................................................... Public Involvement Summary Reports Appendix D ..................................................................................... Tier II Grant Opportunities Figures Figure 1 Second Knolls Development Regional Study Area ....................................................... 4 Figure 2 Total Vehicle Crashes by Crash Type and Severity ..................................................... 17 Figure 3 Vehicle Crash Locations, Volumes of Crashes, and Crash Types ................................ 18 Figure 4 Vehicle Crashes by Type of Crash ............................................................................. 19 Figure 5 Future Transportation Network Concepts ................................................................. 41 Figure 6 Second Knolls Road Cross Sections ........................................................................... 42 Tables Table 1 Study Area Land Cover ................................................................................................ 5 Table 2 Employment Estimates ................................................................................................. 6 Table 3 Navajo County Population Projections ....................................................................... 11 Table 4 Study Area Population and Employment Projections, 2010-2035 ............................... 12 Table 5 Existing and Future State Highway Traffic Conditions ................................................. 14 Table 6 Fatal Crash Characteristics ........................................................................................ 20 Table 7 Vehicle Crashes by Type, Severity, and Location ......................................................... 21 Table 8 Five-Year Crash Rates ............................................................................................... 22 Table 9 Key Attributes of Economic Development Efforts ......................................................... 37 Table 10 Key Attributes of Locating Inland Port Facilities ........................................................ 38 ii Final Report Table 11 Key Attributes for Transload Facilities ....................................................................... 38 Table 12 Key Attributes for Forest Products Development ....................................................... 39 Table 13 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations ......................................................... 44 Table 14 Tier I Transportation Planning Funding Opportunities .............................................. 50 Table 15 Tier I Community Planning Funding Opportunities ................................................... 52 Table 16 Tier I Economic Development Funding Opportunities ............................................... 53 iii Final Report Executive Summary The purpose of the Second Knolls Development Regional Study is to identify transportation infrastructure investments that may help leverage the economic potential of the study area and foster future land development. This document describes the study area’s existing and future transportation conditions and presents transportation framework recommendations based on planning by Aztec Land & Cattle Company, the Town of Snowflake and Taylor, and Navajo County. It presents findings from case studies on inland ports and rural industrial developments and discusses possible funding sources and strategies for infrastructure investment. Transportation System The existing and future transportation system analysis showed that ample capacity remains on the current state highway system to accommodate background traffic growth through 2035. Furthermore, there would be sufficient remaining capacity on both SR 77 and SR 277 in 2035 to support initial development within the Second Knolls study area without needing to add new lanes to the road.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission
    Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report KTC -14-11/MTIC1-14-1F Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. © 2014 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. Kentucky Transportation Center 176 Oliver H. Raymond Building Lexington, KY 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 fax (859) 257-1815 www.ktc.uky.edu Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Prepared for: Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium by the Kentucky Transportation Center 11/21/2014 This Page Left Intentionally Blank. Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Authors: Principal Investigator: Doug Kreis, PE, MBA, PMP Researcher(s): Sarah McCormack, MSc, CTL Research Engineer Christopher Van Dyke, MA Research Analyst Bryan Gibson, PhD Research Associate Multimodal Transportation and Infrastructure Consortium P.O. Box 5425 Huntington, WV 25703-0425 Phone: (304) 696-2313 • Fax: (304) 696-6088 Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes
    [Show full text]
  • SEASONS: the 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer
    TEAM GREER SEASONS: The 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer The City of Greer, South Carolina Founded: 1876 Population: 25,515 (2010 Census) Government: Council City Administrator: Edward Driggers Mayor: Rick Danner City Council: Jay Arrowood Wayne Griffin* Kimberly Bookert Lee Dumas Wryley Bettis Judy Albert * - Mayor pro tempore Area: Total 21.76 square miles Land 19.99 square miles Water 1.77 square mile Elevation 1,024 ft. Departments: Administration Building and Development Standards Fire Municipal Court Parks and Recreation Police Public Services Fiscal Year 2012 Budget: $17,588,375 Greer City Council District Representatives DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6 Jay Wayne Kimberly Lee Wryley Judy Arrowood Griffin Bookert Dumas Bettis Albert CONTENTS 9 6 New Map Caps Redistricting Process After seven months of work and public discussion about the 10 redistricting process, Greer City Council successfully completed the arduous task with the Department of Justice’s approval. 7 Transit Oriented Development 101 A national planner helped Upstate elected officials, planners, and residents consider the future of the Highway 29 corridor. 11 14 8 Students Connect with Upstate Soldiers Soldiers in Kosovo received a special Thanksgiving greeting from a group of young artists and wordsmiths in Greer. 9 Concussion Training for Coaches Injuries are nothing new to NFL players and concussions are at the top of the list. What happens when youth league 20 players emulate their heroes when it comes to taking hits? 10 City Website Among ‘Best of the Best’ Departmental Reports A new design and creative features helped the City of Greer 22 Finance website earn honors from the Horizon Interactive Awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Port Zoning Modifications Per HB 2001
    Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, [email protected], 801-535-7165 Tracy Tran, [email protected], 801-535-7645 Date: September 26, 2018 Re: PLNPCM2018-00601 Inland Port Text Amendments Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Multiple PARCEL ID: Multiple MASTER PLAN: Northwest Quadrant, Northwest ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple REQUEST: A proposal by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to modify zoning requirements related to inland port land uses as required by Utah Code 11-58-205(5). This statute gives the City until December 31, 2018 to allow an inland port and associated uses as permitted or conditional uses subject to standards that are determined by the municipality and consistent with the policies and objectives of the inland port authority. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings of this report, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning text amendments meet the standards for a zoning ordinance amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation of petition PLNPCM2018-00601 to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Inland Port Jurisdictional Lands and Zoning Map B. Proposed Inland Port Overlay Zoning Ordinance Text C. Northwest Quadrant Overlay Zoning for Reference D. Conditional Use Standards for Reference E. M-1 Zoning District Land Use Table for Reference F. Analysis of Standards G. Department Review Comments H. Suggested Lighting Ordinance (from David Scheer) I. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLNPCM2018-00601 1 Date Published: 9/20/2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This zoning text amendment proposal was initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski in response to the State Legislature adopting modifications to Utah Code 11-58 “Utah Inland Port Authority Act” (HB2001) during a special session of the legislature held in July 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities
    Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities Chad Miller1, Brian Richard2, MD Sarder3,Tulio Sulbaran4, and Martin Lipinski5 1,2,3,4University of Southern Mississippi Center of Logistics, Trade, and Transportation 118 College Ave. #5022 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 (601) 266-6666; fax (601) 266-6071; email [email protected] 5University of Memphis Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute 3815 Central Ave, Memphis, TN 38152 (901) 678-3279; fax (901) 678-0404; email [email protected] ABSTRACT The major driving forces behind the establishment of intermodal facilities include number of jobs that will be created by the facility, freight performance improvement, and other economic benefits to the region. Job creation is the most tangible benefit that stakeholders use to justify the development of such facilities. This project explores different job creation factors for intermodal facilities in terms of facility types, management structures, financing options, and activitiesperformed. Near port and hinterland type facilities are analyzed separately. This project tests several hypotheses statistically to find the correlations among different job creation factors. The result shows that the public landlord model facility creates more jobs than the private operator model. The result also shows that facilities connected with well-established transportation network systems usually produce more jobs. INTRODUCTION In today’s growing global economy, intermodal facilities have become increasingly popular as a method of increasing efficiency and decreasing costs across the entire spectrum of supply chain operations. Regions across the country are seeking to establish intermodal facilities as a means to fostereconomic development and jobs. In order for a facility to be considered intermodal it must be accessible by more than one mode of transportation such as truck, rail, ship/barge, or plane.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Corners Intermodal Transloading Equinox 4Cite
    FOUR CORNERS INTERMODAL TRANSLOADING EQUINOX 4CITE Final November 2016 4CITE Public Involvement Plan October, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Scenario C .................................................................................................................................... 15 Scenario D .................................................................................................................................... 15 Scenario E .................................................................................................................................... 15 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1 C. Scenario Network Performance ................................................................................................... 15 A. Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Analysis Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 15 B. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Level of Service Methodology ....................................................................................................... 19 Stakeholder and Public Outreach ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Engagement Report Inland Port Proposed Zoning Modifications Qualtrics Survey Results
    Engagement Report Inland Port Proposed Zoning Modifications Qualtrics Survey Results Considering Typical uses of an inland port: · Rail lines that transfer freight to another mode of transportation, such as trucks · Large cranes that move freight between different transportation modes and temporary storage · Warehouses and distribution centers · Manufacturing facilities · Temporary storage of goods and materials awaiting distribution Do you see potential impacts to: Air Quality Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 96.06% 390 2 No 3.94% 16 406 1 Do you see potential impacts to: Water, Sewer, or other Public Utilities Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 89.37% 353 2 No 10.63% 42 395 2 Sensitive Natural Environments Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 89.00% 356 2 No 11.00% 44 400 3 Salt Lake City Neighborhoods Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 77.63% 302 2 No 22.37% 87 389 4 Do you have any other potential impacts you are concerned about? Not enough transparency the state doing whatever it wants w/o regard to the city or its residents Who benefits from the proposed “economic development”? Growth is to large for our area. We want a good area to enjoy. Increased population in valley, increased GHG emissions how it was created, who is on the boards, the facts that meetings are nt open My community has been footing the bill for all these public utility upgrades they say are required anyway but likely would not be.
    [Show full text]
  • SLC 2019 Resident Survey Results
    SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENT SURVEY OFFICIAL 2019 SURVEY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS 1. Salt Lake City residents consistently report a high quality of life over time. 2. On average, residents rank investing in affordable housing programs as their highest priority city initiative. 3. 95% of respondents rank improving air quality as their highest environmental priority. 4. A majority of respondents believe Salt Lake City has job opportunities for them, but they also believe that the City can do more to attract businesses. 5. A plurality of residents would prefer to receive information regarding SLC via email. Fewer than a quarter report following the City’s social media accounts. 6. There is currently a general lack of knowledge regarding the Inland Port Project. Residents who follow the city’s social media accounts and use the city website report greater understanding of what the project is. 7. Favorability of the port is heavily divided with an average score of 42 on a scale of 0-100. Currently, greater understanding of the port is associated with less favorable opinions of it. 7FINDINGS TO REMEMBER SURVEY OBJECTIVES RESEARCH GOALS § Track approval of the City and the services it offers over time § Evaluate neighborhood perceptions regarding safety and city maintenance § Explore residents’ priorities regarding current City initiatives, including attitudes about public transit and the conditions of streets and roads § Examine from which communication channels residents most commonly receive information about the City and which modes they would prefer § Quantify understanding of and attitudes toward the Utah Inland Port SURVEY METHODOLOGY SAMPLING, MODE, & MARGIN OF ERROR § 1,297 residents within the boundaries of Salt Lake City participated in this survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Port Logistics Center Road Improvements
    IInnllaanndd PPoorrtt LLooggiissttiiccss CCeenntteerr RRooaadd IImmpprroovveemmeennttss D.O.T. National Infrastructure Investments FY2016 TIGER VIII Discretionary Grant Program Application TIGER VIII DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION PROJECT TITLE: INLAND PORT LOGISTICS CENTER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TYPE OF PROJECT: Road – New Capacity TYPE OF APPLICATION: Capital APPLICANT: CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY Local Government LOCATION OF PROJECT: Cocoa, Florida 32926 Brevard County Congressional District: FL‐15th District PROJECT AREA: Urban Area AMOUNT OF TIGER FUNDS REQUESTED: $9,672,638 APPLICATION AND PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Captain John W. Murray Chief Executive Officer Phone: (321) 783‐7831 Extension 233 Fax: (321) 783‐4651 Email: [email protected] Canaveral Port Authority 445 Challenger Road, Suite 301 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 3 II. PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................. 4 III. PROJECT PARTIES ................................................................................................................. 7 IV. GRANT FUNDS AND SOURCES/USES OF PROJECT FUNDS ................................................ 8 V. SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 8 A. Primary Criteria ‐ LONG‐TERM OUTCOMES ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Central New York Inland Port Market Feasibility Study
    FINAL REPORT CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY potenti PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBMITTED BY: RSG CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Principal Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 | Physical Requirements .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 | Central New York Inland Port Proposals: History ......................................................................... 7 3.0 INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 8 4.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS .................................................. 10 4.1 | Rail Service ................................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 | Highway ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011
    Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements The State Rail Plan was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Rail Technical Advisory Team Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission Bonnie Allin, Tucson Airport Authority Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Department Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Jane Morris, City of Phoenix – Sky Harbor Airport Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Patrick Loftus, TTX Company Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Angela Mogel, Bureau of Land Management ADOT Project Team Jack Tomasik, Central Arizona Association of Governments Sara Allred, Project Manager Paul Johnson, City of Yuma Kristen Keener Busby, Sustainability Program Manager Jermaine Hannon, Federal Highway Administration John Halikowski, Director Katai Nakosha, Governor’s Office John McGee, Executive Director for Planning and Policy James Chessum, Greater Yuma Port Authority Mike Normand, Director of Transit Programs Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments Shannon Scutari, Esq. Director, Rail & Sustainability Marc Pearsall, Maricopa Association of Governments Services Gabe Thum, Pima Association of Governments Jennifer Toth, Director, Multi-Modal Planning Division Robert Bohannan, RH Bohannan & Associates Robert Travis, State Railroad Liaison Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Intermodal & Logistics
    Intermodal & Logistics Winter 2019-2020 Market Scope 5 Current Market Trends The intermodal and logistics market is a dynamic and 1. Market Faces Urban Challenges: Largely due to the growing one, with various types of facilities, including rise of e-commerce and next-day delivery, our freight marine terminals, rail terminals, depots and container infrastructure is under strain. Shipments in 2018 grew yards, inland ports, freight airport terminals, and industrial 5.6% from 2017, setting a fifth volume record in the real estate located adjacent to intermodal facilities. last six years, according to the Intermodal Association Many facilities are like mini-cities, and a wide range of North America. Because many packages are now of engineering design services are required for their destined for individual residences, challenges extend creation and expansion, including land development, to not only those of the "last mile" but also the "final transportation, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, structural, fifty feet". As a result, smaller warehouses are being environmental, geotechnical, and water-related design. Continued on next page With more than 2,200 facilities, the North American intermodal market is the largest in the world. Top 10 Truck Bottlenecks in U.S. Peak Peak Avg. Avg. Top Clients Avg. Speed % Rank Location Speed Speed Change Major clients in this market sector contract with (mph) (mph) 2018- engineering firms directly, often using master service 2019 agreement-type contracts. These clients include: 1 Fort Lee, NJ: I-95 at SR 4 31.7 23.0 -7.65% 1. Ports: There are more than 300 ports in the United 2 Atlanta, GA: I-285 at I-85N 34.8 22.9 -7.35% States (source: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014
    Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Geographic Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Study Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning ..................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Overview of the Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Population and Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]