DOCSLIB.ORG

US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan 1 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan 1 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan PRIMARY CONSULTANT: Burns, Bertsch & Harris, Inc. 1460 West Lane Avenue, Suite B Columbus, Ohio 43221 614.488.1150 SUBCONSULTANTS: Kinzelman Kline Bennett & Williams Environmental Consultants Inc. Burgess & Niple, Ltd. 2 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan AACCKKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEEMMEENNTTSS PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Judith Shupe, County Commissioner Allan Reid, County Commissioner Jon Myers, County Commissioner Pat Harris, County Administrator Lorraine Arnold, Regional Planning Commission R. Brooks Davis, Regional Planning Commission Holly Mattei, Regional Planning Commission Carol Mackey, The Ohio State University Extension Office Richard Smith, Berne Township Peter Rockwood, Berne Township Frank Uhl, Berne Township Gail Ellinger, Hocking Township Tim Claypool, Hocking Township Shyna Gawell, Hocking Township Charles Yost, Hocking Township Paul Shaw, Hocking Township Corey Joslin, Hocking Township Barry Shafer, Greenfield Township John Hizey, Greenfield Township Lonnie Kosch, Greenfield Township Cathy Rinehart, Greenfield Township Kent Huston, City of Lancaster 3 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan Walter Arrowsmith, City of Lancaster Mayor Art Wallace, City of Lancaster William Burns, Village of Carrroll Joe Steiger, Fairfield Soil and Water Conservation District Tony Vogel, Ohio Department of Transportation District 5 INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS TO BE RECOGNIZED Fairfield County Board of Commissioners Judith Shupe Jon Myers Allan Reid Kerry Hogan, Fairfield County Sanitary Engineer Susan Crotti, City of Pickerington Development Director Bruce Langer, Village of Canal Winchester Development Director 4 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Important growth pressures are being exerted upon the County that will substantially affect the type, quantity, and quality of development in the coming decade. Economic trends, population shifts, and changing preferences related to how and where we live, work, and shop will continue to impact the shape of the communities within central Ohio. The Fairfield County Commissioners and the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission recognized the importance and impact of the US Route 33 bypass early; and, in 2001 commissioned a special study to identify issues and formulate recommendations that would promote sound development practices and mitigate negative impacts associated with the construction of the bypass. The result of the study is two documents – the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan and the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Design Manual. One of the primary aims of the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan is to provide local governments and private property owners with a vision for the corridor, one that reflects the public interest. The US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan does not dictate how any specific parcel should be zoned. Rather, it provides the basis for future zoning decisions by the appropriate governing body. By following the recommendations of both the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan and the US Route 33 Corridor Design Manual, it is possible to create economic development opportunities while also preserving the rural landscape and character of the corridor. The US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan emphasizes intergovernmental collaboration. The bypass corridor will have a direct affect on three townships and two municipalities. In order to ensure that the region is protected and to ensure that local governments are not pitted against each other in the quest for economic development and the resulting tax revenue, formal communication and coordination is critical. Each political jurisdiction should review both the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan and the US Route 33 Corridor Design Manual and then examine their own plans, policies and regulatory tools, identifying areas for adjustment and taking any necessary action. The Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission is prepared to provide support including technical assistance to the cooperating jurisdictions in order to assure that the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan’s goals are achieved. 5 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I INTRODUCTION 1 History Purpose Public Participation Related Plans and Policies II. VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 9 Vision Goals and Objectives III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 Land Use Environmental Features Scenic Byway Analysis IV. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 17 Introduction Focus Group Demographic and Market Conditions V. LAND USE 23 Land Use Scenarios Future Land Use Plan VI. IMPLEMENTATION 31 Land Use and Development Visual Analysis and Design Overlay Intergovernmental Cooperation Critical Resources Transportation Infrastructure Marketing and Promotion 6 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan APPENDIX Existing and Planned Roadways i Utilities v Public Participation xiii MAP INDEX Map 1 – Existing Land Use Following page 16 Map 2 – Land Use/Land Cover (1999) Following page 16 Map 3 – Land Use/Land Cover (1994) Following page 16 Map 4 – Critical Resource Components Following page 16 Map 5 – Future Land Use Scenario 1 Appendix Map 6 – Future Land Use Scenario 2 Appendix Map 7 – Future Land Use Plan Following page 30 Map 8 – Lancaster Bypass Detail Map Appendix Map 9 – Existing and Planned Roadways Appendix Map 10 – Existing and Planned Water Service Area Appendix Map 11 – Existing and Planned Waste Water Service Area Appendix 7 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan ACTION BY THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan and US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Design Manual were both adopted by the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission at its meeting on July 2, 2002. The US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan was adopted as an appendix to the Fairfield County Development Strategy and Land Use Plan adopted on March 5, 2002. Appropriate portions of each document will be transmitted to Berne, Greenfield and Hocking Townships as well as the Village of Carroll and the City of Lancaster for their consideration and action. 8 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan INTRODUCTION HISTORY Fairfield County is one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio, and US Route 33 (US 33) serves as the main arterial connecting southeastern Ohio with the City of Columbus, the state capital and a major employment and commercial center. Within the City of Lancaster, US 33 frontage became prime real estate and was stripped out and developed into commercial uses with little access management. Today, this stretch of US 33 is constantly congested. To improve traffic flow on US 33, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) announced the construction of the US 33 bypass. To further improve traffic flow in the US 33 corridor, the entire length of US 33 from Columbus to Lancaster will be upgraded to limited access over the next decade. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), several alternative routes for the US 33 bypass were explored. In 1998, the current alignment was chosen. In 2001, phase one construction began. It is estimated that phase one will be completed in the fall of 2003. The entire bypass will be completed by the summer of 2005. The schedule is included in the Appendix. PURPOSE In order to preserve the rural landscape and promote orderly development in the US 33 bypass corridor, this plan establishes a growth ethic based on citizen input and the work of the US 33 bypass corridor steering committee. Future development activities in the corridor should reflect this growth ethic as illustrated in the plan’s vision, goals, objectives and policies. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation was a key element in the development of the US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan. The consultant team worked closely with a steering committee comprised of representatives from the City of Lancaster, the Village of Carroll, Berne, Hocking and Greenfield Townships, the Regional Planning Commission, and other County agencies. The steering committee met almost monthly for a year. In addition to the steering committee, three public meetings were held. A full summary of all activities related to the development of the plan is located in the appendix. In addition, a portion of the results of the second public meeting affecting the future land use plan is included in that section. 1 US Route 33 Bypass Corridor Development Plan RELATED PLANS & POLICIES Fairfield County Development Strategy and Land Use Plan As part of the 2001 Fairfield County Development Strategy and Land Use Plan, a future land use plan was developed for the entire County based upon a 20-year population projection. The plan indicates the US 33 bypass corridor will support a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. High intensity uses, such as industrial and commercial, are located closest to the bypass interchanges for ease of access and to minimize impacts on surrounding residential areas. Further from the interchanges are varying densities of residential use including mixed use residential, cluster residential, single family residential and rural residential. The Fairfield County Development Strategy and Land Use Plan seeks to guide growth to areas where appropriate public infrastructure exists or is programmed to exist in the next twenty years. Farmland preservation and preservation of the natural environment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx
    Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Interstate Highway System Chase Minor [email protected]
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Fall 2019 Improving the Interstate Highway System Chase Minor [email protected] Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Minor, Chase, "Improving the Interstate Highway System" (2019). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 897. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/897 This Honors Research Project is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Improving Interstate Highway System 1 Improving the Interstate Highway System Honors Thesis Project Presented to The University of Akron Honors College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Geography: GIS Bachelors of Science Chase A. Minor Spring 2019 Improving Interstate Highway System 2 Abstract The Interstate Highway System is the primary transportation network of the United States. The Interstate Highway System has succeeded and failed in certain ways in connecting the United States. It is important that new interstate highways are added so that the United States will be better connected.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER I Purpose and Need
    I - 1 CHAPTER I Purpose and Need A. Introduction On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The Interstate Highway System, also known as the Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, is an interconnected system of 45,500 miles (73,225.2 km) of limited-access highways across the United States. One of the most important of these highways is Interstate 70 (I-70), providing for east-west transcontinental interstate access across much of the United States. In August 1956, shortly after President Eisenhower signed the legislation creating the Interstate Highway System, the Missouri State Highway Commission awarded the first contract toward the construction of I-70. Construction continued for another nine years and I-70 now spans a distance of more than 250 miles across the state. Other than short reconstructed portions, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. With maintenance provided by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the facility has outlasted its original design life of 20 years and has carried traffic volumes of both cars and heavy trucks that have far exceeded the expectations of the original designers. The Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose improving a portion of the I-70 corridor between just west of Route 19 (milepost 174) and Lake St. Louis Boulevard to meet the current and future needs of this extremely important transportation facility. To facilitate this action, MoDOT has completed a First Tier Environmental Impact Statement and initiated this Second Tier Environmental Impact Statement (STEIS) to fulfill this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway 71 Improvement Study I Executive Summary This Page Intentionally Left Blank
    HIGHWAY 71 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY BELLA VISTA BYPASS – MISSOURI STATE LINE BENTON COUNTY Executive Summary DRAFT December 2017 Highway 71 Corridor Improvement Study Bella Vista Bypass to Missouri State Line BENTON COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by the Transportation Planning and Policy Division Arkansas Department of Transportation In cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration This report was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF NONDISCRIMINATION The Arkansas Department of Transportation (Department) complies with all civil rights provisions of federal statutes and related authorities that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore, the Department does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion (not applicable as a protected group under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Title VI Program), disability, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), or low-income status in the admission, access to and treatment in the Department’s programs and activities, as well as the Department’s hiring or employment practices. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding the Department’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to Joanna P. McFadden Section Head - EEO/DBE (ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator), P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, (501) 569-2298, (Voice/TTY 711), or the following email address: [email protected] Free language assistance for the Limited English Proficient individuals is available upon request. This notice is available from the ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator in large print, on audiotape and in Braille.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Bypass Basics Brochure
    ity un m Bypass Basics om d C ze -Si ium Co Med nside and ring a Bypass in Your Small by•pass /ˈbīˌpas/ noun Prepared by CUTR for the a road passing around a town or its center to FDOT Systems Planning Office 2014 provide an alternative route for through traffic. www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/ - Google Dictionary Bypass Basics why build a bypass? Your community may be asked to consider a bypass to relieve traffic congestion and to improve travel time for those passing through – especially trucks. Desire for a bypass is increasing for state highways on Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) that run through small- and medium-sized communities. This is because “SIS” highways are designated to provide for the statewide movement of people and goods and, therefore, are critical to the economy. is a bypass needed? Questions to ask Major state highways are often the main street in small and medium-sized Why is FDOT proposing a communities. This means they serve local, as well as regional, travel. bypass in this community? Freight and through traffic in these communities contribute to traffic congestion and have other adverse impacts on quality of life. A highway bypass may be appropriate where heavy truck traffic causes continuing unacceptable impacts, such as noise, fumes, and vibration. It may also Statistics from recently be appropriate where a high percentage of trips are just passing through completed bypasses in Florida: the community. In these situations, the bypass would significantly reduce traffic congestion and pollution. • Bypasses circumvent communities with populations ranging from 10,000 to Roadways on Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) support economic 90,000–most with a population under 25,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts of Highway Bypasses on Communities
    The Economic Impacts of Highway Bypasses on Communities Summary A research project by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation January 1998 (reformatted in April of 1999 for Internet placement) 1 NOTICE: This research was funded by the Wisconsin Council on Research of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The contents of this report reflect the research findings of the staff of WisDOT’s Economic Planning & Development Section, who are responsible for the accuracy of the data contained herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of WisDOT or FHWA at the time of publication. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of WisDOT and FHWA in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute policy standards, specifications or regulations. The United States Government does not endorse products or businesses. Trade, publication or product names may appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the research conducted in the study. 2 3 INTRODUCTION KEY PROJECT FINDINGS: Since 1980, there have been State Highway bypasses built around 17 Wisconsin communities. Through • In most communities, highway bypasses have the year 2010, at least 20 more bypasses are little adverse impact on overall economic anticipated for construction. activity. The economies of smaller communities have a greater potential to be adversely impacted by a bypass. Bypass plans often generate local concern about impacts on local commerce, development, land use, • Over the long term, average traffic levels on and general quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Ide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – Discovermoab.Com - 6/22/07 Page 1
    A Guide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – discovermoab.com - 6/22/07 Page 1 and increase to Milepost 227 near the Colorado border. Mileage marker posts 2W - Thompson Springs A Guide to I-70 Through (or Mileposts) and Exit numbers Welcome Center Southeastern Utah correspond, and both are used in the Milepost 189 descriptive text which follows. This rest area welcomes westbound Although the scenery is spectacular as visitors with free brochures and maps. viewed from the highway, you are The center, operated by the State of Utah, encouraged to stop at the sites described is open all year. From Memorial Day Moab Area Travel Council below to see even more. Other nearby through Labor Day, personnel are on duty Internet Brochure Series points of interest accessible from 1-70 are from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to answer your Available from: briefly noted and located on the map. questions. The rest of the year the center More detailed information on these sights is operated from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Indoor discovermoab.com can be obtained by contacting the rest rooms, water, picnic shelters, and a appropriate agencies listed in this public phone are available at all times. brochure. INTRODUCTION Food and fuel are available at Thompson 1W - Harley Dome View Area Springs (Exit 187), which provides access Interstate 70 (1-70) through southeastern Milepost 228 to a panel of Native American rock art in Utah is a journey through fascinating Sego Canyon. To visit this site, follow the landscapes. The route reveals vast deserts, The Harley Dome View Area is located signs from the north side of town.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Suspended Where Possible for July 4
    State of Illinois JB Pritzker, Governor Illinois Department of Transportation Omer Osman, Acting Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: July 1, 2020 Paul Wappel 217.685.0082 Maria Castaneda 312.447.1919 Construction suspended where possible for July 4 Non-emergency closures called off, but motorists should still expect work zones SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Department of Transportation announced today that lanes that have been closed for construction will reopen, where possible, for the Fourth of July holiday to minimize travel disruption. Non-emergency closures will be suspended from 3 p.m. July 2 to 11:59 p.m. July 5. The following lane closures will remain in place during the holiday weekend. Work zone speed limits will remain in effect where posted. Please buckle up, put your phone down and drive sober. District 1 City of Chicago: • The following ramps in the Jane Byrne Interchange work zone will remain closed: • o Inbound Kennedy (Interstate 90/94) Expressway exit to inbound Ida B. Wells Drive. o Outbound Dan Ryan Expressway exit to Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive entrance from Canal Street. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Dan Ryan. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Kennedy. o Inbound Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate -290) to outbound Kennedy; detour with U-turn posted. o Inbound Eisenhower; lane reductions continue. o Inbound Ida B. Wells Drive; lane reductions continue. • Outbound Kennedy exit at Canfield Road; closed. • Westbound Bryn Mawr Avenue between Harlem and Oriole avenues; lane reductions continue. • Westbound Higgins Avenue between Oriole and Canfield avenues; lane reductions continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Bridge Project, I-70, St. Louis, Missouri
    MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE ST. LOUIS, INTERSTATE 70 St.Louis,Missouri Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Design completed 2003 Project Type: Urban Freeway; Reconstruct PURPOSE The New Mississippi River Bridge Project (MRB) is a group of major transportation improvements designed to enhance the region’s infrastructure. The economic future of the St. Louis urban core on both sides of the Mississippi River depends on the efficient movement of goods and services and the ability of people to simply get to work. Transportation paralysis will force businesses, jobs, andnewgrowthoutoftheurbancore.Animprovedhighwaysystemwillhelp to revitalize downtown St. Louis, the north riverfront, and the Metro East area, notably East St. Louis and the National Stockyards redevelopment area. The number of motorists wanting to cross the Mississippi River will continue to increase.Theregioncannotcontinuetorelyonasingleinterstatecrossingatthe heartofdowntown DESCRIPTION The proposed $700 million structure will feature an estimated 12,000 foot bridge, potentially creating the widest Mississippi River Crossing in the United States. The bridge will carry eight lanes of traffic. The bridge is a critical structure tothe area in order to open economic opportunities to isolated communities on either side of the river. The project includes multi-lane roadways on new alignments, new interchanges, land acquisition on both sides of the river, utility coordination, and the relocation of several railroads. Improvements include 4.2 miles of relocated Interstate 70, 2.7 miles of connector between the Interstate 70 relocation and Interstate 64, and 5.5 miles of relocated Illinois Route 3. A major public engagement program involved the St. Louis community in the project through participation on several aesthetic issues, such as urban design treatments and bridge architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadway &Traffic Operations Strategy
    ESTABLISHING MULTI-MODAL STRATEGIES | CHAPTER 4 ROADWAY & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STRATEGY To serve planned growth, the future transportation system needs multi-modal improvements and strategies to manage the forecasted travel demand. This chapter presents a detailed strategy to improve Moscow’s roadway network and traffic operations over the next 20 years, including network connectivity options, regional circulation enhancements, intersection modifications, and multi-modal street design guidelines. MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. Moscow on the Move 4 ROADWAY & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STRATEGY Supporting the guiding principles of Moscow on the Move, the Roadway & This Transportation Traffic Operations Strategy strives to provide a truly multi-modal Commission “check mark” icon signifies transportation system and improve safety, access, and mobility for all street which actions have unanimous users by identifying strategies, policies, and projects that help achieve support from the Commission. Moscow’s vision for mobility and access. This strategy of Moscow on the Move The icon is a way to illustrate the level of support for identifies opportunities to retrofit existing streets in Moscow and develops the implementation. street grid to improve citywide connectivity for motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. This strategy specifically provides an overview of the existing traffic conditions and how conditions might change by 2035, a street network plan, various design tools that could be applied throughout the city, and descriptions of recommended street projects. FUTURE DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS Existing and future roadway and traffic operation conditions were assessed to determine the needs and deficiencies of the system. The key areas projected to require improvement or to present future challenges are summarized below.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Highway Bypasses on Rural Communities and Small Urban
    NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program RnsEnncH REsurrs DIcEST Number 210 Subjcct Arca: IA Planning and Adrninistration Responsible Senior Progranr Oflìcer: Scott A. .Sabol EFFECTS OF HIGHWAY BYPASSES ON RURAL COMMUNITIES AND SMALL URBAN AREAS c.. I This RRD is a staf digest of a study cottducted as part of NCHRP Project 20-5, " Synthesis of Information Related- to llighway Problerns," for which the Transportatiott Research Board is tlrc agency conducting tlrc research. The Principal Investigator responsible for this project is Sally D. I.iff, Manager, Synthesis Studies, serving under the Studies and lnþrmation Services Division of the Board. Dr. Jesse Bufington and Ms. Katie Womack, of the Texas Transporhrion Institute were responsible for data collection, initial analyses and report preparation. Dr. Andrew C. I-emer conducted additional analyses and prepared the final text. INTRODUCTION challenged decision makers. Transportation planners seek to improve transportation system efficiency by In the late fall of 1964, a new highway bypass constructing bypasses, while people in the towns to be around Cherokee,Iowa (1990 population 6,026) opened bypassed protest the diversion of traffic that some view to t¡affic. l¡cal business people had actively opposed as their sotuce of livelihootl. Such issues are particu- the construction, t'earing that traffic diverted from the larly acute in rural communities and small urban a¡eas, main route ttuough town would take sales with it. Just where highway orienæd development may account for a over two decades later, the former o\uìer of a clothing substantial proportion of the local economy. store in Cherokee echoetl the views of many others in the town when he concluded that he and others had over-reacted: the bypass did not hurt retail sales.
    [Show full text]
  • EHP-Appendix-Q
    Electrify Heartland Plan Appendix Q: EVSE Corridor Analysis Project title: Kansas – Missouri Community Readiness for EV and EVSE Funded by: US DOE DE-EE0005551 By: Metropolitan Energy Center and Kansas City Regional Clean Cities Coalition With: Black & Veatch Electrify Heartland Plan: Appendices Electrify Heartland Plan © 2012 by Metropolitan Energy Center. The material in this report was created and compiled from the work of U.S. DOE award DE- EE0005551: Kansas–Missouri Community Readiness for EV and EVSE. Government agencies, private entities and individuals may use, reproduce or transmit pages from this report for reasonable purposes of planning and implementing electric vehicle and electric vehicle charging station projects, provided that it maintains all copyright, trademark, and other proprietary rights or notices. Users may not otherwise use, reproduce, download, store, post, broadcast, transmit, modify, sell or make available to the public content from the report without the prior written approval of Metropolitan Energy Center. Write to MEC c/o Clean Cities, 3810 Paseo Blvd, Kansas City, MO, or visit www.metroenergy.org. U.S. Department of Energy Acknowledgement and Disclaimer: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0005551. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]