Contents - dot.state.oh.us Documents/U… · ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility Study |3 March 2017 1.0 Introduction In 2008, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) began

|2 ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility Study March 2017

Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Alternatives on the Existing Alignment ........................................................................................... 4

Alternative G1: No Build .................................................................................................................. 4

Alternative G1-a: Existing Alignment; Two Signals with access to the North and South ................ 4

Alternative G1-b: Existing Alignment; One Signal with access to the North and South .................. 5

Alternative G1-c: Existing Alignment; No Access - Cul-de-Sac side streets ..................................... 5

Alternative G1-e: Existing Alignment; Two Roundabouts ............................................................... 5

3.2 Alternatives with US 62 Relocated North ........................................................................................ 5

Alternative G1-d1: Relocated North; Two Signals with access to the North only ............................ 6

Alternative G1-d2: Relocated North; One Signal with access to the North only ............................. 6

Alternative G1-d3: Relocated North; No Access ............................................................................. 6

Sub-Alternative G1-d3a: Relocated North; One Signal with access to the North and South.………. 6

3.3 Alternatives with US 62 Relocated South ........................................................................................ 8

Alternative G1-d4: Relocated South; Two Signals with access to the South only ............................ 8

Alternative G1-d5: Relocated South; One Signal with access to the South only ............................. 8

Alternative G1-d6: Relocated South; No Access.............................................................................. 8

4.0 Key Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 Alternatives Comparison ................................................................................................................. 9

6.0 Further Analysis of G1-d3 and G1-d3a ........................................................................................... 12

7.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 12

8.0 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix List

Appendix A – Alternatives Considered Appendix B – Stakeholder and Public Involvement Appendix C – Emergency Response Maps Appendix D – Environmental Red Flag Summary Appendix E – Preliminary Cost Estimates Appendix F – Right Of Way Information Appendix G – Operational Analysis Appendix H – Pedestrian counts


1.0 Introduction

In 2008, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) began investigating safety concerns and traffic congestion along a six-mile corridor of United State Route (US) 62, which extends from State Route (SR) 43 to SR 44, in Stark County, Ohio. Over the next several years, the STA-62 Corridor Study project team conducted multiple studies for this corridor, including more detailed investigations of select sections of US 62 that were identified as high-priority areas based on documented safety and congestion issues. One high-priority section of roadway identified by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the half-mile stretch of US 62 that extends from SR 43 (Market Avenue) to Nimishillen Creek in Plain Township. Stark County Area Transportation Study (SCATS) ranked this section of US 62 a number one priority per resolution dated 7/27/2015 and it is also consistently on the ODOT State-wide Safety List. This section of US 62 is referred to as Segment G1. A summary of the documentation prepared for the corridor and the G1 segment is listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Year Document Purpose

2010 Macro Level Conceptual

Alternatives Study

Identified and Evaluated Conceptual Corridor Alternatives on and off the existing US 62 alignment. The recommended feasible solution was identified as Corridor Improvement Alternative G which is to improve the existing US 62 corridor.

2011 Micro Level Conceptual

Alternatives Study

Corridor Improvement Alternative G was further subdivided into four segments (G1, G2, G3 and G4) and conceptual alternatives were developed for each of the four segments.

2012 Planning Study Report Summarized all previous studies and identified priorities.

2013 Refinement of Conceptual

Alternative G1-d3 Further study of one of the conceptual alternatives identified for Segment G1.

2015 & 2016

Safety Funding Requests Further identified need for improvements and aided in funding requests for Segment G1.

2017 Roundabout Operational

Analysis

Updated the operational analysis of Alternative G1-e based upon new roundabout software which resulted in 2-lane roundabouts.

The G1 section of US 62 is a five-lane Urban Principal Arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. US 62 to the west is a four-lane divided highway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and 0.4 miles to the east there is a traffic signal at the Harrisburg/Middlebranch Road intersection. There are four at-grade intersections along the half-mile corridor. Rowland Avenue and Maple Avenue are signalized and St. Elmo Avenue and Gross Avenue are unsignalized. In addition, there are over sixty access drives to residences and businesses within the limits of the half-mile corridor. The north side properties along US 62 are zoned mostly residential and the south side properties are zoned commercial.

The 49,000 vehicle trips per day through the stop and go conditions of this section generates a highly concentrated frequency of crashes. Accidents occur at an average of 120 crashes per year, with nearly 30% involving injury. The majority of these crashes are congestion related rear-end and sideswipe-


passing type (70%) with a fair amount of left turn and angle crashes (15%) occurring at both the intersections and driveways throughout the short arterial segment. Three fatal crashes, in a recent 2 year period, involved an EB vehicle losing control on the curve where the freeway portion of US 62 ends.

All G1 alternatives identified in the Micro Level Conceptual Alternatives Study (2011) have been carried forward to be evaluated as a part of this report. Due to the likelihood of substantial property impacts and the time lapse since the previous public outreach, ODOT identified the need for updated Stakeholder and Public Involvement efforts to thoroughly vet the G1 concepts. In order to address newly obtained Stakeholder and Public input regarding accessibility to the neighborhoods and business retention for the commercially zoned areas, this report also identifies and analyzes a sub-alternative to G1-d3 alternative, identified as G1-d3a.

2.0 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to accommodate existing and future transportation needs by improving safety in the corridor. To accomplish this, the following contributing factors must be addressed:

Access Management

Congestion

Roadway Curve Geometry

3.0 Alternatives Considered The alternatives considered for this project can be grouped into three categories, all with varying degrees of access to and from US 62 provided:

Alternatives on the Existing Alignment of US 62

Alternatives with US 62 Relocated North

Alternatives with US 62 Relocated South

3.1 Alternatives on the Existing Alignment

The following alternatives maintain the existing alignment of US 62 throughout the project limits. Minor changes are proposed to limit movement in to and out of driveway and side streets, but not to substantially reduce the 65 access points. With the exception of the roundabout option, minimal Right of Way (ROW) impacts are expected. The alternatives considered are described below and shown in Appendix A.

Alternative G1: No Build

Key features of Alternative G1 include: All existing drives and access remain. Maintains existing Two-Way Left Turn Lane

(TWLTL). Maintains existing signals at Rowland Ave

and Maple Avenue.

Alternative G1-a: Existing Alignment; Two Signals with access to the North and South

Key features of Alternative G1-a include: All existing drives remain. Install a raised median that will limit

movements at all driveways and unsignalized side streets (St. Elmo Avenue and Gross Avenue) to right-in and right-out movements only.


Replace existing signals at Rowland Avenue and Maple Avenue.

Maintains existing proximity of the first Eastbound (EB) signal to the high speed approach.

US 62 curve geometry not addressed. Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be

evaluated if alternative is carried forward. Minor pavement rehabilitation and re-

stripe the existing roadway. Minimal property impacts expected.

Alternative G1-b: Existing Alignment; One Signal with access to the North and South

Key features of Alternative G1-b include: All existing drives remain. Remove the signals at Rowland Avenue and

Maple Avenue. Install signal at St. Elmo Avenue. Moves the first EB signal further from the

high speed approach and curve, increasing sight distance to the signal.

US 62 curve geometry not addressed. Maintain the TWLTL, allow full access to all

existing drives. Change the access of Rowland, Gross and

Maple Avenue to left/right-in and right-out only.

All left turns from the unsignalized side streets will need to use the signal at St. Elmo Avenue to turn left.

Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be evaluated if alternative is carried forward.

Minor pavement rehabilitation and re-stripe the existing roadway.

Minimal property impacts expected.

Alternative G1-c: Existing Alignment; No Access - Cul-de-Sac side streets

Key features of Alternative G1-c include: All existing drives remain. Remove the two existing signals at Rowland

Avenue and Maple Avenue. Cul-de-sac side streets to eliminate signals

and side street access to/from US 62. Maintain the TWLTL for all existing drives. US 62 curve geometry not addressed. Eliminate vehicular connection between the

northern and southern neighborhoods. Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be

evaluated if alternative is carried forward. Minimal property impacts expected.

Alternative G1-e: Existing Alignment; Two Roundabouts

Key features of Alternative G1-e include: Replace the signals at Rowland Avenue and

Maple Avenue with two-lane roundabouts. Install a raised median that will limit

movements at all driveways and unsignalized side streets (St. Elmo Avenue and Gross Avenue) to right-in and right-out movements only.

Some driveways will remain, but will be converted to right-in and right-out only.

Curve geometry not addressed. Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be

evaluated if alternative is carried forward. Widen US 62 on existing alignment. Property impacts expected.

3.2 Alternatives with US 62 Relocated North

The following alternatives provide a new alignment for US 62 that is realigned to the north of the existing corridor. This allows a portion of the existing corridor to be used as a local frontage road for the residential and commercial properties to the south. These options require the full purchase of ROW for the majority of properties adjacent to US 62 on the north side. Additionally, each of these alternatives assume a raised median or barrier to separate the eastbound and westbound lanes where appropriate. The alternatives considered are described below and shown in Appendix A.


Alternative G1-d1: Relocated North; Two Signals with access to the North only

Key features of Alternative G1-d1 include: Eliminates all driveways directly accessing

US 62. Acquire Limited Access Right of Way. Provides two signalized T-intersections

along the new northern alignment at Rowland Ave and Maple Avenue with US 62 access to/from the north only.

Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue, St. Elmo Avenue and Gross Avenue on the north side.

Eliminate direct access to US 62 along the south side.

Utilizes existing US 62 as a frontage road for the south side; connecting Gibbs Avenue to Maple Avenue.

US 62 curve geometry addressed; improves sight distance for EB curve.

Eliminates vehicular connection between the northern and southern neighborhoods.

Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be evaluated if alternative is carried forward.

Property impacts expected along the north and south sides of US 62.

Alternative G1-d2: Relocated North; One Signal with access to the North only


US 62. Acquires Limited Access Right of Way.

Provides one signalized T-intersection along the new northern alignment at St. Elmo Avenue with US 62 access to/from the north only.

Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue, Rowland Avenue, Gross Avenue and Maple Avenue on the north side.

Eliminates direct access to US 62 along the south side.


US 62 curve geometry addressed. Moves the first EB signal further from the



Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be evaluated if alternative is carried forward. (See Appendix H)


Alternative G1-d3: Relocated North; No Access

Key features of Alternative G1-d3 include: Eliminates all driveways and side streets

directly accessing US 62. Acquires Limited Access Right of Way.

Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue, Rowland Avenue, Gross Avenue and Maple Avenue on the north side.


Emergency response time/distance doubles for certain properties due to restricted access.

US 62 curve geometry addressed/speed limit increased to 55 mph.


Will redistribute traffic and improvements will be needed on Market Avenue to add an additional NB through lane at the EB off-ramp.



Sub-Alternative G1-d3a: Relocated North; One Signal with access to the North and South

Key features of Sub-Alternative G1-d3a include: Eliminates all driveways directly accessing


Provides a standard signalized intersection along the new northern alignment at St. Elmo Avenue with US 62 access to/from the north and south.


Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue, Rowland Avenue, and Gross Avenue on the north side.

Utilizes existing US 62 as a frontage road that connects at St. Elmo Avenue/US 62 intersection on the south side of US 62.

Shifts US 62 alignment back to existing on the east end to allow for right-in/right-out (RIRO) access at Maple Avenue.

US 62 curve geometry addressed; improves sight distance for EB curve

Increases distance from curve to signal. Maintains vehicular connection between

the northern and southern neighborhoods. Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be

evaluated if alternative is carried forward. (See Appendix H)


|8

ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Draft Feasibility Study December 2016

ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility Study March 2017

3.3 Alternatives with US 62 Relocated South

The following alternatives provide a new alignment for US 62 that is realigned to the south of the existing corridor. This allows a portion of the existing corridor to be used as a local access drive for the residential and commercial properties to the north. These options require the full purchase of ROW for the majority of properties adjacent to US 62 on the south side. Additionally, each of these alternatives assume a raised median or barrier to separate the eastbound and westbound lanes where appropriate. The alternatives considered are described below and shown in Appendix A.

Alternative G1-d4: Relocated South; Two Signals with access to the South only



Provides two signalized T-intersections along the new southern alignment at Rowland Avenue and Maple Avenue with US 62 access to/from the south only.

Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue and St. Elmo Avenue on the south side.

Eliminates direct access to US 62 along the north side.

Utilizes existing US 62 as a frontage road for the north side; connecting Rowland Avenue to Maple Avenue.

US 62 curve geometry addressed; improves sight distance for EB curve.

Eliminates vehicular connection between the north and south side neighborhoods.


Property impacts expected along the south side of US 62.

Alternative G1-d5: Relocated South; One Signal with access to the South only

Key features of Alternative G1-d5 include: Eliminates all driveways accessing US 62.

Acquires Limited Access Right of Way. Provides one signalized T-intersection along

the new southern alignment at St. Elmo Avenue with US 62 access to/from the south only.

Cul-de-sacs Gibbs Avenue, Rowland Avenue and Maple Avenue on the south side.

Eliminates direct access to US 62 along the north side.

Utilizes existing US 62 as a frontage road for the north side; connects Rowland Avenue to Maple Avenue.

US 62 curve geometry addressed Moves the first EB signal further from the


Increases distance from curve to signal. Eliminates vehicular connection between

the north and south side neighborhoods. Pedestrian/bicycle access will need to be

evaluated if alternative is carried forward. (See Appendix H)

Property impacts expected along the south side of US 62.

Alternative G1-d6: Relocated South; No Access

Key features of Alternative G1-d6 include: Eliminates all driveways and side streets

directly accessing US 62. Acquires Limited Access Right of Way.

Cul-de-sacs Rowland Avenue, St. Elmo Avenue and Maple Ave on the south side.

Utilizes existing US 62 as a frontage road for the north side; connecting Rowland Avenue to Maple Avenue.

Doubles emergency response time/distance for certain properties.

US 62 curve geometry addressed/speed limit increased to 55 mph.


|9



Will redistribute traffic and improvements will be needed on Market Avenue.

Will redistribute traffic and improvements will be needed on Market Avenue to add an additional NB through lane at the EB off-ramp.


Property impacts expected along the south side of US 62/potential property impacts on the north side of US 62.

4.0 Key Issues The following primary key issues used to evaluate the alternatives are based on the need elements of improving safety via access management strategies, congestion mitigation and improved curve geometry. Public involvement and stakeholder feedback are also given consideration as outlined below.

Access Management: Alternatives that eliminate the multiple drives and reduce or eliminate the side street access points along US 62 are given preference in the evaluation.

Congestion Mitigation: Congestion can be mitigated by eliminating or limiting access points and providing exclusive turn lanes and storage for turning vehicles. Alternatives that improve congestion by reducing access points are given preference in the evaluation.

Curve Geometry: Alternatives that improve the eastbound US 62 curve into the project area are given preference in the evaluation.

Public Involvement: Due to the potential for the project to have impacts to property owners and businesses, a secondary set of key issues has been identified based on targeted stakeholder and public involvement efforts. The Stakeholder Coordination Summary and Public Involvement Summary can be found in Appendix B. The following key issues are given consideration:

Neighborhood Access: Preference is given to alternatives that provide an acceptable means of access to the adjacent neighborhoods along US 62, for local traffic, school district transportation, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles. Emergency response time maps are shown in Appendix C.

Commercially Zoned Areas: Alternatives that minimize direct and indirect impacts to the commercially zoned area on the south side of US 62, minimize job loss, and retain commercial interests in Plain Township, are given preference in the evaluation. Indirect impacts include alternatives that do not provide a controlled access point(s) and would require business related truck traffic to be diverted through residential neighborhoods.

Environmental: Public involvement and community impacts are the primary environmental factors that weigh on the alternative selection process. These factors are given consideration under the key issue of Public Involvement noted above. Other environmental considerations and impacts will need to be assessed during subsequent planning and engineering phases of the project. An Environmental Red Flag Summary is provided in Appendix D.

5.0 Alternatives Comparison All the considered existing alignment alternatives (G1, G1-a, G1-b, G1-c, G1-e) do not meet the purpose and need of the project due to their failure to improve safety by reducing access points along US 62, reducing congestion and improving the curve geometry.

|10



All of the build alternatives that propose to realign US 62 to the south (G1-d4, G1-d5, G1-d6) achieve the goal of access management to varying degrees, reduce congestion and improve curve geometry. However, based on Stakeholder feedback, it is strongly desired to retain the commercially zoned area located on the south side of US 62, thereby minimizing job loss and retaining these business interests in Plain Township. As such, the northern alignment alternatives are given preference over the southern alignment concepts.

All of the build alternatives that considered realigning US 62 to the north (G1-d1, G1-d2, G1-d3, G1-d3a) achieve the goal of access management to varying degrees, reduce congestion and improve curve geometry. Overall, preference was given to alternatives that minimized access points including signalized intersections. Therefore, the two-signal option on the northern alignment (G1-d1) is less desirable than the one-signal option. G1-d2 is the one-signal option with access only to the north. This alternative leaves the commercially zoned area intact, but has indirect impacts due to a lack of direct accessibility to the commercial properties to and from US 62.

Alternative G1-d3 most readily meets the safety needs of the project by limiting all access, eliminating congestion, and improving the curve geometry. However, it also lacks to ability to address the Stakeholder and Public concerns of providing access to US 62 for the neighborhoods and the commercial properties that will remain. Sub-Alternative G1-d3a most readily meets the Stakeholder and Public concerns, but does provide a point of access with signal control introducing the potential for congestion issues. Accordingly, G1-d3 and G1-d3a are carried forward for additional analysis and evaluation.

In the Comparison Matrix on the next page, competing issues are used to compare each alternative in an easy to understand format.

|11 ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility Study

March 2017

Imp

rove

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

& R

edu

ce

Co

nfl

ict

Po

ints

Imp

rove

Co

nge

stio

n

Imp

rove

Cu

rve

Geo

met

ry

Pro

vid

e N

eigh

bo

rho

od

Acc

ess

Min

imiz

e Im

pac

ts t

o

Co

mm

erci

ally

Zo

ned

Are

as

Res

iden

tial

Par

cel

Imp

acts

*

Co

mm

erci

al P

arce

l

Imp

acts

*

Emp

loye

es D

isp

lace

d *

*

Rig

ht-

of-

Way

Co

nst

ruct

ion

(Bas

ed o

n 2

022

Sale

)

Tota

l Co

st

G1 No Build 0 0 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

G1-a Two Signals - access to North and South 0 0 0 minimal $1.0 $1.0

G1-b One Signal - access to North and South 0 0 0 minimal $1.2 $1.2

G1-c No Access - Cul-de-Sac side streets 6 8 35 $2.4 $1.5 $3.9

G1-e Two Roundabouts - access to North and South 43 14 73 $7.8 $7.3 $15.1

G1-d1 Two Signals - access to North only 45 9 53 $6.5 $10.8 $17.3

G1-d2 One Signal - access to North only 45 9 53 $6.5 $10.5 $17.0

G1-d3 No Access 45 9 53 $6.5 $14.2 $20.7

G1-d3a Single Signal - access to North and South 47 13 83 $7.9 $11.7 $19.6

G1-d4 Two Signals - access to South only 19 13 65 $6.0 $11.0 $17.0

G1-d5 One Signal - access to South only 19 13 65 $6.0 $10.8 $16.8

G1-d6 No Access 21 13 65 $6.2 $14.4 $20.6

Good

Fair

Poor

** Employee Displacement numbers are based off of data gathered directly from local business owners, details in Appendix F.

* Represents the # of ownership parcels impacted (including potential impacts) by each alternative. One parcel could have

multiple businesses present. The classification of Res vs. Comm is based on current property use, not zoning. Multi-Family

rental properties were included in residential. Preliminary Cost Estimates and ROW Information can be found in Appendix E

and Appendix F respectively.

Alt

ern

ativ

e

Des

crip

tio

n

Re

loca

ted

Sou

thPreliminary Cost Estimates ($M)

Exis

tin

g

Ali

gnm

en

t

Re

loca

ted

No

rth

Key Issues

Safety Public Involvement Right-of-Way

|12 ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Draft Feasibility Study

December 2016


6.0 Further Analysis of G1-d3 and G1-d3a As discussed in Section 5.0, the two improvements that rise to the top are Alternative G1-d3 and Sub-Alternative G1-d3a. From a congestion mitigation standpoint, G1-d3 is the most efficient solution as it does not impede traffic flow with a signalized intersection. However, the lack of access to the businesses and neighborhoods is a major concern of the Stakeholders and the Public. Therefore an operational analysis was done on the revised G1-d3 alternative, G1-d3a, to insure that safety and operations would not be sacrificed by providing an access point to the businesses and neighborhoods along the corridor. The operational analysis shows that providing a third lane EB and WB through the signal at St Elmo will allow the signal to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Without a third lane EB between Rowland and Harrisburg/Middlebranch and a third lane WB between Maple and the 30th Street exit ramp, the intersection at St. Elmo Avenue will not operate at an acceptable LOS. The complete analysis of the two lane and three lane G1-d3a option is provided in Appendix G. In addition, the results of the operational analysis are depicted in the 3-lane plan view drawing provided in Appendix A for Sub-Alternative G1-d3a.

7.0 Conclusion The desire for a truly Limited Access facility in Alternative G1-d3 is reduced by the fact that there is a traffic signal 0.4 miles to the east of St. Elmo Avenue at the Harrisburg/Middlebranch Road intersection. After considering all key issues and operations, Sub-Alternative G1-d3a is the preferred alternative for the project. Sub-Alternative G1-d3a best addresses the needs of the US 62 corridor while bearing in mind the concerns of the residents, business owners, and governmental stakeholders by providing the following:

Reduction in access points to a single signal at St. Elmo Avenue. Improved EB US 62 curve geometry. Direct access to (and across) US 62 for the northern and southern neighborhoods at St. Elmo signal. Direct access to US 62 for the northern and southern neighborhoods at the Right-In/Right-Out at

Maple Avenue. Direct access to/from US 62 via the frontage road for the businesses that remain on the south side

of US 62. An operationally effective solution that will provide an acceptable Level of Service.

8.0 Next Steps Some or all of the following items will need to be considered as the project moves forward:

Exclusive turn lanes at the right-in/right-out access point at Maple Avenue.

Pedestrian median refuge and signal with pedestrian features at St. Elmo intersection.

Turn lanes on St. Elmo Avenue

Bring the acceleration lane from the EB on-ramp at the SR 43 interchange up to current standards

Storage between the proposed Service Road and US 62 at the signalized intersection

All project stages are fully-funded at the time of this report. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be

prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts related to the project which will be available for public

review in 2018.

|13 ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Draft Feasibility Study

December 2016


END OF FEASIBILITY STUDY

|A

Appendix A:

Alternatives Considered


HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-a

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA

NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS

SECTION 4(f)/PARKS

NOTE: ALL DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM GIS INFORMATION. FOR PLANNING USE ONLY

SITES OF ESA CONCERN*

LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPOSED CONCRETE MEDIAN

BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-b

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-c

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

****

*

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-e

GLASS

HAIDET'S

OVEN

PIZZA

WA

RE

HO

U5E


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*****

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-d1

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-d2

* *GLASS

HAIDET'S

* * *

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-d3

*GLASS

HAIDET'S

* * * *OVEN

PIZZA

WA

RE

HO

U5E


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

62

62*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA

SUB-ALTERNATIVE G1-d3aNOISE SENSITIVE AREAS

SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

**

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

ALTERNATIVE G1-d4

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

***

**

ALTERNATIVE G1-d5

*

MOTORS

LAYLAND * * * *

FUEL

CANTON

*

**

* LT ASSOCIATES

*

OVEN

PIZZA

WA

RE

HO

U5E


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

*

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

*

***

**

ALTERNATIVE G1-d6

*

MOTORS

LAYLAND * * **

FUEL

CANTON

*

**

* LT ASSOCIATES

*

OVEN

PIZZA

WA

RE

HO

U5E


SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

|B

Appendix B:

Stakeholder and Public Involvement


STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Stakeholder Coordination Summary 1 March 2017

STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Stakeholder Coordination Summary

March 2017

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To date, three (3) Stakeholder Involvement Meetings have been held by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) District 4 to present and discuss the STA-62-24.05 project. The Wednesday, September 21, 2016 meeting included local public officials and the Tuesday, October 11, 2016 meeting included both local public officials and local business owners. The purpose of these two meetings was to solicit feedback regarding the ten (10) alternatives under consideration and any potential social, economic, and/or environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Personnel from ODOT and EMH&T (Project Team) were available at both meetings to address questions and/or concerns regarding the proposed project.

Five (5) stakeholders attended the September 21, 2016 meeting, including representatives from the Stark County Engineer’s Office, Plain Township Trustees, The Stark County Park District, the City of Canton and the Stark County Regional Planning Commission. Twenty (20) stakeholders attended the October 11, 2016 meeting, including business and rental property owners as well as representatives from the Stark County Area Transportation Study, Canton Parks and Recreation, the Plain Township Fire Department, Stark County Commissioners, The Stark County Park District, the City of Canton, and the Stark County Regional Planning Commission, the Stark County Sherriff’s office and the Stark County Engineer’s Office.

Attendees at both the September 21, 2016 and October 11, 2016 stakeholder meetings were introduced to the project and the ten (10) alternatives under consideration. A brief project overview and PowerPoint presentation were provided by ODOT District 4 staff. Comments were solicited during the meetings. A copy of the meeting minutes recorded for the meeting on September 21, 2016 are attached. Written comments were accepted for the meeting on October 11, 2016 and could be provided by mail or email. ODOT District 4 representatives also held conference calls with two (2) stakeholders following the October 11, 2016 meeting. The deadline for submitting stakeholder comments was October 21, 2016, however, discussions with stakeholders remained ongoing.

A third Stakeholder Involvement meeting was conducted by ODOT District 4 on Wednesday, February 1, 2017. This meeting was attended by local governmental officials with representatives from Stark Parks, SCATS, Plain Township, Stark County Engineer, Stark County, Stark County Regional Planning Commission, and the City of Canton in attendance. Attendees at this meeting were provided a project update and shown a new sub-alternative (G1-d3a) which has been developed in response to feedback received through previous Stakeholder and Public Involvement outreach efforts. Attendees were afforded an opportunity to discuss the project with representatives from the Project Team. A copy of the meeting minutes recorded for the meeting on February 1, 2017 are attached.

1.1 Comment Summary

In general, the written and oral comments received to date from the abovementioned meetings and subsequent communications indicated the following common concerns:

Impact to local businesses;

Impact on access to neighborhoods;


Impact on adjacent intersections; and

Effect of nearby US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch intersection on congestion in project area.

2.0 MEETING DETAILS

The Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Stakeholder Meeting was held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the ODOT District 4 Cardinal Room located at 2088 South Arlington Road, Akron, Ohio 44306. The Tuesday, October 11, 2016 Stakeholder Meeting was held from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the ODOT District 4 Maintenance Facility located at 4505 Atlantic Blvd NE, Canton, Ohio 44705. The Wednesday, February 1, 2017 Stakeholder Meeting was held from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. at the ODOT District 4 Cardinal Room located at 2088 South Arlington Road, Akron, Ohio 44306.

2.1 Purpose of the Meetings

The purpose of the first two Stakeholder Meetings was to present and discuss the ten (10) alternatives for the US 62 Roadway Improvements Project with business owners and public officials, as well as to solicit comments regarding the social, economic and environmental impacts of the feasible alternatives. Representatives from ODOT District 4 and EMH&T were available to discuss the ten (10) alternatives, the potential right-of-way acquisition process, preliminary design, potential environmental impacts associated with the ten (10) alternatives and any questions and/or concerns regarding the proposed project. Presentations were made at each meeting explaining the purpose of the project, which is to improve safety to better serve the needs of the traveling public.

The purpose of the third Stakeholder Meeting was to provide a project update and an overview of the primary comments and concerns received through the previous Stakeholder and Public Involvement outreach efforts. Attendees were then provided information on sub-alternative G1-d3a which has been developed in response to feedback received from the Stakeholders and the general public.

2.2 Meeting Notification

Public officials that were invited to the September 21, 2016 meeting were notified via email. Public officials and business owners that were invited to the October 11, 2016 meeting were mailed an invitation letter. Public officials that were invited to the February 1, 2017 meeting were notified via email.

2.3 Attendance

A total of 6 attendees other than the Project Team registered for the September 21, 2016 meeting. A total of 20 attendees other than the Project Team registered for the October 11, 2016 meeting. A total of 11 attendees other than the Project Team registered for the February 1, 2017 meeting. Representatives from ODOT District 4 and EMH&T (Project Team) were available at both meetings to discuss the project alternatives, potential right-of-way acquisition, potential environmental impacts and to address any additional questions and/or concerns.


3.0 MEETING FORMAT

Both the September 21, 2016 and October 11, 2016 meetings included a brief project overview and a PowerPoint presentation by ODOT District 4 staff showing the ten (10) alternatives under consideration. Copies of each alternative were made available both in handouts and as part of a presentation. The meeting format provided stakeholders with an opportunity to speak one-on-one with the Project Team, to ask questions and to express their interests, comments and concerns regarding the project.

The February 1, 2017 meeting included a project update presentation that summarized the results of past Stakeholder and Public Involvement outreach efforts. Additionally, sub-alternative G1-d3a was presented and discussed. A copy of the new sub-alternative was provided to attendees.

4.0 INFORMATION GATHERED

Attendees of the September 21, 2016 meeting were encouraged to provide suggestions and opinions on the proposed undertaking. Meeting minutes were recorded. Attendees of the October 11, 2016 meeting were offered the opportunity to submit written comments on the provided Comment Form during the meeting or by mail or email. ODOT District 4 representatives also held conference calls with two (2) stakeholders following the October 11, 2016 meeting. Attendees of the February 1, 2017 meeting were also encouraged to provide suggestions and opinions regarding the new sub-alternative G1-d3a that was presented at the meeting. Meeting minutes were recorded. ODOT District 4 will continue to solicit Stakeholder feedback throughout project development.

4.1 Stakeholder Meeting Comments and Responses

Comments received during the stakeholder comment period and responses to these comments are summarized in Table 1 below. The Project Team has developed the following responses to these comments as part of the ongoing Stakeholder coordination efforts associated with this project. The comments noted below were considered throughout the feasibility study phase of the project and aided in the development of sub-alternative G1-d3a, which is considered the Preferred Alternative.


Table 1: Stakeholder Comments Received and Responses to Comments

Comment Response

Concern for impact to emergency services response times

Coordination with local EMS is ongoing and will be discussed during future coordination efforts.

Concern for limiting access to neighborhood north of US 62

Impacts to residential neighborhood access will be considered as project planning efforts continue. Information pertaining to access related concerns will continue to be solicited throughout the public involvement process.

Concern for effect on traffic at intersections of 30th St with Martindale Rd and Market Ave

The purpose of the project is to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion on US 62. Coordination with Plain Township regarding potential adjacent traffic impacts will be ongoing throughout project development.

Concern for financial impact to businesses during construction

Access to adjacent properties will be maintained at all times during construction of the project.

Concern for long-term financial impact to businesses resulting from reduced access and reduced visibility (affects marketing/drive-by business)

Coordination with local business owners will be ongoing throughout project development. Potential business impacts, both short-term and long-term, will be considered as alternatives are evaluated. Impacts to business access and visibility will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable.

Suggest pedestrian bridge across Nimishillen Creek to tie into City of Canton trail system

Pedestrian access to the City of Canton trail system will be studied. The City of Canton has provided current and planned trail maps to ODOT for consideration.

Suggest signalized intersection to provide access to southern frontage road

Comment noted.

Suggest slip ramp to/from US 62 to proposed southern frontage road

This option would not work due to a conflict with the eastbound US 62/ Market Street on-ramp.

Concern that congestion is caused by US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch intersection east of the project area

The US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch intersection is a separate project that is already underway. The project will realign and reconfigure the intersections of US-62, Middlebranch, Harrisburg, and 30th Street and includes the construction of a roundabout at Harrisburg and 30th Street. Construction is estimated to begin in 2018 and be completed in 2020.

Suggest re-evaluating after US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch project (STA-62-24.90) is complete

The US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch project (STA-62-24.90) does not address the safety issues associated with this project. This includes contributing factors related to the numerous access points and geometric deficiencies (US 62 westbound approach curve) associated with the


study corridor.

Suggest protected left-turns at existing signalized intersections instead

This would not reduce congestion issues resulting from the presence of multiple traffic lights in the corridor.

Concern for large truck access to businesses due to restrictions on local roads

Consideration will be given to the operational and access needs of potentially affected businesses. Coordination with local municipalities will be ongoing as it relates to any restrictions/limitations associated with the local roadway network.

Concern for reduction in parking space for businesses

Consideration will be given to the operational and access needs of potentially affected businesses.

Suggest purchasing all properties that have access only from US 62

Law permits that ODOT acquires property for projects. ODOT cannot use tax payer’s dollars to acquire property not directly impacted by the project.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 STAKEHOLDER MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Minutes

Date: 9/21/2016

Job No: 20151564

Subject: STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Public Officials Meeting

Attendees:

ODOT District 4: Joe Defuria, Dayna Mallas, Lauren Phillis, John Picuri, Kim Mondora, Ed Deley, Brian Peck, Steve Rebillot, Gery Noirot

EMH&T: Mike Krokonko, Abby Cueva Stark County Engineers Office: Dave Torrence, Keith Bennett Plain Township: Joe Iacino Stark Parks: Bob Fonte City of Canton: Dan Moeglin Stark Regional Planning Commission: Bob Nau

Introduction

• Attendees introduced themselves

• Kim Mondora (D4) provided an explanation of why we were here and gave a brief overview of the project history and funding.

Project Presentation

• Joe Defuria (D4) gave a PowerPoint presentation which highlighted the project history and how we got to where we are today.

• A summary of previous Stakeholder/Public Involvement activities was also provided.

• The presentation discussed the Purpose & Need (P&N) for the project which includes improving Safety along the study corridor. It was noted that the primary safety concerns revolve around congestion/capacity deficiencies, access management, and the US62 eastbound approach curve.

• 11x17 copies of the ten (10) Conceptual Alternatives under consideration were provided to all attendees.

• Mr. Defuria explained/presented each alternative and provided specifics related to each alternative.

• A copy of the Safety Study handout developed by the District was also provided and discussed.

• It was noted that a Feasibility Study is currently being prepared for the G1 segment of the US62 corridor.

Open Discussion

• Dan Moeglin (City of Canton) asked if all of the Conceptual Alternatives would be taken to the public.

STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Public Officials Meeting September 21, 2016

emht.com | 2 of 4

o Kim Mondora (D4) noted that all alternatives would be taken to the public and discussed the need to have more focused interaction with the public on the G1 segment of the US62 study corridor.

o Brian Peck (D4) also noted that the D-series alternatives appear to solve a majority of the problems throughout the corridor.

o As a follow-up, John Picuri (D4) noted that the D-series alternatives have the largest impact on the constituency (30-50 potential property takes).

• Bob Fonte (Stark Parks) asked if the Conceptual Alternative Exhibits provided at the meeting were considered to be public information.

o Brian Peck (D4) confirmed that they were public information, but would continue to be refined.

• Joe Iacino (Plain Township) asked about the potential impact on emergency/fire response times.

o Brian Peck (D4) noted that coordination with local EMS is ongoing throughout the Feasibility Study phase of the project and will also be discussed during the future Stakeholder Coordination efforts.

• Dan Moeglin (City of Canton) and Joe Iacino (Plain Township) noted that the limited-access alternatives would essentially land-lock the neighborhood to the north since access to 30th Street and US62 would only be available via Martindale Road.

• Dan Moeglin and Bob Nau (Stark RPC) also noted that this study must consider impacts to both the 30th Street/Martindale Road and 30th Street/Market Street intersections. Each of these intersections currently exhibit back-ups during peak travel times.

o Brian Peck (D4) noted that the previous project along US62 to the east is being considered for this project. Mr. Peck also noted that pedestrian counts are being performed to evaluate neighborhood connectivity needs.

o Mr. Peck noted that a multi-use trail extension/new segment is also being considered to provide pedestrian access at the eastern end of the project.

• Dan Moeglin (City of Canton) mentioned the possibility of constructing a pedestrian bridge across Nimishillen Creek and/or a parallel leg of the trail west of the stream that ties into the existing City of Canton trail system.

o Both Mr. Moeglin and Brian Peck (D4) acknowledged that the existing bridge carrying Spangler Street over Nimishillen Creek would need to be rebuilt to accommodate trail traffic.

o Mr. Moeglin will email ODOT the most current/planned trail maps for consideration throughout project development.

o Bob Fonte (Stark Parks) added that as trail connectivity increases, the use characteristics of the systems change (i.e. larger connectivity equals more bikes)

� Mr. Fonte P suggests showing existing/programmed parks trails when discussing pedestrian access.

• Bob Nau (Stark RPC) inquired about adding a single intersection that would tie into the southern frontage road on alternative G1-d2. Mr. Nau feels this would help mitigate impacts to businesses located along the southern side of US62.


emht.com | 3 of 4

• Dan Moeglin (City of Canton) noted that while not ideal, one signal serving the frontage road may be the best option as it has the potential to limit the need to divert traffic through neighborhoods.

o A discussion was held regarding indirect impacts to businesses along the south side of US62 once direct access from US62 is eliminated. Also of concern is the impact a two-year construction duration would have on business operations.

o Bob Fonte (Stark Parks) suggests that businesses would want bought out as none of the “frontage road’ alternatives are business friendly. However, it is ultimately the business’s decision to stay open or not.

• Kim Mondora (D4) noted that the properties along the southern side of US62 are zoned commercial.

o Joe Iacino (Plain Township) noted that the south side is zoned commercial, however, owners can maintain current use if sold (i.e. residential can remain zoned residential).

• Ed Deley (D4) noted that the environmental process will include the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) due to the number of impacts and relocation.

o Mr. Deley noted the following regarding the proposed environmental schedule: � Need to conduct a public hearing (early 2018) � Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) anticipated by Nov. 2018 � Currently starting some environmental studies

• Dan Moeglin (City of Canton) asked if businesses can be compensated for a loss of business even if they are not directly impacted. Mr. Moeglin is concerned that detours and traffic pattern changes will be a hardship for businesses adjacent to US62.

o Representatives from the District noted businesses cannot be compensated unless directly impacted.

o Brian Peck (D4) noted that the Feasibility Study would evaluate business impacts and potential job losses associated with each alternative.

• Bob Nau (Stark RPC) asked if the Roundabout option would work. o Joe Defuria (D4) noted that under this alternative the LOS is okay, however, the

back-ups are similar and/or worse than the current condition. o Kim Mondora (D4) also added that there are also significant property impacts

associated with this option and that back-ups associated with this option extend out to 1,000 feet.

• Dave Torrence (Stark Co. Engineers Office) asked if direct access off of US62 in the form of a slip ramp could be provided to the proposed southern frontage road.

o Joe Defuria (D4) noted that this option would not work due to conflicts associated with the EB US62/Market Street on-ramp and a ramp to the frontage road.

o Brian Peck (D4) noted that it would be ideal to separate US62 through this section of the corridor.

Proposed Public Outreach Schedule


emht.com | 4 of 4

• Stakeholder/Business PI Meeting – October 11, 2016

• Public Involvement Meeting – November 11, 2016 (tentative) Closing

• Brian Peck (D4) requested that all officials continue to provide feedback. *END*

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 STAKEHOLDER MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Minutes

Date: 2/1/17

Subject: STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Governmental Stakeholders Meeting

Attendees:

See attached Meeting Sign-in Sheet

Introduction

Attendees introduced themselves

Representatives from ODOT District 4, EMH&T, Stark Parks, SCATS, Plain Township, Stark County Engineer, Stark County, Stark County Regional Planning Commission, and the City of Canton were present.

Project Presentation/Update

Joe DeFuria (D4) provided an overview of the project through a PowerPoint presentation.

This included a summary of past Stakeholder & Public Involvement Meetings and updated the group on primary concerns/comments received during and following the meetings. As noted on the attached meeting Agenda, the primary concerns/comments related to the following:

o Lack of emergency access o Cars and trucks diverted to other roads/intersections o Loss of business o Neighborhood connectivity o Harrisburg/Middlebranch intersection

Based on Stakeholder and public concerns/comments received to date, ODOT has developed a Sub-Alternative (See Note below**) which takes the primary concerns/comments noted above into consideration. A Conceptual Plan exhibit depicting the Sub-Alternative alternative was presented and explained by Joe DeFuria. ** PLEASE NOTE: During the February 1, 2017 Meeting, the Sub-Alternative was inadvertently referred to as G1-d2a. The appropriate naming convention should be G1-d3a. As such, in these meeting minutes and all future studies and project-related correspondence the newly developed Sub-Alternative that was presented at the February 1, 2017 meeting will be referred to as G1-d3a. See attached graphic. There have been no changes to the alternative that was presented at the meeting. This represents a change in name only.

STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Governmental Stakeholders Meeting February 1, 2017

emht.com | 2 of 4

District 4 showed animated traffic simulation models for four (4) different existing (No-Build) and G1-d3a (Build) scenarios: No Build 2017 PM Peak; Build 2017 PM Peak; No Build 2045 PM Peak; and Build 2045 PM Peak. The No Build scenario included the planned improvements at the Harrisburg/Middlebranch intersection.

o As shown, the Build 2045 PM Peak with St. Elmo Intersection simulation included an additional lane westbound between St. Elmo Ave. and the 30th Street off-ramp and an additional lane eastbound between St. Elmo Ave. and Harrisburg. This additional lane is being proposed because to accommodate future traffic growth along US 62.

o The proposed service road and intersection to the south of US62 was moved further south than what is depicted in the Conceptual Plan exhibit provided to attendees The shift southward is being made in order to increase the amount of storage for northbound vehicles waiting at the traffic signal, to reduce the chance of vehicles on St. Elmo blocking the service road, and to provide room in the US 62 median for a pedestrian refuge.

Open Discussion

It was discussed that the Sub-Alternative will eliminate the the majority of direct access points to US 62 in order to address the safety needs of the project.

City of Canton asked if the 30th Street Martindale/SR 43 Intersection was considered as part of the traffic simulation work performed.

o The District indicated it is not a part of this study. o This intersection was not analyzed as part of this Sub-Alternative because with the

addition of the at-grade intersection with signal at St. Elmo, the traffic patterns are not being re-routed.

o District however will take a look at this intersection to determine if there is any improvements needed based upon existing congestion.

Stark Parks suggested that pedestrian connectivity should be addressed via a connection along the existing railroad.

o With sub-alternative G1-3da, a pedestrian crossing will be considered at St. Elmo including a refuge in the middle of US62 at St. Elmo. The refuge would be needed given the length of the proposed pedestrian crossing at that intersection.

o District 4 also noted, that this sub-alternative also does not prohibit Stark Parks or other local entity from pursuing a future trail as a separate project if a future need arises.

Plain Township noted that existing pedestrian movements across US 62 (north and south) were very limited throughout the project area.

o District 4 added that the pedestrian movement study completed for the corridor supported Plain Township’s observations and noted that pedestrian travel as whole seems to be very limited within the study corridor.

o Joe DeFuria noted that sidewalks will not be included along the relocated US 62. o As discussed above, it is anticipated to include pedestrian accommodations to cross

US62 St. Elmo included as part of G1-d3a. Details of such will be developed during the design phase of the project.

o The existing sidewalk running east-west along existing US 62, which in the Sub-Alternative will be the new service road, would remain.


emht.com | 3 of 4

Plain Township questioned whether or not a barrier (raised median) will still be included in the design.

o District 4 stated that it is proposed to construct a physical concrete barrier, the type of which has yet to be determined.

Plain Township commented on the safety concerns of having a third lane pushed closer to the remaining homes located to the north of US 62.

o District 4 noted that a noise barrier will be evaluated for that area as part of the environmental process. If a noise barrier is not feasible or reasonable to be constructed, then adding that at a minimum, right-of-way fencing would be added between the roadway and residences.

Stark County Regional Planning noted that there may be a need for some pavement improvements and/or minor widening along St. Elmo Ave. due to the newly proposed tie-in at US62.

o District 4 acknowledged that the St. Elmo approaches to US 62 will need to be improved as necessary to accommodate proposed turn lanes and pedestrian movements at its intersection with US 62.

Plain Township noted that alternative G1-d3a, as presented at the meeting, does a great job at addressing the comments/concerns previously provided by the township and that they were happy that ODOT has taken their comments/concerns into consideration.

Plain Township commented that sight distance between approaching from the US62 freeway section to the existing Rowland Ave/US 62 intersection is a big problem and that removal of the existing signal in this location is a good idea. Moving the signal to St. Elmo, which is farther west, makes sense.

Plain Township suggested that the proposed signal at St. Elmo Ave. is a good idea as it will serve as a good ingress and egress point to/from US62. It is also the Township’s opinion that City of Canton EMS will be in favor of alternative G1-d3a due to better access to the north and south.

The City of Canton asked if alternative G1-d3a includes the previously discussed improvements along Market Street.

o District 4 noted that those improvements are not necessary as part of the G1-d3a alternative and were only necessary for the alternatives (that were presented at previous Stakeholder and Public Involvement Meetings) that completely removed all access to/from US62.

Plain Township questioned who would be responsible for maintenance along the southern access road.

o District 4 noted that maintenance would be the responsibility of the township.

The meeting concluded with a brief discussion regarding how the G1-d3a alternative will tie into the planned Harrisburg/Middlebranch intersection project located east of the US62 project area. The project east of the bridges will construct a roundabout at the


emht.com | 4 of 4

Harrisburg/30th St. intersection and tee both Harrisburg and Middlebranch into US 62 creating two signalized 3-legged intersections that will operate in a coordinated manner.

Future Stakeholder/Public Involvement Activities

ODOT will develop an informational Newsletter which provides an update on the project and introduces G1-d3a

*END*

US 62 24.05, PID 100824 Governmental Stakeholders Meeting

February 1, 2017

Introductions

Recent History

o Governmental Stakeholder Meeting (9/21/16)

o Business Group Meeting (10/11/16)

o Public Meeting (11/29/16)

o Public Comment period

Primary Public concerns/comments

o Lack of emergency access

o Cars and trucks diverted to other roads/intersections

o Loss of business

o Neighborhood connectivity

o Harrisburg/Middlebranch intersection

Revised Alternate based on public comments.

o Sub Alternative G1-d3a

Traffic Simulation

o 3-lanes necessary on US 62 thru traffic signal at St. Elmo

o Greater separation between access road and US 62

Next Steps

o Newsletter, via US mail, to present Preferred Alternative (Spring 2017)

o Complete Feasibility Study (after State and Federal review)

o Begin design of G1-d3a during Summer 2017

o One more Public Meeting during Detailed Design

Discussion

** PLEASE NOTE: During the February 1, 2017 Meeting, the Sub-Alternative was inadvertently referred to as G1-d2a.

The appropriate naming convention should be G1-d3a. As such, in these meeting minutes and all future studies and

project-related correspondence the newly developed Sub-Alternative that was presented at the February 1, 2017

meeting will be referred to as G1-d3a. See attached graphic. There have been no changes to the alternative that was

presented at the meeting. This represents a change in name only.

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

62

62*

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

***

**

FUEL

CANTON

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA

SUB-ALTERNATIVE G1-d3aNOISE SENSITIVE AREAS

SECTION 4(f)/PARKS



LEGEND:

PROPOSED PAVEMENT


BARRIER

PROPOSED CONCRETE

STA-62-24.05 – Public Involvement Summary March 2017

STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Public Involvement Summary

March 2017

1.0 PUBLIC MEETING OVERVIEW

As of March 2017, one (1) Public Involvement Meeting has been conducted by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) District 4 to present and discuss the ten (10) alternatives currently under consideration for the STA-62-24.05 project. The public meeting was held on Tuesday, November 29, 2016, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the St. George Orthodox Event Center located at 144 30th St., NW, Canton, Ohio. The meeting format included a brief project overview presentation at 5:45 pm. Following the presentation, interested individuals we afforded the opportunity to speak during an open microphone public comment period. Throughout the public meeting, exhibits illustrating the alternatives under consideration were displayed and personnel from the ODOT project team will be available to address questions.

A total of 212 people attended the public involvement meeting. Of those in attendance, 11 individuals took part in the open microphone portion of the meeting. As of March 2017, ODOT received 38 comments from the public. ODOT will continue to solicit public comments throughout the environmental documentation phase of the project.

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

As noted above, comments have been received from 38 individuals to date. This includes both written comments and comments received during the open microphone portion of the December 29, 2016 public meeting. In general, the written and oral comments received indicated the common concerns summarized in Table 1 below. Responses to the comments received from the public have been developed by the Project Team and are summarized in Table 1. A formal Public Comment Summary and Response to Public Comments document has been prepared and is will be made available to the public.

Table 1. Public Comments Received and Responses to Comments

Number of

comments Comment/Concern Response to Comments

8 The problem is related to/due to the Harrisburg Rd/ Middlebranch Ave Intersection

The US 62/ Harrisburg/ Middlebranch intersection is a separate project that is already underway. The project will realign and reconfigure the intersections of US-62, Middlebranch, Harrisburg, and 30th Street and includes the construction of a roundabout at Harrisburg and 30th Street. Construction is estimated to begin in 2018 and be completed in 2020.


Number of


7 Access for emergency services to residential neighborhoods north and south of US 62

As part of the evaluation process, ODOT will assess emergency services response travel time mapping developed for each alternative. Coordination with emergency services will continue following selection of a preferred alternative and be ongoing throughout the project development process.

7 Impact to local businesses (customer access, marketing, truck access, moving to Canton)

ODOT will identify and consider potential community and economic impacts for each feasible alternative. Once a preferred alternative is chosen, ODOT will continue to consider community and economic impacts and work to minimize those impacts throughout the project development process.

6 Additional traffic on residential side streets/Impact of heavy trucks on residential side streets

Consideration will be given to the operational characteristics associated with each alternative. This includes an assessment of local traffic patterns and potential impacts to local residential streets as a result of newly proposed traffic patterns. Coordination with local municipalities will be ongoing as it relates to any restrictions/limitations associated with the local roadway network.

5 Restriction of access for residents to neighborhoods north and south of US 62

ODOT will consider access and potential community impacts for each feasible alternative. Once a preferred alternative is chosen, ODOT will continue to consider all community impacts and work to minimize impacts throughout the project development process.

4

Additional traffic on Martindale Rd. (if only access point for residents north of US 62) and subsequent traffic at intersection of Martindale and 30th

The primary purpose of the project is to improve safety on US 62. Coordination with Plain Township and Canton City regarding potential adjacent traffic impacts will be ongoing throughout project development.

3 Support for Limited Access roadway Comment noted.


Number of


2 Concern for speed of drivers; noncompliance with posted speed limit

Once a preferred alternative is chosen, ODOT will evaluate potential measures to aid in reinforcing the legal speed limit.

2 Impact on noise levels

Once a preferred alternative is chosen, noise impacts will be evaluated for the project in accordance with highway noise impact assessment procedures, noise abatement procedures, coordination requirements, and noise abatement criteria established based on Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 and the latest revision of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance.

2 Need protected left turns to get into residential area north of US 62

Once a preferred alternative is chosen, turn lane configurations and signal timings at the various intersections will be further evaluated.

2 Concern for safety/accidents

This project proposes to improve safety within the project study corridor by improving access management, reducing traffic congestion, and improving roadway geometrics (US 62 westbound approach curve).

2 No roundabout Comment noted.

2 Impact to township tax base

ODOT will consider the potential community and economic impacts of each feasible alternative. Once a preferred alternative is chosen, ODOT will continue to consider and work to minimize community and economic impacts throughout the project development process.


Number of


2 Emergency access to fire hydrants on north side of US 62

Impacts to fire hydrant access and other public utilities will be evaluated during the design phase of the project. ODOT is committed to ensuring that access to fire hydrants is maintained both north and south of US 62. Coordination with emergency services will continue following selection of a preferred alternative and be ongoing throughout the project development process.

1 Impact on property values

The proposed action is intended to address transportation facility deficiencies. ODOT will continue to consider Stark County Area Transportation Study (SCATS) plans and local development patterns and requirements for the area. The proposed project will benefit the region and surrounding community through safety and access management improvements.

1 Want a long-term solution

Comment noted. The goal of this project is to provide a long-term solution aimed at improving safety throughout the project study corridor.

1 Need better lighting

Roadway lighting needs for the preferred alternative will be evaluated as part of the design phase of the project.

1 Maintenance of traffic during construction

Maintenance or traffic (MOT) details will be developed during subsequent design phases of the project and developed in accordance with applicable traffic engineering policies, guidelines and standards.

1 Residential property takes

ODOT operates under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and amendments of 1987. The main objective of this Act is to ensure that every effort is made to acquire the needed right-of-way in a fair and equitable manner.


Number of


1 Suggest new exit from I-77 to Broadway Ave/US 62 north of the existing US 62

Comment noted. The primary purpose of this project is to improve safety along the US 62 corridor between the US 62/SR 43 interchange and the US 62/Maple Avenue intersection.

1 Relocation of utilities in the corridor

Utility impacts will be identified and evaluated throughout the project design to ensure protection of utility property and services in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Sections 5515.01 and 5515.02 which govern the use and occupancy of highway rights of way under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of Transportation.

1 Added cost of roadway maintenance for Plain Township

Comment noted. Coordination with Plain Township regarding potential roadway maintenance impacts associated with the selected alternative will be discussed as part of the selection of a preferred alternative. Further, coordination with Plain Township will be ongoing throughout project development.

1 Delays in clearing roadways for Plain Township caused by restricted access

Comment noted. Coordination with Plain Township regarding potential roadway clearing/ maintenance impacts associated with the selected alternative will be discussed as part of the selection of a preferred alternative.

1 Pedestrian safety in residential areas with increased traffic

Pedestrian movements and access will be considered as part of the selection of a preferred alternative and ODOT will continue to consider pedestrian movements and access throughout the environmental assessment (EA) process and design phases of the project. This includes a review of potential impacts to pedestrian access and safety throughout the project area.


Number of


1 Additional traffic at Market and US 62 caused by restricted access

The primary purpose of the project is to improve safety along the US 62 corridor between the US 62/SR 43 interchange and the US 62/Maple Avenue intersection. Coordination with Plain Township, City of Canton and the Stark County Engineer’s Office regarding potential adjacent traffic impacts will be ongoing throughout project development.

1 Additional traffic at Harrisburg from Spangler caused by restricted access

Coordination with Plain Township and Stark County regarding potential adjacent traffic impacts will be ongoing throughout project development.

1 Need to maintain pedestrian access across US 62

Comment noted. Pedestrian movement counts have been completed throughout the study corridor. As such, pedestrian access needs and safety will continue to be evaluated throughout the environmental assessment (EA) and final design phases of the project.

1 Request for additional public involvement meetings

ODOT anticipates conducting a minimum of two (2) additional public meetings for this project. This includes a Public Hearing to be conducted as part of the environmental assessment (EA) phase of the project.

1 Suggest re-routing traffic from Market to Spangler to Harrisburg to Old 30 to Harmont to US 62

A Macro Level Conceptual Alternatives Study, which identified and evaluated conceptual corridor alternatives on and off the existing US 62 alignment, was completed in 2010. The preferred feasible solution was identified as US 62 improvement.

1 Suggest modification of G1-d2 to retain signal at Maple, remove signal at Rowland, add right turn lanes

Comment noted.

1

Suggest modification of G1-d6 to add signal at St. Elmo, remove signals at Rowland and Maple, add right turn lanes, convert intersection of Martindale, 30th, and US 62 WB to roundabout

Comment noted.


Number of


1 Need to straighten the curve (safety concerns)

Addressing the safety concerns associated with the existing US 62 westbound approach has been identified as a safety need element for this project. Therefore, consideration is being given to the existing roadway geometrics in this area.

3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE AND TIMELINE

Public Involvement activities will continue to be documented by the responsible parties as identified in Table 2 on the following page. Follow-up meetings and/or coordination efforts will occur as needed throughout the Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Environmental Engineering (EE) phases of the project. Additional PI efforts associated with NEPA clearance of the project will be scheduled throughout project development, as determined necessary.

STA-62-24.05 Public Involvement Summary March 2017 EMH&T

Table 2: Schedule of Public Involvement Activities

ODOT PDP Phase Public Involvement Action

Parties Involved Purpose of Action Contact Method Method of Soliciting Input Method of Responding to Comments

Responsible Party Timeline

PL/PE Stakeholder Meetings/Coordination – up to 3 meetings

Consultant Team/District Staff

Solicit input on proposed action from key project stakeholders

U.S. Mail, email, phone, hand delivery

Verbal comments at meeting or via phone; Written comments accepted following meeting, or via U.S mail or email

Written comments, email, website or U.S. mail

Project Management Team (District, and EMH&T)

September 21, 2016 October 11, 2016 February 1, 2017

PL/PE Issue Press Release, Mail Meeting Notification Letters – Public Meeting #1

Project Management Team

Notify public of project, solicit public input and provide information for Public Open House Meeting

Local news media, U.S. mail, hand delivery

Verbal comments at meeting or via phone; Written comments accepted following meeting, or via U.S mail or email

Written comments, email, District 4 website or U.S. mail

Project Management Team (District and EMH&T)

Minimum of 2-weeks prior to PI Meeting #1 date

PL/PE Public Open House Meeting #1

Project Management Team, all stakeholders

Obtain public/stakeholder input on proposed project, solicit EJ-specific feedback

Email, U.S. mail, phone

Verbal comments at meeting; Written comments accepted following meeting; Meeting minutes provided after meeting



November 29, 2016

PL/PE Response to Comments Project Management Team, General Public

Provide responses to public/stakeholder input received at Public Open House Meeting

ODOT website, email, U.S. mail

Additional comments accepted via email, voicemail, or U.S. mail

Written responses to comments via email, District website or U.S. mail


February 2017

EE Issue Project Update Newsletter

Project Management Team

Provide Feasibility Study update, notify public of preferred alternative project, provide update on project schedule

U.S. mail, hand delivery

Verbal comments via phone; Written comments received via U.S mail or email

Written comments, email, District 4 website or U.S. mail (if required)


Spring 2017

EE Public Hearing

Project Management Team, all stakeholders

Obtain public/stakeholder input on proposed project, noise public involvement

Local news media, U.S. mail, hand delivery

Verbal comments at meeting; Written comments accepted following meeting; Meeting minutes provided after meeting



TBD – anticipated during NEPA documentation phase of project

EE/FE TBD - Additional Public/Stakeholder efforts to be identified during NEPA phase of project as necessary

- - - - - -

|C

Appendix C:

Emergency Response Maps


EXISTING EMS ROUTE ALTERNATE EMS ROUTE

EMS TRAVEL TIMES TO ADDRESS NORTH OF US 62

(ALTERNATIVES G1-D3 / G1-D6)

ROUTE COMPARISON FOR EMERGENCY AT ADDRESS NORTH OF US 62

PLAIN TOWNSHIP FIRE AND RESCUE #2

EMERGENCY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF US 62

0.9 MILES – APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MINUTES -VS- 1.9 MILES – APPROXIMATELY 3.2 MINUTES

EXISTING EMS ROUTE ALTERNATE EMS ROUTE

EMS TRAVEL TIMES TO ADDRESS SOUTH OF US 62

(ALTERNATIVES G1-D3 / G1-D6)

ROUTE COMPARISON FOR EMERGENCY AT ADDRESS SOUTH OF US 62

PLAIN TOWNSHIP FIRE AND RESCUE #2

EMERGENCY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 62

1.3 MILES – APPROXIMATELY 2.2 MINUTES -VS- 1.4 MILES – APPROXIMATELY 2.4 MINUTES

|D

Appendix D:

Environmental Red Flag Summary


STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) Environmental Red Flag Summary

March 2017

March 2017 Page 1

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) District 4 is proposing to improve US Route 62 (US62) from the US 62/State Route (SR) 43 interchange to the Nimishillen Creek Bridge in Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio (STA-62-24.05, PID 100824). This project is anticipated to require preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) by ODOT. A Feasibility Study (FS) is currently being prepared for this project, which will evaluate the alternative designs being considered to address identified transportation deficiencies in the corridor. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508) define the impacts and effects that must be addressed and considered by Federal agencies in satisfying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 between Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an administration in the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), executed December 11, 2015, ODOT has assumed the FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA. This Environmental Red Flag Review is a snapshot of potential issues that are recommended for study and evaluation later in the project development process (PDP) to determine their magnitude of environmental impact. This memo summarizes the Environmental Red Flag Review conducted by EMH&T environmental scientists for the STA-62-24.05 (PID 100824) project. The intent of this memo is provide a summary of this environmental review to be included with the Feasibility Study being prepared for this project. An environmental red flag review was conducted, including a review of the following parameters:

• Public involvement;

• Relocations, both residential and business;

• Landfills, Superfund sites and/or evidence of hazardous materials;

• Sensitive environmental justice areas;

• Air quality non-attainment areas or concerns;

• Potential noise sensitive areas or concerns;

• Parkland, nature preserves, and wildlife areas;

• Cultural resources (cemeteries, historic buildings, historic bridges, known archaeological sites);

• Public facilities and pedestrian accommodations;

• Potential surface waters and wetlands (existing wet areas, streams, rivers and watercourses); and

• Threatened and endangered species and/or habitat. Exhibit 1 at the end of this memo shows the project area and identified environmental considerations. The preliminary environmental screening included a review of available aerial photography, resource mapping and databases, as well as a cursory field review of the study area to identify any obvious environmental concerns. Below is a summary of the screening for potential environmental resources concerns only. As the project develops, additional studies, agency coordination and reviews will be necessary, following ODOT procedures and protocols.


March 2017

March 2017 Page 2

SUMMARY OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES A baseline assessment of the project area was conducted by EMH&T through a combination of secondary source literature searches and a preliminary field review conducted by EMH&T Environmental Scientists. All known environmental resources have been indicated on the Environmental Resource Summary Map (Exhibit 1). Public Involvement The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that input about the project be solicited from stakeholders and the public. Due to a potentially high level of right-of-way impacts and property takes, public and stakeholder involvement is required and will continue throughout the project development process. A Public Involvement Plan was created in August of 2016. Stakeholder meetings occurred in September and October of 2016 and February of 2017. A Public Open House Meeting was held on November 29, 2016. Summary reports of all public involvement will be kept on file at ODOT District 4 and available for public review. Currently, a minimum of one (1) project update newsletter and one (1) Public Hearing are anticipated for the project. Relocations Due to a potentially high level of right-of-way impacts, both residential and business relocations are anticipated. As currently proposed, the project will result in 40 to 50 residential relocations and 8 to 15 business relocations. Hazardous Materials GPD Group was contracted by ODOT District 4 to complete an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Screening for the proposed STA-62-24.05 project. A total of 85 sites, commercial and residential, were identified within the project study area, which included all properties that are within and that intersect the project study area. Based upon a review of historical mapping resources, databases of environmental enforcement, and visual inspections, GPD Group identified twenty-seven (27) sites that may warrant further environmental site investigation with respect to the activities associated with the proposed project. Sites of ESA concern are indicated on Exhibit 1. Environmental Justice The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) must ensure that their actions do not result in discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice (EJ) is defined as: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Based on the results of the USEPA EJ View literature search, minority populations in the project area range from 9% to 22%, below poverty populations within the project area range from 9% to 21%, and linguistically isolated households range from 0% to 6%. Per ODOT-OES's Environmental Justice guidance document (Revised June 2016), the project’s potential impact to community cohesion requires completion of an Environmental Justice Analysis Report. Maps depicting the low-income and minority census data have been included at the end of this memo.


March 2017

March 2017 Page 3

Air Quality The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted to reduce air pollution and establish clean air standards. If a project receives federal funding, conformity with the SIPs must be demonstrated with respect to carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM 2.5/PM 10), and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). The State of Ohio is in attainment for CO at this time and no coordination or analysis is required. Stark County is in attainment according to the USEPA Ohio 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Nonattainment Area State Map (07/2012). Furthermore, the project is listed in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Therefore, ozone has been addressed for the project. Stark County is located within a Particulate Matter (PM)-2.5 Maintenance Area according to the USEPA Ohio PM-2.5 (2006 Standard) Nonattainment Areas map (10/2014). Both a PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis and a Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis are expected to be needed for this project. The reduction of access points, and associated reduction in congestion, that will occur as a result of this project will need to be addressed in the Air Quality Analyses for this project. Noise Noise is considered unwanted sound, particularly when the sound causes annoyance. One of the most significant sources of noise is transportation, specifically traffic noise. The ODOT Flowchart for When a Noise Analysis is Needed (ODOT, 11/23/2012) was consulted to determine whether a noise analysis would be potentially required for the project. As the project may potentially move the roadway closer to noise sensitive land uses, a noise analysis is warranted for the project. Noise sensitive areas identified within or adjacent to the project area are indicated on Exhibit 1. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parklands Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 stipulates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless specific conditions are met. Based on aerial maps and a cursory field review, there are two (2) parks adjacent to the proposed project area (Exhibit 1). Oak Park is located north of US 62 and Reifsnyder Park is located south of US 62, both at the eastern end of the project area. The Middle Branch Trail, which runs through both parks, is a recreational path that connects both Oak Park and Reifsnyder Park to several other Canton-area parks. No other recreational areas were observed in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Impacts to these features will require coordination with the Official with Jurisdiction for the 4(f) features as well as the ODOT Office of Environmental Services. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act applies to the conversion of recreation lands that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money to non-recreational purposes. Approval must be sought from the US Department of the Interior – National Park Service for the conversion of any such lands. The U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service listings of LWCF grant properties for Stark County was reviewed by EMH&T on November 3, 2016. No Section 6(f) properties are located in the project area.


March 2017

March 2017 Page 4

Public Facilities Coordination has been initiated with police/fire/emergency medical services as well as public transportation and school bus services as part of the Stakeholder involvement process. Coordination with these entities will continue in order to assess the impact of any change in traffic patterns, access changes and closures for construction. Surface Waters and Wetlands Surface waters, including streams and wetlands, are protected under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts to streams or wetlands require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or a Section 401 permit from the Ohio EPA. Impacts to isolated wetlands require a State Isolated Wetland Permit from the Ohio EPA. According to the USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Series Canton East, Ohio quadrangle (USGS 1985), Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek borders Oak Park and Reifsnyder Park on the eastern end of the project area. Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek is a jurisdictional stream. Based on the expected project footprint, no impacts to Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek are anticipated for this project. However, if project limits change and impacts to this stream will occur, a permit will be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The location of Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek in relation to the project area is shown on Exhibit 1 at the end of this memo. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper was reviewed for the project area. No NWI features are indicated within the study area. No wetlands were identified within the project area during the field investigation conducted by EMH&T in September 2016. Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of Federally Listed Species by Ohio Counties (October 2016) includes the following species for Stark County: Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) – Endangered; Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat) – Proposed as Endangered; and Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) – Species of Concern. In correspondence dated November 1, 2016, the USFWS stated that the project is not located within a known bat buffer for Indiana bat or Northern long-eared bat. In correspondence dated November 3, 2016, the ODNR Division of Wildlife stated that they had no capture records for Indiana bat within a 5-mile radius of the study area and no hibernacula within a 10-mile radius. The 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Federal-Aid Highway Program for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and Federally Threatened Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) defines suitable wooded habitat (SWH) for these species as any tree covered area that is 0.5 ac or larger, containing any potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities) greater than 13 feet tall and at least 3 inches dbh, or any patch of trees with these characteristics that is less than ½ acre in size but is within 1,000 feet of or connected by a travel corridor to a potential maternity roost tree, ½-acre or larger stand of SWH, or any patch of wooded riparian buffer. Additionally these species may use bridges over streams as summer roosting habitat. These species inhabit hibernacula during the winter months (typically caves, or


March 2017

March 2017 Page 5

abandoned mines that provide cool, humid, stable conditions for hibernation). Based on the cursory field investigation performed by EMH&T in September 2016 as well as a secondary review of aerial maps, no SWH will be impacted by the project. Correspondence with ODNR and USFWS has been included. Additionally, should the project limits change to include impacts to the bridge over Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, the bridge would need to be assessed for characteristics that may provide habitat for bat species and for preliminary indicators to determine if any bat species are using bridges. According to the USFWS, the bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The eagle uses super canopy trees (trees that are taller than the surrounding trees) as nesting habitat. The ideal habitat for the bald eagle is a secluded site within 2 miles of water so the bird has access to a source of fish. According to the ODNR, the closest known bald eagle nest is located 11 miles to the northwest. No bald eagle nests or suitable habitat were observed during the cursory field investigation performed by EMH&T in September 2016. Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek is a perennial stream that borders Oak Park and Reifsnyder Park on the eastern end of the project area. Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the project area to a confluence with Sandy Creek. Per the ODNR Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol (OMSP) updated in April 2016, Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek is a Group 1 (small to mid-sized) stream where federally-listed mussel species are not expected to be present. No impacts to Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek are anticipated for this project. However, should the project limits change to include impacts to Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, a freshwater mussel survey would be warranted. Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. EMH&T staff archaeologists reviewed the Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO) GIS website to determine if there were any known cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. There are no known historic structures or historic districts within the project area. A Phase I Archaeology report was completed for a gas pipeline corridor in the park areas to the east of the project area (Phase I Cultural Resources Survey East Ohio Gas Company Maple-McDowell, L #2374 [3C07077264] Pipeline Infrastructure Replacement Project, Canton and Plain Townships, Stark County, Ohio, November 2008). The Phase I survey identified two (2) previously unrecorded archaeological sites, neither of which is within the project area. Based on these reviews, there are no known cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. A copy of the OHPO map showing known cultural resources and the location of the previous Phase 1 Archaeological Survey is included at the end of this memo.


March 2017

March 2017 Page 6

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the environmental resources assessed and identified during this review, additional environmental analysis will be required. The results of the environmental review and impact analysis is anticipated to be documented in an Environmental Assessment, that will be coordinated appropriately by ODOT with the required regulatory agencies. Table 1 below includes a summary of the environmental considerations/resources that will need to be addressed as part of subsequent environmental reviews and documentation that will be completed for ODOT.

Table 1: Summary of Potential Environmental Considerations

Environmental Considerations Potential Involvement Public and Stakeholder Involvement Yes

Relocations, both residential and business Yes

Hazardous Materials Yes

Environmental Justice Yes

Community Impacts and Cohesion Yes

Air Quality Yes

Noise Yes

Section 4(f) Properties Yes

Section 6(f) Properties No

Public Facilities No

Streams No

Potential Wetlands No

Potentially Jurisdictional Ditches No

Threatened & Endangered Species or Habitat

No

Cultural Resources No

Yes = May require additional analysis No = Resource is either not present or is not likely to be affected

Based on the requirements of NEPA and the alternative designs currently under review in the Feasibility Study, the following are the primary environmental considerations that should be included as part of the Alternatives Analysis:

• Public and Stakeholder Input

• Environmental Justice

• Community Impacts and Cohesion


March 2017

ATTACHMENTS

N

Environmental Resource Summary MapSTA-62-24.05 (PID 100824)

Exhibit 1 Source: Google Earth, 2016

Nim

ishillen

Scale: 1” = 425’

LEGEND

Study area

Sites of ESA concern

Section 4(f)/Parks

Noise Sensitive Areas

Stream

|E

Appendix E:

Preliminary Cost Estimates


Construction 618,000$

25% Contingency 155,000$

24% Inflation 185,000$

Right of Way -$

TOTAL 958,000$




Right of Way -$

TOTAL 1,183,000$




Right of Way 2,421,000$

* Includes potentially affected parcels valued at: $ 2,420,701

TOTAL 3,950,000$

Construction 4,738,000$

25% Contingency 1,185,000$

24% Inflation 1,422,000$

Right of Way* 7,774,000$


TOTAL 15,119,000$

ALT G1-a: Two Signals - access to North and South

ALT G1-b: One Signal - access to North and South

ALT G1-c: No Access - Cul-de-Sac side streets

ALT G1-e: Two Roundabouts - access to North and South


Alternatives on the Existing Alignment(inflation based on year 2022 sale)



24% Inflation 2,089,000$


* Includes potentially affected parcels valued at: $ 697,575

TOTAL 17,258,000$



24% Inflation 2,042,000$


* Includes potentially affected parcels valued at: $ 697,575

TOTAL 17,017,000$



24% Inflation 2,288,000$



TOTAL 20,688,000$



24% Inflation 2,269,000$



TOTAL 19,591,000$

ALT G1-d1: Two Signals - access to North only

ALT G1-d2: One Signal - access to North only

ALT G1-d3: No Access


Alternatives with US 62 Relocated North(inflation based on year 2022 sale)

SUB-ALT G1-d3a: One Signal - access to North and South



24% Inflation 2,128,000$


TOTAL 17,011,000$



24% Inflation 2,093,000$


TOTAL 16,828,000$



24% Inflation 2,318,000$


TOTAL 20,617,000$

ALT G1-d6: No Access

ALT G1-d5: One Signal - access to South only

ALT G1-d4: Two Signals - access to South only


Alternatives with US 62 Relocated South(inflation based on year 2022 sale)

$958,000 $1,183,000 $1,529,000

$7,344,000

$10,791,000 $10,550,000

$14,221,000

$11,722,000$10,993,000 $10,810,000

$14,376,000

$0

$6,262,000

$5,769,000 $5,769,000

$5,769,000

$6,139,000

$6,016,000 $6,016,000

$6,239,000

$2,421,000

$1,513,000

$698,000 $698,000

$698,000

$1,730,000

$2,000 $2,000

$2,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

ALT G1-a

$958,000

ALT G1-b

$1,183,000

ALT G1-c

$3,950,000

ALT G1-e

$15,119,000

ALT G1-d1

$17,258,000

ALT G1-d2

$17,017,000

ALT G1-d3

$20,688,000

SUB-ALT G1-d3a

$19,591,000

ALT G1-d4

$17,011,000

ALT G1-d5

$16,828,000

ALT G1-d6

$20,617,000

2017 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

CONSTRUCTION ROW POTENTIAL ROW

|F

Appendix F

Right Of Way Information


PID N/A County STA Route 62 Section 24.02-30.19 – NORTHSIDE PARCELS This R/W Acquisition cost estimate is a summary of the northside parcels and is not associated with any specific alternative in the study.

Macro View

Acquisition Unit (SF) or

(Acreage)

X Cost/Unit ($$/SF)

($$/Acre)

Subtotal Land Value

+ Structure Values

(if Taken)

+ Damages (Loss in Value

to the Residue)

Subtotal Structures &

Damages

= Total Non Labor Acquisition Costs

Parcel Count

Total Takes

Partial Takes

No. of Structures Impacted

Instructions for Acquisition & Relocation Cost Estimates

Estimate the total number of acres involved in the project and allocate those acres into the four categories shown. Assign an average unit price for each category. These unit prices are typically taken from the auditors tax card data. Cost Estimates prepared at Step 4 (Step 7 on Major projects) and thereafter must base unit prices on a project sales data book instead of tax card data. Add structure values from the auditors tax cards only if the structures are taken. Damages must be assessed by a pre-qualified expert with experience in Before & After analysis. This usually occurs at Step 4 for Minor projects (Step 6 on Major Projects) and requires some knowledge of the impacts of the project on structures. Relocation Cost Estimates must consider the complexity of the move process. All move estimates that involve a business or a multi-tenant residential structure should use the services of a relocation Assistance professional to accurately gauge costs.

-Residential - WD X $531,000* + $1,228,700* + $0 $1,759,700* = $1,759,700* 40 40 0 37

-Commercial - WD X $246,300* + $1,076,500* + $0 $1,322,800* = $1,322,800* 8 8 0 8 -Municipal/OS/Open Space- WD X $32,800* + $0 + $0 $32,800* = $32,800* 1 1 0 0

Relocation Unit (Displacement)

X *RHP/*RSP + Move Cost + Reestablishment = Total Non Labor RAP Costs

Estimate amount of time necessary to relocate all RAP parcels = (0 months)

- Residential Owner Occupant Tenant

X X

+ +

$0 $0

== $928,200

Estimated number of years until project wide R/W acquisition begins = _________________________

- Commercial/Farm/NPO Owner Tenant

0 0

XX

$0 $0

++

$0$0

== $208,100

- Personal Property 0 X $0 = $0 [(total of acquisition cost) x 0.90] x 0.025 ] + [(total of acquisition cost) x 0.15] x 1.20] +[(total of acquisition cost) x 0.10] x 1.50 ] = Contingency Contingency

(Incidentals, Admin. Review & Appropriation) $1,782,126 *RHP - Replacement Housing Payment *RSP - Rent Supplemental Payment *NPO - Non-Profit Organization

Total Non Labor R/W Costs $6,033,726

Macro View

Labor (External) Unit (Parcels) X Unit Price = Total Cost Instructions for Labor Cost Estimates Labor costs are a function of time, distance and talent. Labor costs estimates should reflect the complexity of the project and the talent necessary to acquire the right

of way in a timely manner. The person making the cost estimate may adjust the figures given for the

particular project being estimated to reflect local labor costs. It is critical that the estimate be labeled to

reflect the alignment alternative, the step in the PDP process and the person(s) performing the estimate.

Titles –Abbreviated –Full (42 yr)

–Railroad (42 yr)

49

X X X

$650

= $31,850

This R/W Cost Estimate Prepared by Date

Appraisal –Value Analysis –Value Finding –Summary Narrative

1 2

46

X X X

$ 750 $1,800 $5,000

= =

$750

$3,600 $230,000

Briggs Creative Services

11-17-2016

Appraisal Review –Value Analysis –Value Finding –Summary Narrative

1 2

46

X X X

$375 $900

$2,500

= =

$375

$1,800 $115,000

This R/W Cost Estimate was performed at Step of the PDP for Projects using

Negotiations 49 X $1,650 = $80,850

Relocations –Personal Property –Residential –Commercial

X X X

===

$0

$224,000 $35,000

Comments * Information taken from the Stark County Auditor’s Office, at full market value (100%)

Total Labor Costs $804,075

Closings –Mail Out

–Formal

0

49

X X

$400 $500

=

$24,500


Project Management 49 X $1000 = $49,000 Inflation Adjustment (1%) $68,378

Miscellaneous Filings & Recording Fees Lump Sum X = $7,350 Total R/W Costs$6,906,179


*NPO=Non-Profit Organization P.D.P. R/W Cost Estimator

PID N/A County STA Route 62 Section 24.02-30.19 – SOUTH SIDE PARCELS This R/W Acquisition cost estimate is a summary of the southside parcels and is not associated with any specific alternative in the study.

Macro View

Acquisition Unit (SF) or

(Acreage)

X Cost/Unit ($$/SF)

($$/Acre)

Subtotal Land Value

+ Structure Values

(if Taken)

+ Damages (Loss in Value

to the Residue)

Subtotal Structures &

Damages

= Total Non Labor Acquisition Costs

Parcel Count

Total Takes

Partial Takes

No. of Structures Impacted

Instructions for Acquisition & Relocation Cost Estimates

Estimate the total number of acres involved in the project and allocate those acres into the four categories shown. Assign an average unit price for each category. These unit prices are typically taken from the auditors tax card data. Cost Estimates prepared at Step 4 (Step 7 on Major projects) and thereafter must base unit prices on a project sales data book instead of tax card data. Add structure values from the auditors tax cards only if the structures are taken. Damages must be assessed by a pre-qualified expert with experience in Before & After analysis. This usually occurs at Step 4 for Minor projects (Step 6 on Major Projects) and requires some knowledge of the impacts of the project on structures. Relocation Cost Estimates must consider the complexity of the move process. All move estimates that involve a business or a multi-tenant residential structure should use the services of a relocation Assistance professional to accurately gauge costs.

-Residential X $244,800* + $558,800* + $0 $803,600* = $803,600* 18 18 0 18

-Commercial X $757,000* + $1,110,800* + $0 $1,867,800* = $1,867,800* 13 13 0 12

-Municipal/Open Space-WD X $24,100* $0 $0 $24,100* $24,100* 1 1 0 0

Relocation Unit (Displacement)

X *RHP/*RSP + Move Cost + Reestablishment = Total Non Labor RAP Costs

Estimate amount of time necessary to relocate all RAP parcels = (0 months)

- Residential Owner Occupant Tenant

X X

+ +

$0 $0

== $810,500

Estimated number of years until project wide R/W acquisition begins = _________________________

- Commercial/Farm/NPO Owner Tenant

0 0

XX

$0 $0

++

$0$0

== $307,000

- Personal Property

0 X $0 = $0

[(total of acquisition cost) x 0.90] x 0.025 ] + [(total of acquisition cost) x 0.15] x 1.20] +[(total of acquisition cost) x 0.10] x 1.50 ] = Contingency Contingency (Incidentals, Admin. Review & Appropriation) $1,344,083 *RHP - Replacement Housing Payment

*RSP - Rent Supplemental Payment *NPO - Non-Profit Organization


Macro View

Labor (External) Unit (Parcels) X Unit Price = Total Cost Instructions for Labor Cost Estimates Labor costs are a function of time, distance and talent. Labor costs estimates should reflect the complexity of the project and the talent necessary to acquire the right

of way in a timely manner. The person making the cost estimate may adjust the figures given for the

particular project being estimated to reflect local labor costs. It is critical that the estimate be labeled to

reflect the alignment alternative, the step in the PDP process and the person(s) performing the estimate.

Titles –Abbreviated –Full (42 yr)

–Railroad (42 yr)

32

X X X

$650

= $20,800

This R/W Cost Estimate Prepared by Date

Appraisal –Value Analysis –Value Finding –Summary Narrative

1 31

X X X

$750

$1,800 $5,000

= =

$0 $1,800

$155,000

Briggs Creative Services

11-17-2016

Appraisal Review –Value Analysis –Value Finding –Summary Narrative

1 31

X X X

$375 $900

$2,500

= =

$0 $900

$77,500

This R/W Cost Estimate was performed at Step of the PDP for Projects using

Negotiations 32 X $1,650 = $52,800

Relocations –Personal Property –Residential –Commercial/Farm/*NPO

X X X

= = =

$94,500 $66,500

Comments * Information taken from the Stark County Auditor’s Office at full market value (100%)

Total Labor Costs $522,600 Closings

–Mail Out

–Formal

0

32

X X

$400 $500

= =

$16,000


Project Management 32 X $1,000 = $32,000 Inflation Adjustment (1%) $56,797

Miscellaneous Filings & Recording Fees Lump Sum X = $4,800 Total R/W Costs$5,736,480


*NPO=Non-Profit Organization P.D.P. R/W Cost Estimator

RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL SUMMARY

NHORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NORTH SIDE PARCELS:

SOUTH SIDE PARCELS:

MUNICIPAL: 1

MUNICIPAL: 1

MUNICIPAL

1 2 3 4

50

51

52

53 54 5556

57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 212223 24 2526

59 60 6162 63 64 65 66 67 68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

7273 74 75

76 77 78 79

80

81

49484746

454443

4241

4039383736353433

# PARCEL ID NO.

LT ASSOCIATES

GLASS

HAIDET'S

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

MOTORS

LAYLAND

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

FURNITURE

MCKINNEY'S

FUEL

CANTON

RESIDENTIAL USE: 40

RESIDENTIAL USE: 18

COMMERCIAL USE: 8

COMMERCIAL USE: 13

WA

RE

HO

U5E

OVEN

PIZZA

COMMERCIAL USE RESIDENTIAL USE

COMMERCIAL ZONING


ID No. OWNER ADDRESS PROPERTY CLASSCLAIMED # OF

EMPLOYEESDTE DESIGNATION STRUCTURE RENTAL

LAND VALUE (AUDITOR)

BUILDING VALUE (AUDITOR)

TOTAL VALUE (AUDITOR)

ACQUISITION LABOR (NO RELO LABOR)

RELO PARCELS REMARKS EST. RELOCATION COSTEST. RELO LABOR

REVIEW FEE

EST. RELO LABOR FEE

ZONING

1 McKinney Enterprises of Ohio 1001 30th St. NE Commercial 12 Commercial Structure Yes No $111,200 $756,300 $867,500 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐ Relo Pars $50,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

2 Shelia Lehigh 1101 30th ST. NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $19,100 $65,900 $85,000 $11,300 1 $19,500 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

3 Michael Beall 1109 30th St. NE Residential 2‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $21,000 $64,700 $85,700 $11,300 4 $52,000 $4,000 $10,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

4 Thereas Bender 1121 30th St. NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $16,500 $40,800 $57,300 $11,300 1 $47,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

5 Andy & Dency Cilona 1127 30th St. NE Residential 2‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $18,600 $61,600 $80,200 $11,300 4 $43,600 $4,000 $10,000 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

6 Infinity Represtntitives LLC 1133 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,900 $47,600 $61,500 $11,300 2 $20,800 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

7 Equity Trust Company 30th St NE Residential Vacant No No $9,900 $0 $9,900 $6,500 0 Combined w/below $0 $0 $0 R‐1 Single Family Residence

8 Equity Trust Company 1209 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,900 $34,800 $48,700 $11,300 2 $26,000 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

9 Michael & Jill Klein 1215 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,900 $36,900 $50,800 $11,300 1 $31,000 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

10 Joseph & Sharon Nardis 1221 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,900 $35,900 $49,800 $11,300 2 $23,900 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

11 Linda Myers 1225 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,900 $44,000 $57,900 $11,300 2 $24,900 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

12 RC Taylor Enterprises 3009 Rowland Ave NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,400 $36,500 $48,900 $11,300 2 $19,800 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

13 Jennie & Arthur Essig, Trustees 1301 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,200 $34,300 $46,500 $11,300 2 $14,200 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

14 Finders LLC 1307 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,200 $18,100 $30,300 $11,300 2 $19,800 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

15 Irene Koinoglou 1311 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $30,500 $42,500 $11,300 2 $19,500 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

16 Jerry & Joyce Waldren 1317 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $27,600 $39,600 $11,300 2 $20,900 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

17 Joyce L. Loucks 1321 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $15,100 $27,100 $11,300 2 $19,800 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

18 Raymond & Retha Radcliff 1325 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $30,000 $42,000 $11,300 2 $19,500 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

19 Francis Hamiltin 1331 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $12,000 $43,400 $55,400 $11,300 1 $31,500 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

20 Byron & Deborah Hall 1401 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $12,000 $25,900 $37,900 $11,300 1 $32,800 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

21 Anthony Guardado 1407 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $39,300 $51,300 $11,300 2 $21,100 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

22 Kevin Kisman 1411 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $29,100 $41,100 $11,300 2 $19,500 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

23 Corina Witlatch 1415 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $12,000 $30,100 $42,100 $11,300 1 $22,800 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

24 Irene Koinoglou 1421 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $26,300 $38,300 $11,300 2 $20,600 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

25 Scheks Properties LLC 1424 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,200 $23,400 $35,600 $11,300 2 $20,600 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

26 Steven & Anna Lopresti 1429 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,200 $30,600 $42,800 $11,300 2 $23,000 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

27 Eric Simon 1503 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,000 $20,300 $33,300 $11,300 1 $33,500 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

28 David & Helen Adkins 1507 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,000 $31,200 $44,200 $11,300 1 $19,200 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

29 Josephine Glover 1513 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,000 $26,300 $39,300 $11,300 2 $29,600 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

30 Jason Doyle 1517 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $13,000 $42,500 $55,500 $11,300 2 $21,100 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

31 Larry & Wanda Salinas 1523 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,000 $31,100 $44,100 $11,300 1 $19,200 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

32 James G. Vahila Trust 1527 30th St NE Commercial 3 Office Building Yes Yes $20,800 $37,100 $57,900 $11,300 2 $46,000 $2,000 $5,000 S‐1 Suburban Office

33 Dipietro Enterprises No. 4 LTD 1601 30th St NE Commercial 25 Food Service Yes Yes $45,500 $47,400 $92,900 $11,300 2 $57,000 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

34 Konstantina Koinoglou 1611 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $12,000 $32,800 $44,800 $11,300 2 $23,900 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

NORTH SIDE PARCEL INFORMATION

35 Beverly Reed 1617 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $12,000 $15,200 $27,200 $11,300 1 $33,100 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

36 Victor & Diane Haidet 30th St NE Residential Vacant No No $8,400 $0 $8,400 $4,925 0 $0 $0 $0 R‐1 Single Family Residence

37 Thomas & Donna Davenport 30th St NE Residential Garage Yes No $8,300 $5,700 $14,000 $11,300 1 $500 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

38 Property Alliance Group LLC 1631 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $11,500 $33,000 $44,500 $11,300 2 $23,000 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

39 Beryl & Doris Dagy 1635 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $11,300 $21,700 $33,000 $11,300 1 $19,000 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

40 Victor & Diane Haidet Tr 1641 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $15,900 $23,300 $39,200 $11,300 2 $19,800 $2,000 $5,000 R‐1 Single Family Residence

41 Victor & Diane Haidet Tr 1655 30th St NE Commercial 8 Auto Sales/Service Yes Yes $15,900 $127,500 $143,400 $11,300 2 $32,400 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

42 Victor & Diane Haidet Tr 1655 30th St NE Commercial Auto Sales/Service Yes Yes $26,200 $83,200 $109,400 $11,300 0 Combined w/above $0 $0 $0 B‐2 General Business

43 James & John Tsangeos 1703 30th St NE Commercial 4 Small Retail Store Yes Yes $12,700 $22,600 $35,300 $11,300 2 2 +/‐ Relo Pars $22,700 $2,000 $5,000 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

44 James & John Tsangeos 30th St NE Commercial Parking Lot Yes No $7,500 $2,000 $9,500 $11,300 0 Combined w/above $0 $0 $0 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

45 James & John Tsangeos 30th St NE Commercial Vacant No No $6,500 $400 $6,900 $11,300 0 Combined w/above $0 $0 $0 B‐1 Neighborhood Business

46 Darlene Miller 31th St NE Residential Vacant No No $10,400 $0 $10,400 $6,500 0 Combined w/below $0 $0 $0 R‐1 Single Family Residence

47 Darlene Miller 1720 31st St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $20,200 $32,900 $53,100 $11,300 1 $33,200 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

48 William C. Corn 1724 31st St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $20,200 $40,300 $60,500 $11,300 1 $38,100 $1,000 $2,500 R‐1 Single Family Residence

49 City of Canton Maple Avenue NE Exempt Vacant No No $32,800 $0 $32,800 $11,300 0 $0 $0 $0 OS‐Open Space

$7,350

$810,100 $2,305,200 $3,115,300 $545,075 74 $1,136,300 $74,000 $185,000

Grand Total Acquisition Cost 5,055,675.00$

Misc. Filing and Recording Fees

Total Tax Value Total Relocation Costs

$1,395,300$3,660,375

ID No. OWNER ADDRESS PROPERTY CLASSCLAIMED # OF

EMPLOYEESDTE DESIGNATION STRUCTURE RENTAL

LAND VALUE (AUDITOR)

BUILDING VALUE (AUDITOR)

TOTAL VALUE (AUDITOR)

ACQUISITION LABOR (NO RELO LABOR)

RELO PARCELS REMARKS EST. RELOCATION COSTEST. RELO LABOR

REVIEW FEE

EST. RELO LABOR FEE

ZONING

50 Robert J. Vulelic 2985 Gibbs Avenue NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $14,900 $41,600 $56,500 $11,300 2 $19,900 $2,000 $5,000 R‐3 Low Density Multi‐Family Res

51 Christine M. Wells 1100 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $16,500 $27,600 $44,100 $11,300 1 $43,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

52 Jeannie R. Starcher 2980 Gibbs Avenue NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $15,300 $39,400 $54,700 $11,300 2 $22,300 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

53 Irene Koinglou 1112 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $15,100 $41,500 $56,600 $11,300 1 $48,300 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

54 AKP Properties 1118 30th St NE Residential 2‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $15,100 $33,800 $48,900 $11,300 4 $39,200 $4,000 $10,000 B‐2 General Business

55 Michael R. Skelley 1122 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $15,100 $28,800 $43,900 $11,300 1 $53,000 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

56 Dennis & Diane Szittia 1132 30th St NE Commercial 7 Auto Sales/Service Yes No $68,400 $159,700 $228,100 $11,300 3 If rented 3+/3 Relo Pars $54,500 $3,000 $7,500 B‐2 General Business

57 Dennis & Diane Szittia 1212 30th St NE Commercial 4 Auto Sales/Service Yes No $45,600 $72,300 $117,900 $11,300 0 Combined w/above $0 $0 $0 B‐2 General Business

58 Dennis & Diane Szittia 1132 30th St NE Commercial 3 Auto Sales/Service Yes No $68,400 $36,900 $105,300 $11,300 0 Combined w/above $0 $0 $0 B‐2 General Business

59 KSH Properties LLC 1300 30th St NE Commercial Unknown Other Commercial Str Yes Yes $20,800 $52,600 $73,400 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐ Relo Pars $20,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

60 Marilyn Clemons 1304 30th St NE Residential 1‐ Family Dwelling Yes No $13,900 $34,100 $48,000 $11,300 1 $57,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

61 Michelle Painter 1310 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,900 $25,100 $39,000 $11,300 1 $42,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

62 SFRS LLC 1314 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $19,900 $14,300 $34,200 $11,300 2 $20,500 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

63 James Bowman 1320 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $7,700 $12,300 $20,000 $11,300 1 $62,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

64 Loren J. Hamilton 1324 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $17,400 $38,600 $56,000 $11,300 1 $58,000 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

65 Property Alliance Group LLC 1330 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $17,400 $32,900 $50,300 $11,300 2 $19,600 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

66 Richard Gallagher TR 1402 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $17,400 $38,300 $55,700 $11,300 2 If rented: 2+/ Relo Pars $19,800 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

67 Paul & Joanna Meyer 1410 30th St NE Commercial Empty Other Retail Structure Yes No $40,700 $52,800 $93,500 $11,300 2 $36,500 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

68 Jeff's Millenium Used Cars Inc. 1430 30th St NE Commercial Empty Auto Sales/Service Yes No $68,200 $37,000 $105,200 $11,300 1 $20,500 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

69 Bruce & Bonnie Jones 1504 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $8,800 $35,200 $44,000 $11,300 1 $83,100 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

70 Kimberly J. Jones 1510 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $8,800 $30,000 $38,800 $11,300 1 $73,200 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

71 Paul & Maryl Midway 1518 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $9,100 $35,000 $44,100 $11,300 1 $83,200 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

72 Sipasak Properties LLC 30th St NE Commercial Commercial Vacant Land No No $62,200 $0 $62,200 $11,300 0 $0 $0 $0 B‐2 General Business

73 Gurman Investments LLC 1600 30th St NE Commercial 4 Auto Service Station Yes No $78,300 $181,400 $259,700 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐Relo Pars $35,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

74 Warehouse LLC 1620 30th St NE Commercial 30 Commercial Warehouse Yes No $61,900 $352,800 $414,700 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐Relo Pars $40,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

75 James & Rebecca Ferguson 1634 30th St NE Commercial 13 Other Commercial Str Yes No $107,100 $89,700 $196,800 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐ Relo Pars $27,500 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

76 William & Jeni Sue Freguson 1640 30th St NE Commercial Unknown Other Retail Structures Yes No $17,500 $26,200 $43,700 $11,300 2 If rented 2+/‐ Relo Pars $26,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

77 Allen & Janice Bordine 1642 30th St NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes Yes $5,000 $26,600 $31,600 $11,300 2 $19,900 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

78 Robert & Donna Woodford 2985 Maple Ave NE Residential 1‐Family Dwelling Yes No $13,500 $23,700 $37,200 $11,300 1 $42,900 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

79 Larry A. Toth 30th St NE Commercial Parking Garage/Str/Lot Yes No $29,200 $1,400 $30,600 $11,300 1 $3,000 $1,000 $2,500 B‐2 General Business

80 Larry A. Toth 1712 30th St NE Commercial 4 Commercial Warehouse Yes No $88,700 $48,000 $136,700 $11,300 2 2+/‐ Relo Parcels $44,000 $2,000 $5,000 B‐2 General Business

81 City of Canton Spangler St NE Exempt Exempt/Muncipality No No $24,100 $0 $24,100 $6,500 0 $0 $0 $0 OS Open Space

$4,800

$1,025,900 $1,669,600 $2,695,500 $361,600 46 $1,117,500 $46,000 $115,000

Grand Total Acquisition Cost 4,335,600.00$

SOUTH SIDE PARCEL INFORMATION

Total Tax Value Total Relocation Costs

$1,278,500$3,057,100

Misc. Filing and Recording Fees

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED

* POTENTIAL PROPERTY IMPACTS

ALTERNATIVE G1-a

G1-a

PARCEL NO. JOBS DISPLACED

0

TOTAL 0

WERE USED FOR ALL PROPERTY IMPACTS (INCLUDING POTENTIALS)

* FOR COST ESTIMATING PURPOSES, 100% ACQUISITION VALUES

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


ALTERNATIVE G1-b

G1-b


0

TOTAL 0



HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

G1-c


32 3

33 25

43 4

58 3

TOTAL 35

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


ALTERNATIVE G1-c



HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77

78 7980

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


ALTERNATIVE G1-e

G1-e


41 8

43 4

56 7

57 4

58 3

74 30

75 13

80 4

TOTAL 73



HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d1

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED




G1-d1


32 3

33 25

41 8

43 4

75 13

TOTAL 53

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

G1-d2


32 3

33 25

41 8

43 4

75 13

TOTAL 53

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d2

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 7879

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED




HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d3

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


G1-d3


32 3

33 25

41 8

43 4

75 13

TOTAL 53WERE USED FOR ALL PROPERTY IMPACTS (INCLUDING POTENTIALS)


HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

62

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24

2526

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69

70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79

80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


22



SUB-ALTERNATIVE G1-d3a

G1-d3a


32 3

33 25

44 4

73 4

74 30

75 13

80 4

TOTAL 83

HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d4

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667 68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


G1-d4


56 7

57 4

58 3

73 4

74 30

75 13

80 4

TOTAL 65



HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d5

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667 68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


G1-d5


56 7

57 4

58 3

73 4

74 30

75 13

80 4

TOTAL 65



HORIZONTAL

SCALE IN FEET

0

75

150

300

N

62

30 ST NETH

MA

RTIN

DA

LE R

D N

EGIB

BS

AV

E

RO

WL

AN

D

AV

E

31 ST NEST

ST. E

LM

O

AV

E

GR

OSS

AV

E

MA

PL

E

AV

E

62

32 ST NEND

BE

VE

RL

Y

AV

E

MILFORD PL

SPANGLER ST

MILFORD PL

43

NIM

ISHIL

LE

N

CR

EE

K

WH

EE

LIN

G

&

LA

KE

ERIE

RAIL

RO

AD

ALTERNATIVE G1-d6

1

2 3 4

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667 68

27 28 29 30 31 32

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79 80

81

49

48474645444342414039383736353433

* PROPERTY IMPACTED


G1-d6


56 7

57 4

58 3

73 4

74 30

75 13

80 4

TOTAL 65



|G

Appendix G

Capacity Analysis

ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility StudyMarch 2017

US 62 Capacity Analysis PID 100824

LOS DELAY V/C QUEUE LOS DELAY V/C QUEUE LOS DELAY V/C LOS DELAY V/C LOS DELAY

ROWLAND AVE B 13.8 0.55 510' B 19.4 0.91 960' D 44.7 0.36 D 44.3 0.45 B 18.5

MAPLE AVE A 5.5 0.52 300' B 12.1 0.89 750' D 43.7 0.32 D 42.3 0.17 B 10.5

ROWLAND AVE B 13.8 0.55 510' B 19.4 0.91 960' D 44.7 0.36 D 44.3 0.45 B 18.5

MAPLE AVE A 5.5 0.52 295' B 12.2 0.89 760' D 43.7 0.32 D 42.3 0.17 A 5.8

C 21.6 0.64 520' F 98.7 1.17 2230' D 42.3 0.54 D 53.2 0.76 E 67.5

C 19.2 0.49 400' B 19.4 0.8 660' D 42.3 0.54 D 53.2 0.76 C 21.5

* Capacity Results for Rowland Ave and Maple Ave intersections


ROWLAND AVE A 6.4 160' B 17.6 520' D 37.5 D 39.4 B 14.1

MAPLE AVE A 4.2 150' C 28.8 780' D 37.6 D 44.0 C 20.1

ROWLAND AVE A 6.3 160' B 16.5 380' C 33.9 D 39.1 B 13.7

MAPLE AVE A 3.7 430' C 22.9 410' D 42.0 D 45.5 B 16.5

A 9.0 250' E 71.5 2130' D 35.2 D 45.2 D 47.1

A 7.7 170' B 14.5 270' C 31.1 C 26.4 B 13.2


EB auxiliary thru lane ends at Harrisburg Ave as drop right. WB auxiliary thru lane ends at 30th St Ramp as an exit only.

G1-d3a (3 LANE) - Remove Signals at Rowland Ave and Maple Ave intersections. New Signal at St. Elmo Ave intersection (US 62 Approaches: 1 L / 2 T / 1 TR)

EXISTING

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

No Build - Existing Conditions at Rowland Ave and Maple Avenue intersections (US 62 Approaches: 1 L / 1 T / 1 TR). Includes improvements at Middlebranch/Harrisburg intersections

G1-d3a (2 LANE) - Remove Signals at Rowland Ave and Maple Ave intersections. New Signal at St. Elmo Ave intersection (US 62 Approaches: 1 L / 2 T / 1 R)

OVERALL

EXISTING

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

SIM Traffic Performance Report - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2017 AM

ALTERNATIVEEB WB NB SB

HCM Signalized Intersection Summary - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2017 AM

ALTERNATIVEEB WB NB SB OVERALL



ROWLAND AVE C 26.7 0.87 1000' A 9.8 0.75 465' D 43.6 0.36 D 44.5 0.45 B 19.9

MAPLE AVE B 14.6 0.85 760' B 11.0 0.83 640' D 46.1 0.62 D 42.7 0.35 B 14.3

ROWLAND AVE C 26.7 0.87 1000' A 9.8 0.75 560' D 43.6 0.36 D 44.5 0.45 B 19.9

MAPLE AVE B 10.5 0.85 640' B 11.1 0.83 645' D 46.1 0.62 D 42.7 0.35 B 12.4

D 52.3 1.03 1590' C 30.4 0.96 905' D 50.3 0.75 D 43.2 0.55 D 42.4

C 26.6 0.77 690' B 17.7 0.72 530' D 50.3 0.75 D 43.2 0.55 C 24.5



ROWLAND AVE D 41.1 2180' B 10.5 230' D 43.9 D 44.8 C 28.2

MAPLE AVE C 30.4 1655' C 20.3 220' D 47.2 D 39.9 C 26.5


MAPLE AVE B 18.4 410' C 22.9 330' D 41.2 D 38.6 C 21.4

D 37.7 1100' B 19.6 460' D 50.2 D 54.4 C 31.0

B 16.7 440' B 13.9 260' D 45.4 D 45.4 B 18.1



WB NB SB

HCM Signalized Intersection Summary - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2017 PM



EXISTING

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

EXISTING

OVERALL



NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

SIM Traffic Performance Report - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2017 PM

ALTERNATIVEEB



ROWLAND AVE B 14.8 0.59 560' C 29.4 0.97 1240' D 44.7 0.46 D 44.3 0.43 C 24.8

MAPLE AVE A 5.9 0.55 320' B 16.8 0.96 980' D 43.7 0.32 D 42.3 0.17 B 13.6

C 22.5 0.68 560' F 138.0 1.26 2730' D 42.3 0.54 D 53.2 0.76 F 91.1

B 19.8 0.52 420' C 22.7 0.86 770' D 42.3 0.54 D 53.2 0.76 C 23.5

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)


ROWLAND AVE A 7.1 200' B 17.9 440' D 37.1 D 41.0 B 14.7

MAPLE AVE A 3.6 150' B 23.6 530' D 41.9 D 44.2 B 16.7

A 9.2 220' F 81.7 2325' D 35.0 D 41.1 D 51.8

A 8.3 190' B 17.6 340' D 35.7 C 30.0 B 15.5



HCM Signalized Intersection Summary - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2045 AM


NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

SIM Traffic Performance Report - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2045 AM




OVERALL

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

ALTERNATIVEEB WB NB SB



ROWLAND AVE C 34.2 0.93 1180' B 11.8 0.80 660' D 43.6 0.36 D 44.5 0.45 C 24.6

MAPLE AVE B 19.3 0.91 870' B 13.7 0.90 780' D 46.1 0.62 D 42.7 0.35 B 14.1

E 76.2 1.1 1930' D 46.1 1.03 1550' D 50.3 0.75 D 43.2 0.55 E 60.9

C 29.7 0.89 780' B 19.7 0.81 610' D 50.3 0.75 D 43.2 0.55 C 26.7

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)



MAPLE AVE C 25.5 470' C 26.8 420' D 41.3 D 35.2 C 26.8

F 84.9 2000' C 24.6 540' D 55.1 D 49.7 E 56.4

C 25.8 590' B 13.3 280' D 46.9 D 41.5 C 21.9



OVERALL

ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVENB SB

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

SIM Traffic Performance Report - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE




HCM Signalized Intersection Summary - US 62 at ST ELMO AVE 2045 PM

EB WB NB SB OVERALL

EB WB

NO BUILD*

G1-d3a (2 LANE)

G1-d3a (3 LANE)

2045 PM

|H

Appendix H

Pedestrian Counts

ODOT District 4 STA-62-24.05 Feasibility StudyMarch 2017

Row

land

Ave

Row

land

Ave

N

St. E

lmo

Ave

.St

. Elm

o A

ve.

N

Map

le A

veM

aple

Ave

N