Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jefferson County Workshop:A Summary Report
March 10, 2005
Sponsored by: East-West Gateway Council of Governments,University of Illinois,LEAM Laboratory
Jefferson County Workshop:Blueprint LEAM:The Gateway Regional Land-use Simulation Model
The purpose of this work-shop was to inform local stakeholders about the LEAM model, show them interim products, and so-licit ideas from these local experts, using their knowl-edge of local conditions and planning initiatives, to get at how LEAM simulations of land use change and their resulting impacts can fa-cilitate local thinking of the future of the region.
The workshop began with an introduction by Mark Mertens, Jefferson County Presiding Commissioner (and East-West Gateway Board member), followed by a brief discussion of how East-West Gateway is using the LEAM model as part of their regional planning efforts by Steve Nagle and David Wilson.
This was followed by a pre-sentation from Brian Deal (Director of LEAM Labora-tory at the University of Illi-nois), explaining how LEAM works and how it can assist in regional planning, and a review of some the model results to date from the Uni-versity of Illinoisʼ work with East-West Gateway Coun-cil of Governments. This presentation is available on the web at http://www.leam.uiuc.edu/jeffersonwork-shop2005.pdf
Jefferson County WorkshopMarch 10, 2005
Breakout Sessions
The twelve lo-cal stakeholders at the workshop were divided into
two groups for breakout ses-sions to discuss these two questions.
1. What are the drivers of growth in Jefferson County?2. What alternative scenarios would be interesting to play out in LEAM?
The sessions began with pass-ing out a series of maps for participants to review and make comments on during the break-out session (last section of report includes all the maps pro-vided at the workshop). Mod-erators at each of the breakout tables briefl y explained the content of each of these maps and then began asking ques-tions regarding the initial LEAM scenario results for the region, the drivers of growth and sce-narios.
The Drivers of Growth in Jef-ferson CountyThe fi rst breakout session fo-cused on where growth is likely to occur in the region and what will drive this future growth. Infrastructure, particularly roads and sewer and water capac-ity were the most mentioned drivers of growth in the region, followed closely by topography and soils, and the price of land in Jefferson County. At the end of the workshop we combined the list of drivers from the two groups; here is the complete list of drivers mentioned by the two groups of local stakeholders:
• Road infrastructure, access to jobs (example, Highway M expan-sion)• Steep topography (>20%) makes development diffi cult• Price of land relative to other parts of the region• Availability and upgrade of sewer/recent expansion of sewer capacity for some communities/small sewage facility development• Route 30 corridor• Soils impact on development potential• Quality of Schools in Jefferson County• Commercial growth along I-55• Comprehensive water manage-ment plan• Scenic views• Attractors in southern part of county• Congestion on Route 21
Alternative Scenarios for Jef-ferson County:The second session focused on what scenarios local stakehold-ers would like to see played out in LEAM for Jefferson County. At the end of the workshop we combined the list of scenarios suggested by the two groups and then had each local stake-holder choose what they believe are the fi ve most important scenarios to test with LEAM. Below is the list of scenarios suggested during the session, the number in parentheses rep-resents the number of votes that particular scenario received. Consequently, three scenarios received fi ve votes - implement-ing the County Master Plan, promoting eco-tourism, and new industry south of Festus.
• County Master plan Implementa-tion/Preferred Growth Alternative (5)• Promotion of Eco-tourism (5)• Large industry south of Festus (5)• Additional road to complete connection of M to MM to W (to Eureka) (4)• Airport Development (4)• Potential Mississippi River Rec-reation Plan (3)• Flexible development standards (LaBargue Creek example) (3)• Expansion of retail development (along Highway 30, Pevely, DeSo-to, etc) (2)• Build Highway 21 to DeSoto (2)• Expansion of cement plant (1)• Build road connecting State
• Job center north of Festus • Greater promotion of outdoor recreation (state park, trail system)• Encourage cluster development away from steep slopes• Light industry near Burns Mill• Light industry near DeSoto• Redevelopment in Herculaneum• Redevelopment in Arnold• Cost of commuting increases
with East-West Gateway and Mark Mertens, and determine how we can better localize the model for Jefferson County with the drivers suggested and select a few of the scenarios to run in LEAM. We will present the results of these alternative scenarios to local stakeholders at a future date.
Next Steps
LEAM will con-sider the results of this workshop, working closely
St. Louis Region, 2000This map indicates where urbanization exists in the region in 2000, the base year of the model.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 1
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 2
St. Louis Region, Development Probability, 2000This is a map of the probability of each of the 25 million 30m x 30m cells in the St. Louis region of becoming residential develop-ment in the year 2000. The more red the cell is the higher the probability of development, green cells have the lowest probability. A new probability map is calculated in the model for each year of the model run, 2000-2050.
Blueprint Model, Baseline Scenario, St. Louis Region 2050Expected development patterns in the baseline or “business as usual” scenario for the region by the year 2050. The green cells represent where new development is projected to occur between 2000 and 2050.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 3
New Development in St. Louis Metropolitan Area Counties, 2000-2050The largest percentage increases in development under the base scenario are expected in Monroe, Madison, and St. Clair Counties in Illinois; signifi cant increases are also expected in Jefferson and St. Charles County in Missouri. St. Louis County is projected to have the largest amount of development over the next fi fty years; however, as the graph below shows, the amount of new growth in St. Louis County is expected to decline over time.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Figure 1
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 4
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Scenario, St. Louis Region, 2050A map of the results of the LRTP scenario by the year 2050. The green cells represent where new development is projected to occur between 2000 and 2050. The blue lines indicate where new roads or road improvements are to occur based on the LRTP.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 5
Comparison of LRTP Scenario and Baseline Scenar-io, St. Louis Region, 2050This map shows how development patterns are different between the baseline and LRTP scenarios in the St. Louis region. Yellow cells indicate where development is projected to occur in both scenarios, blue cells are where development will only occur in baseline scenario, and red cells are where development is only projected to occur in LRTP scenario.
Jefferson County, MO, 2000A map indicating where urban-ization and forest cover exist in the county in 2000, the base year of the model.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 6
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 7
Blueprint Model, Base-line Scenario, Jefferson County, MO, 2050Expected development patterns in the baseline or “business as usual” scenario for Jefferson County by the year 2050. The yellow cells represent where new residential development is projected to occur between 2000 and 2050, the red cells are where new commercial develop-ment is projected to occur.
New Development in Jefferson County, 2000-2050The largest increases in development in Jefferson County, in per-centage terms and total amount, are expected in Rock, Windsor, Imperial, and High Ridge Townships.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Figure 2
Long Range Transporta-tion Plan Scenario, Jef-ferson County, MO, 2050Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Scenario, St. Louis Region, 2050Expected development patterns in the LRTP scenario by the year 2050. The yellow cells represent where new residen-tial development is projected to occur between 2000 and 2050, the red cells are where new commercial development is pro-jected to occur. The blue lines indicate where new roads or road improvements are to occur based on the LRTP
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 8
Comparison of LRTP Scenario and Baseline Scenario, Jefferson County, MO, 2050This map shows how develop-ment patterns are different be-tween the baseline and LRTP scenarios in Jefferson County. Yellow cells indicate where de-velopment is projected to occur in both scenarios, blue cells are where development will only occur in baseline scenario, and red cells are where develop-ment is only projected to occur in LRTP scenario.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 9
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Map 10
Development within Watersheds, Jefferson County, MO 2050This map is a relative com-parison of where development is projected to occur in Jefferson County watersheds.
Development by Watershed in Jefferson CountyRock Creek and Meramec River watersheds are expecting sig-nifi cant increases in urbanization over the next fi fty years; Rock Creek is projected in go from 21% of the watershed being urban-ized to 42% by 2050, Meramec River will go from 5% urbanized to over 20%.
LEAM Simulation Results - Maps and Graphs -
Figure 3
http://www.ewgateway.org/
Steve [email protected]
David Wilson [email protected]
LEAM development and application are considered and managed by a team of faculty, staff, and students from the University of Illi-nois Champaign-Urbana
http://www.leam.uiuic.edu
Brian [email protected]
Varkki [email protected]
Wayne [email protected]
Con
tact
Inf
orm
atio
n
