Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Complete ... - OKI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1-4 – 2000 Employment Density per square mileDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-8
1.3.3 EconomicsTotalHouseholdsMedianHouseholdIncomePer CapitaIncome% Householdsbelow PovertyTable 1C - Study Area Household DataDearborn County Tracts801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807CountyTotals865 2,878 679 1,920 1,968 2,235 1,670 2,618 1,989 16,822$50,647 $65,512 $56,917 $57,331 $29,016 $50,083 $32,955 $48,214 $46,946 $48,625$19,562 $23,560 $20,979 $22,917 $15,906 $23,135 $16,723 $19,857 $18,137 $20,4312.7% 2.1% 3.4% 4.8% 15.1% 6.3% 11.1% 5.7% 8.0% 6.7%U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000Table 1C lists the income of the nine tracts in the county study area. The U.S. medianhousehold income according to the 2000 Census is reported at $42,148 annually.Census tracts 803 and 805, the areas of Lawrenceburg and Aurora, are below thisnational average value. According to the 2000 Census, the national poverty rate was11.3%. Tract 803 was above this average. Dearborn County as a whole had a povertyrate of 6.7%, which is below the national poverty rate.1.3.4 Commuting PatternsAutoTable 1D - Study Area Auto OwnershipDearborn County TractsCountyOwnership 801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807 TotalsZero CarHouseholds0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 3.3% 18.0% 5.9% 11.8% 3.9% 3.0% 5.6%1 Vehicle 9.4% 16.4% 16.1% 15.2% 37.3% 32.4% 33.5% 22.3% 16.5% 23.1%2 Vehicles 42.8% 48.3% 36.7% 42.7% 31.1% 40.1% 33.8% 37.1% 43.7% 40.1%3+ Vehicles 46.0% 34.3% 42.4% 41.0% 13.9% 21.3% 21.0% 37.1% 36.8% 31.2%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000Dearborn County has a low instance of zero-car households, with the highestpercentages being in Tracts 803 and 805, the Lawrenceburg and Aurora areas. This isnot unexpected due to the lower income rates of these two areas. The remaining tractshave zero auto ownership percentages well below 10%. Given the low availability oftransit in the region, the auto ownership percentages listed above are not surprising.Table 1E - Study Area Commuting PatternsCommutingDearborn County TractsMode 801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807Drive Alone 83.4% 85.6% 85.8% 82.1% 72.4% 90.2% 81.3% 82.1% 81.8%Carpool 10.7% 9.3% 6.7% 12.1% 18.5% 6.0% 13.0% 13.7% 14.6%Transit 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%Work at Home 4.5% 3.2% 2.4% 3.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9% 1.7% 2.9%Mean Travel Timeto Work (minutes)38.1 33.7 33.4 30.9 22.4 25.4 25.3 30.8 34.9Vehicle travel alone to work is the dominant mode of travel in the study area, as shownby Table 1E. This follows the trend of many communities in the U.S. and is indicative ofDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-9
Page 1 and 2: Dearborn CountyTransportationAssess
Page 3 and 4: 5.3 TRAFFIC COUNT RECOMMENDATIONS .
Page 5 and 6: ChapterONEEXISTING CONDITIONS1.1 ST
Page 7 and 8: Figure 1-1 - Study Area MapDearborn
Page 9 and 10: DillsboroThe town of Dillsboro was
Page 11: 1.3.2 EmploymentTable 1B - Study Ar
Page 15 and 16: State Route 1SR 1 travels north-sou
Page 17 and 18: Figure 1-5 - 2001 Annual Average Da
Page 19 and 20: 1.4.2 Intermodal Transportation Opt
Page 21 and 22: 1.6 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIESNumero
Page 23 and 24: to US 50. The new roadway will be a
Page 25 and 26: urban boundary will need to be upda
Page 27 and 28: Table 2C - Local Roadway Sub-Catego
Page 29 and 30: Street1ST ST2ND ST3 MILE RDG3RD ST4
Page 31 and 32: StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetC
Page 49 and 50: 2.3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION EXAMP
Page 51 and 52: Dearborn County Transportation Asse
Page 64 and 65:
Dearborn County Transportation Asse
Page 66 and 67:
Figure 3-1 - Pavement TypeDearborn
Page 68 and 69:
Lane & Shoulder Width DeficienciesE
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 3-3 - Shoulder Width Deficie
Page 72 and 73:
3.5 GUARDRAIL INVENTORYThe length a
Page 74 and 75:
CHAPTERFOURSELECTED ROADWAYCAPACITY
Page 76 and 77:
Table 4B - Level of Service and Vol
Page 78 and 79:
the community. Before undertaking a
Page 80 and 81:
ChapterFIVERECOMMENDATIONS5.1 ANALY
Page 82 and 83:
Figure 5-1 - Arterial Roadways Reco
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 5-3 - Local Roadways Recomme
Page 86 and 87:
5.4 TYPICAL COSTSWhen planning for
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Cole Ln.txtGrade adjustment factor,
Page 122 and 123:
Cole Ln2.txtGrade adjustment factor
Page 124 and 125:
Jamison.txtGrade adjustment factor,
Page 126 and 127:
Jamison2.txtGrade adjustment factor
Page 128 and 129:
N Dearborn.txtGrade adjustment fact
Page 130 and 131:
N Dearborn2.txtGrade adjustment fac
Page 132 and 133:
State Line Rd.txtGrade adjustment f
Page 134 and 135:
State Line Rd2.txtGrade adjustment
Page 136 and 137:
Wilsons Creek.txtGrade adjustment f
Page 138 and 139:
Wilsons Creek2.txtGrade adjustment
Page 140 and 141:
York Ridge.txtGrade adjustment fact
Page 142 and 143:
York Ridge2.txtGrade adjustment fac
Page 144 and 145:
Cole Lane State Line Wilson Creek Y
Page 146 and 147:
Cole Ln. - Category III Rural Colle
Page 148 and 149:
Curve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Mil
Page 150 and 151:
Curve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT
Page 152 and 153:
Wilson Creek Rd. - Category IV Rura
Page 154 and 155:
Curve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Mil
Page 156 and 157:
Jamison Rd. - Category IV Rural Art
Page 158 and 159:
N. Dearborn Rd. - Category II Rural
Page 160 and 161:
N. Dearborn Rd. - Category II Rural
show all

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Complete ... - OKI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?