Project 6 paris pike 092210

251 views

Published on

Case Study #6 for UTCM Report #08-14-03 "Making Mobility Improvements a Community Asset: Transportation Improvements Using Context-Sensitive Solutions"

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
251
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • MOA = memorandum of agreement
  • Loam topsoil was irreplaceable; not available from any commercial source.
  • Loam topsoil was irreplaceable; not available from any commercial source.
  • Project 6 paris pike 092210

    1. 1. Project 6 Paris Pike (US 27/68)Lexington – Paris, Kentucky 1
    2. 2. Existing Paris Pike  13 miles long  Mostly 2 lanes  National Register Historic Corridor  Historic Bluegrass thoroughbred horse farms  Many historic buildings  Historic passageway  Environmental concerns  Aesthetics  Safety  Congestion  Design deficiencies  Clear zones  Narrow lanes  No shoulders  Insufficient sight distances and turn radii  Steep side slopesGraphics sources http://maps.google.com & http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/crayfish/country_pages/state_pages/kentucky.htm 2
    3. 3. Project Objectives  Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes  Address:  Design deficiencies  Safety  Environmental concerns Initial design Paris Pike before improvement. Source: KYTC  4 lanes with 40 foot median  Lawsuit filed 1977 challenging EIS  Environmental  Historic preservation  Delayed project 15 years  Hurt public trust of KYTC 3
    4. 4. CSS Approach FHWA CSS pilot project Collaboration  Initial  FHWA  Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)  Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office  National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation  Signed MOA with guidelines for design, historic preservation, environmental impacts and mitigation, and amenities  Additional after MOA  Created Project Advisory Task Force (ATF)  KYTC  FHWA  State Historic Preservation Office  Local trust for historic preservation  Area interest groups  County judge  Citizen representative  Landscape architect  Civil engineer  ATF-led workshops  Outreach campaign Source: KYTC  Extensive documentation of historic features 4
    5. 5. Notable Outcomes Construction completed 2003 Extensive coordination  Agencies  Stakeholders Re-established public trust Road alignment around, not through hills Grass shoulders Source: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03jul/images/irving6.jpg Avoided old growth trees, historic structures where possible using flexible  Alignments  Median widths  Clear zones  Utility easements Grass shoulders Rusticated steel/timber guardrails Rusticated guardrails. Source: http://www.americanbyways.com/index.php?catid=16 5
    6. 6. Notable Outcomes (cont.) Loam topsoil stripped, stored, reused Manufactured stone veneers for structure walls  Matched indigenous stone Replanted removed trees, vegetation where possible Avoided or reconstructed horse farm entrances Restored historic farmhouse to serve as visitor center Removed/restored 3.5 mile 1800s dry stone wall Scenic overlooks Retained original nature trail No design exceptions Roadway re-alignment to miss historic properties. Source: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/kentucky_paris/# All KYTC projects now use CSS 6
    7. 7. Notable Outcomes (cont.)Highway innovation resulted from extensive stakeholder input, but with no design exceptions.Source: FHWA 7
    8. 8. Notable Outcomes (cont.)Highway innovation resulted from extensive stakeholder input, but with no design exceptions.Source: FHWA 8
    9. 9. Notable Outcomes (cont.)Dry-stone walls preserved or re-fabricated during the Paris Pike projectSource: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/kentucky_paris/# 9

    ×