For:
U.S. 24–Napolean to Toledo–Preliminary Development Study
HEN/LUC–6/24–24.10/0.00
PID NO. 17893
Henry and Lucas Counties, Ohio

Presented to:
Ohio Department of Transportation–District 2
Bowling Green, Ohio

By:
Sverdrup Associates, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio
Final Submitted January 30, 2002

Introduction

The third series of public open house meetings for the US 24–Napoleon to Toledo–Preliminary Development Study were held on September 18 and 19, 2001. The purpose of the meetings was to present the evaluation of the feasible alternatives that had taken place. Four hundred eighty-four (484) people attended the meeting at Anthony Wayne High School in Whitehouse on September 18 and two hundred forty-five (245) were on hand at the Liberty Center High School for a total participation of 729.

The purpose of these meetings was to present to the public

Getting the Word Out

A variety of methods and tools were employed to announce the meetings to the public.

Postcard announcement – a postcard was mailed to each of the over 2,500 individuals and organizations on the project mailing list.

News release – distributed on September 6, 2001 by ODOT.

Information posted on project web site – date, time, locations, and directions to the meetings were posted three weeks prior to the meetings. Over 600 hits were made on the site during the month of September, with many of the visitors providing comments about the alternatives via e-mail.

Information Provided

All attendees entering the meeting were provided a packet of information containing:

In addition to the Information Packet provided to each attendee, a large aerial photo display, at a scale of 1" = 400 ft., was presented of the entire study area, showing the feasible alternatives still under consideration.

Other exhibits presented at the meetings included:

ODOT officials and consultant team members from Sverdrup Associates, Inc., Mannik & Smith Group and ASC Group were on hand to answer questions and to obtain input. Information presented included environmental and cultural resource impacts, cost estimates, right-of-way requirements, and preliminary interchange and intersection locations for each of the alternatives. In addition, the results of the screening process leading to the selection of four alternatives for further consideration were available for review. Participants were encouraged to the provide comments to the study team before the October 3, 2001 deadline by completing the comment sheets handed out at the meeting or downloaded from the web site, by written correspondence or through e-mail.

Comments Received

Many people shared their comments and preferences about the alternatives with the study team through comments sheet provided at the meetings, in letters and through e-mails. Some participants provided comment sheets to their families, friends and neighbors who did not attend the meetings, and the comment sheet was also made available on the web site where it could be downloaded and filled out.

Overall Summary of Comment Forms

While comment sheets are valuable tools in gaining insight from those who feel strongly about the project, caution should be used in interpreting the summaries. They are not scientific and do not represent a popular vote as was stated at the meetings.

The following table summarizes the comments that were provided to the study team following the September meetings and received or post marked by the deadline of October 3, 2001.

Go to summary of each individual comment received.

Copyright 2003 Jacobs, Inc.