Cracker Barrel Executive Summary

The purpose of this project was to site a Cracker Barrel in Etowah County, Alabama.  During our analysis we used Arc Map.  To perform our analysis we added layers to a map of Etowah County, Alabama.  We added layers such as streets, population, income, buildings, and parcels.   During our analysis we created new layers and shapefiles. 

During our analysis we had a list of criteria that the site must meet.  Some of the criteria included frontage on an interstate and on a major secondary road, a population of at least

25, 000 people in a five-mile radius, and the parcel of land must be at least 2.5 acres.  We first added our layers to a map of Etowah County.  We then made a new layer for each of the following major roads Interstate 79, Interstate 579, U.S. Highway 411, and State Road 77.  The next step was to select parcels that were greater than 2.5 acres.  We then created a new layer of parcels greater than 2.5 acres.  Next we then made a layer that included parcels that were more than 2.5 acres and were in a commercial zone. 

            We analyzed the map to find parcels that were a greater than 2.5 acres, had frontage on an interstate and a secondary road, a parcel without a building already present, and parcels in commercial zones.  We used the above information to narrow our choices to three sites.  The first site is located southwest of the I-759 and U.S. 411 intersection.   The second site is located northwest of the I-59 and highway 77 intersection.  The third site is located southeast of the I-59 and highway 77 intersection. 

            To select the final location we took the following information into consideration: population, income, hydrology, accessibility, and traffic counts.  To get traffic counts for the interstates and secondary roads we referenced an Alabama traffic map.  Each site met the traffic requirements on the secondary road, site one is 33,426, site two is 17,400, and site three is 15,000.   None of the three sites met the traffic on the interstate, site one is 24,125, site two is 17,400, and site three is 24,190. 

To get the population numbers of each site we use the editor tool to make a point in each parcel.  Each point became a new layer.   Using the Buffer Wizard a buffer with a five-mile radius was made around each point.  The GeoProcessing wizard was used to intersect the buffer with the population layer.  The above process was repeated for each site.  The income was buffer was created the same way, except that after the buffer is created the select by attributes menu was used to select the parcels with an income greater than zero.  The selected parcels were used to make a new layer.  This new layer is used to figure the average per Capita income over the five-mile radius.  The requirements for population was a minimum population of 25,000 people over a five-mile radius.  The requirements for income was an average of $12,000 over a five-mile radius.  Each of the three sites met the population and income requirements.  Site one had a population of 82631, and an average per Capita income of $15,696.   Site two had a population of 45,596, and an average per Capita income of $14,564.   Site three had a population of 56,072, and an average per Capita income of $15,217.  

Another aspect we considered was hydrology.  Site one lies with in a dry lake bed.   Sites two and three do not have any interference from hydrologic features.  Accessibility is an important factor.  We felt sites two and three are easily accessible.  We do not feel like site one is as easily accessible as sites two and three.  Site one did have some advantages it is easily seen from the interstate.   It had the highest traffic counts on the secondary road, it also had the highest income and population.  Site one is close to the mall. 

from both the interstate and the secondary road.  This area has more potential for commercial growth, site three 

is more isolated than site two.    

Last updated on May 9, 2002 by Jackie Grace.