DOCSLIB.ORG

US-169/I-70 North Loop Planning & Environmental Linkages Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US-169/I-70 North Loop Planning & Environmental Linkages Study US-169/I-70 North Loop Planning & Environmental Linkages Study Refined Strategies Impact and Evaluation Report Draft – April 20, 2018 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Consistency with Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Geographical Segments ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Initial Strategies Evaluation Summary ................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Refined Strategies Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 12 2. Area A: Missouri River Bridge and Interchange ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Constraints and Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Conceptual Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Strategy A1 – Existing Alignment (No-Build) ............................................................................................................... 16 Strategy A2 – West Alignment ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Strategy A3 – Central Alignment .................................................................................................................................. 18 Strategy A4 – Adjacent Alignment ............................................................................................................................... 19 Interchange Strategy AB1 – Broadway Direct Connection ......................................................................................... 19 Interchange Strategy AB2 – Hybrid Interchange ........................................................................................................ 22 Interchange Strategy AB3 – I-35 Direct / 4th Street Interchange ............................................................................... 24 Interchange Strategy AB4 – I-35 Direct / 5th and 6th Street Interchange................................................................... 26 2.3 Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 28 2.4 Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 30 3. Area B: I-70 North Loop ............................................................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Constraints and Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 33 3.2 Conceptual Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Strategy B1 – Access Consolidation ............................................................................................................................. 34 Strategy B3-6a – Compressed Footprint (South) ........................................................................................................ 35 Strategy B3-6b – Compressed Footprint (North) ........................................................................................................ 37 Strategy B3-7 – Compressed Footprint (Center)......................................................................................................... 37 Strategy B7-1 – Remove and Reclassify ....................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 44 3.4 Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 47 4. Area C: Wheeler Airport .............................................................................................................................................. 49 4.1 Constraints and Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.2 Conceptual Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 50 Page | i Strategy C1 – Half Diamond Interchange with Existing NW Harlem Road Access .................................................... 50 Strategy C4 – Half Diamond Interchange with Split Lou Holland Undercrossing ...................................................... 51 Strategy C5 – Half Diamond Interchange with New Single Harlem Road Railroad Crossing .................................... 52 Auxiliary Improvement C-RIRO - Right-In/Right-Out ................................................................................................... 53 Auxiliary Improvement C-NI - North Interchange Improvements.............................................................................. 55 4.3 Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 57 4.4 Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 58 5. Area D: West Bottoms ................................................................................................................................................. 59 5.1 Constraints and Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 59 5.2 Conceptual Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 61 Strategy D6: Mulberry Street to Forrester Road ......................................................................................................... 62 Strategy D7: Wyoming Street to Forrester Road ........................................................................................................ 63 Strategy D8: 4th Street Connector ............................................................................................................................... 64 5.3 Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 64 5.4 Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 66 6. Area E: Route 9 ............................................................................................................................................................ 66 6.1 Constraints and Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 66 6.2 Conceptual Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Strategy E2a – All At-Grade Connections, Existing MO-9 Alignment ......................................................................... 67 Strategy E2b – All At-Grade Connections, Western Offset of MO-9 Alignment ....................................................... 68 Strategy E3 – South At-Grade Connections ................................................................................................................. 69 Strategy E4 – South At-Grade Connections with Split Lanes ...................................................................................... 70 6.3 Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 72 6.4 Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 74 7. Transportation System Management .......................................................................................................................... 75 7.1 Strategy Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 76 System Management .................................................................................................................................................... 76 Travel Demand .............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................ 1 County Overview ............................................................................... 2 Population Trends & Demographic Profile .................................... 3 Population Trends in Pottawattamie County ....................................................... 3 Population Profile.............................................................................................. 5 Demographic Profile ......................................................................................... 7 Employment Profile ........................................................................................... 7 Projected Population & Employment ................................................................ 10 Roadways & Bridges ........................................................................ 12 Roadway Systems ............................................................................................ 12 Profile of County Roadways............................................................................. 14 Pavement Condition ........................................................................................ 16 Bridges in Pottawattamie County ..................................................................... 19 Traffic Trends in Pottawattamie County ........................................................... 21 Roadway Safety ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx
    Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Project – I-35 Improvements
    I‐35 ROADWAY Proposed Project – I‐35 Improvements Existing Facility The majority of existing I‐35 between the Williamson/Bell County Line and Hillsboro is four lanes, with six‐lane sections in Waco, Temple, and the southern part of Bell County. Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to increase capacity and improve mobility on I‐35. Project Proposed by Corridor Segment 2 Committee The I‐35 Corridor Segment 2 Committee is considering improvements to I‐35, which would involve widening I‐35 to eight lanes from Hillsboro to the Williamso n/Bell County Line for a distance of approximately 93 miles. Conceptual Project Cost Estimate According to the TxDOT Waco District Improvement Plan, the cost for expanding I‐35 to six lanes through this area is estimated at approximately $1.5 billion. The six‐lane expansion of I‐35 is currently underway. The estimated cost for expanding I‐35 from six to eight lanes is between $2.25 billion and $3.25 billion, including design and construction. This cost, in 2010 dollars, does not include the purchase of right of way. The estimated project costs could increase due to right of way purchases and potential impacts to properties. I‐35 Corridor Segment 2 Committee www.MY35.org September 2010 I‐35 ROADWAY Proposed Project – I‐35E from I‐20 to Hillsboro Existing Facility The existing I‐35E facility is four lanes from Hillsboro to approximately ten miles south of I‐20, where it transitions to six and then eight lanes. Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to increase capacity and improve overall mobility on I‐35E.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER I Purpose and Need
    I - 1 CHAPTER I Purpose and Need A. Introduction On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The Interstate Highway System, also known as the Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, is an interconnected system of 45,500 miles (73,225.2 km) of limited-access highways across the United States. One of the most important of these highways is Interstate 70 (I-70), providing for east-west transcontinental interstate access across much of the United States. In August 1956, shortly after President Eisenhower signed the legislation creating the Interstate Highway System, the Missouri State Highway Commission awarded the first contract toward the construction of I-70. Construction continued for another nine years and I-70 now spans a distance of more than 250 miles across the state. Other than short reconstructed portions, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. With maintenance provided by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the facility has outlasted its original design life of 20 years and has carried traffic volumes of both cars and heavy trucks that have far exceeded the expectations of the original designers. The Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose improving a portion of the I-70 corridor between just west of Route 19 (milepost 174) and Lake St. Louis Boulevard to meet the current and future needs of this extremely important transportation facility. To facilitate this action, MoDOT has completed a First Tier Environmental Impact Statement and initiated this Second Tier Environmental Impact Statement (STEIS) to fulfill this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater OKLAHOMA CITY at a Glance
    Greater OKLAHOMA CITY at a glance 123 Park Avenue | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 | 405.297.8900 | www.greateroklahomacity.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Location ................................................4 Economy .............................................14 Tax Rates .............................................24 Climate ..................................................7 Education ...........................................17 Utilities ................................................25 Population............................................8 Income ................................................21 Incentives ...........................................26 Transportation ..................................10 Labor Analysis ...................................22 Available Services ............................30 Housing ...............................................13 Commercial Real Estate .................23 Ranked No. 1 for Best Large Cities to Start a Business. -WalletHub 2 GREATER OKLAHOMA CITY: One of the fastest-growing cities is integral to our success. Our in America and among the top ten low costs, diverse economy and places for fastest median wage business-friendly environment growth, job creation and to start a have kept the economic doldrums business. A top two small business at bay, and provided value, ranking. One of the most popular stability and profitability to our places for millennials and one of companies – and now we’re the top 10 cities for young adults. poised to do even more. The list of reasons you should Let us introduce
    [Show full text]
  • Ide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – Discovermoab.Com - 6/22/07 Page 1
    A Guide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – discovermoab.com - 6/22/07 Page 1 and increase to Milepost 227 near the Colorado border. Mileage marker posts 2W - Thompson Springs A Guide to I-70 Through (or Mileposts) and Exit numbers Welcome Center Southeastern Utah correspond, and both are used in the Milepost 189 descriptive text which follows. This rest area welcomes westbound Although the scenery is spectacular as visitors with free brochures and maps. viewed from the highway, you are The center, operated by the State of Utah, encouraged to stop at the sites described is open all year. From Memorial Day Moab Area Travel Council below to see even more. Other nearby through Labor Day, personnel are on duty Internet Brochure Series points of interest accessible from 1-70 are from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to answer your Available from: briefly noted and located on the map. questions. The rest of the year the center More detailed information on these sights is operated from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Indoor discovermoab.com can be obtained by contacting the rest rooms, water, picnic shelters, and a appropriate agencies listed in this public phone are available at all times. brochure. INTRODUCTION Food and fuel are available at Thompson 1W - Harley Dome View Area Springs (Exit 187), which provides access Interstate 70 (1-70) through southeastern Milepost 228 to a panel of Native American rock art in Utah is a journey through fascinating Sego Canyon. To visit this site, follow the landscapes. The route reveals vast deserts, The Harley Dome View Area is located signs from the north side of town.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Suspended Where Possible for July 4
    State of Illinois JB Pritzker, Governor Illinois Department of Transportation Omer Osman, Acting Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: July 1, 2020 Paul Wappel 217.685.0082 Maria Castaneda 312.447.1919 Construction suspended where possible for July 4 Non-emergency closures called off, but motorists should still expect work zones SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Department of Transportation announced today that lanes that have been closed for construction will reopen, where possible, for the Fourth of July holiday to minimize travel disruption. Non-emergency closures will be suspended from 3 p.m. July 2 to 11:59 p.m. July 5. The following lane closures will remain in place during the holiday weekend. Work zone speed limits will remain in effect where posted. Please buckle up, put your phone down and drive sober. District 1 City of Chicago: • The following ramps in the Jane Byrne Interchange work zone will remain closed: • o Inbound Kennedy (Interstate 90/94) Expressway exit to inbound Ida B. Wells Drive. o Outbound Dan Ryan Expressway exit to Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive entrance from Canal Street. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Dan Ryan. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Kennedy. o Inbound Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate -290) to outbound Kennedy; detour with U-turn posted. o Inbound Eisenhower; lane reductions continue. o Inbound Ida B. Wells Drive; lane reductions continue. • Outbound Kennedy exit at Canfield Road; closed. • Westbound Bryn Mawr Avenue between Harlem and Oriole avenues; lane reductions continue. • Westbound Higgins Avenue between Oriole and Canfield avenues; lane reductions continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 69. Roads, Bridges, and Ferries
    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 69. ROADS, BRIDGES, AND FERRIES §69-101. Declaration of legislative intent.............................................................................................19 §69-113a. Successful bidders - Return of executed contract................................................................20 §69-201. Definitions of words and phrases..........................................................................................21 §69-202. Abandonment........................................................................................................................21 §69-203. Acquisition or taking..............................................................................................................21 §69-204. Arterial highway.....................................................................................................................21 §69-205. Authority................................................................................................................................21 §69-206. Auxiliary service highway.......................................................................................................21 §69-207. Board......................................................................................................................................21 §69-208. Bureau of Public Roads..........................................................................................................21 §69-209. Commission............................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki
    Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki COPYRIGHT The following material can be used for educational and other non-commercial purposes without the written permission of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. “Fair use” criteria of Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 must be followed. These materials are not to be deposited in other repositories, nor used for resale or commercial purposes without the authorization from the Audio-Visual Curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, 112 N. 6th Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701. Telephone (217) 785-7955 Czaplicki: Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. My name is Mike Czaplicki. I'm the project historian for the Governor Thompson Oral History Project here at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. I'm with Dr. Robert Mandeville, who was Governor Thompson's budget director for most of his tenure. He's been gracious enough to come in on a very cold day and sit down and chat with us. Thank you, Bob. Mandeville: You're welcome. Czaplicki: We always like to start at the beginning with these things and ask, when and where were you born? Mandeville: Nineteen thirty-one, April 29, in Jacksonville, Illinois. Czaplicki: What is this document we're looking at here? Is this a scrapbook of yours? An autobiography?1 Mandeville: Yes, written about three years ago. Czaplicki: Unpublished? Mandeville: Unpublished, yes. I wrote it for my kids and my grandkids. Czaplicki: Oh, excellent. I'd like to take a look at that at some point in some more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Bridge Project, I-70, St. Louis, Missouri
    MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE ST. LOUIS, INTERSTATE 70 St.Louis,Missouri Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Design completed 2003 Project Type: Urban Freeway; Reconstruct PURPOSE The New Mississippi River Bridge Project (MRB) is a group of major transportation improvements designed to enhance the region’s infrastructure. The economic future of the St. Louis urban core on both sides of the Mississippi River depends on the efficient movement of goods and services and the ability of people to simply get to work. Transportation paralysis will force businesses, jobs, andnewgrowthoutoftheurbancore.Animprovedhighwaysystemwillhelp to revitalize downtown St. Louis, the north riverfront, and the Metro East area, notably East St. Louis and the National Stockyards redevelopment area. The number of motorists wanting to cross the Mississippi River will continue to increase.Theregioncannotcontinuetorelyonasingleinterstatecrossingatthe heartofdowntown DESCRIPTION The proposed $700 million structure will feature an estimated 12,000 foot bridge, potentially creating the widest Mississippi River Crossing in the United States. The bridge will carry eight lanes of traffic. The bridge is a critical structure tothe area in order to open economic opportunities to isolated communities on either side of the river. The project includes multi-lane roadways on new alignments, new interchanges, land acquisition on both sides of the river, utility coordination, and the relocation of several railroads. Improvements include 4.2 miles of relocated Interstate 70, 2.7 miles of connector between the Interstate 70 relocation and Interstate 64, and 5.5 miles of relocated Illinois Route 3. A major public engagement program involved the St. Louis community in the project through participation on several aesthetic issues, such as urban design treatments and bridge architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • 0253S04.45H Sb 89
    0253S04.45H SB 89 House _______________________________________________________ Amendment NO.____ Offered By _____________________________________ ___________________________________ 1 AMEND Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 89, Page 1, Section A, Line 3, by 2 inserting after all of said section and line the following: 3 4 "227.463. The portion of Interstate 29 from its intersection of Interstate 70/U.S. State 5 Highway 71/40 in Jackson County north to the bridge crossing over Nishnabotna River in Atchison 6 County, except for those portions of Interstate 29 previously designated as of August 28, 2019, shall 7 be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private 8 donations. 9 227.465. The portion of Interstate 55 from State Highway O in Pemiscot County to U.S. 10 Highway 40 in St. Louis City, except for those portions of Interstate 55 previously designated as of 11 August 28, 2019, shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be 12 paid by private donations. 13 227.466. The portion of Interstate 57 from the Missouri/Illinois state line in Mississippi 14 County continuing south to U.S. State Highway 60/State Highway AA in Scott County shall be 15 designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private donations. 16 227.467. The portion of Interstate 64 from Interstate 70 from the city of Wentzville in St. 17 Charles County continuing east to Interstate 55 at the Missouri/Illinois state line in St. Louis City, 18 except for those portions of Interstate 64/US40/US61 previously designated as August 28, 2019, 19 shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail".
    [Show full text]