DOCSLIB.ORG

I-15 / I-86 Corridor Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-15 / I-86 Corridor Plan I-15 / I-86 Corridor Plan Corridor Plan prepared for: Idaho Transportation Department | March 2011 prepared by: I-15/I-86 Corridor Plan, Project No. A009(884), Key No. 09884 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview of Existing Roadway ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Existing Traffic Control ................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Current and Planned Roadway Improvements .............................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Existing Intersection Operations ..................................................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Turn Lane Warrants ..................................................................................................................... 2-16 2.7 Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 2-21 2.7.1 Existing Crash History .................................................................................................... 2-21 2.7.2 High Crash Locations ..................................................................................................... 2-23 2.8 Functional Classification and Access Control .............................................................................. 2-23 2.9 Freight Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.10 Transit Services ........................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.10.1 Transit Planning ............................................................................................................. 2-25 2.10.2 Existing Transit Providers .............................................................................................. 2-25 2.11 Other Transportation Services ..................................................................................................... 2-26 2.11.1 Commercial Air Service ................................................................................................. 2-26 2.11.2 Rail Service .................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.11.3 Rest Areas ..................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.12 Existing Interstate Corridor Roadway Geometrics........................................................................ 2-27 2.12.1 Types of Deficiencies ..................................................................................................... 2-27 2.12.2 Summary of Horizontal Geometric Deficiencies ............................................................. 2-29 2.12.3 Recent Mainline Maintenance ........................................................................................ 2-29 2.13 Existing Structures ....................................................................................................................... 2-30 2.13.1 I-15 Structures ............................................................................................................... 2-30 2.13.2 I-86 Structures ............................................................................................................... 2-31 3.0 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 I-86 Corridor: West American Falls Interchange to the I-15 Interchange (MP 63) .......... 3-1 3.1.2 I-15 Corridor: McCammon Interchange (MP 47) to South Idaho Falls Interchange (MP 113) .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Comprehensive Plans Stakeholder Interviews and Other Planning Documents ............................ 3-3 3.2.1 Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................................................... 3-3 i I-15/I-86 Corridor Plan, Project No. A009(884), Key No. 09884 3.2.2 Summary of Comprehensive Plans and Stakeholder Comments .................................... 3-3 3.3 Current and Future Demographics ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.1 Countywide Assessments ................................................................................................ 3-6 3.4 Corridor and Traffic Zone Assessment ........................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.1 2008 Population, Housing Units, and Employment .......................................................... 3-8 3.4.2 2030 Corridor Forecast .................................................................................................... 3-9 4.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Methodology to Develop Year 2030 Traffic Projections ................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Future Baseline Transportation Conditions .................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Overview of Future Roadway ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Future Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Year 2030 Baseline Intersection Operations .................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.1 Future Level-of-Service .................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Operational Deficiencies .............................................................................................................. 4-17 4.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................... 4-17 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Topography and Geology ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Soils and Farmlands ...................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4.1 Floodplains ...................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4.2 Surface Waters ................................................................................................................ 5-3 5.4.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.4.4 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.5 Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 5-18 5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................... 5-18 5.6.1 Utah Valvata Snail ......................................................................................................... 5-19 5.6.2 Canada Lynx .................................................................................................................. 5-19 5.6.3 Yellow-billed Cuckoo ...................................................................................................... 5-19 5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 5-19 5.8 Potential Hazardous Sites ............................................................................................................ 5-27 5.9 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 5-29 6.0 PURPOSE AND NEED, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 6.1 Transportation Needs ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Purpose of Corridor Plan ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Classification Update Report for the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area
    Functional Classification Update Report For the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area Functional Classification Update Report Introduction The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems by July 1, 1976. This legislative requirement is still effective today. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The functional classification system recognizes that streets cannot be treated as independent, but rather they are intertwined and should be considered as a whole. Each street has a specific purpose or function. This function can be characterized by the level of access to surrounding properties and the length of the trip on that specific roadway. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) functional classification system for urban areas is divided into urban principal arterials, minor arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Principal arterials include interstates, expressways, and principal arterials. Eligibility for Federal Highway Administration funding and to provide design standards and access criteria are two important reasons to classify roadway. The region is served by Interstate 15 (north/South) and Interstate 86 (east/west). While classified within the arterial class, they are designated federally and do not change locally. Interstates will be shown in the functional classification map, but they will not be specifically addressed in this report. Functional Classification Update The Idaho Transportation Department has the primary responsibility for developing and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine the functional usage of the existing roads and streets.
    [Show full text]
  • Acre Gas, Food & Lodging Development Opportunity Interstate
    New 9+/-Acre Gas, Food & Lodging Development Opportunity Interstate 15 & Dale Evans Parkway Apple Valley, CA Freeway Location Traffic Counts in Excess of 66,000VPD 1 Acre Pads Available, For Sale, Ground Lease or Build-to-Suit Highlights Gateway to Apple Valley Freeway Exposure / Frontage to I-15 in excess of 66,000 VPD Off/On Ramp Location. Located in highly sought after freeway ramp location on I-15 in high desert corridor Interstate I-15 heavily Traveled with Over 2 Million Vehicles Per Month Located 20 Miles South of Barstow/Lenwood, 10 Miles North of Victorville Located in Area with High Demand for Gas, Food and Lodging Conveniently Located Midway Between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada Adam Farmer P. (951) 696-2727 Xpresswest Bullet Train from Victorville to Las Vegas plans to Cell. (951) 764-3744 build station across freeway. www.xpresswest.com [email protected] 26856 Adams Ave Suite 200 Murrieta, CA 92562 This information is compiled from data that we believe to be correct but, no liability is assumed by this company as to accuracy of such data Area / I-15 Gateway To Apple Valley Site consists of a 9 acre development at the North East Corner of Dale Evans Parkway and Interstate 15 located in Apple Valley. Site offers freeway frontage, on/off ramp position strategically to capture all traffic traveling on the I-15. Development will offer 9 pad sites available for gas, food, multi tenant and lodging. Interstate 15 runs North and South with traffic counts in excess of 66,000 ADT. Pads will be available for sale, ground lease or build-to-suit.
    [Show full text]
  • ITD Board Sets Wish List for Potential Stimulus
    ITD board sets wish list for potential stimulus The priorities include six road projects that wouldn't otherwise be done. None are in the Valley. Idaho Statesman, January 8, 2009 By: Cynthia Sewell Idaho transportation leaders want to spend $94 million on six otherwise unfunded road projects if President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress pass a stimulus package dedicated to infrastructure. The windfall could create between 2,000 and 4,000 Idaho jobs, officials said. None of the six roads are in the Treasure Valley, but the region's section of Interstate 84 has been getting - and is expecting to keep getting - most of the borrowed federal dollars from the Connecting Idaho project. The stimulus projects officials have identified would upgrade treacherous Idaho 95 in North Idaho and jump-start road projects in Pocatello, Twin Falls and East Idaho. The Idaho Transportation Department board picked these projects during a special meeting Wednesday, and officials say they could be under construction by June. Several versions of possible stimulus bills are circulating in Washington, and details are still sketchy. ITD expects Idaho could receive about $100 million for roads. Agency staff had identified $817 million in projects that could be ready for construction within 180 days. The six board members disagreed on two points on how best to spend the $100 million: Whether to put the money toward new projects or use it to repair the state's existing roads. Whether to divide the money equally around the state or give it to the areas with the most need. Jim Coleman, who represents North Idaho, argued that the state should use one-time money to finance key projects it is unlikely to be able to afford under current revenue sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4: County Profile
    SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE Broome County profile information is presented in the plan and analyzed to develop an understanding of a study area, including the economic, structural, and population assets at risk and the particular concerns that may be present related to hazards analyzed later in this plan (e.g., low lying areas prone to flooding or a high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area). This profile provides general information for Broome County (physical setting, population and demographics, general building stock, and land use and population trends) and critical facilities located within the County. GENERAL INFORMATION Broome County is a rural community located within the south-central part or “Southern Tier” of New York State. The Southern Tier is a geographical term that refers to the counties of New York State that lie west of the Catskill Mountains, along the northern border of Pennsylvania. Broome County lies directly west of Delaware County, 137 miles southwest of Albany and approximately 177 miles northwest of New York City. Broome County occupies approximately 715 square miles and has a population of approximately 199,031 (U.S. Census, 2011). Broome County is one of the 62 counties in New York State and is comprised of one city, sixteen towns, seven villages and many hamlets. The City of Binghamton is the County seat and is located at the confluence of the Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers. The City of Binghamton is part of the “Triple Cities,” which also includes the Villages of Endicott and Johnson City. With two Interstates and a major state route intersecting in the City of Binghamton, the area is the crossroads of the Southern Tier.
    [Show full text]
  • Final I-15 IRP Phase III Report
    Transportation Housing Economy I-15 Interregional Partnership I-15 Phase III Final Report Interregional Partnership February 2010 I-15 IRP JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The primary goal of the I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) Joint Policy Committee is to review and provide policy input on Phase III of the I-15 IRP Project. The two regions seek to collaborate on mutually beneficial housing, transportation, and economic planning to improve the quality of life for the region’s residents through the identification and implementation of short-, medium-, and long-range policy strategies. The committee will meet three times during the duration of Phase III at dates and times to be mutually determined. Staff contacts: Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG (619) 699-1909; [email protected] Kevin Viera, WRCOG (951) 955-8305; [email protected] MEMBERS Scott Mann (alt.) Councilmember, City of Menifee San Diego Association of Governments WRCOG Executive Committee (SANDAG) Sam Abed Riverside County Transportation Commission Councilmember, City of Escondido (RCTC) SANDAG Borders Committee Rick Gibbs Councilmember, City of Murrieta Dave Allan RCTC Commissioner Councilmember, City of La Mesa SANDAG Borders Committee Ron Roberts Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula Crystal Crawford RCTC Commissioner Mayor, City of Del Mar Jeff Stone (alt.) Patricia McCoy (alt.) Supervisor, Riverside County Councilmember, City of Imperial Beach RCTC Commissioner Chair, SANDAG Borders Committee Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) Jeff Comerchero Councilmember, City of Temecula Thomas Buckley Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore WRCOG Executive Committee Bob Buster Supervisor, Riverside County Chuck Washington First Vice Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Temecula WRCOG Executive Committee AGENCY EXECUTIVES Scott Farman (alt.) Mayor, City of Wildomar SANDAG Gary L.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017
    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
    [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]
  • Mid City's I-15 Stretch to Open After Torturous 40-Year Saga San Diego Union-Tribune - Sunday, January 9, 2000 Author: Jeanne F
    A neighborhood's rough road: Mid city's I-15 stretch to open after torturous 40-year saga San Diego Union-Tribune - Sunday, January 9, 2000 Author: Jeanne F. Brooks They called it "Nightmare on 40th Street" -- a 2.2-mile example of urban life gone very wrong. By day, it was a corridor of weeds and broken bottles, abandoned houses, graffiti, exhaust fumes and rumbling, horn-blowing, radio-blasting, tire-squealing traffic. Endless traffic. At night, when the creatures of the dark came out -- prostitutes, drug dealers, gangbangers -- things got worse. From behind their locked doors, honest residents of the San Diego neighborhood of City Heights could hear gunfire in the no man's land along 40th Street. From time to time, they saw empty houses go up in flames. And nearly every night, they listened to the clatter of police helicopters, which some took to calling the City Heights Air Force. In the mornings, residents picked used condoms and needles out of their lawns, and they cursed the name of the entity they saw as their afflicter -- Caltrans. The problem was a freeway the California Department of Transportation wasn't building through the middle of the neighborhood. By the late 1980s, the long relationship between the state agency and the community of City Heights had grown deeply dysfunctional. Few then would have predicted the coming of a day such as this Friday, when Caltrans employees and community activists likely will shake hands and congratulate one another -- on the same side, in the end. Their common bond: the grand opening of the final segment of Interstate 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 15 Lane Restrictions and Detour for Wide Loads BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT - VIRGIN RIVER GORGE
    Interstate 15 Lane Restrictions and Detour for Wide Loads BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT - VIRGIN RIVER GORGE PANACA CEDAR ITY CRYSTAL PRINGS UTAH NEVADA ST. ORGE BEAVER M ARIZONA LEGEND Pr ea Detour MAP NOT TO SCALE LAS EGAS 19-077 Due to the terrain within the Virgin River Gorge and the narrow TRAVEL ALERT width of I-15, crews must reduce the width of the travel lanes during Restrictions on wide loads and lane closures construction to 10 feet, which prohibits the passage of vehicles wider than 10 feet through the construction zone. Crews will also move are scheduled on Interstate 15 in northwestern traffic over to one side of the highway while working on the other, Arizona. Motorists traveling on Interstate 15 providing one lane in each direction. These restrictions will begin this between Mesquite, Nevada, and St. George, Utah, April and are scheduled to remain in place through spring 2020. should plan ahead for delays in both directions This $6.4 million project will rehabilitate three bridge decks on through the Virgin River Gorge. Vehicles wider I-15 and is scheduled for completion in summer 2020. For more than 10 feet should prepare for an extended 224- information, please visit the project website at azdot.gov/I-15Bridges. mile detour. Drivers should proceed through the work zone with caution, slow down and watch for construction personnel and equipment. Schedules are subject to change based on weather and other CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS unforeseen factors. The Arizona Department of Transportation advises drivers to allow extra travel time and plan for the following continuous, around- CONTACT the-clock restrictions beginning in early April 2019 and continuing through spring 2020 as crews complete bridge work on I-15 through For more information, please call the ADOT Bilingual Project the Virgin River Gorge: Information Line at 855.712.8530 or go to azdot.gov/contact and select Projects from the drop-down menu.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Highway System Turns 60
    The Interstate Highway System turns 60: Challenges to Its Ability to Continue to Save Lives, Time and Money JUNE 27, 2016 202-466-6706 tripnet.org Founded in 1971, TRIP ® of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. Executive Summary Sixty years ago the nation embarked on its greatest public works project, the construction of the Interstate Highway System. President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided strong support for the building of an Interstate Highway System that would improve traffic safety, reduce travel times and improve the nation’s economic productivity. Serving as the most critical transportation link in the nation’s economy, the Interstate Highway System has significantly improved the lives of U.S. residents and visitors. Throughout the nation, the Interstate system allows for high levels of mobility by greatly reducing travel times and providing a significantly higher level of traffic safety than other routes. But 60 years after President Eisenhower articulated a vision for the nation’s transportation system, the U. S. again faces a challenge in modernizing its aging and increasingly congested Interstate highway system. If Americans are to continue to enjoy their current level of personal and commercial mobility on Interstate highways and bridges, the nation will need to make a commitment to identifying a long-term funding source to support a well-maintained Interstate Highway System able to meet the nation’s need for additional mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Purpose and Need
    1. Purpose and Need 1.1 Proposed Action The proposed project involves traffic improvements to United States Highway 93 (U.S. 93) in the Boulder City, Nevada, area. The project limits are between a western boundary at the end of Interstate 515 (I-515) on U.S. 93/United States Highway 95 (U.S. 95) in Henderson (U.S. 95 Milepost [MP] 59.10), approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) north of the Railroad Pass Hotel and Casino, and an eastern boundary on U.S. 93, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 miles) east of the Hacienda Hotel and Casino. The eastern boundary is coincident with the planned western end of the U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass project Nevada Interchange (see Section 2.1). The Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study covers a total distance of approximately 16.7 km (10.4 miles) on the present route of U.S. 93 (Figure 1-1). U.S. 93 is the major commercial corridor for interstate and international commerce, and it is the single route through Boulder City, functioning as a principal urban arterial. It is a direct north-south link between Phoenix and Las Vegas, which are two of the fastest-growing areas in the United States (U.S.), and it carries a high volume of east-west traffic from Interstate 40 (I-40) to Las Vegas and to Interstate 15 (I-15). U.S. 93, in combination with other highways, creates a continuous Canada to Mexico (CANAMEX) corridor through the U.S. between Calgary, Alberta, and Nogales, Sonora (Figure 1-2).
    [Show full text]