Kansas Expressway Corridor

NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY OZARKS TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................. ES-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 1.1 OTO STUDY AREA ...........................................................................1 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND AND HISTORY................................................. 1 FIGURE 2.1 AGGREGATED SUPPORT FOR CORRIDOR OPTIONS............................4 1.2 PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES ....................................................... 1 FIGURE 3.1 U.S. 160/WEST BYPASS/STATE HIGHWAY FF CORRIDOR..................7 1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE ......................................................................... 2 FIGURE 3.2 HIGHWAY 13/KANSAS EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR .............................10 1.4 STUDY PROCESS............................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3.4 CAMPBELL AVENUE/U.S. 160 CORRIDOR........................................13 FIGURE 3.5 NATIONAL AVENUE CORRIDOR .......................................................16 2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS................................................ 3 FIGURE 3.6 EXISTING CONGESTION FOR THE FOUR CORRIDORS........................20 2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS........................ 3 FIGURE 3.7 CU FIXED ROUTE BUS SYSTEM ......................................................21 2.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES..................................................... 3 FIGURE 3.8 MSU SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE SYSTEM ..............................................22 FIGURE 3.9 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ....................................................24 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3.10 RAILROAD LINES ............................................................................25 3.1 STUDY AREA ................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4.1 FUTURE YEAR NO-BUILD CONGESTION...........................................28 3.2 U.S. 160/WEST BYPASS/STATE HIGHWAY FF................................... 6 FIGURE 4.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES (SOUTH) .......................................................32 3.3 MISSOURI HIGHWAY 13/KANSAS EXPRESSWAY ................................ 9 FIGURE 4.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES (NORTH) .......................................................33 3.4 CAMPBELL AVENUE/U.S. 160......................................................... 11 FIGURE 4.4 REFINED COMBINATION ALTERNATIVE.............................................40 3.5 NATIONAL AVENUE ........................................................................ 15 FIGURE 5.1 PROPOSED CORRIDORS ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN ......45 3.6 TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITION FOR THE CORRIDORS............................ 19 3.7 NON-VEHICULAR TRANSPORTATION ............................................... 19 3.8 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................. 23 LIST OF TABLES 4.0 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SCREENING AND EVALUATION...... 26 TABLE 2.1 AGENCIES INTERVIEWED ..................................................................3 4.1 ANTICIPATED FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS ....................................... 26 TABLE 2.2 MEETING INFORMATION (1ST ROUND).................................................4 4.2 INITIAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES........................................... 29 TABLE 2.3 MEETING INFORMATION (2ND ROUND) ................................................5 4.3 ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES ............................................................. 30 TABLE 3.1 WEST BYPASS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .........................................8 4.4 DESCRIPTION OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 31 TABLE 3.2 WEST BYPASS CRASH HISTORY .......................................................8 4.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA................................................................... 34 TABLE 3.3 KANSAS EXPRESSWAY EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES.......................12 4.6 PROJECT REFINEMENT .................................................................. 38 TABLE 3.4 KANSAS EXPRESSWAY CRASH HISTORY .........................................12 TABLE 3.5 CAMPBELL AVENUE/U.S. 160 EXISTING VOLUMES ..........................14 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .................................................. 41 TABLE 3.6 CAMPBELL AVENUE/U.S. 160 CRASH HISTORY ...............................15 5.1 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................... 41 TABLE 3.7 NATIONAL AVENUE EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES.............................17 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES....................................................... 41 TABLE 3.8 NATIONAL AVENUE CRASH HISTORY...............................................18 5.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES...................................................... 43 TABLE 4.1 COMPARISON OF SOCIOECONOMIC DATA........................................26 5.4 CORRIDOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .......................................... 43 TABLE 4.2 COMPARISON FUTURE NO BUILD (JFRF)........................................26 5.5 CONCLUSION................................................................................. 47 TABLE 4.3 COMPARISON FUTURE NO BUILD (U.S. 160 NORTH) .......................27 TABLE 4.4 IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ....................................36 APPENDIX (BOUND SEPARATELY) TABLE 4.5 UNWEIGHTED AND WEIGHTED SCORES OF THE ALTERNATIVES........37 APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE TABLE 4.6 SUMMARY OF REFINED ALTERNATIVE MOES ..................................38 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC AND CRASH DATA TABLE 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR THE REFINED ALTERNATIVE....39 APPENDIX C FORECAST VOLUMES AND TRAVEL TIMES TABLE 4.8 PROJECT PRIORITIES .....................................................................39 APPENDIX D COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX E MISSOURI FINANCING OPTIONS APPENDIX F PUBLIC COMMENTS i NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary US 60 – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS Interchange improvements at National Avenue and James River Freeway Background Interchange improvements at James River Freeway and Campbell Avenue As congestion continues to affect mobility in the region, the Ozarks Transportation Organization (OTO) is Upgrade to Freeway from US 65 through Rogersville particularly concerned with traffic movement. The North-South Corridor Study, completed in 2007 for the US 60 West Relocation Study (MPO portion of US 60/MO37 from AR to JRF) OTO, examines and prioritizes transportation options that would improve regional and local north-south travel, with particular emphasis on the area south of the James River Freeway and north of I-44. Four I-44 – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS routes between Route MM on the west and U.S. 65 on the east were identified by the OTO as potential Interchange improvements at Route 13 and I-44 locations to improve north-south travel in the Springfield area. The four corridors studied include: Interchange Improvements at Route 266 and I-44 • U.S. 160/West Bypass/State Highway FF US 160 – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS • Missouri Highway 13/Kansas Expressway Capacity improvements from Springfield to Willard • Campbell Avenue/U.S. 160 Capacity improvements from James River Freeway south through Nixa • National Avenue ROUTE 14 – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS The North-South Corridor Study has three phases. The first phase of the study is an evaluation of current transportation conditions. The second study phase identifies the traffic implications of continued growth in Capacity improvements from Business 65 in Ozark to US 160 in Nixa the OTO area on the existing street and highway system and evaluates transportation options and Bridge Widening over 65 alternatives. The third phase of the study discusses how the prioritized list of projects could move forward for funding and construction. SELECTED NORTH SOUTH CORRIDOR RESULTING FROM STUDY This North-South Corridor Study addresses some of the many areas of traffic congestion in the region. All Stakeholder and public participation was a key factor to ensure success of the study. With the assistance of these corridors will need to be addressed in order for the OTO region to maintain regional mobility and of the OTO staff, a Technical Subcommittee, comprised of representatives from state and local government ensure quality economic development. The recommendations of this study in no way preclude the OTO organizations, was formed to guide the major decisions and completion of this study. The Subcommittee from addressing the other congested roadways in the region, nor does it suggest the recommendations in also had the role of representing the Technical Committee, which recommends approval of the study to the this report are more important than the OTO region’s Top Five Priority Projects. Although this study OTO Board for adoption. Eight public meetings were held. Four meetings were held early in the project to provides the MPO the ability to better set priorities, whether or not the recommended corridor from the discuss project needs and identify potential solutions. The second set of four meetings was held toward study is a top 5 project must still be voted on by the OTO Board. the end of the project in order to obtain feedback on the recommended priorities. Summary of Current Transportation Conditions On December 18, 2003, the OTO Board of Directors

Load more