Combined Design Report SEPTEMBER 2013 VOLUME 1 OF 3 Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. The project study area is along Interstate 90/94 (I-90/94) from south of Roosevelt Road (on the south) to north of Lake Street (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The distance along each expressway is approximately 1.5 miles for I-90/94 and approximately 1.2 miles for Congress Parkway/I-290, for a total length of 2.7 miles along study area routes. Refer to Appendix A for a location map. The Circle Interchange is a system interchange which connects I-90/94 with I-290/Congress Parkway. It directly connects three expressways and a major arterial: the Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94 north of the interchange), the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94 south of the interchange), the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290 west of the interchange), and Congress Parkway (east of the interchange). Congress Parkway provides a direct link into the Chicago Central Business District (CBD). Other nearby expressways feed towards the Circle Interchange, including the Edens Expressway (I-94, eight miles north of the Circle Interchange), the Stevenson Expressway (I-55, one mile south), the Chicago Skyway (I-90, seven miles south), the Bishop Ford Freeway (I-94, 11 miles south), I-57 (11 miles south) and the Regan Memorial Tollway (I-88, merges with I-290 approximately 13 miles west). The Circle Interchange is situated among diverse land uses. The four quadrants around the interchange include Greektown/West Loop to the northwest, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the Illinois Medical District to the southwest, an industrial setting to the southeast and a mix of residential, retail and office spaces adjacent to the Loop (central business district) to the northeast. Purpose and Need The Circle Interchange was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s as part of the Interstate Highway System. The Circle Interchange is one of the worst bottlenecks in the country for traffic congestion. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial back-ups in every direction. As a result, it was ranked as the No. 1 bottleneck in the country based on a study completed by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations. The study monitored 250 highway locations. The Circle Interchange had “the highest congestion index (and therefore has the highest level of congestion that significantly impacts trucking”.1 Based on a free flow speed of 55 miles per hour (mph), the study determined the average speed for the interchange was 29 mph, with a peak average speed of 22 mph and a non-peak average speed of 32 mph.2 The purpose of the project is to provide an improved transportation facility at the Circle Interchange by addressing the existing and 2040 transportation needs. This will be accomplished by improving safety, mobility, and facility deficiencies of the mainline and interchange. A review of the crash history showed a total of 2,819 crashes occurred within the study area from 2006 through 2008. Of the 2,819 crashes from 2006 through 2008, 286 crashes or 10 percent resulted in injuries. During this period there were four Type K (fatality) crashes, 33 Type A (incapacitating injury) crashes, 142 Type B (non-incapacitating injury), and 107 Type C (reported, injury not evident) crashes. The most common type of crash was rear-end, accounting for 56.8 percent of the total crashes from 2006 through 2008. The next most common crash types were 1 Source: ATRI web page at http://atri-online.org/2011/10/01/fpm-congestion-monitoring-at-250-freight-significant-highway- locations 2 Ibid September 2013 i Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report sideswipe same direction and fixed object for an additional 40.4 percent of the total crashes in 2006 through 2008. Refer to the Crash Analysis of Existing Conditions report for the full analysis, under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office. The Circle Interchange serves over 400,000 vehicles per day, about 33,000 of which are trucks, with a total vehicle peak hour flow of nearly 24,000 vehicles per hour. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial congestion in all directions. Unlike many expressway systems that show sharp peaks in traffic during weekday AM and PM rush hours, the Circle Interchange experiences heavy congestion throughout the day and into the evening. Traffic volumes peak sharply around 7:00 AM and remain relatively high throughout the afternoon and evening until about 9:00 PM. This trend is evident for both weekdays and weekends. Operations of the interchange are influenced by both geometrics and facility condition. Multiple geometric elements are deficient at certain locations within the Circle Interchange. These include steep grades, sharp curves, narrow lane and shoulder widths, substandard bridge clearances, entrance and exit ramp tapers, and triple convergences and divergences. There have been no major improvements made to the Circle Interchange since its construction in the 1950s. Alternatives Considered The Circle Interchange project study team considered multiple alternatives, including the No-Build alternative, a transportation system management alternative and 30 Build alternatives. The Build alternatives represented a wide array of improvement ideas ranging from minor modifications to the existing interchange to fully directional interchanges. The alternative evaluation process involved technical evaluation by the project study team and collaboration with the FHWA and the Department in a series of geometric workshops. The process to evaluate alternatives began at a broad level to identify fatal flaws and then added more detail with each successive round. Throughout this process, alternatives were compared relative to other alternatives and to specific criteria. Each round removed alternatives that performed poorly and, in some cases, introduced new or refined alternatives. This process concluded with a Recommended Alternative, which was then refined into the Preferred Alternative. The Alternative Histogram in Appendix L diagrams how each alternative moved through this process. The evaluation process included five rounds: 1. Fatal Flaw Evaluation 2. Purpose and Need Evaluation 3. Performance Evaluation 4. Specific Issues Evaluation 5. Final Evaluation Preferred Alternative Following an extensive evaluation process, Alternative A-7.1c was recommended as the Preferred Alternative. It best meets the Purpose and Need of the project by improving safety, mobility, operational deficiencies and facility condition as described in Section 5.2. It accomplishes other goals of the project by requiring a minimal amount of land acquisition, requiring no permanent acquisition of CTA property in the median of I-290, being compatible with future expansion along I-90/94, and being constructible. Alternative A-7.1c provides four lanes per direction along I-90/94, correcting a lane balance issue that resulted in a traffic bottleneck, as well as ramp improvements. The key ramp improvements include, but are not limited to, the following: September 2013 ii Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report Ramp NW widened to two lanes and placed on a flyover with smoother horizontal alignment and vertical profiles, improving safety and mobility. Ramp EN widened to two lanes and placed on improved alignments to increase safety and mobility. A new northbound C-D (collector-distributor) road that allows northbound downtown-bound traffic to bypass the Ramp EN merge onto northbound I-90/94. This addresses the existing weaving condition along northbound I-90/94 between traffic exiting to downtown and merging Ramp EN traffic. Note that this northbound C-D road is different than the existing Ramp NE/Ramp NW C-D road. A new southbound C-D road that accommodates traffic headed to Adams Street, Jackson Boulevard, eastbound Congress Parkway, westbound I-290 and Taylor Street. Project Benefits The Preferred Alternative addresses the Purpose and Need of the project in improving safety, mobility and facility condition. The prominent benefits in improving the Circle Interchange include the following: Reduction of up to five million hours annually of drivers sitting in congested traffic Savings of $185 million annually in lost production from delayed travelers Reduction in idle time resulting in nearly 1.6 million gallons annually Reducing the predicted number of severe crashes by up to 25% Refer to Appendix H for calculations of benefits. Coordination Activities Coordination has been made with the following agencies and copies of the coordination documents and minutes of the one-on-one meetings are contained in the Circle Interchange Combined Design Report, Volume 3, which is a separate document available at IDOT, District 1 Office in Schaumburg, Illinois. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Illinois Department of Agriculture Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Illinois Natural History Survey Illinois State Geological Survey Cook County City of Chicago Chicago Department of Transportation Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Chicago Transit Authority University of Illinois at Chicago Coordination efforts have occurred with several resource agencies regarding clearances for biological resources (threatened and endangered species), wetlands, and cultural resources. In addition, fourteen FHWA/IDOT Coordination Meetings have been held. Minutes of these meetings and copies of the clearances are included in Volume 3. September 2013 iii Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report Coordination was also held with first responders.