Austin Boulevard Austin Boulevard Interchange Design Interchange - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Austin Boulevard Austin Boulevard Interchange Design Interchange Design Discussion Discussion September 28, 2015 1

Expressway Construction Pre-dates Modern Design Standards  Expressway designed and constructed in 1950’s  No past experience to base design standards on  Little or no data – safety vs. design  No noise or air quality standards at the time  Existing ramps designed to minimize ROW footprint. 2

PROJECT NEEDS  Safety  Mobility  Facility condition and design  Create an asset for the communities 3

DENSE URBAN SETTING POSES MULTIPLE DESIGN CONSTRAINTS  Constrained existing right-of- way  CTA Blue Line  CSX Railroad  Vehicle & non-motorized crossings  Drainage 4

EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN OAK PARK  I-290 trunk sewer Central Ave. Austin Blvd. begins at Central Avenue  Drains west to Pump Station #4 @ DesPlaines River  Drains I-290, CTA and CSX in this area Pump Station #4 5

EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS UNDERSIZED & RESULTS IN EXPRESSWAY AND RAIL FLOODING DesPlaines River DesPlaines Ave. Harlem Ridgeland Ave. Circle Lombard Ave. Oak Park Ave. Ave. Ave. Central Ave. Austin Blvd. East Ave. CSX over CSX Profile Central Ave. CSX under Existing I-290 Austin Blvd. Profile Existing Flood Existing Flood Elevation Elevation Pump Station #4  Existing system cannot adequately convey storm water during heavy storms  Existing expressway system designed for 10-year storm  I-290, CTA, and CSX are subject to frequent flooding 6

Drainage & CSX Profile Influence Austin Boulevard Design CSX Under Austin Blvd. 7

Drainage Requirements and CSX Rail are Design Constraints at Austin Boulevard Existing Austin Blvd. Bridge Profile Existing Austin Blvd. Ramps EB WB Existing CSX I-290 I-290 Clearance 19.3 ft. CTA Existing 100 yr. CSX Flood Elev. 8

Proposed Austin Boulevard Profile Low ers Mainline & Meets Drainage Requirements Proposed Austin Blvd. Bridge Profile Minimized structure depth over CSX Maintain Existing CSX Clearance Mainline Shifted 12’ Maintain Existing CSX Mainline 4.5’ grade CTA Lower Proposed 100 yr. Flood Elev. CSX Proposed New Parallel Trunk Sewer – Proposed Profile  Lowers mainline around Austin Boulevard  No profile impacts to CTA or CSX 9  Meets expressway drainage freeboard requirements

10 Air Quality Effects Air Quality Effects

CARBON MONOXIDE INTERSECTION SENSITIVITY CARBON MONOXIDE INTERSECTION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS  Criteria: – 62,500 ADT highest design 1-way volume – Austin Blvd. 2-way ADT 20,900 - 22,000  Used as sensitivity analysis  CO concentration measured in parts per million (ppm) – 70 ppm – some health concern – 150 - 200 ppm – serious heath concern  Greatest exposure – inside a car  Pass/Fail standard for transportation projects: – Established to protect vulnerable populations (children, elderly, etc.) – 9 ppm - 8 hour average – 35 ppm - 1 hour average 11 11

AUSTIN BOULEVARD RAMPS CO ANALYSIS  CO Factors – Background CO  3 ppm assumed  2 ppm measured in field – Traffic volume – Proximity/location of receptors 12

AUSTIN BOULEVARD RAMPS CO ANALYSIS Columbus Park – Closest receptor locations: R3 R3  R1 – CTA Blue Line Station R2 R2 entrance  R2 – Columbus Park field  R3 – Residence R1 R1 13

AUSTIN BLVD. RAMPS CO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 8-Hour 1-Hour Average Concentration Average Concentration 40 10 1-Hour NAAQS (35ppm) 8-Hour NAAQS 9 35 8 30 7 25 6 CO ppm CO ppm 20 5 0.1 0.1 4 15 0 3 Background 10 Concentration 3.8 0.2 2 0.5 3.5 Level 3.3 0 5 3.0 ppm 1 3.7 4.1 3.4 0 0 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 14

AUSTIN BOULEVARD & HARRISON ST. CO ANALYSIS R3 R3 R1 R1 – Closest receptor locations: Harrison St.  R1 – Columbus Park Trail R2 R2  R2 – Columbus Park Trail R4 R4  R3 – Gas Station NW Corner  R4 – Gas Station SW Corner Columbus Park 15

AUSTIN BLVD. & HARRISON ST. CO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 8-Hour 1-Hour Average Concentration Average Concentration 10 40 8-Hour NAAQS 1-Hour NAAQS (35ppm) 9 35 8 30 7 25 6 CO ppm CO ppm 5 20 0.2 0.1 0.1 4 0 15 3 Background 10 3.7 Concentration 2 3.6 3.6 3.5 0.1 0.2 Level 0.1 0.2 5 1 3.0 ppm 3.9 4 3.8 3.7 0 0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 16

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)  Transportation related MSATs are caused by incomplete engine combustion  USEPA’s MOVES2014 was used to calculate the most common transportation related MSATs based on: – traffic volumes and speeds – meteorological data – vehicle and fleet mix  The MSAT Analysis Area was identified based on comparisons between the No Build and proposed build alternatives highway network link volumes 17

Mobil Source Air Toxins (MSAT) Analysis % Change from No Build Burden (lbs) Pollutant HOT 3+ & No Build GP Lane HOV 2+ HOT 3+ TOLL Acrolein 6.39 ‐ 0.08% ‐ 0.07% ‐ 0.17% ‐ 0.62% Benzene 90.41 0.30% ‐ 0.04% ‐ 0.08% 0.05% 1,3 Butadiene 0.40 ‐ 0.20% ‐ 0.08% ‐ 0.20% ‐ 0.83% Diesel PM 274.54 0.10% ‐ 0.13% ‐ 0.16% ‐ 1.11% Formaldehyde 141.55 ‐ 0.07% ‐ 0.07% ‐ 0.17% ‐ 0.60% Naphthalene 11.94 ‐ 0.02% ‐ 0.06% ‐ 0.16% ‐ 0.53% – No standards for MSAT established by USEPA – No significant change from no-build – No significant change between alternatives 18

Air Quality Sensitivity Analysis Summary  Stakeholder Air Quality concerns: conduct sensitivity analyses – COSIM : well below standard – Air Quality Sensitivity : major transportation-related pollutants, including PM and ozone show no significant change. Positive trends (lower pollutant levels than No Build) for managed lanes alternatives – MSAT : no significant change, positive trends for managed lane alternatives 19

20 Noise Effects Noise Effects

Austin Blvd. Ramp Geometry Noise Sensitivity Analysis 2 Noise Receptor Locations in Oak Park:  Just east of Austin Boulevard  At proposed WB on-ramp entrance location Cross-section Noise Receptor Noise Receptor Cross-section 21

Noise Sensitivity at Proposed Ramp Terminal Noise Receptor Cross-section EB on-ramp shifts south 22

Existing Cross-Section at Proposed Ramp Terminal Flournoy St. 100,000 ADT 100,000 ADT Westbound Eastbound I-290 I-290 (no-build) (no-build) 23

Proposed Cross-Section at Proposed Ramp Terminal No Change @ Receptor 0 dB(A) Flournoy St. Retaining wall 100,000 ADT 100,000 ADT and expressway Eastbound Westbound shifted away I-290 I-290 from receptor (no-build) (no-build) Key findings:  No change in noise level at on-ramp terminal  Mainline traffic shifted away from Flournoy Street 24

25 Receptor Location & Proposed Ramps Proposed Ramps at Austin Boulevard Noise Receptor Cross-section EB on-ramp shifts south

Existing Ramps at Austin Boulevard 20,000 100,000 ADT Ramp ADT Westbound I-290 (no-build) Existing Driveway/ Ramps Flournoy to/from west St. 26

Proposed Ramps at Austin Boulevard 10,000 Ramp ADT Change @ Receptor -3 dB(A) Driveway/ Flournoy St. 100,000 ADT Westbound Key findings: I-290  Mainline is the predominant noise source  Ramp location does not significantly affect overall noise levels 27

Noise Sensitivity Analysis Findings  Mainline I-290 is primary traffic noise generator – Mainline I-290 shifted south, away from park/community – Mainline I-290 elevation lowered  Retaining wall & ramp configuration improves shielding  Overall noise levels reduced (-1 to -3 dB(A)) – Change in noise due to geometry not perceptible to barely perceptible Full noise wall analysis is in progress 28

29 Visualizations Visualizations Aesthetics & Aesthetics &

VISUALIZATIONS VISUALIZATIONS  3D Model  Before & After Photo Simulations After Before AFTER BEFORE 30 30

PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES OFFER BALANCE AND BENEFITS  Expressway lowered by 4.5 ft. & shifted by 12 ft.  Proposed design features – Ramps split – Half existing ramp volume shifted south – Traffic volume tradeoff  10,000 ramp ADT instead of 100,000 WB I-290 ADT  Design offers built-in noise reductions – up to 3 dB(A)  Ramp design does not influence air quality  Improved bike & pedestrian environment  Aesthetic opportunities 31

NOISE WALL FORUMS  Tentatively set for October 27, 28 & 29 – IDOT will invite properties that would benefit. – Others can attend as well  After public forums, owners and residents of designated properties asked to vote for or against a noise wall. – Vote outcome will determine if a noise wall will be constructed in the future. 1 1