Beulah Road Widening / I-10 Interchange / Beulah Expressway - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Beulah Road Widening / I-10 Interchange / Beulah Expressway COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WORKSHOP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Board Chambers Suite 100 Ernie Lee Magaha Government Building - First Floor E i L M h G t B ildi Fi t Fl 221 Palafox Place M May 11, 2017 11 2017 9:00 a.m.

2 Key NEPA Concepts t NEPA C K

Integrated Project The proposed action shall The proposed action shall 1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope address environmental matters on a broad scope 2. Have independent utility 3. Do not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable improvements 3

Logical Termini Defined as having Defined as having • Rational end points for a transportation improvement improvement • Rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts i t l i t 4

What is Segmentation? S Segmentation under NEPA occurs where a transportation i d NEPA h i need extends throughout the entire corridor, but environmental issues and transportation need are p discussed for only a segment of the corridor. • Not allowed under NEPA. • Is allowed for design, right-of-way, and construction. 5

Independent Utility • Would not require a collective EIS • Does not require or force other improvements • Not interdependent on the larger action for its justification 6

7 Interchange Access Request t R A h Steps I t

Step 1 Project Concept /Approach • Project Concept / Initialization • Methodology Letter of Understanding / Interchange Coordination Meetings 8

Step 2 Transportation Analysis • Existing Conditions • Project Traffic Development • Alternative Evaluation and Recommendation 9

Step 3 Determination of Engineering and Operational Acceptability Interchange Justification Report / Interchange Coordination Meetings • FHWA Eight Policy Points are met • New or Modified Access to Limited Access Highways on the State Highway System • Funding Plan g 10

Step 4 NEPA Acceptance • Class of Action Determination • NEPA Analysis • IAR Acceptance / NEPA Acceptance • One-step process One step process • Two-step process • Approval is for Both NEPA and the IAR 11

12 FHWA Eight Policy Points P i t FHWA Ei ht P li

Additional Access to the Interstate System 1 1. Existing infrastructure insufficient E i ti i f t t i ffi i t 2. Identify all reasonable alternatives 3. No significant adverse effect on Interstate safety or 3 No significant adverse effect on Interstate safety or operation 4. Access point(s) connects to a public road only 5. Consistent with land use and transportation plans 6. Supported by a comprehensive interstate network study 7 7. Coordination with development that generated the need for Coordination with development that generated the need for the change in access has occurred 8. Information on environmental process provided 13

Policy Application • Applicable regardless of funding • Not applicable to toll roads unless federal funds were used • Each entrance or exit point is an access point • Must be closely coordinated with planning and M t b l l di t d ith l i d environmental policies. 14

15 t Beulah Expressway Project j P l h E B

Project Planning Documentation • FATPO 2040 LRTP (as the Beulah widening, I-10 Interchange, and US 29 Connector) • Interchange ranks second on the FATPO 2018-2022 SIS Priority List • • Beltway (as US 29 Connector) Beltway (as US 29 Connector) ranks fourth on the FATPO 2018- 2022 SIS Priority List • NFTCA 2013 Master Plan (updated 2016) ranks 25 th overall • Mid-West Escambia Sector Plan and Detailed Specific Area Plans 16

What is the Project? • High speed four-lane, divided principal arterial highway • Controlled or Limited Access • Includes new interchange at I-10 What is its Purpose? • Provide external and internal regional connectivity g y • Accommodate future traffic demand • Additional emergency evacuation route 17

What has been accomplished to date? • Interchange Feasibility Report to FHWA (2012) • FDOT initiates IJR / County initiates Beltway Corridor Study (2013) • D Developer intervention to expedite the I-10 l i t ti t dit th I 10 interchange (2014) • Coordination with FHWA/FDOT to justify expediting interchange (2014) • Committee of the Whole (3/12/2015) • Commission Meeting (3/19/2015) • Continued coordination with FHWA/FDOT to justify expediting interchange (2015) expediting interchange (2015) • Corridor study reinitiated (late 2015) • Draft ACE Report submitted (1/2017) • • Individual Commissioner meetings (2/2017) Individual Commissioner meetings (2/2017) • Agenda Review Meeting and Commission Meeting (4/20/2017) • Submitted Draft ACE Report (without recommendations) into the EST for review d ti ) i t th EST f i 18

19 Alternative Corridor Evaluation ti l E id C ti Alt

How were the corridors developed? • Purpose and Need • Data Collection Data Collection • Field review • Land Suitability Mapping L d S it bilit M i • Design Criteria 20

Consistency with the Sector Plan and DSAPS • Bee Line Expressway • Connectivity with Regional Employment Districts • Connectivity with Regional Town Center • Connectivity with Intermodal • Connectivity with Intermodal Facilities • Consistency with adjoining land y j g uses 21

How were the Corridors Evaluated? • Evaluation Categories: • Purpose and Need; • Environmental Resources; • Cost, Traffic Operations, and Engineering • C Comparative Analysis ti A l i Evaluation Category Scores Alternative Total Overall Environmental Costs, Purpose Purpose Corridor Corridor Score Score Rank Rank Engineering, Social Cultural Natural Physical and Need and Operations Environment Resources Environment Environment 42 43 8 107 11 33 244 7 1 2 42 46 8 80 12 27 215 6 3 39 34 8 75 10 20 186 3 4 43 25 8 72 9 21 178 2 57 30 2 53 5 19 166 1 5 6 49 25 5 79 3 27 188 4 7 42 19 4 89 10 26 190 5 22

Other Considerations • Reasonability Analysis • USCOE Least Environmentally Damaging y g g Practicable Alternative 23

24 Estimated Schedules and Costs t d C t d S h d l E ti

General Costs and Anticipated Schedules Estimated Estimated Estimated Phase Description p Costs Completion p Start Date Start Date (in millions) Date Planning Corridor Study $0.27 Oct 2015 Dec 2017 PD&E EA Southern Project $1.75 Jan 2018 May 2020 PD&E EIS Northern Project $3.30 Jan 2018 Dec 2022 Design and Permitting Southern Project (Nine Mile Road to I-10) (4-Lane) $1.90 Feb 2020 Feb 2022 Design and Permitting Northern Project Segment 2 Phase 1 (initial 2-lane from I-10 to Muscogee) $7.85 Jan 2023 Jan 2025 Design and Permitting Northern Project Segment 3 Phase 1 (initial 2-lane from Muscogee to US 29) $15.00 Jan 2030 Jan 2032 Right-of-Way Acquisition Southern Project (4-Lane)* $0.50 Mar 2022 Mar 2024 Right-of-Way Acquisition Northern Project Segment 2 Phase 2 (4-lane from I-10 to Muscogee) $0.90 Feb 2025 Feb 2027 Right of Way Acquisition Right-of-Way Acquisition Northern Project Segment 3 Phase 2 (4 lane from Muscogee to US 29) Northern Project Segment 3 Phase 2 (4-lane from Muscogee to US 29) $2 00 $2.00 Feb 2032 Feb 2032 Feb 2034 Feb 2034 Construction Southern Project (4-Lane)* $12.70 Apr2024 Apr 2026 Northern Project Segment 2 Phase 1 (initial 2-lane from I-10 up to Muscogee Construction $52.10 Mar 2027 Mar 2030 without interchanges) Northern Project Segment 3 Phase 1 (2-lane from Muscogee to US 29 with 3 Construction $99.30 Mar 2034 Mar 2037 interchanges) interchanges) Southern Project Cost Total Design, Right-of Way Acquisition, and Construction $15.10 - - Northern Project Cost Total Design, Right-of Way Acquisition, and Construction (both stages) $177.15 - - Total PD&E/Design Total PD&E and Design Costs for all Segments, Phase 1 $30.07 - - Costs (2-Lane North of I-10, 4-lane South of I-10) Total Right of Way Costs for all Segments Total Right-of-Way Costs for all Segments Total Right-of-Way Costs $3.40 - - (2-Lane North of I-10, 4-lane South of I-10) Total Construction Costs for all Segments, Phases 1 and 2 Total Construction Costs $164.1 - - (4-lane south of I-10, 2-lane north of I-10) Total Costs for all Segments Total Project Costs $197.57 - - (4-lane south of I-10, 2-lane north of I-10) ( , ) *The above cost and scheduling estimates do not include the costs or schedule for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the interchange. The most recent CFP shows interchange design in the 2021-2025 timeframe and no right-of-way or construction costs within 2040. 25

26 Generalized Project Schedule

Northern Project Staged Construction Scenarios 27

Project in the FATPO Cost Feasible Plan • US 29 Connector (Beulah Widening) from US 90A to north of I-10. • Beulah Interchange with I-10 • US 29 Connector (Northern Project) from I-10 to US 29 28

29 Conclusions i l C