I-229 Exit 5 (26 th Street) Crossroad Corridor Study Public Open House #3 Jan 15 th , 2014 5:30 - 7:30 P.M. John Harris School Gym
Presentation Agenda 1. Discuss Exit 5 (I ‐ 229 & 26 th Street) remaining Options (5a, 7a, 7c) 2. Discuss 26 th Street and Southeastern Avenue remaining Options (A &C) 3. Discuss Noise Study Findings 4. Discuss Park Access
Evaluation Process for Interchange 1. Developed 21 Concept Options including the “No Build” Option (Sept 2012 to May 2013)
Evaluation Process for Interchange 2. Screening Matrix evaluated each Option under 8 categories 1.Design Standards 2.Driver/Public Perception 3.Construction Impacts (high ‐ level review) 4.Traffic Operations and Safety 5.Pedestrian Impacts 6.Property Impacts 7.Environmental Impacts 8.Construction Costs
Evaluation Process for Interchange 3. Developed a Screening Matrix to accurately compare the Options (May 2013 to August 2013)
Evaluation Process for Interchange 4. Evaluation process resulted in a small number of Options for further evaluation (Posted to Website Oct 13)
Interchange Remaining Options OPTION 5a (Westside Ramps along I ‐ 229) Benefits ‐ Lower construction cost with no ramp in NE quadrant of interchange ‐ Will serve forecasted traffic demands ‐ Minimal impacts to Rotary Park or BSR floodplain ‐ Allows for future expansion if needed, northeast ramp could be added ‐ Minimal widening west of Yeager Road Drawbacks ‐ 26 th Bridge reconstruction is necessary due to proximity of ramps in NW and SW quadrants ‐ Additional bridge structure along I ‐ 229 ‐ Most expensive of remaining options
Interchange Remaining Options OPTION 7a (SW Loop w/Yeager Rd) Benefits ‐ Lower construction cost with no north side ramps to construct and reduced bridge reconstruction ‐ Will serve forecasted traffic demands ‐ Minimal impacts to Rotary Park or BSR floodplain ‐ Allows for future expansion if needed, northeast ramp could be added Drawbacks ‐ Loop ramp for SB I229 to 26 th Street provides a relatively low design speed (25 mph) ‐ Widening of 26 th Street and connection of Yeager Road to 26 th Street requires property acquisitions
Interchange Remaining Options OPTION 7c (SW Loop w/o Yeager Rd) Benefits ‐ Lower construction cost with no north side ramps to construct and reduced bridge reconstruction ‐ Will serve forecasted traffic demands ‐ Minimal impacts to Rotary Park or BSR floodplain ‐ Allows for future expansion if needed, northeast ramp could be added ‐ Fewer impacts to residential properties than 7a as Yeager Road is eliminated Drawbacks ‐ Loop ramp for SB I229 to 26 th Street provides a relatively low design speed (25 mph) ‐ Widening of 26 th Street requires property acquisition ‐ Yeager Road Closure will cause traffic to re ‐ route to local or nearby streets further deteriorating traffic conditions along Cliff Avenue & 26 th Street
Evaluation Process for Intersection 1. Developed 7 options including the “No Build” Option (Sept 2012 to May 2013)
Evaluation Process for Interchange 2. Screening Matrix evaluated each option under 9 categories 1.Design Standards 2.Driver/Public Perception 3.Construction Impacts (high ‐ level review) 4.Environmental Impacts 5.Pedestrian Impacts 6.BNSF Railroad 7.Traffic Operations and Safety 8.Property Impacts 9.Construction Costs
Evaluation Process for Intersection 3. Developed a Screening Matrix to accurately compare the options (May 2013 to August 2013)
Evaluation Process for Intersection 4. Evaluation process selected a small number of options for further evaluation (Posted to Website Oct 13)
Intersection Remaining Options OPTION A (Raised Intersection) Benefits ‐ Access to NE quadrant will not change from existing conditions ‐ Will serve forecasted traffic demands per City criteria ‐ Access to Rotary & Norlin Park is relocated improving safety along 26 th Street during peak periods ‐ BNSF has noted their preference for this option
Intersection Remaining Options OPTION A (Raised Intersection) Drawbacks ‐ Property acquisition of several parcels is required as access can’t be provided to either the commercial or residential properties in the SE Quadrant ‐ Visual Impacts assumed by property owners
Intersection Remaining Options OPTION C (Raised Intersection shifted west) Benefits ‐ Access to NE Quadrant will not change from existing conditions ‐ Will serve forecasted traffic demands per City criteria ‐ Access to Rotary & Norlin Park is relocated improving safety along 26 th Street during peak periods ‐ Only 1 residential property would need to be acquired
Intersection Remaining Options OPTION C (Raised Intersection shifted west) Drawbacks ‐ Property acquisition of 1 parcel is required to construct access road to Pioneer Trail ‐ Visual Impacts assumed by property owners ‐ City Maintenance Dept. has difficulty with access roads
Options Evaluation Memo Click Here to take Survey on Screening Process Click on either the Interchange or Intersection Memo’s to Review www.26thstreetcorridorstudy.com
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 1 – Conduct Field Monitoring
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 1 – Conduct Field Monitoring
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 2 –Develop INPUTS Existing Noise • Existing Traffic Volumes/Speeds • Existing Geometrics (number of Prediction Model lanes, proximity to homes, elevation of road to homes, etc..) • Vehicle Types (cars, trucks, buses, Monitoring Monitoring Modeled motorcycles, etc.) Difference Location Leq (dBA) Leq (dBA) 1 66.9 68.3 +1.4 Model validated if 2 64.9 65.4 +0.5 “Modeled” values 4 59.1 58.4 ‐ 0.7 5 68.6 68.2 ‐ 0.4 are within +/ ‐ 3 dBA 6 58.9 56.8 ‐ 2.1 of “Monitored” 7 68.0 67.4 ‐ 0.6 Values 8 62.8 61.7 ‐ 1.1 9 70.1 67.3 ‐ 2.8
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 3 – Develop Year 2035 Noise Prediction Model for Each Option
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 3 – Develop Year 2035 Noise Prediction Model for Each Option INPUTS Riverdale Subdivision in Option 5a • SB off/on ramps added outside I229 shoulder • Vertical elevation of ramp added • Distance to homes and elevation of homes • Vehicle volumes, speeds, & types Receptors •
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 4 – Compare results to Noise Abatement Criteria Thresholds Activity L eq(h) 1 Evaluation Activity Category Description of Activity Category FHWA SDDOT Location 67 66 Exterior B 2 Residential. 52 51 Interior Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public C 2 67 66 Exterior meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 4 – Compare results to Noise Abatement Criteria Thresholds Riverdale Subdivision in Option 5a
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 5 – Evaluate Noise Abatement Measures per SDDOT Policy 1. Modifying the proposed horizontal and/or vertical alignments of the roadway Impractical based on options developed 2. Traffic management measures (e.g. modify speed limits and restrict truck traffic) Impractical given the type of road in question 3. Construction of noise barriers along or within the ROW Possible; options include walls, berms, and vegetation. Berms and vegetation would require more space than is available 4. Acquisition of property rights for construction of noise barriers Not necessary because walls from Item 3, above, can be used 5. Acquisition of property to serve as a buffer zone Prohibitively expensive
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 6 – When Impacts are identified, noise abatement will be considered and evaluated for Feasibility per SDDOT policy Feasibility Requirements • Safety: No site distance issues, no continuous shadow resulting in icing or snow accumulation on driving lanes, no drainage impacts • Barrier Height: Safety concerns exist when barriers exceed 20 feet in height, evaluation will not consider barriers higher than 20’ • Topography: topography shall allow for construction of abatement measure • Drainage, Utilities, and Abatement Measure: access to provide maintenance
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 6 – When Impacts are identified, noise abatement will be considered and evaluated for Acoustic Feasibility per SDDOT policy Acoustic Feasibility • Abatement Measure: must achieve a 5 dBA reduction for 60% of the front ‐ row receptors directly behind the noise wall
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 6 – When Impacts are identified, noise abatement will be considered and evaluated for Reasonableness per SDDOT policy Reasonableness • Cost Effectiveness of abatement measure: Cost per benefited receptors shall be $21,000 or less to be considered reasonable
Noise Study Process & Findings Step 7 – Complete Noise Abatement Study (No Noise Barrier – Riverdale Area Option 5a) Summary (Option 5a) • Ramp serves as Wall • Average Height = 12’ • No actual separate noise wall
Recommend
More recommend
