i 70 i 71 south innerbelt study preferred alternative
play

I-70/I-71 South Innerbelt Study Preferred Alternative Presented By - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A presentation of the I-70/I-71 South Innerbelt Study Preferred Alternative Presented By Ohio Department of Transportation ms consultants, inc. engineers, architects, planners February 10, 2009 H i s t o r y I-70/71 Planned in the 1950s


  1. A presentation of the I-70/I-71 South Innerbelt Study Preferred Alternative Presented By Ohio Department of Transportation ms consultants, inc. engineers, architects, planners February 10, 2009

  2. H i s t o r y � I-70/71 Planned in the 1950s � Capacity of 125,000 vehicles per day � Constructed in the 1960s

  3. C u r r e n t C o n d i t i o n � High Crash location – on average 2 to 3 crashes per day � Freeway carries 175,000 vehicles per day

  4. P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t Preferred Alternative selected using input from: � A Stakeholder Committee of about 50 downtown organizations � More than 250 community meetings, and using � Thousands of public comments

  5. P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t February 2003

  6. P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t February 2003

  7. P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t February 2003

  8. P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t February 2003

  9. A l t e r n a t i v e s Both alternatives: � Untangle the I-70 and I-71 overlap so motorists don’t have to make multiple lane changes � Add lanes to accommodate traffic growth � Consolidate ramps to improve safety

  10. R a m p L o c a t i o n s

  11. R a m p L o c a t i o n s

  12. F u l t o n – L i v i n g s t o n A l t e r n a t i v e

  13. F u l t o n – L i v i n g s t o n A l t e r n a t i v e

  14. P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e

  15. P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e

  16. P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e

  17. P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e

  18. I – 7 0 / I – 7 1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ���������� ���������� ���������� ��������� ��������� ��������� �������� �������� �������� ��������� ��������� ���������

  19. I – 7 0 / I – 7 1 Before – looking east from High Street

  20. I – 7 0 / I – 7 1 After – looking east from High Street

  21. I – 7 0 / I – 7 1 Before – looking east toward Third & Fourth Streets

  22. I – 7 0 / I – 7 1 After – looking east toward Third & Fourth Streets

  23. I – 7 1 �������� �������� �������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ������������ ������������ ������������ �������� �������� ��������

  24. I – 7 1 St. Paul AME Church Before - looking north toward Spring and Long streets Existing view looking north toward Spring & Long Street

  25. I – 7 1 St. Paul AME Church After - looking north toward Spring and Long streets One-Way Avenue view looking north toward Spring & Long Street

  26. A n a l y s i s R e s u l t s The analysis showed differences in the following factors: � Impacts to historic districts* � Spacing of intersections to improve traffic flow � Economic development opportunities (City Study) These factors all favor the Mound-Fulton Alternative * Federal laws specifically protect historic resources and require agencies to avoid them when there are prudent and feasible alternatives.

  27. H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s ��������������� ��������������� ���������� ���������� Brewery District – Fulton-Livingston Alternative

  28. H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s ��������������� ��������������� ���������� ���������� Brewery District – Mound-Fulton Alternative

  29. H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s German Village – Fulton-Livingston Alternative

  30. H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s German Village – Mound-Fulton Alternative

  31. T r a f f i c F l o w Fulton-Livingston Alternative

  32. T r a f f i c F l o w Mound-Fulton Alternative

  33. T r a f f i c F l o w Fulton-Livingston Alternative

  34. T r a f f i c F l o w ���������� ���������� Mound-Fulton Alternative

  35. E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t An economic analysis initiated by Columbus concluded Mound-Fulton provided more opportunities to encourage higher density development

  36. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n Enhancement Vision Plan

  37. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n Long Street Crossing Today Long Street crossing today

  38. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n Long Street crossing

  39. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n Long Street crossing with wider structure for public space

  40. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n High Street crossing today

  41. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n High Street crossing

  42. E n h a n c e m e n t P l a n High Street crossing with wider structure for public space

  43. N e x t S t e p s � Comment Period - until February 24 � Start Discussion of Enhancement Details – Spring 2009 � Finding of No Significant Impact – May 2009 � �� !"����������������������

  44. T i m e l i n e

  45. P r o j e c t C o s t Total Project Cost is $1.69 Billion $196 M $135 M $345 M $86 M $240 M $688 M

  46. P r o j e c t C o s t Major Investment Study (December 2005) � Initial planning level estimate was $680 million (Year 2010 dollars) Refinements due to engineering � Extensions of project and additional freeway ramps � Additional structure costs to minimize right-of-way impacts � Refined estimate of right-of-way costs

  47. P r o j e c t C o s t Cost escalation due to inflation � Recent high inflation costs in construction industry � Current estimate is based on Year 2014 dollars � 25% of the estimate is for inflation (Year 2008 to Year 2014)

  48. P r o j e c t F u n d i n g � $512 million Tier I TRAC Commitment � The first two phases along the east side will have priority

  49. www.7071study.org www.7071study.org �������#����� �� �������#����� �� ��������������� ��������������� ��������������� ��������������� !"#�$%��& !"#�$%�� &'�� '��& &'��% '��% ��������������������� (�)$���& &'%% '%%& &���� ���� ��������������������� (�)$��� ������������������ �����$(��*�#��!��+,+"��������"!�-� ������������������ �����$(��*�#��!��+,+"��������"!�-�

Recommend


More recommend