Public Meeting #2 December 9, 2015 1
Agenda • Project Overview • Alternatives • Preliminary Alternatives Analysis • Environmental Considerations • Noise Evaluation • Next Steps 2
Project Overview 3
I-55 Study Area Study Limi Study Limits ts: : N I-355 to 355 to I-90/I 90/I-94 94 25 miles 25 miles 4
IDOT Project Phases 5
Timeline We are Here • Initiate • Develop • Develop • Select • Document stakeholder a summary alternatives preferred findings of involvement of the • Evaluate the alternative(s) environmental • Collect data transportation effectiveness • Quantify potential studies • Analyze problems of each impacts existing that will be alternative • Develop mitigation conditions addressed • Evaluate strategies potential impacts CPG Meetings Public Meetings/Hearing 6
Public Involvement Public Meetings / Hearing Project Website Agency Meetings Newsletters Media Outreach Speakers’ Bureaus Corridor Planning Group Small Group Meetings 7
Corridor Planning Group Elected officials Community leaders Community organizations Regional planning agencies Transit agencies Environmental agencies Local stakeholders 8
CPG Summaries CPG#1 October 2012 • Problem Statement Created CPG#2 August 2013 • Purpose & Need Developed CPG#3 January 2014 • Alternatives Identified CPG#4 November 2015 • Alternatives Evaluation 9
Public Meeting #1 November 1, 2012 • 49 attendees • 7 written comments Public Concerns: congestion, drainage, noise, and lack of public transit options • 510 on-line survey responses Conducted Nov 11- Dec 15, 2013 IDOT sought input on vehicle occupancy, trip purpose, and congestion experience 10 10
I-55 On-Line Survey Key Findings • 75% drive alone If I-55 were • 78% were work rehabilitated, the trips/commute following were noted as extremely important: • 97% identified congestion as • Travel Time one of the biggest disruptions Reliability to travel • Increased Safety/Fewer • 25% rated I-55 traffic Accidents congestion as unbearable • Improved Quality of Life 11 11
Corridor Characteristics Communit Communities: ies: 16 16 Syst System em Inter Interchanges: hanges: 3 Ser Service vice Inter Interchanges: hanges: 14 14 Study Limi Study Limits ts: : I-355 to I 355 to I-90/94 90/94 25 miles 25 miles N 12 12
Existing Traffic Characteristics Average Daily Traffic (ADT) • Current 140,000 to 180,000 vehicles per day • Year 2040 (No-Build) 200,000 to 250,000 vehicles per day Occupancy • 1 passenger 83.5% • 2 passengers 13.7% • 3 or more passengers 2.8% Trucks • 13 – 15% (1 of every 7- 8 vehicles) 13 13
Regional Focus on Congestion Solutions Buses uses use use IDOT / RTA / PACE Bus-on-Shoulder Program shoulder shoulder for or 65% 65% of of the r the rou oute te On On-ti time me perf pe rfor orman mance ce improved impr ed to to nearly 90% 90% Rider idership ship increa incr ease se 60% 60 % to to 150% 150% 14 14
Typical Roadway Section 40 feet Approx. 14 miles 60 feet Approx. 9 miles 15 15
Project Purpose and Need • Mobility and operational efficiency to adapt to changing travel demands • Congestion management strategies to improve system performance & travel time reliability • New travel choices supporting transit opportunities • Sustainable transportation solutions that meets future environmental & economic needs • Maximize use of existing facility to recognize funding constraints 16 16
Alternatives Development & Evaluation 17
Evaluation Process Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Refinement of Alternatives We are Here Greater Detail Preferred Alternative 18 18
Alternatives Evaluation Considerations Consumer Improve Travel Benefits Reliability Reduce Travel Times Transit Opportunities Congestion Increase Capacity Management Strategies Reduce Fund Operations congestion & Maintenance Sustainability Travel Performance 19
Conceptual Alternatives General Purpose Lane Managed Lane – Truck Only Lane – High Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOV) – High Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT) – Express Toll Lane (ETL) 20
General Purpose Lane Free lane open to all traffic 21
Alternatives Evaluation Travel Performance: GENERAL PURPOSE LANE • Provides additional capacity Consumer Benefits: • Does not address travel time reliability • Eliminates transit Bus on Shoulder Sustainability: • No congestion management strategies • No source of revenue 22
Truck Only Lane TRUCK ONLY LANE Lanes dedicated to HOV Lanes dedicated to trucks only Bus access Travel time savings May be tolled Trip reliability Reduces the number of trucks in the general purpose lanes 23
Alternatives Evaluation Travel Performance: TRUCK ONLY LANE • Provides additional capacity Consumer Benefits: • Does not address travel time reliability • Eliminates transit Bus on Shoulder Sustainability: • Limited congestion management strategies • Potential source of revenue 24
Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives Does Not Meet the Purpose and Need: General Purpose Lane Truck Only Lane Alternatives not carried forward 25
Alternatives Evaluation HIGH OCCUPANCY Lanes dedicated to HOV VEHICLE (HOV) LANE Lanes dedicated to HOV 2+ or HOV 3+ Bus access Bus access Travel time savings No Single Occupancy Trip reliability Vehicles (SOVs) No trucks 26
Alternatives Evaluation Travel Performance: HIGH OCCUPANCY • VEHICLE (HOV) LANE HOV 2+ occupants provides good utilization of the managed lane • HOV 3+ occupants is underutilized Consumer Benefits: • HOV 2+ occupants improves travel speeds • HOV 3+ occupants does not improve travel speeds due to underutilization • HOV 2+ may delay Bus on Shoulder Sustainability: • No control measure for HOV usage • No source of revenue 27
Alternatives Evaluation HOV 2+ or HOV 3+ & HIGH OCCUPANCY TOLL (HOT) LANE public bus services ride for free Vehicles that don’t meet occupancy requirements pay toll Fixed or variable toll No trucks 28
Alternatives Evaluation Travel Performance: HIGH OCCUPANCY • TOLL (HOT) LANE HOT 2+ and 3+ occupants provides good utilization of the managed lane • Good improvement in congestion Consumer Benefits: • HOT 2+ and 3+ occupants provides good improvement in travel speeds • Good travel time reliability Sustainability: • Provides congestion management strategies • No control measure for HOV usage • Source of revenue 29
Alternatives Evaluation Separate tolled lane for EXPRESS TOLL LANES all vehicles and buses (ETL) No Occupancy Requirements Fixed or variable toll Public buses ride for free No Trucks 30
Alternatives Evaluation Travel Performance: EXPRESS TOLL LANES • (ETL) Good utilization of the managed lane • Good improvement in congestion Consumer Benefits: • Good improvement in travel speeds • Good travel time reliability • Accommodates transit Bus on Shoulder Sustainability: • Provides congestion management strategies • Provides controllability of all users • Source of Revenue 31
Alternatives Evaluation Summary HOV LANES HOT LANES PROJECT EXPRESS TOLL GOALS & 2 or more 3 or more 2 or more 3 or more LANES OBJECTIVES occupants occupants occupants occupants Travel Performance Consumer Benefits Sustainability 32
Managed Lane Facilities In Transition Nationwide HOV lanes HOT lanes Truck lanes Express Toll Lanes Proposed Proposed 33
Managed Lane Facilities In Transition Nationwide HOV lanes HOT lanes Truck lanes Express Toll Lanes Proposed Proposed 34
Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS) 35
Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS) Goal • Provide real time information to • Improve travel time reliability • Reduce congestion drivers • Moderate traffic flow • Provide flexibility and adaptability • Reduce “Stop n Go” conditions • Provide opportunity to close lanes as needed for incidents/maintenance 36 36 36
Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS) How is this accomplished: • Dynamic message signs relay information to drivers about current traffic conditions • Speed harmonization by adjusting speeds for travel conditions • Redirecting traffic with arrows and x’s over each lane • Automated tolling (if tolling is selected) 37 37 37
Managed Lane Access 38
Managed Lane Access Controlled Access Continuous Access Traffic Flow 39
Environmental Considerations 40
Study Process: What is NEPA? National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Federal act to ensure consideration of impacts to natural/social/built environment • Facilitates open and transparent study process 41
Environmental Documentation • Purpose and Need • Alternatives Considered • Preferred Alternative • Potential Environmental Impacts 42
Potential Environmental Impacts • Water Resources • Air Quality • Historic Resources • Noise 43
Recommend
More recommend
