I-229 Exit 5 (26 th Street) Crossroad Corridor Study Public Open - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

I-229 Exit 5 (26th Street) Crossroad Corridor Study

Public Open House #3 Jan 15th, 2014 5:30 - 7:30 P.M. John Harris School Gym

Presentation Agenda

• 1. Discuss Exit 5 (I‐229 & 26th Street)

remaining Options (5a, 7a, 7c)

• 2. Discuss 26th 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

‐26th 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 26th Street provides a relatively low design speed (25 mph) ‐Widening of 26th Street and connection of Yeager Road to 26th 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 26th Street provides a relatively low design speed (25 mph) ‐Widening of 26th 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 & 26th 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

• ption 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 26th 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 26th 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

• wners

‐City Maintenance Dept. has difficulty with access roads

Options Evaluation Memo

Click Here to take Survey

• n 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 Existing Noise Prediction Model

Monitoring Location Monitoring Leq (dBA) Modeled Leq (dBA) Difference 1 66.9 68.3 +1.4 2 64.9 65.4 +0.5 4 59.1 58.4 ‐0.7 5 68.6 68.2 ‐0.4 6 58.9 56.8 ‐2.1 7 68.0 67.4 ‐0.6 8 62.8 61.7 ‐1.1 9 70.1 67.3 ‐2.8

INPUTS

• Existing Traffic Volumes/Speeds
• Existing Geometrics (number of

lanes, proximity to homes, elevation of road to homes, etc..)

• Vehicle Types (cars, trucks, buses,

motorcycles, etc.)

Model validated if “Modeled” values are within +/‐ 3 dBA

• f “Monitored”

Values

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

• SB off/on ramps added outside

I229 shoulder

• Vertical elevation of ramp added
• Distance to homes and elevation
• f homes
• Vehicle volumes, speeds, & types
• Receptors

Riverdale Subdivision in Option 5a

Noise Study Process & Findings

Step 4 – Compare results to Noise Abatement Criteria Thresholds

Activity Category Activity Leq(h)

1

Evaluation Location Description of Activity Category FHWA SDDOT B2 67 52 66 51 Exterior Interior Residential. C2 67 66 Exterior Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public 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%
• f 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

Noise Study Process & Findings

Step 7 – Complete Noise Abatement Study

(Noise Barrier B – Riverdale Area Option 7a/7c)

Wall Summary

(Option 7a & 7c)

• Length = 879’
• Average Height = 19’
• Wall Cost = $735,000

Noise Study Process & Findings Step 7 – Complete Noise Abatement Study (Noise Barrier B – Riverdale Area Option 7a/7c) RESULTS

• Not cost effective, 4.5 times

higher than the $21,000 threshold per benefited receptor

• Wall achieved noise reduction

criteria

Noise Study Process & Findings Step 7 – Complete Noise Abatement Study (Noise Barrier C – Yeager Rd Area Option 7a) Wall Summary

(Option 7a)

• Length = 1997’
• Average Height = 14.85’
• Wall Cost = $1.3 Million

Noise Study Process & Findings Step 7 – Complete Noise Abatement Study (Noise Barrier C – Yeager Rd Area Option 7a) RESULTS

• Not cost effective, 2.5 times

higher than the $21,000 threshold per benefited receptor

• Wall achieved noise reduction

criteria

I‐29 Noise Abatement Project Example

I‐29 Noise Abatement Project Example RESULTS

• Cost effective, approx. $17,700

per benefited receptor which is below the $21,000 threshold per benefited receptor (when using $44 per square foot per current policy)

• Wall achieved noise reduction

criteria

Major Factors

• Density of Homes (i.e. smaller lots

than along our corridor)

• 2nd Row of receptors benefited

from noise wall along I‐29 12’‐16’ Height

Park & Trail Access EA Considerations

Section 4(f)

• Addresses Impacts to

Park & Rec Land

Section 6(f)

• Addresses Impacts to

Park & Rec Land/Trail that utilized National Park Service (NPS) Grants Funds

Park & Trail Access

“Existing” Vehicle Access

‐Driveway to Rotary /Norlin Park from 26th Street ‐Gravel driveway to Canoe Launch Area ‐Driveway to Pasley Park

Pedestrian Access

‐Sidewalk connection to Park and Trail on the north side of 26th Street ‐Unsignalized Crossing on Southeastern Avenue to enter park or trail system at Pasley Park entrance ‐Sidewalks only on north side of 26th Street west of Southeastern ‐Sidewalks only on east side of Southeastern Avenue

Park & Trail Access

“Proposed Base” Vehicle Access

‐Paved driveway to Canoe Launch Area ‐Considering driveway off of Pasley Park entrance road to serve Rotary & Norlin Park as bridge over river will provide approximately 18’ of clearance

Pedestrian Access

‐Sidewalks on both sides of 26th Street through corridor with the intersection serving all directions, 10’ wide sidewalk on Bridge west of Southeastern Avenue ‐Sidewalk connection from 26th Street to Pasley Park entrance on west side of Southeastern ‐Considering additional access to Rotary Park from 26th Street

Park & Trail Access

“Additional Access Thoughts” Pedestrian Access

‐Circular Ramp or Straight Ramp from 26th Street down to Park or Trail

Drawbacks

• Most Expensive option to connect

26th Street directly to park/trail (+/‐ 1.3 Million)

Future Trail

Possible Stairs Location

Park & Trail Access

“Additional Access Thoughts” Pedestrian Access

‐Stairs option with ability to walk bike down to park level

Future Trail

Possible Stairs Location

Park & Trail Access

“Additional Access Thoughts” Pedestrian Access

‐Stairs option with ability to walk bike down to park level

Drawbacks

• Least desirable winter

maintenance option

• Not ADA Compliant

Possible Pedestrian Bridge Location

Park & Trail Access

“Additional Access Thoughts” Pedestrian Access across Big Sioux River

‐Pedestrian Bridge from Canoe Launch Parking Area across Big Sioux River to Trail/Parks

Future Trail

Possible Parking

Park & Trail Access

“Additional Access Thoughts”

Pedestrian Access across Big Sioux River

‐Pedestrian Bridge from Canoe Launch Parking Area across Big Sioux River to Trail/Parks

Drawbacks

• Requires another structure

crossing over the Big Sioux River

Room Layout

Next Steps

Take Public Comment regarding options remaining, environmental concerns, and park access options Finalize Environmental Coordination and “Recommend a Preferred Alternative” Complete Environmental Assessment

Before You Leave!!!!!!!

Please Sign In! Share your thoughts?

• Remaining Options
• Environmental

Considerations

I-229 Exit 5 (26th Street) Crossroad Corridor Study

Thank You!!!! Please visit the Website! www.26thstreetcorridorstudy.com

Project Contacts

SDDOT Project Manager Steve Gramm, PE Project Development, Data Analysis Engineer Steve.gramm@state.sd.us Phone: 605‐773‐6641 City of Sioux Falls Project Manager Shannon Ausen, PE Traffic Engineering Division sausen@siouxfalls.org Phone: 605‐367‐8607 CONSULTANT Team Project Manager Jason Kjenstad, PE HDR Engineering, Sioux Falls Jason.Kjenstad@hdrinc.com Phone: 605‐977‐7740