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 �������#����� �� �������#����� �� ��������������� ��������������� ��������������� ��������������� !"#�$%��& !"#�$%�� &'�� '��& &'��% '��% ��������������������� (�)$���& &'%% '%%& &���� ���� ��������������������� (�)$��� ������������������ �����$(��*�#��!��+,+"��������"!�-� ������������������ �����$(��*�#��!��+,+"��������"!�-�

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend