Public Meeting #2 December 9, 2015 1 Agenda Project Overview - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
public meeting 2
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Public Meeting #2 December 9, 2015 1 Agenda Project Overview - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 04, 2023 10 likes •524 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Public Meeting #2

December 9, 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Agenda

  • Project Overview
  • Alternatives
  • Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
  • Environmental Considerations
  • Noise Evaluation
  • Next Steps
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Project Overview

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

I-55 Study Area

Study Limi Study Limits ts: : I-355 to 355 to I-90/I 90/I-94 94 25 miles 25 miles N

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

IDOT Project Phases

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Timeline

  • Initiate

stakeholder involvement

  • Collect data
  • Analyze

existing conditions

We are Here

  • Develop

a summary

  • f the

transportation problems that will be addressed

  • Develop

alternatives

  • Evaluate the

effectiveness

  • f each

alternative

  • Evaluate

potential impacts

  • Select

preferred alternative(s)

  • Quantify potential

impacts

  • Develop mitigation

strategies

  • Document

findings of environmental studies

CPG Meetings Public Meetings/Hearing

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Public Involvement

Public Meetings / Hearing Project Website Agency Meetings Newsletters Media Outreach Speakers’ Bureaus Corridor Planning Group Small Group Meetings

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Corridor Planning Group

Elected officials  Community leaders  Community organizations  Regional planning agencies  Transit agencies  Environmental agencies  Local stakeholders

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

  • Problem Statement Created

CPG#1 October 2012

  • Purpose & Need Developed

CPG#2 August 2013

  • Alternatives Identified

CPG#3 January 2014

  • Alternatives Evaluation

CPG#4 November 2015

CPG Summaries

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 10

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

  • ccupancy, trip purpose, and congestion

experience

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 11

I-55 On-Line Survey Key Findings

  • 75% drive alone
  • 78% were work

trips/commute

  • 97% identified congestion as
  • ne of the biggest disruptions

to travel

  • 25% rated I-55 traffic

congestion as unbearable If I-55 were rehabilitated, the following were noted as extremely important:

  • Travel Time

Reliability

  • Increased

Safety/Fewer Accidents

  • Improved Quality
  • f Life
slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 12

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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 13

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)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 14

Regional Focus on Congestion Solutions

IDOT / RTA / PACE

Bus-on-Shoulder Program

Buses uses use use shoulder shoulder for

  • r

65% 65%

  • f
  • f the r

the rou

  • ute

te Rider idership ship incr increa ease se

60 60% % to

to

150% 150%

On On-ti time me pe perf rfor

  • rman

mance ce impr improved ed to to nearly

90% 90%

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 15

Typical Roadway Section

60 feet

  • Approx. 9 miles

40 feet

  • Approx. 14 miles
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 16

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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Alternatives Development & Evaluation

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 18

Evaluation Process

Preferred Alternative Refinement of Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives

Greater Detail

We are Here

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Alternatives Evaluation Considerations

Consumer Benefits

Improve Travel Reliability Reduce Travel Times Transit Opportunities

Sustainability

Congestion Management Strategies Fund Operations & Maintenance

Travel Performance

Increase Capacity Reduce congestion

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Conceptual Alternatives

General Purpose Lane Managed Lane

– Truck Only Lane – High Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOV) – High Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT) – Express Toll Lane (ETL)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

General Purpose Lane Free lane open to all traffic

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Alternatives Evaluation

Travel Performance:

  • 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

GENERAL PURPOSE LANE

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Truck Only Lane

Lanes dedicated to HOV  Bus access  Travel time savings  Trip reliability

TRUCK ONLY LANE

Lanes dedicated to trucks only  May be tolled  Reduces the number of trucks in the general purpose lanes

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Alternatives Evaluation

TRUCK ONLY LANE

Travel Performance:

  • 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
slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives

Does Not Meet the Purpose and Need: General Purpose Lane Truck Only Lane

Alternatives not carried forward

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Alternatives Evaluation

Lanes dedicated to HOV  Bus access  Travel time savings  Trip reliability

HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANE

Lanes dedicated to HOV 2+ or HOV 3+  Bus access  No Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs)  No trucks

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Alternatives Evaluation

HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANE

Travel Performance:

  • HOV 2+ occupants provides good utilization
  • f 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
slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Alternatives Evaluation

HIGH OCCUPANCY TOLL (HOT) LANE

HOV 2+ or HOV 3+ & public bus services ride for free  Vehicles that don’t meet

  • ccupancy requirements

pay toll  Fixed or variable toll  No trucks

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Alternatives Evaluation

HIGH OCCUPANCY TOLL (HOT) LANE

Travel Performance:

  • 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
slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Alternatives Evaluation Separate tolled lane for all vehicles and buses  No Occupancy Requirements  Fixed or variable toll  Public buses ride for free  No Trucks

EXPRESS TOLL LANES (ETL)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Alternatives Evaluation

EXPRESS TOLL LANES (ETL)

Travel Performance:

  • 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
slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Alternatives Evaluation Summary

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES HOV LANES HOT LANES EXPRESS TOLL LANES 2 or more

  • ccupants

3 or more

  • ccupants

2 or more

  • ccupants

3 or more

  • ccupants

Travel Performance Consumer Benefits Sustainability

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Managed Lane Facilities In Transition Nationwide

HOV lanes HOT lanes Proposed Truck lanes Proposed Express Toll Lanes

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Managed Lane Facilities In Transition Nationwide

HOV lanes HOT lanes Proposed Truck lanes Proposed Express Toll Lanes

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS)

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36 36

Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS)

Goal

  • Provide real time information to

drivers

  • Moderate traffic flow
  • Reduce “Stop n Go” conditions
  • Provide opportunity to close lanes as

needed for incidents/maintenance

36

  • Improve travel time reliability
  • Reduce congestion
  • Provide flexibility and adaptability
slide-37
SLIDE 37

37 37

Active Traffic Management Strategies (ATMS)

37

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)
slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Managed Lane Access

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Managed Lane Access

Continuous Access Controlled Access Traffic Flow

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

Environmental Considerations

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

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

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

Environmental Documentation

  • Purpose and Need
  • Alternatives Considered
  • Preferred Alternative
  • Potential Environmental Impacts
slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

Potential Environmental Impacts

  • Water Resources
  • Air Quality
  • Historic Resources
  • Noise
slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

Traffic Noise Impacts Evaluation

slide-45
SLIDE 45

45 45

Traffic Noise Impacts Evaluation

Public Meeting #2 Public Hearing

Data Collection & Evaluation of Existing Conditions Identify Noise Impacts Evaluate Potential Noise Abatement Solutions Stakeholder Outreach Viewpoint Solicitation Final Noise Abatement Solutions Identified

2016

Alternative Development & Evaluation Preferred Alternative Development Complete Environmental Documentation

Fall 2015 Winter 2016 Spring 2016

We are here

slide-46
SLIDE 46

46 46

Viewpoint Solicitation

  • Benefited Receptors Rental properties
  • One vote for tenant, one vote for owner (per unit)
  • Receptors that share property line with I-55 receive
  • TWO (2) VOTES
  • Benefited Receptors will be contacted up to
  • Two (2) times to maximize response rate

If more than half of the votes are in favor of a barrier, the proposed abatement measure is likely to be implemented

RESPONSE GOAL OF 33%

  • f benefited receptors per proposed barrier
slide-47
SLIDE 47

47 47

What Will the Noise Walls Look Like?

slide-48
SLIDE 48

48

Next Steps

slide-49
SLIDE 49

49

Next Steps

NEXT STEPS:

  • Continue Evaluation of Alternatives
  • Determine Preferred Alternative
slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

We Want to Hear from You!

  • Written comment forms
  • Online comment forms at

(www.I55managedlaneproject.org)

Comments received by

December 23, 2015

will become part of the public meeting record.

slide-51
SLIDE 51

51

Please visit the exhibit room and meet with study team members

Thank you for Attending!