East Side Highway Corridor Study

1
East Side Highway Corridor Study Joint Councils
Meeting September 29, 2008
2
Todays Meeting Agenda

• Brief project history to date
• What has occurred recently?
• What next?
• Questions and Answers

3
PSG Members

• Jeanne Moonan (Normal Planning Commission)
• Stan Cain (Bloomington Planning Commission)
• Mark Peterson (Normal City Manager)
• Tom Hamilton (Bloomington City Manager)
• Mike Hall (Normal Public Works)
• Doug Grovesteen (Bloomington Engineering)
• Eric Schmitt (McLean County Hwy Dept)
• John Zeunik (County Administrator)
• Paul Russell (MCRPC Director)
• Jennifer Sicks (MCRPC)
• Dave Speicher (IDOT/D5)
• Darla Latham (IDOT/D5)

• Dennis Markwell (IDOT/D5)
• Jeannie Bland (IDOT/D5)
• John Donovan (FHWA)
• Heidi Liske (FHWA)
• J.D. Stephenson (FHWA)
• Elizabeth Tracy (IDOT/Central Office)
• Jerry Payonk (Clark Dietz, Inc.)
• Al Staron (Clark Dietz, Inc.)
• John Lazzara (HDR Engineering)
• Linda Huff (Huff Huff, Inc.)

4
CAG Members

• Royce Kraft
• Frank Wieting
• Debbie Page
• Melvyn Jeeter
• Angelo Capparella
• DeAnna Belz
• Mike Malone
• Terry Giannoni
• Mike Matejka
• David Penn
• Mike Flynn
• John Olson

• James Watson
• Eric Hodges
• Carl Olson
• Keith Knappenburger
• Pete Weber
• Doug Oehler
• John Kennedy
• Dean Kohn
• Kevin Devine
• Brad Cox

5
Identify Stakeholders
Form Project Study Group
Identify Stakeholders
Develop Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP)
Develop Project Purpose
Hold Initial Informational Meetings
Set Ground Rules for SIP
Hold Project Purpose Development Meetings
Develop Understanding of Project Purpose
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS
Analyze Alternatives and Choose Preferred
Alternative
Conduct Alternatives Meetings
Present Alternatives Based on Project Purpose
Re-Present Modified Alternatives
Hold Alternatives Elimination Meeting
Approval of Final Alternative
6
Context Audit Results
Handout 1
7
CORPORATE LIMITS
8
CORPORATE LIMITS
9
CORPORATE LIMITS
10
CORPORATE LIMITS
11
CORPORATE LIMITS
12
2035 Population Forecasts
1.3 per year
1.2 per year
Prepared by ACG The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in
association with Clark Dietz, Inc.
13
2035 Employment Forecasts
Prepared by ACG The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in
association with Clark Dietz, Inc.
14
Project Purpose

• Provide Transportation Infrastructure on the East
  Side of Bloomington/Normal defined by the project
  study area map that will accommodate planned
  growth and address future mobility needs.

• Highway (New/Existing)
• Other modes of transportation

• East/west movement
• North/south movement

• Issues of Sprawl
• Consistency with land use plans
• Concerns regarding farmland

Handout 2
15
Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

• Displacement and Relocations
• Economic Impacts
• Land Use Compatibility
• Public Facilities Services
• Farm Land Impacts (Severances, Transit,
  Ownership Types)
• Woodland Tree Loss
• Right-of-Way Impacts
• Travel Patterns
• Facility Access
• Section 4(f) Impacts
• Water Quality/Water Resources
• Historical/Archaeological Sites
• Noise
• Cost
• Community Cohesion
• Biological Impacts (Wildlife, Threatened
  Endangered Species)
• Wetlands
• Safety
• Flexibility in Staging Improvements

16
Corridor vs. Alignment
17
East Side Highway Preliminary Alternative
Corridors
Handout 3
18
Purpose and Need Criteria

• Accommodate Managed Growth

• Is consistent with McLean County RPC 2035 Land
  Use Plan
• Reduces travel time to from existing/proposed
  population growth areas
• Reduces travel time to from existing/proposed
  employment centers
• Increases accessibility to locations
  (Transportation Analysis Zones of TAZs)
  identified for growth

19
(No Transcript)
20
Purpose and Need Criteria

• Addresses Mobility, Access, and Safety

Improve Local and Regional Mobility

• Accommodate 2035 traffic volumes on critical
  roads identified in the project study area
• Results in acceptable volume-to-capacity (v/c)
  ratios on critical roads identified in the
  project study area

21
Purpose and Need Criteria

• Addresses Mobility, Access, and Safety

Addresses Local and Regional Access and Safety

• Improves local and regional access to and from
  I-55
• Improves local and regional access to and from
  I-74
• Improves travel time to and from regional
  employment and service centers (CIRA, State Farm,
  the Universities, etc.)
• Can meet safety standards per IDOT policy

22
Fatal Flaw Analysis
Handout 4
23
Study Area Corridor Segment Elimination
24
Purpose and Need Criteria
Handout 5
25
Potential Changes in Growth
26
Purpose and Need Criteria
27
Purpose and Need Criteria
28
Study Area Corridor Elimination
29
2035 No-Build Travel Demand Model
18,100 VPD In Towanda
13,600 VPD In Downs
30
2035 Travel Demand Models
M2 Volumes 26,000 44,000
M3 Volumes 12,000 22,000
M3alt Volumes 12,000 44,000
31
Summary of Comparative Analysis

• Socio-Economic

• Buildings impacted (residences, farms,
  commercial)
• Economic impacts (displacements, job center
  travel)
• Public facilities and services (public places
  impacted, potential access changes, utility
  infrastructure impacted, utility crossings)

• Farmland Impacts

• Farms impacted
• Acres of land impacted
• Centennial farms impacted

32
Summary of Comparative Analysis

• Right-of-Way

- Acres of ROW needed

• Environmental Resources

• Woodland tree loss (acres of woodlands
  impacted)
• Water Quality/Water Resources (impervious surface
  increase, stream crossings, floodplain crossings)
• Wetlands (acres encroached/impacted)
• Natural Areas (acres)
• Threatened/Endangered Species (number)
• Section 4(f) (parkland area impacted)

33
Summary of Comparative Analysis

• Historical and Archaeological Sites

• Sites Impacted (number, probability of impacts,
  probability of crossings)

• Noise

• Sensitive Receptors

• Flexibility in Staging Improvements

• Segmental Construction and Ability to be Expanded

• Safety
• Cost

34
Comparative Analysis Summary
Handout 6
35
Comparative Analysis Summary (cont.)
36
2035 Land Use Plan
37
234,280 (2035 population)
1.3 per year
1.2 per year
38
247,280 (2035 population)
1.45 per year
39
260,280 (2035 population)
1.65 per year
40
286,280 (2035 population)
2.0 per year
1.2 per year
41
Study Area Corridor Elimination
42
Project Purpose Analysis
43
Comparative Analysis Summary
44
Comparative Analysis Summary
45
M1/M2 Analysis
46
Study Area Corridor Elimination
47
S1/S2 Considerations
48
Summary

• The M3 and M4 Corridors are not consistent with
  the project purpose statement in addressing
  planned growth and future mobility
• The M1 Corridor does not efficiently accommodate
  future traffic volumes
• The M2 Corridor is most consistent with the
  project purpose statement

49
Whats Next?

• Complete Corridor Report
• Present project to local and State
  representatives
• Continue Study as EA or EIS

50
Questions?
51
Contact Us

• Website www.eastsidehighway.com
• E-mail address eastsidehighway_at_clark-dietz.com
• Phone [phone]