FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200 · FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200...

FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200

December 4, 2014

Ohio Department of Transportation District 6

400 East William Street Delaware, OH 43015

PREPARED FOR:

LJB Inc.

2500 Newmark Drive Miamisburg, OH 45342 (937) 259-5000 Scott Knebel, P.E. [email protected]

PREPARED BY:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3

ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................................... 8

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 14

ROADWAY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................. 29

STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 35

RIGHT OF WAY ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 36

UTILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 38

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 39

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 40

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 42

ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON ......................................................................................................................... 43

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 50

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC DATA

APPENDIX B: CAPACITY ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO BUILD)

APPENDIX C: CAPACITY ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVE 3 (PARCLO B)

APPENDIX D: CAPACITY ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVE 4 (PARCLO A)

APPENDIX E: ALTERNATIVE PLAN VIEWS

APPENDIX F: COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

APPENDIX H: WORKSHOP DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX I: FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The DEL-71-7.91 Interchange Feasibility Study (“the Feasibility Study”) has been developed through collaboration among the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Delaware County Engineer. The contents of the Feasibility Study outline the interactive process for determining the feasibility of new and previous transportation alternatives for the interchange of Interstate 71 (I-71) with US Route 36 and State Route 37 (US-36/SR-37) and the local US-36/SR-37 corridor in Delaware County, Ohio. BACKGROUND The I-71 and US-36/SR-37 interchange provides access to northern and central Delaware County. As the only interstate access in a 22 mile stretch and its proximity to the city of Columbus, this interchange is used increasingly for freight transport and is attractive to homeowners, business operators and developers. The issues of safety and congestion, combined with existing and anticipated growth within the region have driven the need to consider transportation improvements. Multiple studies of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange were conducted between 2003 and 2012. A summary of these studies are provided in the Introduction/ Background section. The most recent feasibility study conducted by ODOT was completed August 2012 that reached the following conclusions:

> Upgrading the existing interchange is not a feasible alternative to meet future traffic demand.

> A new interchange located south of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange would effectively serve the high percentage of traffic originating from and destined to the south on I-71.

> A new southern interchange must be configured to divert sufficient traffic from the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange by taking into consideration tie-in points, through road orientation, operating speed and intersection and signal spacing

The current feasibility study (Part 2) advances the project development process started with the August 2012 study to identify a recommended interchange configuration. PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to improve the throughput of US-36/SR-37 in the area of the I-71 and US-36/SR-37 interchange while protecting the safety and operation of I-71. The purpose of this project is summarized in the following three key elements.

> Increase capacity and enhance the operation of US-36/SR-37 through the interchange while, at minimum, maintaining the operation of I-71.

> Address safety issues that are expected to develop at US-36/SR-37 interchange by the design year (2032).

> Support future growth in Delaware County as intended by the current land use and economic development plans.

ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives were evaluated during this feasibility study and are summarized below.

> Alternative 1: No Build. The No Build scenario assumes that the existing SR-37 interchange is retained in its current condition.

> Alternative 2: Single Interchange. This alternative considers a new stand-alone interchange constructed south of the existing US-36/ SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

interchange removed. It is assumed that the existing bridge on US-36/SR-37 across I-71 would remain and continue to provide a through route between Delaware and Sunbury with no direct access to I-71.

> Alternative 3: Combined Interchange – Parclo B. Alternative 3 considers a new interchange constructed 4,300 feet south of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing interchange integrated into the new interchange to form a combined interchange.

> Alternative 4: Combined interchange – Parclo A. Alternative 4 considers a new interchange constructed 3,700 feet south of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing interchange integrated into the new interchange to form a combined interchange.

STUDY PROCESS To help guide the Feasibility Study, to facilitate open, meaningful and positive dialog, to keep a balance of values, and to carry out Path 4 of the ODOT Project Development Process, a working group was organized that was comprised of specialists and stakeholders. The process of this study involved collaborative involvement of the working group and included evaluating new and existing supplemental data with the goal of identifying and evaluating feasible alternatives. Nine criteria were developed to evaluate the various alternatives. The criteria were selected to reflect the project purpose and need as well as the goals and objectives of project stakeholders. The primary criteria are listed below:

> Protect I-71 capacity

> Improve US-36/SR-37 safety and operations

> Support existing development

> Support planned development

FINDINGS The following are the key findings resulting from the current Feasibility Study.

> Protects the capacity of I-71 – Alternative 4 (Parclo A configuration) maintains or improves levels of service for mainline and ramp elements compared to the No Build alternative.

> Improving arterial operations - Two entrance ramps to southbound I-71 from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway reduces the potential for queues extending through adjacent intersections on the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway corridor. A key advantage to Alternative 4 is that the directional loop ramp for the westbound to southbound movement does not require ramp metering.

> Accommodates existing and planned development – The Parclo A configuration constructs the loop ramp within the existing pond on the west side of I-71 which currently is not conducive to development in its current state. The loop ramp in the northwest quadrant impacts less desirable property for development.

Secondary criteria related to project costs also favor Alternative 4 (Parclo A). Total construction cost of $84 million is less than Alternative 3 (Parclo B). The roadway length for Alternative 4 is shorter due to the reduced distance from the existing SR-37 corridor. Future field studies and preliminary design will be required to determine the preferred alternative.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study serves as the second phase of feasibility study for the Interstate 71 (I-71) and SR-37 interchange in Delaware County, Ohio. The purpose of this feasibility study is to identify a recommended interchange alternative. This study has been developed through collaboration with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Delaware County Engineer’s Office (DCEO) in accordance with the ODOT Project Development Process (PDP). BACKGROUND Delaware County is located directly north of the city of Columbus, Ohio and is considered the fastest growing county in the state of Ohio with a 58.4 percent increase in population between the years 2000 and 2010. An interchange on I-71 at US-36/SR-37 constructed over 40 years ago provides the only point of interstate access for the central and northern portions of Delaware County and is the only interchange along a 22 mile section of I-71 between Polaris Parkway and State Route 61 near Marengo, Ohio. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 1.

PREVIOUS STUDIES Multiple studies of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange were conducted between 2003 and 2012. Each study emphasized the issues of safety and congestion in the interchange area and acknowledged the existing development and the growth that is expected to continue in the study area. > March 21, 2003 – DEL-36-17.11 Safety Study (conducted by ms Consultants for ODOT

District 6). The study analyzed the high crash rates found in the interchange area and recommended modifications to the lane configurations at the interchange as well as access management strategies to be used along US 36/SR 37. This study emphasized that the recommended solutions were near term only and that “(t)he capacity problems within this corridor are immense. The above recommendation pertaining to the interchange is a temporary solution until a permanent solution is developed.”

> September 27, 2007 – DEL-U.S. 36/S.R. 37-17.11/18.99 (DEL-71-9.67), Safety Study, PID

78910 (conducted by LJB Inc. for ODOT District 6). This study updated the crash analyses previously completed in 2003. The crash analysis conducted as a part of this study identified the need for capacity improvements similar to those recommended in the 2003 safety study. Even with these improvements, capacity issues remained for the design year 2032 volumes. The report contended that a complete interchange reconstruction project would be needed to accommodate the storage requirements for the peak period for the design year.

> December 30, 2008 – Interchange Feasibility Study, I-71 & US 36/SR 37/Northgate Centre Boulevard (conducted by ms Consultants for area developers). The traffic model for the study considered new traffic generated by the retail component of the developer’s proposed Northgate Centre to be built south of the existing interchange. This study explored the potential for increased ramp connections and subsequent traffic diversions from the existing interchange.

> May 6, 2009 – Interchange Feasibility Study, I-71 North of US 36/SR 37 (conducted by EMH&T for area developers). This study focused on options for a new interchange north of and combined with the existing interchange. The traffic model for the study considered new traffic generated by development proposed for areas north of the existing interchange.

> March 16, 2010 - DEL-36-17.11, Interchange Modification Study (IMS), PID 20962 (conducted by ms Consultants for ODOT District 6). This IMS documented the short term safety improvements at the existing interchange which will increase ramp capacity and restripe


an additional lane on the US 36/SR 37 bridge over I-71. These improvements were identified in the 2003 safety study and the 2007 update. FHWA gave conditional approval to the planned modifications, pending ODOT’s commitment to purchase limited access right-of-way at the US 36/SR 37 interchange if it is determined to be part of the long term solution. The IMS was approved on April 28, 2011 and the project was constructed as part of ODOT project DEL-36-17.64, PID 76276.

> August 10, 2010 – Interchange Feasibility Study (conducted by ms Consultants for area developers). This study concluded that a proposed interchange south of the current interchange would divert the most traffic from US 36/SR 37 and provide regional connectivity. The report was submitted to ODOT for review but it was determined that the project should follow ODOT’s Project Development Process (PDP).

The portion of US 36/SR 37 through the I-71 interchange area was ranked #133 on the ODOT 2008 Congestion Listing. US 36/SR 37 on the eastern half of the interchange with I-71 is ranked #35 on ODOT’s Non-freeway Safety Hot Spot List and I-71 at this interchange is ranked #163 on ODOT’s Freeway Safety Hotspot List. This interchange plays a key role in connectivity in the region and it is essential that the interchange operate in a safe and efficient manner to serve the growing transportation needs of the region. The most recent feasibility study (Part 1) was completed in August 2012. The following are the key findings resulting from the Part 1 feasibility study. > Only upgrading the existing interchange is not a feasible alternative to meet future traffic

demands

> A new interchange at a location south of US-36/SR-37 would:

• More effectively balance traffic volumes between the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange and a new interchange.

• Serve the high concentration of traffic with origins and destination to the south on I-71

> Design and operation parameters of a new southern roadway alignment will be critical to diverting traffic from existing US-36/SR-37

• Critical parameters include tie-in points, through road orientation, operating speed and intersection and signal spacing

> A new stand-alone interchange (existing interchange ramps removed) or a combined interchange (new interchange integrated with the existing interchange) are both feasible alternatives that are appropriate to advance to the next decision level for further analysis.

• Analysis supports the feasibility of a correctly designed combined interchange system that would divert enough traffic from US-36/SR-37 so that acceptable operational levels can be achieved at the existing interchange or at a new interchange.

• Improvements to the two-lane section of US-36/SR-37 east of I-71 will be needed regardless of the selection of a stand-alone or combined interchange. The extent of these improvements is dependent upon the selection of a preferred alternative.

> Any improvement will require a balance between protecting the capacity on I-71 with the traffic demand created by existing and future development.

The current feasibility study (Part 2) advances the project development process. Note that throughout this report the new roadway alignment connecting the new interchange is designated as US-36/


Sunbury Parkway and the existing roadway alignment is designated as SR-37 such that the local roadway network is clearly differentiated. The August 2012 Feasibility Study (Part 1) is included in Appendix I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to improve the throughput of US-36/SR-37 in the area of the I-71 and US-36/SR-37 interchange while protecting the safety and operation of I-71. Included in the project purpose are the following three key elements:

> Increase capacity and enhance the operation of US-36/SR-37 through the interchange while, at minimum, maintaining the operation of I-71.

> Address safety issues that are expected to develop at US-36/SR-37 interchange by the design year.

> Support future growth in Delaware County as intended by the current land use and economic development plans.

PROJECT WORKING GROUP A project working group was organized to collaborate on the content of this study. The team included representatives from various government agencies with responsibilities or involvement in funding, infrastructure design, and/or regional economic development. Team representatives also included specialists in the areas of roadway design, traffic engineering, environmental resources, and regional planning.

> ODOT Central Office o Divisions of Planning and Engineering

� Office of Environmental Services � Office of Statewide Planning & Research � Office of Roadway Engineering

> ODOT District 6

o District Deputy Director o Planning & Engineering Administrator

� Planning & Engineering Project Manager � District Environmental Coordinator

> Delaware County Engineer’s Office

> Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

> LJB Inc. STUDY AREA The project study area is denoted by a blue boundary line in Figure 2. The study area limits encompass the US-36/SR-37 corridor from Alum Creek to a point east of Wilson Road and the I-71 corridor from existing US-36/SR-37 to a point 2.4 miles to the south. The study area encapsulates the areas of focus for environmental and roadway elements. The study area is positioned within the region of two planning organizations; the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC) and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the central Ohio area.

ALTERNATIVES 8

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives considered for this study are described below. Note that for the combined interchange alternatives (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4), the new roadway alignment connecting the new interchange is designated US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and the existing roadway alignment is designated as SR-37 to clearly differentiate the local roadways referenced in this study. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD The No Build scenario assumes that the existing SR-37 interchange is retained in its current condition. The No Build scenario was evaluated based on AM and PM design hour volume (DHV) for the 2032 design year. Intersection analyses reflect optimized signal timing and phasing. The No Build condition is shown in Figure 3.

ALTERNATIVE 2: SINGLE INTERCHANGE The August 2012 feasibility study did not analyze the alternative of a new, relocated interchange (existing interchange ramps removed, existing bridge remains). This alternative considers a new stand-alone interchange constructed south of the existing US-36/ SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing interchange removed. It is assumed that the existing bridge on US-36/SR-37 across I-71 would remain and continue to provide a through route between Delaware and Sunbury with no direct access to I-71.

ALTERNATIVE 3: COMBINED INTERCHANGE – PARCLO B The August 2012 feasibility study did not analyze the alternative of a combined interchange (existing interchange integrated with new interchange). Alternative 3 considers a new interchange constructed 4,300 feet south of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing interchange integrated into the new interchange to form a combined interchange. In this alternative, access to local roadway network would be provided at two locations – the existing SR-37 interchange and a new interchange to the south at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. Alternative 3 features the elements described below and shown conceptually in Figure 4. Detailed capacity analyses were conducted for this alternative.

> The new interchange at US 36/Sunbury Parkway is a Parclo B configuration having a directional loop ramp in the northeast quadrant. Northbound traffic exiting IR-71 with destinations to the city of Delaware via westbound US-36/Sunbury Parkway would use the directional loop ramp. The directional loop ramp (NB IR-71 exit) and the diagonal ramp (NB IR-71 entrance) in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange were located to avoid pending development. The 4,300 ft distance between the proposed interchange and the existing interchange at SR-37 is considered to be minimum interchange spacing for Alternative 3.

> Separate, single lane diagonal ramps merge with southbound I-71 from the US-37 interchange and from the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange. Ramp metering is required at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entrance ramp.

> A partial (two phase) traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/Sunbury Parkway and I-71 entrance ramp – only westbound left turn and eastbound traffic is controlled by the traffic signal. Westbound through traffic is not controlled by the traffic signal.

> A partial (two phase) traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/Sunbury Parkway and I-71 exit ramp – only northbound right turn and eastbound traffic is controlled by the traffic signal. Westbound through traffic is not controlled by the traffic signal.

ALTERNATIVES 9

> The total roadway length within the study area is about 11,000 feet. The west terminus is located where US-36/Sunbury Parkway connects to existing US-36/SR-37 near the Alum Creek reservoir.

The local roadway network has access to and from I-71 at both the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange and the existing SR-37 interchange with the exception of SB I-71 to US-36/Sunbury Parkway. Southbound traffic destine to the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange will be required to use the local roadway network. Despite the lack of direct access from southbound I-71 to the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange, the proposed configuration of the existing SR-37 interchange meets the eight policy requirements defined by FHWA, in particular, that an interchange provides for all traffic movements. Both the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange and the existing SR-37 interchange provide full traffic movements to/from northbound I-71.

ALTERNATIVE 4: COMBINED INTERCHANGE – PARCLO A The August 2012 feasibility study did not analyze the alternative of a combined interchange (existing interchange integrated with new interchange). Alternative 4 considers a new interchange constructed 3,700 feet south of the existing US-36/SR-37 interchange with ramps at the existing interchange integrated into the new interchange to form a combined interchange. In this alternative, access to local roadway network would be provided at two locations – the existing SR-37 interchange and a new interchange to the south at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. Eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway traffic destine to northbound I-71 are routed to a U-turn 1,600 feet east of the northbound I-71 exit ramp. Alternative 4 consists of a combined interchange design that retains the ramps at the existing SR-37 interchange. Alternative 4 features the elements described below and shown conceptually in Figure 5. Detailed capacity analysis was conducted for this alternative.

Design elements of the new interchange are based on Section 500 of the ODOT L&D manual and are summarized as follows:

> The new interchange at US-36/Sunbury Parkway is a Parclo A configuration having a directional loop ramp in the northwest quadrant. Westbound traffic exiting US-36/ Sunbury Parkway destine to the city of Columbus would use the directional loop ramp that merges with southbound I-71.

> Westbound traffic on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entering southbound I-71 would access a collector roadway parallel to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway.

> Separate, single lane ramps (3 total) merge with southbound I-71 from the US-37 interchange (one ramp) and from the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange (2 ramps). The distance between the two entrance ramps exceed 1,000 feet. Ramp metering is required at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entrance ramps (diagonal ramp).

> One diagonal ramp from the I-71 C-D road provides access to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. A two phase traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71 exit ramp intersection.

> The diagonal ramp (NB IR-71 entrance) in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange was located to avoid pending development. The 3,700 ft distance between the proposed interchange and the existing interchange at SR-37 is considered to be minimum interchange spacing for Alternative 4. Note the distance to the existing SR-37 interchange is closer for

ALTERNATIVES 10

Alternative 4 due to the absence of the directional loop ramp in the northeast quadrant – the same quadrant with the pending development constraint.

The local roadway network has access to and from I-71 at both the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange and the existing SR-37 interchange with the exception of SB I-71 to US-36/Sunbury Parkway. Southbound traffic destine to the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange will be required to use the local roadway network. Despite the lack of direct access from southbound I-71 to the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange, the proposed configuration of the existing SR-37 interchange meets the eight policy requirements defined by FHWA, in particular, that an interchange provides for all traffic movements. Both the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange and the existing SR-37 interchange provide full traffic movements to/from northbound I-71. Eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway traffic destine to northbound I-71 are routed to a U-turn east of the interchange.

COMBINED INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS -- GENERAL Key features common to the combined interchange alternatives of 3 and 4 include the following:

> Southbound I-71 traffic is only able to exit to the SR-37 interchange. No direct access is provided to the new US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange from traffic originating from the north. This is a low volume movement (1,090 vehicles per day) that can be accommodated using signing via the surface street network. Southbound exiting volumes from I-71 to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway were reassigned to SR-37 for the purposes of analyses conducted as part of this study.

> Traffic on US-36/Sunbury Parkway with northern destinations would access the collector-distributor roadway and be routed to the US-37 interchange before proceeding north on I-71. Traffic destined to northbound I-71 from US-36/Sunbury Parkway combine to serve less than 1,000 vehicles per day. The directional ramp from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to the collector-distributor roadway parallel to I-71 forms an add lane on the collector-distributor.

> Northbound traffic exiting IR-71 destined to US-36/Sunbury Parkway or to US-37 would access a collector-distributor roadway parallel to IR-71.

> The existing SR-37 interchange configuration (diamond) remains unchanged from the existing condition with the exception of the northbound ramps. The intersection angle of the northbound ramps need to be modified to accommodate through traffic movements originating from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and destined to northbound I-71.

Key factors influencing the feasibility of these combined interchange alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) include the effective diversion of traffic to a new interchange location and local roadway network. The following sections of the feasibility study summarize relevant data and analysis from previous studies and document new information created to advance the feasibility of alternatives. These sections will assess the following factors with respect to the interchange alternatives:

> Traffic analysis

> Roadway

> Right-of-Way

> Utility

> Geotechnical

> Environmental

The Alternatives Comparison section evaluates the various alternatives with consideration to these assessments.

Study Area

Study Area

Study Area

Stud

y Are

a

0 500 1,000 Feet

Aerial Imagery: Delaware County 2013

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO BUILDDEL-71-7.91 Feasibility Study Part 2>Figure 3

Improving the quality of life.TM

S THREE B'S & K RD

CHESHIRE RD

AFRICA RD

WILSON RDSHERMAN RD

N THREE B'S & K RD

STAT

E ROU

TE 37

INTERSTATE 71

INTERSTATE 71

FALL

ING

MEAD

OWS D

R

MEADOWSHIRE RD

BAY HARBOR DR

SOMERFORD DR

BROX

TON

LN

CHES

HIRE

RD

Study AreaLEGEND

Study Area

Study Area

Study Area

Stud

y Are

a

0 500 1,000 Feet


ALTERNATIVE 3 - PARCLO B (08/25/14) - 4,300' SPACING - CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTDEL-71-7.91 Feasibility Study Part 2>Figure 4


S THREE B'S & K RD

CHESHIRE RD

AFRICA RD

WILSON RDSHERMAN RD

N THREE B'S & K RD

STAT

E ROU

TE 37

INTERSTATE 71

INTERSTATE 71

FALL

ING

MEAD

OWS D

R

MEADOWSHIRE RD

BAY HARBOR DR

SOMERFORD DR

BROX

TON

LN

CHES

HIRE

RD

Sunbury Parkway/US 36

Sunb

ury P

arkw

ay/U

S 36

Right Of WayPavement AreaStudy Area

LEGEND

Wilson Rd Extension

Study Area

Study Area

Study Area

Stud

y Are

a

0 500 1,000 Feet


ALTERNATIVE 4 - PARCLO A (08/25/14) - 3,700' SPACING - CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTDEL-71-7.91 Feasibility Study Part 2>Figure 5


S THREE B'S & K RD

CHESHIRE RD

AFRICA RD

WILSON RDSHERMAN RD

N THREE B'S & K RD

STAT

E ROU

TE 37

INTERSTATE 71

INTERSTATE 71

FALL

ING

MEAD

OWS D

R

MEADOWSHIRE RD

BAY HARBOR DR

SOMERFORD DR

BROX

TON

LN

CHES

HIRE

RD

Sunbury Parkway/US 36

Sunb

ury P

arkwa

y/US 3

6

Right Of WayPavement AreaStudy Area

LEGEND

Wilson Rd Extension

DEL-71-7.91 FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 – ODOT DISTRICT 6

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 14

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

TRAFFIC DATA Traffic analyses for No Build and Build alternatives were evaluated based on design year 2032 AM and PM peak hour traffic projections provided by ODOT. The Office of Statewide Planning and Research has determined that the year 2012/2032 ADT and AM design hour volumes (DHV) and PM DHV turning movements for the I-71 at US-36/SR-37 interchange are current for years 2018/2038. This determination had been made as growth in the area has occurred much slower than originally forecast, and the new land development densities are lower than was forecast in year 2008. All references to the design year in the capacity analysis will be for 2032 although the conclusions are applicable to design year 2038. Design year 2032 traffic volumes were obtained from the following ODOT certified traffic documents referenced below. Note that all traffic modeling is based on a new east/west alignment (Sunbury Parkway/US-36) extending from Alum Creek east to Sunbury. Redistribution of traffic volumes from past volume plates was necessary to reflect travel patterns associated with the northbound CD roadway as well as the displaced movements from southbound I-71 to Sunbury Parkway. Volume distribution calculations are included in Appendix A in addition to copies of the referenced certified traffic volume plates.

> No Build: No Build volumes were obtained from an ODOT IOC dated August 7, 2009. No Build reflects the existing interchange at US-36/ SR-37 and do not include interchanges at Sunbury Parkway or at Big Walnut Road. These No Build volumes were used in the interchange modification study for the safety improvements at the I-71 and SR-37 interchange (PID 20962). Note that the July 31, 2009 date of the No Build volume plates does not match the accompanying IOC cover letter dated August 7, 2009.

> Build Alternative 2 – Single Interchange: Build volumes for the Single Interchange alternative were obtained from an ODOT IOC dated February 29, 2012 and are referenced as Alternative 10 in the IOC. These Build volumes reflect the removal of the existing interchange ramps at SR-37 and the construction of a new single interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway.

> Build Alternatives 3 & 4 – Combined Interchange: Build volumes were obtained from an ODOT IOC dated February 29, 2012 and are referenced as Alternative 9 which reflects two closely spaced interchanges – one at existing SR-37 and one at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. These Build volumes were assigned to the proposed roadway network to be consistent with the combined interchange alternatives evaluated in this report (Alternatives 3 and 4).

The most critical factor in the successful implementation of the Build alternatives is the ability to divert sufficient traffic away from the existing US 36/SR 37 corridor. The benefit of the Build alternatives is expected to be maximized with traffic signals spaced at a minimum of ¼ mile apart (1/2 mile preferred). CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analyses were performed to evaluate the No Build and Build conditions based on traffic certified for the 2032 design year. Analyses were conducted using the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies unless otherwise noted. Results are presented and discussed in the following sections. Schematic layouts for the No Build, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 are shown in Figures 6

through 8 including design year volumes, proposed lane conditions and analysis locations. Capacity analysis output reports are provided in Appendix B, C and D.

> Basic freeway section analysis (directional)


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 15

• I-71 north of SR-37

• I-71 between the SR-37 ramps

• I-71 between SR-37 and US-36/ Sunbury Parkway ramps

• I-71 south of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway

• Northbound C-D road

> Ramp merge analysis

• I-71 NB entrance from SR-37 (No Build and Build)

• I-71 SB entrance from SR-37 (No Build and Build)

• I-71 SB entrance from US-36/Sunbury Parkway (Build)

> Ramp diverge analysis

• I-71 NB exit to SR-37 (No Build)

• I-71 NB exit to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and SR-37 (Build)

• I-71 SB exit to SR-37 (No Build and Build)

> Ramp roadway analysis (for C-D roadway capacity)

• Northbound C-D road between US-36/ Sunbury Parkway ramps (Alternative 4) (R1)

• Northbound C-D road exit to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway (Alternative 3 & 4) (R2)

• Northbound C-D road exit to WB US-36/ Sunbury Parkway - loop ramp (Alt 3) (R4)

• Northbound C-D road south of SR-37 (Alternative 3 & 4) (R5)

• Southbound entrance ramp (loop) from westbound US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy (Alt 4) (R6)

• Southbound entrance ramp from eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy (Alt 3 & 4) (R7)

> Signalized intersection analysis

• SR-37 at I-71 SB ramps (No Build and Build)

• SR-37 at I-71 NB ramps (No Build and Build)

• US-36/ Sunbury Parkway at I-71 SB ramps (Build)

• US-36/ Sunbury Parkway at I-71 NB ramps (Build)

A single, southern interchange alternative (Alternative 2) in the design year results in traffic volumes that would justify either directional (fly over) ramps, multiple loop ramps, or standard ramps with six or more lanes. Design volumes were evaluated for the ramp terminal intersection of a single point interchange (SPUI) design to ascertain an approximate footprint that would be needed for this type of design. Level of service F with a volume-to-capacity ratio of nearly 2.0 was calculated with a design that included a six-lane, northbound exit ramp and an eight-lane section across the bridge. CONSTRAINED VOLUME ANALYSIS Constraints at the signalized ramp intersections on SR-37 restrict the ability of demand volume to access mainline I-71 in the southbound and northbound directions. Constrained volumes summarized below are reflected in the freeway section and ramp merge/diverge analyses detailed in the following sections. Constrained volumes are denoted with red text on Figures 6 through 8 and in the capacity analysis tables. Detailed constrained volume calculations are found under a subheading in the respective appendix section for the capacity analyses.


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 16

Northbound constrained volumes

> No Build – AM Peak Hour: NB Entering I-71 from SR-37: In the No Build AM condition, the volume of traffic entering NB IR-71 is constrained by the traffic signal on SR-37 at the NB ramp intersection.

• Northbound AM Full demand volume: 910

• Northbound AM Constrained volume: 203

• Northbound AM Analysis volume: 707

> No Build – PM Peak Hour: NB Entering I-71 from SR-37: In the No Build PM condition, the volume of traffic entering NB I-71 is constrained by the traffic signal on SR-37 at the NB ramp intersection.

• Northbound PM Full demand volume: 770

• Northbound PM Constrained volume: 152

• Northbound PM Analysis volume: 618 Southbound constrained volumes

> No Build AM Peak Hour - SB Entering I-71 from SR-37: In the No Build AM condition, the volume of traffic entering SB I-71 is constrained by the traffic signal on SR-37 at the SB ramp intersection.

• Southbound AM Full demand volume: 3,810

• Southbound AM Constrained volume: 1,590

• Southbound AM Analysis volume: 2,220

> Build AM Peak Hour - SB Entering IR-71 from SR-37: In the Build AM condition, the volume of traffic entering SB I-71 is constrained by the traffic signal on SR-37 at the SB ramp intersection. This also applies to both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4

• Southbound AM Full demand volume: 1,710

• Southbound AM Constrained volume: 63

• Southbound AM Analysis volume: 1,647

> No Build PM Peak Hour - SB Entering IR-71 from SR-37: In the No Build PM condition, the volume of traffic entering SB I-71 is constrained by the traffic signal on SR-37 at the SB ramp intersection.

• Southbound PM Full demand volume: 1,400

• Southbound PM Constrained volume: 226

• Southbound PM Analysis volume: 1,174 Constrained conditions documented at the existing SR-37 interchange determined that a new diamond interchange at an alternate southern location as defined by Alternative 2 would not provide the needed capacity to accommodate design year volumes. Congestion on the local roadway network caused by capacity constraints on I-71 south of the interchange would result in queues extending through adjacent intersections and cause the new interchange to fail. The Capacity Analysis section determined that Alternative 2 is not a viable alternative based on the system level interchange configuration needed to accommodate design year volumes. Even if a system level interchange could accommodate design year traffic volumes, the constrained volumes would require ramp metering which is not compatible with a system level interchange configuration.


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 17

BASIC FREEWAY SECTION ANALYSIS Highway Capacity Software (HCS2010) was utilized to evaluate freeway sections of mainline I-71. Results are summarized in Table 1. The number of lanes on mainline I-71 remains the same for the No Build and Build conditions. Demand volumes on the mainline vary depending on constraints of the signalized ramp intersections, as described in the proceeding section.

The section of I-71 south of SR-37 is LOS C in the AM No Build condition, with demand volumes constrained by the SR-37 ramp intersections. In the Build condition, with volumes constrained by the SR-37 ramp intersections, the freeway segment south of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is degraded to LOS E. To achieve mainline LOS D on I-71 south of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway, the volume of traffic entering SB I-71 from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway must be constrained by 212 vehicles per hour. This volume constraint was applied to the eastbound to southbound directional entrance ramp in both Alternative 3 and 4.

The northbound collector-distributor (C-D) road parallel to I-71 and connecting the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and the SR-37 interchanges was evaluated as a basic freeway section for the two combined interchange alternatives. The section of the C-D road between I-71 and the directional exit ramp to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is proposed as a two-lane section for both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4; this segment therefore was evaluated as a freeway section.

In Alternative 3, the C-D road is proposed as a two-lane facility between the directional exit ramp to eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and the westbound loop ramp to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway; this segment therefore was evaluated as a freeway section. RAMP ANALYSIS Highway Capacity Software (HCS2010) software was utilized to evaluate the following ramp condition. Results are summarized in Table 2 and 3.

> Standard ramp merges

> Standard ramp diverges

> Major diverge

> Ramp roadways Merge Analysis Merge points operate with acceptable levels of service with the following exceptions:

> In Alternative 3, all traffic entering SB I-71 from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway uses a single lane ramp. As a single lane entrance, LOS E is expected with the only constraint being from the upstream link of I-71 (resulting from the ramp signals on SR-37). However, metering the SB entrance ramp by 212 vehicles per hour (VPH) provides the constraint needed for LOS D on mainline I-71 south of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway which also reduces the merging volume to attain LOS D for the southbound merge. In summary, metering the SB entrance ramp from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway by 212 VPH enables an acceptable level of service for the mainline segment and the merge.

> In Alternative 4, traffic entering SB I-71 from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway uses two, single lane entrance ramps. For this alternative, ramp metering is not needed to attain acceptable levels of service for the SB merge. However, ramp metering of the east to south diagonal ramp is still needed to constrain traffic entering mainline I-71 to obtain an acceptable LOS D.

The Capacity Analysis section determined that Alternative 2 is not a viable alternative based on the system level interchange configuration needed to accommodate design year volumes.


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 18

TABLE 1: LOS SUMMARY FOR BASIC FREEWAY SECTIONS

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

AM

PM

Alphanumeric values represent level of service, Numeric values represent density in pc/lane/mile

Values shown in red denoted constrained volumes1 Volume constrained by the upstream link of IR-71 only - results in mainline LOS E2 Volume constrained by the upstream link of IR-71 and the max mainline volume of 5465 vph for mainline LOS D. Requires constraining212 vph during AM peak

B / 15.9 C / 18.0

Direction Section of I-712032 2032

Alt 1: No Build Alt 3: Combined Interchange

Time

Period

SB

CD Road

South of Sunbury

I-71

South of Sunbury

I-71

Between ramps

I-71

Between ramps

I-71

North of SR 37

I-71

South of SR 37 ramps

I-71

South of Sunbury

I-71

Between Sunbury ramps

NB

I-71

North of SR 37

B / 15.0 B / 16.6

B / 12.1

A / 9.8

B / 15.2

A / 10.9

C / 24.1

C / 19.8 C / 20.9

D / 26.0

-

-

C / 20.8

C / 21.1 C / 22.5

B / 13.3

C / 19.7

D / 32.8

E / 37.5 1

D / 35.0 2C / 24.3

B / 11.3

B / 15.2

A / 10.8

- C / 20.0

- B / 16.6

B / 14.4

- -

- -

F / 62.7 F / 57.7

CD Road

Between Sunbury ramps

- A / 6.8

- C / 21.6

N/A (Single Lane CD Road)

N/A (Single Lane CD Road)

2032

Alt 4: Combined Interchange

B / 16.6

D / 26.0

B / 12.1

E / 37.5 1

D / 35.0 2

C / 22.5

B / 13.3

C / 20.0

B / 16.6

D / 26.4

C / 19.6

A / 9.8

D / 32.8

B / 15.2

C / 19.7

A / 10.8

C / 20.9

C / 18.0

F / 57.7


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 19

TABLE 2: LOS SUMMARY FOR RAMP MERGE

Time 2032 2032 2032

Period Alt 1: No Build Alt 3: Combined Interchange Alt 4: Combined Interchange

AM B / 17.5 B / 19.9 (1 lane) B / 19.9 (1 lane)

PM C / 25.5 D / 28.5 (1 lane) D / 28.5 (1 lane)

AM D/29.9 C / 24.8 (1 lane) C / 24.8 (1 lane)

PM C / 24.4 B / 18.6 (1 lane) B / 18.6 (1 lane)

AM N/AE / 35.8 (1 lane) 3

D / 34.1 (1 lane) 4N/A

PM N/A C / 21.4 (1 lane) N/A

AM N/A N/A C / 23.7 (1 lane) 3

PM N/A N/A B / 17.2 (1 lane)

AM N/A N/AD / 33.2 (1 lane) 3

D / 31.5 (1 lane) 4

PM N/A N/A B / 19.9 (1 lane)

Numerical values underneath LOS letter grade represent density in pc/lane/mile

Volumes shown in red are constrained volumes.3 Constrained by the upstream link volulme of IR-71 only4 Ramp volume constrained (metered) by 212 vph for mainline LOS D (max mainline volume 5465 vph)

I-71 SB Entrance

From EB Sunbury Parkway

I-71 NB Entrance

From SR-37

I-71 SB Entrance

From SR-37

Merge

I-71 SB Entrance

From WB Sunbury Parkway

I-71 SB Entrance

From Sunbury Parkway


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 20

TABLE 3: LOS SUMMARY FOR RAMP DIVERGE

Time 2032 2032 2032

Period No Build Alt 3: Combined Interchange Alt 4: Combined Interchange

AM B / 16.9 N/A N/A

PM F / 42.8 N/A N/A

AM N/A B / 15.4 (2 lane) B / 15.4 (2 lane)

PM N/A E / 36.4 (2 lane) E / 36.4 (2 lane)

AM B / 16.1 B / 16.3 (1 lane) B / 16.3 (1 lane)

PM C / 22.4 C / 21.5 (1 lane) C / 21.5 (1 lane)

Numerical values underneath LOS letter grade represent density in pc/lane/mile

Volumes shown in red are constrained volumes.

Diverge

I-71 SB Exit to SR-37

(Standard Diverge)

I-71 NB Exit to SR-37

(Standard Diverge)

I-71 NB Exit to Sunbury Parkway

(Major Diverge)


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 21

Diverge Analysis Diverge points operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the I-71 NB exit movement (diverge). In the No Build alternative, the I-71 NB exit to SR-37 is LOS F with density of 42.8 for the PM peak hour. In the Build alternatives, the diverge movement to SR-37 is replaced by a diverge movement to the NB C-D road providing access to Sunbury Parkway and to SR-37. A 2-lane diverge is proposed from NB I-71 to the C-D road in both Alternative 3 and 4. The deceleration length of both diverging lanes exceeds 1,500 feet which is beyond the influence area of the diverge point. Coding both deceleration lanes with the maximum length of 1,500 feet in the HCS2010 software module results in a negative density value. Hence, the 2-lane NB diverge was evaluated using two methods:

> Evaluation method #1 - major diverge area: This method evaluates the diverge as a “major diverge.” Exhibit 13-19b of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual shows a “Major Diverge Area with Lane Additional” which matches the conditions proposed at the I-71 NB diverge to the CD road. This condition applies since the deceleration lengths exceed the 1,500 feet of the diverge influence area, as defined in the HCM. Equation 13-26 calculates the density in the major diverge influence area based on flow rate upstream of the major diverge and number of lane approaching the major diverge.

DMD = 0.0175 * (vf/N) Equation 13-26

DMD = density in the major diverge influence area (including all approaching freeway lanes) Vr = demand flow rate immediately upstream of the major diverge N = number of lanes approaching the major diverge

This method results in LOS E for the NB diverge to the C-D road in the PM peak hour which is an improvement over the No Build condition (LOS F).

> Evaluation method #2: Basic freeway section: This method evaluates the diverging lanes as a basic freeway section. Since the diverging lanes become the C-D road lanes, as design speed of 65 MPH was used. This method results in LOS D for the NB diverge to the C-D road in the PM peak hour.

Ramp Roadway Analysis Most of the proposed ramps to/from I-71 and the NB C-D road were evaluated as ramp roadways to verify the number of lanes needed on each ramp. Ramp capacity was determined by comparing the ramp demand volume to the ramp roadway capacity from Exhibit 13-10 of HCM 2010 to calculate a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for the ramp. Ramp roadway capacities are summarized in Table 4.

Ramp capacity results are summarized in Table 5. LOS values are not provided for ramp roadways. V/C ratios less than 1.0 indicate under-capacity conditions for the specified number of lanes. Single lane ramps provide sufficient capacity with the following exceptions:

> Alternative 4 - NB C-D road exit to US-36/Sunbury Parkway: The exit ramp to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway from the NB C-D road is proposed as a 2-lane ramp. The demand volume of 2,110 is slightly greater than the 2,000 vph capacity of a single lane ramp. A 2-lane ramp provides the flexibility needed should demand volumes exceed the projected. This exit ramp will develop into 4 lanes at the ramp intersection which is better served by a two lane ramp.

> Alternative 3 – I-71 SB entrance ramp from US-36/Sunbury Parkway: The demand volume is 2,070 vehicles per hour to enter I-71 SB from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. In Alternative 3, this volume is served by a single entrance ramp. While metering is expected on this ramp to constrain traffic entering mainline I-71 during the AM peak hour, a single lane ramp provides enough capacity to handle the ramp demand volume. The SB entrance ramp therefore is shown as a single lane ramp at the merge point with I-71.


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 22

TABLE 4: RAMP ROADWAY CAPACITY

TABLE 5: LOS SUMMARY FOR RAMP ROADWAYS

Design Speed Single-Lane Two-Lane

>50 2200 4400

>40-50 2100 4200

>30-40 2000 4000

>=20-30 1900 3800

Label Ramp Location Alternative

No. of

Lanes

Ramp

Free Flow

Speed Time

Ramp

Vol

(pc/hr)

Ramp

Capacity

(pc/hr) V/C ratio

Under or Over

Capacity? Notes

AM 270 2200 0.12 Under Capacity

PM 1450 2200 0.66 Under Capacity















Ramp

Roadway

Ramp

Roadway

Multi-lane

HighwayR1 NB CD Road between Sunbury exit ramps 4 1 65 mph

R2 NB CD Road exit to Sunbury

4 2 40 mph

13 40 mph

Ramp

Roadway30 mphNB CD Road loop exit to WB SunburyR4 3 1

Multi-lane

Highway65 mph1

R6 SB loop entrance from WB Sunbury 4

NB CD Road south of SR-37R5 3 & 4

4 1 55 mph

Ramp

Roadway1 30 mph

Ramp

Roadway

Ramp

Roadway

R7SB entrance from Sunbury Parkway

(EB& WB for ALT 3, EB only for ALT 4)

3 1 55 mph


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 23

Signalized Intersection Analysis Signalized intersection capacity was evaluated with the assistance of Synchro Traffic Signal Simulation Software (version 8). Output was generated based on HCM2010 algorithms when possible. Synchro is not able to provide HCM2010 output for certain conditions such as non-standard phasing. HCM2000 output was used in this those cases. Analyses were conducted for No Build, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 based on lane configuration shown in Figures 6 through 8.

Results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7. Results presented in the tables include level of service (LOS) and delay by approach and for the overall intersection. Critical approach delays are balanced per ODOT methodology.

> SR-37 and I-71 SB Ramps: This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours for the No Build condition with no changes to the existing condition. In the Build condition with a new interchange at US-36/Sunbury Parkway, improved conditions are expected with no changes to the existing lane conditions. While operating conditions are expected to improve as a result of redistribution of traffic to the new interchange, this existing intersection will continue to constrain traffic entering I-71 SB.

> SR-37 and I-71 NB Ramps: This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours for the No Build condition with existing lane conditions. In the Build condition with a new interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway, improved conditions are expected with no changes to the existing lane conditions. While operating conditions are expected to improve as a result of redistribution of traffic to the new interchange, this existing intersection will continue to constrain traffic entering I-71 SB.

> US-36/Sunbury Parkway and I-71 NB Ramp: The NB ramp intersection on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is expected to operate at LOS D or better for all movements for Alternative 3 and 4. In Alternative 3, two-phase operation controls the eastbound through movement and the northbound right-turn movement. Westbound through traffic does not stop. An eastbound left turn movement is provided at this intersection but is not intended to be controlled by the signal. In Alternative 4, two-phase operation controls the eastbound and westbound through movements and the northbound left and right turn movements. While this is a two-phase signal, it differs from Alternative 3 in that it serves crossing movements from the side street (i.e. northbound left turns from the exit ramp)

Both alternatives have movements with v/c ratios greater than 0.90, including the eastbound through movement and the northbound movements which suggests that there is not a surplus of capacity at this intersection to handle demand volumes greater than projected by the certified traffic. V/C ratios greater than 1.0 at the NB ramp intersection may result in queue spillback onto mainline I-71. Queue lengths of the NB exit ramp are projected between 250 and 500 feet per lane which can be stored on the exit ramp.

> US-36/Sunbury Parkway and I-71 SB Ramp: The SB ramp intersection on Sunbury Parkway/US-36 is expected to operate at LOS B or better in Alternative 3. The queue length for the westbound left turn movement on US-36/Sunbury Parkway to southbound I-71 is projected at less than 250 feet per lane. The available storage length is 500 feet per lane. This intersection is not signalized for Alternative 4.


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 24

TABLE 6: LOS SUMMARY – SR 37 RAMP SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

EB

APPOACH

WB

APPROACH

NB

APPROACH

SB

APPROACHINTERSECTION

Numerical values represent delay in seconds per vehicle

EB

APPOACH

WB

APPROACH

NB

APPROACH

SB



E / 59.1 E / 57.3 - D / 53.3

E / 67.7 - D / 38.6

F / 154.5 F / 186.5 - F / 176.6

D / 44.7

SR 37 @ I-71 NB Ramps

(Existing Interchange)

F / 105.6 F / 148.6 F / 150.2 - F / 135.22032 AM No Build

2032 AM Build

(Alt 3 & Alt 4)

2032 PM No Build

2032 PM Build

(Alt 3 & Alt 4)

C / 27.2

F / 187.2

D / 43.5

D / 43.9 -

2032 PM No Build F / 134.8 F / 185.1 -

2032 PM Build

(Alt 3 & Alt 4)C / 31.1 D / 39.3

F / 180.3 F / 165.7

D / 42.0

E / 71.72032 AM Build

(Alt 3 & Alt 4)E / 62.2

SR-37 @ I-71 SB Ramps

(Existing Interchange)

2032 AM No Build F / 296.8 F / 258.9 - F / 293.8 F / 280.1

F / 82.2 - F / 81.5


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 25

TABLE 7: LOS SUMMARY – US-36/SUNBURY PARKWAY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

EB

APPOACH

WB

APPROACH

NB

APPROACH

SB



EB

APPOACH

WB

APPROACH

NB

APPROACH

SB



B / 17.3

2032 AM Build ALT 4

- A / 5.3

Sunbury Parkway/US-36 @ I-71 NB Ramps

2032 PM Build ALT 3 B / 12.2 A / 7.6 -

2032 AM Build ALT 4 A / 6.2 A / 8.3 D / 37.9 -

- A / 9.7

D / 35.4

2032 AM Build ALT 3 B / 12.9 A / 0.3 C / 22.5

2032 PM Build ALT 3 D / 41.4 A / 0.2 D /45.4

2032 PM Build ALT 4 D / 41.0 B / 18.6 D / 38.4 -

- C / 26.8

2032 PM Build ALT 4

B / 12.4

Sunbury Parkway/US-36 @ I-71 SB Ramps

2032 AM Build ALT 3 B / 117.9 A / 8.7 - -

Free operation

Free operation


ROADWAY ASSESSMENT 29

ROADWAY ASSESSMENT

The existing interchange at US-36/SR-37 provides regional access to I-71 for the city of Delaware and village of Sunbury as well as surrounding communities due in part to the extended spacing (10 miles) between the interchanges at Gemini Parkway/Polaris Parkway to the south and SR-61 to the north. The existing roadways within the study area meet nominal design criteria as defined by the ODOT L&D manual. Several operational deficiencies were documented for the existing conditions and are to be mitigated with the recommended alternative:

> Capacity: Intersection, ramp, and mainline I-71 capacity constraints result in levels of service less than LOS D.

> Storage lane lengths: Adequate storage lane lengths for turning traffic at the interchange are needed to avoid traffic from blocking through lanes or spillback onto the interstate.

> Access management: Multiple, closely spaced drives contribute to crash frequency on the arterial and freeway network.

> Traffic signal spacing: Queuing through adjacent signals increases congestion on the roadway network.

> Local roadway network: The local roadway network is not sufficient to handle the projected Design Year volumes for the project.

A detailed assessment of the existing roadway network was addressed in the Part 1 Feasibility Study. The following sections focus on the geometric and traffic control elements of the various interchange alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 2 (SINGLE INTERCHANGE) ASSESSMENT Traffic analysis for a new, single interchange located south of US-36/ SR-37 was based on a single point urban interchange (SPUI) configuration. The SPUI is considered to be a high capacity, service level interchange configuration. The analysis further increased capacity of a typical SPUI configuration by increasing the number of lanes on the exit ramp to six (triple left turn lanes and triple right turn lanes) which still resulted in volume to capacity ratios of 2.0.

A system level interchange configuration comprised of directional, grade separated ramps (flyover) would be required to accommodate future traffic volumes at a single interchange. A system level interchange however is not compatible with the signalized arterial of US-36/Sunbury Parkway. A lower speed ramp design of a new interchange would be more compatible with the future US-36/ Sunbury Parkway arterial. Signalized intersections on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway can expect future traffic to stop within a distance less than 1/4 mile from I-71.

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PARCLO B) ASSESSMENT A service level interchange configuration was evaluated to provide access to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71. The new interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is combined with the existing interchange at SR-37 resulting in single exit point (for each direction) on I-71. The new interchange is located 4,300 feet south of the existing SR-37 interchange. Design summary Design elements of the new interchange are based on Section 500 of the ODOT L&D manual and are summarized as follows:

1. The new interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is a Parclo B configuration having a directional loop ramp in the northeast quadrant. Northbound traffic exiting I-71 with



destination in the City of Delaware via westbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway would use the directional loop ramp. The design speed of the loop ramp is 30 miles per hour.

2. Northbound traffic exiting I-71 with destinations on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway or US-37 would access a collector-distributor roadway parallel to I-71. The design speed of the collector-distributor roadway is 60 miles per hour.

3. Traffic on US-36/Sunbury Parkway with northern destinations would access the collector-distributor roadway and be routed to the US-37 interchange before proceeding north on I-71.

4. Southbound I-71 traffic is only able to exit to the SR-37 interchange. No direct access is provided to the new US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange for traffic originating from the north.

5. Separate, single lane ramps merge with southbound I-71 from the US-37 interchange and from the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange. The distance between the two entrance ramps exceeds 1,000 feet. Ramp metering is required at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entrance ramp.

6. A partial (two phase) traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71 entrance ramp – only westbound left turn and eastbound traffic is controlled by the traffic signal.

7. A partial (two phase) traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71 exit ramp – only northbound right turn and eastbound traffic is controlled by the traffic signal.

8. The total roadway length within the study area is about 11,000 feet. The western terminus is located where US-36/ Sunbury Parkway connects to existing US-36/ SR-37 near the Alum Creek reservoir.

9. The existing SR-37 interchange configuration (diamond) remains unchanged from the existing condition with the exception of the northbound ramps. The intersection angle of the northbound ramps need to be modified to accommodate through traffic movements originating from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and destined to northbound I-71.

A concept plan of the proposed interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 9. Plan sheets showing lane configurations are provided in Appendix E. Additional information relating to design designation assumptions for Sunbury Parkway is provided in Appendix E.



FIGURE 9: ALTERNATIVE 3 CONCEPT PLAN

Traffic Control Typical guide, route, and regulatory signs will be used to provide guidance to drivers navigating the proposed interchange configuration. Guide signs specifically on northbound I-71 are important to provide positive guidance where the 2-lane collector-distributor (C-D) roadway diverges from mainline I-71. Figure 10 shows the legend of overhead guide signs on the 2-lane exit ramp of the collector-distributor roadway. Note the design hour volumes in the PM peak period that are destine to the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange are equal to 2,010 vehicles whereas 1,450 vehicles are destine to the US-37 interchange. If design hour volumes exceed the certified traffic projections, a future build out of the C-D road could include the addition of an option lane (I-71 or C-D road) to add more capacity of the diverging ramp: option lane (SR-37), left ramp lane (WB US-36), right ramp lane (EB US-36). FIGURE 10: GUIDE SIGNS OF NB I-71 AT C-D ROAD (ALT 3)



Typical section A roadway section looking east on US-36/Sunbury Parkway at the center of the bridge is shown on Figure 11. Lane widths, median widths, and shoulder widths are based on a design speed of 50 miles per hour. FIGURE 11: ALTERNATIVE 3 TYPICAL SECTION

ALTERNATIVE 4 (PARCLO A) ASSESSMENT A service level interchange configuration was evaluated to provide access of US 36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71. The new interchange at US-36/Sunbury Parkway is combined with the existing interchange at US-36/SR-37 resulting in single access point on I-71. The new interchange is located 3,700 feet south of the existing US-36/ SR-37 interchange. Design summary Design elements of the new interchange are based on Section 500 of the ODOT L&D manual and are summarized as follows:

1. The new interchange at US-36/Sunbury Parkway is a Parclo A configuration having a directional loop ramp in the northwest quadrant.

2. Westbound traffic exiting US-36/ Sunbury Parkway with southern destinations (i.e. Columbus) would use the directional loop ramp that merges with southbound I-71. The design speed of the loop ramp is 35 miles per hour to reduce the acceleration length of the entrance ramp.

3. Westbound traffic on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entering southbound I-71 would access the directional loop ramp from a collector roadway parallel to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. The design speed of the collector- roadway is 40 miles per hour.

4. Westbound traffic on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway with northern destinations (i.e. Cleveland) would access the collector-distributor roadway parallel to I-71 and be routed to the US-37 interchange before proceeding north on I-71. The directional ramp from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to the collector-distributor roadway parallel to I-71 has a design speed of 30 miles per hour which forms an add lane on the I-71 collector-distributor.

5. Eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway traffic with northern destinations on I-71 are routed to a U-turn east of the interchange.

6. Southbound I-71 traffic is only able to exit to the SR-37 interchange. No direct access is provided to the new US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange for traffic originating from the north.

7. Separate, single lane ramps (3 total ramps) merge with southbound I-71 from the US-37 interchange (one ramp) and from the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange (2 ramps). The distance between the two entrance ramps exceed 1,000 feet. Ramp metering is required at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway entrance ramps.



8. One diagonal ramp from the I-71 northbound CD road provides access to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. A two phase traffic signal is proposed at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and I-71 exit ramp.

9. The total roadway length within the study area is about 10,600 feet. The west terminus is located where US-36/ Sunbury Parkway connects to existing US-36/ SR-37 near the Alum Creek reservoir.

10. The existing SR-37 interchange configuration (diamond) remains unchanged from the existing condition with the exception of the northbound ramps. The intersection angle of the northbound ramps need to be modified to accommodate through traffic movements originating from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and destined to northbound I-71.

An overall concept of the proposed interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Parkway for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 12. Plan sheets showing lane configurations are provided in Appendix E. FIGURE 12: ALTERNATIVE 4 CONCEPT PLAN

Traffic Control Typical guide, route, and regulatory signs will be used to provide guidance to drivers navigating the proposed interchange configuration. Guide signs specifically on northbound I-71 are important to provide positive guidance where the 2-lane collector-distributor (C-D) roadway diverges from



mainline I-71. Figure 13 shows the legend of overhead guide signs on the 2-lane exit ramp of the collector-distributor roadway. Note the design hour volumes in the PM peak period that are destined to the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange are equal to 2,010 vehicles whereas 1,450 vehicles are destined to the US-37 interchange. If design hour volumes exceed the certified traffic projections, a future build out of the C-D road could include the addition of an option lane (I-71 or C-D road) to add more capacity of the diverging ramp: option lane (SR-37, left ramp lane (US-36), right ramp lane (US-36). FIGURE 13: GUIDE SIGNS OF NB I-71 AT C-D ROAD (ALT 4)

Typical section A roadway section looking east on US-36/Sunbury Parkway at the center of the bridge is shown on Figure 14. Lane widths, median widths, and shoulder widths are based on a design speed of 50 miles per hour. FIGURE 14: ALTERNATIVE 4 TYPICAL SECTION


STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT 35

STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT Proposed US-36/ Sunbury Parkway Structure Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 both include a new bridge structure to carry US-36/ Sunbury Parkway over I-71. The proposed structures could be either 2-span or 3-span bridges. It is anticipated that stub abutments supported on MSE walls will be utilized to minimize the bridge length. For a 2-span structure, the pier will be located in the median of I-71. For a 3-span structure one pier will be in the I-71 median and the second pier will be located in line with the concrete barrier separating I-71 northbound from the adjacent collector-distributor lanes to the east. The pier type will most likely be cap and column piers. Possible superstructure types include steel beams, plate girders and prestressed concrete I-beams with a composite reinforced concrete deck slab. It is recommended the new bridge be semi-integral in order to eliminate expansion joints at the abutments. Geotechnical soil borings will be required to determine the proximity of rock to the surface which will dictate whether the structure foundations will be driven piles or spread footings.

Existing Cheshire Road Structure The existing Cheshire Road bridge crossing I-71 requires lengthening to the east in both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 to accommodate two additional northbound lanes on I-71. It is anticipated the east shoulder pier adjacent to northbound I-71, the east abutment, and the entire existing deck slab will be removed. A new stub abutment supported on an MSE wall will be constructed immediately east of the new pavement. The eastern ends of the existing steel beams will be removed so that the remaining beam length will span to the new abutment. Additional beam length may need to be removed and new beam section spliced on to be able to structurally span the longer distance. A new deck slab will then be constructed the length of the bridge. The new slab will be made composite with the beams to increase their load carrying capacity.


RIGHT OF WAY ASSESSMENT 36

RIGHT OF WAY ASSESSMENT

RIGHT-OF-WAY SUMMARY The conceptual layout of the estimated required right-of-way for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for Alternative 4. Alternative 3 requires an estimated total of 79 acres of property and Alternative 4 requires an estimated total of 81 acres. The total cost of right-of-way, based on an assumed cost of $300,000 per acre, is $23.6 million for Alternative 3 and $24.4 million for Alternative 4. The estimated acreage for right-of-way is based on the proposed alignments of each alternative and was set to encompass proposed grading and necessary drainage design. The offsets from the edge of shoulder to proposed right-of-way line is based on a number of assumptions since the existing ground has not been surveyed, final existing right-of-way lines has not been resolved, proposed vertical alignments have not been established, and proposed cross sections have not been created. The estimated acreage for right-of-way is larger for Alternative 4 than Alternative 3 for a few reasons:

> Alternative 4 requires approximately half of the existing pond in the northwest quadrant of the interchange to be filled in, thus requiring about 1 acre of additional property to stabilize the ramp embankment.

> Alternative 4 utilizes two proposed southbound entrance ramps from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to I-71 as opposed to Alternative 3 which utilizes just one new entrance ramp.

> A loon is proposed on the east side of the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange to accommodate U-turn movements that access northbound I-71.

RIGHT-OF-WAY (I-71) The existing right-of-way lines were located based on aerial photographs and GIS data. The proposed right-of-way adjacent to I-71 was offset a distance of 60 feet as measured from the proposed edge of pavement. The 60 foot offset intends to provide roadside ditches utilizing safety grading and is consistent with the existing right-of-way offset that ranges between 50 and 60 feet from the existing edge of pavement. The existing terrain is generally level adjacent to the I-71 corridor which would minimize the need for additional property or retaining walls.

RIGHT-OF-WAY (US-36/ SUNBURY PARKWAY) The proposed right-of-way along US-36/ Sunbury Parkway was set at a varying offset from the proposed Sunbury Parkway edge of shoulder. The variable offset distances to the proposed right of way line is attributed to the changes of the proposed vertical alignment necessary to cross over I-71. As the proposed vertical alignment rises above the existing terrain, the grading limits becomes wider as the grading must slope down farther to the existing grade. The proposed right of way limits on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway was set to accommodate clear zone grading and roadside ditches. In general the proposed vertical alignment of Sunbury Parkway can closely follow the existing terrain in locations away from the proposed interchange. The proposed vertical alignment will likely need to be set slightly higher than the existing terrain in order to provide positive outfall for roadside ditches. As a result, the proposed right-of-way limits along US-36/ Sunbury Parkway away from the interchange was set 35 feet offset from the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway edge of shoulder.


RIGHT OF WAY ASSESSMENT 37

As Sunbury Parkway approaches the interchange, the vertical alignment must go up in order to achieve the bridge minimum vertical clearance over I-71 of 17 feet. As a result of the proposed vertical alignment increasing in height above the existing terrain, grading limits must extend out wider as the grading must slope farther down to the existing ground. The proposed right-of-way limits increase to an offset of 100 feet from the proposed edge of pavement at the proposed bridge. There are a couple of locations along US-36/ Sunbury Parkway where the right-of-way limits are offset greater distances that the standard values to accommodate grading at a future culvert. RIGHT-OF-WAY (INTERCHANGE) The process for estimating proposed right-of-way line location along the proposed interchange ramps is similar to the Sunbury Parkway right-of-way since the right-of way offset increases in locations near the proposed bridge over I-71. The proposed ramp right-of-way lines were estimated to encompass work limits based on safety grading and roadside ditches. The proposed right-of-way limits are set at an offset of 60 feet from the proposed edge of shoulder near the I-71 merge and exit locations. The proposed ramp right-of-way offset increases to an offset of up to 200 feet in areas near the proposed bridge over I-71. The 200 feet right-of-way offset can accommodate the required benching of the grading in the high fill locations near the bridge. ODOT requested an amendment to their original approval of the DEL-71-0.69 safety project at the existing SR37 interchange. The March 16, 2010 US 36/SR 37 Interchange Access Modification Study included a commitment to obtain Limited Access right-of-way (LAROW) as part of the proposed interchange safety improvements. However, ODOT later requested that LAROW be obtained, should the existing interchange remain as a functioning interchange in the long term solution. FHWA accepted ODOT’s amended commitment in an April 18, 2011 response. To meet the standards of limited access at the existing SR37 interchange, ODOT has estimated approximately $9 million to acquire the right-of-way needed to meet Limited Access standards at this interchange. The $9 million cost associated with LAROW is added to construction cost estimates for Alternative 3 as shown in Figure 4 and for Alternative 4 as shown in Figure 5. Appendix F contains a cost estimate including right of way costs that are limited to the study area of the Part 2 feasibility study. Other improvements to the existing SR37 corridor or an extension of US 36/Sunbury Parkway to the east are beyond the scope of the Part 2 feasibility study.


UTILITY ASSESSMENT 38

UTILITY ASSESSMENT

EXISTING UTILITY FACILITIES Major utility companies providing service in the study area include American Electric Power (Columbus Southern), Columbia Gas, and Del-Co Water Company, Inc. Electric power lines (765kV and 138kV) extend from the west boundary to the east boundary in the southern portion of the project area. Del-Co Water Company has water treatment facilities at Alum Creek and Hoover Reservoirs. These facilities are outside the study area. However, delivery pipelines are within the project area. High-voltage power lines run east-west through the study area approximately 1,000 feet south of US 36/SR 37. Towers carrying these power lines exist both east and west of the interstate and are located off the interstate approximately 150 feet to the east and 550 feet to the west. Another set of power lines (not high-voltage) runs east-west through the study area approximately 4,000 feet south of SR-37. Alignments of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway may follow the existing utility corridor to minimize impacts to properties with the study area. Coordination with utility owners would be necessary should plans affect tower locations, access, or vertical clearance issues with the wires. Provisions would have to be made in order to allow utility owners access to towers. Marathon Petroleum Company has a high pressure delivery pipeline extending from the northwest corner of the northern portion of the study area to the southeast corner of the southern portion. The pipeline travels under I-71 within the existing SR-37 interchange. Records indicate the pipeline is 8-10 inches and carries hazardous liquid petroleum. IMPACTS TO MAJOR EXISTING UTILITIES The proposed project includes significant grade changes and storm sewer. Both buried and overhead utilities would be affected. The high-voltage power lines run east-west through the study area approximately 1,000 feet south of US-36/SR-37 should not be affected in the proposed condition as the existing tower is located east of the required proposed r/w for the I-71 C-D road. The interchange location in both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require ramp construction at the power line crossing I-71 approximately 4,000 feet south of US 36/SR 37. The line would require relocation. Alternative 4 would have additional impacts to the power line along Sunbury Parkway as the proposed road east of the interchange would run directly through the power line alignment for approximately 1,500 feet.


PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 39

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Delaware County is in the Central Lowlands and lies within the area known as the Till Plain. Most of the soils in the county formed from fine textured glacial till of Wisconsinan age. Moraines, eskers, and kames formed when the glaciers that covered the county receded. These formations are prominent and consist of sand and gravel. The limestone, shale, and sandstone bedrock is almost completely covered by the glacial till, although bedrock can be seen in areas where streams have cut through the till. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey data indicates that Bennington silt loam (BeA) is the most common soil type in the interchange area, as seen on the soil map. This soil is nearly level to gently sloping, very deep and somewhat poorly drained soil and considered prime farmland if properly drained. The soils present within the study area are detailed in Appendix G. Structural foundation investigation sheets were attained for the widening of DEL-71-0968 (US 36 over I-71) from 1970. The sheets include borings drilled in 1957 for the original construction of the bridge over I-71. Also reviewed were the I-71 roadway soil profile from 1958 and the geotechnical report for the original bridge construction. The substrate along the I-71 corridor consists of clay overlying shale bedrock. It is anticipated that natural moisture contents are high. A peat bog is suspected approximately 2 miles to the north and landslide problems have been encountered along US- 36 to the west at Alum Creek. Subgrade stabilization or subgrade undercut, along with an underdrain system, are probable. It is likely that piers will require piles driven down to sound shale at an approximate depth of 16 feet. Filling existing ponds with roadway embankment will likely require significant subgrade undercut and subsurface drainage. RAMIFICATIONS TO COST ESTIMATES The cost estimates assume 12 inches of cement stabilization and underdrains will be necessary for all proposed pavement. A depth of 4 feet of undercut beneath the existing pond to be filled in the northwest quadrant of Alternative 4 is assumed to be necessary to provide for stable embankment of the loop ramp.


ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 40

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

To assist with the selection of a recommended preferred alternative, the possible environmental resource impacts were compared between the two feasible interchange alternatives. The environmental resources present within the project study area boundaries are described in more detail in the environmental resource summary provided in Appendix G.

TABLE 8: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE IMPACT SUMMARY

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE

ALTERNATIVE 3: PARCLO B ALTERNTIVE 4: PARCLO A

Soils Bennington silt loam soils are dominant around the interchange area; these are

prime farmland soils.

Bennington silt loam soils are dominant around the interchange

area; these are prime farmland soils.

Wetlands and Ponds A total of 7 different man-made ponds,

wetlands or wetland containing woodlots would be impacted.

A total of 6 different man-made ponds, wetlands or wetland containing woodlots would be

impacted.

Streams

A total of approximately 8 streams (roughly 1,400 linear feet) would be impacted with the new proposed

Sunbury Parkway.

A total of 7 streams and 1,750 linear feet impacted in total. Roughly

1,050 linear feet would be impacted with the new proposed Sunbury

Parkway and roughly 700 linear feet of stream would be impacted with the

interchange.

Floodplains 100-year floodplain along Alum Creek;

no impacts anticipated 100-year floodplain along Alum Creek; no impacts anticipated

Threatened and Endangered Species

Five federally listed species known or

historic range includes Delaware County. The state potentially

threatened sedge located along the eastern edge of I-71 will be impacted by

the proposed exit lane.

A total of 16.3 acres of Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat woodlot

habitat impacted. Includes 8.6 acres of impacts to high quality woodlot/bat

habitat.

Five federally listed species known or historic range includes Delaware County. The state potentially

threatened sedge located along the eastern edge of I-71 will be impacted

by the proposed exit lane.

A total of 18.7 acres of Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat woodlot habitat impacted. Includes 9.2 acres of impacts to high quality woodlot/bat

habitat.


ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 41

TABLE 8: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE IMPACT SUMMARY, CONTINUED

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE

ALTERNATIVE 3: PARCLO B ALTERNTIVE 4: PARCLO A

Cultural Resources Previously surveyed archaeological sites within proposed alignment of

Sunbury Parkway

Previously surveyed archaeological sites within proposed alignment of

Sunbury Parkway

Parks/Recreation – Section 4(f) & 6(f)

Alum Creek State Park avoided; no other 4(f)/6(f) resources evident

Alum Creek State Park avoided; no other 4(f)/6(f) resources evident

Community Resources Alignment avoids Alum Creek State Park, Northgate Community Church,

and elementary school

Alignment avoids Alum Creek State Park, Northgate Community Church,

and elementary school

Environmental Justice No concentration of environmental

justice populations No concentration of environmental

justice populations

Noise Sensitive Areas

Residential properties scattered along Three Bs and K Road, Northgate

Community Church, Alum Creek State Park and an elementary school will all be considered noise sensitive receptors

that may be impacted

Residential properties scattered along Three Bs and K Road, Northgate

Community Church, Alum Creek State Park and an elementary school will all be considered noise sensitive receptors

that may be impacted

Hazardous Materials

Underground storage tank parcels, leaking underground storage tank

parcels and RCRA generators primarily around the existing interchange

Underground storage tank parcels, leaking underground storage tank

parcels and RCRA generators primarily around the existing interchange


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 42

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

PROJECT WORKING GROUP A group of community and agency stakeholders was assembled to evaluate the interchange alternatives. This multi-disciplinary group consisted of representatives from the following:

> Ohio Department of Transportation (Central Office and District 6)

> Federal Highway Administration

> Delaware County

WORKSHOPS Two workshops were held with the project working group to discuss interchange alternatives with a goal of identifying interchange alternatives and recommend one for further project development. Meeting minutes and content from Workshop #1 and #2 are included in Appendix D.

> Workshop #1: The first project workshop was held on May 8, 2014 at ODOT District 6 offices. The purpose of this workshop was to review the background of the DEL-71-7.91 project and present initial advantages/disadvantages and constraints of various interchange alternatives.

> Workshop #2: The second project workshop was held on June 12, 2014 at ODOT District 6 offices. The purpose of this workshop was to present more a detailed evaluation and advance discussions on the various interchange alternatives.

PRIOR STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH As reported in the part 1feasibility study, the findings of that study were presented at a stakeholder outreach meeting on October 12, 2011. A total of 105 individuals were invited to the stakeholder meeting with 82 in attendance. The group in attendance consisted of representatives from a wide variety of agency and local community representatives. The previously conducted stakeholder outreach is detailed in the feasibility study part 1(Appendix I).


ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON 43

ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

EVALUATION CRITERIA The following criteria were used to compare alternatives with the goal of selecting a preferred interchange alternative. The first three criteria are considered primary criteria as they relate directly to the purpose and need of the project. The remaining criteria are secondary measures that are important and address the objectives and requirements for a successful project. Listed below each criterion are evaluation measures that were considered. All criteria were considered in the evaluation of alternatives using both qualitative and quantitative measures. Primary criteria

> Protects I-71 capacity: Feasible alternatives should improve access to and from I-71 while not resulting in degradation of mainline operations. Evaluated metrics used to gauge impact on I-71 include:

• Ramp configurations

• Merge/diverge operations

• Collector-distributor Road

> Improves arterial operations: Feasible alternatives should reduce congestion on SR-37 by providing improved design year operations while providing high throughput on Sunbury Parkway/US-36. Success metrics for arterial operations include:

• Intersection operations

• Queue impacts

> Accommodates existing development: Development surrounding the SR-37 interchange is a mix of land uses typical of service interchanges. Feasible alternatives should consider safe and reasonable access for existing development with the following metrics:

• Maintains access to existing businesses on SR-37

• Improves operating conditions on SR-37

• Minimize route circuity to access I-71

> Supports planned development: Planned and future development should be accommodated by all feasible alternatives as an appropriate balance with other primary criteria. Metrics that influence planned development include:

• Access

• Influence area (acreage)

Secondary criteria

> Constructability - Aspects of constructability that should be considered include complexities that could negatively affect the duration of construction, traffic maintenance and possible complicated construction methods.



> Funding - Feasible alternatives should be cost effective and consider all aspects of the project cost including utility relocation, environmental mitigation, and right-of-way acquisition. Maximizing opportunities for public/private partnerships and the timelines of stakeholders.

> Environmental resources - Reducing environmental impacts provide good land stewardship and may reduce project costs and project duration.

TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT Several short-term, low cost improvements have been implemented to mitigate safety issues within the study area. These improvements included traffic signal modifications, signal system timing improvements, and lane upgrades to existing exit ramps at the SR-37 interchange as part of the 2012 safety improvement project. The Build alternatives will experience constrained conditions in the design year due to long term capacity limitations of southbound I-71. Transportation system management (TSM) improvements and transit options should be incorporated as part of a regional plan to reduce trips on the network in addition to the proposed improvements that increase vehicle capacity exiting I-71 and traveling on US-36/Sunbury Parkway and on SR-37. Expanding COTA service to the US-36/Sunbury Parkway interchange in coordination with regional transit providers would help extend the service life of the future roadway network. EVALUATION MATRIX Based on the analysis that suggests poor levels of service in the design year and geometric constraints adversely affecting constructability, a single interchange (Alternative 2) does not support the primary project purpose of protecting I-71 capacity and supporting planned development. No further analysis was conducted for Alternative 2. Alternative 3 (Parclo B) and Alternative 4 (Parclo A) were evaluated against the primary and secondary criterion as a means of selecting a recommended interchange configuration. The remaining alternatives were compared and assigned a relative grade indicating a positive (green color) or neutral (yellow color) position with respect to the criteria. Specific discussion points when comparing the alternatives that may have influenced the relative value of the grade was highlighted with bold text. The evaluation matrix is shown as Table 9.



TABLE 9: EVALUATION MATRIX

Evaluation Criteria Alternative 3: Parclo B Alternative 4: Parclo A

Protects I-71 Capacity

Ramp Configurations

• Two directional NB exit ramps at US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy (one a free flow WB loop ramp, one a signalized EB right turn) provide the highest capacity for northbound traffic exiting I-71. This configuration can accommodate volumes beyond design year 2032 and mitigates concerns with spillback onto I-71. • Free flow loop ramp (from NB I-71 to westbound US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy) pairs a high capacity ramp design with a high volume movement (9,450 vehicles per day) to minimize ramp queues.

• Signalization of the NB exit ramp at the US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy interchange may be a capacity constraint in the future. A single, signalized exit ramp is expected to fail before the configuration of the Parclo B alternative (two exit ramps). Triple lane turning movements may require bridge and arterial widening if/when design year 2032 volumes are exceeded. • Free flow loop entrance ramp in the northwest quadrant (Parclo A) eliminates left turn movements from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to I-71. • Free flow loop ramp (for WB to SB movements) pairs a high capacity ramp design with a high volume movement (9,200 vehicles per day).

Merge/ Diverge Operations

• Ramp metering of the SB IR-71 entrance ramp at the US-36/Sunbury Pkwy interchange is required on a 2-lane, diagonal ramp that merges with mainline IR-71 as a single lane.

• Ramp metering needed for only one of the two entrance ramps from Sunbury Pkwy/US 36 to SB IR-71. Metering can be limited to the diagonal ramp (west to south), leaving the loop ramp (EB to SB) as a free flow condition.

Collector-Distributor Road

• Two-lane C-D Road provides diverging ramp to EB US-36/ Sunbury Parkway, a dedicated lane to WB US-36/ Sunbury Parkway and dedicated lane to SR-37. This configuration results in a 2-lane C-D road which increases pavement width (compared to Alt 4). • Guide signing on the C-D road for NB to WB loop ramp should be installed in advance of US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy overpass to provide sufficient notification to motorists since visibility of the loop ramp will be obscured. • The most critical element affecting capacity is the NB exit ramp diverge. An alternate lane configuration that adds an option lane to the C-D exit (3-lane section) would increase LOS in the design year and accommodate volumes beyond the design year 2032.

• Two-lane C-D road that provides one dedicated lane to US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy and one shared lane to US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy and to SR-37 which results in a 1-lane CD road between the US-36/ Sunbury exit ramp and a Sunbury entrance ramp. This reduces pavement width on the CD road (compared to Alt 3). • US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy interchange located at 3,700 feet (south of SR-37) reduces length of C-D road by 400 feet when compared to Alt 3.



Improves Arterial Operations

Intersection Operations

• Two traffic signals on US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy (at interchange) can accommodate perfect progression due to the absence of crossing movements from side street approaches. • An eastbound left turn movement to access NB I-71 from Sunbury Pkwy/US 36 corridor is accommodated at the NB exit ramp intersection. Provides more direct access to NB I-71 without increasing stops on Sunbury Parkway.

• The traffic signal on US-36/Sunbury Pkwy at the NB exit ramp serves crossing movements (NB left turns) which negatively impacts progression. • No traffic signal at the SB entrance ramp (unless provided for pedestrian crossings) limits stops to the NB exit ramp. • Access to NB I-71 is provided from eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy at a U-turn location approx. 1,600 feet east of the NB exit ramp. This provides less direct access to NB I-71. • Ramp metering is required of the SB I-71 entrance ramp (diagonal) from US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy

Queue impacts

• Queues for the WB left turn movement from US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy to SB I-71 are estimated at less than 300 feet per lane. This may increase during periods when SB entrance ramp is metered. 1,000 total feet of vehicle storage is provided in two lanes between the ramp intersections.

• WB traffic on Sunbury Pkwy at the NB exit ramp may spillback past the diverge to the C-D lane for WB movements to I-71. WB through queues at the NB exit ramp estimated at 250 feet per lane. • Queue lengths on the NB exit ramp are expected to be 250 feet or less per lane (with 4-lanes, this equates to 1,000 feet of total queue).

Accommodates existing development

Maintains access to existing businesses on SR-37

• No improvements or access modifications proposed on SR-37. • All movements accommodated from I-71. • All exit and entrance ramps to SR-37 are retained. NB exit from I-71 to SR-37 will be from C-D road. • Traffic with destinations on US-36/Sunbury Pkwy will use the SR-37 SB exit ramp.

• No improvements or access modifications proposed on SR-37. • All movements accommodated from I-71. • All exit and entrance ramps to SR-37 are retained. NB exit from I-71 to SR-37 will be from C-D road. • Traffic with destinations on US-36/Sunbury Pkwy will use the SR-37 SB exit ramp.

Improves operating conditions on SR-37

• Intersection levels of service F for No Build conditions (AM and PM peaks) are improved to LOS D/E with a new interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy. • Minor ramp reconstruction required at the NB ramps to accommodate through movements

• Intersection levels of service F for No Build conditions (AM and PM peaks) are improved to LOS D/E with a new interchange at US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy. • Minor ramp reconstruction required at the NB ramps to accommodate through movements



Supports Proposed Development

Access

• One restricted access may be allowed on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to private property at approximately 1,200 feet east of the NB exit ramp intersection. This access might accommodate a RI/RO movement and an eastbound left turn from US-36/Sunbury Pkwy.

• The U-turn location at 1,600 feet east of the NB exit ramp may coincide with access to private property having restricted movements (RIRO and an eastbound left turn from US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy). Signing of the U-turn for traffic with destinations to NB I-71 is non-standard if combined with access to private property. • Access to private property will be constrained by the tie in point of the C-D road for WB traffic on US-36/ Sunbury Pkwy destine to I-71

Influence area

• Minimum distance from existing interchange is 4,300 feet to accommodate all proposed ramps and minimize property impacts in the NW quadrant. • Influence area is maximized with the increased distance from the SR-37 corridor, relative to Alternative 4. • Accommodates future development in all four quadrants of the Sunbury Pkwy/US-36 interchange • Lot depths adjacent to local streets support additional property access

• Minimum distance from existing interchange is 3,700 feet to accommodate all proposed ramps and minimize property impacts in the NE quadrant. • Smaller influence area with decreased distance from the SR-37 corridor, relative to Alternative 3. • Accommodates future development in all four quadrants of the Sunbury Pkwy/US-36 interchange.

SECONARY CRITERIA

Constructability

• Length of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway alignment is approx. 600 feet greater than Alt 4 • Length of C-D road parallel to I-71 NB is approx. 600 feet longer than Alt 4 and requires additional pavement width for 2 lanes.

• Length of US-36/ Sunbury Parkway is approx. 600 feet less than Alt 4 • Length of C-D road parallel to I-71 NB is approx. 600 feet less than Alt 4 and requires les pavement width for 1 lane.

Funding

• Probable project cost =$87 Million • Probable project cost =$84 Million

Environmental Resources

• Impacts a total of 7 man-made pond, wetlands or wetland containing woodlots, roughly 1,400 linear feet of streams, 16.3 acres of forest habitat suitable for the Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat, including 8.6 acres of high quality habitat.

• Impacts a total of 6 man-made pond, wetlands or wetland containing woodlots, roughly 1,750 linear feet of streams, 18.7 acres of forest habitat suitable for the Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat, including 9.2 acres of high quality habitat.



PROTECT I-71 CAPACITY The key differentiating factor of the two alternatives with regard to accessing I-71 is that Alternative 3 (Parclo B) features two directional exit ramps at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange and Alternative 4 (Parclo A) features two directional entrance ramps at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange.

> Improves access to I-71

• Alternative 3 features two entrance ramps to access southbound IR-71; one entrance ramp from SR-37 (signalized) and one from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway (signalized).

• Alternative 4 features three entrance ramps to access southbound I-71: one from SR-37 (signalized), one from eastbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway (directional), and one from westbound US-36/ Sunbury Parkway (loop).

• Both alternatives require ramp metering to mitigate congestion on southbound IR-71.

• Single lane merges are expected to operate with acceptable levels of service for both alternatives, assuming ramp metering to constrain traffic entering I-71 SB during the AM peak hour.

> Improves access from I-71

• Alternative 3 and 4 include a northbound C-D road parallel to I-71 that diverges from mainline I-71. The diverge movement is expected to operate at LOS E with two lanes diverging from mainline I-71 to the C-D road. This is an improvement over the No Build condition.

• Alternative 3 features three exit ramps that diverge from the northbound C-D Road: one ramp to eastbound US 36/ Sunbury Pkwy (signalized), the second ramp to westbound US 36/Sunbury Pkwy (free flow loop ramp), and the third ramp to SR 37 (signalized).

• Alternative 4 features two exit ramps that diverge from the northbound C-D Road: one ramp to US-36/ Sunbury Parkway (signalized for both directions on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway), and the second ramp to SR-37 (signalized).

• Ramp volumes are comparable (within five percent) between the two alternatives. The Parclo B ramp volume is 9,450 vehicles per day whereas the Parclo A ramp volume is 9,200 vehicles per day.

The following are key points regarding the ability of each alternative to preserve safety and capacity of interstate operations:

> The free flow, directional exit ramp layout of Alternative 3 provides separate ramps for traffic exiting I-71 and destined to the east and west on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. This alternative mitigates concerns with traffic spilling back onto mainline I-71 during congested periods or incidents.

> The directional ramps of the Parclo B (Alt 3) configuration provide the highest capacity for northbound traffic exiting IR-71. Sensitivity analyses indicate the Parclo B configuration is able to accommodate higher volumes than currently shown on the certified traffic plates for 2032 design year.

> The free flow loop ramp for traffic with destinations to WB US-36/ Sunbury Parkway provides a high capacity ramp design for a high capacity movement (9,450 vehicles per day).



> The free flow directional loop ramp of Alternative 4 may eliminate the need for signalization at the southbound ramp terminal, thereby requiring only one traffic signal on Sunbury Parkway within the interchange area. The Alternative A loop ramp serves the westbound to southbound movements which are converted to left turn movements at a signalized intersection in Alternative B. While signalization is not needed to assign right-of-way to vehicle movements, some type of signalization may be needed to accommodate pedestrian crossings on the eastbound to southbound entrance ramp.

IMPROVE ARTERIAL OPERATIONS The traffic analysis section documents that the basic freeway section of southbound IR-71 exceeds capacity in the AM peak period and will require ramp metering to constrain the volume of traffic entering mainline I-71 from US-36/Sunbury Parkway. The two alternatives address the protection of arterial operations on the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway corridor in the following ways:

• In Alternative 3, vehicles destined to the south on I-71 will form queues on the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway approaches to the southbound entrance ramp. Adequate storage can be provided for turning movements (left and right) without blocking through lanes on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. The traffic signal on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway at the I-71 SB ramp intersection is a two-phase operation that does not require westbound traffic to stop. Additionally, the traffic signal at the northbound exit ramp does not stop westbound traffic on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway. The partial signals proposed at both ramp intersections enable ideal progression on the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway corridor through the proposed interchange. Minimizing the number of stops on a signalized arterial like US-36/ Sunbury Parkway will improve safety performance of the corridor.

• In Alternative 4, one traffic signal is proposed at the northbound exit ramp which will stop traffic in both directions on US-36/ Sunbury Parkway to service northbound left turn movement off the exit ramp. Vehicles westbound on Sunbury Parkway with destinations to the south on I-71 will diverge from Sunbury Parkway to a collector-distributor lane upstream of the northbound ramp intersection.

ACCOMMODATES EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Both Alternative 3 and 4 will accommodate existing development in a similar manner since the primary differences between the alternatives are at the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway interchange. While no modifications are proposed at the existing interchange, operating levels at the ramp intersections are expected to improve since traffic demand is distributed to the new interchange. With improved operations on SR-37, existing development will be better accommodated by either of the evaluated alternatives.

SUPPORTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The two primary elements with regard to planned development are: influence area of the new interchange and access to private property from the adjacent street network. Both alternatives will provide development opportunities in all four quadrants of the new interchange. The minimum distance from the existing interchange to the new interchange varies for the two alternatives based on quadrant of the loop ramp. While the distances vary by alternative, they fall within the range that was considered reasonable to attract traffic from SR-37 to a new southern alignment. The minimum distance for Alternative 3 is 4,300 provides a greater influence area (i.e. more acreage fronting or in proximity to the interchange). The minimum distance for Alternative 4 is 3,700 feet which provides a smaller influence area.


RECOMMENDATIONS 50

RECOMMENDATIONS

A conclusion from the Alternatives Comparison section of the study is that both alternatives are comparable in meeting the purpose and need of the project. However, the features of Alternative 4 (Parclo A) are more attractive to key stakeholders as summarized below.” IDENTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need of the project based on the following criteria:

> Protects the capacity of I-71 - The Parclo A configuration maintains or improves levels of service for mainline and ramp elements compared to the No Build alternative.

> Improving arterial operations - Two entrance ramps to southbound I-71 from US-36/ Sunbury Parkway reduces the potential for queues extending through adjacent intersections on the US-36/ Sunbury Parkway corridor. A key advantage to Alternative 4 is that the directional loop ramp for the east to south movement does not require ramp metering.

> Accommodates existing and planned development – The Parclo A configuration constructs the loop ramp within the existing pond on the west side of I-71 which currently is not conducive to development in its current state. The loop ramp in the northwest quadrant impacts less desirable property for development.

Secondary criteria related to project costs also favor Alternative 4 (Parclo A). Total construction cost of $84 million is less than Alternative 3 (Parclo B). The roadway length for Alternative 4 is shorter due to the reduced distance from the existing SR-37 corridor. The recommended alternative proposed to be advanced for further development is Alternative 4 - Parclo A. FUTURE STEPS The Part 2 feasibility study was conducted by ODOT to identify a recommended alternative for use by stakeholders within the project area. The findings of the feasibility study will be shared with stakeholders and any feedback received will be documented. Key elements that need to be addressed in the future include the following:

> A financial plan to fund the recommended improvements

> A project sponsor that would advance the recommended alternative to the next step of the project development process

> A project schedule

As the project advances, completion of the NEPA process by the project sponsor is required which includes a public meeting to solicit feedback of the recommended alternative.

Date post:	04-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200 · FEASIBILITY STUDY PART 2 DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200...

Documents